On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, does the Mississippi abortion law violate the federal constitution? If it doesn’t, then the Roe V. Wade decision can be weakened. Even Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has acknowledged that their basis for Roe v. wade was not rooted in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment freed the slaves and has nothing to do with abortion. It is not a right to privacy to murder a child in a woman’s womb. Even if the Supreme Court finds that these laws can’t be upheld federally, states will still have the right to authorize them. Then, the Solicitor General argued that viability was central to one’s ‘right’ to abortion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas questioned where such a right is found in the U.S Constitution. Later, Anthony Fauci announces the first Omicron variant case which emerged in San Francisco, CA, and the infected individual was fully vaccinated. Fauci still can’t find an answer to why border crossers are being admitted into the country without testing or vaccinations. Afterward, Sen. Mike Lee joins the show to discuss his plan to shut down Biden’s vaccine mandate by attaching it to an upcoming continuing resolution from Congress. The government was happy to shut down private businesses but is fearful to have a government shutdown for even a single day.
THIS IS FROM:
NY Post
Dem Senator warns Supreme Court of ‘revolution’ if Roe v. Wade overturned
Rumble
Fauci Confirms The First Case Of Omicron In America
Right Scoop
“It’s a different issue” – Fauci dismisses ‘border crossers’ being tested for COVID
Breitbart
Biden’s DHS Chief: Sanctuary Country Orders Ensure ‘Majority’ of Illegal Aliens Not Deported
Jerusalem Post
Iran starts enriching with advanced centrifuges while stalling in Vienna talks
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Olivier Douliery
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
You’re at the right place. Because there’s a big case before the Supreme Court involving the state of Mississippi and its law, it’s law respecting abortion. Now it’s time for a little bit of background here, because the reporting on this is not only hysterical, it’s unconscionable. The question before the court is whether the Mississippi law. In their view, violates the federal constitution. Or not. And so the further question is whether or not that will influence the Roe vs. Wade decision. The Roe vs. Wade decision does not have a syllable of constitutionality in it, not one. It’s not just Scalia and Thomas and Alito and others who’ve said that. That’s right, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Although she supports it and supported a radical abortion agenda, she acknowledged the fact, well, it’s not in the Constitution and that the Roe vs. Wade decision wasn’t a very well crafted decision. It was crafted by Harry Blackmun, really by his clerks, his law clerks. And it basically is a decision that is rambling, that’s largely incoherent, that use a psycho analysis, there is absolutely nothing in the 14th Amendment despite. Despite what the listener. General, the United States argued, despite what Charles Fried says up there at Harvard, former solicitor general under Reagan, they keep mentioning, yeah, he was a solicitor general under Reagan, but that doesn’t give him the credentials. As far as I’m concerned, I knew him quite well and he wasn’t particularly solid as far as I was concerned. Appointments are made and people become disappointments. He was one of them. But all this said. The 14th Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, originally had to do with the freed slaves the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution adopted by three fourths, actually more, but at least three fourths of the states. And what was happening was even though the slaves were said to be free, their rights were not their rights were not being enforced. As equal citizens, so you have the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, essentially. Way back when it was understood that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, read them. That the Bill of Rights do not apply to the state, so what the Supreme Court started to do and more recent history the past century is they had what they called the incorporation doctrine and they started to incorporate the Bill of Rights first aspects of it, essentially, all of it now into application to the states. But it just shows you back then how significant state authority was and that so many people ran for state office rather than federal office because that’s where the action was. But obviously, after the civil war, that wasn’t where the action was. And certainly after the New Deal, that wasn’t where the action was. Now, I just want to point out that the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. So what people are doing is they’re saying you have a right to your body, you have a privacy right now. They don’t say you have a right to your body, your privacy. Right. When it comes to something like a vaccine or most other things where the government’s keeping enormous amount of data on you, on your activities, on your movements, on your background and so forth, they don’t say it then. And of course, we have all kinds of laws, all kinds of laws that go against this privacy, right, as applied by the left, not as understood by you and me, it’s not privacy, right. If you believe that abortion is murder to kill a baby in the womb, it’s not a privacy, right? Well, a woman can do whatever she wants with her body. A privacy, right. Well, do you have a privacy? Right. I’m just curious if a privacy right in your own home to abduct somebody and to molest them? Of course not. Do you have a privacy right to cook heroin if that’s what you do with heroin? I don’t even know in your bedroom. Of course not. You have a privacy right to to hatch a terrorism plot in your living room? Of course not. So privacy rights need to be understood as we commonly understood them, and that’s what the left does, they take common language and common words and they twist them into a pretzel. The question is not whether abortion will survive Supreme Court decisions. Even if the Supreme Court were to rule against Roe v. Wade, there still will be abortions in this country. Before Roe v. Wade, states made the determination of whether there would be abortions and how abortions would be handled, in other words, how early in the pregnancy, how late in the pregnancy? Does anybody think there’s a single blue state in this country that wouldn’t allow abortion on demand or pretty much abortion on demand? Does anybody think that there isn’t a Republican state in the country that wouldn’t allow some level of abortions? Even Mississippi is allowing that. We have in this country federalism, 50 states for a reason, we have mobility for a reason. Why do you think so many people are moving to Florida from New York, from Illinois, from Connecticut, from New Jersey and other states because they want to be free, they want to be free from vaccine mandates. They want to be free from confiscatory taxes. They want to be free from from governors that allow riots and allow stores to be looted, where you have in Florida and Texas and other states, governors and governments that say no. So one of the great things we have in this country that keeps this country together, that keeps this country bound and glued together despite its diversity, despite people who support abortion, oppose abortion, support the death penalty, oppose death penalty, support prayer in school, oppose prayer in school, is 50 states is federalism. Because once the Supreme Court makes a decision, nine lawyers, maybe it’s five to four, six to three. So once five lawyers, six law, seven lawyers make a decision, it’s imposed upon the entirety of the nation. So half of the country wins and half of the country loses or whatever the percentage is. This is why you’ve had a constant battle for 50 years, for half a century over Roe vs. Wade, because it’s an illegitimate decision that was imposed on the people of this country by nine lawyers, not nine lawyers. I think it was seven lawyers, in fact, but whatever. And now it’s her right? It’s a woman’s right, it’s not a woman’s right, I hate to tell you this, there’s two human beings involved. It’s not a woman’s right. And, you know, it’s interesting, the more the more advanced technology is, the more advanced sciences, the more advanced human knowledge is, the more it’s clear that it’s a human being. What is it if it’s not a human being? So we’re talking about abortion of any kind, basically even late term abortion right before the baby’s born. That’s not a baby. So why do we have throughout this country criminal statutes that if you murder a pregnant woman and the baby dies, too, that’s two charges of first degree murder or capital murder? Why is that? Are we seriously not going to acknowledge that? That’s a human being? We have all kinds of doctors giving all kinds of advice to women on how to on how to protect their baby in the womb. So they come to full term, right. Certain things you eat, certain things you don’t do. You know, you don’t use cocaine to y to protect another human being. That’s why. Now, what are you doing me right now is not the point, the point of the debate now is who gets to decide? Who gets to decide? No, if you say woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body. Well, of course, we’d have to get rid of all the drug lords, too. But a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body. OK, so maybe there’s 30 states in the country that say she does. Maybe there’s 20, 10 states that say she doesn’t. Maybe there’s another 10 states that say, wait a minute, I’m going to effectively cut the baby in half. That’s how the system is supposed to work, the people have a say. In the morality of the nation, in the culture of the nation, not just the elites, not just people who who are picked from a lottery effectively and become Supreme Court justices, not just politicians in Washington, D.C., not just federal courts, the people have a say and they ought to have a say in a matter that’s of such consequence of such consequence. That’s the issue before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court supposed to be neutral. The Supreme Court supposed to be neutral, I hear it said no stare decisis, which means precedent, the cornerstone of our president. We have 50 years of precedent. We have this case, we have the Planned Parenthood Casey case, look at the precedent we have, ladies and gentlemen, precedent to those same people think Dred Scott should be precedent to the same people, think Plessy vs. Ferguson should be precedent to those same people. Think Korematsu should be president. Precedent? Of course not. Roe versus Wade broke precedent that is a neutral Supreme Court that effectively stayed out of this what was going on in the late 50s, 60s and into the 70s. And even today really is the Supreme Court nationalizing decisions about morality, about culture, about social issues. Call them whatever you want with a court decided the American people were too stupid to decide them, that the states were too stupid to go their own way. And so whether it’s prayer, whether it’s whether whether it’s a manger scene in the public square, whether it is abortion, whether it is marriage. The Supreme Court has decided only it has the intelligence and the foresight to make the right decisions, so does nationalize decisions since it’s taken over all these decisions, almost none of them have a constitutional predicate. Now, when we come back, I want to dig a little bit further into this, so stick with me. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
Now, some of you go to Mississippi so backwards, really, it’s backwards because they want to say baby. They passed a law that said abortions after 15 weeks, basically four months. Our legal essentially in Mississippi. Because they looked at the science and the technology and it looked how babies are saved. Premise, we call them, I believe. And we live in this schizophrenic world since Roe versus Wade, that we’re not dealing with babies, of course we’re dealing with babies. And so the the radical pro-abortion movement. Wants to dehumanize as they want to dehumanize so much on the left, they want to dehumanize what we’re talking about. So for people who are mostly unaffected by this woman who would never think of abortion, never had an abortion or man or what have you. OK, free to choose, what’s the big deal? It’s a big deal. It’s a big deal for a lot of people. And you can see the politics that plays in this and why the Supreme Court was profoundly mistaken to get involved in this issue at all, profoundly mistaken to even take it up. These are nine flesh and blood human beings, ladies and gentlemen, with their own experiences, their own political viewpoints. In many cases, their own set of beliefs and morals and faith, they have a faith. And so why should they be free to substitute what they think for what you think? Because Roe versus Wade is not a constitutionally based decision. Everybody knows that, except those who are extreme activists, and the media keeps saying that abortions will end, abortions won’t end, abortions will continue. They will continue, so the pro-abortion crowd, depending on what happens here, should be thrilled because abortions will be happening. I doubt if abortions would be ended at all. I mean, in any extensive way, unless Roe was overturned, unless the Supreme Court takes the position. And reverses course completely that that is a human being, it’s not a choice and so forth and so on, despite what some of us wish, that’s not going to happen. You know, this group that I talk about that believes in pro birth, that I talk about from time to time a sponsor, they go about fighting this one pregnant woman at a time. It’s called preborn, and the preborn folks are wonderful folks, great humanitarians who are strongly opposed to abortion, as am I. And they make an effort every single day in clinics and elsewhere to try and introduce women to their babies. Through sonograms and so forth. It’s a fantastic group. But the Supreme Court shouldn’t say. Abortion is constitutional, and this is what we’re going to the Supreme Court, what they should have said is we have no role in this. Any more than we really should have any role in the death penalty in the states to. Where many other areas where the courts involved, I would argue, including prayer. I don’t know why it’s become so fashionable that these nine elitist lawyers, although I wouldn’t call three of them elitist, they’re actually quite solid. But why six elitist lawyers and three others should be substituting their personal beliefs effectively. That’s what Roe is for the rest of us. The people should be able to decide this through their elected state representatives. That’s it. Now, I want you to hear some of this some of the discussion that actually took place in the court today, and Clarence Thomas was actually quite active in the oral arguments today. I consider him a tremendous historic justice Alito has been absolutely fantastic to Gorsuch in some ways, if not most ways. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
I want to remind you, folks, we’re in the middle of Hanukkah over at Amazon.com, and Christmas is 24 days away. I want to remind you. That American Marxism is 14 dollars, it’s half price, it’s 50 percent off, the greatest discount we’ve ever seen, I think, on any of my books. But certainly this one, you’re probably not going to find the book in Costco anymore because after five months and they gave us five months, which they do for very, very few books. So we’re very we’re very appreciative. They won’t be carrying it anymore. Every other retail store, will Wal-Mart go down the list? They’ll all have them. And Target, we’ve got Sam’s and BJ’s and and Books-A-Million and on and on and on all these wonderful retailers. So if you’re in those stores, by all means. But Amazon has it today, right now, 50 percent off. And I want to strongly encourage those of you who do not have a copy, now’s the time to get your hardback copy or if you prefer, ebook or audio, if you like, if you’re a trucker and you’re in your car lot or your truck a lot. But it is the perfect gift. It perfect gift to spread the word because we want to keep up this battle right into the midterm elections. But this is a culture war as much as it is a political war, if not more. And that’s what American Marxism is about. There’s 22,000 comments on Amazon about this book, 22,000. Five stars, four point nine rating, none of my books have ever had that, and there’s a reason for this. This is the number one book in 2022. Fiction or non-fiction, then no one, but it’s not even close. We absolutely slaughtered Bob Woodward, Obama, Hillary Clinton, you did this. We need one more step. We need to get the book into the hands, as many people as we can, whether it’s your parents or your grandparents, whether it’s your children or your grandchildren, if they’re going to college and high school, especially, maybe you have colleagues and friends, others in your neighborhood. It’s so affordable now. It’s 14 bucks. That’s two trips to McDonald’s, really. That’s it, 14 bucks. The lowest it’s been is sixteen dollars and 99 cents or sixteen dollars and eighty four cents. So now’s the time to strike. And by the way, if you buy it at this price, it’s Amazon, the losers, they’re the ones making the discount. So I would strongly encourage you. Let’s keep moving. This push back this week choose liberty. Has only just begun, this movement has only just begun. And we cannot allow it to end. And I think you’ll really enjoy the book. I know there’s a lot of stuff in this book that a little upset you, but at the very end of the book, Chapter seven, I talk about what we can do about it and many people are doing it. One of the things I talk about in Chapter seven at the end, the activist chapter, is that people who donate to these huge endowments of these colleges need to start exercising some power. And there’s an article today that people who are donating to colleges now are going to withhold money and and are pressuring these colleges and universities to get off this radical agenda. This is exactly what we wanted. Also in the book, remember, the book’s been out there a while. We talk about what parents can do and citizens can do with the Freedom of Information Act, are filing IRS complaints against the unions. People are doing this. It’s a big deal. It’s not just a book where you read, say, OK, now what do we do? But it also explains what’s taking place. And I want to thank those colleagues of mine in broadcasting who have read the book and are regurgitating parts of the book without, of course, mentioning the book, which is asinine, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter, fourteen bucks, now’s the time to strike. You can’t get anything for 14 bucks. We can’t get anything anyway, so I wanted to pass that along to you and I have a treat for you’re going to hear some of what took place in the Supreme Court in one moment. All right. Let’s get started here. Clarence Thomas and oral arguments today. What is the specific abortion rate and, you know, that’s what he’s asking the the solicitor general of the United States, Elizabeth Pelageya, cut one go. General, would you specifically tell me specifically state what the rate is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy? The right is grounded in the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Thomas. But I think that it promotes interests and autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty and equality. And I do think that it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term. I understand we’re talking about abortion here, but what is confusing is that we if we were talking about the Second Amendment and exactly what we’re talking about, if we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about because it’s written, it’s there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about? Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the court in those other contexts, with respect to those other amendments, has had to articulate what the text means and the bounds of the constitutional guarantees. And it’s done so through a variety of different tests that implement First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights. So I don’t think that there is anything unprecedented or anomalous about the right that the court articulated in Raewyn Casey and the way that it implemented that. Right. By defining the scope of the liberty interest by reference to viability and providing that that is the moment when the balance of interest tips and when the state can act to prohibit a woman from from getting an abortion based on its interest in protecting the fetal life. Let’s stop right there, because something interesting she just said, if you listen carefully, even though she speaks very quickly. She talks about it implemented the right by defining the scope of the liberty interest by reference to viability. And providing that is in the moment when the balance of interest tips. OK, this has nothing to do with the Constitution, of course, but nonetheless, listen to the concession there. It’s very important. Listen to the concession. She said viability. But that’s not what the federal Congress talks about when funding abortion. That’s not what we’re talking about when we’re talking about the final stages of abortion. The baby is viable. That’s the point. And that’s where the American people, a significant majority, have a problem. That is partial birth abortion is viability and there’s viability and increasing length of period of viability. So I don’t know if she meant to say that or not, but it seems to me a concession if the justices are really focused on what she’s saying. All right. Continue. Right. Specifically is abortion. It’s the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with a pregnancy. Yes. So he’s saying. So the right is an abortion, yes, so his point is, OK, that’s not in the Constitution. It’s not like the right to bear arms and the right to due process, the right to equal, but you’re saying it’s a right to an abortion? She said yes. She says it’s the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with a pregnancy. Yes, so she pulls back prior to viability. Prior to viability was very interesting. So no one, if it’s not viable. She’s saying you can abort if it is viable, she seems to suggest that’s a different standard. Now, I want to say this. She didn’t answer that question because Roe v. Wade finds the abortion right in at least half a dozen parts of the Constitution, black men basically. Well, you might find it in the 14th Amendment, equal protection. You might find it in due process. You might find an equal. And it’s really quite ludicrous. Very ludicrous cut to go, I know your interest here is an abortion, I understand that. But if I were to ask you what constitutional right protects the right to abortion? Is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What would it be? So it’s going back at it and say, OK, where do you find this? Somewhere in the text of the Constitution. I understand you want to protect abortion. I understand that’s your view. Equal protection, that’s awfully ambiguous due process, that’s awfully ambiguous. Go ahead, it’s liberty, your Honor, it’s the textural protection in the 14th Amendment that a state can’t deprive a person of liberty without due process of law. And the court has interpreted. In liberty to include the right to make a family decisions and the right to physical autonomy, including the right to end a provability pregnancy, so it’s all of the above. Well, that’s how the court has interpreted the liberty clause for over 100 years in cases going back to Meyer, Griswold, Carrie loving Lawrence. Yeah. And I mean, all of those sort of just come out of Lochner, the sounds that we’ve dropped part of it. So I understand what you’re saying. But what I’m trying to focus on is if we is to lower the level of generality or at least be a little bit more specific. In the old days, we used to say it was a right to privacy that the court found in due process, absolute due process clause. OK, so for any subset of due process and I’m trying to get you to tell me, what are we relying on now? Is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What is it? I think he continues to be liberty and the right exists whatever level of generality the court applies. Now, that’s very interesting. So the test is liberty. He really has exposed her. So the test is liberty. Whose liberty? The woman’s liberty. The test is liberty now. I hope all the people bringing lawsuits on this vaccine mandate are paying attention because we have Dr. Fauci, we have Biden, we have the the whole slew of these people saying these people believe in individual liberty. What are they talking about? This goes beyond liberty. And these are doctors, so-called experts in the president of the United States. OK. Just keep in mind what she’s saying, if you have smart lawyers in these cases, and I’m sure most of you do. They should be picking up everything the solicitor general of the United States is saying in this case, liberty. That’s it, that’s the test liberty now it’s pretty ironic coming from the left, and it’s pretty ironic when you’re talking about abortion, like who’s liberty? Whose liberty? There’s two people with liberty interests. Anyway, go ahead, tradition under the common law, for centuries of women being able to end their pregnancies. All right. Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah. We have among civilized industrial countries probably the most radical or certainly among the most radical abortion access in this country. Seriously, up there with communist China and communist North Korea, I’m not kidding. Most of Europe does not have the kind of radicalized extremist abortion access that we have in this country. And we have 50 states in this country, certain states want to make decisions for themselves go ahead. When it comes to decisions related to family marriage and child bearing, the court has done the analysis at a higher level of generality. And that makes sense because otherwise the Constitution would reinforce the historical discrimination against when the Constitution doesn’t reinforce historical discrimination against anybody. She’s using the 14th Amendment that was passed over the civil war that applied to free. Black slaves to promote abortion. It has nothing to do with the rest. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
Senator Jeanne Shaheen is a Democrat from New Hampshire, which was formerly Republican state until people from Massachusetts were moving there. And here’s what she had to say at a virtual event on Monday. Cut six go. The attempt to have state this infringement on women’s rights, on our privacy, on the attempt to have state control of our personal health, really is what we would see in an authoritarian state. It’s not what we would expect in New Hampshire. I think if you want to see a revolution, go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the responses of the public, particularly young people. Now, the countries that are closest to us in terms of their abortion practices are communist China and North Korea. These are genocidal states. Just so you know, so she’s got it wrong, it’s the autocratic, authoritarian states that do the sort of things and permit the sort of things that we do here. Now, that said, now you have a senator in the middle of a case talking about if you want to see a revolution, you think you want to see a revolution, go ahead. Outlaw Roe versus Wade. That’s what she said. There will be no accountability for that, no accountability for that. I wonder what Liz Cheney and the headcase Adam Kinzinger think about that. You won’t see anything in the slimes or the composts. You won’t hear anything on the major networks. You won’t see anything by these discredited phony propaganda operations saying, look at her, she’s promoting violence. She’s suggesting violence, revolution. You want to see a revolution? Wow. There won’t be anything. She won’t be held to account in any respect. Jeanne Shaheen, you’re allowed to be violent and promote violence if you’re on the left. Let’s be honest. And if you do it over and over again, depending on what state you’re in, most of the blue states, they’ll let you out the back door so they can harm somebody else.