In this gripping episode of Washington Watch, we delve into a monumental Supreme Court decision that struck down Colorado’s ban on talk therapy for minors. This verdict is a significant win for free speech, marking a new era of liberty for counselors seeking to help patients navigate gender identity issues. We explore how this ruling could impact similar laws across the nation, offering a beacon of hope for many. Join us as we speak with legal experts and those directly affected by this transformative ruling.
SPEAKER 17 :
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, Washington Watch with Tony Perkins starts now.
SPEAKER 10 :
Today, the Supreme Court issued a decisive win for free speech, families, and common sense. It condemned Colorado’s unconstitutional censorship on counseling conversations. In this ruling, the court held that counseling conversations are speech protected by the First Amendment, and that Colorado’s law targeted the viewpoint of people like Kayleigh and her clients.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was Jim Campbell, Chief Legal Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, celebrating a landmark Supreme Court decision from earlier today. It’s a decision that supports First Amendment rights and religious freedom. We’ll discuss the details of this important case and what it means for families a little later. Welcome to this Tuesday, March 31st edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. Great to be back with you. Well, coming up, could a reconciliation bill be the key for fully funding the Department of Homeland Security? I’ll talk about that with Oklahoma Congressman Kevin Hearn. And while President Trump says negotiations with Iran are making progress, the Iranian regime denies that current talks are taking place. We’ll get the latest from Congressman Scott Perry, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a little later. Well, big news today. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado law that banned talk therapy for minors that helped them resolve gender dysphoria, ruling it violates the First Amendment. It was an eight to one decision. The justices said the state went too far by limiting what a licensed counselor could say to patients, calling it unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. I want to bring in Washington stand reporter Casey Harper, who’s live in front of the Supreme Court. Casey, walk us through it. How did this all start and where do things go from here?
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, thanks Tony. It’s a big case and it actually was brought by a Christian therapist who said that this law blocked her from fully talking with willing clients about gender identity and sexual orientation. Just exercising her free speech in conversation was illegal under this law. Now the ruling is going to have big, big ripple effects nationwide because there’s many other laws in other states like it. But what’s the big takeaway? Well, the court is ruling that they’re treating counseling as protected speech, which is really important. Also, when you read through the ruling, they also made a point that the government can’t just pick sides in those conversations on these political issues, because this law in question here said, well, you’re allowed to say that transgenderism is good and encourage it, but you can’t say if someone wanted to ask questions or was trying to navigate it in a more nuanced way, you couldn’t help them through that conversation without running afoul. of the law. Now, these justices found that Colorado’s law did that. They encouraged some viewpoints and discouraged others, and that’s where it ran into the constitutional trouble. And we have a clip here from Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell after today’s ruling.
SPEAKER 10 :
Today, the Supreme Court issued a decisive win for free speech, families, and common sense. It condemned Colorado’s unconstitutional censorship on counseling conversations. And as a result of today’s decision, kids who are wanting to regain comfort with their bodies and live consistently with their sex will now have more freedom to seek help from counselors like Kayleigh.
SPEAKER 15 :
Now, this counselor in question, Kaylee Childs, they found in the case that reached the Supreme Court, she had a response today. Here it is.
SPEAKER 05 :
Kids is a real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. I’m grateful that my speech is protected, but I’m even more excited that families and children seeking access to counseling that respects biological reality will be able to get the help that they need.
SPEAKER 15 :
Now, Tony, supporters are of course calling this a big win for free speech, but we’re going to see many more cases as this plays out from state to state, which has similar laws.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thanks, Casey. It is big news. It’s also worth mentioning that the Family Research Council filed an amicus brief in support of Kaylee in this particular case. We’re going to discuss this a little bit more later in detail with our own expert, Dr. Jennifer Bowens, as well as the Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, Jake Warner. Casey, there’s also some good news coming out of the state of Kansas. Tell us about that.
SPEAKER 15 :
Yeah, that’s right, Tony. Kansas is Republican lawmakers. They passed a law to protect pro-life pregnancy centers, which, as you know, have been facing a lot of persecution. But they’ve also faced some harsh legal crackdowns and regulation of what they can and can’t say to expectant mothers. Actually, very similar to the case that was ruled on at the court right behind me. But the Democratic governor, Laura Kelly, actually vetoed that bill. But now we’ve seen the Republican lawmakers overrode that veto, meaning that law will now take effect.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, Casey, thanks so much for joining us. I know you’re right there in front of the Supreme Court, but we can’t see it. You’re facing the U.S. Capitol. And I’m going to bring in a member of Congress now to talk about the latest on the partial government shutdown. Casey, thanks so much for joining us. All right. I do want to turn to this partial Department of Homeland Security shutdown that’s ongoing. The resolution could, in fact, be another budget reconciliation effort. Joining us now to discuss this and much more, Congressman Kevin Hearn. He serves on the House Ways and Means Committee and is the chair of the House Republican Policy Committee. He represents Oklahoma’s first congressional district. Congressman Hearn, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 19 :
Tony, thanks for having me. Thanks for all you do.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I appreciate that. So let’s talk about this. Congress may be in recess. The House did its work. But we see once again Democrats blocking an effort to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Is a record I’m hearing a reconciliation budget reconciliation measure may be the vehicle to solve this shutdown.
SPEAKER 19 :
Well, as you know, we’ve been talking about a second bite at the apple, so to speak, since we did the one big, beautiful bill last year on July 4th and getting all the things done that we didn’t get done before. And, you know, as I’ve said many times, a reconciliation bill is always possible right up until the time it’s not. And so here we are again. We’re at a place where we could possibly fund the DHS, the baseline funding of DHS in this bill, the portions that we can’t get through in the regular regulatory process. plus the $200 billion in supplemental for military, all of that being paid for by the waste, fraud, and abuse and the mandatory spending, which is what reconciliation says. I was talking to some senators today about the reconciliation process, and it’s good for all the viewers to know the reconciliation process is in place because it prevents you from having to have 60 votes in the Senate. The reality is we will be fine in the Senate The House is where we’re going to have the problem, because you couldn’t make the bill too conservative for me, but we’re going to have people in swing districts that are going to have a real problem with it. The Speaker knows that. We all know that, and we’re working hard to try to figure out a way forward.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, Kevin, you also have an issue of the margins. You’ve only got a couple of seats to work with and you have a historic number of retirements from the House and you have some others that having some health issues. So you’ve got to have every Republican in the chamber to be able to pass a measure.
SPEAKER 19 :
That’s right. And like you said, there’s, there’s a lot of reasons why we don’t have the full, uh, full vote margins that we need, but we can only lose one. Uh, and we know that we have one member that’s going to vote against everything that we do going forward. So we can’t lose any, and that’s a very difficult situation when you’re trying to pass something as monumental as a second reconciliation bill. something that we need to get done because there are so many things, as you just alluded to, funding DHS, protecting our borders, making sure that the illegals that came here, some 10 million plus that came under Joe Biden, that we have a way to get them out of the country. We’re seeing the Iranian watch list. We know that 700 were released to the United States that we haven’t gotten out yet. All of these need to be found and gotten out. And so my friend, the former senator of Oklahoma, is now the DHS secretary. He understands the job before him, and he’s working hard to help navigate the Senate and the House to a place where we can get funded. And that’s obviously Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, now the secretary of DHS.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, it does seem that he has brought the temperature down a little bit, and I do think there’s a way forward there. But you’ve got some recalcitrant Democrats that just are refusing to fund the government, saying that this is about ICE when, in fact, everybody knows or everybody that’s listening should know that ICE is funded. This has nothing to do with ICE.
SPEAKER 19 :
Yeah, I think the only way forward, Tony, we’re at a point now, again, in talking to some of the senators today, and I think it’s important for your viewers to know, just because we’re all back in our districts working, that we’re still talking, trying to find a way forward. It is important to Republicans that we secure this nation, keep our borders secure and our ports secure and making sure that the bad guys are gone. but trying to find a way forward. I think we’re at a point now, after this impasse by what the Senate passed at 3 o’clock in the morning on Friday, and we came back in around midnight on Friday night, passed the CR to fund everything, that we’re at a point now where The leaders in the House and leaders in the Senate are going to have to go to the White House and sit down with the president and find out what we can all move together so that we make sure our nation is secure, because the Democrats are not going to help us in this matter. They’ve shown that since the State of the Union. They’ve shown in their vote against Iran being identified as a state sponsor. I mean, the list goes on, and now we’re seeing them defunding DHS or wanting to bifurcate it and not fund CBP and ICE.
SPEAKER 04 :
Now, Congressman Hearn, you’re a part of the leadership team. You’re a smart guy. You’ve headed up the Republican Study Committee. You’re a business guy, very successful, pragmatic. What do you see as the way forward? I mean, look, realistically, what do you see happening here to move this forward and get something done that secures America’s borders here internally, but also with this war ongoing with Iran, the threats are even higher.
SPEAKER 19 :
Yeah, I think you saw, I think, three or four Democrats support our vote on Friday night. Listen, not every single Democrat is against funding security of our border and ICE. But the stronghold, the stranglehold by the Democrat leadership is making it such where if you vote to do the right thing for America, you’re a bad person. But I do think that it’s unprecedented. In fact, I was asking my staff today to try to find a time in the history where we’ve taken an appropriation bill and had to split it up to be able to get people to pass. And I’ll give you just sort of a side-by-side example. It would be like taking a transportation bill and saying, okay, the only way we’re going to agree to pass this is we have to take bike paths out of it. We have to take railways out of it. We don’t do that. We vote on the bill entirely. And so what happened on the Senate side was something that was totally unprecedented. Removing that, people are not really sure why that happened. But we’ve got to move forward, pass the entire bill, come together and work on this, fund DHS, as we have done in the past. House Republicans, along now with some Democrats, have done this now four times.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right, right. What do you think the prospects are of the Save America Act, which has been a big focus of securing America’s elections?
SPEAKER 19 :
Yeah, I spoke to a group of, we’ll say, less than conservative high school students this morning. That was the first question they asked. But I didn’t know that that’s what they were going to ask. The first thing I let out with was how important in the fundamental freedoms that we have is the right to vote. And we need to protect that as a nation, as does every other nation around the world. It’s how you pick your leaders of your nation. And so, you know, this question came up about the Save America Act, and I said, you know, it’s really very simple. We want to make sure that American citizens that have the right to vote identify themselves when they register to vote. Secondly, when they go to the poll, that individual goes to the poll, that they identify themselves as that person. And then, finally, no mass mailings of absentee ballots. You have to request it through an I.D. process, just like we do here in Oklahoma. And so that’s really the three big issues. If I had thought in the moment that I should have just asked, so are you for anybody in the world that could come in and vote in our elections? And I’m afraid to ask that question because I think of my Democrat colleagues, that’s probably what they want. And that’s why we saw, you know, 10 million plus people come in across the southern border in four years is to create a voter base that didn’t have to approve their citizen, violate our U.S. Constitution and have the Democrats in control forever.
SPEAKER 04 :
I think you’re absolutely right. And of course, also tilt the census so they get greater representation in Congress and so that they can even direct the leadership of the nation, which, as we see right now, it’s closely, closely decided. Congressman Kevin Hearn, great to see you. Thanks so much for taking time out of your busy day to join us.
SPEAKER 19 :
Thanks, Tony.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, folks, something to pray about. The way forward is going to require, I think, divine intervention. Don’t go away. We’re back with more after this. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.
SPEAKER 18 :
A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. That they’re endowed by their Creator.
SPEAKER 11 :
With certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
SPEAKER 04 :
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th birthday, America. May God bless America.
SPEAKER 06 :
I think all people really need to have this type of education.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I can tell you that it’s been an amazing course, period.
SPEAKER 11 :
I think this course is a reminder that a biblical worldview should really impact everything. It impacts our government from the federal to the state to the local. It should impact what we’re doing with our families and with our work.
SPEAKER 12 :
God and Government is a video-driven, Bible-based training course from Family Research Council that explores the connection between biblical principles and American government. In this six-session video series, FRC President Tony Perkins equips participants with a practical understanding of civil government from a biblical worldview.
SPEAKER 09 :
I would encourage all people to take it. I almost wish I would have took it earlier that I could have taught my kids this. I wish I had known these things when we were homeschooling because I think children and my adults now would just greatly be influenced by that information.
SPEAKER 07 :
So I’m an attorney, and for me, it gives me some direct practical knowledge of what I can do to try to impact my legal community, to make better legislation, to try to encourage legislators to make choices that have a biblical worldview, which is what we really want.
SPEAKER 14 :
Any pastor would benefit from taking this course because we are dual citizens, right? We are citizens of the kingdom of God, but we’re also citizens of this great land, and that comes with responsibility.
SPEAKER 11 :
Even as someone who has been involved in these types of issues for a while, you’re learning little bits and pieces of new stuff all the time. But it’s also approachable enough that newer people, younger people, high school, college students, they can really glean something from this. So… I would encourage everybody to take this course, whether it’s the videos, whether it’s doing it in person, bring your Bible study group through it, bring your homeschool group through it, and equip yourself for these challenging days ahead.
SPEAKER 12 :
View the course at frc.org slash God and Government or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. As U.S. military operations against Iran enter their second month, President Trump says productive negotiations are underway with Iranian officials, including direct talks involving the Speaker of… Iran’s parliament. However, Iranian leaders have denied that such negotiations are underway. Joining us now to discuss all of this is Congressman Scott Perry, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He is a former U.S. Army National Guard Brigadier General. He represents the 10th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Congressman Perry, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 20 :
Great to be with you, Tony. And yeah, we’re just past 30 days dealing with Iran, but we’re over 1,500 days dealing with Ukraine. So let’s keep all that in context. And I marveled at your commentary with Iran’s leaders. Who are Iran’s leaders at this point? I’m really not sure what that looks like.
SPEAKER 04 :
I’m not sure anybody wants to raise their hand and say, I’m leading this. Yeah. But by the way, just before our program aired here, just before we got started, the U.S. military reportedly has begun flying B-52 bombers. You know a little bit about flying planes over the Iran, over their territory for the first time since the war begun. What is what does this tell us? What might be happening?
SPEAKER 20 :
Well, a couple things. First of all, the B-52, old but a very strategic asset, devastating firepower in the payload that it carries. So that’s a warning to Iran, but it’s also a signal to the entire world of our dominance and not just superiority in the air, but our dominance, because we’re not going to fly those old planes and jeopardize them if we think that Iran has the capability of shooting one of them down. So I think that’s a signal to China, to Russia, to North Korea, to all of our adversaries that, you know, that this is way ahead of schedule. It’s going as perfectly as any military operation has ever gone. And it signals much bigger things to come if Iran, whoever their leaders are, whoever’s speaking for them, can’t come to the table and end this peaceably. It can get a lot worse, believe it or not.
SPEAKER 04 :
Congressman, I mean, I know we want to wrap this up. It does show that America has been very successful thus far. A lot of pressure here at home, oil prices, gas hitting a record. You know, unfortunately, we’re focused on the short term. But long term, if we don’t finish the work that we started there, the end could be much worse than the former.
SPEAKER 20 :
Well, that’s exactly right. Look, it’s taken 47 years. Every single president has said that they wanted to deal with Iran and that Iran needed to be dealt with. This is the only one that’s been willing to do it. And, of course, at a very critical time, not only with nuclear capability, but importantly, the ability to protect that in their missile shield that they were constructing. And what that means is they were going to continue on a larger scale to threaten the rest of the world. And let’s not forget, Tony, the thousands upon thousands of American lives that have been taken or have been significantly disfigured, the pain and suffering, especially of American service members, at the hands of Iran for the last 47 years. They’ve been directly responsible for it. And that is a cost that is not being measured, as we are concerned with prices of gasoline up and diesel fuel. We don’t seem to worry about the cost in human lives and disfigurement over decades, which is not only horrific and so saddening, but, quite honestly, exceptionally expensive.
SPEAKER 04 :
I could not agree with you more. In fact, I last weekend sent a letter to the president just encouraging him to stay the course, appreciating the leadership that he’s provided on this, despite the polling in the opposite direction. But I think sometimes leadership has to do what they know is right based upon the information they have. And certainly the president and, of course, you serving on the House Intelligence Committee has more information than the average public. But you don’t need information. too much information to realize what you just described as the threat that Iran has been for over 40 years. And this is the first administration to deal with it. I want to go back to something you said, Congressman Perry, just a moment ago about sending a message to Russia and China. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War, earlier today made a comment that we’re watching. We know what Russia and China are doing with Iran. Can you provide some context to that?
SPEAKER 20 :
Well, obviously, they’re allies to Iran, and, you know, there’s things that can’t be divulged. But let’s just say that they’re not on our side. And, of course, in this circumstance, especially with this president, he takes notes on those kind of things. So while there might be handshakes and smiles at the next meeting, the president is not going to forget Iran. who was making life difficult for the United States of America. And I think everybody needs to be on notice. The whole world needs to be on notice that this president, while he will give you grace and find a way to negotiate, and that’s his preference, if you push him too far, he’s not only a man of words, he’s completely a man of action. And Russia and China would do well to take that into consideration if they think they’re going to push the United States around while Donald Trump is the president.
SPEAKER 04 :
A moment ago, I said something about being concerned that the president might pull back before we’re finished. I’m not the only one expressing that. Our Gulf allies have expressed concern that the president might wind down the effort too soon. From your perspective, what is left to be done so that we can say, mission accomplished, we’ve done what we set out to do, and the world is a safer place?
SPEAKER 20 :
I think two things principally. Iran has to have their ability to attack foreign countries in the region especially, but just about just anybody in general, and also the free transition of trade through their area, particularly the Straits of Hormuz. Generally, through the area includes the Houthis and, of course, Hezbollah, Hamas, all that. The whole area, Iran needs to not be able to influence them militarily with terror. That’s number one. Number two, we want Iran to decide, but we need a different style of governance in Iran. We need a different mind-set, one that doesn’t seek to terrorize the world, one that doesn’t seek to impose its jihadist will by the sword. That’s up to Iran to decide, but we’re able to decide which one we’re going to accept. We want them to make the decision, pick their leaders, decide their form of governance. We’re not here to build the United States and the Middle East, but we’re no longer going to accept them threatening us and killing our people and continuing to be the greatest terrorist state in the world. And so I think those are the two do-outs that have yet to be completed.
SPEAKER 04 :
20 seconds. Are we close to seeing a regime change, a different government in place?
SPEAKER 20 :
Well, I think that part of that comes from the Iranian people, but I think they do need some assistance. Understand that while the military has been generally defanged, the security forces, the police, if you will, on the street terrorize their people and continue to do so.
SPEAKER 04 :
Got to leave it there. Thank you, Scott. Stick with us, folks. For over 4,000 years, the Jewish people have had legal, historical, and biblical ties to the land of Israel, especially the heartland of Israel, Judea and Samaria, which much of the world still calls the West Bank. To Israelis, Judea and Samaria is far more than a name. It’s the center of their ancestral homeland where nearly 80% of the Bible’s events took place. Abraham purchased property in Hebron, Jacob in Shechem, Joshua made an altar on Mount Ebal and led the Israelites into a covenant before God. On Mount Gerizim, overlooking Shechem, Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman at the well about worshiping neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth. Judea and Samaria is nearly a quarter of Israel’s current land mass, not a small strip of land on the Jordan River, but a vital and strategic part of the nation’s identity. The October 7th massacre, launched from Gaza, shattered the illusion that giving away territory brings peace. Gaza, which was once seen as the cornerstone of a two-state solution, became a launch pad for terror. Today, only 21% of Israelis support a Palestinian state. Trust in a two-state solution has all but collapsed. The Middle East is changing. Iran’s grip is weakening. New alliances are forming. But Western countries and some U.S. officials still chase the mirage of a two-state solution. History speaks clearly. The 2005 Gaza withdrawal, backed by the U.S., led not to peace, but to a terrorist regime. Judea and Samaria are 24 times larger than Gaza, deeply woven into Israel’s geographic and spiritual fabric. To surrender them would not bring peace. It would invite conflict and existential danger. Family Research Council stands with Israel’s rightful claim to sovereignty. It’s time for America to do the same for history, for justice, and for lasting security in the Middle East. Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m your host, Tony Perkins. I want to thank Jody Heiss for filling in for me for the last couple of weeks as I was out. Always appreciate him sitting behind the microphone for me. All right. In the last segment, Congressman Scott Perry and I discussed the developments on the ground in Iran. Of course, the ongoing military operation has pushed global energy prices higher. President Trump called earlier today for countries feeling the strain from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to join in the effort to reopen it. But with U.S. gas prices now averaging more than $4 a gallon, Well, might this domestic pressure shape America’s international response? Joining me now to discuss this is Brigham McCallan. He’s a senior fellow and director of the Initiative on American Energy Security at the Hudson Institute. Dr. McCallan, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks so much, Tony. It’s great to be back on your show. Let me talk about this. You’re an energy expert. America produces a lot of oil. In fact, under the policies of the previous Trump administration, we positioned ourselves in a much better energy position than we were prior. But we’re still feeling the pinch. Why is that?
SPEAKER 18 :
Yeah, well, great question. The bottom line is this. We’re not facing an immediate U.S. crude oil shortage, but the Strait of Hormuz creates global pricing and confidence shock that moves markets. Brent oil, European oil, Middle Eastern oil, MARITIME INSURANCE, AND THEN GASOLINE AND DIESEL DO MOVE. WHAT AMERICANS ARE PRIMARILY FEELING TODAY ARE DRIVEN BY A FUEL SHOCK, NOT AN ELECTRICITY CRISIS, NOT A NATURAL GAS CRISIS. AND TO BE COMPARABLE, THE SUMMER OF 2022 AFTER RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE, GAS MOVED ABOVE $4 NATIONALLY AND EVEN BRIEFLY APPROACHED $5. SO WE’RE NOT IN UNSEEN TERRITORY, BUT IF THIS WERE THE EARLY 2000s OR forbid the 1970s, we’d be in a lot worse shape.
SPEAKER 04 :
So is a lot of this based upon speculation as opposed to reality?
SPEAKER 18 :
Well, I think markets and analysts move more quickly than barrels. And You know, we hear that oil is fungible. It can be used anywhere. I’ve even said it’s a global commodity. That’s true and it’s not true because different oil has different viscosities, different ratings, different densities. And that also assumes that we have an infrastructure and transportation system that can very easily move barrels around anywhere in the world. That’s not the case. I think oil is overpriced for the US, which is one of the reasons why you’ve seen US oil less expensive than other benchmarks, but I think it’s still too high under the circumstances.
SPEAKER 04 :
So we produce about three quarters or so of our oil domestically. Now, it’s a different type of crude, so it’s not used for everything. We still rely a lot on the heavy crude from overseas. But these headlines that I see like today, in fact, one of the reasons I wanted to have you on, Dr. McCallum, I saw the headline, airlines saying in two weeks they’ll be out of fuel. I think those are scare tactics to try to put pressure on the administration to, I think, prematurely stop the effort in Iran.
SPEAKER 18 :
Well, we’re not, Tony, we’re not running out of oil. In fact, of the 20 million barrels a day that come out of the Strait of Hormuz, most of that goes to China and India. The US gets less than 2% of that oil. We are not running low. Have prices gone up? Yes. Do we need to do more to bring prices back down? Yes. The United States and the Western countries are leveraging some of their oil stockpiles. But you’re right. We’re not going to run out of jet fuel. It’s more competitive. But these are scare tactics. And I frankly wish they’d stop doing that.
SPEAKER 04 :
So what’s this? I mean, this issue of the Strait of Hormuz is not new. I mean, I recall during the Obama administration meeting with some retired military generals that were working on a plan, even at that point, knowing the vulnerability that we had through the Strait of Hormuz. And as you pointed out, we get very little bit of our oil there, but we’re all affected by it because it’s a global market. What’s the way forward there?
SPEAKER 18 :
Well, to your point, it’s inflation psychology. And what starts as a naval choke point, I’ve been through there myself on active duty many years ago with the US Navy. But these become a budget story within days. And with this asymmetric warfare, it is relatively easier for an adversary to shut something down. And you don’t have to physically prevent freighters and tankers from moving through the Strait. They are moving through the Strait, but it’s the threat, because the war risk insurance, the other premiums go up so high, it makes it not economical to move oil. And the way to do that is exactly what we’re doing, degrading Iran’s capability to attack surface vessels in the Straits. We’ve been doing this, you’re right, for many, many years. In the 1980s, we had a naval operation to keep the Straits open from the same people, Iran. So this isn’t new. And I think we’re actually ahead of schedule. But it’s going to take another two to three weeks to get this cleaned up. And that’s America doing it, frankly, by itself. And Trump’s point about, you want your oil, come and get it. What he’s saying is, Europe, you have more skin in the game than America. Why are you not here?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, America is doing the work for the rest of the world. I mean, once again. Dr. McCowan, just have a little less than a minute left. Can America get back to a place that we were in the 50s or so when we were energy independent? Can we get back to that place?
SPEAKER 18 :
I think we can, Tony. One of the fastest ways to do that is to secure our own hemisphere, which we’re well on our way to doing with the Venezuelan oil. and actually bringing Canada into the fold. We talk about a North American powerhouse or a fortress North America. Between the U.S. and Canada, we don’t need critical minerals, we don’t need uranium, and we don’t need anybody else’s oil.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Dr. McCowan, always great to see you. Thanks so much for taking time to join us today. I greatly appreciate your insight.
SPEAKER 18 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I tell you, the policies of this administration… Promoting domestic production is the way forward. You can’t talk about it. You got to do it. At the end of the first administration, they’re doing the second administration. We need to be independent. Very important. We’re seeing it right now. All right, stay tuned. More Washington Watch straight ahead.
SPEAKER 03 :
The family is the oldest, most tested, and most reliable unit of society. It is divinely created and sustained. And yet, there are those who are always tampering with its values and structure. That’s why we need organizations like the Family Research Council that can effectively defend and strengthen the family.
SPEAKER 17 :
Family Research Council began over 40 years ago, like all great movements of God, with prayer. Today, rooted in the heart of the nation’s capital, FRC continues to champion faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview.
SPEAKER 13 :
FRC is one of those bright lights that helps us focus on true north. And I shudder to think, had they not been here, that it could have been worse, worse, worse.
SPEAKER 16 :
The Family Research Council is key. It’s one of a handful of groups that I think will determine whether our children live in a country that enjoyed all of the freedom and all the opportunity that we enjoyed in this great land.
SPEAKER 06 :
It’s just a wonderful parachurch organization that doesn’t seek to take the place of the church, but it seeks to assist the family and the church as we try to move forward successfully, not in a defensive mode, but in an offensive mode as we seek to live our lives according to the Holy Scriptures.
SPEAKER 01 :
FRC is not going to be whooped. You know, we’re going to fight. We’re going to take a stand. And again, we don’t retreat.
SPEAKER 04 :
You will never see in front of this building here in Washington, D.C., a white flag fly. We will never step back. We will never surrender. And we will never be silent.
SPEAKER 12 :
Should a Christian support Israel? That question has become one of the most emotionally charged issues of our time, both in the world and within the church. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins offers a clear biblical and prophetic answer. In his latest book, he examines Israel’s past, present, and future through the lens of scripture, revealing why support for Israel is not rooted in politics, partisanship, or cultural sentiment, but in the unchanging promises of God. Drawing from Genesis to Revelation, Tony Perkins demonstrates that the ultimate rationale for a Christian support for Israel is spiritual. Should a Christian support Israel invites believers to see beyond headlines and ideologies, returning to the foundation of God’s Word to understand His heart for His chosen people and the blessings that flow when we stand with what He has established forever. Text the word Israel to 67742 for more information.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for tuning in and joining us today. The website, TonyPerkins.com. By the way, just as we talk about the oil and our domestic energy production, I grew up in Oklahoma, worked in the oil field in high school. A lot of men and women working in the energy production industry. industry. And it’s tough work. But we need to be grateful for all of the different industries that we have, the men and women who work to make our country prosper and succeed. So just thought I’d give a shout out to those who are working out there in the oil fields of America. All right, our word for today comes from Numbers chapter 35. Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites, you shall appoint six cities of refuge to which a manslayer may flee. And to these you shall add 42 cities. So all the cities that you give to the Levites shall be 48. These shall be given with their common land. Now, the introduction of the cities of refuge marked a significant shift in the administration of justice from a simple eye for an eye response to a system that carefully examined intent, evidence, and circumstances. What was established here reflects principles we still recognize in modern systems of justice today. Throughout the Old Testament, we see the centrality of justice. God is not indifferent to it. In fact, he defines it as Psalm 89 declares, Righteousness and justice are the foundations of your throne. Mercy and truth go before your face. When justice is absent or distorted, as we see today, it is often a sign that a society has drifted from God, who alone establishes the true standard for justice. No God, no justice. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text BIBLE to 67742. That’s BIBLE to 67742. All right. Earlier today, good news, but a shocking decision, a shocking eight to one decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Childs versus Salazar, the state of Colorado. And it was a law banning what is actually talk therapy. They want to call it conversion therapy, but it’s. restricted licensed counselors from engaging in talk therapy with clients. Here to talk about this is Dr. Jennifer Bowens, senior fellow here at the Family Research Council, who has been doing a lot of work at the Family Research Council over the last several years on this issue of helping individuals deal with gender dysphoria. Dr. Bowens, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good to be with you today, Tony.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. So we’re going to talk about the legal angles of this in a little bit with one of the ADF attorneys. But let’s consider the personal context of the relationship between counselors and patient. And from that perspective, your thoughts on today’s decision.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, let me just back up and say this is such a huge, long-awaited victory for those of us in the counseling profession. I can tell you, as both a clinician and as someone who’s educated future upcoming clinicians, I could always tell my colleagues who may have been people of faith or people who didn’t agree with some of the gender agenda And there was a there was a quieting, you know, there was a chilling effect that many of my colleagues were facing, as well as the students that I had in class. You know, whenever the topic would come up, there would be kind of a quieting of them. And this has gone on for a long time. And so to get this victory today is just huge. And I think we have to kind of remember how we were sold this bill of goods that conversion therapy or this idea of torture is actually going on in the counseling session and that there wouldn’t be more outrage because this is illegal. To perform torture is illegal. What we’re talking about and what the Supreme Court… ruled on today is all about talk therapy and actually conducting good practice. So it’s legal again to practice well.
SPEAKER 04 :
So, I mean, this is essentially what this does is removes the muzzle from licensed counselors who were the irony here was that they could talk to, let’s say, a girl that was seeking therapist help to change her gender or to masquerade as the other gender. But that same girl who was trying to come into alignment with her God-given biological sex could not get the same help from the counselor.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, that’s right. Because roughly 23 states had outright bans. I would say, I would call it a counseling ban, not conversion therapy. They banned that clinician from being able to just explore what are the root issues? Why are you struggling in this regard? And they were calling that conversion therapy. And and the Supreme Court ruled today that that that is an issue of speech is a freedom that that the counselor has, as well as every other American.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I’m going to talk about this a little bit more in a moment. We look at the legal aspect, but an eight to one decision out of this court is is quite significant, as you pointed out. You and I have talked about this before, Dr. Bowens, but the I think. and you can agree or not agree, I think you do agree, that this has been done to keep people from addressing the underlying issues. Almost all of the gender dysphoria and a lot of the sexual confusion, the underlying issue is trauma. And without the ability to have the talk counseling, You never get to the core issue. You only masquerade. You put Band-Aids on it. You do this, you know, you give them drugs, but you never address the underlying issue.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, that’s right. And that’s the unfortunate thing is that many Americans have come, many minors, children have come for help from clinicians. And many of these clinicians have been shackled by these laws that prevent them from talking freely and actually getting to the root issue. So not only are they dealing with issues the original issue that brought them to therapy. But now many, many people, as we’re watching young people all over this nation go through a detransitioning process, we’re seeing that the real issue has not been dealt with, and now they’re having to go through all of these other things that the counseling profession has been complicit in helping take them down a path to, as you said, masquerade as somebody else.
SPEAKER 04 :
Dr. Bowens, I want to go back to something you said earlier about the conflict this created internally for some in the field of counseling, because they knew it wasn’t right, but They felt constrained by the external forces. Has these types of laws, as you pointed out, almost half the states have had these bans on talk therapy. Has this kept good people from entering the field of counseling?
SPEAKER 08 :
I’m glad you brought that up, Tony, because I can tell you over the years, I’ve had many requests. Can you talk to my friend who’s thinking about going into counseling, but they’re afraid the way the field is that they’re going to not be licensed or have threats against their license? And that’s a reality. There have been many legal cases. Maybe they haven’t to the place where a person has lost their license, but they get caught up in all these legal battles that take time and energy, et cetera. And people who just want to help don’t want to get caught up in all of the bureaucracy that goes with it and the legal battles that go with it. And so this is a huge day. It’s a huge win for clinicians, but also for anyone who’s hurting and seeking help to know that one, we might have more professionals who are willing to stick their neck out on the line and say, this is the right treatment. But we might also have more people participating in the field who have good values and aren’t just ideologically driven.
SPEAKER 04 :
Dr. Bowen’s final question for you, kind of along the same lines. While the court has said that the state of Colorado, and we’re going to get the legal opinion on this in just a moment as to how widespread this decision may have, the impact may be. But what about associations? Is this going to alter some of the policies and internal guidance that some of these counseling associations that have had that have been just as restrictive?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I certainly hope so. I think we have to realize that there’s a culture at play here. Despite the legal decisions, it’s going to take a long time for some of these organizations and clinicians to make that shift. But hopefully it will be much like the legal case that we saw in New York. where we saw a huge win for that person who detransitioned, and suddenly you have some of the major medical groups.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, when money is at stake, they move quickly. That’s right. I believe it was a $2 million malpractice award. Dr. Bowens, always great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us today. Always appreciate your insight.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good to see you. Thanks, Tony.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, so I want to turn now to kind of the legal aspects of this because it is a major, major decision, as Dr. Bowens was talking about. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Kayleigh Childs and argued the case last fall, called the ruling a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children. Joining me now to discuss this is Jake Warner, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. Jake, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us. Yeah, thanks for having me, Tony. Congratulations. Major victory today, eight to one. I mean, that’s stunning in and of itself. You got the court. It must have been overwhelming for the court to, I mean, the liberal side of the court, the conservative side come to agreement on this.
SPEAKER 02 :
And we’re so thankful a big win for free speech. The US Supreme Court upheld free speech in the counseling room and for it to do so 8 to one is really incredible. You know, we’re so thankful that nearly the full court agreed with our client Kaylee Childs and and supported her right to free speech in her profession as a professional counselor.
SPEAKER 04 :
Now, Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. What key reasoning did he use to say that this law discriminates based upon viewpoint?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, we’ll go back to how the law works. And to provide some context, I’ll talk a little bit about what Kaylee does. You know, Kaylee is a licensed professional counselor, and all she does is speak. She has voluntary conversations with her clients, and she wants to help clients, including on issues of gender identity. But Colorado passed a law that forbids Kaylee from having conversations with clients to help them regain comfort with their biological sex. But the law would allow her to encourage or push kids down the path of gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and procedures. So this is really a one-way counseling ban that prohibits conversations between licensed counselors and willing clients who want help regaining comfort with how God made them. And the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority recognized that. They said, look, this law doesn’t regulate conduct. It’s regulating words. specific conversations, and it’s only banning one side of the debate here, and it’s actually harming kids, preventing kids from getting access to the conversations they want and need to regain comfort with their bodies.
SPEAKER 04 :
Now, Jake, does today’s decision build on previous decisions related to this topic?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, absolutely. If you just look at this particular context, this issue has been going on in lower courts for the better part of 15 years. And lower courts struggled about what kind of scrutiny or how closely to examine these laws under the First Amendment. And this is the first case that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear, and we’re thankful that it said there is no diminishment in the First Amendment right of counselors. Free speech applies in the counseling room, just like it does in other contexts. But if you look more broadly, this case fits in line with a different pattern. Going back a number of years, Colorado has been no respecter of the First Amendment. ADF has litigated multiple cases, including up to the US Supreme Court against the state of Colorado. in its effort to censor ideas that it disagrees with. You think about the Masterpiece Cake Shop decision that ADF won in 2018. Colorado had targeted a cake artist, trying to force him to express messages that he disagreed with. Well then, a few years later, the US Supreme Court decided 303 Creative, a graphic designer and website, creator had challenged the same law that was misused to target Jack, and it was trying to force her to express messages that she disagreed with. And the court said no. While these laws may have many constitutional applications, they can’t be misused to compel speech or to censor speech that the government disagrees with. And here we have a third case where the state of Colorado is trying to censor speech that it disagrees with, and a third time the court said no. Colorado, you need to respect the First Amendment.
SPEAKER 04 :
I mean, they should have also sent Colorado to remedial learning because they just don’t seem to be getting the message of what the Constitution says. Jake, we just have a little over a minute left. About 23 states have laws such as this. Will this have implication for those seeking help in those states?
SPEAKER 02 :
Absolutely. This is a massive win for free speech. And this ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down today, it will help protect counselors not only in Colorado, but in 23 states around the country and over 100 local jurisdictions around the country that have similar laws. The Supreme Court was very clear today that government cannot censor viewpoints that in the counseling room. And this is a big win, not just for Kaylee Childs, but for counselors across the country.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, Jake, I want to commend you and Alliance Defending Freedom, our friends there, for another very, very significant win. We appreciate the work that you guys do and for your clients who are willing to stand and face the heat, but do so for the benefit of many, many other people. So thanks so much for joining us. And again, job well done. Thanks, Tony. It’s a joy. Well, folks, as I mentioned, we have Alliance to Defend Freedom, Liberty Council, First Liberty, and all of these groups do great work, but they have to have clients willing to stand up. And so stand up for your freedoms. Be willing to speak out. That’s all we have time for today. So I’m going to cut to the chase. Just keep standing.
SPEAKER 17 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council. To support our efforts to advance faith, family, and freedom, please text GIVE to 67742. That’s GIVE to 67742. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information, please visit TonyPerkins.com.
