Well, Bill, you may recall last time we recorded podcasts, we talked about possibility that Roe v. Wade would be overturned by the Supreme Court and we said, wouldn't it be something? If the next time we record a podcast, that Roe v. Wade were overturned and that is exactly what has happened. It's unbelievable isn't it? I feel Kevin as though I'm living in a new day for America, a new era. A portion on demand is no longer the law of our land. And this terrible moral stain on American society has been removed.

And so I have such a feeling of joy and liberation and pride now again in America instead of shame for

the terrible moral atrocities that were being perpetrated against the unborn over these last 50 years. You know, in 1974, Justice Harry Blackman, who was the author of the Roe v. Wade decision, said in a televised interview that Roe will quote, be regarded as one one of the worst mistakes in the course history or one of its greatest decisions. So Bill, it looks like the Supreme Court, this particular Supreme Court thought that this was a big mistake. Yes, they certainly did. And I recently saw an interview where the original lawyer in the Roe v. Wade case who was arguing for the right to an abortion as a constitutional right admitted that she didn't expect to win the case. That the case was so weak constitutionally that she was quite surprised when the court said that abortion is a constitutional right. And what this present court has said is that this decision that was rendered in 1973 was bad law. The constitution does not contain such a right either explicitly or implicitly, that therefore we are well rid of this bad decision. There's an article in first things, Bill, Cemetery, Court of Leon said, quoting, together, we persevered, and today it is hard not to feel like we triumphed. But in truth, the overthrow of Roe is not the final triumph, but the beginning of a new and harder road ahead. Our goal is not to create a culture where abortion is illegal, but where it is unthinkable. To do that requires sacrificial love for both mother and child. There will be protests and threats and tumult. I ask you not to back down, but to redouble your commitment. Most of all, I ask you to pray. Because without God, we can do nothing. That's a big question, Bill. I mean, now that Rovey Wade is overthrown, what do we do next? What's our response? I really like what this author says that it's not just a matter of making abortion illegal. It's a matter of changing people's thinking so that they come to value life and see the unborn as human beings who are invested within intrinsic worth and therefore possessors of human rights, like the right to life. There needs to be a change of attitude and of heart on this issue, not just the imposition of laws now at the state level, but in terms of what we need to do next, I think all of us need to redouble our efforts

to be involved in the pro-life cause. It's not over by any means on the contrary, it's a new beginning and the same struggle for the life of the unborn will now go on in state legislatures and gubernatorial races and so forth.

And so we can't afford to ignore these local elections anymore because these are the people now who will be determining the laws. Bill is an interview with a heavily pregnant woman that who has gone viral. I don't know if you've had a chance to see it, but she'sled the words. She wrote the words in like black magic marker, not yet a human across her belly to protest the Supreme Court's decision. Amanda Herring, 32, was among the pro-choice protesters in Washington, DC. She said, I am very pregnant. I'm due tomorrow."

The Jewish educator told NBC News the Supreme Court ruling was an infringement on her religion. She says, this is a part of me right now. She said, I'm Jewish, and according to Jewish law and tradition, life begins with the first breath at birth. And that if anything were it happen up until then that is just a part of me and it is my decision as part of my body. It's like a limb. It's a significant part of me, but it is my decision. Bill, what do you think about her comments? Well, I think this is a great illustration of driving an argument to its logical conclusion to the point where you see the absurdity of the position. One of the most effective ways to refute a position is to drive it all the way to its logical consequences. And the logical consequence of abortion on demand, which was legal in this country, was that these babies could be killed right up until the moment of delivery. And indeed, in the monstrous practice of partial abortion, the baby would actually be partly delivered. And then the physician would go in with forceps and crush the skull of the baby, and then withdraw, extract the remains of its mangled corpse from the woman's body. This is clearly homicide, it seems to me. And yet on her view, this is not homicide. And so I think it shows where the logical conclusion is of denying the humanity of these unborn babies and the kind of consequences that result from that. And it results in a view of what is human that is preposterous to think that the baby in the womb ready for delivery is non-human, but a few minutes later after delivery it is human is observed. There's nothing about making that physical transition that would turn a non-human thing into a human being. Moreover, it's evident that her position on this is biologically and medically absurd. The unborn baby growing inside her body is not like a limb. It is not in any sense a part of her body. It is a separate human being that is growing and developing inside her. It is as it were like someone hooked up to a life support system. And just as a patient who has COVID-19 and is hospitalized and is hooked up to a ventilator for life support doesn't become part of the ventilator in the same way the baby here who is on this life support system inside her womb is not, in any sense, a part of her body. So she's simply grossly mistaken on this and betrays a terrible ignorance of biology and medicine. And the final comment that I would make about this is that I think is tremendously ironic that she puts this down to her Jewish beliefs because what she's doing is she is saying we should determine public policy based upon my private religious opinions. That's what they've always accused us Christians of doing. And I think in order to participate in the debate in the public square, you need to offer non-sectarian reasons in support of your views on public policy. Otherwise someone could say, for example, I think, according to my religion, that human life begins at about eight years of age. And the prior to that, children can be used for human sacrifice to our gods. And that private religious opinion has just as much validity as hers. So it's really bad policy to advocate what she's doing. I guess there is one more point. There's so many things to say about this. The last point is that Roe v, I mean, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Kevin, doesn't do anything to take away her rights. The overturning of Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion illegal. All it did was make a legal ruling that it's not a constitutional right. But you can still go get an abortion if you want to, if she wants to do this. There's nothing in the ruling that takes away that right. It simply says it's not part of the Constitution. And we can imagine all sorts of other rights that are not guaranteed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. For example, we are not guaranteed constitutionally the right to a two weeks vacation. We're not guaranteed the right to a guaranteed annual income in the Constitution. So to say that abortion is not a constitutional right, does nothing in and of itself to make it illegal. And so she's just completely off base in her reaction to this as something that is denying her rights. Yeah. And by the way, Bill, our audience may be interested in an article by Ben Shapiro and Ben interviewed you a couple of years ago. He has an article on how that she's wrong about what the Jewish view is in this instance. And so I want to refer people to that article. It's easy to find and he can look that up. And you know, we've seen a real backlash from those in favor of Roe v. Wade, Bill, a number of celebrities, political leaders saying this was because Christians are forcing this, but surely the pro-life movement is more than just a Christian movement. Oh, I think that's quite right, Kevin. I remember some years ago when I had a debate with the famous philosopher Richard Taylor. And before the debate, we all had dinner together. And somehow the topic turned to abortion and Richard Taylor, who was arguing against moral values and duties being grounded in God in our debate, said that he was pro-life, and I was surprised. He said, you're pro-life. And he said, of course. I mean, he thought it was a no-brainer. Of course, he was pro-life. These are human beings. And so he was in favor of preserving their lives. And one of the most famous of the pro-life advocates who has now passed away was Bernard Nathanson, who was a humanist and was once a pro-abortion rights advocate and then changed his mind and came to see that as a humanist that he had to stand for human life in all of its stages of development, including in this developing stage of an unborn baby. So it's not just a Christian position. You know, Bill, we've discussed before, but you might be helpful to revisit with some of our newer listeners that you don't speak out on subjects like abortion or same-sex marriage and the like because they are political issues about because they are moral issues. Yes. Explain the difference to our lesson. I'm trying to raise this Kevin because I think this is apt to be misunderstood. I am not here championing Republican causes or taking political positions. I assiduously avoid making public statements on political questions. But these are ethical questions and spiritual questions that the Christian faith has a position on. The Christian faith thinks of human beings as made in the image of God and therefore invested within intrinsic moral worth and with fundamental human rights. And so the question then is, is the developing fetus a human being? And as I said a moment ago, I think that biologically and medically it is indisputable that the developing fetus is a human being in the early stages of its development. And so this is not for me just another political issue. This is a very profound moral and spiritual question. over the last 50 years in our country, millions and millions of human beings have been ruthlessly cut to pieces or incinerated with chemicals, wantonly. And this American Holocaust was a shame and a blight on our country that needed to come to an end. And so I am glad that the Supreme Court has now ruled that abortion on demand is not the law of the land. And this issue will be returned to the people to decide how to regulate abortion. And so my position on this is that this is a significant ethical spiritual issue on which I as a Christian need to have a position. Bill the New York Times says, quoting, the Supreme Court has become the most pro-religion it's been since at least the 1950s, and it appears to include the six most pro-religion justices since at least War War II. The Robert's Court has ruled in favor of religious groups in more than eight in ten cases. It has that is heard. And it seems that if we're interested in preserving religious freedoms that ensuring that we have this kind of Supreme Court is key. Yes, I think that's absolutely right, Kevin. We want a court that will be committed to strict constitutionalism to following the letter of the Constitution and to preserving the religious liberty that is guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. And therefore, the free exercise of religion is a precious right that we have constitutionally. And it is so important that this court is standing up for that constitutional right over and over again now. And of course, things are changing so fast and news is breaking left and right. The Supreme Court just ruled that a high school football coach had a constitutional right to pray at the 50 yard line after his team's games. The vote was six with the courts three liberal members in descent. The decision came less than a week after the court ruled by the same vote that Maine could not exclude religious schools from a state tuition program. Writing for the majority said that the prayers of the coach Joseph Kennedy were protected were protected by the First Amendment and that the school district had aired in suspending him after he refused to end the practice. And Bill, this is kind of like an avalanche of rulings and favor religious freedom and free speech going on right now. Yes, there's a connection, isn't it, between those two, the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech that combine in a case like this. And it's encouraging to see that the majority of justices don't take the coaches praying to be coercive in any sense. That he's not coercing the students to pray along with him. And it just amazes me, Kevin, how over and over and over again, these three radical leftist judges interpret these practices in such a way that they characterize the coaches behavior as coercion of the students to pray or to have a certain religious practice. And I think one of the most significant things to come out of this Brahmerton decision concerning the football coach is not just about religious practice or prayer, but from what I've read, this puts the nails in the coffin to the so-called lemon test for what sort of religious expression will be permitted. The lemon test was promulgated by an earlier Supreme Court decision that said You must not have any expression of religious belief that has a primary purpose that is not secular and that there must not be an excessive entanglement of the government in religion. Well, the problem was, Kevin, that this was so ambiguous and so subjective that it was easily used to place an undue burden of proof upon proponents of religious liberty. I have an attorney in my Defender's class who has repeatedly complained to me over the past years about the lemon test and its subjectivity and ambiguity. And this decision, everyone seems to agree, has pretty much put an end to the lemon test. That is no longer going to be the criterion by which religious practices are judged. Now, this is really interesting, Kevin, because the lemon test has been used in a number of significant Supreme Court decisions. For example, the famous Dover case in 2005 that forbade the teaching of intelligent design in schools on the grounds that it was religious and it was to the lemon test that Judge Jones appealed in ruling against the teaching of intelligent design. So it will be really interesting to see what sort of cases could be reopened as a result of this decision. Wow. And by the way, Bill, the LA Times reported that some coaches said they're not opposed to prayers before or after games, but want to ensure that students don't feel pressured or compelled against their will. So, and well, you know, that's an obvious consideration bill. You were just talking about the purpose.

That's what. The problem is that the minority on the court are so adamant against religious expressions that they view almost anything as coercive, even if students voluntarily want to join the coach at midfield and pray. Bill, as we wrap up the podcast today, now that Roe v. Wade is gone and this decision has come down, maybe you can give us our marching orders. What do we do next? Well, let me say a few things about what we can do now and where we should go from here. I think that every Christian should be supporting the pro-life cause financially. So I would encourage you to take a portion of your charitable giving and to set it aside. For example, for your local crisis pregnancy center, these centers are especially under duress today as abortion rights terrorists are beginning to attack some of these crisis pregnancy centers where women are trying to exercise their free choice of carrying their baby to term. And so I would encourage

folks to give. This is the easiest thing you can do. It takes some little effort to write a check and to support these pro-life causes. Secondly, I would encourage folks to volunteer at a local crisis pregnancy center. Our Defenders class has adopted as our project the first care women's clinic in our area. And every two Saturdays, we will go for Saturday morning and work at the clinic. Oh, just moving boxes, weeding around the building, painting, filing, helping in any way that we can, the work of the wonderful volunteers that are there counseling and providing for these young mothers. And this is a way, not just of showing our opposition to abortion, but it's a way of showing our support for these young mothers and fathers who want to have children rather than get an abortion. And then of course I think we need to be involved politically. We need when the local elections are coming up to identify who are the consistent pro-life candidates for the offices and then to vote for those candidates. And I would resist those who say negatively, well this is just single-issue politics, because this is an issue of life and death. Most other political issues are not life and death questions, but this one is. And so I think that we need to be involved in voting for candidates who will vote for the rights of the unborn

for their human

value and

dignity and and so support these pro-life causes so those would be some of the things that we might do I think in support

of young mothers who want to have their children.