Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, February 3rd, and we are rapidly approaching the thrust of the election cycle for 2026. And along with some very important elected offices, including a few governors around the state, my home state of Florida, of course, all eyes of, I think the nation are on this state to ensure that we hand off the reins to someone who is a worthy successor of Governor Ron DeSantis who is term limited. but not just the candidate. Races are important for 2026. there are also ballot initiatives. You will in 2024, how many different abortion related proposals were on ballots across the country. this is really the new testing ground of the left, for a lot of different ways that they are now trying, even more intentionally I think than they, than they had in the past maybe 10 or 20 years. they are trying to push through constitutional amendments in the states because those are much more difficult to change or modify or amend that than legislative initiatives and legislative proposals. And so they're trying to do this on a wide variety of fronts. And here in Florida, they also tried in 2024. it was the big two was amendment three and four, four was our abortion. Amendment three was about recreational marijuana. And if you recall, Governor DeSantis was traversing the state at the time talking about amendments three and four and why they were bad for the state. regardless whether you live in Florida or elsewhere, you need to pay attention to what is on your ballot and not just rely on the ballot summary when you're in the ballot box making your decision. but this amendment three, was pushed by basically what we've called Big Weed. And it was a, outside of the United States company that was essentially trying to push this through in Florida. And they are trying to do it again. And so there's a group, behind the initiative, Smart and Safe Florida, but they fell short of the required, verified signatures by Sunday's February 1st deadline. And so the Florida Department of State put out a press release, saying. Note to press, 2026 constitutional amendment petition campaigns. All 22 active proposed constitutional amendments by initiative petitions failed to meet the requirements of Florida law for placement or on the 2026 general election ballot. So this is great news. it's not just the marijuana amendment, but it's all 22 active proposed constitutional amendments. So Florida doesn't have to worry about this.
Cord Byrd says Florida doesn't have petition fraud gaining traction on ballot initiatives
But joining me now is Core Byrd, who is our Florida secretary, ah, of state. And, I think this is great news for, several reasons. First, that we don't have petition fraud gaining traction in Florida. So good morning and tell us more about this.
Cord Byrd: Yes, good morning, Jenna. Glad to be with you. And yeah, I mean, you're exactly right. This is a trend we've seen across the country where, where certain groups don't, have control over the legislature. They then use the citizens initiative process to essentially buy democracy. So we've seen foreign billionaires and foreign corporations invest in these. In these actions. And, you know, in Florida, we've taken a strong stand under the governor's leadership. he created the Office of Election Crimes and Security, which gives us the ab to go in and investigate and then refer to law enforcement and make sure that before we change a sacred document like our Constitution, that the law is followed.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is great and makes sense. And it absolutely, is necessary to ensure that there isn't petition fraud. And, so there was this deadline Sunday that passed, and, you know, not any of the ballot initiative, proposals met that threshold. do you anticipate there, there may be litigation around this, or is this just, you know, the final call and it's over?
: Yeah.
Cord Byrd: You know, as we've seen in elections over the last several cycles, when you lose, you litigate. And I wouldn't, I would never say never, but, we've gathered the necessary facts and evidence and we followed the law, as we expect all of the, initiative petition, organizations to do. And so we're very confident and we've been successful in every. In every, part of this that's been litigated thus far. And I see no reason why that would change.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, and that's really encouraging because, as you, as you rightly pointed out, the ballot initiative, process is Often the way that, that big corporations or other special interest groups or whatever, if they're not successful at lobbying the legislature, then they try to. To the legislature through ballot initiative. And you know, advocates of the initiative process would say, well, you know, this is the way that the citizens can make their voice heard if the legislature is refusing to hear what, you know, the general population wants. you know, my former home state of Colorado, I think, made a really bad decision when we did a similar thing and had a constitutional amendment, back in, I think it was 2012, and it was our amendment 64 that legalized marijuana. And we've seen the effects across the state of how terrible that has been. What, that has opened the door to, you know, a variety of other things that have been damaging to the state. but overall, in terms of the ballot initiative process, this is one of those things where I can, I can see the pros and cons, of it and why, you know, ballot initiatives, end up gaining traction. But in a, In a representative, republic where we have the legislature that is supposed to be there to make our laws and have our voices heard, we don't have, these other elements necessarily of direct democracy. And we've seen some of these abuses. what. What's your view of, you know, overall of citizens initiatives? And what should people, what should voters be on the lookout for? Because a lot of times, as I mentioned in the beginning, Cordburg, that a lot of times these just small, simple statements on the ballot aren't necessarily indicative of what the measure actually contains. And as Governor DeSantis had argued, back in 2024 for amendments three and four, both of these were actually misleading.
Cord Byrd: Well, you're exactly right. And the governor was right. And what we've seen is, you know, the idea behind them is a noble one. The citizens can organize and put something on the ballot. But these organized efforts are no longer about citizens going door to door and convincing their neighbors. These are, heavily funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars where people from outside the state come to the state. And in many instances, I mean, we have evidence of people telling, voters who signed the petition the exact opposite of what it did. So they're profiling people, looking at them, and they would say, this is actually an amendment. Sign this petition because it's against legalizing marijuana. So this is the type of fraud that they're engaging in. And we end up having to play whack a mole trying to catch their Fraudulent behavior. so I served in the legislature, and we would often hear from members that the people aren't represented by members who are in the legislature on the floor, in debate and saying that the people aren't represented. So I think they should be used very judiciously. And I'm happy that in our state we've made it difficult because it should be difficult to amend the Constitution. And this is what people need to understand is once something's in the constitution, it only can be changed by a constitutional amendment. Which is why I favor doing something in law. Because if the idea is bad or needs to be tweaked, the legislature can come back and do that. It's much, much harder with a constitutional amendment.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And I have, recall many instances in Colorado where you're walking out of the store and somebody comes up to you and says, oh, hey, you know, this is just a petition. And you're not, you're not for or against. You're not signing, you know, anything. You're not voting. You're just allowing us to get this in front of the voters. And you know, they often frame it as, you know, oh, aren't you for choice? I mean, it seems like, one of those kind of leftist arguments, but it's not really, explaining to voters the actual process and how different a constitutional amendment is than a legislative measure and why we have the legislature. And so, this, this is just indicative as well why a good solid civics education, among, the voting populace is so necessary.
Florida has passed more election integrity measures than any other state
But, here in Florida, what is, our process then? And I know that we have kind of beefed up a lot of the election security measures and those things. but your process to ensure that there isn't this type of petition fraud going on and that there aren't signatures, that are, that are fraudulent or these groups that are, you know, signing up, people that maybe they're a visitor to Florida and they come out and you know, they have to ask you, okay, you know, are you registered to vote in Florida? But, you know, they're not checking, these, these types of things and ensuring that the petition process is actually lawful.
Cord Byrd: Sure. So in Florida it's a. We have. The Constitution lays out the right to have the petition process and we have statutes that elaborate on that, that they have to attain a, ah, certain number of signatures based upon the turnout from the prior general election. They have to have media a, certain number of congressional districts. So they have to get, they have to get the number of signatures in at least half of the congressional districts. And then once they, if they attain that, then it has, the language has to go to the supreme Court for approval to make sure that it's not confusing or, or log rolling where you have multiple issues contained in one amendment. And then if they, if they get past that, then it goes to a vote of the people where it has to get a super majority of at least 60%, to get, to get in the Constitution. but, you know, as I said, we, you know, since 2020, under Governor DeSantis, Florida has passed more election integrity measures than any other state in the country, including the creation of the office of election crimes and Security, which I oversee and which is a unit that is dedicated to gathering evidence of election fraud. And then we have a report, we just filed our third report that's due to the legislature and the governor. It's available for anyone to read where they can see the documented evidence of election fraud that we've uncovered. And then those referrals to law enforcement for prosecution were necessary. Wow.
Jenna Ellis: And you know, I wish that other states in so many ways were, would take Florida's lead, but especially over election integrity. I mean, this was one of obviously the biggest issues, that had been an issue for a while, but I think was highlighted amid the controversy of the 2020 presidential election. but to ensure that we have secure elections, that there is election integrity should not be a partisan issue. And every state should want to follow Florida's lead. And so, you know, what, what criteria, do you believe most commonly leads to? fraud in ballot initiatives in particular. What do you most often see that your reports would say? Okay, these signatures didn't meet the requirements.
Cord Byrd: Yeah. So the biggest problem is with the gatherers themselves. we call them circulators, the people that are out outside your grocery store, what have you gathering the petitions. that's where we find the most fraud. And so one of the things we did in a bill last session that we implemented this time, and it's still up on appeal at the 11th Circuit, but we banned non Floridians from gathering petitions because if this is truly a citizens initiative process, they should hire, you know, should be Floridians doing it, because what they do is they hire circulators from all over the country, and then when they commit fraud, they abscond back to their state and then we have to try to, you know, get, get jurisdiction over them from a state that may not be amenable to that. but the other Thing we've done is banned non citizens, from collecting these things. So we're trying where we can to rein in the circulators. But the evidence we've gathered this time is that it's still a major problem. And so what what I would like to see happen, and this is obviously a conversation for the legislature, but, but somehow get rid of using paid circulators to do this because it's just not working and we shouldn't have resources like I said, playing whack a mole with them.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And Secretary of State Core Byrd, one last question for you because you're right, I mean this is something like we said, that should ensure that the process is smooth, that it's fair, to, to everyone that it follows the law. And yet, the Florida Democratic Party released a statement, arguing that the outcome here effectively shut out voters from quote, unquote, direct democracy in 2026. And they're arguing, that the, the concern according to them now is that the process is too restrictive. my opinion is the process should be restrictive and it should easy constitution for the reasons we've described. But. Yeah, go ahead.
Cord Byrd: No, I was just going to say, I mean the word democracy doesn't appear in our constitution. It, you know, so this notion of the direct democracy or is an anathema to our republican system. And those who complain about it just either don't understand or want a different process from what the founders gave us. I mean we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country, the signing of the Declaration of Independence. These principles are important. And I've always said, you know, if a law is important enough to be on the books, it's important enough to be enforced. So if we're agnostic about what's trying to be on the ballot, what I would ask these people that are complaining is the legislature passed HB 1205, which is the law, last year, giving us additional authority. If I ignore it or don't enforce it, then I'm derelict in my constitutional duty to ensure and safeguard the election process. So, very confident in what we've done, proud of the work that we've done, and we will continue to fight to uphold the integrity of the law in Florida.
Jenna Ellis: Amazing. Well, this is why I love living in the free state of Florida and I appreciate all of the hard work that your office does. Secretary of State Core Byrd and all of the executives, it's just fantastic. And it's it's so in line with what the government is obligated to do, which is to protect, the rights of citizens and to ensure that our process is fair, that it runs smooth. And so we do really appreciate the hard work that you do. You can follow Florida, Department of State at fl Sec of State State on X. You can also follow a Core Bird at Core Bird by R D. And I would encourage you if you are not in the free state of Florida. Well, first, you know, sad for you, but no, I know people love their home states usually, but make sure you know your process. Make sure that you are holding your officials accountable and it know what is on your ballot especially. Coming up, we'll be right back with more.
: The AFR app is a powerful tool, but it does have limitations. You can't use it to change the oil in your vehicle or get rid of carpet stains. It won't walk the dog, won't pick up the dry cleaning or take the kids to practice. But while you're doing those things, you can listen to your favorite AFR content through the app on your phone, smart device or Roku. Just go to your app store or visit afr.net listen to AFR wherever you go with the AFR AH app.
Fox Varian sued her psychologist and plastic surgeon for gender transition mastectomy
welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And we mentioned on the program yesterday that there was a detransitioner to take a medical malpractice lawsuit to trial. The family first one that won a $2 million judgment. This was out of the NewSong York area. And Fox Varian, who is a young woman, sued her area psychologist and plastic surgeon for the gender transition mastectomy she got at 16. It was a three week jury trial and only one reporter apparently, was, was willing to attend the entire three week trial and document what happened. His name is Benjamin Ryan. He's an independent reporter and he joins me now. So, Benjamin, first of all, this is a landmark case. I mean this is the first detransitioner to take a medical malpractice lawsuit I, think to verdict. And obviously this verdict was huge, for her and against the, the utter, you know, butchering of of this type of medical practice that I believe of course is harm. And these individuals, psychologists, doctors, whoever is involved should be held. Tell us more about the trial and what you observed.
Benjamin Ryan: Sure thing. Just thanks for having me on. and a couple of things. One, I come to this as trying to be a neutral journalist. So certain words that you might use or opinions those aren't necessarily mine. Just want to draw that distinction. And also there was one other reporter was there part of the time. And a lot of people have said that this is an indictment of the mainstream media, that nobody wanted to cover this, but in fact it was just a trial that was looking not to be found. And so you had to have been told about it, essentially. But indeed, it's a historic moment. There are about 28 total detransitioner lawsuits that I've been able to tally. And the vast majority of them are structured like this case, in which they're a medical malpractice case. And a lot of people have presumed that, oh, these trials are going to go right after the system, they're going to undermine the foundations of this type of medical treatment. But in fact, what they really say is they ask what is the standard of care in this field that does exist and did these practitioners deviate from it and therefore, if they did, did that cause the pain and suffering and injury of the plaintiff? And the answer to those questions was yes in many cases in the questions that were presented to the jury on Friday.
Jenna Ellis: And that's a really interesting distinction. And obviously, you know, across the political spectrum, people have, you know, very strong opinions on, this, including me. And I appreciate your approach as, you know, just a straight reporter wanting to, you know, just look at the facts of this case, because I think that both sides can kind of perhaps, you know, get ahead of themselves as well as far as what this means necessarily for, you know, the rest of the country. but for so, so just this trial in particular, what were the questions that ultimately went to the jury in terms of his standard of care?
Benjamin Ryan: So I can get this for you. So here they are. well, so Kenneth Einhorn was a psychologist and he'd been seeing, he'd been treating Fox variant for about two and a half years before the surger. And then Dr. Simon Chin was the plastic surgeon to whom he referred the patient. And Simon Chin saw her twice in a nine week period before ultimately doing the surgery. So the case really concerned whether Einhorn was thorough in treating with her and also whether when she brought up that she thought she was transgender and then soon after brought up that she wanted to have a mastectomy, whether he was just sort of blindly affirming, as is often sort of prevailing ethos in the gender affirming care field, as it's called, or whether he really did the kind of work, if necessary, as a Psychologist to not essentially give tacit approval and to really discuss these issues, as opposed to putting her on a train. There were lots of discussions about train metaphors in this trial to this ultimate surgery. It was only 11 months between the time that she started to come out as transgender and she actually had the surgery. So the questions had to do with, did he treat her properly, did he follow the standard of care as a psychologist for this particular issue? And the answer was no, that he did not, and that that caused her injury. And then there was a lot of questions about the referral letter. It was pretty shoddy that had the wrong diagnosis in there. And there was a question about whether he should have written it the day that he did, as opposed to waiting. And so he was faulted for that as well. And he and the, plastic surgeon were both faulted for not communicating directly with one another. They never talked directly. There was just a letter going one way, and there were a lot of unanswered questions, ultimately. And then the plastic surgeon himself was faulted for doing the surgery when he did, as opposed to, say, waiting.
Jenna Ellis: And I can see where the train metaphors would come in, because it seems like she was railroaded. You know, that. That probably came up a lot, where, you know, rather than, you know, rather than saying, okay, let's, actually go through, you know, what might be the underlying cause? And then, so with that, that handoff that you mentioned, so, you know, the letter that went to the doctor, what was the, what was the accusation, I guess, and then the jury's, you know, ultimate verdict on, what the doctor should have done, in terms of evaluating whether the psychologist referral was. Was sufficient in order to. To actually accomplish the procedure.
Benjamin Ryan: Well, several things. The letter was very short. There are only two paragraphs that really had to do with her condition. And then just one extra paragraph that said, basically, call me. And crucially, it included the wrong diagnosis. The diagnosis for this intervention is gender dysphoria, which is a psychiatric diagnosis. It's related to distress from a conflict between someone's gender identity and then their birth sex. So instead, Dr. Einhorn, the psychologist, put in body dysmorphia, which is, another psychiatric condition, but it involves obsessing and ruminating very painfully over some perceived flaw in your body. And that is actually a contraindication for plastic surgery, because people who have that condition are never going to be satisfied with their body, so you can't just keep operating on them. So, oddly enough, Dr. Chin saw that and didn't reach out to Dr. Einhorn to say, hey, what's up? You know, it seems to me this letter, the context suggests body, suggests gender dysphoria. But why did you write body dysmorphia? There were also some incorrect facts in there. Dr. Einhorn claimed that she was doing better with her anxiety because, as evidenced by her attendance in school, but she had just dropped out of regular schooling that semester. And then also there was a question of whether she really was psychologically stable with her depression and anorexia. And Dr. Chin, in fact, said that even if those were stable, they needed to have been mentioned in the letter as a past diagnosis, and then they weren't. So it was just essentially too short. Dr. Einhorn never talked about his own qualifications or training in this particular field, but she didn't have any, by the way. And so it was just basically a shame, from, according to the plaintiff's attorney, that these two men, they could have talked to each other, maybe a single phone call could have said, you know what, Maybe this patient isn't ready. And it would have saved her from losing her breast at 16.
Jenna Ellis: Wow.
Vox Varian sued Kenneth Einhorn over gender dysphoria surgery
And was there testimony as well on, on more of the long term physical, and psychological harm that, that, that maybe contradicts, you know, what is, commonly put forward in the media to say, you know, oh, these types of surgeries are the solution to, you know, body dysmorphia and some of these things. Was there testimony on that issue?
Benjamin Ryan: It was. Listen to gender dysphoria, just to clarify. So ultimately, Vox Varian, the plaintiff, she detransitioned after three years, meaning she decided she was, ah, indeed a female, and reverted to identifying and presenting that way, regretted her surgery, and ultimately sued. So, interestingly, the case didn't really go into the greatest details about the long term implications, as you're saying. She did say that she had chronic nerve pain and numbness, loss of sensation in her nipples, and then, of course, the scars from the surgery. And interestingly, one of the defense attorneys for Kenneth Einhorn, his name was, Neil Kornfeld, in his closing summation, he really criticized the plaintiff's attorney for not bringing in experts to address your question to say, well, what are the implications of a teenager not having her breasts for the rest of her life, emotionally and physically, et cetera. And so the plain's attorney responded to that. He was furious. And he just said, how would you like if someone came in here and took off your penis? Would we have to explain to you what that means. And he really said, that is offensive. There were four of the six jurors were women. You know, I don't need to tell you what it means to lose your breasts. So that's how it was left. And I thought that was a very powerful part of the summation.
Jenna Ellis: Wow. And, yeah. And so with this, how long did the jury deliberate?
Benjamin Ryan: It was about five hours. And after about hour four, you know, classic scene in a movie, everyone's pacing in the hallway and going in and out of the room and freaking out. But we got a jury question that was able to attend and hear, which was regards to, the specifications of doling out awards. So by that time we knew she'd won. So then about an hour later, indeed she did win. So it was, it was pretty quick. But it had been a three week trial and we were getting up against the end of the day. And you knew that jury really wanted to go home.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. Often that's, that's how it goes with some of, the jury verdicts and especially if it's on a Friday. But were you able to talk to any individual? There you go. Yeah. So, were you able to talk to or interview any of the jurors afterward?
Benjamin Ryan: Unfortunately not. And they were really impassive the whole time. I really could not get a read on them. they were pretty stoic. Except there was this, there was this one woman and was kind of holding her chin tensively and just concentrating with everything she had. And I said, that's the foreign woman. She is circumspect. She wants to be fair. And indeed she was. But I approached everyone afterwards and said, do you want to talk to the media? They didn't even answer. They just bolted through the door. So unfortunately, no, that's a black box. I don't have any information on how.
Jenna Ellis: They were thinking and M. That would have been fascinating to see. What were the main points, that really convinced them. but you mentioned as well, and I'm speaking with Benjamin Ryan, who's the independent journalist, who was covering the story. You can follow him at Benryon writer on X. He also has a substack. I'd encourage you to follow because independent journalism is really important and I appreciate your work on this because. But for your reporting, we may not know, you know, that this case even occurred. And so, you know, kind of from that multi pronged, standpoint, obviously this does deal with a minor, but at the same time, the public interest in this case obviously, would be huge. And so, in terms of the record being almost entirely under seal that you mentioned in your post, you were able to obtain some documents prior to that. is. Was that to your knowledge, just because this was a minor or how unusual is that in this jurisdiction?
Benjamin Ryan: I don't have the answer to that specifically, but it is my guess that the judge sealed all the court records, which I have all the records from before the seal, but I don't have any of the official transcripts. So that was frustrating for me because I'm having to type for three weeks straight because I don't get an official transcript at the end of the day. so I think the judge was concerned about the plaintiff's privacy. She's 22 years old now. But he just didn't want a spectacle. He was pretty annoyed that I was there, wondered how I'd found out. And he tried to scare me off by saying, you know, there are HIPAA rights that this plaintiff has, and, you know, HIPAA doesn't apply to a journalist. So it was a public setting. So that was just him trying to sort of put me off the trail, if you will. But it's hard to say. I don't know. I'd be interested to know from you, like, how common it is to seal a case like this where you are talking about an adult, but it's about things that happened to them when they were a minor.
Jenna Ellis: Right. Yeah, this is. That's really interesting. And, you know, maybe that's another question, for a good investigative reporter and, you know, in this particular jurisdiction, you know, it may just be that it happened, when she was a minor, but as you mentioned, you know, she's now 22, so it doesn't necessarily immediately make sense why it would be almost entirely under seal. but, you know, but you were able to find out that this trial was occurring and, and there really wasn't that much, ah, of interest from just an independent journalist perspective. I mean, obviously you're enterprising your work, you're going out and you're, you're finding out what's going on, for the mainstream media that just almost is just reactive to some of the news. Do you find that the difference between what someone like you does versus maybe some of the critiques of mainstream media are accurate in terms of, not going out and finding out that these types of things are going on?
Benjamin Ryan: Well, just in this particular case, the only reason I was the only person there is because somebody else decided to tell me So I was, you could say I was kind of selected by those people to show up because they wanted me there. So I don't think it's an indictment in this particular case that the other journalists weren't there because there was no way they would have known about it. However, in the larger scheme of things, think that it's indeed a fair indictment of a lot of the media on the left about what they choose not to report on. So, you know, I'll say that a lot. I'll get no's and then try to pitch around to left wing media. So that's why I largely write for more right wing media or center media because they're open to it. And you can really see in like all the kind of requests I've gotten from people such as yourself to talk about this, they've entirely come from right wing or heterodox podcasts or radio show. So you know, there's plenty of opportunity to digest off of what I've written into your own articles. But it's only really happening on the right.
Jenna Ellis: M. And, and that's a sad indictment I think, of our media system in general and why we can't just rely on what media selectively curates and says this is the news you should be paying attention to. And why I'm thankful for independent journalists, for you know, the rise of the independent podcaster and X and all of these things that you know, can make these stories go more viral and get more attention.
Benjamin Ryan: What do you think policymakers and medical industry misunderstand about abortion
But last question for you, Benjamin Ryan and I have so many more questions, so maybe you'll have to come back on sometime. But this is really fascinating. but in, in your opinion, just after watching, you know, all of the testimony and the witnesses, the experts and the jury's reaction or non reaction, you know, what, what do you think policymakers, and perhaps the medical industry most misunderstand about this issue right now as we're kind of all, you know, framing the larger debate. what, what maybe are people missing that was focused on there in the courtroom?
Benjamin Ryan: I think I'd say that a real difference in this case is you hear about these big gender clinics and they're run by these very well resourced academic medical centers and you know, like Boston Children's affiliated with Harvard or whatever it. And they have a pretty tight ship and they run a system where, you know, it's all under one roof and you've got psychologists and endocrinologists and surgeons and they all know each other. But the system here was really ad hoc. And you don't hear about that as much because it's just, it was just one local psychologist who kind of heard some about how this type of treatment goes. And a plastic surgeon does this on occasion. So I think that that's probably more common than we realize. And then, you know, when it comes to the Trump administration using this full of government assault on this field to try to end it in the blue states where it hasn't already been banned in the red states, it's perhaps, you know, it's easier to knock out the Trump administration, these big, huge academic centers. But there's always, you know, these independent little guys who may still be doing this work, you know, don't take Medicaid, so you can't threaten to take it away from them. So that type of treatment may still persist, you know, in smaller, more fractured ways, even if the Trump administration succeeds in these tactics and trying, trying to end this field entirely.
Jenna Ellis: M. Well, really fascinating. And, is your substack out, already, or when does that come out?
Benjamin Ryan: Yeah, so I put out several substacks already about this, including some of the case files that I had. it's benryon.substack.com all right, well, amazing.
Jenna Ellis: Well, thank you so much for your reporting, for your work on this. Yeah. And for coming on and answering, more of these questions, I think more reporters need to be going and paying attention, you know, to some of these, these jury trials and these legal issues that aren't necessarily always in, mainstream media. So again, you can follow Benjamin Ryan at Ben Ryan writer, on X. And then also he, has a link to his substack there. And you know, my opinion on this is we're going to still, we're going to see more and more of, these d. Transitioners take these types of things to verdict because this is permanent bodily harm. And, you know, just from what, Ben was talking about, it seems like neither the psychologist nor the doctor really met a standard of care, that is just, it's. It's ultimately ending in lifelong, permanent harm to these, detransitioners. And it's utterly tragic. But we'll be right back with more. We're living in a time when truth is under attack. Lies are easy to tell, easy to spread, and easy to believe. But truth, truth is costly. And nowhere is the cost greater than for mothers in crisis. When a woman is told abortion is her only option, silence and lies surround her. But when she walks into a preborn network clinic, she's met with compassion, support, and the truth about the growing life inside her. That moment of truth happens through a free ultrasound, and it's a game changer. When a mother sees her baby and hears that heartbeat, it literally doubles the chance she will choose life. Preborn network clinics are on the front lines, meeting women in their darkest hour, loving them, helping them choose life, and sharing the truth. Friend, this is not the time to be silent. It is the time for courage, for truth, and for life. Just $28 provides one ultrasound and the opportunity for a mother to see her baby. To help her choose truth and choose life. Please donate today. Call pound 250 and say baby. That's pound 250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis: Missouri Attorney General Katherine Hanaway sues over 2020 census
Benjamin Ryan: welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And the census is a really big issue in the legal landscape right now because you'll recall, in the 2020 census that, ah, there was not a question that was allowed to be asked on the census of whether, you are a citizen or not, which I think is utterly ridiculous because only, U.S. citizens, have a right to be counted, in terms of apportionment and representation. And how we actually get to, the number of, ah, US Representatives and also the number of votes that each state has in the electoral College. And so all of this absolutely matters. And of course it's just the left that is, ah, wanting to suggest that, you know, oh, that's a, you know, that's a racist question or, you know, all of their other defenses. but you know, that if, the, if counting non citizens ultimately led to advancing Republicans interests, of course the Democrats would be the first ones to say, you know, no, we can't do that, that's unconstitutional. But, Attorney General Catherine Hanaway of the great state of Missouri is suing the U.S. census Bureau for, in her words, unconstitutionally allowing illegal aliens to commandeer the path to the White House and compromise our elections. She says United States citizens have a right to representation, not illegal aliens. And United States citizens should decide electoral votes and congressional seats, not illegal aliens. I could not agree more. And the Attorney General joins us now. So thank you for doing this and, tell us more about this lawsuit.
Catherine Hanaway: Well, thank you so much, Jenna. It's great to be back with you again. And I will say you've summed it up beautifully. right now, and ever since Jimmy Carter, the Census Bureau has counted illegal immigrants for the purposes of allotting congressional districts, electoral votes, and federal dollars that flow through the states. So the net effect has lots and lots and lots. Millions of illegal immigrants are getting more than their fair share of congressional seats, electoral votes, and federal program dollars. the city of Los Angeles alone has 2 million illegal immigrants. By comparison, Missouri's total population is 6.1 million people. it obviously is costing Missouri tremendously for those 2 million illegal immigrants in Los Angeles to get counted in the census. We think for Missouri alone, it would mean one additional congressional seat and millions in additional federal dollars. And for every congressional seat, you get one electoral vote. So this really would be a shift from the power on the coast to.
Jenna Ellis: And I think we might have lost the, Attorney General. Are you the. Oh, okay. I'm being told by Devin we have, we'll try to get her back. but, you know, she mentioned, you know, this, this really would be a shift, back to ensuring that there are simply, proper apportionments, among the various states. And so this isn't just about, you know, one state and ensuring that within the state, there are, you know, free and fair elections and ensuring that there's correct apportionment. It's, it's basically the same thing, honestly, that the Trump campaign, was arguing in 2020 that if one state violates the rules, that affects all of the other participating states. And so especially when we talk about the composition of Congress and when we're talking about the composition of the Electoral College, it matters that every state not only plays by the same uniform standard and rules, and there's election integrity implicit in that, but that, who participates in that process in terms of the Electoral College and ah, Congress, ultimately that, that is uniform among the states. And so, this is a really great lawsuit and I'm really grateful to the Attorney General for, for pursuing it. I have, some other questions. Do we know Devin? Are we trying to get her back or what's, Okay. I'm being told we may have. Okay. Yay. I think you are there.
Lawsuit asks for California to exclude illegal aliens from 2020 Census
All right, so, so we're just talking. I was just kind of bouncing off of what you just said. so, in terms of, you know, all states who participate in this process have to play by the same rules. And so, so where is your lawsuit, being filed in terms of holding, you know, states like California, responsible for counting, illegal aliens when they shouldn't be.
Catherine Hanaway: So the good news for everybody is that it is a national count. So California doesn't get to set their own rules. We filed our lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri, but it would have a national impact. And in fact, because it's a challenge to apportionment, it goes from the Eastern District of Missouri, and the first appeal is directly to the United States Supreme Court. So, timing wise, I think we probably are not going to be able to resolve this until in time for the 2028 elections. But we're trying to push as hard as we can and maybe even have an impact this year.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Which, which is absolutely needed. And so, President Trump has been talking about, doing kind of a midway census that constitutionally, it's only required, you know, once every 10 years. would this trigger a, if successful with this, trigger a new census, or is it just to ensure that the next census is done differently and more accurately?
Cord Byrd: No.
Catherine Hanaway: Our lawsuit asks for them to recount for the 2020 Census and exclude illegal aliens because President Trump, in his first term, told the Census Bureau, don't count illegal aliens. And as soon as Biden got in office, he reversed that and counted illegal aliens. So that's part of why we needed to file suit. We know President Trump's going to do the right thing, but we don't know that any president after him will do the right thing.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And it's. It's absolutely wild to me that here we are in, you know, the America's 250th anniversary, we have the census clause, right there in the U.S. constitution that, you know, we've done this kind of from the beginning, and this question still hasn't actually been reconciled. and is this just because this, issue has only just now come to the four or. Why hasn't this been addressed historically?
Catherine Hanaway: Well, part of it is because nobody had the audacity to count illegal immigrants until Jimmy Carter, and then Reagan got us some real immigration reform and things, you know, calmed down for a while. And I think it all has come to a head because Joe Biden just opened the borders.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And I mean, and this just shows how, there can be these kind of twists and manipulations and, in my opinion, legal perversions of the constitutional text and, you know, kind of some of these loopholes to then get to, the places where we need to litigate things like this. And, you know, of course, the, the left and opponents of this, would argue that the census clause refers to persons, not citizens. How does your lawsuit reconcile that text with your argument?
Catherine Hanaway: Yeah, so it says persons living in states and it's really turns on the permanency of your residence in a state. There is also case law interpreting what it means to live in a state on a permanent basis. And it's really clear that it's not a traveler. It's not somebody who's here with a temporary visa. It's not somebody who's here on business, and it's certainly not somebody who's here illegally. It's those people who have the right to permanently live legally in a state. So if you are a green card holder, you would be counted in the census, but that's it. It's citizens and green card holders, not travelers, not visa holders, and certainly not illegal immigrants.
Jenna Ellis: And I'm speaking with Missouri, Attorney General Catherine Hanaway. You can follow her at AGC Hanaway on X. I'd encourage you to do that. that's where, you know, I find out about all of these wonderful things that she's doing in Miss Missouri and really appreciate that. And so, you know, I'm old enough, of course, to remember in 2020 when, the Supreme Court was very, ah, hesitant to take, any sort of, you know, election integrity challenges that were being presented by the Trump team at that time. you know, obviously, most famously, the Pennsylvania, versus Texas lawsuit. And you know, some of these things that went to. To what the left has made it more controversial, election integrity and some of these things than really, I think it should be in terms of just everybody following the rules, everybody knowing what the rules are. do you think that, the Supreme Court would have that kind of same hesitation or maybe because this isn't in the midst of, you know, all of the volatility that was going on in 2020. This is just, much more of a clean path that it. That. I mean, I think it's something that the Supreme Court absolutely should determine, and we need a clear answer for all the states. but do you think that this is something that they may be hesitant to address?
Catherine Hanaway: Well, I think that the cases that they've taken recently, the case on whether we should continue to have to be required to have majority minority districts, it's Section two of the Voting Rights Act. They're hearing that case. They're also hearing the case on birthright citizenship. So I think this case has a very good chance of also making it to the court.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that's. That's great. And, I really hope that this is resolved, sooner or more immediately. And so if, if this. And you mentioned this just briefly at the beginning. But, if you are successful in this, litigation, then how would this actually affect apportionment in terms of both congressional seats and also the Electoral College overall?
Catherine Hanaway: So. So with each congressional seat comes one electoral vote. There, we estimate, are 11 congressional seats that would move from coastal states to states in the Midwest and South. So it really could change the balance of power in Congress and maybe even the outcome of a presidential election.
Jenna Ellis: Wow, that is really incredible. And so how does that work then? in terms of the. Would this affect districting at all within the states? If, you know, maybe they, like California loses a couple of seats in Congress in the Electoral College, would that affect how they would have to, draw their district lines, or does it not matter in terms of, how populous each of those districts are?
Catherine Hanaway: No, absolutely. They will have to redraw their district lines. The states that gain a seat or two will also have to redraw their district lines. and it's California, it's NewSong York. It's the big states that you think of as sanctuary states that'll be the losers. And states like, Missouri and Tennessee and Georgia, that'll be winners in this.
Jenna Ellis: Wow.
Attorney General Katherine Hanaway is suing to stop counting illegal immigrants in census
And, then, last question for you, Attorney General Catherine Hanaway. I so appreciate your time. You know, we've seen so often in these cases, some of the procedural, ways to kick out a case very early on, you know, standing or, you know, one or other of those types of things. do you anticipate those types of challenges? And I don't want, you know, you to get ahead, obviously, of your legal strategy, but, But in terms of the authority to challenge this, it seems pretty clear that.
Catherine Hanaway: You have that it does, but you're right. And so we've been, joined in the suit by several individuals who are voters in Missouri who believe that their rights have been compromised, that they're not as, vigorously, and as well represented in the US Congress as Californians are because their vote has been diluted by us counting illegal immigrants in the census. And so I think they will help us overcome any standing challenges.
Jenna Ellis: Amazing. Well, Godspeed to you on this. I hope that you are successful because, we deserve, as Americans, regardless of what state we live in, American citizens deserve. Correct. Apportionment. We deserve to have, the Electoral College and the Congress apportioned, fair and equitably. And this really should not be a partisan issue. But, you know, people ask all the time, you know, how can we affect, you know, Washington when we need to vote and we need to do all those things. Well, yes, but the system itself, itself needs to be fair to begin with. And if you are, a state like California that's benefiting from counting illegal aliens, you're already tipping the scale before anyone even gets to the ballot box. And before some of these measures even come up in Congress or before anybody even runs for president. So this is why, lawsuits like this are incredibly important. We need to pray for a just and righteous outcome here. And, Attorney General Catherine Hanaway really appreciated, appreciate it. I was telling their team it's amazing how many great AGs have come from the state of Missouri. So, you know, I think we gotta, we gotta follow suit everywhere in all the other 50 states.
