Liberals Break the Facts Machine

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) just learned what a garbage disposal is, but she says it’s American men who don’t know anything about plumbing! In a pair of incoherent tweets Tuesday night, the former bartender blasts the new abortion limits in Georgia by arguing that “Most of the men writing these bills don’t know the first thing about a woman’s body.” But maybe the real problem is that some Democrats don’t know the first thing about reading the bills she’s talking about!

What the LIFE Act does and what abortion extremists say it does are two very different things. Like a lot of far-Left radicals, Ocasio-Cortez is running around social media insisting that Georgia’s new law bans abortion before a woman even knows she’s pregnant. “It’s relatively common for a woman to have a late period [and] not be pregnant,” she argues. “So this is a backdoor ban.” But if a woman isn’t pregnant, how is anyone denying her an abortion? Either Ocasio-Cortez is confused, or Democrats are calling this an attack on women who aren’t even expecting!

“I don’t think you understand how these bills work,” Lila Rose politely tweeted back. “They ban abortion after the baby’s heartbeat can be heard by an ultrasound, which is around six weeks.” Of course, in this new House majority, it’s impossible to know whether Democrats are just criticizing bills they didn’t bother to read — or they’re intentionally trying to mislead people. Either way, Lila points out, “A lot of women support these life-saving laws. Myself included. You should join us.” Then, in a subtle jab at Ocasio-Cortez’s earlier comment, she posted, “Glad some of ‘the men’ are on board, too.”

Still, Ocasio-Cortez keeps firing. “There are a TON of ways this law ignores basic biology.” But if biology is where Democrats want to debate this bill, they’re already on shaky ground. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) party has spent the better part of the last 10 years ignoring “basic biology.” It’s almost comical. Liberals call us anti-science when we’re the ones who believe what research says about gender, conception, the environment, and creation. The Left, meanwhile, is so confused about basic biology that it doesn’t even know which bathroom to use!

And Democrats probably shouldn’t be lecturing anyone about science when CNN is airing interviews with New York leaders who don’t even think babies are human. On “Cuomo Prime Time,” the network actually gave a platform to a woman who told viewers, “When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her.” Oh really? What is it then — a banana nut loaf? According to Christine Quinn, the former speaker of the city’s council, it’s “a part of her body.” Rick Santorum, who was also in on the conversation, couldn’t believe it. “So the baby is their property and they can do whatever they want to it? They can maim the baby or torture the baby?”

Quinn got angry and shot back that Santorum was “spinning fake stories.” “You’re so desperate here,” she said. But I think the award for desperation was already doled out when Christine made it sound like children were a foreign object that just magically turns into a baby at birth. Obviously, none of this is new. Democrats are famous for dehumanizing the unborn. Back in 2012, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) famously said abortions didn’t kill children. “We’re not dealing with human beings at this point” — a soundbite he probably learned from Planned Parenthood, who built an entire empire on the philosophy that the less women know, the better.

But along came the ultrasound machine — and keeping women in the dark got a lot more difficult for Democrats and their pals in the abortion industry. Now women have a rebuttal to Planned Parenthood who insists, “That’s not a baby.”

Thanks to science, both parents are more aware of how intensely human their children are. Of course, Ocasio-Cortez would probably say it’s sexist to acknowledge that babies even have a father. But like it or not, there are tens of millions of men in this country who aren’t going to be silenced just because Democrats want to shame them with phony gender baiting. The truly courageous ones — like Governor Brian Kemp (R-Ga.) — aren’t protecting the unborn because they’re men. They’re protecting the unborn because it’s the right thing to do. And right and wrong has never cared about people’s chromosomes, no matter what liberals say.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Free at Last! Asia Bibi Touches down in Canada

The Democrats’ Moral Minority

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

PODCAST: Ex-Gay Pastor’s Counseling of Those Questioning Their Sexuality Could Be at Risk With Equality Act

Ken Williams represents what some activists say is impossible: Previously gay, he’s now married to a woman and has kids. He says God has helped him change. Williams now works at a church and counsels people who face their own unwanted sexual attractions—but some say his work should be illegal. Read our interview, posted below, or listen on the podcast:

We also cover these stories:

  • Democrats are beginning the process to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt.
  • Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., is proposing a national gun licensing program.
  • Hillary Clinton is saying the 2016 election was “stolen” from her.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

Katrina Trinko: Joining us is Ken Williams, a Christian pastor from California, and a man who once lived a gay lifestyle, but now councils those who want to leave it. Ken, thanks for joining us.

Ken Williams: Thank you for having me.

Trinko: You once lived as a gay man. Can you tell us a bit about that lifestyle?

Williams: Actually, I didn’t actually live as a gay man. I was not out and publicly living that lifestyle. I just was struggling every hour of every day with same-sex attraction, which for me was unwanted. And then I had several different experiences and a relationship for a period of time that was homosexual.

Daniel Davis: And at what stage of your life was that? Around college or after? In your 20s?

Williams: No, that was teens and into college. Yes.

Trinko: So why did you decide to abandon that way of life?

Williams: I never wanted that way of life. I never wanted to have sex with men. That’s just the only people I was sexually attracted to. That probably doesn’t seem like it makes any sense. But that’s pretty common actually.

We don’t really plan our sexual desires. We find ourselves with our sexual desires. And when I found myself with mine at, I don’t know, 13 or 14 years old, I realized to my shock one day, “Wow, I’m not like the other boys. I’m sexually attracted to the boys. I feel like I’m more like one of the girls.”

Eventually, over time, I succumbed to some of my temptations. But that wasn’t in alignment with what I personally wanted. It wasn’t in alignment with my faith or my understanding of what I felt like God was calling me to. It’s just where I found myself.

Trinko: And it’s striking that you’ve mentioned a few times now that wasn’t something you wanted. And why did you not want it? You mentioned your faith, but obviously, a lot of people have decided that they have an understanding of Christianity that does allow it. So why do you think that didn’t change your mind?

Williams: I just had conviction. Whenever I would move in a direction or if I would undress a man with my eyes, or if I looked at porn or something like that, I felt I was violating my conscience. And I wanted to have the family scenario. I loved my family and was really close to them and so I wanted to one day have my own wife, have my own children, all of that.

It was just for multiple reasons I didn’t want that. I had this gaping hole inside for masculinity and, at least in my case, it felt like I was trying to fill what was missing in me with someone else.

I had a lot of self-hatred going on, so I just really wanted it to delete me and replace me with the better looking, more impressive male guy that I looked up to. So it was very co-dependent and really unhealthy.

Trinko: Ken, you mentioned that you are married, which I think probably surprises a lot of people. Can you tell us about how you met your wife and how she came to peace with your past?

Williams: Yeah, sure. I met my wife at the church that we were both going to in a group of young people that got together periodically. What had happened to me there, that had never happened to me before, was … well, I had respected plenty of women before, but this time it turned into, “Wow, I really kind of keep looking at you.”

She was sitting across the way. She had long hair, she was playing with her hair, and she had this sparkly belt on, and I kept needing to look at her. I realized, “Wait a minute, I’ve never done this before. What’s going on?”

I realized I profoundly respected her because I had known her for a year, and I loved how I felt when I was around her. But this time, it crossed the threshold of actually becoming more intense than just a friendship.

I thought, “Wow, OK.” I just started spending more time with her, and eventually just wanted to ask her out. I got up the gumption to ask her out by text message, very courageous.

Trinko: Oh, come on.

Williams: Yes, not the proudest part of my story. But anyway, she gave the multiple choice answer back that I wanted, and I took her out on a date.

I take her to this nice restaurant. As I sit down, she’s about to sit down, she says, “You know, I’m going to run to the restroom.” She walks over, taps my shoulder to say, “Hey, I’m going to the restroom.” I know it sounds weird, but she touched my shoulder and electricity shot from my shoulder down to my toes, back and forth a few times, and I was like, “What is going on?”

Basically, I just fell in love with her. I fell in love with her. I developed sexual attraction for her. In the early days, I had some attraction to men still as well, but nobody was captivating my heart, or my attention, like she was.

We got married within a year of that. I’ve never once, I’m just being graphic, but it’s real, I’ve never once fantasized about another man in our entire marriage. We have a great sex life. We have four children, twins. We had four kids in less than four years, which to the listening audience, please spread your kids out more than that because you could lose your mind.

But I love being a family man. I love my wife and my kids. I’m living, really, somebody else’s life is what it feels like, and I’m loving it. I have quite a few friends that share my same story.

But if I can answer your secondary question, how was it for her? I tell people, too, it’s like, “Hey, people need to know in marriage what they’re buying.” Within a month of dating her, I felt like, “OK, we’ve been going out enough now that she needs to really know who I really am, and where I’ve been.”

We were spending a weekend together, Thanksgiving, at her parents’ house, but a few days prior to that we had taken a trip together. On the trip, I thought, “Oh, maybe this is the time.”

So I opened up to her and said, “Hey, FYI, I’ve dealt with this in my life, and here’s what it looked like.” And she said, “Oh, okay,” and she acted like it was no problem at all. She said, “Hey, can we pull over, I’m going to use the restroom.” Another restroom story.

She pops into the restroom, while I’m filling up with gas, and I didn’t know it, but she was having a full on panic attack in there. She was like, “Oh my gosh, God, what am I going to do?” She’s like, “God, help me, because I love this guy, but I don’t know what to do with this.”

She felt like, I don’t know what everybody’s faith journey is like here listening, but she felt like God very clearly just relayed to her, “Hey, don’t look at him that way, because I don’t.” Because I really wasn’t that person anymore. She thought, “Wow, OK.” So she endeavored to go that direction.

We had talks in the coming weeks about it, she needed to kind of process it. She’d say, “Well, what about this or what about that?” It kind of came down to, I said, “Hey listen, I’ve told you everything,” and I said, “Everything I just told you, there are five people in my life, close friends of mine, pastors of mine, they all know all of this story, and they all are present in my life.” So they’re aware of who I’m hanging out with, who I’m not.

I said, “You are welcome to talk to any of my friends,” that kind of thing. And I said, “You know, the reality is, any of us could fall to all kinds of temptations in life.”

And I said, “At the end of the day, you’re just taking a risk that I’m going to put God ahead of every other relationship, and I’m going to be true to my faith in God, which means that I would be faithful in marriage.” I said, “All I know to tell you is, I will endeavor to always put God first and you next, and at the end of day it’s a risk, but I hope you’ll choose me.”

She did, so that was 13 years ago in August.

Davis: Wow. … There’s so much hope there for people who might find themselves just trapped. There’s a category there that people today don’t seem to make room for, which is that you might develop a certain attraction. It seems like your attraction, maybe you can explain this—

Williams: Mmhmm.

Davis: … was for her specifically, not just for the female gender.

Williams: That’s true.

Davis: Is that the case?

Williams: It did start that way for sure, yeah.

As we’ve gone further through marriage, and I’ve continued to work on my own heart and being part of that men’s purity group, where I feel like I’m constantly getting better as a man and taking more responsibility for my life and just, I don’t know, continuing to grow.

Actually, my sexuality has as well, and I actually have some attraction now for other women as well, and it’s like I really am not trying to increase any, I don’t really need any, but that’s …

A lot of my friends that I know that share my similar experience, it becomes kind of fluid that way, as far as your understanding of yourself and of your sexual desires, they can shift. Even the APA will tell you that, that there can be a shift in sexual desires. So contrary to popular opinion, they can shift both ways.

Trinko: Actually, it’s funny you mention that because I was reading an advice column on Slate recently, where someone wrote in and said they had been a lesbian in their 20s and 30s, but now they were only attracted to men.

I don’t believe this person was religious, or they didn’t present themselves as religious, and they said, I feel really embarrassed to come out as straight. How do I do this?

Williams: Yes. My ministry partner, Elizabeth, at first was humiliated, she said, when she started having sexual desires for her husband because so much of her identity had been staked on being a lesbian feminist. She’s a brilliant lady, she had a master’s degree in theology and all this, and was an out and proud lesbian Christian. She was out in her seminary.

Her theology was such that she did not have any problem theologically, but she started having some experiences at church and with God that just led her away from that.

She was humiliated to one day discover, “I’m sexually attracted to this guy. What is going on here?” Because so much of her reputation was staked on her being a lesbian and a feminist. She had to figure out who she was all over again, and now she’s been married to that man for 14 years, and she’s no longer humiliated. She loves him.

Yeah, change is possible. If you’re a person of faith, it’s like all things are possible is in the Bible. I don’t know why we’ve removed this one area from being in reach of God.

Davis: You said you had a whole lack of sense of masculinity, or desire to be connected to other sorts of masculinity. Did you have that growing up? Were you close with your dad or another man who could kind of mentor you?

Williams: That was a challenge for me in my childhood. My dad loved me a time, but for whatever reason, we had trouble connecting deeply. He traveled quite a bit. My mom was more my same type of personality so she was easier to talk to.

I actually remember forming some judgments internally as a child, like, “Oh, women are better than men,” because when I would be at church, I would see the women stereotypically were standing around talking about God together, where the men were talking about football.

Not that there’s anything wrong with football and of course, that was a very short sighted, limited perspective as a child. I’m sure that the men had great faith as well, but I just drew some conclusions as a child that sent me in a way of saying, “I don’t really actually want men. I disapprove of masculinity.” But then I found myself, as I grew, craving masculinity because I had pushed it away.

Trinko: So you are now a pastor and you counsel, my understanding is, a lot of people in issues of sexuality. Can you tell us a little bit about how you approach that?

Williams: Yes. Really the only people that come to me for consulting are wanting to deal with same-sex attraction that’s unwanted or they are wanting to leave homosexuality behind. So I wouldn’t be qualified to help people that wanted to embrace it because I don’t have any experience with that.

But it’s interesting. There are all kinds of trigger points for people. I find that a very common characteristic is that there was some kind of a breakdown normally in childhood with their sense of intimacy, of love and belonging.

You heard some of that even in the story I told you about myself. I didn’t feel I was deeply valued or known really by anyone and certainly not by other males. So there can be all kinds of things. …

It’s not politically correct to say it, but it’s very common that sexual abuse is a part of the background of people who experience same-sex attraction. It’s definitely not 100% of the time, but it’s over 50% and that definitely bears out in the people that I minister to as well.

Davis: So if you have one individual who experiences these desires that they don’t want, how would you approach counseling them?

Williams: We try to ascertain, “OK, did something happen in your childhood? Let’s see if there was a moment. Do you remember when you first started experiencing these feelings?” Because that also happens for some adults as well, that’s a thing now.

I know a lady who didn’t deal with any same-sex attraction until she was in her 40s and then experienced it then.

So, “Did you have something traumatic happen? Did you form a judgment? Do you have any unforgiveness?” Can sometimes be a factor, which therefore kind of separated you from a person or people group. “Did you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend situation that went south on you and you were traumatized by that?”

There can be so many different different ways. We look for pain in there and we just try to connect them to a loving God that has grace for them exactly where they are. Loves them extravagantly right where they are, but also loves them enough to want to take them deeper into his presence and to an understanding of who they actually are.

Trinko: So would you consider what you do conversion therapy?

Williams: No. And I know over 100 people that have left homosexuality and I don’t know a single one of them that has ever experienced what people would say is conversion therapy, and they don’t know of anyone who has either.

It’s this term that gets used in culture that all of us with life experience, we don’t even know what you’re talking about. That didn’t happen to us. And in the movies that are out there, it’s very unfounded. So I have some things happen that were harmful to people. I’m sure that there are some cases out there, but I don’t personally know of any.

What’s so common though is people are confused about their identity or their sexuality. They go and they talk it out with a counselor, and the counselor helps them figure out what they want to go toward and leads them that direction … follows what they’re wanting to pursue and helps them go that direction.

So I know tons of people who have been so helped by things that could be labeled as conversion therapy that were merely a person talking with the counselor and figuring out, “Why do I feel the way that I do?”

Davis: There’s a bill in Congress here that you’ve been active in speaking on, the Equality Act, that would have a pretty sizable effect on the kinds of services that you offer, the counseling. Tell us about that.

Williams: If we’re going to call something the Equality Act, it sure would be great if it felt equal to all people. And so LGBTQ, the Q stands for queer or questioning. Well, questioning, OK, let’s take that. So if someone’s questioning their sexual identity, shouldn’t they be able to consider going down multiple paths if they’re questioning?

If we’re going to make it equal and fair, to remove from the table only the kind of therapy that would help a person walk away from homosexuality, how is that equal? How is that fair? How is that allowing someone to really question?

It’s basically elevating one viewpoint that says that all sexual fluidity must head in the direction of homosexuality. You’re not able to flow back another direction. And that’s just not fair. Any rational person can realize we must leave all of the options on the table if we’re going to be equal.

Trinko: Have you had any LGBT activists attack you for doing this kind of counseling? And if so, why do you think there’s such concern on the LGBT movement’s part that this counseling exists?

Williams: Yeah, great question. Yes, I’ve had death threats. I’ve had heinous things said. There’re a lot of really inappropriate things that definitely we’ve experienced, me and my ministry partner, Elizabeth Woning.

But I’ll tell you why I believe that exists out there. I think some of the responsibility does belong to culture and even to the church that for so long gay people were not loved well. I’m just being honest here.

For so long and in Christian circles it was this is the mandate, “Gay people are detestable. They’re going to hell. They’re terrible,” or whatever. And there wasn’t any offering for, “OK, wait a minute, God loves you and he wants to help you.”It was just, “You shouldn’t be who you are,” and that can’t be God first of all. And who wants to behave that way?

So I feel some of what we’re experiencing today is a reaction from a society that was holding expectations of people without helping loving them into what that expectation might be.

I so regret that that happened, but the way to fix it now is for all of us to be loving of people without necessarily agreeing. I mean, I don’t agree with my wife 100% but I love her.

We’ve got to now have a culture that allows people to make decisions for themselves. Still has standards for the truth, but we love people no matter where they are. And that’s got to work on both sides.

Davis: So there have been some notable ex-gays who have … done counseling and left the lifestyle but then returned to it. And sort of in the media that’s kind of looked at as, “Well, obviously, this counseling doesn’t work.” How would you respond to those claims?

Williams: I’m sure that with any area of counseling or people dealing with any life situation, there’s a desistance or however you would say it. There’re people that revert back to a previous way of living. There again that should be their right.

Of course, from my personal viewpoint, that’s sad for me because I feel they were probably on a direction, a pathway that was going to be very fulfilling for them. But something happened or it could be a lot of things happen in our lives. I don’t know what actually happened to cause them to go back in a previous direction, but we only tend to hear about the fantastic stories, don’t we?

What you don’t hear is all of the other stories of, “Well, I didn’t return back to that.” Those people just kind of go off into their lives and they maybe have a family and grow old together. Those aren’t as fantastic as the, “Oh, look, somebody that it didn’t work for them.” Like, “Yeah, OK. It didn’t for a percentage, but what about all the other people that it did?”

Trinko: You briefly mentioned pornography and I was wondering what do you think about the role of pornography in our current culture?

We know that there’re a lot of Americans who regularly view it, but we don’t really know that much about how it affects people. Do you see pornography playing a role in the kind of work that you do and affecting people?

Williams: Oh my goodness, absolutely. I know what it’s like to be addicted to pornography. I was addicted to gay porn for whole seasons of time and I have not dealt with porn at all in 15 years. So thank God that is no longer a part of my life.

It is very damaging. It’s damaging to culture in general, at a very basal level. Because what it does is it steals your voice. It steals your passion. It puts men in particular into passivity because you’re basically medicating … Very often people addicted to porn are medicating emotional wounds, disappointments. They’re not dealing with life head-on anymore.

Instead, they’re going to a quick hit of chemicals across their brain to make themselves feel better and they get very disempowered, very passive, not leading their families any longer. The fallout from porn we haven’t even been able to completely grapple with yet. But it’s immense.

I know this for one reason because I’ve been one of the leaders of a men’s purity group at my church for 10 years. We have 200 to 250 men every Monday night that gather and porn is just an issue for most of them. And if you can get them off of porn for three weeks, they come back, it’s like their present. They can think more clearly. They start leading their families again. They feel so good about themselves. I could talk about this for a long time. I feel very strongly.

Davis: Wow. We’re coming up on the month of June pretty soon, which the LGBT movement considers to be Pride Month. As we approach June, what would you say are the most helpful ways for us to engage those in that movement?

Williams: Yeah, thanks. We need to consider our relational capital that we have with another person before we speak. So if it’s somebody I don’t even know, I have no business going up and telling them how to raise their children or whether they should be smoking or not or what I think about their sexuality. That just doesn’t work well when you just do a drive-by comment.

So people that are in our lives though that we might actually have a conversation with I say, “Hey, in my experience of homosexuality, so often it’s a search for self, self-love,” and a search to just to be known and valued, like I shared earlier.

So I encourage people, “Hey, before you try to have any kind of conversation about whether they should quit alcohol addiction or anything else really, put more deposits into the person, then you’re taking withdrawals, a lot more. And really try to find common ground with them. Try to be the person in their life that they feel knows them more deeply than anybody else.” Strive for that.

Let them be heard, seen, valued, so that now you have relational capital and then maybe you will have an opportunity at some point to say, “Hey, tell me,”—questions, first of all, are great instead of commands. Who wants to be told what to do?

So questions about, “Hey, so let’s talk. We haven’t talked in a while. So you’re in a relationship with another woman. Tell me about that. How have you always felt that way?” … That’s just a good counselor.

Any counselor or even a consultant would come in with questions instead of their own expectations. So I think we really should do the same. Just be really loving and relational and then maybe you’d have an opportunity to share whatever’s on your heart for the person.

Trinko: OK. Well, Ken Williams, thanks so much for being on with us.

Williams: Thank you. It’s an honor. I appreciate it.

Trinko: And is there anywhere that people can find your work or reach out to you?

Williams: Yeah, absolutely. You can go to equippedtolove.com for our ministry. And then also if you just want to track along with all of the people who have left homosexuality and are having different testimonies there, you can follow us on Instagram at changedmvmt.

Trinko: OK. Thanks so much.

Williams: Thank you.

COMMENTARY BY

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


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

Ignorance, Fear and LGBTQ

Mary and I met with several black relatives for dinner at a restaurant in Baltimore. The jovial conversation drifted to politics. I was stunned that they know nothing about several important political issues. Because they only watch mainstream media, my relatives are either misinformed or uninformed.

For example: My relatives have never heard of Sharia Law. When I explained the tyranny of Sharia and how leftists are promoting it in America, my relatives were shocked. Overwhelmed, a relative said, “I’ve heard enough. Can we change the subject?”

The second thing that disturbed me was my relatives’ intense fear of pushing back against LGBTQ indoctrination that is impacting their lives. As I said, these are not political people. And yet, they know they had better not get caught opposing LGBTQ activists forcefully infiltrating every aspect of our lives; from public education to entertainment to Sunday morning worship.

A relative said her two granddaughters told her about a picture posted on the internet by their cousin. Their cousin is a girl who posted a picture of her kissing her girlfriend. All these kids are in elementary school. Disturbed, my relative asked her son, her granddaughter’s father, about the picture. He begged his mom not to say anything about the picture. He feared that disapproving of their cousin kissing her girlfriend could lead to him being deemed an unfit parent and losing custody of his daughters.

Another relative said his two little granddaughters were painting their fingernails. Having a little fun, he bent his hand femininely and said, “Paint my nails too.” The little girls immediately turned stone-faced. They said, “That’s not funny Pop-pop. It’s not right to make fun of them like that.” My relative was taken aback by how upset his granddaughters were with him. He did not know that kids are taught beginning in pre-k that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality

Another relative chimed in about a visit at his adult daughter’s home. His granddaughter looked beautiful in her gown for a formal high school event. He was shocked when her date arrived. It was a girl wearing a tuxedo. He thought this was terrible but hid his feelings, fearful of offending his daughter and granddaughter. He knew they would think he was an old-fashion, out-of-date hater if he showed any sign of disapproval.

Folks, LGBTQ activists’ domination of our culture has come a long ways from the days when they claimed they only wanted tolerance. Today, they demand that we bend a knee in total submission and approval of their lifestyle in education, entertainment media and even Christian churches. LGBTQ activists are aggressively seeking to ban the Bible, declaring it bigoted hate speech. LGBTQ activists seek to make it illegal to counsel those who wish to transition from LGBTQ lifestyles

Leftists are thrilled about “Corpus Christi” which is a blasphemous movie in which Jesus and his disciples are portrayed as homosexuals. And yet, leftists are demanding that public schools forbid students from drawing pictures of Mohammad because Sharia law says to do so is blasphemy

My late dad, Dr Rev Lloyd E Marcus said homosexuals were coming out of the closet and forcing us who believe the Bible into the closet. Truer words were never spoken.

Years ago, I wrote an article about how LGBTQ activists were aggressively seeking to infiltrate and take-down Christian institutions like the Boy Scouts of America. Tragically, LGBTQ activists have transformed the Boy Scouts away from its Christian founding, principles and values. Everything I stated in that article was 100% true. Shockingly, Christians, conservatives and Republicans who usually agree with me backed away from me. My article was branded “mean-spirited” and “anti-Christian”.

At that time, I was Chairman of a PAC which helped to elect conservative candidates. LGBTQ activists attacked our candidate, demanding that they disassociate from this “hater”, Lloyd Marcus. My employer warned that if the bad press intensified, he would be forced to request my resignation. This was my first time personally experiencing the wrath and punishment of LGBTQ activists, simply because I warned people about their mission to bully us into submission.

The surprising intensity of the LGBTQ attacks, reporters chasing me down and sticking microphones in my face, scared me. I could not give a rat’s derriere about what leftists think of me. I had to fight off feelings of guilt as I witnessed LGBTQ enforcers attacking everyone associated with me.

My wife Mary and I prayed about the situation. My wife is awesome. Mary said, “You must spread truth without fear of man.” Life has taught us that while my paycheck came from my employer, God is the true source of our financial security. The heated attacks over my LGBTQ/Boy Scouts article faded away. I was not fired.

However, another of my controversial articles sparked tension between my employer and me. Mary and I concluded that I must be free to write as I am led by God. I resigned from my position as chairman of the PAC.

For years, leftists have accused me of being a black “Uncle Tom sellout” highly paid by the Republican Party. This is not true. Quitting my position as chairman of a PAC was a serious financial decision; an act of faith. God is faithful and has sustained us. Praise God!

I left our family gathering at the restaurant feeling a bit disturbed that my relatives were so politically clueless and so fearful of attempting to stop LGBTQ activists from forcing their anti-Christian agenda down the throats of our children. Still, I am determined to continue spreading the truth and standing up for what is right. God is the source of my strength.

On a positive note, my wife Mary is a crab-cake snob. The crab-cakes at Romano’s restaurant were excellent.

RELATED VIDEO: Drag Queen Showdown – Bill Finley.

Yemeni Man gets Prison Time for Extortion Plot Involving a Child Bride

This story has been in my queue for a couple of weeks and am finally getting to it.

What is so galling about the news is that our law enforcement has spent time and (our) money to investigate a crime and now incarcerate a man for something that has nothing to do with us.

We apparently ‘welcomed’ a Yemeni family to live in the Buffalo, NY area who brought all of their cultural/religious baggage to America (and even went ‘home’ for awhile) and we get to straighten out the mess the ‘new Americans’ created.

By the way, Yemen is one of the countries now on Trump’s so-called Muslim ban list!

I first saw this short press announcement at the U.S. Justice Department website and then looked for more news.

BUFFALO, N.Y. – U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy, Jr. announced today that Yousef Goba, 45, of Yemen, who was convicted of making extortionate threats to harm and kidnap a minor, was sentenced to serve 41 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy C. Lynch, who handled the case, stated that between February 2015 and April 2015, Goba contacted an individual who resided in Western New York (the victim) through both telephone and text messages. During those communications, Goba threatened to kidnap and injure the victim’s minor child. The minor child went to Yemen with her mother in September 2013. While in Yemen, the minor child, her mother, and siblings lived with Goba for a period of time. When the mother wanted to move from Goba’s residence, the defendant refused to let the minor child leave and threatened that he would have the minor child marry a Yemeni man, if money was not paid to him. On April 8, 2015, during a call recorded by the FBI, Goba demanded that the victim pay him $11,000 as well as money for other expenses for the release of the minor child.

I checked around and found this story from Buffalo News that includes additional information….

….including the fact that Goba is the brother of a Yemeni man convicted on terrorism charges right after 9/11.

Child extortion plot stretching from Lackawanna to Yemen sends man to prison

The girl’s mother, who has since divorced her husband and remarried, took the children to Yemen in September 2013 to live temporarily so the father could save money while working here. [And, we are expected to believe that?—ed]

The following summer, after spending time with the father’s family in Yemen, the mother and children moved in with Goba. When they tried to leave, the defendant allowed the mother and other children to depart, but not the girl, the prosecution maintains. [So this woman moves in with a man not her relative, but the brother of a convicted Islamic terrorist?—ed]

The government also claims Goba threatened to marry off the girl to a Yemeni national willing to pay for her, and that Goba sent the father a photo of the girl pointing to a wedding cake and a second picture of her with a ring on her finger.

In pleading to extortion, Goba said he was just trying to get the father to reimburse him for the money he spent providing for the family while they lived with him in Yemen. He was arrested in New York City in 2015 as he returned to the United States.

Goba is the brother of Lackawanna Six member Yahya Goba, but sources said there appears to be no connection between Goba’s case and his brother’s involvement with the Lackawanna Six.

More here.

Again, why not just leave Yemenis in Yemen?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Massachusetts Doctor Charged with Paying Teen for Sex

ICE Cracking Down on “Fake Families”

Minnesota: Mohamed Noor Found Guilty in Death of Australian Woman

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

Republican-Run Florida Is Pushing Vaping Ban?

As of this writing, the Florida Legislature is considering bills that would prohibit adult Floridians over the age of 18 from purchasing non-combustible nicotine products or nicotine dispensing products (“vapors”). The legislation may include an artificial definition of these products as “tobacco.”  Such a move would be in error.

As conservatives, we demand that government’s intrusions upon our lives be as small as possible. Yes, government has a bona fide role in ensuring the health, morale, welfare, and safety of the people, but such an intervention in this case would do neither.

During the late twentieth century, government played an active role in discouraging cigarette smoking.  This campaign was met with resistance from those who believed that it was not government’s role to meddle in their lives. Nevertheless, in that campaign there was direct and incontrovertible evidence that smoking was intimately tied with lung cancer, not only for the smoker, but for those who secondarily inhaled the smoke. In the end, most agreed, because of the incontrovertible, causative correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer, both its regulation and the active discouragement of its use was an appropriate role for government.

In the case of vaping, no such correlation exists.

The tars that plague cigarette smoke are not present in vaping products, nullifying the cancer links. Additionally, the American Cancer Society has stated that that giving up combustible cigarettes is the single most important thing a smoker can do to improve her health, even it if she accomplishes this goal by using e-cigarettes.

Additionally, Moffitt Cancer Center’s Thomas Brandon, PhD., Director of Moffitt’s Tobacco Research and Intervention program in Tampa, Fla., stated on February 28, 2018, that “…e-cigarettes represent the most important change in the landscape of tobacco use [in decades]” and encouraged society to harness this change “to maximize the public health benefit from it.”

Somehow, the discussion regarding e-cigarettes and government’s role in regulating it has gone wildly wrong. Here we do not have a product, as best as science can tell, that is killing people, but one that may be helping them and even saving lives. We have a product that stands unlinked to cancer and may serve as a needed substitute for another that is. For the Florida legislature to consider banning the sale of these products absent the causative link present in smokable and chewable tobacco (and perhaps even representing a net societal benefit) is a clear example of an overstep of government’s proper role.

Yes, there are many who find e-cigarette vapors annoying, but a local annoyance is no reason for government to step in. Rather, it is up to business-owners and individuals to regulate themselves.

Florida ought to avoid policy changes that would inhibit adults from exercising their freedom to access vaping products known to have health benefits and devoid of proven, life-threatening consequences relied on by many, including member of our military, to kick the smoking habit.

The Florida legislature to reject this invitation to excessively intrude into the lives of its citizens.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

Supreme Court to Hear Cases Involving Firings of Gay, Transgender Employees

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear three cases centered on whether federal law against discrimination in employment applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.

After hearing Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the high court will decide whether the words “because of … sex,” found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also forbid employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court consolidated Bostock with a similar case, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda.

The high court also will hear arguments in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before ruling on whether Title VII as worded bars discrimination against transgender individuals.

Title VII specifically prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It does not mention lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender Americans.

Lower federal courts came to conflicting decisions in Bostock, in which a child welfare worker said he was fired for being gay, and Zarda, in which a sky-diving instructor argued the same.

The Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit decided that Title VII doesn’t prohibit “discharge for homosexuality,” while the New York-based 2nd Circuit ruled for the instructor, saying that discrimination based on sexual orientation “is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

In Harris Funeral Homes, a funeral director in Michigan was fired by the family-owned business after disclosing a transition from man to woman, which also involved dressing as a woman.

The Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit sided with the employee, concluding: “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex.”

While many liberals see the Supreme Court as poised to restrict LGBT rights, conservatives argue that federal law doesn’t go as far as activists claim.

“There is a reason why, for the past 25 years, activists have tried to legislatively amend federal civil rights law to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’ That reason is simple: because it doesn’t include those categories,” Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan T. Anderson said, adding:

Courts should not do what activists have failed to do: Redefine ‘sex’ to mean ‘sexual orientation and gender identity.’ Doing so not only gets the law wrong, it also has serious negative consequences for women’s equality, safety, and privacy.

The Christian legal aid group Alliance Defending Freedom last fall petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the funeral home case, arguing that only Congress may rewrite a federal statute to allow a male employee who identifies as female to dress in women’s clothing in violation of a company dress code.

Although a federal district judge decided in the employer’s favor, on appeal the 6th Circuit sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the agency’s lawsuit against Harris Funeral Homes, and Alliance Defending Freedom hopes to reverse that outcome at the high court.

“Neither government agencies nor the courts have authority to rewrite federal law by replacing ‘sex’ with ‘gender identity’—a change with widespread consequences for everyone,” John Bursch, the organization’s vice president of appellate advocacy, said.

“Businesses have the right to rely on what the law is—not what government agencies want it to be—when they create and enforce employment policies,” Bursch said.

COLUMN BY

Ken McIntyre

Ken McIntyre, a 30-year veteran of national and local newspapers, serves as senior editor at The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation’s Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies. Send an email to Ken. Twitter: @KenMac55.

RELATED ARTICLE: Thousands of Boy Scout Leaders Face New Child Sex Allegations; Names Expected to Be Released Tuesday | NBC New York


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

Bank of America’s over $50,000 in Contributions to Planned Parenthood Itemized

Planned Parenthood organizations received at least $51,830 from the Bank of America Charitable Foundation in 2017. The foundation’s IRS Form 990 shows contributions made to 4o different Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Will you help us expose Bank of America’s support for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business? Click here to share our Action Alert, and then sign 2ndVote’s petition asking Bank of America to STOP all funding for the abortion giant.

Planned Parenthood of Northern New England $50.00
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England $500.00
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England $350.00
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England $100.00
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England $50.00
Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan New Jersey $100.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $3,655.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $1,200.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $3,795.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $275.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $325.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $100.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $3,756.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $2,485.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $875.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $265.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $225.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $25.00
Planned Parenthood of Delaware $250.00
Planned Parenthood Carol Whitehill Moses Center $3,000.00
Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio $200.00
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota $100.00
Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast $750.00
Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast $600.00
Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast $25.00
Planned Parenthood Arizona $125.00
Planned Parenthood Arizona $100.00
Planned Parenthood Arizona $50.00
Planned Parenthood Arizona $50.00
Planned Parenthood Los Angeles $100.00
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest $500.00
Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo $650.00
Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo $3,000.00
Planned Parenthood of the Columbia Willamette $250.00
Planned Parenthood of League of Massachusetts $200.00
Planned Parenthood of League of Massachusetts $200.00
Planned Parenthood of League of Massachusetts $250.00
Planned Parenthood of Northern, Central and Southern New Jersey $100.00
Planned Parenthood of Northern, Central and Southern New Jersey $50.00
Planned Parenthood of New York City $200.00
Planned Parenthood of New York City $300.00
Planned Parenthood of New York City $500.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $500.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $1,706.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $250.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $150.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $75.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $25.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $50.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $250.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $50.00
Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic $500.00
Planned Parenthood of Nassau County $200.00
Planned Parenthood of the Mid-Hudson Valley $75.00
Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania $1,180.00
Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania $375.00
Planned Parenthood Keystone $50.00
Planned Parenthood Keystone $350.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $1,375.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $4,358.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $25.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $200.00
Planned Parenthood Federation of America $25.00
Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC $300.00
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic $950.00
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic $25.00
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic $100.00
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic $100.00
Planned Parenthood of Pasco $500.00
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida $50.00
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida $50.00
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky $375.00
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky $100.00
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland $500.00
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin $2,000.00
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin $1,035.00
Planned Parenthood of Illinois $50.00
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Southwest Missouri $50.00
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Southwest Missouri $50.00
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Southwest Missouri $75.00
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Southwest Missouri $75.00
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Southwest Missouri $50.00
Planned Parenthood Great Plains $50.00
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas $30.00
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas $50.00
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas $30.00
Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood $1,000.00
Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood $100.00
Planned Parenthood Salt Lake Health Center $300.00
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific $50.00
Planned Parenthood of California Central Coast $25.00
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte $150.00
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte $50.00
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands $500.00
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands $1,000.00
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands $500.00
Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho $35.00
Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho $75.00

More information on Bank of America’s activism can be found here.


Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


Pro-Abortion Snobbery

David Carlin: What factors divide pro-life from pro-choice Americans? Mostly, it’s the difference between humility and arrogance.


This column is about abortion, but it will take a moment or two to get to the point.  Please bear with me.

If ever there was an obvious example of fallacious reasoning, it’s this: “I am rich, and you are not.  Therefore I’m right, and you’re wrong.”

What could be more stupid than an argument along these lines?  And yet this is precisely the reasoning that has been used, century after century, by those in the higher classes to dismiss complaints made by persons from the lower classes.  This is the reasoning that permitted lords of the manor to dismiss complaints by serfs, slaveholders to dismiss complaints by slaves, mill-owners to dismiss complaints by factory hands, etc.

In a society that places great value on wealth (and what society does not place great value on wealth?), rich people cannot help but feel that they are superior people: not just superior in wealth, but superior in almost every way.  And if you are superior in almost every way, then you must be superior in judgment.

If it happens, then, that a person from the lower classes disagrees with you, it becomes obvious – does it not? – that you must be right and the other must be wrong.

Your rightness and his wrongness are so obvious, in fact, that there really is no need for you (the rich person) to examine the other fellow’s case.  Save yourself time and trouble by dismissing it from the get-go as unworthy of consideration.

And don’t waste a lot of time trying to explain to the other fellow why he’s wrong. Out of a noblesse oblige kind of courtesy, you might offer him a brief explanation; but when you see (as you soon will) that he doesn’t buy it, move on to something else.

And now to abortion.  Considered on purely intellectual merits, the anti-abortion argument is vastly superior to the pro-abortion argument.  The anti-abortion or pro-life side argues that the entity that gets killed in an abortion is a human being, a tiny human being that grows less tiny every day.

And what else could it be if not a human being?  It is not a dog or a monkey or a fish or an elm tree.  The pro-abortion side has no counter-argument that comes even close to refuting the anti-abortion case.  The best the pro-abortion side can come up with are mindless slogans like “a woman’s right to choose” or “a woman’s right to control her own body” or “if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.”

*

This last is my favorite stupid argument.  It is strictly parallel to, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave.”

And yet, despite the obvious superiority of the anti-abortion argument, hardly ever is a pro-abortion person persuaded.  Why is this?

The answer, I think, can be found in the social class differences between pro-life and pro-abortion people.  The heart of the pro-abortion movement is found among men and women of the upper-middle classes: people who have (or soon will have when they finish college and get a few years older) good educations, good jobs, good cars, good houses, good food, good wine, high incomes, millions in assets, many important social and political connections, a cosmopolitan outlook, etc.

Given contemporary American standards, they are superior people.  They may not be superior according to the standards that prevailed in Plato’s Academy, or in ancient Sparta, or in the monasteries of St. Benedict, or in the Shaker communities. But they are without question “superior” according to present-day American standards.

By contrast, the heart of the pro-life movement is found among women from the lower-middle classes: persons with educations and incomes that are barely adequate in today’s high-price society; persons who lack the millions, the high culture, the good connections, etc.

These women tend to be religious; they tend to have more children than does the average American woman (and certainly more than does the typical pro-abortion activist); they tend to be sexually un-liberated – so much so that many of them (and this is truly shocking from a contemporary point of view) have had sexual relations with only one man, their husband.  According to present-day standards, these women are definitely inferior.

It will be pointed out that my ideas of the typical pro-life and pro-abortion person are stereotypes.  Of course. But stereotypes are often enough more or less accurate.

In any case, the typical pro-abortion activist, instead of taking seriously the arguments presented by the pro-life movement, says to herself or himself: “I am rich and well-educated, I own a handsome house or condo and a fine automobile, I am thin and athletic, and I am blessed with excellent taste when it comes to coffee, wine, food, furniture, music, movies, works of art, etc.  In short, I am a superior person.  The world is fortunate to have people like me in it.”

“And so, that anti-choice woman standing over there – whose education is limited, whose income is modest, whose house is small and unattractive and in the wrong neighborhood, whose body is unshapely and somewhat overweight, whose taste is appallingly vulgar – when she tells me that I am wrong about abortion, I would laugh at her if I didn’t pity her.  What could be more preposterous than to think that an inferior person like her might be right and a superior person like myself might be wrong?”

These “superior” people, let us remember, are the people who control the “command posts” of American culture. Which is to say that they are dominant in a number of our leading institutions: the mainstream journalistic media, the entertainment industry, our best colleges and universities, and one of our two great political parties.

They shape the public mind, especially the mind of younger generations.  If they won’t listen to reason (which they won’t), do we have any grounds to be hopeful for the long-run success of the pro-life movement?

Yes.  But I’ve run out of time (and space) today. More to come next time.

COLUMN BY

David Carlin

David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

RELATED ARTICLE: How State ‘Birthday Abortions’ Bills Stack Up to Federal Restrictions

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: Archbishop Joseph Kurtz on opposition to changes in the Civil Rights Act

EWTN on Apr 9, 2019 published the below commentary with video.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville tells me why Church leaders are against proposed changes to the Civil Rights Act that would include recognizing sexual orientation and gender identity. See the full interview on EWTN News Nightly with Lauren Ashburn.

Hoaxes, Scams, and Your Medical Care

Preview:

  • Hoaxes and scams have been dominating the news lately. We have a marginally known actor faking a hate crime supposedly to raise his Hollywood profile.
  • The scandal about Hollywood and other elites buying their children’s way into top-rated universities really hit home.
  • Now we continue to have a slew of healthcare hoaxes: corporate stakeholders, legislators, and government agencies promise everything and have no accountability for their failure to keep their promises.
  • The opioid crisis is an example of the unintended consequences of intervention by oversight agencies not directly involved in patient care.
  • Central control is not a good idea. Period. Do not believe the hoax perpetrated by the ruling class who will never have to live by their own rules. It is highly unlikely that Venezuela’s President Maduro is starving along with his people.

Hoaxes and scams have been dominating the news lately. We have a marginally known actor faking a hate crime supposedly to raise his Hollywood profile. His attempt to claw his way to the middle could have resulted in race riots, injury, and death. His punishment? All charges dropped.

The scandal about Hollywood and other elites buying their children’s way into top-rated universities really hit home. I remember when I had tutored some recent Vietnamese immigrants for a debate contest to win a scholarship for college. I could only hope that their hard work was rewarded and not wiped away by special favors bestowed on the “haves.”

Now we continue to have a slew of healthcare hoaxes: corporate stakeholders, legislators, and government agencies promise everything and have no accountability for their failure to keep their promises.

Take the large health systems’ claim that hospital consolidation and buying up physician practices would benefit consumers with cheaper prices from coordinated services and other unspecified savings. A major study of California hospital mergers found just the opposite. The analysis showed that the price of an average hospital admission went up as much as 54 percent. When the large hospital systems bought doctors’ groups, the prices rose even more. There was as much as a 70 percent increase in prices of medical services in geographic areas with minimal competition. This finding seems obvious to any of us who has the choice of shopping at Walmart or Target or Costco.

Logic aside, some legislators believe that having the government take over medical care would solve our access and cost problems. Single payer means no competition whatsoever. The single payer plans (H.R. 1384 and S. 1804) that abolish private insurance leave patients with an empty choice. Patients can contract with a physician to pay cash for government medical services covered by the government. But if the physician contracts for such services he cannot be part of the government program for any patient for 2 years. Realistically, these single payer bills make it financially unfeasible for physicians to privately contract with patients. Thus, only well-heeled patients, along with independently wealthy doctors, can buy their way out of the system.

There are variations on the theme of government involvement that allow buy-ins to Medicare, Medicaid, or iterations of the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. All of these all have the same defect: expanding the government healthcare monopoly.

The opioid crisis is an example of the unintended consequences of intervention by oversight agencies not directly involved in patient care. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), now the Joint Commission, a nonprofit organization that accredits more than 20,000 healthcare organizations and programs in the U.S, is for all practical purposes a government surrogate. In 2001, JCAHO declared that pain was the “5th vital sign” that had to be addressed or face consequences. The Federation of American Medical Boards told physicians that “in the course of treatment,” large doses of opioids were just fine. Moreover, Medicare has a hospital payment formula that relies on patient satisfaction surveys. If the patients are satisfied, including being so zoned out on opiates that they can’t taste the bad food, the hospital is paid more. The hospital is penalized for a bad rating.

And now to deal with the opiate issue, the government has issued guidelines that have been found to be harmful to some patients. One-size-fits-all restrictions have caused physicians to fear being flagged as over-prescribers by the medical board. Consequently, some physicians are tapering patients off opioids more quickly than they would ideally like. And in the public eye patients have been transformed from objects of compassion to criminal drug addicts.

Individualized medical care must not be reserved for the chosen few. Patients need physicians who are empathetic, thorough, and not married to a medical cookbook written by disinterested third parties. Perhaps this is why Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones chose to have his heart surgery in the U.S. and not with his British homeland’s National Health Service.

Central control is not a good idea. Period. Do not believe the hoax perpetrated by the ruling class who will never have to live by their own rules. It is highly unlikely that Venezuela’s President Maduro is starving along with his people.

Kids Aren’t Born Transgender, So Don’t Let Advocates Bamboozle You

People who pursue a cross-sex identity aren’t born that way, and children should not be encouraged to “transition” to the opposite sex, according to a reference work endorsed by the American Psychological Association.

Yet every day I hear from another parent who tells me that a child’s therapist, after an appointment or two, strongly recommends that the parent allow the child to change his or her name and personal pronouns, live as the opposite sex, and get on the track toward irreversible medical interventions.

Laura Haynes, a licensed psychologist in California, recently reviewed the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and highlighted its research findings about transgender children.

Among those findings, cited on page 744 of Volume 1:

  • “In no more than about one in four children does gender dysphoria persist from childhood to adolescence or adulthood,” with the majority of affected boys later identifying as gay, not transgender, and up to half of affected girls identifying as lesbian, not transgender.
  • “Early social transition (i.e., change of gender role, such as registering a birth-assigned boy in school as a girl) should be approached with caution to avoid foreclosing this stage of gender identity development.”
  • “Early social transition may be necessary for some; however, the stress associated with possible reversal of this decision has been shown to be substantial.”

Yet we all have been bamboozled by distorted claims to the contrary from sex-change advocates, who insist the science is settled.

They say people who identify as the opposite sex will never change their mind, the cross-sex identity is fixed and the earlier the child, teen, or adult is affirmed as the opposite sex and makes the transition, the better off he or she will be.

In fact, however, the American Psychological Association and the weight of historical evidence both challenge society’s affirmation of cross-sex identities.

The preface to the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, published in 2014, says it is endorsed and approved by the American Psychological Association, which describes itself as “the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and the largest association of psychologists in the world.”

underwent my own “sex change” in April 1983. I had no idea then that I would be here today talking about the subject, or that the evidence against “born that way” had started oozing out as early as 1979, four years before I was mutilated.

In 1979 an endocrinologist, Dr. Charles L. Ihlenfeld, sounded a warning on using hormones and surgery on the transgender population in remarks to a group of clinicians. Ihlenfeld had administered hormone therapy for six years to a large sample of 500 trans-identified adults.

Ihlenfeld, who is gay, told the clinicians that “80 percent of the people who want to change their sex shouldn’t do it.” Desires to change sex, he said, “most likely stem from powerful psychological factors—likely from the experiences of the first 18 months of life.”

Ihlenfeld’s comments 40 years ago foreshadowed the evidence provided in the APA Handbook, where page 743 of Volume 1 says that identifying as the opposite sex is “most likely the result of a complex interaction between biological and environmental factors.”

“Research on the influence of family of origin dynamics,” it adds, “has found some support for separation anxiety among gender-nonconforming boys and psychopathology among mothers.”

Ihlenfeld and the APA, generations apart in time, came to a similar conclusion: The desire to change sex most likely stems from early life experiences and psychological factors.

As to the wisdom and effectiveness of using cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgery to treat gender dysphoria, the evidence does not exist.

Above:  The author, Walt Heyer, takes part in a related panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation. His remarks begin at 47:30 in the video.

In the United Kingdom, the University of Birmingham’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility conducted a review in 2004 of 100 international medical studies of “post-operative transsexuals.” It found “no conclusive evidence [that] sex-change operations improve the lives of transsexuals.”

Additionally, the evidence showed that the transsexual person, after undergoing reassignment surgery, “remains severely distressed to the point of suicide.”

A professor at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan, is one recent voice questioning cross-sex hormone use in children and adolescents. Heneghan is editor-in-chief of a respected British medical journal, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

On Feb. 25, Heneghan and a fellow researcher reported significant problemswith how evidence is collected and analyzed, concluding:

Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility, adverse events, long-term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition.

So the negative findings stack up, and alarms are raised about the lack of proof concerning effectiveness and safety. But administering unnecessary hormones and rearranging healthy body parts with sex-change surgeries continue undaunted by a deaf medical community.

I feel like I’m standing alongside the road shouting to warn approaching drivers: “The bridge is out! The bridge is out!”

Because I know—I drove off that cliff, and I’m still affected 35 years later.

The APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, again, says that transgender people are not born that way, that cross-sex identification can change, and that the majority of children grow out of a desire to change sex if they don’t engage in social transition.

Strangely, the medical and psychological community doesn’t follow its own evidence and seems oblivious to the experiment they’re conducting on real lives, especially those of children.

The sex-change cheerleaders falsely claim, “Affirmation is the only solution.” They use distorted doctrine to lobby for laws that punish counselors and parents who say otherwise, laws that take away the rights of patients to choose their own therapy goals.

Organizations such as The Trevor Project are lobbying in all 50 states to outlaw any therapy that suggests interest in cross-sex transition can change.

Meanwhile, accounts such as these of families and lives being ripped to shreds by sex change appear in my inbox daily. I have compiled 30 of the stories I’ve received, along with recent research, in my own book “Trans Life Survivors.”

We must wake up and use the evidence provided in the APA Handbook to counter those who say transgender people are born that way.

Instead, we must fight loudly for the rights of patients to choose their counseling goals and against laws that legislate affirmation as the only therapy allowed.

COMMENTARY BY

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker. Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.

RELATED ARTICLE: My ‘Sex Change’ Was a Myth. Why Trying to Change One’s Sex Will Always Fail.


Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

The Abby Johnson Story

One day, about a decade ago, a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director saw something at her own clinic—and it made her instantly pro-life.

Her name is Abby Johnson, and she was the director of the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic, which was affiliated with the greater Houston area Planned Parenthood—one of the largest markets for America’s largest abortion-provider. In 2008, Abby had been voted as Planned Parenthood’s Employee of the Year. She was on a fast-track for further promotion within Planned Parenthood.

I interviewed Abby Johnson on the radio a few years ago. She told me about something that happened that made her question how good Planned Parenthood really was: “I had been instructed to increase the abortion quota at our facility, which was strange to me because I really got involved with Planned Parenthood, believing that abortion was something we were trying to eradicate, [to] make unnecessary through various education programs.”

I said, “Safe, legal, and rare?” She said, “Sure, that’s what we said to the media, and that’s what I believed.” She naively thought abortion (as a last resort) was helpful to women.

Abby said in a television interview for D. James Kennedy Ministries (DJKM):

“Planned Parenthood says that they offer options counseling, but that’s not true….they don’t really know how to effectively counsel on anything but abortion. I was great at selling abortion. I was a very, very good salesperson. I could sell an abortion to anybody. It’s so easy when you get a woman into your office, and she is vulnerable and she’s unsure.”

But on September 26, 2009, at the request of a visiting doctor who insisted on sonogram-assisted abortions, Abby ran the sonogram machine and saw from a different perspective what her life’s work (up to that time) was really all about.

In her book, The Walls Are Talking (with Kristin Detrow, 2016), Abby writes, “As I stood watching, a thirteen-week-old unborn child struggled and lost its life within its mother’s womb, finally crumpling and disappearing into the cannula, a hollow plastic tube attached to the suction machine by a flexible hose.”

She described it this way in the DJKM television interview,

“I was just in shock. I couldn’t believe what I was watching. And the baby was actually making some progress. It was moving further and further away from the instrument, so much so the doctor had to reposition the cannula. And he finally got everything in place, and he asked the technician to turn on the suction, and she did.”

Abby continues, “In just, a few moments, I saw the child’s body begin to go through that tube.

For those few moments I was watching this child fight hard for its life. It didn’t have a chance. We had all those instruments and all that technology, and that little baby didn’t have a fighting change, and it did fight.”

Abby adds: “I walked out of the room that day just realizing, ‘I’ve got to make a change. Never again. I’m never going to participate in this again.’”

Today, Abby’s story can be seen on the big screen. Unplanned, based on her best-selling book of the same title (with Cindy Lambert, 2010), opened this past weekend and was a surprise hit. It came in number five at the box office, which is quite an accomplishment for an independent pro-life movie that virtually all of Hollywood does not want you to see. I saw it on its opening weekend and highly recommend it.

Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, told me:

“The depiction of abortion in Unplanned is something that every pro-life person should see—and every pro-choice person.”

Today, one of Abby Johnson’s central goals is to assist abortion clinic workers who want to leave the abortion industry. Her organization, And Then There Were None, is directly geared toward this.

In an online video for that outreach, Abby says,

“Our vision statement for And Then There Were None is ‘No abortion clinic workers, no abortion clinics, no abortions’—it starts with the workers. We see ourselves as being part of a pro-love movement…we want to love these workers out of the clinics. We want to love them to a path of healing, and we want to love them…into a relationship with Jesus Christ.”

So far, they have been able to help 500 people leave the abortion clinics.

In her book, The Walls Are Talking, Abby says she relates to Mary Magdalene:

“I have also done my fair share of sinning. And I have also been forgiven much more than I deserve. I abused and betrayed women in the worst possible way. I convinced them to kill their children….It was Christ who changed me.”

If you haven’t seen the movie yet, make your plans to go see Unplanned.

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Left Keeps Me Religious

RELATED VIDEO: ‘Unplanned’: How Twitter Promoted a Pro-Life Film.

Who Is Your Doctor?

In Arizona, law enforcement officers in tactical gear broke down the door to a home where children were sleeping, entered with guns drawn, and took three little children away from their parents. The stated reason: the mother had decided not to follow a doctor’s advice to take her two-year-old to the emergency room for a fever, because the fever broke and the child got much better soon after leaving the office.


People used to know who their doctor was. His name and phone number were on the wall or the refrigerator next to the telephone. He was there for you and could manage most of your problems.

When I was about 13, my mom took me to our pediatrician for belly pain. He was on his way out the door, but he stopped to take care of me. He diagnosed appendicitis based on history and physical examination. He called his favorite surgeon (“Billy,” a Tucson legend), who came from the golf course to meet me in the emergency room. Within hours, my red-hot appendix was in a jar. My parents paid the hospital bill ($150—10 days’ pay for a construction laborer) as I was discharged a few days later.

Today, the patient with abdominal pain could wait for hours to see the ER provider—possibly a nurse practitioner or physician assistant who had never seen a case of acute appendicitis. She’ll probably get a CT scan, after another wait. Eventually, Dr. On-call may take her to the operating room, hopefully before the appendix ruptures. And the bill will be beyond the means of ordinary people.

I used to be able to direct-admit patients from my office and send them with a set of orders to the hospital admitting office. For years, this has been impossible. The hospital is decidedly unfriendly to independent doctors. There’s now a gatekeeper in the emergency room, and most patients are under the control of a hospitalist.

This hospital, still Catholic at least in name, is now owned by a huge national conglomerate. Recently, it thwarted all efforts to keep it from dehydrating a patient to death despite lack of an advance directive or permission from next of kin. The patient’s mother disputed the diagnosis of brain death. The gastroenterologist of her choice was willing and able to place a feeding tube, needed in order to transfer the patient to a skilled nursing facility, but the hospital would not permit it. An outside physician whom the mother had called on was removed from the patient’s room by security, when she was merely praying with the mother. The mother could not get a phone call returned from an attending physician. Who was the doctor? Apparently, the hospital system.

Recently, a physician called me about her mother, who was seemingly a captive in a world-renowned hospital. She was concerned about her mother’s nutritional status and falling oxygen level. She could not speak to the attending physician. “They play musical doctors.”

Largely driven by government policy, the System is increasingly in control. A new level of intrusion is being proposed in California in a bill (SB 276) that would outlaw all medical exemptions for vaccines, unless a public health officer approves each one, based on the very narrow list of contraindications accepted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Doctors traditionally swore an oath not to harm patients, and are liable if they do. But government officials are immune from liability, even if they overrule a physician’s judgment that a particular patient faces an unacceptable risk of harm from a vaccine.

If you disagree with your private doctor, you can fire him or simply decline to follow his advice. But what if the government is your doctor?

In Arizona, law enforcement officers in tactical gear broke down the door to a home where children were sleeping, entered with guns drawn, and took three little children away from their parents. The stated reason: the mother had decided not to follow a doctor’s advice to take her two-year-old to the emergency room for a fever, because the fever broke and the child got much better soon after leaving the office. The main concern seemed to be that the child was not vaccinated.

Americans need to defend their right to have an independent physician, to choose their physician and type of care, and to give or withhold informed consent to medical treatments. Otherwise, their “doctor” will be a protocol in a system staffed by interchangeable automatons. Treatments will be inaccessible or required, tailored to meet the needs and beliefs of the system.

If the government is the ultimate authority on your “health care,” remember that its tools for checking whether a child has a life-threatening disease such as meningitis include battering rams and assault rifles.

Trump Really Does Have a Plan That’s Better Than Obamacare

“If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out,” President Donald Trump said last week, “we’ll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare.”

Democrats couldn’t believe their luck. They still were reeling from special counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that the Trump campaign neither conspired nor coordinated with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections.

Now the president was changing the subject from collusion (a suddenly awkward topic for Democrats) to health care (which helped them capture dozens of House seats last November).

Besides, the president really doesn’t have a plan that is far better than Obamacare, or any plan at all. Right?

Wrong.

A look at his fiscal year 2020 budget shows that the president has a plan to reduce costs and increase health care choices. His plan would achieve this by redirecting federal premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion money into grants to states. States would be required to use the money to establish consumer-centered programs that make health insurance affordable regardless of income or medical condition.

The president’s proposal is buttressed by a growing body of evidence that relaxing federal regulations and freeing the states to innovate makes health care more affordable for families and small businesses.

Ed Haislmaier and I last year published an analysis of waivers that have so far enabled seven states to significantly reduce individual health insurance premiums. These states fund “invisible high risk pools” and reinsurance arrangements largely by repurposing federal money that would otherwise have been spent on Obamacare premium subsidies, directing them instead to those in greatest medical need.

By financing care for those with the biggest medical bills, these states have substantially reduced premiums for individual policies. Before Maryland obtained its waiver, insurers in the state filed requests for 2019 premium hikes averaging 30 percent. After the federal government approved the waiver, final 2019 premiums averaged 13 percent lower than in 2018—a 43 percent swing.

Best of all, Maryland and the other waiver states have achieved these results without increasing federal spending or creating a new federally funded reinsurance program, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has proposed to do.

State innovation also extends to Medicaid. Some states have sought waivers permitting them to establish work requirements designed to help Medicaid recipients escape poverty.

Arkansas, for example, last June began requiring nondisabled, childless, working-age adults to engage in 80 hours of work activity per month. The program defined “work activity” broadly to include seeking a job, training for work, studying for a GED, engaging in community service, and learning English.

More than 18,000 people—all nondisabled and aged 30-49—were dropped from the rolls between September and December for failing to meet these requirements. The overwhelming majority did not report any work-related activity. All became eligible to re-enroll in Medicaid on Jan. 1. Fewer than 2,000 have done so, suggesting that most either don’t value the benefit or now earn enough to render them ineligible for Medicaid.

Nonetheless, last week a federal judge ordered Arkansas to drop its Medicaid work requirement, a requirement that would likely improve lifetime earnings of Medicaid recipients.

Administration efforts to relax federal rules to benefit employees of small businesses also were nullified last week by a federal judge.

Most uninsured workers are employed by small firms, many of which can’t afford Obamacare coverage for their employees. The Labor Department rule allowed small firms to band together, including across state lines, giving them purchasing power comparable to that of big businesses.

study of association health plans that formed after the new rule took effect last September found that they offered comprehensive coverage at premium savings averaging 23%. The court ruling stopped that progress in its tracks.

Waivers and regulations that benefit consumers are susceptible to the whim of judges and bureaucrats, which is why Congress should act on the president’s proposal.

It closely parallels the Health Care Choices Proposal, the product of ongoing work by national and state think tanks, grassroots organizations, policy analysts, and others in the conservative community. A study by the Center for Health and the Economy, commissioned by The Heritage Foundation, found that the proposal would reduce premiums for individual health insurance by up to 32 percent and cover virtually the same number of people as under Obamacare.

It also would give consumers more freedom to choose the coverage they think best for themselves and their families. Unlike current law, states could include direct primary care; health-sharing ministries; short-term, limited-duration plans; and other arrangements among the options available through their programs.

Those expanded choices would extend to low-income people. The proposal would require states to let those receiving assistance through the block grants, Medicaid, and other public assistance programs apply the value of their subsidy to the plan of their choice, instead of being herded into government-contracted health maintenance organizations.

Outside groups that helped develop the proposal, which is similar to the president’s, are looking to refine it by incorporating other Trump administration ideas like expansion of health savings accounts, health reimbursement arrangements, and association health plans. They’re also reviewing various administration ideas to reduce health care costs through choice and competition.

The president really does have “a plan that is far better than Obamacare.” Congress should get on board.

COMMENTARY BY

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: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Right Way to Overhaul Our Health Care System

Politicizing Health Care Puts Kids and Consciences at Risk

RELATED VIDEO: America’s Biggest Issues: Health Care


Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

The Unplanned Censorship of the Abby Johnson Story

It had to stare down a media blackout, an R-rating, even a suspended Twitter account, but the pro-life movie Unplanned still defied all the odds. On opening weekend, the true story about former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson stunned Hollywood by climbing to number five on the box office charts and doubling projections with $6 million dollars in ticket sales.

“We are thrilled, gratified, and humbled,” co-directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman said Sunday. “We are so pleased that the American people have responded with such an enormous outpouring of support at the box office… [W]e look forward to seeing what happens in the weeks ahead.” Like Gosnell, the movie had a tough time getting visibility in the mainstream press. Several TV networks refused to sell advertising time to the project, while the Motion Picture Association of America tried to dissuade audiences with a Restricted rating.

But never underestimate pro-lifers. An outpouring of support helped Unplanned break through all of the obstacles, even earning a rare A+ from CinemaScore in the process. For the film’s distributor, Pure Flix, it was the second-best start ever — coming in just slightly behind God’s Not Dead 2. For lead actress Ashley Bratcher, whose own story took a surprising twist when she got the job, the response is overwhelming. “I am blown away by the public response to Unplanned, as well as the box office numbers,” she said. “Not only is it beyond my wildest dreams, but it has surpassed the expectations of critics across the country. Despite biased critic reviews written more like op-eds, the audience has spoken.” Still, she pointed out, “the most rewarding thing about this weekend’s opening is the flood of messages I’ve received from people experiencing healing and a change of heart.”

That’s exactly what social media giants like Twitter must be afraid of. After a blockbuster weekend for the film’s social media page, the Unplanned account was mysteriously suspended — just as followers jumped to 100,000. Coincidence? Investor Mike Lindell doesn’t think so. “They don’t want you to see this movie!” the My Pillow founder tweeted. “Make your voices heard and tell your friends to go see the movie this weekend!”

Frustrated, co-director Konzelman spoke out. “It’s a sad state of affairs when the right to free speech gets shut down with the flick of a switch… Whether this was an executive decision by Twitter, or a reaction by Twitter to complaints from those opposed to the pro-life viewpoint, either reason is unacceptable.” Actress Bratcher piled on. “If Twitter is committed to helping increase the ‘openness and civility of public conversation’ and to hold themselves ‘accountable towards progress,’ then what’s with the censorship of a differentiating opinion?”

Fortunately, after a groundswell of protest started hitting Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s account, the page was suddenly live again. The social media giant insisted the suspension was an accident. Even so, the Unplanned account seems to be locked in a see-saw battle for followers, since tens of thousands seem to keep vanishing. PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil was one of the many people who tried — unsuccessfully — to follow the film’s page and got an error message instead.

Of course, it’s no mystery why social media would want to keep the movie quiet. Like most of the liberal platforms in America, they know how powerful the truth about abortion can be. That’s why they’ve spent years hiding the violent reality of what happens behind Planned Parenthood’s closed doors.

But this is one of those rare moments in time — like Gosnell, like New York’s abortion law — when the pro-life movement has the opportunity to break through to the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. So what can you do? Go see the movie! Take your church group, your family, or your Bible study. If your local theater isn’t playing the movie, call them up and demand it. Then have your friends do the same. Can a handful of movie tickets change the debate? Buy some and let’s find out!


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

President Trump Issues New Pro-Life Rules Protecting Doctors and Nurses From Having to Do Abortions

Man Who Portrays Abortion Doctor in ‘Unplanned’ Former Abortionist

This Is Outrageous’: Conservatives And Journalists React After Twitter Appears To Block Pro-Life Film

Dems’ POW Flags Still AWOL

Love and Hate in Verona

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with video is republished with permission.

Copyright © 2019 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.