The Beginning Of The End For Roe v Wade

Today on Sekulow, is it the beginning of the end for Roe vs. Wade as the ACLJ and ECLJ prepare filings at the Supreme Court? Live from Washington, D.C., Sekulow Live! Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow.

We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. And what we are talking about is potentially the beginning of the end for Roe vs. Wade in this doctrine set up by the Supreme Court again in the 1970s that has been fought out in the states. It's been fought out at the federal level, but there has not been a case that was quite on point on reversing, overturning the precedent in Roe vs. Wade. Which is a serious challenge at the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court, if they do decide to reverse previous precedent, those are about the biggest cases available.

But, they also are the most uphill challenges, the most difficult challenges. There's a reason why it's been since 1973 to get a case like this to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mississippi has done it through a 15 week ban on abortions after 15 weeks, like a pain capable abortion bill. There are exceptions there, but their Attorney General specifically asked for Roe and the Casey cases to be overturned, for those precedents to be overturned.

We have a total of three different clients and briefs that we're working on at the ACLJ on different angles. Even Europe is weighing in, our European Center for Law and Justice, because we know even some of those justices on the left end, they love looking at European law. And European law is way more restrictive on abortion than the United States.

The United States has the most aggressive abortion stance in the world, as far as allowing abortion to the point of delivery. So, what happens here is, this is the first case in my lifetime where there has been a direct, real challenge to the underpinnings of Roe vs. Wade. When I say direct, real challenge, Roe vs. Wade has been the law on the land for 50 years. It's called stare decisis. And Andy Econimo, our Senior Counsel, let's go over what that is for a moment, because we're asking, in our briefs also, for that precedent to be overturned. What does stare decisis mean?

Because I think people need to get an understanding of exactly what we're dealing with here. J stare decisis is a principle of law. It's a judicially constructed principle that says cases based on the same facts and the same law should be decided in the same way. In other words, there gives some stability to the law, which means that if you have an expectation that certain things are going to happen in certain ways, you can rely on the law in a better fashion to come up with a more equitable result. So that all cases that are factually the same and legally the same are decided the same. But that is a judicially created law.

That means it can change. And the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong several times in the past. The Dred Scott decision, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu were the interning of Japanese Americans, and it's come out later and said, we got it wrong. And stare decisis does not permit us to continue the wrong that has been worked. We hope the same thing happens in Roe v. Wade.

Well, here's what we say. The Constitution does not confer on this court, talking about the Supreme Court, rulings a status supreme to the Constitution itself. In other words, the court is not supreme to the Constitution. So when the court makes a mistake, and as Andy just said, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu, there's a whole list of cases, they overturn themselves. This is not written in stone, so to speak, and that's why this is the real challenge on this issue, and that's also why your American Center for Law and Justice is working on three different briefs, including our European Center for Law and Justice, that will be filing a major brief in this case as well. I mean, this is, again, from Mississippi's brief to the Supreme Court, the grounded question becomes whether this court should overrule the decisions in Roe and Casey.

It should. Stare decisis case for overruling Roe v. Casey is overwhelming. They are egregiously wrong. So Mississippi, by, again, they're defending their 15-week abortion ban, but directly put at issue, Roe v. Wade and the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood case, it's now heading to the U.S. Supreme Court. When we come back, we're going to walk through the different briefs we're filing, different briefs, not just one that the ACLJ is filing with the Supreme Court. I support our work at the ACLJ Matching Challenge, double the impact of your donation at ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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. The case at the U.S. Supreme Court is Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization. This was a challenge by an abortion, again the abortionist in Jackson, Mississippi against a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks. And they are challenging directly the precedent in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Play on Parenthood about viability. That science, technology has come a long way. There is a reason why the Supreme Court has upheld bans on partial birth abortion.

When states have enacted that and at the federal level. Because technology has come a long way. That was a while ago now. That was 20 plus years ago now.

And technology has come that much further. So there are different arguments that Mississippi is making. But we're also then taking this unique opportunity where the party at issue, the state, most of the time when this would have happened the state would have not wanted to put an issue directly overturning Roe v. Wade.

They would have ignored it almost. This Mississippi has said no, we can't keep playing this game of trying to work around a flawed holding by the Supreme Court. A flawed precedent in Roe v. Wade and the Casey case. So there is that issue. There is the issue again, the scientific issue. There is a precedent issue. And that all is being briefed differently because you know the justices who don't want to change Roe v. Wade on the left, all they're going to want to point to directly is precedent, stare decisis. We can't get involved here. Right. And we just talked to Andy about stare decisis.

But I'm holding two of the briefs. But there's a third one being prepared by a European Center for Law and Justice. C.C. Heil is a senior counsel for us and is very involved in these issues and very involved in our work overseas, especially our European Center for Law and Justice.

C.C., let me go to you on this. This is the first direct challenge to Roe v. Wade head on that we've seen, especially with the conservative Supreme Court. Now we'll find out how these courts view stare decisis. And again, if you're just joining us, that is the rule of precedent. But precedent can be wrong, as we've said.

What's your sense of where this goes? And then we'll talk about the ECLJ brief for a moment. Well, I agree with what you and Jordan have stated, that the liberal judges will go with the stare decisis opinions of we've got to follow Roe v. Wade. Hopefully the conservative judges will follow the Constitution.

And as we have stated over and over again, there is no right to abortion found in the Constitution. And Roe v. Wade has been attacked by legal scholars on the left and the right. So not just conservative legal scholars, but even liberal legal scholars as a bad decision. So this is a great opportunity for the court to get it right.

Walter Weber, senior counsel, really does a tremendous amount of work on the Supreme Court issues that are in the ECLJ and has been for over 30 years. Walter, we say in our brief the Constitution does not confer on this court, meaning the Supreme Court's rulings, a status supreme to the Constitution itself. Again, that's kind of battling the stare decisis issue. But give us an overview of what we're saying in these briefs.

Sure, Jay. Well, one of the problems that we face is that the Supreme Court has acted as if it is the Constitution, that whatever it says becomes part of the text. That's not what the Constitution says, of course.

The only way to amend the Constitution is by either a state convention or by a proposed amendment from Congress. So when the Supreme Court says, we have a decision, we know it's wrong, but we're going to follow it anyway, then what they're saying is that our rulings take a higher priority than the Constitution itself, which is itself an unconstitutional approach to take. That's one of the points that I think is important to convey to the court. And we've also pointed out that there's an irony here in that the Supreme Court, prior to Roe v. Wade, had no problem with abortion being part of a state law homicide and other state regulations. In other words, Roe v. Wade itself did not follow stare decisis. So that would be really weird to say, well, we changed the law dramatically in 1973, and now we have to leave that unconstitutional decision in place as a matter of stability. Well, you know, it's interesting to me, Andy, this goes back to the stare decisis issue, and that is this, you know, you took a Dred Scott, where the Supreme Court said that black Americans were entitled to three-fifths recognition, not full recognitions as human beings and as citizens.

That's number one. That was the Supreme Court of the United States, Karamatsu, where Japanese Americans were interned, and the Supreme Court said, yes, they can be. Obviously wrong. So when the Supreme Court gets it wrong, which they do, there has to be a way to connect it. Stare decisis does not put the court's opinions over the Constitution.

No, it does not, Jay. Stare decisis, as I said, is a judicially created principle. It doesn't exist in the Constitution. There is no such thing as stare decisis. You're not going to find those words in the Constitution of the United States. That is a judicially created principle that says cases decided on the same facts and on the same law should be decided in the same way. But that does not stand in the way of the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, saying we decided this case wrongly to begin with. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. It doesn't exist in the Constitution. We have gotten it wrong, and we need to say that we have gotten it wrong just as when the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II on the basis that they were a threat to the public because of their Japanese ancestry. Nonsense. And the same thing with the Dred Scott decision about a black being three-fourths, three-fifths of a white or something like that, or Plessy versus Ferguson saying that schools can be separate but they have to be equal. You got it wrong.

You change it. You declare that you are in error, and you go the right way, the constitutional way. And CC, one unique thing that is this time around for the ACLJ is the ECLJ, the European Center for Law and Justice, our director there, Greg Orr, contacted us about the ECLJ preparing a brief to inform the justices on the state of the law in Europe and inside the European Union. And to really, I think it's probably surprising to a lot of our listeners that in the European Convention on Human Rights, there's no right to abortion. Europe is not more liberal than the U.S. when it comes to this issue. In fact, much more conservative, as we point out in this brief, 45 out of 47 member states of the European Union prohibit abortion before 22 weeks. So they already prohibit partial birth abortion in the vast majority of European nations.

That's correct. And so just like you said, most people would think that Europe is more liberal than the United States, but on abortion they are not. The European courts, basically our brief states that how the European courts deal with the issue of abortion and how the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, how they legislate on abortion. And we point out that the European court has stated that the European Convention on Human Rights and its right to life does apply to the unborn baby. And so all of the legislation in the 47 member states then has to comply with that. And as we see the vast majority, 45 of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, they restrict and prohibit abortion well before the point of viability, well before it. I think this is the first time ever that the Europeans are there for law and justice. And we are kind of directly, I think, going at the left because the left has for time and time again, especially Justice Breyer specifically, has wanted to use European law. They want to bring in European norms. What are the international norms?

Well the international norms here in the other developed nations around the world and our closest allies and partners around the world is that they think this is barbaric and don't allow it. That's exactly right. And you're right when you say Justice Breyer. Justice Breyer, who has been on the Supreme Court now for a long time, does look at European law and he looks at it as the influence and kind of trend setting.

That's the way he views European law. I also know this, it's important for our audience to understand this, that our briefs have been cited by both conservative members of the Supreme Court and liberal members of the Supreme Court. So Andy, when we've got a, or let me go to Walter actually.

Walter, in this particular case, we're hitting a host of issues. And what's your, I mean obviously this is going to come down to where the newly appointed justices end up. Yeah, well Jay, I think the role of an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case is to give the court ammo to come out the right way. We're trying to make it easy for them to do the right thing. So you and Jordan were talking earlier about the barbarity of abortion as recognized in Europe.

Okay, so what do we do in our brief? We point out the comparison between the kinds of things that are forbidden, has cruel and unusual punishment to the most vile, convicted murderers. And it's the same techniques that they're using in abortion. We point out animal cruelty laws and the horrible things that could be done to animals that would never be allowed in the United States. But it's the same thing that's being allowed to unborn babies. So that kind of extreme cognitive dissonance, that inconsistency between the way the law treats, or what everyone else would otherwise recognize as, of course, horrible and barbaric. And yet it's somehow okay in abortion.

That's the kind of thing that we hope will convey to the court that they've just got to fix that mistake in a row. Because it just does not fit in. It doesn't work. It makes no sense according to the rest of the law. Andy, really quick, like in 15 seconds, I want to make this point very clear. Starry decisis is not a bar to the Supreme Court coming out with the right decision here.

No, it is not a bar. It is a judicially created principle that espouses the idea that cases decided the same way should be decided the same way on the same facts and law. But it does not prohibit the Supreme Court or any court from saying, we got it wrong and we need to rectify it by reversing Roe versus Wade in this case. For too long, the court has relied on these precedents to try and not handle issues directly that are controversial. And there's nothing that prevents them.

There's no reason. They don't have to follow a precedent. They don't have to follow. And in this situation, when science, technology has significantly changed, and you can look and see the development of the child in the womb, this should be the time when they step in and say, okay, we were wrong.

This court was wrong. We'll be right back on Secular. 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. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're going to write to the phones 1-800-684-3110. Frank has called in from Florida online too. Hey, Frank, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call, gentlemen. My question is this. In this case of Roe v. Wade, does the President of the United States have an objection, or would it have an objection if it were overturned?

Well, let me say something first, and then Jordan, you respond. I suspect the Department of Justice is going to be filing a brief on this case, putting forward the administration's view, which I can guarantee you is that Roe v. Wade is good law. That's how they view it, but go ahead with it. But there's been a political side to this too.

Yeah, that's right. I mean, Jen Psaki, White House press secretary, has already spoken out, and this is what they said President Biden would be willing to do if the court were to take the action that we support, take a listen bite to. The President is committed to codifying Roe regardless of the outcome of this case.

Now, what does she mean by that? Making it the legislative law. This is what's interesting. There is not legislation and a law. It's the court that legislated here, and the legislation, by the way, he could want to do that all day and night, and it does tell you where he is. But with the makeup of Congress right now, there's no way that would happen. So they know, this is where they're going to do a buildup to, if this case were to go the way we want, we've got to pack the court, we have to change the court, but they don't have the votes yet. And I think this is what – But they're going to use this as a rallying cry. Oh, yeah. I mean, if it goes the way that we want.

Then it should. Now, to get to the point about what will DOJ do, well, listen to Jen Psaki again, the President's White House post person. They're telling you what's coming, folks. We are supporters, the President is a supporter of preserving Roe v. Wade. That is our position in terms of a legal reaction. I would point you to the Department of Justice. So pointing to the Department of Justice, of course, Andy, means that the Department of Justice is, like us, going to file a brief in this case.

Oh, yes. They'll file a brief in this case. There's no doubt about that, and they're going to mouth the position of this piously Roman Catholic pre-President Joe Biden in favor of abortion.

I don't understand that at all, but that is going to be the position, and it's a wrong position. It's a wrong position constitutionally, legally, and it is not barred by stare decisis. I want to talk about the moral implications of this, too. This is the taking, Cece, of a human life. And I think what we have to remember at the beginning of this, that's what this is all about. It's not – yes, stare decisis is the constitutional principle, due process clause, was there a right to create Roe? But at the end of the day, this is also a moral issue. It's about the taking of a life. Right.

Absolutely. An unborn baby is a life that deserves protection, and our Constitution protects it. Our founding documents and our Constitution protect the right to life. And the Supreme Court got it wrong when they decided, well, but life doesn't really begin, or the protection is not compelling until this arbitrary point of viability outside of a mother's womb. And so, yes, the bottom line is life is protected by our Constitution. It needs to be protected, and life begins at conception, and these unborn babies need to be protected. Let me talk to Wes Smith. Taking off your military hat, just as a chaplain in the military and a pastor, I want to talk about the moral implications, but we are talking about human life here.

Yeah, we are. I was thinking about some of my ethics training in grad school about these kinds of issues. This is the biggest moral issue we face as a nation since the abolition of slavery. It is a moral issue. It's the central ethical debate of our time. I was listening to an abortion advocate on television this morning, and she stated the decision to have an abortion is so personal, and she worried that the legal right to terminate a pregnancy might be taken away from women, and she implied that that itself would be immoral. There is no legal or inerrant right, or should not be, to take a human life other than some form of self-defense.

That's ethics 101. The choice to take a human life has serious, serious moral implications. This is why the death penalty, Jay, is such a matter of serious debate, and some states have outlawed it. Viability with the baby has placed an even greater emphasis on this.

The bottom line is this. Whatever a woman's justification for the right to end a human life, we have to be clear on this, the moral issue. It is a human life, and she is choosing to end that human life. It is a moral issue.

With the sanction, Jordan, of the state. Now, if this decision goes the right way, this will be a rallying cry, of course, for their pack the court, change the rules. Yes, but I think at the end of the day, the American people, that's going to be front and center. This is an issue that the American people, when they are confronted with it, and not just a general idea of should abortion be allowed or not allowed, but should we be able, as a state, as a society, a civil society, to be able to say, you know what, this is what we're not going to, we're going to stop this. And in Mississippi's case, they are using the latest technology and the science to say, you know, we don't allow late-term abortions in America in most states. Some states do, like New York, California, some of the most liberal states, as you said, they allowed almost up until birth, partial birth abortion. But there have been bans on partial birth abortion that have been upheld by the Supreme Court by Congress. There have been, most states don't allow abortion, late-term abortion. And in this situation, what was late-term with technology in the 70s and 80s, you can now see that after just weeks, after 15 weeks, you could consider that late-term abortion.

There are children being born that weigh a pound and surviving now very early in pregnancies and having healthy lives because of where technology is. And they, again, they are able to, they are experiencing, once they're born, they get all those rights. The question is, when do those rights kick in inside the womb?

That is the question we're still grappling with as a nation. And as our European Serif Law just points out, this whole idea of privacy, like Wes was talking about, this is a very private decision, Europe rejected that as an argument. You can't use privacy when you're talking about the ending of this life. Whether you want to call it a child or a fetus, it is ending a life. Yeah, well, and there are liberal judicial scholars and constitutional scholars that have said, while they agree, Andy, with the right to abortion, they disagree with the underpinnings of Roe vs. Wade.

That's correct. The underpinnings of Roe vs. Wade, I think, have been seriously eroded since it was decided almost 50 years ago. And we think we're going to have to come to a realization, Jay, and we have to come to a declaration that it is not the law. It is not good law. It is contrary to the science that Jordan adverted to. It is contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

There are balancing factors. And I think one of the things that you mentioned earlier, Justice Breyer is very much intrigued by the influence of international law. I wonder if this intrigue that he has with thinking about the law of nations internationally is going to make an effect on him since the European Center for Law and Justice, our affiliate in Strasbourg, France, is weighing in on this case. That's exactly why we're doing it. I mean, that's exactly why we're filing that brief, Cece, is exactly on that point, to underscore what Andy said.

Absolutely. And once again, most people would think that Europe is more liberal than the United States, but they are not. They absolutely acknowledge the European courts, the European Convention on Human Rights gives a right to life, and the European courts acknowledge that that right to life extends to the unborn baby. So now you have competing rights. You have to acknowledge the right of the baby in the womb with the right of the mother.

And we just do not do that in the United States. You know, I think what we have to understand is that the ACLJ, we're taking this opportunity to support what Mississippi is doing in an unprecedented way. Three unique briefs, three unique issues.

We'll walk through those again for you in the second half hour again, how we're kind of working through this. There's the stare decisis issue, there's the scientific issue, there's the international issue. And the ACLJ taking them not in one brief, but separating it out. And of course, you can stand with us, support the work of the ACLJ, stand for life. We have a matching challenge right now. You double the impact of your donation to the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. That matching challenge goes until the end of this month. ACLJ.org, donate today.

At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. We're talking about freedom.

We're talking about freedom. We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. So what we're going to do in the second half hour of the broadcast, we'll take your calls to 1-800-68-431-10.

Chris in Nevada, we'll get you right up to this first short segment as we're back in the second half hour. But to break down for you what we're doing at the ACLJ, because again, this is not one brief that we're filing. Multiple briefs taking this opportunity at the court, which is what it is. The court decided to even consider a case, which they're going to have oral arguments on. So this is not the stage of will the court take the case. It is taking the case where Mississippi has directly put at issue. I want to read from Mississippi where this is what the court has said they will take at issue. Roe and Casey, that's the two cases, Roe vs. Wade, Casey vs.

Planned Parenthood, are thus at odds with the straightforward, constitutionally grounded answer to the question presented. So the question becomes whether this court should overturn those decisions. So it's previous decisions.

It should. And we talked about this. The Starry Decisis case for overruling Roe and Casey is overwhelming. That's a unique sentence because we were just telling people Starry Decisis means keep the precedent, don't make the change. What they're saying is they've got a strong case for why Starry Decisis is wrong to follow here.

Yes. And that's, so again, I'll go back to Andy in this, Starry Decisis is not in stone. As we say in our brief, the Constitution does not confer on the court's decisions priority or seniority or on a higher status than the Constitution itself. So when cases are wrong, and we've listed a number of big cases that were wrong, the court corrects it. Plessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Education corrects it. Korematsu, unfortunately, is still on the books. Now, I'm sure it would be overturned, and probably there's enough decisions discussing it that the votes were there. That was another one where the United States Supreme Court said Japanese Americans, these were Americans of Japanese descent or origin, family origin, were rounded up and placed in camps during World War II.

This is in ancient history. And the Supreme Court said it by a majority, Andy, oh, that's okay. And then what would you do? Are you Starry Decisis protects that?

I think not. Yeah, well, the same thing applies here. Starry Decisis does not protect the right to murder.

And that's exactly what this ultimately comes out to be, Jay. Infanticide, the murdering of a child struggling for life. As Cece said, birth and life begins at consumption. I believe that. I believe Thomas Aquinas was right. I believe the Supreme Court was wrong. And I believe that Starry Decisis does not stand in the way of rectifying that error. And this case in Mississippi, and I applaud the Attorney General of Mississippi who put it so bluntly before the Supreme Court of the United States and said, look, you've got to come to grips with it. And I applaud the Supreme Court members who voted to say we've got to take this tough case. We have got to hear this tough case.

And all it took was four of them to say we've got to hear it. Let's hope now that they have the fortitude and the rightness of constitutional principles to see through it and overrule this terrible decision. In their brief, they say Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. They are egregiously wrong.

That is absolutely correct. And I will tell you that in our brief for the European Center for Law and Justice, we continue to point out that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has repeatedly stated the need to reduce recourse to abortion. Abortion does not equal family planning. The aim is always to avoid as many abortions as possible. In the ideal world, there would be no abortions. And we finally point out that in regard to international law, the only international commitment regarding abortion is to prevent its recourse. And that's, Roe and Casey did not state that. They created, fabricated this right to abortion. And the European courts are getting it correct. Baby has a right to life.

An unborn baby has a right to life and that needs to be protected. I think this is a unique situation really where our European office too can play this role through the European Center for Law and Justice, which again, they're not just stating the fact this is where they operate and the system that they operate within. Support the work of the ACLJ.

That's how we have those offices around the world. And you can see even during this pandemic and all the issues of where the world is facing, they are working hard as well. Noting what's happening in the U.S. and how important this case is. Support our work.

Matching challenge to the end of this month. ACLJ.org. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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, the 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. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. And let's go right to the phones. Chris in Nevada online one. Hey, Chris, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Hi. If Roe is overturned and the rights go back to the states and the states end up a big checkerboard of laws, would the Supreme Court then take a case up again even though it's a states' right issue? I think that's a great question, and I think this also is important to underscore, and Professor Hutchinson is joining us now, that a decision that overturns Roe v. Wade does not eliminate abortion. States may decide to put restrictions or elimination on abortion, but other states are going to allow it. So what it does, Harry, is return it to the states.

Absolutely. And so if the court overturns Roe v. Wade, basically the court is saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. It doesn't end abortion, so it's up to the states. And I think it's very clear to put on the table a morality and the fact that abortion is a barbaric practice, and I think what the court could say is, yes, we believe there's no constitutional right, but states individually could decide to allow abortions in certain cases. And this also goes to the moral issue here, that we're talking about life, and West Smith has a very, I think, potent discussion analysis of what is really at play in all of this with Roe v. Wade and the life of an unborn child. Basically, if you end a life that is killing, whatever the justification for ending it is killing, we need to call it for what it is. And as it is today, what they are arguing for, the people who are pro-abortion, they're arguing for state-sanctioned killing. But here's the deal, we believe traditionally in the sacredness of human life, we have a constitutional right to life, what they're trying to do is carve out an exception to the right to life, so that everyone constitutionally has a right to life except this group of people. And that is unconscionable that you would say, everyone has a right to this, but not the unborn. And I think it opens up to the bigger picture, if you, under this Roe v. Wade precedent, and suddenly the court is saying, if this were to go, a state can go to this point and say, absolutely no abortions in 15 weeks. I think the national debate begins, why would New York allow much later than that if science proves that that's a human life?

I think you're right. You could see how this changes everything, but you have to get to that point. And now we've got to a point where the court has decided to even take on a case like this.

Which is incredible, really. Yeah. So you bring up a really, really important point, and that's going to be, once the court makes it, if the court were to, if five justices of the court say, Cece, that the underpinnings of Roe v. Wade were incorrectly decided, which means that what the state has done here in Mississippi was constitutional. That is really just the beginning of the debate.

Correct. So this issue goes back to the states, as we've discussed previously. And then it's really up to the voters in that state to make sure that they elect legislators that go along with what the voters' moral belief is on this issue, because it will become a state issue of when life begins and when it can be protected, which, of course, we will always argue that it begins at conception and life needs to be protected from conception. But it will be an issue that goes back to the state and voters, it will be back in the hands of the people to vote for people that believe the way that the voters believe. Andy, I'm also thinking that if the court were to rule the right way, I get Harry's opinion on this too, that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. Those states will not have the imprimatur of a Supreme Court opinion to base their lawn.

That's right. They're going to have to make the decision based upon their own two feet, so to speak. They're not going to be able to go back and say, well, we have Roe v. Wade that stands in the way of our making decisions. I mean, the state could, you know, theoretically, why not ban abortion altogether? That's what state sovereignty and federalism is about.

It's not about the Supreme Court enacting something and calling it star of decisiveness, setting it in stone and saying that's the President forever and ever. And the states, I think, have the right in their separate sovereignties to make these decisions, and it would go back to the states, as CC has pointed out. Now, Harry, you really view this as a moral issue as well. Absolutely. So I think there are several questions to think about. First, should we leave morality out of this debate entirely?

That's number one. Should we understand abortion for what it is? It's a barbaric practice that offends basic human decency. And thirdly, if the court fails to overturn Roe v. Wade, does that mean that Planned Parenthood is free to unleash their eugenics-based program that disproportionately targets African-Americans and Hispanics, consistent with the logic of Margaret Sanger and Charles Darwin, who sought to rid the human race of unfit, unemployable individuals. And so I think at the end of the day, each and every state will then have to answer these questions if Roe v. Wade is indeed overturned. Yeah, I mean, this is a situation, again, it would change everything in the fight for life, but having these cases and opportunities also does that because even wherever the court comes down, they have to address it again. This is not an easy case, though.

I want to be clear on this. They've squarely taken the issue. To hear the case, it's the rule of four. You need four justices for certiorari to be granted. So certiorari has been granted. The state of Mississippi has squarely put the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade before the court.

The American Center for Law and Justice, the European Center for Law and Justice are looking at these briefs right now, are filing briefs in these cases, and those are moving forward. All of that means that you still have to get five votes, Andy, to win. Five justices have to say that Roe v. Wade, even with stare decisis, is not good law. That's exactly right, Jay. You can get four to hear the case, but five to make the ultimate decision that is squarely put before the court by the attorney general of Mississippi.

And he really did a good job of saying it. Look, let's not skirt this issue. Let's face it. Is Roe v. Wade going to stand or is it going to be reversed? And the Supreme Court, four justices, and I'm not going to say who they are, but I believe I know who they are, said we need to decide this issue and we need to show the constitutional courage to say that it is a wrongly decided decision and to overturn that decision and let the states make those decisions. Let's see whether they have that constitutional fortitude. Yeah, and it's going to take five justices of the court to do that. So that's the big issue here. Can we get to five? I always say that. I was not a math major, but I could count. When you go to the Supreme Court, you've got to have five votes.

So I think that's it. But I don't want to divorce the legal issue from the moral issue here. This is an issue of utmost importance from a moral perspective.

If you look at it from a lens that we look at it from, it's easy. Those on the left come from a different moral basis on this. But we're talking, they cannot no longer argue that this is not a human life.

That's Wes, which is what you've been saying. Exactly. Yeah, you call it what it is. You may want to end that life, but it is a human life that more and more is viable early, early on in the pregnancy. And so, yeah, you can't divorce the legal part from the moral part. As a matter of fact, Jay, as you and I both know, most of the laws that we have in civilization are based on some concept of morality. This isn't a moral practice.

I think generations from now, maybe a hundred years or so from now, I believe our descendants will look back with shock and horror that we're even having this debate because of the sacredness of life. You know, it's interesting because Planned Parenthood has got their own spin on this. They're obviously nervous about this case. They take it seriously because of what this would do to their business. Remember, in their line of work, this is a business.

This is about money. It's about this practice of continuing to keep these facilities operating and open. Take a listen when their vice President of government relations and public policy is asked about the direct challenge to Roe. I think they've got it wrong here, but they are kind of waking up to the reality of the real world by 18. Is that unusual to see an AG go into the Supreme Court and make this direct a challenge to Roe right at the heart of it? Yeah, what we see the Mississippi attorney general doing is taking what has been the quiet agenda and speaking it directly out loud. And this is not being a secret or hidden agenda anymore. Wake up, okay?

This is no secret. We have been litigating these issues before the Supreme Court for 40 years, okay? 40 years. Now, I argued a case where the Supreme Court said that opposition to abortion is not discrimination against women. That opposition to abortion was not discrimination against women, and that was a case I argued twice before the United States Supreme Court. When we come back from the break, we're going to talk about the implications of the precedents that the ACLJ has set as it relates to the outcome of this case.

But I will never forget that line. Opposition to abortion is not discrimination against women. We'll have C.C.

Heil weigh in on that when we come back from the break. And I think that issue has basically been lost by Planned Parenthood. I don't think you can make an honest case anymore and say, well, you're talking about anti-women because you support human life. Support our work at ACLJ. We've got a matching challenge right now through the month of July. Double the impact to your donation at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back. This is a public 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. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular. We take your calls 1-800-684-3110.

I want to play for you. This is the Attorney General of Mississippi, who is a woman herself. It's Lynn Fitch. This goes against the whole Planned Parenthood narrative, that it's somehow anti-woman or that this is about women versus society. And it's not anymore. The pro-life movement has grown and has matured into a movement where you're not living in reality.

It's led by women. And by this Attorney General of Mississippi, take a listen by 20. I remain committed to advocating for women and defending Mississippi's right to protect the unborn.

No longer that, that's not a statement that's somehow in contradiction. No, so I think the fact is, I mean, look, this is the direct challenge of Roe versus Wade. I mean, this is squarely before the court. Andy, they're going to have to deal with this on the stare decisis basis.

They're not going to be able to avoid it. No, they're not. And I think the four justices who voted to hear this under the rule of four realize that you can't hide and run and cover anymore behind this issue of stare decisis.

It's over with. The science has changed. In 50 years, we've evolved as a society. As Colonel Smith said, Reverend Smith, I should say, we're going to be talking about this 50 or 60 or 100 years from now with abhorrence to saying, did we allow that kind of ripping and tearing and dismemberment of human bodies out of the womb? Did we allow that?

Can we really believe that we permitted those barbaric practices? And I hope our Supreme Court now, as I say, has the constitutional fortitude to say, no, this is not what's going to be permitted. Let the states make those decisions. And hopefully the states, as Cece said, through their legislatures are going to see what's moral and correct here. Cece, what do you hope to see out of this case?

I mean, what are you looking for here? I hope that the Supreme Court does what's right, stands up for the Constitution, as we've stated over and over again. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution. They got it wrong the first time, the first several times with Roe and Casey, and they have an opportunity to do what is right. And I hope that they do that. They stand up for life.

Life is protected under the Constitution, and they need to do what's right and value the Constitution and have a good opinion come out protecting babies' lives. Let's go right to the phones. Diana in Indiana on Line 2. Hey, Diana, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Hi, Diana. Hi, thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to make the comment that I know we're talking about the constitutional right to life and that we understand morally the left and the right come from completely different sides on this. However, there is research published literature even through the NIH that talks about how depression rates and other mental illness rates are associated in women who have had abortions in the past. And that's something that both the left and the right should be able to agree on and that we are worried about mental health illness in this country. Well, let me tell you, you're not only correct, but one of the briefs that we're working on right now is addressing that issue.

I'll give you some of the argument headings. Abortion is a potentially hazardous procedure. It talks about maternal abortion deaths. The claim that abortion is safer than childbirth is unsupported. We use the CDC guidelines on that.

Published literature indicates that if anything, abortion is more dangerous than continued pregnancy. So we are – look, that's a very technical issue. Medically, we're working with medical experts on this. Again, this shows you the depth also of the ACLJ's reach here on an issue like this when we can, Harry, reach and deal with that side of this debate, too.

Absolutely. So it's a very comprehensive approach that we have taken. We've talked about stare decisis. We've talked about the radical left's agenda with respect to abortion rights. And also we are now talking about the health issues that are involved. And I would end my answer to your question, Jay, by saying should human life depend on a stare decisis practice instituted in the 12th century by King Henry II?

I would say the answer to that question is a resounding no. Yeah, no, I want to take David's call from Tennessee because people are – what would happen next? What happens now? Where is the law? Hey, David, welcome to Secular Year on the Air. Hi, David. Hey, Jay, thanks for taking my call.

Sure. So my quick question is that if I understand law correctly, and I'm no attorney or lawyer, doesn't Congress make law? So how does the Supreme Court decision – why is that called law? Don't they just interpret the law? Well, they're supposed to interpret the law, but what they did, they found in Roe v. Wade a constitutional right under the right to privacy and due process to terminate the unborn child's life. Now, there are scholars on the left that support the right to abortion but thinks that the underpinnings that the court utilized in Justice Blackmun's opinion was wrong, constitutionally infirm. And that's again the reason why Stary decisis here and he doesn't control, should not control. That is – if they do allow that to control again, that is the ultimate cop-out.

Well, it really is. And I don't think that that – and I'm trusting that that won't happen, Jay, because four of the justices agreed to hear this case, which means we know what the issue is. As the Attorney General of Mississippi said, either Roe v. Wade stands or it's going to be reversed. And that's the way that you've got to frame the issue before the Supreme Court. And we've got to say to the Supreme Court, you've got to show the constitutional fortitude to make this decision. And the correct decision is not to rely on, as Harry said, something from medieval England, but to say that the reality is that that decision was wrong when decided and it is wrong now 50 years later.

The Constitution hasn't changed. Yeah, you know, there are three questions that I think help clarify this for people, and that is what we're talking about. Is it a human life?

I think – The answer is yes. Yeah, it is a human life. And even abortion advocates agree, is a human life. Is human life sacred, is the second question. And the third clarifying question is, is it ever moral to take an innocent human life? Is that ever right? And the answer is no, of course not.

I think that's an excellent way of putting it in place. It's not just the legal issue here. It's the moral issue of this. And it's going to be a question, Jordan, whether five justices of the Supreme Court, as Andy said, have the moral fortitude to do this.

That's right. And that's why we're using every possible argument. I mean, so to understand, to put it into context, where are we in the world? We're using the European Center for Law and Justice to do that.

Where is the U.S. in the world when it comes to this barbaric procedure? Where is it on the story of decisive, this issue of precedent? What about the issues of the long-term effects, short-term effects that this has on the health of the women that we're talking about here, on these mothers? And what is now decades of research and science shown there?

Just the effects on the women who go through the abortion procedures. We have history on our side now. We have technology on our side and science on our side.

This is not 1973. It's going to be harder for Planned Parenthood to get away with this anymore. I think that's exactly right. Cece, let me go to you with 30 seconds here.

We only got 20 seconds. In Farr's importance case, where do you put this? I think this is the most important case that the Supreme Court's going to hear, and I hope that they do what's right and uphold the Constitution. And I want to underscore what Cece said. I agree. This is why we are putting so much effort into this with these multiple briefs that are being filed. Your support of the ACLJ makes all of this broadcast, but also our legal work possible.

We appreciate you doing that. For our work, ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. It's a matching challenge. You double the impact of your donation.

$20 is like $40, and you're charged $20. That's at ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.