The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

In 1970, the woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade — Norma McCorvey --- was a self-proclaimed confused 21-year-old mother who found herself pregnant. Three years later, she would take on the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” and become the prominent plaintiff in the history-making Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade. After the landmark Supreme Court decision, McCorvey dedicated her life to overturning it, and became a notable pro-life advocate.

On Saturday, McCorvey died as a pro-life advocate at the age of 69.

"So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often," Co-host Stu Burguiere said on The Glenn Beck Program.

Of her role in the landmark court case, McCorvery had this to say in 2012:

I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought "legal" child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: The reason we have abortion on demand today is because of someone named Norma McCorvey, just a young woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and she decided to have an abortion.

STU: Just 21 years old.

PAT: Yeah, just 21.

STU: She herself said she was very confused at the time.

PAT: Right.

STU: She had gone through sort of crazy relationship issues.

PAT: And she was only pushed toward abortion when she went for help. She was pushed toward abortion. And from just about the minute she had the abortion, she regretted it. Actually, did she have the abortion?

STU: No.

PAT: I don't think she even wound up having the abortion, now that I think of this. She didn't even have an abortion.

STU: Yeah. That's the interesting part of the story.

PAT: She actually wound up having her child.

STU: Because the court case took too long.

PAT: That's right.

STU: She had birthed before that. And it wasn't immediately after. She had a period where she was still on board.

PAT: Still okay with it. That's right. That's right. Took a few years.

STU: And advocated for abortion and eventually turned around. One of the interesting things about it is, in the abortion debate, you always hear this: Well, what? So if the life of the mother is in danger, you want there to be no abortion. That's what you want when you say you want Roe vs. Wade repealed.

PAT: And, by the way, first of all, thing one, that almost never happens.

STU: No. Almost --

PAT: If this were 1783, it would happen all the time.

STU: Yeah, yeah, very important in 1700s.

PAT: It isn't the 1700s anymore. Or even the 1800s or even the 1900s. It's 2017. And doctors will just tell you that just doesn't happen. I've talked to doctors who have delivered thousands, tens of thousands of babies. And they've told me it's never happened.

STU: I will say particularly with partial-birth abortion, they say it never happens. You know, a pregnancy can complicate a lot of different things, obviously. And so it's not -- you know, the earlier it is, the more common. But, still, the issue with this particular thing, which I find to be so interesting is that when row -- Jane row, also known as Norma McCorvey, went to the doctor back in the day -- at that time in Texas, abortion was legal in the case of the mother's life being endangered.

PAT: Hmm.


STU: That was the only exception they had at the time. But they had that exception before Roe vs. Wade in the state where Roe went to get the abortion. That is how ridiculous this has been twisted.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: That has always been an exception. It is a pre Roe vs. Wade exception. And honestly like an understandable one in that at the very least you're making some decision -- it's at least justifiable in that you might make the decision based on -- you're essentially choosing one life over the other at that point.

PAT: Oh, if it's between my wife and the unborn baby --

STU: Of course.

PAT: -- you're choosing the mother of your children every time. The love of your life.

JEFFY: You have to, right? You have to.

STU: So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often.

She -- the case went on for a long time. It wasn't until the mid-'90s that she became a born-again Christian and was received by the Catholic Church. I think she was Catholic for a while. I think she converted from that too. But she remained Christian. She said that she became a real -- a real outspoken opponent of abortion. I mean, think about this. You know, think about -- like what if Rosa Parks was, "You know, I was wrong about those buses." This is a big change. You know what, we should be sitting in the back. I got to be wrong on that one.

That would be a story, I feel like.

PAT: Yes, it would be a story.

STU: I don't think that would have ever happened. But it's an interesting thing in that this is the case, the name that everyone knows, Roe, this is the woman who came out and advocated against this procedure for two decades.

PAT: If it was Wade, you wouldn't have minded as much.

STU: No.

PAT: Because Wade was the person trying to allow her to have the abortion, right?

STU: No.

PAT: Or actually Wade didn't want her to. She was fighting for --

STU: Roe was the one. Yeah.

PAT: But, I mean, it's never talked about that even the person who got this law overturned, all through America and legalized abortion, even she was a very staunch abortion opponent.

STU: So she went as far as to work for an abortion clinic. Okay? She was working at an abortion clinic. And she had an anti-abortion group move in next door to her. I mean, think about this. They always say, "Oh, you shouldn't be able to protest out in front of one of these clinics." Think of this story: They moved in next door. During smoke breaks -- during smoke breaks, someone from Operation Rescue, which is Reverend Philip Benham said she was completely pro-abortion.

They started talking. Slowly, they became friends. And that was kind of the genesis of her conversion. And, I mean, it's an incredible story.

If this was the opposite -- like, for example, you know, some terrible ruling that the person who was involved in it recanted and went the other way. And I say a terrible ruling as far as the left's perspective. This would be the ultimate movie. This woman's story would be an incredible movie telling this incredible conversion.

JEFFY: Conversion.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think of a good example of one. But there's been many of those stories, where the person comes out and at first advocates for the wrong side of the policy. And then history proves that they wound up being on the right side in the end because they converted in the middle and took a tough stand and couldn't believe what they previously had stood for. That's this story.

PAT: Right.

STU: It's just a policy they don't like, so almost no one knows it. And --

PAT: You're right. She would be celebrated. I mean, there would have been many, many major motion picture movies released about her.

JEFFY: What's interesting that too is that she began her conversion just by talking, you know, out back, smoking a graduate with the people that were against it next door. Didn't have anything to do with burning cars, throwing signs, hollering, dragging crosses across the street. It was just --

PAT: Killing abortion clinic doctors. None of that extremism.

JEFFY: Right. None of that. None of that.

PAT: How old was she?

STU: She was only 69. And she was in an assisted living facility.

JEFFY: At 69?

STU: Yeah, really -- really sad. Because, you know, was an important voice. The voice, really.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And an incredible thing -- an incredible turn of events. And I still think to this day -- and I've said it before on the air that I think this is going to be looked back in whatever -- 100, 200 years -- I don't know what the time line is, as the slavery of our day. The type of thing that people who believe and advocated for it will be trashed by future generations, the way they trashed the Founders for having slaves. And, again, a lot of that is unfair. And you have to view it in the period of the -- you know, you have to view it in the context of the time where it occurs. But it's the type of thing that will be so unthinkable, particularly as technology advances.

We're to the point now -- we showed a video on Pat and Stu the other day of a new type of ultrasound.

Thank you, Jeffy.

A new type of ultrasound where you can see the baby doing baby things. This is not like it's blurry and you can kind of see the face. They had the 3D ultrasounds that came out, you know, within the last, what? Fifteen years. And now they're kind of common. You can get them. They're more expensive.

But it's like to the point of basically you see the baby playing and turning around and doing all sorts of things that you'd recognize from a baby. And this is at 20 weeks.


STU: This technology is going to prove to people that this is a crazy process.

PAT: And you think, wow, that's an active piece of broccoli in there.

STU: No, it's not broccoli, Pat. No, it's going to be a baby. Yeah, it's a baby.

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: My heart must be working on that carburetor for that Buick moving around.

STU: No, it's not a Buick. It's not a Buick. It's a baby.

PAT: Are you sure?

STU: And over time, technology is working against the, quote, unquote, pro-choice argument here. The more we see these little pieces of broccoli as babies, the harder it is for people to justify this decision.

PAT: Yeah. And it's interesting because Beyonce is being celebrated right now because she's so very, very pregnant. And she's not pregnant with tissue or a Buick. She's pregnant with twin babies. Babies. And they've said it. And she says it. And, well, okay. Then how is it that nobody else is pregnant with babies? They're pregnant with tissue or a fetus or you don't want to say the word.

JEFFY: It's really strange that she's --

PAT: It's a weird phenomenon.

JEFFY: I mean, Beyonce is celebrated for -- because, well, she's the queen. But, I mean, over the past few years, they've really celebrated several -- numbers of celebrities for having babies, that it's this wonderful thing.

Like, what are you talking about?

STU: Well, and that's, of course, because they all know it's true.

PAT: Sure they do.

STU: They all know it.

PAT: They do.

STU: They all realize.

PAT: And that's why I cut them no slack for the time period. Because the time period is 2017. They know what's growing inside the woman and it's a human baby. They know that.

STU: Understood. However, I will say, it's a legal process. Society has decided --

PAT: Still.

STU: And really, the courts have decided that this is a legal process. So it should be viewed within that context. I think there are a lot of people who look -- you know, I'm not thinking about the thinkers. I'm not talking about people who are involved in this debate. You know, the debate as currently constructed is debating about whether it should be allowed before -- or excuse me, only before 20 weeks. I mean, there's -- we're talking -- we're giving you a five-month window to figure out whether or not you're going to keep this thing or not. And that's still considered too restrictive. It's not considered too restrictive in Europe. But it's too restrictive here. So that's completely different.

I think a lot of people who go to an abortion clinic, who grow up in a family where this is approved of, they just don't go into deep thought about it. It's a legal thing. They have a problem. They eliminate the problem.

And that is what -- you know, why it's important for us to continue blabbing about it. I mean, there have been hosts that have banned abortion talk on the air. We didn't talk about it all that often for a decent amount of this show's history. And we've talked about that before. It is important to talk about. It needs to be thought about.

You don't get the pass of, well, I don't know, it's legal, and it would solve my current problem as is. It needs to be considered thoughtfully.

JEFFY: And being against abortion is not hating women.

STU: No.

PAT: It's just the opposite. Just slightly over half of the people born will be women.

STU: Yeah, 27, 28 million would be alive under our policy.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That would not be alive under the left's policy.

PAT: The hateful thing is to terminate all of those women, all of those females. That's the War on Women right there. You know, in Australia -- an Australian politician just said that -- because I guess in Queensland, Australia, they're -- it's still a criminal offense to have an abortion in some circumstances. And some MPs have said they won't support the legislation to decriminalize it. It's only lawful to prevent serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health.

But there's a politician saying that he believes these politicians owe women an explanation. It's a real cop out. If you're voting no, then you're saying it's appropriate for it to remain in the criminal code. Well, yeah, murder should remain in the criminal code.

And they're trying to make a big issue out of this. Because they're acting as if the women are the criminals, when the ones that are charged are the doctors. If you perform -- just like in this country, when there was -- when there was a criminal act involved in the abortion, it was the doctors that were held accountable, not the women.

STU: I see what you're saying. You're saying women can't be doctors.

PAT: Well, okay. Women doctors sometimes could be involved here.


STU: Unbelievable.

You played that trick on me a few weeks ago. But, yeah, I mean, obviously that's the way it's typically enforced.

But, I mean, really, it's not -- while the legality issue is incredibly crucial. And, you know, when you have something that is -- violates a central tenet of this country being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you have something that so clearly violates that tenet, I can't -- it needs to be more than legal. Right? It's a situation where we wake up. We talked about this a while ago. In the 1950s, 45 percent of white people said, if a black person moved in next door to them, they'd move. Forty-five percent of white people in a poll said that.

JEFFY: What year was that?

STU: 1954. Mid-'50s.

Now that number -- well, and this is a number that's now 20 years old. I haven't seen an update for it because the poll I saw said only 1996 was the latest they did this. In 1996, it was 2 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: From 45 to 2 percent. That's not because of law. That's not because they passed laws saying that black people must move next to white people.

It's because people -- white people over time realized how dumb their position was. Right? And they had a moral change of their heart, understanding the reality of the situation, which is that you shouldn't move out of your house if black people move in next door. It sounds silly.

JEFFY: It sure does.

STU: To say that now. Back then it was half of white people said that, almost. Forty-five -- and, you know, we know how difficult it is to deal with realtors and all the paperwork and all the craziness. This is not like I wouldn't go talk to my neighbor if he was black. This is, I would move. I would leave my home if a black person moved in next door. That number goes from 45 to 2 percent. Not because of law. Because people had a change of heart. Because people made convincing arguments over a long period of time. And right now, while it's a very split partisan issue, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that.

And, you know, a lot of people say, "Well, you know, you should be able to have it for X amount of time. And afterwards, you know, then it has to stop." The majority of the people say no to late terms. And that's good. But you need to be consistent here.

PAT: It's pretty close on abortion at all.

STU: Yeah, it's about split.

PAT: It's about split halfway down the country right now. It's almost 50/50. But I think it's 53/47. Something else. Right in there. So I think we have the momentum right now, and we just need to keep it.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: Good.


The Truth Behind the 5G Airline Hysteria | Brendan Carr | Ep 130

The rollout of 5G has begun across the country … except at airports. Rumors are everywhere that the new 5G networks could cause massive — and deadly — disruptions to air traffic. But is this a factual fear, or does it belong in the same bucket as the billion other conspiracy theories surrounding 5G? Population control, invisible propaganda, hundreds of birds that die all at once, wavelengths that microwave your brain ... And what about the less far-fetched concerns about what 5G could usher in: Increased Big Tech monitoring, ESG scores, the metaverse? Since President Biden isn’t doing anything to calm America’s fears, Glenn sits down with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to cut through the noise and separate fact from fiction. Yes, Carr explains, there is a lot to be concerned about. But he also details why he’s so optimistic about the potential a 5G-powered world could have.


WATCH: The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of 21st-Century Fascism

The Great Reset is not just an elitist idea — it’s not even a socialist utopian concept. It’s a real-world fascist threat to every American from Wall Street to Main Street. It’s happening now in policies and cultural shifts big and small, obvious and subtle, from environmental promises to corporations going woke. But the mainstream media, global elites, and politicians brushed off the Great Reset as “nothing to see here.” Another myth they push: “The World Economic Forum is just a conference for elites who have no REAL power.”

Glenn Beck first exposed the Great Reset almost two years ago, and the globalist cries of "conspiracy theorist" soon followed. They said he believed the WEF was a “master cabal calling the shots from some evil underground lair.” But Glenn Beck never said that. Instead, he uncovered the true intentions of global leaders in finance and politics by simply highlighting their own words.

This week, the same global elites are doubling down on their agenda at the World Economic Forum’s Davos Agenda virtual event. But still, the global elites — like Twitter’s Jack Dorsey — are trying to downplay the WEF’s influence to stop people like us from interfering with their plans. The oligarchy will prosper in the new world order they’ve designed. You will not.

So Glenn unveils a master chalkboard based on his best-selling new book to outline the threats from globalists and why we must stop their agenda if we hope to keep the precious freedoms we still have.

Watch the full episode of "GlennTV' Below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.


Explaining Washington’s rumored FORCED QUARANTINE law

Despite what the mainstream media may say, on January 12 Glenn DID fact-check a claim he made on Tucker Carlson about a rumored Washington law that could force citizens to quarantine or isolate. In this clip, Glenn clarifies his original statement, explaining that the law in question has been on Washington books since 2003 and therefore is NOT a result of the COVID pandemic. But Glenn also explains the more concerning context he — and those in the mainstream media — missed too: the fact that this law didn’t seem too farfetched for Washington citizens should be VERY concerning to us all.


Follow THESE 8 STEPS so we can REVIVE our republic

It’s a new year, and every new year comes with New Year's resolutions. This is when we resolve to lose weight, join a gym, or finally read those books on our shelves. For many of us, the New Year's resolution has become a kind of joke, because deep down, we know the new diet won’t stick and that reading a book a day isn’t really sustainable. The real issue is that we usually create resolutions that are too idealistic and broad, like, “Be healthy.” When it comes time to deliver on those resolutions, we don’t know what to do, so we quit.

But the idea of resolutions is still a good one. It is good to set new and better goals for ourselves. The secret is keeping them attainable.

You will hear many people, like me, tell you that 2022 is the year to save the American republic. Well, that is a great idea, but what do we actually DO to make that happen?

I know this audience is already resolved to save America, so I want to offer you some specific, actionable ways to do that.

Here are some “Practical Steps to Revive the Republic.” It is by no means a fully comprehensive list. We will find a broad array of ways to save our nation. This list is a jumping-off point for the New Year for folks like us who love this country.

Practical Steps to Revive the Republic

1. Get married and have a family.

Mother Teresa said, “What can you do to promote world peace? Go home and love your family.”

Family is the first system of government we enter. It is where we are taught the virtues necessary for self-government. Children denied love and guidance when they are young struggle to successfully enter society, let alone the reality of their own lives. We call them “mal-adjusted.”

Ronald Reagan addressed the nation in 1986, saying:

“Consider, for example, that the philosopher-historians Will and Ariel Durant called the family ‘the nucleus of civilization.’ They understood that all those aspects of civilized life that we most deeply cherish — freedom, the rule of law, economic prosperity and opportunity — that all these depend upon the strength and integrity of the family. If you think about it, you'll see that it's in the family that we must all learn the fundamental lesson of life — right and wrong, respect for others, self-discipline, the importance of knowledge, and, yes, a sense of our own self-worth. All of our lives, it's the love of our families that sustains us when times are hard. And it is perhaps above all to provide for our children that we work and save.

“Some have suggested that in today's world, the family has somehow become less important. Well, I can't help thinking just the opposite: that when so much around us is whispering the little lie that we should live only for the moment and for ourselves, it's more important than ever for our families to affirm an older and more lasting set of values.”

If you are concerned about the fall of the American republic, remember that liberty is always just a generation away from success or demise, and the children we raise make all of the difference.

2. Tell the truth.

“When you have something to say, silence is a lie.” –Jordan B. Peterson

Lying is really easy. It seems to take the mess of the present and push it into the future. But lying makes the world like a mine field of constructed reality – one wrong step and it will all blow up. To maintain a lie costs the liar in consciousness, attention, and productivity. Enough lies make you useless. Useless people have very little capacity for self-government.

In 2021, we rightly pointed out, “The media lies!” “The politicians lie!” “The doctors lie!” “The celebrities lie!”

But if we lie too, can we expect better from them? If we are silent in the face of lies, when we KNOW they are lies, then how can we expect things to improve?

If we each agreed to stop lying and to tell the truth today, can you imagine how much better tomorrow could be? Theodore Dalrymple, the pen name of the English writer and psychiatrist, said it perfectly: “When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.” We have to embrace and promote a way of life worthy of liberty – and that starts with me, you, and all of us.

3. Study history and read old books.

There is nothing new under the sun. It’s likely that the struggles of today were deliberated years ago by our ancestors. Perhaps they have some good ideas worth considering. We won’t know unless we study them. The American system of government was revolutionary not because the founders were somehow superhuman (although God was clearly with them) but because they embraced the lessons of the past. If you think practically, looking at the future is impossible, but moving into the future, regardless of where you look, is inevitable. The only concrete information we have is in the past. If you are being presented with a “new idea,” check with the past first to see how that idea will play out. If you love the American republic, study it. If you want to navigate the future, read old books.

4. Own. Don’t rent.

Many of us likely watched “It’s a Wonderful Life” over the holidays. This movie makes an explicit case for the correlation between home ownership and human dignity. The greedy villain. Mr. Potter, wants to keep the people of the town in his rental apartments and is threatened by the movie's protagonist, George Bailey, whose Bailey Building and Loan business is helping people own their own homes.

Home ownership matters. Not only does it set you on the path toward true self-reliance and out of the grips of the “Mr. Potters” of the world, but it also creates local buy-in, which makes our communities stronger. A 2001 Harvard study found:

“Strong and consistent evidence indicates that homeowners are more likely to:

a) be satisfied with their homes and neighborhoods;

b) participate in voluntary and political activities; and

c) stay in their homes longer, contributing to neighborhood stability.

To be metaphorical: It turns out that when we put down roots, we care more about the local soil. But right now, we are seeing the death of home ownership in exchange for perpetual renting. Even people with the financial capacity to buy a home are forgoing it for the ease of renting. But if we want to save our republic, we have to tend to our local communities. We have to take ownership over where we live.

Before our Declaration spoke about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” John Locke was talking about the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. When he said “property,” he was talking about the holistic ownership a man can have over his destiny. The right to own property is about self-determination. In essence, it is about the right to own yourself – to own your destiny.

If you can buy a home, do it. If not, take on the mentality of a homeowner in your community, not a passerby.

Whenever possible, own, don’t rent.

5. Dump the tea into the sea.

Over the past two years, the government has grabbed at power like a drunken man in a strip club, losing all decorum, restraint, and sense of place in the greater society. But what is more disturbing is that we complied. After “15 days to slow the spread,” we stayed unnecessarily locked down physically, emotionally, and financially for almost two years.

Remember the last time kings tried to hold us down? I’m not saying to turn to violence. I am saying we should just start saying “no” to the government overreach – PEACEFULLY, respectfully, and deliberately.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

Maybe the lovers of the American republic need to start getting into, as the left loves to say, “good trouble.”

6. Know your rights AND your responsibilities.

We all love talking about our rights. In fact, the word “rights” is being conflated with a narcissistic tendency to think we deserve the whole world to conform to our way of life. Yet our inalienable rights are eroded every day. If you haven’t read our founding documents, now is the time. We can’t protect rights that we can’t define or are ignorant of. But along with rights come responsibilities. We are accustomed to turning to the government to solve everything – to heal all of our “boo-boos.” It’s reflexive at this point.

“There are so many poor people ... I’ll call my senator!”

Yes, the government has a role in general welfare, but the government is bad at solving most problems. I would love to hear a politician, when asked about an issue, say, “Yes, I agree that is a problem, but the government should not be the one to solve it.”

Can you imagine?

There are plenty of issues in our communities – plenty of people who need help. We have to start helping them. Knowing the government will “help the poor” and lock them in cycles of poverty, we need to develop other solutions in our own communities. There are many important issues to address. We have forgotten whose job it is to address them. When we fail to love our neighbors, the government steps in as a poor and destructive substitute.

7. Say “republic” more than “democracy.”

You can’t turn on the news without someone telling you about the fragility of our “democracy.” In President Biden's Inauguration Day speech, he broke the record for the number of times the word “democracy” was used in an inaugural address. When politicians call for abolishing the Electoral College, they call it “undemocratic.” A Pew Research study found that 58% of U.S. adults think the Constitution should be amended so that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins. This would no doubt make America more democratic. But America is not a democracy. We don’t live in a democracy for good reason. The founders understood that “majority” does not mean “right.” That isn’t to say our founders didn't infuse our system with the best of the democratic values, but they ultimately decided in favor of a new system – a very delicate order of checks and balances and delegated power and representation. This was to provide protection against the whims of faction or, as we call it today, “the mob.” It’s the leaders of our modern mob who love to exchange the word republic, which is what we really are, for democracy. Words have meanings. Many young Americans believe they live in a democracy. When discussing America, make sure to use the word republic.

Federalist No. 10

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

8. Learn from people you disagree with.

Perhaps this needs no explanation. We have so much we can learn from each other in the honest pursuit of truth. Our forefathers didn’t ensure our freedoms of conscience and association for nothing.

Here's how the conversation went on radio Thursday:

Follow THESE 8 STEPS so we can REVIVE our republic