Transcript

Preborn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies through ultrasounds

Jenna Ellis: Because of listeners like you, PreBorn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies. Your $28 to sponsor one ultrasound doubled a baby's chance at life. Your tax deductible gift saves lives. Please join us in this mission. To donate, go to 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 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.

The deep freeze seems to be moving forward into a little bit of spring

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, February 2nd. Yes, we are finally in the month of February, 2026. Didn't January just seem like a really long month? I don't. I was looking on, some of the Instagram posts, and it seems like everybody was kind of on the same page with that. But we are finally in February. The deep freeze seems to be moving forward, into a little bit of spring, maybe, at least here in the free state of Florida. We're very grateful for that. Survived, the frigid temperatures. It got all the way down to feeling like 8 degrees, around 18 degrees, at least where I am in central Florida. That was a little bit insane. We didn't have any, any freezing rain or anything like, thankfully.

Don Lemon's arrest raises question of illegal activity versus the First Amendment

But, moving forward, so the big topic right now is Don Lemon's arrest and this kind of revived question of illegal activity versus the First Amendment. And so I'm old enough, of course, to remember 2020, when the sides of the table were switched and it was all of the Republicans and the Trump supporters suggesting that, you know, storming the Capitol Building is fine, and this is a mostly peaceful protest, and any sort of, targeting, any of the January Sixers is utter lawfare and applauding. As recently as last year, Trump's broad and blanket pardons for all of the January Sixers. I was one that vocally disagreed with that theory and said, you know, whatever, whatever your right to protest and your feelings about the election, your, the issues that you would like to address. You can't violate federal law and go unauthorized into a federal building. You can't steal Nancy Pelosi's podium. You can't, you know, do the things, that a lot of these guys were actually charged with. Now, some of them were targeted unfairly with Higher penalties. And those things were, were being worked out. And obviously, that's an element of lawfare. If a prosecutor over prosecutes you, that's one way that they can commit a lawfare or malicious prosecution or some of those things. Or obviously, due process is implicit. But the bottom line is, if you violate federal law, you can't just claim, well, I was doing it for a good reason. The First Amendment covers me. Especially when you are a journalist, that is, or allegedly, you know, or a citizen journalist. You're taking your camera and you're going and taking pictures, but you're actually part of the activity. Now, fast forward to today, and suddenly the roles have reversed, and all of the Democrats are screaming, First Amendment covers every single journalist activity. And storming a chur. Fine. And this is because of a protected activity, and we want to protest ice. So therefore, it's completely fine that Don Lemon takes his camera as part of the mob. I mean, clearly. And m. I think that the video and the evidence bears that out. He's actually a participant in this storming of the church and is part of this activity. And it's not covered under the First Amendment, but here we are. And so this is why the law needs to always be grounded in fact and equal justice. This is what it means that we don't treat Don Lemon differently than the J6ers. Now, we don't go after him with lawfare, but we don't say that somehow it's different for him just because he's a Democrat than the Republicans. But we also don't suggest that The Republicans in January 6th are somehow different. and, yes, are the facts different, obviously. But in terms of violation of federal law and things that you can't do when you are protesting or under the auspices of the First Amendment, those things stay the same. And so we need to not be hypocrites as Christians especially, but as Christian conservatives, and recognize that the First Amendment is not a justification otherwise to violate federal law.

Jared Ede: Don Lemon being charged under Face Act is inappropriate

So, that's my little bit of a rant, but I want to get, an expert opinion on this. And so let's welcome in Jared Ede, who is an attorney with Clairlock, who's one of the, finest, actually, First Amendment firms in the country, and, is a good friend. he and his wife, they are here in Florida as well. So I invited him on because we were at a great, Federalist Society event here in Florida and kind of, you know, ranting back and forth together, and I was like, this would be really Fun to have. Jared on. So, Jared, good morning. And you know, your thoughts overall on this issue, especially, in light of the broader context of. Of how Republicans and Democrats seem to be on different sides, regard, depending on who the perpetrator is.

 Jered Ede: Yes. Good morning, Jenna. First off, thank you for having me on. even as cold as it may be, I think it's. It's important to discuss these issues. And you're absolutely right that the First Amendment, as absolute as it is, is not a get out of jail free card. Journalists, like every American, have to follow the law or face the consequences. and we saw under the Biden administration, enforcements of the Face act that many on the right thought were inappropriate. the circumstance, for example, of, I believe his name was Mark Hoop, who was a pro life activist who was arrested for getting into an altercation. He claims he was defending his son outside of an abortion clinic, in Pennsylvania. And, he was ultimately acquitted. But in that case, when he was arrested, you saw many of the Republicans standing up and saying, this is atrocious. This is atrocious. whereas, you know, now we have a situation where a journalist is being arrested for a faith act violation for, in this case, going into a church, participating in, what appeared to be a coordinated, scheme. at least that's what the indictment. The indictment claims that Don Lemon was not merely an observer, that he crossed the line into participation and coordination. you'll notice the indictment has. Has two charges, one of which is a conspiracy to violate civil rights. and, you know, in this case, I think we have a little bit of a situation where perhaps the public is looking at the Mark Haupt situation and the Don Lemon situation and saying, tell me how these are different. now again, Mark Hauck was ultimately acquitted. We'll see what happens with Don Lemon. But I do think generally the American public looks to and expects that lawfare, so to say, or rather the application of the law, is done equally regardless of whether there is an R or a D after the end of your name.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, And I think, that this is also a moment where conservatives, and I've been saying this since actually the event took place, and people, especially on social media, were raising the Face act as one of the, violations that may have occurred. And I was going to wait a minute five seconds ago, we were calling on Congress to repeal that because it was used as, we've been arguing on the conservative side. It's been used as lawfare against, pro Life advocates and protesters. And yet now we have this situation with Don Lemon and he is being charged under the Face Act. And, and it could have been that he was charged under a different statute. why in, in your opinion, would the DOJ use the Face act rather than some other violation of federal law to perhaps avoid this exact type of comparison?

 Jered Ede: Yeah, that's a good question, and I don't know the answer to that. I, don't know why the, the Department of Justice chose these particular charges other than the fact that facially they, they, you know, obviously obtained a grand jury indictment. Grand, jury clearly agreed with them that there was some appearance of a violation at least, and thus that Don Lemon should, should be arrested and face these charges. and I mean, if you look at the, the two, statutes that Don Lemon was charged with, one again was 18 USC241, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and the other was 18 USC248A, which is the Face Act. both of those seemly do apply. One's, making the accusation under the indictment that Don Lemon, participated in the planning, took overt acts towards ultimately the interruption of these church services on a Sunday. in going so far as, for example, making sure that he, when he was recording the protesters, that he made sure that they were aware, not to reveal anything that they didn't want the public to know, stepping away from the protesters when they were talking about things that he didn't want the public to know yet. and that really does make you question, is that an act of journalism or is that an act of activism? Is he merely observing or at that point does he participate? The Department of Justice's argument under both of these statutes is that's when he crosses the line and becomes a participant in this scheme. these are laws, I will say, of general applicability. laws of general applicability do apply to journalists. and again, the First Amendment doesn't. Isn't a magic, you know, wand that they can wave to allow them to violate these, these rules. There is interestingly a, really, well, relatively famous case in the journalism field anyway, called Berger versus CNN from the 2000, I believe Jenna, that dealt with this, this issue pretty closely. Now, it wasn't a face act violation, but it was the, the argument can, accompany others onto private property or onto others property, and effectively have the same immunity that the others would have. In that case, it was a journalist from CNN who accompanied, federal Fish and Wildlife officials, onto a Montana ranch and recorded the raid that was happening, and ultimately the Ninth Circuit there. And this was, agreed to effectively by the United States Supreme Court before it was sent back down to the district court for further proceedings. they agreed that the landowner had a cause of action against the journalist, even though the journalist was invited by the federal government to participate in the raid and observe the raid. so the mere fact that Don Lemon was there, at least in his mind as a journalist at the invitation of these, protesters, does not immunize him from these general laws or laws of general applicability.

Jenna Ellis: And that's a really fascinating case to bring up because this was a journalist in this case, Berger versus cnn, that was accompanying law enforcement on an otherwise, lawful activity in terms of, the raid. And yet the legal question, or the central, is whether media personnel acting in tandem with law enforcement, violate, the protections against unreasonable searches. And. And ultimately, as you mentioned, the journalists were held liable, in that case. And so, you know, there. There is, though, obviously a difference between, the civil liability side versus criminal charges. But here, the distinction in the facts as well. Jared Ede, my special guest this morning, he's an attorney, with Clairlock, is that Don Lemon went with a group of agitators that were themselves. They weren't carrying out, you know, federal law enforcement activities. They were, essentially raiding a church. And, they were violating private property. The, violation against rights would, of course, be the worshipers and the right to, their First Amendment right to, free exercise of religion, which is what they were doing in the church when, this. This occurred. And so, how is it different, perhaps, in terms of the facts here, with the First Amendment, argument that Don Lemon is raising that even though clear, I think it's clear that he was a participant, not just a journalist observer. where is the legal line here, in the sense of both a criminal context and also in a. Maybe a civil liability context, where probably the church would wait until the outcome of the criminal case is resolved and then perhaps go after some civil liability, if he's ultimately convicted. but where are some of those distinctions?

 Jered Ede: Right? And I think what we would probably say is, look at US Supreme Court history of when they have tried to make that distinction of when are you a reporter versus when are you a participant? And there's a, landmark Supreme Court case, called Bartnicki versus Vopper, that at least provides some guidance. And there, the argument was that a journalist should not have liability for publishing, illegally obtained materials, provided that those materials were simply given to the reporter, that the reporter wasn't the one, illegally obtaining them to begin with. And there the Supreme Court said, you know, yes, if it's a matter of public concern that the reporter is entitled to publish things, that are, you know. Uh-huh. Illegally obtained so long as they did not play a part in the illegal obtaining to begin with. And that's really, I think, where the distinction is going to come down here is what. What is considered playing a part.

Jenna Bennett: Don Lemon is accused of misleading the public about protesters

does the criminal liability attach to Don Lemon because of these things which are listed in the indictment against him, these overt acts where he again advised the, protesters that he was accompanying, do not tell my public, audience where you're going. Do not tell them these facts, that when they started talking about those, he pulled the camera aside so that he wouldn't capture the audio of where they're going or what these secret plans are. There's even language that Don Lemon used in, some of the video where he doesn't refer to as, oh, you know, the. The activists, the protesters are going to do X, Y and Z. He says, we are going to do X, Y and Z, which I think could be very, useful language for the Department of Justice and very damaging language for Don Lemon. but a lot of this, Jenna, a lot of this law about what does quote unquote, playing a part, that language, the magic language from Bartnicki, v. Bopper, of what does that mean? A lot of it is untested. And unfortunately, what we've seen is, a result of that. Is the Department of Justice, whether under the Biden administration, the Obama administration before it, or the Trump administration, you've seen the Department of Justice going after journalists in ways that many people disagree with. You know, my time at Project Veritas as the chief legal officer, I worked very closely with a variety of people that you'd be shocked that we worked with, such as the aclu, when our CEO, James o', Keefe, was raided by the Biden Department of Justice, for what was perceived to be a violation of Bartniki versus Bopper, and we had the ACLU come to, the public and say, no, this is. This is not acceptable. We shouldn't be going after journalists like this. in that case, it was quite literally just simply the publication of material received by Project Veritas where there was no playing of the part. But here we have arguments by the Department of Justice that I think go beyond that, where, again, it appears to be some advanced planning with the activists participating in that planning with the activists protecting that planning by the activists. And the question that I think is going to be, you know, so to say, the million dollar question here is, is that enough to cross the line, the. The Bartniki line of playing a part, for Don Lemon? And I think, you know, to your point as well, the question of the difference between Berger, where it was a raid of a ranch with federal officers versus here, where it's activists going into a church, in many ways, there's worse facts, going into a church where, you know, that they're. They're attempting to exercise their First Amendment right to worship on a Sunday. You know, this is going to interrupt that. that appears to be a facial, you know, violation of the face Act. some other areas, it's a little bit better. You know, the ranch is clearly private property, whereas the church is, you know, ostensibly held open to the public. of course, you have the issue as well. And this is pointed out in the indictment that Don Lemon was asked by the pastor to leave, and his response to that was to continue interviewing. And the indictment claims that he even, went so far as blocking an exit to try to interview parishioners as they were leaving the church. so there's going to be quite a bit of argument back and forth about the extent of the application of Bartnanki vs. Bopper in the First Amendment in this, and that's going to be quite an interesting development.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and this is where I think we can't just be too careful on either side, to suggest that this is ironclad, you know, Don Lemon is going to jail for 20 years, or on the flip side, that, you know, he was absolutely protected by his, you know, First Amendment right to be there as a journalist. there are interesting legal questions, as you point out, Jerridy, there are things that are not, clear in the law. And last question, for you as well, I mean, what are kind of the broader implications for press freedom, if this becomes perhaps a, ah, landmark case that does, ah, create new territory to say, okay, in certain instances, however, perhaps an appellate court would determine or, so forth, if the jurisprudence becomes that a journalist cannot use First Amendment protections if they become a participant, the. The obvious pushback, I think, from the press that is a valid concern is does this have a chilling effect on speech and on press freedom?

 Jered Ede: Right. And I think, you know, there's. There's some validity to that argument, that there is a chilling effect from cases like this or cases like the Project Veritas Raid, where you really do, again, because of a lack of clarity from the courts as to what playing a part means, it causes a lot of consternation inside the newsrooms about, well, gee, is, is this crossing that line or not? And a lot of times the answer is very unclear, and folks within the newsroom need to make a decision about how much risk they are willing to take, in order to get the story. So to say, Don Lennon's case in particular, I think, has a very interesting implication of that, because it will, I think, cause journalists to step back and go, all right, I've received a tip from a jury or from. From a source that a certain event is going to happen. They've invited me to participate in that event or observe that event, is my, mere observation, because I've gotten this advanced tip crossing the line into playing a part. and there's some fine lines there between what I think would be considered traditional journalism and what the Department of Justice is alleging Don Lemon did in this case, that. That went to the rise, rose to the level of participation. that's going to cause some. Some deep thinking inside newsrooms about what they can and cannot do. I actually, to that extent, would argue that having this debate in such a public way with such a public figure as Don Lemon is good for journalism because perhaps it will provide some clarity on what can and cannot be done. a lot of times with, again, the newsroom, those decisions. And the chilling effect that's often spoken of comes from the lack of clarity. and so I do think in this case, it may be good for us to have this public debate and ultimately get some clarity from courts on what journalists can and cannot do.

Jared Ede says CNN is rushing to Don Lemon's defense

Jenna Ellis: Well, we have to take a break here, but Jared Ede, really appreciate your comments. And you know that, as President Trump said, Don Lemon himself is loving this because this is putting him back in the, spotlight. You know, CNN is even, is, you know, is even rushing to his defense, his former employer, all of that. And so, he is, It is looking like, you know, he's. He's happy to be participating in this type of drama, but we'll see how it goes. And, again, Devin and Adam will take a break here and appreciate your time, Jared Ede. And, this will be quite interesting for, First Amendment defenses and also for the Trump doj, you know, if they end up having this case thrown out I think, that will be upsetting to a lot of people on the right who are looking at this through perhaps more of a political lens than a legal lens in terms of what good jurisprudence is. So we do need to be careful, to not be just, you know, to happy, for the accountability side, certainly Don Lemon is different than the other agitators, in the, in the churches because of some of these, these journalistic questions. But at the same time, you know, we always do want accountability for action, so it's going to be interesting. We'll be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

 Jered Ede: 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 app.

First detransitioner to take medical malpractice lawsuit to trial wins $2 million

Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And, another case that you need to know about is that, breaking last week, the first detransitioner to take a medical malpractice lawsuit to trial won a $2 million judgment. this was Fox Varian, who sued, apparently an area psychologist and a plastic surgeon for the gender transition mastectomy she got at 16. there's some information that is kind of going around online, the entire case file. apparently, according to a reporter, Benjamin Ryan, who posted pretty extensively about this, and is going to put out, this week, a major publication about the trial apparently sat through the whole week. Ah, trial says that the entire case was put under seal when the trial started. Although, he says he obtained, documents before they were sealed and the transcripts from the trial are also under seal. However, the information that came out was a win and a $2 million judgment, for the medical malpractice lawsuit. So this may be a tipping point for, other lawsuits that are already in the works where, d transitioners are suing their physicians.

Florida couple sues fertility clinic after giving birth to baby they say isn't theirs

And meanwhile, another case, that is going on that, is in the news from Florida is a Florida couple sued a fertility clinic after allegedly giving birth to someone else's baby. This is just so horrifying and tragic for everyone involved. a Florida couple. This coming from Fox News suited fertility Clinic Weeks after the woman gave birth to a baby that allegedly isn't their biological child. they gave birth, they say, to a beautiful, healthy female child in December. But when the couple, who are both white, realized their daughter appeared to be racially non Caucasian, they ordered genetic testing to prove she wasn't theirs. And the lawsuit claims that a fertility center in Orlando somehow implanted the wrong embryo in the mother's uterus, five years after the couple had their embryos frozen at the clinic. So, a lot going on in the world of how leftism, commoditizing children, putting their leftist ideology onto children, is now, having just serious consequences that are terrible for, families and for children, but having some. At least, there's some legal recourse that's starting to go on.

Katie Faust: There should be some accountability for trans medical practitioners

So let's welcome in Katy Faust, who is the founder of, Them Before Us. And you know Katy, I think this is a good thing that hopefully we're seeing at least in the detransitioner case, these, these. I don't even want to call them medical practitioners. I think, you know, they're basically the the doctors that are, that are pushing out, you know, all of the. This terrible ideology that shouldn't be practicing at all. but I'm glad to. There's some accountability here.

Katy Faust: I totally agree. And if you go into the medical profession vowing to do no harm and then you are offering elective double mastectomies or you are carving up young women's forearms to make fake penises so that they can cosplay as men because ideologues have told them that girls can become boys and boys can become girls, you are the one that is culpable. Sue them out of existence. And that is how we're going to see the trans madness. And not because we made reasonable arguments or appealed to their medical oath. Apparently it is going to be money and money alone that brings this madness to an end.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I really hope that this is a turning point, for the left to have some accountability and see that this is not what they claim, that you know, they are helping these children, but that unfortunately, you know, juries are seeing now, these just horrific, consequences of this ideology that's now perpetuated on children.

When we start commoditizing children through the medical industry, it can have negative repercussions

And you know, Katy, this goes into, you know, kind of your whole sphere, of advocacy that also with this story about this couple, with the consequences of IVF that when we start commoditizing children through the medical industry, it can have serious, negative repercussions on families. And we need to be very careful what we advocate for, because obviously conservatives have long advocated. I don't think there's anybody, you know, high profile at all in the conservative world that has advocated for the, this kind of, you know, gender mutilation surgeries. but we have for a long time, I think, advocated too much for IVF as a whole. Without really parsing the differences between, the ethics of fertility treatments versus what actually is commoditizing children and some of these things that obviously this didn't appear to be intentional, but is a, unfortunately natural consequence of when you mess with, the whole fertility industry.

Katy Faust: Well, and what's so fascinating about this story and so revealing is they gave birth to the child. And, they said, this is somebody else's baby. Where is our baby? And so it's so fascinating to me because at a situation like this, they recognize there is something that has been lost here, something that we want. But big fertility, the reproductive technology world, routinely separates children from their natural mother and father without any kind of concern. In fact, they want it that way. Very often people go home with an unrelated baby and they don't sue and they don't complain and they call it their baby, even though they purchase somebody else's egg or purchase somebody else's sperm or maybe, acquired an entirely unrelated embryo. So in the world of big fertility, the baby is yours if you intended that child to be designed and go home with you. But if there's a mix up and you want your own biological, then the baby is somebody else's. So it's a revealing, like, peek behind the curtain of the inconsistencies of the world of big fertility. Because I think all of us look at this couple with this biracial child or this, child who's obviously not the same race, and we go, oh, okay, we understand why they're upset because even though they love the child, but they're like, okay, our biological child is probably somewhere else. We are raising somebody else's baby. All of us go, oh, that's, that's horrifying and awful. But if that couple had purchased the gametes to create that biracial child taking them home and said, look, this is our child. Everybody say, it sure is. What a beautiful family you've got there. So, like, which is it? Does biology matter or does it not matter? And the answer is, it matters when the adults want it to. And if that's what they ordered from the clinic. But it doesn't matter, in other cases. So it's just a reveal. Like the thing is, biology always matters to children. Children get their biological identity from their two genetic parents. And those genetic parents are the most likely to ensure that they are safe and love and invested in. And so this world where whatever the adult wants is the standard has to be gone. Let's get back to the place where children have a right to be known and loved by the two people who made that.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and you know, that is such a great point that, you know, this situation we would say, you know, obviously is tragic because this couple, wanted and desired their own biological child. It, based on the reporting that appears to be their intent to use IVF was to have their own biological child. And yet we see the use of, you know, surrogacy all the time to place, non related children to homosexual couples to yeah, out in quote, unquote, adoption. And yet, that should be the same sort of, kind of horrifying response. Now of course, you know, adoption, to a mother and a father is a great and wonderful thing. and so how do we navigate those distinctions between not just going along with the intent of what and then the desires of the parent, but actually drawing biblical lines and distinctions over what's ethical and moral and what isn't.

Katy Faust: You will never find clarity if you look at any of these issues through the lens of what the adults want. Because if the criteria is the adults are getting the child that they want, then anything is possible. But if you look at it through the lens of children are vulnerable people who have a fundamental right to life and a right to their mother and father. You get clarity on everything. That means no children are destroyed through ivf, which happens, in virtually every case. That means no child is separated from their mother or father through ivf. They're only, if you're using ivf, they're only going home with their own mother and father. If a child out in the world loses their mother and father due to tragedy or irresponsibility, then we take a child protective lens and look at that and say we need to restore what the child has lost by whenever possible, placing them with a man and woman so they can still have a mother and a father. Now all of those scenarios means that oftentimes adults will not get what they want. Some infertile couples won't get what they want. Some married couples won't get what they want. Gay couples or singles will not get what they want. And that is okay, because a just society, a biblical worldview, demands that, that the weak are cared for by the strong. But when we look at all of these questions through the lens of what adults want, it is always the weak who are sacrificing for the strong, children who are sacrificing for adults. And that is a fundamentally unjust, unchristian way of looking at family formation.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And we have to be very careful to draw these distinctions. And I think you do it so well, Katy Faust, to say that, you know, this is all about the biblical definitions of family. This is all about, the, the truly the best interests of the child as well, and not just dependent on the desires of adults and, the overall commodification of children. And And so this is why, you know, some of these, headlines in these stories, while on face we can have, you know, different reactions and, you know, some of these things, but we need to stop and ask these questions of why do we think that, this headline is, is tragic, for example, with what happened to this couple? But then, you know, we look at perhaps another headline that it is the, the desire of a couple to use a surrogate. and we say, okay, well, that's fine because nobody got, quote, unquote, hurt in the process. But it was really just that the outcome followed the desires of the adults rather than actually stepping back and saying, okay, but is this the biblically appropriate ethical thing? And what is actually being, done here to the child in terms of their rights? And navigating those things, I think can be difficult and complex, especially as we do navigate the very real world of infertility and of course, wanting couples who are married. So that means one man and one woman. we want to, in a Christian world viewpoint, obviously want them to be able to, have children if they can. So, you know, so some fertility treatments obviously are good and ethical. And so sometimes I think it's hard for people emotionally to draw those distinctions. How can they maybe step back and say, okay, regardless of the emotion around it, I need to follow a moral and perhaps even logical argument to get to these distinctions of what is morally ethical and what is it.

Katy Faust: It's very hard to do if your desire and your longings are the most important value or priority. But if Christ and pleasing Christ and following God and obeying his commands are your top priority, you're going to have clarity. That means that you can take your burden to God and say, this is our deep, deep heart's desire. This is our longing. Help us fulfill this longing without victimizing those that you tell us you will hold us accountable for if we cause a little one to stumble. None of the. Even if we have very legitimate longings and aims that are even biblical, we do not get to achieve those aims by victimizing the most vulnerable. And that is what happens in almost every IVF case, because they will always encourage couples to mass produce embryos so that they can grade, screen, select, freeze, destroy, and donate to research the undesirables. And so most, Christians don't have an awareness of that. They don't have the money to do it any other way. And then some people will say, well, I want to be a mother so badly, I feel called to carry a, pregnancy. I don't have viable eggs. I will purchase somebody else's eggs. Well, now you are forcing the child to lose their biological mother so that you can have an infant. So you're just shifting the burden, your burden to become their burden, because those children will long for myth and want to know the identity of and possibly have a relationship with their genetic mother. So in everything that we do, we can bring our burdens before the Lord. I pray that people struggling with infertility have wonderful friends and communities that can help bear their burdens. But no amount of adult longing or struggle justifies placing a burden on the shoulders of children. So hopefully, a lot of those couples struggling with infertility are looking at things like restorative reproductive medicine, where they are able to identify and resolve the underlying fertility issue and get pregnant without the help of a technician. But sometimes the answer is no. And I understand that that's challenging for people that we know that would be wonderful parents. But are we going to live by these codes of, we're going to put children first because all of us have to do it, not just the gays.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So. So well said. And, we're going to take a break here, and Katy Faust, the founder of Them Before Us, a really great book as well, is going to stay with us through the break, to talk about one other headline when we come right back here on Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Preborn network clinics help women choose life through a free ultrasound

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 uh250 and say baby. That's pound250 baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com forward slash afr.

 : welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

A coalition of 47 conservative organizations is launching a campaign to challenge Obergefell

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. While I'm still here with my guest Katy Faust, who is the founder of Them Before Us, and she also has a great show on the weekend here on AFR talking about the issues of, children's rights and making sure that the desires of adults, adults don't override, what God, protects in children because they are human beings made in the image of God and have inherent dignity and worth and all of the same God given rights that adults do. they are simply not able to advocate for themselves as well as adults can in pretty much every situation. So, so part of this that we've been talking about, in terms of how Christians need to continue to advocate for the truth and in the area of protecting the family, conservative groups now are mobilizing to overturn Obergefell versus Hodges. You'll remember that was the 2015 case that legalized quote unquote, same sex marriage, over and against the obvious, natural law and definitions that God himself provides. So this is on the Daily Signal. A coalition of 47 conservative organizations is launching a campaign to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, which the groups acclaim redefined marriage to emphasize the desires of adults over, the needs of children. The Greater Than campaign focuses on one message, which a handful of conservative leaders state clearly in a launch video. Children are greater than equal. It is time we fought for their rights. this also includes, alongside them before us, this also includes the American Family association, the Colson center for Biblical Worldview and Family Research Council and Focus on the Family. So, Katy, you are part of this video. tell us more about this coalition and I'm really glad to see, AFA part of this and, you know, helping to, champion this.

Katy Faust: When I first started, putting together this plan to challenge Obergefell, AFA was one of the first people I reached out to because they have been so steadfast, they have been so consistent over the years. they have been so unbending. There are a lot of organizations that did fight for, the natural family leading up to Obergefell. That's kind of fallen off their radar, and now they're not so concerned about it anymore. That's not afa. So I was so delighted to have Walker be like, oh, yeah, we're all in, all the way. I mean, AFA is just an absolute gift, honestly. So, then we just reached out and started asking other organizations and if they wanted to get involved. And overwhelmingly, I was amazed. I thought it was going to be pulling teeth. I thought that I was going to be cajoling and twisting arms. But I think all of us felt like this is the right time and this is the right way. We are not doing this the way a lot of other organizations and campaigns for the traditional family have been advanced in the past, which has largely been on religious grounds or protection of religious liberty, which matters. But. But Christians who don't want to sign a marriage license or bake a cake or arrange flowers, they are not the primary victims of marriage redefinition. Children have lost their mother and father because of family redefinition. It is children who are directly victimized when we redefine marriage. So this coalition that was, ah, 47 when we launched and has grown even since then, even in the last six days, because the more people hear about how we are going to go about challenging Obergefell as a means of child defense, because it is, the more people want to get involved. So I have been hugely encouraged by the reception, and also the people that this has angered. It has angered all the right people. And that's how, you know you're over the target.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And I completely agree with you that this is the best avenue to fight for overturning Obergefell. Because then it's not just, adult preference and adult, protection of, of rights against other adults desires and preferences. Because we hear that all the time from the left. Well, who is, you know, who is gay marriage really hurting? Right. Well, the answer to that question is children. And the left really will not have a good argument for that. It's not just, oh, well, you know, bake the cake where that doesn't have the same honest Honestly, emotional response as, as protecting the rights of children. And so I think that this is a natural consequence of gay marriage, to say that, you know, we need to, to look at what that's really doing, to children who are, being placed with, gay couples and, and saying, you know, this is a deprivation of their rights. And I think that, it would be very difficult for a court to ignore that unless they are just so deeply entrenched in this LGBTQ nonsensical ideology, that they have to literally, as Roman says, suppress the truth and unrighteousness because this is the truth. And advocating for the rights of children in this context is paramount.

So, so is there a, a plan for, um, a legal case

So, so is there a, a plan for, a legal case? And is someone, you know, spearheading that or where exactly is this campaign going?

Katy Faust: Oh, yes, we have a plan, the Greater Than Campaign, which go To Greater Than Campaign.com Sign up and I will keep you posted about everything. Take our marriage quiz. See how much you really know about gay marriage. Look at our Q and A. Watch the video that has Allie Stuckey and Micah Knowles and lila rose and Dr. Albert Mohler. you know, take a look at all the people that we have on our about page who are in this with us. This is all of conservatism speaking with one voice saying, don't touch the kids. Don't touch the kids. And that we're going to do three things. We have a judicial, A, policy strategy that is going to start to undo the, the terrible effects of Obergefell. We are going to change public opinion. That's why I have so many amazing influencers and people with large platforms who are already on board. We are going to convince and help the American public understand the direct connection between legalizing gay marriage and child victimization. And we're going to help everybody understand that natural marriage is the best pathway for child protection. And third, we're going to turn the church into a child centric fighting force. We are developing materials and a curriculum for Protestants and Catholics to understand that part of your witness, part of your expression, and your pure and undefiled religion before God is protecting the most vulnerable. And that needs to happen right now as it relates to marriage and family matters. So, yeah, we do have a judicial plan. Very briefly, what Obergefell did is it required the flattening of all distinctions of the natural family. Now, biology between parents and children, that biological connection, irrelevant. Just one of many options. Now, you're not seeing the words mother and father on birth certificates or in Parenthood law, because even saying the words mother or father feels a little like discrimination. They've created new pathways for unrelated adults to acquire children that bypasses adoption screenings. They've even redefined infertility, a medical condition, so that single and same sex couples can have their motherless and fatherless children manufactured through ibs, subsidized by insurance. So if there is a distinction within the family, they've erased it in the name of adult equality. The problem is all those distinctions matter to children. So the way we fight this is by forcing those natural distinctions to reemerge within law, in state law. And then those distinctions are going to feel like a violation of their constitutional right. But then we will bring that up before the court if it's challenged. And the question before the court is not going to be how do the adults identify or do they have dignity? The question before the court is going to be do children benefit from their own mother and father in ways that they don't from a state assigned adult? So we're actually going to change the entire question that the courts are being asked. And when you do that, you have natural law, social science, and a couple centuries of common law behind you. So I'm very confident that with the right state level lawmakers, if we can find some courageous politicians, we're totally going to do this.

Jenna Ellis: Awesome. Well, Katy Faust, I'm 100% with you. I'm so glad that they made Family association is as well because you're absolutely right. This shouldn't turn on whether this is good for the adults that want to commoditize children. this should turn on that question of whether this is good for children. And courts just can't ignore this anymore. So Katy Faust and her show on American Family Radio is Them Before Us. That's also the title of her foundation and book. you can go to afr.net go to that icon in the banner for podcasts, listen to that and learn a lot more about how we need to be standing up in our churches for these issues, comprehensively. Not just marriage, but also family. As always, you can reach me and my team JennaAFR.net. PreBorn's whole mission is to rescue babies from abortion and lead their families to Christ. Last year, PreBorn's network of clinics saw 8,900 mothers come to Christ. Please join us in this life saving mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr.