On his nationally syndicated radio talk show on Tuesday, host Mark Levin commented on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to side with the claims of two California crisis pregnancy centers that the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) violates the First Amendment.
In his remarks, Levin criticizes what he calls “absolutely zero tolerance for different viewpoints” among liberal Democrats, saying that, “[I]f the left had their way [,] people of faith with certain beliefs would have almost no rights.”
“Whether it’s the bakery situation or the florist situation, whether it’s this situation with the signage that California’s compelling – or tried to – promoting state funded abortions; and they consider this a liberty issue, and an equality issue. It is perverse,” stated Mark Levin. “For them, individual liberty is not liberty. It’s defiance. In order to get to the Promised Land, if you will, liberty is only achievable to its maximum extent through the communal, through the government, people making decisions for you.”
The Supreme Court decided on Tuesday that pro-life crisis pregnancy centers did not have to advertise state-funded abortions to their patients. Justice Clarence Thomas gave his summarization of the FACT Act in the following opinion:
The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) was enacted to regulate crisis pregnancy centers—pro-life centers that offer pregnancy-related services. The FACT Act requires clinics that primarily serve pregnant women to provide certain notices. Clinics that are licensed must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call.
Below is a transcript of Mark Levin’s remarks on his show Monday, beginning with a quote from Kevin Theriot, senior counsel and vice president of the Center for Life with Alliance Defending Freedom:
“‘California used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion. In stopping enforcement of the law, the Supreme Court said that people lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas should prevail.’ Now, look at these 2 decisions if the left had their way. People of faith with certain beliefs would have almost no rights. Whether it’s the bakery situation or the florist situation, whether it’s this situation with the signage that California’s compelling – or tried to –, promoting state funded abortions; and they consider this a liberty issue, and an equality issue. It is perverse.
“If you read Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism [sic], you’ll understand the whole thing, what this word liberty means to the left versus the rest of us. And I may go through that again tomorrow, if I remember. For them, individual liberty is not liberty. It’s defiance. In order to get to the Promised Land, if you will, liberty is only achievable to its maximum extent through the communal, through the government, people making decisions for you.
“So this was a close call, 5-4, and I’m telling you: when there’s another vacancy on the Supreme Court we are going to have a hell of a battle on our hands. We are, and we’re going to have to fight like hell to make sure that an originalist is appointed to the court. Not appointed, confirmed. I feel quite comfortable that the president will nominate a solid person from his list. And he’s been very, very good on this subject, of judges, very good.
“But can you believe this? And remember when it came to Obamacare and the performance of abortions, and you even had a little group of nuns, that didn’t want to participate, effectively, in funding that kind of activity. And the left tried to crush them. The Obama administration tried to crush them. They have no tolerance. They don’t believe in the Bill of Rights on the left. Freedom? Equality? It’s really quite outrages.
“I thought about what took place with Sanders, Huckabee Sanders, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, [and] of what took place with Nielson, both at these restaurants. I think the phrase that best encapsulates the ideology of those who participate in these kinds of, ugh, untoward acts, and those who defend them in the media, I think, I think the phrase that best encapsulates this is ideological segregation. Ideological segregation.
“Because the radical progressives – whether they be in the media, whether they be leaders of the Democrat Party, whether they be in academia or Hollywood – have absolutely zero tolerance for different viewpoints, [and] either try to destroy the reputations of the individuals with whom they disagree, harass them, victimize them, or dismiss them as racists, xenophobes, homophobes or what have you. And so, they either want a society of group think – their group think – or a society that is divided ideologically, where you can’t even go to a restaurant if the restaurateur has a different view than you. I think ideological segregation pretty much encapsulates it.”