reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I believe abortion should have no restrictions, allowing individuals to have the procedure at any stage of pregnancy. If I am unable to receive abortion training or perform abortions in Wisconsin, I will leave the state, as will many of my colleagues who share the same career path. Thank you for your understanding, but I will not contribute to resolving our shortages.

The speaker discusses the issue of abortion and the debate within the Republican Party about whether to continue making it a central tenet. They argue against abandoning the pro-life stance and emphasize the importance of standing firm on the issue. The speaker also highlights the influence of the World Economic Forum and their agenda of depopulation. They criticize the idea of compromising on abortion and urge for a clear articulation of principles and a fight for what is right. The speaker concludes by stating that a nation that destroys its children invites the wrath of God.

Speaker 0 mentions that Justice Wagner was appointed by Harper. Speaker 1 notes that most justices seem liberal, but can't speak for all. Some align with liberal agendas, but not all are political. Speaker 1 emphasizes not to be seen as biased. Speaker 0 acknowledges. Translation: Speaker 0 mentions that Justice Wagner was appointed by Harper. Speaker 1 notes that most justices seem liberal, but can't speak for all. Some align with liberal agendas, but not all are political. Speaker 1 emphasizes not to be seen as biased. Speaker 0 acknowledges.

Abortion is seen as a choice and a right, but it is also considered a tragedy. The focus should be on making it rare and safe, and finding common ground to limit the number of abortions.

The speaker discusses the position of Trump and his running mate on abortion. They state that Trump and his running mate say they believe in exceptions to abortion bans to save the mother's life. The speaker then says, "Let's break that down."

Mifepristone has been deemed safe and effective based on numerous studies. However, concerns have been raised about the FDA's deregulation of the drug, including the removal of prescription requirements and adverse event reporting. The nominee for HHS is expected to review these actions. There are also worries about the nominee's past anti-vaccine statements and their potential impact on public health. The nominee acknowledges that every abortion is a tragedy but emphasizes the importance of following directives from President Trump. The discussion highlights a conflict between personal beliefs and political obligations, particularly regarding women's reproductive rights and healthcare access. The nominee's commitment to safety studies on mifepristone is noted, but there are fears of prioritizing political orders over public health.

The speaker is asked if they believe the vice president is the best running mate. They respond by stating that the vice president's role is to be the vice president, and that is why she is not doing certain things. The speaker also mentions that they often hear people questioning why she isn't doing more. They conclude by saying that the vice president's job description does not require her to do much.

President Trump has stated he will veto a national abortion ban, viewing it as a state's rights issue. The speaker believes that if a baby can survive outside the womb, abortion is not permissible; it constitutes murder at that stage of gestation. The speaker claims the education system has instilled terror in girls and women, pushing the idea that pregnancy is the end of their lives and careers. This fear leads them to believe they must have access to abortion, even in extreme circumstances, and they will vote against any candidate who might restrict it. The speaker asserts that having children brings more joy than anything else and that it is natural to love one's children.

The speaker stands by a statement made, refusing to elaborate further. They defend the senator's remarks, emphasizing her good intentions and dismissing any ill will. The speaker questions the lack of outrage over abortion of African American children, highlighting their efforts towards race relations in the state. They express confusion over the silence on this issue.

The speaker discusses the topic of abortion and argues that it should be considered murder. They emphasize that if there is no life in the fetus, then there is no need for an abortion. However, they believe that the fetus is alive and developing, even if it doesn't have consciousness. They conclude that abortion is objectively the killing of a human being.

I believe abortion is not a choice or a right, but rather a tragedy. It should be rare and safe, and our focus should be on reducing the number of abortions. We should strive for a common ground and consensus on how to achieve this.

Proponents and opponents of Roe v Wade criticize it for being poorly reasoned. Most constitutional scholars do not view it as a well-written or well-reasoned decision, regardless of their stance on abortion. It is not considered a good example of how to write a legal decision. Translation: Critics of Roe v Wade argue that it was not well-reasoned, and constitutional scholars do not see it as a well-written decision, regardless of their views on abortion. It is not seen as a model for writing legal decisions.

One speaker suggests killing unwanted children in foster care. They ask for statistics on the percentage of foster children who are abused, molested, or enslaved. Another speaker says they would be okay with killing babies in foster care and killing children who have been abused. One speaker states that if they don't want to have a baby, they should have the choice not to, because people should still have the choice, and that the other speaker doesn't understand the magnitude of having a child.

Justice Samuel Alito argued during oral arguments that the Chevron deference doctrine is no longer necessary because judges like him do not impose their personal beliefs into policies. The liberal justices on the Supreme Court did not laugh at this statement, possibly because they were too busy being shocked. Alito previously acknowledged that judges used their personal policy preferences in 1984, but now claims that he and other judges do not do so in 2024. However, Alito has used his personal policy preferences to influence decisions on issues such as abortion rights, college admissions, voting rights, and gun safety regulations. This demonstrates a conservative flip-flop on the issue, as Alito previously supported Chevron deference. Republicans favored Chevron deference in the past when they controlled the executive branch, but now prefer to control the courts instead.

I believe abortion access should be protected from day 1 of pregnancy by reinstating Roe v Wade. Congress can pass legislation to restore these protections, and Joe Biden will sign it into law.

At the time of the election, the Republican Party was allegedly changing its platform to support abortion up to twenty-seven weeks and the abortion pill. The speaker claims Republican candidates lobbied against a full abortion ban in Arizona, instead favoring a policy where a woman can allegedly "murder her baby the day before it's born." The speaker believes candidates operate based on money/donors and fear of backlash. The speaker claims that Trump said Florida's bans go too far, prompting the speaker to publicly disagree, risking donor loss. The speaker argues against voting for the "lesser of two evils" and emphasizes not fearing opposition. The speaker references an Irish revolutionary quote about sacrificing one's reputation for peace. The speaker and one other pro-life leader allegedly leveraged the Trump team. After the speaker's statement, the Trump team contacted the speaker to negotiate for pro-life support.

Elizabeth Warren believes we should eliminate the electoral college. I am open to discussing this because the popular vote's importance in choosing the president has been reduced.

Madam Vice President was asked if she thinks Republican voters, specifically women voters, will be more likely to vote for her because of the fall of Roe.

The speaker expresses their belief that a nominee should not be required to state their stance on Roe v. Wade, as it could set a precedent that contradicts their own beliefs. They admit uncertainty about the significance of knowing the nominee's position, as they could still support Roe while also supporting restrictions such as wider hallways in abortion facilities. Ultimately, the speaker concludes that knowing the nominee's stance on Roe would not provide much insight.

Speaker 0 expresses a belief that adverse events from regular vaccines occur more frequently than people imagine, including things like allergies. They state that their own allergy to wheat is likely the result of an adjuvant that caused their immune system to react to something normal in their gut in a way from which they feel they will never recover. They also mention that one of their sons has seasonal allergies that are significant enough to disrupt daily life, while another son has a dairy allergy that the speaker attributes to an allergy to mother's milk, which the speaker says they did not understand at the time but observed as the baby spit up regularly after breastfeeding. The speaker describes this dairy-related issue as a huge waste of a precious resource and questions whether evolution could be blamed for it, noting the expectation that ancestors would be starving and not surrender such nutrients if food were abundant. The speaker elaborates on their current interpretation by suggesting that the dairy allergy in their child was developed very early, probably from an adjuvant in a childhood vaccine. They use this line of reasoning to illustrate a broader point about their view of vaccines and safety testing. The long, winding explanation leads to the central claim: given the education they have received, if they could do everything again, they would choose not to give any vaccines to their newborn children. They make it clear that they are not asserting that it is impossible that some vaccines are more beneficial than harmful, but they state that they now know they cannot trust the safety testing. In the closing, the speaker asserts that even if there were indications that a vaccine might be net beneficial, they would be compelled to wonder what else they do not know. The overall message emphasizes a deep skepticism about safety testing and a belief that current knowledge is insufficient to justify vaccinating newborns, as presented by Speaker 0.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the hepatitis B vaccine agenda and controversy around its use for newborns. Speaker 1 describes an upcoming September meeting where hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda, predicting an effort to change the birth dose so that children wouldn’t receive it at birth. They say that if a mother has good prenatal care and known hepatitis B status, that may not matter, but if a mother does not attend prenatal care, the child would have only one opportunity to receive the vaccine. Speaker 0 reacts strongly, arguing that the person promoting the vaccine is inappropriately chosen to advocate for it. They state that the vaccine “was made for people who partake in promiscuous sex with multiple partners or share heroin needles,” and disclaim any direct accusation about the person’s needle-sharing, while asserting that this individual fits a certain group. They question why this person should mandate a hepatitis B vaccine for their child, insisting that in the United States people should be allowed to live freely, but not have the government or advocates push a vaccine tied to a particular lifestyle onto a newborn. Speaker 0 contends that the day-one vaccination would not provide long-lasting protection, especially if the person’s argument is framed as addressing a disease tied to sexual activity. They point out that the majority of pregnant individuals in America are not hepatitis B positive (citing a statistic they recall), and ask why their child should receive an injection for a sexually transmitted infection on day one of life. Speaker 0 challenges religious leaders who support the vaccination program, asking what they would say to families who do not plan for their child to engage in the behaviors associated with hepatitis B transmission. They question the alignment with religious beliefs, asking believers of various faiths whether they intend for their child to share heroin needles. They suggest a paradox in relating the injection to the condition of being created in the image and likeness of God, and conclude with a provocative remark about losing sight of religious or moral principles. Throughout, the speakers frame the hepatitis B vaccination strategy as an ideological fight over who should decide what is injected into newborns, juxtaposing public health goals with concerns about personal freedom, lifestyle, and religious beliefs.

This court has lost all legitimacy. The gun, voting, and union decisions damaged its standing, but the Roe v. Wade decision completely destroyed any remaining credibility. To restore confidence in the Supreme Court, we need to expand the number of justices.

There has been scholarly criticism of the right to privacy, which may be reflected in a brief before the Supreme Court. Whether the right to privacy exists, and I believe it does, is a key question. I don't recall stating that the right to privacy is one of the deepest beliefs in our society. To meet your test, it has to be one of the most profoundly held views in society. It's hard to answer without knowing what you mean by the right to privacy. Do Americans believe they have a right to privacy, whether found in the Constitution, natural law, or elsewhere? No, I'll give you that. Do you believe the people retain the right to privacy? No doubt in my mind. It seems to me it is a constitutionally protected right of privacy in some form or another.

There has been scholarly criticism of the right to privacy, and it's conceivable that this criticism will be reflected in a brief before the Supreme Court. Whether the right to privacy exists or not, do Americans believe they have an inherent right to privacy, be it from the Constitution, natural law, or religious texts? No, I'll give you that. Do you have any doubt that the people believe they have retained the right to privacy? No, there's no doubt in my mind about that. Okay, in some form or another, a constitutionally protected right to privacy exists. What that means remains to be seen.

I believe abortion is always a tragedy, not a choice or right. It should be rare, safe, and efforts should focus on reducing the number of abortions. Finding common ground and consensus is crucial.