Life Matters

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston returns to the subject of public opinion polls and Americans' real attitudes regarding the legalization of human abortion.

Johnston reminds us that we must focus on what the right to life debate is. It is not about emotions, or feelings, how much we like babies, or our personal religious upbringing. Very specifically, it is a legal question, as all questions of "rights" actually are.

It is essential to understand that this debate of the last 50 years regarding the legality of abortion and the impact of the Roe versus Wade decision, is a matter of legal judgment. And therefore, public opinion must be viewed as a question of what legal protections ought to be offered to which human beings (babies in the womb), at which times, and under which specific legal conditions.

This very particular and incisive understanding of the debate is required now. This is required for each and every pro-life individual, and specifically in each and every state, because the Dobbs decision has returned the authority of each and every state and its legislatures to determine the laws of that particular jurisdiction, that particular state.

As demonstrated in the previous program on this subject: 287: Public Opinion Polls, the nature of the question and the language used by the questioner will often determine the answer given by the respondent.

Because of this, many news outlets which seek to mold public opinion rather than inform, will use misleading and incomplete language. This is done in order to have the respondent come to a conclusion which the news outlet desires to see in all Americans.

When it comes to the abortion question and specific terms and references to the law, specific terms are often used. Words such as 'choice,' 'freedom to choose', 'reproductive rights', and even 'Roe v. Wade', specifically because Roe v. Wade has rarely been accurately described and explained to the public.

These vague generalities are by no means capable of determining an American individual's actual sentiments regarding appropriate abortion law.

There are however many polls which do respect the specific details of an issue: When is the abortion done? At what gestation is that child? For what reason is that child's life being ended? These are very important determinative legal issues that the law applies to every legally questioned action. Again the issue of the right to life is, at its heart, a legal question.

California is often considered one of the most progressive and "pro-choice" states in the nation. But the old LA Times/California pool which was changed in the 1990s, had indeed asked detailed specific questions after its first generic pro-choice or pro-life question.

For some reason that pool no longer exists in that iteration. The most popular league reporting on California polls is taken from the Pew Charitable Trust which was discussed in depth in the previous program.

A recent Rasmussen poll once again asked average California voters specific details of abortion law, and specific questions regarding what type of abortion law these Californians felt to be appropriate. This Rasmussen poll and its specific questions can be viewed here:

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/most_california_voters_support_limits_on_abortion

The popular, dominant media culture does not like these polling results. And rarely if ever will make such results a dominant aspect of their reportage. But these results are extremely common and demonstrated in the most recent of national Gallup polls please see the Gallup survey here:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx

The same parallel opinions of all Americans are reflected as well in the recent Marist Poll, which can be seen here:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/marist-poll-most-americans-want-abortion-limits-that-roe-casey-wont-allow/

Polls across the nation, and yes even in California, demonstrate that the average thinking person does not regard abortion on demand, abortion at any time in pregnancy for any reason, or no reason in particular (just for choice), or unlimited abortion as a desirable legal outcome. The typical support level is 13 to 18% of the populace.

When asked, the vast majority of the public have consistently demonstrated a desire for legal restrictions on abortion, when they are done, and on the reasons for doing them. The average American when asked and informed, wants to see abortion limited, or in the words of the Democrat party of the 1980s: "safe, legal, and rare."

Now that Roe has been overturn and each state can indeed exercise its authority to protect the right to life, laws that will in fact make abortions very rare can indeed be put into place.

The question is: Will that phrase merely be a slogan or will it indeed take on the force of law?

That legal question is the real issue of the Right To Life.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explores the idea of popular opinion polls. At election time, the media will often present what they claim to be public opinion on the issue of abortion.

It is critically important to understand that, very often the general, and unspecific nature of the terms used does not often reflect a valid view of public opinion. More specifically, generic feelings about "choice", support for Roe, or reproductive freedom do not accurately reflect the average American's view of abortion particulars.

Brian examine's the current habit for many polling organizations, Pew Research Center as one example, do actually take polls state by state and reach sweeping and generic conclusions. The most common is the statement that the citizens of (fill in the blank) state support all or most abortions.

Yet the very terms 'all' and 'most' are, in fact, contradictory. All means 100%! Most means 50% or more. There is a chasm of difference. And yet this is the most frequently used phrasing of the Pew CharitableTrust.

Specific polling questions regarding the reasons for the abortion, the gestational age of the child involved in the abortion, and other surrounding factors, greatly impact the public view of the medical procedure. The recent Wall Street Journal poll confirmed what polls have indicated for more than a decade: The majority of Americans are opposed to late term abortion, or abortions that are done for social reasons (i.e. just done for choice) and have varying views regarding the medical purpose that may be involved. Killing a child because of a genetic anomaly is still opposed by the majority of Americans.

Similarly, if the woman's life is actually in danger, the majority of Americans will condone such an abortion. If the definition of "health" is made specific, the majority of Americans only support abortions for very serious health issues. Under Roe versus Wade, because of its deliberate definition of "health," as meaning any psychological or sociological reason that the abortionist himself could come up with, alarms the average American and such vague and unspecific definitions of health are not what they mean by endangering a woman's life. Yet, Roe versus Wade equated the two terms.

The right to life movement is built on the idea that there is a higher law which determines what laws are just or unjust. All Republics operate under this idea of higher principles existing above immediate desires and majoritarian 'seizure' of the legal moment. An appeal to, "The laws of nature and of nature's God," is the predicate for America's laws being just .

This idea has, of course, been under concerted attack. But with the passage of he Dobbs Decision, the principle has literally now been inverted in the minds of some.

Caring for mothers and their children is now being declared an immoral - even illegal act. Senator Warren of Massachusetts has called for the closure of all crisis pregnancy centers. Numerous Democrats have joined in, decrying the fact that the abortion of a child is not the foremost answer offered to these women at these centers.

Brian examines the overt attack against caring for babies and mothers. He includes a hearing conducted by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, in which these allegations are discussed.

But now, it is worse. Open crimes are being promulgated against CPCs and there is no effort at legal prosecution against these lawbreakers. Rather than seeking justice and a higher law, law-breaking and violence are being promoted as a cultural tool. Brian concludes the episode with an extensive interview with Daniel Tomlinson, Vice President and spokesman for Compass Care Crisis Pregnancy Center of Buffalo, New York.

"Janes Revenge," a pro-abortion terrorist entity, has targeted numerous crisis pregnancy centers, threatening those who operate them. Daniel Tomlinson tells the story of the threats, the fire bombing, and the quick response by individuals in the pro-life community to rebuild Compass Care Pregnancy Center and continue providing caring alternatives to the desperation of killing a life in the womb.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the meaning of the right to life. Why does this have to be about the law? Where did this right to life come from? Did it begin at America's founding, or is it a deeper, more widely recognized, universal truth - a self evident truth - that everyone should take the time and interest to deliberate?

The American founders strongly felt this was so. They proclaimed to the world that they would form a new form of government that appealed to this universal, higher law, view of life and society.

Now, with the Dobbs decision, the entire issue is laid at our feet. Individual states which comprise the United States, are now free to exercise the explicit God-given and constitutionally-explained authority to protect or take lives within their own borders.

If a state determines that a human life can legally be taken within its borders it is authorizing capital punishment. The state itself must outline the specific rules and procedures to be followed so that that individuals life has had the due process of law. A trial, with evidence, with adequate defense, with right to appeal - the law must protect even that person's life from being taken unjustly.

Similarly, if a human life is taken outside of the law (extra-judicially) the state must also outline how and under what circumstances the appropriate protective measure can be taken. For this reason, each state has proscribed various forms of homicide - levels of severity, and appropriate punishments for these extrajudicial killings.

The Dobbs decision, in overturning Roe v. Wade, which licensed abortionists to kill at any time they decided, now gives the authority over life and death back to the states, from which it had been taken. Each state now will determine how a child in the womb is to be protected: at what stage of pregnancy, what standards of evidence, what conditions, who is authorized to take this child's life. Each of these determinations will now be set state by state. In many states, these measures are being contemplated in the summer of 2022.

Perhaps, most importantly, the November elections of 2022 will determine the nature of the lawmakers who will make these laws. Federal government lawmakers - the Congress and Senate, are already trying to prohibit individual states from exercising this authority. Yet, this is an authority granted, in fact, instructed by the United States Constitution.

Dobbs, rather than ending the abortion debate, has brought it home to every citizen. They must determine whom they should elect. They must determine what ideas should guide the lawmakers within their own states, and given the approach of Planned Parenthood et al., even local communities and their elected officials will be addressing the abortion mentality in their counties, cities, and schools.

The elections of 2022 are critical for enacting the laws which will reflect the self-evident truth: that every innocent human life should be protected under the law. Such laws must be enacted if that law is in fact the law of a just government.

"To ensure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

The laws and elections of 2022 are critical. Brian gives in-depth insights into the danger of being mislead at this moment, misled by those who would lie and misrepresent the killing of human babies.

The state of Indiana offers just one example. There, lawmakers asserted SB 1 would protect babies in Indiana, but in fact the deceitful and misleading language which they presented was craftily worded and specifically designed to allow abortions. Brian reminds listeners and readers to consult the works of many insightful authors on this subject such as Orwell and Kafka, but in particular C.S. Lewis, and his book, the Screwtape Letters.

In Screwtape, Lewis describes the genuinely demonic twisting of language and meanings and feelings to accomplish truly evil ends.

"We are now in a very serious battle of ideas, and ideas have consequences," says Brian. "This battle of ideas is not far away, and we often considers ideas as removed and far from physical reality, but the battle is now on us. And we must apply ourselves to these elections and these laws as if the sanctity of every life is at stake, because in fact it is."

The media that supports abortion (which is a large portion of popular media), has always misrepresented what Roe versus Wade did. Roe versus Wade never gave women the authority to kill their children. Roe versus Wade never 'freed women to do as they wish.' Justice Blackmun's words were explicit, and Brian quotes directly from Roe, "…the court has never recognized such a right."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, in trying to explain Roe to radical feminists, reiterated that the decision never gave women the right to choose. "It was not woman-centered it was physician-centered."

But that did not stop radical feminists from claiming that right anyway. It did not stop the media from gaslighting, (lying directly and outrageously about objective facts,) in order to confuse you and the general public.

The Dobbs decision of June 24, 2022 overturned Roe versus Wade and made very clear and concise what it would do. Roe had given all authority to determine which human lives should be killed in the course of abortion to doctors alone. Only the physician was given authority in the issue of abortion, not the woman. The Dobbs decision said that authority over just life and death decisions is given by the Constitution to each and every state.

Under the Constitution, each and every state is given very specific authority. One of the primary purposes of the state is to protect the lives of those within its jurisdiction. The Constitution refers to this as the states' "compelling state interest to protect life."

There was never a constitutional right to abortion. Roe had falsely taken the authority of state government and given it to abortionists alone to decide if a child should be killed.

In the Dobbs decision, the authority of each and every state was returned to that state. It is now therefore, the responsibility of the state legislatures to determine within that jurisdiction, where and how to protect the lives of vulnerable children in the womb.

Unfortunately, many do not fully understand what that means in their state. Right now there is a compelling duty of pro-life citizens to be actively and assertively involved in civics - to make sure that their state will indeed perform its duty to protect innocent human lives in the womb. This can only be affected by those who hold elective office. This can only be done by lawmakers.

The pro-life movement needs to understand the overriding importance of electing pro-life lawmakers in this election cycle.

The lies about Roe, then and now, have distorted the abortion issue. The United States Congress controlled by Nancy Pelosi and radical pro-abortion lobbyists, has already voted to strike down the laws of each and every state and to federalize abortion far beyond what Roe v. Wade did. They have voted to prohibit states from any kind of laws that would protect mothers and their children.

Fortunately, it appears the U.S. Senate will not pass this measure. But, in the election of 2022, if the Senate loses any more seats to the Democrats, that will no longer be the case in the legislative cycle of 2023! The elections of November 2022 are crucial!

It is crucially important to realize - contrary to the media analysis – that each and every pro-life law that has been proposed or passed, first and foremost protects the mother, the life of that woman and her health. In so doing, it also protects the life of a child in her womb. Every pro-life law, whether it be informed consent, parental notice before an abortion, or laws against distribution of RU-486: the abortion chemical drug, is designed to protect that vulnerable woman from the procedure that will invade her body in order to attempt to kill that child.

The abortion drug RU-486 is now being widely used but few understand that it operates by attacking the woman's body. Powerful artificial steroids in two different procedures are used to seriously alter a woman's physiology and a very risky and in a blood inducing manner. The first dosage tells the woman's body to not allow nature to operate as it does in transforming her physical body, preparing it for motherhood. The drug stops her body with a shock of chemical and unnatural dynamic. Days later, a second drug: progesterone, gives instructions to her body to expel anything in her uterus. This will happen without her control. She is not in charge. The deadly chemical will kick in with a shock to her body.

It is hoped that she at least will get to a bathroom. Regardless, she will see the baby that is expelled. The drug can only be used after she had missed two periods - ten weeks. She will likely be alone. Vast amounts of blood and hemorrhaging occur and much of the blood is hers as well as the child's. Women have died from this powerful artificial steroidal concoction. But the media does not discuss this.

Pro-life laws are established first to protect mothers and secondly the obvious life at risk - the child.

In this new political environment where the laws of each state determine whether certain human beings will be protected, it is not unlike our nation's history in dealing with slavery.

In the Dred Scott decision, Justice Taney asserted each and every states' authority to enact laws of their jurisdiction. It also allowed slave states to enter free states, to enforce the slavery laws of that slave holding state.

Similarly, the Dobbs decision, by asserting the authority of each and every state, also authorizes the intermeddling of a pro-abortion state with pro-life states.

The states of California, Oregon and Washington fully intend to promote and encourage such intermeddling in pro-life states. California in particular has pledged vast sums of money to both promote and transport pregnant mothers to have their children killed within the jurisdiction of California. All expenses are paid, including missed pay and any other expense that the mother might see monetarily. This intermeddling of one state in the authority of another has grave implications for our nation and for the protection of innocent lives.

The right to life debate is far from over.

The scope, the breadth, the depth, the width, of the right to life movement...

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian shares interviews from the National Right Life Convention, 2022. It was during this convention that the Dobbs Supreme Court decision was handed down.

More specifically, Brian spends time exploring the fact that the right to life impacts all aspects of our life and society. While there is a conscious effort by elites in our culture to define 'choice' as meaning 'abortion,' Brian reminds listeners that there are in fact numerous, life-affirming choices available. The simplistic and uncaring answer of severing that unique baby's body into pieces and discarding it has numerous and diverse alternatives.

In discussing adoption, Brian retells the true story of Jack Nicholson, the actor. Few people realize that Mr. Nicholson is outspokenly pro-life. He knows that this is contrary to many in his industry and even perhaps many of his fans. Nicholson discovered that he had been adopted when he was thirty-seven years old when a Time magazine reporter called him in a "gotcha" interview.

It turns out that the woman whom Jack thought was his mother was in fact his grandmother. The woman he thought to be his sister was in fact his mother. They never explained the actual details to him. They merely loved him. Nicholson now says, "Of course, I'm pro-life. I understand I wouldn't be alive. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I have to be pro-life."

Brian explains that this unique form of adoption is just one of many, many possible choices and that there are several legal types of adoption: closed, agency, partially open and completely open adoption. Each of these have a different story and way of proceeding relative to the mother and the unique child and family. If this debate is in fact about choice, why are these other choices not described or more publicly discussed? Why does the word 'choice' now simply mean 'abortion'?

In the second part of the program. Brian discusses the many and profound religious impacts of the abortion issue. The fact is that most pro-life individuals are from some religious background or faith. Brian explains the National Pro-life Religious Council's purpose and nature. He has a specific interview with Concerned Methodists for Life, an organization of lay Methodists determined to assert the principles of the Christian faith and the hope and virtues of affirming life within their own, challenged denomination.

It is somewhat ironic, as the new Supreme Court Justice Jackson is being sworn in, I marvel that so few Americans know of the previous Justice Jackson of the Supreme Court. He was one of the more brilliant and insightful, and truly judicious individuals to have served in that capacity - Justice Robert H. Jackson.

Justice Robert H. Jackson is the only individual to have served in all three of the highest levels of American Jurisprudence. He served as Solicitor General of United States, Attorney General of the United States, as Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and would have served as Chief Justice, but the political nature of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration and its positioning of the Court, precluded that final honor. Finally, at least to my thinking, Justice Jackson's single, greatest and most important position was his appointment to, as well as insistence on serving as, the chief American prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials.

These trials underscored a basic principle of law and justice - that there is a higher law.

Without recognizing the existence of a higher authority, a higher law, to which all earthly or posited laws must be compared, there can be no question of justice or injustice. There is only the raw use of position in power. "If I have the authority, then that entitles me to make any law I wish."

But, if that proposed, our posited law of "power" is in any way inequitable, we declare it deficient. It literally is an 'unjust law.' And that is for a very simple reason - there is indeed a higher law, a true justice, reflected in the orderly universe in which we live.

Justice Robert H. Jackson is frequently quoted not merely from his decisions, but often from his dissents, which were not fully understood at the time. Justice Jackson was the last Supreme Court justice to have never graduated from a law school! Perhaps more significantly, he never graduated from college - not as we view college that is!

Nevertheless, his clarity, his insight, his commitment to the laws of nature and nature's God, helped to preserve and exult America's stalwart commitment to the truth and make it a shining light throughout the world, at a very dark moment in history.

The program contains audio introduction from the Nuremberg trials, and several quotes from Justice Robert Jackson's thinking.

As a matter of judicial temperament, the new Justice Jackson, Justice Ketanji Jackson reveals a diametrically different approach to legal reasoning. Sometimes called positivist law, the antipode of natural or higher law, these are laws which are simply created whole cloth by the lawmaker. While called 'positivist', this is not a reference to electrical charge, or mathematical deductions, it refers to the fact that they are simply 'posited' as a statement or suggestion, or usually a declared mandate.

But as listeners to Life Matters already know, an assertion is not a fact. Declaring a statement is true, does not make it true. Positing a law, in particular an untested and unproven law supported only by verbiage and not actually demonstrably tested, is a recipe for cultural disaster.

Ideas have consequences. Ideas are expressed in words. Ideas and words that are enforced, are laws.

Laws can be very dangerous things if they are not carefully examined, and tested, and proven under the weight of higher principles and reason. These higher principles are demonstrable in the laws of nature and nature's God, both physical laws of science and mathematics, as well as ethical and moral laws, such as stealing and murder. There is an order to the universe and these higher laws are in escapable. But they must be sought out.

We ignore the order of the universe to our own peril.

At the hearings for Justice Ketanji Jackson, her view of the law is made quite clear. There is no commitment to objective facts. It is created, posited, declared 'de facto' law that guides her thinking.

Several minutes from her confirmation hearing are contained in the program. Senator Blackburn wisely examines definitive statements from Justice Jackson's past, her commitment to progressive ideology is examined, and the famous question of: "What is a woman?," concludes a startling analysis of "facts" from the mind of a positivist, conjectural, Justice.

The two Justices Jackson offer a stunning contrast between higher law and asserted or posited law. The United States of America was founded on the principles that there is an ordered universe and that there is a manner by which to determine just or higher laws.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explains the actual meaning and significance of Dobbs, the recent and powerful decision of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

The Dobbs Supreme Court decision does not ban a single abortion. What it simply does is give back to each state government what the Roe v. Wade decision took away, the ability for each state to practice its duty and "compelling state interest to protect the lives of the innocent" within their own borders.

In Roe, this constitutional duty and responsibility was instead given to one individual in the case of abortion - an individual abortionist. Brian includes the comments of former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who agreed that the real effect of Roe was not to give women rights, they had to get permission. All authority, and all rights were to be in the hands of abortionists alone.

When the individual abortionist makes the decision to kill a particular child, he is assuming an authority which denies that child due process of law. In this act of intentional medical killing, the abortionist assumes the responsibility of an executioner, which government has only given such executioner authority to the powers of the state. And the state in turn, must exercise this authority very carefully because it has an overarching duty to make sure that the innocent themselves are protected from being killed. That is the purpose of having just law and that purpose and authority was denied to states. The Dobbs decision gave states the right to protect the innocent once again.

Now the battle comes to each state and California will be the greatest challenge.

Getting a Constitutional Amendment on the state-wide ballot in California usually costs multiple millions of dollars and most attempts fail. California Democrats have skipped that. They don't need money. In the Sacramento Capitol they simply have their way. The Democrats own the process. The abortion lobby owns the Democrats. Because they have a supermajority of the legislature, on June 28, 2022, they qualified a Reproductive Freedom Constitutional Amendment for the fall ballot. It was "fast tracked." It was easy. Democrats who dissent are simply punished... Yes, it is like that.

The measure simply inserts the following into the State Constitution:

"The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection."

But the expensive, months-long signature process is skipped. This is when citizens start to hear and consider a debate. But it is skipped. In November, an already ignorant public will vote on 'reproductive freedom.' They will be guided by a clearly biased media.

The media is not asking basic questions about the details of either "Reproductive Rights' or the new, tourist-abortion industry Gavin Newsom and the state legislature have now set up. Many states will require parents to be notified before a minor gets an abortion, and nearly 1/3 of abortions are done on minors. Will Gavin Newsom and your tax dollars be flying minors across state lines for secret abortions? Crickets.

Roe v. Wade falsely suggested that there were limits on abortion... but the famous definition of 'Health' as including, psychological, sociological, and matter that might impact the patient in view of the abortionist's opinion permitted late term abortions even if there were nothing wrong with either mother or child!

California enforces no regulation or accountability for individual abortions.

Every other medical procedure requires very specific informed consent before that operation is performed on you. That's for the safety of the patient. Abortion is the only medical procedure in California that does not require the specific explanation and description of the medical risk to the patient.

RU486 chemical abortions are now very common. But women are not told how it functions. This is a double-barrel shotgun of artificial steroids which powerfully impact the woman's body with a stunning chemical slam. These chemicals alter her metabolic functions in a jolt. This risky shock to her system is what expels the child from her body.

Sometimes that child is alive and squirming. Often the mother is alone when it finally hits. And she is bleeding profusely. There is no requirement to explain these details to these women. But the state legislature wants to offer it not just to Californians, but apparently also to minor girls who live across state lines! And they want it protected in the Constitution.

On June 24th, the United States Supreme Court issued its Dobbs Decision which overturned Roe versus Wade. Sadly, very few people understood Roe versus Wade. Roe versus Wade prohibited individual states from protecting the unborn child before birth.

States have a compelling state interest, a duty, to have laws that will protect lives. States couldn't do that under Roe. Now, states are free to protect the lives of the child in the womb. The states are going to have to decide to do it.

California is going to continue 'choice-abortion'. 'Choice', in this instance means a person does not need a reason to kill that child. They simply choose to do it. There may not be anything physically wrong with the child or the mother. It's just a choice. And the government is paying for that and marketing that.

The right to life is the most important battle, it is the most important idea that you can consider because this gift of God, our lives, is the reason governments come into existence. For this reason 'governments are instituted among men,' said our Founding Fathers, to protect the inalienable rights that we've been granted.

The battle for life continues.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston continues in his incisive examination of the creep of relativism into the pro-life movement.

In an earlier episode Brian explained how the social teachings of the Seamless Garment, a common Roman Catholic misunderstanding of the place of the abortion issue, has led to great confusion and destruction. While many seamless garment advocates suggest that they will elevate abortion as a dominant topic of all the social issues, it in fact makes the Right To Life issue and the subject of abortion a relativistic portion of a confused moral morass of issues. It is not, in fact, the actual teaching of the Catholic Catechism.

In ignoring the actual teachings of natural law and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly states that society has an intrinsic duty to protect innocent lives, and that this issue of legal protection of the innocent is a foundational element of society, the seamless garment has weakened many in their understanding. In particular, the many so-called Roman Catholic leaders of the pro-abortion movement who simultaneously claim that they are good Catholics as they lead the advocacy of the culture of Death!

While this grouping of the right to life with issues of the Left clearly minimizes its true significance as an essential premise for all society, it is also being done on the Right.

There are many who consider the abortion issue part of a constellation or a group of social issues - issues of great moral, ethical, and legal concern, like pornography, homosexuality, teaching of trans rights, etc. These moral advocates on the Right will make the same assertion as seamless garment advocates on the Left: "We will join in the fight and we will consider abortion the big one of all the issues." This generic and confused use of "set theory" is a deep error.

Brian examines the mathematical logic of set theory and why it actually is a false logic and even if well intentioned, is a confused thinking to apply to the abortion issue.

Once again, Brian reminds people that Lincoln clearly demonstrated the moral truth regarding the evil of slavery only when he could demonstrate the facts of mathematically and logically describing what a moral truth is. Whereas all of his opponents were also claiming to be moral and ethical in declaring that the ownership of slave was legally permissible and ethical.

Lincoln's open demand that the logic of Euclid's proofs - QED "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" (That which has been demonstrated) is the only permissible use of asserting that a conclusion is indeed demonstrably true and a valid point to build upon. Lawyers routinely make statements that are emotionally charged but full of deceit and have no truth in them. They are merely assertions and the speaker expects them to be treated as facts. An assertion is not a fact. Lincoln understood that and Lincoln understood that facts must be demonstrable before they can allow to be continued to be considered as valid.

Brian explains how many people, even some conservative Christians, will group abortion as part of a set of moral issues. There is much passionate feelings in Christians. But as it says in Hebrews, they must mature and be able to reason. Feelings are not enough.

In the Scriptures, God invites Christians to leave behind their own mindsets to engage in reason.

And like a child's math class that groups coins together and each coin has value and significance but they may insist the largest is clearly the silver dollar: they will declare abortion is the "biggest" of the many social issues.

Such a grouping is a great disservice if one does not understand that abortion is not merely a big issue among many. It is transcendent. It is comparable to a gold bar itself. While also metal and also of value, it is of transcendent worth in contrast to the relativity meager social issues- the coins. Even calling the silver dollar the biggest, or also calling abortion issue the biggest, does not recognize the overarching transcendent quality of what the right to life actually is. It is the gold of the gold standard. It is of transcendent nature and significance.

This program also introduces a new sponsor who has been persecuted for his pro-life commitments, Mike Lindell's My Pillow. Purchasers of My Pillow products that use the discount code: "LIFE", will get the deepest of discounts and that's very exciting indeed!