This week on Liberty Action Alert with Greg Seltz, join Dr. Seltz and his special guest, Mr. James Bopp, Jr., whom Reuters says is “recognized as one of ‘an elite cadre of lawyers (that) has emerged as first among equals, giving their clients a disproportionate chance to influence the law of the land.’” We’ll be talking about the civic and cultural challenges and opportunities for Christian citizens in a “Post-Roe” America. In view of the victory of the “Dobb’s” case, listen in for what can concerned citizens do right now as well as for the legal, the cultural, and the faith perspective on this vital case….Let’s continue to grow in the wisdom needed to be 2 Kingdom citizens for the country we love. Join us!

The following program is sponsored by Evangelical Life Ministries.

Welcome to Liberty Action Alert with Greg Seltz, sponsored by our friends at the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty here in Washington, dc, a program that cuts through the chaos and confusion in the culture today by talking to Kingdom citizenship, bold, biblical principles for a robust public Christian life. And now, your host, Dr. Greg Sells.

Uh, pleasure being back, Greg. Thank you.

And do you still think Indiana has a chance this year? gotta jump in there on you

Indiana basketball

Or, Yeah. Well, basketball, well, football first too, but, uh,

Well, we're, we're up and coming in football and, and in basketball. We're, everyone thinks we're a favorite for, to win the Big 10 Championships.

All right. Well, I'll be thinking about you when we, I'll be thinking about you when we go head to head. All right.

So, there you

Go. All right. Listen, you know, the last time we talked, and we talked about this, you know, right after it was, uh, argued in front of the ca the, the court and everything, from your perspective, um, are you a little bit surprised by this ruling? Uh, and and so what's your, what's your take on it?

Well, I've been, become very humble about predicting what the Supreme Court, uh, is gonna do. And so, uh, having, you know, realizing I can't make a prediction that I'm not either disappointed or whatever, right? Uh, or happy, uh, that my prediction, you know, that I didn't make, uh, either turned out or didn't. Right? So, uh, the key factor in the Supreme Court, uh, deciding to overturn precedent is simply are they willing, Uh, you can't make them do anything. Uh, you can't, you know, they're in total control. Uh, they decide what issues, what cases, how they decide them. Um, we were, we re we realized we were closer than ever. We, we started working on model legislation, you know, post Ro Wade and all that, in preparation for the time that we are now in,

Well, I guess that's the question. What, what time are we now in, uh, legally, what is, first of all, legally, what does this mean for all the abortion of pro-life laws around the country, if anything? And then, like you said, what's is, is legislation, um, because I can already tell you on the hill, uh, we had, we had some bills that came up that were supposed to be, you know, here's how we go forward, incentivizing the family, et cetera, et cetera. So legally, first, where are we? Where are we at? And then, uh, it is legislatively the next thing,

Well, the, the, the matter, uh, uh, as a, as a constitutional matter, uh, has ended, right? Because there's no right to abortion in the Cons US Constitution. Uh, that means that states are free to exercise their police powers as they did prior to Roe v Wade, to determine to what extent abortion would be legal in their state. Okay? And there is no, uh, impediment to that at all. Uh, there is of course, normal things, like you can't pass a vague law. That, of course, applies to all, all statutes. But there is nothing peculiar particular about, uh, regulating abortion that would trigger any constitutional limitations. Okay? The only other caveat about what states can do is they, they obviously cannot, uh, do anything as contrary to a state constitution. And we have a few states that have said, you know, ridiculously that there is a right to abortion in their state constitution. Right? And so that would limit what the legislatures can do. Uh, but there, there, and there's no federal laws that, that would, uh, prevent full exercise of the state authority, even though the very pro-abortion by an administration is trying to invent and create things. Uh, they sued Idaho, uh, the other day, uh, on a ridiculous idea. But, uh, that's where we are.

Yeah. In fact, I think I, I read the Idaho, uh, issue and, and it was like 16 weeks, um, you know, um, for the health of the mother, Uh, you know, so it protected the health of the mother, and it also made exceptions for rape and incest. And, and yet the Biden administration went after that too. I mean, it seemed like a

Abortion forces since the very beginning, since the sixties. Mm-hmm. , they have wanted an absolute right to abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. They, including even after birth, if a baby survives a, an abortion, they don't want to treat the baby, uh, and take care of the baby. Uh, that's what has been their goal for all these decades. Uh, they've never reached that goal, but that doesn't mean that's not their goal. And, uh, when in several states that they have, where they have a Democrat, uh, trifecta, uh, what you have seen is repealed all abortion laws, including requiring a physician to perform the abortion, including prohibitions on a partial birth abortions, including funding of abortion. In other words, they've gotten their nirvana in several states where they have, uh, control. And, uh, that's is what they would've imposed on the whole United States through the recent, uh, Woman's Health Protection Act, whatever it was called, By the way, the, the woman word was only used in the title, uh, of that act. It was not used anywhere else in the law, because of course, as we know, they are in the process of erasing and eliminating women, uh, from our society. And, uh, and, uh, so they don't want to talk about protecting women anymore,

Isn't. But again, so for the challenge that is before us, I think we have to come to grips with what the challenge is, and when we can't even name what it is we're talking about. You know, when, when someone can't, I mean, the bill in New York, or, you know, the New York legislature, they in, in effect, passed an in infanticide bill. Mm-hmm. . I mean, that's what it is. I mean, it, and, and I think there are a lot of Christians out there that think, Oh, I'm just, I'm, They think about that one case where the woman is in such dire straits or whatever, uh, case study they, they throw before us, and then they ramrod through things like this, where the child is literally killed when it, it, it's alive coming out of the birth canal. And, and we can't call it what it is. It's in infanticide. It's killing a person. And I think that's what's I struggle with so much, is that the way they redefine, like you said, the protecting Women's Health Act, and then they don't even actually use the word woman anymore. It's crazy when you can't even identify the problem Well, I or or

Who, or who you're claiming to, uh, give rights to and protect.

Right. And,

Uh, so is men and women, I guess are now viewed as, uh, uh, ones that can give birth. They talk about birthing people, they talk about pregnant persons. Uh, I mean, it's insane. Uh, you know, if, if abortion was limited to true to truly rape and incest, uh, it would be about, uh, 1% of the current, maybe 1.5% of the current abortions. If it was limited to the life and health, in other words, medically necessary as a phrase, they used abortions, you would add another one to 3% of the current abortions that are being performed. That's up to, that's a max 4.5%, uh, of the abortions for any justifiable reason. Uh, all the rest of them are elective, uh, because, and for terrible reasons, you know, the sex of the baby or the race of the baby, or the ba the baby has a disability, or I just can't afford one right now, or whatever. I mean, it, uh, you know, I'm, I'm on my fifth abortion because I use it as a method of birth control, Right. Rather than using birth control. So it's a unlimited abortion on demand throughout pregnancy, literally even to, in some, uh, states after the baby is born, they can be killed.

Well, and you know, like we talked about the first time we were saying that the Dobbs case was really going after the viability, uh, issue. And like we talked about, you know, this was one of the first times in our history where the state p the power of the state aligned with the powerful against the weak in a situation where the week were innocent, innocent bystanders. The child is an innocent bystander, but it's a u it's a unique person. Well, typically the state protects the, uh, weak, It protects the innocent against other folks. And thi this was a state sanctioned ability to say, You can dispense with it as you will. So I'm glad that the constitution, uh, it was eradicated as a constitutional issue. But I think you're pointing out, um, as, as we're already seeing in some of the state's issues, that this is going much deeper. I guess legislation is the next level, but there's a moral, cultural, real debate going on. And I think what does this ruling, uh, mean for that as far as you're concerned? Or if at all, are we ready for that debate, do you think? In a lot of ways?

Well, uh, it remains to be seen, Uh, and, and there are multifaceted aspects of what you are asking me about. Okay. Uh, and, and the big one, uh, that I often point to, uh, is a Judaeo-Christian view, which was a very radical departure from every other religion, every other nation state, every other barbarians, whoever that ruled the world. Uh, the radical and most consequential principle that was embraced by the Judeo-Christian ethic was that every individual human life had inherent value, Right? Because in every other, culture, society, religion, uh, it was not in the individual. Human life was not sacred, did not have inherent value, but was value was relative. It was relative to the value of the person to the clan, the tribe, the nation, the race who, what, however, they were cutting up the pie. Uh, it, it was always relative. And if it, uh, and if your relative value wasn't sufficient, uh, then, you know, you could be disposed of, for instance, in, in Rome and the Roman culture, the husband was the head of the family.

The husband could kill at will, for whatever reason he thought was just justified. Any member of the family, he could kill the wife, the son, the daughter, whoever. So, uh, and that is because, uh, their lives didn't have inherent value. It was only relative value as judged by the, the patriarch of the family. And, uh, and that was the way it was. And of course, slaves, I mean, yeah. You know, same, same. But, but is, you know, but the extent of the view of relative value extended not just to slaves that could be killed at will, but to family members, Sure. That could be killed at will. And of course, the, the, that view is the wellspring, the, the inherent value of every human life is the wellspring of all of our views about human life, for instance. And that, that we are opposed to racial discrimination, that we are opposed to sex discrimination, that we are opposed to discrimination based upon disability.

That we don't wanna categorize people based upon, you know, factors such as, uh, you know, race or religion or whatever. Everybody has inherent value and equal entitled equal protection of the laws. And of course, Roe v Wade, well, of course, there were two great assaults on that principle. The first was slavery. And it took us centuries, ultimately, and, uh, terrible civil war to get to where we are now, where we, uh, where racial discrimination is illegal. Slavery has been abolished. We're not perfect yet because humans are fallible and have weaknesses. But we, we are, have gone an enormous distance on that issue. Uh, the other great assault was Roe v. Wade, which is, we, we've just marked off a whole category of people. They have no inherent value. They can be killed at will by somebody who has power over them. Right. Id the consent of the woman. So that has been a gr you know, the second great assault on this critically important and radical notion that everybody has inherent value. If we give up on that one, we're just gonna be like the barbarians or the Romans or whoever, and, uh, uh, people's lives will be readily sacrificed because they, they don't have the, uh, because they don't have inherent value anymore.

Yeah. They don't. And they don't have the, you know, that, like you said, and that inherent value led to legal standing. Uh, you know, and, and I argue this too, that that's why Darwinism is so egregious, because it's philosophically the foundation of racism. You know, if there is just this, if there's this mindless, uh, survival of the, the species and whoever happens to be on the top of the hill is right, you know, as far as that's concerned. And, and so all this assault on the fact that God created us and God gave us inherent value, and each person is precious, People need to understand, I think that that's what's being debated deeper than whether the law comes this way or the policies come that way. And if you, like you said, if we start going down a direction where we look at, uh, your practical value to society, which is, you know, ultimately the secular state takes over all this nonsense, or this, these important questions, I should say, um, then whether you're, you know, whether you're young in the womb or you're older and you're, you're less productive, we start to, that's where I think Hitler was going with all this stuff.

Uh, because the state needs the best and the brightest at the moment, and they determine who that is. That's a scary direction. Do you see, you know, so you said dread Scott, you know, you brought it up, uh, the two assaults on that, that principle, which I agree with. Well, we had a civil war. I mean, are we at that kind of place? Is dialogue, uh, the way to go? Um, do we have to get these fundamental principles reestablished? Uh, what, what are your thoughts about, Cuz I know legally we're, we're in one place, but morally and culturally, we've got a lot of work to do.

Well, the situation is, uh, is on that, on the front of whether or not we have a common agreement or common basis, you know, for agreement among our people generally. Mm-hmm. , uh, is, is a big problem right now. And, and as, because of the radical left, uh, the Democrats that have been totally taken over by the radical left who are truly progressives progressive, it was a poli is a political philosophy that is much different than liberalism. Liberalism believes in individual rights. Progressivism does not, they don't believe in individual rights. They only believe in what is good for society, end of quote. And they want experts to decide that, not the people. So they're anti-democratic. And of course, their heyday was, uh, with Wood Wilson in the, in the, you know, the Supreme Court, uh, in the early 19 hundreds. And what did that lead to?

It led to, uh, Buck v Bell, uh, where the US Supreme Court upheld the forced sterilization, uh, buck, uh, by the state, uh, by the state, uh, because she had mental retardation. And the court said, quote, four, three generations of Sils is enough, End of quote. Wow. So she had no rights because she had mental retardation to even the most basic human rights that we have that is to be able to bear children and, and give birth to children. And, uh, that could be taken by the state forcibly by forced sterilization. And, and of course, Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood, who she was a great progressive. She was a genesis, just like the court in Buck Bell was. And eugenic is, we want to get rid of people that are just not the right race, not have memory tarnation have, uh, whatever problems, uh, you know, that we don't value them. Well, and according, and Sanger included, uh, southern Europeans, you know, she thought they were in quote, inferior in the quote, of course, she wanted to eliminate black children, which is very adamant about and public about that. So eugenics was what she was into and created Planned Parenthood in order to execute,

You know, Isn't it amazing? I thought about that too, that if she came back from the dead, you know, she rose from the grave, she'd be like, uh, you know, we were gonna force these people to kill their children. We were gonna take their children away to, you know, and abort them. Now they're paying us to do it. I mean, I think she would probably have a big smile on her face. We had people marching on Washington saying, Let us kill our children. Whereas back in those days, they were like, Leave us alone. Let us raise our children. What a, what a dramatic twist. And I think people need to understand, cuz this is where I hear it all the time. It's the Christian worldview that stands proudly against this kind of, uh, view of life, because it's a brutal tyrannical, uh, very destructive view of life.

And we cherish the life of each person. That doesn't mean we always agree with each other, but at least we start from that view that your, your life has an inherent value and we respect that. Uh, going forward. Um, you just said, uh, you know, you, you pointed out some of the challenges we just had the Kansas, uh, law, that that did not go into effect. And so Kansas is in essence of pro-abortion state, at least at this moment. Are there other challenges that the, the legislative point of view that you see that, uh, we need to be ready for, or I, is it kind of a new day and we're just gonna have to figure it out as we go along?

Well, uh, you know, now for the first time, we have the, a real opportunity to protect innocent human life, right? Uh, up until through, under the time of Roe v Wade, uh, you know, we could only deal with the abortion issue on the margins on the edges. And, uh, we have three, uh, legislatures dealing with these subjects, and that is West Virginia, South Carolina, and Indiana. And overall, we're doing do, we're doing pretty well, fortunately in Indiana, we have a special session, and there's a fight over that. Uh, they pro-life groups have been opposing the, uh, bill that has been put forward because of too many loopholes, too many, uh, failures to provide effective enforcement, et cetera. Right? And up to today, Indiana, uh, the right life groups in Indiana opposed the current bill that has been going forward, whether that, you know, it may, may still be fixed, you know, these are never, you know, as you know, these are never done deals until the last vote, Right. Uh, is counted. Um, and sometimes they make significant, uh, uh, twists and turns as you go through the process. So, but this, this is the nature of democracy and representative democracy,

Right?

People could say they're pro-life in the past and, you know, vote for parental notice, which was favor, you know, very popular vote, you know, not to fund abortion, very popular. But now it's really the rubber meets the road. And, you know, we just hope and pray and expect that they will do what they have said they will do all along. And, uh, of course, I live in Indiana and I, I, you know, none of us have given up on the legislature, uh, doing the right thing. And, uh, we were still hopeful that that's, that's what happens. We'll know by the end of the week.

Well, you know, one of the things that we at least know now is, uh, something that we probably, you know, we were thinking that this case would, would provide a roadmap for the overturn of row. And here they went all the way and, and overturned it. So that's something to be celebrated, because as I, I say it this way, I don't know what you think about this, but it removed the veneer of respectability of abortion because you never had to actually in a debate or talking, all someone could say is, Well, it's a constitutional right. And that kind of ended the discussion. Now you have to talk about what it actually is. We're talking about what is this procedure, What does it do? What is the aftermath? What are the results to the woman and to the child, and all these different things. They actually have to now start to debate what it, what it actually is.

And I think that's a good thing. But like you pointed out, the moral perspective on a lot of these issues is learning where to say no properly out of love for other people. And for whatever reason, our culture thinks that Libertinism is, is love , just doing whatever I want, is love. And I'm telling you, the legislature has to put proper boundaries in place for us to live in a civil society. So in this regard, like you said, the the real work, uh, the rubber is gonna meet the road. Well, Jim, thank you for your work. Thank you for, um, your efforts before the Supreme Court. I, I know that you were part of the, the Dobbs case. Um, but again, all the different cases that you've argued, I know you're, you're a person who believes in the constitutional protections of, of us as individuals, but you also believe in self-government, you know, religiously motivated, self-discipline, self-governing people, uh, what a concept, right?

Yeah. And we, we've got, we've got an opportunity to get back more in that direction, uh, now and, uh, we need to seize that opportunity.

Well, I think that's a very exciting place to be. So thanks again for being with us today.

Thank you. Pleasure talking to you. As

Always. Thanks for tuning in today. To get to know our lc LDC work better, check out our website@lclfreedom.org. Contain. There are resources to empower your public square dynamic discipleship, or check out our weekly word from the center opinion piece every Friday at facebook.com/l C r l, Freedom. Till next time, God bless you always. I'm Greg Sells. Have a great week.

You've been listening to Liberty Action Alert with Greg Seltz, Executive Director of the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty in Washington dc. This program has been brought to you by the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty.