Deborah Flora is joined by Kaley Chiles and John Scruggs of the ADF

In the first hour of today's show, Deborah Flora is joined by Kaley Chiles and John Scruggs of the ADF.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Always fun to be in this studio every Friday at
two o'clock, where Ryan, Christian Toto and myself talked about
the intersection of Hollywood culture and politics, and boy, there
is an intersection there. Really, it's kind of hard to
see any area of our world today that is not politicized,

(00:20):
whether it is our values, our morals, our schools, our
ability to speak freely. It seems as though it has
intersected everything. But I got some good news that we're
going to be talking about today, because there has been.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
A lot of shifting. I don't know whether if you
have felt it or not.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
But it really feels as though in the very groundwater
of the United States of America, there's a shift that
is occurring, a shift where people of goodwill and free thought,
who dare to even ask questions and to look at
empirical evidence are things working are they not working?

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Are heading in different directions.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
We've been hearing a lot of it about gen Z
obviously being the most conservative generation to come along in
quite a while, which they actually defy the old Winston
Churchill adage that anyone who is not a liberal and
when before they're twenty, I think it is maybe it's thirty,
I don't remember exactly is has no heart and anyone

(01:26):
who's not a conservative when they're older has no brain. Well,
I think this generation, this gen Z, And by the way,
if you don't know, I'm a proud mom of two
gen z ers, very very grateful for that, and also
a very very grateful wife to an amazing husband of
twenty five years. So definitely someone who sees the value

(01:47):
in the family and has experienced it. But this gen
Z is waking up. They you know, maybe they were
never sleep because they were actually the generation that was
told all of these promises of all of these utopian
ideas mixed with all of these apocalyptic warnings constantly, and
they're seeing the fallacy of them. Let's talk about, however,

(02:11):
the older generation, which predominantly showed up this weekend for
the No Kings' marches. I want to point a couple
things out. And by the way, do you want to
hear from you, please text use the word Ryan so
it'll come to my attention. Even though this is Deborah Flora,
not Ryan pretty much, I think you probably guessed I
wasn't Ryan schuling fairly early on, but please do text

(02:33):
into five seven seven three nine. That's five seven seven
three nine. And also I want to give you a
heads up we're going to have some great guests on
because one of the areas that has been sustaining our
republic and protecting the rights that government did not give us.
They come from our creator. They are inalienable natural rights.

(02:56):
One of the areas where they had been protected because
it's like too many in power have been ignoring the
Constitution which codifies them, has been in the highest court
of our land, the Supreme Court. So coming up at
two thirty, I'm going to have Kay Childs. She is
the Colorado Springs councilor whose case went to the Supreme

(03:17):
Court just on October six, another unconstitutional free speech impingement
case that is being heard in the highest court of
the land. We'll be talking to her at two thirty
and then coming up at three pm. You want to
miss I have with me one of the plaintiffs of
the Mahmud versus Taylor case where the Supreme Court did

(03:39):
decide six to three that guess what, surprisingly, parents actually
have the constitutional right to raise their children according to
their own values, no matter what school districts or other
elected or not elected members of our larger governmental organizations
try to tell us.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
So those are going to.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
Be two very good interviews and you're not going to
want to miss that. But I want to jump into
the shift that is happening. It's interesting because a lot
of people are referring to the Nome King's marches, and
I always want to give this caveat before I continue.
I one hundred percent will stand for anyone's right to

(04:23):
peacefully organize, to peacefully march, to peacefully make your voices heard,
whether or not I agree with you, because that is
very important, and I want to say, good thing. There
did not seem to be violence with these marches this weekend,
or these protests or whatever you want to call them,
So I am all for that. But I also have

(04:45):
the right to look at it freely and point out
where I disagree, for instance. So what was interesting about
the No Kings marches is this has come after the
Democrat Party stated the DNC earlier this year, as they
were recognizing the crumbling that they are having on.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
So many fronts.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
Obviously lost the last presidential election, lost the House and
the Senate have really a very minimal bench of people
that we can see. I mean, I think they come
to mine in one hand, maybe aoc Hakeem Jeffries, but
pretty much they are starting to see some real challenges

(05:32):
within the party. That's why the DNC earlier this year
declared that they were going to have an organizing summer.
Not quite sure what it is, but their goal was
to try to create a lot of excitement. It seems
to be fueled a lot by what we've been hearing lately,
which is a fair amount of profanity a around what
they're calling dark woke. Try to get angry, let your

(05:55):
anger show. Those are some of the rallying cries of
those who are spoke people for the Democrat Party. But
in the wake of that, one of the things that
happened was this no Kinks marches.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Obviously, it happened once before.

Speaker 1 (06:09):
I just think that it's interesting to me because even
when the Women's March happened, I'm a woman. Obviously I'm
not confused about that. I know what a woman is,
and I am one, and I'm a mom, not a
birthing person. Just in case anybody had any confusion about that.
But I remember asking this question about the Women's March,

(06:30):
because you know, I am grateful for the changes that
had been made by those in the suffrage movement, who
at the turn of the century, going into the nineteen hundred,
stood up so women gained legal rights. We gained the
right to own property, the right to have custody of
our children.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
Those were also major things. The right to vote. Of course.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Then the movement came around in the sixties and it
was not quite so clear what the fight was for,
and it shifted from equal but different between men and women.
That was a rallying cry the suffragettes to equal in
the same which led us to a whole lot of
confusion that we're dealing with today. I think, and I believe,
and I've seen, and what I would ask women is, yes,

(07:14):
I am grateful that prior to the sixties women could
count on one hand the type of careers that were
open to them. You know, you think of teacher, secretary,
nurse mom, which is my favorite job title of all.
And I'm grateful that I can sit here and be
on the air, that I can produce movies, and I

(07:35):
can have run for higher office, that I can be
a business woman. I am grateful for that. So when
the Women's March happened a few years ago. I would
ask women, I knew, what are you marching for? What
right do you want that you do not have? And
it's not enough to say I want free birth control

(07:55):
when it only costs you twelve dollars at target.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
It's not enough to say say.

Speaker 1 (08:00):
We want to have abortion on demand because in states
like Colorado, it happens up until the moment of birth.
So what are people marching for? And they really could
not give me an answer to that. So I look
at the No Kings marches. Now you would think from
the name that they would actually be against monarchs.

Speaker 2 (08:20):
No Kings.

Speaker 1 (08:21):
Right, Here's one thing I just found was interesting. And
certainly we can have a conversation about whether or not
there are constitutional questions of some of what's going on,
But also when you're on day twenty one of a
shutdown for not any real clear purpose and it's actually

(08:41):
starting to harm the Democrats, it just opens up the
way for more executive order actions and actions of the
executive branch. So certainly we can have some conversations about
what is constitutional or not. But if you're saying you
do not want monarchs, here's just something I thought was
funny because we've all seen a lot of the rest
of what happened.

Speaker 2 (09:01):
But obviously it doesn't actually.

Speaker 1 (09:03):
Apply to not wanting monarchs as a principle, because Democrats abroad,
this is an organization representing, yes, you would guess, democrats abroad.
They basically make clear and change their messaging for those
Democrats abroad who happen to be in countries where they
actually have monarchs, because they really did not want to

(09:26):
impinge on that. So they did not want to say, oh,
kings really aren't bad. Necessarily, it's only that we don't
like Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (09:35):
So they changed it.

Speaker 1 (09:36):
By the way, their rally to no tyrants. Okay, many
of you may have heard before. And by the way,
if you're just tuning in, I'm Deborah Flora sitting in
for Ryan Schuling. Part of the background of why I'm
here speaking to you today and why I have so
much passion for our Constitution that has been the miraculous

(09:57):
document that has helped people flourish in an absolutely unprecedented way.
The minute that you release the human spirit to create,
to invent, to produce, to live freely, you see the
engine of human ingenuity that has led to the most

(10:19):
prosperous country really in history, the freest country in history.
Have we moved far away from the Constitution? Yes, And
the further we moved away from the Constitution, the less
our freedoms have become.

Speaker 2 (10:32):
That's what's happened.

Speaker 1 (10:33):
Not that the experiment of America is wrong, but the
further we get away from that ideal, the worse it becomes.
But the reason why I know that so clearly is
I've actually seen real tyrants. I have been in East
Germany when the wall was still up, far beyond the wall.
In fact, I laugh and say that I went from SMU.

(10:54):
I grew up in Colorado, but I went to Southern
Methodist University SMU to a visit to k All the
way back in Leipsick and Dresden, way beyond the wall.
That's what a tyrant looks like. Or in the Soviet
Union when we were there and we need landing, the
time that the coup happened, and the way that people acted,
both in East Germany and in in the Soviet Union

(11:18):
at the time was straight out of George Orbell's in
nineteen eighty four. Afraid to speak up, afraid to make
their voices heard, afraid of their children who are being
indoctrinated by the state, contrary to the very foundation of
Western civilization, which is the family.

Speaker 2 (11:34):
So when they changed it.

Speaker 1 (11:36):
To no Tyrants, I want to ask if you marched
text me five seven seven three nine five seven seven
three nine. First of all, if we had a tyrant
or a king, you wouldn't have been able to march.
You wouldn't have been able to be speaking out, and
I want you to be able to speak out. Here's

(11:58):
where I'm not a fan of of, however, is because
a civil society can only exist when it is that civil.
That means we don't have to even actually like one another,
We don't have to agree with one another. We might
even find what the other person says to be something

(12:18):
that is troubling. However, the one thing that we must
have is the shared understanding that in our constitution it
means we have the right to disagree, the right to live,
think and speak freely without fear. When there is fear,

(12:40):
it begins to shut down the very fabric of a
civil society. And I don't mean being afraid of consequences.
If you are like the Chicago teacher at the No
Kings March, who was walking around basically mimicking getting shot
in the net, a very clear reference to the horrific

(13:03):
Charlie Kirk assassination. Then yes, there should be a sober
understanding that the consequence might be you might lose your job.
That's not the fear I'm talking about. I'm talking about
the fear of political violence. So here's what I was
not a fan of. By the way, some of the
signs that we saw there, signs such as that you.

Speaker 2 (13:24):
Know, Chicago teacherrives time now.

Speaker 1 (13:26):
But here in Denver, let's say, at the Denver Communist
Party table, they had a sign at the No Kings
march that said Charlie Kirk had it coming, prove me wrong.
That was obviously a play on the entire thing that
Charlie Kirk would do, where he would freely go into places,
sit down and offer to have a civil conversation and open.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
It up to being challenged. When you instead say.

Speaker 1 (13:55):
That someone had it coming because they were exercising their
First Amendment rights, that is actually not something that you
are standing up or because really, if you're against tyrants,
if you're against kings, if you're for freedom, then you're
for freedom for everyone.

Speaker 2 (14:10):
To speak without fear.

Speaker 1 (14:11):
How about this one t shirts that people were wearing
in Denver that said make assassinations great again. If you
were at that march, I want to hear from you
five seven seven three nine five seven seven three nine
text Ryan, tell me what you were marching for. What
it really is that you think makes this current administration

(14:33):
or this current president a king. Unlike by the way,
extended shutdown policies, where people were told under Joe Biden
or under some of the leadership, let's say in New
York and other places around the country, that during the
COVID shutdown you were not allowed to go to an
event without a passport. That to me is much more

(14:55):
troubling and in the area of tyrants then what was happening? Okay,
So what is that bearing you know, fruit here or
should we say, maybe rotten fruit. There are some things
that are interesting when I talked about this shift in
the groundswell of what is going on, and one of

(15:19):
those is that the Democrat approval rating is plummeting, is plummeting,
and this is by a CNN poll. So this is
not from some right wing or right of center or
even perhaps middle of the road publication.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
So let's look at this.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
There's a CNN poll that said Democrats have just a
twenty four percent approval rating. Now why is that significant?
The Democrat Party, by the way, not just Congress. Congress
usually is a pretty low one because it's not actually
even doing its job. It's kicking it down to the
bureaucratic level and hasn't made a budget. Congress, for instance,

(15:57):
the House of Representatives that holds the purse strings, has
not made a in over twenty years. But no, the
Democrat Party has an approval rating of just twenty four
percent with a fifty six percent unfavorable rate. That is
the lowest in nearly three decades. One would think, And

(16:17):
I've led organizations, I am a businesswoman.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
I produced different media.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
Projects, and the entire goal is to look at something
after him and say, Okay, if it was a success,
what's working, what's resonating, if it didn't do well, have
some introspection.

Speaker 2 (16:34):
You would think it would actually.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Cause some introspection on the actual policies that are making
Democrat run cities the most dangerous in the country. You
just name them top crime rates. They are run by
Democrats and they have high level of anti Second Amendment laws. Okay,
just look at the policies. Maybe that maybe make you unfavorable,

(16:57):
but no, what was it. What was the DNC's response
to this, By the way, they declared this organizing summer
and things like the No Kings marches, and then they're like,
we're going to really see how we can up our
game on social media.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
That is one of their strategies. Here's what I would say.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
It doesn't matter how much messaging you make when people
wake up and realize that the message is unpopular. When
it's one of hate and political violence. The principles are
bankrupt because they really are sometimes openly socialism, which means
taking from those who are working and giving to others.

(17:36):
The mark theory was from those what they are able
to give and to those according to their need. Well,
that's just redistributing wealth and the policies don't work.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
Time for little soul searching.

Speaker 1 (17:50):
I'm gonna have to break a little bit early here
because I've got a guest coming up that you are
not going to want to miss at the bottom of
the hour, and that.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
Is Kayleie Childs.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
She's a courageous counselor from Colorado, Springs, who has taken
a stand for her right.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
To have a.

Speaker 1 (18:11):
Counselor client relationship where the client is allowed to share
whatever they're thinking about and feeling about and she is
allowed to respond to that. That is in the wake
of a twenty nineteen law that really is an overreach
of speech, and we're going to talk about that, what
the premise of it was out of Colorado, and why
I think Clara once again is on the losing side

(18:34):
of this issue again constitutionally.

Speaker 2 (18:37):
So don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
When we come back, we're gonna be talking about that case,
the Child's versus Salazar case. It was heard on October sixth.
Some encouraging signs came out of that case. Well, don't
go anywhere. I'm Deborah Flora, sitting in for Ryan Shuling. Well,

(18:59):
we're ready to for our guests to join us. I
wanted to go ahead and keep talking a little bit
about some of the top stories and we hope to
be joined here before too long.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
By k Chiles.

Speaker 1 (19:09):
That is based on the case, and I'm going to
set it up for a moment as well, because it
is hopefully going to be a very encouraging outcome. If
you are not familiar with the Childs versus Salazar case
that was heard by the Supreme Court on October six.
It's another case out of Colorado. I gotta tell you

(19:30):
I have actually led the rallies in front of the
Supreme Court steps a couple of times now for Alliance
Defending Freedom, and it is amazing how many times, by
the way, Colorado is on the wrong side of the issue.
And that was proven for them to be on the
wrong side of a couple of issues already three zero

(19:51):
three Creative case as well as the Jack Phillips case.
And I was actually asked to lead the rally for
this case on October six. But in the wake of
the Charlie Kirk assassination, what you know, what has been
happening is a lot of greater attention to security, which
is good, but it was unfortunate. But they had to

(20:12):
cancel the rally because of that environment. And by the way,
before all of that, the rally for the three h
three Creative case. And if you were you know, if
you thought that was not a good case, that was
the case that was brought by Laurie Smith. She is
a website designer who because of the misuse of the

(20:33):
Colorado Civil Rights Act. She was told that she would
not be able to make websites unless she also made
them for same sex marriages. So that was on the
wrong side of the issue, and this one is as well.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
This is Childs versus Salazar.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
And we now actually do have Kaylee Childs calling in
along with her ADF attorney John Scruggs.

Speaker 2 (20:58):
Kaylee and John, thanks so much for joining me.

Speaker 3 (21:02):
Hi, thank you for having us.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
You got it well, I appreciate it. I know you're
just down the road a bit. Let's just jump right
in here because this is based on a twenty nineteen
Colorado law. And by the way, as a parent here
in Colorado was very aware when this law was passed
and how unconstitutional it really is.

Speaker 2 (21:20):
But John, why don't you.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
Real quickly tell us what the case the law said,
and then Kaylee, we're going to get to you and
talk about why you brought this this challenge to the
Supreme Court.

Speaker 4 (21:32):
Absolutely well, like you said, laws passed in twenty nineteen,
and it effectively tells count floors that they can't help
minors realign their identities with their bodies. It effectively pushes
kids toward dangerous drugs and procedures. Even in situations like Kaylee,
where all she's doing and is engaging in voluntary conversations,

(21:54):
kids come to her, Families come to her and want
help struggling with body image, struggling with how to work
through feeling uncomfortable with their bodies, and Coloradas says, you
can't have this voluntary conversation, and it is trying to
shut them down.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
Yeah, and you know, I think what's so troubling about
this is because they tried to use as well as
I think it's nearly two dozen other states that have
made this quote unquote conversion therapy ban, and none of us,
let's be clear, are for horrific practices that used to
happen that involve things like shop therapy and stuff like that.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
That's horrible, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Speaker 1 (22:30):
We're talking about talk therapy and letting a miner who
is wanting to feel comfortable in their own body talk
about that, and that's what's being banned here.

Speaker 2 (22:41):
Is that correct?

Speaker 4 (22:43):
That's absolutely right. You know, if Colorado wants to ban
these you know, als of practices, these conduct you can
go ahead and do that, but that's not what it's
done here. Yeah, really just put a censorship ban on private,
voluntary conversations. It's peering into the counselor's office and saying
some speech is permitted and some speech is it. Some

(23:04):
bees are permitted and some bees aren't, and that's just
not proper. We should let counselors and their clients decide
what's best for them. We shouldn't let the government do.

Speaker 2 (23:12):
So right and so one sided.

Speaker 1 (23:15):
Because just so everyone who's listening is clear, this means
a child, a minor can only say I want to
embrace LGBTQIA lifestyle, not I don't want to and receive help.

Speaker 2 (23:27):
So it's definitely tilted in one direction.

Speaker 1 (23:30):
Kayleie, you're a licensed therapist and you know your your
background is just helping young people. What led you to
challenge this unconstitutional law?

Speaker 3 (23:43):
Well, I have to say that, you know, I've had
this question multiple times, and I think as it sits
with me, I think it's just more of a pattern
of life that I was raised with. If you see something,
say something, and we all impact one another, even.

Speaker 2 (24:02):
Just with our presence.

Speaker 3 (24:03):
And so when I read this statute and had concerns
about it restricting my speech, and the goals of my clients,
And to me, it just kind of seemed like there
was no fence fitting. It was either I would be
part of this process of restricting speech and allowing that

(24:23):
to become normal, or I would stand against it.

Speaker 2 (24:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
Well, and I'm grateful that you did, because saying the
same thing with Lorie Smith, it tastes courageous people to
say this just isn't right. And let's talk about the
fact that you know in your practice, Kaylee, we're not
talking about anything coercive here, this is voluntary.

Speaker 2 (24:43):
What is the nature of the therapy that you do?

Speaker 3 (24:48):
So the therapy I provide is that clients come to
me and we have a conversation about what brings them
to counseling, what problems do they see, what goals to
they have? Maybe and I let them know how I
think I might be helpful based on my experience and
specialty and things like that, and we decide together if

(25:10):
we think we might be a good team to move
forward and make progress. And of course we check in
with each other along the way to make sure that
we're still getting that the goals are trying to get
at and making progress in their minds. And that's pretty
much what I do with all my clients.

Speaker 1 (25:25):
Yeah, and it's client led, it's voluntary, and it allows
young people who are wanting to be comfortable in their
own body have the opportunity to do that.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
You know, Kaylee, it does take courage.

Speaker 1 (25:39):
What has been your experience since you stepped out and
took the stand.

Speaker 3 (25:46):
It's been a pretty amazing experience. I have to say
that when so often we think about the cost of
courage or standing up against something, and we really, I think,
don't think about the cost of silence or of being passive.

(26:08):
And so I definitely just made the choice to do
the next right thing. And it has been an amazing
blessing to me to see God bless me, bless other
people around me, bless people who are currently don't have
access to care because we're able to encourage one another

(26:30):
even as we're struggling under the oppression of this law.

Speaker 2 (26:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (26:36):
I really think when people stand up encourage while they're
you know, are slings and arrows, I really think it
encourages so many others that we find out how many
people actually agree and come alongside and anyone that you
know rejects us because we're standing up for in your case,
your patient's rights, your the miner's rights to ask these
questions and to pursue healing and being comfortable with who

(26:59):
God made them to be our own bodies. You know,
I think it's it's something that it's encouraging to see
those come alongside. Jim, can you talk to this point
because people who criticize or or support the law, I
should say say, well, governments have a right to regulate
those kind of professions that you know, have licenses like

(27:22):
a counselor. And once again, when we talk about this,
this is not conversion therapy that involves anything other than
just and it's not conversion therapy, it's.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Just talk therapy. What why is this speech protected?

Speaker 1 (27:33):
Because I do believe it is. But if you can
explain that to our listeners.

Speaker 2 (27:37):
Sure well.

Speaker 4 (27:38):
Again, like Kayley was saying, all that is happening is
worked conversations that really could have, you know, on the
street with our clients, and the government doesn't doesn't get
to just snap their fingers and turn speech into conduct.
You know, a lot of professionals are licensed, lawyers are
likened right, Yeah, that means the government can prevent lawyers
from making certain arguments and cool and you know, essentially

(28:02):
plain political favorites.

Speaker 2 (28:03):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 4 (28:04):
Business is our license. Sometimes even businesses like newspapers having
a license. That doesn't mean the government has a blank check.
And that's essentially what Colorado is arguing. They're saying, because
we can license you, we can tell you, we can
shut down any conversation, we can tell you what to say,
no matter what it is. And that's pretty dangerous, right
when the government has that much power in situations that

(28:26):
have deep moral, religious, spiritual, you know, implication. You know,
when a family is struggling, they want help that aligns
with their values. Right, you shouldn't have to check with
the government to see, hey, this is aligned with the
government's values. And that's what this case is all about.
It's about the freedom of parents and their kids to

(28:47):
choose what works best for them in the council room,
not what the government said.

Speaker 1 (28:51):
Yeah, I think it's interesting because once again in Colorado,
just like they found in the Jack Phillips case, there
is a government set of endorse speech and believe and
that is supported. But if it's not what the government
agrees with, then that is censored and shut down.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
And the government should never have that role.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
And if you're listening, and you are, you know you
don't believe that miners should change if they want to
be LGBTQ. Just think about this way, what if it
was on the other foot. Well, if a new government
comes in place and says sorry, that speech is now banned,
and you can only embrace this other viewpoint, this is
not good for anybody. Finally, before we head to the break,

(29:29):
I've heard encouraging things from what happened during the hearing,
and there seems to be an indication that the majority
of justices are questioning this violation of free speech, both
Kaylee and also John. From your perspectives, how do you
think the case went the hearing on October sixth?

Speaker 4 (29:48):
Yeah, I'll jump in and they, you know, work confident arguments. Obviously,
you never want to count the justices asking really hard
questions of car Wrider. I think fully so. And at
the end of the day, we just think we're making
common sense arguments. Right as you noted, If the shoe
were on the other foot, I think a lot of
people would be like, oh wait a second, the government

(30:10):
can't do that, And I think the justices asked them
of those questions and they see the danger of government censorship. Ye,
currently in the council room. So we're hopeful and we're
just praying for the best outcome.

Speaker 2 (30:22):
Great.

Speaker 1 (30:23):
Great, And how about you, Kaylee? And a final question
for you, how did you feel it went? And what
would you say to anybody who maybe is still afraid
to stand up, you know, what would you encourage them?

Speaker 3 (30:36):
Well, it was certainly an encouraging day in my life
to be able to just watch the orchestra of our
Supreme Court operates. That was that was really cool for
me to witness in person. And I believe the judges
were receptive to our arguments. And I'm full hope obviously

(31:01):
not just hope in the outcome of the case, but
also hope that you know, I have a greater, firmer
foundation than whatever the outcome of this case is. Yes,
And that's really my hope that anybody listening would would
be encouraged that rarely are things dealt with well in

(31:22):
silence without talking about them, without addressing them.

Speaker 2 (31:25):
Yes, and so we.

Speaker 3 (31:27):
Should always be suspicious when we can't talk about something
and work through it. And that's my encouragement to anyone
is to be able to talk about things clearly and
openly and check ourselves when we are even self censoring.
And what's the motivation there, Yes, because we want to
encourage dialogue.

Speaker 2 (31:48):
I love that.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
Well, we have to head to a break, but thank
you both for calling in and for being a part
of the conversation, and thank you for taking a stand
because this case will have long lasting implications, not just
for your practice, Kaylee and your clients, but for families
around the country. So thank you both, and God bless you.
Thank you very much, Thank you appreciate it. Well, we're

(32:09):
heading to a break now. When we come back, we're
going to wind up this first hour, which has gone
incredibly quickly. Don't go anywhere. I'm Deborah Flores. I'm sitting
in today for my friend Ryan Shuling. Flora's sitting in
for Ryan Sholing. Well, we have a really short segment
here before we head to the break, so I just

(32:30):
want to repeat something that I thought Kaylee Child said
that was very interesting because she spoke up right down
in Color Springs, just a counselor helping really teenagers and
miners sort things out for themselves.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
And why did she do it? She said she did
it because she was raised to see.

Speaker 1 (32:51):
If there is something wrong, you do something about it.
You don't censor yourself, you don't let yourself be censored. Well,
coming up with the break, we've got another courageous woman
who would not be censored. Don't go Anywhere, devor Flora
sitting in for Ryan Shueling.