Abortion Revisited: Why It was Never a Constitutional Right

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: David New

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 2/19/26. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today, and it’s also our bimonthly emphasis on the Constitution, American history, and we generally work in some type of current event as well. Now, my guest as normal for this emphasis is David New. He’s a constitutional attorney by vocation. He’s an historian also. He is an author and a public speaker as well. Now a little over 53 years ago, 53 years in one month, just a little bit over than that. On January 22nd, 1973, the US Supreme Court unilaterally by judicial edict declared that abortion, by definition it means this, that deliberate medical or pharmacological intervention to terminate a viable pregnancy. That’s a general definition there, but the court declared that to be a right under the US Constitution. Then nearly 49 years later, on June 24th, 2022, just a few years ago, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, Roe versus Wade in the Dobbs decision, and they removed by that action the 1973 decision linking the decision of the court then of people to deliberately end a pregnancy by conferring that and justifying it by some right conferred by the US Constitution.

That’s what the Dobbs thing did a couple of years ago. Now, abortion is a matter determined under state statutory law and it varies widely from some states declaring anything of that type we call abortion and its various forms, however they describe it to be at a crime under criminal law in some states, it’s actually a protected medical service. Alright, now there are many logical questions that could be asked such as for instance, how is it possible that in the United States known for being founded on clear Judeo-Christian ideals, how could it fall as a nation fall to such a level of evil and embrace the concept that murdering, premeditated, murdering an unborn child could be justified? Or how could the highest court in our land to declare people’s desires to terminate a pregnancy as a constitutional right or how was it possible that a nation could intentionally ignore for over 50 years?

Such sweeping consequences that are measurable politically, economically, fiscally, and culturally as a result of destroying an entire generation of Americans? That number now is over 65 million dead and gone in just over 50 years. But choices do have consequences and unmoored from truth, biblical and moral truth to the truth of constitutional law people in any nation and in any time can get to the point where they declare right to be wrong and good to be evil and evil to be good. Today we’re going to look primarily at how the highest court twisted law and subverted morality when they declared premeditated terminations of pregnancies to be a constitutional right protected by law in a nation that at that time said in God we trust. The title I’ve chosen to frame today’s conversation is simply this abortion revisited. Why it was never a constitutional right. And with that, David knew David, welcome back to the program and I think this will be a very interesting program for those who are staying with us.

David New:

Well, blessings to everybody. It’s so nice to be with you today.

Sam Rohrer:

David, before we get into the depths of today’s focus, we’ve done this several times when you’ve been on, but in this case you ask me to prior to today’s program to provide just a few moments here to make some comments about a plan a 1915 plan. So it goes way back a 1915 plan called the San Diego Plan. And I dare say that a very small percentage of people have ever heard of this plan except maybe for a few listening perhaps in Southern California. But tell us about that plan then and how remembering it today may apply to US and Mexico in 2026 and why is that an issue you think we ought to know about?

David New:

Well, there is within the Mexican community to our neighbors down south, a lot of members of the Mexican community feel that the 1848 Treaty, which ended the Mexican American War was an unjust treaty because they had to give up so much of their territory to the United States as part of the treaty. And there’s always been a whiff ever since of trying to figure out some way to get it back. They want Mexico, they want New Mexico, Arizona, and California and the other areas that were seeded to the United States they wanted returned to Mexico. Well, in 1915, some Mexican patriots got together and they concocted the San Diego plan where they would take back the land that was taken by treaty and they at first were going to take it back to create independent nations, but eventually with the idea that Mexico would annex all the places that they had freed, well nothing came of it.

The date for the San Diego plan to begin and take effect. Nothing happened, although some of the people involved were later involved in criminal activity and trying to get do damage to the United States and things like that. But it is an interesting part of the history. There seems to be some whiff of that right now in some members maybe of the Mexican government, they want the northern parts of the United or the Southwest back given the Mexico. It’s an interesting thing whether the treaty was just or unjust, we will not discuss that. But one thing I will say this, one of the reasons why it’s not right for them to try to get it back is because of what they did themselves. The Spanish language which dominates Mexico is a European language. These are European descendants that make up Mexico. And so when they came in the Conors, they took everything from the indigenous populations that were there, everything, they took their land, they took their language, they took their future, they took their culture, they took it all. There is in the law a doctrine called the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. And it basically says if you want equity, if you want fairness, then you’ve got to be fair in your conduct yourself. So if they really want back California, then they need to give back all the lands they took from the indigenous populations as well.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, David, you’ve raised a good point. We’re out of time ladies and gentlemen. David’s sharing that just to say that it’s amazing things that are today are the result of things that have happened before. Now there’s nothing happening right now actively for Mexico to try to take back southwestern United States, although many would like to. Anyway. That being said, stay with us. We’re going to come back and we’re going to look at the primary. Well, if you’re just joining us today, welcome aboard. Stay with us as we walk through the program. This is only an hour program, so it’s over almost before it gets going and it’s always a challenge to take a major theme such as ours today and deal with it. But that’s always a challenge, something you can pray about because we try not to raise issues or raise questions that are not resolved and that kind of thing.

So anyways, the theme today is this is Abortion Revisited. Why It was never a Constitutional right. Now we’re not going to be saying anything about abortion itself, the statistics, it’s obviously been debated. Most everybody has weighed in on that issue. That’s not really our focus today, although it’s going to be explained more, but it’s really how it came about that the right to do that, the right, the lawful ability to take in a premeditated fashion to terminate a pregnancy. That’s the definition of abortion, how that actually occurred. So David knew is going to walk through that and we’re going to try and structure it in a way that logically progresses. So stay with us on that. Now, David, let’s shift back at this point now to the primary focus of the program. What I just said, that of the historical 1973 Roe versus Wade decision where the US Supreme Court declared that there was indeed a constitutional protected right for a person to intentionally terminate a pregnancy. Okay, now that’s the premise. So from a legal and historical perspective, would you now from your research and consideration share with our audience the most basic reason why abortion is not a federal constitutional right? And in the next segment you’re going to come back and tell us why the Supreme Court said that it was, but start here. Why do you think the most basic reason why abortion is not a federal constitutional rate?

David New:

Yes, if I had to pick the most basic reason, the answer is found in a document called the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers, that document, which was a series of newspaper articles written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, they wrote a series of newspaper articles to get the voters of New York to ratify the US Constitution when it was up for debate and for ratification. By the way, John Jay is on record having called the United States a Christian nation, and he voted as a member of the New York Convention for the US Constitution. So here’s somebody who voted for the US Constitution who is on record saying the United States is a Christian nation. Now when you look at the Federalist Papers, this is a document that is not well studied, but it should be. I know for example, I’ll go to the Federalist Settle address the issue of abortion in just a minute.

But one of the interesting things is people are talking about the concern that there might be a military dictatorship coming in this country that the federal government might take over and just become a dictatorship. Well, this issue was addressed in the Federalist Papers. So for those liberals who are concerned about a military dictatorship, those conservatives who are concerned about a military dictatorship, you need to read Federalist 46, number 46 by James Madison, and he talks about it in Federalist 46. He explains why the United States will probably never have a military dictatorship by the federal government.

This is what he said. For those who are concerned about it, he said, Madison said extravagant as the supposition is let it however be made. So now he’s saying, here’s okay, let’s assume that you’re right. What’s going to stop it? And then he goes on to say, let a regular army fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government. So now he’s saying that the US Army is now devoted to the federal government and are prepared to impose a dictatorship. He goes on still, it would not be going too far to say that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. So how’s the dictatorship in the United States by the federal government to be prevented? Basically the state governments, the state governors with their National Guard or their units in the United States before World War ii, there were more national guardsmen in America that reported to the Governors than the US Army and there were more national guardsmen by a significant margin that changed in World War II.

For the first time the US Army was larger than the combined forces in all the states. Of course, at that time there were 48 was combined in all 48. Right now the US Army has about 445,000 active personnel and the 50 state governors have around 427,000 personnel and their Army National Guard units. So the US Army’s, that’s protection seems to be somewhat withdrawn now that the US Army has gotten so big. So those of you who are concerned about that, you want to take a look at Federalist 46. Now, the main reason why abortion is not a constitutional right is Federalist 45. I have quoted this before, ladies and gentlemen, please listen carefully to what this thing says. This also is written by James Madison. The power powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

Let me read that again. The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. That eliminates abortion. Then it goes on to say those which are to remain in the state, governments are numerous and indefinite. There are no limits to what a state constitution can’t provide for. It can’t be a monarchy, can’t be a dictatorship, it can’t be a theocracy. It’s got to be a republic according to the US Constitution. But once that has been satisfied, state constitutions can go in any direction. Then it goes on to say the former, thus the federal government will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace negotiation and foreign commerce with which last, the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. Here’s where the nails go in the coffin to show that abortion is not a federal, right? The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concerns the lives, liberties and properties of the people and the internal order improvement and prosperity of the state. So why is abortion not a federal, right? It’s Federalist 45. That’s the reason,

Sam Rohrer:

David, that is when you look at it from a statutory, a legal, a constitutional, different variations of law, as it goes right to the heart of it, it’s very, very clear. I mean that those decisions are not for the federal government to make yet. Ladies and gentlemen, they did do it in the case of abortion. Dave, we don’t have much time Now we’re going to get into the next segment here and explain why the court felt that they could justify it because they did and it was the law for about 50 years. But is there any other example here right now of where the court attempted to do or did in the case of abortion, did it in some other area or is this the only time that you can recall that the court actually, so egregiously stepped in marriage,

David New:

Same sex marriage. The Supreme Court declared same sex marriage and gay rights to be a federally protected, right? The legal argument for abortion and same sex marriage and gay rights and decriminalizing homosexuality is the exact same argument.

Sam Rohrer:

Again, we’ll get into the word that they actually used it later. I’ll just set it up. They hung everything they did on one word. I’m not going to tell you what it is yet, but it’s an amazing thing that they did because it was able to convince a lot of people back at that point, Congress actually went along with it. Everybody went along with it. So there are ways though not right for government to take and change that which is even according to law and can justify actions which they do. And we don’t have much time we’re not going to go into, that’s not the purpose for the day. But having served in state legislature for as long as I did, I can tell you that one of the ways that the federal government has done it is by printing money and providing money to the states.

And the states voluntarily give up their rights and fall in line with federal government wishes because of money. And that’s called bribery. Now, in the case of the abortion, that’s not what happened. They did not offer them money. They just made a unilateral eDEP, which we’ll just talk about when we get back in the next segment. Again, the theme today is Abortion Revisited. Why? It was never a constitutional right and special guest David knew just explained that we come back, we’ll give you the reason for why the court justified what they, alright, David, continuing through this analysis here today on say, abortion Revisited. Why it was never a constitutional right. Okay, in the last segment, we considered the reasons why the court’s decision to declare abortion to be a federally protected right was in fact wrong. And you took us to the Federalist papers and made it very, very clear that unlimited, almost nearly unlimited, I’m using that word judiciously, powers to govern things related to life and liberty and property and all of those things belong to the state except where it’s expressly given to the federal government.

And then you cited that as proof and it was very clear. So let’s now move into the heads of the nine Supreme Court justices who in 1973 where they indicated in writing because they had to put it as a part of their justification, but how they justified what they did, which then opened the door for the destruction of an entire generation of Americans. That number now of little babies who have been killed aborted is over 65 million. It’s staggering because if I were to take that 65 million and equate it to the total population of America today, it would represent 20%. 20% of our entire country have lost their lives due to a right to Supreme Court then said, was there in the Constitution and you’ve stated, and we said in the last segment that it really came down to their use of one word. And in many respects that statement to say that it came down to one word, many people would sound like, ah, that’s not possible, not really true. But what is that one word? The court used to justify its abortion decision in 1973? David?

David New:

Actually this particular word and the 73 decision, the Supreme Court really didn’t give and the full sense of the word, the reason for abortion as a constitutional right. That was one of the criticisms of it. They later on gave the word the one word in 1992 to justify abortion. Ladies and gentlemen, if there is one word that can destroy America, it is this word. It’s one single word in the Constitution, words are very powerful things, very powerful. What you say, ladies and gentlemen, makes a big difference and our Lord and Savior, Matthew 1236. But he said, but I say to you that every idol word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words, thou shall be justified. And by thy words, thou shall be condemned. It matters what you say words are. They’re more powerful than nuclear weapons. By many times before people kill each other in a war, what happens first, all kinds of words are given to justify the violence. Before people shoot somebody, there are words spoken and here is how one word killed 65 million Americans. The key paragraph is in the 1992 decision by the Supreme Court, and here’s what they said.

Constitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the due process cause of the 14th amendment. It declares that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The controlling word in the case before us is liberty. That one word, liberty, that single word was the justification for a mass abortion in this country by the federal government and by the federal Constitution. It is an absolute corruption of the word liberty. It is an absolute sham. The entire thing is a fraud. Basically, the rights of gay Americans are based upon a corruption of this exact same word. Liberty. Let me go one step further. In 1940, the United States federalized the Supreme Court federalized religion law in the United States and a case called Cantwell versus Connecticut. That means the federal government took control of religious freedom. How did they do it?

They imposed the establishment clause and the free exercise clause on the 50 states before 1940. Those clauses had no jurisdiction over the states in 1940. That was changed. First they did it with the free exercise clause in 1940 and Kentwell, then they did it with the establishment clause in 1947 and the Everson case, what was the basis? What was the excuse? The same word, Liberty. So the word liberty also is the reason why children cannot operate in their public schools. They cannot read their Bible together as a group. You can’t post 10 commandments in a school classroom. It’s because of the word liberty. Liberty is what gave the Supreme Court the power over religion. Liberty made abortion illegal. Liberty made same sex, sodomy, legal throughout the United States,

Sam Rohrer:

One

David New:

Single word to control, to destroy a nation. That’s the power of

Sam Rohrer:

Words. And David, let’s go beyond that now a little bit because we’ve made it very, very clear. So in law, again, you’re making the case and we’re going to talk more about it. But in law, legislation, that kind of law or in judicial decisions we’re talking about right now or frankly political statements, things that are said in a press conference or something by a congressman or they use words to describe media narrative, what the media says about certain things that are taking place, even in a biblical interpretation, words mean things. We’re making that point. So if a person is no longer bound to the agreed to meanings of words, to me it’s clear that then there can be no enforceable law. You can’t have an insured interpretation of the law. You just simply change the definition of the words. David, when you look back when these examples of the court doing what they said, and earlier on I referred to the court decision as an edict because they did. They just made a flat out edict. And then you say they came back in 1992 and justified it by that word, liberty. But David, as you look back, why didn’t those in Congress, why didn’t those on the state level, when such dramatic changes were made and redefinition of words where they occurred, why wasn’t there a rising up of people saying, wait a minute, you’ve changed the definition of the words. That’s not what it means.

David New:

Yes, there should have been. There should have been. But you’ve got to remember there’s an awful lot of people in the United States who cannot get enacted into legislation through Congress. I mean, for example, you could have never banned school prayer nationwide and have Congress write legislation saying that and then have the President sign it. Forget it. This country would always want prayer in their public schools. But you can do it with a court. There’s no redress. There’s no way to undo it. It’s very difficult to pass an amendment to reverse the Supreme Court decision. It’s like pulling teeth from the shark. It’s very hard. So there are a lot of people who like an activist court that will legislate from the bench because they know they can’t do it in Congress.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, David. Alright. It really what you’re describing, it becomes a strategy and it clearly was a strategy to end run the Constitution literally to end, run the 10th Amendment, the powers of the states as an example, to end run existing moral codes and moral definitions and to change it in a way, as you said, it would not have happened had it been through the right process. But that goes to the heart of also why it’s important for people. Generally. An informed citizenry is what everything hangs on. So if people don’t understand words or the importance of the meanings of words, they can give up things they otherwise would never have done. That applies in that case too, doesn’t it?

David New:

Yes. You would’ve never, ever gotten same sex marriage, constitutional in all 50 states. You could never go to Congress and get that through. But you can do it with the Supreme Court because they can corrupt the meaning of words like we will explain in the next section, why doesn’t the word refer to religion? Why doesn’t it refer to school prayer? Why doesn’t the word liberty refer to abortion? Why doesn’t the word liberty refer to homosexuality or sodomy?

Sam Rohrer:

Okay,

David New:

We’re going to explain that in the next section.

Sam Rohrer:

Yes, we will, David. So ladies and gentlemen, stay with us because we’re trying to walk logically through this process, talking about abortion, what happened, decisions that were made, words redefined, hinging on one particular word, liberty. And when we come back, then we will make the case and we’ll talk about why the usage of that word, liberty to justify what was done was itself an atrocity. Well, as we go into our final segment, I hope that what we’re doing today, constitutional attorney, David New and I on our, this is a bimonthly emphasis on constitution, American history. We generally, those two are always kind of work together, sometimes a connection to some current event. In this case, we’re looking back to an event 1973 when the Supreme Court just decided that they’re going to change what the law said and made by edict and said that those who wanted to in a premeditated fashion, terminate a pregnancy, which is the meaning of the word abortion that they had.

Actually, they could feel good about it because they had a constitutional rate and we’ve talked about that, how it does not exist. It did not exist, and how they changed the meanings of words, which is always a very bad consequence. Now, just a little bit of a background thought additionally here before I go to David, is that when seeking to understand the power of just changing one word, and we talked about that last segment, David and I did as well in this case, the definition of liberty as unilaterally done by the Supreme Court in 1973 in regard to abortion. It makes sense to define the word before looking to how the court violated other aspects of law in order to come to the decision that they did. So I’m going to just give a definitional aspect here of the word liberty. For instance, the first occurrence of the word liberty in the Bible is in Leviticus chapter 25 and verse 10.

The same portion of that verse about liberty being proclaimed throughout the land was the verse chosen to inscribe on the liberty bell. Now in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in Hebrew, when that was originally written, the word literally means to run free and pure as in a bird, unhindered, inflate. Okay, that’s liberty, pure free in definition. At the time of the founders, liberty remains similar and understanding to be freedom from restraint. Webster’s 1828 to dictionary uses that. But yet knowing the context of scripture and the recognizing of the sinful nature of the heart of all mankind, which our founders wrote extensively about, they knew that God was the one who instituted authority in the first place and that authority of the home and the parents and the church and civil government, all of them under God’s ranking of authority, Romans 13, was all put in place to put limited boundaries, and these were included within them.

They were to house all of them. Civil government talking about now to be bound by words and definitions, the universal moral restraints of the 10, the commandments. That was the basis for our law. That’s why they used to hang behind every court bench in the country and still do in most cases. But then our founders office, they took ’em and they’d link that to the beatitudes, which Jesus then established where the concept of, as you think in your heart, not just your actions, but it goes deeper than that. So integrity, honesty, virtue, responsibility, and duty all comes out of that. Now, when you put them all together appropriately with a biblical worldview, it works beautifully, but you redefine God or truth or right or wrong, and lawlessness results and the consequences are extraordinarily costly, such as 65 million babies killed in America. Okay, David, now back to the Constitution and add to what I just said, if you want to, but take us to what the law and our law says to prove that liberty, as the court referred to it, that they really did tremendous injustice to the meaning of the word liberty.

David New:

Yes. Basically what the Supreme Court is doing, there is no textual evidence to say that the word liberty in the 14th Amendment refers to religion, abortion, or homosexuality. None whatsoever. What it is is five people on the Supreme Court agreeing to that definition. It is all politics. It has nothing to do with the law, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. So what does the word liberty mean in the 14th Amendment? Now, the 14th Amendment says, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. What does that mean? The word deprive tells us it’s about criminal trials, nor shall any state deprive deny. What does that mean? A state can deny a person their life. That’s capital punishment, capital punishment for a state. A state can do capital punishment because of that word, life right there.

They don’t have to do capital punishment, but if they choose, they can to deny person any life, liberty, that refers to going to jail, physical restraint or property that refers to getting fines for speeding in your car, taking your money, making you pay a monetary fine without due process of law. That’s a fancy way of saying there has to be a fair trial. The purpose of the 14th Amendment is to make sure that slaves who have been freed no longer are slaves. They get the same rights in the state court that white people do. So David, how do we know that the word liberty does not refer to religion, abortion, or homosexuality? It’s rather easy. You look at the Fifth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, which has more words than all the others, 108 words. It is the source for the 14th Amendment. Look what it says, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the federal government can do executions because the federal government can deprive you of your life.

The federal government can deny you your physical liberty if you commit a crime or impose a fine by taking your property. Now, how do we know that the word liberty cannot mean more than just physical restraint by putting somebody in jail. It’s rather simple. When has anybody ever said that the words liberty in the Fifth Amendment refers to school prayer or that it refers to religion? Never. Never. We know that the word liberty cannot refer to religion because that’s already covered in the First Amendment. The freedom of religion is covered in those first 16 words in the First Amendment. Okay, what about my right to bear arms? We know that the word liberty in the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment cannot refer to my right to own a gun. Why? Because that right is already covered by the Second Amendment. If you treat the word liberty as a shorthand way of referring to gun rights or religion, you basically don’t need a First Amendment or a Second Amendment.

The word liberty cannot refer to slavery. It can’t. Why? Because of the 13th Amendment, the word liberty. In the Fifth Amendment, slavery was legal in the United States, so it cannot refer to slavery. How about a woman’s right to vote in the 19th Amendment passed in 1920? The word liberty does not refer to a person’s right to vote for a woman because of the 19th Amendment. There would be no need for a 19th amendment if the voting protection was already in the word liberty. None. That’s how we know the word liberty cannot mean all these wild and crazy things that nobody’s ever heard of before, like abortion or gay marriage and all of this nonsense.

Sam Rohrer:

All right, and David, we’re out of time.

David New:

Amendments excluded.

Sam Rohrer:

All right, David, we’re out of time, ladies and gentlemen. I hope that this has been helpful for you. Again, the theme Abortion Revisited. We’ve done that. Why it was never a Constitutional right. I hope that that is very clearly established in your mind now. Anyways, thanks for being apart. Get the program sent along to a friend. I’m sure they’ll be benefited by it. David New thanks for being with us today, ladies and gentlemen. We’ll see you back here tomorrow.