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 Jana.
: 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.
Ryan Helfenbein: Topic of interracial marriage is important topic
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, January 14th. And if you are one that is perhaps perpetually online or on X, occasionally you see other debates that trend that are outside the realm of politics and actually focus on theology. And some of these things are really important to cover because you have to be one really careful who you listen to, whose advice you take, but also answering these questions from a biblical foundation and obviously a scriptural perspective to not just either history and tradition, which can of course be wrong, or just the current take of the day. And the recent trend last week that I think it's really important that we cover is the topic of interracial marriage. And yes we're talking about this in 2026. but there are a lot of so called Christian nationalists that are, and this is the undercurrent and we need to understand why this topic is, is coming up. It's because a lot of the people who purport to be what that term, includes, if you would almost trademark it, like Black Lives Matter for example. Well we all know that all lowercase all lives matter, that includes, you know, regardless of skin color. But the term black lives matter of course is referring to an entity, a thought group, a specific worldview. Well, Christian nationalist is the same. And a lot of the Christian nationalist persuasion, among other very, very dangerous ideas, really is rooted in a lot of ah, white supremacy and racism genuinely, which is a really terrible thing because we know from Scripture that all human beings are created in the image of God, have inherent dignity and worth. And there is no partiality based on gender, demographic, skin color, any of that. And as the Apostle Paul talks about in the NewSong Testament, the gentiles are now grafted in to the inheritance of the kingdom of God. And so we are now not even, neither Jew nor gentile. And so when we talk about the topic of interracial marriage, this came up because, one account, who is purportedly a pastor, which is also shocking, posted as a Christian man happily married to a Mexican Spanish American woman, I actually agree with this other Christian nationalist named Joel Webbin. Interracial marriage is not the quote unquote ideal. That's a really dangerous idea. let's talk about it more with Ryan Helfenbein, who is the vice President of communications at Liberty University. He's also the executive director of the Standing for Freedom Center. is one of my favorite people to discuss good theology with. And, Ryan, this post goes on to say, you know, now I don't believe it is sinful, but also goes on to say interracial marriage creates a variety of additional hurdles in marriage and life. and talking about kind of this multicultural mess, which we can talk about, you know, wisdom issues in scripture, but to say that interracial marriage is not the quote unquote ideal is actually adding to what the Bible says about marriage, which is that it's one man and one woman. A man will leave his father and mother, be united to his wife, the two shall become one. And for the believer, you have to marry a Christian. That's it. Now, some people are more compatible than others, but compatibility is sort of this like Hallmark match.com kind of, you know, phenomenon that we experience and drill down in 2026. Not actually a biblical command for a quote unquote ideal.
Kenneth: Fear based belief that interracial marriage leads to moral compromise
Ryan Helfenbein: Jenna, this is so well stated and I think it's an important topic as it, as this, kinism sort of emerges, a little bit in certain pockets of Christian circles. it is this fear based belief that if people of two different, skin tones or tones of melanin, were to marry, that somehow that would lead to some kind of moral compromise in some way. and it's totally fear based. It's not based on scripture. you have Old Testament accounts as well as NewSong Testament. You're exactly right on, the prohibition in marriage for the Christian is not being unequally yoked with an unbeliever. I certainly can say that there might be wisdom in this idea of a multicultural or intercultural kind of marriage in which people don't have shared faith or shared beliefs. but it certainly isn't tied to the social construct of race. And I want to be very clear. This is, the late, great doctor, Vodi Bakam. Race is actually a Social construct. if we were to look at blood types, if, we were looking at DNA, the composite structure, the makeup, the composition of, DNA worldwide. The Human Genome Project that was researched back in the 1990s, every single male and female created in God's image, regardless of their melanin tone, are 99.999% the same. so the idea that this is about blood, ah, that this is about, you know, race. race is a social construct. It's certainly not a biblical construct, but it is fear based. you go back to 1924. this was when we had mass immigration from Catholic countries and Eastern European countries, Slavic nations, that kind of thing. there was a fear that the United States was, and it was not an irrational fear, but that we were losing our homogeneous culture. And that had more to do with understanding what it meant to be an American. and for a while there was wisdom and prudence with passing. I think it was in 1925, thereabouts. for 40 years there was basically a moratorium on immigration. We just didn't do it. And it was largely because we had a huge population of Catholics immigrating to a Protestant nation. No kidding. And, Catholic parochial schools were beginning to be set up across the country because many people were sending their kids to public schools that were Protestant schools and there was Protestant catechesis. And so they wanted their own separate schools. so we had to kind of work this out as a country. but there was actually, an act that was passed in 1924 regarding interracial marriage, in whites marrying non whites. And in 1967, you'll know this. Virginia, is the state called the state for lovers because Richard, and Mildred Loving, it was an interracial marriage. Ah, there was a case that went to the Supreme Court in 1967 that struck down the old bans, including a Virginia law against interracial marriage. and so this is something that we've largely not debated in Christian circles because most Christians accept and understand that there is no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, that we are all equal under Christ. you know, there are the social justice types that take that to the ultimate extreme. To blend, you know, egalitarianism into that somehow to suggest that God doesn't have distinct roles for male and female. We know that's all nonsense, but in Scripture it's very clear. And I'll just say this very fast. You know, you go to the Old Testament, you know, whether it be Ruth and Boaz, that would be considered by a kin, a standard interracial marriage. Or Zipporah and Moses. She, was a Kushite woman. she was of a different tribe. That, by a Kenneth standard is an interracial marriage that would be forbidden. We saw, we see very clearly in Scripture where Miriam, states something, that is not based on Zipporah's faith or culture, but just on her race. And she's struck with leprosy for seven days. and then she is healed later. God condemns this notion of racism. We, have to be very, very careful. I do believe that when it comes to marriages, mixed marriages, where there is a blend between I'm a Christian and I go to a local Baptist church, or, you know, I'm a Christian Catholic and I go to a Roman Catholic church, there's wisdom in saying no. Put for the sake of our children and our marriage, we need to define what our faith is, and we need to be very clear about that. another example would be our vice president. J.D. vance is in a mixed marriage. He's raising his kids as Catholics, but his wife is clearly Usha. Vance is clearly, Hindu. that is what Scripture warns us about. and these guys are taking it to the ultimate extreme. It is not conservatism. It is certainly not Christianity. And I do get a grimace a little bit when I hear, the Anti Defamation League and these other groups, you know, Southern Poverty Law center, they want to throw the whole lot of Christianity or the whole lot of Christian nationalism even. And I mean that only in the sense of people who believe in the nation state, believe in the integrity of one nation under God, who want to get back to our founding principles. They want to throw that whole lot into this lot of kinist, racist, white supremacist. And that is certainly not the case. None of us hold to that. So this is something we need to be aware of and we need to certainly instruct our kids and our churches about this.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So. So well said.
Ryan Helfenbein is vice president of communications at Liberty University
Ryan Helfenbein, my special guest this morning. Vice, President of communications at Liberty University and executive director of the Standing for Freedom Center. And your. You're absolutely right to, point out the unbiblical faults on both sides. And in fact, that was, Vadi Bakkam's title of his book was Fault Lines. And, one of several and really excellent book. I commend it, to everyone listening to your reading. but to say that, there is not A difference in Scripture between value of the human being versus role based on what of ah, the biblical delegated order and authority is to confuse value with order and roles. So women have just as much inherent dignity and worth and value as human beings made in the image of God. Yet our roles in the family government are different. Women can only be wives and mothers. Men can only be husbands and fathers. You can't mix the two. and we're seeing that, that discussion about gender play out at the Supreme Court. We'll talk about that a little later in the program. but to say somehow that the distinction in roles is somehow also a distinction in value is wrong. And is unbiblical and unscriptural. But then to go the full opposite direction and, and say that there is no distinction and because there is no value distinction, then there shouldn't be a role distinction. That, that leads to a redefinition of things like marriage of the egalitarian kind of churches to say that, you know, women and lesbians and you know, whoever, the church might put up as a pastor or a leader or the shepherd of the ecclesia and the church, that is also wrong. And that confuses role, authority, distinctions, jurisdiction with value. And I think that when we're talking about marriage and specifically interracial marriage, the confusion becomes a moral bright line and what God actually commands and the difference between commands and prohibitions on the believer, which is you can't marry an unbeliever. And obviously a woman can only marry a man. A man can only marry a woman with wisdom to say that, you know, because any, any family that starts a new family unit, any, any man and woman that is going to be a blended marriage to an extent, because everybody comes from just a different background, a different family structure, a different understanding and perception of, you know, all things from finances to how many kids you want to, a lot of things that you have to work out in that context. But, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those are biblical prohibitions. And so many people, Ryan, I think add to scripture when they talk about compatibility or as this account, this quote unquote pastor talks about an ideal. God just says it's not good for man to be alone. And he tells the Christian, be in a family, get married, have kids. And the only command in scripture is one man and one woman and then don't marry an unbeliever. And yet in our society, I think this whole idea of kenism and to suggest that this isn't an ideal is borrowing from a secular mentality of ultimate compatibility that's almost commoditizing in a sense. The institution of marriage with these unlimited choices and you have to find your perfect soulmate and this kind of, you know, homework driven nonsense that really reduces marriage to benefits, to the individual perceived benefits, not God's design.
Ryan Helfenbein: Yeah, so well stated. So well stated. You know, it's like that, 23andMe, you know, where people are taking the DNA test and all of that and they're trying to figure out who they're, where they're from. And when you look at that, you say, oh my gosh, you know, I, you know, I actually have a little bit of Scottish ancestry and I've got some German ancestry and somehow, some way, and I have no idea, I've got some Mongolian ancestry. Just some really weird stuff. And what that ultimately reflects is that we all come from these various places, from different tribes, from different nations and cultures. And we're being reminded of even what Acts chapter 17 says, this is that great sermon that's in the areopagus where, ultimately, what. But what Peter is saying is that we have all descended from m. Adam. It doesn't matter what continent you come from or whether you're from Shamham or Japheth going back to the sons of Noah. We all come from Adam. He's the father of the entire human race. And we've all sinned in Adam. we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. and so look, there are certain cultures, you know, I'm going to say this and I want to be very, very careful. This is not a, this is not a Kennest belief. Cultures, that adopt Christianity. And that's irrespective of the social construct of race. I don't care if you're white, black, you know, orange, brown, whatever, it doesn't matter. Certain cultures that revere God, and they orient their lives, their laws, their values around that belief in God versus certain cultures that orient their lives around paganism. White, black, brown, it doesn't matter. That culture, that orient itself around faith in the one true and living God will be superior. Superior how? In their values superior in the kind of life that they enjoy. Not because the culture better, but because God is better. And I think that's something that people need to understand. and so this kinis belief is trying to tie race to this idea of, everything else. And they're trying to, just as you Say, commodify it in such a way as to say, well, no, no, no. a, white person can't marry a brown person or an orange person or a yellow person, because, we can't mix between, these various constructs. No, at the end of the day, it is all about our faith in Christ that defines all of our values. And you're exactly right, Jenna. Very wise to say, and this is true. Every marriage between two families, is going to be a blending of different, different expectations, different values. that is why it is so critical that faith in Christ comes first. Everybody has different Easter traditions and different traditions at Christmas. Right. And so those choices have to be made, and when. And people in wisdom, when they get premarital counseling, they have to ask hard questions of what is that one another. And the first is, what are your expectations of marriage? What are your expectations of me? and that has to be done in wisdom. But it is so clear from scripture that God is not placing a prohibition based on melanin, based on skin tone that is not anywhere to be found in scripture. And then a lot of times, too, Jenna, you'll find a commonality between people, whereas I can have more in common, with my brother in Christ, Virgil Walker, who writes for the Freedom Center. We have different melanin tone than I have with another white guy across the street that doesn't love Jesus Christ, who is not oriented around the gospel. And at the end of the day, that makes perfect sense because the Bible makes perfect that clear.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely.
Ryan Helfenbein: That's what the church is made of.
Jenna Ellis: And. And Ryan, we gotta end here. But, absolutely. And this is why we have to think through all of these things biblically. See where the argument leads. A lot of these Kenneths are asserting that because we're for, you know, closed nations and borders, that somehow that ties into, you know, the importing of, of, you know, others from other countries. And so that's also why they're against interracial marriage. It's also all nonsense. Go back to the Bible alone. We'll be right back with more.
Preborn Network helps women choose life through a free ultrasound
Jenna Ellis: 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 £250 and say baby. That's £250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr.
James Fishback proposed a sin tax on only fans creators in Florida
: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as the November 2026 elections get well underway, there is a lot of focus and emphasis on my home state of Florida and who will succeed Governor Ron DeSantis. And there are a lot of proposals from the Republican side on how to continue that, legacy and increase the benefits, of living in a conservative state. And James Fishback, who is a political newcomer seeking the GOP nomination, has suggested and proposed a quote unquote sin tax on only fans creators of, 50% in Florida. So he says the tax would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to be used to fund Florida's education system, improve school lunches, increase teacher pay, fund crisis pregnancy centers, and what he described as a first of its kind mental health czar for men. So he took that proposal to social media, tagging a Florida based only fans content creator. And this has generated not only a lot of controversy but a lot of support. So James, ah, Fishback joins me now, a candidate for Republican, candidate for governor. Hopefully it is a conservative that succeeds Governor DeSantis. But James, I think this is a great idea to call it a syntax and for the state to not just provide incentives to, you know, families to hard work and all this, but to actually, deincentivize some of this content and some of these quote unquote jobs that aren't actually good for a moral and upright society. So how would this actually work?
James Fishback: Well, Jenna, good morning. I mean you framed that so well. We can talk afterward about you joining the team as a senior policy advisor. I think you're absolutely right, which is in a society you want to incentivize the good, moral, righteous things and you want to disincentivize and deter the opposite. And so when we think about what kind of state we want to preserve, and build on. I'm so blessed that Ron DeSantis and you feel the same way, Jenna, has been our governor for the past eight years. Sadly, he is term limited, but I am running to succeed him. and I think one way we can preserve that greatness is to preserve a moral, righteous society. I'll tell you, wide swaths of our society today are not. You have got. Young women who once aspired to be lawyers, doctors, even devoted mothers are now forced to sell their bodies online. And they're mine to get by. That slanderous lie of commodification and objectification often begins young high school, even middle school. I'm going to stand up to that in our education system. But if there are people who are being exploited right now online through the only fan system, there is only one thing we can do, and we should do it immediately, and that is create a syntax. And a syntax is a concept in economics that recognizes that some behavior is so undesirable, so antithetical to the common good, not just to hurt the women who are out there being exploited and abused, selling their bodies on the Internet, but also the men themselves who are being drawn into lust, who are being addicted to pornography. And their whole entire mind and mindset is being rewired by this economic pornographic system is create a syntax, disincentivize the behavior, raise the tax on OnlyFans, so called creators, so high at 50% that they are effectively disincentivized, deterred and barred from doing that. Because right now you have an economic system that doesn't just welcome that, it celebrates, it exemplifies, it puts that on a pedestal. I want to make it easier for young women to be able to go be devoted mothers, to go be nurses, to be doctors, to be lawyers like you have successfully been. Jenna, I cannot have an economic system in my state that my family has known for four generations that prioritizes this cultural degeneracy. And you brought up Sophie Rain. Sophie Rain is a proud Florida residence. Sophie Rain is the number one OnlyFans content creator, not just in Florida, not just in the United States, but in the world. In the last three years, Sophie Rain has brought in over $100 million through OnlyFans. That means that Sophie Rain, when this tax is instituted, if I'm elected Florida's 47th governor, there's going to be $50 million of revenue for us to work with. Now, if that revenue doesn't happen, it's a good thing, Jenna, because it means that Sophie Rain quit and reached her God given potential, which was not to sell her body online to men all over the world, but it was to do something meaningful, moral and uprighteous. And if she decides to keep down this path, well, guess what? The state of Florida is going to have $50 million that we're going to use to do a whole lot of good. Improve school lunch is something that Myshel Obama said and never did. Of course, that's nothing new for the Obamas. Number two, we're going to raise teacher pay across the board. I meet public school teachers in our rural school districts who are doing everything right. They are teaching, they are instilling good values, but they are still facing down the second lowest teacher pay in the country. I'm going to fight for them. My grandma was a, was a public school teacher down in Broward county of 20 years. I'm going to raise teacher pay across the board. And the number three, and we talked about this earlier, is it's not enough, I think, for us to be pro life in the sense that we want to play this game about, well, is it six weeks or five weeks? No, Jenna, for me, I follow Jeremiah, chapter one, verse five. Before you were born, I set you apart. I believe that life begins at conception. The correct number of abortions in Florida is not 5,000 or 1,000. It is zero. I'm not going to play this game of heartbeat. This, this, that and the other. No, life begins at conception. I will tear down, shut down, dare I say, even burn down every single abortion center in my state, all 53 of them that still stand today. And in their place, Jenna, we're going to erect a crisis pregnancy center that is open 24 hours a day, seven days, because, yes, we can get rid of abortion, but we won't be able to get rid of unplanned, unexpected pregnancies. And we need centers that are patient, that are kind, that are compassionate, that welcome women who are often plagued with that fear, that doubt, the uncertainty that is associated with an unexpected pregnancy. We'll tell them that pregnancy is not a curse. It is a blessing. It is a gift from God. We will help them through the process, whether it's childcare, whether it's diapers, prenatal, postnatal care for vitamins, whatever the case may be. Florida moms need to know that we as a community will always come together because that is the pro life, American and Christian thing to do. So to come full circle, as, Florida governor, I am running to protect our young women. And I will do that by instituting the first of its kind 50% tax on only fans. If they still want to do that, despite everything we've talked about this morning, if they still want to avoid the possibility of being a great lawyer, a nurse, a doctor, a farmer, if they still want to go down that path of moral and cultural degeneracy, then guess what? Pay your taxes. Pay your taxes. Otherwise you have to quit the game and do something that reaches your God given greatness.
Jenna Ellis: Well, and I think that's so well said, in terms of how to holistically say that, that young women need to understand and aspire to their God given potential. And that includes what we're celebrating actually this Sunday in churches, which is Sanctity of Life Sunday, which of course began as churches, gathering together and setting aside the Sunday after Roe vs Wade was initially wrongfully decided in 1973 and saying we need to pray for, for life to be at the fore of policy for protections in this country and to suggest that the government needs to do more than simply talk about it, but actually provide some of those incentives and some of the emphasis on saying we're actually going to disincentivize you from choosing certain immoral, lifestyles and is something I think we do need to take a hard look at. some of the critics, James Fishback would suggest, okay, this is a lot of, you know, great well intentioned rhetoric but ultimately how could you actually institute this? Or for example with the closing down of abortion clinics, how is that actually possible? That translates from a campaign promise to action in the governor's office.
James Fishback: Well, you have to actually deliver on it. And look, I'm the only candidate. I respect my fellow candidates with the exception of one which is Byron Donalds and I'll get into that in a second, but I respect them. The truth of the matter is that I'm the only true pro life candidate running for Florida governor to succeed Ron DeSantis. That's the truth. Because I'm not going to play this game of five weeks, six weeks and negotiate in this European system of abortion. Byron Donald says that abortion is just another medical procedure. He said that on tape on October 15, 2024. So here's my belief. Life begins at conception. The correct number of abortions in Florida is exactly zero and not a single one. More than that, I'm going to work with the legislature to institute policies that protect life at the moment of conception. Because young women who are plagued with that fear, that uncertainty and doubt when they hear that there's a Baby on the way. They have to have the full support of their community. And as Florida governor, our communities are going to stand up. We're going to rise up, we're going to protect our mothers. We're going to provide them with the resources, yes, with the attention, sure, but with the love, the grace and the compassion that every single woman, including, including our own blessed Mother, the mother of our Lord and Savior, she too was plagued by fear, uncertainty and doubt. And if the mother of our Lord and Savior could still face that unexpected uncertainty, then every single mother, every single mother will face it as well. And, I'm fighting for them, to bring them to the fore.
Ron Santis is running for Florida governor on a pro-life platform
That is the pro life thing to do. And so if you are like I am a passionate pro life warrior, you've really got to consider what our campaign is doing because Byron Donalds has said he wants to do this, maybe even bring it up to 15 weeks. I don't know what Jay Collins believes.
: I don't.
James Fishback: He has to ask his wife. Paul Renner is a good guy, but he still wants to keep the six weeks. I'm the only candidate running for Florida governor that will protect life at the moment of conception, to protect the preborn and to protect our moms. That's why I'm running for Florida governor to succeed our pro life warrior, that is Ron Santis.
James Fishback: Life begins at conception, there is no debate over that
Jenna Ellis: All right, well, we've got to end here, but, James Fishback, I appreciate the, solid stance, for life because you're absolutely right that life begins at conception. There is no debate over that. There is only politics, posturing and there's only cowardice.
Jenna Ellis: Ah.
Jenna Ellis: Quite frankly, which is, why I personally was very disappointed in, Byron Donald's when he refused to stand up and object and help Ron DeSantis defeat Amendment 4 here in Florida, last year, which would have created basically abortion tourism in the state of Florida, if you can believe that. And even Donald Trump finally came out against that and said, you know, well, could be 12, 15 weeks, whatever, because he's, he's not as pro life as we would like. but Byron had to wait and see what Donald Trump said before he was willing to stand for life. That's not Ron DeSantis, that's not the state of Florida. And more importantly, that's not the truth. So thank you for that. And we will be right back with more.
James Fishback: welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
There was an oral argument yesterday about trans athletes in women's sports
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we discussed earlier in the program, there was a, oral argument yesterday at the US Supreme Court talking about, trans individuals, which, of course, you know, you can't trans your gender, but, trans athletes in women's sports. And the oral argument was just phenomenal in terms of some of the justices responses, especially to the lawyer that was representing these men that want to play in women's sports. And one of the best exchanges came between justice Alito and, Kathleen Hartnett, who is the attorney for the biological male athlete or just male? We don't need to say biological, because if you're male, you're male, and that's it. But he pressed the athlete's lawyer on a. On a definition of woman during the supreme court hearing. And you have to listen to this. This is cut one.
Speaker F: well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status. Let me just go back to. Let me go to some basics. Do you agree that, a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?
Speaker G: Yes, your honor.
Speaker F: If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the equal protection clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Speaker G: Yes, your honor.
Speaker F: And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What does. What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Speaker G: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court, and we don't take issue with the. We're not disputing the definition here. What we're saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams and that there's a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn't make sense to do so according to the state's own interest.
Speaker F: Well, how can you. How can a court. Court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?
Speaker G: I think here we just know that we. We basically know that the. That they've identified pursuant to their own statute. Lindsey qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're taking the statute's definitions as we find them, and we don't dispute. Dispute them we're just trying to figure out, do they create an equal protection problem?
Jenna Ellis: So ridiculous. Like, it creates an equal protection problem. And we know that this transgender dude qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being, he is being excluded categorically from the women's team. But we can't define what birth sex male means, what the women's team means. But, you know, we definitely know that there's an equal protection problem.
Jenna Ellis: I mean, it's.
Jenna Ellis: It's so embarrassing for the left that they just refuse to define what a man and a woman is because they know that their entire argument falls apart if they provide that definition. Even though they're talking about a birth sex male or a birth sex woman and providing the definitions in their argument, yet refusing to acknowledge basic biology. It just, Alita was so good.
Gerard Felitti: Supreme Court exchange on transgender sports highlights well
So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior, counsel at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, this exchange was just magnificent. there were a few others, obviously, the, goat. Justice Thomas had some, ah, really good commentary from the bench and questions for the advocates overall, how do you see, this case landing in terms of protection of women's sports? And maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court actually providing in their opinion a definition of man and woman.
Gerard Filitti: The Court certainly seemed to be supportive of the laws passed that would protect women, especially in playing sports, by excluding transgender or other identifying individuals and playing women's sports, I think the Court is likely to find that these laws are constitutional. The only real question is how broad the Court will go, whether this is going to be limited to the two states law at issue, or, or whether this is going to be a much broader and more impactful decision. My sense is that the Court does not want to make a ruling that is more impactful across the nation at this time. And the Trump administration was, not pushing for it either. but. So I don't expect to see a definition coming from the Supreme Court. But I do think it sets the stage for what the next series of litigation will be, which is precisely on states defining in statute gender.
Jenna Ellis: Well, and so how can the court then, have an opinion on an equal protection issue without first defining their terms? I mean, is this just something where they're going to kind of assume the definition and put in terms, you know, birth sex male, birth sex female, and sort of assume those definitions and then leave it to the states? Or like Alito says, I mean, if you say that you're trans something, you have to first be the thing that you're trying to transition from. I mean, it's just, it's so ludicrous that the left won't just acknowledge that there are concrete definitions rooted in biology and reality.
Gerard Filitti: Right, and that's precisely the problem. And that's what that exchange you just played highlights so well, that the left does not want to be bound by definitions. They want this wishy washy. We are what we feel like we are, interpretation. But that's not something that is legally cognizable. I mean, look, in law, we have Black's Law Dictionary that sets out the definition of legal terms. We use Webster's and other dictionaries to define what things are in litigation. We footnote these things extensively. So to say that we can get away with not defining male or female, man or woman, is a little bit ridiculous. That needs to be done at some point. However, this court can rule more narrowly that, because there's such a small subset of people that are potentially affected by these laws, they don't have the risk of violating equal protection. It's not a cognizable group. And that evades the need to define it at this time.
Jenna Ellis: Well, yeah, and, I totally see that train. And I hope that the Supreme Court, especially with the current composition, will be willing to go kind of that step further and not necessarily, just confine this without a definition and leave it up to the states, which, you know, who knows what, what states will do. But it's also fascinating to me that, Justice Jackson is sitting on, on the bench during this case and like the other two liberal, female justices, is of course arguing against protecting women's sports. And, during her confirmation hearing, she very famously or infamously said that because she's not a biologist, she can't define what a woman is. And yet she is supposed to sit in judgment of a case that expressly asks the question of whether equal protection applies to the sexes when she can't actually define that. And so, there, there have been some calls, you know, for recusal on, on that front. Obviously they didn't go anywhere. But, it just, I think, highlights the hypocrisy of the leftist mentality that suggests she can, legitimately stand in judgment of the case when she's unwilling herself to define the terms.
Gerard Filitti: I think that does show the hypocrisy that you're, you're ready and able to make a decision when you are flexible as to the meaning of things. And that's not really how it's Supposed to go, you can be flexible in your interpretation of the law to facts, but you need to share a common understanding of what something is, especially when we're talking about male or female, something that has been understood in a very specific way throughout human existence. So for Justice Jackson, or for anyone else for that matter, to remain flexible in definitions of something so basic, in sitting judgment is a little bit hypocritical because we do need to understand that this is a matter of the fact as applied to the law in these cases and not an open interpretation of what gender or sex is.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And we all learned this in law school, right? I mean, it's basic contract law that you have to provide at the same definition in order to reach a meeting of the minds and be able to arbitrate or fulfill a contract. And there was a very, famous, case that was talking about, the specifically the meaning of chicken, which you would think isn't disputable, but you remember this one from contract law case where it was like a, broilers, chicken versus foul. And it's like, okay, we have to, like, understand what the meaning of a chicken is. But the court actually said that the two parties had a very different meaning of what type of chicken was meant in the contract, that there was no actual meeting of the minds. And, you know, for something that obvious and that simple, it's like, this is literally basic 101 of just contract law. How much more, important when we're talking about constitutionally protected rights?
Gerard Filitti: Well, it's basic contact code, basic definition, and it's a definition that's not, you know, what type of chicken are we talking about? This is a basic biological reality for those on the left to keep saying, you know, follow the signs. This is the signs. There are two genders. There is not a transition or something in between. So this is the problem that we all need to understand the definition of terms. And going back to another point that you actually made, that's very good. We do need national uniformity. Look, I've got a nephew who plays hockey, and he plays. Some of the games are in other states. So you're going to have one state define male and female in one way, and then another state doing it differently. You still have that problem in sports where you can end up with different laws and different definitions, and that's just unconscionable.
Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And it just creates a whole host of problems, and hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize it. And, you know, I think that Alito and Thomas would be the most likely to want to take that step further and just define it sort of once and for all. and, and just acknowledge the reality that is biology. But we'll see how far it goes. But what did you make as well?
Jared Felitti says trans athletes head to Supreme Court
Jared Felitti, my special guest this morning of a kind of the cultural moving away from this sort of, trans nonsense. It was fascinating to me to see that the Washington Post editorial board of, of all people and places actually had a headline that said trans athletes head to the Supreme Court. Neither science nor the American public is on their side. They actually said the Supreme Court has a chance this week to save women's sports, allowing states to restore a level playing field for girls by excluding biological men and thereby correcting one of the worst excesses of America's cultural revolution. I mean, this isn't just like a guest opinion piece. This is the Washington Post editorial board.
Gerard Filitti: It's the Washington Post editorial board. And I think it fairly reflects where most of the country is. Look, I think this, this whole trans identity issue has been one large social experiment on the left and it has not worked. It does not resonate with American people because we have common sense and we understand what gender is, we understand what male and female is. So at the end of the day, I think Americans are becoming frustrated that this is being popularized, whether it's on TV or in court cases, instead of being accepted into the realm of reality. And the Washington Post editorial board sees. What America sees is that this is a social experiment that is coming to an end.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and the sad reality of this is that for the the children and the minors who have been pushed into this lie of transgenderism, there is going to be so much harm and fallout from this, especially those who have literally mutilated their bodies, have taken hormone supplements, you know, all of these things to be part of this lie and this advancement of an ideology that hopefully is coming to an end. But you know, for those who have been victims of this, do you think that there will be any opportunity as, as the culture hopefully is shifting back toward truth and reality to in any way try to get compensation if there can be any, or at least accountability for the harms that the so called experts on the left, including doctors, who you should be able to trust inflicted?
Gerard Filitti: Well, the good news is that statute of limitations don't start to run until these kids turn 18. So there will be time to find a reckoning and find justice for the ones who have been harmed by this. But at the end of the day, you know, one of the plaintiffs in this case was transitioning or whatever you want to call it, as young as age 3. And that's also on the parents. I mean how do you protect your children if this is the non science that you believe in and you allow these ideologies to be implemented, that's harm to your child. So I think, I hope, I personally hope that this is coming to an end and we stop with the mutilation and the child abuse. This is. At the end of the day, I see this as child abuse and that there is some justice for the kids who have been harmed by this.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And and last question. Do you think that this this case has an opportunity to revisit the Bostock decision which wrongly implied that the term sex in the, the 1964 Civil Rights act included sexual orientation and gender identity?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think Gorsuch has seen the light since 2020 and I do think there is an opportunity to revisit this. but I don't think it'll be any. I have not seen any cases pending that might actually lead to that overturn right now.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well I mean that is, that is a case that you know, unfortunately, I think in the climate and the temperament of society at that time was one that was very obviously wrongfully decided at its inception and needs to be overturned. And so hopefully we'll see some litigation coming from this. But you know, hopefully we will see a good response from the Supreme Court on women's sports that protection. It's good to see that there are some some cultural shifts like even the Washington Post is reflecting where people are waking up to this and hopefully we'll move past this and maybe 2026 will be the year of sanity and coming back to reality. But we need to pray for that. We need to pray for the eyes and ears to be opened, of those who are participating in this life, for hearts and minds to be changed and ultimately for this country to get back to a biblical foundation, a Christian worldview and have our policy reflect that. So Jared Felitti, really appreciate it. That's all the time we have for today. But as always you can reach me and my team. Jenna afr.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.
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 Jana.
: 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.
Ryan Helfenbein: Topic of interracial marriage is important topic
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, January 14th. And if you are one that is perhaps perpetually online or on X, occasionally you see other debates that trend that are outside the realm of politics and actually focus on theology. And some of these things are really important to cover because you have to be one really careful who you listen to, whose advice you take, but also answering these questions from a biblical foundation and obviously a scriptural perspective to not just either history and tradition, which can of course be wrong, or just the current take of the day. And the recent trend last week that I think it's really important that we cover is the topic of interracial marriage. And yes we're talking about this in 2026. but there are a lot of so called Christian nationalists that are, and this is the undercurrent and we need to understand why this topic is, is coming up. It's because a lot of the people who purport to be what that term, includes, if you would almost trademark it, like Black Lives Matter for example. Well we all know that all lowercase all lives matter, that includes, you know, regardless of skin color. But the term black lives matter of course is referring to an entity, a thought group, a specific worldview. Well, Christian nationalist is the same. And a lot of the Christian nationalist persuasion, among other very, very dangerous ideas, really is rooted in a lot of ah, white supremacy and racism genuinely, which is a really terrible thing because we know from Scripture that all human beings are created in the image of God, have inherent dignity and worth. And there is no partiality based on gender, demographic, skin color, any of that. And as the Apostle Paul talks about in the NewSong Testament, the gentiles are now grafted in to the inheritance of the kingdom of God. And so we are now not even, neither Jew nor gentile. And so when we talk about the topic of interracial marriage, this came up because, one account, who is purportedly a pastor, which is also shocking, posted as a Christian man happily married to a Mexican Spanish American woman, I actually agree with this other Christian nationalist named Joel Webbin. Interracial marriage is not the quote unquote ideal. That's a really dangerous idea. let's talk about it more with Ryan Helfenbein, who is the vice President of communications at Liberty University. He's also the executive director of the Standing for Freedom Center. is one of my favorite people to discuss good theology with. And, Ryan, this post goes on to say, you know, now I don't believe it is sinful, but also goes on to say interracial marriage creates a variety of additional hurdles in marriage and life. and talking about kind of this multicultural mess, which we can talk about, you know, wisdom issues in scripture, but to say that interracial marriage is not the quote unquote ideal is actually adding to what the Bible says about marriage, which is that it's one man and one woman. A man will leave his father and mother, be united to his wife, the two shall become one. And for the believer, you have to marry a Christian. That's it. Now, some people are more compatible than others, but compatibility is sort of this like Hallmark match.com kind of, you know, phenomenon that we experience and drill down in 2026. Not actually a biblical command for a quote unquote ideal.
Kenneth: Fear based belief that interracial marriage leads to moral compromise
Ryan Helfenbein: Jenna, this is so well stated and I think it's an important topic as it, as this, kinism sort of emerges, a little bit in certain pockets of Christian circles. it is this fear based belief that if people of two different, skin tones or tones of melanin, were to marry, that somehow that would lead to some kind of moral compromise in some way. and it's totally fear based. It's not based on scripture. you have Old Testament accounts as well as NewSong Testament. You're exactly right on, the prohibition in marriage for the Christian is not being unequally yoked with an unbeliever. I certainly can say that there might be wisdom in this idea of a multicultural or intercultural kind of marriage in which people don't have shared faith or shared beliefs. but it certainly isn't tied to the social construct of race. And I want to be very clear. This is, the late, great doctor, Vodi Bakam. Race is actually a Social construct. if we were to look at blood types, if, we were looking at DNA, the composite structure, the makeup, the composition of, DNA worldwide. The Human Genome Project that was researched back in the 1990s, every single male and female created in God's image, regardless of their melanin tone, are 99.999% the same. so the idea that this is about blood, ah, that this is about, you know, race. race is a social construct. It's certainly not a biblical construct, but it is fear based. you go back to 1924. this was when we had mass immigration from Catholic countries and Eastern European countries, Slavic nations, that kind of thing. there was a fear that the United States was, and it was not an irrational fear, but that we were losing our homogeneous culture. And that had more to do with understanding what it meant to be an American. and for a while there was wisdom and prudence with passing. I think it was in 1925, thereabouts. for 40 years there was basically a moratorium on immigration. We just didn't do it. And it was largely because we had a huge population of Catholics immigrating to a Protestant nation. No kidding. And, Catholic parochial schools were beginning to be set up across the country because many people were sending their kids to public schools that were Protestant schools and there was Protestant catechesis. And so they wanted their own separate schools. so we had to kind of work this out as a country. but there was actually, an act that was passed in 1924 regarding interracial marriage, in whites marrying non whites. And in 1967, you'll know this. Virginia, is the state called the state for lovers because Richard, and Mildred Loving, it was an interracial marriage. Ah, there was a case that went to the Supreme Court in 1967 that struck down the old bans, including a Virginia law against interracial marriage. and so this is something that we've largely not debated in Christian circles because most Christians accept and understand that there is no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, that we are all equal under Christ. you know, there are the social justice types that take that to the ultimate extreme. To blend, you know, egalitarianism into that somehow to suggest that God doesn't have distinct roles for male and female. We know that's all nonsense, but in Scripture it's very clear. And I'll just say this very fast. You know, you go to the Old Testament, you know, whether it be Ruth and Boaz, that would be considered by a kin, a standard interracial marriage. Or Zipporah and Moses. She, was a Kushite woman. she was of a different tribe. That, by a Kenneth standard is an interracial marriage that would be forbidden. We saw, we see very clearly in Scripture where Miriam, states something, that is not based on Zipporah's faith or culture, but just on her race. And she's struck with leprosy for seven days. and then she is healed later. God condemns this notion of racism. We, have to be very, very careful. I do believe that when it comes to marriages, mixed marriages, where there is a blend between I'm a Christian and I go to a local Baptist church, or, you know, I'm a Christian Catholic and I go to a Roman Catholic church, there's wisdom in saying no. Put for the sake of our children and our marriage, we need to define what our faith is, and we need to be very clear about that. another example would be our vice president. J.D. vance is in a mixed marriage. He's raising his kids as Catholics, but his wife is clearly Usha. Vance is clearly, Hindu. that is what Scripture warns us about. and these guys are taking it to the ultimate extreme. It is not conservatism. It is certainly not Christianity. And I do get a grimace a little bit when I hear, the Anti Defamation League and these other groups, you know, Southern Poverty Law center, they want to throw the whole lot of Christianity or the whole lot of Christian nationalism even. And I mean that only in the sense of people who believe in the nation state, believe in the integrity of one nation under God, who want to get back to our founding principles. They want to throw that whole lot into this lot of kinist, racist, white supremacist. And that is certainly not the case. None of us hold to that. So this is something we need to be aware of and we need to certainly instruct our kids and our churches about this.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. So. So well said.
Ryan Helfenbein is vice president of communications at Liberty University
Ryan Helfenbein, my special guest this morning. Vice, President of communications at Liberty University and executive director of the Standing for Freedom Center. And your. You're absolutely right to, point out the unbiblical faults on both sides. And in fact, that was, Vadi Bakkam's title of his book was Fault Lines. And, one of several and really excellent book. I commend it, to everyone listening to your reading. but to say that, there is not A difference in Scripture between value of the human being versus role based on what of ah, the biblical delegated order and authority is to confuse value with order and roles. So women have just as much inherent dignity and worth and value as human beings made in the image of God. Yet our roles in the family government are different. Women can only be wives and mothers. Men can only be husbands and fathers. You can't mix the two. and we're seeing that, that discussion about gender play out at the Supreme Court. We'll talk about that a little later in the program. but to say somehow that the distinction in roles is somehow also a distinction in value is wrong. And is unbiblical and unscriptural. But then to go the full opposite direction and, and say that there is no distinction and because there is no value distinction, then there shouldn't be a role distinction. That, that leads to a redefinition of things like marriage of the egalitarian kind of churches to say that, you know, women and lesbians and you know, whoever, the church might put up as a pastor or a leader or the shepherd of the ecclesia and the church, that is also wrong. And that confuses role, authority, distinctions, jurisdiction with value. And I think that when we're talking about marriage and specifically interracial marriage, the confusion becomes a moral bright line and what God actually commands and the difference between commands and prohibitions on the believer, which is you can't marry an unbeliever. And obviously a woman can only marry a man. A man can only marry a woman with wisdom to say that, you know, because any, any family that starts a new family unit, any, any man and woman that is going to be a blended marriage to an extent, because everybody comes from just a different background, a different family structure, a different understanding and perception of, you know, all things from finances to how many kids you want to, a lot of things that you have to work out in that context. But, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those are biblical prohibitions. And so many people, Ryan, I think add to scripture when they talk about compatibility or as this account, this quote unquote pastor talks about an ideal. God just says it's not good for man to be alone. And he tells the Christian, be in a family, get married, have kids. And the only command in scripture is one man and one woman and then don't marry an unbeliever. And yet in our society, I think this whole idea of kenism and to suggest that this isn't an ideal is borrowing from a secular mentality of ultimate compatibility that's almost commoditizing in a sense. The institution of marriage with these unlimited choices and you have to find your perfect soulmate and this kind of, you know, homework driven nonsense that really reduces marriage to benefits, to the individual perceived benefits, not God's design.
Ryan Helfenbein: Yeah, so well stated. So well stated. You know, it's like that, 23andMe, you know, where people are taking the DNA test and all of that and they're trying to figure out who they're, where they're from. And when you look at that, you say, oh my gosh, you know, I, you know, I actually have a little bit of Scottish ancestry and I've got some German ancestry and somehow, some way, and I have no idea, I've got some Mongolian ancestry. Just some really weird stuff. And what that ultimately reflects is that we all come from these various places, from different tribes, from different nations and cultures. And we're being reminded of even what Acts chapter 17 says, this is that great sermon that's in the areopagus where, ultimately, what. But what Peter is saying is that we have all descended from m. Adam. It doesn't matter what continent you come from or whether you're from Shamham or Japheth going back to the sons of Noah. We all come from Adam. He's the father of the entire human race. And we've all sinned in Adam. we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. and so look, there are certain cultures, you know, I'm going to say this and I want to be very, very careful. This is not a, this is not a Kennest belief. Cultures, that adopt Christianity. And that's irrespective of the social construct of race. I don't care if you're white, black, you know, orange, brown, whatever, it doesn't matter. Certain cultures that revere God, and they orient their lives, their laws, their values around that belief in God versus certain cultures that orient their lives around paganism. White, black, brown, it doesn't matter. That culture, that orient itself around faith in the one true and living God will be superior. Superior how? In their values superior in the kind of life that they enjoy. Not because the culture better, but because God is better. And I think that's something that people need to understand. and so this kinis belief is trying to tie race to this idea of, everything else. And they're trying to, just as you Say, commodify it in such a way as to say, well, no, no, no. a, white person can't marry a brown person or an orange person or a yellow person, because, we can't mix between, these various constructs. No, at the end of the day, it is all about our faith in Christ that defines all of our values. And you're exactly right, Jenna. Very wise to say, and this is true. Every marriage between two families, is going to be a blending of different, different expectations, different values. that is why it is so critical that faith in Christ comes first. Everybody has different Easter traditions and different traditions at Christmas. Right. And so those choices have to be made, and when. And people in wisdom, when they get premarital counseling, they have to ask hard questions of what is that one another. And the first is, what are your expectations of marriage? What are your expectations of me? and that has to be done in wisdom. But it is so clear from scripture that God is not placing a prohibition based on melanin, based on skin tone that is not anywhere to be found in scripture. And then a lot of times, too, Jenna, you'll find a commonality between people, whereas I can have more in common, with my brother in Christ, Virgil Walker, who writes for the Freedom Center. We have different melanin tone than I have with another white guy across the street that doesn't love Jesus Christ, who is not oriented around the gospel. And at the end of the day, that makes perfect sense because the Bible makes perfect that clear.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely.
Ryan Helfenbein: That's what the church is made of.
Jenna Ellis: And. And Ryan, we gotta end here. But, absolutely. And this is why we have to think through all of these things biblically. See where the argument leads. A lot of these Kenneths are asserting that because we're for, you know, closed nations and borders, that somehow that ties into, you know, the importing of, of, you know, others from other countries. And so that's also why they're against interracial marriage. It's also all nonsense. Go back to the Bible alone. We'll be right back with more.
Preborn Network helps women choose life through a free ultrasound
Jenna Ellis: 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 £250 and say baby. That's £250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr.
James Fishback proposed a sin tax on only fans creators in Florida
: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as the November 2026 elections get well underway, there is a lot of focus and emphasis on my home state of Florida and who will succeed Governor Ron DeSantis. And there are a lot of proposals from the Republican side on how to continue that, legacy and increase the benefits, of living in a conservative state. And James Fishback, who is a political newcomer seeking the GOP nomination, has suggested and proposed a quote unquote sin tax on only fans creators of, 50% in Florida. So he says the tax would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to be used to fund Florida's education system, improve school lunches, increase teacher pay, fund crisis pregnancy centers, and what he described as a first of its kind mental health czar for men. So he took that proposal to social media, tagging a Florida based only fans content creator. And this has generated not only a lot of controversy but a lot of support. So James, ah, Fishback joins me now, a candidate for Republican, candidate for governor. Hopefully it is a conservative that succeeds Governor DeSantis. But James, I think this is a great idea to call it a syntax and for the state to not just provide incentives to, you know, families to hard work and all this, but to actually, deincentivize some of this content and some of these quote unquote jobs that aren't actually good for a moral and upright society. So how would this actually work?
James Fishback: Well, Jenna, good morning. I mean you framed that so well. We can talk afterward about you joining the team as a senior policy advisor. I think you're absolutely right, which is in a society you want to incentivize the good, moral, righteous things and you want to disincentivize and deter the opposite. And so when we think about what kind of state we want to preserve, and build on. I'm so blessed that Ron DeSantis and you feel the same way, Jenna, has been our governor for the past eight years. Sadly, he is term limited, but I am running to succeed him. and I think one way we can preserve that greatness is to preserve a moral, righteous society. I'll tell you, wide swaths of our society today are not. You have got. Young women who once aspired to be lawyers, doctors, even devoted mothers are now forced to sell their bodies online. And they're mine to get by. That slanderous lie of commodification and objectification often begins young high school, even middle school. I'm going to stand up to that in our education system. But if there are people who are being exploited right now online through the only fan system, there is only one thing we can do, and we should do it immediately, and that is create a syntax. And a syntax is a concept in economics that recognizes that some behavior is so undesirable, so antithetical to the common good, not just to hurt the women who are out there being exploited and abused, selling their bodies on the Internet, but also the men themselves who are being drawn into lust, who are being addicted to pornography. And their whole entire mind and mindset is being rewired by this economic pornographic system is create a syntax, disincentivize the behavior, raise the tax on OnlyFans, so called creators, so high at 50% that they are effectively disincentivized, deterred and barred from doing that. Because right now you have an economic system that doesn't just welcome that, it celebrates, it exemplifies, it puts that on a pedestal. I want to make it easier for young women to be able to go be devoted mothers, to go be nurses, to be doctors, to be lawyers like you have successfully been. Jenna, I cannot have an economic system in my state that my family has known for four generations that prioritizes this cultural degeneracy. And you brought up Sophie Rain. Sophie Rain is a proud Florida residence. Sophie Rain is the number one OnlyFans content creator, not just in Florida, not just in the United States, but in the world. In the last three years, Sophie Rain has brought in over $100 million through OnlyFans. That means that Sophie Rain, when this tax is instituted, if I'm elected Florida's 47th governor, there's going to be $50 million of revenue for us to work with. Now, if that revenue doesn't happen, it's a good thing, Jenna, because it means that Sophie Rain quit and reached her God given potential, which was not to sell her body online to men all over the world, but it was to do something meaningful, moral and uprighteous. And if she decides to keep down this path, well, guess what? The state of Florida is going to have $50 million that we're going to use to do a whole lot of good. Improve school lunch is something that Myshel Obama said and never did. Of course, that's nothing new for the Obamas. Number two, we're going to raise teacher pay across the board. I meet public school teachers in our rural school districts who are doing everything right. They are teaching, they are instilling good values, but they are still facing down the second lowest teacher pay in the country. I'm going to fight for them. My grandma was a, was a public school teacher down in Broward county of 20 years. I'm going to raise teacher pay across the board. And the number three, and we talked about this earlier, is it's not enough, I think, for us to be pro life in the sense that we want to play this game about, well, is it six weeks or five weeks? No, Jenna, for me, I follow Jeremiah, chapter one, verse five. Before you were born, I set you apart. I believe that life begins at conception. The correct number of abortions in Florida is not 5,000 or 1,000. It is zero. I'm not going to play this game of heartbeat. This, this, that and the other. No, life begins at conception. I will tear down, shut down, dare I say, even burn down every single abortion center in my state, all 53 of them that still stand today. And in their place, Jenna, we're going to erect a crisis pregnancy center that is open 24 hours a day, seven days, because, yes, we can get rid of abortion, but we won't be able to get rid of unplanned, unexpected pregnancies. And we need centers that are patient, that are kind, that are compassionate, that welcome women who are often plagued with that fear, that doubt, the uncertainty that is associated with an unexpected pregnancy. We'll tell them that pregnancy is not a curse. It is a blessing. It is a gift from God. We will help them through the process, whether it's childcare, whether it's diapers, prenatal, postnatal care for vitamins, whatever the case may be. Florida moms need to know that we as a community will always come together because that is the pro life, American and Christian thing to do. So to come full circle, as, Florida governor, I am running to protect our young women. And I will do that by instituting the first of its kind 50% tax on only fans. If they still want to do that, despite everything we've talked about this morning, if they still want to avoid the possibility of being a great lawyer, a nurse, a doctor, a farmer, if they still want to go down that path of moral and cultural degeneracy, then guess what? Pay your taxes. Pay your taxes. Otherwise you have to quit the game and do something that reaches your God given greatness.
Jenna Ellis: Well, and I think that's so well said, in terms of how to holistically say that, that young women need to understand and aspire to their God given potential. And that includes what we're celebrating actually this Sunday in churches, which is Sanctity of Life Sunday, which of course began as churches, gathering together and setting aside the Sunday after Roe vs Wade was initially wrongfully decided in 1973 and saying we need to pray for, for life to be at the fore of policy for protections in this country and to suggest that the government needs to do more than simply talk about it, but actually provide some of those incentives and some of the emphasis on saying we're actually going to disincentivize you from choosing certain immoral, lifestyles and is something I think we do need to take a hard look at. some of the critics, James Fishback would suggest, okay, this is a lot of, you know, great well intentioned rhetoric but ultimately how could you actually institute this? Or for example with the closing down of abortion clinics, how is that actually possible? That translates from a campaign promise to action in the governor's office.
James Fishback: Well, you have to actually deliver on it. And look, I'm the only candidate. I respect my fellow candidates with the exception of one which is Byron Donalds and I'll get into that in a second, but I respect them. The truth of the matter is that I'm the only true pro life candidate running for Florida governor to succeed Ron DeSantis. That's the truth. Because I'm not going to play this game of five weeks, six weeks and negotiate in this European system of abortion. Byron Donald says that abortion is just another medical procedure. He said that on tape on October 15, 2024. So here's my belief. Life begins at conception. The correct number of abortions in Florida is exactly zero and not a single one. More than that, I'm going to work with the legislature to institute policies that protect life at the moment of conception. Because young women who are plagued with that fear, that uncertainty and doubt when they hear that there's a Baby on the way. They have to have the full support of their community. And as Florida governor, our communities are going to stand up. We're going to rise up, we're going to protect our mothers. We're going to provide them with the resources, yes, with the attention, sure, but with the love, the grace and the compassion that every single woman, including, including our own blessed Mother, the mother of our Lord and Savior, she too was plagued by fear, uncertainty and doubt. And if the mother of our Lord and Savior could still face that unexpected uncertainty, then every single mother, every single mother will face it as well. And, I'm fighting for them, to bring them to the fore.
Ron Santis is running for Florida governor on a pro-life platform
That is the pro life thing to do. And so if you are like I am a passionate pro life warrior, you've really got to consider what our campaign is doing because Byron Donalds has said he wants to do this, maybe even bring it up to 15 weeks. I don't know what Jay Collins believes.
: I don't.
James Fishback: He has to ask his wife. Paul Renner is a good guy, but he still wants to keep the six weeks. I'm the only candidate running for Florida governor that will protect life at the moment of conception, to protect the preborn and to protect our moms. That's why I'm running for Florida governor to succeed our pro life warrior, that is Ron Santis.
James Fishback: Life begins at conception, there is no debate over that
Jenna Ellis: All right, well, we've got to end here, but, James Fishback, I appreciate the, solid stance, for life because you're absolutely right that life begins at conception. There is no debate over that. There is only politics, posturing and there's only cowardice.
Jenna Ellis: Ah.
Jenna Ellis: Quite frankly, which is, why I personally was very disappointed in, Byron Donald's when he refused to stand up and object and help Ron DeSantis defeat Amendment 4 here in Florida, last year, which would have created basically abortion tourism in the state of Florida, if you can believe that. And even Donald Trump finally came out against that and said, you know, well, could be 12, 15 weeks, whatever, because he's, he's not as pro life as we would like. but Byron had to wait and see what Donald Trump said before he was willing to stand for life. That's not Ron DeSantis, that's not the state of Florida. And more importantly, that's not the truth. So thank you for that. And we will be right back with more.
James Fishback: welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
There was an oral argument yesterday about trans athletes in women's sports
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we discussed earlier in the program, there was a, oral argument yesterday at the US Supreme Court talking about, trans individuals, which, of course, you know, you can't trans your gender, but, trans athletes in women's sports. And the oral argument was just phenomenal in terms of some of the justices responses, especially to the lawyer that was representing these men that want to play in women's sports. And one of the best exchanges came between justice Alito and, Kathleen Hartnett, who is the attorney for the biological male athlete or just male? We don't need to say biological, because if you're male, you're male, and that's it. But he pressed the athlete's lawyer on a. On a definition of woman during the supreme court hearing. And you have to listen to this. This is cut one.
Speaker F: well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status. Let me just go back to. Let me go to some basics. Do you agree that, a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?
Speaker G: Yes, your honor.
Speaker F: If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the equal protection clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Speaker G: Yes, your honor.
Speaker F: And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What does. What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Speaker G: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court, and we don't take issue with the. We're not disputing the definition here. What we're saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams and that there's a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn't make sense to do so according to the state's own interest.
Speaker F: Well, how can you. How can a court. Court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?
Speaker G: I think here we just know that we. We basically know that the. That they've identified pursuant to their own statute. Lindsey qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're taking the statute's definitions as we find them, and we don't dispute. Dispute them we're just trying to figure out, do they create an equal protection problem?
Jenna Ellis: So ridiculous. Like, it creates an equal protection problem. And we know that this transgender dude qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being, he is being excluded categorically from the women's team. But we can't define what birth sex male means, what the women's team means. But, you know, we definitely know that there's an equal protection problem.
Jenna Ellis: I mean, it's.
Jenna Ellis: It's so embarrassing for the left that they just refuse to define what a man and a woman is because they know that their entire argument falls apart if they provide that definition. Even though they're talking about a birth sex male or a birth sex woman and providing the definitions in their argument, yet refusing to acknowledge basic biology. It just, Alita was so good.
Gerard Felitti: Supreme Court exchange on transgender sports highlights well
So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is senior, counsel at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, this exchange was just magnificent. there were a few others, obviously, the, goat. Justice Thomas had some, ah, really good commentary from the bench and questions for the advocates overall, how do you see, this case landing in terms of protection of women's sports? And maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court actually providing in their opinion a definition of man and woman.
Gerard Filitti: The Court certainly seemed to be supportive of the laws passed that would protect women, especially in playing sports, by excluding transgender or other identifying individuals and playing women's sports, I think the Court is likely to find that these laws are constitutional. The only real question is how broad the Court will go, whether this is going to be limited to the two states law at issue, or, or whether this is going to be a much broader and more impactful decision. My sense is that the Court does not want to make a ruling that is more impactful across the nation at this time. And the Trump administration was, not pushing for it either. but. So I don't expect to see a definition coming from the Supreme Court. But I do think it sets the stage for what the next series of litigation will be, which is precisely on states defining in statute gender.
Jenna Ellis: Well, and so how can the court then, have an opinion on an equal protection issue without first defining their terms? I mean, is this just something where they're going to kind of assume the definition and put in terms, you know, birth sex male, birth sex female, and sort of assume those definitions and then leave it to the states? Or like Alito says, I mean, if you say that you're trans something, you have to first be the thing that you're trying to transition from. I mean, it's just, it's so ludicrous that the left won't just acknowledge that there are concrete definitions rooted in biology and reality.
Gerard Filitti: Right, and that's precisely the problem. And that's what that exchange you just played highlights so well, that the left does not want to be bound by definitions. They want this wishy washy. We are what we feel like we are, interpretation. But that's not something that is legally cognizable. I mean, look, in law, we have Black's Law Dictionary that sets out the definition of legal terms. We use Webster's and other dictionaries to define what things are in litigation. We footnote these things extensively. So to say that we can get away with not defining male or female, man or woman, is a little bit ridiculous. That needs to be done at some point. However, this court can rule more narrowly that, because there's such a small subset of people that are potentially affected by these laws, they don't have the risk of violating equal protection. It's not a cognizable group. And that evades the need to define it at this time.
Jenna Ellis: Well, yeah, and, I totally see that train. And I hope that the Supreme Court, especially with the current composition, will be willing to go kind of that step further and not necessarily, just confine this without a definition and leave it up to the states, which, you know, who knows what, what states will do. But it's also fascinating to me that, Justice Jackson is sitting on, on the bench during this case and like the other two liberal, female justices, is of course arguing against protecting women's sports. And, during her confirmation hearing, she very famously or infamously said that because she's not a biologist, she can't define what a woman is. And yet she is supposed to sit in judgment of a case that expressly asks the question of whether equal protection applies to the sexes when she can't actually define that. And so, there, there have been some calls, you know, for recusal on, on that front. Obviously they didn't go anywhere. But, it just, I think, highlights the hypocrisy of the leftist mentality that suggests she can, legitimately stand in judgment of the case when she's unwilling herself to define the terms.
Gerard Filitti: I think that does show the hypocrisy that you're, you're ready and able to make a decision when you are flexible as to the meaning of things. And that's not really how it's Supposed to go, you can be flexible in your interpretation of the law to facts, but you need to share a common understanding of what something is, especially when we're talking about male or female, something that has been understood in a very specific way throughout human existence. So for Justice Jackson, or for anyone else for that matter, to remain flexible in definitions of something so basic, in sitting judgment is a little bit hypocritical because we do need to understand that this is a matter of the fact as applied to the law in these cases and not an open interpretation of what gender or sex is.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And we all learned this in law school, right? I mean, it's basic contract law that you have to provide at the same definition in order to reach a meeting of the minds and be able to arbitrate or fulfill a contract. And there was a very, famous, case that was talking about, the specifically the meaning of chicken, which you would think isn't disputable, but you remember this one from contract law case where it was like a, broilers, chicken versus foul. And it's like, okay, we have to, like, understand what the meaning of a chicken is. But the court actually said that the two parties had a very different meaning of what type of chicken was meant in the contract, that there was no actual meeting of the minds. And, you know, for something that obvious and that simple, it's like, this is literally basic 101 of just contract law. How much more, important when we're talking about constitutionally protected rights?
Gerard Filitti: Well, it's basic contact code, basic definition, and it's a definition that's not, you know, what type of chicken are we talking about? This is a basic biological reality for those on the left to keep saying, you know, follow the signs. This is the signs. There are two genders. There is not a transition or something in between. So this is the problem that we all need to understand the definition of terms. And going back to another point that you actually made, that's very good. We do need national uniformity. Look, I've got a nephew who plays hockey, and he plays. Some of the games are in other states. So you're going to have one state define male and female in one way, and then another state doing it differently. You still have that problem in sports where you can end up with different laws and different definitions, and that's just unconscionable.
Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And it just creates a whole host of problems, and hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize it. And, you know, I think that Alito and Thomas would be the most likely to want to take that step further and just define it sort of once and for all. and, and just acknowledge the reality that is biology. But we'll see how far it goes. But what did you make as well?
Jared Felitti says trans athletes head to Supreme Court
Jared Felitti, my special guest this morning of a kind of the cultural moving away from this sort of, trans nonsense. It was fascinating to me to see that the Washington Post editorial board of, of all people and places actually had a headline that said trans athletes head to the Supreme Court. Neither science nor the American public is on their side. They actually said the Supreme Court has a chance this week to save women's sports, allowing states to restore a level playing field for girls by excluding biological men and thereby correcting one of the worst excesses of America's cultural revolution. I mean, this isn't just like a guest opinion piece. This is the Washington Post editorial board.
Gerard Filitti: It's the Washington Post editorial board. And I think it fairly reflects where most of the country is. Look, I think this, this whole trans identity issue has been one large social experiment on the left and it has not worked. It does not resonate with American people because we have common sense and we understand what gender is, we understand what male and female is. So at the end of the day, I think Americans are becoming frustrated that this is being popularized, whether it's on TV or in court cases, instead of being accepted into the realm of reality. And the Washington Post editorial board sees. What America sees is that this is a social experiment that is coming to an end.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and the sad reality of this is that for the the children and the minors who have been pushed into this lie of transgenderism, there is going to be so much harm and fallout from this, especially those who have literally mutilated their bodies, have taken hormone supplements, you know, all of these things to be part of this lie and this advancement of an ideology that hopefully is coming to an end. But you know, for those who have been victims of this, do you think that there will be any opportunity as, as the culture hopefully is shifting back toward truth and reality to in any way try to get compensation if there can be any, or at least accountability for the harms that the so called experts on the left, including doctors, who you should be able to trust inflicted?
Gerard Filitti: Well, the good news is that statute of limitations don't start to run until these kids turn 18. So there will be time to find a reckoning and find justice for the ones who have been harmed by this. But at the end of the day, you know, one of the plaintiffs in this case was transitioning or whatever you want to call it, as young as age 3. And that's also on the parents. I mean how do you protect your children if this is the non science that you believe in and you allow these ideologies to be implemented, that's harm to your child. So I think, I hope, I personally hope that this is coming to an end and we stop with the mutilation and the child abuse. This is. At the end of the day, I see this as child abuse and that there is some justice for the kids who have been harmed by this.
Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And and last question. Do you think that this this case has an opportunity to revisit the Bostock decision which wrongly implied that the term sex in the, the 1964 Civil Rights act included sexual orientation and gender identity?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think Gorsuch has seen the light since 2020 and I do think there is an opportunity to revisit this. but I don't think it'll be any. I have not seen any cases pending that might actually lead to that overturn right now.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well I mean that is, that is a case that you know, unfortunately, I think in the climate and the temperament of society at that time was one that was very obviously wrongfully decided at its inception and needs to be overturned. And so hopefully we'll see some litigation coming from this. But you know, hopefully we will see a good response from the Supreme Court on women's sports that protection. It's good to see that there are some some cultural shifts like even the Washington Post is reflecting where people are waking up to this and hopefully we'll move past this and maybe 2026 will be the year of sanity and coming back to reality. But we need to pray for that. We need to pray for the eyes and ears to be opened, of those who are participating in this life, for hearts and minds to be changed and ultimately for this country to get back to a biblical foundation, a Christian worldview and have our policy reflect that. So Jared Felitti, really appreciate it. That's all the time we have for today. But as always you can reach me and my team. Jenna afr.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.
In this compelling episode of Jenna Ellis in the Morning, E.W. Jackson takes the helm to discuss the urgent issues facing our nation, from the ongoing crisis in Minneapolis to the role of law enforcement in maintaining order. He reflects on the importance of honoring first responders and critiques the current political climate that seeks to undermine their efforts. E.W. highlights the alarming rise in fraud within the welfare system, emphasizing how it is being exploited for political gain. He also addresses the troubling rhetoric surrounding ICE agents and the implications of state leaders encouraging resistance against federal law enforcement. As he navigates these complex topics, E.W. calls for a return to the foundational values of love, unity, and respect for the rule of law, urging listeners to engage in the fight for truth and justice in America.
00:00 | Preborn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies through ultrasounds
00:19 | E.W. jackson takes over for Jenna Ellis on American Family Radio
04:27 | Martin Luther King Leadership Breakfast honoring first responders scheduled for Monday in Virginia
06:03 | Last week, January 9, was National Law Enforcement Day
15:02 | Preborn Network helps women choose life through a free ultrasound
16:33 | E.W. Johnson: Senator Joni Ernst says Democrats using welfare fraud
24:09 | Tim Waltz urges Minnesotans to resist federal occupation
27:37 | Jenna Bishop: Sanctuary cities are fueling violence against ICE agents
34:01 | E.W. Jackson: I give President Trump the benefit of the doubt
36:26 | Bishop: It's unclear who released these felons into the public
38:45 | Bishop: Democrats should be charged with obstruction of justice over ICE rhetoric
41:52 | Ryan: I was wondering about the police being told to stand down
44:40 | Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma fighting plans for ICE deportation center
47:38 | Gary in Michigan wonders why former presidents aren't being prosecuted for Benghazi crimes
PreBorn
E.W. Jackson
American Family Radio
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
