Jenna Ellis: The U.S. Constitution guarantees God's 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.

I don't know why we continue to do this whole daylight savings thing

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Monday, March 9, and hopefully all of you have, appropriately celebrated daylight Savings Time. And you're actually up with me at the new, 8:05am Eastern Time, or wherever you are listening from. I don't know why we continue to, to do this whole daylight savings thing. Like, it always just comes right when you, you know, you think, oh, this is great, and we're, we're all, you know, set on the, on the time. Then the government has to just go change it on us. You know, Marco Rubio, when he was still in the Senate, was, pushing to end Daylight Savings Time. I'm a big fan of that. Like, just pick one, just pick one. And everybody can stay on the same time. Like what they do in Arizona, Arizona actually has it right. they don't change. The world changes around them. And they just say, you know what, we don't care. We're not switching time zones. And, it works out, I think, a lot better for them. There's not really a great reason in 2026 to keep this going. But I say the same thing every time. We either spring forward or fall back, just because it's always so frustrating, in my opinion, to have to change the times. But at least in 2026, and we've had this for a while, ah, we don't have to remember to set our digital clocks as much, our iPhones. And if, you're, if you're green bubble people, you know, just whatever. But, but our iPhones, do it, man, automatically. And we don't have to set that manually. So at least it wasn't like, you know, I'm scrambling it, what was formerly 7:59.

Ryan Helfenbein: Kristi Noem may be ousted from DHS

so anyways, good morning. And the big news over the weekend is, what the NewSong York Times is calling the rise and fall of Kristi Noem. So that's been kind of the big story, other than, of course, you know, still the, Iraq conflict and some other things. But taking a moment to talk about Kristi Noem. this has been coming for a while. I think everyone in Trump world in D.C. at minimum, anticipated, that Kristi Noem would be moved on from dhs, at least right after the midterm. So the fact that this is coming well in advance, really just proved that President Trump was really done with a lot of her antics. And there were a couple of reasons behind this. I posted, posted on social media, basically something to the effect that, you know, Kristi Noem, violated the very first rule of Trump World, which is that you never, ever, ever make it more about yourself than the boss. And that's just true. That's how Trump world works. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, obviously if you're working for a principal of an organization, you make it more about the organization's goal or that principle ahead of you. But especially when that principal is the President of the United States. always the, the people who are his appointees or work for him should be much more concerned about making him look good, doing, their job to the best of their ability, to make sure that his administration thrives and remembering that it's his administration. But there were a couple of specific things as well. And this is what has kind of been hailed as, the main clip and the main, moment that Kristi Noem basically sealed her fate. And it came ironically, with a Republican. So this was Senator, Kennedy from the great state of Louisiana, asking Noem about this, over $200 million ad buy that featured her prominently, like on horseback, and, you know, was, trying to push out dhs and she claimed that the President had approved this. Listen to this. Cut to.

 : I'm asking you. sorry to interrupt, but the President approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently.

 : Yes, sir.

 : We went through the legal processes.

 : Did it correct the President?

 : Yes, he did.

 : Yes.

 : Okay.

 : and one thing, Senator, I think would be helpful to know is how

 : effective that communications has been that overwhelming effective in your name recognition. I mean, I personally just. I mean, to me it puts the President in a terribly awkward spot. And, and I just, I'm not saying you're not telling the truth. It's just hard for me to believe, knowing the President as I do.

Jenna Ellis: Yikes. Well, let's welcome, in Rhyen Helfenbein, who is the Vice President of Communications, at Liberty University. He is also the founding executive director of the Standing for Freedom center. And Rhyen I think that Senator Kennedy nailed it where he just said very bluntly, this was, this increased your name recognition. And reportedly, at least according to Bill Melusion at Fox News, after Kennedy asked that Kennedy gave Fox News a quote. This coming from Bill, Ah, Malaysian. He says President Trump called him after that hearing, after he saw Noam's testimony, and that President Trump was, quote, mad as a murder hornet and said that he never approved the contract and didn't even know about it.

Ryan Helfenbein: Wow. Yeah, it frames so well, I think, what's happening in real time, the politics and of course, the relationships. You know, you recognize in these moments, Jenna, that this, you know, in living color and in living reality. You know, the Trump administration is just like any other organization. And I don't say that in a critical way. I just mean that people are people and it doesn't matter what organization you go to. And at the end of the day, when it comes to personnel and personalities that are running in these various, offices, DHS is, considerably a very difficult position to be the head of, to be the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, going all the way back to when it was first formed, under President Bush. it is a very high profile position. There's a lot of risk, there's a lot of decision making. There's an enormous budget. and so for Kristi Noem to be in that position, you have to be competent and, you cannot make it about yourself. And I do believe, and there have been several faux pas along the way, but this $220 million, and this is ahead of the midterms, I think that was probably the icing on the cake. but there were other missteps along the way. when it comes to visibility, when it comes to the profile and when it comes to, dealing with illegal immigration, you want somebody in that role, who does not seem like a peacock. And that is somebody who is constantly drawing attention to themselves. You kind of want a boring normie administrator who is in that role because of the controversy surrounding immigration. And I think that's one of the things that Christy was not able to provide, which was stability. people will naturally be looking over there. but she was trying to garner much more attention to herself. And there were other situations, smaller situations where she was doing the same kind of thing, how she was dressed, for example, to go on some of these operations. M. It looked to some, it appeared to some, that she was trying to, you know, almost look like a Barbie or A cheerleader, and that at that level of government, it's questionable, you know, is this person in this role truly, truly serious about what it is she's doing. And she did not exude the kind of confidence and competence that the American people would expect. And I think that all of that's important. And I think all of that was precipitous towards this sort of ultimate decision for Trump to move on.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think you're absolutely right. I mean she was known as, as Ice Barbie. Right. I mean that was, that was her nickname M across the country. And there were a lot of people even with her appointment. I mean, I remember talking to Hogan Gidley on this show, when she was ah, first appointed. And the question had to Hogan was are people going to take her seriously? And kind of because she was known for making it more about herself, for not necessarily, looking the part in terms of what you need for that type of role. You need somebody like a Thom Homan who's just a no nonsense kind of, go getter and actually does the job rather than almost making it like this dramaticized Hollywood movie. So I think that was a huge misstep. and you're right about that. And that was the perception really across the country. I mean, and this wasn't just Democrats that didn't like her. I mean this was even some of the hardcore MAGA base. And of course this kind of cut both ways with President Trump because he likes, people in his administration that look good on TV and that can handle the interviews well. But at the end of the day, that's not enough. And Trump has even clearly, shown that with some of the people that he has fired over the years, to say, you know, if you're not competent at your job, you're just good on tv, you know, that's not going to cut it.

Mark Wayne Mullen will replace Kristi Noem as head of ICE

So let's talk about Mark, Wayne Mullin, who is, now going to be the replacement as of the end of this month. he is, he's currently a senator from Oklahoma. he's been, you know, an advocate for the President for a really long time. he's, he's a father. He's kind of this, I think, no nonsense kind of guy. what do you expect from his tenure following Kristi Noem? the Democrats, of course, Rhyen, are framing this as, you know, there needs to be more accountability and you know, hopefully this will be a big change to ICE operations and all that. I Don't see him coming in and somehow, changing what ICE is doing. In fact, I hope that he comes in and is even stronger in terms of the President's clear agenda for mass deportations and to prioritize immigration reform.

Ryan Helfenbein: You know, I think there's a couple of things that we're probably coming coalescing around. At the same time. I think Mark Wayne Mullin is an excellent pick in terms of, a longer track record. he's going to come in as more of a normie conservative. He's going to bring the temperature down. I mean, the national media has been focused on, of course, ICE operations for a long time. especially in the case of Minnesota. and what is ironic about the whole thing is that it's like less than 2% of all arrests are happening within that state. California, Florida and Texas are where the vast majority of these operations are taking place. And most of them are going like clockwork and they're going rather well. and the media wanted to draw this attention. And at that moment, Minnesota, there needed to be real leadership. That's why Thom Homan was dispatched to go up there, to settle things down, to bring down the temperature, to sort of force the governor, ah, to the table. Tim Walz. And so I do think that with this change at DHS and with Mark Mullins, I think we're supposed to get back to business as usual. And the efficacy of, Homeland Security and the efficacy of ICE only needs to increase at this point because there's no way, I would just say based on the numbers, we're going to get to our goals if we're having so much gridlock and so much resistance at the state level. So Mark Wayne Mullins, his measure of success will be the cooperation that he gets. And insisting on that cooperation, many of the states, even my state of Virginia, they're trying to make it difficult to work with federal agencies when it comes to detaining illegal immigrants. They don't, they have a posture and, a policy of non cooperation with federal authorities right now. So I think Wayne, if he gets in there and he insists on this and does the same thing that Homan did, I think that we're going to see much greater efficacy and competency at dhs. That's probably what Trump's looking for, especially ahead of the midterms.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

Do you anticipate a lot of turnover in the administration after the midterms

And in just about the last minute that we have with you, Rhyen and I agree with your analysis and that measure of success, do you anticipate a lot of, turnover in the administration after the midterms, I mean that's kind of when it's generally expected. But you know, if you, if you had to kind of look at you know, look down the road, are there any other bigger positions that you think that may turnover? You know, I mean I'm thinking this may be Pam Bondi's kind of last, last few days. Ah, potentially. But you know, what are your thoughts on that front?

Ryan Helfenbein: I do think Pam is the other position that has received probably the most criticism. That's a great question. And I don't know, I would just say this. If we, if we somehow the Republicans maintain the House and were to keep the House, I think you'll probably see less turnover. If you see the Republicans losing the House but maintaining the Senate, of course there's going to be a circus. And when that happens, we'll probably see more people moving on from the administration. I think that's probably how we would gauge it is loss versus wins, in 2026.

 : Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: Well, we got to take a break here, Rhyen Helfenbein, but really appreciate you joining and you know the I think you're right on that front that the, it's really going to depend on whether Republicans maintain the majorities and perhaps even increase their majorities in the House and the Senate versus what a lot of a lot of commentators are looking at as a very hard fought midterm coming up. And it's to going, going to be really difficult probably for Republicans to keep that trifecta. how that impacts the Trump administration remains to be seen. But you know, at the end of the day with some of these people like Kristi Noem, leaving and I think for very good reason, you know, Trump kind of moved her on, it's not unprecedented whatsoever that in any presidential administration when you get about to the two year mark, that's when people choose to move on or you just naturally have turnover. So not all of that is you know, drama or headlines. But we'll be right back with more.

 : welcome back to Jenna Ellis in

Jenna Ellis: the Morning on American Family Radio.

Colectoral cancer is rising fastest among adults 20 to 49 years old

Welcome back. Well, an interesting piece in Fox News this week. the origin of a deadly cancer affecting young adults is revealed in an alarming report. it's saying that colectoral cancer is rising 3% annually among 20 to 49, age group. So, ah, that age group with rectal cancer cases increasing to one third of all diagnoses and as colectoral cancer cancer or crc is now the leading cause of death in adults under 50. A new report reveals some surprising shifts the incidence of the disease. And although the rates of CRC have been declining among seniors, those 65 and under are facing a rise in diagnoses according to a report, titled Collectoral Cancer Statistics 2026 from the American Cancer Society. And it's saying that this is this disease is rising the fastest among adults 20 to 49 years old. And you'll recall that this is the same cancer that James, Vanderbeek, the the actor passed away from at 48 after the, after his battle with colectoral cancer. And there are a few others in the media and even our good friend Meg Basham from Daily Wire who's also dealing with this type of cancer. So even just you know, with a couple of those you know, those personal references, you know, it seems like there's a lot of this type of cancer that is rising. What can we really attribute this to?

Raw Egg Nationalist says rates of colorectal cancer decreasing among younger generations

Well let's welcome in Raw Egg Nationalist, who is a writer, and a really interesting commentator on health issues. And so Raw Egg, really appreciate you joining. And you know, it seems like overall the the assessment in this article is that really this all comes down to overall health and what we're putting into our bodies.

Raw egg Nationalist: Ah, Jenna.

Raw egg Nationalist: Yeah. Great to speak to you again. It was, it was very sad what happened to James Vanliere Der Beek. I remember growing up watching snippets of Dawson Creek, Dawson's Creek. so you know, I mean he's not, he's not actually that much older than I am. He's about 10 years older than I am. He has beautiful family, lots of children. 48 years old, diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2024 and he's dead. it's a worrying phenomenon I think and it sort of runs counter I suppose to our basic assumptions about cancer and which demographics in particular are likely to be affected by it. Although we know that there are rare cancers that affect even children, young children generally. We tend to think of cancer as an old person's disease, as a middle aged person's disease, as a geriatric disease. Well actually rates of colorectal cancer as you point out, are ah, decreasing among seniors and increasing, something like 3% year on year, among younger generations. And that's very, very worrying. And it's quite obviously some kind of change that's taken place probably some environmental factor or behavioral change that's taken place in recent decades among younger people. And experts appoint to changes in diet, changes in lifestyle, lack of exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption. and yeah, I mean, I think it's probably likely to be a number of different factors. I mean the smoking thing I think is possibly a bit of a red herring because generally smoking, tobacco smoking at least is on the decrease among the younger generations. So I think it's probably, if it's anything it particularly likely to be driven by processed food consumption by food additives. you know.

Jenna Ellis: Oh, and I think we lost him. We will try to get him back. But you know, this is a really ah, interesting study and I think he's right that the, the tobacco part of this may be more of a red herring because you know we're seeing that that is decreasing as well as alcohol consumption. we had raw egg on not that long ago talking about you know, this really, I think great but fascinating trend that the alcohol sales business has really declined among Gen Z, because they're simply not consuming alcohol. And I would attribute that a lot. And you know, this is just my personal opinion, but you know, with the the lack of kind of the, the, the clubs and you know, that kind of forum where you know, a lot of people, at least in my age group when you know, we were in college, that was kind of the big thing that everybody did after class. And you know, and that was more what everyone was expected to do. Where now a Gen Z has a lot different trends in terms of what they kind of center around and their, Their focus. I'm told that we have raw egg back. So welcome, back in. And you know, this is really interesting that researchers say that the, this trend rather than, you know, maybe the tobacco that you're talking about, may be linked to early life exposures, diet, environmental factors and even antibiotics. So what do you think of those theories and what currently has the strongest evidence.

Raw egg Nationalist: Yes, sorry about dropping off there, Jenna. yeah, I mean I think antibiotics is an interesting one. So gut health in particular as we're coming to understand is, is really does hinge on the kinds of microorganisms that we have in our digestive tract. We're really starting to understand that actually various different influences, things that we eat, pesticides, herbicides we ingest, antibiotics that we're given when we're ill can have these quite stunning changes actually on the composition of the flora in Our gut. And yes, I mean, it may very well be the case that actually widespread antibiotic use. And antibiotic use is increasing, has increased enormously. could very well be driving pathogenic changes in the composition of gut, bacteria, the microorganisms. And that could be driving inflammation, which could result in cancer. I mean, that is very, very credible. There isn't. I don't know that there's an enormous amount of research on the relationship between colorectal cancer and antibiotic use, but there definitely should be. And I think that now is a very, very good time actually, for that kind of research to be commissioned by RFK Jr who obviously is leading this great health crusade. Make America Healthy Again. But like I said before, I think it's likely to be multiple factors. So, yeah, antibiotic could be food additives. Could be all of these, additives in processed food that we really don't know very much about, if anything at all. So RFK Jr. In recent weeks has been talking about the G. RAF system that the FDA operates. That's the generally recognized as safe, system for licensing food additives. Well, that meant for the last 70 years that actually processed food manufacturers and introduce additives into the food supply without proper testing. They can just say that they're safe and then put.

Jenna Ellis: All right, and we'll try to get him back again. Not sure what's going on with his phone. I know that we. The normal way that we connect him while he's in the UK Is through, a different system, but this is, through the phone, since he is here currently in the United States. so we'll just see what's going on with that. But you, know, I completely agree that, that RFK Jr. And the whole Make America Healthy Again, movement, needs to be putting some funding into this type of research. I mean, these are the things that really ultimately matter to, our overall health, our way of life. And, and with these types of studies that show, you know, this much of an increase in, especially a really young population. I mean, 20 to, to 49 is. Is very young for these, types of cancers. And, And it just seems that there are so many things that are so unhealthy for us, Whether we're talking about our food supply, like we have a lot with raw egg, here. When we're talking about things, you know, even like antibiotics that are very necessary and, when you need them, you're very glad that you have them. But there's also the risk, of course, with a lot of these medications and things of over prescription and raw egg is back again. And you know, when we're talking about, these types of things like with antibiotics and so forth, I mean, there is this risk with modern, Western medicine of over prescription, not just of things like, you know, antidepressants and you know, a whole category of, you know, all the advertisements of things that you see on tv, like, you know, take this medication that then will give you 10 other symptoms that then you have to take this whole collection of medication that ultimately probably isn't good for your body. but when we're talking about, you know, the, the impact of a lot of these drugs on your system overall, this is something I think that that really the Make America Healthy Again movement needs to invest in understanding, you know, what, what is the, the best way we can move, toward a more natural, holistic and also, generally healthy way of life.

One of the important things RFK Jr. is highlighting is the rate of over prescription

Raw egg Nationalist: Yes. Well, one of the important things I think that RFK Jr. Is doing and is trying to highlight is, yes, is the rate of over prescription. The fact that Americans are, ah, dependent on medications, to an ever greater extent. Prescriptions. Medication use is just growing and growing year on year. makes huge amounts of money for big Pharma. It is their model, it is their business model. That is how they make these tens of billions, hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars is through ensuring that people are, taking more and more medication. But actually there's a different way to manage health. One of the ways to manage health is just, to live a good life is to eat well. Food is medicine. food is preventative medicine rather than, ad hoc medicine that's used to treat symptoms of problems. It's, you know, eating the right diet is a way of preventing ill health from developing in the first place. Exercise too. And so, yeah, I mean, I think that this really needs to come to the fore. If RFK Jr really wants to break the kind of corporate, stranglehold on health, Big Pharma stranglehold on health, then yes, an alternative vision of what health is and how health can be maintained, needs to be put forward. And I think, I think RFK Jr. Is on the, is on the way to doing that. And I think that he kind of embodies that himself actually, as a man. You know, he's in his 60s, 70s, he's, he's in very good physical health. You know, he eats well, he exercises, he's out there in the fresh air. He has all these different interests that keep him active. but yes, I mean, that is one of the fundamental tasks I think of make America healthy again is presenting a different model of health and how to treat ill health and actually how to prevent it in the first place.

Jenna Ellis: Yes. Prevention is always so much better than, you know, having to go through all of the chemotherapy or the medication or other things. I mean, early detection, it's good, at least in this particular type of cancer. it says in the article as well that if detected early, then you have about a 95%, survival rate. So that's a good thing. but with this type of, diagnosis that the screening and prevention guidelines now have been lowered to age 45. do you think that this should be lowered even further? at least until we kind of get a handle on what's going on. And also, is this trend happening, globally or do you know if this is just this kind of age range is just specific to the United States?

Raw egg Nationalist: yes. You know, I think, I think yes, there does need to be a kind of advanced screening for this because clearly, you know, James Vanliere Der Beek shouldn't have died of colorectal cancer. And he was a wealthy man, you know, a very, very, you know, fortunate man. And he ends up dying age 48. So there does need to be some kind of advanced screening for this. I think there is clearly a growing risk among younger people. I mean, it can be done intelligently. It doesn't need to be the case that everybody under 50 needs to be screened for colorectal cancer. I think that physicians can identify people who are at particular risk. Although actually, you know, even looking at James Vanliere Der Beek, then outwardly, certainly he didn't look like he was unhealthy. He didn't look like he was, to my mind, like he was, necessarily subject to, you know, some of the clearer risk factors I would identify. Like being obese, for example, and having a really bad diet, smoking, maybe whatever, excessive alcohol consumption. so there definitely does need to be preventative, preventative measures brought in place actually to kind of intercept this trend and prevent it from, Prevent it from growing. I do think that this is actually a problem that we're seeing across the developed world. I certainly know that in England there are similar trends in the uk, colorectal, cancer and other forms of, digestive problems, chronic digestive conditions, things like Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome. These are all on the march. Yes, it isn't Although we might like to think that America has the worst health problems in the developed world, and in many respects America does. These are trends, I think that we're seeing mirrored across the developed world and probably for the same reasons too.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, it's really fascinating and really concerning as well. And so overall, and in just the last couple of minutes we have with you, where do you think that, Maha should be putting this on their priority in terms of the overall agenda?

Raw egg Nationalist: I mean, I think it's still. It's not, a problem, perhaps on the scale of the stunning increase in, autism diagnoses, for example, you know, where you've gone from one child in a thousand or ten thousand being diagnosed to autism to one child in 31, you know, in a matter of decades, I don't think think it's that great a problem, but it is a serious problem. And young people should not be dying of colorectal cancer. And this is an alarming, worrying, really a canary in the coal mine for young. For young people's health more generally. So, yeah, I mean, I think it does need to be. It does need to be treated as a priority, definitely.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Well, well said and really appreciate, your time today. And this is something that, you know, I think is very concerning, and we need to be focused more on health. We'll be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

Alyssa Liu opened up about her complex relationship with her father following Olympics

 : Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the

Jenna Ellis: Morning on American Family Radio. Welcome back. Well, you remember Team USA's Alyssa Liu. She is, the figure skater that won the gold medal, there in the Olympics. And this was a really outstanding performance. And she kind of came out of nowhere to not, necessarily going in as the. As the favorite, but her story is a complex one. And she, got attention over the weekend, particularly on social media, for opening up about her complex relationship with her father following the Winter Olympics and saying she was, quote, unquote, almost mad her dad was happy about her comeback. So she had, apparently quite quit, figure skating at age 16, kind of was burnt out, then came back a couple of years later, to the sport, and then obviously has gone on to now win Olympic gold. And, you know, obviously there are complex relationships, you know, between children and parents for a lot of different reasons. But, the interesting thing about this particular situation, beyond, you know, how much focus and attention and basically obsession in life, things like being actually competent at an Olympic sport take at this point, I mean, it's. You have to make it your entire life and your priority. And no wonder she was burnt out. And in my opinion, I don't think that that's something that necessarily Christians can be engaged in because you have to give so much of your life to, to one specific obsession with at expense of everything else. Often at expense even of your family. I mean there are reports of athletes whose parents, you know, one parent will take the child out of state so that they can practice with a specific coach and you know, live long distance. Me, all of these things that really just aren't overall the ah, family life that God, shows us in Scripture. but, but even separate and apart from that whole conversation, for this particular athlete, Alyssa Lu was born via an anonymous egg donor and a gestational surrogate. So her father Arthur, is a California based lawyer and single father of five and used two different surrogates for his children. So already he's kind of setting up this very, complex relationship with his children by intentionally choosing to bring them into the world not knowing their biological mother. So let's welcome in Katy Faust, who is the founder of them before us. And Katy, you know, I think that while a lot of people were kind of looking at Alyssa Lou's comments just sort of on the surface, and some calling her ungrateful for her father's sacrifices and others, you know, saying, well, she's just kind of being a young person. I think this kind of, that, that conversation misses a deeper issue here, which is that this is a young woman who grew up without a mother and with a father who intentionally brought her into the world not knowing her biological mother. And there is a real harm in that.

Katy Faust: Yeah, it was so fascinating. I listened to that entire Rolling Stone interview and so much of what you just said was demonstrated in her story. She had extended long, prolonged periods of isolation where she wasn't living with any of her family. Especially during COVID She wasn't even seeing her coaches. She had years and years of isolation. And she talks a lot about like there was interesting parts in there about her relationship with her father, where she very clearly had viewed him as somebody that was over involved and a little aggressive with his direction about her skating career. And she just wanted nothing to do with him being involved in the direction of her skating for a while. But it was interesting because in that interview she talks about, well, her mother, her mother. And the interviewer goes, wait a second, what do you mean your mother? And she goes, well, my father's wife, because she was like, I finally, you know, how did you find out that you were surrogate born? Well, she's like, I figured it out because my father's wife was too old to be a mother. And so there was some feminine presence in her life. And I think a lot of people look at her and go, gosh, she turned out so well for having a single dad with five kids. And she kind of gives the answer there in that interview. Just like, most of us, we crave that female love. We crave that maternal influence. And she really did have that social mother in her life. Her father's wife. I think they divorced when she was in her younger years, but she was still around, and she considered her to be her mother in some ways. He also imported his mother to be the grandmother in their home to help with the transport and the raising of these five children. But it's so fascinating because, she still was isolated. And I look at that situation, and I, you know, when. When I heard that she was raised by a single Chinese father, I'm like, look, Chinese parents are intense. I know I, you know, I have an Asian studies major degree. I've spent time in China. Asian parents are intense. Asian fathers are incredibly intense. And fathers in general tend to be the ones that drive their children towards excellence, to, like, push harder, go farther, work stronger. And it's mothers that typically say, no, I mean, she needs a rest. No, I think that that's too much. No, she needs a day off. So she didn't have that moderating influence later on in her life. She only had the parent that was saying, more, more, bigger, stronger, faster. She only had the parent that was taking the same speed, the radar gun to the. To the rink to see how fast she was skating. She only had the parent that was dressing up in disguise so that he could make sure that she was on the most aggressive plan, that her coaches were putting her through. So I look at this, and I see a life of imbalance for her. You know, one where she had all of the typical pressures of an athlete where they needed to work harder, but she didn't have any, you know, especially later when it sounds like his. Her father's wife was gone. She didn't have the moderating influence. She didn't have the feminine parent saying, maybe she just needs to have a little emotional break here. And ultimately, she decided that she needed to take control and take a break for herself, because she didn't have a parent that was helping to regulate that for her.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And it's, it's just so tragic on, you know, such a variety of fronts. And I think while people, you know, rightly are praising her for this accomplishment and saying, you know, she just went out and and skated, without seeming a lot of these, these pressures, the undercurrent of what was really going on for years and years of her life, is. Is just really tragic. And you know, focusing on kind of the, the maternal element here. I mean, you know, this is somebody who as, as a father, there was one interview that I read that he said, you know, that he wanted children and at the time wasn't married and wasn't sure that he would marry in time, you know, somebody who would be able to have children. So he decided to go ahead and have them through a surrogate. this is where the, the rise of these options, ah, for adults. And you and I have talked about this at length and you express this so well in your ministry and your. Here on American Family Radio Network as well, that talk about the impact of adults preferences over the best need for children. Because, you know, this is somebody who intentionally brought five children into the world who wouldn't know their biological mother. I mean that's already, whether or not there was a feminine presence in a, you know, stepmother or so forth. you know, this is somebody who decided he wanted to have kids, didn't want to do it God's way, and so used modern medicine in order to accomplish his desire, not thinking about the impact that it obviously had on his children.

Katy Faust: That's exactly right. And you know, we don't have tons of details about why they decided to why he decided to make this choice and build his family this way, as they like to say, build a family. Which tells you something like these children are not objects to be manufactured and construction. They're gifts that to be received. Right.

Katy Faust: But he, for whatever reason decided to build his family. And he said very clearly, I wanted a white egg donor, I wanted half white children. I wanted to diversify their genetic stock. I think that that would be a good idea. Well, those children pay a price when they get diversified in a way that cuts them off from their half of their genetic heritage, half of their biological identity, you know, at them before us.

One of the things that we do is catalog stories of children who have lost parents

One of the things that we do is we catalog the stories of children who have lost their mother or father. And one of those categories of loss is third party reproduction where somebody else's egg or somebody else's sperm or somebody else's womb is used to create the child. There are drawbacks to that. But a lot of the time, children don't really see it or at least feel like they can say it out loud until we have discovered about 10 years out of the home. So she is still dependent on her father. still is her primary familial connection. But what we've seen is so often these kids will really start to process the impact of losing their mother or father when they're about 28. Like, you need a lot of distance, financial independence. They need to no longer be under the same roof. They often need to start their own families before they go, oh, my gosh, this is what I was missing. Oh, my goodness, this isn't. I have this baby now, and this is what it's like to have a connection with my own child. So I want to give her space to kind of grieve and process, because a lot of times at this age, she's not really in a place to freely say, what I really wanted was my mother watching me on that podium. and that's. That's something that I really missed.

Jenna Ellis: M. Yeah. And, you know, it just. It's heartbreaking, honestly, when you see, you know, the impact that this actually has on the children and as they get older and, and then they process through this as adults. And, you know, we're going to, start seeing kind of the. The next wave of, the now adults who had to deal with these types of harms as children. And, you know, what are we seeing, Katy, in. In terms of the understanding of family and. And maybe M. Doing things a little bit differently. Hopefully this next generation, who have incurred these harms, like someone like Alyssa Lou would consider, you know, maybe this wasn't a really good option, for me. And they'll. They'll see kind of that harm and then choose, to do things the biblical way.

Katy Faust: We do see that certainly in the stories of the children that have come to us and shared their story. they. It kind of goes one or two ways. Either they recognize, oh, my goodness, this harmed me so much, and I'm really devastated. I will never inflict this kind of loss on my children. And then they cling even harder to their husband or wife and reject divorce and say, even though I'm dealing with infertility struggles, I'm never going to separate a child, my child, from their mother or father, because I understand how that harms me. But on the other hand, some of these choices destroy Children. Some of these kids whose parents divorced casually and had a series of multiple relationships after that. Some of these children that were raised by a single mother or a single mother by choice, some of these children who were raised by gay parents, they are so, disoriented when it comes to their own relational formation that they repeat the cycles that were handed down to them. So the truth is we don't have a lot of breaks right now. We don't have a lot of technological or cultural or legal breaks that would see, that would insistently reverse this pattern of casual separation of children from their mother and father. It is going to take those kids that do make it out not, unscathed, but at least properly understanding the harms that was inflicted on them to start speaking up so that we have a human face to put on the picture of this marketplace of children that are being commodified. and then we are going to need a political movement. We're going to need a little bit of policy grit when it comes to insisting that our laws conform to the rights of children rather than service adult desires. Those are both costly things. It's costly for the children to speak up about how they were damaged. How do you think it's going to go if Alyssa Lou says actually this was really hard for me and I really would like to know who my mother is. And I have some separation anxiety because I was separated from my birth mother on the day that I was born. Do you think that that's going to strengthen her relationship with her father? Do you think that's going to endear her to the world? No, it's not. People pay a price for being honest about the way their parents choices have impacted them. So the reality is this is going to take a lot of courage, courage from individual children and courage from those of us in the space of shaping culture and shaping law to tell the truth. Even if it offends adults.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you're so right, Katy Faust, how, you know, we need to ensure that that law and policy reflects what we already know about the social harms, that are ongoing. And you know, we've seen kind of a trend, thankfully away from, you know, a lot of these kind of gender mutilation, types of surgeries. We seen trends away from m, the trans movement, do you think that we're going to start seeing some of these trends away from these adult preferences of commodifying children, in some similar ways once we really as a society see the collective harm.

Katy Faust: If I have anything to do with it, we absolutely will, because the parallels between these two movements are remarkable. Both of them are fundamentally a rejection of biological reality. That's what's happening here, right? It is this, we can assign sex at birth. Well, we are now starting to see a whole host of states that are saying, no, sex is not assigned at birth. It is observed at birth. Well, we're doing the same thing in the world of reproductive technologies and remaking the institution of the family. We're saying parents are assigned at birth, and the reality is they're absolutely not. Parents also are observed at birth. Both of these have, like, literal DNA correlation. You can scientifically verify them. Both of these are working to override the created order, the very clear distinctions that we can see not just in scripture, but in biology as well. And so the question is, are we going to return to a place where there is recognition of the biological? And what happens when you do that? All of society flourishes and children are protected. But we have been captured, by this progressive ideology that would want to eradicate biology, and that is why we're seeing such destruction in the culture and within the lives of individual children.

Jenna Ellis: So, well said. Katy Foust and I so appreciate your ministry in this area. And we have to consistently, at every turn, purchase, promote the truth of the created order and policy that flows from that. so thanks so much, and as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net.

Jenna discusses how Noem's actions may have jeopardized her standing within the Trump administration, highlighting the importance of loyalty and competence in political appointments. 

Jenna invites health commentator Raw Egg Nationalist to discuss the potential environmental and dietary factors contributing to this rise in cancer rates.

Katy Faust joins the conversation to discuss the implications of modern family structures, particularly the effects of third-party reproduction on children's identities and well-being.