The month of June has been hijacked by the anti Christian culture
>> Jeff Chamblee: The month of June has been hijacked by the anti Christian culture to show their pride in something God calls an abomination. When you support afr, you help us continue to stand for godly values and provide the resources for you to stay in the know about the enemy's tactics. To say thank you for your gift this month, we'll give you the booklet Inside the LGBTQ push of the 1990s. To help strengthen your convictions, just go to afr.netoffers afr.net offers.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Welcome to today's Issues. Join us for the next hour as we offer a Christian response to the issues of the day. Here's your host, Ed Mantagliano.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And welcome to Today's Issues. it is Wednesday, June 18. Ed Vitagliano is sitting in for Tim Wildmon this week. I'm joined in studio by Fred Jackson. Good morning, Fred.
>> Fred Jackson: Good morning, Ed.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Wesley Wildmon is in the house.
>> Wesley Wildmon: And good morning.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And Chris Woodward, our news reporter extraordinaire for American Family News. Good morning to you, Chris.
>> Chris Woodward: Good morning.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Well, lots of great stuff coming up. I do want to let you know, folks, our dear listeners, that at the bottom of the hour, when we come back from our break, Jenna Ellis, host of Jenna Ellis in the Morning, will be joining us. We try to have some of our other hosts on periodically. Sometimes we'll have Abon, Jan Markell,
>> Wesley Wildmon: Alex for Alex M. Comes on with.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah, so we try to get some, other voices. So today is Jenna's turn, and, we look forward to that. Got a couple of things picked out for her to discuss, but that will be at the bottom of the hour. Meanwhile, Chris, we were planning on, leading off the show with updates on what's happening between Israel and Iran, but we do have some breaking news that should be of interest to our listeners.
Supreme Court upheld Tennessee ban on gender mutilation procedures on minors
>> Chris Woodward: Indeed, breaking news out of the Supreme Court, where justices ruled 6 to 3 today to uphold Tennessee's ban on the gender mutilation procedures on minors. It was, again, a 6 to 3 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority the that the law does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. In a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority, quote, abandons transgender children and their families to political whims, end quote. Now, in our months or year and a half of covering this, story, I can tell you that, a number of people, including our own Abe Hamilton, have said that Tennessee and a number of states already Restricted minors to certain things. For example, you can't drive a car in the state of Tennessee if you're 12. You can't get a tattoo in such and such state unless you're of a certain age. All Tennessee was trying to do was say if you are under the age of 18, you cannot have things like, gender mutilation surgeries or transgender chemical.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Without your parents consent. It didn't matter.
>> Chris Woodward: Correct? Yes. If you're under the age of 18, you can't do it. so this is a huge win, and it's a win for states like ours and Mississippi and others that have similar bans to what Tennessee has. For example, when we talked to Abe about this back in January, Abe told us at that time, our own Abe Hamilton told us if the Supreme Court were to rule that the state of Tennessee could not protect its minors from gender mutilation surgeries and transgender. Transgender chemical castrations, then it would follow, that no state would be allowed to do so. So Tennessee's win today at the Supreme Court is a win for all the states that have a similar ban.
>> Ed Vitagliano: By the way, folks, now this is, as we pointed out, this is breaking news, so we'll be able to fill in some gaps, in the days ahead. But I did, want to mention I, texted, Dr. Jameson Taylor, who is AFA's director of government affairs, he works with AFA Action to ask what, role, AFA played in this, if any. I wanted to have, Jameson on with us, but he is currently meeting with lawmakers in Ohio because AFA Action, and of course, Jameson Taylor does a lot of this work, will work with states to pass laws like the one in Tennessee. And he did say that AFA Action submitted, an amicus brief that was, signed by lawmakers around the country. And the court used part of our argument, in ruling on this. So I'm, I'm proud of afa. Afa, and I had nothing to do with this part of it. So this is not me bragging about me. I had asked Jameson, you know, did we do anything on this? Folks, for those of you who are listening, AFA does a lot of work that's behind the scenes. Jameson Taylor, in fact, helped draft here in Mississippi the pro life law that led to the US Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. So there's a lot of things we do that are behind the scenes that you don't know about. And I just wanted to let you know that your prayers, your support, are helping us to get things done.
Part of what the Supreme Court said was that legislatures should make decisions
So, Fred, let me just ask you real quick and we'll get to Wesley. part of what the Supreme Court has ruled. Now I'm just catching up, trying to read some things about their ruling. Have not read the ruling. Part of what the Supreme Court said was that legislatures are the ones that should be making these decisions about things like transitioning and minors getting surgery and puberty blockers, because they can bring in medical professionals to help inform the legislature and the state and federal.
>> Ed Vitagliano: To inform legislator legislators about the right way to vote and that this is not really to be done by judges. That's. I like that part of this ruling.
>> Fred Jackson: Well, also, legislators can talk to both sides of the issue.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: And, the side that made sense in this issue, obviously, are parents, who would testify. I, don't want the state or my school district, you know, the human resources division of a school district making decisions that my son and daughter may deeply regret later.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: In recent years, we've also heard testimony of young people who tragically underwent some of these surgeries or, or chemical treatment that forever changed them. They cannot go back. They regret it now, but they can't go back. And so what's sad is that we now have to have states passing laws to protect our young people. We're talking about young people who may be going through a very confusing stage in their lives, and they're. They're being told on social media, go with your feelings. And we know that young people can make very tragic mistakes at that time based on their emotions, based on something they're reading on social media. And so these laws are being brought in and other laws are now coming on the books. And we've talked about this before, about protecting girl sports from biological males, all of these sorts of things. And again, I guess it's a statement as to where we are in our culture today that we're even having these discussions. Ed, you and I are old enough that if somebody had told us 40, 50 years ago when we were really young.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yes.
>> Fred Jackson: That someday there's going to have to be laws brought in, or some days there's going to be procedures, a medical community would advocate, of removing body parts from young people because they're not feeling right.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Feeling right. Just in the moment.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes, at that moment. So this is a tremendous ruling. And, it's very interesting, the six to three split, the three liberal justices went the other way, that we ought to go according to the whims of the young people at a given moment. and that's, that's kind of scary that we have three people on the United States Supreme Court that say, yeah, let's do whatever the young people want done at a particular time in their lives.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Well, Wesley, that is part of the disturbing part, like Fred is saying, is that there really is an ideological divide in this country. And in blue states, these are the ones who ideologically want to take control away from parents over what happens to their kids and put it into the hands of people who have already sold out, regardless of the science, already sold out to the pro trans, agenda and that ideology. It's scary that this is not being done for some of these blue states on the basis of science. It's being done on the basis of that belief system.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Yeah. Let me take us back down memory, memory lane just for a second too. We were talking with Matt Staver yesterday and he was talking about how we're going to see more victories at the Supreme Court for conservative, agenda constitutional, constitutional rulings. With that said, that's because we can thank President Trump and his team for his Only in just four years he was able to elect three Supreme Court justices. Now is that the first time in history that they were a president was able to select three in his one term?
>> Ed Vitagliano: That's a good question.
>> Wesley Wildmon: If not, if not. The rareness of that happening is very rare. But yet it happened. And it was because many Christians got out and voted and elected President Trump in the first term, which his biggest, appeal, to vote to Republican voters is the Supreme Court.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Wesley Wildmon: And he. And now 2016. That's right, in 2016. Now, we can all point to four or five that we as Christians, we in constitutionalists, we think that he. They got wrong.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yes.
>> Wesley Wildmon: however it would have. If you, if we don't think for a moment that is, it could, Jackson, Will Jackson. Sometimes, I get her pronunciation, Katanji Jackson. If you don't think that Biden or Hillary Clinton elected would not have replaced two or three with another Katanji Jackson who doesn't know what a woman is.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right.
>> Wesley Wildmon: You don't think that that's what she said? That's what she said. that a ruling like this would have gone the other way.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Wesley Wildmon: And just to think about the tragedy, from that angle. So all that said is that their consequences do have a, or elections do have consequences. And this is a wonderful ruling in our favor and that just to give you a 22 minute recap of how we got a decision like this that could have easily gone the other way.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Oh, there's, there's no doubt if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, those vacancies would have been filled by, to your point, people like Katanji Brown Jackson, who during her hearing, after being nominated, she was asked, can you, would you define what a woman is? Famously she answered, well, I'm not a biologist, so I can't answer that question. That's, that's how deep into ideology.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Right.
>> Ed Vitagliano: The left is. But we would have had three, left the country, probably would have been lost forever.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Yeah. And this ruling would have obviously gone the other way. So. Yeah. thankful for that.
>> Chris Woodward: One interesting thing about Katanji Brown Jackson that I still have to, I'm still, I still can't believe was a couple of weeks ago when you had the white straight lady in Ohio that won the reverse discrimination case. Katanji Brown Jackson was the one that wrote the majority opinion in that case. So like, that's her one. Like, if we didn't have her, you know, things might be different.
>> Ed Vitagliano: But we have had a couple of nine to nothing.
>> Chris Woodward: Oh yeah.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Unanimous ruling. So at least, both sides of the quote unquote aisle on the Supreme Court can agree sometimes.
>> Chris Woodward: Yes.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on another parental rights case this month
Now one other case that we're still watching for and it could come m at any point this month, there's nothing to prevent the Supreme Court from coming out with an opinion this afternoon, although I don't think it's likely. So at some point this month, most likely, the Supreme Court will issue its opinion on Mahmoud v. Taylor. That was the case that they heard back in April where you had an inter religious coalition of parents, Christians, Muslims and Jews that went to court because their school system, the Montgomery County, Maryland school system, took away their opt out and read LGBTQ books to kids as young as five without the parents having the ability to say, no, my son's not going to be there that day. so we're still waiting on a decision there. And it wasn't just one set of faith based parents. It was a whole bunch of people that believe different things, that went to the Supreme Court there. That'll be the big, interesting one that will set a precedent for parental rights, in this country. Another parental rights case.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Well, and the fact that Montgomery county in Maryland is so far left.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Indicates the need for protection of parental rights.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Because these folks would, they would take your kids away. Well, we just saw the Law passed. What was it in Colorado? The one, was it the Colorado law that said your kids can be taken away, during a divorce?
>> Chris Woodward: Yeah.
>> Ed Vitagliano: if you're not, promoting their particular gender identity in disputes involving custody. This is where these folks want to take the country. I still want to wait to see how states respond to the conservative, decision on the part of the Supreme Court. Because anymore it seems like these blue states basically ignore the Supreme Court rulings. So we'll have to wait and see. But parents are going to have to remain vigilant and continue to fight to protect their kids or get them out of there.
>> Fred Jackson: We can go back a number of years to Hillary Clinton. It takes a village.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yes.
>> Fred Jackson: Listen folks, what she was signaling is the battles we're fighting today. Hillary Clinton believed the state has a right to raise your children with state values, with left wing state values. That's what the Hillary Clintons, that's what we're seeing today in most of these blue states who want to take control away from parents and say, we will decide, the kinds of treatments, the kind of education that your kids are going to get. And parents, if you disagree with us, we'll just take your kids away from you.
>> Ed Vitagliano: I firmly believe that is ultimately what they would want to do if they could get away with it.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: All right. By the way, we do have an article on the supreme court ruling on afn.net, american Family News, afn.net you can go and check out this, story and I'm sure more details will follow as legal minds digest the court's ruling.
Will the United States join Israel when it strikes Iran
>> Chris Woodward: In other news, we're still awaiting a decision on what, if anything President Trump is going to do to or inside of Iran. there were stories yesterday that the President had assembled inside the, inside the room in the White House, the Situation Room, where he was talking about what, if anything, the US May do to join Israel when it strikes on Iran. So the President was having a sit down meeting yesterday with his national security and foreign policy advisors, to talk about, that it's still unclear as to what, if anything the US Will do if, if it's going to join Israel. In airstrikes, the, President did urge Iran's unconditional surrender. Iran is saying no, we're not going to do that. this after the President urged people via social media to evacuate, Tehran. Israel, meanwhile is still going hard and heavy, at Iran claiming it's close to having a nuclear weapon. It cannot have a Nuclear weapon that's a threat to the nation of Israel and other countries. So this is a very tense situation that we continue to need to pray about. and in the meantime we have a ton of audio available. One of the big stories here, and this is in an AFN Net story that Fred posted this morning. there is a story that the US has bunker buster bombs that Israel would need to really go after some nuclear energy research, places in Iran here. And somebody that is familiar with bunker buster bombs is a Top Gun pilot who goes by the call sign Whiz. His last name is Buckley but Wiz Buckley was on Fox and Friends this morning to talk about these so called bunker buster bombs.
>> Speaker H: Clip 6 this is exactly what this weapon was designed for. To penetrate deep into the ground. Not to get too technical, but these, these bombs has, have different types of fuses and sensors on them to literally go through different layers. Whether it's ground or concrete. You just kind of program that into the weapon and once it reaches its designed or what you set into that bomb, it's going to explode. So fairly certain the Israelis have done a decent job of softening up that target, opening up maybe a little bit of a hole for this, for this Moab to come in.
>> Fred Jackson: Yeah, a bunker buster bombs, we've heard about them before. the Americans have been testing it. Here's the big issue and it kind of surrounds the question will the United States get involved? people seem to agree, that the Iranians are their, their most high level uranium, developments, facility is under a mountain.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Right?
>> Fred Jackson: All right, so to get at that you need this kind of bomb. It's a 30,000 pound bomb. The issue here is Israeli military. The Israeli Air Force does not have an aircraft that can carry a weapon of that size. So if you're going to get rid of that facility and you say the only way to do that is to have this 30,000 pound bomb, the only way you can deliver that bomb is, is aboard an aircraft, a United States.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Air Force aircraft bomber.
>> Fred Jackson: A bomber?
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Fred Jackson: All right. Whether it's a B2 or B52, probably the B2 stealth bomber. and so that's the big question right now that's being debated in Washington. Should the United States get involved? Well, you know, people are saying, well you keep saying President of the United States, Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Well that's, that's the stated problem. The only solution you're saying is to bomb that facility. If you're going to do that, then the United States has to get involved. and then the question is, will the United States do that, or will we step back and say we'll try to keep an eye on the Iranians?
>> Ed Vitagliano: Well, and the. And the fact is, you may have to hit it more than once.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: With one of these, bunker busters.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: you know, Wesley, a part of the politically charged, character of this issue is that President Trump campaigned on keeping us out of wars. And now there's a situation where we would have to basically declare war. Might not be an official declaration of war, but we would be attacking a sovereign nation. And that could trigger a broader war, a longer conflict with Iran. And so President Trump is getting pushback from some in the MAGA fold, as well as the Democrats, because the Democrats are going to hate anything the President does. But that's part of the politically charged, nature of this discussion, because he either gets us to a place where we're attacking Iran, or, as Fred said, he keeps us out of it. And then this, Ford. I'm not sure how you pronounce it, Fordo. we have to let this thing go on. And maybe they do get themselves a nuke.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Yeah. maybe there's another alternative. You know, it may be that you. Do you agree to this one deal of using your aircrafts for this one target. You know, but, you know, the argument for the other side would be, well, once you do that, there could be a ripple there, likely a ripple effect. but you could still drop an agreement that says, okay, there may be a ripple effect, but we're still only doing this.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Wesley Wildmon: and, and I don't know if I would consider that necessarily going into war. You know, if you're targeting a particular asset, that's problematic for everybody, including yourself.
>> Ed Vitagliano: But unless Iran, Yes. Acts our bases. Yeah, I guess there is a middle. Like you're saying, there's a middle possibility, too. Iran could just walk this back and say, all right, we're coming to the table.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And now we are going to stop.
>> Wesley Wildmon: here the crafts, aircraft come out. Hold on, hold on.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Because the fact of the matter is, for Iran, there's no, there's, there's no, easy, end to this for them.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Right, right, right.
>> Ed Vitagliano: If they're not, if they, if they do attack, if the US Bombs this site and then they do attack some of our bases or attack some of our naval assets in the region, they are going to I think Trump will hit them back, very hard and take out whatever remains of their air force, their surface to air missile batteries, their navy, they've got a bunch of little subs and fast moving craft. They don't want to lose all that.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: but I think they are so determined. Fred, I'll come back to you for. And then see if Chris has any more sound on this. the mullahs who run Iran, they're all in. They believe religiously.
>> Fred Jackson: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: They believe that they should instigate a conflict with the west and a war with Israel because that will bring in the final imam. I think it's the seventh imam. And that's kind of like in their end times scenario. So they don't really have a motivation to not continue to push this towards open conflict.
>> Fred Jackson: The only other solution I see is complete regime change. In other words, you have to take out the Ayatollah Khomeini and his people. Israel may do that yet.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah.
>> Fred Jackson: President Trump on, his social media indicated he doesn't want to do it now, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it.
All right, be praying because there's a lot that could go wrong here
>> Wesley Wildmon: Right.
>> Fred Jackson: that might avoid, us getting involved in the war if these, Islamic leaders are taken out.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Yeah. All right, folks, be praying because there's a lot that could go wrong here for, the world, for us, for Israel. but anyway, we'll continue to follow it. by the way, I told you, Jenna Ellis coming up right after our short break. You'll want to be here for that. Please return after the break.
Today marks three years since Roe versus Wade was overturned
>> Ed Vitagliano: This June 24th marks three years since Roe versus Wade was overturned. But here's what you may not know. Abortion numbers have surged to a 10 year high. The battleground has shifted from the courtroom to our homes. Today, over 60% of abortions happen through the abortion pill. Taken in silence, often alone. PreBorn Network clinics are standing in the gap, meeting women in their most desperate hour. And here's what they're Young mothers, terrified and misled, are delivering their babies, tiny, perfectly formed, onto bathroom floors. These precious babies, once called just tissue, now lie lifeless. 11% of these women who take the abortion pill will suffer serious health complications. Countless others carry emotional scars for a lifetime. When you give to preborn, you're not just saving a baby, you're saving a mother, too. You're giving her hope, financial support, and the truth. PreBorn has already rescued over 350,000 babies. But there are so many more who need our help. Your tax deductible gift makes this mission possible to donate now. Dial 250 and say the keyword baby. That's £250, baby. Or go to preborn.com afr that's preborn.com.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Afr.
>> Jeff Chamblee: This is today's issues. Email your comments to commentsfr.net Past broadcasts of today's Issues are available for listening and viewing in the archive@afr.net now back to more of Today's Issues.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And welcome back Ed Battagliano sitting in for Tim Wildmon this week. He will be back in the Captain's chair on, Monday, Lord willing, joined in studio by Fred Jackson, Wesley Wildmon, and Chris Woodward. I just had a hurry down the hallway. I think I need to start doing a little more cardio.
>> Chris Woodward: Laine Kiffin, he wants to call you about your 40 time.
Fred: AFA Activate Summit went really well this past weekend
>> Ed Vitagliano: All right, folks, we're going to welcome to the program Jenna Ellis, host of Jenna Ellis in the Morning, heard weekdays at 7am Central Time on AFR. She's also the host of the On Demand podcasts found@afr.net Jenna, good morning.
>> Jenna Ellis: Good morning. Great to be with you all. And it's great to see you this past weekend for AFA Activate.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Oh, that was, that was wonderful. Wesley, that was your brainchild.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Yes, sir.
>> Ed Vitagliano: That went really well.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Yeah, we had a lot of help and a lot of speakers and, just a wonderful first annual Activate Summit. And we will be doing it again next year about the same time. We're still working on some details, but we're enjoying the finished, product, if you will, for a couple weeks and then we'll get back after it. Jenna Ellis was there with us. she helped us with, our panel discussion and she's here to help us with a couple more discussions. Yes, today.
>> Ed Vitagliano: That's right, Jenna. We have a couple of, legal issues to, bring up and then if we have time, a kind of a cultural issue that kind of popped up. In fact, you were the one that let leadership here know about that. We'll try to get to that after we talk about some of the legal things. Fred, what's the, the first story we want to kind of pitch Jenna?
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee ban on child sex-related mutilation
>> Fred Jackson: Well, Jenna, the big story this morning is the Supreme Court ruling on the Tennessee law that, outlaws, procedures, we call them mutilation procedures on young people. And, and, a 63 decision this morning by the Supreme Court that upholds that Tennessee law. Your thoughts on that?
>> Jenna Ellis: I think it's great that a ban on child abuse, is. Is constitutional. That's obvious. And this was exactly the way that this case should have gone. Of course, the left is saying that this, ah, discriminates against transgender rights, and that's merely a cover for suggesting that adults can decide to mutilate children and somehow under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, that any gender based discrimination claim that that overrides the state's interest in protecting children against, these mutilation surgeries, as you rightly call them. So I think that this, simply shows the importance of why the Supreme Court is and always will be a conservative voting issue. And unless and until the, the Constitution is amended to somehow appoint justices differently, that power rests with a president who nominates. And then, those are confirmed, those justices are confirmed by the Senate. And so the election of a president and obviously the election of senators, incredibly important. And so even though 2026 won't be a presidential election year, the bench and judicial federal appointees from the Supreme Court all the way down the federal bench are incredibly important. And so I would just encourage our audience to look at your senators that are up for reelection, look at who's running even in primaries. And, we have a lot of great resources, with the I Voter Guide and also with AFA Action.
What is it ideologically that drives these folks on the left to want to
>> Ed Vitagliano: Jenna, just one last question on this before we, we move on, because we discussed this before the break, but ideologically speaking, why do you think leftists in this country, so leaders in blue states, blue cities, and the three justices on the Supreme Court who voted, against the Tennessee law. What is it ideologically that, drives these folks on the left to want to take these decisions out of the hands of parents and give them to the state? What's the broader worldview that drives this that Fred was talking about when we were growing up? This would have been in the realm of just some kind of insane discussion that this is even a thing. What drives this on the left?
>> Jenna Ellis: That's a great question. It always comes down to worldview. Right? Our worldview then ultimately dictates how we view policy. And for the left, it's exactly what, Hillary Clinton said a number of years ago. And then Kamala Harris repeated it on the campaign trail in 2024. Biden repeated it in the White House, that for Democrats and for the left, children are not a gift from the Lord and vested with parents as the responsibility to be the primary caregivers, to train up a child in the way he should go so that when they're older, they won't depart from it, but rather children belong and are property of the State. So the left fundamentally does not view the institution of the family from a biblical worldview or even a natural law standpoint. they have tried to warp the definition, manipulate and twist the definition of what a family is outside the realm of biological reality, outside the confines of God's institutions. And so for them children are merely creatures of the state and they need to to advance the state's agenda. In this instance, when we're talking about the trans view, this is a broader conversation, but the whole trans movement, not only is it part of a cultural Marxist perspective and to divorce itself from a biblical worldview framework, but when you have children who don't understand that there is a reality of what defines a man versus a woman, a girl versus a boy, and they say, I don't know what gender I am, something that is so intrinsic to our immutable characteristics, who do they go to and who do parents go to? Who does the state go to to get those answers? Well they go to these so called experts. Trust the science, right? And so then when the state appointed experts can then tell you what gender you are, you are forcibly compelling and indoctrinating children to believe that they have to go to the same state appointed experts to know what reality is. And so the ultimate end game is not as obvious as just plain child abuse. The ultimate game is for the mind. And when you convince parents and the next generation of children that you can't know who you are in your identity in Christ and your identity in your physical body, with the imago dei, the image of God in you, you have to go and trust the state appointed experts. You will start trusting them for the rest of your worldview, which then means you are beholden to whatever the state's agenda is. That's their ultimate game.
>> Wesley Wildmon: this is Wesley here. So my question would be how is it that the far left, the other team so to speak, can get away with ignoring the harm that would, that would, that would and has taken place for young children that's been mutilated or even, even for the, for sake of the discussion, adults that's done it, that has regrets, how can they get away with not covering from that angle? Because there's, there's many reasons why us Christian conservative constitutionalists think this is, they think that this is wrong and that in this case this supreme Court got it right. There's many reasons for that, but just the harm that it does to the body and to the mind and to the psyche of someone who goes through these procedures? The fact that that's not a, bigger discussion for the left is kind of confusing to me because there are many things, as we pointed out in the previous segment, that are illegal regardless of whether the parent can consent or not. A parent can't consent to a six year old having intimate relationship with a 20 year old. It doesn't matter what a parent thinks. You know what I mean, in that particular. Because it's so damning and so hard. Right, exactly. So why is it that that's not how. What would the left say? I mean, what's their argument that because it's so obvious to the science that this is not a good thing from a, ah, psyche and a harmful standpoint.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think it's incumbent upon conservatives to keep driving the conversation back to those object points and not allow this to be on a secular humanist playing field, that their opinion is just as valid as our opinion. And when they claim equal protection, when they make all of these absurd, irrational arguments and they minimize the harm, we have to keep driving back. It's the same conversation as abortion where they're claiming, you know, a woman's right. And they don't want to acknowledge the harm to women. They don't want to acknowledge the harm to the unborn child who's tragically killed in every instance of abortion that that's completed. And so we have to have those conversations and not make it about, equality, not make it about civil rights. We have to make it about natural law. Natural law is objective. What the left has successfully done is arbitrarily manufactured the conversation into civil rights so that they have this subjective context. And I will say, as much as I am thankful that the Supreme Court did the right thing here, the majority opinion, and I haven't read the full, the full context, but the majority opinion basically said from, Chief Justice John Roberts that the voices in these debates raised sincere concerns. I'm reading from the opinion. The implications are profound. But the equal protection clause does not resolve these disagreements, nor does it afford us license to let them decide what we see best. That task, he said, is best left to the legislature. So they didn't go far enough. They didn't call this out and say, of course this is child abuse, there's objective harm here and make all of those findings basically just said, you know, we'll let the legislature decide. Well, what do we think the legislature in California is going to decide on this issue? I mean, so this is where as much as the springboard Got it Right. They did not go nearly far enough, and we need to call them out on that.
>> Ed Vitagliano: All right, Fred, what's the other, legal issue we wanted to pitch to Jenna?
A federal judge found Florida's attorney general in civil contempt over a state law
>> Fred Jackson: All right, Jenna. This is the Fox News story this morning. it goes back to February, when Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation into law that made it a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to enter the state. And, the Florida Attorney General, James, Uthmeyer, after this law was challenged in court and a judge there put a pause on implementing this judge, this, this law, that, the Attorney General there in Florida decided, no, we're not going to pause this. We're going to enforce this law. Well, yesterday, this federal judge, U.S. district Judge Kathleen Williams, found that the attorney general was in civil contempt of court over her ruling to pause that new state law. And his response, yesterday to that ruling from the judge was, if, being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump's agenda, illegal immigration, so be it. End quote. Your thoughts?
>> Jenna Ellis: great for the attorney General for simply standing up for what the law is and also what state law is which this federal judge really has no subject matter jurisdiction to override or just slap a temporary restraining order on a, a law that was duly passed by the Florida legislature, signed into law by the governor, that's clearly within their purview simply because she disagrees with the policy.
>> Chris Woodward: Right.
>> Jenna Ellis: And is saying, oh, well, this maybe will affect illegal immigrants negatively. I mean, you want to talk about harm? Well, yeah, that's the point of the law, so that they won't come here and violate, federal law. And so this is a state law that then is in furtherance of that agenda, and it was duly passed through the legislature. So there's actually no reason that the TRO was legally justifiable to begin with. So I think ultimately, the attorney general, even if he's held in contempt, that will be overturned on appeal, and I anticipate they'll go that route. but this is just, again, the importance of having judges on a federal level that won't supersede their jurisdiction and deter, make policy determinations from the bench. It's utterly absurd. And I will say I've, talked with, James Uthmeyer's office, this morning as well, and he's going to be on Fox News later tonight. So for, listeners who want to hear more about this case, we'll just, preview that. I think it's going to be on the Ingram angle. so I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say on this topic.
Chris: I think James Integrity has been a faithful member of DeSantis administration
>> Chris Woodward: Yeah, it's Chris here. I was going to ask him. And, you know, you seem to know James kind of on a, like an acquaintance level. You talk to him far more than we do. you know, for anybody that might think, well, he's just trying to get his name in the headlines or whatever. Is he one of those types of people that's trying to go after, clicks and interviews?
>> Jenna Ellis: Oh, not at all. And I think he, has been a faithful member of Governor DeSantis administration, through the full term. He was the former, ah, chief of staff and previous even to coming on with the DeSantis administration, he served in Marco Rubio's office when Rubio was a Florida state senator. So this is somebody who is a lawyer, obviously himself. he's been around conservative politics very principled for a really long time, has had multiple staff positions and now holds office himself and is. Is. Has the opportunity to actually, consistently commend those principles in executing his own office, not simply encouraging the member that or the office holder that he works for, the elected from a staffer position. And so I just see him as a consistent conservative and I applaud what he's doing now. And, just knowing him on a personal level, as I have for a while, I, think that he's a person of integrity. And, that's why it's great that Governor DeSantis appointed him to this position when Ashley Moody, then, who was the former Attorney general, Floridians will remember, then took over Marco Rubio's Senate seat when he went to the State Department. So that was kind of the shuffle there. And Governor, DeSantis obviously has confidence in, in, James Integrity as well.
>> Ed Vitagliano: By the way, folks, the voice you are listening to is, not mine. The previous voice is Jenna Ellis, host of Jenna Ellis in the Morning, heard weekdays at 7am Central on AFR and also host of the On Demand podcast found@afr.net all right, Jenna, so let me play devil's, advocate here.
Florida's attorney general is ignoring a federal judge's ruling on immigration
Ah, a little bit. So, we have an Attorney general who is facing a ruling by a federal judge, and that attorney general is going to disregard it. We wouldn't like it if a attorney general for a blue state ignored a federal ruling. So aren't we in applauding this gentleman? Aren't we applauding lawlessness and, the ignoring of laws you disagree with? That's Going to lead to chaos, isn't it? What would you say?
>> Jenna Ellis: Well, I think that we have to remember that the law is what it is, not a federal judge's interpretation of it. And so what I see with James Uthmeyer is that he's following the law and the Constitution, which provides that immigration as a subject matter is given to Congress, and then the subject matter of, creating a misdemeanor in the state of Florida was given, to the legislature, which duly enacted that law. Governor DeSantis signed it. So even though a federal judge has an opinion on that law, James Uthmeyer, as the Attorney General, is not disregarding the law. In fact, he is being faithful to the law by disregarding a rogue judge's opinion. So we have to be consistent conservatives not to ignore laws that we don't prefer and not ignore opinions from courts that we don't prefer, but always uphold the law and the principle. And this was the exact same thing, by the way, that, that John MacArthur and Grace community Church stood up for when they ignored the outrageous mandates from California's government that actually ignored not only the Constitution, but the law surrounding emergency powers. And they were initially held in contempt. And ultimately, what happened is that we won that case because it was decided that the contempt itself was unconstitutional and a violation. And so here, I think James is going to face that exact same scenario where the TRO itself and the contempt itself was unconstitutional and he actually followed the law. So it's not a matter of just Republicans good, Democrats bad. It's. We have to go beyond that and say, what does lawlessness actually mean in context? It doesn't always mean you just follow a judge's opinion.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And you represented. Didn't you represent John MacArthur's church? I did, yeah.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yes.
>> Ed Vitagliano: In that case, yes.
Jenna Banks: Focus on the Family clarified its position on homosexuality
All right. we are. We're coming up here to the end of the half hour, but I do want to try to squeeze in if we can. this, one additional point that we would like some input from Jenna. So, Chris, do you have the story?
>> Chris Woodward: I do. I have it right here in front of me. a couple of days ago, somebody at Focus on the Family went on X and posted the following. Is being gay a sin? Before we say anything else, please know that being gay doesn't send anybody to hell. God only uses one fact to judge the world and determine who is saved and who isn't. Faith in Jesus Christ. Here's the bad news. We all deserve to go to hell. But the good news is that God loves us in spite of our sin, and he sent his son Jesus Christ to purchase our redemption. That post from June 16th had some people scratching their heads and going, wait a minute, where is Focus on the Family going here? Or are they moving in a new direction? Someone then follows up a couple of days, the next day and says, this post has caused some confusion. here's where we stand. Focus on the Family's position has always been and continues to be consistent with Scripture. Homosexual behavior is fundamentally in conflict with the Christian faith. The idea of being a gay Christian is an oxymoron antithetical to both the Bible and church history. At the same time, we have great compassion for those wrestling with unwanted same sex attraction. For decades, we have walked alongside thousands of such individuals to help them steward their sexuality according to God's design. This recent article from our Daily Citizen team more fully outlines Focus Position on these matters. I'll post all this listeners, on our Today's Issues Facebook page. But what, if anything, stood out to you here with what I just read.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so first of all, that post in context of Pride Month, the original post, was very concerning, I think, to a lot of, the, the Christians who follow Focus on the Family and, and I'm one of them. And so their statement, then that was clarifying what was good. In part because it's true that the idea of being a quote unquote gay Christian is an oxymoron. It's like saying, I'm a meat eating vegetarian. Like, it's just, they're too mutually exclusive.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Or I'm a gay. I mean, I'm a Christian adulterer.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yes. It's, it's saying that you can't be two mutually exclusive things at the same time. I can't be a, you know, a female male. Right. It doesn't work like that. And so that's true. And I'm glad that they clarified that. My concern is that it didn't go far enough in terms of recognizing that the left's position and a lot of LGBTQ even quote, unquote Christians who advocate for this position will say, well, being gay, being born with same sex attraction urges, and not in itself a bad thing, it's only acting on those urges. And so when they say homosexual behavior is fundamentally inconsistent and that's actually supporting their original post that being gay according to some leftists, is not sin, it's acting on those behaviors. That would be like saying, well, I am a human being who has a lot of different sin urges and obviously I shouldn't act on those urges. But we are all human beings that are fallen. We know that sin entered the world in Genesis. We know that we are fallen. And it is not a matter of only acting on those things. It's a matter of recognizing that apart from Christ, we cannot attain salvation because we are completely fallen creatures. And so we have to be very careful not to say that being gay itself. Well, hey, I was born this way. That's like saying, well, I was born with, you know, wanting to have, relations outside of marriage. I was born with wanting to have adulterous urges. I was born wanting to rob banks. well, it's not that God created you that way. It's that sin came m into the world and we are fallen creatures. So, yes, having those urges is still a sinful state. And we have to recognize our need for a savior. And I would hope that focus on the family would recognize that and go even further.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Hey, I'll compliment what you're saying by using the scriptures here. Jesus said if anyone has hate for another brother, that he has already committed murder in his heart. And, so just to make the point that sinful, urges are and do need to be repented of, and I appreciate you pointing that out, Jenna. With the minute or two we got left here. As soon as I feel like the culture is shifting and we're in the, in the Christian community, by and large, some of the larger groups, some of the people with the bigger platforms are turning the corner and realizing that the Bible is sufficient and we don't need to add to or try to be cute with words. then focus on the family. Drop something like this. Why, why do we, why did the Christian community feel like they have to basically apologize for what the Bible already says? It's so frustrating for me. You know what I mean?
>> Jenna Ellis: It is.
>> Ed Vitagliano: And you got 30 seconds.
>> Jenna Ellis: Yeah, it. And absolutely. And this is why we have to stand firm on the truth. We have to know theology before we even encounter these positions and these news headlines. So the, the whole response is go back to the Word and be daily in the truth so that we can stand up at every turn.
>> Wesley Wildmon: Yes, Amen.
>> Ed Vitagliano: Jenna Ellis has been our guest host of Jenna Ellis in the Morning, heard weekdays at 7am Central Time on AFR and also host of the aforementioned On Demand podcast. You can go to afr.net and there's a drop down menu. You can click on that or you can hear past programs. for Jenna. Jenna, we kept you for a, whole full half hour. Thank you so much. For being with us.
>> Jenna Ellis: Appreciate dropping by. Thanks.
>> Ed Vitagliano: All right. Thanks. All right, folks, we have a five minute break for news. And when we come back, more Steve Paisley. Jordahl will be in the house. We hope you'll join us.
>> Jenna Ellis: The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.
