- Posted
On today’s program: Sarah Holliday, Reporter for the Washington Stand, reports on the impending partial government shutdown and the…
This episode dives into pivotal Supreme Court rulings that pave the way for reinforced parental rights and religious liberties. Hosted by Jody Heiss, the show features engaging conversations with policymakers and legal experts such as Daniel Smith, highlighting how these changes will influence legislative landscapes across the country. Don’t miss insights into other pressing issues including Nigeria’s religious freedom conditions and the call for action to prioritize these matters.
SPEAKER 16 :
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 04 :
Good afternoon. Welcome to this Friday, June 27th edition of Washington Watch. I am your Friday host Jody Heiss, a senior fellow here at the Family Research Council, and an honor deeply to have you on board with us today. We’ve got a lot to cover. Here are some of the highlights. There were some huge decisions that were released by the U.S. Supreme Court today. including one that significantly curtails the use of nationwide injunctions by rogue activist judges.
SPEAKER 18 :
Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies across the entire nation. No longer. Today, in the 6-3 opinion, Justice Barrett correctly holds that the district court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier today. And I’ll discuss this in just a moment when I’m joined by Maryland Congressman Dr. Andy Harris. And he’ll also give us his take on how the so-called Big Beautiful Bill is shaping up in the Senate. Well, will congressional Republicans be able to get the bill to the president’s desk by Independence Day?
SPEAKER 15 :
We are very, very close, and Leader Thune has confidence that they could get the job done by this weekend, and we certainly are hopeful for that. We would still like to meet that July 4th self-imposed deadline, and the president likes that idea. I certainly like that idea, and so does Leader Thune. So we’re going to wait and see posture in the House right here, and we’ll see what happens. So we’re ready to act.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier today. So what might happen with all this? Well, we’ll be discussing that here in just a few moments. And then there were some other huge decisions that were released by the Supreme Court today that were met with cheers from freedom-loving Americans.
SPEAKER 07 :
Another great decision that came down today, the trans books case, which restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education. That ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch, and we’ll be discussing the case that he referenced and the ruling when I’m joined by Daniel Smith of Liberty Council a little bit later in the program. And by the way, this will also be part of my weekly Biblical Worldview conversation with FRC’s David Claussen. We’ll also talk about how the court’s ruling on Planned Parenthood It came down as well as an age verification for pornography. So a lot coming down from the Supreme Court today. And then FRC’s Ariel Del Turco will be joining me to talk about why President Trump should designate Nigeria as a country of particular concern. So we’ve got a lot, an awful lot coming your way, a packed program if you miss any part of it. Of course, our website is TonyPerkins.com, and you can catch anything you happen to miss right there, TonyPerkins.com. All right, let’s jump into our first topic. Republican senators are scurrying all over the place to try to get the so-called big, beautiful budget bill across the finish line, but there certainly are some roadblocks in the way, such as… the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling against the bill’s Medicaid provisions. That’s a biggie, friends. Can the Senate pull everything together at the last minute? And what happens if they don’t? Well, here to discuss this and more is Congressman Andy Harris, who is the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, and he’s also a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus. He represents the 1st Congressional District of Maryland. Congressman Harris, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always great to have you.
SPEAKER 12 :
Great to be with you, Jody.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. So first of all, let me get your your basic reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier today that limited nationwide injunctions from federal courts. Why is this such a big decision?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, that’s a very big decision because that’s the weapon that’s been used against President Trump’s conservative policies. Every time they come out with a conservative policy, they judge shop, they find a liberal judge somewhere in the district court level, and that district court judge way oversteps their bounds, and that was the major finding in today’s case. They way overstepped their bounds, and then they put a hold on that policy nationwide. That’s ridiculous. These are district judges. Their districts are small. Sometimes they don’t even encompass a whole state. And yet they were making rulings that concern the entire nation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Wow. Yeah, so I mean, talk about legislating from the bench. When you have one of these lower courts making decisions and then kind of pushing it to become nationwide policy or a decision that affects the entire nation, that’s huge. So that really is a big deal. Let’s kind of bring back to Congress. We’ve got so much, Congressman Harris, I’d like to talk to you about. But of course, you’re chairman of the Freedom Caucus. What concerns do you and the Freedom Caucus have regarding the current version of the Senate reconciliation bill.
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, the problem is that it leaves a huge hole in the budget. The bottom line is that as it left the House, given that we do expect some economic growth, I think that we would have had a balanced budget. Well, we wouldn’t have increased the deficit with the bill, but I think when it went over to the Senate, they added more tax, more lowering of taxes, which, of course, some of those lower taxes will decrease revenue. And then the Senate parliamentarian over the last few days has said that a lot of our deficit reduction measures were invalid under the Byrd rule. They’ll have to be changed and modified. Hopefully they can get that done in the next couple of days. We really can’t be adding to the budget deficit. We all want to extend the tax cuts, and we get that that results in some economic growth. But when all is said and done, we think that at least we shouldn’t increase the budget deficits. I’d like to lower them. I think there’s plenty of places in the federal government we can cut spending. But again, at this point in time, the balance sheet doesn’t balance, and I think it’s going to have to balance when it comes back to the House.
SPEAKER 04 :
Wow. So you see a bumpy road ahead for this bill? Is that what you’re saying?
SPEAKER 12 :
Over the next couple of days, it will be. I think we’ll know by the end of the weekend. I think they will attempt to have ironed out the problems with the parliamentarian. I think they’ll have gone ahead and then can, again, begin to balance the books within the bill. And if they can do that, you know, maybe we can hit the July 4th deadline. I think if they can’t do that, if they try to send it over to the House with a large increase in the budget deficit, then I think we’re going to have to go back to some point on the drawing board and make sure that things balance out.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I agree with you. I don’t see how it makes it through the House again without some of those changes you’re talking about. Let’s go down the pathway. You’re a physician. Can you break down for us? I don’t think everybody fully understands the Medicaid dispute that’s taking place and even taking place among some of your Republican colleagues.
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, Medicaid, the problem, Jody, is that we increased Medicaid spending by about 50 percent over the past 10 years. And that’s in actual dollars. I mean, we spend a lot on Medicaid right now. And it’s because some of the states have figured out ways to spend way more money on healthy young people who are added to Medicaid under Obamacare than it spends on what we call the traditional Medicaid population. which are the needy, the disabled, the elderly, the pregnant women, their children. The bottom line is these were the core functions of Medicaid. The program has wandered way far from those core functions, and the Medicaid spending at the federal level, because of that, is out of control. So again, we’re attempting to put in some measures that allow us to continue to increase spending, but not at that rate, because that rate is unaffordable.
SPEAKER 04 :
Wow. So you mentioned a while ago the Senate parliamentarian. All right. Here’s an individual that carries a pretty big stick. But you mentioned specifically the parliamentarian saying that some of the measures within the bill violated the Byrd rule. Can you break that down for us for some folks who may not understand what the Byrd rule is?
SPEAKER 12 :
So we used the reconciliation bill in order to avoid the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate, because we only have 53 senators on the Republican side. Obviously, we can’t get a lot of the President Trump’s agenda done in the Senate unless we had 60 senators, and we don’t have them. So under reconciliation rules, we only need 51 senators. But under reconciliation, everything has to be budget-related. You can’t do something purely for a policy reason. If it has a significant connection to the balancing the budget, for instance, the balancing the books, then yes, it can be included in reconciliation. So sometimes it’s how you word it. You know, two examples is one is we thought we would take some of the loopholes allowing people not to have to repay their student loans, people who really should be repaying their student loans. They took it. They signed for it. They should be repaying them. And the way it was worded, the Senate parliamentarian said, well, this doesn’t follow the Byrd rule. I don’t understand that because this involved $120 billion of savings to the federal government. with people repaying some of these student loans. But again, that’s an example of where the parliamentarian increased the budget deficit from what we sent over from the House and put the whole bill out of balance.
SPEAKER 04 :
So at the end of the day, do you think the Senate bill is going to be drastically different from the House version? Or at this point, are they going to be coming closer to the House version to get this across the finish line?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, Jody, I’m hoping they come closer to the House version because we worked long and hard to get it out of the House to the Senate. We think it was a very carefully negotiated compromise. And as they wander away from that, it becomes less and less likely that it’s going to succeed when it comes back out to the House. We want this to succeed. We want President Trump to succeed. But the safest thing they could do is take our House bill and just pass it the way we pass it or make some very small changes. It may end up there. We’ll know by the end of the weekend.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yep, I agree with you. That would be the safest way to go. So as I understand at this point, the Senate’s scheduled to have their so-called voterama on this thing over the weekend. Do you think they’re going to meet the deadline? And maybe what happens if they don’t?
SPEAKER 12 :
You know, it’s unclear that they’ll get to the Voterama over the weekend. They may just do what we call the motion to proceed, which just begins the debate on the bill. It may be Monday or Tuesday even when they do the Voterama. Look, if they don’t hit the deadline exactly, it is a somewhat artificial deadline. We know that we do hit the debt ceiling sometime in August, probably the end of August. So that’s a real hard deadline. We absolutely have to raise the debt ceiling by that date. But July 4th is an artificial deadline. It’s a good deadline to have. It makes us work harder toward a deadline. But if it slips by a few days or even into the week after, That wouldn’t be a disaster. It would be just fine. This is such a large bill that we should actually take a little time to make sure we get it right.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yep. All right, before I let you go, I know there was a briefing today on the U.S. targeted strikes on Iran. Much of that, if not all of it, classified. I know you’re limited on what you can share. But is there any information that you can share from not necessarily the briefing, but just overall your thoughts on the targeted strikes on Iran?
SPEAKER 12 :
Absolutely. Look, the world has to remember that radical Islamic terrorism raised its head on 9-11. It’s still around. It’s embodied in Iran. And I think the summary I would say is the world should sleep a little safer tonight and every night now that Iran is not going to have a nuclear weapon any time in the near future.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, that is encouraging. And it’s, you know, there’s no lack of news to cover. And Congressman Andy Harris, I want to thank you for the incredible work that you do in Congress for your own state, your district, through the House Freedom Caucus, the Doctors Caucus, and a host of other places where you serve. And we deeply appreciate you coming on Washington Watch and breaking some of this stuff down for us.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thank you, Jody.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Coming up next, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of parents who are wanting their kids to be exempt from forced indoctrination of LGBT ideology. Wow. Stay with us to hear what this might mean for parents as well as religious freedoms. We’ll be back.
SPEAKER 11 :
Hi, everyone. This is Pastor Jay Johnston, National Prayer Director with the Family Research Council. I want to invite you to join our 21-day Family Bible Challenge as we read through the book of Matthew. This is an opportunity for you and for your family to come together for 15 minutes a day to read God’s Word together. Deuteronomy 6 says, these commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. and press them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Seek the Word of God, obey the Word of God, share the Word of God so that you and others might know the joy of walking with God now and for all eternity. As your family gathers to read the Bible, invite the Holy Spirit to work in your life to spiritually transform each one of you. Ask the Lord to show you creative ways for you to connect with your family to read God’s Word together. I pray that however God uses this challenge in your life and those that you join together with will be a blessing to you and strengthen you as you read the Gospel of Matthew together. Visit frc.org slash familybiblechallenge for more information.
SPEAKER 17 :
In a time when Washington seems clouded by compromise, a bold group of lawmakers are standing firm in defense of the values which our nation was built upon. At FRC Actions 100% Awards, 171 members of Congress were honored for voting 100% in line with policies that promote faith, family, and freedom.
SPEAKER 02 :
Faith and family made our country, it’s the foundation that made our country not only great, but good.
SPEAKER 14 :
The values that make America, faith, family, hard work, personal responsibility. I mean, that to me is the heart of FRC and grateful for everything that they do.
SPEAKER 21 :
It’s very important for us to have organizations such as FRC. First of all, I think it keeps us grounded, in addition to which the issues that you champion are issues that we should all be championing.
SPEAKER 08 :
FRC is very, very good at honing in on those things that really affect Christians’ lives. Also, working with members of Congress, too, to make sure that those values are instilled in the legislation that we create.
SPEAKER 10 :
Having the Family Research Council to guide us is critically important to being able to do the right thing consistently.
SPEAKER 17 :
These lawmakers have drawn the line, not just in policy, but in principle. This is more than politics. This is conviction in action. Visit frcaction.org for more information on how you too can make a difference.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you so much for joining us today. Welcome back to Washington Watch. I am your Friday host, Jody Heiss, and so glad to have you on board with us. By the way, we have right now, right now, team members are standing by to take your call. If you would like to support and be a partner of Washington Watch and the Family Research Council, right now I’ve got some good news. You can make a gift before the end of this month and it will be doubled. Friends, it doesn’t get any better than that. Double your gift. Please give us a call right now at 800-225-4008. And thank you in advance for your support. All right. The Supreme Court this morning delivered several welcomed rulings, including one for parents as well as for religious freedom. The case Mahmood v. Taylor. In that case, parents now from various religious backgrounds, well, they all banded together. They were challenging the Montgomery County Public Schools’ elementary story hours. You may recall, we’ve reported on it, but that story hour promoted books on things like pride parades, gender transitions, and various LGBT themes. Well, today, in a 6-3 ruling, The Supreme Court justices backed the parents who took a stand trying to protect their children from these radical agendas. So what was the reason for the ruling? And probably more important, what might be the impact of all of this? Well, here to discuss this case is Daniel Smith. He’s a constitutional attorney and associate vice president of legal affairs with Liberty Council. And by the way, Liberty Council filed an amicus brief in this case. Daniel, welcome back to Washington Watch. Great to have you and great news today. It was good news and thank you for having me, Jody. Okay, so let’s begin. Just walk us through the ruling from this case. What actually did the Supreme Court say?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, what they said was is that just because you drop your child off at a public school doesn’t mean you forfeit the right to direct their religious upbringing. We decided that issue about 53 years ago in Wisconsin versus Yoder, but it has come back up in the curriculum-based education for elementary school children, and the question being whether you could have a religious opt-out to curriculums that parents find religiously objectionable. The Supreme Court rightly held today that of course they do. The First Amendment affords parents the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, and they don’t surrender that at the schoolhouse gate.
SPEAKER 04 :
So what was the bottom line of this case? In other words, was this a case about parental rights or was it a case about religious freedom and the right to parents to pass the baton of that religious faith onto their children? How would you describe what ultimately this case was all about?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, it’s based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. But what I would say is in this regard, the free exercise of religion and the fundamental rights of parents are inextricably intertwined when it comes to this. So for many parents, the right to raise their children according to the dictates of their faith requires that they prevent them from hearing some of the obscene materials that were read to elementary school children and require that they don’t uh promote what the bible says and what other religious faiths of the parents in this case say are sent and are forbidden the teachers were teaching curriculum that violates what the parents were teaching at home they have the free exercise right and the parental right both of which are constitutionally grounded to opt their children out of that curriculum the maryland county public schools tried to say you can’t have an opt-out. They prohibited it. And by the way, we won’t even provide you notice when we’re going to read these stories to your children. The Supreme Court this morning said you can’t do that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, yeah, so let’s go down that path because I think this is fascinating. Everything you just said is just so much common sense. I mean, to me, it sounds kind of amazing that we’re even having this kind of case go all the way to the Supreme Court. But what was the argument from the other side? Why in the world did they believe that parents should not be allowed to take their kids out of a class that teaches this type of stuff?
SPEAKER 05 :
This is the most comical part of it all, if you ask me, Jody, and Justice Alito does a good job dissecting it. What the Montgomery County Public School said was, well, we’ve created this curriculum that’s pretty obscene that a lot of people object to. And the problem that it has begat is that there are too many parents who object to their three and four and five-year-olds reading about Pride Puppy and some of the other obscene materials that it becomes unworkable for them. And what Justice Alito says is you don’t get to create a problem and then deprive people of constitutional rights because the problem’s too big. But that was their defense. This is unworkable to opt all of these parents out and the students out on the basis of religious beliefs. That was essentially their entire argument for why they could prohibit an opt-out.
SPEAKER 04 :
Wow. All right. So as you just mentioned, I mean, this has obviously been a closely watched case for religious freedom advocates, at least. So big, big term, 30,000 foot view. What does this ruling mean for religious freedom?
SPEAKER 05 :
I think it has major implications for religious freedom, not the least of which is there are millions of parents who enjoy the public benefit of the public education system. We can debate the merits of that all day long. That’s having back and we’ll have a different discussion about that. But for purposes of today, those who take their children to a public education institution don’t surrender their First Amendment rights when they drop them off. If the school and a radical school board and radical teachers want to impose a curriculum that violates the religious beliefs of the parents, They have the right to say no, and they have the right to opt their children out. The First Amendment demands that. Common sense demands that. And thankfully, the Supreme Court today demanded that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Less than a minute left. I wish we had more because there’s so much I’d like to get into. But the Supreme Court this morning also upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for access to Internet porn sites. Real quickly, your thoughts on that decision.
SPEAKER 05 :
think that’s pretty common sense jody we have we have age restriction and age verification requirements for all manner of things driver’s licenses purchasing various items in the store registering to vote obtaining access to obscene materials that has become rampant the court notes today has become rampant because of the proliferation of the internet and cell phones and websites that are all over the place. Texas said we’re going to require you to have an age verification requirement. The Supreme Court says the First Amendment doesn’t prohibit that. We’ve allowed that for years and they allowed it again today.
SPEAKER 04 :
Daniel Smith, Associate Vice President of Legal Affairs at Liberty Council. Thank you so much. Great news coming out of the Supreme Court today. Appreciate you bringing it to us. All right. After this, Nigeria, a country of particular concern. Find out why or why not right after the break.
SPEAKER 03 :
The Center for Biblical Worldview’s all-day workshops delves into the formation of a worldview, what it is, how it’s formed, when it’s formed, what that means to them personally and their churches and communities.
SPEAKER 13 :
My hope for people when they come to these worldview workshops is that they will come away better equipped to engage the people and the ideas that they’re living with and around. And our goal is to give people more confidence in the gospel and the fact that what God said to us actually is true, actually is the path to happiness and human flourishing for all of us, but also more confidence in their ability to have these conversations and help lead other people to the truth.
SPEAKER 23 :
for Bible-believing Christians to know what God’s Word says on these issues and to learn how they can apply it to their lives. And we believe that the more Christians that we equip, that’s how we’ll change the nation.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey fam, listen, Pastor Sammy here at Lighthouse Church, and I cannot tell you how equipping, how empowering, how… incredibly educating this conference has been. And so I just want to encourage anybody that either has not been part of or is thinking about hosting this event, certainly to pastors, leaders, even CEOs for that matter. This conference is lights out. Stand behind it myself. I can’t commend it enough. We’re going to be talking about this for some time to come.
SPEAKER 20 :
The culture is kind of squeezing in on us as God’s people, forcing those of us with biblical views to change those views or to suppress those views. It’s forcing us to engage with issues that we’ve never had to engage with. And so what this teaches us is what those issues are, what the Bible says about those issues, and then how we can critically engage our culture on these things in a way that is committed to biblical principles.
SPEAKER 07 :
Visit frc.org slash worldview for more information.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Great to have you today. Appreciate you joining us and entrusting this hour of your time to us. I want to remind you that we have team members who are standing by to take your call right now. If you would like to support and be a partner of Washington Watch and the Family Research Council, you can make a gift before the end of this month and it will be doubled. Yes, it will be doubled. So come on board. Help us out. Please give a call. 800-225-4008. That’s 800-225-4008. All right. Over a week ago, we learned about a tragic slaughter in Nigeria. It took the lives of more than 200 Christians. Unbelievable. And unfortunately, this is just a drop in the bucket for the likes of Muslim extremist groups like Boko Haram, which often targets and kills and kidnaps Christians in that nation. But because of this, organizations including FRC were trying to press President Trump to designate Nigeria as a country of particular concern, or CPC. So what does that mean, and what will it take for this to happen? Well, to discuss this is Ariel Del Turco. She’s the director of the Center for Religious Liberty here at the Family Research Council. Ariel, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thank you for joining us.
SPEAKER 01 :
Good to be with you, Jody.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, so this most recent attack, yet just a horrible slaughter against a Christian community in Nigeria, so troubling as we hear about this. Can you kind of give us a quick overview of what religious freedom conditions overall are like in Nigeria?
SPEAKER 01 :
Absolutely. So this attack that you’re referring to took place on June 13th. And right now the death count is 218 people. We expect that to actually rise as people are are sadly passing away from their injuries. What happened in this town was that a group of militants from the Fulani tribe basically came into this town that was 95% Christian and burned homes, slaughtered people in just brutal, brutal ways. And this incident is getting a little bit more international attention than usual. I think just because of the area it was located in and the available how journalists were able to access it and take pictures and speak to people right away. So that’s encouraging. But I think this attack just demonstrates the many, many attacks that happen across these rural communities in Nigeria that are mainly Christian, where they are ruthlessly targeted for attack, and the Nigerian government just isn’t doing enough to protect them. So we think this incident now, it’s the right time for the U.S. government to redesignate Nigeria as a country of particular concern. And I think there’s the political will to get it done this year.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, so this labeling, a CPC, a country of political concern, for those who are unfamiliar with that, tell us what that means and how in the world would that redesignation potentially help the situation overall?
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, so this is a little bit policy wonky maybe for some of our audience, but we know our audience loves to follow the details. The country of particular concern designation is one of the mechanisms that the State Department has to address persecution around the world. This designation has been around since 1998 with the International Religious Freedom Act, and basically it’s a label for the worst countries in the world who violate religious freedom. It’s intended for countries that either commit or tolerate particularly egregious violations of religious freedom, And we believe that Nigeria fits that criteria because they unfortunately are tolerating these attacks. Time and again, Christians and Christian communities are begging the Nigerian government for protection, for security, to go after these terrorists who have committed murder and acts of violence against them. And the Nigerian government, we believe, has the capability to do this, but they simply refuse to. So that is tolerating. severe violations of religious freedom. So they deserve this designation. And it’s really a label that will shame them. They have resisted this label in the past very firmly. So it’s something that maybe the American people don’t always pay close attention to. But these countries that get this country of particular concern designation, they really don’t want it. So it is effective.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, so why hasn’t this already happened, Ariel? I mean, there’s been religious freedom conditions and concerns in Nigeria for a long time. Why has this not already taken place, the CPC designation? Or is it that they just haven’t reached that level of concern until just recently?
SPEAKER 01 :
yeah this is a great question jody so over the past decade several decades few decades thousands tens of thousands of christians have been killed in this way so this has been a problem country for a really long time however we have seen a lot of resistance in the state department to designating nigeria a country of particular concern and they have a lot of excuses for that including maintaining relations with the Nigerian government. They’ll talk about security issues. They’ll maybe deny that religious freedom is the main problem here. However, when terrorists are rampaging your village, shouting Alu Akbar, it’s hard to take that as not a violation of religious freedom. So there’s a lot of excuses. The Trump administration, thankfully, did manage in their very last year in office in the first term, they managed to designate Nigeria a country of particular concern. And of course, when the Biden administration came in the very first year that they were redesignating these countries, Nigeria was removed from the list. And actually, just a few days after that, Secretary of State Blinken went to visit the Nigerian president at the time. So activists kind of saw a connection there. But we believe that the Trump administration has the political will to redesignate Nigeria, even though it is a heavy lift. So we’re looking forward to that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Ariel Del Turco, thank you so much for this update. A disturbing and important topic all the way. All right, friends, stay tuned. David Clawson will join me in just a moment for our biblical worldview segment. Stay tuned.
SPEAKER 02 :
Family Research Council is committed to advancing faith, family, and freedom from the East Coast to the West. So FRC is going to Southern California for this year’s Pray, Vote, Stand Summit, October 17th and 18th at Calvary Chapel Chino Hills. Join us for this powerful gathering of Christians desiring cultural renewal and spiritual revival. The Pray, Vote, Stand Summit brings together Christian leaders, issue experts, and government officials for a time of prayer, inspiration, and action. Together, we will seek God’s guidance for our nation and engage in meaningful discussions on the intersection of faith, government, and culture. If the spiritual foundations and the cultural walls of our nation are to be rebuilt, we all have a role to play. May we each find our place on the wall as we build for biblical truth. Register now at PrayVoteStand.org. That’s PrayVoteStand.org.
SPEAKER 09 :
Jennifer, it’s so exciting to be here with you today talking about our new book, Embracing God’s Design. Who is actually going to benefit from reading this book in your view?
SPEAKER 19 :
There are so many different audiences that can benefit. The first one are counselors themselves, because we have some material in there where we really address the gender dysphoria diagnosis and what is wrong with it. We have information for people who are wanting to go back to embracing God’s design for their life.
SPEAKER 09 :
This is really magical to have the therapist and the individual who suffered come together and write about why this is happening and why we’re seeing this.
SPEAKER 19 :
And we brought all of that experience to the table. We want to see people walking in the fullness of who God has called them to be and not a false identity.
SPEAKER 20 :
Order today at embracethedesign.com.
SPEAKER 17 :
How should Christians think about the thorny issues shaping our culture? How should Christians address deceitful ideas like transgenderism, critical theory, or assisted suicide? How can Christians navigate raising children in a broken culture, the war on gender roles, or rebuilding our once great nation? Outstanding is a podcast from The Washington Stand dedicated to these critical conversations. Outstanding seeks to tear down what our corrupt culture lifts up with an aim to take every thought and every idea captive to the obedience of Christ. Whether policies or partisan politics, whether conflict in America or conflict abroad, join us and our guests as we examine the headlines through the lens of Scripture and explore how Christians can faithfully exalt Christ in all of life. Follow Outstanding on your favorite podcast app and look for new episodes each week.
SPEAKER 04 :
Good afternoon, and welcome back to Washington Watch. I am your Friday host, Jody Heiss. So glad to have you with us today. All right, before I dive into this final segment, I want to once again encourage you to partner with Family Research Council as we continue to stand strong here in our nation’s capital. We’re defending faith, family and freedom. And right now, as we come to the end of our fiscal year, your partnership can help ensure that we are well resourced to continue defending the family and other important issues, not only in 2025, but far beyond. And thanks to some very generous friends of FRC, your gift will be matched dollar for dollar. So that you can have twice the impact. Friends, that’s huge. But it’s only from now until June 30th. So stand with us in defending the family. We encourage you urgently to make your gift. Give us a call right now. Give us a call. 1-800-225-4008. That’s 800-225-4008. We have team members who are standing by right now. So thank you so much. All right. As we’ve discussed on the program already today, the U.S. Supreme Court has given a lot of reason to celebrate this week. There have been some very high profile cases related to abortion, religious liberty, parental rights, all of these. Some of these actually were decided just this morning. Well, now we come to our Biblical Worldview segment, and we want to look at some of these decisions from the lens of Scripture and what Christians should know about them. And as always on Fridays, joining me now with this discussion is David Claussen. He’s the director of the Center for Biblical Worldview here at the Family Research Council and author of the book Life After Roe, Equipping Christians for the Fight for Life Today. David, as always, welcome back to Washington Watch, and thank you for joining me.
SPEAKER 23 :
Happy Friday. Great to be with you, Jody.
SPEAKER 04 :
And happy Friday to you as well. And it is happy, happy Friday, as there are some huge decisions that have been coming out of the Supreme Court, some even today. And I certainly want to ask you about some of those. But yesterday, the court also delivered a significant opinion in the case about abortion. So why was that particular case? Go back, if you would, tell us a bit about that and why this case was so important and what Christians should know about it.
SPEAKER 23 :
Yeah, Jody, so the case you’re referring to is known as Medina versus Planned Parenthood, South Atlantic. This case really, if you trace the origin of it, it goes back to 2018 when Governor McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order basically disqualifying Planned Parenthood from being able to participate in Medicaid. And in that decision, he cited the fact that Planned Parenthood provides abortion services. And so not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood sued, and then you had some Medicaid recipients also join this lawsuit. And what they were alleging in the suit was that Medicaid’s free choice of provider provision should allow them to be able to choose kind of the provider of choice that they want. What the Supreme Court found yesterday in a 6-3 decision, and it gets a little bit into the weeds with Medicaid, but they basically, the court decided that Medicaid Medicaid patients do not have a right to sue a state if that state has denied access to their provider of choice. And so again, moving forward, this simply means that individuals can’t challenge the state decision in court. What does all of this mean though? What this means is that in South Carolina, Planned Parenthood is effectively, and as well as other abortion providers, cannot participate in the Medicaid program. And so, of course, this is just huge news because this means less dollars going towards the nation’s largest provider of abortion.
SPEAKER 04 :
So is this something that is just going to impact South Carolina, or could this somehow affect abortion providers in other states as well?
SPEAKER 23 :
Jody, the implications of this go well beyond the borders of South Carolina. Really, essentially, this ruling enables other states to exclude Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from Medicaid systems. And again, why is this significant? Well, let’s just remember Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest provider of abortion. Just last and the most recent year of reporting, Jody, We know that Planned Parenthood performed over 402,000 abortions. And one of their other large revenue streams is gender transition medical interventions. This would include on minors. And so, again, Planned Parenthood is an anti-family, anti-life organization. And so now, again, effectively states within their Medicaid programs can disqualify Planned Parenthood And so I see this as a decision that will have implications well beyond South Carolina. And for that, I think Christians ought to be very grateful.
SPEAKER 04 :
Wow. Yeah, that is huge news. All right, let’s try to switch gears. We’ve got other news coming out of the Supreme Court, one that we talked about just a few moments ago, the Mahmoud v. Taylor. This is the case that involves parents, religious parents, who want to opt their children out of public school lessons involving LGBT themes. And even President Trump himself weighed in on the decision and praised it. Play clip five for me.
SPEAKER 22 :
I think it’s a great ruling for parents. It’s really a ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child. And this is a tremendous victory for parents. And I’m not surprised by it, but I am surprised that it went this far. Wow.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, David, so give me your response to this, the court’s decision. And this is a big, another big victory for religious families, isn’t it?
SPEAKER 23 :
Well, my goodness, Jody, this decision in Mahmoud is a victory for the First Amendment. It’s a victory for families. It’s a victory for parents. And I would argue it’s a victory for sanity. Again, the context of this is just not very far from the headquarters of the Family Research Council over in Montgomery County in Maryland. Just a couple of years ago, you had the Board of Education adopt what they called an LGBTQ plus inclusive curriculum for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. You heard me right. Pre-kindergarten through fifth grade as part of their English language arts curriculum. And some of these books and some of these lessons are weighed into same-sex marriage. They weighed into issues related to gender and sexuality. Again, for children as young as three years of age. No surprise, there’s over a million children that are impacted in this public school system. There was a lot of parents, hundreds of parents, Jodi, that protested this, that they asked for opt-out provisions. And initially, the school board provided an opt-out provision that hundreds of parents signed up to take, well, then the school board came back and rescinded that offer to allow parents to opt out their children. And then that’s when you had hundreds of parents, again, sue the school board. And I think what’s important to understand with the decision from the Supreme Court that Justice Alito authored is they basically said that the court holds that families are likely to succeed, and they’re given this preliminary injunction as the case continues to wind its way through the courts. From a biblical worldview perspective, though, Jody, Deuteronomy 6 clearly states that parents are the primary disciple-makers in their home. parents are the ones that have this decision-making authority. And again, school districts across the country have recognized this in a variety of ways. And you just saw the Montgomery School Board, they’re just being a bully, trying to impose this divisive curriculum on parents. And they took a big loss today. But their loss is a big win for parents and families, as well as, as you said, the First Amendment.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, absolutely. And you know, I think that’s a perfect segue into another case that came out, the Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the case coming out of Texas in the Fifth Circuit there, and whether or not they used the right legal test when assessing a law in Texas, which would require pornographic sites to verify the age of those who are using the site I think there’s another big win for parents. Wouldn’t you agree?
SPEAKER 23 :
Oh, absolutely. This is a huge win for parents. It’s a win for families. Again, the context of this is that in the state of Texas, they’ve passed a law that requires age verification for these pornography and obscenity websites. This is, in my view, common sense. When you think about what is on some of these sites, Jody, it’s absolute filth. It’s absolute obscenity, which is why state lawmakers said that the state has a legitimate obligation. I would, of course, argue a moral obligation. to ensure that children did not have easy access to this content. No surprise the pornography industry sued, which of course that should tell you all you need to know about the moral compass of the pornography industry that they were opposing legislation that required age verification. But Justice Thomas, who wrote this opinion, Jody, he made just a wonderful point, basically helping us see that 95% of American teenagers have access to smartphones. 93% of American teenagers access videos and the internet multiple times throughout the day. In just one year, Pornhub, one of the nation’s largest providers of pornography, they put up in just one year, Jody, 150 years worth of content. So again, there’s so much content. And it’s not just the kind of the still pictures from a Playboy magazine in the 1970s. Many of these videos are violent. They depict men raping women. physical assault. Again, this is horrendous, morally corrupting stuff that we’re talking about. And the Supreme Court simply said Texas’s law is constitutional and that, again, the pornography industry was way out of bounds here in their opposition of this law. Again, huge win for families.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. So where does this one go? I mean, we talked about the one in South Carolina a while ago. There certainly is going to have implications far, far beyond the borders of South Carolina. Is that the case here with this age verification in Texas? Does this go far beyond the boundaries of Texas, the borders of Texas, or does this pave the path for other states to follow what Texas has done? What’s the bottom line impact of this one?
SPEAKER 23 :
Yeah, bottom line is what you just said there, Jody, is that this really paves the way for state lawmakers to ensure that in their state’s laws, children are protected. It is now been told the Supreme Court has ruled that these age verification laws, as enacted by the state of Texas, They meet constitutional mustard. They do not infringe on free speech. Again, this was kind of the big contention that the pornography industry had, was that this is an infringement on free speech. And what was helpful is Justice Thomas, in his majority opinion, he walked through why this is not the case, that there is no right to access a pornography website without having to provide… essentially age verification, that the state could provide that impediment for the sake of protecting minor children. So my hope is that lawmakers around the country and other states will look at the Texas law and implement something similar.
SPEAKER 04 :
Wow, that’s the we’re talking about a an opportunity right now to make huge strides protecting children, giving rights back to parents, and at the same time standing for moral principles that are aligned with biblical morality. This is an opportunity that I hope states don’t let get past them. When we were talking about the case a little while ago from Montgomery County and the parents’ rights to opt their children out of really the same type of pornographic literature, and now you have this case in Texas. In Montgomery County, there were host as you referred to, just tons of parents coming on board, hundreds and hundreds of parents from a variety of religious backgrounds standing up for the rights of their children and their rights as parents. What brought all this in Texas? Was it a similar thing or was it just the AG in Texas got upset about this? Is there a movement, in other words, that we’re seeing begin to take place across the country where parents and others are standing up for that which is right and what used to be just mere common sense.
SPEAKER 23 :
Absolutely, Jody. And specifically the case in Maryland, Justice Thomas, actually in his opinion, actually, excuse me, this would be Justice Alito for the Maryland case. He actually walked through the content. I found it really interesting and intriguing that Justice Alito actually attached an appendix to his majority opinion and with quotes and pictures from these children’s books. And so in one sense, Alito is saying, you don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s copies of the books that the parents were objecting to. And there were several pages that Justice Alito shows, again, added them to the appendix, that shows where same-sex marriage, gender identity was being pushed on children as young as pre-kindergarten. And so, again, what I saw happening, Jody, and again, I live in Maryland, actually, is just parents from across the spectrum, even folks who might identify as more politically liberal or politically progressive, were saying, this is way out of bounds. This is entirely inappropriate. And so, again, I think the kind of the moral sexual revolutionaries, those driving this agenda, they definitely overreached. And I think the Supreme Court makes that really clear in siding with the parents who are just really concerned about their children.
SPEAKER 04 :
So let me ask you this, only about a minute or so left. It’s incredible when we think of all these cases, the decisions that have come out just in the last 24 hours. But one of the things that stands out to me, it seems at least in all these cases, we’re looking at a 6-3 decision in the Supreme Court. What do you make of this seemingly a coalition within the court coming up with all these decisions?
SPEAKER 23 :
Yeah, in brief, Jody, politics, or let me put it this way, elections really, really matter. In the coalitions, for all of the cases we’ve talked about, you have the six conservatives on one side, the three liberals on the other. Every justice appointed by a Republican president cited in the way that we think affirms the Constitution, affirms parental rights. And it’s the three liberals appointed by Barack Obama and then Joe Biden who opposed kind of the position that I think Christians would be celebrating today. And so it reminds us, once again, elections have significant consequences. And who’s on that Supreme Court matters. Who’s behind the Resolute Desk in the White House also really matters.
SPEAKER 04 :
Absolutely. Well, David Clausen, Director of the Center for Biblical Worldview here at FRC, thank you so much for doing an outstanding job keeping us informed with all of this. And friends, let me just say again, we could use your support. Here’s your chance. Call 800-225-4008 right now. God bless you. Have a fantastic weekend. We’ll be back next week on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 16 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council and is entirely listener supported. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information on anything you heard today or to find out how you can partner with us in our ongoing efforts to promote faith, family, and freedom, visit TonyPerkins.com.