I've often joked that the most liberal publication in the United States of America is not, you know, the New York Times, not the Washington Post. It's actually the New England Journal of Medicine. And it's symptomatic. And indeed that is true my whole life growing up, both my parents being doctors, we always there was always a copy of
New England Journal of Medicine hanging around the house. And my mom still gets it and reviews it very thoroughly, and you know, it is important for them to kind of keep up with what was going on in trends in medicine and scholarship and things like that, and it's one of the most important medical journals in the country.
But boy howdy, any time the New England Journal of Medicine straight into anything that had anything to do with questions of social or cultural import they would always reliably come out on the most left wing side of the issue possible, or even if they didn't necessarily like I don't think the New England Journal of Medicine was like totally like pro physician assisted suicide, for example, but they certainly would publish op eds from people who were Now
this is symptomatic of a really bad, larger problem within the practice of medicine, which is the complete capture of medical academia by the left. In spite of the fact that I don't know that actual doctors, actual healthcare practitioners, are actually that much more liberal, that much more socially liberal.
Than your average profession is. You know, I don't know.
I think if you pulled doctors, I don't know that they would be that much more inclined to vote for Democrats rather than Republicans than maybe even the general population. In spite of the fact that I don't know that doctors in general are that left leaning. Certainly, all of the major professional association or many of the major professional associations of doctors are extremely left wing.
A COG.
For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is super duper left wing and super duper pro abortion and all kind all kinds of bad things. So I stumbled across this a new lexicon for talking about and speaking about.
First trimester pregnancy.
And this was published by the Society for Radiologists in Ultrasound, and it was pushed out by the Journal of Radiologists called Radiology. It was indorsed. This lexicon was endorsed by a large number of other professional associations including I believe ACOG.
Was also supportive of this, including ACOG.
And what this is is basically, it's guidelines for radiologists and scenographers.
About how to talk about.
Various kinds of issues within first trimester pregnancy. And obviously this is an effort. If this is something that's endorsed by a COG, this is going to be something that's going to impact impact not just how sonographers talk, how radiologists talk, but probably how obstetricians talkcology, how obstetricians talk. This is going to impact the provision of early pregnancy care.
The piece was published in the journal so that this new lexicon, basically new terminology that's going to be used surrounding first trimester pregnancy was published in the journal Radiology. Here are the highlights slash low lights of what this is doing, and you'll see how this is impacting the abortion debates, but also how cultural liberalism is impacting what we have consistently thought of as the sort of a
political value neutral field of medicine. How medicine is being and we've we've got a glimpse of this during COVID, the way that scientific research and medicine was being so heavily politicized in the service of really day to day
humdrum political arguments. Like I remembered this with regards to vaccines. Okay, all of a sudden, we learned that the COVID vaccine, after the initial you know, the initial pledges were, oh, it's ninety nine percent effective at preventing transmission, then we realize, actually, the COVID vaccine does very little to prevent the transmission of COVID.
That really, all that it does is.
It seems to prevent you from getting like the real kind of extreme and bad outcomes from COVID. But you know, people have had six COVID shots, have gotten COVID four times. It doesn't really do much to prevent you from getting COVID. It just prevents it from being you know, incredibly aggressive
and life threatening. So one of the things we then saw were different kinds of dictionaries online resources that redefined, all of a sudden, the word vaccine to means, to change the word from a kind of intervention designed to inoculate to something more like a kind of intervention to
reduce the severity of a disease. And there were real serious, reputable dictionaries that were changing the definition of words, and not just any words, but scientific and medical words, changing their definitions at the service of a day to day, humdrum political dispute, which I think demonstrated to so many people that the practice of medicine is in various respects or in various quarters, or certainly at the level of the kinds of things that the federal government was funding
for research purposes under Anthony Fauci, under Francis Collins, that this wasn't a value neutral pursuit of truth, a value neutral desire to heal, but that there were political things getting mixed in with all this. A similar thing is happening right now with radiology, sonographers, ultrascenographers, and with obstetricians
and gynecologists with how they talk about the embryo. I want to dig into this later on Right to Life Radio, but I just saw this and I think it's fascinatingly terrifying. Here are some of the key results of this new lexicon that these professional associations of radiologists are trying to promote for healthcare practitioners. Looking at first trimester pregnancy first, getting rid of any indication that there is heartbeat early
on in pregnancy within the first trimester. Cardiac activity is now the new word to replace words like heartbeat or heart motion. Why why is this happening? Well, basically, it appears to be quite plain that these societies of professional radiologists, in spite of talking about fetal or you know, fetal heartbeat as starting at six weeks, everyone talked about heartbeat and that heartbeat happens about six weeks into pregnancy from the last menstrual period. At about the six week point
in pregnancy, you can detect fetal heartbeat. Well, what happened? A bunch of states Florida, Georgia several others passed state laws to outlaw abortion once fetal heartbeat can be detected. Pro lifers were saying that you can detect a heartbeat at six weeks. The mealy mouthed response from the left that this idea only emerges.
After this political controversy arises to.
Say, well, it's not really a heartbeat because the four chambers of the heart aren't completely formed. It's more like cardiac activity. We were calling this heartbeat for forever, but now all of a sudden because there is a successful political effort on the pro life side to say, look, one of the things that we always think of as
characteristic of human life is a heartbeat. If your heart stops beating, your dead now, I would say a human organism pre development of any cardiac activity, I would say, is also a living human organism.
Still, but basically, what these pro life states said was, look, if there's a detectable heartbeat.
We're not doing any abortions.
These professional societies of radiologists, along with ACAG want to eliminate any mention that. They don't want to say the word heartbeat. Why because they're so left wing that and so insistent on legal abortion that they basically are just trying to change the whole terminology, the whole lingo utilized in the practice of medicine, just to undercut a couple of state laws that have been passed Florida, Georgia and a few others.
This is insane.
It's cardiac muscles rhythmically moving. We've called that heartbeat for it's cardiac tissue rhythmically moving, beginning the process of pumping blood, pumping blood, nutrients, oxygen, et cetera. Through the organism that's called heartbeat. We've called that heartbeat for forever. Ultrascenographers from Sea to Shining Sea. They get a pregnant lady in there, they do an initial ultrasound.
Oh, we can detect heart beat. It's c really enough, we can detect heart beat. Oh no, do you do? You then have like mister Well, actually pop.
Into the into the room where the where the lady's getting her ultrasound. Her husband's there, he's got the jelly stuff on her belly doing the ultrasound.
Oh, there's fetal heartbeat.
Actually it's not the four chambers, the four ventricles the heart have not completely developed.
This is more.
Cardiac rhythmic activity, not heartbeat. They're going to change the whole lingo here purely because Republicans were able to pass a couple of bills in like four states. This is insane. When we return, there's more.
We're not going to.
Refer to first trimester, first trimester embryos or fetuses. We're not going to refer to first trimester embryos as living.
We'll dig into that next on the John Girardi Show.
Medical associations, which are completely dominated by the left, are trying to change the language. You change the language, you change what people believe surrounding first trimester pregnancies. Is a new piece, a lexicon of terminology that was published in the journal Radiology and is supported by a cog about
how to talk about first trimester pregnancy. First, we're gonna this new way of talking about first trimester pregnancy includes not referring to any kind of cardiac activity as heartbeat. Why not because it's not true, Not because it's not accurate. It's cardiac muscle, it's beating heartbeat, Not because it's not true, but basically because Republicans in pro life states have passed state laws to limit abortion after field heartbeat can be detected.
Here's other stuff that these professional associations are trying to change, as far as our language not refra ring to the embryo in the first trimester as a live, living, well, let's stop there. Not wanting to refer to the embryo as a live or living now this is even more insane. Here's what they have to say. The terms live, living, and viable have been used frequently to refer to any pregnancy with cardiac activity. We recommend against the use of
all these terms in the first trimester. Live and living are best avoided because these terms may be appropriated by people outside of the field of medicine to support political rhetoric and pros descriptive legislation. In addition, these terms may raise unrealistic expectations for patients facing potential pregnancy loss or EPs. Okay,
let let's let's go here. They don't want to refer to a human organism in the first trimester as living because pro lifers might then want to protect that human organism. It's not because it is inaccurate. Clearly, the embryo in the womb is alive. And by the way, don't don't start with any okay, the definition of biological life. Okay, that applies to things like amiebas and single celled organisms.
All right, the human organism from the minute you have egg sperm fusion, the egg and the sperm meat and form a new cell called a zygote, that is the first cell of you. That is when your life as a distinct individual human organism with your DNA, your composition of chromosomes. That is when your life as a new,
unique organism begins. If you want to make arguments about all your life is only valuable after heartbeat, or only valuable after brain active brain activity can be detected, or only valuable after you're born, or Okay, whatever your biological life began there that is not in dispute. That is biological fact. You can look it up in a biology textbook. That is, when your life as a single individual organism begins. The unborn, the the embryo, which is the early development
human for the first six weeks of pregnancy. The fetus, which is six weeks of pregnancy onward during pregnancy is living. It is a living biological organism, unquestionably, undeniably. That is true every bit as much as a single cell organism is a living organism and amiba is a living organism, a mushroom is a living organism, a plant is a living organism.
A squirrel is a living organism.
So is.
An embryo or a fetus. It is clearly living. These professional associations of.
A COG, the American College of Obstricians Gynecologists sonographers, are trying to push the idea that doctors should not call the first trimester unborn human living. Why because pro lifers might use that to push pro life legislation.
This is insane. Let me let me give you. Let me tell you a couple of treat things. As they said on the Sopranos.
If you don't tell a woman that her embryo is living before she has an abortion, I think that is definitionally not informed consent. Of course, by the way, for a woman who wants to keep the baby, what are you gonna say to her? Clearly, for an embryo or or a fetus who's beyond the point where cardiac activity, heartbeat has begun, the absence of heartbeat is the single biggest indicator that a miscarriage has happened. How are you
going to talk about this? If you can't use the terminology of alive or not alive, it's not going to make sense. Well, you've experienced pregnancy, lass so the baby's dead. Well it was never a live per se. What are you talking about that? That's not reality Biologically, this is a living organism. You're just gonna say it's not alive. And they're explicit about it. They're explicitly saying in this piece, I just read it to you for obatim. They don't
want to call it alive. Terms like live and living are best avoided because these terms may be appropriated by people outside of the field of medicine.
Ding Ding ding Ding, like John.
Girardi to support political rhetoric and prescriptive legislation. I mean, that's they're totally explicit about it. They are totally explicit about the idea that pro life people calling on born children alive is bad because it might lead people to conclude that these gosh darn embryos are like valuable or something. So for that reason, we're gonna we're gonna call black white, We're gonna call a living organ We're not gonna admit that this living organism is living. I mean, it's unbelievable.
They're also getting rid of the term viability, which frankly I am I am wondering why that is happening. I think it's in part to get them to a point where they can do later in later term abortions. There are some restrictions on abortion's post viability, some restrictions not very strong, ones that exist in fact entirely flimsy ones that exist in California. I think they want to get
rid of that distinction completely. But this is this is what we are up against, the left wing control of so many professions, which came about because of the left wing domination of academia. And you know what, the last thing I'll conclude here with this piece, it just erases the existence of pro life doctors. You know how many doctors out there don't like abortion, don't want to do abortions, think abortion is morally wrong. There are millions of them.
As I said, I don't know that doctors are that much more liberal than many other professions in society. There are certainly millions of doctors, healthcare practitioners throughout the country who don't like abortion at all. And just to act as though there's no debate here, that the op for a professional association of physicians to act as though the abortion question is a completely set debate for one side.
Is complete. It's nonsense.
It's just erasing millions of healthcare practitioners who don't want to do this.
You can read about it.
I've tweeted about it at my Twitter account Twitter dot com slash presdo Johnny at Fresno Johnny when we return giving people one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for home buying assistance and opening this up to illegal aliens.
That is next on the John Girardi Show.
I'm not exactly sure what the liberal position is on illegal immigration at this point. Kamala Harris seems to be tacking hard to the right, and she seems to be following the polling. The polling which indicates that Americans were highly dissatisfied with President Biden's performance on immigration, that they want more restrictive immigration measures, that there's more American support for deportation.
Measures than there ever have been.
And all of a sudden, Kamala Hayres is coming out, Oh she's immigration crackdown cowgirl. That you know that the first three years of the Biden administration letting in millions of undocumented people with almost no vetting oopsies, and the relatively more stable last six months after Biden issued an executive order that he could have issued on day one, or he could have just maintained the Trump policies which
were keeping illegal immigration at fairly low levels. That that is that, Oh, yes, you should thank us for getting immigration under control after we made immigration get out of control. I heard someone that's the kind of thing I heard someone criticize Kennedy for that John Kennedy gets a lot of credit for getting America out of the Bay of Pigs disaster and not a lot of blame for getting
us into the Bay of Piggs disaster. It seems it seems like it's kind of this weird thing where it's like, Oh, we give you credit for getting us out of this mess you created. So I'm really kind of not sure what exactly the Democrat position is on immigration. The Democrat position on immigration, like as recently as like two years ago, was basically to try to give this impression that there there's essentially nothing wrong with it and that any Republicans
screaming about it were just racists. And maybe the California Democratic Party hasn't caught on yet.
And by the way, I don't think you need to be.
Like a huge protectionist some kind of.
You know.
I think there's a lot of space for a more reasonable middle policy of we need to have a much more secure border and rigorous standards, and maybe we can find more reasonable ways for regulating immigration. But America already allows a ton of legal immigration. The idea that America isn't already incredibly generous with its legal immigration policies I
think is ridiculous. Now there's a piece in GV wire reporting on a state, a piece of state legislation here in California, where I think California Democrats haven't caught up with Kamala Harris's sort of newfound border crackdownism to such an extent that I even saw some story that Harris softly supporting building fencing.
Or wall, building the border wall, or something like that.
Anyway, So here's a story in California, though, where California's legislature seems to continue with the mindset of there is literally nothing wrong with illegal immigration. There's literally no and almost to the point of saying, there is no way, shape or form that we in California are going to do anything to penalize anyone who is here unlawfully.
You can get medical, you can get this, you can get that.
We're not going to have ICE cooperate, We're not going to have state officials cooperate with ICE, et cetera, et cetera. Here's a story about a bill that the California State Senate voted for on Tuesday to allow illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants, whatever you want to call it. People who are not in the country legally eligible for up to one hundred and fifty thousand in down payment aid to buy a home. And I want to get into this because I think it's so it's kind of a ridiculous story from a
number of ankles. A bill from a SEMIBLY member Joaquin Arambula Fresno Zone would expand California's down payment and assistance program for first time home buyers, regardless of immigration status. At least one lawmaker says it takes opportunities away from a high demand program. Well, it clearly does, which you'll figure that out as you read the story. Assembly Bill eighteen forty past the California Senate on Tuesday, providing up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in closing cost
and down payment assistance to first time home buyers. Arambula, in a statement, said that home ownership creates financial stability. The social and economic benefits of home ownership should be available to everyone. Arambula said, as such, the California Dream for All program should be available to all again for people who are living in the state illegally. That would seem to me to be precisely the kind of people for whom.
Buying a house.
Setting up a permanent domicile that you live in seems to me like a bad idea. And frankly, it seems to me, I guess I'd be amazed if I were a bank, you know, would I want to give a mortgage to someone who's living here illegally, who legally speaking, could be deported at you know, at the snap of a finger, at the change of a presidential administration. Arambula's
office declined an interview with GV Wire. However, State Senator Janet Wynn, a Republican from Huntington Beach, said in a post on x that making undocumented immigrants eligible for home buyer assistants takes away from others seeking to benefit from the program. Well, no kidding, she says, quote, I spoke out today on this Senate floor against eighteen forty assistance
for first time home buyers. Veterans are beneficiaries of this program, and it will be rating their fund and win said in the post, I will always look out for our veterans in military. Now here's the thing, and I'm a little unclear. I mean, yes, some veterans might happen to be part of this program. I'm not sure that it
was a program exclusively for them. But here's the ridiculous thing about this, all right, So this program existed last year, this program for California state funded assistance for first time home buyers up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in assistance with your down payment and your closing costs. That's a crapload of money. So this program existed in
twenty twenty three. This bill from Joaquin Arambula would add undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens, people who are not legally supposed to be here to the pool of people who'd be eligible to get this one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. But the thing is, there are already too many people applying for too few you know, allocations of money within this program. The fund was completely exhausted last year in
twenty twenty three. The story continues. In twenty twenty three, California set aside three hundred million dollars in the California Dream for All program. The funds were exhausted within eleven days as two thousand, one hundred and eighty two applicants received help. According to Senator Tony Atkins's Office. The California Housing Finance Agency called the program dramatically oversubscribed in its report. Okay,
so let's let's do the picture here. Had we had the program last year, it was three hundred million dollars allocated to help people first time home buyers with up to one hundred and fifty thousand in downpayment and closing cost assistance. The funds were exhausted within eleven days. Twenty one hundred people got it. So here's this program for which there is way more demand than there are available funds.
It's very few people are going to be able to get this benefit, and it just happens, you know, whoever happens to be first in line. I guess so, Joaquin arambuellill want first of all, why would you want to add anyone to the pool of who's eligible? I mean, clearly, right now, the people who are eligible for this, it's not going to be discriminating on the basis of race, sex, whatever,
or any illegal categora under California law. Why would you add unlawful people who are in the country illegally to this. It doesn't make any sense unless you're gonna allocate you know, six hundred million more dollars to this program. It doesn't make any sense. You're necessarily going to be shoving out actual citizens of the United States or even actual legal you know, legal resident aliens, people who are not yet American citizens but are in fact living in the country legally.
You're going to be shoving all of them out of the way in favor of people who are not legally living in the country.
Why.
And also this is you know, let's talk about this. California has tons of problems with housing affordability. The only solution that the state legislature can possibly think of, because to actually address the problem of housing affordable ability would require some solutions that liberals refuse to do. Eliminating certain California environmental laws that make buying homes extremely extremely extremely expensive, getting rid of SEQUA, giving people more latitude to build
in more places. There are all these California laws that make it harder to build, which California refuses to address. They don't do anything to help there be more supply so that the cost could actually go down.
So what do they do? They just subsidize the demand.
Here's another program for here's another grant of state money for first time home buyers, which of course has an inflationary effect upon the housing market in general and just causes this vicious cycle when home owners know that there's all this free funny money out there for all these different kinds of categories of home buyers, that they can
get a bunch of state assistants. Well, if you know, someone could get like if you know, all the first time home buyers in Callifornia could get let's say, fifty thousand dollars apiece for buying their first new home, why not just jack your price up by fifty thousand. That's the inflationary effect that programs like this tend to have. Why we're doing this program in the first place kind
of baffles me let alone. Then expanding it to illegal aliens, which again I repeat, what bank is going to want to give a mortgage to someone who's living here illegally, who might be giving you, I mean, to continue living in the United States illegally. You often have to lie about various kinds of like give fake social Security number or something like why would a bank want to deal with someone who's living here illegally who could get deported?
I just don't understand the mechanism of how this is even supposed to work, even if you take away any value judgments about the morality or immorality of giving this limited resource to people who are not legally supposed to be here as opposed to actual California citizens or actual American citizens, or or you know, immigrants who are not yet citizens but who are here legally. I just don't even don't even understand why this would work. It's stupid
from like ten different angles. When we return gearing up for college football in the Girardi House next on The John Girardi Show, Thank God, Mercifully, football is coming back.
College football is coming back in a big way. We've got the Bulldogs taking on Michigan on Saturday, my own Notre Dame fighting Irish, getting the season kicked off with Texas A and M A couple of things that are just reminding me of how desperately I've missed football and the ways in which I'm indoctrinating my children.
So I hate Michigan.
I had a couple full of games where Notre Dame played Michigan when I was in law school, where Notre Dame lost in very dramatic fashion, and I believe it was in twenty ten and twenty eleven, where Michigan had this quarterback Denard Robinson who must have thrown for four hundred yards and run for two hundred yards.
I'm exaggerating a bit, but.
Certainly threw for three hundred yards ran for over one hundred yards in both of those games, looked like the Heisman Trophy winner, and then immediately after playing Notre Dame he looked completely ordinary. So I despise Michigan. I have these scars for these games against Michigan. I saw a guy driving around the other day in a F one P fifty jacked up with a big Michigan National Champions bumper sticker on it, and it just filled me with rage.
So I know I'm ready. The other thing, I know, I've indoctrinated.
My kids to be angry at Brian Kelly because he left Notre Dame for LSU and more money. And so my kids are seriously asking me, Daddy, who are we supposed to root for? Because USC is LSU and we don't like either one of them. Who are we supposed to root for? This is how I know I'm a good father. It makes me very proud of my children to understand the grave moral issues that underlie college football.
That'll do it. John Girardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk