Send us a text

A quiet morning catch-up turns into a charged exploration of where therapy ends and state power begins. We dig into Colorado’s HB 19-1129 and the case of a licensed, faith-based counselor challenging the state’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors, asking whether the law polices harmful conduct—or polices words and beliefs in the treatment room. Along the way, we read the statutory definition, examine what it does and doesn’t allow, and test it against real scenarios where a teen asks for guidance aligned with their faith or seeks affirmation amid family conflict.

From there, we open the lens: How do clergy carve-outs square with tighter rules for licensed clinicians who operate under codes of ethics and disciplinary oversight? Could bans unintentionally push sensitive identity work into less regulated spaces? We trace the patchwork of state laws, the split in federal courts, and why the Supreme Court’s review could reset the boundaries of professional speech for therapists, physicians, and teachers. Grounding the legal questions are clinical fundamentals—do no harm, client autonomy, informed consent—and the crucial difference between exploration and direction. We also confront tough edge cases: What counts as harmful speech in therapy, and what’s just radical candor? Where is the line between respecting conscience and imposing values?

Finally, we tackle the age question and the “follow the science” refrain. If neurodevelopment justifies bright lines at 18, what about the prefrontal cortex maturing into the mid-20s? If minors lack capacity for certain decisions, how do policy carve-outs stay coherent? No easy answers here—only a reasoned, good-faith attempt to map the terrain so you can decide what’s consistent, ethical, and sustainable for kids, families, and clinicians. If thoughtful debate is your thing, you’ll feel at home.

If this conversation made you think, subscribe, share it with a friend, and leave a review with your take. And tell us: should licensed therapists be free to counsel minors consistent with a minor’s faith and goals, or should the state draw the line?

Support the show

Facebook & Instagram: @Theunmentionablespodcast
Twitter/X: @UnmentionablesX
YouTube: @TheUnmentionnablesPodcast
TikTok: @theunmentionablespodcast
Web: https://heart4change.org/heart-for-change-media

Send us a text

The shouting match on Capitol Hill wasn’t just a bad day at work—it was a mirror. We open on the chaos, then follow the ripple effects across the culture: public glee at a political killing, campus protests that blur into crime, and media ecosystems that reward the most dehumanizing lines. Along the way, we draw the crucial boundary between consequences and censorship, showing why community judgment belongs in a free society—and why state pressure over speech is a line we can’t let any administration cross.

We unpack how labels like fascist and Nazi turn neighbors into targets, how the “martyr effect” makes silencing by force backfire, and why original sources beat viral edits every time. From immigration enforcement to late-night monologues, from cancel culture’s unending punishments to platform policies shaped by backroom calls, we map the real-world costs when debate is replaced by coercion. Tech companies can set rules, but when government jawbones platforms or affiliates, private moderation becomes public power by proxy—and that should alarm anyone who cares about civil liberties, regardless of party.

Grounded in the founders’ warnings and a moral call to speak truth with care, we argue for thicker skin, sharper reasoning, and a wider marketplace of ideas. Free speech is not a promise of comfort; it’s the oxygen of a healthy republic. If truth unsettles us, maybe it’s doing its job. Listen, challenge us, and bring your best arguments—we’ll put them at the front of the line and let ideas compete in daylight.

If this moved your thinking, subscribe, share with a friend who loves a good debate, and leave a review telling us where you draw the line between consequence and censorship. Your voice keeps this conversation honest.

Support the show

Facebook & Instagram: @Theunmentionablespodcast
Twitter/X: @UnmentionablesX
YouTube: @TheUnmentionnablesPodcast
TikTok: @theunmentionablespodcast
Web: https://heart4change.org/heart-for-change-media

Send us a text

What happens to a free society when speech goes quiet? We open the Equalizer Series by tracing the moral, historical, and legal roots of free expression—from “Let there be light” to the First Amendment—and make the case that words don’t just describe reality; they create it. Evan lays out his worldview shaped by faith, family, service, technology, and firsthand political experience, then builds a clear framework of first principles to show why speech is the bedrock that upholds conscience, press, assembly, and petition.

We dig into Scripture’s view of language as creative and accountable, where the tongue holds the power of life and death, prophets speak under pressure, and Babel warns that words can unite or scatter nations. From there, we scan Greece’s isēgoria and parrhesia, Socrates’ fate, Rome’s eloquence and hierarchy, the Magna Carta’s checks on power, and Milton’s Areopagitica, arguing that truth thrives in open contest. By the Enlightenment, natural rights theory points straight to America’s design: a First Amendment that protects religion, then speech and press, then assembly and petition, each layer reinforcing the next.

Breaking down the amendment’s order reveals why the founders put speech at the heart of liberty’s architecture: without it, faith can’t be confessed, the press can’t investigate, people can’t gather, and grievances can’t be heard. We draw a firm line between state censorship—which must be resisted—and personal responsibility—which must be embraced. Speech is a right to defend and a duty to steward, the “oxygen of freedom” that keeps a nation honest, curious, and capable of change.

If this conversation gave you something to wrestle with, subscribe for more Equalizer deep dives and share this episode with someone who cares about faith, freedom, and first principles. Leave a review with your take: what speech would you defend even if you disagree?

Support the show

Facebook & Instagram: @Theunmentionablespodcast
Twitter/X: @UnmentionablesX
YouTube: @TheUnmentionnablesPodcast
TikTok: @theunmentionablespodcast
Web: https://heart4change.org/heart-for-change-media