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

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Texas Abortion Case

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
December 10, 2021 12:00 pm

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Texas Abortion Case

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1082 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


December 10, 2021 12:00 pm

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued a ruling that allows Texas' lifesaving law S.B. 8 to stay in effect as the Court also allowed a lawsuit to proceed that challenges the law. Jordan and the rest of the Sekulow team give their legal analysis of the ruling. This and more today on Sekulow .

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Focus on the Family
Jim Daly
The Todd Starnes Show
Todd Starnes
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Family Policy Matters
NC Family Policy

Breaking news today on Sekulow as the Supreme Court issues a decision on the Texas abortion restriction. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. This is a very different court than even the one that greeted Donald Trump when he was elected in 2016. The fact that Anthony Kennedy is gone, the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is gone and replaced by very strong conservatives means that a lot is changing very quickly. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. As John McCain always liked to say, elections have consequences and the election of Donald Trump had a very big consequence of the Supreme Court. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Alright, welcome to Sekulow. So the Supreme Court, just about a little more than a month after hearing the case, it was Whole Women's Health versus Jackson. This is the Texas six-week abortion restriction. The fetal or child's heartbeat, that is what the law is, but it was unique because the restriction can only be enforced at a civil level by private parties. So it's a very unique law.

We filed a brief in support of the law. So it goes before the court. So what did the court do today just briefly? Well, and we're going to get into this in more detail.

We're also going to get into some foreign policy issues with Secretary Pompeo in the next segment of the broadcast. So share it with your friends and family and we'll get our legal team to give you analysis on this because it also plays into the bigger case, which is the Dobbs case, which will be awaiting from the Supreme Court likely until June. And that case, of course, is on a direct challenge to Roe versus Wade.

But here is the interesting part of this. You can look at it two different ways. On one end, the abortion industry is going to say, well, at least we can still challenge this law preemptively. That means before someone who's a private party tries to bring an action against the abortionist or someone at the abortion facility who violates the law.

Remember, that's what it's about. You have to it has to be a it's a private action in civil. It's not criminal. That's done by the state or the federal government. This is a civil matter. And so you say, OK, this person is violated this and it will happen. And ultimately, then, you know, can they challenge the constitutionality of the courts? You know, they can they can file these challenges, even they can file the challenges before so they can challenge the constitutionality of the idea of the law.

But here's where things have changed significantly in the Supreme Court. In the past, a law like this, if it made its way to the Supreme Court, that would have been a huge if. There's no way the Supreme Court would have sent it back to Texas in the past and said it could still be enforced.

So you heard me correct. The Supreme Court today said that that Texas law, which is very unique because the private right of action takes the state out of the enforcement. Is still the law. The Supreme Court did not stop.

They didn't enjoin this law pending the legal challenges. So this is a new world for those of us who have a pro-life position. And it's certainly a new world for the abortion industry because something like this, a novel new approach legally did not just get stopped by the court. In the past, I could have said maybe 90 percent of the time without the justice that President Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed, I don't think you would have seen this kind of position from the court. Now, does that mean this is settled?

No. But by the time any of these legal challenges and Planned Parenthood holds out hope, oh, we could still challenge it. And Texas didn't want that preemptively. They said, you know, after the fact, if someone tries to bring the challenge, sure, you can always challenge that, but but not preemptively. So that's where the abortion industry finds some hope in this. But let me just say they are not used to going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and getting a rule that says, yeah, you can still bring legal challenges, but here's who you can bring them against.

And you brought them against the wrong people. And we're not going to stop this law from going into effect. So what what is this really about? Well, by the time this case, these challenges from Texas would be heard through the appellate process, the legal process, we're going to know the court's decision in Dobbs, which is going to be, you know, it's going to inform all of the states on what they need to do. The ACLJ is at the forefront of these issues. We need your support. We have a matching challenge this month of December. You can double the impact your donation at ACLJ.org.

That's our matching challenge month of December. And again, for all these cases in the case of South Dakota, we represent the state. Donate today at ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back with Mike Pompeo. 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, playing 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 Secula. Folks, we're going to start taking your phone calls in the third segment of the broadcast. 1-800-684-3110. Do you agree with the Supreme Court here in the Texas decision?

And do you believe the Supreme Court is going in the right direction on life? 1-800-684-3110. Start getting your calls and comments in so we can get to those in the third segment of the broadcast in our second half hour as well at 1-800-684-3110.

Our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is joining us now. Secretary, just right off the bat, this is an interesting decision from the Supreme Court. We get the breaking news out of the Texas law, which is a very unique law. What is, I think, unique here is that in the past, typically laws like this, if they made their way to the Supreme Court, that was probably not going to be a good outcome for those of us who support life. And usually they would be enjoined by the court while legal challenges were presented and moving forward. And we heard from the court today, this law, while they will allow legal challenges to move forward, Secretary, they are going to also allow the law to remain in effect.

Jordan, this is very different. And I think it portends how many of the members of the Supreme Court are thinking about the Dobbs case, the big case that was heard a couple weeks back. They're going to allow this law to stay in effect during the time of its litigation.

That is different from how the Supreme Court has handled this before. It has real ramifications for those of us who believe that every life is sacred. It means that our work must continue. And even when the Supreme Court makes its decision in Dobbs, even if they overturn Roe, it means that the hard work of protecting the unborn everywhere and always will be right on top of us. So I hope everyone who's listening will realize that work like your organization has been doing for decades, the need to do that work will continue. We want the Supreme Court to get this right, to finally overturn Roe after all of these decades. But in the end, we have this responsibility that is bigger. And I'm thrilled that they're going to allow Texas to continue to uphold what the people of Texas asked for through their legislature, their law.

That is a good thing. And I hope the people of Texas will use every opportunity during this time when the law is in effect to protect the unborn in every way that they can. There's that new piece up at ACLJ.org on the Dobbs case specifically, the challenge to Roe vs. Wade is called the Supreme Court must finally undo the injustices of Roe vs. Wade. And you wrote, there's no more time should have to pass for Americans to dedicate ourselves to building a godly or more generous society where every human life is not seen as something expendable when convenient, but rather is recognized as indispensable and precious. Do you think we're seeing a shift, you know, you're with a lot of the grassroots activists around the country, but also even in Washington, D.C., the members of Congress that are there, a shift into a culture that values human life, including the life of the unborn child?

I think it's very mixed, Jordan. I think that the majority of the American people are coming to see that this is the right approach, that if you really want equality, if this central idea of every human being being created in the image of God is true, as most Americans believe, then you can't take the life of the unborn, but there's a fraction. There's a fraction of the American population who is even today more wedded to their outdated notions and this idea somehow that there's this right of a woman to terminate a life. And so I think there's a split. I pray that the vast majority of people will continue to see this in a way that will protect the most at risk and do so in a way that is in the deepest traditions of America and that we will support these children not only in coming to life to being born, but we'll support them throughout all of the things with a culture, an American culture that helps them live in our nation in a way that we have done for 245 plus years now. And I encourage people to go check out that piece up at ACLJ.org from Secretary Pompeo on, again, the Supreme Court must finally undo the injustice of Roe versus Wade. Turning to foreign policy we had earlier this week, President Biden and President Putin, they held their video call to discuss the Russian military buildup on the Ukrainian border.

We've been getting it on the broadcast this week. Where do you think that stands today now that they've done the call, we've spoken to our European allies, you know, it feels like this could happen at any moment, but where do you think it stands? Jordan, the goal here isn't to end up in a hot war with the Russians. The goal is to protect and defend European sovereignty, a nation that has chosen, Ukraine has chosen not to be a part of the Soviet Union, not to be part of the Russian orbit.

We need deterrence to do that. People forget that it was Joe Biden who opposed providing defensive weapons systems to the Ukrainians during the duration of the Obama administration. Putin knows that.

He hasn't forgotten that. The reason that you're seeing him be so aggressive, the reason he is threatening Ukraine and Georgia and the other satellite states, even the Baltic countries in the north is because he sees a weak leader in the United States. He saw what happened in Afghanistan.

He saw the green light, his pipeline, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. We need to reestablish American leadership, provide the resources to the Europeans so that they can defend themselves and to deter Russian aggression. If we get that right, if the President will simply step forward and do that, I'm convinced you can convince Vladimir Putin it's not worth the candle. Sadly, I'm not sure President Biden is up to that task. Yeah, this next question was more about the Biden side of the administration, the current administration, because Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor, he told the press after the phone calls with both Putin and our European allies that, quote, President Biden looked President Putin in the eye and told him today the things we did not do in 2014. That was during when they invaded Crimea and annexed Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine, and that conflict has continued.

But we are prepared to do now. In 2014, the Obama administration sent MREs and blankets, but no lethal assistance to Ukraine. That changed under the Trump administration at the time you served as secretary of state. Do you think that it's just words from the Biden administration? I know they're talking, you know, these massive sanctions, which I think if they had buy-in and were serious about it could make an impact.

But your assessment about this administration's willingness to actually kind of hold these lines? I'm skeptical, Jordan, but it matters less what I think than what Vladimir Putin thinks. And Vladimir Putin, when staring at the evidence of the actions of this administration to date, surely has to doubt whether that will be executed in a way that will materially impact him.

That will really impose costs on him. And I hope that they were able to make a credible case. I hope he was able to, President Biden was able to demonstrate that he's got our European allies alongside him and that they are serious and that they have demonstrated that they're willing to actually pull the trigger on these things. If they have, if they've shown that, then Vladimir Putin will certainly have to calculate whether it's worth it for him.

But, you know, my guess is his book of evidence is pretty thin on risk. Yeah, I mean, that's, the Putin side, it almost feels like that decision's been made, whether it's an attempt to do it internally in Ukraine or externally with military force. But is there some glimmer of hope for people listening that if those sanctions somehow this administration was for real about, they actually were going, he believed it, that that could prevent Russia from taking this kind of action?

Absolutely. I absolutely think he is, that Putin in that sense is weighing the relative cost. So I think if they were able to demonstrate the resolve and the seriousness, that they could convince him that it's not worth it. And we could support the Ukrainians in a way that would give them the capability to make the cost even higher for Vladimir Putin.

It's doable. We did it for four years. You know, they didn't expand beyond Crimea that they took under the Obama administration during our four years. They didn't threaten in this same way. It was because you had leaders that had showed resolve and determination, incredible response in the event that Putin acted in a way that was inconsistent with American interests.

I mean, things have changed significantly from the Biden and Obama years. And when you were serving, because we did provide the aid, it's not that, I mean, the Ukrainian military has been honest about it. They say, you know, alone, if we get invaded, we could slow down the invasion, I think is what the top generals have said.

The retreat can be a little bit more organized, but they have been able to, as you talked about, for four years under the administration you served in, and President Trump says when you were Secretary of State, it was a stalemate and the Russians were not attempting to advance. The other thing, Jordan, that we did, you're right about that. We provided the defensive weapons systems to them. The other thing we did is we worked with our European partners. This is a European challenge that the Germans, the French, the Northern Europeans, even the Europeans in the East all need to collectively make clear that they're going to have a significant response to what Putin is intending. So we need our friends and allies, the ones who are truly on the front lines, to lead the charge on this effort. That, combined with American resolve, can deter Vladimir Putin.

I'm very confident about that. Let me encourage you folks, go read the new piece up, it's in our social media too, but it's at aclj.org by Secretary Pompeo, the Supreme Court must finally undo the injustice of Roe vs. Wade. Secretary, it's always a pleasure to have you, to weigh in on both the issues domestically and foreign. Let me encourage you folks, we want you to weigh in as well.

Give us a call at 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. Shifting back to Texas and the case from the Supreme Court, do you believe, we'll provide our analysis, but do you believe this is a good indication from the Court that things have changed significantly because of the new justices on the Court, even though some other justices, Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor don't like acknowledging that the Court has different opinions when you put new justices on it. 1-800-684-3110, if you want to give us a call and be part of the show, we'll start getting those calls in the next segment of the broadcast, so just a couple minutes from now, and do you feel like the country is moving in a pro-life direction?

You know, as you talk to people from your communities, your towns, I really want to get your thoughts on this because it's so much in the news and there's so many people talking about it from both sides, but where do people that you talk to stand on this issue, because we're told everybody's too nervous, too scared about overturn Roe vs. Wade. Give us a call, 1-800-684-3110 and support our work at ACLJ.org. It's a matching challenge month, you can double the impact of your donation if you're in a financial position to do so at ACLJ.org.

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 vs. 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. 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, and we're going to take your calls.

1-800-684-3110. This decision out of the Supreme Court, which we're going to break down for you, obviously, listen, it's a procedural case that was initially before the court. So are the proper parties here? Can you challenge this before it's enforced? So the abortion industry, they're going to say, well, at least the Supreme Court said we can challenge it before it's actually enforced. So what are the civil actions?

And we'll continue to explain that. But I think the bigger picture, you've got to step back and acknowledge that before there was a shift on the Supreme Court that we've had in the last four years, four or five years, that this case probably wouldn't have even made it there. It could have just been a paragraph decision, no oral argument, and ultimately probably had very little hope. Not that you would have fought.

Of course you fight. You fight through all the levels, and Texas is willing to fight here. But the difference here is that while they said, yeah, the abortion industry can bring their challenges, they limited who they could even challenge to four Texas agency heads that are related to whether it's nursing, pharmacy board, HHS, the state HHS, and the Texas Medical Board. Because what they tried to do here was sue the judge. They also threw out the federal challenge, the Biden administration's challenge, the way that they moved forward as well. So they threw that out as premature. They told the abortion issue, you sued the wrong people. They did lay out, okay, who you could challenge. But the bigger takeaway that I see for the big picture is that they didn't stop the law from being enforced. So as of right now in Texas, this is the law. You can bring a civil action.

I want to go right to C.C. Hallis, senior attorney with the ACLJ. C.C., my takeaway from a procedural case, one, we're going to wait for Dobbs. That's obviously the case that will really determine and give these states some clarity on how to act. But second, in the past, if it had made its way to the court, they certainly, if they would have said, had any questions about a law like this, they would have enjoyed it right from the start.

Yeah. And that's exactly what we talk about all the time with abortion distortion, which is basically, you know, if a law that deals with abortion comes before the Supreme Court, it really doesn't matter about facts. It really doesn't matter about procedure. It really doesn't matter about law.

You're going to protect abortion no matter what. And we didn't see that in this case. In fact, we saw the exact opposite. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion and he specifically said that this court can't disregard limits on the jurisdiction of federal courts. And so they allowed the law to stay in effect, which typically they would never do. But they did allow it, like you said, to go forward against the Texas medical licensing officials. And then also the 14 state courts that cases that are pending can go forward.

But again, we didn't see the abortion distortion. We saw that this court actually followed the law. They're letting the Texas law stay in place and letting it go through the correct court procedure below.

And Harry, to me, that is the takeaway. It is exactly what Cece said. The abortion distortion issue, the fact is we were all used to a time where if you were even making your way through court, these laws were always stopped from even going to effect. You never even got to see them go into effect, to see what the outcomes, to see if the parade of horribles that the abortion industry tries to argue in court was even come to fruition.

And they would always stop it. At some point, usually even earlier in the case, but they didn't do that here. And I don't want to say that predicts Dobbs, but it certainly shifted their reasoning.

I think you're correct. And so I would agree that what we have seen in the past is a demonstration of the court's willingness to surrender to what might be called the abortion distortion. Abortion was seen previously by the court as an absolute right, an extra constitutional right that trumped all other rights, including the right to life. So now I think we have a more balanced court. And so the court is now willing to consider arguments. And these arguments, in fact, are advanced.

Why? Because of advances in science and medicine. And so we can perceive what an abortion really is.

It is truly the extinguishment of a beating heart. And so I think now at least the court is willing to consider some restrictions on abortion. And it's very possible in the Dobbs case they will consider Roe v. Wade. If the pro-life position ultimately wins in the Dobbs case, that's the case out of Mississippi, that again is a 15-week abortion.

Texas, six weeks, 15 weeks there. But Dobbs will be able to inform. A state like Texas, states like South Dakota, where we're representing an informed consent case, they're going to finally have some clarity, I hope, from the Supreme Court so that all of this is not just a constant legal battle. And they can legislate. And they can do what the people have elected them to do. And that may mean that it's very different in California than it is in Texas or Tennessee or New York. But the people directly represented by the people, the state legislatures, the governors, they will be making those decisions.

And they'll be informed. And also, we'd be able to shift the efforts from focusing, and I'll go to Thanh on this, where it's been Thanh almost 100% the federal court issue. If things change with Dobbs, we'll be able, groups like the ACLJ, to go right into states and use the same experience in Washington, D.C. to work with legislators on the legislation. So whether they want to match Mississippi, whether they have something unique that they want to do, but also start making the case to the people inside the states about why it's important to protect life.

Yeah, Jordan, the state laboratories would kick into high gear on the issue of life. And look, the fact that Dobbs is sitting out there right now, yes, you're of course correct that this case decided today was largely technical and procedural. But Jordan, I still think it's a very significant win for the reason that you point out right here. I mean, number one, the hundreds or even thousands of lives that will be saved in the state of Texas because the law remains effect in the interim.

That's an absolute win. But Jordan, you know, I have great hope that Dobbs is going to allow states to reengage this. So Texas had to get creative this first time around. I'm glad they did so, Jordan.

But you know what? Regardless of whether they win or lose in the end on this sort of novel mechanism that they have in place, when that decision comes down, we're going to be on the other side of Dobbs. And if Dobbs goes the correct way, and even if Texas loses this initial case, they'd be able to come back and pass a more traditional ban. If they had done that the first time, Jordan, on this side of Dobbs, exactly what you described would have happened. They would have never gotten in court, the law would have never been able to be in effect, and all of these lives would not be safe. So this at least buys them the time to get on the other side of Dobbs.

And then Jordan, I would just say this. We at the ACLJ, we're getting ready for that, hopefully, for that post-Dobbs world because there's going to be a number of states on both sides of this issue looking to legislate. I think that's appropriate, but Jordan, we want to make sure we make the case for life to those states and so we see as many as possible move in the right direction.

Alright folks, second half hour coming up. We'll reset it, we kind of explained, so that for people who have just been joining us, if you join while Secretary Pompeo is with us, who's our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, we talked a little bit about that, we got into Russia. But we'll break this down for you, where the Supreme Court, what this decision was about, where it stands and how it might impact other states, but also this fight for life. I want to ask you this and give us a call at 1-800-684-3110 so we can talk to you on the air. And this is, how important is this issue to you? Do you still vote on this issue of life?

Is it your number one issue when you look at a candidate or you look at policies? Give us a call at 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. And now that this debate has been renewed on Roe vs. Wade, are you having those discussions in your community? Give us a call at 1-800-684-3110 and as always, if you can support our work financially, this is a great time to do it. You can double the impact of your donation at ACLJ.org.

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. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow.

If you are just joining us, let us just kind of set the stage for you. A big decision out of the U.S. Supreme Court this morning, it is a procedural matter, but it involves abortion. So the fact that it hasn't followed the similar pattern of previous cases just is an indication of how the court has changed. And where you see, so this is the Texas case. This was the private right of action. I want to go to CC Howe because, CC, right off the bat, this was a unique law because it's not the state enforcing an abortion restriction through state mechanisms or criminal court. It's a civil right of action, a private right of action.

If an abortion provider is violating this six-week restriction, someone who has some connection to that procedure and knows they violated that so they can bring a civil case and the penalty can be up to $10,000. So it's not putting your body in jail, but it's a unique approach. It was passed by the state of Texas to fit it all the way to the court. And at the court today, where they in the past have said, you know, when the legal challenges move forward, we're not going to let this law go into force, they took a different approach. They said, well, let the legal challenges move forward preemptively, but we're not going to stop the law. Yeah, and that's what we've seen really through the whole process with this law. Like you have said, and it needs to be repeated, when an abortion law would go into effect that would be limiting abortion, we would typically see it enjoined or stopped immediately.

It would not get the chance to go into effect. This has been different with this Texas law from the beginning. Even though there have been a federal judge that tried to enjoin it at the appeals level, they let it go on. And now we see the Supreme Court saying yes and continue.

We have connection issues right there with you, CeCe. But let me just jump in. This is the difference. The fact is that in the past we would have fought this out.

We always would find it out. You never know with the Supreme Court, but probably wouldn't have even made it there. And if it did, it probably would have been a paragraph or less, maybe even a sentence from the court in the past just stopping, preventing this law from going into effect.

I think that's my big takeaway. I'm not surprised that they're allowing challenges to it. It's a very unique law, very unique, because it provides this private right of action. But in the second place, they usually would never allow these to stand. You would just immediately, these laws would have been put on pause. Oh, you're absolutely correct, Jordan.

We would not have seen it arrive at the level that it has arrived at. But that is because of the, what I would call the sea change in the Supreme Court that has been generated by the President, appointments of President Trump in this case. Justices Alito and Thomas are predictable, yes. But now the Trump appointees have come to the fore, and I think that that's an important aspect of this thing. There is nothing wrong with allowing the pre-enforcement challenges to take place. That's the procedural posture that the Supreme Court has taken.

Go ahead and challenge the law before it goes into effect, litigate it in the lower courts. But I think the thing that is really remarkable in this case, Jordan, is the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States, contrary to what it would have done previously, said the law remains in effect. While these challenges in litigation proceeds in the lower courts, that's a big thing. And I think it presages in many effects, in many ways.

I'm not going to predict what the Dobbs case is going to be. But it presages and sets the stage for what I think is going to be hopefully a good result in that process and in that case. All right, folks, we come back for the break. We'll continue to break this down for you. This is important. It's key for the ACLJ. It's one of our top issues, obviously, you know, religious liberty or constitutional rights.

And, of course, tied directly to that is the right of the unborn child and their life. And we've been fighting on this issue since the beginning of the organization. And it's been a difficult fight, but you stuck with it. Those of you listening to this broadcast have stuck with it. And you're starting to see the fruits. You've got the states to engage and they've been doing that to put the cases in to attempt to get clarity so that they can actually legislate, do their job as legislators.

That doesn't mean that everyone will be the same. But it will break that and we'll explain that more too when we come back for the break. 1-800-684-3110. If you want to join us on air, support our work at ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back. 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, how it'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. This is Whole Women's Health versus Jackson, so that is again the Supreme Court. I'm trying to take a complex opinion on procedural matters for you.

Just kind of break down the two points. The two big points are one, they don't stop the law. This will enrage the abortion industry and its advocates because this is a new world for them.

They used to be able to go into court, stop these laws, even if you passed a good law or something unique, like Texas did something the courts maybe haven't considered before in this matter. But because of abortion distortion and their reasoning, it just would have been stopped. And we all knew it would take a significant shift on the court, both in justices, their minds, and also just the idea that Roe versus Wade for a generation of Americans was pounded in like, this is it, if you touch this, you are ruining women's rights. That's kind of how it's been. That was the way you had to look at these battles. And it was really all federal, so you're always looking at the battle.

And that's still the case right now. But what the Supreme Court shifted on here is they didn't stop Planned Parenthood. I think they would have wanted to say that these challenges from the abortion industry cannot come until this law is actually, you've actually seen someone bring the right of action, see what happens in court, and then you can challenge it. So I understand why Texas said they would have preferred that. But it's not so surprising to me the Supreme Court, because this is such a novel law, the Supreme Court is saying, listen, you can bring challenges.

You brought them against the wrong people here. They also kicked out the federal challenge, so they kicked out the Department of Justice. Again, this would not have happened in the past. They would have always found a way for the DOJ to stay involved at the federal level, and preventing really the further discussion, which is what policy is good at the state level. If the Dobbs case, which will ultimately likely come out early summer, if the Dobbs case allows Mississippi to put in place their 15-week restriction, then your state and your legislators and your states can then take a real look, especially all those legislators who said they're pro-life, and governors who ran as being pro-life. And they can look and say, you know, in the past if they had said, well, you know, there's some states that will put this forward, but there's going to be a lot of legal challenges, let them kind of do it, maybe it's not best for our state financially, that won't be the case anymore.

You will also be able to hold your politicians' feet to the fire on this issue. For those who have run over and over saying they're pro-life, pro-life, CC, we'll go right into the states and be able to say, listen, you know you can put this kind of restriction in now, and you're not going to face decades of legal battles. Yeah, and states, the Supreme Court has said that states have a compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn baby. And so now we will actually see the states being able to protect that life. And like you said, some states will protect it, maybe even at conception, at a heartbeat. When they, you know, when a baby can feel pain, I mean, each state will get to determine that. It will not be this judicially fabricated right to abortion, that it does not exist in the Constitution.

It will be something that the states can decide for themselves. Significant pressure on the court. We know the pressure is mounting because of Dobbs.

I want to play this flashback. This is Senator Schumer, he's the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. The threat he made to the justices on the court, especially the new justices on the court, take a listen, because now that they're considering, if they come forward with Texas, this was Gorsuch. He wrote the opinion, and you'll hear his name. And now they're considering this much bigger decision, which will be really whether, again, they can overturn Roe vs. Wade, they can also gut Roe vs. Wade. You can basically, whether they come out and directly overturn it or, again, make it no longer this super precedent that overrides every law and every state decision. But the threats are real.

Take a listen by 6. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. In Washington, this is the pressure campaign. These justices, we heard from the liberal justices, especially in Dobbs, they were above politics. The politicians wouldn't go to the steps of the Supreme Court on the left and make threats like that if they really thought that was the case. That being said, taking that step out, that pressure in Washington and the pressure to potentially be excluded from, you know, in their personal life, it could have an impact.

It's no joke. And so for people that are watching these cases, these justices, though they shouldn't have to feel that pressure and it's inappropriate what Chuck Schumer did, that is the tone that they are living under right now when it comes to the Dobbs case. The pressure is intense, Jordan, in that particular case with Leader Schumer, I think there was actually a personal safety component involved.

I don't think there was any excuse for what the leader did. But look, as we sit here today, Jordan, I mean, we can say conclusively it did not work. I mean, if you look at this opinion today, the four justices that agreed in Holt, Jordan, it was the three Trump justices that he referenced there in that quote, as well as Justice Alito. Now, Justice Thomas would have gone a little bit further. The chief justice wouldn't have gone quite that far. But those were the four that were in the main holding of the court.

And so it did not work. So kudos to Justice Kavanaugh and Barrett and Gorsuch for just sort of casting that aside and looking at the law and making a decision. I'm confident they will do the same thing in Dobbs. But Jordan, your point still has to be well taken, because here in Washington, I will tell you, as we get closer and closer to a decision, what we saw last week when Dobbs was heard will continue to intensify. The pressure will ratchet up and we need to make sure that those who are advocating for life continue to focus on the merits of the law, because Jordan, we are winning on this. And one last thing I would say, being in court, even in Texas, even in this lawsuit where they're being allowed to proceed, this is not a very comfortable place for the abortion industry to be, because they're having to go into court and they're having to make arguments like, you know, that most significant sign of life that all of the medical community looks at, the heartbeat, whether you're preborn or once you're walking around the face of the other, never mind that sign of life. Jordan, that's the argument they're having to make in court.

It's not a very comfortable one for them to do. And in the past, it didn't matter who they brought the lawsuit against. You know, they would find a way to find them procedurally correct because of the idea that Roe and the abortion distortion that we talked about, it just overrided every basic legal principle. And Wes, you talked about also the cultural shift is coming with the legal shift. And we all knew that was part of it. People had to be educated. You know, if you go back to Roe versus Wade, it's a very different country. That came up in the court. They do weigh those cultural factors and shifts in our nation.

Yeah. You know, what we're witnessing, we've known for several years that culturally more and more Americans are pro-life and they have real reservations about abortion. It troubles them. But what we're witnessing is not just a sea change culturally, but a sea change legally about how Roe v. Wade is viewed and abortion writ large. You know, science has taught us a lot.

It used to be the issue centered around viability. You know, when Roe v. Wade, in case they were being argued, viability, can they survive outside the womb? Now we know about human life within the womb and about the ability to feel pain, about heartbeat, about the development of the human brain in that baby.

So science has taught us a lot. And because of that, we're witnessing, like I said, not just a cultural change that is pro-life, but a legal change so that it becomes a moral issue. And what we're looking at from a legal perspective is the sanctity of all human life. And so what happens is not just religious concerns. And, of course, the religious community has been very, very pro-life for a long time. But now you have people who are pro-life who have no religious convictions. They're pro-life because of what we've learned, the legal and the cultural shift about abortion.

And so people who are not religious at all are turning and saying, hey, this is wrong. We need to take a pro-life stance. And the next thing with the broadcast, we get more into the politics of it because there's a whole – that's a whole issue is that – and where I'm focusing on is if these cases move in our direction, there are a lot of elected officials who have been running that they are super pro-life for many years.

I mean, that's usually one of the top four issues that you'll see on any kind of campaign material. So you'll really be able to say, okay, now that you've said this, we want to see action. And the action won't just be theoretical challenges in court. And, Harry, that's what we've been used to is that it's a challenge that you've got to make – you've got to make the legal argument, but these laws never had a chance to even see the light of day. They never got a chance to actually work so that the parade of horribles that gets brought before these courts is not just hypothetical.

I think that is correct. And so I think at the end of the day, in all likelihood, if the court rules against Planned Parenthood in Dobbs, we will be able to see whether or not politicians on the right are prepared to take a stand. And so I think on this particular issue, there is no neutral ground, and I hope the American people will see politicians step up to the plate and do the right thing.

We certainly do not believe there's a neutral ground on this issue. We'll get into politics more. So we've laid out this legal procedural matter for you. How will this impact the politics of it? How will this impact the work of the ACLJ? We encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. This is our most important month of the year, December, and you can double the impact of your donation. We have a matching challenge, so it's a great time to support the work of the ACLJ if you've done before or it's your first time. Go to ACLJ.org to donate today.

We'll be right back on Secular. 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.

This is 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. 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. It's a little bit of a preview, and I don't like to get ahead of the Supreme Court, but we also plan at the ACLJ for all the different scenarios. And if Mississippi is successful, and we found three briefs in that case, including a brief from the European Center for Law and Justice, which pointed out how outside the norm the U.S. is when it comes to abortion, only the U.S., North Korea, and China, you heard that right, have no gestational limits at their national level, or at the federal level, if you will, on abortion. You think France is liberal?

12 weeks. U.S., no restrictions. Now, the court has allowed some restrictions on late-term abortion, but there, it's not that we... We don't do that in the U.S. We're not supposed to. That was done federally. But that's it. And that is late, late-term.

That doesn't match. It puts us outside the norm of the entire world. And then if you look at who would allow even the next level down, there's only seven countries. So it is not the norm to allow abortion without restrictions, treat it differently than other medical procedures, treat the abortion as different from other doctors, and they don't have to have the same rules, and they don't have to have the same facilities as other places where there'd be an invasive medical procedure, and a risk to the person getting the procedure themselves to protect the women here. You know, I want to make it clear, this Texas law and laws we've afforded never go after a woman in this situation. It's the abortion providers themselves, the abortions themselves who are violating the laws knowingly, and that's their job to do. But if we see some clarity, finally, from the court about the state's role in this issue, the ACLJ will go out in those states and take all of those pro-life politicians.

And let me play this from CNN. This is Jeff Toobin on CNN this morning, because this is the reminder to those politicians as well, by 15. As John McCain always liked to say, elections have consequences, and the election of Donald Trump had a very big consequence at the Supreme Court. Unprecedented four years, three justices. And we're seeing now, but then we get to go, and this is what the ACLJ should do, go state by state to make the case.

That's the thing, Jordan. What I see in the Supreme Court of the United States is that we are moving away from the federalization of abortion. Look at what the Supreme Court did in this case today.

It dismissed the case brought by the United States Department of Justice against the state of Texas and said, you United States government are out. Now, the private litigants can proceed in the federal court, but what that does is it sent, I think, a tremendous signal that the federalization of abortion and the role of the federal government, the central government, is going to be out the door, in my opinion, through this Supreme Court. And we're going to look to the politicians in each state, as you said, and hold them accountable because they run on platforms of pro-life. Now they're going to have to move in their legislatures, just like Texas did, just like Mississippi did, just like other states are doing. And we're going to hold them accountable in their state legislatures for what they do in terms of abortion and life.

Those are the things that I think are being signaled by this Supreme Court decision today. Let me go to the phones, Jenny in Louisiana on Line 1. Hey, Jenny, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Hi, good to be on the air. So grateful for all that you guys are doing.

Thank you. I was telling, I was just going to tell you guys that I am a development director for a Pregnancy Resource Center here in Monroe, Louisiana, a resource center that's been serving our community for 42 years. And we are in a state, Louisiana, that is considered the most pro-life state. And yet during the quarantine, our governor would not shut down the abortion clinics as non-essential.

So we had, as you know, Governor Abbott did shut down Texas. So we had people coming in from all different places. And just in the quarantine alone, we had 800 abortions here. And so we are extremely passionate about all that you guys do and all that is going on, mobilizing prayer, standing. I mean, just this month, we have been amazed how the abortion-minded that have come in, we usually have only clients that we set appointments for. And yet last week we had two abortion-minded and three abortion-minded that just walked in this week again, and they all changed their minds last week.

And this week we had three, and that's not common to have that many. So for us, we see in the spiritual, we see the battle ramping up as this is happening and how desperately important it is for people to get on board with all that you're doing. And every voice matters.

Every voice matters. And Ginny, we've done a lot of work with pro-life pregnancy sitters. They've tried to shut them down in California and make them advertise abortions.

And so we've seen the hostility. We've seen it in New York City. We've seen it at the state level in California.

You might be a state that's more friendly. But I will say this, and again, to me, these pro-life pregnancy sitters that Ginny works with in Louisiana, we do a lot of work. We've done fundraisers for them. We'll go into states and speak on their behalf because they will be that much more important if these restrictions are allowed to be in place.

There will be women who are looking for one of their options. They're in a tough spot. And the great thing about these organizations, like she said, they have, like us, they've been doing the work to prepare for that day. Yeah, the pregnancy resource centers have been at the forefront of protecting life. And they realized early on that if a woman sees her baby through an ultrasound, she almost always changes her mind.

And I think that's what we've actually seen with these court cases coming to courts and the Supreme Court. More people are rethinking abortion and realizing this is a baby and what are my options? You know, before maybe they thought their only option was to kill their baby. But there are plenty of options and the pregnancy resource centers have them. They can talk to a woman and tell her everything. And not only do they help the woman beforehand, I know they even do it afterwards. If you have the baby, they will help with supplies and with a car seat. So hopefully these organizations will see an influx of women coming who don't just make the decision to kill their baby without realizing they do have options and they won't have to live with the death decision that they make, that they can actually choose to have the baby and still have a very, very good life.

For me, for the ACLJ, it would open up entirely new. Now, it's not that we've been working with the pro-life apprentices, making sure they can stay open in states where they're hostile and just keeping the doors open. But if the shift happens, you're going to need more. They are going to need more resources, of course. But they've established themselves in these communities. But like Jenny said when she called it, they're starting to see people just kind of show up.

The debate is changing. They don't automatically just go to the abortion clinic and have the abortion. Even though they might think that that's what they want to do, they want some more information. And as we've gotten in our documentaries and seen, the abortion industry doesn't want to provide that information.

We're working on a case out of South Dakota right now in the state. It's an informed consent case. It's about, again, making sure that women are informed so that if they want to have an abortion, the state's not saying it's an absolutely strict ban and they've been waiting for the case out of the Supreme Court and the job.

But they're saying, you know, get informed. Just like you would with any other medical procedure, we have to have informed consent. And the abortion industry challenges. They don't want that because, like you heard from Jenny and you hear from people walk through those doors and they see the child in the ultrasound, that's it. The decision is made.

And other options are available to make sure that child is protected. So there's going to be that much more work to do at a very different level. We're preparing for it at ACLJ. Support our work at ACLJ.org. You double your impact throughout the entire month of December with our Matching Challenge.

Talk to you. 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.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-07-10 08:56:56 / 2023-07-10 09:20:31 / 24

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