The State of the Union (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 171)

All About Abortion (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 168)

Mostly About Abortion (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 166)

More Pro-Life Nothing (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 164)

Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Baby Hitler with FACTS and/or LOGIC (The Ephrom Jos...

Correcting Myself (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 158)

BREAKING: Tusli Gabbard Will Run In 2020

More pro-life mockery (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep 153)

Right To Nothing (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 139)

Good God, I Hate The Pro-Life Movement (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 135)

Ohio's Right To Fail (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 125)

Pro-Life: An Evil Movement (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 122)

The Greatest Pro-Choice Ad Ever Made

Every time I go to write a column I always make sure to go to some of my "favorite" twitter accounts. People like Matt Walsh, Lila Rose, Live Action, and many more just to see what makes them angry (or you could say triggered) just to see how silly it is. Today I stumbled across a pro-choice ad that may just be the greatest case for abortion ever made. 

Matt Walsh called it the most disgusting pro-choice ad he'd ever seen, and other people said other things but I found that to be the funniest. I mean Live Action only called it "tone deaf." I mean come on Live Action! You guys compared abortion to slavery and the holocaust, and the best you got is "tone deaf." The ad has over 4,000 dislikes and less than 100 thumbs-ups. 

Watch it here.

The ad is simple: It shows clips of a baby moving around while lullaby music plays in the background. While this is going on words flash up on the screen. Those words are "she deserves to be loved," "she deserves to be wanted," and "she deserves to be a choice."

I love this ad for one reason: It cuts to the chase. None of this "we care about women and not kids" straw-man pro-lifers love using. Instead we get to see someone finally say "we care about kids more than you do, we just also understand reality better than you."

Unwanted children aren't always loved. This seems like common sense to anyone who isn't in the pro-life movement. Therefore, if you want children to always grow up in a household where they're loved, you must be pro-choice by definition. 

This also answers the one pro-life loaded question they love to phrase in a million different ways. I remember I once heard Dennis Prager ask if someone who is pro-choice would be okay with a homophobic woman aborting a child she knows will be gay. I answer yes. Why? Because homophobic parents of gay kids usually end of causing kids to have mental issues and -- a sad amount of the time -- they end up in the same place they would have if they were aborted with a large amount of suffering in the middle. 

So why are pro-lifers so angry at this ad? Because it hits them where it hurts. The only argument they've ever had is that they have the moral position and the people are seeing through it. 

A Warm Episode (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 102)

Does The Political Compass Test Mean Anything?

When someone starts getting into politics one of the most important questions, in fact, one of the only questions is where do they stand on the important issues. So many of them, instead of actually forming opinions, choose to go to the political compass test in order to get a basic idea. This test has also been one many YouTubers take in order to have their audience understand who they are. But one question has still not been answered, is it worth anything? 
So, in order to properly answer this question, we need to look at some more questions. Specifically, the questions on the official political compass test (link here) in order to find out if any of them are, well, good questions. In order to test this, I took a handful of questions from this quiz and decided to see if they have any major issues. So let's figure this out, together.

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

This is the first question of the test and it shows one of the biggest problems with the test. It refuses to take into account that people regularly lie. Or, to use less loaded terms, most people don't like to think of themselves as the bad guys. No one is more hated than "the establishment", whatever that means.
Let me give you a real-world example. Many people believe that we should deregulate because it will cause jobs to come back here. Is that in favor of the corporations? They wouldn't. Afterall they're creating jobs.
Also, in the United States corporations are people. 

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

No one thinks like this, even the people who we think are like this, aren't like this. Reagan for instance, human super-patriot, only got anywhere by criticizing Carter. George W. Bush did the same thing with Bill Clinton. They didn't always support their country. 

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other racists

This question is directly asking you rather or not you're a racist. Even David Duke, the former KKK leader, doesn't think he's racist.

 The enemy of my enemy is my friend

This is a meaningless platitude. The test also gives you no context so this could mean anything. 
On a side note: When this country used this platitude we armed Osama Bin Laden.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. 

Most people aren't economists. Plus most economic philosophies don't care for either inflation or unemployment. 

Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold

This question is directly asking you "are you a communist". Again, no one says they're something that most people believe being against is a "no-duh". Especially a philosophy most people believe killed 100 million people. 

Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care

I think this question is trying to ask "do you believe in universal healthcare", but there's one huge problem, that's not what this is asking. The vast majority of people who believe in UHC are fine with private healthcare being an option. 

Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal. 

Again this question is trying to ask "are you pro-life" but it doesn't really ask that. It's better than the healthcare question to be fair, but not much. 
A lot of people, including many pro-lifers, would also include rape and incest in times abortion is fine. That would make them pro-choice according to this question. Even though most of society would say otherwise.

All authority should be questioned

This question is asking you "are you an authoritarian". And even then even most authoritarians would answer yes. They had to rise to power somehow after all. 

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind

This question is asking you rather or not you support "separate but equal". Which most people believe is the same as asking rather or not you're a racist. 

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children

This question has nothing to do with politics.

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things

Second verse, same as the first.
In conclusion: These questions are meaningless and using them to describe your ideology is idiotic. 

So . . . Let's Talk About Brett Kavanaugh

So it's official. The president wants to make Judge Brett Kavanaugh the next Justice for the Supreme Court. So I figured it's fair that we actually look at the man Trump appointed and see what it says about the person who appointed him. So here are 5 things you need to know about the new Justice. 
1. He's Best Buddies With George W. Bush
Kavanaugh was one of the main voices that led to the outcome in the Bush v. Gore case. Bush then went and appointed him to the DC court of appeals. So, he basically owes most of his career to the second Bush.
He was also buddies with Karl Rove who praised Trump for choosing him. Here's Brett being buddies with Karl Rove:

But remember, Donald Trump is anti-establishment. 
2. Pro-Lifers Love This Guy
To give Brett credit, he did say he doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, that doesn't anti-abortion groups aren't in love with this guy. Meanwhile, the only case he's ever done involving abortion was when he said an illegal immigrant could not get one. He's a blank slate, and that could mean anything. But his ties make many afraid he could go in the wrong direction.   
3. Believes Obamacare Is Unconstitutional 
Yes, a supreme court justice disagrees with the supreme court. Even though they determined the ACA was allowed Brett disagrees. Again, someone on the Supreme Court should more than likely understand how the court works. He also isn't a fan of net neutrality.
But don't worry. He does support the NSA. So at least he has that down.
4. He Was One Of The Main Voices In The Effort To Impeach Bill Clinton
Yup, another Republican lawyer who took place in trying to impeach Bill Clinton. Although he happens to also be against the Muller investigation. If you can't tell, he's kind of a partisan hack. 
5. He Takes The Constitution Literally, Except When He Doesn't 
If you watched Trump announce his pick for the court you would know the thing he values the most is someone who likes the constitution as is. Yet, NPR found him saying he supports "the spirit of the law" as well as the letter. Which means he believes the law is whatever he thinks it should be.   So that's everything you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh. In conclusion, god help us. 

Double Standards In Politics

Politics is filled with double standards, everyone knows that. It's well established that American politics, especially within the political commentary sphere, is filled wall to wall with hypocrites, hacks, and partisans. Oh my!
However, what no one seems to point out is how many of these double standards seem to benefit the right and put more restrictions on the left. While some of these examples have been talked about before, this column will put it in a new perspective. That being focusing on how Republicans have used these double standards to put the left in a lose-lose situation in order to make it so, no matter what, they are right in more ways than one. Even when it is obvious the right is wrong. 
Here's one of my favorite examples, look at how the new-right has responded to the masterpiece cakeshop incident. Here's how Dave Rubin, in a video with nearly 18 million views, responded when talking about in on Prager"U": 

A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine. If a baker won't bake a cake, find another baker, don't demand the state tell him what to do with his private business.

Okay, that's all fine and good but PragerU, the channel that made the video that was just quoted, tried to sue YouTube for restricting some of their videos. Yet no one said "find another website" and "don't demand the state tell YouTube what they do with their private business". 
This puts anyone with a consistent position in a giant lose-lose position that makes it so anyone who disagrees can scream the leftist hates the first amendment. Let's say you agree with Rubin and not with Prager, that means you hate freedom of speech because you don't think YouTube should have to put these videos up. Now let's say that you agree with Dennis and not Rubin, that means you hate freedom of association because you don't think companies should not be able to choose who they serve. 
This isn't even the worst example involving this case. This has been brought up before, but Paul Joseph Watson did the same thing just with more loaded language:

Twitter has suspended know Alt-Right extremist Seven Crowder . . . Censorship of conservatives MUST be addressed by lawmakers.

Vs.

. . . No one should be forced to provide a service. Just as a gay-owned print shop shouldn't be forced to make signs for the Westboro Baptist Church.

Republicans are currently abusing it with the idea of "civility". To be clear: you should be nice to someone you are debating, and of course being rational and not being overly rude is important. However, context is always important. If someone is being, well uncivil, then no reasonable person should have an issue with you being equally as "uncivil" back. 
Remember when Samantha Bee insulted Ivanka Trump? What every conservative news outlet, and even many liberal ones, ignored was that she said that in response to ICE taking kids away from families, which Bee felt was worse. Even then, many said Bee should have been fired.
Compare that to when Donald Trump was also obscene when talking about certain countries. Some supporters, such as Paul Joseph Watson, defended the comments (while censoring it). Others, like A.F. Branco, complained that networks covered it. The largest argument, made by people like Paul, was that the president was telling a "harsh truth" and that people who were against it were just "snowflakes".
Again, this is a clear lose-lose situation. If you are against what Bee said, that means you're against "civility". If you are against what Trump said, that means you just hate "harsh truths". Once again, Republicans publish you for having consistent positions. 
However, if you still have any doubt that political discussion has a right-wing bias, just look at the tactics commonly used by the pro-life movement. Let me show you the perfect example of this. 
Recently, the pro-life group Live Action, one of the most popular anti-Planned Parenthood groups which is widely believed to have leaked many videos on PP (including the recent claims they aid people who commit sexual abuse), posted this image on their official Twitter account:

This isn't even a one-off thing from some small internet group by the way. Jesse Helms, a Republican Senator who even spoke at the 1983 March for Life rally, did the same comparison in his memoir Here's Where I Stand. In this book, he wrote that "[abortion] is indeed another kind of holocaust". 
This is actually very similar to something else, that being the "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign PETA launched in the 2000's. In this campaign PETA put images of meat production next to pictures of death camps and used captions to make it clear they consider them to be the same thing. This campaign was, obviously, hated and is currently one of the most infamous ad campaigns in US history. The other one is considered a perfectly acceptable moral philosophy that people who disagree must consider. Guess which one is more associated with the right and which one is more associated with the left. 
Here's another example, Live Action recently wrote an article on Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, calling her a racist. Here's the preview the organization put on Twitter:

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:

Was a eugenicist

So was the person who created fingerprint science. In fact, that person created eugenics. How many articles does have Live Action about how evil fingerprint science is? The answer is 0. 

Spoke to the KKK

 Was that the same KKK that endorsed a certain president of the United States? Despite this Lila Rose, the founder of Live Action, is "very pleased" with Donald Trump. 
They then repeat this point another 4 times without giving any variation. But her point is still valid, Margaret Sanger was a racist. However, it should be noted that Live Action is located in the United States. So if a place is bad because the person or people who found it were racists, what does that make her country? Thomas Jefferson for instance, the author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd president of the US, owned and raped his slaves. 
While on the topic of Lila specifically, she is one of the prime examples of this. As already established, Lila is a pro-life activist. For instance, recently she posted this:

Children are not the property of adults, nor are they less valuable.

Whether they are teens, pre-adolescents, toddlers, infants, fetuses, or embryos.

Every human at every stage of life has EQUAL dignity.

Abortion is lethal ageism against the most defenseless humans.

This point more or less comes down to "age is only a number", and I can only think of two groups who make that point. One is pro-life activists like Lila, and the other is pedophiles. Yet, for years right-wingers like Rick Santorum and Ben Carson (both of which were Republican presidential candidates during the 2016 election) claimed, with very little push back for a very long time, that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to acceptance and legalization of pedophilia. It should also be noted that both Santorum and Carson are pro-life. Meanwhile, no leftist has ever dared to make the claim that reversing Roe v. Wade will lead to the removal of the age of consent. 
While on the topic let's Roe our boat over to the Supreme Court (Note: We here at Ephrom Report apologize for that pun) and see what Live Action has to say about that. Well, they currently have three articles up hoping whoever Trump picks to fill Kennedy's seat will reverse the most important case on abortion. While even trying to make people who are against that look like the bad guys. 
Don't believe me? Well when, as they reported, "Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed fear that [Amy Coney] Barrett's Catholic faith would lead her to overturn Roe v. Wade" if Trump were to appoint her, Live Action responded with mockery. Saying "Applying a religious test to someone is, of course, unconstitutional" which is true, but so is overturning a court case because of your religious views.
Here's something I would like the readers at home to do. Imagine if, for instance, a Democrat were to appoint a Muslim justice who, due to his religion, was anti-first amendment. Do you think the response Live Action gave above would be even close to the reaction Republicans would give in my situation? Of course not.
But what do I know? I only have eyes, and the ability to understand when someone is being a hypocrite. However, if you think I'm just being bias I request you to go through the article you just read and see how many times I state my opinion on these issues.   

The Future of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has officially announced that he plans to retire. This means that the president can now appoint another justice to the highest court in the land. 
Now, I'm not as worried as many people on the left seem to be. After all, Kennedy was a Republican and got appointed by Reagan in 1988. However, that doesn't mean you still shouldn't be worried because he's going to be replaced with another Republican. That is still worrying. Not helped by the fact that, while Kennedy would commonly toe the party line, he was at least sometimes willing to ignore what they party wanted and do something good for the people.
For instance, he was part of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Which stated that no government could place an "undue burden" on getting an abortion.
Anthony was part of the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down laws that banned sodomy. He ruled part of DOMA unconstitutional in the United States v. Windsor case. And, most importantly, he ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. All of which were great things for homosexuals. 
The justice also took the majority ruling in Texas v. Johnson which legalized flag burning. Showing that he at least cares about the first amendment.  
So why should you be worried? Well, Donald Trump has proven that he has been on the wrong side of all these issues. For instance, he appointed Mike Pence as Vice President of the United States. And his attitude on reproductive rights and gays is well, flawed to say the least. So Donnie hasn't really shown himself to have the best record with appointing people.
But what's his history with appointing people the Supreme Court? Well, that's a pretty easy question, after all, he has already appointed one. Ladies and gentlemen meet Neil Gorsuch. Republican "new right" commentators love Neil Gorsuch. That should tell you all you need to know about him, but I'll go on.
First off, he sided with Hobby Lobby in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case. If you don't remember that case, it was the one where Hobby Lobby tried to ignore an ACA regulation that said they had to provide birth control because of religious freedom. Let me rephrase that in a way that actually makes it accurate. Hobby Lobby tried to save money by not providing employees with birth control and tried to get away with it by claiming religious freedom. Neil Gorsuch either bought it because he's an idiot or went along with it because he's a shill. 
Let's also not forget his hatred for human euthanasia. Gorsuch even wrote a whole book about it. Because healthcare companies have to make money somehow. 
Basically, Gorsuch is a corporate shill. Expect whoever comes next to be the same. This is going to be painful.