The Truth About The Reversal of #RoevWade

Non -rockabotas must stop. I don't want to rock the boat. I want to sink it!

Are you going to bark all day, little doggie, or are you going to bite? Delusional.

Delusional is okay in your world view. I'm an animal. You don't chastise chickens for being delusional. You don't chastise pigs for being delusional.

So you calling me delusional using your world view is perfectly okay. It doesn't really hurt. It's young up on the ship!

What? What? Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men.

The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.

Go into all the world and make disciples. Not go into the world and make buddies. Not to make brosives. Don't go into the world and make homies.

Disciples. I got a bit of a jibberwink. That's a joke, master.

When we have the real message of truth, we cannot let somebody say they're speaking truth when they're not.

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the

Lord. Proverbs 17, 15, y 'all. Welcome back to another episode of The Gospel Heard Around the

World. This is Apologia Radio. Welcome, welcome, welcome, everybody. Excited to do this broadcast.

I just totally forgot that we actually hadn't posted anything on our Apologia Studios channel when

Ro was rehearsed. It was all over on Facebook and the other platforms, so I did video. We've done a lot.

I did tech stuff. It's all over there. Why aren't you saying anything? Somebody mentioned. I was like, oh, no, we didn't because we were sort of planning on maybe today doing it on YouTube.

So apologize for that, everybody. But we have actually said quite a bit over the last couple of days since Friday when the official decision came down of the reversal of Ro versus Wade.

And so we're going to do that today. I apologize to everybody who's been waiting really since last week.

I want to sincerely apologize. We do want to do the interaction with a pastor's portion of a pastor's message on the law of God and the victory of the gospel or post -millennialism.

But we do need to make sure that we actually lay down some important stuff. This is sort of like in terms of priority, more important to deal with the issue of Ro v.

Wade and what it does mean, what it doesn't mean. I just want to say abortion is not banned in any state across the

United States of America right now. It's important. And our good friend Bradley Pierce is going to join us here in a moment. He's a constitutional attorney.

And he has said as well, we need to stop saying that abortion is banned in any state because it's not.

Because there is a lot of work to be done in terms of equal protection for all humans from conception.

That's what we've been about. All glory to God. But that's what we need to talk about. So what does it mean? What doesn't it mean?

Ro v. Wade is no longer the obstacle for us. And we're praising God for that. That there's things we're going to talk about with the overturning of Ro v.

Wade in terms of how it should have gone, what could have been better. But we are grateful to God that he strikes straight blows with crooked sticks.

And now we can come into a state and not hear legislators cowering to the

Supreme Court and telling us they can't establish justice because of the decision of Ro v. Wade from 1973.

Now that's out of the way. We do give the glory to God for that, that it's out of the way. And so there's lots of work to be done.

So what does it mean? We're going to talk about that. We're going to play some important clips for everybody on today's show.

But before we do, make sure you guys go to ApologiaStudios .com. When the broadcast is over, ApologiaStudios .com.

Go there. Sign up for all access. You get all kinds of extra stuff. The after show,

Apologia Academy, Ask Me Anything, once a month, private stream with our ministry partners where we hang out together.

You guys can submit questions. We get to talk through those things. And you're also partnering with us.

In this ministry, we bring the gospel around the world in so many different contexts and in so many different areas, whether that's

Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheism, secularism, humanism, the abortion issue.

You're a part of this ministry with us. And so go sign up for all access. And if you haven't done so yet, make sure you do it right away.

Do it immediately. We are really quickly plodding through the last bit of content from Bonson Yu.

Yeah, Forrest says he has about only 400 more to go. That sounds funny.

He's moving fast through them, actually. There's a lot more than that. Yeah, almost 2 ,000 pieces of content from Dr.

Greg Bonson, his life and ministry and work, his seminary lectures. I mean, you're going to get seminary, one of the top shelf seminary educations for free at Bonson Yu.

All you do is go to apologiastudios .com and sign up for your free Bonson Yu account. It is a gift to you from the

Bonson family, David Bonson. God bless him. He entrusted us with it to give it to you. So we're polishing it all up, making sure it sounds better and it's easier for you to navigate.

We're working hard on that. It's free from the Bonson family to you as a gift. But I also want to highlight that it's not actually free.

Every time you click on an audio lecture, we're paying for it. And so all of our

All Access partners, you're actually helping people to get Bonson Yu for free. So thank you for that as well.

If you haven't done so yet, at the start of the show, I'll just say go to endabortionnow .com. Sign up, sign up, sign up, sign up.

We have work to do. We still have abortion mills in states across the country. You're going to need to still be saving lives.

We're still working with legislators in a number of states right now where we have bills of equal protection being written and ready to go.

And so legislative sessions are all different. So we still have these bills going in. We are super excited about what's going on.

We even got word of a new state that we didn't actually plan on for this year that we hope to get in next session by January 1st.

So, so much is happening. Praise God. Endabortionnow .com. You can give there. You can sign up with us.

You can partner with us in this ministry and actually be about establishing justice for the pre -born. Don't forget.

I know I have so much to say right now as we start this. ReformCon .org. ReformCon here in the

Phoenix Valley. Reformation Day weekend. It is not a church service. It is a Christian conference.

We are trying to do this thing in a way that has never been done before. We are going to have great teaching, fellowship after party.

We're going to have performances. The theme of the conference is by this standard.

As Christians, using the word of God and the biblical worldview to approach all of life under Christ.

And so whether it's education, the arts, whether it is sports, whether it is economics, we're going to have people who are experts in that field, leaders in that field in the world, coming and doing talks and also doing little mini performances and explanations of how they do what they do.

And so we want to bring this entire world under the rule of Christ and by his gospel.

So ReformCon .org. Get your tickets because it's limited seating. And once it's sold out, it's sold out.

We can't make any more space. So that is Luke the Bear. What up? And that's

Joy the Girl. Hello. And that is Zach Conover. He is our Director of Communications for End Abortion Now.

And if you get connected with us, he's the one you're going to talk to. He's our right -hand man and one of the most important people here at the studio.

And with End Abortion Now, he knows his stuff. Thanks, bro. Yeah, absolutely. So let's go ahead and bring in our guest.

Bradley Pierce, great man of God. Love this brother so much. So faithful. He has been such a tremendous blessing to this ministry.

You just don't understand how we're all connected and how God uses us all together and how

Bradley Pierce is really responsible for so many of the bills of equal protection, criminalization, and abolition that have happened across the country.

We have used him and others have used him for so much work in all these states to establish justice.

I hope people don't figure out that you're responsible, Bradley, because that would be dangerous.

Also, Bradley Pierce is the constitutional attorney that filed an amicus brief in the

Dobbs case that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. We worked together with Bradley Pierce and other ministries to file that brief, and it's officially, as a matter of historic record, it is in that case and it is a part of that case.

And so we're grateful to God that we were able to argue to the Supreme Court that they needed to obey the law, the word of God, Jesus Christ, and the

Constitution itself, and they needed to end Roe v. Wade. And so all glory to God.

Which, by the way, made it very distinct from the other amicus briefs. It was a very distinct argument in comparison to the others.

But, Bradley Pierce, Abolish Abortion Texas, how are you, brother? I'm doing great.

It's good to be with y 'all. Good to be with you. All right. We've got a lot to talk about. Here we go. Thank you, everybody, for joining us in the comments.

I appreciate you guys being here with us today. Make sure you guys share this with the world because the conversation that you hear today with Bradley Pierce and the rest of the team here on Apology Radio is not the kind of conversation that you're going to be hearing from the pro -life industry and establishment, and even from those on the left, the pro -aborts.

And so we want to really unpack what does it mean that Roe v. Wade is overturned. But to start with that, let's start with the case itself,

Bradley. Can you explain to us, from your perspective, what could have been better about the response of the

Supreme Court? Let's talk about that because we talk about the fact that we are celebrating the fact that it's no longer an obstacle for us.

We're thankful for that. But what could have been better in terms of the response of the

Supreme Court to Roe v. Wade leading to its overturning? What ought to it have looked like? Yeah, well,

I mean, we definitely rejoice that they've overturned Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So, you know, we have that.

And, you know, in our brief that we filed, we had three sections. We had Section 1, it's your duty under the

Constitution and before God to overturn Roe v. Wade. Section 2, if you don't do that, it's the duty of the states and Congress and others to do their duty under the

Constitution and before God and to abolish abortion anyways. And then Section 3, the last section, was, and it's not only your duty to overturn

Roe v. Wade, but it's also your duty to require states to provide equal protection of the laws because the 14th

Amendment to the Constitution says no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A fetus is a person. So, therefore, they're required, you know, states are required to give them the equal protection of the laws.

That means that the same laws that protect us as born people should be the same laws that protect them before birth.

And so that's what we were urging the Supreme Court to do. And that's what they did not do in this case.

They didn't go far enough. And, you know, Mississippi, the party that was kind of carrying the pro -life arguments, they never even asked for that.

You know, we urged it in our brief. But as far as the briefs of the parties, they never even asked the court to do that.

So that's where the court, you know, they were great as far as getting out of the way of telling states, hey, don't abolish abortion.

So that's good that they did that. But they had both the God -given and the constitutional authority to go further.

They had the authority to require states to provide equal protection, and they chose not to exercise it. And it's kind of like, you know,

I argue it's kind of like Pilate. You know, when they come to, you know, they come, bring

Jesus there, and Pilate says, you know, hey, Pilate says, you know,

Jesus tells Pilate, you know, you would have no authority except if it were given to you by God, right?

So Pilate has the authority to release Jesus. Pilate says he's innocent. And yet Pilate just washes his hands of it and says, hey, you decide.

You do it. And that's really what's happened here with the Supreme Court.

Although they have the authority to do it, the states have given them that authority in the 14th Amendment, the

Supreme Court has just said, hey, you deal with it. Wow. Man, that is a powerful, powerful parallel.

That is a power. I hadn't even considered that. Because Pilate was God's office bearer, bearing magistrate with the responsibility to rule as a servant of the one

God. He had authority to let him go, but he turned it over to the mob. And isn't that interesting?

Jesus says, you would have no authority over me unless it had been granted to you from above. Right. So Jesus, as the faithful office bearer, was reminding

Pilate that there was an authority above government. Yeah. Which is what Christians should probably be doing. We should probably be saying that.

Hey, is there any books on that? Yeah. Like Theonomy and Christian Ethics, anything like that out there?

No, I don't think the Bible speaks to that. God and Government, something like that? I don't know. I think people have written on that. Bradley is wearing a power suit.

I wouldn't expect anything less than that. Man, he looks handsome today, too. We were talking about how handsome he is. Holy Ghost powers. Do this real fast, Gabe. Switch the camera over to Bradley Pierce for a second.

Let everyone see him. Look at him. Man, he looks good. He's got the books behind him and everything. That's a constitutional attorney esquire right there.

That is a dangerous suit you've got on, bro. That's right. That's right. So here's the thing.

Look, I've even seen some beloved brothers saying, you know, we shouldn't celebrate the overturning of Roe versus Wade because we still have so much work to do.

We need equal protection. And people saying things like, you know, this was wrong. Well, we're acknowledging that.

Bradley Pierce just acknowledged that, that this is what it ought to have said. This is what ought to have been done.

This is really their responsibility. They didn't do it that way. However, God is the one who decrees the end from the beginning.

He declares the end from the beginning. He does whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth. And if God, even with a crooked stick, got

Roe versus Wade out of the way, I'm thankful. I'm going to rejoice in God always.

I'm going to be thankful in all things. And I'm going to be thankful for this. Because what has been the most challenging thing in every state that we've gone to is we go there, we get a bill in, the pro -life establishment comes in, tries to stoke fear within the legislators and tell them, don't do that.

We don't ever want women to be penalized under any circumstance. And Roe versus Wade is the law of the land.

I mean, it's pro -life legislators and pro -life, the pro -life establishment that has actually taught falsely that Roe versus Wade is the law of the land.

And in an incredible turn of events, you see that not even Joe Biden, the White House press secretary,

Kamala Harris, nor the Democrats in Congress believed that, really believed that Roe versus Wade was the law of the land.

And if you want proof of that, just look at all the statements from Joe Biden and the White House press secretary saying they wanted to codify

Roe so they understood it wasn't law of the land. And just look at the most recent situation. While we were working in Louisiana with a bill of equal protection to ignore

Roe, the Democrats were literally trying to create a law codifying

Roe versus Wade while we were in Louisiana. In other words, they understand it's not the law of the land. But the pro -life establishment has said it's the law of the land.

You can't do anything because Roe versus Wade. So we had legislators telling us, I agree with this bill. It needs to be done.

This is right. It has to be done. But they would say things like now is not the time. And they would say things like because Roe versus Wade, because Roe versus Wade.

Well, guess what? All praise be to God. That is no longer going to be allowed to be an excuse. Now we're going to have to deal with all the other fundamental errors in their thinking in terms of why they can't establish equal protection.

But no longer the fear of Roe versus Wade. I'll just I'll end it with this, Bradley, and I want to have you maybe respond to this because this will get us into the bigger discussion.

Is abortion actually banned in America? And that is when we were in Louisiana on the floor. And I could probably pull it up for everybody at some point during this episode.

I'll have to find it while we're in Louisiana. Representative Sebaugh, he went up to the floor.

Now, mind you, about a week before the vote was going to the floor in Baton Rouge in Louisiana for equal protection,

Sebaugh not only got the bill to pass the hearing, he didn't just say yes to the bill to pass hearing.

He was the one, if you listen to it, who said absolutely. But after a week of being worked on by people in high places and by the establishment, he came to the floor as the main disputer to the bill itself.

And he said, he said this bill of equal protection and ignore

Roe versus Wade and any federal power that tries to subvert it. He said this, if it passes, will be immediately enjoined by the courts.

In other words, this bill won't do anything because it'll just be disputed in the court because you can't resist

Roe versus Wade. That was his primary target. As he said, it won't matter if we pass this bill, no matter how right it is, because Roe versus Wade is the law of the land.

He said that. And he said it'll be immediately enjoined by a court. And in a moment of poetic justice, after Roe's reversal on Friday, people, especially

Louisiana Right to Life, was just rejoicing that we've got trigger laws in Louisiana.

Those are going into effect. Abortion is banned in the state of Louisiana. And it was amazing.

Their trigger laws were immediately enjoined by a court, immediately, and disputed, saying that these trigger laws can't actually be a thing.

We're going to have to fight this out on court. So here's the point. Either way, it's going to be fought in the courts. Might as well do the right thing up front.

You may as well just obey God and do what's right for these children because you're going to have to have this fight. And so his seaball, once again, fell face first.

Apparently it doesn't have his sea legs. And so, yeah. Was that a pun? That was a pun. And so,

Bradley, I'd like to talk about that. Just that key issue. It's out of the way now.

And so people are arguing, Bradley, that abortion is now banned. It's banned. It's over with.

We're done. Even trigger law states no more abortion mills. Abortion is officially banned. Is that true? It's definitely not.

I wish that were the case. I mean, certainly in states that have pre -roll laws still on the books or states that do have trigger bills, even though none of those provide equal protection, abortion doctors by and large are closing up shop or at least closing up most of what they do.

And, hey, again, I rejoice in that. That's a good thing. But abortion is by no means abolished in every state.

Abortion isn't abolished in any state. Because when we use a term, what does it mean to abolish abortion?

What is abolition? I mean, I think it's very simple. It's like all abortions are illegal. All abortions are illegal.

That would be abolishing abortion. Guess what? All abortions are not illegal in every state. In fact, in every state, abortionists are now illegal in those states that have pre -roll laws or trigger bans that make them illegal.

But abortions are still legal. Mothers can still have do -it -yourself abortions, get abortion medication, pills, and have abortions in most states, maybe every state, up until the moment of birth.

So there's really, again, I'm grateful that abortion clinics are shut down,

Planned Parenthood is taking a hit. I'm grateful for all that. But abortion is not abolished in any state, much less every state.

Yeah, a good key point that might help to illustrate this for our listeners is this article here from Fox 10.

This is local to us in the state of Arizona. So very near and dear to our hearts, if you take a look at this article on the screen here, it says abortion now banned in most cases in Arizona.

Attorney General says, here's what to know about ARS 13 -3603. Now here's what you all need to understand.

In Arizona, we had two laws pre -Roe, 13 -3603, the one that's being referred to here, this is criminalizing the abortion doctor for performing the abortion.

And we did, until last year, have another law on the books pre -Roe.

It was 13 -3604. That was the bill that criminalized the mother, the willing participant in abortion who brings the baby to the abortion doctor.

She was also criminalized in the state of Arizona. And I would like to remind all of our listeners, very humbly, that in every case of abortion, every single one, every single case of abortion, all abortions, it is the mother who is carrying the baby to the abortionist.

Okay? Now, are there cases where someone is being coerced into an abortion, say in sex trafficking?

Right, yeah. Is that her fault? No, not her fault. She's not guilty. If a woman is being forced to kill her child under threat of death or abuse, she's clearly not guilty.

But let's be honest. Let's be honest. 98 % of all abortions are at will, for no reason at all, in terms of nothing listed.

This is just women who want to just execute their children. And it is always the mother's feet that are carrying the baby to the abortion mill.

Stats reflect that. The stats all reflect that. So when you look at Arizona, pre -Roe, we had the law that said,

A, the abortion doctor is punished if he commits an abortion, 13 -3603.

B, we had the mother, who is the willing participant, bringing the child to the abortion, 13 -3604.

She is also guilty. Well, that was true. Both of them were standing in Arizona.

We were actually at times when we first started our abortion ministry calling the police saying, Please show up because these state laws are being violated, and they just would ignore them.

Guess who removed the law criminalizing mothers in the state of Arizona?

I guess it was. Queen Harrod. It was Kathy Harrod, the head of the pro -life establishment in the state of Arizona, Center for Arizona Policy.

Kathy Harrod removed, knowingly, willingly, because of her worldview, she removed the law, convinced legislators to follow her lead.

She removed the law that said that the mother was guilty for murdering her child in the womb. Kathy Harrod does not believe, just like the pro -life establishment and industry, that the mother who murders her child in the womb is ever to be seen as guilty.

So right now, as you can see from the article, people are talking about the fact that in Arizona right now, 13 -3604 stands.

The abortion doctor can't do it. It's a crime. And people are saying, with the reversal of Roe, that law is standing.

Guess what? Guess what? If Kathy Harrod and the pro -life establishment hadn't, hadn't removed the criminal penalty for mothers in the state of Arizona, then right now, in Arizona, in Arizona, abortion would actually be banned.

Right. Because the mother couldn't do it, nor the doctor. It would be specific. The mother cannot do it.

Period. On her own. In her house. No DIY abortions.

No pills and potions. You can't even do it in your home as a mother. But guess who stopped it from being banned in Arizona?

Kathy Harrod, on two counts. A, she resisted the bill of equal protection that we put forth and told all the legislators not to pass it.

There's the reason everyone jumped off our bill because of Kathy Harrod. And B, she's responsible because she removed 13 -3604, which said that it was a crime for the mother to do it.

So Arizona would actually be one of the states where abortion would actually be criminal across the board, except for the pro -life establishment.

They made sure that it wasn't actually banned, which gets to the point that Bradley's making, is that abortion is not banned in any state.

If you have laws that restrict the abortion doctor from doing it, that's one thing.

But every state is allowing women to kill their children because of this.

I want you to see it with your own eyes. And I could do this a million ways. Let me do this one first.

This is the governor of South Dakota.

This one boils my blood, sorry. Governor of South Dakota, Noem. Governor Noem. And this is her right after, or shortly after the announcement of the reversal of Roe vs.

Wade on ABC. I want you to hear Governor Noem giving the talking points, giving the heretical pro -life establishment doctrine that the mother bears no guilt in abortion.

Therefore, by the way, for Christians, she doesn't need the gospel. If she's a victim and not guilty, don't tell her to turn to Christ from her abortion because she doesn't need to.

That's what the pro -life establishment tells them. They're not guilty. You're never to be seen as guilty. If you kill your child in the womb, the pro -life industry says you're not guilty.

You're never to be seen as guilty or punishable at all for killing your child in the womb. That's their doctrine.

It's official. What I'm saying is incontrovertible. And here's Governor Noem giving that line.

Joining me now is Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, one of the 13 states with trigger laws and, as of Friday, where abortion is no longer legal.

Thanks for joining us this morning, Governor. You say this ruling is the answer to your prayers.

Abortion is now illegal in your state unless the mother's life is in danger. There is no exception for rape, no exception for incest.

What should the punishment be for women who receive abortions or doctors and anyone who assists them?

Well, Martha, I don't believe there should be any punishment for women ever that are in a crisis situation or have an unplanned pregnancy.

And South Dakota has been strong on that argument. What I would say...

Kind of love that language, right? I mean, actually, the commentator there is actually not correct.

At the beginning when she says abortion is banned. No, it's not. She just told you.

The governor just told you. We don't ever want women punished for murdering their children in the womb. We don't ever want that.

And so it's actually not banned because all women have to do is DIY abortions in South Dakota.

And guess what? Governor Noem doesn't believe they're guilty for murdering their own children in their wombs.

I mean, talk about just handing over to women the case and the argument that you should just use coat hangers.

I mean, you're literally convincing them. You're not ever guilty for doing this yourself. So if you use a coat hanger, hope you don't hurt yourself.

But if you kill the baby, there's no consequences. Not from the state of South Dakota. And Noem isn't unique here in this position.

She's giving you what is the doctrine she received. These traditions were handed down to her.

She's just passing along the tradition that the pro -life establishment has taught her, and that is that women are not guilty for murdering their children in the womb.

How can you say, and I'll kick it over to you guys, how can you say that every life is precious, every life deserves respect, every life is sacred, all human life is human from conception.

How can you say that and then say, but if the mother murders the child in the womb, there are zero consequences and there is no guilt to be associated with it.

How can you say it? The only way you can say it is because you've adopted a tradition that is in fact unbiblical, it's against Christian orthodoxy, it is heretical, and it is inconsistent to its core.

And that is why abortion is not banned in any state. Because of the heretical pro -life teaching that a mother can kill her child in the womb with impunity.

That's a fact. They just don't believe that the baby in the womb is as valuable as anybody else. And that's demonstrated by the actions that they take.

You mentioned Biden and press secretary wanting to codify Roe. Well, that is indicative action that they don't actually believe, they never did, truly, that it was law.

And in the same way, the pro -life movement slash industry doesn't believe that the baby in the womb is fully human, image of God, possessing the same value as the mother.

How do we know that? Actions speak louder than words. Well, it's straight feminism. I was joking about it before we started the show, but I don't want to catch

Joy's ear. But I mean, that's what it is, because all this is saying is that the mother, the mother, the mother, the woman, the woman, the woman, her life is the most valuable.

The ultimate. The ultimate. And it's just straight feminism. Yeah. I'm looking at you. It took some time to get there, but here we are.

Yeah. I mean, isn't that just the cry of any marginalized group now, is getting to,

I mean, what's the ultimate right you could give to someone to say you have all the power?

The right over life and death. Right. Yeah. You know, I was, walked into the living room the other day, and Candy was watching some court case and a woman being brought up on charges, and she was confessing to the murder of her daughter, and I think even her son.

She had killed both of them, but I think it was her daughter that she was actually giving this story about. And apparently she had found out that, like, her children were actually sexually molesting, like, the youngest one.

And when she found out, she proceeded to basically torture and abuse at least one of the children.

That's what I caught. I'll make sure I give the right information. I think maybe she killed the other one almost immediately, but she proceeded to tell the story of how she did not feel bad at all about the fact that she had tortured and killed.

I think the girl was 11 years old. She spent two days torturing her, like, beating her, hitting her with weapons.

I mean, all manner of evil things she was doing to torture this child. And she ended up killing her, strangling her to death.

Now, nobody watching that thinks to themselves, yeah, she's not guilty.

Yeah. Right? Or nobody wants us to consider her emotional state. Exactly.

Or the circumstances. My point is, look, if it was true that she found out her children were molesting that youngest child, when you turn that over to the state and there's punishment that's supposed to be involved to the children, help to the children, those sorts of things.

So everyone understands, like, you found out a horrible thing, but you don't have the right to murder your child and torture them for two days.

That's not how this goes. That's not how justice is done. And so the judge, of course, hearing it all, wasn't going to say, oh, man, you had a really good reason there.

I can understand you were distraught and everything else, and so you tortured and abused and beat and killed your child. Here's the thing.

The mother who takes her two kids and drowns them in the bathtub, or the mother who put her kids in the car and then, you know, pushed the car into the river, or the mother who pulled the car over and turned around and shot both her children in the chest with a .22,

everybody understands that mother is guilty of murder and she has to be brought up on charges. And if you were to ask

Governor Noem, Governor, what do we do with the mother who drowned her two children in the bathtub?

What do we do with her? Is she punishable? Noem would say, absolutely, you punish them.

But then you ask Noem, okay, what about the mother who butchers her child in the womb? No, she's not guilty.

No punishment's necessary, because exactly your point you're making. They don't really believe that it's human.

They don't really believe that it's sacred human life. It's a good talking point. It raises great pro -life dollars and you get significant pro -life votes.

But let's be honest, you don't really believe that it's human, worthy of human protection. Stop calling it sacred human life.

Stop saying it all needs to be protected. Until you start supporting bills of equal protection, recognizing that everybody involved in the plot to kill the child is guilty, you don't actually believe the child is sacred.

It's not sacred human life if the value of life can be desacralized depending on who takes that life.

That sacredness and value and dignity and worth can't be removed by human action. That's what makes the right to life inalienable.

No matter whether we're talking about the state or the private citizen, it has to be recognized and protected.

How do you do that? You shall not murder. Sorry, I have a question for Bradley, but I don't want to change it.

No, go ahead. I was just thinking, as we're having this conversation, because this is where things are going to go.

This is where things are going to head to now, I'm sure. For the states that do have exceptions, so say

Life of the Mother, which is going to be all the states that have exceptions, that's going to be the number one thing.

But some, I believe, are probably also going to have rape and incest as an exception. How is that going to look moving forward?

Because I'm willing to bet that we're going to have abortionists killing babies still and saying, they're just going to be lying and say, well, it was rape, it was incest, the mother's life was in danger.

And then they're going to be at least trying to get away with it. How is that going to look moving forward?

I'm assuming it obviously would have to go to a court case and they'd have to prove that the mother's life was in danger or there was rape, there was incest.

So I don't know, I was just thinking that as we're having this conversation. I don't know, Bradley, if you have any input on that. I'm sure that's where things are going to head next.

Yeah, I mean, you've got a couple of things going on there. You kind of have rape and incest on one hand and then Life of the Mother on the other.

You know, we had Life of the Mother, you know, even an exception is probably too broad.

It's not really an exception to a prohibition on abortion. Instead, it's really just a, you know, it's a difficult situation that requires triage and treating both of them like patients and valuing both of their lives.

But then, yeah, if the baby's going to die anyway, then obviously triaging the mother and doing what you can to save her life, you know, without directly aborting the child or intending to abort the child.

You know, to me, that's not even an exception to abortion. That's just a tragic situation, you know, that requires that, you know, our criminal code is called the

Doctrine of Necessity, right, where you have a situation where it's like, yeah, something's technically, you know, it's been prohibited, but this is a, you know, a situation where, you know, where, hey, we allow that because of the life -threatening medical emergency.

You know, so that's on one hand, and again, we had those kind of things before Roe versus Wade, and I was even just looking earlier today, you know, that there were abortion doctors who were, not even doctors, but they were claiming this before Roe versus Wade, and they would try to claim, hey, you know,

I was just trying to save her life, but it was clearly a situation where it was a back -alley thing, you know, this person wasn't a licensed physician, this wasn't in a hospital, you know, they weren't, like, giving them a receipt for their payment.

It was clearly an illicit, illegal abortion that they were doing, and they weren't able to get away with that, while at the same time,

I couldn't find a single case where there was any actual, you know, licensed physicians who were doing these things in the hospital, truly trying to save the life of the mother, where any of them had ever been prosecuted.

So, you know, I think, you know, some people act like, oh, we're going to have all these ectopic pregnancies and mothers dying from that because they can't get an abortion.

That's all absurd and ridiculous and really just a tool of, you know, the pro -abortion people to try to fear -monger and scare everybody into, you know, opposing justice.

Right. Go ahead. Well, I was going to say that the numbers, and Zach shipped this off to us,

I think there's more than the numbers for pregnancies that are ectopic pregnancies is about 1 % of all pregnancies are ectopic.

And so, what ends up being the case, as always, the left will always try to use the exceptions and the small numbers to try to propagate their worldview and to continue the injustice.

So, let's say rape, incest, life of the mother, less than 2 % on average, less than 2 % of all abortions are rape, incest, life of the mother.

So, of course, you can do the famous thing. You say, okay, great, 2%. So, the other 98 % are at will.

You want to go ahead and ban those? They'll say, well, no, not really. They're just using the emotional weight of the argument, rape, incest, life of the mother to try to continue their child sacrifice.

And that's what they're doing. So, when the issue of ectopic pregnancies comes up, we're talking about about 1 % of all pregnancies that are ectopic.

And those, of course, are tragic situations. And if we lived in a world that was transformed by Christ, everybody would see those as tragic as they really are and they would mourn for both the mother and the baby.

Exactly right. They would mourn for both the mother and the baby. But what ends up being the case is while the left uses the rape, incest, life of the mother exceptions, they'll use those.

It's interesting. You even have the pro -life establishment and pro -life lobbyists, the pro -life industry using ectopic pregnancies to argue against bills of equal protection.

Isn't that amazing? The pro -life establishment using ectopic pregnancies to argue against bills of equal protection.

So what does a pro -life establishment say? What do they say across the board when it comes to what they believe?

They say they believe that it's human from conception. From conception. Very important. Not implantation.

They say human from conception. All life is sacred. All life needs to be protected. When do they say that?

They say that at banquets. They say that at fundraisers. They say that when they're trying to get people elected into positions of power.

They say that when they're raising funds. They say all life, equal protection, human from conception.

And then when you have a bill like ours, Bradley's, ours, Brian Gunter's, in the state of Louisiana, when you have a bill like that go in, it's the establishment, the pro -life establishment, that resists the bill, tells people not to pass it, and they say because ectopic pregnancy.

Yeah. What? Wait. I thought we said we believed it's human life from conception. So in the instance of ectopic pregnancy, what are we talking about?

We're talking about a tragic situation that is something that is cared for where? In a hospital.

Not an abortion clinic. Like Bradley says, where you have doctors that show concern for both patients.

Both patients. What's happening in a situation where the life of the mother, the rare instances, and they are rare in comparison to all the pregnancies, what happens in the rare instances where the life of the mother is truly in danger?

Well, if we love and protect and value human life, we go to hospitals where they're treated like two patients and it becomes a rescue operation.

It's not abortion at will. It's a tragic rescue operation.

Fallen world, tragedies like this happen, and the doctors treat it like two patients, and they are actually doing what?

They're not simply trying to end life. They're trying to preserve human life.

What's the goal in the ectopic pregnancy in a world that loves Jesus? Preservation of human life. Preservation of human life.

For example, I always use this as an example because I feel like we can all feel the weight of this. It's the car that's about to fall off the edge of the cliff.

You've got a mother and a baby inside, and you only have a moment to save one. What do you do? Let them both fall off the cliff?

No, you preserve life. You get what you can. You try to save any life you can because the principle is preservation of human life.

This argument by the establishment against a bill of equal protection of the ectopic pregnancy is merely...

I'm going to just go on record here. I believe this. It's an excuse. Yeah, exactly right. It's an excuse. It's smokescreen.

It's waving the hand because you don't want to do the real business that needs to be done, and that's argue consistently for your position.

I'll give you an example of this, and I'll let you jump in here. You look over here at Bart Barber.

He's the new president of the SBC. He got into a respectful but bit of a little tussle with Dennis Arfate, the head of Action for Life, Red State Reform, and Conover, and I think,

Bradley, you actually had some interaction with him as well. He was arguing against bills of equal protection because he was bringing up the issue of the ectopic pregnancies, and he was arguing that has to be added in there.

Obviously, Bradley's the attorney. He told you it doesn't actually need to be in there. And not just any equal protection bills, our specific bill in Louisiana.

So I want you to see his page. This is describing his position. Now, he's arguing against the

Louisiana bill because of ectopic pregnancies. One percent of all pregnancies are ectopic.

He's arguing against a bill of equal protection that would treat all human life as equal and to be protected equally from conception.

Here's what it says about him on the screen here, Gabe. What is your position on abortion?

He says, I am pro -life. Are you ready for this? Life begins at conception.

Life begins at conception. From conception to natural death, life is to be protected.

Now, if that's the case, life begins at conception, and from conception, all life is to be protected equally.

If that's the case, why would you argue against a bill like Louisiana that just said that?

That's what it said. That's what the bill said. Equal protection, human from conception, all life is to be protected, period.

And the reason I'm bringing this up is because... Well, look at number three.

Third point here. Okay, this will drive it home better. If I jumped off this, you might miss this.

Number three. Abortion abolitionists insist upon criminal prosecution of mothers in abortion.

The pro -life movement insists upon criminal prosecution of abortionists in cases of abortion.

So question to Bart Barber, president of the SBC. Sir, brother, how do you bring these things together?

How do you say that life begins at conception and that from conception to natural death, life is to be protected? And then say that when a mother kills her child via abortion, she shouldn't be prosecuted.

How do you do that? It's because you don't actually believe that that life from conception has the same worth and value as the five -year -old, the six -year -old, the seven -year -old, the eight -year -old that is murdered by her mother.

You know, murder of children happens quite often. Mothers killing their children is actually something that...

It's horrifying. It's horrifying. Think about it. It happens. It happens quite a lot.

Mothers killing their children. How come you would believe, brother, that those mothers need to be prosecuted but not these?

And the answer is, brother, you have been indoctrinated by the pro -life establishment with a worldview and a system of ethics that is fundamentally anti -Christian.

That's the truth. Because you can't bring these two positions together. Can we highlight it even further?

Yes. Give it maybe more of a point here. Under point four, he says this.

Every time an abortion happens in a clinic, an abortionist is guilty of what ought to be a crime. Okay? A couple sentences later.

Sometimes abortion is also an act in which a woman has been guilty of what ought to be a crime.

Okay? So, abortionists are always guilty, and sometimes the woman would be guilty of what ought to be a crime.

And then further along, I say we prosecute abortion providers and see how far that goes towards abolishing abortion.

So he believes, and if you read this statement, you'll see that, tactically speaking, it's more feasible if we go after the abortionist.

Right. Right. But this is what he says right after. Killing a pre -born child is the taking of a human life.

It is murder. Anyone who sought for an abortion to be done or is complicit in accomplishing an abortion is guilty of what ought to be a crime.

Does that include the mother? The mother. Because according to the statement that you made a couple sentences ago, there are instances, if she's not forced, coerced, all the reasons he lists here, like we acknowledge about, you know, sex trafficking and whatnot, he acknowledges that there are instances in which a woman has been guilty.

Mm -hmm. So once again, how do you hold the two together? You can't. You can't.

I was just going to say, I think Bradley's only got about 15 minutes. Why don't we let him respond to Barbara's claims about the bill?

Please do. Yes. That'd be good, Bradley. Let's pull in the lawyer. Yeah, well,

I mean, he's talking specifically about the abortion bill, or I'm sorry, about the Louisiana abolition bill,

HB 813 there. He's saying, hey, there's no exception in this bill for an ectopic pregnancy, right?

Which is something that a lot of times people do who, you know, who aren't attorneys. They're like, hey, this isn't in the bill or this isn't in the bill.

It's like, yeah, well, there's lots of things that aren't in the bill. You know why? Because they're already the law, okay?

They don't need to be in a bill, right? We pass a bill to change the law, but guess what?

It's already the law that in situations of necessity that it's not homicide in the state of Louisiana.

So it doesn't need to be in the bill. And I'm just going to read you directly from, you know,

Louisiana law here. It says, it's straight from Louisiana law. It says, a person is excused from criminal liability if he acts under a duress of circumstances to protect life in a reasonable manner and with no other acceptable choice.

That is existing Louisiana law. And so, yeah, it's not in the bill.

Why? Because it's already the law. You don't have to put things in a bill that are already the law. Now, you know,

I asked him, I was like, okay, well, if we put it in the bill, would you support it then? And crickets on that, right?

You know, because ultimately it's just a pretext. He doesn't support equal protection. And as his website makes clear, he agrees that some mothers should be prosecuted.

Well, that's all we're saying. We're not even saying that every mother should be prosecuted. All we're saying is that the law should allow for that and then let the justice system decide who is and is not prosecuted.

So, I mean, he kind of agrees with that. And then he just makes a pragmatic argument. But the right thing to do is to, you know, prosecute the abortion providers and not mothers.

It's like, well, okay, yeah. It's the right thing to prosecute abortion providers. We agree.

And he sets it up like it's some kind of dichotomy. Like, well, pro -life movement is for prosecuting abortionists.

You know, abolitionists are for prosecuting mothers. It's like, no, no, no. We're all for prosecuting abortionists.

And we're for allowing the prosecution of mothers. And then it's up to the justice system to decide, you know, who should or shouldn't get prosecuted and what they should get prosecuted, you know, and all that.

That's called equal protection of the laws. And whenever someone says, you know, that they oppose equal protection, ultimately, you know, and I say this with the utmost respect to, you know,

Mr. Barber and others who hold that position, and that is it's really bigotry in their hearts.

They don't believe a fetus is a person. If they did believe a fetus is a person, then the same laws that protect their person, they would want to protect that person who's in the womb.

And since they don't, then clearly they're discriminating against them because they think that they're subhuman.

Yeah, imagine for a moment, brothers and sisters, that you had Barber, president now

Barber, he had 60 seconds in a room with legislators in a state. Okay, imagine this scenario for a second.

60 seconds in a room he has with legislators in the state. And in the 60 seconds, he's in a mad rush.

He has to tell them quickly what they need to understand about the law of God and what is the case with these humans in the womb.

He's got 60 seconds, and they're saying, quickly tell us what we ought to do. And he says, well,

I'm pro -life. Life begins at conception. Human life begins at conception. From conception to natural death, life is to be protected.

And they go, great, thanks. And they walk out of the room to the floor to draft legislation and to get it into force to do exactly what

Barber said to do. And they draft legislation that looks a heck of a lot like Louisiana.

And it says, human from conception, it's in the image of God, all life is to have equal protection from conception.

Because that's what Barber told us. We heard him. We heard him with his own mouth.

That's what he said. And they start to put that bill in, and then Barber comes in and says, along with the rest of the establishment, wait, wait, wait, don't do that.

Well, what do you mean? We wrote what you said to do. And he goes, and with the rest of the establishment, but not the mother.

She can kill the child with impunity. At least that's what the establishment says. Maybe he would have some caveats, but the establishment says, not the mother.

She can do it with impunity. Do you see the problem? There's a real problem here, and it's the problem that is keeping abortion legal across the states.

I'll give you one more thing here, and then I'd like to hear Bradley speak to this. This was from the

SBC annual meeting in Anaheim. We were there, and I want to encourage you all with this.

We put together a piece of content that should be dropping in the next day or two telling the story of what happened in Louisiana.

We told it while we were at Anaheim. It is so well done. I think this is going to be one of the most important pieces of content we've ever put out in this regard, and so that should be dropping in the next day or two so you guys can get the full story, and there's some content from the

SBC weaved throughout it. But this is from the SBC. I want you to see. You've seen so far

Governor Noem giving the talking points after the reversal of Roe v. Wade saying we don't want the mother prosecuted.

That's the position. You've seen from our platform on a number of occasions the pro -life leaders saying she's a victim, we don't want her prosecuted, she's not guilty.

This was from the SBC two weeks ago. Here is where Pastor Brian Gunter, our pastor on the ground in Louisiana, did such a wonderful job being faithful there to promote the

Bill of Equal Protection. Great man of God. We love him dearly. This is when he got the opportunity to go up to the

ERLC while they were on the platform to ask them, why did you guys challenge my bill and sign off on something to say you didn't ever want the woman to be seen as guilty or prosecutable?

This is that section, so I want you all to see it. Again, just to provide some more witness from you that this is their position.

This is where it goes. My name is Brian, a messenger and a senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Livingston, Louisiana.

Earlier this year, I worked with my state legislators to introduce

House Bill 813 in the Louisiana legislature. HB 813 was a bill that sought to immediately end all abortion in my state by providing equal protection to the child in the womb.

Simply stated, if life begins at conception, then our laws should protect life from the moment of conception.

So you can imagine my surprise when you signed a letter dated

May 12th urging all state lawmakers across America to oppose this bill and others like it because it would make it a crime for a woman to kill her own child by abortion.

I thought that Southern Baptists, when we say we're pro -life, we mean that no person should be able to murder an innocent child in the womb.

So this is my question. Is it really your position that the mother who willfully kills her own child by abortion is never guilty before God and she should never face any consequences under the law?

Here's the deal. We agree on the bottom line. We want abortion ended. We want it ended today.

We want it ended tomorrow. We want it ended as soon as humanly possible. But while we hold fast to that goal and continually shout that is what we want, why not support legislation that promises to save one more life in any context?

I will say this. To get the record straight, no letter was sent directly to Louisiana about a

Louisiana piece of legislation. Just quickly, we said this last week. That's not true.

That's not true. Isn't true. Those legislators, I saw them with it on their desks.

They had it in their hands. It was sent to Louisiana legislators. Of course, it was addressed to legislators across the country, but it was absolutely sent to our legislators on the day of the vote itself and it was signed by over 70 pro -life organizations across the

United States, including National Right to Life, including Louisiana Right to Life, and including the ERLC.

And so he gives an excuse here, but believe me, after the hearing in Louisiana, after that hearing in Louisiana where it passed, it was a week where it was a frenzy where the establishment and their representatives were contacting our legislators in Louisiana, telling them, please don't pass this bill.

They were terrified because the bill sailed through the hearing and they were terrified that it actually might pass on the floor where it was a predominantly pro -life legislature who all said,

I guess that's our bill. Of course we'll pass that. We had the votes. We had the yes votes and they all flipped when the establishment came in and told them, we don't want equal protection.

We don't want her ever to be seen as guilty. So it's in fact not true that that letter did not come directly to our legislators.

It did come directly to our legislators and it came, boy, right on time, right on time.

Right after the draft opinion from the Supreme Court was leaked,

National Right to Life approached us, as well as 75 other pro -life organizations from around the country to say, hey, this would make sense since functionally if this were to be law or if this were to be the final decision, abortion will be returned to the states.

It would seem to make sense that we send a letter to legislative leaders in all 50 states to let them know what the principles of the pro -life movement are.

Right, you're not helping yourself. As we said last week, you didn't help yourself here at all. Mr. Leatherwood, you didn't help yourself here.

It would make sense for us to send a letter to legislators across the country telling them that we don't want abortion to be illegal for women.

That's what you're saying. We needed this letter to go to legislators because if Roe is out of the way, we need legislators to understand that the pro -life establishment's position is that mothers can kill their children with impunity with no consequences.

We need to make sure legislators don't draft any legislation that actually says it's criminal for the mother to kill her child in the womb.

You didn't help yourself here. Actually, you just dug a hole a little deeper.

You dug your hole and you just went on record telling everyone what you actually believe. Well, we've been telling the church you actually believe.

You went on record to say it. And so in a state like California, for example, where we are, it makes sense to send that because they're going to have this issue right in front of them.

And in a state like California, they're going to have to take any available win where they can.

Here's the reality. You're not going to get me to say that I want to throw mothers behind bars.

That's not the view of this entity. That is not the view of this convention. It is not the view of the pro -life movement.

We know. And there you have it. Thank you. And there you have it. And by the way, another thing that's just a falsehood,

I'm sorry, it has to be called down when you say it from a platform. It's not a private conversation between friends.

This is public on the platform at the SBC annual meeting. I'm sorry, when you say that it's not the position of this convention,

I distinctly remember being in Nashville when the members of the

SBC voted to adopt the equal protection and abolition position. So you are in fact wrong, sir.

You are wrong. I was there in that room when the members of the SBC raised up their ballots to vote, and they won the vote.

So it was officially the members meeting vote that they adopt equal protection and abolition as the position of the

SBC convention. So you are in fact wrong. But, second point, is here you have it again, brothers and sisters, from the platform of the

SBC annual meeting, from the head of the ERLC, they don't ever want women to be seen as punishable.

That's the position. They don't ever want women to be seen as punishable, and they made darn sure that they got to legislators when they learned about the leak to say, make sure you don't ever punish the women for doing this.

Which means, DIY abortions are perfectly acceptable to the ERLC in terms of there's no guilt, there is no shame, there is no condemnation, there is no need for the state to be involved when the mother murders her child in the womb.

She can do it, according to the establishment, with impunity. Bradley, if we can have some final thoughts regarding all of this, we'd really appreciate it.

Ultimately, if we ever want to see abortion abolished, this is what we have to do.

We saw the Texas Heartbeat Act was passed here in Texas, and as soon as they passed it, it supposedly said you can't get an abortion after six weeks or so.

And what happened? DIY abortions exploded. There's pro -abortion magazines that are publishing recipes about how to make up your own abortion potion.

You can get these pills from across the country. The FDA says that they're legal, in spite of the fact that there's a

Comstock law that's still on the books, a federal law that says you can't ship illegal substances to cause abortions.

That's on the books. The FDA, the Biden administration says, well, these aren't illegal, so they can still ship them.

Some mothers can still get these pills, they can just get them from an abortion doctor in another state, and get them shipped in, do telehealth, or they can travel to another state and get an abortion, because abortion is not abolished in those states.

And so, until we're willing to provide equal protection of the law under the Constitution in all 50 states, then we're not going to abolish abortion, and as long as we keep saying that every woman is a victim, then we have a problem.

Certainly some women are victims, some are not victims. How do we figure that out?

The same way that we figure it out with homicide of born people. We have a justice system that has law enforcement that investigates, prosecutors that investigate and consider what charges to give.

Should they give immunity? What should they charge them with? Maybe they should charge them with something lower. Maybe they should give them immunity to testify against the abortionist.

The grand jury considers the facts, decides whether to indict. A judge, a trial jury, the defendant gets a court -appointed attorney if they can't afford one, and we have an entire due process system here.

Multiple courts of appeals. If it's a capital, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then you have governors that can commute sentences, reduce sentences, and can even pardon people.

That's the justice system that all of these people who are opposing equal protection, they're not arguing against that justice system.

They're just fine with that justice system protecting their lives, but what they don't want is for that justice system to protect lives before they're born.

Why? Because they don't really believe, although what they say with their mouth may be a fetus is a person, they don't really believe it with their hearts because, like Zach said earlier, actions speak louder than words.

That's right. All right. Can I get, real quick, Bradley, before you go, I was hoping to get clarification on one other thing that Barber, a point

Barber was trying to make. If I'm being honest, I don't know why he was trying to make this point. It was confusing, but he was trying to make a distinction between implantation and conception, and I did not,

I don't know, maybe I'm dumb, but I was like, I don't even know where he's going with this. Can you maybe, just real quickly, shed some light on that?

I know you got to go. I'm not sure exactly where he was going with it either. I mean, if we believe that life begins at fertilization, then that's when you start protecting it.

Yeah, and Louisiana is the only state in the country that defines it as being at implantation.

Every other state that has some kind of fetus side law which is the majority of states, they all define it as being at fertilization.

So Louisiana is an outlier here. So I don't know exactly what he's talking about there. Certainly we believe that life begins, you know, when the sperm and the egg unite, that's fertilization, that's when life begins, and that's when we should protect it.

Well, that's consistent with the biblical worldview and consistent with all biological science, and that's, it's an incontrovertible fact that that's the genesis of human life is in that moment when they meet, and that's the unique creation of a human being.

Everything after that point is just a difference of degree. That's all there is from that point. Bradley Pierce, thank you so much, brother.

Where can people go to support you and get connected with you? Yeah, I mean, if they're in Texas, people can go to AbolishAbortionTX .org

or follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or if they're not in Texas, we have the Foundation to Abolish Abortion where we work across the country helping draft bills, provide presentations, helping support other states in what they're doing and support organizations like End Abortion Now, Action for Life.

They can go to FAA .life and get more info there. All right, brother. Praise God. We got work to do.

I'm excited to see what we're going to be doing together in the coming months. Thank you. Me too. All right, man. Love you, dude.

I'll talk to you soon. All right, so don't leave everybody because we got more. We're going to spend just a couple of minutes here because it's important.

We want to make this a one -stop shop situation, and so we're going to respond to some of the comments of our good friends and one of our heroes,

Douglas Wilson. I want to just start with this by saying really important here. We've said this before, but Doug agrees with us 100 % in terms of the law of God, what's taking place in abortion, all of that, the guilt of the mother.

Doug does not believe that the mother is guiltless in terms of when the mother willingly brings the child to have an abortion that she were to call her guiltless, and were to justify the wicked or the guilty.

He doesn't want to do that. We are very close with Doug and the guys at Christ Church. I mean, very, very close.

We have eaten in Doug's house. We've had so many meals with Doug and the guys.

We were invited, by the way. We should mention that. Yeah, we didn't just crash. He invited us. He loves us, so he invited us.

We love Doug, and Doug is a smarter man than I am or ever will be. I think he is brilliant. He's a gift to the church.

But in this area of the approach strategically to ending abortion, we say that Doug has some blind spots.

He knows that we've said that. He disagrees with us. We disagree with him. He had actually some amazing commentary.

Yes, he did. They recently put, you can look up, if you just go to Blog and Mayblog, M -A -B -L -O -G,

Blog and Mayblog, it's Doug's stuff where he does like, he writes it out, and then you can also watch him actually, you know, speaking it out.

It's Roe Reversal Rainbow Month on YouTube, and so he had some spectacular commentary on rights and those sorts of things and government and like how secularists will see it versus how it really is and how

Christians see it. But he had a section here where he talks about, you know, the fact that, thank

God Roe is out of the way now. Praise the Lord for that. And by the way, we read his comments when we started church this last

Sunday. We read his comments about, you know, if you were born in the last 50 years, this is your first Sunday not being with Roe in the background and all of Apologia Church stood up.

Except for James. Yeah, yeah. Oh, he didn't stand up? Well, I mean, he was, he's older than that. Oh, that's right.

So, I did tell him, I did tell him, I said, well, and that's not a slight, that's just a fact. That's how it is.

I'm just saying, he's older than 50. White beard, that's right. So, but I read that in our entire church, first time in the history of our church, this has happened.

Our entire church stood up and standing ovation, clapping our hands, glorifying God. Yeah, it was awesome.

That it is out of the way. We no longer have to face that down. So, we love Doug. Like, we even quoted him this

Sunday in service. But we disagree on this, and it's important because there's some issues here.

And if, Doug, if you see this, you know that I've said this before. There's principled issues here that you've taught us many times in terms of the law of God as the reference point.

You know, what you're doing has to be consistent with what you're standing on. It's one of the things you constantly point out when you did the most devastating critique of Christopher Hitchens.

If you guys haven't seen the film, do we have it up here? We don't have it up here? It was. I thought we did.

It was. They got moved for that camera. Oh, the film, I can't even believe I lost it right now.

Collision. Collision. You guys gotta watch that film. Our friend Darren Doan made that film with Doug and Christopher Hitchens.

And one of the things that you've pointed out when you've debated Dan Barker and Christopher Hitchens is that you need to be consistent with what you're standing on.

The atheist acts in a way and has methodologies and beliefs that are inconsistent with what they're standing on.

Okay? You've taught me that, and I use that when I teach apologetic methodology. And you've seen me do it,

Doug. I was there at the conference, the Fight Left Feast conference. You saw me standing on the chairs. Believe me, I got that from you,

Doug. I illustrate it in a different way by standing on actual chairs and saying, like, what

I'm saying and doing has to be consistent with what I'm standing on. Doug, you taught me that, and I'm grateful forever for that.

But in terms of strategy and principle, one of the things you go after atheists with, and you do this so well, is you say, what you're saying and doing is inconsistent with what you're standing on.

Doug believes in something that he's termed smash -mouth incrementalism, and that is to say that you can accept as a

Christian something that is unequal weights and measures. It is a bill of partiality, like, say, a six -week heartbeat ban or a 10 -week ban or a 15 -week ban.

You can accept that because you're just trying to save some lives, but don't accept it ultimately because you're just keep pushing and keep pushing, smash -mouth, we're getting to the final end.

And so Doug argues that you can, in fact, accept a bill of partiality on your way to ultimately ending abortion.

Now, Doug, we all agree on the, we need to end this, it's murder, and the woman who does it, and she does it willfully, she's guilty.

Doug fully agrees with us on that. The dispute is over how you go about fighting for that.

Your principles you're standing on, do they match your methodology and your strategy?

Now, Doug thinks that his smash -mouth incrementalism is different from the incrementalism of, say, a man like Scott Klusendorf or someone else in the pro -life establishment.

The truth is, and I mean this with all due respect and love to our brother, there isn't a difference between smash -mouth incrementalism and, say, what the establishment says because they all say, we'll accept the six -week, we'll accept the 10 -week, but we're not done, we're going to keep pushing.

They all say the same thing. And so there really isn't a distinction between smash -mouth incrementalism and just regular old incrementalism.

And by the way, got to say this at the start, very important to correct the error about incrementalism in terms of those of us who want equal protection, abolition, and criminalization, and those who are quote -unquote incrementalists.

We don't have any problem with a just and righteous increment like, say, for example,

Louisiana as the state that ultimately first abolishes abortion. That's a just increment, right?

No compromise, no unequal weights and measures, and it's done in Louisiana. No problem with that category.

So this whole thing of, like, incrementalism is always bad. No, we recognize you've got to do it sometimes in Arizona first, and that's an increment.

But you can't do it unfaithfully in Arizona. So what we're arguing here is what we're arguing against. It's not incrementalism versus abolition.

That distinction needs to go away. It's the question of whether or not you can accept something that God calls an abomination.

So in other words, you can accept unequal weights and measures in a bill because, like I've said, the question you have to ask when you're supporting a bill is, on the last day, if this bill was presented before God, is this something

God hates or would hate on the last day? Right? Like, you show God the bill on the last day.

What's your judgment, God? Does He hate it? And the answer is, God says unequal weights and measures are an abomination to Him.

Partiality is an abomination to God. And all these incremental bills, like six -week bans, 10 -week bans, 15 -week bans, 22 -week bans, all that stuff, all that is is partiality.

It's saying, you can kill these, but not these. That's unequal weights and measures.

It is partiality. God hates it. So what we're arguing against is not quote -unquote incrementalism.

We're arguing against injustice. You can't... Is it a just incrementalism? Yeah, is it a just increment?

Like, for example, if it's equal protection in Idaho, that's an increment. Got it.

And by the way, I'll go ahead and play it here, so we'll talk through it, guys. I was gonna say real quickly, too, to be fair, just because I know some people ask this all the time, he's not against our position.

No, he's not. He literally says, and he'll say it in here, he literally says, run all the plays and take what you can get.

So the issue isn't that he's against our position, it's that he is in support of the other's position as well.

So that's... I just wanna throw that out there because I know some people think that we're mad at each other or fighting or whatever.

No, we're not. We're not at all. We love Doug. We're gonna do more stuff with Doug in the coming year. And I wanna just say,

Doug has the most, this is the truth, this is why I love him so much, masterful ability to take a concept and to give you a story or an idea that just solidifies it for you.

He is able to take something that may be conceptually difficult to wrap your mind around and he'll give you a concept or a story and you go, okay, now

I got it. And so I wanna just say, this is not one of those times because when he says run all the plays, that's actually never good advice.

Run all the plays. It's not good advice. If you were to take that and just say like a football game, the martial arts world, and your coach came up to you and said, hey, this strategy is a failed strategy.

It always sucks. But why don't you go ahead and try it on this guy? You would say, can you give me a good play to run?

Can you give me something that actually works? So don't run all the plays. You should actually run the plays that strategically are the right plays that are the best for this moment.

And so run all the plays I think is actually one of the least helpful explanations Doug has given in this because it's actually not a good idea to just run all the plays because some plays are unrighteous.

Some plays are sinful. Some plays are actually plays that God himself says he hates.

He hates them. Like if God says in Isaiah 10, woe to those who write iniquitous decrees, we shouldn't say, why don't you go ahead and write an iniquitous decree?

Maybe it saves somebody. The run all the plays strategy also assumes that what's governing the game is the referees and not the rules.

Every game has rules. Our nation is a nation of rules. It's the rule of law that governs it.

We don't go by what the Supreme Court states if it's unjust because we're not following the referees.

We're following the rules. That's correct, y 'all. Well, thank you. I'm glad you said it because we were thinking exactly the same thing.

I've said this and I said it in a meeting on Monday or Tuesday together. I said, if you read all the books from Canon Press like Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, you would be looking at Doug saying,

Doug, I read Lex Rex. You sold it to me. Why are you now telling me something that doesn't match that?

All that to say, Doug knows we love and respect him. I need to keep saying that because we don't want anybody to be confused.

This is truly an issue of brothers trying to sharpen each other. There's stuff that Doug has taught me and corrected me on.

I think this is an area where there is a major blind spot and this is the key issue and I'll play the video here for you guys.

What Doug doesn't seem to realize yet in terms of like a full acceptance of this is that the pro -life establishment doesn't believe that she's guilty,

Doug. They don't ever want her to be seen as guilty. They see her as a victim.

They never want her to be punished for murdering her child in the womb. They say that she can do it with impunity.

That is their stated position. They've written it down. They did it to our legislators. They said that.

They said it from the platform at the SBC. You heard Governor Noem say it in this episode. And one thing that we would hope that our brother

Doug would just wrap his hands around and go after with us. Please join us in this.

Go after with us the establishment that denies historic Christian doctrine,

Christian orthodoxy, and says that she is never to be seen as guilty. She is a victim just like the child.

They acquit the guilty, Doug. That's what they do. They acquit the guilty. That is a key issue.

And I think that if Doug can finally land on that and go after that, I think we'll just, we'll do so much better.

Because Doug has a great opportunity to influence a lot of people in this area and to do it biblically.

So here is short comments from Doug on moderate abolitionists and smashmouth incrementalists.

Moderate abolitionists and smashmouth incrementalists. I have before proposed a peace treaty between traditional pro -lifers, smashmouth incrementalists, and abolitionists.

It was kind of academic before, but it is a genuine practical necessity now. This SCOTUS decision was an incrementalist victory, but it is one that gives the abolitionists a new tool in their state -level efforts.

We should use that tool to fight abortion. There is no good reason for us to be fighting one another.

So he's right that this will help, and I just want to say again to the issue of incrementalism.

Doug, brother, we filed an amicus brief in the case. So do you see that?

I guess maybe that's the point, that the correction on the distinction between abolitionists and incrementalists, it's not a real helpful distinction because we are theonomists, we are abolitionists, we are worker vehicle protection, and we argued in the case, we funded it, the amicus brief that argued that they needed to overturn

Roe versus Wade. And so we're for that. We're for that because it is a just increment.

That is the duty of the court before God. They ought to do that before God. That's their responsibility.

So we argued in that, and we're perfectly happy doing that because that's an increment that's just.

What we're saying is you are not allowed to do things that God says are iniquitous or sinful.

You can't back a bill that is in fact partiality. That's the issue.

Not now, for pity's sake. The Dobbs case means that there's no constitutional right to an abortion.

That means that abortion access can now be denied by law and nobody's constitutional rights are violated.

In this new era, there will no doubt be examples of legislation that one group proposes and that the other group cannot in good conscience support.

Fine, don't support it, but that doesn't make the sponsors of that other bill your enemy. Smash -mouth incrementalists are not baby killers, and moderate abolitionists are not fire eaters.

So let's talk about that. It's important. Doug, you have been such a help to the church in this generation in terms of pointing people to the law word of God, saying that's the standard, that's the reference point.

You've been one of the greatest defenders of that. You've taken a lot of heat for that position. We're with you on the law of God, brother.

Completely. That this is the reference point. If you want to know what's true, what has

God said? What has God spoke about that? And this is what

I struggle with, Doug. I struggle with the fact that post -Roe, you're still arguing for the acceptance of bills of partiality in the states, and that just accept what you can accept.

Brother, I have a problem with that, because if Roe is gone, and that was seen as the primary obstacle, why in the world would we continue to fight in the states for bills of partiality and accept those things?

Why? And this is what's distressing to me, brothers and sisters, and I'll let you guys speak to this.

It's distressing to me, and I hope you all notice this, that the pro -life establishment post -Roe, and these few days after Roe falling, the pro -life establishment is still arguing for incrementalism.

Yep. They're still arguing about doing 15 -week bans and 10 -week bans and six -week bans after Roe.

So in other words, your strategy hasn't changed. Roe is gone, and you're still going to do the same unjust legislation.

You're still going to put forth all this partiality and unequal weights and measures.

Roe is gone. You said that was the foe keeping it alive, and now you're still going to enact laws that are partial and unequal weights and measures.

So I guess for me, it's the indication of what we've always said. Their goal isn't the ultimate end of abortion and the banning of all abortions and equal protection.

They're keeping it alive. Roe's out of the way. Why don't we do equal protection? And the answer is, and Doug, I really hope you embrace this and just go after it, because you will do it better than me.

I know you will, and I mean that. Why don't we just talk about the fact that they still believe that she's a victim and she should never be punished.

She can do it with impunity. That needs to be highlighted, and we need to go after that, because honestly,

Doug, that's the main issue. That's the hinge upon which the entire thing turns, is they do not ever want her to be seen as guilty.

She has impunity. That's the issue, and Doug, let me just say, we need you on this. We need you, with your skills and your gifts, to go after the industry itself that is teaching heretical doctrine.

It is not biblical. It is historically unorthodox. That's what they believe. That's what they teach, and Doug, we need you in this fight with us to, as a minister of the gospel, go after the establishment and to correct them with gospel truth.

That's what we need. Come to think of it, I don't know. I can't recollect a time where he's ever gone after that false teaching.

Maybe I missed it, but it would be incredibly helpful. It's possible we've missed it, but I hope he goes after it, because Doug really needs to.

Like I said, the way that Doug can take apart a position can be so helpful to the church.

He's helped so many people, and so we need Doug on our side going after the heretical teaching of the pro -life establishment that we're to acquit the guilty.

She's not guilty. She's innocent. We need him on this. Yeah. I don't know at this point if it's just a case of phantom limb, where something needs to be amputated, and then you still feel like you have an arm there, even though it's not there.

In other words, is that the strategy of the pro -life movement where now Roe is gone, and they're still feeling that tinge there of, okay, we have to fight it this way, continuing on?

It's bizarre. We need equal protection. We need the law of God as the reference point.

And Doug goes on to say, and this is the final words I'll have on this. Doug goes on to say that just because someone has a different strategy or tactic doesn't mean that they're not following their principle, and that's what

I want to aim at. Actually, you can in fact see if somebody's principle is coherent or they're really standing on it based upon what they're doing and saying.

Doug has done a masterful job, as I said, pointing out to atheists what you're doing is inconsistent with what you're standing on.

Right? He does that with atheism. And in the case of how you're going to fight against the issue of abortion,

Doug, is what you're doing and your methodology and what you're promoting and encouraging in terms of just accepting something that is unequal weights and measures, is that consistent with your principle?

Because your principle is the law of God is the foundation. These are image bearers of God. They deserve equal protection, and it is in fact murder.

That's your principled position. So how come we can accept a strategy that actually militates against that foundation?

Right. Because the strategy actually does militate against it. If the foundation is the word of God and we know what justice is according to God, I mean,

Doug has a great book called Justice Primer. This is what Doug's all about. He's excellent at it. Strategically, you can look at the strategy and say, hey, that's inconsistent with your principles.

You can say that. As much as we want to try to say that it doesn't mean that, it does. It does mean that.

And that's the issue. Well, so we've talked about this before, but what hurt my heart a little bit in this blog in May blog was he says, you know, starts to distinguish between strategically and principally.

And I know you just talked about it, but when you start making that dichotomy there, it's like, oh, like you shouldn't be doing anything strategically if it's not principally based.

But they don't, Doug doesn't approach anything else like that. No, that's what I'm saying. It's a major gap.

He doesn't approach gay mirage like that. No. He doesn't approach molestation or, you know,

Theft. Theft or, you know, sex trafficking, like, you know, pedophilia.

You go down the list. He doesn't approach anything else like that. Everything he approaches strategically for any of those other things, it's principally based.

But why when it comes to this does he draw a dichotomy? Why would we tell Christians that you can accept a 10 -week ban?

Why would you say that? Shouldn't we say no way? Absolutely not. Equal protection.

No way. I mean, also, I think context means everything here, too. We live in a nation where we have the easiest opportunity in so many cases in world history and even currently to change our laws and to do it right.

And we have that ability to do it. And look, Doug, we've gone into states with bills of equal protection and we almost got it passed.

We don't need to accept six weeks or 12 weeks. We can actually get equal protection.

For 50 years. Yeah, yeah. Like, I don't know. Maybe this doesn't, hopefully this doesn't sound stupid, but incremental for how long?

How long does it take to incrementally get to where we're trying to get?

Because next year was going to be the 50 -year anniversary. So, like, if that was the ultimate villain this whole time, what took so long?

And I get it. I could get, it's complicated. We just had a lawyer on. You don't just, like, walk into a room and go,

I'm a lawyer and I practice law. Like, I get it. It's complicated. But 50 years? Yeah, in 50 years, you can say, how did your strategy work with 62 million dead babies was the cost.

That's what I mean. And you don't, for the amount of time that I have paid attention to this issue, maybe since I was, like, 15 years old and I'm 33 now, have we seen a change in what is happening incrementally?

Or are we still seeing the same heartbeat bills? We're seeing, and it's around the same, sometimes it's, they're extending it.

It's like, it was six weeks and now, and then you're hearing like, oh, well, 20.

And just the consistent, I don't know. I just don't, even from a strategic standpoint, I feel like at this point, could we say, you don't want to end it?

Right. Like, and I'm talking to incrementalists. I'm not talking to Doug. Right. Like, I don't, can we just have an honest conversation where it's like, when?

When were you planning on, what was your final move? Like, how were you gonna beat the final boss?

Like, what? Yeah. That's video game talk right there, baby. That's right. Yeah. Well, and let's be honest and we'll end the show with this.

Everyone that holds to this strategy of, let's just take what we can get, run all the plays. I'm not just talking about Doug here, but incrementalism and here's the deal.

This is where it really ends. You push and push and push and push and push and let's say you're 10 years post -Roe, and you're gonna get to the point finally where everyone finally has to embrace this.

Oh. Oh, you never wanted everyone culpable to be seen as guilty.

That was the real issue, is that you can run all these plays and get down, down, down, down, down. You're gonna finally hit the wall that needs to be addressed by ministers of the gospel and Christians everywhere, and that's that they do not believe that everybody involved in killing the child is actually guilty.

That's the problem. That will establish justice, is when you actually treat what's in the womb as human, image of God, and worthy of protection, equal protection.

That's the issue, and so we invite our good brothers who are gonna be with us at ReformCon.

We invite you guys. Join with us in this. Join with us in this. Please do something.

Toby, do something on this. Do a whole thing on guilt and justifying the wicked and unequal rights and measures.

Do something on this, because we need, right now in this moment, all hands on deck in terms of faithful Christians speaking to this and making it about the gospel, because in the end, that's also gotta be the greatest concern to us, is if the establishment is saying to women, you heard

Governor Noem saying it, that she's not guilty at all, then that means that we have no gospel hope for her.

We can't bring her the peace of the gospel when we have these people over here that are supposedly in our camp saying to her, you don't need the gospel for that, sweetie.

You're a victim like your baby. There's no peace. I can't give a woman peace who doesn't think she's guilty of killing her child in the womb.

That's a very, very important aspect to this, and that's a critical part we have to join together and work to make sure we overcome that false teaching.

It is heretical doctrine propagated by the pro -life establishment. We need ministers of the gospel to speak and tell the same story that we are.

Anything last? Any last words there? Liberty and justice for all. You know who's making tools for liberty and justice for all?

AR500? Yes. Armored Republic. I forgot to mention at the beginning and I just remembered and I forgot to bring in some gear today.

Well, there's more people on right now, so Armored Republic. Armored Republic. AR500. Yes. Get some tools of liberty.

They love us. Solid dude. Solid company. Get your tools of liberty, and we're thankful for you guys joining us.

Don't forget to get your account for Bonson U. It is free, free, free, free, free, and sign up for all access.

Partner with us. Go to endabortionnow .com to partner with us as your church. We give you free resources. We give you free training.

You can save lives with all the hundreds of churches that are out saving lives on a regular basis. You can partner with us in ministry to provide equal protection in all the states.

Pray for us as we work for these states in the upcoming months, and don't forget to get your tickets for reformcon .org.

Come out and hang out with us. Have a good time. Hang out with the guys from Christ Church, Apologia Church, Dr.

James White, Luke Pierce. You'll see all of us. Come to the after party. Come see their performances.

Come listen to the teaching. It's going to be a blast. Again, it's not a church service. It's a Christian conference, and we're trying to do it in a way that is totally unique.

Yes. We want to make sure you really enjoy yourselves, and the team is working hard on it. Oh, we got some stuff in store.

Yeah, we got some neat stuff in store. So that's Luke DeBear. Peace out. Joy the girl. See ya. That's Conover. See ya.

Director of Communications at End Abortion Now. I'm Jeff. We'll catch you next week right here on Apologia Radio.