Radical Left Melts Down Over Supreme Court Argument

Today on Sekulow the radical left melting down over yesterday's Supreme Court argument involving Mississippi's law to limit abortions. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever this is Sekulow. What was striking about the arguments we heard today is that for the most part contrary to all that gaslighting nonsense the disingenuous misdirection that we're so used to is that the anti-abortion side was no longer really hiding their true aim. Maybe that's because the state of Mississippi is so brazen in what it's asking. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. This is not abstraction. We're looking at a situation in which next summer when the court decision is expected overnight tens of millions Americans could be under forced pregnancy regimes. And now your host Jordan Sekulow. Right or right, forced pregnancy regimes. That was Chris Hayes. That is from MSNBC. And it does kind of encapsulate where the left is now that they've had some time, that was yesterday evening, some time to take in the oral arguments yesterday and what is the most important case involving life that's made its way to the US Supreme Court since 1992. And I think that now that everybody's had some time to digest the oral argument yesterday and where the justices, specifically put the three liberal justices to the side for a moment. Look at the six justices nominated by Republican Presidents who are more open to life. The idea of a pro-life argument in court and also this idea that Roe vs. Wade was wrong based off the principles of federalism.

The idea that this should be up to the states. So you look at then from Chief Justice Roberts who was again I think fair to say looking at ways to uphold the law without potentially directly overturning Roe vs. Wade. Then you had Justice Kavanaugh go through a list of cases where the Supreme Court has overturned its precedent. You heard stare decisis over and over and over again. The precedent of the court.

But he went through the list. Again, all the cases where the Supreme Court has decided to change its mind. And again, things change over time. We heard that in the arguments yesterday. This is not 1973.

Where we are with technology, where we are medically, where we are with also women's ability to take control of their own life. That's a different situation. I want to go right to Cece Heil because Cece now that we've had kind of a day to take this in, what we're hearing from the left is the outrage. But I think what that really underscores is that they're very worried about the decision.

Absolutely. I think they see the writing on the wall. They heard the oral arguments.

And finally, the decision that was made in Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and that many legal scholars, even very liberal legal scholars have come against and attacked as a terrible opinion. I think they see that that opinion is possibly on its way out and going to be corrected. And so they're going to scream as loudly as they can. You know, let me go to Andy O'Connor.

Andy, joining us today on the broadcast. Your take now that we've had this kind of 24 hour period. My take on this is that what you said at the beginning of the show is right.

The left is going into a meltdown. Okay, I'll concede to them, the three liberal justices, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor, they've got them. I think Breyer came out of the chute saying right away, were there a stare decisis, why should we change this?

So he's not going to change his mind. But the questioning that was posed by the other justices indicate a shift in my direction that is pro-life. I've listened to it very carefully. I actually listened to it twice, Jordan, because I wanted to be sure that I was hearing what I heard right. And I'm very impressed with the way the court is, I think, going to proceed.

You can't predict, but it looks like that we are going to get a favorable result somehow. I want to take your calls on this too. If you've got questions about yesterday's oral argument, what you're hearing in the media, give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. The importance of this case to those of you who have been fighting and standing with us in the pro-life movement, it cannot be underscored enough. Support our work at ACLJ.org.

Again, give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're 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, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls as well.

1-800-684-31. We've already got five minutes through the first half hour, but this first half of the show, getting back into the Dobbs case yesterday at the Supreme Court. Of course, we're going to be tracking this very carefully throughout the entire process until the court likely to decision will be sometime in June. So I mean, you've got a considerable amount of time, but you want to talk about it while the oral argument is fresh and fresh on everyone's mind.

I want to play this. This is the former President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards. You're just starting to hear these ridiculous. I always say when you start trying to play doctor or tried and tried to make these scientific broad statements, I think it's just, again, a lot of this is hyperbole, but you do need to listen.

Take, take a listen, biting teeth. This is a right that women have had to make the most personal private decisions about their pregnancies. We've had this right for nearly 50 years in America. And she posed the question, which really distilled the whole hearing to me, like what has changed in 50 years? Medicine hasn't changed dramatically. Science hasn't changed about viability. Women's need to be able to control their bodies, to be able to make their decisions about their pregnancy hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is politics.

So, Cece, I want to go to you. I mean, I know from my children and my oldest is five and my youngest is not even one yet. And between that time, things changed. Technology changed. Medical knowledge changed.

And that was that's a five year period, not 50 years. Technology and science have come a very long way. There's in utero surgeries. There are, again, what they can do and how they can preserve and protect life and save life so early on in pregnancies is unbelievable. And those were advancements made in the last 50 years. Yeah, Cecile Richards is completely wrong in that statement.

Again, they're just scrambling for anything that they can put their hands on. Things absolutely have changed since 1973. Just everything you said, medically, in every way they have changed. But the most important part is even if nothing has changed, a bad opinion in 1973 is still a bad opinion today. And so really nothing had to change for this opinion to be struck down, which it should have been. It's just taken 50 years to do that. But we've seen that with other cases, bad decisions, wrong decisions made. And 50, you know, 58 years later, they get overturned and the right decision is made. So she's wrong really on both ends. Lots of things have changed medically since 1973.

But the main point is nothing had to change. It's a bad decision and it needs to be corrected. Andy, I know we'll play the bite in a second from Justice Kavanaugh, but something that you picked up on, too, is this idea that the court has gotten it wrong. As Cece was just talking about, they've gotten it wrong before. Very wrong. And they've corrected themselves. That's true, Jordan. The court has made errors.

They're human. They've made errors in their legal decisions since Plessy v. Ferguson, even before that in cases. Some people would say that the early cases were wrong, that it was our judicial foundations were built upon.

But nonetheless, the court has had the sense to look at the changes that have occurred and to modify those opinions, either reversing those opinions, setting them aside. Stare decisis, which we kept hearing about yesterday, this idea that once cases are decided, they need to stay decided that way, that's a judicially created concept. Courts have made that up. That was not in a law or in a statute book anywhere. Courts have made that up.

And that is not a hard and fast rule. When something, Justice Breyer notwithstanding, by the way, but when something is wrong and Justice Kavanaugh, impressive to me, rattled off a list of those cases in which the Supreme Court has gone back and said, this was wrong, this was wrong, this was wrong. We reverse it, we change it, we supplant it, and we put another law in there. That is exactly what needs to happen to Roe.

Why is that so surprising to the left? We've done that all the time, Jordan. You know, I want to play it for people so they can hear what Andy's been talking about.

It's a couple minutes, so stick with us. This is Justice Kavanaugh, yesterday's oral argument. History helps think about stare decisis as I've looked at it and the history of how the courts applied stare decisis.

And when you really dig into it, history tells a somewhat different story, I think, than is sometimes assumed. If you think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this court's history, there's a string of them where the cases overruled precedent. Brown v. Board, outlawed separate but equal. Baker v. Carr, which set the stage for one person, one vote.

West Coast Hotel, which recognized the state's authority to regulate business. Miranda v. Arizona, which required police to give warnings about the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present to suspects in criminal custody. Lawrence v. Texas, which said that the state may not prohibit same-sex conduct. Mapp v. Ohio, which held that the exclusionary rule applies to state criminal prosecutions to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed the right to counsel in criminal cases.

Obergefell, which recognized the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In each of those cases, and that's a list and I could go on, and those are some of the most consequential and important in the court's history, the court overruled precedent. And it turns out, if the court in those cases had listened and they were presented with arguments in those cases, adhere to precedent. In Brown v. Board, adhere to Plessy.

In West Coast Hotel, adhere to Atkins and adhere to Lochner. And if the court had done that in those cases, the country would be a much different place. It would be a much different place, Andy, when it comes to civil rights. It would be a much different place when it comes to your protections if you are facing any kind of criminal charges.

That's exactly right. Being a former prosecutor for over 40 years, I can tell you that Miranda v. Arizona, the Escobedo v. Illinois case, Mapp v. Ohio, all those that talked about the criminal cases I'm intimately familiar with, that Justice Kavanaugh said, they all changed what had been decided by the Supreme Court before in those cases, Jordan. The Supreme Court said, we made errors in those cases. We were wrong in those cases. We need to change that.

We need to correct that. We need to state what the law is. And in the current situation, there is no constitutional right to an abortion. What they rely on is this liberty interest. When asked the question, the person representing Dodd's Medical Abortion Clinic said, well, when Justice Thomas, I think, asked her, well, what do you background this on? What constitutional principle do you say stands for abortion?

All she could say was a liberty interest. Liberty from what? Liberty from life? What about the fetus? What about the child? No liberty for that child? Only liberty for the carrier of that child? So Justice Kavanaugh, and I was so impressed with the litany of cases that he rattled off, he was right in everything that he said. Absolutely correct, Jordan.

You know, I wanted to play this to your CC because this, again, you know, it came up, these distraction issues. Like you said, ultimately, if what Mississippi is really arguing and what, you know, all of us have agreed is that this decision in 1973 and then reaffirmed in 1992 was wrong. It was wrong judicial decision. It was bad application of the law, bad application of the Constitution. And we've called it abortion distortion, that nothing else gets treated like this. And ever before where states have such little role and the people have such little role in being able to put in place common sense regulations even.

But then it goes to this. I mean, this idea that you're just a bunch of, and I've seen this throughout the toxic world of social media, that, you know, you're a bunch of theocrats trying to push this. Take a listen, because Justice Sotomayor gave weight to those who were trying to make this divisive issue in our country, saying if you're not like an evangelical, somehow you can't be pro-life. How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It's still debated in religions. So when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect the life, that's a religious view, isn't it? I would step in because, again, it's not so much, these three justices on the left, we know where they're going on this case, you can predict easily, but Cece, again, with that idea that you've got to be some religious theocrat to somehow take this view that a life after 15 weeks in Mississippi's case should be protected.

Yeah, and that's exactly right. They don't have an argument, so they want to shame and, you know, try and belittle anybody who could think protecting a life is worth doing. And there's medical, there's doctors that say when life begins, it's medically proven, has nothing to do with religion.

It's a scientific fact, but she's trying to distort it to make the abortion distortion that abortion is such a right, we can't get rid of it. We're starting to see some movement, too, in circuit courts already on life cases. Listen, this case will have huge impact on many of the cases, including cases we're working on right now. We'll talk about that when we come back. We're also going to be talking about second half hour. Guess who's bringing back the Remain in Mexico policy?

You won't really believe it. That was a horrible policy. We'll be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're 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, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. And it is, if you heard me, the Biden administration is going to announce, yes, that they are going to reinstate that controversial Remain in Mexico policy. We're going to get into that more in the second half hour of the broadcast.

Let me, again, focus in on life. I want to go to Than Bennett in Washington, D.C. Than, the tone from politicians, fairly predictable, I would say, on the conservative side. Obviously feeling good after yesterday's oral arguments and cautiously optimistic. And on the left, trying to foment a lot of outrage. But what I will, and this is my honest take, it's not just a partisan take, I was just kind of looking to see, did the outrage actually match the American people? And I think what has happened on this issue in life is that while the Democrat party is tied to where they almost, they do exclude people who are pro-life from even joining the party if they agree with the other issues.

But when it comes down to it, ultimately, it doesn't seem like the American people share their outrage at all. Jordan, I really think the American people of all stripes on this are well ahead of the political class in Washington, D.C. at learning the lessons that we've learned in the 50 years since Roe and the 30 years since Casey. I think they've seen the developments that maybe Justice Sotomayor and Cecile Richards and that bite you played haven't learned. I mean, Jordan, as I continue to reflect on the arguments, I'm really left with the takeaway that the left is just out of merited arguments on this.

And so they're resorting to, you know, attacks and they're resorting to ideological positions. I keep coming back, Jordan, to that exchange that Justice Sotomayor had where she said, look, the lower courts have never been able to find a legal expert that thinks that viability happens before 23 or 24 weeks, like we thought back in the 70s when Roe was considered. Jordan, the American people know there are literally scores of human beings walking the planet, talking, walking, breathing who were born before that point. And, you know, I think, Jordan, if you'll indulge me, one of the reasons I keep coming back to that exchange, it was less than a year ago that our family provided care for one of these babies. She's now over a year old.

She's in an adoptive family. She was born before that point of viability. So for Justice Sotomayor to sit up on the bench and to lecture the attorneys that no one could possibly dream that viability begins before this point, Jordan, she's not just, you know, wrong in her opinion.

She is wrong on the facts. And I think the American people are well ahead of her. I think they're well ahead of the political class and, quite frankly, the political class in Washington, D.C. that would like to see Roe upheld.

Jordan, I think that's why they're nervous and I think that's why they know in the end they're going to lose on this. And it's a huge business for that political class. It's a lot of donations for the Democrat Party. I mean, these are billion dollar a year interest groups and businesses, like with Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights and the list goes on and on. But, Cece, this idea, too, it came up in the oral arguments and what Thanh is talking about, this idea that the people making this argument about viability and where do you draw that line don't even believe that that line should be drawn.

Yeah, that's absolutely right. First of all, the people that are arguing that viability is the line are the same people that argue you should be able to kill a baby up till full term and maybe sometimes even after they're born. So this point of them saying, oh, yes, viability is absolutely the standard.

They don't even believe that. They think it should be way past viability. And then you have Justice Blackmun, who actually wrote the opinion in Roe v. Wade, and he's even admitted that the viability line is completely arbitrary.

That baby has an interest in life before viability and after viability, and the mother's interests don't change before or after viability. So it's just an arbitrary point that the court has laid out and it's, again, completely unconstitutional and it needs to be changed. Yeah, I mean, to me, and to underscore the importance of it, Andy, I will say on the left I saw people say, oh, they've been working 50 years for this. But that's the truth. And organizations like the ACLJ founded in the late 1980s and the early 90s, so for most of those decades, too, have been fighting.

Fighting to educate the legal community, educate potential future judges and justices on the court, and educating, like we do on this broadcast, the American people. It's not like anybody's been hiding their position on this, and yet the left tries to take, oh, this is the theocrats spending 50 years. Who is looking at America in 2021 and saying this looks like a theocracy in our country?

I mean, it's absurd. Well, it is absurd, but that's the only argument they have to fall back on is to say you're being ruled by religion, this is a theocracy in the medieval, in the early medieval style, and therefore really there is, this is a fake, fake persona that you're portraying. But let me just say, as you know, Jordan, I've just come back from Strasbourg, where our European Center for Law and Justice operates out of in France, and we have had tremendous success in countries in Europe on this abortion issue. Particularly, may I say, with Poland, which has held that Polish, that illegal abortion is illegal contrary to the Polish constitution, regardless of what the European Court of Human Rights has said. And the E.C., the A.C.L.J.

's European branch, the E.C.L.J., had a great role in making that decision and embarrassing the European Court, because the country of Poland said, I don't care what you say, European Court of Human Rights, it's against the Polish constitution, and that's how it's going to remain. So these are constitutional and legal questions, Justice Sotomayor, not religious questions, I'm sorry. You know, I want to go to the phone. Steve in Colorado, on Line 2. Hey Steve, welcome to Sekulow, you're on the air. Hi, thanks for taking my call.

Thanks for calling. I have a couple of comments to make. One is that viability is really an artificial construct, and it's dependent on certain necessary conditions which are assumed to be present, and if those aren't present, no one is viable, not an adult, not a baby after birth, and not a baby pre-birth. And I think the best evidence of that is when a woman goes to the doctor and she thinks that she's pregnant, the first thing they do is ask her when her last menstrual cycle was, and they look on their little wheel, and assuming, automatically assuming that that's a viable child, they tell her what her due date is. Then they tell her to take prenatal vitamins in order to make sure that the proper and necessary conditions are going to be present for this already viable baby to develop fully. And so the whole concept of viability is troubling to me. The second thing I wanted to point out is that back in the 1950s, a couple of researchers named Bernstein and Borkowski recorded EEG, in other words brainwaves, from fetuses as early as six weeks and three days.

They recorded their recordings of very obvious brainwaves, so even if you are trying to apply some standard of viability, six weeks would be perhaps even too late to catch every bit of brain activity, and of course by then there's a heartbeat as well. The second doctor in a row yesterday and today who's called in because he had so much trouble with that part of the argument, I will say too, talking about six weeks, Tennessee's law on six weeks has just been, we have a blog up at ACLJ.org, but it's going to be heard en banc at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. A lot of these cases will be dependent on what the Supreme Court ultimately decides, but we continue the fight, we're involved in that case as well, we're involved in an informed consent case out of South Dakota, represented the state, the governor there, in that law. So all looking towards the Dobbs case, keep with us for the second half hour coming up, go to ACLJ.org and support our work.

At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. First half hour of the broadcast, we focused in on the Dobbs case yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the first direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade. It's also a 15-week abortion.

The restriction there would prevent abortions after 15 weeks in Mississippi, 15 weeks in the pregnancy. That case has now been heard before the Supreme Court, fully briefed already. We filed three, I'm holding my hand now, three briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court from the ACLJ and affiliated entities. And we kind of got back into the, a day later, kind of how are people interpreting the oral argument. So if you missed that first half hour of the broadcast, check it out later. We've got it posted on our social media.

If you're listening on radio or steer sex sim, it's always posted on our Facebook pages, the J Sekulow page, ACLJ page, and of course you can always go to ACLJ.org. But there is a second, and it's surprising, and again, I wanted to spend some time on it. This is the broadcast today. We've talked a lot about the crisis at our southern border.

And it kind of ebbs and flows, right? The media will focus in on it and when there's these big surges and the kind of media moves away from it. But now we know Wall Street Journal breaking this news that the Biden administration has reached an agreement with Mexico to restart what was called a controversial Trump era immigration policy known as Remain in Mexico. They are, so they're, and they were also known as the, they're really called the migrant protection protocols. These again, this significantly changed our southern border and the Biden administration ended that policy called bad policy.

Well now guess what restarts on Monday? Migrants are going to be sent back to Mexico. Yes, the Biden administration has readopted one of the Trump administration's most important policies when it came to dealing with the crisis at our southern border, you know, head on. And so to me, this is a huge moment because it is the Biden administration admitting they got it wrong.

I mean, right away, I mean, there's no way around it. They ended the policy and then now who knows, we don't know how long they've been back in negotiations to renegotiate the policy. But they obviously, they're following the Trump playbook exactly to reinstate Remain in Mexico.

Right. There's a lot of disingenuous about this whole issue with the Biden administration. Part of the background though, and the reason they're restarting it is that a court ruled that Missouri and Texas sued the Biden administration over canceling this program.

He actually canceled the Remain in Mexico policy his first day in office. Missouri and Texas sued. And the judge has said, OK, they did not go through the proper administrative hearings.

The Biden administration did not. So he's ordered them to reinstitute it. So they're doing it on the outside, reluctantly trying to play to their left wing base. But in reality, I think they realized we have a real issue here.

This is a crisis. And this actually worked. The thing that's interesting about Remain in Mexico is that the country that was most in favor of it was Mexico. They lamented the fact, they complained actually to the administration on the day that he canceled it. And there are a couple of reasons why Mexico likes this policy. First of all, they get some aid from us to try and keep the people housed and fed while they remain in Mexico. It is a humane program because it lets people remain there and they're fed and housed and clothed and they're kept safe while their immigration hearings are taking place. But the other thing that Mexico liked about it is because whenever we had this instituted, illegal border crossings at our border fell dramatically because of this.

But not just that. Mexico was having trouble policing their own southern border because people were coming in from the Northern Triangle countries and disrupting life in Mexico. So Mexico liked the program because it also decreased illegal crossings on their own southern border. And even though this was working, even though it was lauded not just in America by some people, but lauded in Mexico, the Biden administration stopped it anyway, which is insane. Because right now we're sitting, Jordan, at 1.66 million people that have crossed illegally that we know about, that we've confronted since Biden took office. You will love that, of course, the administrations are blaming us. There's a court order out of Texas. Also, we're forced into having to do this. But I just want to remind you, President Biden called it dangerous and inhumane. And they're reinstating it.

So now they're blaming a court. We'll talk about that when we come back on Secular. For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. What I love about the situation that the Biden administration finds themselves in, maybe because the polling is in the 30s, the approval polling is in the 30s and you have all the staff shakeups and it's kind of like one thing after another that they never really get their hands on. And that's not a good thing for our country, but they can't even admit that it's not just a court order because there's all sorts of things. That they did administratively in the program correctly and that if you're going to do that, you've got to go through the process. Well, instead of doing that while this court order has been sitting out there, they're reinstating it. But if you listen to Jen Psaki today, it sounds like, oh, we're being forced to do this horrible policy.

That's not really the case. We'll explain it in a minute, but take a listen. The administration announced today that the U.S. and Mexico have reached a deal to restart the Remain in Mexico program that was started under President Trump. This is something that your administration is fighting in court. The President has railed against this policy. He's called it dangerous, inhumane, saying it goes against everything we stand for as a nation.

Just wondering if you can reflect on how he feels about having now to see this move forward now. Well, as you noted, Mary, Secretary Mayorkas also and the President have repeatedly said that this program has endemic flaws. It has imposed unjustifiable human costs, pulled resources and personnel away from other priority efforts and failed to address the root causes of irregular migration. Deeply flawed.

That's why we stopped enrolling individuals in the program on day one and subsequently issued a memorandum in June terminating the program. But when the court said that's not the right way to do it, instead of saying, okay, we're going to do it the right way, they're reinstating it. And West, as you point out to me during our break, they renegotiated. They made some changes. So it's not like what she's just saying.

It's not like they're just going back to square one because they're forced to by a court. That's kind of how they're trying, I think, to blame it to the left who doesn't like the policy and to try to justify. He called it inhumane and unjustifiable human cost.

I mean, the list goes on and on. Dangerous was used by President Biden. But they've actually updated it to make it even more stringent. More stringent and actually more effective and, in my opinion, more common sense. A couple of changes among several that they've renegotiated with Mexico. First of all, not only will single adults be sent back across the border to remain in Mexico while their immigration hearings take place. Families with children will also be sent back. And again, they're fed, they're housed, they're clothed while their immigration hearing is scheduled.

Because in the past, if you came across with a family, they just let you in. And so that's a change. The other thing, though, Mexico has now said they will not only hold people on their side of the border who come from South America and the Northern Triangle countries. Mexico has said that we will hold anyone who speaks Spanish on our side of the border because what is happening, we're getting people not just from Central and South America. People are coming from Cuba and from all over the Caribbean.

So Mexico is saying when they come from those places, we will also hold them if they speak Spanish. So there are some significant changes going on here. And positive, positive changes. I mean, again, I wanted to play the second bite from Jensaki because you wouldn't know that because the administration is not trying to sell this as a positive.

They're trying to say we're forced, our hands are forced. But as we're saying, they made changes. Changes are actually good. I mean, they made the policy stronger. That's good. They took what was working, made it stronger. Particularly since Jensaki, you would never know that for the White House.

Bite 23. As you noted, though, we are in a situation where we're under a court abiding by court ruling. And so that is what we are working to implement at this point in time. There are some key changes and exemptions the Department of Homeland Security announced this morning and can speak to.

But our view of the program has not changed. We're working to implement under the court order. Working to implement it under the court order. I mean, to me, Thanh, it goes to, it's a real issue.

It's a humanitarian issue. We were finally able to, I want to take people back. This idea, people mocked, like Operation Warp Speed, they mocked President Trump for this idea that this could ever be implemented.

And now here they are, as Wes was explaining. Yes, there's a court order, but instead of following the administrative, the court also laid out how you could remove the policy. You can't force them, but the way they did it was wrong. And instead of taking a procedural issue, and if they really believed it, going that way, they made changes to actually beef up the policy. Yeah, I think this is just awfully convenient for them, Jordan. I mean, I think they've come to the realization that the migrant protection protocols remain in Mexico and the rest, that they work, Jordan, but they couldn't find a way to politically reinstate them without paying a political price. And so they're sort of blaming it on the court.

Oh, you know, it's too bad. We have to reinstitute it. When Jordan, they know, because they've seen the numbers, they saw the crisis that took place over the last several months. They know that they're the proper, proper policies to put in place. And I'll just remind listeners, Jordan, I mean, this is why we had that Freedom of Information Act in place to ask why in the world you would stop a program that was actually helping the crisis, help stop a program that was working. And by the way, stop a program that they still haven't re-implemented, which is Operation Talon, which removes sexual offenders who are illegally present in the country.

Jordan, all of those went out the window and all of them are working. Now, I'm grateful that the migrant protection protocols were in place, but I just want to remind folks, this is one of the reasons that we engage that work behind the scenes, because it brings to light, it reveals the truth about what is working and what is not. And it really puts pressure on an administration to do the right thing, even if begrudgingly. Now, Jordan, I will say this, an awful lot of harm was done in the meantime while this program was on the sidelines. And it's a good thing that this court order has sort of given them the exit ramp.

But look, I'll just tell it like it is. This was just a convenient way for them to say, oh, that was working and it's time to put it back in place. I think that, again, folks, this is a very important move because it's ultimately convenient for them, but it's also a policy that works. And, Andy, that's what ultimately people have been dealing with. I know the audience, it's like crisis after crisis after crisis after crisis, when you turn on the news, if you still turn on the news. But the idea is that there were, the Trump administration said, acknowledge the crisis, that was one, they had no problem acknowledging it. And two, that we need to be creative about ways to fix the problem and to improve the situation at the border.

And honestly, for people who are, this is impacted, which is all over the country, they don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, they just want things that get done. Whether the court kind of nudged them here a little bit, but as Stan said, they kind of fell into this where they could still blame a court, but utilize a policy that actually worked. I think that down deep inside, Jordan, the Biden administration is thankful for the court's decision. They opposed, of course, the return to Mexico policy simply and totally because President Trump was in favor of it.

No other reason, no other reason. There was no basis to oppose the policy except Trump came up with it, therefore it had to be bad. So they were challenged in court and I think they're breathing a sigh of relief saying, well, how wonderful this is, we can go back now to the return and remain in Mexico policy and we can blame it on the court. And we're going to tweak it a little and negotiate a little and do a little more talking with the Mexicans about this policy, which really was working. But we're going to say the courts are forcing us to do it. That's playing to the left best, of course. And we're doing it unwillingly, but really we want to do it. In point of fact, I think the Biden administration is breathing a sigh of relief saying, thank the Lord that we have this court decision.

Because you know what? Trump was right and it was working. And it was one of those ideas, and we see it time and time again, where first they were mock, you know, mocked for just talking about the policy. I remember when President Trump said, you know, we're going to have Mexico keep these people and we'll work out, you know, a deal, we'll work out an arrangement.

And people said, you've got to be kidding. They're never going to do that. And of course, if you incentivize it and pressure and use your strength as a powerful country, guess what? They announced remain in Mexico.

Oh, no. So he's got solutions to a border crisis that no one's ever been able to figure out because Congress can't get the job done on it. So use an executive branch and the executive power there to set policy that works.

And then it was, oh, well, now that it went in, it's inhumane and dangerous. I mean, now they're back into re-implementing remain in Mexico. Now, as they had said, there's still policies like Operation Talon when it comes to trafficking that should be re-implemented as well. But they're also still utilizing the Section 42 emergency powers, which the left's been highly critical of, to be able to expel people immediately without any kind of hearing based on, you know, not even allowing them to make any kind of claim because of the COVID situation. And so there's this emergency situation and they have the power to do that. They haven't changed that.

They haven't changed that. They, again, so while they don't want to spend any attention on it and I don't think, with all the news around Vice President Harris, I don't know who's in charge of the border right now. I mean, it seems like we have a Department of Homeland Security. We have a vice President who was tasked with it. We have Jen Psaki speaking to it more than anyone so far in the administration. But I want to take your calls on it as well in the final segment of the broadcast. I think, again, this is a crisis that we should be able to come together with as a nation and have a unified policy on how we're going to secure our border. And if you can come up with creative ways to do that, working with our allies and working with those who border our country like Mexico, that is great.

Instead of demonizing the other side on it, mocking the other side on it. And again, now you see a policy like this coming back, so I want to take your phone calls on it. 1-800-684-3110. Do you think enough attention is being given to the crisis at the border?

1-800-684-3110. If you want to weigh in and be on the secular broadcast, we'll be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're 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, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular, the final segment of the broadcast. Let me go back to Thay a minute because Thay and you mentioned our FOIA and I know we're doing some work to kind of refocus that one. But specifically, part of our policy practice is that when these administrations come in and they've demonized a policy that's been working, but then try to change the policy without going through the right process, part of our legal practice and our government affairs practice, what was going on there? Taking the partisanship out because I think they got, first they thought it would never happen. President Trump could never get the deal with Mexico. Then he gets the deal with Mexico so they've got to demonize it. Now it works and so they get a court that instead of trying to file emergency appeals to get a stay and things like that, while they're in court, the court says, hey, you didn't wind this policy down the correct way.

Now they're beefing back up the remain in Mexico policy. But it's why that we do the work that we do to expose these issues and also to focus in on the policies. It's a terrific example, Jordan, of why we ask people to partner with us when we engage in a number of efforts, really. I mean, FOIA is sort of the most visible one when we file a Freedom of Information Act request and ultimately lawsuits to get information about why decisions are made. In this case, we wanted to know why a policy that was protecting the American people was ended, Jordan. So we did engage in FOIA. We did engage in fact-finding. We did engage Congress to try to find out those answers. And Jordan, there are a lot of different tools that we use.

I mean, we've been very transparent with our listeners on this. This is sort of a messy process. You win some, you lose some. A court says you can't have this, you can't have this. You have to narrow your request. You have to negotiate. But at the end of the day, Jordan, what we got today is exactly what we're after. We're trying to get transparency on these issues. We're trying to shed sunlight. We're willing to use every legal tool available to us to accomplish it.

And at the end of the day, what were we after, Jordan? We were after getting this policy that was protecting the American people back into place. So the way I look at this, and, you know, the administration can put whatever excuse they want on it. They can put whatever reason they want on it. They can blame the court order. Jordan, the policy protects the American people. We need it back in place.

It's back in place. I view that as a win, plain and simple. I also view it as evidence that this strategy is working and we will continue to engage it. And so when we come back to an issue like this, I just wanted to kind of lay that out. This is why we ask people to support that work. It can seem monotonous at times. It can seem to take a long time. And it can seem to have, you know, success mixed with failure in there.

Jordan, this is the result it can produce. The policy's back in place, and that's a win. Yeah, I mean, Wes, it's, again, there are sub-policies. I know we're a very partisan country right now. It feels very divided. But it's like just because one President is able to come up with a policy that works doesn't mean, you know, you've got to demonize everything.

I think that maybe the Biden administration, but maybe it's a wake-up call for everybody. Is that you don't have to come in, and I don't see Republicans usually doing this. They either say, we have to get rid of everything that the previous President did. Yes, there's certain issues why people elected you to make changes. But policies that are working and you're just trying to secure the border for everybody, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat with these issues. It shouldn't.

And maybe it gets us back to that kind of place. Because there are some issues that shouldn't have to be so partisan when you're dealing about people's lives and dignity and human beings. Yeah, they let their reaction to Donald Trump cloud their judgment, and that hurt the United States of America. You can't overstate the seriousness of the border issue. You look at the national security aspects, you look at the drugs coming across, the human trafficking, the sex trafficking, the public safety issues, now the health issues with COVID. It is a very serious issue, Jordan. And yet, up until now, this administration has been like, obviously, dramatically out of touch with the seriousness of this issue.

And I'll give you a couple of examples of how out of touch they are. Recently on Fox News Sunday, Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, was talking to Chris Wallace. And he said that, you know, Wallace says there's 10,000 to 12,000 people a day crossing the border.

And what about that? And Mayorkas replies, well, we're just following the system. We're just following the system by bringing them in at that time and letting them go. To which Wallace said, yeah, but 11 million people have never come back for their court date when you gave them a notice to appear over the last decade or so.

11 million people. To which Mayorkas says, well, the system is broken, but we're following it. And I'm thinking, really?

The system's broken, but you're going to follow it. The other thing that I noted here recently, John Kerry was making a speech in Mexico not long ago, about three weeks ago, and he was trumpeting the parts of this bill before Congress that includes a lot of the Green New Deal kind of issues. And here's what he said at a speech in Mexico. When we switch to electric vehicles, there are going to be a lot of good paying jobs right here in Mexico.

And I'm thinking, how tone deaf can you get in light of what's going on with the economy in America? But this administration is truly out of touch. There are literally billions of dollars of equipment from the construction of the wall that are laying in the desert, deteriorating in the sun because, again, a reaction to Donald Trump, we're not going to build the wall. And yet it's costing us $5 million a day because we already signed the contracts with contractors. $5 million a day not to build a wall that was having a good effect.

And meanwhile, billions of dollars of equipment is not just fencing, it's cameras, it's wiring, it's all kinds of the high-tech equipment that is literally laying in boxes on the ground in the desert because of the reaction of this administration against the Trump administration, not what is good for America. Andy, we heard that he's the Secretary for the Department of Transportation, better known as Mayor Pete. He's doing an interview about the gas prices because it falls under his department. And then he says, well, if you don't like paying high gas prices, like what Wes said, go buy an electric car.

I mean, there's a couple of things there. Electric cars so far are pretty expensive. There are some companies coming out now that are bringing the price down, but they test, I think, the Model 3. There's also supply chain issues with cars. I mean, getting vehicles, I mean, so there's two issues there. One, like you can just, anybody in the country can say, oh, if you're someone who, where the gas goes up a dollar or $1.50 a gallon and that's hurting you, you're not able to go purchase an electric car to somehow alleviate that issue. That's exactly right, Jordan.

That's the anomaly in what he says. If you don't want to pay $3.54 for a gallon of the lowest grade of gasoline, which 25 years ago, by the way, was $0.70 a gallon, but now it's $3.54 a gallon, go buy an electric car. Well, that's just the idea. I can't afford an electric car and I can't afford gas, so what do you want me to do?

You know, I'm caught in the middle. But again, it's back to what we have been saying. We demonize the very salutary, good, effective policies of President Trump with respect to gas, with respect to the border, with respect to so many other things, simply because Trump came up with them. And so we've got to do a scorched earth policy when we come in, scrap everything that President Trump did, just because it was President Trump, and implement no alternative to it. As Wes Smith said when asked about it by Chris Wallace, Majorca says, we're following the system and that's all he falls back on, we're following the system.

A system that says you're supposed to report back to court and 11 million people never have and never will, is that your solution to the problem? I think that's foolish. I think as Stan said, to finish out the broadcast today, it's a victory. They're not going to call it that.

Obviously they've decided to act like they're being forced into this. But as we explained, they've beefed up the policy in some positive ways, but they don't want to take that praise. But you know what, we can claim that this is a victory. It's also a victory if you were a Trump supporter for this idea that these policies worked. So Remain in Mexico is being re-implemented on Monday. On Monday, not in two months, not next year, Monday.

That's how quickly the administration is acting and I think also, unfortunately, it probably speaks to just how bad things have gotten at the borders we were discussing. We will talk to you tomorrow on Secular. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.