“[T]he government cannot provide what children need specifically from a father: discipline, structure, protection,” wrote World magazine’s Tim Lamer in a recent article on the impact of fatherlessness. Drawing on US and international data, Lamer points out fatherlessness’s impact on economic disparities and high crime rates, especially in international settings, describing fatherlessness as “the worst systemic injustice in America.
The economic impact of fatherlessness touchesmillions of children throughout the U.S.,but the effects go far beyond economic outcomes. The Institute for Family Studies recently reported on a study from Social Service Review on the role that involved fathers play in their children’s lives. The study found that over a 10-year period, increased father involvement reduced behavioral outcomes such as aggression, depression, and delinquency by 30-50% in children who did not live with their father, and 80% in children who did live with their father. “The study shows the effects are long lasting, with a father’s earlier life presence having a significant impact on latter adolescent behavior,” wrote Brad Wilcox.
In other words, kids who are having trouble in their teens often lacked a fatherly presence earlier in their lives, not only during their teen years. Cash support—formal or informal—had little effect. It was the social engagement of the fathers that made the big difference.
Should a faith-based social services agency be excluded from participating in a city’s foster care program, simply for operating in accordance with its sincerely held religious beliefs? The answer is no - unless the agency is located in the city of Philadelphia.
On November 4th the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in a significant matter concerning the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment. Catholic Social Services (CSS), along with two women who have participated in their foster care program, challenged the city of Philadelphia’s discriminatory actions – specifically the city’s refusal to place foster kids with the agency unless it changed its policies regarding same-sex marriage. Consistent with Catholic teaching, CSS cannot endorse same-sex couples as foster parents in partnership with their agency, as it would be in conflict with the sincerely held religious beliefs of the Catholic Church. As a result of CSS’s deeply held religious beliefs about marriage, it was barred from its placement arrangements with the city of Philadelphia.
Never mind the fact that the City received no complaints about CSS, or that CSS has been serving some of Philadelphia’s most vulnerable and at-risk children for over a century (well before the city of Philadelphia even engaged in the foster system) and within that time frame not a single same-sex couple has approached CSS about becoming a foster parent. Rather, the City refused to work with CSS after reading in a newspaper that CSS could not endorse same-sex couples as foster parents through their agency.
While Fulton is about a social service agency and foster parents seeking reprieve from Philadelphia’s attack on their faith, there’s more. CSS also asked the Supreme Court to revisit the Court’s long-standing approach to analyzing religious freedom claims, specifically asking the Court to revisit its analysis in a case called Employment Division v. Smith. Previous to Smith, the Court evaluated laws infringing upon religious freedoms with the utmost scrutiny (“strict scrutiny”). However, Smith, as decided in 1990, changed the course of how courts approach free exercise claims, looking instead to the neutrality and general applicability of a law. Thus some laws that severely limit certain religious beliefs and practices have been upheld.
This election cycle, Minnesotans turned out to the polls in potentially record-breaking numbers and what could be the highest voter turnout rate in the nation. As the results are finalized, we can celebrate some key pro-life victories in our state! If current results hold, Minnesota will maintain a pro-life majority in the state senate. This is wonderful news that will have life-saving implications in the upcoming legislative session!
On the Congressional level, Minnesota’s election results have also yielded four pro-life congressional seats, with Representative Jim Hagedorn defending his seat in southern Minnesota (District 1) and Michelle Fischbach ousting incumbent Colin Peterson in District 7.
With election week less than a week away, many of us are being regularly reminded, sometimes with more ads than we ever hoped to see, of the importance of voting. We are blessed to live in a nation where we have the right to vote and this is not something to take lightly! At the same time, as Christians, we should keep in mind that we are first and foremost citizens of heaven. How should this dual citizenship affect the way that we approach voting? In a recent Twitter thread, Joe Rigney, a pastor at Cities Church in St. Paul and professor at Bethlehem College and Seminary, offered some helpful principles to consider as we approach election day.
1. Voting is largely a matter of prudence.
Voting is largely a matter of prudence,” writes Rigney. “However, prudential doesn’t mean amoral. It means that, given the complexities involved, we must engage in moral reasoning to arrive at what is good & wise in our voting decisions.
Some Christians have “freedom fatigue.” I recently heard someone say, “I’m not sure if Christians should really be so concerned about religious freedom. It seems kind of selfish, and I think it hurts our witness.” This sentiment is growing increasingly common, both from Christians who have honest questions about the importance of religious freedom, as well as from opponents of religious freedomwhocriticize religious freedom cases as nothing more than a “weapon” for “control.
Our political engagement should always be driven by humble faith in God and love, not byfear and resentment or a desire to “get what we deserve.” But this does not mean that seeking to preserve religious freedom is a selfish endeavor or that Christians cannot speak up when religious freedom is threatened. Quite the opposite. Religious freedom is a matter of justice and as such, we should speak up to defend it.
When considering the value of religious freedom, we should make sure we understand what religious freedom is. Luke Goodrich, a religious freedom attorney for Becket Religious Fundoffers the following definition: “[R]eligious freedom is a basic issue of biblical justice, rooted in the nature of God and the nature of man.” Humans are created for relationship with God. If thegovernment interferes with that, either bycoercion or bytaking away the right to worship freely and practice one’s beliefs,they are committing an injustice by demanding that we render unto Caesar what belongs to God. Desiring justice is not selfish, because justice is not reserved for select groups. Supporting religious freedom means supporting religious freedom for all.
According to a recently released documentary,Pope Francis has expressed approval of civil unions for same-sex couples, saying, “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” and “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.” Some have argued that the Pope’s comments are taken out of context and that the film misrepresents his position, but the Vatican has not yet issued clarification on this matter.
Pope Francis would not be the first person to call for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage. While this may seem like a compassionate approach, affirming and encouraging people in a lifestyle that is at odds with God’s design is not a loving thing to do. In 2003, the Catholic church affirmed this by saying,
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
Earlier this month, a group of Evangelicals took to the internetwith the statement that they were “pro-life Evangelicals for Biden.” Their website states,
As pro-life Evangelicals, we disagree with Vice President Biden and the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion. But we believe a biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end… Even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.
In other words, this group argues that because they are pro-life, they will be voting for a candidate who is pro-abortion. This idea is woefully misguided. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not simply not pro-life, they are both radically pro-abortion and committed to reversing the progress made by the pro-life movement in recent decades.
This group, and others who have madesimilar appeals heavily rely on the argumentthat state and local policies have a more of an effect on annual abortion rates than whether or not the president is pro-life, and thus whether or not a president opposes abortion should not be the main consideration a pro-life voter takes into account, or in the case of so-called “pro-life” voters supporting Biden, not a consideration that should be taken into account at all.
During this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing to consider her nomination to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court,Judge Amy Coney Barrett told the committee, “I would hope that no one would consider me to be nominated for anything if I didn’t have values… I have principles. I wouldn’t be fit for office if I didn’t.” Her principles and values, including her commitment to originalism and the rule of law, were on displaythroughout the hearing.
During the hearing, Judge Barrett held to what is called the “Ginsburg Rule,” following the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s example of refusing to offer an opinion on past rulingsor comment on matters that could come before the Court. This meant that, no matter how many times she was asked, she did not commit herself to a particular position on any case because the Court ought to play a judicial role, rather than a legislative role. “Judges don’t have campaign promises,” she reminded the committee.
In recent years, abortion activists have attempted to argue that since the word “abortion” is not in the Bible, the Bible has nothing to say on the matter so Christians should not oppose abortion. It seems that this argument has begun to affect the thinking of many Christians—a recent study found that 44% of self-identified Evangelicals, 62% of Mainline Protestants, and 58% of Catholics believe that the Bible is ambiguous on abortion. How should we respond to this trend?
It’s true that the word “abortion” does not appear anywhere in Scripture, but just because the word itself does not appear in the Bible does not mean the Bible has nothing to say about abortion. When figuring out how to apply Scripture to the issue of abortion, we should consider what it has to say about life, including life in the womb, as well as what science has to say about when life begins.
I received my first library card some time in 1958, when I was 9 or so. I've been a library user ever since. Traditionally, libraries have presented themselves as family-friendly organizations. In my early teens I could visit either the local branch library or the central library on my own. My parents had no reason to be concerned. The one and only time a librarian questioned my choice was to be certain I wasn't overextending myself as far as reading level was concerned. When she saw that I was doing fine, she had no further issue.
I relied on the library for many years for entertainment and information, but only as a user. This changed when I started my library career. I began working with the St. Paul Public Library in November 1979, and retired in December 2019. For two years I was a library clerk. For 38 years I was a library associate (27 years as a paraprofessional reference librarian, and 11 years as a cataloger).
During the 1990s I started to notice that teen fiction was becoming more sexually explicit. Not overtly at the time, but enough that I started cautioning parents to read the synopses when I saw them browsing the shelves to find books for their children. I also spotted the occasional nonfiction books aimed at teen readers who wanted to explore their sexuality and didn't want to talk about this with their parents. This trend has only accelerated since then.
Parents should know what happens in their children’s schools and they should be informed immediately if their child is experiencing or mental health struggles while they are at school. This is basic common sense. Unfortunately, Madison Metropolitan School District adoptedan update to their policies and guidelines handbook in 2018 allowing and encouraging teachers to deceive parents of children struggling with gender dysphoria. Under these guidelines, students are able to socially “transition” behind their parents back, adopting a new name and using opposite sex pronouns while at school without their parents ever knowing. The district encouragedteachers to exploit a legal loophole in order to conceal information from parents by filing “Gender Support Plans” in their personal notes instead of in the student’s official records. Earlier this year, a group of concerned parents filed a lawsuitchallenging this harmful policy and this week the court issued an injunction prohibiting the school district from deceiving parents. The injunction will be in place until the court rules on the case.
A policy that encourages children to live a double life and enables teachers to hide important information about a child’s mental health from their parents is unhealthy and troubling. In an expert affidavit, Dr. Stephen Levine wrote,
For a child to live radically different identities at home and at school, and to conceal what he or she perceives to be his or her true identity from parents, is psychologically unhealthy in itself, and could readily lead to additional psychological problems.
In a TEDx talk called “I have one more chromosome than you. So what?” disability rights advocate Karen Gaffney commented to her audience, “Imagine that, ladies and gentlemen. Here we are… removing barriers to education, making inroads into a full and inclusive life for people like me, and we have those who say we shouldn’t even be born at all?”
Born in 1977, Gaffney grew up in a time when the neglect and mistreatment of people with Down syndrome had recently been brought to light by disability rights advocates who were calling for reform. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw the beginning of the end of mass institutionalization, but as recently as the 1980s, babies with Down syndrome could be denied lifesaving treatments and even food and water until an act of Congress prohibited this kind of discrimination.
The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court has brought renewed attention to the urgent need to overturn Roe v. Wade. Over 61 million babies have lost their lives to abortion since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, with the U.S. committing an estimated 98 abortions per hour. This is an evil that must be stopped, which means that ending legalized abortion is absolutely necessary. As Abby Johnson pointed out when she spoke at Minnesota Family Council’s annual dinner in September, in order to make abortion unthinkable, we must make it illegal. The appointment of a justice who recognizes the humanity of the unborn is an important step in that direction.
Tragically, our society often fails to grasp the true horror of abortion. The pro-life movement is frequently met with the glib response, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one!” as if abortion was merely a matter of personal preference, like a tattoo or a haircut, rather than the destruction of a human life. Because abortion is legal, people often assume that it is morally acceptable, or if nothing else, morally neutral. By legalizing abortion, the Supreme Court rendered a moral opinion on abortion, creating an uphill battle in the fight to build a culture of life. As long as abortion is legal, it will be treated as if it morally acceptable.
Yesterday the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the Anoka-Hennepin school district must allow students to use restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of their gender identity rather than their biological sex. Last year the parents of a student identified as N.H. alleged that the school had discriminated against their daughter, who identifies as a male, by telling her not to use the main boys’ locker room. The school provided a separate locker room for her because she was not comfortable using the girls’ locker room.
Treating a student who is struggling with gender dysphoria with compassion and dignity does not have to come at the expense of the privacy of other students, and the school demonstrated that fact by making accommodations for N.H. Unfortunately, the Appeals Court has determined that privacy for all students is discriminatory and that students should be required to share intimate spaces with members of the opposite sex.
On Wednesday, President Trump made an important announcement: “I will be signing the born alive executive order to assure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty.” Since 2003, at least 300 babies have been born alive after abortion, at least 143 of whom died shortly after being born. Last year in Minnesota, three babies were born alive after failed abortions and died shortly after. This Executive Order will ensure that abortion survivors receive proper, life-saving medical care, rather than being left to die.
Pro-life lawmakers in Congress have made repeated efforts to pass the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to take up a vote on the bill, and in the Senate, it has received opposition from Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, and Senators Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar, among others.
In 2015, a Virginia high school was sued for a policy maintaining single-sex restrooms and locker rooms.Three years after graduation, Gavin Grimm, a female student who announced before her sophomore year that she identified as male, is still pursuing litigationagainst the school board. The Gloucester County School board has stood their ground in defendingthe policy. Following a loss in a federal court, the school’s most recent appeal means that the case could make its way to the Supreme Court.
When Grimm first announced to school administrators that she identified as male, they allowed her to use the restroom in the nurse’s office. Grimm complained that this was stigmatizing and insistedon using the boys’ restroom. When parents expressed concern, the school adopted a policy that required students to use restrooms and locker rooms corresponded with their biological sex, while also making unisex, single-stall restrooms available to any student who wished to use them. In response, Grimm sued with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union,alleging that the school had violated Title IX and discriminated against her on the basis of sex.In 2017, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts, leading to three more years of court battles. In the case’s most recent development, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grimm, prompting the school to appeal for a full review of the case.
September 12 is National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Babies, a day set aside to grieve the terrible toll of abortion in the United States as pro-lifers gather at gravesites and memorials for babies who have lost their lives to abortion. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute reported that in 2017, 862,320 abortions were committed in the united States, meaning that 18% of pregnancies in the U.S. that year ended in abortion. In Minnesota alone, nearly 10,000 babies lose their lives to abortion every year. Last year over 80% of those babies were killed after fetal heartbeat was detectable, and three survived the abortion procedure only to die shortly after.
By taking a day to grieve the tragedy of abortion, we recognize and remember the humanity of the babies who have been lost. In honoring their brief lives, we call attention to the horror of abortion and commit to fighting for life by reminding ourselves and our culture that each abortion is not merely a statistic but the destruction of a child’s life. Because of abortion, nearly 10,000 babies in Minnesota last year lost their lives before they had the opportunity to see the light of day.
The uncertainty and anxiety surrounding COVID-19 lockdownshas brought renewed attention to another crisis in the United States—an alarming uptick in death by suicide. Between 1999 and 2018, the national suicide rate increased by 30%, and last year it was found that 24% of Minnesota’s 11th graders had seriously considered suicide at some point. Recent months have escalated this tragic trend, with a June survey from the Center for Disease Control finding that 11% of respondents had seriously considered taking their own lives in the past 30 days.
Sadly, as our nation faces this sobering trend, the attempt to fight suicide in some is being undermined by a movement that is enabling and encouraging others to end their own lives.Physician-assisted suicide is currently legal in nine U.S. states, two of which legalized the practice in 2019. Last year Minnesota legislators held an informational hearing on a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide in our state. Despite the claims of assisted suicide proponents, assisted suicide is not compassionate. It denies real help and care to people who desperately need it,offering them the meansto end their lives, rather than providing a helping hand as they walk through suffering.
Devaluing life in this way leaves hurting people vulnerable to the lie that their lives are less valuable and runs contrary to efforts to fight the suicide epidemic that is ravaging the U.S. Unsurprisingly, overall suicide rates have been found to increase when assisted suicide is legalized. Furthermore, when assisted suicide is legalized, the so-called “right” to die often becomes a duty to die, with 64% of patients who seek to end their own lives citing fears of becoming a “burden” to their family and friends as one of their reasons for requesting assisted suicide, and insurance companies denying coverage for expensive treatment options but offering to cover assisted suicide. Earlier this year, this mindset led a bioethicist to assert that “legalizing assisted dying would avoid [a] waste of resources.” Elderly populations are especially vulnerable to assisted suicide and already have the highest suicide rates of any age group in many parts of the world.
Recent data from Pew Research indicates that roughly half of America’s Christians believe that casual sex and premarital sex are sometimes or always acceptable.According to Pew,
Half of Christians say casual sex – defined in the survey as sex between consenting adults who are not in a committed romantic relationship – is sometimes or always acceptable. Six-in-ten Catholics (62%) take this view, as do 56% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition, 54% of mainline Protestants and 36% of evangelical Protestants.
Attitudes toward premarital sex between adults who are in a committed relationship reflect a similar trend:
A majority of Christians (57%) say sex between unmarried adults in a committed relationship is sometimes or always acceptable. That includes 67% of mainline Protestants, 64% of Catholics, 57% of Protestants in the historically Black tradition and 46% of evangelical Protestants.
Unsurprisingly, these findings come at a time when American Christians areincreasingly caving to pressure from the LGBT movement. Both of these trends indicate that the American church has lost sight of the goodness of God’s design for sexuality. When Christians reject God’s design for sexuality, they reject God’s word, as well as theglorious picture of Christ and his church that marriage as God designed it offers.
The Hyde Amendment is estimatedto have saved over 2.4 million lives since 1976 by blocking federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. Research from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute shows that public funding for abortion increases abortion rates and that nearly a quarter of abortion-minded women choose life when Medicaid funds are restricted from being used for abortion. The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute published similar findings, indicating that by blocking federal funds from paying for abortions, the Hyde Amendment saves roughly 60,000 lives per year. This lifesaving amendment has received bipartisan support for decades, and polling data shows that 60% of American voters oppose taxpayer-funded abortions.
According to reports that emerged on Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who chairs the subcommittee that funds federal health programs, informed a group of lawmakers that they would not be adding the Hyde Amendment to any government funding bills next year. Speaker Pelosi hinted at this shift earlier this year when she tried to sidestep the Hyde Amendment in emergency economic stimulus packages, first in March and then again in May. Writing for National Review, John McCormack has pointed out that the Democrat party has purged most of their pro-life members, leaving very few Democrats in Congress who support the Hyde Amendment.
