Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound it's divine connection
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
A murder trial for Tupac Shakur is beginning; the murder remains unsolved
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, August 17, and a lot of news to get to. And, first we're going to take you back 30 years ago. Do you remember Tupac Shakur? And he was, he was killed obviously 30 years ago. The murder has remained unsolved until possibly, now. So a murder trial is actually beginning. And if you remember, nearly 30 years ago, he was killed in a drive by shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. And So one of four men in a white Cadillac, fired 13 shots into the 25 year old rap legends vehicle. It's coming from Time. I'm not necessarily calling him a rap legend, though I think that's probably an appropriate title. But this is according to time reporting from September 1996. So Shakur was writing, with the co founder of Death Row Records, Marion, Knight. Knight was grazed by a bullet but survived. And Tupac was shot multiple times. And one, a bullet tore through his lung and he was pronounced dead at the hospital six days later on September 13, 1996. The events that unfolded have been the subject of many true crime documentaries, books and podcasts. But one fundamental question remained unsolved. Who was responsible? So who is on trial for the murder of Tupac and why now? So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project and one of our favorite, legal experts to weigh in.
Dwayne Davis is accused of shooting and killing Tupac in 1982
So Gerard, this, this is really fascinating. When I saw the headline, I thought, wow, I thought this would never be solved. This was kind of something, you know, I remember from the 90s. But, what's going on now?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what's going on now is that the person who is on trial, Dwayne Davis, actually wrote a book about this a few years ago in 2019. and in that book, in his memoir, he talks about the murder and his role in it. So that opened the door, prosecuting the case, because it really stands out as pretty much an admission. so this case being brought, the star witness for the prosecution is actually the defendant himself, who put in writing his memoirs, what actually happened that night, or a lot of it.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that's really fascinating. And so, what came to. I mean, what has happened in the last 30 years to finally get to this moment of a trial?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what happened is the case was never really dropped. There were more investigations in it over the years. And back in 2008, the person, Dwayne Davis, who is now being charged, gave an interview with federal law enforcement under a proffer agreement, in which he discussed some of the facts around the shooting. So law enforcement has known for years who was involved. It was just a matter of bringing charges. And of the four people in the car that. That shot that killed Tupac, three of the four are dead. the only one who's still alive is the one who's currently on trial.
Gerard Filitti: So it took a while to get
Gerard Filitti: to this point, especially because when you're giving testimony under a proffer agreement, that means that it can't be used by the, prosecution in court against you. So between 2008 and now, the really changing factor was that this guy actually was stupid enough to publish his memoir to discuss this, and that opened the door to bringing him to trial.
Gerard Filitti: Wow.
Jenna Ellis: Which, I mean, which just shows that some people are not considering the full, extent of liability in, their own public statements and, perhaps, memoirs. And the defense is arguing that those accounts, were embellished or fictionalized. And so, where Nevada is prosecuting, and this is just through, accomplice liability, you know, as you mentioned, they aren't alleging that Davis was actually the shooter. So what exactly does the state have to prove about his participation in the plot and, actually successfully prosecute?
Gerard Filitti: Well, he's being charged with murder with
Gerard Filitti: deadly weapon, with intent to promote further or assist the criminal gang. And as you said, that is basically accomplished liability that you don't need to pull the trigger. You need to be involved in, the factors that brought about the death. So here the prosecution is going to try to establish that he obtained the gun, which he says to he did, and that he passed it to someone in the backseat of the car, which in his memoirs he says he did, who ended up shooting and killing Tupac. So that is the chain that the prosecution will use to establish his guilt of murder. And ah, ultimately again, it's his own words that are going to be used against him. And to your point, and it's a great point, his argument is now going to be that the account is embellished, it's fictionalized, he made it up. The problem with that is he's gone on basically on a book tour pushing, you know, people need to buy this book to find the truth about what happened. So again, his own words will be used against him.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And you know, there are a lot of, a lot of lawyers who have over the years told their clients in many situations, you know, just remain silent so that your words cannot be used against you. And I think this is one of those cautionary tales where this is, this is exactly why attorneys advise that, because even 30 years later now his own words are being used against him. So it's going to be really fascinating to see the outcome of that trial.
Mangione pleads guilty to federal charges of stalking; state case remains open
And let's turn as well to another interesting case that is, you know, more in the present day, because on Friday, on, on August 14th, Luigi Ah, Mangione, who listeners, will recall, was charged in the killing of the United Healthcare CEO in NewSong York, back in December of 2024, that assassination of CEO Brian Thompson. He's now pleaded guilty to federal charges of stalking, resulting in the death. And so, how crucial is this plea agreement? Because you know, he was obviously charged with murder. And so, where does this wrap up this this entire case?
Gerard Filitti: The short answer to that is we
Gerard Filitti: won't know for a while because the two separate cases, the federal one and the NewSong York state one. So this resolves the federal case. Now what happens next in that case is he gets interviewed by probation, there's a pre sentence report, and there's a hearing in December where he will be sentenced, but the state case remains open. And there he faces charges as well, with a possible sentence of 25 years in prison. and what his lawyers are arguing is that this is double jeopardy under NewSong York state law. Now normally you can bring charges in both state and federal courts for the same crime and it's not double jeopardy unless the state law says it is. And, and Mangioni's lawyers are arguing that
Gerard Filitti: under NewSong York law, this conviction, this
Gerard Filitti: plea bars him from being prosecuted in NewSong York so that he would only have to face one sentence and one punishment from the federal government and basically not be pursued, not be charged or prosecuted in state.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is a really fascinating, issue. And typically, if there are multiple charges, then the state and federal prosecutors, or even, you know, different county prosecutors will coordinate their pleas and have, you know, what prosecutors commonly refer to as, you know, more of a global plea agreement that kind of covers the conduct in, both or even, you know, multiple more than two jurisdictions. here it's not obviously county lines, it's federal and state. And so, is this something that looks like, the feds in the state just simply didn't coordinate, or is there something more going on?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what we have to remember is that the feds can't really control. If the defendant agrees to plead guilty, then their case is over. They can't reject the plea and prosecute him anyway. So this is really always out of the Fed's hands. And Mangioni pleaded guilty without any actual deal. So there's no agreement as to sentencing or conditions or anything else. So this was completely out of the Fed's hands. Now the issue is really what the judge in the state case will do, and the state will argue hard that it has the right to go after him, on. For violating NewSong York law and that the people of NewSong York are entitled to justice as well.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's a really crucial point. I mean, this is an open guilty plea. So there's not a, there's not an actual plea deal. And so it's open sentencing. And, the federal government is still. Is still seeking life imprisonment for those, federal stalking charges for. But what would he potentially gain then? I mean, is this perhaps a good legal strategy on the part of the defense to then be arguing, that now the state murder charges should be dropped because of the federal sentence, or how do you see that playing out?
Gerard Filitti: Well, it is a good argument. And we have to remember that even if he is convicted in state court, it's not that he serves his time in federal prison and then he goes to state prison for another 25 years. This is all time that's given credit for serving in one place. And that's really the point is this gives him some flexibility in his mind about the conditions of his sentence, whether he will be sentenced to a federal prison, which is generally better conditions than, NewSong York State prison, or whether he will face time in NewSong York State prison. Beyond that, he's really looking at more or less the same time. Because even though the charge pleaded guilty to the charges, he pleaded guilty to carry a life sentence. Federal sentencing guidelines really puts it at 24 to 30 years. And a lot of it will come down to what the pre sentence report is and how much accountability he takes. But he might very well be sentenced to the low end of that, which is about the same that he'd see in the NewSong York State system. So ultimately it does kind of come down to a choice of does he want federal conditions or state conditions or federal as much is generally thought of as much better.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so this may be a really good strategic move on the part of the defense. And so if the state judge rejects the double jeopardy motion, he will probably immediately appeal that ruling. So it could that. Is it likely that that would postpone the September trial, ah, date that's currently in place?
Gerard Filitti: I think it's likely that we will see a postponement of that date. I think that if he loses, the whichever side loses will appeal, and seek to continue the prosec if it's the state. So I think we will see an appeal, an immediate appeal and that will push things out a little maybe until October until we get more of an answer from the appellate system as to what happens next.
Gerard Felitti: Tennessee CEO's admission doesn't change public reaction
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, I want to talk a little bit about the public reaction as well because you know, this case along, you know, I mean we've seen a lot of unfortunately some prominent criminal cases over the last several of years in particular. But his case became rather unusual because some supporters almost treated him as some sort of, you know, folk hero because of his anger toward health insurers. And Reuters even noted that this murder became a focal point for broader public frustration with the health insurance system. And how do you see now this admission under oath that he planned and carried out the killing? how m. Might that hopefully change the moral or legal conversation around people who've celebrated him as some kind of anti corporate hero?
Gerard Filitti: Well the really shocking thing is I don't think that his admission carried any weight or changed anything. If anything, the sides are more entrenched and the people who saw him as a hero bizarrely still see him as a hero. And the conversation that they're having is totally devoid of morality or even basic human sympathy is the same that they're looking at this as justified somehow by the practices of the health insurance industry instead of looking at this as a horrific murder of a man, a person who has a family who has people who love him, and who had done nothing to deserve death. No one does something to deserve death by being the head of a company. So this is where the problem is that, you know, and the media is feeding into it. We saw this last week as well on some talk shows that they really are feeding into this narrative. Okay, he killed him, he shouldn't have done that. But let's talk about the health, Tennessee. No, we need to be talking about the depravity that leads people to commit these acts in the first place. And we need to make sure that they have consequences for their action and that we're not actively encouraging that kind of behavior.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And this is where, you know, the rise of social media and and then also that mean mainstream media's commentary as well. they, they need to stop elevating some of these people into some of these categories and saying, okay, well, you know, yeah, that's bad. But let's go ahead and talk about the broader issues. because it may encourage more of this kind of behavior where society needs to recognize this is absolutely atrocious and there's zero justification regardless of how, how much anyone is frustrated with anything going on in the health industry. as you rightly point out, I mean the CEO absolutely did not deserve this, regardless of, you know, what else he was, he may or may not have been involved in with his own, his own healthcare organization. So, Gerard Felitti, I really appreciate it because, you know, these these types of cases are often, so nuanced that a lot of people don't actually understand what's going on. If you just see kind of some of the the commentary across social media or people who aren't lawyers that weigh in. So it's really important to know exactly what's going on here, the difference between what his plea means, what he does, what it doesn't, and where we go from here. So follow Jared Felitti and also the Lawfare Project on X and we will be right back with more.
A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio
Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.netforward/give. That's afr. Uh.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott directs review of airport grants over religious accommodations
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, now turning to Texas, Dallas Fort Worth airport has scrapped a controversial Islamic foot washing station plan. Can you believe this was even planned? As Texas Governor Greg Abbott takes, aim. So this coming from Fox News. DFW said it will not proceed with the proposed washing stations in terminal D after accelerating its review. So, Texas Governor Abbott on Friday directed a review of state grants to entities operating two major Texas airports over religious accommodations after dfw, said it would no longer move forward with a proposal to install the Islamic washing stations. And so Abbott wrote on X, government owned airports cannot favor one religion over all others. DFW plans to install Islamic, washing facilities, and, those plans are illegal. I've directed a review of all sorts of state grants for both airports for possible revocation and referred DFW and IAH to the U.S. department of Transportation for investigation. Texas will not allow illegal religious discrimination at taxpayer funded facilities. So one, little wrinkle in this or factual wrinkle worth acknowledging is that reporting says the proposed roughly $300,000 project was to be privately funded, although DFW itself is a government owned airport. So let's welcome in, Krish Ekstrom, who is a board member of US Term Limits for this conversation. And Krish, overall I think this is, this is right of Governor Abbott. it's ridiculous to accommodate any sort of, you know, Islamic nonsense in, government owned facilities even though this is privately funded. You know, regardless of that, this isn't something that the United States of America should be doing whatsoever. And this is, this is in a midterm year especially, I think more political than it is necessarily about religious accommodation.
Chris Ekstrom: Good morning, Jenna. yeah, this is another phase of the ongoing culture war that it needs to be fought and it will be fought by right minded people. Christians, certainly come to the fore on this, issue because we know so publicly, witnessing our faith has been heavily discouraged by pretty much all Democrats at this point. but they look completely the other way, like the proverbial Irish cop who knows the right time to look the opposite way in order to not see the crime going down with, the Islamic, faction, out there, and almost encourage them in this, which somebody, somebody, somewhere, some faceless, nameless bureaucrat dreamed this up. and I agree with you, Jenna, and I'm going to give some credit to Greg Abbott. This was a proactive measure that I honestly think came out of Greg Abbott. That's a great rarity. Frankly. He's nothing like Governor DeSantis who takes the bull by the Horns and frequently you know sort of met these type of outrages early on. But Greg Abbott did it this time. So hats off to Greg Abbott.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And I think you're absolutely right Krish Ekstrom to characterize this more as a culture war debate. And this is an advancement in what a lot of conservatives would recognize as a part of an attempt of a Muslim takeover. I mean they're attempting on a lot of various fronts to push a lot of their not only not only what may be fairly characterized as religious and practices but also their cultural perspective and the like the, the calls for prayer and the sirens that go off in Michigan cities which should never happen in a city in the United States. And and then also pushing for Sharia law which is a parallel legal system that is completely antithetical to our US Constitutional structure. So some critics will inevitably call Abbott's position anti Muslim. But I think there's a meaningful difference between the state suggesting and it's not that Muslims can't wash their feet before prayer and saying the government doesn't need to allow the construction of a specialized facility for them to do it and recognizing that there are still limits to what even the state should tolerate.
Chris Ekstrom: Right. And I think that this is where the red Greene alliance awareness for Christians particularly needs to come into this. one thing we have to say about people who are openly practicing Islamic so called religion is that they are doing it in public all the time and they want to do it in public and they want to be seen and they want to run into controversy because it serves their purpose and their purpose is expansion. Their purpose is to bring more of their co religionists into our country from some of the most God awful countries in the world, nations in the world where they do have Sharia law. I mean this whole idea that they are somehow being prevented from practicing their religion because we don't have mandatory Sharia law imposed on in the United States. These are people who are leaving places where Sharia law is the law of the land. So I think Christians need to be very clear about this in their own minds first. And that is we need to double down on our own evangelical efforts. A we need to be start to think of them in a practical cultural war way too because frankly it is a culture war and a crusade. This is a crusade against a hostile, active, very aggressive so called religion. And Christians need to wrap their mind around this. It's not going to be some ecumenical love fest where we have a Unitarian result. We really need to put a stop to the public who celebration of Islamic, so called religion.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said. and this goes into the false notion of religious pluralism that's built on a secular foundation. And you're absolutely right that this isn't going to just have this kind of you know, coexist bumper sticker, ecumenical outcome. And the American expectation in my view should still be that even immigrants and whether they're illegal or not, you know, people who are coming here from from different countries of any faith still should assimilate into our country's civic culture. But Americans are increasingly being told that our institutions must adapt themselves to every culture and and religious practice that anyone wants to bring with them. Otherwise we're bigoted, we're hostile and you know, part of the American dream is literally living the same way that you would in a country that's run by Sharia law. And that's not what America is, that's not what it means to be an American. And to have these kinds of religious accommodations ends up being a cultural accommodation and a concession of religious pluralism and a conceding to the culture war. And I think this is why, something as seemingly small as you know, foot washing station, where of course critics will say, well how does that really hurt you? It's a flashpoint in a much bigger, broader debate, I think, about assimilation and what it actually means to live as an American in our culture.
Chris Ekstrom: Well I think Jenny, you put it that, you put the exclamation point to it, which is it is about a culture war. I mean this is a we. I mean it's incredible to me as a guy who grew up, you know, in the 70s and 80s as a child where it was obvious that our legal tradition came from the common law, Anglo Saxon tradition of the British. It was one of the great gifts they gave us. And that is our legal culture, not Sharia law, in any way, shape or form. and there are people that are our friends in many ways. Let's say Senator Cruz, he's a good example, who tend towards this. America is an idea. America is you know, da, da, da. No, you know, America is also a culture. And our culture, has a lot to do with the. Well it's Christendom first. Before anything it's Christendom and then after that it is I think the British Tradition of the common law which didn't come from Europe, it came from a little island that had a lot of success at one time, and is struggling mightily itself right now. and that's what we want to openly embrace and not just suggest this is the law of the land. We don't have to negotiate with Islam about what our country is going to be like. As a matter of fact, as you said, if they're here they need to assimilate. But we need to prevent as many of these types of people from coming as possible. In fact it should be actively prevented to bring in people that are religious zealots of this, of this Islamic, so called faith. We don't want anymore and we've got too many as it is. And so it needs to, there needs to be some real reforms. I think President Trump tried to do it specifically in his first administration. He was prevented by these activist judges, who, they will never take action on anything that's pro American, but they will, they will go way out of their way, to create the conditions for the downfall of America. We need to stop Sharia law, proponents from coming into the United States. Full stop.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I could not agree with you more. And you're right that you know, Trump did try to stop this and he was met with, well you know, you are targeting specific religions and you can't simply put a ban on you know, countries that are primarily Muslim because that's discrimination against a different religion. And you know, my view is that the law should reflect America and Americans first. That's what our Constitution is designed to preserve and protect the rights of American citizens because it only governs our country, it doesn't govern other Islamic run countries obviously. and so, and that's the difference between our nation and a separate nation. This is why nations have borders and their own laws. And we're so blessed to be in America instead of any other country in my opinion, currently on the face of the earth or you know, even in ah, Western civilization. But you know, somehow the legal community has this view that the U.S. constitution should extend across oceans, across borders and protect other people, who want to come into this nation before it protects the people that are already here as citizens. And I find that extremely, constitutionally unsound.
Chris Ekstrom: Well this is where it's very important to be a nationalist period. I mean look, the U.N. and these sort of globalist, ecumenical outlooks where you know, the Coexist ideas expanded into an actual active political program, to nullify our laws. m is is real and it's. No, it's not a conspiracy. This is the thing I think is very important with so many, conspiracies out there that have a certain, you know, resonance with people because they don't know what's happening or why things have happened.
Chris Hedges: Religious liberty issue could play big role in midterm elections
I mean, look, you and I don't know why things have happened frequently. Right? So. And we're very active in politics and paying close attention. The average guy often is confronted with facts that simply don't add up. The conspiracy is open from people that prefer the idea of globalist standards and they want to impose them on us as much as anyone else because we're the most powerful country.
Chris Ekstrom: I think what Christians in America need to come to a clear understanding of is that they are America first. They are. Their loyalty politically is owed to our traditions and that we have come to a place of sort of civic irresponsibility and where children don't even have any clue when they get educated in our public school systems about what our history and, our purpose is, in this world and we should be proud of it all. Look, we're not perfect and there are mistakes that are made, but all we're doing is emphasizing, it seems like, are the mistakes, as if we were held to this impossible standard. And then we miss the enemies of our nation, which are Marxist, which are globalist, which are people that hate religion actually, when they pretend to be ecumenical. But what they really mean is they want to get rid of, religion as much as they can, and are even willing to use other religions like so called religions like Islam to eradicate our legitimate and genuine religion. so these are thorny issues, difficult issues, but we must embrace them, and embrace the idea of the culture war that we're fighting. Because believe me, it's being fought whether you individual person out there want to fight it. It's being fought every day and in every way.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, preach it. I completely agree with you. And this is where for too long the left has, had the, the undercurrent and they have kind of hidden this advancement, into. And this, this, I would say, and it's not just an encroachment, but an invasion into our society under this view of multiculturalism and saying, well, diversity is a good thing. And now they're framing it religious liberty so that they can borrow the constitutional protections that really shouldn't cover something like this. And so you know, how, how do you think, Krish, that this ultimately plays into perhaps the midterms overall? Because I do see a lot of conservatives and Americans. You know, one of the good things about the America first, movement is that people really do want our law and our society and our government to truly prioritize Americans.
Chris Ekstrom: Yeah, I think, it will affect the midterms and I think that there's an organic dawning awareness that we have a problem with Islam, and that problem isn't limited to a theory or people's so called religious practice. It's also about being to some degree invaded by an alien belief, that's very aggressive and has zero respect for ours. And so I think that makes people angry and anger serves a purpose, in life and in politics. To passion without passion and without love of country, genuine love of country. why would anyone go and fight to, you know, and risk their lives for it? You, you use the passion in politics to clarify what, why you're doing what you're doing and why you're voting for who you're voting for.
Chris Ekstrom: So I would say this, we need to use this midterm and this issue which is sort of similar to the monuments issue where they were tearing down all the monuments and people, some people said, well, I don't care, I don't care about the Confederacy. Let it go. Well, you know, it wasn't ever about the Confederacy. It was about tearing down the United States of America. It was about taking the Founders out. It was about changing the Constitution. The Democrats are now openly saying they want to pack the Supreme Court. They, they have all, they want to eliminate the Senate. They hate the idea of the individual states, being important and prioritized by having two senators and by having the electoral college because they know that in a mass so called democracy. And that's why I always urge people don't use the word democracy all the time. This is a republic where we separated powers on purpose so that we don't end up in this sort of, you know, mass, controlled, entity that is just at the whim m of the population. I know I said a lot there and I'm conflating a lot of things, but why? I guess what I'm trying to boil this down to is why it matters. Why should you care to go out and vote? The Republicans have let us down many, many, many times. They continue to let us down. Well, in the final analysis, we may be being let down by the Republicans, but the Democrats are literally trying to destroy the country. So it's a pretty, uneven contest for those who love America and who
Jenna Ellis: are Americans, who to vote for. Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, and at least if you have, you know, the, if you're voting to stop all of these, this push to undermine America, undermine the U.S. constitution, our institution, institutions, all of that, that's still a better vote than it is to just usher in, you know, unfettered communism and Islamic practices and all of these things that the Democrats are pushing for. Krish Ekstrom, really appreciate it. We will be right back. We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
Jenna Ellis: Another Texas case involves baby Gabriel with severe heart defect
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Well, there is, another case in Texas that you need to be paying attention to, if you haven't heard of this already. And this surrounds baby Gabriel. So this is, yet another example and instance of a child purchase and commodification, which of course we as conservatives should be pushing the law to, to recognize that this is just commodification of children. And so what happened here is that a California couple, ah, paid to rent the womb of a surrogate. And at 20 weeks the baby was diagnosed with a very severe heart defect. And so the biological parents, the couple told the woman under their contract to abort the child. And so basically, if a product has a defect, you want to return it to the manufacturer. I mean this is as crass as these, these Parents or just really, you know, they're not even parents, but, what these people are doing. And so the surrogate fled to Texas and asked the, the state to intervene. And thankfully baby Gabriel has been born. But now there is a controversy over, of all things, custody. And so the biological parents are actually arguing that the state's request to intervene and get authorization for medical treatment for the child would, quote, deprive them of their fundamental constitutional interest in the care, custody and control and medical decision making for their child without constitutionally adequate notice, process and opportunity to be heard in violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. So, let's get this straight. They are actually arguing that part of parental rights and the fundamental right to medical decision making of their child includes the right of killing their child. That is not anything that the US Constitution ever grants. And in fact we have an entire, a case law of precedent that parents who intentionally harm their children, well that's called child abuse. That's not protected under the law. And yet here, simply because the child was unborn at the time, and the contract states otherwise, states that, they have the right apparently to ask the surrogate to abort their child, that somehow that should supersede the child's right to life. Life. It's absolutely depraved and just shows why we cannot reduce children to products and we cannot have simple contracts, you know, govern the life or death decision making of, parents or especially doctors.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton steps up fight against surrogacy
So let's welcome in Katy Faust, who is the founder of them before us. And Katy, I know that you have a lot of things to say on this, but I really, am proud of, of, the state of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for stepping in and fighting this fight.
Katy Faust: Well, he seems to have it right here that just because you have custom ordered a child, just because the contract says that the, surrogate is going to abort, just because they say that they have the parental rights to dictate what happens to the baby, he recognizes that actually that baby has a right to life. And regardless of what ink on a contract has to say or what even the biological parents, Parents want to do, it should not override the child's fundamental right to life. You know, this is such an object lesson and how surrogacy in all forms has to be opposed. It is, as we often say it then before us, on demand designer baby shipped worldwide. And that is what we got here. We've got, presumably two genetic parents who are paying six figures for a baby. And when you are paying that much money. You don't want a defect. You want exactly what you ordered, the way you ordered it, when you ordered it, where you want it, where you ordered it. And you, you are not going to tolerate any kind of deviation from that specific plan. So, hats off to McKenna, you know, the surrogate who said, no, I'm going to protect this child, even though you are threatening me with a $250,000 lawsuit, even though you're incentivizing me $2,000 so that I will, you know, kill the baby, even though everything in the contract has actually laid out in detail how and who gets to decide whether or not the child is aborted. You know, she said, no, I would rather protect this child's right to life, and suffer the financial consequences. So, there's no way to protect children from surrogacy. That's the bottom line. Legitimizing all the contracts, regulation. And regulation doesn't do anything except to make sure that if the commissioning parents want the child dead, the baby dies.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that this is a really important moment right now in, American history and in our law and our philosophy to explain why the libertarian view of the right to contract and say, you know, the morality doesn't matter as long as the two parties agree, which has been basically their governing, ah, principle. Not every libertarian, of course, subscribes to that, but the overall, you know, kind of capital L Libertarian Party has recognized, under their political philosophy that the right to contract, should be paramount and the government should only intervene to arbitrate those contract disputes, particularly where, there is no harm involved. And what the left is basically doing is borrowing that philosophy and advancing this notion that children, even now baby Gabriel, who is born, is still property, is considered property under the contract. And extending that into a larger philosophy that children are merely property and that contracts can govern that. And this isn't about parental rights in the sense that care, custody and control of children is part of the heritage of stewardship of another human being. This is all about, arbitrarily deciding that children don't have actually those same constitutional rights that every human being made in the image of God actually deserve.
Katy Faust: There is a prominent libertarian on X who said of this case, he said, what is people's problem? I mean, do they have a problem with, with consent, with contracts, with individual liberty? And that is, the libertarian perspective makes a lot of sense unless there's another person involved, unless there is actually another little life that that contract is governing because the individual liberty of the adults means the child is going to die. Right?
Katy Faust: The contract determines that, definitionally, the baby is always going to lose at least their birth mother, if not their genetic mother, and maybe taken home to a household where they'll be starved of maternal love altogether. the consent. No child would ever consent to lose their mother if they had a choice against it. And so, rightly, a lot of people were pointing out, hey, you know what? You can make those exact same arguments about slavery. Hey, well, I have a contract to own this person. Well, it's my individual liberty. I mean, it's good for my business. I mean, as long as there's no other people involved. Personal liberty, consent, contracts, sure, that'll work. But once you throw another person in the mix, you realize very quickly that you've got a dehumanizing commercialization process to buy, sell, and traffic in other people. That's the proper way of understanding what surrogacy is. It's not family building. It is baby buying.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. So well said. And this is something that conservatives need to fight against and to recognize the inherent dignity of every human being, made in the image of God from the moment of conception all the way until natural death. And that, parents cannot, cannot simply choose to abort, their product, and return the product to the manufacturer, just because they find that it doesn't meet their, quality control standards. I mean, this is so despicable and disgusting. And now for the state of Texas to be contemplating whether, they should turn over custody to the very people who wanted to see this child, murdered in the womb, I mean, is especially heinous when you consider that in any other scenario, if there was an attempted murder of a child, and let's say, you know, the child is three years old, five years old, you know, or even the left would recognize that that child, has value and dignity and rights. In no other situation would a court look at that situation and say, yes, let's go ahead and give this child back into the care, custody, and control of the parent who's actively trying to murder them. And yet, this is where this conversation has gone. And there are a lot of people still that don't understand somehow and don't connect those dots, between saying that, you know, abortion is actually murder and that the state should intervene at the point where the parents are either abusive objectively, or they're actively seeking or have sought to murder their child. I mean, that's just common sense.
Katy Faust: I think that what surrogacy does. And this is why big, fertility gets away with so much, is it truly does confuse who is the parent. And they do that on purpose. Right? We did not used to have to debate who is the mother. The mother was the one that gave birth to the baby. And up until about, you know, 30 years ago, she was always the genetic mother of the child. So what surrogacy does is it's allowed us to splice birth mother from genetic mother. Now both of those roles of mother are actually pretty important to the baby. The birth mother is the one with whom the child forms the bond that happens to have that layer of protectiveness that a contract or even a genetic, relationship does not give them, as this case illustrates. But the genetic mother is important to the baby too. It helps the baby understand who I am. It connects the baby to half of their kinship network and their heritage. But surrogacy says we can actually split these into two different women. So this custody dispute is real. Who is the mother? Is it the one that loves the baby enough to protect them from abortion? Or is it the one that contributed half of the genetics? And the truth is both of those components of motherhood are really important to the child. So you know what? We should never split them up. Those two women should never be separate women because the baby needs both of them. That is like, even when surrogacy, quote, unquote goes right, the baby is always going to lose at least their birth mother, if not their genetic mother. This is absolutely an injustice against children, no matter how you look at it. Conservatives, wake up, just because you want something or you know, a sweet, wonderful friend who desperately wants a baby, it does not justify buying into a system that always victimizes children, commercializes children, and often puts their life at risk.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah.
Jenna: Many conservatives buy into the concept of surrogacy
And, and so well said. And it's amazing to me, how many conservatives, even, even people, you know, that I know personally, who I've talked to, who buy into this concept of surrogacy, for convenience reasons or, you know, other reason. Almost the same thing as parents who have children who, you know, farm out their education and and their, their discipline and all of that just to a nanny, you know, who basically say, okay, someone else can raise my child for me because I would rather go and participate in other adult activities than, actually care for my child. And it's, it's this mindset that is so fundamentally antithetical to the biblical worldview and definition of family. And I've been Saying for a while now, Katy, and I know you've been saying this, for, for years, that we need to reclaim the biblical truthful definition of family and what it means to have and be a mother and father.
Katy Faust: Well, and why do we need to do that? Number one, because you cannot defend children, raise children, protect children, cultivate children and allow children to thrive without their own mother and father loving them and loving each other every day. Like we like to think about and talk about marriage as a sacred institution, which it is, but primarily sociologically, it is a vehicle for child protection, child raising and child thriving. Like that is what it affects. That's the effect that it has in the world. And what else does it do? What if you have strong, resilient children which do not come from fractured homes and divided up marketplaces of purchasing and swapping gametes. If you can get those strong, resilient children, you will get a strong resilience. So we have to get back to the point where we really understand it is not just love makes a family. It's not any two will do. It's not, you know, if the adults are happy, the kids will be happy. It is children need their mother and father to conform to their rights to raise them together even if they are struggling with infertility, even if they've got a marriage that's on the rocks, even if, you know, somebody feels like they have same sex attraction. If you are making babies, those babies deserve to have you commit to one another and raise them for the sake of their own physical, mental, emotional, academic and relational health. We're doomed.
Jenna Ellis: I, I completely agree. And family isn't just something that we campaign on. It is God's design. We have to put the first things first. And we need to be a society that recognizes the truth of the reality of to which we're presented. So follow Katy, follow them before us. Read her book and as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net. PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion and every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? This save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound it's divine connection
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
A murder trial for Tupac Shakur is beginning; the murder remains unsolved
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, August 17, and a lot of news to get to. And, first we're going to take you back 30 years ago. Do you remember Tupac Shakur? And he was, he was killed obviously 30 years ago. The murder has remained unsolved until possibly, now. So a murder trial is actually beginning. And if you remember, nearly 30 years ago, he was killed in a drive by shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. And So one of four men in a white Cadillac, fired 13 shots into the 25 year old rap legends vehicle. It's coming from Time. I'm not necessarily calling him a rap legend, though I think that's probably an appropriate title. But this is according to time reporting from September 1996. So Shakur was writing, with the co founder of Death Row Records, Marion, Knight. Knight was grazed by a bullet but survived. And Tupac was shot multiple times. And one, a bullet tore through his lung and he was pronounced dead at the hospital six days later on September 13, 1996. The events that unfolded have been the subject of many true crime documentaries, books and podcasts. But one fundamental question remained unsolved. Who was responsible? So who is on trial for the murder of Tupac and why now? So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an attorney at the Lawfare Project and one of our favorite, legal experts to weigh in.
Dwayne Davis is accused of shooting and killing Tupac in 1982
So Gerard, this, this is really fascinating. When I saw the headline, I thought, wow, I thought this would never be solved. This was kind of something, you know, I remember from the 90s. But, what's going on now?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what's going on now is that the person who is on trial, Dwayne Davis, actually wrote a book about this a few years ago in 2019. and in that book, in his memoir, he talks about the murder and his role in it. So that opened the door, prosecuting the case, because it really stands out as pretty much an admission. so this case being brought, the star witness for the prosecution is actually the defendant himself, who put in writing his memoirs, what actually happened that night, or a lot of it.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that's really fascinating. And so, what came to. I mean, what has happened in the last 30 years to finally get to this moment of a trial?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what happened is the case was never really dropped. There were more investigations in it over the years. And back in 2008, the person, Dwayne Davis, who is now being charged, gave an interview with federal law enforcement under a proffer agreement, in which he discussed some of the facts around the shooting. So law enforcement has known for years who was involved. It was just a matter of bringing charges. And of the four people in the car that. That shot that killed Tupac, three of the four are dead. the only one who's still alive is the one who's currently on trial.
Gerard Filitti: So it took a while to get
Gerard Filitti: to this point, especially because when you're giving testimony under a proffer agreement, that means that it can't be used by the, prosecution in court against you. So between 2008 and now, the really changing factor was that this guy actually was stupid enough to publish his memoir to discuss this, and that opened the door to bringing him to trial.
Gerard Filitti: Wow.
Jenna Ellis: Which, I mean, which just shows that some people are not considering the full, extent of liability in, their own public statements and, perhaps, memoirs. And the defense is arguing that those accounts, were embellished or fictionalized. And so, where Nevada is prosecuting, and this is just through, accomplice liability, you know, as you mentioned, they aren't alleging that Davis was actually the shooter. So what exactly does the state have to prove about his participation in the plot and, actually successfully prosecute?
Gerard Filitti: Well, he's being charged with murder with
Gerard Filitti: deadly weapon, with intent to promote further or assist the criminal gang. And as you said, that is basically accomplished liability that you don't need to pull the trigger. You need to be involved in, the factors that brought about the death. So here the prosecution is going to try to establish that he obtained the gun, which he says to he did, and that he passed it to someone in the backseat of the car, which in his memoirs he says he did, who ended up shooting and killing Tupac. So that is the chain that the prosecution will use to establish his guilt of murder. And ah, ultimately again, it's his own words that are going to be used against him. And to your point, and it's a great point, his argument is now going to be that the account is embellished, it's fictionalized, he made it up. The problem with that is he's gone on basically on a book tour pushing, you know, people need to buy this book to find the truth about what happened. So again, his own words will be used against him.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And you know, there are a lot of, a lot of lawyers who have over the years told their clients in many situations, you know, just remain silent so that your words cannot be used against you. And I think this is one of those cautionary tales where this is, this is exactly why attorneys advise that, because even 30 years later now his own words are being used against him. So it's going to be really fascinating to see the outcome of that trial.
Mangione pleads guilty to federal charges of stalking; state case remains open
And let's turn as well to another interesting case that is, you know, more in the present day, because on Friday, on, on August 14th, Luigi Ah, Mangione, who listeners, will recall, was charged in the killing of the United Healthcare CEO in NewSong York, back in December of 2024, that assassination of CEO Brian Thompson. He's now pleaded guilty to federal charges of stalking, resulting in the death. And so, how crucial is this plea agreement? Because you know, he was obviously charged with murder. And so, where does this wrap up this this entire case?
Gerard Filitti: The short answer to that is we
Gerard Filitti: won't know for a while because the two separate cases, the federal one and the NewSong York state one. So this resolves the federal case. Now what happens next in that case is he gets interviewed by probation, there's a pre sentence report, and there's a hearing in December where he will be sentenced, but the state case remains open. And there he faces charges as well, with a possible sentence of 25 years in prison. and what his lawyers are arguing is that this is double jeopardy under NewSong York state law. Now normally you can bring charges in both state and federal courts for the same crime and it's not double jeopardy unless the state law says it is. And, and Mangioni's lawyers are arguing that
Gerard Filitti: under NewSong York law, this conviction, this
Gerard Filitti: plea bars him from being prosecuted in NewSong York so that he would only have to face one sentence and one punishment from the federal government and basically not be pursued, not be charged or prosecuted in state.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is a really fascinating, issue. And typically, if there are multiple charges, then the state and federal prosecutors, or even, you know, different county prosecutors will coordinate their pleas and have, you know, what prosecutors commonly refer to as, you know, more of a global plea agreement that kind of covers the conduct in, both or even, you know, multiple more than two jurisdictions. here it's not obviously county lines, it's federal and state. And so, is this something that looks like, the feds in the state just simply didn't coordinate, or is there something more going on?
Gerard Filitti: Well, what we have to remember is that the feds can't really control. If the defendant agrees to plead guilty, then their case is over. They can't reject the plea and prosecute him anyway. So this is really always out of the Fed's hands. And Mangioni pleaded guilty without any actual deal. So there's no agreement as to sentencing or conditions or anything else. So this was completely out of the Fed's hands. Now the issue is really what the judge in the state case will do, and the state will argue hard that it has the right to go after him, on. For violating NewSong York law and that the people of NewSong York are entitled to justice as well.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's a really crucial point. I mean, this is an open guilty plea. So there's not a, there's not an actual plea deal. And so it's open sentencing. And, the federal government is still. Is still seeking life imprisonment for those, federal stalking charges for. But what would he potentially gain then? I mean, is this perhaps a good legal strategy on the part of the defense to then be arguing, that now the state murder charges should be dropped because of the federal sentence, or how do you see that playing out?
Gerard Filitti: Well, it is a good argument. And we have to remember that even if he is convicted in state court, it's not that he serves his time in federal prison and then he goes to state prison for another 25 years. This is all time that's given credit for serving in one place. And that's really the point is this gives him some flexibility in his mind about the conditions of his sentence, whether he will be sentenced to a federal prison, which is generally better conditions than, NewSong York State prison, or whether he will face time in NewSong York State prison. Beyond that, he's really looking at more or less the same time. Because even though the charge pleaded guilty to the charges, he pleaded guilty to carry a life sentence. Federal sentencing guidelines really puts it at 24 to 30 years. And a lot of it will come down to what the pre sentence report is and how much accountability he takes. But he might very well be sentenced to the low end of that, which is about the same that he'd see in the NewSong York State system. So ultimately it does kind of come down to a choice of does he want federal conditions or state conditions or federal as much is generally thought of as much better.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so this may be a really good strategic move on the part of the defense. And so if the state judge rejects the double jeopardy motion, he will probably immediately appeal that ruling. So it could that. Is it likely that that would postpone the September trial, ah, date that's currently in place?
Gerard Filitti: I think it's likely that we will see a postponement of that date. I think that if he loses, the whichever side loses will appeal, and seek to continue the prosec if it's the state. So I think we will see an appeal, an immediate appeal and that will push things out a little maybe until October until we get more of an answer from the appellate system as to what happens next.
Gerard Felitti: Tennessee CEO's admission doesn't change public reaction
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, I want to talk a little bit about the public reaction as well because you know, this case along, you know, I mean we've seen a lot of unfortunately some prominent criminal cases over the last several of years in particular. But his case became rather unusual because some supporters almost treated him as some sort of, you know, folk hero because of his anger toward health insurers. And Reuters even noted that this murder became a focal point for broader public frustration with the health insurance system. And how do you see now this admission under oath that he planned and carried out the killing? how m. Might that hopefully change the moral or legal conversation around people who've celebrated him as some kind of anti corporate hero?
Gerard Filitti: Well the really shocking thing is I don't think that his admission carried any weight or changed anything. If anything, the sides are more entrenched and the people who saw him as a hero bizarrely still see him as a hero. And the conversation that they're having is totally devoid of morality or even basic human sympathy is the same that they're looking at this as justified somehow by the practices of the health insurance industry instead of looking at this as a horrific murder of a man, a person who has a family who has people who love him, and who had done nothing to deserve death. No one does something to deserve death by being the head of a company. So this is where the problem is that, you know, and the media is feeding into it. We saw this last week as well on some talk shows that they really are feeding into this narrative. Okay, he killed him, he shouldn't have done that. But let's talk about the health, Tennessee. No, we need to be talking about the depravity that leads people to commit these acts in the first place. And we need to make sure that they have consequences for their action and that we're not actively encouraging that kind of behavior.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And this is where, you know, the rise of social media and and then also that mean mainstream media's commentary as well. they, they need to stop elevating some of these people into some of these categories and saying, okay, well, you know, yeah, that's bad. But let's go ahead and talk about the broader issues. because it may encourage more of this kind of behavior where society needs to recognize this is absolutely atrocious and there's zero justification regardless of how, how much anyone is frustrated with anything going on in the health industry. as you rightly point out, I mean the CEO absolutely did not deserve this, regardless of, you know, what else he was, he may or may not have been involved in with his own, his own healthcare organization. So, Gerard Felitti, I really appreciate it because, you know, these these types of cases are often, so nuanced that a lot of people don't actually understand what's going on. If you just see kind of some of the the commentary across social media or people who aren't lawyers that weigh in. So it's really important to know exactly what's going on here, the difference between what his plea means, what he does, what it doesn't, and where we go from here. So follow Jared Felitti and also the Lawfare Project on X and we will be right back with more.
A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio
Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.netforward/give. That's afr. Uh.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott directs review of airport grants over religious accommodations
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, now turning to Texas, Dallas Fort Worth airport has scrapped a controversial Islamic foot washing station plan. Can you believe this was even planned? As Texas Governor Greg Abbott takes, aim. So this coming from Fox News. DFW said it will not proceed with the proposed washing stations in terminal D after accelerating its review. So, Texas Governor Abbott on Friday directed a review of state grants to entities operating two major Texas airports over religious accommodations after dfw, said it would no longer move forward with a proposal to install the Islamic washing stations. And so Abbott wrote on X, government owned airports cannot favor one religion over all others. DFW plans to install Islamic, washing facilities, and, those plans are illegal. I've directed a review of all sorts of state grants for both airports for possible revocation and referred DFW and IAH to the U.S. department of Transportation for investigation. Texas will not allow illegal religious discrimination at taxpayer funded facilities. So one, little wrinkle in this or factual wrinkle worth acknowledging is that reporting says the proposed roughly $300,000 project was to be privately funded, although DFW itself is a government owned airport. So let's welcome in, Krish Ekstrom, who is a board member of US Term Limits for this conversation. And Krish, overall I think this is, this is right of Governor Abbott. it's ridiculous to accommodate any sort of, you know, Islamic nonsense in, government owned facilities even though this is privately funded. You know, regardless of that, this isn't something that the United States of America should be doing whatsoever. And this is, this is in a midterm year especially, I think more political than it is necessarily about religious accommodation.
Chris Ekstrom: Good morning, Jenna. yeah, this is another phase of the ongoing culture war that it needs to be fought and it will be fought by right minded people. Christians, certainly come to the fore on this, issue because we know so publicly, witnessing our faith has been heavily discouraged by pretty much all Democrats at this point. but they look completely the other way, like the proverbial Irish cop who knows the right time to look the opposite way in order to not see the crime going down with, the Islamic, faction, out there, and almost encourage them in this, which somebody, somebody, somewhere, some faceless, nameless bureaucrat dreamed this up. and I agree with you, Jenna, and I'm going to give some credit to Greg Abbott. This was a proactive measure that I honestly think came out of Greg Abbott. That's a great rarity. Frankly. He's nothing like Governor DeSantis who takes the bull by the Horns and frequently you know sort of met these type of outrages early on. But Greg Abbott did it this time. So hats off to Greg Abbott.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And I think you're absolutely right Krish Ekstrom to characterize this more as a culture war debate. And this is an advancement in what a lot of conservatives would recognize as a part of an attempt of a Muslim takeover. I mean they're attempting on a lot of various fronts to push a lot of their not only not only what may be fairly characterized as religious and practices but also their cultural perspective and the like the, the calls for prayer and the sirens that go off in Michigan cities which should never happen in a city in the United States. And and then also pushing for Sharia law which is a parallel legal system that is completely antithetical to our US Constitutional structure. So some critics will inevitably call Abbott's position anti Muslim. But I think there's a meaningful difference between the state suggesting and it's not that Muslims can't wash their feet before prayer and saying the government doesn't need to allow the construction of a specialized facility for them to do it and recognizing that there are still limits to what even the state should tolerate.
Chris Ekstrom: Right. And I think that this is where the red Greene alliance awareness for Christians particularly needs to come into this. one thing we have to say about people who are openly practicing Islamic so called religion is that they are doing it in public all the time and they want to do it in public and they want to be seen and they want to run into controversy because it serves their purpose and their purpose is expansion. Their purpose is to bring more of their co religionists into our country from some of the most God awful countries in the world, nations in the world where they do have Sharia law. I mean this whole idea that they are somehow being prevented from practicing their religion because we don't have mandatory Sharia law imposed on in the United States. These are people who are leaving places where Sharia law is the law of the land. So I think Christians need to be very clear about this in their own minds first. And that is we need to double down on our own evangelical efforts. A we need to be start to think of them in a practical cultural war way too because frankly it is a culture war and a crusade. This is a crusade against a hostile, active, very aggressive so called religion. And Christians need to wrap their mind around this. It's not going to be some ecumenical love fest where we have a Unitarian result. We really need to put a stop to the public who celebration of Islamic, so called religion.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said. and this goes into the false notion of religious pluralism that's built on a secular foundation. And you're absolutely right that this isn't going to just have this kind of you know, coexist bumper sticker, ecumenical outcome. And the American expectation in my view should still be that even immigrants and whether they're illegal or not, you know, people who are coming here from from different countries of any faith still should assimilate into our country's civic culture. But Americans are increasingly being told that our institutions must adapt themselves to every culture and and religious practice that anyone wants to bring with them. Otherwise we're bigoted, we're hostile and you know, part of the American dream is literally living the same way that you would in a country that's run by Sharia law. And that's not what America is, that's not what it means to be an American. And to have these kinds of religious accommodations ends up being a cultural accommodation and a concession of religious pluralism and a conceding to the culture war. And I think this is why, something as seemingly small as you know, foot washing station, where of course critics will say, well how does that really hurt you? It's a flashpoint in a much bigger, broader debate, I think, about assimilation and what it actually means to live as an American in our culture.
Chris Ekstrom: Well I think Jenny, you put it that, you put the exclamation point to it, which is it is about a culture war. I mean this is a we. I mean it's incredible to me as a guy who grew up, you know, in the 70s and 80s as a child where it was obvious that our legal tradition came from the common law, Anglo Saxon tradition of the British. It was one of the great gifts they gave us. And that is our legal culture, not Sharia law, in any way, shape or form. and there are people that are our friends in many ways. Let's say Senator Cruz, he's a good example, who tend towards this. America is an idea. America is you know, da, da, da. No, you know, America is also a culture. And our culture, has a lot to do with the. Well it's Christendom first. Before anything it's Christendom and then after that it is I think the British Tradition of the common law which didn't come from Europe, it came from a little island that had a lot of success at one time, and is struggling mightily itself right now. and that's what we want to openly embrace and not just suggest this is the law of the land. We don't have to negotiate with Islam about what our country is going to be like. As a matter of fact, as you said, if they're here they need to assimilate. But we need to prevent as many of these types of people from coming as possible. In fact it should be actively prevented to bring in people that are religious zealots of this, of this Islamic, so called faith. We don't want anymore and we've got too many as it is. And so it needs to, there needs to be some real reforms. I think President Trump tried to do it specifically in his first administration. He was prevented by these activist judges, who, they will never take action on anything that's pro American, but they will, they will go way out of their way, to create the conditions for the downfall of America. We need to stop Sharia law, proponents from coming into the United States. Full stop.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I could not agree with you more. And you're right that you know, Trump did try to stop this and he was met with, well you know, you are targeting specific religions and you can't simply put a ban on you know, countries that are primarily Muslim because that's discrimination against a different religion. And you know, my view is that the law should reflect America and Americans first. That's what our Constitution is designed to preserve and protect the rights of American citizens because it only governs our country, it doesn't govern other Islamic run countries obviously. and so, and that's the difference between our nation and a separate nation. This is why nations have borders and their own laws. And we're so blessed to be in America instead of any other country in my opinion, currently on the face of the earth or you know, even in ah, Western civilization. But you know, somehow the legal community has this view that the U.S. constitution should extend across oceans, across borders and protect other people, who want to come into this nation before it protects the people that are already here as citizens. And I find that extremely, constitutionally unsound.
Chris Ekstrom: Well this is where it's very important to be a nationalist period. I mean look, the U.N. and these sort of globalist, ecumenical outlooks where you know, the Coexist ideas expanded into an actual active political program, to nullify our laws. m is is real and it's. No, it's not a conspiracy. This is the thing I think is very important with so many, conspiracies out there that have a certain, you know, resonance with people because they don't know what's happening or why things have happened.
Chris Hedges: Religious liberty issue could play big role in midterm elections
I mean, look, you and I don't know why things have happened frequently. Right? So. And we're very active in politics and paying close attention. The average guy often is confronted with facts that simply don't add up. The conspiracy is open from people that prefer the idea of globalist standards and they want to impose them on us as much as anyone else because we're the most powerful country.
Chris Ekstrom: I think what Christians in America need to come to a clear understanding of is that they are America first. They are. Their loyalty politically is owed to our traditions and that we have come to a place of sort of civic irresponsibility and where children don't even have any clue when they get educated in our public school systems about what our history and, our purpose is, in this world and we should be proud of it all. Look, we're not perfect and there are mistakes that are made, but all we're doing is emphasizing, it seems like, are the mistakes, as if we were held to this impossible standard. And then we miss the enemies of our nation, which are Marxist, which are globalist, which are people that hate religion actually, when they pretend to be ecumenical. But what they really mean is they want to get rid of, religion as much as they can, and are even willing to use other religions like so called religions like Islam to eradicate our legitimate and genuine religion. so these are thorny issues, difficult issues, but we must embrace them, and embrace the idea of the culture war that we're fighting. Because believe me, it's being fought whether you individual person out there want to fight it. It's being fought every day and in every way.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, preach it. I completely agree with you. And this is where for too long the left has, had the, the undercurrent and they have kind of hidden this advancement, into. And this, this, I would say, and it's not just an encroachment, but an invasion into our society under this view of multiculturalism and saying, well, diversity is a good thing. And now they're framing it religious liberty so that they can borrow the constitutional protections that really shouldn't cover something like this. And so you know, how, how do you think, Krish, that this ultimately plays into perhaps the midterms overall? Because I do see a lot of conservatives and Americans. You know, one of the good things about the America first, movement is that people really do want our law and our society and our government to truly prioritize Americans.
Chris Ekstrom: Yeah, I think, it will affect the midterms and I think that there's an organic dawning awareness that we have a problem with Islam, and that problem isn't limited to a theory or people's so called religious practice. It's also about being to some degree invaded by an alien belief, that's very aggressive and has zero respect for ours. And so I think that makes people angry and anger serves a purpose, in life and in politics. To passion without passion and without love of country, genuine love of country. why would anyone go and fight to, you know, and risk their lives for it? You, you use the passion in politics to clarify what, why you're doing what you're doing and why you're voting for who you're voting for.
Chris Ekstrom: So I would say this, we need to use this midterm and this issue which is sort of similar to the monuments issue where they were tearing down all the monuments and people, some people said, well, I don't care, I don't care about the Confederacy. Let it go. Well, you know, it wasn't ever about the Confederacy. It was about tearing down the United States of America. It was about taking the Founders out. It was about changing the Constitution. The Democrats are now openly saying they want to pack the Supreme Court. They, they have all, they want to eliminate the Senate. They hate the idea of the individual states, being important and prioritized by having two senators and by having the electoral college because they know that in a mass so called democracy. And that's why I always urge people don't use the word democracy all the time. This is a republic where we separated powers on purpose so that we don't end up in this sort of, you know, mass, controlled, entity that is just at the whim m of the population. I know I said a lot there and I'm conflating a lot of things, but why? I guess what I'm trying to boil this down to is why it matters. Why should you care to go out and vote? The Republicans have let us down many, many, many times. They continue to let us down. Well, in the final analysis, we may be being let down by the Republicans, but the Democrats are literally trying to destroy the country. So it's a pretty, uneven contest for those who love America and who
Jenna Ellis: are Americans, who to vote for. Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, and at least if you have, you know, the, if you're voting to stop all of these, this push to undermine America, undermine the U.S. constitution, our institution, institutions, all of that, that's still a better vote than it is to just usher in, you know, unfettered communism and Islamic practices and all of these things that the Democrats are pushing for. Krish Ekstrom, really appreciate it. We will be right back. We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.
Jenna Ellis: Another Texas case involves baby Gabriel with severe heart defect
Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Well, there is, another case in Texas that you need to be paying attention to, if you haven't heard of this already. And this surrounds baby Gabriel. So this is, yet another example and instance of a child purchase and commodification, which of course we as conservatives should be pushing the law to, to recognize that this is just commodification of children. And so what happened here is that a California couple, ah, paid to rent the womb of a surrogate. And at 20 weeks the baby was diagnosed with a very severe heart defect. And so the biological parents, the couple told the woman under their contract to abort the child. And so basically, if a product has a defect, you want to return it to the manufacturer. I mean this is as crass as these, these Parents or just really, you know, they're not even parents, but, what these people are doing. And so the surrogate fled to Texas and asked the, the state to intervene. And thankfully baby Gabriel has been born. But now there is a controversy over, of all things, custody. And so the biological parents are actually arguing that the state's request to intervene and get authorization for medical treatment for the child would, quote, deprive them of their fundamental constitutional interest in the care, custody and control and medical decision making for their child without constitutionally adequate notice, process and opportunity to be heard in violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. So, let's get this straight. They are actually arguing that part of parental rights and the fundamental right to medical decision making of their child includes the right of killing their child. That is not anything that the US Constitution ever grants. And in fact we have an entire, a case law of precedent that parents who intentionally harm their children, well that's called child abuse. That's not protected under the law. And yet here, simply because the child was unborn at the time, and the contract states otherwise, states that, they have the right apparently to ask the surrogate to abort their child, that somehow that should supersede the child's right to life. Life. It's absolutely depraved and just shows why we cannot reduce children to products and we cannot have simple contracts, you know, govern the life or death decision making of, parents or especially doctors.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton steps up fight against surrogacy
So let's welcome in Katy Faust, who is the founder of them before us. And Katy, I know that you have a lot of things to say on this, but I really, am proud of, of, the state of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for stepping in and fighting this fight.
Katy Faust: Well, he seems to have it right here that just because you have custom ordered a child, just because the contract says that the, surrogate is going to abort, just because they say that they have the parental rights to dictate what happens to the baby, he recognizes that actually that baby has a right to life. And regardless of what ink on a contract has to say or what even the biological parents, Parents want to do, it should not override the child's fundamental right to life. You know, this is such an object lesson and how surrogacy in all forms has to be opposed. It is, as we often say it then before us, on demand designer baby shipped worldwide. And that is what we got here. We've got, presumably two genetic parents who are paying six figures for a baby. And when you are paying that much money. You don't want a defect. You want exactly what you ordered, the way you ordered it, when you ordered it, where you want it, where you ordered it. And you, you are not going to tolerate any kind of deviation from that specific plan. So, hats off to McKenna, you know, the surrogate who said, no, I'm going to protect this child, even though you are threatening me with a $250,000 lawsuit, even though you're incentivizing me $2,000 so that I will, you know, kill the baby, even though everything in the contract has actually laid out in detail how and who gets to decide whether or not the child is aborted. You know, she said, no, I would rather protect this child's right to life, and suffer the financial consequences. So, there's no way to protect children from surrogacy. That's the bottom line. Legitimizing all the contracts, regulation. And regulation doesn't do anything except to make sure that if the commissioning parents want the child dead, the baby dies.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that this is a really important moment right now in, American history and in our law and our philosophy to explain why the libertarian view of the right to contract and say, you know, the morality doesn't matter as long as the two parties agree, which has been basically their governing, ah, principle. Not every libertarian, of course, subscribes to that, but the overall, you know, kind of capital L Libertarian Party has recognized, under their political philosophy that the right to contract, should be paramount and the government should only intervene to arbitrate those contract disputes, particularly where, there is no harm involved. And what the left is basically doing is borrowing that philosophy and advancing this notion that children, even now baby Gabriel, who is born, is still property, is considered property under the contract. And extending that into a larger philosophy that children are merely property and that contracts can govern that. And this isn't about parental rights in the sense that care, custody and control of children is part of the heritage of stewardship of another human being. This is all about, arbitrarily deciding that children don't have actually those same constitutional rights that every human being made in the image of God actually deserve.
Katy Faust: There is a prominent libertarian on X who said of this case, he said, what is people's problem? I mean, do they have a problem with, with consent, with contracts, with individual liberty? And that is, the libertarian perspective makes a lot of sense unless there's another person involved, unless there is actually another little life that that contract is governing because the individual liberty of the adults means the child is going to die. Right?
Katy Faust: The contract determines that, definitionally, the baby is always going to lose at least their birth mother, if not their genetic mother, and maybe taken home to a household where they'll be starved of maternal love altogether. the consent. No child would ever consent to lose their mother if they had a choice against it. And so, rightly, a lot of people were pointing out, hey, you know what? You can make those exact same arguments about slavery. Hey, well, I have a contract to own this person. Well, it's my individual liberty. I mean, it's good for my business. I mean, as long as there's no other people involved. Personal liberty, consent, contracts, sure, that'll work. But once you throw another person in the mix, you realize very quickly that you've got a dehumanizing commercialization process to buy, sell, and traffic in other people. That's the proper way of understanding what surrogacy is. It's not family building. It is baby buying.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. So well said. And this is something that conservatives need to fight against and to recognize the inherent dignity of every human being, made in the image of God from the moment of conception all the way until natural death. And that, parents cannot, cannot simply choose to abort, their product, and return the product to the manufacturer, just because they find that it doesn't meet their, quality control standards. I mean, this is so despicable and disgusting. And now for the state of Texas to be contemplating whether, they should turn over custody to the very people who wanted to see this child, murdered in the womb, I mean, is especially heinous when you consider that in any other scenario, if there was an attempted murder of a child, and let's say, you know, the child is three years old, five years old, you know, or even the left would recognize that that child, has value and dignity and rights. In no other situation would a court look at that situation and say, yes, let's go ahead and give this child back into the care, custody, and control of the parent who's actively trying to murder them. And yet, this is where this conversation has gone. And there are a lot of people still that don't understand somehow and don't connect those dots, between saying that, you know, abortion is actually murder and that the state should intervene at the point where the parents are either abusive objectively, or they're actively seeking or have sought to murder their child. I mean, that's just common sense.
Katy Faust: I think that what surrogacy does. And this is why big, fertility gets away with so much, is it truly does confuse who is the parent. And they do that on purpose. Right? We did not used to have to debate who is the mother. The mother was the one that gave birth to the baby. And up until about, you know, 30 years ago, she was always the genetic mother of the child. So what surrogacy does is it's allowed us to splice birth mother from genetic mother. Now both of those roles of mother are actually pretty important to the baby. The birth mother is the one with whom the child forms the bond that happens to have that layer of protectiveness that a contract or even a genetic, relationship does not give them, as this case illustrates. But the genetic mother is important to the baby too. It helps the baby understand who I am. It connects the baby to half of their kinship network and their heritage. But surrogacy says we can actually split these into two different women. So this custody dispute is real. Who is the mother? Is it the one that loves the baby enough to protect them from abortion? Or is it the one that contributed half of the genetics? And the truth is both of those components of motherhood are really important to the child. So you know what? We should never split them up. Those two women should never be separate women because the baby needs both of them. That is like, even when surrogacy, quote, unquote goes right, the baby is always going to lose at least their birth mother, if not their genetic mother. This is absolutely an injustice against children, no matter how you look at it. Conservatives, wake up, just because you want something or you know, a sweet, wonderful friend who desperately wants a baby, it does not justify buying into a system that always victimizes children, commercializes children, and often puts their life at risk.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah.
Jenna: Many conservatives buy into the concept of surrogacy
And, and so well said. And it's amazing to me, how many conservatives, even, even people, you know, that I know personally, who I've talked to, who buy into this concept of surrogacy, for convenience reasons or, you know, other reason. Almost the same thing as parents who have children who, you know, farm out their education and and their, their discipline and all of that just to a nanny, you know, who basically say, okay, someone else can raise my child for me because I would rather go and participate in other adult activities than, actually care for my child. And it's, it's this mindset that is so fundamentally antithetical to the biblical worldview and definition of family. And I've been Saying for a while now, Katy, and I know you've been saying this, for, for years, that we need to reclaim the biblical truthful definition of family and what it means to have and be a mother and father.
Katy Faust: Well, and why do we need to do that? Number one, because you cannot defend children, raise children, protect children, cultivate children and allow children to thrive without their own mother and father loving them and loving each other every day. Like we like to think about and talk about marriage as a sacred institution, which it is, but primarily sociologically, it is a vehicle for child protection, child raising and child thriving. Like that is what it affects. That's the effect that it has in the world. And what else does it do? What if you have strong, resilient children which do not come from fractured homes and divided up marketplaces of purchasing and swapping gametes. If you can get those strong, resilient children, you will get a strong resilience. So we have to get back to the point where we really understand it is not just love makes a family. It's not any two will do. It's not, you know, if the adults are happy, the kids will be happy. It is children need their mother and father to conform to their rights to raise them together even if they are struggling with infertility, even if they've got a marriage that's on the rocks, even if, you know, somebody feels like they have same sex attraction. If you are making babies, those babies deserve to have you commit to one another and raise them for the sake of their own physical, mental, emotional, academic and relational health. We're doomed.
Jenna Ellis: I, I completely agree. And family isn't just something that we campaign on. It is God's design. We have to put the first things first. And we need to be a society that recognizes the truth of the reality of to which we're presented. So follow Katy, follow them before us. Read her book and as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net. PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion and every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? This save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna talks to Gerard Filitti about Tupac murder trial starting, Chris Ekstrom drops by to discuss DFW stopping washing stations, and finally, Katy Faust talks about baby "Gabriel" in TX
(00:00) Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound it's divine connection
(01:02) A murder trial for Tupac Shakur is beginning; the murder remains unsolved
(02:35) Dwayne Davis is accused of shooting and killing Tupac in 1982
(06:30) Mangione pleads guilty to federal charges of stalking; state case remains open
(11:56) Gerard Felitti: Tennessee CEO's admission doesn't change public reaction
(15:28) A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio
(15:59) Texas Governor Greg Abbott directs review of airport grants over religious accommodations
(28:50) Chris Hedges: Religious liberty issue could play big role in midterm elections
(36:09) Jenna Ellis: Another Texas case involves baby Gabriel with severe heart defect
(38:55) Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton steps up fight against surrogacy
(47:26) Jenna: Many conservatives buy into the concept of surrogacy
Jenna talks to Gerard Filitti about Tupac murder trial starting, Chris Ekstrom drops by to discuss DFW stopping washing stations, and finally, Katy Faust talks about baby "Gabriel" in TX
(00:00) Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound it's divine connection
(01:02) A murder trial for Tupac Shakur is beginning; the murder remains unsolved
(02:35) Dwayne Davis is accused of shooting and killing Tupac in 1982
(06:30) Mangione pleads guilty to federal charges of stalking; state case remains open
(11:56) Gerard Felitti: Tennessee CEO's admission doesn't change public reaction
(15:28) A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio
(15:59) Texas Governor Greg Abbott directs review of airport grants over religious accommodations
(28:50) Chris Hedges: Religious liberty issue could play big role in midterm elections
(36:09) Jenna Ellis: Another Texas case involves baby Gabriel with severe heart defect
(38:55) Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton steps up fight against surrogacy
(47:26) Jenna: Many conservatives buy into the concept of surrogacy
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
