This broadcaster has 571 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
December 1, 2021 12:00 pm
Will the Supreme Court return on any morning you informed.
Now 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, Mr. Chief Justice, please the court row versus Wade of Planned Parenthood versus Casey Potter country. They have no basis in the Constitution Avenue home in our history or traditions they damage the democratic process to poison the law choked off compromise.
Now, your host Jordan secular secular five good to go.
This wrap up the oral arguments in the Dobbs case.
This is the first direct challenge to Roe versus Wade since 1992 the Planned Parenthood versus Casey case which you likely heard be good.
Should Casey role consistently throughout.
If you are listening to the oral arguments which were provided live. I want to go right to my dad because right away oral arguments of change. There were there were justices of the pastor's essay including Justice Thomas, who said he of this one hour restriction on oral arguments. It was had a whoever did whatever justice was the loudest to talk the longest and it was really the briefs the decided things, but now things have changed. Chief Justice Roberts allows everyone to ask all the questions they want to ask still allows rebuttal even if you go over the time so this was almost 2 hours of oral argument so that right off the bat. It does seem like the oral argument has more impact today than maybe we would say 10 years ago for people like Justice Justice Thomas, and I think it it does I will guide my bargaining about system so I argued when it was basically 30 minutes at the red light went on, you were done and the justices interrupted each other and oftentimes were unable to really answer a question because they were making speeches or arguing with each other through the lawyer and now you got the system, the John Robertson put in place where you actually have two minutes, uninterrupted lawless. I think I ever went was 37 seconds uninterrupted so that I can go for two minutes. Doesn't sound like a lot, but you get a lot out in two minutes and and really lay out what your case is. I think, is it better for the court and better for the advocates and better ultimately for the decisions they come out so I think it does change the role of oral argument.
Having said that, in a case like this. I think the justices have a pretty clear view of where they want to go in this case and this was a case where it was a direct request to overturn Roe versus Wade agreement built the solicitor Gen. for Mississippi applicant very good job at all the work by Dwight very good job across the board out be clear there but I don't agree with the other side's position whether advocacy was good but they could answer the question. The key question is you know this viability issue and it is more than viability, noun viability, the changing number scientifically believe life begins at conception.
This is at the end of the day.
That would Justice Alito said were talking about fetal life here in the solicitor Gen. of Mississippi said this is the only time where another life is at stake in a procedure when I think that bodes well say lawyers who would get up before the Supreme Court today and say what's got to be viability with the same organizations that got up in the partial-birth abortion cases. It said no it had nothing to do with viability abortion until birth.
This is this is and I think that the justice of the court. They know that groups like the reproductive rights of Planned Parenthood in support of viability standard.
That's not the standard is abortion with no restrictions in the way they were. They were moving the glass so to speak or move the ball under the collective revile the sun becoming the viability document they don't believe that they believe that abortion should take what they believe in partial-birth abortion later important that I don't think you're kidding anybody here again I think it was to point out to people.
That argument being made is not their actual position that is not the position of Planned Parenthood of the Center for reproductive rights. We see like a legal arm. Take your phone calls of this 100 684 31 two. There's a lot to analyze BC after two hours oral argument. I gives a call one 800 684 31 to visit you first time that this report is heard on the merits direct challenge to Roe versus Wade since 1992 will be right back on second 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 $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 and your family. You forgive today online LJ only when 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 are 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 worship ministry and what Obama care means to the prone life as many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/right. This is very important. Obviously, where the Chief Justice plays a very important role especially in cases that you know are going to be very decisive and divisive on the court. First, I beat it will play it later I Justice Breyer took a shot at the new justices of the Supreme Court say will just because we have new justices they know it's like they don't get a new picket but they do. That's why this case is there. This case would not of been there 10 years ago because the court of the makeup of the court, so I that's just reality. I love the court always wants to be above politics.
All of them got there because a politician the President chose them and politicians in the Senate confirmed, so they only get there because of politics. I know that I get you you in on the left. Let's be honest about political justices on the court because all you can go through all four for then you know exactly where they all three of them now and you know exactly where they're going to be at. So I just wanted to underscore that no one play this because this sets the tone for where we are in the country why we think this is so serious and this was in a brief that we filed. It's the premier pizza fly just about three and this case that brief focused on the international scope wears abortion internationally and this kind of two measures there. The first though. Chief Justice Roberts brought up directly.
Take a listen.
I'd like to focus on the 15 week band because that's not a dramatic departure from viability as the standard that the vast majority of other countries have when you get to the viability standard we share that standard with People's Republic of China in North Korea and I don't think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be concerned if that was a year share that particular time. Two questions. First, I'm not correct about international law majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability.
Even if they have nominal lines earlier.
So, for example, Canada and Great Britain and most of Europe allows access to abortion right up until the identity it's actually not true. So right off the bat that it is trying to North Korea in the United States that have never defined viability. It's not defined. They keep using that term but that's not clearly defined. You can't say okay this is this is now viability. That's why they're using that because they wanted to be open-ended to continue to build a fight for abortion to lead the pregnancy up until the pregnancy is over.
The second part is if you actually do extended to the countries that allow elective abortion. This is the list is only seven Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea is in Singapore, the US and Vietnam. If you then analyze that in Europe she's talking about the Netherlands. So this idea that they're wrong.
I think that fact we don't want to be like North Korea and China are two of the worst human rights abuses in the world. I think that you know our international office are Europeans in a blog just ascended up major break on this and in that great, we set forth what the international actually is on maternity see how is our senior counsel and also does a lot of work with our European offices and international offices for the fact his European laws on abortion are more restrictive than the United States slightly. They are only pointing that out in the brain, and it's amazing. Just like Jordan said we are one of several countries that allow abortions after 20 weeks sell your app in the European Court of human rights actually recognizes the light from the baby as a competing interest actually require that you balance the balance.
The baby's life. With that, the choice is the number and we don't do that in the United States.
In fact they were arguing basically that writes the letter just absolutely try the rights and the baby.
They reported out in our brief as well that these countries that she's not that the attorney for the Center for reproductive rights, which is the illegal arm of Planned Parenthood with what they are focusing on these European countries trying to say what were just like everybody else, would not so cut and I think it's the support for people not to say because I think you think life if these other countries are more liberal.
They must allow much more access to that of the US. Yet, this is about Mississippi. The truth is France. We don't see is a country that is particular conservative when it comes to that there there law it's it's 12 weeks that it is just totally eviscerated their argument. Jordan, you went to the seven countries that dad don't but that permit or restrict abortion after 20 weeks to those do restricted 24 weeks, only five have no limits and she was forced to fall back on this defense of European standards will Jordan all of those countries accept some sort of gestational in it were viability is present and restrictions should be afforded immuno people think of France as this bastion of liberalism during the restriction.
There is 12 weeks. So how in the world are you can argue that 12 weeks in France is somehow the gold standard, but Mississippi can't come down at 15 and be somewhat reasonable when it's more generous Sojourn i.e. if you play that whole exchanging you really lay out the argument just eviscerated their whole point on viability play this sound support because it this happened very early in the oral arguments, Justice Breyer taking a shot at new justices on the court. Three specifically reported by is a truck thankless. There will be inevitable efforts to overturn it.
Of course it will run and it is particularly important to show you in overturning the case is grounded in principle and not social pressure, not political pressure only quote the most convincing justification can show that a later decision overruling if that's what we did was anything but a surrender to political pressures court new members and that is an unjustified repudiation of principles on which the court stakes its authority. Your reaction to that taking a shot at new members of the court as if they don't have their own brain in their own opinion on this and they don't not bound by the justices who are no longer with us know they are justice by weapon or for three decades. So you met just as bright like these.
He cited our brief before so when he made a speech that wasn't a question. Prof. Hutchison on this in a moment and think that was a speech and that was a speech in my view, a speech of desperation speech that was saying I'm not can win this so in an illegal logical argument. So what I meant to do instead is make a political statement, Harry.
That's how I read I think your analysis is spot on.
Essentially, Justice Breyer was writing his descent and I think it's very very important to examine the whole question of viability and how the Planned Parenthood legal representative handled that particular issue. If you go back to the hearing, Justice Thomas, for instance, referenced an important South Carolina case which goes to the viability line.
He noted that in South Carolina they are allowed to prosecute a mother before viability is attained if the mother ingest copious amounts of a controlled substance drug which threatens the life of the child so that clearly indicates that the state has an interest in the life of the child and that has to be balanced against the autonomy interest of the mother and clearly I think Planned Parenthood had difficulty with that particular question which undercuts the whole viability line that Planned Parenthood continues to support you have to balance to competing interests. Planned Parenthood is unwilling to go there. It basically asserts that the right of abortion is supreme and that is a concept in my opinion that's foreign to our law. Jordan titled time here, but I want to go to cc because one of the things AC I saw was that in fact the needlelike issue came up a lot with the justices questions the unborn lot child's distinct life.
Yes, because that side totally ignores that only talk about the woman and the woman is right and the burden on the woman and they completely know where that shortselling is brought to light several times as were completely forgetting about the interest and the right to life and the baby and anything that is very important that this is not just about whether a mom doesn't really want to have the burden of parenting and make some social choice we are killing the life of the baby and that interest you from close to 164.
31 table play bore from the oral argument, specifically twice as it was Justice Breyer the justice out over to his shot at the idea about this because as a New Ct., Avenue. Of course it does. Legislators are looking at it everybody to look at for the court case is why this case has been taken. The last 30 years, was taken this changes on work so I get. We got our brief softball ACLJ.org three briefs filed addressing different issues.
That's a seal data were taken from Causeway hundred 6430 what to share with your friends and family only when 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 created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how you personally. Publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications.
40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means many ways your membership is powering the right question mission in life today online/American Center for Law and engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.
Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those covering 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 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 time for the ACLJ work. We simply would not occur without your generous matching challenge make protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms. Most of today online okay reactions and get all of this I would say just right off the bat. Don't don't take too much from just single question to try to add it up you got to get ticket BRIEFING the waited but but because these oral arguments are much longer they were the past, longer questions I wanted to write you a question.
It was that Justice Alito.
It was about the interest in the life of the child. Take Alyssa bite 68 the fetus has an interest in having a life and that doesn't change does it from the point before viability to the point after viability in some peoples as philosophical differences can be versed on what I'm that's what I'm getting out.
What is the philosophical argument. The secular philosophical argument for saying this is the appropriate line that this was this was I think a direct response because just a software earlier had said the only real interest here in putting restrictions on abortion are religious and the only person you brought that up is the left. Her the other the other attorneys tried to bring that up because they know that that's not where you want to go that's that's still how they see this shed to downplay medical try to make daily trip like the plague. Dr. the played scientist instead of playing just a big justice, medical science, because that that certainly doesn't support their argument to me there that doesn't work for them.
So what are they do instead well they say okay what what do medical site. This is all about religion and working to make this a religious argument and the question, of course, that's a relevant to the originality.
But let's say there are religious and philosophical reason, that's fine.
There's also constitutional reasons, but they did raise the issue and in the talk about the viability and value not just viability. The value of the fetus. The unborn child's life and I was good to go to Wes on this and and you know that moral issue came up with an interesting way when one of the just amendment but maybe just a little baby.
Justice Roberts asking about secular philosophers, we heard a little bit out of the last question secular philosophers and and and nonreligious people that maintain a pro-life position is one of the most interesting parts of the arguments today.
This is the most significant inconsequential case before the Supreme Court. I think in my lifetime because it is not about religion is about morality is about the sacredness of human life and in a in a in a new way you can say that life and liberty is being talked about, not just the life and liberty of the mother but the life and liberty of this child that she's caring and I thought it is interesting and what your you reference their J because when they start talking about viability. In this context, and the secular versus the religious. It was just a set of Mayor who started downplaying actually the science that talks about the ability of this child to feel pain about a heartbeat about the physical development of the human being in the room because those things don't support their argument, she immediately starts questioning the science behind those think it's because they realize they may be losing this argument, and as they should. And as Harry said, I think people like her are actually writing their descent. I think I know you never judged by an oral argument will be to say that folks because you just don't know but it was very interesting to me that the RCC that the people pain issue came up because I've actually deposed doctors on this and have used experts on mass and the medical science when they do surgery in utero. They give anesthetic to the child why because the child has the ability to feel pain and by the way, that in and of itself, I think, is an important fact. But it is not the sole determinant back but I thought it was interesting to see the court the trajectory lease where they were going on this whole issue of the importance of the life of the child totally points to the humanity of the child, which is something that supports the left doesn't want to talk about. They wanted calendar fetus, a clump of cells and take out the humanity when you talk about a heartbeat when you talk about the ability for a baby to feel pain all the siding you realize that payback is a human being and the right to life guys attached to back him ending point that the left can't survive and said it was interesting that I just decided my arm went after the fact that babies can't feel pain at the time where medical science is actually proved that she so desperate that she's going after after the science of to the point where I tried to label it as fridge and and outside the door.
Take Alyssa by 23 I don't see how that really adds anything to the discussion that a small fringe of doctors believe that pain could be experienced be told before cortex is formed means that there is that much of a difference in this case is small fringe of doctors during the derogatory name but Manny carries right there writing their descent because they triple that statement is really over the top hostility to the advocate there. The attorney in the situation, solicitor Gen. of Mississippi argue that position but yes I think that the those are justices that are known to be playing to the audience the plague to MSNBC that their bikes at but I asked that the reaction overall intermediate against media reaction is that the CNN headline design functions have a ceiling that light is Supreme Court looks like it's ready to accept a 15 week abortion ban decided that that's what they're looking at right now the difference would be is, does it go to overturning Roe or not those questions that you get that specifically I think they could go either way on that as well by still a lot allowed what Mississippi debt did.
It's very important point out that would Mississippi is arguing this not say that while Georgia has to have what we have or to the CS to have a we have or do your cats have a we have, it's that it should be up to us as a state that's what this comes back to report progress of what is overcurrent it doesn't and the right to abortion in every state some sacred allow for but what is interesting here if they did at getting it. Maybe, just as Robert Robert. He did ask is a way to uphold the statute and not overturn Roe so I returned this question back to CC because you know we want to see role overturn this court may move incrementally and I although I think this is our best chance to see role overturn. I'm not really surprised that they uphold the statute and and don't overcurrent.
It's very interesting and I don't know how they can do this and not overturn route because the issue is to protect the baby's life before viability, arbitrary points that has come out environmentally. That's an issue. So when can we protect the baby's life or when can we ban abortion viability is no longer that point, I think it really does come down to the states need to determine when it's their interest when they are going to protect the baby's life is that 15 weeks is that in a heartbeat effectively overturns around receipt of the past where the court overturned but effectively does overturn the case is to get what has reported that his with Mississippi's areas are 15 week. We believe that you have to overturn the way and that again your state where you live will have the rigorous debate as the new currently disturbing what they wanted base of the program and that's what you do with most laws, those laws are to handle the state level. That's why different states have different rules different things in place of different criminal conduct of civil conduct, it's very important that's part of our country is that this distinction back second half hour coming up. Go to ACLJ.org and all the information there as well for your phone calls started life. Your questions the American; just as critical issues at home and abroad time you can participate in the ACLJ challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ keeping you informed and now is a secular today. History is downstream first time since 1992, a direct knowledge Roe versus Wade comes out of a Mississippi law.
It was the Mississippi solicitor Gen. was defending that law before the US Supreme Court. It's been two years to 1/2 years in the making. To get to the court, but it's there on the merits in the oral arguments have been for the safest bet fibers before we went on the air this question from Justice Cavanaugh sums up what's really at issue here. Regards what side you're on.
This position on this issue.
Take Alyssa by 46 be clear, you're not arguing that the clerk somehow has the authority to itself prohibit abortion or that this court has the authority to order the states to prohibit abortion's understanding correct as I understand the argument of the Constitution silence and therefore neutral on the question of abortion. In other words, that the Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice on the question of abortion, but leaves the issue for the people of the states. Or perhaps Congress to resolve the democratic process set accurate to the people you today I thought was interesting. There both this, the state government but also opening the door even for Congress at the federal level it if they were able to I think more difficult for Congress at the federal level to ever get to agreement on this, but at the state level. It's it has been. That's why some states are are very pro-life and some states are very pro-abortion.
And that's the way Constitution is set up a meeting so that these matters go to the station. We take a pro-life positions were not always advocate for the unborn child. But I but I will tell you that this idea that the state had no role in this is what created this political process in the Parkway second one, number two, this attack on the new justice by these by Justice Breyer and Justice, son of Mayor and anything just to get to. I think CC show some real desperation again. I don't judge a case by the oral argument because you never know what happened but my goodness it was really not appropriate in my view, what they were doing their like stoking the fire and this is no political decision and that's really what the public demands is they want to keep her out of the way.
That's what the public demands and if the court rules otherwise it cares if it's based on the Constitution or not.
We just need to do what we think is on the most popular decision right now and were going to like.
He said kind of Don or Oregon mean anyone is saying were going to actually rely on the Constitution and not care whether it's right or wrong, and in the publics view dogma lives deeply with a view, it was said by Supreme Court justices. Remember that the that the outrageous sitter finds you from saying that this was the veiled way of doing the same whether it is to get this idea that these justices should bow to political pressure. They should bow to the pressure of the left and ended because I get that they have no opinion here at the this is thought about it I think that simply by the team justices over 50 years or I should say 30 since Casey reaffirmed that basic viability have said no. Two of them members of this court, but 15 justices have said yes bearing political backgrounds now the sponsors of this bill, the House bill in Mississippi said were doing it because we have new justice. What is wrong with that because the state has to it's absurd to think they pass a law and would date with a have to defend the law. It cost state resources so they are going to analyze. Is it worth passing this law that just because we believe in it. But can we defend it and are we willing to use the state resources taxpayer dollars to go through the long legal process to fight this out. So of course you're going to analyze the makeup of the court. Of course you are and what we get back to break some of these other cases they got wrong will put some numbers to allocate some folks get we will get your phone calls is a lot to say. I think the Titans next couple days I took to get through because the two hours of oil arguably right back.
The American; just as were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom.
Protecting those 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 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 challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ work. We simply would not occur without your generous heart wrenching challenge make protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you today online okay only when 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 with the American Center for Law and Justice defend the rights of life, we created a free publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how you are personally publication includes all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications. 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to as many ways your membership is powering the right mission in life today online/liberal justice South American. Unborn babies to break that people and she tried to make the target here. What did come up is that honestly ugly US law and state laws. Right now, for the most part eight a dead body has more legal protections then unborn child that the way you have to handle the body. The rules in place and meets very serious and this should be but the fact is that the a dead body compared to a new life. Take a listen. Virtually every state defined praying that the literature is filled with episodes of people who are legally and utterly playing tray, responding to stimuli. There is about 40% of people with your touch. Their feet before recoil. There are spontaneous acts but so I don't think that a response to buy a fetus necessarily that there's the sensation of pain that there's consciousness. So I go back to my question. What changed in science to show the viability line is not a real line that a fetus cannot survive and I think that's what both courts below said that you had no experts say that there is any viability before 23 to 24 essays is the fundamental problem viability. It's not really something the rest on science so much viability is not tethered to anything in the Constitution in history or tradition.
It's a quintessentially legislative line. The legislature could think that viability makes sense is a spicy guideline but it's quite reasonable for legislature to draw not in the Constitution that's that's wonderful, but there is a lot that is the Constitution. What were the dresses out of the software can contribute second bib as if at that that's in the Constitution of you can argue the parameters of it, but it's there. This what Justice Cavanaugh was say that abortion is not the word is not used.
She got it figured all these different rights that are geared to the Constitution why they go to add to a dead body, that the life is gone as just a set of arsenic that that's disregard they have off first for human life.
That's the big assignment was a total disregard for human life or a certainly a dim view of what that actually means. So they focus on. This is a religious argument.
They focus on. You know good people bodies move on their stimulator for a period of time and that somehow justifies the taking of an unborn child like me think about that for a moment and then they cited was just a set of 50 justices a partisan, only four of said such and such that the innovative come out against throw some numbers okay. Plessy versus Ferguson separate but equal for African-American black Americans and white people justices thought that was a really good decision.
Dred Scott black American black slaves been freed, but I'm afraid where this was a course in someplace and three others that were not good thirds of a person seven justices thought that was a really good decision, to where they took Japanese-Americans. These are Americans and put them in basically campus six justices thought that was a great idea. 20 justices between them. These three cases, puppies were really good decision. This number game really doesn't work when the decision is wrong.
Absolutely one of the things to keep in mind here is that right to an abortion is not tethered to any textual bases in the Constitution, and so if you look at those other cases, however wrong they were, in terms of the Supreme Court decision.
At least you can argue that the Supreme Court generally speaking, with respect to those cases was arguing over the text of the Constitution. So I think it's incumbent on Justice Soto Mayor to find text with the Constitution in order to support her argument. There is no reason in the world why a state cannot regulate a child in the womb with respect to pre-viability pre-viability still provides a basis in my judgment for the state to waive the interest of the child against the interest of the mother and so if you look look at case after case within the abortion arena. The court basically is basically running around chasing itself in a circle because there's no textual bases for Roby V Wade or plan parenthood.
The Casey both of those decisions are simply made up out of whole cloth, go to the phone calls as good a job in Kentucky online. When a job working secularly on their yeah go quick after? Number one thing that Roberts was incorrect and actually was corrected there any repercussions for that. She's also saying the condo never to things like that. There arguing that the fact that liberty is because the woman to begin an abortion. At what point does the child have the same rights that she does and had that same liberty and we put the tables on them and then do force you know that Allstate help you recognize that link jumping right here because you are complaining a couple things I appreciate the call number one, justices can disagree with each other. The penalty for this agreement. Number two.
This is a question of the unborn child's rights of protection here as well you know it's interesting cc because this was not a total ban on abortion rights and the issue that needs to be addressed is they are completing interests. You have the life of the baby seems to me the interest that Roe V Wade forget that we forgotten for all these years my life. The baby needs to be protected and competing interests with what ever liberty interest liberty interest is fabricated right that the court creating the right abortion to trump the rights to life, the baby and that's what I think. Again, the left didn't want us to address because they don't want to humanize that the baby in the way that the baby has a right that needs to be on protected Justice Thomas rested specifically about the South, take this by 55 some years after we decided Casey we have a case out of South Carolina. I believe involved a woman who had been convicted of criminal, child neglect because she ingested cocaine during pregnancy and her case was posted viability, so it doesn't fit the facts of this if she had ingested cocaine pre-viability and had the same negative consequences to her child. Do you think the state having interest in enforcing that law against her regularly to serve its interests in fetal life and how this particular lifetime to undermine both of those interests.
That's what their time at there's got the attorney for the Center for reproductive rights, and to get some point where they had to acknowledge that there was an interest in the in the child's life is exactly and I believe it which of course they don't because they don't believe that viability has anything to do with any of this message is this just happens to be a convenient way for them to proceed under the light of this case, but that they believe that the life of the child is to be protected at say the 24th week of this and the answers now and you know what, I don't think less is anything wrong with having moral and philosophical reasons to oppose taking up somebody's life. Absolutely.
I mean that is what the laws of our country are about frequently the sacredness of life, the sacredness of liberty and oldest things and what this argument is making is that the child has the same the same rights and liberty and you I thought was interesting though he did get her to admit that the state has some prerogative in this which is that the point that that they are making in this argument partly before the 33 in court and that is this matter should be left to the states that I should go back to the states and of course those on the left the states and plasma taking the matter back to the people and there is a basic distrust of the people on the left.
They do not want the states and the people make the decision regarding this essay.
Thank you to everyone to spend our November matching child support the work they say okay financially since Dave ACLJI.org to get in this case re-briefs us specifically dealing with all the different issues that were addressed this to two hours of oral argument on file by the ACLJ are affiliates support working ACLJ.org financially. All these battles. Gave ACLJ.org will be back to more of your 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 the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We created a free publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how you personally. Publication includes all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood Obama care me in many ways your membership is powering the right 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 covering 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 time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is time for the ACLJ work. We simply would not occur without your generous heart wrenching challenge make protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms. Most today online okay this is the attorney for the Center for reproductive rights.
It's like a legal armor of the abortion industry remembered that is really what this ultimately is about money. It's a moneymaking industry that $1 billion a year) load and that the only player that the biggest player in this world. So Europe is this big business, big lobbying, huge political contributions, big packs, they they are major players on all these different levels so that's kind like it since it was I going up against like big oil or something like that way when you're taking on these cases that that's why they will start making all these I get.
This is the abortion distortion is perfectly on display.
Because the attorney for the server reproductive rights went through this viability of these same attorneys within go and challenge a ban on partial-birth abortion. So on abortion at eight months they would say, what are you viability this is a made up again.
It kind of more of the abortion distortion take Alyssa bite 75 can certainly regulate throughout pregnancy both before and after volatility to preserve life and to preserve the women's health. However, there is other constitutional constitutional issues at stake Francis in the Ferguson case can violate women's fourth amendment right if you make that if you allow that I be that right. There are two giving that way be giving the 50 week if you could say the states can do it, but they can't do it this way will what other way they won't answer that because they really don't believe you said what you said is really important help equip that out is that in our social media platforms to get that up to say Jordan is really the truth believe that viability is a factor. I don't think that the back of the unborn child is more viable at 21 weeks at 15 weeks makes any difference because these are the same lawyers at say the a nine month old baby in utero in the nine-month development during the course of delivery could be terminated.
So she said go back to you on this.
They don't believe this viability argument that there are now even putting forward. They themselves don't believe it.
And I think it says that they see the writing on the wall said there saying okay and I were probably delays on aspect that what we can now argue is at least by handling sediment out just keep going back and back in a heartbeat are protected from conception cell and I think that really, that argument shows they know that they are losing care about the life of the baby.
They don't care about viability care about the life of the woman that I care about money and doing abortion is not Scott York online to ace, secular.
Thank you for taking my call appreciated.
Also appreciate you guys and I do support you and encourage everyone was listening to support you. I am a physician on an anesthesiologist Europe in New York and one of the question that is always entered my mind like that the commenter viability and this is a rhetorical question but if I were to take any of you and put you in -20° weather or not to view any protection but you're not going to last very long and there it has to do with what you know you like that atmosphere everything surrounding you that the same thing for this little theater.
You take it out of the womb was going to die, you take a brand-new baby out of the woman. You don't see didn't take care of and keep it warm. It's what it's going to die. So it's really that really bothers me. I just want to present that art is. This is like this idea.
This viability argument is all its architectural base of all these different factors and that is the point.
This this should go to the states in the deadwood to go. If it if it does in fact go to the states. Groups like the ACLJ and other pro-life organizations will then be able to specifically go to state-by-state advocate the position and have the have that have the debate and not have to did have the debate only in the idea of theoretically but is actually a passing loss. You're correct, and the probable and probable that we don't get to have that debate now because of the way in which the courts have interpreted in this report included as is off driver versus white.
So to me the questions and become here I'm seeing all these headlines that say you know the law may be upheld.
But I'm not seeing him in these headlines Roe versus Wade is likely to be overturned.
So I'm just wondering if there to try to nuance this I carry what what you think about that. I think Justice Roberts writes the opinion I think you are absolutely right.
And so there is a way of upholding the Mississippi law without necessarily directly overruling Roe V Wade. So for instance you could basically allow states to regulate abortion pre-viability when they can demonstrate a compelling state interest in the life of the child that effectively. That means at least in my opinion that Roe V Wade is over rule, then the court could basically suggest that no were not overruling Roe V Wade but yes the state of Mississippi or the state of Alabama or some other state could not intervene that view I think is very, very consistent with Justice Thomas's question concerning South Carolina South Carolina had the right to intervene. Pre-viability with respect to a child when and if the mother ingested copious amounts of drugs that is certainly a hypothetical question that he posed. But even Planned Parenthood essentially conceded that particular point. So if South Carolina can intervene pre-viability.
I don't know why any other state couldn't do the same thing take a final call the daily city in Wisconsin on line 3 Haley Salk, the secular, you're out there permanently praying for you political one could argue that when Casey and Roe weren't decided that they were legislating from the band and being political event. So to alleviate their in my deal. At least it seems that they would be sending things to write as the founding father originally intended. This is basically most political members. The Supreme Court of Justice as they always have a different easily predictable because they like politicians you can predict exactly what you because it's like they run on to get their jobs.
The beliefs predictable are the conservative justices because they come with a philosophy that ultimately where that philosophy will take every time so the one you could have.
You could share philosophy but still get to a different opinion that I think that this is always then try to back like they are somehow above politics as if anybody in the country whose job is based on getting appointed by a politician. It is going to be above politics.
Know your exactly correct and as you said earlier broadcast. They are nominated by Presidents were elected. They are confirmed by Senators who are elected so fixated the judicial determinations are not your political process, but their appointments are in the fact that they were being. The sundresses were attacking the new members of the court me show you how desperate they were. I think this is to be a big win. I don't know how the parameters that position but I'm optimistic before this tomorrow. I function will continue this analysis is always good ACLJ.org as well, or social media pages, share the broadcast continue sugar broadcast people to get this analysis. Your friends and family get the analysis for the ACL to support our work as well financially that's ACLJ.org talk tomorrow.
The American Center for Law and just as critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ challenge for every dollar you donate will be $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ