512. Kristan Hawkins & IVF W/Bradley Pierce

Summary

Apologia Radio, Episode 512: Kristan Hawkins & IVF w/Bradley Pierce

Date: February 21, 2025
Host(s): Apologia Radio team (lead host: Luke), with Bradley Pierce (Heritage Defense)

---

Main Theme & Purpose

This hard-hitting, gospel-driven episode provides an in-depth exploration of the current state of abortion abolition bills, exposes rifts within the pro-life movement—especially regarding Kristan Hawkins and Students for Life—and scrutinizes the ethical and legal ramifications of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in light of a recent executive order from President Trump. The discussion intertwines Christian convictions, legal insights, and cultural commentary, aiming to educate and challenge listeners on issues of life, justice, and legislative activism.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Legislative Updates on Abolition Bills

[03:07–09:25]

• Bradley Pierce, of Heritage Defense, provides an update on abolitionist legislative efforts nationwide.
• Texas: 17 co-authors on the most recent bill—“the most ever.” ([06:04])
• Other states: Georgia (21 co-sponsors), North Dakota, Oklahoma (“gone from zero to two” pro-abolition votes in committee), Iowa, Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky, South Carolina.
• Key insight: Persistence is yielding measurable progress—"one vote at a time, one committee at a time" ([07:57]).
• Quote: “This is what progress looks like. This is what winning looks like. And it’s happening all across the country.”—Bradley ([06:53])

2. Mainstream Pro-life Leaders Opposing Abolition Bills

[09:25–17:03]

• Kristan Hawkins (Students for Life) faces backlash for opposing equal protection/abolition bills.
• Discussion over controversial letters signed (or not signed) by pro-life organizations against equal protection (notably in Louisiana and North Dakota), with clarification of public records and her organization’s posture ([14:15–16:38]).
• Online fallout: “Blocking spree” by Hawkins and threats of legal action against critics.
• Quote: “There are people that are in leadership in the pro-life organizations…who use lots of money to not end abortion every year that have perhaps, shall we say, a different goal in mind.”—A ([11:15])

3. Cultural Conflict: Gospel-Centered Legislative Discipleship

[07:10–08:09; 10:27–11:34]

• Triumph in witnessing open proclamation of Christ’s authority within state legislative halls—a mark of true cultural discipleship.
• Memorable moment: Lawmakers openly arguing Christian doctrine and gospel principles in committee meetings.

4. President Trump’s IVF Executive Order

[17:59–20:13; 63:56–66:21]

• The order “speaks positively about IVF in a very kind of blanket way,” directing policy recommendations to facilitate “protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment” within 90 days ([18:55]).
• No immediate legal effect, but immense cultural impact.
• Critique: “It’s hideous…it needs to be spoken to truthfully and prophetically.”—B ([63:56])
• Advice: Engage President Trump respectfully but firmly, urging him to recognize the real-world impacts of IVF and related policy decisions.

5. Biblical, Ethical & Legal Analysis of IVF

[20:13–44:42]

• Sensitivity: Hosts underscore the need for pastoral care and compassion toward couples suffering infertility and children born via IVF.
• “Children created, regardless of the means, are blessings. Every child…is made in the image of God. We’re glad they’re here whatever the means of conception.” —A ([22:02])
• IVF Process Explained ([28:39]):
  • Eggs and sperm collected; fertilization yields many embryos.
  • Embryos are “graded” for viability; less viable embryos are discarded or frozen.
  • Most are lost in the process (estimates: 20–30 die per live birth).
  • “Selective reduction,” i.e., abortion of embryos during multiple implantations.
• Key ethical critique: Standard IVF is inherently destructive to many human lives—“a eugenic process” ([34:19]) mirroring “selective reduction” (abortion).
• Is ethical IVF possible? With current technology “I personally don’t know of a way to do it ethically…maybe in theory”—B ([35:58]).
• Adoption of frozen embryos (“snowflake adoption”) is praised as a redemptive, pro-life act.
• Memorable exchange: Comparison between valuing a born child and abandoned frozen embryos—both are image-bearers and equally valuable ([27:22]).

6. Abolition Bills and IVF: Legal Connections & Misconceptions

[44:42–56:10]

• Bills do not mention IVF or abortion by name; they simply require “equal protection”—i.e., all laws against homicide/wrongful death must protect unborn people as well ([47:19]).
• Effect: IVF clinics could not legally destroy embryos; would have to treat them with care.
• IVF industry uproar proves their business model assumes destruction of embryos: “All they're being required to do is handle them with care. They were like, ‘No, no, we can’t do that, that’ll completely shut down our operations.’” —B ([52:45])
• Critique: “If someone’s doing that [intentionally destroying embryos], that’s murder, and our bills would prohibit that.”—B ([48:03])

7. Addressing Common Objections: Miscarriage, Ectopic Pregnancy, and IVF

[59:02–63:42]

• Miscarriage/ectopic: Not criminal, not homicide under any abolition bill; “No one is talking about that…No crime has been committed…no one's going to be investigating every single miscarriage.” —B ([61:22])
• Doctors’ fears about liability: “That is asinine. That’s the opposite of abortion, you’re trying to do a rescue operation, not a mission to destroy.” —B ([63:04])
• Importance of stating these caveats and clarifying the law for public education.

8. Pastoral & Cultural Reflections: Technology and the Glory of God

[44:42–45:25]

• “We should view technology with grateful suspicion”—Doug Wilson (via C).
• The need for Christians to adopt technology in ways that honor God, not in ways that facilitate harm or commodification of human life.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Legislative Progress:
  • “One vote at a time, one committee at a time. And that’s what’s happening.” —B ([07:57])
• On Abolition Bill Simplicity:
  • “Here’s human life, therefore everything else has to bend to this reality that God has made the world in this way where people are protected.” —A ([50:09])
• On Christians and IVF Industry:
  • “If anyone is intentionally destroying human beings, the lives of human beings, that’s homicide. That would be prohibited…regardless of whether it’s an abortionist in a clinic, a mom ordering abortion pills, or an IVF doctor.” —B ([47:44])
• IVF Industry’s Challenge to Pro-Life:
  • “Wait a second, what are you committing homicide over there?…I mean, it tells you a lot about the IVF industry.” —B ([54:06])
• On Miscarriages:
  • “No one’s going to be investigating every single miscarriage. Sometimes people say that, and it’s just ridiculous.” —B ([61:22])

---

Important Timestamps

• 03:07–09:25 Legislative updates (TX, ND, GA, others)
• 11:34–17:03 Controversy: Kristan Hawkins, Students for Life, and pro-life opposition to abolition bills
• 18:55–20:13 Trump’s IVF executive order analyzed
• 28:39–38:44 Detailed IVF process; ethical and legal critique
• 47:19–51:07 How abolition bills treat IVF and related arguments
• 52:39–56:10 IVF industry’s reaction and public education via abolition bills
• 59:02–63:04 Addressing miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, and false objections

---

Resources & Further Engagement

• Bradley Pierce & Foundation to Abolish Abortion: FAALife.org; @BradleyWPierce on X
• Abortion Free Docuseries: abortionfree.com
• Heritage Defense: heritagedefense.org

---

Tone & Takeaways

Direct, passionate, Biblically-rooted, and legalistic (in the best sense)—the discussion arms listeners with precise reasoning, compassion for the innocent, and a charge to get educated as cultural and political battle lines are drawn ever more sharply. This episode offers both strategic insight for activists and deep encouragement to maintain Christlike clarity and courage in public engagement over the sanctity of life.

Transcript

[A]

Non Rockabotus must stop.

[B]

I don't want to rock the boat. I want to sink it. Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?

[A]

Delusional. Yeah, delusional is okay in your worldview, I'm an animal. You don't chastise chickens for being delusional. You don't chastise pigs for being delusional. So you calling me delusional, using your worldview is perfectly okay. It doesn't really hurt.

[B]

She hung up on me. Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.

[C]

Go into all the world and make disciples. Not go into the world and make buddies, not to make brosephs.

[B]

Right.

[C]

Don't go into the world and make homies disciples.

[B]

I got a bit of a jiggle neck. That's a joke. Pastor. When we have the real message of.

[A]

Truth, we cannot let somebody say they're.

[B]

Speaking truth when they're not. Take an amazing journey to a place that will blow your mind and move your heart so you will never be the same again.

[C]

When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous, but terror to the evildoers. One who wanders from the way of good sense will restore and the assembly of the dead. And that is Proverbs 21:15 through 16. What's up, everyone? Welcome back to another episode of Apologia Radio. Luke the Bear here hosting today, trying to do all the things at once. Pastor Jeff got back late last night from Texas with our guests. We'll talk about that in a minute. So he's not here today? He's tending to some family things. What's up, Little Caesars?

[A]

Not much, man. Glad to be here.

[C]

We have a lot going on. I'm gonna get into this quickly here because some important stuff we want to discuss and I want to make sure we're spending lots of time on that. So first, let me just think. Well, we're gonna do an update on end abortion. Everything going on. We got bills all over the place, which is awesome. It's a good problem to have for sure. Stretches us a little thin, but it's a good problem to have. So first I want to thank Iron Layer. They're a great sponsor, great partner with us in ministry. You got your patch on today? No. You pulled the Luke. I actually put my hand remembered. And we're grateful them you go to iron layer.com to get your NAD patch. Put apology in the coupon Code and get sweet discount there. And then of course, we also got the new glutathione patches. The master antioxidant. Excited for that product as well. Oh, they got a coupon code for that as well. What was that? I'm just killing it today. Apologia again. You get 100, 100 off your first kit. So grateful, grateful for them. There's another sponsor, partner, ministry partner that we have. That's one of my favorites and that's Heritage Defense. And we happen to have one of the main guys from Heritage Defense on today, El Capitan. Yes. With a sweet library and claymore behind him. Bradley Pierce. What's up, brother?

[B]

Hey, it's great to be with y'.

[C]

All.

[B]

Thanks for having me.

[C]

Hey, why don't you tell us about Heritage Defense? No one. Everyone's tired of hearing me talk about it, so let's hear it from the horse's mouth.

[B]

Hey, thank you for talking about it. I love you guys. Heritage Defense, we defend the parental rights of Christian homeschooling families against threats from child protective services. So social worker knocks on your door, some kind of false allegation or overblown allegation of abuse or neglect. If you're a member, you can call us 24 7, be immediately connected with an attorney who can defend you. If you need an attorney there locally in your state, connect with one. We pay their fees and all that's included with your membership. You can even just call. If you just have questions about your parental rights schedule, call with one of our attorneys, go on our website and even if you're not a member, actually you can just go to our website for free and sign up. Just give us your email address and get access to our law and policy vault and get access to laws about parental rights in all 50 states and find out what's the law in my state about, you know, car seats for children or children being home alone or babysitting laws or newborn laws like vaccines and hep B and vitamin K and all this and a whole lot of other stuff in there. And so you can go check that out for free. You don't even have to be a member.

[A]

Is that a new feature that's so useful?

[B]

We put that out about a year and a half ago.

[C]

That's awesome.

[A]

Yeah, really cool.

[C]

I'll make sure I start.

[A]

That's a one stop shop for all your parental needs. Yeah.

[C]

And questions.

[A]

And questions. Yes, questions.

[C]

Excellent. So Jeff was just in Texas. You're in Texas still. Jeff was just there with you yesterday. Tell us about Your bill you got going in there.

[B]

Yeah. So we have bill of equal protection, abolition bill to abolish abortion here. This is our fifth session to have it. Our legislator, legislature meets mercifully only every two years. Mercifully because most of the bills they pass are bad. And. But. But yeah, we. Of course, we'd love a bill to abolish abortion every year, but. So we've had here since 2017, and Jeff came yesterday and was part of our rally and supporting that. And then the day before, we were at the University of Texas campus with Jeff reaching students there, and we just had a great time. So grateful for him coming out, as he has done many times before, and so grateful for all y' all and y' all support for that.

[C]

So what. What's the status then of the bill in Texas?

[B]

So in the. In Texas, we are collecting co authors. We have 17 co authors that have signed on to the bill, which is the most ever. Uh, so we're seeing that across the country. We're seeing more co authors than ever.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And we're seeing. We. We like in North Dakota, we got a committee vote, right? Uh, we. Then we got a House floor vote, more votes than ever before. And just yesterday in Oklahoma, there was a vote, a committee vote, Dusty Deavers carrying the Senate bill there. And that committee there were only. It still died, but there were two committee members who did vote for it.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Well, that same committee heard the bill that Warren Hamilton carried, I believe it was two or three years ago, and that committee, zero members, voted in favor of it. So we've gone from zero to two. All you need is two. All you need is two of them to two more to flip.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

And you've got the committee. So, I mean, this is. This is what progress looks like. This is what winning is looking like. And it's happening all across the country.

[A]

That's important for people to hear because in this discussion about, you know, is the abolition route the route that actually produces progress.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Well, I think you can look at the efforts that have gone forward over the past couple years now, and you can objectively say, hey, not only is this culturally taking root, but it's also taking root in the legislature in a way that's very tangible. Like we have footage of inside these rooms where men and women are arguing for the lordship of Christ and the authority of scripture over the entire legislative process, including the protection of the fatherless. That in and of itself, I think we were talking about this last week or the week before. When have you ever seen that on an issue where people are just openly proclaiming Christ, his word, his authority over the magistrates, to see that itself, the gospel being brought into the halls of our legislatures. That's incredibly encouraging.

[C]

It's incredible.

[B]

Yeah. This is the kind of incrementalism that we've been talking about. Right. This is kind of good. This is what we're talking about. One vote at a time, one state at a time, one committee at a time. And that's what's happening.

[C]

It's discipleship is what it is. But yeah, speaking with Jeff again, he wanted me to mention in Oklahoma, he promised we would give a shout out to the reps at were righteous and that was Shane J. And Lisa Sandridge. So good job on you guys.

[B]

But.

[C]

And then there was what. So was six no votes. Four of them Republicans. Yeah.

[A]

Four Republicans that voted.

[C]

And those Republicans, if you're in Oklahoma, need to hear from you. So that's Darcy Jetsch, Paul Rosino and. Nope, those are the same. Who are the other two? No, I don't know.

[A]

Isn't that amazing? The most consistent bill for life ever heard in the state.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Defeated by Republicans. Still don't get tired of hearing that.

[C]

Yeah, it seems to be the case. Happened in North Dakota. Yeah. So we got a bill here in Georgia. Very excited about Georgia. We have 20, 21, 21 co sponsors which is. I saw 22% of the. Of the House. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So that'll be next week. We got Idaho is in. We're working on our pastors meeting there. We got Iowa working on something there. Alabama.

[A]

Alabama I think is going in. It's going, it's, it'll be soon. Ohio, Kentucky, South Carolina.

[C]

South Carolina, there's just, there's so many. We can't even hardly keep up with them. So, so praise, praise God for that. So that will just, I'll just bring me into the next topic here and that is, you know, we mentioned the pro life industry and the pro life Republicans that are stopping our bills. And one of the leaders that is leading the charge against our bills is Kristen Hawkins from president of Students for Life. Yes. So she's created quite a stir the last week.

[A]

Yeah. And I think again, I think what we're seeing in the legislative realm is what's creating these stirs. I think one of the things that's most encouraging about these bills going forward and these lines being drawn, if you will, like God's people putting this forward in the legislatures and saying here's the line right here. And that constant pushing of what Greg Bonson talks about in apologetics, pushing the antithesis.

[B]

Right.

[A]

There's no neutrality here. And so you have Christians that are saying, this is murder. God commands you not to murder. He commands you to do justice for the fatherless. And there's no middle ground here. If this is what we say it is, then we have to treat it that way with our law. Our law has to recognize that this is homicide, and we have to treat this homicide the same way that we treat other forms of homicide, too. And that, I think that line in the sand is what's creating a divide between the mainstream pro life lobby organizations, pro life establishment, pro life industry, and those even not just in the abolitionist community, in the abolitionist world, but the pro lifers who were like, wait a minute, I thought this is what we were after all along. Don't we all want to treat abortion like homicide? Isn't it murder for everybody? Don't our laws need to reflect that? Well, apparently there are some that are in leadership in the pro life organizations, these major organizations that use lots of money to not end abortion every year that have perhaps, shall we say, a different goal in mind.

[C]

Yeah. So there's a number of reasons why she's. Why Kristin's been kind of under fire lately. For starters, somebody took, I don't know exactly who did it, took a picture of her and kind of photoshopped the sign she was holding.

[A]

Right.

[C]

And what would it say?

[A]

The caption itself was fabricated, but it is indicative of what she actually believes about this. She does believe that women are the second victims of abortion and that they should have legal immunity and impunity to commit abortions. That because they're the second victims, we should be focusing on the abortionist, the abortion industry, you know, trying to stop the flow of abortion pills, et cetera, et cetera. So that meme went up, and I think that there's been a reaction on her part to that, which has kind of really sent, you know, abolitionists to social media to combat that as well. And then she's gone on a blocking spree and she filed a lawsuit and filed a lawsuit or threatened legal action, I think, shall we say, that's the way how she put it. Threatened legal action against Protestia.

[C]

That's right. That's who it was for.

[A]

Publishing a post. And they responded to that, saying, we know our rights. This is free speech. If you want to take legal action against us over a meme that's protected under the First Amendment. So the. The point in all this is that there's a Lot going on.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Because of this work.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And it is, I think, forcing people to actually identify where they stand and to take sides.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. And so I'll. And I'll mention just briefly then I want to bring Brad in the conversation how this has affected us in our bills. Right. So, you know, we had our. Our bill in Louisiana in 21, and it was the pro.

[A]

The major pro life, 70 mainstream organizations.

[C]

One of them being Students for Life. And I believe she signed that.

[A]

I don't know. I don't think that she was on that one.

[C]

She.

[A]

Not on that one, but the one that we're gonna bring up here in regards to North Dakota.

[C]

Right, okay.

[A]

She was specifically. Students for Life was on that one.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

But the other mainstream organizations, you know, March for Life, Susan B. Anthony, they all signed the Louisiana letter.

[C]

Right. And so that was mentioned several times in North Dakota from those opposing our bill. That specific letter. So. Yeah. So there was a letter in North Dakota then with her signature on it. You know, and I've seen the receipts of people within Students for Life saying, hold on, why are we opposing this? And she's claiming that it was taken from the Louisiana letter and photoshopped by abolitionists.

[A]

Yeah. Without her knowledge.

[C]

She didn't know anything about the bill in North Dakota and they weren't against it. And it's like, well, then why is your signature in your organization on here, Bradley?

[A]

Is that true? Our abolitionists just a bunch of meanies and jerks. Who are Kristen Hawkins in trouble? That's a loaded question.

[B]

I know, but that is a loaded question. I mean, what. What happened is that, you know, 2022, like you said, there was this 77 pro life organizations against Louisiana bill at that time lose. You know, Chris. And Hawkins didn't sign on to that. So there are some people out there who were like, oh, well, maybe she actually doesn't throws equal protection. But that all came crashing down, actually in April of last year, 2024, there was a resolution carried before the North Dakota Republican Party state convention by Amber Vibedo with North Dakota can. An abolitionist up there. I think y' all know her.

[C]

Yep.

[B]

And she carried that resolution and it got through again. This is like a classic, like, hey, deja vu. It got through this Republican committee with like seven to one vote. And then it was going to the floor of all the delegates, all the Republican delegates and pro life organizations dropped a letter in North Dakota. And again, this wasn't even a legisl piece of legislation or a bill. This was just a Republican Party resolution. And. And Susan B. Anthony, national, you know, National Right to Life, they dropped this letter that says, we oppose this resolution in support of equal protection because it criminalizes women. And they even ratified. Right. They kind of mentioned the 2022 letter. So anyway, so Kristen Hawkins signed that letter. She signed that North Dakota letter opposing the Republican Party resolution, which. Which, you know, mentioned and kind of adopted the language of the 2022 letter. So technically, Kristen did not sign the 2022 letter. Not in 2022. She's kind of signed it now.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And even if you don't think she. She has now, like, she signed the North Dakota letter clearly coming out against equal protection. And she's made it very clear, you know, in other contexts that she opposes equal protection. She's written, you know, she believes that for Fox News, you know, gone on a podcast and said, you know, no, women shouldn't be criminalized. And. And so she's been very clearly opposed to equal protection for a long time.

[C]

Yeah, for sure. Excellent. Well, we'll move on from that. I just wanted to bring that up because it's been obviously a hot topic the last couple weeks and figured to begin to weigh in on that.

[B]

Yeah. And now she's, like, blocking. Yeah, like blocking everybody. Yeah, you know, block. I think she blocked y'. All. Right. Probably block me. Maybe. Maybe not everybody who's ever even, you know, like, thought of her, like, blocked.

[C]

I just. Zach just showed me a video of a guy that was trying to. She was in line at some campus or, like, answering questions at some campus. Did you see this, Brad?

[B]

I have no. I've seen that the video exists.

[C]

Oh, yeah. So he.

[B]

I haven't had time to stop and watch it.

[C]

So she was answering questions, and this guy waited in line to talk to her, and then she refused to. To talk to them. So he stands right next to her, right. He starts doing this live video with her in the background talking, just like, just burning her.

[A]

She won't talk to us, you know. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know who the gentleman is or who he's with, but obviously he's an abolitionist, and he is. He's fired up, taking the liberty to do what he thinks needs to be done about this. And, you know, to an extent, that's exactly what does need to be done in terms of exposing the fact that these people that we've trusted to end legal abortion for a long time now have not done that, and they're actively opposing the efforts to do so.

[C]

Yeah, exactly. So, okay, so let's, let's just transition to the next conversation then, because this is going to be a little more lengthy. And we were talking before needs to be handled a little, a little more carefully with some kick gloves. So first. So President Trump signed an executive order, an IVF executive order, this week, I believe. Was it today's Thursday, like Monday or Tuesday? So Brad, being the good lawyer that he is, actually read the executive order. He's like, well, if we're going to discuss this, that means I actually have to read it, which is great because my concern, and we'll talk about more about this, my concern is that people aren't taking the time to read this sort of thing and they're just, you know, carte blanche burning things to the ground and not actually knowing what it says. And so, Brad, why don't you just bring us into that? What did the executive order say? What's problematic about it? And we'll go from there.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, the executive order speaks very positively about if IVF in a very kind of blanket way. And obviously we can talk about why that's a problem, a major problem. As far as what the executive order actually orders right now, it's not, you know, there's nothing, there's not going to impact anyone right now as far as the, from a legal perspective. Obviously it has a major cultural impact and we'll talk about that. But the actual legal impact of it is it just says within 90 days of the date of this order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy shall submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out of pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment. That's it. That's the only, like, substantive, like legally substantive part of the order. It just demands, it just orders that within 90 days that some policy recommendations be made on those fronts. So no actual legal impact on, on anyone yet, but definitely a huge cultural impact that we can talk about.

[C]

Yeah. So, so before we get into this conversation, I want to just mention why this matters, why this is important. Obviously, asides from the fact of, or aside from the fact of saving babies, the reason it matters is because this is, this is, these are the arguments that were used to kill our bill in North Dakota. It worked. The pro life. It's again, it's coming from the pro life industry. It's not coming from the liberals, it's not coming from the left, it's not coming from Planned Parenthood, it's coming from conservatives. And so they use it in North Dakota to killer Bill. They're. They're going to be using it in Texas, they're going to be using it in Georgia, all the different states. It worked. So they're going to use it and they're going to. They're going to run that play. And so, you know, we were talking before, like, you know, as those that want to see. Actually want to see abortion and we're fighting for equal protection, we need to be able to answer these objections and not just with, like, just a general whitewashing. Like, we need to actually understand what we're saying, why. We're saying why it's a problem, what's a problem, what's good, what's bad. And I think there's. I'm seeing a lot of, you know, a lot of people that are fighting for abolitionism, that are probably uneducated. And in order to really be able to fight this and to get our bills passed, we need to not be uneducated. We need to. We need to know what we're talking about or we're just going to keep running this silly cycle. So, yeah, yeah, I was just going to say.

[A]

And maybe turn it over to Brad to open this up. I just think balance overall in this discussion when talking about ivf, obviously you're dealing with something that is very sensitive for people and a very touchy subject, especially when you live in a fallen world and you have couples, good couples, good men, good women who are dealing with the reality of infertility and walking through that valley. And, you know, as pastors, you've ministered to couples that are facing that exact thing. Like this is something that they want so badly. They are on their knees before God begging for a child. Obviously, the scriptures open up this reality to us about God being the one who opens and closes the womb. And we have all these examples of people crying out for children because we know children are such a gift and a blessing. And every child created, regardless of the means, is made in the image of God. They're a blessing, and we're glad that they're here, whatever the means of their conception were. So we always have to just, I think, lay that foundation here and be sensitive to the reality that infertility is. It's part and parcel of living in a fallen world. And there are people that need ministering to. There are children that are created through this process and otherwise in the adoption system that need care. The church needs to take care of them and engage in that work of adoption. And we need to be doing everything we can to make it more affordable for families to adopt. So those are just some preliminary comments, Brad.

[C]

Yeah. And I'll just. Sorry, real quick, and then I'll turn over. I mean, just as an example of what you're talking about, we have a woman in our church now who has lived out Proverbs 24. She's adopted one of these snowflake babies and is pregnant with that. With that child. Amazing. Praise the Lord for that. You know, and so I've seen, you know, people who would, you know, be abolitionists were actually upset with us a couple years ago when this family started talking. Started talking about doing this, and they were, like, upset with us because we weren't just condemning IVF with just.

[B]

Right.

[C]

And it was like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Like, she's doing an amazing thing. She has a life in her and in her womb, you know, so. So my concern is if we just start, you know, like I said, carte blanche, calling this objectively evil. Like, that's. That's not precise.

[A]

So we're talking about a child who, you know, it created through the process of in vitro, was frozen, essentially.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

That's why. That's what you mean when you say snowflake baby.

[C]

Right.

[A]

We're talking about the cryogenic part of the process in which, you know, these children that are conceived, these embryos, these human beings made in the image of God, are essentially put on ice and stored away, which, again, not condoning that in any way, but you have Christians that are wanting to save these lives and rescue those that are being taken away to slaughter. So, again, balance here in this discussion.

[C]

Yeah. So, Brad, I'll just bring you in then, you know, from a. From a legal side. And. And, you know, this is going to get into our bills because our bills specifically address this. Right. So I'll just let you run with it right now.

[B]

Yeah. Well, just one more thing. Just on that, just so people are. So there's no confusion about snowflake adoption. Right. So this couple, they did not create. Right. They didn't sign up to create this in vitro, you know, fertilized. They didn't sign up for ivf. Right. They signed up to adopt somebody else's baby that was frozen in ivf. Right. Just so everybody's clear, that's how snowflake. It's snowflake adoption. Right. You're not saying, hey, I'm doing ivf. It's like, no, no. Someone else has, you know, has, you know, released, you know, signed to release their children to get their children in storage.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You know, It's a weird way of talking about it. That's what. That's what's happening for someone else to adopt. So that's a couple that does that. I mean, they're heroes for doing that. That's wonderful. And as far as I know, every abolitionist I know supports that. And there may be some people out there like, well, is that actually supporting the industry or not? But as far as I'm concerned, absolutely. That's wonderful.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

So that's great. Yeah. I mean, this is something that we have to, you know, we're talking about sensitively because the people. There's people that are born. Right. There's people that are conceived in IVF and are born and their lives are incredible and made in the image of God and equally valuable with every single other person. Right. The circumstances of your conception do not determine your value. Right. The fact that you're made in God's image, that that's what determines your value and the sanctity of your life. And so regardless of where the sperm met the egg and you came into existence, you have the same value. Your child has the same value. If you were conceived in that way, you have the same value. That's where we have to start. But that also means that every single other child who has not yet been born or never made it to birth that was conceived in ivf, we have to say the same thing about them. We have to say they were equally valuable. They are equally valuable if they're stored. They are made in the image of God. And so what do we do about that? What do we do about their lives that are equally valuable as the born IVF babies and every other baby and every other human being? What do we do about them? And what should we as Christians think about the entire process of ivf?

[A]

Yeah, that's so interesting, Brad. When we talk about abolition of abortion, one of the chief arguments that we make is that the child in the womb is just as valuable as a child outside the womb and has to be protected in the same way with the same laws that protect our lives. And then you just made the same exact, precise distinction there in the IVF process. Every child that's here now, AKA walking around or outside of the womb is just as valuable as those on ice. So again, it's the same consistent argument, is that we have to treat these people equally by virtue of their humanity. That's what makes them equal in the sight of God, and it's what should make them equal in our sight, no matter how small they are or out of sight. They are. Right.

[C]

Yeah, that's excellent point. So. So, Brad, then for those that don't understand even how this process works and what's wrong with the IVF industry, like, because I, you know, again, we're going to get into really defining, like, what's ethical and what's unethical, right? And so the way that a lot of it's being done now is unethical, and that's what we really want to bring people into. So if you could just let our listeners know, like, explain the process, explain why it's an issue, what the problems are.

[B]

Yeah, well, you know, from the very beginning, when most people hear about ivf, they hear creating a baby, right? They hear, oh, someone wasn't able to get pregnant, they weren't able to have a baby. And now they are. That is awesome. Right? There's now a new human being and this child born. Right. That is so awesome. And yes, it is. And so it's like, why would anyone be against that then? If IVF is about creating babies, why would people who are pro life or abolitionists or anybody else, why, why would you be against that? And it's because of the process. It's because of what it takes to get to that one baby born, right. That people can see and say, why would anyone be against this? It's the process of how. Of how you get there. So the way that the process looks like is, you know, they obviously take, you know, harvest eggs from the mother and sperm from the father and, you know, nothing at that point. You know, nothing, nothing homicidal or anything like that at that point. Right. But then they, they then take the sperm and fertilize the eggs. And at that moment, you know, of fertilization, now you have a brand new human being with their own unique DNA that there's no one else in the world like them and never has been, never will be. And now they, what they do is they fertilize a bunch. This is the most. What I'm explaining. There may be some exceptions to this, but this is the most common approach.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

That they fertilize, you know, you know, maybe a dozen, maybe two dozen, and then they, they then grade them. Right? At this point, these are now human beings, right. That they're now human beings with their own unique DNA and they are like, you know, they will grow as long as they have, you know, oxygen, nutrients, safe place. Right. They will, they will continue to grow on their own, right. As their own separate unique entity, unique person. So they take them and they grade them based on, like, how strong they are, like, how, how likely they are to implant and, and, and be a successful birth. Abcd that they'll grade them and so they'll then take the ones that don't grade well and discard many of those. The ones that get a lower grade, maybe they'll, you know, the kind of an intermediate grade, they'll freeze those and then the one with, with the strongest grade, then they will maybe freeze some of those, but then they'll then do the first cycle of trying to, you know, implant those in, into the mother and for those to implant into her uterus, around, I believe, 40 to 60% of those will successfully implant. And the remainder, you know, will be lost essentially as a miscarriage. Right. And so all along the way, you know, at the grading process, at the storage process, which is freezing. Right. Cryogenic freezing process, at the thawing process, and then at the implantation process, you have losses, right?

[A]

You have deaths all along the way.

[B]

At every, all along the way. And so it's, you know, it's difficult from what I've seen, the research that I've seen, it's difficult to estimate the exact number of deaths, but it appears to be between 20 to 30 children die. And I say children meaning from, you know, fertilized eggs, if you want to put it like pro choice people. Right. Children will die for every one successful live birth. And so that's what the process looks like. Again, much of it, they are intentionally destroying the, the unwanted and, or, or if not just, you know, throwing them out, conducting scientific experiments on them, which ultimately destroy them.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And then, and then from there, sometimes when they, when they put them in to implant in the, in the mother's uterus, they'll put in several. And sometimes they'll all implant. And at that time, you know, very often, though, if parents consent to it. Yeah. Then they'll do what's called, what they call selective reduction, which is simply an abortion. They'll go in and they will remove the children that have implanted in the mother's uterus that the mother does not want and reduce the numbers down to the one that the mother does want. So that's what's happening every step of the way through the IVF process. And even the ones that are not intentionally destroyed, there's just a whole lot of attrition because it's dangerous and risky to the children. And many clinics are not handling them with care. Even the ones that they, they do create, they're not handling them with the kind of care that they should, you know, handle the lives of human beings.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Would it be accurate to say that that aspect of the process, you know, grading human beings on their characteristics is akin to a eugenic process?

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, that sounds like you.

[B]

That's what it is.

[A]

It's. Yeah. I don't think there's any way of escaping the force of that. I mean, we're talking about Margaret Sanger, like selectivity on which humans are more desirable based on these traits or these characteristics. I don't think there's any way out of the fact that, you know, these humans are these specimens. They probably refer to these, these children as these human beings. These human lives as are. These are more desirable. So these make the cut and then on this side of the line are the intermediately desirable ones along with the poor ones. And those are just discarded through the same process. It's interesting, you use the phrase selective reduction, which is just abortion, and that's just another way of, you know, it's a euphemism for abortion, for murder.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Right.

[C]

Yeah. So, okay, excellent. Thank you. I mean, I. Hopefully that's helpful for a lot of people and I think, you know, a lot of Christians that are excited about IVF probably don't understand everything that goes into it. So, again, we'll get into how this affects our bills. But it's a question I have, and I think I know what you're going to say, Bradley. Like, is there a way currently for IVF to be done ethically?

[A]

Yeah. Like if you could do it in a way that didn't create like countless embryos and you don't have this element of selective reduction. Is there a way to make it life affirming as people want it to be?

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

I'll start with the short answer, and that is that I'm not aware of that, like under our, with our current technology of a way to do it ethically. So, you know, I think, I guess that you could, like, in theory, it could be done like this. Right. That you take the spur, you know, one sperm, one egg.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

From the mother. Or maybe you can take multiple. Right. Because there's nothing like, you know, there's nothing bad about taking multiple sperm or multiple eggs. Right. Or at least nothing like homicidal, like we're talking about. Okay. So you take multiple of this. All right. But you just put one. To put them together one at a time.

[C]

Right.

[B]

But sperm, one sperm, one egg, put them together. Now you have a zygote human being in the zygote state of development and begins to grow naive. An embryo or a human being in the embryonic stage of development, you have one now, you then take that and you seek to implant that into the mother and see if the pregnancy takes, see if the child implants in the uterus. And if not, then, okay, now we do another cycle, but we only do one in theory. Yeah, that would certainly be, you know, ethical in the sense that it is not homicidal. It's not intentionally destroying or even recklessly really destroying like you're trying, you're doing what you can in practice. I'm not sure that, you know, for those who are trying to conceive, they're having a problem conceiving. I think the death rate may be even higher than, you know, the miscarriage rate at that point. And essentially you're having, you know, again, because you're not, because you're not grading the children as far as what's going to be, who's going to be strongest. Right. You're just doing them one at a time. Just like if you were getting pregnant, except it's, you know, less natural, so there's less success. I'm not sure that it would, I'm not sure it would actually increase the likelihood of success of, of getting pregnant. That's not, that's what I'm not sure of.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

So under today's technology, from what, from what I've seen because of the number lost, even not, not intentionally and even not rec, you know, not handling their lives recklessly, you know, because of the number lost, I personally don't know of a way to do it ethically. Others may have differences of opinion about that. I think, I think we, maybe we can disagree or, you know, I think we can. I think the fundamental issue is, you know, are we intentionally destroying them and are we handling their lives with care? I think that's the primary issue. And the way it's being done today, we're not.

[A]

Yeah, I think that's helpful. Like the, the technological limitation is, I think, helps us see it a little bit more clearly. Like, I'm willing to entertain, you know, the arguments that well meaning Christians have, I think about, you know. Well, the problem also is we're commodifying human life. We're separating children from sex, the sexual act itself. Like we're, we're taking what God meant to be experienced in this way and we're doing it under glass.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Like, I'm willing to entertain that. And then there's also the things on the far End of the extreme, which is. Okay. I mean, gay couples are also using this because they can't naturally conceive a child. So they're using this as a means to procreate.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And then, you know, the Christless conservative element of, you know, we want big families and large families are a blessing and more kids, so we're just gonna, you know, conceive them all through this process of IVF with multiple different partners and so on and so forth. I mean, you're kind of seeing those, those things too. But, you know, are children entitled also to, you know, the, the right to have their two parents?

[C]

Right.

[A]

Is that, is that the right of a child to have, you know, their natural parents be their children? So I think all of these things are well meaning questions that we have to wrestle with and also have, have satisfying answers for.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

It also, you know, it also, you know, another kind of what it helps to facilitate a lie to women that, hey, you can just freeze your eggs now and then later when you're in your, you know, you've got your college degree and career success, like, all right, then you can be a mom later on. And you know, and then what they don't tell them is like, you know, I mean, it's going to still be, even with IVF, it's going to be, it's not 100%. Right. And, and, and you know, by, by delaying it, you're actually, you know, lowering your likelihood of being able to be fertile and being able to bear children. And, and then it, you know, and then it's also kind of one of these. It's a classic American, like, hey, let's, instead of solving the why we're unhealthy.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Let's just deal with the actual symptom instead of dealing with the cause. Like, why, why is there major infertility issues? You know, maybe we should be looking into that instead of like, well, let's just treat this one symptom of it. Yeah, but again, it's kind of classic American, like, hey, there's a pill for that. This is like, hey, there's a, there's IVF for that.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And you're talking about the, this, this is the discussion about the cultural aspect of this stuff too.

[C]

Right?

[A]

Like the societal norms behind, you know, having a career and pursuing those things as the optimal thing. And then when you're ready, then when you feel like you've, you've done enough, then you can start thinking about a family. But so I feel like there's a lot of Promises up front of what it offers. You know, it's, it's pro family in that way. Go ahead, do your thing. But you know, on the other end, I think women themselves, I would venture to say there's a lot of women out there who are in a place right now where that biological clock, if it hasn't run out, it's teetering down and they realize that it's not possible anymore. And there's a lot of devastation in the midst of that. Four women that weren't able to have children.

[C]

Yeah. Yeah.

[B]

So before we get to the bills, can I talk about one more? One more thing?

[C]

Go for it.

[B]

And that's this again. Because I feel like anytime you talk about this, it's people who are struggling with infertility almost like, well, then what am I supposed to do? And, you know, I would say a few things. You know, number one, you know, we trust God that, that, that he has, you know, we don't do evil that good may come. Yes, a child being born, beautiful, wonderful thing. But that doesn't mean we do it at any costs. Right. There's a, there's lines that we should not cross. And, and secondly, like we already talked about earlier, there's something called snowflake adoption or embryo adoption where there's. There's lots of children that have been conceived in IVF that are in storage right now. I'm not sure the exact number. Don't quote me as some kind of source on this, but I think I remember hearing it's something like 600,000.

[C]

It's a lot. Yeah.

[B]

Or maybe even I may be even way. It's at least that. That are in storage that can be adopted. And so I know we all, you know, I know it's like it's natural to want, sure, you know, your own child in your own image kind of thing, but there are all these children that have been abandoned by their parents and if nobody adopts them, then they're going to die.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And so if, you know, if God has, you know, again, something for everybody to consider, you know, it certainly again before going and creating more, and then many more will die. There's many that already are there and it can be adopted. And I know people personally that have adopted several people, several couples that have adopted these children and it's been beautiful. Yeah, beautiful. So I certainly encourage people to look into that. And then also adopting, you know, adoption of infants as well.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, looking into to that as well. And so there are many, many ways to go about it. You Know, seeking to adopt, and that's a wonderful thing. It's something that God does, you know, as he's adopted us. And so that's a beautiful thing to pursue. But, you know, right now, the process of ivf, especially the way that it's done today, you know, it's. There's significant problems with it that it just, you know, Christians need to look at.

[C]

Yeah, no, I appreciate that's. That's super duper helpful. And I mean, so I was just kind of thinking, you know, obviously, ethically is the legal term. You know, so I'm thinking, you know, this. This is a pretty incredible piece of technology. Yeah, right. It's amazing. Right. And, you know, I was. I borrowed this quote from Doug Wilson a lot. He said, we should view technology with grateful suspicion. Right. So we could be grateful for it, but we should be. We should handle it suspiciously. And so the question from just a pastoral, spiritual position is, is it being used to the glory of God? Right. And I think that's a good way to think about it.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

In trying to, like, you know, just talk through this, this form of technology.

[A]

Whose hands is this in? You know, if this is in the hands of unbelievers and people that are in rebellion against God, it could be a great deal of destruction done. And then there is being a great deal of destruction done on a mass scale. I mean, we're talking about thousands, if not millions of children and their lives destroyed.

[C]

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay, so that. That brings us in then. So I think the first time I. I remember hearing this objection was Louisiana. I might be. Maybe you need to correct me on that, Brad, but that's the first time I remember hearing this objection. Because I remember we had you on. I remember you were in the car, I think, driving, and we had you on to talk about it. So what. What do our equal protection bills say about IVF? 1, 2. What is. What are the objections we're hearing back? And then obviously we need to correct those objections.

[A]

How do we respond?

[C]

Yeah, so take it away.

[B]

Yeah. I would say, first of all, the bills, actually, the bills don't mention ivf. The bills don't even. The bills don't even really mention abortion. Because what we're talking about here is there's already laws against homicide that protect our lives from someone murdering us. And so our bills just say, hey, the same laws that protect our lives from homicide, those should also protect the lives of. Of people who have not yet been born from homicide. And so now we have that criminal law. Right. Which you Know, we call homicide, then we also have the civil law, which is called wrongful death. So if someone negligently causes the death of someone else, it's not, you know, not criminal. But if you negligently or grossly negligently cause the death of someone else. All right, now that's. Now you can be sued.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

For that. So most of our bills, you know, also have that element, both criminal and civil equal protection. So all laws protecting life, both civil and criminal, provide, you know, equal protection under our legislation. So, yeah, they don't mention ivf. They don't really mention abortion or any of that. So really, it's. It's simply. It. Is there a practice that someone is doing anywhere, whether it's abortionist in a clinic, whether it's a mom ordering abortion pills, or whether it's an IVF doctor, if anyone is intentionally destroying human beings, the lives of human beings, that's homicide. That's homicide. And so the bill would prohibit that. If anyone's doing that, that's homicide. That would be prohibited under all equal protection legislation, regardless of whether it's where it's occurring. If it's occurring in an abortion clinic, occurring in, you know, someone's home with a pill, or occurring in a clinic, a fertility clinic, the bill would say, no, no, no, you cannot do that. That's a crime. And, you know, if you know what you're doing, right. It's just like any other crime. You not only have to cause the death, you have to intend it. Right. You have to have intended to cause that death. And if that's. If you're doing. If you intend to do that, and you do do that, then that's murder. And so the bill would prohibit that. And then the civil part of equal protection just says that if you negligently cause the death of a human being, okay, well, then, yeah, it's not a crime, but there's some liability for that. You've now caused the death of someone through your carelessness.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so. And so the bill. The effect of the bill would be that the.

[C]

That.

[B]

That, you know, they could not destroy embryos and they would need to treat them, you know, with any that they did create, with the care that you would apply. If you really, you know, we're treating them like human beings, you need to treat them, handle with care.

[A]

That's really beautiful when you think about the fact that it doesn't even mention the process itself or abortion. Here's what it is. It's a line in the sand. And it is. Everything that we do surrounding the topic of human life has to be done with these considerations in mind. Every human being from fertilization is the imago DEI and must be protected in the same way as everybody else. Okay. Now that we've laid that down, everything we do surrounding human life has to conform to that standard. Go.

[C]

Yeah, right.

[A]

I mean, that's what the bill is. So whether that's the practice of ivf, whether that's the practice of procreation, whether that's the practice of taking someone's life, not taking someone's life, all of that owes or bends to the truth of the standard, and that is the sanctity and value of humanity life. That's what needs to be upheld. And there are different qualifications, different classifications, as Bradley's laying out, for how we go about, you know, determining the difference between, you know, negligence or active responsibility or first degree or second degree. You know, all of those things need to be taken into consideration. But I just love the beauty and the simplicity, really, of. Of that. It's just saying, here's human life, therefore everything else has to bend to this reality that God has made the world in this way where people are protected. Our laws acknowledge it. We acknowledge it. So we need to protect them.

[C]

Yeah, so. Right, exactly. So what's crazy then is we all sell this in North Dakota, is the arguments against the bill are, well, this is going to make, you know, IVF impossible. This is going to shut down this industry. This is blah, blah, blah, you know, like. And like, you're saying the bill doesn't even mention ivf, but then they take this and run with it. So what are those. Some of those arguments? I'll let you lay those out, Bradley. What are some of those arguments and how do we respond to them?

[B]

Well, and here, let me just say this up front. I welcome this. You know, I welcome this discussion, because what it's doing. Let me point out a couple things, something that we saw even before North Dakota. So in Alabama, if folks remember last year, the Alabama Supreme Court, there was a lawsuit about this IVF clinic that had just very negligently handled these children in storage. And some of them were destroyed, some of them died. And so the parents of these children sued the clinic for wrongful death, that, hey, you know, you did not handle the lives of our children with care, and they died. And there needs to be some restitution for that. There needs to be some accountability for that. And the Alabama Supreme Court, so. So the clinic said, no, no, no, they weren't children. They weren't people. They were property. Right. And the Alabama Supreme Court said, no, they're people.

[C]

Wow.

[B]

They're people from the moment of fertilization. Well, then that caused a. I mean, huge uproar.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And the IVF clinics then in, in Alabama said, well, we can't even operate here then. Which that immediately tells us something. All they're being required to do under that, under that, you know, finding in that case was to just handle them with care. Right. Just handle their lives with care. And they were like, no, no, we can't do that. That'll completely shut down all of our operations. It's like, well, then it sounds like you're got some real problems with the way you operate.

[A]

Right, right.

[B]

You know.

[C]

Right. That's a great point.

[B]

And then we saw this. We saw this in North Dakota as well. Right. We had this hearing, this committee hearing, and this IVF doctor came to this committee hearing, and what I encourage everybody go listen to her. Even though she was there against the bill, she actually lays out the whole IVF process.

[C]

Yes, yes.

[B]

And if you can, now that you've heard what we've talked about here, I think you should be able to, like, hear through her. You. Right. And, and here that she describes what we just described. It's even more detail. And, and, and as someone who does it every day. And what was interesting, you know, again, the bill doesn't mention IVF at all, but she's like, no, no, no, this bill outlaws homicide. That's going to affect ivf. Wait a second. What are you committing homicide over there? You're committing homicide over there.

[C]

Right?

[B]

And even one of the legislators said, he said, he asked her a question, he said, well, okay, I get you don't like the defining life of fertilization. That's protecting it from that. So would you be okay, what if we defined it life at the beginning of implantation? So then. Right. So then life isn't. We don't actually protect life in the lab. It's only after the baby's implanted in the mother that you know that, that we protect that life. And even that she said, no, that's not. No, we need. That's. That's still too early. Like, whoa, wait, this baby's implanted in the mother's uterus already? And that's even like saying, like, you can do whatever you want with that child before that point.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And that's not good enough for you. I mean, it tells you a lot about the IVF industry. And this is A debate that, you know, that we have to have, that's inevitable. And so, you know, certainly it's going to affect the discussion of the bills, but we have to be able to talk about it and explain it, but also to do it in a way that, you know, we can't just say IVF is bad. Right. Because, you know, again, most people, when they hear IVF is bad, when they hear that, they think, wait, wait, creating children is bad.

[C]

Right.

[B]

What's. What's wrong with you? No, you really need to do. Do the work and, and put in the effort to actually explain what's really going on and why it's bad. Yeah, right. Don't just tell. Show people. And, and that's one reason why I think, actually having these bills that actually bring these, you know, IVF folks out of the woodwork, out of, you know, out of anonymity where they've been able to operate, to actually come in to say, actually I oppose this bill that just. Just prohibits prenatal homicide because that's going to affect ivf.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

It's like, wait, what are you people doing over there?

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Right. And so I'm excited about that. It's really. Yes. I. I don't know that it had a huge effect in North Dakota. It was certainly an argument used. But what I'm excited about, though, is that is it an educational opportunity? And so that bill may have died this session, but I'm encouraged by how many people are now hearing about that and seeing that. And that means that hopefully there are Christians and non Christians even that. Hear that? And they say, wait a second. People that may would have gone done IVF and have a lot of children lost along the way. Well, now we'll say, give it a second thought. Like, wait a second, I'm not going to do that. And so I'm grateful for that, this discussion. Although, again, I would say it's in the short term making it some folks who more hesitant about supporting the bills, but it's also educating the society more about what's really going on in these IVF clinics. So I'm grateful for that.

[A]

Like, they're, they're outing themselves.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

When they step forward saying, wait a minute, this is going to make the homicide of preborn people illegal, it's like, yeah, that's what we were going for, you know, is treating everybody the same under the law. Right.

[C]

Yeah. Yeah. You know what's crazy? And I want to sidetrack the conversation, but that sparked a really fascinating conversation in the committee hearing because then Remember, the whole conversation then was about souls. And when is. When does someone obtain a soul? And it was like, when has this ever been discussed in a legislative hearing before?

[B]

Wow.

[C]

It was amazing. Like. And, like, to even hear, like, legislators, like, reading scripture, you know, being knit together in your mother's womb. Like, no, that's when your soul starts. Like. And I'm like, this is crazy. Like, so I. I appreciate. Yeah. That's the kind of conversations these lead to. By the way, that was your assistant sitting behind the speaker, right, during the hearing. Wasn't that your. I can't remember. The young guy, your youngest. What's his name?

[B]

Yeah, Victor.

[C]

Victor, yeah.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[C]

I was cracking up next to me, because. Because we were watching last week. We talked about the. We play the. The Catholic guy, and I'm. I'm watching him sitting there, and then all of a sudden, he, like, gets out his phone, and he's just like. Like. I'm like. You could tell. He was just like. I was like, right. To just, like, hook this guy and pull him off the stage. But it was funny.

[A]

I had a question, Brad, in regards to what objections are brought against this on the IVF side. Is there ever connection made or someone trying to make a connection or really kind of blur the lines between conception, IVF and miscarriage in particular?

[B]

Like, we.

[A]

Like, we've dealt with the ectopic pregnancy argument and how, you know, this is going to criminalize women who have ectopic pregnancies and who have miscarriages. I just think that people can try to take something like this and blur the lines and want to play around and dance in the gray area and say, oh, well, if you're saying, you know, by necessary implication, that IVF will have to be either destroyed as a practice or completely revitalized to include the care and dignity of human beings. What about a woman who keeps miscarrying like, she's. She's getting pregnant and she knows she's gonna miscarry, so she's doing it anyways. Is that the same thing? Does she have intent to kill her child? I feel like people want to so badly dance in those gray areas and use that as an objection to the bill.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely not. That's not homicide. Right. That is a natural death. And. And whether it's a mother, you know, with a. A miscarriage, or even if it's someone that goes to a fertility clinic to adopt, you know, to adopt an embryo. Right. Snowflake adoption. Let's say that they try that because, you know, again, 40 to 60%, you know, work. So that means a lot. Don't.

[C]

Right.

[B]

So, you know, they go there and they want to adopt. Right. They want to adopt that embryo. They go through the process and the baby doesn't. And the baby dies. You know what? No crime has been committed there. Right. No one intended to destroy the life. That child. No one, you know. No. No negligence has been committed. Everybody's been. They're trying to save the life of this child.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And. Or someone in, you know, a mother who just gets naturally pregnant. Right. You want to have that child. And so a miscarriage is not in any way, you know, affected by this bill at all. And what. And we've even started adding that into the bill. It's totally unnecessary from a legal perspective, but just to make it doubly clear, you know, that no one is talking about that, you know, my wife, you know, we've experienced four miscarriages, you know, four children that we've lost a miscarriage. And those lives are precious and they're equally valuable, but no crime has been committed.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And no one's going to be investigating, you know, every single miscarriage. And sometimes people say that, and it's just ridiculous.

[A]

Yeah, that's helpful.

[C]

Yeah. And so we'll. We'll wind down here. I just got one other thing to bring up, kind of along those lines, because I think this is important. I think we're going to hear this a lot. And this actually was, I think, the argument that was being pushed in last year's legislative session and even into the election. But I believe it was a doctor. I believe maybe it was ob GYN or something that got up during the. That hearing in North Dakota. And the argument is, you know, specifically, usually, like around ectopic pregnancies or something like that, they're like, I'm afraid to do anything at all because I might be criminally liable if this bill goes through.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Which is just asinine. I think. I think I was, like, throwing something at the wall or something. I was, like, yelling out loud and was like, what's wrong with you? And I'm just like, lies. Like. Anyways, so I. That's another. It's connected. Different conversation, but connected. And we need to be able to answer that, so I wanted to just bring that up quickly.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely. Again, that's not homicide. Right. This. That's. And again, the bill covers that as well.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

That All. All Abolition bills, you know, they say that, you know, you're trying to save the life of the mother. Results in the unintentional, you're not trying to kill the baby, but unintentionally in the process of saving the life of the mother, the child dies. Yeah. Then that's not. That's not a crime. Right. That's the opposite of abortion. You're trying. It's as I heard someone describe it just recently. That's a rescue operation.

[C]

Exactly right.

[B]

Abortion is. You're going in like a mission to destroy. Right. Whereas life, categorically different rescue operation. Totally different.

[C]

Yeah. And I mean, I.

[B]

Sorry, I was gonna say one more thing, kind of come back to this executive order, if you were okay with us coming back to that.

[C]

Yeah. Let me just real quick. I'll say this. And then. Yeah, so I was just gonna say it makes me mad when I hear those arguments. I mean, my mom was actually an ectopic pregnancy in the jungle in the Belgian Congo. Like, my grandparents were missionaries in Africa. My mom was an ectopic pregnancy survived, and my grandma always called her miracle baby. So, like, when I hear.

[A]

Yeah, it is.

[C]

When I hear, you know, these arguments that, like it. That's an automatic. We have to terminate that pregnancy is like, no, no, we don't actually. And so anyways, I just want to throw that in there, but go ahead and wrap up with what you're going to say.

[B]

Yeah. And there's that topic in different locations, sure. But the most common fallopian tube, and that's, you know, very, very low survivability. But there's other kind of ectopics, too. But the. You can. Coming back to this executive order President Trump has issued, you know, grateful for a lot of his executive orders he's issued. This one is like the opposite. Right. This one is hideous. You know, it doesn't. The legal effect of it, you know, there is no real legal effect yet. It's just ordering, you know, that somebody make recommendations on the IVF front. But it's to, you know, so we'll see what those end up looking like.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

But we do need to be, you know, speaking to President Trump, informing him about this issue, how it actually works, you know, the actual homicidal practice of much of the IVF industry and, you know, that are like, we're saying they're outing themselves, you know, when they come talk about these things. So we do need to be educating him, urging him, trying to reach him, you know, before he does put in some kind of executive order that that actually does have legal effects. And so I'm grateful that there is a conversation going on about it you have people across the anti abortion spectrum. Right. From kind of even establishment pro lifers that are, you know, that are speaking to him, to abolitionists speaking to him, and a lot of activity that's happening. So I just encourage people to keep doing that. Obviously, respectfully, we can do it in a way that God says, honor the king, making an appeal to those in authority, and we need to be doing that. Scripture's full of examples of that, of how we do that, and we should be following those and not just reacting in the flesh. Even if it's for a good cause, we still need to approach him as our authority, as our president, honor him in that way, but at the same time not lie to him or in any way keep from telling the truth and speaking to him as ours. Because he's not just our authority, he's also our representative who represents us. And so even there, we have a certain amount of authority. Even we have all the authority we need from God and God's word to tell them what God says. But even as our representative, we also have authority to tell them, here's what we want you to do. And so I encourage people to keep doing that.

[A]

That's a good balance between speaking prophetically.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And showing recognition and honor for the office that God has placed the ruler in. And I think that we need to hold those two things together.

[C]

Yeah. And I'll just end with this. I mean, what. A lot of times how the left wins arguments or how they defeat bills is through, like, you know, just sound bite criticisms. Right. Little things, little comment here, a little comment there that they throw out there, have no idea what they're saying. And, and those usually when. Because people are loud anyways. We don't want to be like that. Right. We want, My point is, like, if we're going to criticize something, we need to make sure we're educated on it. We're, we've thought through it logically. We have a logical response. And I say that because I, you know, I've seen people literally that were two weeks ago praising President Trump for some of the awesome pro life stuff he was doing. And then he signs this executive order and then they turn around with, this is the most evil executive order ever signed. And I was just like, is it? I'm not saying it's not, but let's, let's, let's explain that. Why do you think that is? You know, and there's just, it's just like those little sound bite things. It's like we need to be better Than that we need to. We need to be precise when our language. We need to define terms and we're not going to win arguments if we're not unable to do that. So. Awesome. Well, thank you, Brad. This was really, really an awesome conversation. I. I hadn't intended on doing this, getting the end of this conversation yesterday, but when we talked. But this was good. I'm grateful for it. So, Brad, where can, where can people find you or help you support what you're doing? Yeah, yeah.

[B]

They can follow our work foundation to abolish abortion on all social media stuff. And then our website, FAA Life or Follow me on X. Bradley W. Pierce.

[C]

And you guys put out some really awesome documentaries this last. Last year, right? Within. Yeah.

[B]

Yes. We'd love for people to check out our abortion Free docu series. They go check it out on our YouTube channel or go to abortionfree.com and this talks about the kind of the state of abortion after, After, After Roe, after Dodge overturned Roe and exposes a lot of the, you know, kind of the pro life movement, interviews pro life leaders and then also shows how they killing bills of abolition and really, you know, how should Christians be thinking about this issue and acting biblically? So encourage people to check that [e-mail].

[C]

Yeah, it's excellent. I've actually seen some people in different states, different threads were on that said they got into the fight because they saw some of those. So kudos. All right, man. Well, I appreciate it, Brad. And we're always grateful to have you on and grateful for you and your friendship and just working together with you to end abortion.

[B]

So y' all too.

[C]

All right, man.

[A]

We'll appreciate you, bro.

[C]

Yeah, we'll continue to pray for you in the different bills. Bradley's just as busy as we are, if not busier. So I mean, this is the truth. Guys, what do we have? We're looking at 20 states, I think. 21, whatever. I think you've probably written the majority of those bills. Am I correct?

[B]

Almost all.

[C]

Almost all.

[B]

Not all of them, but almost.

[C]

Almost all. Yeah. That's a lot. A lot of work. So. All right, man, we're grateful for you. And just at that, at that point, I just want to again thank some of our sponsors here. So we got amtech Blades. Bill Rapier just was texted with him today. Love that, brother. You can go to amtech blades.com and put apology in the coupon code, get 5% off your order. And he matches 5% to help us save babies. So grateful for him. And then of course, you can go to shop apologiestudios.com oh, I almost forgot. Our new sponsor, Page 50. We mentioned them last week. Super cool what they're doing. Page 50 is a full service marketing, media production company that wants to help Christians recapture the economic and civil spheres. I mentioned last week is a good friend of Brian Gunter, who's a good friend of ours. And so Brian's another, another dude wearing a lot of hats, doing some good work. So we're grateful for page 50 and go check them out. They're going to be at Reform Con, so if you come, we'd love to have you. You can come meet Stuart there at Reform Con. Which reminds me, I mentioned Elastic. We haven't quite got the promo up yet. Hopefully still this week. But we did announce two specials last week. Two promos. One is for pastors. We want you to bring your wife, get you in free. You can just put passwords in the coupon code when you go to register at Reform Con. And we're going to throw in an after party VIP after party ticket for you and your wife to have a date. So that was the first one. The second one is of course, then for our border agents, first responders, active military, legislators. You can put border in the coupon code, get you in there for free as well. And on Saturday, we're going to actually have some, at least one workshop on borders and biblical borders and what does God say about immigration? We're going to be very close to the border. Very, very appropriate. So we're like, you know what, this is a good conversation to have. And I talked to, we have a man in our church that works for ice and he loved the idea and like, yes, I want that. I need those, those questions answered. And I think there's a lot of guys like that. So anyways, that's coming up very quickly. So you can go to reformcon.org to get your tickets and I will stick around for an after show. Zach's got a bounce, so all you all accessors, please hop on over there and I'll join you in a few minutes. Bradley, thanks again, Brother Zach, any closing thoughts?

[A]

It's a great show. I think it'll be very useful and helpful and informed, informative for people that are just getting off the ground with their knowledge of this process and how it relates to what we're trying to accomplish in the legislative realm.

[C]

Amen. True dap. All right, y', all, peace out. We'll see you next week.

[A]

Later.