Life Matters

Hosted by Commissioner Brian Johnston, a weekly program examining the right to life, culture and the battle of ideas. With various guests and experts he examines the arts, the nature of the law, the practice of medicine, ethics, and personal accountability for our own lives as well as the lives of others.

318: SB 1196 with Alex Schadenberg 04/26/2024

318: SB 1196 with Alex Schadenberg In this episode of Life Matters, Brian interviews Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. They discuss in depth the recent failure of California Senate Bill 1196 by Senator Blakespear. The irony is that the bill was not defeated by pro-life efforts. The bill was actually attacked by other pro-death organizations, lobbyist and legislators. Why would other pro-death advocates attack this measure? The prospects of passage in the California legislature are very good - the progressive Democratic Party holds a super majority in both houses. The governor would’ve gladly signed off, as he himself has been supportive and wrote of participating in the intentional killing of his own mother before it was even legalized in California. SB 1196, would no longer allow a need for terminal diagnosis, would make provision to kill those who are not a sound mind, and would remove most qualifying limitations on assisted suicide. The reason the bill was stopped is they knew it would likely pass, and that passage would send alarm bells to an otherwise sleeping public. Assisted suicide is going on in California medical facilities. Assisted suicide is, in fact, the intentional killing of a depressed person. It is happening now and as the death lobby knows, because of media coverage or perhaps lack of coverage, most Californians have no idea California doctors are killing patients. Brian and Alex point out that ‘choice’ whether it be in abortion or in euthanasia, does not actually refer to the patient. It is a medical decision and it is the choice of the doctor to do the abortion, it is the choice of the doctor to perform euthanasia. So when the term ‘choice’ is applied to these procedures, it doesn’t mean protecting a patient. It means protecting the choice of a killing doctor, a doctor who is blatantly defying the oath that made the medical perfection respected. That Hippocratic oath is now gone. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/30999008

317: Understanding Why the United States Founders Used Natural Law 04/17/2024

316: Euthanasia Expansion 03/26/2024

316: Euthanasia Expansion In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston explores the rapid expansion of medical killing - euthanasia. The pattern for euthanasia advocates is to first establish a right to “assisted suicide” - a form of voluntary euthanasia – and imply that there will be protections from any abuse, and that there will be no expansion of medical killing. California Senate Bill 1169 by Senator Blakespear demonstrates again that once the idea of legalized medical killing is established, it is impossible to monitor or prevent its “It’s okay” expansion. Currently, it is very difficult to monitor the use of assisted suicide in California facilities. The government is dependent on the honesty of those reporting the actions and there is no penalty for failure to fill out a report. That being said, the new bill removes the idea that there be a six month prognosis of death. That language is changed to “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” In other words, there need not be any terminal condition! Secondly, the new bill allows those with dementia to consent to assisted suicide, even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent! The measure will now allow the use of intravenous administration of poison. Under current law, the person takes an oral dose of the poison at the time and place of their own choosing with or without witnesses. The new bill removes any need for a residency requirement. If you live in a state where your doctor is concerned that your depression and emotions are causing you to desire suicide, you can simply travel to California, where the new doctor will kill you without any further questions being asked. There is no requirement now, nor will there be, of psychological testing of the individuals to be killed. The 48-hour waiting period is removed. If you ask to die today, you will be killed the same day. The original California Assisted Suicide Law was scheduled to sunset by 2031. Most laws have a sunset in order to assess their efficacy. Now, medical killing - euthanasia - will be the law of the land for perpetuity. Don’t believe that euthanasia advocates want to limit euthanasia. They want to be free to dispose of any individuals whom they see fit for disposal. That’s how medical killing works. That’s how it worked under national socialism. That’s how it worked under international socialism. That’s how it works wherever the Hippocratic Oath is removed from society. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/30541183

315: In Vitro Fertilization 03/06/2024

315: In Vitro Fertilization In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the February 2024 decision of the Alabama Supreme Court regarding in vitro fertilization. The issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF) is not a new debate, but sadly, media coverage has over simplified and reduced a deeper analysis. The issue of manipulating human beings and playing God by creating, and then destroying human lives, has grave and dramatic implications for all of society, many of which are being ignored. First and foremost is the issue of human ownership. There is no debate that these are human embryos. Yes, they can be preserved by cryogenic freezing, But they are indeed human and as the movie, “Jurassic Park” intimates, via IVF, there are implications to the use of science to both create, and then possibly destroy the life created. In that film, the issue revolved around using science to create dinosaurs, using cryogenic freezing of the embryos. But also shows the implications of the creation and theft of such cryogenic “property”. President Trump was clear that it is a practice that should have parameters and limits. He endorses its use only for The issue of creating living property, “playing God,” is only the beginning. The idea of owning another human being is obviously at the heart of IVF issues when it comes to human reproduction. And the issue of owning a human being is clearly at the heart of both slavery and abortion. Western Civilization has recognized that it is unethical to claim ownership of another human being, much less destroy a human being you claim to own. Brian continues the discussion by examining the work of the The Swedish culture is considered liberal and progressive, but the dire implications of owning and creating new human lives are only beginning to be understood. The Swedish Council on Bioethics is asking for a re-examination and some reasonable limitations to be put on this ‘practice of medicine.’ /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/30201138

314: Nationalization of Euthanasia 03/02/2024

314: Nationalization of Euthanasia In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston examines the pressure in 2024 to legalize assisted suicide nationwide in the United States. Many nations have now adopted assisted suicide throughout their borders, including Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, in many others. The American euthanasia movement had attempted to do this through the courts, but in 1994 the Glucksberg decision by the United States Supreme Court announced there was no national “legal right” to be killed by medicine. In spring of 2024, there are 10 states that have legalized medical killing, plus the District of Columbia. There are another fourteen states that have now introduced measures for this year’s legislative session. But this belies the long-term methods, the actual approach that euthanasia advocates are taking. Initially, they propose safeguards and limits on a measure to help it get through the legislative process and legalized. But then they “adjust” the parameters of the law. One of the most common limits is to initially say it is only for residents of their state. This is in order to prevent what is happening in Switzerland, where tourist suicide allows people to fly in and simply be killed in any of dozens of death centers established in Switzerland. Many states that had put safeguards, like the need for multiple doctors to agree, or the need to be a state resident, or the need to be personally present with the physician (many drugs are now being prescribed via Zoom); all of those “safeguards” are now being removed. And there is concerted effort in the media, and by agent provocateur, to encourage those who are medically and emotionally vulnerable to receive their poison pills across state line via Zoom, or to travel to states where their lies will be brought to a swift and immediate end . What all of this means is that we, as individuals. must be extremely attentive to our elderly and dependent relatives. We must ensure that, if they are in any long-term care facilities, proper emotional and medical attention is paid to them. This can only be done by personal involvement. It can’t be done from afar Just as in older cultures, it is the family, and our immediate involvement with family, that is the greatest safeguard in a confused and dying civilization willing to kill the isolated vulnerable. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/30201123

313: Local Elections Matter 02/19/2024

Life Matters 37th Anniversary Special 01/20/2024

Life Matters 37th Anniversary Special In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston reminiscences on Life Matters beginning in 1987, on its expansion, and the many friends and allies that have brought it to this point 37 years later. Life Matters began on radio station station KCBC the 50,000 Watt (The highest wattage allowed by the FCC ) flamethrower station covering northern California. It was the northern California cornerstone for the Bott Broadcasting Network. Life Matters with Brian Johnston gradually expanded to other Bott affiliates, then to the Wilkins Network, which is a nationwide Christian broadcast string of stations, and eventually was included on many stations of the Salem Radio Network. Life Matters is also broadcast on shortwave radio through Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia. Brian points out there are other Life Matters radio programs, the most notable a Life Matters program which is broadcast by Australian Broadcasting System, it is not related to Life Matters with BRIAN JOHNSTON. There are also smaller local shows that might share the name, “Life Matters.” They are usually, as in the case of one, a home and lifestyle program that focuses on home economics and day-to-day life (which is a good theme! It’s just not our theme!). Brian dedicates some time to the various sponsors of Life Matters, including Mike Lindell, the Pillow Guy (use promo code: LIFE); Car Easy which is a nationwide non-profit that will take your donated car, improve it and then share the proceeds with our work. Go to . Another important sponsor is the Life Fest Film Festival. Go to and you can view some of the latest creative submissions from new, as well as experienced filmmakers, making their way in the entertainment industry with positive, life-affirming films and programs. You can view at home. You don’t have to travel. You don’t have to rent a hotel or buy theater tickets. You can watch in the privacy of your own home. Hundreds of films are now available at . /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/29574593

312: Red-Blue-Choice-Overturn 01/08/2024

312: Red-Blue-Choice-Overturn In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the real implications of Roe v. Wade, the fact that language is being used to trick people into thinking that the abortion debate has been settled - when in fact, it is only just begun in seriousness. Brian examines how the media uses semantics and semiotics – the study of signs and symbolism - to confuse the American public. The issue of red state versus blue state is but one example of how symbols are presented as truth to the public. The blue, which originally represented the Republican party, was intentionally changed starting in 1980 so that Red would not be associated with the Democrats and their philosophy. Throughout the rest of the world, red has been associated with the principles of Communism and state control. If the media continued to announce that a Democrat victory was a victory for the Reds then people may begin associating the Democrat party with its actual ideas of statism: group division, group control, oppressor versus oppressed, and other principles outlined in revolutionary Socialism are aligned with Communism. Starting in 1980, John Chancellor and the dominant media officially declared the color of Democrats to be blue, contrary to its historically use as representing Republicans. Instead, NBC and all media declared that Republicans should be considered red and Democrats blue. This use of symbolism or semiotics is an intentional act on behalf of the media. But media manipulation goes much further, and usually they use simpler forms of semantics, bending meanings - that is, the bending of words to come to a different conclusion than they are implying. They imply their own neutrality, but are, in fact, directing listeners to very specific conclusion. The word, “choice” has been used in different ways so that listening people, if they want some kind of exception for hard cases on abortion, are told that they are pro-choice for those hard cases. But in political reality, what abortion advocates actually mean by “choice” is not to limit abortion, but to authorize unlimited abortion. ‘A woman doesn’t have to give a reason if she wants the abortion. She should simply be free to choose it.’ Abortions of healthy babies inside healthy mothers is the political result of that meaning of choice. The media will use the term interchangeably to convince normal people that they support the radical feminist view of “choice.” Finally, Dobbs itself as a decision has been declared to “ overturn Roe” but it really didn’t. It did not address Doe v. Bolton which made doctors, the abortionist a killer. It also made doctors the killing decision-makers. Doe v. Bolton made doctors violate the Hippocratic Oath. And the Doe v. Bolton decision was not overturned. Brian’s book, “Evil Twins: Roe and Doe, How the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing,” is available online and also as an audiobook version on Amazon. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/29390753

311: Life Film Fest international 12/23/2023

310 - Euthanasia In Canada 12/20/2023

310 - Euthanasia In Canada In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explains the growing embrace of euthanasia in western culture. Listeners of Life Matters understand that the Right to Life debate is a debate about whether the law should allow the killing of innocent human lives. Today, after the impact of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, medical killing has become widespread in the United States and accepted under the law. This is not simply in the act of human abortion. Numerous states have legalized “Assisted suicide”. But understand that the emotions surrounding suicide can easily be addressed or even manipulated. The reason we have suicide hotlines is because the idea of taking one’s life is one of emotional despair. This despair, these emotions, can be addressed if we care for that human being. However, if we no longer wish to care for that human being, those emotions can just as easily be exploited. That human being can then be disposed of. In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the rapid acceptance of euthanasia in Canada. Prior to 2016 it was illegal for doctors to intentionally kill their patients. But in 2016, using emotional arguments and misleading language, laws were passed allowing MAID (Medical assistance in dying), a euphemism for various forms of euthanasia. It was to ‘only be used’ for those who were truly dying of an incurable cancer and at death’s door. It was presented as simply relieving them of pain and suffering. But that quickly changed. Because Canada uses government-sponsored healthcare at every level, the idea of saving funds and being compassionate for many other lonely and suffering people has now been marketed to the Canadian people. Beginning in March 2023, it is now legal to kill a patient that has nothing physically wrong with them. If they are depressed, it is considered very ethical to simply take their life. This has not been a slippery slope. Commissioner Johnson points out it has been a precipice. As soon as you authorize doctors to be killers and remove the Hippocratic oath as a guideline for their actions, you have embraced a form of technical savagery. Vulnerable human beings are routinely killed, dismissed, and forgotten. The only way for this to be addressed is for this outlandish dismissal of our fellow human beings to be condemned clearly and loudly. In the meantime, should you or loved ones suffer depression, or suicidal thoughts it is up to us now to be involved in counseling and encouraging those who are in vulnerable situations. If you have loved ones in nursing homes, please be sure that they are not being over-medicated or being ignored. Depression and neglect are some of the most common problems in long-term care and nursing home situations. Once we culturally embrace killing those who are no longer actively involved in our life, we, as a culture, have stepped off of the precipice of civilization and into moral darkness. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/29166518

309: The Real Meaning of the Dobbs Decision 12/03/2023

309: The Real Meaning of the Dobbs Decision In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines what is really at stake in the issue of the Dobbs Decision. Many pro-life individuals errantly believe that the Roe v. Wade decision started the abortion debate in the United States, and that somehow the Dobbs Decision has resolved the debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Dobbs Decision was an apology by the Supreme Court, that it should NEVER have entered into the realm of making laws. The Supreme Court itself violated the United States Constitution. And in the Dobbs Decision, the court apologizes and says that now, 50 years later, it’s actually only “up to the people themselves through their elected representatives,” to make law. This is an invitation to pro-life individuals to now be actively and passionately involved in their representative form of government, to work right now, to elect pro-life individuals to public office at every level of government. Brian reminds us that the constitution requires that each and every state must use this representative or republican form of government. Local city counties and state governments employ elected representatives. What the Supreme Court did in the Dobbs Decision was say, “We were wrong for 50 years. We’ve allowed abortion on demand, but it was really up to lawmakers to make laws and not us, and for citizens to elect lawmakers.” Brian also took extra time to talk about the need to help our fellow Americans, and especially younger folks who are educated into a vapid worldview, to help them understand that human life is valuable. The Life Fest film festival is dedicated to helping our culture reinforce, and understand the significance of each and every life, and in particular the seemingly insignificant life. Life Fest ’24 is currently viewing online and you can buy tickets at . From Thanksgiving through the end of December you can buy a complete season pass to view both this year and the coming season. Enjoy and support contributions of new filmmakers making creative films that underscore the significant importance of the seemingly insignificant life. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/28900828

308: The Dobbs Decision Did NOT End The Abortion Debate! 12/01/2023

308: The Dobbs Decision Did NOT End The Abortion Debate! In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explores the recent elections and the losses of November 7, 2023. Those losses for pro-life Issues and candidates can be attributed directly to the Dobbs Decision. The Dobbs Decision was not understood by most pro-life individuals. The Dobbs Decision was not, in fact, a victory for the pro-life movement. It did not “overturn“ Roe versus Wade. It was the Supreme Court apologizing for Roe v. Wade, and saying it’s not going to get involved - that was it. “Let’s pretend that never happened. Now you voters can do whatever you want.” But that is not ‘overturning’. In fact, it is giving approval to the medical killing of children if so voted. But that was never the case before Roe. We have NOT ‘gone back to before Roe’ because doctors were following the Hippocratic Oath before Roe. They have not restored the legal or ethical standards of the Hippocratic Oath which is the key and essential violation of Roe and its conjoined decision Doe v Bolton. Dobbs was exactly the same as the Dred Scott Decision. The Dred Scott Decision was a Supreme Court decision that was expected to end the slavery debate. But, in fact, it did not. It made it worse. It allowed slavery to continue in slave states, but worse, it allowed slavery to be enforced in anti-slavery states! That’s right! The Dred Scott Decision said that pro-slavery advocates could come in to free states, grab runaway slaves, and bring them back to slavery. Dred Scott had asked to be declared ‘free’ because he had indeed escaped a slave state and was in a free state. The Supreme Court said, “No.” So under the Dobbs Decision, exactly the same legal standing has taken place. As Justice Kavanaugh put it, “The Supreme Court should never have ruled on abortion and will never again rule on abortion.” “We don’t want anything to do with this issue,” to paraphrase his concurrence. “If you want to kill babies go ahead. If you wanna protect babies, go ahead, but we will not debate this at the Court ever again.” If you pro-lifers understood the meaning and implications, they should be truly appalled at Dobbs Many still think that Roe somehow started the abortion debate, and the Dobbs somehow ends it. They are categorically wrong, and because if that have not been prepared for the battle at hand. They are walking in civic ignorance. In the second part of the program, Brian has good news and that is that Life Fest Film Festival is now available to be viewed anywhere in the world. You can view it on your computer screen at home or as many people now do, stream it onto your flatscreen television. There’s no need to fly to Hollywood to buy seats at the theater or stay in a hotel. It’s a film festival where excellent new film makers and experienced filmmakers can explore the issue of innocent human life, and the significance of each and every life. Lifefilmfest.com. Motion pictures have become the new literature of our culture. Visual storytelling is where most people get their feelings, emotions and ideas about what really matters in life. This storytelling is an important art. It’s what Jesus did - the Pharisees were religious. But Jesus told people stories to help them understand the truly deep underlying issues of life. And that’s what movies do. They tell important stories that impart knowledge and understanding in the most important things. When it comes to the right to life, the significance of even the seemingly insignificant life is an essential premise. So the good news is Life Fest can now be viewed on your home Screen! There are special discounts for listeners of Life Matters and you can buy gifts of screenings for any young people you may know who want to go into the film industry. That’s the purpose of Life Fest! It’s changing Hollywood and Hollywood is what impacts our culture. Lifefilmfest.com. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/28877238

306: Are We Saving A Democracy or Saving a Republic? 09/26/2023

306: Are We Saving A Democracy or Saving a Republic? In this episode of Life Matters, Brian focuses on the very specific nature of a very specific political party: the Democrat Party of the United States. He finishes with a comparative and contrastive look at the striking difference between a Democracy and a Republic. As an explanatory template, he uses a recent publication from a Democrat Party operative and New York Times contributor, Terry Golway. The book is, Machine Made; Tammany Hall and the Creation of Modern American Politics. While Brian clearly disagrees with the principles and nature of Tammany Hall, he recommends the book itself as a valid expose, and an unflinching examination of machine or collectivist politics. It was mastered in New York City and spread through much of New York, and is continuing to this very day. Golway, himself, states that the corrupt society of Saint Tammany or "Tammany Hall", founded in 1786, is the template being employed by the modern Democrat Party today. Stuffing ballot boxes, blanketing precincts with empty ballots, collecting and completing them, absence of ballot signature verification, less than honest voting tabulation were all a regular part of the Tammany machine. Boss Tweed, one of its more notorious “bosses”, is perhaps the most infamous for gleefully celebrating his questionable methods, and eventually being exposed for obvious political corruption. Though caught, he was obviously less than penitent. Many famous names from American history, Roosevelt and LaGuardia, are now familiar to us because they spent considerable efforts in attempts to limit the corrupt influence of Tammany on the city and state of New York. When the Irish potato famine (1846-1852) drove millions to emigrate to the US, Tammany workers awaited them at the New York docks. Tammany "ward heelers" then knew where they lived and obliged them with employment if they could. All social and religious interests were accommodated and all accommodation came with political obligation. The machine was set. The resources of government and its influence would lubricate the machine. After exploiting the Irish immigrant population, Tammany spread its tentacles into the new Italian immigrant populace. Fiorello La Guardia was one who spoke out powerfully against the evils and corruption of racial exploitation, groupthink and machine politics as practiced by Tammany. Before him, Theodore Roosevelt sought and received an appointment as a police commissioner in New York City in 1895, specifically because Tammany used the authority of government, as embodied in the police, to enforce its policies. Roosevelt was tenacious and popular with the press, but largely ineffective. But because of his commitment to stand against corruption and the evil of Tammany, he "rose like a rocket" in New York politics. But Roosevelt could not finish the job. The Tammany machine has not gone away. It still exists. It has morphed into the backbone of New York politics. Its methods are openly used by the modern Democrat party, and Terry Golway’s, Machine Made: Tammany Hall and the Creation of Modern American Politics. makes no bones about that. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/28150541

304: Natural Law vs. Religious Law - Part 2 07/21/2023

304: Natural Law vs. Religious Law - Part 2 In the second part of our episode on natural law as a legal predicate, Brian explains at length why Christians should be the most comfortable with this idea - instead of insisting that their theology be the predicate for approaching the issue of life in America’s laws. Using raw political power to pass a measure that conforms with our religion is not actually an exercise in just law or a recognition of higher law. it is an acknowledgment that, “if we have the votes, we can pass this law“. What if a political group passes laws on this foundation? It is in essence, the exact predicate used by the Taliban or any other religious group throughout history. It is exactly what gave rise to many of the political disagreements in Europe in the centuries before America’s founding. Americas Founders did not invoke ‘natural law’ unintentionally. As most individuals who are involved in the right-to-life movement are of some Christian faith background, Brian takes an in-depth look at the Scriptures. They both explain, and in fact, command, this approach to viewing life and the law. God uses nature to instruct us. The Sermon on the Mount and its appeal to consider flowers, birds, and nature itself is at the heart of much of Christ’s teaching. His parables from everyday life stood in great contrast to the religious platitudes of the religious leaders who demanded that religious practices were the way to understand God. But the scriptures themselves indicate that there are deeper things at work. Romans 1:20 , “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” It is nature itself that proclaimed God‘s presence and nature, Gods higher law principles are made evident through the things that are seen. Psalm 8 and Psalm 19 make extensive reference to astronomy and how, for believers, it is actually presented as instruction in God’s nature and God‘s ways. However, very few take the time to “consider deeply” what they see when they see the stars. “Seeing” is not the same as understanding or contemplating, or “considering.” And it is these latter, contemplative verbs that are indeed used in scripture. As Jesus Himself made evident to the Pharisees, they did not live a practically applied spiritual life, they are pursuing religious precepts and traditions. “It is the traditions of men that make void the word of God.” Religion is stifling, and most people intuitively know that when they look at the religion of others. Being able to apply it to ourselves is the hardest part. Jesus was very explicit with His own followers, and is blunt in Luke 12:56 - 57. He pointed out that they could indeed recognize objective reality in nature and come to valid conclusions, and yet they were not taking the time to think more deeply about the spiritual challenges of their own time. “You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and sky. Why don’t you know how to interpret the present times? And why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?“ It is critically important for the pro-life movement to understand its foundation in natural law, as instruction for us and for how we deal with others. It is also critically important for all Christians to understand their obligation to spend time with God and in the nature which He has created for us to help understand Him. It’s not that we need to be classical scientists, but we should examine closely God’s creatures in creation and contemplate, dwell on, think deeply about, how it impacts our day-to-day lives. In fact, the scripture seems to indicate that is one of the purposes of creation: and creation is waiting for us to do OUR job. “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.“ (Romans 8:19) There is little doubt that for us to come to better understanding of ANYTHING we must consider it deeply. Nowhere is that clearer than in natural law, and the right to life. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/27532926

302: Identical Twins - Aren’t!!!! 07/07/2023

300: The Deeper Meaning of Dobbs 01/16/2023

300: The Deeper Meaning of Dobbs In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston takes a straight-forward look into what the overrule of Roe v. Wade actually means for our nation and our state. He reads from the decision and cites several other matters of court precedent, including Doe v. Bolton. Johnston explains that not a single baby is protected in the language of the Dobbs decision. Instead, the Court simply apologizes and declares they will now let the American people again regulate abortion, and do so through their elected representatives. It restores that essential principle of the Republic: government of, by and for the people. But it does not restore all those laws it struck on Jan 22, 1973. It does not actually address the 50 years of killing or the many other harms that emanated from that day. The Dobbs decision clearly states the Court's regret with the extremist and inappropriate Roe v. Wade misadventures of January 22, 1973. On that day the Court overturned all state laws. The Court took upon itself the rule of legislators and superimposed its will on all the various legislative bodies. This was an unconstitutional act. But on June 24, 2022 the Court did not go back in time. The Court did not reinstate all of those laws that were in existence. The Court was very clear in Dobbs, that it was not going to create ANY new abortion laws in either direction - that was its initial problem. Creating law is not the job of the Court. Instead, the Dobbs decision has returned the duty of regulating abortion to the involvement of the citizens doing so through their elected representatives. This is the model of a constitutional republic, and is the premise of the American Constitution. What that means is if a legislative body decides to restrict abortion, theCourt is promising it will never again interfere with that right. In discussing Roe, the language of Justice Alito clearly parallels the same language of dissenting Justice Byron White in 1973. The superimposing will of the Court was an exercise in 'raw additional power,' and without any basis in law or logic. Alito is clear he would have joined the dissent in 1973. But he is also clear. This is no longer 1973. So what do we do now? Brian points out that the Dobbs decision is not specifically aimed at state representatives, but literally the people themselves who will regulate abortion through their elected representatives - so the principle can apply to Congress. It also can apply to local elected officials where those local officials deem it necessary to limit the involvement of the abortion industry in their respective jurisdictions. School boards are but one example that comes to mind. Brian raises a deeper issue. How is the pro-life movement now to win in this chess board battle of ideas and laws? He turns, of all places, to California. Californians, in fact, do not agree with the major media and the abortion industry when it comes to "choice" as meaning, unlimited abortion throughout all nine months, government funding of its promotion and underwriting, and the secret application of abortions to minors, whether they be from California or brought in from out of state. The California Rasmussen poll demonstrates the vast majority of Californians - as is the case in the rest of the nation, think that "choice” means very narrow limiting and control of abortion. Brian insists THIS is the opportunity that pro-lifers should avail of: invert the public's common misunderstanding and welcome their desire to limit abortions. The respected Rasmussen poll found that only 13% of likely California voters of both parties believe abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy up to the moment of birth. Fourteen percent (14%) think abortion should be legal up to six months of pregnancy, while 32% say abortion should be legal up to three months of pregnancy. Nineteen percent (19%) believe abortion should only be legal during the first month of pregnancy, while 14% think all abortions should be illegal. Yes, Brian insists THIS is the opportunity that pro-lifers should avail of: invert the public's common misunderstanding and welcome their desire to limit abortions as understanding and being opposition to “choice". Once we welcome them as opponents of Planned Parenthood and abortion as a 'universal therapy,’ we can then focus on teaching them more. But we must get them in the door based on what they now DO believe! They oppose Choice abortion. That is a very, very good thing. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/25621653

299: 2022 - The Year In Review 12/21/2022

298: Interview From Life Fest Film Festival 2022 12/04/2022

298: Interview From Life Fest Film Festival 2022 In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston conducts an interview with Laura Lehmus, a Finnish director, currently residing in Germany. This interview is part of a series, exploring the Life Fest Film Festival. Life Fest is that unique film festival, dedicated to honoring those films which underscore the significance of an innocent human life, and in particular the seemingly insignificant life. For 12 years, Life Fest has been conducted from Hollywood, California. It has drawn filmmakers from throughout the world, with productions from experienced hands but also brand new students of film. Its purpose is to give a vision, excitement, and definitive purpose to these aspiring filmmakers to continue on in this important theme, the actual theme of western civilization - the dignity of each and every life. This year’s Life Fest film festival is now available online and can be viewed at or accessed through the California Pro-Life Council webpage. Laura's is one of several films submitted in the foreign language category. “Sweet Disaster” is in German with English subtitles. It’s a very unique film dealing with a young woman who struggles as an immigrant in Berlin, facing an out of wedlock pregnancy. Her suitor rejects her and she is very much alone in a big, strange, and seemingly heartless world. She is over 40 and her rather low paying job fires her for not telling them of her pregnancy. Working with the developmentally disabled, she is an individual who is full of compassion and yet, appears to be abandoned by all others. In a simultaneously deep discussion of the storyline itself, weaved with an over arching view of the filmmaker’s challenges, they explore the seemingly tragic yet, simultaneously humorous storyline. It is Laura’s first feature film but she had some tremendous opportunities with a powerful leading cast, excellent cinematography, and one of the better known script writers of German cinema helping her. In this interview Brian and Laura explore the story and Laura explains some of her motivation in telling this particular tale. She was deeply honored to be chosen by Life Fest as we are a film festival that understood precisely her vision and purpose. This is just one film available in this year’s Life Fest catalog. More than thirty films from throughout the world -from first time teenage filmmakers to more mature and seasoned directors, each film aims to tell the uniqueness of a human life, a human life that others might view as ‘problematic’ and be all too ready to dismiss. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/25218264

297: Elections and the Media: Fall 2022 11/28/2022

296: Life Fest Film Festival 2022 11/16/2022

295: The Further Down The Ballot, The Greater Your Voting Power 10/29/2022

295: The Further Down The Ballot, The Greater Your Voting Power Every Life Matters episode makes itself applicable to the immediacy of the news and the times, but simultaneously, Mr. Johnston explains the times in their context. He underscores the evergreen and important principles that are needed in these times. This episode is the penultimate episode leading up to November elections, 2022. Brian underscores the many misunderstandings that pro-life individuals have come to, and how those misunderstandings, once clarified and then acted on, could have a dramatic impact on the nation. But this happens only through having a dramatic impact on one’s immediate community, their county, and their state. This is done through the lawmakers which they elect, and which represent each of those jurisdictions. The recent Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision, which nullified the Roe v. Wade decision, explicitly stated this principle. The authority to make abortion laws lies with each American citizen, and is done through their elected representatives. All of these down-ballot jurisdictions are representative of the federal representative form of government which we have inherited in the United States. On the national level, that representative government is manifest through the two houses of Congress. Most reportage of the moment rightly focuses in this election on the critical decisions in balance within the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. These are essential political battles. But without understanding the principles employed there, and how these representatives are hired at each election, the lack of clarity in civics has brought great harm to the pro-life movement. Many efforts made by earnest pro-life individuals don’t actually accomplish a change in the laws. Activity is not the same as accomplishment. This specific episode equips Christians of all backgrounds and denominations and even non-Christians in the pro-life movement, with an understanding of appropriate civic actions. These election activities are not arbitrary. They lead to legal accomplishment by lawmakers on behalf of the vulnerable innocent child and of all vulnerable innocent human lives. Brian quotes from Dr. Dobson’s, “Family Talk” program of a previous week. In it, Dr. Dobson bemoans the fact that in presidential elections, 25 million Evangelicals don’t even register to vote nationwide. But it gets worse. In every general election, 65 million Evangelical voters will admit they will vote but they will not vote down the ballot and will leave blank whole sections of their ballot in what is known as down ballot races. The 65 million American Evangelicals are disproportionately very, very pro-life. Amazingly, the power of their vote is disproportionately more powerful in down ballot races. This power is because in a state wide race - for example California - typically 4 to 8,000,000 ballots can be cast (sometimes more!) The difference of say 50 votes from one particular church in Pomona, California is mathematically a drop in a very, very large ocean. But as you descend down the ballot, (just as the properties of a nitrogen gas bubble expand the further down you descend), the value in properties of that ballot expand exponentially. California has 52 congressional districts - your vote is 52 times more impactful for your Congressional candidate than it is for a state-wide candidate. But continue down into the depths of civics. As you go down to the very local level, those 50 votes are exponentially huge in the city of Pomona and further down in the separately segregated geographic portion of Pomona that’s known as a school district. But go further. Go down to District 5 of the school district board. That church in Pomona is in that district. Those 50 votes are now absolutely dispositive. They will help determine the disposition of that election and many school board candidates are elected by much, much smaller margins than 50 votes That same ballot being cast by you has exponentially more power in speaking to your representatives as the Dobbs vs. Jackson decision directed. Your voice is exponentially more powerful in your Congressional district and down to your very local community than it is state wide. So this is the reason in federal and state elections that it is critically important to work with a comprehensive pro-life team in civics. National Right to Life is the team of diverse pro-lifer’s. National Right Life PAC and its state affiliate pacs, allow your vote to have a great power on the state and federal level. Your efforts with your local pro-life chapter has incredible power - expansive nitrogen bubble expansion - at the great depths of your local school board. Your same vote has devastating impact in the fight to keep abortion advocates out of your local schools (I, of course, speak metaphorically and urge you to consider these things deeply and as you ascend make sure you decompress, taking this knowledge with you. When you reach the surface please be natural about it. Go out and vote and vote with your local pro-life community.) California Prolife and many of the affiliates of National Right to Life Committee provide an important voter information tool. Historically, these were paper voter guides. But with the advancement in technology and the vast numbers of local candidates, the new allows any citizen in the state of California to download their mailing address where they receive their ballot and every pro-life candidate and issue on their local precinct ballot is presented. When pro-lifers vote pro-life, down the entire ballot, they change their communities, they change their counties, they change their members of Congress, they change their states. Again, this tool is available at the California Prolife website , at the specific url , and national information directing you to each and every state affiliate is available at . /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24841695

294: Your Vote Can Make Laws - The Supreme Court Must NOT 10/22/2022

294: Your Vote Can Make Laws - The Supreme Court Must NOT Each and every Life Matters podcast is designed to equip listeners for very specific and detailed understanding of particular aspects of the fight to protect innocent lives. This episode of Life Matters, recorded in October 2022, addresses itself to a very specific and ongoing issue in this fight for life. It focuses on the election coming to an end on November 8th. It gives a much deeper, detailed explanation and understanding of the significance of this and future elections when it comes to ending abortion and the much larger issue of protecting all innocent life from medical killing. The utilitarian use of medicine - medical abortions - is perhaps the most evil aspect of what the Roe v. Wade decision actually brought to America. The abortion aspect was the only aspect addressed in the Dobbs decision of June, 2022. Mr. Johnston begins by giving an overview of the elections in California and nationwide. He reminds listeners that our electoral system has been dramatically changed under Democrat party policies. Historically, November 8th would be election day, and all those with the privilege of voting would cast their ballot on that day. To accommodate those unable to cast their ballot that day, a system has long been in place known as absentee balloting. But throughout America’s history the use of such absentee balloting has been extremely and closely monitored. There’s a universal agreement by those concerned about the changes in election patterns of the last decade that the abuse of the absentee ballot has led to many mysterious and unaccountable ballots being cast. This alteration of America’s voting patterns and voting laws was further changed during the COVID-19 worldwide epidemic. Many governments addressed the virus in many different ways. In the United States, it was used to dramatically alter the use of absentee ballots and other forms of balloting. Brian, speaking from direct experience within California elections over the last 40 years and experiences with elections in the English speaking world (UK, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand), warns that America must return - in order to preserve the nature of its government - to its constitutional form of electing its government. The new election procedures have allowed unconstitutional premises to be the basis of the vote and thus of the laws emanating from those elected. The Constitution of the United States is what has in fact allowed the protection of the rights which American citizens are promised. The first and foremost of these rights is the right of the innocent to live. Brian drills down deeply on the immediate application of these principles. He dedicates a portion of the program to the reemergence in California of Pro-life Democrats. It is crossover Democrats, historically, that have elected all pro-life legislators even in California, Ronald Reagan being the most shining example. But the influence of an effective and pointedly directed, pro-life Democrat effort greatly alters the outcome of elections because there are many, many people who have remained registered democrats (Roman Catholics, union members, and many others). They prefer the pro-life position yet have felt compelled by social or cultural background to be registered in the Democrat party. This registration differential must be understood and clarifying principles applied. This year’s emergence of a national pro-life Democrat effort that instead of merely going along with the party and raising pro-life signs, attacks pro abortion advocates within their party for exactly what they are doing. These new Pro-life Democrats are not silent even when asked to be silent. As Ronald Reagan said, “I did not leave the Democrat party - the Democrat party left me.” As important as they are for this election, Brian has promised an entire program dedicated to how California pro-life Democrats and nationally pro-life Democrats can be much, much more effective. Brian goes on to explain that even in California, Democrats support for unlimited abortion is extremely rare. The recent Rasmussen Poll of California voters indicates that a very small proportion of such voters actually support the idea of unlimited abortion throughout pregnancy (13%). These numbers almost perfectly reflect the actual disposition of normal Americans across the nation. In his book, , Brian had cited both the Marist poll of 2021 and the Gallup poll. Their detailed analysis revealed almost exactly the same thing nationally. Approximately 12 to 13% of Americans want to ban all abortions and approximately 12 to 13% want to embrace all abortions. The vast majority find themselves defining their support based on the age of a child whether it be in three months or six months etc., or often because of very, very special and unusual circumstances (rape, incest, life of the mother, severe field deformities…). These Americans would like to see some kind of restrictions on unlimited abortion and a balancing of rights so that the child is given some legal consideration under the law. The average use of “pro-choice” in the Democrat party’s and in the media’s lexicon means “abortion should be allowed without having to give a reason, allowed at any time simply because it has been chosen.” As a literature instructor, Shakespearian actor, and communications practitioner (writing, film television and radio), Brian is well aware that the electoral process is merely the culminating decision of other thought processes in the battle of ideas. All Americans, and all human beings for that matter, are facing these critical ideas. A portion of the episode is dedicated to reminding people of Life Fest Film Festival now in its 12th year. The film festival will release after the election and be available worldwide instead of just in Hollywood and Park City, Utah. It will be available for viewers to participate online, to view films and vote on them, to attend workshops, and to be involved in one of the most significant culture-changing film festivals of the entertainment industry. Information on elections in California are available at or national elections at and information on the coming Life Fest Film Festival at . /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24767496

293: October Is Election Month 10/13/2022

293: October Is Election Month In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston pointedly focuses on elections in 2022. This is the first election since the overturn of Roe versus Wade. Because of that, the disposition of the elected representatives will be of considerable importance. As usual, Brian goes into extraordinary depths to help individuals understand the details of the Right To Life fight for legal protection of the innocent. First, Brian explains the history of PACs. PACs were formed in the 1980s in response to public employee unions forced withdrawal of money from union members, and the use of that money for political purposes. This gave the political left multiple millions to use at election time. This is actually government money. PACs were formed to allow normal people to also “unionize” - that is to say, join together in a group and pool their resources together to impact particular elections. California Prolife, National Right to Life and various state affiliates have organized pro-life PACs. This is the time of year that these tools MUST come into play. Because of the importance of elections now in the wake of Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers need to focus sharply on electing pro-life representatives. The link to the CaliforniaProlife PAC is as follows: Brian also takes a moment to read directly from the Dobbs decision of earlier this summer. This decision is inescapable in its power and significance. There was never a right to abortion in the Constitution. The Supreme Court had wrongly held it in both Roe v. Wade and Casey and those decisions were overturned. The Supreme Court explicitly returned to the people and their representatives, the authority to protect the lives of those in their jurisdiction. Roe versus Wade and its progeny had given abortionists alone the authority to decide the propriety of an abortion and which child should be killed in which manner. This untrammeled right to abortion being given to MDs was a gross violation of the US Constitution. In affirming the authority of the people and their voting power in electing representatives, the Supreme Court has renewed this basic principle of the Constitution: we have been given a government of the people, by the people and for the people. This principle was reiterated by Lincoln in his desire to ensure that the self-evident truth of the humanity of then-slaves would be recognized, and their right to life (as he expressed in the Lincoln-Douglas debates) that their right to life could be affirmed and insured under the constitutional principles of The United States of America. Each and every affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee has focused on this duty of the people to speak up, and to elect representatives who would speak up for the innocent. In the last several decades, the voting process has been altered and in particular during the Covid epidemic. Instead of a particular voting day (today marked as November 8, 2022) many states are practicing early voting and absentee voting. Due to the serious questions regarding the tallying of these ballots, it is strongly suggested that our method of electing our representatives be returned to its original accountable model where abuses, false votes, ballot stuffing, and other questionable forms of electioneering are harder to implement. For this reason California Prolife is adhering to and suggesting the policies of the Election Integrity Project of California. While the state is still asserting one can send in an absentee ballot and it can be tracked electronically, it is only able to track its reception, but not the fact that it has been tallied. Voter IntegrityProject points out that the envelopes provided for this process indicate the political party of the recipient. When that is the case, even if that envelope arrives safely at a voter registrars office, it no longer has the qualities of an “Australian ballot,” a ‘secret’ ballot. In other words, those who would seek malfeasance could easily not count certain disfavorable ballots if they are cognizant that they’re from Republicans or, from a particular precinct. For this reason California Prolife strongly suggests that pro-life voters follow the guidelines of the Election Integrity Project and walk their ballot personally to their local voting precinct. The instructions on how to process that ballot are available at this website: The exciting news is that there are many many concerned pro-life individuals now running for office all the way down the ballot. The non-aligned/nonpartisan offices of the county and city level, school board, city councils, various service districts - these races are often won by a handful of votes and when concerned citizens vote with knowledge they can win many of these races. These newly elected representatives, though it may be a small office, become the future representatives up the ballot. Brian points out he knows many members of Congress and state representatives. Nearly all of them began by running for office on the local level. The pro-life community must understand the need to be involved in local politics. For this reason California Prolife has been coordinating with West Virginians For Life, and providing a very specific voter look-up tool. This is an app available for any computer or smart phone which upon entering ones ballot mailing address, all of the relevant offices from governor to constitutional office or state wide, to ballot measures, to state offices, to county city and local offices including school boards and special service districts, all of these are than made known to that pro-life voter. This voting tool is available at the following URL address: Finally, we must be reminded that the Supreme Court has returned to us, as the people, the ability to speak up for innocent life. A corrupt abortion law and government is attempting to silence further discussion. In California, Michigan and Vermont, constitutional propositions have been placed on the ballot that will forever silence the ability of the people and their elected representatives to put into place pro-life laws protecting young mothers and their babies. This is a top-down, imperious and forced view of government, which Roe v. Wade had represented. This corrupt, simplistic view of government power suppresses freedom of expression and the right to protect the lives of those who cannot protect themselves. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24679128

After Roe, Only Your Vote Can Protect Babies! 10/08/2022

After Roe, Only Your Vote Can Protect Babies! Commissioner Johnston explores the first election after the overturn of Roe versus Wade. Brian goes in depth into why this election, and in fact, every subsequent election, will require a vibrant and knowledgeable pro-life electorate. Brian explains that it is in fact the laws that have been at stake all along. That Roe versus Wade was significant only in that it overturned the laws of all 50 states. The laws had protected both mothers and babies up until January 22, 1973. When Justice Blackmun created a new law, and did so inappropriately in Roe v. Wade, he struck down the rights and duties of each of the state legislatures and the responsibility of legislators to make laws for their states. The Dobbs decision of 2022, in overturning Roe, made it clear that there is no right to an abortion hidden somewhere in the constitution. It also very clearly handed back to each of the state legislatures and the lawmakers in every state, the right to determine which human lives are protected and how they are to be protected under the laws of that jurisdiction. So now pro-life individuals in each and every election, need to understand that it is the LAW that is designed to protect life, that it is lawmakers who make laws, and that it is us, the voters, who elect lawmakers. So it is in voting that a pro-life individual can have a voice in whether or not innocent children are protected in their jurisdiction. It really is that simple. But often because of the emotions, and the personal convictions of individuals, there are many tangents that we as pro-lifer’s can be distracted by: one of the most common is our personal sectarian inclinations and its influence on our personal view of the Right To Life. Brian comments at length to explain that the right to life, is a self evident truth, (not a personal one) revealed through higher law, ‘the laws of nature of nature’s God’, which America’s founders asserted as the foundation for all just laws, and that “to ensure this right to life and all of these rights given by a Creator, governments are instituted among men.“ So while there are many different churches, church groups, and passionate people of faith involved in the pro-life movement, this is not a debate about their personal faith. It is a transcendent, overarching issue. This, and all laws, are public policy questions which apply to all members of society and apply equally, therefore we must be able to demonstrate through objective facts, and not our own personal religious predilections, why the laws of our state should protect unborn children. Brian reminds us that the new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson has just been confirmed to the court, and points out how her judicial worldview, her judicial temperament – a positivist worldview – sharply contrasted with the most recent justice Jackson - Justice Robert Jackson, who was elevated to the court by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The previous Justice Jackson is one of the most notable and respected advocates of natural or higher law as applying to all human beings, and is most noted for leading the American prosecution of the Nazi regime. That prosecution was not because the Germans had gone to war, (that happened a lot in Europe) it was much more specific. The Germans had killed their own innocent citizens. The Germans, in violation of natural law and higher law, had committed crimes against humanity. And for this reason it was necessary to publicly state the fact that though their country allowed such laws, (a positivist view of law), nevertheless such laws were unjust because they violated a higher law to which all human beings should be held to account. It is precisely this understanding of the law, which America’s Founders loudly proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, which pro-life individuals must reinforce. The debate is not about our personal feelings or religious convictions or our geographic or cultural inclinations. This debate is about the requirement that the law should protect innocent lives, a transcendent and principle element of any just society. It is the right to life. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24627735

291: The Power of Your Vote Is the Power of the RTL 10/01/2022

291: The Power of Your Vote Is the Power of the RTL n this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explains why it’s important to understand the nature of Roe v. Wade, and the fact that it gave all authority only to doctors, an authority that the Constitution says is that of the states. Life and death legal decisions are to be determined state by state and by the legislators of that state. Many pro-life individuals errantly believe in the media version of Roe - declaring that Roe v. Wade gave women the right to choose, or gave women control of their own body. But this is NOT is an actual text or application of the decision. It is not. This portrayal by the media is an intentional misrepresentation of Roe v. Wade. Brian reiterates that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was very clear and resented the fact that women were given no authority through Roe, but in fact, the entire decision gave all agency and authority - all decision making power - only to doctors. Today, abortion advocates, the media and many others are openly declaring they would like to reassert Roe v. Wade, or enshrine Roe v. Wade into statutory or constitutional law. This is an intentional falsehood. What they actually desire goes much further than Roe. Close examination of their actions and plans, for example, California’s Proposition 1, or Vermont Proposition 22, gives unlimited rights to abortion without any regulation - something that Roe v. Wade had never granted. In all reality. abortion advocates actually hate the specific application of Roe v. Wade, and have resented the “patriarchal attitude of medicine” being the final decider of when and how abortions are to be done. With the overturn of Roe versus Wade, the Dobbs decision specifically empowers each and every state legislature to determine the laws which they would like to see enacted and enforced within their jurisdiction. The only way that these laws can take place is by a vote of the legislature, and each legislature is elected by individual voters throughout that state. Therefore pro-life individuals, to fully understand their responsibilities at the moment, and the real significance of the Dobbs decision, must be actively involved in electing pro-life candidates at every level of office because pro-life laws can only be passed if we elect pro-life candidates. Failure to understand Roe, failure to understand Dobbs, failure to understand their right and ability to elect good lawmakers, is a failure of pro-life individuals who would prefer to go in different directions and ignore their civic responsibility. Laws can only be changed through the civic process. Americans have a great opportunity to do and restore what Lincoln had promised and defended - “government of the people, by the people and for the people”, which is designed to protect the lives of all people. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24553443

290: Your Vote Now Can Protect Lives 09/18/2022

290: Your Vote Now Can Protect Lives In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston is joined by Karen Roseberry - district Director for the California Prolife Council. Karen is also the crisis pregnancy center coordinator for California ProLife communications. The focus of today’s discussion is on how to protect innocent babies after the overturn of Roe v. Wade. As listeners to this program know, many Americans, and even many pro-life Americans, do not fully understand what Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton did. It gave all authority of the abortion issue into the hands of one individual, the only requirement of that individual is that they have an ‘MD’ after their name. The abortionist bares all responsibilities for deciding if, where, and how an abortion is to be done. In Roe v. Wade it is very clear the woman is not given any authority, she is only given permission in Roe v. Wade to consult with an abortionist. The Roe v. Wade decision along with Doe v. Bolton was used to strike down the laws of all 50 states. In so doing, it robbed each and every state of its duty to legally determine if and when a human life could be taken. The Constitution refers to this as the compelling state interest to protect life. The Dobbs decision overturn Roe and returned to each of the several state legislatures that authority to again define when and if a life can be taken and in the case of human abortion under what circumstances and what procedures are to be used. Therefore, the right to life issue is indeed a legal issue of when a human life can or should be taken and if any prosecution should result from the unauthorized taking of life. The pending 2022 election is the first election since this dramatic change in abortion law allowing states to again protect lives. The state can only do this through their elected representatives. Elected representatives only hold office because voters have placed them there. For this reason it is critical that pro-life individuals understand the power of their vote because it is their vote that will determine whether or not pro-life legislators will hold office and whether their state will protect the lives of babies at any time within its borders. Brian and Karen discuss the work of the California Prolife Council in identifying candidates all the way down the ticket to the most local of levels. This is critical because of two reasons. Firstly, many decisions are made locally - the placement of school based clinics by Planned Parenthood, defunding of local abortion clinics and services by city or county grants. The abortion industry has weaseled itself into the most local of jurisdictions and often in deceitfully clever ways. Often they are not accountable for how they spend the very money they have elicited. Secondly, the state legislature is usually made up of elected individuals that themselves have held office at a lower, local level. This is commonly referred to in politics as “the bench”. These potential state legislators or Congressional candidates are vitally necessary for success in the future. To develop a pro-life bench for the state legislature, we must identify and support local pro-life candidates who will stand for life at the local level. During the 2022 primary, California Prolife Council implemented a new tool, an electronic tool, to replace its earlier paper voter guides. These voter guides were establish to help elect local pro-life individuals as well as state and congressional candidates The new Get Out the Vote tool for pro-life voters will allow any individual in the state to insert their voting address and they will be able to identify, all the way down the ballot, the pro-life candidates available in their precinct. This simple tool overcomes many of the confusing aspects of elections and civics regarding, “Which district am I in for which particular office?” The project entails two parts. Pro-life volunteer‘s in all 58 counties will be assessing local candidates and gathering information from local candidate resources. These are then sent to be collated precinct by precinct in this huge state of 40 million people. The resulting tool allows the pro-life cause to have much greater success at the local level. It proved itself in the 2022 primary with an astounding 80% success rate. Each state across the nation is working, as we speak through its National Right to Life affiliate, to both identify pro-life candidates and to ensure that the pro-life voting public knows the importance of putting these candidates into office. More information can be found at and nationally at /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24410463

288: Will the New Laws Punish the Perpetrators? 09/12/2022

288: Will the New Laws Punish the Perpetrators? With the overturn of Roe v. Wade and the implementation of the Dobbs Decision, each state will now have the authority to create new laws protecting innocent human life. But there are some dangers, and we must consider well how these laws are to be presented. Most importantly, we must realize that every abortion has two victims: obviously the child, but the mother herself is a victim of the act of abortion. As discussed and examined in depth in my book: “Evil Twins: Roe and Doe - How the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing,” it is very clear that the Supreme Court instructed that in all states, it was only to be doctors who were to make the decision of performing an abortion, that women were not given this authority, but could only ask. All authority for the abortion decision was given entirely to the doctor alone It is critical as pro-lifers look at which new laws to put into place, that women not be viewed in the way that the radical feminist movement has portrayed them, i.e. as agents of ‘choice’ but instead, the law must recognize it is the perpetrator of the abortion, the abortionist, who, in performing an abortion, has one goal - the ending of a human life. The indirect object of the abortion procedure is in fact a pregnant woman. Her ‘participation’ is necessary. But Roe v. Wade itself is clear she is not given any moral agency or authority. Years later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underscored with vigor that irony. Roe versus Wade and its progeny was very clear the woman did not have authority - she was free to have a consultation with the abortionist, but a consultation does not grant authority nor should it give culpability to the woman. Many women went through consultation, and while still on the abortionist’s table had second thoughts about being there, had felt manipulated, had felt there was something wrong. In the best of situations they won against all peer pressure and the social pressure of the clinic staff and literally ran from the abortionist table. There are numerous such stories and young men and women who will tell those stories today, they are alive because their mother ran from the clinic. Legally speaking, a consultation is not the same as performing an abortion. As we look to the future we must understand that the purpose of the law is not to blame, but in fact to instruct. The law principally is a teacher and a protector. We are as a society addressing abortion to protect children and young women. Remember, when we protect young women who have been sex trafficked, we do not demand they be prosecuted as prostitutes. We hunt down the manipulators and pimps who took advantage of them. It is they whom the law must more stridently address. Similarly, laws regarding truancy are not designed to ‘punish’ students who are absent from school. Rather their purpose is to ensure that that student is getting an education. And if there is to be any penalty, it ought to be directed toward malfeasant parenting. The student is to be protected by the truancy laws, not punished by them. As states consider enacting new pro-life laws, we must look to protect the second victim of the abortion: the indirect object of the abortionist pursuit, the vulnerable young mother. She is in that unfortunate situation. We must not punish women, but use the law to guide. And to keep them from harm, we must punish the perpetrators. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24346797

288: Public Opinion Polls - Part II 09/05/2022

288: Public Opinion Polls - Part II In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston returns to the subject of public opinion polls and Americans’ real attitudes regarding the legalization of human abortion. Johnston reminds us that we must focus on what the right to life debate is. It is not about emotions, or feelings, how much we like babies, or our personal religious upbringing. Very specifically, it is a legal question, as all questions of “rights” actually are. It is essential to understand that this debate of the last 50 years regarding the legality of abortion and the impact of the Roe versus Wade decision, is a matter of legal judgment. And therefore, public opinion must be viewed as a question of what legal protections ought to be offered to which human beings (babies in the womb), at which times, and under which specific legal conditions. This very particular and incisive understanding of the debate is required now. This is required for each and every pro-life individual, and specifically in each and every state, because the Dobbs decision has returned the authority of each and every state and its legislatures to determine the laws of that particular jurisdiction, that particular state. As demonstrated in the previous program on this subject: 287: Public Opinion Polls, the nature of the question and the language used by the questioner will often determine the answer given by the respondent. Because of this, many news outlets which seek to mold public opinion rather than inform, will use misleading and incomplete language. This is done in order to have the respondent come to a conclusion which the news outlet desires to see in all Americans. When it comes to the abortion question and specific terms and references to the law, specific terms are often used. Words such as ‘choice,’ ‘freedom to choose’, ‘reproductive rights’, and even ‘Roe v. Wade’, specifically because Roe v. Wade has rarely been accurately described and explained to the public. These vague generalities are by no means capable of determining an American individual’s actual sentiments regarding appropriate abortion law. There are however many polls which do respect the specific details of an issue: When is the abortion done? At what gestation is that child? For what reason is that child’s life being ended? These are very important determinative legal issues that the law applies to every legally questioned action. Again the issue of the right to life is, at its heart, a legal question. California is often considered one of the most progressive and “pro-choice“ states in the nation. But the old LA Times/California pool which was changed in the 1990s, had indeed asked detailed specific questions after its first generic pro-choice or pro-life question. For some reason that pool no longer exists in that iteration. The most popular league reporting on California polls is taken from the Pew Charitable Trust which was discussed in depth in the previous program. A recent Rasmussen poll once again asked average California voters specific details of abortion law, and specific questions regarding what type of abortion law these Californians felt to be appropriate. This Rasmussen poll and its specific questions can be viewed here: The popular, dominant media culture does not like these polling results. And rarely if ever will make such results a dominant aspect of their reportage. But these results are extremely common and demonstrated in the most recent of national Gallup polls please see the Gallup survey here: The same parallel opinions of all Americans are reflected as well in the recent Marist Poll, which can be seen here: Polls across the nation, and yes even in California, demonstrate that the average thinking person does not regard abortion on demand, abortion at any time in pregnancy for any reason, or no reason in particular (just for choice), or unlimited abortion as a desirable legal outcome. The typical support level is 13 to 18% of the populace. When asked, the vast majority of the public have consistently demonstrated a desire for legal restrictions on abortion, when they are done, and on the reasons for doing them. The average American when asked and informed, wants to see abortion limited, or in the words of the Democrat party of the 1980s: “safe, legal, and rare.“ Now that Roe has been overturn and each state can indeed exercise its authority to protect the right to life, laws that will in fact make abortions very rare can indeed be put into place. The question is: Will that phrase merely be a slogan or will it indeed take on the force of law? That legal question is the real issue of the Right To Life. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24275892

287: Do Polls Tell the Truth? 08/24/2022

287: Do Polls Tell the Truth? In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explores the idea of popular opinion polls. At election time, the media will often present what they claim to be public opinion on the issue of abortion. It is critically important to understand that, very often the general, and unspecific nature of the terms used does not often reflect a valid view of public opinion. More specifically, generic feelings about “choice”, support for Roe, or reproductive freedom do not accurately reflect the average American’s view of abortion particulars. Brian examine’s the current habit for many polling organizations, Pew Research Center as one example, do actually take polls state by state and reach sweeping and generic conclusions. The most common is the statement that the citizens of (fill in the blank) state support all or most abortions. Yet the very terms ‘all’ and ‘most’ are, in fact, contradictory. All means 100%! Most means 50% or more. There is a chasm of difference. And yet this is the most frequently used phrasing of the Pew CharitableTrust. Specific polling questions regarding the reasons for the abortion, the gestational age of the child involved in the abortion, and other surrounding factors, greatly impact the public view of the medical procedure. The recent Wall Street Journal poll confirmed what polls have indicated for more than a decade: The majority of Americans are opposed to late term abortion, or abortions that are done for social reasons (i.e. just done for choice) and have varying views regarding the medical purpose that may be involved. Killing a child because of a genetic anomaly is still opposed by the majority of Americans. Similarly, if the woman’s life is actually in danger, the majority of Americans will condone such an abortion. If the definition of “health” is made specific, the majority of Americans only support abortions for very serious health issues. Under Roe versus Wade, because of its deliberate definition of “health,” as meaning any psychological or sociological reason that the abortionist himself could come up with, alarms the average American and such vague and unspecific definitions of health are not what they mean by endangering a woman‘s life. Yet, Roe versus Wade equated the two terms. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24153651

286: The Threat of Making Crisis Pregnancy Centers Illegal 08/13/2022

286: The Threat of Making Crisis Pregnancy Centers Illegal The right to life movement is built on the idea that there is a higher law which determines what laws are just or unjust. All Republics operate under this idea of higher principles existing above immediate desires and majoritarian ‘seizure’ of the legal moment. An appeal to, “The laws of nature and of nature’s God,” is the predicate for America’s laws being just . This idea has, of course, been under concerted attack. But with the passage of he Dobbs Decision, the principle has literally now been inverted in the minds of some. Caring for mothers and their children is now being declared an immoral - even illegal act. Senator Warren of Massachusetts has called for the closure of all crisis pregnancy centers. Numerous Democrats have joined in, decrying the fact that the abortion of a child is not the foremost answer offered to these women at these centers. Brian examines the overt attack against caring for babies and mothers. He includes a hearing conducted by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, in which these allegations are discussed. But now, it is worse. Open crimes are being promulgated against CPCs and there is no effort at legal prosecution against these lawbreakers. Rather than seeking justice and a higher law, law-breaking and violence are being promoted as a cultural tool. Brian concludes the episode with an extensive interview with Daniel Tomlinson, Vice President and spokesman for Compass Care Crisis Pregnancy Center of Buffalo, New York. “Janes Revenge,” a pro-abortion terrorist entity, has targeted numerous crisis pregnancy centers, threatening those who operate them. Daniel Tomlinson tells the story of the threats, the fire bombing, and the quick response by individuals in the pro-life community to rebuild Compass Care Pregnancy Center and continue providing caring alternatives to the desperation of killing a life in the womb. /episode/index/show/lifematterspod/id/24043380

Life Matters

TOPICS