HOURS AWAY: Senate Votes To Codify Roe v. Wade

Today on Sekulow, in just a few hours, the Senate will vote to try and codify Roe vs. Wade into federal law. We're going to be joined by Senator Marsha Blackburn. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls too.

1-800-684-3110. You know we have a matching moment until midnight tonight and people have responded. We have hit our initial goal of $250,000. That's what we had set aside in matching funds. We have raised that.

We've got an additional $100,000 in matching funds available up to $350,000 because of your response. You can still be part of this matching moment at ACLJ.org forward slash match because of all these fights that we're working on. The legislative battle, we now know today around 3 p.m. Eastern time. Now of course those votes are always a little off, but that's around the time the Senate will be voting to attempt to codify Roe vs. Wade.

And actually more extreme version than Roe vs. Wade, but the right to abortion on demand, basically with no restrictions, into federal law. And we've talked about the scenarios, the left really playing down the likelihood of this succeeding. What we're concerned about is if you put a couple of scenarios together and suddenly you don't want to be caught off guard. So we're not going to be caught off guard at the ACLJ. We're ready to go. Even if we have to take this on legally, we've got that ready to go if they were to actually codify Roe vs. Wade. We've of course got the larger strategy ready to go if Roe vs. Wade is indeed overturned to fight it out in the state.

So we're going to be talking about that more next month. But right now we know this is a live battle occurring and I will tell you that up until that vote there is going to be tremendous pressure on a few senators. Senators like Susan Collins of Maine, like Alisa Murkowski of Alaska, like Joe Manchin, like Kristin Sinema, from the Planned Parenthood lobbying and abortion industry world. And Dad, it's a billion dollar lobbying group. No listen, they're not going to stop. I'm pleased with where I see we are.

I talked to Than Bennett, he'll be with us in a moment. But he's had meetings with 30 Republican legislative staffs on I guess Monday, yesterday another 15 that he met with. We've distributed our legal memorandum on why the codification of Roe is not constitutional to all 100 Senate offices.

So everyone has it. But you're right, it's going to come down to a really last minute issue. And I say last minute because you just don't know what they're going to try to pull out.

For instance, we're concerned about they use the Murkowski language and then puts Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins in a very odd spot. So all this is in play and we're working very hard. If you're watching on Facebook, go over to Rumble because something's going on on Facebook we could tell. So just go on over to Rumble. In fact, if you go to rumble.com we're on their homepage. I believe we should be momentarily.

If you go to the live broadcast we'll be in there. But folks this is, as Jordan said, we've got the legislative analysis that we've actually expanded because there is a possibility. We've got a much longer memo that we've now prepared for our use here at the ACLJ because it is possible, Jordan, that next week they try this again.

Yeah, I don't think this is going to be the final day. I think this is very important because they're trying to use all the momentum they have from this leaked draft opinion and they're going to be twisting as many arms as possible. This is going to give, at a minimum, Chuck Schumer, he's going to know what he's got to work with on the straight up vote on their more extreme pro-abortion piece of legislation.

There's no talk yet publicly by Schumer about slipping in the more similar to Roe vs. Wade language of Murkowski and Collins and then trying to get them to then okay a vote on eliminating the filibuster or eliminating the filibuster for this issue. So you take their statement. You have to be very careful.

You have to read between the lines on what could happen. But again, they're not going to stop these efforts. I think this will be a continual push and this is a big first step and so we need everybody who's pro-life in the U.S. to step up. We need you to step up and be part of our matching moment. We have until midnight tonight we've added an additional $100,000 in matching funds so the goal now $350,000. Donate today at ACLJ.org and we can hit that goal.

We'll be right back. So folks, we hit in the first 24 hours of the matching moment. We hit our initial goal of $250,000 in matching funds.

That's like $500,000 for the ACLJ effectively. But we were able to add an additional $100,000 matching funds available for this final day of this matching moment. So you have until midnight tonight to still double the impact of your donation and be part of this fight for life.

It's an unprecedented fight. We knew an opinion was coming this summer and we've been prepared for that. But with the leak of the opinion, there's been now this move to legislate and actually codify Roe vs. Wade, a much more extreme version of Roe vs. Wade actually, but abortion on demand basically into law with no restrictions. And this movement, this vote is happening today around 3 p.m. Eastern time. And there's two ways to look at it.

I want to go to Than Bennett. Than, the Democrats are positioning this as a vote of let's see where everybody is. We want to see where the senators are, make them cast a vote on it, put the pressure on. But they don't think they'll actually succeed in getting it done. There's a 60-vote threshold. It won't get past that vote of the filibuster. But then there's a second issue that we are bringing people's attention to, which is that there's another piece of legislation out there that is co-authored by two Republican senators who right now say they will not vote yes on this piece of the Schumer codification. And that they wouldn't vote yes then to eradicate the filibuster for this vote. But there could be something happening very different if you slip their language in instead. Yeah, and they're doing that intentionally, Jordan. They're doing it so that their opponents, us, won't have our best foot forward, won't be prepared to defend.

We're not going to do that, Jordan. And when you're in a legislative posture like the one we're in today, you always have to expect the worst-case scenario to roll forward. And I'll just briefly explain. When this vote happens, the one you're talking about, it's going to be a motion to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed.

That sounds very complicated. It's not. It's simply a vote that says we are going to start debate on this codification of Roe. And as you said, Jordan, the bill actually goes much further than that. The other side is saying that will fail because they can't get to 60 votes. That part is true, Jordan. However, as we've said repeatedly on this broadcast, if they can get to 50 votes, if they decide they want to change the legislative filibuster, they're in control of the chamber.

They can do that. And Jordan, I will just tell you, as we talk today, right now, this moment, Joe Manchin hasn't said whether or not he is willing to vote for cloture on this bill. So theoretically, Jordan, if he would give them that 50th vote, they could change the rules of the filibuster as we speak and they could put that language that you're talking about, the one authored by Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, they could put it forward as an amendment. That could be the language that goes forward.

And Jordan, they would have 51 votes on substance to pass that bill. So look, you're right. They might try this again next week and the week down the road, but you know what we need to focus on today?

Today. Because there is a scenario in which they could move that language forward. You know, it's interesting here to me, and it's why I want to really reiterate this for our audience. This goes beyond Roe. The Schumer bill removes the conscience rights of healthcare professionals. So in other words, to be clear, you could be compelled to participate in abortion, even if it violates your religious beliefs or your conscience. And we have won those cases, but they are specifically saying that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will not apply to the context of abortion. They have an abortion carve out for the Religious Freedom Protection Act. That's how extreme this legislation is, and that's why we have to fight aggressively.

And Thanh's team is doing a great job on Capitol Hill. For all of you that are members of the ACLJ who are watching us right now. And it's also why, okay, our legal team has expanded our memos and are preparing to do that again in case we do have to really go after this legally.

There's the expanded version of it right now. Yeah, and I think again, folks, what we are not going to do, like Thanh said, is take anything for granted here. We know that the left is, because of the power of the abortion industry, that you can't just take for granted that they'll get their votes, but this won't actually get past the filibuster, so they won't get cloture, so no big deal here. We have to take every action they take as a big deal. They're doing it on purpose. They have scheduled the vote on purpose. So this is part of a plan for the left and for the pro-abortion Democrats. They didn't have to have this vote today. There was no one saying you must vote on this today to cut a fire row. They are seizing on the momentum that their side is feeling because of the draft opinion that was leaked out from the Supreme Court.

I mean, just remember, this is why this became so urgent so quickly. We were all preparing for the Supreme Court opinion, and we're ready to go there at the ACLJ. What we had to do very quickly was pivot to be ready to defeat this vote today and do everything we could possible, even getting to the senators who might be pro-abortion to say, you know what, you think you can do this, this actually won't survive legal challenge.

You're tipped to codify abortion and utilize constitutional provisions as the reason why, as a justification for their power to do so. So this is very serious. We've got this matching moment, and we hit our initial goal of $250,000, and I thank all of you for participating in that. We've added an additional $100,000 to the match, so we can now match up to $350,000.

So this could be like $700,000 for the ACLJ. So I encourage you, if you've not yet given and you're in a financial position to do so, go to ACLJ.org forward slash match right away, make that donation, be part of this effort to defend life. This vote is happening today. All right, so the bill today that looks like it's coming up, this is actually the second time it's going to be voted on. In March, a Senate vote on the abortion rights bill failed, 46 to 48. But obviously with the leak of the Supreme Court decision, things have changed drastically. The bill, in addition to, as I mentioned, restricting religious freedom conscience right, also codifies Roe versus Wade and actually goes further. It also stops states, and this is what's key here, they're reacting because of the draft Supreme Court opinion, which would give the states authority to restrict abortions, put procedures in place. Well, what this does, it takes it completely out of the states and federalizes the right.

Now, we don't think they have the constitutional authority to do it. So we have to be prepared on a three-pronged approach right now. This is, number one, let's defeat this again for the second time. Number two, prepare for an incredible push when that opinion comes out. Both as it relates to the judicial intimidation, which is going on as we speak, protesting in front of the judge's house, which by the way, the Supreme Court said, and by the way, pro-life protesters were protesting an abortion doctor in his home, and the Supreme Court said an ordinance prohibiting residential picketing targeting was constitutional. The abortion, the pro-life side lost that case, but now, of course, the left, they don't care, even though they were in the other side.

Now they're saying, oh, it's great. And then, number three, they'll use it as an attempt for court packing. So, Fan, all of these issues are front and center. It's not just the legislation, but it's the fallout from the, listen, if they know they're not going to win today, if that's what happens, you know they have a plan B.

You've got to be prepared and ready to fight on all fronts, Jay, and you've got to do it simultaneously. Look, I can just tell you in this town right now, the pressure is immense on especially the three senators that Jordan mentioned, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Joe Manchin. It's basically like all of the pressure on this issue has descended on them in the legislative sense.

I know there's the pressure on the justices as well. And you mentioned the February vote, Jay. You know, if everybody had voted that day, there would have been 49 votes in favor of advancing this bill.

And again, we've explained this before, but once you're on the bill, don't let them confuse you with all the procedure. Once they're on the bill, Jay, they have the substance to approve codification of Roe. So the procedural vote is really the important one here.

So you've got to describe it this way. You are within one vote in the United States Senate of them being willing to codify Roe v. Wade and send it to President Biden for his signature. You know that Leader Schumer is looking for that vote, and by the way, he's got one of those votes inside his own caucus. So don't discount the fact that he's looking to cut a deal right now, and there is immense pressure on those three senators that would deliver that 50th vote. So that's where we're focused like a razor today, Jay, but the legal teams are preparing for a number of scenarios coming out of this vote. Yeah, I want to let you know too, if you are watching on Facebook, we're going to relaunch on Facebook during the break, during the next break, so just a minute. So again, refresh that or head over to Rumble or YouTube.

You can go there as well. So we've got that. Senator Marsha Blackburn is going to be joining us live in the next segment of the broadcast, so she is of course going to be voting today. But she'll be able to give us a sense too of where her colleagues are on this vote, because again, this was not a vote they have to take.

So you have to think about it, big picture, take a step back. Why are they deciding right now to do it? They're using momentum from the leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court that overturns Roe v. Wade.

That's not the final opinion. We don't know what the final opinion of the court will be yet. But they're trying to use that and the abortion industry is trying to use that to get ahead of this. And by the way, the law that they want to pass says abortion would stop at viability or 24 weeks, but has an exception for health.

And health means whatever. So the way that's been defined is so broad that this would be abortion on demand through the entire pregnancy. So we've talked about that.

This is going much further than Roe v. Wade and the existing laws in many states on the books that the pro-life community has fought for. So we need your support. We've added an additional $100,000 to our matching moment, so you can continue to double the impact of your donation right now at ACLJ.org. And you have until midnight tonight to do so.

So you'll see it in your email. You'll see it online. Of course, you're hearing about it from us. And a big thank you to everybody as we hit that initial goal of $250,000. We'll be right back with Senator Blackburn.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. A Senate vote today around 3 p.m. Eastern time. We are joined by a great friend of our broadcast of the ACLJ.

U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who is a strong advocate for life and the unborn. Senator Blackburn, I want to go first to you right away on this vote today. We know this, again, was not a vote that Democrats had to schedule, but they are trying to use this momentum from the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion. And we're concerned with the ACLJ about the arm twisting that can be going on by the abortion industry as we speak to even try to do away with the legislative filibuster to try and enshrine abortion into federal law.

Where do you think things stand right now with your colleagues? Jordan, I've got to tell you, I think that what happened here was as soon as it was leaked, and it's becoming more obvious that it was a Democrat activist who leaked this, that what they decided to do immediately was to politicize this. They have moved forward immediately with calls to vote. It appears that they knew this was taking place. They showed up to protest with printed signs.

They were prepared to immediately issue statements coming from Pelosi and Schumer and others of the Democrats. So I think this is all part of their planning. Now, they do want to use it to push for, they think this is going to motivate women and help them get, hang on to some of these things by getting women to vote.

Here is their problem. When women realize this does not ban abortion, this says that it would go back to the states. If indeed that ends up being what the Supreme Court decides, then the states would be setting the regulations and restrictions on abortion. So it would be different in each state, but that's federalism. And look at all the different things that we handle on a state by state basis. So they don't have the support they thought they were going to get from women.

Women are very concerned about inflation. They're concerned about crime in the streets and the open border. So the Democrats have put themselves into this position. They've got to move forward with this vote. Now, they say if they can't pass it, then they're going to move to get rid of the filibuster. But you have Manchin and Sinema who have said they will not support removing the filibuster. So Senator, this is Jay.

Let me ask you this. This is an unprecedented situation. I've been litigating in front of the Supreme Court for four decades. There's never been a leak of a draft opinion from the Supreme Court, ever, in its history.

Never. So obviously, the motivation here was to get a reaction as to, A, get legislation introduced. We're seeing that now. B, intimidate the justices by going to their houses and doing all the public protests that they're doing. And C, you're always worried in the back of your mind, are they going to use this as an attempt to justify court packing? But on the legislative front here, here's what we're trying to talk to our audience about is what is actually going to take place. So if, in fact, the vote takes place today and we're successful in defeating this, I can't believe that that's going to be the end of the Democrats trying legislative fixes here. I think they're going to continue to push on this, but obviously you're closer to it than I am. What's your thoughts?

I think you're right on that. This is unprecedented. The leak was unprecedented.

The actions and reactions have been unprecedented. And indeed, the Democrats, this legislation they're pushing forward today is not something that would codify Roe v. Wade, which is what they're saying. The legislation that they're pushing forward, the Women's Health Protection Act, would basically enshrine late-term abortion. It would make our abortion laws more permissive than other countries like France or Italy or Germany or Finland. And it would also allow dismemberment abortions. This is not good for the health of women.

It is not good for the health of children, of course. But what we know is that people, the American people, do not favor late-term abortion. They do not want their tax dollars used for abortion.

It would allow all of that. Now, the Democrats are going to continue to try to push bills at a federal level because they know they cannot control the state. Senator Blackburn, I want to shift a little because I do feel like, too, they're using this because they don't want to be dealing with the issues that are really on front and center to so many Americans. I mean, this is an important issue to our audience, to a lot of people been fighting for life, I know, to you. But people are still trying to pay their bills right now. We've got this record inflation.

It doesn't seem like there's an end in sight. And this, to me, you kind of started off by this, is that they are trying to use this as a political motivator to a base of their party which isn't so motivated right now. Especially trying to get those independent voters, the moms out there, the mom voters they talk about all the time, and trying to figure out how to get that vote out when things are tough in the pocketbook. Well, and women are concerned about the price of the pump, the price of the grocery store, the lack of items at the grocery store. You take your list to the grocery store or you send it in for a grocery delivery and you've got maybe a third or fourth of the items that are not there or they're constantly texting you for substitution. People are concerned about getting baby formula. So when you cannot get the food that you need to feed your children, to make sandwiches for their lunchboxes for school, this is something that you're looking at and you want that issue addressed. When you know that kids in your community are dying or severely injured or getting addicted to fentanyl and other drugs that are coming across that southern border, you want that border secured. Those are top of mind issues.

You're 100% correct. Senator, thanks for being with us. We really appreciate this and thank you for your work on this. And we look forward to an afternoon's success, but we are going to stay on guard. Thank you, Senator Blackburn.

Folks, I just encourage you. You heard from Senator Blackburn about the politics of this. Again, they scheduled the vote.

They're trying to put the pressure campaign on right now. It looks like the Democrat party, it's Manchin and Sinema that were brought up by Senator Blackburn, and she knows them well, who are not in favor of getting rid of the filibuster, but that you've got this other legislation out there. And it's not the legislation we focused on right then, which is the Women's Health Protection Act, which does away with basically all restrictions and all on abortion. But there's another piece of legislation that's less extreme, if you will, and in any case, it's hard to say that when you're talking about taking of a human life, but a less extreme version supported by two Republican senators. So you've got to watch that carefully. Now, both Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have said they don't support the Women's Health Protection Act, but they have their own bill.

So again, you have to be concerned. How dedicated is this all politics for the Democrats? Because if it's all politics, we're going to win this vote today.

But if it's not all politics, and it's actually about trying to get protection of abortion in, they're going to be more creative. So Than Bennett's going to be rejoining us in the next half hour of the broadcast because we've got, it looks like, some breaking news on this that we're going to break down in the next segment. So folks, if you're watching on any of our social media platforms, share it with your friends.

If you're listening on radio, let your friends know we've got some breaking news on this. Support the matching moment. We were successful yesterday. We met our goal, exceeded our goal.

We've got another $100,000 goal for today. ACLJ.org or respond to the email that you've already received. ACLJ.org or respond to that email or text message that you may be getting today as well.

ACLJ.org. Stay tuned, folks. We've got some breaking news coming. We need your help, and the moment is now. The leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe vs. Wade has triggered the pro-abortion Senate to force a vote to codify Roe this Wednesday, May 11th.

We believe enshrining Roe into federal law is simply unconstitutional. We won't stand for it, and we need your help. Through this matching moment, your donation is effectively doubled, and you only have until midnight to make it happen. Visit ACLJ.org right now. keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever this is secular and now your host Jordan Sekulow All right, so we've got some breaking news to report right now.

I want to go to Sam Bennett again in Washington, DC. We've got some clarification on exactly where Senator Manchin of West Virginia, this key Democrat swing vote, is on the vote today specific to the Women's Health Protection Act. Tell people what we've learned. Jordan, this is one of those moments where you sort of hate to be right. You hate to say this is what we were worrying about, but literally just now the reporting from the Hill is that Joe Manchin has, there's two parts to this.

The first part is good. Joe Manchin has said that he will vote no on the abortion procedural vote today. He said, I've made a decision. I know where I've always stood. It's not Roe v. Wade codification.

It's an expansion. It wipes 500 state laws off the books and it expands abortion. So he's going to vote no on that. But Jordan, the next part, this is literally what we've been talking about on this broadcast. He says, I would vote for Roe v. Wade codification if it was today. I was hopeful for that, but I found out yesterday in caucus that it wasn't going to be.

I've been pro-life all my life. Jordan, I'm just going to break it down really simply. That means if he were presented with the Collins Murkowski language that we've been talking about that would codify Roe, which they could do later today or next week, Jordan, he would be in favor of that and that would give them the 50 votes that they would need to clear closure. So everybody needs to understand this is exactly what we are kind of predicted is happening.

And we've got plans for all of these. The troubling part of it, it's good that we're going to on the vote today. The problem is the Murkowski language is more of a codification of Roe v. Wade.

And you've got Joe Manchin who says he's pro-life but in favor of abortion on demand, which is Roe v. Wade. So I mean, this is what, this is the irony of all of this, but this is not unexpected. So this is why we have got to keep the momentum up and the pressure up on this as we defeat one.

They're going to come back with the next one. That was the whole purpose of leaking that opinion was to build a groundswell of support from these pro-abortion groups who are spending millions of dollars on this. You know, we're talking about raising $350,000. They're spending millions of dollars on these things, but we're going to be effective with what we are given by our donors. But I'm telling you, folks, exactly what we thought might happen is happening.

So we've got to be really on guard here. Yeah, and I think that, again, you always, legislatively, you go for the max. That's what the initial vote is going to be on today, the most extreme pro-abortion bill they can put forward, which would eliminate all restrictions on abortion, as Joe Manchin said, of 500 state laws that have been held constitutional. Under the Roe vs. Wade framework have been held constitutional, those would all be wiped out.

So it would be much more extreme than what is the current law of the land. And so you say, okay, maybe they don't have the votes for that. So they go back to the abortion industry and they say, but we can get you back to Roe vs. Wade, we think. We think we can get you to there. We're going to have to pull some legislative moves there.

Are you going to back us in there? Because that's what they'll need to know is from the abortion industry, are you going to back, is NARAL, is, you know, all that Planned Parenthood and all their groups, Center for Reproductive Rights, are they going to give them the green light to move forward with that secondary legislation that's proposed by Murkowski and Collins? Exactly correct. And that's why they start with the extreme vote today. And by the way, Jordan, the second reason they start with the extreme vote today, both of these are extreme, the most extreme vote today.

They start with this so that they can give everybody on the pro-left, a sort of radical left, a vote on it. And then they use that as a negotiating posture to come back to Joe Manchin and say, okay, you oppose that bill, we'll move to the bill you like. Now you've got to give us the 50th vote to clear cloture and ultimately bring Collins and Murkowski on to clear it in final.

Jordan, again, you hate to say it. This is exactly what we said the United States Senate needed to be voted on guard for. I'm glad that it looks like they're going to win that procedural vote today.

Although who knows? I mean, Joe Manchin could move again, but Jordan, it's teed up exactly according to their plan to then move to the Collins-Murkowski language and try to get Joe Manchin on board with it. Yeah, I mean, he's giving them that option. There's not an indication yet that they've got the green light from the abortion industry on that piece of legislation, but they certainly are giving that option. Folks, that is why this matching moment that we have and we've added an additional $100,000 to the match is so critical right now. Support the work of the ACLJ. Be part of this matching moment at ACLJ.org because, again, what we're predicting is starting to play out in the statements from the senators themselves. Support the work of the ACLJ today. Be part of this matching moment, ACLJ.org. Donate now. Be right back.

Welcome back to Sekulow. So we just have got an update. We just went through it for you, but we've got more clarity from Senator Joe Manchin, a key Democrat vote on this issue. What he said is that after he learned what this Women's Health Protection Act is, that it's not just a codification of Roe v. Wade that is much more extreme. As we've talked about, this would allow abortion on demand, the full pregnancy, full nine months. It opens the door to that, gets rid of, as Joe Manchin said, 500 state restrictions on abortion, which have survived the constitutional scrutiny under Roe v. Wade.

So it would wipe all of those off. So he says, I don't support that, but I would support codifying basically Roe v. Wade as things stand right now. That legislation does exist. It's not the legislation that's being voted on, scheduled to be voted on today at 3 o'clock. And it exists not from Democrats, but from two Republican senators. So if you can get Joe Manchin, plus Murkowski and Collins, and you get the abortion industry to say, okay, we know we can't get the full bill, the most extreme bill that we'd like. But hey, if we can get things to be status quo, even with the Supreme Court opinion that comes out overturning Roe v. Wade, well, that's pretty good for our industry.

So that's why I think, again, this two-part statement is very important. Yeah. So Thanh, in Washington, what's the reaction right now that you're hearing from some of the Senate offices? Obviously this is, you know, it's concerning because you know what the second phase of this legislative attack would be. Yeah.

I mean, it's just breaking. I haven't seen reaction to it, but I can tell you what it's going to be, Jay. I mean, they're going to be saying this is Joe Manchin all over again.

I mean, this is what he does, Jay. It's very clear that he was trying to get to a yes on this piece of legislation. He wanted to get to a yes.

They did not give him what he wanted this time around. But I really think it's because of what Jordan said previously, and that is that they had to give this vote to the abortion industry. And when it's clear to the abortion industry that they can't get their top line bill, then what will they accept?

Well, I would think that codification of Roe would be something they would accept. And so, Jay, just one way this could play out, there are a number of them, but one way it could play out is the vote could fail today. And then next week they could vote for cloture to bring up the Collins-Merkowski bill and use Joe Manchin's vote to change the legislative filibuster and send that bill over to the House.

If it went to the House, it would certainly pass there, and it would be on the President's desk in a matter of days. And remember, folks, this is exactly their plan. So we know what the plan is.

The leak of the opinion was to generate all of this. So what we have done, and this is a draft opinion, but they have used this moment on their side to gin up the support for multiple legislative attacks. Now, we have looked at that legally. Let's assume worst-case scenario.

That's how you – we're lawyers. We have to assume worst-case scenarios. What if the Senate were to pass the Murkowski version of the bill? The position of the American Center for Law and Justice is that based on constitutional law, that would be void. It would be unconstitutional.

Andy? That's correct. Congress lacks the authority to enact either of the bills that are pending before the Senate, and the bills encroach upon – that is, they unlawfully enter into state's constitutional authority and violate the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. None of the constitutional provisions cited in those two bills – I'm talking about the Democrats' bill and the Murkowski-Collins bill, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment or the Commerce Clause – none of those provides authority for enactment of these bills.

But we've got to be prepared for that, Jordan. Yeah, because you're still – you're going to have to have the battle if that vote were to occur. And then what's unfortunate about that – not that we wouldn't battle it out and we think we could win – we think we do win that in court, ultimately – is that it stalls the bigger fight, which is actually returning to the states and letting states decide how they want to regulate abortion and allowing groups like ours to go into each state and make the case about what we support. And so, again, it would accomplish also what the abortion industry wants us to do, is to keep this in the federal court as long as possible. You know, here's the ridiculous nature of this. You've got Chuck Schumer saying that he supports these protests at the justices' house, which, by the way, there's federal statute that says if you're doing this to intimidate a justice in an opinion, you can't do it. And there's – I don't know what the ordinances are and where these particular justices live, but there's a lot of ordinances that prohibit targeted picketing like this. Rick Grenell is joining us. And, Rick, obviously here we know that from a political standpoint, the leak of that draft opinion – it was just a draft, and hopefully that's the opinion.

It's a great opinion if it is. But the leak of that opinion was done to exactly ascertain the kind of temperature of the pro-abortion movement, where they see all this, but also to start the process of either codifying Roe, intimidating the judges, or packing the court. Look, I'm really concerned about the pattern that we keep seeing from bureaucrats and people in Washington when they don't like something. They immediately go to partisan, one-sided leaks of half the story, and then we have the entire media that just goes along and trumpets what the ruling party is saying. This is really dangerous for our country, and I'm so thankful that ACLJ is on top of this and able to immediately assemble a team to get ready and fight back again.

We can talk about this on social media, we can complain about this to our neighbors, but unless we take legal action and file in court and file freedom of information requests, we're just not going to get anywhere. We've got this matching moment right now because we were already prepared for the decision in the summer. Multiple ways it could come out, we were prepared. We're going to launch some new things for the ACLJ next month, so we were already prepared for that battle. This leak, they tried to catch everybody off guard, so you had to play catch-up a little bit. What we did at the ACLJ was say we're going to play catch-up very quickly with our legislative team, and we're going to put together this matching moment for 24 hours. We've already exceeded the goal. We've put another $100,000 into the match, and people can be part of it at ACLJ.org.

They can donate until midnight tonight. That is the tips of these leaks. This targeted leaking we see now in Washington, D.C. to try and change policy quickly and also to try and change a political discussion. Instead of talking about inflation, they think it's better to be talking about abortion.

That's their political calculation. Look, I have to say, Jordan, I'm reminded of what Ronald Reagan told us is that every generation has to fight for their freedom. Now is the time. Gone is the day that you get to listen to this great radio show and sit there and say, gosh, I hope somebody else is doing something. You actually have to participate with us. You have to do something.

You have to go to social media. You have to talk about what you're hearing, talk about the facts, share information. And if you can, you need to give a little money so that organizations like ACLJ can take the fight to them. I have seen a lot of organizations, and a lot of them just sit on the sidelines and complain. But thank God we've got a team that assembles and uses the tools of government against them, uses every possible angle in the court.

And thank God for ACLJ. I hope people understand that you have to play a role in this, and you have to be our partner. You know, to me, I appreciate that, Rick, but Andy, also, this leak, it got the desired result what the left wanted.

I mean, it did. The whole idea of the leak was to galvanize the homicide industry, okay? It's the killing industry, and let's say it.

It's the industry that kills, and it galvanized them, and it did what Saul Olenski said, our colleague, Gary Hutchison alluded to yesterday. Get in their face. Pick at them. Fight them.

Do everything that you can do. Scream, yell, holler. Listen to the mayor of Chicago. This is, what did she say? I couldn't believe it yesterday when she said a call to arms in a city like Chicago. Oh, barricades, like they were saying in the French Revolution. Go to war.

But this was calculated, specifically designed to have the result that it did, Jay. Listen to Janet Yellen. I mean, she talked about this with Senator Tim Scott. Take a listen. Bite 42. In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low income and often black, who aren't in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education, to later participate in the workforce. So there is a spillover into labor force participation, and it means the children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves. Thank you. Let me just say my time on the topic. I'll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I'm thankful to be here. I mean, the fact that she would say that, Rick, it just tells you everything. That's her answer to an African American U.S.

Senator raised by a single mom, is that it would have been better to abort you financially for the U.S. economy. It's obnoxious. It's literally crazy talk. I expect the next argument to be that it's Putin's fault or some sort of a COVID response. I mean, these people have one answer for everything, and it's disgusting. And what we need to be able to say very clearly is that it has nothing to do with the economy.

It has everything to do with your heart. You're exactly right. So, folks, we want you to participate.

Thank you, Rick. We want you to participate with us. We met our goal in a day, and now we've increased that goal because this is going to be a multifaceted battle. ACLJ.org.

Respond to the email you've received or the text message or go to ACLJ.org right now for the matching moment. Welcome back to Sekulow. So, again, I think we've put it all together. We've had Senator Blackburn, we've had Rick Rinnell on as part of our team to understand this fight. And there is a vote occurring today.

It's scheduled for 3 p.m. Eastern time. It looks right now that, again, that vote won't be successful on its face on the piece of legislation specific in that vote as of this moment, which is the Women's Health Protection Act, which is the extreme abortion on demand, no restrictions at all, more extreme than the codification of Roe vs. Wade. But there's a second piece of legislation available to Democrats put forward by two Republican senators, Murkowski and Collins, that is a codification of Roe vs. Wade that wouldn't wipe out all of the state restrictions, wouldn't wipe out the RFRA protections and the conscience protections, but would, in fact, basically keep things as if there is no Supreme Court opinion coming. And we don't know what that final opinion is going to look like, but if it looks like the draft, what it would do is it would try to override that. There's a lot of legal issues with that, we've already pointed out, but override that preemptively. And what we're concerned about, what we're following closely, is when you see a statement from Joe Manchin saying, I'm not going to vote for this one, but I would vote for that Roe vs. Wade codification. It's signaling, at least for Chuck Schumer, to go to the pro-abortion groups in that industry and say, will you back us on this? Will you back us on the codification of Roe, which allows some of those state restrictions we know you don't like and we know this isn't perfect for you, but, hey, it puts you in a better situation than it all being overturned in two months. Let's go ahead and take Sharon's call calling out of Kansas. Sharon, go ahead, you're on the air.

Hi there, thank you so much for what you're doing. Okay, would it matter if the Supreme Court came out instead of waiting until June with their final decision, and this is assuming that what was leaked is what is going to be the final decision, couldn't that stop all this crap going on in the Senate right now? No, it would not.

It would not because they used the leak of the opinion, and let's assume that is the opinion for a moment. They've already, by doing this, they have galvanized, or at least attempted to galvanize, their legislative support, their intimidation factor, the potential for court packing. I mean, they've made, and they're taking the attention, as we've said, away from other economic issues. So what you have to understand, and I think, Harry, the reality of this is we have to be prepared. We're looking at it legislatively.

We may get a win today, but they could come right back. Now you've got Murkowski, Collins, and Joe Manchin saying the Murkowski bill they would vote for. That's a very troubling development because that means they've got the votes to federalize Roe v. Wade, which then means, even if the opinion comes out in our favor, we have to go to federal court to say they didn't have the constitutional authority. I think that is correct, and I think if you look at the memo that we put together a couple of days ago, I think it's also clear, though, that there would be a number of constitutional hurdles that the Senate would have to face with respect to either the legislation that they will vote on today or the legislation that they may vote on next week. And so if you look at those hurdles specifically, the Senate would have to deal with, I think, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause.

If you look at all of those particular provisions collectively and together, it's difficult if you have a reasonable court, of course. It's difficult to see the Supreme Court accepting what the Senate is trying to do. Having said that, however, it's very, very important to note that what the Senate is trying to do is they're trying to muddle this particular victory for pro-life folks, and they're also trying to raise money on this. And I suspect they will continue to beat the drum on this particular issue, irrespective of whether or not they succeed this week or next week or in November, because for them, they see this as a wedge issue which may drive out voters. However, it's also important to keep in mind that this particular issue takes place against a backdrop in which mothers are having difficulty finding baby formula, gas prices are skyrocketing, and there are other problems which occupy the American people.

Yeah, I want to play this. This is Joe Manchin now. We've got sound on where he stands right now on the current vote and what he would vote for.

Take a listen. The bill we have today to vote on, the Women's Health Protection Act, and I respect people who support, but don't make no mistake. It is not Roe v. Wade codification.

It's an expansion. It wipes 500 state laws off the books. It expands abortion, and with that, that's not where we are today. We should not be dividing this country further than we're already divided, and it's really the politics of Congress that's dividing the country.

It's not the people. They're telling us what they want, and it's just disappointing that we're going to be voting on a piece of legislation which I will not vote for today. So that's good for today, but it does not pretend well for what could happen tomorrow. Yeah, to be honest with you, it's covered, Jay, because he went on to say that I would vote for Roe v. Wade codification if that were on the floor today. So look, the pro-abortion caucus in the United States Senate, Jay, they got what they needed from Joe Manchin today, despite what he said about how he's going to vote today.

No, 100%. They got what they wanted, and they did it. This was done, as you said, this is the killing industry.

That's what this is, and that's why that thing was leaked. Someone inside the Supreme Court of the United States leaked that opinion for this reason. Yeah, and remember, he'll get to vote no on much more.

He's right about how it's more extreme. It's more extreme than Roe v. Wade or as the current law stands right now in the country, so he'll get to vote no on that. It'll allow other senators to vote no on it as well, Democrats and Republicans, and then they'll get to come back with what he says, oh, what the American people really want. What he's saying the American people want is they just want things to stay as they were, more like a codification of Roe v. Wade. And then you come in there, and what I think that Schumer and the Democrats will have to do is get a green light from the abortion industry that they would actually support this move.

And listen, if you compare it to that draft Supreme Court opinion, I don't know why the abortion industry wouldn't support it if they know that's as far as they can get, because it still, for them, would be much better to have the fight in federal court and have things kind of remain the same if Roe v. Wade gets overturned in two months. No, that's exactly right, Andy. I mean, this is following the playbook of the reason the person leaked the draft opinion, which has never happened. Oh, yeah. I mean, I'm still not over the leak of the opinion, Jay. I'm still not over that.

No, I get it. In the history of the annals of the Supreme Court of the United States, there has never been a leak of an opinion before that opinion has been published, and this came out. But what were you doing? You were looking at an abortion industry, a killing industry that's making billions of dollars, and you were jeopardizing them. They were going to do anything to stop that, Jay.

They were going to do it, and so they find someone, and I'm not going to say who it is, because I don't know, but they get them to leak an opinion so that they can then get, militarize the nation behind abortion, and that's what they have done. Folks, we are fighting on multiple levels here, multiple legislative levels, multiple litigation levels. I mean, we're not taking anything for granted. We've got this matching moment. We've got another $100,000 added to it today. Let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org and make that online gift. Any amount you donate in this moment will be matched. Also, if you're getting our emails or text messages, you can respond to those as well. It will all be part of the matching moment, but Jordan, this is the time for people to react.

Yeah, it is. This matching moment you have until midnight tonight, we've added an additional $100,000 available to match, so this could be like $700,000 for the ACLJ in 24 hours. Donate today, ACLJ.org. You have until midnight tonight.