The Right to Life.....Except in California

On the heels of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe V. Wade and return the issue to the States, some are already to moving to protect life. Unfortunately, others are moving to destroy life. In California, SB 1142, AB 2223, and Proposition 1 seek to legalize infanticide up to 28 days AFTER birth, a Constitutional right to abortion, and make the tax payers across the country pay all expenses for women to travel to such states to commit the murder.

Susan Swift Arnall is a pro life attorney with the Right to Life League and she is fighting to protect life in California. Don't miss this program as we talk courts, law, and rights.

Guest Bio:
California PolitiChick Susan Swift is a lawyer, author, wife and one conservative mother of seven children. She is currently the Director of Outreach and Engagement at the Right to Life League, American's first pro-life organization. Susan is addicted to the politics of today and always looking out for her little ones' futures. Susan is tough as nails...proud Texan, loves Guns, Freedom, and her right to use Free Speech how she sees fit. And, as a former actress in Hollywood, she always has an opinion about the politics running that town. For more on Susan visit her website at www.RealSusanSwift.com. Follow on social media @RealSusanSwift

Follow us on your podcast platform, rumble, and gab tv @DontTreadonLiberty

Check out our website at www.DontTreadonLiberty.com

Merch Store 

Save your kids from the government run indoctrination camps called public schools and get your kids into a good private Christian school or homeschool. To help out with making sure your kids know the truth about issues and ideas, check out the Tuttle Twins children's books and magazines!

*We may receive a small commission if you use our affiliate link below. 

Tuttle Twins
Help your kids learn about liberty and My Patriot Supply
The original Patriot survival company.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Intro: 1:12

fighting back against the left's non stop attacks on liberty, freedom. And America, America. This is don't tread on liberty. Jason Davis is on the air.

Jason Davis: 1:28

Hey, welcome back to don't fit on liberty. Thanks for being here, Jason Davis back and we have more information today we're going to actually go into something we really haven't talked too much about yet. But it's a huge implications for our nation and the country. And of course, I'm talking about the recent Supreme Court ruling, overturning Roe vs. Wade. So let me bring in my guest today who's actually a pro life attorney. She is the VP of legal affairs with the Right to Life League out of California. So she's been very busy fighting California policies on abortion. Because we all know what kind of nut jobs are in that state over there. Susan swift Arnall is with us, counselor, how are you?

Susan Swift Arnall: 2:12

Very well. Thank you. Thanks so much for having me on today.

Jason Davis: 2:15

Yeah, appreciate you being on. This is fascinating topic for me. So first, I want to start with the the Roe versus Wade overturn, which just so you know, I don't think that went nearly far enough. And in my personal opinion, the Supreme Court is a joke, I don't think they really understand the Constitution or what their role is inside of it anymore. But that being said, you as an attorney, I would really like to hear your take, because for some reason, the Supreme Court's sole job, as you well know is to determine constitutionality of laws and rules and things like that. That's their only job, their job is not to consider anything else not to consider how many people die, or what kind of problems socially that might create or anything else. So why do you think it is that the High Court whose sole job is to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of all people, including infants and unborn? Why do you think they're so reluctant to protect the life of the most innocent?

Susan Swift Arnall: 3:21

I don't think that they're reluctant. I think that perhaps, you maybe there's some misunderstanding about its purpose. I think a lot of times, we the people, we look to the court as though they are the final arbiter of everything, and that they are kind of all powerful, as though they're kind of like the president, if you will, but they can just make these pronouncements. But really what the Supreme Court is, it is a court of limited jurisdiction, because our constitution was set up so as to limit the federal government. That's the entire purpose of the Constitution. And so the court itself is somewhat limited, I think they worked within that construct within that framework to the best of their ability, what they did is and it's called strict constructionist, or being a, as opposed to being a progressive, that tends to rewrite the law, you know, you look at the law, and you interpret it and rewrite it. The other side of that is to be a strict constructionist to look at the letter of law and say, Well, that's what it says, I'm going to stick exactly with this language. If you guys don't like it, you need to make a new law. That's what they did. In the case of the, you know, the dogs ruling, they took a look at Roe versus Wade, and they said, Now, wait a minute, we have never in the history of our country, whether it's just common law, history, just just how States conducted themselves in our constitutional language anywhere, there is nothing that says there is a right to abortion. And so that issue, according to our Constitution, is one of the many issues that remains with the states that the states have that authority to legislate that matter. It is not for us to decide. That's a very strict constructionist view of that. And so that's how they they got there. They said, look, there's nothing in the Constitution, there's nothing in our history that allows it, that means it goes back to the States, which is a very good result because the federalism has been growing, that somehow the power of government in the federal realm has grown and grown and grown. They've abused the 10th Amendment time and time again, they have, you know, the just the, just the, like the the Commerce Clause alone has been used to you know, you could drive a Mack truck through it, yes, pun intended, but that's what they're doing is they're extending and overreaching with federal power. This decision, Dobbs was a brilliant example of restraining federal power and putting the Federal Court and the federal legislature right back in their place where they belong. Now, do I wish they had gone farther? Like you said, Yes. I think they if they had wanted to, they could have looked at our Declaration of Independence, which you signed in which is that our rights come from our Creator, and that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in that order. You can't have liberty freedom, if you don't have life first, I wish they could have interpreted that as part of our founding documents and looked at it and said, well, it is in our Declaration of Independence, and therefore there is a right to life that overrides any false right of abortion. I wish they'd gone that far, but they didn't. So what they did is they actually restrained and kept the federal judiciary system and the federal laws in their place where they should be, which is restrained by our Constitution.

Jason Davis: 6:52

Yeah. So I understand the strict constructionist view and all of that stuff. The problem is, is they don't often follow that they typically, you know, I mean, just one example would be like the Obamacare decision. Well, that was gone

Susan Swift Arnall: 7:10

Roberts, wasn't it? It's a tax. Yeah, I know. And I just wonder, so maybe in all of the negotiating, maybe it was, well, we could get five justices. And Roberts was kind of like a very weak six, you know, that at least would get this, you know, Roe versus Wade overturned, I am sure that Alito and Thomas had spent probably 20 years thinking about this writing about this and pondering a way to overturn Roe versus Wade. So I'm glad that whatever they did to get the five for or really it's six, three, but it's really five, four, but to get Roberts to kind of sign on foot, maybe that was the price of being able to say, well, we can't reach to find the right to life, but we can sure limit the federal government and say there is no right to abortion, because there isn't.

Jason Davis: 7:58

No, there isn't. But there shouldn't be really, because murder is illegal. Right?

Susan Swift Arnall: 8:05

I agree with you. I agree. Okay, so if you have elections, and maybe we'll have a more conservative court, I hope.

Jason Davis: 8:13

If elections were real, that might be possible. Okay. That's

Susan Swift Arnall: 8:16

a whole nother problem. They're working on it in places like Arizona and Georgia. Let people follow him

Jason Davis: 8:22

on the ground in Arizona and things are not good. I promise you. So let's get to California because you know, all the abortionist went bonkers when this decision came out. Yeah, yeah, it did. And I was surprised that you know, it wasn't like a George Floyd all over again, with cities burning down and things like that. They tried it here at the Phoenix at the state capitol. But the state police weren't having it. They got him out of there real quick. But the thing about it is now in California, they're trying to pass legislation to make it legal. To commit infanticide, right?

Susan Swift Arnall: 9:01

Yeah, absolutely. I'm calling it the abortion apocalypse. We're about three or four days away from the abortion Apocalypse when they're going to finish passing a slew of these bills, the worst of which are there four of them. SB 1142 Is the abortion tourism bill. They're going to authorize you know, they're going to fund not just authorize fund travel for women from any of the 50 states come on into California. We give you free travel, gonna give you free lodging, wage, you know, lost wages, were going to even give you childcare, yes, you can bring your own children with you. So you can afford their youngest sibling at that that's all paid for by the California taxpayers and actually more than just the taxpayers. Biden just signed it in early August, he signed an executive order that tells HHS have you ever set up to please help get Medicaid funding to make sure that these women can get their, you know, their playing their train or their automobile out here to California so they can get their free abortion. So he's going to be using taxpayer dollars from everywhere to be able to do this. So that's 1142 abortion tourism. The second really horrible one is AB 2223. That's the infanticide bill. That's drafted by Buffy wicks. So I like to call it Buffy baby Slayer bill because that's what it's going to do. It's going to prevent investigation, or any civil or criminal liability whatsoever. For a mom, they refer to moms as pregnant persons or persons who may become pregnant because you know, we're correct out here. So any mom who procures an abortion, and anyone who helps her do it, anyone, it doesn't have to be a doctor, a nurse, anyone it can be the boyfriend, it can be the grandma it can be the neighbor next door. He's a trash man doesn't matter. Anyone who assists or the mother and anyone are immune from any civil or criminal liability for the abortion or for perinatal death due to causes that occur in utero. Well, what does that mean? Peri natal means after birth, like prenatal is before birth. perinatal is After birth so you're talking about perinatal death. That's a dead baby, a baby born alive and dies due to causes that occur in utero. Well, that's not defined. Well, what does that even mean? Well, it certainly means something like chemical abortion that goes that gets botched, right. So you take methotrexate misoprostol and you slowly starve the baby interrupting progesterone then you deliver the baby two days later a lot of times it's dead sometimes it's not it's alive, right? And and it doesn't matter that are we just going to make it comfortable. Like Governor Northam would say in Virginia, we're just going to let it die there on the table. Or what happened in I believe it was Nebraska, there was a woman and and her grandma they decided to wrap the baby up she she took the chemical abortion delivered a 24 week viable baby boy wrapped it up in plastic to suffocate it and lit it on fire and buried it. Now that would not be you could not investigate that under AB 2223. In California. Why? Because the pregnant person wanted a preferred pregnancy outcome, which is a dead baby. And you can't go after the grandma who bought the you know, the abortion pills or the mom who took them. Right? And you can't investigate whether or not the perinatal death was due to causes that occur in utero. Because the bill says if you investigate that death, you can be liable for a private cause of action $25,000 Plus attorneys fees and costs. So no one practically speaking is going to investigate the death of a baby that's under 28 days old. Why 20 days, because the definition of perinatal in California law is the period between the beginning of conception to 28 days after birth. So that first 28 days of life is within the perinatal period. And so conceivably under this law, I mean, hey, if the baby dies, two weeks old, and someone can point to a cause that occurred in utero, no one's gonna investigate. No one's gonna No one's gonna find out what really killed this baby.

Jason Davis: 13:10

Okay, now, you're saying that it will exempt them from any criminal or civil liability, criminal or civil liability, meaning meaning. And I just want to make sure that we're all clear about this. What that means, folks, is that even if a sheriff or a prosecutor wanted to charge this he could not is that right? That's correct. Okay. Now, second question on that. Do you expect this bill to pass?

Susan Swift Arnall: 13:43

Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. It will.

Jason Davis: 13:46

Okay. In your legal opinion, can it be overturned?

Susan Swift Arnall: 13:51

Well, there is on the books, the California born alive, Act, which entitles a child that is born as a result of an abortion to the same rights as a child that's born at the same age. So like, I don't want to say normal, but an unborn child, so if if a child is born it, you know, 30 weeks prematurely because of a botched abortion, and that child gets the same rights and level of care as another baby that would be born at 30 weeks, right? So that that that already exists in law, the law is there, but it's in the practical application. So yes, you could possibly prosecute the mother for violating the infant born alive protection in California. But to obtain evidence to do so you'd have to investigate how maybe died. And if it's all you need is somebody said due to causes that occur in utero because it'd be 20 to 23 strips, the coroner's duty to actually investigate makes it kind of optional. So there's no investigating authority. And if anyone even threatens an investigation, like the sheriff comes around, and the babies you know, within two weeks old or something, or maybe a first responder or even a mandated reporter, if they start saying, Well, how did this baby die? mom or grandma or boyfriend can just say, you asked me one more question, and I can slap a lawsuit on you. So practically speaking, nobody's going to bother investigating a newborn death, where the mother has consented. Now, if the mother doesn't consent, obviously, then then that's a that's a different thing. But it's all dependent upon the mothers consent at the time. What about the Father? Well, of course, they don't have any reproductive rights. You know, we don't we don't consider men's rights. I mean, literally one half of our population has no reproductive rights was

Jason Davis: 15:40

I mean, wait a minute. Now, wait a minute, though of counselor, I mean, so in California law, if a couple if a family unit is separated by divorce, is the husband not entitled to 50% custody of his child?

Susan Swift Arnall: 15:57

The interesting question is when we're going to start talking about Proposition one, that is, that's a proposition that they've just put on the ballot we're going to in California gonna be able to vote on it. That's the one that says the state Shall not deny or interfere an individual's reproductive freedom. And that to me is so broad. I kind of start wondering, have they thought that through? Because that's talking about men's reproductive freedom to doesn't Eman, have the right to have a child as well. Right? How come the woman is the only one who gets to decide the fate of this child? And it'll be very interesting if Proposition one passes. It's so broad. I wonder, does the state even have standing or authority to adjudicate exactly that question? Maybe it can't, because we're going to have a Campbell, California constitutional amendment that says the state shall not interfere or deny an individual's reproductive freedom. It'll be an interesting question.

Jason Davis: 16:57

So if that's the case, then if the father has no say, in the life of his child, on this case here, that means that he should have no obligation to pay child support in all other custody cases, like,

Susan Swift Arnall: 17:17

far too much sense that really does. I mean, really,

Jason Davis: 17:19

I mean, I'm just saying, counselor, like, Look, if we're talking about constitutional law here, that is not fair and equal treatment under the law. Correct.

Susan Swift Arnall: 17:28

I would agree with you. And the problem is our laws are imbalanced. I mean, if you're going to give a woman an absolute right to kill a baby help, and that's her reproductive freedom, outcome, men don't have the right to rate, right sounds

Jason Davis: 17:41

like it sounds to me like a huge discrimination lawsuit, class action beyond anything that you've ever seen. That's what it sounds like.

Susan Swift Arnall: 17:51

I hope you're right. But yeah, judges typically just want to make sure that the woman gets to do what she wants. So it's, it's very sad. What we need to do is start changing the hearts and minds of women and start reassuring them and telling them it's okay, we'll walk beside you will be sister with you, we will support you. And there are plenty of places in California we represent over 60 pro life clinics, centers, and maternity homes all up and down California. That's what the Right to Life League does. And all of these places are private, nonprofit, charitable organizations that just serve women in crisis and say, Look, we'll help you, we'll walk you through, you need housing, we'll find housing don't worry about it, we will get you any resources you want, you know, job training, you name it, and they're all up and down the state but of course they don't get any press and they don't get any federal money of not federal and sorry state money because the state's all about funding abortion only. So they're there's so many places, they actually outnumber the number of abortion centers in California. And they're, they're on shoestring budgets, and they are ministering they're doing the will of God reaching out to these women to provide anything just says whatever, whatever you do, just don't kill your baby will help you and they're saving lives every day. That's how we're going to end abortion, not with all of these crazy laws that try to empower reproductive justice for persons of pregnancy. And color. No, I mean, this is crazy talk.

Jason Davis: 19:17

Well, yeah, well, you know, there could be an upside to this. Because, you know, with all this transgender stuff, maybe the men can just say they are the mother.

Susan Swift Arnall: 19:27

Right? And then what not all women have uteruses, right? Because some people identify as women, right? So and then the end, we're gonna start having to put implant uteruses in men, I think that would be the next logical step so that they can become pregnant too.

Jason Davis: 19:43

Yeah, for sure. Yeah. Now, you mentioned the constitutional amendment. And I understand that California is trying to put one on the ballot to make abortion a right under the state constitution. Is that right?

Susan Swift Arnall: 19:56

That's the one I was talking about Proposition one. That's the state proposition that they're trying to put in our state constitutions called Proposition one. And that would make not not only it's very broad, it includes abortion, but it's the state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom. Whoa, that's so that's bigger than abortion, that that could include transgender, all kinds of whatever reproductive freedom you want it to be. Right. And, and that's the problem with this kind of broad language. What does that mean? It's not defined.

Jason Davis: 20:33

It's consistent, though. I like it. It's my body my choice unless you're talking about the COVID-19 vaccine, right?

Susan Swift Arnall: 20:39

That's right. And then you have to get the vaccine. That's right. Because then it's not a choice. It's government's choice. Right.

Jason Davis: 20:44

So one very interesting thing that I want to talk to you about is something you're talking about with climate birth control. You think you think they're going to merge climate change with birth control? Tell me about that.

Susan Swift Arnall: 20:58

Well, I think they're, they're trying to the whole climate change argument has gone through so many iterations, it was global warming and, and now it's climate change because the world is not more meaning and it's actually cooling. Well, what happens because it's really the sun. So they're trying to do it. What they're trying to do is control little carbon footprints. So there you go. That's if we can just get enough people to stop having babies. Maybe that that will help control the climate.

Jason Davis: 21:27

Oh, it's the D. popularization. That's okay. So we're back to that. You know, when I was a kid, you're probably you probably remember this. I don't want to date you or anything. But when I was a kid, we were going to face the new ice age. Do you remember that?

Susan Swift Arnall: 21:42

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you know, Paul Ehrlich's, The Population Bomb, look, there have been books. And it goes all the way back to John Malthus, they have been saying that we're all going to starve to death or freeze to death or, or burn off or whatever they've been saying this for 200 years, that there's going to be because of population, we're all going to die. AOC says it all the time, right. And we're running out of time, we have less than 12 years. I mean, it's like there's a clock countdown. And what that clock countdown really is, is for their ability to control the global population, controlling it using, you know, food, energy, the vaccine mandates, anything that it takes to control and there's just too many of us, you know, individualized American thinkers out there. And so we've got to kind of control that population, too. They've been trying to control our thought for many, many years. That's, that's the ultimate mind control, if you will, but I think abortion is one aspect of population control.

Jason Davis: 22:41

Yeah, yeah, there's absolutely no doubt about that. And they're committing abortions with adults all the time now with the you know, the, you know, what, millions of people dropping dead from that. So how can people help you and get involved and fight with you at the Right to Life League?

Susan Swift Arnall: 22:59

Well, I, I just got to be encouraged them, please go to our website, it's right to life. league.org or.com, but right to life, league.org. And please, you know, I know, send us a cup of coffee, we're not willing, we don't have any merch. And what we do is, everything that we do is to make sure that these clinics centers and homes are operational in California, we provide so many different services from ultrasound machines, to HR bootcamps, and administrative trainings, anything that they need to make sure that their corporate compliant with all of these Looney state laws, and so that they can keep their doors open. That's one thing we do. We also educate the people about abortion, fundamentally, that abortion is not healthcare, that's a lie. Abortion is the intentional killing of a human being in the womb. That's the purpose of abortion. If we were really talking about health care, we would be talking about delivery, which saves the mother's life much faster than abortion does, and gives the chance to the baby to live to even an ectopic pregnancy. I know it's not going to survive, but at least you remove it humanely and you save the mother's life and you do it faster than with abortion. So abortion is not healthcare, that's another thing we do is educate we support these clinics. And we also advocate against these pro abortion expansion bills up in Sacramento. I've been up there so many times. They know me now. They don't like me. They look at me. So yeah, we have you can check us out on YouTube. I think there's about 50 different times that we've had I've ever been up there, Teresa Brennan has been up there or we have arranged for different witnesses, experts to testify against a lot of these bad bills. And that's what we do. And if you want to buy us a cup of coffee, we're not Starbucks, like I said, we are not woke and it will go to fund all of these programs directly. So and a lot of people wonder, well, you know, how do I know that? You know, my money will go to actually support prolife, California is ground zero. The balance and Bill was the start of therapeutic abortion bills back in 1967. That's when we started January 1 1967. That's our first board minutes. And a group of founders that were doctors and lawyers and concerned citizens said we've got to go talk to Governor Reagan. And they went up to Sacramento and they had a meeting with Governor Reagan and it went it was supposed to be 15 minutes and went for an hour and they educated him about the truth of what abortion was. And then after that, he said well I've given my word to the Democrats that I would signed the deal in Seville, but I give you my word now that I will never sign another pro abortion piece of legislation and he kept his word even when he was president. So that's how we got started the Right to Life League that was six years before Roe vs. Wade ever got started. So if you want to know where where can I put money that will actually help fight against abortion. California is ground zero. We're about to start the abortion apocalypse in about four or five days when August 31. At midnight, all these bills will be signed and go to Governor Newsom's desk, and that'll be it and we're going to be having abortion on demand 24/7 funded by the United States taxpayer not just California because Biden's blue state bailout sends us a ton of money. We have $100 billion in state surplus and a lot of it at least 100 25 million is going to be going for all of these different abortion services. So if you want to stop it, help us help us keep these clinics open, help us educate and help us lobby against these, these insane bills. That's what we do. And we need we need people out here helping us do it.

Jason Davis: 26:27

Okay, I understand that. Do you have any plans to mount an appeal against these bills once they're signed?

Susan Swift Arnall: 26:36

Well, I were thinking about that. But there are also other places that already do that. ADF was one Thomas Moore, I think there are a lot of different law firms that are they are cutting edge ready to go. And I don't doubt that they will be doing that. And we are in, in actually in conversation with them on several different matters as well. So I can't go into the specifics. But I ensure that they're going they're going to be challenges. Most of these bills, by the way, just the funding bill, we already have a California state constitutional ruling from the Supreme Court of California that says you can't just fund reproductive services, you can't just fund abortion, you have to also fund childbirth, you can't do just one side, you have to do it equally. And all of these bills violate that. So I'm sure that they will all be challenged at some point because they are unconstitutional, according to our state constitution, according to that ruling in 1981, which is committed to defend reproductive rights. That's the case. So it's like all of these laws are unconstitutional, guys, or is it just because back then it was you couldn't spend it on childbirth services. That's what happened then. So we'll see. But I'm absolutely sure that a lot of these bills are going to be challenged once they become law.

Jason Davis: 27:46

I think you have a couple of good cases to challenge on I do. And there's a couple of different aspects angles that you can take. So I hope that somebody does that if it's not you. Last question. You mentioned, you know, the whole Oh, it's health care. You know, but it's not health care, right. I'm glad you brought that up. Because there's a lot of these different talking points that these pro abortion nut jobs like to throw out there. So like when I talk about abortion, they say you can't talk about it, because you're a man, can you?

Susan Swift Arnall: 28:19

No choice. I know, right.

Jason Davis: 28:24

And again, my argument is that don't ever ask a man to pay child support. Yeah. So there are a bunch of other ones though, you know, you like you've heard them right. Like, oh, I mean, what about for, you know, rape or incest? I mean, what about that, Counselor?

Susan Swift Arnall: 28:40

That's right. Well, we actually just did, we put out a flyer and I have an article up on our website right to life league.org If you want to go to news and events, we just put it out, which is basically answers to these abortion arguments. 10 answers and raping incest is one of them. First of all, raping incest is less than 2%. I mean, it's it was like with ectopic pregnancy, we are talking about less than 2% of all abortions. So can we just please stay on point 98% of abortions are not done for this. So you're letting the tail wag the dog, but in the cases of rape and incest, they are very tragic. And they are traumatic. And everybody agrees this is the hard case for for anyone you know, Uncle Joe rapes his 14 year old niece, right, that's, that's the tragedy? Well, it's not going to make it better by killing a baby. We don't have to do that. What we have to do is comfort that girl and help her walk through it. Because now we're just going to be compounding it and we still have we're still denying the humanity of that baby. And we're discriminating against that baby based on the way in which he or she was conceived. Just like if it were, I don't know, a different ethnicity. Well, you know, I mean, back in the day, it would have been if, if it was an interracial couple that that maybe that baby should would have been discriminated against, right? You're doing the same thing now by saying that this person this baby really shouldn't, you know, shouldn't be allowed to live your it's kind of like saying, Well, I'm, I'm pro life. But I really I do respect the women's rights. That's like saying, Well, yeah, I'm anti rape. But I think it's okay for everybody to have their own reproductive rights or what I mean, no, rape is wrong. We can't say that you can you can rape someone because that's your personal preference. Same thing with abortion. You cannot, you cannot dehumanize and kill another human being just because they're inconvenient to you. It's just wrong. So it's a tough, it's a hard case. But it's not going to make that let that girl feel any better when she knows that she's killed that baby. Why don't we help her? Why don't we we love her and walk through it with her and provide her everything. I mean, we have$100 billion state surplus. I'm sure we can make sure that that girl is taken care of and that she has a wonderful life after she delivers that baby.

Jason Davis: 31:02

Yeah. And you know when I always bring up the fact that if she doesn't want the baby just because Have symbolism of the whole thing. There are options for adoption and then and then I'm crucified for that. Because you know, that's a broken system and it doesn't work.

Susan Swift Arnall: 31:20

There are 36 couples for every baby that gets put up for adoption. That's how many there are. These are statistic isn't really, there's that many people over 8 million Americans. Adoption at one time or another, there are plenty of people that some of them can't have babies, and they would love to adopt, and, okay, if our adoption system is broken, then let's spend money and fix it. Okay? Don't get to say, well, it's broken, therefore, I get to kill a human being okay. All right, that doesn't make any sense at all, let's fix the system. Let's make sure that every child gets to be adopted out and so that you don't have to parent to child life, be tolerant of life for nine months, and we will we will find a way for that baby to have a wonderful life. And it's also a myth to be able to say, well, it'll it'll have it'll have an awful life and they're fresh and kill it. No one, no one's better off dead. That's, that's ridiculous. There have been so many people that have been born into abject poverty and all kinds of challenges in their life. And they've gone on to be, you know, soccer players and neurosurgeons I mean, Dr. Ben Carson was born in abject poverty and look at him, right? I mean, there's so you can't, you're assuming somebody's going to have a bad life, and you're gonna save them from a less than perfect life, mate. What kind of presumption is that?

Jason Davis: 32:36

Well, they presumed they presumed that their god is what they do. And they, I guess, think they can decide who lives and who dies. And the bottom line is we all anybody with a brain would agree murder is wrong? Yes. And let's not do it. Right?

Susan Swift Arnall: 32:53

How about we just love and the way we conquer this, because most of them, I really believe most women are in fear, they are afraid a lot 75% of them are below poverty limits that are choose abortion, that's not a choice. When you're at poverty living and you're gonna think, oh, my gosh, I have to choose between baby for you formula, and maybe a house or you know, housing or anything, you're that that is not a choice, let's really fund choice. And it's true choice, right? Let's help these mothers, let's say, you don't have to worry, there's going to be housing for you, there's going to be there's going to be shelter, there's going to be food there, we're going to help you find employment, we're going to take care of you, we have the money to do that. So it's a false choice that they're advertising. It's it's just wrong. We can we can save the mother and the child and is how you end abortion, not by arguing not by legislation, but by caring for those women and for helping them and walking it through with them. And that's the long term solution. It's not the quick fix that Planned Parenthood and the abortion cartel want to push because they make money off of that. And they sell the baby parts, right. That's how they make money. So let's Let's fund Long Term Care and Education for these women and get them out of poverty and get them out of the desperate situation that they find themselves in. That's how we end abortion. And the other thing that nobody seems to be talking about is we talked to all of the young men that are participating in this because somebody is getting these women pregnant. Now who is that? Right? But they're not all they're not most of them are not victims of rape. So how about we start talking to the young men and the old men and whoever they are, and just say, you know, son, you should never give that kind of power to a woman to kill your baby. So you need to you need to have your own method of restraint that you never, you never abused a woman as a sexual object, you never take advantage of her. And you make sure that when you are ready to have children, that you do it within a bond of marriage and love and so that you never have to be outside of an abortion clinic, begging to get in while your woman is on a table getting your your baby killed. And that's on men. So they need to step up to the plate to defend these women defend their babies, love them and do the honorable thing by saying I'm going to make sure that I make children with someone that I really want to care for. And if there is a problem, I'm going to step up and I'm going to take care of that baby for the rest of my life. Because that's what being a man really is.

Jason Davis: 35:12

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. You hit the nail on the head with that. So everybody check it out right to life. league.org attorney Susan swift Arnel. Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it. God bless you.

Susan Swift Arnall: 35:27

Thanks so much for having me.

Intro: 35:30

Thanks for listening to don't tread on liberty with Jason Davis. Subscribe on Google Play iTunes or your favorite platform. For more liberty news, check out www dot don't tread on liberty.com And subscribe to the blog or join the conversation