In this third article in our series on domestic discipline, we will be looking at a few 19th century judicial decisions on the lawfulness of husbands practicing domestic discipline toward their wives. We will start with two cases which upheld the right of a husband to practice corporal chastisement on his wife and then move to a decision which overturned these precedents.
1834 – Calvin Bradley vs The State of Mississippi
In this case of a husband being charged with battery against his wife the Supreme Court of Mississippi referenced the ancient common law to affirm the right of “domestic discipline” by husbands:
“It is true, according to the old law, the husband might give his wife moderate correction, because he is answerable for her misbehaviour; hence it was thought reasonable, to intrust him, with a power, necessary to restrain the indiscretions of one, for whose conduct he was to be made responsible
I believe it was a case before Mr. Justice Raymond, when the same doctrine was recognised, with proper limitations and restrictions, well suited to the condition and feelings of those, who might think proper to use a whip or rattan, no bigger than my thumb, in order to inforce the salutary restraints of domestic discipline.
Family broils and dissentions cannot be investigated before the tribunals of the country… let the husband be permitted to exercise the right of moderate chastisement… without being subjected to vexatious prosecutions, resulting in the mutual discredit and shame of all parties concerned. Judgment affirmed.”
In the case of Calvin Bradley vs The State, the court affirmed what it called “the ancient common law” right of a husband to use “moderate chastisement” with his wife referring to this practice as “domestic discipline”. It also respected the limits of civil government interfering in the affairs of the family and stated husbands should not be subjected to prosecutions for exercising their right to domestic discipline as long as they did so in moderation.
1864 – State Of North Carolina vs Jesse Black
In this case the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled as follows:
“A husband is responsible for the acts of his wife, and he is required to govern his household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum or go behind the curtain.”
As in previous cases, the court affirmed that the husband’s right to chastise his wife flows from his responsibility to govern all in his household and his wife is part of his household. The court affirmed that it is improper for the civil government to “invade the domestic forum”.
In this decision, the court did recognize limits on the husband’s power to use corporal punishment to chastise his wife. They said that a husband’s chastisement of his wife should not cause any “permanent injury” or be excessively violent and that he should not discipline his wife for his own sadistic pleasure. The court’s view in this case aligns with the Scriptural command to husbands in Ephesians 5:28-29 that they are to care for and protect their wife’s bodies as they would their own.
1871 – The Year American Courts Invaded the Domestic Forum
It was in 1871, that a state court did what others had warned against decades earlier. The court invaded the domestic forum, the sphere of authority given to men as the heads of their households. It not only overturned decades of American court precedent, but invalidated ancient common law rights of husbands upon which those precedents were built.
In 1871 the case of Fulgham V. State, the Alabama Supreme court ruled as follows:
“Since then, however, learning, with its humanizing influences, has made great progress, and morals and religion have made some progress with it. Therefore, a rod which may be drawn through the wedding ring is not now deemed necessary to teach the wife her duty and subjection to the husband. The husband is therefore not justified or allowed by law to use such a weapon, or any other, for her moderate correction. The wife is not to be considered as the husband’s slave. And the privilege, ancient though it be, to beat her with a stick, to pull her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick her about the floor, or to inflict upon her like indignities, is not now acknowledged by our law”
Two key words stand out in the first sentence and those words are “humanizing” and “progress”.
What does it mean to “humanize” someone? And to what “progress” were they referring? To understand these concepts, we have to compare and contrast the social classes of the post enlightenment age with those that came before it.
When God created mankind, he ordained three core social classes and those were men, women and children. After sin entered the world, he allowed for a fourth social class of slaves (both male and female) because of poverty and war.
Humanists rejected these four social class structures and instead sought to bring about a new model of society that had only two social classes which we know today as “adults” and “children”. The abolitionist humanists first targeted the slave class for elimination. Then some female abolitionists broke off and organized the first womens rights conference in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York.
When they talked about “humanizing” people, they were talking about making women and slaves equal with free men. In other words, they were seeking to eliminate the social classes of men, women and slaves and replace those classes with one new social class, that of a “human” or “adult” while leaving the child class intact.
This is why today if any adult is seen has having less rights than another adult, it is said that the person with less rights is being “dehumanized”.
The ultimate goal of humanists of the late 19th century was to build an “internationalist” or what we call today “globalist” society. No men, no women, no slaves, no rich, no poor, no Christians, no Muslims, no Jews, no Americans, no Mexicans, no British.
And it is this march toward a one world society with no nations, no religions, no genders, no rich and no poor that humanists refer to as “progress”. And this is why leftists today refer to themselves as “progressives”.
Humanists knew that their master plan would take decades and perhaps more than a century to bring about. And they knew they had to do it in small incremental pieces. This is why if you notice in this ruling, the court still acknowledged that a wife had a duty to be in subjection to her husband. It would have been too much for American society to accept all at once that a husband could not use corporal punishment on his wife and that a wife did not have a duty to obey her husband.
The court was simply taking away a primary means of him enforcing that subjection, his ability to use corporal chastisement on his wife. And by reducing the ability of husbands to enforce their rule over their wives, women were given more power.
In other words, taking away a husband’s right to use corporal discipline upon his wife was one of the first steps in dismantling patriarchy.
The court falsely equated a man using moderate correction with a rod to him having a right “to pull her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick her about the floor”. This is what leftists do, they use extremes and abuses of authority, or this case chastisement, to get rid of all chastisement and in essence to get rid of an authority’s ability to chastise.
While Tennessee was the first state to outlaw “wife beating” in 1850, the vast majority of states did not do so until after this ruling in the 1870s.
But even though the courts and state legislatures had invaded the domestic forum by the late 19th century, local law enforcement officials rarely enforced these laws. In other words, most local police did not feel right about invading the domestic forum even though state laws and court decisions would allow it.
It would not be until more than a century after the first laws denying husbands’ rights to use corporal punishment on their wives, that a new “Domestic Violence” movement would arise in the early 1970s. It was then that new domestic violence laws were passed and edicts came down from state and local governments forcing police to invade the domestic forum.
We have shown here that early 19th century jurisprudence respected ancient common laws giving husbands the right to use corporal punishment as part of domestic discipline with their wives.
The courts showed great deference to the domestic forum, recognizing it was not right for civil authorities to intervene in domestic affairs, except under the gravest of circumstances, as husbands were to have supremacy in the affairs of their homes.
Later courts, following humanist philosophies, broke this sacred rule and launched a full-scale government invasion of the domestic forum with the attack on corporal punishment of wives being only one of the first battles in this invasion.
If you study the Bible and look at Biblical principles of marriage there is one word that is noticeably absent regarding how to have unity in marriage. And that word is compromise.
In humanism, compromise is a sacred tenet of any relationship, especially in marriage. The reason it is sacred is because of humanism’s beliefs in individualism and equality. For individualism and equality to flourish, compromises must constantly be made. A marriage where one person calls all the shots on moral issues and big decisions of the family is considered “toxic” in the humanist view. This is because they believe marriage is an equal partnership.
But the Bible presents a very different view of marriage.
“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives”
1 Peter 3:1 (KJV)
The Bible shows in the passage above from 1 Peter 3:1 that God did not design marriage as a partnership, but rather as a patriarchy. And in the passage below from Ephesians 5:23 we can see that not only is marriage a patriarchy, but it was intended by God to be a direct reflection of the relationship between Christ and his church.
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.“
Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)
So the question is does Christ compromise with his church on his will, his plans and his moral decisions? The answer is absolutely not. And neither should husband’s compromise with their wives in these areas.
The first recorded sin of a male human being, Adam, was when he compromised his moral beliefs and listen to wife.
“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life”
Genesis 3:17 (KJV)
Adam’s compromise of his morality to please his wife brought sin into the world. Job shows us what Adam should have done when his wife asked him to compromise his morality:
“Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.”
Job 2:9-10 (KJV)
When a man compromises his moral beliefs to please his wife he breaks the picture of Christ and his church and he exposes his family to possible consequences of that decision.
Now don’t get me wrong – when it comes to things that have nothing to do with morality compromise in marriage is a good thing. Like when we choose where we go to dinner that is not necessarily a moral decision. How much is spent on dinner is a moral decision, but whether we have a hamburger or pizza is not.
But I think in most cases what we call compromise on these non moral things is just us being selfless and putting the other person first and that is a good thing.
But when it comes to moral decisions, including financial decisions, career decisions, what church is attended, religious beliefs, discipline and teaching of the children, decisions about sex and other things like this there can be no compromise. A husband is always called by God to do what is he believes is right before God.
I have been listening to Rush Limbaugh on my lunch breaks at work for almost 25 years. I was driving to an appointment on Monday listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio when he gave the sad news that he has been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer.
I was so happy to see that President Trump decided to award him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I was shocked that he had Melania do it right there at the State of Union Speech, I thought he was going to announce he would be giving it to him at some future ceremony. But it was a great moment.
Rush Limbaugh is the boogyman to humanists and leftists whose goal is a world without Christians, Jews, Muslims, Americans, Russians, Mexicans, Caucasians, Africans, Asians, men or women – just humans. A world where human beings have been reprogrammed to move past all these “pointless” distinctions to fully embrace a one world religion, ordered and centered around the their religion of humanism. They want a world which denies the existence of God and assigns god-like powers to humanity.
Rush Limbaugh made the following statement about these people back in 2013:
“See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming … You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something that he can’t create.”
But to those millions of us who still believe in the traditional Biblically based values of our founding fathers he will always be a great hero. Liberal humanists had taken over radio, movies, TV and the print media for decades. They controlled the narrative each day. Millions of Americans thought they were alone until Rush Limbaugh came along with his syndicated radio show in 1988. He showed those who opposed humanism, secularism, feminism, socialism and radical environmentalism that they were not alone.
My favorite word he coined to this day is “Feminazi” to refer to feminists.
I will be praying for him that the Lord heals him. But even if God chooses not heal him, he will have left a great legacy that will go on in the myriad of conservative media that rose up because of what he started.
Today in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump used a very interesting word in his speech regarding globalism. And that word was “religious”. He stated that “Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders causing them to ignore their own nationalist interests. But as far as America is concerned those days are over”.
President Trump probably does not understand where that “religious pull” from Globalism originates from. But as Christians we must under that the “religious pull” of globalism is a pull toward humanism, and specifically secular humanism.
Secular Humanism – the Religion that Claims Not to be a Religion
Secular humanists deny that Humanism is a religion, yet Humanism has all the core tenants of a religion. It worships something and it has a system of values just like a religion does.
Humanists claim that because they do not worship a deity or believe in the supernatural, that humanism it is not a religion. But you can worship something that is not supernatural or a deity. And that is exactly what Humanism does.
The Bible speaks of Humanism in Romans 1:18-27 (KJV):
“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Does this not describe what we are seeing today in our world?
We need to recognize that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism. They all have the same end goals even though they may slightly disagree among themselves as to how to get to those goals.
Humanism is a religion that denies the existence of God, even though God’s existence is plainly seen in nature. It is a religion that worships education making people think they are wise when they truly are fools. It is a religion that glorifies nature rather than glorifying God. It worships “created things rather than the Creator”. And it leads to rampant sexual immorality including homosexuality and transgenderism.
Some Christians have tried to claim that they are “Christian Humanists”. The unfortunate reality is that while a humanist a few centuries ago simply meant someone who believed in “free inquiry” the secular humanists morphed this into something much broader while making atheism its foundation from which all humanist values flow.
Paul Kurtz , the Council for Secular Humanism founder, wrote the following in “The Humanist Alternative” (pg 82):
“Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to God-intoxicated believers.”
Professing Christians must come to the realization that the tenants of humanism along with the tenants of its evil spawns like environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism do not mesh with a Biblical worldview. They are completely contradictory.
President Trump – God’s Imperfect Instrument Against Humanism
President Trump is not a perfect man. He claims to have faith in Christ but he certainly is not a perfect Christian in either his understanding of the Bible or of the Christian faith. And sadly, President Trump, like many professing Christians and churches today, is not completely unstained by the evil influences of humanism. He has shown support for some feminist tenants as well as support for the LGBTQ community.
However, God has used him to be great defender of Israel as well as the rights and freedoms of Bible believing Christians here in the United States. God took a man who was previously pro-abortion and turned him into the greatest defender of unborn human life this nation has seen since the Roe v Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973.
Speaking on the topic of innocent unborn human life President Trump made the following statement today at the U.N. General Assembly:
“Americans will also never tire in defending innocent life. We are aware the many United Nations projects have attempted to assert a global right through tax payer funded abortion on demand right up until the moment of delivery. Global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life.Like many nations here today, we in America believe that every child born and unborn is a sacred gift from God.”
There is absolutely no denying that God has chosen President Trump at this point in history as his imperfect instrument. Yair Netanyahu, the son of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the Jewish people look at President Trump as they did King Cyrus who helped them rebuild Jerusalem. Listen to what the God said about King Cyrus:
“I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.”
Isaiah 45:13 (KJV)
And Cyrus was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination and he was not even a Jew. But God used Cyrus as instrument of his will and that is exactly what he is doing in raising a warrior in the form of President Trump to take on globalism and environmentalism which are major pillars of humanism.
President Trump’s Stand Against Globalism
President Trump made the following declaration regarding globalism and the threat it poses to freedom:
“The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. Looking around, and all over this large magnificent plant, the truth is plain to see. If you want freedom take pride in your country. If you want democracy hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace love your nation. Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.
The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.
Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice: Your policies are not just, your policies are cruel and evil.You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women and children. You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives and well-being of countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.
Many of the countries here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration. Each you has the absolute right to protect your borders. And so of course does our country.”
Again, this is one of those areas where President Trump may not even realize the full extent as to why globalism is bad.
Yes, globalism threatens freedom because whenever you consolidate power, freedom is lost. This is why America’s founders believed in limited government and breaking up powers between the federal, state and local governments. And even when the power was divided between these three levels, they believed that the ultimate power rested in the people.
But there is more to why globalism is bad then just it threatening freedom. It also threatens God’s institution of nations which was one of three of the institutions he created. In the following three Scripture passages we see that is was God who divided mankind into nations giving them each a different language and sending them across the face of the earth:
“Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Genesis 11:9 (KJV)
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
Deuteronomy 32:8 (KJV)
“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”
Acts 17:26 (KJV)
Humanism Aims to Destroy the Three Institutions God Created
As we have just shown from the Bible, the concept of a nation state, which President Trump so strongly believes in, is one of three institutions which God created. And those three institutions are the family, the churchand the nation. He created each of these institutions for different purposes and divided powers and responsibilities between these three institutions of society.
“secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.”
As we can see from the statement above, Humanism seeks the destruction of the traditional controls of the patriarchal family, the local church and the concept of nation states. Their goal is to replace these traditional God given institutions with an atheistic, individualist and globalist society.
Humanism’s War on The Church
For over 150 years, humanists have been successfully waging a war on local churches both from without and within. In the late 19th century humanists infiltrated the churches from within causing them to doubt the Bible which lead to the great modernist controversies and the rise of Christian fundamentalism to fight it. In the 20th century they began attacking churches and Christianity in schools using the courts. They were successful in having prayer and the Bible banned from schools and threatened churches with losing their tax-exempt status if they spoke out on political issues or if they publicly supported politicians who supported their values.
Humanism’s War on Biblical Gender Roles
During the same period humanists were attacking the churches, they also began attacking traditional and Biblical gender roles as God designed them with the rise feminist groups in the mid-19th century. The roles of women in marriage and society began to be challenged and God’s order of male leadership in society, the church and home was undermined. This of course led to a weakening of marriage, the family unit and sexual morality.
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to stand against the rising tide of gay marriage advocates. While this reflected the will of the American people at the time, it outraged the left and especially those in Hollywood. Hollywood elites looked to a new plan to gain public support for gay marriage. They started incorporating more gay characters into TV shows and movies and documentaries as much as they could to desensitize the American public to the gay lifestyle. After almost 20 years of Hollywood doing this, national polls showed that public sentiment regarding gay marriage had changed and gay rights advocates took their case to the Supreme Court.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage thus legalizing it in all fifty states. Chief Justice Roberts in his decent on the courts gay marriage decision knew exactly what would happen because of the decision when he wrote:
“Today’s decision,for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.”
In essence the court set the stage for many future court battles between the First Amendment which guarantees free speech and the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs against against the 14th amendment which guarantees due process and equal protection(this is what all discrimination laws and cases are based on). In other words the battle is between freedom of speech and religion verses discrimination.
Humanists believe that the First Amendment and its guarantee of the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs takes a back seat to discrimination concerns. Those on the right whether they be libertarians or evangelical Christians believe that the exercise of one’s free speech rights and religious beliefs trumps discrimination concerns.
And these are the battles that we are seeing raging in our courts over the past 4 years. Our side has had some victories and the Humanists have had their victories.
Humanism’s War on the Concept of Nation States
One of the first law’s that America passed was the 1790 Naturalization Act which stated that only “free white person[s] … of good character” could become citizens of the United States. While these laws would today be considered “racist” they were in fact in keeping with the tradition of nations throughout history that protected their dominant ethnic groups as a unifying factor of a nation.
After the Civil War, Socialist Humanists began the new narrative that America was a “nation of immigrants”. This is when “the melting pot” ideology began to spread. America’s motto of “E pluribus unum” which is found on our nation’s currency originally referred to the 13 colonies becoming one nation. But the 19th century socialist humanists reinterpreted this famous American phrase for their own multicultural and globalist goals. They changed the mean of “E pluribus unum” from a reference to the 13 colonies becoming one to “Out of many nations one nation”. The idea was to water down America’s White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture with many other religions and cultures to break down the unity of the American nation.
Humanists won a major victory with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While there were certainly issues with Jim Crow laws that needed to be addressed the law undermined private property rights and the freedom of association. It also laid the foundation for gay rights and now transgenders are trying to use it to shove their wicked ways in the faces of Christian business owners. Humanists won another major victory with the 1965 Immigration Act which abolished racial quotas which favored immigrants from northern European nations.
In the 20th Century, American Humanists began using the courts to push their humanist agenda on the nation. If they could not pass a law to get what they wanted, they would simply go to a court and find judges who would agree with them. American humanist judges used the philosophy of “if the words of the Constitution don’t say something, just reinterpret the words to make them say what you want”.
But in more recent years Humanists have taken off all pretenses and they are calling for the outright abolishment of national borders in their quest for globalism and a one world government. In 2015, a year before President Trump was elected to office, the Atlantic ran an article entitled “The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely” with the sub heading being “No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time”. Trump ran on exactly the opposite premise and won the 2016 election in large part because it.
We Must Recognize this is Both a Spiritual and Political Battle
We as Bible believing Christians must take a stand. We must get out and vote. We must use all the legal means at our disposal to fight back against the humanist assaults on our God given liberties. That means Christians need to engage in law suits using the first Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and religion to protect themselves and their businesses from Humanist lawsuits. We need to use the very legal weapons that Humanists use against us against them.
We must defend and uphold God’s three institutions of the family, the church and the nation state.
Some on both the right and left have called this a “cold civil war” while others have called it “the Second American Civil War”. And I agree with them in those descriptions. That is exactly what is happening in our nation and we must face this reality.
We must stop allowing leftists to paint us into a corner and shame us for believing such “radical” concepts like the one Mark 10:6 states that “God made them male and female”. God did not make people transgender; the corruption of the sin nature makes people transgender.
We must stop allowing leftists to redefine what love is by saying that that two men or two women can love each other in the special way that God only meant for men and women to do in marriage. We must acknowledge that there are some kinds of love and some kinds of desire that are indeed “vile affections” according to God’s Word in Romans 1:26.
We must stop allowing leftists to tell us that we are acting “inhumanely” for believing a nation should have borders that are enforced.
President Trump today also raised another God given right that we should not be afraid to defend:
“The United States will uphold the right to keep and bear arms. We will uphold our Second Amendment.”
And just as God used a non-Jewish person in the form of King Cyrus to accomplish his will, so too we as Christians must be willing to form political coalitions with those who hold to and believe in liberty and freedom as we do. We must be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who defend basic American values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms. We should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who still believe in the concept of a nation state and national borders. And we certainly should be able to stand with anyone who stands for the life of the unborn.