In this episode, host Jody Heiss dives deep into the current government shutdown, a looming issue in Congress as appropriations bills face intense negotiations. Joined by expert commentators, we navigate the complexities of legislative dysfunctions and heated debates over Homeland Security funding and immigration laws. Can Congress reach consensus in time, or are we looking at prolonged national disruptions?
SPEAKER 04 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Sitting in for Tony is today’s host, Jody Heiss.
SPEAKER 11 :
I think that, by the end of the week, the House and the Senate will have passed 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. Now, it will be a bumpy road for the House. It will be a clown circus for a few days, but I think they will ultimately pass. The only bill that will not pass is the Department of Homeland Security budget. And, frankly, I don’t know if it’s possible to pass that bill.
SPEAKER 17 :
That was Senator John Kennedy earlier today on CNN’s Situation Room. He was offering his prediction for this week as we find ourselves with yet another government shutdown. Welcome to this February 2nd edition of Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss, former member of Congress and senior fellow here at the Family Research Council. An honor today to be sitting in for Tony. All right, coming up, a New York jury has awarded $2 million to a woman who detransitioned after undergoing double mastectomy at 16 years of age. Now, this marks the first successful malpractice lawsuit tied to transgender medical care for a minor. Dr. David Prentice from the Science Alliance for Life and Technology will be joining me a little later to discuss this, as well as an unusual story coming out of Florida where a couple is suing an IVF clinic over an embryo mix-up. Plus, we’ll be sharing today an interview that Tony had with Senator Ted Budd regarding the commencement of Phase 2 of President Trump’s Gaza peace plan. All this and much more is coming straight ahead. All right, this week is going to be a very important one in Congress as the U.S. House of Representatives is going to be taking up legislation to lift a partial government shutdown. They’re expected to have a final vote sometime tomorrow. And today is, of course, the third consecutive day that the government has been shut down and funding for the Department of Homeland Security. is right at the center of this budget battle. Well, joining me now is Washington Stand reporter Casey Harper, who has been following this and other stories. Casey, let’s start off with this one. Can you walk us through the latest?
SPEAKER 03 :
Sure, Jody. It’s deja vu all over again with another government shutdown. No offense to your former job, but I think the level of chaos coming out of Capitol Hill now is kind of hard to believe, especially after last week Democrats derailed a deal that would have kept the government running. Now about 78 percent of the government is shut down. That includes funding for the Pentagon, Department of Transportation and many other agencies which expired over the weekend. Now, on Friday, the Senate did overwhelmingly approve a bipartisan measure to end the funding gap and provide a window for debating federal immigration strategies, the ICE measures, which are really at the heart of the Democrat opposition. Now, House GOP leadership is now moving quickly after they’re the ones who passed the original funding bill that would have got this through in time. Now they’re thinking they can get a vote as early as tomorrow. Here’s what House Speaker Mike Johnson had to say yesterday on Fox News Sunday.
SPEAKER 24 :
We’ll have a lot of conversations to have with individual Republican members over the next 24 hours or so. We’ll get all this done by Tuesday. I think there’s some healthy conversations in good faith that will be had over the next couple of days, and I look forward to that.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think Senator Kennedy was right. We were already seeing House Democrats and Republicans raising objections to that deal, Jody.
SPEAKER 17 :
Deja vu all over again, as you said. Well said. All right, Casey, if I can shift with you real quickly to Minnesota. As I understand, there’s been a couple of more arrests in connection with the church invasion by anti-ice protesters. What’s happening there right now?
SPEAKER 03 :
Sure, this church invasion has become really the center of the hurricane that’s going on in Minneapolis. So Attorney General Pam Bondi said that two more arrests were made. She promised to crack down on this group who disrupted the worship service. You’ve seen the video. It’s a very large group, and they’re making these arrests one at a time. And Bondi wrote on X, quote, So a big threat from the top law enforcement. official, the DOJ. Now, these arrests come after, of course, CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested over the weekend. That got a lot of headlines. And here’s what Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch had to say yesterday on ABC’s This Week program.
SPEAKER 27 :
Nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it’s ongoing and disrupting that church service and thinking that we’re just going to stand by and let that happen because there is a statute that does not allow that to happen. It doesn’t matter if you happen to be a former CNN journalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re a rioter. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re peacefully protesting. You are not allowed to do that.
SPEAKER 03 :
That message is what we’ve been seeing and hearing consistently from the Trump administration. They’re saying that anyone who went into that church will be held accountable, Jody.
SPEAKER 17 :
Wow. Exclamation point to all of that. Casey, real quickly, one other story. I opened with this a few moments ago, but there’s a huge victory for a detransitioner who is just awarded $2 million in a malpractice case. That’s pretty big news. What’s happening there?
SPEAKER 03 :
Sure, it’s kind of a story you couldn’t even imagine reporting on just maybe a decade ago. But this woman who had her breasts tragically removed at 16 years old, so a minor, as part of her transitioning, has been awarded $2 million. Now, this is the first successful lawsuit of malpractice on a transgender case like this. And both the psychologist and a surgeon were found liable by a jury in Westchester, New York, of course, a blue state. So this is a victory that not only discourages doctors in the future from you know working on these transitions but it also sends a message that the more you know dozens of other lawsuits that are very similar to this one have a chance of raking in millions of dollars as well jody
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, Casey, as always, I want to thank you for getting us kicked off with a bird’s eye view of the news. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. I want to turn back now to the conversation over the partial government shutdown that is now in its third day in the U.S. House of Representatives is going to be taking up a deal to try and restore funding. Now, keep in mind that essential workers like military and air traffic controllers, they’re still on the job. But they could face missing paychecks if a deal is not potentially finalized by tomorrow. So will Congress resolve this spending battle in time? Well, joining me now to discuss this and more is Congressman Tim Moore. He serves on the House Budget Committee as well as the Financial Services Committee. He represents North Carolina’s 14th Congressional District. Congressman Moore, welcome back to Washington Watch. Great to have you. Thanks.
SPEAKER 16 :
It’s great to be with you this afternoon.
SPEAKER 17 :
All right, now Speaker Johnson says that a vote is expected tomorrow. What are you hearing from some of your other Republican colleagues? Is this going to pass, do you think?
SPEAKER 16 :
I’m hearing support for it. Of course, the president has leaned in and encouraging that we pass this as well. And it’s important that we keep the government open. It’s really unfortunate that the Democrats yet again are wanting to keep the government closed to try to force various concessions and think about where they are right now. They’re really wanting to try to hold up funding the government because they want lawlessness on the streets. They want us to ignore the enforcement of immigration law. And I hope and believe that the American people are paying very close attention to that and that they will hold folks accountable at the ballot box at the appropriate time. But at the end of the day, right now, we need to get this passed. We need to keep the government funded. And we need to make sure that the agencies have the funding they need to provide the services for the country.
SPEAKER 17 :
Absolutely. Right at the middle of all of this battle, the impasse, it seems, is an intense disagreement of funding over the Department of Homeland Security and the immigration policies. And, of course, all this is following the recent controversy, the incidents involving federal agents. And the current proposal, as I understand it, Congressman, only extends DHS funding for two weeks.
SPEAKER 16 :
uh that’s not a whole lot of time to debate on all of this uh what do you think no that’s that’s not a lot of time but i’m i’m hopeful that within those two weeks the the temperature and the rhetoric may get dialed down and we may be able to see this this get funded at that point i think what’s happened if you talk to some of the a few of the democratic members when there aren’t any cameras and these again are the ones that aren’t the ultra left They acknowledge that the ultra-radicals of their party have hijacked the messaging for their side. And a lot of them even understand the need that we fund our law enforcement, that we fund for immigration enforcement. But we could be in a situation where two weeks from now, we’re right back at this same impasse. And at the end of the day, we have to enforce these laws. I mean, think about it. We’re cleaning up a mess for four years of Biden’s policy of letting millions and millions of people come across the border illegally, allowing drugs to come through the southern border at record rates. We’ve seen just unparalleled increases in criminal activity by some of the criminals who’ve come across that border. And the radical left, they want to embrace criminals and they want to embrace fraud, whether it’s the fraud that’s happening in Minnesota with the Somalians there, you name it. I mean, they have lost their way. They want to keep standing with the criminals, it seems. And I shake my head because when I talk, I mean, you served in Congress. You know how it is. You get these conversations one-on-one with people. When I talk to some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, the ones that I would talk to, they recognize that this is crazy train in terms of where the far left is going on this stuff. So hopefully, in a couple weeks, the temperature will be lowered so that the right thing can happen at that point.
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, I certainly hope you’re right. You know, obviously the Democrats want some reforms of the Department of Homeland Security, but they’re also wanting to unmask these ICE agents. They want body cameras on all of them. Are there any demands that Republicans could see agreeing with? And then on the other side of that, you’ve got a lot of, or at least some Republicans that seem hesitant to want to vote for this. So how do you see it playing out?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, the irony of the Democrats, last time I checked, they were all about masks. That’s all we heard them talk about from COVID on was about wearing masks. In fact, the leftist protesters out there usually are masked up. I mean, these agents, unfortunately, have to wear masks to protect their identities because what happens is a lot of these folks that are just, they conduct themselves like terrorists almost, will go out and terrorize these folks. The amount of doxing that’s been happening with our law enforcement is just something that I don’t know that I’ve ever seen in the history that I’ve been following politics or that I’ve you know even been an adult and and the fact that this is being condoned by folks in government is is absolutely shameful i mean we saw you had a person earlier talking about the situation where these protesters go in and stormed and interrupted a church service i mean they they know absolutely no shame and they would certainly you know we saw how they’ve harassed them threatened them attacked them all these bad things. And we don’t need this. I mean, we need to lower the temperature on this. We don’t need any violence at all. And so they need to be able to protect their identities and protect their families.
SPEAKER 17 :
Final question. We got less than a minute, but all of this is leading to a potential government shutdown. Where do you see all this headed? Are we going to avoid this thing or is another shutdown going to be extended?
SPEAKER 16 :
You know, I believe the speaker when he says that he feels comfortable that we have the votes to get this passed. And so he’s been able to deliver every time, does an amazing job. So I believe that we’ll be able to get it passed, avoid another shutdown, because we can’t, I mean, we live in a dangerous world, and we do not need the federal government in any way shut down to deal, because we have to think about threats from outside and within, and we need to make sure that we fund the federal government, that we provide the services that we need to for our citizens, and nobody should be playing games with funding the government over any kind of policy difference.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you so much, North Carolina Congressman Tim Moore. We appreciate all you’re doing for your great state of North Carolina as well as for our country. And thank you for joining us today on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 16 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 17 :
All right, friends, coming up, we’ll share a conversation that Tony had over the weekend with Senator Ted Budd on the situation in Gaza. Trust me, you don’t want to miss this extremely interesting interview. We’ll be back.
SPEAKER 15 :
We have state leaders that want to keep the deadly drugs out of their states. Maybe if these abortion pills were coming by boat, the administration would change its tactics. It’s time to respect the rights of the states, and it’s time to end death by mail.
SPEAKER 13 :
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, alongside Senator Lindsey Graham, led a press conference on Capitol Hill, urging the Trump administration to end the Biden-era policies that have allowed dangerous abortion drugs to be shipped across state lines. They were joined by state attorneys general, pro-life advocates and multiple Republican congressmen.
SPEAKER 07 :
There are more abortions today in the United States than when Roe versus Wade was the law of the land. And why is that? It’s because of the chemical abortion drug, Mifeprestone. Nearly 70% of the abortions that are committed in the United States today are committed because of Mifeprestone.
SPEAKER 06 :
The federal government is allowing a chemical abortion pill to be sent through the mail that wipes out every state unborn protection law in the land.
SPEAKER 18 :
It’s harder to ship alcohol in this country than it is to ship the abortion pill.
SPEAKER 09 :
And that should never be the case. This is a drug that takes the life of every child. So there is always a death that’s involved in this drug, but is also incredibly dangerous for the mom as well. We think that we should require a doctor to be able to get access to this drug.
SPEAKER 22 :
As a doctor, I think it’s essential that there be human contact before the pill is prescribed.
SPEAKER 25 :
It’s not about a national abortion ban. It’s about validating Dobbs and preventing other states from nullifying the legislative policy choices that have been made by our states and facilitating the illegal, unethical, and dangerous drug trafficking of abortion pills into our states without any medical oversight whatsoever.
SPEAKER 06 :
We can simply fix this if we have the courage to do it. So what are all of us telling the administration? You’ve been a great pro-life president, Mr. President. It’s now time to deal with this issue.
SPEAKER 07 :
We want to protect life, and we want to give voice to the American people and their right to protect life state by state, city by city, and yes, here in the United States Congress. That’s what this fight is about.
SPEAKER 13 :
Let your voice be heard. Text LIFE to 67742. Sign the petition. Tell the Trump administration to act.
SPEAKER 26 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to The Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at the Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 17 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss, an honor to be filling in today for Tony. All right, the first phase of President Trump’s Gaza peace plan was completed today with the reopening of Gaza’s Rafah border crossing. Of course, this follows last week’s return of the final deceased hostage. So what’s ahead? Well, Tony recently spoke with Senate Intel Committee member Senator Ted Budd about this for his weekend program this week on Capitol Hill. I’d like to share some of that conversation with you right now. And here’s how Tony got it all started.
SPEAKER 15 :
So, Senator, let’s talk about the situation in the Middle East, starting with Gaza, with the return of the last hostage, the body of the last hostage from Gaza. Are we now entering into phase two?
SPEAKER 19 :
We are. That was a great marker. And this was something that we started in October of 2023 when this tragedy happened on October 7th, because there was a North Carolinian, Keith Siegel, that was captive. So we focused on it and then it became a much broader issue. But finally, and Keith was returned to his wife, Aviva, who had been held captive. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US IN AMERICA THAT SUPPORT FREEDOM TO RETURN EVERY SINGLE HOSTAGE AND UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF THOSE DIDN’T SURVIVE. BUT THIS DOES HELP US GET TO THE NEXT PHASE. BUT AGAIN, THE KEY FOCUS NOW IS THE FUTURE OF HAMAS BECAUSE I DON’T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY FUTURE FOR HAMAS. if Israel were to lay down their arms, there would be no Israel. But if Hamas were to lay down their arms and to vanish, there would be peace. So they’re an agitator. They’re a proxy of Iran. It’s a horrible effect that they have on Gaza in the Middle East. And we just need to make sure that there is no future for Hamas.
SPEAKER 15 :
Well, I’m glad you brought that up, Senator, because they’re not Does it appear that they’re willing to lay down their arms and walk away from this? And they have two strategic allies that appear to be on the peace board, Turkey and Qatar, which have been a place of really a safe haven for Hamas.
SPEAKER 19 :
Yeah, it’s a real problem. I mean, we have a member of NATO in Turkey, and then you have them essentially supporting Hamas, whether financially or logistically. And then you have a collaboration between Qatar because they share the northern gas field with Iran. So they’ve got long ties to Iran. It’s very concerning. Now, we do have 10,000 of our troops there outside of Doha at Al Udeid Air Base. But so we work with them. We collaborate with them where we can. But it’s very concerning that they would be in a quasi demonstrating quasi support for Hamas.
SPEAKER 15 :
Senator, you serve on both the Armed Services and the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The world is a very dangerous place. There is a lot happening right now. We’ve got Iran, and of course we’re moving more assets into that region. How do you see that playing out?
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, I think as Americans, we’re tired of forever wars. But if you look at how the president has handled issues like Operation Midnight Hammer back last summer, or if you look at how he handled Maduro, there’s a buildup. And remember, the buildup is to give military leaders options to present to the president. BUT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT FOREVER WARS. WE DON’T WANT THAT EITHER. WE DON’T WANT BOOTS ON THE GROUND. IT’S A VERY COMPLEX SITUATION. BUT IF WE’RE THERE AND WE’RE PRESENT, THEN WE HAVE OPTIONS TO PRESENT TO THE PRESIDENT OR THE MILITARY DOES. SO THAT’S WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR NEXT. WE DON’T EXACTLY KNOW HOW THIS WILL PLAY OUT, BUT WE KNOW WHAT WE DON’T WANT, AND THAT IS A PERMANENT PRESENCE IN IRAN.
SPEAKER 15 :
The headlines do not tell the whole story. Again, the benefits you have serving on these two committees, you have a responsibility to kind of keep an eye on the entire world and where things might be flaring up. What is not in the headlines that concern you?
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, I’m very concerned. I’m very concerned about space. We talk about that some, but the adversaries are numerous. You have your state actors. You have the Irans and the North Koreas and Russia and China. But you have tremendous concerns, cyber actors that may be inside or outside of those countries. You have our national debt, which is tremendously concerning. WE SPEND WELL OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS NOW, AND THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO PLUS THAT NUMBER UP. AND IT’S THE RIGHT NUMBER. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT. BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BE MORE EFFICIENT IN HOW WE SPEND THOSE MILITARY DOLLARS. BUT I AM GRATEFUL. IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, WE’VE HAD TO SCRAPE OFF A LAYER OF CONCERN OF INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY WERE ACTORS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION, THEY WORKED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, I’M TREMENDOUSLY GRATEFUL FOR THEM AROUND THE WORLD, WHETHER IT’S ANALYSTS OR THOSE CASE OFFICERS IN THE FIELD. THEY DO A LOT OF WORK FOR US, AND I’M GRATEFUL FOR THEM. WE SHOULD KEEP THEM IN OUR PRAYERS. AND THEY LOVE OUR COUNTRY, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE THEM OUR SUPPORT AS WELL AS THOSE IN UNIFORM AND MILITARY AROUND THE WORLD.
SPEAKER 15 :
Senator Budd, speaking of prayers, you have made it part of your focus in the Senate to be watching for and advocating for the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities around the world. We’re seeing that in many places and it’s intensified. We’ve seen it in Nigeria. We’re seeing it right now unfolding in northeast Syria where Syrian forces are moving in on the Kurdish forces that have long been the protectors of religious minorities. What can we do? And again, I’m with you. I don’t think we need, as a Marine veteran, I don’t want to see more boots on the ground. But just by what we focus on and prioritize, that sends a pretty strong message to the rest of the world.
SPEAKER 19 :
if President Trump has done surgical strikes in Nigeria against Boko Haram and others that are leading religious persecution. And so if he would continue to do that, use our intelligence assets, because once these anti-religious freedom assets or individuals and groups and ideologies take hold, they tend to give way to ISIS and other IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE CAN PUBLICLY PRAY OR GO TO CHURCH OR NOT. IT ACTUALLY PREVENTS A LOT OF OTHER BAD FORCES FROM OCCURRING. SO I LIKE HIS SURGICAL AND PRECISE STRIKES AND ALSO EVEN BEFORE THAT, USING THE DIPLOMATIC LEVERAGE THAT WE HAVE WITH THESE COUNTRIES, I THINK CHINA DOES IT WITH SILK ROAD. RUSSIA DOES IT. in so many different ways, illicitly. And I think the more we use our diplomatic leverage and then also precise strikes, the better off that we’ll be.
SPEAKER 17 :
That was Tony’s fascinating discussion with Senate Intel Committee Member Senator Ted Budd. If you want to catch more from that program, visit ThisWeekOnCapitolHill.com. ThisWeekOnCapitolHill.com, or better yet, get the Stand Firm app. Simply text APP to 67742. All right, coming up next, an incredible story with a Florida couple suing an IVF clinic. Stay tuned.
SPEAKER 03 :
From the beginning, America has understood that liberty flourishes only when grounded in faith, humility, and dependence on the Lord. America needs God. So in 2026, as our nation marks the 250th anniversary of America’s founding, we pause not simply to celebrate history, but to seek the God who gave it purpose. Family Research Council invites you to join us online Wednesday, February 4th at 7 a.m. Eastern Time for the fourth annual National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance in Washington, D.C. This sacred gathering will bring together members of the U.S. Congress, state leaders, evangelical leaders, and intercessors from across the nation. United as one voice, we will seek the Lord together, praying for all 50 states that God might bless the next 250 years of our historic nation. To watch the live stream, visit PrayDC.org. That’s PrayDC.org.
SPEAKER 21 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful series that explores the connection between biblical principles and the American government, equipping you with truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. We’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Join us to defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. You can view the course at prayvotestand.org slash godandgovernment or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 17 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I am your host today, Jody Heiss. An honor to be sitting in today for Tony and thank you for tuning in as well. I want to turn now to a very unusual story coming out of Florida. We have there a couple who has sued an IVF clinic for mixing up embryos after they realized that the little girl that they’re raising is not their own. And the couple suspected the child was not theirs biologically because she appeared, in their words, radically non-Caucasian, which they were. Well, later on, genetic testing indeed confirmed that the child is not theirs. Now, the couple says they deeply love this little girl and they want to raise her, but they also want to find out who her biological parents are. And at the same time, they want to find out what happened to the embryos that they froze. So what can we make of this complicated story? Joining me now to discuss this is Dr. David Prentice. He’s president of the Science Alliance for Life and Technology. Dr. Prentice, welcome back to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 14 :
Thank you, sir. Glad to be back.
SPEAKER 17 :
All right. So what do you make of this story? It’s really complicated. How in the world does something like this even happen?
SPEAKER 14 :
Well, and your word is correct, complicated. IVF itself is a complicated situation. First, we’re very thankful this little girl is alive. She’s a survivor because with IVF, at most about 10% of the embryos that are created during the IVF procedure ever make it to live birth. And so we celebrate the fact that she’s alive, but It’s really a business. It’s an industry. It’s not so much a medical practice as a way to make a lot of embryos, a lot of human beings, and then try to get them to the point of birth, but for an exorbitant price. And she’s also a survivor from the fact that she was frozen as an embryo. and then thawed out transferred to the mother’s womb and gestated to birth because up to half of the little ones that are frozen don’t survive that thawing process so yeah this industry is pretty much unregulated They make a lot of claims about how they will produce a child for these infertile couples, but then they really don’t follow any standard medical practice. There’s no regulation, there’s no database in terms of following these little ones and their parents as they go through. And it really needs a lot of scrutiny and oversight.
SPEAKER 17 :
So you’re saying there’s no protocol in these fertility clinics to ensure that the correct embryo is implanted in the correct mother’s womb. That sounds stunning to me how that could, I mean, here we have a mother who carried this child to term, gave birth to her, but it’s not her biological child. I mean, who has the legal right to the child here?
SPEAKER 14 :
That’s another big question. Family law really doesn’t address a lot of these issues in terms of IVF. The genetic parents, you would think, have some claim for this child, but they can’t even locate them at this point. The mom and dad who gestated and birthed this little cute baby, they obviously have some sort of parental rights, but parental rights aren’t really given much consideration in the IVF industry. It’s a matter of they make a bunch of embryos, Some of them survive to actually be born and you pay a lot of money to do that. It’s not a very life affirming and certainly not a life sparing practice.
SPEAKER 17 :
And in this, I mean, obviously there’s the legal question, whose child, the biological parents or the ones who gave birth to her and so forth. You’ve got the legal battle, but there’s also ethical and psychological challenges at play here as medical professionals and multiple families deal with the fallout of a lab era.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, and the way the protocol is supposed to happen is is these little embryos are treated with the utmost care i mean these are just embryonic stage children and if you’re going to put them in this freezer then they should be somehow identified and kept track of so that you know where every little embryonic child is and how The disposition takes place. Are they left in the freezer? Did they die in the process? Are they transferred to the womb and so on? But there is no standard protocol again and no regulation over this kind of wild west industry.
SPEAKER 17 :
Wow. Wow. While I have, you’ve only got about a minute left, but before I let you go, one more quick news item. On Friday, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a woman who detransitioned after a double mastectomy at age 16. This is the first successful malpractice lawsuit tied to transgender medical care for a minor. What’s your thoughts on it real quickly?
SPEAKER 14 :
Well, the first of probably many. I know that there are a lot of other lawsuits that have been filed. But it again highlights what we might as well call medical malpractice. It’s not actually evidence-based medicine. It’s ideological-based medicine. It doesn’t follow the biology. And especially when this happens with minors, with these little kids, it is a tragedy that they have been convinced psychologically that they are not the gender, that they are not the sex, that their chromosomes say they are, and then subjected to these terrible mutilating practices. So we hope there’ll be a lot more judgments against this industry.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you so much, Dr. David Prentice, president of the Science Alliance for Life and Technology. Fascinating situation. Thank you for joining us. All right, friends, coming up, we’ll discuss the push to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision of Burgerfell v. Hodges. Well, how can it be done? And what does it mean to get it done? Well, stay tuned. We’ll discuss it.
SPEAKER 18 :
Should a Christian support Israel? That question has become one of the most emotionally charged issues of our time, both in the world and within the church. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins offers a clear biblical and prophetic answer. In his latest book, he examines Israel’s past, present, and future through the lens of scripture, revealing why support for Israel is not rooted in politics, partisanship, or cultural sentiment, but in the unchanging promises of God. Drawing from Genesis to Revelation, Tony Perkins demonstrates that the ultimate rationale for a Christian support for Israel is spiritual. Should a Christian support Israel invites believers to see beyond headlines and ideologies, returning to the foundation of God’s Word to understand His heart for His chosen people and the blessings that flow when we stand with what He has established forever. Text the word Israel to 67742 for more information.
SPEAKER 12 :
The family is the oldest, most tested, and most reliable unit of society. It is divinely created and sustained. And yet, there are those who are always tampering with its values and structure. That’s why we need organizations like the Family Research Council that can effectively defend and strengthen the family.
SPEAKER 04 :
Family Research Council began over 40 years ago, like all great movements of God, with prayer. Today, rooted in the heart of the nation’s capital, FRC continues to champion faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview.
SPEAKER 23 :
FRC is one of those bright lights that helps us focus on true north. And I shudder to think, had they not been here, that it could have been worse, worse, worse.
SPEAKER 02 :
The Family Research Council is key. It’s one of a handful of groups that I think will determine whether our children live in a country that enjoyed all of the freedom and all the opportunity that we enjoyed in this great land.
SPEAKER 08 :
It’s just a wonderful parachurch organization that doesn’t seek to take the place of the church, but it seeks to assist the family and the church as we try to move forward successfully, not in a defensive mode, but in an offensive mode as we seek to live our lives according to the Holy Scriptures.
SPEAKER 01 :
FRC is not going to be whooped. You know, we’re going to fight. We’re going to take a stand. And again, we don’t retreat.
SPEAKER 15 :
You will never see in front of this building here in Washington, D.C., a white flag flying. We will never step back. We will never surrender. And we will never be silent.
SPEAKER 17 :
Welcome back. Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss sitting in today for Tony, and thank you so much for joining us. All right, before I get into this final segment, just a real quick point of interest I want to bring your way. I want to encourage you to join us for the upcoming National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance. It’s going to be taking place this Wednesday, this Wednesday, February 4th. It’ll be held at the Museum of the Bible here in Washington, D.C., This event will be bringing together multiple members of the United States Congress, various state leaders, evangelical leaders, and intercessors literally from all across the country. And we invite you to join us as well. So for more details, visit NGPR. That stands for National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance, NGPR.org. All right, last week there was a coalition of some 47 conservative organizations, including Family Research Council, that launched the Greater Than campaign. It seeks to restore marriage to the child-protecting institution that it was meant to be. Now, among the goals of the coalition is overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, which redefined marriage. Well, how possible is that to overturn? And why must it be overturned? Well, joining me now to discuss this and more is Jeff Schaefer, director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, previously served as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. Jeff, welcome to Washington Watch. It’s an honor to have you with us.
SPEAKER 20 :
Yes, thank you for having me. It’s good to be speaking with you.
SPEAKER 17 :
All right, I want to pick your legal brain and dig into the details of this. Let’s start off with the Obergefell decision itself. What exactly did that do and what are the problems with that decision?
SPEAKER 20 :
Yes, of course, this is the decision which the Supreme Court feigned to have discovered a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. As to the problems with it, they are many. Most of the times I’m asked that question, I resort to my stock response that there’s not a paragraph in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion that I do not wish to light on fire for some very good reason. The composition of his opinion, which purports to be an explanation for the court’s ruling, is not constitutional law. It barely pretends to be. It’s instead a cluster of assertions with, we might say, a strangely sentimental overlay. Justice Kennedy infamously put forth with lines about marriage is aiming to help the one who’s crying out in the middle of the night with loneliness and so forth. But in all events, his errors and analysis are just piling up in multiples, even within single sentences within the opinion. um so it’s not surprising then but still a matter of interest to me when the court handed down its obergefell ruling um even ardent supporters of redefining marriage described the court’s majority opinion in rather insulting ways as to its incoherence you know it’s mushy it’s painful to read amateurish has half-baked arguments and so on So all of this, of course, just reinforces that Obergefell was an imposition of whim rather than of reason. That is to say, of assertion rather than legal interpretation. Which is, of course, what evokes such strong dissenting opinions from the four justices who reprobated the majority’s work as simply being an instance of lawlessness. You remember Chief Justice Roberts writing, who do we think we are? Or Justice Alito’s writing of the majority’s opinion as revealing a deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation. But you asked about what the opinion or the ruling accomplished. I would say independent of the content of Justice Kennedy’s very poor opinion, there’s a certain prima facie absurdity to the ruling itself, declaring there to be a constitutional right to state licensure of homosexual civil marriage. The idea that the post-Civil War addition of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution also installed a nationwide precept that the husband-wife structure of civil marriage is an injustice, and thus there’s a constitutional mandate that civil marriage status be inverted into a contradiction of itself. Well, that’s ambitious, but it isn’t constitutional law.
SPEAKER 17 :
Wow, that’s that’s incredible. And you know, it’s not just I was in Congress when all this was going down and it was in in some of the hearings. It was it was it was it was so disturbing the whole movement while this was unfolding. But it was not just marriage that was redefined. It was also parenthood. What’s the new definition really that resulted from Obergefell on parents?
SPEAKER 20 :
Yeah, there’s, I might say, one of the more sinister aspects, although there are many, I’m not sure which to elevate to the priority position, but conveying the idea that in the equality, the legal equality between a husband-wife union and two men or two women, is the idea that, likewise, all of these groups need to have similar access to the benefits that states give to married couples. So Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion elliptically offered in dicta that child custody and birth certificates are government benefits that the state bestows upon married couples, which implies that these should be distributed to same-sex partners as well as the child’s natural parents. Of course, this is a renunciation of the significance of procreation, of the mother-father-child triad that has always been a grounding norm in family law. While this was an assertion included in the opinion, it is not a matter in which the court had given its review. So I would want to say this was simply dicta. But the effect has had a profound impact on the law across the country. in classifying children really as accoutrements that attend to the state marriage license and thus should be distributed to all kinds of couples.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, and the outcome of that, who knows where it goes. Now, you mentioned this briefly. I want to kind of give you an opportunity to underscore this a little bit more, but what would you say to those who compare same-sex marriage movement to the black civil rights movement?
SPEAKER 20 :
Oh, well, I don’t know that there’s a parallel at all. I’m certainly understanding of why the proponents of same-sex marriage wish to take on the civil rights mantle with all of its rhetorical power and the like. But I would want to say they’re entirely different things. The individual equality of persons independent of their ethnicity is hardly what’s at issue in Obergefell. Actually, there’s a sense in which Obergefell is renouncing the characteristics of our human nature. So I think there’s something of an affront being extended to those persons who suffered in ways that the black civil rights movement rescued or elevated and what’s being done to the family, which is being dissolved in all of its human and profound dimensions.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, the decay of family that is potential from all of this is just fascinating and horrifying. But one thing that I think we all recognize is once you open the door a little bit, it’s very, very difficult to close it. And so a big question that many probably are wondering right now is how possible is it for Obergefell to be overturned?
SPEAKER 20 :
Yeah, well, it’s I’m not sure that the court has an appetite to pick up the issue at the moment, but what I do think can be done is for states that wish to hold the line on the natural family to actually insist on applying its traditional family law standards that, for instance. would hold fast to the paternity presumption that sees the husband of the birthing mother as presumed to be the father of the child without also extending that to a woman partner of the woman giving birth. You understand there’s a kind of gender neutralizing of state law that’s going on in lots of places that I think is unnecessary. There’s the demand for original birth certificates to show that a child has two mothers or two fathers, for instance. And I think that that’s an area where states really can not only resist effectively, but perhaps even get the court to ratify that there is indeed, even after Obergefell, a state interest in maintaining the natural family and the laws that are associated with that. So I think that there are ancillary issues that can be litigated successfully. And in the process of advancing these, we end up also dissolving the logic that lies behind the Obergefell opinion in the first instance.
SPEAKER 17 :
So do you think this is going to be something kind of like Roe v. Wade, a decision that ultimately is going to be returned to the people
SPEAKER 20 :
Well, yes. I mean, it might be a kind of a lengthy process of trying to get to that point. It’s, what would I say? Because we have reality on our side, there’s an aspect of human nature that’s been so profoundly assaulted in Obergefell. I think the ultimate resolution is going to be in the future. The question is when. But there’s a lot of work to be done in the interim and a lot of good people doing that work. So I would expect that we will indeed see the day when Obergefell is behind us.
SPEAKER 17 :
Very interesting. All right, while I have you, let me turn to another topic that I’d love to get your opinion on, and that is the invasion, if you will, of a Minneapolis church that has so far led to the arrest of several individuals, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon. First, let’s talk about the right to assemble. And to set this up, I’d like to play a clip of Don Lemon explaining just that after the church invasion. So let’s play clip five, and then I’d like to get your response.
SPEAKER 05 :
you heard what some of the folks said in there you know that this is they shouldn’t be there and you know they shouldn’t be uncomfortable and this is our house and whatever that’s what protesting is about is to make people uncomfortable you may not like it but that’s what it is and we have to stop like thinking okay you can only protest between eight and five or nine and five and you got to be cordoned off in this little area that’s not what it’s about
SPEAKER 17 :
All right, your response.
SPEAKER 20 :
Well, I’d say that Mr. Lemon is altogether mistaken in his proposal. The freedom that the First Amendment extends certainly includes the rough and tumble of public presentations. What it does not authorize is the violation of law to invade particular private properties and we might say even further sacred spaces that are being used for worship so as to engage in disruption. The First Amendment right is not a right to introduce chaos into environments that are unavailable to public access. So I think there’s something demonstrably mistaken, and he certainly doesn’t give voice to the current condition of First Amendment interpretation that’s to be found in the law.
SPEAKER 17 :
Now, OK, Don Lemon does not have a legal background, at least not to my knowledge, although it might be good for him if he did. But Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison certainly does, and he made the comment that applying the FACE Act here is a stretch. Now, I want to play yet another clip here for you of what the Attorney General told Don Lemon on his show. Play for me, if you will, clip number six.
SPEAKER 10 :
by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking their reproductive rights to be protected. And so that people for a religious reason, you know, cannot just use religion to break into women’s reproductive health centers. So how they are stretching either of these laws to apply to people who protested in a church over the behavior or the perceived behavior of a religious leader is beyond me.
SPEAKER 17 :
All right. How do you respond to that one?
SPEAKER 20 :
I confess it’s somewhat difficult to understand the position that he’s taking in view of the fact that the FACE Act actually speaks of worship, access to churches, and the threatening of persons that are participating in the religious exercise in those locations. So it certainly does address abortion clinics, but not exclusively so. So if the attorney general had taken the time to actually review the statute, he would have seen that its terms extend precisely to the circumstance that was implicated in this invasion in Minneapolis.
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, I mean, it could not be more clearly written. It’s not like it’s a stretch at all. You would think all you need to do is read the law. It’s just a short piece, but it is exceedingly clear that places of worship are abundantly included in the Faiths Act. It’s a stretch. What the real stretch is here is to ignore it and what the law says. If I can, let me turn back to Don Lemon. He’s arguing from his perspective that he was just covering the church invasion, that he was there just as a journalist, that he’s protected by the First Amendment and so forth. I think video would provide evidence suggesting otherwise, but what limitations are there for journalists or so-called journalists in situations like this?
SPEAKER 20 :
Well, there would be nothing about the title journalist being appended to yourself that would thereby authorize you to do what is otherwise illegal and to participate in this kind of desecration, this invasion of a worship service. It’s not suddenly immunized from critique or legal penalty because the person who does it is describing himself as a journalist. So, of course, journalists have a wide array of access, and it’s very important work that they do. That observation doesn’t mean that you get to do whatever you wish to do. I mean, the law continues to be the case. Private property continues to be honored in law. And these kinds of gatherings themselves are legally honored. And one does not get to just march in and take over an event in which other things are going on and you’ve not been invited to.
SPEAKER 17 :
Less than a minute left. Where is all this headed? What do you think is going to be the outcome of this?
SPEAKER 20 :
Well, this is a good question. I think that it really is vital that the law acts against this sort of thing. You know, the radicals are well aware of the fact that there is a real community shaking effect to taking this sort of an ax to the tree of community structuring. And so, of course, there’s the criminality on display in those who went into the church and did what they did. which is bad enough, but I would want to say the state officials almost do them one better from their offices as officials responsible for doing and describing justice instead to legitimate this kind of conduct. Their public statements as well as their prosecutorial inaction is conveying the wrong kind of message. And so I have to say, I’m pleased to see that the federal officials have some of that slack.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you, Jeff Schaefer, director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrews College. What a fascinating discussion. Thank you each and every one for joining us today. Hope you’ll be back with us again tomorrow right here for more Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 04 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council. To support our efforts to advance faith, family, and freedom, please text GIVE to 67742. That’s GIVE to 67742. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information, please visit TonyPerkins.com.
