Defending Idaho's Anti-Abortion Law

All right, we're live on the conversations that matter podcast. We have a special guest with us today who hasn't been on the podcast before Mr. Josh Turner, and he is the chief of constitutional policy In the Idaho's AG's office.

He's been working on some pro-life legislation Defending it and we're gonna talk to him today about how to go about Defending pro-life legislation not just in Idaho, but in the current paradigm where states are Conservative states are taking it upon themselves to limit abortion.

Defending Idaho’s Trigger Law and Its Exceptions

How can they do that whether it's a Trump presidency or a Harris presidency? So with that Josh, thank you so much for being willing to talk to me and joining the podcast. Yeah, glad to be here John. So let's start with the beginning here.

Idaho has a law that is being called by some at least an abortion ban. What does it do? Does it actually ban abortion? I guess would be the first question. How does it limit abortion if it doesn't completely ban it?

And then what are some of the things that pro-choice or pro-abortion advocates are? Saying to try to discredit it and bring legal challenges against it. Yeah, so after the Dobbs decision which was the Supreme Court's decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and Effectively said states have the authority to regulate on the issue of abortion.

There is no federal constitutional right to an abortion. So it put the issue back into state control. The state of Idaho had a law on the books called the trigger law that the legislator said if Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned this law will go into effect in 30 days and and that trigger law is Called the Defense of Life Act and it is pejoratively called not just the abortion ban, but the total abortion ban.

And so. But it doesn't totally ban abortion. What it what it does is it Prohibits abortion except in three circumstances the first is rape the second is incest and the third is it well, I should say it prohibits abortions in all circumstances except rape incest and then the third is Life of the mother to prevent the death of the mother.

Yeah. Now that's a little bit different than than most states which have a health exception and the health exception is broader Idaho drew it's it's exception for the life of the mother to really be the life of the mother and it Explicitly says that mental conditions or self-harm are not a basis to to provide an abortion.

Idaho Politics, Mormon Influence, and the Moral Case for Life Exceptions

Yeah, so Maybe let's zoom in a little bit on idaho because idaho is unique. Every state is and idaho has a high mormon population. It's known as a deep red state. Although the idahoans I talk to don't seem to believe that press about themselves.

They think that uh, it's more establishment republican and moderate but The conditions in idaho are they suitable for I mean does the population want A actual total abortion ban or does do you think this law reflects the will of the population there?

Yeah, I I think the you know, i'm not from idaho so i'll tread lightly here, but From what I can tell having been there and talking with the legislature Who presumably represents the will of the people?

This is exactly what is Is what the what the people want and you know personally I think The exceptions for rape and incest are are not ideal and I don't think they're moral. Um, you're effectively punishing the the unborn child for Actions that were uh and wrongs done by other parties uh, but the life of the mother is a that is a.

In my mind, it's a moral exception and it there's a lot of nuance to why that's the case but the simplest analogy i'll draw is um is self-defense we all recognize that Another person does not have the right to harm you.

Whether that person intends to harm you or does so even unintentionally? So for example, if you are walking down the street And somebody pushes another person into you And if you did not take action to defend yourself against that other person being pushed into you You would be flung into the street in front of a bus.

You don't have to sit there and let that you know unintended party Get shoved into you and get thrown in front of a bus. You can put your hands up and A mother is essentially doing that when her child is threatening her life.

There's a moral way to go about Terminating the pregnancy and doctors ought to have That in mind when they are ethically Treating a mother's condition that is life-threatening and not intend to kill the fetus they should not take action that intends to kill the unborn child like a dne is a horrible procedure because What it is doing is it is doing nothing more than intentionally ending the Um the life of the unborn child in one of the most barbaric ways possible.

But you can separate and I think there's a term called medically indicated separation where the mother and the child are separated and attention, um medical attention is given to both at that point and if If the child is pre-viable There you know, the chances of survival are unlikely but if the child is around the 20 or 21 week range Medical attention should be given to both and it's possible that both the mother and the child can survive in that circumstance when you do a dne there's there's no chance of survival unless there's a miracle or a A flaw in the dne procedure itself.

So back to your original question. I want to stray there a bit john. Yep, I think you know, I think this is What idaho the people of idaho want they've elected people who are largely the legislature is largely mormon controlled and you know, I work for the attorney general and the attorney general is a mormon and he's told me that it is part of the mormon faith it is a it is a part of their dogma their their doctrine that There be exceptions for rape and incest so I just I don't see how a A state that is dominated by a mormon population like that, which has voting control I don't know if they're the majority population, but they at least have plurality control is ever going to Pass a law that doesn't reflect the dogma of their faith.

Gotcha so You would say since you're defending this law essentially, uh that this is a step in the right direction at least as far as limiting abortion, uh. Are there planned parenthoods still in operation in the state of idaho because i've heard they've all been Run out of the state as far or at least they can't uh proceed with abortion procedures.

Planned Parenthood Lawsuits and Abortion Trafficking Across State Lines

Yeah, I I know that there are still um planned parenthoods in the state because they have sued us and So I don't think they're providing any abortions. In fact, I know that they're not providing any Abortions unless they're doing so illegally but these operations maintain storefronts for other purposes and um.

And so I think there is still one clinic in the boise area um now you're right I am defending the law whether I think like this is a step in the right direction versus H you know a true total abortion ban that only has an exception for the life of the mother um I'm, not sure about that policy choice that.

That that would be my preference that there wasn't a an exception for rape and incest. I'll say that the exceptions are drawn pretty narrowly. You just you can't just claim I was raped or you can't just claim that your pregnancy is the result of incest and so um I think that the legislation has done a good job.

Um with the flawed exceptions being the case, I think it's done a good job to limit them as much as possible. So what are the arguments then you said Planned Parenthood sued you? And i'm assuming maybe there's other pro-abortion groups that are trying to explore avenues to get this Knocked out in court.

What are their arguments that they're using? Well, the Planned Parenthood litigation is a little bit different than the The Entala litigation that went up to the supreme court. Um, so I can talk about both real quick the Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood sued Attorney General Labrador for issuing a letter to a legislature named Brent Crane. He had been asked by this legislator Whether a doctor could refer women to an out-of-state clinic for an abortion.

And whether that that whether that would violate idaho's defensive life act. And he responded and said um, no. A doctor cannot refer a woman to an out-of-state abortion clinic consistent with idaho law and they sued and said oh you're preventing doctors from telling their patients where they can go get Lawful medical care because in Washington, Oregon, they're like sitting there on the border waiting and ready For women to come across and get abortion, uh get abortions and Planned Parenthood is like trying to funnel women Over there and there's even groups that are setting up like funds to transport women.

I mean, it's really quite evil. What's going on? There's we have another law called the abortion trafficking statute that Makes it illegal to traffic a minor across the border for an abortion um. And without the parents consent, you know something very basic and common sense and we get sued over that and the groups are arguing that they somehow have a first amendment right to take minor girls across the border without their parents knowledge or consent for abortions and Like we're living in loony times here uh, but anyways the the letter said no.

You a doctor cannot refer women. Can I just interject? So it's the argument then that They're because of the dobbs decision. You can't claim that there's a fundamental or a constitutional right for an abortion.

But there is a right to transport someone to another state who's a minor for an abortion. Is that am I understanding this correctly? Yeah, I mean their argument is we're engaged in first amendment uh free speech activities and when we Find a woman a minor girl who's pregnant.

We have a right to go and associate with her. We have a right to go and tell her where she can get an abortion and we have a right to go and take her There that's all first amendment activity. They say of course, it's not because if that's first amendment activity.

Then a bank robber could say it's also first amendment activity for me to associate with other bank robbers. And to go and find a bank and rob that bank and ask the teller With a gun pointed at his head to give me all the money like there's a difference between conduct illegal conduct and speech and You know the first amendment speech doctrine is very uh convoluted, but most people understand that.

Yes, you can advocate for abstract ideas. Even if they're illegal like you can say I could tell you on here that communism's great and we should work to overthrow our government as an abstract idea like that's what the first amendment protects, but if you start to get close to the line of Telling somebody how to overthrow the government and making concrete plans think um the I don't know if these allegations were ever true, but the allegation was made that there were people in michigan who were here hiring to kidnap gretchen whitmer, right and right right like.

That's if whatever the allegations whether they were true or not if they were true um, the allegation was that they became so concrete that they were now illegal and not simple simply abstract ideas, so it for us that I mean if we're just seeing people who are bloodthirsty to um, To commit abortions they want they have gone crazy since the supreme court overturned roe.

And now any any reasonable law is getting overturned and I think this is an important point. You ask why would a state need a law like the abortion trafficking statute? We're not out there. We the people of idaho are not out there like trying to make up new laws for the sake of getting sued um.

There was a real concern based on groups advertising publicly uh. In companies even companies were like telling their employees. We'll pay for you to go get an abortion in another state that young women would be Afraid to tell their parents that they got pregnant and they would Fall into the hands of these groups that want only to abort their baby.

They don't want to direct them to a crisis pregnancy center or any other location. All they want to do is tell them how they can abort their baby and these women are minors and you know. Minors don't have fully developed decision making and they certainly don't know.

Um, you know all that. An abortion entails and abortions are not safe. They're not you can't basically. We nobody would bat an eyelash if you said if a state said You can't you cannot traffic minors across state borders to go get pot.

Or to go get a tattoo or any even benign things without their parents consent. You've got to tell the minor's parent what you're going to do with their child, but when it comes to abortions like Okay, I guess we can go take minor children without their parents consent to get these surgical operations evil.

So evil, uh, so let me ask you this on these cases. First i'll say this. Anyone who's just now coming in because I noticed a number of people are joining The live stream if you have a question for josh turner, who's the guest today on the podcast?

He is the one responsible for essentially, uh defending these policies the abortion Trafficking statute and the right to life law. Let me know ask your question in the chat. I know there's a lot going on nationally and because abortion is now more of a state-by-state issue.

Uh folks like josh turner are going to be important moving forward and the arguments that he's making but uh, josh Let me ask you this. So, um the challenges that you're receiving. That are in the court system right now.

Federal Litigation, the Ninth Circuit, and What Happens at the Supreme Court

What do you predict is going to happen? Are you gonna be arguing? Like what's going to happen at the supreme court level if you get to that point, which it sounds like you very well might. So with and i'll take the three cases we have with intala.

We went up to the supreme court. We got a pretty good result. We got the federal government. Um, The solicitor general creel auger to make a number of big concessions and based on those concessions the supreme court said Idaho's defensive life act is almost entirely intact and enforceable.

Go back to the ninth circuit and litigate this in the normal course. And if we have to come back, um after that if there's still a dispute we will so entala is in a pretty good place. We got a big victory there.

And the solicitor general and federal government is, you know, basically litigating with their tail between their legs right now the abortion trafficking statute that I mentioned to you I argued that at the ninth circuit and we had a very we had a liberal panel, but the liberal panel Seemed to recognize the issues with the first amendment argument and claim being advanced by these Crazy groups and we're waiting on that decision I expect based on how argument went that we will win and The first amendment claim will be rejected and that law will be fully enforceable and then the the planned parenthood lawsuit that just is I don't know what's going to happen with that lawsuit.

It's kind of a Weird lawsuit in the first place the law most people do not understand the law to prohibit. Um. Doctors from referring patients across borders. Um, I think the legislature Legislature would need to take action separate action to clarify the law.

And they just haven't done so yet. But in the next legislative session the legislature may say By prohibiting abortions. We also are prohibiting you from Being an accomplice to an abortion and being an accomplice to an abortion can include Referring a person across state borders.

So that's really the one that's uh, probably the big decision that remains to be seen the planned parenthood case. Uh, what are the implications of this then for other states? As far like I don't know exactly what states are looking at similar legislation right now.

But it sounds to me like this is the only way to proceed. If you want to limit abortion is working through the state on the state level. Yeah, um, so I mean there are at least 22 other states that have uh, pretty good abortion bans, um and most idaho and missouri and maybe texas have like some of the strictest in terms of Uh limiting it to life of the mother texas has.

I think texas says it's a health exception, but they define health to be essentially a condition that is life-threatening um other states have Broader exceptions and nevertheless, they're being challenged.

So this if the notion by these groups and they they say this in idaho, but they're not saying it other states. They say oh we need a health exception like the largest health system in idaho. St Luke's has said we're not out campaigning against abortion bans.

We just think that our doctors don't know how to Determine when the life of the mother is on the line. So please give us a health exception. It's a total pretext for getting rid of abortions because all these same people are out litigating other states and suing those states for their health exceptions.

So what does it mean for these other states? Well what the impala litigation means for other states is um, the federal government's theory is bunk and they're the litigation they have going in texas is gonna they're gonna lose their sued or threatened to sue hospitals in kansas for Abiding by kansas's law and um, and so that litigation should probably go away soon and other states should feel empowered to tighten their abortion restrictions as much as As much as they can now, I I don't think that The pro-life movement should be comfortable with leaving this issue in state hands because there's always going to be new york.

There's always going to be california. And what we're seeing in idaho is is it's very difficult to enforce our law Effectively when we've got bordering states that are welcoming women. Um, and on top of that now you have these pharmaceutical companies like danco who are shipping Abortifacients into our state.

Those abortifacients are illegal and yet we cannot Effectively prevent them being shipped into our state through the mails and provide providing abortions for for women illegally, but effectively untraceably and so I think the pro-life movement needs to take very seriously, um a federal national push under the 14th amendment that would protect um unborn life in the same way that Nationally federally we needed an amendment to protect.

Um To uh to protect african americans. So I want to get into the 14th amendment argument a little more, uh, but i'm assuming the the reason that You cannot limit on the state level the abortifacients coming in is because of interstate commerce.

This is a federal issue, uh, is there uh, I I guess this might lead into the next thing I will do to talk about but The difference between a potential trump administration or a harris administration on This issue i'm not sure if there are things That uh on in the executive Office that can be done or would this need a legislative? solution to limit something like abortifacients coming into the state because there's other things that we limit right like You're not supposed to bring certain illegal drugs and things like that into the country.

So um, so what would be the the route there and what difference do you see between those two administrations on that question and abortion more broadly. Well, the difference is stark and I say that i'm being disappointed with the rnc softening its platform on pro-life issues that you know, obviously was a political calculus and it may also accurately reflect the views of The people in power at the rmc.

I don't know. Um, but Still nevertheless, there's still a world of difference between um, the biden harris administration and their views on abortion and even the most moderate republican and and a trump vance administration is by no means moderate like I I take things at his word that he's a serious catholic and You know catholics are incredibly Um consistent when it comes to pro-life issues so I imagine it um that the platform probably is More a political, uh is political cover rather than reality, but I don't know that for sure.

Anyways on day one there's going to be Immediate differences. So let's take methapristone for example, which is the abortifacient. There's a law on the books that is being ignored by the current biden administration and the doj known as the comstock act the comstock act very clearly everybody understands Prohibits the shipping of abortifacients in interstate mails.

That's being ignored Under a trump administration that won't be ignored that will be enforced. And so immediately idaho's laws will become much more enforceable against abortifacients. And so will other states.

So you're saying we actually have the law in place. It's just not being followed. Yes. Reason it's not being followed. There's a there's a couple I mean just outright um unlawfulness, but it was it's I think this uh law dates back to the late 1800s and um and old laws tend to um get ignored and or they tend to fall by the wayside and so the the fda putin drug administration Has to approve any pharmaceutical that's on the market.

And mifepristone is a pharmaceutical on the market that's been approved by the fda. Now it came with strings attached that approval did and under the biden administration and the obama administration the uh safety net like the Obstacles to getting a prescription for mifepristone have essentially been reduced to nothing.

When it first came on the market the fda said this drug is so dangerous that You have to have three in-person doctor visits. It has to be limited to the first seven weeks of a pregnancy and It has to be prescribed by a a physician not a nurse not an actual physician with pretty robust informed consent procedures.

Uh, most of that has gone away and now a woman through a telehealth appointment can get mifepristone shipped to her at her house um under the biden administration the trump administration's fda is going to immediately undo that and Reimpose those topper restrictions.

So that will make the drug harder to get and then with the comstock act being Um enforced and abided by that will make the drug being shipped to states where it is illegal. Um, you know, it'll make those laws enforceable.

And then when you get to the 14th amendment, and I know it's you know, I see in the chat. Somebody thinks it's not a great idea. Uh, let me just kind of note whether it's a good idea or not um, the amendment is a is it embodies a wonderful principle, um, the equal protection of all persons and In the pro-life movement.

We our fight depends on the fetus being a real person and we can never concede that ground because if you concede the ground that the unborn child is a person as much as the born child. Then any number of rationalizations enter the picture and now you're talking about fetal pain fetal heartbeats you draw lines, um along utility rather than principle and.

And that's where the problem comes in. So I think the 14th amendment is a good tool because it embodies the principle that we as christians understand is just treating. Um treating the unborn child as a person.

Who has rights given to them by their creator? Just like any other person and they have to be and they have to be given equal protection and the whole point of the federal government, um. While the 14th amendment and the federal government post-civil war Was to prevent states from treating persons Unequally and so california.

You can't treat your unborn children differently. Than idaho treats its unborn children. And so I I think the 14th amendment is a viable option. It's going to take a change in the hearts of our culture to recognize.

Um, the implications of personhood for for children and i'll note. Uh, i've drawn down a while, but i'll note when I was arguing in tallah. Uh, the left was going crazy when they got any sniff that we were advancing fetal personhood.

They call it fetal personhood. They they think that's one of the most dangerous things out there and um, so If that makes the left afraid I'm all for it. Well, that's a certainly baseline at the end there if uh, the left is afraid of it i'm for it uh I people are normally a little more active in the chat today.

And i'm wondering if people are just really enjoying our back and forth. But if you do have questions and you're listening right now, uh, we have josh turner with us who has been arguing even before the supreme court defending uh the defense of life law in idaho.

And he's also defending the abortion. Uh, was it the trafficking statute? I think you you called it and um. And so these are really important laws. This is happening on the state level, but there's a lot of things in play right now or open questions I should say given the political landscape and what might happen, uh in the next election.

Let's talk about the 14th amendment argument real quick and then maybe get back to the election stuff because I want to know a little bit more about What's going to happen if the democrats get in there?

Like what's the what's the worst case scenario here? But um, With that argument, this is the concern. I think some have about the 14th amendment I know I share this to some extent is it seems to me that um as you correctly observe the 14th amendment was for a context in which it applied to former slaves right who were newly freed and the Political rights that they would have uh entering into political society for the first time and those kinds of things um, and I guess those who are really for original intent are probably concerned that.

The left has used this in fact, right roe v wade used the 14th amendment right to find a right to privacy. Uh, and it seems like a lot of landmark decisions that push the needle left use the 14th amendment and so I guess the question in my mind and I'd love for you to just respond to this is do we then Engage in the same kind of thing the left is doing treating the 14th amendment.

In a way that would have probably surprised those who crafted it because they weren't thinking about that. They weren't trying to define What life is it was just assumed that everyone knew what a life was and and states that are defining this differently wasn't on their minds.

And if that's the argument if it's hey, we just use this just like the left is I I get it. Um, but you know, is there an actual original intent? Styled argument to make from the 14th amendment or or is this innovative?

What do you think? Well, I mean there's there are there have been um Scholarly articles written on how an originalist could interpret the 14th amendment um to understand that person as used in the 14th amendment did originally encompass unborn children now.

Here's here's what I would say. Um I'm not an I am not an originalist. Maybe that will shock you but i'm not an originalist. Why am I not an originalist. Because the constitution is not a statute. It is not a code.

It is a constitution and constitutions are very different than statutes. I read statutes in an originalist way. But constitutions are meant to be an enduring document that memorializes core principles of a society and our and and it and those principles.

Are not susceptible to an originalist methodology of interpretation so for example The ninth amendment, how would an originalist interpret interpret the ninth amendment? It's just the ninth amendment isn't it's not possible to interpret under an originalist methodology or Pick any other part of the constitution when the when article three vests the supreme court with quote judicial power.

Judicial power is never defined. In article three or or article one's uh vesting the congress with legislative power. Legislative power is not defined. These are concepts that you have to understand in reference to divine principles in reference to um natural law and so We understand legislative power in reference to how god acts as a legislator.

We understand judicial power in relation to how god is judged and the in the distinction of when a um A government official is acting in a judicial role versus an executive role versus a legislative role.

These are not um. These are not questions that can be answered by originalism and the originalists don't even try to say that they are. It's it's it's not to me a credible Method of interpreting the constitution or I should say every question of the constitution.

So we get to the 14th amendment the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection for all persons and due process. Well, these are these are terms that are not defined by the constitution itself and then you have to ask.

Okay. So what principle are we going to look to? Do we have a dictionary? Um in the addendum to the constitution. No, we don't so. What's going to be our guiding? Um our guiding light and to me the answer is simple.

It's natural law because um, my reason is How where does any government authority come from in the first place? Well, we understand in the united states that god has delegated Power to the people and the people took that power.

And delegated it to a national government and they delegated other power that they have to state governments. And so we've got this federalism divide. But the people the power originally does not come from the people the power originally comes from god.

And we cannot delegate to the federal government power that we never had in the first place. And so I would argue No constitution and certainly not the u .s. Constitution could ever delegate to state governments the power to kill unborn children.

Because the people never had that power to do it themselves. And so any just constitution has to recognize the authority of the state and federal governments to intervene and protect Unborn children. It's it's as simple as that for me.

Natural Law, Originalism, and Constitutional Interpretation

Gotcha. Gotcha. Well, and the constitution does invoke the british common law, I think by name, right? I forget where that is, but uh. It's built on the tradition of magna carta and like magna carta Is invoking the same principles and the common law?

Tradition that we inherited and brought over I mean blackstone's commentaries begin with divine law. He says all law must be consistent with divine law. And and by divine law, he's not saying, um, you know natural law in a sense I look out in nature and perceive things.

He's talking about scripture and so I you know let me address maybe the heart of you of your concern and others concern that sure if we if you josh if we throw out originalism, then we're gonna allow the left to come up with these crazy rights like Uh the right to privacy which includes the right to abortion and my answer to that is Whether it's originalism or whatever try like boundaries you you try to put on these judges they're not going to abide by them and just because um, Just because you know, somebody abuses the laws of physics or the laws of mathematics or whatever.

We don't ignore the fact that there are laws of physics and there are laws of mathematics. Like two plus two continues to be four even if a leftist judge tries to tell me that two plus two is five and when a leftist judge says that There is a fundamental right to castrate and sterilize children with pharmaceuticals.

And the state can't do anything to intervene I say no and the problem is not that they are not being originalists. The problem is that they're wicked judges and you don't change wicked judges by imposing an external rule called originalism on them because if they're not going to abide by common logic and sense they're certainly not going to abide by um.

By originalism and they haven't I mean originalism. It's a construct that came about in the 80s by robert ford. And it was a reaction against the warren court. It was a reaction against Activist judges and the the answer to activist judges is not to be overly constrained judges.

The answer to activist judges is to have judges who are moral. Yeah, what so i i'm just to clarify uh for people because i'm I think it's fascinating i'm learning here, um, When you talk about originalism, it sounds like you're talking about.

Uh, Something that you just said very constrained and narrow. What would be the philosophy that you're advocating for then? Is there a name for it? Uh. Yeah, it's not originalism or. It's a natural law philosophy and I I would say it's that it is the jurisprudence of our uh of our great chief justice, uh, john marshall and you interpret The constitution according to both its letter and spirit and originalism stops at the letter part.

It says you interpret the constitution only according to its letter and you don't ask anything about its spirit or purpose or object. Um an object analysis is crucial because if I say to you, um, you have a second amendment right to bear arms.

And you stop there and now you have a historical debate about about what the term arms means. And you never get into the spirit or purpose of the second second amendment. Which is that the people have a right to serve as a check a military check.

Against their government against tyrannical government. And so we see courts that are using an originalist methodology say well you can have a right to bear this type of gun. But not these other military type of guns like you can't have an m16.

But you can have a nine millimeter and an ar -15. We're not really sure about that. We'll sort it out through some sort of like ad hoc historical analysis. I think no, that's bunk. You're not doing law.

That's not law at all. You I can have any arm that serves the purpose of checking a tyrannical government. And I think an m16 probably does a pretty good job of that. Yeah, sure. So I I don't think um, yeah, there's like a fundamental disagreement.

I I thought of originalism as uh, including the broader context and The of the society the intentions behind it what it meant to that original audience and then those principles. Being applied in our modern context.

So I wasn't thinking of it in terms. You're right that originalism. So originalism has changed and there are different types of originalists today. So the first the first originalism in its earliest form and by ed Ed meese and robert bork was pretty much just this very narrow textualism.

But then, you know, they realized oh our theory has some holes. And so then they came up with original public meaning but then uh, original public meeting had some holes and so now there's others who have uh come up with like original public intent and.

There's all these competing theories that have nuances in what they mean, but what they all exclude what originalism necessary necessarily excludes is a reference to natural law and a in a Consideration of the object of the clause it is a historical methodology.

You are telling judges you must act as historians and judges aren't historians. And they and they really don't do history very well. Well, yeah. That's been proven time and time again um, man, I have so many more questions i'd love to ask but I do want to.

Trump, Harris, and What Changes at the Department of Justice

Since I told you we were going to go for 45 minutes and we've gone almost 40. I do want to ask you about the democrats and uh, what do you perceive happening if Harris who looks like she might be the nominee.

Uh, if she gets in there. How's that going to make your job harder and the jobs of other people in your positions in conservative states. Um, I mean if there's a harris administration It means that we get to sue the federal government a whole lot more than under a trump administration.

I mean we've been job security. Yeah, we've been very busy. Um suing uh over I mean just outside of the um the life issue, uh, we have been Waging war on the administrative state in a number of areas they in the west in idaho water is precious land resources are precious and the you know the environmentalists are really having a heyday with the epa and getting them to Promote an agenda that just lacks any type of common sense.

And so We'll see more of that. It'll get worse um, and the now we have had success in the courts and we will I think we would continue to have success but litigation can't keep pace with the administrative state under a harris administration.

So it it will just be four more years of non-stop Litigation trying to get as many injunctions in place on the administrative state as possible. So, uh, if anyone wants to ask a question, please get it in now i'm going to start the process of getting to some of your comments and questions and then um, I want to give you the last word josh because uh, I know as this goes out there There'll be thousands of christians watching this or listening and even after after it's recorded and I want to know what you think they ought to know moving into this election season and what are some takeaways even on the Debates that you're involved in on the life issues.