Episode Transcript
[00:00:07] This is Missy Martinez Stone, and you're listening to the centered podcast, where we have unifying conversations on the divisive subject of abortion.
[00:00:26] Hi, and welcome to the Centered podcast. I am your host, Missy Martinez Stone, and we're gonna do another special episode, because last night, we had our first and probably only vice president debate.
[00:00:47] And after the presidential debate, I did a breakdown on what was said about abortion regulations, because that is my area of expertise. And to date, it is our most listened to podcast. The gratefulness and just support of a podcast doing what I was doing was overwhelming. I mean, I was getting so many text messages and messages on social media saying, thank you so much, because it just feels like no one else is turning down the noise and just going line by line and presenting the facts. And there's such a hunger for that right now.
[00:01:44] And, you know, the response to my last podcast is evidence of that. And so, with, again, abortion coming up in the vice presidential debate, I was asked again to do something similar, which I'm happy to do now. It is late.
[00:02:05] It's a lot later than I would typically record.
[00:02:08] I'm getting over a nasty chest cold, you know, and this is a little bit outside of, you know, my day to day work at the center for Client Safety. But so much of what was said comes down to the enforcement of abortion regulations, which is what we do. We look at what laws are on the books, basic health and safety regulations, and we're not just talking about abortion specific restrictions, but just basic health and safety standards and how those are applied to abortion facilities. And a lot of times, there is a lack of enforcement because the issue is so polarizing, is so controversial, regulatory agents are hesitant to step in, even if something pretty egregious is happening on. On a basic health and safety standard. So, this is what I do day in and day out, is I look at codes that are on state books, laws that have been passed by states, and I see how they are enforced. And that is what this entire debate has been about. This entire national debate has been during this election, which is what gives me such a unique perspective on this subject, because it is down the line in my expertise. And so I want to offer that to you guys to help sort through what are political talking points and what are.
[00:03:49] What is actually true and what is being said and what is being referred to, because it, especially this subject, gets so emotional so quickly as it should. I mean, it is a hard subject. It is emotional. It is heartbreaking.
[00:04:07] The women that are in these situations are hurting, are scared. I mean, nothing about this is easy. And it evokes such big reactions from people that a lot of times it is hard to figure out the truth.
[00:04:23] And so my goal is to just go back to the facts and present them fairly and let listeners decide what is true and what is not true. And I will give my opinion as an expert in this field and with the caveat that I really do try to be as objective and nuanced as I can. And I'm okay with admitting when people who are against abortion are wrong. I'm okay with admitting that. And to be even further transparent, I am not a, I'm not politically conservative. And so, you know, I don't have an agenda here.
[00:05:08] I really just want people to understand the reality that has been created.
[00:05:16] Because abortion has become so controversial, it has led to these dangerous situations for women, which I'll get into in a minute.
[00:05:27] So with all of that said, I'm going to break down what was said during the debate. I'm going to point you guys back to some sources of where you can verify information.
[00:05:40] If you haven't listened to the one about former President Trump and Vice President Harris, I encourage you to go back. I think it's only two episodes back. Listen to that one. So about halfway through the debate, the moderators bring up abortion. Waltz is actually the first one who gets the question, which I thought was interesting. And the moderators point out that after Roe versus Wade was overturned and the issue of abortion was returned to the states, Governor Walts signed a bill into law in Minnesota that makes Minnesota one of the least restrictive states on abortion in the nation.
[00:06:30] And in response to that, you know, Trump says, alleges that Waltz made a comment about how abortion in the 9th month is absolutely fine.
[00:06:43] I don't know if that's true. I would highly doubt knowing Waltz's demeanor. I don't know that he would say that.
[00:06:54] But Waltz's answer was very telling because he used a lot of the same talking points that Kamala Harris used, and they are problematic for a number of reasons. He begins to refer to women who have had complications either during abortions, after taking medication, abortion taking abortion pills, or have had complications with pregnancy in Texas, in states where there are abortion restrictions and talking about how they were not able to access care. And it has turned into, you know, one woman has died.
[00:07:38] The woman in Texas ended up having sepsis. She nearly died.
[00:07:44] She's had, you know, she now has lifelong issues. He referred to a situation in Kentucky that is absolutely devastating, where a twelve year old was raped by her stepdad and became pregnant.
[00:07:58] And those stories are absolutely heartbreaking, and we should be upset about them.
[00:08:09] Where the breakdown is is that the talking point lays the responsibility at the feet of the wrong perpetrator. Here you can go to Guttmacher Institute. It's Planned Parenthood's own research arm. I've read every law myself. Every state that has a restriction on abortion has an exception written into that law.
[00:08:38] That in the case of the life of the mother, when the life of the mother is endangered, abortion is allowed. And that's point blank. And I think that this, I have a whole other episode as well about Amber Thurman's case, specifically because she did die, because the doctors did not give her life saving care.
[00:08:58] When Georgia law clearly makes room for that, there's a huge debate right now across the nation about who is responsible for her death. People on the abortion advocate side say it's the fault of these restrictions. And the people on the anti abortion side are saying, no. We specifically wrote these laws in a way that made room for those cases. It's the faults of the doctor.
[00:09:24] So this is a big point of contention right now. Now, I cannot speak to the doctors themselves. I was not there. I don't know these cases in and out. However, from my perspective, as someone, again, who looks at code and looks at how it is enforced at the most granular level, these cases don't make sense to me because in Texas, Amanda, I think was her name, should have gotten care, period.
[00:10:02] Both fall under very clear exceptions in the rule where abortion is acceptable. Because if the woman in Texas did have a tear in the membrane, she's getting sepsis again. Her life is now at risk. Sepsis is life threatening. Women die from sepsis and they need to be treated. And so I'm having a hard time understanding why they are not getting treatment as they should. And I think the doctors responsible need to be held accountable for that because they absolutely should have gotten care.
[00:10:38] And as I said in the previous podcast, when Kamala brought up children who are the victims of rape, first of all, it's horrific. It is horrific that this even still happens in our society. And the perpetrators need to spend the rest of their life rotting in prison. However, a twelve year old being pregnant is dangerous. Their bodies are nothing in a position. Their hips are not wide enough to carry a pregnancy safely and deliver a child.
[00:11:16] And I think you could find many physicians who would say, this is life threatening for her. This is not safe for her to do. Again, triggering that exception and making room for her. And so it makes me call into question who is giving these doctors information?
[00:11:41] Where is the disconnect between, because, you know, when I read the laws, I mean, it could not be clearer that there are these exceptions. And again, you can go back and listen. I literally go line by line through the Georgia law in the case of Amber Thurman, and you can hear me say, except in the case of, you know, where the life's mother is in danger. And then further, a lot of these laws have things where they give the medical practitioners room to make these judgment calls.
[00:12:14] And so I'm afraid that, again, because it's abortion, that people are allowing their bias, their, you know, their feelings about these laws to cloud their judgment, and it's costing women their lives. It's costing women care that they should be receiving. And so I've had an issue with democratic ticket using these talking points, you know, from the beginning. It's very troubling to me because as they say this, as they say these things, they're planting these seeds into women's heads that if I'm having a miscarriage and I live in one of these states, I can't go get care. Yes, you can. You absolutely can, and you should. And if a doctor is not giving you care, then you can call us at the center for client safety, and we will help hold them accountable. And Vance's response was interesting because I know that the pro life movement as a whole was probably pretty upset about it, because it does show that wavering on the issue that a lot of people have had issue with.
[00:13:22] They came out both as being very pro life, being fully against abortion, and now their position has changed. You know, it's caused a lot of turmoil. I know among people that I work with. However, I did find Vance's response interesting because he's not wrong. I'll say that I think they are reading the overall mood. They're reading the reaction, you know, after Roe versus Wade was overturned. Abortion is not a winning subject with moderates. And you know, what they consider the movable middle and independence because they just had this big win on the federal level. It's gone back to the states, and we've seen it over and over and over again. Ohio lost their ballot initiative. Kentucky, Kansas, I mean, every single ballot initiative, when the people have voted, it has landed on the pro abortion side, on the abortion advocate side. And that's really telling.
[00:14:29] And it's the pendulum swinging, right? So we just had this big pro life victory, and so the pendulum's gonna swing back the other direction while the dust settles a little bit. And so what I think happened is they calculated that and they said, if we're gonna, if we are gonna win, we have to get a significant amount of the middle. And abortion is not a winning subject with them right now. And so my personal opinion is that they made a calculated decision to say, we're gonna back off on this and we're gonna say, leave it to the states.
[00:15:08] No, I can't speak to intention. I can't, you know, whether this is an honest, you know, Vance said we need to win back the trust of the american people. That is true. Now, do they genuinely believe that, or are they doing this for political gain? I don't know.
[00:15:27] But I do find it really interesting that that's the stance that he's taking officially, because I do think it's correct. I think that a lot of people are really scared. They're really confused.
[00:15:42] All of these stories are surfacing about the complications in post row America, and they're making this calculated decision to say, this is not a winning subject for us. We need to back off. And I think he is right in saying, yes, Republicans, you do need to win back the trust of women and people on this subject because, yes, you have not done a good job. I've always really struggled with the lack of social support for social services.
[00:16:16] Paid maternity, paternity leave, paid family leave.
[00:16:21] You know, if we are going to be truly a pro life nation, we have to put those social structures into place for more affordable childcare. Our culture is not conducive to families because it's too expensive for only one person to work. Childcare is outrageous.
[00:16:42] This is not a culture that you go over to some european nations and childcare is free and Canada gets an entire year of paid family leave. They've made it easier to have children. And, and so they're, you know, the Republicans have been called out a lot for the hypocrisy of insisting children be born and then, and then a lot of people feeling abandoned afterwards because they don't support the social services necessary to support these families. Like, that is a, that is a criticism that has been around for decades. Right. And so I don't think Vance is wrong in that, yes, Republicans do need to earn the trust of people again. Has he actually changed his pro life view? I don't know. I don't know. I can't speak to that. And it was interesting to see, too. I will say waltz got visibly upset. And I can understand. I mean, he seemed a little more shaken on the subject, especially on this section, because he was talking about, again, going back to those cases of Amber Thurman, which if you want to talk about the Amber Thurman case, I have an entire podcast just dedicated to that.
[00:17:58] But he said she had to go to North Carolina to receive, you know, legal abortion pills, because in Georgia, you cannot. Well, the law just changed. A judge struck down their heartbeat law, and now it's up to 20 weeks again. But at the time, you could not have abortion after cardiac activity, except for in the cases of rapid incest and also life of the mother. So Amber travels to North Carolina, receives abortion pills, and comes home and has complications. But he misspoke and said that she died while traveling.
[00:18:34] That is not true. I'm not really sure if he just conflated some of his stories, but she did nothing. She did not die while traveling back from North Carolina.
[00:18:48] She went to the hospital in Georgia and did not receive care, life saving care, for an incomplete abortion and had suffered from sepsis and passed away. And again, in that case, the doctor absolutely should have saved her life. They should have done the d and C. The law clearly carves out the exception for that. And so, again, waltz is relying on talking points that have been widely refuted and disproven. They do go back and forth a little bit on, you know, did Vance support a federal ban? Did he not? You know, he keeps going back to the referendums, back to the states. Back to the states. That that seems to be his talking point. Vance didn't really make many claims up until here at the very end, where we actually need to, like, fact check.
[00:19:45] His talking points were pretty much just, it just needs to go back to the states, which that's not something I can fact check.
[00:19:54] But at the end, he does bring up the Minnesota law that Governor Walts signed, that I did refer to in the presidential debate podcast as well. So the way the law was written, actually, let me pull this up. I will read it for, I will read it word for word.
[00:20:16] So this is actually the example that I brought up in my, in the previous episode about Trump's assertions that, you know, the Democrats supported the execution of a child after it's born during a bot's deportion.
[00:20:35] What they are referring to is the consistent pushback from Democrats and the abortion lobby to make life saving care required if a child is accidentally born during an abortion procedure, like born alive during an abortion procedure. The example I gave, a Minnesota law that has been on the book since 1976 required I responsible medical practice, quote, responsible medical practice to you. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.
[00:21:16] That is what the law said. Governor Walts signed into law new legislation that took out the word preserve and replace the previous wording with to care for an infant who was born alive. JD Vance says he refers to a Minnesota law statute, and he says a doctor who presides over an abortion when the baby survives. The doctor is under no obligation to provide life saving care to a baby who survives a botched late term abortion. To which Walt responds, that is not what the law is.
[00:21:57] And they kind of go back and forth, and waltz keeps saying, that's not what the law says. And even says toward the end, you're trying to distort the way the law is written to make a point.
[00:22:10] So, again, previously in this situation, the responsible medical personnel in these situations, it required them to use all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant. Takes out the word preserves and says to care for the infant who was born alive. So waltz is correct in saying, that's not what Vance was saying, is not technically what the law says.
[00:22:47] However, Vance is also correct in pointing out that the law no longer requires the medical personnel responsible to preserve the life and health of the born live infant just to care for the infant.
[00:23:11] The removal of the word preserve implies that it's not life saving.
[00:23:20] I know that's a lot, so digest that for a minute.
[00:23:24] What Vance says is that the doctor is under no obligation to provide life saving care to a baby who survives a botched late term abortion. That's technically true.
[00:23:37] The key is life saving care, because under the new law, he just has to provide care, which what is care?
[00:23:48] Could just be comfort, palliative.
[00:23:51] There are no, he's not preserving the life, which is what the previous law said.
[00:23:58] So that was the only time that I really saw Vance use a talking point where they're, you know, the technicalities get a little squishy, but technically, he's not wrong. Now, is it a little misleading?
[00:24:18] A little bit. And I don't think Waltz was wrong in saying, hey, you're distorting the way the law is written. Yes, but the heart of it is actually true that they did remove the life saving peace.
[00:24:33] But coming away from this debate felt very different than the other one, in the sense that Waltz was really the only one using talking points that I found inconsistent with my experience in this field.
[00:24:55] Vance didn't really give me much to analyze because of his avoidance of the subject and his insistence that it go back to the states.
[00:25:07] And the one thing he did say, while it is technically true, was maybe a little distorted to prove a point.
[00:25:17] However, Waltz and Harris are still using talking points that I find extremely problematic and dangerous because people are going to hear that and women might not seek care because they believe that they might will not get it.
[00:25:40] And again, I'm saying that as somebody who leans more towards their party, you know, I'm not saying that with an agenda. This has been my firsthand experience in researching and investigating these cases and working with state medical boards and health departments.
[00:26:09] Women should not be dying, period.
[00:26:13] And I appreciated both of them having a moment of humanity and acknowledging that when they were talking about Amber Thurman's case, you could tell that they were both very disturbed by the fact that she passed away.
[00:26:32] This misunderstanding, these hyperbolic talking points by the, you know, by abortion advocates, is perpetuating a really dangerous, dangerous messages that women believe they are not going to get care. And like I said, if you know someone who did not get care, please call us.
[00:26:56] We would be happy to advocate for them and hold these doctors responsible or even help educate. We've had cases where we have just educated the regulators on what the law says, and they're like, oh, thank you so much. This was very helpful. And we're like, you're welcome. You know, sometimes they just don't understand. And we are happy to educate on this subject as a bipartisan, non religious, like, we are just a nonprofit. And all we do is ensure the same health and safety standards that are applied to the rest of the medical world. The rest of the health world medical industry is applied fairly to the abortion, to abortion clinics and the abortionist so that women are not harmed. I hope that was helpful. Again, I'm sorry, this is not quite as succinct as some of my other content, but I wanted to make sure I got something out because so many people were asking for it. And, you know, I just want to continue to be that voice of reason, that voice of nuance, and just provide a place where we just go back to the books and look at what the facts say and we take that into consideration when we are making decisions about who are we going to support and what we think about really controversial issues in order to keep doing this. I would love to keep doing this. If you are interested in the work of center for Client Safety, if you're interested in supporting this podcast, you can go to centerforclientsafety.org and hit the donate button to be able to keep doing this. We need support. We need people who want this voice because most supporters are giving to the extreme side. So there's not really a big, you know, support group that's jumping up going, we want the nuanced perspective. It's not a great fundraising strategy, I will tell you that. So if this is important to you, please consider supporting the center for Client Safety and the work that we do. We want to be bridge builders. We want to be an empathetic voice, and we want to find ways to unite people on a very divisive subject. So that's it for tonight. We are still on a regular schedule of dropping every other Friday. We've got a new episode coming out tomorrow, today. Whenever this drops, it's going to be soon. And then some more content coming up about how to navigate the election season with maybe some family members who are, have different perspectives than you or even how abortion and religion, how the subjects of abortion and religion intersect, which was a very fascinating conversation as well. See you next time.
