Point of View August 13, 2026: The Round Table

[00:00:04] Across America Live, this is Point of View. And now, Kerby Anderson. All right, it's the Round Table today and I am so excited to be sharing the mic with two favorites around the Round Table, Claire Ath and John Mancini.

[00:00:28] We have so much to discuss today. Everything from who counts as a human being, relevant to the pro-life conversation, and honestly, so many conversations that we're having today in our culture. We're going to talk about Flock Cameras, Woke One, what was that? And so many other things. But let me welcome my co-host for this hour. Again, Claire Ath, Senior Policy Analyst at Human Coalition and the Co-Founder and Executive Director of Vita et Terra.

[00:00:55] We'll also be talking about some environmental concerns and population concerns again later in the show. But Claire, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me, Liberty. And then John Mancini is joining us this hour. He's a research associate with the American Principles Project. John, it's always great to have you on Point of View. Always great to be here, Liberty. So we had talked briefly on X yesterday about potentially debating different versions of Spider-Man.

[00:01:23] I don't know if we'll get that into the show today because it is pretty intense. But safe to say, I think that we're fans around the table anyways. Claire, you're a boy mom. I don't know if Spider-Man is an interest in your household or not, but as a fellow boy mom, I know it sure is in mine. Yes. I'd say superheroes, sports, construction, all of it. So much fun. Well, let's talk about some issues of the day.

[00:01:50] Claire, I want to start out with this article that you wrote recently for the Washington Examiner. And by the way, don't forget you can follow along with all of the articles and topics we're discussing at pointofview.net. And this is really important. And so we do always like to discuss pro-life issues. I know that's an issue close to my heart, obviously, Claire. I know it is to yours as well.

[00:02:09] And as we have discussed on Point of View so often, the main battlefront for the pro-life movement right now really is chemical abortion, also known as the abortion pill. And it's just so rampant. There are so many different angles to discuss, but I really like the way that you tackled the issue in this article because it takes us to the heart of the matter. So I'd love to hear you talk us through this and what we really need to be thinking about when we're debating chemical abortion.

[00:02:40] Yes. So I had written this piece actually back in June for who is a human with this chemical abortion debate. Claire, are you still there? That the chemical abortion pill harms women. And the dangers to moms in ethics and public policy, they have a great report out showing that more than one in 10 women who take this drug have serious adverse effects.

[00:03:06] And so while this is very important and these are great things to bring to light for the FDA, one of my kind of concerns is that we shift the conversation away from what abortion really is, who is being harmed, the baby, and it really boils down to this fundamental question of who counts as a human being.

[00:03:26] So as I'm sure you and John had seen this week, you know, there's the viral video of the Massachusetts governor signing unlimited abortion up till nine months and everybody's clapping. And it just brought back to mind this piece because it just keeps hammering home this question of who counts as a person. And while I am very glad to see that people are just up in arms over this Massachusetts bill, it frustrates me a little, to be honest, Liberty, because we need to be up in arms about all of it.

[00:04:01] And so that's just something, you know, as a pro-life movement, I don't want us to lose sight of, that we can't just become a party that's opposed to dangerous drugs or late-term abortion. You know, our principle is that abortion is wrong, period. And that's what I really would love to get back to. Yeah, that is so important. I mean, there are so many facets of it.

[00:04:31] And you make a great point in the article that we do care about women not being deceived and women's health. And it's so deceptive often in the abortion movement when they talk about caring about women's health when often they're pushing things that are clearly harmful to women. But like you said, at the end of the day, this is about whether or not we can kill human beings just because we don't want them or they're inconvenient or there might be problems.

[00:04:56] And, John, this just makes me think of something that pro-lifers have warned about for decades, which is if you try to establish some limit of like, OK, everybody can agree that, you know, late-term abortion is wrong, even though obviously we see that's not the case. Even if we were to get to that point, the line is arbitrary because you're either human or you're not. And killing innocent human life is either wrong or it's not.

[00:05:23] And so at some point, it seems to me that that line is going to be arbitrary. But I think Claire's right. Like we've we forgot a lot about that. But what do you think about all this? Oh, I completely agree. There's any any line you draw. It's exactly right, Liberty. Any line you draw anywhere in the fetal development stages is completely arbitrary. Right. Like, like, oh, how about before it feels pain?

[00:05:49] And it's like, well, I mean, I mean, that doesn't mean that it's right to still kill the thing. You're still conceiving that you're killing a human life. Oh, but maybe you say it's not actually alive. Well, now you're just contradicting the scientific consensus. Like people I actually just saw something very recently. Unfortunately, I probably I think I think it was some debate on YouTube where the pro choice defender basically said, well, there's no scientific consensus on when life begins.

[00:06:18] And I had to rewind it and listen to it three times to make sure I actually heard that right. And I was just out of curiosity because I recalled from from college. I recalled, oh, gosh, not even college. I'm sorry. Middle school when I was 10, like 12 years old, you know, just reading either in bioethics or in middle school is just science that said, yes, like life begins at fertilization.

[00:06:42] And so just out of curiosity, I did a quick Google search and I'm over here expecting the Google's A.I., which is just so bent to the left. I'm expecting it to go. Nobody knows when life begins. But instead, even even this A.I. Somebody said, yes, life begins at fertilization. And all of the results that came that came afterwards, like all of the links, all kept saying life begins at fertilization, life begins at fertilization.

[00:07:11] And so, you know, this idea that there's no scientific consensus is completely false. It's just whether or not you're willing to accept it. And that's fine if you're not, I guess. Just concede that you just you really want to kill your kid for some reason. And especially as it pertains to to the pro life debate, you know, there's so many just terrible arguments that that the more you might say academic left puts forth to justify abortion.

[00:07:41] And the position changes all the time because they're just they're so crazy. The prevailing one right now is that or so far as I can tell, it's either it's one of two things. It's either and this gets at Claire's piece, which is excellent, by the way.

[00:07:57] It's either, well, it's a human, but it's not a person or it's abortion is morally wrong, but politically right, which is a contradiction in terms because you don't have a political obligation to do anything if you're not morally obligated to do that thing. Case in point, the Nazi law that mandated the Holocaust was wrong and no one should have followed that law, even though it was law. In other words, the law was morally egregious to morally egregious to carry out.

[00:08:28] And, you know, the whole personhood debate is just utterly absurd because whenever you say person, I mean, most of us are thinking human being. And so now we're just trying to get away from that. But yeah, great points, John. We've got to go to a break, but we're going to keep talking about personhood because John's right. That's really what it's coming down to. And we'll be right back on point of view.

[00:09:00] This is Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson. What does the word Christian mean these days? It doesn't seem to mean very much. The last few reports from George Barna's Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University revealed that a very small percentage of American Christians have a Christian worldview. Nearly 7 in 10 of Americans self-identify as Christians, yet only 4% of Americans have a Christian worldview. George Barna explains,

[00:09:54] Christians may say they believe in the Bible and the gospel message, but they also indicated on their surveys that they believe people are basically good. Of course, if people believe they are good, then they may not believe in sin and the need for a savior. Now, if you look at the cultural issues, you'll find even more discrepancies between their views and a Christian worldview. The differences in biblical beliefs will then manifest themselves in the widely divergent views today held among American Christians on questions of morality and politics.

[00:10:22] This includes divergent views on sex, marriage, family, and abortion, and those in turn affect how American Christians vote on candidates and key political issues. If you're a pastor or Bible teacher, you need to get back to the basics. It is likely that many of the people you teach do not have a Christian worldview. They need your biblical teaching and biblical discipleship. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

[00:10:49] Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Okay, let's go back to that question of what is a person, because I really think that this gets to the heart of the article we were just talking about by Claire,

[00:11:17] that, you know, who counts as a human being? That is what we have to have clarity on if we are going to win in the pro-life movement. And even if we're not winning politically, it is a position that we cannot move from. And by the way, you know, Claire referenced what is happening in Massachusetts, where the governor just recently signed away all limits on abortion,

[00:11:43] which means that Massachusetts is now the 10th state to permit abortion all the way up to birth. And multiple, you know, doctors, OBGYNs have come out and said, look, it is never, contrary to what we often hear, it is never medically necessary to perform a late-term abortion or right before birth. At that point, it counts as delivery.

[00:12:09] You deliver the baby, and there may be certain medical emergencies where an early delivery in order to save the life of the baby or the mom is necessary. But in that case, you treat both as patients, and you try to save the life of both. And so early delivery can be dangerous, but the intent in that is not to kill the baby. So there is absolutely no instance where it is necessary to kill a baby in the late term.

[00:12:39] It's never medically necessary, period. But they're specifically talking about late-term abortion to then, you know, kill the baby in the mom's womb and then deliver it. Like, that's just – it doesn't make any sense. And so this is really just about – I mean, gosh, I don't know. I guess it really comes down to how do we decide whether or not we value human beings. So, I mean, there are different theories.

[00:13:03] So one philosophy – this is kind of spearheaded at least more recently by philosopher Peter Singer who says that, okay, personhood depends on sentience. So if you are conscious, if you are sentient, then you are a person. You might be a human, but you're not a person unless you have sentience.

[00:13:21] Well, that leads to all kinds of problems as anybody can immediately see from the unborn to even newborn life or people with severe mental disabilities or maybe later in life in the elderly. And we also see, you know, different ideas of kind of a gradient theory, meaning that some people might have more personhood than others. So, therefore, some people have more rights than others. I'm sorry.

[00:13:45] I think we've been there in this nation regarding that kind of theory, and I don't think that we want to go back in terms of who has more personhood, who is more human than another. But, Claire, what I see a lot of today, even in the way that a lot of times we talk about artificial intelligence and technology and just our own meaning in life,

[00:14:05] it comes down to what we can produce and usefulness and utility, not to mention just, like, enjoyment kind of that's where people are getting their value out of life. And so it seems to me that that's kind of how we're trying to define personhood. If somebody is not useful or they're not productive or they're not enjoying life, then they don't have a right to live. But how do you see it, this whole question of who counts and who doesn't?

[00:14:33] I think you really hit the nail on the head, that a lot of it is tied to your utility, your usefulness, but then also your wantedness. I think that we see that a lot with abortion is that so we're talking about the nine-month cases, that you have a nine-month baby or an eight-month, seven-month baby, and if they're wanted, those hospitals are going to do everything that they can to get that baby in the NICU to provide care.

[00:15:00] But then if the parent doesn't want that child, if they don't have a desire to have them in their life, then no care is rendered. So I think a lot of it hinges on, yes, your usefulness, but also whether or not you're wanted, which is a horrible, horrible kind of marker for personhood. Yeah, absolutely. John, I know we kind of ran up against a break there a minute ago, but I'd love to get any other thoughts from you on the personhood aspect of this

[00:15:29] and how people are defining personhood today. Yeah, the sentience criterion is really, I'm going to say just weird. I mean, okay, so I'm not going to say no one in philosophy respects Peter Singer, but generally from what I've gathered is that, like me, whenever I would hear that name,

[00:15:58] I would kind of roll my eyes. When I was doing academic philosophy, I'd be like, yeah, okay, you know, that guy who's kind of gone off the rails. And to my understanding, this is typically how people would regard him. So I'm not saying we shouldn't take his philosophy seriously, but we also shouldn't be surprised that when you hear something like the sentience criterion, there is a lot of pushback against that in philosophy because it's like, okay, what exactly is sentience? What is consciousness? We don't really know.

[00:16:28] So then you can push that back and you can go, okay, well, maybe here's what I mean is you need to have the same, like, psychological state or something or the same memories or the capacity to have the same memories. You need some sort of connection. And then you get just these absolutely repugnant ideas where it's like, you know, a brain transplant essentially transplants the person entirely.

[00:16:53] Or severe amnesia means that, you know, you're literally not the same human being anymore. Or here's a particularly devastating case is you separate the two hemispheres of the brain and you put these into two separate people. And all of a sudden they both have the same exact memories and now you exist in two bodies. And I guess they're both the same person. Like that doesn't make any sense either.

[00:17:18] So, gosh, no, it's just when you've asked the question, when you've shifted the goalpost from, is it right to kill human beings? And you start to ask, no, that's the wrong question. Is it right to kill, you know, is this a person? Not is the baby a human being, but is it a person? You're asking the wrong question there, right? Because that's literally all that the pro-abortion activists can do is they can only say,

[00:17:47] you know, I don't really care if it's a baby. I care if it's a person. And it's like, no, that's the wrong question to ask. Because all I care about is if that's a baby. Because I think that we have rights endowed by our creator, the most fundamental and first one being life. So that's all I'm going to say there. Yeah, no, very good. And I agree with you. I mean, everything, I haven't officially studied philosophy, but everything that I've read about Peter Singer in the context of the whole personhood debate is crazy.

[00:18:16] And yet the way that people are approaching the abortion issue or the euthanasia issue, you know, quote unquote, death with dignity, which really results in people who, like if you look at Canada, who are too poor or too elderly or too sick for the government to actually take care of, then they just encourage them to end their life. Like it's it sounds crazy. And a lot of people do push back against it when they're, you know, faced with those ideas on paper.

[00:18:43] But then in reality, it's kind of like people are conducting their lives that way. And that's what we have to push back against. We have to have clarity to say, like, you're right, John, it's a human being. And personhood cannot be separated from that. Because if you want to get biblical about it, which we do, then you are a person if you are made in the image of God and human beings are made in the image of God.

[00:19:09] And this is a conversation that we have to have with regard to abortion, whether it is at the earliest stages of human existence or whether it is further along in the pregnancy. We have to say that as a human being, that is a person made in God's image. It is not right to intentionally kill that human being. But also with regard to technology and transhumanism and the way that a lot of people are going,

[00:19:36] a lot of people are questioning, well, we don't know what consciousness means. So our AI is conscious. And again, for Christians, it can kind of make us roll our eyes or laugh and say this is kind of crazy. But for people who don't have a very firm grounding in a biblical worldview, it can be confusing. And so I think we will probably get to a point at some point in the future where people will be having these debates about whether or not AIs or robots or things like this are conscious and whether or not they should have personhood rights.

[00:20:05] I really do think that we're heading in that direction. And so the church has to be able to stand firm and say, here's what it means to be a person. And here's what it means to be a human being, because an unborn child is made in the image of God. A robot, an AI system, no matter how impressive, is not. And so that's a clear line and that's the line that we have to hold. But I really do want to get back to this point that Claire mentioned a minute ago about wantedness as well.

[00:20:30] It's not all about the personhood debate or the utility or usefulness, but whether or not a person is wanted. And so this really, this leads us into another area that we have to be able to speak clearly as Christians, and that is the area of surrogacy. So there is a case that has kind of gone viral this week, and we're about to go to a break, but when we get back, I want to talk about it.

[00:20:53] Because what happened is that there was a couple in California who paid a surrogate in Alaska named McKenna West to carry their baby boy. Well, at 20 weeks, the baby was diagnosed with a severe heart condition, and they wanted the surrogate to get an abortion. She refused, and a legal battle has resulted. According to what I've read, the baby has been born in Texas.

[00:21:19] But they have been going to court over whether or not to give the baby the life-saving surgery that he needs. Talk about being wanted or not. We'll discuss it more when we get back. At Point of View, we believe there is power in prayer, and that is why we have relaunched our Pray for America campaign, a series of weekly emails to unite Americans in prayer for our nation.

[00:21:48] Imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans started praying intentionally together on a weekly basis. You can help make that a reality by subscribing to our Pray for America emails. Just go to pointofview.net and click on the Pray for America banner that's right there on the homepage.

[00:22:11] Each week, you'll receive a brief news update, a specific prayer guide, and a free resource to equip you in further action. We encourage you to not only pray with us each week, but to share these prayers and the resources with others in your life. Join the movement today. Visit pointofview.net and click on the banner Pray for America right there at the top.

[00:22:39] That's pointofview.net. Let's pray together for God to make a difference in our land. Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:04] The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again is Liberty McCarter. So, when you separate the Imago Dei from the human being, then human beings just become something that are either useful or can be used by others. Maybe just a decoration on one's life.

[00:23:31] And this is the way that we are starting to treat children, just based on whether or not they're wanted. And this is what surrogacy, I believe, helps to promote. And so, again, I mentioned right before the break, there was a case where a couple in California hired a surrogate based in Alaska. McKenna West found out about a congenital condition halfway through the pregnancy, and they wanted the surrogate to abort. Well, she did not want to do that.

[00:23:59] So, she actually ended up coming to Texas and has had the baby. But now, she's been issued a restraining order to not have any contact with the child. And so, this whole, like, nightmarish legal battle is unfolding around a baby who was born alive, as far as we know, and is going to need surgery to address the serious condition that he does have.

[00:24:22] And there is now a custody battle as soon before he was even born, where the surrogate and then the intended parents are at odds. Claire, this is just such a horrifying story, but I think it's really important for people to see that this is kind of where this commodification of children will lead, especially if surrogacy is allowed to continue legally and unregulated in the United States.

[00:24:49] Exactly. And I just think this story is heartbreaking, both for McKenna, the surrogate mom, and Gabriel, the baby. But it really just highlights one of my deepest concerns with surrogacy, and it's just making human life a contract. And so, you look at this situation, and, you know, money was exchanged. There's expectations written in the contract from the intended parents and then the birth mother. But at the end of the day, Gabriel, he's not, as you said, like, he's not a product.

[00:25:19] He's not a defective product. He's a boy. And we need to look at these things through that lens, like through a human lens, and understand that, yes, okay, they found in utero he had a heart condition, and that may make his life more difficult. But as we discovered, it's a treatable heart condition, and it's something that you have to treat. It's just crazy to me to think that his parents said, no, we aren't going to treat this heart condition.

[00:25:48] Don't render our child care. And that was, I think, the controversy kind of split into two pieces, where first it was just they found out about the heart condition. They wanted her to have an abortion. She said no. But then after she wouldn't get the abortion, it turned into they didn't want him to have care. So she wanted him to be born at the Texas Children's, where they can do the heart surgery, and they wanted him to be born in California,

[00:26:14] where they would then, I think it's called comfort care, that the baby would be born and then just pass. But to think that we have this whole legal gray area where the baby and their rights and what's best for them was not being placed at the forefront or their priority. It was what the intended parents wanted. Yeah, it seems very much like, okay, the customer rights here. I mean, like you said, it's just he is being treated as a product.

[00:26:45] And from the moment they asked for an abortion to then saying, okay, well, if she's going to refuse to get an abortion, then we want to deny him life-saving care. I mean, on the wantedness point, McKenna is actually saying that she is intending to continue to fight for custody of Gabriel.

[00:27:03] So if you have an individual who wants to care for this child, she's the one that's carrying him, literally bringing him into the world, or she has brought him into the world at this point, and then wants to continue caring, then, I mean, John, this is just so, it's heartbreaking and confusing to me that the intended parents would still say, no, we want custody, but we just, we want to let the baby die.

[00:27:32] Like, that is just, that is so wild to me and just so dark. But, I mean, this one has gone viral. I don't know if there's been other cases that are, I don't know, this drastic, but I know there have been other horror stories regarding surrogacy as well in these types of battles. But, John, what are your thoughts?

[00:27:52] My mind immediately goes to just the absurdity behind just baby buying in itself, where it's literally, I'm actually, I'm reminded of, actually, Claire, I think I saw this on Twitter. I think you tweeted about it, where, well, gosh, this is a little bit different. But, basically, this woman reached out to her biological mother.

[00:28:20] She was adopted, and she reached out to her biological mother, you know, seeking a relationship, seeking to connect. And the mother basically said, look, this is a huge breach of privacy, and I signed away my rights a long time ago. Yeah, she was an egg donor, I believe. That's right, that's right. Thank you. That's right.

[00:28:41] And, you know, it's the same thing here, right, where the parents think, the biological parents, not the surrogate mother, but they think that because they signed this contract, all of a sudden they have no obligations to that child, you know, whatsoever. Like, not really, anyway. They don't have the obligation to make sure that this baby lives because, oh, they signed a piece of paper.

[00:29:06] And, I mean, as Christians, we believe that there's a much deeper contract, namely through biology, which signals a much deeper, I would say, more important connection to the child there, which is a spiritual one. And so what I like to say is when you are in a familial relationship with someone, God very intentionally placed you in that relationship. I mean, I think that's pretty obvious. And so with that comes certain obligations to those people to whom you're related by blood.

[00:29:36] So parents have special obligations to their children. They're supposed to see to the health of their child. And so implicitly when, you know, you've conceived, it's like, look, that's you signing a contract with God going, yeah, I'm going to look after this child. I'm going to raise him in the church, going to make sure that he grows up to be strong and can serve you, God, in all the ways that he can. And so you sign that contract, but then you're over here trying to play God by signing this other contract.

[00:30:05] And you go, yeah, all of a sudden this nullifies my contract with God, which is just the most absurd thing that I can possibly conjure. And it's just terrible. It's so sad that, like, humans, as humans, we really think that we have this sort of power to just ignore these kinds of relationships with people. But that's what happens when you kill God. But at the end of the day, we know God always wins. Yeah, yeah, you're so right.

[00:30:31] I mean, Claire, I think that's exactly what we're trying to do is play God. And we've come to view life and children and family as, like you said, a contractual basis or commodities that you can buy. It's like these add-ons. Add it on to your life or don't. You know, get rid of it. Instead of viewing all these relationships, including, you know, marriage and even children, they are not rights. They're not products you can buy. They are gifts from the Lord.

[00:31:03] But anyways. Wait. Oh, Claire, are you there? I'm here. Okay. I would love to get just, we only have a couple minutes left in this segment, but I'd love to hear more from you on just kind of that idea of, you know, viewing. You said it so well earlier about, you know, the contractual view of these human relationships. When in reality, these family members, like, they are gifts from God. They're not anything that's guaranteed, though.

[00:31:35] Yes. And I think that is where a lot of my concern comes from, from surrogacy. And, you know, I know we've talked in the past, Liberty, about some issues with IVF and embryo creation. But it really just stresses, I believe, the need for Christians to be knowledgeable on these issues. And kind of, I know everyone doesn't like to get into the current events and politics of things.

[00:31:58] But we have to be aware of what's happening so that we can not only just speak out against it, but also model in our own lives what God's true design for the family is. Kind of like John had mentioned. And so I just think in this case with baby Gabriel, it is so unfortunate, everything that has happened.

[00:32:18] But I've also been kind of so reassured and proud to see different, you know, figures within the church and politicians stepping up to advocate for Gabriel and say, hey, you know, this isn't okay. This baby deserves to live. Yeah. Yeah. Good point. They're having a lot of people speaking up for him.

[00:32:36] In fact, Texas Attorney General Kim Paxson has played a big role in trying to extend protection to McKenna and baby Gabriel when she came to Texas for refuge in order to have the baby here. And so that is something that is encouraging to see. But when we get back, let's talk about a couple more issues. Man, trying to squeeze a lot in today. There's just so much to discuss. But you've probably seen flock cameras up and around. We do have an action alert on that, by the way.

[00:33:06] You can go to our website, pointofview.net, if you want to contact your congressman specifically about flock cameras and if you have any concerns about them. I want to get John and Claire's perspective on this because I know it's been a conversation in my town that we've had with neighbors, particularly concerning some of the locations that they've chosen for placing these cameras. And for me, it's a big it's a privacy issue. But I know a lot of people are also concerned about reductions in crime as well.

[00:33:35] So we're going to get some takes on that, maybe address Woke One, but so much more to discuss when we get back in a few minutes and the next hour as well. So stay with us right here on Point of View. You're listening to Point of View, your listener supported source for truth. Okay.

[00:34:04] So a lot of people are concerned about the flock cameras that they see all over the nation. There are more than 120,000 flock cameras around the nation, and they are contracted with more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies across 49 states. And they did seem to kind of pop up rather quickly. And so some of the concerns boil down to, you know, how they are being misused.

[00:34:30] In fact, there's examples of police officers using them to stalk people or giving access to search the data to people who really shouldn't have it and things like that. Also, people are concerned about the fact that even though that's not really a GPS, it's a license plate reader. They are so prevalent.

[00:34:51] And since the data exists kind of indefinitely at this point, or at least for a very long time in a cloud that is searchable, you can pretty much pin together people's activities if they are within the vicinity of these cameras in such a way that it effectively boils down to them being followed or monitored. And so but other people say, hey, you know, in our town, it has caused this kind of reduction in crime rates and things like that. It's kind of anecdotal at this point because we don't have a whole lot of evidence.

[00:35:20] And some people are taking it into their own hands, you know, beyond just having town hall meetings or trying to get them out of their town. They're vandalizing them, which, of course, we do not endorse here on Point of View. But it has caused quite a stir. So I'm curious. I've seen different takes on this. Claire, I'd love to get your thoughts on whether or not you're concerned, not concerned, ambivalent on the flaunt camera issue.

[00:35:45] I think that and with this specific article you gave, that kind of two things can be true at the same time. Like you said, destroying the cameras, vandalism, that's not the answer. I think that if you don't like the surveillance program, you should try to work with your local government and change the laws. But it's also important that we not dismiss why people are uncomfortable. Like you said, there are a lot of concerns. These aren't just red light cameras.

[00:36:11] And I've read similarly that they can use kind of the license plate data to create this reconstruction of where the person has been. So I think we'll flock cameras. It's not something I've spent a ton of time looking into. My just gut instinct is that, yes, I want public safety. Yes, I want our police officers to have all the tools that they need.

[00:36:34] But I also think the government doesn't need unlimited resources and ability that is going to end up tracking us. Because my concern with anything is, you know, you may like your local police sheriff, your local government right now. But who's to say you're going to like them in five years? Then there may be a different person, a different party in control. So it's just making sure whatever policies we have are policies that are good, not because of who is in office,

[00:37:03] but they're good because they're true and they're applied fairly. Yeah, yeah. Great points. Very reasonable, Claire. People don't really like reasonable takes very much, though. If you want to go viral, here's a key. You've got to be really extreme. But anyways, John, what are your thoughts on this? Mine are very similar to Claire's.

[00:37:29] I also haven't spent a ton of time looking into the flat cameras. I did hear about, you know, the cops stalking their ex-girlfriends and that sort of thing. And, you know, that's obviously wrong and obviously a total abuse and at least misuse of the flat cameras. And, I mean, really, it's – I think the – you know, it's a question of before we implement this technology,

[00:37:57] I really hope a lot of thought goes into whether we should. So – because there's a lot we can do with technology. And this is certainly true. It's certainly true that there's a lot of things that we shouldn't do even though we could. Like transhumanism, I think, is a perfect example, like you mentioned before. We should not go down that rat hole, even though very plausibly we could. Do flock nodes count as that? I'm not really sure. Again, I just – I haven't thought enough about it.

[00:38:27] I think caution in all these things – you know, we talk about AI all the time. Caution is always warranted whenever we're proposing innovation. But we just need to be careful not to worship innovation of some sort of God and need to remember to implement guardrails and, yeah, where we're able to. Very reasonable. There's a lot of things that we could think about with regard to this. But, yes, just because we have the technology doesn't mean that we should use it.

[00:38:56] I will just point out that even though some people anecdotally say they feel that the flock cameras have made their areas more safe, crime rates have continued to drop steadily. And if you look at the little bit of data that we have, then it has – you know, there is some correlation with prevention of, like, property and vehicle crimes where flock cameras are, but not significantly – anything significant with regard to violent crimes.

[00:39:23] So, anyways, it's something to think about. But, again, we do have that action alert if you want to look at it at pointofview.net. But we're about to run out of time, and I know that John has to leave us. I just wanted to get your reaction to this clip. So we're going to go ahead and play this, switch gears a little bit, and then John let you react to it. I have a local city councilman that has this saying, woke one was crazy. Woke one was crazy.

[00:39:52] And I think that what's important is that we have to assess what expanded it is saying. Did the movement go too far with some of those positions? I mean, you briefly supported the idea of defunding the police. Well, you know, I think that during this time, and especially during COVID, there was a huge opening of the Overton window. We were shut down. There was some of the highest unemployment rates that we have seen because of those shutdowns.

[00:40:19] And I think that the doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better place. And I actually think that the discussions that were had in that time were quite fruitful. We've got like a minute, but woke one was crazy. Are we just going to let that fly? I mean, I'm glad we agree on something, I guess.

[00:40:47] But I mean, if you mean to tell me that we are in woke two right now, we've been in woke two, and that this is somehow better than woke one, you are out of your mind. Because this is even worse, in my opinion. I mean, I don't even know where the dividing line is. And this was the whole point of the article that you shared with us, Liberty, was like, what was woke one? And I don't know. I mean, all I can tell is that it's all woke these days.

[00:41:17] So I think at this point we just need to remember to hold the politicians accountable, right? So when they say stuff like we're not in favor of trainging the kids, we're not in favor of late-term abortions and everything, you just show them their voting record and you go, look, was this woke one? Is that what this was? You're walking back that claim? Now, goodness. So that's my initial reaction. I think we're all just very confused.

[00:41:45] And it's just double talk. That's all it is. Yeah, absolutely. I saw someone say, you know, if they're already labeling what kind of like the 2020 era as woke one, then that implies woke two. And it seems like we're still debating about what a woman is and whether or not only women are allowed in the WNBA. We'll talk about that here a little bit in the next hour. We still have states that are legalizing abortion all the way up to birth.

[00:42:13] You had a candidate that everybody thought was going to win in Wisconsin, and she didn't, running on canceling Thanksgiving and having proximity to whiteness and trying to walk those kinds of claims back. So, yeah, I'm not really sure whether or not we've emerged from woke one or whether they're just trying to kind of erase our memories here. That was a clip from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, by the way.

[00:42:38] So we'll continue talking about that and many other issues when we get back from the break. Claire Ath will stay with us here on Point of View. We'll keep discussing on the roundtable. Saying goodbye to John. He's been with us this hour. It's been a great conversation. John, thanks, as always, for being on Point of View. Yeah, thank you so much for having me again. So when we get back, let's get Claire's reaction on woke one and also talk about the track record of both parties over the last few years. Are they kind of merging into something similar?

[00:43:08] Where do we want to see them go in the future? And many more topics. Stay with us right here on Point of View. Who can you trust? Years ago, many of us could probably have provided a fairly long list. But today, well, today it seems we almost can't trust anyone. Educators don't even know what a woman is anymore. Many so-called public servants have shown all they care about is themselves.

[00:43:35] The FBI has been accused of bias, law-breaking, betrayal, and journalism. It's largely corrupt with no Clark Kent standing up for truth, justice, and the American way. All of this is why Point of View Radio is more important than ever. And your part in supporting us is more needed than ever. Do your part today in supporting trustworthy truth.

[00:44:01] Stand with us and help push back the lies and the darkness. Visit pointofview.net. Don't put it off. Take a moment right now and click on that big blue button that says Donate Now. Or call to invest at 1-800-347-5151. Pointofview.net and 800-347-5151.

[00:44:30] Point of View will continue after this. Across America, live. This is Point of View. And now, Liberty McCarthy.

[00:44:59] All right, we're back for the second hour of the roundtable today. Still joined by Claire Athe, co-hosting on the roundtable with me today. She is a senior policy analyst at Human Coalition and co-founder and executive director of Vita et Terra. So, Claire, I just wanted to, as we continue our discussion on politics and maybe our hopes for the future and whether or not we're coming to the end of an era or starting a new one, I wanted to get your thoughts and reactions as well, just in case anyone missed the first hour.

[00:45:28] We'll just play the top of that clip again really quick. I have a local city councilman that has this saying, woke one was crazy. Woke one was crazy. Okay. I know you've seen the clip online. I think a lot of people probably have. But it just gets me how they just, like, sit there and laugh, like, man, we were so crazy. We said some crazy things. It's like, yeah.

[00:45:55] And there were some crazy policies that actually affected people's lives. But it just, it kind of makes you laugh and, like, what universe are we living in here where we're just kind of laughing off all that stuff that happened in the past? Yeah. I think AOC saying woke one was crazy was, it's actually really marking a shift and I think is crazy because we're talking about ideas.

[00:46:19] Like you said, a few years ago, you couldn't question or you were told you were hateful or backwards and, you know, defund the police. You see AOC and others now moving further and further away from this. But defund the police. Like, I remember New York, they were talking about cutting the budget of the NYPD by, I think it was like a billion and a half dollars. And AOC thought that that wasn't far enough, that we needed to take it further.

[00:46:46] And now you hear her laughing and saying, oh, well, that was woke one. But these were policies that had consequences. And so I think when I hear AOC say this, you know, I'm perfectly happy that she's changed her mind. You know, we need more of that in politics. But changing your mind requires you saying, you know, I was wrong. I believed X, Y, and Z. And this is why I no longer believe that. But that's not what's happening here.

[00:47:14] They're just kind of all laughing it off and saying, oh, that was crazy. Where what I would like to see is outlining, yes, I believe these things. And this is why it was wrong. Because what they believed was wrong. And I think we would be in a better place if we all had a politics that agreed on that. That is such a good point. Because we do want people to be able to grow or people change their minds.

[00:47:39] I mean, there are things that I didn't know a whole lot about, especially when I was younger and I gained wisdom or I researched or I looked into something more. And but we we really do need accountability and articulation of why. This is an article we've got posted at pointofview.net from The New York Post. But I really think this part is true. The author says the left has realized how absurd their ideas sound to everyday Americans and they're trying to massage what they really believe.

[00:48:09] And I think also instead of, like you said, doing some sort of, hey, I was wrong or here's why I've changed my mind on that or, you know, the evidence didn't bear out. And so we shifted in something, you know, a little more honest. She just tried to chalk it up to, well, it was locked down. It was covid. Everybody. We were just shifting the Overton window like people were saying crazy stuff back then.

[00:48:32] And I think, you know, as as funny as it is and kind of like this weird like what reality am I in kind of way to to hear, you know, a politician who might run for president in a couple of years say, oh, look, one was crazy and laugh about it. I really do think that we need to hold our politicians to a more serious standard and say, OK, so you are allowed to say stuff that's crazy that you don't really mean or just laugh it off later.

[00:48:58] Whereas like, well, you know, the nation had a lot going on at the time and we don't really need to take that seriously. I just think that we should expect more. I agree. And that's why to me and I would feel a lot of people listening to and reading these kind of headlines is it doesn't look like ideological change. Like I'm not really believing AOC has changed her opinions. It's just a marketing change.

[00:49:24] And that's kind of the scuzzy thing about politics is that I'm sure she's looking at polling and is now trying to see how can I fit my ideas into what polls well, where what I want to see from a politician is what your values are. And and you need to uphold those values fully, not kind of chameleon yourself to whatever polling shows. Yeah. Yeah. Great points.

[00:49:47] So that leads into another article we have from the National Review that's posted on the website. Both parties embrace what's popular and abandon what's right. And it's it's pretty long. It's a long read, but it goes through a few different examples.

[00:50:03] Everything from kind of, you know, economic policy and corruption at the top government levels to funding for Planned Parenthood and support for abortion, foreign policy, where you've seen the Democratic Party and the Republican Party merge a little bit. And I'm an idealist.

[00:50:50] The Republican Party has abandoned a lot of conservative principles. And so what are your thoughts as we try to, you know, we're winding down Trump 2.0 and trying to make sense of really the last decade? I think, you know, I had read through the article and I think that it really speaks to kind of the broader question and goes back to our AOC point of like, does anyone in Washington actually believe anything anymore? Are there principles? Is there a compass that people are being guided by?

[00:51:19] And I mean, me being someone who, first and foremost, the life issue is on my heart. That's something I often get frustrated about is it seems like we're kind of rudderless right now as a movement. You know, we have great leaders like Josh Hawley who are consistently out front and center talking about the need to defund Planned Parenthood. But then I'm kind of looking around and where is everybody else?

[00:51:42] So when I look at Trump 2, I think that we have had a lot of successes when it comes down to, you know, free speech and a lot of administrative rulings and kind of thinking to woke one. We forget a little bit how crazy things got with transgenderism and with parental rights. So I think we've had some wins there. But as mentioned, the life issue, I care a lot about it.

[00:52:07] I think that's one where I would like to see the needle move more, especially for an issue that shouldn't be about politics at all. This is truly a moral issue. Yeah, yeah. I totally agree with you. I totally agree with you on the life issue. I think that we have the pro-life movement has ceded too much ground and has to continue to to fight and to push for these and to hold politicians accountable.

[00:52:33] I think we still cannot give up hope that we can really make it clear that this issue matters. And so we we can't give in to the lie that, well, this just isn't a winning issue, which is something that Trump has said. But historically, he hasn't been pro-life. So I think that he is sympathetic to the position, but not in the way that somebody who truly, you know, really believes in the movement and believes in the issue like actual pro-lifers. And so I think we still need to hold the line on that.

[00:53:01] I mean, woke one truly was crazy. It's crazy to hear politicians laugh about it now. But I do think that the Trump administration did kind of allow people to even just culturally feel like they could push back against some of those things, like some of those religious liberty violations or or the girls and women's rights and things like that. But anyways, we have a lot to discuss. We're up against one of those breaks. We'll be back in just a few moments.

[00:53:38] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. What does the word Christian mean these days? It doesn't seem to mean very much. The last few reports from George Barna's Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University revealed that a very small percentage of American Christians have a Christian worldview. Nearly 7 in 10 of Americans self-identify as Christians, yet only 4% of Americans have a Christian worldview. George Barna explains,

[00:54:33] Christians may say they believe in the Bible and the gospel message, but they also indicated on their surveys that they believe people are basically good. Of course, if people believe they are good, then they may not believe in sin and the need for a savior. Now, if you look at the cultural issues, you'll find even more discrepancies between their views and a Christian worldview. These differences in biblical beliefs will then manifest themselves in the widely divergent views today held among American Christians on questions of morality and politics.

[00:55:01] This includes divergent views on sex, marriage, family, and abortion, and those in turn affect how American Christians vote on candidates and key political issues. If you're a pastor or Bible teacher, you need to get back to the basics. It is likely that many of the people you teach do not have a Christian worldview. They need your biblical teaching and biblical discipleship. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

[00:55:27] Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Okay, so before we move on from kind of the past, present, and future of the Republican Party and Democrat Party, I guess,

[00:55:53] Woke One, Trump Two, and whatever's coming next, I did want to get some more thoughts from you, Claire. Just, you know, what if you were just going to say, okay, this is my perfect world. I'd like to do this sometimes. So just kind of gauge where people are at, especially in our generation. Like, what would I like to see in the future of politics, whether that be, you know, the Republican Party or a future candidate on either side?

[00:56:20] And then specifically with regard to the pro-life issue, because that is a big, big issue for so many point of view listeners. If we want to make that issue more salient to politicians again, then what are some practical steps that we can take to try to bring that back around? I would say to the first part, one of the issues that I would love to see addressed more on the right is affordability.

[00:56:48] I know there were some viral Internet drama and stories this past week over a $20 burrito. Yes. And I don't know if you've seen it. Yes. And I find that a lot of times, you know, individuals on the right want to just say, you know, we're working on it. You know, there isn't an affordability problem, that life is so much better now than X, Y, Z. And I get that.

[00:57:13] But I also think it's important to not dismiss the concerns of young people, that they want to have families. They want to get homes. They want to have a good job. And they're looking around and not seeing a lot of avenues to do that. And I'm all for being more fiscally responsible. And no, you don't need to be door dashing and Uber Eats thing. And there's things that you can do. But at the same time, we have so much government spending and it has caused so much inflation.

[00:57:39] And my concern is that if Republicans don't get spending under control and don't take affordability seriously, they're going to lose young people. And one of the I think the biggest markers that really stands out to me is that young men overwhelmingly went for Donald Trump. But if you look in Virginia, young men were plus 15 for Abigail Stanberger, who's like a crazy left wing governor.

[00:58:04] And then in New York City, it was something I think it was like plus 40 for Mondami over Cuomo. So that young people aren't really voting by R or D. They're voting by who is messaging on are they going to make their life better. So I don't believe socialism is the answer. I think that's very, very bad.

[00:58:25] But I think the allure of it is going to deceive and capture a lot of the younger vote if Republicans aren't offering an alternative vision. So I think that is just something I really want to see worked on and addressed is kind of the messaging on affordability and outreach to younger people. And then with the pro-life issue, I always think the biggest thing to do and what I tell people is that you need to be involved in primary elections.

[00:58:53] That a lot of times you just show up on Election Day in November and that's when you think it's time to vote. But you need to be voting for that candidate that's going to be on the November ballot. And if we can get good pro-life candidates through the primary, I think that's going to give us a lot more success in the general. Yeah, those are great ideas, Claire. And I agree with you. And we've heard a lot of people echo that on this show.

[00:59:20] And I am seeing that just around as well as that, you know, if Republicans do want to keep younger voters, then the affordability issue has to be addressed. And we don't want socialism. So there was a I didn't actually include it on today in today's lineup, but I saw a great headline, I thought, in the Wall Street Journal that said socialism is the wrong answer. But there are legitimate questions basically that we need to be asking.

[00:59:49] And then, yes, definitely get involved in the primaries. That's so important for the pro-life issue and many others. But on the note of affordability and kind of answering these questions, let's actually let's jump to this article from World Magazine. Kind of a funny title, Honor Thy Boomer. And I mentioned earlier in a tweet on X about generational warfare and how we were going to talk about that today.

[01:00:11] And, I mean, maybe it's not that serious, but it does kind of feel like we're heading that way where you have because we have these affordability concerns. There is this idea that, you know, you have a class of people, a generation, I guess, of people who are, you know, they're doing well. They're wealthy, but they're they're not retiring. They're not stepping down from from public service, from elected roles.

[01:00:40] They are not downsizing. It's making it hard for younger families to break into starter homes. And there's just a lot of the kind of affordability complaints or the complaints that younger generations like millennials and Gen Z have. The ire is focused on the baby boomer generation.

[01:01:01] And so, you know, as somebody who was raised to, you know, honor my elders and respect older people and and and more of the biblical, you know, view of the wisdom that the older generation has. This has kind of been a tricky cultural topic for me to navigate to say, OK, we want to listen to the concerns of young Americans.

[01:01:23] And as a millennial, like I get it. But but, you know, where is that kind of balance of, OK, does somebody need to be forced out of the job that they have or the home that they've saved for and and waited for in the position and comfort that they enjoy now? Not because they worked hard in their younger years, just because they're older, if they're still active, if they're still able, if they're still interested in wanting to be involved.

[01:01:47] So I'm curious what you think and what you think of that balance that we can strike really from a biblical perspective, too. I think that balance is really the key word, because there is and I do have a legitimate Christian concern and kind of warning that we don't want to make boomers this caricature or this boogeyman that, you know, everything's wrong because of the boomers.

[01:02:09] But at the same time, we also can, I believe, be open to criticism that we have this kind of political and economic system that has been increasingly transferring wealth and opportunities from kind of young families to older generations. So I think when we look at this, it's a big situation. You look at there's housing, you know, government spending on social programs.

[01:02:34] It's just we we want to make sure that our policies aren't harming one class or another. So, like, we don't want to enact something that specifically harms older people or specifically harms younger people. But I think that we could be doing more to make policies prioritize young families. So in terms of housing, you know, I never understand why we can't have special interest rates maybe for young families.

[01:03:03] I think that could be a great opportunity to kind of give them a fair fight in the market, because I know for my own grandparents, they'll talk to me about when they bought their home and, you know, interest rates were 12 percent. But at the same time, it was a 12 percent interest rate on like a forty thousand dollar home. Yeah. So the math just like it doesn't quite add up.

[01:03:27] So I think that it is it is more difficult a lot of times for young people to get ahead today. But you're right that that doesn't mean we should criticize or really discredit the work that the older generation has put in. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Great. Great points. So Samuel James, he wrote this this article you can read for yourself at point of view dot net honor thy boomer.

[01:03:51] But he differentiates between honor and power and does talk about how we are instructed to honor our elders. But we also are instructed in the Bible to to not be selfish and seek out holding on to power. And so I think we do have to be careful, you know, as a younger person to not be resentful because there are things that are beyond our control in any generation. There are no guarantees.

[01:04:18] You know, we have in the Declaration of Independence the right to pursuit of happiness. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be born in a, you know, wonderful economic time. But how how are we considering those two biblical values of both honor and and power and generosity for the next generation? And so I think you're right. A lot of it does come down to also understanding different factors.

[01:04:43] I think there is a lot of wisdom to be gained for, you know, younger adults to listen to their their elders, to listen to older people in their church or grandparents about life lessons and perseverance. And there are so many values that they can pass on. But at the same time, I think older generations can acknowledge that due to inflation, due to government spending, like we talked about,

[01:05:05] that even though they may have struggled to make ends meet at some point early on in their career, it is just kind of a different animal today when you are trying to break in and like buy that first home. Even if you are working hard, even if you're saving up, because so many times salaries have not kept up with inflation rates. So there's a lot there. But from a Christian perspective, we do want to keep those biblical values front and center as we think about it and bring a balance into it.

[01:05:31] And so I think that this this article really does a good job of helping us get that conversation started. But there are some people who are saying, look, because of the lack of resources that we have and affordability and environmental concerns and everything else, the key is not to kind of have this conversation between different generations and try to forge a better society for the future and for families. We just need to cut the world's population in half.

[01:06:00] And so Claire brought this to my attention. I'm looking forward to talking with her about it. We have to go to a break, but don't go anywhere because this is important. We'll be right back. In 19th century London, two towering historical figures did battle, not with guns and bombs, but words and ideas. London was home to Karl Marx, the father of communism, and legendary Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon.

[01:06:28] London was in many ways the center of the world economically, militarily and intellectually. Marx sought to destroy religion, the family and everything the Bible supports. Spurgeon stood against him, warning of socialism's dangers. Spurgeon understood Christianity is not just religious truth. It is truth for all of life. Where do you find men with that kind of wisdom to stand against darkness today?

[01:06:56] Get the light you need on today's most pressing issues delivered to your inbox when you sign up for the Viewpoints commentary at pointofview.net. Every weekday, in less than two minutes, you'll learn how to be a person of light to stand against darkness in our time. It's free, so visit pointofview.net slash sign up right now. pointofview.net slash sign up.

[01:07:28] Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again is Liberty McCartney.

[01:07:54] So concerns about overpopulation are not new, and we can talk about some of the history here in a moment, but there is a controversial new study with the concerning suggestion that we really need to reduce the global population from around 8 billion, where it's at, to around 4 billion people to ease pressure on the Earth's resources and create a more sustainable future. So this is coming back around again.

[01:08:23] I mean, it never really left. There were always people who have been talking about overpopulation, but I think the conversation is kind of coming back around in a little bit more of a strong way. And once again, Claire, we have to address this with facts. And I know that you do care about conservation of natural resources and stewarding God's creation,

[01:08:49] which is why you co-founded Vita et Terra, which is about caring for creation and stewarding that. And so what's your response to this suggestion that we need to reduce the global population by half? So when I had seen this headline, I think the thing that concerned me the most is it wasn't just a headline. It was an actual study, like peer-reviewed study that someone signed off on and said was a good idea,

[01:09:16] and they're going to invest time and energy and resources into, because it just shines a light that there is a movement. It's a very big movement. And they believe that in order to save the planet, we essentially need to save the planet from humans and that human beings are the issue. And their marker of success is are there less humans? Are humans leaving less of an impact?

[01:09:43] So I think that in reading this study, you know, I will give it to the researchers. You know, they weren't proposing some coercive, like, Thanos-style elimination of half the population. You know, their envisioning was just fertility gradually declining over the next 50 to 75 years.

[01:10:03] But I think it's important for us to challenge this premise that why is fewer human beings considered a measure of success in their eyes? Because to me, looking at fertility and the population, they think decreasing it is the solution. But, okay, maybe it drives down carbon emissions. I would argue there's many other ways we could do that without killing people.

[01:10:33] But declining fertility, like, we see it as Christians. And I think even the broader political sphere right now sees declining fertility as a problem because it has all these other economic and social impacts. So when I read the headline, I just said, oh, my gosh, they're back. They're saying we need less people. And that I don't believe that that is the solution. Yeah, yeah, I agree with you.

[01:10:59] And I would say, you know, I also I do want to it's easy to just kind of dunk on this as a bad idea. But I do want to be fair in how I am responding to their suggestions. And so, I mean, like you said, they're not talking about any forced population control, mass calling or eugenics. This is from the report. You can read it at pointofview.net.

[01:11:25] The blueprint relies entirely on fundamental social progress, providing comprehensive family planning services and broadening educational opportunities for girls, particularly across low income regions.

[01:11:37] And so the thing is, though, that's what they've said in the past, because if you go back to the 19th century, you had Thomas Robert Malthus, who was an English scholar who believed that the human population was going to grow at a faster rate than food production and that it would lead to mass starvation. That was disproven by time. But then you had in the 1960s, the population bomb published by Paul Ehrlich.

[01:12:04] And that is really what motivated the founding of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities or the UNFPA, which also talks about just reproductive health, promoting reproductive health around the world.

[01:12:19] And yet, if you actually look at the nations that have been the supposed beneficiaries of this reproductive health education, it has still resulted in enforced sterilization and women supposedly being educated through these programs. But in actuality, they were sterilized or they were given birth control when they didn't understand what it was going to do. And it did not align with their values.

[01:12:45] And then that is what also led to the one child policy in China. So I think maybe they're just naive and saying that, you know, we don't want to do anything drastic. We don't want forced population control. We just want education. And yet when you start meddling like this and saying, oh, we're going to, you know, bestow this this progress on the world's population so that they will have smaller families.

[01:13:11] Claire, it just seems to me that it's going to be hard to avoid the kind of coercion that has led to some of the atrocities that we've seen in the past. I completely agree. And I think another point on that is just the language that that they use where they talk about, oh, you know, if we just educate people more than then they won't want to have kids. You know, women will want to do X, Y and Z.

[01:13:32] But the reality is, and I've looked at tons of polling and the Institute for Family Studies puts out a lot of great research that people still want to have kids. Yeah. And they're having less children than desired. So to me, like they're thinking that they can convince people that they don't want kids. But people still do after years and years of all this, you know, social engineering and this and that.

[01:13:58] And at the end of the day, like we should be wanting to promote like flourishing and people living out what they feel called to do. So and in my mind, these environmental groups are saying, scratch all that. You know, we know what's actually good for you. And what's actually good for you is not having a family or just having one child. Yeah. Yeah, it's concerning. It sounds, you know, very dystopian. It's like, man, the novels have been warning us about all these things for years. We all need to read more fiction.

[01:14:28] But I do want to, though, talk about just the environmental issue because, you know, I care about making sure that, you know, we we can serve our natural resources. I love the outdoors. I am a country girl. I want to protect our natural landscapes. I mean, that's a big issue for me. But unfortunately, in the past generation, I really think that any sort of environmental concerns have become very leftist coded.

[01:14:54] And there haven't there hasn't really been a good way for conservatives or Christians to articulate that. I won't say there hasn't been a good way, but that just has not been articulated well. And so tell us a little bit more about your organization and kind of the broader response to some of these fundamental concerns, but coming at it from a Christian perspective rather than a worldly perspective.

[01:15:17] Yes, I think the biggest thing that we need to be focused on and really rejecting is that the environmental movement has a very big scarcity mindset that everything is limited. They're viewing people as the problem. But the reality is that God gave us creation. You know, he in the Garden of Eden, he gave us dominion and said we need to keep and till it.

[01:15:42] But I just think it's so important as Christians and for people who are center right to get involved in these kinds of discussions and advocate for more, for solutions, not for less. And, you know, one example I actually can think of. I had a piece out this morning in the Virginia, it's the Richmond Times Dispatch. It's like the big city newspaper. And I was talking about Governor Sandberger.

[01:16:11] And so energy policy is a big thing. You know, I'm looking at my electric bill and I'm going back to school, getting everything ready for my kids. You've got sports fees. You've got book bag shoes. You know how it is. And I opened the electric bill and we have all these extra fees on it this month because Governor Sandberger decided to rejoin. They're calling it the regional greenhouse gas initiative.

[01:16:38] So basically it's like a Green New Deal type thing and saying, you know, we're concerned about emissions. So we're going to charge more money so that we use less emissions. But here's the crazy thing. In Virginia, 36% of the energy in Virginia is taken from out of state. So while we're saying, you know, we're not using oil and gas, you know, we're not doing that here. We're focused on solar.

[01:17:03] But then we'll just go take the oil and gas from the state over and then say that we're a green and clean and friendly state. So it's just a crazy situation where we're charging people and making them pay more. We're not actually making anything greener or cleaner. And I think my solution in my mind and I think as Christians would be a call for innovative technologies, less barriers, less permitting.

[01:17:32] And for Virginia to focus on modernizing the grid and also pursuing nuclear technology, which is something we know isn't going to harm the environment like oil and natural gas, coal, all of that. Yes, there's just there's always solutions. And we don't need to focus so much on the virtue signaling over being green. That is such a good point. I'm going to look for that and I'll I'll share it.

[01:17:56] And you can look at Claire's social media information at point of view dot net and follow her so you can read all of her writings as well. That is such a good point. And I think when you had the kind of original population scare, like in the 1960s, they underestimated the human factor that humans are creative. We can solve problems. The reason why that scare didn't come to fruition in the past is because humans solved it and we can do it again. We'll be right back.

[01:18:24] You're listening to point of view, your listener supported source for truth. All right. So before we refer once again to trying to decide what the heck a woman is and I hope we can answer this question. It's just so frustrating that nobody knows the answer.

[01:18:54] But before we talk about that, I did want to mention one more thing just on the note of these environmental concerns. Again, we were talking a moment ago about this new study that's calling for the population of the world to gradually be reduced to four billion people. And as you said, Claire, at the core, the premise of this whole movement is that human beings are the problem.

[01:19:19] And we know from the Bible that human beings were created in the image of God. And one of the things that we are supposed to do is steward his creation. And I think that it really like it goes back to kind of what we were talking about at the beginning of the show, that it this imago Dei really is at the center of so many issues.

[01:19:40] Like if humans don't even understand who we are or why we're here on this earth, it can lead us to so many crazy dark places where we end up, whether through abortion or euthanasia or eugenics or population reduction, annihilating ourselves.

[01:19:56] Yes, I and that again, I always say is why I found a Vita at Tara is because I really believe in this concept of the throwaway culture and that all of these issues are interconnected.

[01:20:13] When you look to surrogacy and euthanasia and it's just all boils down to the value of the human person and that God called us to to care for each other and to care for all of creation. Yeah, yeah. And that's that's so fundamental.

[01:20:31] One of the things that I've said multiple times before, and I'm sure I'll say many times again, if there's one issue that I really think the church needs to be very clear on and that we need to make sure as we're raising children to teach them is that idea of who we are as human beings. Like what does it mean to be human? It means to be made in God's image.

[01:20:52] And and what does that mean? And make sure that we are bearing that image well and fulfilling that responsibility, because I think that is so core to so many of the issues that we face today. And, you know, we talk about who are human beings again, who are who are women? Apparently, the world doesn't know. So just I did want to get your reaction to this, Claire. I'll be honest. I love basketball. I played it in high school. I'm not really somebody who watches sports on TV, though.

[01:21:21] So I don't really keep up with what the WNBA is doing. But I know that Sophie Cunningham, who plays for Indiana Fever, she has gone viral for a few reasons. One of them was an immaculate meme of her pointing, which has been going viral online, which is fun to see. But more seriously, she actually stood up for common sense by saying that she thinks young girls in locker rooms or who are playing sports should be protected against biological men in their spaces.

[01:21:49] And so this whole controversy about whether or not men can be involved in women's sports again has kicked off again, this time at the WNBA. So this is interesting. Once again, it makes me ask, are we really out of woke one or is woke to just like more persistent and more insidious? What are your thoughts? Well, it's funny because I was just going to say that, but they're talking about woke one being over one in my mind.

[01:22:17] You know, this is kind of peak absurdity. You have a group like it's the Women's National Basketball Association, and they're holding meetings and like conferences and trying to figure out what makes someone qualified to be in this women's league. And, you know, I am always someone who will be the first to admit I am. I'm not a sports person, even though I have a ton of boys.

[01:22:40] I don't have a great background in it, but my understanding was that the WNBA exists because men and women are different and they should not be in the same competition with one another. So to hear that they're starting to have questions over, you know, who should play in this league, the entire point of this league is to protect women and to create a space for them to also play basketball.

[01:23:06] Right. Yeah. I mean, there's differences in the size of the basketball and men's teams versus women's teams or the distance of the three point line and all these different things on at the professional level because of just biological differences. And so it's again, it's it's not about the level of skill. It's just about, you know, the biological differences.

[01:23:31] And so one of the things this is from The Wall Street Journal, it notes that, you know, we were back in 2022. This is really where I think Riley Gaines gained some notoriety in terms of speaking out again for women in sports. And that was an issue having to do with swimming and how somebody who is biologically male actually won a swimming competition. And now we're talking about a contact sport. I mean, basketball can be pretty rough.

[01:24:01] And so they're saying that, OK, the WNBA is saying only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA. OK, that would have been fine maybe 50 years ago. But now if you say, well, then what's a woman? Apparently, I mean, the Supreme Court justices don't all even know. And I don't know if you saw this. I think this is actually kind of brilliant.

[01:24:22] There are actually a couple of NBA players, so male basketball professionals, who are announcing that they are going to enter the WNBA draft because, according to the official guidelines, by just declaring that they're eligible, they are actually eligible to be drafted onto a WNBA team. I had seen that, actually. And I thought it was great because it's clear they're not seriously trying to start WNBA careers.

[01:24:48] But they're making the point that, you know, these leagues are saying only women can play but haven't really defined that category or, you know, established detailed transgender eligibility rules. But I think one point I always like to raise and I think is important as Christians is that this isn't about being mean to anyone. And I think a lot of people think that, but it doesn't require, you know, cruelty towards transgender people.

[01:25:15] I think everybody deserves dignity and respect, but that we can't pretend these biological differences don't exist. And that is really where, as Christians, we have to speak truth with love, but speak truth and say that this cannot go on. And to think that there are girls who have worked their entire careers to play in this sport and all through school and that they might lose an opportunity, you know, that's one thing.

[01:25:44] But also that they could very well get injured. And I think that it's just important we be honest about what being a woman is and that biological men are not women. Yeah. I mean, the truth, the truth is loving. And you're so right that this is about this is about the truth. It's not about being mean to anybody, but it is about saying, you know, we we have to live in reality. We have to live in the truth that God has created and that he has ordained.

[01:26:13] But we're almost out of time, Claire. In the minute or so that we have left, I'd love to get your closing thoughts. We've talked a lot about things that we should be concerned about or take action on. But I really would like to end on a note of hope. And so I want to ask, what gives you hope about our nation right now? The one thing that gives me hope about our nation, I think all the time, is that there's so many people that are willing to speak the truth and that are ready to get involved.

[01:26:41] I think a lot of times, you know, we talked about in this segment, you know, do people still have principles? What does Washington believe? But I have found, you know, in my 10 or so years in D.C. that there are a lot of people here who are believers and who are guided by their faith and are ready to speak the truth and do the right thing. So that's something that always gives me hope is to know that there are other believers out there and we're all trying our best.

[01:27:09] So it's definitely it is a difficult time and there's a lot of battles that we're up against. But I believe that God has already written the ending. So I'm yes, always believe that. Yes, absolutely, Claire. That is so good. And such a great encouragement and reminder, too, for everybody listening, like depending on where you are or where you're living or working, maybe it does feel lonely. And I know it certainly has in the past.

[01:27:35] And it might, again, to say, am I the only one standing up for truth? But you are not. You are not the only one. There are so many people, including us here at Point of View around the roundtable today, standing with you. Thanks for listening to Point of View. And don't forget to tune into the weekend edition tomorrow. The Bible tells us not to worry. And yet there is a lot of worrying stuff in our world today. Thankfully, the Bible doesn't stop at telling us not to worry.

[01:28:05] God gives us a next step. He says we need to pray. But sometimes even knowing what to pray can be difficult. And that is why Point of View has relaunched our Pray for America movement, a series of weekly emails to guide you in prayer for our nation. Each week, you'll receive a brief update about a current issue affecting Americans, along with a written prayer that you can easily share with others.

[01:28:35] We'll also include a short free resource for you in each email so you can learn more about the issue at hand. Will you commit to pray for America? Go to pointofview.net. Click on the Pray for America banner at the top of the page to subscribe. Again, that's pointofview.net. Click on the Pray for America banner.

[01:29:01] Let's pray together for God to make a difference in America. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.