Half Of Americans Would Support Mass Deportation Of Illegal Migrants: POLL

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Just over half of Americans now say they would support the mass deportation of illegal migrants, a poll released Thursday found.

The 51% who approve of the action includes 42% of Democrats, as well as 68% of Republicans and 46% of independents, according to the Axios Vibes/The Harris Poll survey. Approximately two-thirds of respondents believe illegal immigration is a legitimate crisis as President Joe Biden’s administration has seen record numbers of border crossings.

Mark Penn, chairman of The Harris Poll, told Axios that Biden’s “efforts to shift responsibility for the issue to [former President Donald] Trump are not going to work.”

“I was surprised at the public support for large-scale deportations,” Penn said.  “I think they’re just sending a message to politicians: ‘Get this under control.’”

Border Patrol had 137,480 encounters at the southern border in March, and has already seen 1 million in fiscal year 2024, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data. Fiscal year 2022 included nearly 2.2 million encounters and fiscal year 2023 had 2 million.

A majority of White Americans would support mass deportations, while 45% of Latinos and 40% of black respondents said the same, according to the poll.

Increased crime rates, drugs and violence; added costs to taxpayers; and potential terrorism and national security risks are Americans’ top concerns related to illegal immigration, according to the poll.

The survey also found that Americans largely support immigration as long as it’s legal, with 65% saying the U.S. should make it easier for those wanting a better life to legally enter the country so they don’t try to illegally.

“The tradeoff here in the poll is, people would take expanded legal immigration if they saw there’s a crackdown on the border,” Penn said.

Click here, here, here, here and hear to view pictures of the lack of border security.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the House in February over his handling of the border crisis, but the Democratic-controlled Senate dismissed the two articles without a trial on April 17.

The issue has become a main point on the campaign trail as illegal immigration continues to rank among the top concerns Americans have ahead of November. Polling suggests voters trust Trump by double digits more than Biden on the issue.

The poll surveyed 6,251 U.S. adults between March 29-31, April 5-7 and April 12-14, and it has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5%.

Neither Biden’s campaign nor the White House immediately responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

AUTHOR

MARY LOU MASTERS

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘For the love of god’: Leaked audio reveals Dem gov ripping Biden admin over border security

Americans Are Now Most Concerned About Immigration, Poll Finds

Media Outlets Are Misrepresenting Crime Stats To Biden’s Benefit

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘Just a Disaster’: Biden’s Title IX Rule Empowers LGBTQ Movement, Erases Women and Justice

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The Biden administration’s revision of a civil rights statute designed to protect women’s rights in education erases women’s protections, rewrites landmark civil rights legislation to advance the LGBT agenda by federal fiat, and waters down legal standards for those falsely accused of sexual harassment.

The Biden administration obliterates the unique rights intended for women and girls by claiming Title IX’s prohibitions of discrimination against females in education apply to men who identify as women — regardless of their outward appearance — as well as those who identify as homosexual. Its “unofficial final rule,” released on April 19, now claims LGBTQIA+ activists may cite protections intended for women to accuse their fellow students of discrimination based on “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

The term “gender identity” appears 289 times in the 1,577-page document.

The new rule also requires that these “discrimination” allegations only meet the lowest standard of proof, known as the “preponderance of the evidence.” The rule — announced by Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights — also establishes “equitable grievance procedures.”

“They have completely demolished protections for women,” Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, told “Washington Watch” guest host Joseph Backholm last week. “It’s just a disaster.” The new proposed rule “impacts speech. It impacts a free and appropriate education.”

In a comment emailed to The Washington Stand, Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Rachel Rouleau called the new rule “a slap in the face to women and girls who have fought long and hard for equal opportunities.” The Biden administration’s “radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women” and “will have devastating consequences on the future of women’s sports, student privacy, and parental rights.”

The Biden administration’s federal fiat — never approved by legislation — rolls back regulations instituted in May 2020 by then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos that reestablished legal norms and standards for those accused of sexual harassment.

Obama administration rules — also drawn up by Lhamon, a former ACLU attorney — allowed college sexual harassment investigations to be carried out by a single investigator, who acted as judge and jury. Vague definitions proscribing any “unwelcome conduct,” whether verbal or “nonverbal,” led school districts to punish students for unwelcome staring.

Under the Trump administration’s revised Title IX rules, anyone accused of sexual harassment on campus enjoyed the presumption of innocence, as in any other legal proceeding. The defendant also had the right to know the charges against him or her, examine all the evidence presented in the proceedings, have an adviser cross-examine any witness’s testimony, and appeal the ruling. The administration had to meet the more robust and normative legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”

At the time, Lhamon asserted that the Trump administration’s revised guidelines would make it “permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity.” No epidemic of unpunished campus rape followed.

The Biden administration’s new Title IX rule eliminates all these elements, which are standard in other consequential accusations.

“The final regulations restore and strengthen vital protections for students,” Biden’s Department of Education contended in a press release Friday.

All parties seem to acknowledge these rules will supercharge the number of sexual harassment cases on campus after it takes effect on August 1. “This rule is designed to encourage reporting,” a Biden administration official told journalists on a call Thursday.

Newly empowered with looser regulations, activist bureaucrats in the federal government, and on college campuses nationwide, “are going to enforce this rule, and they are going to enforce it aggressively,” predicted Kilgannon. “The Education Department laid down their marker and said, ‘Yes, indeed, you will face a penalty for this.’” States that refuse to implement the strategy will “be losing federal funds for your education programs in your state.”

Since more affluent areas, like the D.C. suburbs, rely more on property taxes to fund their schools, the threat of losing federal education dollars falls heaviest on the most vulnerable students living in underprivileged districts. “It is the poorest places who will be most harmed by this, because they rely the most on federal funding,” Kilgannon added.

To avoid running afoul of an activist bureaucracy’s interpretation of the newly broadened rule, education officials may shut down any speech that could turn into litigation, and threaten federal funding.

“This change reverses decades of progress toward equality, open discourse, due process, and parental rights,” observed the Southeastern Legal Foundation. The new rule will cause students to “self-censor rather than risk being reported for harassment” and “significantly undermines the role of parents — who should be the primary caregivers for their children and who are entitled to raise their children to share certain values and beliefs — by requiring conformity to the federal government’s views on biology and so-called gender identity.”

The regulations drew fire from Congress over these specific concerns. “Evidently, the acceptance of biological reality, and the faithful implementation of the law, are just pills too big for the Department to swallow,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

The new regulation pulls off a trifecta of administrative harm, as it “attacks the definition of sex, due-process rights, and free-speech rights,” said Inez Feltscher Stepman, a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum.

The regulation also continues the decades-long trend of rewriting legislation through executive action. “Title IX was written in 1972 when ‘sex’ meant male and female, and no amount of interpretive jiujitsu permits a cabinet agency to rewrite the plain language of the law. Efforts to do so have failed repeatedly in Congress for one simple reason: Such an expansion of law is deeply unpopular, with opposition to these changes spanning both political and racial lines,” said Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education, in a comment to TWS. Numerous polls have shown a supermajority of Americans oppose the extending of women’s rights to men, regardless of their self-identity.

“It is grotesque that the White House has chosen to capitulate to extremists in his party, sacrificing the First Amendment” in the process, Neily told TWS.

Women’s rights activists promise not to take the loss of their distinct place in the law lying down. “This is going to be the subject of lawsuits,” Kilgannon told Backholm, citing direct knowledge of multiple civil rights attorneys and organizations. Neiley told TWS explicitly, “This betrayal of students will not soon be forgotten by American parents, and we look forward to suing the administration over this policy soon.” Likewise, Rouleau told TWS that the “Alliance Defending Freedom plans to take action to defend female athletes, as well as school districts, teachers, and students who will be gravely harmed by this unlawful government overreach.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Admin Wants To Send American Tax Dollars To Train Army Of Transgender Activists In India

RELATED VIDEO: James Lindsay SHATTERS Woke Ideology: EU Parliament Speech

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Medical Associations Silent After Review Finds ‘Weak Evidence’ For Giving Puberty Blockers To Kids

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Major medical associations have remained silent after the results of a four-year review commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) England undermined their recommendations for giving puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria

The Cass report, conducted by former Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health Dr. Hilary Cass and released April 10, found that there is “weak evidence” for offering puberty blockers to children. It concluded that its findings “raise questions about the quality of currently available guidelines” offered by associations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society, yet neither organization has committed to reviewing their guidelines.

The review references a letter recommending against treating children with puberty blockers outside of a research setting. It also urged “extreme caution” for providing cross-sex hormones to minors under 18 and stressed the need for a “clear clinical rationale.”

The review further suggested a “full programme of research be established” to “look at the characteristics, interventions and outcomes of every young person presenting to the NHS gender services.”

“Although a diagnosis of gender dysphoria has been seen as necessary for initiating medical treatment, it is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have longstanding gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them,” the report noted.

The American Medical Association, WPATH, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and Endocrine Society did not respond to multiple inquiries over the past week from the Daily Caller News Foundation asking whether they had concerns with the report’s findings or intended to conduct their own review. Aside from WPATH,  these organizations have largely failed to even address the report publicly.

WPATH wrote in a statement that it “supports policies that increase access to high-quality ethical care for transgender youth,” claiming that the report’s foundation is rooted in a “false premise.”

The organization’s standards of care 8th version states that waiting several years to start a young adolescent on puberty blockers “is not always practical nor necessary given the premise of the treatment as a means to buy time while avoiding distress from irreversible pubertal changes,” though it acknowledges that establishing a “sustained experience of gender incongruence” can be important before starting.

“The foundation of the Cass report is rooted in the false premise that non-medical alternatives to care will result in less adolescent distress for most adolescents and is based on a lack of knowledge of and experience working with this patient population,” the organization said in a press release. “It is harmful to perpetuate this notion and does not acknowledge the very real fact that medical pathways are an important treatment option for many young people.”

The Endocrine Society characterizes puberty blockers as a “reversible pause to puberty” and “a first step in treatment to allow the adolescent to explore their gender identity and/or to provide relief from distress.” WPATH’s guidelines likewise recommend putting adolescents on “puberty suppressing hormones” to “alleviate gender dysphoria.”

WPATH physicians acknowledged puberty blockers can cause irreversible consequences in minors like infertility, bone loss and disruption of brain development in educational sessions from September 2022 previously obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Both the AMA and AACAP recommend WPATH’s guidance for handling gender dysphoria in children. The AMA often advocates against red state laws that ban sex-change procedures for minors, including puberty blockers.

The Cass report notes “there is no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think, and some concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development.”

The Cass report also questioned WPATH and the Endocrine Society on the “circularity” of their citations, which make support for their positions appear stronger than they are.

Early versions of the two organization’s guidelines influenced “nearly all” guidelines set by other organizations, the report notes. The two organization’s guidelines are also “closely interlinked” because WPATH provided input on the Endocrine Society recommendations, according to the report.

“The circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor,” the report stated.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Chicago: Leftist Muslim teaches American leftists to scream ‘Death to America’ in Farsi

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Gender Politics: Why Is it So Hard to Define Biological Realities?

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Earlier this month, the revelatoryCass review was published. The report, conducted by former president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health Dr. Hilary Cass, found “remarkably weak evidence” that “gender affirming services” for children have any positive outcomes. The British Government responded to the results by announcing there will be “a fundamental change” in how they manage the gender identity politics concerning medical care moving forward. It now appears that the push toward acknowledging biological reality in the U.K. is moving beyond clinics.

This week, the British Government’s Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer dove into the males in female sports controversy when she made the argument that biological males have an “indisputable edge” over female athletes, concluding that male athletes who identify as transgender should be prohibited from “competing in top-level female sports events,” Breitbart reported. The biological differences between men and women “not only give transgender women an unfair competitive advantage,” Frazer wrote for The Daily Mail, “but threaten the safety of female athletes in the sports arena.”

She continued, “That’s why this week I called together representatives from key sporting organizations, like the England and Wales Cricket Board and Football Association, to encourage them to follow the lead of other sports in not allowing trans athletes to compete against women at the elite level.” Many are acknowledging how significant this development is, given that the definition of what a woman is can scarcely be answered these days.

The solution Frazer is presenting is that those who understand the biological realities of what a man is and what a woman is must join to proclaim the message more zealously. “The need for clear action from all sports becomes more pressing with each passing week,” Frazer added. “In competitive sport, biology matters. And … this should not be ignored.” And in direct response to the Cass Review, she emphasized “that inaction and a failure to confront the issues at stake cannot be an option.”

But how is progress made on an issue many claim doesn’t exist? Take Harvard University, for example. The editorial board of the Ivy League’s student newspaper published an article on April 16 titled, “There Are Many Obstacles Facing Women’s Sports. Trans Athletes Aren’t One.” In short, The Harvard Crimson’s Editorial Board writer Jonathan G. Yuan made the argument that “the science is … less conclusive” as it relates to whether “transgender women hold a biological edge over their cisgender opponents.”

Breitbart’s Warner Huston does well in pointing out the errors in Yuan’s argument, noting that “in the process of making the” assertions it did, “the article ignored all evidence to the contrary to support their own claim that transgender athlete participation is wholly benign.” But nonetheless, the push against true science continues — not only in a student newspaper, but also in government.

Just Tuesday, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) “vetoed a bill to codify the meaning of ‘woman’ in state law, becoming the second female Democratic governor to nix such legislation over concerns about transgender rights,” The Washington Times wrote. Similar to a bill passed by Idaho Governor Brad Little (R) last week, Arizona’s Senate Bill 1628 would have provided biological “definitions for sex-based terms used in statutes, administrative rules, regulations and public policies.” But Hobbs’s veto, which was one of 13 in recent days, was not free from backlash.

In a statement, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R) said, “Instead of helping these confused boys and men, Democrats are only fueling the disfunction by pretending biological sex doesn’t matter.” He continued, “Our daughters, granddaughters, nieces, and neighbors are growing up in a dangerous time where they are living with an increased risk of being victimized in public bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms because Democrats are now welcoming biological males into what used to be traditionally safe, single-sex spaces.”

State Senator Sine Kerr (R), the sponsor of the bill, urged, “The madness needs to stop.” She added that “real women must continue to push back, stand for truth, and make their voices heard to advocate for the protection of their rights.” But even though this fight is facing setbacks in some states, Louisiana is taking strides in the right direction.

While it’s not specifically related to the issue of defining gender, Louisiana is fighting to give parents back the right to decide what role gender ideology plays in the lives of their children. According to The Epoch Times, “The Louisiana House and Senate have advanced legislation this week that, if signed by newly seated Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, would prohibit sexual indoctrination and the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in schools.”

Specifically, House Bill 121, also known as the Given Name Act, states that the “Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution … protects the right of parents to direct the care, upbringing, education, and welfare of their children.” As such, the legislation would require parental approval before students can be referred to by any name or pronoun other than their original name and biological pronouns.

Given all this information, the elephant in the room is: Why is it so hard for some people to recognize the biological differences between men and women? It’s a simple question, some would argue, and Meg Kilgannon, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for Education Studies, shared her insight with The Washington Stand. The reason such a simple reality is tossed aside, she explained, is because “they are not accepting there is a reality.”

Kilgannon emphasized what NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher said during a TED talk, namely, that truth is subjective. Maher stated, “[W]e all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive.” And for Kilgannon, it’s this mindset that leads the Left into a worldview where men can be women and women can be men.

“They don’t believe there is truth,” she added. It’s as though “they don’t believe anything except the fact that they don’t believe anything. It’s the age old trope of [they] say there’s no definitive truth and [they] say that in a definitive statement.” It’s a cyclical argument, she observed, which is hard to escape from.

So, why is it that the question of biological realities is hard for some to answer? As Kilgannon concluded, “If they answer the question, they have to admit that there is a value associated with the item.” Or in other words, a mindset like this means that answering a simple question leads to the collapse of an entire worldview.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin To Release Finalized Rule Expanding Title IX Protection To Transgender Students

Left-Wing News Orgs Completely Ignore Bombshell Trans Report

Media Ignores Transgender Identity Of Alleged Potential Mass Shooter

Planned Parenthood Committed 392,712 Abortions, Received $699.3 Million in Taxpayer Funding in 2023

‘Pray for a Tower of Babel in the World Health Organization’: Congressmen Warn of WHO Pandemic Agreement

RELATED PODCAST: A Moral Argument with Katy Faust

RELATED VIDEO: Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis – World Congress of Families XIV

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Planned Parenthood Committed 392,712 Abortions, Received $699.3 Million in Taxpayer Funding in 2023

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Despite seeing fewer patients and reducing bona fide health care services, Planned Parenthood received a record-breaking amount of taxpayer funding last year, according to Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in the organization’s most recent annual report, which she describes as a “love note” to abortionists.

Planned Parenthood committed 392,712 abortions and received a record-breaking $699.3 million in taxpayer funding in the 2022-2023 fiscal year, according to its most recent annual report released on Wednesday.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s affiliates perpetrated an average of 1,076 abortions every day of the year, as they amassed $1.8 billion in revenue and $2.5 billion in net assets.

Government funding for the abortion giant increased, although Planned Parenthood saw 80,000 fewer patients (2.05 million) last year than in 2022 (2.13 million), according to PPFA’s annual report, titled “Above & Beyond,” which covers the fiscal year which ran from July 2022 to June 2023.

Despite complaining of about half the country enacting pro-life protections for children since the Dobbs decision, the number of abortions Planned Parenthood carried out surged in the last year. Abortions increased by 18,557 over last year — when Planned Parenthood committed 374,155 abortions and received $670.4 million in taxpayer funding, during its 2021-2022 fiscal year — an increase of 9,252 abortions over pre-Dobbs levels.

“This report is our love note” to abortionists, writes Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson.

Pro-life advocates observed Planned Parenthood has inflicted a ponderous number of deaths on innocent Americans last year. “This is a record number of abortions for the organization and represents approximately 40% of the abortions performed in the United States,” said Michael New, a senior associate scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute, in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “This puts abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in the top four leading causes of death in the United States, after heart disease, cancer and COVID-19,” SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told TWS.

Taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood surged by $28.9 million over last year and $65.9 million since 2021. Taxpayer revenue accounts for one-third (34%) of Planned Parenthood’s revenue. “Planned Parenthood dropped this bombshell report while many Americans are still recovering from Tax Day,” said Dannenfelser. “Bidenomics has turned into abortionomics.”

“Meanwhile, while your average American’s annual income is down,” wrote Hugh Brown, executive vice president of the American Life League, in a statement emailed to TWS. “We can barely afford necessities — and our government’s answer? Funnel $700 million to the elite baby killers.”

The funding increase comes although a majority (53%) of Americans oppose funding abortion in the United States, and larger majorities oppose foreign abortion funding. Although presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has yet to announce he will protect U.S. taxpayers from funding Planned Parenthood in his second term, he released a Protect Life rule preventing Title X family funding recipients from referring women for abortions in July 2019, his third year in office. Planned Parenthood withdrew from the Title X program rather than curtail or redirect its abortion business.

However, President Joe Biden reversed Trump’s order in October 2021 and subsequently opened multiple funding avenues to the abortion franchise. “The federal government should not be funding the facilitation of abortion in any form or fashion — at home or abroad,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has noted.

More Money, Fewer Health Care Services

The increased funding comes despite the fact that the number of genuine health care services Planned Parenthood offers has fallen precipitously. “Between 2022 and 2023, preventive-care visits fell by 31.0%, pap tests fell by 13.5%, cancer screenings fell by 1.4%, and adoption referrals fell by 4.5%. Interestingly, for every adoption referral in 2023, Planned Parenthood performed over 228 abortions,” explained New. “In the past 10 years, the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood has increased by 20%. Meanwhile, cancer screenings fell by more than 58%, and prenatal services declined by more than 67%.”

The report highlights PPFA’s commitment to selling women on abortion, say critics. “Once again, pregnant women who walk into Planned Parenthood are sold an abortion 97% of the time, rather than helped to keep their child or make an adoption plan. Meanwhile, they saw 80,000 fewer patients, provided 60,000 fewer pap tests and breast exams, and even gave out less contraception,” Dannenfelser told TWS.

PPFA increased its bottom line by working on the logistics of abortions in pro-life states. Some “90 patient navigators across 41 Planned Parenthood affiliates helped more than 33,000 people get the transportation and travel support, financial assistance, and referrals they needed to get abortion,” its report states.

Planned Parenthood compared its abortion-expansion activities to the miracles wrought by faith in Jesus Christ. “For Planned Parenthood [abortion] staff, this was a year of moving mountains: finding appointments in other states and the resources to get patients there, building as much capacity as possible for abortion appointments, fulfilling increased demand in some places for birth control, and much more,” the organization writes. PPFA claimed it provided financial support to 15,000 people for travel for out-of-state abortion and funding for 50,000 mothers to have an abortion. It did not state how it raised these funds.

Transgender Procedures, Abortion Advocacy, and Abortifacients

The latest update reveals that the abortion business’s concerted drive to profit from expanded transgender procedures advanced in 2023. Planned Parenthood refused to specifically disclose how many transgender procedures the abortion franchise carried out in the last fiscal year, lumping its transgender business among 177,237 “Other Procedures.” PPFA reported a mere 15,902 “other procedures” in its 2020-2021 report.

The report revealed that 45 of Planned Parenthood’s 49 affiliates perpetrated transgender procedures in 2022 — up from 41 the previous year and just 30 in the 2020-2021 fiscal year. This year’s report includes first-person testimonials praising PPFA for administering life-altering, sterilizing, and bone-depleting hormone injections. “As a trans woman, the services provided to me saved my life. I am so grateful for the services you provide to ALL women,” wrote the man.

Planned Parenthood and its international affiliate, Planned Parenthood Global, committed tens of millions of dollars to abortion expansion at home and abroad. Planned Parenthood boasts of its 30 open lawsuits against pro-life protections, winning injunctions preventing seven states from defending unborn children from abortion. Its U.S. affiliates spent $46.7 million on “public policy” and $14.8 to “engage communities.”

Planned Parenthood Global dedicated $113 million to abortion “advocacy,” partnering with 80 organizations in nine countries. Its activities included “community-based access to misoprostol,” the second pill in the chemical abortion cocktail, which can be used on its own to induce abortion (with varying degrees of harm to mothers). The abortion business directed 90% of its efforts toward nations that protect unborn children’s lives in the law, such as Mexico, where its efforts led to “the legalization of abortion in Quintana Roo up to 12 weeks — a decision affecting 470,000 women of reproductive age in the state.”

Contraception remained a cornerstone of the PPFA business model in 2023. PPFA distributed contraception 2,250,913 times, including implanting long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in 1,548,022 people and distributing 552,721 so-called “Emergency Contraception” kits. All hormonal contraception may potentially act as an abortifacient by making it impossible for a newly conceived/fertilized child to implant in the uterine wall.

PPFA shapes the way young people see sex both through partnerships with public schools and online influencers. “Planned Parenthood is proud to be the nation’s largest sex educator,” writes McGill Johnson in the report’s opening summary. Planned Parenthood’s videos were viewed three million times, and PPFA reached 1.2 million people through education or training sessions. “PPFA launched a national campaign across platforms to destigmatize abortion,” the report notes.

PPFA also plans to shape academic views by producing “scientific” studies promoting its view of the abortion controversy. In all, “34 Planned Parenthood affiliates participated in 47 studies” last year, including one focusing on “potential logistical, financial, and other burdens of travel faced by patients who are forced to travel for their” abortion, the report states.

Planned Parenthood’s report also raises concerns over possible censorship. A section of the annual report titled “Shifting Culture” states PPFA is “leading tech companies to discuss how to improve corporate accountability and address health care misinformation.”

The report takes on added importance as abortion has emerged as the dominant theme of the Biden-Harris reelection campaign and Democratic campaigns generally. “Vice President Kamala Harris even made a campaign stop at a Planned Parenthood abortion center,” noted Dannenfelser. Harris called pro-life laws “immoral” during the visit. “In turn, their political arm spends more than any other abortion-related group to lobby the federal government against commonsense policies like protecting babies born alive after failed abortions.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

RELATED VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Killed a Record 392,715 Babies Last Year | TIPPING POINT

POST ON X:

RELATED ARTICLE: Poll: Supermajority of American Voters Oppose Abortion Past 12 Weeks

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Elementary School Denies Request to Start Prayer Club, Approves ‘Pride Club’

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

In 2015, religious freedom seemed compromised when a Washington high school football coach was fired for praying with his team after a game. Joe Kennedy waited roughly six years for the Supreme Court to hear the oral arguments for his case. He was represented by a Christian nonprofit legal organization, First Liberty Institute (FLI), which took the position that “no teacher or coach should lose their job for simply expressing their faith while in public.” This was a notable case in 2022, and recent events have caused the issue to resurface.

Earlier this year, Laura, an 11-year-old girl who attends Creekside Elementary in Washington State, requested to start an interfaith prayer club at her school. But her request was denied.

When Laura and her mom approached the principal about the matter in February, they were informed that the school’s budget for clubs had been finalized in October. And according to a spokesperson for Issaquah School District, “[C]lubs offered are student-interest driven and meet outside of the school day. At the elementary level, participation in a club also requires parent permission. Once the school year begins, the building budget is set, and additional clubs are usually not added until the following school year.” But the story doesn’t end here.

Laura’s group, which she hoped to start with her friend, was meant to include people of all different religious backgrounds. She shared with Fox News that she was feeling alone, and that she thought this would be a good idea to bring students together. “I think that this is something that I am very passionate about,” she added. “I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t really want to make this happen, if I didn’t think that it would be a great opportunity for everyone.” It was later discovered that an LGBT club was approved only a week prior to Laura’s club request being denied, which has caused spectators to raise their eyebrows.

As a result of this alleged hypocrisy, Laura filed a lawsuit on the grounds of religious discrimination with the help of FLI. Attorneys pointed out in a letter to the school, “The First Amendment ‘doubly protects religious speech.’ These First Amendment protections extend to elementary school students expressing their sincere religious beliefs through voluntary clubs. Yet the school district flouted its First Amendment obligations when they refused to allow a student-led interfaith prayer club. Its unlawful action violates both the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause.”

Kayla Toney, associate counsel at First Liberty Institute, explained, “Denying the formation of a religious student club while allowing other clubs violates the Constitution,” drawing attention to the fact that the similar case with Coach Kennedy occurred “just a short drive away” from Laura’s elementary school. And in comments to The Washington Stand, Arielle Del Turco, Family Research Council’s director of the Center for Religious Liberty, said, “The fact that Creekside Elementary denied a religious club the same month that it approved a Pride club reveals a lot about American culture right now.”

She continued, “Sadly, the promotion of LGBT identities is held sacred while religion is sidelined and marginalized. It’s heartbreaking that Laura, a fifth-grade student, felt alone at school as a religious believer and that she knew other students who felt the same way. She reacted in exactly the right way by making an effort to build community with religious students.”

Del Turco went on to emphasize that, “Oftentimes, when people seek to prevent religious expression in government venues, they will use the excuse that they don’t want to imply that the government favors one religion over another.” However, when it comes to Laura’s case, she pointed out that “the school doesn’t even have that flimsy excuse because the students were seeking to start a … club that would be open to students of different faiths.”

Ultimately, “Any school that allows other clubs while specifically denying religious clubs is acting in a discriminatory manner and violating the First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression and the free exercise of religion.” Del Turco concluded, “Christian fifth graders shouldn’t face viewpoint discrimination from their school leadership. It shouldn’t have had to come to this, but I fully expect this injustice to be rectified in the courts.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas University System Fires DEI Staff ahead of Senate Hearings

Kansas Governor Vetoes Bill Protecting Children from Gender Transition Procedures

Are Pro-Abortion Activists Drawing ‘Twisted Inspiration’ from the Biden Administration?

Poll Reveals Highest Rate of ‘Scripture Disengaged’ Americans: ‘It’s Time to Take Discipleship Seriously’

RELATED PODCAST: Abortion and the Changing Political Landscape

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Florida Voters Back Abortion Amendment and Trump

/in , , , , , , , , /by

A new poll is reporting that nearly half of voters in the Sunshine State plan to support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a “right” to abortion. An Emerson College survey released on Thursday found that 42% of Florida voters intend to vote “Yes” on a “Amendment 4” this November, enshrining a right to abortion into the state’s constitution. Twenty-five percent of voters intend to vote “No,” and 32% of voters are unsure which way they will vote. The ballot initiative requires at least 60% support in order to pass.

A majority (56%) of Democrats and a plurality (44%) of Independents plan to vote “Yes.” Following former President Donald Trump’s recently-announced opposition to federal pro-life protections, Florida Republicans are more divided on the issue: 36% plan to vote against the abortion amendment, 30% plan to support it, and 34% are unsure.

Additionally, nearly 60% of Florida voters reported that the pro-life law banning abortion after six weeks — slated to go into effect next month after the state’s Supreme Court upheld a related 15-week abortion ban — is “too strict,” 28% said the law is “about right,” and 15% said it’s “not strict enough.” The previous 15-week ban enjoyed marginally more support, with only 43% saying it’s “too strict,” 36% saying it’s “about right,” and 21% saying it’s “not strict enough.”

Election data analyst Michael Pruser posted on social media, “I don’t think a pro-Republican position has a chance of clearing 60% in Florida, let alone an anti-Republican one. What wouldn’t pass in Kansas and Ohio during off-year special turnout will almost assuredly not pass in Florida during a Presidential year [with] Trump on the top of the ticket.”

Anticipating nearly 11 million voters (4.5 million Republicans, 3.55 million Democrats, and 2.85 million Independents) to turn out in November, Pruser explained, “To make 60% work, you’ll need a share of about 23% Republican[s]/95% Democrat[s]/77% Independent[s] to vote YES (which is always harder than NO). This gives you a total of 6,554,500 votes and a winning percentage of 60.13%.” He added, “You can also bet that [Florida’s Republican governor Ron] DeSantis will do what [Democratic Kansas governor] Laura Kelly and [Republican Ohio governor] Mike DeWine didn’t — use his office’s full weight against the amendment.”

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, argued before the Florida Supreme Court in favor of pro-life laws. In comments to The Washington Stand, he warned that “Amendment 4” would be challenged even if passed, saying, “There are constitutional challenges that I think are available.”

In addition to questions of both fraudulent signatures in putting the proposed amendment on the ballot and fraudulent votes in potentially passing the amendment this November, Staver noted, “The Florida legislature has — for many, many years — used the terms ‘unborn child’ and ‘unborn person.’” For example, Florida law dictates that if a woman is killed and her unborn child dies as a result, the killer could be charged with double homicide. Similarly, if a will leaves an estate to the deceased’s children or grandchildren, Florida law understands that to include unborn children or grandchildren. “In all these other areas of law,” Staver said, “unborn children have been recognized as legal persons. Consequently, if this were to pass, we would bring a case to the Florida Supreme Court to recognize the rights of an unborn child which already exist in the constitution which supersede this abortion amendment.”

Referring to Republicans who have begun backing away from pro-life messaging in the wake of Trump’s announcement earlier this week, Staver said, “Politicians should stand for life, not run from it. The right to life is the right of all rights, without which there is no other right. Politicians need to stand for life, not run from it.” He continued, “There are some things that transcend geographical boundaries and political parties and time, and the right to life is fundamental among those.” Staver also compared the issue of abortion to the issue of slavery, saying that neither was a matter of “states’ rights” but of universal morality.

The Emerson College survey also found that a majority (51%) of Florida voters back Trump for president, while only 38% support incumbent Joe Biden, with 11% undecided. When undecided voters were asked which candidate they lean toward supporting, Trump’s support shot up to 56% and Biden’s to 44%. Emerson College explained, “Among Biden voters, 32% support him because they dislike Trump, 24% because they like Biden, 19% care about an issue, and 14% support their party’s candidate. Among Trump voters, 31% support him because they care about an issue, 28% because they like Trump, 16% because they dislike Biden, and 14% support their party’s candidate.”

Florida voters ranked the economy as their top issue of concern (27%), followed by housing (16%), immigration (14%), and abortion (10%). Emerson College noted, “The percentage of voters who marked abortion access as their top issue is four points higher in Florida than in the most recent national poll (6%).”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Launches Pro-Abortion Ad Campaign in Arizona while Republicans Scramble to Respond

EU Politicians Call for ‘Fundamental Right’ to Abortion

Pediatrician Responds to Damning Review on Gender Identity Treatment: ‘I Remain Hopeful’

RELATED VIDEO: Florida’s Channel 25 Interview with Pro-Lifer, Willy Guardiola, as he speaks about the state of Abortion today.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

VIDEO EXPOSÈ: Chicago Shelters for Illegal Aliens Grapple with Measles and TB Outbreaks

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

We wrote in our column America’s ship of state is underwater and sinking faster each and every day!,

America’s Ship of State is Sinking Fast

It took the RMS Titanic two days to sink and because of the ship’s faulty design 1,496 passengers died.

Today, the USS America under the Biden Regime’s faulty designs are bent on killing that many each and every month, be it via chemical or actual abortions, murders in our streets and the mayhem on our borders by criminal illegal aliens.

But it gets much much worse.

Our economy is in the tank. Our national debt is the highest in history, our culture and society are under constant attack by the Red/Green/Rainbow Alliance. BTW, there are two shades of Green in the Alliance, the green of the radical Islamists like Hamas, Hezb’allah, the Houthis, Iran et. al. and those Climate Nazis bent on the total control of our oil and CO2.

The great ship of state is using up its oil reserves at a rapid pace as the Climate Nazis demand we close down all coal, oil and natural gas use. The ship of state can’t run on electricity produced by solar panels. The ship of state will soon be crashing into offshore windmills.

The government of we the people, by the people and for the people is rapidly being replaced by criminal illegal aliens.

It is being replace by the USS Big Government. Today big government is the opiate of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and his crew.

Today there are chants in places like Dearborn, Michigan of “death to America.” while Governor Whitman and Rep. Ilan Omar yawn.

Now we are learning that those criminal illegal aliens are bringing with them tuberculosis and measles!

One America News Network reports,

Migrant shelters in Chicago experience tuberculosis and measles outbreak. The Health Department has not specified the number of immigrants who tested positive for TB but is reporting 59 measles cases so far this year, about half of which are. To provide perspective, in 2023, 58 measles cases were reported nationwide. In the first two months of 2024, 41 cases were reported in 16 states, excluding those in Chicago. Vaccine requirements for American school children are waived for illegal immigrants. Some local lawmakers, like Alderman Raymond Lopez, accuse city officials of turning a blind eye to the problem. Double board-certified neurologist, Dr. Russell Surasky, joins Alicia Summers.

WATCH: Chicago Shelters for Illegal Immigrants Grapple with Measles and TB Outbreaks; Officials Under Fire

©2024. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: REAL AMERICA- Dan Ball W/ ‘Brian,’ Business Owner Alleges Illegals Get Social Security Cards

Terrorist Billionaires and The Future of Food

/in , , , , , , /by

Let us be clear—Consuming insect-based foods comes with potential health risks. These risks are primarily related to food safety and the presence of allergens or toxins in some insects.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has highlighted several food safety issues associated with edible insects. These concerns include:

Pathogens: Insects can harbor bacteria, viruses, and parasites, which can risk human health if not properly handled or cooked.

Allergens: Some insects contain allergens that can cause allergic reactions in sensitive individuals.

Toxins: Certain insects may contain toxins that can be harmful if consumed in large amounts.

Insects can contain allergens that may trigger allergic reactions in some individuals. These reactions can range from mild to severe, depending on the individual’s sensitivity and the amount of insect consumed. Allergic reactions can manifest as skin rashes, itching, swelling, and, in severe cases, anaphylaxis, which requires immediate medical attention.

Moreover, some insects are known to contain toxins that can be harmful to human health. These toxins can affect various systems in the body, including the nervous, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. Symptoms of toxin exposure can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and, in severe cases, coma or death.

Now, enter billionaires with sinister motives.  At the forefront is none other than Bill Gates, who is relentlessly plotting to manipulate the world’s food supply, pushing for the consumption of insects and alternative proteins while buying large amounts of American farmland.

Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft and a prominent figure in the so-called philanthropic sector, advocates for a diet of insects and, through his foundation and investments, works towards a future where traditional livestock is replaced by insect-based foods. All these can be traced back to Gates’s foundation’s investment in All Things Bugs, LLC, a company aiming to develop nutritionally dense food using insect species.

Bill Gates’s agenda-driven interest in sustainable food solutions is not limited to insects. He has also invested in cultured meat, a lab-grown alternative to traditional beef, which has received $50 million in funding. Gates’s investments and advocacy for his so-called sustainable food solutions are part of a sinister effort disguised as global challenges, including climate change and food security. His property acquisitions, including farmland in North Dakota and Texas, have only added fuel to speculations about his intentions, and these actions are likely part of a larger strategy to take our food away and make us eat insects.

Then we have Klaus Schwab and his “The Great Reset” plot to intending to destroy capitalism and enact a one-world government under the cover of COVID-19 and other agendas. Schwab founded the WEF with the help of Henry Kissinger and is actively supported by Prince Charles. Schwab likely established his ties with other influential American advocates of globalization through Kissinger’s International Seminar, which the CIA funded with $135,000. The global elite led by Schwab used the “pandemic” opportunity to roll out radical policies, such as forced vaccination, digital ID cards, and the renunciation of private property. The sinister agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF) becomes evident from the fact that the unelected Schwab has served as the WEF’s chairman since its inception, and he continues to hold the position of Founder and Executive Chairman today.

In the meantime, we hear about billionaires buying bunkers and islands as if prepping for an apocalypse. The truth is that land acquisitions in Hawaii by billionaires displace local communities, raising concerns about mirroring a modern twist on feudalism. Ultimately, these billionaires aren’t just waiting for the apocalypse but actively shaping their own self-sufficient, controlled environments while we can survive on the insect food they produce.

I rest my case with a summary of the points regarding the risks of eating insects:

Allergic Reactions: Some people may have allergic reactions to insects, similar to allergies to shellfish or shrimp, due to the presence of chitin in their exoskeletons. This can lead to symptoms ranging from mild to severe.

Microorganisms and Pathogens: Insects can harbor pathogens on their surface, in their gut, and as part of their reproductive cycle. The full scope of the microbiota of edible insects is unknown, and whether these extrinsic pathogens may be harmful if eaten. Cooking may not kill them, either.

Biological and Chemical Contaminants: Insects grown on agricultural waste may be exposed to mycotoxins, pesticides, and other chemical hazards like toxic metals and dioxins. High lead levels have been found in dried grasshoppers, leading to elevated blood lead levels in humans.

Processing Risks: When heated or cooked, the chemical-thermal reactions with the toxins on their shells or within their guts can release toxic compounds that accumulate in the protein meal.

The future of food is definitely at stake, and billionaires and their vast wealth continue to influence food systems in concerning ways.

©2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

Arizona Supreme Court Revives Law Protecting the Unborn

/in , , , , , , , , /by

On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court put back in place a 160-year-old ban on abortion, The Wall Street Journal reported. “Abortion in the state has been allowed through 15 weeks of pregnancy under a law that the GOP-controlled Arizona Legislature passed in 2022, shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Abortion opponents and some Republican lawmakers argued that the recent law didn’t override one dating back to 1864 — before Arizona was a state — that banned abortion throughout pregnancy except in lifesaving situations.”

The ruling “agreed that the 19th century law still takes precedence,” WSJ added, but the “court delayed implementation of the ban for at least two weeks to allow for additional legal arguments.” In comments to The Washington Stand, Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, clarified, “The focus for [this decision] is that the Arizona Supreme Court did what justices are supposed to do: they upheld the rule of law. They did not make policy.”

She continued, “Arizona law clearly stated that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, our pre-Roe law would go back into effect. So, today’s decision was a statutory construction. It was not a constitutional one, and it was not a policy decision. There’s a lot of misinformation out there, so it’s very important to emphasize that this … is how we want judges to rule.”

Herrod went on to share how a proposed amendment called the Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative could nullify the court decision. “That amendment does not reflect Arizona values or where Arizonans are on the issue of abortion,” she contended. The amendment would “bring in unrestricted and unregulated abortion,” she emphasized. “It would overturn most — if not all — of Arizona’s pro-life laws. It would not require doctors to be part of the woman’s decision, examination, or the procedure itself. Moms and dads would have no role in the abortion of their minor daughters deciding whether or not to have an abortion. It would usher in taxpayer funding of abortion.”

But given the dramatic effects of such a potential amendment, Herrod predicted, “When Arizonans read and see what the proposed abortion access amendment really is about, I’m confident Arizona voters will turn it down.”

In light of the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court, Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, shared with TWS, “In a huge win for women and their unborn children, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the law on the books protecting unborn babies from the moment of conception will go into effect. Praise God!”

She added, “Acknowledging what an abortion is, the Arizona law states that an abortionist who kills an unborn child can be punished with two to five years in prison. In recognition of the fact that the intent of an abortion is to kill the child, not to save the mother, actions taken to save a mother’s life that sadly result in the death of the unborn child will not be punishable.”

Szoch concluded, “This ruling is on hold for 14 days, but we should all pray it goes into effect. With this decision, the importance of the upcoming election cannot be overstated. Unborn babies lives will be on the ballot. Pro-lifers must turn out to vote.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Pro-Life Leaders React to Trump’s Abortion Statement: ‘Rebuild America’s Spiritual Walls’

/in , , , , , , /by

Pro-family leaders reacted to President Donald Trump’s announcement that abortion policy should be handled exclusively by the states by saying that “pro-life policies should be pursued at every level of government” to rebuild “the spiritual walls of our nation.” Although pro-life advocates expressed gratitude for the president’s role in overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring voters’ democratic control over the issue of abortion, they say his “work is not over” when it comes to protecting innocent life.

The 45th president delivered on a promise he made last week to present his position on abortion in a four-minute-long video posted on social media Monday morning. The president said abortion should be handled at the state level, endorsed exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and strongly supported in vitro fertilization (IVF). “Democrats are the radical ones” on abortion, by endorsing abortion, for any reason, until the moment of birth, he said.

“The states will determine by vote or legislation — or perhaps both — and whatever they decide must be the law of the land,” said Trump. “Many states will be different, many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative [respect for life] than others.”

“I was proudly the person responsible for the ending” of Roe, he said. But the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision “took [the issue of abortion] out of the federal hands and brought it into the hearts, minds, and vote of the people in each state,” he stated. “Now it’s up to the states to do the right thing.”

Trump thanked the six justices who voted for the Dobbs decision by name — Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — for allowing “this long-term, hard-fought battle to finally end.” Trump nominated three of those jurists to the nation’s highest court, including Justice Barrett, whom the Senate confirmed just seven days before the 2020 election.

But justices on both sides of the 2022 Dobbs ruling agreed the federal government can play a role in setting abortion policy. “On the question of abortion, the Constitution … leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the [s]tates or Congress — like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his concurrence to Dobbs.

In their dissent, liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan agreed Dobbs gives voters absolute freedom of choice to set abortion policy nationwide. “Most threatening of all,” they wrote, “no language in today’s decision stops the [f]ederal [g]overnment from prohibiting abortions nationwide, once again from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or incest.”

After Trump’s statement, pro-life leaders urged the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential candidate to use the full authority his judicial policy successes had won to pass pro-life protections in his second term. “Former President Trump has played a vital role in bringing our nation to this pivotal point of being able to restore the fundamental right to life in America,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, in a statement released first to The Washington Stand. “I applaud President Trump for the work he has done, but that work is not over.”

“As voters continue to elect pro-life legislators at both the state and federal levels, pro-life policies should be pursued at every level of government until every child, born and unborn, is welcomed into this nation and protected under our laws, federal and state,” Perkins continued. “The effort to protect innocent life is crucial as we work toward a day when we will once again see the spiritual walls of our nation stand high and secure.”

President Trump on Monday continued to highlight that “Democrats are the radical ones on this [abortion] position, because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month,” and “even execution after birth.” Trump likely referred to former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D), who declared in 2019, “I can tell you exactly what would happen” if a child is born alive during a botched abortion: “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.” Similarly, in 2013, Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist for the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, told the Florida legislature the decision about whether to save a baby born alive during a botched abortion “should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” Philadelphia abortionist and mass murderer Kermit Gosnell made the infanticide of newborn premature babies his regular “abortion” procedure.

Perkins said defunding abortion and ending the federal government’s role in facilitating abortion would win Trump voters, as it already enjoys broad support. “The legal authority to protect this fundamental right to life has not only been restored to the states but also to policymakers at the federal level, where broad support exists to not force taxpayers to pay for abortion. The federal government should not be funding the facilitation of abortion in any form or fashion — at home or abroad,” said Perkins.

The Democratic Party platform calls for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand for any reason a matter of “health, rights, and justice.” But polling data show the national consensus diverges sharply from prevailing liberal orthodoxy. As this author has noted:

  • 67% of Americans oppose funding abortion overseas, according to a 2024 KofC/Marist poll;
  • 66% say people with religious objections should not be legally required to carry out abortions;
  • 58% of the American people believe abortion should not be legal past the first trimester, except for rape or incest;
  • 61% of Americans oppose sending abortion-inducing pills through the mail;
  • 53% of Americans oppose funding abortion in the United States;
  • 55% said employers with religious objections should not be forced to pay for abortion coverage in their employees’ insurance in a 2023 Marist poll; and
  • 55% of all Americans support laws protecting a child from his or her first fetal heartbeat in a 2019 Hill-HarrisX survey.

Additionally, “a clear majority (59%) of voters say they would support Congressional legislation that would prohibit abortions after a baby can feel pain at fifteen weeks of pregnancy,” with exceptions for rape and incest, a poll from last June found. That majority would allow states “to pass even more protective laws.”

On the other hand, polls consistently show a minority supports the right to an abortion for any reason, at any time: just over one in four Americans (29%) in the most recent Marist poll. Only 9% of young people belonging to the Millennials and Gen Z “supported the Democratic Party’s radical agenda of abortion through all 9 months without limits,” according to a poll conducted for Students for Life of America.

Nonetheless, Democrats plan to nationalize the issue of abortion, endorsing a national abortion approval bill and taxpayer subsidies for abortionists. Biden has centered his reelection campaign around a promise to strike down pro-life protections nationwide. The legislation he endorses, the Women’s Health Protection Act, goes much further than the abortion regime foisted on America by Roe, Doe v. Bolton (1973), and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) — erasing more than 1,300 laws passed while Roe, Doe, and Casey remained binding legal precedent.

“Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. If successful, they will wipe out states’ rights,” warned Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “Unborn children and their mothers deserve national protections,” she added, saying she was “disappointed in President Trump’s position.”

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, agreed the next president must use the power available to advance the right to life. “There remains an urgent need to advocate for the unborn at the federal level, which is one of the reasons we continue to march annually in our nation’s capital even after the Dobbs decision. Pro-abortion politicians relentlessly work to enact federal legislation like the deceptively titled Women’s Health Protection Act, which would cancel every states’ ability to limit abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and erases existing pro-life protections for vulnerable women and children nationwide,” said Mancini in a statement emailed to TWS.

After rejecting Roe’s sweeping, top-down abortion policy, voluntarily adopting an anything-goes abortion policy would make the United States a global outlier, pro-life leaders noted. “The overwhelming majority of European nations reject such barbaric policies with minimum protections for children after the first trimester. We as a nation need to work toward federal minimum protections for the unborn, and advocate for policies that support pregnant women and families in need,” Mancini told TWS.

Trump’s video statement also generated controversy for endorsing exceptions for the one percent of abortions due to rape and incest, respectively. “I am strongly in favor of exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother” — a position he has long held, and which he has consistently noted polls well. “We have an obligation to the salvation of our Nation, which is currently in serious decline, to win elections, without which we will have nothing other than failure, death, and destruction,” Trump posted on Truth Social Sunday evening. (Emphasis in original.)

“There’s no ‘salvation of our Nation’ while we are permitting killing children,” replied Lila Rose, founder of Live Action. “This includes helpless children conceived in rape.” Ryan Bomberger, the founder of the Radiance Foundation, who was conceived in rape, asked whether “lives with origin stories like mine should die to Make America Great Again.”

“Unborn children and their mothers deserve national protections,” said Dannenfelser, saying she was “disappointed in President Trump’s position.”

Seeming to anticipate their reactions, President Trump said Monday, “You must follow your heart on this issue — but remember, you must also win elections to restore our culture” and “save our country,” which three years of Democratic rule has placed “at the brink.”

Perkins agreed with the president’s diagnosis that America teeters on the knife’s edge of catastrophe, which requires America to be rooted on a solid rock of abiding values. “To restore our nation to a place of political greatness, we must first restore our moral goodness, and foundational to that is the respect for and protection of all human life. After 50 years of spiritual, cultural, and political engagement, we thankfully reached a point where Roe v. Wade was sent to the dustbin of history, but the effort to restore the inalienable right to life is far from over as we continue working to protect children from the moment of conception,” he said.

“Always follow your heart. But we must win,” Trump said. “We are a failing nation, but we can be a failing nation no longer. We will make our nation great. We will make our nation greater than ever before.”

Trump also voiced strong support for in vitro fertilization. “We want to make it easier for mothers and families to have babies, not harder. That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America,” the president said, stating his view is supported by “the vast majority of Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and pro-life Americans.”

Democrats injected IVF into the national discourse to attack the Dobbs decision. Despite President Joe Biden’s false assertion during the State of the Union address that “the Alabama Supreme Court shut down IVF treatments,” the ruling had nothing to do with IVF’s legal status. Yet IVF presents deep moral concerns for those who believe life begins at conception. Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, has noted that “93% of the embryos created through IVF never result in a live birth.” Sometimes, the doctor implants multiple embryos and then selectively aborts less robust fetuses. Millions more remain frozen, often abandoned — or later destroyed — by their parents.

“We clearly have some work to do to educate the GOP on the lawlessness of a predatory IVF industry, whose own sloppiness has caused the painful headlines we all have seen,” said Kristen Hawkins of Students for Life of America in a statement emailed to TWS. “It’s an industry in need of regulation.” Others contrasted Trump’s states’ rights view of abortion with his commitment to “supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America.” Fox News Digital Editor Ken Shepherd pointed out that former President Trump “seems to be saying abortion is a matter for the states, but his language on IVF regulation seems to suggest every state should protect IVF as a right. This seems a bit incongruent.” (Emphasis in original.)

Yet pro-life leaders took heart at the palpable difference in focus between the two parties’ presumptive presidential candidates. “Unlike President Biden, President Trump begins his remarks on abortion celebrating ‘the ultimate joy in life’ – children and family,” said Hawkins. While pro-life advocates “clearly have some work to do to educate the Trump administration” on federal pro-life protections, sharing “the mutual goals of supporting families and welcoming young children” proves that “we can work together to restore the culture of life stripped away by the national Democratic Party and their leadership.”

“Fighting against that kind of abortion extremism is a reason to vote for Donald Trump,” Hawkins told TWS. Dannensfelser also promised SBA Pro-Life America will “work tirelessly to defeat President Biden and extreme congressional Democrats” in November.

Talk show host Steve Deace questioned the political viability of Trump’s abortion stance. “Is there truly a constituency of people who vote on this issue who will find this reasonable?” he said. “[I]f you’re voting on abortion you feel strongly about it, one way or the other. And if you have anything close to the position Trump has, you’re not even voting on that issue, so it doesn’t matter.”

But Perkins believes President Trump “is going to continue to pursue a pro-life policy” once elected, based on the counsel of his advisors and the political calculus of the Republican Party.

“I saw today’s statement with a comma behind it, not a period,” Perkins told “Greg Kelly Reports” on Newsmax Monday evening. “I’ve had conversations leading up to this with the former president. If Congress were to reach a consensus on a piece of legislation and send it to his desk, I have no doubt he would sign it.”

“His record is very clear; he’s the most pro-life president that we’ve had,” Perkins concluded.

Pro-life leaders hope a second Trump presidency will live up to his words Monday morning: “The Republican Party should always be on the side of the miracle of life — on the side of mothers, fathers, and their beautiful babies.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.  ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

J. K. Rowling’s courageous stand for truth

/in , , , , , , , , /by

This year’s was a particularly memorable April Fools’ Day.

First, Scotland’s new Hate Crime and Public Order Act came into force, making it illegal to “stir up hatred” against people based on their age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or other protected characteristics.

It’s a fool’s errand to try to police hatred — a subjective and internalised feeling if ever there was one — not to mention the even more ambiguous “crime” of stirring up hatred.

But fools rush in, and thanks to the new woke law, anyone found guilty of sufficiently hurting another person’s feelings in Scotland, even in their private residence or online, will face up to seven years in prison. A fool’s paradise indeed.

Into the breach

In response to all this foolishness, bestselling author J. K. Rowling, who calls Scotland home, shared her own April Fools’ joke in the form of a lengthy X thread.

“Scotland’s Hate Crime Act comes into effect today,” she began. “Women gain no additional protections, of course, but well-known trans activist Beth Douglas, darling of prominent Scottish politicians, falls within a protected category. Phew!”

Rowling’s words captioned two screenshots of social media posts made by Douglas that show the trans activist wielding knives and axes, and stating that “direct action gets the goods” and “you can take the change by force”.

But Rowling wasn’t done.

“Lovely Scottish lass and convicted double rapist Isla Bryson found her true authentic female self shortly before she was due to be sentenced,” wrote Rowling, posting photos of an evidently male criminal who apparently hoped for lighter sentencing with a newfound trans identity.

“Misgendering is hate, so respect Isla’s pronouns, please,” Rowling added sarcastically.

Eight more tweets followed, cataloguing an assortment of sporting opportunists, undeserving women’s rights appointees, and convicted criminals.

Then for the punchline:

“April Fools!” Rowling declared.

“Only kidding. Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren’t women at all, but men, every last one of them.”

She ended her post with a thoughtful critique of the new law, which, she argues, prioritises male self-identification over the rights of actual women, and that will inevitably hurt girls, incentivise abuse, scramble crime data, silence dissent and outlaw biology.

Then came her most courageous words:

“I’m currently out of the country, but if what I’ve written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment.”

Rowling’s parting remarks won praise from all corners of the internet, and for good reason. It was a brilliant play — arguably a first-move checkmate that neutered Scotland’s dystopian law out of the gate.

Checkmate

By very unambiguously and very publicly breaking the Hate Crime Act on its very first day, Rowling cornered Scottish authorities, forcing them to respond in one of two ways, both equally fatal.

Option one would be to enforce the law, arrest Rowling, and shine an international spotlight on the law’s abject insanity. Option two would be to not enforce the law and thereby render it as worthless as the paper it’s written on. Heads she wins, tails they lose.

They lost.

Within a day, Police Scotland had announced that Rowling’s post was not being treated as criminal.

Rowling welcomed the news, writing,

“I hope every woman in Scotland who wishes to speak up for the reality and importance of biological sex will be reassured by this announcement, and I trust that all women — irrespective of profile or financial means — will be treated equally under the law.”

In response to the fear that Scottish authorities will still target people who don’t have the means to defend themselves, Rowling announced,

“If they go after any woman for simply calling a man a man, I’ll repeat that woman’s words and they can charge us both at once.”

It is difficult to overstate the heroic courage of J. K. Rowling. She was willing to put her freedom, wealth and remaining good name on the line, venturing where angels fear to tread, in order to speak the truth and defend the vulnerable.

By doing so, let’s just hope she has inspired a generation of young women to do the same.

AUTHOR

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate architect, a primary school teacher, a missionary, and a young adult pastor.

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Citizenship Application Now Allows for ‘X’ Gender Designation

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Biden administration is allowing immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship to identify as an “X” gender on their paperwork. U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on Monday that, effective immediately, immigrants applying for naturalization may pick “male,” “female,” or “X” as their gender, denoting “Another Gender Identity.”

Furthermore, applicants do not need to provide any supporting documentation in order to select an “X” gender. “You do not need to provide supporting documentation to select X as your gender initially or to change your gender selection for Form N-400,” USCIS stated. “The gender you select does not need to match the gender listed on your other immigration documents or on supporting identity documents, such as your birth certificate, passport, or state identification.”

“Historically, USCIS forms and associated documents have only offered two gender options: ‘Male (M)’ and ‘Female (F),’” the USCIS announcement explained. “This has created significant barriers for requestors who do not identify with either of those options.” The agency cited the example of other federal agencies, such as the U.S. State Department, which have allowed for a self-identified “X” gender on official documents as justification for its decision.

The agency advised, “Form N-400 is the only USCIS form that offers the X gender option at this time. Therefore, until we complete additional form revisions that add the X gender option, naturalization certificates are the only USCIS-issued secure identity documents that can reflect the gender X.” Form N-565, a request for a replacement naturalization or citizenship document, is reportedly still being revised to include an “X” gender option. Those who have filed an N-400 form which is still pending need only contact USCIS to request a change to “X.”

USCIS also updated guidelines in its Policy Manual to reflect the new gender option available, adding that there will be “other forthcoming form revisions that will add a third gender option…”

Referring to the death of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student who was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) posted on social media, “I’m sure Laken Riley’s family is relieved to know that immigrants can now register as ‘Gender X.’” He added, “Biden’s Department of Homeland Security is too busy implementing woke DEI gender policies to protect Americans and secure the border. … Close the border.”

The USCIS decision follows similar moves by other federal agencies, most notably the State Department. In 2022, Biden’s State Department announced it was adding “X” gender marker options to U.S. passports, a decision explicitly cited by USCIS in its own announcement. Additionally, the State Department has spent its time issuing warnings to staffers about “misgendering,” funding training programs for LGBT “allies,” and endorsing LGBT “Pride” events across the globe.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Official Dismisses ‘Faux Outrage’ over Trans Day of Visibility on Easter

Expert: Nex Benedict Was ‘Abused and Mistreated’ Not Only by Her Father but also by ‘a Political Agenda’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Florida Supreme Court Approves Pro-Life Law, But Sets the Stage for Abortion Showdown in November

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

After being thoroughly remade by a popular Republican governor, the Supreme Court in one of the nation’s largest states has upheld a protective pro-life law which allows an even stronger protection to take effect. But the court also authorized a ballot initiative that could erase nearly all pro-life laws in America’s third most populous state.

In a near-unanimous (6-1) ruling, the Florida Supreme Court approved a bill prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks gestation. The Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act “protects babies in the womb who have beating hearts, who can move, who can taste, who can see, and who can feel pain,” said Governor Ron DeSantis (R), who appointed five of the seven sitting justices, when he signed the bill in April 2022. The ruling also paves the way for a more protective pro-life law, which extends human rights to six weeks post-gestation, to take effect next month.

“Good news for life!” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “This ruling by the Florida Supreme Court upholds the state’s 15-week protection of unborn life and allows the state’s new heartbeat law — protecting unborn babies at six weeks — to go into effect in May.”

However, a narrower, 4-3 majority allowed a coalition of abortionists and their lobbyists to put forward a measure, Proposition 4, which would insert a constitutional right to virtually unlimited, late-term abortion in the state constitution. The court also authorized a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel called the ruling the “culmination of 35 years of work.” Staver, who has argued before the court, told “Washington Watch” guest host Jody Hice that the issue began with a 1989 ruling when “the activist liberal Florida Supreme Court at that time twisted this 1980 constitutional amendment that had nothing to do with abortion, but was about the privacy of your documents, to apply to abortion.”

In the case — Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida — the majority ruled that Florida’s Supreme Court had wrongly interpreted the word “privacy” in an unrelated statute through the lens of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which has since been overturned. The 1989 Supreme Court decision “associated the language of the Privacy Clause with Roe’s understanding of privacy; but it did not justify how that concept of privacy aligned with our constitution’s text,” the court ruled Monday. The earlier court “also did not ask how Florida voters would have understood the text of the provision and how that understanding would be informed by Florida’s long history of proscribing abortion.”

The decision removes a roadblock to the Heartbeat Protection Act, signed by DeSantis last April, which protects unborn children from abortion the moment a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat, usually around six weeks. Legislators, noting the legal action over the 2022 law, included a provision in the heartbeat bill that it would not take effect until one month after justices upheld the less protective law. The Heartbeat Protection Act will take effect on May 1.

Pro-life leaders sounded notes of hope, mixed with trepidation, over the two abortion decisions. “We are pleased that Florida’s laws protecting preborn children were upheld. However, the court is allowing an extreme and detrimental ballot measure to move forward,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “Florida has made tremendous advances in protecting innocent human life and providing support for mothers. This ballot initiative would destroy Floridians’ hard work in creating a culture that supports and protects life.”

“Today’s victory for unborn children who have a heartbeat and can feel pain is in line with the views of the majority of Floridians who want to protect babies and serve mothers and families,” said SBA Pro-Life America State Policy Director Katie Daniel, in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “As Florida faces what may be its biggest ballot fight yet, Governor Ron DeSantis must be at the forefront of protecting Florida from Big Abortion’s attempt to eliminate the rights of unborn children, parents, women, and girls” and “lead in defending those protections,” Daniel told TWS.

Proposition 4

In a second ruling, justices also approved the language of a ballot initiative that would expand late-term abortion. The amendment is supported by “Floridians Protecting Freedom,” who describes itself as a coalition of “over 200 local, statewide, and national organizations” but lists just six groups, including Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the 1199 Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Proposition 4 states: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

Opponents say the language is “misleading” and unconstitutionally vague. For instance, Staver noted on “Washington Watch” that the term “healthcare provider” encompasses “about 58 different categories, which includes non-medical personnel such as a 911 operator, a massage therapist, an orthotic shoe fitter, the assistant to the orthotic shoe fitter, a tattoo artist, and the list goes on.”

The inclusion of an exception for the patient’s “health” builds on the precedent established in the 1973 Supreme Court case Doe v. Bolton, allowing an abortion for virtually any reason, including mental and financial reasons. “Really, no abortion would be prohibited through all nine months of pregnancy up to and including birth if this passes,” Staver told Hice.

In a powerful dissent, Justice Jamie Grosshans wrote:

“A voter may think this amendment simply returns Florida to a pre-Dobbs status quo. It does not. A voter may think that a healthcare provider would be clearly defined as a licensed physician specializing in women’s health. It is not. A voter may think that viability falls within a readily apparent time frame. It does not. A voter may think that the comma is an insignificant grammatical tool that would have very little interpretive purpose. It will not. And, critically, the voter may think this amendment results in settling this issue once and for all. It does not. Instead, this amendment returns abortion issues back to the courts to interpret scope, boundary, definitions, and policy, effectively removing it from the people and their elected representatives. Perhaps this is a choice that Floridians wish to make, but it should be done with clarity as to their vote’s ramifications and not based on a misleading ballot summary.”

“I presented part of the oral argument at the court, and the chief justice really got the concern nailed down. He said the voters aren’t being informed that this law can impact other existing laws that recognize the humanity of the unborn child, laws that are criminal, civil wills and trusts, guardianship laws,” Staver told Hice.

Pro-life advocates have dug in for a long fight against the amendment. “We must oppose Proposition 4. Not only will this measure bring dangerous late-term abortions back to Florida, but it will allow girls who aren’t old enough to get their ears pierced on their own get an abortion without” parental consent, said Daniel.

“In a state where 25% of abortion centers failed inspections, it’s no surprise they want to be completely unregulated to increase their profits at the expense of women, girls, and babies,” Daniel, a Tampa resident, told TWS. “Those girls and the women who have abortions will be put at risk when this measure eliminates every abortion health regulation on the books.”

Democrats seized upon the two Supreme Court rulings to tout their viability in November. Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chávez Rodríguez, believed the rulings gave the president and his party an “opening” in the increasingly Republican state. Christina Reynolds, senior vice president of communications for EMILY’s List, said although “we’ve had our heart broken before” in Florida, she hopes the ballot initiative “draws some focus to Florida that might otherwise not be there.”

All parties acknowledge it would be difficult to defeat President Trump, who lives in his 17-acre Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. And Republicans have determined not to back down from abortion as a campaign issue in 2024.

The ballot initiative will prove an uphill fight, especially as many party leaders have devoted little money to opposing the well-funded abortion industry’s expansion in a string of state elections. Staver said the “silver lining” in the Proposition 4 ruling is “we could bring another challenge to have the court rule on the personhood of the child based upon the Florida constitution itself.”

But in the meantime, pro-life advocates rejoice over the collective impact Governor DeSantis’s political and judicial decisions will have on the unborn.

“Thousands of lives will be saved by this law,” said Live Action founder Lila Rose.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida Must Vote This November Against Abortions Up to Birth

Four Pro-Life Americans Convicted of Peacefully Protesting Abortion, Face Federal Prison

Joe Biden Wants 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor in Prison for Peacefully Protesting Abortion

Nebraska Democrat Becomes Republican After Democrats Censure Him for Voting Pro-Life

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Leaked WPATH Files Expose Medical Malpractice at Global Transgender Healthcare Authority

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) members demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the debilitating and potentially fatal side effects of cross-sex hormones and other treatments.

Press Release from  Environmental Progress, March 4, 2024

Newly leaked files from within the leading global transgender healthcare body have revealed that the clinicians who shape how “gender medicine” is regulated and practiced around the world consistently violate medical ethics and informed consent. The files, which were leaked from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), were published today by the US-based think tank Environmental Progress.

WPATH is considered the leading global scientific and medical authority on “gender medicine,” and in recent decades, its Standards of Care have shaped the guidance, policies and practices of governments, medical associations, public health systems and private clinics across the world.

However, the WPATH Files reveal that the organization does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along. Members are fully aware that children and adolescents cannot comprehend the lifelong consequences of “gender-affirming care,” and in some cases, due to poor health literacy, neither can their parents.

“The WPATH Files show that what is called ‘gender medicine’ is neither science nor medicine,” said Michael Shellenberger, President and founder of Environmental Progress. “The experiments are not randomized, double-blind, or controlled. It’s not medicine since the first rule is to do no harm. And that requires informed consent.”

The raw files have been published in a report called The WPATH Files: Pseudoscientific surgical and hormonal experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults, which contains analysis by journalist Mia Hughes that puts the WPATH Files in the context of the best available science on gender distress.

Environmental Progress has made all files available to read at the end of the report. The leaked files include screenshots of posts from WPATH’s internal messaging forum dating from 2021 to 2024 and a video of an internal panel discussion. All names have been redacted other than several WPATH members of public significance, such as Dr. Marci Bowers, an American gynecologist and surgeon who is the President of WPATH, and the Canadian pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Daniel Metzger.

In the WPATH Files, members demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the debilitating and potentially fatal side effects of cross-sex hormones and other treatments. Messages in the files show that patients with severe mental health issues, such as schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder, and other vulnerabilities such as homelessness, are being allowed to consent to hormonal and surgical interventions. Members dismiss concerns about these patients and characterize efforts to protect them as unnecessary “gatekeeping.”

The files provide clear evidence that doctors and therapists are aware they are offering minors life-changing treatments they cannot fully understand. WPATH members know that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will cause infertility and other complications, including cancer and pelvic floor dysfunction. Yet they consider life-altering medical interventions for young patients, including vaginoplasty for a 14-year-old and hormones for a developmentally delayed 13-year-old.

The WPATH Files also show how far medical experiments in gender medicine have gone, with discussions about surgeons performing “nullification” and other extreme body modification procedures to create body types that do not exist in nature.

A growing number of medical and psychiatric professionals say the promotion of pseudoscientific surgical and hormonal experiments is a global medical scandal that compares to major incidents of medical malpractice in history, such as lobotomies and ovariotomies.

“Activist members of WPATH know that the so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ they provide can result in life-long complications and sterility and that their patients do not understand the implications, such as loss of sexual function and the ability to experience orgasm,” Shellenberger said. “These leaked files show overwhelming evidence that the professionals within WPATH know that they are not getting consent from children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults, or their caregivers.”

Environmental Progress has written to every WPATH member named in the files, as well as additional members whose names have been redacted, to confirm their comments and offer a right of reply. Two people responded – one confirmed that the comments attributed to them were correct, and another did not deny their comments but refuted Environmental Progress’ interpretation of them. Mention of Environmental Progress’ outreach to members via email was then later seen in the form of comments on WPATH’s internal messaging forum.

Background: HB2079 Would Legalize Child Kidnapping for Sex Change

EDITORS NOTE: This Hawaii Free Press column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.