Tulare Abortion Clinic Lawsuit

advocacy against abortion. One of the things I've seen is kind of the cheap charity of abortion provision, the way that people say, well, communities of color really need abortion care. That's how they always phrase it. That these communities, these lowering communities, they really need abortion services, and we're denying them abortion services. And these communities really need abortion services.

And what I see so often is actually no, The overwhelming majority of women who have abortions would rather keep

their babies their turnaway. Studies showing it's somewhere from anywhere between sixty and seventy percent of women who have abortions say that the abortion is against their preference, that they felt pressured or constrained into having the abortion, whether by their financial situation, pressure from partner, family, other reasons, or in some cases outright coercion, And what I find so often is that it's disproportionately happening, for example, in California,

it's happening in these communities where there aren't enough obgyns willing to care for lower income people. You have a ton of medical patients, and you have fewer and fewer obgyns willing to take lower income patients. So well, that's part of why I started our Obria Clinic in Fresno, the Obria Medical Clinics of Central California. It's designed to be a nonprofit obgyn clinic that takes lower income patients who are on medical or on actually on a managed

medical plans what we have right now. So so it's two different mindsets. The mindset of the left is like, we can band aid over the far more serious problems of lack of healthcare provision for lower income people with abortion, rather than you know, ensure that women have a doctor that they can see, let's just yeah, let's funnel them into abortion. And I do think that's really what's happening.

Abortion is so facilitated, so subsidized, so much easier than actually having a baby as far as insurance wise, healthcare provision wise, You know, very often these women in South Fresno, especially if they're on a medical plan, you know, they'll call one of the few clinics that is willing to take them and they'll get the answer, well, we're booked solid for four straight months, So your first appointment for this pregnancy that maybe you are already three or four

months into your pregnancy, is four months down the road. Or I can go to Planned Parenthood next week, get a prescription for the abortion pill. Boom, easy peasy. It's enormously easier with by the way, with no copey, no deductible, no out of pucket costs for my abortion. Because of the state of California, which has eliminated all copes and deductibles for abortions, they've given extra medical reimbursement funding for abortions.

That blah blah blah blah blah. It is clearly the state of California facilitates people having abortions far more so than having kids. Now, because the Left has this sort of false sense of charity that they view abortion as care rather than hey, why are you choosing abortion? Maybe it's because you're in a bad financial state. Well, maybe let's help you. You know, what do you need help with? Maybe let's look at social agencies, you know, whether it's

county agencies, city agencies, whether it's charitable agencies. What do you need help with? Do you need food? You need sheltered, do you need help with rent? Do you need help with your PG? Need bill? Do you know, do you need somebody to talk to? Like, that's a lot of

what we do it right to life. When we encounter someone who's considering abortion, is just help them with that kind of thing, give them some kind of game plan, and this gives the person the confidence say yes, I can't have this baby and let's let's go for which is what Again, sixty to seventy percent of these women who have abortions would rather do so it's it's a false charity to say, oh, all these women are seeking abortions, so we need to be sure to provide them with

more and more and more abortion. Now, with that mindset, abortion providers have been hungrily eyeballing to Larry County. So for the longest time, there was no abortion clinic in between Fresno and Bakersfield. There's no abortion clinic in Visalia, no abortion clinic into Larry County. To Larry County up until recently, has been the most populous county in California without an abortion clinic, and this has been the subject

of great frustration and angst for liberals in California. The San Francisco Chronicle did a whole peace on it, and it's an abortion desert, an abortion care desert, because we have to call it care. And there have been numerous efforts over the last three years because I think Planned Parenthood sees a market opportunity, other abortion providers see market opportunity to open an abortion clinic in to Larry County. A couple of attempts were made in the city of

Visalia itself. All of those were beaten back, largely through

private efforts. So I Direct Right to Life of Central California, our sister organization is TOI Larry King's Right to Life, and they've been very successful in mobilizing public opposition to the establishment of local abortion clinics in the city of Icealia and in Tillarry County more broadly, whether that's going to a council meeting or a planning committee meeting to voice their opposition in the zoning process, whether it's going to the private landowner to say, hey, please don't sell

the Planned Parenthood, Please don't lease to this abortion provider that abortion provider. They've done a good job with about two or three different attempts to open Planned Parenthood clinics or abortion clinics to stop it. Well. Another effort has been made in an office complex in the city of Tularry where a Family Planning Associates clinic has now opened up. Family Planning Associates is you know, if Planned Parenthood is Coca Cola, Family Planning Associates is basically our c Cola.

It's a similar chain of abortion providers. Family Planning Associates is. All of their clinics are located in California, and it's much the same kinds of services. There's a Family Planning Associates has a clinic in Fresno, kind of downtown near Community Hospital, so they've opened up a location into Larry.

Now the other doctors in this medical office complex, it's sort of an office complex with a bunch of different private doctor's offices, and they are not happy about an abortion clinic opening up, and they are now engaged in a lawsuit with Family Planning Associates and this is going to be kind of a significant thing for the state of California. So let me kind of lay out some

of the issues that are going on here. One of the big so the central contention of the other doctors from this office complex into Larry, is that they have for their office complex a covenant that sort of governs the kinds of businesses that are allowed to be opened within their office complex. Lots of office complexes have a similar sort of thing. You know, if you've got a professional, you know, set of office suites that have you know, lawyers and doctors and CPAs. You know, they maybe they

don't want a tattoo parlor opening up within their office complex. Okay, maybe they don't want a burger king in their office complex. Of maybe they don't want a pizza parlor. Nothing wrong with a pizza parlor, but they're sort of like, well, no, we want this office complex to be reserved for these kinds of businesses, and that's legitimate to do. So they have a covenant governing that that lists the kinds of businesses that will and will not be allowed to open

up in that complex. And I think it's just restricted to like private doctor's offices. Within that particular complex. Now, it specifically lists in that covenant. It's pretty old document. I think it was from I forget if I think it was from the late eighties early nineties. It specifically lists abortion clinics as a kind of business that they will not allow to have within their complex. They say, no, we're not gonna we're not gonna allow abortion clinics within

our complex. We don't want to have that as one of the tenants within this and the lawsuit centers around that. Now, a little bit of it is kind of a what it depends on what the meaning of is is situation. Family Planning Associates tried to put forward this argument that no, no, no, no, no, we're not an abortion clinic because we're not doing surgical abortions. This very deceptively left out the fact that they are prescribing and dispensing the abortion pill. That's an abortion clinic.

If you're a clinic where people can go to get abortions, you're an abortion clinic. And they're their argument as well. This covenant was written in you know, late eighties, early in nineteen ninety one, before the abortion pill was a thing, so there was no way it could have been foreseen. Well, no, the abortion pill was a thing in Europe at the time, and a lot of people were you could see the

possibility that it could come to the United States. The idea that it was an unknown thing seems completely silly. So the argument is stemming. The lawsuit is steming around a couple of different things. And I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to take a break here and then in the next segment I'm going to talk about this. Basically, it's going to center around this.

Do we treat abortion provision like do we treat discrimination against abortion providers as being the same thing effectively as discriminating against someone on the basis of race. We'll talk about that in the next segment. This is the John Girardi Show on Power Talk. There's a lawsuit happening in to Larry County. An abortion clinic is trying to open in a private doctor's sort of a office complex. The other doctors within the office complex are suing to stop

the abortion provider from opening. The doctors say, hey, we have a covenant governing this office complex. It says no abortion clinics are allowed to open up. The response from the abortion clinics is something that could be really significant for California law, and it's a strain of stuff that liberals are trying to incorporate and have succeeded in incorporating in many aspects of California law. Which is this trying to treat decisions around abortion as if it's a protected

category on the level of race and sex. So let me explain. Let's take the example of this. You know, this office complex. This is an office complex, intularry. It's all different private doctors, offices, doctors, dentists, et cetera. They have a covenant that says, you know, there are various kinds of businesses that we don't want to have within our office complex. We just want to restrict it to private doctor's offices. We also, we don't want an abortion

clinic in this complex. That was in there the covenant sort of governing what businesses can be in this office complex. We don't want a burger king. We don't want a pizza parlor. You know, we don't want you know, I don't know. We don't want a skateboard shop. We don't want a marijuana dispensary. These are the kinds of things we want within this office complex. We don't want a liquor store. We only want private doctor's offices, and we

also don't want abortion clinics. Plenty of office complexes all around the state and the country have that. Now, let's suppose that those doctors with their office complex had a provision in that covenant that governs the kinds of businesses that can be there. Let's suppose they had a provision in that covenant that said, we are not going to allow in our office complex any African American owned businesses. If they said that that provision in their covenant that's

governing their office complex, that would be illegal, unenforceable. Okay, Why well, it's discriminating on the basis of race. If an African American doctor, who otherwise totally was in compliance with the terms of the covenant, an African American, you know, let's say an African American dentist wanted to set up shop within the office complex and a prior owner wanted to sell his spot to this guy, and they had a dispute over it. The African American doctor would win.

Why well, provisions in a contract like that are just not enforceable. They violate the rights that they basically violate many provisions of the Civil Rights Acts, and probably there's a California version of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits business discrimination on the basis of race. We've determined in this country that many kinds of discrimination are fine. Many kinds of reasonable discrimination are totally fine. Discrimination that has

as a valid end purpose to it. One of the great examples of business discrimination that you're one hundred percent for you to engage in is no shoes, no shirt, no service. That is a form of business discrimination. That is a form of discrimination that is legally permitted in

this country. Not all discrimination is bad, but in America, through the Civil Rights Acts, through our application of the Equal Protection Clause, and various of the fourteen Amendment, in various different ways, we have come to determine that certain forms of discrimination are wrong, and we have legally prohibited them. A supermarket saying we're not going to serve black patrons

is wrong. There's nothing different about a black patron versus a white patron other than the pigments of their skin. There's nothing inherent about them that is different. And to cut off access to a basic service like groceries to a whole segment of the population purely on the basis of the pigment of their skin is irrational, and we've

made it illegal. What this abortion clinic that's trying to open up into Larry is basically trying to argue is that their status as an abortion provider is as important a category as being black. It's something that is as deserving of legal protection as being black. Now, I think this is deeply offensive to the entire history and legacy of the civil rights movement in this country, many of

whose leaders were at the time. Pro life reads old quotes from Jesse Jackson back before he was trying to become, you know, a Democratic Party powerbroker. He has some of the most compelling pro life speeches you've ever read in your life. Yeah, that Jesse Jackson, the lover Jackson has Rush used to call him all the time. Yeah, he was super pro life early in his career, before he wanted to be running for president as a Democrat and had to embrace sort of the panoply of liberal beliefs.

And it also sort of goes to this, like the idea that this is a constant thing with abortion, that some people refer to this as the abortion distortion. So, on the one hand, we are led to believe that abortion is it's just a medical procedure. It's just a medical procedure like any other, and that there are no moral stakes attached to it anymore so than getting your

appendix removed. Okay, it's just a question of a woman being able to exercise autonomy over her body by having this legitimate medical procedure to deal with a problem she's having. Let's note that ninety nine percent of the time it's not a medical problem she's having, it's a social problem. But anyway, regardless, if it's just a healthcare procedure, why does it require this level of civil rights esque protection, Because this is in the only arena where liberals are

trying to make this argument. They're in this specific case into Larry County. They're trying to argue this office complex into Larry that doesn't want a family planning associate's abortion clinic to open up within its office complex. The provision in their covenant that says no abortion clinics allowed is as unreasonable and should be as unenforceable as a provision saying no black owned business is allowed. That's what they're

trying to argue. But what if a complex like that said, you know, we don't want a dialysis center, or you know, we don't want a quest like a lab center within our office complex. You know, we just want to restrict or even just something like, hey, no dentists, just MD's offices. No dentists, just mds and d o's. If they had a provision that said no dental offices, it would be a little weird, but no one would be saying this is violating the civil liberties rights of the dentist community.

These men, like the Seinfeld episode, these men are raging anti dentites. Oh it starts with a little joke here and there. Anyway, No, no one would care if an office complex said no, we're not going to have a dentist on the premises. Everyone be like, all right, well that's weird, I guess, but whatever, and move on. It wouldn't be some illegal form of discrimination and just say, hey, dentists, go find some other office to set up shopping. Sorry,

but for some reason. With abortion providers, no no, no, no no, then we have to move heaven and earth. With abortion providers, it's like if you don't host an abortion clinic on your premises. It's a civil rights violation. In fact, one of the arguments it seems to be made is if you don't host an abortion clinic on your premises, that is a form of just flat out discriminating against women. It would be like having a covenant within your office complex that says we're not going to

allow any female owned offices within our complex. No female doctors are allowed to set up shop here, you know, put up their shingle. So this lawsuit could have a fairly significant impact on California law. It could have a significant impact on the ability of private business owners who have office complexes, you know, the collections of doctors who run an office complex, of businesses that run an office complex,

landowners who own say a strip mall or something. This case could have a significant impact on their ability just to say, hey, I don't want an abortion clinic here. I just don't. Is that going to be viewed by the state as something that's equivalent to I don't want a black owned business. I think that's totally legitimate for the for state law to regulate the ability of a

business to just engage in flat out racial discrimination. I think that's wrong I think that's an unreasonable form of discrimination that has massive harmful impacts on a segment of the population for no good reason. But for this elective procedure percent of the time, that's what abortion is. For

this elective procedure. The idea of saying no, no, no, the decision of a doctor to be an abortion provider or in California, a nurse practitioner or a PA, because PAS and nurse practitioners can do abortions in California can do surgical abortions in California. That that is as something that deserves as much protection under law as the color of your skin should not be a basis on which someone can engage in discrimination against you. That is the

level that they're trying to take it. So will you'll have the full report on this topic next week. We'll be covering it on John Girardi Show. We'll be covering it on Right to Life Radio when we return. When we return, a very sad story about a pornographic actress and what it means for the ethics of consent in sexuality next on the John Girardi Show. All Right, this next topic is a adult topic. If you have kids

in the car. Let's do some earmuffs here, you know, change the channel to you know, change it over to another iHeart station. Let's go to go to the soft rock station, to go to Fox Sports thirteen forty, you know, change it over all, right, let's keep listening to iHeart. There you go. But this is sort of a serious topic, kind of an adult topic, and it has to do with a lot of thoughts I've had about broader cultural

ideas about sex and marriage. There's a YouTube film that's been released entitled I Slept With one Hundred Men in One Day. It is not, unfortunately, a drama. It is shot as a documentary, so that thing that is in the title actually happened. Lily Phillips a woman who had sex with one hundred and one men in a single day in October. This YouTube documentary has gained some notoriety, and this woman genuinely had sexual had sexual relations with one hundred people in the course of a single day.

Some of the video clips of this that not of actual basically of her being interviewed after the fact, are terrifying to me. Just her appearance, how she's talking about it, sort of the obvious instability, just the kind of crazy. Just look in her eyes and my heart just breaks seeing this, how this young woman, this is just clearly

something that is deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply disturbing. And it's kind of the logical end game of the bizarre way in which sexual ethics have been warped since the time of the sexual Revolution, and sort of the lowest common denominator ethics that we have in the West, in this sort of post Christian West. So what what is the lowest common denominator ethics that we have left in the West. What is the kind of sexual ethic that is dominant?

Basically the dominant sexual ethic in the West, the liberalizing sexual ethic that we have now just inherited from the sexual Revolution is that any condemnation of a sex act is wrong outside of non consensual sex. As long as sex is consensual, have at it. Consent is the only ethical touchstone, the only ethical guideline governing sex. Nothing about commitment, nothing about marriage, nothing about children. The only thing of concern is consent. Nothing about having sex with someone of

the same sex, opposite sex, multiple partners, whatever. As long as people are free and willing consensual partners, sex is fine and I think it seems like it takes a stunt like this to make people start to question their assumptions. So let me talk about this for a bit. Obviously, consent is an essential, it's a necessary part of the calculations of sex. My contention is that it is not

sufficient necessary, not sufficient. Okay. This is not me saying, oh, well, I think, you know, husbands should be allowed to rape their Why this is not some backwards caricature of Christianity, Like, no, no, anyone who's trying to, you know, pigeonhole me as like, oh, it's a right radical, right wing nutjob thinks it's okay for husbands to rape their wife. No, absolutely not. Okay, consent is a necessary condition of an ethical sexual life,

but I just don't think it is sufficient. And I think a lot of the problems with viewing sex as just it's just purely about whether the participants are good with it. It's a denial of, I think, the reality of sex. I think we've had a lot of cultural developments since the nineteen fifties that have resulted in people being able to have a completely warped and untrue concept of what sex is. What is sex in its if I will it's natural state. Maybe I'll say it in

its pre contraceptive state. Take someone back to I don't know, eighteen hundred. Let's go back to eighteen hundred. If you were trying to live like you know, I don't know. Take your playboy who sleeps with a lot of women, James Bond or whatever. If you were a guy who is trying to, you know, have sex with one woman a week, you would be driven out of town. You would be tarred and feathered and driven out of town on a rail because you but not only would you,

not only because you're probably violating that you know. I guess maybe we're thinking too much of the eighteen hundreds and sort of the Christian sexual ethic that was dominant at the time. But why was that sexual ethic there? Because you were a public health menace. That's why you would be spreading diseases. You would be impregnating women that you have no way of supporting their kids. Because that's what sex is. Sex is an expression of love and

affection that has consequence to it. It has real weight and consequence to it. By its nature, it is ordered towards something. Yes, not every single person who has sex every single time is going to conceive a child. But that is the purpose, That is that the tellos. The goal towards which sexual activity is ordered is procreation, and you can plaster over that fact all you want, but

that's what it's ordered towards. Why why do you think, by the way, the Planned PARENTI is so big on pushing contraception on its patients, it's because it's a lost leader for them. They know if they push enough contraception on people, they will use it. Human nature being what it is. They know that people will not use it

perfectly with perfect regularity. They won't always put the condom on right, they won't always remember to take their birth control, and even if they do, there is a certain built in failure rate to condoms or birth control. Pregnancies will result that people don't want and people will turn to abortion. Abortion and contraception have exploded in popularity hand in hand

in the West. Why because this contraception gives people this false sense of security that sex is about something else, that sex is actually ordered towards something other than children. If sex is ordered just towards unity with another person or pleasure, if that's the only thing towards which it's ordered. Then that's radically going to change the way you relate

to sex. It has nothing to do with commitment. If no children could ever result, because you're actively stopping that from happening, then commitment kind of becomes out the window. Without commitment, where does love fit in the giving of oneself freely to another person? An exclusive gift of the self of your life That yeah, includes maybe your finances and your property and your work, your life. That's what

love is. Sex and its natural state as something that could result in a life long consequence, Namely, a child begs for love. Sex begs for love. It begs for a man to give his whole life to the woman that he could be impregnating. Thus, marriage is not some artificial construct of oppressive Western Christian patriarchal society. It's something that is natural. It's a natural outgrowth of the nature

of what sex is. It's not something Christianity cooked up. So, because we have this warped vision of sex, we say, well, what makes sex ethical? Then well, it's not commitment, it's not necessarily it's just about if it's just about pleasure,

and that's all it is. And we're going to in our seeking of pleasure, we're going to deny other things like, hey, you know that the kinds of hormones that get released when someone has sex allow them to emotionally bond with the person with whom they've had sex, and that the more people, the more different people you have sex with, the less those hormonal reactions come about. Sex is designed to emotionally bond you with someone. But we reject but we basically say no, we're going to get rid of

that biological reality. Shove that biological reality to the side, and we'll just say no, it's only consent. Consense the only thing, which, ironically enough, as much as liberals, you know, we're try to position themselves as the chief proponents of the me too movement, having consent be the only determiner of sex leads to situations of very questionably consensual sex. You know, all the liberals who promote, oh, sex work is real work, and we shouldn't be shaming prostitutes. That's terrible.

What percentage of people involved in prostitution are in it against their will? A huge percentage, A huge percentage of them are being trafficked. What percentage of prostitutes are would you say mentally well, not on drugs, not with drug habits or alcoholism habits. A very small percentage is sex with a prostitute who is desperately engaged in prostitutions so that she can get drugs? Is that a free and

willing exchange of consensual sex between two persons? Maybe in the most bare bones fashion that yes, she said yes to do this. This documentary takes it to its logical extreme. The mere fact that she had sex with one hundred people is itself the evidence that this person is deeply mentally unwell. And how therefore, how willing was this whole one hundred sexual encounters in one day. When we return,

we'll go to something a little lighter. Thank god, Joe Biden pardons a bunch of people who richly don't deserve pardons next on the John Girardi Show. So President Biden issued this big, sweeping commutation of the prison sentences of about fifteen hundred different quote nonviolent offenders, and a lot of them make no sense. One of them was this judge who was who pled guilty to sending juvenile defendants to two different private for profit prisons in exchange for

two million dollars in kickbacks. The other is this lady who is a compatroller for a small town in Illinois who pulled off the greatest act of municipal fraud in American history, stole like fifty million bucks from a town. Why are we commuting their so because they were non violent? These are bad people, and that won't be the worst pardon Biden's given. That'll do it. John Garlady shows you next time on Power Talk.