Transcript

Jenna Ellis: Rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect. The rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Matthew Williams says California needs to clean up its elections

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, June 8th, nearly a week after California's primary elections last Tuesday. And shocker, the votes are still being counted and the ballots are still coming in. And all evidence suggests that California really needs to clean up its elections and Congress needs to pass the SAVE act. And according to Fox News, the California election rules. I mean this is just absurd. Every registered voter receives a mail in ballot. Mail in ballots are valid as long as they are postmarked on election day and received within seven days of the election. So apparently today is the last day to receive ah, those ballots. And so there's no way just to have a, ah, election day and the results the same day. there is signature verification process, but what process that actually is, is definitely in dispute. So the big focus of course is on the governor's race and the, the LA mayoral runoff. And so Spencer Pratt, who has really risen to prominence in, in his advertising and as a Republican and wanting to actually clean up la, that runoff hangs in the balance nearly a week after election Day. So this coming from Fox News with the jungle primary leaving incumbent Democrat Mayor Karen Bass already ruled to have advanced to a November runoff. Pratt's margin over Democrat City Council member Nithya Rahman has slipped to just 1% with a few thousand ballots left to make up the difference. And so people like Governor Ron DeSantis and others have been, have been suggesting, you know, maybe just they'll continue to count the ballots until, the two Democrats win. Well, what's really going on in California? Let's welcome in Matthew Williams, who, goes by the Prudentialist on X. You can follow him there. He's a writer and commentator. And Matthew, this just seems like a really, really bad way to run elections in California.

Matthew Williams: Yeah, absolutely, Jenna. I think that when we look at all this as soon as they had said and announced just a week and a half ago that it wasn't going to have a result on the same day that we became very aware that the same sort of ballot harvesting Shenanigans we see in countless BL was going to take place again, especially after Spencer Pratt's, you know, incredible rise to prominence and how well he's ran his campaign.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, this is, I think, really frustrating to, a lot of people outside of California, but in California as well. I mean, I've talked to friends there who have almost just given up on the process because they say, you know, that, that it's just so frustrating that Democrats always win. And is that, do you think, in LA specifically, but then in California at large, ah, an issue of how the elections are run, or is it just that Democrats have actually overrun California?

Matthew Williams: Well, I think it's a mix of both. I think, for starters, there's an obvious numerical advantage that Democratic voters have in California, both by a mix of our outrageous immigration policies, but also just how easy it can be to manipulate electoral outcomes. I mean, we just saw earlier yesterday from the first, Assistant Attorney General in the 1st district of California that he was saying that, you know, the federal government is trying to have an audit of the California voter rolls and the Californian electoral system. They'll allow you to have id, but if you can't produce a Social Security number, you know, an insurance card that California provides not just to actual citizens, but to illegal immigrants, on top of that, they'll allow gym membership cards to be accepted as a valid ID to vote. so overall, I think that it's a very disingenuous. That is obviously meant to give Democrats favor. But, so overall, I mean, it's important for us to consider, you know, as conservatives, as Republicans, that, you know, California has more Trump voters than a lot of solid red states. And I don't blame them for feeling, you know, disenchanted or disheartened, but it really does go to show that on the state level, the state government of California and Los Angeles county have, fundamentally failed to provide anything that would be considered fair, that we, you and I would traditionally associate with an election.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that really ultimately undermines, the public confidence in elections and that the process is actually legitimate. And, and I saw, you know, Daily Wire and a few other, outlets that were in days ahead of the election, you know, kind of, mocking that and saying, you know, posting a photo of, like, a guy in his car saying, I'm on my way to vote in the California elections. I don't live there. But apparently that doesn't matter anyway. You know, obviously, making fun of and mocking, how, the lack of rigor in, in terms of figuring out who is actually eligible to vote and who isn't, how that process is undermining public confidence in California. And, you know, the fact remains that, that conservatives overall want to make sure that only the people who are actually lawfully allowed to participate in elections participate. And Democrats call that disenfranchisement. That if you have to show, proof of citizenship, for example, if you have to actually show anything that would, show that you're eligible to vote is somehow disenfranchisement. And I totally disagree with that. I mean, I'm a resident of Florida, and so I couldn't vote in the California elections. And if I went to California and tried to, and they asked me, you know, for eligibility paperwork and I couldn't produce that, and then I was denied the opportunity to vote in California, the system would work. I mean, I should be denied, not, not based on citizenship, but citizenship in the system state. And so the Democrats whole view on this is to undermine not just public confidence, they don't really care about that. But, but it's become very clear that they want to undermine the process to allow the opportunity for people who aren't actually eligible to go ahead and cast a vote anyway.

Matthew Williams: Absolutely. And I mean, Democrats have made it clear since Trump, you know, went down the escalator back in 2015 that for him, this process of election transparency and to actually have a proper understanding for everything with elections, whether it's chain of custody or making sure that actual residents who are either naturalized or US Citizens are the only ones that are allowed to vote. Democrats have been calling it racist, they've been calling it bigoted, they've been calling back to segregation for as long as I've been alive when it comes to matters of election integrity. And Democrats full well know that they have the overwhelming advantage where they control these large cities whose county registrars and departments of elections will bend over backwards to move heaven and earth to make sure that anyone, whether it's someone who just got off the boat yesterday or someone who's been homeless for 20 years on skid row, has the ability to, quote, unquote, vote. But we know with ballot harvesting and the inability to actually have proper signature verification, that these Democrats can run wild in their cities. And I mean, we saw this in the 2024 election that every state in which Kamala Harris won has numerous cities and numerous rules on their state legislatures that allows basically no voter id. And so I think for the disheartened Republicans of California and across the country, our anger and our ire shouldn't be directed just as much at the corrupt system that we've been making fun of for years, but really at our Senate GOP leadership for failing to pass the SAVE Act.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's actually a really good point that if, the GOP wanted to do something, to help voters in California, and this, this really shouldn't be a partisan issue because, counting only the ballots that are not only cast legally, but cast, by an eligible voter, actually affects the entire election outcome, and that affects everybody. And so both, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, you know, whoever it is that can vote legally, they have a vested interest in the process being fair, in the process being legal. And so, so this shouldn't really be a partisan issue. But the SAVE act has become very hyper partisan, of course, in D.C. because of the issues we've been talking about Democrats versus Republicans. But last I checked, Republicans have the majority and they could get over that 60, vote margin threshold. I mean, they tried to attach the SAVE act to the reconciliation bill, I think it was last week, and four Republicans voted against that. I mean, that. That's just absurd.

Matthew Williams: Well, yeah, and I think it really does go to show the Senate, and I mean, of course the GOP is not this monofactional, you know, make America great again entity. I mean, we've seen since Trump went, like I said, just like since. For the last 10 years of Trump. I mean, everything that he has done has fractured the Republican Party and has generated, I think, a whole coalition of people that would love to return, to the, you know, Jon McCain, Mitt Romney era of called conservatism and, you know, move on and just treat this like it's business as usual at the country club, rather than Anthony answering the needs that millions of Americans have been crying out in the wilderness for, which was someone to actually represent them. And they know, as well as your listeners know, that Democrats have been championing on, you know, these reckless rules on elections as well as, you know, open border immigration, because they know that they can overwhelm the Americans that want to vote to make this country great again. And so, of course, the SAVE act is something that they don't want to support. But at the same time, I think a lot of conservative leadership in the Republican Party, especially in the Senate, has no problem cutting off their noses despite their face, if it means that they can get back at Trump.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and that's the frustration that I have is that, you know, you weren't elected to the Senate or Congress to go and fight the political battles, the personal battles. Whether or not, you know, you are totally 100% MAGA, or whether, you know, you dislike Trump, that's not actually relevant to your job. I mean, the SAVE act is something that is relevant and would actually even be serving Democrat voters, the legitimate ones. Right. And so this is something where I think the, the base of Republicans is very frustrated seeing the old establishment, ah, like Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Thom Tillis, the four that voted against attaching the SAVE act to reconciliation, who voted against it. So seeing kind of that old guard still stiffen their spine and say, we're not going to do this on behalf of the American people just to get back at Trump. I mean, that's why Trump, I think, has been so successful in primary, some of his political opposition, like Thomas Massie, for example, because it's like if you're, if you're not on the team, well, then, you know, get, get off of the playing field. And we want to have players who will actually step up and bat for the team. And yet we don't see as much. I mean, well, McConnell's retiring, but we don't see that same kind of effort put into some of the races. And some people are saying, you know, that, Collins and Murkowski, just based on the difficulties, the ranked choice voting, you know, some of those things in Alaska and so forth, and just the demographic anyway, it would be very difficult to have a pro Trump senator elected. But I mean, why doesn't he put a ton of money into those races and at least try anyway?

Matthew Williams: Well, I think that, you know, with the president in making, you know, electoral endorsements and choices, I think that sometimes the President, you, know, is going to go off of his own personal relationships with said individuals, regardless of their voting record, which sometimes in the past, I know, has not led to some of the best electoral endorsements from the current administration. But I think that overall what we've seen, especially in this primary cycle, we have really seen, the base strike back. And I think that, you know, despite everything that's happened since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA has remained to be one of the most important electoral machines for especially conservative MAGA Republicans. I mean, the work that they've done across the state and the primary field, especially where I'm at here in Texas, and the work that they've done to get Beau French elected in the primary runoff, really that more effort needs to be directed. And I think that that kind of group and groups similar to it need to be working closer with the administration to say, listen, the needs of the voters has to come first rather than these personal relationships. Because more often than not we see a lot of you know, Republicans who will say that they're MAGA or America first, but really that just means that they're going to say whatever they need to do to get elected and will vote to the left of Chairman Mao when it comes time on the big issues, whether it's the SAVE act or an immigration moratorium.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And I totally agree and I think that you know, as we move forward in a post Trump gop, hopefully there will be some kind of equilibrium and it won't be, you know, this just total loyalty, or vitriol against one person. And maybe the GOP can coalesce behind, you know, principles and an agenda instead of just a personality. I hope that that might be one of the things that will be good in a post Trump world. But but ultimately, you know the SAVE act would would really help California in its ballots and in its whole process. It would actually require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. And California as you mentioned, currently allows registration using just a driver's license number.

Thousands of already registered Californians would be forced to verify eligibility

they use you know, a wide variety of other things and voters would need to present physical proof of citizenship. And the real world effect would be that millions likely of already registered Californians would be forced to re, verify eligibility. But my producer Luke was just saying that he still receives a ballot at his parents house in California a decade after moving and he lives in Texas. I mean this is the problem with the system and not purging the voter rolls. And so Congress really needs to step up but really appreciate it. Matthew Williams. And again you can follow him at the Prudentialist on X. We will be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Texas Children's Hospital blocks transfer of toddler after near drowning incident

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, there is a renewed emphasis on rights of the child and rights of parents in the context of medical caregiving. And this is just a horrendous story out of Texas where a young two year old girl, has been hospitalized in Texas Children's Hospital since Memorial Day after a near drowning incident. She wandered away apparently from her family at an event and was found at the bottom of a pool without her life jacket. Resuscitation, efforts were underway and so Texas Children's Hospital is now saying that they have exhausted all medically viable options, even though the parents have requested to transfer her to 24 other hospitals, at least according to Fox, 26 Houston, to give some alternative treatments that may help her, that are not available at Texas Children's Hospital. but Steve Toth, who you'll recall is the candidate for Congress who actually won out in the primary against Dan Crenshaw, has been following this case very closely. You can follow him evetoth tx for Texas. On X he posted, this is not even close to being factual, that Texas Children's Hospital has tried to transfer her without those other hospitals receiving her. Texas Children's, he goes on to say, had even stooped to filing a complaint with Child Protective Services because the family wanted to move her. I intervened with the Department of family Protective Services that overseas cps, Texas Children's is purposefully blocking her transfer. So now Attorney General Ken Paxton is also involved. He's also candidate of course for for senate now from Texas. And he said this young girl, her name is Annelise Camp, is fighting for her life and deserves a medical team that will fight just as hard. I'm calling on Texas Children's to prioritize the treatment her family is seeking or will allow adequate time to transfer her to a hospital that will will they do the right thing and accept Annelise as a patient? I'm closely monitoring and will act to protect this child and honor her parents efforts to save her.

Dr. Heidi Klessig says brain death fallacy is a fallacy

Well, let's welcome in Dr. Heidi Klesig, who is a former anesthesiologist and author of the book titled the brain death Fallacy. And Heidi, I was looking through a lot of what you've posted on X, about this case in particular, but overall, just this requirement of hospitals that then want to test for quote unquote, brain death, particularly in these types of situations and near drowning incidents. And you've said, and a lot of your work has shown that that's actually just a fallacy and that's something that shouldn't ultimately happen. And hospitals need to do more to protect life. So you know, walk us through how you see this case and the brain death fallacy overall.

Dr. Heidi Klessig: Well, thank you so much Jenna. This is such an important case and I'm so glad that the Camp family is getting so much outpouring of prayers and support for Anneliese. the fight is not over now. There is still hope, that someone will accept her in transfer and give her the type of treatment she deserves. But, you know, death is something that we all seem to feel we have an intuitive understanding of. And up until just 1968, you really didn't need a doctor to tell you if someone was dead or alive. This is something people recognized at home, on the farm, on the battlefield. is, you know, most people are not materialist. Most people understand that death is the separation of the immaterial spirit or soul from the body. But because our spirit is immaterial, we don't have a device that can see, you know, the departure of the immaterial. We don't have a soul o meter or a spiritometer. So historically, people have recognized death because there was an absence of heartbeat, absence of breathing, and enough passage of time to know that those things weren't going to come back. But in 1968, 13 men at Harvard Medical School proposed that we could redefine death. And they wrote a landmark article in the Journal of the American Medical association called A Definition of Irreversible Coma. You know, this paper does not have any scientific references. There were no tests, no studies, no evidence that this idea of comatose people maybe being dead already, this was just something they thought up as a utilitarian definition. When you read the paper, the committee does never say that these people are actually dead. The committee described these comatose people as being desperately injured. And moreover, the committee thought they were, quote, a burden to themselves and others. And they proposed that if we would take, this new idea and say people in a deep coma are dead, it would have societal utilitarian benefits of freeing up ICU beds. And it would also remove the controversy over using comatose people as organ donors. In fact, the chairman of the committee, Henry Beecher, said there is a great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore health to those who are still salvageable. So it wasn't actually even by the committee, thought to be dead. I mean, how can a corpse be burdened? It's ridiculous. but this redefinition, it caught on, and it is of great utility because it allows organ procurement to skirt what's known as the dead donor rule by simply declaring comatose people to be somehow dead. Now, the dead donor rule is not a law, but it's an ethical maxim that says you cannot take alive people and kill them by the process of removing their organs. But if you redefine people with a beating heart in a deep coma as being dead already. Now, the dead donor rule is met by sleight of Hand. And people with a beating heart, their organs are in great shape for transplant. So transplant was driving this brain death definition. But in Annalise's case, of course, there is no thought of donating her organs. Her family is not thinking about that. So then the other utilitarian goal of, the Harvard ad hoc committee comes up. It frees up ICU beds. And so what, Texas Children is looking to do, if they do a series of tests and declare Annalise to be brain dead, then they have no more duty to continue her care and can withdraw her support unilaterally over her parents objections. Wow.

Jenna Ellis: And that. I mean, there are so many ethics questions implicit in this. But, this raises, of course, the question of medical duty, because it should be the first, duty of caretakers to first do no harm, obviously, but also to, try everything possible to save the patient, not look at this through a utilitarian lens. And so how can it, be possible, though, that if these series of tests are performed and the hospital says we can't do anything else, and that they can unilaterally remove life support over the parents objections, and even over transferring her, perhaps, to a different medical facility that would continue to give her care?

Dr. Heidi Klessig: That's correct. So this is where we've landed. You know, I've talked to Dr. Paul Byrne, who, is 90, in his 90s now, and he's been crusading against this brain death fallacy since the 1970s. And he remembers practicing medicine before this new idea of brain death. And he said, back in those days, doctors felt a duty to protect and preserve the health of their own patient. But with this redefinition of death, now, doctors have their, their loyalties are divided now. They also feel a duty to provide organs for people who might need them. And so doctors do not have the same viewpoint as they did, before this redefinition. Now, the American Academy of Neurology just came out in November of last, with additional guidance on how doctors should approach people who object to a brain death diagnosis, as is happening right now with the Annaliese Camp family. And they said, that there is no ethical obligation to provide treatment for someone who has been declared brain dead. Except, and this is very interesting in the state of NewSong Jersey, because NewSong Jersey has a law stating that there is a religious exemption to the idea of brain death. So in NewSong Jersey, if you have a religious, objection to the idea that someone in a coma is somehow dead, you may not have your care withdrawn. So in the American Academy of Neurology Statement of guidance on how to handle objections. They say you don't have to continue to provide medical treatment unless you live in NewSong Jersey and can prove a religious exemption. So whether you're dead or alive basically becomes a matter of geography. Where are you in time and space? Which is fairly ridiculous. They also say in this statement of guidance that if you request a transfer to another facility, the healthcare team should inform the family that they will present the relevant information to the identified facility, but the request may not be granted. So basically you can ask for a transfer, but good luck to you, right? And then they also say that if the parents or the family will not continue, will not resolve conflict, will continue to maintain that their loved one is not dead, the policy is to unilaterally withdraw support over the objections of the family. And again, these ethical guidance statements, they're not laws, but this is how the hospital system, bases, its policy.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that just makes no logical sense. If we're determining death based on actual biology, a beating heartbeat versus a corpse, that shouldn't be a matter of religious objection. I mean, it doesn't make sense then. I mean, that itself, I think evidences a brain death fallacy. Because if a religious objection can be inserted over and above a medical determination, then that determination must inherently be flawed. because it wouldn't be concrete. It would be a matter of subjective opinion. And death isn't a matter of perception, it's a matter of reality. And so that's so fascinating that NewSong Jersey is the one state that, that will take that religious, exemption. Why haven't other states incorporated an understanding of exactly what you've gone through with the Harvard study and the utilitarian functioning and said this is genuinely unethical because doctors clearly would be divided in those instances rather than having their full attention and value placed on the life saving of their patient.

Dr. Heidi Klessig: Yeah, you are absolutely right, Jenna. You know, brain death is an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact. but because our society has become more and more utilitarian over time, this has taken hold. You know, it's interesting. In NewSong Jersey, it was the orthodox Jewish community that got their law passed there. And I wish it was a law in other states. You're also absolutely right when you say that, brain death is obviously not biological death. These people are not biologically dead. Their hearts are beating, they're absorbing oxygen, they have metabolism, they excrete waste, they heal their wounds, they fight their infections. They are, by no stretch of the imagination, biologically dead. And people have actually recovered from a diagnosis of brain death made exactly according to the American Academy of Neurology guidelines. And people ask me, how can someone who's brain dead recover? And it's actually a very easy thing to understand. during a, brain injury, the brain swells and it decreases the flow of blood to the brain. When the brain has low blood flow, it shuts down its functions to reduce its energy requirements. And at about a 50% reduction in blood flow, your EEG will become flatlined and your brain will become unresponsive, to. So you'll look as though you're brain dead. But actually, tissue breakdown, tissue necrosis doesn't begin until brain blood flow drops below 20% of normal over several hours. So there's this window between 20 and 50% of normal, blood flow to the brain when there's not enough flow to support function, but there is enough flow to support viability.

Gi. Klesig: This is an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact

So that's why these people could improve. It's very much like a power outage in your home. You know, when the power goes out, you know, the lights are off, the refrigerator isn't running, nothing works, but the wiring isn't destroyed. Get that current flowing again, and the lights will come back on. And it's exactly analogous in someone declared brain dead during that period of low blood flow. You know, get that blood flow to the brain restored, and for a proportion of these people, at least, the lights can come back on again. Gi. This is, this is not biological death. This is an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And this just shows, as you mentioned, Dr. Klesig, that as our society becomes more utilitarian, doesn't, value life, and that every human being is made in the image of God, has inherent dignity and worth and a right to life, then we are just replacing the principles of true medicine and the biology with these subjective determinations. I mean, much like the abortion industry will say subjectively, well, personhood doesn't attach until, you know, the third trimester or after birth. And so, ethically then, abortion is okay in some instances, when the medical definition is an intervention specifically designed to cause the death of the child, who should be a patient. There should be two patients, the mother and the child, in the operating room. And then, you know, other, other ways that we have, as a society, kind of reinvented the, this terminology so that we can, basically get rid of, the, the young unborn who are unwanted, pregnancies and Then older people who like the conclusion of life bills or, you know, some of these other things that are subjectively determining when a, life should end for certain people. We're basically playing God, and this is ethically and morally wrong. And how has the medical community then, perpetuated this fallacy onto society? And, Because until I started reading your work, I was under the impression, even as a conservative Christian, that brain death was an actual medical diagnosis. And that, you know, if someone was brain dead, they were genuinely deceased. And so you're removing life support that just, you know, keeps maybe their body functioning. But for. For the actual definition of death, that. That was certain. But, but clearly that's not the case. And so we're just reinventing the subjective terminology so that we can, for utilitarian purposes, unburden ourselves from people who are taking up care. How was this myth perpetuated for so long?

Dr. Heidi Klessig: Well, I'll tell you how it happened. So back when I was, doing my training, this was back in the. In the 1980s. it was thought at that time that if someone had severe brain damage, they would go on to die in the normal sense very quickly. They thought if you had a severe brain injury, you'd probably die within a week at the most. So these people were thought to be as good as dead anyway. So why not, you know, declare them dead a little early and make use of their viable organs and tissues? Well, you know, the interesting thing is it turned out to be false. Dr. Allen Schumann, a, pediatric neurologist at, UCLA Medical School, he found and published a paper in 1998, 175 cases of people who had been declared brain dead who continued to live, one, ultimately, for more than 20 years. And because of this finding, there was a presidential committee that was, convened in, 2008, and they agreed. Dr. Schuman is quite right. We were wrong when we thought these people would die quickly. so they said, well, what do we do now? I mean, do we just admit that we were wrong? I mean, that would have a huge impact on organ donation. So they said we'll need to develop a new rationale. And so what they did is they based brain death no longer on biology, but on a questionable philosophy. They said a person is no longer alive when they, cannot perform what was called the fundamental vital work of a living organism for no reason whatsoever. They happen to pick, this person is unresponsive and needs a ventilator to help them breathe. Now, this is an arbitrary level of disability. I mean, really, if you're not going to base death on biology, any level of disability you're going to pick is going to be arbitrary. So they're saying these people in a deep coma who need a ventilator to help them breathe, breathe, are as good as dead. Even though they are obviously biologically alive. There is no evidence that, their soul or their spirit has departed. And interestingly, they are not even dead according to the law. They are not legally dead. the death determination, as far as legality, is called the Uniform Determination of Death Act. And for a brain death diagnosis, it. It says that there must be the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. come to find out. The American Academy of Neurology brain death guideline, explicitly in its guideline, allows people with ongoing brain function to be declared dead, which is in defiance of the law under the UDDA that says there has to be the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain. Right. And this is a problem and the American Academy of Neurology is aware of. And so they actually petitioned the Uniform Law Commission about revising the Uniform Determination of Death act to make it comply with their guideline for brain death. And I was an observer to the Uniform Law Commission as they met to discuss this revision. I was watching them as they were, presenting their, proposals at their annual meeting in Hawaii in 2023, and a lawyer asked a question. He says, why are we being asked to change the law? In order to accommodate doctors who are not compliant. He said, why don't we require doctors to follow the law? And that was the idea that prevailed. The Uniform Law Commission could not reach consensus about changing the Uniform Determination of Death act, and they tabled their efforts. So to this day, there is a mismatch between the law, what it means to be legally dead, and what is actually practiced. So if Texas children declares Anneliese to be brain dead according to the American Academy of Neurology brain deaf guidelines, they are doing it in defiance of the definition of death under the udda.

Jenna Ellis: Wow.

Dr. Heidi Klesig says society needs to go back to valuing life

Well, we. We have to take a break here, but, Dr. Heidi Klesig, I'm so fascinated by this topic, and I so appreciate you coming on. We'll have to have you back on again soon because I could do the entire hour and more, with you on this topic. And it just goes to show that we as a society need to go back to valuing life, to not having these arbitrary distinctions. In order to function more utilitarian. Because this is basically like death panels saying that just because a person is comatose or they're taking up an ICU bed, that somehow they have less inherent dignity and worth than someone else who may need their organs. We don't, and we shouldn't have a hierarchy of value in our medical industry. But that's what we see from conception all the way until natural death on that scale that unfortunately we become so utilitarian. So thank you so much. Follow her@heidi klesigmd. and we'll be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

A YouTuber and his wife allegedly chose to abort their child

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of society becoming more and more utilitarian with respect to life, there was a story that went viral this last week that a, YouTuber and influencer and his wife chose to abort their child. and it's ranged from whether it was ah, three months or ah, a little longer. Exactly where in the stage in the pregnancy they chose to abort their child because of a diagnosis potentially due to down syndrome. And this is just absolutely horrific. And of course the pro life community and anyone just rational and reasonable, posted in response, to this father who chose to kill his child because he would potentially be inconvenienced by a disability. the. They of course posted that this is immoral, this should never be allowed, in a society that is moral or has, you know, any sort of ethics surrounding, children. And then this, this man just continues, even as of just a few moments ago, posting and suggesting that the backlash, is something that he didn't anticipate and that he was stunned by that and that they, even though they received messages of support, they've also gotten threats, and suggested that if he, if they were to share this, he was hoping that it would be a net positive for people, which is just incredible to me that people in this age and society are openly willing to brag essentially about choosing to kill their child just because there may be a potential diagnosis. And doctors get this wrong all the time, there may be a potential diagnosis of down syndrome. And this has just renewed the calls for legislation that selective abortion, for these types of diagnoses, based on the gender, based on, you know, any just preference of the parents should never be allowed. And that includes even just the preference of, hey, I'm not ready to have a baby or, or you know, I can't financially afford one. all of those things go to the desire of adults over the safety, well being and affirmation of the right to life of the child.

Father Frank Pavone says parents should not kill unborn child based on disability

So let's welcome in Father Frank Pavone, who's the founder of Priests for Life. And Frank, I just was so heartbroken at this story and to see how, you know, these parents termed their child a baby, rightly so, until they decided that it wasn't worth the potential possibility of caring for a disabled child. I mean, this is where we're at in this country, and it's utterly, utterly evil.

Frank Pavone : Yes. Jenna, thanks for having me on about this. You know, let me, let me invite the audience to do a little thought experiment here and use it when they're talking to others about this, because those who disagree with us will say to us, well, you're lacking in compassion. so the thought experiment is this, okay, let's take the same scenario. You've conceived a baby that has down syndrome. Okay? But let's say you don't find out about it until the birth. So the baby comes, you deliver the child, and now on the delivery table, the doctor finds out this baby has down syndrome. Okay, what do we do at that moment? The kinds of fears, the kinds of distress. the parents themselves are heartbroken, of course. In this video, what do we say in compassion for these parents? And would we in that situation say, hey, wait a second, we'll just here, I'm going to chop the head off the baby right now. let's just kill the baby. Because then, you know, we have compassion for you. We don't want the family to go through this terrible distress. we're just going to kill the baby right here and now. Now, if anyone, what you're talking to says, no, no, that's not a solution, then the question becomes, okay, so do you have less compassion for those parents than you do for these? This story goes out there. The baby has down syndrome. Okay, yes, that's challenging, but not, you know, we know, most of us know families that have syndrome baby that, you know, the joy that the love engenders is palpable. It's real. but do we have less compassion? Because we're telling the parents who find out when the baby is born that they can't kill the baby, Then we have for these, parents who were saying, it's not that we don't have compassion for you, but you just, you can't kill your own child. And I think that that comparison, Jenna, can help people think this through and make the distinctions that, are necessary regarding compassion versus the Immorality of killing.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so well said because, no one, even the most, you know, heinously evil, who are supporting these parents decision online would suggest that if the diagnosis had happened after birth, that the parents should be able, at that moment or later, you know, or at some arbitrary marker, down the road at, you know, what, what, three, five. That the parent should retain the decision to kill their child based on a disability. Nobody would be arguing that, but yet there is still an arbitrary distinction between a child that's 12 weeks, 21 weeks, 6 months versus born. And that's the challenge, I think, for pro lifers, because there's still these, the. Also this artificial terminology to say that somehow, you know, a fetus doesn't mean a baby. I mean, that's just the, the same word in Latin for baby. I mean, it doesn't change whatever we term it, it doesn't change the fact that this is a human being. And so that's the challenge. How do we start to unwind that and convince a society that wants unborn life to be expendable that there is no moral distinction between an unborn child and one that has already been born?

Frank Pavone : Yeah. Well, what this discussion reveals, of course, in the thought experiment that I just outlined reveals is that we're dealing here with discrimination. That's what it is. We're dealing with discrimination against the unborn. Yes, discrimination against down syndrome babies, but we're dealing with discrimination against the unborn. Simply because of your age, you no longer have the right to life. That's the most unjust form of discrimination. Now, how do we start to change that? Number one, Jenna, we got to see the unborn child. Let me recommend to our audience, children before birth dot com. Children beforebirth dot com. and on that website, people will see that there's an app called C Baby Grow. C Baby Grow. the absolute best video imagery of the unborn baby. Video imagery, not animation. Video. And, and that, number one, we have to see the child. Number two, how do we talk about the unborn if we want to change, like you're saying, how we treat them and bring ourselves to the point where we treat them equally as their right to life deserves. We got to talk about them differently. What do I mean? Well, Jenna, Father's Day is coming up now. If somebody knows, a, man whose wife is pregnant, you're going to give him a Father's Day card. He is a father. He's not going to be a father. He is a Father. And this is, this is key. This might seem like a small little thing, but it's a big thing because you're asking how do we make a cultural change? And ultimately, of course, we want to translate it to public policy to protect these babies. We've got to recognize that these are children, just like any born child. These are people just like you and I. And if we're going to recognize that, we've got to talk about it that way. So the father of an unborn baby is a father. The mother is not going to be a mother. She is a mother. The grandparents are not going to be grandparents. They are grandparents. We're not. The baby is not on the way. You know, we say that even the very best of pro life people, we're just in the habit of saying that. But we've got to look at that as, wait a minute, that doesn't serve our cause. Because if something's on the way, it means it's not here yet.

Frank Pavone : So what do you mean it's not here yet? That's a baby. So I think these little ways of, you know, making these adjustments, it's not small things, it's big things.

Father Frank Pavone: 50% of down syndrome babies will have vision problems

And the other thing too, Jenna, you know, this, this, this, this father, on this vi comment about, oh, you know, the down syndrome, 50% will have vision problems. What in the world does that say about, you know, all of us who wear glasses? What are you saying? 50% of vision problems. And so what, that means you can kill them? What are you saying? they'll have poor muscle tone? Well, how about those of us that are born that have that, that, that, that, that problem? A learning disabilities. You mean you're going to go out and start killing everybody that's got a learning disability? What in the world kind of mindset that this is, you know, and again, it's routed in compassion. But boy, this is a dangerous way of thinking.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and it also flies in the face of what leftists purportedly advocate for, which is diversity. Right. I mean, to say that only the, in their view, the normative, quote, unquote, perfect human being has a right to have, unless of course, you know, the parents for any other purpose, whether it's, you know, gender selection, whether it's economic, issues, whether it's just merely unwanted in, in their opinion, those are also acceptable choices according to them, to abort even perfectly, healthy children. And so this is a whole mindset that somehow, as you said, the child is not a person yet with full rights attached until it is quote unquote here. And I fully agree with you that we need to start changing our language and say, no, the baby is here. The baby has already been conceived. It is here. It's in utero. You may not be able to see it without an ultrasound yet, but that's still a full human being just at a different stage of development, or a different age. But it is fully here and we need to make those distinctions. we're already at a time, Frank. Ah, Pavone. But I so appreciate you drawing these distinctions and I, I am hopeful that these types of clearly horrific decision making, I mean with this influencers just out there saying we chose to abort because of a potential diagnosis of down syndrome, that kind of example of expendable children in our society, hopefully will, will prick the conscience of the majority of us enough off to start making abortion not just illegal, but also unthinkable. So, Father Frank Pavone. Really appreciate it. You can follow him across social media and as always, you can reach me and my team, jenna fr.net.