Idaho moves to ban transgender birth certificate changes: 'Biological sex is a real scientific fact'
By Keith Ridler - Associated Press - Thursday, February 27, 2020
BOISE, Idaho — Idaho lawmakers moved forward Thursday with legislation banning transgender people from changing the sex listed on their birth certificates despite a federal court ruling declaring such a ban unconstitutional.
Ohio and Tennessee are the only other states in the country where transgender people cannot change their birth certificates, according to a law firm that has challenged the practice in court. In Idaho, this is another effort by the conservative state to target the population as Republicans in the House a day earlier advanced legislation to keep transgender women from competition.
The Republican-dominated House voted 53-16 to pass the measure that now goes to the GOP-controlled Senate. If approved, it would go to Republican Gov. Brad Little for his signature.
“Biological sex is a real scientific fact, and it never goes away,” said Republican Rep. Julianne Young. “No amount of surgery, hormones or other procedures can change a person’s biological sex.”
She said preventing changes to the gender on birth certificates is important because schools use birth certificates to determine who can use which bathrooms and who can attend sex-specific overnight trips. She also said it’s important so that the state can maintain accurate records for large studies involving population trends.
A federal judge in March 2018 ruled that Idaho’s law barring transgender people from making the birth certificate change violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judge scrapped the ban and warned against new rules.
After the ruling, about 150 people over the next six months applied to change the gender on their birth certificates, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. They ranged from 7 to 78 years old.
After Idaho lost the lawsuit it paid $75,000 in court-ordered attorney fees to the winning side. The state never appealed the decision.
Young spoke at length about the case, arguing essentially the federal court erred and the Idaho attorney general’s office failed to sufficiently defend the state’s interests. Republican Rep. Bryan Zollinger said the court ruling was an example of a judge creating legislation from the bench.
Democratic Rep. John Gannon said the legislation was a clear violation of the court ruling, and should it become law Idaho would lose again in court and pay more money to the winning side.
“All this bill is doing is picking on a vulnerable population,” he said.
Republican Rep. Linda Hartgen said the federal court ruling was a deciding factor for her in voting against the bill.
“My job here is to protect all of the people of my district and the state of Idaho,” Hartgen said. “Not just those who look like me.”
A proposal that would have blocked transgender people from changing the sex listed on their birth certificates in Utah was shelved earlier this month. The legislation would have reversed the longstanding practice in many parts of the state and had prompted warnings that it could put Utah in a negative national spotlight as Salt Lake City tries to attract a future Winter Olympics.
Lambda Legal is the law firm that represented two transgender women whose lawsuit led to the court ruling in Idaho. The firm also sued Kansas, which ended up changing its policy. The group said it is challenging the Ohio and Tennessee laws.
100 elite Border Patrol agents will be deployed to 10 major cities including New York and Los Angeles; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'
A federal appeals court on Wednesday handed a major win to the Trump administration in its fight against “sanctuary” jurisdictions, ruling that it can deny grant money to states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned a lower court ruling that stopped the administration’s 2017 move to withhold grant money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which dispenses over $250 million a year to state and local criminal justice efforts.
“Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” a DOJ spokesman said in a statement. “The grant conditions here require states and cities that receive DOJ grants to share information about criminals in custody. The federal government uses this information to enforce national immigration laws--policies supported by successive Democrat and Republican administrations.”
“All Americans will benefit from increased public safety as this Administration is able to implement its lawful immigration and public safety policies,” the statement said.
The latest decision conflicts with rulings from other appeals courts across the country concerning sanctuary policies, indicating a Supreme Court review is ultimately likely.
New York City and liberal states including New York, Washington, Massachusetts and Connecticut sued the government, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York backed them — ordering the money be released and stopping the government from putting immigration-related conditions on grants.
But the appeals court ruled that it “cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue.”
“These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations,” the court ruled. “But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.”
It also disagreed with the district court’s claim that the conditions intrude on powers reserved only to states, noting that in immigration policy the Supreme Court has found that the federal government maintains “broad” and “preeminent” power.
The ruling marks a key win for the administration in its efforts to crack down on the continued use of “sanctuary” policies that limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities in order to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.
The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Howell, a former member of Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Legal Counsel, told Fox News that the ruling is potentially an important development considering the dependence of states like New York on DOJ grant money.
“When you look at the amount of money that flows in via grants generally, the federal government has a lot of power over states and localities,” he said. “If you open the door to the federal government being able to condition that grant money, it’s a huge deal.”
Sanctuary policies generally forbid local law enforcement from honoring detainers -- requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that they be alerted to of an illegal immigrant’s release from custody so they can be be picked up by ICE and put through deportation proceedings.
Proponents of the policies claim it makes cities safer because it encourages illegal immigrants to cooperate with police without fear of deportation. But the Trump administration has been relentlessly pushing back by highlighting cases in which criminals are released onto the streets only to re-offend.
It has also deployed a series of measures to combat the practice, including deploying elite Border Patrol agents to sanctuary cities to help ICE track down and detain illegal immigrants.
The Justice Department recently announced a slew of measures, and President Trump has called on Congress to pass legislation that would allow victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue sanctuary cities and states.
“Not one more American life should be stolen by sanctuary cities; they’re all over the place and a lot of people don’t want them,” Trump said at the State of the Union address this month.
Many people wonder why I’m so outspoken about the madness of prescribing cross-sex hormones and genital mutilation surgery for patients who suffer from the desire to be the opposite sex, known clinically as gender dysphoria.
I speak out because I consulted the “gender experts” when I had gender confusion, and they told me sex change was the only way to get relief.
But they were wrong. I didn’t need sex change – I needed effective psychotherapy to resolve childhood issues.
“Sex change” is pure balderdash. No one can change his or her sex. I have the document saying so.
Here’s how it came about.
After eight years of living as a woman, I finally admitted that truth to myself and sought to reclaim my male identity. In an effort to restore my birth certificate to “male,” I formally asked two acclaimed experts in 1990 to testify to my being male in California Superior Court.
They were Dr. Stanley Biber, the world-renowned sex-change surgeon who performed my operation and over 4,000 others in his career, and psychologist/sexologist Paul Walker, my gender therapist and the esteemed author of the original Standards of Care for transgender health.
These two men, both dead now, were the leading experts in the nascent field of “gender” medicine. In the document they co-authored, signed, and submitted to California Superior Court, they admitted that sex changes do not occur medically.
No Change of Sex Occurs
The court document from July 25, 1990, states that I meet the medical criteria for the male sex, even after a full-blown sex change. Men do not become women through surgery or hormones.
Paragraph 5 of the document reads:
This Patient, by the criteria established by John Money, Ph.D. at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, is indeed now considered a male. We plead that the court will reestablish this man’s legal identity as male. The patient’s medical sex is evaluated as follows:
Genetic Sex ………………………………………………………..Male
Hormonal Sex……………………………………………………..Neuter
Internal Morphology…………………………………………..Male
External Morphology………………………………………….Mixed
Gonadal Sex……………………………………………………….Neuter
Social Sex (gender role)……………………………………..Male
“Genetic Sex [is] Male.” According to the testimony of both doctors, sex-change surgery fails to change a person’s genetic sex.
“Internal Morphology [is] Male.” That is, the internal form and structure of the body remains male even after years of hormone use and sex-changing surgical procedures.
In retrospect, it’s a game-changing bombshell. The renowned gender experts testified that even when a person undergoes sex-change surgery and takes cross-gender hormones for many years, genetic sex and internal morphology do not change.
Transgender identity doesn’t exist except in one’s imagination.
So What Does Change?
What does change, then, according to the sex-change surgeon and the gender expert?
“Gonadal Sex [is] Neuter.” The male reproductive organs are refashioned surgically into a pseudo-vagina and the ability to provide sperm is destroyed.
“Hormonal Sex [is] Neuter.” The ability to produce testosterone is destroyed.
“External Morphology [is] Mixed.” Outward appearance of the male body is a mix of male and female. Cosmetic procedures and hormones have a feminizing effect on appearance, but many male traits remain, such as hand size, foot size, and physical strength.
The court document attests that only social sex (gender role) and external morphology (outward appearance) can change.
Therefore, people can skip the hormones and ditch the radical genital surgery because they are not medically necessary. By providing them, the medical professionals commit medical malpractice.
Sex change at its heart is only a social sex change, staged by gender-confused people themselves through a change of clothes and name.
Transgender Women in Sports
Men who claim to be women and then intrude in women’s sports competitions because men’s sports are too difficult for them are only socially pretending to be women.
Their muscle mass, physical strength, and internal bone structure remain even if their testosterone levels later drop—all determined at puberty by the flood of testosterone.
It’s folly to place men on the cover of magazines and celebrate their courage to “come out” as a transgender female when, according to this court document, they are still genetic men.
I think that transgender women (men who are impersonating women) have pulled off one of the biggest misogynistic scams against women in history. Transgender women are saying, in effect, that the beautiful, distinct female sex – womanhood itself – is nothing more than wardrobe choices and some cosmetic surgery.
Pure balderdash.
This Explains the Unhappiness
This court document also helps explain the explosion of reported unhappiness, regret, and detransition stories emerging from the U.K., Canada, and the U.S.
Some of the regretters after changing gender tell me they feel like they are in “gender hell” or that “it was the biggest mistake of my life.”
“I realized I could never become a real woman,” one said. “Now I want my life back; can you help me?”
I detransitioned 30 years ago, in 1990, and have written many articles and books to shine a light on the harm this grand experiment has caused for so many people: suicides and attempted suicides, fractured marriages, deserted children.
Two renowned gender experts, sexologist Paul Walker and surgeon Stanley Biber, exposed the reckless and false ideology in the 1990 court document. Inadvertently, I’m sure, considering they continued to guide hurting people along the same destructive path.
This document filed by experts with the Superior Court of California plainly says that sex-changing surgery does not change men into women, or vice versa. So let’s stop pretending it does.
– – –
Walt Heyer is a public speaker and author of the book, “Trans Life Survivors.” Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.
A teacher in an Advanced Placement History class displayed a picture of President Trump above a swastika and the Communist hammer-and-sickle.
The Fox television affiliate in Baltimore reports that above the picture of the president are the words "Wants to round up a group of people and build a giant wall." The words "been there" and "done that" appear under the pictures of the swastika and hammer and sickle. A banner on the side reads "Oh that's why it sounds so familiar!"
"Educational malfeasance of the highest degree," state lawmaker Kathy Szeliga wrote on social media.
Parents were rightfully disgusted and outraged that their teenage children had been subjected to leftist propaganda.
"The biggest problem is pushing an agenda on 16-year-olds," one parent told Fox45. "My understanding is that was just put up and it was left there for everyone to see the whole day."
Baltimore County Councilman Wade Kach wants to know where the curriculum came from.
"To even imply that our president is in any way a Nazi or a communist is outrageous," the councilman told the television station. "I just think that it’s irresponsible to post anything like this in a classroom."
The school district, in a statement released to local media, defended the presentation:
"The topics being discussed included World Wars and the attempts by some leaders to limit, or prevent migration, into certain countries. In isolation and out of context with the lesson, the image could be misunderstood. In our Advanced Placement (AP) classes, which are college level courses, we expect and encourage analysis and discussion around historical and current events even if they are considered controversial. This lesson was not intended to make a political statement. If a student has concerns when discussing a controversial issue, schools have the tools to address the concern and support the student."
The school district's statement is a load of fertilizer, folks. There's no misunderstanding the teacher's intent. And there's no mistaking the teacher's political statement.
This government-funded propagandist needs to be disciplined but more importantly the brainwashed students need to be deprogrammed.
Tennessee officials could provide more information concerning how they approve textbooks and instructional materials in the state’s public schools, according to a new report from the state Comptroller’s Office.
But that’s only one of the report’s findings.
The report examines how effectively members of the Tennessee Textbook and Instructional Quality Commission carry out their work, according to a Comptroller’s press release.
“The Textbook Commission is charged in law with recommending an official list of textbooks and instructional materials for public school students in grades K-12 to the State Board of Education for final approval,” according to the Comptroller’s press release.
“The commission must ensure textbooks and materials are aligned to Tennessee’s curriculum standards.”
The analysis by the Comptroller’s Office of Research and Education Accountability reported the following:
• The Textbook Commission has not had full membership since 2016, and current membership does not reflect the grand divisions of the state.
• The Tennessee Department of Education has historically allocated limited staff to support the commission’s activities, though the department recently increased staff support for the commission.
• More information about each step on the path to approval for all textbooks and instructional materials on the state-approved list would make the adoption process more transparent and understandable. TDOE does not maintain consolidated information regarding the number of materials submitted for each review, the number of materials that pass on first review and second review, or the number of appeals and substitution requests submitted by publishers for each adoption cycle.
• The textbook adoption process does not require publishers to fully disclose all the terms of use and licensing restrictions when submitting materials for inclusion on the state-approved list.
• Tennessee’s adoption process allows open educational resources to be submitted for review if the bidder submitting the materials meets certain requirements.
“The report, which was prepared at the request of Senator Dolores Gresham, also reviews the adjustments that may be needed in the textbook selection process given technological changes,” the press release said.
– – –
Chris Butler is an investigative journalist at The Tennessee Star. Follow Chris on Facebook. Email tips to chrisbutlerjournalist@gmail.com.
Revival is taking place in Tennessee after churches from various denominations partnered together in prayer and fasting, igniting a move of God's Spirit that has transformed lives across the region.
CBN News has learned more about the revival that's underway in Tennessee involving 1,000 churches across the Volunteer State. It's a part of "Awaken Tennessee", a 30-day prayer and fasting initiative that launched on Jan. 26 and will run through Feb. 23.
As CBN News reported on Monday, churches across Tennessee are fasting and praying for unity, according to Sheldon Livesay, East Tennessee coordinator for Awaken Tennessee.
The event is not about any one church or denomination. It's been described by Pastor John Butler of the East Rogersville Baptist Church in Rogersville as a concentrated prayer effort across the state for true revival in our churches that triggers an awakening in local communities, the state, and the nation.
The initiative started last year when Pastor Dave Clayton of Nashville's Ethos Church was successful in getting 400 churches to come together to pray for every single resident of the city. Awaken Nashville was a huge success, so this year Clayton and other organizers decided to invite churches in the entire state to participate.
According to Livesay, Dove Award-winning singer/songwriters Terry and Barbi Franklin took the idea through their prayer network and also contacted churches across the state to take part in the initiative.
Pastors are reporting their services are exploding with revival services as a result of the Holy Spirit showing up and taking over.
Butler told CBN News in an email that his church decided to join the Awaken Tennessee event and was preparing to host a revival conference with guest revivalist John Avant, president of Life Action Ministries. The Franklins would serve as worship leaders.
The East Rogersville Church launched Awaken TN with multiple churches gathering for a night of praise, prayer, and worship on Sunday, Jan. 26 and then the revival conference was to start the next Sunday morning Feb. 2.
"The week between these two Sundays was filled with prayer in our church. Each weeknight people gathered in homes to pray. It was an intense week of prayer for many of our people. God had been quietly working in many lives, but we had no idea of what He was about to do," Butler wrote.
'Wave After Wave...'
Then Sunday morning came and what happened next astounded everyone, including the pastor.
As the Franklins led the song "10,000 Reasons," "One man sitting on the back row made his way to the altar and began to weep and pray. A host of other men gathered around him and prayed. Before the end of the song, the altar was filled with people. Slowly the altar began to empty, then it would fill again. Wave after wave of people broken before the Lord. Jesus had walked into our midst that morning and set up His throne and He has been here ever since," Butler told CBN News.
The pastor said it was almost an hour before Avant made it to the pulpit.
"The first words from his mouth were that he felt the need to be very careful about what was said at this moment because this was a special moment. John was the pastor of Coggin Avenue Baptist Church in Brownwood, TX in 1995 when revival broke out in that church and several other churches in the city simultaneously as well as on the campus of Howard Payne University. John stated that he had never witnessed this type of movement within a church since those days. We had coordinated our revival conference to coincide with the 50 year anniversary of the Asbury Revival of 1970 and the 25th anniversary of the Brownwood revival of 1995 and now revival had come to East Rogersville Baptist Church that Sunday morning February 2, 2020 in Rogersville, TN," he says.
Butler reports that every meeting at the conference was touched by a move of God.
"Every service for the planned conference was filled with God's presence. People were getting serious about dealing with personal sin and people were coming to Christ for salvation. Thirty-year feuds were made right, relationships have been restored, and many masks had been removed. People made public confessions of sin, bitterness, and laziness about their involvement in God's kingdom activity," the pastor said.
A Move of the Spirit in Multiple Churches
Butler also said the revival didn't just happen in his church.
"As many as six other churches has been faithful in participating in these services. There are Baptists, Methodists, non-denominational churches as well as Pentecostal and Charismatic churches involved. Several pastors have been faithfully supporting these services and we are seeing God begin to move in those churches as well," he noted.
"To date, we have seen around 20 people saved and many of them baptized in one of our services. God is doing a special work among the students of our community," he continued.
Then people told Butler they wanted the meetings to continue, and so they did.
"The conference was supposed to be over Wednesday, February 5, however, the people on that night said 'we need to keep meeting'. So we have kept meeting. We have now entered into our third week of services and based upon last night we are expecting to run at the very least through the end of this week," the pastor said.
"Know that God seems to move in waves. This has proven to be ever so helpful as we progress through these days of revival. We have witnessed these waves. All of the services have been Spirit-filled yet some are just overpowering and that is what we are seeing," Butler told CBN News.
"It's all God! As was stated in the beginning, we are most blessed to be experiencing revival. We pray that revival begins to spread rapidly across our state and nation," he said.
Livesay noted it seems all East Tennessee is seeing unusual moves of God in their services.
"There has been a 50-year history of intense prayer across our region and the last two years we've seen God lead cities of churches together to do prayer walks, crusades, and tent revivals," he told CBN News. "Awaken Tennessee seems it has brought that extra Holy Spirit presence through prayer and fasting that we see exploding in church after church."
Carol Swain Commentary: A Dangerous Revisionist History of America’s Founding Pushes a False and Destructive Narrative
By Carol Swain
Under the guise of a venture called the “1619 Project,” revisionist history about race in America is being introduced into classrooms across America without undergoing the normal peer review expected of educational materials. August 2019 marked the birth of the project, a publication of The New York Times Magazine and the Pulitzer organization, containing a collection of essays and artistic works to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of slavery in America. The project has mushroomed into a movement to re-educate Americans via newfangled claims about how deeply racism is embedded in America’s core.
As of February 2020, five public school systems had adopted the 1619 Project’s curriculum district-wide, and its free teaching materials had reached 3,500 classrooms. This rapid progression for distribution of teaching materials created by journalists and scholars has been done without proper vetting. There has been no standard review process or serious effort made to address the many concerns raised by distinguished subject-matter critics from elite universities. The rush to get these materials into America’s classrooms proceeded recklessly.
What has ensued is a new racial narrative that places black America’s struggles at the feet of the nation’s white Founding Fathers. This requires a new birthdate for the nation. Instead of July 4, 1776, when the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence pledging to risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to found a new nation, the 1619 Project scholars place the inception of the nation more than 150 years earlier — at 1619. That’s when the first Africans came to Virginia as indentured servants before becoming free blacks.
Curiously, and inexplicably, the revisionist narrative skips over the 42 years of indentured servitude that enabled the former slaves to gain the freedom and resources to become the foundation of the free black population in America.
Jake Silverstein of the Times has written that the arrival of enslaved Africans “inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery that would last for the next 250 years.” Conspicuously absent from the dominant historical narrative is the fact that free blacks and Indian tribes were right there alongside whites, buying and selling slaves after slavery became legal in 1661.
Historian Philip Foner, in his book “History of Black Americans,” provides critical details that American students should know about the origins of slavery in America:
“The fact that the early Negroes imported into Virginia held the status of indentured servants is shown by the records of some Negroes’ receiving the customary ‘freedom dues’ in the form of land at the end of their term of service. Some obtained land after becoming free by importing servants under the ‘head-right’ system, by which they obtained 50 acres for each servant imported. A small number of Negro landowners not only held black servants, but were sufficiently prosperous to pay the transportation costs of white indentured servants, through each of whom they could obtain 50 acres of land. Anthony Johnson, who was imported into Virginia in 1622, accumulated property after he ended his indentured period, and even though he lost all his holdings in a fire, was able by 1651 to import five black servants into the colony, for which he was granted 250 acres in Northampton County. About 1650, Benjamin Dole, a Negro, was granted 300 acres of land in Surry County for having imported six servants. Another Negro was granted 550 acres after importing 11 people.”
Clearly, this account differs substantially from the narrative advanced by the 1619 Project contributors. What some of them hope to do is to build a case for monetary reparations for descendants of slaves. This is a false hope that would not address the problems many blacks have today, or the enormous progress black Americans overall have made.
Those who push white guilt and black victimhood ignore critical facts. One is that today’s white Americans are not responsible for the sins of generations ago. Second, slavery was an institution that blacks, Native Americans, and whites participated in as slaveholders. There’s plenty of guilt to go around there.
Critical Race Theory and the Diversity Inclusion Industry
Critical race theory is an analytical framework to analyze institutions and culture. Its purpose is to divide the world into white oppressors and non-white victims. Instead of traditional forms of knowledge, it uses personal narratives of marginalized minority “victim” groups (blacks, Hispanics, Asians) as irrefutable “evidence” of the dishonesty of their mostly white heterosexual oppressors. The ultimate goal of this theory’s proponents is to remake society so that the victim class eventually displaces the oppressors and becomes the new ruling class.
Within this framework, white privilege and its unearned benefits are responsible for economic, health care, and social disparities in minority communities. It advances a narrative of blame that declares white America guilty for the plight of blacks. When it comes to education, members of the victim classes do all the teaching. It is a worldview and narrative that commands white people to sit in obedience and listen quietly to the arguments about their unjust gains as well as their obligation to provide a remedy for — in this case, black Americans, whether they are descended from slaves or not.
There is no way out for whites when it comes to race. Critical race theory assumes that racism is permanent and affects every aspect of our society, including political, economic, social and religious institutions. The theory further advances the belief that being born with white skin, in itself, gives unearned privileges. Therefore, any expectation of societal attainment of colorblindness, in which race or ethnicity does not hinder opportunities, is impossible to be achieved. Neutrality in law and decision-making is a pipe dream that can never be attained. Therefore, this mistaken reasoning goes, the oppressive system must be dismantled and destroyed.
This flawed theory suggests that race and ethnicity will always taint and pollute every decision, and, as a result, racial minorities will consistently lose out to whites because of structural racism. The message is clear: If you are unfortunate enough to be born with black skin, you are forever a second-class citizen who pays a race penalty. Under this rationale, the most affluent blacks rank below the poorest whites when it comes to privilege and opportunities. We are asked to believe that more than 50 years of affirmative action programs and race consciousness have done nothing to change the trajectory or opportunities of people born without white skin. Critical race theory says every dysfunctional condition in black, urban communities can be traced to slavery and its aftermath. There is no place for individual-choice initiative.
What critical race theory actually “accomplishes” is to create anger, frustration, and despondency among persons in the victim categories who internalize the destructive message.
Universities and colleges have created a cottage industry of people who profit from indoctrinating America’s future leaders with a dangerous and destructive ideology. These future leaders then spread this diseased ideology, like a virus without an antidote, into corporate boardrooms as well as K-12 public and private schools, both Christian and non-Christian. Standards normally used to reward academic credentials are sometimes relaxed to give more authority to watered-down factors such as “personal experience” and the narrative of victim-class members and less credence to whatever facts, science, and contrary data that persons from the “oppressor” class might dare to proffer.
Education is now about white privilege indoctrination. According to the narrative, all white Americans are guilty oppressors who have benefitted from their white skin even if their parents are, say, Appalachian poor or high school dropouts working at the local big box franchise store (if employed at all). Once the oppressor label is applied, accepted, and internalized, a deadly silencing ensues. In some cases, animated videos with messages of white guilt and oppressions shown to middle and high school students create damaging images where whites are taught guilt and minorities are assigned permanent and debilitating victimhood.
One notorious example of the “teaching” materials for diversity and sensitivity training is a short YouTube video entitled, “The Unequal Opportunity Race.” It has had more than 1.3 million views as of this writing. Its crippling message is clear: White boys and girls have unfair advantages, and white-imposed roadblocks prevent black boys and girls from achieving success.
Last year, the office of instruction for Westfield (N.J.) Public Schools approved a course on “Power, Privilege, and Imbalance in American Society.” Learning objectives of the semester-long, two-credit course include how to:
Analyze and evaluate how white supremacy has been established in American society and the ways it continues to impact the African American, Native American, Hispanic, and Asian communities today; and
Identify the concept of race and differentiate between the terms “racism,” “prejudice,” “dejure” and “de facto segregation,” “institutional racism,” “personal racism,” “tolerance” and “intolerance.”
The syllabus explains that critical race theory is a theoretical concept that emerged from the civil rights movement. The goal is to “give voice to groups who have suffered from systemic oppression, and develop theoretical and practical ways for students to deconstruct the power structures.”
Messages Matter
The 1619 Project is a misguided effort to keep open historical wounds while telling only half of the story. It is flawed because it is connected to critical race theory and the diversity-inclusion grievance industry that focuses on identity politics and division. Blaming today’s families for the mistakes of our ancestors is not a prescription for unifying the country or empowering racial and ethnic minorities.
We can do better. Within Christian communities, there is a basis for countering destructive narratives that have invaded our educational institutions and corporate world. The solution for hatred, bitterness, and distrust can be found in New Testament principles. Rather than wallow in the past and revisionists’ efforts to build a case for reparations, we, as Americans, need to move forward while practicing the forgiveness and love of neighbor that Jesus espoused. We need not look any further than the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) to find the tools that enable us to transcend racial and ethnic conflicts that keep us from working together and celebrating our victories. Our present approach cripples members of the designated victim groups while creating new victims among those classified as oppressors.
I speak from a personal perspective as someone who has watched the changes from many vantage points. I reached my formative years before critical race theory and cultural Marxism gained a dominant foothold. Even though I was born and grew up in rural southern poverty during the era of segregation, I was not taught to hate white people or to hate America. Instead, my black teachers stressed our need to work hard and excel. I grew up to be a proud American who never doubted she lived in the greatest country in the world. No one around me encouraged me to see myself as a victim. I never fixated on the fact that I was black, poor, and female. Had I done so; I doubt I would have achieved anything.
– – –
Carol M. Swain is a former tenured professor at Vanderbilt and Princeton universities. Her Be The People News blog and podcast empower individuals to think independently, understand their responsibility, and make a difference in the world.
First, it attacked America. Then adoption. Now, women. Honestly, with such a busy schedule of political extremism, it’s a mystery how Nike has time to sell anything. But for all of the company’s radical campaigns, it’s Nike’s latest that’s really raising eyebrows. The retail titan is picking a side in the transgender sports debate—and it isn’t girls’.
Just how beholden is big business to LGBT activists? Well, one of the biggest manufacturers of international sports equipment just told half its market that it doesn’t care about the future of women’s sports. So much for Nike’s progressive feminist cred.
In Tennessee, one of the states that’s considering a ban on biological boys competing against girls, the company actually suggested that keeping a level playing field for girls “put[s] our collective economic success at risk.” If anything puts our economic success at risk, it’s destroying 50% of high school, collegiate, and pro sports.
And yet, Nike, like 142 other businesses, is actively working to stop Tennessee (and at least six other states) from fighting the injustice of transgender sports.
In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance.
“I fully support them for being true to themselves and having the courage to do what they believe in,” Connecticut track star Selina Soule says of her male competition.
But athletics is “an entirely different situation. It’s scientifically proven that males are built to be physically stronger than females. It’s unfair to put someone who is biologically a male, who has not undergone anything in terms of hormone therapy, against cisgender girls … It’s upsetting when we work hard all season and put in a lot of effort, only to turn up at the state meets and get beat by someone who is biologically a male and lose state championships over this.”
And these boys aren’t just stealing trophies, they’re stealing scholarships too. With the Olympics around the corner and the debate exploding across the sports world, even athletes who’ve identified as gay or lesbian are calling the trend what it is: cheating.
Tennis pro Martina Navratilova has been a great ally for the LGBT movement, but she had no problem blasting the radical ideology that’s killing sports and healthy competition. “It’s punish[ing] the innocent,” she wrote indignantly, and "it’s insane.”
If there is a silver lining to this gender lunacy, it’s that more people are starting to see the quandary that’s created by policies and decisions that aren’t based in anatomical realities but emotional whims.
Last week, Soule — along with two other cross-country runners, Chelsea Mitchell and Alanna Smith — sued to take back their sports.
“Our dream is not to come in second or third place, but to win fair and square,” Mitchell said. “All we’re asking for is a fair chance.”
For these three girls, and so many others across the country, it’s upsetting to know the outcome of the race before it starts. And just because someone believes they’re a girl doesn’t mean their bodies act like one.
“Forcing girls to be spectators in their own sports is completely at odds with Title IX,” their Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Christiana Holcomb, pointed out. “Connecticut’s policy violates that law and reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women.”
The issue has created such an unlikely coalition of feminists, liberals, conservatives, and parents that Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., introduced a federal bill to make it clear that biology—not political correctness—should determine your team.
"…Even people on the far left—[including] famous players—[are] saying that it’s not fair that women are having to compete against men in women’s sports."
And while extremists may call that insensitive, the facts speak for themselves.
"Males have 30 times more testosterone than females. That obviously helps make men’s bodies bigger and stronger … It’s just crazy to me that we’re even having to file bills on something like this. But that’s the world that we live in today, unfortunately."
Our Military Should Be Cultivating Masculinity, Not Denigrating It
January 30, 2020
By Tony Perkins
A recent review of U.S. special operations forces pointed to a leadership crisis in our military, concluding that leadership, discipline and accountability must be strengthened at all levels. West Point Military Academy, which is supposed to be the Army's preeminent leader development institution, hasn't been immune to this breakdown in leadership. Earlier this month, West Point cadets attended "Honorably Living Day," a mandatory event dedicated to promoting diversity and feminist thought where facilitators discouraged what they called "toxic masculinity."
The curriculum featured the documentary Miss Representation, which was produced by Jennifer Siebel Newsom, first lady of California and wife of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.). The documentary included commentary from left-wing commentators such as Katie Couric, Rosie O'Donnell, and Jane Fonda. What does any of this have to do with fighting and winning wars? That was the question Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. "Jerry" Boykin asked when he joined Washington Watch yesterday to discuss this new initiative. "In no way does this help enhance the readiness of our military," he told me. "It is a reflection of what was forced on our military in the Obama administration. The disappointing thing is that it's still there..."
Instead of developing leaders, West Point is taking time to attack masculinity. The program even questions the phrase "be a man." Yet, by attacking masculinity, mandatory trainings such as Honorably Living Day undermines the very characteristics our military desperately needs. General Boykin quoted George Orwell, who fought in the Spanish Civil War and observed the hardships of battle first-hand: "Orwell said, 'We rest well in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence against those who would threaten us.'"
General Boykin argues that the campaign against masculinity inflicts a great deal of damage on society beyond the military. "This whole idea of 'hypermasculinity,' which is one of the phrases that they've coined now... is absolute nonsense, has nothing to do with reality. It is about destroying men because they are the foundations of the family... The men are so important, and the men are walking out of their families today all over America. And this is a reflection of exactly what the crisis in masculinity is all about." Indeed, a lack of male leadership has certainly taken its toll on American families. All the more, this highlights the importance of preserving strong and moral male leadership in the military, despite the Left's effort to destroy it.
For centuries, men have largely been the ones fighting wars, protecting their countries, and defending their people. Instead of disparaging a perceived "toxic masculinity," the U.S. military should be building the character of men and fostering their natural instinct to protect and defend. The strength of our military and the security of our nation depends on it.
Think LGBT cultural changes ‘won’t affect you’? Here’s the ugly way they do
I've spoken with and received emails from heartbroken parents whose lives and families have been destroyed by the transgender phenomenon.
Tue Feb 11, 2020 - 8:06 pm EST
February 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — LGBT activism generally has two steps. Step one has the activists angrily asking those who oppose their agenda how the proposed policy will impact their lives, with the emphatic assertion that it will not. The second step has these same activists, once they have successfully achieved their goal and demonized their opponents, informing us all precisely how their agenda will impact our lives. They assured us that redefining marriage, for example, would have no impact on religious liberty. A few minutes later, Democratic presidential candidates on CNN were musing about removing charitable status from churches.
Even scarier is the transgender agenda. Trans activists and their allies are claiming that any girl or boy who believes herself or himself to be born in the wrong body should immediately receive “affirmative” treatment, which generally includes puberty-blockers, hormone treatments, and eventually the requisite mastectomies and castrations to complete what they are now insidiously referring to as “gender affirmation surgery.” Parents are often caught off guard by their children coming out as transgender and are so viciously attacked when they suggest that their children should wait before engaging in any regimens or surgeries with permanent results (mutilation and infertility being only two) that concerned parents frequently have to meet in secret.
In fact, some trans activists are openly claiming that any parent showing insufficient enthusiasm for “gender affirmation treatments” is guilty of negligence or even abuse, despite rising numbers of teenagers who are realizing, too late, that surgery was not the right answer for them. (One girl who went through the surgery and now regrets it stated bluntly that “those surgeons should be in prison.”) In fact, the Journal of Medical Ethicsrecently suggested that children might be taken away from their parents if the parents disallow their underage children to purse transgender surgeries.
These ideas are beginning to creep into the political sphere as well. A recent example cropped up during this month’s election in Ireland, where an “LGBTI spokesman” for the notoriously progressive Sinn Féin party stated that if his party secured enough seats to form government, children under the age of sixteen would be permitted to take their own parents to court if their parents were opposed to the children changing their legal sex. John McGuirk of Gript reported that Senator Fintan Warfield, answering a question from the Trans Equality Network Ireland (a group funded by the taxpayers), noted that:
In relation to gender recognition, we want to extend gender recognition to 16 and 17-year-olds, that would be what the Sinn Fein supports, and then, allowing gender recognition for under 16-year-olds with parental consent, and then where parental consent isn’t available, that the family court would rule in the best interest of the child, would be the Sinn Fein’s position.
In short, a major political party was suggesting that the courts could be used to usurp parental authority and permit underage children to legally change their sex on their birth certificates and other official documents. If the parents do not accept that their son has become their daughter or their daughter has become their son, Sinn Féin is happy to ensure that the government will. At the moment, parental consent is needed for a child to change how legal documents record his sex.
Just a few years ago, the LGBT lobby was condemning those who resisted the transgender agenda, angrily demanding to know why anyone would oppose something that would allegedly have no impact on their lives. This was a lie. I’ve spoken with and received emails from heartbroken parents (one of whom had two children identifying as transgender), and in some cases, their lives and their families have been destroyed by the transgender phenomenon. One mother mourned that her “once-beautiful daughter is now bearded, homeless, and sterilized.” Nobody told her, and thousands of others, that their children would be swept up in this phenomenon — and that many of their sons and daughters would make irrevocable choices as a result.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Dr. Christopher Yuan, a former drug addict who lived a promiscuous gay lifestyle. Dr. Yuan is now a professor at Moody Bible Institute and today, he discusses his powerful journey and conversion and what the LGBT agenda is to the U.S. You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Haley was our intern in 2019 where she there a day-a-week for the entire Legislative Session.
Submitted by Haley Collins, a Tennessee Student Eagle who had attended Eagle Council 49 in St. Louis recently:
As a Student Eagle, I am very grateful and honored for the opportunity to have attended Eagle Forum's 49th annual leadership and training conference. My time there was very informative, and I was reminded of the significance and depth of the problems our nation is facing. Although all of the speakers were enlightening, there were definitely a few that impacted me more than others. Those speakers include but are not limited to, Lily Tang Williams and Morgan Zegers.
First and foremost, Lily Tang William's speech was very compelling. She was born right before the start of China's Cultural Revolution and grew up in Chengdu, capital of the Sichuan province, in western China. She spoke of the horrors and hardships of living in Communist China. She was brainwashed in public school every day and was required to conform and not stand out as an individual. In 1995, she became a U.S. citizen and could finally speak freely and have her rights protected, which is something we often take for granted. By telling her story, she shared the message that big governments do not work; big governments are very dangerous because they always use force. Our country is going down the wrong path, and Mrs. Williams left me feeling very motivated to do something about it.
Furthermore, I enjoyed "Upstate New York's Phyllis Schlafly" and founder of Young Americans Against Socialism, Morgan Zegers', speech. She explained that our generation has good intentions, but they are being manipulated by the real enemies in this fight, far-Left leaders like Bernie Sanders. To fight back, Miss Zegers said, "We need to add emotion to the playbook using first-hand stories of survivors of socialism. Provide realistic solutions to our generation's top issues: environment, healthcare, student loans." After her speech, she gave the Student Eagles a really, good piece of advice: Never be silent. Always take a stand.
In conclusion, Eagle Council XLIX was an unparalleled learning experience. As Sarah Huckabee Sanders, one of the Eagle Council XLIX keynote speakers wrote in the Yad V'shem guestbook when she was 11-years-old, "Why didn't somebody do something?" Today, there are several, significant issues that our nation faces. With all that I have learned about these problems at Eagle Council, I plan on educating other people and taking action. I will be a person who does something!
Lawmakers who oversee the spending of Tennessee taxpayer money blasted the Department of Education Wednesday for its handling of a no-bid contract with ClassWallet, hired for $1.25 million a year to manage the state’s upcoming voucher program.
Commissioner Penny Schwinn and members of her team were grilled for almost two hours over the decision to bypass a competitive bid process to hire the Florida-based company — and for twice the amount budgeted for work this year on Gov. Bill Lee’s education savings account program.
It was the first time that multiple Republican lawmakers aired their frustrations over the GOP-backed voucher program, with one representative expressing regrets for voting for it.
Members of the House appropriations subcommittee also scolded the department for not bringing the contract before the legislature’s Fiscal Review Committee, or even answering that body’s multiple questions and emails before signing the agreement.
“Fiscal Review didn’t find out about this contract grant until Nov. 13 when it was published in Chalkbeat. Do you think that that’s acceptable?” asked Rep. Matthew Hill, the Jonesborough Republican who chairs the panel.
Apologizing for the poor communication, Schwinn referenced the department’s need to move quickly to roll out the program by the 2020-21 school year. The deadline is a year earlier than required by the 2019 law but was ordered last summer by the governor, who said he wanted to provide education choices for families as soon as possible.
“Certainly what we were looking at is when does this grant contract need to be executed so that children can be in seats in August,” the commissioner said.
Other lawmakers were still irked by the decision to speed up the launch.
“When we passed the ESA/voucher bill with many modifications and amendments, it was my understanding that that plan would not go into effect until August of ’21,” said Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a Republican from Signal Mountain who voted for the legislation. “Who decided and what legislative authority moved the start date back on the legislation that we passed?”
“As commissioner, I am certainly responsible for the decision,” Schwinn answered.
The hearing was often tense as Hill — a vocal voucher supporter during fierce debates last spring — called up officials from the state’s procurement office, the comptroller’s office, and the finance department to address statements by staff for the education department.
Missing from the conversation were representatives for the governor. When pressed last month about ClassWallet’s selection, Lee told reporters that he was “comfortable” with the contract and that his office had consulted with the state attorney general’s office on the process.
“My direction to our department is that we get the right vendor. And if we have to make adjustments, we will, but that we get the right vendor,” Lee said.
Joanna Collins, an attorney for the education department, recounted the steps for selecting a vendor, including market research, before leaders concluded that only one company, ClassWallet, would be able to meet all of the state’s criteria.
“The state of Tennessee needed one comprehensive secure platform for families and schools that would be participating in the ESA program,” Collins said. “A critical component of this was that the system needed to meet the state’s technical and security requirements because families would be entering sensitive information (such as finances and disability status) about their child into the system.”
A frustrated Rep. Jeremy Faison said that’s not the way that government procurements are handled. At one point, he declared that he wished he had not voted for the controversial voucher bill. Not only did parliamentary maneuvering and arm-twisting used to pass the bill in the House look “sketchy,” he said, but the department’s process for hiring ClassWallet appeared suspicious.
“To the general public, it looks like you found a vendor, and then created a contract,” said Faison, a Republican from Cosby.
The cost was concerning, as well, since the legislature set aside only $771,300 in this year’s budget for voucher work. The ClassWallet contract is for $2.5 million for two years to manage online accounts and applications, with an option to extend the contract for three more years for up to $6.3 million.
“How does $750,000 which was approved by the legislature turn into $6,328,750, and where in the world did you get this money?” Hill asked Schwinn and her team.
Chief Financial Officer Drew Harpool said the department tapped into $1.5 million from Tennessee’s Career Ladder teacher pay program that began in the 1980s and has since expired. “These were unused funds,” he said.
“What legislative authority did you have to do that?” Hill asked.
Harpool deferred to the state’s finance department, with whom he worked to move the funds.
That response steamed Faison.
“That Career Ladder is for teacher pay and we robbed teacher pay,” he said. “We just decided to rob a pot of money that had nothing to do with the legislation that we passed.”
Faison went on: “You can’t do stuff like this and think there’s not consequences in the general public. I can’t stress how bad this looks for us.”
Coming to the department’s defense, Rep. Andy Holt suggested that criticism of the ClassWallet contract is an effort to undermine the governor’s education savings account program.
“I voted for ESA legislation and I don’t regret it one bit,” said the Dresden Republican. “I think we should all recognize that there is, there was, and there will continue to be opposition to the idea of supplying educational choice.”
Hill responded that the purpose of the hearing was “not to debate the validity” of vouchers or programs designed to give parents more education choices for their children.
“What we’re talking about are the finances, and we have a constitutional obligation of oversight to make sure that the monies are being spent properly,” Hill said.
He added: “When they ask for $750,000 and then spend $2.5 million without telling us — and when fiscal review asks for months for details on the financials of this grant/contract/whatever and gets the cold shoulder and gets no response whatsoever until after it’s already issued — those are real problems.”
Hill ordered the department to return before his panel on Feb. 19 and to provide members with advance documentation to show its “due diligence” for pursuing a contract with ClassWallet.
“We look forward to reading that next week,” he said.
“To the general public, it looks like you found a vendor, and then created a contract,” said Faison, a Republican from Cosby.
The cost was concerning, as well, since the legislature set aside only $771,300 in this year’s budget for voucher work. The ClassWallet contract is for $2.5 million for two years to manage online accounts and applications, with an option to extend the contract for three more years for up to $6.3 million.
“How does $750,000 which was approved by the legislature turn into $6,328,750, and where in the world did you get this money?” Hill asked Schwinn and her team.
Chief Financial Officer Drew Harpool said the department tapped into $1.5 million from Tennessee’s Career Ladder teacher pay program that began in the 1980s and has since expired. “These were unused funds,” he said.
“What legislative authority did you have to do that?” Hill asked.
Harpool deferred to the state’s finance department, with whom he worked to move the funds.
That response steamed Faison.
“That Career Ladder is for teacher pay and we robbed teacher pay,” he said. “We just decided to rob a pot of money that had nothing to do with the legislation that we passed.”
Faison went on: “You can’t do stuff like this and think there’s not consequences in the general public. I can’t stress how bad this looks for us.”
Coming to the department’s defense, Rep. Andy Holt suggested that criticism of the ClassWallet contract is an effort to undermine the governor’s education savings account program.
“I voted for ESA legislation and I don’t regret it one bit,” said the Dresden Republican. “I think we should all recognize that there is, there was, and there will continue to be opposition to the idea of supplying educational choice.”
Hill responded that the purpose of the hearing was “not to debate the validity” of vouchers or programs designed to give parents more education choices for their children.
“What we’re talking about are the finances, and we have a constitutional obligation of oversight to make sure that the monies are being spent properly,” Hill said.
He added: “When they ask for $750,000 and then spend $2.5 million without telling us — and when fiscal review asks for months for details on the financials of this grant/contract/whatever and gets the cold shoulder and gets no response whatsoever until after it’s already issued — those are real problems.”
Hill ordered the department to return before his panel on Feb. 19 and to provide members with advance documentation to show its “due diligence” for pursuing a contract with ClassWallet.
“We look forward to reading that next week,” he said.
East Tennessee State University (ETSU) officials plan to screen a film, on campus, that argues against detaining immigrants and calls on the federal government to eliminate the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
The Tennessee Star asked ETSU officials Tuesday if they, as a publicly-funded university, would provide some sort of equal time to other films, or even people, with an opposing viewpoint.
ETSU officials did not return our request for comment.
The film, titled The Infiltrators is scheduled to screen on campus Feb. 17, according to the university’s website.
By any reasonable measure, the movie appears to have a political agenda.
An ETSU press release quoted Film Quarterly, which said the film makes “a compelling argument against immigration detention.”
The press released quoted the movie’s producer Darren Dean, who is scheduled to make himself available for a question and answer session after the film’s screening.
“Most audiences want to leave the theater and take action. The hard truth is something that often motivates people and if we can motivate people, we’ve done our job,” the school’s press release quoted Dean as saying.
“People should come to see this film because it represents a pocket of society that we don’t get to see – people that we step over in society, people who are forgotten. The access point is how they can help. This film provides the context and educates people toward the truth.”
The school’s press release went on to say that the National Endowment for the Arts will help fund the on-campus screening.
According to The Infiltrator’s website, the movie tells the true story of young immigrants named Marco and Viri who get arrested by Border Patrol, and are put in “a shadowy for-profit detention center – on purpose.”
“Marco and Viri are members of the National Immigrant Youth Alliance, a group of radical Dreamers who are on a mission to stop deportations. And the best place to stop deportations, they believe, is in detention,” according to the film’s website.
“However, when Marco and Viri try to pull off their heist – a kind of ‘prison break’ in reverse – things don’t go according to plan.”
ETSU, in Johnson City, had nearly 15,000 students in 2017, according to the university’s website.
If Christians don’t personally engage in politics, it’s all over for America
If we fail to act in the public square, more immoral policies will spread and harm those we love.
Thu Sep 19, 2019 - 9:33 am EST
September 18, 2019 (Lepanto Institute) — The following is written by Hon. Robert Marshall, former member of the Virginia House of Delegates.
The So-Called Equality Act
On October 30, 2008, Barack Obama said, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." The legal policy changes wrought under the Obama Administration paved the way for the so-called Equality Act, HR 5, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 by a vote of 236 to 173. The Equality Act would fundamentally and radically alter Civil Rights Law to prohibit "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," in the same way racial discrimination is prohibited. Analysis by pro-life and pro-family organizations, as well as the U.S. Catholic Bishops, have warned that the Equality Act would:
Require faith-based hospitals, doctors and nurses to participate in and/or to perform or assist with abortions or lose their medical licenses;
Require tax funding of all abortions without restrictions;
Mandate that any entity that provides health care for pregnancy and childbirth be required to provide abortion as a "related medical condition";
Force women to share private, intimate spaces with men who "identify" as female including in bathrooms, lockers, schools, hospitals, prisons, gyms, military barracks and homeless shelters;
Disallow Catholic and private school single sex sports teams from competing against public school sports teams, which will no longer be permitted to have "discriminatory" single sex teams;
Decertify Catholic and Christian schools from satisfying state compulsory attendance laws if they refuse to adopt LGBTQ policies, treating religious schools as "hate groups" comparable to the Ku Klux Klan;
Forbid groups like the Knights of Columbus, Catholic Charities and Christian non-profits from receiving community block grants from local governments for housing for the disabled or seniors unless they accommodate the LGBTQ agenda including hiring those who identify as homosexual or transgender;
Prohibit Catholic schools and parishes from obtaining construction loans from federally chartered banks or savings institutions unless the schools and churches implement the LGBTQ agenda including hiring active homosexual and transgender teachers in same sex "marriages";
Remove children from the legal custody of their parents if they try to prevent their minor children from taking cancer-causing, puberty-blocking drugs or cross-sex hormones recommended by school counselors or provided by social welfare agencies;
End women-only or men-only shelters serving drug addicts, the battered, and the homeless;
Decertify foster care and adoption agencies which do not place children with homosexual partners;
Require small businesses owned by Catholics to promote and affirm LGBTQ sexual behavior or face fines and/or loss of their business licenses;
Remove the tax-exempt status of Catholic churches and agencies if they fail to "celebrate" same-sex "weddings." The Equality Act would classify churches as "public accommodations" (like hotels and restaurants), prohibited from denying services on account of sexual orientation, in the same manner services cannot now be denied on account of race.
Several Republican members of the Judiciary Committee tried to blunt the coercive effects of HR 5, by proposing amendments that would have prevented biological females from being forced to compete against biological males in any sporting event; protected health care providers from being forced to affirm the self-professed gender identity of an individual; protected parental rights to direct the medical care of their children against efforts to facilitate changing the sexual identity of their children; and restored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's conscience and religious liberty protections. All of these amendments were defeated on straight party line votes, proving that proponents of the Equality Act intend to require every policy the amendments sought to prohibit.
The "Equality Act" is one egregious example of sexual progressives stepping up efforts to exclude from the public square those who live by the moral teachings of Moses and Jesus. Anyone who disagrees or questions the LGBTQ agenda, abortion and "reproductive rights" is described as guilty of depravity, bigotry and hatred, despite our following a faith based on loving God and loving our neighbor.
LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender, Queer) advocates preach "tolerance" but one prominent homosexual advocate, Frank Bruni, wrote in the April 3, 2015, NY Times: "... debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices ... Mitchell Gold, a prominent ... gay philanthropist ... told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list.' ..."
Multi-millionaire leftist donor Tim Gill, who developed Quark Express, a desktop publishing program, announced his jarring diktat, "We're going to punish the wicked," in the June 2017 Rolling Stone magazine. Gill considers anyone, including Christians, who disagrees with LGBTQ policies "the wicked." Mary Bonauto, the attorney, "married" to a woman, who argued the Obergefell same-sex "marriage" case, said, "We would not be where we are without Tim Gill and the Gill Foundation."
Catholic Members of Congress Vote for the Equality Act
All 74 Catholic Democrat members of the House who were present, including Catholic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, voted in support of HR 5. Six Catholic Republican congressmen voted "yes," while 42 Catholic Republican congressmen voted "no." The Senate companion bill, S. 788, has been co-sponsored by ten Catholic Democrats and one Catholic Republican. (Only four of the Catholic Republican senators and one Catholic Democrat senator have not cosponsored the so-called Equality Act.)
The Catholic bishops wrote a letter to Congress indicating their opposition to the Equality Act on March, 2019, stating, "The Act's definitions alone would remove women and girls from protected legal existence ... the Act also fails to recognize the difference between the person — who has dignity and is entitled to recognition of it — and the actions of a person, which have ethical and social ramifications."
It appears there has been no news coverage of bishops fraternally correcting those Catholic congressmen who voted for the Equality Act, continuing a lack of public criticism allowing Catholic politicians to publicly vote for and speak in favor of this Act and other morally harmful legislation with no public scrutiny or ecclesiastical penalty.
Lawyers working for the United States Catholic Conference and various dioceses appear to be more protective of the Church's tax-exempt status than of the moral principles the Church is ordained to uphold. This is puzzling considering that one of the questions St. Peter will obviously not ask American Catholic bishops in the next life is, "How well did you protect the tax-exempt status of the Church?"
In 2020, if Democrats maintain the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and win the majority of the U.S. Senate, and if President Donald Trump is defeated in part because of public criticism by the U.S. bishops, it is almost certain that the grossly misnamed "Equality Act" will become law with all of its destructive consequences to the Church and society.
The very tax-exempt status the Church has carefully sought to protect will be significantly eroded if not totally eliminated, financially impacting parishes, schools, hospitals, food pantries, group homes, shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies, etc.
Believing that the First Amendment will protect Catholic programs assumes that the Constitution is a self-executing document. Sexual progressives and liberal lawyers will almost surely use the Fourteenth Amendment to claim they are merely seeking "equal protection" and freedom from discrimination.
Furthermore, the Equality Act removes the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The Judiciary Committee Report for the Equality Act states: "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title."
The 1993 RFRA law was sponsored by then Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) but now Senator Schumer is a co-sponsor of the Senate's Equality Act, S. 788. Relying on Mr. Schumer to protect religious liberty is expecting the fox to guard the hen house.
Duties of a Bishop
Are our bishops, when confronted with obviously anti-Catholic legislation, required to correct politicians, especially Catholic politicians, who support such policies, or is private criticism enough? In October, 2004, Pope St. John Paul II met in Rome with representatives of the U.S. Catholic bishops where he spelled out the bishops' duties: "remember that your sacred responsibility to teach, sanctify and govern cannot be surrendered to anyone else: it is your personal vocation."
Regarding life, marriage and God's creation of "male and female," much more could be taught through pastoral letters, Prayers of the Faithful offered during Mass, notices in Church bulletins, letters read at Mass, articles in Catholic newspapers and social media as well as messages publicizing the Sacrament of Reconciliation and retreats to offer hope and forgiveness to reach those who have undergone abortion. Some of the most powerful witnesses in defense of human life have been open about their past abortion wounds.
If there is reluctance to speak about the sacredness of human life and the evil of abortion from the pulpit, I offer the experience of one Christian pastor who feared that if he mentioned abortion in a sermon, it could hurt the post-abortive women in his congregation. It wasn't until after he counseled numerous distraught women from his church, that he realized he could have spared these women deep suffering if he had spoken the truth earlier. He subsequently changed his thinking and his sermons.
Catholics cannot obtain much helpful information about current moral issues from the secular media. Lay organizations that work in the pro-life and pro-family arena can help but they cannot reach every parishioner. Catholics needs our church, at the parish level, to proclaim correct teaching on these moral issues being debated in the public square if we are to truly become the light of the world, the salt of the earth and the leaven of society.
Informing Catholics in the pew about proposed unjust laws that will impact their church, their families and society should not be considered controversial or "political." Sharing information in the form of petitions, pulpit announcements, form letters, and educational flyers would definitely help motivate and educate Catholics to oppose harmful legislation and support helpful legislation.
The Book of Matthew 18:15–17 states: "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church."
Thankfully, several cardinals and bishops, including Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Thomas Daly, Archbishop Thomas Tobin, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Archbishop Charles Chaput, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, and others understand the scandal and confusion caused by "Catholic" legislators who publicly support egregious policies contrary to our faith. They have fraternally corrected those who violate serious moral principles, with several legislators being warned that they should not present themselves to receive Holy Communion.
Rev. Franklin Graham Challenges Cardinal Dolan to Excommunicate Governor Andrew Cuomo
In January 2019, prominent Evangelical Protestant, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the renowned Rev. Billy Graham, sent "tweets" to N.Y. Cardinal Dolan urging him to excommunicate "Catholic" N.Y. Governor Cuomo for signing and celebrating the third-trimester abortion law.
On Fox News, Cardinal Dolan responded that excommunication "would be counter-productive." Cardinal Dolan's spokesman pointed out that San Diego Bishop Leo Maher in l989 barred Catholic State Assemblywoman Lucy Killea from receiving Communion. She later appeared on the Phil Donohue Show to explain that she would not change her Faith or her abortion position. Killea won a seat in the California state senate. However, Cardinal Dolan cannot legitimately assume that Bishop Maher's refusal to allow Killea to receive Communion in 1989 was responsible for Killea's election because Killea already had high name identification from serving 5 years on the San Diego City Council and almost 14 years in the California Assembly. Bishop Maher's action was necessary to teach both Killea and the faithful the seriousness of the crime of abortion. Prudence is a virtue, but possible political ramifications should not trump proclaiming truth.
In the past, some American bishops had publicly excommunicated Catholics who opposed the bishops' efforts to racially integrate Catholic schools. Sadly, there are too few bishops willing to take this step over the civil rights injustice of our age, taking the lives of unborn children without due process. If a governor of a state can pave the way for even more killings of innocent unborn children and remain a member of the Catholic Church, the laity intuits that the crime of abortion cannot be a serious infraction. This reality, I believe, has given Catholics in the pew a green light to vote for Democrats who support abortion, same-sex "marriage," and assisted suicide.
The Church Receives Government Grants, Fails to Censure Pro-Abortion Catholic Congressmen
Catholic bishops and their lawyers want to maintain federal funding of their many charitable works. This may be understandable, but the long strings attached to government funds can be risky. Further, there would develop over time a natural reluctance to "bite the hand that feeds you."
Long before the most current sex abuse scandal broke, Washington D.C.'s now disgraced Cardinal McCarrick stated that, "When the bishops ask you to do something, to do it with the government, you make sure you're on good terms with the government — with whoever's in power" (Washingtonian, 10/1/04).
In May of 2004, forty-eight mostly pro-abortion Catholic Democrat Congressmen, including current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, wrote to Cardinal McCarrick: "If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching." (Emphasis added.)
In 2004, as the Catholic bishops were deliberating on whether Holy Communion should be denied to pro-abortion politicians, then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent Cardinal McCarrick a letter noting, "... the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone ... Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."
When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."
The letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick was clearly intended for all Catholic bishops, but apparently McCarrick did not initially disclose that. Further, Cardinal McCarrick publicly mischaracterized Ratzinger's letter, saying that Communion "may be denied," but Cardinal Ratzinger said it "must be denied." Two years later, Cardinal McCarrick was still advocating that the bishops keep "hands off" pro-abortion Democrat politicians. McCarrick, when addressing Canadian bishops, quoted Jesuit Cardinal-Deacon Avery Dulles: "... the Church incurs a danger of alienating judges, legislators and public administrators, whose good will is needed for other good programs, such as the support of Catholic education and the care of the poor. For all these reasons, the Church is reluctant to discipline politicians in a public way, even when it is clear that their positions are morally indefensible."
In other words, don't hold Catholic politicians accountable for immoral actions because government funding could dry up.
McCarrick's position as head of the U.S. Bishops Conference task force on Catholics in Political Life gave even more weight to his argument. He obviously was able to "convince" the Catholic bishops they should not embarrass Democrat politicians about their pro-abortion votes by even hinting at excommunication if the bishops want Democrats to keep their social projects funded. Unfortunately, this policy advocated by then-cardinal McCarrick remains operative despite the recent revelation of moral crimes Cardinal McCarrick had committed.
Another significant problem is that state Catholic conferences often publish voting records or candidate questionnaires which tally votes or positions on a number of issues such as on gun control, benefits for those in our country illegally, increased social welfare programs and other liberal positions promoted by the Democrat Party, as if these issues could possibly be compared to the 60 million lives lost through abortion in America alone since 1973! Such vote summaries or candidate questionnaires have the dangerous effect of "sanitizing" the pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ votes of Democrats who support the Catholic conference's positions, even though these Democrats support abortion on demand.
Such vote tallies and candidate surveys are often published in Catholic newspapers or passed out in churches, giving Catholics in the pew a reason to vote for Democrats who support abortion and same-sex "marriage," because the Democrats agree on most "other issues" the Church chooses to highlight. While Church teaching is clear on abortion, same-sex marriage and assisted suicide, the Church does not teach that government should increase regulation of weapons used in self-defense or defense of another person, nor does the Church teach that every social welfare program is mandated by the Gospel.
The reluctance of most American Catholic bishops to openly challenge official actions of pro-abortion, overwhelmingly Democrat Catholic politicians will also give Catholics a green light to vote for any of the Democrat 2020 presidential candidates who are intensely pro-abortion and pro–gender confusion. Pray that our bishops will be willing to instruct Catholics in the pew that any candidate, let alone Catholic candidates, should not be supported because they advocate for the destruction of innocent human lives.
The late Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL) astutely noted in 2003 that "... something is awry when the voice of the church is most often identified with specific policies that are matters of contingent judgment (such as questions of welfare reform or foreign policy), and not with the articulation of principles. When the bishops are widely perceived in Washington and in state capitals as yet another religious lobby, rather than as compelling teachers, something is awry."
I will never forget the lessons I learned as a congressional aide on Capitol Hill in the late 1970s and early '80s. Whether a fair criticism or not, the underlying word on the Hill was that the Catholic bishops were willing to "trade" babies (abortion) for books (aid to Catholic schools).
Effects of Failing to Excommunicate Catholic Politicians
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke of Wisconsin, in an August 2019 interview with Fox News's Martha MacCallum, noted: "I've had non-Catholic leaders of government in this nation tell me that they were certain that the Catholic teaching on abortion and so-called same-sex marriage have changed because so many Catholics on Capitol Hill are regularly supporting this kind of legislation. And that's a scandal."
In the 2008 presidential election, 54% of Catholics voted for pro-abortion Barack Obama; McCain received 45%. In the 2012 presidential race, Obama received 50% of the Catholic vote; Romney received 48%, despite Obamacare requiring insurance companies to cover contraception and abortion!
Catholic bishops are charged by Christ Himself to teach, govern and sanctify their flock. Catholic politicians are part of their flock.
A Path for Lay Catholics
Unfortunately, the Catholic laity who fight to protect the innocent unborn cannot depend upon most Catholic bishops to set an example of publicly reprimanding errant Catholic politicians. If the Bishops did correct them, that example would speak volumes about the important of protecting innocent human life in the womb. Whether or not our Bishops act in this regard, lay Catholics cannot afford the luxury of ignoring the hard work needed to counteract the inroads being made with regard to religious persecution and the pending annihilation of religious liberty by the impact of the "Equality Act," which has already passed the House of Representatives. We must pray for our bishops but we just can't wait for their leadership.
Prayer is the first line of defense, but St. James admonishes, "What use is it ... if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? ... faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (Js. 2:14,17).
Leftist LGBTQ and pro-abortion activists are involved in political "works" more intensely now, especially at the neighborhood level. If we do not meet our political opponents on the political battlefield, leftists will win even more elections with all of the adverse consequences such election wins bring.
Whoever is elected president in 2020 will impact whether or not Roe v. Wade has a chance to be reversed by the Supreme Court. Every current Democrat presidential candidate supports and celebrates unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy and would gladly nominate judges who would keep abortion "constitutional" and even expand its availability. Every pro-abortion Democrat presidential candidate who calls himself Catholic should be publicly corrected by his bishop, as should any pro-abortion Republican or independent candidate who calls himself Catholic, at every level government.
How many Catholics will work and vote for pro-abortion candidates in part because Church leaders have been silent about this scandal, or because abortion has been presented as one of many issues of social justice, and perhaps not as important as other Democrat-promoted issues? Our Declaration of Independence is so clear: we are created (not born) equal and endowed by our Creator (not government) with the "right to life." This message should permeate every Church in America, not just Catholic churches!
Whether we Catholics have the cooperation of our local bishop or not, Catholics still have a duty to work to secure the common good. The Catholic Catechism teaches: "It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. ... It is the role of the laity 'to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice'" (Catholic Catechism 2442).
Catholic Civic Involvement
I served as a congressional aide for six years, and was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1991, serving for 26 years in a legislative district that was twice won by Barack Obama. I advocated for my constituents on local concerns, and always voted pro-life and pro–true marriage and stated so in my campaign flyers, debates and candidate surveys. With the prayers and support of many committed volunteers going door to door, I won one primary and thirteen general elections, then lost my last general election.
We need more "foot soldiers" just like those Gideon led in the Book of Judges. Gideon winnowed down his forces to just 300 men who were single-minded, dedicated, cunning and tactful enough to beat the Army of Midian which Bible commentators say numbered 120,000. Begging God for His guidance, strength, courage and perseverance, I believe Christians can "Walk to Win" with a political as well as a "natural law" message.
First, we must find out who represents us at the local, state and federal levels and determine their positions on protecting human life and other moral issues. Third party descriptions of a legislator's views can mislead voters. Even if you determine that a legislator or candidate agrees with your beliefs, you cannot ignore the upcoming election. He needs help to win. In the current political climate Democrats normally strongly favor abortion. Some Republicans do as well.
To defeat a pro-abortion legislator, make sure you and your like-minded friends and family members are also registered to vote. Keep a link on your smart phone for your state election board's web page which allows voters to register to vote online or to download a printable voter registration application. You can send the link to those you meet at church, in the grocery store, at sports games, etc. to make it easy for them to register to vote if they are not already registered.
Your friends may not be aware that their 17 year old children can register to vote as long as they will turn 18 by the time of the next election. If they are away at college make sure they vote absentee. If people are unsure if they are registered to vote, send them a link to their state's voter registration portal, usually the state's Department of Elections.
Every vote counts! In 2017, an election for the Virginia state House ended up in a tie, and this was not the first tie race in Virginia! If the Republican's name had not been picked out of a hat, progressive Democrats would have shared power 50-50 with Republicans. Legislation authorizing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, the misnamed Equal Rights Amendment, and many other liberal Democrat policies would have had a significantly better chance of passage in the Virginia House of Delegates. Don't let anyone convince you that one vote does not count!
Donating money to a pro-life candidate, placing a bumper strip on your car or planting a sign in your yard are all very important helps to candidates running for office.
Working at the Grassroots Level as "Hanoi" Jane Fonda Recommends
Every neighborhood is located within a precinct (sometimes neighborhoods are split into more than one precinct) where those who live within the boundaries, vote at a certain poll. Voter registrars normally have maps of each precinct, but there are also apps for cell phones that contain such maps. The most important and most effective level of civic involvement is contacting voters directly by going door to door and asking voters to support your candidate. This tactic is much more effective than phone calls, text messaging, TV or radio ads, social media and mailing campaign brochures.
Actress "Hanoi" Jane Fonda, now 81 years old, who earned her nickname for posing with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun unit a few hundred yards from the "Hanoi Hilton" where American POWs were tortured, recently wrote in the August 30, 2019 Washington Post, about her experience knocking on voters' doors with "Working America" in a Scranton, Pennsylvania precinct. She engaged voters in conversation and took notes, to steer voters toward a liberal Democrat in an upcoming election.
Fonda wrote: "Authentic engagement works — it's a no-brainer. For years now, the researchers measuring the most effective way to win votes have told us that face-to-face contact has the biggest impact. The results in 2018 show us there's an important swingable segment of the electorate that will pull the lever for Democrats if we can reach them. ...
"I've seen the power of face-to-face contact since I became an activist five decades ago. In Modesto, Calif., I met some of the 800 volunteers who knocked on doors for more than a year before the 2018 election, and in Scranton I met the professional organizers, many of whom are working-class people of color. They talk with people year-round, reaching out to those hungry for information and a connection.
"... We outsmart the Facebook algorithms and digital foreign meddling by holding face-to-face conversations. I've seen it. The process builds trust, and it sends a message: You matter enough that I'm here on your doorstep."
All Politics Is Local
What Fonda describes about local action and engagement with voters is how "community organizer" Barack Obama came into power. It is also the plan I followed to win elections over 26 years. Now the Left has become re-energized and has chosen this old fashioned personal strategy to win elections. Frankly, the Left appears to have many more workers and walkers than those who value God, family and our Country. Young Leftists, many from out of state, possibly supported by socialist organizations, are walking door to door, talking to voters as if they lived in their neighborhood, and winning elections!
Leftist organizations are particularly focused on winning state elections this year and next so they can capture a majority of legislators within their state, enabling Democrats to draw the boundary lines of new voting districts after the 2020 census. Although the Democrats talk against "gerrymandering" you can be sure they will use their power to draw district boundaries (drawn every ten years after each census) to ensure even more Democrats can be more easily elected for the next decade. Keep in mind that Democrat majorities will mean more pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ policies.
You do not have to be a seasoned political activist to make a difference in the outcome of an election! Some of the most effective campaigners are high school students. Voters are very impressed by polite young people who visit them at their doors. Door to door volunteers do not need to know everything about a candidate or his positions. Working from a list of registered voters supplied by the candidate, they simply knock on doors, hand a brochure to voters, direct them to the candidate's website, and make sure they know they can call the candidate if they have questions. It is always best to travel in pairs, and even better if you have a driver to make the effort more efficient.
Anyone unable to walk door to door, can ask for a phone list and make live phone calls for a pro-life candidate. Most people have answering machines, so you will mostly leave messages. Some software programs dial numbers through a computer to make phone calling easier. Using your own personal email list to inform your friends and family about good candidates and the upcoming elections is a great way to inform voters and remind them to vote! A personal message from a friend carries much weight.
Recent Virginia Election Experience
Although I had won 13 general elections since 1991 using the door-to-door strategy, in 2017, I lost to a transgender opponent who spent nearly a million dollars of mostly out-of-state money, and who had a well-coordinated network of paid and unpaid workers from a variety of left-leaning organizations, including the LGBTQ Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood. My opponent received huge donations from the homosexual lobby, including over $275,000 from one out of state LGBTQ donor! The Denver Post (11/15/17) reported, "Roem outraised Marshall 3 to 1 thanks in part to large donations from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates across the country."
One organization called "Let America Vote" claimed to have knocked 34,400 doors in the 13th House District which I had represented. This particular group sends tweets asking young college age persons to move to another part of the country to walk door to door for Leftist candidates. My wife, Cathy and I personally ran into six pink-t-shirt clad Planned Parenthood door knockers in one precinct on one Saturday afternoon. The Leftists could produce 50–100 volunteers, most from out of the district, on any given weekend. The Left appears to be hungrier for political victory for its policies than the rest of us.
A number of my supporters did not think I could possibly lose to a man who "identified" and dressed as a woman. But the sexual progressives were able to contact many more people door to door than I was able to, and unsurprisingly, they won. They did not deliver a message of socialism or sexual anarchy to voters they met at the door. Most talked in generalities about "better roads, schools, etc." to establish a sense of caring about their community even though many if not most did not live in the district. They were also overheard by my volunteers telling untruths about me and my record.
To give you one example of the Left's current commitment, on August 24, 2019, a Saturday afternoon, 200 leftist progressives reported they had knocked on 7,000 doors in Loudoun County, Virginia, a community roughly 30 miles west of Washington D.C., on behalf of candidates who support the Equal Rights Amendment, unrestricted abortion, pro transgender ideology in schools and submission to the LGBTQ's version of "tolerance."
The progressive, leftist Blue Virginia blog noted: "They wanted to have an event that would re-energize women around issues of equality and justice that touch their lives, and that would bring new volunteers out to knock doors in support of women's equality and the ERA. ... Lots of young people joined in, from Generation Ratify in Arlington, and from several Leesburg high schools."
A group across the Potomac River in Montgomery County, Maryland, called "Do the Most Good," also provided precinct walkers for the Loudoun County, Virginia door-knocking effort:
"The large number of motivated Democratic volunteers willing to canvass is one of our key advantages. The GOP doesn't have near our level of commitment ... our canvass and call opportunities in Virginia is [sic] growing every week."
Here are just a few of the leftist groups which worked in the 2017 Virginia state House races to defeat 15 Republicans and elect Democrats:
Progressive Turnout Project: "Sending field representatives door-to-door ... is hands-down the most effective way to increase turnout. Experiments have shown that conversations at the door increase turnout more than 7 percent and make a lasting impact on voting behavior ... To date, we've knocked on over 2 million doors and collected 75,000 commitments to vote."
Let America Vote: "Since we launched in February 2017, we have contacted over 1 million voters and more than 700,000 people have signed up to join our cause. We've helped 110 voting rights champions win elections – from state legislators to statewide elected officials — beating anti-voter politicians across the country."
Sister District Project: "... works to turn states blue by winning state legislative elections. We "sister" volunteers from deep blue districts with carefully targeted races in swing districts ... flipping control of the state legislature ... Since launching in the wake of the 2016 elections, the Sister District Project has grown to over 40,000 volunteers across the country. Our volunteers have raised over $1.1 million in small-dollar donations directly to candidates, and reached out to over 1 million voters via phones, doors, postcards, and texts. ... We are open to volunteers and candidates of all genders. We have partnerships ... with Indivisible, Swing Left, Flippable, Daily Kos, One Vote at a Time, March On, Together We Will, Solidarity Sundays, EMILY's List, and Emerge ..."
Flippable: "Since our launch in 2016, we've helped elect 82 Democrats in game-changing state races. We didn't do it alone: over 100K people got involved by volunteering, spreading the word, and joining forces to donate over $2.1M. Together, we're making progressive change a reality!"
"Our hard work over the past two years paid off. … flipping the U.S. House, 7 governor's seats, and 7 legislative chambers, and passing a dozen ballot initiatives for fair redistricting, voting rights, healthcare, and more."
The National Democrat Party is also coordinating and funding Virginia state Democrat groups which knocked on 250,000 doors in the month of August 2019 alone, according to the Blue Virginia "progressive" blog, dated September 12, 2019.
We need Evangelicals, Christians, conservatives, Catholics and pro-life "foot soldiers" coordinating and organizing similar door to door efforts at the local level. Unless citizens who share our beliefs match the number of Leftist foot soldiers with our own, we will lose elections and lose the chance to adopt sound social policies. The price of our not contesting the actions of "Progressives" in our local precincts, the political battlefield on which this war over values is fought, is that we lose more elections and make it easier for Progressives to negatively impact the lives of our children and grandchildren.
There are roughly 186,500 geographic voting precincts in the United States. A spokesman for the 2019 March for Life, just one of the many pro-life organizations operating in America, said that between 200,000 and 300,000 persons attended the annual March for Life in 2019. That is just one of many pro-life and pro-family organizations. Surely there must be enough individuals across the country capable of organizing foot soldiers in their precincts to "Walk to Win." We could literally begin a revolution in American politics by becoming apostles or ambassadors for life in our own communities.
Potential volunteers need to be inspired and taught how to work a precinct and organize it most effectively. And, once a precinct organizer has identified enough volunteers to walk door to door in the various neighborhoods within their particular precinct, other educational efforts can complement the political door knocking such as distributing non-partisan educational flyers on issues such as the harms of abortion; why one-man, one-woman marriage is best for spouses, children and society; the pitfalls of pushing confused teens into decisions they can come to regret regarding sexual behavior; or the dangers of socialist government policies. Volunteers could also pass out information about the development of pre-born children along with resources available to those with unplanned pregnancies, or counseling services available to those mourning the loss of a child from an abortion.
My parents were born in Johnstown, Pennsylvania and grew up there during the Great Depression and the devastating 1936 Johnstown Flood. At that time, pastors of all denominations would knock on every door on a street offering to help local families. That door knocking by pastors built a tight- knit community uniting citizens of different denominations. So, while such door knocking by Pastors might be rare today, it was very effective at evangelizing in the past.
The window of opportunity for implementing successful civic action will not remain open forever, especially if Leftists have their way and succeed in pushing atheistic socialism and curbs on religious liberty. If we truly love our neighbors, and care enough to protect our families and communities from the ever-encroaching and growing persecution of Christians and others who embrace natural law values, then we must become the salt, the light and the leaven of society. If we fail to act in the public square, more immoral policies will spread and harm those we love. Pray, and like the Good Samaritan, also act. The story of Cain and Abel makes clear that we are our "brother's keeper."
The book of Hosea reminds us that, "My people are destroyed for lack of Knowledge." We must have knowledge of the Word of God, as well as knowledge of the civil world. St. Paul appealed to Caesar on the grounds that he, as a Roman citizen, should not be turned over to the Sanhedrin to be silenced, and Moses grew up in Pharaoh's household learning the ropes of government so God could rely on him to help the Jewish people.
Likewise, we need to become more knowledgeable about civic affairs and understand that each one of us has an important role to play during this particular time in history. Let us be motivated and remain hopeful, courageous, and persistent in the age-old fight between good and evil playing out today.
How Democrats’ Get-Trump Crusade Has Irreparably Damaged The Nation
The degrading of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ may prove the most damaging legacy of the Democrats’ charade. No election will be over, ever. No president will be legitimate ever again.
For more than three years, Democrats, Never Trump Republicans, and the left-leaning media proved themselves willing to destroy the country to destroy one man: Donald J. Trump. From foreign affairs to counterintelligence to law enforcement, from domestic governance to congressional oversight to separation of powers, Trump’s enemies manipulated and misused our government powers because Americans dared to elect the wrong leader.
The Senate’s acquittal yesterday of the president on the two spurious articles of impeachment concluded (for now) the years-long coordinated efforts at a coup. But while Trump escaped the onslaught, the damage inflicted on our country will not be easily abated.
The FBI’s malfeasance in the launch and handling of Crossfire Hurricane provides the starkest example of damage wrought without regard to the ramifications. Americans no longer trust the world’s premier law enforcement agency because of men like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok, and women like Lisa Page. They no longer believe in equal justice under the law, or the integrity of sworn affidavits and judicially authorized surveillance.
Current FBI Director Christopher Wray has promised a clean-up, but that likely won’t be enough either for the public or for the FISA court. And it is the damage in the eyes of the FISA court that risks much more than the faith Americans place in law enforcement agencies—it puts at risk the lives of Americans.
The FISA courts exist not for political warfare, but to combat terrorism. A FISA court distrustful of the Department of Justice and FBI will demand more, and believe less, and when the target is a terrorist and not a political opponent, the real-world results may mean lost American lives.
That is, if Congress allows the FISA court to continue. Following the revelations of FISA abuse, some senators are calling for an end to the secret court, instead of instituting reforms to protect against government overreach. Removing the FISA court from the arsenal of anti-terrorism tools would be even more devasting to our country, and if that comes to pass, the fault will rest in hands of Comey’s FBI.
Comey also holds responsibility for irreparably damaging the relationship between future presidents and holdover political appointees and career employees. What president will trust an FBI director appointed by his predecessor after the stunts Comey pulled, including summarizing private meetings with Trump in memorandums Comey later leaked to the press via a lawyer buddy? And then there was Comey’s briefing to Trump on the dossier that quickly leaked, providing CNN a hook to report on Christopher Steele’s salacious ponderings.
That wasn’t the only briefing that destroyed the trust necessary between politicians and career employees. As the IG report detailed, the FBI tasked a supervisor on the Crossfire Hurricane team to brief candidate Trump and his team in order to spy on Michael Flynn. That agent, known publicly as Joe Pientka, later teamed with Strzok to question Flynn about conversations Flynn had had with the Russian ambassador, even though the FBI already knew the content of those conversations. Leaks of Flynn’s classified conversations, and then the subsequent criminal charges brought against Trump’s former national security advisor, will surely lead to less trust between incoming political appointees and career employees.
That former President Barack Obama had also warned Trump about bringing Flynn into his new administration also suggests there was a concerted effort to interfere in Trump’s relationship with his preferred advisors. When added to the other efforts to take out Flynn, future presidents are likely to receive advice from their predecessor with reticence.
Many revelations over the last two years suggest the malfeasance extended beyond the FBI to the CIA and the broader intelligence community, although we won’t know the extent of the IC’s complicity until Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham complete their investigation. But any distrust between the commander-in-chief and intelligence agencies flowing from their role in pushing the Russia collusion hoax could prove devasting for generations of Americans. The left-leaning press’ participation in this gambit is also destructive to our republic: A media without credibility is unable to check government power or abuse.
The Crossfire Hurricane witch hunt hurt more than domestic relations and the trust necessary between a president and the intelligence community and career government employees. The targeting of Trump had international tentacles and thus the long-term fall out will as well. The United Kingdom, Italy, and Australia have all found themselves pulled into the investigation of the investigators. No matter the outcome of the Barr-Durham investigation, a strain between our countries will likely remain for some time.
More devastating, though, may be the lesson Russia and our country’s other adversaries learned from the debacle: It is easy to undermine American democracy by feeding bad intel to political operatives. While we don’t know that’s what Russia did in 2016—it could be that Steele lied about his Russian “intel” instead—there’s nothing stopping Russia from doing that in 2020. Or North Korea. Or China. Special Counsel Robert Mueller provided the playbook; they need only execute.
Even Mueller’s report, which detailed every Russia connection and claim of collusion, and found no evidence of a Trump conspiracy, didn’t end the efforts to destroy Trump—because the investigation was never about possible Russia collusion. It was always about Trump.
So next came the claim that Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless its newly elected president agreed to launch an investigation into Joe Biden. Democrats’ sequel to the Russian hoax did even more damage to our country by weaponizing the whistleblowing statutes and turning congressional oversight committees into political bludgeons.
Foreign affairs will suffer as a result, with presidents cautious in having frank discussions with their international counterparts, and foreign leaders restrained in their responses for fear that someone listening may politicize the conversation. And politicized it was, so much so that the hearsay-laden “whistleblower’s” complaint, contrived with the assistance of Rep. Adam Schiff and who knows who else, provided a hook to finally seek the impeachment of the president the Democrats have wanted gone since the day he won the 2016 election.
The degrading of “high crimes and misdemeanors” may prove the most damaging legacy of the Democrats’ charade. No election will be over, ever. No president will be legitimate ever again. And our country will remain divided. Forever? That is the question.
Commentary: The Ruling Class Will Continue to Come After President Trump
by Angelo Codevilla
Some conservatives, rejoicing that impeachment turned into yet another of #TheResistance’s political train wrecks and that President Trump is likely to be reelected by a bigger margin than in 2016, expect that a chastened ruling class will return to respecting the rest of us. They are mistaken.
Trump’s reelection, by itself, cannot protect us. The ruling class’s intolerance of the 2016 election’s results was intolerance of us.
Nor was their intolerance so much a choice as it was the expression of its growing sense of its own separate identity, of power and of entitlement to power. The halfhearted defenses with which the offensives of the ruling class have been met already advertise the fact that it need not and will not accept the outcome of any presidential election it does not win. Trump notwithstanding, this class will rule henceforth as it has in the past three years. So long as its hold on American institutions continues to grow, and they retain millions of clients, elections won’t really matter.
Our country is in a state of revolution, irreversibly, because society’s most influential people have retreated into moral autarchy, have seceded from America’s constitutional order, and because they browbeat their socio-political adversaries instead of trying to persuade them. Theirs is not a choice that can be reversed. It is a change in the character of millions of people.
The sooner conservatives realize that the Republic established between 1776 and 1789—the America we knew and loved—cannot return, the more fruitfully we will be able to manage the revolution’s clear and present challenges to ourselves. How are we to deal with a ruling class that insists on ruling—elections and generally applicable rules notwithstanding—because it regards us as lesser beings?
The resistance that reached its public peaks in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the impeachment imbroglio should have left no doubt about the socio-political arbitrariness that flows from the ruling class’s moral autarchy, about the socio-political power of the ruling class we’re forced to confront, or of its immediate threat to our freedom of speech.
Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the Senate’s impeachment trial, was as clear an example as any of that moral autarchy and its grip on institutions.
Pursuant to Senate rules, Senator Rand Paul sent a written question through Roberts to House Manager Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) regarding the extent of collaboration between Schiff’s staffer Sean Misko and his longtime fellow partisan, CIA officer Eric Ciaramella in starting the charges that led to impeachment. Roberts, having read the question to himself, declared: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”
The chief justice of the United States, freedom of speech’s guardian-in-chief, gave no reason for declining to read Paul’s question. The question was relevant to the proceedings. It violated no laws, no regulations. The names of the two persons were known to every member of the House and Senate, as well as to everyone around the globe who had followed news reports over the previous months. But the Democratic Party had been campaigning to drive from public discussion that this impeachment stemmed from the partisan collaboration between a CIA officer and a Democratic staffer.
Accordingly, the mainstream media had informally but totally banned discussion of this fact, supremely relevant but supremely embarrassing to Schiff in particular and to Democrats in general. Now, Paul was asking Schiff officially to comment on the relationship. Schiff could have explained it, or refused to explain it. But Roberts saved him the embarrassment and trouble—and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spared senators the problem of voting on a challenge to Roberts’ ruling. The curtain of official concealment, what the Mafia calls the omertà, remained intact. Why no reason?
Just as no dog wags his tail without a reason, neither did Roberts wag his without reason. Neither the laws of the United States nor the rules of the Senate told the presiding officer to suppress the senator’s question. Why was Roberts pleased to please those he pleased and to displease those he displeased? In short, why did this impartial presiding officer act as a man partial to one side against the other?
This professional judge could hardly have been impressed by the ruling class’s chosen instrument, Adam Schiff, or by Schiff’s superior regard for legal procedure. Since Schiff’s prosecution featured hiding the identity of the original accuser—after promising to feature his testimony—and since it featured secret depositions, blocked any cross-examination of its own witnesses, and prevented the defense from calling any of their own, it would have been strange if Chief Justice Roberts’ bias was a professional one.
Is it possible that Roberts favored the substance of the ruling class claim that neither President Trump nor any of his defenders have any right to focus public attention on the Biden family’s use of public office to obtain money in exchange for influence? That, after all, is what Washington is largely about. Could Roberts also love corruption so much as to help conceal it? No.
Roberts’ professional and ethical instincts incline him the other way. Nevertheless, he sustained the ruling class’s arbitrariness. Whose side did he take? His dinner companions’ side? The media’s? His wife’s? Roberts’ behavior—contrary as it was to his profession, to his morals, and to his political provenance—shows how great is the ruling class’s centripetal force.
The sad but inescapable consequence of this force is that conservatives have no choice but to follow the partisan logic of revolution—fully conscious of the danger that partisanship can make us as ridiculously dishonest as Adam Schiff or CNN’s talking heads, into rank-pullers like John Roberts, and into profiteers as much as any member of the Biden family.
And yet, revolution is war, the proximate objective of which is to hurt the other side until it loses the capacity and the will to do us harm. That means treating institutions and people from the standpoint of our own adversarial interest: controlling what we can either for our own use or for bargaining purposes, discrediting and abandoning what we cannot take from our enemies.
Unlike our enemies, our ultimate objective is, as Lincoln said, “peace among ourselves and with all nations.” But what kind of peace we may get depends on the extent to which we may compel our enemies to leave us in peace. And for that, we must do unto them more and before they do unto us.
– – –
Angelo M. Codevilla is a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace (Hoover Institution Press, 2014).
The Deregulatory Achievements of the Trump Labor Department
President Trump’s Department of Labor is fighting the administrative state—and benefiting the economy.
In the Clint Eastwood movie Magnum Force, Eastwood’s character Inspector “Dirty” Harry Callahan said that a good man always knows his limitations. As it turns out, a good man has a lot in common with a good government. A good government has got to know its limitations when it comes to federal regulation.
There’s nothing wrong with regulation, as long as the right things get regulated. After all, some industries need standards that only the federal government can enforce. But all too often, a regulation intended to target one issue or activity will have an entirely different effect on another. For instance, if a regulation that’s meant to increase wages instead results in more unemployment, that’s a problem. At their worst, government regulators have little effect on their targeted evils and instead place a cap on economic growth and quality of life.
Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Labor has taken a hard look at our regulatory approach. We’ve ramped up enforcement of beneficial regulations and have set about targeting lawless employers who cheat or endanger their workers. Meanwhile, we’re reducing and reforming regulations that do little more than thwart job creation and prosperity.
In fiscal year (FY) 2017, the Department published seven deregulatory actions and zero significant regulatory actions, saving the American economy $112 million. Having gotten warmed up, we published 12 deregulatory actions in FY 2018 — and, again, zero significant regulatory actions, saving American businesses $3.28 billion. In FY 2019, our eleven deregulatory actions more than doubled the previous year’s economic impact, providing an additional $7.96 billion boost to an economy that’s enjoying the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 and that has created 6.7 million new jobs since President Trump took office.
In addition to our own deregulatory actions, the other two branches of government have scored helpful assists in our goal of unburdening the labor force. Both Congress and federal courts have issued unfavorable reviews of regulations we inherited from the previous administration. With the Congressional Review Act, Congress helped clean up the regulatory landscape by repealing five Labor Department regulations that covered such noncritical activities as the length of time businesses were required to maintain paperwork after an employee becomes injured. In federal court, four Obama-era labor regulations succumbed to legal challenges and were summarily stricken from the books. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of regulations.
Sometimes, a business that wants to follow federal regulations may be unsure that all its practices are in compliance. In the past, there’s been a justifiable apprehension about whether such a business could go to the government and see if it’s in compliance without federal agents coming down hard on anything they find. So businesses had to ask themselves a question: Do I feel lucky?
The Trump administration, in contrast, has no interest in playing gotcha or enforcing a regulation just because we can. That’s why the Labor Department established the Office of Compliance Initiatives. We’re on a mission to help employers who want to follow the law and operate in good faith, and this new office is providing job creators the guidance they need to comply with federal health, safety, and wage regulations without fear of regulatory entrapment. We prefer to educate rather than litigate. But we won’t hesitate to litigate when necessary — just ask any of the lawbreaking employers who had to pony up an all-time record $322 million in back wages to their employees in FY 2019.
Under the Trump administration, deregulation works for everyone. Workers are better off, and the economy is roaring. And that, as Inspector Callahan might say, makes our day.
Mom loses custody battle after trying to transition her 7-year-old son into a girl
You may have heard of the 7-year old boy, James Younger, of Dallas, Texas. His parents are divorced, and he has a twin brother named Jude.
James’ mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, has been trying with all her might to make James become a girl.
Luckily for James, his father, Jeff, stood up and fought for him. Even luckier for James, a judge finally did, too.
Ann started asserting, coincidentally right around the time she and Jeff were divorced, that James was actually a girl.
Ann took the twin boys to McDonald’s, where James requested a “girl” toy for his happy meal. When he was 3-years-old. Then he started imitating the girl characters from the movie Frozen. Ann claims that James then started “asking” to wear dresses.
Naturally, Ann decided that a 3-year old boy singing catchy songs that are sung by girls in a movie obviously meant that said little boy wanted to actually be a girl. She started dressing him solely in dresses and headbands, and enrolled him in school as a girl.
She allowed the child to pick his own name. At first he picked Starfire (a female character on the cartoon series Teen Titans Go!). Apparently that’s where Ann decided to be a parent, because she said there are “reasonable limits” to indulging a child. She made James pick another name, and that’s when Luna was (sort of) born.
Ann brought him to a therapist and told her all about how James wanted to be a girl, so the therapist asserted that James was suffering from gender dysphoria, which essentially means he was born with the wrong genitalia because he believes he’s a girl.
My 3-year old son is obsessed with Jurassic World. Like seriously obsessed. He walks around calling himself “Owen,” who is the main character in the movie played by Chris Pratt. He says his lines, plays with his older brother’s Nerf guns pretending to shoot the mean dinosaurs, and rescues the nice dinosaurs. He calls his 5-year old sister Claire (the female lead in the movie). If he’s being Owen and you call him by his birth name, only the grace of God can save you from “Owen’s” wrath.
My husband and I bought him a vest that looks like Owen’s from the movie. Because he’s 3, and kids like to play dress-up and make believe.
That same 3-year old son sometimes likes to carry his plastic dinosaurs in one of his sister’s little purses. She has about 30 of them around the house so he’s always able to find one. I was considering running out to buy him a bunch of dresses, because he was carrying a purse and therefore must actually be a girl in a boy’s body, but then I remembered that I’m not an insane person.
I shared these stories with you because Ann based her assumption that James was actually a girl “trapped” in a boy’s body on a similar thought process.
My son immerses himself into the character of Owen. We got him toys that he plays with because he enjoys playing Jurassic World. We don’t actually think he’s Owen, and neither does he. We didn’t take him to get hormonal treatments for Chris Pratt’s rock hard abs like Ann planned to take James for hormonal treatments to become a girl.
Similarly, admiring cartoon characters and singing the same societally celebrated songs as them doesn’t mean that a boy is actually a girl, just like my son using a purse that holds his toys doesn’t mean he’s actually a girl.
Last October, Ann somehow struck gold with a jury full of incompetent loonies who awarded her sole conservatorship over James. The decision was almost unanimous, with an 11-1 vote. This jury voted to allow Ann to continue “transitioning” 7-year old James into the girl she claimed he wanted to be, despite Jeff insisting that James only wants to be a boy when he’s with his father.
Jeff continued fighting for his son. He claimed that Ann forced him to wear dresses and told him things like “monsters only eat boys.” He took videos of the young boy saying that his mommy bought him dresses and headbands and painted his nails. “Mommy tells me I’m a girl,” James said in at least one video.
Last week, thank God, a judge overturned the jury’s ruling. This means that Ann, who, by the way, is a pediatrician, and Jeff each have 50/50 conservatorship over both of the boys.
This also means that Ann will now be blocked from “transitioning” James to a girl using hormone therapy. The two share decisions for medical and dental treatment, haircuts, everything.
Shockingly (ok, not at all shockingly), James decided in November that he didn’t want to dress like a girl. Because he is a boy.
Jeff took a picture of his son dressed for school wearing the clothes the boy chose for himself- a button-down shirt and jeans- and a picture of James and Jude playing outside wearing cowboy hats, vests, jeans, and cowboy boots. The caption for the pictures said,
“Going to school. This is what it looks like when JAMES gets to choose! *Affirm this! * Also, a photo taken yesterday, just before church. James and Jude proud to be men! Save James, save thousands of children!”
Jeff and Ann were both ordered to attend counseling by the judge. They have both also been ordered to not discuss the case following Thursday’s ruling, especially since Ann plans to appeal the decision.
This means that Jeff’s website, Save James, had to be taken down. Friends of Jeff have taken over the Facebook group of the same name which keeps people updated on the Younger family happenings as well as transgender issues and court rulings around the country. The group asks for prayer and asserts, “#SaveJames, save thousands of children from #medicalchildabuse.”
The group points out that Big Pharma profits in ridiculous amounts by exploiting children in their “transgender” tendencies. It also brings to light reports of children who have been allowed to undergo hormonal transition therapy, only to later change their minds or have the hormones make them sick.
James Younger’s situation has brought on national attention. Senator Ted Cruz tweeted in October, “A 7-year-old child doesn’t have the maturity to make profound decisions like this. The state of Texas should protect this child’s right to choose—as an informed, mature person—and not be used as a pawn in a left-wing political agenda.”
Amen, Senator.
Jeff Younger is still facing substantial court costs with Ann planning on again fighting to get the daughter she never had. Estimates right now are upwards of $100,000, all to keep his son safe from a deranged mother. Jeff is paving the way for other children too whose lunatic mothers wish they had a different gendered child. Legislators are looking at the case around the nation.
This week, the House of Representatives in South Dakota approved a bill, HB 1057, the Vulnerable Child Protection Act in a 46-23 vote. If it passes in the Senate, it will become a “class 1 misdemeanor for a medical professional to perform a gender-affirming operation or surgery or prescribe hormone replacement therapy to aid a child’s gender transition or in an attempt to change or affirm the minor’s perception of the minor’s sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”
The bill would protect children under the age of 16 and Democrats are already saying that the ACLU will be fighting it in court should it pass.
Months after student raised funds to install Indiana baby box, it saved a baby girl’s life
A newborn girl was saved after she was safely surrendered in a Safe Haven baby box in Seymour, Indiana, on Thursday. The girl’s rescue, the first at this location, comes less than a year after the box was installed. The surrender was the fifth time that a baby has been placed into a baby box in Indiana in the last two years.
The rescue happened at 1:30 pm at Seymour Fire Station 3. According to Fire Chief Brad Lucas, an alarm sounded as soon as the mother opened the box, and the baby was retrieved less than 60 seconds later. She was transported to a local hospital.
“The system worked perfectly,” Lucas said. “We had firefighters in the building, and the ambulance was on scene within minutes. The baby was transferred to the hospital and is doing great. We are proud to have this resource available for the residents of Seymour. We strive every day to ensure the safety of our residents, and this is just a way to ensure the safety of newborns.”
The successful surrender was made possible thanks to Indiana’s Safe Haven laws, which state that a newborn less than 30 days old can be surrendered to an emergency care facility, police station, fire station, or hospital, with no questions asked. Baby boxes are specially designed to make this surrender easy for parents, offering safe, climate-controlled places where parents can leave their children anonymously. As soon as a child is placed in the box, an alarm sounds and emergency personnel are immediately alerted to the baby’s presence.
Seymour’s baby box was installed in June 2019, thanks to the efforts of high school senior Hunter Wart, 19, who raised $10,000 for the box’s installation. According to CNN, Wart “spent more than a year mowing lawns and scrapping metal to raise the $10,000 needed to purchase a Safe Haven Baby Box for the Seymour Fire Department… as part of his senior project.”
The Seymour box is just one of 20 boxes throughout the state placed by the non-profit organization Safe Haven Baby Boxes, started by resident Monica Kelsey. Kelsey herself was abandoned as an infant.
“This baby is healthy, perfect, and doing very well,” Kelsey said in a news conference Friday morning. “She appeared to be not more than a couple hours old.” According to Kelsey, the baby is now in the custody of the Indiana Department of Child Services and she’ll be placed with an adoptive family sometime in the next 45 days.
“I want to personally thank the mom or dad who chose to surrender their newborn in a safe place,” said Kelsey. “All too often we hear stories of babies left in trash cans and dumpsters, and this parent loved their child enough to place this child safely, legally, in a Safe Haven baby box.”
The Safe Haven Baby Box organization also has a national hotline for women in crisis. To reach them, call 1-866-99BABY1.
