Was Virginia Doctor Performing a Kind of Demographic Jihad?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Helping turn Virginia blue?

Because so many readers sent the news about a Pakistani doctor in Virginia under arrest for performing unwanted and unneeded medical procedures on women in his care, I need to post the news.

Even if there weren’t questions about why some women were unknowingly (allegedly) made infertile, Dr Perwaiz would have come to our attention, joining a growing list of ‘new American’ doctors who are busy committing Medicaid/Medicare fraud one of the interests highlighted here at ‘Frauds and Crooks.‘

Here is Robert Spencer’s (Jihad Watch) take on the incredible news at PJ Media: 

Demographic Jihad? Virginia Muslim Doctor Tied Women’s Tubes Without Their Consent

The details of this case are simply horrifying. One woman tried for years to conceive a child, but couldn’t. When she finally consulted a fertility specialist, she discovered, according to the Virginian-Pilot, that her “Fallopian tubes had been burned down to nubs, making it impossible to conceive naturally.” It turned out that her physician, Dr. Javaid Perwaiz of Chesapeake, Virginia, had tied her tubes without telling her was doing it or obtaining her consent. And she was by no means the only woman whom Dr. Perwaiz victimized in this way.

[….]

About the good doctor we are told that he was “educated abroad,” with no hint as to where – it was actually in his native Pakistan, as the Virginian-Pilot notes: “Perwaiz has had a medical license since at least 1980, according to state records, having attended medical school in his native Pakistan and completed a residency at Charleston Area Medical Center.”

Read the Virginian-Pilot story to see what Perwaiz is being charged with.

Spencer wraps with this after telling us what Muslim leaders have said in the past about demographic jihad:

Is it possible that Javaid Perwaiz has the same kind of mindset, believing that he is performing an Islamic duty by preventing infidel women from having children? It cannot be discounted, but of course the possibility will never be investigated; to do so would be “Islamophobic.”

Continue reading here.

One reader who sent me the story remarked that any woman who goes to a Muslim doctor is foolish (harsher words than that).  However, I will bet most American women have no clue if their ‘new American’ doctor is a Muslim and if they do they don’t know any basic tenets of Islam.

Changing America by changing the people!

Don’t miss my RRW story about how Muslims are winning big in local elections. Virginia was a big winner for them on election day 2019.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Cult of Transgenderism: My Brother’s Crisis of Identity in an America Gone Mad

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by
By Lisa*Editor’s Note: This is Part 1 of a 6-Part Series. The author of this true account, a wife and mother of three, wishes to remain anonymous. All names in this account have been changed.The Abandonment of Reality and the Embrace of the “True Self”

Last year, my brother Josh, a 37-year-old married father with five kids under the age of 9, announced he was becoming a woman.

His wife, in turn, announced that she not only plans to stay married, but that she is “more proud of him” than she’s ever been. Actually, she said she is “more proud of her than she’s ever been.” That’s because my brother Josh changed his name to Melissa and now requires everyone to use “she/her” pronouns when referring to him. If the grandparents refuse to do this, they have been threatened with limited access to their grandchildren.

My brother and sister-in-law claim that through several years of therapy, they came to realize the truth: that Melissa was Josh’s “true self” all along.

Thus, my tall, handsome, muscular brother began taking strong female hormones that transformed him into a different person. His facial hair stopped growing. He grew breasts instead. As part of his “social transition” he began wearing dresses, wigs, heels, and makeup in public. He will have to stay on female hormones until the day he dies. He refuses to answer to the name Josh now—the only name anyone’s known him as for almost four decades. He says Josh is dead. There was even some type of symbolic “burial ceremony” to say goodbye to Josh once and for all. Unfortunately, I didn’t get invited to that. Nor did my parents. No one sent us flowers. No one dropped off a casserole.

Basically, the best way to describe what happens when a loved one decides to swap genders is this: It’s as though someone murders your loved one and then the murderer gets extremely angry if you won’t let them take the victim’s place in your family.

My family and I are now called “transphobic” for not embracing Melissa with open arms.

When I told my brother, “I’m sorry…I love Josh, but I cannot move forward with this new Melissa girl,” he simply texted me: “So long then.” So long to almost 40 years of relating as siblings. So long to weekly dinners at my parents’ home. So long to our kids growing up with their cousins. But I do not fault him or his wife for this. They are victims. They have been brainwashed by the trans cult. It all began with a therapist’s advice and ended with lifelong payments to the trans medical machine. There’s lots of money to be made in telling people to become the opposite gender. Lots. (More on that later.)

Oddly, even in this #MeToo era, American culture now tells me that my brother—who’s spent 37 years as a Caucasian male—now deserves the same rights and respects that I, an actual woman, deserve. I’m a woman who’s been sexually harassed hundreds of times in my 40 years of life. My brother was a star high school athlete who had his pick of girls to date. While I was fending off unwanted stares and groping hands of males in my 20s, he was enjoying all the perks of being just such a male in the 21st century. While I was giving birth to three babies who will grow up to be women in my 30s, he was joining the fight to get legal access to their public restrooms.

See, if my brother was claiming to be an alien or a time traveler instead of a woman, our culture would never support it. But since it’s 2019 and the denial of reality when it comes to biological sex is en vogue—countless people are blindly embracing Melissa as my brother’s “True Self.” Even though reality clearly proves my brother is male, people unabashedly deny reality out of fear of being called “intolerant.” They’re terrified of being lumped in with all the “Trump-supporting, LGBTQ haters.” They say things like, “If Josh tells us that this Melissa is actually his ‘true self,’ who are we to argue?”

The “True Self” has become the final measure of all things. Every book we open, every show we watch, every internet meme we read suggests we can all attain greater levels of health and peace through a deeper understanding and expression of our “True Self.”

It sounds so right. How can it be wrong?

In his book The Road to Character, David Brooks explains that back in the day, there was something called moral realism—a worldview that put an emphasis on human sin and human weakness. Biblical figures like David and Moses were seen as great leaders who were also deeply flawed. Augustine and the early church fathers talked constantly about the depravity of sin and the need for grace. Then around the 18th century, moral realism found a rival in moral romanticism. Romantics like Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized the inherent goodness of man and rejected the concept of sin.

Fast forward to the 20th century when books like Rabbi Joshua Liebman’s New York Times best seller Peace of Mind (published in 1946) urged people toward a new morality based on the idea that you should never repress any part of yourself as sinful. Instead, you should “love yourself” and not be afraid of your hidden impulses. Humanist psychologists ran with this idea. They began arguing that the primary problem for humans was no longer sin, but rather the fact that we weren’t fully accepting of ourselves exactly as God made us. This line of thinking led to the advent of the self-esteem movement in 1969, and the core of that movement morphed into what Charles Taylor calls “The Culture of Authenticity.” That’s the culture we’re contending with today.

The central belief of the culture of authenticity goes something like this:

At the center of every one of us is a Golden Figure known as “the True Self.” The True Self can always be trusted. You know that what you’re doing is right when you feel an inner peace inside your True Self. You know that what you’re doing is wrong when you do not feel inner peace inside your True Self.

Because the True Self is inherently good, there is no sin to be found in it. Thus, sin is now found only in the external structures of society that seek to repress the True Self or stop it from fully emerging.

Previous generations believed the development of character and the road to salvation came by struggling against the desires of the True Self. This is why traits like selflessness and self-sacrifice were considered most admirable. But not anymore. Our culture now has a new “salvation”—with the True Self playing the role of redeemer.

The steps to this “new salvation” are as follows:

  1. Relinquish any previous struggle you had against your True Self.
  2. Allow your ego/shadow self to fall away so your True Self can fully emerge without any guilt or shame (both of which are constructs of old, outdated religious systems).
  3. Adopt a new lexicon in which words like “sin” and “evil” now refer to the external constructs of society that caused you to doubt your True Self was good and perfect in the first place. (Thus, the only real sin a man is now capable of engaging in is the sin of intolerance.)

Yet many influential thinkers of the past, including John Stuart Mill, believed the point of life was to struggle every day to sacrifice the True Self on the altar of care and concern for others. This is done by achieving a series of small, inner victories against your own desires because you know that acting upon those desires could result in dire consequences for others.

Because we are all bound together through our good and bad choices, the smallest decisions we make today can negatively impact everyone in our sphere of influence, even reaching forward into generations to come. Thus, we build character by a thousand selfless acts of restraint every day that no one ever sees or applauds.

Our society once believed this sort of self-restraint was the best way to live. Men and women were encouraged to exercise self-restraint in building a life of integrity. But the ideals of selflessness and self-restraint are now seen as hopelessly outdated and must be discarded in favor of the True Self.

To continue reading Lisa’s story, click over to the FRC blog…

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Data Show “Gender-Affirming” Surgery Doesn’t Really Improve Mental Health. So Why Are the Study’s Authors Saying It Does?

4 Feminist Lies That Are Making Women Miserable

Military Trans Surgery: It’s on the House!

School Library Leaves Parents Shelf Shocked

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

Banned Practice: YouTube Takes Censorship to Trans Debate

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

“Talk with teens about possible regret.” That’s what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about tattoos and body piercings. But when it comes to giving a girl who thinks she’s a boy a double mastectomy, the same organization thinks parents should “respect” their kids’ wishes.

That’s just part of the hypocrisy Dr. Michelle Cretella was trying to point out about the liberal medical community in a popular video for the Daily Signal. I say “trying,” because after two years, the flaggers at YouTube decided to pull down the 2017 content and ban it. The truth about transgenderism, they said, “violates YouTube’s hate speech policy.” According to liberal flaggers, the offensive part was just one sentence — but, as Daily Signal editor Katrina Trinko explained on Thursday’s “Washington Watch,” it was an important one.

“If I walk into my doctor’s office today and say, ‘Hi, I’m Margaret Thatcher,’ my physician will say I am delusional and give me an anti-psychotic,” Dr. Cretella explained. But, “if instead, I walked in and said, ‘I’m a man,’ he would say, ‘Congratulations, you’re transgender.’ If I were to say, ‘Doc, I’m suicidal because I’m an amputee trapped in a normal body, please cut off my leg,’ I will be diagnosed with body identity integrity disorder. But if I walk into that doctor’s office and say, ‘I am a man, sign me up for a double mastectomy,’ my physician will.” Then came the part that really set YouTube off: “See, if you want to cut off a leg or an arm you’re mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender.”

Nothing that Dr. Cretella said is medically inaccurate. “And yet [it’s] so ‘offensive,'” Katrina argued, that “YouTube cannot even let it be said.” And what’s even more incredible is that this video has been online for a whole two years! It already has 70 million views. If YouTube wanted to keep the lid on these facts, they sure took their time doing it. But even now, after months of back-and-forth with the Daily Signal, it’s obvious the company isn’t concerned about truth or fairness. “We said, ‘Hey, we understand you’re a private company. We respect that you have the right to have your own rules. But we really think that this is a targeting of conservatives. Can we come to some sort of understanding?”

YouTube’s answer? No. “Ultimately, we were told the only way we could get the video back on YouTube was to delete the sentence [about cutting off healthy body parts]. In other words, we had two choices: censor the doctor’s words or have no video on the world’s biggest video platform.” That, Katrina said, “should horrify every YouTube user — and anyone who values the importance of a public square featuring a variety of perspectives.”

At a time when children are being legitimately and irreparably hurt by this ideology, the last thing any social media company should be doing is silencing experts. Dr. Cretella is a pediatrician with decades of professional experience. She understands the consequences of this because she’s seen them. If families reinforce and support their kids’ biological gender through puberty, “the vast majority of gender-confused children [as many as 98 percent!] get better.” But here we are, she warns, rushing to “chemically castrate gender-confused children with puberty blockers. Then we permanently sterilize many of them by adding cross-sex hormones, which also put them at risk for heart disease, strokes, diabetes, cancers, and even the very emotional problems that the gender experts claim to be treating.”

The truth may be uncomfortable. The science might be “offensive.” But what people don’t know about this fad of self-expression is destroying our children’s futures. The Left can’t debate Dr. Cretella — they can’t argue against the facts — so they call it “hate speech.” It’s time for the rest of us to rise up and speak out — while we still can! Conservatives may not be as loud and noisy and quick to complain as liberals, Katrina says, “but we exist.” And we should be allowed to speak freely. If you agree, weigh in. Tweet at them: @YouTube and @google. Or leave a message on Google’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/Google/) or YouTube’s (https://www.facebook.com/youtube/).

Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Labour MP deselected for backing parents over LGBT teaching in schools

Mastercard to Offer Cards Aimed at Transgender and Nonbinary People

Pediatric Endocrine Society Falsely Claims Puberty Blockers Are “Reversible.”Pediatric Endocrine Society Falsely Claims Puberty Blockers Are “Reversible.”

Parents Look for Eraser in Austin Sex Ed

When Erdogan Visits the U.S., He Has Some Explaining to Do

RELATED VIDEO: Does Free Speech Offend You?

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

Bohemian Misery, Part 1

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. – Hebrews 12:1

It was 1975 and homosexuality was barely a movement, still in the shadows, even in the “progressive” rock-music biz. Two years hence, Freddie Mercury would sing the prideful lyrics to “We Will Rock You” and “We Are The Champions,” arguably his band’s most-overtly pro-homosexual songs. But it would be decades before fans clued on to Freddie’s proclivities. In a moment of spiritual clarity, he penned his band’s biggest hit, his autobiographical “Bohemian Rhapsody,” a single with the highest-ever production cost at the time with all of its overdubbed, operatic harmonies. Mercury never explained what Queen’s songs were about, but there’s compelling evidence that between 1975 and 1977 he underwent a transformation based on the
poor choices he made.

“Bohemian Rhapsody” is the conflicted prequel to later pro-homosexual songs by Queen, providing insight into Mercury’s internal torment. Tortured by his vices, struggling with sin, knowing it’s sin… and then, tragically, finally, and terminally, giving in, his lyrics take us from his first homosexual encounter, all the way, prophetically, to his untimely death.

We begin in the second part of the song where Mercury describes himself in the third person as an impressionable youth. You’d think he was talking about someone else: “I see a little silhouetto of a man.” But no, that’s just part of the deception. The whole chronology is inverted, you see, to throw his heterosexual fans off as he looks back to when he was young and innocent, as reflected in the insouciant nature of the accompaniment.

As a silhouette he’s just a cute young lad, basic and featureless, lacking character, playing the role of a boastful but cowardly, sixteenth-century commedia dell’arte clown, a “Scaramouche,” as part of some sort of theater group, the perfect quarry for an older homosexual assailant.

Indeed, a man’s voice calls to him, “Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?” a sexually enticing dance in triple time. And, quicker than you can say “statutory rape,” Mercury finds himself subjected to a “Thunderbolt and lightning.” For a mere child inexperienced in the abject violence of sodomy, it is, he confesses, “Very, very frightening [to] me!”

Mercury and his band chant back-and-forth, “(Galileo) Galileo. (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo Figaro Magnifico-o-o-o-o.” And just who, pray tell, is this Galileo character? I’m glad you ask. It is none other than Jesus Christ, that’s who. Having just been sodomized, Mercury is crying out to be rescued from his guilt and spiritual torment, to say nothing of the physical pain common to ALL young boys when they are first violated by older men.

Wait just a minute here, I hear someone object… Jesus is Galileo? Yes. You see, Mercury couldn’t mention Jesus by name in a pop song without totally destroying his cred, so he refers to Him obliquely, via Luke 23:5–7, the point in Christ’s Passion where Pilate realized Jesus was a Galilean, and therefore (he presumed) not his problem, passing Him to Herod Antipas who had jurisdiction over the region of Galilee. So yes, Freddie Mercury, who would become rock ‘n roll’s most flamboyant, “out” homosexual, cried out to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior… yes, his Lord and Savior, at least at that juncture. And he did it for all the world to hear. Sadly, no one listened. We all heard the lyrics, sure, but were all too mesmerized by the music to listen to the message.

Lest you doubt Mercury’s victimhood status, go to the next verse where he laments, “I’m just a poor boy, nobody loves me.” Precisely the type of low self-esteem that monstrous homosexual men prey upon. The band confirms this when they respond: “He’s just a poor boy from a poor family, Spare him his life from this monstrosity.” And with that line, it really couldn’t be more clear: even Mercury knows homosexual men are monstrous, or he wouldn’t have chosen that word.

Of crucial importance here, while the lyrics for “We Will Rock You” and “We Are The Champions” would be written by someone else just two years later, “Bohemian Rhapsody” comes to us exclusively from Freddie’s heart and soul, every last word of it. So yes, he thought homosexuals were monstrous. His words, not mine, dear reader.

Deflowered, Mercury is torn. “Easy come, easy go, will you let me go?” Of crucial importance here, it’s not his assailant to whom he’s appealing. It’s someone far more sinister, as you’ll soon see.

He cries out to God Himself to deliver him, shouting “Bismillah!” Arabic for In the name of God, harkening to his family’s roots in pre-Christian Zoroastrianism, a religion that opposes homosexuality, believing it a form of demon worship, an unforgivable offence necessitating immediate honor killing.

But, alas, the four-part harmonious response is, “No, we will not let you go.” It goes back and forth with Mercury’s band members joining him in shouting for this evil entity to “Let him go!” and Mercury, for his part, continuing to cry out to God, pleading to be “let go” from the evil that has him in its grip, until… finally… he turns his back on his family, his religion, and his past…and Freddie Mercury switches sides.

This is the turning point for many young men, especially now in an inverted culture that celebrates such inherently violent sexual activity, applauding these victims, urging that they stop being victims and join the dark side instead. They become, in every sense of the words, born again. Mercury now sings “Never, never, never, never let me go!” no longer yearning to be “let go.” It’s unmistakable; he has given in. His basest desires will henceforth be his “rhapsody,” his life’s passion in other words, right here in the physical world.

Like Macbeth, throwing away his afterlife in exchange for immediate gratification “here upon this bank and shoal of time,” as Shakespeare put it, Mercury has made the irrevocable decision to “jump,” to skip in other words “the life to come.” (Shakespeare, Macbeth, I, vii, 6–7) It’s as if he’s skipping a luncheon engagement. No big deal. He’s got more important things to attend to. Like having sex with boys.

And what, you ask, is this evil he had been pleading against until this point? He cries out in shock and surprise, realizing the normal world of love is now but a fast-fading memory: “Oh, mama mia, mama mia, Mama mia, let me go!” Yes, like all sexual deviants, he now wants his own mother to let him go because he’s no longer concerned with the evil he wanted to be freed from just a few lines earlier. And with his connection to his own mother extenuated to the breaking point, he finally identifies the sinister character involved in his spiritual decimation, declaring that “Beelzebub,” yes, that Beelzebub, “has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me,” as the music climaxes.

This is the “we” that had been foreshadowed above when his band sang “we will not let you go.”

It’s Satan and his demons. And guess what? Mercury’s fine with this, and so, apparently, are his band mates, along with everyone who worked behind the scenes with Queen. Everyone.

Stay tuned for the breakdown of the second part of this tragic song that has now deluded two generations of youth in Christendom. The story gets a lot better… worse actually, as Mercury’s health deteriorates and he mourns “at the last,” knowing full-well what awaits him, “when thy flesh and thy body are consumed.” (Proverbs 5:11)

“Bohemian Rhapsody” was never meant to be the anthem for the gay movement, rather a warning against disobedience. Every last word of it, straight from Freddie’s pen.

In photos: First Lady Melania Trump visits children at Boston Medical Center

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

First Lady Melania Trump traveled to Boston yesterday morning, where she highlighted a treatment program for babies born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). The trip comes as part of her signature Be Best initiative for child well-being.

Photos: See the First Lady promote Be Best in Boston

“As you may know, this is an issue I am very focused on,” Mrs. Trump said from the medical center. “I hope today’s visit helps shine a light on programs like yours.”

During the visit, the hospital’s staff and leadership gave her a firsthand look at their innovative lineup of programs. First up was one called Project RESPECT, which provides medically assisted treatment to almost 200 women annually. Its mission is to create a more stable environment for mothers and their babies.

Another important program at the center is called CALM, which stands for “Cuddling Assists in Lowering Maternal and Infant Stress.” The initiative brings in volunteers from across the community to hold babies with NAS, offering them comfort while also decreasing withdrawal symptoms when a child’s parents aren’t available.

The final initiative the First Lady observed is called the Supporting Our Families Through Addiction and Recovery (SOFAR) Clinic.  The SOFAR Clinic, launched in 2017, focuses on the wellness of families as a whole during the lengthy addiction recovery process.

Mrs. Trump had the chance to meet firsthand with children and families currently enrolled in the SOFAR program. “Be Best is dedicated to shining a light on programs similar to the ones I learned about today,” she said. “The programs implemented supply the necessary services and education to patients and families struggling with addiction.”

Learn more about the First Lady’s Be Best initiative.

Tonight, 9/11 hero posthumously honored by President

On September 11, 2001, Colonel Richard Rescorla saved nearly 2,700 lives at the World Trade Center in New York at the cost of his own.

During the attack on the Twin Towers, Rescorla—a commissioned officer in the Vietnam War—ignored a P.A. system announcement that urged people inside the building to shelter in place. Instead, he assisted in evacuating employees, directing them to stairwells and keeping everyone calm amid the growing chaos.

Then, rather than saving himself, Rick stayed behind to keep helping others. He said he would leave “as soon as I make sure everyone else is out.” He died when the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. ET.

Tonight, President Trump is proud to honor this American hero posthumously with the Presidential Citizens Medal.

Watch live: President Trump presents the Citizens Medal at 6 p.m. ET

The Stethoscope Is Not Just a Prop

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Stock photos of “healthcare workers” who attend patients—physicians are no longer distinguishable—usually feature a stethoscope draped around the neck.

But some, such as cardiologist Eric Topol, consider the stethoscope obsolete, nothing more than a pair of “rubber tubes.”

The most important part of the stethoscope is the part between the ears. But some think that will be replaced by artificial intelligence, and the rubber tubes by sophisticated electronic gizmos costing at least ten times as much as the humble stethoscope.

High tech is wonderful and increasingly capable, but if the stethoscope is dying, so is the art of clinical medicine.

The proper use of the stethoscope requires the doctor to touch, listen to the patient, and spend some time with a living person, not a computer. Patient and physician must cooperate: “Stop breathing,” “Take a big deep breath,” “Lean forward,” and so on.

It may be true, as Dr. James Thomas said, that graduates in internal medicine and emergency medicine miss as many as half of murmurs using a stethoscope. There are several reasons for this. One is not taking enough time to listen in a quiet room, and failing to perform the special maneuvers required to bring out an otherwise inaudible murmur (lean forward and exhale fully, turn onto your left side, squat then stand up, etc.).

The other is inadequate training. There are excellent recordings of heart sounds and murmurs, which of course would take time away from the time-devouring electronic medical record or “systems-based” medicine. And a recording is not the same thing as a live patient. Much of today’s teaching in physical diagnosis may be by “patient instructors”—paid actors pretending to be patients, who are evaluating the students as the students examine them. Rounds may be in a conference room, focused on the electronic record, instead of at the bedside.

In the old days, all the members of the team got to examine a real patient who had an interesting finding, with the patient’s permission and under the supervision of an attending physician. It seemed to me that patients usually enjoyed being the center of attention and the star of the show, and hearing the professor discuss their case. We learned how to help patients to sit up, and about hairy chests, layers of extra insulation, noisy lung sounds, shortness of breath, and other impediments to an easy examination.

The stethoscope is not just for heart murmurs. It’s for finding subtleties in careful, slow measurement of the blood pressure. It’s for extra or abnormal heart sounds. One can sometimes hear evidence of vascular problems inside the skull, or in the arteries supplying the brain, kidneys, or limbs. Or signs of intestinal obstruction. One can check to make sure a breathing tube is in the right place.

I don’t know of any bedside technologic wonders for examining the lungs. The stethoscope can detect sensitive signs of heart failure, pneumonia, fluid in the chest, collapsed lung, or airway obstruction. One can listen frequently to monitor changes in the patient’s status—much more efficiently than bringing the portable x-ray machine around.

The stethoscope works even when the power is off, the batteries are dead, the computer is down, or some circuit in the ultrasound device is malfunctioning. It works in facilities too poor to have the latest technology, or with patients who can’t afford to pay for a more expensive examination.

The stethoscope has tremendous capabilities in trained hands. Patients might want to evaluate whether they have a clinician who knows how to use it or is just carrying around a prop or status symbol. If you have symptoms suggestive of a heart or lung problem, does the doctor listen to all the lung fields—upper, mid, and lower, front and back? To at least four places for heart sounds? Are you asked to cough, say “e,” whisper something, take deep breaths or slow quiet ones, or do other maneuvers if something in the history or examination suggests a possible problem? Is the tv off, and are visitors asked to be quiet?

Everybody including doctors loves fancy technology. But before we toss out the old reliable tools, backed by two centuries of experience, how about some serious comparative studies like those the proponents of evidence-based medicine constantly demand?

© All rights reserved.

Firearm Suppressors: 5 Reasons To Get One

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I have to admit: Being slapped with a $200 tax stamp and a couple months wait-time to get a suppressor sucks ass (pardon my language). However, it’s worth it.

It’ll upgrade your shooting game to whole another level — just like if you were to upgrade a standard AR-10 rifle with the best AR-10 optic on the market.

The question is: Why should I use a suppressor? Well, you’re in for a treat because today I’m going to give you five reasons why you should shoot suppressed.

Let’s dive right in.

Reduces Hearing Damage

A helicopter flying at 500 feet. A police siren zapping right past you. A rock concert playing at full blast. A jackhammer piercing through a boulder. A jet taking off at full blast. What do all of these things have in common?

They’re quieter than the sound of a gun being fired. Seriously. For example, firing the most popular rifle in America — the AR-15 — is about 165 decibels (dB) whereas a jet’s engine is approximately 130 dB. The problem?

Exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage your hearing, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). And get this: most firearms produce noise that is over 140 dB. For example, a small .22 caliber firearm can produce noise around 140 decibels (dB); a .223 Remington rifle 155 dB; .44 Magnum revolver 164 dB. You get the idea — unsuppressed firearms are dangerously loud.

The solution?

Use a suppressor (and wear appropriate hearing protective devices). Here’s why: Suppressors significantly reduce the sound level of supersonic firearms by 15 to 45 decibels, depending on the setup. How?

By redirecting the flow of high-pressurized gases through a system of chambers and baffles to slow and cool down the pressure. So if you equip an AR-15 with a suppressor, it could reduce the firing sound by 30 to 35 dB. As a result, the AR-15’s firing sound will turn from a deafening 165 dB gunshot into a quieter 135 dB gunshot.

That’s below the dangerous hearing threshold (140 dB). And that’s exactly why you should use a suppressor, especially on home defense firearms like the AR-15. But suppressors don’t only reduce the sound of the shot at the muzzle. It also…

Reduces Recoil

Let me ask you this:

Why do most people shoot a .223 Remington better than a .338 Winchester Magnum? Because it has lighter recoil. And guess what? Suppressors reduce recoil.

I could go into the full technical explanation of how suppressors reduce recoil through countering the gas pressure. But that shouldn’t be needed. All you need to know is that suppressors lessen the kick of a firearm.

Some recommend using a muzzle brake to reduce recoil. And you should use one if your sole intent is to reduce recoil. However, muzzle brakes dramatically increase muzzle blast. Suppressors don’t. Which brings me to my next point…

Reduces Muzzle Flash

Muzzle flash is the visible light of a muzzle blast.

The problem? Muzzle flash can temporarily blind the shooter or give away the shooter’s position — especially in low-light conditions. In addition, the flash signature could ruin night vision, obscure the sights, and make follow-up shots more difficult.

Now, you could use a flash hider which eliminates muzzle flash. Or, you could use a suppressor, which does the same thing: eliminate muzzle flash and prevent “blooming” of night vision equipment.

With those three ancillary advantages — noise reduction, recoil reduction, and flash suppression — you’ll begin to notice that a suppressor…

Enhances Accuracy

Unless the suppressor is improperly installed or mounted, suppressors do enhance accuracy.

Although some suppressors change the point of impact (POI), it’ll be by a very small amount. And despite the change in POI, it’s consistent with the pair. Stack that with less muzzle rise, less concussive effect, and less noise, and you’ll be left with nothing less than enhanced accuracy.

As a result, you’ll be happier with your shots. You’ll also have…

Happier Neighbors

“Happy Neighbor, Happy Life.”

I totally made that quote up. But I just want to make a point:

If you reduce the sound level of a gunshot (by using a suppressor), your neighbors will be happier. And since your neighbors aren’t filing noise complaints, you’ll be happier since you’ll be able to shoot more.

 

This also applies to shooters at gun ranges. People that live around a gun range simply don’t want to hear loud firework sounds go off every day. So, they’ll file a noise complaint and (sometimes) a petition to shut down the range. And in some cases, they actually win.

That’s why firearms equipped with suppressors will make everyone happy, including neighbors and shooters alike. So if you’re interested in buying a suppressor, here are the…

Requirements to Legally Purchase a Suppressor

  • Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a suppressor from a dealer;
  • Be at least 18 years of age to purchase a suppressor from an individual on a Form 4 to Form 4 transfer (contingent on state laws);
  • Be at least 18 years of age to possess a suppressor as a beneficiary of a trust or as a member of a corporation (contingent on state laws);
  • Be a resident of the United States;
  • Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm;
  • Pass a BATFE background check with a processing time of four to ten months;
  • Pay a $200 transfer tax; and
  • Reside in one of the 42 states that currently allows civilian ownership of suppressors.

If you pass all the requirements, you’ll need to find an authorized dealer near you. The dealer will help you fill out a Form 4. You’ll be sending this form to ATF along with the following:

  • ATF Form 4 (duplicate)
  • FBI Form FD-258s in black ink
  • $200 Check to BATFE-NFA
  • Passport Photos
  • ATF Form 5320.23 (if using a trust)

Alternatively, you can do this all online by following Silencer’s Shop guide on how to buy a silencer. That said…

Will You Use a Suppressor?

I absolutely love using a suppressor. It protects my ears, reduces recoil and muzzle flash, enhances accuracy, and harbors good neighbors.

And I’m sure a lot of people would agree with me if suppressors were easier to acquire. That said, I’d like to turn it over to you:

Are you going to buy a suppressor? Or maybe you already have one and would like to share your thoughts.

Either way, let me know by leaving a quick comment down below.

Like this post? Don’t Forget to Pin It on Pinterest!

© All rights reserved.

Mike Pence or the Muslim Brotherhood — Who is more dangerous to the safety and well being of gays?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

In 1905 Sigmund Freud put forth the idea that homosexuality was the product of a child’s upbringing. Freud wrote, “The presence of both parents plays an important part. The absence of a strong father in childhood not infrequently favours the occurrence of inversion [homosexuality].”

In a September 29th, 2018 article titled Sexuality Part 1: The Aberrations – Sigmund Freud Richard Bukowski, administrator of Psych Reviews wrote:

Inversion (Homosexuality)

The first aberration Freud outlines, which he says includes “no small number of people”, is what he called Inversion, or Homosexuality. He describes the basic categories of absolute inverts, who enjoy exclusively their own sex, amphigenic inverts who are essentially bisexuals, and contingent inverts who resort to homosexuality when there is inaccessibility to other heterosexual objects. These simple categories, at this early time in psychology, break down into different opinions of homosexuals and how they identify with their orientation. Freud says, “inverts vary in their views as to the peculiarity of their sexual instinct. Some of them accept their inversion as something in the natural course of things, and insist energetically that inversion is as legitimate as the normal attitude; others rebel against their inversion and feel it as a pathological compulsion. The fact of a person struggling in this way against a compulsion towards inversion may perhaps determine the possibility of his being influenced by suggestion. It is safe to assume that the most extreme form of inversion will have been present from a very early age and that the person concerned will feel at one with his peculiarity.”

On October 19th, 2019  BOLD Democrats sent out a fundraising email titled Homophobia Alert: Mike Pence is AMBUSHING Pete Buttigieg (help >>). The email stated:

YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED: Add your name to stand with Pete Buttigieg against Mike Pence’s homophobic attacks >>

Mike Pence has a DISGUSTING history of homophobia and anti-LGBT policies — and now he’s coming after Pete Buttigieg.

We’re delivering this petition denouncing his attacks on Pete and the LGBT community tomorrow at noon, but our petition is missing one crucial element: your signature. Please fix this error and add your name immediately >>

This email came out just after a federal judge struck down the so-called “transgender mandate” vacating an Obama-era requirement that doctors perform gender-transition surgeries upon request on October 15th, 2019. The case involed was Franciscan Alliance v. Azar.

The term homophobia was first introduced by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s.

This is just one of a series of fundraising emails from the Democrat Party trying to paint Vice President Pence as “homophobic” and anti-gay. What Vice President Pence believes is that marriage is between one man and one woman. He also voted as a member of Congress against bills to give special treatment to people based upon their “gender identity” versus their biological sex at birth.

But perhaps the BOLD Democrats need to read a statement by Egyptian journalist and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) member Amer Shamakh on the website of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. The Middle East Media Research Institute in an article titled Article On Muslim Brotherhood Website: Election Of A Gay U.S. President Will Lead To Pressure On Arab Countries To Permit Homosexuality; The Prophet Muhammad Ordered The Killing Of Homosexuals reported:

Below are excerpts from Shamakh’s article:

“After the world has experienced an extremist U.S. president who alarmed the world, especially the Muslims, with his madness and his strange decisions, it may in the future experience another [kind of] U.S. president: a gay one… The official U.S. candidate [sic] for the 2020 presidential election is 37-year-old Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat, who is currently mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He has been married for a year to his partner Justin, and the two have now declared that they want to start a family!

“This pervert wishes to gain the votes of his fellow [LGBTQ] Americans, whose number has increased many times over in [the past] 25 years. Surveys indicate that during this period the number of Americans who support homosexuality increased fivefold, the number of homosexuals in U.S. society rose from 3% in 1990 to 20% in 2014, and the number of those favoring marriage among these perverts rose from 11% in 1990 to 49% in 2014. This means that 20% of Americans are gay, and that 50% of Americans support the gay 20% and recognize them [as legitimate], in spite of their crime that contravenes human nature… and does not exist even among animals.

“Sadly, this is true not only for the Americans. This phenomenon is widespread, and is spoken about openly in all Western countries, without exception. It has become one of the [human] rights and one of the foreign policy goals of Western countries, and is a top priority of bodies like the U.N., the World Bank, and Amnesty [International]. In Europe and America, gay liberation is now regarded as a major principle of the human rights agenda and [human rights] lobby, including a variety of organizations that pressure regimes and governments.

Read more.

What is most revealing is how Democrats and the media white washed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi after the raid that killed him. Perhaps they forgot about a man named Omar Mateen? The Counter Extremism Project in an article titled ISIS’s Persecution of Gay People noted:

At about 2 a.m. on June 12, 2016, 29-year-old U.S. citizen Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 people and injured 53 more at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Right before the attack, Mateen made a 911 call, during which he reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Following a shootout with police in which Mateen was killed, ISIS officially claimed responsibility for the attack, announcing that “an Islamic State fighter” had “targeted a nightclub for homosexuals.” (Sources: Washington Post, TIME)

The shooting was a brutal reminder of ISIS’s willingness and capacity to carry out an attack overseas—whether by radicalizing and inspiring individuals online to carry out so-called “lone-wolf” attacks, or by carefully building terror networks and providing operational support. The Orlando attack, which stands as the deadliest shooting on American soil, was also an echo of ISIS’s systematic hostility and persecution of gay people in Iraq and Syria.*

For example, in early May 2016, an ISIS court charged a young Syrian man with the “crime” of engaging in gay sex. In front of a crowd numbering in the hundreds in Manbij, Syria, ISIS fighters threw the young man from the top of a building as punishment for his so-called “crime.” This is but one case of how ISIS exploits pre-existing religious and social biases against gay people among the populations under its control in order to justify their persecution, a practice that has reportedly continued into 2017, despite territorial losses. (Sources: ARA News, Iraqi News, Daily Mail)

The Democrat Party is looking at Pete Buttigieg to become either their nominee for president or perhaps the vice-president running mate to say a Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

How will this impact the Muslim majority countries in their relationship with the United States? Will this be looked upon as a wedge to legalize homosexuality in Muslim majority nations?

Clearly at least one Muslim journalist is raising the issue. But Vice President Pence is clearly not someone that either Democrats or gays need to fear when it comes to the LGBTQ community.

VIDEO: YouTube Won’t Let a Medical Doctor Say This Sentence . . .

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

“See, if you want to cut off a leg or an arm, you’re mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender.”

Those are the words of Dr. Michelle Cretella, a pediatrician with many years’ experience and the executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, in a Daily Signal video published in 2017.

It’s a sentence YouTube will not allow the doctor to say about children and gender identity issues.

The Daily Signal recently learned that our video of Cretella had been removed from YouTube. In its place, YouTube displayed this message: “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech.”

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

Over the past few months, The Daily Signal worked with YouTube to try to reach a resolution. Ultimately, we were told the only way we could get the video back on YouTube was to delete the previously mentioned sentence.

In other words, we had two choices: censor the doctor’s words or have no video on the world’s biggest video platform.

This should horrify every YouTube user—and anyone who values the importance of a public square featuring a variety of perspectives.

Cretella’s words are no doubt controversial. She is no stranger to criticism, and neither is The Daily Signal. We welcome debate.

But we don’t want to be censored.

We agree with the spirit behind YouTube’s hate speech policy, which states, “Hate speech is not allowed on YouTube. We remove content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes” including “Gender Identity and Expression” and “Sex/Gender.” We believe transgender individuals, and any individual struggling with gender identity issues, should be treated with love and respect.

But we also believe that on a topic where medical treatments have such serious ramifications, from infertility to permanent alteration of body parts, it is worth having a robust, fact-driven discussion.

Cretella is a doctor. She is making a point in that sentence that may not be popular but remains true: There is no society-wide push right now to allow patients suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder to amputate limbs.

Furthermore, just this May—18 months since Cretella’s video was published—the World Health Organization removed transgenderism from its list of “mental disorders,” moving it to a section about sexual health.

But as of July, Cretella’s sentence—which did not even state transgenderism was a result of mental illness, but simply pointed out that our culture sees amputation of body parts differently depending on the body parts in question—is apparently so outrageous YouTube can’t fathom allowing it on its platform.

That is unbelievable.

We are especially disappointed with YouTube’s decision because other social media platforms have allowed the video on their platforms. In fact, the video has more than 70 million views on Facebook. It might have even more if Facebook hadn’t temporarily removed it in July 2018. After our appeal to Facebook, it was quickly restored and remains on The Daily Signal’s page today.

Here at The Daily Signal, the multimedia news arm of The Heritage Foundation, we believe that private companies, including YouTube, should be allowed to set and enforce their own rules.

But we also believe consumers have a right to protest. And if you are upset that YouTube—the biggest video platform in the world—is refusing to let a doctor speak without censorship on gender identity and children, please reach out to YouTube and its parent company, Google.

Tweet at them: @YouTube and @google. Leave a message on Google’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/Google/) or YouTube’s (https://www.facebook.com/youtube/).

Make it clear that while we may often be silent, many, many people want to have a free debate on controversial topics.

Join us in calling on YouTube to reverse this decision and allow this doctor to speak her mind freely on this vital issue.

This is not about how you think children experiencing gender identity issues should be treated, but whether you think there should be an open conversation on this topic, so that parents can make informed decisions about what’s best for their child.

Censoring a medical doctor doesn’t put YouTube on the right side of history. It just shows that it’s a big tech company prioritizing the preferences of the activist left over free speech for all.

This article has been corrected to reflect that Cretella is the executive director of the American College of Pediatricians.

COMMENTARY BY

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter:

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Students Who Fight for Free Speech, and Win

The Absurdity of Thinking Disparities Prove Discrimination

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal video with commentary is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Why These Women Walked Away From the LGBT Lifestyle

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Those struggling with same-sex attraction or hoping to walk away from a homosexual lifestyle may find some encouragement from Liz Flaherty and Elizabeth Woning, who both once lived a lesbian lifestyle.

While leading their own organizations to help individuals transition out of homosexuality, Flaherty and Woning are also a part of a growing movement called Changed—a supportive and loving community of those who once identified as LGBTQ+.

In today’s episode, we sit down with Flaherty and Woning to hear their stories and discuss some of the current legislation being advocated that could have detrimental effects on organizations that offer counseling services for those struggling with homosexuality. Read the lightly edited transcript, posted below, or listen on the podcast.

Virginia Allen: I am joined by Liz Flaherty and Elizabeth Woning. Liz and Elizabeth both lead or co-lead Christian organizations that work with people who are seeking to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle or who are struggling with same-sex attraction. Liz and Elizabeth, thank you both so much for being here.

Liz Flaherty: Thank you.

Elizabeth Woning: Thank you.

Allen: So Elizabeth, you co-lead a ministry called Equipped to Love in California with Ken Williams. And we actually interviewed Ken [on the] podcast back in May and heard a bit about his journey from struggling with same-sex attraction to now being married to a wonderful woman and having a family. But today I would love to hear a bit about your story.

You lived as a proud lesbian for quite some time and even as an openly homosexual pastor in the Presbyterian church. So when did you first come out as a lesbian and how long did you live in that lifestyle?

Woning: It’s a little bit hard for me to say when did I first come out because I first really started questioning my sexuality when I was 16, when I first got involved with a woman. But I still tried to make relationships with men work. I still dated men. I got married briefly after graduating from college. So in all of that time I didn’t come out. But here I was questioning.

So I think it’s important that people recognize that the point at which you come out is not the time when you begin your lesbian life. Like for most of us, starting as a very young child is when the confusion begins. And so I had years, and years, and years of grappling with whether I was a lesbian before actually coming out. But I had a mental breakdown while I was married to my first husband.

And after coming out of the hospital, really, I decided that I would come out. And so I left my marriage and moved into a metropolitan gay community and started that new life. And I lived in the community for about 10 years before going to seminary, openly gay, which was a really big deal. Now, it would be a big deal today, but that was 20 years ago when I did that. And so 20 years ago, it was a monumental deal.

At the time, I was an elder in my local church, and when I decided that I would pursue a seminary degree, I remember telling my pastor—of course I had been talking to my pastor for about a year as he was really ministering to me as I struggled with mental illness.

I had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with that first hospitalization, and so I was grappling with how to survive my life really, and I felt that going the route of doing a seminary degree and pursuing theology was something that would give me really deep hope and purpose.

And so I was going that route. But that meant coming out to my church. I was an elder in my church, and so coming out to my church, the first thing that happened was I was asked to resign [from] my position as an elder, even though I didn’t have any intention of being in a relationship with a woman. Back then, the phrase that we used was chastity and singleness.

So I was going this route of pursuing a seminary degree in a really nonsensical environment. I was one of probably five or six students that they admitted who were gay, openly gay. And the Presbyterian church was not ordaining gays and lesbians. So it was a big deal.

While I was in seminary, we were grappling with how to understand our sexuality in the context of Scriptures. So there was a great rewrite of the Bible that took place in that season for my life. And really, it wasn’t until I graduated from seminary and began trying to do ministry.

Now I understand I couldn’t be ordained, but I had a heart to do ministry. It was really in that first year after I graduated that I had an encounter with Jesus that caused me to begin questioning my theology, the doctrine that I had believed.

Allen: Could you explain just a little bit about what that looked like? What kind of shifted in your mind, or what did the Lord shift or change in your heart to where you all [of] a sudden realized, “I don’t want to be living this way anymore”?

Woning: Well, put in the context of my life at that point … by that time [I had] had about 10 years of managed care for mental illness. And so I didn’t have kind of walking depression where you kind of cope with life and you work in your job. No, I had very, very severe bipolar disorder. And so I was not really high-functioning in a way.

By the time I graduated from seminary, I finished my year with a 30-day hospitalization. So I was really desperate. And in that season I met a charismatic pastor and he invited me to a youth outreach meeting where the Holy Spirit showed up and in … I always call it the worst case scenario for a Presbyterian.

It was total chaos. People laying on the ground, kids being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, mayhem like I’d never seen before. Because I was a dignified hymn-singing Presbyterian.

In that context, a 17-year-old boy approached me with what he called a word from the Lord. And it turned out to be a very specific answer to something I had been praying about. And I was having a crisis of faith at that time. And I thought, for the first time in my life, I thought God knew specifically who I was. …

As a seminary graduate and a theological student, I knew God was there. I knew he was existent, but I didn’t know he was a relational. And that caused me to have this moment where I thought, “If he knows who I am, then I have no idea who he is.”

And I began a study. … That’s my context for connection with God, I study. And so I … completely re-read the Bible and took a close view at what did God say specifically about himself? In fact, I did this entire study, not questioning my sexuality, not questioning my identity, but questioning his. And it was in the context of that study that I began to see something entirely new and fresh that I’d never seen before that I wanted to be a part of.

I began to question whether there was something in my life that had hindered me from experiencing that. And that’s what caused me to question my sexuality. I thought, “Has my mind, my life, my dedication to this theological view driven me away from God?” And when I began to unpack that, I found perhaps that it had and I began repenting.

I just began following this walk of identifying what holiness was and [what] righteousness was. And I recognized that God perhaps could give me life.

So in the context of I had tried to commit suicide, I was, although I started my college career at 20-ish, really very hopeful for my life. By that point, I was in desperate need and he began to give me the thought that I had value and he was pursuing me. And so it became the most important thing in my life to experience communion with God. With that, I was willing to question my sexuality, question my theology, question my lifestyle.

So, at that point in my life, I didn’t own any women’s clothes. I shaved my head, I had many piercings. I have several tattoos. So, I went through a very personal, internal, complete breakdown of everything that I had believed just for the sake of experiencing communion with God.

Allen: Wow. Elizabeth, thank you so much for sharing. That’s just incredibly powerful to hear and just so significant to hear what you personally experienced. And Liz, I want to take a minute to ask you a little bit about your story.

Flaherty: Sure.

Allen: You’re the executive director of a ministry based in Tennessee that also works with those coming out of the homosexual lifestyle, or are struggling with that same-sex attraction. So what was your journey into and then out of the lesbian lifestyle?

Flaherty: Sure. And I just have to say, I never tire from hearing [Elizabeth’s story], even though we do functions together and we hear our stories all the time, every single time, it’s just so wonderful. I get another nugget of God’s goodness in each other’s stories. So thank you Elizabeth for sharing that.

So, I grew up in Northern California. My parents were pastors. … And they had two high-paying jobs at Hewlett-Packard in Silicon Valley. I was born in Silicon Valley and we moved up to this little town of 1,200 people when I was 7 to pretty much become missionaries is the way I put it. And I very much struggled early on with feeling that I belonged and that I had a voice and that I was received.

I think growing up, as a contrast, in that environment, highly liberal environment, being one of the few Christians. Although I dearly love that community, I value what we took from that time there. But, in that, … we were just trying to survive financially, socially.

My parents worked very hard at feeding the transients going through the town, the homeless, and dealing with a lot of mental illness that was coming to their door. The church was right next to the house. So with that I struggled with a lot of anxiety and depression and I told people I was probably agoraphobic, just not diagnosed, because I had such bad anxiety. I couldn’t travel, I couldn’t go on field trips.

They tried to homeschool me. I was in and out of the school system. And so there was a constant trying to just assimilate into the normal life of my peers.

And to back up a little bit, I was molested at the age of 6 by a family member. And that definitely set me on a projection of putting up barriers toward men to protect myself.

Of course you don’t realize until later on that that’s what was happening in your life. But the narrative of my life began to change from a beloved daughter of God to one who was scarred and renamed by that abuse.

So with that, I enter into sort of those formative years. I was being bullied. I just carried such a spirit of rejection. I was a super heavy kid, chunky girl in a small town. And so in this fish bowl, so to speak.

With that … I found [myself], even though I tried to intimately connect with men, just doing all I could to not feel abnormal because same-sex attraction started to enter in, like Elizabeth said, early on in my adolescence.

So that just looked like when I was with my friends … I felt safe. I could connect, I could open up. I felt valued. When I was with any sort of male peers, there just was not a connection.

And I experimented, or I lost my virginity at 17. I tried. I tried to press in … so that wasn’t happening. And I think I just grew tired of not being very open and transparent with where I was. I would go to church and my parents just love the Lord. …

My parents just loved the Lord. They both had come out of a lot of sexual brokenness and had stories of the Lord redeeming them, and they were amazing. At the same time, it just felt like there was no power of the gospel transforming our lives; we were just surviving, trying to keep our heads above water.

So with that, I reasoned, “I am lesbian. This is why I can’t connect. This is why.” Even though I knew the Word said it was wrong, I knew that it was an error of our theology. I didn’t see any way out of my pain.

So I came out my senior year, much to the confusion and pain of my parents, and I moved out. I went to college in Eureka, California, which is a very interesting place to go to school, and just tried to live my life out with my peers and be on my own way. And during that time, during my first semester of college, my mom passed away of cancer very suddenly. And so that left me very much spiraling.

There came a point where … I didn’t really have a grid for grace. I didn’t understand that I could move toward the Lord in my brokenness. It was very much … I would sober up. And I was pretty addicted to pornography since the age of 12, wherever I could have access. And now that I’m in college and I have full access, I’m just deep in sexual sin and relationships.

And although I say I was not a very successful lesbian, because I was not a very social person, so, “I had all these barters.” Nope, it was on me. I was pretty much a loner.

But with that, I had an encounter with the Lord midway through college, and I was high in my living room and my roommates were gone and … I know it was the looming of the Lord, this moment where I said, “I don’t think I’m supposed to talk to you right now; I’m high, but I have no way how to get out of this. I know this isn’t life.”

And in that despair, I felt the Holy Spirit come in the room and it was like this bursting, fresh breath that I had been so longing for. And I just knew in that moment, I had surrendered and he had responded in love. And I went on this journey through the next few years of having a grace to come out of pornography and lay down my relationships, or my few relationships, and to allow him to guide me.

A whole world opened up from that. But I still went to a school of ministry at Bethel. That’s how Ken and I have known each other about 20 years from the changed moment.

So with that, I still walked through a time of having same-sex attraction, but surrendering to the Lord and being sober, I guess, is what you would call it. And it wasn’t until I hit another trauma in my life where my dad passed away; it was only three years after my mom. And my brother had come to live with me and he was nine years younger. So I reached this place again of brokenness, of, “OK, I don’t know how to manage my sexuality any longer. I can’t sustain on where I’ve been with you, Lord.”

And through some failures, moral failures, it led me to a ministry called Living Waters. It was there that I met with men and women who had walked the same struggle and part of that authority of like, “Here’s how you walk with the Lord in your sexuality.” …

The Lord just is so kind and so generous and … I’m amazed at what he’s done, that I get to go and share, my deepest, painful failures and what he has done and redeemed it.

And I’m married. I’ve been married for 14 years to my wonderful husband, Andy, and so it’s just such a joy to walk others through that and see the Lord do the same transformation.

I don’t struggle with same-sex attraction anymore. As I healed from the trauma of abuse and things like that, those barriers came down and I understood my heart more and how the Lord had created me to welcome in the masculinity, really.

Allen: Liz, thank you so much for sharing.

Woning: Wow, so good.

Allen: So good. And now you all are privileged to walk with other people who are walking a similar road or are struggling with those same things that you all have walked through.

So what do you say when a young woman or any woman comes to you and says, “I’m attracted to other women”? Or a young man comes to you and says, “I’m attracted to other men”? What’s that first thing that you say to them?

Woning: Well, typically … I just resonate with them. … Depending on why they’re coming to me, the very first thing I do is listen to everything that they have to say.

I love inviting people into my space because I completely understand what they’re going through. And very few people have the opportunity to just completely expose themselves early in their pain with someone who’s been there. And so, I don’t know about you, Liz, but I’m sure you’re very similar in that.

Flaherty: Yeah.

Woning: There’s actually something, honestly, very healing [about] being able to expose some of that deep pain and being seen. And then beyond that, then I simply start working on connecting to the Lord.

My first two steps are, I’m going to listen very deeply, but then I’m also going to make sure that that person knows how to hear from the Lord, because ultimately, nothing I say is going to be as important as what the Lord has to say.

Flaherty: Absolutely. Yeah, yeah.

Allen: … I know I’ve had these conversations with friends of mine who’ve come to me and said that this is something that they’re struggling with, that they’re struggling with same-sex attraction, and it’s honestly difficult in those moments to know how to respond and really how to love them well.

So what would you say to friends, to family members who—you maybe have had these conversations—will have these conversations with people that they love dearly? How do we walk with those that we love through this?

Flaherty: I think what’s really important is to start with our own narrative with the Lord and our own brokenness, and not so much making it about the specific manifestation of that, but actually understanding our own walk with the Lord and how … the power of the gospel translates to every need and covers every sin. …

I think when you disarm that … like, there’s this pinnacle sin of homosexuality. I’m not saying that there aren’t different consequences to different sins, but when you bring it back to, “We’re here. We’re happy to be with you. We love you and we want to hear what’s going on in your heart. Let us share about what the Lord did in our life.”

And you come in that posture of humility that disarms a lot of fear. I think people have a tendency to hide when they think they’re going to be persecuted, and creating a space where, like, “No, we all come before the Father in the same way.”

Woning: I think most of us who have experienced same-sex attraction have a deep sense of rejection. I think it’s first internalized rejection; I think you’re rejecting yourself. There’s an element of that there, and so then you tend to project that onto every person around you. And there’s so much fear.

Rejection is so painful and there’s so much fear that everyone will reject you. And so then most Christians grapple with, “OK, how do I tell you, ‘Please don’t embrace this life’?” And so that creates actually this, “All right, I don’t get to embrace this sense, this thing that is feeding my need for intimacy.” So it just perpetuates that self-rejection.

So it’s a very complex issue. It’s very complex how to meet it. And so one of the key things for me is making sure that there’s a bridge where people can fully express themselves and feel fully seen and valued in the conversation.

Your first contact with someone when they come out is not to correct their behavior, it’s to meet them right where they’re at and to be available to walk with them through everything. And so it’s to say, “Oh man, I’m so sorry. How is this impacting your life and how do you want me to support you?”

And it might be, “I want you to embrace my lesbian life.” And that, I think, that’s the deer-in-the-headlight moment for a Christian, where you say, “No, I don’t think I can embrace that in your life because I don’t see that that will bless you. God’s not going to bless you in pursuing that lifestyle, but I’m going to be with you in this as you grapple with this. And I want you to know that I will never sever our relationship on this issue.”

Because honestly, even our friends or our children who come out who want to go pursue that life, they’re pursuing it because everyone has a deep-seated need for intimate connection with other people and this is the way that they see most clearly will satisfy that need.

And if there isn’t some superseding opportunity, like the love of Jesus and the supportive parents and friends, if there’s not something that can also meet or compete with that need for intimacy, then there’s no help that can be given.

Allen: Yeah.

Flaherty: I think, if I can just speak to parents—my father, when I came out my senior year, he did ask me if he could find help for me. I wouldn’t take it because I didn’t really see how they weren’t helping themselves.

So that’s a real key that I tell parents is, “Make sure that you have, really, a lifestyle of going after wholeness in your own life, dealing with things that might be holding you back in intimacy in your relationship.” Just asking the Holy Spirit, “Lord, is there work here that we could be doing with you, partnering with you to demonstrate to our children, ‘This is the path that you grow in the Lord. This is the path that you address things’?”

And my father told me, “I can’t. I’ve gone to the Lord, I’ve gone to the Word. I can’t accept this as, I’ve tried,” because he saw the years of rejection of how I grappled with this, and so I think there was a part of him that actually wanted to support me in this, that maybe this road, I’d find fulfillment. But because he went to the Lord and he held to this boundary, it was a place I could come back to after … the Lord was willing me back.

So I just would say, don’t be afraid to hold to your convictions in a way that leaves the door open to your children, but your home is to be an atmosphere of the Lord.

And I know that manifests in different ways and that you could have a whole podcast on that, but just to say, it will feel heart-wrenching because you want to draw your children close and sometimes they’re choosing to leave with their inheritance.

Allen: Yeah. Well, and of course, this is an issue that increasingly we’re seeing in America, that the LGBTQ community is getting louder and you can’t ignore it any longer.

So with legislation such as the Equality Act, how are you all viewing that sort of thing? If that was passed, what kind of effect would that have on the work that you all are doing, ministering and working with those and counseling those that are maybe seeking to come out of this lifestyle?

Woning: Well, first of all, H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and similar bills like that … I think the No. 1 impact that that’s going to have is the imposition of an ideology that all of us who’ve left the LGBTQ life … So anyone who has gone to the work of questioning their sexuality and found resolution, like Liz and I have, we know that perpetuating the lifestyle, at least for women, places this bondage essentially on a person, never opening the door for them to understand kind of repressed needs, repressed traumas.

So we’re imposing an ideology that would perpetuate brokenness, emotional brokenness, on a generation.

I talk to so many people who might never entertain the possibility of being gay or lesbian were it not for unobtrusive thought, someone’s bullying or someone’s suggestion, “Oh, you’re gay. You’re a lesbian. You don’t meet the stereotype for what a man or a woman is and so therefore you’re obviously lesbian or gay.”

And if just the mere suggestion would cause you to begin questioning your sexuality … Because for me, for example, until I met my first girlfriend and we began exploring lesbianism, I had never heard of it. I’d never entertained that idea. And that was years ago. But nevertheless, it was a new thought for me. And that thought then became, “Oh, this must explain why I am the way I am.” And there was not any other narrative offered. …

So Ken and I have formed this movement that’s become a movement called Changed of people who have this story of coming out, so that there’s this other narrative that’s offered. And it’s not a rhetorical narrative. It’s stories, so that people begin to say, “Oh, there’s another way.”

So H.R.5 would put this blanket over that and then stifle the opportunity to share those stories. Real censorship. Censorship is happening now.

What will happen when it becomes illegal to suggest there’s another narrative, which is what H.R.5 would do? It would stifle the voice of every Christian pastor to share the full gospel or to make restrictions on a church’s ability to protect its leadership against an ideology … And no opportunity for dissent.

So that bill doesn’t just impact us and how we help people who are realizing, “Hey, this could not be the ultimate truth of my life,” but then it stifles any opposite narrative in such a totalitarian way. …

I can hardly express how odd H.R. 5 is. It saddens me that America is willing to entertain a bill that would supersede the protections that the 1964 Civil Rights Act gives African Americans.

So it’s like America is willing to forget the current endeavors of the African American community that stand on the Civil Rights Act and divert its attention to the LGBT issue. I think that’s a travesty, really. But then beyond that, the restrictions that this bill poses are really dramatic for American liberty.

Allen: Elizabeth, you also mentioned a Senate bill that you’re quite concerned with. Can you speak to that for a moment?

Woning: Yeah, so there’s a Senate Bill 2008 and a matching House Bill 3570. They are called the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act. And those center on the dialogue around, I’m going to say it, conversion therapy, which, honestly, no one’s quite sure what that is. Everyone has a different opinion of what that is, and there is actually no definitive understanding.

And the LGBT community would say any sexual orientation change effort, that would be everything from an altar call asking you to repent to meeting with a licensed psychotherapist, would be conversion therapy.

But it would hinder anyone questioning their sexuality from pursuing restoration or resolution of conflict when they feel that there is an inner conviction that it’s not the truth in their life.

So basically it says, “No, if you’re questioning your sexuality, there’s only one path for you, and that’s to embrace lesbianism, and every other opportunity should be banned.”

And there’s not any scientific evidence. There’s not enough [studies,] really, that indicate that it should be banned. But it is definitely our politicians caving to what is politically correct in America. And I mean, I can go on at length for that. That’s an entire podcast, really.

Allen: Yeah.

Woning: [There’s a] significant lack of study and help for people who are questioning their sexuality because of political correctness. There’s an entire history with the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations of really recusing themselves from real, direct scientific study and pursuit of clinical help for people, based on political activism from the LGBT community.

And that activism has created this vacuum where certain helps for people who are questioning their sexuality [have] simply … never been offered, they’ve never been pursued … by the APAs. What we presume today is impossible is really based on years of a great wall of never even pursuing understanding. So, there’s a lack in America of professional care for people.

These Therapeutic Acts, they are actually perpetuating brokenness in our culture. And I really wish that the APAs would promote study that would help, that they would actually raise up some adequate professional care for people who are questioning their sexuality, particularly for women, because scientifically what we see for women is that sexuality tends to be much more fluid.

And then there’s the added problem that many women who are sexually abused pursue a life of love of lesbianism because they don’t feel safe with men. So there’s added complexity for women in this issue.

These bills would say, “OK, even though you’ve been sexually abused or molested, if you have same-sex desires, we’re going to assume that they have nothing to do with that abuse, and you don’t have the right to any care other than affirming care for that new sexual orientation.”

Allen: Liz and Elizabeth, you all are here in Washington, D.C., to talk to a number of different leaders about this, about this sort of legislation, how it would affect the work that you all are doing. Have you been receiving a positive response from those on the Hill? What maybe have been some of those interactions? What are your hopes for some of those interactions?

Woning: … First of all … the main reason we’ve come to Washington is to share our stories. Really the mandate for Changed and the Changed Movement is just to share our stories because no one here gets to hear from us. And so, most of what we’re doing is just doing that.

We’ve been received with curiosity mostly. And people who might presume that we’re anti-LGBT really don’t know what we’re doing or talking about.

On the Hill we’ve mostly raised eyebrows. And I think that when people talk to us, they realize that we [are] coming in as low as we possibly can, trying to create an atmosphere of dialogue and conversation around this divisive issue, so that there’s a new way.

We just need a new way to dialogue about this issue in America, and I think Americans are capable of embracing that.

Allen: Well, Liz and Elizabeth, I am so thankful for you all joining The Daily Signal Podcast and for your time today. Really, really appreciate it.

Woning: Thank you so much.

Flaherty: Thank you.

Woning: Can I just say that the Changed Movement right now has a growing Instagram page. And I’d love to invite people to it. It’s just more and more of our stories. You can find us at @changedmvmt.

And we also have a closed Facebook page that people can come into, comprised of people who are questioning their sexuality or people like Ken and I and Elizabeth, or Liz, who have found complete restoration in their sexuality.

There are so many men and women who have gone the route that we have, who now are married. Many have their own biological children, who have moved on with their lives. And so, there are things happening right now in America and across the world.

Honestly, I want to call it revival, that God is meeting LGBT people, sharing with them that he loves them, calling to them with wholeness, and really meeting their deepest needs for intimacy. And I think that we’re about to see something incredible happen across the world because LGBT people know how to do community well. They know how to support one another well. And when they come into the church, there’s just such a beautiful dynamic of care and concern for each other.

The church really needs the LGBT community. They need to embrace people who’ve experienced same-sex attraction and learn what it means to love sacrificially once again. I think God’s really restoring the church in this generation.

So, even though we’re seeing this huge conflict in America, it might look very dark, a lot of us want to say, “Oh, it’s the end and we’d better just buckle down,” there’s such a huge silver lining. There’s such a huge silver lining. God is going to do something incredible through what’s happening right now.

Allen: Yeah. OK, one more time, can you share your social media and your websites?

Woning: The Changed Movement can be found on Instagram at @changedmvmt, #changedmovement. Same thing on Facebook. Or equippedtolove.com, which is where Ken and I can be found at Bethel Church.

Flaherty: And mine is lizgflaherty.com.

Allen: OK, great. And we’ll be sure to have links for all of those in our show notes.

Woning: Thank you so much.

Allen: Thank you all again. Really appreciate it.

Woning: Thank you.

COLUMN BY

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ex-gays descend upon D.C. to lobby against LGBTQ rights

Sexually Explicit Books Were Put in These Virginia Classrooms. Parents Want Answers.

‘I’m Black, I’m Supposed to Be a Democrat’: 2 Women Explain Why They Veered Right

HHS to Lift Obama-Era Restrictions on Grants for Faith-Based Adoption Services

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Kanye West Speaks Out Against Porn and Abortion

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

This week on “Problematic Women,” we are excited to bring you all the news on hip-hop star Kanye West’s new album, “Jesus Is King.” We also interview Katrina Trinko, editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast, on the transgender movement’s push to make periods gender-neutral. She also discusses a child bride costume that was problematic in Australia.

Finally, we crown Sarah Thomas as our Problematic Woman of the Week. She and her husband made the news when they posted a picture holding a sign that read, “Please don’t abort. We will adopt your baby.” We discuss this important message and talk about the baby they’re now adopting.

Listen to the podcast below.

COMMENTARY BY

Lauren Evans

Lauren Evans is the multimedia producer for The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Lauren. Twitter: .

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is the Administrative Assistant for Communications at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Over 99% of Americans Have Access to Health Coverage

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Last month’s Census Bureau report on the uninsured overlooked an important point: More than 99% of Americans have access to health coverage, regardless of their income or medical condition.

The overwhelming majority of those lacking insurance could have obtained coverage but did not enroll.

Many of those with lower incomes may not sign up for subsidized coverage because they know they can receive care at little or no cost to themselves even if they remain uninsured until they arrive at a clinic.

Those in the top two income quintiles may remain uninsured because government intervention in health insurance markets has created a menu of unattractive products at unattractive prices.

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

Either way, Americans across the income spectrum deserve a better approach to health care.

Understanding the Challenge

It’s critical that policymakers understand the distinction between lack of coverage and lack of access to coverage.

A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of last year’s Census Bureau report found that, of the estimated 27.4 million non-elderly people who were uninsured in 2017:

  • 6.8 million (25%) were eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but not enrolled.
  • 8.2 million (30%) were eligible for Obamacare subsidies but did not enroll.
  • 3.8 million (14%) declined an offer of employer-sponsored coverage.
  • 1.9 million (7%) were not eligible for subsidies because they had income more than four times the federal poverty threshold, which put them in the top two income quintiles.
  • 4.1 million (15%) were ineligible for subsidies because they were not lawful U.S. residents. Their situation is a matter to be settled by immigration policy, not health care policy.
  • 2.5 million (9%) were under the poverty line but ineligible for federal assistance. They represented just 0.7% of the population.

These 2.5 million lawful U.S. residents ineligible for federal assistance lived in states that had not expanded Medicaid eligibility to non-elderly, non-disabled adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level.

Here, it is important to draw a second crucial distinction: between access to coverage and access to care.

These 2.5 million individuals are eligible for free care at 3,000 federally-funded health centers in the nonexpansion states and 11,000 nationwide. In addition, all public and nonprofit hospitals are required to have programs to provide free or low-cost care to low-income patients.

These hospitals can enroll low-income people in Medicaid when they show up for care, which is another reason some Medicaid-eligible people wait until they need to see a doctor to sign up for their free coverage.

Flawed Laws Make It Harder for the Uninsured to Get Covered

The federal government has not done a good job of covering those who are eligible for assistance.

A recent Heritage Foundation report examined the Kaiser study and another by the Department of Health and Human Services. Heritage found that while 8.2 million people claimed Obamacare subsidies in 2017, an additional 8.2 million people who were eligible for those subsidies remained uninsured.

That means that only half the people eligible for subsidies claimed them. The heavily regulated individual policies are unattractive to millions of people, even at steeply discounted prices.

Things are even worse among the unsubsidized, who have dropped individual coverage at an alarming rate. Between 2015 and 2018, the number of unsubsidized people with individual coverage fell by half, from 7.9 million to 3.9 million.

Millions remain uninsured, not because the federal government is doing too little, but because it is doing (and spending) a lot and doing it badly.

Americans Deserve a Better Approach to Health Care

Advocates of expanding government control of health care take the Census Bureau’s estimate of the number of uninsured out of context. They use it as a call for government to do more.

Some advocate government takeover of health care financing, as in “Medicare for All.” Others seek further expansions of Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare subsidies. Still others will call for the creation of a “public option,” a government-run insurance company that “competes” with private insurers.

But these are all line extensions of an already-failing approach.

A new approach is needed, one rooted in a better understanding of the problem.

Working together, dozens of health care analysts and policy leaders have developed such an approach.

The Health Care Choices Proposal would convert the $1.6 trillion in Obamacare entitlement spending into grants to states. States would use these fixed allotments to establish consumer-centered programs that make health insurance affordable regardless of income or medical condition.

It also would: expand health savings accounts, which help people save tax-free for routine medical expenses; write into law Trump administration regulations that expand consumer choices; and address high medical costs through choice and competition.

And it would require states to establish programs that concentrate public resources on people with pre-existing medical conditions. In states that have obtained federal waivers to establish such programs, people have seen substantial premium reductions.

The proposal would enhance health care choices for all Americans, including those with low incomes. And it would reduce premiums for individual policies by up to one-third.

The Health Care Choices Proposal represents a commonsense approach to solving an uninsured problem that is poorly understood.

Originally published in National Review.

COMMENTARY BY

Doug Badger

Doug Badger is a former White House and Senate policy adviser and is currently a senior fellow at the Galen Institute and a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Jamie Bryan Hall

Jamie Bryan Hall is a senior policy analyst in empirical studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

Will Senate Republicans Swallow Democrats’ Abortion, LGBT ‘Poison Pills’?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , , /by

The Trump administration has made good on its promise to implement pro-life policies throughout the federal government, including in America’s foreign policy and in humanitarian aid.

But those advances could be dealt a crippling blow as a result of a compromise by Senate Republicans, who are cooperating with an underhanded attempt to stymie the administration’s efforts through controversial additions to must-pass appropriations bills.

The Trump administration’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy reinstated and expanded the Reagan administration’s “Mexico City policy,” which barred taxpayer funds from organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas.

In addition, the administration has expanded the availability of funding to pro-life and faith-based aid organizations that the Obama administration excluded from participation in programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development because of their views on abortion, marriage, and gender identity.

Over the summer, the White House and congressional leadership from both parties reached an agreement regarding the budget and appropriations process, including an agreement that neither side would include so-called poison pill policy riders that did not have bipartisan support.

Abortion-related amendments historically have been understood to clearly violate such agreements, and the inclusion of controversial language on sexual orientation and gender identity should also fall into this category.

But prior to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Sept. 26 vote on the funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., threatened to offer an amendment reversing the Trump administration’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy.

In order to avoid a vote on this amendment, which could have passed the committee, Republicans on the panel agreed to add new language proposed by Shaheen to the bill.

That language, released just minutes before the scheduled committee markup, represents an attempt to work around the administration’s prohibition on international abortion funding by providing $665 million for “family planning and reproductive health care”—which would go to groups that promote abortion.

The new amendment, ultimately adopted as part of the final bill, also enshrines problematic language on sexual orientation and gender identity and hinders the administration’s efforts to expand USAID funding to pro-life and faith-based groups.

One provision requires the agency to inform Congress if any group that receives funding has been found to violate an Obama-era regulation interpreting sex discrimination as including sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Supreme Court is considering whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity. This new language, if passed into law, could undermine the Justice Department’s argument in Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC that Congress has not previously affirmed that reading of the law.

The Shaheen amendment also requires creation of a “shame list” by requiring reporting to Congress that would expose pro-life and faith-based recipients of USAID funding to complaints that they refuse to comply with Obama administration regulations requiring them to make referrals for abortion and endorse radical sexual orientation and gender identity ideology.

The Shaheen amendment is only one aspect of this troubling compromise by Senate appropriators, however.

The committee report attached to the bill, which contains instructions on how funds are to be used, recommends an increase in funding for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex portfolio in USAID’s Human Rights Division.

Countries found to engage in “official government discrimination” against LGBT individuals could lose access to USAID funding. It’s unclear whether that includes countries that define marriage as between one man and one woman or whose laws define sex as binary and biological.

Finally, the report requires creation of a pilot program to align women’s economic empowerment programs with global health programs that include family planning and reproductive health.

That appears to be an attempt to tie funding for programs such as the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, which focuses on enabling women around the world to support themselves and their families, to promotion of and funding for abortion.

The Senate should uphold its end of the bargain made with the White House last summer. That stipulates no funding for abortion-promoting groups, no radical redefinition of marriage and gender, and no shady attempts to implement such policies through a process that’s meant to exclude them.

COMMENTARY BY

Andrea Jones

Andrea Jones is a research assistant in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The False Hope of the Transgender Language Police

Bernie Sanders Promotes Abortion on Veterans Day, Wants to Turn VA Hospitals Into Abortion Clinics

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

On ‘Transphobia’ and the Sovietization of the West

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Posted by Eeyore

A recent event around Oxford is today’s stark yet lucid example of the Sovietization of the West. In this case, England, and more tragically, in the area with one of the brightest beacons of Greek civilization and the search for truth in World history, Oxford University.

Some people found stickers questioning the reality of the impossibility of men becoming women or women becoming men in any way beyond cosmetic. And the police got called.

The dictionary definition of man or woman today based on both ‘by definition’ standards as well as biological science, is perhaps not technically illegal. But as Stephen Coughlin explains in his paper, Neo-Marxist cultural changes drill down to politics and then to enforcement. Eventually to jurisprudence as normalization of the new culture sets in.

By definition standards in this case means we define humans as bipeds because nearly all of us walk on two legs and all of us by design walk on two legs despite any tragedy or malformation which may result in another means of locomotion. The same goes for being a man or a woman.

From The Telegraph:

A police force has been accused of “incredible irresponsibility” for treating the display of transphobic stickers around Oxford as a “serious crime”.

Some of the stickers, which have been dotted around the city centre, state: “Woman: noun. Adult human female” and “Women don’t have penises”.

Thames Valley Police has announced that those responsible could be charged with a public order offence and has appealed for witnesses.

It said: “Officers are investigating a large number of offensive stickers that have been placed across Oxford city centre containing transphobic comments.

“It is believed they started appearing in March within the High Street, Catte Street and Parks Road area.”

PC Rebecca Nightingale, the investigating officer, added: “Behaviour like this is not acceptable and we take incidents of this nature very seriously.”

Michael Biggs, Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Oxford, suggested that the police had overreacted.

“This is literally the Oxford English definition of what a woman is,” he said.

“I can’t believe that needs any stance at all. To say that a dictionary definition is a terrible hate crime is extraordinary. The police is being incredibly irresponsible.”

To get back to reality for a stark second, ANY reaction is an over reaction. With the possible exception of littering or something but given the amount of Marxist or semi-Marxist propaganda one sees on every light standard or telephone pole, there should be no excuse for any reaction at all to a dictionary term.

Returning to this replacement for reality where truth is punishable and destructive fictions are rewarded, Michael Briggs has done an act of bravery beyond perhaps what he is aware of. Of it he is aware, he deserves all of our support. I could list all the professors we are aware of who have lost their jobs and/or been de-platformed for holding a factual position that runs against what is in fact, a full on assault against Western taxonomic systems, but Ill settle for just the one that was sent in today alone:

Did Mount Royal University cancel a geography field school taught by Mark Hecht because of an op-ed Hecht wrote about ethnic diversity?

[…]

Perhaps the cancelling of the Sustainable Europe school trip had more to do with the fact that the lead instructor was Mark Hecht.

Hecht, an instructor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at MRU, penned an op-ed in the Vancouver Sun on September 6th, 2019 entitled “Ethnic diversity harms a country’s social trust, economic well-being, argues instructor.” 

The article was met with immediate criticism on social media, with activists and journalists accusing Hecht, the Vancouver Sun and Postmedia (the Sun’s parent company) of bigotry, hate, and white supremacy. 

BC Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender declared Hecht’s article a “call to hatred”,  and NDP MLA Ravi Kahlon wrote a response op-ed, saying that Hecht’s piece was “racism and white supremacy wearing a thin disguise of academic bluster.”

I have not read Mark Hecht’s paper, but if this case is anything at all like the other profs who have been cancelled because they spoke a truth that was undeniable as factually correct and consistent with reality or a non-Marxist opinion,, (much like men are men and women are women and the twain meet every time a baby is required) he will be de-platformed for this little defence of free speech and reality. In Canada this is out of proportion to even the US in terms of profs who are fired or discriminated against for their opinions.

The case of Ricardo Ducherne is another perfect example of Sovietization of Western universities in Canada today. Prof. Ducherne is in fact Latin-American. So one tends to be skeptical of the White Supremacist label attached to him.

However he did commit the cardinal sin based on a Marxist model of what is allowed. He stated the fact that Western or European Civilization is the best system for humanity the world has ever seen.

That can be easily quantified in any number of ways of course. But the simplest one is that everyone tries to move into a Classical civilized country, while very very few move out of one to an African tribal one or an Islamic sharia one unless they have pretty extreme reasons. And as we saw with the Islamic State, most of them try and come back.

Perhaps its time someone placed some stickers around town that said:

Women = XX

Men = XY

That, would make for an interesting court case.

Eeyore for Vlad

Thank you Cathy F. and PePo.

RELATED ARTICLE: Elizabeth Warren and the destruction of the West’s moral compass.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Problematic Women on Abortion, Pornography, and Transgender Models

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

This week on “Problematic Women,” we discuss parents in the U.K. who sued a hospital for “wrongful birth” because their son was born with Down syndrome. They claim, had they known, they would have had an abortion instead.

We discuss how prevalent aborting children diagnosed with Down syndrome is, both in Europe and the United States, and the importance of fighting for the dignity of all lives.

We also break down:

  • Netflix released a miniseries titled “Unbelievable.” Based on real events, it tells the story of a woman who was raped, but those around her weren’t sure about her story. We discuss the lessons learned from the show and different ways to think about the #MeToo movement.
  • Victoria’s Secret is featuring both a size 14 model and a transgender model in its recent “Love Yourself” campaign.
  • Our Problematic Woman of the week is Daily Signal reporter Rachel del Guidice. We talk to her about a recent interview she did (“The True Effects of Watching Porn”) and the responses she’s received from friends and listeners.
  • Listen in the podcast below.

Lauren Evans

Lauren Evans is the multimedia producer for The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Lauren. Twitter: .

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is the Administrative Assistant for Communications at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a congressional reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

San Francisco Blacklists 22 States With Pro-Life Laws

This Student Refused to Bow to Trans Ideology at Berkeley

Federal judge overturns ObamaCare transgender protections

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.