All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
41:11
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS TO OUR RESCUE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 861
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, I'm Danielle D'Souza Gill and I will be hosting Dinesh's podcast while he's away this week in Australia.
He's doing a grand tour with Tucker Carlson, all the people going to this tour down there.
I'm very jealous of you guys.
I heard that it's just a lot of fun and I've seen the pictures on social media.
If you guys don't already know me, I'm Dinesh's daughter.
I've hosted for him in the past.
Thanks for sticking with me this week.
We have a lot of interesting topics to get to, but before I get into that, I'll tell you a quick little bit about myself.
I'm the author of two books, The Choice, The Abortion Divide in America, and Why God?
An Intelligent Discussion on the Relevance of Faith.
I spend most of my time supporting my husband's congressional run in North Texas and taking care of my daughter, Marigold, who is 11 months old.
The best way you can find out more about me is to follow me on True Social, the best platform.
You can also find me on X, Facebook, Instagram, Rumble, all the places.
I'm at DanielleDiSusaGill.
That's where you can find my content, videos, all that stuff.
Alright, well we have a lot to get to today.
Today we are going to be talking about the recent news of the Ten Commandments being placed in all Louisiana public schools.
This is a huge victory.
Of course, leading the left to go crazy, so we're going to talk all about that.
And we're also going to talk about the landscape when it comes to The abortion debate.
We're going to investigate a recent Supreme Court decision about abortion pills.
It's a little bit complex, so we're going to dive into the details there, so you definitely won't be spared all the information in that opinion.
We're going to actually have more Supreme Court opinions coming out this week, we expect.
So, I'll definitely be covering more of those over the next few days.
We also have the CNN debate coming up, of course, so I will cover that at the end of the week.
So, we have very exciting topics to cover throughout the whole week, but stay with us as we dive into some important news today.
Thanks!
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy, in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Set in stone in the English language refers to something that is like truth, permanent and unchanging.
Something is set in concrete by design, but set in stone is by nature.
It's also one of many English phrases that can be traced back to the Bible.
In 2 Corinthians 3, 7-18, St.
Paul asks that if the Ten Commandments, which were, quote, set in stone, bestowed such breathtaking, though transitory, glory on Moses that the Israelites could not even look at him as he addressed them from the mountaintop.
Will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious because it is everlasting?
Within the phrase, set in stone, there is a wealth of information about the relationship between abstract laws and the way human flourishing results when our actions are animated by such principles.
However, without knowledge of the Bible, such rich philosophical connotations are lost.
Increasingly, numbers of people are losing sight of how much of our cultural heritage we owe to the Bible, even for common phrases like set in stone, for example.
And that's partially why a new law was recently passed with popular support in Louisiana, requiring schools to keep displays of the Declaration of Independence, Supreme Court decisions, major U.S.
historical documents, as well as the aforementioned Ten Commandments on display.
It's this last requirement that has the left in a complete uproar.
The media has been screaming about it ever since it came out.
As soon as Governor Tom Landry signed HB71, a slew of hysterical articles appeared decrying the law as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from making any law, quote, respecting an establishment of religion.
In 2005, in McCrary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, the Supreme Court ruled against a law that asserted the centrality of the Ten Commandments in American government.
The ACLU objected to two counties in Kentucky having the Ten Commandments displayed in their courthouses.
The ensuing public debate eventually led the Kentucky legislature to enshrine their support for the counties in a new law.
This Kentucky law, struck down by the high court, reads, quote, The Founding Fathers had an explicit understanding of the duty of elected officials to publicly acknowledge God as the source of America's strength and direction.
The Supreme Court found that insisting on such a public acknowledgement could make non-Christians feel excluded from the realm of politics and public inquiry.
Therefore, it was deemed unconstitutional.
The ruling found that the law had no secular purpose, but rather served a solely religious purpose, and consequently sent, quote, the message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.
and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members.
Also in 2005, on the same day in fact, the Supreme Court ruled in Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry that the Ten Commandments could be displayed on the grounds of the courthouse in Austin, Texas.
In the Ordon ruling, the High Court explains these seemingly opposing decisions concerning whether or not the Establishment Clause is violated when the Ten Commandments are displayed in a place such as a government property by stating that religion is never to be absolutely banned from the public square.
The High Court states the two cases Janus-like point in two directions in applying the Establishment Clause.
One face looks toward the strong role played by religion, while the other face looks toward the principle that governmental intervention in religious matters can itself endanger religious freedom.
Supporters of the Louisiana law argue that the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in schools is something similar to seeking to bring everyone into the American political community by teaching all students about what the justices in 2005 termed the strong role played by religion in the founding of the United States.
Young Americans deserve to be provided with a firm understanding of the rights of our system of government, something that modern students have been deprived of for far too long.
With this in mind, the Louisiana law mandates that the Ten Commandments posters will be paired with a four-paragraph, quote, context statement describing how the Ten Commandments were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries.
Leftists further argue that tax money should not go to support a particular religion.
If I'm a Buddhist, for example, I should not have my tax money going towards displaying Christian doctrine, they say.
According to the Louisiana law, however, state funds will not be used to implement the mandate.
The Ten Commandment posters will be paid for entirely through private donations.
It is important to note that the display of the Ten Commandments in Texas determined to be acceptable in the Orden vs. Perry ruling that I talked about a bit earlier, was also a donation.
Another fact being ignored by the mainstream media is that charter schools are exempt from the mandate, so parents still have the option to send their students to schools that do not display the Ten Commandments.
Regardless, opponents of the law are gathering their forces to do battle against what they see as a terrible injustice.
While the ACLU rouses itself from its slumber to combat God's mean, nasty words, few people elsewhere are convinced of the danger inherent in teaching children, thou shall not kill.
This is a pretty good rule of thumb to live by.
Which brings us to another reason why this law has been enacted.
No one on either the left or the right disputes the wretched state of public education in America.
Many consider the removal of Judeo-Christian ethics from public school curriculum to be part of the problem.
Over a year ago, former Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan Bill Bennett penned an article titled, Moral Literacy and Character Formation, where he argued that we need to keep in touch with our moral roots in order to flourish as a society.
Look at what's happened to kids in schools.
Maybe this will turn things around.
Bennett explains that moral literacy is knowledge that teaches us to recognize virtue.
He writes, Children need to learn what the fundamental traits of character are – thoughtfulness, fidelity, kindness, diligence, honesty, fairness, self-discipline, respect for law.
As I have said, children will learn them most profoundly by being in the presence of adults who exemplify them.
But we can help the grasp and the appreciation of the desirability of these traits through the curriculum.
Within the hearts of our children, we need to inculcate an ethos dedicated to the virtues Bennett mentions as we strive to arm them, intellectually and morally, against the dangers of mindlessly conforming to principles that do not encourage flourishing, but are daily foisted upon us by social media, newsrooms, all across the globe, even our government at times.
The Ten Commandments are a necessary starting point for giving students the ability to really have a much better life, to be better people, to graduate feeling like, wow, I'm actually a grown person.
The abstract principles underlying the particular instances of virtue they will encounter and hopefully embody throughout their life will be something that they're equipped to handle.
They need this for both their particular moral education, which is championed by Katherine Birbal-Singh, who is often referred to as Britain's strictest teacher.
She is the founder and headmaster of the Michaela Community School, a wildly successful free school in London.
As Jordan Peterson pointed out in a recent interview with Birbal-Singh on his podcast, her school is singular for succeeding, despite the fact that there is no system in place to exclude students who are in danger of performing poorly.
Students are taught to be patriotic, virtuous, and disciplined.
During the podcast, Birbal Singh took Peterson and other prominent conservatives to task for failing to realize the importance of explicit moral instruction for children.
Yes, we need to improve our academics, but we also need to improve moral teaching.
She states that conservatives, such as Peterson, complain that students must be taught how to think critically so that they do not fall prey to exploitative ideologies such as Marxism.
But, she insists our current class of conservative pundants don't adequately emphasize the need for explicit moral instruction in K-12 education.
Teachers must teach what to think through specific examples, through a specific lens, given within the context of a knowledge-based education, she argues.
Teaching a student to be kind requires an instructor to draw attention to particular real instances of both kindness and unkindness, she says.
We must teach children the abstract knowledge contained within Western philosophy, history, mathematics, literature, and the course.
But instructors must also, Brabo-Singh insists, continually draw the child's attention to particular instances of the virtues we seek to encourage in the child.
A deep understanding of the commandment, thou shalt not kill, for example, is to be had as we read Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
We see the particular way the life of the main character, Raskolnikov, is destroyed by his cold-blooded decision to kill someone in order to enrich himself.
Passing on the West's Christian worldview, Birbal Singh argues, is not proselytizing, but is rather forming a citizen's moral character according to the cultural heritage upon which the West was built.
But hold on.
Unreasoning conformity?
That will lead to wholesale slaughter.
This is exactly what the opponents of the Louisiana law say they're trying to avoid.
Democratic political pundit and longtime resident of Louisiana James Carville recently jeered, What I find fascinating is the book burners really want the Ten Commandments.
Give me a break.
Resist theocracy, they say.
Or we'll begin the slippery slide back to the dark time when religion reigned supreme.
What a horrible time that was.
We may have witch trials.
We may have more people going to church.
Remember they warned, religion and the public swear.
That leads to witch hunts.
As if we don't have those today.
Advocates of an areligious and therefore amoral society, you want to throw down on the witch trials?
Well, first of all, witch hunts, whether they take the form of scapegoating, cancelling, imprisoning, destroying, even killing your ideological opponents, are not something we can guard against by banning the Bible in school.
Consider how many have died in communist death camps, from the Soviet gulags to the Chinese vocational education and training centers of the present day.
Thou shall not suffer a conservative to live has certainly become a cultural mantra for leftists today.
For that matter, consider how many died during the lockdowns because doctors were incentivized to violate their oaths by intubating elderly patients for withholding ivermectin.
How many people are living with the permanent side effects of having experimental vaccine forced on them?
Why do our teachers try to convince their students to loathe their own bodies to the point of seeking irreversible surgical altercations, leaving our youth permanently scarred, suicidal, and sterilized?
Oh no, that should be allowed in school, but not the Ten Commandments, they say.
In California, you must be 18 years old to receive a tattoo or any permanent cosmetics application, regardless of parental consent.
However, transgender surgery for minors is so fiercely promoted in California that runaways from other states may undergo such surgery without their parents' consent because the state offers to take temporary emergency custody to facilitate the permanent disfigurement of children.
These are just a few examples of the violent destruction that emerges in an anti-religious and culturally unmoored society.
Having the Ten Commandments posted in schools is just one small step toward equipping students with knowledge of the role that religion and morality has in playing and creating our government while simultaneously helping them think more about these issues, helping them to navigate the ethical quandaries that come up in life.
Again, thanks to the removal of religion from the public square over the last century, hundreds of millions of people have been killed by the antiseptically areligious systems of communism.
The fact is, the world has been suffering under the left's dream of a post-religious society for over a hundred years.
Everyone is experiencing their failure in real time.
And that's why more and more Americans are choosing the life-affirming beauty of religious revival over the left's totalitarian, anti-human revolution.
Leftists raise the specter of theocracy to make you think your rights and institutions will be subsumed under a dogmatic religious authority.
But we are so far from even reaching that point.
Even a cursory knowledge of Western history illustrates that that is not what happens in a morally literate society infused with the ethics of Christianity, for example.
In fact, the citizenry in a society of educated people, who in their youth receive robust Christian formation, seeks to protect institutions where everyone is able to address grievances fairly, because there's a belief in a higher power and a common system, a common person, namely God.
Consider the fact that it was Christianity that ended slavery in the West.
As a result of the vigorous and intellectual protests of the Clatham sect of evangelical Christians, prominent in England from about 1790 to 1830, slavery as a legal practice was abolished across the West.
The sermons of a single man, John Venn, a rector of Clatham in South London, started a worldwide liberation that continues to unfold even to this day.
Evangelicals stopped the ancient practice of slavery by citing the principles present in the Ten Commandments.
No doubt, modern-day leftists would vilify Reverend John Venn.
He would be cancelled, perhaps his house would be raided, perhaps he would personally suffer, perhaps he would be imprisoned for teaching that everyone should try to live according to the biblical principles, like the Ten Commandments, upon which our freedoms are founded.
And that brings us to the left's real problem with the Louisiana law.
It asserts the founder of our legal institutions is not the government.
It's not even maybe the founding fathers, but them being inspired by God.
He is an institution that they cannot infiltrate as much as they try.
Leftists fear even talking about God in the public sphere because divinity is something that they cannot control.
And that fact is truly sedenced.
You might have heard Mike Lindell and MyPillow no longer have the support of their box stores or shopping channels the way they used to.
They've been part of this cancel culture.
And so they want to pass the savings directly on to you by having a $25 extravaganza.
Now, when Mike started MyPillow, it was just a one product company, just the pillow.
But with the help of his dedicated employees, Mike now has Hundreds of products, some of which you may not even know about.
So to get the word out, I want to invite my viewers and listeners to check out their $25 extravaganza.
Two-pack multi-use MyPillows, $25.
MyPillow sandals, $25.
Six-pack towel sets, $25.
Brand new four-pack dish towels, you guessed it, $25.
And for the first time ever, the premium MyPillows with the all-new Giza fabric, just $25.
By the way, Orders over $75 get free shipping as well.
The amazing offer won't last long.
So act now.
Call 800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to mypillow.com.
Make sure to use the promo code.
again 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com. Make sure to use the promo code, it's D-I-N-E-S-H-Dinesh.
Before I tell you about a very special offer, I want to first explain why the product I'm going to be talking about is absolutely worth it without the discount.
I don't take any particular supplement just because I get a discount.
Anything as important as nutrition, I'll research it first.
Now, if you go to balanceofnature.com, scroll down to their homepage, You'll see that all the stuff that goes into each bottle of Balance of Nature's Fruits and Veggies, you'll see, like I did, this is all well worth it.
But not just the ingredients.
The real stories from real customers.
And they have hundreds of thousands of customers.
Each customer success story is just another example of how people are finding and taking this Balance of Nature Fruits and Veggies in a capsule.
Take their risk-free money-back challenge today.
Use my special promo code to get a 35% off your first order plus a free fiber and spice supplement and free shipping.
So here's the number to call 800-246-8751.
The number again 800-246-8751.
Or you can go to balanceofnature.com.
The number again 800-246-8751 or you can go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use discount code AMERICA, you'll get my special offer that's 35% off plus free fiber and spice plus free shipping.
I want to share with you an upcoming film that has core values like bravery, courage, individuality, hope, and a firm faith that the best is yet to come.
It's called Horizon An American Saga.
Dive into the heart of the nation with Horizon An American Saga, where faith, family, and freedom intertwine to ignite the patriotic flame.
The film delves into the courage, resilience, and unyielding determination of America's pioneer spirit.
Horizon An American Saga highlights timeless values and cherished principles Serving as an inspiration and stirring tribute to the quintessential American ethos, Horizon is a story of how America became the country we love.
It's a story of courageous men and women who sacrificed everything for their chance at the American dream.
Hollywood legend Kevin Costner stars in and directs the epic tale of how the West was won.
This 4th of July, The words journalists use to report on issues related to abortion are powerful tells.
Horizon, an American Saga, Chapter 1 in theaters, June 28th, and Chapter 2 in theaters, August 16th.
The words journalists use to report on issues related to abortion are powerful tells.
They not only reveal the political leanings of the reporter, but also their willingness to face what an abortion actually is.
Which is horrific.
For conservatives, restrictions on abortion are seen as pro-life, while leftists view such checks as anti-abortion.
The words used to describe legislation related to abortion promote either a culture that celebrates life or a culture that holds human life to be cheap.
The importance of the language we use to talk about abortion explains in part the tepid reactions from the left to the June 13th unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court against the Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine and others who challenged the Food and Drug Administration's 2016 and 2021 decisions.
This would loosen restriction on abortion pills.
The FDA's changes have led to the oxymoronic medication abortion to be used in two-thirds of all abortion nationwide.
Of course, this is not medication.
Medication is to save lives, not take lives.
Though the Supreme Court has decided to uphold federal approval of the abortion pill Mifepristone, the left is still dissatisfied.
In a Politico article entitled, The Anti-Abortion Winds Buried in the Supreme Court's Unanimous Ruling Against Them, Alice Miranda Olsteen summarizes the frustration of the left.
She wants to take things even further.
She urges caution on the part of her fellow pro-abortion advocates, warning that, tucked in the pages of the court's majority opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, as well as an additional opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, There are potentially useful hints for abortion opponents laying out a path to mount similar challenges to the medication in the future and limit abortion access in other ways.
Alright, well I will take note then, because the left's goal of incremental changes to our legal understanding of what the court can and cannot impose on the citizenry was not advanced by even one iota.
Abortion advocates are sorely vexed.
They are always pushing the envelope.
How, then, can the left change public opinion when the court refuses to legislate behavior from on high?
The first order of business for such reaction pieces is to rebrand the uncomfortable, life-and-soul-destroying realities that are part and parcel of abortion.
For instance, the article refers to abortion pills such as mifepristone as medication, thereby implying that pregnancy is a disease that needs to be cured.
It is a disingenuous call to say that an abortion pill is medicine.
After all, mifepristone can be used to control blood sugar in diabetics, but no one is contesting that use of the drug.
Next, such articles seek to impugn the justices themselves by showing they are somehow complicit in denying medicine and access to healthcare, even though I'm pretty sure this decision went their way.
With this bit of sophistry in mind, the Politico piece lists four ways the ruling actually helps the pro-life movement, as if the court's opinions contain secret cheat codes that only pro-lifers can read.
But the fact is, these pro-life avenues are simply the remaining legal options that you would expect following a decision like this.
It's also important to reiterate that this decision was, in fact, a 9-0 ruling.
All the liberal justices signed off on it.
How likely is it that after a lifetime of opposing restrictions on abortion, justices Jackson and Sotomayor and Kagan, they are all now trying to help the pro-life cause?
Well, not very.
But, sigh.
It's an election year and Biden's running on the gruesome campaign promise that he's a moderate and he's running on this idea of a, well, it's not so moderate, but a dead baby in the womb.
So here we are.
Each of the four ways the Politico article asserts the justices are supposedly helping the pro-life movement is telling.
The first supposed bone thrown to pro-lifers is the fact that the Supreme Court ruled on procedure and not on merit.
Those merits would have been whether or not the FDA correctly ruled that Mifepristone was safe.
It doesn't take a genius to see that that's a decision that could cut both ways in the future, since this was not on merit but only on procedure.
In the first paragraph of the opinion, Justice Gorsuch clearly explains the issue that prompted the suit in the first place and the reason why the pro-life doctors lack standing here.
The bald clarity of his statement refutes the notion that the court is subtly offering a path for a pro-life victory.
So, permit me to quote Justice Gorsuch at length, but here we go.
In 2016 and 2021, the Food and Drug Administration relaxed its regulatory requirements for mifepristone, an abortion drug.
Those changes made it easier for doctors to prescribe and pregnant women to obtain mifepristone.
Several pro-life doctors and associations sued the FDA, arguing that the FDA's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
But the plaintiffs do not prescribe or use Mifepristone, and the FDA is not requiring them to do or refrain from doing anything.
Rather, the plaintiffs want the FDA to make Mifepristone more difficult for other doctors to subscribe and for pregnant women to obtain.
Under Article 3 of the Constitution, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue, nor do the plaintiff's other standing theories suffice.
Therefore, the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge FDA's actions.
No cheat codes there.
Gorsuch offers cutting analogies to further illustrate the point.
The alliance argued that the FDA has harmed them by loosening restrictions on drugs pro-life doctors do not prescribe, but that could potentially bring them into contact with patients suffering complications.
The alliance contended that administering to a woman who has taken these drugs could 1. cause said pro-life doctors to aid in the aftereffects of a medical abortion gone wrong and 2. increase the number of patients they must treat and thereby raise their insurance premiums.
Let's consider the second claim first.
Justice Gorsuch argues that allowing standing in such a case would be like giving in to doctors who demanded speed limits be lowered because higher speed limits have theoretically caused more car accidents.
More crashes mean more victims, and more victims mean a busier ER, and more opportunities for emergency room doctors to be sued for malpractice.
Gorsuch asks, If the EPA rolls back emission standards for power plants, does a doctor have standing to sue because she may need to spend more time treating asthma patients?
Likewise, if a local school district starts a middle school football league, does a pediatrician have standing to challenge its constitutionality because she might need to spend more time treating concussions?
Gorsuch continues by asking, If the government repeals certain restrictions on guns, does a surgeon have standing to sue because he might have to operate on more gunshot victims?
Because the chain of causation in these analogous situations is simply too attenuated, he argues, the answer must be no.
There is no Article III doctrine of doctor standing that allows doctors to challenge general government safety regulations, the majority opinion concludes.
The weakness of the insurance claim issue and the limited scope of the power invested in courts by Article 3 are both apparent.
However, the first claim, namely that pro-life doctors should not be forced to finish the chemical abortion the drugs have induced, is more compelling.
As a result, the political article must disabuse the public of the notion that citizens in a free republic should have the right to think for themselves by following their conscience rather than government diktats.
Therefore, Olsteen argues the second avenue the justices open up to pro-life advocates is an expansion of doctors' conscience rights across a broader range of healthcare.
So, a diversity of opinions regarding care is now a bad thing.
This, after the government has admitted it was wrong to force doctors to administer a vaccine or lose their jobs.
I thought diversity was supposed to be a strength.
I suppose that notion flies out the window when pharmaceutical profits are on the line.
The third way the ruling supposedly helps the pro-life advocates is that the justices acknowledge a doctor's right to have a conscience, but insist they must prove their conscience objections were violated in order to have standing.
Doctors with consciences!
How 19th century!
Oddly, the political article argues that by allowing doctors the right of conscientious objection, the justices have, quote, offered a roadmap for the right.
Holstein huffily warns that the justices are encouraging doctors to present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the president in the legislative process.
If that fails, Olsteen writes, Justice Gorsuch dares to encourage doctors to sway public opinion by expressing their views about abortion and Mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.
Lodging a complaint, voting, and discussing your views with fellow citizens sounds less like a conspiratorial roadmap to cut off access to medicine, and more like garden-variety rights in a well-functioning democracy.
Olsteen forebodingly predicts that, quote, anti-abortion groups are already pursuing these avenues, and more.
Yes!
Guilty as charged, I suppose.
Unfortunately for the left, the right of conscientious objection is enshrined in law, as the majority opinion acknowledges.
Despite the robust legal protections medical professionals enjoy, increasingly, doctors are told that they must sacrifice their values if they wish to practice medicine.
Being a doctor requires absolute fidelity to the consensus opinion of the medical establishment because modern ethics demand that it be so.
They are warned.
Abortion, euthanasia, IVF, these may all be violations of the moral order, but not if you're a doctor.
In the words of the prominent bioethicist, Professor Julian Salvalescu, a doctor's conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care.
What should be provided to patients is defined by the law and by the consideration of just distribution of finite medical resources, which requires a reasonable conception of the patient's good and the patient's informed desires.
In the words of a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, a, quote, conscience is a burden that belongs to the individual professional.
Patients should not have to shoulder it.
Even if you frame the right to conscientious objection as a terrible burden, no hapless patient should be forced to bear.
Thanks to the laws such as the 1967 Abortion Act and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act, doctors are protected from being forced to sacrifice their moral integrity.
The fourth way Politico charges the justices are sneakily helping pro-life advocates is by what the article terms, quote, the double-edged sword of granting third-party standing based on association.
Justice Clarence Thomas writes that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine should not be allowed to claim third-party standing merely because they are associated with doctors and patients who may be harmed by the increased use of medical abortions.
Wow.
They're not actually medical.
Anyways.
The Alliance is a consortium of five groups.
Namely, the Catholic Medical Association, the Coptic Medical Association of North America, the American College of Pediatricians, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
But, importantly, those who work for the Alliance itself are not doctors or patients.
Therefore, Justice Thomas reasons, the alliance is too far removed from the harm plaintiffs are claiming is caused by the FDA's actions.
But arguments concerning who has the right to sue the government certainly do swing both ways.
Trust me, leftists, in a country where business owners, farmers, concerned parents, traditional Catholics, and even ailing and frail conservative grandmothers are being rounded up, sentenced to hard time, this probably helps you more than it does us, at least in the short term.
If we don't learn from the ruling, in any case.
Unbeknownst to most, there is, in fact, a pro-life attack path hidden in the words of Justice Thomas' response.
And this no doubt explains why there is so much hand-wringing on the left's concerning this ruling.
The article includes Justice Thomas' assertion that, just as abortionists lack standing to assert the rights of their clients, doctors who oppose abortion cannot vicariously assert the rights of their patients.
Note the words that Justice Thomas uses here.
Abortionists have clients, while doctors have patients.
Throughout the article, abortion is described as care, or treatment, or medicine.
It's about safety, or women's rights, or access to health care, according to Politico.
Not so in the Supreme Court decision.
All this flies in the face of what a chemical abortion actually does.
Pregnancy is not a disease.
Abortion is not a cure.
And that's the real weak spot of pro-abortion advocacy groups.
Their fight to have abortion ensconced in legal precedence as a penumbral right survives only as long as people are willing to believe the lie that Thomas refused to acknowledge.
But this dependence on wordplay wasn't immediately apparent upon the publication of the Supreme Court opinions.
It was revealed by the Politico article itself.
So, thank you, Politico!
Thank you for letting us know about this.
The words we choose to talk about abortion entail implications, and when this is a Supreme Court of Justice saying this, that means a lot.
And from those implications spring arguments for and against the sanctity of life.
Therefore, when it comes to abortion, words really do have the power to kill.
And in that sense, we did gain a small victory.
Big tech, big government, and the progressives have done everything they can to silence truth and sanity, but there's a secret weapon out there that they can't touch.
One year ago, a new digital streaming platform, the Real Life Network, was launched to provide a desperate world with much-needed programming free from the overreach and interference of government and media.
The explosive growth that they've seen speaks for itself.
In one short year, more than 100 programmers have jumped on board to provide content, from podcasts and interviews to sermons and conferences to kid shows and feature-length films.
I'm proud to be among them, as you can find the Dinesh D'Souza Show and several of my interviews on Real Life Network.
And get this, over 30 million minutes of programs that are free from the influence of secular agendas have been viewed.
Real Life Network can change your life, and it's free.
Sign up now at reallifenetwork.com.
Receive a free digital download of Countdown, a book from Real Life Network founder, Pastor Jack Hibbs.
That website again, reallifenetwork.com.
The hardest part about weight loss?
Getting started.
But once you get started, you'll be so happy you did.
Are you ready to lose weight but, like, not sure where to start?
I understand.
Debbie and I were right where you are a year and a half ago.
Let me tell you why we chose PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition and why I so highly recommend their program.
First, Dr. Ashley Lucas has her Ph.D.
in chronic disease and sports nutrition.
Her program is based on years of research.
It's science-based.
Second, the Ph.D.
program starts with nutrition, but it's so much more.
They know that 90% of permanent change comes from the mind, and they work on eliminating the reason you gain this weight in the first place.
There are no shortcuts, no pills, no injections, just solid science-based nutrition and behavior change.
And finally, probably most important, it works.
I lost 27 pounds, Debbie lost 25.
We haven't gained the weight back.
The best thing about this program, they have an 85% success rate of their clients maintaining their weight loss for life.
They provide elevated maintenance support for you through the PhD alumni community, which will give you the support you need to keep this weight loss off forever.
So if you're ready to lose weight for the last time, call 864-644-1900 to get started.
You can also go online at myphdweightloss.com, do what we did, do what hundreds of my listeners and viewers have done, call today.
It's 864-644-1900.
Well, that wraps up today's show.
If you enjoyed the show, make sure to find me on social media.
I'm on Truth Social, my favorite platform.
X, Facebook, Instagram, all the places.
I'm at DanielleDiSusaGill, so make sure to find me on there so we can stay in touch.
I'll see you tomorrow, and MAGA.
▲
Export Selection