In this episode, explore the pressing topic of how recent Supreme Court cases could reshape the legal landscape by tackling nationwide injunctions. Gain insight into the serious threats against religious freedoms with a focus on Washington State’s new mandatory reporting law. Uncover the realities of chemical abortions with commentary on recent commitments by the HHS Secretary to reevaluate the risks associated with Mifepristone. Together with experts, dissect these critical issues, providing a much-needed biblical perspective to navigate today’s political and cultural challenges.
SPEAKER 19 :
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 08 :
Well, good afternoon. Welcome to this Friday edition of Washington Watch. Hope you’ve had a fantastic week. Looking forward to a wonderful weekend. I’m Jody Heiss, a senior fellow here at the Family Research Council. An honor to have you joining us. We’ve got a lot to bring your way in the next hour. Here are some of the highlights. House GOP leaders were not able to nail down the votes that were needed to advance the so-called big, beautiful budget reconciliation bill. It did not come out of the Budget Committee earlier today. The measure was rejected by a vote of 16 to 21.
SPEAKER 26 :
Mr. Chair, on the vote, there were 16 ayes and 21 noes.
SPEAKER 25 :
Well, the no’s have it. The committee stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair. I want to thank everybody for their time and patience, and Godspeed and safe travels.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, that was House Budget Committee Chair Jody Arrington after the votes were cast. So what’s next? Well, I’ll be discussing this here in just a moment when I’m joined by Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs. And he and I also will be discussing the since-deleted post by former FBI Director James Comey on social media that highlighted the numbers 86-47. Well, those numbers are widely known to stand for the killing of the 47th president of America, Donald Trump.
SPEAKER 02 :
For Comey to think that we, the American people, are so stupid as to think that he, as a former FBI director, former prosecutor, and someone who clearly pays attention to what’s going on, would believe his lie that he didn’t know what this actually was calling for? The dangerousness of this, Jesse, cannot be underestimated.
SPEAKER 08 :
Wow. That was U.S. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard yesterday on Fox News. And Congressman Biggs and I will be discussing that as well. And yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a consolidated case that examines the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential actions.
SPEAKER 06 :
This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems.
SPEAKER 08 :
That was U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer speaking before the Supreme Court. And Josh Hammer, who is a senior counsel for the Article III project, will join me a little bit later to unpack what came out during those oral arguments. And then later in the program, I’ll be joined by members of the FRC team who are in Paraguay participating in the Summit for Peace and Reconciliation. That’s an international gathering that has brought together all sorts of global leaders, including presidents, members of Congress, government ministers, pastors, ambassadors, and Christian leaders. And our team there will give us an update on what’s happening. And then to close out the program, as we do week by week, I’ll be joined by David Claussen. for our weekly biblical worldview segment to discuss some of the headlines from this week, including the pledge this week by HHS Secretary Bobby Kennedy to conduct a review of the chemical abortion Mifepristone. We’ll try to bring all the highlights of the news this week to you from a biblical worldview perspective. So as always, we’ve got a lot coming your way. If you happen to miss any part of it, by the way, you can always catch it by going to our website, TonyPerkins.com. All right. Let’s jump into our first segment. It has been a hectic week for Republican leaders as they try to muster the support needed to pass President Trump’s big, beautiful budget reconciliation bill. And yet there’s all sorts of disagreements over certain parts of the provisions and the spending cuts of the. The whole process has just slowed down, especially as I mentioned just a while ago, the Budget Committee earlier voted down that bill from advancing. So where do we go from here? The attempt was to get it passed before Memorial Day. Who knows whether or not that will happen. We’re here to discuss this and more is Congressman Andy Biggs. He’s a member of several committees, including the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He represents the 5th Congressional District of Arizona. Congressman Biggs, welcome back to Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 04 :
Great to be with you, Jody. Thanks for having me. It’s always good to see you.
SPEAKER 08 :
It was great to see you, my friend. Listen, Andy, before we even get going, you and I have been dear friends for many years now, and you have been certainly heavy in my thoughts and prayers in recent weeks. In fact, thousands from this program have been praying for you as well. In the loss of your daughter to cancer, I would be remiss to begin this interview without starting by asking how are you and the family holding up?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, first of all, thank you to everybody who sent prayers and cards and flowers and thoughts. And, you know, we’ve really felt that support. The family’s doing pretty well, all things considered. I mean, obviously grief comes in waves. But, you know, the three little kids that she had, they’re the ones that we need to focus on. And they’re doing okay, but they have their moments as well. But by and large, this is in God’s hands, and we have felt his support.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, we love you and we’re praying for you. Please send our love to your family. I will. All right, Andy, if I can, let’s talk about this so-called big, beautiful bill. What’s the current state? It didn’t come out of the budget committee. So where do we go from here?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, because it’s Republicans that voted no as well, they can bring that back at any time and do a motion to reconsider and vote it without actually doing any more hearing on it. The five that voted against it for HFC1, non-HFC, they have committed to staying there and continue to work on it. So what I will tell you is this. I still believe that this is attainable by Memorial Day, and I believe that you’re going to see a lot of action perhaps over the weekend. to try to resolve these differences. There are multiple factions. Don’t forget you have the assault state and local tax group led by New Yorkers, Californians, some Illinois folks, Republicans who said they were going to vote no. So there’s a lot to be done here. And I will just tell you that I think everybody’s pretty happy with the tax package that’s President Trump’s tax package. So, I mean, you could even split it out and do that first with the border control and then do the other issues later. But these reforms, I mean, there’s They’re keeping some of the most pernicious forms of the Green New Deal stuff in there, including subsidies. Some of the reforms that they have, which are simply to do something that has been a bipartisan issue, which is work requirements. They don’t even kick in those work requirements for five years, Jody. So, you know, I think a lot of people are trying to get to yes. And I think we eventually will get to yes. But obviously, it’s not quite ready for prime time yet.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, and not only in the House. I mean, we’ve got Senate Republicans as well that appear, at least from my vantage point, on the outside, they appear to be wanting to transform the current House bill. So what are you expecting from your colleagues over in the Senate?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, just so you know, several of us meet with senators every week and I think that there’s a group of senators that have told us that if some of these changes aren’t made in the House, they’re not going to support it. Others don’t want any of those changes and don’t even like the House bill. So the Senate’s going to have their own special brand of problems, Jody, as you know well from watching it. But I still think it’s possible to get this thing done before July 4th. I think we should have had it done before April 1st myself, but— We are where we are. People still trying to get there, though. And that’s the good thing. And I would just say I have to say this because a lot of people say, well, why don’t you guys just vote lockstep like the Democrats do? We don’t do that because we’re trying to rip our constituents. We’re trying to get President Trump what he wants. We’re trying to save the country. And we’re trying to stop this massive growth of the structural deficit, because even with the cuts that the House bill makes, You’re going to be well north of $60 trillion in national debt in 10 years, Jody. And so it’s very important that you take care of this stuff.
SPEAKER 08 :
Absolutely. I want to get to the issue with James Comey here. But before I do, I think some people are really confused on how a reconciliation bill really holds within it the ability to advance President Trump’s agenda. Can you, in a real brief moment, just kind of give a bird’s eye view as to how that works?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, because what you’re doing is you’re reconciling spending with reductions. So in other words, you have to find the pay-fors, right? And so that allows us to basically lock in and say, we’re going to do this border security program, but we know it’s going to cost $20 billion. So we’re going to pay for that $20 billion by imposing sanctions. are taking away a Green New Deal subsidy that cost $20 billion. And now you’ve reconciled that. That’s the way it works. And that’s why it’s a little bit more difficult than normal budgeting. But what it is, is it’s absolutely finding if you’re going to have a program, you got to pay for it.
SPEAKER 08 :
That’s the way to move forward. All right, we just have a few minutes left. I want to get to this whole issue, disturbing news, frankly, with former FBI Director James Comey. I’m sure you’ve seen the image he posted on Instagram where he put up the 8647, which certainly has been interpreted, at least, as a call to potentially assassinate President Trump. What do you make of this situation? It’s pretty unbelievable.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, it’s an incredibly dangerous situation. First of all, let’s contextually admit that President Trump receives more death threats than anybody else in the world, number one. Number two, there’s actually been two physical attempts on his life that, through God’s grace, he survived and lived. Number three, you have a guy who was the head of the federal police apparatus of the United States of America. a former prosecutor saying that he didn’t know that 86-47 had a connotation of violence. I just don’t believe that. There’s no way I can accept that because 86-47 has actually been making the rounds as a call to assassinate President Trump. So for him to later put out a post after he takes that down saying, hey, I had no idea it had any connotation with violence. Either he was the most naive and ignorant of prosecutors and FBI directors we’ve ever seen, or else he was being untruthful and declaiming and explaining that, oh, I didn’t know that that was a cult of violence. Very, very dangerous, Jody. Very dangerous to have him fueling some of these crazos out there that want to kill President Trump. And he fueled it.
SPEAKER 08 :
So you would take this as a threat really coming from Comey?
SPEAKER 04 :
I would, yeah. I mean, no less than the DNI director, Tulsi Gabbard, who you and I both served with, and we know her well. She said, look, he should be in jail because that is a call to violence, a call to assassinate the president.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, there’s no way. I totally agree with you. I don’t think there’s any way the former FBI director could look at these two numbers and not recognize what they meant. And then for him to come back and say he had no idea. Well, if he had no idea what they meant, why did he post them in the first place? I mean, it’s just random numbers. What would he think that it meant? But it’s just unthinkable that he didn’t know exactly. what he was posting, and for political reasons that he may have. Congressman Andy Biggs, always great to see you, my friend. Thank you, as always, for the incredible work you do, your leadership there in Washington and abroad, and for always coming on the Washington Watch program. We appreciate it greatly.
SPEAKER 04 :
God bless you and DeeDee and your family and all of the Washington Watch family.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thanks for having me. Thank you, Andy. Great to see you. God bless. All right, friends, coming up, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday regarding the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions that are issued by lower courts. Josh Hammer will join me right after the break as we unpack that. Stay tuned.
SPEAKER 20 :
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 13 :
Faith and family made our country, it’s the foundation that made our country not only great, but good.
SPEAKER 17 :
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 11 :
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 05 :
Having the Family Research Council to guide us is critically important to being able to do the right thing consistently.
SPEAKER 20 :
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 12 :
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 22 :
There’s 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 12 :
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 22 :
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 12 :
Pre-order today at embracethedesign.com.
SPEAKER 03 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to The Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at The Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Great to have you on board with us today. I’m Jody Heiss. All right. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated case Trump v. Casa. This is a case that examines the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential actions. And as you can imagine, the case is being very closely watched as it certainly has implications on constitutional issues. Goodness, things like birthright citizenship and judicial overreach and just a host of things. But what exactly was argued and how might this affect the political future of America? Well, joining me now to discuss this is Josh Hammer. He’s the senior counsel for the Article III project, as well as the Internet Accountability Project. He’s also an active member of the Texas State Bar, and he serves also as a senior editor-at-large for Newsweek, in addition to hosting a number of podcasts where he frequently touches on political, cultural, and legal issues. Josh, welcome back to Washington Watch. Great to have you.
SPEAKER 14 :
It’s a pleasure to be here. Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, this is a big case that the Supreme Court is reviewing right now. What are some of the prevailing arguments in this case?
SPEAKER 14 :
So I think the most interesting thing, Jody, about this particular case is that it is a birthright citizenship case that is not currently being litigated, at least before the justice, as a birthright citizenship case. So let’s be very clear here. I mean, this does emerge out of the executive order that President Trump signed within the first – hours of his presidency interpreting Section 1 of the 14th Amendment so as to not require birthright citizenship as a constitutional requirement for the children of illegal aliens born here. I have argued for many years, including just over the past few months, that this is indeed a correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the citizenship clause. But Trump’s lawyers, namely the Solicitor General of the United States, John Sauer, who’s a fantastic attorney, former clerk for Justice Scalia, who’s also a former S.G. of Missouri, very brilliant lawyer. I think what he basically decided here, Jody, is he was basically just counting the votes and he decided that there were not five solid votes for that view, even though it is the correct view. So he made a tactical decision to argue this on Thursday at the court. as about the scope of relief here. And this is a very legal way of saying here that what we’re actually talking about is the legitimacy of the so-called nationwide injunctions that the lower court judges slapped on the Donald Trump executive order. So I’m not expecting a ruling from the courts to probably even touch the actual substantive 14th Amendment issue. I would be very surprised. They’re probably going to stick just to the actual judicial power question as to whether or not these nationwide injunctions are proper, to which I personally have a very simple answer, which is no, they are wholly improper. They are wholly illegitimate there. The judicial power of the United States does not encompass the ability. of a rogue, random, one-off lower court judge to bring an entire federal government program to a halt. This is simply not the system, Jody, that our founding fathers devised. The judiciary, as we know from Federalist No. 78 with Alexander Hamilton, was always supposed to be the least dangerous branch. And as Abraham Lincoln put it in his first inaugural address of 1861, to make all the great political and legal questions and to put that in the hands of the judiciary as the sole, final, and binding arbiter of these questions would essentially mean that we, the people, have ceased to be our own rulers. So this is not the system that we signed up for. This is not the reason that the patriots of 1776 rebelled against King George III in the first place there. I am cautiously optimistic that the justice will do the right thing, but we shall see.
SPEAKER 08 :
OK, so when we’re talking about a nationwide injunction, you covered a lot of ground there. But basically, we’re talking about a lower court judge dealing with a specific case, making a decision and that decision having national enforcement, national implications rather than just on the case before the judge. Is that correct?
SPEAKER 14 :
That’s exactly correct, yes. So the whole question here, among others, I suppose, but really the key question is what are the legitimate confines of the judicial power, which is the first line of Article 3 of the Constitution? And for what my money is worth, my reading, Jody, of the judicial power is that a court has the power to bind the parties before it, to bind the plaintiff and the defendant. You frankly don’t need to be a legal scholar here. All you need is some good old fashioned common sense. I mean, if John sues Jane and they end up in court there and the court issues a judgment, it is John and Jane who are bound. You know, Tommy, who’s back at home munching on potato chips, watching TV. He’s not bound there. If Tommy ends up getting dragged into court for a similar lawsuit a month, a year from now, whatever, there that judge can view the previous suit as persuasive authority. But Tommy is not bound by that judgment.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, that’s a great analogy and a word picture there. Tell me this. You are certainly of the opinion that the ability to issue these nationwide injunctions violates not only the Constitution and not only the role of the judiciary, but even self-governance itself. Run down that path, because I think that’s an extremely important part of this whole thing that people need to understand. So unpack that for us, if you would.
SPEAKER 14 :
Sure. So we’re dealing here with a system of judicial supremacy, with this notion that not just the judiciary, but in this particular case, that lower court judges, district court judges, even court of appeals judges. We’re dealing here with a system where they are supreme because they have the power to nullify any congressionally enacted law, any president’s executive order there. And this is simply not the judicial review that this country was founded on. So, Jody, a lot of people like to talk about the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, which we will recall from our high school civics and whatnot there. So that was the case where Chief Justice John Marshall says that it is emphatically the province of the judiciary to declare what the law is. This is the founding of judicial review. But people forget what Marshall said in the sentence directly after that. What Marshall said in the sentence directly after that is that, well, you’re going to have to then interpret and expound upon the law in particular cases. That’s the key point, Jody, in particular cases there. Judicial review in our system has to do with specific cases, specific litigants. That’s the John Jane example there. There’s no notion. that the judiciary is the sole, final, exclusive, final binding arbiter of legal questions there. That is tyranny. That is judicial tyranny, is black robe tyranny. It might be a little less authoritarian than various other forms of tyranny that have existed, but it is ultimately just a similar stripe of tyranny, the very likes of which the founding fathers and those brave men back in 1776, the reason that they rebelled against the crown in the first place there. The judiciary has a role, but it is a very limited role. And ultimately, Jody, they have to know their place when it comes to Congress and the executive branch.
SPEAKER 08 :
Could not agree more. I want to thank you, Josh Hammer, senior counsel for the Article 3 project. Great job bringing this before us and making that, which is quite complicated, understandable. So thank you so much for joining us today on Washington Watch. We’ll be keeping a pulse on this. Look forward to talking to you further.
SPEAKER 14 :
My pleasure. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, friends, we’ve got a lot more coming your way. Up next, I’ll be speaking with FRC’s Ariel Del Turco, as well as Chris Gasing. They are participating in a summit for peace and reconciliation in Paraguay. Stay tuned to hear what God is doing in that region and in that summit. We’ll be back.
SPEAKER 23 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. That’s why FRC President Tony Perkins went to Capitol Hill to testify on behalf of persecuted Christians in Nigeria. Islamist terror groups target Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria with brutal violence. Representative Chris Smith, who chaired the hearing, said 55,000 people have been killed and 21,000 abducted in the last five years alone. The congressman also stressed that 89% of Christians in the world who are martyred are from Nigeria.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yet the government of Nigeria has failed to make progress against religiously motivated persecution of Christians despite religious freedom being enshrined as an essential human right in their constitution.
SPEAKER 23 :
Tony Perkins called for the United States to send an unmistakable message.
SPEAKER 07 :
This is systematic religious violence. Nigeria must be redesignated a country of particular concern. The Biden administration’s removal of this designation was a reckless mistake that emboldened the very terrorists who are slaughtering Christians.
SPEAKER 23 :
Redesignating Nigeria will enable the U.S. government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians.
SPEAKER 07 :
These are not just numbers. These are fathers, their mothers, their children, their families.
SPEAKER 23 :
Bishop Wilfred Anagabe risked his life to speak out, sharing firsthand accounts of the danger faced in his church district in central Nigeria.
SPEAKER 01 :
We live in fear because at any point it can be our turn to be killed, but to remain silent is to die twice. So I have chosen to speak.
SPEAKER 23 :
FRC is calling on President Trump to act now to promote religious freedom around the globe and speak up on behalf of Christians in Nigeria.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I am your Friday host, Jody Heiss, and so honored to have you on with us today. All right, this week in Ascension, Paraguay, Christians gathered from around the world to attend the Summit for Peace and Reconciliation. Now, as I mentioned earlier in the program, this whole summit It was hosted by Parliament in Faith, but it consists of international leaders, global leaders, including some presidents, some members of parliament, government ministers, pastors, ambassadors, a variety of Christian leaders from around the world. In fact, our very own Ariel Del Turco and Chris Gasek were there to speak at the event. And joining me now to discuss some of the things that they heard and shared in Paraguay is Ariel Del Turco. Chris Gasek, by the way, he is a senior fellow for regulatory affairs here at FRC. Ariel is the director of the Center for Religious Liberties, and she now joins us from Paraguay. Ariel, great to see you. Thanks for taking time to be with us.
SPEAKER 24 :
So good to be with you, Jody.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, tell us a little bit more about the Summit for Peace and Reconciliation. What is the main focus of this event?
SPEAKER 24 :
Yeah, so this is put on by an organization called Parliament and Faith. And really their goal is to bring together people from around the world with a common goal. And this year, their theme for their annual conference is peace and reconciliation. So they have invited people from Rwanda that survived the genocide. They had a pastor from Ukraine and from Russia speak on stage together and pray together on stage. So we’ve had a lot of really profound moments where people affected by situations from around the world, tragic situations, are joining together, united for one cause, and really it’s a virtual organization. So…
SPEAKER 08 :
Amazing. So why was it important, and I think it was, but for FRC to have a presence there and for you and Chris to be able to speak, why was that so important for FRC to be there?
SPEAKER 24 :
Yeah, so FRC is doing more and more international outreach. But actually one thing I thought that was so encouraging was that we are hearing feedback from FRC’s impact across the years. We heard one speaker on the main stage talk about being invited to just attend the Values Voter Summit, which FRC used to put on every single year. Now it’s called the PrayVote Stand Summit. But he was a state legislator from Indiana, and he attended one of our summits, was so deeply impacted that it shaped his worldview. And now he’s on a trajectory where he’s an international leader, and he’s speaking to a high-profile event in Paraguay, sharing a testimony about FRC that we were totally surprised by. We had never even met him. but really it’s showing the impact of FRC around the globe. So we are trying to continue that impact and part of that is going out and speaking to some of these communities of government and pastoral leaders from other countries. Now it’s in Paraguay to an international audience, but I think it’s so important and we’re already seeing some of the benefits too.
SPEAKER 08 :
That’s remarkable. And I think it’s so important for our listeners and viewers to recognize what you just shared, that FRC is enormously expanding the global footprint of the work of FRC around the world. And what you just said is so encouraging to hear how that is having such an impact. Ariel, if you can, share with us a little bit about what you shared in your speech. What was the message that you took?
SPEAKER 24 :
Yeah, so I was on a panel on religious liberty and I was able to share about some of FRC’s work on the issue, representing FRC, but also just the situation around the world that Christians find themselves in where religious freedom is being violated every single day. And here, I really gave a call for action for governments to step up and protect religious freedom. but also for these governments and individuals, pastors, political leaders, to encourage other countries to also respect religious freedom. We’ve been speaking to activists in Paraguay who are trying to work with their government to see Christian refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan and to resettle them here in Paraguay. And she’s fighting an uphill battle, trying to convince her government that this is a good idea, but really we wanted to foster that type of thing. We want to foster other countries promoting religious freedom and protecting it in their own borders. So that’s a little bit of what I shared. Travis Weber, our Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs at FRC, will also be speaking from the main stage tomorrow, sharing about how FRC works and really giving some of these activists from other countries a blueprint of how FRC does things and how they might be able to do things if they wanted to start a pro-family, pro-life organization in their country.
SPEAKER 08 :
Amazing. Ariel, we’ve got less than a minute. How would you encourage American Christians here? What can we do to continue having an impact through FRC in particular around the world? How can we be praying based upon what you’re seeing there?
SPEAKER 24 :
Yeah, we’re living in very important times, really, that are earth-changing, right? We have a new administration with President Trump who’s really making waves around the world, and we feel the impact even here. As American Christians, we need to be focused on influencing the Trump administration, praying for the Trump administration to make sure that their impact to these countries, these poorer, more vulnerable countries like Paraguay, that the impact of the US government is good, is moral, stands for family values and stands for life. One more thing I wanted to share was that the speaker to the house in Paraguay, he spoke on the opening ceremony and he shared really passionately about his Christian faith and even- Ariel, we’ve got to hold it right there.
SPEAKER 08 :
We’re running out. Stay tuned, friends. Thank you, Ariel. Send our love to the rest. We’ll be back in just a second.
SPEAKER 13 :
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 15 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful 13-part series that equips you with biblical truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. From the Ten Commandments in Classrooms, to the immigration crisis of America, we’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. New episodes available each Monday. To view the series on the Stand Firm app, text COURSE to 67742.
SPEAKER 20 :
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 08 :
Thank you so much for joining us today on Washington Watch. I’m your Friday host, Jody Heiss, and glad to have you with us. All right, before we jump into our final segment here, I want to just put out here a call for your help. As we have discussed on the program today, we all know that Congress is involved in trying to hammer out the bills to fund the federal government and all that sort of stuff. Well, right in the middle of all of that, Is the ability, the potential to defund abortion providers, to defund taxpayer gender transition surgeries and all this type of stuff. There’s a potential to accomplish a lot in these type of reconciliation bills. And your voice is. can help. I can tell you, Congress listens when they hear from people. And so we’re encouraging you simply to text the word Congress to 67742. That’s Congress to 67742. And we’ll send a message as to how you can reach out to your congressional delegation and make your voice known. So please do that for us. All right. We, as we enter into this last segment of the week, as we always love to do, we like to try to pack together a package of all the headlines, the biggest headlines of the week, and try to look at them from a biblical worldview perspective. And I always appreciate so much David Clawson. for joining me to help do this week after week. David, of course, is the director of FRC’s Center for Biblical Worldview. He’s also the author of the recently released book, Life After Roe, equipping Christians in the fight for life today. David, as always, thank you so much for joining us on Friday and for helping us have a biblical perspective on what’s happening in the news.
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, joy to be with you again, Jody.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, listen, last week, I know we didn’t. It seemed like we just time just ran away from us. But we were talking, among other things, about the new pope and the congressional efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, as I was just talking about. And I also. had intended last week to go a little bit further about a new law in Washington state, but we ran out of time. However, this week it continues to still be in the news, this mandatory reporting law that also applies to clergy. It’s pretty disturbing. So can we start with that religious liberty issue? I know your Ph.D. dissertation is even about civil disobedience. Kind of remind our viewers, if you can, David, about this new law and why it is potentially an enormous overreach of state authority.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, Jody, you just stated an enormous overreach of civil authority right here. This is Senate Bill 5357 that just two weeks ago, the governor, the new governor there in Washington state signed into law. But as you said, this is legislation that It expands the list of professionals required to report child abuse. And what’s interesting about this is as far as clergy, it eliminated the confessional privilege. This is often known as the clergy penitent privilege and specifically goes out of its way to say that members of the clergy, so think pastors and priests, are prohibited from from invoking certain legal privileges, specifically religious confessions, as a defense against mandatory reporting. Now, in Washington, the Catholic Church has a large presence, and many in Washington, priests are already mandatory reporters. The Catholic Church has done a lot over the last several decades to combat child abuse. This is an issue they take very seriously. But what’s specifically interesting about this, Jody, and why this is kind of risen and why we’re talking about it all over the nation right now, is that this specifically goes after a specific sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I am an evangelical Protestant. I don’t subscribe to the confessional as being a sacrament. But in Catholic theology, one of the means of grace is the sacrament of the confession. Pope Francis in 2019 put out a lengthy statement that the Vatican released talking about the language he uses, the inviolable secrecy of the confession comes, and this is the quote from him, comes directly from the revealed divine right and is rooted in the very nature of the sacrament. So this is a huge deal. And yet… What this law is doing is it would basically force priests to disobey church teaching, disobey, step outside of church authority, and do something that canon law forbids. And so, again, this is super significant that I think people of all faiths should be concerned about.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I think just underscore that people of all faith should be concerned about this. Obviously, the Catholics are in a unique situation there because, as you just mentioned, it’s in their church belief system as a sacrament. In fact, the Archdiocese of Seattle has invoked Acts 5 where it says we must obey God rather than man. And so, I mean, they are in a unique situation. But this goes beyond Catholics, as you just referred to. This is a religious liberty issue. And yes, all of us, what concerns me, David, all of us want to deal with child abuse. I mean, and we’re going to report that. On the other hand, confession is… is a spiritual issue that is not the environment to use as a tattling type instrument. What happens to the religious liberty and the faith, the confidence? of confessing sins if people feel as though they’re going to be tattled on. That’s one problem. The other is we don’t have a definition of what child abuse is in this thing. Child abuse could be not using the right pronoun as far as people in Washington state are concerned. So there just seems to be all sorts of mess in here. Can you just kind of clear the way for us on here and have a biblical perspective.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, and Jody, what you just said is so important. It’s the sacrament of confession for the Catholic Church this week. It could very well be the tax-exempt status of First Baptist next week. Again, because this is a serious encroachment on religious freedom. I actually have the letter, I just printed it, that the Archbishop of Seattle put out in response. And I think this is just a marvelous example of how a A faith leader can speak publicly about this, speak to the powers that be. He specifically quotes the verse you just referenced, Acts 529. He writes this. He says, after the apostles were arrested and thrown into jail for preaching the name of Jesus Christ, St. Peter responds to the Sanhedrin, we must obey God rather than man. This is our stance now in the face of this new law. He goes on, and I think this is really helpful for, again, people of all faiths. He says, once the state asserts the right to dictate religious practices and coerce information obtained within this sacrament, privileged communication, where is the law blind drawn between church and state? What else may the state now demand the right to know? Which other religious practices will it try to legislate? Why is this privileged communication between priest and penitent the only one singled out? And I think he hits the nail right on the head right there, where he’s asking, where is the line between church and state? And what I would argue, and I do argue this in my dissertation, kind of going after what Abraham Kuyper described as sphere sovereignty, The church does occupy its own distinct sphere that has a delegated authority from God. The state has a really important authority, too, as does the family. But where the state begins to dictate faith and practice, specific beliefs and practices of a religious tradition, we have a massive problem and crisis. Frankly, I would say we have a constitutional problem as well. And I think the Justice Department opening an investigation to this law was an encouraging thing to see in the last couple of days.
SPEAKER 08 :
Wow. So are you hearing anything from pastors on the ground in Washington state? Do we have ears open?
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, absolutely. So several pastors, again, specifically it’s been Catholic priests who’ve been raising the alarm simply because their sacrament of confession is such an integral part. Again, I’m not a Catholic, but this idea that one of their sacraments, which is the way they actually receives God’s grace, the priest standing in for Christ. I can’t think of anything more important than that. They are raising the alarm. But yes, pastors from evangelical and Protestant denominations are, again, they’re saying the same thing that what I just said. You know, if it might be the sacrament of confession this week, but could it be the tax-exempt status of First Baptist if the government is allowed to overreach like this without being checked by the public opinion and religious leaders pushing back on it?
SPEAKER 08 :
Wow. Very important case where I’m sure we’ll be keeping a pulse on this as it goes down. But thank you for coming back and filling in some gaps from last week on that issue. If I can’t switch gears with you, David, as we all know, we’ve talked about this a lot of times as well. Chemical abortion is yet again in the news, has been this week. And it’s a topic that you deal with extensively in your new book, Life After Roe. I want to play a clip for you from a hearing that took place Wednesday where Senator Josh Hawley asked HHS Secretary Bobby Kennedy about Mifepristone, which of course is the first of two pills in the chemical abortion regimen. Play this clip.
SPEAKER 09 :
It’s alarming and clearly it indicates that at very least the label should be changed. I’ve asked Marty McCary, who’s the director of FDA, to do a complete review and to report back.
SPEAKER 18 :
Good. Do you have any sense of timeline? I do not. It will be a top priority, though, for you. Is that safe to say? Yes.
SPEAKER 08 :
Wow. All right, David, what do you make of Secretary Kennedy’s pledge to conduct a review of Mifepristone?
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, incredibly encouraged. And obviously, Senator Hawley has shown a light on this issue. Going back to the EPPC report that came out just a matter of weeks ago that showed, you know, it’s about 10.93% of women who take Mifepristone have adverse health effects or reactions to You know, the whole history behind the approval of chemical abortion, which, by the way, we’ve talked about this, Jody, account for upwards of 60 percent of abortions that are taking place. You know, when these pills were initially approved back in 2000 under the Clinton administration, outgoing Clinton administration, there were a lot of safeguards that actually were put in place. The pills were limited to within the first 49 days of gestation. It required three in-person visits. Only certified physicians could actually prescribe and administer the drug. But as we’ve talked about, the Obama administration and then the Biden administration essentially scrapped all of those safeguards. When it comes to chemical abortion, it really is The wild, wild west. You even now have liberal states with these shield laws that allow abortionists in liberal states like Illinois or New York to mail these poisonous pills across state lines. And so this is a huge issue. It’s a huge mess. For those of us who are convictionally pro-life, this is an existential threat to our movement. And so praise God. that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has promised to review it. And we need to be praying. Again, this is the biblical worldview segment. I would be encouraging all of our listeners and viewers to be praying that the FDA and Bobby Kennedy take this very seriously and realize just how dangerous these pills are and take a serious look about revoking that authorization that was given all the way back in September of 2000.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, because as you just referenced, what this in essence would do if it’s not addressed is erase all the pro-life bills in pro-life states that there are. And just they are absolutely meaningless if individuals in those states can continue the rapid pace of abortion that we’re seeing with the chemicals that are underway. So this is huge. I couldn’t agree with you more how encouraging it is to hear Mr. Secretary on that. Let me ask you one more issue here before we wrap things up. President Trump’s approval ratings on the transgender issue, of course, Tony’s been talking about that earlier in the week pretty extensively. But I’d like to ask you about the worldview dimension of all of this. What does… The rise in President Trump’s approval ratings on this issue, the transgender issue, his approval ratings really are outpacing his own overall approval ratings. What does all this tell us about the possible shift, if you will, in the worldview of Americans as a whole?
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, Jody, the numbers are actually quite remarkable. No surprise, only 9% of Democrats approve of President Trump, and yet 19% of Democrats approve of the president’s handling on this issue. Independents, 48% approve overall of President Trump, or excuse me, 27% approve, but 48% approve how he’s handled this issue. And Republicans, no surprise, over 83% overall approve of the president’s job. But when it comes to transgender issues, it’s 90%. So it is really interesting. And the president’s taken decisive action. Think about prohibiting those with gender dysphoria from serving in the military. His executive order on the mutilation of, surgical mutilation of children, making sure that federal taxpayer dollars don’t fund these medical interventions for gender dysphoric youth, his executive order prohibiting men from competing against girls and women in sports. He really has led on this issue in a powerful way. And one of the things we’ve talked about really since last year, I think there kind of has been a cultural vibe shift, so to speak. And I do think this is related to the transgender movement overreaching. I think, you know, the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. There was a lot of ideologues who thought transgenderism would just be normalized in the same way, kind of at breakneck speed. But I think a lot of Americans, Jody, realize that with transgenderism, you really are inverting the creation order. It doesn’t take… Even, you know, biblical revelation to understand that a boy can’t become a girl or a girl can’t become a boy. And even people in deep liberal states don’t want their little girls having to compete against boys. And so I think what we’ve seen is by pushing so strongly against the created order, the transgender movement has lost a lot of support that it had even just a couple of years ago. And so I do think the creation order is winning out here and President Trump is reaping the benefits of leading on this issue. Let’s pray that he continues to do so.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, absolutely. I think that’s a great way to end the program and end the week, a call to prayer over these issues. And I think, too, David, this opens wide the door, an enormous opportunity for pastors to engage with biblical truth on this issue in a way that their people will listen and respond. There is a shift taking place. The church and spiritual leaders need to engage it. David Claussen, director of FRC’s Center for Biblical Worldview. As always, thank you so much for sharing a biblical worldview on the news for us. Friends, that wraps up this week. Hope you have a wonderful weekend. We’ll be back next week right here on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 19 :
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.
