Emily Jashinsky, voice of a conservative?

I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I just don't care for Emily Jashinsky, culture editor for The Federalist and occasional guest on Fox (I'm told). I think it's her whiney giggly voice. (I just looked her up and she's quite young--30, unmarried, no kids.) 

For podcasts, voice quality is important to me. I heard her on the "UnHerd with Freddie Sayers" podcast evaluation of Trump's speech of Thursday. Yikes. She might as well have been on the View, a show I don't watch, but because they are such racists and haters one does see clips occasionally on other shows. She even doubted he needed the bandage. I wonder if she's ever had a part of her ear blown off, or even had skin cancer on her head or face and realized the danger of infection? The skin is the largest organ of our body, a protective shield against injury, and infection. The flesh on his ear prevents entry of bacteria and when it's gone--a bandage would cover the scab or prevent it from being bumped by an enthusiastic grandchild or fan. At least she didn't demand to see the medical records as one screechy leftist feminist on Demedia did. She didn't like the tribute to Corey Comperatore who was killed by one of the bullets some on the Left wished for Trump. Perhaps she would have preferred the full-scale riots and defund police parades that honored George Floyd? She said Trump was just being Trump and she didn't see any real change. 

An air-head trying to get inside Trump's head and heart. She's called a "rising conservative voice," and she's just full of herself--something she accuses Trump of.

Legal surrogacy is an industry needing legislation

In case you were out of moral and ethical problems to worry about, have you given thought to legal surrogacy--or rent a womb? Many states outlaw it, as do many countries. Ukraine doesn't. And when the war broke out, there were some babies in limbo, or women left postpartum in a war zone without care after the foreign parents swooped in, picked up the baby on demand, and left. In countries that allow it, it is exploitation of poor women. Now Congress is getting involved, although I can't find the right link. New legislation is being planned (follow the money) to insure that gay men or trans women can have their babies and still have insurance coverage and tax deductions. Family building not as God intended. Just a quick internet search reveals the number of Gay Surrogacy businesses. Since I can't find the information, I don't know if there is any protection for the womb mother. Probably not. Politicians buy off the poor, but they don't really help them. We have a SCOTUS justice who can't define woman, a wealthy, highly educated heterosexual lawyer who can't figure it out. It's now considered a "rights" issue--the proposed legislation has to clarify what is infertility; obviously two gay men may not be infertile, nor a single woman, so that can't be the criteria. But someone better hurry with a definition, because technology and the culture has moved on past that little detail. "Inside the rapidly changing world of reproductive technology." If we leave it up to rights groups and politicians (both left and right) we'll have a mess.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/inside-the-rapidly-changing-world-of/id983782306?i=1000590081088

Emma Waters, Heritage Foundation is the speaker interviewed on the Federalist Podcast by  Emily Jashinsky