- 'Sup you beautiful bastards?
Welcome back to the" Philip DeFranco Show."
Buckle up, make sure you're subscribed
because I'm splitting $10,000
across 10 lucky beautiful bastards this month.
Let's just jump into it.
First up today, as usual, America is split
between two mutually exclusive realities.
Was the election stolen?
Are vaccines helpful?
Is Angela from Nathan Fielder's "The Rehearsal"
actually a real person?
One of those is not like the others.
But, you know, this latest controversy,
if you wanna even call it that,
to grip the American public,
surrounds the Boston Children's Hospital,
which notably was actually named
the number one pediatric care center
for the ninth year in a row last June.
But now it's being dragged into this
so-called culture war largely because of Libs of TikTok
who posted a clip last week from this video
originally made by the hospital.
- Gender affirming hysterectomy
is very similar to most hysterectomies that occur.
Hysterectomy itself is the removal of the uterus,
the cervix, which is the opening of the uterus,
and the fallopian tubes, which are attached
to the sides of the uterus.
Some gender affirming hysterectomies
will also include the removal of the ovaries,
but that's technically a separate procedure
called a bilateral oophorectomy.
And not every gender affirming hysterectomy includes that,
and people who are getting gender affirming hysterectomies
do not have to have their ovaries removed.
- With, and this is one of the key things here,
Libs of TikTok framing this video
as Boston children's Hospital now offering
gender affirming hysterectomies for young girls.
Seeming to imply to their more than 1 million followers
that it performs the irreversible surgery on minors.
But, and this is the other key thing here, not true.
As places like PolitiFact, or anyone
that took an additional two seconds could tell you,
patients who qualify must be 18 years or older
and have a letter from a medical doctor
stating that they have persistent
well-documented gender dysphoria.
Like that is literally on the hospital's website,
and that's in line with the medical guidelines
developed by the World Professional Association
for Transgender Health.
But of course, none of that stopped
the host of right wing personalities
from amplifying the misinformation.
Like, just so many pushing this,
and many of the individual doctors at the hospital
are getting bombarded by harassing comments on social media
and negative reviews on their online pages.
So much so that yesterday, the hospital put out a statement
saying it has been the target
of a large volume of hostile internet activity,
phone calls, and harassing emails,
including threats of violence
towards our clinicians and staff.
Adding that it sent an email to its employees
instructing them on how to respond to such threats.
That they're getting so bad that it's coordinating
with law enforcement to ensure the safety of its staff.
We've also got a Twitter representative telling NBC
they're looking into the harassment campaign.
And the unfortunate thing is like
this is not the first time
even for Boston Children's Hospital,
with it also receiving harassment last year
for just providing gender affirming treatment.
Again, not to children.
The thing is I don't fault the people
that are being misled by Libs of TikTok.
Like, it's in the fucking name, Boston Children's Hospital.
You're like, of course they're talking about people
that are under 18.
But the moment you take a little extra time,
you're like oh no, these people are just misleading others.
But hey, now you watched my show
and you know the reality of the situation.
So do with the information as you will.
And then let's talk about this news
that touches on comedy, sensitivities,
Hollywood, and cancel culture.
This specific story centering around a film
that Jamie Foxx wrote, directed, and starred in
called "All-Star Weekend."
While it started filming back in 2016,
it has an all star cast, you've probably never heard of it.
You got Jamie Foxx and Jeremy Piven playing basketball fans
who won tickets to All Star weekend in Los Angeles,
and they traveled to the city to see their favorite players.
It also co-star the likes of Robert Downey Jr.,
Benicio Del Toro, Gerard Butler, and Eva Longoria.
And so with all those heavy hitters,
it's like how have we never heard about this movie?
How is it unreleased?
And what we're seeing now is that Jamie Foxx
just did an interview and he suggested
that the current cultural climate
would not receive the humor of this film well.
- Man, it's been tough, you know,
with the lay of the land when it comes to comedy, man.
You know, we're trying to break open those sensitive corners
where people go back to laughing again.
- You know, that's kind of vague.
It's like, okay, well, what are the specifics?
So with looking into this, I actually found out
this is not the first time that he's talked about this.
Back in 2017, he was actually
on the "Joe Rogan Experience" talking about it.
And there he detailed something about the characters
that could piss people off.
- Like I play a white racist cop.
Robert Downey Jr. plays a Mexican.
- Jamie then of course talking about Robert Downey Jr.
famously doing blackface in "Tropic Thunder,"
and how they probably couldn't do that anymore.
Jamie at the time also going on to detail
that Robert Downey Jr. was actually hesitant
to take on the role in "All-Star Weekend."
- I called Robert.
I said, listen, I need you to play a Mexican.
He says, dude, here's the deal.
Sure. Fuck it.
Sure. Why not?
Fuck it. Sure.
Of course. Mexican, whatever.
But then he texts back and said,
"I'm nervous to play the Mexican."
I said, well, shit, you played the black dude
and you killed that shit.
- Side note, Jamie Foxx is annoyingly talented.
Like my guy, why can't you just be good
at one or two things?
Impressions too?
But anyways, with this story, Jamie then continues to point
that entertainers need room to create, to play characters.
Though you have some people pointing to other things saying,
you know, this is probably not the only reason.
People pointing to just a few months back.
He had Jeremy Piven giving a different reason
as to why the film didn't come out.
But I'm kind of pointing the finger at Jamie Foxx saying,
you know, Jamie is so talented.
He's a big perfectionist.
So he's guarding over
and he doesn't wanna release this film.
But in general, I think it does bring us to a question
that we've seen come up more and more,
especially over the past decade.
Is it appropriate for an actor
to play someone of a different race?
With one of the most recent examples
being actor John Leguizamo calling out James Franco
for playing Fidel Castro saying,
"How is Hollywood not only excluding us,
but stealing our narratives as well?
No more appropriation."
And that's kind of a lot of the argument
of it being exploitive, it's taking the opportunity away
from the person that it's supposed to be representing.
Additionally, it can be seen as mockery or offensive.
Also, it's not limited to just race.
I remember Brian Cranston got a lot of crap
for playing someone that was not able bodied.
But then of course, on the other side of this,
you have people saying, no, actors are supposed to be
people that they're not.
That's inherently part of the role.
They're supposed to put on someone else's skin.
So ultimately the question I wanna pass off to you here
is one, where do you stand on that general question?
And two, do you think that "All-Star Weekend"
should and or can be released in this day and age?
Because, you know, Jamie Fox is not alone
thinking that we are past the age
of being able to release "White Chicks"
or a "Tropic Thunder."
But from that, I wanna take a second
to thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Ridge.
You know, I had a Ridge wallet
before they even became a sponsor.
I love that Ridge is a minimalist front pocket wallet
that's slim, RFID blocking,
and comes with a lifetime guarantee.
All right, we need to get past it.
Men's wallets can and have been incredibly bulky.
If you're sitting down and having a conversation
and you're leaning in
not because the conversation's interesting
but because you have just shit jutting outta your wallet,
you need a new one.
That old school BS, it's just not practical
for the modern man or woman.
The Ridge helps you carry less, but always what you need.
And it's awesome, sleek design has to be what I love most.
It has two metal plates bound together
by a durable elastic band
so it's easy to get out what you want
and easy to put in something new.
And their key case is sleek, durable,
and takes a jingle outta the keyring experience.
And get this, with every dollar spent on the website
before September 30th, you'll get entered to win
a brand new upgraded Ford Bronco or 75K if you prefer cash.
With the winner being announced in October.
So head on over to ridge.com/defranco,
and make sure you use code DeFranco
to get 10% off site wide.
And then we should definitely talk about yesterday's
primary elections in Alaska and Wyoming,
because like most discussions of the primaries
this midterm season, the central narrative of the discussion
has been what does it mean for Trump
and his hold of the Republican party?
And yesterday we saw some of the most
interesting results regarding that.
Starting off with Representative Liz Cheney.
It was widely expected for her to lose,
and she did just that.
Losing the primary in a landslide
to a Trump endorsed challenger.
When I say a landslide, I mean, landslide
with around 95% of the precincts
reporting Cheney had received just 28% of the vote
to her rival's 66%.
And while expected, that margin is so telling.
Liz Cheney reportedly voted with Donald Trump
93% of the time.
But of course, where she famously did not agree
with Donald Trump was his attempt to undo democracy
and steal the election.
And just like that,
this person that voted with Trump 93% of the time,
that cheered the reversal of Roe V. Wade lost masses.
Especially when you take a second to look back
and remember that in 2020, she won her primary 73.5 to 26.1.
That's what happened
to the number three Republican in House leadership.
Though, of course, well before this primary,
her Republican colleagues had stripped her
of that leadership role because she called out
Trump's election lies and condemned him
for minimizing the attack.
And very key here, Cheney isn't the only Republican
who has firmly denounced Trump and lost her seat.
Out the 10 Republican House members who voted in favor
of impeaching the former president after the insurrection,
only two have advanced the general election.
With four having now lost their primaries,
and the remaining four having decided
not to even run for reelection at all.
And so while Cheney is not alone here,
she is the most high profile of the impeachment Republicans,
and her loss is also the most symbolically important
because it really underscores how deeply the GOP
has realigned to blindly support Trump.
Before she turned on Trump and announced to the world
the emperor has no clothes,
she was a popular person among her party.
She was quickly rising the ranks.
Now with all that said, Cheney for her part,
has made it clear that her fight is far from over.
Continuing her condemnation of Trump
in a concession speech last night
where she implied that she was eyeing a run for president.
But they're also telling reporters this morning
that she was thinking about running,
and would make the decision in the coming months.
But as far as how much momentum
Cheney would get for that potential bid,
I mean, it's important to look at a few things.
Given her stances, she would likely just be
a Republican protest vote of I don't want Trump.
There is still a base of Republicans out there
who do not support Trump and his candidates.
And in fact, we actually saw a really interesting showing
from that base yesterday in Alaska.
Now one of the important things to know about Alaska
is that its primaries are open.
Meaning that members of all parties
compete against one another
with the top four candidates then advancing to the general
regardless of affiliation.
And notably, when they get to the general election,
they have ranked-choice voting.
So in the Senate race there, incumbent Lisa Murkowski,
the only Senate Republican who voted to convict Trump
at his impeachment trial advanced into the general
with around 70% of the votes counted.
She's currently leading a Trump backed opponent
by a margin of over 43% to 40%.
Also very notable here is what went down
in the special election issues
who will serve out the remainder of the term
for Alaska's only congressional seat,
which was vacated when the previous member died.
Now, the thing with this special election
is that it's not actually a primary.
Alaskans already went through the primary process
for this race back in June.
Selecting their top four candidates
to advance to the general vote.
Though one of the four, a Democrat, dropped out after.
So because the special election yesterday
was technically a general election,
voters got to use the ranked choice system
for the first time to pick between
the remaining Democrat and two Republicans.
This including the candidate that Trump endorsed.
Former Alaska governor
and vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.
With just under 70% of the precincts reporting
the Democrat is actually in the lead,
with Palin in second place and tailing by six points.
But I do wanna note because the special election
was ranked-choice, these current results
don't mean that the Democrat will win.
The process of telling all the ranked-choice votes
is expected to take weeks.
And the final outcome depends
on how many voters ranked each candidate
in relation to one another.
And most importantly, who they ranked second.
But no matter what, it would be incredibly significant
if the Democrat won or even if they came in second
but still above Palin.
So, so far more of an interesting mix here,
especially when compared to Cheney's just blow out loss.
But ultimately, that's where we are.
We're gonna have to keep our eyes
on any developments and trends,
but we're gonna have to wait to see
how all this plays out in the general.
And then let's talk about this Florida court's decision
that a 16 year old girl was not mature enough
to get an abortion that was upheld
on Monday of this week.
So the teen only known as Jane Doe 22-B has no parents,
lives with a relative, is under state care,
and has a legal guardian.
When she first went to court seeking an abortion,
she was just 10 weeks pregnant.
The case was first seen in a lower court
before being sent to a three judge panel
at the first circuit court of appeals.
And that appeals court upholding the lower court's decision
that this teen was not mature enough and that she,
"Had not established by clear and convincing evidence
that she was sufficiently mature
to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy."
And as you can imagine, this resulted in a lot of reactions.
Pro birthers of course cheering on the move.
But also on the other side, you had people saying things
like Florida is forcing a 16 year old girl to have a baby
because they say she is not mature enough
to have an abortion.
Let that sink in.
But in the midst of all that being said,
I looked a little further and it's not as black and white
I think as a lot of people are talking about.
So technically, the appeals court never ruled
that she's gonna be forced to carry this pregnancy to term,
but the appeals court agreeing with the lower court
that the teen possibly needed time to consider the decision
and writing in their decision,
"Reading between the lines, it appears that the trial court
wanted to give the minor, who was under extra stress
due to a friend's death, additional time to express
a keener understanding of the consequences
of terminating a pregnancy.
This makes sense given that the minor,
at least at one point, says she was open to having a child.
But later changed her view after considering
her inability to care for a child
in her current station in life."
And so in line with that, the teen's able to go back
to the circuit judge and petition for abortion again.
But still with all that you have people going,
okay, well still the big question is
why was this even in the courts at all?
And well, that is because in Florida,
a minor can get an abortion with parental consent
or by going around them and going to court for help.
And so with Jane DOE 22-B not having any parents,
it seems obvious why she went to court.
However, she does have a legal guardian
that is fine with the abortion
and that apparently counts too,
which also led to the appeals court being a little confused
about this whole issue.
Writing that if her guardian,
"Consents to the minor's termination of her pregnancy,
all that is required is a written waiver from the guardian."
So it looks like with everything that's happening right now
and so much confusion,
there's actually a quick and easy solution
to all of this anyways.
But, a key thing here is that is just for this situation
because looking into it in the past,
Florida courts have actually tried to deny
abortion for teens because their GPAs were too low,
which I will note that was successfully appealed eventually.
But it's only a matter of time
before someone is forced to give birth by the court.
And then, you know, stepping back even further,
this entire situation highlights a serious debate
about the government's role in these decisions,
especially when teens are involved.
I think it's part of the reason this exchange
between Joe Rogan and his guest, Seth Dillon,
got so much attention.
- You don't have the right to tell my 14 year old daughter
she has to carry her rapist's baby.
You understand that?
- To look that woman in the eye who was born of a rapist.
- Do you understand that?
That's a 14 year old child.
A 14 year old child gets raped,
you say that they have to carry that baby?
- I don't think two wrongs make a right.
I don't think murder-
- [Joe Rogan] I don't think that's wrong.
- I don't think murder is an answer to...
I don't think murder fixes a rape.
- What if we're talking about an abortion
when the fetus like literally it's like six weeks,
four weeks, three days?
What if she just turned positive just now?
Positive for pregnancy.
- With Dillon defending his position
with the usual pro-birth talking points or things like,
and I'm paraphrasing, it's a human life.
Or asking, when does the magic happen
for Rogan to consider a fetus a human?
Also with this back and forth,
we saw Dillon getting a lot of praise
from conservatives for this moment.
- I think abortion is healthcare
the way that rape is love making
- Though notably, that statement
got a lot of pushback as well.
The people arguing and pointing out that no,
abortion is healthcare.
It's used to stop ectopic pregnancies
or save the mother's life.
The idea that it's used flippantly is insane.
But a lot of those people also kind of
putting their hands up in the air though going,
you know, nothing's gonna come from this debate.
They're saying we're not gonna ever see eye to eye
with someone that believes that a clump of cells
is human at conception, which also brings us
to the second thing.
In America, the idea that life begins at conception
is a very Christian position.
With people noting that Judaism and Islam
actually allow for abortions under various circumstances,
and people arguing that forcing them
to adhere to Christian standards
actually likely violates the First Amendment,
which is also why we've seen
lawsuits about this already brought up,
and why we've seen people responding
to the clip in question with things like,
"Nah, keep religion to yourselves."
The idea that life begins at the moment of conception
is purely religious.
So it should not be forced upon those who don't believe so."
But also beyond the religion question,
many are uncomfortable with the idea
that the government is now telling people
what they can and cannot do with their bodies
and their healthcare.
But ultimately, that is where that story
and today's show ends.
As always, thank you for watching,
being subscribed for these daily dives into the news.
Also, if you need more news, I got you covered right here.
Or check out that description down below.
But of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco.
You've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.