BREAKING: Supreme Court to Hear Case to Limit Roe v. Wade

This is Jay Sekulow breaking news. The Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could limit the impact of Roe vs. Wade.

Live from Washington, D.C., Sekulow Live. Words from the U.S. Supreme Court moments ago, they have agreed to hear a major abortion case. The justices will take up Mississippi's bid to revive a ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. State lawmakers passed the ban three years ago in 2018, but the lower court then blocked the move, citing Supreme Court precedent. The court will hear the case next term. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow.

Hi everybody, welcome to the broadcast, and indeed this is breaking news and big news. The Supreme Court to hear the first major abortion case since the new Supreme Court, I call it the Roberts to Supreme Court. This is with the addition of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Cone Barrett. So you've got a expanded conservative block at the Supreme Court of the United States.

You have a case coming out of Mississippi, where Mississippi passed a law that basically in essence said after 15 weeks of the baby's life, unborn child's life, that abortions would be prohibited except the case of the life of a mother, medical emergency, and fetal abnormality. Now what's interesting about this, and we point this out in the brief that we filed in support of this, and that is this is really going to be a question of whether the stare decisis, that is Roe versus Wade, is still the framework upon which these cases should be reviewed. Now Andy, stare decisis is only as good until the Supreme Court says it's not good anymore.

That's right. Stare decisis of course we know is a concept that says that cases that have been decided in a certain way based on certain facts and certain law should be decided the same way again and again. Now if our position is correct that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and the Casey case was wrongly decided, then stare decisis should not prevent the Supreme Court of the United States from following the law that was enacted in Mississippi. It should not, the Constitution should always trump stare decisis.

In other words, what the Constitution says should always take precedence over what these man-made legal principles say. C.C. Howell, Senior Counsel for the ACLJ is with us also. And C.C., give me your assessment of the significance. This is a big case, it's got big ramifications. What's your assessment of the significance here? Well it's very significant because the court, you know, has said when a state's interest becomes compelling to protect the life of the baby. And they just picked an arbitrary point of viability. So this case is going to decide if the estate can say that they're going to protect a baby before viability and in this case at 15 weeks.

You know what's interesting here Harry is from a policy standpoint, the dates are, the time frame is moving back. This is kind of the left's great fear is that the medical science, I mean they're doing surgeries on these children in utero. So the medical science is outpacing the pro-abortionists desire to push the envelope.

Absolutely. And so in some respects the pro-abortionists have been caught in a trap of their own making. They have suggested that abortion should be allowable up until the age of viability.

But the age of viability is now coming down quite sharply. So that should mean that states should be allowed to impose restrictions on abortion to protect the life of the mother, the health of the fetus, and to protect humane treatment of human beings. And I think if you look at the facts in this particular case, the facts in this case support the state of Mississippi.

We're going to get into this in great detail. Walter Weber, senior counsel, wrote our brief. We filed a brief in this case because of your support of the ACLJ and of course we'll be filing a merits brief as it goes to the Supreme Court of the United States for what's called a merits argument. They've granted certiorari.

So if you're just joining us now, the Supreme Court has granted review in the most significant abortion related case in at least a decade as far as the possibility in dealing with Roe v. Wade. We'll get Walter Weber's take on this. We'll get our panel's take on what this means for the Supreme Court. And we'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. Also, don't forget, support the work of the ACLJ. When we come back, Van Bennett's going to talk about Title X funding. Your taxpayer dollars going to where? Abortion. We'll talk about that too. 1-800-684-3110 if you want to talk to us.

We'll be back in a moment. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. So if you're just joining us, the Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in a major case involving the constitutionality of an abortion and may well implicate Roe v. Wade. We'll be joined by Walter Weber, senior counsel for the ACLJ, who was the primary architect of our brief in just a moment. But before we do, that is not the only abortion-related news that's going on. Let me go to Washington, D.C., and our office there, Than Bennett, our director of governmental affairs, Title X, up front and center. Than, what's happening on that front? Yeah, of course, these issues come down on the same day, Jay.

This is an issue that is going to be very familiar to our listeners. Title X funding, look, this is one of those programs that Congress got it right when they wrote the statute, the statute that is supposed to provide for family planning programs. It says that none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

Very plain, Jay. Following the law would be very clear that entities like Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers should not be eligible for this funding. However, under the Obama administration, Planned Parenthood got an average of about $60 million under this program. President Trump's administration righted that wrong. They correctly applied the statute, made sure that abortion providers did not have access to these funds.

But the Biden administration is set to change that back. Jay, today, actually, in a matter of just a couple of hours here, we will be filing legal comments. Get this, Jay. On behalf of 557,000 of our members articulating what the law says and articulating what the Biden administration must do to comply with it. I want you to repeat.

Now, folks, if you're listening anywhere in the country, if you're on Facebook or YouTube or Rumble or listening to the thousands of radio stations, we're on Sirius XM, whatever platform, aclj.org. Right now, share this with your friends because I want to talk about impact for a moment. And I'm going to have Fan repeat that number because you're talking about a breathtaking amount of people responding. All right, so Fan, restate that again. We're following comments. I'm actually holding a copy of those comments right here if you're watching this on television or a social media platform.

You see it. There they are. These are our comments that are going in today. On behalf of Fan, 557,000 aclj members, more than half a million, Jay, I want you to think about stadium and stadium and stadiums full of people that responded on this.

So a huge thank you from all of us. That's how we mobilize and get action. You don't ignore a half a million people on an issue like this. So your voice is going to be heard.

Believe me, it will be heard. Walter Weber, senior counsel for the aclj. The case is called Dobbs versus Jackson's Women's Health.

The petition for certiorari is granted. They limited it to the first question, which is restrictions on pre-viability, whether all the pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. Walter, first of all, the significance of the case.

Sure. Well, this is huge because it's the first abortion case for the current slate of Supreme Court justices. We know the positions of a number of the justices who voted and spoken out on the issue before, but we have several justices who have not yet weighed in. And we're hoping, obviously, that they're going to follow the Constitution rather than the distortions of the Constitution that we've seen in the past over the abortion issue. Okay, this is an issue.

We talked about this, and I'm going to go back to Andy for a second here. Roe versus Wade is deemed to be, quote, starry decisis. So let's first, Andy, define for our audience what that means legally. Alright, starry decisis is a judicial-made concept. It's a court-made concept. And what it says from English law to today is that cases that are based on the same facts and the same law should be decided in the same way. That is not, that is a principle of law that has been followed since the English common law was adopted in the United States.

Cases that come up without the same facts and the same law should be decided in the same way, and that gives stability to the law, and it gives us the ability to predict what's going to happen, and the law is not all over the place. But that doesn't trump the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States, first of all, says life liberty, okay? And those are the kinds of things that we are looking at, that the Roe v. Wade and the Casey case should not trump the constitutional prohibition against the taking of life in the fashion that these abortion cases have permitted up to now.

Walter, do you think the framework of Roe v. Wade will be at issue here? Definitely, because the reason this is a path-breaking case is that the prohibition on abortion goes after 15 weeks of gestation. The consensus is that viability starts at approximately 20 to 22 weeks of gestation, depending on how you measure it. So we're talking about five to seven weeks before the baby would survive outside the womb. There's no baby there, obviously.

Of course. Heavily developed, but before the cutoff of viability, so at the Supreme Court, we're to say that viability is a hard and fast line, and you can't be in abortions before that. As the lower courts have ruled in this case and other cases, then that's the end of the statute. They would have to modify Roe v. Wade or reinterpret its provisions in order to be able to uphold this law. You know, there's been a lot of criticism, C.C., of Roe v. Wade. It's not really a constitutional standard.

Justice Blackmun's opinion there has been criticized very significantly, including by members of the current Supreme Court of the United States. But we're talking about what's deemed to be pre-viability, that is, at 15 weeks. But what we have to also underscore, and Walter just touched on this, is regardless, we're talking about a human being.

Yes, that's right. We're talking about a baby, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that a state has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of a baby from the beginning of pregnancy. So we know the Supreme Court has admitted that life of a baby should be protected.

But we're waiting on when does it become a compelling interest? And that was just arbitrarily set at viability. And Justice O'Connor stated at one time that potential life is no less potential in the first weeks than it is after viability. So we are talking about a baby, potential life, and it needs to be protected. And Roe v. Wade, which like you said, legal scholars and justices both have said it's just poorly written. And so we need to go back to what the Constitution states. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, and hopefully this case is going to bring that issue to the forefront. Harry, there's going to be a lot of pressure on the court when it comes to, I mean, you're going to, there's going to be, I think Walter said in our pre-meeting, a flood of briefs saying you must uphold Roe v. Wade, you must uphold Roe v. Wade. But Roe v. Wade, you're right, has been significantly criticized constitutionally by academics.

Absolutely. So essentially the United States Supreme Court, uh, created a rule out of whole cloth. There is no constitutional foundation, at least in my opinion, for Roe v. Wade.

Um, and so even some distinguished scholars on the left have criticized the Supreme Court's decision making in that particular case. But if you focus solely on the issue of viability, then the case ought to come down on this single question. What does the science say about viability? Now, importantly, we should note that pro-abortionists, they believe in the science and they believe in the law quite strongly, but only when it supports their position. Now the science is basically reducing the age of viability quite clearly. And the state of Mississippi can marshal a strong scientific case in support of its, uh, abortion restrictions. And so one particular point that they make in their brief is that any surgical abortion taking place after 15 weeks gestation carries inherent medical threats to the mother. The risk of a mother's death from abortion at 16 to 20 weeks gestation is 35 times more likely than at eight weeks.

And the relative risk of mortality increases by 38% for each additional week at higher gestation. So I think if we are really concerned about life and if we're really concerned about the life of the mother, there is a clear and unmistakable statutory base scientific basis, which supports the Mississippi law. Uh, Walter, how would you define a victory here?

What does a win look like? Well, anything that sends the case back and says, I think I'm quoting you, Jay, anything that sends the case back and says either reverse or vacated would be a victory because at this point you got the lower courts basically striking it down. What I would love to see is for the court to make some, I mean, well versus wait has so many problems with it. Uh, and I would love for them to recognize as an institution, some of those problems, like for example, the way that babies are treated in abortion, we would never treat animals. I mean the cruelty to animal statutes would forbid the kind of carry limbs off poisoning, right? Slow suffocation, giving them an ejection to kill the harp. We'd never ever consider doing that to a dog.

The fact that we do that to human beings and act like that to human rights doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially in a country that is founded on the idea of, uh, you know, the declaration of independence and human rights and, and, uh, and equality. Walter Weber, senior counsel for the ACLJ architect of our brief that has now been granted review. The case has been granted review. We got a lot more on this. We're taking your calls too. How big of an issue is the life issue for you?

1-800-684-3110. We talk about elections having consequences. Now you've got a new Supreme Court. This is going to be a big test, a big test for that Supreme Court. We're going to talk about that when we come back from the break.

Also more on this title 10 situation. 1-800-684-3110. If you want to talk to us on air, if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, go to ACLJ.org. That's how we do it. That's how we follow these briefs.

That's how we bring you this broadcast each and every day. Again, ACLJ.org. And if you want to talk to us, 1-800-684-3110.

Back with more in just a moment. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.

Hey, welcome back. If you're just joining us, the Supreme Court of the United States has granted review in, I think, the most significant abortion-related case, Roe versus Wade type of case, maybe in our lifetime, because you have a new Supreme Court, a different Supreme Court, a Supreme Court decision that's probably going to come down to two justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. That's any kind of our speculation, but we don't know where Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are on these issues yet. We know their judicial philosophy, but they're going to play a key role here because I think Thomas, Alito, Comey, Barrett, I think, you know, we don't know Justice Barrett's judicial philosophy on this yet, but she follows a Scalia type model. So I would expect that she would say this framework's no good, but the other two, we don't know yet. We're going to find out.

Yeah, we're going to find out very soon. I think that one of the true conservative on the court, in my opinion, of all conservatives, the true conservative on the court is Clarence Thomas. Yes, I put Alito right with him. And Alito.

But Justice Thomas impresses me and has always impressed me so very, very much as being a follower of the constitution and a textualist, and we know what his position on this is. The other two, I don't know. The other two, we don't, we have not seen them yet. We're going to find out. So, CC, when you look at the case, I mean, the argument they're going to come back with, I mean, and Walter said it's going to be a pile on. Do we still have Walter?

No, that's okay. And Walter said they're going to just pile on this and they're going to say, this is a pre-viability case. Thus, this is ridiculous. It's not post-viability where it's a different issue or the standards of review are different. This is pre-viability. That's what the pro-abortionists are going to be arguing.

Right. And so the point still remains that that viability point is an arbitrary point that the court picked of when a state's interest in protecting the health and life of the mother and the baby becomes compelling. So that's really, I think what's at issue is obviously like Justice O'Connor said, potential life is no less potential in the first few weeks than it is after viability. And so if we truly believe that the state has a compelling interest to protect the life and health of the mother and the baby, then we need to take a very good look at when that begins. And it of course is before viability. The baby can feel pain. The baby is fully really formed physically at 15 weeks and can sense things outside the womb. So there is a point where the state obviously can protect the health and life of the mother and the baby.

And clearly that needs to be determined before viability. All right. We're taking your phone calls at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Chris who's calling from Nevada. He's online too. Hi, Chris.

Welcome to Broadcaster on the Air. Hi, thank you. Since a baby can't take care of itself, whether it's at one week or nine months, can you please define viability for me? Well, the way the court has defined viability is that based on medical science, in other words, could the child survive outside the womb? You see, that's kind of been the legal definition of a medical term of art and the viability generally people are saying, doctors will say is around 20 or 22 weeks.

That's right. And babies have been born early on and have survived. So basically viability is they're able to breathe and live. Obviously someone's going to have to take care of them just like the caller stated for almost the first 10, 12 years of their life. Parents need to be taken care of their children. But it's when the baby can actually survive outside of the womb.

So I've always questioned this though, Harry, and that is, is that even the proper standard? If we believe that the life of the unborn child is a life from the moment of conception and a law is written that says, okay, look, hey, if you got life of the mother at risk, those kinds of things, that's one thing. But if not, does the value of that human life change by the week? No, I think the The courts have said it does, but I mean, is that really good policy?

Probably not. So I think the key quintessential issue is the following. Does the state have a compelling interest in protecting the life and the health of both the mother and the fetus? And I think if we follow the science and if we follow our belief in protecting human life, the answer I think is clearly yes. And so here the state of Mississippi is prepared to take affirmative steps to protect both the mother's life and the life of the child. And I think you cannot deny the state's interest in doing that. I think the abortionists, the people that clearly support abortion, they are prepared to allow an abortion to take place after the child is indeed born alive. And so if you go back to the memorable words of Governor Northam in Virginia, you allow the child to be born, you make the child comfortable, and then you decide whether or not the child is entitled to live. Clearly beyond question, at that particular point, no one ought to be willing to deny the right of that child to live. But progressives do not generally speaking believe in life. They believe in the notion of progress. And if you go back and you look at the history of the eugenics movement in the United States, it verges on a form of genocide, which was aimed at shrinking the population of so-called unfit and unemployable individuals. And I think the Mississippi law stands in stark contrast to that move by progressives. You know, Governor Northam's comments, Andy, and you were shaking your head, so reprehensible, but yet so typical of those that are in favor of an unrestricted right to abortion. Yeah, follow the science until it doesn't follow the left's narrative, as someone said on YouTube and our producer gave us.

But I remember that Northam made those statements. In other words, have the child, make it comfortable, and then decide whether it's outside the womb and it's there, a living, breathing, real human being, and then decide, let's be real candid, Jay, whether to kill it or not. That's exactly what that is. And that's what's known as and has always been known as infanticide. And he made those statements.

No, it's heart-wrenching. All right, I want to go up to Washington, D.C. again, because as we close this first half hour out, let's talk about this Title 10 abortion issue. So what is going to happen here and what can be done, fan?

What's the situation? The Biden administration, Jay, has filed this rule, and if it goes into full effect, it would again make these funds available to Planned Parenthood for abortion services. It's that common shell game that they play, an accounting game where they wouldn't use it directly for abortion, but it would free up their own dollars for it. Jay, we are filing those comments. I want to say this again on behalf of more than half a million ACLJ members opposing it. And look, I don't have any great confidence that the Biden administration is going to do the right thing.

But here's why we do it anyway. Jay, those five hundred and fifty seven thousand members, they're not going anywhere. They're going to continue to speak.

They're going to continue to advocate and they're going to continue to vote. So while while there may be some setbacks in the short term, Jay, this has always been the long game for us. And in the end, Jay, after we play the long game, we're going to win on this one in the end.

All right. Let me tell you what's coming up. We're going to get in depth and more on this. We're going to take your phone calls as well.

Jeff's been holding. We'll get to him and others. Our phone lines are open for you at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten, the largest pro-life case to be taken by the Supreme Court, especially with this new court, including the viability of Roe versus Wade as a constitutional precedent. We're going to get into all of that. So you want to stay tuned. If you're watching us on any of our social media platforms, make sure you're sharing this feed with your friends. It's very important to stay engaged. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, every other Instagram, YouTube.

Very important for you to stay engaged. Also, support the work of the ACLJ Title 10 comments going in today for half a million people. ACLJ.org.

We'll be back with your calls at eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten in just a moment. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Announcer Live from Washington, D.C., Sekulow Live. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Jay Sekulow I'll bunker your seat belts because we're about to have a major case involving abortion, a major case involving, frankly, the viability of not just the unborn child, but the viability of the framework authorized under Roe vs. Wade. I think all of that's at issue.

You heard that earlier in the broadcast. But if you're just joining us, the Supreme Court has taken Dobbs versus Jackson's Women Health Organization. They've limited to the first question presented, which is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

Now, C.C. Hiles, the senior counsel for the ACLJ, she's involved in a lot of these life issues. The pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions that were at issue here, the lower courts have said constitute an unconstitutional undue burden on the women's right to abortion.

C.C. Hiles That's right, because like you said, they're trying to follow Roe v. Wade. But they have to follow other court decisions. And throughout the history of Roe v. Wade, the court has said that the state absolutely has an interest, a legitimate interest in protecting the health and life of the mother and the baby. Where we're at at this point is when does that interest become compelling? And right now, the court has just arbitrarily said that's at viability. But we can see that that's not true. Before viability, the state has a compelling interest to protect the health and life of the mother and the baby, that abortions get riskier for the mother as you wait longer.

So that's very much a compelling interest. Of course, the baby at 15 weeks, which is what we're talking about here, this statute has said no abortions after 15 weeks, that at 15 weeks, the baby is developed. It can feel pain. It can respond to stimulus outside the mother's womb.

So there very much is a compelling interest for the states to protect the life of the mother and the baby well before viability. We have a very interesting call coming in from Brent in Tennessee, who is an OBGYN. Brent, go ahead. You're on the air. Welcome to the broadcast.

Good morning. Thank you for taking the call. What we don't see in this debate is a proper use of viability in terms of ending a pregnancy. There are actually two different ways that the term viability is used in regards to pregnancy. One is a diagnostic assessment of whether or not the child is alive, and the other is a prognostic assessment of whether or not the child has a chance for continued survival.

We can have a diagnostic assessment of whether or not life is there as early as five weeks when you can see a heartbeat. Using the prognostic assessment of whether or not the child has a chance of survival if delivered was wrong when they first started to use it, and it's still wrong, but we're going to have to get a state legislature somewhere to bring that train of thought into the legislative intent of the bill. I think you're 100% correct, and one of the things I want to say here, and this is going to be maybe a little bit controversial, but I'm going to say it because I believe in it. I've been litigating these cases for 40 years. You know what I think about stare decisis? When it's wrong, overturn it. You want me to give you the list of cases?

Karamatsu, with the internment of Japanese Americans. How about Plessy versus Ferguson? I'll give you a list of cases. Stare decisis is not a constitutional mandate, Andy. No, it is not. It is a judicial construct.

It's made up by the law, by the judiciary in order to establish some sort of stability, but if it's wrong to begin with and unconstitutional to begin with, stare decisis should never stand as an impediment to doing what the constitution says or prohibiting what the constitution prohibits. That's exactly where our, that's the ACLJ's plan on this, has been, by the way, for three decades. All right, we come back. We'll take your calls.

800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Don't forget, support the work of the ACLJ. A fan, those comments are going in today, correct?

Yeah, in just a matter of a couple of hours here, Jay. 550,000 of you joined with us on that. Let me say that again.

550,000. You know what I want to say? Thank you.

Back with more in a moment. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena, and we have an exceptional track record of success, but here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you, and if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Anyone in society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift.

Hey, welcome back, folks. We did a movie on abortion. We've done a couple, but this one's called Abortion, Inc.

It's available at ACLJfilms.com. And I want to encourage you to listen. It's just a two-minute clip. This is really important. It really sets forth what we're concerned with, hearing from people that were involved in abortion business and abortions themselves. I want you to listen to this. Now, share this with your friends. Make sure you're sharing this feed with your friends, because if you're watching on any of our social media platforms or ACLJ.org or on television, this is something you should see.

Take a look. I was in a back room. It was pretty much bench seating around three walls. There were about eight, nine other girls in there, and there was a little draw curtain changing room with gowns. Some of the girls around me were really quiet. I was very, very quiet.

Some were crying. I still remember lying on the steel cold table and staring up at that bright light and counting back was from teen. The anesthesiologist came in and explained what he'd be doing. And right as he was putting my IV in, the doctor comes in, and he just sat at the end of the table, and he never said a word to me.

He just sat and he looked at me. It was very, very painful. I've never felt pain like that in my life. I don't even really remember them talking to me at all during the procedure. I remember the nurse giving me sedation, and she just kept rubbing my arm shushing me.

And I remember looking around and seeing about three or four other girls waking up also. They just stood me up right there in front of everybody, got me dressed right in the middle of the room, and then gave me a glass of water and some crackers and sent me out the door. When I stood up, their sugar and cookies didn't work, and I fainted. And I think I fainted because of the horror of what I had done. I realized that I was missing a large part of me, and it was too much for me to take. They don't let you walk back out the front.

There's a private exit. Later on in life, I wondered, had I seen someone like me in the state I was in at that moment, maybe I wouldn't have done it. We at the American Center for Law and Justice have been dedicated to the fight for life for over three decades.

We want you to be there with us. Go to ACLJ.org right now, ACLJ.org. I was just saying, while that was playing, I wish the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States could see that, to hear from the women that are involved in this.

And these artificial constructs of viability and pre-viability and this three-pronged analysis of trimesters, they break it up into three sections, one through three, three through six, six through nine. That's how the Supreme Court has done this in Roe versus Wade. Roe versus Wade is bad law. By the way, all that means is that the states decide what the abortion laws are. But to have this federal right now, Joe Biden's already tweeting out, and Elizabeth Warren has tweeted out, she tweeted this, the large majority of Americans support Roe versus Wade. This shouldn't be up to the Supreme Court. Congress can and must pass a law to protect the right to a safe and legal abortion no matter what Trump's justices say. So you know exactly, Harry, what they are gunning for right there.

Absolutely. So essentially, they are attempting or they're prepared to attempt to overwhelm the Supreme Court, to overwhelm the Constitution, and to overwhelm federalism. So I think at the end of the day, Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, was right. The Democrats are intent on one thing and one thing only, changing America permanently.

And I would say they are planning to change America permanently for the worse, and it is time for the American people to react to these moves by Democrats. We are taking your phone calls at 800-684-3110. We're also taking your comments in by Facebook and YouTube, so we encourage you to get those. And let's go to Jeff who's calling on line three from California. If you want to talk to us, it's 1-800-684-3110. Jeff?

Hi, Jay. Thanks for taking my call. So if there is a positive pro-life decision, ultimately, wouldn't that certainly move the Biden administration forward in packing the court?

You know, we've all said when your call came in, this is a very interesting question. Will it — they'll use any excuse they can, any decision on any topic, especially abortion, I think you're right, to see if they can muster up the support for this, what we call court packing, where they're just going to add justices and getting up to 15. I mean, Than, is there any doubt that they will use any decision?

So it's not just pro-life decisions, but that one rings the emotion. Yeah, no doubt, Jay. They absolutely will. But here's what I would predict. I predict that if they do that, the American people will see right through it.

The American people will see through the effort, and they will rise up, and these people won't have power anymore. Jay, I want to insert this as well. This is about the United States catching up with the rest of the civilized world.

Jay, this is going to shock some people. There are only five countries in the world that do not have some sort of recognition that a line needs to be drawn somewhere and recognize the legal rights of that child. Jay, the United States is one of those five. Here are three of the other nations on that list, North Korea, Vietnam, and China. Is that the list that the United States is going to remain on, or are we going to recognize what the rest of the world already has, that we have to catch up with the legal rights that these unborn have?

I'm with you 100%, but we got to remember something. The left, that was a great question from Jeff, because what's the left going to do? Let me tell you how aggressive they are. Remember this from the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States at a Planned Parenthood rally with the now majority leader of the United States Senate? Take a listen to Chuck Schumer. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

I mean, Andy, you're making faces because, I mean, it's like, you think about this for a moment. Yeah, I mean, you know, judges have accused me of making faces in court all the time and I can't help, but when I hear a United States Senator now, the majority leader of the Senate threaten a Supreme Court justice, two of them, Gorsuch justices, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and telling them, you've released the whirlwind and you're going to pay the price. In other words, we're going to come after you.

Because they're not up for election, so it's not like we're going to primary you. There's only one way you can do it and that's eliminate them. You can't run against them, okay?

You won't know what hit you. When I hear that, I know what that means. That means violence and if you go forward with these awful decisions, well, this decision is now before them.

Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health. The decision is there, Chuck Schumer. What are you going to do? Well, what they're threatening to do right now is to codify all of this. But, you know, TC, I thought about that codifying. If we believe that life is protected under the Constitution, they could codify all day and all night. But that statute would not necessarily be constitutional. You could say we're putting Roe versus Wade into a statutory law. But if the Constitution protects the life of the unborn child, it doesn't matter if a statute, the Constitution takes precedent over the statute.

That's right. And just like we were talking about, you know, previous court decisions, the Constitution takes precedence over laws that are not constitutional and over decisions, previous court decisions that are not constitutional. We've discussed this. Roe versus Wade does not go along with the Constitution. There's no right to abortion to be found in the Constitution. And there are legal scholars and justices and even more liberal legal scholars that have gone after Roe v. Wade. It is bad.

It is a bad decision. And so this is a chance for the Supreme Court to get it right. And Chuck Schumer doesn't get to say you either vote what I want you to vote for or, you know, you're out. He needs to be saying you follow the Constitution. That's what a Supreme Court justice does. And if they follow the Constitution, life will be protected. Yeah, they will never say that.

That's not going to come out of the words of Chuck Schumer's mouth nor his constituencies. Now, Fan, the question on court, will they use, if there is a positive decision, I don't want to put the cart before the horse because who knows what's going to happen. We're going to follow briefs.

We'll see what happens. But would they use it as a court packing tool? Of course they would, but they're going to use anything as a court packing tool. They absolutely would.

And the evidence of that, Jay, is that the bill in the House to pack the court is actually co-sponsored by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Gerald Nadler. That does not happen unless they're committed to it. Jay, I'll tell you though, here's why they're so panicked on this particular issue. Because they're losing this viability question.

It goes back to the conversation you had. A toddler is clearly not viable, self-reliant with outside support. So that can't possibly be the standard.

They know they're losing it, so they're getting desperate. I think, Harry, that's exactly right. And this will be a test for the Supreme Court, but they now see it. I mean, it's going to clearly be before the court.

I think that's absolutely correct. And it's clearly before the American people. The American people have seen the ultrasound pictures. So the viability has already been established in the minds of most American people well before 22 weeks. We had a physician on earlier who talked about a viable heartbeat at five weeks. So I think the evidence is clear.

I think the Democrats are losing an appeal with respect to the American people because the American people see the evidence. I think that's exactly correct. I think Harry hit it exactly right. All right. Last thing with the broadcast, we're going to take your calls. We've got people holding 1-800-684-3110. That's 800-684-3110.

Talk about this topic and raise other questions as well. 800-684-3110. You can also get your comments in on Facebook. That's fine too. And we have a statement now we're going to play when we come back from Jen Psaki on this very issue.

So we're staying right on top of our production teams, pulling information down as it is breaking. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. The only one in society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. Last segment, we're taking your calls. We're going right to the phones, 1-800-684-3110. We'll also take some comments in by Facebook and YouTube. Let's go to Steve who's calling in Utah on line one, or line two, sorry. Steve, go ahead, you're on the air. Hey, thanks for taking my call.

Sure. To me, I was just commenting earlier here, the abortion thing is just another attempt by the Democrats to control the people. They're gonna do whatever is right in their eyes to get the votes to stay in power. Not at all, this is just a power grab. It's always been that way with them.

And unfortunately, their power base has always been the inner cities where these abortion clinics seem to thrive. And they make it seem like it's a good thing for the people where they're just doing, it's genocide. It's wrong, and I don't understand why people in this country just can't see that. And the reason that people can't see it, Harry, is that there's been a 50-year policy and law, Roe versus Wade goes back to 1973, that makes it sound like it's a constitutional right.

Absolutely. So there are a couple of issues. First, I think the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade misread the Constitution. Then the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey decided some 20 years later, they again misread the Constitution.

And so I think you have that on one side. On the other hand, the American people are continually being confronted with actual evidence on the question of viability, on the evidence that there is indeed a heartbeat with respect to a five-week-old child. That answer the question? It should answer the question. There's a heartbeat.

Except... Stop. The progressives and the pro-abortion people, they believe in the science, as I've said before, but only when it supports their preferences. And so at the end of the day, this is not about the Constitution from the perspective of the left side.

It's about their own preferences and reifying the autonomy interests of their constituency. You see, I think that there was a false narrative created by Roe v. Wade. And that false narrative was and is that we look at these things in trimesters, and while the fetal life is more valuable the further along it gets. But as the good doctor that called and said, at five days there's a heartbeat, shouldn't that be the test? No, the test should be once the child is conceived, it's a child. But the heartbeat, I think, would answer the question. Should.

That's right. Because it's a viable pregnancy. So like the doctor was arguing, okay, if we're talking about viability, it's a viable pregnancy. That child, and again, like Justice O'Connor stated, the potential for life doesn't get any greater after what the court has deemed viability at 22 weeks than what it is when the baby is first conceived. That potential for life is there from the point of conception. And so, absolutely, at the heartbeat, we know that that baby is viable. And absolutely, it should be protected from that point. Because viability should not be defined, and, hang on one second, Cece, viability should not be defined as viability outside the womb. Because as you said, until they're 12 years old they're not viable.

Let's be realistic if you've had kids, okay? Right, and sometimes longer than that. But, so if that's a false narrative, it's a false test from the beginning, it was the wrong test, Roe v. Wade was wrong when it was decided, it federalized a state issue, it put in a false narrative as to these dates, and it basically made up a law out of whole cloth. You're exactly right.

I'm shouting amen to everything you just said, because that is exactly right. It was created, Roe v. Wade was a judicially created right to abortion. There is none in the Constitution. Life is protected by the Constitution. And so we need justices that will follow the Constitution and not be bullied by senators or anyone else, but they will be true to what their position is and follow the Constitution and protect life. Let me play with Jen Psaki, the press spokesman for the President just said, because this tells you the nature of this fight.

Here you go. The Supreme Court agreed today to hear a Mississippi law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. And I was curious, does the administration believe that law is constitutional? And if the court upheld the law, what would this administration be prepared to do? Well, I don't have a comment specific to the Supreme Court taking the case. But generally speaking, given this is a state law, I can say that over the last four years, critical rights like the right to health care, the right to choose have been under withering and extreme attack, including draconian state laws. And the President and the vice President are devoted to ensuring that every American has access to health care, including reproductive health care, regardless of their income, zip code, race, health insurance status, or immigration status. As such, the President is committed to codifying Roe regardless of the unrelated I'll tell related but to the outcome of this case, regardless of immigration status. So you could pay for taxpayer dollars for abortion of people that are in the United States illegally to Andy? Yeah, sure. Of course, everybody come one come all.

We're here to do it. You know, the states have the right to make these decisions, in my opinion. Yes, this is left to the states and Mississippi's House Bill 1510 had some very smart, rather reasonable scientific evidence to support it.

They didn't just pull that out of whole cloth. And when she says draconian state laws, I read House Bill 1510 of the Mississippi legislature, and it's not draconian. It makes sense. The reasoning behind the law is one, there are inherent medical threats to the mother and abortions less than eight weeks gestation to science supports the fact that the preborn child has a conscious awareness of pain at 14 to 20 weeks gestation and three, the act regulates inhumane procedures, even beyond a stage where the humanity of the preborn child is undeniable. What is draconian about that reasoning? It's because it makes sense.

Yeah, it's because it goes against their entire narrative. Let's go to Jen calling from Colorado Lesk all the day, Jen, you're on the air. Hi, thank you for taking my call.

I have a question. Is this normal for the Supreme Court to kind of decline hearing so many cases? And also, if they decide to do hear a case, is it normal for them only to hear or to choose to hear kind of one topic of that? This was an unusual one because it bounced up and back to the Supreme Court a lot. I mean, it was up and back and up and back at the Supreme Court in conference and out of conference and back in conference, I think 14 times. I mean, I don't think I'm exaggerating.

I think it was 10 to 14 times. And finally, they agreed to hear it. Now, you had to change your personnel, that could be part of it. And yes, they're very picky on what cases they take, really picky on what cases they take. And in that context, you have to understand the nature of what we're dealing with.

So yes, they are picky on what they take. They do understand that the issues are significant here. And I think at the end of the day, that this isn't a great opportunity for a new Supreme Court because it's like the Roberts 2.0 Court, Harry. I mean, it's going to be the first shot at where they are on this.

Absolutely. And the fact that the United States Supreme Court is so picky about taking cases, I think increases the importance of this particular case and this particular decision. Pete Williams from NBC News, a friend of ours said, I think I counted last week, 17 times they've discussed this case is what he said. And it was the 18th one that was the breakthrough. I don't think we have the actual sound of that, but that is what he said.

So I think I thought it was 14, but now it looks like it was 18. Anyways, there you have it. We are going to be filing a brief, which means your support of the American Center for Law and Justice is critical. We get you this information on radio, TV, social media platforms. We also take action. We'll be filing a brief on the merits. We already filed one on the petition for inter-personary. That was granted.

So now comes the merits phase, the big phase. Can we see an overturning of Roe versus Wade? Your support for the ACLJ makes a critical difference. Go to ACLJ.org and support the work of the ACLJ, ACLJ.org. Issues in Israel brewing too.

We may get to some of that tomorrow. We'll see what the news is, but again, support the work of the ACLJ here in the United States around the globe. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.