← Them Before Us
Them Before Us
87 SCOTUS Win for Christian Counseling and a Commentator Under Fire for Promoting Marriage and Family
00:48:15
Loading summary
Transcript42 lines
- [00:02]
A
Welcome to Them Before Us on American Family Radio, where we strive to put children before adults. Our goal is to educate the public on a child centric perspective of marriage and family and represent the rights of children on policy matters. Now here's the host and founder of Them Before Us, Katie Foust.
- [00:21]
B
Welcome to Them Before Us Radio. I'm your host, Katie Faust, founder and president of Them Before Us, here to give you one hour of child centric content talking about what we're seeing seeing in the culture as it relates to marriage, family and children. But we always kick things off with a little bit of Bible time. And since this is Holy Week. Happy Holy Week to you. We wanted to pause and kind of hover there for a little bit to help us with that. We've got our Them Before Us Executive director Josh Wood, who has done some reflection this week about how you can celebrate Holy Week with your whole family. So, Josh, tell us a little bit about what you've been thinking.
- [01:01]
A
Well, I like to make sure that our family is intentional about discipleship, as we all probably should be. The hard part is it's really busy all the time. And so one way that we try to make sure we're making the most of our discipleship opportunities is paying attention to the calendar. And spring gives us such a great opportunity with this week. And so just give you a little perspective on how we celebrated Holy Week that can just maybe stir some ideas for you for next time or maybe even one of these. I think you can celebrate any time of the year, but we read each dinner time. We talk about beginning on Palm Sunday. We read the Palm Sunday verses. We had Gideon, our little two year old, screaming Hosanna at the dinner table, which is so fun. And then we share a story themed around each and every day. And so you've got Palm Sunday, you've got Tuesday is a great opportunity to share about the cleansing of the temple and talking about how Jesus specifically rebuked the money changers, not just because they were changing money, but because they had placed money above God. They had loved money so much they were willing to use it to oppress God's people. And that was Jesus house. And so he cleaned that house because he said there will be no other gods before me. One big day that we celebrate. And I would say this is probably the highlight other than Easter of our week is Passover, Passover day. And so we actually take time as a family to read not only the Passover story, both from the Exodus, but then also how Jesus is our true Passover lamb and talk about Last supper and the foot washing and the Eucharist, how they broke the bread and drank the wine. And then we actually pull out our own document. We call it a Passover document. Right now it's just my wife and I, our memories in there. But we actually talk about if Passover means remembering all the times God's delivered us, then how have we seen God deliver our family throughout our history? The whole point is for us to remember, for us to write God's scriptures into our kids hearts. And we want to give them some of our faith. And some of that means recounting some of the stories just like the Israelites said. Remember when they got delivered from Egypt. We try to give them our own stories. That could be, you know, walking through seasons of miscarriage. It could be this time God delivered this opportunity or, you know, when we were missionaries, this funding we never thought we'd have. But we share from our Passover document. It's kind of a running document that Corinne and I share. And we share the times. He's been really faithful to us. And then we ask them some good questions like, you know, when did God show up for you this year? How did he surprise you? What can you learn from the fact that he's been there before when you face a new situation where you're needing your faith again? And so we'd spend a lot of time lighting candles and reading and really spending some intentional time with that Passover to try to make it a really sacred night for our family, a time to build faith. And then of course, Good Friday we read the Passion narrative. I think you may need to put some kids to bed for that. It's not appropriate for everybody, but you can tell it in your own words or put some kids to bed and share it from the scriptures. That's not a happy go lucky night, right? It's heavy. And that's kind of what it's supposed to be. But you're talking about the hope we have even amidst that struggle. And so we do Good Friday and then of course we go to Easter Sunday. And I think they're easy to just be all down and out about chasing bunny eggs all through the yard and your cute pastels. I think if you've done a really great job through the week talking about what the week is and all the things and Jesus riding into Jerusalem on Paul Sunday on a donkey and the people turning on him and his kingdom being different than they thought and being betrayed and crucified. You get to Sunday and it's okay to just be joyful and happy. And he came again, he rose, he's alive, and the kids celebrate, and it's a fun and happy day. And you don't have to be like, let me cram all this theology into 24 hours. I got to tell you. No, this is the real reason. You've spent all week being intentional. And so that's something that we took up because the calendar affords it its ease, easy way to disciple. It's a good way to share Bible stories. It doesn't feel like it's adding a ton to our week. So that's kind of how we celebrate Holy Week with our whole family.
- [05:32]
B
I love it because I don't think that I did as good of a job, my husband and I, in terms of introducing that kind of structure to the calendar. We love the Bible. We want them to feel confident about the Bible. We can answer their worldview questions. We want them to have a personal relationship. We want them to seek the Lord through His Word every day. But in terms of giving them, like, liturgical structure to kind of hit a lot of these different concepts in concert with the global church, I think that's something I would have done differently just because I appreciate rhythms. I appreciate that when somebody else is making the framework, I have a little more confidence that everything is going to be hit at some point. Like you said, the challenging parts, the communal parts, the parts that are needing to be introduced when they're have a little more emotional maturity, and then the joyous parts. So that's fantastic. If you guys are just at the beginning of your parenting journey, that's some great advice, right? Really simplifying it down to age appropriate levels and then also having a lot of fun. I think we were. We thought we would be bad Christian parents if we only were very strict about making sure that things like Christmas and Easter had to do with scripture in the Bible. And we really loosened up as our kids got older. I don't think I bought Easter baskets for my kids until they were like, teenagers. So now if they get it, they're like, you are kidding me. This is incredible. But I really should have been able to have a little more fun a little bit sooner with Easter.
- [07:05]
A
Yeah, well, I think don't. Anything's better than nothing, right? And so I think that's. Don't shame yourself because you couldn't get it all done or you. I think even just taking an opportunity to start with reading during dinner or after dinner or having one conversation with one of your kids, my, you know, Advice or encouragement would be just try to start fumble through it. They ask you, is this really when Passover was. It's like, I'm not sure. You know, Let me ask ChatGPT. I'm not sure. That's okay. Like, you don't have to be a Bible Expert or a PhD or understand the languages to just get started. Your kids care because you're talking to them about it. It shows it that it's important.
- [07:40]
B
I love it. Well, we wanted to talk a little bit about what happened this week, and there were a few kind of flashpoints that we wanted to focus on. One of them was this speech that Daily Wire host Isabella Brown gave at the CPAC conferen parents. And she's a young mom, she got married early. She already has a baby. And she said this from the stage. If you're not encouraging your children to grow up and have the courage to get married and have kids, more kids than they can afford, before they think they're ready, it's high time to start. So she's actually exactly right that this is a huge battle, a huge area where I don't think a lot of people in their 40s or 50s understand not just the looming demographic crisis that we're facing, but the actual, like, paralyzing fear that a lot, a lot of young people have around dating and marriage and a corrupt timeline, thinking they can push this off until they're financially ready or after they have found themselves or paid off their loans or made partner at the law firm or whatever. And she is saying something that really needs to be said for a variety of different reasons. Get married early, have kids early. Do it even when you don't feel like you're financially ready and sooner than you expect. So there was some pushback about this, specifically from the ladies at the View. So, Josh, what is, what was it that they. How did they interpret what Isabella Brown said?
- [09:08]
A
Well, I mean, they pulled the race card, saying it's about white supremacy, that only want white women to have babies, that it's irresponsible, we're overpopulated. And Kati, I'll tell you, last night I was going to bed and I had saw this Daily Mail article that said, kids don't make you happy and they're ruining your relationship. And I was like, you know, that just runs so counter to literally everything I've ever experienced and read socially in the sciences. And so I honestly, I clicked into it and it linked to this Psychology Today article. I clicked into it and it said, here's a link for our data set. I clicked into it, I downloaded the data set and I just separated it out. And what they had said was, kids don't make you any happier and that kids are ruining your relationship. When I pulled it up, it literally said, of the 12 categories we measured, parents, married parents win 11 out of 12. But it was not too much more. And actually the biggest difference was people between people who are married, single. So actually the biggest happiness is when you get married or when you're in a relationship, not kids. Because single parents and single parents with kids, that really wasn't a big difference either. It's really marriage and relationships. That's what makes it. And so actually we're going to change all this headline around to say kids don't make you happy. I'm just like, what is up with this antinatalist ideology? That it reminds me, I saw something today about this person was posting a picture of this big basilica, beautiful, amazing. And he said, people with hope build for the future. Like, it makes me think this. It's such a hopeless. When I saw that video of the girls on the View, I'm like, you just sound like someone who's lost all hope. And maybe that's an anti religious perspective. I want to believe that they're just speaking out of fear and not some actual like animus towards a certain group having babies. But gosh, it's hard not to hear that and go, where's your hope? Are you just living in despair all the time?
- [11:13]
B
It totally is an ideological problem. I mean, because a lot of their objections were, well, this is only for rich people. And like, if she wanted people to have babies, then we would like do universal child care. We'd make sure that women are paid just as much. And I'm like, well, actually economics really is not the driving factor behind whether or not women choose to have children because the poorest countries in the world are still above replacement rate as it relates to their fertility. But the richest countries are having fewer and fewer children. So it's not economics. And again, like you said, they're like, this is about white supremacy. She's telling only white women to have have babies. Which is just absolutely. I mean, you know that you're at the bottom of your argument bucket when you have to reach for the race card, which is absolutely not what she was saying at all. Of course everybody needs to have more babies, not just white people. And of course that wasn't anywhere in her statement. And then they were like, it doesn't take courage to have kids. Right. It takes courage to live independently. It takes courage to be your own woman. Like, no, it actually does take courage to have kids. It's one of the few things other than marriage. Marriage and children is one of the areas where you have to say, I'm going to risk and put somebody else before myself. And that actually does take a lot of courage in today's day and age because we exalt self, we exalt sex, we exalt safety.
- [12:30]
C
Right.
- [12:30]
B
Personal safety, like risk avoidance, it is sort of the hallmark of the next up and coming generation. So it does take courage to commit to somebody else and it does take courage to welcome new life that will in a lot of ways infringe on your freedom, especially early on. But what the ladies of the didn't choose to acknowledge is that short term death in terms of freedom and maybe finances results in this long term harvest that brings you, as the data says, so much joy.
- [13:00]
A
You hit it. Let's just say it plainly, you're selfish. Like at the end of the day, the majority of people don't choose this. Now there are couples who want to and don't have them. I get it. Or life circumstances. I get it. Let's not pretend that our birth rate crisis is anything but. The fact that having children is a very difficult thing. It is unbelievably joyful and the best thing you can ever do. But at the end of the day, you get that a little bit later it's delayed gratification and it requires a massive change to your life and a lot of short term sacrif sacrifice and putting someone else before yourself. And our culture doesn't serve that. I mean, our culture is all oriented around adults getting what they want, when they want it, at the click of a button, not having to sacrifice. Yeah. The antinatalist view comes down in my mind to speaking to a selfish culture.
- [13:56]
B
Selfishness is a big part of it. I'd say the digitized world is another big part of it. Just in terms of what is it that we're losing? We are hesitant about having children because hesitant about marriage. We're hesitant about marriage because we're hesitant. It's challenging to form dating relationships. It's hard for dating dating relationships because we have fewer and fewer in person connection overall. Whether it's in person friendships, whether it's just, you know, actually going to buy food through the checkout stand versus the self checkout, like we're starving kids of all these opportunities to have in person connection. And they're growing up into A world where having relationships that demand something of you does feel high risk. So we've got a crisis on our hands around what it means to be human. How do we form kids growing up? We've got to get a lot of that right first before we expect people to date, get married, and then have lots of babies. We've got more coming up in the marriage and family world. Stay with us.
- [15:02]
A
Welcome back to Them Before Us on American Family Radio.
- [15:06]
B
Welcome back to Them Before Us Radio. I'm your host Katie Faust, founder and president of Them Before Us here with executive director Josh Wood. And we are going to do all things Supreme Court in this session because they are making some headlines. First and foremost, this critical, groundbreaking, affirming decision that came out earlier this week around freedom of expression. This specific basically had to do with whether or not counselors can talk, whether counselors can talk, the counselor whose job is to talk, whether or not the state can decide what the counselor must say or is forbidden to say. So even though there has. There's an LGBTQ theme to this decision, ultimately this had to do with the First Amendment, the First Amendment that was restricting speech. And ultimately they came down, the Supreme Court came down with an 8 to 1 decision in favor of a Christian counselor that said, I don't want you to coerce or limit what I can say to my clients. Josh, do you want to give us a bit of a rundown about what the Supreme Court was addressing and the implications that this is going to have not just for Colorado, but for the rest of the country?
- [16:21]
A
Well, yes. So you hit it 8 to 1. And as I understand it, I'm not saying I'm a constitutional scholar here, but as I understand it, the justices said that science isn't settled, that this is not an immutable characteristic, that this is not something that is so ingrained. Like we could take race, for example, that sexual orientation isn't so ingrained that it justifies the essentially the controls on speech that these states have implemented. And I think, honestly, Katie, that's a huge statement that we have. I mean, we all remember this almost. It's an immutable, unchangeable part of who I am. And I mean, there was even this kind of quest for the gene that would prove that I couldn't change it. I was born this way. And this court by no means said that that's not true. They didn't say immutable people aren't born that way. They just said the science is clearly not settled enough to impose on Christian counselors. And other people an outright ban because it would harm kids to hear an alternate view, especially kids who are coming to them saying, I want to hear this. I actually saw a pretty progressive person post about this yesterday saying, honestly, the argument was pretty weak. All this Christian counselor was trying to do was talk to people who wanted their advice about a worldview they were seeking. And this progressive was saying, are we really in the business of essentially locking the door behind us, keeping them in this place if they want to change it? I think you're seeing culturally really a shift a step back from the ledge of immutability to where the question of is this really actually just my preference? I just want something really bad. I want to be a certain way or have an orientation. And I think stepping back from I don't have any control of it is actually a huge, huge sea change in the culture.
- [18:30]
B
Good for your progressive leaning friend to recognize that if the idea has merit, it should be able to stand on its own, not necessarily be enforced at the point of a gun, which really is what these laws are doing. So let's just do a quick recap of exactly what was being challenged here. There is a ban in Colorado and in Washington state and in about 20 other states that say that if a child experiences same sex attraction or gender confusion and they go to a therapist, the therapist is only allowed to say you are gay. This is your entire identity and you must act on it. They are not allowed to say, hey, you know what, you're 14 years old, maybe you've had some struggles or trauma in your life. Maybe you're not even at the place where you should say you're identifying as something sexual because you're just on the cusp of puberty here. Like there is no way to even talk that through short of full affirmation that will not have your license questioned or even revoked. So they actually get determined this based on first amendment grounds like a limitation of free expression. Obviously considerations came in of this is not just the science. But ultimately this came down to can the state enforce one specific viewpoint? And I heard it, you know, in the legal reasoning, look, 50 years ago, 40 years ago, homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder. So would you like the state coming down and determining that counselors are supposed to tell anybody with same sex attraction or who identifies as gay that they actually are psychotic and need to be put on medication? Because that's the other side of rules like this. I mean, what is the state allowed to determine and what are they not allowed to determine it? You Know, I. I posted Alliance Defending Freedom. Her par excellence was taking the lead on this case and they won it. They choose their case as well so that the correct question can be posed to get the specific answer that needs to be filled in terms of the gap in judicial precedence. So they chose this case. And I responded to their post the Wind, and I said, this is incredible. I remember when Washington state was passing this law in 2018, and I lined up a few people that experienced same sex attraction to testify against our supposed conversion therapy ban because they needed to talk it through. Both of them had kind of plunged head first into the LGBT world, the LGBT life. They had an attraction, they were acting on it. They were orienting their entire identity. They were saturated in the community and they felt awful. It didn't help them. They didn't find peace. And it was only when they went to a counselor to do what they just call talk therapy, where the counselor said, well, it makes sense that you are craving male attention. Your father died when you were seven. You didn't get the male love that you needed. And then you had an over connected attachment with your mother. So you were much more attached, like, associated with the feminine. And so you're obviously seeking the masculine. And it was just like a light bulb went off for him, like, oh, there's a reason for why I'm behaving this way. And while he would say, I still have same sex attraction, I mean, I know him, I love this guy, but he's like, but it does not determine my destiny. And I understand that this actually comes from a deficit of male connection. So now instead of getting that at a club with four different guys in the same night, I get it at church from men that are taking me to the men's breakfast, and I'm going on retreats with guys and I'm helping to, you know, do the remodel on the church kitchen. And that is where I'm getting my male connection. And actually my romantic same sex attraction is dropping because now I understand that I can meet those needs on a friendship level, not a sexual level. That is talk therapy. That is what Colorado and 20 other states have said you are not allowed to do. If somebody comes to you confused about their gender, the only thing you can say is, take these hormones, cut off your breasts, and if you do not affirm that kind of pathway of quote unquote treatment, you're at risk of losing your license.
- [22:34]
A
What. What stuck out to me was there was a lone dissenter. Again, if you know anything about our court, we're that doesn't happen all that often. Like, actually, people don't know. The majority of opinions are almost unanimous. It's actually pretty rare that you're going to have one dissenter. And Justice Jackson, my friend Theo Wold, who was a Solicitor General in Idaho, I think he worked for President Trump at one point, he wrote. Last year, Justice Jackson dissented in the Scrometti case, which was the transgender ban on minors gender affirming Care, where she argued that states have no right. States have no right to ban gender transition in minors. Today, as the lone dissent on Chiles, she wrote, there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the states. So the states have no right to pass laws banning children from changing their sex. But states do have the right to ban counselors from telling boys they are not girls. What this spoke to me is really an ideology motivating all decision making that oftentimes you do get kind of pointing two different ways, which is such, I think, just such a challenge with, again, this progressive do what you want to do. Ideology is, it doesn't have an anchor. It doesn't have an unchanging truth. There really is this. Wherever the human heart leads you, whatever empathy leads you to do, we're going to support. Even if, like you see in this case, it kind of leads you to contradict yourself. I know Justice Jackson's very, very smart. She probably understands what she's doing. But it struck to me, like, I honestly think it seems like you're really governed by what is this kind of parent or hypocritical worldview.
- [24:27]
B
It absolutely reveals that ideology, especially leftist ideology, is disconnected from reality. And therefore you will get inconsistency. And that's going, you know, that's challenging for all of us because all of us are going to have ideological prior or presuppositions or like, personal experiences that want to shift our thinking in a certain direction. But anytime we are going to lift our feet off of the ground of especially biological reality, we're going to find that we are working ourselves into a corner as it relates to not being able to be logically consistent. So, you know, in one sentence, we will celebrate Katanji Brown Jackson for being the first woman on the Supreme Court. And in the next breath she'll say, I don't know what a woman is. Right? So which, which is it? And the answer is, it's. It has to be neither in the world of progressive ideology, because the ideology is the, the guiding principle, not reality itself. So, yeah, I, I looked at that I'm like, oh, thank God the founders set up a system where it was not one judge making a decision. And then I was like, hey, you know what would be awesome? Meritocracy as it relates to selecting judges. Because she was not picked just for the sake of her legal background. She was picked. President Biden said, I will pick a black woman to be on the Supreme Court. And anytime you're choosing some characteristic above simple merit, you're going to get somebody that, if that's factoring in, they're not going to be as good of a candidate. And she even had the liberal justices, in essence, like, citing Buck versus Bell to her being like, hey, supreme courts make decisions, bad decisions in the past, like Buck versus Belt. She's getting politely backhanded by the other liberal Supreme Court justices, in essence, for misunderstanding the First Amendment. And I'm like, ooh, girl, I don't know how long you're gonna be on this court, but we're gonna need some really good gatekeepers to make sure that your ideology does not override judicial precedents and coherent reality.
- [26:29]
A
Well, what. What kills me about that is there are incredible African American men and women who. I mean, one of them is on The Supreme Court 100%, who, when we rush to do things like what Biden did, and you may disagree with us on whether Jackson is qualified to be on the Supreme Court, yada, yada, just doing something like that, you do run the risk of putting someone in a position where now the next person who may be imminently qualified is just. People are just going to question why they're there, or they're going to have their opinion tainted unfairly against a race because of how one person did who was selected possibly before they were ready. Again, meritocracy. Absolutely. It's just really unfortunate because you may just incredibly. Bias. I mean, honestly, this is a little off topic, but we have a little bit of this going on even with immigration within our country, where we have certain policies that created tensions that biased people towards all immigrants, where there are so many incredible immigrants in this country, incredible entrepreneurs, incredibly hard workers building incredible families, very religious people. But now because of a few people who were letting the country, you know, over the last four years, you've got a general opinion of why do we need migrants? Why do we need. And I think that's a terrible swing for us to go in. But it was this unconstrained empathy that led us to allowing lots and lots of people in the country. And again, now we're seeing a backlash because we've almost overdone it. And I think that's so sad because the public opinion doesn't need to be changed like that. The public doesn't need to think, you know, someone who is African American can't be on the Supreme Court or they're not qualified, or because she's a black woman, she can't do it, that's a terrible knee jerk response. But when she does make opinions like this, where even the liberal justices on the court are saying, gee whiz, not a good look, that's not good for anybody. That's not good for our relationships, our unity or our opinion.
- [28:45]
B
Content of character versus color of skin. Great idea, great idea. We should totally stick with that. Because you're exactly right. You can have great character content regardless of the color of your skin. And that is what should be elevated right excellence. Especially here, I would say judicial prudence, not whether or not you're a woman, not whether or not you're a minority, but people who are really going to be able to deliver rulings that are based on these first principles. Because real lives are at stake. Real lives are at stake. You know, the kids that are encouraged down the path of gender transition, for example, many of those parents, parents who were absolutely manipulated into supporting their child's quote, unquote, gender transition, did it because a lot of the doctors and counselors said, do you want a living daughter or do you want a dead son? Right. In essence saying your child will kill your, kill themselves if you do not encourage them down this pathway. And counselors were complicit in that. And what happened? The kids, well, and the adults that transition actually have drastically higher rates of suicide. Whereas the ones that resisted those, especially medical interventions, the vast majority, about 85 to 90% of them, end up accepting their male or female body. On the other side of puberty, it looks like time is often what it takes to heal this kind of gender confusion. So what would have happened if we didn't have the kind of legal wherewithal to see clearly the value of the First Amendment here and rule accordingly? Well, what happens is you will trap so many more children. We already have thousands that have de transitioned and talked about how terrible and harmful it was to be medically coerced into this decision that has permanently altered them that they're not going to be able to recover from. How incredible to have, number one, a, a First Amendment that allows this kind of free religion, free exercise, freedom of opinion, and then justices who are able to read the law well and make sure. That counselors are able to help kids that want to reject those identities.
- [31:05]
A
Well, it strikes me that you essentially, we fought battles over what curriculum would be taught in school. We can't have a religious curriculum. We can't have. One side of the debate. We can't have. And now we've got some of those same people who are coming down saying there will only be one ideology taught. You're not allowed to come down and ask anyone any other questions. We have to essentially, as our colleague says, lock them in from the outside to make sure they can't escape. And I think that's just absolutely terrible. Every kid deserves someone to talk to.
- [31:36]
B
Well, hopefully the people that they're talking to is you, mom and dad. You should be their first authority, their first counsel, their first discipler, the one that has information about all of this and the people to whom they can go, even with really challenging questions. So we're so grateful that you choose to tune in over the week. We hope that you have and have had a wonderful Easter. And we will see you here back at Them Before US Radio next weekend.
- [32:01]
A
If you'd like to comment on the show, email commentshembeforeus.com once again, again, here's Katie Faust.
- [32:09]
D
Hey, everyone. Welcome to here for the comments. I'm Jen.
- [32:14]
C
I'm Sam.
- [32:16]
D
And we are talking about coming up with just a perfect canned thing we're going to say at the beginning of our segments. Because I like to go off script a little bit and get a little crazy. And Sam was like, or we could come up with something that happens every time. But you know what, Sam? I don't think people understand the complexities of doing radio or a podcast until you've had to do it. You know, that's true.
- [32:39]
C
It makes it more fun. You know, it's an adventure every start.
- [32:42]
D
That's right. We are here, as always, to talk about the fun comments that we see, negative ones, positive ones. The point of it really is to equip you to answer the kind of commentary you might see online or at least be aware of it, be the things you should be looking for. But we also want to demonstrate that them before us, our messaging, putting children first, that's a message that actually really resonates with people and it really does work and helps change minds. And Sam, can you just set up the interview that we're gonna look at some of the comments for?
- [33:18]
C
Yes. So on Ellen Fisher, she has a show and she basically always has two people come on and they debate a topic. And so this recent One had Katie Faust, which was fantastic with other Katie. The other Katie is, she's been a surrogate two times. She currently was in her second surrogacy. She's donated her eggs and she also is just in that industry and very pro like donating your eggs or doing surrogacy. And so obviously with them before us and Katie Faust, we are very against those industries. And so it was really enjoyable podcast where they debated back and forth. And I think it really like resonated with a lot of people who never think about this topic. It's, you know, if you're not somebody who needed surrogacy or wanted to be a surrogate, like, I feel like you don't think about those ethical questions surrounding those industries very often. And I think it woke a lot of people up because Katie, she held her ground. Our Katie, Katie Faust. And she had an answer for everything. She has the stats, she has the personal story, she has the common sense. And so to be honest, like, I think I, I'm biased, but I think she just did a fantastic job. And yeah, I think a lot of people saw right, right through that too.
- [34:38]
D
Yeah, yeah, she was debating a woman named Katie Mason. Spelled completely differently. But yeah, they're both Katies. So we will refer to, you know, Katie, who's representing the surrogacy side as Katie Mason. But yeah, surrogate, five time egg donor and the founder of Surrogate Support are some of the things from her bio that was written in there. So, so we'll just dive into some of these comments. It's actually a little harder. I was telling Sam this as we were preparing. It's been a little harder to find negative comments on this particular post because it's been overwhelmingly on Katie Faust's side. So many of the comments said Katie Faust appeared way more educated and prepared for the debate. And Katie was saying this in our staff chat yesterday. She kind of plays it down, of course, that she, we think she's brilliant. Like, you do such a great job. And she's like, well, here's the problem. Most folks sort of on the other side of these arguments have never actually had to defend it. They've never sat across from someone who's saying, what about children? What about this study? What about the data here? They've never had to answer. So they just get a lot of applause. Oh my gosh, that's so awesome. You're helping bring a baby into the world. You're making helping all sorts of, of families and they just get all these good feelings and Positive feedback. And they've never had anyone sit across them and say, yeah, the baby you have in your stomach is of value. We're thankful for that baby's life. Also, here's all the ways you're violating that child's rights, and then you have to account for it. That's never happened. So one fun comment that Sam pointed out was from our friend Sammy Parker, who works for Live Action, and she has her own podcast now. So she said, adults have to do the hard thing. If they don't, we force kids to do it for us. Katie is an incredible defender of children's rights. Thanks for hosting this conversation. And Sammy Parker reacts to things from Live actions but accounts. But she also has her own show now called Human Matters Show. So that's a little plug for one of our friends that you guys should go check out her podcast. All right, I am going to read some of the comments. We will give Sam some time to react. We'll just kind of go back and forth from there. This one was fun. This person said, Katie Faust is the goat. She even made Jordan Peterson look unprepared. So this other Katie didn't have a chance. Though Katie Faust was incredibly gracious. The debate. The debate highlighted the toxic empathy on the part of the pro ivf, pro surrogacy crowd, empathizing so deeply for the adult side of the equation that it overwrites, overrides the rights and needs of the child on the other side. What do you think about that? How do you see toxic empathy playing into these topics?
- [37:28]
C
For sure. And I saw that debate with Katie and Jordan Peterson, and she's right. I feel like Katie was just so prepared and gave Jordan Peterson something that he, not. He hadn't really considered that angle before. And it was really fun to see just because. Because he is so smart and he knows what he's talking about and he, you know, covers a lot of those fields. But she just. We really do have it from one angle, and that's from the child's perspective. And so if you're not covering that side of it, then there are going to be gaps that you miss and don't see. And so she did great during that debate. I definitely recommend checking it out. But as far as toxic empathy, I mean, for sure, we were talking about this in another team meeting, but just, you know, anytime you see anything related to the topics that we speak about, IVF and surrogacy and donor conception, anytime a woman is promoting it or doing it for herself, if you go to, like, her page. And like, even Katie, the one who is the surrogate in this debate, if you go to her page and you see the things that she talks about, it's filled with just comments from other women, basically saying, like, wow, you're just, you're so amazing. You're such a gift giver. You're so, your heart is so pure, like, I can't believe you would do that for. And it like, amps that these people up to where it's like, she really, like believes that what she's doing is so good because she has all this support and empathy. But, like, none of them mention the child. None of them, like, even politely contradict what she's doing or ask. Ask the hard questions. You know, during the interview, Katie asked her, I think, one of the most important questions and a question that, like, she should have had an answer to, she should have grappled with, with. She asked her, what if. I know you don't view yourself as the mother to these donor conceived children or to your surrogate children, but what if your children view you as their mother? What if, you know, 18 years down the line they come and they find you, which is actually very common with donor conception and surrogacy and all these, you know, adoption cases. And what if they say, you know, you might not view me as your child, but you're my mom, you are my mother. What would you say to that child? And she didn't really have a response. And it's like, that's like a, that's like a basic question that you should be able to answer. If you're considering doing this or giving your child away or selling your child, you should at least be able to ask the question, how would I explain this to them one day? And if you haven't put thought into that, it's just evidence that you hadn't thought about their perspective at all. And that's the whole issue. That's why Katie Faust was there that day.
- [40:05]
D
So, yeah, those are great points. And that leads perfectly into this comment that I was going to pull up. This woman said, my only problem with that debate was that the surrogate woman's only field of expertise was her own experience. It didn't include people at a bigger level or a group of people. She didn't know anything outside of her own experience. And we all know everyone has different experiences. Her position was her experience invalidated the study. So once Katie could bring up our Katie, Katie Faust, all the stats, all the data, here's what kids feel when they realize they've been donor, conceived, lost their mom at birth.
- [40:41]
A
She.
- [40:41]
D
This lady was saying, well, my experience invalidates that. And this was a losing battle because she couldn't see outside of her own world. She couldn't even consider that her own children would want a relationship with her in the future. So that's a great point.
- [40:54]
B
Yeah.
- [40:55]
C
So heartbreaking too, because, like, that's what every child is hardwired to desire. Every child wants to know their mom, Every child wants to know their dad. Of course, there's broken situations where their parents have, like, abused that. And so it might be like, you know, a traumatic situation, but overall, like, that's what children desire, is to know their parents. And so again, if you can't even consider that while making these decisions, then I don't think you're in the right position to be making these calls and these decisions.
- [41:27]
D
Yeah, that's a great point. The next few are just some positive comments of people kind of changing their minds or their personal experience. This person said says, as someone who struggled with infertility, they've had zero pregnancies over 15 years. I still never think my desire for children trumps a child's right to be conceived ethically and morally, born and raised by their biological parents every step of the way. So my infertility journey will never include IVF and or surrogacy. There's a few other comments. Someone said, I never gave this topic a thought. Honestly, I had nothing against IVF until I heard that this. Wow. It's shined a light on just how in favor it all is to the adult and not the child at all. And someone said, as someone who's adopted, this conversation was extremely validating for me. And the final one, wow, I'm blown away by Katie and her strong stances and very convincing points and statistics. This whole conversation really changed my mind on surrogacy,
- [42:30]
C
you know, and that's why we do what we do. That's why Katie did that whole debate is. It's not really so that the surrogate Katie could, you know, just up and change her mind and cancel any contract she had and never do it again and say that what she did was wrong. You know, the chances of that are kind of. It would be nice. It would be very nice. But, you know, the chances are a little bit lower when someone's in the middle of it to have their mind changed. But we do those debates because. Because we want people who never have thought about it or people who are on the fence or people who are considering it for their own lives to be a surrogate or to hire a surrogate. And I really think that that's what's been done. She's changed so many hearts and minds. And we don't plan on stopping anytime soon. So.
- [43:14]
D
Yeah, exactly. All right, for our final comment, our last few minutes here, this person was against what we were saying, but I thought it was an interesting point that we could talk about. So this person said, I think there's a bit of underlying religious bias in the case of Katie Faust. I think in a perfect family dynamic with a traditional man and woman who follow the template of a biblical family structure, her points make sense. People who have money, they don't have any fertility issues, they have a picturesque life. But life is not perfect and not everyone follows that template. It really comes down to projecting moral beliefs onto something that's much more complicated than the ideals people create. And when you start trying to take away people's all caps choice to follow a different path than what you believe, you're becoming a person who is self righteous and considerate and flat out controlling. People can have their personal opinions, but you cannot take away people's choices to pursue different avenues than you necessarily would. So what's your comment to that? That, oh, well, this is actually secretly relig and you know, again, from the them before us perspective, are we secretly trying to push a religious argument?
- [44:29]
C
Well, first, I do want to say like, yes, we can, we can take away choice in certain situations, especially when that choice directly violates a child's rights. That's not a choice that should be legal. But second, no, I, I don't think we're being secret about anything. I think that we're actually one of the most open organizations out there. We have all these podcasts, we have all of these substacks, we have all of these things on Twitter that we put post and we will answer any question that comes our way. We are not shying away from anything. We don't pretend anything. You know, people on our team, we are religious. There are religious takes that you can have that we think are very solid. But we've also made it clear that we don't have to mention religion one time to defend our position. And I'm pretty sure I watched that entire interview. I can't remember Katie bringing up God one time and, and not that again. She doesn't believe in God. Of course she does, but it's just our arguments. When you believe in God and when you know truth and you know morality, it's like it, you don't necessarily need to specifically talk about those in order to be saying truth. And yeah, there's no, I guess it's like I don't know what they think we're trying to hide because we've been super open. Even if you go to like greater than or if you go to them before us and like our Q and A's, we even talk about like from the religious perspective versus not from a religious perspective. And so if this person thinks we're hiding it, we'd be pretty bad at hiding it if we're putting it on our websites. So that's what I'd have to say.
- [45:59]
D
Right? Yeah. And then before us is very specifically, Katie wanted it this way, not a religious organization. The point is we're making an argument based on natural rights, natural law, the child's natural rights to the one man and one woman he or she came from. The thing is, and this is for Christian radio, right? I mean, some of some people who are listening to this is on TV radio for American Family Radio. So Christian listeners, the hard thing is the secular world can't get away from the reality that God made this world and you live in it. Sorry about it. Sorry, not sorry. One man and one woman make children. That's how it works. But the thing is, let's pretend I'm an atheist and I only believe in evolution. That's how a child gets made, regardless. So, you know, we have to deal with living in the world whether you want to acknowledge a God or not. That is all the time we have for today. We could keep going and going, but that's all the time we got. Thanks for joining us at here for the comments and we will catch you next time.
- [48:12]
B
The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast do not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.