FRC Blog

Be Not Afraid”: How Christians and Church Leaders Can Respond to the Coronavirus

by David Closson

March 19, 2020

At Family Research Council, our mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. This mission guides all our work, including our advocacy for religious liberty, life, and biblical values. It also informs our response to the coronavirus, which, as we are well aware, is now a pandemic.

President Trump has declared a national emergency and released new guidelines aimed at slowing the spread of the virus, including avoiding discretionary travel, discouraging eating out at restaurants, bars, and food courts, practicing good hygiene, and limiting social gatherings to 10 people or less. We believe if the steps recommended by the CDC and the White House are followed, there is a good chance we can “flatten the curve” and lessen the impact of the spreading virus on our health care system.

Over the past week, Christians from around the country have asked important questions about how to respond faithfully to the threat posed by the coronavirus. Specifically, many are wondering how churches should respond to the ongoing crisis. We believe there are a few appropriate responses to all of this.

First, Christians must pray. On Sunday, March 15, President Trump called for a National Day of Prayer in response to the calls of evangelical leaders. We must continue praying that God’s grace and mercy would fall upon us and that we would turn our eyes toward Him in this time of great need. To guide our prayer (which should be ongoing), FRC’s President Tony Perkins outlined several ways we can pray for the ongoing threat posed by the coronavirus in the days and weeks ahead. We encourage everyone to read these prayer points and use them to guide your own prayers.

Specifically, Christians should commit to frequently praying for the following leaders:

  • President Trump
  • Vice President Pence
  • Secretary Alex Azar (HHS)
  • Secretary Steven Mnuchin (Treasury)
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci (Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases)
  • The White House Coronavirus Task Force
  • Congressional leadership
  • Governors and mayors across the country
  • Other officials in the administration and those at all levels of government who are dealing with this crisis
  • All health care workers and public health officials

Second, we should comply with mandates and recommendations from those in authority. Under normal conditions, it would be impermissible under our laws and the Constitution for the government to tell a church when it can or cannot meet. But certain emergencies, such as natural disasters and pandemics, do present temporary but substantial risks to public health and safety. As long as the government is not singling out and targeting religious gatherings for restriction (while permitting non-religious gatherings to take place), it is allowed to enact policies restricting all gatherings of a certain size in cases like this.

Biblically, Romans 13 reminds us that God instituted the governing authorities whom we should obey so long as they do not require us to disobey God. And while gathering for regular worship is not an optional part of the Christian life (Hebrews 10:25), FRC does not believe it is wrong to temporarily suspend corporate in-person meetings if the authorities believe it is in the community’s best interest. In the Old Testament, God gave Moses and Aaron detailed instructions about quarantines in cases of infectious disease (Leviticus 13-14). When there were outbreaks of disease, the priests served as public health officials and imposed guidelines for quarantining people, infected garments, and even houses. In the New Testament, Jesus called us to love our neighbors (Mark 12:31), and we believe in a case like this, the best way to practice neighborly love is by following the guidance of health and public safety experts.

The church can still meet and gather together in different ways. While not every church need adopt all these practices, there are ways we can still “gather” in the days ahead while ensuring we don’t contribute to the spread of the virus:

  • Encourage church members to drive to a parking lot, but stay in their cars and tune into shortwave radios used to broadcast church services.
  • Meet in small groups instead of one large gathering.
  • Suspend larger gatherings but keep the church office open.
  • Livestream services or other church gatherings and use texting or online chat groups to stay connected (churches with more advanced technological assets such as teleconferencing capabilities or other established systems to livestream events may partner with other churches to help them stay connected to their congregants).

Here are some ways churches can think about serving in the current times:

  • Offer benevolent funds to those facing financial hardship.
  • Provide housing for students who are being required to vacate school housing.
  • If possible, keep food pantries well stocked and include cleaning and sanitizing products.
  • Think of creative ways to serve older members, such as picking up groceries and prescriptions. Establish a way to check in on those who may be living alone, the elderly, or other vulnerable people.

Here are some practical tips that churches can implement, and educate their members on, to help prevent further spread of the virus:

  • Cover your coughs and sneezes with tissue and then throw the tissue in the trash.
  • Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.
  • Provide and require members to use hand-sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol while on church property.
  • Avoid touching your face, especially your eyes, nose, and mouth.
  • Thoroughly and repeatedly clean high-contact surfaces and objects.
  • Encourage sick or at-risk members to stay home and seek medical care.
  • Minimize panic by educating members and preparing for disruptions in service.

The Department of Health and Human Services has also released a list of Recommended Preventative Practices for faith-based and community leaders, which we encourage you to read.

We also encourage you not to neglect your regular financial offering to your place of worship. The church as an institution is always crucial to society, but at times like these, its care for communities in need is especially needed. Your financial support helps do that. If you don’t have electronic banking, most church offices remain open, so please drop your contribution off with your church so that ministry can continue.

Finally, followers of Jesus should maintain a posture of trust while taking appropriate precautions. In times like these, when anxiety, misinformation, and uncertainty abound, it is tempting to become fearful. But while it is important to take all precautions and follow the latest updates from the authorities, Christians should not panic. During this time of increased fear, we must remember that we have been given a “spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim 1:7).

Our God is sovereign. The coronavirus did not take Him by surprise. He is still governing and sustaining the world (Col. 1:17). Human tendencies naturally pull society’s discussion of all this in the direction of panic and fear. But the Scriptures are clear: “Be not afraid.” Bible-believing Christians can model a spirit of trust as they remind each other of God’s promises and character. This grounding will enable us to care for and serve those around us.

Continue reading

Prayer Point #1: Pray for an End to the Spread of the Virus

by David Closson

March 18, 2020

The world is reeling from the threat of the coronavirus (COVID-19). For many, our entire way of life has been upended by a novel virus that health experts say presents a particular risk to our elderly and immunocompromised friends and neighbors.

As Christians, we know that one of our greatest spiritual weapons is prayer (Eph. 6:18). But what exactly should Christians pray about amidst these trying times? FRC’s President, Tony Perkins, recently released nine prayer points to guide us in prayer. Each point provides a specific way for Christians to pray during the ongoing crisis. In this blog series, we’ll be unpacking these points for you a bit more as we pray for an end to the coronavirus.

The first prayer point is that Christians should pray for an end to the spread of the virus. The Bible teaches us that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the world (Gen. 1-2; Col. 1:17). Because God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and omnipresent, nothing—including the coronavirus—ever takes Him by surprise or is outside His control. For Christians, this is an important and precious truth to remember in this time of uncertainty. Although the future is uncertain, we know and trust the One who controls it.

The coronavirus did not take God by surprise; He is still governing and sustaining the world (Col. 1:17). Pray for God’s healing mercy and that He would graciously bring this pandemic to an end. Pray for healing for all those affected by the virus.

God Delights in Prayer

Throughout Scripture, God’s people are given constant reminders of His care for them. Psalm 46:1 says, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” In Matthew 6:26, Jesus says, “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” Jesus teaches here that God cares for every single person made in His image. Nothing happens to His children—good or bad—without first passing through God’s gracious hand. 

In addition to stressing God’s care for His people, Jesus often encouraged His followers to pray (Mat. 6:5; Luke 18:1). For example, in Luke 11:9, Jesus says, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” Elsewhere, the New Testament is clear that Christians are expected to pray. Colossians 4:2 says, “Continue steadfastly in prayer.” In 1 Thessalonians 5:17, Paul exhorts the church to “pray without ceasing.”

But the Bible does more than encourage believers to pray; it says God delights in the prayers of His people. Consider Proverbs 15:8b, which says, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His delight.” Because God delights in our prayers, we ought to readily bring them before Him.   

God Answers Prayer

A second truth is that God answers prayer. The Bible is full of examples of men and women who cried out to God and received answers to their prayers. For example, when the Israelites were sojourning in the wilderness, their sin resulted in a severe punishment: fiery serpents released in their midst. In response to the peoples’ desperate cry and Moses’ prayer, God provided a bronze serpent that the people could look at and receive healing (Numbers 21:6-9).

Another example of remarkable healing in response to prayer is 2 Kings 20. In this passage, Hezekiah, the King of Judah, falls ill, and the Prophet Isaiah tells him that he is going to die. Hezekiah immediately cries out to God. Before Isaiah can leave the room, God tells him to return to the king with the good news: “Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you” (2 Kings 20:5). The answer to Hezekiah’s prayer was 15 more years of life. 

There are many examples in the New Testament of Jesus healing people. Often, Jesus healed men and women who asked Him for help. For example, in Matthew 8:1-4, Jesus heals a leper who asks for healing. Additionally, Jesus healed the Centurion’s servant (Mat. 8:5-13), the synagogue ruler’s daughter (Mat. 9:18-26), two blind men (Mat. 9:27-31), a deaf man with a speech impediment (Mark 7:31-37), and the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30) in response to personal requests for deliverance. In one significant passage, Jesus himself prays before raising Lazarus back to life (John 11:41-42). These examples underscore the significance of bringing our requests for healing and deliverance to God. He not only hears our prayers, oftentimes He chooses to provide healing and relief.

Finally, in Hebrews 4:16, Christians are encouraged to “draw near to the throne of grace that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” In this current time of need, Christians should pray that the virus would stop spreading, the affected would be healed, and all those quarantined and feeling alone would be comforted. Pray also that doctors and scientists will be successful in creating a vaccine for the coronavirus.

These are difficult times, but Christians serve a God who hears, delights in, and answers our prayers. Let us approach Him humbly yet with confidence, asking Him to graciously bring this pandemic to an end.

Continue reading

To Abandon the Nuclear Family Ideal Is to Abandon Being Human

by Daniel Hart

March 12, 2020

With the publication of “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” in the latest issue of The Atlantic, well-known commentator and journalist David Brooks ignited a raging debate in the blogosphere, which resulted in a symposium hosted by the Institute for Family Studies in which eight writers and scholars responded to Brooks’ article.

Putting aside the provocative title (for now), Brooks’ mammoth 9,000-word piece can be boiled down to one central idea: in our fragmented culture full of victims of detached nuclear families, our society must find better ways to take care of these victims through a renewed emphasis on extended families and “forged families”— communities of support that surround these children and adults so that they can, in Brooks’ words, “live and grow under the loving gaze of a dozen pairs of eyes, and be caught, when they fall, by a dozen pairs of arms.”

Brooks’ article is a fascinating read. He goes through the history of the societal trends that have affected the American family, starting in the 1800’s during the “era of the extended clans,” then moving to the golden age of the nuclear family in the 1950’s and early 60’s, then into the broad pattern of disintegration that affected the family starting in the late 60’s, and finally into our current era full of broken homes and ascendant individualism.

Brooks then launches into an impressive illustration of how “forged families” are sprouting up across the country, citing numerous examples of people forming common living spaces organically through websites like CoAbode, Common, and Kin as well as organizations that are helping those who are in particular need of a forged family like The Other Side Academy for felons and Becoming A Man for disadvantaged youths. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of expanding the idea of what we traditionally think of as a family, since “Americans are hungering to live in extended and forged families, in ways that are new and ancient at the same time. This is a significant opportunity, a chance to thicken and broaden family relationships…”

Is a “Communal Ethos” Supplanting the Nuclear Family?

Brooks’ article is an important contribution to the public discussion of the problems that plague the family and what we can do as a society to help this bedrock institution. But it is also riddled with puzzling generalizations and odd assertions. In his concluding paragraph, he says this: “But a new and more communal ethos is emerging, one that is consistent with 21st-century reality and 21st-century values.” The tone Brooks uses here is positive. But one has to wonder: Is this a good thing? Why should we be celebrating “21st-century values” when they are the result of the “21st-century reality” of disintegrated families?

Part of the problem with Brooks’ thesis is the confusing manner in which he frames it. He prefaces his article with this: “The family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many. It’s time to figure out better ways to live together.” But later, he suggests that the nuclear family is a good option, albeit one option among many other equally good options: “The two-parent family … is not about to go extinct. For many people, especially those with financial and social resources, it is a great way to live and raise children.” This ends up being a backhanded compliment, implying that having a nuclear family is only a good option for people who are well off.

More problematic is the way that Brooks (perhaps unintentionally) seems to set nuclear families and “forged families” against each other, which makes his argument similar to a “chicken or the egg” dilemma. Brooks envisions a world in which forged families are in place around broken families so that children from these families have a better chance of being supported and don’t fall through cracks. This is certainly a laudable goal, but it also illustrates a central problem with his thesis: The kinds of people that one would want in a “forged family” are people who themselves came from a strong nuclear family with a supportive mother and father to begin with, because this family structure provides the best outcomes for children and society in general. Shouldn’t our focus be on trying to uphold and support these nuclear families?

In an excellent response to Brooks’ article, sociologist Bradford Wilcox acknowledges the important role that extended and forged families can play in supporting disintegrated nuclear families, but strongly cautions against the tendency of thinking that these structures can “replace” the nuclear family. Wilcox points to social science data showing that outcomes for children raised by a single parent and grandparent are no different than if they had been raised by a single parent alone, and that children raised by extended family without either parent fair even worse. In the case of forged families, Wilcox reveals a much more disturbing pattern:

Over the years, study after study has detailed the many possible downsides to introducing unrelated adults, especially men, into children’s lives without the presence of those children’s married parents.

This is because, sadly, adults who are unrelated to children are much more likely to abuse or neglect them than their own parents are. One federal report found that children living in a household with an unrelated adult were about nine times more likely to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused than children raised in an intact nuclear family.

All of this points to what is most problematic about Brooks’ article—how he deemphasizes and discounts the nuclear family ideal. It is certainly true that we are living in an era in which the nuclear family has been abandoned in innumerable ways, but the fact remains: every person who has ever lived has a mother and a father—a nuclear family. Furthermore, every human being has an innate longing to know and love their biological parents, even if they don’t know them. We can no more abandon the nuclear family ideal than we can abandon being human.

It may be possible to reject the nuclear family through adultery, divorce, abortion, etc., and it is certainly true that millions of children have been tragically left behind by the failure of their parents, but all of this is not the fault of the institution of the nuclear family. It is the fault of the people within a nuclear family who often fail to uphold the institution through love—by staying true to their spouse and caring for and nurturing their children.

Where Human Flourishing Finds Its Source

Still, there are many brilliant nuggets of wisdom and fresh insights in Brooks’ “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake” and in his symposium response to those who critiqued him, particularly when he discusses how we should instill a sense in our children that we all have a variety “families” outside of our nuclear families that we should work to nurture: our churches, our friend groups, our places of work, our schools, community organizations, the military, etc. But taken as a whole, Brooks’ article casts a suspicious eye at the nuclear family ideal.

This is tragic, because despite Brooks’ best intentions with his article, he loses sight of the fact that in order to solve societal ills, we must focus on root causes. While it may be true that extended and “forged” families play an important supporting role in our larger societal life, they can never replace a mother and father. As study after study has shown, if we want to get at the root causes of our societal ills, we have to find ways of keeping moms, dads, and their children united as a loving family.

Brooks’ article is also a fresh reminder of the importance of ideals. When we deemphasize and sideline ideals, we sideline our most innate and aspirational yearnings and sell ourselves short as human beings. Far from being a mistake, the nuclear family ideal is the gold standard by which human flourishing finds its source.

Continue reading

Women’s History Month: Shiphrah and Puah

by Patrina Mosley

March 11, 2020

March is Women’s History Month (WHM), so it’s a great opportunity to commemorate the contributions of women to American history. The most influential book in the United States—even the world—is the Bible; it not only shapes the way we Christians live, it also helped set the foundations for the way our nation is governed. Thus, women featured in the Bible, despite never having lived in America, have contributed greatly to the spiritual heritage of our nation. Periodically throughout the month, we will be sharing their inspiring stories.

Shiphrah and Puah are two women written about in the Book of Exodus:

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”

The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.”

So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.

- Exodus 1:15-22 (NIV)

Shiphrah and Puah defied Pharaoh’s order—risking their lives in the process—because they revered God more than man. In the New Testament’s Book of Acts, Peter and the apostles found themselves in a similar predicament. They had to choose between obeying the high priest, who ordered them not to preach the Gospel, or obeying God, who had commanded them to preach the Gospel to all nations. For Peter and the other apostles, the choice was clear: “We must obey God rather than human beings!” (Acts 5:29). They undoubtedly remembered Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:28, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Understanding God’s infinite authority and power—and humanity’s finiteness in comparison—will put things in perspective rather quickly. It gives us the courage to do what is right, even if it might cost us everything. Shiphrah and Puah understood and believed that God is the ultimate rewarder of righteousness and the ultimate punisher of evil. The faith of these two women saved many lives as a result. But that wasn’t the end of their story: God noticed Shiphrah and Puah’s faith and blessed them with children of their own. God takes notice of our obedience and love for him.

History could have easily forgotten these two midwives. Instead, Scripture mentions Shiphrah and Puah by name, ensuring that they and their fear of God would be remembered forever. While their story is brief—only eight verses in the book of Exodus—it has nevertheless been sovereignly preserved for all of us to learn from and emulate. Christians are exhorted to obey those in authority (Romans 13), but when their commands are in direct conflict with the commands of God, we should do as Shiphrah and Puah did and fear God rather than man.

Continue reading

Why Does the Abortion Industry Hate Women? (Part 2)

by Patrina Mosley

March 10, 2020

Read Part 1

According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, black women have the highest abortion rate in the country at 27.1 per 1,000 women compared with 10 per 1,000 for white women.

When faced with this fact, abortion advocates will often deflect it by saying that more should be done to alleviate the high maternal mortality rate (MMR) among African American women. However, they often fail to acknowledge that the same ethnic group of women with the nation’s highest MMR is the same ethnic group of women who are receiving 30 percent of all the nation’s abortions. There is undoubtedly a physiological connection, but abortion advocates and the medical institutions that are in their pockets do not find it advantageous to highlight any negative side effects from abortion. There is the perception among African American women that the high MMR is due to racism in the type of health care they are given. They often feel like they are not heard or cared for as well as their white counterparts.

As an African American woman, I can attest to that experience and can also say that there are many factors involved in the high African American MMR, such as women dying from complications related to abortion as well as a variety of other factors. The solution to MMR is more care, not less. This is also true for women that are seeking an abortion—the answer is more care, not less. Interestingly enough, these same medical institutions in opposition to Louisiana’s abortion law are the same ones who are accused of discrimination in care.

Why is the abortion industry, along with the support of major medical institutions, content on giving these women subpar care?

That’s because abortion was meant for African Americans to begin with, so it’s natural that they would not care about the people they are trying to exterminate. Margaret Sanger, the founder of the nation’s leading abortion supplier, Planned Parenthood, once said: “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.” Perhaps not coincidently, nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthoods are located in black and Hispanic communities today.

In 2016, it was reported that African American women are 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion than white women. In Louisiana, the total number of abortions in 2018 was 8,097. Over half (4,958) were abortions of African American babies.

Today, the slowest growing ethnic group in America are African Americans. Margaret Sanger’s dream is coming true.

The Roe v. Wade decision was also laced with ideals for population control, citing many eugenic references. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a New York Times interview: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” In Elle magazine, Ginsburg also insinuates that poor people should have ready access to abortions because “[i]t makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.” Abortion being used as a tool of eugenics is something we all know is true, “but we only whisper it,” said a co-counsel to Roe and advisor to Bill Clinton. The foot soldiers of the abortion advocacy wing are deceived into thinking that abortion is all about “women’s rights.” However, the elite and powerful understand that abortion is about controlling the population of “those we don’t want too many of.” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy opinion citing the eugenic roots of abortion to dispose of minorities, the poor, and the disabled.

For the abortion industry to sue Louisiana for simply requiring that abortionists have hospital admitting privileges speaks volumes of their true feelings towards the women they profit from. It says that prioritizing the health and safety of the people they are trying to extinguish is a waste of time and resources. Some in the abortion industry look at these women as people who shouldn’t be having babies anyway, so why care if they have complications and die in the process?

Women seeking abortions, regardless of color, are no less worthy of competent and quality care as patients involved in other surgical procedures, and Louisiana’s admitting-privileges law protects that right.

The bottom line is that we need to listen to women—not abortion suppliers. Another question in the Russo case is whether June Medical Services has the standing to represent the legal interests of the woman when suing to block this law. June Medical Services has failed women, yet they have the audacity to appeal to the courts on their behalf for lesser standards of care.

These people are the same ones who hired radiologists and ophthalmologists to perform abortions in their clinics, do not report the rape of young girls, and do not monitor vital signs of sedated women. There is a clear callousness that the abortion industry has for women. They devalue human life in the womb and ultimately devalue the woman’s life. But Act 620 restores a bit of dignity and decency when it comes to women’s health care.

Family Research Council, Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Louisiana Right to Life, along with more than 200 members of Congress and the Trump administration, have filed amicus briefs in support of protecting women’s health and safety.

Katrina Jackson, an African American woman, is the Louisiana Democrat legislator who authored Act 620. In exclusive interviews, she explains what Act 620 is all about: “It’s really a pro-women’s health bill because I’m not going to ignore those women… I’m not going to ignore their health care needs.”

Continue reading

Why Does the Abortion Industry Hate Women? (Part 1)

by Patrina Mosley

March 9, 2020

The Supreme Court has heard arguments last week in the June Medical Services vs. Russo case on whether or not to uphold Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, Act 620, which requires abortion clinics to have admitting privileges with a local hospital.

This act was passed in 2014 but has not taken effect due to litigation from the opposition, who are claiming that such a safety regulation would cause an “undue burden” to women’s abortion access and would violate precedent set in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case that struck down a similar bill in Texas (HB 2).

Louisiana Act 620 is not like the Texas regulation HB 2, which placed building requirements on surgical abortion clinics for the sake of emergency preparedness and included hospital admitting privileges. Louisiana’s law includes abortion clinics under the same standard as any other ambulatory surgical center in having hospital admitting privileges.

Sadly, Act 620 “was passed in 2014 in response to the extensive health and safety violations found in Louisiana abortion clinics. Louisiana already requires doctors who perform surgery at outpatient surgical centers to have hospital privileges. Act 620 extends that requirement to include abortionists.”

One would think that an industry that has marketed itself as “women’s health care” would not want to be treated differently than any other outpatient surgical health care center, but they do.

Louisiana Right to Life has summarized the documented abortion clinic violations by the Louisiana Department of Health:

As documented in Statements of Deficiencies by the Louisiana Department of Health, abortion clinic violations in the state include but are not limited to: failures to verify the medical history of patients, failure to monitor how long or how much nitrous oxide was given to patients, failure to perform or document a physical exam of each patient, failure to properly store and safeguard medications, failure to have qualified personnel administer anesthesia, failure to properly sterilize equipment, and failure to ensure that single-use IV fluid was used only once.

With such “deficiencies” that have been ongoing for decades, emergency cases in these abortion clinics were inevitable.

As recently as March 15, 2019, Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge botched a woman’s abortion, which caused her to bleed so profusely that she was at the point of hemorrhaging. Because the clinic was not equipped to handle her medical emergency, her situation grew worse by the time she reached a hospital, and she had to have a hysterectomy:

…the facility did not have adequate emergency supplies on hand, such as IV fluids, to stabilize their patient … After the patient was transferred to a Baton Rouge hospital, the complications resulted in the patient requiring a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy, removal of both fallopian tubes, for postoperative hemorrhage. Louisiana law requires that Outpatient Abortion Facilities (OAF) have medical equipment and medications for basic life support, including IV fluids, until emergency medical services arrive. The necessary medications were not provided by Delta Clinic, and upon arrival at the hospital, the patient received four units of blood over the course of three days.

Women have died, and many others have experienced life-altering complications as a result of the failure of these clinics to adhere to basic health care standards. To read more about the inability of these clinics to care for women, see Americans United for Life’s amicus brief in the June Medical Services vs. Russo (formerly Gee) case.

Act 620 only requires abortion clinics to have admitting privileges with a local hospital, which, according to the Louisiana Attorney General’s office, three abortion clinics already have (currently there are only four abortion clinics in Louisiana). The fact that these abortion clinics cannot comply with established health and safety standards proves that Act 620 was a necessity.

Act 620 was a bi-partisan effort that passed the Louisiana Legislature by an 88-5 vote in the House of Representatives and a 34-3 vote in the Senate. When challenged by the abortion industry, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the act. Unhappy with the court’s decision, they appealed, but by a 9-6 vote, the Fifth Circuit denied rehearing the case, ruling in favor of Louisiana.

Yet, the abortion industry is now challenging this common-sense law in front of the highest court in the land, which proves that they are content with providing back-alley abortion “care” for women.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with many other American medical institutions who support the abortion industry, have filed an amicus brief in opposition to Louisiana’s law. In their medical opinion, having hospital admitting privileges for abortion clinics are not necessary:

There is no medical benefit to a local admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers. Abortion is an extremely safe procedure, and patients who obtain abortions rarely require hospitalization.

To say that the problem is rare doesn’t mean that it never happens, and the chances of a medical emergency happening are likely higher at clinics that can’t even pass state health inspections.

Ironically, these supporters are the very same “experts” who claim abortions are “extremely” safe. In reality, they are protecting abortion because it’s extremely lucrative. The opposition to Act 620 by the abortion industry and medical professionals shows they don’t really care about women, particularly black women, which make up for the majority of the abortion clientele.

To be continued…

Continue reading

Why Christians Should Not Be Afraid of Being “Pro-Woman”

by Adelaide Holmes

March 6, 2020

Many Christians hesitate to call themselves “pro-woman,” and women are suffering because of it.

In a culture dominated by identity politics, many Christians are reluctant to claim any identity outside of the gospel of Christ, especially one that has been deeply politicized. But regardless of these concerns, it’s time the church understands that the principles of being “pro-woman” are not in conflict with the gospel call. The broader principles of being “pro-woman” are found throughout scripture, and our culture desperately needs to hear them. The longer we stay silent, the more women will suffer on our watch.

The church needs to understand that being “pro-woman” is not just a secular concept. If we look at how the “war on women” attacks woman’s humanity, we can see that Scripture supports being “pro-woman” in its larger context.

Being “pro-woman” is largely understood to be in favor of equality for women. Scripture supports a view of mankind that is incredibly value-giving to men and women equally because we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). This means that men and women have inherent value because they are more like God and represent Him to the world more than anything else in God’s creation. Because of this, some think that the church should simply be “pro-life” or “pro-humanity.” They’re right. The church should champion these values. But the problem is that women are especially under attack in our culture and around the world. Thus, being “pro-woman” should mean that we advocate for their protection and respect because they are being specifically targeted.

There is indeed a “war on women,” as the Left likes to say, but the nature of this war is gravely misunderstood, and its effects are dangerous and deeply dehumanizing. It comes from how cultures value women, and how they treat them.

In much of the world (and in America as well), women are often objectified as the means to gratify the sexual pleasures of men. Pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking are just a few examples of practices that continuously shape the culture’s view of women and sexuality. Pornography teaches viewers that the sexual abuse and torture of women is normal and desired by them. Prostitution teaches culture to view women as commodities that can be bought “made to order.” If she won’t comply, she can be forced (as women in pornography often are). A study of prostituted women in Washington, D.C. showed that 44 percent were raped, and over half of them were physically assaulted and threatened with a weapon. Another study in 2018 found that 61 percent of prostituted women experienced “traumatic brain injuries” while in prostitution. Sex trafficking goes even further and teaches that twisted sexual fantasies can be pursued regardless of age or consent. In the United States, teens that are sexually exploited usually begin between the ages of 12 and 14. These women are coerced into sex trafficking to meet the sexual appetites of men and their traffickers, who have turned sex trafficking into a $99 billion per year worldwide horror show.

Pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking tell a narrative that a woman’s value is in what she does sexually. As these institutions and practices spread and become normalized, their influence engulfs those who they hold captive, and it infiltrates the culture that our daughters grow up in.

Little girls grow into teenagers believing that their worth is something they must fight for. Teens grow into women believing that beauty is an action, not a state of being. To prove their worth, they jump in bed with men who have been conditioned by pornography to view women as products to be used, disrespected, and forced to perform or endure grotesque, porn-shaped sexual fantasies. This is the nightmare that our children grow up in.

This is the real “war on women” that the church needs to fight.

The church needs to fight to end pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking, which are all linked. While these are political battles, they are also cultural, and there are tangible things that can be done. The church needs to help rehabilitate women who were once victims of this exploitation and help men who were once captive to this darkness. Pastors needs to teach on a biblical approach to sexuality in marriage. Christians need to fight for this God-given truth: all people are made in the image of God and worthy of respect.

Women don’t deserve respect simply for what they do. They deserve respect for who they are. As Christians, we can share this value-giving truth with a sexually broken culture. This “war on women” thrives on the lie that a woman’s worth is based on her actions. As we recognize International Women’s Day this Sunday, March 8th, let us be truly “pro-woman” and remember that until our culture understands the intrinsic value and worth of all women, there will always be a “war on women.”

Continue reading

China Uses Coronavirus to Oppress Religious Minorities

by Arielle Del Turco

March 2, 2020

Do you want to kill me? Just kill me.” This is the cry of one Uyghur man in Xinjiang, China, where the government has instituted a strict lockdown due to coronavirus concerns. Unable to help his starving family, the man begged for death in a recent viral video experts say is authentic.

One might have thought that things couldn’t get worse for the oppressed, mostly-Muslim, Uyghur minority concentrated in the northwestern Uyghur region. Yet, the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) found a way to manipulate a health crisis and add to it a humanitarian crisis for the beleaguered Uyghur minority.

Local authorities began to impose a strict quarantine in parts of the region at the end of January, and reports suggest the locals were given no notice before the lockdown. Without advance warning or time to store food or other supplies, residents are still forbidden from leaving their homes. Now, they are running out of food and medical supplies.

One Uyghur woman anonymously described her family’s situation to Radio Free Asia, saying, “[The adults] are only eating one meal a day from morning to night” since the lockdown started. “Every morning, we just worry about the children having something to eat.” Without enough to eat, her eight-year-old daughter “became dizzy and passed out,” injuring her head when she fell.

This is just the latest in a long list of China’s abuses against Uyghurs. The Chinese government operates what it calls “Vocational Education and Training Centers” across the Xinjiang province, where an estimated 1.8 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities are forcibly detained, mistreated, pressured to cease their religious practices, and indoctrinated with communist propaganda. 

Recently leaked internal Chinese government documents reveal that Uyghurs can be sent to these re-education camps for just about any reason—including following religious traditions, growing a beard, having too many kids, or owning a passport without having traveled.

Now, Uyghurs fear that breaking quarantine will get them immediately detained in a camp. Even those with serious health problems unrelated to coronavirus are too afraid to violate the quarantine and leave their house to seek medical care.

While the government might insist that the sudden and strict lockdown is meant to prevent the spread of coronavirus, which has caused at least two deaths in the region, an effective medical response does not require creating a new humanitarian crisis of mass hunger among residents. The answer to the threat of a dangerous new virus cannot be to starve people under implicit house arrest.

In responding to this crisis, time is of the essence. The Uyghur Human Rights Project has called upon the Red Cross of China, the International Red Cross, and the Red Crescent to request access to the Uyghur region so that they can conduct investigations and provide basic humanitarian relief such as food and medicine to residents who have been trapped.

It’s clear the Chinese government will use any excuse it can to further oppress this small religious group. The U.S. should continue to criticize China’s abuses against Uyghurs and other religious minorities. It’s unacceptable that any country would treat its own people this way—and the Chinese Communist Party must be made to understand that.

Continue reading

Callous and Cruel: The Senate Fails to Uphold Human Dignity

by David Closson

February 26, 2020

Yesterday, the United States Senate voted on two significant pieces of legislation: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Although a majority of senators supported the bills, both fell short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture (i.e., end debate and move to a vote on the bill) and overcome a Democrat-led filibuster.

The Senate voted 53-44 on the Pain-Capable cloture vote and 56-41 on the Born-Alive cloture vote. The votes were largely along party lines. Two Democrats (Casey and Manchin) voted in favor of Pain-Capable, and three (Casey, Manchin, and Jones) voted in favor of Born-Alive. All Republicans voted for Born-Alive, while two Republicans (Collins and Murkowski) voted against Pain-Capable. The three Democratic senators currently running for president (Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren) were not present for the vote, though all have voted against both measures in the past.

From a Christian worldview perspective, the Senate’s inability to pass these pieces of common-sense legislation represents a massive moral failing. Unfortunately, opponents of the legislation—including the abortion lobby—launched a massive misinformation campaign to deny the need for these bills.

First, they denied scientific evidence that babies in utero can feel pain at 20 weeks. Doctors understand this scientific reality, which is why they administer pediatric anesthesia during fetal surgeries. This reflects an understanding that fetal surgeries have two patients: the mother and the child.

Moreover, the legal framework under Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to the moment of birth. Currently, unless individual states take legislative action to restrict abortion later in pregnancy, abortion on demand is legal through all nine months of pregnancy. According to FRC’s new pro-life map, 22 states allow abortion on demand right up until birth. The United States is one of only seven countries in the world (including North Korea and China) that allow abortion after 20 weeks.

Considering these facts, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a necessary bill, and the Senate’s failure to pass it reflects a callous and cruel disregard for the dignity and value of human life.

Second, opponents of Born-Alive denied that infants can be born alive following an abortion procedure and claimed the bill was a solution in search of a problem. However, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2003 and 2014, at least 143 infants were born alive after an abortion procedure and later died. Moreover, only eight states require reporting data on infants who survive abortion, meaning the available data is almost certainly an underestimate. FRC has identified at least 170 additional born-alive abortion survivors, beyond the 143 abortion survivors reported in the CDC’s death statistics. This means there are, at an absolute minimum, over 300 cases of infants surviving an abortion.

Born-Alive explicitly requires health care practitioners to exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to an infant who survives an abortion as they would for any other baby born at the same gestational age. To reiterate, children who have already been born are the focus of this legislation. Thus, this bill is not even about abortion; it’s about born-alive infants!

Moreover, the legislation would create criminal penalties for any health care provider who fails to render medical aid to infants born alive and for any health care facility that does not report a failure to provide care. Although a 2002 federal law defines born-alive infants as full persons, there are currently no provisions in the law to hold abortionists accountable for killing or denying medical care to infants who survive abortion.

The failure to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act amounts to a moral dereliction by every senator who voted against it. The fact that 41 senators could not take a stand on infanticide is horrifying.

A person’s worldview has consequences. In the political arena, this is certainly true; a legislator’s worldview provides the framework for his or her policies and political positions. Yesterday, a minority of United States senators disclosed a worldview with a deficient moral framework when it comes to caring for the most vulnerable members of society. The worldview divide in the Senate on this issue could not be starker, as evidenced by yesterday’s votes.

The Trump administration revealed its own worldview with the issuance of a statement of administrative policy shortly before the Senate’s vote. In part, the statement said: “Our most helpless Americans cannot protect themselves from pain or from those who would callously allow them to die. The government, therefore, has a compelling responsibility to defend the rights and interests of these babies, including to be free from excruciating or unnecessary pain. All babies have the same dignity. They should not have to endure pain, and they should receive critical life-saving care regardless of whether they are born in a hospital, at home, or in an abortion clinic.”

Christians should pray for every senator who voted yesterday. We should thank God that most senators voted to protect babies who feel pain and babies who are born alive following abortion procedures. We should also grieve that so many senators lack the compassion to stand up for children who need their help. We should lament their decision to vote “no,” and commit to praying that their hearts and minds will change.

Continue reading

Keep Your Kids Home on Transgender Propaganda Day This Thursday!

by Cathy Ruse

February 25, 2020

Do you want your child to be psychologically manipulated at school on Thursday? Might be a good day for a Mommy Date at the museum!

The anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign and their pals at the powerful National Education Association are pushing public schools to recognize this Thursday as “Jazz and Friends National Day of School & Community Readings.” 

One of the books they are promoting is I Am Jazz, a transgender propaganda book designed for children. It is based on the real-life story of “Jazz,” a child who was convinced that he was born in the wrong body. As a child he was injected with hormones to block his normal sexual development, and recently he had radical surgery to complete his “transition” to another sex. Which, of course, is impossible.

Activists groups are trying to make the reading of this book an annual event. 

The day will be used to promote gender deviance and LGBT politics to vulnerable children. Not all schools are doing it. Yet. But some are.

In one Arlington, Va. school, “mystery readers” are scheduled to come and read to the children. The school has not revealed to parents who they are and what they will read. Wow.

Here’s what a group of concerned parents in Arlington are doing about it.

If you do find out your child’s school is hosting a “Jazz and Friends” event, you can also opt your child out. Here is a template for an opt-out letter to use.

Find out what’s happening in your school!

Continue reading

Archives