Hour 1: Equal Justice Under Law

about God? And are you not in a moment of awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man, that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you

wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have this sense of awe through the work that they do. In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse

because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you to walk through the chapters written by people who all have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount, just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll send it right off to you as my way of

saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or you can go online to in the market with Janet Parshall. When you're also on the website, consider becoming a partial partner. Those are people who give every single month at a level of their own choosing. You always get the truth tool, but in addition to that, you get a weekly newsletter that includes my writing and an audio piece just for my partial partners. So 877 Janet 58 or the website

in the market with Janet Parshall. Consider becoming a partial partner or asking for this month's truth tool. Have you ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast.

reformed and redirected. And there are even hints that possibly, Lord, may it be there might be a regime change in Iran. So much news to cover. Let me turn to my friend Chris Mitchell in Jerusalem for CBN news.

They're £30,000 apiece. So the Iran regime has been disabled in many ways. Remember, they may have a lot of missiles, but they got to have launchers. And Israel, to their credit, has been knocking off the launchers, which makes it difficult to send some of these missiles out. But they had to do something, something in response. And so what they did today is they decided that they would try to respond by hitting an American base in Qatar. Well, let

me tell you how that went. In the words of the white House, because the president put this on X 53 minutes ago. Here's what he said. Iran has officially responded to our obliteration of their nuclear facilities with a very weak response, which we expected and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired, 13 were knocked down, and one was set free because it was headed in a non-threatening direction. I'm pleased to report that no Americans

were harmed. I add this thank you Lord, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, we've gotten it all out. They've gotten it all out of their system and there will be hopefully no further hate. All in capital letters. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region. I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your

attention to this matter. Signed the president of the United States. So that was their retaliation today. Now, again, remember the response today. Some of our missiles were fired out of Saudi Arabia. So you realize that there is not a nation state in that part of the world that is thrilled with Iran. Iran's a troublemaker, a bully in the neighborhood, and they really and truly would love to see regime change. But they're very tribalist in their form of Islam, the Shiite,

the Sunni. And so they just kind of keep their opinions to themselves. But privately, they're hoping and believing that there's going to be a regime change. I have to tell you that the people in Iran particularly, are hoping that there will be a change in going what's going on in Iran. I've been back and forth with her today. He is the founder and president of Iran Alive Ministries. You can imagine the reports that he's getting and he said this, and I want to share it with you.

He said, our job is not to let the news guide us, but to align ourselves with the heart, mind and will of the Lord. To that I say, Amen and Amen. Pray for those in authority. Pray for protection for the innocent people of Iran and Israel and pray for peace. And may it come through the Prince of Peace himself back after this. So many in our culture today are spiritually curious but hesitant about religion. That's why

I've chosen. Have you ever wondered, is this month's truth tool explore how everyday experiences might be the signpost pointing to deeper biblical truths. As for your copy of have you ever wondered when you give a gift of any amount to in the market, call eight 7758, that's eight 7758 or go to in the market with Janet Parshall. Well, if you're into anniversaries, today is one of the sorts, and I want to share it with you. Today marks over 50 years since title nine became law. It was

just 37 words long. And you know what it did? It changed American education by prohibiting sex based discrimination in schools that got federal dollars. So happy birthday, title nine. May you ever remain in place. It is, after all, a champion for educational equality. We're going to talk about that in a whole lot more with Sarah Perry. Yep. We did give her that name. She is the vice

president and legal fellow at Defending Education. She's a former senior counsel to the Assistant secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Ed, and former senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Sarah, the warmest of welcomes. And let's start with this title. Nine. And let's start with the presumption that a whole lot of people don't know Greek number or Roman numerals. And so if you look at one x and you see that as nine and you're not sure what it got amended to and what it did,

start at the very beginning. What happened 50 years ago.

that kind of character from our girls. Well, that, of course, precipitated, as you can imagine, as anybody who likes equal opportunity and wants everyone to achieve educationally, regardless of whether you're a boy or a girl, whether or not you are a Christian or a non-Christian. We want public education to work for everyone, and that was the premise behind title nine.

It actually took six months of negotiation and 250 versions of House and Senate education bills before we got that short 37 word statute that simply prohibits sex discrimination in any federally funded education program in the U.S.. Now, that's most education outlets charter schools, kindergartens, private schools, public schools,

graduate schools, colleges. If you accept so much as a dollar of federal funding, your school is subject to the protections and requirements of title nine, which makes it a pretty significant law.

But we've seen people take liberties with the definition of sex. They have expanded it to include transgender status, and one of those colleges to do precisely. That is an all women's college in Massachusetts, one of what are called the Seven Sisters, the private, all women's academies that were considered sister schools to the Ivy League colleges like Harvard and Columbia.

And one of the things that we noted was that this all girls school, this all female institution of higher education, not only admits biological men who identify as women, but it also opens all of the bathrooms, locker rooms and housing accommodations to biological men as well. Which really brings us back to square one. If title nine was designed to protect biological girls and give them equal educational opportunity, what is a women's college doing admitting biological men?

as recently as 20 to 30 years ago. And one of the things we've done is file this complaint. It was submitted on Friday. Today is the anniversary of title nine. We have been in receipt of acknowledgment of our complaint and our hope, and our prayer is that the US Department of Education takes a very close look at what's happening at Smith College. Now, while Smith College is a private college, it is still subject to title nine. Why?

Because it accepts federal research grant money and that automatically applies title nine. No college has to accept federal funding, but once they do, it works in the nature of a contract. If you break the terms of the contract, if you discriminate based on sex, if you expand title nine to include gender identity, you put your federal funding at risk. That is exactly what happened in the state

of Maine. Many of your listeners will probably remember what happened when Pam Bondi announced she was suing the state of Maine, specifically because Janet Mills told the president to his face that she was going to follow contrary state law. Well, she has $250 million annually in the offing from the federal government. And that's precisely what we've requested the Department of Education to look at here.

have my phone. I can turn that channel off. Boom! Gotcha. I'm going to take a break and come right back. Sarah Perry is with me. Vice president of Defending Education. So much going on. You might think it's just a lot of legal blather, but in reality, it's about our children, is it not? Where they go to school. What happens when they get there? Right and wrong. And whether or

not God makes mistakes back after this. We're visiting with Sarah Perry, who's the vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, former senior counsel to the Assistant secretary for civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, and former senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. I want to linger just a little bit with Smith College, because there's a point here that I want to underscore for our friends listening all across the country. So today, as we

noted earlier, marks the 50th anniversary of title nine. It's just 37 words long. It's not that complicated. Literally a level playing field, no pun intended. Done purposely for boys and girls. Men and women. Girls get a chance. If you take $0.01 of federal dollars. We don't care what portal it comes through. We don't care what program you

take it through one penny. It is. For example, while Hillsdale College doesn't take a red cent from the federal government, so they're free to operate without the restraints of the federal government. But if you put your hand in the cookie jar and you take so much as one penny, gotcha, says the federal government, and they get to dictate how you will behave, what you will do. And so it's only 37 pages long. So what did they know 50 years ago that we don't know now? Well, they knew

that sex met a man or a woman. We have continued to devolve as a culture. We are on the brink of extinction as an as an entity because we have turned our backs on God and we're making a mockery of what is his truth. But let's just pretend for a minute that it was 50 years ago, and this issue at Smith College is raising its ugly head, and you were allowing men who've decided that God made

a mistake. They're now trapped in a woman's body. And I'm going to malts into the girls bathroom at Smith College. If the language says and the title that it was, to quote, prohibit Discrimination based on sex. Isn't it quintessential discrimination to allow a man to come in and violate the privacy rights of women in a bathroom at a school for all girls?

I would not ever classify myself as a feminist. As you know, I was raised in a very conservative Christian household, and I have to I have to tell you, this is one thing that I think the feminists got right. We did not realize it would be conservatives 53 years into the future that would be arguing for continued protection of title nine, because now we're having to prevent our

children from being sexually assaulted in bathrooms. We're having to prevent gender identitarianism being shoved down the throat of our five and six year olds in kindergarten, and we're having to prevent our daughters from competing against the court from biological boys lest they suffer a concussion. So this really is taking everything that our grandmothers worked for. And remember, women have only had the vote for a little more

than 100 years. And yet suddenly all of the progenitors of the women's liberation movement have fallen deadly silent on the issue of title nine. I think it's because they don't want to be characterized as transphobes, as haters. But you and I both know God doesn't make mistakes. We are created male and female as the word tells us. God does not put people in the wrong bodies. And this is something about which I feel very strongly because I have a daughter, as you know, going to college

on a volleyball scholarship. I do not know whether she will face a biological boy unless we continue to fight this.

And the reality is that those laws are put in place because God understood that if we didn't have the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit and wanted the fruit of that indwelling of power is self control, that we needed a government, an external restraint. And so government is to defend and it is to restrain. So I find it interesting that while all of the governmental guidance coming out of DC now that says sex is. You were

born a man. You were born a woman. The idea that we're going to move against, procedures that get any kind of federal funding to do transgender surgeries. And we're going to talk about this case in a minute, which is another bigger footprint on this particular issue. What I'm finding problematic is the absolute lawlessness of entities, organizations, teachers, lawmakers who basically thumb their nose at what now is legal precedent and common sense and good patient care and

doing what's right in their own eyes. Uh, it seems to me that the dear folks at DOJ have got to be burning the midnight oil, because they're going to be busier than a one armed paper hanger. How are they going to keep up with all these lawsuits?

end here. This is a slippery slope. You have manipulated the Constitution. There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage. But of course we were called alarmist. We were called individuals who were hysterical. And it was the histrionics about

all the conservatives and the Bible thumpers. And yet here we are, exactly ten years hence, coming to the end of another Supreme Court term, and we are now having to fight to make sure that individuals who are 18 and under are not subjected to life altering, catastrophic medical interventions based on a fleeting notion of gender identity. So in the end, as you know, we were right.

phenomenon that's taking place back after this. If what you hear on in the market with Janet Parshall encourages you, enlightens you, engages you, and equips you, I want to ask you to become a partial partner today. This program depends on the faithful and ongoing support of listeners just like you. By supporting this program on a regular, ongoing monthly basis, you'll receive several benefits that only my partners receive. So please call today at 877 Janet, 58 or go

online to in the market with Janet Parshall. We are visiting with Sarah Perry, who is the vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education. I've got a link to the website just below her bio on our information page. And also, she's the former senior counsel to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the US Department of Education

and former senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. I've got a link to a piece that she wrote for the Federalist Society entitled Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee's Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Minors in U.S. v Skrmetti. And that's what we're going to go next. This stellar, stunningly important. And boy, whether or not you just happen to read Supreme Court briefs like you read the back of a cereal box every morning or not, this is so tremendously important.

6 to 3. The three dissenters, three women, three liberals. Enough said. But the reality is this is a huge decision because it doesn't just impact Tennessee, but 26 other states that are dealing with exactly the same issue. Sara, give me your take on this.

to work. This is going to be a little bit different and for example Tennessee than it will be in California. But at bottom, the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3, as you said decision, decided that this was simply a regulation, not on sex or transgender status, but on age and medical use. Well, why is that? Because Tennessee's law restricted things like cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and so-called gender affirming care like mastectomies. Two biological adults over the age of 19.

As it should. Why? Because all of the legislators got together, and the governor agreed that after floor debate, this was something they felt strongly about. They wanted to protect minor children in the state. And this was a controversial, highly debated issue. And I'm quoting the justice here, the chief

justice who wrote the opinion. This is an issue better left to the people and their elected representatives almost taking a line from the Dobbs v Jackson Womens playbook, in which they said issues like abortion should be left to the people and their elected representatives. We don't want judges who are not scientists, who are not parents, who are not educators or legislators to be making politically charged decisions.

We simply want them to protect the rule of law and the power of states to decide things like medical regulation for themselves.

arguing here. And what was it about protected classes? How does all of that work?

every American so-called equal protection of the laws. Now, in many cases, the Supreme Court has taken that promise in the 14th amendment and had to apply it to real world situations like, for example, race discrimination, or in United States versus Virginia, a case in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion on the basis of sex. These are two classifications in which the Supreme Court has said specifically, these are characteristics that are arbitrary. They are

what are called immutable characteristics. You can't do anything about them. They were granted to you simply by what the court calls accident of birth, like national origin or ethnicity. They basically come with a package. You are born either to an African American family or an Asian family or a white family. You are born either male and female. These are things that come with you from the moment of

your conception. We have to protect those particular characterizations, but they did not get to the question of whether or not gender identity or transgender status are the same as

those protected categories. The reason I was hopeful that they would offer some clarification on this is because we actually see four more cases pending on cert petition at the Supreme Court that simply indicate that clarity would help conclude those cases, whether it's on insurance coverage, whether it's on women's sports, or whether it's on other states and so-called gender affirming care bans. I was hopeful the Supreme Court

would weigh in. Now. The majority did not. But in a separate opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said transgender status is not the same as sex and we have not decided that it is. This is something the court should have taken up. I think the Chief Justice Roberts took the middle way and he said, we're not going to address equal protection. We're not going to address what's called heightened scrutiny, that we have to look closer at those

kinds of distinctions in state law. Instead, he said, it makes no distinction for anyone based on anything other than the medical use of these procedures and the age of the individual. I think that was a lost opportunity.

They had a model that they created in Dobbs, I agree with you. They used that model, kicked it back to the States, I get it. But the reality is they can sidestep it so far. And then at some point, for legal reasons, and you just ticked off a few of them. Insurance. ET etc. you're going to have to decide what sex means. It really is a revisiting of what the definition of that term is. By the way, you implied reference to Virginia versus loving. This is the

famous case even if you don't follow law. I bet you saw the movie where it was a story of an interracial couple that challenged the illegality at the time of people of two different races marrying. Well, that goes to the point that Sarah was just making. Immutable. Immutable is this cumbersome word that you don't ever use unless you're talking to a bunch of lawyers. That means unchangeable.

You cannot change your skin color. You cannot. God designed that as much as he designed, whether you were a man or a woman. And thanks be to God, that decision came down and said, absolutely, you cannot prohibit that by any stretch of the imagination. But in oral arguments, it didn't stop Justice Jackson, who in the end was one of the three dissenting justices from harkening back to the idea that there was a protection there in loving

that should have been applied to the issue of transgender. Now, you just said it, but I want you to say it again so people understand this. You can change your sex by saying, I'm going to cut off my top surgery. I'm going to redo the bottom surgery. I'm going to infuse my body a bunch of testosterone, and I can physically manipulate the outside. But your DNA goes to the core of your being. That's why this whole thing is an illusion, a delusion. More to the point, you cannot

and never will be able to change your sex. It goes to the very tiniest part of how God made us so. And yet she tried to take an immutable characteristic and superimpose it on immutable one. Talk to me about that.

politically charged. And in fact, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who next to the chief Justice and Justice Clarence Thomas is the third most senior justice on the bench, is the one that wrote an opinion that was joined by the other two liberal females, in which she said the same thing and argued that transgender students and families had been neglected,

that the court had not undertaken the proper analysis. But the minute the court starts engaging in politically charged speak about gender identity and born in the wrong body and a transgender boy, which means biological girl, you can tell that the Supreme Court's thinking on this has been subject to political pressure. And as somebody who watches the court as a lawyer herself, that was, I think, one of

my greatest heartaches. Now we got the right decision. But there were footnotes in the Chief justice's majority opinion, in which he talked about transgender boys and used he him pronouns, even though this was in relation to biological girls. That bothers me significantly, because it indicates to me that other

cases that could come before the Supreme Court. And remember, we have yet another one to come down the Mahmud versus Taylor case on whether or not there's a right of religious parents to opt their children out of gender identity curriculum. It indicates to me that the chief justice is malleable on an issue that should not be malleable. It should be very cut and dry, very clear to the justices that a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl, and never the twain shall meet.

are crucial, quite literally, life and death decisions. So we need to remember them as the people that we pray for. In fact, here's a suggestion when you're starting to pray for those in authority, just look at the three branches of government and pray for the justices. During one of your prayer periods, pray for the president for one of your prayer periods, his vice president and his cabinet. Pray for the members of the House. Then pray for the members of the Senate. You can do this in a

very orderly fashion. Even if you don't know them all by name, you can lift them up. God cares about judges. Check his book. He's got some books that carry the name judges, and he cares about presidents. He's got a book called Kings. I know no king but King Jesus. And then he also cares about representatives. Moses was told, choose out among yourselves representatives. Where do you think we got that idea? So this will help you specifically to pray for these men and women who are public servants

and need wisdom back after this. We're visiting with Sarah Perry, who is vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education. So what I'm about to read is very apropos for our time together, because this just got announced by the Department of Ed. And if you want more information on this. But to all the school administrators out there, graduate level, college level, high school level, the US department is going to be a part of this 250th anniversary of America.

I told you that when we had the parade honoring the birth of the US Army, that the administration has planned a year's worth of activities to celebrate America, our republic, democracy, and the principles that have guided this nation. So here's a great opportunity that the Department of Ed is just announcing today. They have issued what's called a notice Inviting applications for a new American History and Civics Seminar discretionary

grant program that's designed to honor America's 250th celebration. And the applications are now open. All you have to do at this point is file an intent to apply, because it takes a while to fill out grant stuff. As you all know, if you've ever done one of those. But by the 2nd of July, you just have to let the Department of Ed know that you're interested in this. And what I like is that clearly they want to make sure that Americans get caught, get taught the values

of this country. So applicants must study the seminars that they're going to put on. They must study the American political traditions, ideas, traditions, institutions and texts essential to American constitutional government and American history, with a focus on the first principles of the founding, their inclusion in the Declaration

of Independence. Excuse me, the US Constitution and the Bill of rights priority is going to be given to applicants from institutions of higher ed that have established an independent academic unit dedicated to civic thought excuse me? Constitutional studies, American history, political leadership, and free market enterprise. Applicants must

design and implement evidence based approaches. That's important to seminars for educators or students specifically focused on American history and civics that directly commemorate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. Sarah. As someone who contributes frequently to the Federalist Society, you must be very happy about this.

They have used the power of the federal purse, which we talked about a little bit, with title nine, to say specifically, we are going to give these particular allocated federal funds preference to schools, to developers, to curriculum, uh, consultation, consultations who are Specifically concerned with teaching about the American founding. Now this we've been told this is going to be a year long celebration. We know that the official 250th is next July. But we've seen obviously already the 250th

anniversary of the United States Army. And what a patriotic celebration that was part of what we don't see in American education. And again, 90% of American school kids go to public schools, either because they are zoned into public schools or they need special ed services, as my sons did, or because they cannot afford private or parochial or there are no charter school options. Most kids go to private

school or to public school. But what we've seen in public school is specifically a lack of understanding of American history and civics, and what we used to take in high school and middle school, which was called social studies. That gave us the understanding of how America was founded. Our very important American history. And all of the tools we needed to be contributing members of society going forward. I think this is a very welcome development. I think

it's a very creative but very useful. Determination of how to use federal funding, the power of the purse that Congress gives. The executive agency, through that particular demonstration of what they can and cannot do. Vis a vis federal law. I think it's a great way to get other educational opportunities to sort of come together and educate children for the benefit of knowing their own nation's history.

coming to our local school hadn't happened. It is the germ, the seed, if you will, that started your dad and me by understanding that there was a war out there against the values that we held sincerely as followers of Jesus Christ. Well, not all the parents out of this case came out of Maryland are followers of Jesus Christ, but it is the exact same principle. Talk to me about this.

We used to be PD. Now we are just defending education. So again, I the irony is not lost on me. No, this is this is so critically important. Now I will tell you, I do think the Supreme Court and we could see this opinion on Thursday. We're getting opinions from the court again on Thursday. This is a critically important case because it's not just religious parents who want to opt their children out of sexually and gender identity, aggressive

curricular inclusions. It's also secular parents, parents who understand that issues of sexuality and gender identity are best left to parents to impart to their children by hope. And I think based on oral arguments, I'm going to be right, is that they find for the parents in opting their children out.

defend it, which is where we are now. If the founders had thought that parents were fighting with public education rather than understanding at its founding, that American education was about using the Bible to build character and to teach literacy, they would be stunned. So I'm watching this one very carefully, because if parents can't look well to the ways of their household without the school, the government schools intruding, it's a dark day in America. So we're going to watch

this one very carefully. We covered a lot of ground. Sarah, thank you so much. Let me get my friends to read your article again. If you go to In the Market with Janet Parshall under the synopsis of the hour, click on the red box. Program details and audio takes you to the info page. There's Sarah's longer piece in the Federalist Society on Skrmetti. Thanks, Sarah. Thanks, friends. We'll see you next time.