April 9, 2024 • 9 mins
Was it something they ate? Did the feminist lobby get to them? How did four men take leave of, not just their senses, their judicial reasoning and education to make such a horrific ruling and allow the abortion at-any-time amendment on the 2024 Florida ballot? Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel weighed-in.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Remember the days when times were goodand life was simple. He still lives
there. The Morning Show with PrestonScott on News Radio one hundred point seven
WFLA Big Stories in the press Boxbrought to you by Grove of creative marketing
and digital expertise. No bigger storyreally of the week than the Florida State
(00:25):
Supreme Court, by a vote offour to three, allowing the abortion amendment
on the ballot, and here totalk about it, as the founder chairman
of Liberty Council, our friend MattStaver. Matt, it is inexplicable to
me how four justices came to theconclusion that they did. Let me ask
you, first and foremost, howdid they get there? Well, I
(00:49):
think you said it. It's inexplicablebecause you have three dissenting justices, all
three of the women justices, andthey did a marvelous job pointing out why
this ballot initiative did not comply withFlorida law. It was deceptive. People
don't know what they're going to bevoting for. The ballot summary was not
(01:11):
sufficient, It violates the single subjectrule. It will affect all three branches
of government. They were right onAnd then some of those in the majority.
For example, the Chief Justice,he acknowledged that this ballot summary has
a lot of vagueness and that there'sa lot of problems with its application that
(01:34):
people wouldn't know about. So heacknowledges the very problem that we argued and
that the Centers actually points out.He acknowledges that. But then he goes
on to say, and this isthe inexplicable part that, well, this
is just part of judicial interpretation ofany kind of statue. Well, this
is not a statute. This isa voter initiative, and a voter initiative
(01:57):
has to comply with certain aspects oflaw. And when you go and read
the ballot summer, you need toknow what you're voting for. Do people
know that they're voting for no lawregarding abortion through viability? Do they know
that even after viability, a tattooartist is empowered under this particular provision to
(02:19):
determine a medical decision of viability.Do they know that even if the person
says the baby is viable, thatthey could override any late term abortion law.
No, they don't know that.Do they know that health and safety
regulations will be challenged? Do theyknow that the only surviving law that could
possibly happen up through the late secondearly third trimester would be parnal notification.
(02:42):
Every law is going to be wipedout. No, they don't know that.
That's exactly the problem. And theChief Justice acknowledge that. But then
the Chief Justice says, well,you know, that's just going to be
something that we'll have to deal with, you know, if it's passed.
Well, no, no, no, that's a statute. Maybe, you
know legislatures, past statutes, theycan have vague language in there, they
can get challenged, the courts canhave the job to interpret them, but
(03:06):
that's not a voter initiative because there'sno debate on a voter initiative unlike a
statute. Well, let me askyou, Matt, is is that in
and of itself that statement by theChief Justice grounds to challenge this again because
he's calling it a statute and itwasn't passed by this legislature. It's it's
something that we as voters are relyingon the court to get right for us
(03:30):
to decide on. Well, hedoesn't call it a statue per se,
but he makes the analogy to that'swhat you do with a statute. And
so that's a problem. And thisis not a statue because the reason why
the law is the way it isfor voter initiatives is that there's no give
and take, there's no debate.Somebody who has a special interest in this
(03:52):
case planned parenthood in the ACAI,they come up with a particular piece of
writing. They said it out there. They need to tell you exactly what
your yesterday and what your no isand if they don't, then it can't
go on the ballot. You needto not be fooled. That's the problem.
People will be fooled. So youhave this decision that is coming forth
(04:12):
and it's inexplicable. And I thinkthere's a real problem with the court's interpretation
not only of this but in generalof these voter initiatives. They've got to
reform this system. This is notright because this means anybody with money can
put basically anything on the ballot andfool the people. And then when you
fool the people, it goes inthe constitution and you're stuck with this,
(04:36):
you know, and when this happensand then health and safety regulations are challenged,
people are going to say, ohmy goodness, I didn't think that
this would knock those down. Yep. You know, on the same day
that we had the four to threedecision, which I thought it was just
impossible that we would have a fourto three decision the wrong way and many
(04:57):
others as well, on that sameday we have six to one decision that
ultimately resolved thirty five years of ourwork to overturn this NRA tw case going
back to nineteen eighty nine overruling thatterrible abortion decision. Friend not just of
the radio program, He's a friendof every Floridian and every Christ centered,
(05:21):
freedom loving, constitution supporting American inthis country. Matt Staver with us.
Matt, It's not lost on methat the four justices that voted to allow
this ridiculous amendment on the ballot aremen and the dissenting votes are women.
(05:43):
Were these guys bullied by the feministmovement that have been calling men the purveyors
of attacking their bodies all these years? I wouldn't say that that they were
bullied about that. I think thattheir legal reasoning was cly off. I
just cannot understand this. When youlook at this particular amendment, Look,
(06:05):
you start with the title of itto prohibit government interference with abortion. Well
you would think, well, maybethat's the government is interfering, you want
to prohibit it. No, thisliterally takes any kind of government regulation out
of it totally. I mean,it gives unlimited abortion at any time for
(06:30):
any reason, up to and includingbirth. That's really what the title should
have been. An amendment to provideabortion at any time for any reason,
up to an including birth. That'sreally what this is about. That would
have been a better title. So, I mean, even from the title
down to the ballot summary, downto the actual language of this amendment,
it was clear when you look atall the cases, when you look at
(06:50):
the issues here, when you lookat the brief, when you look at
the fact that they couldn't even answerthe right questions during oral argument and in
the brief they just didn't really addressthe subject of issues. I just find
it hard. As you said,it's inexplicable how four justices would get it
wrong. But they got it wrong. So now does it become a pr
(07:14):
battle. Do we have to nowwin this in the public forum, which
you know the mainstream media is goingto fight us. Yeah, here's where
there's two things. Number one,we need to just make sure that they
have all their signatures, not onlyhave the overall number of signatures, but
they have to have the distribution ofsignatures in each one of these districts and
precincts, and so we're going tojust double check and make sure that that's
(07:35):
the case. That's number one.Number two, we're going to look at
how they got these signatures. Butnumber three, we're also going to go
into a huge pr battle to tryto let people know how broad, how
radical, how extreme this amendment is. More extreme than anybody thinks. Because
how these signatures were gathered is peoplewent to these people in parks in different
(07:58):
events and they would say, signthis petition to protect women. Okay,
so they sign it, Well,what's it about? They wouldn't tell you.
I know people that were approached andthey would have to ask multiple times
what's it about? What's it about? Finally they would say, oh,
it's about abortion, But they wouldnot tell that to most people. So
most people sign this not even knowingwhat they're signing. So I think we
(08:18):
can stop this and beat it atthe ballot box. They're going to have
to have sixty percent. I don'tthink they're going to get that. But
even beyond that, here's the otherthing. Beyond this case. No matter
how this happens, the three dissentersand even the Chief Justice opened up the
door for us to go back andchallenge personhood under Article one section of the
(08:39):
Constitution. It was raised, itwasn't addressed, it wasn't finalized. But
that's also a big concern. Thepeople aren't aware of Article one, Section
two, how a person can havea right to life, and that would
include the unborn. So this battleis far from over. I think we
ultimately win it. It was aterrible decision. It was a great decision
(09:01):
that we won on the other casewhere we overruled all the thirty five years
of abortion bad decisions that we've workedfor for thirty five years. But I
think we win this too. Ithink we win it certainly in the media.
I think we win it by speakingtruth. But I can tell you
we're going to be outgunned in termsof money because they're going to spend maybe
(09:22):
one hundred million dollars or more inFlorida, because they're making this not just
abortion, they're making it a presidentialAbsolutely try to get people to the polls.
That's really what this is about.I know we'll talk about it more
and I'll share some thoughts with youprivately in writing, Matt, thank you
so much for your time and allyour efforts. Thank you. Good to
be with you all Righty Matt Staberwith us from Liberty Council again LC dot org
Remember the days when times were goodand life was simple. He still lives
there. The Morning Show with PrestonScott on News Radio one hundred point seven
WFLA Big Stories in the press Boxbrought to you by Grove of creative marketing
and digital expertise. No bigger storyreally of the week than the Florida State
(00:25):
Supreme Court, by a vote offour to three, allowing the abortion amendment
on the ballot, and here totalk about it, as the founder chairman
of Liberty Council, our friend MattStaver. Matt, it is inexplicable to
me how four justices came to theconclusion that they did. Let me ask
you, first and foremost, howdid they get there? Well, I
(00:49):
think you said it. It's inexplicablebecause you have three dissenting justices, all
three of the women justices, andthey did a marvelous job pointing out why
this ballot initiative did not comply withFlorida law. It was deceptive. People
don't know what they're going to bevoting for. The ballot summary was not
(01:11):
sufficient, It violates the single subjectrule. It will affect all three branches
of government. They were right onAnd then some of those in the majority.
For example, the Chief Justice,he acknowledged that this ballot summary has
a lot of vagueness and that there'sa lot of problems with its application that
(01:34):
people wouldn't know about. So heacknowledges the very problem that we argued and
that the Centers actually points out.He acknowledges that. But then he goes
on to say, and this isthe inexplicable part that, well, this
is just part of judicial interpretation ofany kind of statue. Well, this
is not a statute. This isa voter initiative, and a voter initiative
(01:57):
has to comply with certain aspects oflaw. And when you go and read
the ballot summer, you need toknow what you're voting for. Do people
know that they're voting for no lawregarding abortion through viability? Do they know
that even after viability, a tattooartist is empowered under this particular provision to
(02:19):
determine a medical decision of viability.Do they know that even if the person
says the baby is viable, thatthey could override any late term abortion law.
No, they don't know that.Do they know that health and safety
regulations will be challenged? Do theyknow that the only surviving law that could
possibly happen up through the late secondearly third trimester would be parnal notification.
(02:42):
Every law is going to be wipedout. No, they don't know that.
That's exactly the problem. And theChief Justice acknowledge that. But then
the Chief Justice says, well,you know, that's just going to be
something that we'll have to deal with, you know, if it's passed.
Well, no, no, no, that's a statute. Maybe, you
know legislatures, past statutes, theycan have vague language in there, they
can get challenged, the courts canhave the job to interpret them, but
(03:06):
that's not a voter initiative because there'sno debate on a voter initiative unlike a
statute. Well, let me askyou, Matt, is is that in
and of itself that statement by theChief Justice grounds to challenge this again because
he's calling it a statute and itwasn't passed by this legislature. It's it's
something that we as voters are relyingon the court to get right for us
(03:30):
to decide on. Well, hedoesn't call it a statue per se,
but he makes the analogy to that'swhat you do with a statute. And
so that's a problem. And thisis not a statue because the reason why
the law is the way it isfor voter initiatives is that there's no give
and take, there's no debate.Somebody who has a special interest in this
(03:52):
case planned parenthood in the ACAI,they come up with a particular piece of
writing. They said it out there. They need to tell you exactly what
your yesterday and what your no isand if they don't, then it can't
go on the ballot. You needto not be fooled. That's the problem.
People will be fooled. So youhave this decision that is coming forth
(04:12):
and it's inexplicable. And I thinkthere's a real problem with the court's interpretation
not only of this but in generalof these voter initiatives. They've got to
reform this system. This is notright because this means anybody with money can
put basically anything on the ballot andfool the people. And then when you
fool the people, it goes inthe constitution and you're stuck with this,
(04:36):
you know, and when this happensand then health and safety regulations are challenged,
people are going to say, ohmy goodness, I didn't think that
this would knock those down. Yep. You know, on the same day
that we had the four to threedecision, which I thought it was just
impossible that we would have a fourto three decision the wrong way and many
(04:57):
others as well, on that sameday we have six to one decision that
ultimately resolved thirty five years of ourwork to overturn this NRA tw case going
back to nineteen eighty nine overruling thatterrible abortion decision. Friend not just of
the radio program, He's a friendof every Floridian and every Christ centered,
(05:21):
freedom loving, constitution supporting American inthis country. Matt Staver with us.
Matt, It's not lost on methat the four justices that voted to allow
this ridiculous amendment on the ballot aremen and the dissenting votes are women.
(05:43):
Were these guys bullied by the feministmovement that have been calling men the purveyors
of attacking their bodies all these years? I wouldn't say that that they were
bullied about that. I think thattheir legal reasoning was cly off. I
just cannot understand this. When youlook at this particular amendment, Look,
(06:05):
you start with the title of itto prohibit government interference with abortion. Well
you would think, well, maybethat's the government is interfering, you want
to prohibit it. No, thisliterally takes any kind of government regulation out
of it totally. I mean,it gives unlimited abortion at any time for
(06:30):
any reason, up to and includingbirth. That's really what the title should
have been. An amendment to provideabortion at any time for any reason,
up to an including birth. That'sreally what this is about. That would
have been a better title. So, I mean, even from the title
down to the ballot summary, downto the actual language of this amendment,
it was clear when you look atall the cases, when you look at
(06:50):
the issues here, when you lookat the brief, when you look at
the fact that they couldn't even answerthe right questions during oral argument and in
the brief they just didn't really addressthe subject of issues. I just find
it hard. As you said,it's inexplicable how four justices would get it
wrong. But they got it wrong. So now does it become a pr
(07:14):
battle. Do we have to nowwin this in the public forum, which
you know the mainstream media is goingto fight us. Yeah, here's where
there's two things. Number one,we need to just make sure that they
have all their signatures, not onlyhave the overall number of signatures, but
they have to have the distribution ofsignatures in each one of these districts and
precincts, and so we're going tojust double check and make sure that that's
(07:35):
the case. That's number one.Number two, we're going to look at
how they got these signatures. Butnumber three, we're also going to go
into a huge pr battle to tryto let people know how broad, how
radical, how extreme this amendment is. More extreme than anybody thinks. Because
how these signatures were gathered is peoplewent to these people in parks in different
(07:58):
events and they would say, signthis petition to protect women. Okay,
so they sign it, Well,what's it about? They wouldn't tell you.
I know people that were approached andthey would have to ask multiple times
what's it about? What's it about? Finally they would say, oh,
it's about abortion, But they wouldnot tell that to most people. So
most people sign this not even knowingwhat they're signing. So I think we
(08:18):
can stop this and beat it atthe ballot box. They're going to have
to have sixty percent. I don'tthink they're going to get that. But
even beyond that, here's the otherthing. Beyond this case. No matter
how this happens, the three dissentersand even the Chief Justice opened up the
door for us to go back andchallenge personhood under Article one section of the
(08:39):
Constitution. It was raised, itwasn't addressed, it wasn't finalized. But
that's also a big concern. Thepeople aren't aware of Article one, Section
two, how a person can havea right to life, and that would
include the unborn. So this battleis far from over. I think we
ultimately win it. It was aterrible decision. It was a great decision
(09:01):
that we won on the other casewhere we overruled all the thirty five years
of abortion bad decisions that we've workedfor for thirty five years. But I
think we win this too. Ithink we win it certainly in the media.
I think we win it by speakingtruth. But I can tell you
we're going to be outgunned in termsof money because they're going to spend maybe
(09:22):
one hundred million dollars or more inFlorida, because they're making this not just
abortion, they're making it a presidentialAbsolutely try to get people to the polls.
That's really what this is about.I know we'll talk about it more
and I'll share some thoughts with youprivately in writing, Matt, thank you
so much for your time and allyour efforts. Thank you. Good to
be with you all Righty Matt Staberwith us from Liberty Council again LC dot org
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.