Jenna Ellis: U.S. constitution obligates government to protect biblical rights

 : Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up, each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.

 : This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Scott Eulinger: Talks between President Trump and Iran are going well

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, March 24, and CNBC is reporting the that the s and P500 futures pull back after Monday's rally as oil prices rebound. But the Iran conflict continues. So there are talks between President Trump and Iran and the Wall Street Journal reporting that Iran worries that the talks might be a trap. So let's welcome in Scott Eulinger, a former intelligence agent. And how do we think this conflict is going?

Scott Uehlinger: Well obviously it's thanks Jennifer for having me on. it's obvious it's going spectacularly well in terms of military success. This is a quantum leap even above what I personally experienced in 1991, during the original Gulf War. I think politically it's going pretty well too in the sense that Trump's latest gambit about speaking to the power center, even though he was deliberately not specific about it, despite the fact that that has generated a bunch of denials from people in the Iranian power structures either, what it's doing is it's splitting the leadership further that now no one trusts anyone else because well, wait a minute, I didn't hear about dis. No, wait, I heard about it. So it's just making them further second guess themselves. There were reports that some specially cleared people, in Iran had cleared it with the Israeli and US Air Force and had flown to Pakistan where they had met and talked. Now even if it isn't true, it is furthering the war aims by further splintering the leadership.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's is that part though potentially of the strategy of the US to try to kind of confuse, you know, who exactly is the the person that they're talking to in terms of a potential deal?

Scott Uehlinger: Yes, yes it is. And what I'm saying the thing that's really awesome to behold is is President Trump's ability to, to do such things because literally Since World War II the United States hasn't even thought in terms of the, in, in these kinds of terms. We were always supporting the quote, rules based order which means we were Uncle Sucker, as anyone in the military, has heard that expression. And, you know, we were extremely predictable in everything we did. And that meant that basically our enemies, from the Koreans to North Vietnamese to, you know, the Middle, Eastern terrorists have just, had our address, and they just, you know, raked us over the coals over the past 40 years. So to see. So to suddenly see someone play these people like a Stradivarius is just breathtaking to behold and wonderful.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that's actually encouraging and kind of obviously goes against the mainstream media narrative that is still, even after 10 years, trying to paint President Trump as sort of this kind of, you know, bumbling figure that doesn't really know what he's doing and kind of, you know, making his way into these conflicts, having, no real idea how to conduct diplomacy and having, you know, no competent people around him. And, you know, we've heard that kind of rhetoric from the mainstream media, like, literally since 2015, about President Trump, and it just isn't true. I mean, yes. Are there. Are there some people around him that, you know, maybe, in my opinion, could be better or, you know, there's differences of opinion. Well, sure, but that's true for any administration. And it doesn't mean overall that President Trump or the people around him are incompetent or somehow that, you know, for example, a President Kamala Harris would have been any better.

Scott Uehlinger: Oh, absolutely. I mean, absolutely. I was just on Middle, Eastern TV a couple of days ago with somebody who was apparently, an author who had written some screeds against Trump. And the guy was like the, perfect embodiment of the Trump derangement syndrome. He's, like, trying to tell the audience that at this stage in the game, after being elected twice to President of the United States, he's a huckster. He doesn't know anything. He's shallow, he's stupid. These are the kinds of. I mean, it's unbelievable believable that there can be still people who soberly say something like that. Like, Trump is stupid. No, maybe. Right. Sometimes he's picked flawed advisors, but seems, like he's quite, on track right now, and he knows exactly what he's doing. And more important, he's able to very quickly, adjust himself and come up with, like, a new policy to reflect something different. I think that the biggest example we've seen of that is, basically something I've said before a million times, but the streets of Hormuz are Not closed in any sense. There's no gate there. You can't close them. What has been happening is the Iranian government has been jawboning the idea that we can attack any ship entering the straits, that we can't, that we want to, when, in fact, that is not really true. Every day, the US Navy and Air Force are destroying Iran. Iran's ability to strike at ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and most importantly, the main thing that's keeping the ships out. So they're somewhat, you know, cowed by the, quote, threat, unquote, of Iran. But mostly it's because Lloyds of London insurance has made it so expensive to go in there because of war risk insurance that they're not doing it. So, what Trump did, literally within 48 hours of when he realized that was the case, this was like, more than a week ago, he announced the United States would basically be bankrolling, would substitute for Lloyd's Insurance, and, would, underwrite, that risk as a way of going against Lloyd's of London. Now, that is, you know, 48 hours to basically come up with this idea tells me that it was anticipated and more. It was not only anticipated, but it's like almost an opportunity to take advantage of, a similar thing that happened in the late 80s with escorting tankers. Took, like, four months to implement. He did it in 48 hours. So any fool who says that they haven't basically planned out almost every single contingency still has no idea what they're talking about.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and this is why I appreciate having perspectives like yours, Scott Ewlinger, because, you know, we hear so much of this about, the confusion of, Donald Trump and that, you know, his advisors don't know what they're doing. There's no plan, in Iran, there's, you know, all of these kind of, doomsday sort of headlines. And to have a different perspective from someone who's actually, you know, been, part of military intelligence, you know, for a really long time is very refreshing. And so, looking, you know, forward, this conflict is lasting longer than I think, you know, some of us originally anticipated, but at the same time, it's relatively short on the scale of, you know, on the overall scale of the objectives. And so where are we at, politically in terms of, you know, because there's kind of some. Some conflicting reports as well on the prices of oil. I was at the gas pump yesterday. It's a little higher, you know, here in Florida. And so people, of course, are getting a little bit nervous about that. how overall does that factor into the, the political calculation, perhaps, that Trump is making?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, the interesting thing about it is that Trump is like a master of jiu jitsu, where you use your enemy's energy against him because it becomes clearer every day what he's doing is, for instance, with these Straits of Hormuz, the United States is, energy independent. And, in fact, oil has bifurcated and is cheaper in the United States than in Asia. Asia, it's like $150 a barrel. In the United States, it's $100 a barrel. And so that's happened. And Trump understands that the American people certainly have a little bit of patience. They can wait a few more weeks, but in the meantime, he's using this, anticipated development of the, quote, closure of the Straits. But he's using that which the enemy has imposed on him as a way of pressuring the Europeans to live up to some defensive commitments. So it's really genius. He sees an opportunity, or, let's say a difficulty, an obstacle comes up in his overall strategy, and he turns around and immediately uses that obstacle as a way to pressure somebody to do something that they really didn't want to do. So now we have the Europeans, very rapidly saying, oh, yeah, we're going to help with this, as they understand that most of the oil coming out of the Straits is to finance their economies, not the United States at all. And, Trump has been very, very verbal about that on social media, which is absolutely appropriate because the Europeans have been freeloading for 30, 50 years, and he's calling them out on it and he's forcing them to comply.

Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah. Well, you know, again, I just appreciate, this analysis so much, and hopefully it's encouraging to our audience, to hear the different perspective than, you know, you hear on, mainstream media. And, that's incredibly important.

A plane crashed into a fire truck Sunday night at LaGuardia Airport

And in, the last few minutes or so we have here, as well, I want to make sure to get to this story, Scott, because as, I'm sure everyone has heard by now, on, ah, late Sunday night, there was an airplane crash at LaGuardia Airport. A plane was, traveling around 93 to 105 miles per hour, according to ABC News, at the time of the ground collision. So what happened was an Air Canada, Express flight was landing, and there was another emergency with a United Airlines flight. And so there was a fire truck that was attempting to traverse that same Runway to get to the United plane. And apparently. And there's. There's a little bit of a difference of opinion, at least on social media, on the audio, Scott, of exactly what happened, because I think there was a little bit of confusion on where. Which Runway was to be traversed, where exactly the United plane was, where the Air Canada plane was. But, ultimately air traffic control gave permission for the fire truck to cross the Runway and then kind of immediately realized, no, the Air Canada flight is coming, and tried to warn the truck to stop. it didn't. And it didn't apparently hear. And so, the jet crashed into the fire truck, resulting in the death, the tragic death of both pilots and then dozens of injuries. And so, you know, overall on this, I mean, what do you make of, this type of event happening? And a lot of people are blaming air traffic control for this being, you know, around midnight that this occurred, and some saying as well that air traffic control was understaffed.

Scott Uehlinger: Right. Well, right. I have some insight into this because I have some friends who are deeply involved in this industry. And, that is almost certainly true. The air, the air traffic control staff all along the east coast is absolutely flooded. and one reason, one major reason that they don't have the right amount of people is because air, traffic control is nationalized in the sense that we have a federal system where we do it. It's not in the hands of the private sector. and they began to have, under Biden, a bunch of DEI admissions. And so they were basically bringing in people who were not qualified, not inherently qualified to do this. So in other words, the failure rate at federal, air traffic control schools is out of. Because they're not bringing in. They weren't bringing in the right candidates to start the program, People who were absolutely not suited for this kind of thing. So this is DEI in action. And eventually DEI starts to kill people when you start having architects design bridges that fail or airplane pilots who don't know what they're doing, et cetera. And so, I think this is something that is being addressed, but the problem is, it's like turning around an oil tanker. It takes a long time to get this thing right, to change the standard standards, to get people in a course which I think is at least 18 months long. And so, unfortunately, this is what we're contending with. there's also a huge problem as far as pilot qualification. pilots are being, I don't think in this case it's the fault of the pilots at all. But the pilots are for the major airlines were being basically taken in on the basis of what color their skin was, et cetera. And the result has been disastrous. I remember reading a figure that, that said something like even though pilots who are non white are about like let's say 18% of the entire group of pool of pilots in the entire United States, they're responsible for 80% of the collisions and accidents because they are bringing in ill suited candidates. And so I think that under Trump this is being addressed. Another thing that maybe should be considered is perhaps changing us over from a federal controlled system air traffic control to a private like basically kind of do NASA, to Elon Musk, look at how much better SpaceX is doing compared to NASA. Maybe we need to do the same thing to air traffic control.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And a lot of people are suggesting that with TSA as well, like why not privatize it? Because obviously that has worked overall better than you know, some of these government systems. But you know this is really interesting that you bring up DEI because I hadn't heard that specifically in a while and at least related to this particular incident. but it just goes to show that there are still ah, issues that are affecting Americans today, and Canadians apparently. I mean this flight was from Montreal but affecting air traffic and all of this, that is a holdover from the Biden administration. So what can the Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy or the Trump administration overall do to maybe clean this up more quickly? I mean is there something like in the legal profession for example, we have to do continuing learning education to keep our licenses active and you know, and all of that, every in Colorado it was every three years. It varies a little bit by state. But it seems like if some of these people aren't actually qualified, there could be a process that perhaps Sean Duffy could implement that says okay, anyone who hasn't been here, you know, longer than X number of years has to immediately go through, you know, a certain level of training, you know, within the next six months to at least perhaps try to to resolve some of these issues.

Scott Uehlinger: Right. The another thing is that another thing that could be done is that they can they can increase, they can basically recall retired people to supplement A lot of times, the US Military has been used its air traffic control personnel to assist with things like this. That's not possible right now for obvious reasons. But they can basically also largely Expand the training pool. but again, these fixes, there's none that are really immediate. They each will take months to implement, but maybe increase the amount of classes. Obviously, they have to scrap whatever, admissions criteria they had and adapt a more modern one, which, in fact, they probably have already done. It's just that it takes a while to correct these things.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and unfortunately, I mean, these are the types of incidents that can, and occasionally, do happen in the interim. And so, you know, overall, would. Do you think that this was a really a lack of training on the part of the air traffic controller or was it, additionally a lack of, personnel that were. That was on, duty at that point in time or, you know, where exactly do you pinpoint fault here?

Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, I think that it's. It's basically, it's. It's not in this case necessarily because of the qualification of the personnel. It's that they were simply overburdened. They simply had too much to do because there are not enough people going through the training pipeline. I know, we've seen it. Also, I think that, a lot of times, actually, I believe it is JFK that has a shortage of personnel. And, and Newark, NewSong Jersey, their airport actually had enough air traffic controllers, but they were actually running air traffic control of other airports along the east coast because they did not have sufficient personnel.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And, you know, and that's really concerning because when it's something that is obviously this important to safety, that's not something that you can just say, well, okay, we'll be understaffed, or, you know, we'll see how it goes. We'll overburden someone who literally has too much to be paying attention to. And so, you know, the fact that these kinds of things are still happening, again, you know, because this is still a federal issue, isn't there something more that the Secretary of Transportation should be doing, telling airports like LaGuardia and elsewhere, that they can't be understaffed?

Scott Uehlinger: Right. Well, I mean, again. But again, see, that runs into the face of reality is that basically you have insufficient people. So you've obviously got to increase the training capacity, bring in, in retired officers. There is a mandatory retirement that is relatively low. I think it's actually 60 or slightly below. So they can waive that and maybe. And again, you know, cash, can do a lot. So you offer cash bonuses to, previously retired aircraft controllers who are willing to come back and, you know, you pay them what they deserve to get them Back in. Because if that is the problem, then that's what you do.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, you know, really a, ah, concerning issue here. And you, know, according to this ABC article, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said LaGuardia's air traffic control is well staffed, but he didn't say how many controllers were working Sunday night. he said the target is 37 controllers, overall and they have 33 certified with seven in training. So perhaps, that's still not enough. But Scott Ulinger, really appreciate it, praying for all of the families, of those involved, in this just horrific crash. And we will be right back with more.

Jenna Ellis: Supreme Court is considering whether early voting is appropriate

 : Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the

 : Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And there was a very important case argued Yesterday at the U.S. supreme Court. this was a case from Judicial Watch, ah, Thom Fitton's group, which really does amazing work by the way. if you haven't been following Thom Fitton and Judicial Watch, you should. They bring a lot of, lawsuits that are really good and necessary, challenging, you know, some of these issues, particularly with respect to election integrity. And yesterday, Justice Alito gave lawyers a plain English lesson on the meaning of, of day as the Supreme Court ways of, a late ballot fight. So what's going on in this case is, basically what does day mean in terms of election day? because, the Supreme Court is questioning whether ballots can arrive up to five days late, which is the current law in Mississippi. And similar policies exist in about 14 states and D.C. so the RNC, who are the challengers, along with Judicial Watch, say that federal statutes set a uniform election day and day means a day. And you know, Christians have argued this for a long time. A day is a literal 24 hour period. Right? And so that must include casting the ballot and receipt by officials. So if you want to, turn in your ballot early, you know, that's fine. But, but one day, in terms of actual election day, there shouldn't be all of this, this sort of arbitrary period afterward. because the core claim according to the rnc, is that it prevents moving the goalposts post election manipulation. And also of course, being able to deliver results on the same day. I mean, what Florida has done in terms of cleaning up all of our election issues since, of course that very infamous case of Bush v. Gore back in 2000, ah, has really helped Florida, return results in the same day. And there's literally no reason why every other state in the nation should not do the same thing. So, Alito gave the, lawyers kind of this plain English lesson on the meaning of day. Listen to this.

 : We have lots of phrases, that involve, two words, the last of which, the second of which is day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington's birthday, Independence Day, birthday and Election Day. And they're all particular days. So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase Election Day, I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place, and we're almost every. And then we have three points in time. 1844, 1872, 1914. And we can ask, what would people have thought on those days is meant by this phrase, Election Day? Which. Which of those should we choose? Which of those days dates should we choose?

Jenna Ellis: So, I mean, Alito, you know, once again, I mean, he always just brings clarity and logic to the argument, which you would think would routinely still be at the US Supreme Court, especially, with as significant of cases as these are. But, you know, it seems like, like, logic and common sense and rationality is not used nearly as often as it, should be, even at the Supreme Court. So I always appreciate, especially Alito and Thomas, because, you know, some of the other, Justices, while some of them seemed persuaded that Election day should be viewed as a single and final day in the election cycle. Roberts, of course, who is always, you know, kind of a windsock. You never know where he's blowing. And then Justice Elena Kagan, of course, an Obama appointee, raised concerns that if the interpretation of election day was strictly upheld by the Court, then early voting might also be affected. And so Roberts, asked the Mississippi Solicitor General, Scott Stewart, if day includes a period after a particular day of the election, does it include a particular day before the day of the election? Or does your logic require different consideration? Which, in my opinion, this is confusing the issue, right? Because if election day means election day, then that just means a deadline. Then. So early voting obviously means what it says in plain English. It means early. It means that, yes, you can turn your ballot in early, but if election day is the day, then there is a specific deadline. And, when the polls close, then it has to actually, your vote has to be received by election officials, not, you know, any of this nonsense about, you know, well, as long as it's postmarked by the day or, you know, all of these things. Which is why Republicans have long said that in person, voting is what we prefer, because this just, disincentivizes the system to have loopholes and to have areas of manipulation. I mean, it's the same thing. And Alita was totally right that, you know, when we have holidays or things like Christmas Day, you know, you can prepare, you can wrap your presents, you know, or buy your presents all throughout the year. I mean, like, I do, I literally have a Christmas closet upstairs because I don't want to be confined to like the two weeks before Christmas and sort of freaking out about what I'm gonna get my family and just kind of getting, you know, whatever's available. I like to, to take my time and, you know, shop throughout the year. But that doesn't change the fact that Christmas Day there is still a deadline. And if I haven't purchased something and wrapped it and brought it to my family's house by December 25th, that's the deadline. And I think this is so obvious to anybody who is paying any attention whatsoever or at least living in the real world. But this is where the Supreme Court often will, just get so overwhelmed with, you know, kind of these, these, these definitional nuances and, you know, and theory and these theoretical arguments. And literally sometimes I want to tell the U.S. supreme Court justices, like, go touch grass, you know, literally go live in the real world for like five minutes before you take some kind of, you know, nonsensical argument and try to, that's, that's theoretical and try to apply it to reality. But the argument that Mississippi and the, responders in this case suggested that a ballot should still be valid if it was cast by election Day, even if it arrives later. And so they pointed to a long standing practice of military and absentee voting, which of course, you know, President Trump very famously in 2020 was very much, you know, against the, the mail in ballots. there definitely are, you know, problems with some of that, which is why I think that there should be a very strict, deadline in terms of receipt of the ballot up front, not after the fact. but the defenders also stated, historical control, over the election mechanics and that Congress has never explicitly banned late arriving ballots, which, you know, in that case Congress does need to get involved and, and should, because late arriving ballots should, be in my opinion, nullified. And you, you as the voter have the responsibility. And you know, yes, if you choose to dispatch your vote by mail, you're trusting it to a third person, right, whoever you mail it through, or the ballot Dropbox and all that, but you ultimately respond responsible for ensuring that your vote is cast and so, what are the justice signaling, though? the conservative justices, and I don't really put Roberts in that category, were skeptical of late ballots arriving. They were concerned, rightfully, I think, about public trust having clean, bright line rules. Not a lot of differences, at least for federal elections within the various states, because, you know, that obviously can have some impact overall on things like presidential elections, and have. And their preference that they articulated, was more of a hard election day deadline where the more liberal wing of the court emphasized, state authority, historical flexibility, and they warned against court, the courts rewriting election rules, which I just think is kind of, you know, smoke and mirrors, because if the late arriving ballots or this type of flexibility, quote unquote, as they put it, it, if that was generally favorable to the interest of Republican candidates, they would be the ones that are hardliners for saying no. You know, election day matters and no ballots after the fact. but this, in my opinion, they want to allow for this type of loophole and gray area that can be manipulated where, if we truly are a country that has free and fair elections, public trust absolutely matters. We need to have these kind of hard deadlines. We need to have clarity versus flexibility. We need to have a uniform rule versus, you know, state kind of experimentation in certain things. Like my former home state of Colorado was one that, you know, has, has had universal vote by mail for quite a while and in my opinion, hasn't particularly gone well. and we need to have finality, and that's a really key principle versus just an emphasis on access. Because, of course the left is suggesting that there's disenfranchisement of people whose ballots arrive late and they haven't participated in the system. Well, what about somebody who shows up at the polls the day after election day? Are you going to claim that that person is disenfranchised as well? No, we need to have finality because not only is that important to the candidates who are running, but that's also important to the electorate to know and know on election day who actually won. So this really matters. this could ultimately affect the, 2026 midterms and affect election rules in multiple states and up to hundreds of thousands of ballots potentially impacted. So we likely won't have a result on this case until, you know, later on this spring. But, it's going to be very interesting to see where the Supreme Court sides and where the majority is on that. So we need to be praying for the outcome of this case. We'll be right Back with you more,

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

Father Frank Pavone says notorious Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell has died

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, the notorious Philadelphia abortionist, currently Kermit Gosnell, I'm sure you've heard that name previously, who killed babies born alive. Just a, hideous serial killer, has died at age 85 yesterday. So this coming from the NewSong York Post. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor who is convicted in 2013 of killing three babies who were born alive in a case that made nationwide headlines, has died. And the Phil, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections spokesperson said Gosnell died March 1 at a hospital outside the prison system, and he had most recently been incarcerated about 60 miles south of Pittsburgh. The cause of death was not disclosed, but, interestingly, the cause of death was natural causes. he was able to live his life all the way until natural death. And his crime was that he foreclosed, of course, the lives of at least three. it was at least just what he was convicted, but at least three. And we, you know, we know there are far more than that. innocent children. And, their lives were foreclosed, through. Through the murder of abortion. And so, let's welcome in Father Frank Pavone, the founder of Priests for Life. And, you know, Father Frank, it was just such a stark contrast to me to see that, you know, someone who is a heinous murderer like this of, an abortionist, he should have gotten the death penalty. I mean, this is where, Christians and conservatives are consistent. If we advocate for the death penalty after due process, ah, for murder, I think that's very clear in Scripture that the state carries the sword, and, that's the correct punishment from the state for taking a life. And yet, you know, while he's been incarcerated since 2013, he was able to live out, his life until natural death. And, you know, at least now he is, ah, getting justice that is imposed by, God himself.

Frank Pavone : Yeah, well, it's amazing that he, was in jail at all. I was very involved in the Gosnell case behind the scenes and also publicly. And Jenna, one of the things that people need to recognize is that his, ultimate conviction for the abortions he did, even killing babies after they were born and also killing patients, too karma, natural. Carmina Mongar was one of his patients, and due to his, negligence, she, was killed. He was, convicted of manslaughter in her case. But all of this came to light not because, the state of Pennsylvania was Willing to go after his abortion practices. His clinic was rated on drug related, investigations. The pro abortion administration of governor Thom Ridge at the time stopped, deliberately stopped the annual inspection of abortion clinics. There were complaints about what was going on at Gosnell's place. He had untrained staff, medical equipment that didn't work, expired medications, all kinds of filthy conditions, bodies of babies being saved in the refrigerator in milk cartons and orange juice containers. All these horrors. And the state did not intervene. And the Ridge administration said, well, you know, we don't want to put any hindrance in the way people getting abortions. So the annual inspections of these clinics for the health and safety of these women were stopped in the interest of unhindered, undelayed abortion. So, first of all, it's, amazing that he was even brought to trial, because my main point about this case is, and people can find out [email protected] that's one of our websites, kermitgosnell.com I urge people to go there and read about that. This is that the. He is not the exception. He is the model of what goes on in the abortion industry. Americans United for Life published a book called Unsafe, showing the violations going on clear across the country. These are legal, legal clinics that people presume are safe. Ah, high school students administering anesthesia, expired medications. People, that just don't know what in the world they're doing and don't care. This is the norm in the abortion industry. And sure, this is sliding scale. Some places, are better managed than others. But ultimately, Jenna, I have a phrase I love repeating, which is, you can't practice vice virtuously. If your conscience is so seared that you can pull the arms and legs off babies and throw them in the garbage. You're not going to be concerned about OSHA standards reporting, medical guidelines, medication expirations, or proper training of staff. Your conscience is dead. I, sat behind Gosnell in that courtroom, and I saw on his face what I have seen on the faces of many abortionists that I have helped actually transition out of the abortion industry. And there was like this, this, this, this, calm smirk, like, oh, nothing is wrong, you know, I'm fine. They're dehumanized. What they're doing dehumanizes them as they dehumanize both the babies and their, and their mothers. so, yeah, it's, it's, it's a good time to go back and learn the lessons of the Gosnell case.

Jenna Ellis: It is, and you know, so well said that it is actually surprising that he, was brought to trial at all. And you're absolutely right because, you know, while this conviction, you know, we can. And even then, you know, mainstream media will say, you know, he, he killed children after, you know, they were born alive. And this is a, you know, this is, this is heinous. And they say all of those things and they characterize it that way. that's the very same media that is advocating for and protecting the abortion industry that does this on a routine basis. And so there's a real disconnect here between the, the social contempt and the stigma for Gosnell personally versus the social protection for abortionists, who. That's their, their routine, mentality and, and what, you know, they believe that women should have an. Have access to. I mean, how, how are we in such a post truth society that can simultaneously argue, you know, two obviously conflicting arguments?

Frank Pavone : Yeah, that's right. And one of the things we have to point out too, is that this scenario that unfolded, and I urge people to read the grand jury report, is that the, this whole idea that, oh, well, we don't want to put a hindrance in the way of people getting an abortion, so let's stop inspecting the clinics. Jenna, the battles we have right now in 2026 in Virginia, for example, this extreme abortion amendment, amendment that the Democrats, are putting onto the ballot, this is exactly what that amendment and others like it that have passed in Missouri, Ohio, Michigan and other places say exactly that. They not only say abortion should be kept legal, that's just the beginning of it. They say no hindrance, no obstacle, no delay, nothing whatsoever to in any way restrict or hinder directly or indirectly, for a little while, for 10 minutes, for 10 seconds, when you have that mindset and that's what these amendments are pushing, you end up with situations like Gosnell. He could have been stopped, but they. Oh, no, no, no, no, we can't. We can't not only not interfere with the right of a woman to get an abortion, we can even delay it for the sake of inspecting the clinic. So, yeah, Jenna, like you say, the very things we end up complaining about are the things that, that, the, that we're actually promoting and pushing if we are the abortion advocates.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

Jenna Talarico: There are some inconsistencies within the Trump administration

And you know, and unfortunately, there's a little bit of a disconnect as well within the Trump administration, at least as to the abortion pill. And, you know, where, the administration, which you know, President Trump has been since his first term, very strongly pro life, and that has been a very good thing. But you know, there have been some inconsistencies in his administration, in that respect. And so you know, where, where do you see, those disconnects?

Frank Pavone : Well, I'm, I'm ah. I think that we have political dynamics going on that are delaying the evaluation and research into the harmful effects of the mifepristone. I believe that the administration will continue that investigation. They've said that they will, I think once we're past the midterms, you know, I mean, I think what we're seeing is, you know, the clash of politics and principle, things that have to get done, that I think many people are acknowledging have to get done. But that's what I'm, what I'm hoping, what I'm advocating for and what I'm being told and others are being told is that I mean a review, an objective review of the impact of these drugs is something that of course again the abortion industry is afraid of. And I think that if the fda, HHS and the whole administration keep on that track, we really will have them on the run because the studies are, I mean the studies are already out there.

Frank Pavone : They just want to make sure that any change in policy regarding the norms surrounding these abortion drugs are done. Not like they're done under the Democrats, it's just done by politics. They want it to be based on really solid scientific evidence which we know, you know, the Democrat side and the pro abortion side constantly ignore as they invoke the mantra follow the science. They constantly ignore the science. At least when it comes to abortion.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, they, they really do. I mean it's just, it's so obvious from a moral, ethical, biological, reality based standpoint that life begins at conception and is wor. Protecting all the way until natural death. And yet somehow we still think that this issue is debatable in 2026. Like, like we think stupidly that the definition of a woman or a man is debatable. I mean there are just some things that the, the truth of reality is so stark that human beings do not have the control to legislate otherwise or to manufacture our reality. And you know, and yet this is the consequence of sin and the especially the feminist movement and especially the sexual revolution that doesn't want to have the consequences of their actions and unfortunately you know, takes that out, on the weakest among us. And, children. And so, you know, this is still in 2026, a really important fight. And, you know, overall, as we kind of barrel, toward the midterms, are there any initiatives and all of this, that you would like our AFR family to know about ahead of November, that are upcoming, either good or that need to be defeated?

Frank Pavone : well, yes. let me give a specific project here as we continue to talk within the pro life, pro family movement about abortion. And specifically, like these, the Democrats have not at all backed away from their stance. You see, the Senate candidate in Texas, I've written about him, Talarico, you know, oh, I'm a seminarian. I'm going to be pastor. I'm. He's quoting the Bible all the time about transgender and abortion and everything. look, we have a project called Is this what yout Mean? And, people can learn about this at, we have a website, lateabortion.org I believe, Jenna, along with what we've already said, we got to focus on these chemical abortions. Yes, yes. But the most strategically promising route is to awaken the public about the extremism of the other side on late term abortion. And is this what you mean? Simply says, you know, you take the quotes and we provide them on the website of, you know, the description of the procedure in the latest stages of pregnancy. They use the word dismemberment, decapitation. And you ask the candidate on the other side, when you say the word abortion, sir, ma', am, is this what you mean? See, it's not even an argument about making it legal or illegal. It's not even an argument whether it's ethical or not. It's going to the very basic first step of any argument or any discussion defining your terms. So, Tellarico, or any of you folks that are running on the Democrat side, we know already, even if you don't bring up the abortion issue, that you're extreme on this issue. But first of all, we want to know if you know what the word even means. So dismemberment, decapitation, that's from the medical textbook. That's not from the Bible. That's not from us, from the medical books. When you say the word abortion, is this what you mean? And I think, Jenna, this has to be asked at town hall meetings. This has to be asked at press conferences. This has to be asked continuously. If we go, if we do that, going into this cycle, we're going to see some dramatic moments that I think will wake up the consciences of a lot of pro life voters.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, you know, that's such a great, point that, you know, the left tries to, really gloss over what's actually going on and the horrors and heinousness of abortion. And, if they're forced to confront that reality and say, okay, is this what you're actually affirming? Is this the definition that you're actually providing? I mean, that will at least force them to either, you know, say, say yes and, and have. And show that they have such a seared conscience that they could possibly do that, you know, or kind of try to, to back their way out of it. But, you know, I really think that that that's, Father Provone. I think that that's also where a lot of the. Even the Christians that advocate for some abortions in some circumstances really haven't been confronted with the actual definition of what really happens. Otherwise they wouldn't.

Frank Pavone : That's right. No, that's right. [email protected] is another site I want to throw out there because that's key to these arguments. Like you say, even if people, they want to make some exceptions here and there, well, you're making an exception of one. What, what is the actual thing that you're doing? And until we actually look at it, we don't necessarily have a fully informed opinion.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And this is why, you know, again, not only definitions matter, but, you know, reality. And the truth of reality matters because, if we just allow for all of this wordplay and sort of vagary from the left, then unfortunately, even, Christians can be, held captive by some of those wrong definitions and end up advocating for things that ultimately, are not true, they're not righteous, and it's because we're not willing, perhaps to. To come to terms with, the truth of reality and the truth of those definitions. But, Frank Pavone, I really, really appreciate you coming on this morning, you know, kind of last minute with these, with this, headline this morning. And so I really appreciate your time. And you know, again, I just think it's so unfair that, someone like Kermit Gosnell was able to live out his life until his natural death while, promoting abortion, and actually engaging in it for that long. And so we need to, have the standard that we protect life as a society. So, as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna Franklin. Net.

Jenna talks with former Intelligence agent Scott Uehlinger on the continued efforts in the Iran conflict. 

Jenna also talks to Father Frank Pavone in light of Kermit Gosnell’s death about the case and abortion at large.