Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 690 | Should Christians Vote for Herschel Walker?

Episode Date: October 12, 2022

Today we're talking about a few prominent people who have made headlines recently. First, Tulsi Gabbard posted a video yesterday declaring that she's leaving the Democratic Party. We share why this is such an admirable move in today's political climate and how we should respond. Then, Herschel Walker made headlines recently after a woman came forward claiming he impregnated her and then paid for her abortion years ago. This accusation, which he vehemently denies, comes just as Walker runs for Senate in Georgia. We talk about his son Christian's response to these accusations and ask the question: Where is the line between voting for a politician for his policies and condemning his behavior? We also take a look at travel influencer Brian Kelly's surrogate baby and zoom out to look at the surrogacy industry as a whole. Then we're joined by Christiana Kiefer, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, to discuss Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools and the fight for women's rights in sports. This case came to fruition after the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference adopted a policy that allows males who identify as female to compete in girls’ athletic events. Now, the girls who are losing scholarships and championships to biological males are fighting back. --- Timecodes: [01:30] Tulsi Gabbard leaves the Democratic Party [19:10] Herschel Walker's abortion scandal [35:55] Brian Kelly's surrogate baby [52:00] Interview with Christiana Kiefer --- Today's Sponsors: My Patriot Supply — prepare yourself for anything with long-term emergency food storage. Go to PrepareWithAllie.com to save 20% on your 3-Month Emergency Food Kit. Good Ranchers — change the way you shop for meat today by visiting GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE and use promo code 'ALLIE' to save $30 off your order AND 2lbs of ground beef free (October-only special)! Carly Jean Los Angeles — use promo code 'ALLIEB' to save 20% off your first order at CarlyJeanLosAngeles.com! Covenant Eyes — protect you and your family from the things you shouldn't be looking at online. Go to coveyes.com/ALLIE to try it FREE for 30 days! Garnuu – receive your first month of organic tampons FREE when you subscribe. Join the Girls Only Club by going to garnuu.com/allie and use code "ALLIE" at checkout. --- Show Links: Daily Beast: "She Had an Abortion With Herschel Walker. She Also Had a Child With Him." https://www.thedailybeast.com/she-had-an-abortion-with-herschel-walker-she-also-had-a-child-with-him The Hill: "Gabbard says she can’t stay in ‘today’s Democratic Party’" https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3682396-gabbard-says-she-cant-stay-in-todays-democratic-party/ --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Tulsi Gabbard is no longer a Democrat calling her former party a cabal of warmongers guilty of anti-white racism. Herschel Walker, Republican pro-life Senate candidate in Georgia allegedly paid for an abortion a few years ago and his son sure had a lot to say about it. Another male celebrity poses on a hospital bed with his surrogacy baby, and you guys know I have a lot to say about that. And female athletes in Connecticut are fighting back against attempts to erase women's sports. Wow, we have so much to talk about today.

This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to good ranchers.com slash alley. That's good ranchers.com slash alley. All right, guys. I hope that everyone is having a wonderful week. If you haven't listened to yesterday's episode about Kanye West Columbus Day and John McGarrow. Arthur's rebuke of Gavin Newsom, you should go check that out. I feel like I'm still catching up because I was out last week with laryngitis. And so I've had so much to talk about, as I mentioned

yesterday, the document that I had for the show that has been building over the past week or so was 87 pages. I think we only got to, I don't know, maybe four of those pages because there's just so much in every story. And today is the same way. I won't get through 87 pages, but there are a few stories that I just wanted to make sure that I talked about. So let me start with Tulsi Gabbard, since that is the most recent news story. This happened. I believe it was yesterday that she put out a video saying that she is leaving the Democratic Party. Now, if you watch Tucker Carlson's show last night, he went through a whole montage of liberal media saying how much they love Tulsi Gabbard and how she is. an up and coming member of the Democratic Party. They put her in leadership right away at the

Democratic National Convention. And she was seen as a rising star as the future of the Democratic Party. She's a Democrat who hails from Hawaii. She has been a member of the House of Reps for several years now. She was a Democratic primary presidential candidate in 2020. But in the past couple of years, she has bucked a lot of Democrat talking points and she has earned a fan base in the Republican Party or at least on the, I don't know if you would describe it as maybe the populist nationalist right. Certainly she's been on Tucker Carlson's show several times. He has commended her for her courage and at least being heterodox in her views. I have no doubt that she's still liberal in a lot of ways, but she bucked the war machine that is really kind of the unibunded

Uniparty in Washington of establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats who are always vying to get America into some kind of foreign conflict. And in her video, she outlined a lot of other things that she also disagrees with with the party that she has been in a member of for a long time now. So let me play you a little clip of the video that she released on Twitter. I can no longer remain in today's Democratic Party that's under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers who are hostile to people of faith and spirituality, who demonize the police but protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, and above all, who are dragging us ever closer to nuclear war. So she says, I can no longer remain in today's Democratic Party. It's now under complete control

of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardice. who divide us by racializing every issue and stoking anti-white racism. Now, that's a phrase that you're not allowed to say. You're not allowed to say that white people can be discriminated against or that there can be racial prejudice against white people or that it's tolerated to say awful things about white people and white communities and blame white people for the sins of people who lived in the same general geographical region hundreds of years ago who happened to share their melanching count. That is supposed to all be on the table. You're not supposed to mention that. And yet she does. She says anti-white racism. That is a forbidden phrase. And so, of course, as you can

imagine, just as we talked about yesterday with Kanye and Candace wearing their white Lives Matter shirts, people freaked out about this. You're not allowed to talk about white people getting the short end of the stick in some ways, which by the way, in some ways they absolutely are. And they do bear the brunt of a lot of prejudice and acceptable hatred. And I commend Tulsi Gabbard for being willing to call that out. She also says that they demonize the police who protect criminals of the expensive law abiding Americans. Absolutely true. Look at the trajectory of every progressive city in the United States. You can't say that any of these cities have gotten better or safer or more prosperous or that they've dealt with any of the problems that progressive social justice policies say,

that they are going to deal with, like homelessness, like poverty, like so-called inequality, they actually just exacerbate the issues by incentivizing bad behavior through their stupid policies in the name of equity. And it's just beyond me that anyone, every time I see a sign for a Democrat politician and like, I live in a pretty conservative area, I'm like, how do you not look at every single city in town that has been run by Democrats and that it's gotten worse, that it's gotten less safe, that it's gotten more unequal if you're looking at the incomes and the opportunities for people of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Like, how can you not see that things get worse always under Democrat leadership? That's not to say Republicans are perfect leaders by any

means. They're spineless in a lot of ways and I wish that they would do more. But Democrats, they bring destruction every time they are in charge. Their policies sound good and sound like they have good intentions, always with bad consequences, because that's what social justice does. It kills and it destroys. That's what so-called criminal justice does. So-called racial justice is a farce that we talked all about yesterday. None of these things with adjectives in front of justice are actually just. And that is why these cities are destroyed. And that is why there is, that is why there is a flight from these cities and from these states. That's why Gavin Newsom has to put up stupid billboards, evil billboards in red states asking people to come back to California because

he's going to allow them to kill their babies. And he's also going to create a sanctuary state, which he already has now for the state of California for minors who want to chop off their genitals without parental consent. That's the state of California. And he somehow thinks that this is going to get the people who fled from California to come back. It's absolutely desperate. How do you not look at the consequences of democratic policy and see, wow, that doesn't work. Even if you agree with them socially, even if you hate Republicans, even if you have bought the lie that conservatism is evil and unipathetic and that this is a semi-fascist party that is leading towards the death of democracy.

And even if you're scared of this crazy boogeyman called Christian nationalism, even though progressivism dominates every single institution in this country, even if you buy all of those myths. Like, even if you have been totally. brainwashed it in that way. Can you not just open your eyes and see what LA looks like? In Denver, in Austin, in Portland, and Seattle, and New York City, and Philadelphia, in Washington, D.C. Need I say more? So Tulsi Gabbard, as far as I'm concerned, is just someone who has eyes. It's just someone who has ears, who has understanding of reality and is able to see,

even though she has been associated with this party for a very long time and I'm sure was promised a lot of power and a lot of prominence is able to see, ooh, the leadership in my party, the ideology now of my party, the agenda of my party is not working for the American people. And it's actually destroying. She talks about open borders. She talks about the national security state. I mean, she's right in line with where a lot of, a lot of conservatives are. Again, I would say conservative, populist, kind of nationalist conservatives are that has really grown. I I think, as a group and as a movement over the past couple of years. And so she has gotten a round of applause by conservatives.

And I think understandably so. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality.

We don't just chase narratives. and we don't offer false comfort, we ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype

and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day show right here on Blaze TV

or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. All right. So, as I said, Tulsi Gabbard has been praised by a lot of conservatives, but very predictably, she is being lambasted or has been lambasted for a long time by people on the left.

Some of the very people that praised her and said that she was this up-and-coming star in the Democratic Party when she seemed to align with all of the mainstream views of the Democratic Party are now turning around and have turned around for the past couple of years and said, oh, she's dangerous. I mean, when she went after Kamala Harris in the primary and Kamala Harris kind of was like, I'm a top-tier candidate. I'm a top-tier candidate. and Tulsi Gabbard is just trying to come after me for clout. She said something ridiculous like that.

Didn't Kamala like not even win in the primary, the state of California? Wasn't that what happened if my memory serves and somehow she became the vice president? Like she was so disliked and unwanted as a presidential candidate for some reason. Joe Biden, I guess as a diversity hire, decided to do to get VP Harris. And she's just turned out to be an absolute disaster. She can't even really complete a full sentence without cackling about things that aren't funny. She's very strange person. Anyway, so, you know, she attacks Tulsi Gabbard, you got Hillary Clinton calling Tulsi Gabbard, a Russian agent.

That's their thing. That's what, you know, Democrats do. You are a Nazi, a fascist, a Russian agent, a secret white supremacist, all of these things. If you simply say something along the lines of, you know, I actually don't think Ukraine is worth a nuclear war. most people didn't even know where Ukraine was on a map a few months ago. Ukraine is not a democracy. They are an extremely corrupt country. They are not a part of NATO.

And so when someone says, hey, this could, us getting involved in this conflict could possibly lead to nuclear war and the loss of millions and millions of lives. when someone says that that apparently makes them a Russian agent. You saw how mad people were about Elon Musk when he said, hey, you know, here's my proposal of a deal that Russia and Ukraine could work out to kind of bring this to peace and to kind of figure all of this out. And he was absolutely lambasted. Even by Lindsey Graham said Elon should stick to what he knows, something. And then then threatened to like take away some kind of,

some kind of privilege from his company if he didn't stay quiet on Twitter. I just am trying to recall what Lindsay Grimm's thread actually said. So very strange. Like you're not allowed to question the prospect of nuclear war. You're not allowed to question why America is sending billions and billions and billions of dollars to the country of Ukraine. While we can't even take care of the issues that we have, like you're not allowed to question why our government cares more about the borders of

that it does our own borders, you're not allowed to question that without being called a Russian agent. That seems pretty bizarre to me. Seems pretty nefarious, quite honestly. Seems like maybe there's something else going on there. And again, I have to caveat this because I always get pushed back when I just start asking like questions that any thinking person should be asking about all of this is that that does not mean that I don't think that there shouldn't be protection for the Ukrainian people that I'm not sad. I mean, I have heard the stories and seen the stories of the women and the children and the men who are fleeing and who are being exploited, who are being raped, who are being horribly abused in these situations that are absolutely just in destitution

and the children who in some cases have been abandoned because of this. The surrogacy industry, that's a whole thing that we talk about a lot in which these surrogate babies that were supposed to be bought by parents abroad or were just left in Ukraine. So there's lots of tragedy there that we should have a lot of compassion about while still asking, why are the people in charge of this country more concerned with what's going on in Ukraine than what's going on here? With the crushing weight of inflation and the economic woes that we are dealing with with the loss of freedom in a lot of cases that people are suffering. under that we have chronicled on this podcast many times. And Tulsi Gabbard is willing to ask those questions. And I appreciate that. I appreciate that a lot.

I don't think that we agree on everything. I'm curious about what does she think about abortion? Last time I checked, she still believed that it should be legal to kill a child through 20 plus weeks of pregnancy. Like, I'm interested to know, like, what are her views on life? What are her views on the Second Amendment? And that's okay if we don't agree on all of those things. I mean, obviously those things are very important to me, but I still can appreciate the things that we do agree on, the things that she's

willing to champion, that she's willing to buck the system. She's willing to stand out and get the wrath of a lot of powerful Democrats for saying what she knows to be true. So I applaud her courage. I'm thankful for that. You need people who are willing to represent sanity and take the hits for it. Courage begets courage. And she is hopefully inspiring courage in a lot of people. Now, my hope is to get her on the show. That is what we are trying to work out right now. Hopefully for next week, that would be a privilege to be able to talk to her. So if we are able to do that, make sure you send me questions, any questions that you might have for her. And remember, like, she's getting hit from Democrats and Republicans, Adam Kisinger and Mitt Romney and

and others, which I don't even know if you really consider them, conservative Republicans, she's probably more conservative than both of them in a lot of ways. So, you know, she needs people to be sharing the arrows with her. And again, I just appreciate that she is willing to say things that to a lot of people are really unpopular. And once again, we learned that conservatives tolerate disagreement so much more than those on the left who are just consistently so incredibly intolerant towards any sort of disagreement. And of course, they are the ones who accuse us of being anti-democratic.

As I say, it is always projection, always projection when it comes to the left in those kinds of accusations. All right. Let's talk about Herschel Walker. A lot of you have been asking me this over the past week. and my thoughts on it. And I do have quite a few, quite a few thoughts. So Herschel Walker is currently running for one of the Georgia Senate seats in the U.S. Senate as a Republican. He is voting or he is running against Raphael Warnock, Democrat from Georgia, whom we have talked about. Terrible person, terrible

legislator, stands for everything that is atrocious and destructive, not just for the black community that he says that he represents, but just for Americans as a whole. And so, of course, people have been really excited about getting him out and getting a Republican alternative in there. And so Herschel Walker decided to run against him. And of course, he is running as a pro-life, pro-family candidate, but he has had an uphill climb in his campaign as several stories have come out and not even come out, just have been resurfaced. It was kind of already known that he had already had multiple kids with multiple women. And it seems, as far as I understand, that Christian Walker, who also has a platform, I think he has a podcast, but he has a lot

of influence on social media. I think from what I understand, Christian is the only one that really had a relationship with him. So people were already kind of accusing Herschel Walker of hypocrisy. But of course, the thought was, well, it's better than having a Democrat who's going to vote for abortion and going to vote for these anti-family policies, it's better to, you know, have an alternative to that. But now a story has come out that is even worse than some of the things that were already being said about Herschel Walker. And it was published by The Daily Beast on October 6th. And the story is that Herschel Walker paid for a woman's abortion, a woman that he got pregnant back in 2009. She apparently, according to the Daily Beast, provided them with a receipt

from the abortion clinic that shows the date of the procedure and then also a signed personal check that Herschel Walker had mailed her inside a get well soon card five days after the procedure. And so horrible story. Herschel Walker is saying that it's not true. He is claiming that he is going to sue the Daily Beast for this. And then Christian Walker, his son, posted, did a video saying that he is done supporting his dad running for Senate, that he is tired of the lies, and that he and his family members encouraged his dad not to run for Senate. And that basically his dad is a hypocrite. He said that the check does look like it is written in his dad's handwriting.

And so you can just tell from the videos that Christian put out that he was livid about this. He said that he doesn't want to play nice anymore. And, you know, Christian got a lot of criticism from people, conservatives, obviously, saying, why now, why, you know, why this timing, why right before the election? And also pointed out that Christian had supported him, that he had spoken at different events for, you know, in support of his dad running for Senate and seemed like he was completely on board with this campaign. And now some people on the right are saying, well, it's fishy that he is now.

talking about this. And then on the left, you also have people kind of saying the same thing, not saying that it's fishing necessarily, but saying, well, why did you wait? Why didn't you say something a long time ago if you knew he was a hypocrite? Why did you support him in the first place? And so I don't know. I haven't talked to Christian personally about all of this. I do know that it's got to be hard, especially over the past week or so getting so much shade and so much hate from people. And look, I don't know. I don't know. I haven't verified all of the details of this. Obviously, as I said, Herschel Walker says this is untrue. I can't verify the handwriting and all of that. It is a horrible accusation. But I don't know. Christian says that he thinks that it's true. And so there's a lot out there. I hope to be able to talk to Christian about this. Hopefully he will be able to come on my show soon. But I also can't impugn his. motives for why he decided to talk about that when he did. Maybe it was just too much for him. Maybe he had been carrying this burden and he finally felt like he had to say something. I don't think that we can

ascribe anything nefarious or malicious or shady to him about it. I do hope, though, to ask some questions of him of, you know, what was kind of going through his mind. Why did he make these videos? I'm interested to know that. I'm sure you guys are too. And so we're working on a getting that interview, and it would also be interesting to talk to Herschel Walker about what he thinks about this. Now, there has been a lot of debate on the rights about whether or not conservatives, Republicans should vote for Herschel Walker if this accusation is true. And, I mean, there are a lot of people saying that there's a lot of support in saying that it's true. And say we are, we are believing Christian when he says, this is his handwriting and say you

believe this woman and you believe this report that it is true that Herschel Walker paid for an abortion. Now, if it is true, it is obvious that that is gross hypocrisy, then that is evil, paying for a murder of a child to try to abdicate responsibility. Again, if that is true, that is evil, that is wicked, that is something that we should not equivocate about, that is something that we should be able to say, I mean, that is a disastrous and destructive. and such tragic sin and how awful for the woman and how awful for the child. And it is especially egregious to say that you are against abortion yourself and that you are pro family and to have that in your past. Now it is one thing for someone to have that in their past and to say,

look, this is what happened. I have changed since then. I have repented since then. By the grace of God, I have moved past that and that was a horrible thing that I did and I regret that. But the reason, you know, I'm so passionate against abortion is because I have that in my past and I've made those mistakes and I know how it can destroy people and destroy families and it destroyed a life. I think that there's all the grace in the world for that. And I know a lot of people wouldn't honor that kind of honesty, but I certainly would appreciate that kind of thing for anyone who had had that in their past.

I don't think it is necessarily, I don't think it's all. always hypocritical for you to be against something that you have done before because you just have the experience of why that thing should be opposed. Like people criticize Christian Walker for being against fatherlessness, even though he says that his father was, you know, pretty absent. But he's like, yeah, I know, I know the effects of fatherlessness because he dealt with a father that he says was pretty absentee. So again, that's not hypocritical.

You can learn from your past and your own experiences and shape your beliefs around that and even your policy positions. But if this did happen, if this did happen, I'm not seeing that this was a dark piece of his past that he is repenting of. He is saying, of course, that it's not true. So if someone did commit something like this, they are a hypocrite and they are not owning up to it and they are not saying that was a mistake that is now shaping my policy, Should Republicans vote for them?

Should you vote for someone who says that they are one way, but their life contradicts that? And really, the bigger question is, like, how much should you care about, how much should you care about personal morality when it comes to who you vote for? On the one hand, we've got Donald Trump, who I think a lot of us would say, okay, married three times, multiple divorces, you know, from what we know, he was a bit of a playboy and didn't represent in a lot of ways, traditional values, Christian values. And yet we have seen that with his appointment of Supreme

Court justices, something monumental and life-saving, like the Dobbs decision was published. And God used a very, you know, an imperfect person. All of us, of course, are imperfect, but an imperfect person, a person that a lot of people would describe as immoral is not aligning with Christian values to accomplish something that was incredibly just, incredibly good, incredibly historic. And we'll save the lives of unborn children by allowing states to pass just legislation that is protecting their right to life. And so God uses people who personally may not represent.

Christian or conservative values in some ways to accomplish really just and good things. But do the ends justify the means? When we're looking at the choice between the lesser of two evils, are you still supposed to choose evil? And you could say, well, we're all evil to a certain extent. Everyone sins. Everyone has hypocrisy. Everyone has some duplicity. Everyone has, you know, personal mistakes and personal sins.

So the question is, like, where do you draw the line? At what point is a candidate too immoral? Like, I mean, if you found out that a candidate was a pedophile, got busted for child pornography, but they said that they were child sex abuse material is the right way to say that. But they were saying that they were pro-life, pro-child, anti-drague. Story Hour. I mean, I wouldn't vote for that person. Of course not. So there is a line. There are things that you, that would disqualify someone from being a good candidate for you. The question is, where is it? How much does it matter? When does it matter? Because you're looking at

his opponent, Raphael Warnock, who not only will vote for destructive policies that will end in, for example, maybe the codification of Roe v. Wade making it impossible for states to pass laws to protect the rights of unborn children. So you're looking at the increased slaughter of thousands of image bearers of God because of the vote of someone like Raphael Warnock. And not only that, but he also has a very dark and riddled past. That, of course, interesting, right? The media is not interested in highlighting it at all. They don't want to dig in to his ex-wife who accused him of trying to run her over with his car and abusing her and abandoning their children. The only people that covered that were Fox News a couple of years ago when he was running and

when he won the election in 2021. So you've got two people with allegedly dark pasts and riddled with different kinds of accusations that bring their moral character and their integrity into question. because remember Raphael Warnock claims to be a Christian and a pastor, and yet he is pro everything that is anti-God and anti-biblical when it comes to policy and even in his personal views of, you know, sex and gender and the family and life inside the womb. And then you have this Republican over here who also allegedly, you know, has some inconsistencies and some immorality in his own life.

And yet he represents policies. that will lead to good things for vulnerable people and for all people, the people of Georgia, but also in the United States. And so it's a tough quandary that people are in. You have to decide like what is the line. It's obviously not perfection. And so it's something below that. It's something below that. And so what is it? And I don't know the exact answer. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's so easy as saying, well, you absolutely should. I'm definitely not on board of that or you absolutely shouldn't or you're not a good Christian. There is a line somewhere.

Moral character does matter. But how much in what kind of moral character? Like what sins are allowed before you disqualify someone as a candidate? that you would vote for. And it's really hard to, like, put them down on a list. I mean, paying for an abortion, that, again, if it happened, that's got to be, like, on the list of things, right? To disqualify?

I mean, again, not everything might. Like, maybe you would still vote for someone who got a divorce. Maybe you would still vote for someone who had, like, a DUI in his past, like, better work. maybe you would still vote for someone who cusses like a sailor or who isn't as strong on certain policies as you would like. But there's got to be some things that are like, you know what? That's too far as much as I would like his policies. And I can't tell you exactly what that list would be. I can't. So I'm not going to sit here and pronounce judgment on people

who decide one way or another because policy does matter. What do we always say? Politics matters because policy matters because people matter. Politics affects policy. Policy affects people. Policy really matters in some cases like with abortion. It is a matter of life and death. It could be a matter of being able to maim children who are confused about their gender or not.

So all of that really matters. So I'll just leave that with you. I'm sorry that I don't give you a clear cut answer, but these are the things that I'm thinking through. And again, I hope to be able to talk to Christian to get a little bit more clarity about all of this. So we'll see what the people of Georgia will decide. That is the thing with democratic processes

is that people get to decide what their line is. People get to decide what is going to disqualify someone or not. Okay, so I wanted to talk to you all about, and this doesn't really have to do with the other. things that we were talking about, but there's so many things, like I said, that I want to cover. I want to talk to you about this latest surrogacy story that I posted about on Instagram, and I got a ton of just positive agreeing reactions from you guys when I responded to a post that was posted by a guy with a big platform called Brian Kelly.

He is referred to as like the points the points guy. And he helps people travel the world by leveraging loyalty programs and credit card points. great idea for a company. He's become very successful doing that. And he posted this picture on Instagram of him holding his new baby while he is laying on a hospital bed. This is a baby that he created via surrogacy. And I've done several episodes about what I think are the huge ethical problems with commercialized surrogacy. So I want to give my reaction to that and re-explain all of my feelings about this post and just about commercialized surrogacy in general. But let me tell you a little bit more about Brian Kelly.

So he has been saying he did this, he did an interview back in 2021. And he says that he really wanted to become a father. And he has always been excited about that prospect. And then he did another interview earlier this year in August. that said I'm going to be a dad, bun in the oven, coming very soon. We're full third trimester. It's always been a dream of mine. I think when the pandemic hit, I had broken up with my fiance.

I've always known I wanted to be a dad. And it's hard being gay and doing IVF. The whole process takes a long time. In fall 2020, I started being serious about it. And then he claims that, you know, he wanted to do it with a partner. And then he just thought, you know, why not do it on my own? And then he said that there was such a long wait list for surrogates back in the pandemic. But there was an organization called Elevate Egg Donors, an LGBTQ surrogacy organization that reached out and said they were big fans and actually asked if this guy wanted a baby.

And so reached out to this gay single man and said, hey, you want a baby? We can hook you up with an egg donor and a surrogate. Is that not creepy? as heck to you. And then he claims he claims that his parents are very supportive of this, supportive of this.

And he also had a baby shower that he posted about on Instagram a few months ago where he had drag queens come to the baby shower because that's normal. That's like a very sane thing to do. That's something that dads typically like to do, right?

A baby shower where you are inviting men who are scantily clad and dressed up as women to celebrate the birth of your child. And here is a little bit of an interview that he did kind of explaining becoming a dad and wanting to become a dad. I am going to be a dad. Yes. It's always been a dream of mine. I'm very lucky. It'll basically be two years from the day I started to having my son. I got matched with this amazing surrogate who you've met. When I was a kid in the 90s, like, I knew I was gay. And I would go to bed and be like, if I could take a pill to be straight because I want

to have kids. And I never thought I'd be able to have kids. Oh, yeah. So like to all the gay boys out there or girls and people, you know, battling infertility, just like. Everything happens the way it's meant to happen. Maybe your thought is, well, the baby is already here. There's no reason for me not to celebrate it.

and to be excited about that. But I got to be honest, when I see that picture of a man who used a surrogate laying on a hospital bed holding a child that he created using the eggs of one woman and renting the womb of another woman and then took that child away from both his biological mom and the only woman that he has ever known, the woman who gestated and birthed him and lays on a hospital bed without any woman in sight, I got to say, I'm actually really, really. sad. I'm really disturbed by that. I don't find it within me to celebrate at all. I actually want to cry. Because I think about that child that was purposely created and designed to be taken away from

his mother. And that is not something to applaud. That is not something to celebrate. And this person, this guy, I'm not questioning whether or not he will be a loving dad. He could be a great dad. He could be super engaged. He could go to all the baseball games and he could have a great time with his son. The problem is he'll never be a mom. And as we've talked about many times on this podcast, I've talked about it. I've had Katie Faust on my show. I've had Jennifer Law on my show. Children have a right to a mom and a dad. And it is different when you are adopting a child that has already been created. The mother decided to keep this child to choose life and to go through, the hardship sometimes that is pregnancy and birth and to selflessly give up their child to a couple

that can at that time better take care of that child than she can. That is a selfless act of sacrifice. You've already created the child and then these adoptive parents are then sacrificing for that child and taking that child into their home. That is a beautiful act of redemption. That is different than purposely creating a child with the express intention of taking him away from his mother or father. And that is what sperm donation is using a sperm donor. And that is what egg donation and surrogacy is. You are purposely creating a child to take them away from their mom or their dad. Not only do I think that is immoral and unethical and of course unbiblical because the first commandment with the promise is to honor your father and your mother. And so you are robbing children

of that opportunity when you are purposely creating them to take them away from their mother or their father. But I also think that we do not know the psychological and long-term impact yet fully of on a child when you take them away or when you create them to purposely take them away from their parents. There's a book called Primal Wound that talks about the wound that happens when a child who is separated from their parents at birth for adoption. So this is a redemptive situation where the child was created, the mother, the parents couldn't take care of this child. And so this child is taken from a not great situation to a great situation with a loving home and loving parents and present parents and sometimes siblings and still that wound is there. Still, there is trauma that

happens at birth when that child is separated from his biological parents. Still, there is a long-term effect. Still, there is a longing inside that child for the rest of their life to know who they are, who's they are, and where they come from. They could have the best adoptive parents in the world and still they want to know who's my mom and why didn't she want me? Who's my dad? Who's my dad? and why is it he here? I can't speak for every single child that has been adopted. I don't know everyone's story, but that is what the data shows. And that's what most testimonies show. And that is, again, in even healthy and great adoptive situations. Now tell me what is the psychological impact of someone who was purposely created to be taken away from their mom and taken away from the woman who

birth them. You know, I follow Emily Oster, who is not, I mean, as far as I know, she's not a conservative, she's not a Christian, she deals with data. She's a professor at Brown University. She wrote a book called Expecting Better. And she just looks at data and tells you what the data says about certain things when it comes to pregnancy and parenthood. And someone asked her, is it true that babies instinctively at birth long for their mother because they recognize their mother's sound and smell and feel. And she said that is exactly what the data shows. She wasn't making any kind of political or ideological statement. That's just what the data shows. Of course it does. Of course, a baby is instinctively looking for her mother after she is

born. That is how God created us. And to rip that child away from her mother, away from her gestator, and bring her into the life of a stranger who created. her and who, by the way, probably destroyed a lot of other embryos along the way because they wanted a child that's a certain gender, that's a so-called strong embryo. I mean, there is a lot of exploitation and a lot of destruction that very often accompanies commercialized surrogacy. And people say, well, you know, these women, they're choosing it. Ag donors are choosing it. and surrogates are choosing it. It's consent.

First of all, I reject this idea that consent is the only standard of virtue and decency. I just, I reject that. Just because someone consents to something doesn't make it moral or ethical. I mean, you know most countries in Europe actually make this kind of practice illegal? People come to the United States because the laws around IVF and commercialized surrogacy in this country are so liberal and have almost zero regard for the rights and the well-being of the child. or even the women involved who very often are not told the side effects of donating eggs, which can cause cancer, or being a surrogate, which very often leads to premature birth and is not just traumatic physically and emotionally and mentally for the child, but also

for the mother. Many of these women, they sign contracts that say in the contract that you have to abort this baby at any time if the parents who are hiring the surrogate want you to abort this baby. I don't even think we know the exploitation that is inherent in the commercialized surrogacy industry. And people ask me all the time, what do I think about IVF? Look, I think IVF brings with it some complications and some ethical questions as well, especially when you have fertilized embryos that are on ice indefinitely. If you believe that life starts at conception, which personally I don't think that there is

any other logical place for life to start than when there is unique DNA from the sperm and the egg that comes together to make a living embryo, then you've got what Jennifer Law refers to, and I think she's actually quoting someone else, souls on ice. We've got human beings on ice. I think there are ethical questions about that. That doesn't mean that these children are not made in the image of God. That doesn't mean these children aren't incredibly valuable. That God doesn't love. Of course, God loves them. And parents who use IVF are amazing parents. Children created through IVF are just as valuable and worthy and equal to children. who are made in any other way. That's not the question. The question is, are we thinking about

the rights and the well-being of children when we're looking at reproductive technology? Something that I've said a lot is that whenever technology or science can take us from what is natural to what is possible, we have the responsibility to slow down and ask a lot of questions. Because just because technology and science can take us from what is natural to what is possible does not mean that it is good. technology does not answer the question of is this right technology only answers the question is this possible and as Christians we are always obligated to ask not just is this possible but is this right and if something is not right it doesn't matter if it's possible so i do think surrogacy commercialized surrogacy indeed should be restricted i believe that children have a right

to their mother and father again there are are disruptions to that, natural disruptions to that, of course, the death of a parent adoption, but all of those things are circumstances that simply happen. You're not creating a child to bring them into a fatherless or motherless situation, far be it from Christians, far be it from Christians to ever celebrate or applaud, forced motherlessness or fatherlessness. So that's how I feel about that. I understand, look, I'm not judging if you haven't thought about this. if this has never even crossed your mind and you just thought surrogacy was fine, like I was there too. I hadn't really thought about it a couple of years ago. But it's time for us to start thinking about

these things. It's time for us to realize that children do have rights. And I'm sorry, you do not have a right to designer children. You do not have a right to a woman's eggs. You don't have a right to a man's sperm. You don't have a right to a woman's uterus. I don't care how much you can pay for it. you don't have a right to those things. Stop taking the freaking picture sitting on the hospital bed with your child. Like you had anything to do with their labor or birth. Talk about erasure. I'm sorry, but I find this really disturbing.

And for all the people who talk about, oh, the handmade's tail, the handmade's tail, this is a lot, a heck of a lot closer to the handmade's tail, surrogacy than anti-abortion laws are. Like, the handmade's tail has nothing to do with restricting. the slaughter of unborn children inside the womb, but rather is the exploitation of women just as bodies, just as wombs. That's what surrogacy is. And yet all the people calling laws that protect unborn children, handmaid's tail, and dystopian have nothing to say about commercialized surrogacy because that would cause them to compromise on one of their chief values, which is gay sex. So I just, I see a lot of hypocrisy there. And I see a lot of, um, um,

detrimental effects, unfortunately, on future generations. And I think that Christians really, really need to stand firm if we care about and love our neighbors, especially our baby neighbors who do not have a voice. All right. Now I want to talk to an attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom, who is in the midst of a very important case that is going to help set the stage for the future of female sports. This case is called Seoul v. Connecticut Association of Sports. schools. And it has to do with Title IX, has to do the rights with the rights of female athletes. And I heard about this case. And I thought, wow, we should really be talking about this because this is going to, as I said, set the stage for the future of fairness for female athletes. So I'm

going to be talking to Christiana Kiefer. She is Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. She's going to break this all down for us and explain why it matters, not just legally and constitutionally, but also spiritually for us as Christian. So without further ado, here. is our new friend, Christina. Christina, thank you so much for joining us. All right, can you just start us off? Tell us about Seoul v. Connecticut Association of Schools. What in the world is this about?

Yes. So starting in 2017, the state of Connecticut allowed first one and then two male athletes to compete in girls' high school track in the state of Connecticut. And that had a devastating impact on female athletes across the state. together over the course of just three years, these two male athletes took 15 women's state championship titles. They set 17 new meat records, records that girls don't really think they have any chance of ever breaking. And more than 85 times they deprived female athletes of opportunities to advance to the next level of competition at more elite meets state championships

and the like. So as you can imagine, this had a really great. really devastating impact on female athletes, including my clients, which are four brave young women, Selena Sol, Chelsea Mitchell, Alana Smith, and Ashley Nicoletti. And among them, they lost out on championship titles multiple times. They were the fastest girls in the race. And a male athlete took that title instead. They lost out on advancement opportunities, on right placements, on medals, on public recognition, things that matter to athletes. So Alliance Defending Freedom has the privilege of representing them in a federal lawsuit. And we said, look, this violates a fair athletic competition and these girls' right to opportunities under Title IX. And so we filed a federal

lawsuit back in 2020, and that case is still pending right now. All right. And it's before the, it's before the Supreme Court, correct? It's before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, yes. Okay. Okay, gotcha. So not in front of the Supreme Court. So what exactly is going on? with it right now. What's the latest update? Yes. Well, unfortunately, COVID slowed things down a little bit. The federal district court sat on the case and ultimately dismissed it. And he basically looked at my clients and said, your last opportunities don't matter. Your records that don't rightly reflect your accomplishments don't matter. And so he dismissed the case. And that's wrong. The girls' accomplishments and having records that rightly reflect their achievements do matter. And so Alliance Defending Freedom

appealed that dismissal to the Second Circuit. We had oral arguments just a couple weeks ago, and we made the case that the case ought to be able to proceed. We ought to be able to make our full case under Title IX. The judges asked good questions. I think they're seriously considering our arguments, and we're optimistic that we'll be able to go back down to the lower court and really make the full case for why Connecticut's policy

that allows males into women's sports violates Title IX. Yeah, tell us a little bit more about Title IX. What does Title IX say, and why are you all arguing that this protects the rights of the athletes that you're representing? Sure. Title IX was passed 50 years ago this year to stop sex discrimination against women and provide them with comparable educational opportunities to their male counterparts. Title IX really, in the intervening years, has come to be synonymous with sports. It's the reason that we've seen women's sports just grow to such an extent in our country over the last several. decades and girls now have athletic opportunities in high school and college and scholarship opportunities that they never would have dreamed of before Title IX passed. But unfortunately,

when you allow males to come into women's sports and take away those opportunities, girls lose. The whole reason we have women's sports as a separate category is because we recognize there are real physical differences between males and females. In fact, the science shows that males have anywhere from a 10 to 50% performance advantage of our comparably fit and trained female athletes. So not just in Connecticut, but across the country in other states as well, we're seeing that just one or even two male athletes in the women's category is just devastating the opportunities for female athletes. So saw the federal lawsuit under Title IX and we're optimistic. Yes, there was a study. I'm sure that you've seen it, and I've talked about it before from Duke University, just a few years ago, analyzing

not just female athletes versus male athletes, but female elite athletes versus male elite athletes. You mentioned that there is a 10 to 50% performance gap between men and women, boys and girls. And that's just true across the board in all kinds of levels of athletes. But when you're looking at even elite athletes, there is a 10 to 12% performance gap. This is what Duke University found. And the gap is smaller between elite females. So we're talking like collegiate athletes, professional athletes, even Olympic athletes and non-elite males. So we're talking high school athletes.

But the gap is still there. So there is still a gap between Olympic level, for example, track stars like Allison Felix and a high school boy. A high school boy on average who is pretty good. Say they're pretty good at track in high school. They still are likely to beat someone like Alison Felix who is running. an Olympic level simply because they are boys. And sometimes what we hear from the other side is that, well, this has to do with the different resources and the different training that is given to men and women. Obviously, that's not true. If you're looking at an Olympic level athlete and a high school

athlete that goes to a public school, it's because he's a boy. And that's what Duke University found. Duke University said the differential is not the result of boys and men having to male identity, more resources, better training or superior discipline. It is because they have an androgyized body. The results make clear that sex determines winshare. Female athletes here defined as athletes with ovaries instead of testes and testosterone levels, testosterone levels capable of being produced by the female non-androgenized body are not competitive for the win against males.

Here defined as athletes with testes and T levels in the male range. And so they basically say, look, it's the existence, not to be too graphic. It's literally the existence of testes. That is what determines your winshare. And that's it. And the fact that this is even being debated, that this is even a question, I mean, it does kind of worry me for the future. But what do you think is you kind of look at the not just political landscape,

but the legal landscape in other similar cases before appellate courts, even before the Supreme Court, if it's going that direction. And what do you think the future is? Well, I'm optimistic that truth will ultimately win out because you are exactly right. Like, the performance gap between elite male and female Olympians stabilized back in the 1980s and really has not changed much since then. You mentioned Allison Felix. There was one study of high school boys in 2017, more than 275 high school boys in the United States alone beat Alison Felix's lifetime best in the 400 meter. The advertised school boy by age 14 or 15 can outrun a female Olympic female athlete.

So the science is just so clear that males have an inherent physical advantage over female athletes that no amount of testosterone suppression can undo. It doesn't change their larger hearts, their greater lung capacity, their denser bones, their stronger muscles. In fact, the science shows that even after a couple years of testosterone suppression, males can continue to increase in strength. So the science is so clear on this question, and I am optimistic that ultimately we will be able to restore fairness and protect the integrity of women's sports for future female athletes. But it is an uphill road to, it's an uphill battle, in part because the Biden administration is pushing for these changes to Title IX that would redefine sex to include gender identity and open the door for biological males to identify.

as female to flood women's sports. So we do have our work cut out for us. Has ADF had any requests from male athletes who are worried about females who identify as boys taking their titles? No, not that I'm aware of. Yeah. That's a really telling point, right? Interesting. Interesting.

I'll definitely be looking for cases like that. So what can the average person, I'm not, I'm not a lawyer. Most people listening are not attorneys and, you know, they just do what they can to try to pay attention to what's going on. and be involved in their communities, but it's, you know, it's really overwhelming. Sometimes we just feel like there's nothing we can do. And your opinion, like what can the average person do? How can they support ADF? How can they follow along?

I mean, what can we do to get involved? I think the most important thing your listeners can do is to speak up with grace and truth. So there is nothing wrongful about communicating that there are real physical differences between men and women. And in fact, that's something to be celebrated, and it should be reflected in our law and policy. When we fail to rightly recognize the real physical difference between males and females, women and girls are the ones who suffer the most consequences. Yes, we see that happening in sports, but we also see it in the broader cultural context as well, of males coming into women's private spaces and homeless shelters. The list just kind of goes on and on

of the ways that women are most harmed when our law and policies don't reflect that there are those differences. So I encourage your listeners to speak out, talk about it with their family members, be disciplining the next generation about how God has created us male and female and the goodness of that design. And then, too, for parents and those who have athletes in their lives, encourage them to be speaking to school administrators, to athletic associations, those who have the authority to set policy and can make a change and protect the integrity of women's sports for the next generation. Yes. Thank you so much. And also just for representing how important it is for Christians to enter every sphere, for Christians to take their gifts to do what

you have done and becoming an attorney. Or maybe that's not where God has gifted you or God has called you. Maybe he's called you into a different sphere. But use the talents and the gifts and all of the resources that God has given you to fight for the things that are good and right and true. And Christians really should be bringing light into every sphere and role and job that we occupy. And you seem to be doing that so well. So thank you so much, Christina, for taking the time to come on. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

All right, guys, longer episode today. So much to cover. Tomorrow, we're debating on whether or not we want to do a very controversial episode. I don't even know if I want to say what it's about because I don't know. We haven't decided whether we're going to do it. But I think I think I want to. I think I want to. I know it sounds really mysterious. So you'll just have to tune in no matter what. No matter what we talk about it, it'll probably be deemed controversial by someone. But this controversial subject that really doesn't have to do with politics at all, it is out of the it is out of kind of the norm of what I'm. typically talk about, but I think that I want to dedicate an episode to it. So we'll just see. Just tune in today. If you love this podcast, please leave us a five-star review wherever you listen and also make sure you subscribe on YouTube and like this video. That would help us out a lot. Thanks so much.

See you guys tomorrow. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed,

you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.