The Washington Stand’s Casey Harper provides an overview of President Trump’s meetings with President Xi and conversations surrounding persecuted Christians in China, explains the basics of the U.S. Supreme Court’s mifepristone decision, and shares
SPEAKER 10 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and sound bites 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 20 :
This has been an incredible visit. I think a lot of good has come of it. We’ve settled a lot of different problems that other people wouldn’t have been able to settle. And the relationship is a very strong one. We’ve really done some wonderful things, I believe.
SPEAKER 16 :
That was President Trump earlier today after concluding his summit with the President of China. Welcome to this May 15th edition of Washington Watch. I am your Friday host Jody Heiss. Thank you so much for joining us. Certainly no lack of news out there. We’ll try to break down the highlights of it. Coming up, we’ll begin with Taiwan. It certainly remains the biggest flashpoint that was discussed in the Trump-Xi summit. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bob McGinnis will be joining us shortly to discuss China’s threat towards Taiwan. Plus, a little bit later, constitutional attorney Christopher Mills will be joining me to break down yesterday’s Supreme Court decision to continue allowing the mailing of the abortion drug Mifepristone. All that and much, much more is coming your way today on Washington Watch. President Trump is back from Beijing after a very closely watched and high-stakes summit with the president of China, Xi Jinping. There’s a lot of different reporting and opinions, reactions from the meeting. Some are saying it was fantastic. Others are saying there was plenty of ceremony but limited results. We do know that the two leaders discussed trade, they discussed Taiwan, they discussed Iran, as well as security issues, but there are some critics pointing to the lack of public pressure from the United States on China’s human rights abuses and the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities. Joining us now to discuss and get us started on all of this is Washington Stand reporter Casey Harper. Casey, there is a lot of reaction being stated out there. Kind of break down for us the facts. What did the two leaders discuss and what do you think came out of it?
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, thanks, Jody. I mean, you’re right. There’s a lot of opinions. I think right now these opinions are a dime a dozen, and we won’t really know the true fruit of this meeting for months to come down the road. And by the way, here’s one takeaway. President Trump invited President Xi to come to the U.S. in September, so we’ll see if that happens. That would be a big development. But you’re right. They talked about trade negotiations, new economic dialogue groups. No major announcements on tariffs or technology disputes or no major commitments from China when it came to the U.S. and Iran or just Middle East tensions generally. And you’re right. There was a lot of criticism from human rights groups saying that Trump didn’t do enough to confront President Xi over many things. The Chinese embassy going into these meetings made clear that they didn’t want to be confronted on those human rights abuses of which there are many against the Uyghur Muslims, persecution of Christians and political dissidents and more. But we did get a readout from the president on Air Force One on the flight home regarding the political prisoners in particular, including Zion Church Pastor Ezra Jinn.
SPEAKER 20 :
I think he’s giving very serious consideration to the pastor. The pastor has said he’s giving very serious consideration to that. What about Jimmy Lai? It’s a tougher one. I did bring it up. It’s a tougher one. For him, it’s a tougher one. What did he say about it? For him, it’s a very… He told me. I don’t want to mislead anybody. He said Jimmy Lai is a tough one for him to do. He went through a lot.
SPEAKER 14 :
So maybe some potential movement on the political prisoners there. But for me, Jody, what stood out the most was China’s rhetoric and tone on the Taiwan issue. They really basically warned the U.S. to not get sideways with them on Taiwan as it could lead to a conflict between our two nations.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, we will discuss that a little bit later in the program, in fact, because you’re right, that’s a big deal. A very high-stakes meeting that took place. But, Casey, while that one was happening, there’s also some big news happening right here on the home front. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major, major ruling regarding the abortion drug mifepristone. Kind of give us the bottom line of what that decision was all about.
SPEAKER 14 :
Yeah, that’s right. Back in the U.S., a major ruling out of the Supreme Court, which ruled that the abortion pill, Mifepristone, can continue to be given through the mail to patients, even in pro-life states, while Louisiana’s lawsuit challenging that policy works its way through the lower court. Now, Louisiana is arguing that this 2023 rule change at the FDA, which is a Biden-era rule in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it did too much to weaken safety protections for women and basically gutted the pro-life laws in these states. It’s really a challenge to state sovereignty. The lawsuit centers on whether mailing abortion pills violates the federal law. law, including the Comstock Act, which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito strongly made clear in their dissent that it absolutely does, Jody.
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, as always, Casey, thank you so much for these updates. We appreciate it a great deal. I do want to turn our attention now and go further into President Trump’s trip to China. Specifically, I want to try to get an analysis of what came out of it. From a national security perspective in Taiwan and so forth, and joining me now to discuss this is national security analyst and retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Bob McGinnis. He served more than 23 years as a civilian strategist at the Pentagon following his retirement from active duty. He currently is a senior fellow for national security here at the Family Research Council. He’s also the author of many books, including Kings of the East, China’s Plan to Eliminate America and Impose a Communist World Order. Colonel McGinnis, as always, welcome back to Washington Watch. I want to begin with this question. Broadly speaking, what do you think the two countries got out of this week’s meeting?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, Jody, President Xi emphasized strategic rivalry and the risk of conflict vis-a-vis, obviously, Taiwan. And of course, President Trump took a very different tone. And he really emphasized friendship and deals, trade deals, stability and the like. I think that there wasn’t a lot of substance, but there was very clear messaging, as your reporter indicated. You know, President Xi didn’t hold anything back when he talked about Taiwan. And it’s because it’s a red line for the Chinese Communist Party, the regime depends upon eventually taking back what they call a breakaway province of Taiwan, because that’s where Chiang Kai-shek went in 1949 after he lost Mao Zedong, and established that that country. And so there are a host of issues here, but I think it was really a global power struggle that was really beginning to emerge, what I call a new Cold War, because there are a host of issues that we are now trying to, I suppose, govern, oversee, to reduce the tensions on. And yet we’ll have to wait and see if that’s one of the byproducts of this summit.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, there’s no question Taiwan was a top priority for China as you broke down and good reason. I don’t think most Americans fully grasp why this is such an important issue. Can you kind of break that down, unpack it for our viewers and listeners why this is such a major issue?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, a couple of key issues. First of all, Taiwan produces maybe 80, 90 percent of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Those semiconductors are in your cell phones. They really are the heart of artificial intelligence. They make up the brains of military systems that we depend upon, communication systems. and the like. And the second issue is that Taiwan is really the anchor for what we call the first island chain, which is a defensive line between us, our west coast, and China mainland. And so if that were to fall, clearly into Chinese hands, then it would alter the balance of power in the entire Asian arena, and it would destabilize perhaps Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and even possibly Australia. So there’s a lot of credibility at stake with regard to what Taiwan ends up being.
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, let me ask you this, because I want to get back to the top priority of the U.S., which probably is Iran. But one more question on this Taiwan issue, because it seems to me that President Trump is in a pretty difficult situation because there’s $14 billion of an arms package for Taiwan that’s just simply waiting presidential approval. But that took place back in December. So what would proper handling… of that $14 billion look like at this point?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, the president has the authority, and of course Congress has to approve certain weapon platforms before we can sell them to allies across the world. The president can hold it up. He can tell the State Department, don’t release it. The Defense Department just takes the orders from the state in this regard. And if he does, that will send a very clear message that there was something done behind the scenes at this summit, because up until now, look, that was going to happen. And I would also watch for the rhetoric that comes from the State Department with regard to Taiwan. And any indication that we’re backing out of our alliance or our relationship with the people in Taiwan would be a good indicator that Beijing has really pressed the president on this issue, and the president doesn’t want to push along that red line that she drew on the sand there at Tiananmen Square.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yes, and President Trump said that he did not comment on that one way or the other. We’ll see what happens. Very, very delicate situation. Then on our side, one of the unavoidable issues, I’ll put it that way, is Iran. So what happened there? Do you see this summit in any way, shape, form, or fashion impacting the conflict with Iran?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, the president said on Air Force One coming back that, you know, Xi agreed no nuke for Iran, and that was an acceptable response. And he wants an open strait because they get a lot of their oil out of the Persian Gulf. So that was acceptable. What the president, I don’t think, got the assurances that he wanted had to do with dual-use technologies, continuation of purchases of energy from Iran, as well as the support that he’s given behind the scenes to kinetic operations inside Iran. Keep in mind, Afghanistan may separate China from Iran. But we no longer have any control over what happens in Afghanistan. And I will tell you, the Taliban would more than be gleeful about transporting any type of kinetic materials, weapons from China into Iran and would love to have that business. So these are issues of some consequence. I didn’t hear the president allude to that, but I know that’s behind the scenes what’s happening.
SPEAKER 16 :
Let me wrap up with just saying that’s all we have time for is a yes, no answer. The relationship between the United States and China, has it been improved from this summit?
SPEAKER 17 :
I think it’s been stabilized. I don’t think it’s gotten worse or any better.
SPEAKER 16 :
Thank you so much for joining us today, retired Lieutenant Colonel Bob McGinnis. Always great to have you on the program. Yesterday, we’re going to dive deeper into the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Mifepristone. Much to cover on that issue. Stay with us. We’ll be right back.
SPEAKER 11 :
Join us for a time of prayer, inspiration, and action at this year’s Pray, Vote, Stand Summit at Cornerstone Chapel in Leesburg, Virginia. Hear from Christian leaders, issue experts, and government officials as we work together to build a foundation based on biblical truth. Early Bird special tickets are on sale for $69 when you register by June 15th. To register, visit PrayVoteStand.org. That’s PrayVoteStand.org.
SPEAKER 08 :
Exodus 9, verse 1 says, You see, America has freedom for a purpose. The question is, are we living by that purpose today? In Scripture, deliverance and freedom is never an end in itself. It is a liberation unto obedience, to worship, and to a covenantal relationship. God’s demand to Pharaoh was not freedom for freedom’s sake, but freedom so his people could identify with and belong to and serve him. Freedom that is not used to serve God will not endure. One of the founders actually echoed a similar warning. Thomas Jefferson wrote, Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever.” See, the founders understood we as a nation would be accountable to God for what he had granted to us. They sought freedom for a purpose. And that freedom was given to us as a nation for that same purpose, to serve God, to honor Him, and to live as a people under His authority. In this 250th anniversary year, we must ask the question, are we living by that purpose today as a nation? Lord, we thank you for the godly foundation and heritage of our states. Lord, we would return to an understanding of the freedom that you have granted to us, that freedom has a name. His name is Jesus. And freedom has a purpose. It is to honor and glorify you. And I pray that our nation would return to that understanding of the purpose of the freedom that you have granted to us. We thank you, Father. by faith we pray that we would return to that purpose in jesus name we pray amen
SPEAKER 16 :
Welcome back. I’m Jody Heiss, your Friday host here on Washington Watch. Thank you so much for tuning in. For those of you who watched or listened to the program yesterday, you’ll recall that in the middle of the program, news broke that the U.S. Supreme Court had issued an order regarding Louisiana’s case against the Biden era abortion drug policy. And the bottom line of the whole thing is that the order basically maintains that the Supreme Court’s block of a federal appeals court ruling, it would have stopped the mailing of the abortion drug Mifepristone. I know you’re probably saying, well, duh. Yeah, that was the point of the whole thing. But that’s basically the bottom line. We’re going to get more details here in just a moment. But rest assured, just as Tony said, the battle is not over. Friend, the fight continues. The fight continues. And joining us now to discuss this is constitutional lawyer Christopher Mills. He actually worked with FRC on the amicus brief that we filed in support of Louisiana. He’s also the founder of Sparrow Law LLC. And catch this is former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Chris, welcome back to Washington Watch. Can you go further into detail on this whole order that came out and what it means for the case?
SPEAKER 19 :
Of course, happy to be here. So the case is pretty complicated. In the district court, Louisiana basically was able to convince the judge that, hey, the FDA didn’t adequately study this expansion of abortion pill prescription by telehealth in 2023 under the Biden administration. But the district court said, I’m not going to Stop it because the FDA says they are currently reviewing the protocols, and so I’m just going to let it stay in place for now. The case went on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which said no. If the FDA said they didn’t adequately adequately study it, then we’re not going to let that protocol remain in effect. So in other words, they said no. The 2023 Biden era expansion of pills via telehealth is going to be stopped. And the question before the Supreme Court was, while the case is proceeding, you know, is is the district court or the Fifth Circuit’s approach going to be right? In other words, will abortion pills be able to continue to be prescribed via telehealth only? Or are we going to say no the fda says they didn’t adequately study it and we’re going to stop it and go back to their prior policy and the supreme court in a very short order basically said no we’re not going to do what the fifth circuit said we’re going to let the 2023 expansion under biden remain in effect while the case is pending so is this a pause in the the case and the issue for that matter or is this more than just a pause So, you know, technically it’s just a pause because what the order said was, you know, we’re going to pause the Fifth Circuit until we hear the case. If someone asks us, the Supreme Court, to hear the case. And in other words, we’re just going to kind of maintain the status quo while the case is pending. But, you know, part of the question before the court was who is who is right, who is right on the merits of the FDA action and and likely who is right about whether Louisiana and the individual woman plaintiff in the case has standing, because that was a big question before the court last time it had An abortion pill case and it’s a big question this time and the fact that the Supreme Court with only two justices dissenting said no, we’re going to let the abortion pill telehealth prescriptions continue is probably a bad sign for the ultimate outcome of this particular case.
SPEAKER 16 :
Wow, yeah, you mentioned a couple of the descending opinions. Can you go over those with us?
SPEAKER 19 :
Sure. So the two justices who dissented, it’s possible that other justices disagreed with the approach the court took also, but only two at least noted that they disagreed with it. Justice Thomas said that he didn’t agree with pausing the Fifth Circuit’s opinion. And he also said that he talked about the Comstock Act, which bans using the males to ship abortion drugs. And he said that the drug manufacturers in this case aren’t entitled to lost profits from what he called a criminal enterprise. So he was emphasizing the Comstock Act, which the court hasn’t really emphasized, but that’s a federal law that could be enforced by the federal government if it sought to. So that’s one of the lurking issues in the case. And then the second dissent was from Justice Alito, who said that He thought that the Fifth Circuit’s pause should also remain in effect. He didn’t think that the drug manufacturers had shown the requirements for getting a stay of that order.
SPEAKER 16 :
So do you agree with these dissenting opinions that the court’s decision ultimately undermined the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade? I mean, isn’t that really what they’ve done, or at least temporarily?
SPEAKER 19 :
Yes, I think that’s exactly right. And that’s how Justice Alito started his dissent. He said, you know, what’s at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs, which was supposed to restore the right of each state to decide how to regulate abortion within its borders. But because states can’t really stop mail from coming into the state and because the federal government hasn’t been enforcing the Comstock Act, It leaves states that want to protect unborn life and like Louisiana and in a very difficult situation where you have blue states enacting shield laws that protect their providers who are doing illegal abortions via the mail. You have the FDA who hasn’t done anything to roll back the Biden era expansion. And then you have the federal government not enforcing the Comstock Act.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, I mean, it’s a huge problem, a web of difficult legal issues for pro-life states being forced to cooperate with abortions in blue states. So what’s next? We’ve got less than a minute. What do you see happening next in this?
SPEAKER 19 :
So according to this order, they’re going to wait for someone, presumably the drug manufacturers, to actually file a petition for total Supreme Court review of the case. The case would then likely go up to the Supreme Court. There’s a disagreement between the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit about whether a state like Louisiana has standing to bring these types of claims. And I suspect that will be the focus of the briefing in the Supreme Court. Again, the FDA has agreed that it didn’t do a good enough job investigating the science and the evidence when the Biden administration expanded it. So the question is really just, can Louisiana or injured women sue to be able to vindicate that right to have safe, safe medical regulation.
SPEAKER 16 :
Thank you so much, constitutional lawyer Christopher Mills. We appreciate it a great deal. All right, friends, we’ve got a lot more coming your way. If you were confused about questions regarding the reconciliation process, you are not alone. We’ll try to break that down for you right after the break.
SPEAKER 01 :
Join Family Research Council for a journey through the book of 1 Samuel. Come witness the rise of Samuel, the fall of Saul, and the calling of David, and how each person’s heart posture before God shaped their path and legacy. Order Tony Perkins’ study guide, 1 Samuel, Longing for a King, to help you respond faithfully to God’s voice in every season of life. Get it now at frc.org slash store, or text Samuel to 67742.
SPEAKER 09 :
One Nation Under God, America’s undeniable foundation of faith.
SPEAKER 06 :
The United States Capitol, an iconic symbol of the American Republic. But few know that this building at the heart of our nation’s government was once something more, the largest church building in America. Since its inception and for decades following, several rooms throughout the Capitol, including the House and Senate chambers, were used to host church services weekly. These services were filled with individuals from all levels of government. The attendance was so pervasive that often it was standing room only. Quote, going to the Capitol on Sundays was then one of the most common things in Washington. Margaret Bayard Smith. This practice was not merely accepted, but encouraged. Quote, I consider it as one of my public duties as a representative of the people to give my attendance every Sunday morning when divine service is performed in the hall, President John Quincy Adams. Housing worship at the center of our Capitol was a living representation of the role that biblical principles played as a cornerstone of our nation’s foundation of faith.
SPEAKER 16 :
Good afternoon and welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m your Friday host, Jody Heiss. For weeks, Congress has been locked in a stalemate over government funding. In fact, I’m sure you’ll probably recall the recent 11-week partial government shutdown was actually the longest in U.S. history. And all of it, of course, came to a conclusion at the end of April after President Trump signed a bill that would fund most of the Department of Homeland Security. I say most because it was all except immigration enforcement agencies, pretty important, Well, now Republicans are looking to try to pass some additional funding later this month, and they’re going to use a process that can bypass Senate opposition. It can be a complicated process, but we want to break it down for you. And Washington Watch reporter Mary Stackhouse spoke with Indiana Congressman Marlon Stutzman, who is a member of the House Budget Committee, and he broke it all down. We want to bring that your way right now.
SPEAKER 08 :
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
SPEAKER 02 :
The longest government shutdown in U.S. history, lasting 76 days, ended after President Trump signed a long-delayed bipartisan bill to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the Coast Guard, TSA and FEMA. Now, a tougher battle of funding ICE and Border Patrol lies ahead. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leaders chose to advance the Senate bill without changes, rejecting pressure from House Freedom Caucus members who oppose the measure because it excludes funding for ICE and Border Patrol.
SPEAKER 12 :
This will relieve pressure from the Department of Homeland Security. And then we will finish the work and finally get, again, for three years with no crazy Democrat reforms, we will fund Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement.
SPEAKER 02 :
Republicans are aiming to fund Immigration Enforcement agencies, ICE and Border Patrol, through the end of the fiscal year without Democrat support using a process called reconciliation. This is a rare procedural maneuver that Senate Republicans want to employ to secure approximately $72 billion for immigration enforcement to fund the agencies for three years. This comes after Democrats and Republicans were not able to make a deal on immigration enforcement reforms.
SPEAKER 18 :
We were hoping that there would be some sort of bipartisanship to keep DHS funding alive, but that just doesn’t seem to be the case.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s why Republicans are now turning to budget reconciliation, a process that allows fiscal legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority. By using reconciliation, they bypass a filibuster.
SPEAKER 05 :
One of the main advantages of budget reconciliation is that it can bypass the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for cloture. Normally, nothing can pass the U.S. Senate without at least 60 votes, but budget reconciliation is one of the few things that can pass with 50% of the vote plus one.
SPEAKER 02 :
Republican Congressman Marlon Stutzman says the reconciliation process is designed to move around Senate rules to get a budget passed, even though it’s within the rules.
SPEAKER 18 :
This, we’re calling it Reconciliation 2.0. Reconciliation 1.0 was the one big beautiful bill that we passed in last year’s session. This all has to do with Border Patrol and ICE funding in particular. Democrats continue to close down DHS for the most part, but Reconciliation 2.0 gives us the ability to get funding for those two agencies
SPEAKER 02 :
However, there are obstacles. Critics argue that bypassing the 60-vote threshold removes critical oversight for how these billions are spent. While Republicans are confident that reconciliation can work, Democrats have argued that this strategy is partisan and it bypasses comprehensive immigration reform.
SPEAKER 13 :
Republicans here in the Senate and the House have chosen chaos. They’re dragging the Senate through a painful, arduous, and partisan reconciliation process, but because they cannot and will not rein in ICE and Border Patrol.
SPEAKER 02 :
Since the reconciliation process was created in 1974, Congress has passed 28 reconciliation bills. Twenty-four have been enacted, the most recent one being last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Now there’s one hurdle the reconciliation bill will need to clear in the Senate.
SPEAKER 05 :
There are strict limits on how it can be used. It must be related directly to the budget. It must be more budget than policy. And it has to pass a several-point test called the Byrd Rule.
SPEAKER 02 :
The Byrd Rule only applies in the Senate, not the House.
SPEAKER 18 :
It’s really up to the parliamentarian how she’s going to decide whether or not a particular house language passes the bird rule. But the bird rule is, we call it a birdbath, and it’s supposed to scrub the language. Is it policy related or is it funding related pertaining to a budget?
SPEAKER 02 :
The House has now cleared the first hurdle by passing the budget resolution 215 to 211. This unlocks the process, but the actual funding bill still needs to be drafted, voted on, and sent to President Trump. Reconciliation bills are known to be a time-consuming process because of bypassing the filibuster. Congressional Research Service data found that the time that it takes between adopting a Congressional budget resolution and enacting the reconciliation legislation range from 28 to 385 days. That’s an average of 148 days.
SPEAKER 18 :
We’re going to move reconciliation 2.0, and then my belief is that we’re going to go right back into reconciliation 3.0. So we’ll have a third bill following up on that because there’s still a lot of policy that we want to see in a final package. For example, whether it’s defunding Planned Parenthood or whether it’s making sure that the rest of the DHS agencies are funded. Those are Secret Service, FEMA. TSA and other agencies are still left unfunded.
SPEAKER 02 :
For Washington Watch, I’m Mary Stackhouse.
SPEAKER 16 :
Thank you so much, Mary. Well, I tell you, with Congress so deadlocked by such narrow margins, I’m talking both partisan margins and ideological margins, but that deadlock makes it very difficult for Congress to be able to pass things that would stop things like abortion and transgender procedures for minors. So if a third reconciliation does materialize, we want you to know we will be here for you, keeping a close watch on it all. We will also be urging Congress to address our concerns in the bill. In the meantime, we encourage you to be praying for Congress over all of this. All right, stay tuned. Our Biblical Worldview segment is coming up next with Dr. David Claussen. Stay with us.
SPEAKER 03 :
This is Mission Control Houston here in the Artemis flight control room. Splashdown confirmed at 7.07 p.m. Central Time. A new chapter of the exploration of our celestial neighbor is complete. Integrity’s astronauts, back on Earth.
SPEAKER 04 :
When I got back on the ship, I’m not really a religious person, but there was just no other avenue for me to explain anything or to experience anything. So I asked for the chaplain on the Navy ship to just come visit us for a minute. And when that man walked in, I’d never met him before in my life, but I saw the cross on his collar, and I broke down in tears. It’s very hard to fully grasp what we just went through. And when the sun eclipsed behind the moon, I think all four of us, I turned to Victor and I said, I don’t think humanity has evolved to the point of being able to comprehend what we’re looking at right now because it was otherworldly. It was amazing.
SPEAKER 07 :
That was Commander Reed Wiseman of the Artemis II mission, reflecting on their journey around the moon. So here’s a question. Does that sound like a man that just entered space? An empty, cold vacuum of nothingness. Or did he encounter something so profound, so full, so warm and bursting with life, it’s almost as if someone was breathing on it? Perhaps it was so meaningful that the word space doesn’t do the journey justice. Well, it sounds like he didn’t encounter space, but something else, what the Bible calls the heavens. As the psalmist says, the heavens declare the glory of God and continually pours out speech. And that speech just might leave you speechless if you’re seeking it. It seems like Commander Wiseman discovered the truth of Psalm 139 in reality. Where shall I go from your spirit or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven and orbit the moon, you are there. So here’s the glorious news for Commander Wiseman and all of humanity. The heavens aren’t far from any one of us. In fact, the Christian story proclaims that the One who sits in the heavens didn’t stay there. He came down into our broken world, forsaking heaven’s treasure to make you His treasure. And something truly incomprehensible happened the day He died, when the One who stretched out the heavens like a curtain stretched out His hands for us on the cross. but it was impossible for death to keep its hold on life itself. He rose from the grave, He lives, and every sunrise since reminds us that the darkness of night will never eclipse the light behind all light, Jesus, the light of the world. Family Research Council prays that families across America would look up and join the song of the heavens. Praise God in His mighty heavens. Praise Him for His mighty deeds. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.
SPEAKER 16 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I am Jody Heiss, your Friday host. Thanks for joining us. Before we get to this final segment, I want to encourage you to join us for the upcoming PrayVote Stand Summit 2026. It’ll be happening this fall, September 24th through the 26th. It’s going to take place just outside Washington, D.C. at the Cornerstone Chapel in Leesburg, Virginia. You can register today for an early bird special for only $69. $69 for one of the most powerful events of the year. That rate will continue from now until June 15th. So go ahead and register or get more information at PrayVoteStand.org. That’s PrayVoteStand.org. Also, another real big thing before we jump in this final segment, FRC’s Stand on the Word Bible reading plan. We’re currently in the book of 1 Samuel. We’re going to be there for the next couple of weeks. But we have a great companion study guide that offers some tremendous practical insight. The guide is called 1 Samuel, Longing for a King. And now listen, this explores things like leadership, obedience, what it means to faithfully follow the Lord. And we want you to have a copy. Simply text the word Samuel to 67742. That’s Samuel to 67742. as you well know at the end of each week we love to conclude our friday segment as well as our week with intentionally examining the news through the lens of a biblical worldview in fact second corinthians 10 5 paul tells us to take every thought captive to the obedience of christ and we believe quite frankly that this portion This segment can be a part of doing just that. And as usual, I have Dr. David Claussen. He is the director of the Center for Biblical Worldview here at FRC, and he’s also the author of Life After Roe, Equipping Christians in the Fight for Life. And as most of the time, he’s here to join us now for our Biblical Worldview segment. Dr. Claussen, thank you for joining us, and happy Friday to you.
SPEAKER 15 :
Happy Friday. Great to be with you again, Jody.
SPEAKER 16 :
All right, listen, I want to start with a couple of hours ago, some pretty big news came out that the Justice Department has put forth a resolution basically putting an end to pediatric gender-affirming care, as they like to call it. Big news just happening. Give us the latest.
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, this is pretty breaking news. Just a couple of hours ago, the Department of Justice announced the first resolution and really an ongoing what they call a national investigation into so-called gender affirming care perpetrated against minors. And so, of course, Texas Children’s Hospital has been in the news. We’ve covered it on this program for a couple of years, this ongoing investigation, because a former FRC intern, Vanessa Sivage, was a nurse and was actually one of the whistleblowers at Texas Children’s Hospital who raised the alarm that they were providing illegally these gender transition, so-called gender-affirming care, gender transition surgeries. And so the settlement that the Attorney General, Ken Paxton, and the Justice Department reached with Texas Children’s Hospital was just announced, Jodi. And as part of this agreement, the hospital has agreed to stop performing these procedures on children. They’ve agreed to pay $10 million in damages and civil penalties. And, and this is so interesting, the hospital is announced that they will establish what the DOJ describes as the first dedicated clinic for detransitioners. So young people who had these surgeries performed on them and are now detransitioning to identify with their biological sex. And so this is really exciting news. Again, it shows that the Justice Department is taking this very seriously. And I’m grateful that Texas Children’s Hospital, which they describe as being cooperative in this investigation, has agreed to settle. And this is going to protect a lot of children in that area.
SPEAKER 16 :
It surely is and David, I’m so I share with you in the excitement of this. What a great step forward. Is it one of those issues that we’ve been talking about for months and months and months and to finally start seeing some major breakthroughs like this is really big. Another issue happened earlier this week. In fact, I had a guest on just a little while ago. Chris Mills talking about this, but one of the biggest stories of the week was the US Supreme Court decision to allow the chemical abortion drug Memphis-Pierstone to continue being prescribed while it all is being litigated in lower courts. This is obviously a big political issue, but this goes far, far beyond politics. This is a deeply moral, a deeply spiritual issues for Christians. You and I have discussed this many times, but what was your reaction to the Supreme Court’s order And how would you encourage Christians right now to be thinking about this and praying about it?
SPEAKER 15 :
I was deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision essentially to allow lower court’s decision to be in effect right now that these abortion pills, as the litigation plays out in lower courts, these abortion pills can continue to cross state lines into pro-life states. You know, Jody, we’ve talked about this. This is not a peripheral issue in terms of Christian ethics. This is an issue that Christians should be deeply concerned about because these pills are literally designed to end the life of unborn children. I would encourage believers not to be too inclined to despair or cynicism because the court’s order is procedural. It is temporary. This case is going to continue to play out in the lower courts. So it’s not final in any sense. I do think it’s important, though, Jody, as we continue to track it, to look what Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, probably the two most conservative members on the court, they did dissent publicly. And Justice Alito made a really important point by framing this case, by allowing these abortion pill companies to have the stake, to continue to stay in place. He’s basically, what Alito said is he’s arguing, and I agree with him, that abortion rights advocates uh telemedicine providers and abortion pill distributors they’ve created essentially an end around of the dobbs case in 2022 that overturned roe v wade and so i think justice alito is accurate in that and then justice thomas uh he made the point uh that these manufacturers are essentially profiting from conduct that the federal law already prohibits. And so I think we should pay attention to the arguments that Justice Alito and Thomas brought up because those arguments will, I think, resurface as this full case is litigated in the lower courts. But I think as Christians, we need to be praying about this because, again, these pills we know account for at least two-thirds of abortions that take place in this country. And of course, this is an issue that we deeply care about because we believe all people, born and unborn,
SPEAKER 16 :
made in the image of God yeah and those dissenting opinions are extremely important I will say I don’t know if you were able to to join Chris Mills earlier but he did a good job explaining those opinions as you just did as well but he also expressed some concern that there was only two dissenting opinions and he thought that could signal problems for this going forward and so I I Look, we’re far from this battle being over, but this is a time for Christians to be praying about this issue, perhaps more than ever. So if you could, David, just one more time, put an exclamation point on this for us. Why is this issue so important biblically? Why is this something that Christians really need to embrace and be engaged in by prayer and other means?
SPEAKER 15 :
For those of us who follow politics and public policy closely, we can almost become numb to even what we’re talking about, Jodi. But let’s just be really, really clear and direct. Abortion takes innocent human life. As Christians, we believe what Genesis 1 reveals to us, that all people are made in God’s image. We all possess inherent value and dignity because we’re created in the Imago Dei. From Genesis 1 onward, the Bible presents us with a vision that is pro-life. from Psalm 139’s description of our being formed in our mother’s womb to Luke chapter 1 where you see this beautiful pro-life passage where the unborn Jesus meets the unborn John and it describes them as fully embodied persons. And again, 60 million lives have been snuffed out since 1973. This is the greatest moral rights, human rights issue of our day, Jody. And I think Christians simply have a responsibility to speak clearly. We have a responsibility to speak courageously. It’s not the only issue we care about, but there’s a clear, thus saith the Lord. There’s a chapter and verse that reveals to us what God’s opinion is on this position. And I think that’s why it’s incumbent upon us as a matter of stewardship to raise our voice for an entire class of people that cannot speak for themselves.
SPEAKER 16 :
Absolutely. And you know, before going to Congress, I was a pastor for almost 30 years. And I mean, constantly, it was in my heart to preach the Word, not to preach pop culture, whatever came out. We would deal with the Scriptures. But there were some things that just seemed to rise to the surface. with importance. So let me throw this out to you and get your expert opinion on this as well. For those who have preaching, teaching responsibilities, how do they know when a particular issue rises to the same level of importance as, say, abortion? I mean, how do we know when an issue rises to a first order issue biblically? Can you kind of walk us through some ideas of how that question can be determined?
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, Jody, a framework that I found really helpful is what distinguishes between straight line issues and what you might call jagged line issues. Jonathan Lehman, the president of Nine Marks, which is a ministry based here in D.C., he kind of coined that phrase of straight line issues and jagged line issues. A straight line issue is one that the Bible speaks directly to and clearly to. You can draw a straight line from the text of Scripture and a public policy issue. Again, the sanctity of human life, marriage, religious liberty, sexuality, they would often fall kind of in this category because the Bible directly addresses them. Again, with the life issues so clear, you know, the Bible literally says, thou shalt not murder. It’s in the Ten Commandments. So again, it’s a straight line from Bible verse to policy prescription. Jagged line issues would be issues where Christians need to apply, I think, kind of broader Christian ethical or broader biblical principles to more complicated policy questions. So, some examples for that, Jody, would be, you know, think about debates over taxes or zoning laws, maybe even tariffs, specific immigration proposals. The Bible certainly gives us clear principles that can inform how we think about those issues, but I think Christians can still disagree maybe on maybe the best prudential application to those principles. And so, that’s why it’s more of a jagged line from clear biblical revealed text to the issue that’s being discussed. And so, again, I just would summarize that, Jodie, by saying pastors should speak, I think, with the greatest clarity and confidence where the Bible speaks most clearly.
SPEAKER 16 :
Very good advice, I appreciate that. There’s so many issues out there right now that seem to be rising to the top, issues that the Bible addresses. And you probably saw this past week, the New York Times published an interview with former Congressman Barney Frank, and of course, He was the first sitting member of Congress that publicly identified as gay. In fact, he played a major role in the movement to legalize same-sex marriage and so forth. Well, he’s now in hospice care, and he’s reflecting on the cultural and political strategies that advanced those causes that were so important to him. But one thing that struck me was how he basically just outlined a roadmap for progressives to continue moving the country in support of these ideologies that are very unpopular, like gender ideology and transgenderism and that type of thing. So what stood out to you in Congressman Frank’s, former Congressman’s comments? What kind of jumped off the page to you?
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, I read the New York Times article where he was interviewed. He also did an interview with Jake Tapper at CNN. And he’s 86. It’s really a sad situation. He is dying and he knows it, and so he’s giving these final interviews. And in some of these interviews, Jody, like you said, he’s giving advice to his party, a party that he was a leader in for so many years. And it’s interesting, the point that he’s making, he says, often my party, we push too quickly and too fast. on some of these really explosive social issues. And he specifically mentioned how when it came to gay marriage, that part of their strategy, and it’s so interesting to hear him admit this openly now, you know, a decade removed from it, where he admits that they took an incremental perspective. He recognized that gay marriage would have been too much to push for too early, and so instead they focused on things like unemployment discrimination, gays in the military, and he said only after we had won some incremental uh victories then we were able to push what we all we wanted uh all the you know the whole time the ultimate goal was uh imposing same-sex marriage on all 50 states and so it’s really interesting to see a road map laid out for us by one of the architects who really is when the history books are going to be written is largely responsible for much of what happened about a decade ago that led ultimately to the obergefell decision
SPEAKER 16 :
And it ultimately all comes down to spiritual issues, moral issues, and how that plays out in Congress. The Pew Research Center released new findings, a survey that they had on how Americans feel about religious influence in government and in public life in general. Again, I mean, those are important issues. What jumped out to you in that survey?
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, this is really interesting to also look at. It’s about 37% of Americans who actually think that religion is gaining influence across the country. It’s interesting when you break that down, even with the political parties, more Republicans seem to think it’s a good thing that religion is gaining ground, whereas more Democrats seem less inclined to see this as a good thing. I think what stood out to me, Jody, is, again, Republicans and Democrats are really deeply divided on the role that religion should play in public life. And it’s also just interesting to see how many Americans seem uncomfortable with this. But again, there’s a rising number of Americans that seem to be comfortable with religion and public life. And so, of course, I would argue that religion has a significant role to play in public life. It always has, going back 250 years. And so, of course, we want to do that rightly. We want to do that with wisdom and prudence. But I do think religion has a significant role to play. So I would be within that growing percentage that Pew definitely brought to bear in their survey.
SPEAKER 16 :
Absolutely. Well, David Claussen, as always, I love ending the week with you and getting your input and just trying to look through all this stuff happening in our world through a biblical worldview. Real quickly, five seconds. How can people get info about our biblical worldview center?
SPEAKER 15 :
You can go to frc.org slash worldview for all of our resources.
SPEAKER 16 :
Great. All right, friends, that wraps it up. Have a wonderful weekend. Join us again here on Washington Watch next week.
SPEAKER 10 :
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.
