October 10, 2025 • 45 mins
We started this week on the anniversary of the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel and her people in 2023. On In The Market with Janet Parshall this week we turned to our expert on the Jewish people, their history and their prophetic future to talk about the impact of this brutal event, where we stand now in regards to negotiations to end the war and return the hostages and why so many people are turning away from the biblical truth that the Jews are indeed God’s chosen people. We all think of courage as that quality displayed by those who scale great heights or put their lives in danger to save others. But what if one of the most essential types of courage is smaller and more intimate but just as important? Our guest shared her own journey to discover what it means to address the wounds of life and discover the roadmap to true biblical courage and how that discovery can give each of us the ability to make fearless choices that honor God and bring transformative change to our lives and the lives of others. A highly respected evangelist shared with us the role of the conscious in convicting people of their sin and revealing their need for salvation. Should schools determine the mental well-being of our children? An expert in family matters joined us to explore the deeper implications of a new bill that proposes mental health checks for children and why parents should be highly concerned over such a proposal. We have finally reached the end of another eventful week and it is time once again to focus our attention to the front of our radio classroom as your favorite husband and wife teaching team continue to educate us on the many ways that living our lives with a newspaper in one hand the Bible in the other allows us to cut through the confusion of the many voices vying for our attention in today’s marketplace of ideas so that we can hear the clear clarion call of God’s leading for our lives.
Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partners
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
of In the Market with Janet Parshall, and it is
my most sincere hope that you are edified, equipped, enlightened,
encouraged and then it makes you just want to get
out there in the marketplace of ideas and influence and
occupy until he comes. But before you start listening, let
me just take a moment of your time to tell
you about this month's truth tool. It's called The Steadfast
Love of the Lord by my friend and frequent guest,
(00:22):
Doctor Sam Storms. You know, he tells us that so
often we struggle with this idea of feeling like we're
loved by God, or that somehow we've done something that
separates us from the love of God. But we fail
to remember the Scripture that reminds us that while we
were yet sinners, not perfect, not all put together, not
everything's all been worked out while we were yet sinners.
That's when Christ died for us. Love is an action word,
(00:44):
and that's what Doctor Sam Storms reminds us in his book,
The Steadfast Love of God. I don't know about you,
but with the headlines of the day, being reminded of
who God is is about the most precious news I
could hear on a regular basis. And I'd love for
you to have a copy written by a man who
understands the Bible and always delivers rich theology. So just
call eight seven, seven Janet 58. When you give a
(01:05):
gift of any amount, because we are listener supported radio,
we're going to send you a copy of The Steadfast
Love of the Lord. 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet
58 or go online to In the market with Janet Parshall.
Same thing. Scroll down on the page. You'll see the
cover of Sam's book, The Steadfast Love of the Lord,
clicking on make Your Donation and we'll send it to
(01:26):
you again. Listener supported. And when you give a gift,
it keeps us on the air. And what I want
to do in return is keep you growing forward in
your walk with Jesus Christ. By the way, we also
have a group of friends called Partial Partners. Those are
people who give every single month a they get the
truth tool, b they get a weekly newsletter that always
contains some of my writing and an audio piece that
only my partial partners get. I don't set the level
(01:49):
you do if you become a partial partner, but the
idea here is that you're giving on a monthly basis.
So I want you to know how much I appreciate
that as well. So 877 Janet 58 877 77, 58
or online at In the Market with Janet Parshall. When
you're on the website, scroll to the bottom, click on
the cover of the book and it'll walk you through
the rest. Thanks so much. And now, with all my heart,
(02:09):
I hope you hear something today that really changes your
perspective and makes you excited about being a follower of
Jesus Christ. Enjoy the program!
S2 (02:23):
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program
is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of
the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight
and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick
look back at some of the highlights from the week.
S3 (02:42):
I'd like to see what screening tools I have no
idea what they're using and how they're going to do this,
but the questions are upsetting. Sometimes the questions are embarrassing.
You know, you just don't sit down and then you
start asking these embarrassing and upsetting questions and talking about
private things in their mental health. And that makes a
student sometimes feel even worse. And that's another concern I have, Janet,
(03:05):
is because where you tell the brain to focus, it goes.
So if you're constantly asking children, how do you feel?
How do you feel? How do you feel? Are you sad?
Are you sad? You know, after a while, yes. Because
you're you're you're in some ways you're focusing the brain
on those negative thoughts.
S4 (03:21):
The work of the law is written in their heart,
the conscience bearing witness. So I didn't I wasn't talking
about evolution or the existence of God. I was just
speaking directly to that God given conscience. And that conscience
is conscience is on my side. And you can do
the same thing with Uncle Arthur when you're sitting at
the table at Christmas. He's he's anti-God. And you just say,
(03:43):
do you think there's an afterlife? Let him talk and say,
do you think you're a good person? Well, let's go
through those ten commandments and see how you do, and
the conscience will do its duty. And people cannot argue
in the face of conscience because it's, uh, it's so powerful.
It drives men to drink and women drives people to suicide.
That feeling of guilt. And it can be appeased the
moment we give our lives to Christ.
S5 (04:05):
They wanted a ceasefire as long as Hamas could stay
in power. They were supporting Hamas and opposed to Israel.
So now there is a ceasefire available. This war could
end today. Just Hamas has to give up the hostages.
They have to give up authority and power in Gaza
(04:28):
and the very same people that are protesting against Israel.
Why are they not shouting ceasefire now to Hamas? It
just shows that they're they're real attitude was not for
ceasefire but hatred of Israel.
S6 (04:41):
It isolates you when you don't have a good identity
of yourself because you don't want anyone to know you.
You don't want anyone to see your pain. You don't
want them to see you as a mess. Because for
women especially, I think, and I'm sure men suffer with
this as well. I know they do. We're trying to
be what everybody what we think everyone else either needs
(05:05):
us to be or wants us to be. And we
get stuck right there and lose who we truly are
in God's eyes.
S2 (05:16):
To hear the full interviews from any of those guests
go to. In the market with Janet Parshall and click
on Past programs. Here are some other stories making headlines
this week.
S7 (05:26):
Israel and Hamas have agreed to a truce deal raising
hopes of peace after two years of devastating war.
S8 (05:32):
Volkswagen groups release of new models paid off in the
third quarter. The German auto giant reported a 1% rise
in deliveries during the period on Friday.
S9 (05:41):
The US is stepping up pressure on Chinese airlines, proposing
a ban on their use of Russian airspace for flights
to and from America.
S10 (05:48):
Large parts of Kyiv were plunged into darkness in the
early hours of Friday after Russian forces pummeled Ukrainian energy
facilities and a heavy overnight attack.
S2 (06:00):
Janet and Craig have lots to share and they'll put
the first story on the table when we return. To
get more information or to download the podcast of any
of the interviews, go to in the market with Janet.
S1 (06:24):
God is love. But when tragedy strikes, we sometimes question
God's kindness and his mercy. That's why I've chosen the
Steadfast Love of the Lord by Doctor Sam Storms is
this month's truth tool. Learn how to navigate circumstances that
seem to contradict God's unconditional love for you. As for
your copy of The Steadfast Love of the Lord, when
you give a gift of any amount in the market,
call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go
(06:47):
to in the market with Janet Parshall. Happy Friday to you,
my friend. So glad you're going to join us this
week and hope you have a wonderful weekend planned. God
just has a marvelous palette, does he not? I thank
him for the use of color all the time in
the fall. He didn't have to make these seasons with
all of their distinctions, but fall in particular. I just
(07:08):
love seeing how God uses the paintbrush of nature to
declare his glory. So I hope you have a great weekend.
I hope you're going to spend some time out there
among the fall leaves, and really take in this great,
great fall season that we've got. Mr. partial is with me.
He joins me on Fridays. I'm so grateful I'd have
him join me every day if I could get him
to do that. What he does is he comes and
he brings his depth of knowledge of the law because
(07:29):
he's that by training. But more importantly, he comes as
a follower of the law giver himself. In fact, once
upon a time, that's even what his license plate on
his car said law giver as an homage to the Lord.
And he understands the depth and the width and the
breadth of God's Word, which is so extremely important because
he exemplifies what I talk about so often, and that
is going through life with the Bible in one hand
(07:50):
and the newspaper in the other. So put your seatbelt on,
keep your hands inside the ride at all times. We
go pretty fast. Talk about a lot of stories making
headlines and we start with the beginning of the week. Actually,
we're going to start with Sunday. Monday is the first
Monday in October. Why is that significant? Because that's when
the United States Supreme Court starts their term. In fact,
if you wanted to look up an old movie, there
was an interesting movie with Walter Matthau called The First
(08:12):
Monday in October. He played a Supreme Court justice. Just trivia,
but you might find that interesting. But the day before
the Supreme Court starts, it is tradition to have something
in Washington, D.C., known as the Red mass. Now, that's
a Catholic service. It marks the beginning of the Supreme
Court's annual term. They've been doing this for decades. And, uh,
they ask God's blessings on those involved in the administration
(08:35):
of justice. And the name comes from the scarlet robes
worn by the clergy and the judges, which symbolizes the
tongues of the fire of the Holy Spirit. And the
mass is attended by government officials, including Supreme Court justices
and members of Congress. You don't hear much about it.
It's something we know about in Washington. It doesn't tend
to make the news, except it made the news this
(08:56):
year because a man on Sunday was arrested and he
had hundreds of explosive devices outside the church holding the
red mass. The man had a manifesto that he that
suggested that he was targeting, specifically the Supreme Court and Catholics.
And this man, a 41 year old from Arizona and
(09:17):
New Jersey. So he had to plan to come to D.C.,
was apprehended outside the Cathedral of Saint Martin the Apostle
on October 5th. The same day the church held its
annual Red mass, in which a cardinal prays for the
High Court. So this man, by the way, was occupying
a green tent on the steps of the church when
(09:38):
police attempted to clear the area in prep for the
Supreme Court event. He told the police, you might want
to stay back and call the Federales as I have explosives. This,
according to the affidavit and a member of the Metropolitan
Police Department bomb squad, then told him he needed to
move because of a special event. He replied, I'm aware
of that. Uh, the police wrote, threatening to throw a
bomb into the street as a demonstration, adding, I have
(10:00):
hundreds plus of them. Police said that they would remove
him against his will, and he replied, several of your
people are going to die from one of these with
a lighter in one hand. He handed them nine pieces
of paper that amounted to a manifesto entitled Written Negotiations
for the Avoidance of destruction of property via Detonation of
Explosives and the manifestation or the manifestation that Freudian. The
(10:22):
manifesto revealed his significant animosity toward the Catholic Church. Members
of the Jewish faith. Members of the Supreme Court, and
ice and ice facilities. And then he. Quote. Shifted his
right thumb over the top of the butane lighter to
initiate the lighting action and stated, you better have these
people step away or there's going to be deaths. Now
(10:43):
you talk about a scary situation. So the individual then
left the tent to relieve himself on a tree and
was apprehended by three officers, at which point he said
he had a device in his pocket. A bomb squad
technician located in his pocket a vial with a white
cap which contained yellow liquid inside, with an M device
taped to the exterior. This is all according to the
(11:04):
police report. Well after he was arrested, the squad located
a large cache of handmade destructive devices. He was charged
with multiple multiple offenses. And Monday, after reviewing all of
the bombs more carefully, police filed an affidavit from a
bomb technician saying there were over 200 devices recovered from
D1's tent. There was a small, strong smell of acetone
(11:27):
emitting from some of the vials. Some of the liquids
were determined to be nitromethane. The liquid appeared to be
multiple chemicals mixed together. None. In original containers, the devices
appeared to be fully functional. Um. Wow. Craig, I mean,
this this is one of those stories that makes a
little blip if you live in the Midwest or in
the West, and it isn't the first lead story in
your news story. But I have to tell you that
(11:47):
was an intervention from the Lord. There could have been
massive deaths. Um, clearly this man unstable. Uh, but he
was smart enough to figure out how to get a
bunch of devices and to be at the tent in
time for the mass. Your thoughts?
S11 (12:00):
Yeah. Three justices were planning on attending. All were warned
by security personnel not to attend because of that potential risk. Um,
you know, we could say, well, this is just a
one off. It's an aberrant situation. An unhinged person. Well, yes.
Let's assume that there's some, uh, mental problems that this
(12:22):
individual has, but clearly, he was targeting the justices and
clearly those who have a religious worldview and, um, the
three that are reputed to be on the conservative side, uh,
of the court. And we can't take these lightly because
just recently, uh, the would be assassin of Supreme Court
(12:47):
Justice Kavanaugh Who approached his home with weapons and with
every intent. Apparently, according to the evidence of assassinating us,
Justice Kavanaugh and his family was sentenced. Yeah.
S1 (13:01):
Can I can I pause for a second?
S11 (13:03):
So this is a real thing?
S1 (13:04):
Yeah, 100% a real thing. Let me go back. You
brought up Kavanaugh. So let's touch on that for a second,
because we're going to take a look at the Supreme
Court in a couple of big cases this week. But
you realize that the judge who sentenced this man gave
him a lighter sentence, because now he's turning into a transsexual.
Excuse me, Craig, but how does that have any forbearance
on a sentence?
S11 (13:20):
Yeah. And, you know, sentencing is a is an entire
area of law somewhat complicated both in the federal and
state level. But sometimes the sentencing, uh, doesn't fit the crime.
I mean, in fact, Gilbert and Sullivan had a song
to sing about that making, uh, light of, uh, England's, uh,
(13:41):
perpetual battle to make the crime or make the punishment
fit the crime. But that's part of our justice system.
If you give a light sentence for a grave terrible crime,
it doesn't fit. It's also a very bad message to
the American public that they can get away with it,
that they can be treated lightly, that, in fact, maybe
our government sort of sympathizes with your act of potential violence.
(14:05):
So lighter sentence in that case, uh, clearly, uh, inappropriate. Um,
there are sentencing guidelines, but there's a lot of discretion. And, uh,
of course, when you have a justice who becomes a
justice as a result of a very tumultuous political fight,
(14:25):
you know, there's a when you the whole process of
nomination and affirmation, confirmation of a justice to the Supreme
Court is a perfect example of the beauty of our Constitution,
because it's it's there are three branches of the government
and all three are involved. The president, the executive appoints
(14:45):
the Senate, holds a hearing they either confirm or reject,
and then the justice, if confirmed, goes to the third branch,
the Justice Department, the excuse me, the department, um, that, uh,
through the Supreme Court oversees the legality of both the
actions of the president and the Congress. Now, that's the
beauty of the system. When it works.
S1 (15:06):
When it works. Okay, a couple of things. Number one,
I understand that DOJ, if I did my homework right,
is going to seek to appeal the sentencing.
S11 (15:12):
Yeah. Because specifically the sentence, obviously not the guilt.
S1 (15:15):
No. Exactly. Right. So in other words, this story hasn't
got the last chapter written yet. That's right. But again,
if you start using the fact that you're transitioning as
an excuse, they're going to be an uptick already in
this mental illness.
S11 (15:26):
Well, and it's a double edged sword, quite frankly, if
you think about it logically, Janet, if you get a
lighter sentence or argue that you should get a lighter
sentence because you have gender dysphoria, it's one more strong
evidence that it is a form of mental disease and
not a gender choice or a gender identity. Let's call
it one thing or another. But let's not play both games.
S1 (15:49):
Well then, to quote the great bard, you're going to
be hoisted on your own petard. In that case, number two.
You were talking about this system, and it was interesting
because you and I were just talking about the creation
of these three branches of government. And you might want
to share with our friends about a fellow by the
name of Sherman. And when he came up with this idea,
the Continental Congress meets, they're deadlocked. And imagine meeting in
Philadelphia and having to say, okay, blank slate, uh, how
(16:12):
do we do a government? How are we going to
create this?
S11 (16:14):
They were very close. Uh, of course, the Articles of
Confederation collapsed. It was a loose union of states with
states having their own currency and their own military. It
didn't work out. And, uh, it was looking like this
whole experiment and the Revolutionary War was won for nothing.
So they started the constitutional convention with an idea, uh,
(16:34):
that they had to have a republic of some kind,
but they didn't know how. And they worked through all
of the details. By the way, the Bill of rights
wasn't added to it until after the Constitution itself was formed,
but they made good on their promise on that. But
the big. Not the only sticking point. The huge sticking point, though,
was the fact that the small states were saying, now
(16:56):
wait a minute, we're going to be ignored in this Congress,
because if you do it purely by population, well, the
big states, New York and so forth are always going
to win and the little states are going to be ignored.
S1 (17:07):
Rhode Island and Delaware said, hey, what about us?
S11 (17:09):
Absolutely. So, uh, that was that was a sticking point
and really almost threatened to dissolve the Constitutional Convention, which
was held in private because they didn't want to let
the public know until it was the last ink was
dried on the last word of their charter of Rights
and constitutional constitutionality. So here's what happened. They they looked
(17:31):
to London. They looked at England. They knew Parliament, how
it operated. How do we do this? Well, if we
have two houses, one of them has to serve the, the, uh,
each state and the other one has to serve the
more populated States, and they came up with an answer.
And the answer came from Roger Sherman, a Christian Orthodox
Christian follower of Christ who was walking home from church
(17:54):
one day and said, I think I have an idea.
And now it's called the Senate and the House of Representatives.
S1 (18:00):
Exactly right. And this whole idea of this three branches
of government, again, was the idea that given our sinful nature,
we had to have a system of checks and balances.
And that's exactly why we have these three branches in
balance now. So when we come back, it was a
busy day at the court this week, and a very
significant case was heard. We're going to tell you about
it when we get back.
S12 (18:36):
I'm always comforted by this passage in the Psalms, the
Old Testament, the Christian Old Testament. But, um, this is
the psalm of the Jewish people. Psalm of David, Psalm
37 and it says, commit your way to the Lord.
Trust in him, and he will do this. I'll read
it to you. Trust in the Lord and do good.
Dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. Delight yourself
in the Lord, and he will give you the desires
(18:57):
of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord. Trust
in him and he will do this. He will make
your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause.
Like the noonday sun. It says, be still before the
Lord and wait patiently for him. Do not fret when
mids succeed in their ways when they carry out their
wicked schemes. I told my friends Sid on the radio
and he was comforted by it, and I think others
will be as well. We're all comforted by this. I
(19:19):
know that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is
fully in control. We'll let that rest there.
S1 (19:25):
Mm. Bet that didn't make the evening news where you are.
But that's exactly how the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson,
opened a press conference. In case you hadn't figured out,
there's a little, uh, little back and forth going on
in the hill right now because, uh, it's about playing politics. Unfortunately,
it's playing politics with other people's lives. And so this
idea of a government shutdown. By the way, I never, ever,
(19:46):
ever panic about this. It has happened before. When President
Obama was president, the government was shut down for 17 days.
So we get over these things. But it is one
of those areas where there's an awful lot of political posturing,
and then you have to decide whether or not you're
going to play politics, or you're going to discover that really,
you came to town to serve people through principle rather
than politics. And so it goes on over and over
(20:08):
and over again. But I wanted to point that out
in particular, because harkening back to the Continental Congress that
Craig was talking about when they were meeting in private,
they were very, very close to completely and totally unraveling.
It is paramount we go back and study our history
because you see God's hand and how he does step
into the affairs of man over and over and over again.
And of all people, one of the sagely members, and
(20:30):
he was deemed so by his peers was Ben Franklin,
who finally stood up. And I'm going to paraphrase and
put it into modern English, what he said. He said,
you know, we used to open with prayer. We haven't
done that for a while, and it's time that we
start doing it again. So I would like to propose
that from this point forward, we don't do anything until
we start every single meeting with prayer. And they all
said yes. And from that point forward, they started every
(20:53):
meeting of the Continental Congress. This was the prelude to
American government with prayer. So you see, what Mike Johnson
did is in keeping with who we were. And don't
let the general press or the caterwauling of terrorist groups
in our midst tell you that that's wrong, that you're
trying to create Christian nationalism or theocracy. It goes back
(21:13):
to relying on providence, understanding we can't do this by ourselves,
that the government rests on his shoulders, and it serves
us well to go first to him and ask for
his wisdom, his guidance and his direction. But I just
wanted you to hear that that didn't come from Philadelphia
back in the late 1700s. This came from Washington, DC
in October of 2025. So let's go back to the
(21:35):
United States Supreme Court, which is extremely important. So they
had the red mass. The fella gets charged. This could
have resulted in all kinds of people's deaths. Thank you God,
for preventing it from happening. And then on Tuesday, the
Supreme Court heard one of the more controversial cases that
they've heard in a long time, and maybe one of
the most controversial of this term as well. It's called
Giles versus Salazar, and it goes back to Colorado in 2020.
(21:59):
Who put a ban on so-called conversion therapy? That's a term,
by the way. The secularists used no Christian counselor I
know ever has or ever would use that word. Uh,
and that became the issue of a lawsuit, because are
we going to say that a counselor is prohibited from
saying certain kinds of speech to a client? In other words,
the flip side of that is the government coercing a
certain kind of speech. Now this goes back to the
(22:21):
absolute unbearable, um, animus that Colorado has toward Christianity and
people who practice Christianity. What they did is they had
a law that was put under the Colorado prohibit prohibit
conversion therapy for a minor law. A lot of words there,
but you get exactly what the drift is. It was
(22:42):
declared that any effort to, quote, change an individual's sexual orientation,
including efforts to change behaviors or gender expression, or to
eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings towards
individuals of the same sex end quote is inherently harmful
and ineffective. Violators, including licensed therapists, risk losing their professional
credentials and facing penalties of up to $5,000 in fines.
(23:04):
Enter one Caylee Childs, a licensed Colorado therapist. She's a
Christian counselor, and she argued that the ban unconstitutionally suppressed
her First Amendment rights by outlawing talk therapy sessions that
delve into clients unwanted same sex attraction or gender dysphoria
through methods like counseling, prayer, or behavioral strategies. It's kind
(23:26):
of what I'd want. That's exactly the kind of counselor
I'd be looking for, and that's exactly the kind of
approach I'd want. But oh, no, this is Colorado. You
can't bake that cake, Jack. You can't design that website. Okay.
This is a state that just has marked animus, no
matter how many times they've been smacked by the Supreme Court.
And they were, by the way, in the Jack Phillips case,
they haven't changed their wicked, wicked ways. They absolutely continue
(23:48):
to press, press, press, press. And now they want to
coerce speech and say to Kaylee, you can't tell that
to a person who's. And the reason they were arguing
this was right is because her role as a counselor is, quote,
conduct and conduct isn't protected. Have a heart attack, Hannah. Craig,
what's wrong with this?
S11 (24:05):
Well, it's interesting because during the oral arguments, uh, it
was conceded and I read the transcript myself just to
make sure, uh, it was conceded by both sides, particularly
by the state of Colorado. They conceded that the studies
show that about 90% of every pre puberty child who
(24:30):
has any struggles about their so-called gender identity resolves those
in favor of their biology, the biological status of their
sex by the time they reach majority, that's 90%. Resolve
these because of adolescent confusion and so forth. Influence of
the culture. So start off, number one, realizing that the 10%
(24:53):
who are still having problems and need counseling need the
right kind of counseling. And Colorado says, we'll tell you
what's right and what's wrong in terms of counseling on
gender issues.
S1 (25:05):
So you read the transcript. I want to talk a
little bit more about this one when we come back,
because it's huge. And by the way, there are 26
states that have said we got problems here, and we've
got all kinds of European countries that are saying we
have problems in this area. So this could have a
huge impact. More on this case when we return. How
(25:30):
do you keep your finger on the pulse of America
while listening to the heartbeat of God's Word? On in
the market, we look for God's perspective on current events,
become a partial partner today and keep this Christ centered
program on the air. As a benefit, you'll receive exclusive
resources every week prepared just for you. You'll get behind
the scenes Intel from my email to yours. Call 877 Janet,
58 or go online to In the Market with Janet Parshall.
(25:56):
So I want to go back and I want to
pick up on this case because it really, really is significant.
So here's the timeline again. So they have the red
mass on Sunday. They have their opening of the Supreme
Court on Monday in between those two days. Thanks be
to God. They a man who has multiple charges and
over 200 explosive devices and his manifesto, naturally. And he
(26:17):
doesn't like Jews and he doesn't like Catholics, and he
doesn't like the Supreme Court, and he doesn't like ice.
And now, thank goodness, uh, he has, uh, he is
alleged until he is found guilty. That's due process in
this country. But at least he's not going to harm
anybody right now. He is out of, um, harming anybody.
And we're very thankful for that. But on Tuesday, the
Supreme Court hears this case out of Colorado. Kaylee Childs
(26:38):
is the person who said, look, my rights are being
infringed on. She's a Christian counselor in Colorado, and when
minors come into her office, she wants to be able
to use talk therapy and prayer and help people walk
through their struggles. That's exactly what should be done, even
from a secular vantage point. That's the wise thing to do.
If you take a look at the Cass report out
of the UK and this longitudinal study that's 300 pages long,
(26:59):
peer reviewed, passes every bit of scientific scrutiny necessary to
have a legitimate report, particularly in adolescents. We see there's comorbidity,
there's abuse at home, they're autistic. A third of the
autistic community gets involved in this trans stuff now, which
tells you something. Um, unidentified early onset of bipolar depression.
The list goes on and on and on and on.
And Cass also found that for the overwhelming majority of
(27:21):
fact that Craig gave in the last segment, minors who
struggle with this idea, hey, I'm trapped in the wrong body.
They outgrow it. And the biggest cudgel of all, mom
and Dad, the one that you've been told that. What
do you want, a dead son or alive daughter? The
research proves, uh, it doesn't do anything to eradicate suicidal ideations.
In fact, the report found that ideations actually go up.
(27:41):
Well guess what? That didn't come as a surprise. You
got a broken heart and a broken mind, and you
think if you break your body, it's somehow going to
fix things? Well, it doesn't. So we're praying that common
sense will rule the day. And we're praying that the
Supreme Courts will see the common sense in saying Caylee
Childs and all other Christian counselors in the state of Colorado.
Although if this comes down on the side of Caylee,
(28:02):
this will affect Christian counselors across the country. You should
be able to say what you believe when a person
comes to you as a minor and says, I'm struggling,
help me. And that person should be able to talk
it through and the counselor should be able to offer
you prayer. Now, Craig, you read the entire transcript. And
a long time ago you taught me, don't ever read
the tea leaves. You do not know what a judge
is going to do until it's over, because you can.
(28:23):
We have been surprised a gazillion times, but if the
oral arguments were any indication at all, well, you fill
in the blank. What did you think?
S11 (28:32):
Yeah, and they sometimes are. Um, so what I feel
comfortable saying is not what is going to happen, but
what my impression was of what is likely to happen
in terms of the vote. And from the oral arguments
and one of the arguments, by the way, um, was
a technical one, and sometimes you can trip up a
(28:54):
good case on the merits by a problem in the
little procedural details. And in this case, it's the detail
of standing, uh, did, uh, this counselor have enough standing
to bring the lawsuit under article three of the United
States Constitution? Because you have to have a case in controversy,
a live case in controversy that actually, uh, affects you
(29:16):
in some ways, harms you in some way, or potentially
harms you with enough certainty that even if they haven't
come into your counseling office and handcuffed you and dragged
you away, there's still a potential that it could happen. Realistically,
that's standing. And they tried to argue.
S1 (29:33):
They being the state of Colorado.
S11 (29:34):
State of Colorado, Even though they hadn't really raised it
adequately previously. Now, in this most recent iteration, well, she
didn't have standing well. Uh, the Supreme Court looked pretty, um, uh,
interested in that until later on. I think it was.
Justice Sotomayor, after some concessions from the attorney for the
(29:55):
state of Colorado, said, okay, well, that takes care of
the standing issue. Now, I don't know. I can't read
her mind about what she meant by that, but I
think she could have said, okay, I have no further
questions about standing, but I got the impression because of
the context that, okay, standing is not going to derail this.
(30:16):
They'll get to the merits. And they're it's frustrating because
I as you know, I was involved in a First
Amendment case on the merits, wanted a certain result, um,
and I and all the other attorneys who filed a
friend of the court briefs and the court kind of
danced around the merits on the technicality of standing, and
I was very disappointed by that because it was a
(30:38):
critical issue that needs to be decided in this case.
Don't think so. And I think the merits will be decided.
And because of the case in I think it was 2018,
the Supreme Court said, look, uh, by the way, another
case of a legislature in a state sort of hostile against, uh,
Christian run pregnancy help centers passed a law that basically
(31:03):
would have shut down, uh, CPCs and, uh, pregnancy help centers, uh,
by treating their speech like it's conduct that they could regulate.
Now you can regulate, you know, how you, uh, do
medical procedures and how you do physical checkups, but that's conduct.
But you can't regulate unless there's a very slim, uh,
(31:24):
and very high bar, a slim chance that the government
occasionally can do it, regulate speech, but very rarely, and
certainly not in this case. Uh, so they argued in effect,
Colorado did well. Okay, we know Nifflas out there. And
Nifflas said that law got struck down because it was
a a speech suppression rather than a conduct regulation. Um,
(31:47):
but they tried to make what she did in talk therapy,
talking to her clients and patients as, quote, conduct and
therefore could be regulated and therefore we pass muster. I
don't think that's going to pass. I don't think that's
going to win the case. I think the First Amendment
is going to be upheld. And once again, Christians who
(32:07):
have been tired and targeted, and that's I have to
tell you, there's no question in my mind the way
they framed this bill in Colorado. Once again, the same
state that has gone against Christian Bakers and so forth.
Now they're going against Christian counselors. I think they're going
to lose this case. Once again, I think they should. And, uh,
(32:27):
hopefully Christian counselors in that state are free to speak
their mind openly, honestly and professionally, with a client across
the desk in the office, in the privacy and comfort
of their office to help them work through these transgender struggles. Uh,
and here's the crazy thing, Janet. The law would have
applied if it's found valid. I don't think it will.
(32:49):
But if it's found valid, even if a 14 year
old 15 year old comes in with parents and goes, hey,
I'm struggling with this. I know I have these feelings
like I should be a girl, but I don't want
those feelings. I want to talk through this because I
really want to to find my identity as a boy,
(33:10):
because that's what I am. Even in that case, she
would be prohibited from engaging in pursuit of fulfilling what
the patient wants.
S1 (33:20):
Yeah, exactly. So let me put out there some of
the things the justices said. And by the way, again,
you know, it ain't over, as Yogi Bear said, till
the fat lady sings. And we got a long way
to go before this is over. My guess is this
decision will not come down until June of next year,
because this is what we frequently refer to as the
fireworks before the fireworks on the 4th of July. And
this will have this is going to have a cultural impact.
(33:41):
And as I say, 26 states have already stepped up
and said or are currently ready to say no, you're
not going to do this for minors. And then you've
got multiple European countries that have already shifted on this one.
The United States is lagging behind on this in some areas,
but when you get outlets like CNN and other alphabet
soup outlets saying just disappear, posed to overturn the ban,
(34:01):
poised to overturn the ban, they read what you read
and what we heard, which was we think that there
was a lot of questioning on the part of the
justices that said, something's not right here. I'll give you
a couple of examples. Justice Samuel Alito said that the
Colorado law creates a double standard that may amount to
viewpoint discrimination. Well, clearly it is when you're a counselor.
(34:21):
Like I said, what if the state comes along and says,
in Colorado, we only allow you to use Freudian techniques
when you're counseling? We all Gestalt approaches to counseling must
be eliminated. The state can't determine that for goodness sakes.
And then Amy Coney Barrett said, let's say that you
have some medical experts that think gender affirming care should
be is dangerous to children, and some that say this
(34:42):
kind of conversion therapy, talk therapy is dangerous. Can the
state pick a side? And other justices appeared to agree
with the state, which cited what it claims is the
consensus of mental health professionals that verbal based conversion therapy
has shown to be effective. Sotomayor. These. There are studies
that say that this advice does harm people emotionally, physically,
(35:02):
and that therefore it should be stopped. Kavanaugh and Roberts
could be key to deciding this case, um, over this
idea of talk therapy that could be treated the same
as medical practices. And Roberts interestingly cited previous High Court
precedent that didn't distinguish professional speech. She said, just because
they're engaged in conduct, this is your point, Craig, doesn't
(35:25):
mean that their words aren't protected. Here's where I get
a little loosey goosey on this. These are lawyers. Okay.
Don't be making medical decisions. It's a question of speech.
Can a therapist, within the confines of his or her office,
offer a client and their clientele an approach to mental
health issues deemed appropriate by the practitioner? I don't want
(35:45):
to hear Sotomayor talking about. There are studies. She's not
a doctor. You didn't go up there to argue before
Hippocrates and the Hippocratic Oath. You're up there arguing legal cases.
And so it really and truly has to be whether
or not the state has the right to coerce speech. Kaylee.
You can't say this is still even not being able
to say it is a form of coercion. You're coerced
(36:06):
to keep your mouth shut. So I think it's a
free speech issue. Um, and you start in the clinician's office,
and the next thing you do is you move to
other segments of society. And if the government of that
particular state doesn't like your speech, you're silenced. And I
agree with the idea that it's viewpoint discrimination.
S11 (36:21):
Now, let me address the devil's advocate argument again.
S1 (36:26):
You're representing him.
S11 (36:28):
No, I told you I wouldn't. Only in hypotheticals. But
there are going to be some listeners. And you have
a broad audience. A lot of them are followers of Christ,
but others may be skeptics. Uh, because you have such
a great, uh, platform here. So let me address them
because they're saying, now, wait a minute. Your husband was
on talking about the brief he filed in Skrmetti, where
(36:50):
the Supreme Court said the state of Tennessee could regulate
or prohibit children from being subjected to trans uh procedures
until they turn 18. So which which one is it?
Is it Colorado? That's right. Or is it Tennessee? But
the Supreme Court, if they hold against Colorado, aren't they
(37:11):
having a split decision? That doesn't make sense.
S6 (37:14):
Mm.
S1 (37:14):
This is where you put in the ellipse dot dot dot.
We'll get the answer to that. On the other side
of this. This is in the market with Janet Parshall.
That's Craig Parshall back after this. So our focus has
kind of been on the court this hour. But this
is big stuff because whether or not you're interested, how
(37:35):
they rule impacts every one of us. And this case
in particular, the childs versus Salazar, does impact every single
one of us. It affects our brothers and sisters whom
God has called as mercy givers to be counselors. It
affects the people who struggle in this particular area, particularly
if they're a minor. And it helps to raise a
standard of righteousness because it really and truly begins to
fracture this idea that, you know, God made a mistake
(37:58):
and you're born in the wrong body. All of the
gay activist papers, by the way, are using headlines like
Supreme Court about to cause harm to the LGBTQ community.
So the power of language. Anyway, you made a point
just before the break about a case that came down
on the right side, as far as I'm concerned, a
brief you wrote for this case that was important and
why it isn't a double standard, so flesh that out.
S11 (38:18):
Yeah. Skrmetti in Tennessee. Tennessee passed a law after investigating
this whole idea of transgender procedures and protocols in involving
also um, that, uh, they take drugs that would impact, uh,
their growth, their hormones. Uh, sometimes, uh, there has been
(38:39):
some evidence of bone, uh, development being affected, even brain, uh, impairment. Uh,
and here's one thing that everybody apparently agreed on. I
don't say apparently. In fact, they did because the court
found it to be true, that is, that these transition
procedures for minors, um, are, quote, experimental. Now, they're not
(39:03):
being told this, but in fact, the academics all agree
it's totally experimental. And yeah, there's some bad outcomes. And
then if there aren't physical bad outcomes from using a
male hormone system in a girl, so she can then
start feeling and developing some features that look and feel
like a boy. Uh, there are, in some cases, very
(39:25):
serious bad had ramifications in terms of their physical functions,
but also the emotional regret then even into adulthood, forcing
them to then go back and try to reverse these procedures.
So all that harm caught the attention of the Tennessee legislature.
So they passed a law saying, you cannot give these
(39:47):
hormone treatments or physical, you know, surgeries, uh, transitioning minors
until they turn 18 and then they can make a
decision as an adult. Well, they were viciously attacked from
a legal standpoint, aggressively Supreme Court said, uh, it's entirely legal.
The reason is it wasn't speech that was being regulated.
(40:09):
It wasn't what the doctor said to the patient. It
was what they did to the patient. Administration of hormones, uh,
surgical procedures conduct, not speech.
S1 (40:19):
So there's the distinction.
S11 (40:20):
That's the distinction.
S1 (40:21):
It's the yin and yang. It's the absolute opposite. Okay. Good.
Thank you for clarifying that. Now we talked about Sunday, Monday, Tuesday.
Here's what happened Wednesday at the court. The High Court
heard arguments in a challenge to an Illinois law that
allows the counting of late arriving mail in ballots through
lower courts throughout the case, ruling that the late votes
likely had little effect on the results in his district.
(40:42):
But it's interesting. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a very
strong warning, and he warned of his words now potential
disaster in determining that the number of votes received should
impact a candidate's ability to pursue legal action related to
mail in ballots. This caught your attention. Talk to me
about it.
S11 (40:58):
Yeah, it did. Number one, because Justice Roberts is very,
very centrist in terms of negotiating between the so-called conservative
wing of the Supreme Court and the liberal wing. He
tries to get consensus whenever possible on these cases, unanimity
if possible. Um, he is not one to ever use
that kind of language unless he is very athletically concerned
(41:21):
that there may be a potential disaster legally. Here's the problem.
Illinois says it doesn't matter when they actually count your vote,
as long as it's the mail date on it that
you slipped it in the mail. Um, is, you know,
by or before the election, and therefore that means that
you can't challenge any of those mail in ballots because, uh,
(41:46):
what what Illinois said is if it looks like the
the winner was going to win anyway, sort of kind of,
then you have no standing to challenge it as the,
the political loser, the one that might lose if you
don't like mail in ballots. Let's say you're a Republican.
A lot of Republicans don't. A lot of Democrats like
(42:07):
mail in ballots. So if you're a Republican and you
try to challenge the Democrat one, you have to prove
you're going to win. Unless they don't have mail in ballots.
That's predicting the future. And that's why he said, if
that's the rule, you're going to create national chaos on
election days. And what are we the Supreme Court going
to do with that mess?
S1 (42:26):
So here's the quote. And he did this in an
interview to CNN. He said, what you're stretching out for
us is potential disaster. You're saying if the candidate is
going to win by 64%, no standing. But if the
candidate hopes to win by a dozen votes, then he
has standing. And in fact, that's a made up standard.
S11 (42:43):
And in fact, he CNN was quoting what he said
from the bench during oral arguments. And I went back
to the transcript on that one as well, just to
make sure that I had heard it right. And what
he was saying is don't don't have a rule. I mean,
if you have a rule that says you must predict
in advance, you're probably going to lose anyway. So no harm,
(43:03):
no foul, you can't bring a lawsuit.
S1 (43:05):
So again, this is the impact, right? Because when they rule,
this is why everybody needs to pay attention to what's
happening at the High Court. So Illinois is one of
18 states that accept mail in ballots received after Election Day,
an idea that is totally bizarre to me. Right. Uh,
as long as they were postmarked your point exactly. On
or before that date. according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures. So, um, if Illinois is one of 18,
(43:29):
there are if they rule against Illinois on this one
that has an impact on the elections, does it not?
In 17 other.
S11 (43:36):
States.
S1 (43:36):
Besides Illinois.
S11 (43:37):
I'll tell you what. What else it impacts. During the
2020 election, people were being blocked on Facebook, Twitter and
Google for questioning mail in ballots. The whole idea, they
were suppressed. This reminds them that the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court doesn't think this is a conspiracy theory.
The problem with mail in ballots is so real that
(43:58):
the Chief Justice said, you know, if this isn't handled right,
this could be a disaster.
S1 (44:03):
You know, I've been married to you for a little
bit now, and I have to tell you that when
you get, um, effusive on a case, it really caught
your attention. And it was funny because this one really
caught your attention. And I think, as you said, it's
because and kudos to him that the chief justice really
does have to go right down the middle. He is
trying to build consensus. He is not trying to show
due deference, and he sometimes surprises us and rules exactly
(44:25):
the opposite. I think he should have ruled, but that's
the rule that he has, and he's been very good.
So for this very measured chief justice, to use language
like potential danger, I think he sent a pretty strong
signal on this. So it's going to be interesting to
see how they rule. We talk about the fireworks before
the fireworks. This one, they're going to have to rule
because it's going to have an impact on the 2026 elections.
(44:46):
It seems to me, am I right?
S11 (44:48):
Yeah. There's no question about it. So this whole idea
of mail in versus having to show up in a
voting booth, this is not a conspiracy of the right
wing that they invented. This is a legitimate civics lesson
that we better get right.
S1 (45:01):
They might hand this one down before June simply because
2026 is right around the corner. Wow. You know God
cares about judges. He wrote a book. He gave it
that name. You. And I just gave you a boatload
of things to be praying about regarding the Supreme Court.
We get to do this another hour. Hope you can
stick around. If not, download the podcast at In the
Market with Janet Parshall. Thanks so much, friends. We'll see
you next time.
Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
of In the Market with Janet Parshall, and it is
my most sincere hope that you are edified, equipped, enlightened,
encouraged and then it makes you just want to get
out there in the marketplace of ideas and influence and
occupy until he comes. But before you start listening, let
me just take a moment of your time to tell
you about this month's truth tool. It's called The Steadfast
Love of the Lord by my friend and frequent guest,
(00:22):
Doctor Sam Storms. You know, he tells us that so
often we struggle with this idea of feeling like we're
loved by God, or that somehow we've done something that
separates us from the love of God. But we fail
to remember the Scripture that reminds us that while we
were yet sinners, not perfect, not all put together, not
everything's all been worked out while we were yet sinners.
That's when Christ died for us. Love is an action word,
(00:44):
and that's what Doctor Sam Storms reminds us in his book,
The Steadfast Love of God. I don't know about you,
but with the headlines of the day, being reminded of
who God is is about the most precious news I
could hear on a regular basis. And I'd love for
you to have a copy written by a man who
understands the Bible and always delivers rich theology. So just
call eight seven, seven Janet 58. When you give a
(01:05):
gift of any amount, because we are listener supported radio,
we're going to send you a copy of The Steadfast
Love of the Lord. 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet
58 or go online to In the market with Janet Parshall.
Same thing. Scroll down on the page. You'll see the
cover of Sam's book, The Steadfast Love of the Lord,
clicking on make Your Donation and we'll send it to
(01:26):
you again. Listener supported. And when you give a gift,
it keeps us on the air. And what I want
to do in return is keep you growing forward in
your walk with Jesus Christ. By the way, we also
have a group of friends called Partial Partners. Those are
people who give every single month a they get the
truth tool, b they get a weekly newsletter that always
contains some of my writing and an audio piece that
only my partial partners get. I don't set the level
(01:49):
you do if you become a partial partner, but the
idea here is that you're giving on a monthly basis.
So I want you to know how much I appreciate
that as well. So 877 Janet 58 877 77, 58
or online at In the Market with Janet Parshall. When
you're on the website, scroll to the bottom, click on
the cover of the book and it'll walk you through
the rest. Thanks so much. And now, with all my heart,
(02:09):
I hope you hear something today that really changes your
perspective and makes you excited about being a follower of
Jesus Christ. Enjoy the program!
S2 (02:23):
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program
is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of
the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight
and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick
look back at some of the highlights from the week.
S3 (02:42):
I'd like to see what screening tools I have no
idea what they're using and how they're going to do this,
but the questions are upsetting. Sometimes the questions are embarrassing.
You know, you just don't sit down and then you
start asking these embarrassing and upsetting questions and talking about
private things in their mental health. And that makes a
student sometimes feel even worse. And that's another concern I have, Janet,
(03:05):
is because where you tell the brain to focus, it goes.
So if you're constantly asking children, how do you feel?
How do you feel? How do you feel? Are you sad?
Are you sad? You know, after a while, yes. Because
you're you're you're in some ways you're focusing the brain
on those negative thoughts.
S4 (03:21):
The work of the law is written in their heart,
the conscience bearing witness. So I didn't I wasn't talking
about evolution or the existence of God. I was just
speaking directly to that God given conscience. And that conscience
is conscience is on my side. And you can do
the same thing with Uncle Arthur when you're sitting at
the table at Christmas. He's he's anti-God. And you just say,
(03:43):
do you think there's an afterlife? Let him talk and say,
do you think you're a good person? Well, let's go
through those ten commandments and see how you do, and
the conscience will do its duty. And people cannot argue
in the face of conscience because it's, uh, it's so powerful.
It drives men to drink and women drives people to suicide.
That feeling of guilt. And it can be appeased the
moment we give our lives to Christ.
S5 (04:05):
They wanted a ceasefire as long as Hamas could stay
in power. They were supporting Hamas and opposed to Israel.
So now there is a ceasefire available. This war could
end today. Just Hamas has to give up the hostages.
They have to give up authority and power in Gaza
(04:28):
and the very same people that are protesting against Israel.
Why are they not shouting ceasefire now to Hamas? It
just shows that they're they're real attitude was not for
ceasefire but hatred of Israel.
S6 (04:41):
It isolates you when you don't have a good identity
of yourself because you don't want anyone to know you.
You don't want anyone to see your pain. You don't
want them to see you as a mess. Because for
women especially, I think, and I'm sure men suffer with
this as well. I know they do. We're trying to
be what everybody what we think everyone else either needs
(05:05):
us to be or wants us to be. And we
get stuck right there and lose who we truly are
in God's eyes.
S2 (05:16):
To hear the full interviews from any of those guests
go to. In the market with Janet Parshall and click
on Past programs. Here are some other stories making headlines
this week.
S7 (05:26):
Israel and Hamas have agreed to a truce deal raising
hopes of peace after two years of devastating war.
S8 (05:32):
Volkswagen groups release of new models paid off in the
third quarter. The German auto giant reported a 1% rise
in deliveries during the period on Friday.
S9 (05:41):
The US is stepping up pressure on Chinese airlines, proposing
a ban on their use of Russian airspace for flights
to and from America.
S10 (05:48):
Large parts of Kyiv were plunged into darkness in the
early hours of Friday after Russian forces pummeled Ukrainian energy
facilities and a heavy overnight attack.
S2 (06:00):
Janet and Craig have lots to share and they'll put
the first story on the table when we return. To
get more information or to download the podcast of any
of the interviews, go to in the market with Janet.
S1 (06:24):
God is love. But when tragedy strikes, we sometimes question
God's kindness and his mercy. That's why I've chosen the
Steadfast Love of the Lord by Doctor Sam Storms is
this month's truth tool. Learn how to navigate circumstances that
seem to contradict God's unconditional love for you. As for
your copy of The Steadfast Love of the Lord, when
you give a gift of any amount in the market,
call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go
(06:47):
to in the market with Janet Parshall. Happy Friday to you,
my friend. So glad you're going to join us this
week and hope you have a wonderful weekend planned. God
just has a marvelous palette, does he not? I thank
him for the use of color all the time in
the fall. He didn't have to make these seasons with
all of their distinctions, but fall in particular. I just
(07:08):
love seeing how God uses the paintbrush of nature to
declare his glory. So I hope you have a great weekend.
I hope you're going to spend some time out there
among the fall leaves, and really take in this great,
great fall season that we've got. Mr. partial is with me.
He joins me on Fridays. I'm so grateful I'd have
him join me every day if I could get him
to do that. What he does is he comes and
he brings his depth of knowledge of the law because
(07:29):
he's that by training. But more importantly, he comes as
a follower of the law giver himself. In fact, once
upon a time, that's even what his license plate on
his car said law giver as an homage to the Lord.
And he understands the depth and the width and the
breadth of God's Word, which is so extremely important because
he exemplifies what I talk about so often, and that
is going through life with the Bible in one hand
(07:50):
and the newspaper in the other. So put your seatbelt on,
keep your hands inside the ride at all times. We
go pretty fast. Talk about a lot of stories making
headlines and we start with the beginning of the week. Actually,
we're going to start with Sunday. Monday is the first
Monday in October. Why is that significant? Because that's when
the United States Supreme Court starts their term. In fact,
if you wanted to look up an old movie, there
was an interesting movie with Walter Matthau called The First
(08:12):
Monday in October. He played a Supreme Court justice. Just trivia,
but you might find that interesting. But the day before
the Supreme Court starts, it is tradition to have something
in Washington, D.C., known as the Red mass. Now, that's
a Catholic service. It marks the beginning of the Supreme
Court's annual term. They've been doing this for decades. And, uh,
they ask God's blessings on those involved in the administration
(08:35):
of justice. And the name comes from the scarlet robes
worn by the clergy and the judges, which symbolizes the
tongues of the fire of the Holy Spirit. And the
mass is attended by government officials, including Supreme Court justices
and members of Congress. You don't hear much about it.
It's something we know about in Washington. It doesn't tend
to make the news, except it made the news this
(08:56):
year because a man on Sunday was arrested and he
had hundreds of explosive devices outside the church holding the
red mass. The man had a manifesto that he that
suggested that he was targeting, specifically the Supreme Court and Catholics.
And this man, a 41 year old from Arizona and
(09:17):
New Jersey. So he had to plan to come to D.C.,
was apprehended outside the Cathedral of Saint Martin the Apostle
on October 5th. The same day the church held its
annual Red mass, in which a cardinal prays for the
High Court. So this man, by the way, was occupying
a green tent on the steps of the church when
(09:38):
police attempted to clear the area in prep for the
Supreme Court event. He told the police, you might want
to stay back and call the Federales as I have explosives. This,
according to the affidavit and a member of the Metropolitan
Police Department bomb squad, then told him he needed to
move because of a special event. He replied, I'm aware
of that. Uh, the police wrote, threatening to throw a
bomb into the street as a demonstration, adding, I have
(10:00):
hundreds plus of them. Police said that they would remove
him against his will, and he replied, several of your
people are going to die from one of these with
a lighter in one hand. He handed them nine pieces
of paper that amounted to a manifesto entitled Written Negotiations
for the Avoidance of destruction of property via Detonation of
Explosives and the manifestation or the manifestation that Freudian. The
(10:22):
manifesto revealed his significant animosity toward the Catholic Church. Members
of the Jewish faith. Members of the Supreme Court, and
ice and ice facilities. And then he. Quote. Shifted his
right thumb over the top of the butane lighter to
initiate the lighting action and stated, you better have these
people step away or there's going to be deaths. Now
(10:43):
you talk about a scary situation. So the individual then
left the tent to relieve himself on a tree and
was apprehended by three officers, at which point he said
he had a device in his pocket. A bomb squad
technician located in his pocket a vial with a white
cap which contained yellow liquid inside, with an M device
taped to the exterior. This is all according to the
(11:04):
police report. Well after he was arrested, the squad located
a large cache of handmade destructive devices. He was charged
with multiple multiple offenses. And Monday, after reviewing all of
the bombs more carefully, police filed an affidavit from a
bomb technician saying there were over 200 devices recovered from
D1's tent. There was a small, strong smell of acetone
(11:27):
emitting from some of the vials. Some of the liquids
were determined to be nitromethane. The liquid appeared to be
multiple chemicals mixed together. None. In original containers, the devices
appeared to be fully functional. Um. Wow. Craig, I mean,
this this is one of those stories that makes a
little blip if you live in the Midwest or in
the West, and it isn't the first lead story in
your news story. But I have to tell you that
(11:47):
was an intervention from the Lord. There could have been
massive deaths. Um, clearly this man unstable. Uh, but he
was smart enough to figure out how to get a
bunch of devices and to be at the tent in
time for the mass. Your thoughts?
S11 (12:00):
Yeah. Three justices were planning on attending. All were warned
by security personnel not to attend because of that potential risk. Um,
you know, we could say, well, this is just a
one off. It's an aberrant situation. An unhinged person. Well, yes.
Let's assume that there's some, uh, mental problems that this
(12:22):
individual has, but clearly, he was targeting the justices and
clearly those who have a religious worldview and, um, the
three that are reputed to be on the conservative side, uh,
of the court. And we can't take these lightly because
just recently, uh, the would be assassin of Supreme Court
(12:47):
Justice Kavanaugh Who approached his home with weapons and with
every intent. Apparently, according to the evidence of assassinating us,
Justice Kavanaugh and his family was sentenced. Yeah.
S1 (13:01):
Can I can I pause for a second?
S11 (13:03):
So this is a real thing?
S1 (13:04):
Yeah, 100% a real thing. Let me go back. You
brought up Kavanaugh. So let's touch on that for a second,
because we're going to take a look at the Supreme
Court in a couple of big cases this week. But
you realize that the judge who sentenced this man gave
him a lighter sentence, because now he's turning into a transsexual.
Excuse me, Craig, but how does that have any forbearance
on a sentence?
S11 (13:20):
Yeah. And, you know, sentencing is a is an entire
area of law somewhat complicated both in the federal and
state level. But sometimes the sentencing, uh, doesn't fit the crime.
I mean, in fact, Gilbert and Sullivan had a song
to sing about that making, uh, light of, uh, England's, uh,
(13:41):
perpetual battle to make the crime or make the punishment
fit the crime. But that's part of our justice system.
If you give a light sentence for a grave terrible crime,
it doesn't fit. It's also a very bad message to
the American public that they can get away with it,
that they can be treated lightly, that, in fact, maybe
our government sort of sympathizes with your act of potential violence.
(14:05):
So lighter sentence in that case, uh, clearly, uh, inappropriate. Um,
there are sentencing guidelines, but there's a lot of discretion. And, uh,
of course, when you have a justice who becomes a
justice as a result of a very tumultuous political fight,
(14:25):
you know, there's a when you the whole process of
nomination and affirmation, confirmation of a justice to the Supreme
Court is a perfect example of the beauty of our Constitution,
because it's it's there are three branches of the government
and all three are involved. The president, the executive appoints
(14:45):
the Senate, holds a hearing they either confirm or reject,
and then the justice, if confirmed, goes to the third branch,
the Justice Department, the excuse me, the department, um, that, uh,
through the Supreme Court oversees the legality of both the
actions of the president and the Congress. Now, that's the
beauty of the system. When it works.
S1 (15:06):
When it works. Okay, a couple of things. Number one,
I understand that DOJ, if I did my homework right,
is going to seek to appeal the sentencing.
S11 (15:12):
Yeah. Because specifically the sentence, obviously not the guilt.
S1 (15:15):
No. Exactly. Right. So in other words, this story hasn't
got the last chapter written yet. That's right. But again,
if you start using the fact that you're transitioning as
an excuse, they're going to be an uptick already in
this mental illness.
S11 (15:26):
Well, and it's a double edged sword, quite frankly, if
you think about it logically, Janet, if you get a
lighter sentence or argue that you should get a lighter
sentence because you have gender dysphoria, it's one more strong
evidence that it is a form of mental disease and
not a gender choice or a gender identity. Let's call
it one thing or another. But let's not play both games.
S1 (15:49):
Well then, to quote the great bard, you're going to
be hoisted on your own petard. In that case, number two.
You were talking about this system, and it was interesting
because you and I were just talking about the creation
of these three branches of government. And you might want
to share with our friends about a fellow by the
name of Sherman. And when he came up with this idea,
the Continental Congress meets, they're deadlocked. And imagine meeting in
Philadelphia and having to say, okay, blank slate, uh, how
(16:12):
do we do a government? How are we going to
create this?
S11 (16:14):
They were very close. Uh, of course, the Articles of
Confederation collapsed. It was a loose union of states with
states having their own currency and their own military. It
didn't work out. And, uh, it was looking like this
whole experiment and the Revolutionary War was won for nothing.
So they started the constitutional convention with an idea, uh,
(16:34):
that they had to have a republic of some kind,
but they didn't know how. And they worked through all
of the details. By the way, the Bill of rights
wasn't added to it until after the Constitution itself was formed,
but they made good on their promise on that. But
the big. Not the only sticking point. The huge sticking point, though,
was the fact that the small states were saying, now
(16:56):
wait a minute, we're going to be ignored in this Congress,
because if you do it purely by population, well, the
big states, New York and so forth are always going
to win and the little states are going to be ignored.
S1 (17:07):
Rhode Island and Delaware said, hey, what about us?
S11 (17:09):
Absolutely. So, uh, that was that was a sticking point
and really almost threatened to dissolve the Constitutional Convention, which
was held in private because they didn't want to let
the public know until it was the last ink was
dried on the last word of their charter of Rights
and constitutional constitutionality. So here's what happened. They they looked
(17:31):
to London. They looked at England. They knew Parliament, how
it operated. How do we do this? Well, if we
have two houses, one of them has to serve the, the, uh,
each state and the other one has to serve the
more populated States, and they came up with an answer.
And the answer came from Roger Sherman, a Christian Orthodox
Christian follower of Christ who was walking home from church
(17:54):
one day and said, I think I have an idea.
And now it's called the Senate and the House of Representatives.
S1 (18:00):
Exactly right. And this whole idea of this three branches
of government, again, was the idea that given our sinful nature,
we had to have a system of checks and balances.
And that's exactly why we have these three branches in
balance now. So when we come back, it was a
busy day at the court this week, and a very
significant case was heard. We're going to tell you about
it when we get back.
S12 (18:36):
I'm always comforted by this passage in the Psalms, the
Old Testament, the Christian Old Testament. But, um, this is
the psalm of the Jewish people. Psalm of David, Psalm
37 and it says, commit your way to the Lord.
Trust in him, and he will do this. I'll read
it to you. Trust in the Lord and do good.
Dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. Delight yourself
in the Lord, and he will give you the desires
(18:57):
of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord. Trust
in him and he will do this. He will make
your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause.
Like the noonday sun. It says, be still before the
Lord and wait patiently for him. Do not fret when
mids succeed in their ways when they carry out their
wicked schemes. I told my friends Sid on the radio
and he was comforted by it, and I think others
will be as well. We're all comforted by this. I
(19:19):
know that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is
fully in control. We'll let that rest there.
S1 (19:25):
Mm. Bet that didn't make the evening news where you are.
But that's exactly how the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson,
opened a press conference. In case you hadn't figured out,
there's a little, uh, little back and forth going on
in the hill right now because, uh, it's about playing politics. Unfortunately,
it's playing politics with other people's lives. And so this
idea of a government shutdown. By the way, I never, ever,
(19:46):
ever panic about this. It has happened before. When President
Obama was president, the government was shut down for 17 days.
So we get over these things. But it is one
of those areas where there's an awful lot of political posturing,
and then you have to decide whether or not you're
going to play politics, or you're going to discover that really,
you came to town to serve people through principle rather
than politics. And so it goes on over and over
(20:08):
and over again. But I wanted to point that out
in particular, because harkening back to the Continental Congress that
Craig was talking about when they were meeting in private,
they were very, very close to completely and totally unraveling.
It is paramount we go back and study our history
because you see God's hand and how he does step
into the affairs of man over and over and over again.
And of all people, one of the sagely members, and
(20:30):
he was deemed so by his peers was Ben Franklin,
who finally stood up. And I'm going to paraphrase and
put it into modern English, what he said. He said,
you know, we used to open with prayer. We haven't
done that for a while, and it's time that we
start doing it again. So I would like to propose
that from this point forward, we don't do anything until
we start every single meeting with prayer. And they all
said yes. And from that point forward, they started every
(20:53):
meeting of the Continental Congress. This was the prelude to
American government with prayer. So you see, what Mike Johnson
did is in keeping with who we were. And don't
let the general press or the caterwauling of terrorist groups
in our midst tell you that that's wrong, that you're
trying to create Christian nationalism or theocracy. It goes back
(21:13):
to relying on providence, understanding we can't do this by ourselves,
that the government rests on his shoulders, and it serves
us well to go first to him and ask for
his wisdom, his guidance and his direction. But I just
wanted you to hear that that didn't come from Philadelphia
back in the late 1700s. This came from Washington, DC
in October of 2025. So let's go back to the
(21:35):
United States Supreme Court, which is extremely important. So they
had the red mass. The fella gets charged. This could
have resulted in all kinds of people's deaths. Thank you God,
for preventing it from happening. And then on Tuesday, the
Supreme Court heard one of the more controversial cases that
they've heard in a long time, and maybe one of
the most controversial of this term as well. It's called
Giles versus Salazar, and it goes back to Colorado in 2020.
(21:59):
Who put a ban on so-called conversion therapy? That's a term,
by the way. The secularists used no Christian counselor I
know ever has or ever would use that word. Uh,
and that became the issue of a lawsuit, because are
we going to say that a counselor is prohibited from
saying certain kinds of speech to a client? In other words,
the flip side of that is the government coercing a
certain kind of speech. Now this goes back to the
(22:21):
absolute unbearable, um, animus that Colorado has toward Christianity and
people who practice Christianity. What they did is they had
a law that was put under the Colorado prohibit prohibit
conversion therapy for a minor law. A lot of words there,
but you get exactly what the drift is. It was
(22:42):
declared that any effort to, quote, change an individual's sexual orientation,
including efforts to change behaviors or gender expression, or to
eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings towards
individuals of the same sex end quote is inherently harmful
and ineffective. Violators, including licensed therapists, risk losing their professional
credentials and facing penalties of up to $5,000 in fines.
(23:04):
Enter one Caylee Childs, a licensed Colorado therapist. She's a
Christian counselor, and she argued that the ban unconstitutionally suppressed
her First Amendment rights by outlawing talk therapy sessions that
delve into clients unwanted same sex attraction or gender dysphoria
through methods like counseling, prayer, or behavioral strategies. It's kind
(23:26):
of what I'd want. That's exactly the kind of counselor
I'd be looking for, and that's exactly the kind of
approach I'd want. But oh, no, this is Colorado. You
can't bake that cake, Jack. You can't design that website. Okay.
This is a state that just has marked animus, no
matter how many times they've been smacked by the Supreme Court.
And they were, by the way, in the Jack Phillips case,
they haven't changed their wicked, wicked ways. They absolutely continue
(23:48):
to press, press, press, press. And now they want to
coerce speech and say to Kaylee, you can't tell that
to a person who's. And the reason they were arguing
this was right is because her role as a counselor is, quote,
conduct and conduct isn't protected. Have a heart attack, Hannah. Craig,
what's wrong with this?
S11 (24:05):
Well, it's interesting because during the oral arguments, uh, it
was conceded and I read the transcript myself just to
make sure, uh, it was conceded by both sides, particularly
by the state of Colorado. They conceded that the studies
show that about 90% of every pre puberty child who
(24:30):
has any struggles about their so-called gender identity resolves those
in favor of their biology, the biological status of their
sex by the time they reach majority, that's 90%. Resolve
these because of adolescent confusion and so forth. Influence of
the culture. So start off, number one, realizing that the 10%
(24:53):
who are still having problems and need counseling need the
right kind of counseling. And Colorado says, we'll tell you
what's right and what's wrong in terms of counseling on
gender issues.
S1 (25:05):
So you read the transcript. I want to talk a
little bit more about this one when we come back,
because it's huge. And by the way, there are 26
states that have said we got problems here, and we've
got all kinds of European countries that are saying we
have problems in this area. So this could have a
huge impact. More on this case when we return. How
(25:30):
do you keep your finger on the pulse of America
while listening to the heartbeat of God's Word? On in
the market, we look for God's perspective on current events,
become a partial partner today and keep this Christ centered
program on the air. As a benefit, you'll receive exclusive
resources every week prepared just for you. You'll get behind
the scenes Intel from my email to yours. Call 877 Janet,
58 or go online to In the Market with Janet Parshall.
(25:56):
So I want to go back and I want to
pick up on this case because it really, really is significant.
So here's the timeline again. So they have the red
mass on Sunday. They have their opening of the Supreme
Court on Monday in between those two days. Thanks be
to God. They a man who has multiple charges and
over 200 explosive devices and his manifesto, naturally. And he
(26:17):
doesn't like Jews and he doesn't like Catholics, and he
doesn't like the Supreme Court, and he doesn't like ice.
And now, thank goodness, uh, he has, uh, he is
alleged until he is found guilty. That's due process in
this country. But at least he's not going to harm
anybody right now. He is out of, um, harming anybody.
And we're very thankful for that. But on Tuesday, the
Supreme Court hears this case out of Colorado. Kaylee Childs
(26:38):
is the person who said, look, my rights are being
infringed on. She's a Christian counselor in Colorado, and when
minors come into her office, she wants to be able
to use talk therapy and prayer and help people walk
through their struggles. That's exactly what should be done, even
from a secular vantage point. That's the wise thing to do.
If you take a look at the Cass report out
of the UK and this longitudinal study that's 300 pages long,
(26:59):
peer reviewed, passes every bit of scientific scrutiny necessary to
have a legitimate report, particularly in adolescents. We see there's comorbidity,
there's abuse at home, they're autistic. A third of the
autistic community gets involved in this trans stuff now, which
tells you something. Um, unidentified early onset of bipolar depression.
The list goes on and on and on and on.
And Cass also found that for the overwhelming majority of
(27:21):
fact that Craig gave in the last segment, minors who
struggle with this idea, hey, I'm trapped in the wrong body.
They outgrow it. And the biggest cudgel of all, mom
and Dad, the one that you've been told that. What
do you want, a dead son or alive daughter? The
research proves, uh, it doesn't do anything to eradicate suicidal ideations.
In fact, the report found that ideations actually go up.
(27:41):
Well guess what? That didn't come as a surprise. You
got a broken heart and a broken mind, and you
think if you break your body, it's somehow going to
fix things? Well, it doesn't. So we're praying that common
sense will rule the day. And we're praying that the
Supreme Courts will see the common sense in saying Caylee
Childs and all other Christian counselors in the state of Colorado.
Although if this comes down on the side of Caylee,
(28:02):
this will affect Christian counselors across the country. You should
be able to say what you believe when a person
comes to you as a minor and says, I'm struggling,
help me. And that person should be able to talk
it through and the counselor should be able to offer
you prayer. Now, Craig, you read the entire transcript. And
a long time ago you taught me, don't ever read
the tea leaves. You do not know what a judge
is going to do until it's over, because you can.
(28:23):
We have been surprised a gazillion times, but if the
oral arguments were any indication at all, well, you fill
in the blank. What did you think?
S11 (28:32):
Yeah, and they sometimes are. Um, so what I feel
comfortable saying is not what is going to happen, but
what my impression was of what is likely to happen
in terms of the vote. And from the oral arguments
and one of the arguments, by the way, um, was
a technical one, and sometimes you can trip up a
(28:54):
good case on the merits by a problem in the
little procedural details. And in this case, it's the detail
of standing, uh, did, uh, this counselor have enough standing
to bring the lawsuit under article three of the United
States Constitution? Because you have to have a case in controversy,
a live case in controversy that actually, uh, affects you
(29:16):
in some ways, harms you in some way, or potentially
harms you with enough certainty that even if they haven't
come into your counseling office and handcuffed you and dragged
you away, there's still a potential that it could happen. Realistically,
that's standing. And they tried to argue.
S1 (29:33):
They being the state of Colorado.
S11 (29:34):
State of Colorado, Even though they hadn't really raised it
adequately previously. Now, in this most recent iteration, well, she
didn't have standing well. Uh, the Supreme Court looked pretty, um, uh,
interested in that until later on. I think it was.
Justice Sotomayor, after some concessions from the attorney for the
(29:55):
state of Colorado, said, okay, well, that takes care of
the standing issue. Now, I don't know. I can't read
her mind about what she meant by that, but I
think she could have said, okay, I have no further
questions about standing, but I got the impression because of
the context that, okay, standing is not going to derail this.
(30:16):
They'll get to the merits. And they're it's frustrating because
I as you know, I was involved in a First
Amendment case on the merits, wanted a certain result, um,
and I and all the other attorneys who filed a
friend of the court briefs and the court kind of
danced around the merits on the technicality of standing, and
I was very disappointed by that because it was a
(30:38):
critical issue that needs to be decided in this case.
Don't think so. And I think the merits will be decided.
And because of the case in I think it was 2018,
the Supreme Court said, look, uh, by the way, another
case of a legislature in a state sort of hostile against, uh,
Christian run pregnancy help centers passed a law that basically
(31:03):
would have shut down, uh, CPCs and, uh, pregnancy help centers, uh,
by treating their speech like it's conduct that they could regulate.
Now you can regulate, you know, how you, uh, do
medical procedures and how you do physical checkups, but that's conduct.
But you can't regulate unless there's a very slim, uh,
(31:24):
and very high bar, a slim chance that the government
occasionally can do it, regulate speech, but very rarely, and
certainly not in this case. Uh, so they argued in effect,
Colorado did well. Okay, we know Nifflas out there. And
Nifflas said that law got struck down because it was
a a speech suppression rather than a conduct regulation. Um,
(31:47):
but they tried to make what she did in talk therapy,
talking to her clients and patients as, quote, conduct and
therefore could be regulated and therefore we pass muster. I
don't think that's going to pass. I don't think that's
going to win the case. I think the First Amendment
is going to be upheld. And once again, Christians who
(32:07):
have been tired and targeted, and that's I have to
tell you, there's no question in my mind the way
they framed this bill in Colorado. Once again, the same
state that has gone against Christian Bakers and so forth.
Now they're going against Christian counselors. I think they're going
to lose this case. Once again, I think they should. And, uh,
(32:27):
hopefully Christian counselors in that state are free to speak
their mind openly, honestly and professionally, with a client across
the desk in the office, in the privacy and comfort
of their office to help them work through these transgender struggles. Uh,
and here's the crazy thing, Janet. The law would have
applied if it's found valid. I don't think it will.
(32:49):
But if it's found valid, even if a 14 year
old 15 year old comes in with parents and goes, hey,
I'm struggling with this. I know I have these feelings
like I should be a girl, but I don't want
those feelings. I want to talk through this because I
really want to to find my identity as a boy,
(33:10):
because that's what I am. Even in that case, she
would be prohibited from engaging in pursuit of fulfilling what
the patient wants.
S1 (33:20):
Yeah, exactly. So let me put out there some of
the things the justices said. And by the way, again,
you know, it ain't over, as Yogi Bear said, till
the fat lady sings. And we got a long way
to go before this is over. My guess is this
decision will not come down until June of next year,
because this is what we frequently refer to as the
fireworks before the fireworks on the 4th of July. And
this will have this is going to have a cultural impact.
(33:41):
And as I say, 26 states have already stepped up
and said or are currently ready to say no, you're
not going to do this for minors. And then you've
got multiple European countries that have already shifted on this one.
The United States is lagging behind on this in some areas,
but when you get outlets like CNN and other alphabet
soup outlets saying just disappear, posed to overturn the ban,
(34:01):
poised to overturn the ban, they read what you read
and what we heard, which was we think that there
was a lot of questioning on the part of the
justices that said, something's not right here. I'll give you
a couple of examples. Justice Samuel Alito said that the
Colorado law creates a double standard that may amount to
viewpoint discrimination. Well, clearly it is when you're a counselor.
(34:21):
Like I said, what if the state comes along and says,
in Colorado, we only allow you to use Freudian techniques
when you're counseling? We all Gestalt approaches to counseling must
be eliminated. The state can't determine that for goodness sakes.
And then Amy Coney Barrett said, let's say that you
have some medical experts that think gender affirming care should
be is dangerous to children, and some that say this
(34:42):
kind of conversion therapy, talk therapy is dangerous. Can the
state pick a side? And other justices appeared to agree
with the state, which cited what it claims is the
consensus of mental health professionals that verbal based conversion therapy
has shown to be effective. Sotomayor. These. There are studies
that say that this advice does harm people emotionally, physically,
(35:02):
and that therefore it should be stopped. Kavanaugh and Roberts
could be key to deciding this case, um, over this
idea of talk therapy that could be treated the same
as medical practices. And Roberts interestingly cited previous High Court
precedent that didn't distinguish professional speech. She said, just because
they're engaged in conduct, this is your point, Craig, doesn't
(35:25):
mean that their words aren't protected. Here's where I get
a little loosey goosey on this. These are lawyers. Okay.
Don't be making medical decisions. It's a question of speech.
Can a therapist, within the confines of his or her office,
offer a client and their clientele an approach to mental
health issues deemed appropriate by the practitioner? I don't want
(35:45):
to hear Sotomayor talking about. There are studies. She's not
a doctor. You didn't go up there to argue before
Hippocrates and the Hippocratic Oath. You're up there arguing legal cases.
And so it really and truly has to be whether
or not the state has the right to coerce speech. Kaylee.
You can't say this is still even not being able
to say it is a form of coercion. You're coerced
(36:06):
to keep your mouth shut. So I think it's a
free speech issue. Um, and you start in the clinician's office,
and the next thing you do is you move to
other segments of society. And if the government of that
particular state doesn't like your speech, you're silenced. And I
agree with the idea that it's viewpoint discrimination.
S11 (36:21):
Now, let me address the devil's advocate argument again.
S1 (36:26):
You're representing him.
S11 (36:28):
No, I told you I wouldn't. Only in hypotheticals. But
there are going to be some listeners. And you have
a broad audience. A lot of them are followers of Christ,
but others may be skeptics. Uh, because you have such
a great, uh, platform here. So let me address them
because they're saying, now, wait a minute. Your husband was
on talking about the brief he filed in Skrmetti, where
(36:50):
the Supreme Court said the state of Tennessee could regulate
or prohibit children from being subjected to trans uh procedures
until they turn 18. So which which one is it?
Is it Colorado? That's right. Or is it Tennessee? But
the Supreme Court, if they hold against Colorado, aren't they
(37:11):
having a split decision? That doesn't make sense.
S6 (37:14):
Mm.
S1 (37:14):
This is where you put in the ellipse dot dot dot.
We'll get the answer to that. On the other side
of this. This is in the market with Janet Parshall.
That's Craig Parshall back after this. So our focus has
kind of been on the court this hour. But this
is big stuff because whether or not you're interested, how
(37:35):
they rule impacts every one of us. And this case
in particular, the childs versus Salazar, does impact every single
one of us. It affects our brothers and sisters whom
God has called as mercy givers to be counselors. It
affects the people who struggle in this particular area, particularly
if they're a minor. And it helps to raise a
standard of righteousness because it really and truly begins to
fracture this idea that, you know, God made a mistake
(37:58):
and you're born in the wrong body. All of the
gay activist papers, by the way, are using headlines like
Supreme Court about to cause harm to the LGBTQ community.
So the power of language. Anyway, you made a point
just before the break about a case that came down
on the right side, as far as I'm concerned, a
brief you wrote for this case that was important and
why it isn't a double standard, so flesh that out.
S11 (38:18):
Yeah. Skrmetti in Tennessee. Tennessee passed a law after investigating
this whole idea of transgender procedures and protocols in involving
also um, that, uh, they take drugs that would impact, uh,
their growth, their hormones. Uh, sometimes, uh, there has been
(38:39):
some evidence of bone, uh, development being affected, even brain, uh, impairment. Uh,
and here's one thing that everybody apparently agreed on. I
don't say apparently. In fact, they did because the court
found it to be true, that is, that these transition
procedures for minors, um, are, quote, experimental. Now, they're not
(39:03):
being told this, but in fact, the academics all agree
it's totally experimental. And yeah, there's some bad outcomes. And
then if there aren't physical bad outcomes from using a
male hormone system in a girl, so she can then
start feeling and developing some features that look and feel
like a boy. Uh, there are, in some cases, very
(39:25):
serious bad had ramifications in terms of their physical functions,
but also the emotional regret then even into adulthood, forcing
them to then go back and try to reverse these procedures.
So all that harm caught the attention of the Tennessee legislature.
So they passed a law saying, you cannot give these
(39:47):
hormone treatments or physical, you know, surgeries, uh, transitioning minors
until they turn 18 and then they can make a
decision as an adult. Well, they were viciously attacked from
a legal standpoint, aggressively Supreme Court said, uh, it's entirely legal.
The reason is it wasn't speech that was being regulated.
(40:09):
It wasn't what the doctor said to the patient. It
was what they did to the patient. Administration of hormones, uh,
surgical procedures conduct, not speech.
S1 (40:19):
So there's the distinction.
S11 (40:20):
That's the distinction.
S1 (40:21):
It's the yin and yang. It's the absolute opposite. Okay. Good.
Thank you for clarifying that. Now we talked about Sunday, Monday, Tuesday.
Here's what happened Wednesday at the court. The High Court
heard arguments in a challenge to an Illinois law that
allows the counting of late arriving mail in ballots through
lower courts throughout the case, ruling that the late votes
likely had little effect on the results in his district.
(40:42):
But it's interesting. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a very
strong warning, and he warned of his words now potential
disaster in determining that the number of votes received should
impact a candidate's ability to pursue legal action related to
mail in ballots. This caught your attention. Talk to me
about it.
S11 (40:58):
Yeah, it did. Number one, because Justice Roberts is very,
very centrist in terms of negotiating between the so-called conservative
wing of the Supreme Court and the liberal wing. He
tries to get consensus whenever possible on these cases, unanimity
if possible. Um, he is not one to ever use
that kind of language unless he is very athletically concerned
(41:21):
that there may be a potential disaster legally. Here's the problem.
Illinois says it doesn't matter when they actually count your vote,
as long as it's the mail date on it that
you slipped it in the mail. Um, is, you know,
by or before the election, and therefore that means that
you can't challenge any of those mail in ballots because, uh,
(41:46):
what what Illinois said is if it looks like the
the winner was going to win anyway, sort of kind of,
then you have no standing to challenge it as the,
the political loser, the one that might lose if you
don't like mail in ballots. Let's say you're a Republican.
A lot of Republicans don't. A lot of Democrats like
(42:07):
mail in ballots. So if you're a Republican and you
try to challenge the Democrat one, you have to prove
you're going to win. Unless they don't have mail in ballots.
That's predicting the future. And that's why he said, if
that's the rule, you're going to create national chaos on
election days. And what are we the Supreme Court going
to do with that mess?
S1 (42:26):
So here's the quote. And he did this in an
interview to CNN. He said, what you're stretching out for
us is potential disaster. You're saying if the candidate is
going to win by 64%, no standing. But if the
candidate hopes to win by a dozen votes, then he
has standing. And in fact, that's a made up standard.
S11 (42:43):
And in fact, he CNN was quoting what he said
from the bench during oral arguments. And I went back
to the transcript on that one as well, just to
make sure that I had heard it right. And what
he was saying is don't don't have a rule. I mean,
if you have a rule that says you must predict
in advance, you're probably going to lose anyway. So no harm,
(43:03):
no foul, you can't bring a lawsuit.
S1 (43:05):
So again, this is the impact, right? Because when they rule,
this is why everybody needs to pay attention to what's
happening at the High Court. So Illinois is one of
18 states that accept mail in ballots received after Election Day,
an idea that is totally bizarre to me. Right. Uh,
as long as they were postmarked your point exactly. On
or before that date. according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures. So, um, if Illinois is one of 18,
(43:29):
there are if they rule against Illinois on this one
that has an impact on the elections, does it not?
In 17 other.
S11 (43:36):
States.
S1 (43:36):
Besides Illinois.
S11 (43:37):
I'll tell you what. What else it impacts. During the
2020 election, people were being blocked on Facebook, Twitter and
Google for questioning mail in ballots. The whole idea, they
were suppressed. This reminds them that the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court doesn't think this is a conspiracy theory.
The problem with mail in ballots is so real that
(43:58):
the Chief Justice said, you know, if this isn't handled right,
this could be a disaster.
S1 (44:03):
You know, I've been married to you for a little
bit now, and I have to tell you that when
you get, um, effusive on a case, it really caught
your attention. And it was funny because this one really
caught your attention. And I think, as you said, it's
because and kudos to him that the chief justice really
does have to go right down the middle. He is
trying to build consensus. He is not trying to show
due deference, and he sometimes surprises us and rules exactly
(44:25):
the opposite. I think he should have ruled, but that's
the rule that he has, and he's been very good.
So for this very measured chief justice, to use language
like potential danger, I think he sent a pretty strong
signal on this. So it's going to be interesting to
see how they rule. We talk about the fireworks before
the fireworks. This one, they're going to have to rule
because it's going to have an impact on the 2026 elections.
(44:46):
It seems to me, am I right?
S11 (44:48):
Yeah. There's no question about it. So this whole idea
of mail in versus having to show up in a
voting booth, this is not a conspiracy of the right
wing that they invented. This is a legitimate civics lesson
that we better get right.
S1 (45:01):
They might hand this one down before June simply because
2026 is right around the corner. Wow. You know God
cares about judges. He wrote a book. He gave it
that name. You. And I just gave you a boatload
of things to be praying about regarding the Supreme Court.
We get to do this another hour. Hope you can
stick around. If not, download the podcast at In the
Market with Janet Parshall. Thanks so much, friends. We'll see
you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!