Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 610 | If Roe Ends, the Fight Over Abortion Just Begins | Guest: Josh Hammer

Episode Date: May 3, 2022

Today we're reacting to the huge news that dropped Monday night that, according to documents leaked from the Supreme Court, the court plans to overturn Roe v. Wade. Obviously, this is awesome news for those of us who oppose abortion. Josh Hammer joins the show to talk about some of the legal nuances of this story and how utterly unprecedented it is for documents to be leaked from the Supreme Court, especially for such a landmark decision. We discuss the political angle and what this means for the Democrats and Republicans going forward. Then, after we talk to Josh, we discuss the theological side of things and laugh at some of the ridiculous reactions the Left is having to this news. --- Timecodes: (0:00) Introduction (5:10) Interview with Josh Hammer (33:50) Allie goes through reactions to the news of the SCOTUS draft decision --- Today's Sponsors: Carly Jean Los Angeles — visit CarlyJeanLosAngeles.com & use promo code 'ALLIEB' to save 20% off your first order of anything in their online store! Annie's Kit Clubs — all subscriptions are month-to-month & you can cancel anytime. Go to AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE & get your first month for 75% off! Naturally It's Clean — start with Allie's 4-pack of the essentials at NaturallyItsClean.com/ALLIE & use promo code 'ALLIE' to save 15% off your order! --- Show Links: POLITICO: "Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Show" https://politi.co/3LHnnKq Congressman Hice Questions Allie Beth Stuckey at Congressional Hearing: https://bit.ly/39sP23n --- Previous Episodes Mentioned: Ep 609: Tim Keller's Terrible Abortion Take https://apple.co/3LChqOO --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise- use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed.

You can watch this D-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, y'all. Welcome to Relatable. Happy Tuesday. This episode is all episodes is brought to you by our friends at Go to Ranchers. Go to Go to GoTo-Ranchers.com slash Alley for American Meat delivered right to your front door. That's good ranchers.com slash alley.

Man, oh man, you guys know exactly what we are talking about today. We are talking about this leaked draft decision. by Justice Samuel Alito overturning Roe v. Wade. This was reported by Politico. I'm going to tell you my reaction to it. I am going to show you some reactions from people on the left. What this means for us as a country, what this means for us as people who are against abortion, what this means for us, in particular as Christians. We are first, before I get to my reaction and kind of my whole monologue on this, we are going to talk to Josh Hammer. He is an editor at Newsweek. He is also an attorney by trade. He has a background in this. He knows a lot of

people who work on the Supreme Court. And he always has incredible insight into what is happening on the court. And today he is going to give us some clarity on what this drafted decision says, what it means, why Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional in the first place, how he thinks this leak happened. and then what he believes the implications are whether he believes that this decision is going to be the decision that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned or not. And so we are going to get into all of that before we get into the conversation. Let me kind of set this up a little bit. So I got a text from a journalist friend last night with the link to the Politico tweet that then linked the Politico exclusive report. The title of that report is Supreme Court has voted to overturn a

abortion rights, draft opinion shows and just a lesson in bias right away. We see what perspective they are writing from. If you're writing from a neutral perspective, certainly if you're writing for a pro-life from a pro-life perspective, you would not call this abortion rights because the right itself is up for debate. Abortion rights is really a euphemism. The ability legally to kill your baby is what we're talking about. And while I don't expect Politico to use that kind of explicit language, any use of euphemism really indicates kind of where a person and a journalist is coming from. So the subheading says, we hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. That is Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the kind of landmark abortion decision,

Supreme Court decisions, Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court. So as you will hear Josh say, this is unprecedented. This kind of drafted decision. leaking is something that has not happened before the Supreme Court blog that reports on the Supreme Court that is one of the most read sources of journalism when it comes to the Supreme Court and their decisions tweeted this. It's impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the court in terms of destruction of the trust among the justices and staff. This leak is the gravest most unforgivable sin. The document leaked to Politico is almost certainly an authentic draft opinion by Jay Alito that reflects what he believes at least five members of the court have

voted to support overruling Roe. But as Alito's draft, it does not reflect the comments or reactions of other justices. Shannon Bream of Fox News, who also reports on the Supreme Court, has said that this is a draft that possibly was circulating all the way back in February and is not going to be the final draft. It is probably an indicator of what is going to be decided, but things could absolutely change between now and then. And so Politico reported all of this. There was some CNN reporting about what Chief Justice Roberts thinks as well. This was a wild night. If you are an observer of the Supreme Court, if you are an observer of politics, if you are someone who cares about abortion, if you are a journalist, I mean, Twitter was just wild last night

with all of the very disparate reactions. Things are about to get, I don't want to say ugly, they are about to get perhaps more polarized than ever. You are going to be able to see perhaps more clearly than ever light and darkness in the reactions to this decision and really in this potential decision that we saw leaked to Politico. So before I get into too many details, I want Josh to answer our questions again about how this happened and what this all means. So without further ado, here is our friend Josh Hammer. Josh, thank you so much for joining us.

I just want to get your initial reaction to the craziness that has been the past 24 hours. What was your reaction at first when you saw this Politico report that this drafted decision by Alito had been leaked? Yeah, I mean, I felt like every group chat that I was in just started blowing up immediately. Look, I mean, you know, Ali, I like you, I'm in come in, but I am a lawyer by training. This is the world that I come in. You know, I'm friends with numerous current Supreme Court clerks. I mean, I feel like I have a good grasp of the institution.

To call this unprecedented, I think, would be an understatement. There is simply no precedent for this, not even just in the modern history of the court. This is probably the biggest breach of norms, confidentiality. ethics, whatever you want to call it, that the Supreme Court has probably ever had, ever, as far as kind of the internal operating procedures as to how the Supreme Court operates. It is a famously kind of airtight institution, leaks of this just simply don't happen. There is no such thing as a leak from a clerk. When you get to that office, the Supreme Court clerks know, when I was watching kind

of Laura Ingram's opening monologue on Fox last night, Laura, of course, clerk for Clarence Thomas back in the 1990s, and she was saying how when she first got there was a clerk, the chief justice at the time, it was Bill Rankwis, basically said to them, if there are any leaks whatsoever, you guys will be disbarred for the rest of your lives. Wow. So, you know, I am hoping that we know the identity of the leaker within the next kind of 48 to 72 hours at the most. I'm hoping that he or she is disbarred.

But there is simply no precedent for this, Allie. We are in uncharted territory right now. Yes. So do we know that it was a clerk? I mean, I'm guessing that's the only possibility, too. Would it be possible at all? that there would be a Supreme Court justice, perhaps a liberal Supreme Court justice, that would have been on board with a leak like this happening?

Yeah, so my best guess, my absolute best guess, is that a rogue Sonia Sotomayor clerk gave this by his or her own volition. Having said that, I think it's possible that the leak came from one of the other two liberal justices chambers, Kagan or Breyer. The Breyer thing is potentially interesting, right? He's about to retire, obviously. So maybe there's a possibility there that his chambers basically has kind of given up on any semblance of norms. I don't think so because he's been on the court for 30 years.

He's kind of an older guy with kind of a slightly more traditional view of the institution. Sotomayor, of course, substantively, as far as her jurisprudence is waged to the left of basically anyone else up there. She totally beclowned herself at oral argument in the Dobbs case back in December when her kind of questions to the lawyers sound a heck of a lot like Democratic National Committee or MSNBC talking head partisan hacks. So my best guess is a Sotomayor clerk, but having said that, I do not think it is crazy to think about the possibility that Sotomayor herself leaked this. I am not alleging that because I have no direct information, obviously. There's no way for me to know. But it would not surprise me. It really would not.

And suffice to say that if we are able to confirm that, that an actual justice did this, then impeachment proceeding should start within an hour or two. I mean, that is- Would they? In your opinion? Gosh, I mean, you know, the Democrats obviously control the House Judiciary Committee, right? So, I mean, it really just depends, like, how big a partisan hacks they want to be. I mean, at a bare minimum after Republicans retake the House this fall, which it seems like they probably will. That should be like day one agenda item for the next Congress starting, you know, starting in January. But will Democrats actually do it?

I mean, I don't know. I mean, I guess you probably have to think not. I mean, because honestly, Ali, when this first happened last night, my first reaction, was like, okay, this clerk threw whoever it was, he or she throughout a Hail Mary pass. It's not going to work probably. I do predict a probably will only stiff income of Kavanaugh and Barrett Spines. But the idea here was that I think he or she will then kind of self-docs, will get kind of a flashy New York Times op-ed that leads to a book deal, the MSNBC speaking circuit. But having said that, the blue-checked reaction from left-leaning Twitter last night from like

the ACLU was unbelievable. Right. They are celebrating this. They're already calling this clerk brave. We're in such uncharted territory right now. It's really, yeah, it's calling. Yes. That's why I think that a justice, like Sotomayor, that there's no way that she would be impeached. If, of course, we don't know, but if she took part in this at all, or even if it was a clerk, would they be disbarred?

That's probably more likely than a justice getting impeached. But where would the political pressure come from when it comes to Democrats? Because when you saw Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats complaining, about this. They weren't complaining about the leak. They weren't complaining about upending our democracy or our democratic norms or violating our institutional norms. They were talking about the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. That was their concern. For all of the concern, and I saw you point this out in one way on Twitter, for all of their talk over the past few years of Trump being the one that is the threat to democratic norms, of course, we see this over and

over again with them when they're talking about ending the filibuster and trying to reconfigure the Senate and getting rid of the electoral college and packing the Supreme Court. This is just another example of when they say violating democratic norms or Republican is violating democratic norms, they're just talking about upholding a democracy in a way that they don't like. They don't actually care about democratic norms because they are willing to break and bend every single rule to do what they want to do that ends justify the means. Some of the most disturbing but unsurprising at this point reactions that I saw from blue checkmark journalists. I'm not just nut picking here when I mentioned, you know, the person who leaked this knew that there

would be threats to the lives of the conservative justices and their families, the reaction that I got from a lot of people on the left was good, good. Their lives should be threatened. And so the end seemed to always justify the means when it comes to the left. And I just think we're about to see weeping of gnashing of teeth like we've never seen. Yeah, no, look, I mean, I think what we learned last night is that when the left talks about kind of tearing asunder democratic norms, what they have in mind is capital D democratic norms, not low-case democratic norms, because the latter they have now is now beyond obvious. They don't particularly care about that. Look, I mean, I have been searching in vain for a single elected Democratic Party official, a single kind of left-leaning, blue check, talking head type person who has condemned what happened here. I, I mean, I have been searching in vain for a single elected Democratic Party official, a single kind of left-leaning blue check, talking head type person who has condemned what happened here. I, I, I, I, I I am literally still trying to find that. Yeah. Maybe you could search them there and find, like, a former kind of liberal Supreme Court clerk

from a different generation. But this is not your grandfather's Democratic Party, obviously. This is a Democratic Party that views abortion as their foremost pagan sacrament. That is the phrase that I had views kind of over and over again. And that's exactly how they view it. And you know what it reminds me of? I tweet this out briefly last night. There was a good opinion that Sixth Circuit Judge Mulfa Parr wrote, I think it was

the end of last September, maybe last early October. I wrote a column about it. And he used the phrase in a Sixth Circuit opinion, abortion exceptionalism, referring to kind of the idea that when it gets down to kind of the various procedures and rules pertaining to litigation in the federal judiciary, the left and Democrat nominated judges and Supreme Court justices so prioritized the abortion, quote, unquote, right, that there really are two sets of rules.

There are the rules for every other case that does not involve abortion, and then there are the rules for abortion. And that's what you saw here, obviously, that the entire rulebook, the entire semblance of anything, you know, pertaining to kind of the health institutional integrity of the Supreme Court institution was just totally thrown out the window for the short-term game of preserving the ability to, you know, wantonly slaughter an entire subclass of human beings. So it's obviously reprehensible. I mean, at this point, Ali, it's happened, it's done. I am just hoping that this investigation concludes rapidly and

we can have some sense of justice for the leaker. Yeah, Chief Justice Roberts, obviously, we knew that he was going to be very angry about this. As you said, this is unprecedented. And Chief Justice Roberts says, I'm sure all justices are, but it seems like in particular, Roberts is so concerned about the integrity of the court. I just can't imagine his reaction when he found this out. And of course, he is going to conduct a leak investigation. I think your prediction is right that whoever did do the leaking will find themselves with some kind of fancy contributor ship. will be hailed some kind of hero from the left. You're seeing plenty of blue check marks on the left. Say things like that. Already, you know, congratulating this person on their heroism.

I do want to hear you kind of articulate or at least highlight some of the arguments that Alito made. Now, this is a drafted decision. Roberts has also said this is not going to, this is not the final version. CNN actually came out and said, oh, no, Roberts is not. trying to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely. I'm not really sure what to believe just so many, so many opinions and reports and leaks at this point. But, so we know that this is not the final version, but tell us a little bit of what Alito argued in this draft. Yeah. So before we get to that, I do want to say one thing about Chief Justice Roberts, and I'm happy you mention him, because we all know any kind of cursory observer of the court knows that the chief cares preeminently,

first and foremost, about the alleged institutional integrity of the court. That's seems to kind of guide the way he moves even more so than his substantive consideration of jurisprudence, which suffice to say is not how a justice should go about his or her responsibilities. Right. That is what to motivate him. But, you know, my friend Josh Blackman, who is a law professor in Houston, Texas, had a fantastic blog post last night where he basically said that the fact that this happened shows the fallacy in John Roberts' entire long game of being able to kind of be a neutral arbiter and kind of a steward of the court's integrity. The fact that the very fact that this happened showed that one man or one.

woman obviously does not have the ability to control of that nature. So I thought that was a very insightful point that that Professor Blackman made. But to your question, Ali, look, the opinion, you know, I've read through most of it, I'm still kind of getting through some of the details. It's very good. Just as Alito does not pull any punches in this opinion. He says what I think a lot of us in kind the pro-life community and the conservative community wanted this opinion to read like, I will be honest with you after Dobbs's oral argument happened back on December 1st, I was honestly not personally optimistic that we would get kind of a forceful opinion of this nature. I think my final prediction was that it would be kind of a murky 333 split, not kind of a five justice clean overrule.

Specifically, I kind of thought there's a possibility that there might be like a 4-3-2 situation where Roberts could peel away either Kavanaugh or Barrett. It seems like, you know, that still could happen to be clear. I mean, Roberts still could potentially peel away Kavanaugh or Barrett, in which case we would get a very narrow controlling plurality opinion. The chief, like the chief always does, is clearly trying to kind of split the baby here as a terrible pun in the situation, obviously. But what he's literally trying to do is to find like a very narrow way to uphold the Mississippi statute, the 15-week ban, but, you know, preserve Row and Casey. The problem, of course, is that that's intellectually indefensible. There is no actual principal way whatsoever to do that. All he would be

doing is kicking the can down the road for this case to kind of come up through the judiciary yet again three, four, five years from now. So I obviously hope and pray that he does not do that, that he's unsuccessful in those efforts. But my reading of his statements that came out just this morning is that he is still trying to do exactly that. He's still trying to peel away Kavanaugh or Barrett. So at this point, I think what conservatives have to be doing, obviously, is pray that Justice's Cavanaugh and Barrett have the backbone to not fall prey to the Chief Justice's delusions. And I do think, though, that this leaker, whoever he or she is, has inadvertently made a huge mistake. I do think that having done this will probably stiffen the spines of Kavanaugh and

Barrett. So at this point, yeah, I do. I do. So at this point, my prediction is that it is kind of a five justice clean over rule of Rowan Casey. I could be wrong about that, but that is my prediction. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's

unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. I think that's the fear that someone like Kavanaugh would to cowtow to public pressure. And I'm guessing that was the motivation of this leaker. I'm hopeful like you.

I'm optimistic that that's not going to be the conclusion because now they also, if they do go back, if they do kind of change their mind, of course, we don't know exactly what their arguments were, but everyone's going to know it's because of political pressure. It's because of the leak, which would cause its own problems. But I'm guessing the motivation, and I just want to hear your opinion on that and leakiness was for that public pressure, was to try to help Roberts possibly peel away someone like Kavanaugh or Barrett. Is that what you think? Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, my two best guess is as to what's going on here. One is, again, we're probably talking about a Sotomayor chambers operation here, whether it's the justice or one of our clerks.

Again, I'd have no way of knowing just my best guess. But assuming that is the case, we're talking here about a far left chambers, right? So I think it is totally not crazy that assuming that it was a sort of mayor clerk who did this, that he or she was actively hoping to basically sick Antifa thugs outside the personal residence of a Brett Kavanaugh or an Amy Coney-Barrant. I really do not think that when it comes to the left's foremost pagan sacrament abortion, that's something like that is too low. The other thing happening here, though, is that, you know, we have midterm elections this fall. Congress is about to go to recess this August.

So I think what they're probably trying to telegraph is try to send a message to Chuck Schumer, who seems to have received this message immediately, as his statement Nancy Pelosi indicated last night, the message that they have to, or, you know, from their perspective, they should at least nuke the filibuster and statutorily codify Roe versus Wade into law, right? So I think that's the other thing going on there. That's not going to happen, obviously, right? Because Joe Manchin, Curse, and Sinema are not, they will not nuke the filibuster. Even Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins, who obviously are not exactly solid on the abortion issue,

to put it mildly, they still care about the filibuster as far as kind of a norm of the Senate. I have a question on that. Even if they codified row into law, if that is found unconstitutional, would you not have to pass a constitutional amendment that said that abortion is a right? So how exactly would that work? Would a law like that be upheld if they did try to say that abortion is now, access to abortion is now the law of the land federally? So what they could do is, so the court, the elito opinion says that abortion is not a 14th Amendment substantive due process right. But Roe v. Wade ruled. That kind of Roeby Wade ruled.

Right, exactly. That there is no constitutional right to abort an unborn child. But you obviously can have a statutory right in place of a constitutional right. So that's kind of what the Democrats have been talking about when they talk about. I think Kamala Harris back in the primary back in 2020 was big on this issue, right, kind of Congress passing a statutory right to Roe v. Wade. Now, the remedy for that, if God forbid they pass that, and again, I do not think they will. But the remedy for that would be either constitutional amendments to codify the right to like.

as you mentioned. Or alternatively, this kind of alternative equal protection clause, 14th Amendment approach jurisprudentially that I have advanced. Professor John Finnis has advanced. My friend Josh Craddock has advanced, which basically argues that the 14th Amendment, contrary to what some originalists and conservatives have said, is actually not silent on the issue of abortion. But if you actually read the words of equal protection clause seriously, that clause speaks of protecting all persons equally. And if you go back and look at the writings of the time, I think was actually understood that persons encompass both born and unborn persons, thereby making an equal protection clause violation for a state to protect born life under homicide laws, but not unborn

life. So that's an argument that I personally made. The illegal opinion obviously does not go there to be clear. I'm not even sure we have a single vote on the current court for that proposition. But Congress could also, under its 14th Amendment Section 5 enforcement power, could actually legislate that into law as well. So this is a thing that really, really, conservatives don't talk about very often, Ali, literally tomorrow, literally tomorrow, Josh Holly, Tom, Codd, and Ted Cruz, one of our pro-life stalwarts, could literally introduce a bill that says that the U.S. Congress under its 14th Amendment Section 5 of power to enforce Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is declaring abortion illegal nationally. They could do that tomorrow.

They just haven't done so. Why do you think that is? A lot of reasons. One is that the specific legal argument I'm making on the legal protection clause is admittedly somewhat of an outlier. It's not crazy. I mean, John Fennitz had a cover in First Things Magazine a year ago kind of making this argument. Robbie George, actually, the Princeton professor, maybe one of the most esteemed social conservative intellectuals in the country. His amicus brief in the Dobbs case advanced this argument. So it's not crazy.

It's definitely not crazy, but it's not popular. So what Congress would have to do to do that would be to kind of seize onto that argument as step one and then step two. actually rally around a bill to then actually act on it using their Section 5 power. The other problem there is that Congress does not frequently act on its 14th Amendment Section 5 enforcement power to kind of get in the legal weeds a little bit. There's a 1997 case of Texas called City of Bernie, which kind of impinged upon Congress's 14th Amendment Section 5 enforcement power a little bit.

It's kind of a very mealy-mouthed Anthony Kennedy opinion, not a particularly good one in my estimation. So there are some kind of presidential bars to that as well. But, you know, I personally have been hoping that like Josh Holly, of all people, would actually introduce that bill. So maybe he will. I'm not sure. Yeah. Let's hope so. I do see some people who call themselves, I don't know, maybe a libertarians or maybe they consider themselves on the right saying, oh, this is going to put the midterms in jeopardy. Of course, that's not really what this is about. I think that's kind of an inappropriate observation. Although it may be. I'm not so sure that I predict that. I think all of the people that were going to vote Democrat because of

abortion are still going to vote Democrat. I don't think any people in the middle are necessarily going to vote Democrat because of this. Although I do think that Democrats obviously have a pattern. If you think back just two years to May, they have a pattern of trying to stir up chaos and anger and even rioting in violence to push radical legislation and to try to influence the outcomes of elections. We saw that a couple years ago with a crisis and we're probably going to see that now. It's going to be an interesting and a little bit of a frightening summer because of that. But what I'm hopeful is that people will see, people who are in the middle, especially Christians who, gosh, consider themselves pro-life but don't vote against abortion. I'm hopeful that they will actually see that the people screaming like banshees, that as you said, this really is their pagan sacrament, that they really worship abortion.

they worship the so-called right to kill an unborn child and that they will actually be horrified at what they see as far as what I think is demonic activity coming from the supporters of abortion and that it is not going to lead to these people in the middle suddenly voting Democrat because of the abortion issue. I just don't think it's going to go that direction. Yeah, no, look, I mean, the Democrats, to say that they have gone off the deep end when it comes to the abortion issue, we'll be putting it mildly. You know, I saw David Harsani of National Review just this morning tweet out, apparently back in 1982 when he was a relatively young U.S. senator from Delaware,

Joe Biden, who at the time, I think, was still a self-proclaimed pro-life Catholic senator, obviously, in Delaware. At the time, he introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states. You know, I think the late Ted Kennedy, I think. I mean, earlier in his career, certainly, he was, you know, he was also of the opinion that Roe versus Wade was incorrectly decided. should be overturned. The Democratic Party for years and years, which obviously was kind of like a pro-labor union, kind of working class, you know, a Rust Belt Catholic Party. They were not crazy on the abortion issue. This is a relatively recent phenomenon, obviously. I mean,

famously Bill Clinton, of course, over and over again referred to abortion as safe, legal, and rare. Look, I mean, I remember my second year of law school, I guess this would have been at this point kind of seven years ago or so. I remember going to this book talk that the pro-abortion student group was holding about some book that at the time, was relatively new called Shout Your Abortion, you know, basically saying that this is, that there's no different from clipping a toenail. It's the same thing. So in a roughly 20-year period from the mid-90s to the middle of the last decade, we went from the Clintonian formulation of safe, legal, and rare to shout your abortion. I can't pinpoint exactly when that inflection point happened.

I think the Obama presidency obviously was kind of a major kind of shift to the left in many ways. Many ways. Yes. Yeah, the abortion issue included. But this obviously is very, very, very, very fertile ground for Republicans. The interesting thing, I think, assuming the court holds through, obviously, okay, assuming that the court does this and, you know, thank God we get back to kind of a pre-row constitutional regime, the real question then is what is going to happen in the red states? What is going to happen in Texas, Florida, Tennessee, your kind of big red states, are they going to lead the way? I honestly am not confident predicting that more than five to 10 Republican states will actually fully ban abortion.

I think we'll start to see... There are trigger laws in some states, correct? There definitely are, but a lot of them are kind of like eight to 12 week bans. You know, some are heartbeat measures, which these are good laws to be clear. But, you know, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, there are some very red states that I think will truly ban it from conception. But we'll see. I mean, assuming that this actually takes place, that is where the pro-life fight moves.

It moves to the 50 state legislatures. Yep, absolutely. And just to end this, if you could kind of summarize, you've already touched on it, but if you could kind of summarize why Roe v. Wade was not constitutional. Because one thing, the one thing that you will not see in all of the reactions from the left, or I'll say most, I'll leave kind of the exception out there as a possibility. And the reactions from the reporters or activist or whoever they are on the left, you won't hear an argument about why Alito is wrong, about why Alito logically or constitutionally gets his argument wrong. They're not really interested in that at all. They're just interested in whether or not they can easily access abortion. Does it matter if it's constitutional or not?

But if you're making a decision, like Alito has articulated a decision about why Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, what would you say? So, look, I mean, having gone to, you know, a pretty good law school, I had a lot of liberal classmates. There were very few smart liberals. I'm trying to choose my words carefully here. But there are very few smart, like, constitutionally literate liberals who are willing to give like a fulsome, full spectrum defense of the purported constitutional law that underlade the Roe versus Wade decision. As John Hart Eli, the late constitutional law scholar and a Harvard law professor and himself a personal proponent on a policy level of abortion rights, he famously said that Roe versus Wade quote was not constitutional law and did not even pretend to be. Ruth Bader Gainesburg, obviously, the leading ACLU attorney, the feminist trailblazer,

she over and over again, at least kind of earlier in her career, said that Roe versus Wade was probably wrong because it did not lay on a solid constitutional law foundation and also as a pragmatic level. It foreclosed debate on this very contentious issue. It only inflamed tensions. It didn't do anything to kind of calm tensions. So there were very few people willing to actually defend Roe versus Wade, to be honest with the basic argument against Roe.

the strong form version of the argument against Rose, but I just said, that the Equal Protection Clause actually, if you read it properly, actually bans abortion. The weaker form version, which I think is kind of the more mainstream version that has existed for the past, you know, four decades or so since the founding of the federal society and kind of beginning of the modern conservative legal movement that I'm very much a part of. The more mainstream argument would be that 14th Amendment, Section 1, whether it's the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, says nothing whatsoever about abortion. Specifically, the Due Process Clause, of this doctrine of so-called substantive due process, where the due process clause in their minds

speaks not only of process, but actually has kind of substantive, unenumerated liberties embedded therein. But if you, there is really very, very, very little, historically speaking, to kind of ground that claim. Specifically in Roe, what the court did, Roe was 1973. It built upon the case Griswold versus Connecticut eight years prior, which is a case out of Connecticut, obviously, where the court first kind of promulgated a so-called right to prime. The problem with the so-called right to privacy as a constitutional right was that it's just, it's not in there. I mean, they literally said they found it in the emanations of the penumbras of the Ninth Amendment.

Most people don't even know what that means. Exactly. It was the most ludicrous legalese you could ever think of. It was total, total nonsense. So Roe v. Wade took this totally fabricated, quote unquote, right from Griswold and then extended it to the willful and wanton slaughter of an entire subclass human beings. I mean, it's beyond indefensible. And, you know, just thank God that as of now, it looks like the court is finally going to do the right thing.

Yeah, thank God. We still have a ways to go, it looks like, and we still have some prayers to pray. I'm very thankful for your voice and for your insight on all of this. Thank you so much for always arguing so persuasively and speaking so clearly. You bet, All right. Thanks for having me. Thank you. All right.

Now that we've had Josh kind of tackle the legal side of this, I want to talk a little bit about the reaction to this. As I mentioned, number one, you are not seeing. any arguments that I have seen from the left about why Alito was wrong. Articulate to me why, how abortion is constitutional right? Like, let's make it as clear and as coherent as possible. Let me hear really your argument. Of course, we know that there is no moral or logical or scientific argument. How many times have we been through every single argument that tries to defend abortion, whether it's bodily autonomy, whether it's that the child isn't developed enough or the child is too small or the child isn't sentient. All of those arguments are not only immoral, but they are

entirely inconsistent with someone who believes that murder should be illegal outside of the womb. Why do all of the principles that leftists say or pro-choice, pro-abortioners say justify abortion of someone inside the womb, murder of someone inside the womb, why can't you apply that to people outside of the womb? It's entirely inconsistent unless you have some superstitious idea that the birth canal transfers rights into a person. Otherwise, like, when does a person have rights if not at conception? How old do they have to be? How developed do they have to be? What kind of abilities do they have to have for you to say that that person has a right not to be murdered? Is it outside of the womb? Okay, well, there are babies outside of the womb who are born premature at 23

weeks. And then there are babies who are still inside of the womb at 23 weeks. The only difference between those two babies' location. So you are arguing that abortion, murder, is something that is justified by mere location. Does that apply to people outside of the womb? Are people who are smaller, who are less developed, who have fewer abilities, they have more disabilities, who are poor, who are abused,

who might grow up to live some kind of hard life or any of those justifications for murdering people outside of the womb? If not, which I would say the vast majority of people would say no, that's no reason. You shouldn't be able to murder someone outside of the womb because they're poor or they're young or they're small or they're less developed than an adult or because they don't have the ability to speak for themselves or because they're inconvenient to their parents or because their parents are financially burdened or they decided they don't want kids anymore or they're just,

this child isn't wanted in general. You wouldn't use any of those reasons to justify the murder of a child or a person outside of the womb. So again, you need to be able to explain why those are reasons to murder someone inside the womb. And the only reason is because you're able to get away with it. There's no moral or logical or illegally consistent or coherent argument for abortion. As I've said before, I testified before Congress. And I expected to hear some more sophisticated arguments from the Democrats who support the ability, the ability to legally access the slaughter of unborn children.

And I expected some kind of intellectual response to what I had to say about abortion from these Democrats. And I didn't hear it. I heard nothing more sophisticated, nothing more interesting, nothing more intellectual from these Democrats in Congress than I've heard from your average Twitter troll. I have never, ever heard a good argument for abortion. That's what you're going to be hearing over the next few weeks, over the next few months, certainly up until the midterms you are going to be hearing all of these sob stories from women who say that they had to get an abortion. had to get an abortion because of their career. They had to get an abortion because they were in a bad situation. And this is violating a woman's rights. This is violating a woman's bodily autonomy. This is

going to set women back. What the left conveniently leaves out is what an abortion is. What are we talking about when you're talking about a woman's right? What are we talking about when you're talking about reproductive justice? What are you talking about when you are saying something like forced birth? What are you talking about when you're using these euphemisms? As I've said before, if you have to use euphemisms to make your side of an argument palatable, in other words, if you have to lie to make your side of the argument palatable, you're on the wrong side. Whereas when it comes to abortion, all we have to do, all the anti-abortioners have to do is tell

the truth. What we're talking about, and I think it's so important, I always bring us back to this, what we're talking about is the murder of babies. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about the murder of babies. We're talking about poisoning a baby with pills. We're talking about dismembering a baby inside the womb with forceps. We're talking about in second trimester abortions taking a needle that is filled with the same combination of chemicals that is used in legal, lethal injections of murderers on death row, inserting that needle with that poisonous chemical into a woman's womb into her uterus.

And if the baby isn't wiggling too much into the baby's heart and inserting the poison into the baby's heart to cause a fatal heart attack. until that baby dies and can be removed from the mother's womb. That's what we're talking about. And of course, there are even more, if you can imagine it, grotesque forms of abortion that are being performed. We talked about a couple weeks ago with Lila Rose, these five second, third trimester babies. Their bodies were disposed. They were found outside of a Washington abortion clinic. They were being thrown away as waste. And we saw pictures of these little babies. And one little baby girl, she was probably close to 30 weeks gestation. So we're talking third trimester here. Her skull was crushed. Her brain had been sucked out. Now technically that form of abortion is illegal. That's

considered a partial birth abortion where the doctor, the abortionist actually induces birth, takes the child's head, the living child's head out of the birth canal, inserts a tube into the back of the child's skull and sucks the brain out until the skull collapses. That's what we're talking about, we're talking about abortion. So when you see these people screeching, when you see the people on the left talking about, oh, this is going to set women back, oh, we're talking about women's rights here, oh, this is so unjust that our right to abortion is being taken away. That's what they're screeching about. This is not about left versus right. This is not about Democrat versus Republican. This is about light versus dark and right versus runk. I didn't know yesterday when I talked about

Tim Keller's soft, morally relativistic and just intellectually ennep. attitude and argument about abortion yesterday that we would be talking about this today. And I'm not surprised at all that Big Eva and the sophisticated intellectual evangelicals that are always chastising us Christians on the conservative side for being too into the culture wars. I'm not seeing a whole lot of reaction from them. Karen Swallow Pryor, who I would consider kind of in that group, she is a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

She, I'm hoping that I misunderstand. I'm hoping that I misunderstand. She does vote Democrat. Of course, she was very anti-Trump. She said, she tweeted yesterday, someone tweeted at her and said that, someone tweeted at her and said that if it weren't for, or she can't really talk about this,

what's going on because she basically voted against this because she voted for the party that is pro-abortion and she responded by saying, yep, I was for the slow right way of doing things. That's why I said 50 years, meaning that responding to an earlier tweet, meaning that in 50 years abortion will be unthinkable. She said, I'm not big on shortcuts. So I'm hoping I'm misunderstanding what she's saying, but it sounds like she is saying this Supreme Court decision, if it is upheld, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that that's a shortcut. and that it should take another 50 years for abortion to be unthinkable. Is that the holistically pro-life decision?

Is that the pro-life for pro-life evangelicals for Biden position, that we need 100 years of unfettered slaughter of unborn children before we do something about it? Is that the way to win the culture war? Like, is that what godly biblical justice looks like? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what she is saying. I somehow don't think so because she is openly advocated on to. behalf of Democrats who are the pro-abortion party. They're the pro-abortion party. So all the nuance that

these sophisticated intellectual evangelicals try to strike, all the tension that they say exists, that, oh, we don't know, as Tim Keller said, which side of the aisle has the better solutions for ending abortion? This is not a debate on the left and right about how to end abortion. As you see, and I'm about to play some, as you see in the reactions to the news that Roe v. Wade might be overturned, which just means it'll go back to the states. It doesn't mean that you're not going to be able to access abortion. Unfortunately, you'll see that this is not a debate about whether or not abortion is evil. The debate, or it's not a debate about whether or not Republican or Democrat policies

in abortion. It is a debate about whether or not abortion is good or whether or not abortion is evil. The left, by and large, thinks abortion is good, that it's morally right, not just that it's necessary evil, but the platform, the main agenda, the sacrament of the left and of the current Democratic Party that is different from the Democratic Party of just 10 years ago, as you heard Josh say, is that abortion must be accessible, available through nine months without apology and free and totally subsidized by the taxpayer. That is the current Democratic position. If you want to debate which policy, whether it's restricting abortion or making abortion totally free and

accessible is going to end or decrease abortion? I think the answer is obvious. But that's not really the question on the table. The question on the table is whether or not you think slaughtering and dismembering and sucking the brains out of babies is right. Do you think the Constitution speaks to that? Do you think the Constitution speaks to that being okay? And if you as a Christian thinks that maybe we should just have a slow crawl for the next 50 years to try to make that unthinkable, that the law shouldn't speak at all to the dignity and the right of an unborn child not to be brutally murdered, then you're on the wrong side. You know nothing of justice. You know nothing of the God who created justice, might I add. As R.C. Sproll said when he was alive, if he knows anything about

God, the God that he studied for his many years in ministry, if he knows anything about the God of Scripture, the God who created the heavens in the earth, the God who established justice, who alone is the arbiter of right and wrong and the creator of truth, if he knows anything about that God, he knows that he hates abortion. Now, that does not mean that he hates women who have had abortions. There is abundant grace for women who have had abortions. There's abundant compassion. We, the church, should be the first ones to show up, both for women who are struggling with shame and guilt and the after effects of abortion and women who have an unplanned pregnancy. And I'll get more into that in a second. But I just wanted to make sure that I at least give you that. That God hates

abortion, there's grace for women who have had abortions, but let us not because we want to show grace shy away from the truth that God hates abortion. We should be celebrating the fact that Roe v. Wade might be overturned. That is the right side. That's the right side. How you can judge if you're on the right side of this issue is how happy you are to hear that it might be harder to slaughter an unborn child. If that makes you sad or scared at all, then I would do some serious soul-searching and I pray that God would soften your heart and change your mind. I genuinely mean that. I don't mean that in a condescending way.

That's what I'm praying. That your heart would be changed. That your mind would be changed. That you would see that this is the greatest moral atrocity of our time. That yes, it is exactly akin to slavery. Because what you are doing is you are deciding that an entire class of human beings that is scientifically what they are. You can say that they shouldn't have rights if you want to make that argument,

but they are human beings. So you need to explain why some human beings shouldn't have rights and some should. What you are saying is that a class of human beings, because they are not politically useful, because they don't have a voice, because they can't physically fight back, that they are subhuman or that they shouldn't have personhood rights. That is exactly the justification for every single human rights atrocity that has ever existed throughout history. Only ruthless tyrants and barbarians and evil wicked dictator.

take away the personhood status of a group of people to justify killing that group of people. When you're talking about people who justified slavery by saying that black people aren't fully human, when you're talking about people who have justified all forms of genocide, when you're talking about the Holocaust. I know people get really touching when you make those comparisons, but it is the exact same logic. You decided completely arbitrarily that one group of people, doesn't have a right to life. And no matter how much you kick and scream and yell in front of

the Supreme Court, you're not going to be able to come up with morally or legally or logical coherent defense of that. You're just not. The only coherent and consistent argument that you can make, it's not even coherent consistent, but at least it's honest. If you just say that it's okay, that you believe that some, that killing some people is okay if society decides that they're not useful. Just know that that principle is going to then apply to lots of people outside the womb and you are going to have been a part of that. So here are some reactions from people. Here are some reactions from people who, like, I wish I could save their demons. Like honestly, that would be a better explanation for what's going on. But they're human beings. They're human beings. They're

made in the image of God. And here is their reaction in front of the Supreme Court to the fact to that they might not be able to access abortion quite as easily. All right. So there were hundreds of people, if not more than that, in front of the Supreme Court. There were back and forth between pro-lifers and, and pro-abortioners about this. And again, just the dichotomy here of light versus darkness is so obvious. And then lives of TikTok, who always comes through for us in showing just the most inane reaction from the left when it comes to things like this.

Here is a montage that they put together of some, I guess, feminists on TikTok reacting. This abortion law goes beyond a woman's issue, and it goes beyond anything you can ever imagine. The societal implications of this are going to be insane. The amount of just pain and damage this is going to cause, and the full ability to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, and we're going back into a hands.

Handmeets Tale Society here. All of you women who sat home, all are you young girls, adults over 18 years old who did not go out and vote, who did not think that you need to protect your womb, we're now back in the dark ages. Um, brace yourselves, ladies. I'm with you. my heart is just broken. I don't understand why this country hates women so much. I just don't understand it. We'll get through this.

We'll figure out a way. And we're joking about it being a handmaids tell it will be. Oh my gosh. All right. Let us remind ourselves again, again, that we're not talking about women's bodies. No one's trying to regulate your body. There is a choice. You have a choice of whether or not you get pregnant.

Yes, there are situations, unfortunately, tragically, and which women get raped. That accounts for less than 1% of all abortions, of all reasons for abortion. And if you asked a leftist, by the way, are you okay with restricting abortion just to the cases of where someone gets raped? Of course, they'll say no. So they bring up, well, this is about women's bodies. because they're not always making a choice to get pregnant because some women are raped. Rape is very serious. It shouldn't just be a political talking point, by the way, but they just bring it up because

it's a talking point. They don't actually mean that abortion should only be available in cases of rape. They just bring it up because they're trying to morally extort you and to say, well, maybe in that case, but not even in that case. Because look, someone's conception, the circumstances surrounding someone's conception does not justify murdering them. Again, does that justify murdering someone outside of the womb if they were conceiving? in rape? Of course not. Then why does that justify murdering them inside the womb? So just remember that

when you're seeing all these tears, when you're seeing all of these arguments being made, just bring it back to what abortion is and ask the person that you're talking to. Why do you think abortion is right? Do you know what an abortion is? What do you think about this? Do you apply the same principle to people outside the womb? Get them to define their terms and really try to explain their defense of it. And then as we've talked about this argument for, oh, well, this is just going to make abortion less safe. And so we don't need to get the law involved in it. That's just silly. Then you could apply that to anything.

Like, do you believe that murder of people outside of the womb shouldn't be illegal because it might make it less safe? That's not why we pass laws. It's not just about that. It's not just about decreasing the number of crimes. That might be part of it. But it is because you want to legally recognize a human being's right not to be. murdered, a human being's humanity, a human beings personhood. And so that's what this is about. That's what this is about. And for this argument that you hear once again, that, oh, well, y'all are just

pro-birth. Y'all are just pro-birth. You just want to force women to give birth. Again, no one forced her to become pregnant in 99% of these situations. Everyone knows what leads to pregnancy, all right? Everyone knows it leads to pregnancy. And yes, consent to sex. is consent to pregnancy. Like people say, I just have to pause. People say, well, consent to sex is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy. And so it's like you're the getting pregnant. It's violating your consent, which is just wild.

That is like saying that eating food is not consent to digestion. Like you understand that one leads to the other. That's how human biology works. And I understand the left is very confused about human biology because they deny the existence of male versus female. But that is how it works. That's how we're all. here because of male versus female and the anatomy and the parts that play together to create a

pregnancy. And so yes, consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. And so you absolutely have a choice. You have autonomy over those choices. You have autonomy over your body. And if anyone violates that through something like sexual assault or rape, I think that person should go to prison for the rest of their lives. So, like, we're on the same page with how wrong that is. I just don't think you should murder someone because of a choice you made or because of any circumstance, a surrounding conception. And we're talking about killing babies. I believe that killing any innocent human is wrong. If you are pro-choice or you are pro-abortion,

even if you consider yourself personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice, which, again, is logically inconsistent, then you believe that killing some innocent human beings is okay. I don't. You believe that killing some innocent people is fine and acceptable and should be legal. I simply don't. And I think that's really clear cut about who is on the right side there. We are about to see so much darkness and so much demonic activity, so much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Like if you want to know what hell sounds like, if you want to know what hell looks like, look at the vitriol and the screeching like banshees from people who are crying about the right, who are screaming about the right, who are threatening death toward people who don't believe in the right to slaughter unborn children. I mean, you can look at some of the quote tweets. When I tweeted last night that the person who leaked, this knew that Kavanaugh and Barrett and the other conservative justices and their families were going to get threatened with death. I had Blue Check journalists from left-wing outlets like the nation and other left-wing activists and people on Twitter saying, good, that's a good thing.

So these people, they actually believe that they're on the right side. They actually believe that it is worth threatening the lives. I mean, Coney Barrett has young children. Kavanaugh has young children. They're saying that it's okay. They would actually, I guess, be okay with what they're saying is these people on Twitter would be okay with Kavanaugh and his family, Connie Barrett, and her seven children being murdered because they don't believe that there's a constitutional right to killing a baby. Just think that you're sharing the side with that people if you believe that abortion should be legal. It's a demonic side. It's really clear cut. It is like, versus dark. And look, we absolutely care about these babies and their mothers and their fathers

long after birth. That is the majority of pro-life anti-abortion work, as I have said so many times. If you doubt that, then why don't you go to your pro-life pregnancy center and volunteer there? Like if you care so much about what happens to women and their children after birth, then are you volunteering at your local pro-life pregnancy center, at your local pregnancy resource center? I mean, these people are offering free sonograms, free SDD checks. They are offering free parenting classes. They are offering free help with education, even the immigration process, even the welfare process. They are helping these people, these women get housing.

They are helping these women get jobs. They are helping these women with all sorts of things that actually help them get on their feet and take care of their family. They let those women know that they are not alone. They provide those women with resources and with community. that is far more than Planned Parenthood or any abortion facility could ever say. And so before you say that we are just pro-birth, why don't you go to your local pregnancy resource center and then you can come back to us and tell us if that's true? There's so much time, so much energy, so much prayer, so much money that goes into this,

that goes into helping these families so that they are not alone, so that they are not in crisis. The legal work that we do and pushing for good legislation that restricts abortion, that's really important, but that's just one piece of the pie. What we understand as Christians, guys, what we understand as Christians is that this is really the start of a new phase of the pro-life fight. This is really the start of it. And like, I just want to end on some encouragement here. What you do in what you say over a long period of time matters.

Man, this is the greatest example of what we, of two of the things that we say. politics matter because policy matters because people matter politics affects policy policy affects people who you vote for matters let's just be honest without donald trump without mitch mcconnell whatever you think about them we would not have this potential decision that could be monumental on saving the lives of thousands and maybe even millions of babies and so for all the people who talked about donald trump being such a wrecking ball for all the people john piper who i like by the way in so many ways and appreciate in so many ways he wrote an article before the election saying that the pride of Donald Trump is just as deadly as the pro-abortion position of the left of Joe Biden.

I'm wondering if he still believes that. I'm wondering what a lot of people who I would consider in big evil. What do they think about all this? Who you vote for matters. And yeah, Donald Trump, imperfect person. I think we would say Mitch McConnell from a conservative perspective. He doesn't always say and do the things that we like to do. man, this was consequential. And in this case, voting for a Republican can have an amazing generational

positive impact and preserving the lives of people and the dignity and the rights of our most vulnerable and most marginalized class of people in this country and in the world. Number one cause of death, by the way, in the world, if you didn't already know that. What you do politically matters. What you care about matters. What you speak up about absolutely matters. And look, this was a long game. It's been 50 years of this unconstitutional, abhorrent decision. It's been 50 years of unfettered, basically slaughter of unborn children. This has been a generational torch passing of advocates and activists speaking up on behalf of unborn children.

This has been a long game. And only now, half a century later, are we possibly seeing Roe v. Wade overturned? Let us keep that in mind as we are looking at the darkness that's in our world, as we are looking at all of the other political issues, which, as I say so often, for Christians, they're really theological issues, whether it comes to the gender indoctrination of children, all kinds of confusion and chaos and darkness that we see in this world. We're playing a long game. And God is in charge of the timeline. God is in charge of the justice that he is going to dole out. Man, we are deserving of so much wrath because of this as a country. There have been many injustices

perpetuated by all kinds of countries, including America, over our history, this possibly being the foremost right up there with chattel slavery. I mean, we deserve so much wrath for allowing this to endure for there being people and organizations of political parties that celebrate the slaughter of unborn children. And if this is overturned, it will be an act of incredible mercy. So gosh, we need to be praying. We need to be on our knees praying that these justices would stay courageous, that justice would be doled out, that unborn children would be protected. It is good that the law could change in many states. But as I said, that means our work begins. We want hearts and minds to be changed. We want hearts and minds to be changed. I want especially

for the church to wake up, for people who profess to be Christians who have been wishy-washy on this, who have been on the wrong side of this, I want you to be so clear. I want you to be so wise. I want you to be so bold and so brave and realize that the God who, who musty-washed, that the God, made us intricately and purposely in our mother's wombs hates abortion and we should too. Even as we love those who have had abortions or who are considering abortions, we speak the truth in love, realizing that truth and love, that holiness and love, that righteousness and love are inextricably intertwined and that is how we move forward in faith. And so we pray for the courage to speak up about this. We pray for the justices to stay and to stand firm and this.

This is our moment. This has been. the long game. We keep pushing forward like never before. Even if and when it is overturned, we keep on doing the work of helping mothers and their babies and changing hearts and minds. That is what the gospel does. That is what the truth does. And that is our role. Let's pray for the protection of the justices. Let's pray for the protection of anti-abortion activists. Let's pray for people to see light versus dark, right versus wrong. That's what I think is going to happen in all of this. And gosh, God is sovereign. God is sovereign. And he is good. And he is faithful that no matter what happens with this, justice will come once and for all when Jesus comes back and every knee bows and every tongue

confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. When you see the darkness that's articulated and expressed from the other side, the pro-abortion side, read Romans 1. You'll know that this is not new. That child sacrifice, unfortunately it happened in the Old Testament. God demanded the death penalty for it. when people in Israel were sacrificing their children to Malak. God hates child sacrifice. There has always been child sacrifice. It is just in a new kind of sterile and celebrated in different form today through abortion. And so God promises one day that justice will absolutely come, that he will rule in perfect peace,

the evildoers, that those who do wicked and perpetrate this kind of injustice will be no more, as Psalm 37 says. So even if politically, legally, we don't get what we want and what we pray for, which I'm hopeful that we do, we still trust in heaven and we trust in God's justice. And we trust in His sovereignty over this. Man, we have so many reasons to rejoice. We have so many reasons to be bold and to be courageous and to be clear right now and so many reasons to pray and so many reasons no matter what to trust in the God who's got this, who knows exactly what's going to happen and who promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and that the church has the same role that it always has to make sure that God's will is done

here on earth as it is in heaven. So let's go forth with that kind of courage. Just FYI, I am on Megan Kelly's podcast today talking about this. I am also on, I don't know if by the time this comes out, if you'll be able to catch it, but I'll be on Martha McCallum's show on Fox News. I'm talking about this. I am speaking tomorrow to a church talking about this. And I'm so thankful to God for the opportunity to get to talk about this so much. I'm obviously very passionate about it. Thank you to all of you who have been so clear and so courageous. Oh, the second phrase that this all speaks to, as I said, politics matter, policy matters, people. matter. I'm wearing my shirt today.

But of course, you can get online. We'll link it. Raise a respectful ruckus. This is 50 years. 50 years of people raising a respectful ruckus may conclude, hopefully include in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. And we'll keep on raising a respectful ruckus because these babies are worth it. All right. We will be back here tomorrow with a really fascinating interview. I know that you guys are going to love it. It's going to be about how wokeness and progressivism has infiltrated and destroyed the therapy. and really the medical industry in general.

You're going to love it. I'll see you guys then. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true

about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions

and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.