Americans Want Roe V. Wade To Allow Abortion Restrictions: We call it Good News Friday because it’s a chance for David and Tim to share some good news from across the nation and around the world. In this episode, we talk about how the citizenship oath was upheld. How that Americans want Roe v. Wade changed to allow abortion restrictions. And more! 

Air Date: 02/08/2019

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

 

Faith And The Culture

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we”€™re talking about today”€™s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture, always doing that from a Biblical, historical, and Constitutional perspective.

We’re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and the founder of WallBuilders. Also, Tim Barton, national speaker, pastor, and president of WallBuilders. And my name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator, national speaker, and author.

David and Tim have a ton of good news to share with us so we are going to dive in. But I do want encourage you to visit our two Web sites as well. WallBuildersLive.com for more of that good news and archives of our program over the last few weeks and months.

Also visit WallBuilders.com, a lot of great materials you can get for yourself and your family and your community. They will equip and inspire you, they’ll help you to become a better citizen, become engaged, and actually help us to save this constitutional republic. All of that’s available right there at WallBuidlders.com as well as the opportunity to donate, which means you’re helping us, as a listener, to support the program to bring you this good news and bring you the interviews we do throughout the week our Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs, our leadership programs for pastors where we take pastors to D.C., we do youth leadership programs, legislator training programs, a lot of great things happening around here at WallBuilders, and we appreciate you coming alongside and supporting that.

Good News From Massachusetts

You can do that at WallBuilders.com today on the donation button. You can do a one time donation, or you can do a once a monthly donation, that’s a chance for you to really help us throughout the year in planning those programs and expanding WallBuilders Live as well. Alright guys, let’s jump into some of the good news. David’s got the first piece of good news and we’ll just do kind of a rapid fire today to get as much good news in as we can.

David:

Usually if I say that there’s good news coming from the federal court in California, you guys immediately say, “€œNo way!”€

Tim:

I would think it’s been abolished. That’s the great news.

David:

Yeah, the federal court is abolished. That’s not the good news, and it’s not coming from California, but it’s almost as radical. This is coming from a federal court in Massachusetts.

Tim:

That’s the wrong side of the nation.

David:

Exactly.

Tim:

Although Massachusetts is pretty liberal too…

David:

Well, that’s what I mean, it’s really liberal. In my opinion, this is a very unusual ruling coming out of Massachusetts. So what it is: it deals with the fact that federal law requires that, with oaths, that you use So help me God at the end of the oath. Now, it’s not required in the president’s oath, but it’s required in oaths for citizenship, immigration, to be a juror it’s required, for oaths to be a witness in a court proceeding, etc. Federal law requires So help me God, and state law requires So help me God in so many different situations.

Is this Establishment of Religion?

So obviously, that’s going to be a target for folks who don’t want to say So help me God, and think that you shouldn’t be able to say that, and think that the government shouldn’t mandate you to say that, et cetera, et cetera. So what happened was, at an immigration ceremony in Massachusetts, So help me God in the citizenship oath was challenged. Now, Rick, you’re the attorney.

What’s the clause of the Constitution they’re going to challenge this under?

Rick:

The citizenship oath? They must be saying that you don’t have to have a religious test. You can’t have a religious test to hold office.

David:

That’s a good call, but it’s going to be under the Establishment Clause. They’re saying to to say So help me God establishes a religion. It’s the government establishing a religion.

Rick:

Even though that’s not necessarily a denomination, is just a belief in God a religion? Maybe that’s their perspective.

David:

That’s right. So their argument is anytime the government does religion, that’s establishment clause violation. So that’s normally what you would sue under, which they did.

But they also sued under the Free Exercise Clause, which is crazy because that’s the right of individuals to say that, and they didn’t stop there. They also sued under the Equal Protection Clause, under the Due Process Clause, and under refrain. They wanted this thing from five different directions, figuring you throw a rock somewhere and it’s going to hit something.

So they really went after this to get this struck down. And here’s what the federal court in Massachusetts said, “€œFirst off, So help me God in the citizenship oath is completely fine.”€

A Very Good Ruling

And here’s what the judge in Massachusetts said, “€œThis is but a recognition that, since this nation was founded, and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define. And that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with respect for those who adhere to other beliefs.”€

So you actually have a Massachusetts federal judge saying exactly the right thing. This is not a bad thing, to acknowledge God. And we’ve always been able to do that in government and we always say, “€œWe don’t require atheist to say God if they don’t want to, but you can’t make all of us stop saying it just because you don’t like it.”€

I don’t think I’ve ever had a piece of good news from a court in Massachusetts that we’ve talked about on this program. But we now we have a first.

Rick:

We’ve got a good news from a federal court in Massachusetts where they upheld keeping the phrase So help me God in the citizenship oath. Quick break. We’ll be right back with more good news. Stay with us you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Moment From American History

This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. After the final victory at Yorktown the Continental Army awaited the outcome of peace negotiations with Great Britain.

Pastor Israel Evans, a chaplain in the army, proposed to George Washington that they build a structure where church services can be held during the months of waiting. Washington approved the plan and urges officers to ensure that the soldiers attend that service.

Pastor Evans further knew if we were to secure the liberties they had fought for, sound education would be crucial.

He declared, “€œEvery parent and every friend to the freedom of his country ought to be attentive to the improvement of our youth and the principles of freedom and good government. And then the people will stand fast in their liberty for a long time.”€ Our schools today need to return to teaching the principles of freedom and good government in order for America to survive and prosper. For more information about Pastor Israel Evans and other colonial Patriots go to WallBuilders.com

The Immoral Argument of Pro-Choice

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. We have more good news for you.

And by the way, as I mentioned earlier at the beginning of the program, there’s a lot of good news right there at WallBuildersLive.com on our website.

Go to the archives section or even some of the articles we have right there on the home page. Tim Barton’s up next. What’s our next piece of good news? Where we headed?

Tim:

This one is staying here in the U.S., and it deals with abortion. This is something that we’ve talked—I don’t know if I remember a Good News Friday in recent months, years, that we haven’t at least had some level of good news with the issue of abortion. There’s been a lot of polling that came out in recent weeks and months in the last two years, and so we’ve seen a lot of trends and the direction they’re going which is why there’s been a lot of reason for good news.

Well, one of the arguments by many people that are pro-choice, by many people politically that tend to be very left leaning, many Democrats that are in favor of abortion, one of the arguments they’ve made has been in favor of selective abortion. So when the mother gets a sonogram, if you can see–and the doctors there can tell you, “€œHey, we’re seeing that there is some kind of disorder. There’s some kind of problem. There’s gonna be an issue with this child.”€

Most Americans Are Against This

They argue, “€œWell, the parents ought to be able to be selectively decide whether or not they want to continue this pregnancy or terminate the pregnancy, a.k.a. kill that baby.”€ And one of the things that is very interesting is the American people have largely not bought into that narrative, at least from this most recent polling, which identifies that 62 percent of Americans oppose aborting babies just because they have down syndrome.

So down syndrome is a category that generally would fall under the selective abortion category, and Americans are saying, “€œWhoa, whoa, just because someone has down syndrome doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the right to be alive. That’s not a reason to be able to murder them.”€

And there were a lot of things in this poll, in this survey, this study.

What’s also interesting about it is they identified that even people who identify as Democrat, or pro-choice, were not in favor of these late term abortions or of some of these selective abortions.

 

So even with a political group whose ideology has long been in favor of abortion, it seems that even for a majority of their party that many positions the party still holds are not aligning with where most of their party is. That’s good news for the American population to recognize that there is value in unborn life, that there’s value in the pregnancy, and protecting that unborn child through the completion of that pregnancy. So it’s good news on a lot of fronts. There’s a lot more to the study which we can give information to. They can probably find that link on the website, but nonetheless it’s encouraging at this point knowing the majority of Americans are not in favor of selective abortion, or of late term abortions, and think that should be done away with it.

Rick:

The trends keep going the right way, the polling keeps going the right way, the attitudes towards those issues, so life continues to win and not only at the ballot box and in legislative halls, but it’s important in public opinion. It continues to get better, just like you’re talking about there, because that then is followed by even better pro-life laws.

Tim:

And I think there”€™s something to that, we very well could see an issue come up in the Supreme Court, where there have been several states that have passed some extreme pro-life laws—and I’m saying extreme– that their view is extreme. Any time we’re trying to protect babies at greater levels is considered extreme law, but it will challenge some of the status quo with Roe versus Wade, although some components of Roe versus Wade have been chipped away over the years. There are still a lot of components that still remain.

Another Pro-Life Victory

There are states that their state legislators have passed laws that have been appealed, where people are saying, “€œWell, it’s unconstitutional. You can’t put those limitations on abortion,”€ and those are things that federal courts, even the U.S. Supreme Court, very likely could make rulings and decisions on.

And because of the polling, because of the position of the American people, it certainly puts pressure on a lot of these judges.

Many of them, even under President Trump, that have been appointed are conservative and do tend to hold more pro-life positions. It does put judges in a position where it would not surprise me to see some significant steps taken against Roe versus Wade, because of the makeup of judges now, and because of the the population of America, and the polling, and how much they are in favor of valuing and respecting life at higher levels.

David:

Tim, That’s a great point. And I’ve got a piece of good news that will really illustrate that after the break.

Rick:

Let’s take a quick break we have more pro-life good news for you when we come back.

Stay with us, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

This Precarious Moment Book

David:

This is David Barton. I want to let about a brand new book we have called This Precarious Moment: Six Urgent Steps That Will Save You, Your family, and Our Country. Jim Garlow and I have co-authored this book and we take six issues that are hot in the culture right now.

Issues that we’re dealing with, issues such as immigration, race relations, our relationship with Israel, the rising generation Millennials, and the absence of the church in the culture wars, and where American heritage is, our godly heritage. We look at all six of those issues right now that are under attack and we give you both Biblical and historical perspective on those issues that provide solutions on what each of us can do right now to make a difference.

These are all problems that are solvable if we’ll get involved. So you can grab the book This Precarious Moment and find out what you can do to make a difference. This Precarious Moment is available at WallBuilders.com.

Jesse Phillips V.S. Alabama

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us on this Good News Friday. We’ve got David Barton up next with some good news.

David, you mentioned before the break that you had one that is somewhat connected to Tim talking about the pro-life issue and what judges are doing?

David:

Yeah. This deals with the case in Alabama called Jesse Phillips Versus State of Alabama. And in this case, Jesse Phillips was convicted of two murders. He shot his girlfriend and killed her, and she was pregnant in the first trimester with the unborn child. He was convicted of two murders.

He’s on death row. He appealed the murder of the unborn child, saying, “€œIt’s first trimester. That’s within Roe v. Wade. That can”€™t be a murder; that’s not viable. There’s no viable life outside that.”€

So he appealed that conviction, that second conviction. Now, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected his appeal, and particularly, Justice Tom Parker, the chief justice there, wrote a separate opinion on why they rejected that.

And he wrote it with the intent of having the U.S. Supreme Court pick this up, because he points out how Roe v. Wade is a complete anomaly with so much state law, so much science.

The court needs to get away from that. This is part of what he said.  This is just explaining what happened.

So Phillips is the convicted guy, he complained that he was the only person in the United States on death row for killing a woman whose unborn child was in the first trimester of pregnancy.

“€œHe Killed Two Persons”€

But Justice Parker rejected this argument.

He stated, quote, “€œPhillips”€™ crimes were capital, not because he killed a pregnant woman, but because he killed two persons.”€

So he’s calling the unborn child a person.

Justice Parker added that to the extent Phillips was arguing that his unborn child was less of a person because the baby was young, six to eight weeks.

Justice Parker dismissed that argument as, quote, “€œEntirely unconvincing in light of the natural law, Alabama law, and this court’s numerous recent decisions consistently recognizing that an unborn child is a human being from the earliest stage of development, and thus possesses the same right to life as a born person.”€

So he’s got those decisions that said, “€œNo, no, no, this is a human life. It’s not based on how many weeks long before it’s a human life. This is a human life. We’ve been saying this in this court.”€

He wrote this as a separate opinion and particularly challenged this in his words. He challenged what he called, quote, “€œThe continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade.”€

He”€™s saying Roe v. Wade is crazy on this thing. He’s saying this is going to be appealed on up the ranks, probably go to the U.S. Supreme Court. And he wrote this with the intent for the court to say, “€œYou know what? You’re right. We’ve been doing this wrong since Roe v. Wade. We’ve got to get back on board with it.”€

Tim:

So the direction of the challenge is to go to the appeals court first, and then, based on what happens in the appeals court, it can be appealed from there. Then the Supreme Court would have to pick this case up. This would be that kind of progression?

This Could Change a Lot of Things

David:

No. This now, being ruled by the state Supreme Court, goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. No appeals court needed.

Jesse Parker and his attorneys will have to appeal this to the U.S. Supreme Court. And if they appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court will have to look at the findings of the Alabama Supreme Court, including all that Justice Parker has written here, and either find for or against what he said.

Tim:

But it’s also possible the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t take it up, in which case, what the judge said will stand.

David:

Yes. The ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court will stand that there are two murders here, not just one murder. If the Supreme Court picks it up, then they will have opportunity to reexamine their position on Roe v. Wade. They’ve been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for a number of years. Whether there’s parental consent, or informed consent, or whether it’s all the things that we’ve been able to get through and state legislatures there, at some point, is going to have to say, “€œYou know what we gave in Roe v. Wade is unworkable with the 10th Amendment, with states, with life, with everything else.”€

So you know you mentioned in the last segment, Tim, that this kind of stuff may work its way up. Well, this may be a great opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to look at this and take a different examination of it. And that’s particularly what Justice Parker did here. But we’ll see if the Supreme Court takes us up, or even if this gets appealed to the Supreme Court.

Could This Overturn Roe V. Wade?

Rick:

And of course with the changes on the court over the last year or two, we’re probably sitting—would all agree—in our best position possible, at least in my lifetime, of potentially completely overturning Roe v. Wade.

David:

Yeah, I think the chances are more likely now. In talking with a lot of legal experts on this, we think that, probably, religious liberty will get fixed first. There is a case at the court now, Bladensburg Case, which deals with a military cross.

It’s been ordered to be torn down, a military war memorial to veterans ordered to be torn down in Maryland. We think the court will uphold that cross, and we’ll also start giving some protection on how ridiculous this has gotten. So we think that they’re going to have a major modification there.

They have been chipping away at Roe v. Wade and talking about it. They had the opportunity to overturn it at Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but as often happened back then, Justice Kennedy went on the other side. He actually had voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the day that they announced the decision he reversed his position.

Instead of it being 5:4 to end Roe v. Wade, it was 5:4 to keep Roe v. Wade.

Justice Kennedy, again, we talked before that the clerks in the court often called him “€œFlipper”€ because he would flip from one side to the other. He’s done that on so many, so many things over the years, so he’s now off the court.

Not Having Justice Kennedy Means Things Should Improve

So not having Flipper there, we still have a court where we don’t think they’re going to do a direct frontal challenge to Roe v. Wade, but we think that they will start upholding some of the restrictions and some of the whittling away of Roe v. Wade, which even under Justice Kennedy, it happened in several occasions.

But we think they’ll probably be more aggressive now to be able to do that. The belief is that Justice Kavanaugh probably will not do that for the first year or two he’s on the court, but probably by the third, maybe the fourth year, would be willing to really look at taking that down.

So don’t expect major changes this year from Justice Kavanaugh. Again, we haven’t seen into his opinion yet to know for sure, but that’s what his friends predict. So we’ll see.

But Rick, to answer your question, yes. We think that we’re getting closer than we’ve ever been in our lifetime to being able to get rid of Roe v. Wade, or at least undercut it to such a degree that it is no longer the Roe v. Wade that it has been since 1973.

Rick:

Which means saving lives. That’s the end result of that, and our laws actually reflect a respect for life. Quick break guys, we get to one more segment of good news. Folks stay with us. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Front Sight Handgun Training Course

Hey friends! Rick Green here, from WallBuilders Live. What do Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Ben Shapiro, Rick Green, Tim Barton, David Barton – what do all these folks have in common other than the fact that they’re conservative commentators that defend the Constitution and educate America on the Constitution?

They’re all raving about Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. In fact, if you go to my website right now today at RickGreen.com, you can watch the video of Dennis Prager training at Front Sight, or Larry Elder, or Tim Barton, or myself out there training at Front Sight. It’s an opportunity for you to learn how to defend yourself and your family to make sure that you are ready and able to do that. It is a fantastic place to train. They train 30 to 40,000 people a year, and they’re just wonderful to work with.

And you can go with us! We’re headed back out. We’re going to have a great time out there as the WallBuilders family and if you’re a supporter of WallBuilders, we have an amazing deal for you. It”€™s actually going to cost you 1/10th the normal price to attend this two day handgun training because you”€™re going with us. And you”€™ll also get the Constitution crash course. I”€™ll be teaching on the Constitution, you”€™ll get the intellectual ammunition that you need to defend the Second Amendment and our Constitution. As well as getting the physical training on how to defend yourself and your family.  

And this is for everyone – guys, gals, everyone should take this class. No matter how much you”€™ve shot your whole life or if you”€™ve never touched a gun, learn how to defend your family. We”€™re going to be going several times throughout the year and we would love to have you be a part of that. Check it out at RickGreen.com today to find out the dates, get all the specifics, and get all of your questions answered. Check out RickGreen.com today to join us on this Front Sight trip for both your constitutional and handgun defense training.

The Ark Encounter

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us on this Good News Friday. One segment left of good news and Tim Barton’s got the next piece. Tim?

Tim:

All right. This one is from Kentucky, and this is actually from the Ark Encounter, which Ken Ham, for those who are aware, has this big ark—it’s not really a museum per say, experience, maybe?

Rick:

It”€™s an experience. It”€™s actually first rate, it’s more than just a big boat. You actually walk through that thing and you get to see how it works.

It’s so detailed. How did people live the way that they did? How did they take care of these animals? What could they have possibly done with the food, with the run off, with—it’s incredible.

Tim:

Rick, if you and, let’s say, your boys had to use hand tools and build something like this, can maybe you see why it took him like one hundred and twenty years to get this done?

Rick:

Yes. See, since when I do things like that, I have to do them at least three times to finally get it right, I’m looking at 360.

Tim:

Wow. It’s a lot of years. OK.

David:

And then by the way, for those that don’t know the Ark Encounter, the ark there is actual physical size to what the Bible said was to be. They built it exactly as the Bible specifies. So when you’re looking at it, you’re looking at what would have been the actual Ark when Noah built it.

Atheist Attacks on Public Schools for Going to the Ark

Tim:

So definitely a destination you have to go check out. Take the family, it will be incredible.

Well, Ken Ham of course wants people to come and visit, and encourages schools. They bring classes, this is obviously very educational for school kids to come and see this. However, as you can imagine there are certain atheist groups and secular groups who don’t want school kids going to anything that could be perceived as religious, at least not Christian religious.

They’re probably okay if the kids go and visit a mosque, but don’t go to the Ark Encounter.

So the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group from Wisconsin, wrote a thousand public schools in Kentucky and threatened them that if you take these kids, they said it’s unacceptable, this is part of their letter.

“€œIt is unacceptable to expose a captive audience of impressionable students to the overtly religious atmosphere of Ken Ham’s Christian theme parks.”€

So threatening these schools that if they do that, they’ll be sued.

Of course you know Ken Ham says we deal with this kind of stuff, it”€™s nonsense.

Earlier in the year the American Atheists had written letters saying basically the same thing, that schools don’t have the constitutional authority to go, and, “€œIf you do, you’ll be sued,”€ etc..

Ken Ham makes a great point. He says that, essentially, they’re being more aggressive to stop the free exercise of religion, so people can’t even choose to do something religious anymore.

Free Tickets to Classes

Really the only ones they are trying to stop are the ones that have a Christian connotation, which I think is totally true. You don’t see these atheist groups trying to stop any kind of Muslim activity, or Hindu activity, or Buddhist activity in school. It’s really only the Christian activity they’re trying to stop.

But what’s kind of cool about this is Ken Ham said, “€œHey, for any school that wants to come, if you’re in Kentucky, we’re not going to charge you or your teachers or your sponsors to come. We just want you to come for free. Let this be an educational atmosphere and an opportunity for your kids to come learn.”€

And he actually points out that this is just like if you took them to visit a mosque or some other religious facility.

They don’t have to believe what they see, but at least they can come learn what other people believe, which is a pretty good apologetic for it. Nonetheless, it is kind of fun that he is offering free tickets now.

Rick:

Love it.

Tim:

This is good news, I would say that’s pretty cool news in and of itself. I think the really good news will come if we get reports that there are schools that are actually going, and doing, and taking this up, and they’re not being intimidated by these atheist groups.

In fact, Ken Ham has issued a statement to all the schools saying, “€œLook, if you do get sued we have some great attorneys who will defend you for free.”€

I would venture to say we’ve probably had those attorneys on our radio program many times, whether it’s guys like First Liberty, or Liberty Counsel, or Alliance Defending Freedom.

America Wants Roe V. Wade to Include Abortion Restrictions and More on WallBuilders Live!

There’s so many great organizations that would defend them for free, but at least it’s really cool that he’s offering to take us to these schools. That they’re at this point, they don”€™t seem to be backing down to the attacks from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. So it’s a little bit hanging, but it does seem like good news coming.

Rick:

Very, very good news, and I just got to reiterate it is a place everyone should take their family. It’s good to do the creation museum. The Ark. It is top, first rate technologically, amazing, it is just awesome. Can’t say enough good stuff about it, and really encourage people to go. We had a great time.

We did the Creation Museum a few years ago, before they had the ark, and then went last summer some when the ark was open, phenomenal, phenomenal. Thoroughly enjoyed, and plan to go and spend a few days there.

So much good news guys. Thank you all for all the stories today on this, David and Tim Barton. We’ll have more for you next Friday on Good News Friday throughout the week. We have great interviews with folks from across the country that are on the frontlines and then on Thursday we have our Foundations of Freedom Thursday program, so be sure to listen throughout the week.

All of it available at WallBuildersLive.com. You can go to WallBuilders.com for a lot of great materials and resources for you too.

And that’s also a place where you can hit that donate button and help us, as a listener supported program, to continue expanding and getting this great information into the hands of as many people as possible. We appreciate your listening today. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.