Katy Faust of Them Before Us argues surrogacy and LGBTQ-related family policies—like redefining infertility and introducing "Intent" as a custody pathway—expose children to predators by prioritizing adult desires over biological safety. She cites no-fault divorce and welfare policies as destabilizing forces, claiming they incentivize abandonment and harm kids’ emotional well-being while ignoring parental responsibility. Faust warns that declining fertility rates and legal shifts commodify children, risking their innocence, and urges a child-centric policy overhaul to protect future generations from systemic exploitation. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Clavin with this week's interview with Katie Faust, a really, really interesting lady who runs an organization called Them Before Us, and the Them is children, which is, and why, this is the reason I want to talk to her.
I mean, as people who follow my show know, when it comes to people's personal lives, I've always been more or less a libertarian.
I don't think it's good for me or anything else or anyone else to worry too much about what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
But the wickedness, really, of the LGBTQ movement, especially in its psychological and sometimes physical assaults on children, has convinced me that there's a difference between tolerance, respect, and love for individuals and social norms and public policy that oftentimes are really bad for children.
Nobody seems to care about the way these things affect children.
Katie Faust does care.
She runs this organization, as I said, called Them Before Us, and she makes a lot of really interesting arguments about the way these policies and ideas, especially from the left, have damaged our kids.
Katie, it's so nice of you to come on.
I should say you also have a book coming out.
You've edited a book called Pro-Child Politics, Why Every Cultural, Economic, and National Issue is a Matter of Justice for Children.
It's nice to meet you.
Thank you for coming on.
It's fantastic to hear you at 1.0 speed, Andrew Clavin.
I really appreciate the chance to chat with you and your audience.
I've been really interested in the kinds of things you're talking about.
Let's just start with this.
If you had to change one policy or attitude in the United States of America and how it affects children, because of how it affects children, what would it be?
Well, I don't know about policy, but ideas elevate the rights of children before adult desires.
And you fix everything.
You fix everything because it's children's rights, their fundamental natural rights, that are always on the chopping block, not just in these policy decisions, but in personal decisions as well.
So if you begin with the fundamental natural rights of children, primarily their right to life, their right to their mother and father, their right to innocence, and their right to bodily safety and bodily integrity, you win every culture war.
So I actually think that all of these different conversations that we're having, not just the cultural, but the economic and the national as well, ultimately come down to who's going to pay the price.
Is it going to be the adults or is it going to be the kids?
So the way that we are working to change hearts and change laws is to center the child in all of these conversations.
It is amazing.
I mean, I've never gotten over.
I mean, abortion is, of course, the most obvious one where people are willing to kill, literally kill children in order to preserve their right to have meaningless sex.
It's really quite a remarkable thing, but it does speak to the priorities of the culture.
I mean, Americans sentimentalize children, but they don't put them first.
But let's talk about other ways.
I mean, another one that really drives me crazy is divorce.
How would you change the way we treat divorce?
Yeah, I'd put kids first.
I would say children have a fundamental right to be known and loved by their mother and father every day, all day, and that we demonstrably know, not through mountains of social science research, but mountain ranges of social science research, that children are harmed when they don't get one or both every day, all day.
And there are situations throughout history, both in the church world and in the civil world, where we've recognized that there's times where a marriage needs to come to an end.
But it typically is around the three, the four A's, the abuse, adultery, addiction, abandonment.
We used to call that fault.
Someone was at fault for breaking the marriage vow.
But again, we needed to, in the late 60s and 70s, elevate adult desire above the fundamental rights of children to have their mother and father in their home every day, loving one another to the exclusion of all others.
And that's actually a really important part of the child-centeredness of marriage.
If you have a monogamous, permanent relationship, the child's going to be raised by their biological parents alone.
And that actually is one of the best ways that we can ensure that children are safe and loved.
Because once the divorce takes place, oftentimes because somebody was entering into a no-fault situation, nobody committed adultery.
There was no abuse.
It's just I've fallen out of love.
I'm my secretary.
She really understands me.
Oh, I know that there's some guy out there.
If I just keep swiping, he's the one that's really going to fulfill my dreams, you know, or I need to come out and be my true self.
I mean, whatever it is.
What that actually does is it means that unrelated adults are probably going to be sharing living spaces with children in the future.
And statistically, unrelated adults are the greatest factor when it comes to rising risk of abuse and neglect for kids.
So this institution of marriage that included permanence, permanence in the union, permanence in our understanding of this critical relationship was actually a huge part of ensuring that child rights and well-being were advanced.
And that was the first of the sort of three characteristics of marriage to fall.
You know, the first permanence, the second complementarity in relation to gay marriage.
And the third is monogamy.
You know, so now we're moving towards a place where we're endorsing group love or group marriage.
And of course, all of these changes happen in the name of elevating adult desire, validating adult identity, or advancing adult aims.
And all of them involve child victims.
So what would that look like?
Just to stick with divorce for a minute.
What would that look like in terms of public policy?
Well, you return to more of an at-fault system.
What sociologist Brad Wilcox terms, and I'm stealing it, divorce justice.
Because very often what you have in a no-fault divorce situation is not two parties amicably saying, you know what, I think that this chapter of our life is over and we're going to move on.
Usually it's one person being divorced against their will.
Usually it is one spouse that is misbehaving or not attaining to adhering to the vows that they made.
And then one innocent spouse and the children being victimized.
And amazingly, in a no-fault divorce world, the spouse who wants the marriage the least often has the most power in the divorce proceedings.
So you return to a place where there actually is some kind of punishment, whether it's civil or social or both, where if you are the one that breaks the vow, if you are the one that walks away, if you're refusing to do the hard work, you don't necessarily automatically get half the assets and split custody.
There actually is, you incur some kind of penalty for refusing to do what you said that you were going to do before the state and before God.
Simply rewarding that kind of stick-to-edness in marriage is what we need to get back to.
Yeah, I mean, I grew up, I don't think I knew anybody whose parents were divorced until I was 18, one guy that I knew, his parents got divorced.
Well, you grew up in a different world than I did.
I did.
I did.
I mean, the one guy I used to get into fights with, one of the guys I used to get into fights with, it was the product of divorce, and he was a totally.
Oh, weird.
So there was some kind of instability in his life that led him to express that in violence.
I wonder.
Well, I mean, there was, you know, in the old days, there were problems with the fact that you were stuck in a horrible marriage.
I mean, these things, there are marriages.
I have met people who should have gotten divorced.
Most of the divorces I've met have been the kind you described through selfishness.
We always, my wife and I always say your ex-spouse was always incredibly crazy.
Every ex-spouse, everyone you meet who has an ex-spouse.
They're all narcissists, every single one of them.
Yeah, exactly.
But you would like to see a return to that sense that you are, that you better make this decision right because you are going to be stuck.
Get back to the place where we are expecting compliance with the vows that you yourself made to your spouse.
And you're right, there are some situations where an exit might offer some relief to the spouse and maybe to the kids.
That takes place in about 30% of cases where there is a high conflict marriage.
And statistically, we've got a few studies that show that children do experience some relief.
It doesn't mean they fare as well as if their parents had worked it out and stayed together, but sometimes there is relief from that.
But that's not the majority of divorces today, right?
The majority, about two-thirds of divorces, break up low-conflict marriages where the spouses did decide that they just need to be their true self or they've decided that they've fallen out of love.
And actually, the psychological harms to those kids are much more serious because at least the child whose parents were like throwing plates across the dining room at one another, they can say, okay, this makes sense.
I understand why I have to shuffle between mom and dad's house every week.
The child who comes from the home where there was irreconcilable differences, there's no explanation for the loss of that one place where they shared the love of the two people they love the most in the world and who loved each other.
And those kids will come up with a reason for the demise of that safe space.
And the reason usually is, it was me.
It was my fault.
I did it.
Something was wrong with me.
I was unlovable.
And we actually do see significant psychological harms on children of no-fault divorce for that reason.
Yeah, no, it's a disaster.
I mean, your marriage is the planet your kid lives on.
You're blowing up that planet.
It's just like the death star going up in smoke.
It's really terrible.
That's a good way to put it.
So here's a really tough question.
What about out of wedlock births or children who were born without fathers?
You know, when they were debating Obamacare, the leftists were always saying to me, well, you know, if you get into an accident, everybody has to pay for it.
And I would say, well, if you have a child out of wedlock, everybody has to pay for that too, because that kid is probably going to end up in a very bad situation that you're going to have to take care of.
Do you want to pass laws against this?
And of course, they will all say, oh, no, no, you can't limit sexuality.
You can only limit health care.
So what do you do about that?
Well, you have to put them before us.
You have to begin with the beginning and that children have a right to life and they have a right to their mother and father.
And a just society is going to expect the strong to sacrifice for the weak.
But in all of these different topics, really, especially every cultural issue, we're expecting the weak to sacrifice for the strong.
And like you said at the top of the show, abortion is exhibit A in expecting the weak to sacrifice for the strong.
So what do you do with single mothers?
Well, a lot of times women are single mothers because they were the only parent willing to act like an adult and do hard things when the guy wasn't.
And so how do you construct social expectations, civil expectations, and legal expectations that reward adults for doing hard things on behalf of children?
Unfortunately, in the reading that I've done, our policy, especially around welfare policy, has done the exact opposite of that for the last 40 or 50 years.
We've actually deincentivized fathers, especially taking responsibility for their children.
We've actually penalized the formation of marriages for the sake of getting welfare benefits.
So there's a lot that we can do to put them before us in the policy space as it relates to making sure that as few children as possible are raised by single mothers.
So I guess that's my thing, like make it child-centric.
What is best for the child?
Begin there and then work your way out.
I mean, it's an interesting question.
It usually takes two to tango.
It takes two people to create a child.
So there was some point at which people had sex in an irresponsible way that created this child.
So it's not just the obviously it's easier for the father to run for it, but it's still the responsibility of both people.
And I mean, at what point does the law step in?
What point should the law step in?
Well, you know, every law seeks to impose some kind of morality on the public.
I mean, this idea that you can't impose your, that's literally what laws do.
That's what we are here for.
Can you control somebody's sexual choices?
No, you can't.
But you can at least reward good decisions.
And you can at least make the bad decisions.
The consequence of those fall squarely on the person involved rather than on the innocents.
And so there's a lot of creativity happening, I think, especially in this administration as it relates to rewarding child-centric decision-making and family building.
There are some things the law can do.
The law can't do everything.
There's an awful lot happening out there in culture, our own conception of human relationships as it relates to dating or sex or marriage or parenting that is not going to come from the state.
But at minimum, the state needs to not discourage good decision making.
You mentioned gay marriage before.
Is the problem with gay marriage gay adoption or is it the marriage itself?
The problem with gay marriage is that historically, not just in the United States, but going back to Lord Koch, I'm talking like we brought it over pre-colony times, is that marriage functions as the sun in the solar system of family law.
And what is at the center of the solar system is going to orient all of the other planets.
I mean, hat tip Justice Kennedy, who said that there is a constellation of benefits that go along with marriage.
Now, the problem is, is that in the eyes of the child, the two people at the center of that universe are not the same.
We have now been required to say we cannot make any kind of constitutional distinction between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.
But the problem is that for the child, there's a massive distinction.
Only one of those two pairings are going to unite them with the two people to whom they have a natural right.
Those two people are statistically the safest, most connected to, most invested in, and most protective of them.
Those two people grant children access to their biological identity.
It helps children answer the question, who am I?
And those two people will automatically grant children the complementarity of mothering and fathering that maximizes their development.
So what happened is we swapped out a son, a different son.
We had a procreative, life-giving son from which all of the other marriage and family laws found their orbit and found their gravity.
And we swapped out that son with a son that in essence centered on adult affirmation.
It's centered on a non-procreative understanding of the family.
And as we've seen over the last 10 years, there has been a complete realignment of the different planets to validate and create the kind of family that would, in essence, award to men or to women children that don't belong to them.
So just a few examples.
What we've seen since Obergefell was legalized is we've seen a redefinition of infertility, for example.
Infertility used to be 12 months of unprotected heterosexual sex that didn't result in a pregnancy or life birth.
Now we have several jurisdictions that have redefined infertility so a single person can be infertile or a same-sex couple can be infertile because it's discriminatory that heterosexuals can simply shack up and get a kid.
It's much harder for a single man or for two women to fall pregnant.
And so they need insurance companies or the state to pay for their infertility.
So they've redefined the word.
We've now seen that the words mother and father constitute some level of hate speech.
And so we've seen the words mothers and fathers scrubbed from parenthood laws, from birth certificates in some jurisdictions, from adoption petitions.
Parenthood Laws Reoriented00:03:13
And we've actually seen new pathways created for parenthood because the two accepted pathways for parenthood, biology and adoption, are both discriminatory against same-sex couples.
So biology is always bigoted towards two men or two women because they can never both be biologically related.
And adoption was kind of viewed as some kind of indignity against same-sex couples because heterosexual couples didn't have to go through that to adopt their own child.
So we have actually created a new pathway for parenthood called Intent.
And this is being ratified state by state through a statute called the Uniform Parentage Act that says that if you can assemble sperm, egg, and womb and you have a valid contract and you intend to parent the child, you walk out of the hospital with a child that may not be unrelated.
You don't have any background checks or screenings.
And you are the full legal custody.
You have child custody of that child.
Now, this is the reason why we are now seeing so many stories of child predators acquiring children through surrogacy.
Because gay marriage has reoriented our parenthood laws to facilitate adult demand in what is supposed to be now some kind of like public accommodation.
Children are now some kind of public accommodation in the name of marriage equality.
So honestly, the problem with gay marriage is not the gays.
The problem with gay marriage is the way that it requires our marriage and family law to bend down to a definition of the family that is fundamentally unnatural in the sense that it cannot always be connected to natural parent-child relationships.
So we have had to completely overhaul in law how we think about the family unit.
It's no longer this pre-political assumption that parents and children belong to one another.
We are now moving towards a state-constructed family.
Did you know your internet provider watches your every move online?
They track all your clicks and time spent online building a profile they sell to the highest bidder.
It sounds illegal.
It probably should be, but it isn't.
Why?
Because the government benefits too.
It creates a loophole around your Fourth Amendment rights.
Normally, the government needs a warrant to collect your information without consent, but when they buy it from data brokers instead, it's completely illegal and no warrant is required.
These data brokers are eroding our freedoms as Americans.
Fortunately, there's a solution, a solution I use, ExpressVPN.
With ExpressVPN, all my online activity travels through secure encrypted servers.
Nobody, not even my internet provider, can track my movements or infringe on my rights.
I love it.
I like to use it on all my devices.
And here's some exciting news.
ExpressVPN just launched Identity Defender for U.S. customers, included at no extra cost.
It removes your data from brokers' files, monitors the dark web for your information, and alerts you if someone tries using your social security number.
Right now, you can get an extra four months for free when you use my special link.
Go to expressvpn.com/slash clavin and get four extra months of ExpressVPN.
That's exprsvpn.com slash clavin.
And you're thinking, how do I spell VPN?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
So, you know, I think Obergfeld was just a terrible, terrible decision.
Problem with IVF Process00:05:30
Talking, by the way, to Katie Faust, the founder and president of Them Before Us, Them Being Children, and the editor of Pro-Child Politics, Why Every Cultural, Economic, and National Issue is a Matter of Justice for Children.
But let's just, as a mental experiment, say there was no Obergfeld decision, but state by state, we decided there had to be a civic marriage.
You know, gay people could get married in a civic way, but they couldn't adopt.
They couldn't have children.
Would you then still be opposed to it?
Would you still find it damaging for children?
So the problem is that the constellation moves together.
Could you have created a planet in the Constitution where same-sex couples could have hospital visitations or share insurance?
I totally think you could have.
That was called civil unions.
That was something that a lot of us were like, hey, this is a solve.
That was unacceptable, right?
It was separate and unequal, is what we heard from them.
They didn't want that solved.
They wanted marriage.
And when you get marriage, there's no alternative but to reorient because marriage and parenthood are so tightly connected, not just biologically, but legally.
The reason why we have things like a presumption of paternity is because marriage presumes that both the father and mother are going to be the parents of the child.
I mean, we've got dozens of laws that acknowledge this fundamental parent-child relationship, but all of them orbit around the definition of marriage.
So there really was no way to give any other non-procreative, or I would say even sort of thruple-y definition of marriage, which is coming down the pipe.
I mean, that's only a few years away, without fundamentally reorienting the rest of the constellation.
I, you know, obviously you have somebody in your life that you love who is in a gay relationship.
My mom's been in a relationship with her partner for 40 years.
I mean, my mother is a better mother than your mother, unfortunately, Andrew.
So this is not an anti-gay position.
This is a recognition that when you mess with the fundamental building block of society, it will be children who pay the price.
And we can and should love our LGBT friends and family because they're made in the image of God.
They have the same kind of human dignity and they can be able to make consensual adult decisions for themselves, but never at the expense of children's fundamental rights.
What about ordinary adoption?
You know, a woman gets pregnant.
She can't take care of the child.
She puts it up for adoption.
Now the child does not have his mother and father, but has a mother and father.
Isn't that a better situation than being stuck with a woman who doesn't want you?
It depends.
Okay.
It depends, but you have to begin with the presumption that children have a right to life and they have a right to their mother and father.
And unfortunately, I think even in the pro-life Christian conservative world, in many ways, we have over-romanticized adoption.
We have minimized the cost to the child and to the birth mother when it comes to that process of relinquishment.
I say this as an adoptive mom.
I say it as the former assistant director of the largest Chinese adoption agency in the world.
I'm a pro-adoption woman when it's properly understood as a vehicle to restore something that the child has lost.
But don't pretend like the child has not lost anything.
Like sometimes it may not be the right decision for the single mother to raise the baby, especially if there's drug use taking place.
But a lot of times it's better for the woman to, you know, the solution to an unplanned pregnancy is not adoption.
It's parenting.
That's the so if you make a baby, you raise the baby.
Not just the woman, but the father as well.
That's the kind of presumption that we need to have whenever somebody creates a child.
And in some cases, that may not be necessary or it might be dangerous.
And in those rare cases, then you can look at a child-centric adoption process.
But we have to be very careful not to skip over to, oh, it's a single mom.
Boom.
We definitely need to place that in a Christian heterosexual couple because that kid is still going to experience some level of loss.
Well, how do you feel about IVF?
I mean, there are different levels of IVF.
There's ways of having just one embryo and not, you know, discarding them like they were nothing.
But is it a problem?
Is there a problem there that's inherent in the process?
There is a problem inherent in that process.
And if anyone wants every single opinion I have on the subject, you can Google Katie Faust IVF because we probably did 40 interviews and articles about it last year since it was so trendy.
But here's the problem with IVF.
It's anti-child.
And I know that a lot of people are like, what are you talking about?
I have IVF nieces.
Fantastic.
But you never met their 12 siblings.
You didn't.
Because the vast majority of lab-made babies will never make it through the process alive.
If we're talking about three to maybe 7% that are going to come through the gauntlet of sex selection and genetic screening and freezing and thawing and transferring and selective reduction and get to the place where they actually have a chance to be born alive.
And then a third to two-thirds of those 90,000 kids in the U.S. who are born through IVF are going to lose their mother or father in the process.
Because once you're making a baby in a laboratory, there's it's just as easy to use somebody else's sperm or somebody else's egg or both to make that child.
So honestly, like the child victimization at the hands of the baby making invert, the baby-making industry of big fertility dwarfs the baby-taking industry of abortion.
And to boot, you're probably going to lose your mom or dad in the process too.
Yeah.
The Shifting Temperature of Motherhood00:07:18
It is amazing to me that all the compassion that's called for is always called for for the adults instead of the children.
It is amazing.
Andrew Clavin, you're hired.
That is literally, you can now come and work for me.
That is it.
Every conversation, every marriage and family conversation, it obsessively focuses on the adult's pain, their struggle, their sorrow, their identity, their needs, their backstory.
No, I mean, we can empathize with you, but it is the child who is victimized when we get these questions wrong.
One of the subjects that I come to a lot, and I'm always shocked at the reaction I get, is I talk about the incredible importance of motherhood, especially at home motherhood.
I mean, mothers who are in the home for these children, especially in their youngest days.
And the reason I'm always shocked at the reaction is I get women writing to me saying, you know, I burst into tears hearing this.
I never hear this.
Thank you.
And I think like, if I'm saying if that, if that's a tough one, if elevating motherhood is a tough one, we really have gone down a weird road.
I'm right about this, right?
This is a real problem.
Okay.
So can confirm.
Can confirm.
Confirm A, that you do talk about motherhood so beautifully and passionately and accurately, but can confirm that it is like, you know, a dry and weary land where there is no truth when it comes to talking about the importance of babies to women.
And, you know, I'm now beyond middle age, as my staff loves to tell me.
But it's interesting because the Gen Z and the millennials are especially kind of in the conservative space swinging more trad, but they're kind of doing it like, is it okay?
Is this all right?
Yes.
Because so much of the messages they're hearing is go be boss girl, get your master's degree, travel the world, discover yourself.
And, you know, then they get to the point where they're in their 30s and they're like, but none of this fulfills me.
This isn't what I really want.
And now they have unfortunately often squandered their prime childbearing years only at the point where they recognize that's actually the thing I wanted most in life.
So I'm, you know, when I'm not on the war path defending children's rights and when I'm not reveling in the gratitude I have to my life and my husband and my children.
I talk to young people and I actually run a matchmaking service to try to help people be more marriage-minded earlier on so that they don't get stuck in the place where they miss out on the thing that matters most to them because they've believed so many of the cultural lies.
So hats off to you.
Don't ever stop.
And if you're listening to this and if you are a mother, if you're married, you don't have to have a perfect marriage.
You don't have to be a perfect mom, but talk about the goodness and the beauty, the satisfaction and the joy that you get from the inner life rather than the external life, you know, the home life rather than the workforce, because you're actually going to be, in essence, like allowing streams of water to flow into places that really need to hear it.
Yeah, no, it's an amazing thing.
So I guess as I listen to you, the thing that's coming over me is a sense of, wow, we're so far away from any of these things.
Do you see a path back to some kind of sanity?
I mean, there's no, obviously, no going back into the past, but is there a future that looks more child-centric that you think is possible?
Only if we raise up an army of adults who are willing to do hard things on behalf of children.
That's it.
Hard things in their own personal life, but hard things also as it relates to being willing to have difficult conversation with friends or online or advancing policies in their own sphere of influence that create a firewall around children and their fundamental rights and needs, even if it means that they get unfriended, even if it means they have to have difficult conversations.
And that is something that I, I mean, I am much more of a grace giver than a truth teller.
It's hard to believe, but it's true.
And so that is a really big step for a lot of people.
But we are talking about not just the individual rights of children.
We're not just talking about whether or not that child is commodified or that child is dealing with an unrelated adult who is going to put them in harm's way.
We're not just talking about children who are going to suffer because they've been intentionally denied the mother love or father love that maximizes their development and satisfies their soul.
We're not just talking about individual kids.
We're talking about whether or not we survive as a nation.
That's really where we're at right now.
I agree.
We are at a civilizational moment.
And if you choose to put them before us, if you can prioritize children, especially in matters of defending their life and defending their mother and father, we might have a pathway forward to not only survive, but to thrive.
I mean, it's not just the nation.
It's actually the race.
I mean, when you look at the fertility rate.
The species, people.
The species is at risk.
It is an amazing thing.
I mean, you know, one of the things that really Obergfell was a disaster the minute I saw it, but I was not prepared.
I would have, I would be lying if I said I was prepared for the sort of thing like bringing gay cartoons, you know, picture books into kindergartens.
I don't think I saw that coming at all.
And it just feels like we've gone so far and that people are literally intimidated.
They are afraid to say, you know, don't, and who can blame them when the FBI investigates them for going to a school board and complaining about it.
Well, I'm glad you're out there.
I mean, I think it's a, it's, this has been a really interesting conversation.
I hope you will come back and have another one because I think there's more to talk about.
It does, I don't find it that encouraging.
I mean, I find it makes me feel like we're really in a mess here.
We are in a mess.
But something's happened in the last five years where the normies have awakened.
And I think that everybody can kind of look at their tipping point over the last five or 10 years and say, that's when I decided that I actually might be willing to pay a social cost for saying, I don't want that twerking guy in fishnet stockings at my local library.
Or I actually think that you don't get to decide the medical decisions for my own child as it relates to what you're going to inject into their fragile little systems.
There's been innumerable different ways that people have said, you've gone too far.
And I mean, it's kind of like a Pearl Harbor for the social conservatives in some way.
Like you've awakened a sleeping giant.
When you get ordinary moms pissed off enough to start global nonprofits, you know you've gone too far.
And I think that there is a temperature that has shifted.
You know, we talk about the vibe shift.
I think the vibe shift is real.
And it's not something that I think is going to be temporary because you have triggered us to the point of saying we are willing to take a personal hit to no longer be tools in your globalization scheme or your campaign to turn our children into ideological little robots or to carve up their bodies or to commodify them on the open market in the name of LGBT rights.
A Long Way to Go00:01:12
I mean, I just think that they've gone too far.
They've awakened the ordinary people.
And we've all realized, you know what?
It's not that bad.
Yeah, maybe I paid a cost at the front end, but it was worth it.
It was worth it.
And that's my message.
Kids are worth it.
And, you know, they need defense.
They can't do it themselves.
That's your job.
That's my job.
Yeah.
Katie Faust, a really interesting conversation.
I thank you so much.
The organization is called Them Before Us.
Go on the website.
It's really interesting.
Pro-Child Politics is the book why every cultural, economic, and national issue is a matter of justice for children.
You'll recognize a lot of the, Katie edited it, but you'll recognize a lot of the writers as top conservative thinkers.
It's wonderful to meet you, Katie.
I hope we get to talk again.
Well, you just let me know when you need a good laugh, and I'll come back on your show.
That's why I'm here.
Great.
All right.
Thanks a lot.
Well, that conversation convinced me there's a very long way to go, but that doesn't mean we won't get there one step at a time.
After all, they took us here one step at a time.
We can get back one step at a time.
Katie Faust, the organization is Them Before Us.
Check it out.
And the book is Pro-Child Politics.
And the show is the Andrew Clavin Show, which will be back on Friday.