My Job Is to Point You to Jesus

We're going to have a spirited discussion today about an important pro-life bill. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks, friends, for joining us on the Line of Fire today.

This is Michael Brown, delighted to be with you. Our focus today, pro-life. We're going to be talking about some very important issues.

Here's something to call, the way in to ask your own questions. 866-34-TRUTH, 866-348-7884. She is a conservative activist. She is a pro-life leader.

And she's author of the new book, A Heartbeat Away. And she has been called one of the five most dangerous religious right leaders in Trump's America because of her being a champion of the heartbeat bill, saying that once a heartbeat is detected, that you cannot abort a baby. After Janet was on, doing the show with me, a gentleman called in, and he raised concerns about the bill. And he said, actually, the bill itself accepts abortion to a certain point, but then tries to outlaw it beyond there. And I said, well, isn't this just incremental progress?

In other words, every abortion we could stop is a step in the right direction while you look for the complete abolition of abortion in a culture that becomes a pro-life culture. And he said, no, no, no, the very wording of it itself is defective. And he recommended I have some other folks on to present their viewpoint. So we reached out to Tom Heflin, and I'll introduce Tom in a moment to you. Tom immediately said he'd be happy to come on. Janet said she'd be happy to come back on and interact with Tom. Now, at this point, we are having a problem reaching Janet, so we may hear from only Tom today.

Hopefully, we'll be able to find out where she is, and sometimes people get time zones wrong or just mix up something. But Tom is a national conservative political activist. He's a publisher, organizer, and consultant. He worked closely with former Reagan administration official and UN Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes.

Many of you will remember Dr. Keyes running for Congress, running against someone named Barack Obama, if I recall. Tom's the primary author of the Equal Protection per Posterity Resolution, which we'll talk about. So hopefully, we'll have Tom and Janet interacting, but we're going to start with Tom for sure. Tom, welcome to the line of fire. Thanks so much for joining us today. Oh, thanks for having me, Dr. Brown.

It's a pleasure to be here. Let me ask first, before we get into any specifics, why you are so passionate about pro-life issues, why it's been such a major burden to you for so many years. Well, of course, that starts with my Christian faith. I can read my Bible, and it says, Thou shalt not murder.

That's pretty clear. I'm a father of ten. I have four grandchildren so far.

I love children. I also love my country, and our Constitution states as its ultimate purpose to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity. So many years ago, I reached the conclusion that if you want to save America, you must stop this genocide that we call abortion, because abortion violates, it destroys every stated purpose of our Constitution. That is contrary to God's law, contrary to the natural law, contrary to the explicit equal protection and due process requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the equal protection requirements of all of our state constitutions.

Right, so it's both a moral issue as well as a constitutional issue, and an issue, obviously, that every American of conscience should be concerned about. We have Janet on the line. We've introduced Janet already. Janet, thanks so much for coming back on with us today. Thank you.

So glad to be here. All right, so Janet, what I want you to do is just take a couple of minutes and lay out why you feel the heartbeat bill is so important and is making so much progress in America. And then we'll go back to Tom to see what objections and issues he has, and we'll have a dialogue, all of us being passionate pro-lifers, but with some major differences here. So why do you feel that the heartbeat bill is so essential, so important?

Sure. First off, let me say that I think we all share the same heart, that we want to protect babies from when their lives begin at the moment of conception. And I've spent more than 40 years in the movement trying to do just that. I started off in the Right to Life movement where their strategy was really one of incrementalism, where they were really moving like a millimeter down the field as we were trying to restore protection. And I just remember saying, listen, we really got to do better than this. And I was a part of the South Dakota effort, and they were looking to restore legal protection from conception and had radio stations in, I think it was seven different cities in South Dakota every day, as well as my regular show that we were out there on the ground doing everything we can and everything we could. But there came a point, and it was in 2010, where the idea came to me again. It was actually an idea I had about 30 years ago, and some folks in the pro-life movement said, listen, if we can't rescue every child just yet, let's get as many as we can. And I proposed the idea of a heartbeat bill, and I'll just tell you, I was beaten down and bloody to the place where it was any time that you suggested we do anything other than move a millimeter down the field that couldn't be done.

And who was I to question their well-thought-out legislative strategy? After all, I was a kid out of college with a lot to learn. But what I learned is that the strategy that we had been using has been giving us over a million dead babies every single year and a body count of 62 million. And so I decided, well, I'm going to try and do more, and that's why we tried the personhood. We tried to restore legal protection from conception.

But we hadn't been successful. Back in 2010, Alabama had not yet passed that bill, and I said, listen, people are only interested in an incremental bill. Well, let's give them a great big increment. And that's where we said, let's use the scientific indicator that science has given us in every other area, in every other hospital in the world. You look to see if there's a heartbeat to determine whether or not there's life. And so the bill simply says if a heartbeat's detected, the baby's protected, and it will protect every child. His heartbeat can be heard, and as technology increases, it will protect more and more. And so we introduced that heartbeat bill back in 2010. And there were a lot of people who told me it was absolutely impossible.

Couldn't be done. But now, the impossible is now inevitable because we've seen heartbeat bills passed in Arkansas, North Dakota, Iowa, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Ohio, where it all began. So that instead of abortion stopping a beating heart, a beating heart will stop abortion. Which is not to say we don't care about the rest of the babies, because we certainly do.

But it's like standing outside a burning building. And, you know, there's some in the movement that would say, well, the Right to Life movement might say, well, we can only rescue those babies, those children in the parking lot. Let's get those, because we're 100 percent sure we'll get them. Well, that's one approach. There's another approach that says, I'm going to go in and I'm going to carry out as many children from the daycare center that's on fire. I'm going to carry out as many children as I can.

And I'm going to go back and I'm going to get the rest. And that's really my position. But then there's a purist position, which I think our guests might adhere to. And that is that if we can't get them all, if we can't get 100 percent of the children in our very first try, then let's just stand on the corner and watch the building burn and say, we'd rather be purists. We'd rather be certain to get them all in one trip. And the sad fact of the matter is that approach has saved virtually no one.

With the exception of Alabama, the only state that's pulled it off last year, there's been no success in that effort. Even the small increments, at least those parental consents and right-to-nos and those mamby-pamby bills that I was a part of passing, at least they have protected thousands of babies. Because when a woman is informed of that, when there's a 24-hour consideration waiting period or parental consent or parental notice, that does save lives. So I think that what my position is, if you want to support an incremental bill, the one percent of the babies who, for example, feel pain, I'm for that. If you are for a personhood and you want to protect them all in one shot, I say go for it.

But the position that I take is I want to save as many as I can. And that's exactly what the heartbeat bill is doing. And it's using science. And what I found is, and we found this in the legislature both in the states and in Congress. I'll tell you one story. We brought in, we billed as the youngest to ever testify. We did it in the states.

We did it also in Congress. We brought in an unborn baby at 18 weeks via ultrasound. And we put the ultrasound up on the screen and we played little baby Lincoln, a little unborn baby boy named Lincoln. His space and his heart was beating up on the screen. And there were people who were there in the committee hearing. There were protesters who had been really rather disruptive. But when that baby's heartbeat was seen and heard in that judiciary committee in Congress, the room was silent.

And one of the protesters who had been previously very disruptive earlier was seen wiping tears from her eyes. And that's when I realized that this baby's heartbeat can reach the hardest of hearts, that it can reach America. And that's what the heartbeat bill is doing. All right, Janet, thanks for laying that out so eloquently and passionately. Tom, I'm going to turn things over to you to interact. We're going to have a break that comes up. She'll be able to get started.

And then right after the break, back to you. So, Tom, what are your thoughts? Well, I want to start by saying hi to Janet. We know each other. It's probably been about a dozen years or more since we've seen each other back in the days when I was working with Dr. Keyes.

And I think the last place we saw each other was down in Florida at a big event that Janet was putting on for the presidential candidates. Now, since that time, her and I have diverged in our paths. As she explained, she has become the primary progenitor of the heartbeat approach, the incrementalist approach, as she called it.

I took another path. I don't even really call myself pro-life anymore. I call myself an abolitionist of abortion.

She can choose to call it the purest position, but I call it the equal protection for all position. The problem with the burning building analogy that she used is that the incrementalist approach, the regulationist approach, which has been used now for decades by the pro-life group and pro-life legislators, is that the bills themselves are intrinsically immoral and unconstitutional in and of themselves. Before you even start to talk about the courts, the bills give permission to abort babies. This violates God's law. This violates thou shall not murder. It also violates every principle of our Constitution.

It violates the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments due process and equal protection clauses. Tom, I'm just jumping in. I knew you were just getting started. As soon as we come back after a very short break, I'm turning the mic over to Tom Heflin to explain why he, as an abolitionist, has an issue with the heartbeat bill. And then we're going to have some very healthy interaction between two pro-life champions here. We'll be right back. Friends, we're focusing on critically important pro-life issues today on the line of five.

This is Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us. Do you have a question for our guests? I may take some calls today, but I want to give them every minute I can.

866-34-Truth, 866-348-7884. Speaking with pro-life leader Janet Porter, her book on the subject we're talking about, a heartbeat away, the importance of the current heartbeat bill that is going across America. My other guest, Tom Heflin, another longtime pro-life leader, but prefers to be identified now as an abolitionist of abortion.

And he is the author of the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution. So, Tom, you were saying before the break that, in your view, the idea that we'll go in and save as many babies as we can from a burning building and then do our best to go back and get the rest is immoral in itself, using that analogy, because you're saying that the very bills that we are discussing are actually saying it's OK to let the babies burn or that's part of the law. So if you could expand on that in terms of what exactly you find immoral in it and then go from there. Well, in fact, in two ways, these bills leave all of the doors catalogued and chained shut, because, first of all, every regulation that's bill is done within the context of the fallacy of judicial supremacy, that we have to conform our legislation and our public policies to what some court said 47 years ago. And that's simply not true. That is not the sort of government that the framers of our Constitution gave us.

They gave us a constitutional republic in which we're supposed to have checks and balances. So since these bills intrinsically sacrifice the only real moral constitutional legal arguments against abortion, which are, in the first place, equal protection under the law, secondly, equal protection under the law for our God-given unalienable right, starting with the right to life. So those principles which you can't win this in any way, shape or form, either within the context of the court or outside the context of the court, are thrown away every time we pass a bill that in effect ends with and then you can kill the baby. Under a heartbeat bill, all you've done is shortened the period.

It's the same as a pain-capable bill. Twenty weeks, six weeks, whatever week. Most abortions take place long before that. Abortifacient drugs take place long before that. Most babies are killed, exterminated long before that. And by passing legislation that continues to do that, you're making sure no babies are getting out of the burning bill. The babies who have died in the last four years, it's made no difference to them whether Donald Trump was in office or whether Hillary Clinton was. They're pursuing the abortion status quo. The next four years, it won't matter to those millions of babies who are about to be killed, whether Donald Trump or whether Joe Biden are in office. It won't matter one bit. All right, Janet, back to you for your response to Tom.

Oh my, I could not disagree more. What my friend here is saying is that, well, you know, it doesn't matter to babies whether it's Trump or whether it's Biden. It absolutely does, because whether we agree that the Supreme Court has the authority that they do, the fact of the matter is they've taken it. And the way to get it back is within our grasp right now.

We've got a president, President Donald Trump, who has appointed Amy Coney Barrett, who is one who believes, as we do, that we should interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench as they have been doing. But look, here's the bottom line. You could throw up your hands and say, nothing matters, and if we don't get it perfect, nothing will happen. Look, I want to end abortion. I want to quit talking about it. I want to quit marching about it. I want to quit debating it.

What I want to do is end it. And what Dr. Wilkie, the founder of National Rights of Life, said, he actually left the Ohio Rights of Life affiliate of National Rights of Life, the group that he founded, to join our effort, because what he said was what Tom and I would agree on. The incremental method has left us woefully inadequate.

It didn't get us far enough fast enough, Dr. Wilkie said. But what he also said is that he believes the heartbeat bill will protect, he said, up to 95 percent of the babies. All right, let's just think about that for a second. If we protect almost every child facing an abortion, what that means is the abortion mills that are motivated by money are probably not going to stay open for a fraction of their business because they can't afford it. We're going to close them down. And that's what the pro-abort said when they came in and testified, is that this will end all abortions.

And I sat there saying, yep, that's the plan. Because what this does is say, look, we may not agree that the courts have been legislating for the bench. I don't agree with it either.

But we are where we are. And what we've done in a heartbeat bill, it doesn't say we can kill babies except for this. What it says is that if the heartbeat's detected, that baby's protected.

And what the message we're sending to the court is one that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals picked up on. When they reviewed the heartbeat bills, the heartbeat laws in Arkansas and North Dakota, they said, listen, in response to what the Supreme Court has said, the Supreme Court has basically said, hey, states, you're allowed to protect children if there's a likelihood of survival to live birth, all right? But the marker they're currently using is a thing called viability, whether you can survive outside the womb. And it's done when an abortionist does a measurement, he takes a measurement, and he takes a guess.

It could be as much as 90 percent wrong. But the Eighth Circuit recognized, hold on a second, we've got a scientific marker here that is being applied everywhere else in our entire medical field. And they said that Arkansas and North Dakota's heartbeat laws, said the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, begging the Supreme Court to take up the case, they said, hey, they've got a more, quote, certain and consistent marker than viability, the lousy standard you're currently using.

So what this does with this arrow that has been finally crafted to be the arrow that is launched through the court system to deliver the fatal blow to the heart of Roe v. Wade, we say move the protectability line from viability, which is miles away, all the way down to heartbeat, which is inches away from our goal. All right, and Chad, let me just ask this, when you're speaking of heartbeat being detected, roughly what week of pregnancy are you talking about? Right now, with our technology the way it is, if you use an internal ultrasound, you're looking at about six, seven weeks. All right, and you said that's 95 percent of abortions are performed after that time.

Well, it could be earlier than that, I don't really publicize that, but I'm quoting Dr. Wilkie. Right, so six weeks, and you're saying the vast majority of abortions are then performed after that time. Tom, you had said that the vast majority of abortions would not be affected by this, but if heartbeat is detected at six weeks... It's just simply inaccurate that 95 percent of abortions take place after six weeks.

That's just not even... Well, what would you say the stat is? You know, it's probably the other way around or closer to that, much closer to that. Just to be clear, so you're saying that 95 percent of abortions take place before six weeks? Look, only God knows the true number. Now we have with IVF, they're destroying millions. With abortifacient drugs, they're destroying millions, and those are certainly taking place mostly before six weeks. We have hormonal birth control, which deprives already created little babies from surviving because it prevents them from implanting in the mother's womb. You know, so only God knows the real number.

I don't really want to spend my time... Well, let me ask you something, Tom. Let's just say it saves half the babies that are being aborted. Isn't that a worthwhile thing to do? This is not a numbers game, Janet.

If it saves one life, I say do it. It doesn't, though. It doesn't. It can't because it sacrifices the only principles that argue against abortion on demand, and therefore it keeps abortion on demand going. Look, incrementally... I disagree, and I'll tell you why. This already has saved lives.

I know for a fact. There was a woman who came up to me. She heard about the heartbeat because of just the publicity of bringing in the ultrasounds there in the Ohio hearing room in the State House there, and she said that her friend asked her to drive her to the abortion mill because she wanted to hit an abortion.

And she said, I couldn't do it. Once I found out about the baby's heartbeat, I couldn't do it. And months later, she showed me the picture of this little boy named Aiden and said he is alive today because of the heartbeat bill, and that was before it even passed the committee. We know this is saving lives. Senator Jason Rayford from Arkansas told me about little baby Duncan was saved because the mother found out about the baby's heart because of an informed consent provision that was not struck down while the protection was. And so we know this is already saving lives for certain. All right, Janet.

Yeah, back to you, Tom. Okay, look, detectable heartbeat is not the scriptural standard for protection, okay? And it's not the constitutional. It's nowhere in the Constitution.

That is not the standard. You're talking about a human-made instrument that is not even capable on its best day of detecting human heart functioning from its earliest point of creation, which is at its creation. Why do you think the abortionists want to harvest heart cells out of little babies? It's because they are hearts, whether you can detect them. And the heartbeat bills, all they do is give the executioner the power to determine whether or not there is a heartbeat.

Why would you trust them, and why would you trust an instrument that can't even detect the activity of the human heart from its earliest functioning? Beating is not the criteria. Our criteria is, are they a human being made in the image and likeness of God? Are they? Are they a person, as per the 14th Amendment? Gorsuch says no, okay? Kavanaugh says, precedent upon precedent. I'm going to follow precedent. Amy Coney Barrett says, I'm going to follow precedent. I am obligated to court precedent, instead of to morality, instead of to the equal protection requirements of our Constitution. Okay, Amy, first off, Amy said she would actually overturn precedents that need to be overturned.

She said she wouldn't do it in every case, but she's not adverse to reviewing precedents, and I think that's an important point. But let me say this. Hey, hold on to your thought, if you don't mind.

We've got a break. When we come back, we just let Janet and Tom go back and forth. And I want to hear from Tom, what's the strategy? How do we abolish abortion? And then from Janet, what's the significance of Amy Coney Barrett coming in?

Stay right here. Music I'm having a spirited discussion today with two pro-life leaders, both passionate to save the lives of babies in America. Tom Heffling, longtime pro-life leader, 2015 listed by Newsmax as one of America's 100 most influential pro-life advocates, and he is the author of the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution. Janet Porter, called one of the five most dangerous religious right leaders in Trump's America, is the author and champion of The Heartbeat Bill, her book on the subject, A Heartbeat Away. Janet says with this bill not only can save many, many lives of babies, but this will ultimately lead to the abolition of abortion in America.

Tom says that this approach is immoral in itself, and that it accepts the fact that babies can be killed up to a certain point. So we're right in the midst of this discussion. And right before the break, Tom had made the comment that Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Amy Coney Barrett would accept the precedent of Roe v. Wade. And Janet, you were responding to that before the break. So back to you, Janet.

Well, there were actually a few things I wanted to respond to, and that is this. We've got, by the way, if you read The Heartbeat Law, and I encourage people to go to faith2action.org or f2a.org, you can download and take a look at the model of the bill and see that we've actually got some safeguards in there, that if the abortionist doesn't do what he's required to do, we've got legal remedies. For example, if the woman's not informed, she's got legal standing to go in and pursue that legally. If they're performing abortions and saying, oh, we've got all these babies and we couldn't hear their heartbeats because, oh, we were listening from across the room, guess what? They're not following the standard medical procedure, and we're going to close them down. If they violate the law, they're a felon, and when they're a felon, they lose their medical license.

That's the bottom line. But I think one of the legislators in Georgia that passed The Heartbeat Law there said it very well. There was a bill, Ginny Enhardt did an op-ed piece, and she explained it, I think, very well, and it said that because the bill in Georgia wasn't perfect, there were those of the tourist movement from the Right to Life movement that actually, and here's what she said. She said what happened in the heartbeat bill, Georgia Right to Life, which is the abolitionist arm of the movement, said by its own hypocrisy, told the Georgia legislature to cut the baby in half.

In other words, like Solomon told the two women, you know what? You can have the baby, or else we'll just cut it in half. Well, if you're a true person who wants to see that baby live, if you're a real mother, you're going to say, I'd rather have that baby live and be raised by someone else than be killed brutally by abortion. I think that's where we are. We're in a place where we have the ability to protect so many lives, nearly every child facing abortion or a whole bunch of them. We have the ability to do that right now, and that's exactly what we've been doing. For the last ten years, we passed ten heartbeat bills.

As we've mentioned, 29 are in the queue ready to go. And I believe that when that gets to the Supreme Court, much like the Eighth Circuit said, hey, we cut a better marker, moved it from miles away from viability to heartbeat, which is inches away, in which case we protect nearly every child and make it far easier to go back and get the rest. But I'm not holding back Tom or anybody else from any other method that they think is right. And so instead of throwing rocks at the people you disagree with, you know what, I don't think the incremental, the right-to-life millimeter approach is a good one, but you know what, I'm not throwing rocks at them and I'm not standing in their way, because what they do, they may protect some babies.

They may educate some people about the truth. But I say to you, Tom, go for it. If you think you've got a better approach, then just do it. We're not stopping you, but quit throwing rocks at people that are actually passing laws to protect human life.

Go ahead, Tom. Janet, you need to tell the rest of the pro-life movement that, because in fact we have had abolition bills in numerous states, including my own, seven years ago. A perfectly pure, declared abortionist murder bill scrubbed every bit of permission out of our code to kill babies, and it was blocked by the pro-life leaders in the Republican Party.

By the way, I want to say, it wasn't blocked by me. I support those, I've supported them publicly, I've testified publicly for them, and it's wrong. And that's what I faced in Ohio when right-to-life testified right next to Planned Parenthood against a bill that would protect more babies than any other bill that's ever passed in the state history.

Yeah, go ahead, Tom. Well, here's the problem, and I want to get in a minute to, you know, you asked before the break, you know, what's your plan, and I have one, but before I say that, look, in Roe itself, Sarah Weddington, the lead attorney for Roe, okay, said, you know, in our state, in Texas, the offense is not murder. It's an abortion which carries a significantly less offense. Harry Blackmun's infamous footnote 54 in Roe v. Wade, he spelled out the reason why they were ruling on Roe the way that they did, and it was because Texas did not treat the unborn baby like any other person in terms of their laws and punishing, killing them. So, look, if we incrementally pass these bills, the best thing we are doing and the best thing we're doing in the court is going right back to where we started with Roe. It was bad legislating that led to Roe in the first place.

Well, Tom, let me just ask this, and then I want to get to your plan, and obviously we'll keep going back and forth as much time as we have here. If these heartbeat bills can then be the thing that gets up to the Supreme Court, you know, their protested, appealed, whatever challenge, it gets up to the Supreme Court, if that could pave the way for the overthrowing, overturning of Roe v. Wade. But it can't. Okay, go ahead, please.

Tell us why. It can't, doctor. It can't, Dr. Brown, and it can't for the very simple reason that it doesn't even address Roe in the first place. The main issue in Roe is, is the child a person or not? Okay, a heartbeat bill says no, they're not. I read my Iowa heartbeat bill.

I read every single one of these bills. There's no punishment on the woman. That was what the Roe caught on their hat on. The woman doesn't even be, the one who hires the hit man doesn't even get any punishment.

And really, the hit man only receives a slap on the wrist. So you're just, the best you're going to get out of this is to start this whole bloody process all over again. Let me just quickly lay out, you asked me what's my plan, okay? So Tom, one second, you'll do that, and then Janet, I want to get back to you on the question of could this, if the heartbeat bill is challenged and it gets to the Supreme Court, could that lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade? So we will get back to that. But Tom, go ahead, lay out your practical strategy. Well, it's very simple. You pass legislation that meets the equal protection requirement, protects every...

So do it! We tried, and we are trying, and we're continuing to try. And one of these days will succeed when the pro-life incorporated stops blocking the way. So Tom, just to be clear, you feel that your biggest opposition that's hindering you from getting the bills through is from our own side? Or is that just part of the problem?

There's not even any question about that, absolutely. So in other words, you feel that legislators in different states would be willing to pass these bills, which to many Americans would be radical, but obviously the goal that we all share, you feel that they would be willing to do it if the pro-life movement wasn't standing in the way? We have had, I think about eight states, we've had bills. The only state we got a hearing out of, the pro-life Republicans, is Texas last year. We had over 500 Christian people there testifying on behalf of this good abolition bill. There were only five people who testified against it. The committee claimed to be heavily pro-life. Guess what?

They didn't let it even move one inch out of that committee. I agree that the enemy that we're facing, and I have a whole chapter in my book, and Tom, I really think you'd enjoy my book, give me your address, I'll send you one. It's called The Enemy Within.

They are the ones that are blocking pro-life bills, including heartbeat bills, and including as you've described. But here's the deal. What we've got to do, we can expose the evil within, and I think we need to do that. But I think that if you say your strategy is the way to go, I say do it.

Show me where you're doing it, and I'll join you. But until then, we've got a bill that are passing in state after state after state, and let me tell you why I believe it's going to be upheld by the Supreme Court. There was another bill that I know you disagreed with.

It was a bill that I was fortunate enough to pass. The first one was the ban on carceral birth abortion. It educated a lot of people, didn't protect a lot of babies, but it did something that we didn't anticipate. It went up to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzalez v. Carhart, what they did, they've got an undisputed finding of fact, and I'm not sure you've heard of this, it's in my book as well, and the undisputed finding of fact that they found out in that carceral birth abortion Supreme Court case, they said that there is a living fetus, fetus is just the Latin word which means young one developing human, unborn child, there is a living child from the point, are you ready? The Supreme Court said in Gonzalez v. Carhart, a living child from the point of detectable heartbeat. It was not disputed by the pro-abort.

Everyone agreed on this. So now we've actually got a wedge in the wall of Roe vs. Wade. We've got a way to kick this thing down because they've admitted, and it's now a legal precedent, that if you've got a detectable heartbeat in an unborn child, that child is a living fetus. By the way, medically speaking, if you've got a heartbeat in an unborn baby, which as we know, it actually occurs between 18 and 21 days before the mother even knows that she's pregnant, but if you can detect it, at any point, that child has a 95 to 98% likelihood of survival to live birth, which is precisely the parameters that the Supreme Court said were allowed to protect them. Now, I don't agree with judicial legislating from the bench, but we are where we are, and we deal with the hand we've been given. And what we've been given is a way to pierce the heart of Roe with medical science. You know, when those who fought me and said, oh, Janet's bringing in ultrasounds in the hearing room and her gimmicks and her stunts, they put the camera on me, and I said, isn't it sad that to defend your position, you have to deny science? You've got to run from technology.

That's a sad place to be. I don't oppose your strategy. I'm with your strategy.

But the problem is it hasn't worked yet. Until then, I'm going to try everything I can to rescue as many kids as I can, and then I'm going to go back and I'm going to get more, and then I'm going to get more until we stop the killing. And what I would propose to you, Tom, is the way to stop the killing is not so much to throw rocks at people that are on your team that side with you, that want full protection for babies. We can expose those that are blocking your kinds of bills, but I'm not one of them.

What we want to do is we want to work together. If you've got a bill and you ask me to testify, I would absolutely do it. I've done it before, and I know when I testified for a conception bill probably 15 years ago, it was Right to Life opposing us on the other side. It's a travesty. People that make out their donation checks don't know it, but we've just got to keep fighting, and we've got to work together where we can. Janet, we've got a break. Tom, we're back to you on the other side of the break. So, Tom, if you welcome Janet's help, will you stand with Janet, or can you not do that in conscience?

Back to Tom when we return. I want to find out more about Janet's position, about the effectiveness of the heartbeat bill, what's happened thus far, and even the question of the enemy within, Janet Porter, A Heartbeat Away, that's the name of the book. And Tom Heflin, Tom, if folks want to find out about what you're doing, how they can get involved, what's the best place to go to, best website to go to? Well, the best place in terms of our work against the abortion genocide is equalprotectionforposterity.com.

They can also go to self-government.us as well. Okay, equalposterity.com. So, Tom, can you say, yes, I have a larger goal, and I believe it's the only one that's righteous in God's sight, but if I can help Janet, I will? Or do you just feel that, in conscience, that's a compromise for you? Look, I made a pledge a number of years ago now that I would no longer support any legislation, any public policy that violates equal protection under the law, period. Her bill does not meet that test. I'll support any bill that meets the moral constitutional test.

Otherwise, forget it. We have to begin to impose that thumb line on everything we do, and we have to stop supporting politicians who violate that in any way, shape, or form. The church in this country has the power to stop abortion, but the only path to doing it is restoring our foundation of principle, and that principle is all wrapped up in that phrase, equal protection for posterity.

Got it. And, Tom, do you feel that overturning Roe v. Wade will be enough to push back the abortion culture in America, or do you feel that that's just one piece in a much bigger puzzle? Overturning Roe is a canard.

There is no such thing. Roe is not a law. Our courts are not empowered by our Constitution to make laws or veto laws. So there's nothing to overturn. It's an old, illicit, immoral court opinion that's 47 years old. Everybody who voted on it is dead and gone to meet their judge, okay?

So there's nothing to overturn. We have to pass moral and constitutional legislation, and we have to stand by it. And if the courts don't like it, we need to tell the Supreme Court to go jump in the Potomac. On that equalprotectionforposterity.com website, right at the very top, in the middle, you'll see a link about judicial supremacy and why we're not supposed to be following illicit, unconstitutional edicts of courts.

That's not the sort of government that our forefathers gave to us. One other question before I go back to Janet. Tom, why do you feel that those on the left are so hysterical about the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade, so worried that it's going to happen if, in your judgment, it really doesn't matter?

You know, they're as ignorant as anybody, and they think that Zack Bernard means something, but it really doesn't. We need to stop even thinking that way. We need to stop making our political and governmental actions conform to this whole idea that we live in a judicial oligarchy instead of a representative republic that is premised on the moral law. So we have to, at a larger level than just fight the judicial activism that we're facing. Yeah, Janet, please, your response.

Go ahead. You know, I just want to say I really very much agree with much of what Tom is saying in that, yeah, you've got judges that are acting as legislators. They're out of control. In fact, I work with my mentor, the late Phyllis Schlafly. We introduced a bill that was to restrain the judges. We had to restrain the judges bill that Congressman Steve King introduced.

He's no longer going to be in Congress because National Right to Life opposed this man who's been a champion of marriage, a champion of life, and the sponsor of the heartbeat bill. It's appalling. Look, I agree. The bottom line is, how many lives have you saved? You can be pure or you can be effective. And I think that what we can do is we can get as close as we can to our goal, but not throw rocks at everybody who falls short of purity. I mean, roads should not be treated as the law of the land, but the fact of the matter is, sadly, there isn't an authoritative figure.

The president has not told judges to jump in the Potomac as much as I would have liked that to happen. What we've got to do is protect as many as we can. And, you know, when I first we first introduced this heartbeat bill back in 2011, one of the things, there was an article that really stunned me, and it said that the pro-aborts fear the heartbeat bill more than they fear the personhood, the abolitionist approach.

Why? Well, I remember when I was a part of protecting babies, trying to protect babies on the ballot in South Dakota from conception, what they would do in the last week of the campaign, they'd bring in all the blood money and they'd run commercials about women in back alleys and that they were a glob of cells. That takes away the best arguments. What we're doing with the heartbeat bill is we're not talking about a single cell or a glob of cells in people's minds, which is also a human being made in the image of God.

I'm not discounting that. But in the minds of many, that doesn't matter. But what we're saying is, look, in this case, we've got a fellow human being with a beating heart. And you know what the Barna poll showed?

I mean, I've been in this movement, you know, Tom, I've been in this movement for decades, for more than 40 years. And what I found is that there is never, in my opinion, been a bill that protects this many babies. You know, every child's heartbeat can be heard and has this much public support. We found from a George Barna scientific poll that seven out of 10 in America believe that if a doctor can detect the heartbeat of an unborn baby, that baby should be legally protected. 86% of Republicans, and here's the shocker, 55% of Democrats, yes, a majority of Democrats say, listen, I agree with the heartbeat bill because I'm not cold and heartless. I understand if there's a heartbeat, there's life.

Everybody gets that. You know, we've never been to a funeral of somebody with a beating heart. You know, and the pro-aborts got up and they said, the heartbeat's not a sign of life. I just said, listen, you know, start ripping down those heart monitors in hospitals and see what they do to you.

Because they're not there for decoration. Everybody gets it. It's the heartbeat universally recognized indicator of life. It's not the end game, but it gets us inches from our goal. And when that happens, even if we don't get a conception bill, what if we had just the presence of a heartbeat?

That would get every child, because that heart is beating at 18 to 21 days before the woman even knows she's pregnant. And so I'm saying, Tom, if you think you have a better approach, I say do it. Do it.

But don't discount those that are trying something else. All right. So thank you. Thank you, Janet. Tom, go ahead.

You get the last word in. OK, well, I've been around for a long time, too, and I've watched the pro-aborts. They're not afraid of heartbeat bills. They're not afraid of any regulatory bills. They know the Supreme Court has set an undue burden standard, and they know that none of these regulatory bills even challenge that. They don't even challenge the basis for Roe v. Wade, which is, is the child indeed a human being made in the image and likeness of God? And therefore, do they have to be protected by our Constitution's equal protection requirement? So, Tom, again, the path forward, in your view, is to get what kind of bills passed? This is state by state.

How does this happen? Abolition bills just go straight to the murder code. You define the child from their creation as a human being. You put them right with every other human being in terms of the murder code. And then you go through and you scrub out the decade's worth of pro-life statutes that are on the books that, in effect, end with, and then you can kill the baby. Get rid of those, and then you will have cured your legislative and your code book problem. That doesn't solve your judicial problem, and it doesn't solve the problem that you still need chief executives who will actually keep their oath to provide equal protection under the law and shut down these killing mills. But here's the danger. If you pass a bill like that that strikes down every pro-life law that a state has passed and says we're just going to make it murder, then what they're going to do is they're going to pass that, and they're going to strike down the murder part, and they're going to also uphold the part that strikes down every other pro-life law.

There's a big danger because you run the risk of losing everything we've ever done. You're missing the other part of what I'm saying, is you have to ignore them. Pro-lifers have had massive control in this country politically for decades, both federally and a vast majority of the state. Just start protecting the babies, as God and our Constitution require.

Forget the core. And Tom, just a question strategically, we just have about a minute left. Janet said that Americans will recognize a beating heart and protect that baby. Do you think, because we're talking about voting for people who are now going to rule on these things or cast their votes in state legislatures and things like that, do you think that America is at a point where the hearts are turned sufficiently that they'll recognize the importance of a bill like this and go for it? The answer is no, we're not even at a point where a vast majority of the Christians will stop compromising with evil. So we're not even at step A, which is to get the Christians to repent.

So if you're not at step A, all right, if we can't get to the finish line at zero to 60, why don't we take steps to get there? And if incremental bills are insufficient, let's look at the heartbeat bill because it's the biggest incremental bill there is. And where we're looking at right now, we can't lose sight of what's most important at this moment.

You can throw up your hands and say, yeah, woe is me and the world is doomed. I say this, that God has given us a chance at mercy, that he's given us a man who says, I believe in the right to life. I will sign bills and I will appoint judges that do right by children. And with that, the Biden-Harris bloodthirsty pro-abort-till-birth opposition. Yeah, Janet and Tom, I'm so sorry, but we are out of time. I appreciate you both joining me. Friends, go back, watch this, listen to this, evaluate the arguments. Let's stand for life.