Roe v. Wade Is Getting Overturned: 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. We don’t often hear good news from major media, however, here on WallBuilders Live, we love sharing news worthy of celebration! Tune in now to learn more!

Air Date: 05/24/2019

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 WalBuilders 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 and President of WallBuilders, and my name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator, national speaker, and author. You put the three of us together, and we’re going to give you an entertaining 30 minutes here that is also educational and inspirational.

But before we dive in today, visit our website WallBuildersLive.com where you can get archives of the program, because today we’re gonna be talking about good news in American culture. I know, sometimes we think it’s all bad.

No. There’s a lot of great things happening, and I love Friday’s Good News Friday programs when David and Tim share a lot of the stories that they’ve collected over the previous week or so, and give us a chance to chat about it here on the program.

You’re gonna be so excited by what you’re going to hear. If you go to WallBuildersLive.com, click on the archive section, and you can get more good news by going back into those previous Friday programs as well as are our other programs. We do Foundations of Freedom Thursdays, where you ask the questions and we dive into foundational principles based on your questions. Then Monday through Thursday we have all kinds of great guests on the program. All of that available at WallBuildersLive.com.

Supreme Court Opening Doors to End Roe V. Wade?

While you’re there, be sure and notice that donate button. That’s where you can come alongside us and be a part of the program by contributing. We’re a listener supported program, and your contributions are what make it possible for us to share this good news today, to do the pastors briefings, student leadership training, legislative training, and all the other things that we do to equip and inspire folks to save our Constitutional Republic. Become a part of it.

You can do that by going to WallBuildersLive.com today. Click that donate button, make a one time or monthly commitment. We sure appreciate your support.

Let’s jump into some good news! David Barton has our first piece of good news. David?

David:

Well, Rick, I’m going to start with the headline we’ve been waiting for for a number of years. Now, the headline is not telling us what is fact right now, it is telling us what they think will become fact.

Here’s the headline: Supreme Court Decision Just Opened the Door for Overturning Roe v. Wade.

Now, anything that the Supreme Court does for overturning Roe v. Wade is good news. This case had actually happened a couple weeks ago where the Supreme Court struck down 45-50 years of precedent with state policies—in this case there was a policy that said, “One state can sue another state, even if that other state didn’t want to be sued.”

Well, the Supreme Court said, “No, no, no. Under the Constitution, you can’t sue another state. The other state has to agree to be a party in it.”

An End to Old, Wrong Precedents

They dumped 40 to 50 years of precedent in this. At that point in time, Justice Breyer said, “Oh my gosh. If the Supreme Court Justices that we have right now are willing to dump this precedent, this means they’re going to be willing to dump Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade.”

So Breyer sees this reversal of precedent—of a 40 to 50 year precedent—as a real prediction that he thinks Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, which are the two big abortion cases, that they’re going to go down now, and a lot of other people believe that as well.

I was watching CNN News—not that I watch CNN news—but I saw on CNN news that they were saying that 16 states have now passed a fetal heartbeat bill, and fetal heartbeat says, “Look, from the time that you know there’s a heartbeat, you have to protect that child.”

Well, with 16 states doing that—and by the way, one other piece of good news is one of the states that is doing that is Louisiana, which has a Republican legislature and a Democrat governor, and the Democrat said, “Yep, I support that bill.”

A Democrat governor supporting a fetal heartbeat bill?

He said, “Yeah, I was pro-life when I ran for governor, I’m still pro-life, and I’m consistent.”

Kudos to him.

Good for him for being pro-life.

Rick:

David, I got to stop you because of two things. I just want to point out that you’re saying 16 states, fetal heartbeat bills, and we got a Democrat governor signing a fetal heartbeat bill?

A Pro Life Democrat

David:

The reaction against him is pretty fierce. There are people up north saying, “It’s time for us to have a litmus test. We will not have a pro-life Democrat in this party.”

He is getting a lot of pushback from his own party.

Tim:

I would point out that this is interesting, when you look at the litmus test of integrity, that there are those in political circles who no longer care about you having integrity, they care about you changing with the whims of the party and culture.

The fact that he said, “I’m pro-life,” before you elected him.

Now you’re angry at him because he’s supporting the position he said he already held? It seems like a great irony, on many levels, that you are angry that he’s not transformed his position with modern culture.

It is seemingly an anomaly to have politicians who don’t just change with the whims of the people and of the culture, where we even had a President not that long ago who said, “Well, you know, my position on marriage is evolving.”

That’s kind of what you see from politicians, that their positions evolve based on the whim of the people. To have a governor say, “Nope. I’m not going to let the whim of the people change my position.”

That really is remarkable from someone who we probably fundamentally disagree on with almost everything else.

But on this issue, that’s really impressive.

A New Supreme Court Means More Pro Life Bills

David:

It’s impressive to me that he’s standing and taking the heat.

He said, “I gave my word,” and just think about what this really signals from the criticism coming against him out of his own party, and not in Louisiana, most of the criticisms coming from other states.

But here’s a guy that’s elected as a Democrat, and Democrats across the nation rejoice that they have a Democrat governor of Louisiana now. They’ve been having Republican governors.

But then when he actually keeps his word for what he said, and now they say, “Hey, whoa, you can’t be part of our party anymore.”

That in itself is a little bit of a strange message. If you’re going to keep your word, “We like you when you got elected, but not if you’re going to keep your word.” So that’s out there.

But going back to the fetal heartbeat bill. Those are seen as direct challenges to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which is where the Supreme Court actually struck down Roe v. Wade, and then Justice Kennedy reversed his position and came out on the other side and they kept Roe v. Wade.

So this deals with, “Does the state have a right to restrict abortion?”

The state of Pennsylvania wanted to do it. They passed the law and the Supreme Court said, “No, you can’t restrict abortion.”

So these 16 laws are really a direct challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Breyer’s saying, “Looks like Planned Parenthood v. Casey may go down if they’re willing to overturn precedent.”

So that’s really big.

Abortion Punishable by 99 Years in Jail in Alabama

By the way, the Alabama law is one that says abortion is wrong. If you’re a doctor that performs abortion, you get 99 years in jail. Well, that’s a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. So you have challenges now to both of these abortion rulings that the court observers on both sides think that this will eventually fall in the next two to three years, probably be two to three cases that will cause it to fall, but it’s on its way down.

Another anomaly that I just have not seen in the federal courts before, out of Virginia. Now, Virginia passed a law that said, “Look you cannot perform an abortion unless you’re a physician. You have to be a licensed medical doctor to perform an abortion.” That’s the law in Virginia.

People said, “Well, we want nurses or others to do it with that art license, and they’re not medical doctors, et cetera.”

In court, when this was challenged by the Planned Parenthood forces saying, “No, no, no, doesn’t need to be a doctor.”

In court, the federal judge said, “Nope I’m striking down this law. It can be somebody other than a doctor.”

Then he went back later and reversed himself and said, “I’ve been thinking about this. It really is a serious issue. It’s not as cut and dried as I thought it was. I need to hear more testimony in this because this is pretty serious.”

Federal Judge Reverses Stance on Abortion

So a federal judge reversing his own—striking down of a pro-abortion law, has now at least put it back up for debate which is really big. I rarely ever see federal judges backup from their own decisions, but this guy did. So here in the first segment a whole lot of pro-life news from the state and from the nation. But particularly that headline that talks about Roe v. Wade is now on the chopping block.

Rick:

And guys, just to summarize what people know for sure, what these bills are in those states, there’s 15 or 16 states that have heartbeat bills going through, two that had passed them in past years.

Then the court, some local judge, held them up with blocking them, and it ultimately didn’t go to the Supreme Court. Then you got a bunch more that are passing this year, and so it’s going to end up at a different Supreme Court than the one that refused to hear those three years ago, with the changes that Trump’s nominees have made. So just so people don’t think we’ve actually passed them in 16 states, and that that’s done in the law we’re getting there.

But those are 16 states that are working on it, and two that have—actually, I say two that have done it. Now you got Ohio.

A Possible End to Planned Parenthood V. Casey and Roe V. Wade

David:

I think there is, in the last four to six weeks there’s been like five or six states. And Indiana also has a ban on dismemberment abortions, which is another challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey because they’re saying, “We’re not going to allow this kind of abortion in our state,” and the Supreme Court’s been saying, “Yes you will.”

All of this is lining up. Look at all these, state after state after state.

I think we talked earlier about the fact that, since January, there have been 250 pro-life laws introduced in 41 different states, and half of those laws would ban abortion. There is just a lot of pro-life activity going on across the nation right now.

Rick:

Hey guys quick break. When we come back I know we got more questions, but David, I’d really love to know your thoughts on the court’s makeup now, with the two changes and who you think the swing vote is. Could we do a commentary on that when we come back?

David:

You bet. Let’s do it.

Rick:

All right. Stay with us folks, we’ll be right back. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Comedy and the Constitution at Front Site

Hey friends, Rick Green here. Have you ever wanted to laugh while learning? Would you like to actually have some humor included in your education about the Constitution? Well, that’s what Brad Stine and myself do in what we call Comedy and the Constitution.

We do it all over the country and can bring it to your community. But, we’re doing something we’ve never done before. We’re taking the Comedy and the Constitution Front Site in Nevada, and we’re going to combine it with the Constitutional Defense Program we’ve been doing for a couple of years.

Now, the Constitutional Defense Program is where you actually get some constitution training and some handgun training to you learn how to defend yourself and your family. You’re going to get all of it: the constitutional training; the opportunity to laugh with Brad Stine, God’s comic comedian, and you’re going to the handgun training at Front Site.

This is a one time event happening June 3rd and 4th. There’s still time to sign up; but, space is very limited. So, if you want to be on the range with us, then you’ve got to get signed up right now at RickGreen.com. Find out more; it’s going to be a great event on June 3rd and 4th. So, get signed up today at RickGreen.com.

What the Statistics on the Supreme Court Look Like

Rick:

Thanks for staying with us on this Good News Friday. We went a little long with our first segment, but it’s such good news we couldn’t help it!

I’m actually gonna stay on that subject for just a second because I’ve got a question for you, David.

With all these heartbeat bills and other pro-life legislation going to the Supreme Court, and hearing that potentially these major pro abortion decisions from years past could be overturned, what’s kind of the hinge there? In other words, if the court has changed with two new members in the last few years, how much does that change the actual voting of the Supreme Court, or at least what we can best guess?

David:

Well, we were having a discussion about that, this week, with several of the national attorneys, litigation attorneys, supreme court attorneys who are involved in these cases at the court, and they’re saying that the big question mark will be Roberts.

No, it’s not that he’s not pro-life, but they think that Roberts will not overturn Roe v. Wade unless he first upholds a state law that limits Roe v. Wade. They don’t think he’ll go in on the first case and say, “Roe v. Wade is done,” but they think, for example, if you take the Indiana case and he says, “It’s OK for Indiana to ban dismembered abortions,” if he takes a fetal heartbeat case and says, “It’s OK for these states to protect life after a heartbeat,” once he’s done that they think a second ruling will be, “Let’s get rid of Roe v. Wade.”

4.8 out of 5?

This is not a federal issue. This is, at least, an enumerated powers issue for the states to decide, not for the federal government to decide. But they don’t think that he’s going to hit Roe v. Wade head on.

However, one of those attorneys then pointed out that, however, you got to take note of the fact that he was part of the majority decision of overturning that long precedent of states cannot sue other states without permission.

The fact that he did that, and that’s an undermining of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it could be that he would, but they think and they predict that he’ll take two steps.

But my gosh, there are so many cases going to the Supreme Court right now on life, he’s going to have plenty to choose from if he wants to get rid of Roe v. Wade.

Rick:

Now, help me remember the math. So he would be—would he be the fifth vote or the sixth vote?

David:

He would be a fifth. Roberts. Four solid, I guess at this yeah, it’s 4:4, and he’s the other one, and he’s probably 4.8 to 4.2.

With Kennedy, it was 4:4 with a switch.

Tim:

Is that 4.2 out of 9, or 4.2 out of a scale of 1 to 10?

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned in the Next 5 Years?

David:

Needing 5 judges to rule, I can say we have about 4.8 judges, needing 5 judges to win. We have 4 that will get us there, and he’s gonna be with us 8 out of 10 cases, but he’s not as reliable as the other four. So if you need 5 to win, I’m going to give him a 4.8. He’s gonna be with us 80 percent of the time. 80 percent of the time he’s going to be on that side, which is so much higher than Kennedy was at 50 percent on the other side. Plus, when Kennedy went the wrong way, he often wrote the decision on it, and he was the champion and and the crusader on the wrong side oftentimes.

Roberts is not going to be that. He may not be with us every time, but he’s not going to be fighting us every time. So I think the chances of getting Roe v. Wade overturned in the next five years through two cases are really, really high. I think he will vote to hear those cases. I think they’re right, that if he gets a chance to stand up for the states first, then he’s going to be willing to stand up for the states a second time and say, “Roe v. Wade needs to go away.”

Take a Moment to Think About This

Rick:

Guys, if we could—and we’ll take another break before we come back and get our next Good News Friday from Tim—but can we just pause for a second here and let this sink in? How many decades did we have to say, “Well, we could get that done at the state level but it’s going to get overturned at the Supreme Court. They’re going to keep Roe v. Wade until the judges change.”

We’re right on the cusp!

Guys, it could happen this year! I used to wonder if it’s going to happen in my lifetime. It could happen this year! This is exciting!

  1. I had to have a moment there. Just think about that and let it sink in.

I hope folks that are listening realize how big this is, and will be praying for those Supreme Court justices. Be praying for those attorneys that are arguing these cases. This is just huge. So, so excited about it!

Alright, quick break. We’ll come back to the program. Tim’s got some good news for us. Stay with us, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Bring A Speaker To Your Area

Tim:

Hey, this is Tim Barton with WallBuilders.  And, as you’ve had the opportunity to listen to WallBuilders Live, you’ve probably heard a wealth of information about our nation, about our spiritual heritage, about the religious liberties, and about all the things that make America exceptional.

And, you might be thinking, “As incredible as this information is, I wish there was a way that I could get one of the WallBuilders guys to come to my area and share with my group.”

Whether it be a church, whether it be a Christian school, or public school, or some political event, or activity, if you’re interested in having a WallBuilders speaker come to your area, you can get on our website at www.WallBuilders.com and there’s a tab for scheduling. If you’ll click on that tab, you’ll notice there’s a list of information from speakers bio’s, to events that are already going on. And, there’s a section where you can request an event, to bring this information about who we are, where we came from, our religious liberties, and freedoms. Go to the WallBuilders website and Bring a speaker to your area.

Poynter and the Slander Campaign

Rick:

We’re back! Thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders Live. Good News Friday today.

So far we’ve been talking about good news headed to the Supreme Court and the pro-life movement, some cases working their way there and what may happen, even just in the coming months. Next piece of good news is coming from Tim. Where are we headed?

Tim:

Well guys, this deals with national media and stories being corrected, which is always good when facts come out and people are able to identify the truth.

There is a group known as Poynter, they’re a journalism institute. They actually train writers and reporters, and so a lot of people that are in mainstream media, Poynter had an influence over some of how they think and what they’ve learned.

So what was interesting is Poynter came out with what they considered to be kind of a fact checking network that they were going to start using to fact check other media sites. And it’s worth noting that the author of this article that came out is connected with the Southern Poverty Law Center, that this whole thing was funded by George Soros, so you can already know something coming that far from the left is going to be extremely biased and even the way they determine what is fact checking of news outlets and sites. They came out with a list of what they called “unreliable” or even kind of the fake news notion they called it “unnews”.

“Unnews”

So there are unnews sites that don’t promote news, they just promote propaganda. They started off, there were 29 right leaning news outlets and organizations that they labeled to be unreliable news websites.

But then the SPLC author and producer actually took other lists that other left leaning organizations have done and said, “Here’s other groups that we should add to it.”

So it ended up being 515 names, which included some very prominent conservative sites like Breitbart, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Life News, Judicial Watch, PJ Media—

David:

Life News?

Tim:

Yes. Project Veritas, The Blaze…. Guys, it was 515. I don’t even have time on the radio program to list them all.

David:

Everything not owned by them.

Tim:

Everything on the right is what they listed. Part of the reason they actually even made this connection is that some of the “fake news” that they would point to would be things like when one of these sites would defend or promote Alliance Defending Freedom.

For example, the Jack Phillips case. He’s the baker from Colorado, and so they’re pointing out that Jack Phillips was being targeted for his sincerely held religious beliefs and he wasn’t actually in a position where he was saying, “I will never serve homosexuals,” he actually was selling them all kinds of things in his store.

He just said, “I wasn’t gonna make this very special, specific cake to celebrate a wedding. I’m not gonna participate in something I disagree with, but I would sell them anything else already done in the store.”

Luckily, People Saw Through This

So they were labeled as fake news or unnews.

Well, the good news is there was enough pushback. People recognize the bias enough that they came back and they said that, essentially, “Some of the site’s outlets we cited we had bad information that led us to claim all the conclusions.”

Well, here’s the irony. So they’ve had to kind of recant and take back this story. The irony is when they’re pointing to news outlets that you can’t trust because they print unreliable information, they had to take back the story as being unreliable.

So the good news is that truth did come out. People saw through this smear campaign. It really was just the left saying, “You can’t trust anything you hear on the right.”

This agenda was, again, funded by George Soros. The Southern Poverty Law Center, who has, at this point, been very much outed as just attacking Christians and conservative organizations.

People saw through what was going on, so the good news is it’s been exposed that this site has now—or that this article, rather—has now been kind of drawn back and they’ve acknowledged that there were some mistakes made and that they will do a better job of vetting their sources next time.

More Good News

Nonetheless, it’s good news that this smear campaign did not work and that these, at least in the sense of somebody saying that they were being objective in their reporting,  have been taken back.

So I just thought that’s a piece of good news, at least that people were able to see through this distortion and these lies.

Rick:

One more break. I’m torn here. Each of you only got one good news item in so far, and we have one segment left. Do we flip a coin on who gets the last one?

Tim:

Just measure who’s stack of good news is bigger, and so we’ll start counting over the break who’s got more, and I think that makes sense.

Rick:

It’ll be a surprise when we get back. Stay with us folks, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live on Good News Friday.

Moment From American History

This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history.

The Reverend James Caldwell was a famous minister during the American War for Independence. His sermons taught liberty and God’s opposition to tyranny.

The British hated him and tried to kill him. So, for his own protection he would actually take loaded pistols with him into the pulpit and lay them beside his Bible as he preached. In the 1780 Battle of Springfield, the Americans ran out of wadding for their guns which was like having no ammunition.

Pastor Caldwell ran inside a nearby church and returned with an armload of Watt Hymnals, the pages of which would provide the much needed wadding. He took this great Bible based hymnal, raised in the air, and shouted to the troops,”Now put to watts into them, boys!”  This pastor’s ingenuity saved the day for the Americans.

For more information or Pastor James Caldwell and other Colonial Patriots go to WallBuilders.com

Men Winning Women’s Sports, but Not Anymore

Rick:

Hi folks! We’re back! Final segment, final chance for some good news.

We did the arm wrestling, the coin toss, the stack measuring of who has the most good news to share, and the winner is—

Tim:

Actually, we just counted gray hairs.

David:

Oh! Ouch!

Man! Under the bus and back and back and forth!

Rick:

We’re going to honor our elders.

Tim:

I was thinking, “What did Peter and Paul say? “Young men, respect your elders.””

It was there in the Ten Commandments, “Honor your father and mother.”

I said, “No, dad, clearly you’re gray, shiny, magnificent mane has earned you the right to share this last piece of good news.”

Rick:

Alright David, go ahead.

David:

  1. We’ve seen in news, over the last three years particularly, that so often women’s titles in high school, college, elsewhere professional, are being won by people who were born as males and decided they wanted to identify as a female.

Rick:

Often they lost the male track meet the year before.

David:

Yeah, exactly. So the polling was asking Americans, “What do you think about people who are born male but identify as female being allowed to compete in competitive women’s sports?”

What percentage of the nation said they agreed with a born male competing as a female simply because of identification? What percentage?

“Physiology, not Identification”

Tim:

I would think a very low percentage. I think most Americans see through this, and honestly, people want to have a big heart to be merciful, and they go, “You know, what if somebody is really confused? I don’t wanna hurt their feelings, but generally speaking, no. Biology has made male and female different.”

I would think the people that support a born biological male competing against females would be somewhere less than 15 percent.

David:

It’s actually 23 percent. The highest support is among those under 35 years old, makes sense, been through school recently, and it’s among Democrats.

Tim:

Of course. That would be “unkind” and “unloving” and “intolerant” not to let boys compete against girls.

David:

I have a parallel story: the world championship weightlifting powerlifting title for the female side was won by a man. Well, by a man who identified as a female, he won nine titles. All nine titles. Just won everything, just crushed, and they’ve just come out and retracted that.

The World Federation President said, “Well, it’s revealed that this female lifter was actually a male in the process of becoming a transgender female. Our rules on the basis of separate and gender for competition are based on physiological classification rather than on identification.”

They took the titles from him, and that’s actually what three fourths of the nation wants to happen. Men compete as men, and women compete as women. So actually, two short good news pieces there on the culture may be starting to shift in a good direction.

Rick:

Can you just repeat that one phrase that’s really important, “On physiological, not psychological”?

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned? More Good News on WallBuilders Live

David:

It says, “Our rules and the basis of separating genders for competition are based on physiological classification rather than identification.”

In other words, “We do it on science rather than psychology.”

Rick:

Common sense may not be dead in America after all.

Folks, we got more good news for you on our website right now WallBuildersLive.com. Click on the archives, you go back to those previous Friday programs.

Be sure and stop over on that donate button and give yourself a chance to come alongside us and be a part of the solution be a part of helping us to save America’s constitutional republic.

We appreciate you listening today, you’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.