 So this is the show where you're gonna be challenged and where no topic is off limits and you're gonna hear perspectives and you're gonna hear opinions that you're not used to, that are not mainstream, that are not part of the traditional left or the traditional right or the traditional anything. This is the Iran book show where we discuss ideas from the perspective of my philosophy, the philosophy of objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, the philosophy of Atlas Shrug, most of you read the book Atlas Shrug. And so I want to take up, we just talked about the nuttiness of the right. So now I want to take up an issue which is part of the nuttiness of the left and a sensitive issue for the blaze listeners, but you know, here we go. So the US Department of Health and Services, Health and Human Services, why we even have such a department, why the government is involved in health and human services at all, don't even get me started, but okay, there's an apartment, US Department of Health and Human Services and they put out a five-year plan just like the Soviets, they put out a five-year strategic plan, this one's for 2018 to 2022. And this new plan unequivocally states that life begins, the human life, human life begins at conception and deserves protection. Human life begins at conception. Now put aside the fact that this contradicts the Supreme Court ruling of Overs' way, put aside that this is biological ignorance, this is just plain not true. And this is fundamentally the placing of religion into government, the bringing forward of a religious idea as fundamental to the future, to the strategic plan of a government entity. Beyond that, the new plan has 40 references, all friendly, all positive, all cooperative, 40 references to faith-based organizations and upholding the rights of faith-based entities. Again, in my view, the clear violation of the separation of church and state, the government has no role in religion, it has no role in faith. What about my secular beliefs? What about my secular preferences? What about my rights as an individual human being who has no faith as the list of the show, regular list of the show, no one, those who were first time about to find out, I'm an atheist, a proud atheist. I don't have rights under the Constitution, that is absurd, that is anti-American. And yet, 40 references to faith-based organizations, the work we're going to do with them, protecting this, protecting that, all from the perspective of religion. This is a clear violation of the American Constitution, but nobody cares. Nobody brings this up. Nobody talks about this. It's okay to violate the Constitution for Republicans if it's in the name of religion. You just elected, what's his name, Judge Moore, to probably be the next senator from Alabama who has explicitly violated the Constitution. And then when told that he was violating the Constitution by the federal court, just ignored the federal court and was deemed in what? I mean, talk about disrespecting America, talk about disrespecting the flag, talk about disrespecting the principles on which this country was founded, Judge Moore is disrespectful of all of those things, and yet he's the nominee for senator of the Republican Party. Again, why I believe it's time to end the Democratic and Republican Party. It's time for a third party that actually understands the American Constitution. Now I want to talk about why, you know, why. And by the way, the Health and Human Services also implies that they're against assisted suicide, also I think a perversion. If you ever write a life, which the Declaration of Independence secures, you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have a right to life, which means you get to decide how to live your life. That also means, has to mean that you have a right to end it. You have a right to decide when your life should be over. It's your life. That's what a right to life means. It's yours. You can't have a right to life if you don't have a right to end it. But not based on the Health and Human Services. They have the phrase in it, conception to natural death, three times in the draft, three times just for emphasis, to make it clear what they believe. Again, the interjection of religion into government, into government policies. But I want to say a little bit about this idea of human life beginning at conception, which I think is just scientifically wrong. Now think about this in a laboratory. Put aside sex, think about it in a laboratory where human eggs are fertilized almost every day for in vitro, in vitro outside of the human body. The human egg is a single living cell and a sperm is a cell. Now this single living cell, it's a cell like a skin cell, like any cell in your body. It's not a human being. It's a cell. It's alive, but it's not human life. Now when it gets fertilized by the sperm, what it becomes is a one cell embryo, not a human being, just a single cell entity. We are not single cell entities. And you know, the egg and the sperm were already alive separately, and now they're together and they're still alive. But again, not human. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time the sperm first binds and enters the egg until the first cell division. And now you have two cells, 48 hours. 48 hours is just one cell. That's not human life. Now these two newly formed cells then have the potential, the potential to give rise to human being only if they can be implanted into uterus and properly nurtured in that uterus. And that there's no, there are no problems. 50%, 50% of normal embryos whether implanted or naturally conceived, 50% of them don't make it. Don't make it. And when they don't make it, that's not death of a human being. That cells that didn't divide enough that didn't, it didn't work. But it's still a clumps of cells. It's not more than that at that point. All it is, all an embryo is, is a collection of stem cells, each of which has the capacity to grow into any part of the percentia or into fetal tissues on organs, but it's not human life. It's not human life. To define it as such for the, for the health and human services is just an attempt to bring religion into its policymaker. It's an attempt to justify restricting certain forms of contraception. I don't understand how you can limit contraception. What kind of, you know, the, what kind of attitude limits the ability to control whether during sex you have children or not. You have, you know, you ultimately get pregnant or not and to restrict abortion. That's the only purpose of this and restricting abortion is, goes against Supreme Court rulings. So look, and, and ultimately this is going to be restrict to the ability to have in vitro fertilization. What happens to, to, you know, IVFs or, or, or that are discarded? Is that, is that murder? Are you destroying human life when you destroy just the cells that have been conceived outside of the human body? Really? Is the after, you know, the day after pill? Is that murder? Really? It's no human life there, guys. All right. You're listening to your own book show where we take on all these issues, nuttiness on the left, nuttiness on the right. And look, well, the nuttiness on the left is, is in, you know, so, so outrageously obvious. I consider the nuttiness on the right as just as dangerous. And I'm sorry, religion has no place in politics. You don't want to use contraception. Don't use contraception. You have every right not to use contraception. But the idea that you can force me not to use contraception is absurd. You want to ignore science and ignore facts and define life, human life is starting at conception. Do it. Don't use in vitro. Don't use contraception. Don't have an abortion. Fine. You don't get a dictate that for me. You don't get to tell me how to live my life. You don't get to tell me what values I should pursue. You don't get to tell me when I'm on the side of science that the clump of cells that is an embryo, certainly in the first three months of pregnancy is a human being and should be treated as a human being. It's not and it shouldn't be. It's a potential, but it's not. So you can have a debate, I think, over abortion in the final trimester, but you cannot have a debate over abortion on the first trimester. There's nothing approximating murder in the abortion in the first trimester. There's nothing about the fetus in the first three months that is human life. It's a potentiality, not an actuality. In that sense, the right is trying to violate my rights and we talked about in a previous show, we talked about religious freedom and it's the same thing. When you write laws that provide those with a religious conscious special rights or maybe freedoms, which they deserve, but you deny those freedoms from somebody who does not share their faith. That is discrimination. That is not the rule of law. That is not equality before the law. That is not the protection of individual rights. That goes against all that. There is no such thing as religious liberty or religious freedom. There is just liberty and freedom. Somebody who does not believe in what you believe in has just the same rights as you do. That's the principle on which this country was founded. That's the principle that conservatives supposedly want to conserve. Well, then do it. Stand up for liberty, freedom without any qualifications and don't try to use government force to dictate other people's morality.