The majority of Americans want the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/department-of-justice">Department of Justice</a> (DOJ) to crack down on protesting outside the homes of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> justices, new polling shows.
58% of respondents believe that Attorney General <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/merrick-garland">Merrick Garland</a> should enforce federal law prohibiting protesting at the homes of the Supreme Court justices, according to polling released by Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) on Wednesday.
The polling demonstrates that both President Joe Biden and Democrats are &#8220;wildly&#8221; out of touch with Americans when it comes to the protests outside the justices&#8217; homes, according to JCN, as well as the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/in-the-wake-of-roe-v-wade-attacks-on-churches-pregnancy-centers-escalate">threats and violence against pregnancy centers and churches</a> following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion indicating that Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned.
<div id="attachment_415468" style="width: 664px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-415468" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-415468 " src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/GettyImages-1240609901-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="654" height="436" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/GettyImages-1240609901-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/GettyImages-1240609901-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/GettyImages-1240609901-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/GettyImages-1240609901-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/GettyImages-1240609901-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/GettyImages-1240609901-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/GettyImages-1240609901-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 654px) 100vw, 654px" />Demonstrators march near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Chevy Chase, Maryland, US, on Wednesday, May 11, 2022. (Samuel Corum/Bloomberg via Getty Images)</div>
Pro-abortion protestors have regularly gathered to shout, chant, curse, and demonstrate around the neighborhoods of justices <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-abortion-protestors-march-at-justice-amy-coney-barretts-home-with-blood-and-doll-props">Amy Coney Barrett</a>, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/police-arrest-armed-man-near-brett-kavanaughs-home-who-allegedly-wanted-to-kill-the-justice-report">Brett Kavanaugh</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqWzF1ZR4K8">Neil Gorsuch</a>, and <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pro-abortion-protest-outside-justice-thomass-house-after-dobbs">Clarence Thomas</a>.
JCN&#8217;s President Carrie Severino told The Daily Wire that the group intends to use the polling, heading into the midterms, to &#8220;call out the Senators who are endangering the justices, making sure their constituents know that their rhetoric and actions are putting lives at risk.​&#8221;
&#8220;Democrats who refuse to condemn protests, threats, and intimidation are endangering Supreme Court justices and their families and it&#8217;s long past time for their silence to be spotlighted,&#8221; Severino warned.
The poll found that 61% of Americans surveyed said that protesting at the justices&#8217; homes in this manner undermines American democracy. And 60% of registered voters agreed Biden himself should condemn the protests at the homes of the justices — which he has yet to do.
&#8220;For months, Joe Biden&#8217;s White House has refused when pressed to condemn the protests at the justices&#8217; homes and Attorney General Merrick Garland has been unwilling to enforce the federal law prohibiting these protests,&#8221; Severino said.
&#8220;This polling shows that the majority of Americans — including Democrats and Independents — believe the Biden Administration&#8217;s hands-off approach to these protests is wrong,&#8221; Severino added.
Pro-abortion activists with ShutDownDC also offered to pay &#8220;DC service industry workers&#8221; for information on sightings of the Supreme Court justices after protestors <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/protesters-with-abortion-beef-force-kavanaugh-out-back-door-of-swanky-steakhouse">showed up at a steakhouse</a> where Justice Kavanaugh was having dinner, forcing him to exit through the back door.
According to the new polling, 71% of respondents said that paying activist groups &#8220;bounties&#8221; for tips on where the justices are dining goes &#8220;too far.&#8221; That group includes 61% of Democrats and 69% of independents, according to the poll.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" class="alignnone wp-image-415452 size-large" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Screen-Shot-2022-07-26-at-9.05.54-PM-417x576.png" alt="" width="417" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/Screen-Shot-2022-07-26-at-9.05.54-PM-417x576.png 417w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/Screen-Shot-2022-07-26-at-9.05.54-PM-217x300.png 217w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/Screen-Shot-2022-07-26-at-9.05.54-PM-768x1060.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/07/Screen-Shot-2022-07-26-at-9.05.54-PM.png 972w" sizes="(max-width: 417px) 100vw, 417px" /></div>
Meanwhile, 84% of voters polled (including 82% of Democrats) said that those who are vandalizing or attacking pregnancy resource centers and churches should be prosecuted, and 85% of Democrats said they believe these types of attacks undermine American democracy.
CRC Research polled 1,600 registered voters between July 14 and July 17 with a margin of error of 2.45% at the 95% confidence level.

Screen Shot 2022-07-26 at 9.34.28 PM

Majority Of Americans Want DOJ To Crack Down On Protesting Outside Supreme Court Justices’ Homes, Poll Finds

Poll Demonstrates American Attitudes Towards Protesting At Supreme Court Justices' Homes

Department of Justice

Merrick Garland

Protests

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Senator <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ted-cruz">Ted Cruz</a> (R-TX) recently said that the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">United States Supreme Court</a>&#8216;s landmark decision which legalized same-sex marriage across America was &#8220;clearly wrong&#8221; but stressed that he did not believe the high court had any &#8220;appetite&#8221; to review the case and that it would be &#8220;chaotic&#8221; to disrupt such unions that occurred in accordance with the law.
On the Friday episode of his podcast &#8220;The Verdict,&#8221; Cruz and co-host Liz Wheeler discussed Obergefell v. Hodges — the 2015 case that ruled states were prohibited from banning same-sex marriage — as it compared to Roe v. Wade. Wheeler asked Cruz to pretend he was an advocate of the Court and explain the vulnerability of Obergefell and what it would take to overturn that precedent.
&#8220;Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation&#8217;s history,&#8221; Cruz told Wheeler. &#8220;Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell, some states were moving to allow gay marriage, and other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting.&#8221;
In Obergefell, the Court <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">ruled</a> 5-4 that state laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
&#8220;And had the Court not ruled in Obergefell, the democratic process would have continued to operate; if you believed gay marriage was a good idea, the way the Constitution set up for you to advance that position is to convince your fellow citizens,&#8221; Cruz explained. &#8220;And if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views. In Obergefell, the Court said, &#8216;No, we know better than you guys do and now every state &#8230; must sanction and permit gay marriage.'&#8221;
The former presidential candidate added that he believed that the Court was &#8220;overreaching&#8221; in that decision, but that it was a &#8220;fundamentally&#8221; different question than abortion.
&#8220;I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided,&#8221; Cruz added of same-sex marriage. &#8220;It was the court overreaching.&#8221;
In June, the SCOTUS emphasized in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which led to the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-leaves-abortion-restrictions-to-states">overturning</a> of Roe, that the abortion issue was not the same as marriage.
&#8220;&#8230; so in Dobbs, what the Supreme Court said is Roe is different because it&#8217;s the only one of the cases that involve the taking of a human life and that&#8217;s qualitatively different&#8221; than Obergefell, he explained.
&#8220;I agree with that proposition,&#8221; Cruz added.
In reaction to an edited clip of his answer, some leftists like Ron Filipkowski claimed that Cruz was calling on the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell completely. As Cruz&#8217;s senior communications advisor Steve Guest pointed out, the full context of Cruz&#8217;s remarks proves otherwise.
Guest quipped, &#8220;Noticed you only clipped 18 seconds,&#8221; while linking to a longer version of Cruz&#8217;s response.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Noticed you only clipped 18 seconds.
Here&#39;s Sen. Cruz&#39;s full comments: &quot;You&#39;ve got a ton of people who have entered into gay marriages &amp; it would be more than a little chaotic for the court to do something that somehow disrupted those marriages&#8230;&quot; <a href="https://t.co/O0IbB8ztPr">https://t.co/O0IbB8ztPr</a> <a href="https://t.co/c0khF0N4hW">pic.twitter.com/c0khF0N4hW</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1548464766095540225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 17, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cruz went on to clarify, &#8220;When a court is deciding, is considering, whether to overturn a precedent, one of the factors that the court looks to is reliance interests — have people relied on the previous precedent and acted accordingly.&#8221;
&#8220;And in the context of marriage, you&#8217;ve got a ton of people who have entered into gay marriages and it would be more than a little chaotic for the Court to do something that somehow disrupted those marriages that have been entered into in accordance with the law,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;I think that would be a factor that would &#8230; counsel restraint, that the Court would be concerned about.&#8221;
Cruz also told Wheeler that while Justice Clarence Thomas might have noted the Court should review certain cases, including Obergefell, he didn&#8217;t believe the Court actually would.
&#8220;But to be honest, I don&#8217;t think this Court has any appetite for overturning any of these decisions,&#8221; he added.

Ted Cruz

‘It Would Be More Than A Little Chaotic’: Ted Cruz Explains Why Supreme Court Is Unlikely To Overturn Gay Marriage Decision

Ted Cruz Explains Why Supreme Court Is Unlikely To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Decision

Gay Rights

Same-Sex Marriage

Verdict with Ted Cruz

Apparently, they&#8217;re still mad, even after an 11-year break.
Rage Against the Machine is touring again, and in a recent show, they took aim at the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that conferred a right to abortion.
During a show Saturday at the Alpine Valley Music Theatre in Wisconsin, the band put captions on a large screen behind them that, with one saying &#8220;abort the Supreme Court,&#8221; the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel <a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/entertainment/music/2022/07/10/rage-against-machine-explodes-slams-supreme-court-first-show-11-years-alpine-valley-wisconsin/10020029002/">reported</a>.
“Forced birth in a country that is the only wealthy country in the world without any guaranteed paid parental leave at the national level,” read one caption. “Forced birth in a country where Black birth-givers experience maternal mortality two to three times higher than that of white birth-givers,&#8221; said another.
&#8220;Forced birth in a country where gun violence is the number one cause of death among children and teenagers,&#8221; said a third caption.
Then in all caps came: “ABORT THE SUPREME COURT.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Abort the Supreme Court,” <a href="https://twitter.com/RATM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RATM</a> proclaim via video message <a href="https://twitter.com/AVMTheatre?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AVMTheatre</a> Saturday for their reunion tour kickoff. Review and set list <a href="https://twitter.com/journalsentinel?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@journalsentinel</a> <a href="https://t.co/3xD7McEriO">https://t.co/3xD7McEriO</a> <a href="https://t.co/1PLXbq2dFY">pic.twitter.com/1PLXbq2dFY</a>
&mdash; Piet Levy (@pietlevy) <a href="https://twitter.com/pietlevy/status/1546150856206295041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 10, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lead singer Zack de La Rocha yelled out “yeah!” and “freedom!” over guitarist Tom Morello&#8217;s guitar riffs as the captions were shown.
The band, whose last put out an album in 2000 and hasn&#8217;t toured in more than a decade, joined a slew of musicians, artists, and actors who have scorned the high court&#8217;s decision. Last month, Green Day singer Billie Joe Armstrong suggested he plans to relocate, saying “there’s just too much f***ing stupid in the world to go back to that miserable f***ing excuse for a country.”
“I’m &#8230; renouncing my citizenship. I’m f***ing coming here,” he said in London while on tour with Fall Out Boy and Weezer. “Oh, I’m not kidding, you’re going to get a lot of me in the coming days.”
At the Glastonbury Festival in June, singer Phoebe Bridgers led the crowd in a chant against the Supreme Court. And singer Olivia Rodrigo said on stage, “I’m devastated and terrified. So many women and so many girls are going to die because of this.&#8221;
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Prophets Of Rage Perform At O2 Shepherd’s Bush Empire

Still Mad: Rage Against The Machine Says ‘Abort the Supreme Court’ At First Reunion Show

Still Mad: Rock Band Rage Against The Machine Says ‘Abort the Supreme Court’ At First Reunion Show

Abortion

Entertainment

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

Wisconsin

Supreme Court decisions sadly invite the deepest divisions in American civic life today. A simple tonic to this endless divide would be for Americans to actually read the decisions they protest and fight about so much.
Do you consider yourself to be a warrior in the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">pro-life movement</a>? Is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf">religious liberty</a> and the increasing domain of secularization a central concern to you? Do you consider the rise of the “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf">administrative state</a>” to be a form of soft tyranny that is incompatible with representative democracy?
Or, do you feel like <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf">the Second Amendment</a> is either outdated or under endless assault by Blue America?
No matter which issue concerns you the most, chances are we Americans are debating it in some fashion. Thus, here is a suggestion that will significantly improve the state of American civic discourse. I know it’s abundantly optimistic and maybe a bit naive, but here it is: pick at least one Supreme Court decision from this year’s consequential term and take an hour to read it.
I’m serious.
Don’t treat these decisions and the entire judicial branch as arenas for gladiatorial legal throw-downs. In reality, as Woodrow Wilson once observed, the Supreme Court is “a constitutional convention in continuous session.” Every year, nine extraordinary and unique legal minds have an extended conversation amongst themselves about the meaning of the Constitution on a variety of issues.
This year it was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-leaves-abortion-restrictions-to-states">abortion</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions">gun rights</a> and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/it-is-just-incredible-to-know-that-i-did-nothing-wrong-joseph-kennedy-celebrates-scotus-win-for-religious-freedom">free exercise of religion</a>. Next year it will be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/briefing/supreme-court-abortion.html">affirmative action and election law.</a> And unlike the other two branches, the judicial branch does something utterly extraordinary: it bestows a civic gift to the American people, a gift we rarely unwrap. The Supreme Court justices go to great lengths to explain why they do what they do and why they think the way they think. As Americans, we have the opportunity to drink from the jurisprudential trough of their insights.
But instead, we often engage in shallow knee-jerk political cheerleading.
We can do better. The decisions are actually quite easy to read. Yes, there is some legalistic lingo to navigate (supra, stare decisis, writ of certiorari), endless citations to previous decisions, and there are a variety of opinions being offered at the same time (the majority opinion, the dissent, concurring opinions, etc.). But on balance, the average literate American can easily comprehend the arguments being made in the decisions.
<h4>Justices Are Actually Good Writers </h4>
Most of the justices on the Supreme Court are exceptional writers. While few will ever capture the verve and vim of Antonin Scalia, whose opinions were laced with both high-minded legal reasoning and snappy one-liners (he once <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/justice-antonin-scalia-dead-supreme-court-opinion-lines-pure-applesauce">assailed</a> a majority opinion as “pure applesauce”), the justices aim for clarity because they aren’t simply writing to modern-day America.
They are writing to posterity and the likes of the Harvard Law Class of 2055. They know their arguments will be studied, critiqued, and either celebrated or condemned by future students and scholars long after they are gone. They would much rather be regarded as a John Marshall Harlan, whose sole dissenting voice in Plessy v. Ferguson was used to overturn the decision decades later in Brown, than a Roger Taney, who penned the worst decision in American history, Dred Scott.    
<h4>You Might Learn Something </h4>
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">decision</a> is a perfect illustration of why Americans should read Supreme Court opinions.
Many Americans dislike the Roe and Casey decisions because they dislike abortion. But it would be wise to understand why so many consider Roe a grievous constitutional mistake. It is also important to learn how the majority behaved akin to a quasi-legislature in its 1973 written opinion, and why even the likes of <a href="https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_7108099e-f5a0-11ec-9394-f7680161c067.html">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> thought it was a poorly reasoned and executed decision. In the Dobbs decision, Justice Alito explains all of this with utter clarity.Moreover, a reader would learn about the evolution of the Court’s thinking on reproductive rights and how the 1992 Casey decision jettisoned earlier claims of privacy in favor of a broad argument about substantive due process and the “undue burden” test.
Most Americans do not know how close the Court came to overturning Roe thirty years ago in Casey, when <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/09/04/justice-kennedys-flip/17eb4e0b-72f6-4678-b5bb-7a3e8f79b395/">Justice Anthony Kennedy flipped his vote</a>, purportedly causing Scalia to drive to Kennedy’s house to argue with him about the matter. Alito lays out in the Dobbs decision why arguments grounded in substantive due process do not apply to abortion. In his concurrence, Clarence Thomas lays waste to the entire doctrine of “substantive due process” itself.
Finally,  people who are down on John Roberts these days might become more sympathetic to his judicial posture if they took the time to read his dissent. Judicial conservatism has more branches than simple originalism or textualism. It also includes an appreciation for social stability, a resistance to activism, a preference for judicial incrementalism, and an acknowledgement that even incorrectly-decided decisions should be upheld if they have been woven into the fabric of American civil society. Roberts would have preferred it if the Court had simply upheld the Mississippi law in question by rejecting “the viability rule” without courting the controversy overturning Roe would invite. As he writes, “The Court’s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.”
<h4>You Might Change Your Mind, Reinforce Your Convictions, Or Find Empathy  </h4>
As citizens, it is important to know our own convictions, but it’s also important to understand why we believe what we believe.
As a college student, I remember raging at the Supreme Court for declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional because, in those days of youthful self-righteousness, I was adamantly against earmarks and pork barrel legislation. And yet, when I read <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/417/">the Court’s decision</a> on the matter, I realized the justices were right and that the nature of Article II executive power did not comport with the extension of the president’s veto power.
Likewise, the Dobbs dissent is thoughtful, noting, ”As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare.” It is no small thing in a rights-based society to rescind a right, even if one believes it was incorrectly granted in the first place.
George Washington foresaw this constitutional conundrum before the United States was even a union, <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/translet.asp">writing</a>, “Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. … It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved.”     
Appreciating the perspectives of those with whom we disagree isn’t simply a pleasant gesture, it’s an essential quality of good citizenship. Let’s start to practice it.  
Jeremy S. Adams is the author of the recently-released Amazon best-selling book Hollowed Out: A Warning About America&#8217;s Next Generation. He has taught American civics for 24 years in Bakersfield, California and was the 2014 California Teacher of the Year (DAR). You can follow him on Twitter @JeremyAdams6.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v3 Adams – Read The Decision Before You Rage or Strut

Here’s An Idea: Read The Decision Before You Rage Or Strut

Anthony Kennedy

Antonin Scalia

Readers Pass

Woodrow Wilson

Pope Francis answered questions regarding the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s decision that overturned Roe v. Wade during a new interview, though he noted he does not fully understand the legal issues involved in the ruling.
The Pope responded to the ruling while speaking to Reuters on Monday in a discussion that touched on a wide range of recent political and social topics.
“I respect the decisions,&#8221; Pope Francis stated, affirming the Roman Catholic view that life begins at conception.
The Pope, however, was more cautious regarding the legal implications of the ruling.
“I tell you the truth. I don’t understand it from a technical point of view,” he <a href="https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2022-07/pope-francis-condemns-abortion-like-hiring-a-hit-man.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “I have to study it because I don’t really understand [the details of] the ruling 50 years ago and now I can’t say whether it did right or wrong from a judicial point of view.”
Pope Francis also addressed the issue of abortion beyond the court ruling, noting the evidence from science reveals that the child in the womb is a human being.
“Leaving that [the Supreme Court decision] aside, let’s go back to the issue of abortion, which is a problem,&#8221; the Pope stated. “In this we have to be scientific, see what science tells us today. Science today and any book on embryology, the one our medical students study, tells you that 30 days after conception there is DNA and the laying out already of all the organs.”
The Pope then posed the question, “Is it legitimate, is it right, to eliminate a human life to resolve a problem? It’s a human life &#8211; that’s science. The moral question is whether it is right to take a human life to solve a problem.&#8221;
In addition to addressing the recent SCOTUS decision, Pope Francis also addressed speculation regarding his potential retirement. He spoke against rumors that he had cancer or planned to step away from his role as leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
Instead, Pope Francis admitted he was forced to postpone a recent trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan initially scheduled for this week due to an ongoing knee problem.
He noted during the interview that a &#8220;ligament that became inflamed, and because I walked badly and this walking badly moved a bone, [this caused] a fracture there.&#8221;
The Pope certainly has additional plans for future travel. He mentioned he would like to visit Kyiv as well as Moscow to help encourage an end to Russia&#8217;s invasion and bring peace. Pope Francis also has a trip scheduled to Canada.
Pope Francis has also made recent headlines for meetings with high-profile guests at the Vatican.
“Honored to meet @Pontifex yesterday,” Tesla CEO Musk tweeted after a stop to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/see-it-elon-musk-meets-the-pope-in-tragic-suit-with-sons-in-tow" target="_blank" rel="noopener">visit</a> with the Pope last week. Musk was accompanied by his sons with ex-wife Justine Wilson: Griffin, 18, and 16-year-old triplets Damian, Kai, and Saxon.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Honored to meet <a href="https://twitter.com/Pontifex?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Pontifex</a> yesterday <a href="https://t.co/sLZY8mAQtd">pic.twitter.com/sLZY8mAQtd</a>
&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1543050489050402816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also stirred controversy when she recently visited the Vatican and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-abortion-pelosi-receives-communion-at-the-vatican" target="_blank" rel="noopener">took communion</a> despite her pro-abortion stance. Pope Francis did not distribute communion, but Pelosi received it from another priest.

Pope Francis

Pope Says He ‘Respects’ Supreme Court Decision That Overturned Roe

Coach Joe Kennedy didn’t intend to make a spectacle of himself or set an example. When he began a tradition in 2008 of offering a quiet, midfield prayer after Bremerton High School football games, he surely never thought that he’d be standing on the steps of the Supreme Court in June 2022 after a seven-year battle to regain his job.
The Court has now handed Kennedy a victory, holding that the Bremerton School District in Washington state violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses by firing Kennedy for his personal, quiet post-game prayers.
The ruling is significant not just because it reinforces the First Amendment protections guaranteed to government employees, but because it strengthens our nation’s increasingly shaky commitment to pluralism &#8211; having diverse religious views or no religious view at all and coexisting in society.
In writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf">opened</a>: “The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”
The factual <a href="https://firstliberty.org/cases/coachkennedy/">record</a> in Kennedy’s case, however, was devoid of any evidence of respect or tolerance. To the contrary, the school district seemed to be under the mistaken impression that it had to scrub any private religious expression from the public square (here, school property).
From the outset, the Bremerton school district had argued that allowing any “overt actions” on Kennedy’s part that might appear to a “reasonable observer to endorse…prayer…while [Kennedy was] on duty as a District-paid coach” would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, making it appear as though his religious exercise was school-sanctioned and that the government was somehow “<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-REV-2014/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2014-10-2.pdf">establishing religion</a>.” In multiple letters that were exchanged with Kennedy prior to his lawsuit, the school district mentioned “endorsement of religion” eight times, but  nothing was said about any other concerns that might have prompted his termination.
However, the Supreme Court has clarified that a school does not endorse private, religious speech simply because it fails to censor it. In Kennedy’s case, Gorsuch noted that, by targeting his religious expression and nothing else, the school district’s policy on Kennedy’s prayers could hardly be considered neutral or “generally applicable.” As a result, the policy required the Supreme Court’s highest standard of review: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny">strict scrutiny</a>. Under strict scrutiny review, the School District had to show that its actions were justified by a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
It could not.
The Court also refused to buy the school district’s argument that the Establishment Clause required a government entity to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The government’s phantom constitutional violation didn’t justify an actual violation of Kennedy’s individual’s First Amendment rights. It believed &#8211; wrongly &#8211; that it had to suppress religious observances when a similar secular expression (i.e., taking a knee to protest police violence) was perfectly acceptable.
Bremerton School District had focused on suppressing religious expression, rather than on Free Exercise and pluralism, and Justice Gorsuch hinted as much. 
<blockquote>[L]earning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is ‘part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,’ a trait of character essential to ‘a tolerant citizenry.’…This Court has long recognized as well that ‘secondary school students are mature enough &#8230; to understand that a school does not endorse,’ let alone coerce them to participate in, ‘speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.’ &#8230; Of course, some will take offense to certain forms of speech or prayer they are sure to encounter in a society where those activities enjoy such robust constitutional protection. But ‘[o]ffense &#8230; does not equate to coercion.’</blockquote>
Later in the opinion, Gorsuch again extolled the virtues of pluralism and stressed its relevance to Kennedy’s case:
<blockquote>In the name of protecting religious liberty, the District would have us suppress it. Rather than respect the First Amendment’s double protection for religious expression, it would have us preference secular activity…It is a rule…that would undermine a long constitutional tradition under which learning how to tolerate diverse expressive activities has always been ‘part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society.’…We are aware of no historically sound understanding of the Establishment Clause that begins to ‘mak[e] it necessary for government to be hostile to religion’ in this way.</blockquote>
The CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Rachel Laser, was <a href="https://fox8.com/news/washington-dc-bureau/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-former-football-coach-in-public-school-prayer-case/">predictably apoplectic</a> about the Court’s ruling, writing, “Religious freedom is not the right to use your power as an agent of the state and a public school coach to impose your beliefs on students.”
Yet, nothing in the record indicates Kennedy’s prayers were in any way coercive. When approached by players who wanted to join him in prayer, he responded simply by saying, “This is a free country. You can do what you want.” Not exactly the stuff of intimidation.
No American should have to choose between their faith and their job, and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kennedy case provides assurance that no American can be forced to do so simply because he is a public employee who wants to pray quietly at work. Though, as the body politic creeps toward polarization and as civil discourse gives way to civil unrest, much of the nation seems to believe that a person’s private religious expression is suited only for their church, synagogue, or mosque alone.
The Founders did not countenance such a limited understanding of religious exercise, and the Court’s long-standing precedents don’t support it.
However, in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a long-standing principle, correctly ruling that teachers and other school employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. Kennedy’s quiet prayers after school football games &#8211; while visible to others &#8211; in no way represented a government establishment or endorsement of religion.
After a seven-year battle to protect his right to religious expression, Coach Kennedy’s story has a happy ending &#8211; one that will set a precedent protecting the right of all Americans to practice their faith in the public square. It’s a story about the good in America and her (sometimes reluctant) commitment to pluralism.
Sarah Parshall Perry is a Legal Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation (<a href="http://heritage.org/">heritage.org</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v2 Perry – Prayer and Pluralism- Victory for the Coach Who Took a Knee

Prayer And Pluralism: SCOTUS Victory For The Coach Who Took A Knee

High School

Prayer

Chelsea Handler claimed Joe Rogan was radicalizing men — and attacked Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — while the comedian was guest hosting Jimmy Kimmel&#8217;s late-night show.
During the 47-year-old former talk show hosts appearance on ABC&#8217;s &#8220;Jimmy Kimmel Live!&#8221; show Thursday, Handler used her monologue to attack the popular Spotify podcast host and Thomas as she continued her rant about the recent SCOTUS decision that overturns Roe V. Wade as a result of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization. In the 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled there was no constitutional right to abortion and that abortion legislation should be left up to the states, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/victory-pro-life-leaders-react-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported.
&#8220;I have thoroughly enjoyed my time guest-hosting,&#8221; the comedian <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLKzylrQr6M">explained</a>. &#8220;But just like women&#8217;s rights, all good things must come to an end.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Guest Host Chelsea Handler Has a Message for Men Everywhere" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lLKzylrQr6M?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Handler proposed a &#8220;28th Amendement&#8221; to take away men&#8217;s right to vote.
&#8220;Guys, if you don&#8217;t want us going after your rights, then you better get up off your hairy a**es and join the fight to defend ours,&#8221; the comedian said, before sharing that she didn&#8217;t want a man to mansplain to her how to get back the so-called rights she claims to have lost.
&#8220;Shut up, OK?&#8221; she added. &#8220;How about you do the work for a change and don&#8217;t open your mouth unless you&#8217;re chanting, &#8216;Her body, her choice.'&#8221;
&#8220;Talk to your sons,&#8221; Handler continued. &#8220;Tell them why this is so important before they get radicalized by Joe Rogan.&#8221;
The comedian finally ended her NSFW rant noting the swearing-in of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, before taking a swipe at Justice Thomas. &#8220;For the first time ever, there are now four women on the Supreme Court. And five if you include that b**** Clarence Thomas.&#8221;
Chelsea was one of the many celebrities who had <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/amy-schumer-chelsea-handler-and-more-stars-react-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade">an absolute melt down</a> following the overturning of the 1973 landmark decision.
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfMW227ryx9/">Handler</a> shared a screenshot of a tweet with her millions of followers that read: &#8220;3 Supreme Court justices were placed on the bench by a twice impeached president who did not win the popular vote and who led an insurrection. Our democracy is crumbling before our eyes. Wake up, fight back, no justice no peace!&#8221;
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chelsea-handler-has-a-lot-of-definitions-for-pro-life-none-involve-protecting-babies">Chelsea Handler Has A Lot Of Definitions For &#8216;Pro-Life&#8217; — None Involve Protecting Babies</a>

Chelsea Handler

Chelsea Handler Claims Joe Rogan’s Radicalizing Men, Attacks Justice Thomas While Guest Hosting Jimmy Kimmel

Clarence Thomas

Joe Rogan

Australians living in the United States are &#8220;sickened&#8221; and upset about Roe V. Wade being overturned — despite their home country&#8217;s own limitations on abortion that are based on what territory/state one lives in.
The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently overturned the landmark 1973 ruling as a result of the 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization. The court said there is no constitutional right to an abortion and returns the issue to the states to pass abortion legislation, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/victory-pro-life-leaders-react-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported.
Freelance writer Sophie Hanson, who moved from Australia to New York City in 2019, told <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au">Crikey</a> she was &#8220;sickened&#8221; by the ruling, the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10959801/Aussies-react-sickening-decision-Supreme-Court-overturn-Roe-v-Wade.html">Daily Mail</a> reported in a piece published Thursday.
&#8220;The fact that only six unelected people can make a religious-based ruling that impacts half the country is horrid, dangerous and hypocritical,&#8221; Hanson shared, before she repeated the latest lie from the left that &#8220;a gun has more rights in this country than my uterus.&#8221;
Hanson and her husband do not have children, but said the latest move by SCOTUS has made her reconsider living here. She told the outlet that if the U.S. government implemented a nationwide abortion ban, she&#8217;d definitely think about moving back.
&#8220;I am terrified of a future where hardline Christian Republican Mike Pence, who&#8217;s right now calling for a national abortion ban, wins the presidency,&#8221; the writer explained. &#8220;If he does, that might convince me to move.&#8221;
In the state of New York, where the writer lives, abortion is legal and there has been no sign from leaders in that state that will change anytime soon. Other states that have shown no interest in banning abortions include California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Nevada and Colorado.
Digital strategist Michael Chaitow said America was heading &#8220;in the wrong direction&#8221; after the landmark 1973 ruling was overturned and after the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions">court struck down</a> the state of New York&#8217;s restrictions on concealed carry firearms permits.
Chaitow moved to the U.S. in 2019 and said the country was headed to a &#8220;less safe, less equal and less healthy society.&#8221;
Abortions were still illegal in parts of Australia until 2021. It is currently legal in all states and territories in that country, &#8220;under certain circumstances and when it is performed by a registered doctor,&#8221; as <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-roe-v-wade-decision-has-put-a-spotlight-on-abortion-laws-what-are-they-in-australia/g5w55ghaj">SBS News</a> noted. However, there are a whole host of &#8220;different rules governing access to the procedure in each state and territory,&#8221; that can be seen <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-roe-v-wade-decision-has-put-a-spotlight-on-abortion-laws-what-are-they-in-australia/g5w55ghaj">here.</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/amy-schumer-chelsea-handler-and-more-stars-react-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade">Amy Schumer, Chelsea Handler And More Stars React To Overturn Of Roe V. Wade</a>

Australia Flag-2

Australians In U.S. Upset Roe V. Wade Overturned, Despite Home Country’s Limitations Based On Where One Lives

Australians In US Upset Roe V. Wade Overturned, Despite Home Country’s Limitations Based On Where One Lives

Australia

United States

Disinformation about health care has ripped across social media in the wake of the Supreme Court&#8217;s abortion decision last week.
One of the most prominent claims is that newly implemented abortion bans in various states will hamper life-saving treatment for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. But that&#8217;s not true. You won&#8217;t be denied the necessary care for either condition under any state abortion ban.
And what about &#8220;medically necessary&#8221; abortion in the first place? We&#8217;ll dissect that claim, too. 
Here&#8217;s what you need to know.
<h2>Ectopic pregnancy treatment is not illegal, and not considered an abortion by medical professionals </h2>
In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg implants and grows outside the uterus, usually in one of the fallopian tubes. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and always put the mother&#8217;s life at risk because a growing fetus can burst the fallopian tube causing major internal bleeding.
Necessary treatment includes medication or surgery to remove the pregnancy and sometimes the fallopian tube.
Not a single pro-life law denies this care because the treatment is understood to be different than an abortion, morally and medically.
As highlighted by LiveAction, <a href="http://www.webmd.com/baby/tc/ectopic-pregnancy-treatment-overview">WebMD</a>, <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/basics/treatment/con-20024262">Mayo Clinic</a>, and even admitted by abortion mill <a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancy">Planned Parenthood</a>, the treatment is not an abortion.
&#8220;Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion,&#8221; Planned Parenthood <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancy">says</a> on its website. &#8220;Ectopic pregnancies are unsafely outside of your uterus (usually in the fallopian tubes), and are removed with a medicine called methotrexate or through a laparoscopic surgical procedure. The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.&#8221;
Dr. Christina Francis, M.D., a board-certified OB/GYN and associate scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute, explained the same.
“My heart is breaking that women are being made to feel fearful by the misinformation that’s out there,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Treating ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages or other life-threatening conditions in pregnancy is not the same thing as an abortion.&#8221;
&#8220;Chemical abortions, which are being heavily promoted by the abortion industry and its allies, cannot treat an ectopic pregnancy <a href="https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ziOAalYvj2xK2Ffv4A39a59s37puDR6mLFSFxGxJ5-2Bo7JidKXyLUhgw3AKVpBJMZCWRmKDpGPI97iLfdsLLX9cVduKow3YeBhZ0HNyRgcTVA-2BISPBb3ce2FbhC5nUUP1IMunmPxVUDSSN5b8UiPkwsmLqouDGrcl8iaml54GzF6ve-2B1NZCjcmfZ1HBsJ4QI-2BOYKMiG7R5aaJIPWV1RvLc9Xhkk1-2BYsMXlAVNemJ7GJn4mghJTrtv9dSbqhGamM6iBkjLyFFWe0sHtD7aBJFojHA-2FCV6VYQYb58mYjJp9KeaRDtbAs0pLKhJ-2BR-2BArK9oIp-2B7QYeKkhhgI33Yl6g-2FuO86x6KRTkXEqVrzfvtvS6cLl7aee709JDrIT-2BJ-2Fi0d4wh-2F3JDmdHB0cBrHsaFHXKeHD4QgZrd0undxM5zXtH1DsbsQLvHHZYb7J0XfYdcMELJmiwBmrqbJQYr1Bp6yBuEQPNQICzvSMC3rmnsXEzY5OgW7mH4MpkOzplj-2BeYD15K71jE1P1rjUJgAWWVkcVeltvddIViyi3cwRG6gAAfvYEHR2h8kUimE5CBIdrnru3mwowsy9tjBK8UTne6kxVVcb8rrTui6BQS00bi1RBadk1F079pUrSsO8sbondHOwp8yUi5mSWCZ4I60Ei-2FfumL-2BrTs-2F69d48suG-2BnxJWfvUtA8xMaXK-2BnUx5r3tgFuUBy4408sjwqAKrw4UOvhlTErPCxoRSje3ZR07AxWP0XaXq9qClozJwEMs1ylz3KpoemcTLWA6grc05Kw6rIYUQim6OASGylYWWzGOIcAkfUx6BDtlDPRiWKx839daUUdmPTVoEjgg1xrGgkSt1Xn-2BQXKJsEuKyF0qyKQzk3oXYzKTMCW0QdXAsJwihrN4xA4fuyUiv1i0I5DSPhLKJQ7a0vrYRWfGIfTVmYkQOj6I1CBgVk-3DR1FX_THjlhOQ-2FlUkeR1Yx6RMOTROlTiWu9mVPBZGKlMN7Z2IGbVCmysY2TbYB900TZLqnz8e1Y7Hud0lKJ9Eq2fwRH5Qo8LT-2FebtLlibSglSmLvpPLzeyb-2F9EJ4NlNQmfS1ChE1fdzP6-2B0Qep-2BYNAi18q7wkfBjXhUuH2h-2BMCYso5PD9plIOMfgkvsDx9sL03gGyMkWPXATVuW8WaojHmmAAwGPV-2F3LDoUAm7hvswXCD2oHJ0DbCouDkdTqLWTnHQ-2BAHKoCD4-2FUCjs3Gr8ayGcSSWXR1ZkL2NyXEDtrVYrnjL6aT-2BeZEDxuUXBQXJSiAlFOMCMw9Vg2BmFgJH-2FbKU0VPbcIcqcNT38k8uyY51hjD5UjI-3D">according to the FDA</a>,&#8221; Dr. Francis said. &#8220;The treatments for ectopic pregnancy are not the same procedures used by induced abortions, which even Planned Parenthood <a href="https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ziOAalYvj2xK2Ffv4A39a59s37puDR6mLFSFxGxJ5-2Bo7JidKXyLUhgw3AKVpBJMZCWRmKDpGPI97iLfdsLLX9cVduKow3YeBhZ0HNyRgcTUkshielyMU9WeDnpMTO-2Fzr04da-2BCC3oW1wdsvNsXy-2BGvt4ZoUysD6J6GK-2F7a7Dl7-2BqaqBMmfiVmLkXmos8yrWstmj9qOyxZQRRIPdiTdmIvFMcuOlIFU0TSJYpgQdQpoMdTP9uKuE4Vb8YEL8N06-2BvF1VawaKx7T9jgbP4SWW-2B8IeFnvaW3f-2FgpgeJCgxUma6nDZEhlulA-2Bf87QDFLkvoya6T-2FaoqIfwo8STW4Ysh39kGRTE5vIXERvzBY0lcBVfOB7CVfCus-2BxjgC1cr3cmDY852rcNyO4rzwlYM1hBYzbUzXEQdWpX15jR2zNVBZAcCos3y2WrGpZogdYRUyZEvOJ4GW43fCe5vPedRX-2BqyK4zv0x2xGusNRoZ5Dby2J6EQrAtqFGEQ8WXaAjzeTp2Do9aWWhWr2eqUF71HfypsNIMb7ViBOv6KHEXKQVX9R5Ol2tsaxmhvpzeQdQcUeqCJNTyPxfP3Wv5xFzLDcl8LdOTv-2BPDi-2Bu-2Bk-2BiVMJcvLUAWnLRrZTCp4j8gouduUsbWazxy1brgU-2FGhIx-2BnpF7X0-2Bu2qd-2FBod1zu7-2BcgszvPoQ-2FUcGzI3etpqPEuaGTMycF33bOCoxbaxL-2Fghe52-2FWtU0VdGvHPJdVhhmaTLAKfANGA0Qnp54KSb-2FBx3o3mGspQ3E43yGe7Big-2BpYBs73uEmV-2FjAush4s8zFdHIX1NrjzMYgZ7OeFRntl3jkcHweofdMfKQhV_THjlhOQ-2FlUkeR1Yx6RMOTROlTiWu9mVPBZGKlMN7Z2IGbVCmysY2TbYB900TZLqnz8e1Y7Hud0lKJ9Eq2fwRH5Qo8LT-2FebtLlibSglSmLvpPLzeyb-2F9EJ4NlNQmfS1ChE1fdzP6-2B0Qep-2BYNAi18q7wkfBjXhUuH2h-2BMCYso5PD9plIOMfgkvsDx9sL03gGyMkWPXATVuW8WaojHmmAAwGGQ2OxlzBPc1C1TiQb-2BkZ5NVs7KHSDLx-2Bqqmp5FuYrjxxsp5DUwK05GbTYO29-2F8myhQTJ1z6aJGLLZM0UjDljf7B-2Bm83z4v4Q-2BtgoHLvRee9TMZfwkUlvFsgZ4qFDSxgJqvpkQuPc9RQFKBWfHkrWuo-3D">admits</a>.&#8221;
&#8220;As a pro-life OB/GYN who’s practiced my entire career in hospitals that do not allow abortions, I have never been prevented from safely treating an ectopic pregnancy,&#8221; she added.
Former abortionist <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNx7s58q5cY&amp;feature=youtu.be">Dr. Steve Hammond</a> told The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ben Shapiro this week that it&#8217;s &#8220;ridiculous&#8221; to think ectopic pregnancies will be barred from being treated, noting that such pregnancies were treated back in the 1950s, before Roe V. Wade.
Notably, 13 states <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/trigger-laws-abortion-states-roe.html">have</a> &#8220;trigger&#8221; abortion bans that went into effect after Roe was overturned or are slated to take effect soon.
The language of all 13 new state abortion bans specifies that the bans do not apply in cases where the mother&#8217;s life is at risk. Some of the new abortion bans even specifically mention ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.
Georgia&#8217;s new abortion ban, for example, which could <a href="https://georgiarecorder.com/2022/06/27/georgias-strict-abortion-law-could-take-effect-soon-heres-what-the-law-does/">take effect</a> soon, prohibits abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother&#8217;s life is at risk. Abortion was previously legal in Georgia for up to 20 weeks.
&#8220;Any such act shall not be considered an abortion if the act is performed with the purpose of removing a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion or removing an ectopic pregnancy,&#8221; the Georgia <a href="https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20192020/187013">bill</a> states.
<h2>Miscarriages are not illegal </h2>
Miscarriages, where a baby tragically dies in a woman&#8217;s womb, are not illegal. And there is no pro-life legislation seeking to criminalize women who suffer natural miscarriages.
Misinformation around this has spread online, since post-miscarriage, some women need a procedure also used in first-term abortions. Of course, in this case, the doctor is not ending the unborn child&#8217;s life first.
A dilation and curettage, known as a D&amp;C, is often a traumatic procedure for mothers, where doctors have to remove the deceased baby from inside the uterus. 
In some abortions, doctors intentionally poison and dismember the unborn baby before removing it in a D&amp;C.
These situations are not the same, and doctors know this. It will not be criminalized to receive treatment for a miscarriage. 
<h2>Other medically necessary treatments that could result in an unborn child&#8217;s death will not be banned</h2>
Pro-abortion activists and left-wing politicians were quick to spread ambiguous fear-posts about abortion and health care. 
For example, some claimed you would be denied life-saving care if you have cancer because the treatment could kill your baby. There is not a single pro-life law that seeks to criminalize this because it&#8217;s not an abortion.
Necessary early delivery, too, where the baby has no chance of surviving, is not an abortion and is not banned under any pro-life law. The baby is not preemptively and directly killed, as in an abortion.
What seems to be happening on the Left and with abortion doctors are games of semantics. Just because some care tragically results in an unborn child&#8217;s death or uses similar medical procedures does not mean it&#8217;s the direct and intentional killing of the unborn, which is how abortion is almost always widely understood. And these professionals and politicians know this. 
<h2>Are abortions ever &#8220;medically necessary&#8221; to begin with?</h2>
There are scores of doctors who have come forward to challenge the claim that abortions are ever medically necessary. 
&#8220;In the rare but tragic situations where a pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk, there are <a href="https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ziOAalYvj2xK2Ffv4A39a59s37puDR6mLFSFxGxJ5-2Bo7JidKXyLUhgw3AKVpBJMZCWRmKDpGPI97iLfdsLLX9cVduKow3YeBhZ0HNyRgcTXhuQ-2ByeGAKrZnbXiR9nshTUCFMx-2BkBpgon0HfKHKvarM1Y3RiMA73BCTAijb-2F5Q-2FWpYGkxZUvuTtL0-2BOPcAuERMRt0LWcx9VoheTGZ6UDvqFyYaXuOvO54GrLVPzNQTOk9a-2BjOLV9mJ5XfEAh22KOEyGe8FOR7lOa2Anls250b6KP4ZxtszczjQrrBQJMKMBnsGH8knXwS1JctJPDSTjKSu3HCm1GgzpKzGSj-2BfW4g4ls3-2FCS4HgsZKR0pvnIomTLCkIwmie3V09U8unfhIQPSw8KspF62SY-2FtEM202iZmLA-2BA7k-2BSuv0rh73a9Z4KKt4j-2BlJWmqD-2Fgk4pdIDTs3HmBJZSKlqUxOrC-2BTov2TgKjNuXUInvzDxWmgNHQyNDkoKSkRIoQTpRE8BhytIBlvfVVUgi9iMMIfyaP9bxKMq1X4vhdd-2FGpZyVkKv0n9khL5hTD-2B5oLH9fprIG1r9dhsJH1B-2BmHyCBdMjpuR3bQDVYsBGUsvLN7UN3AxdhD9vXwGJmz-2BnU303ZNFcsrHaJNILwc3uzP0vL2JPTXJ1pvX5dFbAvvBXed5nwcDxC8-2F5faTGBunMzRJVvvoGR6S5sBQTtfLV03D6qjVxlInAcKfTG5GiKkKTWSFpGE9PfKWaA7HHDqNaacqL3Tas76Povcey3vnXP6WdutY-2FR-2BcF3ZzWXPA-2BV7bzE-2FfE80UFoY8DC2lG4OKx5aTOQHs1sM9VD97WX7xNEwy2cLV1DL602VnEatdh3T3Qfq9jaRHYfbyFf5Ptd3uegD5x1oae-2BNxA4AGZq6xMm5M-2FBvVKGoB8VdtprNXPH782FLZZqNIbD9MFyBBg-3DiUIn_THjlhOQ-2FlUkeR1Yx6RMOTROlTiWu9mVPBZGKlMN7Z2IGbVCmysY2TbYB900TZLqnz8e1Y7Hud0lKJ9Eq2fwRH5Qo8LT-2FebtLlibSglSmLvpPLzeyb-2F9EJ4NlNQmfS1ChE1fdzP6-2B0Qep-2BYNAi18q7wkfBjXhUuH2h-2BMCYso5PD9plIOMfgkvsDx9sL03gGyMkWPXATVuW8WaojHmmAAwGFumN4W-2Bm-2F3tkQ-2FumYUp5GHfc-2BxNzKN1XOTI4N0JHq8EWyA3GAHmFhofqiWN4XbD-2FXnV7HSJnOzS49y4ROga-2BTi4egqYvjmdlfB7DTg6AnZk3w1zjQ-2FIwoTU3n6zt8Y1gysLQrVHs3-2Fgww-2BJ-2FjclXME-3D">medical </a><a href="https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=ziOAalYvj2xK2Ffv4A39a59s37puDR6mLFSFxGxJ5-2Bo7JidKXyLUhgw3AKVpBJMZCWRmKDpGPI97iLfdsLLX9cVduKow3YeBhZ0HNyRgcTXhuQ-2ByeGAKrZnbXiR9nshTUCFMx-2BkBpgon0HfKHKvarM1Y3RiMA73BCTAijb-2F5Q-2FWpYGkxZUvuTtL0-2BOPcAuERMRt0LWcx9VoheTGZ6UDvqFyYaXuOvO54GrLVPzNQTOk9a-2BjOLV9mJ5XfEAh22KOEyGe8FOR7lOa2Anls250b6KP4ZxtszczjQrrBQJMKMBnsGH8knXwS1JctJPDSTjKSC9p-2FqSVv-2BNV-2FCNaW71Fzj2K3H6hgBObF3OHAVAeUUbDpPiYlX1OgMJj3Oe4kgL-2BcwEQZsJnj7D1XvV-2FxCokevNsysD0y6hoc9tgodY8rHowCLYXZkHkikrhom2UbTKFlqwImqtxWREm-2FF4VcI-2BGi9QdEJuePmI5aj0B8aijjxLc1nC-2FQdey-2Fi40fmTqIk-2FD9XpxPiYFBVWgQ6NUagwI-2F06XgY0MIG4n69tANjRgL-2BBDv2IeAEsmdjk3f40QCin81sBXVyRdwSmNU3bsMSJu98w-2F19ggGklp8v-2FfLnpCEiiVpfUx3wxd9sy-2FuFhPO2yyN9sJgyX8cOb89X5E0HA3NGhJuFW4udTKodarehg4Ou8svmkez5zzz5Q6QauUqkku-2FuCj7dP8jiYM1au-2B0EZ-2BX44o4jQtl06LctRL23wfXV2Q5VhuhgsrSAv3Jzaa5dDeV-2B-2BVeM0sY50CIhp9OF3rEUso5tjs4ZtjKVIpbxO34J72bFBjln4JmPjqjRurYarszbCEFY7J7jboqrVq8SFPvc6YyiOFRnEequZnad2TpJ1TRcYYUUbdHJQ5BHqRlKVGVeSC86EyEMo1rR0xVX97HR4zIcOj6Rno8a6dxSqaerqE-3DmIHW_THjlhOQ-2FlUkeR1Yx6RMOTROlTiWu9mVPBZGKlMN7Z2IGbVCmysY2TbYB900TZLqnz8e1Y7Hud0lKJ9Eq2fwRH5Qo8LT-2FebtLlibSglSmLvpPLzeyb-2F9EJ4NlNQmfS1ChE1fdzP6-2B0Qep-2BYNAi18q7wkfBjXhUuH2h-2BMCYso5PD9plIOMfgkvsDx9sL03gGyMkWPXATVuW8WaojHmmAAwGJlfQBNLUtLmVQVqxo2EDoACYNk3xvkkI3-2FnPxNOLYCPd1sF-2FObu-2BsQSBif58oO5a8ppWC-2BWsxfaHcT5Qdt0C25-2F8ubE46qS-2B83twoy3RDM5FRIXCM7IWoSaMrW2Ei2z-2B4mnGjP09RscLPIF1d0pll0-3D">procedures</a> for compassionately separating the mother and her baby and working to save both lives,&#8221; Dr. Francis said. &#8220;The only intent of an abortion is to produce a dead baby.&#8221;
&#8220;Women deserve to be empowered by medically-accurate information,&#8221; she added.
Dr. Ingrid Skop, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., a board-certified OB/GYN who serves as senior fellow and director of medical affairs at Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), emphasized that the overwhelming majority of OB/GYNs do not perform abortions.
“Those of us who regularly treat women facing challenging and even traumatic pregnancies know that standard medical procedures are available to treat these situations without resorting to abortion,&#8221; Dr. Skop said. &#8220;In fact, the overwhelming majority of OB/GYNs do not perform abortions, and that’s good news for women’s health, as it is much safer for the woman to be treated in a medical setting with access to emergency care than at an abortion facility.”
And lastly, a former abortionist, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-abortion-doctor-you-never-need-late-term-frank-camp">Dr. Anthony Levatino</a>, who performed some 1,200 abortions in his career before having a dramatic conversion, dismissed the claims at length that abortion is a necessity to save a woman.
&#8220;We hear all the time how abortion, including especially late-term abortion, is necessary to save women’s lives. Nothing could be further from the truth,&#8221; Levatino <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-abortion-doctor-you-never-need-late-term-frank-camp">told</a> LiveAction founder Lila Rose in 2019.
&#8220;I spent nine years working at a tertiary medical center. There are only certain hospitals in the country that are designated to take care of the really, really high-risk pregnancies … Albany Medical Center in Albany, New York, where I worked, was one of them,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I was faculty at the hospital for nine years, and I saw hundreds of cases of really severe pregnancy complications – cancers, heart disease, intractable diabetes … toxemia pregnancy, out of control. In those nine years, I saved hundreds of women from life-threatening pregnancies, and I did that by delivering them, by ending their pregnancy by delivery – either induction of labor or cesarean section.&#8221;
&#8220;I always tell people, in all of those years, the number of babies that I had to, that I was obligated to deliberately kill in the process was zero, none,&#8221; Levatino emphasized.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-abortion-doctor-you-never-need-late-term-frank-camp">Former Abortion Doctor Counters Progressive Narrative: ‘You Never Need Late-Term Abortion To Save A Woman’s Life’</a>

Protests Continue Across Country In Wake Of Supreme Court Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade

Don’t Believe Pro-Abortion Misinformation: What To Know About Ectopic Pregnancy, Miscarriage, And More

Misinformation

President Joe Biden blasted the U.S. Supreme Court while on foreign soil, accusing the high court of &#8220;outrageous behavior&#8221; that has destabilized the country by overturning <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abortion">Roe v. Wade.</a>
During a NATO press conference in Spain, a reporter asked Biden a question laying out the social problems ailing America under his term, wondering what his message is for those around the world who believe America is headed in the wrong direction.
&#8220;And the first question I&#8217;m told is Darlene Superville from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/associated-press?utm_term=&amp;utm_campaign=dw_conversions_subscriptions_performancemax_na&amp;utm_source=adwords&amp;utm_medium=ppc&amp;hsa_acc=6411461344&amp;hsa_cam=16590646933&amp;hsa_grp=&amp;hsa_ad=&amp;hsa_src=x&amp;hsa_tgt=&amp;hsa_kw=&amp;hsa_mt=&amp;hsa_net=adwords&amp;hsa_ver=3&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwk_WVBhBZEiwAUHQCmUIkB_wI6YlMtW3derOHaWq2rPmnl0jSWm8wyYrQazgQwfXnTtxB_BoCujYQAvD_BwE">The Associated Press</a>,&#8221; Biden said, apparently taking directions on who to call on from the media.
&#8220;&#8216;America is back&#8217; was your motto at the first NATO Summit last year. And you&#8217;ve come to this summit here and the one in Germany, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned constitutional protections for abortion, after the shootings in Buffalo and Texas, at a time of record inflation, and as new polling this week shows that 85% of the U.S. public thinks the country is going in the wrong direction,&#8221; Superville posited. &#8220;How do you explain this to those people who feel the country&#8217;s going in the wrong direction, including some of the leaders you&#8217;ve been meeting with this week who think that when you put all of this together, it amounts to an America that is going backward?&#8221;
Biden first disputed that his colleagues believed America is heading in the wrong direction.
&#8220;They do not think that,&#8221; Biden snapped at the reporter. &#8220;You haven’t found one person, one world leader to say America is going backward.&#8221;
&#8220;America is better positioned to lead the world than we ever have been,&#8221; he claimed. &#8220;We have the strongest economy in the world, our inflation rates are lower than other nations in the world.&#8221;
“The one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States and overruling, not only Roe v. Wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy,&#8221; Biden shot back. &#8220;We’ve been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights, and privacy rights, and it is a mistake, in my view, for the Supreme Court to do what it did.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Biden: &quot;[T]he one thing that has been destabilizing [the world] is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in overruling not only Roe v. Wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/HUuJlOktOH">pic.twitter.com/HUuJlOktOH</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1542496745371975680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The president also said that he had been lauded by his colleagues at the G7 conference and NATO Summit.
“But I have not seen anyone come up to me, do anything other than — nor have you heard them say anything other than— &#8216;Thank you for America’s leadership. You’ve changed the dynamic of NATO and the G7,'&#8221; Biden continued.
&#8220;So I can understand why the American people are frustrated, because of what the Supreme Court did, I can understand why the American people are frustrated because of inflation,&#8221; Biden concluded. &#8220;But inflation is higher in almost every other country, prices at the pump are higher in almost every other country. We&#8217;re better positioned to deal with than anybody, but we have a ways to go. And the Supreme Court, we have to change that decision by codifying Roe v. Wade.&#8221;
The full question and answer can be seen here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="President Biden holds news conference at NATO Summit in Madrid — 6/30/2022" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KUeT_e1lxAM?start=604&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
<aside class="ad-unit ad-unit--mr1_ab ad-unit--is-rendered">
<div class="ad-unit__content">
<div id="acm-ad-tag-mr1_ab-mr1_ab" data-slot="{&quot;pos&quot;:&quot;mr1_ab&quot;,&quot;is_companion&quot;:true,&quot;is_oop&quot;:false,&quot;refresh_on_resize&quot;:true,&quot;size&quot;:[300,250],&quot;sizes&quot;:[[[1280,0],[[300,250]]],[[1024,0],[[300,250]]],[[768,0],[[300,250]]],[[641,0],[[300,250]]],[[0,0],[[300,250]]]],&quot;amp_multi_size&quot;:&quot;300x250&quot;,&quot;lazyload&quot;:false,&quot;wx_targeting&quot;:[],&quot;module_refreshable&quot;:false,&quot;fold&quot;:&quot;mid&quot;}" data-unit="{&quot;tag&quot;:&quot;mr1_ab&quot;,&quot;tag_id&quot;:&quot;mr1_ab&quot;,&quot;dfp_id&quot;:&quot;5678&quot;,&quot;tag_name&quot;:&quot;nx.thehill&quot;,&quot;ad_disabled&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;facebook_only&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}" data-targeting="{&quot;pos&quot;:&quot;mr1_ab&quot;,&quot;fold&quot;:&quot;mid&quot;,&quot;category&quot;:&quot;administration&quot;,&quot;kw&quot;:&quot;3542484-biden-calls-supreme-court-overturning-roe-v-wade-destabilizing-factor-for-us&quot;, &quot;hlmeta&quot;:&quot;3542484 biden calls supreme court overturning roe v wade destabilizing factor for us&quot;,&quot;hlmeta&quot;:&quot;3542484 biden calls supreme court overturning roe v wade destabilizing factor for us&quot;,&quot;tags&quot;:&quot;&quot;}" data-path="/5678/nx.thehill/news/administration" data-google-query-id="CIfduoe61fgCFQyGxwod0SsK8A"></div>
</div>
</aside>

Joe Biden

President Joe Biden Accuses Supreme Court Of ‘Destabilizing’ The Country By Overturning Roe V. Wade

President Joe Biden Accuses Supreme Court Of 'Destabilizing' The Country By Overturning Roe v. Wade At NATO Summit In Spain

NATO

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the constitutional authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in order to bring about a transition away from coal energy throughout the country because it was not specifically granted that power by Congress.
&#8220;The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change,&#8221; SCOTUSBlog tweeted. &#8220;In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.
&mdash; SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1542509020891598848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/">noted</a> by SCOTUSblog, the central question was whether or not Congress granted &#8220;the Environmental Protection Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the agency took in the Clean Power Plan.&#8221; The court ruled Congress did not grant that authority.
SCOTUSblog also <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/in-climate-change-case-justices-grapple-with-epas-role-congressional-intent-and-their-own-jurisdiction/">explained</a> that the &#8220;dispute began in 2015 with the Obama administration’s adoption of the Clean Power Plan, a rule that sought to combat climate change by reducing carbon pollution from power plants. The plan never went into effect, however: Several states and private plaintiffs challenged it in federal court, and a divided Supreme Court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/carbon-pollution-controls-put-on-hold/">put it on hold in February 2016</a>.&#8221;
Once President Donald Trump came into power, his administration repealed the Clean Power Plan and instituted a different set of rules known as the &#8220;ACE Rule.&#8221;
In January 2021, &#8220;the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit <a href="https://casetext.com/case/am-lung-assn-v-envtl-prot-agency">vacated</a> the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, vacated the ACE Rule, and sent the issue back to the EPA for more proceedings. The Supreme Court then granted a request by Republican-led states and coal companies to review that ruling; meanwhile, the Biden administration EPA has indicated that it will not reinstate the Clean Power Plan and is instead drafting its own rules on greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants,&#8221; <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/in-climate-change-case-justices-grapple-with-epas-role-congressional-intent-and-their-own-jurisdiction/">according</a> to SCOTUSblog.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority decision and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
&#8220;Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible &#8216;solution to the crisis of the day,'&#8221; Roberts concluded. &#8220;But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.&#8221;
Daren Bakst, a Heritage Foundation senior research fellow focusing on environmental policy and regulation, told The Daily Wire that if the EPA wanted the authority to enact the kind of regulation found in the Clean Power Plan, then the answer is &#8220;really simple.&#8221;
&#8220;Congress would need to enact a law that gives the EPA the necessary statutory authority to impose a Clean Power Plan-like scheme,&#8221; Bakst explained. &#8220;That’s it.&#8221;
&#8220;And this is the heart of the entire issue,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Congress, not the EPA, has the lawmaking power under the United States Constitution.  The EPA forgot this. In fact, it too often forgets that it is an agency of bureaucrats charged with implementing laws, not elected officials charged with creating laws.&#8221;
Bakst clarified that Supreme Court&#8217;s decision rested on what is known as &#8220;the Major Questions Doctrine.&#8221; As <a href="https://www.kassounilaw.com/resources/major-questions-doctrine/">described</a> by one law firm, &#8220;The concept behind the Major Questions Doctrine is that the Court should not assume that Congress delegated important policy decisions to government agencies unless it has done so explicitly.&#8221;
&#8220;The Court looked to the Clean Air Act and examined the actions the EPA was trying to take,&#8221; Bakst explained. &#8220;The agency wanted to in effect regulate the entire electricity grid of this nation and restructure the energy market through the Clean Air Act. There’s nothing in the Clean Air Act that authorizes such action. But the key point is that the Court applied the major questions doctrine, which means that it deemed the agencies actions to be of such importance and magnitude that it would need to have clear-cut statutory authority for taking such action.&#8221;
Bakst said that in this case, the EPA &#8220;wasn’t acting pursuant to clear delegation&#8221; from Congress.
In reaction to the news, Missouri&#8217;s Attorney General Eric Schmitt tweeted, &#8220;BIG VICTORY! Today, SCOTUS ruled in our favor in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a critically important case that we joined West Virginia in filing that pushes back on the Biden EPA’s job-killing regulations.&#8221;
&#8220;We joined WV to fight the EPA’s overreach &amp; challenged the agency’s overly-broad interpretation allowing them to regulate almost any part of the economy, the consequences would lead to higher utility bills, job loss and overall increased energy prices. This is a huge win for MO!&#8221; he added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We joined WV to fight the EPA’s overreach &amp; challenged the agency’s overly-broad interpretation allowing them to regulate almost any part of the economy, the consequences would lead to higher utility bills, job loss and overall increased energy prices. This is a huge win for MO!
&mdash; Attorney General Eric Schmitt (@AGEricSchmitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGEricSchmitt/status/1542509213624066053?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Alfredo Ortiz, Job Creators Network President and CEO, also praised the decision.
“This is a big victory for small businesses and a big defeat for the Biden administration and the regulatory state,&#8221; Ortiz said in a statement provided to The Daily Wire. &#8220;Whether it’s greenhouse gas emissions, Covid lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or scores of other issues, the Biden administration keeps claiming authority it does not possess, as the Supreme Court ruled today.&#8221;
&#8220;This is an important rollback of Biden’s Big Government policies that will give some certainty for America’s small business community, which can in turn, improve the climate for job growth.,&#8221; Ortiz added. &#8220;Whether the administration will learn from their mistake, however, remains to be seen.  On key issues like fighting inflation and the supply chain crisis, the Supreme Court will not be coming to the rescue.  We need pro-growth policies from the President and Congress including spending cuts and making the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent.  We’re still about one million jobs short of where we were pre -Covid so the time to act is now.”
This story includes updated information; please check back for updates.

SCOTUS Justices

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA, Limits Agency’s Authority To Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Supreme Court Rules Against Biden's EPA, Limits Agency's Authority To Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

West Virginia

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in Biden v. Texas that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols — a Trump-era immigration policy also known as &#8220;Remain in Mexico.&#8221;
&#8220;The Supreme Court ALLOWS the Biden administration to terminate the controversial Trump-era asylum policy known as &#8216;remain in Mexico,'&#8221; SCOTUS Blog tweeted. &#8220;Red states argued that Biden was obliged to keep the policy, but SCOTUS says in a 5-4 ruling that the administration can end it.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Supreme Court ALLOWS the Biden administration to terminate the controversial Trump-era asylum policy known as &quot;remain in Mexico.&quot; Red states argued that Biden was obliged to keep the policy, but SCOTUS says in a 5-4 ruling that the administration can end it.
&mdash; SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1542511576497868802?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In 2021, President Joe Biden ordered an end to MPP, which required asylum seekers and other migrants who arrived at the U.S. southern border to remain in Mexico while they awaited their immigration trial. The states of Missouri and Texas sued, arguing that the Biden administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Per order of the court, the Biden administration reinstated Remain in Mexico last December.
In October, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new order ending Trump&#8217;s signature immigration policy, and  &#8220;sought expedited review as to whether federal immigration law requires it to maintain the policy and whether the October decision to end the policy has any legal effect,&#8221; Oyez, a legal database, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-954">noted</a>.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayer, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.
&#8220;&#8230;the Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action,&#8221; Roberts wrote. &#8220;We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the District Court should consider in the first instance whether the October 29 Memoranda comply with section 706 of the APA.&#8221;
The full opinion can be read <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf">here</a>.
This is a developing story; please check back for updates.
A previous version of this article incorrectly said that Mississippi sued the Biden administration. Both Missouri and Texas sued over the policy.

Senate Prepares For Supreme Court Nomination Hearings After Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett For Open Seat

Supreme Court Rules Biden Administration Can End Trump-Era ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

Supreme Court Rules Biden Administration Can End Trump's 'Remain In Mexico Policy' 

Biden Administration

Immigration

Remain In Mexico

Menu