As the LGBT movement gains widespread popularity,dissenting voices, including those who have left the LGBT lifestyle, are increasingly being silenced. Facebook has recently joined this trend,enforcing a new “hate speech” policy to remove posts fromorganizations that offer counseling to people dealing with gender dysphoria or unwanted same-sex attraction from Facebook and Instagram. After a targeted campaign from pro-LGBT groups, Facebook decided to remove posts from two non-profits, Core Issues Trust (CIT) and Restored Hope Network, and announced that it would be introducing a new policy classifying content that promotes “conversion therapy” as hate speech under their community guidelines, explaining that they would be doing so because they “don't allow attacks against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The counseling that Facebook is targeting under this new policy is not an “attack” on anyone, but voluntary talk therapy for people facing gender dysphoria or unwanted same-sex attraction. Ryan T. Anderson pointed out that under Facebook’s new approach, “Content about therapy to help a teen with a body-image struggle due to anorexia would be allowed, but content on the same therapeutic techniques to help a teen with a body-image struggle due to gender dysphoria would be removed.” Family Research Council noted that if Facebook was really interested in free expression, as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently told Congress, they would immediately reverse the decision to engage in this viewpoint discrimination.
Pro-lifers in New York are speaking out against an assembly bill intended to target pro-life pregnancy resource centers. Assembly bill A08212 would direct the commissioner of health to “conduct a study and issue a report examining the unmet health and resource needs facing pregnant women in New York and the impact of limited service pregnancy centers on the ability of women to obtain accurate, non-coercive health care information and timely access to a comprehensive range and reproductive and sexual health care services.” The bill authors reveal a bias against pro-life pregnancy centers by labeling them as “limited service.” Even before the bill has been signed into law, it has already identified what the results of the study ought to be—that pro-life pregnancy centers, because they offer “limited services” by not performing abortions, are leading to unmet needs and offering inaccurate and coercive information.
Abortion is not healthcare, and the fact that pro-life pregnancy centers do not perform abortions does not mean that they are not meeting health and resource needs. It is completely unreasonable to imply that pregnancy resource centers should be obligated to provide abortion, or that they are the cause of “healthcare” shortages because they don’t.
Schools in Madison, Wisconsin have decided to adopt a policy that allows children with gender dysphoria to secretly “transition” at school behind their parents’ backs. Under the policy, teachers are prohibited from informing parents if their student chooses to adopt a new name and pronouns and gain access to restrooms and locker rooms designated for members of the opposite sex. This policy was adopted in 2018 and was challenged by parents living in the Madison Metropolitan School District in December of last year when they sent a letter informing the district that they would sue if the policy was not changed. After the district refused to back down, the parents filed a lawsuit against the school district with the help of Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
The school district’s guidance and policies handbook explains to teachers that, unless if a student gives the school permission to inform their parents, the school should not do so. The handbook goes on to say that,
All staff correspondence and communication to families in regard to students shall reflect the name and gender documented in Infinite Campus unless the student has specifically given permission to do otherwise. (This might involve using the student’s affirmed name and pronouns in the school setting, and their legal name and pronouns with family).
You’ve no doubt seen the direction the city is going in. And you've seen our steadfast campaign opposing so-called "Drag Queen Story Hour," which is a threat to children.
Now, there's another threat on the horizon.
Currently, Minneapolis Park Board ordinance PB2-21 states no one 10 years or older is allowed to expose their genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast below the top of the areola in a park or parkway, whether or not children are present.
But members of the Minneapolis Park Board are holding a hearing tomorrow (agenda here) to make public female nudity legal in Minneapolis parks and parkways under any and all circumstances.
Parks are, of course, a great resource for families with children. But many families are justifiably opposed to displays of female nudity in front of their young sons and daughters. The park board is continuing the trick that we've seen for several decades, but which is now accelerating: erasing the real differences between men and women.
Earlier this week, 23 pro-life leaders sent a letter to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn asking him to remove the abortion pill from the U.S. market. The letter points out that the abortion pill, also known as RU-486 is considered so dangerous that it has been placed under the FDA’s Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy (REMS) and that when it was approved in the U.S., the FDA accelerated the approval process, a move that is “usually reserved for high-risk drugs used to cure life-threatening illnesses, even though pregnancy is not an illness and the abortion does not cure or prevent any disease.”
The abortion pill ends the life of an unborn child and poses serious dangers to women, having been documented to result in severe complications and even death. A recent study found the abortion pill to be four times more dangerous to women than surgical abortion, and in the U.S. alone there have been over 4,000 adverse events from the abortion pill reported to the FDA, and 24 deaths since RU-486 was legalized. The letter notes that only the prescribing facility is required to report adverse events, and many women seek care at an emergency room instead of returning to the abortion facility. As such, we don’t know the true number of adverse events caused by the abortion pill in the past 20 years.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently announced a proposed rule that would protect the safety and privacy of women in homeless shelters. Under the Obama administration, a rule was put in place that would require shelters to accommodate people on the basis of their gender identity, rather than their biological sex. The current proposal rolls back that requirement and allows shelters to make admittance decisions on the basis of biological sex. Single-sex shelters offer women who have been abused, trafficked, or raped a safe place to stay, and this proposed rule would allow them to continue to care for the safety and well-being of women. HUD Secretary Ben Carson also pointed out that the rule change allows religious shelters in accordance with their beliefs.
In 2018,an Anchorage, Alaska women’s shelter was taken to court for choosing not to admit a man who identified as a woman. Saying that shelters must allow biological males to share intimate spaces with vulnerable women prevents shelters from carrying out their purpose of offering a safe place to women. Writing at The Daily Citizen, Jeff Johnston notes,
Of course, not all transgender-identified individuals threaten women. But activist groups like the ACLU and NCTE refuse to acknowledge that women have been harmed in sex-segregated facilities – by men who claim to be women. Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal aid group, compiled a list of 79 such incidents between 2006 and 2017.
In a Friday night decision, the Supreme Court denied a Nevada church’s petition to block enforcement of Governor Steve Sisolak’s restrictions limiting religious gatherings to 50 people, regardless of the size of the building. Under Governor Sisolak’s orders, casinos, restaurants, and movie theaters are allowed to open at 50% capacity, rather than being limited to a strict number limit the way that churches are. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court allowed Nevada to continue to discriminate against churches by holding them to stricter limits than secular gatherings, thus communicating that to both Nevada and the majority on the Supreme Court, entertainment is more essential than the free exercise of religion.
In response to the Court’s refusal to block enforcement of Governor Sisolak’s orders, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel David Cortman said,
The First Amendment requires the government to treat religious organizations, at a minimum, the same as comparable secular organizations. When the government treats churches worse than casinos, gyms, and indoor amusement parks in its COVID-19 response, it clearly violates the Constitution. As Justice Alito noted, ‘The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance.’
One month after the Supreme Court’s Bostock ruling,the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital that refused to perform a hysterectomy on a woman struggling with gender dysphoria.St. Joseph Medical Center was founded in 1864 by Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia and has continued to operate in accordance with their beliefs for over 150 years. Because of those beliefs, the hospital canceled Jesse Hammons’s hysterectomy as it would have removed a healthy organ and left her sterilized. The ACLU argues that, in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the hospital’s actions are discriminatory.
In an ACLU press release, Hammon said, “The hospital will perform hysterectomies for everyone else, but they did not think that my life, as a man who is transgender, is equally worthy of protection.” This claim is false. St. Joseph’s Medical Center does not perform hysterectomies for “anyone else,” but instead, only performs them when medically necessary. In a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the general counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in 2016,
A hospital does not engage in ‘discrimination’ when, for example, it performs a mastectomy or hysterectomy on a woman with breast or uterine cancer, respectively, but declines to perform such a procedure on a woman with perfectly healthy breasts or uterus who is seeking to have the appearance of a man.
After years of hailing her as a hero, Planned Parenthood has decided to attempt to distance themselves from their founder, Margaret Sanger. Throughout her life, Sanger made it no secret that she was a firm believer in eugenics, arguing for the forced sterilization of the “unfit” and called her work the “greatest step toward race betterment.” She included a white supremacist on her board of directors, spoke at an event for a women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan, and used her work to target minority communities, opening her first birth control center in an immigrant neighborhood in Brooklyn, and the second in Harlem. After decades of glossing over their racist and eugenics-based origins, Planned Parenthood announced on Tuesday that they would be removing Margaret Sanger’s name from their New York building and would be working with the city council to remove her name from Margaret Sanger Square. In an official statement, Karen Seltzer, the Board Chair at Planned Parenthood of Greater New York said,
The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color. Margaret Sanger’s concerns and advocacy for reproductive health have been clearly documented, but so too has her racist legacy. There is overwhelming evidence for Sanger’s deep belief in eugenic ideology, which runs completely counter to our values at PPGNY. Removing her name is an important step toward representing who we are as an organization and who we serve.
Planned Parenthood’s attempt to distance themselves from Sanger’s racism and eugenicsis half-hearted and hypocritical at best. Following in the footsteps of their founder, the abortion giant continues to target minority communities and kills an estimated 247 black babies every day, and Live Action News has pointed out that 38% of reported abortions are committed on black women, while black Americans make up 12% of the U.S. population.
A recent study from Dr. Tricia Bruce at Notre Dame University revealed that American’s attitudes toward abortion are not always what they would seem to be based on polling data. She and her team conducted a study in which they interviewed people on their views regarding abortion, without letting them know ahead of time what they would be discussing. Rather than asking closed-ended polling questions, they spent over an hour talking to each interviewee and then analyzed the interviews for patterns and trends.
Most of the interviewees acknowledged that they had not given serious thought to the issue of abortion, and that it was a topic they had almost never discussed. “Nearly all Americans feel conflicted in some way about abortion,” observed Bruce. “Surveys underestimate the ambivalence that emerges when Americans talk through their own understandings of abortion.” Bruce also found that many interviewees would give one response regarding their views on abortion, and then follow up by explaining that their response doesn’t actually reflect their views, and that none of the individuals her team interviewed saw abortion as a desirable good. Near the conclusion of her report, Bruce writes,
Most Americans don’t know for themselves what they believe about abortion. No one has ever asked them, beyond a narrow dichotomy. Many are still figuring it out. Americans also find themselves bereft of scientific, legal, and moral lexicons to reason through difficult topics. Most work with a limited set of facts and tools in moral reasoning, leading them to positions without having contemplated the extent of implications.
“As or right now, his quality of life… he doesn’t have much of one.”
“What do you mean? Because he’s paralyzed with a brain injury he doesn’t have quality of life?”
“Correct.”
This was the conversation between a doctor at St. David’s Hospital in Austin, Texas and the wife of a quadriplegic man in early June. Michael Hickson, who was disabled due to an anoxic brain injury he had suffered in 2017, had been admitted to the hospital with a low-grade fever and pneumonia after testing positive for COVID-19 a few weeks earlier.Due to an ongoing custody dispute between Mrs. Hickson and her sister-in-law, a court had appointed Family Eldercare as Hickson’s temporary guardian and Mrs. Hickson no longer had the right to make medical decisions on behalf of her husband.In a recorded conversation between Mrs. Hickson and the hospital, one of the doctors treating Hickson explained that the decision had been made not to pursue further treatment and to instead put him on hospice care,and that this decision was made because of Hickson’s quality of life.When pressed on whether or not the quality of life assessment had been made because of Hickson’s disability, the doctor said that it was, and returned to that point more than once throughout the conversation, arguing that Hickson’s case was different from other patients, saying, “His quality of life is different from theirs. They were walking, talking people.” Six days later, Hickson died.
The New York Times recently proclaimed, “Churches were eager to reopen. Now they are a major source of coronavirus cases.”The since-modified headline is a gross overstatement and makes it sound as if churches have played a significant role in the spread of COVID-19. As Ed Setzer pointed out in Christianity Today, the New York Times reported that 650 cases had been linked to churches since the beginning of the pandemicwhen there have been over 3 million cases in the U.S. during that time. “650 nationally out of 3 million cases is a headline looking for a story,” writes Setzer. “The real story is this: churches are gathering and remarkably few infections are taking place.” Furthermore, out of over 300,000 churches in the U.S., only 40 have been linked to COVID outbreaks. Making the argument that the majority of churches are disregarding the safety of their parishionersand becoming a major source of the virus’s spread is ridiculous.
With religious gatherings being unfairlytargeted, this kind of reporting from the New York Times is dishonest and irresponsible. Churches are not compromising public safety, and they have not been a significant source of the spread of COVID-19. In the past week, there have been an average of 62,000 new cases reported per day. In other words, the number of cases per day is almost a hundred times as many as there have been linked to churches since March.
A federal judge on Monday waived a rule requiring an in-person visit before obtaining the abortion pill after the ACLUargued that the requirement poseda “substantial obstacle”during COVID-19. The abortion pill is subject to the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) protocol,and with good reason. In the 20 years that the abortion pill regimen has been legal in the U.S., thousands of women have experienced adverse effects and 24 have died. In May of this year, a woman who had taken the abortion pill was rushed from a Texas abortion facility to a nearby hospital as her oxygen levels dropped due to severe blood loss. Ignoring the dangers of the abortion pill, the ACLU filed a lawsuiton behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic demanding thatthe FDA to waive the REMS requirement of an in-person visit.
Writing for Live Action, Nancy Flanders points out,
The purpose of undergoing a physical examination before taking the abortion pill is to ensure the gestational age of the child is not more than 10 weeks, that the woman is either Rh negative or positive, and that the pregnancy is not ectopic. In any of these cases, taking the abortion pill poses a potential health risk to the woman, including the possibility of future pregnancy loss, hysterectomy, and death.
Demanding the removal of in-person visits shows a serious disregard for the safety and well-being of women, and U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang was wrong to bow to the abortion lobby’s demands.
“Who am I to impose my beliefs on someone else?” has become an increasingly prevalent attitude among Christians, especially young Christians, as seen in recentdata indicating a growing acceptance of the LGBT movement among Evangelicals. According to political scientist Paul Djupe, 90% of Evangelicals believed their religion forbade homosexual behaviors in 2007. By 2020, that number had dropped by almost 30 percentage points. According to anotherresearcher, this is especially prevalent among young Evangelicals, with roughly 50% of Evangelical Christians between 18-35 affirming same-sex marriage in 2018. Alongside of this trend, many young people in the church have adopted a deeply secular attitude and treat Christian faith as simply one belief among many. Because of this, they increasingly see standing up for biblical teaching on sexuality as “imposing” their beliefs on others.
Christianity is not simply one belief among many equally valid options.The world is not a neutral space. As Abraham Kuyper put it, “There is not a square inch in all of creation over which Christ, who is Lord of all, does not declare, ‘Mine!’” God reveals himself both in Scripture and in nature, and what he reveals about himself and his handiwork in nature is in harmony with what he reveals in Scripture because God is consistent and does not change (Numbers 23:19). This means that we can and should expect to see nature affirming what the Bible teaches about sexuality, and we should point others to the way that nature affirms biblical teaching on sexuality and the family.
A Freedom of Information Act request filed by the March for Life organization revealed this week that Planned Parenthood North Central States, based in St. Paul, received a forgivable loan through the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) worth $5-10 million. Only one other Planned Parenthood affiliate received more than $5 million, and PP North Central States also reported the highest numbers of employees retained, 495, of any PP affiliate that received money through the program.
Their loan was approved on April 10, 2020, when elective surgeries were still banned in Minnesota under Governor Walz’s emergency order. But Planned Parenthood, supported by the state government, continued to perform abortions instead of conserving personal protective equipment (PPE) for hospitals treating COVID patients.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 rulings today that are big victories for religious freedom. First, in the Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru case, the Court ruled that religious schools cannot be forced to hire and employ teachers that don’t hold fast to the school’s faith and religious practices. Next, in the Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania case, the Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule that said religious employers cannot be forced to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans, if doing so would violate that organization’s religious beliefs.
Religious schools, not the government, should have the final say in their hiring and firing decisions. The Court’s ruling protects the First Amendment by acknowledging that. Justice Samuel Alito wrote,
The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.
On June 30th, the Supreme Court upheld religious freedom in education by ruling against a provision in the Montana state constitution that was used to excluded religious schools from tax-funded scholarship programs in Espinoza v. Montana. The case was brought before the court by three families who were recipients of the Big Sky scholarship fund, which focused on providing educational opportunities to low-income families and families of children with disabilities. Big Sky was part of a state program that granted a tax-credit to anyone who donated to participating scholarship organizations, which would then enable students to attend private schools by sending money directly from the scholarship organization to the school on behalf of the student.
When Kendra Espinoza, Jeri Anderson, and Jaime Schaefer attempted to use the fund to send their children to Stillwater Christian school,they were blocked by the Montana Department of Revenue on the basis of a “no-aid” provision in Montana’s state constitution. This no-aid provision was based on the Blaine Amendment, a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the late 1800s specifically designed to block funding to Catholic schools. While the amendment failed to pass the U.S. Senate with the necessary 2/3majority, similar amendments were adopted by over 30 states. These amendments lead to policies that single-out religious schools for different treatment simply for being religious, blocking them from grants and scholarship programs that are available to other private schools.
“But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” Jeremiah 29:7
This weekend, we celebrate our nation’s birth, not because our nation is perfect, but because our founding 244 years ago was the down payment on the promise of self-governance that could improve our nation over time.
That bold statement is possible because our Founding Fathers provided the longest-lasting framework of government in which “We the People” have the privilege and responsibility to exercise our rights as citizens “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution)
Earlier this week, the Minnesota Department of Health released its annual report on abortion in Minnesota, finding that 9,922 abortions were committed in Minnesota in 2019. This marks a slight increase from the year before when there were 9,910 abortions committed in Minnesota.
Of those 9,922 abortions, 8,252 (83%) were performed after fetal heartbeat was detectable via ultrasound. Three babies were born alive during botched abortion procedures, but all three died shortly after. The report also revealed that 43% of the abortions performed in Minnesota were covered by public assistance, a sobering reminder that taxpayer dollars are being used to perpetuate abortion.
60% of the women who had an abortion in Minnesota last year had given birth at least once before, and 38% had previously had at least one abortion. Planned Parenthood continues to play an overwhelming role in Minnesota’s abortion industry, and in 2019 it committed 65% (6,451) of the abortions performed in our state, marking a steady increase in the percentage of abortions carried out by Planned Parenthood in Minnesota each year.
MINNEAPOLIS - Minnesota’s largest Christian public policy group, Minnesota Family Council, made the following statement about today’s Supreme Court ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo.
Today’s decision shows once again that the Supreme Court’s whole approach to abortion jurisprudence is antithetical to the goal of protecting human life. As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent, “[The Court's abortion decisions] created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.”
Minnesota Family Council’s Director of Public Policy, Veronica, Faye, made the following statement: “Let’s be clear: when abortion businesses, who do not have women’s best interests at heart, are allowed to speak for women in courts of law, we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. Under the Louisiana law the Court struck down this morning, the state required abortion clinics to abide by the same standards of care required of other ambulatory surgical centers. By holding abortion clinics to a lower standard, the Court is failing women and girls. Abortion always kills a child, and often hurts a woman. All of Louisiana’s abortion clinics have been cited for safety violations - why would the Court trust them to have women’s best interests at heart? Minnesota Family Council will continue to work in state and federal legislatures, and in the court system, to fight for the God-given right to life.”
