National Defense – Dr. Rich Swier

In a city where nothing seems certain — least of all cooperation between the parties (or in them!) — there’s a certain magic about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The legislation, which is as close to a Christian tradition as Congress gets, is headed to its 65th straight year of passage — a record that should astound anyone in this bitterly divided town. What is it about the troop bill that gets both sides to thaw their icy standoff and work together? And can that reluctant, bipartisan cooperation be replicated?

Unfortunately for Americans, who would love to see the two sides set aside their hostility and at least try to solve the country’s problems, the charm of the NDAA is always short-lived. Imagine if Republicans and Democrats tackled the health care crisis with the same intentionality? That’s not to say there aren’t fireworks, since the parties are more explosive than a boat full of drugs in the Caribbean. But at least in this debate, they seem to have the mutual goal of moving forward, even if they do try to score political points in the process.

On Wednesday, the House did its part to keep history alive, sending the bill to the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, 312-112. The lopsided tally doesn’t convey the drama that led up to the final vote, when House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had to corral his quarrelsome members, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), and others to flip their “no” votes to yes. But he did it, defying the odds for the millionth time.

What makes the streak even more impressive is that it’s not easy to find a sweet spot on where to spend $901 billion in defense. The current bill, which clocks in at an eye-popping 3,086 pages — longer than most study Bibles — is the product of months of intense debate on everything from Ukraine funding to U.S. investments in China. But this year, the battle that sucked up most of the oxygen in the room was surprisingly extraneous: the taxpayer funding of in vitro fertilization for our men and women in uniform.

In a fight that threatened to overshadow all of the significant wins of the NDAA, Democrats (and some Republicans) continued their crusade to force Americans to foot the bill for fertility treatments that are not only morally controversial but highly ineffective. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’s (D-N.Y.) rank-and-file disagreed, demanding that the military’s health care coverage, TRICARE, include a blank check for this kind of “assisted reproductive technology” for every active-duty servicemember.

To understand why this is such a dangerous idea, you first have to know the sinister side of IVF. This is not about “crushing the dreams” of our brave men and women in uniform, as Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) would have people believe. This is about being smart with taxpayer dollars and pushing parents toward alternatives that actually work. Dr. Lauren Rubal, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialist, understands parents’ longing for children. She used to offer IVF, she explained to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch.” But the more she worked in it, the more concerned she became.

“I think the first thing to say is that these couples are truly suffering,” Rubal emphasized. “And I wanted to help alleviate the suffering, to help them have children.” But things changed on so many levels, she explained. “First of all, medically, I felt more and more like I was putting band-aids over causes, [and] I wasn’t truly addressing the root cause of that person sitting in front of me: body, mind, soul. And in many cases, this is true. We know that IVF is kind of a blanket recommendation for most infertility diagnoses that we have.”

Secondly, Rubal stressed, “there are medical issues with the practice of in vitro fertilization. Of course, part of that, like I said, is not truly addressing the full spectrum of causes that, if we heal, can lead to pregnancies on their own and healthier moms and babies in that process. But,” she paused, “we know there’s an increased risk of complications for moms and babies. And then, finally, the last part of this is really coming to terms with the fact that as I sat there performing my daily work, I began to realize more and more how many embryos were being destroyed in this process of in vitro fertilization.” She thought she was helping life, but as a doctor and Christian, she came to the realization that “if every embryo is a human being that is a unique chromosome complement at his or her earliest stage of development,” they were destroying several tiny humans “to get to that one live birth.”

Probably the most frustrating part of the IVF debate, Rubal insisted, is that people assume that there are no other alternatives. That’s not true. “There is another alternative that, unfortunately, has felt more and more politicized in recent months … called restorative reproductive medicine. And [that’s] identifying those root causes [of infertility] and harnessing the hormone imbalances that may be present, looking at the microbiome, trying to optimize ovulation in that woman, as well as the sperm in that man, and really the timing of intercourse as well, and using medical and surgical procedures to do so.”

In terms of actual results, “this is yielding equivalent rates of live births compared to IVF cycles. The denominators are a little bit different here. And so, it does take more time. But with that being said, there is absolutely hope,” Rubal emphasized. “And it is a moral and … much less financially taxing process for couples.” Sadly, she notes, only 4% of OB-GYNs and family medicine doctors are familiar with how to counsel patients on these options. There’s just not the fertility awareness on these alternatives that there should be.

To be fair, Rubal pointed out, “I think that every single medical professional is trying to do their best with the tools that they’re given. I can speak for myself, and I know that I feel so much more at peace. And this is what I tell patients. Not everything is in our power here, but let’s try to optimize the parts that are, and then we can have a path moving forward in peace.” If people wonder about the effectiveness of her approach, she tells skeptics, “Studies support that we’re having babies based on these restorative reproductive medicine procedures who are healthier, who have less preterm deliveries, less multiples, and are being born at normal birth weight. So really a win-win.”

To her dismay and so many others, this whole conversation has been politicized. If you’re a conservative who believes taxpayers shouldn’t be in the fertility business period, you’re painted as “unbelievably selfish and callous,” as Johnson was for having the courage to keep this dangerous language out of the bill. As it stands, Americans are already footing the bill for IVF for servicemembers whose infertility was the result of an active-duty injury, which is problematic on its own. But opening up the entire force to a pricey IVF free-for-all isn’t the wisest use of American dollars.

And the speaker is to be commended for that stand. “Speaker Johnson took a lot of heat for the removal of the reckless Duckworth language,” FRC’s Quena Gonzalez stressed, “but the reality is that he and others in leadership who took the IVF expansion language out were speaking for a lot of rank-and-file pro-life Republicans who, although they’re just as glad as we are that thousands of babies born through IVF are alive today, cannot ignore the millions more lives lost when unborn children are discard, destroyed, or experimented upon.” Frankly, he said, “An industry that produces only 2.3 live births per 100 children conceived does not deserve public funding, and the military should not be hijacked as a giant social experiment in subsidizing ‘Big IVF’ on the taxpayer’s dime.”

Across the Capitol, Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who’s also an OB-GYN, applauded the change on “Washington Watch.” “I think [the NDAA] is moving in the conservative direction. And I know you and Family Research Council have had a big emphasis and impact on that in particular. I think the policy is moving toward putting some tighter guardrails around [IVF funding]. And the good news is the technology is improving as well … so I always appreciate your input on it.”

Perkins conceded that there’s “a lot of disagreement about it. But where we start … is the sanctity of human life, that every human being has the thumbprint of God, the fingerprint of God on it, and therefore must be treated with dignity and respect. And I think that part of that issue is how this industry has been unregulated. And I think it requires a little more work before we throw taxpayer dollars into it anymore.”

Thanks to conservatives, that wasn’t the only win in the NDAA compromise. Republicans continue to chip away at the wokeness in the Pentagon left behind by the Biden administration, including language that would:

Bar males from participating in athletic programs or activities designated for women or girls at military academies (Sec. 559A).
Expand and clarify family leave policies for members of the Coast Guard (would include members of the reserve component), allowing members to take leave when they foster a child, not just when they adopt (Sec. 7225).
Stop DEI programs and positions, including a prohibition against developing, implementing, and maintaining an employee resource group or affinity group based on certain characteristics, including SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) and religion (Sec. 901).

At the end of the day, the NDAA is a win for conservatives and yet another notch in Mike Johnson’s belt as speaker. “This year’s National Defense Authorization Act helps advance President Trump and Republicans’ Peace Through Strength Agenda by codifying 15 of President Trump’s executive orders, ending woke ideology at the Pentagon, securing the border, revitalizing the defense industrial base, and restoring the warrior ethos,” the speaker said proudly. “Under President Trump, the U.S. is rebuilding strength, restoring deterrence, and proving America will not back down. President Trump and Republicans promised peace through strength. The FY26 NDAA delivers it.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Transgender Military Policy Wins on Substance before D.C. Circuit Court

Trump’s Foreign Policy Aims to Put America First while Avoiding Isolationism

U.S. Seizes Sanctioned Oil Tanker off Coast of Venezuela, Trump Says

Trump Allows Export of Advanced Microchips to China amid National Security Concerns

Partner with The Washington Stand to bring news from a biblical worldview to readers nationwide. From now until December 31, every gift will be doubled through our year-end Challenge Match.

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.

French Premier Valls this week raised concerns about the possible threat of ISIS’ use of CBRN in Europe. The Daily Mail reported:

France’s prime minister has warned his country to be prepared for chemical and biological attacks as he told MPs that the ‘macabre imagination’ of ISIS is ‘limitless’.

Manuel Valls made the ominous prediction while calling on French MPs to extend the country’s state of emergency for another three months, amid fears another attack is imminent.

The warning comes as U.S. security officials report that they have found proof that ISIS is developing bio-weapons with the help of Syrian and Iraqi scientists in the Middle East.

Speaking in the French Parliament today, Mr Valls said: ‘Terrorism hit France, not because of what it is doing in Iraq and Syria… but for what it is.’

He added: ‘We must not rule anything out. I say it with all the precautions needed.

But we know and bear in mind that there is also a risk of chemical or bacteriological weapons.

Dr. Jill Bellamy

In late July, 2015, noted Syrian bio-warfare expert, Dr. Jill Bellamy, wrote about that possibility in a post on Black Six: The BioWarfare Blog “Europe at Risk: Assessing ISIS’ Current Chemical and Biological Weapon Capabilities “. Our New English Review interviews with noted biological warfare expert Dr. Jill Bellamy revealed the Assad regime’s extensive dual use pharmaceutical research and production facilities for development of Class A Pathogens, “The Dangers of Syria’s Bio-Warfare Complex Should Assad Fall (Jan. 2013.” Listen to Dr. Bellamy discuss ISIS’ CBW capabilities on the Sunday, November 22, Lisa Benson Show that airs at 3PM EST.
Here are some excerpts from Dr. Bellamy’s post:

“On June 20th, 2015, The Independent ran an article entitled: “ISIS Dirty Bomb: Jihadists have seized Enough Radioactive Material to build their First WMD.” Adam Withnall reports: “The ISIS militant group has seized enough radioactive material from government facilities to suggest it has the capability to build a large and devastating “dirty” bomb, according to Australian intelligence reports. ISIS declared its ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction in the most recent edition of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, and Indian defense officials have previously warned of the possibility the militants could acquire a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. According to the Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop, NATO has expressed deep concerns about the material seized by ISIS from research centers and hospitals that would normally only be available to governments.” Withnall goes on to report in his article that:

“The threat of ISIS’s radioactive and biological weapon stockpile was so severe that the Australia Group, a 40 nation bloc dedicated to ending the use of chemical weapons, held a session on the subject at its summit in Perth last week.”

According to a post on Nuclear Security Matters, a Harvard University site, Nate Sans posits in his article entitled: How much of a Nuclear, Chemical or Biological Threat Might ISIS Pose (Part II)? “ISIS may have the monetary means and the necessary equipment to organize and carry out a sophisticated attack in another count; therefore there is a real danger that they might be able to seize CBRN materials or tech, or inflict catastrophic damage to a facility such as a nuclear power plant. It is worth noting that ISIS includes hundreds of fighters from Europe and North America, who can travel in Europe and the United States without needing a visa.”

National Defense published an article recently which, if true, provides a bit of insight on IS biological weapon aspirations and capabilities. In “ISIL Determined to Acquire Biological Weapons,” Sara Sicard writes: “Intelligence has recently discovered that ISIS intends to pursue biological agents and also is trying to figure out how to weaponize bubonic plague through the use of infected animals,” quoting Brig. Gen. Maria Gervais, Gervais is head of the Army’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear School.”

It would appear given ISIS, like Al Qaeda’s quest for BW is underway. The difference with ISIS is they have the financial means to attract and acquire higher level scientists and control areas where they could test it possibly on human subjects, thereby forgoing the need to waste money on developing animal models and could effectively deploy it in a mass casualty scenario.

The capability issue is a concern should they overtake the SSRC in Damascus and install a scientific team with knowledge of synthetic biology. Much of the research undertaken at the SSRC is research into novel pathogens and deployment techniques. This would give ISIS a state warfare capability. I believe they are currently interested but not capable. With chemical warfare agents they are already using it and should they acquire VX or sarin both in Assad’s former declared stockpiles they could easily transport this over land to Europe and deploy it around a city center. Governments generally downplay the ease of use but in fact CW in smaller quantities transported by several couriers with EU passports would be doable.

BW is even easier as the quantity doesn’t matter as much as the quality of pathogenic agent and some agents don’t need to be weaponized. The first deployment of a biological warfare agent in Europe will be a wakeup call to all states who continue to believe they are for some reason exempt from such attacks.

The real risk any ISIS WMD program posses to Europe is the dismissal by European governments that such an attack would ever occur. It is the denial and disbelief that ISIS could possess such a capability and their intent to use it which is the biggest threat to European populations.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Tag Archive for: National Defense

Assessment: The Islamic State’s Chemical and Biological Threat to Europe