Month Archives: February 2019

Contributors to Sexual Exploitation are Called Out

by Patrina Mosley

February 12, 2019

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), the leading national organization exposing the links between all forms of sexual exploitation, has released their annual “Dirty Dozen List” that exposes and calls to account groups, agencies, and businesses who contribute significantly to the normalization of sexual exploitation through pornography, prostitution, sex trafficking, and other forms of exploitation.

At yesterday’s event announcing the list, NCOSE said, “This list ensures that their participation and collusion with the various aspects of the sex trade becomes public knowledge and equips citizens with information and tools to hold them accountable.” The Dirty Dozen List is meant to be an activism tool for consumers and a public call for these companies to reform their exploitive policies.

Since 2011, NCOSE has instigated 98 policy improvements in corporations and government entities. As NCOSE’s vice president of advocacy and outreach Haley Halverson said, “No corporation should profit from or facilitate sexual exploitation.”

Here is this year’s Dirty Dozen List of shame. Click on the organization’s name to join the campaign and send a message to these entities that are profiting from the sexual exploitation of women and children.

1. Amazon

Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer” is “promoting material that sexualizes children and normalizes the dehumanization and sexual commodification of women.” … “Items for sale on Amazon include child-like sex dolls, photography books with eroticized child nudity, pornographic magazines, and clothing items, and more. Their Kindle e-reader is riddled with sexually explicit content containing incest, babysitter, and group-sex themes.”

2. EBSCO

EBSCO Information Services offers online library resources to public and private schools (K-12), colleges and universities, public libraries, and more. In its advertising for schools, it promises ‘fast access to curriculum-appropriate content.’ However, its Explora, Science Reference Center, Literary Reference Center, and other products, sometimes provide easy access to hardcore pornography sites and extremely graphic sexual content.”

3. Google

Google Chromebook, which is often used in schools, is marketed as “built from the ground up to be shared with an unlimited number of students.” “Unfortunately, many schools distribute unprotected and unfiltered Chromebooks when Google could easily turn on a default setting for safer use by children.” … “YouTube, the world’s largest video-sharing platform, regularly hosts pornography and sexual violence while Google shirks responsibility by forcing users to act at content flaggers.”

4. HBO

HBO, a division of Time Warner, is an American premium cable television network that has consistently produced content which normalizes rape myths, sexual violence, and commercial sexual exploitation through [sic] with sexually exploitive depictions of sex and sexual violence. This has been displayed over the years through shows like Game of Thrones and The Deuce. The HBO GO home streaming service and app make accessing this exploitive content even easier.”

5. Massage Envy

Massage Envy has been and is being, sued by hundreds of women for failing to take appropriate measures when a massage therapist sexually harasses or assaults a client. Among a number of poor policies, the company has hidden clauses in customer agreements which force women to surrender their rights, and many former employees report being trained to do all in their power not to encourage police to show up at their locations.  Massage Envy does not even require reporting of suspected assaults to the Massage Therapy Board and a number of cases against Massage Envy involve prior complaints of sexual assault by customers being made to management and them doing nothing about it, thus allowing perpetrators to continue preying on vulnerable clients.”

6. Netflix

Despite much highly-rated originally produced content on its platform, Netflix sinks to storytelling which portrays gratuitous nudity and graphic sex acts in shows meant for teen and young audiences. Further, Netflix portrays graphic and violent depictions of sexual assault in a number of their shows and has even produced shows normalizing sex trafficking and eroticizing children. Netflix allows a loophole for children to easily get around parental control features and it regularly recommends children’s content paired right next to NC17 and TV-MA content.”

7. State of Nevada

Nevada is the only state in America with legalized brothel prostitution, in select counties. As of February 2018, there were at least 21 brothels active in Nevada. While some may claim that legalization provides better regulation and increased safety – the truth is that sexual violence, racism, and socioeconomic disadvantages are inextricable from the prostitution experience.”

8. Roku

Roku, a leading media streaming company, provides its users with the ability to stream television programs, movies, music, and more, on their personal devices. Unfortunately, Roku also facilitates access to hardcore pornography channels through hundreds of private and hidden channels.”

9. Sports Illustrated (Swimsuit Issue)

Since 1964 this magazine has sexually objectified women for sport and profit.” … “These images are not designed to be empowering. Rather, they are designed to portray women as sexually desirable and available to the male customers purchasing this magazine. Women who have achieved remarkable athletic feats do not deserve to be put back into the box of male sexual accessibility in order to promote ‘body positivity.’”

10. Steam

Steam® is a popular distribution platform, owned by Valve Corporation, which sells thousands of video games for PC, Mac, Linux box, mobile device, or even televisions, in addition to connecting gamers with community forums on its website.” After receiving backlash from gamers about working to remove rape-themed games, Steam instituted a new policy to “allow everything onto the Steam Store, except for things that we decide are illegal, or straight up trolling.” As soon as this new policy launched, the number of games tagged for “nudity” doubled from approximately 700 games to around 1,400 in just four months—and now there are over 2,000 games with this tag.

11. Twitter

For years, Twitter has done little to stem the overwhelming tide of sex trafficking, prostitution, and pornography accounts on its site. In fact, media reports suggest that as many as 10 million Twitter accounts may include explicit sexual content. Twitter prides itself as being a platform for ‘free expression’ yet refuses to remove accounts posting likely advertisements for sexual slavery.”

12. United Airlines

United Airlines fails to adequately train aircrews to address the problem of pornography-use on airplanes and the sexually hostile environment that this fosters. While reports of sexual harassment and even assault have increased in the airline industry, United Airlines has not prioritized policies and procedures to keep customers safe.”

Return to the Constitution: Judicial Activism or Originalism?

by Zachary Rogers

February 12, 2019

FRC has consistently maintained that the Supreme Court needs to bring legal precedent more in line with the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But if this effort is taken up in earnest by a newly conservative Court, it is likely to be tarred as “judicial activism.” Judicial activism occurs when a judge applies his views rather than a faithful interpretation of the law to the case before him. What is needed, and what we look forward to seeing with the appointment of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and many more lower court judges, is judges’ faithful interpretation of the Constitution and the laws to the cases before them.

However, many on the Left think that overturning any of the bad precedent churned out by the Supreme Court is partisan judicial activism. It is not. To understand this, we must comprehend the structure the Framers crafted, the role of judicial review within it, and the place of the other branches within this system.

The Framers carefully crafted a system of ordered liberty, which entrusted certain enumerated powers to the national government and reserved the rest to the people and the states. The improved science of politics included checks and balances, separation of powers, and elected representatives.

They did this because the legislature and executive branch “could be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” In essence, Congress would promulgate laws, the president would execute them, and the Supreme Court would adjudicate the relevant laws in individual cases.

The Framers created a system of checks and balances in which ambition would be made to counteract ambition. Each branch was expected to protect its prerogatives and powers, thus enforcing separation of powers and preventing tyranny—the accumulation of legislative, executive, and judicial power. This system of limited government and ordered liberty under the Constitution has shifted since 1787.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land because it is the settled and deliberate will of the people against which congressional laws, executive actions, and Supreme Court decisions must be measured. Traditionally, all three of the branches were expected to be faithful to the Constitution in the execution of their duties.

The Progressive Era, however, caused the modern American regime to shift dangerously to the left. The president is no longer expected merely to execute the laws passed by Congress but to nudge the American people in a partisan direction. Congress spends little time passing laws; instead, it occupies most of its time overseeing executive agencies while delegating lawmaking to executive agencies. The Supreme Court perceives itself the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution—which could be defined in accord with the intent of the Framers or according to the “living” Constitution desired by the liberals.

The rise of the modern court occurred for two reasons. First, the theory of the living Constitution requires the document to be interpreted in accord with the spirit of the times. This requires it to have no fixed meaning, subject to varying interpretation, and acting as a vehicle of “progress” to move the American people forward. Second, modern liberals were able to use the courts to achieve social and political change. They were forced to do so because they were unable to achieve decisive victory at the ballot box, which would have allowed them to implement their desired laws and policy objectives.

One of the reasons Supreme Court practice has strayed from the Founder’s intentions is an erroneous understanding of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The modern understanding of this case is that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all officials must comply with it. In fact, the Court ruled that when a law conflicts with the Constitution it is the Constitution that is paramount.

Judicial review is simply the authority to declare acts void when they conflict with the Constitution. A strict fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution limits judges’ power. If a law violates the Constitution of the Framers, then it must be declared void.

Therefore, Supreme Court decisions are not the last word and may in fact be revisited in order to uphold a proper constitutional construction. In this partisan atmosphere, Christians and conservatives should expect charges of judicial activism in an effort to tar genuine efforts to return to constitutional law. A true recognition of judicial activism lets the American people distinguish between a rejection, distortion, or return to the Constitution.

Zachary Rogers is a Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council.

The Cost of Sending Your Kids to Public School Just Might Be Their Souls

by Cathy Ruse

February 11, 2019

Recent decades have seen “Mommy Wars” about daycare and breastfeeding. Are we on the cusp of a new fight over whether to send your kids to public school?

If so, I say bring it on. It’s long overdue.

Should we pull our kids out of public school? Millions of parents with children in public schools can’t believe they’re asking this question. But they are.

Family Research Council hosted an expert panel on this question last week. Grab a cup of coffee and an hour and watch it here.

The panel features Mary Hasson, a lawyer and writer with the Ethics and Public Policy Center discussing her new book, Get Out Now: Why You Should Pull Your Child from Public School Before It’s Too Late.

The first consideration for people of faith is, well, faith. Does attending government schools impact a child’s faith as an adult? Hasson cited bracing research that suggests it does. In one study on Catholic children, only 5 percent continued to practice their faith as adults after going through public school as kids, compared to 40 percent who kept their faith after attending Catholic schools. Evangelical children experience a similar loss of their Christian faith.

Not only are American public schools hostile to religious faith, there are hostile to America. Hasson discussed how there is much less history taught today—less civics, but more activism. Capitalism is degraded, socialism is promoted—with your tax dollars.

But the game-changer, said Hasson, is the “fractured concept” of the human person that public schools now teach. Sex confusion and transsexualism are dogma. And this anti-science propaganda is producing disturbing results: some schools see up to 20 percent of their students identifying as LGBTQ, said Hasson.

Even when schools allow parents to excuse their children from classes about their changeable genders, “you can’t opt a child out of the school culture.” Schools have embraced the idea that, since any child can be “trans,” every child must be treated as potentially “trans.” This approach is “baked into the culture” of government schools today.

Activist and public school parent Meg Kilgannon provided another perspective on the question. There’s too much public money on the table to just leave it to liberals to use as they wish to ruin our nation’s children. While conservatives bicker endlessly about charter schools vs. vouchers, Leftists are happily spending our tax money molding the nation’s young minds in their image.

Kilgannon knows the fight in Fairfax County fight well. She is a parent activist par excellence who has stayed in the system but fought to protect her kids every step of the way.

If conservative and Christian families leave, what about the children left behind? These children, said Kilgannon, will be our nation’s future teachers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, presidents, etc. The future of our nation is inextricably tied to the state of our public schools today.

Both panelists agreed that there are good and faithful teachers and administrators who are faithful to their calling to educate and not indoctrinate. But they find themselves in a tenuous position if they question the radical sex ed or identity politics that their professional associations peddle.

Both agreed, too, that parents’ first duty is to their children.

Hasson’s final point has stayed with me more than any other. Every education choice bears a cost, she said. The cost of private schools can be a mountain of tuition dollars, the cost of homeschooling includes time and lost income. But the cost of public schools just might be your children’s souls.

10 Nominees Have Faced Unconstitutional Religious Tests in Less Than 2 Years

by Family Research Council

February 11, 2019

Imagine that one day you sit down for a job interview. You are prepared to answer your interviewer’s questions and demonstrate your qualifications for the position.

Then imagine getting asked a question that has nothing to do with whether you are qualified for the job. In fact, though irrelevant, the question has to do with something very personal—your faith.

Do you personally believe that gay relationships are a sin?”

Do you intend to end your membership with this faith-based organization to avoid any appearance of bias in your new position?”

As your interviewer keeps probing for an answer, you realize that whether you get the job depends entirely on your answer to this irrelevant question. And you realize that no matter what your answer is, the interviewer has already made up her mind.

After all, how do you respond to comments like “I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma” or “religion has been used as a ruse to discriminate”?

You have just imagined the job interviews for 10 presidential nominees and their experience before the United States Senate. Not only were they questioned about their faith—they were questioned publicly and by senators who had every intention of casting them in a negative light based on their answers. And on more than one occasion, senators relied on the mischaracterizations of faith-based organizations perpetuated by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group hostile to several faith-based organizations.

FRC’s new Issue Brief Rebels Without a Clause: When Senators Run Roughshod Over the “No Religious Test” Clause of the U.S. Constitution catalogs a disturbing trend by senators of interrogating nominees about the particulars of their beliefs or affiliations that demonstrate a hostility towards religion. The questions go beyond a reasonable inquiry into whether the nominee can remain impartial if faced with circumstances that conflict with her personal values. They aim to paint the nominee as discriminatory, partial, and incapable of faithfully carrying out her official duties.

Regardless of the political party of the senator, the nominee’s religious beliefs, or the particular office, these questions deter qualified candidates from pursuing public office at a time when we need them most. Faith and religion, after all, are often the foundation of integrity and character. The hostility and mistrust of religion that underlies these questions threaten to create a deficit of true leaders who are often such great role models because of their faith.

As commentators continue to draw attention to this flagrant display of bias against certain religious beliefs, we hope our elected leaders will understand that voters will not tolerate attacks against qualified candidates in exchange for fleeting political gain.

Marriage Gives Love a Canvas to Paint On

by Daniel Hart

February 8, 2019

This week is National Marriage Week, so it’s a great time to reflect on the beauty and fundamental importance of marriage.

Over the last few decades, a plethora of social science has come out about how marriage is highly beneficial for the health and well-being of men, women, children, and society in almost every way.

Whether our culture admits it or not, all of these studies merely confirm what we already know deep down to be true. All of us are born with an innate intuition that there is something primal and essential about marriage that goes to the core of who we are as human beings. Even liberal Hollywood stars have an instinctive sense that there is something distinctive and vital about marriage. Liam Hemsworth, who recently married Miley Cyrus after a 10-year on-and-off again relationship, observed: “We’ve been together for a long time and it felt like it was the right time to do it…Not much about the relationship changes [after marriage], but you kind of have… the husband and wife thing, it’s great. I’m loving it.”

Children do too. When a child grows up with a single parent, there will inevitably be a day when that child asks of their own accord, “Where is my Dad?” or “Where is my Mom?” This primordial question about our origins points directly toward what marriage is: the binding, natural, covenantal vow that our Creator designed to keep men and women, mothers and fathers—and therefore society itself—bonded together. When something is missing from this bond, we know it to our core, even as children.

Sadly, the influence of culture has caused many to ignore their intuition, and as a result, marriage is now widely seen as at worst constraining and at best optional. Many now ask, “Why should I bother to get married?” The cultural ubiquity and acceptance of cohabitation, contraception, and divorce has made marriage seem irrelevant in the minds of many.

There’s one simple answer to this question: love. We were created by Love itself (1 John 4:9), we came into the world through an act of love, and our purpose as human beings is to love. Simply put, marriage gives our capacity for love a canvas to paint on, a canvas that is formed by the vow that we make to our beloved. Day in and day out, that canvas is right there in front of us—our spouses and our children—waiting to be loved. And as the years stretch on and we recommit ourselves to our vow on a daily basis, God continually infuses us with His grace, stretching that canvas ever larger and our hearts ever wider, making all things new with each sunrise.

President Trump’s Pro-Life Proclamation

by David Closson

February 6, 2019

Last night, President Trump delivered his annual State of the Union address, highlighting his administration’s achievements on the economy, taxes, and foreign policy, and calling for bipartisan solutions on immigration, infrastructure, and health care.

However, for social conservatives, the highlight of the speech was undoubtedly the president’s forceful denouncement of late-term abortion. Referring to recent legislation passed in New York that stripped explicit protections for babies born alive following a failed abortion, the president said:

There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our Nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world.

The president also referenced embattled Virginia Governor Ralph Northam who last week appeared to endorse letting born alive babies die. President Trump did not mince words as he explained, “the Governor of Virginia… basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.”

Continuing with the topic of late-term abortion, President Trump asked Congress to pass legislation to prohibit “the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.”

He then offered stirring words that may be without precedent in modern American political history. Looking out at the gathered dignitaries, government officials, and lawmakers in the House chamber, President Trump said:

Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life. And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children – born and unborn – are made in the holy image of God.

From the perspective of the Christian worldview, one of the most fundamental doctrines affirmed in the Bible is the imago dei, the belief that all people are made in the image of God. By rooting his support for “all children, born and unborn” in the image of God, President Trump affirmed the biblical principle that all people possess dignity and value by virtue of being created by God. For Christians, human dignity and the sanctity of life are grounded in this doctrine, and it is quite remarkable for the President of the United States to affirm this belief in the State of the Union address.

Unfortunately, but predictably, the president’s political opponents did not respond favorably. As the cameras panned across the Democratic lawmakers, their response was painfully and visibly clear. To the President’s call to pass legislation that would prohibit abortion procedures when babies can feel pain, the Democrats sat stone faced, refusing to applaud. The lone exceptions appeared to be Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) who joined Republican lawmakers in giving the president a standing ovation for his support for unborn and newly born babies.

In response to the president’s public support for a ban on late-term abortion and infanticide, FRC President Tony Perkins said:

The president was right to call out the atrocious actions of lawmakers in New York and Virginia in pushing America toward infanticide. President Trump has not only been the most passionate president in talking about the humanity of the unborn, he has been the most persistent in protecting them.

Tony Perkin’s full statement on the State of the Union can be accessed here.

SOTU: How the President Led on Life, Family, and Fighting Sex Trafficking

by Patrina Mosley

February 6, 2019

The State of the Union has historically been the time when the president, our Commander in Chief and the leader of the free world, puts Congress and the world on notice of the legislative agenda and priorities for the nation. This is why it’s so significant to see President Trump take a firm stand on the sanctity of life, the acknowledgment of what real families need, and the injustice that is happening at our borders.  

Life:

There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days.  Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments from birth.  These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and their dreams with the world.  And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.

Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.  And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: All children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.

All of this came just a day after the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor’s Protection Act was blocked by Democrats not willing to give unanimous consent to the fact that babies deserve a chance at life if they survive an abortion attempt. As I mentioned here, the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency was nothing short of unprecedented when it comes to defending life. The Republican party platform now more than ever stands in stark contrast to the Democrat’s extreme abortion agenda. His statement was not only a rebuke of the lack of humanity shown by the Democrats but a fixed point of reference that valuing life is never anything to be ashamed of and that this value is what will make America great.

Family:

To help support working parents, the time has come to pass School Choice for Americans’ children. I am also proud to be the first President to include in my budget a plan for nationwide paid family leave, so that every new parent has the chance to bond with their newborn child.

Lack of access to school choice has been one of the biggest factors separating the haves from the have-nots. Giving families the option to use their tax dollars to educate their children as they see fit is critical to setting them up for success later in life. Another part of the “success sequence” in marriage is taking the time to invest in your children from day one. Chasing the American dream should not be the goal in life—being faithful to your family and to God should take priority. Paid family leave will help relieve the stress of working parents and encourage these eternal values.

Sex Trafficking:

Tolerance for illegal immigration is not compassionate, it is actually very cruel.

This is certainly true. Not only does illegal immigration defy what scriptures teach on respecting the authorities God has put in place, but it also hurts our national security as well as our communities who are already hurting for jobs, and it certainly hurts the illegal immigrant who is being taken advantage of (in some ways trafficked into labor) with unfair wages. To many in the elite class and to those with political power, the illegal immigrant is nothing more than someone who cleans their house or mows their lawn. For big business, they are cheap labor, so they can keep more profit for themselves. To the Democrats, illegal immigrants are future voters whom they can entice with amnesty so long as the immigrant faithfully votes to keep them in power. What most do not know is how illegal immigration has facilitated sex trafficking:

One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north. Smugglers use migrant children as human pawns to exploit our laws and gain access to our country. Human traffickers and sex traffickers take advantage of the wide-open areas between our ports of entry to smuggle thousands of young girls and women into the United States and to sell them into prostitution and modern-day slavery.

Most people are unaware of how sophisticated their system is—how smugglers promise to get women and children over the border but then hold them hostage by demanding more money once they are over the border and then violently forcing them to pay off their “debt” with sex. Often these girls are supervised by the women involved with the smugglers.

ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of criminal aliens, including those charged or convicted of nearly 100,000 assaults. 30,000 sex crimes, and 4000 killings or murders.

One real life example of this was shared by the president in his address:

We are joined tonight by one of those law enforcement heroes: ICE Special Agent Elvin Hernandez.  When Elvin — thank you.

When Elvin was a boy, he and his family legally immigrated to the United States from the Dominican Republic.  At the age of eight, Elvin told his dad he wanted to become a Special Agent.  Today, he leads investigations into the scourge of international sex trafficking.

Elvin says that, “If I can make sure these young girls get their justice, I’ve [really] done my job.”  Thanks to his work, and that of his incredible colleagues, more than 300 women and girls have been rescued from the horror of this terrible situation, and more than 1,500 sadistic traffickers have been put behind bars. Thank you, Elvin.

We will always support the brave men and women of law enforcement, and I pledge to you tonight that I will never abolish our heroes from ICE. Thank you.

I hope the president’s address opens many eyes to see the compounding effects of criminal behavior. If those who have been entrusted with the authority to protect and pursue justice do nothing, then many immigrant lives will be needlessly victimized.

President Trump’s address is a flag planted in the ground of who we are as a nation, what we should strive to be, and what we’re going to get done by the grace of God.

The Pro-Infanticide Party

by David Closson

February 6, 2019

On Monday night, Senate Democrats blocked a bill introduced by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) that would have strengthened protections for babies born alive after a failed abortion.

Known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Sasse’s bill would require immediate transportation and admission to a hospital for any child who is born alive after surviving an attempted abortion. The bill would also create penalties for intentionally killing infants born alive.

Although the Bush-era Born Alive Infants Protection Act already stipulates in federal law that the word “person” includes “every member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any state of development,” the 2002 law lacks enforcement mechanisms and does not go as far as Sasse’s bill at imposing penalties on abortionists who intentionally kill or attempt to kill a baby.

Prior to requesting “unanimous consent,” which would have expedited the bill’s consideration, Senator Sasse explained what the bill was about. 

In a few minutes the United States Senate is going to have an opportunity to condemn infanticide,” Sasse stated. “One hundred United States Senators are going to have an opportunity to unanimously say the most basic thing imaginable. And that is that it’s wrong to kill a little new born baby.”

This debate is about infanticide and infanticide only,” he explained.

Sasse argued that recent events in New York and Virginia necessitate action at the federal level. Just two and a half weeks ago, New York passed legislation that stripped explicit protections for babies born alive following a failed abortion. In Virginia, just last week, a bill was introduced that would allow abortion up through birth. At the time, Democrat Ralph Northam, the now embattled Virginia Governor, praised the bill and appeared to endorse letting born alive babies die by saying, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Citing Northam’s unconscionable and horrifying remarks, Sasse argued that federal legislation is needed to protect babies born alive after a failed abortion.

But Senate Democrats disagreed.

Rejecting Sasse’s request for unanimous consent, Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, argued, “We have laws against infanticide in this country. This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and therefore I object.”

Although Democrats temporarily blocked the bill on Monday night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Republicans can (and should) still bring up the bill for a roll-call vote which will put every senator on record (including those currently running for president such as Senators Booker, Harris, and Gillibrand) on whether they support infanticide. Even if Nancy Pelosi refuses to bring the bill to a vote in the House, it is important for Americans to know where their senators stand on an issue as basic as whether it is acceptable to kill newborn babies.

But regardless of the future of this specific bill, the message sent by Senate Democrats on Monday night is chilling and indicates a shockingly callous view of human life. By denying protections for little boys and girls who have survived an abortion, Democrats have sent a clear message that their priorities and loyalties are not with the vulnerable or oppressed (as they so often claim) but with the abortion lobby and Planned Parenthood.

By siding with the abortion lobby over the baby girl clinging to life on the abortionist’s table, Democrats have surrendered the moral high ground in the debate on human dignity. By capitulating to the political agenda of Planned Parenthood, Democrats have revealed that they value campaign contributions over protecting innocent human life. And by blocking legislation that would protect babies born alive, Democrats have demonstrated that even infanticide is not a bridge too far in their effort to force abortion-on-demand upon the American people.

From the perspective of the Christian worldview, the debate could not be clearer. Infanticide, the actual killing of newborn babies, should not be a political issue. Rather, infanticide and abortion must both be seen as moral issues that touch on the most basic questions of life and human dignity. The inability of so many politicians to stand up for society’s most vulnerable members shows how the deadly implications of the secular, materialistic worldview have permeated even conversations about the moral status of the unborn and newly born. Although science is clear that babies are fully human, many secular bioethicists deny personhood to the unborn by severing personhood from biology. The result is a society not only confused about when life begins but also unsure about what it means to be human.

The Judeo-Christian worldview opposes this dichotomizing of biology and personhood because it understands that people are wholistic beings made up of both body and soul. Unborn and newly born children are people who deserve love, safety, and security. Christians reject abortion and infanticide because we believe babies are made in the image of God and endowed with dignity and value. Thus, as divine image bearers, the unborn and newly born deserve protection because they are inherently valuable and precious to God. Moreover, as the “least of these” among us, they deserve protection from those who profit from their destruction.

If the United States Senate cannot summon the moral courage to criminalize infanticide, then America is worse off morally than many of us even imagined.

To learn more about the dangerous secular worldview undergirding the current push for infanticide, see Nancy Pearcey’s recent book Love Thy Body or watch her recent talk at FRC’s Speaker Series.

Hotel Trans: Check In Any Time, But Never Leave

by Cathy Ruse

February 5, 2019

Transgender ideologues have tremendous power in our culture, and they’re wielding it against the least powerful. If children and their families can survive the pill-pushing gender clinicians, they still have to face the virtue-signaling politicians and their speech bans.  

It’s the Hotel Transgender: You can check in, but you can never leave.

Put Kids on Drugs, and They’ll Stay Trans

Last week I attended a panel of feminists, self-identified lesbians, and former trans-identified people at the Heritage Foundation, all speaking against the transgender agenda.

It was standing room only. The stories of what this movement is doing to women and children—and young men—are utterly horrifying. I challenge any mother to listen to these stories without crying.

Their stories are tragically familiar. Experts tell parents they must affirm their children’s sex confusion and put them on puberty blockers to “buy them time” to explore their true identity. This is now the default position. But “buying time” is a line no parent should buy.

Anecdotal stories abound of puberty blockers being the first step in an inevitable march toward the transsexual life. In the only study to date following gender dysphoric children who were socially affirmed and put on puberty blockers, 100 percent of the children continued to identify as transgender, and pursued further sex-change interventions.

One. Hundred. Percent. This stands in stark contrast to gender dsyphoric children who are allowed to go through puberty naturally. The American Psychiatric Association reports that up to 97.8 percent of boys and 88 percent of girls experience an end to their sex confusion and do not end up identifying as transgender adults.

Putting kids on puberty blockers does not let them choose anything. It makes the choice for them.

Outlaw Talk Therapy, and They’ll Stay Trans

Why are adolescents suddenly announcing they’re in the wrong body? Dr. Lisa Littman of Brown University examined this question in her study of hundreds of cases of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. She reported her findings in a peer-reviewed study that transgender ideologues tried (somewhat successfully) to squelch.

Some teens are rejecting their physical bodies because of trauma (like rape) and psychiatric distress (like abuse), but these influences are routinely ignored by gender specialists in their zeal to further the trans agenda. But the most eye-opening part of the study is the outsized role of social media and peer pressure in this phenomenon. The stories reported by Littman are tragic.

How do we help suffering kids who find themselves sucked into this dangerous “social contagion”? Trans activists are making sure we can’t help them at all.

They have persuaded fifteen states and the District of Columbia to pass laws outlawing talk therapy for teens who want to stop feeling they were born in the wrong body. These therapy bans, originally designed to deny help for kids who seek talk therapy to end unwanted same-sex attractions, have now been expanded to deny help for kids who want to accept their biological reality. New York is the latest to join this list.

The impact of these laws is nothing short of cruel. If a girl suffers from sex confusion, if she wants to find happiness living as a female, she has nowhere to turn.

But if she wants help living as a man, that she can find. The trans lobbyists made sure of that. These laws specifically allow “counseling for a person seeking to transition from one gender to another.”

Choose the right identity, children, otherwise the government won’t let you have a therapist.

That’s the transgender movement today. You can check in, but you can never leave.

  • Page 2 of 2
  • 1
  • 2

January 2019 «

» March 2019

Archives