BREAKING: Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Returns? ACLJ Takes Major Action

Breaking news today on Sekulow as the American Center for Law and Justice signs a coalition letter demanding that Congress ban taxpayer funding of abortion.

Yes, it's an issue again. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. And welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Let's get right to it. A letter I signed on behalf of the American Center for Law and Justice has just been released to the public. This is a group of various groups from Washington, D.C. across the country encouraging, if not demanding, that Congress reinstate the Hyde Amendment through whatever budget reconciliation is done. We talked about that, this massive reconciliation package. We've also talked about the fact that the Hyde Amendment, it runs out at the end of this month. Now, there could be a continuing resolution to fund Congress.

We'll get into all those details. But we've got to make sure the language is there. And we know that's got to emanate from the Senate.

Why? Because the House, currently controlled by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party, the votes are not there. But we're going to explain how the Senate, working with, it looks like Senator Manchin to be the lone Democrat, that will join 50 Republicans just getting it over the line. So it's going to be very close and to make sure that in the chaos of the budget running out, you know, talk about shutdowns and things like that, at the end of this month, we want to make sure that language is there because, Dad, since 1976, that has been clear is that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund abortions.

Right. The Hyde Amendment came into existence for that very reason, to make sure that your taxpayer dollars, our taxpayer dollars, are not used to fund abortion services, which means more money to Planned Parenthood and others. So it's been on the books for, my goodness, well over 40 years. But you now have a situation where a very pro-abortion House, although, again, closely divided because of the Republican minority is a significant minority, is clearly would probably, I think the votes would be there to do away with the Hyde Amendment, frankly. Now, that's not going to happen in the Senate. So I think, hopefully, and I'm glad you signed the letter on behalf of the ACLJ. This is another example of where talk is one thing and action is something else.

And we do both at the ACLJ. But I think we have to be clear. And I think in being clear, we have to make it very well understood that, in fact, we are talking about taxpayer funding of abortion. This doesn't affect Roe versus Wade. This is just your taxpayer dollars not going to fund abortion. That's what the Hyde Amendment is all about.

That's right. We're going to get into that in greater detail, too, with Dan Bennett, our Director of Government Affairs. Rick Grenell is going to be joining us in this first half hour of the broadcast talking about a new piece up at ACLJ.org previewing Secretary Blinken's testimony next week before the House Armed Services Committee. We're also going to get into this Taliban leadership that was announced in these kind of absurd headlines, like the U.S. is concerned about the all-male Taliban cabinet. They were expecting what? They were expecting the Taliban all of a sudden to start allowing women into the highest levels of government, or any levels of government for that matter, or to even participate. And the U.S. saying they're concerned and they're asking for more diversity, but they're asking of this to the Taliban as they announce an interim government. Most of these guys, four of them were in Gitmo and traded for Bo Bergdahl.

The rest, I mean, they've got U.N. sanctions, they have bounties on their head from the U.S. government as terrorists. So we'll go through that as well. We've got a lot to talk about today and a school choice case at the Supreme Court the ACLJ is also getting involved in. So a lot to talk about, packed show. We want you to join us, share it with your friends and family if you're watching through Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, Rumble, share this broadcast. And again, be active in the broadcast. Put your comments. If you've got questions for us, comments for us, you can put those in the chats and the various social media outlets where this is also where you're watching.

Or give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. All this information too on Hyde, Rick Renell's new blog, that's up at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back on Secular. 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, the Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift.

Welcome back to Secchio. Let me go right to Thanh Bennett in Washington, D.C. Thanh, the letter has been released. It's an impressive group of different kinds of organizations, all with one similar focus that they are pro-life organizations. At least that's a part of the work they do with some of these groups.

That's their singular focus. But the letter's been released, and the timing is important. I think people will see members of Congress talking about this today as well. Because the push is on now to make sure this language, which expires at the end of September, and we kind of go through this routine, but when you get a divided Congress, how closely divided it is right now, and the reliance on the Senate. I just want to explain, Thanh, for people out there that it's, again, to include the Hyde Amendment again should not be this massive debate. It should be bipartisan. It's about taxpayer funding not going to abortion procedures specifically. But this seems like because of all these divisions in Congress and how closely divided the Senate is, it's going to be something we have to push for this entire month.

Yeah, 100 percent, Jordan. I mean, this is something that the American people want. They do not want their taxpayer dollars to go towards abortion. Even about a third of pro-choice Americans, Jordan, don't want taxpayer dollars used for abortions, and that's why for almost 50 years this has been a part of federal law. But, Jordan, the next several weeks on this are going to be really critical, and that's why this letter was sent today. That's why the next several weeks are going to be critical for ACLJ members and for all of us at the ACLJ because there is going to be a two-pronged approach in the United States Congress to repeal what is known as the Hyde Amendment, which is that protection against taxpayer dollars being used for abortion. Jordan, just in summary, those two parts, number one, the first one is going to be the irregular appropriations process that you just mentioned. Government funding runs out at the end of this month, so Congress has to determine how to fund next year's budget. Now, it's almost in all likelihood it's going to happen through a continuing resolution, but Jordan, the House of Representatives has already laid down language. They already want the Hyde Amendment removed, and so the United States Senate is going to have to stop that.

And then, Jordan, the second phase of this, they're really throwing everything at the wall here, the second phase of this is going to be in the reconciliation process. That's a $3.5 trillion bill. Jordan, they want to fund abortions in that bill. Fortunately, when the United States Senate passed their underlying budget, there was an amendment passed by Senator Lankford. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, voted in favor of it, and it passed by a single vote that does reinstitute the Hyde Amendment. But all of that to say, Jordan, there's going to be a lot of bites at this apple over the next several weeks. That's why this letter came out today in defense of protecting taxpayers from having to fund abortion.

You know, Dad, this is something, again, critical to the ACLJ, but it's, again, it's one of those fights that we are starting to see as becoming a lot more aggressive. It's a lot more divisive than it used to be. Even right after Roe vs. Wade, Republicans and Democrats came together and said, we don't want Americans to have to fund this, so we're not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund this divisive procedure that more than, you know, at least half the country that time and now believes is murder. So we're not, even if it's legal, we're not going to use your taxpayer dollars to fund those procedures. And everyone accepted that, but we're not living in that time period anymore.

No, that reality doesn't exist anymore, and here's the, I think, the aspect of it, Jordan, that's particularly troubling. And that is, look, a majority of Americans are pro-life, and a majority of Americans certainly do not think there should be taxpayer funding of abortions. Having said that, you would think Congress would just compromise in that regard and simply say, okay, half the country's pro-life, more than half the country doesn't think there should be taxpayer funding of abortion. Let's not have taxpayer funding of abortion. It's not like you're doing anything that impacts Roe versus Wade here, but this is the days of Congressman Hyde and the days of that kind of negotiation and Tip O'Neill, those days are done. So now, any chance the abortion industry left gets, they are going to try, with everything they have, to put abortion front and center and remove even common sense funding issues.

Like, don't take my taxpayer dollars for a procedure I abhor. And that has been the understanding in our country for over 40 years, and I think now, as you correctly did, you signed that letter, we have to now be prepared to fight and fight aggressively, which we will do. But it's a legislative battle.

It's not a singular battle anymore. It used to be, here's the funding, it's via Medicaid, this is where you put in the Hyde Amendment, the protective language. But now, with the continuing resolutions or omnibus bills and the different ways that reconciliation being utilized, as the Democrats would hope, up to $3 trillion in federal spending, it's not just a one-track, we've got to make sure it's here, it's multiple places. Yeah, it's really become pervasive through the federal government, Jordan. I mean, back in 1976, when the Hyde Amendment was passed, it applied just to the labor HHS bill because that's where you fund Medicaid and that's where all of the abortion funding was. But as the decades have passed, Jordan, they have found ways to plug abortion funding into other areas of the government.

I'll just give you one example. In the D.C. budget, we have what's called the Dornan Amendment. It's essentially the Hyde Amendment for that bill because they've been pushing abortion funding into that portion of the federal budget.

So you're correct, Jordan. We have to basically apply the Hyde Amendment to a number of bills throughout this process. So now we call them the Hyde family of amendments.

And Jordan, let me just maybe echo something that your dad said just a minute ago. The reason this has become not a consensus issue in Washington, D.C., is because of the leadership in the Democrat Party. I mean, look, Joe Biden was a supporter of the Hyde Amendment for decades and decades. Well, why now is his party not willing to stand with this? Jordan is because during the primary process in the last Presidential election, he flip-flopped. And he called on the U.S. House, led by Speaker Pelosi, to repeal the Hyde Amendment. So I look to his leadership inside the party and his flip-flop after 40 years of telling the American people he supported this.

Jordan, I lay the blame at his feet. I really do. I mean, this is, again, so it's important to point out, too, we have the sitting President was a supporter of this. He's now – so talking about that shift that's happened, Dad, that's where the significant shift is. Even the senators, even the Joe Biden types who were there and supportive of these measures, who still run on a pro-abortion platform, but could still say, well, I believe this, I still don't believe that taxpayers should be forced to do it. That's changed.

That's another example. That's what's happened in Texas and how the pro-abortion movement and the abortion industry has fought back, is trying to fight back with these scare tactics, but they've been successful at least with the Democrat Party. What we've seen is a hardening of both parties, the Republican Party with a very consistent pro-life platform and the Democrat Party with this consistent pro-abortion platform. We've talked to former Democrats. I'm not going to name them here, Dad, but they say you basically take any kind of pro-life positions whatsoever, you're totally isolated. Oh, no, we saw that even in the – look, you saw that in the Democratic primaries back not that long ago, back last summer.

And even when some of the candidates said, well, on late-term abortion, I don't think that's a good thing, and all of a sudden, the next thing you know, they were out of the race. So this idea that you can get consensus just doesn't exist anymore. And the fact is this is not a situation where it's consensus. Consensus would be you would have a situation like this and you would not fund taxpayer money for abortions. It's that straightforward.

It's that simple. But what happens now? Well, what happens now is Joe Biden, who was for three decades at least, maybe four, in favor of the Hyde Amendment, is now being pushed by the left, which is controlling the Democratic Party. You don't – we used to represent – I mean, Thanh, you remember this. We represented pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives not that long ago.

It's probably been, you know, five years ago now. There were pro-life Democrats that would be in our briefs on pro-life matters. Not anymore.

That doesn't exist anymore. So, you know, what we have to do here, and I got to reiterate, this is a legislative fight, and that's why our office in Washington, Thanh heads up, is so critical to this. This is not running into a courtroom and getting an injunction. This is can you save this legislation, and that's where our government affairs team comes into play. And this broadcast, frankly, to motivate people to help us. Yeah, here is the Joe Biden flip on this.

Take – it's Bite 13. If I believe healthcare is the right as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's zip code. So to tell you what the Medicaid aspect of it, he is getting applauded from his own people. He made that move, again, to – as he was seeking the Democrat nomination for President.

He ran three different times to do that and kept changing positions. But Thanh, the most important senator in this, surprise, surprise, it looks like it will be ultimately Joe Manchin, who made the right vote, as we said, in the Lankford Amendment, but will come under, you know, significant pressure. But also, the attention has got to be there.

The focus has got to be there. First of all, Jordan, what a contorted argument from the President of the United States. This has nothing to do with zip code. This has to do with whether or not you're going to take taxpayer dollars and force them to use them on abortions.

But Jordan, you're correct. When this came up for a vote just a few weeks ago, it was an amendment offered by our friend Senator James Lankford to assert the Hyde Amendment as part of the Senate budget resolution. Only one Democrat, and this goes to James' point, a pro-life Democrat in Washington, D.C., that's almost an extinct thing, Jordan. But Senator Joe Manchin did the right thing. He cast a vote in favor of that amendment.

It passed by a single vote, and therefore it was attached to the Senate budget resolution. But I'm here to tell you, Jordan, there are going to be multiple more times where that vote is going to have to hold firm. So what I would say to Senator Joe Manchin is you made the right vote.

We're going to need you to make it a couple more times. All right, folks, again, we're going to stay on this issue. It's kind of the battle to save the Hyde Amendment, to make sure it remains. It kind of starts today, as you'll see with the letter that's been released, but also members of Congress started to speak about it as well.

We'll make sure you're able to activate as well. Coming up next, Rick Grenell is joining us. He's got a new piece up at ACLJ.org on next week's hearing with Secretary Blinken.

We're also going to talk about this Taliban cabinet that they have announced as their interim. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The 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 Sekulow. Next week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Congressman Greg Meeks, a Democrat from New York's 5th Congressional District. He's been outspoken with criticism of some of the Biden administration's moves.

You saw a lot of Democrats who were not necessarily walking the line. Now the big question is what happens when they have the opportunity to question directly the leaders in the executive branch, and specifically our Secretary of State, Secretary Blinken. Rick Grenell is joining us now, former acting director of national intelligence and ambassador to Germany, and currently a senior advisor to the ACLJ on foreign policy and national security. Rick, you've got a new piece up at ACLJ.org about this hearing and the importance of holding this administration accountable, but also getting answers. Well, I hope that all of our listeners goes and checks this piece out, ACLJ.org, because what I try to do is bring up the questions that Secretary Blinken needs to be asked.

Now, we don't know if he will, but we hope he will be asked these tough questions. I still want to focus in on the fact that the State Department, which is in charge of protecting Americans overseas, left 10% of the Americans in Afghanistan. This is the new Biden doctrine, which is 10% are going to be left behind.

And I think it's outrageous, and I hope that we have Democrats and Republicans really pushing the Secretary on these problems. We're still in a crisis, Jordan. We're still, the arms and the military equipment that was left behind is now in the hands of our enemies.

Some reports are showing that it's in Iran. So this is a crisis where American tax dollars have paid for military equipment that's going to be killing Americans and our allies. And we also have the vetting problem. We know that the vetting is not going well. People have slipped through that shouldn't have been allowed to come into our country. And I think the reality is that we're cutting corners on the vetting.

I certainly have that firsthand from my former colleagues in Germany, and that's unacceptable. Rick, there was all this hope, I guess, and it was obviously false hope and ridiculous, really, that the Taliban were going to somehow install a more moderate government. That a government that would be more reflective of progress and what you got instead is the hardliners of hardliners, designated terrorists, former Gitmo detainees, now running the government. And our government's acting like they're shocked about this, that this is some great surprise to them. How did this happen? And this goes to the fundamental mistake that was made by the Biden administration in the deployment, the exit from Afghanistan, because we now have put back in place people that we actually have allowed out of Gitmo as part of a trade.

OK, get that. That happens all the time. But these people are now running the government of Afghanistan, and the State Department is complaining that there's no women in the cabinet of the Taliban.

What planet are they in? Well, this is the problem of Washington, D.C., is they concentrate on irrelevant issues. We have a government in Afghanistan that's filled with terrorists, and the State Department is looking at the list and saying, well, why aren't there any females on that? Well, that means we would have female terrorists. Trying to evaluate the Taliban according to how many women are in the cabinet is so far off-based. We have incredible problems with the Taliban not allowing Americans out and the Taliban's actions as terrorists, and yet the State Department is looking at these minute issues and holding Afghanistan to some sort of international standard that does not exist.

The Taliban is not interested in putting women in their cabinet. They're interested in being belligerent terrorists, and so we need people in Washington that are going to focus on the right issues, not on some sort of woke issues that make them happy. Going back to the hearing, Rick, I don't want to give it all away so people go to ACLJ.org and check out the new piece, but some of these questions, you talked about the drawdown, the leaving Americans behind.

What else? I mean, this is the opportunity for Democrats because they chair the committee, so they'll keep kind of control of how this goes. I know the Republicans will get their time to ask the questions, but it's a time where they have an opportunity to kind of come together, and so we're used to seeing these hearings, unfortunately, these days, where they're all fighting amongst themselves. And then the people sitting there trying to answer questions are sometimes getting to talk, but oftentimes the fighting is amongst, the partisanship is just on display.

It shouldn't be here. Most of them made the similar comments to the media that was in disagreement with the Biden administration, but it's been a couple weeks, but where else should they focus? Well, first of all, let's hope that Democrats and Republican members of Congress are focusing on the American people, Americans that were left behind.

I don't care if it's the Biden administration and Anthony Blinken is a Democrat, we need to be able to hold leaders accountable. And the fact of the matter is, State Department employees, employees of Anthony Blinken, were left in Afghanistan as we evacuated 2,500 US troops and 5,000 NATO troops. Let me just remind people that your State Department employees don't carry guns, they're diplomats. They're not able to defend themselves when the Taliban come rushing in. We've already seen the Taliban painting over with Islamic symbols the front of the American Embassy.

That's going to be what we see on the anniversary of 9-11. The American Embassy in Kabul has been overtaken by the Taliban and the front has been painted in Islamic symbols. And Rick, we also know, to shift to that cabinet again and talking about 9-11, there are members here that were somewhere from the Bowe Bergdahl trade, but others, I mean, you've got the Haqqani, the leader of the Haqqani network. He has a 10 million bounty on his head, works closely with Al Qaeda.

His nephew, for goodness sakes, they've made a Haqqani family member who's also linked to Al Qaeda, Rick, the head of refugees. If they needed anything else to wake them up in Washington DC or in Foggy Bottom, the fact that a terrorist leader is the head of refugee resettlement, that's all you need to know about what the Taliban is doing. It's really scary that we have found ourselves in this situation after 20 years.

We're coming up on the anniversary and we've completely gone backwards. And I would argue it might be worse because now they have a formal government and are seeking recognition from Europeans and others. And we've already seen some talk and chatter in Europe that, well, this is the government of Afghanistan, it's the Taliban, and so we're going to have to work with them. Anthony Blinken is with Foreign Minister Maas in Germany right now, who's just holding a press conference. He was asked directly, are you going to deal with the Taliban as the legitimate government? He didn't give a clear answer.

He's trying to bob and weave. He's trying to have it both ways. I think that's unacceptable. He should immediately say absolutely not.

We're not negotiating with terrorists. Check out Rick's new piece up at ACLJ.org. Congress must force Secretary Blinken to answer for devastating Afghanistan failures, leaving 10% of Americans behind.

Unacceptable. Rick, as always, thanks for joining us. Folks, we'll be right back.

Second half hour of secular coming up. 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 secular. And now your host, Jordan secular. Welcome back to secular and encourage you to check Rick's piece out.

That's at ACLJ.org. And again, we're going to see how the Democrats conduct themselves next week on these congressional committees as they begin the process of questioning the administration, starting off with Secretary Blinken on the way the withdrawal was done, leaving Americans behind, the problem with the refugee vetting that's occurring in the United States, the announcement of who is in charge. I mean, if they're even considering dealing with the Taliban, then let's talk about, you know, and we are going to talk about in the final segment of the broadcast today, we're going to talk about go through that cabinet that they announced one by one these individuals so that you know who is now in charge of Afghanistan. And there are other countries that before the United States will start recognizing this government.

They have no problem. They don't care about the human rights violations. They don't care about the terrorism that's that's been targeted at the United States. They care about making money inroads and power. And so they are not going to blink an eye at endorsing or recognizing this kind of government. And I think the fact that it's happening, the symbolism is very important to the Taliban. So 20 years, very short time for their their wars, very short time for them. Historically, we're talking about a lot of the same guys. We're talking about the ones who did survive the war with the United States.

Haqqani, his nephew, also another Haqqani who ran the Haqqani network, which was the Taliban's connection to Al Qaeda and their terrorism. So we're going to get into that. There's also I just I think it's just it's a it's an ACLJ specific heavy day because we fought so hard against radical Islam and and these groups behind it.

We have fought for the Hyde Amendment for life. Another issue we're going to get into a next segment with Walter Weber. There's yet another school choice case.

This is something that it resonates, I think, once again with everybody with which has been a I don't I don't think it matters where you are in the country. It's been a pretty rocky back to school. Not not necessarily any of the school's faults, just trying to deal with what they are dealing with with the covid and the pandemic. And another school choice case that up at the Supreme Court. I guess the Espinosa case we'll talk about with Walter, which gutted most of those amendments that state constitutions had about funding of religious activities that was really anti-Catholic amendments. But that obviously didn't go enough. The courts decide to hear another case. No, that's exactly right. Look, this is an issue that we have been litigating.

I had a case involving this these funding back in the I think it was the early 2000s, maybe in the late 90s. And the fact is that school choice is becoming not only more normative, but essential. I mean, look what, as you said, the back to school has been a very rough start.

Let's be clear. I mean, this has been a rough start to back to school for a lot of kids. And I hate that for the kids. I hate that for my grandkids.

They'll go for a day or two and then the schools are closed down again. And it's just a mess. So you've got to be creative. And educators have to be creative and parents have to be creative to see what, in fact, is going to be options.

And school choice should be one of those options. The fact that we're having to litigate this in 2021 is ridiculous. But here we are now. I am optimistic. We'll talk to Walter about our brief in a moment.

I will say this. We were just talking about Afghanistan and the international issues and the ACLJ is front and center on those. We're now talking about a domestic issue of school choice and the ACLJ is front and center on those.

We talked about the Hyde Amendment in the first segment and the ACLJ front and center on that issue. We're going to be handling a very big abortion related case that we're not going to announce quite yet, but we will shortly. It's a huge case that's going to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I mean, there's a lot going on.

Could well go to the Supreme Court. The fact is that we're front and center on these cases because of your support of the ACLJ. And I want to again thank you for our matching challenge July and August.

We're just exceptional. Thank you from all of us at the ACLJ. All right, folks, we'll be right back with Walter Weber. Harry Hutchinson will also be joining us as we talk about school choice. We know there's a lot of support there, but you see that these states try to hinder this, try to prevent it even when the laws are passed to open up the school choice to parents where they can choose whatever school they want, religious, secular, private, public.

We'll be right back with Walter. Why is this back at the Supreme Court again after the big victory in 2020? 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, 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. Welcome back to Sekulow. School choice back at the Supreme Court once again. This is our brief.

I'm holding my hands right now. This case is out of Maine. Walter Weber, a senior counselor with the ACLJ, is joining us now. Walter, my first question for you, just before we even get into the factual details, which might be the reason why, is that it seemed like when it came to school choice and religious schools and parents having the opportunity to just make the decision on their own, that the Supreme Court answered that in a case, the Espinoza case out of Montana, these states that have these amendments, which were really anti-Catholic amendments, but were broader than that at the time, so it didn't look that way on paper, the Blaine amendments. The court got it in 2020. So why are we back at the Supreme Court again on this question?

Jordan, that's a great question. There seems to be recalcitrance or resistance in the lower courts. It's not entirely the fault of the lower courts. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court for a number of years, mainly in the 70s and some time after that, was very strict about saying you can't have any government funds going to the teaching of religion. And the Supreme Court since that clarified that school choice is fine.

In fact, not only is it fine, but in some circumstances, it's a constitutional right. You can't penalize people, parents in particular, because they choose a religious education for their children. So there's a little bit of lingering tension between this idea that you have to keep all federal or state money away from religious schools, versus saying in a school choice program, as long as you treat everyone equally, that's fine. Walter, the issue here, it's specific to, this is out of Maine, and we learned about this in Maine specific and some of the facts specific, that there are rural areas where there might not be public schools nearby, so it becomes difficult.

So Maine enacts this program. Was it the state or was it the courts that prevented the parents from utilizing these vouchers to go to religious schools if they chose? It was the state. What happened was that, as you said Jordan, in Maine there are a lot of rural areas where they just don't have a public high school. In fact, I think it's about 50%, maybe even more than 50% of the quote unquote school units in the state do not have public high schools. So what the state did through its legislature is it said, well, all right, if you don't have a public high school, you can just pay the parents the tuition up to a certain cap to any school they want to go to, private or public. And in fact, parents used that to go to both private secular and private religious schools until the state, in response to an attorney state attorney general opinion, decided that it was an establishment problem for them to pay the tuition for parents at a religious school. And so what they did was they adopted a new law saying you can send your kids to any school you want and will pay for it except not a school that quote unquote promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and or presents the material taught through the lens of the state.

So you can send your kids to a religious school as long as it doesn't teach religion, which is obviously a problem. You know, Walter, I think about the cases that we've handled over the so many years at the Supreme Court dealing with the religion clause and the establishment clause. The one thing that we've been able to establish with the cases we've handled and the precedents we've handled is that, in fact, the establishment clause doesn't license government. I'm quoting from one of our opinions here. The establishment clause doesn't license government to treat religious people or religious practices as if they're subversive to the Constitution and subject to unique disabilities. Yet that's precisely what is happening. I agree with you that the lower courts have been in conflict because the Supreme Court itself has been in conflict and they had this kind of very strict interpretation of church-state separation for a long time.

That has changed now. What do you feel like the outcome of this case is going to be? Well, I'm very optimistic about it because the Supreme Court has said in Trinity Lutheran Church and Espinosa, the most recent cases on the question, that targeting religious entities or persons for second-class status is unconstitutional. I mean, it's not just a matter of the state can include them.

The state cannot exclude them just because of who they are. Now, what Maine has done in this case is trying to thread the needle and say, well, all right, we're not excluding religious schools because they're religious. We're excluding them when they teach religion, as if there's a difference between being a religious school and teaching religion. Harry, we've talked about this issue of education as a civil rights issue. It's why we support broadly the school choice efforts and we fight the hurdles that come in the way, like Walter's talking about this ridiculousness of saying, well, no, you can use it in a religious school but not an actual religious school if they have any kind of religious training in the school day. And I mean, some schools, that would be very difficult to separate a history class out from other classes. It's just because it'd be part of the culture of the school, which the parents would know and they would be making the decision. But again, even when they want to give these opportunities, they can't quite get over the hurdle of saying it's okay to send your kid where you think is best and take out all the other issues. I mean, that just seems, ultimately, what's fair.

I think you're precisely correct. And so in the Zelman Simmons case, which was decided almost two decades ago, and it involved a school system in Cleveland designed to advance the interest of African American and minority kids, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents. It said that choice follows the, excuse me, the money follows the parents' choice and that is enough to satisfy the religion causes. Today, we live in a very vexed time. People continuously talk about inclusion. They talk about diversity, except they don't want diversity when it comes to parents who want to place their kids in religious schools.

And so I think we need to be very, very aggressive, very, very vigilant because at the end of the day, we live in a time of real particularities where religion is under attack. But first and foremost, it's under attack in universities and colleges and then this percolates into state legislatures and they are then misreading, in my view, the United States Constitution. You know, Jordan, I was going to say something here and that is that the, and I think this is following up above what Harry and Walter have said, the fact of the matter is, and I think we have to be clear on this, is that there has been, with changes in the Supreme Court, I think a clearer understanding of what the establishment clauses and the free exercise clause mean and actually the free speech clause too. And Walter, one of the things I wanted to get your insight on, you've got with Justice Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh added to the court. My sense is that the main case should not really be, you never count it over until it's done, but it should not be a difficult case for them in light of where their own jurisprudence has been even while they were on the lower courts.

Yeah, I think that's right. And in fact, this should be a lopsided decision. I mean, unless the courts, unless somebody on the court is going to say, well, we're not following our previous precedents that say you can't treat religious people and religious choices as somehow second class. The idea that there's a difference between excluding religious schools and excluding schools that teach religion is just, it's fake. I mean, it's like saying we're not making a law against evangelists.

We're only people who preach the gospel, right? I mean, it's the same thing. So I think the Supreme Court should not have any problems seeing that that's a problem here. The fact that the lower courts may think that there was some wiggle room left probably just reflects the fact that the Supreme Court will decide the case in front of it and not future hypothetical cases. Now that the First Circuit essentially dared them to say, well, tell us that religious schools and schools that teach religion are the same thing. I would hope the Supreme Court would say, yeah, they are. And Walter, I mean, the final question, this would, if this case, if we're filing today, there's a victory here.

It's clear, like you said, they answer this question, which seems absurd, but then they answer it so it's clear for these lower courts. This has been a fundamental shift at the Supreme Court level, which would open the door to more states being more creative with their voucher programs and their school choice programs. Yeah, and I think that would solve a lot of problems. I mean, for years, decades, right, from teaching about evolution and creation to sex education to critical race theory, forever, we have been facing the problem of political disputes in public schools. And if you just would let the parents pick where they want to send their kids, most of these problems would go away because then people wouldn't feel that they have to pay for something and then fight it at the same time. And we've seen the studies out there, it actually increases, the public schools get better, it increases just everybody has to compete more. The teachers unions may not like that, but it ultimately makes a better environment wherever, whatever you decide is best for your student and whatever school is best. But again, it gives the parents the opportunity, and I think it just speaks to the time we live in. You just went through the issues, Walter, and then on top of that, a pandemic where some people are just strapped, the options are not good. And they are looking for maybe the private school that I could use the voucher for is doing something more creative that would be better for my student, that would be better for my kid because of what the public school is trying to do to deal with the pandemic. I mean, it can be as simple as that.

It's what fits you better. And that's what we're trying to see. You did a great job, and I know we're out of time on this segment, but you did a great job in leading our team in the last part of the pandemic. We helped thousands of families. If we need to do that again, we will.

Yeah, that's right. If people needed assistance and they needed help with the programs at school or being able to find another school, it was aclj.org forward slash help. We assist over 1,500 families and we can do so again.

I know this school year off to another rocky start. Once again, we'll be right back on secular. 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. 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. The ACLJ, we're fighting to preserve the Hyde Amendment and making sure during this month with the budget that it's in place where it needs to be so there's no taxpayer dollars going to pay for abortion procedures. Specifically, that's been in place since 1976, but it is becoming more and more of a battle every year, down to a vote in the U.S. Senate.

A single vote, a single senator will determine whether or not likely the Hyde Amendment is included to prevent your taxpayer dollars, your taxes that you pay from going to fund actual abortion procedures. That's what this is about. So we talked about that. We talked about with Rick the next week, the questioning of Tony Blinken.

We talked about the school choice case we just filed in today at the U.S. Supreme Court, as we're starting to see major progress there at the court level, which will then open it up to states to feel more comfortable in being more creative with their voucher programs. Finally, I wanted to spend a little time with Rick for a moment on this final segment about this Taliban cabinet. It's a who's who. Four of the five were at Gitmo. They were traded for Bo Bergdahl, who at best is what he's been called a deserter, at worst was a traitor, but yet we still didn't leave him behind, though we've left people behind now with these guys.

So there's four there that came right out of Gitmo, but there's some that are even worse. The nephew of the leader of the Haqqani Network, he has got a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head. $5 million if you kill him and bring him to the U.S., or if you capture him. He is now, he was the connection between really the Taliban and Al Qaeda. By the way, his uncle, who is the founder of this Haqqani Network, he's also a cabinet position. He's the head of the interior minister.

He's got a $10 million bounty on his head, and he's on the FBI's most wanted list. But back to Khalil Haqqani, he's the acting minister for refugees. So the question that would be is if you've got people who are stuck there, Americans, but also the special visa hold, immigrant visa holders, the SIVs that are continually talked about, are we going to be negotiating with him?

Well, of course, this is the whole fallacy of the whole Biden failure. Look who's in charge. The people we had in Gitmo, as I said earlier, number one.

Number two, how would you like to be, and this is horrible to have to contemplate, how would you like to be the people trying to get out right now, including the Americans, but also the SIV holders, knowing that the borders and your control of access in and out of the country is controlled by the most harshest of the leadership of the Taliban, the worst of the worst. And we should not act like we're surprised that this is the case. I mean, I know that Colonel Smith is with us, too. And I would just ask him, you look at that list, Colonel Smith, and you say to yourself, what in the world are they thinking?

Yeah, absolutely. This is so odd and so ironic. The President Obama traded Bo Bergdahl for the release of five Gitmo prisoners. And the reason given at the time, as Jordan mentioned, was that we don't leave Americans behind with the enemy, even though Bergdahl, in my opinion, wasn't absolutely a deserter. But we traded because we don't leave Americans behind. But right now, the Biden administration, which is really the same people that were in the Obama administration, they're perfectly willing to leave hundreds of American citizens and thousands of our Afghan allies behind, including leaving them behind with four of the Taliban leaders that we released from prison. In a way, Jay, the administration is indirectly responsible, maybe directly responsible, for who is leading the Taliban in Afghanistan today, because four of the key people leading that government, we released them from prison, even though we knew that they were terrorists, and they had American blood on their hands.

It's really unthinkable. And you have to ask, what has changed? The Taliban has not changed. What has changed is who's in the White House, who's in the State Department, and the senior leadership of the Pentagon.

And I hold those three US government entities responsible for this, because that's what has changed. No, I was just going to say, Jordan, I'm actually following up on what you said earlier, and that is the withdrawal without conditions is a dangerous thing. And the Trump administration had withdrawal with conditions. Of course, that was assuming the Afghan government was going to be able to stand up.

And withdrawal, though, with no conditions has led to a situation where terrorists that we held captive are now not only back, remember the big fear was they'll be back in circulation? Well, they're more than back in circulation. They are back running the government. So they are way beyond in circulation. They are running the show in Afghanistan.

Harry, they've come out of the caves. I mean, these are guys, they've got bounties on their head, they know that, and yet they're accepting these positions to send that statement to the world. The acting prime minister, Mohammed Akhund, has UN sanctions, which should show, it should be interesting to see then, you've got these countries at the international level who might be willing to, who likely are willing to recognize the Taliban government. What's the UN going to do?

A lot of these that have the US bounties or sanctions on them or on the FBI's list, they're also sanctioned by the UN. Absolutely, this is a problem. The Biden administration has pledged to leave no one behind unless it is politically expedient.

Withdrawal without conditions are horrible or is horrible. But what we have done is terrifying. We have simply surrendered.

We have empowered the terrorists and they could strike at any time in both the homeland or throughout the world. And we have now given them a government and we simply refuse to worry about the Americans who are left behind. So what we have in Washington is simply a collapse of something called integrity.

The Biden administration has zero integrity. The reality is they blame the former Afghan prime minister President for fleeing. He put out a letter today, Wes, explaining that he inherited a mess of catastrophic proportions that he could not deal with and no government could deal with. But now he's gone, we're blaming him, but we've now got the Taliban putting in place what they're calling an interim government.

It's the who's who of the Taliban's worst of the worst. Absolutely, and all of this happened. All of this was avoidable, Jordan.

It was preventable. Under the Trump administration, the Taliban, we were going to withdraw with conditions on the ground. Under the Biden administration, they took the entire country, the Taliban did, without consequences. The Taliban knew they could take each provincial capital, ultimately take Kabul, and the Biden administration would do nothing. They were banking on that.

They bet on it and they were right. What the Biden administration has done is they have projected weakness. There's a big difference between having military power, which we have, and the enemy perceiving that we will actually use it. We allowed the Taliban, we allowed the Taliban to take the whole country.

President Ghani, he's not a great patriot either, but he left because we withdrew air support and we were withdrawing our troops and he knew the end was coming. You know what, Dad, I think as we approach the 9-11 anniversary, we already see the Taliban painting over our embassy as Rick was talking about. But it very well may be that because of their policy decisions, they've got a celebration going on this weekend in Afghanistan when it comes to the Taliban. Not only are they coming out of their caves, they're top guys, guys who used to be like one photo of half their face, is all people have. And now they're coming out as leaders of a government, 20 years later. You said it best. They've left the caves.

They don't have to stay in the caves. They're now running the government out in the open and with the sanction of the rest of, I hate to say this, with the United States allowing it to happen. And that's exactly and precisely what happened. So we'll see in the days ahead, and as Colonel Smith said, we should not be kidding ourselves, this is very serious. And I just pray that we get these people out somehow. We're working on it as hard as we can.

I really do believe too, at this hearing, which is going to be next week, after the anniversary, we're going to see their reactions. What do they do to our embassy? Do they try to play statesmen or do they act like who they really are?

So far they've been acting like who they really are, not letting the planes leave, not letting people with the visas leave, putting in the head of refugees as a guy with a $5 million bounty on his head. 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.