Exclusively on our podcast, we introduce a unique and bold proposal for how we can end legalized abortion in America.
Topics Discussed:
Links Mentioned:
Have a topic you want to see discussed on the show? [Submit it here.]
To learn more about what Life Dynamics does, visit: https://lifedynamics.com/about-us/
Be Sure To Follow Life Dynamics:
Intro (with music): "Sometimes controversial...always politically incorrect...and pro-life without exception, without compromise, and without apology. It's the Pro-Life America podcast with your hosts, Sarah Waites and the president of Life Dynamics, Mark Crutcher."
* theme music fades *
Mark: Hello, and welcome to our podcast. It is good to be with you. Right now, It's good to be anywhere - when you're my age. You know?
Sarah: I never thought that getting out of my house and getting in the car would feel like such a tremendous journey.
Mark: A vacation...
(Mark laughs)
Sarah: Yeah. I told Sheila, I was like, man, this feels so weird to get out and drive somewhere. It's bizarre.
Mark: Well, we're at the office, we're living on the edge.
(Sound effect plays of a crowd gasping in shock)
Sarah: It's not like we're going out with all these other people. We're going back to our homes. We're not going out, socializing, kissing people.
Mark: Ganging up.
(Sarah laughs)
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: But anyway, lots of things still going on. Of course, we're still seeing the pro-aborts claiming that they're an essential service.
Sarah: Oh, yeah.
Mark: One thing you don't want to do is lose any profit from baby killing.
Sarah: Well, what's interesting to see is the fight between a city and the state, like in Kansas right now. You've got one city that's trying to close the abortion clinic's doors because they see what's going on, and the state's like, 'Nope! Go sit back down, we're in charge here.'
Mark: That's okay. 'Baby killing is an essential service. Those babies have got to be killed.'
Sarah: Despicable.
Mark: And by the way, I think there's been a lot of babies conceived during this...
Sarah: We will see.
(Sarah laughs)
Mark: We're going to have a baby boom about nine months from now. But we're also going to have, in the meantime, an abortion boom.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: And that's what the abortion lobby is excited about. That's why they're trying to make this appear as an essential service.
Sarah: Because it's about money for them. At the end of the day, it's always about money - nothing else.
Mark: It's always about money... They want to keep that going. We talked a couple of shows ago about why it was not justified to try to claim that abortion is a state's rights issue and it should be dealt with in the states.
Sarah: It's a federal issue.
Mark: It is a federal issue.
Sarah: Constitutional rights for everybody.
Mark: Yeah. If you believe that the unborn is a person...
Sarah: ...which they are...
Mark: ...which they are. Technology has proven that they're living human beings. There's no word in the English language for a living human being who's not a person. It's clear they're persons.
Sarah: You know, my favorite argument is when they say that the unborn are a bunch of cells - as if every other person on this planet is not comprised of a bunch of cells. We're all comprised of cells!
Mark: Yeah, 'you're just a bunch of cells over there,' right?
(Sarah laughs)
Mark: We said at the time that we're going to throw out an idea for how we deal with this - and let me tell you why this is so important. On January 22nd, 1973, every baby conceived in America became legally abortable. 100% of them became legally abortable on that day.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: As we sit here right now, every baby conceived in America is legally abortable.
Sarah: Yes. Most people don't know that. They think Roe versus Wade is something that only applies to a certain window of time, and that's not correct.
Mark: That's not correct. What we've basically done... And I understand this, I'm not criticizing anybody. Because these laws that have restricted abortion, or restricted the mechanisms, or regulated the abortion industry have saved a lot of babies.
Sarah: Oh, yeah.
Mark: But the fact remains, every baby that's conceived in America today is still legally abortable.
Sarah: Yup. Up until the moment of birth.
Mark: There comes a point at which we have to say as a movement, enough is enough.
Sarah: Oh, yeah.
Mark: And I think we've reached that point the first day - the first baby that was killed - that was enough. But now we're 60 million babies into it.
Sarah: Oh, yeah. You know, we have slightly different perspectives on this because you were born before abortion was legalized. I was born in a time where abortion was legal.
Mark: Your mother could have killed you.
Sarah: My mother could have killed me. And the interesting thing is, my mom was 40 years old. She was told that she wasn't going to have any more children, and they were worried about her health. If she had been somebody else, I could have been aborted - easily. But no, she was adamant that I would be born.
Mark: You were chosen to live. Right?
Sarah: Yeah. Little did she know what she had in store for her.
(Sarah laughs)
Mark: Yeah. Right, right. Yeah. That's the truth. It's like us when we adopted Sheila, right?
Sarah: No return policy.
Mark: Yeah right!
(Mark laughs)
Sarah: Complaints to the manager will not be tolerated.
(They both laugh)
Mark: Right. But anyway, I think it's time for the pro-life movement to say, 'let's get serious.' We've nibbled around the edges of this for almost 50 years. 60 million dead babies is enough to throw onto the pile. Let's get serious about this.
Sarah: Well, we're at a tipping point right now.
Mark: Yeah. We are.
Sarah: If we don't keep our momentum going, then we can easily fall back and slip the other way. It's like a Teeter totter.
Mark: Yeah. I'm going to make a proposal, here in a moment, for one way we can deal with this. And I'm not going to guarantee anybody that this is the only way to do it. I'm just saying this is a way.
Sarah: It's bold. I'll give you that.
Mark: Yeah. My idea is very simple. If we believe that the unborn child is a person, which we obviously do.
Sarah: Obviously.
Mark: And if there's no distinction between a person and living human being, and technology now proves that the unborn are living human beings, then they're protected.
Sarah: Exactly.
Mark: Here's what I think needs to happen. We need to have an attorney general, or a governor, or it could even be possibly a district attorney somewhere, who comes out and calls a press conference and says, "look, technology makes it clear now that the unborn child is a living human being. Nobody can deny that. That means they're persons. And that means that our state's homicide laws apply to them. They're already in place. They apply to them."
Let's say this is the governor and he says, "I'm directing every person in this state, who has the authority to bring criminal charges, to treat the unborn child the same way that you would treat a born child. And if somebody takes their life, you use our homicide statutes to go after them. We don't have to pass any new laws. We don't need any new statutes. Nothing needs to be changed."
Sarah: You're just applying the law as is.
Mark: As it is! And we're saying that this child that's killed in an abortion is entitled to have justice. And that means filing charges against the person who killed them.
Sarah: Because abortion is just a specific procedure for how someone's life is terminated. That's it.
Mark: Yeah. If you think about it for a minute... And I've said this many times in the past. I don't think people fully understand sometimes what I'm saying. The problem that the pro-life movement is trying to address here is not abortion. The problem here is no value for the unborn. And I'll just give you an example of this. Let's just say that a woman goes in today and has an abortion. Horrible situation, baby dies.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: But what if she wasn't pregnant?
Sarah: No one's dying.
Mark: Nothing happened, right?
Sarah: Nothing happened.
Mark: So, you can't say that we oppose that particular abortion because nobody was killed.
Sarah: Exactly.
Mark: So the issue here is that we oppose the killing of the child. Abortion is just one of the mechanisms you could use to kill the child.
Sarah: Yeah. And even within abortion, there's several different [methods]. This is one of the things you learn when you learn more about abortion.
Mark: Well, you know, and if a guy says, "I'm going to shoot my wife because she won't have an abortion," which we see that happen...
Sarah: Oh, yeah. Check out our Under The Radar report. If you haven't read it, it's chilling.
Mark: 'Under The Radar Violence.' Women get killed, and beat up, and put in nursing homes because they refuse to have abortions. And this is why I've said many times, we're asking politicians the wrong questions. When they say they're going to run for office, we come to them if we haven't heard them before, and we say, "what's your position on abortion?"
Sarah: We don't care. We shouldn't care.
Mark: We don't care what their position on abortion is. And that's what we need to be saying to them if they start to give us their position. "Wait a minute, I don't care what your position on abortion is."
Sarah: Because they will all say that abortion is tragic, and sad, and all these other things, but a woman should be able to do it.
Mark: Right. We need to be telling these politicians, "we don't care what your position on abortion is. We don't care what you think about abortion, what you believe, what you feel, none of that. All we want to know is, what's your position on the unborn child? Are they living human beings entitled to the same rights as other living human beings?" That's all we need to know.
Because, like you said a moment ago, if you asked people what their position on abortion is, you'll have even most radical pro-abort... Hillary Clinton is a good example. When she was asked for her position on abortion, she said, "every abortion is a tragedy," and "I think every abortion represents a failure," and "I would never support abortion." No one supports abortion. Nobody likes abortion. That was her position. Well, that almost sounds pro-life. But then ask her what her position on the unborn child is. Do they have a right to life? That's what we need to know. Well, let's apply that in the case of homicide statutes. If we believe that these children are persons, we don't need any new laws. We need to apply the laws that already exist.
Sarah: We don't oppose murder only by a certain technique. We oppose murder because it's the taking of a human life.
Mark: Right! So our fight is not with abortion, technically. Our fight is with the taking of the life of the unborn. It could be through a car wreck, or it could be through someone who intentionally beats up a woman who's pregnant with the intent of her losing the baby. The problem is killing the baby - not abortion.
Sarah: Abortion is an injustice. It strips the rights of the most vulnerable in our country who cannot speak up for themselves.
Mark: Yeah. Our fight is with the taking of that human life. So let's apply that using our existing homicide statutes.
Sarah: Can you imagine what the abortion lobby's reaction is when they're watching this attorney general, or district attorney, or whoever it may be?
Mark: They're going to go berserk.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: They're going to go berserk.
Sarah: A march of pink hats in the streets within 20 minutes.
Mark: Here's the deal... Let's play this thing out. And let's just say it was here in Texas and Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, comes out and says, "we are going to start applying the state's homicide statutes." And by the way, homicide statutes are a state matter, not a federal matter. And that's why, if you were to witness a murder here in Denton, right now, and you called the FBI...
Sarah: They'd be like, "this is not our jurisdiction."
Mark: "This is not our deal. You need to call your local police departments, the local sheriff, or local police department." Murder is a state matter. Let's say Greg Abbott comes out here and says, "we're going to apply the state's homicide statutes across the board, even to the unborn. We're not going to discriminate against one class of human being, simply based on their birth status or where they happened to be located at the time."
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: "We're going to apply it. So if someone does an abortion in the state of Texas, we're going to file on them under the homicide statute and we're going to arrest them." And let's just say, this actually happens. Because somebody is going to challenge it.
Sarah: Oh yeah! Just look what's going on right now!
Mark: Oh, yeah. Right.
Sarah: The state's saying we can't have any abortions right now, or elective procedures, because of the spread of coronavirus. And the abortion industry is like, "no."
Mark: 'To hell with you. We're going to do them.'
Sarah: Yeah, 'we're going to stay open.'
Mark: Right. 'These babies gotta die. That's an essential service. Baby killing is an essential service.'
Sarah: Either by filing lawsuits or just openly, still doing abortions despite what the state says.
Mark: Okay, so now this has happened. Some district attorney in Texas has filed charges against an abortionist, or a police department has filed charges. They've arrested him, he's in jail. What is the abortion lobby's response to this going to be? Obviously, they're going to go to the federal courts. They're going to jury shop and find the best federal court. But what if Abbott comes out here and says, "wait a minute, I don't care what that federal judge rules."
Sarah: Yeah. This is our jurisdiction.
Mark: Right. He has no authority over our state's statutes on homicide. So this guy is staying in jail and he's going to be tried. So a federal judge rules that this is unconstitutional and he says, "I don't care." Now they take it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's in the same position. If they come back and say, the governor of Texas has no right to apply the homicide statutes to the unborn, his position is still going to be the same. "You have no authority over our homicide statutes. This is a state matter."
Sarah: Yeah. Well, wouldn't the Supreme Court be hesitant to take the case in the first place? Because that's a federal versus state case.
Mark: They can't not take it. They have to take it. And understand something... I don't think many people even think about this... Since Roe versus Wade, there has not been one case taken by the Supreme Court that deals with the issue of the personhood of the unborn.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: Not one. They don't want it.
Sarah: You can tell they're hesitant to take any case on abortion whatsoever.
Mark: But they sure aren't gonna take one that deals with the personhood. But in this case, they're going to have to because the pro-aborts are pushing it. And then you've got a guy now in jail, that's charged, and he's going to go to trial for homicide for having done an abortion.
Sarah: Yeah. Under that situation they can't afford to ignore it.
Mark: They can't ignore it. They have to take it. So that leaves them then, with a couple of choices. Abbott, in this case - if it's Texas, has already made it clear he's not backing down. So, the Supreme Court can either rule that he was correct or that he was justified in saying that they could apply the homicide statutes, or he was not. That's the only two ways they can go.
Sarah: Yeah, because they can only rule on the basis of these cases.
Mark: Right. So if the ruling is that he was justified in doing so, now, for the first time, you basically have a personhood ruling... In Roe versus Wade, when Blackman wrote it he said, if there's ever a ruling that the unborn is a person, then the right to abortion collapses. There is no right to an abortion because under the 14th amendment, these children will be protected. And I would argue that then, just like Roe versus Wade was a Texas case, but the way they ruled on it, applied across the board. I think the same thing would apply here. So now you have a personhood ruling - that would collapse it. The other option they have is to rule that he was not justified in doing so, but there's risks involved in that for the Supreme Court.
Sarah: Because then it comes down to a federal government versus the states.
Mark: You've got a state that is telling the Supreme court, "you can rule whatever you want to - it doesn't affect this. This is a state matter, because this is a state homicide statute under which this guy has been indicted." Now you've got a constitutional showdown.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: What are they going to do? If they rule that way, is the federal government going to send troops into Texas to bail this guy out of jail?
Sarah: You know what, that's an interesting question. There's no telling how they're going to react to this.
Mark: So I think that the Supreme Court, because of the nature of the kind of people they are... They're people in black robes - not black motorcycle jackets.
Sarah: They're legal scholars, basically.
Mark: Right. They're elitist.
Sarah: They're people who spent most of their lives as lawyers and judges, and suddenly they're up at the very top.
Mark: I don't think they're going to want to create that kind of constitutional showdown. If they are convinced that this governor (Abbott) is serious that, "whatever we rule - he's not going to adhere to it. He's going to keep that guy in prison. They're going to try him." So now, we create this constitutional showdown.
Sarah: Suddenly, the whole country is watching.
Mark: We've got a major problem here, right? So I don't know what they're going to do. But what we have to have in the pro-life movement is, we have to have someone who has got the cojones...
Sarah: I was going to say the cojones - the stones...
Mark: ...to stand up and say, the unborn is worth this.
Sarah: Yes. Swing for the fences!
Mark: "I've always said I'm pro-life, now I'm going to prove to you that I'm pro life." And we've never had politicians that would do that. We've had maybe two or three in the 40 years that I've been involved in this, that I think would actually do this.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: And the trick to this is to find that governor, or that attorney general, or that district attorney who's willing to say, "I do care about the unborn. The unborn child is entitled to have his life protected under our state's homicide statutes. And we're going to do that, no matter what any federal court, or Supreme Court says. That's our position. We're going to go forward with this."
Sarah: To play devil's advocate here, what happens if you have an attorney general who says we're going to do this? It still remains to the local district attorneys in those areas to actually bring those cases and charge them.
Mark: Well, you're not going to tell me that if Abbott were to come out and make this claim in a press conference and say, "Texas homicide statutes apply to the unborn. And we're going to enforce them," that out of 254 counties in Texas, there's not a district attorney somewhere in one of those counties that's going to take that seriously.
Sarah: Yeah. Well, I'm just saying this is devil's advocate. We just don't know.
Mark: Right. We don't know. But I'm saying it's time to swing for the fences. Now, we have a guy in Oklahoma that has said something similar to this. What he has said is he wants to pass a statute in Oklahoma, that says the unborn is entitled to protection under their homicide statutes. He said that.
Sarah: But he's wanting to pass something first... new legislation.
Mark: He's wanting to pass new legislation. My statement is no, you don't have to pass [anything]. It's already there. It's evident.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: It's on the books.
Sarah: Everything you need is already there.
Mark: You don't need to pass a new statute, just enforce the one that's there. And like I said a moment ago, I'm not saying this is the only route to take. I'm just saying, this is something we can do. This is something we can try. And I can guarantee you that the pro-life movement is filled with pundits and experts.
Sarah: For every person who proposes something, there's going to be five who says "no, that can't work..."
Mark: "That can't possibly work."
Sarah: But Linda coffee and Sarah Weddington...
Mark: ...made it work.
Sarah: Look at the case that they brought before the courts. I mean, it was a sham case. There was nothing there to begin with.
Mark: That's Roe versus Wade. Linda coffee and Sarah Weddington were the two attorneys. One of them had never set foot in a courtroom. One of them had very little courtroom experience.
Sarah: They were very green.
Mark: They come up with this idea that they're going to make abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy, in all 50 States, using the courts because they couldn't do it in the political process.
Sarah: Yeah. All the bills that the pro-choice side was trying to get passed kept on getting rejected.
Mark: ...Kept on getting beat down. So they come up with this jenky idea. You've got two 20... I think one of them was 24 and one of them was 27 years old.
Sarah: They were pretty young, that much I do know.
Mark: And they come up with this jenky idea. I guarantee you, there were legal experts in the pro-choice community that were telling them, "no, you can't do this."
Sarah: "It won't work."
Mark: 'This is a false strategy.'
Sarah: "You'll set us back!'
Mark: 'You'll set us back. You may destroy the whole pro-choice political strategy if you try this and you lose. And you will lose. There's no way the Supreme Court is going to rule this way. And you're not only doing that, but you're doing it in the state of Texas. Going up against Henry Wade, who's the Wade in Roe versus Wade, the most powerful district attorney in the state - in a state that's very conservative. You're going to go up against him with this jenky idea of yours. And you're going to set the pro-choice movement back years.' But what they said was, "we're not smart enough to think it won't work. So we're just going to go out and do it."
Sarah: And look what happened!
Mark: And the next thing you know, supposedly this Christian nation, which it's not but was supposedly it was, had the most liberal abortion policies in the industrialized world - and we still have it to this day. No other industrialized country on earth allows abortion up to the moment of birth. None. But we do.
Sarah: The important thing to mention too, is that it is not just Roe versus Wade, but the companion decision, Doe versus Bolton, that really creates...
Mark: ...well, they knew what they were doing.
Sarah: Yeah, most people know about Roe versus Wade a little bit, at least heard about it, but they don't know about Doe versus Bolton or how important it is.
Mark: It's just as important as Roe versus Wade and it was issued the same day.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: And they knew exactly what they were doing. The bottom line here is, 60 million babies have died because two morally bankrupt, wet behind the ears, female attorneys...
Sarah: ...who were determined to make a name for themselves...
Mark: ...did not have enough sense to know that what they were trying to do couldn't be done, so they just went out and did it. And I'm just saying, if they can be that bold to kill babies, why can't we be bold and innovative in trying to save them? And I think there's people out there, and I'm sure there will be lawyers that hear this strategy that I'm proposing...
Sarah: ...who think we're baying at the moon, crazy, cuckoo. Just this pro-life organization...
Mark: That's fine. Okay. Tell us what your strategy is. And I don't want to hear anything else about, "we've got to create a culture of life." That's garbage. We're not going to create a culture of life in a way that's going to end abortion. We've got to be as bold in defense of the unborn as the pro-aborts are in trying to kill them.
Sarah: Well, even if you have a culture of life, it doesn't matter until you have a legal system protecting life. You can be as culturally pro-life as you want, but as long as you have those laws on the books, you haven't changed anything.
Mark: These babies are going to die by the millions, and that's where we are. So I think it's time for us to decide 60 million dead babies is enough. Tell the abortion industry, you ought to be happy with that. You got to kill 60 million, you made billions and trillions of dollars over the years. Be happy with what you got. But we're standing up. And I don't care if it's this strategy or if somebody's got another strategy that they want to use. It's time for us to, like I said a moment ago, to quit nibbling around the edges, and to be bold, and to stand up here and say, "we're going to do something. "
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: You know, we may get shot down. Who knows?
Sarah: Well, you see local areas standing up against abortion more and more - and it's growing. Like, we have in Texas, sanctuary cities for the unborn. The first one was in 2019 in Waskom, Texas, and now there's several of them. They're growing.
Mark: Right. So we've just got to have as much concern about saving the unborn as they have for killing them. That's the bottom line.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: You often hear people talk about in sports, the one who wins is the one who wants to win the most. That's nonsense. The wish to win is not what gives you victory, it's the will to win. And there is a major distinction between the wish to win and the will to win. We have the wish to win and stop this killing. The question before is now, is do we have the will to do it?
Sarah: We... constantly talk about how the world needs realists, but the world needs dreamers. The world needs those people who shoot for the fences, despite all the obstacles.
Mark: Well, that's what coffee and Weddington did.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: I guarantee you. They were told many times that, 'you've got no chance with this. This is nonsense. Nobody's ever going to buy into this.' Next thing you know...
Sarah: ...look what happened.
Mark: ...we got Roe versus Wade. We've got to do the same thing. And I think a legitimate legal argument can be made that the unborn are entitled to the protection of the state's homicide statutes in all 50 States.
Sarah: Well, you look into the constitution. It says that all lives are to be protected. It's not until this shady ruling under the Supreme court, that it "counts as privacy, therefore there's a right to it." It's this weird, legal gymnastics that somehow says that it's gravy - just like the Obamacare ruling, right?
Mark: Yeah. Well, that was the goofiest thing that it was a "tax."
Sarah: I remember standing there listening to it as they released the decision. And I was like, "what?"
Mark: Yeah. Well, they knew it wasn't constitutional.
Sarah: No.
Mark: They couldn't uphold the Obama Care in the constitution. So, what they then said is, "oh, it's a tax, and the Federal Government has the right to impose taxes."
Sarah: Political gymnastics - that's what it is.
Mark: Right. And people will say, they know what can work and what can't work - you hear all this stuff...
Sarah: You never know.
Mark: You never know. I had somebody argue with me one time, about an idea that I had years ago. And they said, "well, that would take five to six years to get to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would never approve that." And I asked him point blank... "okay, can you tell me who's going to be on the Supreme Court five to six years from now?"
Sarah: We don't know how long Ginsburg is going to live. They may be cryo freezing parts of her to keep her going.
Mark: The pro-aborts are already making this a campaign issue with Biden. One of the things they're saying is, who do you want to appoint the replacement for Ginsburg - Trump or Biden? And they're going to make that a key element of this upcoming campaign. You know what, we need to answer that question ourselves.
Sarah: Yeah. Who would you rather have appointing those people?
Mark: Trump or Biden. Right.
Sarah: Because it doesn't matter who you want your candidate to be. The reality is, here are your candidates. You get to pick one or the other, or you don't vote, which means you're giving more voice and more power to the people who do vote for one of those two candidates.
Mark: Anyway, I'm throwing this thing out there. I may be baying at the moon. I may be crazy. I don't think so.
Sarah: I don't think so. Because a perfect example of this is the case of marijuana legalization.
Mark: Right.
Sarah: I remember when the first states were coming out, wanting to legalize marijuana. Marijuana, federally, is a schedule one drug, which is the... most restrictive schedule in the drug laws.
Mark: Right.
Sarah: And yet, you now have what? Colorado, California...
Mark: ...several states now.
Sarah: ...several states where it's legal, but it's still illegal on the federal level. In fact, there were articles talking about how these marijuana shops were having a hard time because they couldn't get bank accounts because, technically, it's an illegal business under federal laws.
Mark: Right. You don't know what can be done.
Sarah: You don't know what can be done. So far, the Supreme Court hasn't challenged it.
Mark: Yup. If somebody says to me, "this is nonsense. This will never work." First off, you don't know what will work and what won't. I would say, let me ask you a question. If I were to take you back in time five years.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: And I would say to you in a very short period of time, you're going to have sanctuary cities and sanctuary states that are going to tell the federal government, "we're not going to enforce federal immigration statutes that are..."
Sarah: ...that are clearly under federal jurisdiction.
Mark: Right. "We're not going to enforce them. Not only are we not going to enforce them..."
Sarah: ..."we're going to notify people when ICE is coming!"
Mark: Right. Not only that, but "if you send federal agents in here to try to enforce them, we're going to arrest those federal agents who are trying to enforce the federal law." If I'd have said that that was going to happen, and not only that, but that the same people would be calling for people who are in the country illegally to get free childcare, free education, healthcare...
Sarah: ...the right to vote...
Mark: ...the right to vote, you'd have said, "you need to be locked up. That's never going to happen." Well guess what, it's happening. So don't tell me what can and can't be done until you've tried it and it's failed, or you've tried it and it succeeded. And nobody else can say that it's not gonna work. Because I can give you examples, throughout history, of things that happened in our political system, that people said, up front, can never happen, it will never work. And like you said, the marijuana laws are a good example of that, and sanctuary cities.
Sarah: If you told me 10 years ago that Donald Trump would be the president, right. I would have laughed at you.
Mark: Right. If I'd told you that four years ago, you'd have laughed.
(Mark laughs)
Sarah: If you'd have told me that he was running for a second term, I would have laughed at you even harder.
(Sarah laughs)
Mark: Right. So, we don't know.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: But I think it's time for us to get serious about this - and this is one way to do it. It may not be the only way.
Sarah: We have to think outside the box.
Mark: We gotta think outside the box.
Sarah: And the other side is playing this very strategically. They're thinking moves ahead. They're codifying Roe into the state statues right now.
Mark: Right.
Sarah: If we simply say, "oh, it's a state's rights issue," then we haven't done anything.
Mark: We've already lost most of the states.
Sarah: Yeah, and we talk about this extensively in episode two. So if you haven't gone and listened to that, you need to right now... when this podcast is over, go listen to episode two.
Mark: I've written an article about this constitutional showdown on abortion, and we've put it on our website so people can go read the whole thing right now.
Sarah: Yeah. So if you want to go read it, it's, ProLifeAmerica.com and that's under the Reports and Projects button at the very top. Or you can just simply type in ProLifeAmerica.com/reports and it'll be right there.
Mark: Right. Just go to ProLifeAmerica.com, Reports and Projects, click there. Or ProLifeAmerica.com/projects.
Sarah: Reports. ProLifeAmerica.com/reports.
Mark: Reports. Yeah, you put it on there so I guess you'd know.
Sarah: Yeah.
(Sarah laughs)
Mark: But anyway... you can go read the report that I wrote about this. And we have in that report, even a mock press conference that someone could hold about this issue.
Sarah: You explain why it could work. You give precedent for it. You explain the principles of it.
Mark: So anyway, go read that. And we'd love to hear your feedback on it. But the main thing to keep in mind here... When I wrote the book Siege, which is the latest book that I wrote, on the back of that book I put a little saying that I've long believed and it applies right here. Victories are not given, victories are taken.
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: And I think it's time for the pro life movement to quit waiting around for politicians to give us a victory. We need to stand up and take this victory. And this is one way we can do it, but we've got to find the right person to do this. But the thing about it is... I think the right person is already out there, we just got to find them.
Sarah: And hopefully they're listening to this podcast. Or the person who's listening to this podcast right now says, "hey, this reminds me of this person that I know." And then they go and they send it to them.
Mark: Or they go and sit down with them.
Sarah: Yeah. Of course, they should be sharing our podcasts with other people.
(Sarah laughs)
Mark: Absolutely.
Sarah: Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Not too subtle. :)
Mark: Anyway, that's all the time we have. You got anything else?
Sarah: Well, you mentioned Siege and I just wanted to throw this out there. You put this in the constitutional showdown article and it's also in Siege. And I thought this was really good. I think people need to hear this.
"The abortion issue is like a chicken bone that's stuck in the throats of the American people. They can't ignore it. They can't pull it out and they can't swallow it."
Mark: Right. That's where we are.
Sarah: That's where we are. And Siege outlines other problems and obstacles and things that we face, and where the pro-life movement is headed...
Mark: ...and other opportunities...
Sarah: ...and other opportunities. So if you have not read Siege, I recommend you go and you read it now. We'll include a link in this episode so that you can go and purchase it, maybe even for a discount. Wink, wink - cause you're listening to our podcast. So seriously, I recommend that. I'm not just saying that because, you know, I work for Life Dynamics and I'm partial. I one hundred percent mean it.
Mark: But you do work for Life Dynamics and you are partial.
Sarah: I do. I am. But I'm realistic.
Mark: Right. You got anything else?
Sarah: No, that's all I have.
Mark: Until next time remember, Life Dynamics is not here to put up a good fight.
Sarah: We're here to win. Taking names!
(Sarah laughs)
Mark: Because winning is how the killing stops.
Sarah: Thank you guys. We'll see you next time.
(Theme Music Plays)