Tag Archive for: Public Health

Study: Over 6 Million Obamacare Recipients Fraudulently Enrolled

/in , , , , , , /by

A stunning new study has revealed that over six million individuals who are currently enrolled in the government’s Affordable Care Act health care insurance subsidy program (known as Obamacare) were signed up fraudulently, amounting to over a quarter of all Obamacare enrollees.

According to the new report conducted by the Paragon Health Institute, 6.2 million people are illegitimately enrolled in Obamacare, which means that taxpayer dollars will likely fund up to $25 billion in improper payments in 2026. The fraudulent enrollments are largely due to individuals or insurance agents falsifying income to qualify for larger subsidies.

As noted by The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, enrollment in Obamacare plans has doubled in recent years due to COVID pandemic subsidies. After the subsidies expired, “The consensus in the healthcare establishment was that people would drop coverage.” But instead, 23.1 million people signed up for ACA coverage this year, just 1.2 million fewer than last year. “One reason is that subsidies for most enrollees remain very generous,” the board observed. “The government this year will pay 94% of the premium for the median enrollee — about $699 of a $741 monthly premium. … Nearly 30% of enrollees won’t have to pay premiums thanks to subsidies.”

In addition, Paragon found that “[m]any improper enrollees are likely phantom enrollees — people who are unaware of their enrollment, covered elsewhere, or entirely fictional. In 2024, 35 percent of exchange enrollees and 40 percent of fully-subsidized low-income enrollees generated no medical claims — double the percentage expected in a normal health insurance market.” The report further noted that “The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) found that an average of 1.6 million people per month were simultaneously enrolled in Medicaid and subsidized exchange coverage.”

The Trump administration has taken a series of steps to address the fraud crisis. The Paragon report pointed out that almost two million improper enrollees have been removed “through actions targeting duplicate Medicaid-exchange enrollment and individuals who failed to comply with tax-filing requirements.” In addition, additional eligibility verification rules enacted by last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill and by the administration are set to take effect over the next two years.

During a White House press briefing on Tuesday, CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz detailed what occurred during the Biden administration that enabled widespread Obamacare fraud and what the Trump administration is doing to address it.

“[In] 2020, there were nine million people on Obamacare. … Today it’s more than 20 million,” he explained. “What happened? What happened was we completely took the guardrails off. And I know this because I’m working in the agency that actually was told to take the guardrails off, and because there wasn’t an earnest desire to keep track of whether you were appropriately on it or not. … We believe that 35%, roughly, of the people [who] are using the Affordable Care Act … exchanges [have] never used the program once. They’ve never filed a claim, may not be legit. And that actual number may translate to five [to] six million people we could be paying premiums for because they don’t have to contribute anything. … These are people who have Medicaid and someone, often a broker, dishonestly enrolling them in [the ACA], or they’re … getting full insurance paid for by us in multiple states at once. So we have evaluated these numbers. They are extremely concerning.”

After highlighting that a new process for rooting out Obamacare fraud was started by the administration two weeks ago after their initial rule was enjoined by a federal court, Oz went on to illustrate what will occur when fraud is rooted out and eligibility rules are enforced.

“[I]f you care about the ACA, then you’ll want us to take the fraud out,” he underscored. “And let me just take a step back. If we want you to go back to work on Medicaid, what’s going to happen? You’re going to start making money. As you make money … you get above the poverty level. You’re going to want to buy an Affordable Care Act product or a private industry [plan]. Commercial insurers are going to start using it. That’s a good thing. We’re getting America back up. They’re getting [Medicaid recipients] into work, getting them into the stratosphere, building prosperity. So we want these programs to work together. But if you’ve got millions of people literally who are getting insurance that they don’t want, they don’t even know they have it, and we’re all paying for it, that’s tens of billions of dollars we’re throwing away. That increases premiums for everybody. It drives affordability down.”

“We’re not going to tolerate [it] anymore,” Oz added.

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

This Colombian Congressional Advisor Is Standing against the Woke Machine Targeting Children

/in , , , , , , , /by

Liliana Castañeda is a tireless Colombian advocate. She has been seen at numerous public hearings addressing the proposed ban on conversion therapies, the “Trans Law,” specialized justice systems with a “gender perspective,” and the creation of the Ministry of Equality.

Alongside pro-life and pro-family activists Evaristo Gutiérrez and Jonathan Silva, she has championed a legislative bill — first introduced in 2023 — that seeks to ban “gender reassignment” treatments for minors.

Although she has been able to present arguments grounded in neuropsychology (a field in which she holds a master’s degree), over time she has also successfully garnered support from universities, lawyers, physicians, and politicians — such as Senator Lorena Ríos.

At the Congress of the Republic, Castañeda serves as a legislative advisor on issues ranging from opposition to the gender agenda to the legalization of recreational cannabis use and assisted suicide. She is a formidable scourge against wokeism. This was clearly demonstrated during her appearances in the documentary “Colombia: Fábrica de Niños Trans” (Colombia: Factory for Trans Children), a film that exposes a macabre industry.

Here is my interview with Liliana.

What is the current landscape regarding gender transition in children in Colombia, as of the premiere of the documentary “Colombia: Fábrica de Niños Trans?”

Unfortunately, we do not have exact figures. In Colombia, the various clinics that have administered medical “gender affirmation” treatments have not made public any detailed information regarding how many minors have undergone these types of procedures.

However, it did come to light — following a judicial inquiry — that the Valle del Lili Foundation reported having administered these treatments to 80 minors nationwide by the year 2025.

You mentioned your involvement in drafting a legislative bill that calls for a ban on “gender reassignment” treatments for children.

Yes. The first time we formally introduced the bill, I developed the entire scientific rationale behind it. Later, I received support from a physician. For three consecutive years now, we have been fighting to ensure that — at the very least — a first debate takes place, yet it has not been possible; the opposition has been very strong.

What we have managed to achieve is to participate in several public hearings. God allowed me to be one of the first people to speak before the Congress of the Republic regarding mental health aspects of these treatments — specifically focusing on neuroscience and neuropsychology — during my first intervention in 2023.

Also present that day was the pediatrician and endocrinologist Mario Angulo, though he was there to advocate for gender “affirmation” treatments for minors. He is the most prominent figure defending that position. On that occasion, we found ourselves facing off with opposing viewpoints right there in the room.

The documentary “Colombia: Fábrica de Niños Trans” — produced by the Mexican YouTuber Samuel Adrián, in which you appear as one of the interviewees — has sent shockwaves through the Colombian public agenda. What are the most significant allegations or revelations it exposes to the general public?

The documentary revealed how the first gender clinic for minors in Colombia — the Valle del Lili Foundation in Cali — was performing gender transition procedures without informed consent and without comprehensive psychological and psychiatric evaluations.

Furthermore, it exposed the fact that they neither investigated the underlying causes that led various children and adolescents to develop gender dysphoria, nor did they adequately treat the associated disorders and traumas.

At the center of the documentary is Laura, the young woman who was the very first case treated by the clinic in question shortly after it opened in 2017.

Yes. While she was still a minor, she was subjected to cross-sex hormone therapy using testosterone, followed by puberty blockers. Later on, once she turned 18, they even managed to convince her to undergo a double mastectomy.

As time went by, Laura realized that the root cause of her gender dysphoria was linked to the sexual abuse she had suffered when she was just five years old. However, the clinic never addressed that trauma, nor did it focus treatment on helping her heal psychologically and come to terms with her biological sex.

Today, at 23, Laura lives with deep regret over the interventions she underwent, and she suffers every day from the physical and emotional consequences they left her with. One of these is that she will never be able to breastfeed.

For all these reasons — including medical malpractice — she filed a lawsuit against the Fundación Valle del Lili clinic.

What have been the most notable repercussions following the release of the documentary?

Most importantly, this week — in the wake of the documentary’s impact — intense public pressure emerged, leading the Valle del Lili Foundation to completely shut down its gender transition unit for minors and to terminate its affiliation with Dr. Mario Angulo.

We celebrate this outcome with profound joy, alongside the millions of Colombians and Latinos who have joined our cause. It has been a deeply significant moment because, after years of fighting to protect children, we are finally seeing the fruits of our efforts. It marks the first time that a halt has been put to medical practices deemed inappropriate for minors.

And on the other side of things, what kind of pressure are the filmmakers currently facing?

Following the premiere on November 26 of last year, the director, Samuel Adrián, came under pressure not to release the documentary.

Dr. Mario Angulo — who treated Laura and dozens of other minors — felt aggrieved by the publication of statements he had recorded for the documentary. In those statements, he himself admitted that the pharmacological treatments administered by the clinic caused sterility and bone-related issues in minors.

For this reason, he filed a legal complaint against Samuel Adrián. Although his initial appeals were rejected on two separate occasions, a judge issued a sanction against Samuel in a third instance, which included a prison sentence and a fine.

Currently, there is an active arrest warrant for Samuel in Colombia, based on the determination that the doctor’s “reputation” and “good name” were violated.

The reputation of the doctor who was rendering minors infertile?

Yes.

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is The Washington Stand’s international affairs correspondent. He is an exiled journalist, writer, and producer who investigated in Havana about torture, political police, gangs, government black lists, and cybersurveillance. A graduate of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, he was a CBN correspondent, and has written for outlets like The Hill and Newsweek. He has appeared on Vox, Univision, and Deutsche Welle as an analyst on Cuba, security, and U.S. foreign policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

What Constitution? Progressive States, Cities Join WHO Network after U.S. Withdrawal

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

For the past decade, left-wing Democrats have calibrated their actions by assessing whatever Donald Trump wants, and doing the opposite. This tactic is evident everywhere, but far fewer people understand how close this pattern comes to triggering a constitutional crisis.

One recent example came after the Trump administration officially withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 22. “Like many international organizations, the WHO abandoned its core mission and acted repeatedly against the interests of the United States,” announced Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy. “Although the United States was a founding member and the WHO’s largest financial contributor, the organization pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests.”

The U.S. Congress reserved the right to withdraw from the WHO when it joined the U.N. organization in 1948. President Trump initiated the process in the waning months of his first administration in response to its mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic. President Joe Biden suspended this withdrawal in 2021, but President Trump reinitiated it in 2025. Each of these policy reversals came as American voters decided to exchange one party for the other.

Now, some of Biden’s fellow Democrats have decided that they will simply refuse to follow the Trump administration’s foreign policy lead and engage with the WHO on their own.

On January 23, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) announced that his state was “becoming the first, and currently the only, state to join WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network (GOARN).” Newsom met with WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus during the World Economic Forum “to detect and respond to emerging public health threats.”

In Newsom’s announcement, foreign policy disagreement with the Trump administration features prominently. “The Trump administration’s withdrawal from WHO is a reckless decision that will hurt all Californians and Americans,” Newsom declared. “California will not bear witness to the chaos this decision will bring. We will continue to foster partnerships across the globe.”

On February 3, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) made a similar announcement for similar reasons. “By withdrawing from the World Health Organization, Donald Trump has undermined science and weakened our nation’s ability to detect and respond to global health threats. I refuse to sit idly by and let that happen,” Pritzker protested. “By joining the World Health Organization’s coordinated network, GOARN, we are ensuring that our public health leaders — and the public — have the information, expertise, and partnerships they need to protect the people of our state. Across our state and alongside valued partners around the world, Illinois will continue to put science, preparedness, and people first.”

The Illinois Department of Public Health outlined the benefit from WHO membership resources, such as “Direct access to global early-warning alerts and outbreak intelligence,” “Opportunities for technical collaboration and surge support during major public health events,” “Participation in international training, exercises, and best-practice exchanges,” and “Stronger coordination between state-level public health systems and global response efforts.”

Never one to miss a bandwagon hurtling to the left, the New York City government under Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) also jumped on board the trend on February 5. “New York City is a global city with 8.5 million residents and more than 12 million international visitors every year,” explained New York City Acting Health Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer Michelle Morse. “To best prevent disease outbreaks and public health emergencies and to protect New Yorkers and visitors from them, the NYC Health Department is joining hundreds of public health institutions worldwide that share critical public health information to support life-saving prevention and response efforts. Infectious diseases know no boundaries, and nor should the information and resources that help us protect New Yorkers.”

The problem with all of this talk of international cooperation and its benefits is that American states and cities are not allowed to have their own foreign policy. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution stipulates that “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.” In fact, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”

The original reason for the 13 “States of America” to become “United” was to present a unified front on matters of foreign policy. State governments have sovereignty, but only over their domestic affairs. Once that principle is breached, once individual states begin forging independent side-partnerships with foreign governments, American unity would be fundamentally compromised, and American security with it.

Consider the implications of California universities collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party on defense research, or the Texas Military Department sharing intelligence with a foreign power, independent of the federal government.

What California, Illinois, and New York City are proposing is a uniquely unconstitutional manifestation of nullification, where states unilaterally declare federal law to be null and void in their territory.

The Constitution Center records at least “three prominent attempts by states at nullification in American history.” Kentucky tried to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. South Carolina tried to nullify federal tariffs in 1832 (with slavery providing an ugly backdrop). Arkansas tried to nullify Brown v. Board of Education in 1957.

For decades, progressives have derided southern states for their past nullification attempts. Now, it appears that such derision was based on the unfounded belief that progressive values would always (or eventually) prevail in the U.S. federal government. However, progressives have grown increasingly alarmed with their lack of power over federal policy, to the point that they have begun embracing their own versions of nullification.

For instance, Pritzker recently opined, “We need ICE out of our cities and, frankly, out of our state.” What is this but an attempt to dictate where federal officers can enforce federal law? Any expression of “ICE Out” is really an endorsement of the constitutionally illegitimate principle of nullification. (In contrast, a declaration that state or local law enforcement “does not enforce federal immigration law” is simply a recognition of the fact that states enforce state laws, and the federal government enforces federal laws.)

On December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson described nullification as “the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution,” and that “the true construction” of the Constitution “permits a State to retain its place in the Union and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional.” Such a position, Jackson argued, was absurd, “having for its object the destruction of the Union.”

Only one element of uncertainty may save the decision by progressive jurisdictions to join the GOARN network from being an indefensible violation of the Constitution. One could make a case that GOARN’s cooperation is not so much with a foreign government or international organization as with a global network of research institutes. GOARN has at least 365 partner institutions, of which 36 are in the United States.

Under this theory, these three progressive governments are not directly rejecting the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the WHO; that point might save them constitutionally, but it defeats the whole point of their choosing to join GOARN as a way to stick a finger in Trump’s eye.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Always Ready: Speaker Johnson Gives Biblical Defense of Borders

FRC’s Pray Vote Stand Chapters Equip Christians for Biblical Engagement in the Public Square

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 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.

Multiple Failures of Obamacare are the Unspoken Skunk for Dems in the Shutdown Showdown

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

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) chose extending “temporary” Obamacare COVID pandemic tax credits as their hill to die on in the October 2025 government shutdown showdown with President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans.

But the ugly reality behind Democrats’ hyperbolic rhetoric predicting soaring monthly premiums and millions of Americans losing coverage is the fact Obamacare has been a disaster for the American health care system, according to multiple voices across the political spectrum. Thus, whether they realize it or not, Schumer and Jeffries are now stuck holding the skunk.

Least expected to be among those critical voices was an October 5 missive from the editorial board of The Washington Post — long the hometown voice of the Government Party in American politics, but more recently experiencing a Jeff Bezos-directed slow-motion re-introduction to reality.

“The real problem is that the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] was never actually affordable. President Barack Obama’s signature achievement allowed people to buy insurance on marketplaces with subsidies based on their income. The architects of the program assumed that risk pools would be bigger than they turned out to be. As a result, policies cost more than expected,” the Post editorial board wrote.

But that fundamental failure underlying Obamacare was not all on the Post editors’ minds that day, as they continued:

“To salvage the program, Democrats expanded subsidies to entice more people to buy plans. Many poor families wound up getting insurance for free, and the rolls grew: 24 million people now have coverage through the ACA exchanges. People earning more than 400 percent of the poverty line — about $129,000 for a family of four — would see their subsidies go away.

“Democrats picked this fight because they see health care as a winning issue. A Post poll, conducted on the first day of the shutdown, found that 71 percent of Americans say federal insurance subsidies should be extended while 29 percent say they should end as scheduled. Just as significantly, the question divides Republicans: 38 percent support extending the subsidies, and 62 percent want them to end.”

And then, in a statement that was even less expected than the admission of Obamacare’s “real problem,” came this paragraph:

“This is how entitlement programs work. Once you habituate people to some generous government handout, they grow dependent on it. And it becomes politically perilous, if not impossible, to fully claw it back. Conservatives fought so hard to stop Obamacare 15 years ago because they anticipated fights like this one.”

Whether the Post editors realized it or not, with that paragraph, they endorsed the Right’s fundamental critique of the Welfare State since its advent in Bismarck’s Germany in the late 1800s. Somewhere, a stunned former President Ronald Reagan, who often declared federal programs to be “the closest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this Earth,” is declaring his amazement that “they finally get it.”

Even if Democrats succeed through the shutdown in salvaging some sort of interim preservation of the “temporary” Obamacare tax credit subsidies, think tankers on the Right point to a host of additional profoundly serious flaws in the government health care system.

“Rarely in public policy have we witnessed such a radical disparity between high-profile promises and real-world performance. Obama said that his signature bill would bend the health care cost curve downward. Instead, aggregate health care spending has soared,” Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Robert Moffit told The Washington Stand.

Moffit spent eight years as a senior Reagan administration political appointee handling congressional relations at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where he learned valuable insider lessons about the federal workforce and the government health care system. At Heritage, Moffit became one of the most widely respected and quoted conservative health care experts.

“Recall that Obama said that the average family would see a $2,500 reduction in their yearly health costs, but instead exchange premiums exploded and family deductible increases were crazy. While Obama claimed his bill would create robust choice and competition in the individual markets, in fact, choice and competition sharply declined, leaving many families at the mercy of a monopoly or a duopoly,” Moffit continued.

“Worse, most Obamacare plans had narrow networks, limiting patient access to preferred doctors, hospitals, and specialists. Meanwhile, taxpayers have been forced to pay for Obama’s massive failure in health care cost control through ever higher health insurance subsidies, now reaching families with six figure incomes, while simultaneously funding a massive expansion of Medicaid, a poorly performing welfare program,” he said.

Economic Policy Innovation Center Budget Policy Director Matthew Dickerson offered additional insights into the problems ravaging Obamacare, telling TWS that “the Biden COVID tax credits are an attempt to paper-over the failures of Obamacare to deliver affordable health care that people want to purchase.”

Dickerson also pointed out that “giving hundreds of billions in subsidies to big insurance companies may shift costs to the taxpayers, but it won’t solve the problems caused by Obamacare. Premiums would still increase for most families, according to the filings from the insurance companies.”

He continued, “The Biden COVID Credits were always meant to be temporary, based on the partisan law signed by President Biden. When the extra subsidies paid to insurance companies expire, the taxpayers will still pay for more than 80% of the premium costs for a typical enrollee and an even greater share for low-income families.”

Another devastating analysis of Obamacare’s multiple failures comes from The Paragon Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank headed by former White House Special Assistant for Economic Policy under Trump Brian Blase. In an analysis entitled “The Falsehoods of Obamacare,” the Paragon study pointed to multiple unfulfilled promises from the program.

One of those promises was that the program would help save many lives that would otherwise be lost due to inadequate access to health care, but, according to Paragon, “life expectancy fell three consecutive years for the first time in nearly 100 years” following Obamacare’s implementation.

Another such failed promise spotlighted by Paragon was that Obamacare would make shopping for health care insurance easy. In fact, “the [Obamacare] portal was one of the most notoriously unreliable websites ever launched.”

Yet another failed promise, according to Paragon, was the claim Obamacare would boost the individual coverage field into a competitive, robust, growing marketplace. The actual result has been “enrollment was less than half of expectations, with higher premiums and deductibles and more restrictive provider networks than expected through 2020.” Things are little improved in this respect in 2025.

Finally, in perhaps the best-known failed Obamacare promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep it and if you like your doctor, you can keep him or her as well.” The reality has proven to be that “millions of people had their plans canceled and lost access to their doctors.”

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Controversy over Political Violence Gives Va. GOP Boost ahead of Statewide Election

New Jersey Board of Education Candidate Drops Out amid Resurfaced Text Scandal Inciting Violence

Washington Agrees to Permanently Drop Enforcing Law Targeting Catholic Priests

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Details about Iryna Zarutska’s Killer Reveal Flaws in the Mental Health Care and Justice Systems

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

The stabbing of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska has deeply impacted many people around the world. Millions are sympathizing with Iryna’s grieving family who came to America, believing they would be safer here than in Ukraine, where they were living in a bomb shelter three short years ago.

Yet as we learn more about Iryna, we’re discovering troubling information about her murderer, 35-year-old Decarlos Brown, Jr. as well. He’s been a career criminal since 2007 and was released from state custody 14 times. (Notably, most of the charges he faced between 2007 and 2014 were dropped.) In 2015, he was arrested for armed robbery and put in a state prison until 2020. As recently as January of this year, Brown was charged with a misdemeanor for misusing 911. However, he was released with no bail and was pending trial.

While it’s important to assess the justice system and ask whether the courts should have and could have kept Brown behind bars, it’s becoming more obvious that there are holes in the mental health care system as well. Brown was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2020, and his own family has consistently said that they sought help from mental health care providers and facilities, knowing that he was a danger to society — including themselves. In fact, shortly after he was released from a five-year prison sentence in 2020, he was arrested for assaulting his sister.

Brown’s mother and sister say that Brown believes there is a man-made substance inside him that controls him. In fact, he told his sister in a phone call after he stabbed Zarutska that this material “stabbed the lady.”

In an interview with ABC News, Brown’s mother, Michelle Dewitt, said that when he lived with her after he was released from prison in 2020, he would slam doors, yell at her, and talk to himself. Doctors diagnosed him with schizophrenia and prescribed him medicine, but he refused to take it. As she became more concerned about their safety, she took Brown to a mental health hospital. However, sadly, she was told they didn’t have enough room to admit him because he wasn’t threatening to hurt himself. They told her that she couldn’t force him to be there. Subsequently, Dewitt had to go to court to file a petition with a magistrate for her son to get help. A mental health facility then kept Brown for 14 days, but then released him back to her. Brown again refused to take his medication. Dewitt and her husband did not feel safe, so they brought him to a men’s homeless shelter in Charlotte. After this, Brown’s family would see him walking the streets and riding the mass transportation system.

Just nine months ago, on January 19, Brown called 911, asking police to investigate a “man-made” material that he believed controlled when he ate, walked, and talked. Police officers who arrived told him he needed medical help and that there was nothing they could do. He then became very upset, and police charged him with “misuse of the 911 system.” Brown was then released without bail as long as he promised to return to court. According to Newsmax, “Brown’s public defender requested a mental evaluation to determine if he could contribute to his defense. A judge signed an order on July 28, telling Brown to report to a community forensic evaluator within seven days. It’s unclear if Brown went.”

Why did Judge Teresa Stokes believe it was safe for Brown to be released without bail in January, believing that he was competent and trustworthy enough to return to court six months later? And according to Matthew Mangino, a former district attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, “The standard [for setting bail] is ‘will the accused appear for future proceedings’ and ‘is the accused a threat to the public.’” Having called 911 because he believed there was a substance inside of him that controlled him, and then lashing out at police, it seems there was ample evidence to indicate that he was a threat to the public. Should Judge Stokes have set bail and ordered an immediate mental evaluation — instead of waiting for his public defender to order an evaluation six months later?

Besides evaluating the courts’ bail requirements and mental evaluation processes, some are asking whether more options need to be available for people who are mentally ill. Do states need to open more long-term mental health facilities so that psychiatric patients such as Brown can get help there instead of having to choose between living with family (and potentially endangering them) or becoming homeless? Brown’s mother says she tried to obtain involuntary psychiatric commitment this year after he became violent at home; however, receiving this kind of help is extremely difficult. A court has to rule that a person is a danger to himself or to others. But in Brown’s case, his family clearly thought he was. The courts should have taken that into consideration, along with his diagnosed schizophrenia and long criminal history. They then could have determined that he was a danger to society and have Brown committed to a long-term mental health facility.

In a September 9 press conference, special agent in charge of the FBI in North Carolina, James C. Barnacle Jr., became emotional when talking about Iryna Zarutska. He and U.S. District Attorney Russ Ferguson had just spoken with her family. He expressed how this case hits home because he has daughters, and this heinous murder could have happened to anyone’s daughter on her way home from work. He pleaded for politicians to work together to solve these policy problems within the justice and health care systems, saying, “Why do we have people — whether there’s mental health issues, or violent crime issues — why are they on the streets? Why are buses, our trains, our transportation systems almost homeless shelters, or mental health shelters? We need to fix that. We need to clean that up. [The FBI] can only do so much. This is going to take a lot more work from society, from the people in power and the politicians.”

Elected officials need to heed Barnacle’s advice and examine ways to improve coordination between the courts and the mental health care system for the sake of public safety. When families want to place their mentally ill loved one in a long-term facility out of concern for the public’s safety, they ought to have the ability to do so.

As the church, which is called to love our neighbors as ourselves, we need to pray for God:

  1. To show us how we can help families who are struggling to care for their loved one who is suffering from mental illness.
  2. To give our government officials wisdom and unity to address problems in our mental health care and justice systems.
  3. To be present in the lives of those suffering from mental illness, so that they might be healed. “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). For he who is in us is greater than he who is in the world!

AUTHOR

Kathy Athearn

Kathy Athearn is a correspondence writer at Family Research Council. She studied Political Science and Religion at Hope College, was a Witherspoon Fellow at FRC, and is passionate about helping Christians contribute a biblical worldview to the public sphere.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Major HHS Report Cites Lack of Evidence Supporting ‘Gender-Affirming Care,’ Failure of Medical Establishment

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

A comprehensive new report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has concluded that there is no strong evidence to support “gender-affirming” procedures that block puberty, mutilate the sexual organs of, and sterilize children for life. Experts say the report is a welcome affirmation of the grievous harms that gender transition procedures inflict on minors — which much of Europe has already acknowledged, marking a stark reversal of the pro-gender transitions for minors position of the previous Biden administration.

The five-part, 409-page report, entitled “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices,” presents an exhaustive study of the issues surrounding diagnosing children with gender dysphoria and subjecting them to gender transition procedures. The first part covers the background, noting that medical treatments are typically “first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to pediatric populations. In this case, however, the opposite occurred: clinician-researchers developed the pediatric medical transition protocol in response to disappointing psychosocial outcomes in adults who underwent medical transition.”

The report went on to note that gender transition protocols were “adopted internationally” before proper studies were conducted to examine the health outcomes of pediatric patients. But after evidence of outcomes began accumulating, “health authorities in an increasing number of countries have restricted access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and, in the rare cases where they were offered, surgeries for minors. These authorities now recommend psychosocial approaches, rather than hormonal or surgical interventions, as the primary treatment.”

The second part of the report highlighted a general lack of reliable evidence analyzing the effects of gender transition procedures. However, it emphasized that the risks of the procedures that have been established “include infertility/sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret.”

Despite these documented risks, the report’s third part noted that the most influential U.S. bodies for recommending health protocols for gender transition procedures, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society, went ahead with guidelines recommending the procedures for children, which were characterized by international reviewers as “lack[ing] developmental rigour and transparency.” The report pointed to countries like Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. who are encouraging mental health approaches over medical interventions.

The authors (whose names have not yet been released) further observe that the “‘gender-affirming’ model of care, as practiced in U.S. clinics, is characterized by a child-led process in which comprehensive mental health assessments are often minimized or omitted.” In addition, the concerns of whistleblowers and detransitioners “have been discounted, dismissed, or ignored by prominent advocates and practitioners of pediatric medical transition.”

The report goes on to detail the ethical concerns involved in establishing protocols for gender transition procedures without sufficient clinical evidence to support them, as well as ethical concerns about involving children in “randomized controlled trials on pubertal suppression or hormone therapy.” The final part points out that behavioral comorbidities such as suicidal ideation associated with gender dysphoria in children “have known psychotherapeutic management strategies.” The report argues for more research to be conducted on psychotherapy as a way to treat gender dysphoria, since psychotherapy “is a noninvasive alternative to endocrine and surgical interventions for the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria.”

The HHS report concludes by stating that “[w]hile no clinician or medical association intends to fail their patients — particularly those who are most vulnerable — the preceding chapters demonstrate that this is precisely what has occurred.”

Clinical experts like Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, who serves as director of the Center for Family Studies at Family Research Council, say the new HHS report is a welcome change in direction away from the blind promotion of gender transition procedures for minors that occurred under the previous administration.

“[O]ur government under the Biden administration was falsely using research to scaffold the ‘gender-affirming care,’” she pointed out during Thursday’s “Washington Watch.” “And really, what this report showed in the bottom line is [that] basically everything that has come from Europe and what we have been talking about, that the science is just not there to support it. And in fact, it’s quite the opposite. It says, ‘Run from these procedures and … protect children.’”

Bauwens, a clinical psychologist and licensed therapist who has provided trauma-focused treatment to children, went on to highlight how the new report delved into data coming out of Europe on mental health outcomes of children who have undergone transgender procedures, including the U.K.’s groundbreaking Cass Review.

“[W]hat it found [after] looking at the science, just the methods … used to cause a reduction in distress, is [there’s] no question you have to scrap this so-called ‘intervention’ because it’s not making a difference in what it purports to do,” she explained. “It’s not causing psychological distress to be reduced. In some cases, as other reports have found in Sweden, the rate of suicide was much higher.”

Bauwens concluded by expressing gratitude to the Trump administration for taking an ideology-free approach to the issue of gender transition procedures for minors.

“I’m so grateful that we are living during an administration that has courage and is doing what they said they would do, looking at all of the science but also looking at the ideology and saying, ‘How can someone suddenly claim to be … the opposite sex?’ They’re looking at it with common sense, and that’s really the heart behind this administration. … And I think we can get a lot done by just adhering to those basic principles.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: JK Rowling compares trans activists to ‘Islamic fundamentalists’ who want to ‘hang’ women

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Top 4 Takeaways from RFK Jr.’s Confirmation Hearings

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

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced two U.S. Senate Finance Committee this week, in a pair of hearings whether or not he will be confirmed as President Donald Trump’s Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In order to proceed to a full Senate confirmation vote, Kennedy needs the support of a majority of both the 25-member Finance Committee, which grilled him on Wednesday, and the 21-member Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which had a turn on Thursday. Republicans make up a majority on each committee. In both hearings, the controversial Kennedy fielded questions on subjects ranging from abortion and vaccine injuries to fast food and spiritual warfare. Here are four highlights from Kennedy’s dual hearings.

‘Every Abortion Is a Tragedy’

Kennedy’s record on abortion is a varied one, which has given rise to concerns among some Republicans about placing the former Democrat in charge of the top health agency in the U.S. Although he identifies as a Catholic and has referred to himself as “pro-life,” his presidential campaign last year saw Kennedy tacitly endorse abortion “even if it’s full-term.” However, Kennedy adopted a firmer stance in defense of the unborn during Wednesday’s hearing.

“I agree with President Trump that every abortion is a tragedy. I agree with him that we cannot be a moral nation if we have 1.2 million abortions a year,” Kennedy insisted, in response to questions from Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.). He continued, “President Trump has told me that he wants to end late-term abortions and he wants to protect conscience exemptions and that he wants to end federal funding for abortions here or abroad. … I serve at the pleasure of the president. I’m going to implement his policies.” However, Kennedy also took Trump’s position that “the states should control abortion,” a position which has caused some dismay among conservatives.

Kennedy also shared that he intends to investigate the use of the chemical abortion drug mifepristone. “We need to understand the safety of every drug, mifepristone and every other drug,” he said. He explained, “I mean, it’s against everything we believe in in this country, that patients or doctors should not be reporting adverse events. We need to know what adverse events are.” Kennedy reported that Trump has “made it clear to me that he wants me to look at the safety issues and I’ll ask NIH [National Institutes of Health] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] to do that.”

Senator Ron Wyden (R-Ore.) challenged Kennedy’s allegation that mifepristone is harmful, arguing that studying the drug’s effects is a political ploy. “The science was clear then, it’s even clearer today. Mifepristone is safe,” he claimed. Wyden continued, “The only reason it’s under question in 2025 is because people with a political agenda have been out lying about it.”

During Thursday’s hearing, Kennedy further committed to ending federal funding for all research that uses the tissue or body parts of aborted babies. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) asked Kennedy if he would “commit to protecting stem cell research for scientific agencies if confirmed.” The HHS nominee responded that he would, observing that stem cell research does not need to be conducted using the tissue of unborn children. “Stem cell research today can be done on umbilical cords and you don’t need fetal tissue,” he observed.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) then asked Kennedy, “will you reinstate President Trump’s policy that ensures that no federal research and no federal tax dollars is conducted on fetal tissue taken from elective abortions?” Kennedy very simply replied, “Yes.”

Scientific Scrutiny or Conspiracy Theorizing?

Kennedy also rebuffed claims that he is an “anti-vaccine” conspiracy theorist. Since the mid 2000s, Kennedy has been an outspoken advocate of more thorough and rigorous testing for vaccines, claiming that vaccines are not currently being properly tested, resulting in numerous side effects and injuries, including autism, food allergies, and even cancer.

On Wednesday, Kennedy was questioned over his comments on vaccines. One such question focused on the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa, particularly allegations that Kennedy’s vocal vaccine skepticism contributed to the spread of the disease. “Let me explain what happened in Samoa,” he remarked. “In Samoa, in 2017 or 2015, there were two kids who died following the MMR vaccine. And the vaccination rates in Samoa dropped precipitously from about 63% to the mid 30s, so they’ve never been very high.”

Two more children died in 2018, Kennedy said, with their deaths linked to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. “I arrived a year later when vaccination rates were already below any previous level. I went there, nothing to do with vaccines,” he reported. He continued, “I never gave any public statement about vaccines, you cannot find a single Samoan who will say ‘I didn’t get vaccinated because of Bobby Kennedy.’ I went in June of 2019, the measles outbreak started in August.”

Wyden accused Kennedy, “The receipts show that Mr. Kennedy has embraced conspiracy theories, quacks, and charlatans, especially when it comes to the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He’s made it his life’s work to sow doubt and discourage parents from getting their kids life-saving vaccines.” He asked, “Are you lying to Congress today when you say you are pro-vaccine?” Kennedy responded, “I support the measles vaccine. I support the polio vaccine. I will do nothing as HHS secretary that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking anything.”

He also faced accusations from Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) of “peddling half-truths, peddling false statements.” For example, Bennet accused Kennedy of spreading “conspiracy theories” surrounding the origins of various illnesses. “Did you say Lyme disease is a highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon?” the senator asked. Kennedy replied. “I probably did say that.”

In a separate exchange, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Kennedy three times to commit to not suing vaccine manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has served as both the chairman of and legal counsel to Children’s Health Defense for years and has been responsible for bringing numerous lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. In response to Warren’s demands, Kennedy said, “I’m not going to agree to not sue drug companies or anybody.”

The HHS nominee began Thursday’s hearing by heading off concerns over his views on vaccines. “I want to make sure this committee is clear about a few things,” he said in his opening statement, repeating a caveat he issued Wednesday. He explained, “News reports and many in [Wednesday’s] hearing have claimed that I’m anti-vaccine and anti-industry. Well, I’m neither. I’m pro-safety. I’m pro-good science.” He later said that if he were presented with data proving his claims regarding vaccines wrong, he would actually apologize for his statements. “I will never stick on a point if someone shows me data that I am wrong,” he said.

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), however, sided with Kennedy on vaccine skepticism. “I’ve had my first granddaughter — here in a couple weeks — and my son and his wife have done their research about vaccines and she’s not going to be a pin cushion. We’re not going to allow that to happen,” he stated. He added that scientists need to thoroughly examine the safety of vaccines, saying, “Let’s not just do something for the pharmaceutical companies.”

Kennedy also lambasted senators for accepting campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies during Thursday’s hearing. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pressed Kennedy to commit to a universal health care coverage system, pointing out the seeming corruption that exists in many health insurance companies and the federal agencies that oversee them. Kennedy responded, “The problem of corruption is not just in the federal agencies. It’s in Congress too. Almost all the members of this panel are accepting — including yourself — are accepting millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry and protecting their interests.”

Sanders claimed, “Not one nickel of PAC money from the pharmaceutical industry. They came from workers.” Nonetheless, Kennedy noted, “In 2020, you were the single largest receiver of pharmaceutical money.” He said that Sanders had accepted $1.5 million in campaign funding from drug manufacturers, to which Sanders responded, “Yeah, out of $200 million.”

Make America Healthy Again

While Trump campaigned on the promise to “make America great again,” Kennedy pledged, after endorsing Trump, to “make America healthy again.” He reiterated that pledge during Wednesday’s hearing. “President Trump has asked me: end [the] chronic disease epidemic and make America healthy again,” Kennedy declared. “Trump has asked me, because I’m in a unique position to end that, and that is what I’m doing,” he added. He continued, “And if we don’t solve that problem … all of the other disputes we have about who’s paying and whether it’s insurance companies, whether it’s providers, whether it’s HMOs, whether it’s patients or families, all of those are moving deck chairs around on the Titanic,” Kennedy quipped. “Our ship is sinking.”

Kennedy observed that COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. accounted for 16% of COVID-19-related deaths globally, even though the U.S. accounts for less than 5% of the world’s population. “We had a higher death count than any country in the world. And when CDC was asked why, they said it’s because Americans are the sickest people on Earth. The average person who died from COVID, American, had 3.8 chronic diseases,” Kennedy stated. He continued, “And it is a priority for President Trump, and that’s why he asked me to run the agency, and if I’m privileged to be confirmed, that’s exactly what I’ll do.”

According to Kennedy, chemical food additives are a chief factor in America’s chronic disease epidemic. “Kellogg’s makes Fruit Loops for the United States alone that is loaded with red dye, blue dye, yellow dye, and many, many other ingredients,” Kennedy said Thursday. He noted, “They make the same product for Canada — it’s all vegetable dyes.”

Loose Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations aren’t the only way that dangerous chemical additives get into American, food, though, Kennedy continued. He also observed that chemical pesticides and livestock hormone treatments mandated on American farms contribute to chronic disease. “We are losing farmers today. We can’t afford to lose a single farmer. On my watch, I do not want to lose a single farmer. We have to offer farmers an off-ramp from chemically intensive agriculture, which they don’t want to do,” Kennedy stated. He added, “There’s illness all over the farm community, and it’s undoubtedly related to the intensity of chemical pesticides.”

However, Trump’s pick to lead the HHS insisted that he doesn’t want to indiscriminately ban foods. In addition to removing harmful chemical additives from most foods, Kennedy said that simply being made aware of the health impacts of certain foods is also crucial. “I don’t want to take food away from anybody. If you like a McDonald’s cheeseburger or Diet Coke — which my boss loves — you should be able to get them,” he said, referring to Trump’s well-known love of McDonald’s. He continued, “If you want to eat Hostess Twinkies you should be able to do that, but you should know what the impacts are on your family and on your health.”

‘A Divine Purpose’

In his opening statement Wednesday, Kennedy declared, “The first thing I’ve done every morning for the past 20 years is to get on my knees and pray to God that He would put me in a position to end the chronic disease epidemic and help America’s children.” A self-professed Catholic and the nephew of the nation’s first Catholic president, Kennedy acknowledged that what is done with the body impacts the soul. “This is not just an economic issue, it’s not just a national security issue, it is a spiritual issue and it is a moral issue,” he said of ending chronic disease in the U.S. He continued, “We cannot live up to our role as an exemplary nation, as a moral authority around the world, when we’re writing off an entire generation of kids” and subjecting them to chronic diseases in a way that no previous generation has suffered.

Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) told Kennedy Wednesday, “I believe for such a time as this, that you’re not just one of 300 million people, I think that you are the person to lead HHS to make America healthy again, that God has a divine purpose for you.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Young Voters Support Limits on Abortion: Poll

Past, Present, Future: America’s Sea Change on Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 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.

Congressional Report Finds (Nearly) Every COVID-19 ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Was True

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

The most thorough report ever released on America’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has concluded that virtually everything that would have gotten you banned from social media for spreading “misinformation” was true.

After a two-year investigation, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released its 520-page report titled “After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward” this week. The report finds the COVID-19 virus likely originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where it may have been manufactured as a chimera. Lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing, and vaccine mandates were not based on sound science and did more harm than good. Natural immunity exists for COVID-19, as it does for other viruses. And President Donald Trump’s “racist” travel bans likely saved lives.

Expressing any of these would have been enough to get one banned from social media. Twitter infamously set up a portal for government agents to flag “misinformation” and target posts or whole accounts for shadow bans, censorship, or removal. Meta boasted that, since December 2020, “following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO),” the company had “removed false claims about COVID-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts” from Facebook and Instagram. In February, it broadened its list of verboten ideas “to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines,” such as “COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured,” and “Vaccines are not effective at preventing the disease.”

The new report debunks this “debunking.”

1. The COVID-19 virus was probably man-made and originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

From the outset, public health officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci presented the novel coronavirus outbreak as the result of a “zoonotic spillover” — that the virus transferred from an animal to humans, probably a bat purchased at a wet market and eaten. Yet the balance of the evidence shows that “SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that Causes COVID-19, Likely Emerged Because of a Laboratory or Research Related Accident,” says the new report.

“The U.S. National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” wrote Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) in his introduction.

In 2018, EcoHealth applied for a federal grant to fund a new project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology which “sought to do what nature had not been ever known to do — insert a furin cleavage site into a SARS2 virus,” states the report. “EcoHealth and its WIV partners stated their intent to create a SARS-like virus with a furin cleavage site, which is the exact same feature that made humans susceptible to COVID-19 infection.”

Rather than come clean about this federal funding, “Dr. Anthony Fauci Played Semantics with the Definition of Gain-of-Function Research,” the report concludes.

“The WIV has a published record of conducting ‘gain-of-function’ research to engineer chimeric viruses,” noted a State Department fact sheet released in January 2021. “The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19.”

Further, “key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing,” such as infected animals. Dr. Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at MIT and Harvard, wrote in The New York Times that “the outbreak at the Wuhan market probably happened after the virus had already been circulating in humans.”

Dr. Robert Redfield, the Biden administration’s director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), testified before Congress last March 8, “COVID-19 infections more likely were the result of an accidental lab leak than the result of a natural spillover event.” Weeks earlier, the FBI and the Department of Energy expressed their support for the lab leak theory, with varying degrees of confidence. Even legacy media fact-checker Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, who originally claimed that “it is virtually impossible for this virus [to] jump from the lab,” later acknowledged that the lab leak theory was “credible.”

2. Social distancing of six feet had no science to back it up.

The rule that Americans keep “social distancing” of six feet between one another to prevent COVID transmission became one of the most consequential events of the pandemic. Businesses deemed worthy of being open had to limit how many customers they could serve, and schools had to rearrange rooms or resort to virtual learning to comply with the new guidelines.

The report states bluntly, “There Was No Quantitative Scientific Support for Six Feet of Social Distancing.” Yet the report merely repeats what the guidelines’ authors have already admitted.

Last January 9, Dr. Anthony Fauci said “I don’t recall” where the six-feet guideline came from. “It sort of just appeared” from the ether. “I was not aware of studies” that justified the social distancing decision, said Fauci. The rule amounted to “just an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data or even data that could be accomplished.” Two days later, Dr. Francis Collins testified, “I did not see evidence” to support the six-foot rule. This June 3, Fauci admitted that “there wasn’t a controlled trial … there wasn’t that scientific evaluation of” the rule.

In short, says the report, “There were no scientific trials or studies conducted before this policy was implemented, there appeared to be no pushback or internal discussion amongst the highest level of leadership, and more importantly there appears to be no acceptance of responsibility. That is an unacceptable answer from public health leadership.”

3. Masks do not effectively stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus — and masking children did more harm than good.

The most ubiquitous symbol of the COVID era was the paper face mask. The masks, required by public venues and many businesses, supposedly protected their users against transmission of the novel coronavirus. YouTube actually suspended Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a doctor, for posting a video quoting studies saying that masks do not work.

The suspension seemed odd, as the government itself ultimately performed a triple Lutz on the efficacy of face masks. “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” tweeted then-Surgeon General Jerome Adams on leap day, February 29, 2020. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” The CDC and WHO issued guidelines in March 2020 encouraging mask-wearing only for those who were ill or caring for someone who was. But a month later, in April 2020, the CDC issued a guidance recommending people wear masks around others and “went as far as posting a video teaching the public how to make masks with a T-shirt and rubber bands.”

During his first two days in office, President Joe Biden signed executive orders making the wearing of masks compulsory for federal workers and contractors, and then on airplanes and other public transportation. Biden administration officials offered contradictory statistics, telling the public wearing masks made them anywhere from 350% to 56% less likely to get COVID. As this author wrote at The Daily Wire, the Biden administration relied on flawed studies, one of which “found that cloth masks could reduce transmission — or make the wearer 17% more likely to test positive than someone wearing no mask.” Most studies showed no correlation between COVID-19 outbreaks in schools and masking.

The new report verifies what Paul and science have long known: “Masks and Mask Mandates Were Ineffective at Controlling the Spread of COVID-19,” and “Forcibly Masking Young Children, Ages Two and Older, Caused More Harm than Good.”

The report cites the U.K.-based Cochrane Collaboration, whose research “did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks” and that “[t]here were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.” Numerous studies over many years had come to the same conclusion. In 2015, the BMJ publication discovered cloth masks offered “almost 0%” filtration of viruses. In fact, “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.” One team of researchers found “significant levels of pollutants” in all face masks, questioning whether paper face masks are “safe to be used on a daily basis and what consequences are to be expected after their disposal into the environment.”

“Ignoring the science and facts of COVID-19 and the harms of masking young children was profoundly immoral on behalf of the leadership of the country’s public health officials,” states the House report.

The Biden administration began to walk back mask mandates and directives in 2021 and 2022. “The science has changed,” Dr. Leana Wen (formerly the president of Planned Parenthood), told CNN in February 2022. Yet the science had always shown masks do a poor job of preventing the transmission of viruses.

The results bear this out. “The trajectories of the rate of COVID-19 infections for states with mask mandates and states without is virtually identical,” the report notes.

4. Science did not support COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which needlessly hurt Americans and the U.S. military.

On August 24, 2021 — one day after FDA approval of the Pfizer COVID injection — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced a vaccine mandate for members of the U.S. armed forces. In November, the Biden administration extended the vaccine mandate to all federal workers, health care workers who worked in a facility accepting federal Medicare or Medicaid funds, and Head Start contractors or volunteers. OSHA issued a federal vaccine mandate for all employers with 100 employees or more.

“The COVID19 vaccine mandates caused people to lose their livelihoods, hollowed out our healthcare and education workforces, reduced our military readiness and recruitment, caused vaccine hesitancy, reduced trust in public health, trampled individual freedoms, deepened political divisions, and interfered in the patient-physician relationship,” says the report.

In all, more than 8,000 soldiers left — or were fired from — the military for refusing to take the then-experimental COVID-19 jab. “However, more than 17,500 troops’ religious exemptions were still being adjudicated just prior to the rescission of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate,” states the report.

Gil Cisneros, Biden’s undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, defended the great military vaccine purge as “appropriate disciplinary action” necessary “to maintain good order and discipline,” which affected only a “small fraction” of service members. “Congressman, I would say we are as strong as ever” as a result of the mass firing, Cisneros told then-Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).

The report finds it no coincidence that, in 2022, the military missed its recruitment goals by 25%, or 15,000 soldiers. “Vaccine Mandates Were Not Supported by Science and Caused More Harm than Good,” the report concludes.

5. Natural immunity applies to COVID-19, like any other virus.

Yet the Biden-Harris administration attempted to coerce Americans into getting the COVID-19 shot, in part, by denying or dismissing a scientific fact that applies to every other virus in existence: natural immunity. Once someone has gotten a viral infection, that person develops antibodies that lower the risk of reinfection. “Public Health Officials Disregarded Natural Immunity, Despite Its Proven Effectiveness and Durability,” says the report.

As this author reported at The Washington Stand, Biden administration officials formally denied the efficacy of natural immunity, under oath. “There’s no good evidence, and the research is still going on as to how we need to progress with this,” Cisneros testified to Congress last February 28. “But as for right now, natural immunity is not something we believe in for this, and so we are still moving forward” with vaccine mandates.

6. COVID-era lockdowns had no scientific grounding and irreparably harmed Americans.

If face masks were the most prominent sight of the COVID era, its most infamous words were uttered on March 16, 2020: “15 days to slow the spread.” The government ordered Americans to “shelter in place” and not have unnecessary physical contact with anyone else. Church members were often ordered not to meet in person or saw their attendance severely limited. Schools closed down. Businesses not deemed “essential” closed, many permanently. Relatives died without their loved ones at their side.

Ronald Reagan once said, a government program “is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” The “15 day” program proved no exception. Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, admitted, “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it.” In some areas, restricted capacity endured for more than a year.

The report notes that “Unscientific COVID-19 Lockdowns Caused More Harm Than Good.” The lockdowns were unnecessary and extracted a demanding mental and physical toll on Americans. Lockdowns ignored the fact that the virus proved most deadly to the elderly and vulnerable populations with comorbidities. By August 2020, the CDC knew that 40% of Americans were struggling with mental health issues. A study in Nature released this March found mental health disorders surged by 22% from 2019 to 2020. Another study found an extra 212 young people committed suicide in 2020, and the CDC found adolescent overdoses more than doubled during the lockdown period.

Adults also died at higher rates from non-COVID diseases. “One analysis done using CDC data found that non-COVID-19 excess deaths totaled nearly 100,000 per year in 2020 and 2021,” the report states.

Further, “Long Term School Closures Were Not Supported by Available Science and Evidence,” notes the report. Instead, the Biden administration invited a teachers’ union, the American Federation of Teachers led by Randi Weingarten, to shape the federal school closure guidelines. The AFT’s “School Closures Significantly Contributed to Increased Instances of Mental and Behavioral Health Issues” and “Made an Already Alarming Trend in Declining Physical Health Worse,” states the report.

“The American people could have been better served by policies which focused on protecting the most vulnerable while prioritizing productivity and normalcy for the less vulnerable,” the report concludes.

COVID-19 had one additional casualty: American liberty. “The Constitution cannot be suspended in times of crisis and restrictions on freedoms sow distrust in public health,” wrote Wenstrup.

7. President Trump’s ‘racist’ China travel ban likely saved lives.

When President Donald Trump learned of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, he promptly paused all inbound flights to the United States from China. Although the legacy media regarded this as a “racist” undertaking, President Trump’s travel restrictions against China — and Europe — delayed the spread, the report finds.

“With four years of hindsight, it is clear the international travel restrictions early in the pandemic delayed spread of the virus but did not prevent COVID-19 from entering the U.S. By the time the European travel ban was enacted in March 2020, it is now known that the virus had already spread significantly within the U.S. due to earlier untracked travel from Europe,” the report notes. “One study estimated that the U.S. travel bans helped to prevent approximately 77,000 cases of COVID-19 in the first month of their implementation. This study concluded that, while the travel restrictions did not entirely stop the virus from entering the U.S., they were effective in slowing the rate of transmission, giving the U.S. healthcare system more time to prepare and respond to the pandemic.”

Critics Say the Report Is Incomplete

Critics welcomed the report’s openness but felt it did not go far enough to address the adverse impact of the COVID-19 shot and suppression of basic civil liberties. “Forgive my cynicism,” Dr. Robert Malone, chief medical and regulatory officer for The Unity Project, told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on Tuesday. “I don’t see the federal government at this point in time taking these suggestions in and acting appropriately to respond to them. This should be a very active [case of] ‘lessons learned’ on their openness and transparency. We’re not seeing that.”

Dr. Malone noted the report’s odd “juxtaposition of endorsement of Operation Warp Speed, followed by a resounding lack of endorsement of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.” He found the disconnect “perplexing” or an example of “the usual D.C. process of speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins agreed transparency over public health measures is “something I think we need to stay on” in the second Trump administration.

Dr. Malone is “right to be cynical, because government rarely learns its lessons,” Perkins concluded.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

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

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

Truth Breeds Trust, Deceit Breeds Destruction

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

Americans’ trust in mass media has stumbled to 31%, the lowest measurement since Gallup first asked the question in 1972, while those with absolutely no trust in the media has climbed to 36%. Trust in the media is higher among Democrats (54%) than Republicans (12%) and among senior citizens (43%) than those aged 18-29 (26%), but the media is now the least trusted of all civic and political institutions included in the survey.

How could this happen? If you’re reading The Washington Stand, you likely already know. Mass media, as an institution, lost Americans’ trust by behaving less like the neutral arbiters of objective information they claimed to be and more like partisan organs dedicated to getting candidates who shared their ideology elected.

In other words, they lied — or at least significantly misrepresented themselves. If the media were open about their biases and allowed consumers to reach they own conclusions, they might enjoy greater public trust than they do today.

In fact, the media’s problem with accurate reporting was “highlighted this week,” noted Family Research Council Action President Jody Hice on “Washington Watch,” in a “CBS news interview with [Vice President] Kamala Harris and … an interview with [House] Speaker [Mike] Johnson.” On one hand, CBS News faced accusations of selectively editing Harris’ answers, as well as giving her multiple chances to respond to the same question when her first attempt was unsatisfactory. On the other hand, Johnson accused CBS News of selectively cutting out the most persuasive parts of his interview.

While the media may be the worst offender, Americans’ distrust of institutions is not confined to the evening paper. “Trust in our institutions is eroding” more broadly, warned David Closson, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Biblical Worldview, “whether it’s the courts, whether it’s our school system, even the military.”

“Why is that?” Closson asked. “It’s because of decisions that our leaders have made.”

“Thinking of the military,” he continued, “why are recruitment levels so low? Well, think of the woke ideology that’s been introduced into our service branches.” The military is not supposed to be a partisan or ideological entity. Yet servicemembers were subjected to critical race theory trainings, celebration of transgenderism, and DEI performance objectives. Not only was the military drifting away from its critical mission, it was also becoming unmoored from objective reality and truth.

Or, “think about the thousands of service members that were discharged because they didn’t want to get the COVID-19 shot,” Closson added. In fact, public officials in many arenas squandered trust profligately during the COVID pandemic. “Think of all of us that were told to wear masks, and how none of that was actually based on science,” recalled Closson.

Indeed, the brazen lies and arbitrary orders issuing from public institutions during COVID created a “run” on public trust that went beyond just the issues at hand. Backed by the media and powerful government agencies, public health officials demanded that citizens comply with draconian mandates, including stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, vaccine passports, and social distancing farces. These officials traded on their scientific reputation as public health experts, when in fact few to none of the recommendations they issued were based on science.

As a result, Americans jaded by their COVID-era interactions with government are more willing to question the government on unrelated points. If public health officials were willing to lie about the efficacy of the COVID jabs, for example, then why should they be trusted on the rest of the recommended vaccine regimen? This, combined with a wide-open southern border — another example of gaslighting — has led to the resurgence of diseases once on the verge of eradication. Drug companies are now paying for advertisements that aren’t selling new products, but which are simply begging Americans not to turn their backs on longstanding vaccine recommendations. Building trust takes much longer than destroying it.

The collapse of public trust in America holds lessons for Christians to take to heart. “As Christians, we believe in an objective order, right and wrong,” concluded Closson. “And we believe in speaking the truth in love. And, too often, people in positions of power are abusing their authority, and that is eroding trust we have. And that’s not sustainable for any society in the long term.”

Three thousand years ago, David lamented that “Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak” (Psalms 12:2). But, rather than giving in to despair, David placed his trust in the Lord. “The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6).

Because God speaks the truth, his children should also be known for their truthfulness. Paul describes how God has given the church pastors and teachers to “equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,” so that we may not be misled “by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:12, 14-15).

The goal is unity and mutual edification (Ephesians 4:16), but the means are truth and love. Truth fosters trust, but deceit leads to destruction. This holds as true for the church as it does for the society at large. So, rather than be discouraged and disillusioned by the maelstrom of brazen lies swirling through our public discourse, Christians should consider in what ways they are walking in the truth, and how that can contribute to building up the body of Christ.

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.

Trump Vows: I Will Rip Up, Throw Away WHO Pandemic Agreement

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

President Donald Trump has put the issue of world government at the forefront of the 2024 presidential race, vowing to “protect American sovereignty” and the U.S. Constitution from the designs of unelected global bureaucrats.

President Trump took aim at global governance institutions in general, and the World Health Organization (WHO) specifically, on Saturday, promising to shred and annul the WHO Pandemic Agreement unless Joe Biden submits the document to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as required for treaties.

“As we speak, Joe Biden’s minions are in Geneva, secretly negotiating to surrender more of our liberty to the World Health Organization,” President Trump told the Libertarian Party National Convention, eliciting a fulsome chorus of boos. “Drafts of the agreement show that they want to subjugate America to foreign nations, attack free speech, [and] empower the World Health Organization to redistribute American resources.”

Multiple drafts of the proposed accord show the WHO limiting national sovereignty by demanding nations follow its regulations on “routine immunization” and “social measures,” turn over 20% of all vaccines for global redistribution, and abide by the agreement’s terms even after they withdraw.

“They’re going to take our money and send it all over the world to other countries that we need for our own citizens,” in the event of a pandemic, Trump told the crowd in Washington on Saturday, warning that a pandemic “could happen again” in the United States. His comments came just days after the Department of Health and Human Services took the first steps to deny future federal grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based NGO which funded gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I will protect American sovereignty from the creeping hands of global government,” promised Trump. By contrast, the Biden administration has signaled its desire to sign the agreement, which WHO downgraded from a “legally-binding treaty” after Biden realized the U.S. Senate would never ratify the controversial document.

“I am hereby demanding that Joe Biden submit these monstrosities to the Senate as treaties,” declared Trump on Saturday. “If he does not, I will rip them up and throw them out on day one of the Trump administration.”

Opposition to the WHO pandemic treaty-turned-agreement has spread throughout America, including all 49 Republican U.S. senators, two dozen Republican governors, and 22 state attorneys general.

“The globalists are making a run over American sovereignty,” said Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) on the most recent episode of “This Week on the Hill,” hosted by Tony Perkins. “We can’t allow these global organizations to dictate to us what our policy is going to be.”

Although the body tasked with drawing up the agreement, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, failed to finalize its text before the World Health Assembly commenced its annual meeting in Geneva on Monday, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus insisted the globalists would eventually prevail. “I remain confident that you still will” complete the global power transfer and have it adopted, he told delegates Monday. “Where there is a will, there is a way.”

But the internationalists compiling the sovereignty-destroying agreement will proceed from a radically government-centered philosophy alien to the American founding, experts say. “Some of these nations come from a very different governance perspective than the United States,” one which “says it’s normal to look to the federal government to deal with these problems,” Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council — who is currently in Geneva monitoring the WHA proceedings — told guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice on “Washington Watch” Tuesday.

“Constitutionally, there are areas enumerated to the federal government under our Constitution. If they’re not, the issue in theory should be left to the states,” Weber told Hice. “We have a philosophy of government going back to our founding which depends on a self-governing, moral, and religious people. So, this really sets the stage for people in the United States to say, ‘Why should the federal government be tackling [this] issue in the first place?’”

President Trump also cited constitutionalist themes in his pitch for libertarians to endorse his candidacy at Saturday’s convention.

“I unbound the United States from globalist agreements that surrendered our sovereignty. I withdrew from the Paris Accord. I withdrew from the anti-gun U.N. Arms Treaty. And I withdrew from the corrupt and very expensive World Health Organization,” said Trump, emphasizing that any institution of global governance is “not a good thing, not a good thing.”

Trump delivered a message precision-targeted to libertarian concerns. “Marxism is an evil doctrine straight from the ashes of Hell,” said Trump. “We believe that the job of the United States military is not to wage endless regime change wars around the globe.”

“We will shut down our out-of-control federal Department of Education and give it back to the states and local governments. I will return power to the states, local governments, and to the American people. I am a believer in the Tenth Amendment,” said Trump. “I will always defend religious liberty and the right to keep and bear arms. And I will secure our elections.” Trump also pledged to put a libertarian in his cabinet and in senior posts of his administration.

“What you’re witnessing under Biden is a toxic fusion of the Marxist Left, the Deep State, the military-industrial complex, the government security and surveillance service, and their partners all merging together into a hideous perversion of the American system,” he said. “The great liberation of America begins on November 5th, 2024.”

Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle also invited Joe Biden and Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to address the convention. RFK Jr., who has said the WHO Pandemic Agreement “should be dead in the water,” delivered extended remarks to the delegates Friday afternoon. Biden demurred. Former Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy, former Congressman Ron Paul, and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) also spoke at the convention.

Trump vied for the party’s backing, quoting at length a Deroy Murdock article, “The Libertarian Case for Donald J. Trump” and encouraging delegates to nominate him — but only “if you want to win. If you want to lose, don’t do that. Keep getting your 3% every four years.”

The 3.3% of the 2016 vote, won by former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (R), actually represented an outlier for the Libertarian Party, which typically claims to 0.5%-1% of the presidential electorate.

Ultimately, the collected Libertarian Party delegates nominated Chase Oliver, an Atlanta-based activist who describes himself as “pro-police reform, pro-choice,” as well as “armed and gay.” Oliver supported COVID-19 lockdowns and mask mandates, opposed bills protecting minors from transgender injections and surgeries, and posed with a drag queen. The Georgian, who forced a run-off in the 2022 Senate race that saw Democrat Raphael Warnock defeat Republican Herschel Walker, plans to gear his campaign toward young people, “in particular those who are upset with the war going on in Gaza.”

Some hope liberty-minded voters will ignore the Libertarian Party’s official endorsement and support Trump out of prudence. Walter Block, an economics professor and prolific libertarian author, urged libertarians in swing states to vote for the 45th president this November. “In Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, we could make the difference,” wrote Block in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Tuesday.

He reminded readers that “Libertarian nominee Jo Jorgensen received roughly 50,000 votes in Arizona in 2020, when Mr. Trump lost the state by about 10,000 ballots.”

Absent a more conservative government, America may be yoked to the WHO Pandemic Agreement without Senate ratification, circumventing the democratic process. “It only breeds more public distrust when people are not able to fully share their concerns and air their grievances,” Weber told Hice. “The people of the United States need to be heard in terms of their concerns about the WHO, about the way the COVID-19 pandemic was handled, about the way their health information might be distributed or shared, or given over to some government program.”

FRC Action has created a form allowing voters to contact their senators, urging them to oppose the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

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

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

24 GOP Governors Warn Biden against ‘Unconstitutional’ WHO Pandemic Agreement

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

As President Joe Biden considers adopting a global health agreement that would turn the power of the federal government over to leaders of a world government, dozens of governors have put him on notice that they “stand united in opposition” to handing over America’s national sovereignty.

Nearly every Republican governor in the country has signed a letter asking Biden to reconsider adopting a forthcoming accord enhancing the power of the World Health Organization before, during, and after global health crises. Negotiators are working around the clock to hammer out a final version of the WHO Pandemic Agreement before the World Health Assembly meets on Monday. The current text of the accord would require nations to agree with WHO regulations on “routine immunization,” “social measures” such as lockdowns and mask mandates, and require a massive global redistribution of U.S. wealth and technical information based on “equity.” The Biden administration has signaled it will accept the agreement without congressional approval.

The proposed document would grant WHO “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people,” which “could drastically change the role of governors,” noted the 24 governors in Wednesday’s letter. “The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles.”

The agreement would grant WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus and other leaders “unilateral power to declare a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ (PHEIC) in member nations, extending beyond pandemics to include a range of perceived emergencies,” they said. The current text of the agreement states that “a range of environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic and economic factors may increase the risk of pandemics.” The latest details about the global health treaty are available in Family Research Council’s updated comprehensive explainer on the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

Enhancing global bureaucrats’ authority “would erode sovereignty” by “stripping elected representatives of their role in setting public health policies and compelling citizens to comply with WHO directives, potentially including mandates regarding medical treatments,” stated two dozen governors spanning the party’s ideological spectrum, including Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.), Glenn Youngkin (Va.), Doug Bergum (N.D.), and Chris Sununu (N.H).

The state leaders are also concerned about “a global surveillance infrastructure and requirements for member states to censor speech related to public health. Requiring Americans to share information about deadly, incurable, highly-transmissible viruses with the rest of the world may “potentially facilitat[e] the proliferation of biological weapons.”

“[P]ublic health policy is a matter reserved for the states, not the federal government, and certainly not international bodies like the WHO,” they point out. “We are committed to resisting any attempts to transfer authority to the WHO over public policy affecting our citizens or any efforts by the WHO to assert such authority over them.”

Every Republican governor in the United States signed the letter except three: Governors Mike Parson of Missouri, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Phil Scott of Vermont.

“The governors appear to be more concerned about their sovereignty than Joe Biden seems to be concerned about the sovereignty of the U.S.,” said FRC President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” Thursday. “I also think it is a precursor to one-world government.”

The governors’ letter followed a May 1 letter led by Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and signed by all 49 Republican senators branding the WHO Pandemic Agreement “unacceptable” and “dead on arrival” if it ever comes before the U.S. Senate for ratification, as required of a treaty. “Instead of addressing the WHO’s well-documented shortcomings, the treaty focuses on mandated resource and technology transfers, shredding intellectual property rights, infringing free speech, and supercharging the WHO,” noted the senators.

They called on the Biden administration to “withdraw your administration’s support for the current IHR amendments and pandemic treaty negotiations” and champion “comprehensive WHO reforms that address its persistent failures without expanding its authority.”

It also comes after 22 state attorneys general put the executive branch on notice that it cannot turn over U.S. health policy to any global governance body, because the “U.S. Constitution doesn’t vest responsibility for public health policy with the federal government,” the legal authorities pointed out in a May 8 letter. They added the present text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement “would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of public health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s ‘social credit system’).”

Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, said the rising chorus of concern could help uphold fundamental American liberties. “We hear a lot in the press and in the culture right now about protecting democracy,” Weber told Perkins. “The Constitution leaves health care to the states, [it] certainly does not put it in the hands of the federal government to be automatically put in the hands of an international body like the WHO.”

All signs show U.S. opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement growing among the American people, as well. Just over 93% of Republicans voted no on Question 8 in Georgia’s primary Tuesday, which asked, “Do you believe unelected and unaccountable international bureaucrats, like the UN-controlled World Health Organization (WHO), should have complete control over management of future pandemics in the United States and authority to regulate your healthcare and personal health choices?”

Opposition has spread globally, as well. On May 8, authorities in the U.K. announced they would not sign on to the agreement unless it no longer required them to turn over 20% of British pandemic vaccines, therapeutics, and medications to WHO for redistribution. Slovak leader Robert Fico had also opposed the accord.

FRC has set up a campaign allowing Americans to email national leaders with their opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, as well.

Signatories of the governors’ letter included Kay Ivey of Alabama, Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Sarah Sanders of Arkansas, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Brad Little of Idaho, Eric Holcomb of Indiana, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Greg Gianforte of Montana, Jim Pillen of Nebraska, Joe Lombardo of Nevada, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Jim Justice of West Virginia, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

RELATED PODCAST: Who is the WHO?

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.

Former FDA Official Cozied Up To Activists Months Before Joining Them, Emails Show

/in , , , , , , , /by

A former senior U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official hobnobbed with employees from an anti-tobacco nonprofit just months before coming on as the group’s CEO, emails show.

Kathy Crosby, who played a leading role in shaping public health policy while serving as the director of Health Communication and Education at the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, became the president and CEO of the Truth Initiative, an anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine activist organization, in August 2023.

Prior to her exit from the FDA, emails obtained by the Functional Government Initiative (FGI) and exclusively shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation show Crosby hobnobbing with Truth Initiative employees and even corresponding with the group’s then CEO about setting up a meeting. 

“The emails the Daily Caller showed us raise some serious red flags,” Michael Chamberlain, director of the nonpartisan watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust, told the DCNF.

“A federal employee is prohibited from accepting gifts, including comped tickets to conferences and galas, that are offered to her because of her status as a federal employee,” Chamberlain said. “That Ms. Crosby appears to have solicited the invitation to the gala she attended compounds the problematic nature of this episode. That she may have leveraged the event as an opportunity to seek outside employment is icing on the cake.”

Federal employees are barred both from soliciting gifts “to be given because of the employee’s official position” as well as from accepting those gifts. Additionally, they are prohibited from using their office for “private gain.” FDA employees are also barred from “seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government duties and responsibilities.”

In April 2022, the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids (CTFK) offered Crosby free tickets to its 2022 gala. Crosby was busy that year, so she declined the tickets but asked CTFK to “keep [her] in mind for next year’s event.”

Roughly a year later, Crosby responded to the same email thread and asked the CTFK if it would be “extending an invitation to any FDA colleagues to attend” the 2023 gala. Hours later, the organization offered Crosby complimentary tickets, which she then accepted, saying that she “should definitely be able to join” them this year.

Emails show that Crosby indeed attended the May 18, 2023, CTFK gala and networked with employees of the Truth Initiative while there.

Shortly after attending CTFK’s gala, Crosby emailed then-Truth Initiative president and CEO Robin Koval on May 22 to schedule a meeting so the two could “catch-up.” In the email, she also mentioned that she had already met with Howard Koh, a member of the organization’s board of directors, and other staff at the gala. Koval and Crosby ultimately agreed to meet on May 24, 2023.

“There’s a reason taxpayers are troubled by incestuous relationships between government agencies and activist groups and public health agencies are proving to be no exception,” Functional Government Initiative spokesperson Peter McGinnis said.

“These activist groups have business before the agencies—we know, for example, that [Trust Initiative] lobbies the FDA to increase fines on tobacco product manufacturers and sellers, while also spending millions to advocate for new product bans,” McGinnis continued. “It’s a coup for [Trust Initiative] to land a CEO who knows her way around the FDA, and it’s a lucrative jump for Ms. Crosby.”

On Aug. 15, 2023, Truth Initiative’s board announced its appointment of Crosby as the group’s president and CEO. Following the announcement, and while Crosby was still at the FDA, multiple Truth Initiative employees reached out via email to congratulate her.

“I just wanted to reach out and send a note to say congratulations,” one email from the group’s vice president of communications, Sarah Shank, reads. “It’s always a pleasure working with you and your team at FDA and I’m beyond thrilled to work with you in this new capacity here at Truth Initiative.”

“So excited for this next chapter with our organization,” Tina Morgan, the organization’s vice president of sponsorships, said.

Truth Initiative and Crosby didn’t respond to requests for comment.

“During Kathy Crosby’s 12 years as the Director for CTP’s Office of Health Communication and Education, she frequently communicated via email, phone calls, and in-person meetings with a wide range of stakeholders, including those from national public health organizations, industry, media, and state/local organizations,” an FDA spokesperson told the DCNF.

Crosby “immediately” notified the FDA that she was looking for a job outside the government and “recused herself from any official actions that would financially impact her future employer,” the spokesperson said, adding that Crosby’s attendance at the gala was also “reviewed and approved by FDA ethics officials” prior to the event.

In 2022, the Truth Initiative was hard at work attempting to influence policy through the FDA and other federal agencies.

According to the nonprofit’s 2022 annual report, they submitted 14 comments to federal agencies, provided “policy analyses and research” to inform FDA policymaking, urged the FDA to act against popular synthetic nicotine products, like ZYN, and recruited youth activists to submit comments to the FDA regarding its proposed rule to remove flavored cigars and menthol cigarettes from the market.

During her time at the FDA, Crosby was involved in crafting health warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements, formulating marketing restrictions for new tobacco products and shaping national policy broadly, according to her Truth Initiative biography.

Crosby spearheaded “public education and regulatory communication programs” which aided the federal government in successfully implementing the Tobacco Control Act, which regulates how tobacco products can be marketed.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SCHMAD

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Activist Group’s Leader Declines To Participate In House Hearing On Her Org’s Alleged Influence Over Biden Admin

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

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

‘Just Live Your Life’: Experts Say Biden Admin Distorting COVID Data as Scare Tactic

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

As health experts downgraded the danger of the latest COVID variant, news broke Sunday that the Biden administration hid government data from the public in 2021 showing that COVID cases among vaccinated seniors was spiking. Medical experts and lawmakers say that the Biden administration is continuing its pattern of distorting and concealing scientific evidence and data surrounding the virus for political gain and societal control.

On Wednesday, Dr. Eric Topol, a professor and executive vice president of Scripps Research, told USA Today that the latest “Pirola” COVID variant has “been downgraded from a hurricane to not even a tropical storm.” The latest data on COVID fatalities confirm Topol’s assessment, with The New York Times reporting that the number of deaths due to COVID in August stood at 600 per week, which was 4% of the 14,000 deaths that occurred weekly in August 2021.

Meanwhile, the White House appears to be ramping up COVID precautions at a time when most Americans have moved on from pandemic-era practices such as masking and social distancing. After First Lady Jill Biden contracted COVID last week, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced that President Biden would be following CDC recommendations by “masking in this 10-day period.” But Biden apparently flouted the recommendations during a ceremony at the White House on Wednesday.

Still, businesses, schools, and hospitals appear to be taking their cues on masking from former Biden administration official Dr. Anthony Fauci, as a number of them have reinstated mask mandates. On Saturday, the former White House COVID czar stated that he is “concerned that people will not abide by” likely future CDC recommendations to wear masks in public again. Although Fauci said that “the CDC does not mandate anything,” Dr. Marc Siegel, a clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center, pointed out that “the agency’s recommendations have frequently led to state, local, and business mandates.”

A major, “gold standard” study released in February on the effectiveness of masking found that “wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness … and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test.”

The seeming disconnect between government policy and scientific evidence, as well as concerns over basic civil liberties, are leading lawmakers to respond. On Thursday, Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) introduced legislation to forbid mask mandates on planes, public transit, and schools over the next 15 months.

Observers are also noting that data on masking is far from the only COVID-related scientific evidence that the Biden administration is ignoring. On Sunday, The Epoch Times reported that data compiled by the U.S. military in 2021 showing that fully vaccinated seniors were experiencing high rates of breakthrough cases of the virus was not only hidden from the public, but also from health officials within government agencies like the FDA.

“[T]hat story is really shocking,” remarked Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an epidemiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford University, on Wednesday’s edition of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” “[T]he CDC had information from an analysis of Medicare data … that the vaccine was waning efficacy in September 2021. That meant that there were a large number of seniors that were relatively unprotected by the Delta wave that was hitting the South back then in 2021. It was right around that same time the Biden administration pulled the allocation of monoclonal antibodies to the American South, claiming that they wanted to save it for later. A lot of people died as a consequence of that hidden information.”

Bhattacharya continued, “If the CDC had shared that information more broadly, then we might have been able to protect those older people during that deadly Delta wave. … And the reason [the information wasn’t shared] was very simple. They thought that if they told people, people would stop taking the vaccine. But scientific data like that are a public good. You don’t use it for propaganda purposes. You use it to tell people true things so that people can make good decisions.”

Bhattacharya went on to lament that the Biden administration has not appeared to learn any lessons from the initial response to the pandemic.

“[U]nfortunately, it just seems like we are trying to make the same mistakes again,” he observed. “I think with mask mandates, with essentially recommending boosters before we actually have high quality randomized data, ignoring the fact that the population has very broad … immunity thanks to recovery from COVID. … I think that the idea that what failed before will work now is an amazing thing to me. Science normally learns from its mistakes. … [Y]ou make a mistake and you change your hypothesis and then you test that next hypothesis. Here what we see is the opposite of that, where it seems like we’re just doomed to repeat ourselves over and over again.”

Bhattacharya further called for an official government commission to be held in order to assess America’s response to the pandemic.

“[W]hat hasn’t happened is an official inquiry, kind of like a 9/11 Commission,” he explained. “The goal isn’t to blame anybody. The goal is to learn lessons from what went wrong so we don’t do it again. I wrote something called the Norfolk Group document, along with seven other scientists where we lay out an agenda for an honest COVID commission. [We] deserve answers on vaccine efficacy and side effects, on mask efficacy, on lockdowns, lockdown harms, school closures, why immunity after COVID recovery with natural immunity was ignored. … And yet there doesn’t seem to be any official interest on the part of the Biden administration to actually conduct such an inquiry.”

As to his advice for the American public going forward, Bhattacharya was candid.

“I think for most people, just live your life,” he emphasized. “… [I]mmunity is an honest to God real thing. … [J]ust live your life and don’t worry so much. Now, if you are older or [are] vulnerable in other ways, go talk to your doctor. … But the point is that we should not be treating COVID as something around which we reorganize our entire life. We should instead be treating COVID as something that’s manageable.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Problem of Remdesivir Vs. Ivermectin solved

Keep Calm and Treat COVID as Seriously as President Biden

Democrat Blocks Senate Bill To Ban Mask Mandates Nationwide

Precedented: Tommy Tuberville Isn’t the First to Hold Up Military Promotions

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 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.

House Votes To End COVID-19 Emergency

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

The House of Representatives voted Tuesday along party lines to end the COVID-19 emergency, though the legislation is likely dead on arrival in the Senate.

All 220 voting Republicans supported the Pandemic is Over Act, ending the emergency, and all 210 voting Democrats opposed it. The White House has said that President Joe Biden will allow the public health emergency to expire in May, but that ending it via an act of Congress could eliminate pandemic-era programs like Title 42, student loan forgiveness, and a Medicaid expansion.

President Joe Biden said in September 2022 that the COVID-19 pandemic is “over,” but that “we’re still doing a lot of work on it.” The Biden administration has renewed the public health emergency twice since the president made the claim.

“This action is long overdue. This week we are voting on several bills designed to do what we all in America have known for some time, that the emergency declaration should be gone away,” Republican Florida Rep. Kat Cammack said in a floor speech. “Why would the president declare that the pandemic is over but not rescind the emergency declaration? In fact, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem more concerned with keeping the public health emergency in place rather than addressing the problems we are now being faced with.”

Despite keeping the public health emergency in place, the Biden administration has attempted to end Title 42, the Trump administration order that allows federal officials to more rapidly deport illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court temporarily ordered the Biden administration to maintain the policy, and will hear oral arguments in the full case in February.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Regime Extends “Covid National Emergency” and “Public Health Emergency” To May 11

NIH gave EcoHealth Alliance money for risky coronavirus research without proper oversight, watchdog finds

Documents Show Wuhan Lab Asked NIH Official for Information on Disinfectants; Nine Fauci Agency Grants for EcoHealth Bat Coronavirus Research

NIH Records Reveal FBI Inquiry of Wuhan Grant Records Show ‘Gain-of-Function’ Concerns about Wuhan Lab Going Back to 2016

Fauci Agency COVID Emails Detail Discussions about Wuhan Institute; Describe Gates Foundation Placement of Chinese Representatives on ‘Important International Counsels’

Rep. Murphy, House Republicans Call On Biden To End COVID Public Health Emergency

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

Political and Scientific Censorship Short-circuits the Quest for Truth

/in , , , , , , , /by

Those who seek to streamline online discourse, according to “official standards”, end up impoverishing public debate.

Over the course of the past decade, numerous regulatory authorities, both public and private, have increasingly positioned themselves as guardians of the integrity of our public sphere, standing watch over the content of information, and flagging or suppressing information deemed to be harmful, misleading, or offensive.

The zeal with which these gatekeepers defend their power over the public sphere became evident when billionaire Elon Musk promised to undo Twitter’s policy of censoring anything that contradicted leftist ideology or questioned the safety of Covid vaccines. There was an uproar, a wringing of hands, and lamentations, as “experts worried” that Twitter would collapse into a den of “far right” extremists and misinformers.

Sound and fury

Threats by the EU Commission to fine Twitter or even completely ban the app in Europe, if it did not enforce EU regulations on hate speech and misinformation, show that the hand-wringing over Twitter’s potential embrace of free speech is much more than empty rhetoric: the European Commission has declared its intention to force Twitter to revert to its old censorship policies if it does not play ball. According to Euronews,

The European Commission has warned Elon Musk that Twitter must do much more to protect users from hate speech, misinformation and other harmful content, or risk a fine and even a ban under strict new EU content moderation rules.

Thierry Breton, the EU’s commissioner for digital policy, told the billionaire Tesla CEO that the social media platform will have to significantly increase efforts to comply with the new rules, known as the Digital Services Act, set to take effect next year.

Censorship has recently occurred principally on two fronts: Covid “misinformation” and “hate speech.” Some forms of censorship are applied by agencies of the State, such as courts and police officers; others by private companies, such as Twitter, LinkedIn and Google-YouTube. The net effect is the same in both cases: an increasingly controlled and filtered public sphere, and a shrinking of liberty of discussion around a range of topics deemed too sensitive or “dangerous” to be discussed openly and freely.

Censorship, whether public or private, has proliferated in recent years:

  • First, there was Canada’s bizarre claim that people had an enforceable human right to be referred to by their preferred pronouns
  • Next, UK police were investigating citizens for using language the police deemed “offensive”
  • Then, we saw Big Tech giants, in particular Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, censoring perspectives that dissented from their version of scientific and moral orthodoxy on issues such as transgender rights, vaccine safety, effective Covid treatment protocols, and the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

Now, advocates of censorship have argued that it is all to the good that vile, hateful and discriminatory opinions, as well as every conceivable form of medical and scientific “misinformation,” are shut out of our public sphere. After all, this makes the public sphere a “safe” place for citizens to exchange information and opinions. On this view, we need to purge the public sphere of voices that are toxic, hateful, harmful, and “misleading” on issues like electoral politics, public health policies, and minority rights.

Thin ice

While there is a strong case to be made for censorship of certain forms of manifestly dangerous speech, such as exhortations to suicide or direct incitement to violence, the hand of the censor must be firmly tied behind his back, so that he cannot easily decide for everyone else what is true or false, just or unjust, “accurate” or “misleading”, innocent or offensive.

For once you hand broad, discretionary powers to someone to decide which sorts of speech are offensive, erroneous, misleading, or hate-inducing, they will start to purge the public sphere of views they happen to find ideologically, philosophically, or theologically disagreeable. And there is certainly no reason to assume that their judgement calls on what counts as true or false, innocent or toxic speech will be correct.

The fundamental mistake behind the argument for aggressive censorship policies is the notion that there is a set of Truths out there on contested political and scientific questions that are crystal clear or can be validated by the “right experts”; and that anyone who contradicts these a priori Truths must be either malicious or ignorant. If this were true, the point of public discussion would just be to clarify and unpack what the “experts” agree are the Truths of science and morality.

But there is no such set of pristine Truths that can be validated by human beings independently of a free and open discussion, especially on difficult and complex matters such as infection control, justice, climate change, and economic policy. Rather, the truth must be discovered gradually, through the vibrant back-and-forth of dialogue, debate, refutation, and counter-refutation. In short, public deliberation is fundamentally a discovery process. The truth is not known in advance, but uncovered gradually, as an array of evidence is examined and put to the test, and as rival views clash and hold each other accountable.

If we empower a censor to quash opinions that are deemed by powerful actors to be offensive, false, or misleading, we are effectively short-circuiting that discovery process. When we put our faith in a censor to keep us on the straight and narrow, we are assuming that the censor can stand above the stream of conflicting arguments, and from a position of epistemic and/or moral superiority, pick out the winning positions in advance.

We are assuming that some people are so smart, or wise, or virtuous, that they do not actually need to get their hands dirty and participate in a messy argument with their adversaries, or get their views challenged in public. We are assuming that some people are more expert and well-informed than anyone else, including other recognised experts, and may therefore decide, for everyone else, which opinions are true and which are false, which are intrinsically offensive and which are “civil,” and which are “facts” and which are “fake news.”

Needless to say, this is an extraordinarly naïve and childish illusion, that no realistic grasp of human nature and cognition could possibly support. But it is a naive and childish illusion that has been enthusiastically embraced and propagated by Big Tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn in their rules of content moderation, and it is a view that is increasingly finding its way into the political discourse and legislative programmes of Western countries that were once champions of freedom of expression.

It is imperative that the advocates of heavy-handed censorship do not win the day, because if they do, then the public sphere will become a hall of mirrors, in which the lazy, self-serving mantras of a few powerful actors bounce, virtually unchallenged, from one platform to another, while dissenting voices are consigned to the shadows and dismissed as the rantings of crazy people.

In a heavily censored public sphere, scientifically weak and morally vacuous views of the world will gain public legitimacy, not because they have earned people’s trust in an open and honest exchange of arguments, but because they have been imposed by the arbitrary will of a few powerful actors.

This article has been republished from David Thunder’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.

AUTHOR

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder

RELATED VIDEO: Lib Gets OWNED When GOP Rep. Uses Her Own Testimony Against Her In Real-Time

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