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.
There is a controversy in Pennsylvania surrounding vaccines
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, August 27, and there is a controversy in Pennsylvania surrounding vaccines. Of course, because Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is a Democrat and is, pushing a, a, declining federal aid from, RFK Jr. And the HHS and is urging Kennedy to promote vaccines over, quote, unquote, misinformation or. Well, Kennedy is questioning, this report that two individuals are, dead now because of measles and because, both cases allegedly are involving unvaccinated individuals as the state tallies 393 cases across 29 counties in 2026. And so this also comes as Governor, Josh Shapiro is pushing to radically rewrite his state's health code to, to give his administration even more authoritarian police powers. As if Covid, era did not show us that, that this was already really extreme, particularly in the blue states. But last October, Shapiro even said that vaccines were big business and generate billions of dollars for the Pennsylvania economy. Listen to this.
Josh Shapiro: And listen. This isn't just good public health guidance. This is also really good for our economy. We're also one of the top sites in the entire country for vaccine production here in the Commonwealth, employing thousands of Pennsylvanians in manufacturing vaccines. In fact, more than half of all vaccines administered in the United States come from a facility here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This vaccine production is responsible for 4,700 jobs of our fellow Pennsylvanians and, and generates $4.74 billion for our economy. So look, I know you probably don't worry about that a whole lot when you're conducting important health care procedures, but it's also big business for us here. In this commonwealth, our health, our safety and our economy all depend on people having access to vaccines. And sadly, RFK Jr. And the President want to try and take that away from us.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. Well, it sounds like he's saying the quiet part out loud.
Raw Egg Nationalist says Pennsylvania's anti-vaccine measures are concerning
Let's welcome in Raw Egg Nationalist, who is the, the moniker that Charles Cornishdale goes by on X, as well as through his literature that is published across, a lot of platforms on, nutrition and a variety of other topics. And so Raw Egg, thanks so much for coming back on the program. And this is really concerning because, you know, while the vaccine debate continues, and not just, you know, the Cove shot, but even things like the measles vaccines, there's concern in accuracy in reporting or whether, you know, obviously Democrats, and people and Big Pharma who are pushing these vaccines are amplifying or maybe exaggerating the information. And it seems like what's, going on in Pennsylvania is specifically targeted not only to help, big business, which we know is big Pharma, but also simply to be anti Trump, anti RFK juniors, hhs.
Raw Egg Nationalist: it's good to be back talking to you, Jenna. Yes, no, this is a, this is a very, very sinister thing. I mean, the pandemic happened, and then it ended. And I think people have just assumed that everything's gone back to normal. But of course, the model that was established during the pandemic, the model of social control, the kind of, unity of government and big pharma in, establishing a health emergency and deciding what people do, where they can go, who they can associate with, what access they have to health care, to public spaces, et cetera, you know, that that model hasn't gone away. In fact, that model was established by the pandemic. And so it shouldn't really be a surprise to anybody who has, you know, a little bit of, a little bit of kind of practical wisdom and is pragmatic, it shouldn't really be a surprise that actually, you know, they're not going to let go of this model and in fact, they're going to try and try and deploy it again. And, there's a good Daily Wire piece about this where it talks about exactly what Josh Sapiro wants to do. He wants, among other things, to have the ability to enter people's homes and schools without a warrant, access confidential medical records, and impose statewide school mask mandates for disease prevention. but I mean, these are wide ranging powers that infringe on people's basic civil liberties and, rights under the Constitution. And yeah, I mean it has, it has a number of different facets. Of course it's about big business. Of course it's about the money that comes from vaccines. And you know, that clip that you played, Governor Shapiro laid it out quite clearly. It's worth thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the economy of Pennsylvania. Can't argue with that. But it is also about punishing the right because this is very much a partisan issue. People on the left generally tend to agree with what happened during the pandemic. They generally tend to agree with vaccine mandates, with mask mandates, with restrictions on social liberties. For people who you know, disagree and don't want to take vaccines, don't want to take medicine, don't want to be community minded, as they would put it, you know, that's a left wing thing. It's right wing people generally. It's conservatives who generally, refuse to go along, who made a stand. And so, yeah, they're being punished I think. Definitely.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And you know, when we talk about vaccines, I feel like we often, don't distinguish between what is, what is medically, beneficial versus whether the government should have the authority to require it. And so often people like Josh Shapiro, in the context of talking about vaccines and so forth, aren't just saying, you know, here's the medical information. We want to make sure that there's transparency and families can understand, you know, their options and what, their. What the, you know, the medical community is recommending and then individually with their doctor. what it seems like from a lot of the left is that they want to be able to make medical decisions for everyone within their jurisdiction, override individual and parental decision making authority and use the health, area and arena to create more and more government authority and coercion. And that needs to be talked about more, I think, especially, not just in light of everything that happened during COVID but even when talking about some of these other cases, you know, allegedly of measles associated deaths. And even that term to me is suspicious because the Pennsylvania Department of Health called them measles associated deaths. But then the Lancaster county coroner, says, and this is according to a report online, says, says, that the newborn that had this died actually from a lacerated spleen. So I mean, this gives me kind of the flashbacks to Covid when, you know, people in a car accident who might have then, you know, tested positive for Covid, they said, well, this was a Covid related death and counted it among, you know, all of, these reports. And so is the same thing going on in Pennsylvania?
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes. Well, that was the big switcheroo, wasn't it? It was. We went from deaths, by Covid, to deaths with COVID That was something that happened in, that happened in the US and that very definitely happened in the uk There was a particular moment where they decided, no, we're going to talk about deaths with Cove So we can keep the figures, rising. We can keep them as high as possible. We can terrify people. And so, yes, I mean, there is a, there's something. They are being very cynical about this and, and, you know, to use the terminology that they love so much, they are the ones presenting myths and disinform about disease. It's not, it's not RFK Jr. it's actually Governor Shapiro who is using, who is using, manipulate or manipulating data in order to advance an agenda to increase his authority, as governor. But. Yes, what happened to individual choice? You know, if RFK Jr. Is altering the childhood vaccination schedule and reducing the number of, of vaccines on the childhood vaccination, schedule, that doesn't mean that you as a parent can't educate yourself about the vaccines and decide whether your child should have more than is now on the, you know, the reduced vaccine schedule. That's a matter of individual choice for you to make as a parent. What I don't understand is why vaccines have to be forced on people, why people can't have a choice. why, why does government have to have to sort of condescend people and, and, you know, make them feel that actually they can't m. Make an informed decision, give them the information, let them, let them understand the risks or the lack of risks, and then make a decision based on their free, will and intelligence. But that's, I mean, that's the, that's the opposite of what the left wants to do, and it's the opposite of what Governor, Shapiro wants to do.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Shapiro has framed his approach as protecting people's freedom to make informed healthcare decisions with their doctors, while Pennsylvania has deliberately separated its vaccine recommendations from Kennedy's federal advisory structure. And so he's saying, Shapiro is saying that this is about protecting people's freedom to make informed decisions. But if that's the principle, shouldn't that same freedom include the right to decline a vaccine and also a space? Especially you have the right to, be free from government intrusion into your daily life. I mean, including coming into your home. I mean, some of these things that are just absolutely asinine proposals that should never happen in the United States of America. I mean, the government doesn't just have a right to come in, to your home or to your child's school and literally compel you to take, some kind of medication. Yeah.
Raw Egg Nationalist: I mean, it's worrying because I think people are very naive or people have become very naive. And you think, you know, this is America. You know, this is a nation where people rebelled against tyranny. This is a nation that was founded on an assertion of individual rights, of the right to decide, of the right to proper representation. And people are being very naive, especially since we've, you know, we had the pandemic a few years ago. We saw how these powers were abused. We saw, you know, in California, you know, a guy on a. What was it, a paddleboard out in the bay, you know, being arrested by the police because he was apparently, apparently, you know, posed, an infection risk to somebody or other. so we've seen these powers being. We've seen these powers being abused firsthand. I mean, we just have to consult our own memories. so it is worrying. It is worrying that people are. Are, approaching this in such a naive, partisan manner. But that unfortunately, that unfortunately actually is the truth today. And that's been the truth. to my great regret about actually the Maha agenda is that it has just become a totally partisan issue. Our RFK junior Talks about, you know, people eating more meat. People should eat more meat. It's good for you. You know, you need cholesterol, you need the high quality protein. Oh, that's just, you know, that's just, that's a conspiracy theory. That's just RFK Jr. You know, with his brain worm. you know, people really have. People really have fractured, along partisan lines about these issues. And it's very, very difficult to speak to them in a way that actually breaks through that conditioning, and gets them to think for themselves.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Covid just completely changed the conversation in so many ways. but it also, unfortunately, because of the severe decline in lack of trust in institutions and that, you know, we. I think we generally as a society thought, okay, you know, doctors are, are making decisions in our best interests. And we had this kind of fundamental level of trust, as a society, and Covid just completely obliterated that.
Jenna Bennett: We do need to restore trust in the medical industry
And so how much of this conversation as well, is important to balance, because while we obviously need to be concerned and push back against, Democrats like Shapiro, who are, wanting to Use health authority is a pretext to attain more government power and authority and override, individual rights. How much of that? And if we can extend the break, we're supposed to go to 25. Thanks. and ah, how much of that is about also balancing our expectations and not being so convinced that everybody in the health industry now is working against us? Because I see the other side of it as well, that some people just have zero trust now for anybody. And in the healthcare industry. And that's not a great thing either.
Raw Egg Nationalist: No, no it isn't. I mean swinging from one from one side to the other, yeah, is, is a bad thing. I mean, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate medical treatments. Doctors aren't necessarily out to profit from your sickness. There are a lot of good people. I mean part of the problem is, yes, we've had this pandemic, enormous suspicion, justified I think, about the way that big, pharma can collude in the suppression of individual liberties for the sake of profit and power. and a lot of people have had bad experiences with doctors. Probably everybody has had a bad experience with a doctor in their lifetime if they've lived long enough. But nevertheless, yes, we do have to have some trust in the medical industry. We do have to have some trust in medical professionals, because there are a lot of good people, there are some bad people. There are a lot of good people too. So. But it's hard to see actually how you are going to do that. It is hard to see how you repair trust in the medical industry after it has been, and the profession after it has been so degraded for so long. It's going to take a while, I think. And obviously measures like this from Josh Shapiro, where he has so openly talked about, you know, vaccines, vaccination, you know, it employs 4,000 people and it's 4 billion, $4.7 billion a year. You know that when people speak that openly, when people in power speak that openly, then people listen. And so, I mean, I think in the short term, I think what you are probably going to see actually is you're going to see people leaving states like Pennsylvania because of this. people are going to vote with their feet. I think as they voted with their feet. You know, entrepreneurs and people who make money have voted with their feet to leave California. it's not just taxation and sort of anti growth and anti entrepreneurial statutes that are going to make people leave. It will also be health mandates too. And in fact, actually I just saw before I came on the air to speak to you, Jenna, that there's an ongoing case in NewSong York State involving the Amish, I think, over. Over vaccination. And they're saying that they're going to leave NewSong York State, because they, they just refuse to submit to mandatory medical treatments that they don't agree with for religious reasons. So yeah, in. In the long term, we are going to have to do something to restore trust in in medicine as a discipline because it does have benefits. It has huge benefits, but potentially as well as drawbacks. But yes, I think in the short term we're going to see people voting with their feet and leaving Pennsylvania if this kind of stuff comes in.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And it's so, ironic to me that, you know, Shapiro is suggesting that he should have the authority to make medical, decisions for, you know, individuals and and parents and their families, but he should be free to reject Washington's vaccine recommendations. So it's almost like, okay, well, as a state we're rejecting the federal recommendations, but you, as the individual can't reject the state's recommendations and coercions. And so it's. It seems like, he thinks parents shouldn't have some corresponding freedom to reject, you know, his and Big Pharma's advice. And so, you know, this just gets into a whole host of legal problems as well. And I think this is going to continue to be a conversation, that we need to have as a country in a variety of different areas as well. I mean, not just within the context of Big Pharma, but also, you know, in the context of just government authority in general. As we've seen, more and more of the. The rise of the the DSA and the Democrat socialist candidates who want, to dictate, so much of the American liberty away. And that's a really, concerning problem.
Jenna Ellis: Is this attempt to attain power through health pretexts continuing
But really quickly, just in the last two minutes we have with you, is this kind of attempt to continue to attain power through health pretexts like what Shapiro is doing? Is that being reflected anywhere else, like in other countries, like in Europe? Are they continuing to try to build on what happened during Cove yes,
Raw Egg Nationalist: I think there are. They are trying to do that. And I mean, I wrote a piece actually for American Mind publication of the Claremont Institute, I think in about 2023 or 2024, called the Nexus of what's Next. And I was talking very specifically about the way that the kind of pandemic surveillance, monitoring of disinformation and Misinformation has been integrated into healthcare companies, big pharma companies themselves. So companies like Moderna, which, which produced one of the MRNA vaccines for Cove 19, now has its own misinformation and disinformation department that works with social media companies and works with national governments, to monitor anti vaccine sentiment. so, yeah, I mean this, this isn't going away. These, these are powerful, powerful tools not only for monitoring people's thoughts and behavior, but also for monitoring their consumer choices as well. And there's huge amounts of money and authority on the line.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, it is. And this is a huge amount of liberty on the line as well. And so this is why we need to pay attention to what's going on in all of the various states. We need to pay attention to what goes on in Washington. And you know, these are maybe issues that right now, people aren't talking about, more broadly in the context of affordability and you know, some of the other things that are bigger hot topics, for the midterms. But this is why elections matter, from the state, level all the way to the federal level, because, medical freedom and freedom in all, areas of life and liberty is going to matter, moving forward. So raw egg nationalists really appreciate, appreciate it. You can follow him on X and we will be right back with more. 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.net give that's afr.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Meta, which controls Facebook, Instagram, settles child privacy lawsuit for $18 billion
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, yesterday, Meta, which of course controls, Facebook, Instagram and is, Mark Zuckerberg's big conglomerate, agreed to one of the largest settlements of its capital kind in American history, up to $18 billion, to resolve claims that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to keep children hooked on their platform. So the case was brought by states across the country, which accused Meta not simply of creating popular social media platforms, but of using addictive design features to entice and retain young users, misleading parents and the public about the risks, improperly collecting data from children under 13. Meta has denied wrongdoing. And so the settlement is, about more than just money. It kind of gets Meta a little bit off of the hook of having to, go and face a trial and actually have all of this come out in the context of court. But Meta has also, under the terms of the settlement that have been reported, agreed to sweeping changes for teenagers. A, default, two hour daily limit restrictions, overnight notifications turned off during school hours, stronger age verification, hidden like counts, and other safeguards that are allegedly aimed at fundamentally changing how minors interact with Instagram and Facebook. But this raises a bigger question. At what point does a technology company cross the line from providing a product for people to choose to deliberately engineering a product to exploit the vulnerabilities of children? And when that happens, what is the proper role of parents, government, and the law, and also, these platforms in stepping in?
Mike Donnelly discusses the Meta settlement with Jenna Deuteronomy
Well, let's welcome in Mike Donnelly, who is an attorney and one of our favorite guests, to discuss, you know, all kinds of, legal issues. And this one is, is fascinating from a number of levels. So, Mike Donnelly, what do you make, ultimately of this settlement?
Mike Donnelly: Well, good morning, Jenna. Good morning, friends, brothers and sisters. Hope everyone listening is having a lovely day today. Great to be back to chat with you about some legal issues. I don't know, is it me, Jenna, or does 18 billion just not sound like a lot of money anymore? I mean, our country is $40 trillion in debt. You know, how many hundreds of billions of dollars or wasting away through fraud. And, you know, you said this is one of the largest settlements of its kind. 18 billion. I mean, it isn't, it's. It seems like a lot of money, but I don't know, it doesn't sound like so much anymore. and it wasn't enough for James Utmeyer in Florida, apparently, because he said, no, we're not, we're not, we're not joining the settlement because, you know, one month, I think he said something like one month of cash flow doesn't make up for a decade of harm. Putting this in context, I mean, Met as annual revenue is $200 billion. It is a $1.5 trillion company. so I don't know, what do you think? 18 billion didn't sound like that much to me.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I'm not sure that it's so much about the money as trying to get Meta to actually change their practices. You know, that may ultimately be more valuable states than what the, the penalty that Meta has to pay. and, and you're right, though, that, Florida's Attorney General, James Uthmeyer, and he said this on X, Florida didn't join the Meta settlement. The payouts are peanuts compared to the profound harms Meta's profit driven Addictive features inflicted on kids and a slap on the wrist for a trillion dollar corporation that will pay more to lawyers than to the state. So we'll see them at trial. And, and so he's right about that. And he certainly thinks that the penalty, isn't steep enough because probably, that isn't a good enough incentive because Meta, at the end of the day, is profit driven. it's not doing this philanthropically. And so the government is having to come in and say, wait a minute, your practices are harmful. They're destructive and we need to force you, to not inflict these harms on kids. And so from, from my perspective, at least I think that what, what this settlement requires of Meta in terms of changing its practices and whether that can actually be enforced, that's probably more valuable than any range of actual financial benefit to the states or negative, you know, to Meta, that it might take.
Mike Donnelly: Yeah, I think that's a good point. And you know, it's interesting because this really is a product design issue. You know, this is a product liability issue, which, you know, we lawyers, we like to talk about torts sometimes. And product liability is a very complicated area of tort law. I enjoyed my product liability and torts class in law school many, many
Jenna Ellis: years ago because we're just crazy like that, that we actually enjoyed law school.
Mike Donnelly: But yeah, yeah, well, I didn't enjoy all of it. I did. But I did enjoy the tort class. I had a great professor and I thought product liability was very interesting, you know, because it looks at, holding a company accountable through the courts. Which is what, which is what, you know, the court system is for. It's for accountability purposes. If you commit a crime, you're going to be held accountable. Accountable if you create harm, there is, a mechanism for you to seek redress or a remedy for the harm for you or for your children. Right? And ultimately, you know, God gives parents the responsibility to bring up children. Right. Ephesians 6:4 says, Parent, fathers, raise your children in the admonition and nurture of the Lord. Ephesians 6:4. And you know, also in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 6:4, the great Shema, hear Israel, the Lord your God is one, and you shall teach these things to your children. You know, so the Old and NewSong Testament, and it's interesting to me that it's 6, 4 in both chapters. I don't know if that has any significance, but, you know, God gives parents the responsibility to raise children and you know, Facebook, the issue that came, the issue that brought this case about was, you know, in 2021, a whistleblower, Francis Hagen, came out and said, hey, look, Facebook knows that Instagram's having a negative effect on children and teenagers, and they are doing it knowingly. And that prompted congressional hearings in 2023. And then state attorneys general said, aha, product liability. You're designing the product in such a way that it is going to harm someone. And the state attorneys generals exercising their authority, which God gives to the civil government. Right. Romans 13 talks about the role of, of government is to protect the innocent and children are innocent. Right. And so it is the role of government to protect children from harm. And when a company is doing that, then I think it's appropriate for the government to step in. A lot of libertarians will say, oh, no, we got to keep the government out. People have to make their own decisions. Right. I don't subscribe to that view. I think government appropriately can step in and do this. So I think this is a good use. I mean, I think people could have done it themselves too. But it's still very different when scores of attorney generals from, you know, Banta in California, no conservative, and, you know, J.B. mcCutskey in West Virginia, no liberal, join together and they say, look, we're going to hold you accountable. So I think there's a lot there to discuss, but I think this is good, holding that accountable. They're going to make some changes. But I'm also glad that Florida is going to continue forward because you know what? We really don't know what they knew. And So I think 18 billion isn't really that much, in the grand scheme of things. And hopefully James Admire can get some more money out of them and actually send a message not just to Instagram and Meta, but to the rest of the industry that this is a theory of liability that you are now at risk of being subject to. And I think that will change the calculation in the industry and they'll start thinking more about designing products that are not going to be as harmful. Kids.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And this is, a really interesting policy angle because this is, as we've talked about, bigger than a damages settlement because the states have effectively used this kind of product liability litigation to establish something approaching a national regulatory regime for minors on social media, but without Congress passing one. So that's, that's kind of an unusual, component just because they all, as you mentioned, you know, coordinated and kind of came m together to, to force Meta to do that. But then there's also the unusual competitive component where Meta is Now, pushing TikTok and YouTube to adopt the same rules. And so if, and if they do, the framework becomes stricter and Meta's, payout increases. So I mean essentially Meta's argument is that the restrictions don't work if a 15 year old skill can simply migrate from, from Instagram to TikTok. But now because of Meta's own restrictions in this settlement, there's an incentive, a business incentive, not really a philanthropic one, to say, well, now these rules need to be imposed on everybody else since, you know, now we can't exploit children, don't allow anybody else to.
Mike Donnelly: Well, well that's true. you know, and you know, TikTok and the, and the other social media platforms, X and such, are very large companies. And you know, this is, this is kind of the free market at work here. I kind of like how this is coming about, you know, without Congress getting involved. You know, we don't want Congress to get involved in things that it doesn't, have constitutional authority to get involved with. you know, state attorneys generals getting together. I think that's, that's good. I mean this is, this is what Americans do. We see a problem and we solve it. you know, is this going to have an effect on the rest of the industry? I mean, that remains to be seen, but I think that the other platforms are on notice that if they don't make changes, they could be next. of course this particular lawsuit did hinge a little bit on the whistleblower. Right.
Mike Donnelly says the government needs to regulate social media
I mean, Meta knew what it was doing and it was doing so knowingly, which is really, which is quite relevant. I'm not sure if any of that evidence exists for TikTok or X or any other ones. I don't think you can just implicitly say, well, they're social media platforms as well and therefore, you know, they have to follow the same rules.
Jenna Ellis: Right, right. And you know, and you mentioned as well, and I totally agree with your analysis that, you know, some would say, well, you know, this isn't the government's job to impose these kinds of regulations that should belong to the parent, but you know, the parent still has authority over, you know, what their kid actually uses. And so even though there are these default mechanisms, some of them can be, overridden by parents if they want to for whatever reason.
Mike Donnelly: but are you saying that parents don't ask to let their children have a Facebook or Instagram account.
Jenna Ellis: Right. Shocking breaking news here. Yeah, parents can actually, determine for their children that they're not going to give them a smartphone or access to social media. and that may be something that parents want to contemplate in light of all of this. but, you know, but of course, some parents just aren't going to take that much of an interest in their children's, online content and usage. But beyond that, you know, it's not about the government deciding for parents, it's about ensuring that the product itself is not designed to inflict harm. And that's something that, you know, as you rightly point out, Mike Donnelly, that is something that is, ah, one of the legitimate attributes of government that it needs to do in all kinds of, in a variety of forms. I mean, not just with respect to children, not just with respect to social media, but the government needs to ensure that, companies aren't profiting off of any products that knowingly inflict harm.
Mike Donnelly: I think that's right. I think that, you know, when we come together, we, you know, government is a protector of our rights, but we also, you know, expect government to pass laws and we create a court system so that we, the people can hold criminals accountable. But also, you know, this isn't necessarily criminal. Although when you knowingly, you know, create a product that imposes harm on someone, I mean, there is some criminal culpability there. So it's squarely within the role of government, Biblical. Government's biblical authority to take action, even when, you know, people could do it themselves. Like individual, plaintiffs could have banded together and filed a class action lawsuit against, Meta. But I don't know if that's happening. I mean, maybe that will happen. now. I mean, I don't think that. I'm not sure if that's foreclosed. you know, this was the Attorney General getting together. you know, it'd be interesting if some class action lawyers, which, you know, I, I kind of want to get in on that action, you know, when, when you, said most of the money will go to lawyers, you know, that is for sure. Not, maybe not most, but a lot of it will. And class action lawsuits are very lucrative, although they're very difficult, which is one of the reasons they, you know, they, they are always prosecuted. so at any rate, yeah, so I think that, you know, this is good, probably a good outcome where it's going to lead, you know, we'll see.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Well, we're going to take a break here, Mike. Donnelly, really appreciate your analysis on this. He's going to stay with us through the break, because we have another really interesting, case to talk about and touches on, some constitutional issues. So we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the morning. And during the break, go and follow, Mike Donnelly on exit at Donnelly Speaks. And, you can go and follow him and also follow me across social media platforms as well. And again, we'll be right back.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
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 and 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.
A lawsuit challenging Nebraska's public schools could open a path toward universal school choice
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. I'm still here with my special guest, Mike Donnelly today. And this is an interesting, story in the Washington Post, actually by our friend Cory DeAngelis. And, the headline is, are public schools unconstitutional? A Nebraska court will decide. So a lawsuit, was filed in Nebraska on August 13th and brings that argument into court and Corrie says could open a path toward universal school choice. Nebraska law requires parents to enroll children in a, quote, public, private, denominational or parochial, school or to homeschool them. Non compliance is a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fee fine. Yet the state offers educational benefits, roughly $19,000 per student statewide in 2024 through 2025, and about, $17,400 in Lincoln, Nebraska, only to families that enroll their children in public schools, thus accepting the government's preferred viewpoints. So this is a really interesting case that's, being set up. So, Mike, what do you think?
Mike Donnelly: Wow. Jenna, how much time do we have left? I know, 10 minutes. we don't have enough time. But friends, this is fascinating.
Jenna Ellis: And Tim, this is why you need to give me yet another hour. So we keep, we keep like poking Tim Wildmon on that.
Mike Donnelly: So if you promise, if you owe you another hour. Yeah, definitely. We need at least an hour to talk about this one. But, this is so fascinating. So much to talk about here. Philip Hamburger is a brilliant legal scholar, very, just awesome Columbia law professor who has written about the administrative state. And he's, a family man as well. And he's like, you know, I don't like the fact that the government takes my money and forces me to send my kids to their school where they get to fill my kids head with their chosen craziness. Okay. And he's like, he's written some law review articles about this. And you know, really, this is his idea. and he's like, we've got to challenge this. And he came up with this theory, of free speech. And putting this in the context of free speech, because children as minors, yes, they have rights, but their parents really are the guardians of their rights until they reach the age of majority. And parents have authority over their children, which includes exercising their free speech rights, which includes the right not to be subject to government indoctrination. Okay? And so that's the theory. And so there's another theory that layers on that, which is called the unconstitutional conditions theory, which says that, you can't condition the receipt of a public benefit on an unconstitutional condition. What's the unconstitutional condition? Subjecting kids to speech with which they don't agree. Now you're like, everybody's heads are twirling, right? Like, what do you mean? What does this have to do with free speech? Is this education? Well, my friends, what is education? What do kids listen to when they're in the classroom? They're listening to speech all the time. I mean, education is really speech. The teachers are talking to them, right? The students are talking back. It's speech. And so why should this not come under the first Amendment Bill Hamburger theorizes. And I agree. I think it's fascinating. I mean, look, schools have been captured by the left. We know this. they serve teachers unions. I mean, you know, we've talked about this. Teachers unions, you know, you know, don't necessarily, care about kids Education. That's why he's getting worse. so the idea here that the government says you must send your child to school unless you do it in some other approved method, meaning a private school or homeschool, and we're going to take your money from you and we're then going to subject your kids to what we want to. And oh, by the way, you don't get to tell us whether you like it or not. Sometimes there's these little meager opt out laws on certain topics like sex education or you know, that sort of thing.
This case could eventually migrate into the federal courts
But you know, it's time I think for this issue to really be discussed in our country and I hope this case will begin that it's starting in Nebraska, which started the whole parents rights under the constitution concept over 100 years ago with Mire v. Nebraska in 1923. And then you had Peirce Society of Sisters which followed that, which was an Oregon case which sort of said, the Supreme Court of the United States said look, parents rights are one of those ninth and tenth Amendment rights that is implicit. And so we're going to exercise authority here. So, so this is a state case, but ultimately this could migrate into the federal courts. And I think it's going to be very interesting to watch.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is a really fascinating analysis and and theory of course as of the case because you know, for a long time, I mean we've kind of, or the government at least has operated under this presumption and that it can tax us and use our tax dollars however it prefers and we don't have the standing or the option to to really object to that or to say, you know, we want to opt out of certain programs. I mean certainly here in the state of Florida, one of the things with the whole property tax issue that's being debated and will be on the ballot in November is that a lot of people objected to you know, any of the, of the property tax, benefits, going and ensuring that there was no impact to public schools. But you know, even even though like for example I don't have kids, I'm not going to be in the situation of determining where I'm sending my kids. But even as just a taxpayer, why am I funding a specific viewpoint under the theory that this is a government benefit that's provided to the community, but then add on, you know, the layer to that that then parents are compelled by the government to to not only fund those viewpoints, but then there's a criminal penalty if they, if they don't actually send you know, their kids to to hear from the state and have that kind of non viewpoint neutral, offering by the government. And so, you know, how much of this could, this type of theory, if successful could be advanced potentially in other ways that our tax dollars are being utilized? Like for example, I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions. I don't want my tax dollars funding, you know, a lot of things that the government does. And so is, do you, do you think that that might be a barrier, in terms of precedent and more broadly if this reaches, you know, the appellate levels, which it likely will.
Mike Donnelly: Yeah, I think this will, I think this is going to head, this will head to the Supreme Court from the Nebraska Supreme Court eventually. and you know, it's just so interesting the history here that, you know, the guys who are doing this lawsuit is the NewSong Civil Liberties alliance, which was founded by Phil Hamburger a few years ago to really impose constitutional rule back on, on the government and for our benefit, for the benefit of the people. So they're doing all kinds of really interesting things. In fact, they were the ones who were responsible for the repeal of Chevron, the overruling of Chevron and the whole concept of Chevron deference, in the administrative state. But, you know, applying this to other areas. Yeah, I think, I think so. you know, I think the free speech, the speech element here is novel, but I think it fits and I think, let's see where this goes with, with this particular one. You know, you don't get to just tell the government you don't want, you know, to fund the police department or, you know, you don't want to fund, you know, abortion. That's something that the lawmakers decide in allocating money according to the budget and according to law. So, you know, there's an interesting intersection here between the federal constitution and states. Right. So this is the 14th amendment issue. Right, that's. We've talked about this before and I'm not a huge fan of this concept of substantive due process, which is kind of what's being used here to apply the First Amendment to Nebraska's compulsory attendance law. Because generally states have authority to regulate education in their state and the federal government doesn't. You don't see the word education anywhere in the federal constitution.
Jenna Ellis: Right, right.
Mike Donnelly: And so lots of interesting theories moving around here. I'm not really sure how it would apply to anything else because I haven't thought about it yet. I'm going to have to put my thinking cap on on that one. But I think you know, this one is you know, appropriate, you know, speech. If we're going to apply speech to the states and say, look, you've got to respect people's speech that also, you know, and you add that to parental rights and this unconstitutional conditions argument. There's three bases here for, for arguing that the government cannot, cannot compel parents to send their kids to school to be subject to government speech and take their money and also threaten them with criminal prosecution. Something has to give.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's really the thrust of the lawsuit is to is that the structure overall, is what needs to change. And it's not suggesting, you know, of course that public schools or government funded schools, should no longer exist or you know, some of those kind of extreme examples. And so you know, the remedy here would be that the tax the taxpayer dollars follow the students are basically universal school choice. And are they also asking though that the criminal penalty also be removed so that parents could decide, you know, how exactly to educate their child and it's not under threat of criminal punishment from the government.
Mike Donnelly: What the lawsuit is seeking is a declaratory judgment. Right. They are looking for the Nebraska courts to declare that this is that the compulsory school laws are unconstitution constitutional as they're currently written. you know, and, and they're kind of leaving it up to the courts to decide how they want to issue a remedy. I think any of those remedies are available. I find it more likely and more to my liking that the courts would say, you know what, under our current constitutional regime, compulsory tenants laws are unconstitutional. Not what Corrie and I think what Phil would prefer, which is, look, legislature of Nebraska, you have to change the funding scheme because that's really the province of the legislature. It's more appropriate for a court to say that the rules are unconstitutional than to order the legislature to spend money on something, meaning redirect funds to this universal school choice idea, which I know Cory's all for that and that's what he wants. And that's fine if the legislature says decides to do that. But I, I question whether the court is likely to order that as a remedy.
Jenna Ellis: Interesting. Well, we're already out of time and so many more areas we could go into, including you know, the 14th amendment, 16th, amendment, you know, this is on all of these things. But Mike Donnelly, really appreciate it and hope to talk with you again soon. Again follow him on X at Donnelly Speaks and as always, you can reach me and my team. Jenna AFR. 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? 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.
There is a controversy in Pennsylvania surrounding vaccines
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, August 27, and there is a controversy in Pennsylvania surrounding vaccines. Of course, because Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is a Democrat and is, pushing a, a, declining federal aid from, RFK Jr. And the HHS and is urging Kennedy to promote vaccines over, quote, unquote, misinformation or. Well, Kennedy is questioning, this report that two individuals are, dead now because of measles and because, both cases allegedly are involving unvaccinated individuals as the state tallies 393 cases across 29 counties in 2026. And so this also comes as Governor, Josh Shapiro is pushing to radically rewrite his state's health code to, to give his administration even more authoritarian police powers. As if Covid, era did not show us that, that this was already really extreme, particularly in the blue states. But last October, Shapiro even said that vaccines were big business and generate billions of dollars for the Pennsylvania economy. Listen to this.
Josh Shapiro: And listen. This isn't just good public health guidance. This is also really good for our economy. We're also one of the top sites in the entire country for vaccine production here in the Commonwealth, employing thousands of Pennsylvanians in manufacturing vaccines. In fact, more than half of all vaccines administered in the United States come from a facility here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This vaccine production is responsible for 4,700 jobs of our fellow Pennsylvanians and, and generates $4.74 billion for our economy. So look, I know you probably don't worry about that a whole lot when you're conducting important health care procedures, but it's also big business for us here. In this commonwealth, our health, our safety and our economy all depend on people having access to vaccines. And sadly, RFK Jr. And the President want to try and take that away from us.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. Well, it sounds like he's saying the quiet part out loud.
Raw Egg Nationalist says Pennsylvania's anti-vaccine measures are concerning
Let's welcome in Raw Egg Nationalist, who is the, the moniker that Charles Cornishdale goes by on X, as well as through his literature that is published across, a lot of platforms on, nutrition and a variety of other topics. And so Raw Egg, thanks so much for coming back on the program. And this is really concerning because, you know, while the vaccine debate continues, and not just, you know, the Cove shot, but even things like the measles vaccines, there's concern in accuracy in reporting or whether, you know, obviously Democrats, and people and Big Pharma who are pushing these vaccines are amplifying or maybe exaggerating the information. And it seems like what's, going on in Pennsylvania is specifically targeted not only to help, big business, which we know is big Pharma, but also simply to be anti Trump, anti RFK juniors, hhs.
Raw Egg Nationalist: it's good to be back talking to you, Jenna. Yes, no, this is a, this is a very, very sinister thing. I mean, the pandemic happened, and then it ended. And I think people have just assumed that everything's gone back to normal. But of course, the model that was established during the pandemic, the model of social control, the kind of, unity of government and big pharma in, establishing a health emergency and deciding what people do, where they can go, who they can associate with, what access they have to health care, to public spaces, et cetera, you know, that that model hasn't gone away. In fact, that model was established by the pandemic. And so it shouldn't really be a surprise to anybody who has, you know, a little bit of, a little bit of kind of practical wisdom and is pragmatic, it shouldn't really be a surprise that actually, you know, they're not going to let go of this model and in fact, they're going to try and try and deploy it again. And, there's a good Daily Wire piece about this where it talks about exactly what Josh Sapiro wants to do. He wants, among other things, to have the ability to enter people's homes and schools without a warrant, access confidential medical records, and impose statewide school mask mandates for disease prevention. but I mean, these are wide ranging powers that infringe on people's basic civil liberties and, rights under the Constitution. And yeah, I mean it has, it has a number of different facets. Of course it's about big business. Of course it's about the money that comes from vaccines. And you know, that clip that you played, Governor Shapiro laid it out quite clearly. It's worth thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the economy of Pennsylvania. Can't argue with that. But it is also about punishing the right because this is very much a partisan issue. People on the left generally tend to agree with what happened during the pandemic. They generally tend to agree with vaccine mandates, with mask mandates, with restrictions on social liberties. For people who you know, disagree and don't want to take vaccines, don't want to take medicine, don't want to be community minded, as they would put it, you know, that's a left wing thing. It's right wing people generally. It's conservatives who generally, refuse to go along, who made a stand. And so, yeah, they're being punished I think. Definitely.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And you know, when we talk about vaccines, I feel like we often, don't distinguish between what is, what is medically, beneficial versus whether the government should have the authority to require it. And so often people like Josh Shapiro, in the context of talking about vaccines and so forth, aren't just saying, you know, here's the medical information. We want to make sure that there's transparency and families can understand, you know, their options and what, their. What the, you know, the medical community is recommending and then individually with their doctor. what it seems like from a lot of the left is that they want to be able to make medical decisions for everyone within their jurisdiction, override individual and parental decision making authority and use the health, area and arena to create more and more government authority and coercion. And that needs to be talked about more, I think, especially, not just in light of everything that happened during COVID but even when talking about some of these other cases, you know, allegedly of measles associated deaths. And even that term to me is suspicious because the Pennsylvania Department of Health called them measles associated deaths. But then the Lancaster county coroner, says, and this is according to a report online, says, says, that the newborn that had this died actually from a lacerated spleen. So I mean, this gives me kind of the flashbacks to Covid when, you know, people in a car accident who might have then, you know, tested positive for Covid, they said, well, this was a Covid related death and counted it among, you know, all of, these reports. And so is the same thing going on in Pennsylvania?
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes. Well, that was the big switcheroo, wasn't it? It was. We went from deaths, by Covid, to deaths with COVID That was something that happened in, that happened in the US and that very definitely happened in the uk There was a particular moment where they decided, no, we're going to talk about deaths with Cove So we can keep the figures, rising. We can keep them as high as possible. We can terrify people. And so, yes, I mean, there is a, there's something. They are being very cynical about this and, and, you know, to use the terminology that they love so much, they are the ones presenting myths and disinform about disease. It's not, it's not RFK Jr. it's actually Governor Shapiro who is using, who is using, manipulate or manipulating data in order to advance an agenda to increase his authority, as governor. But. Yes, what happened to individual choice? You know, if RFK Jr. Is altering the childhood vaccination schedule and reducing the number of, of vaccines on the childhood vaccination, schedule, that doesn't mean that you as a parent can't educate yourself about the vaccines and decide whether your child should have more than is now on the, you know, the reduced vaccine schedule. That's a matter of individual choice for you to make as a parent. What I don't understand is why vaccines have to be forced on people, why people can't have a choice. why, why does government have to have to sort of condescend people and, and, you know, make them feel that actually they can't m. Make an informed decision, give them the information, let them, let them understand the risks or the lack of risks, and then make a decision based on their free, will and intelligence. But that's, I mean, that's the, that's the opposite of what the left wants to do, and it's the opposite of what Governor, Shapiro wants to do.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Shapiro has framed his approach as protecting people's freedom to make informed healthcare decisions with their doctors, while Pennsylvania has deliberately separated its vaccine recommendations from Kennedy's federal advisory structure. And so he's saying, Shapiro is saying that this is about protecting people's freedom to make informed decisions. But if that's the principle, shouldn't that same freedom include the right to decline a vaccine and also a space? Especially you have the right to, be free from government intrusion into your daily life. I mean, including coming into your home. I mean, some of these things that are just absolutely asinine proposals that should never happen in the United States of America. I mean, the government doesn't just have a right to come in, to your home or to your child's school and literally compel you to take, some kind of medication. Yeah.
Raw Egg Nationalist: I mean, it's worrying because I think people are very naive or people have become very naive. And you think, you know, this is America. You know, this is a nation where people rebelled against tyranny. This is a nation that was founded on an assertion of individual rights, of the right to decide, of the right to proper representation. And people are being very naive, especially since we've, you know, we had the pandemic a few years ago. We saw how these powers were abused. We saw, you know, in California, you know, a guy on a. What was it, a paddleboard out in the bay, you know, being arrested by the police because he was apparently, apparently, you know, posed, an infection risk to somebody or other. so we've seen these powers being. We've seen these powers being abused firsthand. I mean, we just have to consult our own memories. so it is worrying. It is worrying that people are. Are, approaching this in such a naive, partisan manner. But that unfortunately, that unfortunately actually is the truth today. And that's been the truth. to my great regret about actually the Maha agenda is that it has just become a totally partisan issue. Our RFK junior Talks about, you know, people eating more meat. People should eat more meat. It's good for you. You know, you need cholesterol, you need the high quality protein. Oh, that's just, you know, that's just, that's a conspiracy theory. That's just RFK Jr. You know, with his brain worm. you know, people really have. People really have fractured, along partisan lines about these issues. And it's very, very difficult to speak to them in a way that actually breaks through that conditioning, and gets them to think for themselves.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Covid just completely changed the conversation in so many ways. but it also, unfortunately, because of the severe decline in lack of trust in institutions and that, you know, we. I think we generally as a society thought, okay, you know, doctors are, are making decisions in our best interests. And we had this kind of fundamental level of trust, as a society, and Covid just completely obliterated that.
Jenna Bennett: We do need to restore trust in the medical industry
And so how much of this conversation as well, is important to balance, because while we obviously need to be concerned and push back against, Democrats like Shapiro, who are, wanting to Use health authority is a pretext to attain more government power and authority and override, individual rights. How much of that? And if we can extend the break, we're supposed to go to 25. Thanks. and ah, how much of that is about also balancing our expectations and not being so convinced that everybody in the health industry now is working against us? Because I see the other side of it as well, that some people just have zero trust now for anybody. And in the healthcare industry. And that's not a great thing either.
Raw Egg Nationalist: No, no it isn't. I mean swinging from one from one side to the other, yeah, is, is a bad thing. I mean, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate medical treatments. Doctors aren't necessarily out to profit from your sickness. There are a lot of good people. I mean part of the problem is, yes, we've had this pandemic, enormous suspicion, justified I think, about the way that big, pharma can collude in the suppression of individual liberties for the sake of profit and power. and a lot of people have had bad experiences with doctors. Probably everybody has had a bad experience with a doctor in their lifetime if they've lived long enough. But nevertheless, yes, we do have to have some trust in the medical industry. We do have to have some trust in medical professionals, because there are a lot of good people, there are some bad people. There are a lot of good people too. So. But it's hard to see actually how you are going to do that. It is hard to see how you repair trust in the medical industry after it has been, and the profession after it has been so degraded for so long. It's going to take a while, I think. And obviously measures like this from Josh Shapiro, where he has so openly talked about, you know, vaccines, vaccination, you know, it employs 4,000 people and it's 4 billion, $4.7 billion a year. You know that when people speak that openly, when people in power speak that openly, then people listen. And so, I mean, I think in the short term, I think what you are probably going to see actually is you're going to see people leaving states like Pennsylvania because of this. people are going to vote with their feet. I think as they voted with their feet. You know, entrepreneurs and people who make money have voted with their feet to leave California. it's not just taxation and sort of anti growth and anti entrepreneurial statutes that are going to make people leave. It will also be health mandates too. And in fact, actually I just saw before I came on the air to speak to you, Jenna, that there's an ongoing case in NewSong York State involving the Amish, I think, over. Over vaccination. And they're saying that they're going to leave NewSong York State, because they, they just refuse to submit to mandatory medical treatments that they don't agree with for religious reasons. So yeah, in. In the long term, we are going to have to do something to restore trust in in medicine as a discipline because it does have benefits. It has huge benefits, but potentially as well as drawbacks. But yes, I think in the short term we're going to see people voting with their feet and leaving Pennsylvania if this kind of stuff comes in.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And it's so, ironic to me that, you know, Shapiro is suggesting that he should have the authority to make medical, decisions for, you know, individuals and and parents and their families, but he should be free to reject Washington's vaccine recommendations. So it's almost like, okay, well, as a state we're rejecting the federal recommendations, but you, as the individual can't reject the state's recommendations and coercions. And so it's. It seems like, he thinks parents shouldn't have some corresponding freedom to reject, you know, his and Big Pharma's advice. And so, you know, this just gets into a whole host of legal problems as well. And I think this is going to continue to be a conversation, that we need to have as a country in a variety of different areas as well. I mean, not just within the context of Big Pharma, but also, you know, in the context of just government authority in general. As we've seen, more and more of the. The rise of the the DSA and the Democrat socialist candidates who want, to dictate, so much of the American liberty away. And that's a really, concerning problem.
Jenna Ellis: Is this attempt to attain power through health pretexts continuing
But really quickly, just in the last two minutes we have with you, is this kind of attempt to continue to attain power through health pretexts like what Shapiro is doing? Is that being reflected anywhere else, like in other countries, like in Europe? Are they continuing to try to build on what happened during Cove yes,
Raw Egg Nationalist: I think there are. They are trying to do that. And I mean, I wrote a piece actually for American Mind publication of the Claremont Institute, I think in about 2023 or 2024, called the Nexus of what's Next. And I was talking very specifically about the way that the kind of pandemic surveillance, monitoring of disinformation and Misinformation has been integrated into healthcare companies, big pharma companies themselves. So companies like Moderna, which, which produced one of the MRNA vaccines for Cove 19, now has its own misinformation and disinformation department that works with social media companies and works with national governments, to monitor anti vaccine sentiment. so, yeah, I mean this, this isn't going away. These, these are powerful, powerful tools not only for monitoring people's thoughts and behavior, but also for monitoring their consumer choices as well. And there's huge amounts of money and authority on the line.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, it is. And this is a huge amount of liberty on the line as well. And so this is why we need to pay attention to what's going on in all of the various states. We need to pay attention to what goes on in Washington. And you know, these are maybe issues that right now, people aren't talking about, more broadly in the context of affordability and you know, some of the other things that are bigger hot topics, for the midterms. But this is why elections matter, from the state, level all the way to the federal level, because, medical freedom and freedom in all, areas of life and liberty is going to matter, moving forward. So raw egg nationalists really appreciate, appreciate it. You can follow him on X and we will be right back with more. 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.net give that's afr.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Meta, which controls Facebook, Instagram, settles child privacy lawsuit for $18 billion
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, yesterday, Meta, which of course controls, Facebook, Instagram and is, Mark Zuckerberg's big conglomerate, agreed to one of the largest settlements of its capital kind in American history, up to $18 billion, to resolve claims that Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to keep children hooked on their platform. So the case was brought by states across the country, which accused Meta not simply of creating popular social media platforms, but of using addictive design features to entice and retain young users, misleading parents and the public about the risks, improperly collecting data from children under 13. Meta has denied wrongdoing. And so the settlement is, about more than just money. It kind of gets Meta a little bit off of the hook of having to, go and face a trial and actually have all of this come out in the context of court. But Meta has also, under the terms of the settlement that have been reported, agreed to sweeping changes for teenagers. A, default, two hour daily limit restrictions, overnight notifications turned off during school hours, stronger age verification, hidden like counts, and other safeguards that are allegedly aimed at fundamentally changing how minors interact with Instagram and Facebook. But this raises a bigger question. At what point does a technology company cross the line from providing a product for people to choose to deliberately engineering a product to exploit the vulnerabilities of children? And when that happens, what is the proper role of parents, government, and the law, and also, these platforms in stepping in?
Mike Donnelly discusses the Meta settlement with Jenna Deuteronomy
Well, let's welcome in Mike Donnelly, who is an attorney and one of our favorite guests, to discuss, you know, all kinds of, legal issues. And this one is, is fascinating from a number of levels. So, Mike Donnelly, what do you make, ultimately of this settlement?
Mike Donnelly: Well, good morning, Jenna. Good morning, friends, brothers and sisters. Hope everyone listening is having a lovely day today. Great to be back to chat with you about some legal issues. I don't know, is it me, Jenna, or does 18 billion just not sound like a lot of money anymore? I mean, our country is $40 trillion in debt. You know, how many hundreds of billions of dollars or wasting away through fraud. And, you know, you said this is one of the largest settlements of its kind. 18 billion. I mean, it isn't, it's. It seems like a lot of money, but I don't know, it doesn't sound like so much anymore. and it wasn't enough for James Utmeyer in Florida, apparently, because he said, no, we're not, we're not, we're not joining the settlement because, you know, one month, I think he said something like one month of cash flow doesn't make up for a decade of harm. Putting this in context, I mean, Met as annual revenue is $200 billion. It is a $1.5 trillion company. so I don't know, what do you think? 18 billion didn't sound like that much to me.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I'm not sure that it's so much about the money as trying to get Meta to actually change their practices. You know, that may ultimately be more valuable states than what the, the penalty that Meta has to pay. and, and you're right, though, that, Florida's Attorney General, James Uthmeyer, and he said this on X, Florida didn't join the Meta settlement. The payouts are peanuts compared to the profound harms Meta's profit driven Addictive features inflicted on kids and a slap on the wrist for a trillion dollar corporation that will pay more to lawyers than to the state. So we'll see them at trial. And, and so he's right about that. And he certainly thinks that the penalty, isn't steep enough because probably, that isn't a good enough incentive because Meta, at the end of the day, is profit driven. it's not doing this philanthropically. And so the government is having to come in and say, wait a minute, your practices are harmful. They're destructive and we need to force you, to not inflict these harms on kids. And so from, from my perspective, at least I think that what, what this settlement requires of Meta in terms of changing its practices and whether that can actually be enforced, that's probably more valuable than any range of actual financial benefit to the states or negative, you know, to Meta, that it might take.
Mike Donnelly: Yeah, I think that's a good point. And you know, it's interesting because this really is a product design issue. You know, this is a product liability issue, which, you know, we lawyers, we like to talk about torts sometimes. And product liability is a very complicated area of tort law. I enjoyed my product liability and torts class in law school many, many
Jenna Ellis: years ago because we're just crazy like that, that we actually enjoyed law school.
Mike Donnelly: But yeah, yeah, well, I didn't enjoy all of it. I did. But I did enjoy the tort class. I had a great professor and I thought product liability was very interesting, you know, because it looks at, holding a company accountable through the courts. Which is what, which is what, you know, the court system is for. It's for accountability purposes. If you commit a crime, you're going to be held accountable. Accountable if you create harm, there is, a mechanism for you to seek redress or a remedy for the harm for you or for your children. Right? And ultimately, you know, God gives parents the responsibility to bring up children. Right. Ephesians 6:4 says, Parent, fathers, raise your children in the admonition and nurture of the Lord. Ephesians 6:4. And you know, also in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 6:4, the great Shema, hear Israel, the Lord your God is one, and you shall teach these things to your children. You know, so the Old and NewSong Testament, and it's interesting to me that it's 6, 4 in both chapters. I don't know if that has any significance, but, you know, God gives parents the responsibility to raise children and you know, Facebook, the issue that came, the issue that brought this case about was, you know, in 2021, a whistleblower, Francis Hagen, came out and said, hey, look, Facebook knows that Instagram's having a negative effect on children and teenagers, and they are doing it knowingly. And that prompted congressional hearings in 2023. And then state attorneys general said, aha, product liability. You're designing the product in such a way that it is going to harm someone. And the state attorneys generals exercising their authority, which God gives to the civil government. Right. Romans 13 talks about the role of, of government is to protect the innocent and children are innocent. Right. And so it is the role of government to protect children from harm. And when a company is doing that, then I think it's appropriate for the government to step in. A lot of libertarians will say, oh, no, we got to keep the government out. People have to make their own decisions. Right. I don't subscribe to that view. I think government appropriately can step in and do this. So I think this is a good use. I mean, I think people could have done it themselves too. But it's still very different when scores of attorney generals from, you know, Banta in California, no conservative, and, you know, J.B. mcCutskey in West Virginia, no liberal, join together and they say, look, we're going to hold you accountable. So I think there's a lot there to discuss, but I think this is good, holding that accountable. They're going to make some changes. But I'm also glad that Florida is going to continue forward because you know what? We really don't know what they knew. And So I think 18 billion isn't really that much, in the grand scheme of things. And hopefully James Admire can get some more money out of them and actually send a message not just to Instagram and Meta, but to the rest of the industry that this is a theory of liability that you are now at risk of being subject to. And I think that will change the calculation in the industry and they'll start thinking more about designing products that are not going to be as harmful. Kids.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And this is, a really interesting policy angle because this is, as we've talked about, bigger than a damages settlement because the states have effectively used this kind of product liability litigation to establish something approaching a national regulatory regime for minors on social media, but without Congress passing one. So that's, that's kind of an unusual, component just because they all, as you mentioned, you know, coordinated and kind of came m together to, to force Meta to do that. But then there's also the unusual competitive component where Meta is Now, pushing TikTok and YouTube to adopt the same rules. And so if, and if they do, the framework becomes stricter and Meta's, payout increases. So I mean essentially Meta's argument is that the restrictions don't work if a 15 year old skill can simply migrate from, from Instagram to TikTok. But now because of Meta's own restrictions in this settlement, there's an incentive, a business incentive, not really a philanthropic one, to say, well, now these rules need to be imposed on everybody else since, you know, now we can't exploit children, don't allow anybody else to.
Mike Donnelly: Well, well that's true. you know, and you know, TikTok and the, and the other social media platforms, X and such, are very large companies. And you know, this is, this is kind of the free market at work here. I kind of like how this is coming about, you know, without Congress getting involved. You know, we don't want Congress to get involved in things that it doesn't, have constitutional authority to get involved with. you know, state attorneys generals getting together. I think that's, that's good. I mean this is, this is what Americans do. We see a problem and we solve it. you know, is this going to have an effect on the rest of the industry? I mean, that remains to be seen, but I think that the other platforms are on notice that if they don't make changes, they could be next. of course this particular lawsuit did hinge a little bit on the whistleblower. Right.
Mike Donnelly says the government needs to regulate social media
I mean, Meta knew what it was doing and it was doing so knowingly, which is really, which is quite relevant. I'm not sure if any of that evidence exists for TikTok or X or any other ones. I don't think you can just implicitly say, well, they're social media platforms as well and therefore, you know, they have to follow the same rules.
Jenna Ellis: Right, right. And you know, and you mentioned as well, and I totally agree with your analysis that, you know, some would say, well, you know, this isn't the government's job to impose these kinds of regulations that should belong to the parent, but you know, the parent still has authority over, you know, what their kid actually uses. And so even though there are these default mechanisms, some of them can be, overridden by parents if they want to for whatever reason.
Mike Donnelly: but are you saying that parents don't ask to let their children have a Facebook or Instagram account.
Jenna Ellis: Right. Shocking breaking news here. Yeah, parents can actually, determine for their children that they're not going to give them a smartphone or access to social media. and that may be something that parents want to contemplate in light of all of this. but, you know, but of course, some parents just aren't going to take that much of an interest in their children's, online content and usage. But beyond that, you know, it's not about the government deciding for parents, it's about ensuring that the product itself is not designed to inflict harm. And that's something that, you know, as you rightly point out, Mike Donnelly, that is something that is, ah, one of the legitimate attributes of government that it needs to do in all kinds of, in a variety of forms. I mean, not just with respect to children, not just with respect to social media, but the government needs to ensure that, companies aren't profiting off of any products that knowingly inflict harm.
Mike Donnelly: I think that's right. I think that, you know, when we come together, we, you know, government is a protector of our rights, but we also, you know, expect government to pass laws and we create a court system so that we, the people can hold criminals accountable. But also, you know, this isn't necessarily criminal. Although when you knowingly, you know, create a product that imposes harm on someone, I mean, there is some criminal culpability there. So it's squarely within the role of government, Biblical. Government's biblical authority to take action, even when, you know, people could do it themselves. Like individual, plaintiffs could have banded together and filed a class action lawsuit against, Meta. But I don't know if that's happening. I mean, maybe that will happen. now. I mean, I don't think that. I'm not sure if that's foreclosed. you know, this was the Attorney General getting together. you know, it'd be interesting if some class action lawyers, which, you know, I, I kind of want to get in on that action, you know, when, when you, said most of the money will go to lawyers, you know, that is for sure. Not, maybe not most, but a lot of it will. And class action lawsuits are very lucrative, although they're very difficult, which is one of the reasons they, you know, they, they are always prosecuted. so at any rate, yeah, so I think that, you know, this is good, probably a good outcome where it's going to lead, you know, we'll see.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Well, we're going to take a break here, Mike. Donnelly, really appreciate your analysis on this. He's going to stay with us through the break, because we have another really interesting, case to talk about and touches on, some constitutional issues. So we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the morning. And during the break, go and follow, Mike Donnelly on exit at Donnelly Speaks. And, you can go and follow him and also follow me across social media platforms as well. And again, we'll be right back.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
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 and 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.
A lawsuit challenging Nebraska's public schools could open a path toward universal school choice
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. I'm still here with my special guest, Mike Donnelly today. And this is an interesting, story in the Washington Post, actually by our friend Cory DeAngelis. And, the headline is, are public schools unconstitutional? A Nebraska court will decide. So a lawsuit, was filed in Nebraska on August 13th and brings that argument into court and Corrie says could open a path toward universal school choice. Nebraska law requires parents to enroll children in a, quote, public, private, denominational or parochial, school or to homeschool them. Non compliance is a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fee fine. Yet the state offers educational benefits, roughly $19,000 per student statewide in 2024 through 2025, and about, $17,400 in Lincoln, Nebraska, only to families that enroll their children in public schools, thus accepting the government's preferred viewpoints. So this is a really interesting case that's, being set up. So, Mike, what do you think?
Mike Donnelly: Wow. Jenna, how much time do we have left? I know, 10 minutes. we don't have enough time. But friends, this is fascinating.
Jenna Ellis: And Tim, this is why you need to give me yet another hour. So we keep, we keep like poking Tim Wildmon on that.
Mike Donnelly: So if you promise, if you owe you another hour. Yeah, definitely. We need at least an hour to talk about this one. But, this is so fascinating. So much to talk about here. Philip Hamburger is a brilliant legal scholar, very, just awesome Columbia law professor who has written about the administrative state. And he's, a family man as well. And he's like, you know, I don't like the fact that the government takes my money and forces me to send my kids to their school where they get to fill my kids head with their chosen craziness. Okay. And he's like, he's written some law review articles about this. And you know, really, this is his idea. and he's like, we've got to challenge this. And he came up with this theory, of free speech. And putting this in the context of free speech, because children as minors, yes, they have rights, but their parents really are the guardians of their rights until they reach the age of majority. And parents have authority over their children, which includes exercising their free speech rights, which includes the right not to be subject to government indoctrination. Okay? And so that's the theory. And so there's another theory that layers on that, which is called the unconstitutional conditions theory, which says that, you can't condition the receipt of a public benefit on an unconstitutional condition. What's the unconstitutional condition? Subjecting kids to speech with which they don't agree. Now you're like, everybody's heads are twirling, right? Like, what do you mean? What does this have to do with free speech? Is this education? Well, my friends, what is education? What do kids listen to when they're in the classroom? They're listening to speech all the time. I mean, education is really speech. The teachers are talking to them, right? The students are talking back. It's speech. And so why should this not come under the first Amendment Bill Hamburger theorizes. And I agree. I think it's fascinating. I mean, look, schools have been captured by the left. We know this. they serve teachers unions. I mean, you know, we've talked about this. Teachers unions, you know, you know, don't necessarily, care about kids Education. That's why he's getting worse. so the idea here that the government says you must send your child to school unless you do it in some other approved method, meaning a private school or homeschool, and we're going to take your money from you and we're then going to subject your kids to what we want to. And oh, by the way, you don't get to tell us whether you like it or not. Sometimes there's these little meager opt out laws on certain topics like sex education or you know, that sort of thing.
This case could eventually migrate into the federal courts
But you know, it's time I think for this issue to really be discussed in our country and I hope this case will begin that it's starting in Nebraska, which started the whole parents rights under the constitution concept over 100 years ago with Mire v. Nebraska in 1923. And then you had Peirce Society of Sisters which followed that, which was an Oregon case which sort of said, the Supreme Court of the United States said look, parents rights are one of those ninth and tenth Amendment rights that is implicit. And so we're going to exercise authority here. So, so this is a state case, but ultimately this could migrate into the federal courts. And I think it's going to be very interesting to watch.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is a really fascinating analysis and and theory of course as of the case because you know, for a long time, I mean we've kind of, or the government at least has operated under this presumption and that it can tax us and use our tax dollars however it prefers and we don't have the standing or the option to to really object to that or to say, you know, we want to opt out of certain programs. I mean certainly here in the state of Florida, one of the things with the whole property tax issue that's being debated and will be on the ballot in November is that a lot of people objected to you know, any of the, of the property tax, benefits, going and ensuring that there was no impact to public schools. But you know, even even though like for example I don't have kids, I'm not going to be in the situation of determining where I'm sending my kids. But even as just a taxpayer, why am I funding a specific viewpoint under the theory that this is a government benefit that's provided to the community, but then add on, you know, the layer to that that then parents are compelled by the government to to not only fund those viewpoints, but then there's a criminal penalty if they, if they don't actually send you know, their kids to to hear from the state and have that kind of non viewpoint neutral, offering by the government. And so, you know, how much of this could, this type of theory, if successful could be advanced potentially in other ways that our tax dollars are being utilized? Like for example, I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions. I don't want my tax dollars funding, you know, a lot of things that the government does. And so is, do you, do you think that that might be a barrier, in terms of precedent and more broadly if this reaches, you know, the appellate levels, which it likely will.
Mike Donnelly: Yeah, I think this will, I think this is going to head, this will head to the Supreme Court from the Nebraska Supreme Court eventually. and you know, it's just so interesting the history here that, you know, the guys who are doing this lawsuit is the NewSong Civil Liberties alliance, which was founded by Phil Hamburger a few years ago to really impose constitutional rule back on, on the government and for our benefit, for the benefit of the people. So they're doing all kinds of really interesting things. In fact, they were the ones who were responsible for the repeal of Chevron, the overruling of Chevron and the whole concept of Chevron deference, in the administrative state. But, you know, applying this to other areas. Yeah, I think, I think so. you know, I think the free speech, the speech element here is novel, but I think it fits and I think, let's see where this goes with, with this particular one. You know, you don't get to just tell the government you don't want, you know, to fund the police department or, you know, you don't want to fund, you know, abortion. That's something that the lawmakers decide in allocating money according to the budget and according to law. So, you know, there's an interesting intersection here between the federal constitution and states. Right. So this is the 14th amendment issue. Right, that's. We've talked about this before and I'm not a huge fan of this concept of substantive due process, which is kind of what's being used here to apply the First Amendment to Nebraska's compulsory attendance law. Because generally states have authority to regulate education in their state and the federal government doesn't. You don't see the word education anywhere in the federal constitution.
Jenna Ellis: Right, right.
Mike Donnelly: And so lots of interesting theories moving around here. I'm not really sure how it would apply to anything else because I haven't thought about it yet. I'm going to have to put my thinking cap on on that one. But I think you know, this one is you know, appropriate, you know, speech. If we're going to apply speech to the states and say, look, you've got to respect people's speech that also, you know, and you add that to parental rights and this unconstitutional conditions argument. There's three bases here for, for arguing that the government cannot, cannot compel parents to send their kids to school to be subject to government speech and take their money and also threaten them with criminal prosecution. Something has to give.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's really the thrust of the lawsuit is to is that the structure overall, is what needs to change. And it's not suggesting, you know, of course that public schools or government funded schools, should no longer exist or you know, some of those kind of extreme examples. And so you know, the remedy here would be that the tax the taxpayer dollars follow the students are basically universal school choice. And are they also asking though that the criminal penalty also be removed so that parents could decide, you know, how exactly to educate their child and it's not under threat of criminal punishment from the government.
Mike Donnelly: What the lawsuit is seeking is a declaratory judgment. Right. They are looking for the Nebraska courts to declare that this is that the compulsory school laws are unconstitution constitutional as they're currently written. you know, and, and they're kind of leaving it up to the courts to decide how they want to issue a remedy. I think any of those remedies are available. I find it more likely and more to my liking that the courts would say, you know what, under our current constitutional regime, compulsory tenants laws are unconstitutional. Not what Corrie and I think what Phil would prefer, which is, look, legislature of Nebraska, you have to change the funding scheme because that's really the province of the legislature. It's more appropriate for a court to say that the rules are unconstitutional than to order the legislature to spend money on something, meaning redirect funds to this universal school choice idea, which I know Cory's all for that and that's what he wants. And that's fine if the legislature says decides to do that. But I, I question whether the court is likely to order that as a remedy.
Jenna Ellis: Interesting. Well, we're already out of time and so many more areas we could go into, including you know, the 14th amendment, 16th, amendment, you know, this is on all of these things. But Mike Donnelly, really appreciate it and hope to talk with you again soon. Again follow him on X at Donnelly Speaks and as always, you can reach me and my team. Jenna AFR. 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? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis discusses the ongoing vaccine controversy in Pennsylvania, focusing on Governor Josh Shapiro's push for vaccine mandates and the implications for personal freedoms. Joined by Charles Cornishdale, also known as Raw Egg Nationalist, they delve into the intersection of public health policy and individual rights, questioning the motives behind government health mandates and the accuracy of reported vaccine-related deaths. Mike Donnelly joins later to discuss Social Media and if the Government needs to get involved
(00:00) Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound it's divine connection
(01:01) There is a controversy in Pennsylvania surrounding vaccines
(03:26) Raw Egg Nationalist says Pennsylvania's anti-vaccine measures are concerning
(14:09) Jenna Bennett: We do need to restore trust in the medical industry
(19:13) Jenna Ellis: Is this attempt to attain power through health pretexts continuing
(22:00) Meta, which controls Facebook, Instagram, settles child privacy lawsuit for $18 billion
(23:46) Mike Donnelly discusses the Meta settlement with Jenna Deuteronomy
(32:41) Mike Donnelly says the government needs to regulate social media
(36:45) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
(38:01) A lawsuit challenging Nebraska's public schools could open a path toward universal school choice
(42:27) This case could eventually migrate into the federal courts
Jenna Ellis discusses the ongoing vaccine controversy in Pennsylvania, focusing on Governor Josh Shapiro's push for vaccine mandates and the implications for personal freedoms. Joined by Charles Cornishdale, also known as Raw Egg Nationalist, they delve into the intersection of public health policy and individual rights, questioning the motives behind government health mandates and the accuracy of reported vaccine-related deaths. Mike Donnelly joins later to discuss Social Media and if the Government needs to get involved
(00:00) Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound it's divine connection
(01:01) There is a controversy in Pennsylvania surrounding vaccines
(03:26) Raw Egg Nationalist says Pennsylvania's anti-vaccine measures are concerning
(14:09) Jenna Bennett: We do need to restore trust in the medical industry
(19:13) Jenna Ellis: Is this attempt to attain power through health pretexts continuing
(22:00) Meta, which controls Facebook, Instagram, settles child privacy lawsuit for $18 billion
(23:46) Mike Donnelly discusses the Meta settlement with Jenna Deuteronomy
(32:41) Mike Donnelly says the government needs to regulate social media
(36:45) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
(38:01) A lawsuit challenging Nebraska's public schools could open a path toward universal school choice
(42:27) This case could eventually migrate into the federal courts
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:
