Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

NOW : Live Reaction to Supreme Court Pro-Life Argument

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
November 1, 2021 1:00 pm

NOW : Live Reaction to Supreme Court Pro-Life Argument

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 575 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


November 1, 2021 1:00 pm

Today, we're breaking down the oral arguments happening right now at the Supreme Court. The Court already heard arguments today in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson case. They're now hearing arguments in the United States v. Texas case. Jay, Jordan, and the rest of the Sekulow team give comprehensive legal analysis on the arguments as they happen live. This and more today on Sekulow.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Download SICU reaction to the Supreme Court arguments on the Texas abortion case keeping you informed. Now this is only a OEA OEA. All persons having business before the Hon., the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw nearer and give their attention for the court is now sitting God save the United States and this honorable court want to hear from you, Sharon poster, call 1-800-684-3110. Your argument first this morning in case 21, 463 women's health versus Jackson valuable secular secular.

We are good protocols away hundred 6430 what to Wear, break down as it is at the supreme as we speak. The second oral argument cases two cases women's whole women's health versus Jackson in the US US government versus the state of Texas.

That's what oral argument, the court is hearing right now.

They first heard the challenge about can you bring it to a junction challenge can the abortion clinic regular junction child against the judge and they switched it to were not really doing about judges.

If the county clerks who suggest be able to throw these out and not consider these not file these claims. So this it's highly technical for for both sides. I will say already there justices like Justice Alito who bring up the idea of abortion distortion fact that this is even here in a week and 1/2 that that even considering this, but there's all these other issues that you can't get out ahead and get injunctions on justice courses brought up the idea of the covert restrictions. The churches of the Supreme Court said and told ghost restrictions actually impact you.

You can't bring the case you can't what they do rightly Prickly say what this is about to go to effect so working to do that and this is it. It is much more technical than the second case coming before the court, which is just about the way December 1 which is the Dobbs case at Mississippi and which is the abortion back about 50 weeks and that was that cases can be the one that decides Roe versus Wade on the constitutionality wrote this case is a is not that case this. It's a big case I want to get any you know this is a huge case a mean of the fact the matter is there's a lot of play here and Prof. Hutchison had a very good analysis of an interesting series of questions about more people from Justice Breyer verse case absolutely so one of the issues here is the whole concept of equity, the Department of Justice essentially is asking the Supreme Court to intervene essentially in a pre-enforcement manner against a state law, the state law of Texas. What's the basis of this intervention, its equity well that then means that federalism. If the court were to rule in favor of the DOJ goes out the window because you can bring an argument and equity in virtually each and every case going forward. I think it so I think Justice Breyer is very very questionable in terms of whether or not he will support Pres. Biden's Department of Justice attempt to intervene in this case, the SEC does he see how senior counsel and she's had a lot of these cases involving women's health centers crisis pregnancy centers. But what I wanted to ask you CC was your sense of just listening to your business going on, or while relied by the way you listen to the argument get your sense of this in a very technical ruling. I think the big ones can be Dobbs in a month, but this is like the prelude sell all South are really are more procedural ability to hear this case did they have the jurisdiction to hear a preenforcement challenge to a state law on it's not about abortion. At this time abortion distortion like you.

It's always about abortion. When the case involves Jordan abortion incidents with Jess is a pickup on and that's why they're there. That's why you're there was week to get briefing on a Friday order with a brief due and will argument the next week and he so it's been it's been today. Today's no other issue gets.

This is also river. Unlike the Second Amendment rights. This not a right next additionally created constitutional rights at legislative created. It's not in the Constitution itself. Specific soap. This judicial priest also at issue here about the child. Here's our break we got it done in time is been filed with the Supreme Court abnormal the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom detecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ.

The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you beautiful gift today online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, 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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry and what Obama care means to the pro life in many ways your membership is empowering the right question for copy mission life today online ACLJ/set up for you.

What's at issue here, in this case we type a yardstick river Texas is passes lights very unique at this law allows private a private right of action so it's civil state has no enforcement mechanism here. A civil you could if if so would violate the states abortion restrictions and this would be post-as six weeks of picture late earlier you could they bring a challenge against the clinic or the abortionists, a private individual. So it's a private right of action.

If you wait, it's $10,000 what Texas did say today because there was this issue out there say what does that mean if anybody can bring this challenge and you don't have to have the direct harm. I did that how you how could he would operate even if you abortion is legal to some extent Texas. How could you operate.

If everybody could just keep bring lawsuits against Texas. Texas responded that in court once his laws actually in places not yet. He has a bit been able to really see what happens is it that will be flushed out and that you will have to have connection that Soviet events could be arrayed a person that heard about abortion cellular you that use the example of at least have a relationship to the person is having the abortion of a direct impact the harm but I think we have to be clear here is what this case is and what this case is not this is not a direct challenge on the road. That is the Dobbs case that is in a month, but this is a big case because states as we are representing South Dakota are taking what I would call unique approaches to how they are handling this issue here Texas to the specific act in the in the issues surrounding it right now and he is whether these got my hearing at the federal government intervening that's a question and then also, whether before this case is litigated and it just goes to what Justice Breyer was saying. I can you just kill each set these laws down the back to what the question presented in each case is what is the Supreme Court actually hearing right that's right, we are not hearing Roe V Wade and adoring can express challenge to Roe V Wade in the cases that are being argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Today's date said that will come later in December.

In the case out of Mississippi.

The question here is really centers around the way Texas has framed this unique law which gives enforcement to private individuals to bring actions in civil actions in the state court against abortion providers and to prevent abortions from happening not through state action, but through private action and the question now is, can a federal judge obtain injunctive relief against state court judges buying them from enforcing this law will wait a minute when the Supreme Court of the United States said in the 19th century that a federal judge cannot enjoin.

That is, enter an injunction against a state court judge in the we and that is still the law today in Texas is saying basically stay out of it until the case is litigated another some sound out of rehab were Justice Alito basically talk about what we call the abortion distortion factor and in cc we know this from our litigation.

This case will not a direct challenge of Roe.

Let's be realistic here.

Anytime a case surrounding it involves the issue of abortion. Even here just in the fact that that's the enforcement that the way in which the lawsuit goes forward. We know that the abortion distortion factor with this Supreme Court can be can be an issue now. There seem to be. I want to predict how this is gonna come out, but it seemed to be a real issue here.*All call cases. It went so quickly to the Supreme Court. They made their decision to accept the cases last week by Wednesday. Everything had to be done on longtime day oral argument on this case. Lesson involving a law that touched on abortion. I don't think we've seen that kind of speed and action at the Supreme Court level.

We also sought was the most cases, the Supreme Court looks at if there's a part of how we save this law attend exorcist to go into it sake laws are by themselves. You are they not passed to be illegal or violate the Constitution was their part of the law that we need to. Maybe that's the issue that's we got a federal issue that the DOJ is state. It is also private issue here because you have the whole itself versus so what he said was, can you commute it in the DOJ's of course in the abortion case that you if a part of this goes. It all goes so this can't be salvaged at all.

And that's where he brought up the idea, of course, becomes this issue that that's the only issue it feels like where there's no severability you can't just take it's that portion may be, the more clarity on who can actually agreement is signed, that would try to find that by right now but here's another one word were Justice Alito talked about the unique nature of what they call the unique nature of being enjoined from pending unlawful acts. Take a listen to this model into an interesting project.

Judges something enjoined from performing unlawful acts, but here the activity they are enjoined from performing this unlawful act. How can that be justified only give you this example, suppose a an action is brought under SB eight in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. Let's say a sense that a woman sues a doctor who has flown in from another state to perform portion with the district judge in this case have the authority to enjoin another District Judge from even hearing that case now.

I don't think that the injunction could properly reach the federal system. I don't think there is any realistic possibility that any of these suits could possibly proceed in federal court to be the feature of FDA to fit the plaintiffs who are authorized. If you need not have any injury or suffer any harm from that prohibited abortions and so I think that there would be a proper basis for article 3 jurisdiction is the sounds very technical, but what's important here is that the court not create a different set of federal court precedents. Prof. Hudson, because this involves abortion.

I think that is correct. So if you look at the underlying law. Yes, it implicates the right of abortion, but it does not control abortion. That's number one number two.

We should keep in mind that this case is largely procedural. I think is a Jordan has set forth. The question is, largely, whether a federal court can enjoy the Texas law before it is violated and so this would be an circumstance. I think you would have to search high and low within the federal system to find precedent for such an action. That question was asked by the justice of the Supreme Court today and basically neither the DOJ nor Planned Parenthood could come up with a plausible set of facts in support of their claim that so this is at the end of the day. Basically an innovative claim against very innovative legislation. I think that's right McNichol the class years because current classic demented law is unique in itself, and I think states are going to unique types of laws now and then at the top of that you got this unusual challenge with the department just sending your former employer jumping in here frightening political reasons. Obviously I'd I think it's serious of the Department of Justice. Of course, in the Biden administration is leaping into the case immediately to help Planned Parenthood for help. The abortion industry. And that's really what this is all about and I think it's premature. I don't know. I don't think is premature.

I think it's illegal and unprecedented it can be done via the law is presumed to be constitutional. Okay, it has been tested yet. Where is the federal jurisdiction here begin from the Department of Justice to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against state court judges, clerks and other officials to prohibit them from who have prohibit them from enforcing the law that has been passed by the Texas legislature and is now the law of Texas let me play just Alito but the key is it's very technical how it starts. Listen to his last sentence here take Alyssa by 45. I appreciate your point, Texas.

As you say has done everything you possibly can to try to make it difficult for abortion providers to vindicate their rights under precedents II get it. I think it's a forceful argument but I think we have to be concerned about the implications of the mechanisms that you propose for providing some kind of relief. A lot of your brief and all the other briefs of principles that have been filed against Texas.

In both of these cases suggest that we should issue a rule that applies just to this case. But that's inconsistent with the rule of law that is a gigantic statement. I think everybody needs to be aware that is a gigantic statement because he's basically saying we've been arguing for 35 years. But what comes to abortion cc really quickly here all the rules change we call partial distortion credit right there only change the rules for this case. Across the board and let Justice Alito, St. Louis County if we change the rules and changes in primary body they're asking now is like to be singled out for special treatment they do and then Justice Breyer, who is not a favorable to the life position so you know, if we do this we really have to do this for everything you might all be stored in its work creating a whole new way of your suing judges basically enjoying judges. It the federal federal government, getting a state court judge and so in a way with her not acting unlawfully. They just following the law of the state and whether or not so I get I think that that is key and its key in the mind of the justices when it comes these procedural matters only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and 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, defendant the right to life. We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists.

The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion ministry and what Obama care means to the pro-life many ways your membership is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission life today online/American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you. Give a gift today online ACLJ security spoke on stupid questions about this. What hundred 684 31 two that's what hundred 684-3110 Rob discounted from Pennsylvania online.

What he Robert welcome to secular you're the my questionnaire what the law allows fathers who may be thinking to help make the baby. What baby I think it's it's a question of how involved they were in, so will the app be able to make the case to court with Texas that is at this idea that it's an open ended. Everybody's been deputized by the state is not accurate is that this has been flushed out in court in court the judge that you what is the what, where you how you would volunteer so if you are very involved father you could you could if you were someone who didn't know about it. They learn later that so we had a relationship with got pregnant and had had abortion. I'm not sure that the judge would let that's we don't know that yet because this has actually illegally play the provider right there never suing that that is key point that that father hypothetical father were talking about cannot soothe the above ever in any of the situation is just a Brazil claim it's a gift someone at the clinic or the bushes themselves. Would you said something else and that is I think the way the laws become families where I see it is that it's kind like an established religion cases, you can just be the offended observer unites I see them I see a menorah or I see a nativity scene and I don't like it. Therefore, I'm gonna sue with Texas to me seems to be saying in the lease and oral argument in their briefing is no way to know that's what they're trying to say to make this the Prater heart was that's not what this law actually does. That's absolutely correct today in the suit as you correctly pointed out, as against the provider and there is no parade of marbles until the law plays out and that hasn't happened yet already the United States Department of Justice is jumping in trying to enjoin these things from happening when the law hasn't played out a law that is deemed and presumed to be constitutional on his face so it Texas or the if this is what the Texas list Joe talked about was it in the hypotheticals. These are so hypothetical is that there is this the state law so your state that these are all. It's basically intentional infliction of emotional distress is also a text say basic crime of outrage that you have seen something of a witness to a been a part of something that is so so disturbing to your concerts in his in his heart that's physically mentally get of this cut so the example is if you want to forward somebody of a family, but they that a crime occurred, or you wanted a crime scene involved people you knew you could. You would have asked to potentially get people committed that crime then still be responsible it at different levels but to you. That's it specific that that's why we have the specific state torts and states are different. I got you know where we live a terrific crime of outrage that may be something specific to text but it did intentional infliction of emotional distress. To some extent, but it's wobbly. With nearly it seeing it having real with a real connection to the matter could actually right yeah you have to it so they they have given that point Texas give that point were not saying everybody's running around will to sue abortion that you've got to get.

I think that makes sense because judicially that's the first two judges are going to consider but that I think is important to point out, at least I think my view it's easy it's a connection because whistleblowers are connection. Also they held that right.

That might be hard personally but they had to have not been unique knowledge and I think my sense from what Texas was saying is, again, this is a preenforcement challenge, but cc you've got to have some kind of cool that we were called causal connection between the abortion itself and the mother the child. Whatever the situation that would rise to the level where you can then bring a claim are aware what kind of harm. Can you right now there are 14 outbound ports that are trying to question before the Supreme Court.

There are currently eight seats that are going on the appropriate placement happens on initial stages, so I think 10 days is when you'll see orders for summary judgment and that is that the correct place for these cases the happiness in the courts, not in time to squirt this case I think very uniquely has because the majority said it's moved up to the system so quickly and things are moving so rapidly that is really cottage the decision in a week you're making a decision in three days I think that's true, and I think the timeline that you outlined for us suggests that many proponents of abortion believe that abortion is indeed a morally superior right. It's an elevated constitutional right.

I think the court was perhaps wise to accelerate its decision-making in this particular case because there is strong public interest in the case, but I also think the court is very very cautious about granting the DOJ. I just Department of Justice and Planned Parenthood. The relief that they seek couple of reasons, not the least of which is they can't really enumerate what relief they're seeking but also if they grant relief in this case they opened. Essentially, a Pandora's box of additional litigation down the road. Everyone will then run to the federal courts perhaps run to the Supreme Court and say no. My rights have not yet been violated, but they will be violated in the future. I think the Supreme Court is rightly worried about the consequences of any such decision-making right once again, I would encourage you if you have questions about this at and I we we know this getting the technicals but if you care about this life issue. This is the dessert extremely important cases.

I would just be flat on 10 years ago. Case like this gives this report, you fight it out of course, we always find out the likelihood of basically a piece of paper back to this report was was 99.9. I don't even know if it was is like 100% so that the fact that these even be considered that they are the justices have to go through these mental motions and think through all of this.

This is because of the new justices on the court.

It's the new justices on the court. It states camp coming up with creative ways to address the abortion issue accessible rate representing South Dakota in an informed consent case that I think is very unique and very significant in that regard. So and and you're right. This is look working to find out not too long. About a month during the oral arguments where the courts leaning at least on Roe versus Wade is a very hard in and you never like for distant predicting a case on the audience when I can do it here in and on this one in particular, it's very technical but the fact that the courts addressing these issues I think is a big deal. This is a big is the biggest series of abortion cases in our lifetimes and throw most certainly since Rahman and that's a long time in the court as Prof. Hudson pointed out, sees the public interest. In these cases, the public importance of these cases and expedites the hearing of them, but some on a short string and we are having to two cases argued simultaneously today and the owner very short deadline and the justices are honing in on the procedural aspects which is what the case is about this juncture artificially come back will continue to analyze this to play.

You sound from the case being argued right now at the US Supreme Court and take your calls, one 800 684 31 two that's what he hundred 684-3110. I let me but ACLJ.org all the information they find are brief there as well at ACLJ a dot or get it to be part of the show. I today I you feel like this is the moment or pro-life movement is called what he hundred 684 31 the American Center for law and justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be managed $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 can make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online ACLJ keeping you informed and engaged now is Jordan secular. Take your calls to as the Texas case is for US Supreme Court reset the stage for you to see understand what is before the court. This is a K case involves a state law, a state law that if Laos private individuals to be a private right of action that the state enforcing abortion laws at its private individuals on instances where the laws violated. They can then bring an action at their successful it's 2000. It's a $2000 I claim that there is question what is everybody to deputize you get everybody ready red Texas tried to file lawsuits against abortions. That's how they try to set the stage. The abortion industry is basically said I would not operating in Texas right now. If there's one or two abortionists were flouting the law. At 68 over the continue doing this, but for the most part the big fish. This is a giant Planned Parenthood facility in Houston efforts that they are that they put a lot of abortions on hold that there try to use that for their own argument. See we can't do what you've given us the constitutional protections do a Roe versus Wade and the others report cases because of this law and what the justices arrest back is this law what you just try to stop it before you could see now at work so at at Texas is been explaining more about how to work I would hear from you what he hundred 64 3110 when you have this case that I will you.

It was just eight days ago, a Friday. We got the order that brief would be doing in five days so we have Friday afternoon with afternoon of last week.

In the oral argument be today on two different case of 22 cases rising on the same law. What is a a the abortion industry's challenge to the judge was being defended by Texas ended the DOJ challenge to Texas was also benefited by I Texas that is that so that is that case that's report we will get a decision. I think pretty quickly because this was the kind of emergency action second case Dobbs we pray look at what really quick that's that's on Mississippi's that's the heartbeat bill. That is a direct challenge of a Roe versus Wade. There are direct challenges to Roe versus Wade. In both of these cases to the attic today. The oral arguments have not spent much time on that the justices of course alluded to. This is here because this is abortion. The fact that we played that pipe just Toledo you're basically what us to have a rule just for this kind of just for abortion and everything else would be different yet and it was because because we said earlier, the ruckus is the abortion distortion factor. So actually minced a Justice Breyer a mention is play that bite in the second next segment coming up. This is a long bite, but it's important to break it down, but I do think it's worth pointing out here at the outset of the second house broadcasts that remember this case is the prelude to the Dobbs case and CC in the Dobbs case. We have the direct challenge of its hereto, but it's really the issue. Granted, first right involve the constitutionality of Roe versus Wade@Dobbs that the courts will be talking about actually judicially fabricated right to abortion that they created in row. They lay silent Dobbs taught that lot stops abortions after 15 weeks, and the question then becomes when the state when you have a compelling interest to protect the life of an unborn baby is right in the heart of route. I think that's basically like is it these cases, Jordan and the warm up. I want to say this also to our ACLJ members, we were able to file a brief and to graduate in four days. It was we were on the air on the order Humana Friday was last week. The weekend plus yes 254 days so but here it is.

And that's because of the supportive members like you that this brief has been filed at this work of the United States.

So for all of our members out there. We want to say thank you for standing with us on this important issue. Now this is the first day of our November matching challenge, which means this is the month for any amount you donate we get a matching gift that's right, you can do an online ACLJ.org it's it's a busy time on life, especially river on all those fish like track that infrastructure acts issue there.

Your bank account closely know why the start trouble even getting a vote on that were not backing down there. What keeping on all these issues and working while the priest support our work in ACLJ W impact today the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you. You forgive today online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry and what Obama care means to the pro life many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/secular.

It's a poster 164 3110 at 2064 31 was it. I know that you were to plate this fight for just private. Set up for people yeah it's it's get it's exchange here because look. Justice Breyer is not normally on the on these life questions is not normally of an advocate for the light position raised an issue that Prof. Hutchinson's can we talk about afterwards that what they were Planned Parenthood and United States are doing here is really good to create havoc in the judicial system, take a listen to some judges in many circumstances and force are therefore tort suits in the United States okay and probably 3 billion of them, somebody think something's unconstitutional price and can they also judge federal courts is the judge is a court what's the difference between this case. When you think he's an enforcer and 4 billion other cases where you read their briefs.

You understand their argument which will responsive responses that under the rule that we are advancing here is that where ace date is trying to nullify the exercise of a right constitutional rights is been recognized by this court by delegating enforcement to the public and taking away the normal ordinary executive officials and then also creating special order to turn the court system were not trusting the judges or clerks are intending to do anything here but it's been created by the Texas legislature that turned courts into a weapon that can be used to know institutional night right so let's let's break down what Justice Breyer was saying there will essentially Justice Breyer was raising worry that should have been a parent to Planned Parenthood supporters of abortion essentially what Planned Parenthood is trying to do here is to open a Pandora's box which could lead to billions of lawsuits which would then have the presumptive right to go to the United States Supreme Court for adjudication. Even before anyone's constitutional rights have yet been violated. So it strikes me that what Justice Breyer was saying is that the petitioner I'm sorry to be Planned Parenthood at the advocates of abortion. In this particular case, simply should have been suing the state legislature for passing this litigation which they believe violates the Constitution and that they should then wait for the adjudication in state court and then once the state courts have ruled then they might be able to kick it up to the United States Supreme Court assuming the Texas Supreme Court does not agree with their particular position. I think this raises the point that what's at stake here yet. I don't look at this case in a by itself under the microscope Scotus, but suspect this is in a you got a look at this in a long-term snarl in the long term has only a month and you've got the cake. This case then you got Dobbs which is direct challenge to abortion, then you at the South Dakota informed consent law that were handling so all of these major cases are coming up Wes at the same time so this is this is a very significant moment is the culmination of accommodation are still building up changing attitudes and changing arguments about the whole issue of abortion and it is wrongly decided. As Roe and Casey were from a constitutional perspective there some judicial acrobatics going on there. It gave the right to an abortion before viability, but that is totally changed over the last decades viability has and so advances in medicine of change when and if it is viable. Also, you add to that that heartbeat is detected it six weeks heart beat is indicative human life and the fact that an unborn baby can feel pain before viability. This is changing the debate because CC this is really what's common people for forgetting all the technical questions are this was a heartbeat. Marshall abortions after a heart rate is detected and sell that's always the issue and a lot less is saying is we understand that a baby is a baby only now better and 1970s and said that battling in Roe V Wade really needs to be attacked and is being attacked in Dobbs estate had a compelling interest to protect not necessarily viability anymore. It might be at a heartbeat this out will see where this is now losing Colorado online when he was talking to secular bear, Michael.

I want to know why.

Okay like New York another and they're all like Virginia the baby on the table and then you decide they can't retract changes. This is a course this is the interesting issue because in Roe versus Wade.

It took the issue of abortion and the out of the state court system or the legislative systems actually and moved it to a federal right that's right and made the problem of federal right. It does not exist in the Constitution of the United States and I've said before on this program I defined somebody please tell me where in the Constitution of the United States. There is a federal constitutional right to an abortion and the answer is that there is not.

That's why these matters relating to life and so forth should be decided by the sovereign states on behalf of the citizens of the sovereign states, and they should make the determination as to whether or not abortions are permitted whether permitted. If there permitted and other things related to that, and not the federal government because they are not federal constitutional right. Julia and Idaho online. Three. Hey Julie, welcome to secular and loving her to write. If you're listening gives a call if you're a partial 1-800-684-3110 is the number that's what hundred 684-3110 hey Juliet you're on the call and tell you that I'm just praising God for you for the work that you do.

I am a woman with an abortion in her past and I have just a heart breaks for young men and women that go through this not fully understanding. I think in many cases the implications down the road. I'm just so grateful that we are in a defining moment that I believe God is going before you to prepare and make ready the way I believe you and I surround you with stature and with I believe the Holy Spirit will give you the wisdom and discernment in the words to begin the very moment they need to be spoken in a way that they cannot even be refuted or responded to. And I just want you to not only support your that the people across the nation are praying faithfully for you and hopefully we know that you're doing. Praise God, we are holding you in prayer and looking forward to a very positive outcome to protect those precious souls who have like I said, this is a this is a unique moment in the in the abortion battle because you got confluence of these three major cases to with this report want the Eighth Circuit Texas heartbeat Bill Dobbs which is direct challenge to Roe versus Wade South Dakota with a very unique informed consent law and you have all of these cases hitting CC simultaneously earlier on this court cases and perhaps that's why these cases are here in time so will help that the Supreme Court does what's right and that they follow the Constitution like and he says there is no right to abortion in the Constitution cell, where we start protecting babies lives again let me play a become the big loud people remember super confirmation is what she had to say. During this argument, but I think I gained constitutional right to preenforcement AVM and SL had a wreck and sound that was found in versus out, so our first argument is actually Congress created the right in section 1987, Samantha, so I think that yes, there is an ex parte Young recognize that in these circumstances where it's not can be. The penalties are so severe and where there is it's it's difficult to find someone who is to even violate the law for a test case and I think ex parte and address all of that and said that in fact there is a procedural due process violation and the doubletalk I've not heard a lot of doubletalk in court. Let me say that when the judge asked you a straight out question as is just as barren as you are saying there is a constitutional right to bring forth a review and then Mark Karen comes in with his doubletalk on the resulting case and what the case is said and you know said and came up with some concocted answer, but she's absolutely right.

And then when she said there is no preenforcement review at this point in time, the government should not be involved in suing state court judges think that you are that young.

That's what this case probably sets up if it goes in favor of Texas and a course one month from today. They argue Dobbs the.Dobbs history. Hundred percent direct challenge to Roe versus Wade date that what this case, they can try to go make their way around that. What really is stake here but let's be honest if if Texas is successfully that pro-life advocates many states, I would have faced country adopts a I. So this is a major test case of this impact it could have figured why rush to Dobbs case is fundamental challenge directly to Roe versus Wade will be argued by December 1. Only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, 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, defendant the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission will show you how you personally. Publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Washington Street what Obama care means to the pro-life many ways your membership is powering the right question free copy of mission in life today online/American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in Washington fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous tape or matching challenge make protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you today online LJ secular figure 6843 what the oral argument is still ongoing. This is shifted to the court to accept just a note to point out that a lot of our listeners pay close attention to the US Supreme Court, or has it used to be what our except occasionally they would make yet that counseling with Ed about K minutes and then you have the masses. There is a Bush versus Gore.

That was huge, but we had that in campaign-finance agape is that those are rare now because of the most covert world and the way they're doing the oral arguments. Now these arguments been going out for well over well over to two hours and and still going so it could fall within. This is because this two-part case and I maybe fall within the but the question is also very different way in which they're doing it so all that's unique, but one of the things I think we have to understand your zone to put this in perspective is that this is the beginning of what I will call the trilogy of cases involving abortion this term. I teach with the Supreme Court. One of the Court of Appeals. One of this when the heartbeat Bill and you got that, of course, the Texas abortion achievement heartbeat Bill which is the text worthwhile right now, and you've got Dobbs which is direct challenge and row and then you got the informed consent law in South Dakota that were defending so all of this is a unique moment in history. I think Wes and on this issue. Probably the most unique moment will absolutely as important as the legal arguments are in the court hearings that the backdrop how we got here is just is significant because were having this convergence of science and medicine moral issues and the fact that even those who are pro-abortion by large will admit that what were dealing with is a human life and so is unimaginable as it as it seems.

The question is at what point is it okay to end a human life that is that an innocent now this is the same if you call for God to make Colorado online wanted to look secularly on the call to do with this idea come out of the Texas case where they are allowing it, understand it, people to see two individuals have you discussed or considered what the ramifications might be if if other states took similar action in other types of scenarios, rents and Second Amendment rights, or other other non-abortion related issues or the state would allow individuals to sue other individuals rather than the state as an actor and what impact that might have someone talk to to your home committed atrocity with a firearm specifically tends to be to say that you walking on, and that said you would sue an emotional understandably melt down it's physical about you there's a there's a lot of Texas so that now is a criminal act that person. You can then bring a challenge that they call the crime of outrage there, but this popped probably multiple laws actually use the horse met at an incident which you can on that already exists that does exist. I think your example. It's not about just being a firearm manufacture like that which by the way they get sued outside to but it's about you. You walked in on the situation. So yes the personal use that firearm to commit a crime could also be liable to you and in this civil Senate budget discourses talk about this chilling effect. If you take a listen on unsettling fact, you agree that other laws often have chilling effects on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights that can only be challenged defensively to this extent I agree that there are laws, defamation laws, gun-control laws, rules during the pandemic about the exercise of religion, discouraged, and she'll the exercise of constitutionally protected liberty's guessing that they can only be challenged after the fact.

I'm not sure the date all of those laws could only be changed after the fact that there may be some. Of course he's right just the unit.

Exactly right. Well I think you're absolutely correct and I also would congratulate Mr. Herron on being unprepared for an obvious question. Basically if he's been alive for the last couple of years he should be aware of the fact that many.

For instance, pandemic write good regulations have been challenged before the United States Supreme Court and what has the United States Supreme Court done. They have allowed the litigation to proceed at a lower level before intervening either at state court or within the confines the federal court system and they've allowed this litigation to proceed on the merits.

What we have here is an attempt by abortion providers and the Department of jet of DOJ answer doing what to basically go into court and asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a law before it has ever been applied. This is an unprecedented unprecedented move by abortion providers and the state of Texas and I think I hope they lose in and actually we went Galveston without a briefing in favor of accessible dollars labored.

Our position is Texas is correct. But what's interesting here is to not lose sight of the question presented today. Question presented today and this is what's being argued what and then I'm reading from what the Supreme Court said may the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state. State court judges, state court clerks, other state officials are all private parties to prohibit SBA from being in force. That's the question. Can the United and AIDS stick its nose into and endued with through the federal court system and obtain an injunction against state court judges against the enforcement of the heartbeat Bill and you know what even Justice Breyer cc seem to indicate that he had problems with what the department of justice was doing here will find out. Improbably days I suspect we'll find out if the abortion distortion factor still carried a majority will say pleasing.

We saw the abortion distortion factor did play a part in this case so quickly, which we probably just a regular cake at all if it were a different issue.SBA now abortion is banned after heartbeat is detected that case, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, I'm hoping I can set Breyer asking for me to other parties and stuff. Hopefully they will not get it here so Justice Thomas address some of that lipstick listen. Do you have examples are not precedents. Examples of the national government taking pride in playing the exact same roller doing exactly what you're doing in other areas involving constitutional rights. Examples I'm not aware of any circumstance where the floor has sought to prevent access to ordinary mechanisms for judicial review is not true. As a father. She doesn't know any other circumstances where the state government has sought to prevent access to the ordinary mechanisms for judicial review. How does SBA do that right now I state of Texas done that it hasn't. I think what is to come back to is whether I is abortion distortion carry the day in every kind of put the blinders on and they do exactly what the DOJ's talk about what she's talking about their riches to the makeup of rule special proportion. Justice Alito's aria analytics suggests versatility. Barrett alluded to it. Just obviously just resistively force that is the big question here November the right way to work in a sealed date or touch of a the American Center for Law and issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be now $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 could make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime