Breaking: DOJ To Sue Texas

Breaking news today on Sekulow as the Department of Justice plans to sue Texas on its new heartbeat abortion law.

Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. It is the most restrictive abortion law in the nation and the Biden administration has been under immense pressure to do something about it. The Attorney General said that he would be looking at all possible avenues to challenge this law. The Justice Department is now preparing to sue the state of Texas. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.

One possible argument the Justice Department could make is that the law interferes with federal interests. I can tell you I just got back from Texas speaking to abortion providers. They say since this law went into effect, abortions in the state have all but stopped. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your calls on this.

1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. We've talked about it on this broadcast that's been in the media a lot. You've seen the left up in arms trying to, again, they've talked about different ways whether they want to codify. That means pass legislation to protect what they see as this right to abortion. It's kind of an acknowledgement too that they realize that their argument in court is flimsy that the reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade is being challenged and rethought.

As many scholars who are honest on both sides of this issue have said for decades that the reasoning behind that, the rationale behind it was wrong. And so they're talking about that. But they've also been this clamoring for the Biden administration to do something. The announcement was by President Biden, it was a whole of government approach to go after this Texas law. And Dad, what we are hearing this morning now is the Department of Justice is planning to file an additional lawsuit against the state of Texas to stop this law that is now in effect in Texas after Planned Parenthood's initial challenges failed.

Let me think about this for a moment, though. They're using this whole of government approach, which is the watchword of this administration. And when they say whole of government, what are they going to do? The Justice Department is going to file a lawsuit to try to stop Texas from enacting a law they enacted. Planned Parenthood is already challenging it, but I guess they're not up to the stuff legally that they can do this by themselves. So the Department of Justice is making a political statement here, and that is they don't like the Texas law.

We're going to talk later about what the Biden administration is going to be doing to the conscience clause objections, which are significant. But they don't like these laws. They don't like the way these things go, so what do they do? Their easy answer to everything is, we'll intervene. Now, can they intervene? They probably have a constitutional or statutory right to intervene in the case.

I suppose they do. But the reality is, why are they doing it? They're doing it because they're trying to score political points. Texas, under its own legislative decree, decided a way in which they were going to handle the abortion issue. Now, there is a case at the Supreme Court right now that could completely change the way this is being handled, and we're not ready to announce yet, but we're a couple of weeks away from announcing a major case that we're representing, one of the biggest abortion cases in the country that we're going to be doing. So when you look at this, I look at it, Andy, and I see government overreach. It is government overreach, and it's government overreach of the worst kind, as if Planned Parenthood doesn't have the resources to defend itself. You've got to have the weight and might of the federal government in the form of the Department of Justice coming in and clamping down on the state of Texas, because the state of Texas had the sense and the ingenuity to come up with a law that gave a private cause of action to citizens to bring actions against killers, because that's what these abortionists are. And as we said at the top of the program, somebody who was in Texas has said that essentially all the abortions in Texas have stopped. Well, in a way, that's a victory, and I'm glad to see it, but we have to recognize that this injunction that was denied by the Supreme Court recently, in which Justice Roberts, Chief Justice, did not participate, is indeed temporary, and we're going to have to fight it all the way through. This is, there's two pieces to this law that we're going to analyze when we come back from the break. There is the, when does the ban go into effect?

That is the detection of a heartbeat, that's usually by the sixth week of the pregnancy. And then the action, as we're talking about, it's a private right of action. It's not the state, it's not the police, it's not criminal. So all those rules and protections that go in place are not what's in effect here. This is a civil issue, and we'll talk about that.

We're going to break this down so you get through the disinformation that is out there in the media. We'll be right back on Secular. protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.

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

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Sekulow. Again, I want to break down the law for you. So what is the Department of Justice filing a lawsuit against? Because if you listen to the media, you think that women are being rounded up and being imprisoned. And that anyone can do this, this vigilante justice approach. But you have to remember, one, this is not criminal. There will be no police involved. The state is not involved.

So you're taking out state actors. This is a civil lawsuit. And I want to read from the law itself, because I think this is specific, to just getting through the nonsense that the media will allow on TV. And as kind of, this is always with abortion, we talked about Jeff Serti is going to be on the next segment, talking about the conscience protections which are under assault by the Biden administration as we speak in the Health and Human Services. But this law, this is specifically from the law. This subchapter, so this part of the law, may not be construed to authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter. So right off, right there in the law, to get through the disinformation that this is not people reporting on their neighbor who goes to get an abortion.

Because that person is not subject to any of this reporting or the law itself. No, this is aimed at the abortionists. I mean, this is of course always the argument that these pro-abortion groups make. And you know, Harry, you've studied abortion law and abortion jurisprudence for a long time, and what I'm concerned about in all of this is, as the viability of the unborn child's life is more and more pronounced because of the medical advances, and we just have to start, I think, being clear, like we were in the 1980s and it got kind of muddled lately, we're talking about a human life here. So this is different than any other procedure that anybody would ever go under because there's somebody else involved in this procedure.

Absolutely. So in essence, the Biden administration is attempting to turn the world upside down. So the Texas law protects human life. And so how has the Biden administration interpreted the protection of human life?

As an attack, as a form of violence. And so they are going after individuals who are attempting to protect human life. This is something the Biden administration is clearly incapable of doing, given what they've done already in Afghanistan. They have failed to protect human life there, and now they are attacking human life domestically. And nonetheless, they're going after the state of Texas, they're going after the citizens of Texas, they're going after all Americans who support the protection of human life.

This makes no sense. And I doubt seriously whether the Biden administration has a legal basis to launch an attack on American citizens. Secondarily, I would point out in this particular case, the Biden administration has unleashed or is preparing to unleash the FBI to do what? To go out and basically attack American citizens who are protecting human life. What should the FBI be doing? They should be attempting to prevent terror attacks in the United States. And the Biden administration has opened us up to future terror attacks by its craven surrender to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So again, the world has been turned upside down. Yeah, I think right there, and that is part of what the Department of Justice announced, is that they are conducting that with the FBI, that they're utilizing the FBI. And Jackie on Facebook wrote in, the DOJ wasn't meant to be political.

How do they get so politicized? So now the FBI has been tasked with going after the pro-life movement. Yet again, it's going after movements and people who are following the law that the state has enacted that was not enjoined by the Supreme Court. So personally, you make a really good point. The Department of Justice is going after the pro-life community again, because as I know and Andy knows full well, and you know because you lived it as a young kid, we represented the pro-life movement in those days, and the federal government was going after the pro-life movement, including peaceful protests or even acts of civil disobedience, to the point where we had to take the Department of Justice position, and they were basically arguing initially that blocking access and active civil disobedience constituted a violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act.

I'm not kidding you. Now, there was a change of administrations, and Ken Starr became the Solicitor General, and John Roberts and I argued the case before the Supreme Court, and we won. And the Court said that opposition to abortion is not discrimination against women, and that's a really important point to make. And I think what's happened here is when you start utilizing, Andy, the resources of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to not just go after extremists, but anybody that's pro-life, including what's going on in the Texas law, this is an abuse of, like the IRS when they were doing their abuse, this is an abuse of the FBI.

We've called that out before. Believe me, we will be on top of it, folks. We will be sending, I can tell you now, there will be, if this does happen, we will find out exactly what they're up to, because we will immediately file a Freedom of Information Act request and find out what the Department of Justice FBI is doing against peaceful pro-life protests, or protests, Andy, authorized, or activities, rather, authorized under a state law that has not been enjoined by the Supreme Court. Right.

That's absolutely correct, Jay. What we've got here is the might of the federal government now being invoked. As the President said, the whole of government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is going to be used as an armed weaponry against citizens. I find that abhorrent. Taking the premier law enforcement agency of the United States, as Professor Hutcherson said, who should be looking at things like terrorism, things that really matter in this country, and using it as a weapon against its own citizenry is an abhorrent act and one that I disdain and find to be absolutely indefensible whatsoever. But using the Federal Bureau of Investigation against our own citizens with respect to this is something that I cannot support, that I find to be absolutely detestable. So this is, again, we're going to say I've been in Washington, D.C., because, Dan, this has been the pressure.

We played this in the break in the media. There's been this push on the Biden administration by the left and the base of their party to say, just do something, you have to do it. Congress, they floated the idea, Than, of trying to codify that means to legislate Roe vs. Wade, but we know the votes aren't there for that right now in Congress.

But there was this pressure in Washington to utilize these levers of government against pro-life states. And now we're seeing, Than, the lawsuit by the Department of Justice against Texas. Jordan, I really think it's a matter of pulling out all the stops regardless of the merits, literally throwing everything against the wall and see what will work. They're doing it through litigation and challenging the Mississippi law. They're doing it and challenging the Texas law. And, Jordan, we talked more at length about this yesterday, but they're also doing it legislatively.

I mean, we talked yesterday about the efforts to repeal the Hyde Amendment. They actually want to codify the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which is the taxpayer subsidies of abortion. The other thing they want to do, Jordan, is codify Roe. So, look, I think they see that they're slipping in the courts, that the arguments that they had in defense of Roe really aren't holding up, that states like Texas are finding creative ways to get these cases heard. They may not like the enforcement mechanism. That's what you would have in a post-Roe world. You would have states doing lots of different things to pass restrictions on abortion. It wouldn't be outlawed.

It would go back to the states. And the left doesn't like that. So, Jordan, what they're doing to pacify their base is literally throwing everything against the wall. The bad news for them, though, Jordan, they don't have a strong legal argument to make in court on this.

And ultimately, at the end of the day, I think what you're going to see is more latitude for the states to do things like Texas is doing now. This is Cecile Richards, former head of Planned Parenthood. Listen, they love the fact that the Department of Justice and the federal government is taking up their fight, because then they don't have to use their resources. They haven't been successful in their legal challenges.

But take a listen. They love the fact when DOJ goes after the pro-life movement this way. It's really good news, Kate, that the administration, the Department of Justice, is taking action against this unconstitutional and cruel law that's gone into effect. As you know, last week, more than 7 million women of childbearing age lost their rights, really, literally overnight.

So, I mean, there you have it. They don't know why it's good that the legal challenge. But when it comes to abortion, we'll talk about this with Jeff Surtees in a minute, because you would think that after all the victories at the Supreme Court, district courts, court of appeals, state courts on the abortion pill mandates from Obamacare, that that's been settled. But it's not. They're bringing that issue back, because it doesn't matter what the law is on this one issue of abortion.

That's why we call it abortion distortion. It doesn't matter if the federal government really has a right of action. The former head of Planned Parenthood doesn't really care about the law, because they know that this issue where if they've won the judge on this issue, they will come up with the reason why. It's not something, so they don't care if it's a statute or provision. They just want the lawsuit filed by the U.S. government, and that's what your taxpayer dollars are going to do now, is to sue Texas for a law that they've already been successful so far early on in defending in court through the procedural matters.

We'll be right back. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

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

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

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

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Alright, welcome back to Secular.

We are joined now by Senior Counselor of the ACLJ, Jeff Surtees. Jeff, we've talked about the situation where the Biden administration had dropped the challenges by – this time they dropped the challenges by the Department of Justice and the federal government on the violation of federal conscience laws when it came to the nurse at the University of Vermont Medical Center. We talked about that horrendous story before. So they dropped the challenge that the Trump administration was bringing directly against the university and the hospital there. And now they're taking a second step, Jeff, where they are looking at the abortion pill mandates yet again. I feel like people may say, was this a replay from ten years ago, five years ago? We've fought this battle out so many times and it feels like it came to a conclusion. But, Jeff, they're back at it again.

They're definitely back at it again. Jordan, you recall ten years ago the Obama administration imposed the HHS mandate on employers throughout the country. Now, that mandate required that these employers include free access to abortifacient drugs in their health care plans.

You know, even if the employer had religious objections to doing so. Well, we filed – we were actually the first team to file on behalf of a for-profit corporation against the HHS mandate. We ended up representing 32 business owners and corporations against that mandate. And that all ended up in the Hobby Lobby decision, which said that it was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for the Obama administration to force employers to pay for these abortifacient drugs in their health care plans.

Well, that didn't stop the Obama administration. They said, well, we're going to come up with this fake accommodation process, which was really just an accounting gimmick that the little sisters of the poor vociferously objected to. And the little sisters of the poor have been involved in cases throughout the country challenging this mandate. And last year, last year the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration rules that said that the little sisters of the poor, as well as all employers with religious or moral objections to complying with the HHS mandate, are exempt. They don't have to comply. Well, that was not good enough for many states and states' attorney generals who then filed suit in California, Pennsylvania, Washington, all over the country, saying that those moral and religious objections violated the administrative procedure act.

The Supreme Court said, no, they did not. But those lawsuits actually continue because of a concurrence that Justice Kagan wrote, saying that while the administration had the authority to grant the exemptions, those exemptions still might be, quote-unquote, arbitrary and capricious in violation of the administrative procedure act. Well, anyway, in one of those lawsuits that's going on with the little sisters of the poor, in a case actually originally brought by Xavier Becerra, then attorney general for California, now HHS secretary, the administration has announced within the next six months we're going to take another look at those moral and religious exemptions and come up with some new rules.

Well, it doesn't take a crystal ball to know what those new rules are going to be. President Biden, when he was on the campaign trail last year, announced what he was going to do should he become President of the United States when he was denouncing the Supreme Court's decision in favor of the little sisters of the poor last summer. We're going to probably go back to a regime where no one gets any exemptions except houses of worship.

Houses of worship have always been exempt under Obama. That's of course a very small minority of employers. And we're going to go back to accommodation, this accommodation process, this fake accounting gimmick process that the little sisters of the poor have objected to from day one. And we're going to have to restart the whole litigation process until we get once again to the United States Supreme Court. This has been a very radical, I mean, this was part of their agenda. They came in, as Jeff just said, I mean, quoting President Biden when he was campaigning, maybe didn't get as much attention in that campaign, but we've talked about how they put in the most radical of radical people in place, including Xavier Becerra, who's leading HHS, who are radically pro-abortion and totally in favor of, almost like they're bought politically by the abortion industry. You know, Becerra, of course, who we took to the Supreme Court of the United States when he tried to basically compel pro-life pregnancy centers to post signs advertising for abortions.

Let me say that again. Javier Becerra enforced a law as Attorney General of the state of California to force pro-life pregnancy centers to, ready for this? To post in their offices where people can get abortions. It's called compelled speech. You're not supposed to do compelled speech, it's unconstitutional. It's coercive.

Then you, following up on what Jeff just said, which I think raises, and I'm going to go to Harry and Andy on this, I'll go to Andy first and Harry. This idea of a right of conscience is as old as the Constitution itself. Now, especially in a situation where you're being compelled to do something that really does violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or moral positions, which is exactly what's happening here. And we've been successful, as Jeff said, at the Supreme Court, but these groups don't stop.

No, Jay, they don't stop, and they're not going to stop. Conscience means nothing to these left-wing killers, because that's what they are. We have to say the truth of what they are.

You have a child, which I believe begins a conception, the courts have said, in Texas the law says, at heart beat, but I believe in Thomas Aquinas' view. But nonetheless, that's because I live in the 13th century. Nonetheless, conscience means nothing. Conscience means nothing in the Constitution to them. Conscience means nothing in the performance and the rendering of services.

And that is something that we have to fight against, and we have always been fighting against. Conscience means a lot. Conscience means that you're not going to do something because of deeply held moral, spiritual, and religious principles that you have. And that we have to uphold those feelings of conscience that somebody has, who has religious beliefs that are contrary to what the Left has espoused. And Jeff, your blog is up at ACLJ. Dad, go ahead.

No, just really quick for Harry. Harry, I'm looking at, from an academic standpoint, the right of conscience, and then we can do this quick. The right of conscience has been recognized by courts for decades.

Absolutely, and it's been recognized throughout human history. However, we now live in an era which basically is driven by the preferences of elites, and elites are grounded in one thing and basically one thing only, moral superiority. That is, their view of your own conscience takes precedence. And so they don't believe, for instance, that a woman should be deprived of the right to an abortion. So basically they're ruling out of bounds all conscience objections, whether they're grounded in moral, spiritual, or religious views, as Andy so eloquently points out, even coming from the 13th century. So I think at the end of the day, what we have to confront is this whole notion of moral superiority that is a guiding principle of the Biden administration, and that is a guiding principle of the mainstream media and most social media enterprises.

Alright folks, Jeff, thanks for joining us. Jeff's got a new blog up at ACLJ.org on this, how the Biden administration is taking aim on the conscience protections and what will likely result next. So check that out at ACLJ.org. Great resources there. So when we talk about these issues, there's a place to go.

You can share this with your friends and family. If you want to talk to us on the air about this, 1-800-684-3110, what do you think about the Department of Justice using your taxpayer resources to go after the state of Texas because of their law protecting the unborn, protecting life, and also protecting the women in these difficult situations? Take your calls, your comments, 1-800-684-3110. 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. Keep you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to the broadcast.

Let's just reset the stage for everybody. So we've got this law in Texas. There's been a lot of discussion about the law.

Now, why was there so much discussion? Because it was, I think, a surprise to the left that as they made their way through the challenges the abortion industry brought against the law, that ultimately they would be able to get an injunction against the law, stop the law from being able to go into force before even getting into the merits of it. But just to say, you know, this law violates the rights that's been upheld by the court. But the Supreme Court didn't do that. The Supreme Court decided not to enjoin this law, and they decided that who Planned Parenthood sued was the wrong person, which was a judge. They tried to go after the judge in the case to force the injunction. The Supreme Court said that is not the right party. So they've had this issue with this law that they've said is so horrible and so bad, they can't figure out who to sue.

Because in practice, it's not doing what they're telling you it's doing on television. I think, yes, abortion is more regulated by it. It's more restricted by it. But the court's never said you can't have any restrictions on abortion. The court's never said you couldn't have any regulations. And, Dad, on this specific issue where the novel approach that Texas has taken is the enforcement is not by the state. So it's not a criminal law. It's not a police action. It's not state action. It is a civil action against the abortion providers, never against its prohibited, against the person who got the abortion procedure or is even thinking about getting the abortion procedure.

So women are not going to be held liable for anything here. It is the abortionists themselves. What people tend to forget in the abortion debate is that when you're dealing with abortion, you're dealing with the one unique medical procedure that actually takes another person's life as a consequence of the action. And when you think about that, and then you think about any of the restrictions that a lot of the states have now adopted, you realize that you can't compare this to anything else because it is another person. We call it personhood under the Constitution. And we believe that the unborn child is a person entitled to life, exactly what is set forth in our founding documents. And the idea that you could just terminate that life for no cause at all, which is what Planned Parenthood, trust me, that's what they want.

They want unrestricted rights to abortion at any time, including partial birth abortion where the child is actually delivered, partially delivered. We litigated those. I have deposed those doctors. You're talking about a fundamental evil here, Andy. That's what this is. It is a fundamental evil. It's an evil known as infanticide in many cases, but I believe it's murder. And we have to call it when we see it.

If we're going to be principled people and have consciences, and we're going to espouse the doctrines that we believe in and that we hold true, we must admit that it is murder. And when you take the FBI and the resources of the FBI and you direct it against a person's conscience, against what they honestly and morally believe to be true, that is a reprehensible misuse of the power of the central government. And that is what the Biden administration is doing right now. They're trying, as he says, a whole of government approach. In other words, Biden is going to use every resource of the federal government from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Department of Justice, to the Department of Health and Human Services, to every agency of the federal government to see that the agenda that he has espoused and put forth is put through.

I think Texas has enacted a very ingenious law giving a private cause of action, and now they're scrambling to find out how in the world are we going to counter this, because as Jordan said, it's not state action, it's not police action, it's private action. How are you going to get around that? Folks, we come back, we'll talk about, take your questions, your comments, 1-800-684-3110. If you want to get on the air, that's 1-800-684-3110.

Get your comments on Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Periscope, Instagram, wherever you're watching the broadcast. Because I think one of the fundamental things that has changed here, technology, science, it's on our side. It's not on the side of the abortion industry anymore, and that's why they are having a more and more difficult time every time they're bringing a challenge.

That doesn't mean they're not going to be aggressive, and they have political allies in office with power. We'll be right back on Secular. Protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.

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

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases. How we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later. Play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry. And what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Sekulow. Before we get into it, there's some good questions about the legal side of the Department of Justice getting involved here.

We're going to go to Wes Smith, bring Wes into the conversation as well. Wes, for a long time throughout this movement, I've seen it, grew up around it, the pro-life movement was based off, there was a lot of faith aspect to it. There still is. This idea of when life begins, the life beginning at conception, and the fighting back, but also the comfort in talking about the issue, addressing the issue. That's changed. But now, technology and science on the side, the pro-life community knew always that this would start catching up and make it tougher and tougher for the abortionists to make their arguments that this is just a cell and it's like a tumor being removed. And they can't get away with that.

They didn't even try to make those arguments anymore. So it has progressed to where you have the faith and moral aspect, but then you also have the scientific aspect where we can hear the heartbeat, see the child developing. Yeah, this is not just human tissue material.

This is a human being. And we now know that life, we've always believed life begins at conception, but we have the laws about heartbeat. You also have the fact that infants in the womb can feel pain. These kinds of things combined with infants who are born very, very early are viable. They actually survive and can live a normal life.

All of the science has pointed to these kinds of things. I think the abortion issue, along with what's going on with national security and terrorism, are the two defining issues of our time presently in America. And I don't think there are any issues that are more consequential than these two issues. And let me say, Jordan, as a Christian and as a member of the clergy, this is a moral issue and a deeply religious issue for me and millions of Americans.

And what I see going on here is the federal government is aggressively and arrogantly minimizing the moral issue and the religious issue for millions of people along with the fact, as you said, science is on the side that life really, really does begin at conception. Tomorrow on the broadcast, I want to get into all those aspects, but I want to let people know as well. Rick Renell is going to be in studio for the full hour with us. And again, we've also got today, launching right after this broadcast on our social media accounts, a Heroes of 9-11 video for social media. We're going to get into that too tomorrow with Rick because he was at the United Nations in New York at the time of the attacks, at the beginning of the war on terror with the Bush administration.

And so we'll have the opportunity to be in studio with Rick, our senior advisor for national security and foreign policy. One of the big questions we've gotten a few times on social media is how can the federal government and the Department of Justice sue the state of Texas? Now, there are ways that they can if they believe that they're protecting a constitutional right. The question here is there's no law, there's no legislation, it's never been codified.

It is an idea that is completely judicially created. Yeah, so what they're going to do though, I mean, is they're going to say that the Texas law itself is constitutionally suspect and then the Department of Justice is going to, I guess, try to intervene in the case or perhaps make some kind of other challenge. Their standing is an interesting issue to me.

I mean, Andy, I'm trying to look at the standing issue. What is the basis upon which the Department of Justice enters into a state law issue like this other than as an amicus? I mean, you'll see them as an amicus in cases like this, but I guess they're going to assert this is a deprivation. I bet you this is what they do. This will be a stretch, but this is probably what they'll do because now the people running the Civil Rights Division would do this. They will argue it's going to interfere with you.

You're going to think I'm making this up and I'm not. They're going to say, Andy, this interferes with the right to interstate travel. And that's how they view things and they'll try to come in through it that way. Well, Jay, that's an ingenious argument and that's the argument, you know, that was used years and years and decades ago to allow the federal government to inject itself into the private affairs of states. I remember the case in law school involving Ollie's Barbecue, which was centered in one particular state, but they said it impacted interstate commerce because as much barbecue or pigs as Ollie's bought from other states caused people to travel in interstate commerce and therefore interstate commerce was affected. And interstate commerce, having been affected, it gave Congress the right to legislate and therefore the Supreme Court said it was constitutional.

So there's always a way to hook yourself in if you can possibly get in by using some sort of mechanism that is made up just like that. The interstate commerce was very effective, very ingenious, but one of the things that you brought up that I think is really important is what is the standing of the Department of Justice and the federal government to intervene in this lawsuit? That is governed by Rule 24, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Is it mandatory? No, they don't have an interest in the outcome that affects the United States.

Is it permissive? I don't know whether it is or not, but those are the kinds of issues that are going to have to be hashed out in the days to come if they persist in trying to get in this case and interfere with what Texas has done. You know, Andy, Harry, I'm trying to think of what would be the basis, other than something like interstate commerce, where the federal government would have standing to come in and say, I guess it interferes with the federal constitutional right, thus we can litigate it?

Well, certainly that's what I thought they might allege. And so the real question is, what is the specific federal interest in abortion? In my view, however, there is a distinction between the constitutional right of, let's say, a citizen in Texas and the so-called federal interest.

So are we really saying that the federal government has an interest in expanding the number of abortions that take place in Texas or in the United States? I think that's an absurd argument, but I would not put it past this particular Department of Justice under the leadership of President Biden. I think at the end of the day, what we are seeing is an uproar, which is led by a number of unprincipled individuals, including individuals within the Biden administration. And essentially this uproar indicates that modern elites, particularly within the mainstream media and within social media companies, have accepted Frederick Nietzsche's claim that it is all about the will to power. And so more and more of our debates do not involve any appeal to truth or to principle.

And so I think at the end of the day, rather than vindicating Immanuel Kant's view that over time human savagery would decline, I think at the end of the day what we are seeing is that the pursuit of limitless power, particularly by the federal government, elevates evil over good and verifies that barbarism is indeed a pathological development of modern civilization. You know, this goes right to the heart of this issue. I mean, we all know when we're talking to all of you on this broadcast, the majority of you are shared the same pro-life position we do, and you want to see these laws be advanced, you want to see the continued protections utilizing the technology, utilizing the science and the medical community, which is there with us. But ultimately here we also have to deal with heavy political lift. There is still, as partisan as any issue in Washington, D.C., you literally have a party, a political party who believes that this is human life we're protecting, and another party who denies that that life is worthy of protection. Jordan, think about how extreme the pro-abortion side in D.C. has become. They're no longer just after abortion being legal. You must pay for that abortion. They're no longer just after that insurance coverage cover abortion, but religious entities must cover it. They're no longer just for a woman's right to seek an abortion. Every medical professional must be forced to participate in that abortion.

This is about forced participation in something that is morally objectionable to tens and hundreds of millions of Americans. Jordan, I actually, you know, during the last break, I actually think this would be important to point out, I just got a notification that Jim Langevin, a congressman from Rhode Island, 11 terms, been in the Congress for more than 20 years, always campaigned as a pro-lifer. Jordan, he has announced that he is now coming out in favor of codifying Roe. So that is how extreme the pro-abortion industry in Washington, D.C. has become. Even a 22-year veteran of the House of Representatives that has always told his constituents he's pro-life. Jordan, he's now campaigning for re-election on an issue of codifying Roe. Yeah, the ridiculousness of saying, and we can talk about this when we come back from the break, that I'm personally pro-life, but I don't think that that should be imposed. You can't believe that. Because if you believe, if you really truly believe that's a human life, you can't be okay with the life being killed. And you can't be okay with no constitutional protection for that life.

It doesn't work. So that's been a political argument. And then you see, when their feet are to the fire, talk, talk, talk, but when it comes to actual legislation, they will quickly fold to this industry. There's no space anymore. I think it's fair to say in the Democrat Party of 2021, there's no space anymore for a pro-life position, a pro-life view. Not a real one. Not one that actually would be backed up by legislation or actions. They may allow some to talk and use that language that I just did. But it's absurd.

That is an absurd position to hold. We'll be right back on Secular. This is a 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. The op-ed that Dan was talking about is by this congressman, again, not a name that you hear a lot in the media, but he's been there 20 plus years. Congressman Langevin of Rhode Island, second congressional district, who's taken that position. This is what he writes. And this is why I said this is no longer acceptable anymore on either side of the issue, in my opinion.

You can't honestly believe this. So he writes, quote, although I remain personally opposed to abortion as a matter of public policy, my position has evolved. Now he wants to codify the protection by the court.

He's using the Texas law as an example. So even people who have had 20-year-long positions on this fold, but they fold with this – you know, they have to live with their own conscience on this, and we talked about those conscience protections. But this idea that he could believe that he's personally opposed to abortion as a matter of public policy, but as a public policy maker, he wants to codify the right to abortion even though he's opposed to it.

So you can't have that position. That's pro-abortion. So never accept from a politician that they personally oppose it, but they don't want to legislate and do anything about it. This is not an issue that you can honestly believe that. You can't honestly believe and be opposed to a murder, but then say, but I don't think we should legislate protections on that murder.

We were saying during the break, this is like saying, you know, I am personally against murder, but I don't want to impose my belief on someone who wants to go out and kill someone. You know, you mentioned this congressman who switched his position. He says he switched it as a matter – he doesn't think that abortion should be a matter of public policy, you know, at all. But it is a matter for him of political expediency.

And the same goes for the President. I mean, he was for the Hyde Amendment, now he's against it. On virtually every political, social, and moral issue of Joe Biden's career, he seems to have switched. And it makes you ask the question, does he have lasting, uncompromising moral convictions? Is he a principled person? And it seems that the answer is no, but in this case, this is a matter of life and death.

It's a sad commentary on politicians in America who claim to have evolved so that it's okay to take a human life. We'll go to the phones. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us. Kathy in Illinois, online 1.

Hey, Kathy. Well, you're right about the money issue, too, but you know, and Jordan, you know this, the problem is that this Congress is not going to do that. We can't hardly get Republican Congresses. They could address that more specifically. We can't get Republican Congresses to really do that, unfortunately. Yeah, the caller mentions Planned Parenthood.

They continue to get more than $600 million of taxpayer funding every year. There's a couple different layers to this, Jay, and the first one you mentioned. Republicans did come up a vote short of defunding Planned Parenthood the last time around, so both parties have to be pushed on that issue.

But again, I would circle back to the conversation that Jordan and I had just a little bit earlier. It's why he did sign that letter in defense of the Hyde Amendment to at least block direct funding of abortions in the United States. Jay, I think that's a hurdle. That's a threshold we can get over with this Congress.

You know, I want to say this, though, and, Jordan, something you said, and I think we've got to underscore it. We've got to really make this point, and that is we're talking about the taking of a human life. Okay, we're not talking about anything else here other than the life of the child that is being disregarded in Planned Parenthood's view. In Planned Parenthood's worldview, Andy, the unborn child, by the way, when they talk about the fetus, and you know languages, fetus just means unborn child, but they have complete disregard for it.

They do. They have no regard for it whatsoever. Life means nothing. Life is just a passing fancy, like a sparrow that came into the window in the Middle Ages out of the dark into the lighted room and then went out into the dark again. We don't know where we came from. We're here for a brief time.

We don't know where we're going. And that's their idea. This is just transient. It's just a blob of flesh. It's a fetus.

It's a tumor, as I've heard it said. So you can remove it. You can take it out. You can squelch it.

You can do away with it. And this is to use some of the analogies that my colleague Professor Hutchison used. This takes human beings and makes them into barbarians and confirms when we yield to this kind of thought of Planned Parenthood, what Jonathan Swift called human beings, the most pernicious race of odious little vermin that God ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth. Is that what we want to be? That's what we degenerate into when we don't recognize the sanctity of life.

And we've looked at this, Harry, at the policy level, too, and Annie touches on it, kind of how we view ourselves. And the fact is that we have the most extreme laws of this in the world. The rest of the world, Europe, which is far exceeding where we are liberally, if you will, they don't allow these kind of procedures. I mean, abortion is legal in most of Europe, but with heavy restrictions.

It's not an industry quite like it is here. Absolutely. You're absolutely correct. And so if you look at Europe and if you look at Canada, those two areas of the world are far more secular than the United States. And yet, in many respects, they are far more pro-life than the United States. They also tend to respect conscience objections. So what we have going on in the United States is a curious move by the left.

The left has always emphasized tolerance, inclusion and diversity. But now, with respect to this barbarous procedure of abortion, they are trying to enforce conformity. They are trying to enforce uniformity. They are not allowing any deviation.

And so if you go back to the University of Vermont case, that case basically would protect at least the conscience objections of a particular nurse. But the Biden administration doesn't believe in tolerance. They believe in one thing only. They believe in power. I mean, Wes, we talked about just the moral aspect of it, but this argument of – I wanted to let you comment on this – this idea that you could say, well, I totally oppose this.

I don't support these moves. But we are – I don't think we want to be morally the outlier in the world on this issue when the rest of the world is caught up to some technology. It's not 100 percent there, but we're far behind the rest of the modern world. Well, it's like Thanh was commenting. The left and those who are pro-abortion have always wanted the holy grail of science, as Thanh called it. That holy grail of science is leading more and more to the pro-life argument. This truly is a matter of life and death, and there are no guarantees how all this is going to come out. But I have thought this morning, thank God, at least for now, for the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, and these are going to be significant challenges. I mean, you've got the abortion industry. Now you've got the weight of the Department of Justice coming against these states. And we know that, listen, other states will look to Texas. They will look to the law out of Mississippi that is being challenged, the 15-week abortion ban at the Supreme Court. That's going to be on the merits, whereas this case hasn't reached that yet. This is a monumental time for the pro-life movement.

But the abortion industry knows it, and they're fighting back hard. We will talk to you tomorrow. And thank you, remember, our new documentary video out, Heroes of 9-11, is about to post to all of our social media.

So check that out and share it with your friends and family. We'll talk to you tomorrow. 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.