Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life
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.
Taylor Fresh Foods recalls certain prepared products due to potential salmonella contamination
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. Today is Thursday, August 13th, and Taylor Fresh Foods or Taylor Farms is back in the news for voluntarily recalling, more than 20 ready to eat prepared products containing jalapenos, such as, salsas, guac wraps and burritos. Maybe the $20 burritos here is, getting contaminated due to potential salmonella contamination. So, you can go online and look at what products, have been affected because they're not necessarily labeled as Taylor Farms. They've been distributed through, a lot of the big box stores such as, Whole Foods, Target, Walmart, et cetera, Trader Joe's, even across 26 states. But this raises a bigger question as well, just about how we import food, the cleanliness standards and why a lot of, these types of recalls continue to happen. So let's welcome in Charles Cornishdale, who goes by the moniker Raw Egg Nationalist and you can follow him on social media. he's kind of our go to specialist for all things health and nutrition. So good morning. Raw egg. And you know, this is yet another scandal for Taylor Farms specifically. But, you know, this does raise, a broader implications that, you know, President Trump has been talking about since his first administration about, manufacturing and also, farming locally and domestically, so that hopefully we have better standards than a lot of these imports.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Jenna. So, yeah, I mean, I think this issue, this ongoing issue of cleanliness and of people getting quite serious, illnesses from foreign imported foods, particularly vegetables and salads. Yeah, it does. It raises important issues about standards, about the benefits and the deficits of relying on imported products and imported labour. So you know, we've already got this, you've already got this huge, cyclospirasis, outbreak which is ongoing in the U.S. pretty much all states. I think Maybe something like 12 or 15 states haven't been affected by this. This is a very unpleasant, diarrheal bug that is associated particularly with salad products that have been, imported from Mexico. And now you've got this salmonella warning as well. The same, company, Taylor Farms, and part of the problem with this as well is that, you can stop buying Taylor Farms goods, you can stop buying the branded goods in Walmart or wherever, and you can avoid going to fast food outlets that use Taylor to Taylor Farms products. But actually a lot of these products are sold unbranded, wholesale in the US without any identification. that would tell you that they're from Taylor Farms. So actually you're kind of. It's a lot. It's a real lottery at the moment. If you are buying, lettuce, if you're buying vegetables, peppers, etc, and you're not buying them from a trusted source from a, know, from a local farmer or whoever, then yeah, you're taking, you're taking a big risk. And so, we really do need to think, I think, about food safety and about the benefits and deficits of relying so heavily on countries like Mexico to produce certain kinds of produce when we can't be sure actually that the produce is produced to a high enough standard.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And you know, it's interesting to me, I see a lot of these things on social media about you know, some of the ways that customs and border Patrol have seized, products that travelers are trying to import into the United States. Whether that's you know, fruits and vegetables or live bugs or you know, other things that aren't allowed that may ultimately contaminate, our, our food supply and farms and other things. But who is actually very verifying compliance with this type of, you know, massive, importation of, of goods from some of these farms. Because it seems like the FDA simply doesn't have the manpower to inspect more than a fraction of some of these foreign facilities supplying all of this food.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, I think this, I think this is obviously an argument for some kind of enhanced testing regime, certification regime. I mean, I'm not, I'm not sort of down with the kind of granular detail of how the FD FDA inspects imported foods. But what is clear is that whatever it is they're doing isn't good enough. And so whether that means then that what we need is more people at the border inspecting and testing goods coming through, or whether we actually need to send people from the US to the farms in Mexico and wherever to carry out spot inspections, unannounced inspections. maybe, maybe it's a combination of both. Maybe, maybe we actually need to do both. But we, we definitely need to do something because you know, I mean this is untenable. You can't have produce coming in from the US that sit up into the US that sickens tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. It's just not tenable. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And you know, a lot of, a lot of us, I think, myself included, had kind of assumed that, you know, if we're getting the organic labeled produce and and high quality food, from somewhere like a Trader Joe's or a Whole Foods or sprouts, you know, then that's better quality and ultimately, ah, better for you than some of the other you know, GMO rays or pesticides or you know, some of those things that we've been told by the media are the things that we need to watch out for. But this seems like it's striking across the board. I mean, whether you buy your produce from Walmart or whether you get it at a lot more expensive price somewhere like a Whole Foods, it really doesn't matter ultimately if the source itself that is, distributing to all of these different, big box stores is contaminated and is the same. And so should there be labeling on some of these items that that would say that they're imported versus from a domestic farm? Because that seems to be maybe the quality control standard.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes, yes, I think that is probably one thing that definitely needs to happen. I certainly think that consumers need to be able to make better informed choices about the products. You know, okay, do I, do I want to eat this, you know, cheap lettuce that's come from Mexico and risk having a bout of cyclosporiasis or will I spend a little bit more money and buy from an American farm? But it's worth saying too that actually, you know, there have been some similar outbreaks actually as a result of produce produced in the US where you have cheap immigrant labor being used and they're not allowed to use proper toilet facilities in the fields or there aren't proper toilet facilities available. And so they go to the loo in the fields and you know, contaminate the produce.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so it, I mean there needs to be standards across the board. Because when, when it comes to the contamination, generally speaking, at least with some of these reports, it seems, seems like the problem is the labor and the sanitary conditions, not necessarily the actual condition or quality of the produce itself. So you know, a lot more that needs to be done through the FDA and standards. And you know, overall, conservatives talk about minimizing regulation, reducing the red tape. Often that's a very good thing. But conservatives also need to recognize when some standards are good and when we want the government to enforce, some of these, especially labor standards and sanitary cleanliness standards, to make sure that we have what is a reasonable expectation, for the cleanliness and hygiene of our health. And you can hear Todd in the background, my dog by the way, who's saying hi through his squeak toy. so, he's chiming in this morning and I know a lot of you love, my dog is Todd and Copper. So they say hi, but I want to turn to another topic as well.
Lindsay Clancy is facing three counts of first degree murder for murdering children
Raw egg. And this is, ah, from Lindsay Clancy, who, this is an just absolutely horrific murder trial that's underway in Plymouth Superior Court. And she's apparently a former nurse who's facing three counts of first degree murder for murdering her own children. And her defense is claiming severe postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors argue that the act was calculated after she sent her husband on an errand. And there was, there's been a lot of reports about the psychiatrist that was called as an expert witness to testify and how just how many of these ssri, you know, mind altering drugs that this woman was on. And while, you know, it's my opinion that regardless of, you know, the postpartum depression, postpartum issues, which are definitely real things, that's never a justification for murdering your own children. And and yet also some of the some of the blame here should be on, and scrutiny certainly should be on some of these psychiatrists. One, of whom allegedly during the trial, from some of the reports that I read, hadn't even met this woman before prescribing her so many different, mind altering drugs. And so I think raw egg. The question is, where should we as a nation draw the line and say, okay, we need to have some medical solutions for genuine mental health concerns. But sometimes a lot of those issues are actually the result of over prescription and over dependence on a lot of these drugs that simply are over prescribed.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Oh, well, yeah, I mean, I think, look, I think we have to recognize that there is a genuine, I think, mental health crisis in the modern world, across the modern world. Not just in the U.S. but in Britain, in Scotland. you know, modern life is stressful in various different ways. In many ways actually that sort of have no parallel in human history, you know. So people, people, I think people are suffering and people are having difficulties adjusting to the realities of the modern world. Economic hardship, social hardship, sort of changing relationships, all this kind of stuff. But I don't think there's no question that these drugs are a, are very, very powerful and we don't fully understand their effect and B, they are over prescribed. And there is definitely a tendency to put people on SSRIs on antidepressants, for any reason, whatsoever. I mean, my, my mum, for example, went to the doctor a while ago, for. For a sort of minor ailment that was bothering her. And the doctor suggested that she should go on SSRIs because it was upsetting her. I mean, just, just insane. But you know, with these SSRIs then there is a persistent link to violence that I think is under explored and needs to be researched more. It's worth remembering, for example, that one of the Columbine killers, Rick Harris, was on a very, very powerful early SSRI called Luvox. And he went cold turkey, I think about a week before or maybe even a couple of days before the killings because he'd visited a U.S. m, Marines recruiting office. And they told him, you can't join the Marines if you're on, on Luvox. So he went cold turkey. And there was always, always a very clear suggestion that that might have affected his behavior. There's other research, I think there's research from Scandinavia, for example, large scale research that shows, an increase in violent behavior among people who take ssri. So there's this. There is this persistent question about actually some very serious behavioral side effects that could, that could come as a result from these psychotropic drugs. So, I mean, I mean, yeah, the crime itself is horrifying. I mean, nobody can condone or excuse the murder of children, especially not by their own parents. I mean, that's an unthinkable thing for the vast majority of people for a good reason. But I do think that these drugs, yes, we need to get a handle on prescription, over prescription, and we need to understand the side effects because better so we can deal with them and prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening in the first place.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And it is just a tragedy overall and you're absolutely right that part of the over prescription is, doctors being willing to prescribe, for almost any reason. I mean, so many young people as well. I've seen a lot of, teachers, college, professors saying that, you know, kids, now their main excuse for not wanting to do anything and to get on some of these drugs is having anxiety. As if, just the mere fact of feeling nervous about, you know, whether it's a term paper, whether it's an upcoming project or you know, quote unquote, having anxiety. I mean, that's it, that's a real feeling. But it's not necessarily a negative that we should shield, children from, or young people or college students, you know, and young adults, from going through life. And yet it seems like the, the entire medical profession is, Is enabling so many people, for whatever reason, whether you are, depressed, whether you have feelings of guilt that maybe are true, whether you have, anxiety, whether you just, you know, feel down, that. That somehow we have this view in the Western world that we should never experience a negative emotion and we would rather completely, zone ourselves out on these really powerful drugs, regardless of some of the very negative side effects like you know, suicidal ideation, and among other things. And this poses a real risk to society. Yet it seems like there's ah, not enough money and lobby that is willing to push for more studies. Because obviously Big Pharma is benefiting from this over prescription.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we do have to look at the corporate incentives that are driving this. I often say this, and it might sound glib, but look, there's no money in telling a young person who feels a bit down, go out and get some sunlight, do some exercise. and yet we know from all sorts of studies that actually, you know, doing exercise, getting sunlight, eating a bit better, will have just as profound, if not a more profound effect on your health than resorting to a pill. But pills make lots of money. And yes, I mean, I think it is. I think it's a severe dereliction of duty actually, by the people who run our societies, by the people in charge to tell young people that actually, you know, any kind of encounter with uncertainty, which is an, integral part of growing up, you know, you're discovering who you are, you're learning who you are, you're learning what the world is like. You're. You're making mistakes, you're doing things right too. It's a process of adjustment and your body is being flooded with hormones that change the way that you feel and change actually physically who you are. And that isn't something that you can do away with with a pill. There's no cure for that. That's a process of adjustment that you have to go through in order to change from a child to a man or a woman. So yeah, I mean I think it's a very severe dereliction of duty. But also you can understand the corporate Inc behind it. It's just to make a huge amount of money.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, we have to take a break here. a lot more to be said on this topic. But you're absolutely right. And I think as a society, and especially as Christians and conservatives, we need to be looking at what type of of remedies that we are actually advocating for for some of these issues that may or may not actually be a problem. And so you know, certainly there are there are some real things and real negative emotions that people go through, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should be shielded from those emotions or from going through life. And sometimes, oftentimes the resolution is to get your thinking correct and your heart right with the Lord and responding to the truth instead of simply medicating or over medicating yourself to not deal with reality. So raw egg, really appreciate it. Again you can follow him on X and we will be right back with more.
Jenna Ellis: Over prescription of mind altering drugs raises biblical questions
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 podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net forward slg that's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And we're staying with the topic of this Lindsay Clancy case because I want to talk about the criminal law issues that are implicit in this defense. but when we're talking, talking about mind altering drugs and being prescribed or in many cases over prescribed some of these drugs for the Christian, this also raises biblical questions and stewardship questions as well because we often will advocate against illicit drug use, will advocate against getting drunk with wine, which the Bible clearly forbids, with alcohol. And yet when a doctor prescribes a medication that is a mind altering drug, often we don't think twice about it and just say, oh well you know, this is what my doctor is prescribing but really in the sense that it is mind altering, there's no distinction. And the Christians should be a lot more careful of what drugs we are actually willing to take. Now modern medicine, of course, is a great thing, and I'm certainly not suggesting that there aren't some remedies that are necessary in in the mental health sphere. But what I am saying is that the Christian needs to be a lot more careful and not just simply be willing to take any or all drugs that you're prescribed for any reason simply because it's from a medical doctor or especially, especially if it's from a psychiatrist or psychologist. we have the Bible that and, and the word of God that deals expressly with man's condition and our heart issues. And when we're dealing with negative feelings, the Bible tells us how to resolve those things and how to move our lives forward in the blessings and the truth of the Lord without resorting to the remedies that the world gives to those who have no hope and can't navigate life through a biblical lens. So, so when we're talking though about. So that's one thing, but when we're talking about the context of justice and criminal law, it's fascinating to see how many times, and especially the rise of the instances of the times that defendants will blame, psychotic drugs. They'll blame, you know, other things besides their own accountability in order to try to get off the hook and say, well, I have an excuse for my conduct because, you know, I blame, the drug, or I blame, you know, some other reason. And so how should our legal system look at this? So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is a senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. And with respect specifically to the Lindsey Clancy trial, in my mind this isn't a justification whatsoever. however, I do think that the over prescription, which is pretty obvious in this case, that some of the doctors and psychiatrists involved, should be held accountable as well.
Gerard Filitti: I think you're right that there does need to be accountability when we have prescribers, when we have doctors and nurse practitioners who are over under prescribing and the effect of that is to cause harm to a patient, which includes the actions that that patient does which run contrary to the law. and in this case, when you have a patient who comes to you and is alleging suicidal ideation and you're diagnosing them with postpartum, I think based on what we've seen historically happen that you do want to pay close attention to what you're prescribing them and make sure and monitor that so that you don't have issues where there can be claims, of psychotic break or something that leads to harm to especially the children. So I think that in these cases, the medical practitioners do have a higher responsibility. Now, that's a moral assessment, not a legal one. and this is something where the law perhaps needs to catch up a little to what we see as a society.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, because a lot of these prescribers, if there really isn't any accountability other than maybe being subpoenaed and coming in and saying, well, you know, I didn't even meet with the person. And we see that in so many instances of, you know, these trans surgeries now that, in the civil litigation realm that, you know, some of these doctors haven't even, personally met with or examined, these. These detransitioners when they initially said, you know, sure, you're a candidate, to change your gender, which obviously is biologically impossible, but it's having, very severe permanent consequences. And I also, was recalling Gerard, the case of Matthew Perry, you know, the former Friends star and actor who, died of. Of Basically an overdose. And a lot of his, prescribers or simply just drug dealers, ultimately were held accountable in the years following his death because they gave him those drugs. What's really the difference, in terms of potential negative effects? If we are saying that some. We're categorizing as some people are quote, unquote, drug dealers as a society, and that's a negative thing that can be punished criminally. But then we give other people a license essentially to distribute the same illicit, drugs with some of the same consequences. They should be held to an even higher standard because they're licensed and they should know better.
Gerard Filitti: Well, that's precisely it. They're licensed, they attend medical school. They understand the science behind the. Or they should understand the science behind the medicine that. The drugs that they're prescribing. So they should have a higher understanding and a higher culpability when it comes to what happens when someone is taking those. Those drug. Ultimately, I do think that there is a difference between the type of prescription, the type of drugs that restores a balance that was missing for biological purposes, something that your body is not producing, something it should be. And for example, you're given medication that fixes that imbalance versus something that changes your mood, your personality and turns you into Someone you are not. I think that when you have that type of medication at issue, you do have that responsibility of a higher standard because your prescription or lack thereof is what, what's causing potential harm to people, not restoring a balance. And that's, that's the difference between, I think something that, you know, is a biological issue and is a, is more of a moral one.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And the moral can't be separated from the biological or the the responsibility of doctors to ensure that they're following up, you know, with, with their patients as well. I mean, if they're prescribing some of these things that have known side effects and have known, potential risk factors, and they're just, well, you know, try this and go ahead and then, you know, I'll see you in six months. I mean, this isn't really, taking accountability for exactly what's occurring to the patient. And so when it comes to the, the criminal law context and you have someone with, as, as horrific of a, of an instance and, and a crime as, as Lindsey Clancy, how should the court or the jury in this instance weigh the, weigh this and how and the over prescription versus the conduct?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the law for ironically is pretty simple, clear and well defined. It's that the standard is whether she could appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing and control her conduct. and under that standard, you know, the over prescription or under prescription, you're still looking at signals or indicators that she understood that what she was doing was wrong. and that's not so much a matter of the over prescription, that's a matter of her snapshot of her mental state at that time. And when you are engaging in what could be perceived as planning, for example, the allegations that she sent her husband out on, a ah, food run to make sure he was out of the house. When you're engaging in that sort of behavior, then that speaks to the fact that you seem to understand the consequences of your actions regardless of what medicine you're on. So I think it's a different thing because here you are looking at punishing her for her action. could it have been influenced by medicine, by what she was, by the drug she was on? Absolutely. But ultimately she was responsible for her own conduct and she seems to have had, ah, an understanding that she was doing what's wrong.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And the law for a long time has always said, you know, that that even if you aren't fully in control of yourself, if you voluntarily took the substance that created the, The Mind altering situation, then you're still accountable for what you did during that time. So, for example, there, it's not a defense to driving while drunk if you voluntarily took enough alcohol that you put yourself in that category. And so, you know, the. When, when we're talking about prescription though, and saying, okay, well my doctor is saying that this is safe, then, you know, we, we are in kind a little bit different of a category potentially legally. But, but this is where I think that the law needs to have, this kind of distinction that yes, informed consent absolutely matters, but that doctors need to be also more responsible for, the way that they are just treating some of these things and handing out SSRIs like candy. I mean, the studies and the statistics of how many people are on, SSRIs and mind altering drugs is just really staggering. I mean, I was reading a statistic, and I'm not exactly sure what the report, you know, where this is attributed to, but it was saying that, you know, something like, over 40% of women in the career field and even stay at home moms are on some of these antidepressants. And when you look at a society that has to be that medicated, there's something wrong. And it's either with the population or it's with the, the influence of our society or saying that this is the type of, and the societally approved remedy for dealing with life. And and clearly we're suffering some of those consequences in the criminal law realm.
The Supreme Court is set to hear climate accountability case in 2026
but I want to switch topics as well, Gerard, while I still have you. sorry, the. So the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments the first day of its session this fall. So October 5th in 2026 in a landmark, what they're calling climate accountability case. so this is suncorp Energy versus the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. So coming out of my former home state of Colorado, of course, you know, the, the climate change nuts would be out of, out of Boulder. But the high court will decide whether federal law blocks state and local governments from suing major oil companies under state law for climate change disaster costs. So this has been, kind of an underreported case, but may have some pretty major implications. What's your view?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think you're absolutely right that this is a major case that will have major implications regardless of which way the court rules. But the issue ultimately is federal preemption. We see states like California, like Colorado, that rush to create liability or create burdens on businesses at the state level that the federal government does not impose. And oftentimes these things like greenhouse gas emissions, these are things that are harder to comply with at the state level than at the federal level. And when you think about an economy, a national economy, you want these regulations to be national. You don't want to have to deal with a patchwork network of local laws that have different standards and different effects. So what the Supreme Court is asking, is being asked to weigh in on is whether it's federal law that preempts state law and all these state laws should be basically put to rest. And I do think that based on the way the Supreme Court has ruled in recent years, that's likely to be the outcome.
Jenna Ellis: That's really fascinating. And you know, a lot of these cases that are underreported in the media, are going to have massive consequences. And this is why it's important to always stay up on the court's business and what cases are pending. And you know, I can imagine what the next the next session is going to have in store.
Gerard Felitti says a federal grand jury is being convened in Washington
And last topic, for you, Gerard Felitti. And again you can follow him on X, as well as the Law Fair project. there was also a report that came out yesterday that Jeanine Pirro, who is the U.S. attorney Attorney for D.C. has convened a special grand jury in Washington. And so unlike ah, typical grand juries, just for listeners information, those designated a special focus on a single case or related cases and can issue a report following their investigation. this is a pretty rare legal body and officials say, at least according to the Washington Post article that reported this, could pave the way for federal prosecutors to investigate some of the biggest and most controversial cases. No one yet knows what the topic of this is. but what is your perhaps speculation on perhaps why this is being convened and what this may signal?
Gerard Filitti: Why this is being convened I think goes into what a special grand jury can do that's different than a normal grand jury which is issue a report. And that report can make can make conclusions and can make assessments on whether there should be charges brought against someone even when a prosecutor does not. So I think part of this is to get to that report, to that grand jury report that puts together evidence of whatever it is that's being investigated. And that's the million dollar question. Is this something that's going to be looking at Jack Smith? Is this something that's going to be looking at corrupt statistics within the D.C. police Department when It comes to crime, we don't yet know. But I think it makes sense that this might be a higher profile type of case where a indictment is not guaranteed, because it's potentially something that's been politicized or there may not be timely evidence. But nevertheless it's something that we want a thorough investigation of and a report about.
Jenna Ellis: Interesting. so we got to take a break here, but real quickly, do you think that there's a potential that this could also, be due to the Fauci texts and, you know, some of, those issues during COVID as well?
Gerard Filitti: It could be, but I think that here the government is better off coordinating with the states that, that have started these investigations because they have perhaps a higher claim and a higher likelihood of actually getting an indictment and a prosecution than the federal government does at this time. So I think that's less likely, but it is still possible.
Jenna Ellis: All right, well, Gerard Felitti, always really appreciate your analysis and having all of the, all of the topics today that we condensed into one segment. Really appreciate it. I keep telling you, Tim Wildmon, he's got to give me more than an hour so we can do a, deeper dive into some of these topics. But, for now we'll continue the hour of Jenna Ellis in the morning. 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 ah 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 in 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. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning. On American Family Radio.
White House press secretary Caroline Lovett is leaving to focus on her family
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. So the breaking news from Washington yesterday is that Caroline Lovett, who, is the White House press Secretary, is leaving. And she, she posted a really wonderful, actually acknowledgement of her priorities. And she said, you know, of course, that she's thankful to the President for entrusting her with the privilege of speaking on his behalf, you know, all of those accolades. But then she said this. Being a mother and welcoming a new baby while working in one of the most demanding jobs in the world has been the most rewarding yet challenging season of my life, to say the least. The truth is, since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom to my two young, the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy and attention required of the White House press secretary. And that is why I have ultimately made the bittersweet decision to depart the White House and embark on a new chapter in my life. And I have to say I give her tremendous credit for this because she is prioritizing the right thing, first things first. And what she's walking away from is one of the most visible and frankly coveted positions in all of U.S. politics. But think about that for a moment. That pales. All of that pales in comparison to looking into the faces of her two young children. And she is making the right decision and the right priority because being pro family isn't just about campaigning on policy and it's about actually living out those priorities and having first things first. Because she will never get back those years and months and weeks with her two young children, especially at such a critical moment in their lives.
Caroline Levitt says family is more important than office
So let's welcome in Walker Wildmon, who is the vice president here at the American Family association and host of at the The Core on afr. And Walker. I just think this is such a wonderful example of someone who is in a position that, you know, so many people in the political world really want. And she's saying, listen, family is actually so much more important.
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, this shows a, ah, really, impressive degree ah, of wisdom by Caroline Levitt, who by the way is a professing Christian believer, as is much of the White House staff and cabinet as well. so this is coming from Caroline Levitt's position is coming obviously from obviously as a mother, but also from her faith as well. So that's, that's important to note. But to your point, stepping away from such a high profile position and such a very well known position and probably, well, paying position is a very big deal and was probably difficult for her. But to your point, I've never heard anyone on their deathbed say they wish they could work more or they wish they could spend more time away from their children or their loved ones. Nearly every time we're facing the end of this life, the regrets are I didn't do this with my family. I didn't spend enough time, I didn't invest in my family enough. And so what Caroline Levitt is trying to do is trying to avoid those type of regrets. And ultimately her priorities are what or all of our priorities should be. And that is what can I do and where can I invest my time to make the maximum impact, for future generations? And even though obviously the press secretary, position is important, being a mother is more important and the impact that she can have with her children is more lasting than what she can say at the podium, or during media interviews. And so this is a very encouraging thing to see. and we've, we've seen Katy Miller do something similar as well. And so, and then you have the vice president's wife Usha, who just delivered their fourth, either their third or fourth child. That was encouraging as well to see a vice president who's a new dad. Like, I don't know when the last time we saw that was. It's probably been 50 to 70 years at least. but that was encouraging as well. The fact that family is being prioritized and family is being talked about and the fact that children are a blessing from the Lord is being highlighted is a very positive, trend that we haven't seen in a long time from such high level positions.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. I mean there's so much emphasis in current culture, especially secular culture, but even some Christian culture to say if you want to be a world changer, you know, go out and do big things and do great things and, and that's fine. That's not necessarily a, an anti biblical view, but you have to also balance that with what are the right priorities and are you being a world changer first and foremost at home and then how are you actually going out and then being involved in ministry? Because for the Christian we should, for men, obviously they should want to provide for their families, and for women we are able to engage in ministry as well, including outside the home. But that shouldn't be the emphasis. And they're so, especially in the day of social media and influencers and all this, that you know, people want their name known and they want their brand known, instead of saying, you want to be known to your family and your children first. And so I think, all of these examples that you mentioned are putting the emphasis back on the first priorities. And for J.D. vance as well, I mean, he's. He said publicly, and we'll see how this goes, that potentially, because he has such small children and how much of a different life it is to have to have Secret Service around all the time, and being vice president, that may dissuade him ultimately from running for president in 2028. And personally, I think that would be, a great decision if he decides to stay home and be a dad. I know that Governor DeSantis right now, as he's leaving office, which we're all very sad about in Florida, he's looking forward to spending more time with his children. but this raises another, ah, question, Walker, that, you know, I saw on social media that, you know, there are so many young people that are actually choosing to not have children because they say that the math is choosing for them. So these were some stats, and this person on Instagram who shared this didn't say exactly what, where these numbers came from, but at least according to this post, it says it now costs $310,000 to raise one child to age 18. So, about three quarters of a million fewer babies were born in 2025 than in 2007. So we are seeing, obviously, that reduction in the birth rate. And how should we as Christians answer this question of cost?
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, yeah. there's a couple things here, and the fact that the cost to raise a family and generally the cost just to live, and to maintain a certain lifestyle has grown. I mean, there's no doubt about that that's the negative of inflation, is that it just slowly eats away at American wages if you're not able to keep up with wage growth, which gets into economic factors, which gets into. Into our political leaders and why we don't need socialism and communism. Nonetheless, I think at the end of the day, the root problem here is misplaced priorities. And I'm not wholly discounting the affordability issue because it is a problem, statistically speaking. But at the end of the day, we should not be making our decisions on childbearing and being fruitful and multiplying, which is a genesis mandate for those who are within a marriage union. we should not be factoring in running economic formulas, you know, based on that. Now, I'm not saying we'd be careless with our, with our finances, but you get the point. the dominating decision, maker should be, hey, this is within God's design. This is what God wants us to do as humans, is to procreate within the confines of marriage. So we're going to do that, because it's the right thing to do and because children are a blessing from the Lord. That should be the primary talking, you know, point when you're having these conversations. And then there's other factors as well that each, each married couple has to decide upon. But when you look at the, at the surveys out there, though, there was a Pew Research study done in 2024, and here was the top reason. This was a poll of adults over 50, that didn't have children in their younger years. So this was like looking back retrospectively at asking older adults, 50 plus, hey, why didn't you have kids when you were in your prime childbearing years? And here were the top few results. So 57% of them said, quote, I just don't want to. That was 57% of people said, quote, I just don't want to. The, 44% said, quote, I want to do other things. the 38% said that they had concerns about the state of the world. And then 36% did mention the cost to raise children in America, 2026. So my point in bringing that up is that 57% of people didn't have children in their younger childbearing years, quote because I just didn't want to. So that's ultimately the driving factor here. But at the same time, I think our political class needs to do more to make the economy overall more affordable, especially affordable for young families. So those that do choose, to have children can do so in the most effective manner possible.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that two things can be true at once. one, that the culture needs to create an environment and, incentives, of course, to have people realize that having a family, the greatest blessing and is also God's design. And we need to cultivate a culture of wanting, to be part of families and to have kids and not have these, these people that, you know, run around on social media expressing, you know, that they get to travel and they get to do all of these things because children aren't weighing them down. I mean, that's just such a, an anti biblical mindset of, children being a blessing and heritage of the Lord. And simultaneously, we can also acknowledge and hopefully address the affordability issue and say, you know, it is difficult, financially, to raise children, but it's difficult financially even for people who are single or just, or just newly, married couples. I mean it's, it's not like the affordability crisis is only located within having children. And so for people who are saying, well, it's too expensive, often those are the same people who are spending all of their excess money on themselves.
Walker Wildmon: Right. And here's the thing that I would say are elected officials and the private sector as well, because this isn't all. We don't need to be, I don't need to be too focused on like government needs to step in and fix everything because that's what the left does and it creates problems. but what, what what government and the private sector need to focus on is re enabling families to live and thrive on a single income. Because that's what's really changed over the last, let's say 50 to 70 years is the lack of wage growth and the inflation constantly eating away our income has made it very difficult, not impossible, but very difficult for middle income families to do, well, so to speak, from general standards with a single income. And so we've got to get back to a place where you can have a primary breadwinner such as the father. And then if the mom wants to spend the majority of her time being a mother and being a wife, she can do that. now if women want to work, that's fine, but the fact of the matter is, and this is what you're running in with Caroline Levitt and others, the fact of the matter is, many women who end up having children, deep down, they want to spend more time with their children. Now that doesn't mean they don't want to pursue a professional career, et cetera, but the vast majority of mothers want to spend more time with their children focusing on their family. They ought to be able to do that. And so we need to reposition this economy in a way that you can have, a single income, breadwinners for the family to allow more family focused time and priorities. That would be a major accomplishment if we could do that in our economic setup today. And it's, it's possible with the advancements of AI and the talk about job displacements, that we could do that. but that's going to have to be a priority by our elected officials. And I wish more Republicans and conservatives would talk about that. The ability for, for single income families to do well and how. We need to basically get back to how that used to be.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And Walker Wildmon, really appreciate your time this morning. And you know, this is why this all goes back to the Bible and the institution of the family and the design that God ordained needs to be the foundation of how we build our civil society and also how we build our policy. this is why we can't just start out with policy and ignore God's design because then we end up with a society that doesn't allow for or doesn't encourage or incentivize God's design for the family and for the church.
Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion
So we need to get back to first things first. As always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna fr.netpreborn 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 she chooses life
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.
Taylor Fresh Foods recalls certain prepared products due to potential salmonella contamination
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. Today is Thursday, August 13th, and Taylor Fresh Foods or Taylor Farms is back in the news for voluntarily recalling, more than 20 ready to eat prepared products containing jalapenos, such as, salsas, guac wraps and burritos. Maybe the $20 burritos here is, getting contaminated due to potential salmonella contamination. So, you can go online and look at what products, have been affected because they're not necessarily labeled as Taylor Farms. They've been distributed through, a lot of the big box stores such as, Whole Foods, Target, Walmart, et cetera, Trader Joe's, even across 26 states. But this raises a bigger question as well, just about how we import food, the cleanliness standards and why a lot of, these types of recalls continue to happen. So let's welcome in Charles Cornishdale, who goes by the moniker Raw Egg Nationalist and you can follow him on social media. he's kind of our go to specialist for all things health and nutrition. So good morning. Raw egg. And you know, this is yet another scandal for Taylor Farms specifically. But, you know, this does raise, a broader implications that, you know, President Trump has been talking about since his first administration about, manufacturing and also, farming locally and domestically, so that hopefully we have better standards than a lot of these imports.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Jenna. So, yeah, I mean, I think this issue, this ongoing issue of cleanliness and of people getting quite serious, illnesses from foreign imported foods, particularly vegetables and salads. Yeah, it does. It raises important issues about standards, about the benefits and the deficits of relying on imported products and imported labour. So you know, we've already got this, you've already got this huge, cyclospirasis, outbreak which is ongoing in the U.S. pretty much all states. I think Maybe something like 12 or 15 states haven't been affected by this. This is a very unpleasant, diarrheal bug that is associated particularly with salad products that have been, imported from Mexico. And now you've got this salmonella warning as well. The same, company, Taylor Farms, and part of the problem with this as well is that, you can stop buying Taylor Farms goods, you can stop buying the branded goods in Walmart or wherever, and you can avoid going to fast food outlets that use Taylor to Taylor Farms products. But actually a lot of these products are sold unbranded, wholesale in the US without any identification. that would tell you that they're from Taylor Farms. So actually you're kind of. It's a lot. It's a real lottery at the moment. If you are buying, lettuce, if you're buying vegetables, peppers, etc, and you're not buying them from a trusted source from a, know, from a local farmer or whoever, then yeah, you're taking, you're taking a big risk. And so, we really do need to think, I think, about food safety and about the benefits and deficits of relying so heavily on countries like Mexico to produce certain kinds of produce when we can't be sure actually that the produce is produced to a high enough standard.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And you know, it's interesting to me, I see a lot of these things on social media about you know, some of the ways that customs and border Patrol have seized, products that travelers are trying to import into the United States. Whether that's you know, fruits and vegetables or live bugs or you know, other things that aren't allowed that may ultimately contaminate, our, our food supply and farms and other things. But who is actually very verifying compliance with this type of, you know, massive, importation of, of goods from some of these farms. Because it seems like the FDA simply doesn't have the manpower to inspect more than a fraction of some of these foreign facilities supplying all of this food.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, I think this, I think this is obviously an argument for some kind of enhanced testing regime, certification regime. I mean, I'm not, I'm not sort of down with the kind of granular detail of how the FD FDA inspects imported foods. But what is clear is that whatever it is they're doing isn't good enough. And so whether that means then that what we need is more people at the border inspecting and testing goods coming through, or whether we actually need to send people from the US to the farms in Mexico and wherever to carry out spot inspections, unannounced inspections. maybe, maybe it's a combination of both. Maybe, maybe we actually need to do both. But we, we definitely need to do something because you know, I mean this is untenable. You can't have produce coming in from the US that sit up into the US that sickens tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. It's just not tenable. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And you know, a lot of, a lot of us, I think, myself included, had kind of assumed that, you know, if we're getting the organic labeled produce and and high quality food, from somewhere like a Trader Joe's or a Whole Foods or sprouts, you know, then that's better quality and ultimately, ah, better for you than some of the other you know, GMO rays or pesticides or you know, some of those things that we've been told by the media are the things that we need to watch out for. But this seems like it's striking across the board. I mean, whether you buy your produce from Walmart or whether you get it at a lot more expensive price somewhere like a Whole Foods, it really doesn't matter ultimately if the source itself that is, distributing to all of these different, big box stores is contaminated and is the same. And so should there be labeling on some of these items that that would say that they're imported versus from a domestic farm? Because that seems to be maybe the quality control standard.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yes, yes, I think that is probably one thing that definitely needs to happen. I certainly think that consumers need to be able to make better informed choices about the products. You know, okay, do I, do I want to eat this, you know, cheap lettuce that's come from Mexico and risk having a bout of cyclosporiasis or will I spend a little bit more money and buy from an American farm? But it's worth saying too that actually, you know, there have been some similar outbreaks actually as a result of produce produced in the US where you have cheap immigrant labor being used and they're not allowed to use proper toilet facilities in the fields or there aren't proper toilet facilities available. And so they go to the loo in the fields and you know, contaminate the produce.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so it, I mean there needs to be standards across the board. Because when, when it comes to the contamination, generally speaking, at least with some of these reports, it seems, seems like the problem is the labor and the sanitary conditions, not necessarily the actual condition or quality of the produce itself. So you know, a lot more that needs to be done through the FDA and standards. And you know, overall, conservatives talk about minimizing regulation, reducing the red tape. Often that's a very good thing. But conservatives also need to recognize when some standards are good and when we want the government to enforce, some of these, especially labor standards and sanitary cleanliness standards, to make sure that we have what is a reasonable expectation, for the cleanliness and hygiene of our health. And you can hear Todd in the background, my dog by the way, who's saying hi through his squeak toy. so, he's chiming in this morning and I know a lot of you love, my dog is Todd and Copper. So they say hi, but I want to turn to another topic as well.
Lindsay Clancy is facing three counts of first degree murder for murdering children
Raw egg. And this is, ah, from Lindsay Clancy, who, this is an just absolutely horrific murder trial that's underway in Plymouth Superior Court. And she's apparently a former nurse who's facing three counts of first degree murder for murdering her own children. And her defense is claiming severe postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors argue that the act was calculated after she sent her husband on an errand. And there was, there's been a lot of reports about the psychiatrist that was called as an expert witness to testify and how just how many of these ssri, you know, mind altering drugs that this woman was on. And while, you know, it's my opinion that regardless of, you know, the postpartum depression, postpartum issues, which are definitely real things, that's never a justification for murdering your own children. And and yet also some of the some of the blame here should be on, and scrutiny certainly should be on some of these psychiatrists. One, of whom allegedly during the trial, from some of the reports that I read, hadn't even met this woman before prescribing her so many different, mind altering drugs. And so I think raw egg. The question is, where should we as a nation draw the line and say, okay, we need to have some medical solutions for genuine mental health concerns. But sometimes a lot of those issues are actually the result of over prescription and over dependence on a lot of these drugs that simply are over prescribed.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Oh, well, yeah, I mean, I think, look, I think we have to recognize that there is a genuine, I think, mental health crisis in the modern world, across the modern world. Not just in the U.S. but in Britain, in Scotland. you know, modern life is stressful in various different ways. In many ways actually that sort of have no parallel in human history, you know. So people, people, I think people are suffering and people are having difficulties adjusting to the realities of the modern world. Economic hardship, social hardship, sort of changing relationships, all this kind of stuff. But I don't think there's no question that these drugs are a, are very, very powerful and we don't fully understand their effect and B, they are over prescribed. And there is definitely a tendency to put people on SSRIs on antidepressants, for any reason, whatsoever. I mean, my, my mum, for example, went to the doctor a while ago, for. For a sort of minor ailment that was bothering her. And the doctor suggested that she should go on SSRIs because it was upsetting her. I mean, just, just insane. But you know, with these SSRIs then there is a persistent link to violence that I think is under explored and needs to be researched more. It's worth remembering, for example, that one of the Columbine killers, Rick Harris, was on a very, very powerful early SSRI called Luvox. And he went cold turkey, I think about a week before or maybe even a couple of days before the killings because he'd visited a U.S. m, Marines recruiting office. And they told him, you can't join the Marines if you're on, on Luvox. So he went cold turkey. And there was always, always a very clear suggestion that that might have affected his behavior. There's other research, I think there's research from Scandinavia, for example, large scale research that shows, an increase in violent behavior among people who take ssri. So there's this. There is this persistent question about actually some very serious behavioral side effects that could, that could come as a result from these psychotropic drugs. So, I mean, I mean, yeah, the crime itself is horrifying. I mean, nobody can condone or excuse the murder of children, especially not by their own parents. I mean, that's an unthinkable thing for the vast majority of people for a good reason. But I do think that these drugs, yes, we need to get a handle on prescription, over prescription, and we need to understand the side effects because better so we can deal with them and prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening in the first place.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And it is just a tragedy overall and you're absolutely right that part of the over prescription is, doctors being willing to prescribe, for almost any reason. I mean, so many young people as well. I've seen a lot of, teachers, college, professors saying that, you know, kids, now their main excuse for not wanting to do anything and to get on some of these drugs is having anxiety. As if, just the mere fact of feeling nervous about, you know, whether it's a term paper, whether it's an upcoming project or you know, quote unquote, having anxiety. I mean, that's it, that's a real feeling. But it's not necessarily a negative that we should shield, children from, or young people or college students, you know, and young adults, from going through life. And yet it seems like the, the entire medical profession is, Is enabling so many people, for whatever reason, whether you are, depressed, whether you have feelings of guilt that maybe are true, whether you have, anxiety, whether you just, you know, feel down, that. That somehow we have this view in the Western world that we should never experience a negative emotion and we would rather completely, zone ourselves out on these really powerful drugs, regardless of some of the very negative side effects like you know, suicidal ideation, and among other things. And this poses a real risk to society. Yet it seems like there's ah, not enough money and lobby that is willing to push for more studies. Because obviously Big Pharma is benefiting from this over prescription.
Raw Egg Nationalist: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we do have to look at the corporate incentives that are driving this. I often say this, and it might sound glib, but look, there's no money in telling a young person who feels a bit down, go out and get some sunlight, do some exercise. and yet we know from all sorts of studies that actually, you know, doing exercise, getting sunlight, eating a bit better, will have just as profound, if not a more profound effect on your health than resorting to a pill. But pills make lots of money. And yes, I mean, I think it is. I think it's a severe dereliction of duty actually, by the people who run our societies, by the people in charge to tell young people that actually, you know, any kind of encounter with uncertainty, which is an, integral part of growing up, you know, you're discovering who you are, you're learning who you are, you're learning what the world is like. You're. You're making mistakes, you're doing things right too. It's a process of adjustment and your body is being flooded with hormones that change the way that you feel and change actually physically who you are. And that isn't something that you can do away with with a pill. There's no cure for that. That's a process of adjustment that you have to go through in order to change from a child to a man or a woman. So yeah, I mean I think it's a very severe dereliction of duty. But also you can understand the corporate Inc behind it. It's just to make a huge amount of money.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, we have to take a break here. a lot more to be said on this topic. But you're absolutely right. And I think as a society, and especially as Christians and conservatives, we need to be looking at what type of of remedies that we are actually advocating for for some of these issues that may or may not actually be a problem. And so you know, certainly there are there are some real things and real negative emotions that people go through, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should be shielded from those emotions or from going through life. And sometimes, oftentimes the resolution is to get your thinking correct and your heart right with the Lord and responding to the truth instead of simply medicating or over medicating yourself to not deal with reality. So raw egg, really appreciate it. Again you can follow him on X and we will be right back with more.
Jenna Ellis: Over prescription of mind altering drugs raises biblical questions
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 podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net forward slg that's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And we're staying with the topic of this Lindsay Clancy case because I want to talk about the criminal law issues that are implicit in this defense. but when we're talking, talking about mind altering drugs and being prescribed or in many cases over prescribed some of these drugs for the Christian, this also raises biblical questions and stewardship questions as well because we often will advocate against illicit drug use, will advocate against getting drunk with wine, which the Bible clearly forbids, with alcohol. And yet when a doctor prescribes a medication that is a mind altering drug, often we don't think twice about it and just say, oh well you know, this is what my doctor is prescribing but really in the sense that it is mind altering, there's no distinction. And the Christians should be a lot more careful of what drugs we are actually willing to take. Now modern medicine, of course, is a great thing, and I'm certainly not suggesting that there aren't some remedies that are necessary in in the mental health sphere. But what I am saying is that the Christian needs to be a lot more careful and not just simply be willing to take any or all drugs that you're prescribed for any reason simply because it's from a medical doctor or especially, especially if it's from a psychiatrist or psychologist. we have the Bible that and, and the word of God that deals expressly with man's condition and our heart issues. And when we're dealing with negative feelings, the Bible tells us how to resolve those things and how to move our lives forward in the blessings and the truth of the Lord without resorting to the remedies that the world gives to those who have no hope and can't navigate life through a biblical lens. So, so when we're talking though about. So that's one thing, but when we're talking about the context of justice and criminal law, it's fascinating to see how many times, and especially the rise of the instances of the times that defendants will blame, psychotic drugs. They'll blame, you know, other things besides their own accountability in order to try to get off the hook and say, well, I have an excuse for my conduct because, you know, I blame, the drug, or I blame, you know, some other reason. And so how should our legal system look at this? So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is a senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. And with respect specifically to the Lindsey Clancy trial, in my mind this isn't a justification whatsoever. however, I do think that the over prescription, which is pretty obvious in this case, that some of the doctors and psychiatrists involved, should be held accountable as well.
Gerard Filitti: I think you're right that there does need to be accountability when we have prescribers, when we have doctors and nurse practitioners who are over under prescribing and the effect of that is to cause harm to a patient, which includes the actions that that patient does which run contrary to the law. and in this case, when you have a patient who comes to you and is alleging suicidal ideation and you're diagnosing them with postpartum, I think based on what we've seen historically happen that you do want to pay close attention to what you're prescribing them and make sure and monitor that so that you don't have issues where there can be claims, of psychotic break or something that leads to harm to especially the children. So I think that in these cases, the medical practitioners do have a higher responsibility. Now, that's a moral assessment, not a legal one. and this is something where the law perhaps needs to catch up a little to what we see as a society.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, because a lot of these prescribers, if there really isn't any accountability other than maybe being subpoenaed and coming in and saying, well, you know, I didn't even meet with the person. And we see that in so many instances of, you know, these trans surgeries now that, in the civil litigation realm that, you know, some of these doctors haven't even, personally met with or examined, these. These detransitioners when they initially said, you know, sure, you're a candidate, to change your gender, which obviously is biologically impossible, but it's having, very severe permanent consequences. And I also, was recalling Gerard, the case of Matthew Perry, you know, the former Friends star and actor who, died of. Of Basically an overdose. And a lot of his, prescribers or simply just drug dealers, ultimately were held accountable in the years following his death because they gave him those drugs. What's really the difference, in terms of potential negative effects? If we are saying that some. We're categorizing as some people are quote, unquote, drug dealers as a society, and that's a negative thing that can be punished criminally. But then we give other people a license essentially to distribute the same illicit, drugs with some of the same consequences. They should be held to an even higher standard because they're licensed and they should know better.
Gerard Filitti: Well, that's precisely it. They're licensed, they attend medical school. They understand the science behind the. Or they should understand the science behind the medicine that. The drugs that they're prescribing. So they should have a higher understanding and a higher culpability when it comes to what happens when someone is taking those. Those drug. Ultimately, I do think that there is a difference between the type of prescription, the type of drugs that restores a balance that was missing for biological purposes, something that your body is not producing, something it should be. And for example, you're given medication that fixes that imbalance versus something that changes your mood, your personality and turns you into Someone you are not. I think that when you have that type of medication at issue, you do have that responsibility of a higher standard because your prescription or lack thereof is what, what's causing potential harm to people, not restoring a balance. And that's, that's the difference between, I think something that, you know, is a biological issue and is a, is more of a moral one.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And the moral can't be separated from the biological or the the responsibility of doctors to ensure that they're following up, you know, with, with their patients as well. I mean, if they're prescribing some of these things that have known side effects and have known, potential risk factors, and they're just, well, you know, try this and go ahead and then, you know, I'll see you in six months. I mean, this isn't really, taking accountability for exactly what's occurring to the patient. And so when it comes to the, the criminal law context and you have someone with, as, as horrific of a, of an instance and, and a crime as, as Lindsey Clancy, how should the court or the jury in this instance weigh the, weigh this and how and the over prescription versus the conduct?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the law for ironically is pretty simple, clear and well defined. It's that the standard is whether she could appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing and control her conduct. and under that standard, you know, the over prescription or under prescription, you're still looking at signals or indicators that she understood that what she was doing was wrong. and that's not so much a matter of the over prescription, that's a matter of her snapshot of her mental state at that time. And when you are engaging in what could be perceived as planning, for example, the allegations that she sent her husband out on, a ah, food run to make sure he was out of the house. When you're engaging in that sort of behavior, then that speaks to the fact that you seem to understand the consequences of your actions regardless of what medicine you're on. So I think it's a different thing because here you are looking at punishing her for her action. could it have been influenced by medicine, by what she was, by the drug she was on? Absolutely. But ultimately she was responsible for her own conduct and she seems to have had, ah, an understanding that she was doing what's wrong.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And the law for a long time has always said, you know, that that even if you aren't fully in control of yourself, if you voluntarily took the substance that created the, The Mind altering situation, then you're still accountable for what you did during that time. So, for example, there, it's not a defense to driving while drunk if you voluntarily took enough alcohol that you put yourself in that category. And so, you know, the. When, when we're talking about prescription though, and saying, okay, well my doctor is saying that this is safe, then, you know, we, we are in kind a little bit different of a category potentially legally. But, but this is where I think that the law needs to have, this kind of distinction that yes, informed consent absolutely matters, but that doctors need to be also more responsible for, the way that they are just treating some of these things and handing out SSRIs like candy. I mean, the studies and the statistics of how many people are on, SSRIs and mind altering drugs is just really staggering. I mean, I was reading a statistic, and I'm not exactly sure what the report, you know, where this is attributed to, but it was saying that, you know, something like, over 40% of women in the career field and even stay at home moms are on some of these antidepressants. And when you look at a society that has to be that medicated, there's something wrong. And it's either with the population or it's with the, the influence of our society or saying that this is the type of, and the societally approved remedy for dealing with life. And and clearly we're suffering some of those consequences in the criminal law realm.
The Supreme Court is set to hear climate accountability case in 2026
but I want to switch topics as well, Gerard, while I still have you. sorry, the. So the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments the first day of its session this fall. So October 5th in 2026 in a landmark, what they're calling climate accountability case. so this is suncorp Energy versus the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. So coming out of my former home state of Colorado, of course, you know, the, the climate change nuts would be out of, out of Boulder. But the high court will decide whether federal law blocks state and local governments from suing major oil companies under state law for climate change disaster costs. So this has been, kind of an underreported case, but may have some pretty major implications. What's your view?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think you're absolutely right that this is a major case that will have major implications regardless of which way the court rules. But the issue ultimately is federal preemption. We see states like California, like Colorado, that rush to create liability or create burdens on businesses at the state level that the federal government does not impose. And oftentimes these things like greenhouse gas emissions, these are things that are harder to comply with at the state level than at the federal level. And when you think about an economy, a national economy, you want these regulations to be national. You don't want to have to deal with a patchwork network of local laws that have different standards and different effects. So what the Supreme Court is asking, is being asked to weigh in on is whether it's federal law that preempts state law and all these state laws should be basically put to rest. And I do think that based on the way the Supreme Court has ruled in recent years, that's likely to be the outcome.
Jenna Ellis: That's really fascinating. And you know, a lot of these cases that are underreported in the media, are going to have massive consequences. And this is why it's important to always stay up on the court's business and what cases are pending. And you know, I can imagine what the next the next session is going to have in store.
Gerard Felitti says a federal grand jury is being convened in Washington
And last topic, for you, Gerard Felitti. And again you can follow him on X, as well as the Law Fair project. there was also a report that came out yesterday that Jeanine Pirro, who is the U.S. attorney Attorney for D.C. has convened a special grand jury in Washington. And so unlike ah, typical grand juries, just for listeners information, those designated a special focus on a single case or related cases and can issue a report following their investigation. this is a pretty rare legal body and officials say, at least according to the Washington Post article that reported this, could pave the way for federal prosecutors to investigate some of the biggest and most controversial cases. No one yet knows what the topic of this is. but what is your perhaps speculation on perhaps why this is being convened and what this may signal?
Gerard Filitti: Why this is being convened I think goes into what a special grand jury can do that's different than a normal grand jury which is issue a report. And that report can make can make conclusions and can make assessments on whether there should be charges brought against someone even when a prosecutor does not. So I think part of this is to get to that report, to that grand jury report that puts together evidence of whatever it is that's being investigated. And that's the million dollar question. Is this something that's going to be looking at Jack Smith? Is this something that's going to be looking at corrupt statistics within the D.C. police Department when It comes to crime, we don't yet know. But I think it makes sense that this might be a higher profile type of case where a indictment is not guaranteed, because it's potentially something that's been politicized or there may not be timely evidence. But nevertheless it's something that we want a thorough investigation of and a report about.
Jenna Ellis: Interesting. so we got to take a break here, but real quickly, do you think that there's a potential that this could also, be due to the Fauci texts and, you know, some of, those issues during COVID as well?
Gerard Filitti: It could be, but I think that here the government is better off coordinating with the states that, that have started these investigations because they have perhaps a higher claim and a higher likelihood of actually getting an indictment and a prosecution than the federal government does at this time. So I think that's less likely, but it is still possible.
Jenna Ellis: All right, well, Gerard Felitti, always really appreciate your analysis and having all of the, all of the topics today that we condensed into one segment. Really appreciate it. I keep telling you, Tim Wildmon, he's got to give me more than an hour so we can do a, deeper dive into some of these topics. But, for now we'll continue the hour of Jenna Ellis in the morning. 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 ah 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 in 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. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning. On American Family Radio.
White House press secretary Caroline Lovett is leaving to focus on her family
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. So the breaking news from Washington yesterday is that Caroline Lovett, who, is the White House press Secretary, is leaving. And she, she posted a really wonderful, actually acknowledgement of her priorities. And she said, you know, of course, that she's thankful to the President for entrusting her with the privilege of speaking on his behalf, you know, all of those accolades. But then she said this. Being a mother and welcoming a new baby while working in one of the most demanding jobs in the world has been the most rewarding yet challenging season of my life, to say the least. The truth is, since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom to my two young, the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy and attention required of the White House press secretary. And that is why I have ultimately made the bittersweet decision to depart the White House and embark on a new chapter in my life. And I have to say I give her tremendous credit for this because she is prioritizing the right thing, first things first. And what she's walking away from is one of the most visible and frankly coveted positions in all of U.S. politics. But think about that for a moment. That pales. All of that pales in comparison to looking into the faces of her two young children. And she is making the right decision and the right priority because being pro family isn't just about campaigning on policy and it's about actually living out those priorities and having first things first. Because she will never get back those years and months and weeks with her two young children, especially at such a critical moment in their lives.
Caroline Levitt says family is more important than office
So let's welcome in Walker Wildmon, who is the vice president here at the American Family association and host of at the The Core on afr. And Walker. I just think this is such a wonderful example of someone who is in a position that, you know, so many people in the political world really want. And she's saying, listen, family is actually so much more important.
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, this shows a, ah, really, impressive degree ah, of wisdom by Caroline Levitt, who by the way is a professing Christian believer, as is much of the White House staff and cabinet as well. so this is coming from Caroline Levitt's position is coming obviously from obviously as a mother, but also from her faith as well. So that's, that's important to note. But to your point, stepping away from such a high profile position and such a very well known position and probably, well, paying position is a very big deal and was probably difficult for her. But to your point, I've never heard anyone on their deathbed say they wish they could work more or they wish they could spend more time away from their children or their loved ones. Nearly every time we're facing the end of this life, the regrets are I didn't do this with my family. I didn't spend enough time, I didn't invest in my family enough. And so what Caroline Levitt is trying to do is trying to avoid those type of regrets. And ultimately her priorities are what or all of our priorities should be. And that is what can I do and where can I invest my time to make the maximum impact, for future generations? And even though obviously the press secretary, position is important, being a mother is more important and the impact that she can have with her children is more lasting than what she can say at the podium, or during media interviews. And so this is a very encouraging thing to see. and we've, we've seen Katy Miller do something similar as well. And so, and then you have the vice president's wife Usha, who just delivered their fourth, either their third or fourth child. That was encouraging as well to see a vice president who's a new dad. Like, I don't know when the last time we saw that was. It's probably been 50 to 70 years at least. but that was encouraging as well. The fact that family is being prioritized and family is being talked about and the fact that children are a blessing from the Lord is being highlighted is a very positive, trend that we haven't seen in a long time from such high level positions.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. I mean there's so much emphasis in current culture, especially secular culture, but even some Christian culture to say if you want to be a world changer, you know, go out and do big things and do great things and, and that's fine. That's not necessarily a, an anti biblical view, but you have to also balance that with what are the right priorities and are you being a world changer first and foremost at home and then how are you actually going out and then being involved in ministry? Because for the Christian we should, for men, obviously they should want to provide for their families, and for women we are able to engage in ministry as well, including outside the home. But that shouldn't be the emphasis. And they're so, especially in the day of social media and influencers and all this, that you know, people want their name known and they want their brand known, instead of saying, you want to be known to your family and your children first. And so I think, all of these examples that you mentioned are putting the emphasis back on the first priorities. And for J.D. vance as well, I mean, he's. He said publicly, and we'll see how this goes, that potentially, because he has such small children and how much of a different life it is to have to have Secret Service around all the time, and being vice president, that may dissuade him ultimately from running for president in 2028. And personally, I think that would be, a great decision if he decides to stay home and be a dad. I know that Governor DeSantis right now, as he's leaving office, which we're all very sad about in Florida, he's looking forward to spending more time with his children. but this raises another, ah, question, Walker, that, you know, I saw on social media that, you know, there are so many young people that are actually choosing to not have children because they say that the math is choosing for them. So these were some stats, and this person on Instagram who shared this didn't say exactly what, where these numbers came from, but at least according to this post, it says it now costs $310,000 to raise one child to age 18. So, about three quarters of a million fewer babies were born in 2025 than in 2007. So we are seeing, obviously, that reduction in the birth rate. And how should we as Christians answer this question of cost?
Walker Wildmon: Yeah, yeah. there's a couple things here, and the fact that the cost to raise a family and generally the cost just to live, and to maintain a certain lifestyle has grown. I mean, there's no doubt about that that's the negative of inflation, is that it just slowly eats away at American wages if you're not able to keep up with wage growth, which gets into economic factors, which gets into. Into our political leaders and why we don't need socialism and communism. Nonetheless, I think at the end of the day, the root problem here is misplaced priorities. And I'm not wholly discounting the affordability issue because it is a problem, statistically speaking. But at the end of the day, we should not be making our decisions on childbearing and being fruitful and multiplying, which is a genesis mandate for those who are within a marriage union. we should not be factoring in running economic formulas, you know, based on that. Now, I'm not saying we'd be careless with our, with our finances, but you get the point. the dominating decision, maker should be, hey, this is within God's design. This is what God wants us to do as humans, is to procreate within the confines of marriage. So we're going to do that, because it's the right thing to do and because children are a blessing from the Lord. That should be the primary talking, you know, point when you're having these conversations. And then there's other factors as well that each, each married couple has to decide upon. But when you look at the, at the surveys out there, though, there was a Pew Research study done in 2024, and here was the top reason. This was a poll of adults over 50, that didn't have children in their younger years. So this was like looking back retrospectively at asking older adults, 50 plus, hey, why didn't you have kids when you were in your prime childbearing years? And here were the top few results. So 57% of them said, quote, I just don't want to. That was 57% of people said, quote, I just don't want to. The, 44% said, quote, I want to do other things. the 38% said that they had concerns about the state of the world. And then 36% did mention the cost to raise children in America, 2026. So my point in bringing that up is that 57% of people didn't have children in their younger childbearing years, quote because I just didn't want to. So that's ultimately the driving factor here. But at the same time, I think our political class needs to do more to make the economy overall more affordable, especially affordable for young families. So those that do choose, to have children can do so in the most effective manner possible.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that two things can be true at once. one, that the culture needs to create an environment and, incentives, of course, to have people realize that having a family, the greatest blessing and is also God's design. And we need to cultivate a culture of wanting, to be part of families and to have kids and not have these, these people that, you know, run around on social media expressing, you know, that they get to travel and they get to do all of these things because children aren't weighing them down. I mean, that's just such a, an anti biblical mindset of, children being a blessing and heritage of the Lord. And simultaneously, we can also acknowledge and hopefully address the affordability issue and say, you know, it is difficult, financially, to raise children, but it's difficult financially even for people who are single or just, or just newly, married couples. I mean it's, it's not like the affordability crisis is only located within having children. And so for people who are saying, well, it's too expensive, often those are the same people who are spending all of their excess money on themselves.
Walker Wildmon: Right. And here's the thing that I would say are elected officials and the private sector as well, because this isn't all. We don't need to be, I don't need to be too focused on like government needs to step in and fix everything because that's what the left does and it creates problems. but what, what what government and the private sector need to focus on is re enabling families to live and thrive on a single income. Because that's what's really changed over the last, let's say 50 to 70 years is the lack of wage growth and the inflation constantly eating away our income has made it very difficult, not impossible, but very difficult for middle income families to do, well, so to speak, from general standards with a single income. And so we've got to get back to a place where you can have a primary breadwinner such as the father. And then if the mom wants to spend the majority of her time being a mother and being a wife, she can do that. now if women want to work, that's fine, but the fact of the matter is, and this is what you're running in with Caroline Levitt and others, the fact of the matter is, many women who end up having children, deep down, they want to spend more time with their children. Now that doesn't mean they don't want to pursue a professional career, et cetera, but the vast majority of mothers want to spend more time with their children focusing on their family. They ought to be able to do that. And so we need to reposition this economy in a way that you can have, a single income, breadwinners for the family to allow more family focused time and priorities. That would be a major accomplishment if we could do that in our economic setup today. And it's, it's possible with the advancements of AI and the talk about job displacements, that we could do that. but that's going to have to be a priority by our elected officials. And I wish more Republicans and conservatives would talk about that. The ability for, for single income families to do well and how. We need to basically get back to how that used to be.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So well said. And Walker Wildmon, really appreciate your time this morning. And you know, this is why this all goes back to the Bible and the institution of the family and the design that God ordained needs to be the foundation of how we build our civil society and also how we build our policy. this is why we can't just start out with policy and ignore God's design because then we end up with a society that doesn't allow for or doesn't encourage or incentivize God's design for the family and for the church.
Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion
So we need to get back to first things first. As always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna fr.netpreborn 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 discusses the alarming food safety issues surrounding Taylor Farms and the recent salmonella contamination scare affecting numerous products. Joined by health and nutrition expert Charles Cornishdale, they delve into the implications of importing food and the urgent need for stricter cleanliness standards. The conversation shifts to the tragic Lindsay Clancy murder trial, exploring the complexities of mental health, over-prescription of psychotropic drugs, and the moral responsibilities of medical practitioners. Jenna and Walker Wildmon examine the intersection of mental health, accountability, and the impact of societal pressures on family dynamics, advocating for a return to biblical principles in addressing these pressing issues. Finally, they touch on the importance of family priorities in today’s political landscape, highlighting the need for a cultural shift that values family life over career ambitions.
00:00 </Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life
01:02 </Taylor Fresh Foods recalls certain prepared products due to potential salmonella contamination
09:33 </Lindsay Clancy is facing three counts of first degree murder for murdering children
18:33 </Jenna Ellis: Over prescription of mind altering drugs raises biblical questions
29:28 </The Supreme Court is set to hear climate accountability case in 2026
31:34 </Gerard Felitti says a federal grand jury is being convened in Washington
34:31 </80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
35:53 </White House press secretary Caroline Lovett is leaving to focus on her family
37:40 </Caroline Levitt says family is more important than office
50:05 </Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion
Jenna discusses the alarming food safety issues surrounding Taylor Farms and the recent salmonella contamination scare affecting numerous products. Joined by health and nutrition expert Charles Cornishdale, they delve into the implications of importing food and the urgent need for stricter cleanliness standards. The conversation shifts to the tragic Lindsay Clancy murder trial, exploring the complexities of mental health, over-prescription of psychotropic drugs, and the moral responsibilities of medical practitioners. Jenna and Walker Wildmon examine the intersection of mental health, accountability, and the impact of societal pressures on family dynamics, advocating for a return to biblical principles in addressing these pressing issues. Finally, they touch on the importance of family priorities in today’s political landscape, highlighting the need for a cultural shift that values family life over career ambitions.
00:00 </Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life
01:02 </Taylor Fresh Foods recalls certain prepared products due to potential salmonella contamination
09:33 </Lindsay Clancy is facing three counts of first degree murder for murdering children
18:33 </Jenna Ellis: Over prescription of mind altering drugs raises biblical questions
29:28 </The Supreme Court is set to hear climate accountability case in 2026
31:34 </Gerard Felitti says a federal grand jury is being convened in Washington
34:31 </80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
35:53 </White House press secretary Caroline Lovett is leaving to focus on her family
37:40 </Caroline Levitt says family is more important than office
50:05 </Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion
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:
