The Beginning Of The End For Roe v Wade

Is the beginning of the Roe versus Wade ACLJ ECL J prepare filings live from Washington DC questions right now. 1-800-684-3110 and now your hose secular we are to your phone calls at one 800-6812. What we're talking about is potentially the beginning of the end for Roe versus Wade of this doctrine set up by the Supreme Court give the 1970s that is been fought out in the states is been fought out at the federal level, but there is not been the case was quite on point on reversing overturning the precedent in Roe versus Wade which is a serious challenge at the Supreme Court with the Supreme Court if they do decide to reverse previous precedent. Those are about the biggest cases available, but they also are the most uphill challenges that the most difficult child is there's a reason why it's bid since 1973 to get a case like this to the US Supreme Court. Mississippi has done it through a 15 week up a ban on abortions after 15 weeks I could pay capable abortion bill either got exterior except is there but there Atty. Gen. specifically asked for Roe and Casey cases to be overturned for those precedents to be overturned. We have a total of three different clients and briefs that were working on at the ACLJ on different angles. Even Europe is where your Europeans are flawed justice because we know even some of those judges and justices on the left that love looking European law and yearly law is way more restrictive on abortion in the United States. The United States is the most aggressive abortion stance in the world. As far as allowing abortion into the point of delivery. So what happens here is you.

This is the first case and in my lifetime where there has been a direct real challenge to the underpinnings of Roe versus Wade when it's a direct real challenge Roe versus Wade has been the law of the land for 50 years called stare decisis and not any condom OR senior counsel. Let's go over what that is for moment because were asking in our brief also for that precedent to be overturned. What does starting to sizes mean reciting the bleeding understanding of exactly what were dealing with here. They started to sizes is a principle of law. It's a judicially constructed principle that says case is based on the same facts in the same law should be decided in the same way. In other words there give some stability to the law, which means that if you have an expectation that certain things are going to happen in certain ways you can rely on the law in a better fashion to come up with a more equitable result of that, all cases that are actually the same illegally the same. I decided the same, but that is a judicially created law that means they can change the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong several times in the past. The Dred Scott decision Plessy versus Ferguson harmonic sewer. The interning of Japanese Americans and has come out later and said we got it wrong.

Stare decisis does not permit us to continue the wrong that has been work. We hope the same thing happens in Roe V Wade we say the Constitution does not confer on this court document, the Supreme Court rulings a status supreme to the Constitution itself. In other words, the court is not supreme to the Constitution. So when the court makes a mistake and is any dissent.

Plessy versus Ferguson, to be a bit holistic cases. They overturned themselves.

This is not written in stone, so to speak, and that's why this is the real challenge on this issue and that's also why Euro-Americans and of law and justice is working on three different breaks including our European Center for Law and Justice that we filing a major brief in this case as well. This is a kindred from Mississippi's brief, the Supreme Court, the ground, the question becomes whether this court should overrule the decisions of Roe and Casey.

It should stare decisis case for overruling really Casey is over welding. They are egregiously wrong. So Mississippi by again defending their 15 week abortion ban, but directly put it issue Roe versus Wade in the Casey overspent parent case, it's now heading to the US Supreme Court. We come back we'll walk through the different briefs were filing different briefs such as one of the ACL days filing with the Supreme Court support our work ACLJ matching challenge double the impact your donation ACLJ.org that's ACLJ.org Drabek, the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith.

Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100.

This is a critical time for the ACLJ the work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission life today online ACL data/US Supreme Court is Dobson versus Jackson's women's health organization. This is a challenge by abortion again of the abortionist in Jackson, Mississippi against the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks at the end they are challenging directly. The precedent in Roe versus Wade and I Casey versus Planned Parenthood about viability that science and technology has come along way. There were, there is a reason why the Supreme Court has upheld bands on partial-birth abortion. I would states enacted that at the federal level because technology has come a long way. That was a while ago now 20+ years ago. Now technology is come that much further.

So there is the tech there are different arguments of Mississippi is making but were also then taking this this opportunity this unique opportunity where the party at issue, the state most of the time of this would've happened. The state would not wanted to put it issue directly overturning Roe versus right.

It would've ignored almost like this. Mississippi said no.

We have to do. We can't keep playing this game of of try to work around a flawed a holding by the Supreme Court of flawed precedent in Roe versus Wade in the Casey case. So there's that issue. There is there is a get the issue again. The scientific issue. There is a precedent issue that always been brief, set differently as you. You know, the justices who don't want to changeover suite on the left all their gonna want to point to directly as precedent stare decisis we can get involved right we just talk to Andy about stare decisis, but I'm holding to the basement as 1/3 one being prepared by Europeans, and upon justice cc Hiles a senior counsel for us and is very involved in these issues and very involved in our work overseas, especially our European Center for Law and justice cc let me go to you on this first year, you know, this is the first direct challenge to Roe versus Wade had on that we've seen, especially with the conservative Supreme Court and I will find out how these courts view, stare decisis, and again, if you're just joining us, that is the rule precedent, the President can be wrong, as we said what your sense of where this goes and then we'll talk about the seal debris from what Jordan has stated that the liberal judges will out last stare decisis opinions have we got it followed Roe V Wade helpfully the conservative judges will follow the Constitution and as we have stated never again there is no right to abortion found in the Constitution and Roe V Wade has been asked by legal scholars on the left and the right synopsis conservative legal scholars limit legal scholars as a bad decision. This is a great opportunity for the court to get it right will deliver senior counsel and really determines my work on the Supreme Court issues that are in the ACL date has been for over 30 years. Walter we see in our brief.

The Constitution does not confer on this court leading the Supreme Court rulings a status supreme to the Constitution itself.

Again, that's kinda battling the stare decisis as you begin us an overview of of what were saying in these breaks. Well, one problem with a prerecorded accident and it is the Constitution or whatever. It has become a part of the tech that's not a constant content.

Of course, the only way to amend the Constitution is by either state convention or by proposed amendment from Congress. So it is up in court says we have a decision. We know it's wrong, Belinda followed anyway than what they're saying is our rulings take a higher priority than the Constitution itself, which is itself an unconstitutional approach to take the points that that I think is important to convey the court also pointed out that there's an irony here in that the Supreme Court prior to Roe versus Wade had no problem with the abortion being part of that state law homicide and nine other state regulations will versus Wade itself did not follow stare decisis that will be really weird to say what we change will automatically 1973 and now we have to leave that unconstitutional decision in place. As a matter of ability.

It's interesting to me is back to the stare decisis issue and that is this dread Scott where the Supreme Court said that black Americans were entitled to three pips recognition not full recognitions as human beings and as citizens.

That's number one. That was the Supreme Court United States Komatsu were Japanese Americans were interned in the Supreme Court said yes they can be obviously wrong. So when the Supreme Court gets it wrong which they do. There has to be a way to connected starting to slices does not put the courts opinions over the Constitution does not describe the sizes.

As I said is a judicially created principle doesn't exist in the Constitution. There is no such thing as Tiger's.

I cannot find those words in the Constitution of the United States. That is a judicially created principle that says case is decided in the same on the same facts and on the same law should be decided in the same way by that does not stand in the way of the Supreme Court or any court for that matter, saying we decided this case wrongly to begin with, there is no constitutional right to an abortion. It doesn't exist in the Constitution. We have gotten it wrong and we need to say that we have gotten wrong, just as when the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

On the basis of they were a threat to the public because of the Japanese ancestry nonsense I and the same thing with the Dred Scott decision about a black being, three, four, 3/5 of a wider something like that of Plessy versus Ferguson saying that schools can be separate, but they have to be equal. You got a wrong you change it you declare that you were in there and you go the right way. The constitutional way cc what unique thing is is that at this time around for the ACLJ CEC LJ. The Europeans are fine just as our director there are great war. Contact us about the EC LJ prepare your brief to inform the justices on the state of the law in Europe and the inside the European Union and in answer really I think it's probably surprising to a lot of our listeners that in the European the in the European convention on human rights. There's no right to abortion. Europe is not more liberal than the US when it comes to this issue. In fact, much more conservative as we point out in this brief 45/47 member states of the European Union prohibit abortion before 22 weeks so they already prohibit partial-birth abortion in the vast majority of European nations just like he said less people in Europe is more liberal than the United States on abortion. They are not courts basically operate states that how the European courts deal with the issue of abortion and how the 47 member states of the Council of Europe have a legislate on abortion and we point out that the European Court has stated that the European convention on human rights and its right to life does apply to the unborn baby and answer all of the legislation in the 47 member states to comply with that and asked me see the vast majority 45 of the 47 member states.

The Council of Europe may restrict or prohibit abortion.

Well before the point of viability well before this is this the first time ever that the justice's and we are kind of directly II think going at the left because the left is for time and time against Mr. Justice Breyer specifically has awarded two years use European mother will bring in European norms. What are the international right of the international norms here in this other developed nations around the world and our closest allies and partners around the world is that they think this is barbaric. You don't allow it is exactly right. And you rightly say Justice Breyer Justice Breyer is been on this before now for a long time does look at European law, and he looks at his as the influence of kind of trendsetting that's the way he views European law. I also know this is important for our audience to understand this, that our briefs have been cited by both conservative members of the Supreme Court and liberal members of the Supreme Court so anyway when we got in the water. Actually Walter in this particular case where hitting a host of issues and what you mean honestly this is to come down to where the newly appointed justices end up in the role of amicus brief report is to give the court and out about the right way will try to make it easy for them to do the right thing so you and you and the android were talking earlier about the barbarity of abortion is recognized in Europe.

Okay, so what we do not read. We point out the comparison between the kinds of things that are forbidden as cool and unusual punishment to the most vile convicted murderers and the same technique using abortion. We point out animal cruelty laws and and the horrible things that could be done to animals that would never be allowed United States. The same thing with being allowed to unborn babies that kind of extreme cognitive dissonance that in inconsistency between the way the law treats everyone else otherwise recognizes a course horrible and barbaric somehow paying abortion.

That's the kind of thing that we hope will convey to the court that they just got that mistaken route with it just does not fit in doesn't work it's it's it's it makes no sense. According to the rest the law quickly 50 seconds point very clear story to slices is not a bar to the Supreme Court coming up the right decision here know it is not a bar is a judicially created principle that espouses the idea that cases decided the same way should be decided the same way on the same facts and law, but it does not prohibit the Supreme Court or any court from, say, we got it wrong and we need to rectified by reversing Roe versus Wade. In this case for too long court. The court has relied on these precedents to try and not handle issues directly either controversial and if there's nothing prevents that there is no reason they have been have to follow precedent have to follow and in this situation when science technology has significantly changed and you can look and see the development of the child in the womb should be the time of the step is we were wrong. This court was wrong.

Be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how you personally. Publication includes all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications.

40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the street and what Obama care me in many ways your membership is powering the right question mission life today online/American Center for Law and engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those covering corruption in Washington fighting to protect life courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this. For that we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous matching challenge make protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms you give the gift today online okay you're right 100-684-3110 Frank is calling for Florida online to a freight welcome to secular euros a year. States have an objection or would have an objection, it will return.

Let me say something first and Jordan.

You respond. I suspect the department justices will be filing a brief on this case putting forward the administration's view which I can guarantee you is that Mo versus Wade is good law. That's how they view it but go ahead with it, but there's been a political side of the units right every gin sake I White House prosecutors already spoken out, and this is what they said Pres. Biden would be willing to do it if if the court were to take the action that we support.

Take a listen bite to the President is committed to codifying route regardless of the outcome of this case, not what it was. She rebutted making it the legislative lot. This is not in this is what's interesting there is not legislation and a lot that it's the court legislated here and enlighten the legislation by the way, he could want to do that all day and night, and it does tell you where is the makeup of Congress right now is no way that would happen so they know that this would be. This is where they can do a build up to if if this case were to go the way we want to pack the correct change.

Hope they don't have the votes yet and I think this is this is what uses a rallying cry.

We if if it goes the way he could to get to the point about what will DOJ do well, listen to gin sake. Again, the presence White House post person there telling you what's coming folks, we are supporters of peasant supporter of preserving heavyweight. That is our position in terms of a legislature, a legal reaction I would just just as a course and he means that the department justices like us going to file a brief in this case file a brief in this case there's no doubt about that and they're going to mount the position of this 53 Roman Catholic great President Joe Biden in favor of abortion. I don't understand that at all.

But that is going to be the position in its overall position its overall position constitutionally, legally, and it is not barred by starting the sizes I want to talk about the moral implications of this to. This is the taking cc of a human life. And I think we have to remember at the beginning of this.

That's what this is all about. It's not yet started to slices the constitutional principle to process clause was her right to create rope but at the end of the day. This is also a moral issue. It's about the taking of a life right to life desires protection Constitution protects the Constitution the right to life, and the Supreme Court got it wrong when they decided well. Life doesn't really began or the protection is not compelling until this arbitrary point by any outside mothers went, and so yes the bottom line is life is protected by our Constitution.

It needs to be protected and life begins at conception, anything when babies need to be protected. Let me talk to military had just as a chaplain in the military pastor, I want talk about the moral implications of that we are talking about human life here we are. I was thinking that my ethics training in grad school about about these kinds of issues.

This is the biggest moral issue we face as a nation since the abolition of slavery. It is a moral issue is the central ethical debate of our time. I was listening to an abortion advocate on television this morning and she stated the decision to have an abortion is so personal and she word that the legal right to terminate her pregnancy might be taken away from women and she implied that that in itself would be immoral. There is no legal or an errant writer should not be to take a human life other than some form of self-defense. That's ethics 101. The choice to take a human life has serious serious moral applications. This is why the death penalty J so such a matter fierce debate in some states about loaded viability with it with the baby has placed an even greater emphasis on this. The bottom line is this whatever a woman's justification for the right to end a human life. We have to be clear on this moral issue. It is a human life and she is choosing and that human life is a moral issue with the sanction Jordan of the state. They will if this decision goes the right way. This will be a right rallying cry of course for their pack the court change the rules yes but I think at the end of the day the American people.

That's good to be front and center. This is this is an issue that the American people when they are confronted with and not just a general idea should abortion be allowed or not allowed, but should we be able as a state as a complete Society of civil society to be able to say you know what this is over and I can stop this in Mississippi's case they are using the latest technology the science so you know we don't allow late-term abortions in America and most states. Some states still like New York efforts of the liberal states, as you said a lot almost up until birth. Partial-birth abortion, but there have been bands on partial-birth abortion that have been upheld by the Supreme Court by Congress.

There have been most states don't allow abortion late-term abortion, and in this situation, what was late-term with technology in the 70s and 80s. You can now see that after just weeks after 50 weeks you could consider that late-term abortion there are children being born that way a pound and surviving now very early in pregnancies and having healthy lives because of the weight where technology is and they that again they are able to.

They are experiencing what is the food they once they're born again all those rights. The question is when those rights taken inside the wound that is the question that is grappling with you as a nation and as are Europeans or philologists points out like your privacy like Wes was talking about is a very private decision. Europe rejected that his argument well said you document. You can use privacy. We talked about the taking of of the ending of this life. Whether you want to call the child or fetus. It is in the a life yet will and there are liberal judicial scholars and constitutional scholars that have said while they agree and he with the right to abortion they disagree with the underpinnings of Roe versus Wade. That's correct.

The underpinnings of Roe versus Wade. I think of been seriously eroded since it was decided almost 50 years ago and was it would have to come to the realization J and we have become good declaration that it is not the law is not good law. It is contrary to the signs that Doug Jordan adverted to it is contrary to the Constitution the United States there balancing factors and I think one of the things that you mentioned earlier just as Briar is very much intrigued by the influence of international law. I wonder if this intrigues that he has with thinking about the law of nations internationally is going to make an effect on him since the European Center for Law and Justice are affiliate in Strassburg France is weighing in on this case is will he that's exactly. That's exactly why were fostering that brief cc exactly on that point.

He said slightly less people would think that Europe is more liberal in the states, but they are not absolutely acknowledge the European courts on convention on human rights gives a right to life in the European courts acknowledge the right to life extends to the unborn baby. Right now the right baby in the well with the right and we just do not do that in the United States. I think what we see is that the ACLJ taking this opportunity to support what Mississippi is doing on pursuit away three unique briefs three unique issues walk-throughs again for a second target power to working through this stare decisis issue is scientific issue is the international issue in the ACLJ taking 91 brief but separating out which you could stay with us support the work of the ACLJ stand for life matching challenge right now, you double the impact your donation to the ACLJ ACLJ.or that matching challenge goes until the end of this month ACLJ that are building today. The American Center for on critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate will be $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family.

Give a gift today online ACLJ live from Washington DC to 164 31 Chris in Nevada which you write this at first a short segment back the second half hour, but to break every what we do at the ACLJ because, again, this is not one brief the refiling multiple briefs I would take this opportunity at the court, which is what it is. The court decided to even consider a case which they're going to have oral argument solids. This is not it is that the state will the court take the case is taking the case that where Mississippi has directly put it issue I would read the from from the Mississippi work. This is what the court has said they will label that you will take it issue Roe and Casey this the two cases Roe versus Wade Casey verse Planned Parenthood are thus at odds with the straightforward constitutionally grounded answer the question presented to the question becomes whether this court should overturn the decision.

Such previous decisions.

It should we talk about this. The story decisive case for overruling Roe and Casey is overwhelming. That's unique sentence because were just telling people stare decisis meets keep the precedent don't make the change what they're saying is they got a strong case for why stare decisis is wrong to follow. Here, yes, and that's is so I didn't like any of this story decisive is not in stone as we say in our brief. The Constitution does not confer on the court's decisions priority or seniority or higher status, then the Constitution itself. So when cases are wrong and we listed a number of cases that were on the court corrects it Plessy versus Ferguson, Brown versus Board of Education correction Komatsu unfortunately still on the books now. I'm sure it would be overturned and probably is an up decisions discussing it that the boats were there but that was another one where the United States Supreme Court said Japanese-Americans were Americans of Japanese dissent or origin, family origin, work rounded up and placed in camps during World War II. This is an ancient history and the principal report said by majority anyhow that's okay. And then the story decisive protects not I think not the same thing applies here start the size of does not protect the right to murder. And that's exactly what this ultimately comes out the BJ infanticide the murdering of a child struggling for life. SEC said both life begins at conception.

I believe that I believe Thomas Aquinas was right. I believe the Supreme Court was wrong and I believe that starting the sizes does not stand in the way of rectifying that error in this case in Mississippi and I applaud the Atty. Gen. of Mississippi printed so bluntly for this part of the United States and said look, you've got to come to grips with that and I applaud the supreme board members who voted to say we've got to take this stuff. Case we have got to hear this tough case and all it took for them to say we've got here.

Let's hope now that they have the fortitude and the rightness constitutional principles to see through it and overrule this terrible decision in their brief, they say Rowan Casey CCR, egregiously wrong absolutely correct that in our brief for the European Center for line justice. We continue to point out that the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe has repeatedly stated the need to reduce recourse to abortion. Abortion does not equal family-planning to blame. The aim is always to avoid as many abortions as possible. An ideal world, there would be no abortions, and we finally point out that in regard to international law only international commitment regarding abortion is to prevent its recourse round and Casey did not state that they created fabricated this right to abortion, and European courts are getting it correct. Baby has a right to life and unborn baby has a right to life and needs to be protected is unique is really where our European office to keep this role through the your pizza for lunch just switched again that they're not just stating the fact. This is where they operate the system that they operate within support the work of the ACLJ we have offices around the world's even during this pandemic.

You know the issues over the world is facing.

They are working hard as well. Noted what's happening in the US and how important this case is for our work matching challenge later this month ACLJ the American Center for Law and were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom detecting those covering corruption in Washington fighting to protect life courts and in Congress ACLJ would not be able to do any of this or that.

We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity to help way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is time for the ACLJ the work we simply would not occur without your generous matching challenge make protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms. Today online okay only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how you are personally and includes all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications. 40 years later Planned Parenthood. What Obama care me in many ways your membership is powering the right mission life today online/600-6843 12 that's 1-800-684-3110 and was corrects the phones Chris in Nevada online. One hey Chris, welcome to secular earlier I heard back and up a big checkerboard of law would frame court then take the case up again even though it states right issue. I think that's a great question.

I think this also is important. Underscoring Prof. Hutchins is doing is now that what a decision that overturns Roe versus Wade does not eliminate abortion states may decide to put restrictions or limitations on boards and other states and allow it. So what it does. Harry is returning to the states absolutely and so if the court overturns Roe V Wade, basically the court is saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. It doesn't end abortion so it's up to the states. I think it's very clear to put on the table, morality, and the fact that abortion is a barbaric practice and I think what the court could say is yes.

We believe there's no constitutional right, but speaks individually could decide to allow abortions in certain cases.

This also goes to the moral issue here that were talking about life and what Smith has a very I think potent discussion and analysis of what is really at play in all of this with Roe versus Wade and the life of an unborn child. Basically it.

If you end a life that is killing whatever the justification for any it is killing. We need to call it for what it is and as it is today. What they are arguing for the people who are pro-abortion. There arguing for state sanction killing. But here's the deal.

We believe traditionally in the sacredness of human life. We have a constitutional right to life.

What they're trying to do is carve out an exception to the right to life, so that everyone Constitution has a right to life, except this group of people and that is that is unconscionable that you would say everyone has a right to this, but not the unborn. I think you opened up to the bigger picture if you under this Roe versus Wade precedent and suddenly the court is saying if this were to go that your case think and go to this point say absolutely no abortions 15 weeks I begin the national debate begins. Why would why would New York allow much later that if science proves it that's a human life. I think you're right so you can start.

You could see how this changes everything. But you have to get to that point when out we've got to up over the court has decided to even take on a case like this is incredible Natalie yet.

So you bring up a really really important point, and that's going to be once the court makes it if the court were to five justices of the court say CC, but the underpinnings of Roe versus Wade were incorrectly decided which means that what the state has done here in Mississippi was constitutional.

That is really just the beginning of the debate correct. So as we discussed previously really up to make sure that they elect legislators go along with what the voters morals wobbly on this issue because it will become a state issue when life begins and when it can be protected, which of course we will always argue that it begins at conception and life needs to be protected from conception, it will be an issue because back to the state and voters will be back in the hands of the people for people believe the way that the voters believe Moses thinking that if we do right way to get this to that versus Wade was incorrectly decided the states will not have the imprimatur of the Supreme Court opinion to base their lawn. That's either going to have to make the decision based upon their own to think so to speak a lot and be able to go back and say well we have ropey way that stands in the way of our making decisions. I'm in the state could, you know, theoretically, why not ban abortion altogether. That's what state sovereignty and federalism is about is not about the Supreme Court enacting something and calling it start the sizes setting it in stone and saying that's the President forever never in the states. I think have the right in their separate sovereignties to make these decisions and it will go back to the states SEC has pointed out here, you use as a man, which was well absolutely so I think there are several questions to think about first. Should we leave morality out of this debate entirely. That's number one.

Should we understand abortion for what it is. It's a barbaric practice that offends basic human decency and thirdly, if the court fails to overturn Roe V Wade, does that mean that Planned Parenthood is free to unleash their eugenics based program that disproportionately targets African-Americans and Hispanics consistent with the logic of Margaret Sanger and Charles Darwin who sought to rid the human race of unfit unemployable individuals and so I think at the end of the day, each and every state will then have to answer these questions. If Roe V Wade is indeed overturned. This is this a situation again, it would change everything that the fight for life. Having these cases opportunities. Also, does that because it even where the court comes down after dressing to get this is not an easy case I what I want I will be clear on this. This is squarely taken the issue to hear the case it's the rule of 44 justices up for stirfry to be granted for stirfry has been granted the state of Mississippi has squarely put the constitutionality of Roe versus Wade before the court, the American Center for Law and Justice to European sample on just for fun.

Looking at these brief right now are our filing briefs.

In these cases and those are moving forward. All of that means that you still have to get five boat Sandy went five justices have to say that Roe versus Wade even was started sizes is not good law that's exactly right for to hear the case but five to make the ultimate decision that is squarely put before the court by the Atty. Gen. of Mississippi NE really did a good job of saying it. Look, let's not start this issue. Let's face it, is Roe V Wade going to stand or is it going to be a reverse in the Supreme Court. Four justices, and I thought I like José who they are but I believe I know who they are said we need to decide this issue and we need to show the constitutional courage to say that it is a wrongly decided.

Decision and to overturn that decision.

I let the states make those decisions. Let's see whether they have that constitutional fortitude to take five justices of the court to do that so that's the big issue here. Can we get to five say that unite was not a math major bank account. When you go to Supreme Court.

You gotta have five votes so I think that's it, but I don't want to divorce the legal issue from the moral issue here. This is an issue of most importance from a moral perspective. If you look at it from a lens that we look at it from it's easy those on the left come from a different model basis on this but were talking and they cannot no longer argue that this is not a human like that's what's which is what you been saying exactly call it what it is you might want to end that life but it is a human life that more and more is viable. Early early on in the pregnancy and so yet you can't divorce the legal part from the moral part as a matter fact Jake is you and I both know most of the laws that we have, you know, in civilization are based on some concept of morality, right. This is an immoral practice. I think generations from now. Maybe 100 years or so for now I believe our descendents will look back with shock and horror that were even having this debate because of the sacredness of life. It's interesting because Planned Parenthood is get their own spin on this obviously nervous about this case to take it seriously because of that the what this would do to their business. Remember in their line of work. This is a business this about money it's about this. This practice of continuing to keep these facilities operating open take a listen with their feet. Their vice President of government relations and public policy is asked about the direct challenge to bro. I think they got it wrong here, but they are there kind of waking up to the reality of the real world.

By 18 years old and go to court and make this direct a challenge to Monroe right at the heart of it, that the Atty. Gen. during the quiet speaking directly out and not being a hidden agenda anymore. Okay, this is no secret.

We have been litigating these issues before the Supreme Court for 40 years. Okay 40 years now. I argue the case with the Supreme Court said that opposition to abortion is not discrimination against women that opposition to abortion was not discrimination against women. That was a case I argued twice for the United States. "We come back from the break room talk about the implications of the precedents that the ACLJ is set as a relates to the outcome of this case. But I will never forget that line opposition to abortion is not discrimination against women will have to see how well you know that we come back from break, and I think that issue is basically been lost by Planned Parenthood. I don't know if you can make it on this case. He was sent with this year's about anti-women because you support human life for our invasive matching challenge right now for the month of July. Double the impact of your donation ACLJ.org that's ACLJ.org only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how. Personally, publication includes all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications. 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in what Obama care means many ways. Your membership is powering the right mission life today online/American Center for Law and engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those covering corruption in Washington fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this or that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ work. We simply would not occur without your generous heart wrenching challenge make protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms. Most beautiful gift today online okay to security because we hundred 684 31 to 2000 684-3110 and play for you is the Atty. Gen. of Mississippi who is a woman herself. I slid Fitch's site. This goes against the whole Planned Parenthood Nate narrative that it somehow anti-woman that this is about women versus a society and it's not anymore this to the pro-lifer but has since grown and has matured into a movie where it that that that that is not living reality is led by women right and and and and and by this Atty. Gen. Mississippi tankless by 20 remain committed to for women in defending his right to protect the unborn longer that that that that a statement that that somehow can contradiction know so I think the fact is we look this is this this is the direct challenge of Roe versus Wade.

Mrs. close squarely before the court and he didn't have to deal with this on the stare decisis basis there not to be able to avoid it or not, and I think the forgot voted to hear this under the rule of four realize that you can't hide and run and cover anymore. Behind this issue started the sciences it's over with the sciences change in 50 years we've evolved as a society as as Col. Smith said Rev. Smith, I should say were going to be talking about this, 50 or 60, 100 years from now with abhorrence to say did we allow that kind of ripping and tearing and dismemberment of human bodies out of the womb. Did we allow that. Can we really believe that we permitted those barbaric practices and I hope our Supreme Court now as I say, as the constitutional fortitude to say no this is not was going to be permitted. Let the states make the surgeons and hopefully the states as cc said their legislators are going to see what small and correct here to see what you hope to see out of this case and what are you looking for here is Frank Hart that's what's right stands up for the Constitution, stated over and over again.

There is no right to abortion in the Constitution got it wrong the first time the first several times with railing Casey had an opportunity to do what is right and I hope that they did that they stand up for life. Life is protected under the Constitution and its right and and value the Constitution and have a good opinion cannot protecting babies lives in the on line to he Dana will secure your of the year my call and I were talking about the computational right to life, and we understand morally left and the right come from completely different sides on this. However, there is research published literature even the NIH backtracks about how depression rates and other mental traits created in women who have had abortions in the past and something about the left and the right should be able to agree on and that we are worried about mental health illness in this country not only correct but one of the breaks working on right now is addressing that issue. I'll give you some of the argument headings abortion is. This is a potentially hazardous procedure talks about maternal abortion best the claimant abortion is safer than childbirth is unsupported. We use the CDC guidelines on that a published literature indicates that have anything abortion is more dangerous than continued pregnancy, so we are looking at some very technical issue medically working with medical experts on this. Again, this shows you the depth also of the ACLJ's reach here on an issue like this when we can Harry reach and deal with that side of this debate to absolutely so it's a very comprehensive approach that we've taken. We talked about stare decisis. We talked about the radical left's agenda with respect to abortion rights and also we are now talking about the health health issues that are involved and I would in my answer to your question Jerry by saying should human life depend on a stare decisis practice instituted in the 12th century by King Henry II, I would say the answer to that question is a resounding no hundred percent yet. I haven't taken David's conference and said, his people are is what would happen next.

What happens that where is the law Logan Sekulow you're out there all like quick question that law correctly. I know your lawyer will be in court life that called law interpret the law supposed to interpret the law. What they did, they found a row versus Wade a constitutional right under the right to privacy and due process to terminate the unborn child's life. Now there are scholars on the left thinks the underpaid that support the right to abortion but thinks that the underpinnings that the court utilizing Justice Blackmun's opinion was wrong. Constitutionally infirm and that's again the reason I started this Isis here and he doesn't control should not control. That is if they do allow that to control again.

That is the ultimate copout really is and I don't think that that and I'm trusting that that won't happen because for the justices who agreed to hear this case.

Which means we know what the issue is it that is the Atty. Gen. of Mississippi said in the Roe V Wade stands or it's going to be reversed and that that's the way that you've got to frame the issue before the Supreme Court.

We've got to cite the Supreme Court. You've got to show the constitutional fortitude to make this decision and the correct decision is not to rely on as areas that nothing from medieval England, but to say that the reality is that that decision was wrong when decided, and it is wrong now 50 years later the Constitution hasn't changed their three questions.

I think help clarify this for people and that is what were talking about yesterday. Human life.

I think human life and even abortion advocates agree as a human life is human life sacred is the second question in the third clarify your fine question is, is it ever moral to take an innocent human life is that ever right and the answers no of course not.

And I think that's I'm not typing that's an excellent way of putting in place is not just a legal issue here, it's that it's the moral issue of this and is to be a question whether five justices of the Supreme Court is any set have the moral fortitude to do this. That's right right thanks I were using every possible argument.

So to understand, to put in the context where we in the world using the European civil justice to do that. Where is the US in the world when it comes to this set barbaric percent procedure weight wears it on the stare decisis issue precedent.

What about the issues of the like because of the long-term effects, short-term effects this has on the health of the women that were talking on here on the on these mothers and what is what is now decades of research at sideshow in their the just be that the effects on women who go through the abortion procedures we have history on our side. Now we have technology on our side insights on our site. This is not 1973 to be harder for Planned Parenthood to get away with this anymore.

I think I think that's his effort cc let me go to you with 30 seconds you really 1/22 in Fars importance case where you put this spring, let's write the Constitution I think and I went on. This would cc that I agree. This is why we are putting so much effort into this with these multiple rates that are being filed your support of the ACLJ makes all this broadcast but also our legal work possibly appreciate you doing that work.

ACLJ.org that's ACLJ.org to match the child double the impact of your donation. $20 like 40 or 20 ACLJ.org. Talk to the American Center for on critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ