The Michael Knowles Show - Choosing Life: The Legacy of Dobbs

Episode Date: October 8, 2022

The Choosing Life series concludes with three exclusive interviews, including a conversation with the woman who was the strategist behind the Dobbs case - Mississippi Attorney General, Lynn Fitch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

No matter what the Roe Court said, it was never settled law, and the Supreme Court finally admitted it now in 2022. This is a change in history, an opportunity to rewrite the script. We have to really be focused on what women need. Women don't need abortion in order to be equal to men. What we need to do is recognize that we're complementary, that we are created as different but equal. pro-life laws affirm women's dignity. They prioritize the physical and emotional health and well-being of women, and obviously they're prioritizing the sanctity of human life.

There are resources available to women who find themselves, sort of stymied by this unanticipated, significant consequence in their lives. There are options. There are resources available. This is really a tremendous opportunity to welcome these women. with open arms to encourage them to choose life. Hey, welcome back to the Choosing Life podcast, the final episode of the Choosing Life podcast. My name is Ian Reed. I'm the interviewer that you've heard throughout the last 10 episodes,

talking with our incredible guests. When you press play on this episode, you probably expected to hear Michael. But because this is the final episode, we want to do something a little different. For the past year, my team and I have had the privilege of conducting in-depth conversations with the leading pro-life advocates, former abortionists, abortion survivors, and defenders of truth. The majority of the episodes in this series were the long-form, uncut interviews that we captured in the creation of the Daily Wire's film Choosing Death. And what a privilege it's been to share these conversations with you over the past 10

episodes. I'm not a Daily Wire employee, but, perhaps because of that, what I'm about to say, I hope, carries even more weight. From the earliest conversations that I had with Ben, Jeremy, and the entire leadership team at the Daily Wire, they wanted to produce and release as much information as possible about abortion for free to the public. The history, the stories, the scientific data, research, and testimonials of those at the center of the fight. The Daily Wire is not paying me to say this. In fact, I'd understand. I'm excited to add this at the last minute right before recording.

But I'm so appreciative to The Daily Wire for allowing my team and myself to tell these stories and to share these conversations for free with you. That's why I wanted to take the opportunity to host this final episode. This sort of content isn't cheap to make, and the Daily Wire funded weeks of research, travel, editorial work, and post-production because they actually believe it's vital for people to know the truth. And that sort of commitment, you know, beyond the lip service, to actually put their money where their beliefs are is something that I really, truly admire. But I also wanted to thank you, the listeners, the viewers of the film, the people in the movement fighting for life.

Thank you for your support. By listening to this series, you've prepared yourself to be an advocate in one of the most important issues of our time, to protect the unborn and to advocate for their mothers and families. So, what are we doing in this episode? Well, for this entry in the series, we wanted to hear from those who are at the center of the headlines related to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Clinic. So today, we're sharing with you not one, but three, brand new, never-before-heard conversations that dive into the Dobbs case, its facts, and the impact that the decision has already had across the country. We have the woman behind it all, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, whose bravery to bring this case to the Supreme Court is to thank for the landmark decision passed down in June. We'll also be talking with Kristen Wagner, President and General

Council of Alliance Defending Freedom, who partnered with and assisted the state of Mississippi in crafting not only the legal argumentation, but Mississippi's laws themselves to build a winning case for life. And to better understand the context and legal analysis of the Dobbs decision, we'll be talking with Sarah Partial Perry, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. So as we begin this final episode, let me just say thank you again for letting us take you on this journey. May God use the Dobbs decision and all of us to build the bedrock of a culture of life for future generations. Right now, I would strongly recommend you go to

hallo.com slash choose life because today's world is a scary one. Too many people don't seem to care about the truth. And I would suggest that that's all rooted in people becoming less or really just anti-religious. That's why it's more important than ever to keep our relationship with God strong. Hallow is the number one Christian prayer app in the United States. It's like calm or headspace, but rooted in Catholic faith.

It is the perfect resource to deepen your relationship with God and find peace through audio-guided prayer and meditation. Several of Hallow's meditations encourage you to choose life and to pray for others to choose life, such as their litany for life with Lila Rose. Hallow is free to download. It will help you find peace and calm throughout your day. So do it. Do it right now.

Download the app for free at hallow.com slash choose life. That is hallow.com slash choose life. So right now we're talking with Sarah Partial Perry, senior legal fellow at the Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. And we're going to be talking about the Dobbs case, the history of abortion law, and the impact that Dobbs has had across society. Thank you so much for joining us, Sarah.

Thanks for having me. So, Sarah, tell us about yourself. What's your emphasis of study and how does your work relate to the Dobbs case? Well, I'm a senior legal fellow here in Heritage is Me Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. And I was very closely following the Dobbs case because I recognized that this was an opportunity to, once and for all put sort of the nail in the coffin of Roversus' way. Now, personally, I've been involved in the pro-life trenches for many, many years. In fact, my first introduction to public policy and to politics was at 14 when I testified in front of the Wisconsin Assembly on a

parental notification bill designed to limit a minor's ability to get an abortion without involving her parents. So this is something about which I have been extremely passionate. We were involved as a family in the early fight in the late 70s, early 80s. We engaged in the March for Life. We donated a crisis pregnancy centers every Christmas. So I had a lot of skin in this game, so to speak. I've also had three children. I have three teenagers. So I have experienced sort of that journey of what it's like to be a mom as well. And so I had a great deal invested both emotionally and legally because I did recognize that this was sort of the culmination of a decades-long battle to finally overturn what many of us considered to be one of the

worst precedents in the American Supreme Court jurisprudence. I'd love to touch on your last comment there. Throughout our journey documenting the history of abortion over the last several months, we've heard a lot of people criticize the legal decision making in Roe. What made it a legal train wreck. Yeah, that's a great question. It really was a decision that established a right to abortion very much out of thin air. And many liberal scholars, as well as conservative scholars, have criticized it for precisely that. In fact, it gave no impression of being a constitutional decision. Even John Hart Ely, who was an extremely liberal law professor who taught at Harvard for some time has said specifically it was not a constitutional decision and didn't actually make an

attempt to be. Justice Blackman decided that there was a right to abortion. He sort of saw the seas changing tide a little bit when it came to the women's liberation movement and to feminist advancements. And so he truly found by way of the Ninth Amendment, a right to privacy, applied to the states through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. And by the time, time we've seen sort of the iterations of that. It expanded what the court had never before considered, which is where those applications of privacy begin and where they end. But to say that the right to an abortion emanates from a right to privacy and is applied to the states by way of the 14th Amendment was really the thinnest veneer of legal reasoning. It was more about social

sciences. It was more about political commentary than it was about law, and people have roundly criticized the decision for precisely that. Unfortunately, we were left with the stain of Roe when, in fact, in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court was again asked to consider whether or not they wanted to overrule Roe v. Wade. And their response was, no, we want everyone to essentially adhere to this as the finalized law of the land. And we are affirming Rose, what they called essential holding, that there is a constitutional right to abortion. And so many of us were waiting with sort of baited breath. I know I was. I was a senior in high school in 1992 and sort of really beginning my interest in law and policy. And we were all very hopeful that we would see the end of

Roe in 1992, but it wasn't until the Dobbs decision nearly 50 years later that for many of us, that dream came to fruition. So you mentioned that in Roe, there's a sort of linking of different amendments to craft a novel legal reasoning. Is that traditionally how Supreme Court decisions are decided or was this an anomalous approach? Well, it was a little bit of both. And now, when I say it was a little bit of both, the Roe court was not what I would call an originalist court. So the court that we have now, the composition of those Supreme Court justices,

in large part, is an originalist court. And they are guided by history, structure, text, and tradition. And they look first to the text of the Constitution. And there is a difference between enumerated rights and unannumerated rights. Now, of course, we know, for example, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, religion, petition, assembly, and press, we recognize those as being enumerated rights, but the unenumerated rights are where it gets tricky. And this was a consideration stemming from an unenumerated right. Well, we find that in something called substantive due process, which is a fancy descriptor for essentially saying, listen, we think based on where history was at the time and what the founders wanted and what is essential to a component of ordered liberty, that in fact,

this is a right that should be protected, that was intended to be protected. But it's specious to say that when the Constitution was ratified, of course, there was ever the assumption that there would be a protected right to abortion. And in fact, for a lot of people, particularly for a lot of liberal scholars, they were up in arms after the Dobbs decision because Justice Clarence Thomas and his separate concurring opinion pointed out that substantive, due process is a very tricky line of reasoning. And it actually has formed the basis of quite a number of sort of these unannumerated rights determinations, including among other things, a right to contraception, a right to same-sex marriage from Obergefell versus Hodges, a right to interracial marriage. And so people read this concurring opinion and were suddenly terrified, determining that they, of course, would now see all of these rights that they've relied on for so many years suddenly rolled back. But what I will say to that is that Justice Thomas has correctly accurately identified that there is a trickiness in when we begin to expand the scope of constitutional rights outside what its original

founders and framers intended them to be. He identified these rights from which we've pulled from this 14th Amendment substantive due process jurisprudence. And basically he said it's formed the basis of too many of these opinions. What we need to do is give these issues to the states to determine for themselves. Now, he was alone in his concurrence. In fact, even Justice Kavanaugh, who himself wrote a separate concurrence in that opinion, said specifically, listen, we're not going to revisit all of our 14th Amendment cases. And in fact, the majority in writing the opinion, Justice Alito, taking the pen,

said, this is only concerning the right to abortion. I think the court rightly recognized that there would be a fair amount of hysteria and flag-waving about losing these fundamental social rights that these individuals have relied on for so long. But it is very limited to the issue only of abortion. Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need.

There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and all birds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer. Let's talk a little bit about that hysteria in flag-waving. For the last year, many on the left have loudly proclaimed that if Roe was overturned, that literally any unannumerated right, I mean, same-sex marriage, contraception, a host of others, that those could all be in the chopping block. Was that critique valid?

No, not at all. And I think because Alito's majority opinion was so careful to limit it and to make the pronouncement that it was related only to abortion and to no other unannumerated rights, that we can take comfort in the fact that they're not going to revisit this 14th Amendment jurisprudence. And in fact, in his separate concurrence, Kavanaugh disagreed with Clarence Thomas and said, regardless of any perception of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence, on which we've relied for so many years, we are not going to revisit that now. And I will tell you, I don't think Justice Thomas, much as I love his jurisprudence and his particular legal writing, has the votes to take up a case that would determine that these particular rights needed to be eliminated. This itself was related to abortion because the decision itself, Roe v. Wade, was so poorly written. It was so poorly reasoned. And it truly was reliant on the thinnest of all constitutional bases. It really was, if you've read the opinion, a desperate grasping at straws. It was a justice who was keen to sort of move with the social tide, not away from the social tide. And unfortunately, it took us 49 years to finally see the court put that mistake right. For those who might not be familiar with the details of Dobbs, what were the facts of the case and what was the majority opinion of the court? So the case centered on the constitutionality of Mississippi's gestational age act, which put the actual state in between sort of, I would say, a rock and a hard place.

But in fact, it was correctly and brilliantly positioned to take the issue of viability head on. Now, viability, of course, when we know that an unborn child can live outside the room, whether with or without medical help. But in drafting the bill and in passing it into law, it was the only law at the time that took specifically into consideration this notion of viability. The court from 1973 forward had never considered the issue of viability head on and why they plucked that determination, specifically out of thin. air. Why could a woman get an abortion before a child was viable, but could be subject to certain government restrictions after a child was viable? Well, because this took precise aim at why they set that as the dividing line, it was perfectly positioned to take Roe head on. And in fact, in open court, the arguments from Mississippi solicitor General Scott Stewart, he mentioned

among other things, the fact that viability is sort of a moving target. In fact, we've now seen that unborn preemies as early as 21 can live with medical assistance. So with technological advancements, and with the knowledge we have now of fetal development, their pain, what we know about neurological processing, their physiological functions, the advent of 3D ultrasounds, we are in such a different phase now in American science and in the pro-life field that they couldn't arguably uphold viability as the appropriate standard, that it was inappropriate and therefore unconstitutional because it did not rely on a foundation that was ultimately solid. The response for Elizabeth Prelager, who is the solicitor general for the United States, who joined with the attorney

for the abortionist Jackson Women's Health Organization basically said, listen, and I will say I have to chuckle at this. Very little commentary on law, lots of commentary on social policy, both from Elizabeth Prelager and the attorney for the women's health organizations, both of whom could not justify Rose Essential Holding, its constitutional basis, its insightful legal reasoning. Instead, their arguments were ultimately sort of weighted upon a reliance interest. Women have relied on this for too long. We cannot take this away. It's going directly to the issue of women's advancements. And in fact, it was one of my favorite justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, herself, a mother of many children, who understands what it is to be a constitutional scholar and a mom, was very quick to point out

that there are safe haven laws in all 50 states in the union where a woman can relinquish her newborn without any fear of criminal prosecution whatsoever. And so in fact, when the Solicitor General and the attorney for the abortionist both argued, it's too much of a reliance interest, her response was, well, it's really simply that reliance interest that only goes to the issue of carrying a pregnancy to term. It doesn't have to. to do anything with ultimately women's advancement, their opportunity for economic freedom, their ability to move forward in the workforce or their educational opportunities. We're simply talking about the period of a few months. And if that's sufficient to find a right

in the Constitution, then ultimately we have no Constitution at all. Justice Kavanaugh had a brilliant line of reasoning describing more than 50 years of precedent that had overturned prior what was considered bedrock precedent. Chief among them, I give you Plessy versus Ferguson, which instituted the now fallacious separate but equal that was overturned by the Seminole Brown versus Board of Education, desegregating all American public schools, really a triumph for the Supreme Court. Multiple cases like that have been. been decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not infallible. And in fact, stare decisis, which is Latin for let the decision stand, something by which the justices are generally bound.

It is an opening salvo. It is not exactly where they end up if they determine that a previous iteration of their constitutional law is, in fact, incorrect, fallacious, was not constitutional. They are wholly within their right to actually overturn that precedent. And that's what they decided to do in Roe v. Wade. Justice Alito's majority opinion, which of course we know now, was leaked in May, differed very little from that leaked opinion in the two months between the leak and the final concretized opinion. And in fact, I believe was brilliantly written. he went through 150 years of American history to describe the fact that this was never a right that was intended to be protected, not only just by the framers of the Constitution, but by anyone in a seat of power in government and administration, state by state at the time. In fact, there were criminal prosecutions for many women who took steps to end their own pregnancies. So to say it was an element of our ordered liberty to give a woman a right to have an abortion was. simply wrong. His opinion went on to address the fact that there was no constitutional basis for Roe,

that they were only addressing the issue of abortion and that they were in the end sending the issue of abortion back to the people and their elected representatives where they could be debated in the state houses and in an open forum and where those difficult, moral, philosophical, and cultural questions were going to ultimately be answered. And that just seems to be something that the current dialogue about Dobbs is missing. Every day I see pundance and memes and one-liners about how the court's decision sets women's rights back by decades. But what does the decision actually do to the issue of abortion? That's a great question. In fact, by sending this back to the people's representatives, it's really going to be a question that allows answers from

the common public in an open forum. And of course, Congress has certain enumerated powers limited enumerated powers to decide particular questions of law, for example, under the tax and spend clause. It has the opportunity to pass legislation like it did with the Hyde Amendment that eliminates taxpayer funding for abortion. So it too will have a role to play in this. But the primary source of this particular sort of legislative response will indeed be in the states. And it will also be with the state constitutions where now we will see people debate, and we will see the courts in the states determine ultimately what their own constitutions mean. It's a tremendous opportunity to really vote your values, which I know has been ultimately

relied upon for fundraising in the Democratic Party going into the midterm season. They've seen a boon to their fundraising platform as well, simply because these are issues that are hotly debated. They have always been sort of sacred cows for the left when it comes to the issue of advancement and women's rights. But now having an opportunity to ultimately elect people who represent your perspective and to go out to vote on, for example, constitutional referenda that will appear on some midterm ballots. Six lawsuits are currently pending right now across the country on particular state constitutions that in one way or another, either. protect life or protect a right to abortion. Ten constitutions in total protect the right to abortion as written into the constitution, some of which are a function just of when those constitutions were ratified because they were so many years, for example, after our own federal United States constitution.

But now we're going to have a chance at the most granular level to have an impact to vote specifically, not only for these referenda, but for individuals who represent our perspective. It is not just a win for the cause of life, but I consider the Dobbs decision to be also a win for the democratic process. Yeah, it strikes me that in contrast to the claim that Dobbs strips rights away from women, it seems to me like Dobbs, maybe in its most fundamental sense, actually gives the power back to the people. Yes, it does. It does. And I will say of the three branches, right, the, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branch. We've seen the judicial branch finally admit its constitutional error and say, we were wrong from the beginning. We're sending it back to the legislative

bodies. Now, we have seen an increase in efforts from the executive. We know, for example, that President Biden has utilized something called EMTALA, which is the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, to try to treat as an emergency abortions and force emergency room doctors to perform elective abortions, but the history of EMTALA and the fact that this is ultimately a funding provision for hospitals that take place in Medicare and Medicaid platforms is simply illegal. We know it's subject already to one federal court loss. Another is pending as well. So we'll see sort of a scrambling, I think, on the part of the executive, while the current

president remains in office to somehow protect, to crystallize what is left. of any semblance of a federal right to abortion when, in fact, none exist. And we've made sure in previous iterations of federal law, for example, like the Hyde Amendment, which specifically goes to that congressional power on spending and interstate commerce, they will have already made their pronouncements, but I anticipate going into the election season. This is going to be a significant hot button issue. There are going to be numerous attempts, many of which, I think will fail federal constitutional muster or an originalist or textualist reading of these statutes as they were passed by Congress. But long story short, I think for these battles,

many of them, most of them will transpire in the voting booths in November. And in that respect, I think it really has allowed these particular women, both pro-life and pro-abortion, to be more involved in the democratic process, giving these women, even those who believe abortion is their fundamental right, an opportunity to have a say, again, at the most sort of microcosmic level, at the place closest to where individuals are led by their government agencies, I think ought to be an encouragement for all of us. We don't want the judicial branch plucking a perceived constitutional right out of thin air. I think that sends us in a very dangerous direction as a country. So now that we're a few months into a post-Obs world,

have any of the apocalyptic scenarios come true? Because if you go back just a couple months, people were claiming that we were going to be entering a world reminiscent of something like the Handmaid's Tale, you know, back alley abortions, women in danger of increased medical risks and death, subordinating women to men's whims and power. Did any of these predictions come true?

Well, I think you've rightly identified the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the collective left over this. Again, abortion being the sacred cow, we anticipated that there would be this level of hysteria coming from the left. They would be sort of scrambling to figure out how to take any scrap of a federal abortion right and make sure that it was secure when, in fact, they were going to have to get themselves more involved, sort of at the very grassroots level. But there are some messy consequences to a democratic decision. And in that, I think we need to take heart because our constitutional republic is run in such a way that ultimately an abortion will be easier to acquire in a state like New York or California, but it will be harder, for example, in Texas and Mississippi. That is the nature of representative government. We want the states to ultimately be able to make their determinations about these particular. moral and philosophical questions, the big issues that will affect them closely. But there will be a differing sort of patchwork of abortion laws. There has been more interstate travel. We've seen that as a consequence. Now, I will say for individuals who have attempted in the state houses to restrict interstate travel through the particular legislation that they've passed, that too will not pass

constitutional muster. The Supreme Court's been very clear on a 14th Amendment right. to interstate travel as part of that ordered liberty that we've talked about. But we also want to make sure that we clarify ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages are absolutely not a part of this discussion and any hysteria on the left to describe those as being tantamount to a failure to provide abortion services is specious. It actually misrepresents both the science, the reality of medicine, and simple common sense. So these have not. been sort of the apocalyptic scenarios that we were told they were going to be. They are differing from state to state appropriately so. And I think what they're going to ultimately determine is

how passionate are individuals about their particular rights, their perceived rights, or what they believe ought to be a moral duty on the part of someone else. Well, you have an opportunity to way in in November, and I think that's where these dialogues ought to be had. If it requires interstate travel, if it requires a different doctor in a different facility who doesn't, for example, have a conscience objection, these are the difficult decisions that are going to be made. And yes, it is a messy outcome, but it's the appropriate democratic response. I think that mention of messiness is interesting because I think oftentimes, when When people think of government, they think, you know, big bureaucratic systems that don't change.

They don't really think of mess or working things out. And, you know, what do you mean when you say that messiness is actually a feature rather than a bug? And that perhaps the messiness of getting the voters and states involved is actually a good thing. Well, I think the reason that it feels as though they have had no direct impact on the way that their lives are run and the way the government does things is become. because we're precisely in the crosshairs of an administrative state run by an agency that fully believes bigger government is better governments, when in fact the framers in their brilliance have given us the 10th Amendment. All powers not specifically relegated to the federal government are for the states to determine, and one of those chief among them is health, safety and welfare. The Supreme Court's also said explicitly that medicine is precisely under that welfare state police power, those powers that emanate from the 10th Amendment. This is a Supreme Court that is what I would describe as a pro-federalism court.

In other words, the power really ought to be the state's first and only if the Constitution permits the federal government to exercise it should we allow them to do so. So I feel as though this is a consequence of an administration that has grown the administrative state, that has grown the executive agencies, that has glutted them with more regulations than we've seen in the past three presidential administrations that can't stop spending money. And growing, I give you 180,000 new IRS agents who will be apparently doing what? We don't yet specifically know. But there is a certain point at which we want the government to begin to minimize itself, to recognize its own limitations, to identify its constitutional import and say this ultimately is a question for the states to consider. And in that way, while it is a messy outcome, while Dobbs sends this question largely back to the citizens of the United States and while there will be disparate responses, And we'll see everyone trying to take a heartbeat or better approach to a third trimester abortion approach. This is precisely the way it ought to go. It's what the Constitution anticipated. And it's what these Supreme Court justices have rightly recognized is an appropriate structure to our federalist system of government. So if you take this Dobbs decision from the national level discussion and boil it down to a more personal level, how is the Dobbs' decision?

decision impacting women in the unborn? What sort of impacts have we seen so far from the court's ruling? Mississippi alone, and remember Mississippi, their gestational age act, was right in the crosshairs of the Supreme Court's opinion in Dobbs. We've already seen a saving of 180,000 unborn lives. This is an opportunity for crisis pregnancy centers and nonprofits, many of which, who are religiously organized, really step up to the play. There are more crisis pregnancy centers in the country significantly more so than there are abortion clinics. This is really a chance to stand in the gap to use what we know are the resources that are coming predominantly from religiously affiliated nonprofits. Most of the charitable work in the country, Pew Research tells

us, is performed by religiously affiliated nonprofits. I give you the Fulton versus City of Philadelphia case and Catholic social services in Philadelphia who desperately wanted to participate in the foster care program but was eliminated by the city of Philadelphia specifically because of their beliefs on traditional human sexuality and marriage. These are opportunities for groups like that to finally do what they have wanted to do for so long and to welcome these women with open arms to encourage them to choose life. And that's ultimately what we're already seeing at state level. Wow. And that's just in Mississippi since Dobbs. In just the last few months, over 180,000 children's lives have been spared. Yep. And that's just one state. That's just one state.

And I assume over the coming years we'll see more data from other states begin to accumulate. But wow, what an incredible saving of life evident from just one state and only a matter of months. Absolutely. So Sarah, as we conclude this conversation, what would you leave audience? with? Whether it's a woman with an unplanned pregnancy or people just interested in learning more about the pro-life movement, what would you leave with listeners? Well, I would say there are three primary points that I would leave people with. First of all, this is a victory for the Democratic process. You have an opportunity in November to be active. Perhaps you've never been active before, and this will encourage you to go out and register to vote. Perhaps your state has a constitutional

referendum that is currently under consideration. Perhaps there's a particular individual that represents your perspective that's on the ballot in November. That would be by encouragement would be to go out and vote because this is really a tremendous opportunity to be involved in the democratic process and on an issue that has really engendered so much controversy and so much discussion for the past 49 years. No matter what the Roe Court said, it was never settled law. It wasn't settled law in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. And the Supreme Court finally admitted it now in 2022. So I would say go out, participate in the democratic process. I would say also number two is that there are resources available to women who find themselves sort of stymied by this unwelcome or sort of

unanticipated significant consequence in their lives. They have. have options. In fact, among them, I would encourage them to go to heritage.org, where we work with a number of organizations who are similarly advancing the cause of life. We have resources there. We work with a number of crisis pregnancy centers here in D.C. alone. Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center is simply a few blocks from us, and they are ready to welcome people with open arms. There are resources available. There is a network care net that specifically works with mothers who find themselves in these situations. But there are options. It isn't as insurmountable a task or such a black mark on an individual's opportunity to advance. I say it as someone who is

both a mother and a senior legal fellow. It is possible to do both. And I would say number three, really in the end, we want the Constitution to work for everyone. And that's precisely what the Dobbs Court just reminded us. Beautiful. Thank you again, Sarah, for your incredible work and your insights into the Dobbs decision and the look ahead at what it means to build a culture of life. You bet. Thanks for having me. That was our conversation with Sarah Partial Perry of the Heritage Foundation. Coming up next, we'll be talking to President of Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Wagner, with more analysis of Dobbs and the work that she and her organization did to help the state of Mississippi craft the legal

argumentation to win this historic victory. And after that, our exclusive interview with Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, who was the strategist behind it all. At first, a word about creating lasting cultural change. Rose overturning was an historic victory, but abortion is still legal in many states, and the only way we'll truly see lasting cultural change is by changing the hearts and minds of pro-abortion people. Live action is the most prominent pro-life online group in America, reaching millions of young men and women with the truth about the killing of pre-born children. No other organization reaches as many people online as live action. Its content has proven to transform opinions from pro-abortion to pro-life.

Most pro-choice people don't know what abortion actually entails. When they see the brutality it inflicts on pre-born children, they rethink their stance. You can save the lives of countless children by making a donation to today at liveaction.org slash daily wire. That's liveaction.org slash daily wire. Live action is a nonprofit organization that I support. They've done tremendous work in building a culture of life. Please make a donation today to help them reach young people with the truth so we can wipe out abortion in this country once and for all. Donate today at liveaction.org slash daily wire. That's liveaction.org slash daily wire. And thanks for your support. And now,

our conversation with Kristen Wagner. So we're talking with President and General Counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Wagner. Alliance Defending Freedom served on Mississippi's legal team in the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which, if you don't know, happened to be the thing that overturned Roe v. Wade earlier this year. Thank you so much for being with us, Kristen, and can you tell us a bit more about the case. Thank you for having me. ADF was privileged to be able to work with Mississippi to draft its 15-week pro-life law and to serve on the legal team that defended the law at the Supreme Court. It was an absolute delight to be able to work with Mississippi and especially Attorney General Lynn Fitch, who ultimately had to make the courageous decision to tell the court Roe was wrongly decided

and to ask the court to overturn Roe. And those types of requests don't come along. very often. In fact, in the issue of abortion, it had been 30 years since the court had last really grappled with the issue. So we are just so privileged to have such a brave Attorney General in Mississippi who also has led the fight in terms of insisting that Mississippi support women, providing resources to the women and supporting pregnancy resource centers. So what does that mean to be on a legal team in a Supreme Court decision? What's in involved in bringing a case before the Supreme Court. And what's the journey that most people just might not be aware of? It's a very long journey, usually. It involves litigating the case at the

lower courts, creating the record. In terms of our rule specifically, it was legislation that was challenged that was passed by the Mississippi legislature. And so we're involved in the legislative process and helping with the bill language to make sure that it's constitutional, helping with creating a record in helping those Mississippi legislators navigate those thorny constitutional issues. Then when the abortion industry challenges that law, we helped the state defend that law in a variety of different ways and eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court. We've had the privilege of being able to win 14 Supreme Court cases in the last 11 years at the Supreme Court. And we have one coming up, another free speech case this fall that I'll

also argue. So I think in June, a lot of people watched as the Supreme Court released its decision, and earlier in the year we watched as Politico published that leaked draft of Justice Alito's opinion on the case. And I think we could all use a bit of a refresher on how a case is heard by the Supreme Court, how it's debated and decided on internally by the justices, and how opinions, whether concurring or dissenting, work in relation to the majority decision of the court. Can you help lay that out for us? Initially, it's the lower courts that will decide the cases, and the record is established at the lower court. They'll often take witness testimony or have declarations. They'll also be looking at the legislative record, depending on the issue, and what the legislators say was the

basis for the law. And many of those decisions or inquiries are made at the lower court level. Then they're appealed to the court of appeals, and then they are appealed to the Supreme Court. and you don't have a right to have the Supreme Court hear your case. The Supreme Court only hears about 1% of all of the requests that it receives in terms of cases that people would like to be heard by the court. When the court does agree that it's an issue of national importance, for example, and they say, we will hear this case. That starts a rather lengthy process that involves, again, putting that record together,

demonstrating to the Supreme Court what the record was at the lower court, and then briefing the case. There are multiple opportunities and briefs that you have to prepare that are extensively researched. And we just finished a reply brief in one of our other Supreme Court cases. And I think we went through 17 drafts of the reply brief to let you know how intense that is. In addition, there are a friend of the court briefs that are also filed with the court. And in controversial cases, such as the Dobbs case and many of ADS other cases, you can have over a hundred friend of the court briefs that are also filed to the court. And the court reads all of those briefs. That's why they each have four clerks and they evaluate it. There's nothing quite like arguing at the Supreme Court

because the justices are so prepared and well-versed in the law that you know when you stand before them and they ask their questions to refine and understand your arguments. They will be the toughest questions you've ever had. So how is the decision finally landed upon by the court and then handed down to the public? The court then, after oral argument, will meet and they will take essentially a straw vote that will determine who will write a majority, for example, and if there's going to be a dissent, who will take the lead in the dissent, those decisions will be written. They will be circulated confidentially, or it's supposed to be confidentially, among the nine justices. And then eventually they will sign on to a decision or write their own decision, and that will

be published. You never know when the Supreme Court specifically is going to rule. Even the lawyers and the clients do not get advanced notice, but you do know that the end of the term is usually the last week of June. And so for the most controversial decisions that will be heard between September and I would say April or so, those most controversial decisions will likely come out in June. But sometimes there are exceptions to that as well. What were the facts of the case? Mississippi passed a law that essentially was a pro-life law affirming the right to life and insisted in terms of the legislators that were involved in the law.

One of the lead legislators was a nurse, actually. She took the lead in passing this law in the Mississippi legislature that essentially said after 15 weeks, there would be abortion limitations except in the case of fetal abnormalities or medical emergencies, which every state has an exception for medical emergency, that law was challenged by an abortion group and that eventually resulted in a Supreme Court decision. So what does this decision do to abortion in a legal sense in the United States? Because abortion isn't actually illegal across all the states. You're absolutely right.

There's been a lot of misinformation about what the Dobbs decision did. And I think it's important that we understand. Dobbs said that there's. There's no constitutional right to abortion. There's no right in the Constitution itself to an abortion. It's not in our text of our Constitution, nor is it reflected in our history. In fact, the opposite is true when you look at the history of abortion. Up until the court's decision in Roe v. Wade, the vast majority of states had pro-life laws and limitations on abortion. So essentially, the court said it's not our role to, engage in this kind of decision making, we don't have the authority under the Constitution to do so. And then that allows the states now to step back in and to have conversations about whether abortion should be legal. And we are hopeful and doing all we can to ensure that those states end up on the right end of that discussion, which is to protect human life and to empower women in the process.

So is it the right decision to say this is a state issue and the states should just decide what to do about abortion? Well, I would not necessarily agree that it's purely a state's issue. I think it's a complicated issue under the Constitution in terms of what role Congress might have. But what the issue was that was before the court is whether the court itself had the right to take the issue away from every other branch of government, both at the federal and the state level, and impose its own policy preference. And when we're looking at what rights the Constitution bestows, it shouldn't be based on what five justices or six justices think, but it should be on what's actually written in the Constitution. And when we're looking at those types of rights, the court has said, and if it's

not spelled out in the Constitution in our text, then we look to our nation's history to look at what rights are fundamental. And we can see from our nation's history that abortion is not something that we have historically permitted because of the issue of its unique and taking unborn life. And I think it is really paralyzed our public policy over the last 50 years in providing real support for families and for women. Just a moment ago, you mentioned something called a fundamental right. Can you explain what a fundamental right is and what other sorts of rights there might be that aren't fundamental rights? There are rights in the Constitution that are explicitly enunciated. They're spelled out in the text itself. We can think of the freedom of

the press. We can think of the right to free speech, which we have a case coming up this term on the right free speech. We can think of other rights, like the right to not have unreasonable search and seizure. These are things that are written into our Constitution itself. The court has also created a doctrine, so to speak, that says there may be other rights that are fundamental in nature, fundamental to ordered liberty, and those primarily arise under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. In terms of determining what rights are fundamental to ordered liberty, the court has said, we need to be grounded in the nation's history and the text of the Constitution to determine that. Otherwise, it's just up to the whims of whoever is sitting on the bench at the

time. And that is what has happened in Roe v. Wade. Rather than grounding our laws and our positioned on what's in the Constitution, like, for example, the separation of powers, right? Each of the different government branches, they have their role and each needs to stay within that role. Instead, we have had justices who essentially were engaging in a power grab. And the court finally stepped back from that and said, no, we cannot do that. That's not our proper role on this issue. I'd love to dive deeper into that last statement you made that back in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision, the court wasn't actually basing its decision in good legal analysis or historic facts, because this was something that Sarah Perry of the Heritage Foundation brought up just a little while ago.

Can you tell me more about that? What made the Roe decision different from, say, a standard Supreme Court decision? Roe v. Wade was a results-oriented, essentially piece of legislation. It came up with a decision that said, for the first time in our nation's history, And in 1972, it was decided in 73, heard in 72, the court essentially said there's a trimester framework and we're going to judge, you know, the state's abilities to enact pro-life laws and to support women based on what trimester those women are in. Well, that's nowhere in the Constitution. That's completely made up by judges who wanted to find a right that wasn't otherwise there. It was poorly reasoned, and scholars on the left as well as the right have regularly, consistently recognized that it was a poorly reasoned decision. Even Justice Ginsburg essentially said that. And I think it's worth pointing out, it's a decision written by seven men. And in that decision, it literally says that motherhood would be force upon women a bleak and distressful future. And those of us who are women know that that's absolutely not true.

and we resent the fact that in a decision written by seven men, they literally say that it's essentially up to the physician, describing him as a male, to make that decision for the woman. Justice Ginsburg pointed that out after the Roe decision as well. So how would you discuss this topic with approach choice friend or family member? You know, the type of person who's only real exposure to the topic of abortion is through social media, conversations in school, or, you know, over a meal with friends. For those people who think, yeah, I support women and therefore I'm pro-choice, you know, how do you begin a conversation with them and what do you say to start that off?

I think I would begin with the legal issue in the sense of saying what was actually decided in Dobbs. Abortion wasn't outlawed in Dobbs. We have returned to a place where the court rightly recognized it's not their role. The Constitution itself does not confer a right to abortion. It allows us to have those discussions in the states and to look at the interests of the unborn and of women. And that was taken away from the people. It was taken away from the states by the Supreme Court. And that was wrong.

In addition, I would then move to talking about what does it mean for women to be equal? And what does family-friendly policies? What do they look like? When you look at the studies, what they actually tell you is that when most women, have abortion, they're uncertain about that decision at the time they're making it. And the vast majority of women tell you that they would have chosen to be mothers. They would have chosen life if they felt they had the resources to do so. So why don't we work on providing those resources? And what you'll find from the abortion industry is that they are more inclined to continue to

make a profit off of women rather than even allow the resources that are currently there to be known. And I think that tells us a whole lot about what's going on. The last thing I would do is I would bring out what other nations are even doing. We are an extreme outlier in our abortion policy, even among nations that you wouldn't expect. We are among the company of China and North Korea up until Dobbs was decided, where we would be allowing abortion up until not just pass viability, but up until a baby is born. And talking about the science and what we know about the child's development is critical to any discussion on the life issue. These are children. We know that now. They experience pain. And we can provide family-friendly policies and resources to assist both women in having the children. And if they choose to give the child up for adoption, there are over a million parents right now that are waiting to be able to adopt.

We just have a lot more resources now than we did in not. 1972. How would you describe the nationwide response to the Dobbs decision? Has it been a roughly 50-50 split in terms of people who are celebrating and those who are bemoaning the decision? Or now that we're a few months past, what are we seeing in terms of the kind of cultural response to the decision? I think those that understand what the decision did largely support it. And we can see that in polls. When you explain what the court's ruling actually was, people support that ruling. The same thing is true when you explain what Roe versus Wade meant and that it did place us as an extreme outlier in abortion policy and that most people don't support abortion in the way that Planned Parenthood is advocating

for it. In fact, they support pro-life laws, including in the first trimester of pregnancy and even more so. So I've been encouraged when we get the information out there at the response that is there. And I've been extremely encouraged to see the pregnancy resource centers step up. The states that are stepping up not only to pass pro-life laws, but laws that support women with tax credits and other AIDS as well. What have been some of the effective ways that you've seen for people to spread the word about the facts of abortion in its history? Are there effective tools that people can use to talk with friends or family members who might not initially agree with them about the issue? Absolutely. Our website, ADFlegal.org, has resources that explain the scientific development. We've provided congressional testimony that goes deep into that. That's also on our website, that footnotes studies and things like that.

The SBA list, which is a pro-life organization, they have entire websites that are devoted to providing resources for women and to talking about life as well as the Charlotte Lojère Institute, which is affiliated with SBA lists. There are so many resources that you can find that not only talk about fetal development and what a child is experiencing at even the young age of eight and ten weeks, six weeks with a heartbeat, eight weeks with fingers and toes, ten weeks with actual fingerprints, but also the resources that women have at their fingertips and ways that you can support them in your own personal capacity. To that point about supporting women, what have some of the impacts really been for women across the

country? Now that some time has elapsed between the Dobbs decision and now, we, I think, can begin starting to see the actual effects as they roll out across the country. Have any of the doomsday predictions from the abortion law become true? Or has the impact been fairly positive? I think the facts on the ground would show it's been overwhelmingly positive. and that states are having these discussions. They are passing pro-life affirming laws. And I think what excites me the most about this opportunity is that we have the chance to restore culture that values families, that values women, and, again, values motherhood. We have a number of state entities that are stepping up.

We have a number of private entities that are stepping up to provide resources to women. And I really think it's important for people to understand that the developments that we've had in the law where a woman can't get fired anymore because she's pregnant, where we see what's happening in the womb, where we have more medical care that's available, there are just so many more resources now that those resources are the things that we need to help women understand that they should be able to use and employ. And instead, we're seeing the abortion industry try to silence those voices. And I think that's what's been most disappointing to me, but also reveals their motives quite clearly. What you just mentioned really strikes a chord with me because since Roe v. Wade, medical advancements have shown the humanity of the unborn child. They've allowed children to reach viability earlier in the pregnancy than ever before. Workforces have begun to treat motherhood in pregnancy in some ways with a sense of respect that largely didn't exist or at least didn't exist as strongly in previous decades. And interestingly, there almost seems to have been a culture of life that's evolved outside of a legal framework just at a societal level.

And that perhaps it's only really been in the last year or so that the law has begun to catch up with the reality that society has already begun realizing and moving toward it on its own. Absolutely. Alliance Defending Freedom in the United States is largely known for its work in the courtrooms. We also work in the legislatures and we were able to help Mississippi draft this 15-week bill. and to get it to the United States Supreme Court. But I don't think the solution at this point is in the law necessarily. Now, we're busier than we've ever been to be candid. You know, defending, helping states to defend their pro-life laws.

We're in over a dozen states already in litigation since Dobbs. Helping states, we're also helping states pass life-affirming laws. But this is now a cultural issue largely, and we need to be able to persuade the culture that pro-life people are there. We're there for those mothers, again, the vast majority of mothers who are considering abortion are doing so not because they don't want to parent, but because they're afraid. And we shouldn't be making decisions out of fear. We have lots of policy options and private options that we can provide, and we should be voting pro-life as well, and speaking up on it, as you've already referenced. I think we want to be a voice not only for the unborn,

Absolutely, that's critical because it's their very life that is at issue, but a voice for women as well. So what sort of practical impacts have we seen since the Dobbs decision on a state-by-state level? Different states have approached the issue differently. I think your decision is driving at the resources as opposed to pro-life laws that would touch on abortion specifically. So when we're looking at resources, we've seen more and more pregnancy resources be able to expand the services that they're providing, it can be anything from, you know, pre-counseling to post-counseling to providing resources in diapers and, you know, tangible supplies to counseling, to job training, you name it. There are a number of private solutions. There are over almost

3,000 pregnancy resource centers nationwide that are standing in the gap. One of the things that the states can do is to help direct funding to those resource centers. that are offering the choice of life and that are then supporting that choice in very practical ways. And we've seen states do that. Mississippi is actually a great example where they are helping to shift funds to provide funds to women who are in need. And there are a number of state programs that can be adjusted to provide additional health care, to help women in these instances and federal solutions as well. We just need some courageous legislators and some courageous individuals to put pressure on those legislators to say, let's do this.

Let's do it right and actually create a family-friendly state and family-friendly public policy. And what's the statistical breakdown currently between pro-life versus pro-abortion states? How many states either have pro-life legislation on the books or are in the process of passing those laws versus states that have begun pushing for even more extreme pro-abortion states. loss? It's evenly divided. We have about 25 states that have pro-life legislation on the books, and that is a variety of measures, I would say. Some are heartbeat pieces of legislation. Others have to do with eugenics, meaning that you can't abort a child because of the child's race or gender or because of a disability. So these protections vary in terms of their scope, but there are about half of the states that have them. And many of those states are involved in litigation right now because

the abortion industry is fighting so hard to be able to continue to make a profit. We also are litigating against the Biden administration because they also are trying to take this right away from communities and states and allow the abortion industry to keep making a profit off of women. So I asked us a little tongue in cheek is the battle over because many of us celebrated with the release of the Dobbs decision. But Does that mean that the pro-life movement can rest on its laurels, or is there still work to be done? Alliance Defending Freedom has a concept called generational wins. And we pursue generational wins because we believe it's up to each generation to protect freedom.

We have not accomplished the generational win of protecting life. We are at the beginning of that. But one major milestone in that beginning was reversing Roe versus Wade and Casey. It is the decision of a generation and should give us all hope and faith that nothing is impossible if we commit to it, if we show up, if we speak, and if we persist. That tenacious spirit should see us through not only in this issue as we are returning to the states, but on the other issues that we're facing across this nation right now. So in that vein of looking forward and preparing for the next battles or the next actions that we should be taking as people who are

in the pro-life movement. What should your average pro-life American be thinking, doing, and preparing for? They should be ensuring that they are knowledgeable about these issues, that they learn about the humanity of the unborn, the science behind it because the science is on our side. They should be volunteering or giving to pregnancy centers. They should be urging their state legislators and their federal members of Congress to ensure that funds are being directed to community health centers, not to the abortion industry, which requires also that we be knowledgeable about who we're voting for, that we vote pro-life. And I think more than anything else, I mean, all of these things are important. But what I think about in my own family is we have to have

these conversations at our dinner tables with our own children. So, that we are helping to create a culture of life and that they are understanding the importance of these issues for purposes of protecting life and freedom for the next generation. Yeah, you know, building a culture of life really doesn't start and end with the current generation of adults. It really starts with how we're talking about it with our children and preparing them to think about and discuss these issues with their peers when the issue comes up. It's really powerful. Well, we need to realize other people are doing that from the other side. So we can't sit that out.

We have to have those discussions with our kids. And in order to have those discussions and to help them understand, we have to understand it ourselves. And I'm hopeful about the next generation. I'm hopeful that we're at this stage that I think is something that two generations have worked for in all different areas of life. If you think about it, we are defending students on campuses. They're right to be able to speak freely about life. We defend sidewalk counselors who have literally saved. lives for two generations outside of abortion clinics. If you think about legislators like the nurse

that I spoke about who passed the Mississippi law, we all have a role to play wherever we have been placed in protecting life. So how can people learn more? How can we learn more about the various battles that are beginning to appear post the Dobbs decision? And how can people become more involved? They can go to our website at adflegal.org. We have an entire litigation team and a legislative team that are focused on life issues have to say they've never been busier. We have been able to prevail in 14 Supreme Court cases in the last 11 years with Dobbs being one of them. And ultimately, I do need to say it was the Mississippi Attorney General's decision to go for the gold in terms of asking for Roe to be overturned. And that was a courageous decision, which again, I think underscores

the role that we all play in wherever we've been placed. So that's a place you can get resources. is at our website. You can certainly call us. And like I said, it's important to protect free speech so that we can speak about this right to life so that pregnancy resource centers can ensure their message gets out so that women know they have resources. It's important for sidewalk counselors. It's important for the church and just different religious organizations to be able to protect life. And so we all, again, have a role to play. And that's an exciting thing, I think, to be at this point in our history. It really is an incredibly exciting moment in our history. I'll be honest, I never really expected that I would get to experience the overturning of such a disastrous ruling as Roe v. Wade,

something that I kind of in the back of my mind thought would probably exist my entire life. And I would just like to thank you, Kristen, for the incredible work that you and Alliance Defending Freedom did both in the Dobbs case, working with Mississippi to craft a winning case, and for the work that you have to undertake over the last couple decades, fighting for freedom across. our country. So thank you so much, and thank you so much for this incredible conversation. It was a privilege. That was Kristen Wagner, President and General Counsel of Alliance to Freedom. We now turn to the person at the root of the entire case, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch. We've all heard about the sweeping changes that the Dobbs decision has had, and will continue to have for life across the country. But what you might not know is that the

Mississippi Attorney General, the woman behind it all, was a single mother who, herself, who personally learned the rewards of standing up for in defending life, even in the midst of great personal sacrifice. Let's hear from Attorney General Fitch. Attorney General Fitch, such an honor to be talking to you. I know you're on the road right now, and from the sounds of it, it sounds like you're traveling to pretty much a different state every single day, but I really appreciate you taking the time out of your day for this conversation. And I'm wondering if you can start off by telling us a little bit about serving the state of Mississippi as the Attorney General.

Lynn Fetch, and I am honored to serve as the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi. For me, I served here as my first job when I got out of law school. So to come back, you know, 35 years later and to be able to work in this capacity. And it's truly an office that empowers and uplifted people. We touch lives every day, and I have an amazing team. So, again, we have looked at all the different ways that we can serve through this office. and feel like we've been very positive and served those across our state on so many different levels. Amazing. Thank you so much for serving the people of Mississippi. And I think there's a segue here

because you've been able to, by serving the people of Mississippi, end up creating legal changes that now are in turn serving the people of the entire country. Can you tell us a little bit about the Dobbs decision and what your objectives were? Absolutely. This is an opportunity for, for Mississippi to lead on this case. We were selected, of course, by the United States Supreme Court. When we received that case in May, we were so excited because we knew this was a truly journey for people across our state and across our country who had prayed for this, who had waited for the option to get in front of the United States Supreme Court.

And so we embraced this. And as we prepared, again, an amazing team. writing the brief, preparing for the oral argument, and then making the argument. Again, we looked at it from a different perspective. We looked at it from a holistic perspective in the sense that we should talk about empowering women and promoting life, that this wasn't an either-or situation that for 50 years had been wrongly decided. And so when we got the question, then we turned around and put in our brief the very hard question, overturned Roe v. Wade. We felt like that was important. And as we did that and we posted it up,

certainly our friends, our partners, the coalitions, everyone came on board. And it, of course, proved to be very successful. I think in a world often prone to hyperbole, I can say with zero hyperbole that very successful might actually be the understatement of the decade in terms of the long-term impact in the protection of life that this decision leads to. Can you explain for audiences in more detail how you built this case. What were the arguments you and your team were making and how did that tie into overturning Roe v. Wade? Right. This was a board that involved a 15-week abortion law here in the state of Mississippi. That case was already here, and we opted to petition for a surge in the United States Supreme Court. And so that was the

real question. We embraced on how we would write this on all the levels, including asking the hard question to overturn Roe v. Wade. We felt like it was an important time to bring this forward. And as we got there, certainly the justices, we made the argument that this was a rule of law case that should always be decided by the people. That was important to look at it from the perspective that Roe was never a good decision, legally or morally. It had certainly stunned the political debate on the vital issue of life. And quite frankly, on how we serve women when they're most vulnerable. And so they were in great need. And so how would we step up? How would we change? And that was part of our argument. Roe had really locked up abortion policymaking behind the bench.

So now the people of each state should have the opportunity to make decisions about abortion policies that they want to pass. Certainly it will look different in every state as we've seen. Some states have already essentially codified Roe v. Some states like mine in Mississippi, we have very strong laws to protect life that have finally taken effect. And so we're now enacting new laws to support women and their children. You just mentioned that Roe was not just a bad moral decision, but just plain bad lawmaking as well, which both of our previous interviewies also touched upon. Can you unpack that and explain it in more detail? Well, that's exactly correct.

It had been determined the other way and was based on the Constitution when, in fact, there was nothing in the Constitution in the text that would provide that this was a true constitutional right. So if you look all the way through, even back to Justice Ginsburg, she thought so too. We included that in our brief. And we felt like that was critical to make that argument because there is nothing in the text in the Constitution to support that. And in doing so, it gave us the opportunity to further fill that back. And talk about, you know, in 1973, the Supreme Court took the Supreme Court took the this very controversial debate, they should have looked at it as a neutral arbitrator. They did not, which was truly their role under the Constitution. So what were the consequences? Well, it did

great damage to the court. It stunned a debate that the American people needed to have. And so the Dives decision, the Mississippi Dives case, set things right. So if the court that decided Roe wasn't using history or good legal reasoning to arrive at their decision, How did they arrive at a decision? Well, at that point, you can see it became fairly political. They had a stretch on how they tied it in what they thought was a constitutional connection, when, in fact, we've just discussed, is not. So this, again, allowed us to lay it out completely to talk about the arguments of a rule of law

and how a rule of law question should be returned to the people, because the people should always be able to elect their legislators, their governors, and then if you don't like the policy and the decisions they're making, then you can certainly choose to have them replaced by someone else who supports your policies and your decision making. What the original case did, it created this right back in 1973 in the Roe case that was truly never supported by the Constitution. Right. And I'd like to go back to a slogan you just brought up a moment ago. your slogan has been empower women and promote life. And I love that because so many people in the pro-choice movement often claim that Dobbs strips women of their rights. Can you talk about your slogan and why it directly contends with the pro-abortion lobby? And how does Dobbs empower women?

Well, I have always, and with my team, always been a champion for women and then thus their children. And so my argument to that is, you know, Fro was decided wrongly 50 years ago, so it was a true fallacy. Back then, it pitted women against their children. It pitted women against women. And it created this real false choice that you either had to empower women or you could promote life.

The truth is that that hasn't succeeded because of abortion, but women have succeeded in spite of it. abortion, you think about the past five decades. There have been tremendous advances in society in our culture, in our law, our medicine, and that gave women even more opportunities to pursue their professional dreams and also be the mothers that they wanted to be. And I think that's so significant. It wasn't an either or anymore that you could embrace empowering women and promoting life and look at the great benefits to have both of those opportunities. And if I understand correctly, this isn't just some abstract concept that you pulled out of a

textbook or out of thin air, but one that you've personally lived, right? Oh, at three children feel very blessed, but I truly believe in, you know, empowering others, assisting being a champion for women and their children. And vulnerable women certainly need support and help. And we've always treated them with love and respect. But this has given us a platform to even further support women and to help them on their journey. So what would you say is the biggest impact? You hope the Dobbs decision will have both for women and for our society?

Well, certainly to get that decision, it changed the narrative. This is a change in history, an opportunity to rewrite the script, and here's how we do it. We have to really be focused on what women need. You know, we have to be engaged in how we move forward. How do we help these women that are most vulnerable? Certainly we are supportive of our pregnancy centers. We need to be assisting them, encouraging people to give of their time, their treasures, their talent. but we need to be talking about some other hard issues that are important to women and their children

because now we're in a post-row world. So we need to talk about how we do things a little differently in the sense and how do we support these women and their children. I think there's some serious conversation and some action items that need to be held on child care, making child care, quality child care, affordable and available for women. We need to look at workplace, flexibility options. Again, we need to give women options as they raise their children and as they pursue their professional dreams. We need to have the fathers be equally responsible financially for their children

because the women for too long have borne the burden of economic and financial hardship. And again, if we're going to empower these women, help them, they certainly shouldn't be penalized in the fathers should be invested. And there's a really good part if the fathers are invested with the child support, then odds are they going to be invested in their child's life, and that is significant. We certainly need to be looking at how we streamline adoption and foster care, because it's important to get these children into loving, thriving families as quickly as possible. That should always be our goal, again, as we look to empower women and to help their children

along the way. You know, living on the margins, we should always be looking to uplift the entire family, the whole family, which includes the mothers and the children. As the Krispy Chicken sandwich from 7-Eleven, people always call me loud. And I'm like, yeah, I know. I'm crispy. Did you expect me to whisper? If you want quiet, go eat some soup and reflect. Like, I know I'm a handful. I'm bold, I'm juicy. Throw some pickles and barbecue sauce on me, and baby, I'm a whole meal. And with seven rewards, I'm just, $4. Quiet. No. Krispy, saucy, and $4? Very. Only at 711. Valley through 62326 participating stores only while supplies lastly out for full terms. Well, you've just laid out a list of

important things that sound like the next steps now that this massive victory has been achieved in the courts. Now that it levels the playing field and returns us to a place where the people can decide what they believe is moral and can make their laws on a state-by-state basis, what are the next steps for a pro-life listener who wants to learn the next steps for how to support the movement practically? Well, there are so many good opportunities for people to serve. You know, we have to channel our energy, just like we did for the last 50 years, for overturning Roe v. Wade, and look at ways we can certainly support these women and their children. Certainly, I would say, assist your local pregnancy centers, work with your churches to support women in your community

who need help and their children. This can be anything for making donations for diapers and car seats or money to help a young mother with tutoring, help her to get her GED. Because we certainly want to see mothers upskilled to their best level. Again, they deserve that and we should be ready to help them. Second, I think we have to advocate for the laws that will support these women and their children. As we've talked about the child care, we've talked about flexible options, child support, adoption, and foster care system, those are some hard topics, but we're ready. We're ready for this. Our job should be being able, willing to step in, strengthen these laws, you know, ask all of our respective states to pass them and look to the big strategic vision on how we truly do empower them.

because our laws should reflect our compassion. Just like our compassion for the last 50 years has been to overturn Robey Way, well, we're here now. So let's take that same compassion and love and energy and make it a difference as we change the laws to truly empower women and their children. And finally, as you're well aware, our nation is divided. A lot of people celebrate the Dobbs decision, a lot of people oppose it, but I think there are a lot of people in the middle who just don't quite know

what to make of it. What do you say to that woman who's facing an unplanned pregnancy, perhaps is scared and perhaps doesn't know where to go or where to turn? What do you say to that woman? Absolutely. The common thing should always be, we're here for you. Our goal, our mission, is to continue to serve these women and then they're children. And so certainly we have respect for all those making those decisions, but knowing that we're here for them, that we believe in them, we're here to uplift them,

to serve them. And as I said earlier, you know, the way we serve the women and children now has got to be changed. We've got to look at these avenues on how we support them on every step of their journey. And so that involves changing hearts and minds

and understanding that these are new opportunities for us to follow. And we certainly all believe in the dignity of women and children in all life. Yeah, like we've talked about both on this show before and in the documentary we released earlier this year, a massive victory was achieved for life in the Dobbs decision. But in a deeper, more fundamental way, the work for most of us is just beginning. The work to support women, their families, their children, both born and unborn, not just from the highest court in the land,

but throughout all levels of our society and in our communities. So thank you so much, Attorney General Fitch. Thank you for your bravery in taking a stand on this issue. Thank you for the fight that you brought to the courts and for the work that you've done to protect life. And we really appreciate your time in this conversation today. Thank you so much. It has been an honor, and I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today.

For the last 10 weeks, we've gone on a journey together. Considering the subject, it hasn't always been easy, but we do think it's been necessary. Like Attorney General Fitch and all of our interviewees on this series have said, in a way, we have to live in a state of tension. On the one hand, we can celebrate. We have to celebrate the victories. One of the most ground-shaking, life-protecting decisions in our country's history was just recently handed down by the court. But on the other hand, our work in the pro-life movement is just now bad. beginning. Because the truth is that now more than ever is the time that we, the average pro-life Americans, are most needed. The bravery, legal expertise, and strategy of people like Attorney

General Fitch, Kristen Wagner, and the countless individuals we've interviewed for this series, their expertise has brought us to the point where now we, the people, can advocate for and protect life in our communities, our churches, and in our states. And we have to do it. We have to advocate for life. Not only in our conversations with friends and family, but we have to vote for life as well at the polls. But before we can do any of that, we have to educate ourselves.

We have to learn what's true so that we can be sure we're actually advocating for eternal, unchanging principles. And that's precisely what you have done. So thank you. Thank you for listening and for joining us in this special limited series. Though this is the final episode of Choosing Life,

we hope it's only the beginning of your journey, a journey to learn about and to work with us to build a culture of life across this country. I'm Ian Reed, and this has been the Choosing Life podcast. Thanks so much for listening. The Choosing Life podcast is a Daily Wire production, produced in association with Outer Limits. Our technical and support team includes Ian Reed,

Jesse Eastman, Ryan Moore, Mariah Cormier, and Jim Wirt. Copyright Daily Wire 2022. Thanks for listening.