Host Brendan O'Connell invites guest Frank Pavone back to the show to discuss Toxic Empathy & how it effects the election, opinions & observations surrounding the presidential race, attempts to amend the US Constitution to allow abortion in all states in the future, how pro-choice supporters discount the life of the child from their debates, pro-life being outspent by pro-choice, & much more.
WBCA Podcasts
Life Matters
The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and management of WBCA or the Boston Neighborhood Network. If you would like to express another opinion, you can address your comments to Boston Neighborhood Network, 302-5 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02119. To arrange a time for your own commentary, you can call WBCA at 617-708-3215 or email radio@bnnmedia.org. Hello, welcome to Life Matters. I'm your host, Brendan O'Connell. Well, Ali Beth Stucky recently came out with a book called Toxic Empathy. And if you have a look at a television set during this election season, you see one party is using toxic empathy to affect women and how they vote in the national election. And we have with us today Frank Pervone, who's been monitoring all of this and involved in trying to activate Catholics and Christians in America and others to vote the right way. Well, welcome Frank Pervone. Hi, Brendan. It's great to be with you and with your audience. Well, Frank, let me ask you, first of all, let's take a look at the what is your impression of the overall presidential election. What do you see there and what do you think is correct and what do you think of maybe lives and that sort of thing? Yes. Well, you know the presidential race in many ways has been unprecedented this particular season. And we have a Democrat candidate who actually has not been elected as a presidential nominee. She has been a replacement candidate. And in many ways, the enthusiasm behind her has been a manufactured phenomenon. It's not that the people on the other side are for her. They just simply are for their party. They have not actually chosen her. They don't know that much about her. They don't like her that much. And this is why right now as we get into the final days, literally before the election, her campaign is in a bit of a panic mode. They see that the support, quote unquote, is very, very shallow and fragile. Just as actually for other reasons, the support for Biden was very, very fragile. So I think that we're heading into a situation where the folks on our side are going to be very, very happy with the presidential election results. There's no, I think there's reason for confidence, but I think we're dealing with a situation here also where, and I'm sure you've seen this, Brendan, that a lot of our fellow citizens are describing this election as a battle between good and evil. I mean, it's just that stark when they see it's more than one party versus another, one candidate versus another. They're saying it's good versus evil because they're seeing this push for unlimited abortion. Coming from the Democrat side, they're seeing this indoctrination of our children with transgender. They're seeing the migrant problem, the border problem, and people coming into their communities that they don't want there, and there's crime on the increase, and there's chaos on the world stage, and America's leadership is weaker than ever, and they're looking at all this, and of course not to mention the economy and the prices and the inflation. And they're saying this is a mess, but so much of this has come about through steps that seem to be deliberate on the part of those responsible, and it's like the only explanation is that they really want these bad things to happen, and that's why a lot of citizens are saying, wow, this is really bad, this is good versus evil, and I hope that means that more and more believers will get out to vote this time than ever, and we won't have the tens of millions of Christians we always hear about who are just sitting on the sidelines during the election. I see, and the Democratic Party has chosen, since the Dobs decision in June of 2022, they've decided to go the amendment method to try to have abortion constitutionally put while put into the Constitution. Can you speak to that, and why have they been successful? Yes, well, so what we have here are 10 states right now, as we speak, people are voting on ballot measures regarding abortion, not as a law, but as a constitutional amendment, which of course is very significant because everything done in the state, by the courts, by the legislatures, by the government and any governor and any government agencies, all of it has to correspond to the Constitution of that state. So what they're doing is trying to put the right to abortion in the Constitution, so that there can't be more pro-life laws passed in the future. So we even see, I'm going to mention the states that have them, but among them, for example, are Colorado, Maryland, and New York. And I mention these three because there are no or practically no limits on abortion already in those states, and it's so like, why would the other side want to go through the process of a constitutional amendment? Because they're not talking about making it abortion legal now, it already is. They're trying to stop us from limiting it later, and that's the strategy of the other side. So the other states, besides the three I just mentioned, are Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota. So there are 10 states all together, and people can find the whole list as well as information about what's going on in each state at stateballotmeasures.org. They'll be able to see, Brendan, the links to the pro-abortion groups, see what their messaging is, what their rationale is, and then they'll be able to see the links to the pro-life coalitions in each of those states that's fighting against these measures. I live in Florida, so we have this amendment battle going on here. Just the other day, I was in Nebraska helping them against their amendment, and as I say, we got the eight other states, and it's a battle which I look at it as a sign, not of the strength of the other side, but actually as a sign of their weakness. And the reason I say that is by having like one vote of the people and amending the Constitution, I think they're running away from the debate. I mean, if we want to bring about a change in the law, we introduce a bill. And when you introduce a bill, you have debate, you have hearings, you have witnesses, you have evidence, you have lobbying, and anybody can go in and talk to any of their lawmakers and push to amend the legislation one way or the other. And then there's a vote, and then there can be further votes. It's a lot more of a flexible process with a lot more input and a lot more careful consideration of the policy and its implications than a ballot measure where a lot of people are going to be voting on these ballots where the first time they ever even read them is when they're about to fill in that little oval with the yes or no. And it's like, this is an issue that is far too serious and far too many implications to leave it to a process like that. But I think the other side is doing it precisely because they're afraid of hearings and witnesses and amendments and, you know, public, real solid public debate on abortion. The abortion supporters, they pretend like they're talking about abortion, but they're not really talking about abortion. They'll never describe it, they'll never show it to people, they'll never, they don't want people talking about abortion, they want to talk about reproductive freedom, reproductive rights, women's health. Those are different topics. We talk about abortion, and I think the other side is afraid of that debate, and that's why they're going this route, like you said, of the amendments. Well, advertisements can be very powerful. I see them here in Massachusetts. New Hampshire has a governor's race with the former U.S. senator running for the governor, and she is trying to couch herself as being pro-abortion. She's not going to change the laws up to six months, but she's against, I guess, abortion, or she alludes to that. And the rest, all of the other candidates, they all seem to say that they're pro-abortion, not only for the governor's race, but other races. And we get, because most of the population is in southern New Hampshire, they have to advertise in the Boston market. So we see a lot of those commercials, and they're just soundbites. Maybe someone had a child with encephalophically, I forget the exact word, or the baby is a still baby. And they try to make it like, oh, that person was awful, if you don't vote for them, because they would be against quote-unquote an abortion on a still birth. How do we counter that? Or is it a way? Yes, well, we have to start, first of all, by making it clear that where we stand on these various health needs and health circumstances that arise, people always have the opportunity for health care that when their life or their physical health is in danger, the other side always tries to fear monger and say, oh, you're not going to be able to even save your own life. That's ridiculous. Even the strongest of pro-life laws, they make provision for the doctor to make the determination that, hey, if this person's life is in danger, I'm going to do what I need to do, and of course we would even be supportive of measures where you sometimes have to deliver a baby early, and then you do your best to save that baby and that mother, but that's not an abortion. And so limiting abortion or even prohibiting it does not mean that a person is, life or health, are going to be at risk. So we've got to dispel those myths simply by saying clearly where we stand and pointing out that the pro-life laws that have been passed provide for the mother's health. For example, you know, Brenda, the Democrats have trotted out these women from, you know, Texas and Louisiana, for example, two different examples. They brought them out at the state of the union address. They brought them out at the Democrat convention. They brought them up in the debates where they point to these cases where these women claimed that their life was going to be at risk unless they had an abortion. And oh, look at those mean Republicans with those abortion bans in Texas and Louisiana. Fact of the matter is that those cases when they were looked at closely and, you know, they were even court cases, Texas Supreme Court ruled on a couple of these cases where they looked at the details of the case and they said, you know what, this woman could have had an abortion even under Texas law, even under Louisiana law, which are strong pro-life laws. She could have had the abortion if her doctor said she needed it. But the doctor didn't say she needed it. And you see this, so they make a big clown show. I mean, obviously these individuals, we respect them. We appreciate the difficult circumstances that they may find themselves in. We do not underestimate those circumstances. But if you're going to come forward and start claiming that your problem was because of the law, when in fact it wasn't, you know, what we've got to point out as we make our case is, hey, stop lying. Let's be truthful about this whole thing. Let's start by being truthful about what an abortion is, which like we said before, the other side doesn't want to do. But let's also be truthful about what the law does and does not permit. Then, of course, I think we defend our case by saying, you know, the other side brings forth its stories. We have ours too. And as you well know, we have the whole Silent No More campaign. People can go to abortiontestimonies.com and find hundreds and hundreds and thousands in fact of stories where women who have been devastated by abortion, they thought it was a safe legal simple choice and it ruined their lives. And when are the voices of those women going to matter to the people who claim to be on the side of women and their health? Well, also, does our side need to bring up? I know that was a doctor out of Cincinnati. He's since passed Wilkie, Dr. Wilkie. Oh, yes. He made a presentation to MCFL. This is about a decade more ago now. But he was a dinner speaker. He and his wife. And they had just come back from Europe where they're doing euthanasia. But he relayed a story about how we went into some college and his theme was, "We love them both." And the abortion side tries to not mention the child in the womb at all. It's like it can and fauna, as far as they're concerned. What can we do to bring the child into the debate? I know that Dr. Mildred Jefferson, who was one of the original interviewers on this show, she said that whenever I'd go to do a debate, the other side wouldn't show up. So there was no debate because she was a pediatric surgeon and she could deal with all any of the medical issues involved with abortion. Yes. Well, you know what you point out is so true. And I would invite people to look very carefully at how the Democrat candidates and their ads are talking about this issue because what they do, the way I've been describing it, and it's to your point exactly, is that they make it a one-dimensional issue. They just talk about it as if the only issue was, "We want to restrict women's rights and reproductive health. They they want to secure it." That's a one-dimensional question. We're in favor of women's health. In fact, we're in favor of reproductive rights. We don't want to be like China where they tell a family how many children they can or cannot have. We're in favor of reproductive rights. It's the decision of the family. It's the decision of the parents. But what we're against is the killing of a baby. So if they want to make it a one-dimensional issue, you know, that's an easy way to win any debate. Just take out of the equation one whole side of the debate and reduce the question to a one-sided question. And it's like, you can't do that. The reason abortion precisely is a debate is that there are two lives involved. Now, however, about someone wants to call that life or assign whatever value to that life is one thing, but it's undeniable that the life exists. Otherwise, you wouldn't need a procedure to destroy it. So the fact that there are two lives, we've got to simply say right at the beginning, what is this abortion taking out of the body of this woman that you feel you have to go in there and take something out? What's being taken out? And one of the ways over the years, you mentioned Jack Wilkie and, of course, the National White to Life Committee has been a leader. Mildred Jefferson was involved at the beginning of that, as Dr. Wilkie was from many years. And one of the things they've always done over the years that I think we have to continue doing is they've crafted legislation that puts the child right front and center. For example, the Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a piece of legislation that has passed both at the state and federal level. That is, again, the child is right at the center, that pain-capable unborn child. And if making people think, or you have bills like the heartbeat bill, again, heartbeat, everybody knows what a heartbeat is, everybody knows what pain is, and it's pointing to the reality of the child who's there. So one of the ways we do it is via legislation that forces the issue. In other words, forces people to talk about what's happening to the child, the partial birth abortion ban, which passed federally and was upheld by the Supreme Court. Again, it focuses on what happens to the child during this abortion. And in our educational activity, people need to know more about embryology. And there's an app you and I have discussed it before at some of our meetings. There's an app called See Baby Grow. I want to encourage our viewers to look that up, to understand that the child is real, to see pictures and videos of that child that even contains educational material and curriculum material for schools and young people and coloring books and all the whole gamut, See Baby Grow. And we need to use tools like this, you know, in an age where we've got the knowledge of the whole world and our fingertips on our smartphones, we need to use apps like this, again, to keep, like you said, the baby right at the center of the debate. One of the things that I get a little discouraged about is how much money the pro-abortion side has and that they throw at issues like Kansas. I think I read an article at like 90, 85 to 90 percent of the money came from out of state. Out of state, yes. And how does one counteract that? I mean, they're an industry. They make a profit. I know I've been, had Jim Sedlack on the show and I'm a finance major and I would look at the, he would show me the balance sheet of Planned Parenthood. I'd said every corporation in America would be envious about how much cash they have or marketable securities and very little debt. And it's, you know, so they can throw money at, and all of, you know, any of the political things that happened. You know, I was listening recently to Dick Morris. He's one of the nation's top political experts and he was making an important point here about this. He said, look, we're always outspent by the other side. Whether we're talking about these ballot measures or just candidate elections. And yet, and you look at the elections we've won, you look at the, you know, Clinton versus Trump election back in 2016, she far outspent him and yet he won. Why is that? Because in politics now and more and more of the consultants are recognizing this. What's more influential in an election even than money is message. If we can get the frame the message properly, like we were just discussing and get that message out so that we get the votes out, it won't matter in the end how much money the other side spends. For example, you know, people are getting more sophisticated. They're seeing through the lies that are bantered back and forth in the political arena. And, you know, they'll look at these attack ads, for example, that are often put forth by candidates. You know, you see, for example, you know, the Democrats, they'll try to call President Trump a Hitler. Okay. And, you know, voters are wise to that. I said, well, wait a minute. He was already president. He wasn't a Hitler. And that doesn't describe, I mean, you may disagree with him, but that doesn't mean that he's a Hitler. Okay. So if you look at people getting that message, oh, this is just hateful rhetoric from the other side. There's always another side of the story. And a lot of voters end up getting that message. If the other side has 10 times of the money that we have, what are they going to spend it on? Well, probably they're going to spend it on more and more advertising, right? And then just put tens of millions of dollars into advertising. But if a voter is sitting there and they realize that this is just a lie, this is just a smear, this, you know, painting this candidate like a Hitler is just disconnected from reality, they could sit there and see 20 of those ads. And they're still not going to be convinced because they've already come to their conviction. They've already seen through the lies. And so just hearing more of the lies is not going to do anything. And that's why we often win elections. In fact, I think it's probably hard to find an election that we've won that we've had that haven't been outspent by the opponent who lost. And I think this is one of the reasons here that that people, a message is more powerful than money. Money has an impact, obviously, but message is more important. We've got to focus on the basics of getting a clear message out to people, but then getting the people out to the polls and to fill out their ballots. It's a numbers game. At the end of the day, fortunately, at the end of election day, it's not dollars that are counted, it's votes. And if we get our people through our channels of influence out there, filling out their ballots and getting out their votes, that's how we win, despite the constant inequality of the budgets. One other question I have for the end of this show is the trepidation that our side has in regards to, well, a lot of things that go on. But we're fearful, I think, of, in general, we're fearful that we'll speak up. I happen to have a Trump bumper sticker on my car, but a lot of people don't want to because they're fearful. How do we overcome that? Well, we look at, I mean, first of all, obviously, people are going to be taking a lot of things into account. And if they really think that something's going to put them in some kind of danger, we want them to be prudent. But at the same time, danger is one thing, just being uncomfortable is something else. And I think we simply have to measure it against what's at stake. A lot of people are motivated to speak up because they know that they're fighting, not just for that candidate, but for their own children and grandchildren. What kind of country are we preparing for them? What kind of country are we going to leave to them? And what's at stake here really is the difference between freedom and tyranny. It's life versus death. It's common sense versus insanity. It's good versus evil, like we were saying earlier. And that can motivate people quite a bit. It's like, do I have the courage to show my support for the candidate that is literally going to exemplify the difference between those two things. But even if one is not putting a bumper sticker or putting a yard sign, I know a lot of my friends in acquaintances are, they're very solidly, they know where they stand, they're very solid in their voting decision, but they don't have the candidate's name out on their front lawn, because they just don't want to get involved in the back and forth arguments or whatnot. But what matters the most, they know and they're going to vote. And they're going to vote and they're going to vote and their vote is going to count just as much. So I would say to people that find the right opportunities, find the right circumstances where you're going to speak up, where there's in a private conversation, a social media post, a yard sign, a bumper sticker, those who are clergy, you know, bringing it up in your preaching and tell people to be educated, informed and active voters. One way or the other, whatever is the best venue for each person, speak up, because as the scriptures say, it is the Lord who inspires us when we believe, it says, I believe, therefore, I spoke and the Holy Spirit is the one who brings speech to our problems. Well, Frank Pravon, thank you so much for coming on Today's Show. And folks, we hope you found Today's Show to be unique and formative, content rich, truthful and thought provoking. Thanks for watching and listening. My name is Brendan O'Connell, your friend for life. [Music] The preceding commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and management of WBCA or the Boston Neighborhood Network. If you would like to express another opinion, you can address your comments to Boston Neighborhood Network, 302-5 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02119. To arrange a time for your own commentary, you can call WBCA at 617-708-3215 or email radio@bnnmedia.org.