Texas Heartbeat Law Heads Back to the Supreme Court

This is Jay Sekulow, breaking news, the Texas heartbeat bill back at the Supreme Court. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the broadcast. Well, we've got, as we said, breaking news here. And that is the Supreme Court has just issued an order where they are expediting consideration of the Texas heartbeat bill case. The petition for expediting consideration for the writ of certiorari, that is the request for it to be reviewed, the request for the review to be expedited has been granted and the respondents have to file a response to the petition on or before this Thursday. So this has moved really quickly. Now, you've got this case, which involves a direct, very unique law. And in fact, let's go to C.C.

Heil on this. C.C., explain this law, because Texas did something very unique here with focusing on the heartbeat of the unborn child. Right. The Texas law bans abortions after a baby's heartbeat is detected. But what it did, which was different, is that it puts the power of enforcement into the hands of private citizens. So it's private citizens who get to enforce this law, not the state. And that's what's kind of thrown everybody off because they don't know who to sue. And that's why we've seen it go up to the Supreme Court and back down and to district courts in the Fifth Circuit.

And it's kind of just bouncing up up and down because they don't know really who the party is to sue. You know, what's so interesting about that, Andy, is now the Supreme Court. This is this is round two of this case at the Supreme Court. And last time they let the law stay in place. So they did not they didn't get rid of the law. They let the law stay in place. This time they may be talking about expedited consideration of the merits of the case.

That's what it looks like anyways. Well, it certainly seems that way, Jay, because it looks like with if they were to grant and appear to have been granting have granted the motion for rid of surgery, which was an alternative form of relief that was being asked for. They probably decided that they will skip the Fifth Circuit and hear the case itself on the merits, which, you know, with the composition of the court that it is right now, I hope bodes well for us. Dad, I just want to talk to you about this case in general, because I think people are getting a little bit confused on where we are and like how the court system works and how we're back.

I think we even see the title. Is this a replay? Are we back in the courts? Things are flipping around. This is this this is no, it's a good question. This is you have cases.

I've had them. This is one of those where the case moves very rapidly. This case is moving rapidly through the system. It is, as Cece said, it's a unique law. It's different than a lot of other laws.

But the truth the truth of the matter is, the case that we've got in Montana, where we're representing the state of Montana, Cece is also a unique law. Yeah, so that's another, you know, in South Dakota, it's a common sense law that requires third party counseling before a woman gets an abortion. And and if you're ever going to have informed consent on a medical procedure, you need informed consent before you go in and have a medical procedure that kills your baby. And so it's a common sense law that simply requires that there is third party counseling before an abortion is performed. And that is to protect the woman it is and of course, the baby as well. Both lives involved in an abortion are protected with this law. So it's a common sense law and it's it's very hopefully it will stand.

Yeah, I'm optimistic. It's South Dakota, by the way, not meant to Montana, I'm getting my states mixed up there. But we're representing the state of South Dakota in that.

Briefs are just going to be due towards them probably towards the end of the week of next week. So you've got all of these cases. And then you've got the direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade, which is up there right now.

So we come back from the break, we're breaking all of this down, we encourage you to share this with your friends ACLJ involved in so many of these issues at the Supreme Court, multiple issues at the Supreme Court, in fact, our European Center for Law and Justice filed a brief in that in the case that deals with the direct challenge to Roe. So we've got a lot to cover. We're gonna be taking your calls and your comments. And Logan, let everyone know how they can get in touch with that's right. Give us a call right now.

1-800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Also joining us later in the show, Sean Spicer will be on to wrap up the show towards the end to promote his new book and also just talk about the general state of our nation. So that'll be fun. So make sure you keep watching towards the end there. Sean Spicer will be joining us.

We'll be right back with more on second. 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.

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, a 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. Boy, there's a lot happening. We also just got an order in the Dobbs case, and of course that is the case that is the direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. They've now said the time for all argument is allotted as follows. Thirty-five minutes for the petitioners. That's going to be the, in this case, will be the health officer that was brought the case. This is the one that has the direct challenge to Roe. Twenty minutes for the respondents. That's the Jackson's Women's Health Center.

That's the abortion clinic. And fifteen minutes for the acting Solicitor General. Logan, you said just moments before we went back on air what a difference a year makes or Will said it, somebody said it.

When you have a new government come in, the Solicitor General works for the Department of Justice, works for the President and is on the other side of this one. Yeah, exactly. These are the issues that can flip easily and can be kind of swept under the rug. Stuff you're not paying attention to necessarily, but that's why shows like ours are important. We got to make sure you share this when you're watching it live or later on pre-recorded. You got to go click share. Make sure people see it if you're watching on Facebook.

If you're on YouTube, subscribe, hit that like because people will see it more because you got to keep these things front and center. Yeah, and this is, Harry, this one is changed. I mean, these are cases, we need to say this. All of these cases, if you look at the big three, I call it, you've got the Texas case, you got the direct challenge to Roe versus Wade in another case. The Texas case is not a direct challenge to Roe, but it's very possible that, and I think this is really possible, that what happens in the Dobbs case will directly impact what happens in the case out of Texas, which will impact what happens out of the case we're handling in South Dakota at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. These are all, you have three major abortion cases simultaneously either at the Supreme Court or the court right below the Supreme Court.

So this is monumental moments here. I think that is correct. And so with the Texas case, you have an indirect challenge to Roe by giving the citizens of Texas enforcement power with respect to a Texas heartbeat law. I think it's a very innovative approach. I'm not sure whether or not it will be sustained by the United States Supreme Court or not, but I also give the legislators in Texas enormous credit for thinking outside of the box and not necessarily being bound by past approaches that have often failed. I think the more important case is the Mississippi case because that is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. And if you actually look at the reasoning of Roe v. Wade and its counterpart case Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, both of those cases offer suspect judicial reasoning. And I think at the end of the day, most legal analysts, at least when those cases were decided, they saw both of those cases as being very, very flawed.

And I think the American people agree with that. I think, Andy, I think Harry's right that obviously the direct challenge on Roe is going to be the big case, but that direct challenge on Roe is going to affect every one of these other also very big cases that are not direct challenges on Roe where the states, as Harry said, are being more innovative. South Dakota is innovative. Texas was innovative here. But the case, the direct challenge on Roe is going to be the case that decides this.

Well, that's absolutely correct, Jay. The case in Mississippi, which is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade that was decided in the 70s, is going to necessarily affect the decision of the Supreme Court in related and cases such as you mentioned pending in Texas and pending in other jurisdictions. Because whether or not Roe is overturned is, I think, going to be the central issue in the Dobbs case out of Mississippi. I think the Supreme Court is not going to dodge that issue. I think the Supreme Court is going to head on, face that issue in that case and make a decision as to whether or not we're going to continue this killing of, mass killing of babies or whether we're going to leave it to the states to make these determinations. But I think Roe is on the chopping block, I hope. Dan, I wanted to pitch to you and ask what your thoughts are and how things are when it comes to the political side of this, not just obviously the legal but the political side of the life topic.

I know it's one that's often controversial. We're going to talk, there's a whole chapter in the new Sean Spicer book and we're going to talk to him later on about that, about how quickly the sides can change. Even President Biden, who historically was a pro-life person, moderately, moderately pro-life compared to what he's become now, which is radically, which is radical. So how has this issue shifted in DC? Yeah, Logan, I think we're at a unique time in history on this issue. I mean, look, I listen to you guys have this conversation about the different debates that are taking place across the states. And I think that's how our founders envisioned it, right?

They wanted the states to take different approaches that fit their populations, especially when it came to controversial issues. We're seeing that. But Logan, to your question, how is DC responding? How are the political elected federal officials responding? Logan, they're trying to call off the debate. They're trying to take that debate out of the states, bring it into Washington DC and say the debate is over.

Now, why do I say that? I say that mainly because of a bill that's already passed the House. They're calling it the Women's Health Protection Act, but in essence, Logan, what it would do, it would codify row and it would say all of these restrictions, the restrictions that are aimed at protecting the unborn baby and Logan, the restrictions that are aimed at protecting the mother, like an ability to admit a woman to a hospital or some of the informed consent laws that your dad and Cece were talking about, all of those Logan would be off of the books. So they would say to Texas and to Mississippi and to South Dakota and all the other states looking at, get out of this game. We're going to handle it. You cannot restrict abortion in any way, shape or fashion.

So Cece, of course, this raises the question. That is, if the court decides that Roe goes, it does not end the right to abortion. It just returns it to the states. People need to be clear what happens after if Roe is in fact overturned. It is not the end of the abortion right. It's just not federalized.

Absolutely. So the states get to say when their interest in protecting a baby's life begins. And if that's a conception, a state can say that. If that's at six weeks at a heartbeat, a state can say that. But a state gets to acknowledge that there are two human beings at issue in an abortion decision. It's not just one person that's affected.

It's two human beings that are affected and one gets murdered. And so a state does have an interest in protecting that baby's life. And so if Roe, if the Supreme Court decides Roe doesn't stand that there is not a constitutional right to abortion, which there is no constitutional right to abortion, a state can still decide on their own what their position is regarding abortion.

OK, so this raises, of course, Harry, the policy question. You can't put the you know, we can't make a prediction. You would think there are five justices that would that Roe would go.

But who knows? But the ramifications of that decision. If the court does, in fact, overturn Roe versus Wade and makes it no longer a federal constitutional right, but a state process for turning it to the states would be a shift of 60 years of judicial interpretation. I mean, there's been hints at it along the way.

Casey, some of the others. But this is the direct challenge and the most conservative court we've had. Yes, I think if the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe v. Wade, basically that would be the equivalent of a judicial and political earthquake. And so I think in many respects, if we take politics first, the Democrats who are floundering in Washington would probably favor a decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, because that would provide them at least in the short run with an avenue of perhaps energizing their voters. But I also think that overturning Roe v. Wade in the long run would be an advancement in Supreme Court jurisprudence. In other words, the Supreme Court needs to adhere to the law and the central question in Roe v. Wade is whether or not there is indeed in the text of the Constitution a right to an abortion. And I think analysts, impartial analysts, will search the U.S. Constitution in vain to find a legal basis, a constitutional basis, for the right that the Supreme Court declared in Roe v. Wade some 50 or so years ago. So I think at the end of the day, returning the Constitution to its text and returning jurisprudence to an originalism focus, I think would be an advancement for the United States. And it would then set the stage, I think, to carve back other innovations that the Supreme Court has engaged in. The Democrats in particular have looked to the Supreme Court as the legislative body of last resort.

So if they cannot win their fight in terms of political opinion or in terms of the presidency, they have looked to the court to basically overturn the judgment of individuals who live in Tennessee and Texas and Kansas and instead support the elites in Washington, D.C. and New York City and San Francisco. Absolutely. When we get back, I want to hear from you. Look, I'll be honest with you right now. Viewership on social media, it's okay. Phone lines, completely open.

It's just this topic matter to you still. Give us a call. I want to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110. Is the life issue, is it still front and center for you in the work we do here at the ACLJ? I suggest you share. I suggest you post, retweet, do all of that because I want to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110. We got a comment coming on YouTube. We're going to take the 2022 midterms. Does this topic still resonate with the American people?

Does life matter to you? Give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

Sean Spicer joining us in the final segment. 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. 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. Welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. As Logan said, we're taking your calls at 800-684-3110 to determine if this is an issue you care about. We're getting calls already coming in. And again, if you want to talk to us at 800-684-3110, you can also get your comments in on Facebook, Periscope, whatever you're watching. Yeah, always call in.

I think it's always important to hear from people and our listeners. So 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Anthony who's calling in New York on Line 1. Anthony, you're on the air. Hi, Anthony.

Hello, how are you? Good. First, I love you guys. I'm an aspiring law student. I listen to you guys constantly. And the legal analysis you provide is really on point and I really appreciate it.

Thanks. My question to you is, moving forward in this case, conservative judges, from what I understand, believe in stare decisis very strongly. Is the new technology saying that there's viability prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, do you think that's strong enough to push the court to call Roe v. Wade decision a bad law and just disregard stare decisis? First of all, that's a great question. And let's define, Andy, first, the doctrine of stare decisis. And that's basically court precedent, but let's discuss it historically because it's a really good, important question.

It's a great question. I think we need to get people who are not lawyers. Lawyers are lawyers. Yeah. Contacts. Stare decisis means, Andy.

I'll put my professorial hat on. Stare decisis really is Latin for things decided. That's what that means. And the idea is that cases with similar facts and similar law should be decided in the same way so as to give some stability to the law and some predictability to the law. But stare decisis is a judicially created animal. That is, it's been created by the courts. There is nothing in statutory law that says cases that are decided that have the same facts or same law have to be decided the same way.

It's a concept, as I said, that gives stability to the law, and stability is a very important concept. But stare decisis can be wrong because we saw in cases such as Plessy versus Ferguson and other cases in the United States in the past that there are decisions. Korematsu, for example, with respect to the internment of Japanese Americans, those cases are wrong. They were wrongly decided. And, therefore, stare decisis should not stand in the way of the court overruling those cases and saying that they were wrongly decided and we don't have to continue to wrongly interpret them. And so, in my view, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Yeah, so what's also interesting about the question, though, and I'm going to throw this to Ceci, is you have the stare decisis does not mean it can never change, by the way. We saw that, as Andy said, Dred Scott, Korematsu, Plessy versus Ferguson.

You go through the list of cases. But the technology question, and the technology question is real because the technology of 1973 regarding the unborn child is very different, Ceci, than the technology now. Right. And Roe v. Wade does talk specifically about viability as if that's the point where you can decide whether an abortion can happen or not. So the point of viability is crucial in that it's not at the same point. And, of course, we believe that a baby is viable upon conception. It doesn't have to live outside a mother's womb to be protected. That's currently what the Supreme Court has basically said.

But we see even that point getting sooner and sooner that a baby can live outside its mother's womb much earlier. So it's very interesting what's going to happen with medical technology and how that might play into a court's decision. So Harry, we look at the stare decisis question and then you have to, we've got to, the approach we've taken is bad law could still be bad law, even if it was decided 60 years ago or 50 years ago. It still could be wrong.

I think that's correct. And I think Andy set forth the basic outlines of the rules with respect to stare decisis. We should keep in mind that in the Janus case, which was decided a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court specifically addressed stare decisis and said you cannot use existing case law to abrogate, for instance, First Amendment rights. So the Supreme Court has, if you will, a reverse precedent going, suggesting that they can indeed over rule bad decision making. And there is no constitutional basis, at least in my opinion, to support Roe v. Wade. So I think it is the perfect case to overrule and to ignore, if you will, stare decisis. Yeah, I think that has been a talking point. It's almost as if the court has never ruled incorrectly. You're right. When we know historically, there have been some big mistakes over the course of hundreds of years.

You've made mistakes. Andy mentioned Karamatsu, where the court allowed the internment of Japanese Americans. Dred Scott, you know, we're not going to consider black people in the United States full people for the purposes of the Constitution.

I mean, this was these were... Times change. Yeah, Dred Scott. I mean, you could go on and on and on. And Plessy v. Ferguson, of course, separate but equal. Dred Scott, we're not going to count the black person as a full person. I mean, those were Supreme Court decisions.

They were just supremely wrong. And I do think that's a part of what the analysis is here. But there's also something and we're going to take a look. We want to take more of your calls in the second half hour as well at 800-684-3110. You want to grab another call, Logan?

Yeah, let's take one really quick. Let's go to Daniel, who's calling in Texas. Daniel, you're on the air. Hi, Daniel. Hey, I have been supporting the pro-life movement in Texas for years.

My dad is an OBGYN. And if we do not reverse Roe v. Wade, we will lose our country. We'll lose God's blessing on our country. And we desperately need God to step back in and we desperately need to make right decisions according to the Constitution, the law, and the Bible.

Well, look, I mean, I think you could put the law, the Bible, and medical science all together, and here's what you come up with. The unborn child, Cece, in the mother's womb is a child. Absolutely. And always has been. And that's right.

And we've historically seen that. And European countries even acknowledge that, that a baby is a baby and it has rights. And so, you know, abortion is the only place where a woman can decide to murder an innocent human being just on her own and no consequences to that.

So, absolutely, a baby is a baby. It deserves protection from conception. And if we get this right, I do hope that God's blessing remains on America. Van, quickly, and we're going to talk about this more in the second half, but there's also talk if the court rules the right way in the case that challenges Roe directly, that Congress may step in or try to step in. Yeah, Congress may step in.

There may be court packing. There may be efforts by the left to change it. But look, Jay, I think all of that sort... Yeah, I mean, I think all of it sort of skips past the fact that life is winning. I mean, look, they may try those things on the left, but life is winning because the American people have seen the truth. And Jay, as long as the left is in a position of having to advocate for the ending of a life with a beating heart or because that life is a certain race or gender or has a disability, guess what I think is going to happen?

I think the trend towards life is going to continue. All right, we are going to take some more phone calls. And if you don't get the second half hour on your local station, make sure you join us. If you're live right now on ACLJ.org on Facebook, we are broadcasting live as well.

Just go to the Jay Sekulow page. You'll find it there live and prerecorded later on if you want to listen, want to hear the rest later on. But right now we are live. We will take more phone calls. I set it up earlier and said, if this issue is still important to you, we need to hear from you. And that's just the truth. Whether that's through petition signatures, whether that's from comments and shares or whether that's from phone calls, because sometimes it can get disheartening when you don't know.

Does this, have the American people moved on from the issue of life? I want to hear from you. Phone lines are filling up, but they are open right now.

1-800-684-3110. Support the work, the continued work. I mean, you're here, an amazing panel of legal experts here, media experts on here, and government experts at ACLJ.org. Just click that donate now. We really would appreciate it.

We'll be right back with more on Sekulow. 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. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Well, it's been a jam-packed first 30 minutes of the broadcast, and the second half hour is going to be no different because there is a lot of moving parts, because on one day you get multiple orders in two cases. One of the cases out of Texas where the court said the petitioner's motion for expediting consideration of the petition for certiorari, that's the request for review, has been granted, and the respondents are required to file their brief in response, their opposition, on Thursday, in two days. Excuse me, in one day.

We're talking 24 hours. In the Dobbs case, you have the time for oral argument has also been allocated, and that is now the government, of course, Joe Biden's White House, is now in favor of the pro-abortion cause on that one, and that's in challenge. And at the same time, we have our case in South Dakota, where our brief is due in just a few, I think about 10 days, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. So you have three major, major life cases, all at either the Supreme Court or at the lower courts, and when I say the lower courts, it's the court right below the Supreme Court. And the case out of Texas, this is trip number two, for that case. So, Cece, it's a lot to unpack, but let's talk about what each case does, each law does.

Sure. So in Texas, the law bans abortions once a heartbeat is detected, but it gives the enforcement provision to a private citizen. So that's what's caused all the stir. And that's why you've seen abortion providers sue Texas, and that's gone up to the Supreme Court and back down, and now back up. And then you saw the DOJ sue Texas, and that's at the Supreme Court, again, back down and back up. So we have that issue at the Supreme Court with Texas banning abortions at the detection of a heartbeat. You have the Dobbs case out of Mississippi that says abortions after 15 weeks cannot happen. And then, like you said, in South Dakota, that is an informed consent law that requires a third party counseling for any woman who's going to have an abortion. So all of these cases are coming to head right now. And Andy, as you said, you've got the stare decisis issue on one hand, but you've got unique laws on the other hand, and clearly Roe is up for review in the Supreme Court.

Oh, I think there's no doubt about that, Jay. The Supreme Court would not have taken the Mississippi case unless it was going to make a head-on decision with respect to Roe v. Wade. And with respect to Roe v. Wade, Justice Thomas, I think, is taking the lead. And he is saying, and has said all along, and I ask the same question, please show me in the Constitution of the United States where it says you've got a constitutional right to an abortion.

I defy anybody to show me that, and I'll tell you why it doesn't exist there. And I think that is squarely now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Those are state matters.

They are to be decided by the sovereign states and not by the central government. It's not in the Constitution, period, the end. So we're hearing stare decisis, stare decisis, the case has been decided. And then, Harry, at the end of the last segment, you talked about the fact that there is another doctrine the Supreme Court has been dealing with as well that's kind of the anti to that.

Absolutely. So one of the things to keep in mind is stare decisis cannot trump the text of the Constitution. And Andy Cahnemu, in his usual superb way, has laid out the rules which are basically governed stare decisis. Stare decisis is simply a made up judicial standard to improve judicial efficiency. But that does not provide the basis for giving anyone a constitutional right that does not exist within the text of the Constitution. So at the end of the day, stare decisis is simply an aid to the Supreme Court. It is not necessarily a rule of the Supreme Court. The Dobbs case is argued on December 1st.

That's the direct challenge to roll. We're talking about five weeks out. Five, six weeks out.

Well, a little bit more. But yeah, I mean, you're talking weeks away, like days when we argue. And we're taking calls, as I said, in the next segment. We're going to take as many calls as we can because in the final segment of the show, we have Sean Spicer joining us to talk about his new book. And honestly, we get into this issue. We're going to get into so much more. That's coming up at the very end of the show.

But right now you can get your voice on the air. 1-800-684-3110. If you have a point to make, if you have something to say, if you support the pro-life movement still, we want to hear from you.

1-800-684-3110. 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, 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. Taking as many calls as we can in this segment, so give us a call at 1-800-68-431-10 or put your comments in.

Also, if you're watching on YouTube or you're watching on Facebook, comment away and we'll try to get to some of those as well. Let's take some phone calls though. Let's go to Michelle who's calling in Washington online too. Michelle, welcome.

You're on the air. Thank you for taking my call. I live in Washington state where abortions are taxpayer funded. Can you speak to that in these different cases? If they win the Dobbs case, do the states still have the right to do that? Thank you. Yeah. So if they do win the Dobbs case, the states, the individual legislatures in the states, in fact, could fund abortions as part of their budget because what this does is CC returns it to the states.

And I've got a question for Than to follow this up. Right. So in the Dobbs case, if they overrule Roe v. Wade, it goes back to the states. It's the federal court or the federal government getting out of this issue totally, that it goes back to the states. But it doesn't necessarily get the federal government out of funding Planned Parenthood, Than, and I think we need to clarify that. They could overturn Dobbs, Roe in Dobbs, and they, Planned Parenthood should be getting a lot of money. Yeah, definitely a secondary issue there, Jay. I mean, right now Planned Parenthood gets more than $600 million from taxpayers through the federal budget.

By far, the biggest chunk of that is through Medicaid reimbursements, almost half a billion dollars through that. But Jay, two other issues that Michelle should know about. One we've talked about, the Title X funding, which prohibits family planning dollars to going to abortion providers. That was something the Trump administration finally enforced. President Biden, and Logan alluded to this earlier in the show, he flip-flopped on this after 40 years of supporting the Hyde Amendment.

He now supports repealing the Hyde Amendment. That is moving through Congress, Jay. So all of those efforts are still alive and well in Washington, DC. And all of those efforts, even if the Dobbs case goes the right way, there's still going to be a federal funding, a taxpayer funding issue of abortions on the table. We do have some comments coming in on YouTube.

I thank you guys on YouTube and Facebook for commenting and please continue to. One question came in, it says, Supreme Court overturns Roe. Do you think the left will redouble their efforts to pack the court? Even though the court commission doesn't seem inclined to recommend that, will that become the new issue? Well, look, I think it may become a political issue, but it was pretty interesting that the commission did not come out with a recommendation to change the number on the court. In fact, they said it brought with problems. So I think we may have successful – look, it doesn't mean the hard progressive left will not try, Andy, but the truth is the commission, which was Biden's hand-picked people, did not like the idea, nor did Justice Breyer, nor did the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

That's absolutely correct, Jay. I was waiting for this commission to come in favor of full court packing and to make all kinds of statements and recommendations to the President that we should increase the court exponentially as President Roosevelt tried to do in the 1940s, but that didn't happen. That doesn't mean they won't try to do it again, but the left seems to have realized, and taking a cue from Stephen Breyer and from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that the number nine is the number that it should stay at, and I think that's the appropriate number. That's what the Judiciary Act in the middle of the 19th century puts it at eight associate justices and a Supreme Court justice, and I was rather surprised to see that they didn't come in with a court packing recommendation, if that is the truth. Of course the problem with court packing is the next administration comes in and they say we're going to increase it, Harry, five, four more.

Yes, or up to 30 or 40 or 50. When we were before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, I think when they fully meet it's like 40 judges. So international tribunals, European Court of Human Rights, 14 judges or more justices. So we had this number that has worked, and even the most liberal members of the court have said it's served the court very well. I think that is true, but I also would not put it beyond the left to try to fundraise on this particular issue, even if indeed they ultimately agree with the assessment of Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg.

I think many people on the left are so radical and they're so progressive that they have lost the ability to be restrained by common sense. And that's because then it's a politically important talking point. Yeah, Jay, I mean, this is the Holy Grail. Holy Grail for the left in Washington, D.C. There are a lot of issues, Jay, that the left are really politicians of all stripes would rather run for election on than win on.

This is not one of them, Jay. This is one of the issues that they are insisting on winning. And by the way, in this conversation, I think this is going to animate the 2022 elections like you cannot believe. We've talked a lot about court packing or repeal of the Hyde Amendment or codifying Roe. Jay, you better believe if Democrats and the abortion industry remains in control of the House of Representatives and let's say they pick up a seat in the United States Senate and therefore Joe Manchin's withholding his vote for some of these measures can be overridden. I think court packing would be back on the table. I think codifying Roe would be back on the table. I think the repeal of the Hyde Amendment would be on the table. So in 2022, this has always been an issue that's been front and center for the pro-life community.

And Logan asked earlier in the broadcast, does it still animate you? I can tell you this, with the court trending away from them, it is going to be one of the main issues that animates the pro-abortion vote in 2022. I think that that's exactly correct. And again, I'm going to go to CC Heil on this because I think it's important for people to understand. You've got major cases, I mean three major cases at the Supreme Court or the courts of appeals right now, all of which either directly implicate Roe or the decision in the case that could overturn Roe versus Wade might well, you never know, but might well have, I think it will have, if it does overturn Roe, have a direct implications on the case in Texas, the heartbeat bill, and our case in South Dakota with informed consent.

Yes. So it is a time for people to be praying and it's important who you vote for and what the administration is and what judges they put on. Hopefully these judges on the Supreme Court will follow the constitution and we will have life protected. It's a very important time for this issue.

Dana on Facebook has a very interesting comment. Yeah. She put, I'm afraid the issue of abortion will never be fixed because of how much money is involved.

It is a big industry and there is no doubt about that. And then you say in Washington, every time we're out, they're out too. Planned Parenthood and they're out, all of them.

Yep. Literally on every street corner, Jay, when this issue is a front and center, you run into them on the sidewalk. They want to get your petition.

They want to get your voice. That's why we engage to counteract that. And Jay, look, I would say this, I don't know if you're ever going to root all of the money out of this issue, but being a pro-life advocate in today's world means a couple of things. It means you advocate for protection of life in the law. That's what we at the ACLJ exist to do.

We partner with people. Jay, we're constantly saying this as well. It also means showing up in the broken places where these broken decisions are making and providing an alternative because if a woman in this place is shown the truth about her abortion and then is provided an alternative, guess what usually happens, Jay?

She chooses life. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think we've won. Hearts and minds were winning on this issue. I think that's, that's very clear.

I think the question, because you've seen that, especially with your generation and even younger. Yeah. I think legally you may have still have this as a topic, but as a moral issue, it's, it's definitely changing. Yeah. So the question is going to become, Andy, does the court, I'm gonna go to Andy and Harry on this.

We got three minutes left. Is the court, this current Supreme Court, the Roberts court, do they have the courage to overturn Roe? I think that this court does have the votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. I do not know about one particular justice who I will go unnamed, but I think that the votes based on who President Trump appointed, who are constitutionalists, who are textualists, who read the constitution of the United States, and not only those who President Trump appointed, but justice Alito and justice Thomas as well, will see that there is no constitutional right federally to abortion and will overrule it and send it back to the states. That is my view of it.

Harry. Well, I never disagree with Andy. I think he's precisely correct. And I won't name that particular justice either, but I think it will be a difficult moment for the Supreme Court because they recognize that this could be a judicial sea change in jurisprudence going forward. So I'm not necessarily sure they have the courage to go there. I certainly hope they have the courage.

Cece, what do you think quickly? I hope so too. I hope they have the courage of their convictions. I think they know what's right. And so I just hope they follow the constitution. There is no right to abortion and they have the courage to say that.

Okay. So you heard, we think they have, this is the most conservative court we've had. That is true. The issue is squarely up before the Supreme Court justices.

That is true. Roe is on the agenda as an issue. Was Roe wrongly decided? I think the answer to that is yes. Are there going to be five votes to overturn it? I don't know. And I say that as someone that has advocated for the Supreme Court for four decades.

You just never know. Their convictions can be one thing. It is a, Harry, what's the word you use? It's a big moment for the Supreme Court. Yes, it's absolutely a big moment.

And I think every American citizen should be motivated to see this particular issue decided and see Roe v. Wade reversed. All right, we get back special guest in studio, Sean Spicer. You're talking about his brand new book, Radical Nation, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's Dangerous Plan for America. And so much more we're going to get into with Sean Spicer coming up in the next segment. I appreciate everyone who did call in. Obviously we're going to be doing this interview in the next segment. Stay tuned. We'll be right back. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

See you soon. 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 were 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. 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. Welcome back to Secula. We are joined very special guest in the studio, Sean Spicer. He's got a new book, Radical Nation that comes out very, very soon. When's it coming? October? Tuesday.

This coming Tuesday. It's available for pre-order now. It'll be available in bookstores Tuesday, but today you can get it. You can pre-order it. I've got a copy already.

You do? It's good. Yeah, I'll pass it over to you.

Now I've got your copy. Yeah, I know. I'll tell you what, though. I'll write another book just to come back here. This is literally, I know listeners can't see it, but this is probably the coolest place to work that I've ever been at. And I will write another... Well, they can see the studio because we're on all those social media platforms. Right, but you guys, it's just such a phenomenal place. And I will write books just to come back to see you guys. Well, that would be great.

All right, so Sean's got a brand new book, as Logan said. It's called Radical Nation. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Dangerous Plan for America. Let's start with... Sean, I think, you know, let's start with the border. I mean... Why not?

Why not? Because it's affecting, as we say in this broadcast all the time, it doesn't just affect people at the border. It affects people everywhere. Of course it does. I mean, there's shipping people.

We saw yesterday there's planes going to New York throughout the country where they're letting them off. But the thing that I point out in the book, Jay, that's so important is this is a problem, A, that's very easily solved. Everybody understands that. And two, I think you have to understand the motives that there is no other explanation for letting the folks in than trying to create future Democratic voters. I know that sounds cynical.

Some people have said that that's just because I... But if not, explain to me why you would stop Remain in Mexico, Title 42, all of the things. And when you ask the folks why they're coming, they say specifically because of Biden and they wouldn't do it under Trump. So it's a very simple thing. The policies are creating a magnet for people to come. And it's whether you're in Nashville, Tennessee, Burbank, California, Providence, Rhode Island, it's affecting you and your community.

Yeah, no, everywhere. And a lot of people will look towards what happened with Afghanistan, obviously huge mistakes there. And they try to conflate the two saying, well, we have refugees coming in from there, but what about the border? I think that American people are compassionate about these issues, but they also don't want to see nothing.

But Logan, I will say that they're agreed. I think that the SIVs, the people who helped the U.S. are in a different category. But to your point, people do have something there. When you're bringing people in and the Secretary of Homeland Security can't tell you that those people are vetted or that they know that they in fact helped the U.S., we're seeing cases of health concerns that they're coming in. There's obviously yesterday Tony Gonzalez, a member of Congress from Texas, said that there's several people that he spoke to from the Minister of Panama that said that they have ties to Al-Qaeda. I mean, that shows you that there's not a lot of concern about our national security.

We just found out today, this came from our producer, that the last fiscal year, which just ended in September, just September, a month ago, set the highest border encounters ever recorded. Yeah. Because what they've done is they took the policies of the Trump administration and if the Trump administration did it, then they say we're not going to do it.

100%. It's bad regardless of what it is. It's bad. So let's not do it. And you had one of their folks testify yesterday in front of Congress. Well, there is some utility to a wall to some degree.

And I guarantee you, you better snapshot that guy because he's gone by the COB today. So you wrote the book, it's called Radical Nation. Give us, what's kind of the lead theme of this? Because it's obvious. You look at what's going on here, what's happening.

But it's hard when it's been only 10 months and you're already seeing this. But there's two things, Logan. One is the people and the policies. I don't think people fully appreciate it. It's not because people aren't smart. It's because the media has given them a pass or hidden their credentials, their motives.

And the second big takeaway is what I like to call understanding the why. Why are they letting people in the border? Why do they want to make DC a state?

Why do they want to pack the court? And it all ties together, which is an ultimate pursuit of eternal power. If you pack the court, if you get two more Democratic senators, potentially four, if you make Puerto Rico a state, you're always in power. Then you can keep pursuing these far left policies.

All right. We've done a lot of discussion here on this broadcast, Sean, on China and the role of China. We work closely with Mike Pompeo, who's one of our senior legal counsel on global affairs and also with Rick Grenell, former DNI. China is a huge problem.

And that's the problem. And it looked like during our four years that we were making some real progress in those relationships, although the President, President Trump, was very tough in the right way on the trade imbalance. Now we're in a situation where you feel like we're at the mercy of China. And I think I know we are from the medications.

I mean, every antibiotic you take and all the PPE, I mean, think about it. They created a disease, a virus, and then we bought all the PPE, the pharma and all the other things from China. And we've become more dependent on them. And I think that there is a lack of understanding among our elected leaders, frankly, across all parties.

Trump was the first guy to really take it seriously and call it out. But we have a serious dependency. China has become too big to fail. And that's a problem. Pretty much everything you use, everything you do. I mean, that's when there are always these grandiose, we need to bring manufacturing back. Yes, in theory. But that is not an overnight thing.

Every piece of clothing we're wearing right now. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg said the other day, just like they said Afghanistan was a success, said this is a success because it's getting companies to think about moving back home. Well, why would they move back home if you're raising the corporate tax?

In fact, it would encourage them to move further away. And I think that's the problem is that, again, you have to ask yourself why, why are they doing certain things? Why aren't they pursuing certain other things?

And it all comes back to a fact that they want more people to be dependent on government and to ensure their ultimate, you know, eternal power in running these things. I went through a lot of your chapters, went through this book. And you do actually have, which are people care deeply about, is a chapter dedicated to life and what you call like the assault on human life. I think that is something that is there's so many big issues that are happening.

It's one of those topics that easily is kind of forgotten. But this administration has certainly not been a fan to our friend, to the religious communities or to the there's actually a chapter on religious liberty and life. The thing about life that's so fascinating, we were doing a segment on my Newsmax show the other day and I all of a sudden I went, oh my gosh, wait, I wrote about this in the book. Joe Biden said when he got elected to a Catholic newspaper that he believed that life began at conception, that he was personally pro-life. He was concerned about pushing his values and everyone else. He now talks about it as if he had never been pro-life. He talks about the fact that there's no evidence and, you know, he's obviously against the Catholic church, but it is amazing when you read the stuff in the book about what, what his history was, what his positions were, what his quotes were that are diametrically... This is not an ultra liberal on life.

No, no. This is the guy responsible for the Hyde Amendment. Until he realized he couldn't get elected. Right.

Yeah, no, he was one of the sponsors of the Hyde Amendment. The book, by the way, we're talking to Sean Spicer, our good friend, and the book's called Radical Nation, and it's available coming Tuesday. And if you go to Amazon or wherever you buy your books, you can pre-order those books now, which really helps.

So we want to make sure that you have access to this book. So Amazon, Barnes & Noble. And Newsmax has made it easy. Newsmax.com slash 23. Okay, there you go.

Okay, so you can get it in Newsmax as well. We want to encourage you to get this book because you get Sean's perspective. You know, any of us that worked in the White House, bring a bit of a unique perspective to it. So I think we have about two minutes left here, so I want to finish on this one. We're in a very different place, but we've got ahead, just a year away, midterm elections. You and I have been through a cycle or two. What are you thinking?

What do you see? I think if Republicans can get out of their own way, they definitely take back the House. They need five seats. There's no question.

You pick up two in Texas, you're definitely going to get one, probably two in Florida. Then you look at a lot of the other seats where you have members that are in Trump districts that are going to get better because of redistricting. There's no question about it. Here's the one thing that I think is important. Will Republicans actually take back the majority and do something with it as opposed to get in and do something just for the sake of it?

I think they need to put forth a clear and unequivocal agenda about what they will do, how they will ensure that people understand that their votes aren't being taken for granted. In the last chapter of the book, chapter 20 is all about a conservative action agenda, how people can get involved, how they can hold those elected officials accountable. Thank you so much, Sean, for stopping by. Sean Spicer's new book, Radical Nation, is available now to free order.

Available Tuesday nationwide. Thank you, Sean. Appreciate it.

It was a blast. Thanks. Yeah, great. Folks, if you want to stay engaged with us, of course, aclj.org.

That's aclj.org. Again, you can pre-order that book today. 23. I encourage you to do that. Very, very important to get. Stay informed, stay engaged. Thanks Sean for being here.

As always, a blast. 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.