Opponents Call SAFE Acts ‘Extremist,’ but 5 Veto Overrides Suggest Otherwise

The Ohio state legislature on Wednesday became the fifth to override a governor’s veto to enact a law protecting minors from gender transition procedures. With every successful veto override, claims of “extremism” lodged against the bill appear more and more far-fetched.

Accusations of extremism began with the very first Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act, passed by the Arkansas legislature in 2021 (HB 1570). The bill sailed through the House (70-22) on March 10 and the Senate (28-7) on March 29. Despite these wide margins, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Alphonso David complained on March 13 of that year, “The furious pace of these bills shows that hateful anti-equality groups across the country and extremist legislators alike realize that equality is gaining momentum.” After then-Governor Asa Hutchinson vetoed the bill, the Arkansas legislature responded by overriding the veto (72-25 in the House, 25-8 in the Senate) on April 6.

The campaign to protect children accelerated in 2023, when 20 state legislatures joined those of Arkansas (2021), Alabama (2022), and Arizona (2022) in passing laws to protect children from gender transition procedures (although the Ohio veto override occurred this month). As the movement grew, so did the opposition. When Tennessee enacted a bill in March, a coalition of left-wing groups including the ACLU and Lambda Legal claimed that they had “chosen fearmongering, misrepresentations, intimidation, and extremist politics over the rights of families and the lives of transgender youth.”

“Extremist, anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and their allies are waging a dangerous and cruel misinformation campaign that seeks to stigmatize not only gender-affirming care but transgender and non-binary people as well,” claimed HRC’s new president Kelley Robinson. “Through fear-mongering and propaganda, extremist leaders are working overtime to manufacture panic, rile up their base, and coax them into opposing healthcare for transgender people.”

Left-wing groups were not above indulging in a little fear-mongering of their own. “Across the country, anti-transgender extremists and politicians are putting the lives and well-being of transgender people at risk,” said Movement Advancement Project Senior Policy Researcher Logan Casey, “by attempting to outlaw access to best practice medical care not only for youth but for all transgender people.” No states have passed laws to ban gender transition procedures for adults because, although these procedures harm adults too, society recognizes that adults are competent and therefore free to make their own decisions.

Nevertheless, “extremism” remained the buzzword across the left-wing activist-sphere, especially when a governor’s veto raised the bar for passage and gave activist groups time to pile on additional pressure. “For the extremist groups that are pushing these laws, the guard rails are off,” insisted Campaign for Southern Equality executive director Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara of Louisiana’s SAFE Act-style bill. GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis claimed that “Ohio’s extremist lawmakers inexplicably refused facts, expert testimony, and deeply personal pleas” by overriding the governor’s veto.

Despite the pressure and accusations of extremism, four state legislatures have overridden their governor’s vetoes in the past 12 months. On March 29, 2023, the Kentucky Senate (29-8) and House (76-23) voted to override Governor Andy Beshear’s (D) veto of a bill to protect minors from gender transition procedures, which also included protections for women’s sports and parental rights. On July 18, the Louisiana House (76-23) and Senate (28-11) voted to override then- Governor John Bel Edwards’s veto of the Stop Harming Our Kids Act, which told doctors to do just what the title said. On August 16, the North Carolina House (74-45) and Senate (27-18) voted to override Governor Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of that state’s bill to protect minors from gender transition procedures.

Then, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (R) vetoed that state’s SAFE Act at the end of the year (December 29), the first Republican governor to oppose such a measure since Hutchinson in 2021. Almost immediately, nearly every other statewide official criticized the veto, and legislators in both chambers announced plans to override. The House overrode the veto 65-27 on January 10, and the Senate overrode the veto 24-8 on January 24, 2024.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins extracted a lesson for governors from the veto override trend. “Given that five legislatures have overridden gubernatorial vetoes of legislation protecting minors from the transgender activists pushing experimental drugs and surgeries,” he remarked, “any governor who vetoes these SAFE Act-type laws is either politically tone-deaf or being influenced by those who profit from this morally devastating, but financially lucrative, industry.”

Another implication of the trend is that protecting minors from harmful, experimental gender transition procedures is not an “extremist” position, as its opponents keep on insisting. This is because of the role that executive vetoes play in America’s system of checks and balances.

In Federalist Paper 73, Alexander Hamilton explained that an executive veto “furnishes an additional security against the enaction of improper laws. It establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that body.”

Hamilton was defending the veto power given to the U.S. president under the not-yet-ratified U.S. Constitution, but his reasoning is general enough to apply to gubernatorial vetoes against state legislation, too.

The “propriety” of a veto, Hamilton added, turns “upon the supposition that the legislature will not be infallible.” He articulated three general scenarios in which a veto could serve as a useful check. First, “the love of power may sometimes betray it into a disposition to encroach upon the rights of other members of the government.” Second, “a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations.” Third, “impressions of the moment may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself, on maturer reflexion, would condemn.”

While the first scenario is not relevant to the SAFE Act debate, claims of “extremism” certainly suggest a “spirit of faction,” and they may also suggest the legislature itself would change its mind upon “maturer reflection.” The multiple vetoes issued against SAFE Acts provide case studies to see whether these applications prove true.

If the SAFE Acts were imprudent bills that legislatures passed too hastily, we would expect to find many legislators switching their votes during the veto override attempts, perhaps even enough that the bill would fail to reach whatever supermajority threshold was required. That is emphatically not what we find. The Arkansas bill lost one vote between its first passage and the veto override. The Kentucky bill lost one vote in the Senate but gained one in the House. The Louisiana bill lost one vote in the Senate, while four House members switched their votes two-and-two, canceling each other out. The North Carolina bill actually gained two votes. In Ohio, no legislators switched their votes.

Thus, after hundreds of legislators voted on these bills, and then voted on them again after they had been vetoed, the net effect was a change of zero votes (excluding different vote totals caused by absent legislators). These five bills lost a total of five votes and gained a total of five votes between first passage and the veto override.

The other claim raised against the SAFE Act is that it is the product of an extremist faction — in this case, its detractors allege, having swept through nearly the entire Republican Party. This claim would be more plausible if all the legislators who voted for the SAFE Act were of the same party, but that is not what we find. In Louisiana, multiple Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill both on initial passage and in overriding the governor’s veto — a governor of their own party. In North Carolina, two House Democrats actually switched their votes during the veto override, to approve the bill against the wishes of their own party’s governor.

For that matter, the North Carolina legislature would not have even taken up a SAFE Act-style bill if not for the extremism of Democrats in the chamber. Earlier in the year, Representative Tricia Cotham had switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party because her fellow Democrats were bullying her over introducing a school choice bill. Her party switch gave the Republicans the supermajority they needed to advance legislation the governor would likely veto.

There is a tendency today to view things like veto power and legislative supermajorities as simply a matter of who has power to do what. Succumbing to that tendency would be a mistake, because it capitulates to a Marxist view of politics that sees everything through the lens of power dynamics. Sometimes, the usual political divisions break down, and government officials make decisions based upon what they believe is best for society, a certain group in society, or at least for their reelection chances. As noted above, some Democratic legislators voted for SAFE Act-style bills, while some Republican governors vetoed them. The veto even exerts a restraining influence in the far-Left, one-party state of California, where in September Governor Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed an anti-parent bill. The more statesmanlike use of the veto propounded by Hamilton may not always exert itself, but it still plays a role too large to dismiss.

An executive veto serves to “increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design,” said Hamilton. “The oftener the measure is brought under examination, the greater the diversity in the situations of those who are to examine it, the less must be the danger of those errors which flow from want of due deliberation, or of those missteps which proceed from the contagion of some common passion or interest.”

SAFE Act-style bills have now been considered a great many times across a great many states. In just a three-year span, nearly half of all U.S. state legislatures (23, to be exact) have seen fit to implement protections for minors suffering gender dysphoria, who lack the long-term vision and decision-making prudence to clearly see the harms of irreversible gender transition procedures. Each of those states conducted extensive hearings, featuring testimony from both sides of the debate, and were exposed to public input (including rather rude protests from the Left) on the bills’ potential merits and effects. There has been no lack of examination or due deliberation.

In almost every state, a supermajority of the legislature (often two-thirds, or even three-fourths) voted in favor of the measures. In five states, a supermajority enacted the bills of a governor’s veto. Such overwhelming support, almost by definition, implies that these bills enjoy support from more than just an “extremist” faction, notwithstanding the slanders of their detractors.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

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


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

Here Are Three Unanswered Questions About Biden EPA’s Massive Green ‘Slush Fund’

As Republican lawmakers prepare to grill a senior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official about one of President Joe Biden’s massive green grantmaking programs, several questions about the program’s structure and potential beneficiaries remain unanswered.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sitting on a $27 billion fund known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a program established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s landmark climate bill. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding an oversight hearing on the program featuring Senior Advisor to the EPA Administrator Zealan Hoover on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with Republican lawmakers describing the program as possibly spawning “the next big government boondoggle.”

The GGRF intends “to mobilize financing and private capital to address the climate crisis” using several subprograms, according to the EPA. The program’s expeditious timeline, as well as the connections that several of those groups share to the administration and the broader Democratic party apparatus, have attracted the scrutiny of government watchdog groups and elected Republicans alike in recent months.

How is the EPA ensuring that political connections do not interfere with selecting grantees?

Up to $14 billion of GGRF cash could go to so-called “green banks,” or financial institutions that provide financing specifically for climate-related investments, according to the EPA. Three of the five “green bank” consortiums reportedly on the shortlist to potentially receive multi-billion dollar payouts from the GGRF have considerable ties to the Biden administration or the wider Democratic Party and its allies. The coalitions are variously composed of environmental groups, nonprofits and smaller “green banks” that would distribute the awarded funds to projects they deem worthy of the material support.

“Many prospective recipients and sub-recipients are chock full of political operatives as well as individuals and organizations with ties to the current administration and its Democratic predecessors,” Michael Chamberlain, the executive director of Protect the Public’s Trust, a watchdog organization that has closely monitored the GGRF, told the DCNF. “This raises serious questions about the likelihood of the GGRF being used to advance partisan interests or reward former political appointees and those who helped elect the President or create the program.”

For example, the board of directors for the Coalition for Green Capital — one of the groups reportedly in contention for a major payday — includes David Hayes, a senior fellow for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and formerly a climate adviser for Biden; Cecilia Martinez, who is now the Bezos Earth Fund’s chief of environmental and climate justice after a stint in the Biden White House Council on Environmental Quality; and Julie Greene Collier, chief of staff for the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

The committee could choose to dig into these connections and call on Hoover to provide a detailed description of internal EPA safeguards to ensure a competitive grantmaking process on Tuesday, as well as whether the agency is concerned about potential appearances of ethical impropriety or political patronage with its award decisions.

Why did the agency meet with major green groups about the program in November 2022?

The EPA met with several organizations connected to officials in the agency and the wider administration behind closed doors to discuss the fund in November 2022, about 11 months before the application window closed in October 2023. The meeting served as a chance for groups like the NRDC and the Center for American Progress to “provide early feedback” and “ask clarifying questions” about the GGRF process.

“Holding a chummy meeting with special interest organizations with deep connections to political leadership isn’t a good look,” Chamberlain said at the time.

Protect the Public’s Trust described the meeting as “highly irregular” back in September 2023, and Republican lawmakers could test his theory by asking Hoover to explain why this meeting was held, what specific issues were discussed and whether it is standard EPA practice to meet with activist organizations about major programs like the GGRF behind closed doors before the application window has closed.

How is EPA ensuring due diligence while also rushing to get funds out by September 2024?

The agency is endeavoring to shell out the bulk of the GGRF money by September 2024 per the terms of the IRA, but elected Republicans have suggested that this timeline significantly raises the risks of inadequate oversight. Watchdog groups that have previously raised the alarm on the program concur.

“Haste really does make waste, as we should have learned from the government’s COVID response. When federal programs are fast tracked at the expense of appropriate oversight, they’re vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse,” Pete McGinnis, the spokesman for the Functional Government Initiative, told the DCNF. “The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund sure looks like a taxpayer-financed $27 billion slush fund for Biden administration insiders pushing unproven technologies.”

Other similar government programs designed to boost green energy development with taxpayer-funded cash infusions have also shelled out money with a sense of urgency, leading to potential lapses in the due diligence process. the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO), one such program reportedly trying to move funds quickly, agreed to provide one fledgling company a $375 million loan package while it was allegedly defrauding its investors, and another $3 billion package to another company that reportedly exploited elderly customers by having them sign long-term, expensive solar panel installation contracts.

Given the relatively quick timeline and the fact that GGRF grantees may serve as functional grantmakers outside of typical agency controls, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee could press Hoover for detailed plans that demonstrate the agency is prepared to give out the money in a way that appropriately mitigates the inherent risks.

“While we are heartened to see the GGRF on the radar of Congressional overseers, we are equally disturbed about the reasons it has come to their attention. Members of the committee have expressed similar concerns as ours about the tremendous potential for abuse, conflicts, and cronyism inherent in this massive program,” Chamberlain told the DCNF. “The more details that emerge about the $27 billion GGRF, the more disturbed we become of the possibility this could turn out to be a colossal Greendoggle, or worse.”

For its part, the EPA has expressed to the DCNF that it is administering the program by the book.

“All applications submitted to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund competitions are being put through a rigorous evaluation and selection process in line with the high standards of EPA’s Competition Policy, which ensures that the competitive process for EPA funds remains fair, impartial and free of undue influence,” an EPA spokesperson previously told the DCNF.

There are several key questions about the program that remain unanswered, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has a chance to address the underlying risk factors when they convene Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill to hold a hearing examining the program.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem Lawmakers Want To Earmark $1,000,000 For Activists To Build ‘Environmental Justice’ Center

Dems’ Energy Permitting Reform Bill Includes Billions For Eco-Activist Groups

California Solar Companies Hit The Skids After Receiving Huge Handouts From Biden, Dems

POST ON X:

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


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

DAVID BLACKMON: The Biden Admin And Its Buddies Are Waging Foolish War Against Abundant Clean Energy

On Thursday, the Biden administration announced it was invoking a hold on permitting processes for proposed new export projects for liquefied natural gas (LNG). It was a nakedly partisan act designed to appease the Democrat party’s climate alarmist funder base, one that will create ripple effects across the global economy and energy space. It will also create uncertainty and alarm among consumers of US LNG, especially among European nations who are supposedly America’s allies.

Reacting to the policy decision, Tom Pyle, President of the DC-based Institute for Energy Research, told me that, “With this decision, President Biden is continuing to place his environmental donors over the American people.  A delay of a decision on [permitting] until after the November 5, 2024, U.S. presidential election could spare President Biden from criticism from environmentalists, but it will likely cause havoc to markets and the energy security of our allies who may question the reliability of the United States as a secure energy supplier.”

Fortunately for the United States and its LNG customers, an array of new export facilities already in the construction phase of development will add up to 12 billion cubic feet per day of new export capacity over the coming three years. These projects would be unmolested by this latest authoritarian move by the White House, absent efforts to expand it.

One of the biggest of these is the Rio Grande LNG project being constructed outside Brownsville, Texas near the mouth of the Rio Grande River. Operated by developer NextDecade, Rio Grande LNG will have the capacity to export 11.74 million tonnes of LNG per year once its three trains go into service in the coming years. That equates to enough energy to heat and cool 34 million households, more energy than all the Biden administration’s planned offshore wind projects combined.

Even better, Rio Grande LNG is being designed to produce LNG that will rank among the lowest carbon-intensive production in the world. That’s because NextDecade is simultaneously building out a massive carbon capture and storage project in conjunction with the export facility.

But, even though Rio Grande LNG and other planned facilities under construction appear to be untouched by the Biden delay, no one should think they are moving ahead unopposed. A pair of activist groups, the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) and the Oregon Investment Council (OIC), groups with no real connection to the community, have worked to drum up opposition to the project that is providing hundreds of jobs and ultimately billions of dollars in economic impact for the local area. Ironically, this PESP group is working in opposition to the development despite major investments being made into it by ESG-focused investor groups, potentially including Larry Fink’s BlackRock if a planned acquisition is completed.

Part of the opposition’s advocacy claims to be protecting the interests of the Carrizo Comecrudo Nation with a somewhat specious claim that the project is being sited on sacred lands. But this Carrizo nation is not a federally recognized tribe, likely because a review of its history indicates it is in fact native to Mexico rather than Texas. The claim of sacred lands appears to hold no merit and be purely motivated by politics, no different than the White House delay on permitting announced Thursday.

An email missive from PESP that landed in my email inbox this week also claims that “… the facilities would significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping and natural tourism industries putting communities’ livelihoods at risk.” But the only evidence offered in support of these claims is a “study” authored by a group of leftwing climate alarm groups like the Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club. If the claims had been truly quantified by any credible source, the Biden administration would have no doubt been eager to act on them to advance its Green New Deal-based agenda.

The world needs America’s LNG, and is likely to need more and more of it as time goes on. The White House’s action to delay the already-ridiculously slow permitting process in such an obvious political move is as reprehensible as it is, frankly, stupid.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

DAVID BLACKMON

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EV Owners Reveal Why They Returned to Gas-Powered Cars

Greens Claim Their Policies Will Benefit Minorities And The Working Class, But Experts Say They’re Dead Wrong

White House Touts Support Of Confrontational Enviro Group That Harassed Admin Officials, Dems

DAVID BLACKMON: The Legacy Media Is Still Totally Wrong About The Texas Power Grid

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


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

Republican Lawmakers Set Their Sights On Abortion ‘Trafficking’ In Latest Post-Dobbs Fight

  • Republican state lawmakers are going after abortion “trafficking” in an effort to stop abortion advocates from evading state bans around the country and protect pregnant minors. 
  • Idaho, Texas and now Tennessee have all pushed legislation on the issue and Republican state Rep. Jason Zachary of Tennessee told the Daily Caller News Foundation that his bill was personal after he had been “directly involved” with a family whose 14-year-old daughter had been taken away to get an abortion without their knowledge.
  • “It should be the easiest thing in the world to say it’s unacceptable for an adult to take somebody else’s kid anywhere without their parents knowing,” Katie Daniels, state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told the DCNF.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Republican state lawmakers have proposed a variety of pro-life laws, with three states placing a new focus on abortion “trafficking.”

Following the Dobbs decision, Idaho became the first state in 2023 to pass a bill enforcing criminal penalties for individuals “trafficking” a minor to another state to get an abortion and since then, Texas and Tennessee have followed suit on both the state and local levels. Republican state Rep. Jason Zachary of Tennessee told the Daily Caller News Foundation that he introduced his bill Monday after having been involved in a situation where a 14-year-old girl was taken without her parents’ knowledge to get an abortion last year.

“A young girl, a 14-year-old girl in East Tennessee, unbeknownst to her guardian was taken to West Tennessee and was not notified until the child was taken to West Tennessee. The child called the parents and said, ‘I’m in West Tennessee and I’m being taken to get an abortion.’ I was on the phone with the dad and the mom, [who were] crying asking me what I can do to help stop it. There was nothing I could do,” Zachary told the DCNF.

Zachary’s bill would make it a “criminal offense” for anyone other than a parent or guardian to take a minor out of Tennessee for an abortion and also “provide for a civil action against a person committing the offense of abortion trafficking of a minor for the wrongful death of an unborn child that was aborted,” according to the text. If passed a minor could not travel with someone other than their legal guardian to get a chemical or surgical abortion.

Texas has taken a slightly different approach than Idaho or Tennessee as multiple city councils have established new ordinances barring its citizens from being transported on their state highways to get an abortion, according to the Texas Tribune. The city council in Amarillo, Texas, is one of the latest to consider a travel ban but postponed any vote during a meeting on Dec. 19 for further review.

If passed, Amarillo’s ordinance would allow private citizens to sue anyone who “aids and abet[s]” someone to get an abortion using the highways, according to the Texas Tribune. Similar measures have been proposed in other counties, such as LubbockLlano, Odessa, Dallas and San Antonio, according to The Washington Post.

Some city council members have expressed concerns that the ordinances and their framing may be too extreme, according to the Post.

“I hate abortion. I’m a Jesus lover like all of you in here,” Llano councilwoman Laura Almond said during a meeting in August, according to the Post. She explained that in college she had once picked up a friend from an abortion clinic and that the law would have put her at risk of a lawsuit despite her personal beliefs on the subject.

“It’s overreaching,” Almond said during the meeting, according to the Post. “We’re talking about people here.”

Republicans have struggled on the issue of abortion over the last several elections due to poor messaging and a divided base regarding how strong candidates should be on pro-life issues. With the presidential election coming up in November, Katie Daniels, state policy director for Susan B. Anthony (SBA) Pro-Life America, told the DCNF that it will be important for Republican candidates endorsing any kind of abortion legislation, including anti-trafficking measures, to “talk about what they are for” and not just what they are against.

“It should be the easiest thing in the world to say it’s unacceptable for an adult to take somebody else’s kid anywhere without their parents knowing, let alone to another state for a medical procedure that’s illegal in their state. That should be a real point of consensus, regardless of political party,” Daniels said. “Beyond that, candidates should be talking about what they’re for. They’re for resources being available to women and their children, they’re for the pregnancy centers that help these women and they are for the life of both the mom and her baby.”

Daniels argued polling had found that “two-thirds of Americans” support parental notification and consent before minors can get a chemical abortion through the mail and a Rasmussen poll from July 2022 found that 64% of Americans support parental notification before a child gets an abortion.

“This is a very common sense position if you ask normal people. It’s politicians who are tied up to the industry that seem to have trouble with it,” Daniels told the DCNF.

AUTHOR

KATE ANDERSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: CVS Employee Sues After Company Allegedly Revoked Religious Exemption To Avoid Prescribing Contraceptives

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


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

FRANK RICCI: How The Teachers Unions Embed Socialism Into Their Contracts

From Boston to Los Angeles, teachers’ unions and their progressive counterparts have quietly devised an unprecedented method to bypass the legislative process by embedding unrelated policy issues deep within the intricate terms of teacher contracts.

This new, covert strategy, hidden in plain sight, allows state and municipal officials to create sweeping policy changes that evade the scrutiny typically associated with customary legislative procedures, which include publicly available draft legislation, committee hearings, amendments and comprehensive floor debates.

In Boston, teachers’ union president Jessica Tang announced they secured “an unprecedented $50 million to commence bolstering the affordable housing that Boston students and families require.” Similarly, Los Angeles teachers incorporated “housing justice provisions” into their contracts.

Whatever the merits of affordable housing, it’s quite a stretch to argue that the issue is relevant to the matters properly encompassed within a teachers’ contract.

Yet the Boston contract is being utilized as a template by the AFL-CIO to advance housing and environmental “justice.” During the recent Connecticut AFL-CIO biennial convention, during a panel on Labor-Community Partnerships, the President of the New Haven Federation of Teachers stated on film, “Engage in negotiations and address the issues our community cares about, as it’s a win-win situation, and this is how we sustain those relationships and continue to advance our collective agenda.”

Collective bargaining agreements, which can range from dozens to hundreds of pages in length, encompass virtually all aspects of compensation such as wages, working hours, and conditions, in addition to medical and retirement benefits. These agreements are often intentionally drafted in vague terms laden with industry jargon, and require knowledge of local bargaining history for proper interpretation.

Although these agreements are negotiated in the name of taxpayers, in practice, the taxpayers are frequently overlooked in the process. Contracts do receive a vote from a legislative body, but it is typically a binary, up-or-down choice for the elected officials. There’s no open, deliberative process to review individual contract provisions or offer amendments.

Public sector unions have long used their significant political influence to draw attention to social issues that far extend beyond the scope of their work in the public sector, but this strategy takes that advocacy to an entirely new level. A growing trend sees them transitioning from vocal proponents of socialist reforms to using labor agreements negotiated in dimly light backrooms to impose their agenda on an often unwilling public.

This pernicious tactic will be used by unions and unscrupulous state and municipal negotiators to enact a laundry list of far-left social programs that could never win support through the democratic process. It conveniently provides cover for government officials eager to evade political accountability.

By creating an omnibus policy package within a collective bargaining agreement, the political class is able to silence any dissenting views and distract from the merits of reasonable objections. It’s far easier to claim that anyone who votes against the collective bargaining agreement is anti-teacher or anti-worker than to defend expensive (and potentially unpopular) new social programs.

Unions are telling us what they plan to do. We can no longer afford to ignore this reality.

Municipal negotiations, teacher unions and their progressive allies are leveraging the fine print of labor agreements to advance a collective agenda rooted in Marxist ideology, pushing for social programs they could never pass through the typical legislative process. Even if their intentions seem noble, bundling unrelated policy issues into teacher contracts raises concerns about transparency and accountability, and blurs the lines between union advocacy and the public’s interests.

In an era where we have witnessed a decline in student outcomes — the achievement gap has been widening, with students reading, math, science and civics scores falling — teachers’ contracts need to be focused on education.  Yet more and more attention is focused on non-education related distractions.

The union agenda of enacting radical policy change through collective bargaining must be exposed, with negotiators trained to block these proposals. What’s more, reforms are desperately needed to limit the scope of collective bargaining and bring the negotiations into the light, so that the public paying for the contracts can view the entire process. That’s our best hope for bringing the interest of the taxpayers and the well-being of the workforce into a sensible balance.

Frank Ricci is a Labor Fellow at Yankee Institute, Retired Union President for New Haven (CT) Fire Fighters, and Battalion Chief. He was the lead plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Ricci v. DeStefano and has testified before Congress. Frank is the Author of book Command Presence.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

FRANK RICCI

New Havin Battalion Chief, Union President.

RELATED ARTICLES:

STEPHANIE HOLDEN SMITH: It’s Time To Get America’s Largest Teachers Union Out Of Politics

OCT. 7 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Professors Teaching Hate

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


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

Top Peer Reviewed Study Calls for Global Ban on Covid Shots

“Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products…”Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.


No media. No mea culpa. They are on a death march.

Think of all those poor souls who lost their jobs, their college placements, their livelihoods for having the temerity to think.

Cureus, Journal of Medical Science, is a web-based peer-reviewed open access general medical journal using prepublication peer review.

Top Study Calls for Global Ban on Covid Shots

By: Frank Bergman, Slay News, January 26, 2024:

A group of world-renowned researchers has published a groundbreaking new study on soaring sudden death rates and called on governments to ban Covid mRNA shots globally.

In a peer-reviewed paper published on Wednesday, researchers re-analyzed the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trial data.

However, the researchers uncovered evidence of far more serious adverse events among those in the vaccine group.

This is not what published reports from Pfizer’s phase 3 trials said.

“Many key trial findings were either misreported or omitted entirely from published reports,” the researchers said.

The study was conducted by seven top researchers:

M. Nathaniel Mead
Stephanie Seneff
Russ Wolfinger
Jessica Rose
Kris Denhaerynck
Steve Kirsch
Peter A. McCullough

In the study’s paper, the researchers explained that they set out to re-analyze Pfizer’s trial data because:

our understanding of covid vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts; and, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of the pivotal phase 3 trials have emerged.

On Wednesday, they published their findings in a peer-reviewed paper titled “Covid-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.”

The paper was published in the renowned Cureus, a journal of medical science.

“Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group,” the researchers wrote.

Adding, “Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders.”

The EUA the researchers are referring to is the authorization granted to Pfizer by the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration (FDA).

As the paper noted, Pfizer’s Covid vaccines never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, according to previously established scientific standards.

Read more

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DISASTER: Biden Regime Kills Enormous Natural Gas Projects in Victory for Left-Wing Extremists

“[Environmentalism]  as a social principle . . . condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.” — Ayn Rand


The illegitimate regime is KILLING us. They are killing the country.

Democrats are pushing for natural gas bans, mandates on electric sources.

The immediate goal is obvious: the destruction of the remnants of capitalism in today’s mixed economy, and the establishment of a global dictatorship. This goal does not have to be inferred—many speeches and books on the subject state explicitly that the ecological crusade is a means to that end.’ Ayn Rand, Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

‘White House halts enormous natural gas projects in victory for environmentalists

‘This isn’t just bad policy, it’s bad politics,’ former FERC chairman

By Thomas Catenacci, Fox News, January 26, 2024:

Dems pushing for natural gas bans, mandates on electric sources

The White House is halting the permitting process for several proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects over their potential impacts on climate change, an unprecedented move environmentalists have demanded in recent months.

In a joint announcement Friday morning, the White House and Department of Energy (DOE) said the pause would occur while federal officials conduct a rigorous environmental review assessing the projects’ carbon emissions, which could take more than a year to complete. Climate activists have loudly taken aim at LNG export projects in recent weeks, arguing they will lead to a large uptick in emissions and worsen global warming.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Corporate Media In Crisis As Outlets Grapple With Biden’s Economy

Jon Stewart’s Latest Move Signals How Desperate Democrats Are Getting Ahead Of The Election

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Social Media Goes Ballistic As Biden Speech Devolves Into Word Soup And Supporters Clap ‘Like Brainless Seals’

Social media went ballistic after President Joe Biden gave a speech that devolved into a word salad bad enough to rival his vice president and yet his supporters clapped enthusiastically.

Biden, speaking alongside Vice President Kamala Harris at a rally in Virginia on Tuesday, tried to emphasize the issue of abortion heading into the 2024 race.

“We’ll teach Donald Trump a valuable lesson, don’t mess with the women of America unless you want to get the benefit,” Biden said, slurring the entire time and forcing people who are transcribing it to listen several times.

Yet for some reason, the crowd went BALLISTIC. Enthusiasm not seen since for Biden since, well, never.

But social media sleuths took Biden to task for his speech.

Greg Price, who does communications for the State Freedom Caucus Network and is also a former Caller employee, tweeted, “I love how nothing he said made any sense here yet the people still clapped and cheered like brainless seals.”

Outkick’s Tomi Lahren challenged viewers to “caption this.”

Other users joked that “idiots just blindly cheer while Grandpa has a stroke on stage.”

Another user said, “Bosses in news companies are going to torture their least favorite employees by assigning them Biden subtitles duty.”

But perhaps the question shouldn’t be “what the hell did our president just say?”

Maybe we should start with something a little easier.

Mr. President, what is a woman?

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

News and commentary writer. Follow Brianna on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLE: McDonald’s, Missiles & Marches: Biden’s Thursday Devolves Into All-Time Gaffe Reel

RELATED VIDEO: Incapacitated: Biden fiddles while the world burns with guest Lee Smith

POST ON X:

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

Red State Senate Kills Gov’s Veto On Bill Banning Child Sex Changes

The Ohio Senate voted Wednesday to override Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of a bill that would prohibit doctors from performing sex-change medical procedures on minors.

The state’s House of Representatives voted 65 to 28 on Jan. 10 to override the governor’s veto of the bill, which would bar doctors from performing transgender surgeries or prescribing cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to minors. State senators voted 28 to 4, largely among party lines, to pass the legislation.

“The Governor does not have [a] new comment today. His previous comments on the bill and his veto reflect his position on the issue,” Dan Tierney, DeWine’s press secretary, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

DeWine signed an executive order earlier this month that banned transgender surgeries for minors, but allowed children to obtain cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. DeWine argued that he never disagreed with his Republican colleagues on the issue, but that other procedures should be left up to parents and medical professionals.

The bill, which is set to go into effect in 90 days, will also prevent men who identify as transgender women from competing in women’s sports, a decision DeWine has publicly come out against in the past. DeWine also received $40,000 in donations between 2018 and 2023 from several state children’s hospitals, at least one of which he visited in December to discuss the bill with families, patients and medical professionals.

A training video from one of the hospitals, Cincinnati Children’s, revealed staff teaching doctors how to work around parental consent when treating a minor transgender patient. The hospital’s CEO, Steven Davis, claimed in his December testimony against the bill that the hospital always gets consent from the parents before performing transgender medical procedures on minors.

AUTHOR

KATE ANDERSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Legislatures Are Taking On Gender Ideology In First Weeks Of 2024

Swing State Spent Millions On Sex Changes And Trans Hormones, Including For Those Under 18

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


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

Pro-Choice Is a Misnomer

Around this time of year, we remember the infamous Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade of January 22, 1973, which condemned some 65 million preborn people in America to death in abortions. Although Roe was overturned, abortion is very much a pressing issue today.

And it has been and continues to promoted in the name of “choice.” Pro-choice is a misnomer. Those who are pro-choice are in reality pro-abortion.

Although the proponents call themselves “pro-choice,” many studies indicate that the majority of women who have an abortion felt compelled to seek the procedure.

I spoke with Eric Scheidler of the Illinois-based Pro-Life Action League in a recent radio segment on this very topic.

He told me, “When someone tells me now that they’re ‘pro-choice,’ I say, ‘I’m glad to hear that because everyone should have the right to choose to become a parent.’ Then we get into the question of women having a right to motherhood taken away from them by those who are pushing abortion on them.” That includes, says Scheidler, the parents, the boyfriends, the employers, the politicians, and the abortion industry.

OB-GYN Ingrid Skop, M.D., wrote recently: “It is usually assumed that most women in the U.S. freely choose abortion and consider it to have been the best decision for them, all things considered. However, an expanding body of literature calls this assumption into question.”

Skop continues, “A recent peer-reviewed study conducted by [Charlotte Lozier Institute] scholars found that only one-third of abortions are ‘wanted.’ Nearly one in four described their abortion as ‘unwanted’ or ‘coerced.’ An additional 43% described the abortion as ‘accepted’ but ‘inconsistent with their values and preferences.’”

And she adds, “A majority, around 60%, said their preference would have been to give birth had they received more emotional support or had greater financial security….In another 2023 peer-reviewed survey, 61% of women reported “high levels” of pressure to abort.”

So much for choice. As Dr. D. James Kennedy once declared, “The only ‘choice’ the abortionists ever give anybody is ‘Tuesday or Friday? When do you want to have the abortion?’”

Meanwhile, there are crisis pregnancy centers out there doing the Lord’s work as they provide loving options for those seeking abortions. They provide real choice.

Yet these crisis pregnancy centers are often targeted by pro-abortion extremists. For example, on June 7, 2022, in Amherst, New York, the Compass Care crisis pregnancy center was firebombed, causing half-a-million dollars in damages.

I’ve interviewed Jim Harden, the president of Compass Care, about the destruction of his center and on other issues related to abortion. For this piece on how pro-choice is a misnomer, I asked him if he cared to give me a comment.

Harden said, “It is telling that a recent study revealed that nearly 70% of women are coerced to abort their babies….When a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, she considers abortion because she feels trapped… like she has no choice. Mercenary abortionists masquerade as medical professionals to profiteer from this tragic reality” [emphasis his].

However, Senator Elizabeth Warren has the audacity to claim that these crisis pregnancy centers are “harmful” to women.

Harden continues, “Yet pro-life pregnancy centers help a woman with everything but abortion…for free. Pro-life pregnancy centers are the abortion industry’s only competition, delivering up to 2 million women nearly $358 million worth of free medical care and support every year. And while pro-abortion politicians get re-elected on the coat tails of abortion propaganda, it is the pro-life pregnancy centers that are empowering women with true informed consent and support.”

Thankfully, through the Lord, there is healing and forgiveness available for those who have had an abortion, by choice or otherwise. I saw a news item where a former female rock singer said she is very sorry for her three abortions, which she regrets deeply, but very grateful to God for His forgiveness.

Speaking of regrets, OB-GYN Vivina Napier, M.D. said recently: “In my years in practice, I have never met a woman who has expressed regret over giving birth to her baby, but I have met plenty who shared their regret for having abortions.”

Katie Daniels of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America says, “There is an abortion industry that makes billions of dollars killing children and hurting their moms, and that is who we’re up against. So we need to speak clearly and honestly about that reality while also contrasting our compassion for moms and babies.”

Our nation’s founders declared independence from Great Britain and dependence upon God. They said that our Creator has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, and that first among these is the right to life.

Real choice is as American as apple pie. But “pro-choice” only chooses one option—and a grisly one at that. America can do better than this.

©2024. Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

Meet The Activist Academic Bringing Diversity Quotas And Critical Race Theory To Medical Schools

A single activist psychologist has implemented diversity quotas and left-wing policies on race and healthcare across three different medical schools

Dr. Anita Fernander, a trained psychologist and academic, has spread left-wing ideology across three medical schools by overseeing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs and teaching students about “equity” in the medical profession, documents obtained by the Daily Caller show.

Fernander is the executive diversity officer and a professor in the department of family and community medicine at the University of New Mexico’s (UNM) School of Medicine. The UNM medical school is part of its broader Health Sciences Center (HSC) combining academics and research with patient care.

“She has been engaged in leadership, teaching, research, and community engagement to address health inequities, enhance patient advocacy through cultural humility as a de-biasing strategy, and exploring transformational interventions to address historical and contemporary racism embedded in the political and social determinants of health,” her bio states.

She received her PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Miami in 2000 with a focus on clinical health psychology.

Fernander’s annual salary for both positions at UNM is a combined $243,915 and her primary duties are related to her DEI work at UNM, an acceptance letter obtained by the Daily Caller indicates.

READ THE OFFER LETTER:

“Your effort distribution for the first year of your appointment will be 0.80 FTE Administration as the SOM Executive Diversity Officer (EDO) and 0.20 FTE in the Department of Family and Community Medicine,” the offer letter reads.

FTE refers to Full Time Employment and her total FTE is 1.0. Fernander’s DEI responsibilities cover a wide range of initiatives spanning hiring, education, research, accountability and networking. Her task for each initiative is to address apparent issues concerning a variety of diversity groups.

“Lead DEI strategic, innovative initiatives to address ongoing and emerging issues ( e.g. Native American/Indigenous, Anti-Racism/-Ethnoracism, LGBTQ+, Women’s, Latina/o/x, Hispanic or of Spanish Origin+ (LHS+), Disability, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/African-American, DACA) throughout the SO M’s operations. Identify areas of opportunity, develop recommended courses of action, drive implementation, and conduct process and outcome evaluations,” the letter specifies.

Fernander has written academic literature about incorporating critical race theory (CRT) into medicine, including a 2022 paper published in the Journal of the National Medical Association arguing for the necessity of understanding CRT to address “health inequities” and disparities between racial groups.

CRT is a worldview instructing people to view every social interaction through the lens of race and claims America is an irredeemably racist nation. Numerous medical schools across America have implemented CRT into courses and training.

READ THE PAPER:

“The application of CRT in academic medicine provides a contextual medium for understanding health disparities and addressing healthcare inequities experienced among racialized populations in the U.S., particularly among Native Americans and Blacks/African Americans,” Fernander’s paper asserts.

She later scheduled a workshop on CRT in medicine with another UNM school of medicine professor covering the topics she addresses in the paper, emails show. The hour-long seminar took place in February 2023 and Fernander gave a lengthy presentation on CRT and applying it to medicine.

“CRT is an analytical and critical approach to understand how racialized historical context influences contemporary society and structures,” Fernander said in her portion addressing supposed myths related to CRT. She claimed it is not being taught in public schools, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

“CRT should be applied within academic medicine to provide context for understanding and addressing racial health disparities,” a slide in her presentation says.

Fernander blamed “racist structures” in a separate paper on why black populations were more likely to die from COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus is shown to disproportionately harm the elderly and obese people. The obesity rate among black Americans is higher than among white Americans.

Fernander’s other academic work focuses primarily on smoking habits and associated health outcomes within various black populations and how racism purportedly causes stress and bad health outcomes for black Americans. She has authored more than 30 papers and has 800 citations throughout her career, according to ResearchGate.

In January 2023, Fernander emailed a “recruitment roadmap” to Kathleen Reyes, the director of DEI and a professor at the UNM Medical School’s Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine.

The UNM HSC office of DEI created “recruitment roadmap” for building an “equitable and inclusive” medical profession by deploying an “equity advisor” to consult on hiring searches and deliver trainings about “microaggressions” and “bias” in the recruitment process, a presentation obtained by the Daily Caller shows.

Search committee members are required to undergo “implicit bias” trainings and advised to bring up potential “bias” in committee meetings. Markers of DEI range from community outreach work to research service and letters of recommendation, the presentation says.

READ THE ROADMAP:

Fernander did not respond to a request for comment. UNM told the Daily Caller it supports DEI unequivocally in response to questions about Fernander’s activism and academic work.

“A key mission of The University of New Mexico Health and Health Sciences is to advance diversity, equity, and inclusivity in our clinical, research, and academic units. We believe a health care workforce should reflect the diverse communities it serves. We are proud of UNM‘s commitment to programs, missions, and services that promote equality,” UNM Health and Health Sciences Communications Director Chris Ramirez told the Caller in a statement.

The UNM documents were provided to the Daily Caller by Do No Harm (DNH), a group of medical professionals opposed to the injection of identity politics in medicine. DNH used state level public records requests to obtain the documents from UNM.

“Do No Harm has been sounding the alarm on the infiltration of the medical education system by virulent politicized ideologies since our launch in 2022. The path of a single professor who infused her DEI agenda throughout three public universities in three states demonstrates how these contentious philosophies, which contribute nothing to the development of medical students into competent doctors, infect everything they touch,” DNH Program Manager Laura Morgan told the Caller in a statement.

“Taxpayer funds are better spent on initiatives that advance excellence and ability in caring for patients based on their unique needs instead of ideologically driven programs that seek to drive merit and equality from healthcare. There is still a lot more work to be done to eliminate the DEI virus from medical schools, and we will continue to call out schemes that exist only to indoctrinate students and faculty in discriminatory concepts,” Morgan added.

Prior to her arrival at UNM in November 2022, Fernander helped inaugurate and expand DEI programs to two other medical schools.

She was previously the inaugural chief officer for justice, equity, diversity & inclusion (JEDI) and interim department chair & professor in the department of population health at the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine.

She joined FAU in June of 2021 after spending nearly 19 years as a professor at the University of Kentucky (UK) where she was the DEI Director and an Associate Professor in the UK College of Medicine’s Department of Behavioral Science. FAU declined to comment.

She taught annual courses on “health equity” at UK and served as a health equity and advocac leader to bolster the amount of “equity” in the medical school curriculum, according to a farewell press release by the UK medical school.

Fernander launched a White Coats for Black Lives (WCBL) fellowship at UK and became a core faculty member of its Center for Health Equity Transformation (CHET) founded in 2018. In 2023, CHET had over $100 million of “health equity” annual grant funding and four “health equity” training programs, according to a report detailing the center’s growth over a five year period.

WCBL is a medical activist organization inspired by Black Lives Matter (BLM) devoted to “transformative change” in medicine by “dismantling dominant, exploitative systems in the United States” and “rebuilding a future that supports the health and well-being of marginalized communities,” its website states.

WCBL previously called for police to be abolished on campuses, in hospitals and broader communities in its 2020-21 report card. In June 2020, WCBL called for medical schools to adopt racial quotes in admissions and sever ties with local law enforcement.

In addition, Fernander founded the UK medical school’s Black Boys and Men in Medicine (BBAMM), a mentorship program intended solely for black males beginning in kindergarten and extending through medical residency. The program started in 2019 and it was resumed in 2022 after the covid-19 pandemic. UK did not respond to a request for comment.

READ THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT:

DNH senior fellow Mark Perry filed a civil rights complaint in November 2023 with the Philadelphia Office for Civil Rights (OCR) accusing BBAMM of illegally discriminating based on race and sex.

“In violation of Title IX, the College’s BBAMM program illegally excludes and discriminates against non-female individuals based on their sex and gender identity. In violation of Title VI, the College’s BBAMM program illegally excludes and discriminates against non-Black individuals based on their race, color, or national origin,” the complaint reads.

Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments prohibits sex discrimination in education programs and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on race, color and national origin.

It’s unclear if the Department of Education (DOE) will take action to address Perry’s complaint.

AUTHOR

JAMES LYNCH

Investigative reporter. James Lynch can be reached on Twitter @jameslynch32.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Law School Holds Mandatory Diversity, Equity And Inclusion Session For First-Year Students

DEI/DIE the Virgin Skies: ‘Um… Why Is Our Plane’s Wing Missing All Those Screws?’

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

Feminism Is the Mother of Transgenderism

All evidence over the past two centuries leads to the conclusion that feminism has been a tragic misstep and an ugly wound in the history of Western civilizational thought. One of the most destructive consequences of feminism has been the still-unfolding and exponentially-worsening transgenderism crisis. This horrific ideology — now plaguing numerous Western nations and destroying the lives of countless men, women, and children — is a direct descendant of feminism, and it is fueled and fed by the feminism pervading every aspect of society.

Feminism Nascent

It can truly be said that feminism is the “mother” of both the Sexual Revolution and the LGBT movement, which are intimately intertwined. Since its inception in the late 18th century, feminism has held the necessity of “sexual liberation” and “free love” as one of its core and even essential doctrines. The chief progenitor of feminism, Mary Wollstonecraft, advocated and practiced sexual promiscuity, as did her eventual husband William Godwin, a forefather of modern anarchist movements, who believed that monogamy and faithful marriage were devices meant to subjugate and oppress women. Wollstonecraft shared this view.

Wollstonecraft’s vision of feminism injected the atheistic, libertine, anti-hierarchical philosophy behind the French Revolution (which she lauded in her book “Vindication of The Rights of Men,” an antagonistic response to conservative Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on The Revolution in France”) into the most basic and fundamental building block of society — the family. Where the French revolutionaries beheaded the king, Wollstonecraft sought to spiritually behead the king of the family, the father. Where the French revolutionaries held that every man could be his own king, Wollstonecraft held that every woman could be her own man.

This philosophy was, after her death, adopted by Wollstonecraft’s son-in-law, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. Shelley, who had been expelled from Oxford for his 1811 tract “The Necessity of Atheism,” adapted and blended the thought of his parents-in-law — Godwin’s anarchistic atheism and Wollstonecraft’s Luciferian feminism — and infused the philosophy into his own poems. His writing inverted the traditional understanding of Genesis, in which Adam and Eve are expelled from Paradise for falling prey to the temptations of the Serpent. In Shelley’s imagination, the Fall was not a tragic plummet into disorder but rather a reordering of creation, with the animal (the Serpent) reigning supreme, woman dominating over man, and God completely left out of the picture. In another work, Shelley creates a character named Cynthna, who is described as “the earthly messenger of Satan the liberator.” In “Revolt of Islam,” Cynthna asks, “Can man be free if woman be a slave?” In service to her demonic master, she proceeds to “disenchant” women of all affection for marriage, motherhood, and family.

The inherently atheistic foundation of feminism laid by Wollstonecraft and Shelley, replete with the seeds of the Sexual Revolution, festered and percolated for over a century before finally surging to the forefront of culture at the dawn of the 20th century.

Feminism Ascendant

Although the term “culture wars” was first popularized by Pat Buchanan in 1992, the thing itself to which the name refers had been around for at least two centuries prior. As the First World War drew closer, the Western World was rocked by two closely-connected political movements: communism and women’s suffrage. Like its atheistic forebearer of French Revolutionary Republicanism, communism sought to abolish hierarchy — and go even further to destroy class distinctions and even the family. Particularly as the women’s suffrage movement united suffragettes from across a broad swath of classes, communism crept into the movement.

Women’s suffrage served as a political channel for the anti-family feminist ideology, fracturing the family politically, confirming the individual (and deposing the family) as the most basic unit of society, and spreading antagonism against what is today called “gender roles.” Up until then, it was largely understood that men were designed to serve as providers and protectors, while women were made to serve as mothers and nurturers. Through the women’s suffrage movement, feminism eroded these divinely-instituted ideals. Of course, some suffragettes simply fought for basic respect for women and their legal rights and protections, which had been gradually suppressed in some cases with the rise of democracy and the individualistic-focused society it formed. But feminism’s weaponization of the women’s suffrage movement had long-lasting effects on the Western world.

Over the succeeding decades, feminism and communism formed an even closer bond, especially in the wake of the First World War, when women had become prominent fixtures in the workforce while millions of men were fighting and dying in the near-global conflict. Communism encouraged feminism, recognizing its potential for keeping women in the workplace, serving the state’s economic interests, and creating even more jobs for the state to populate in the form of nurseries, daycares, and government schools. The first half of the 20th century saw Wollstonecraft’s and Shelley’s notion of men and women as equal coming to fruition.

This notion of equality must be carefully parsed from the notion of dignity: Christianity, of course, holds that all men and all women are created with equal dignity and are loved equally by God. However, Christians know — both through God’s word in Sacred Scripture and through the experience of God’s creation — that men and women are not created equal, as in “interchangeable” or “one and the same.” Their equality is in dignity and love, not in capability and biology. Feminism ignored and outright rejected the Christian understanding of equality in dignity, and instead declared, with diabolical hubris, that man and woman are actually interchangeable, one and the same. Anything a man can do, a woman can do. The “and vice versa” would come later.

Feminism Dominant

In the wake of Second World War, as both East and West became increasingly materialistic in their oddly-opposing ways, feminism became a more and more dominant ideology in civilization, reaching a watershed moment in the 1960s. The Sexual Revolution and the “free love” movement were direct results of feminism, enabled by the burgeoning contraceptive industry. For the first time, men and women of all classes and incomes could (in theory) have sex as promiscuously as they liked without having to accept the responsibility of a child. This was, from a diabolical point of view, feminism’s master-stroke. The family was finally defeated: the act which had, for millennia, brought about new life and sustained the human race — which had, for centuries, been held as sacred and bound by the covenant of marriage — was now completely divorced from its chief aim and result, cheapened and degraded from the source of new life to a mere communal pleasure.

Of course, where contraception failed, less delicate and even more barbaric methods were devised and promulgated to alleviate “free lovers” from the burden of a child. Abortion was erroneously declared a constitutional right in the U.S. just a few short years after the sexual revolution’s advent and has since been adopted and defended across the globe.

Having played its trump card and offering the masses animalistic sexual pleasure without the joys and duties of parenthood, feminism seemed somewhat irrelevant. In the 1970s and 80s, it adopted a nastier, more vicious façade to achieve its few remaining goals. It wasn’t enough to simply cut off the family at its source, the family extant had to be demolished, too. Women were encouraged into the workforce at rates previously unimaginable, told to focus on their careers to the detriment of their children.

In the 70s and 80s, feminism became that which it abhorred, a mother, giving birth to the LGBT movement. Of course, initially, it was mostly just the “G” movement, with a few “Ls” interspersed, and maybe the odd “B.” Homosexuality was nothing new to the world, the practice had been around for ages in various ways in various cultures. But now it had cultural standing: If men and women really were interchangeable and if sex was no longer primarily a procreative act but a pleasurable one, then what point was there in constraining sex to opposite-sex couples? Why couldn’t two men “have sex,” or two women?

A later development in the history of feminism was the perpetuation of the myth of “toxic masculinity.” That which is toxic is not masculinity, but an absence or rejection of authentic masculinity. But traditional masculinity, which had served as the backbone and engine of Western civilization since even before the birth of Christ, became a reviled social stigma. A natural and wholesome inclination became suppressed as a sort of psychological disease.

Transgenderism’s Lineage

Just as homosexuality relied on feminism’s ideological precedent and social cachet to gain a cultural foothold, so too did feminism’s younger son — or daughter — or whatever. If men and women were really one and the same, interchangeable in practically every regard, then why could a man not become a woman, or a woman become a man? If the only real difference between men and women was a matter of perceived personality, then why could the biological accidents of the body not be rearranged to correspond to the “reality” of feelings?

Transgenderism was birthed from the feminist philosophy, following her precedents to their natural conclusions. Many self-professed feminists protest against transgenderism’s onslaught, claiming that the ideology is erasing women, without realizing that the very movement that they espouse and propagate is based on erasing the distinctions between men and women. Given feminism’s premise that men and women are equal one to another in essence, bodily distinctions and biological differences become mere accidents to be subjected to and conquered by “science” at the whim of one’s feelings and emotional instability.

Moreover, feminism has bred the very discontent and societal rot which is fueling transgenderism’s alacrity. Young women are no longer content with their sex, having been told for generations now that they can be men, should be men, and can do whatever men do, yet consistently finding that they in fact cannot. Disappointed with this reality, young women seek to rectify this seeming wrong by “becoming” men. Young men have been told for generations that their sex is dangerous and “toxic,” that they need to be gentler, softer, and, in practically every respect, more like women. With such pressures placed upon them, trying to “be” women seems a reasonable escape for young men. And thus countless young women and young men are drugged, butchered, and mutilated, all based on a lie.

It is the lie of feminism that men and women are equal, one and the same, interchangeable. Its atheistic, Luciferian disregard for the order instituted by God — written in human biology, lived out in the form of the family, explicated in the sacrament of marriage — has led to rampant degeneracy — from the contraceptive Sexual Revolution to the “normalization” of homosexuality — and horrors prior generations could have never imagined — such as abortion and the surgical mutilation of children’s genitals, all under the fraudulent guise of “health care.” Feminism has decimated Western civilization.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLE: The Tooth Fairy and Gender Dysphoria

RELATED VIDEO: Son of World Famous Photographer Likens Trans Acceptance to Gun to Society’s Head

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


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

Kamala Harris Continues Promoting The Execution of Pre-Born Babies

Installed Marxist and do nothing Vice President Kamala Harris arrived in Wisconsin to continue her quest to promote the execution of pre born babies.

She stated, “Proud that women across our nation are suffering? Proud that women have been robbed of a fundamental freedom?”

She does not mention the intense pain the pre born baby suffers as he or she is dismembered inside the murderers womb. No mention of the God given freedom stolen from these pre born Americans by their murder in the womb.

In her diatribe propaganda on January 22nd 2024 comrade Harris also described the selective execution of pre born children as an integral part of the country’s tradition of personal liberty.

She fails to mention that the Constitutional governance of our country is based on a bedrock premise of “life” and “liberty” not killing pre borne defenseless babies.

She tried to justify her evil Satanic position by stating, “In America, freedom is not to be given. It is not to be bestowed. It is ours by right. And that includes the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body — not the government telling you what to do.”

There is no mention of the pre-born babies right to make a decision about his or her body before given the child an opportunity to be born.

Installed Marxist Joe Biden is also an advocate for executing pre born babies in the womb which significantly goes against the values of the Catholic Church which he professes to be a member of.

He avoids using the word “abortion” when on the campaign trail even when he discusses the issue. This hypocritical Marxist thus maintains political correctness in the eyes of our creator. But our Creator does not follow a political path thus,

The gate to salvation is narrow and I doubt that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden will pass through it.

My opinion.

©2024. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Leader Urges Party: ‘Stop Using the A-word and Start Talking about Life’

POST ON X:

GOP Leader Urges Party: ‘Stop Using the A-word and Start Talking about Life’

The closer we get to November, the more high-profile Republicans are admitting it: Silence isn’t selling on abortion. From RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel to the head of the House’s GOP fundraising arm, the cry to get off the sidelines on life is echoing off the walls of campaign headquarters. Lt. Governor Mark Robinson (R-N.C.) is the latest to join the chorus of conservatives, telling candidates to “stop being cowards and stand up for what you believe.” But know this first: the problem is as much about how the GOP is messaging as whether they do.

“I’m tired of talking about abortion,” the candidate for governor told reporters. The “a-word,” as he calls it, is what sent the party in a tailspin to begin with. “I’ve changed what I’m saying,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “Democrats, the leftists, they want everyone to say the word ‘abortion.’ They want our children to say it in schools. They want us to say it in our churches. They want politicians to say it on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate. They want me to say it. As the lieutenant governor, I’m bound and determined to stand up for what I believe in. And what I believe in [is] life — and it’s time for us to start using that word. This is an issue of life, about protecting life, and then about doing what we can to elect officials to make sure that once those lives come into the world, that they have life and have it more abundantly.”

His intentional shift raised the antenna of local media, who’ve started reporting that Robinson is trying to duck the issue now. Baloney, he replies. “They think that I’ve changed my position,” he said. “I have not changed my position.” Instead, he’s doing what he believes every pro-lifer should do: he’s changed the terms. “The subject is not abortion,” the lieutenant governor insisted, “the subject is life.” And that’s where conservatives need to debate.

Perkins nodded emphatically. The FRC president has also called for a shift in language, drawing America’s attention back to the unborn baby, not the procedure. Of course, that’s become more difficult, the “Washington Watch” host pointed out, since Republicans let Democrats define the terms when “so many were just silent.” Now, he shook his head, they’ve “started stuttering.” “We need to go out and tell people what we’re for. We are for protecting the unborn and preserving a culture of life in this country.”

Bringing the conversation back to life also extends an arm to women, Robinson wanted people to know. “… [W]hen I speak, I want to be that person who’s there, who’s understanding. I want to be the person who’s … not up on a platform telling the young woman why she can’t have an abortion. I want to be that person who’s coming down, putting my arm around that young woman who may find [herself] in crisis, and telling them why she doesn’t have to have an abortion… [and that] our folks as elected officials [are] going to fight hard to make sure that you can bring that child into the world — and not only bring that child into the world, but have a great life for that child, yourself, and your family.”

It’s exactly the kind of message he and his wife needed to hear when they were struggling with an unexpected pregnancy before they were married. “My wife and I chose the route of abortion years ago,” he admitted, “and I cannot tell you the immense pain, the solid pain that we went through for so many years over this issue. It was just this unspoken thing that hurt both of us very deeply. And we have always regretted it, almost to the point where we just couldn’t even speak to one another about it because it was so painful.” But the difficulty of reliving that choice hasn’t stopped Robinson from sharing what they’ve been through. “We want to tell those stories to young people.” In fact, “It’s because of this experience and our spiritual journey that we are so adamantly pro-life,” he’s said.

Since that conscious decision to open up about it, the Robinsons have been amazed to see “how God used that to reach so many people who felt the exact same way, to encourage them to keep going and to know the mistakes that they made are shared by so many of us.”

And the beauty of that, Perkins added, is that when you do share it, “Yes, there’s pain, there’s guilt — it still bothers you — but there’s forgiveness. And that’s the good news of Jesus Christ in the gospel message, is that we don’t have to carry that burden. We don’t want others to do it, but we don’t have to carry that burden any longer.”

That’s exactly right, the lieutenant governor agreed. “That’s one of the best things about giving your life to Jesus Christ, you know when Jesus forgives. It’s a forgiveness that you can feel down deep in your soul. … But I would definitely warn anyone, any young person out there, do not take this issue lightly. Do not take this issue lightly. It haunts, it hurts, and it causes deep emotional distress.”

But the abortion crisis didn’t start overnight, he pointed out, and Republicans can’t end it overnight. “Educating our young people is going to be crucial,” Robinson urged. “You want to empower a young person? Empower that young person to know the greatest thing that they can do for their future is hold control of their body and make sure that they’re not falling into those traps that popular culture is pushing so many of them into. That’s real empowerment. That’s real progress.”

That’s not a message North Carolina is hearing form its current governor, Perkins half-joked. Roy Cooper (D) has embraced the radical agenda of the Left on everything from abortion to transgenderism. And yet, his challenger says, “People love [my] message. They love it.” So what advice would he give conservatives who are running from the issue?

“The number one thing I would tell them to do is to stop listening to the bad reports of CNN, CBS, and ABC and all those news agencies that are using this issue to try to browbeat Christian, Bible-believing conservatives. That’s number one. The second thing that I would say is, quite frankly, stop being a coward and stand up for what you say you believe in. It’s time for the people of this nation to realize who we are.” Look, he said, “America’s survival is at stake” in this election. “We need to make our stands strong — and it starts with us standing up for what’s right.” Without apology.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: WHO Chief: Nations Must ‘Counteract Conservative Opposition’ to Abortion, Promote Transgenderism

RELATED VIDEO: Sarah Gabel Seifert Reveals How Women Have Been Lied to About Abortion and Birth Control

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


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

WHO Chief: Nations Must ‘Counteract Conservative Opposition’ to Abortion, Promote Transgenderism

A global government body has told nations it is “imperative” that they “counteract conservative opposition” and “enact progressive laws” that legalize prostitution and intentionally infect people with AIDS. At the same time, the international body has indicated it plans to roll out guidelines normalizing transgender cross-sex hormone injections worldwide.

The World Health Organization (WHO) ushered in 2024 with a bulletin titled “Advancing the ‘sexual’ in sexual and reproductive health and rights: a global health, gender equality and human rights imperative,” co-written by WHO’s director-general, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, a former associate of Ethiopia’s repressive Marxist government.

“Political leaders at all levels must champion sexual health as part of sexual and reproductive health to counteract conservative opposition,” states the WHO Bulletin released on January 1. “Policy-makers must enact progressive laws and policies to expand access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services,” it says.

“Countries must repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, sex work and HIV transmission,” the bulletin advises. Ghebreyesus calls on world leaders to “foster societies where all people can experience their sexuality safely, positively,” couching the advancement of the Sexual Revolution as a moral imperative.

“Upholding sexual health is a moral obligation. Immense suffering is caused when people lack bodily autonomy; control over their fertility” — a likely reference to abortion — as well as “the freedom to experience safe, consensual and pleasurable sexual relationships,” states the bulletin. The bulletin did not explain how having sex with strangers for money and allowing people to spread AIDS with impunity increases sexual pleasure. Surveys have continually found the most sexually satisfied people are committed married couples who had no previous sexual experience.

The WHO bulletin also advocates population control measures in the name of reducing carbon emissions. “Sexual health even impacts environmental sustainability. Slowing unsustainable population growth by investing in family planning and education reduces pressures on natural resources and helps break cycles of poverty,” writes Ghebreyesus.

The bulletin insists that such libidinous concerns as the “right” to pleasure are “not fringe issues” but flow naturally from “universal values that cut across religious, partisan and cultural divides.”

The WHO missive echoed a 2012 report from the Global Commission on HIV and the Law — formed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and funded in part by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations — which called on nations to repeal laws that “prohibit commercial sex, such as laws against … brothel-keeping.” It also opposed laws criminalizing intentionally infecting others with HIV/AIDS, while criticizing “conservative interpretations of religion” and laws based on “morality.”

The new WHO bulletin advocates a broad agenda rooted in the extreme left-wing concepts of intersectionality and equity. “Violations of human rights in the context of sexual health are embedded in hierarchical structures of gender, generation, lineage, race, class, and caste, in which more powerful or privileged people control the bodies and emotions of the less powerful. People with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities often face stigma and discrimination,” states Ghebreyesus.

WHO condemned medical researchers for fixating on 99% of the global population through their “focus on predominantly cisgender and heterosexual populations.”

Ironically, WHO encourages politicians to enact new policies, because “[s]exual health of women and girls and gender-diverse individuals is politicized.” Yet WHO wishes for global support of the Sexual Revolution to go beyond political leaders to become a whole-of-society undertaking.

“Civil society and affected communities must mobilize to demand services, promote rights and reduce stigma,” writes Ghebreyesus. “Global leadership and funding are essential. International institutions should ensure sexual health is integrated within health, development and human rights frameworks.” Foreign aid should prioritize WHO’s goals, as should private nonprofit organizations, the memo states.

The New Year’s Day bulletin came as the World Health Organization asked for comment on the group of radical transgender activists WHO recruited to draw up global health guidelines on transgender procedures. The vast majority have no background in medicine.

After public backlash, WHO announced the group would not decree how doctors should care for minors who say they’re experiencing gender dysphoria. However, the adult guidelines will clearly affirm the transgender industry’s invasive procedures in the name of human rights.

“This guideline has a specific focus on adults and will not address issues relating to children and adolescents,” WHO announced last Monday, January 15.

WHO groused that many global health care settings “lack policies to facilitate access to inclusive and gender affirming care.” It clarified that “gender-affirming health care can include … a number of social, psychological, behavioural or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions,” but “these new technical guidelines … will not consider surgical interventions.”

However, the new guidelines will insist doctors “provide more inclusive, acceptable and effective” care for trans-identifying people — by which they mean cross-sex hormone injections. “The guideline will reflect the principles of human rights, gender equality, universality and equity,” the January 15 statement proclaimed. It will also advance WHO’s alleged commitment to two United Nations statements “to protect all people from discrimination and violence on the grounds of gender identity and/or gender expression” and “eliminate discrimination in healthcare settings, including discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.”

Banning alleged “discrimination” against transgender people could penalize Christian health care workers with faith-based objections to carrying out gender-conversion procedures.

“This is obviously highly concerning for several reasons,” Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “One is the aggregation of worldwide power into entities like the World Health Organization, which are far removed from the proper decision-making authority.” But a more pertinent objection, he said, is the content of global governance bodies’ decisions.

“We’re seeing WHO and other world bodies — the U.N., Organization of American States, World Economic Forum — increasingly aligned with the anti-Christ position,” advancing views that are “antithetical to the Word of God. They are opposed to what Jesus says,” Weber told TWS. “God speaks to us about creation, about creating us male and female, about how before He formed us in the womb He knew us. That’s very different than what the world power centers are saying about reality.”

It is all the more concerning such ideological impositions are being carried out in the name of “science,” he said. Weber compared the use of the word “science” to a cargo vehicle driving down the highway: “We see the car moving, but we don’t see what’s being carried inside it. What’s inside [WHO’s use of the term ‘science’] is ideology. The term ‘health’ is taking on an ideological bent — not only on gender ideology but on abortion, which is the taking of an innocent life. The term health is being used to promote a pro-abortion ideology worldwide.”

The new documents come as the U.S. government is asking citizens to comment on the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement, originally called a treaty, which the Biden administration is considering adopting without Senate confirmation. The WHO agreement would require the U.S. to redistribute 20% of all vaccines and other equipment to WHO for redistribution, adopts a “One Health” policy equating human health with animal and plant life, and calls on governments to crack down on any social media post WHO dubs “misinformation.”

WHO’s decision to promote legalized prostitution, transgenderism, and population control measures in the name of health makes the global body “a dangerous place for everyone,” Weber told TWS.

The deadline to comment on the WHO Pandemic Agreement is Monday, January 22 by 5 p.m. Eastern time.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ben Carson Warns Christians: ‘You’ll See the Attacks Ramp Up Significantly as the Election Approaches’

Today, and Every Day, Pray for the Legal Protection of Every Unborn Child

POST ON X:

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


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

Copyright © 2021 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.