Wednesday, January 7, 2026

It's Wednesday, January 7, 2026.

I'm Albert Mueller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from

a Christian worldview.

The rights of parents and raising their children should be recognized as paramount.

As Christians think about this, we need to understand this is basic to creation order.

That is to say, in the order of creation, we have the creation of human beings, male and

female.

Then we have the institution of marriage, the command, be fruitful and multiply and fill

the earth.

And then we have the institution of the family, which means that couple, primarily and

the children who are given to their union.

Now there's more to the family than that.

There's extended family, but the very center, the nuclear cell that defines human civilization

begins with parents and their children.

And the recognition of any sane society is that parents have to be recognized as the

primary decision-makers, authorities, they are after all the ones who parent the children.

Now when looking at this, we recognize that in our secularizing, liberalizing society,

and especially with the influence of so much progressivist ideology in the culture, there

are those who think differently.

And one of the authorities that thinks quite differently is the state of California.

The state of California has in some ways basically declared war on parents in that state.

And one of the ways they've done so is by establishing policies that require public school

teachers to hide a child's gender identity at school, even from the child's parents.

Now when you think about that, it's hard to imagine anything more basic, anything more

basically irrational and wrong than that.

And that's why a recent court action should have our attention.

And frankly, the attention of parents everywhere and Christians everywhere.

In this case, the judge is a U.S. District Court judge, Judge Roger Benitez there in

California, and he handed down a ruling at the end of December saying that parents have

a right to know what is going on with their children, and public school teachers can't

be put in the position of hiding that information from parents or even lying to parents.

This representing reality to parents, if indeed one of the children of that parent or those

two parents, if one of those children is presenting in a different way in terms of gender identity,

and that includes pronouns, name, dress, you just go down the list at school, parents

according to this U.S. District Court judge must be told.

Behind that is also the fact that public school teachers are not according to this judge

to be put in the position of lying or misrepresenting the reality of what's going on with children

in their classroom when dealing with the parents of those children.

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal released a statement on the 4th of January that

said, quote,

"'Depairants have a right not to be lied to by a government school if their child starts

undertaking a gender transition that's now a live legal dispute and over the holidays

a federal judge took the side of parents in a case from California.

His ruling was stayed for now by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but one of these cases

could make it to the Supreme Court."

So let's just talk about the legal timeline here.

This was a federal district court judge who handed down this decision, a very righteous

decision, an absolutely necessary decision, recognizing parental authority and parental rights.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put that on hold, which is to say just issued

to state that doesn't mean that's the final word, but it does mean that likely appeals

will eventually get to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is one of those cases that almost assuredly will arrive at the Supreme Court.

And because of the conservative redirection of that court over the course of the last

generation, there's at least a good hope that the majority of justices of the U.S.

Supreme Court will see through this issue and understand it for exactly what it is.

I'm continuing here to quote from the Wall Street Journal editorial board statement,

quote, the ruling quotes a court declaration by an anonymous father describing a series

of school meetings about his daughter.

Quote, my wife asked each teacher simply if there was anything about her that means the

student that the teacher felt was important for us to know.

Although at least two of the teachers seemed distinctly uncomfortable, one by acting defensive

and rude and the other by appearing nervous, every teacher answered, no.

Now get this. Here's the next paragraph.

Quote, yet one class seating chart showed the use of a male name and pronouns for our

daughters at the father. Quote, the parents went to the principal who, to quote again,

denied any knowledge of the social transition and even denied that it was really happening.

But the principal stated that if a child asked to be referred to using a new name and pronouns

and to keep this information from parents, in the authorities word, quote, we are instructed to

protect the rights of LGBTQ students. Now, these are among the most chilling words, I think,

any person could hear who has any concern for the family, for marriage, for children,

for parental authority, for creation order, you name it.

We're talking here about a direct subversion of creation order, even at the level of male and

female. We're talking about the public schools taking on an adversarial relationship to parents

in the state of California, basically saying that school authorities may know that the child

is presenting in a different gender at school than at home. The school can know, but the parents

cannot and the school cannot legally, teachers cannot legally communicate this to parents.

Now, this is a world turned upside down, but that's exactly where things have to go,

because this is one of those issues in which there's really no halfway position.

Either the child has the absolute right to do this, and that means absolutely without interference

from anyone, including parents, or the child does not have such a right. And of course,

this gets back to the fact there's really no halfway house. There's really no moderate position

on the entire transgender question. You either believe that gender and sex, that is to say biological

sex and gender identity can be different, and thus the gender identity is going to trump biological

sex. You either believe that or you don't. This is a categorical. There's really no

in-between position. And when it comes to this aversion of parental rights, let me just say,

this kind of thing has been seen happening in Europe and expanding throughout much of Europe

over the course of the last, say half century. But to see this happen in the United States of America,

I think even if you were to explain this out loud, a matter of just say 20 or 30 years ago,

most people would believe this is some kind of science fiction or some kind of right wing

conspiracy theory. But this is the actuality. And if you want all the evidence, then just go look

at the ruling headed down by Judge Benitez. And by the way, a link to that will be provided for

today's edition of the briefing. You'll find it very encouraging to know that a US federal

district court judge thinks so sanely and so reasonably. He begins by citing Horace Mann from the

1840s, quote, the history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition,

a parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. That's primary role of parents

and the upbringing of their children. It's now established beyond debate as an enduring American

tradition. End quote. Now Horace Mann was no conservative even in the 1840s. But the point is

that when you have a US federal district court judge begin his ruling with that kind of

quotation. Let's just say that's encouraging. It also, let's put it the opposite way. It would

be an absolute disaster if he were to begin anywhere else. Judge Benitez went right at the policies

there in California, quote, these parental exclusion policies are designed to create a zone of secrecy

around a school student who expresses gender in congruity. The policies restrain public school

teachers and staff from informing parents about a child's unusual gender expression unless the

child consents. The policies, I'm reading from the statement here, the policies apply to children

as young as two and as old as 17. Let's just stop there for a moment. Children as young as two.

Once again, we to see there is no middle ground here. The reason there is an upper limit of 17

is because at 18 that young person would reach legal majority that is to say would be recognized

legally as an adult, parental rights would in this situation not be so clear. I go back to the

statement, quote, the policies do not permit teachers to use their own judgment and responding to

an inquiring parent unless the child consents, the teacher who communicates about a child's

gender in congruity faces adverse employment action. In other words, being penalized or fired.

I go back to the statement, quote, however prohibiting accurate answers to a parent's question

as the plaintiff class asserts a violation of several federal constitutional rights. In particular,

the parent's subclass, that means the group of parents bringing the suit, asserts rights under

the first and 14th amendments while the teacher's subclass also appealing against this law,

quote, asserts rights under the free speech and free exercise clauses of the first amendment end

quote. I wanted you to hear all of that directly from the text, even as the judge is quoting directly

from the documentation related to the case. So you would see how real this danger is. And frankly,

how clear the intention of the California authorities has been here. It's a clear intention not

only to further the LGBTQ movement. And in particular, in this case, the transgender movement

and ideology, but to hide even the most basic questions related to an individual child from

that child's parents, even to the point of blatant dishonesty. Now, the transgender issue is

really not a factor in the Soviet Union before the fall of that horrifying communist experiment.

In the early decades of the 1990s, the fact is, however, that this is exactly the kind of subversion

of parental rights that was very common in the communist world under the Soviet regime and elsewhere.

What you have here is the trampling of parental rights in the name of the state. The state is

climbing to act on behalf of the children. And so once you begin to think this way, the state

can basically take the child as its own can make these decisions and even lie to the parents,

can subvert the parental relationship and basically put parents not only in the dark,

but frankly as much as possible out of the picture. Now, just to be clear, in the history of the

constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States, in terms of American

history, the judgment of the high court has been very clear. As stated in this document,

quote, the Supreme Court has long recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions

concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. End quote, care, custody, and control.

Now, clearly that statement was also written long before there was any understanding of the

imagination of the transgender agenda, but now it's a very real and present danger. And we

understand something else. As Christians, we have to put two and two together and get four here.

And that is we have to think in worldview terms going back to creation order and understanding

that if you are going to deny something as basic as the creation order, if human beings made male

and female, if you're going to subvert something as basic as the family, and in this case parental

rights, then you won't do so by inches. You will do so by yards. You're going to have to press

this case all the way to the point in which it becomes illegal and a fireable offense for a

public school teacher even to tell the parents the truth about how the parents' child is

presenting in terms of gender in the classroom during the school day. This is not science fiction.

This is California fact. The judge's document is 52 pages long. I want to turn to page 22. You'll

find this very interesting. Judge Benita's right quote, the constitutional question is really not

whether expressing gender and incongruence is pathological or healthy or whether social transitioning is

or is not a medical procedure. He says that debate is a red herring. The constitutional question is

about when gender incongruence is observed, whether parents have a right to be informed and make

the decision about whether further professional investigation or therapy is needed. Put another

way, said the judge, the question is whether being involved in potentially serious medical or

psychological decision making for their school student is a parent's constitutional right. His next

sentence is amazingly blessedly short two words. It is period. So thankfully in this judge's

ruling, we have a spectacularly clear affirmation of parental rights. Again, asking a parole

right supply in this situation, well, they do. If that's the issue presenting in this case, as the

judge says, it is. It's a thunderous affirmation of parental authority. That's why we need to be concerned

because the ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has put this judge's ruling on hold. That doesn't

mean they've reversed it, but it does mean for now you have this truth declared by this federal

district court judge, but it is at this point on hold. That tells you something about how the process

works. It tells you what we are up against. And it also tells you about a battle that is to come.

We're going to have to watch this case very, very carefully. And I think we can predict right now

the issue in this case is not going to stop one way or the other. Either side is not going to be

satisfied with even how the ninth district will rule on this eventually. This will arrive at the

Supreme Court. And I'll predict right now, I believe a sufficient number of justices of the

Supreme Court will take this case. It is a clear constitutional issue. And of course, as Christians,

we understand it's more than that. It is a clear creation order issue. We can't sit this went out.

Failing in this, losing this battle means that parenthood is itself subverted,

fatally so, in the state of California. And if it can happen in the state of California,

don't think anyone else in the other 49 states is safe. Now, I shift now to a related development.

And one of the things you need to watch is that when we have the end of a year, you have the

clearing of some of these issues for two reasons. Number one, you have some administrative units,

some courts and others who just want to get this kind of thing done time stamp it 2025 and move on.

The other reason is there are some who want to do this kind of thing when the American public is

thinking about something else, such as Christmas, New Year's, family and all the rest.

That's why another major report, this one appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on December

the 25th. So this is Christmas Day. Here's the headline, 19 states sue over miners gender care.

This story originated at the New York Times, and the Times tells us, quote, a coalition of 19 states

Tuesday. This is the Tuesday before the Thursday, which was Christmas, quote, sued to block the

Trump administration's plan to strip federal funding from hospitals, providing gender-related

care for miners, a policy that effectively would shut down any healthcare providers that failed to

comply. Okay. So let's just go back what happened in the closing weeks of 2025, Health and Human

Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced that the administration was going to cut off

federal funding in particular Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals in which there is

any major share of hospital revenue from transgender treatments for miners. Quote, this is from

the Times, quote, part of the underpinning of that plan is a declaration by Kennedy that gender-related

treatments for miners, quote, failed to meet professional recognized standards of healthcare. End,

quote, now what we have here just to get to the bottom line is 19 states suing because they want to

be able to offer their hospitals in those states to be able to offer transgender care to children

and teenagers. Understand, 19 states putting themselves on the line. You won't be surprised at the

end of this article to read, quote, all of the states have democratic controlled legislatures,

a democratic governor, or both, in most cases, both. What are the states? Well, you can pretty much

imagine the list. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,

Wisconsin, Washington state, as well as the District of Columbia. Now, that means that if you are

a parent, if you're a family in any of those states, this relates to you directly, but it also means

because of the fact that this is a federal policy, we're in a federal system. Even those in the

other 31 states are still very much engaged here because it's your tax money that would be used in

this way if these 19 states, who their attorneys general, are successful. Now, there's something else

in this article and worldview analysis that really should have our attention. And it's pretty much

buried in the article, but it cries out for attention. Listen to this, quote, gender related

treatments for minors, which can include puberty blocking drugs, hormone therapies, and in rare

cases, surgeries have been fiercely debated in other countries, but are endorsed by most medical

groups in the United States, end to quote. Now, is that true or false? Well, it's true or false

ish depending upon how you want to look at it. The point is, it is true to say that these issues have

been incredibly controversial among medical authorities elsewhere, but what's not said

is that that wasn't always the case. You have a nation like Britain. Britain was going head long

into the endorsement of all these transgender treatments, gender realignment, gender affirmation,

whatever the propagandist term they were using, they were into it big time. The medical authorities

were into it big time. There's big money involved, big time. But the cast report that came out,

we've talked about it many times on the briefing, the cast report came out led by one of the most

respected pediatricians in the entire United Kingdom. It came back and said there is no proof

that these treatments do long term good for young people and children. And there's a good deal of

evidence that they could do real harm. And so the professions had to realign immediately to that

reality. The big issue here is that that hasn't happened in the United States because most of the

medical professional authorities are so liberal and so resistant to this change. Now, that means

that federal government policy here is going to be really important. And this is where elections come

with consequences. One of the consequences of the election of Donald Trump as president of the

United States, rather than Kamala Harris, let's just keep this very much in mind, is that the

Trump administration is saying no to the federal funding of these programs, even saying that if

this hospital or medical center has any involvement in any major way with these kinds of procedures,

then Medicare and Medicaid funding will be cut off. And let's face it, that means effectively

those medical centers of hospitals can't operate. So yes, this has the attention of those very

liberal states. It has the attention of those in the liberal professions as well. And you see

that this story broke, but again, I just want to point out that it tells you something. You should

pay attention to the fact that this story broke in the print edition of the Atlanta Journal

Constitution on Christmas Day. That is to say, at a time when few Americans are likely to give much

attention to that kind of headline, it's for that very reason we have to give much attention to

this headline and the vast worldview issues that are behind it. Once again, the integrity of the

family, the integrity of creation order, parental rights, parental authority, very much right before us,

for all who have eyes to see. All right, other related issues will be discussing on the briefing

in coming days, but I want to go to something you might not have heard about at this point. And

that has to do with the judge who's presiding in the legal hearings, having to do with now former

Venezuelan president, Nicholas Maduro and his wife. Now, as you know, the former Venezuelan

president and his wife have been indicted on numerous federal charges. They were brought

forcibly from Caracas to face the Court of Justice there in New York City. It's a federal court.

And the federal judge presiding over it is Judge Alvin Kay Hellerstein. He's pretty well known.

He's been around for a long time. If that is part of the news, you probably haven't heard. Judge

Hellerstein, very well known in the legal community, is assigned this case precisely because

almost 15 years ago, in 2011, he was the federal district court judge there in New York,

who put a signature on the indictment of Maduro and his wife on criminal narcotics trafficking charges

back in 2011. Okay, just keep that in mind. He was already an old man. Judge Hellerstein,

who presided that hearing just days ago in New York City, is 92 years old. Now, recall that our

constitutional order says that federal judges are appointed for life, which means they can't be

required to leave the court because of any particular age. They can stay on if they want to stay

on. There's some customary ages in which retirement can take place, benefits can take place.

Federal judges can then sign on to be senior judges. They can also take on a rotation role.

Very few continue beyond say 80. In this case, Judge Hellerstein is 92. Now, one of the reasons

that becomes crucial was made clear by Jeffrey Tuban, who is an opinion writer at the New York Times,

also a very well known legal scholar and law professor. He, well, he addressed an argument in

yesterday's edition of the New York Times to Judge Hellerstein saying that the most important

thing he can do in this case is to step aside. Now, this requires us to think for a moment.

Why does the US Constitution afford federal judges a life term? Why is there a term in

appointment for life? It is to free them from the threat of political action if they should hand

down a decision or a ruling that would be unpopular. It is at least by intention to depoliticize

the federal judiciary. Now, it's still political in the sense that, for example,

federal judges take their seats only because they are nominated by a president of the United States.

That president is a political figure. He's identified with a political party in almost always with

a judicial philosophy. It was President Bill Clinton who nominated Judge Hellerstein to the

federal bench. He has been there ever since. He has been very involved in some of the biggest

cases, including federal prosecutions cases that followed the 9-11 attacks going back to the

beginning of this century. He's also been involved in some other things and he has continued to

be involved in frontline cases into his 80s and now into his 90s. There have been some complaints

about this particular judge not so much missing a ruling or ruling an error but of nodding off during

court hearings, particularly in the afternoon. But the process of removing a federal judge in

this case, it requires a finding basically of incompetence and is very unlikely that Judge Hellerstein

would be found incompetent. The reason Jeffrey Tuban wrote this is because he understands that a

mistake in this case could be absolutely devastating. He understands also that this case is likely to

last not for weeks, not for months, but for years. He points out the fact that even in this first

hearing, Judge Hellerstein put off a subsequent hearing for a matter of months simply because of

the complexities of this case, even in preparing the filings on both sides. The reality is that any

trial in this case, man, there should be a trial in this case. It is likely to be months away

if not years away and time is ticking. And here's the issue that Professor Tuban, Jeffrey

Tuban understands. If there is a necessity of Judge Hellerstein removing himself later in this case,

or if he should die on the bench, that could create a huge problem for the prosecution in this case.

And the stakes are just really high. And so that's why Jeffrey Tuban is calling upon Judge Hellerstein

to withdraw, to recuse himself from this case, not because he can't handle it now, but because he

is 92 years of age. Another very interesting thing about this judge is that it was reported at the

time that he took the bench. Now, you're talking here about the 1990s. It was reported at that time

that he was the first Orthodox Jewish judge to be appointed in this way. And you have a man here who

has made his own Jewish understanding, his Jewish convictions very, very clear, even some citations.

And even in his schedule, he has often arranged sentencing hearings for Fridays before sundown,

so that he can make a ruling. And then, as he said, on the Jewish Sabbath,

considered the righteousness and justice of his ruling. I have to tell you, looking at this article,

you have to respect Judge Hellerstein for his longevity, for his tenacity, not to mention for

his work ethic. And it's also important to recognize his identity with Orthodox Judaism. And

that just reminds me of Numbers chapter 8 verses 24 through 26. In those verses, you will find

about the priests who serve that they time out at age 50. Now, I'm not saying that that should

apply to federal judges. I'm not saying it should apply to any of us, but I am saying that at

least embedded within that particular text is the understanding that age does come with a certain

cost. It comes with benefits, yes. And the Bible is very clear about the benefit of maturity

and wisdom. But at the same time, 92 is 92. And the next number is 93, and they go up from there.

It's a sobering reality of our human mortality. So I do respect this judge. I find his track record

on the court amazing, his tenacity admirable. But in this case, he could well be putting a most

important prosecution on behalf of the U.S. government at stake, at risk. That's no small matter,

regardless of age. As another observer pointed out, Judge Hellerstein is roughly a decade older than

former president Joe Biden. Boy, thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information

that are my website at Albertmolar.com, you can follow me on x or twitter by going to x.com

forward slash Albertmolar for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to

spts.edu. For information on voice college, just go to voicecollege.com. I'm speaking to you from

Davenport, Florida, and I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.