State Legislation Archives

Republicans Continue to Bolster Election Integrity Nationwide

March 20, 2025/in Courts & Law, Election Fraud, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

Following President Donald Trump’s sweeping victory in November’s presidential election, Republicans are still pursuing election integrity measures to ensure that midterm and future presidential elections are conducted fairly and squarely. Courts have handed a series of election integrity wins to the Republican National Committee (RNC) recently, including in swing states Arizona and Georgia.

The RNC filed a lawsuit last year challenging rule changes made in 2023 by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) to the state’s Election Procedures Manual. The RNC argued that the rule changes diluted safeguards preventing noncitizens from voting, placed unlawful restrictions on challenges to early voting ballots, and even violated state law. Earlier this month, an Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the RNC and ruled that Fontes failed to “substantially comply” with the state’s laws and rule-making process.

In Georgia, a federal court sided with the RNC in another election integrity lawsuit. A union representing theater workers sued Georgia state election officials and the RNC last year in an effort to expand the deadline for submitting absentee ballots by mail. The RNC skewered the union’s lawsuit, noting that the union lacks standing to sue, does not demonstrate irreparable harm, and cannot link any hypothetical harm to Georgia’s election officials or the RNC. Additionally, the RNC pointed out that once the deadline for absentee-by-mail ballots expires, Georgians can still submit absentee-in-person ballots ahead of Election Day. Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the case, citing a lack of standing on the part of the union.

In another election integrity success, Washington’s state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the RNC and state Republicans in a case concerning signature verification. In a brief filed in 2023, the RNC observed that Washington’s voting process allows voters numerous opportunities to correct mistakes such as incorrect or illegible signatures on mail-in ballots but, because errors sometimes still persist that would classify incorrectly signed mail-in ballots as invalid, a handful of left-wing organizations had sued to eliminate the state’s signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots. Washington’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled earlier this month that the state’s signature verification process is constitutional and will therefore be upheld.

Ahead of November’s historic presidential election, the RNC filed hundreds of lawsuits across the country, seeking to ensure election integrity and thwart activists’ efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the election. Victories in states including Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin resulted in noncitizens being purged from voter rolls, ballot counting being carried out instead of paused and resumed the following day, and Republican poll-watchers being returned to polling places after having been kicked out.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter said, “It’s great to see election integrity continue to gain steam. With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, there was a real possibility that complacency would set in and securing the vote would be forgotten. Fortunately, that’s not the case.” He continued, “The RNC and red states have been active on this issue, and it’s not just good policy: politically, it’s a winner as well. Voters overwhelmingly agree noncitizens should not be allowed to vote, unmonitored drop boxes are a problem, voter identification requirements are good, and we should be able to expect election results quickly.”

In addition to the RNC’s efforts, a number of Republican state officials have been working to bolster election integrity at the state and local levels. In West Virginia, for example, the Republican-led state legislature has introduced nearly 100 election integrity bills this legislative session alone, including measures designed to prevent noncitizens from illegally voting and to clear noncitizens, felons, and deceased people from voter rolls.

On April 1, voters in Wisconsin will also cast their ballots for or against a constitutional amendment legally requiring voter identification be presented when voting. While Democrats and progressive activists have long claimed that voter I.D. requirements disenfranchise voters or stifle voter turnout, a recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty shows that voter I.D. requirements actually have no adverse impact on voter turnout.

Carpenter commented, “Ultimately, the reason election integrity is so important is because it improves the legitimacy of the republic. When our election laws are fair and implemented properly, voters can trust in the results. If voters can trust the results, they can be assured the government is legitimate.” He added, “Even if their side lost, they at least know the election system did its job.” Carpenter further stated, “We all have a stake in ensuring our elections make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat. The time to make progress on election integrity is now.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

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.

South Dakota, Texas Pursue Ten Commandments Displays in Schools

January 18, 2025/in Education, Hot Topics, Immigration, News, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Family Research Council

After Louisiana became the first state to require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools, a legal battle erupted. Republican Governor Jeff Landry signed the bill in June, and after months of litigation, it can finally be enforced in certain school districts. Now South Dakota may be headed for similar court battles.

Last week, South Dakota state Senator John Carley (R) and Rep. Phil Jensen (R), introduced Senate Bill 51. It reads, “The board of a school district shall display the Ten Commandments in each classroom in each school located within the district. The display must be a poster or document that is at least eight inches by fourteen inches. The text of the Ten Commandments must be the focus of the poster or document and must be printed in large, easily readable font.”

Like the legislation in Louisiana, this proposal also requires that the Ten Commandments be accompanied by a statement explaining their historical significance, which would apply to other documents like the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence.

“We need to illustrate our history and truth,” Carley urged. “[S]ome people may want to say, ‘We don’t want to talk about these topics,’ but the Ten Commandments certainly were a part of the founding of our country.” Carley also highlighted additional benefits of posting the Ten Commandments. As he put it, “If we find kids honoring their father and mother, a lot of parents will be happy about that. If we find people are not stealing, lying, or murdering, I think our Sheriff Department and law enforcement will certainly be happy.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on the other hand, quickly criticized the legislation. They claimed it posed a risk of causing “students who don’t follow the state’s approved religious dictates to feel ostracized from their school community.” The ACLU of South Dakota argued that “the First Amendment guarantees families and faith communities — not politicians or the government — the right to instill religious beliefs in their children.” In their opinion, “Displaying the Ten Commandments in our state’s classrooms blatantly violates this promise.”

The group also claimed that “students already have the right to engage in religious exercise and expression at school under current law.” For instance, because students can “voluntarily pray, read religious literature or engage in other religious activities during recess or lunch,” the ACLU believes displaying the Ten Commandments would be a form of “religious conversion.”

On the other hand, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley (R) supports the bill. On Monday, he said in a statement, “The Ten Commandments already are displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court and other public buildings. The Ten Commandments have influenced the creation of our nation and our rule of law.” A notable trend is forming of lawmakers introducing bills that require the Ten Commandments be displayed in public schools.

Just this week, Texas Senator Phil King (R) reportedly has plans to propose a bill of this same nature. He described the Ten Commandments as the “basis for much of American history and law.” As he put it, “It played such a role in our founding and among our founders. It’s part of our legal heritage.”

During the last Texas Senate legislative session, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (R) had sought to bring the Bible back into Texas public schools. It was ultimately shut down in the Texas House. Allegedly, it is King’s intention to continue some of what Patrick started. In fact, Patrick had posted on X back in June that “Texas WOULD have been and SHOULD have been the first state in the nation to put the 10 Commandments back in our schools.” He went on to say that the House ultimately killing the bill was both “inexcusable and unacceptable.” But in response to King’s efforts to revive the bill, Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has already offered his support. As he said on X, “Let’s do it.”

Reflecting on these developments, Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon shared her excitement with The Washington Stand. “This is great to see other states attempting to include the Ten Commandments in schools,” she stated. “Regardless of your religious beliefs or lack of them,” she contended, “understanding the Law is important for any person’s educational formation.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

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.

Porn Industry Runs Ads for Harris in Wake of VP’s Appearance on Sex Podcast

October 12, 2024/in Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Queers and pedophiles, Religion, Social Issues, Socialism, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

The pornography industry often makes headlines related to human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, or social media regulations, but this time it’s in the news for running political ads. With less than a month to go before the presidential election, a coalition of pornography producers, distributors, and “performers” is running ads online, encouraging porn users to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris.

The $100,000 “Hands Off My Porn” campaign claims that former President Donald Trump will ban pornography if elected again. The claim is based on policy recommendations in The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which Trump has repeatedly disavowed. Senior Trump campaign advisor Danielle Alverez responded, “Since the Fall of 2023, President Trump’s campaign made it clear that only President Trump and the campaign, and NOT any other organization or former staff, represent policies for the second term.”

Project 2025 authors and “Trump allies” are labeled “weirdos” in the ads, which claim that Trump will imprison porn producers. Holly Randall, a porn producer and “director” involved in the ad campaign claimed that the pornography coalition has not coordinated with the Harris campaign or the Democratic Party but intends to increase their advertising budget.

Despite Randall’s protests, Family Research Council Senior Fellow Meg Kilgannon observed that the Harris campaign must at least be aware of the advertising venture. “It is now legal for outside groups to coordinate expenditures with presidential campaigns,” Kilgannon noted. She continued, “While the fact of the porn expenditures themselves is shocking, the messaging around Project 2025 and the targeting of swing states would lead one to believe that these ads are coordinated with the DNC and the Harris campaign.”

She continued, “Is this all the sitting Vice President of the United States has to offer those who use pornography — empty threats that porn will be banned if she loses? Does she hope to distract the young men in this demographic from the very real prospect that in a Harris-Walz administration they will be drafted for military service and shipped overseas to die on foreign soil?”

Kilgannon concluded, “It would be better to promise lower taxes, lower prices, and more jobs, but since Harris-Walz is not credible on those topics, it’s not surprising that the expert fearmongers at DNC would supplement their dire abortion messaging to women with porn-based ads for men.”

The ads will reportedly run in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. However, the claim that a second Trump administration would outlaw pornography may be at least partially undermined by the fact that over a third of U.S. states — including North Carolina and Georgia — have enacted age verification laws to prevent minors from accessing online porn, and pornography behemoth PornHub has outright stopped operating in many of those states.

When Utah passed age verification laws last year, PornHub’s parent company — then called MindGeek, now called Aylo — blocked access in Utah to PornHub and a number of other pornographic websites it owned. PornHub has also shut down in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. When internet users visit the site, they are now met with a message criticizing the states’ laws barring minors from accessing pornography and urging porn users to contact their state representatives to complain.

The ad campaign comes in the wake of Harris’s recent appearance on “Call Her Daddy,” a sex podcast known for its vulgar and explicit language.

Child protection and anti-trafficking advocates have observed in the past that pornography creates a heightened demand for human trafficking, including child trafficking. PornHub and its parent company even admitted in federal court last year that the companies profit from illegal sex trafficking: PornHub hosted videos from a sex trafficking pornography production company and profited from those videos. According to court documents, PornHub and Aylo either knew or should have known that the profits they were receiving were from human trafficking. There are a number of allegations that PornHub and other major pornography distributors knowingly host and profit from human trafficking and videos depicting rape, pedophilia, bestiality, and other aberrant content.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Will Christians Vote or Let America Fall?

VICTORY! Microsoft’s GitHub Finally Fights Image-Based Sexual Abuse

Legal Group Sues State Department, Seeks Records On Biden-Harris Admin’s Alleged Censorship

Top Exec Donated To Biden-Harris Campaign After Admin Cut Check To Her Chinese-Owned EV Firm, Records Show

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.

CatholicVote Exposes Harris’s Support for Funding Gender Transition Surgeries for Kids

September 20, 2024/in Culture War, Elections, Featured, Healthcare, Marxism, News, Queers and pedophiles, Religion, Social Issues, Socialism, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

A conservative Catholic advocacy group is launching an ad campaign across swing states exposing Vice President Kamala Harris’s support for taxpayer-funded mutilative gender transition procedures on children. CatholicVote began airing ads on Monday using Medicaid data to reveal that the incumbent Biden-Harris administration has been using American taxpayer dollars to fund the procedures — including mastectomies, hysterectomies, and penis amputations — on minors. The campaign’s target audience are Catholic voters and parents in swing states.

“Medicaid data shows 97 underage girls had their breasts completely removed, 14 underage girls underwent hysterectomies,” the ad airing in Pennsylvania exclaims. Billing the procedures as “taxpayer-funded experiments on kids,” the ad continues, “Sex-change operations attempting to make young boys into girls, penis amputations. Sound weird? Disgusting? It is. And you’re paying for it. Kamala Harris supports these taxpayer-funded sex change operations. A vote for Harris [is] a vote for medical experiments on kids.”

Tommy Valentine, director of CatholicVote’s Catholic Accountability Project, told The Washington Stand, “We thought it was about time someone exposed the graphic details of what transgender surgeries really do to children. These ‘surgeries’ are really just mutilations. They’re irreversible and life-changing.” He added, “People should be uncomfortable with the ad because they are paying for these surgeries with their tax dollars. If Kamala Harris gets elected, these numbers are going to skyrocket, and thousands of children will be left devastated.”

“Thousands of trans surgeries are happening — on kids — across the country. Double mastectomies on young girls. Hysterectomies. Amputation of boys’ genitalia. Full skin grafts to forehead, chin, underarms, genitals, hands, and feet,” CatholicVote President Brian Burch explained. “The Biden-Harris administration is using your tax dollars today to pay for them. And Kamala Harris wants to expand these medical experiments on kids. … This ad is hard to watch for a reason. Because the truth is sickening. America’s children are being carved up and sterilized.”

According to CatholicVote’s ads, 35 underage girls in Michigan were subjected to double mastectomies and seven to hysterectomies, as part of gender transition procedures. In Wisconsin, 86 girls were subjected to double mastectomies and 12 to hysterectomies. CatholicVote is airing an ad in Spanish in Nevada, to reach Hispanic-American Catholics. In the Silver State, 18 underage girls were subjected to double mastectomies and three to hysterectomies. “The number of trans mutilations on kids is already shockingly high. If Kamala Harris wins, how many more children’s bodies will she help destroy?” Burch asked. “None — if we stop her.”

The Biden-Harris administration has long been among the top promoters of gender transition procedures, including for minors. Harris’s recently-announced policies for a potential presidency include continuing and even ramping up that promotion of transgenderism and related surgeries. In addition to adjusting civil rights legislation to protect “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” likely forcing American Christians to violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs in order to avoid breaking the law, Harris also suggests scrapping state legislation like Ohio’s Saving Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act, which bars targeting children for gender transition procedures, including puberty blockers and hormone drugs. In 2019, Harris endorsed using taxpayer dollars to perform gender transition procedures on federal prisoners and detained illegal immigrants, a position so outrageous that mainstream media “fact-checkers” labeled it as false last week, before correcting themselves.

Commenting to TWS on CatholicVote’s ad campaign, Family Research Council Senior Fellow Meg Kilgannon said, “Vice President Harris is completely on board with the gender agenda. From her time in California government to the present, Harris has supported the most radical LGBTQ+ demands. She believes that children can be born in the wrong body and should be allowed to change their sex.” Kilgannon continued, “The danger of such beliefs being weaponized by leaders in our government is apparent. This, along with Harris’s extremist abortion advocacy, should disqualify her from consideration for Catholic voters. Thanks to CatholicVote for pointing this out in such clear terms.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Planned Parenthood Teaches 1.2 Million Schoolchildren Per Year

Christian Group Launches Campaign against Nationwide’s ‘Radical’ DEI Initiatives

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.

DMV Loophole Could Lead to Millions of Illegal Votes, Expert Warns

August 8, 2024/in Courts & Law, Election Fraud, Elections, Hot Topics, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

In the aftermath of an Arizona federal appeals court ruling last week that will allow individuals to vote without proof of citizenship, an election integrity expert is raising the alarm over the possibility of millions of illegal votes being cast due to a loophole in how individuals are registered to vote at their local DMV with the presidential election just three months away.

On Monday, Cleta Mitchell, founder of the Election Integrity Network, joined “Washington Watch” to analyze problems with verifying the citizenship of registered voters, starting with the Arizona court ruling.

“[P]oor Arizona, they’ve been trying for 20 years to be able to get documentary proof of citizenship in order to be able to register to vote in that state, literally starting in the early 2000s,” she lamented. “There is a statute in Arizona that you have to provide proof of citizenship when you register to vote. And they asked the Election Assistance Commission about a decade ago to add that to the federal form for use in Arizona, because Congress … 31 years ago passed what we call the ‘Motor Voter’ bill that requires every state to accept and use this federal form for voter registration. Arizona wanted to make sure that the form was consistent with its state law requiring documentary proof of citizenship.”

“However,” Mitchell continued, “the Supreme Court of the United States said that the Election Assistance Commission didn’t have the authority to do that because Congress didn’t put it in the language of the statute. So what the Supreme Court ordered as a remedy 11 years ago was for Arizona to be able to have two separate voter rolls. If you want to vote in state elections, you have to provide documentary proof of citizenship. But if you don’t have documentary proof of citizenship, guess what? You can register to vote on the federal only list, which means if you don’t prove citizenship, you can get a ballot for president, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House.”

Despite the appeals court setback, Mitchell expressed hope that the Arizona legislature will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court due to gravity of the situation. “I hope that they’ll move for emergency consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. And I wish that the Trump campaign would also weigh in, and a lot of people would weigh in and ask the court to keep Arizona from sending ballots to people who are not confirmed to be U.S. citizens. If you want to pick the number one thing I’m worried about for 2024, that’s it. And it’s not just in Arizona. It’s everywhere.”

In response to Democratic lawmakers who say that illegal voting is “not happening,” Mitchell detailed how non-citizens have gained access to ballots over the last two decades.

“[W]e know that it’s an issue because we know that there are non-citizens on the voter rolls,” she pointed out. “[We] have to remember that this has happened gradually. And the laws regarding the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002 says that every state … must verify identity and residency of a voter before adding that person to the voter rolls. What’s missing from that list? Citizenship, because nobody could envision a time when we would have massive disregard of our immigration laws by the existing administration. And so what we have is this massive number of illegals coming across the border. We have laws on the books against that. They’re here illegally. But somehow we’re supposed to imagine that the same people who came across the border illegally are somehow going to say, ‘Oh, but it’s illegal for me to register and vote?’”

Mitchell further emphasized how easy it is for illegal immigrants and non-citizens to get registered to vote.

“The two things that the federal law requires is confirming identity and residency for [voter] registration,” she explained. “Well, guess what? You know how you do that under this federal law? Driver’s license number and social security number. Every state issues driver’s licenses to non-citizens [living in the U.S. legally]. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia issue driver’s licenses to illegals. So what does that verify? [It] doesn’t verify citizenship. And the Social Security Administration issues Social Security numbers to non-citizens because they are supposed to be working with work permits if they’re here illegally. … That’s where they’re going to get their driver’s licenses and ID cards … and then they are getting registered to vote. And once they get on those rolls, you have no way of knowing whether they’re voting.”

“They know,” remarked guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice. “That’s why the borders have been wide open for the last three and a half years.” “They do know,” Mitchell nodded in agreement. One recent study found that up to 2.7 million non-citizens are likely to cast illegal votes in the November elections.

Mitchell pointed to the Only Citizens Vote Coalition as a way for the public to combat illegal voter registration. “We have formed the Only Citizens Vote Coalition. … We send out a weekly newsletter. We’ve created a national working group on Only Citizens Vote that meets by Zoom every Thursday at 11 a.m. EST. It’s free. We’re trying to get people activated. We’ve created toolkits and resources, and we’re going to have a national week in September to shine a bright light on the national online Only Citizens Vote Week. … We have got to create essentially a national citizens watch at our local DMV.”

Mitchell went on to put into perspective the outsize influence that non-citizens could have in the November elections.

“[T]here is a website called Justfacts.com [which] says on a very conservative basis that 10 to 12% of those who are in this country are non-citizens, and that includes both people here legally and illegally, because we have many, many people who are here legally [student visas, work visas, permanent residents with green cards], plus all these illegals. … The Department of Homeland Security says they don’t know how many there are, but [some] estimate 22 million. If 10% of those 22 million actually register and vote … how many does it take to flip Utah, which has mainly mail-in voting? How many does it take to flip North Dakota, which doesn’t have voter registration? People just show up and vote. And how are they supposed to deal with that?”

Mitchell concluded by encouraging conservatives to get involved at the local level by serving as poll watchers and election volunteers and turning out friends and family to vote in large numbers.

“[W]e have so many people around the country who’ve worked so hard on trying to clean voter rolls,” she highlighted. “I do urge people to sign up and be a poll observer and sign up to be an election worker. … I really do believe that it is going to take all of us getting everyone we know to vote. … I think [Trump] has to win by such big margins that they can’t manipulate the outcome. [T]he closer it is, the harder it is for us to overcome the shenanigans. But number one … let’s all work hard at getting our friends and neighbors and family members to register, to vote, and to look around and basically create a national neighborhood watch. Do we see pockets of illegals registering at driver’s license agencies? Raise the stink about it in your local communities.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

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.

Gettysburg Hero: The Study of Christianity in Public School Is Not Unreasonable

July 24, 2024/in Education, Elections, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Religion, Social Issues/by Family Research Council

On June 30, 1881, a Norway, Maine newspaper called The New Religion published an address given before the Maine Congregational Conference by the president of Bowdoin College, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. He was well-known as a Civil War hero in his home state of Maine where he would serve four terms as the Republican governor. At Gettysburg, Chamberlain led his men in the defense of Little Round Top, saving the Union Army’s left flank. In his address, Chamberlain was at liberty to speak on a subject of his choosing. He chose to speak on an issue “which every public teacher and every good citizen and well-wisher ought to feel in a church…” — namely, church and school.

The issue of teaching the Bible in public school is one that has recently received much attention. On June 19, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry (R) signed HB 71 into law which requires all publicly funded schools and colleges in the state to display the Ten Commandments. The Left was apoplectic in response. On the same day the bill was signed by Landry, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that they, alongside other groups, would file a lawsuit. Just earlier this week, a federal judge blocked the bill from being enforced until November.

But is it so unreasonable to display the Ten Commandments in public schools? Is it an outrage to teach American youth about Christianity? Chamberlain thought not.

He began by arguing that the church has made America much of what it is, “the land of liberty and law — a country, which seeks, at least, through all its toils and struggles, to establish righteousness among men — which is the end of law as it is of liberty, the end of government as it is of religion.” Chamberlain saw clearly the Christian church’s important influence on the establishment and formation of the American republic. “The church has a work for society as well as for the individual.”

But in what way does the church have a work for society? Chamberlain specifically had in mind the education of America’s youth. “The church’s care for education — this, it seems to me, is one of the saving influences in our country.” He continued, “If the national character is to be founded and built upon the Christian virtues, then the Christian church must be the guardian, or at any rate, the watchful friend and guide of education. The influence of the Christian church in this way is essential to the prosperity and even to the existence of a free Christian people.”

Chamberlain then pointed to a few examples of how the church’s role in public education was playing out at the time in other countries within Christendom. He first mentions France, where the Roman Catholic nation had moved to take the schools out from the control of the church. He found it curious that this decision in freeing French schools “from religious trammels of any sort” still planned to instill “common virtues of social civil life — virtues that we are accustomed to call Christian virtues…” He observed, “It is sad, rather, to see this depth of sincerity in the isolated standpoint of the individual soul, this restless groping of the mind seeking in itself the standard of highest right and highest good. God grant them the better revelation!” And in Protestant Holland, a similar movement was happening to make education secular and religious teaching neutral.

Yet, across the channel in England, just the opposite was happening. The educational act of 1870 made it clear that the English wanted more religion in their schools. Quoting the London school board, he noted they urged teachers to “use every opportunity earnestly and sympathetically to bring these religious principles home to the minds of children.” But he would point out that England had an established church. The United States did not. If America is a nation made up of so many different races and religions and our Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress, then how could American education teach Christianity?

Chamberlain would declare, “[W]e are a Christian country. More than any people known to history, we are founded and built upon the principles of Christianity. … We have no religious tests for our citizenship or its offices, but that is not saying that we are a people without a religion, or that all beliefs and all religions and no religion stand in utter indifference in our eyes. It is only necessary to look at our statute laws, to see that it is not regarded as a hardship to be compelled to recognize and respect Christian practices and Christian virtues.”

Yet, it is this very suggestion by Chamberlain that is most dreadful in the eyes of the ACLU and like-minded groups. To them, America has no religion and never has. They see no direct correlation between Christianity and the laws and ideals of America. They think it completely unreasonable to display any portion of the Bible in American schools. Chamberlain would disagree:

“[I]t would seem not unreasonable to let the instruction in these doctrines and principles have place in our system of common education. How otherwise can we keep our foundation firm? How otherwise shall our youth become and continue upright and efficient members of a great Christian nation? How otherwise shall we go on or even hold together as a Christian nation? It seems to me it is folly and suicide to stand by idly and see our institutions undermined.

“The country was built upon strong foundations. …If people want to enjoy the immunities and advantages of this Christian land, let them at least not be allowed to undermine its foundations. If people do not want to come to a land Christianity has made so prosperous and conform to its Christian spirit, then we can do without them.”

While Chamberlain expressed that he was not arguing for a state-church or an established national religion, he was advocating for the “study of the broad truths of Christianity,” saying it “would not be unreasonable nor oppressive for the youth of a Christian country.”

So what about the church’s work for society in light of all this? Chamberlain elaborated, “The very fact that as a Christian people we cannot, as they do in England, secure such instruction by law, makes it all the more important that we secure it by influence. We do not want the church to govern the state, as organizations. But we do want society persuaded by Christian principles and the Christian spirit. This must be done then by personal and organized Christian effort. …For the church is not merely to look to its own salvation. It is the great guardian and minister of glad tidings and good among men — to the littles ones also.”

If America is to remain true to its foundations, its people must be familiar with its Christian origins. Of these origins, the church was historically independent of the state and remains so to this day. But that does not mean public schools are to be void of all mentions of our Christian roots, far from it. Movements like we see in Louisiana to incorporate teaching on our nation’s Christian foundation is a step in the right direction. America’s second president, John Adams, remarked “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People.”

The integrity of the republic depends on, as Chamberlain would say, the church “by all the influences and forces at its command to keep the foundations of our education pure, and the foundations of character and of liberty sound and sure.”

AUTHOR

Jacob Kersey

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.

The Man and the Motive: Behind Musk’s War on the ‘Woke Mind Virus’

July 24, 2024/in Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

When California enacted a school secrecy pact last week, businessman Elon Musk responded with surprising intensity. The law, which would require school personnel to lie to parents about their child’s gender identity, as The Washington Stand reported, was “the final straw” for Musk, who announced plans to relocate his businesses’ headquarters to Texas (Tesla’s headquarters relocated to Texas in 2021, but now SpaceX and X are set to follow).

Those were the facts as reported last week, but they lacked a satisfactory explanation — they didn’t seem to fit Musk’s character. The sudden declaration would be expected from a conservative culture warrior — a Pat Buchanan acolyte perhaps, or an explicitly strident investment firm like Strive Asset Management. By contrast, Musk made his fortune pioneering electric vehicles, before turning to private spaceship construction, and eventually acquiring a social media giant — not the standard portfolio for a conservative culture warrior. Beyond all that, one does not become the world’s richest man by making dramatic, seemingly impulsive business decisions without an apparent profit motive.

The facts were there, but the question remained: How does a liberal businessman from Silicon Valley transform into a culture warrior against transgender ideology?

Musk supplied the answer in an interview with Jordan Peterson published yesterday.

When asked why he is willing to make an issue of gender ideology, Musk replied, “It happened to one of my older boys.” During the COVID confusion, he explained, “I was essentially tricked into signing documents for one of my older boys, Xavier,” to obtain puberty blockers. “This is before I had any understanding of what was going on,” he added, “and I was told Xavier might commit suicide if he doesn’t.” Musk added, “It wasn’t explained to me that puberty blockers are essentially sterilization drugs.”

Musk’s oldest surviving child — one of his twins conceived through IVF — officially changed his name to a feminine one the day after turning 18. He also took his mother’s last name to avoid being associated with Musk.

“So, I lost my son, essentially,” mused Musk. “They call it ‘deadnaming’ for a reason. The reason they call it that is that your son is dead. So my son Xavier is dead, killed by the woke mind virus. … So I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that.”

Musk clearly loves his children, 11 of whom survived infancy. And it seems losing one of his children to a destructive ideology turned an otherwise neutral businessman into a combatant.

This is the story of countless parents who lack the fame, fortune, or platform of Elon Musk. “There’s lots of people in that situation now,” Peterson responded. “It’s not pretty. And lots of demolished kids.”

Ending the provision of harmful gender transition procedures to minors is a popular, commonsense position with growing momentum. The number grows daily of parents and detransitioners who experience Musk’s revulsion against these horrors and are mobilized against them. Protecting children in this way is a good, moral, and just hill to die on, although the growing support indicates stalwart defenders of this hill may not die there after all. While the 2024 Republican platform unfortunately omits this issue, it is consistent with other policy priorities and worth the fight.

While a loving father and an ally to conservative Christians on the issue of gender transition procedures to minors, readers should be under no illusion that Musk’s political journey has been accompanied by a religious conversion, nor that he is socially conservative across the board. In the same interview, Musk called himself a “cultural Christian” like Richard Dawkins. He said that “the teachings of Jesus are good and wise” and called forgiveness “essential,” but he also put caveats around the teaching of Scripture and said he is “not a particularly religious person.”

But Jesus did not allow people to think of him merely as a good and wise teacher. Jesus claimed to be God. If Jesus’s claim was true, then he must be worshiped as Lord. If it was false, then Jesus ought to be considered a liar and a charlatan, no proper source of ethical wisdom.

Essentially, Musk admires Christian teaching, but he has not received it for himself. In his personal life, Musk is unconstrained by a biblical worldview of human sexuality; he has divorced two women three times and has children by at least four different women. He remains on the outside looking in, unable to access the great benefits of Christianity, including eternal life, which are only available through faith in Jesus Christ and submission to him as Lord.

In the unlikely event that Mr. Musk ever reads this, I would urge him to continue thinking about the theme of forgiveness. In particular, I would urge him to consider his own need for forgiveness, not from any other human being, but from a holy creator God. I would urge him to reflect on his inability to earn that forgiveness, but also on the freedom with which it is offered in Christ.

In other words, I would urge Musk to believe in Christ, and I hope and pray that the only true God works to that effect in his heart. Socially conservative Christians are grateful for Musk’s aid in prosecuting a culture war against gender ideology, but we want something more for him — for his own good. We seek his eternal happiness and salvation, and we “have believed, and have come to know” (John 6:69) that such happiness and salvation can only be found through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. This is true for Musk, for every victim of gender ideology, and for every Christian too.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

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.

Expert: Louisiana’s Ten Commandments Law Is Grounded in History and the Constitution

June 26, 2024/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Religion, Social Issues/by Family Research Council

Following the recent passage of a bill in Louisiana that requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public school classroom, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other left-wing legal groups filed suit in federal court on Monday to block the measure. But legal experts say that the new Louisiana law should withstand legal challenges in light of American history and constitutional law.

The following is a transcript of “Washington Watch” guest host Jody Hice’s interview with Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. It has been edited for length and grammar.

HICE: When it comes to constitutional law and our country’s founders, it’s well documented. They had a good understanding of the Ten Commandments being the basis for our laws and our legal system. So with that backdrop, why would someone oppose public school students from gaining a better understanding and appreciation of the foundational documents that our states and our national government really relies upon when it comes to legal matters and how we stand?

STAVER: The ACLU and groups like Freedom From Religion Foundation, they have an agenda, and that is to wipe away anything that has a Judeo-Christian heritage or history. And certainly the Ten Commandments predate America. I wrote a booklet called “The Ten Commandments in American Law and Government” going through all 10 of the commandments, and I did this based on litigation, where we were defending the Ten Commandments displays all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Since 2005, when the Supreme Court issued some decisions on this issue, we’ve never lost a Ten Commandments case, whether it’s a standalone case or it’s a case in the context of other legal documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Magna Carta, and so forth.

If you go back to the Ten Commandments prior to even the founding of America, they have for thousands of years influenced law and government societies and certainly had a big influence in Europe. That influence carried over here in the United States. And that’s why when you go to the United States Supreme Court, the most prominent display of any symbol in this court, inside and outside, is the Ten Commandments, which appears around 50 times both inside and outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Amazingly, the actual official seal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — which has been infamously known to be a very activist court — that particular seal has the Ten Commandments as part of it. It is prominent all over the United States. Why? Because it is critically important and influential in American law and government.

In fact, if you go back to many of our early states and in our judiciary laws and many, many court decisions, they actually referenced the Ten Commandments, when we are referring to laws such as theft, murder, being truthful under oath, and so forth. All 10 of the Ten Commandments have been cited as bases for law, like, for example, blasphemy laws [having to do with] libel or defamation in the context of this would be referring to some of the first four of the Ten Commandments — very influential.

What we have seen, however, is back in the 1970s there was an activist Supreme Court. [Monday] we celebrate[d] the overturning of Roe v. Wade from 1973. Well, two years ago this month, the court also overturned the 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman from that liberal ’70s. And it was that decision that caused all kinds of chaos and havoc. But even under that decision of Lemon v. Kurtzman — which distorted the First Amendment, Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, and free speech clauses — even under that, we won time after time after time Ten Commandment cases. Now, with Lemon being overturned as of two years ago, the Supreme Court says we need to go back to a historical approach to the Establishment Clause. And when you do that with the Ten Commandments, that’s exactly why Louisiana took this opportunity to pass this law. They are on very good legal standing.

HICE: So you feel good with the language that they’ve put into this? As I understand, they’re referencing some U.S. Supreme Court rulings, as you just mentioned, in the language that they have. Why is this case going to be so important?

STAVER: Well, I think it’s very important because it’s one of the first cases post the overturning of Lemon v. Kurtzman in 2022 that actually addresses a religious symbol. Now, we’ve had other cases involving free speech. Our case that was part of overturning Lemon was the Shurtleff v. City of Boston, where they used Lemon to censor private Christian viewpoints. The other case was the Coach [Joe] Kennedy case. Those two combined together, they used Lemon to censor private viewpoints. But Lemon is gone, it’s over. It can no longer be cited. It was cited or referenced 7,000 times in law review articles, and now it’s history. Now we go back to a historical approach. And what the Tennessee legislature did is they actually cited cases such as the Van Orden v. Perry case that came out of Texas that upheld that standalone monument.

But even greater than that is this new sea change. We certainly remember that Roe was overturned two years ago [Monday], which was a huge change in 51 years of bad Supreme Court precedent. And now we’re focused on a historical approach to the First Amendment that is huge, not only for the Ten Commandments in public schools or the Ten Commandments in public places, but nativity scenes and other kinds of expression of religious, particularly Christian, viewpoints, whether they’re Bible clubs or churches. We have more freedom now than we had two years ago, and we need to exercise that freedom. And that’s what we’re seeing in this law. I think we will see many states follow the lead of this particular development.

HICE: We hear a lot about the “Lemon test.” Can you explain what is meant by that phrase, but also just how huge this whole reversal of Lemon is. Let’s begin with what’s meant by the Lemon test.

STAVER: Yeah, it comes from a 1971 case called Lemon v. Kurtzman. And in that case, the Supreme Court developed three tests to determine whether something violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause. And in doing so, they distorted and twisted the First Amendment. So this is the beginning of the ’70s activism. You have ’71 on Lemon. You have ’73 on abortion. You have ’77 with regard to protection for people of faith in the workplace, and that was overturned one year ago. Then you had ’78 the affirmative action admissions to colleges and universities, all from the ’70s activist court because they didn’t like faith, they didn’t like Christianity, they were pro-death. And they had a very liberal activist bent.

So Lemon v. Kurtzman was a case that was used to develop a three-part test. And that test was used to allow a lot of subjectivity. For example, a nativity scene could be constitutional if it was set up by the government, like if the city wanted to have their own nativity display, but it depended upon how many other secular symbols of the holiday were in that display. And it also depended upon how close they were. Was Santa Claus close enough to the nativity scene? Was a Christmas tree secular, or was it sacred? Was it close in proximity to the nativity scene? And sometimes you’d have to get out your measuring stick to decide whether or not this is constitutional. It is really nonsensical. So it allowed a lot of judges to wield autocratic authority based upon their own ideology, to strike down a religious display or to uphold it. I remember a situation where the Ten Commandments was literally etched on the courthouse wall in Philadelphia, and during a lower court decision which struck it down, they covered it while it was up on appeal. And thank God, the Court of Appeals reversed it. But they were going to literally chisel that off the outside of this courthouse where it had been there for decades and decades if the Court of Appeals went the wrong way. So that’s the kind of nonsense that we face now.

Thank goodness we’re looking at the First Amendment from its historical meaning and purpose. And when you look at that in context, the Ten Commandments, more than any other document through thousands of years, but certainly in America, have influenced our American law and government. We don’t have our laws that we have now absent the Ten Commandments. They clearly grew out of the Ten Commandments and were shaped by the Ten Commandments. So no wonder why it would be an appropriate display in schools as well as in public places. And that’s why we’ve seen it in so many different locations.

But they would rather keep the Ten Commandments — about not murdering, not stealing, honoring God, honoring your parents — they’d rather keep that from their view while they indoctrinate them and make people protesters and anti-American. I think this is a great move by Louisiana, and I think it will be upheld. Certainly we will file an amicus brief in support. We have lots and lots and lots of research. I was amazed when we delved into it back in the early 2000 as to how much the Ten Commandments literally have shaped our American law and government. We would not be the same country without the Ten Commandments.

HICE: I’m sure the ACLU’s argument will be you can’t be cramming your morality down the minds of these children. But this is more than that. They are cramming their immorality down the minds of our children with their LGBT ideology. But you bring up the whole historical role of the Ten Commandments and how they have played such an enormous role in the founding of our country and our legal system.

STAVER: Yeah, they really have. It is really surprising when you go into the United States Supreme Court. When you walk in up the big steps to go into the Supreme Court, every fifth symbol is the profile of Moses with the Ten Commandments. When you walk in the double doors, the Ten Commandments are etched on both double doors — a lot of times you don’t see it because the doors are open when you walk in. When you sit in the pew and you exit, the Ten Commandments are at eye level on each pew, both to the right and to the left. The Ten Commandments is the only document that actually is written inside the Supreme Court, and on the outside of the Supreme Court in the back of the building, Moses occupies the very central seat holding the Ten Commandments, with all the other lawgivers looking up to him. And that is because the Supreme Court building was created in the 1930s. But when you go through our country, to places like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is 100+ years old. And that’s why it’s there on the seal. It’s a court of law, and the shorthand of that is the Ten Commandments.

In fact, if you go on a Google search for different kinds of research and you type in “Ten Commandments of” and an ellipsis, it’ll pull up tens of thousands of documents that will say something like “the Ten Commandments of gardening,” “the Ten Commandments of building a better house,” “the Ten Commandments of fixing your roof.” Why is that? Because the Ten Commandments have been shorthand for a rule of law. So we use it in a practical sense, but we’ve used it in a government sense and in a legal sense. It literally has shaped everything about our legal and governmental system in the United States, and not just in the United States, but throughout Europe and throughout millennia of human history.

HICE: Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, I can’t thank you enough. Liberty Counsel has done so much on this issue and so many other issues as well. We all just say thank you for your leadership and the incredible work of Liberty Counsel as well.

AUTHOR

TWS Staff Report

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.

The Ten Commandments Make Wise Laws

June 4, 2024/in Courts & Law, Elections, Hot Topics, Policy, Politics, Religion, Social Issues/by Family Research Council

The Louisiana legislature has passed a bill that “requires schools that receive public money to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said on Thursday’s “Washington Watch,” and “the anti-Christian Left is convulsing.”

It isn’t hard to imagine their cry: “But what about the separation of church and state?” Posting the Ten Commandments in school classrooms “was common,” Perkins countered, “until the Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that such a display was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.” Of course, the Establishment Clause was in effect for 189 years before that, and for most of that time no one objected to the Ten Commandments in schools. Doing so does not establish any religion.

“We’re focused on the historical aspect of the Ten Commandments, which all of our laws are derived from,” bill sponsor Louisiana Rep. Dodie Horton (R) explained to Perkins. “We also included that, if a school would like to put up other historical documents like the Mayflower Compact, the Northwest Ordinance, the Bill of Rights, they’re able to do so.” In other words, displaying the Ten Commandments will teach Louisiana schoolchildren about American history and about how American law developed.

Skeptics will still ask, but why are the Ten Commandments displayed and not other religious ethical statements, like the writings of Confucius or Native American myths? One answer is America’s historical development. This great nation was not built by Confucians or Muslims, but by people informed by the Bible and the moral teachings found therein.

A second answer is that the moral principles found in the Ten Commandments are so wise that even people from other nations, religions, and cultures will recognize the wisdom they contain. “See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me,” declared Moses.

“Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

After this exhortation, Moses proceeded to recite the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5. These form the outline for the rest of the laws set forth in Deuteronomy 6-26, which simply apply these 10. The Ten Commandments, in turn, can be reduced to two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37), and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39).

Who could dispute this? Who would take issue with laws that prescribed, “You shall not murder, and you shall not commit adultery, and you shall not steal, and you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:17-20)? None of America’s problems are from people following these rules too closely. “When we look at what’s happening in our schools, we look at what is happening in our culture, and we wring our hands, and policymakers try to figure out what they’re going to do,” Perkins said, “it’s pretty simple: go back to the Ten Commandments.”

Of course, real life offers endless applications for these commandments, and people will differ on exactly when and where they apply. Some people would affirm these principles in theory but then deny obvious practical implications.

For example, some people would assent to the statement, “murder is wrong,” but also support abortion, the premeditated, unjust killing of an unborn human being. “I’ve operated on babies that were 25, 26, 27, 28 weeks gestation, and you have to give them anesthesia. They can feel everything,” said retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson on “Washington Watch” Thursday. “What about all those people who are trying to save snail darters? Now a snail darter is considerably less complex than a fetus, even at a few weeks. So, why are you trying to save the one and not the other?” Caring for animal life is arguably related to the prohibition on murder, but caring for unborn human life certainly is.

Yet this backwards reasoning is more common than might be expected. At this week’s World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, Family Research Council Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs Travis Weber reported on “Washington Watch” that national representatives were giving speeches with “references to animal health, about the rights of animals to receive relief,” but also about “reproductive health,” a “euphemistic phrase that includes abortion.” Animals’ lives are never more important than human lives.

Granted, the commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, and false testimony are less controversial in our culture than the rest. But the others provide the basis for these good and wise laws. The tenth commandment, for instance, “you shall not covet…” (Deuteronomy 5:21), is not something governments are competent to enforce, since other fallen human beings can’t know the human heart. But coveting is often the root of many wicked deeds the government should deter. For an example of how coveting can lead to murder, theft, and false testimony, see the account of Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21:1-16).

The commandment that will likely provoke the most criticism in a public school setting is the first, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Deuteronomy 5:7). But proponents could respond with a de-escalatory admission followed by a provocative question. “That’s fine, you don’t have to agree with it. We recognize the American tradition of religious freedom. In fact, the God who gave these laws invented religious freedom,” they could say. “But, I wonder, what do you believe the basis is for laws prohibiting murder, adultery, theft, and false testimony?”

According to the Ten Commandments, the ultimate reason is the character of the God who ordered the world. But for a secular humanist, who believes there is no god, and that we are the result of random evolutionary processes, then how do they square these moral principles with the evolutionary principle of the survival of the fittest? Not only do the Ten Commandments present a wiser way to live together in society, they also provide a better reason for living that way.

Therefore, “We want our children to see what God’s standard for our moral conduct is,” urged Horton. “We’re not asking the teachers to teach it, but we want our children to be able to see one — that there is a God, and that he does have a moral standard [by] which they need to conduct themselves.” Perkins agreed. “Teach them that there is truth, and we’re accountable to it.”

Perkins appealed to President George Washington’s farewell address, in which the first president declared that morality and religion were the two indispensable supports for political prosperity. If the famously cautious president would publicly endorse morality and religion — after the Establishment Clause had been enacted — surely the mere presence of the Ten Commandments, a basic statement of morality without any proselytization for any religion, should pass constitutional muster. It might even make the students a little bit wiser, if they ever stopped to heed its wisdom.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Christian Nationalism?’ Texas Legislation Would Require Ten Commandments Be Posted in Schools

Do the followers of Mohammed Believe in the Ten Commandments?

Religion is the most powerful force for good in society. Why does the media ignore it?

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.

Louisiana Blazes Trail to Classify Abortion Pill as ‘Controlled Substance’

May 29, 2024/in Courts & Law, Economy, Elections, Healthcare, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues/by Family Research Council

The abortion drug regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol is advertised by abortion giants such as Planned Parenthood as “safe” and “effective.” But researchers have unveiled evidence that proves these pills, which work together to end the life of an unborn baby, are not safe.

And yet, the use of chemical abortion is spreading. As reported in March, it took just six months for three of California’s colleges to carry out over 420 abortions with the abortion drug. In an effort to combat this increased usage of these harmful substances, states such as Louisiana have put forth legislation to criminalize obtaining mifepristone and misoprostol without a legitimate prescription.

The Louisiana state Senate and House recognized the dangers these drugs present and have chosen not to take those risks lightly. Last week, SB 276 was passed with overwhelming support in the state Senate (27-9), with a 63-29 vote in the state House. And on Friday, Governor Jeff Landry (R) officially signed the bill into law, making Louisiana the first U.S. state to enact legislation that classifies chemical abortion pills as “controlled substances.”

As The Daily Wire reported, the bill “adds both mifepristone and misoprostol to the state’s list of dangerous controlled substances and creates punishment for coerced abortions,” including potential prison time and fines up to $5,000. The law, sponsored by Senator Thomas Pressly (R-La.), will take effect October 1, 2024. “This is a huge piece of legislation,” lauded Jody Hice, former congressman and guest host Friday’s episode of “Washington Watch.”

Pressly, who celebrated the legislation being signed into law, expressed how the motivation behind the bill was personal. “[M]y sister was the victim of a horrible domestic violence attack,” he told Hice. He explained how she and her husband “were going through some marital issues,” and in the heat of their disagreements, her husband “tried to poison her seven times with [mifepristone]” by crushing it up and putting it in a drink he then gave to his pregnant wife. Catherine, Pressly’s sister, noticed what her husband was attempting to do and “was able to take the abortion reversal pill and able to save the life of my now 22-month-old niece,” the senator shared.

“Thank God,” he added, Catherine and her baby girl are “alive and doing remarkably well, considering the circumstances … during the first trimester of pregnancy.” Ultimately, Pressly emphasized, the danger of chemical abortion “was a personal issue for me.” And it’s his sister’s story he now hopes can aid in protecting “other women from having this horrible attack happen to them.”

Hice expressed how “there’s so much fear mongering from the abortion industry about this legislation.” As he emphasized, “Some tell us [mifepristone is] no more dangerous than Advil or some other similar drug.” But according to Hice, these criticisms clearly “missed the mark,” as “this is a huge problem across the board.”

“Oh, it truly is,” Pressly stated. “My goal in this is … to ensure that we are protecting life.” Additionally, the goal of the Louisiana law, as the senator described, is to allow “health care professionals to do their job and ensure that these pills are being used in a proper way that is not for elective abortion,” which Hice stated was “a great step in the right direction.”

Hice asked, “How can other states follow Louisiana’s lead on this extremely important issue?” According to Pressley, the first step in helping other states follow suit is to educate them on the dangers of chemical abortion. “[W]hen you look at the risk to the public,” Pressly pointed out, “not only to the unborn babies, but also to the mothers who could be poisoned with these pills as my sister was … it’s untenable that we don’t do more to protect women and protect the unborn in these situations.” But what it boils down to, the senator continued, is that “we’ve got to put more protections in place,” which is “exactly what we did in Louisiana. And I hope that other states will continue to follow our lead on that.”

Pressly explained how the Left will portray this law as something negative, as conservatives “not caring for women.” But the senator wanted “to be very clear” that this legislation does have both the well-being of the mother and the child in mind. He concluded, “We’re simply saying that it should be a doctor that’s making a … prescription and allowing it to move forward when it’s not for abortion. But in Louisiana, we do not allow abortion.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

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.

‘That Is Not a Religion’: DeSantis Bars Satanists from Florida School Chaplaincy Program

April 22, 2024/in Courts & Law, Education, Elections, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Religion, Science, Social Issues/by Family Research Council

The Sunshine State is now welcoming chaplains into public schools, but Satanists need not apply. On Thursday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill into law allowing chaplains to volunteer to offer counseling at public and charter schools. However, the Catholic governor warned that Satanists would not be accepted into the program, as some Christian and conservative groups had feared.

“Now some have said if you do a school chaplain program that somehow you’re going to have Satanists running around in all our schools,” DeSantis said in a press conference. “We’re not playing those games in Florida. That is not a religion. That is not qualifying to be able to participate in this. We’re going to be using common sense when it comes to this, so you don’t have to worry about that.”

The Florida Senate version of the Bill was approved in February and the House version approved early last month. The legislation’s text states, “Each school district or charter school may adopt a policy to authorize volunteer school chaplains to provide supports, services, and programs to students as assigned by the district school board or charter school governing board.” The new law requires volunteer chaplains to pass a background check and would require school administrators to publicize each volunteer chaplain’s religious affiliation and obtain parental consent before a student begins counseling.

“Any opportunity that exists for ministers or chaplains in the public sector must not discriminate based on religious affiliation,” said The Satanic Temple’s (TST) “Director of Ministry” Penemue Grigori in February. “Our ministers look forward to participating in opportunities to do good in the community, including the opportunities created by this bill, right alongside the clergy of other religions.” Ryan Jayne of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Action Fund added, “I think there is a 100% chance you see satanic chaplains, and also of course other religious minorities that the majority-Christian population might not be a fan of. The Satanic Temple is a church, whether people like it or not.”

“It is wonderful to have such a strong statement denying the legitimacy of Satanism as a religion or church from Governor DeSantis. But I worry that appeals to common sense will not hold in the most ideological school systems, even in Florida,” Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Education Studies Meg Kilgannon commented to The Washington Stand. “Regardless, this is an important step in acknowledging the role that faith plays in our lives and how important it is that the big questions students have about morality, life and death, and God’s plan for their lives are best answered by a parent or priest, pastor, or chaplain.”

DeSantis has criticized Satanism in the past, arguing that it is not a religion. In December, after military veteran and outspoken Christian Michael Cassidy toppled and beheaded a Baphomet idol erected in the Iowa state capitol building by TST, the Florida governor declared, “Satan has no place in our society and should not be recognized as a ‘religion’ by the federal government. … Good prevails over evil — that’s the American spirit.”

On its website, TST responds to the question “Do you worship Satan?” The organization states, “No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.” TST adds, “Satan is a symbol of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary authority, forever defending personal sovereignty even in the face of insurmountable odds. … Our metaphoric representation is the literary Satan best exemplified by Milton and the Romantic Satanists from Blake to Shelley to Anatole France.”

Now that it has been signed by DeSantis, Florida’s new law goes into effect on July 1.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

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.

Florida Is Now One of the Most Pro-Life States in America. Here’s How It All Could Be Undone in November.

April 6, 2024/in Culture War, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Science, Social Issues/by Family Research Council

In the same day, the Florida Supreme Court handed down two vastly different opinions with life-or-death implications for the preborn. One decision affirmed that there is no right to abortion in the Florida Constitution and the other allowed an abortion amendment to move forward — which would permit virtually unfettered access to abortion — to appear on the Florida ballot.

Until then, Florida will be among the most pro-life states in the country with robust protections for the preborn after the Florida Supreme Court’s 6-1 ruling against Planned Parenthood. On April 1, the court overrode previous abortion opinions dating back to 1989 and upheld the 15-week abortion ban. Because of this, the six-week abortion ban, which corresponds with when a preborn baby’s heart begins beating, will soon be in effect.

But in November, all of this could be undone. While this ruling was a huge win for life in Florida, it could be overridden if Floridians vote to pass the abortion ballot measure the court also approved.

On February 7, I argued before the Florida Supreme Court to reject this abortion amendment from appearing on the ballot for its violation of state law. Unfortunately, the Court ruled 4-3 to the contrary. Should the amendment appear on November’s ballot, it would enshrine abortion in the state constitution and make the Sunshine State a graveyard for the preborn with virtually no restrictions on abortion if voted on by 60% of Florida voters.

It’s important for Floridians to be aware of this extreme amendment’s broad, destructive implications, and it’s equally as important for Americans nationwide to understand that the far-reaching agenda to put abortion on state ballots does not stop with Florida. Other states, such as Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota, are also being targeted by the pro-abortion movement for abortion measures to appear on ballots in November.

Since the fall of Roe, the pro-life movement is zero-for-seven in abortion-related ballot measures, with losses in California, Michigan, Vermont, Kentucky, Montana, Kansas, and most recently, Ohio. This is partially due to the propagation of lies and fearmongering from the pro-abortion movement to sway even moderately pro-life Americans into siding with abortion.

Of particular concern in the deceptive strategy to enshrine abortion through state ballot initiatives is that the language used often conceals the sweeping scope of the initiatives.

The pro-abortion movement relies heavily on lies and gaslighting for public support because promoting what abortion truly is — the killing of preborn babies — is not a winning message. To get around this, the pro-abortion movement uses undefined, deceptive terms and euphemisms like “clump of cells,” “women’s health,” and “reproductive freedom” to mislead the masses. The use of vague language was certainly the case for the Florida amendment, and this was one of my arguments against the amendment before the court earlier this year.

In her dissent to the court’s opinion, Justice Jamie Grosshans agreed with my argument and laid out just how voters can be easily misled by the deceptive ballot summary for the abortion amendment.

“A voter may think this amendment simply returns Florida to a pre-Dobbs status quo. It does not,” she wrote. “A voter may think that a healthcare provider would be clearly defined as a licensed physician specializing in women’s health. It is not. A voter may think that viability falls within a readily apparent time frame. It does not. … And, critically, the voter may think this amendment results in settling this issue once and for all. It does not. Instead, this amendment returns abortion issues back to the courts to interpret scope, boundary, definitions, and policy, effectively removing it from the people and their elected representatives. Perhaps this is a choice that Floridians wish to make, but it should be done with clarity as to their vote’s ramifications and not based on a misleading ballot summary.”

Justice Renatha Francis reiterated the conflict of the amendment’s ambiguity in her dissent, stating that the amendment is a “Trojan horse for the elimination of any recognition of the State’s interest in protecting what Roe termed ‘potential life.’”

A Trojan horse, indeed.

What the amendment’s ballot summary doesn’t say is that the term “health care provider,” the person who could prescribe a post-viability abortion for “health” reasons, includes nearly 60 professions, including tattoo artists and massage therapists.

It leaves out the fact that every pro-life law in Florida (except potentially the parental notification requirement) would be overruled, paving the way for unrestricted abortion access.

It fails to mention that the amendment would authorize abortion for any reason at any time up to birth and endangers women by removing health and safety regulations.

It also neglects to add that the “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion” language would tie the hands of the legislature from enacting any laws to protect preborn lives or their mothers.

The reality of the abortion amendment in Florida is that it will hurt women and enshrine the “right” to kill children in the Florida Constitution. The amendments on the ballot in other states follow a similar blueprint and would steamroll existing pro-life protections.

I previously warned the Florida amendment would be a “slippery slope to infanticide” and give the “abortion industry license to murder preborn babies without restriction or regulation.” I stand by these words completely and warn Floridians not to be complicit in the pro-abortion movement’s goal to legalize and normalize the genocide of the preborn by voting for this radical amendment.

The preborn are the most vulnerable and marginalized group in the U.S., and we will continue fighting for Florida to remain one of the most pro-life states in the nation and for pro-life protections to be extended to all 50 states.

AUTHOR

Mat Staver

Mat Staver is the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Killing Cures’: Biden Price Controls Suffocate Medical Innovation

‘Being a Christian More Important than Being a Registered Democrat’: Nebraska Senator Switches Parties

RELATED PODCAST: The Soft Tyranny of Smartphones

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.

Florida Supreme Court Approves Pro-Life Law, But Sets the Stage for Abortion Showdown in November

April 3, 2024/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Elections, Featured, Healthcare, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Religion, Science, Social Issues/by Family Research Council

After being thoroughly remade by a popular Republican governor, the Supreme Court in one of the nation’s largest states has upheld a protective pro-life law which allows an even stronger protection to take effect. But the court also authorized a ballot initiative that could erase nearly all pro-life laws in America’s third most populous state.

In a near-unanimous (6-1) ruling, the Florida Supreme Court approved a bill prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks gestation. The Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act “protects babies in the womb who have beating hearts, who can move, who can taste, who can see, and who can feel pain,” said Governor Ron DeSantis (R), who appointed five of the seven sitting justices, when he signed the bill in April 2022. The ruling also paves the way for a more protective pro-life law, which extends human rights to six weeks post-gestation, to take effect next month.

“Good news for life!” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “This ruling by the Florida Supreme Court upholds the state’s 15-week protection of unborn life and allows the state’s new heartbeat law — protecting unborn babies at six weeks — to go into effect in May.”

However, a narrower, 4-3 majority allowed a coalition of abortionists and their lobbyists to put forward a measure, Proposition 4, which would insert a constitutional right to virtually unlimited, late-term abortion in the state constitution. The court also authorized a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel called the ruling the “culmination of 35 years of work.” Staver, who has argued before the court, told “Washington Watch” guest host Jody Hice that the issue began with a 1989 ruling when “the activist liberal Florida Supreme Court at that time twisted this 1980 constitutional amendment that had nothing to do with abortion, but was about the privacy of your documents, to apply to abortion.”

In the case — Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida — the majority ruled that Florida’s Supreme Court had wrongly interpreted the word “privacy” in an unrelated statute through the lens of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which has since been overturned. The 1989 Supreme Court decision “associated the language of the Privacy Clause with Roe’s understanding of privacy; but it did not justify how that concept of privacy aligned with our constitution’s text,” the court ruled Monday. The earlier court “also did not ask how Florida voters would have understood the text of the provision and how that understanding would be informed by Florida’s long history of proscribing abortion.”

The decision removes a roadblock to the Heartbeat Protection Act, signed by DeSantis last April, which protects unborn children from abortion the moment a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat, usually around six weeks. Legislators, noting the legal action over the 2022 law, included a provision in the heartbeat bill that it would not take effect until one month after justices upheld the less protective law. The Heartbeat Protection Act will take effect on May 1.

Pro-life leaders sounded notes of hope, mixed with trepidation, over the two abortion decisions. “We are pleased that Florida’s laws protecting preborn children were upheld. However, the court is allowing an extreme and detrimental ballot measure to move forward,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “Florida has made tremendous advances in protecting innocent human life and providing support for mothers. This ballot initiative would destroy Floridians’ hard work in creating a culture that supports and protects life.”

“Today’s victory for unborn children who have a heartbeat and can feel pain is in line with the views of the majority of Floridians who want to protect babies and serve mothers and families,” said SBA Pro-Life America State Policy Director Katie Daniel, in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “As Florida faces what may be its biggest ballot fight yet, Governor Ron DeSantis must be at the forefront of protecting Florida from Big Abortion’s attempt to eliminate the rights of unborn children, parents, women, and girls” and “lead in defending those protections,” Daniel told TWS.

Proposition 4

In a second ruling, justices also approved the language of a ballot initiative that would expand late-term abortion. The amendment is supported by “Floridians Protecting Freedom,” who describes itself as a coalition of “over 200 local, statewide, and national organizations” but lists just six groups, including Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the 1199 Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Proposition 4 states: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

Opponents say the language is “misleading” and unconstitutionally vague. For instance, Staver noted on “Washington Watch” that the term “healthcare provider” encompasses “about 58 different categories, which includes non-medical personnel such as a 911 operator, a massage therapist, an orthotic shoe fitter, the assistant to the orthotic shoe fitter, a tattoo artist, and the list goes on.”

The inclusion of an exception for the patient’s “health” builds on the precedent established in the 1973 Supreme Court case Doe v. Bolton, allowing an abortion for virtually any reason, including mental and financial reasons. “Really, no abortion would be prohibited through all nine months of pregnancy up to and including birth if this passes,” Staver told Hice.

In a powerful dissent, Justice Jamie Grosshans wrote:

“A voter may think this amendment simply returns Florida to a pre-Dobbs status quo. It does not. A voter may think that a healthcare provider would be clearly defined as a licensed physician specializing in women’s health. It is not. A voter may think that viability falls within a readily apparent time frame. It does not. A voter may think that the comma is an insignificant grammatical tool that would have very little interpretive purpose. It will not. And, critically, the voter may think this amendment results in settling this issue once and for all. It does not. Instead, this amendment returns abortion issues back to the courts to interpret scope, boundary, definitions, and policy, effectively removing it from the people and their elected representatives. Perhaps this is a choice that Floridians wish to make, but it should be done with clarity as to their vote’s ramifications and not based on a misleading ballot summary.”

“I presented part of the oral argument at the court, and the chief justice really got the concern nailed down. He said the voters aren’t being informed that this law can impact other existing laws that recognize the humanity of the unborn child, laws that are criminal, civil wills and trusts, guardianship laws,” Staver told Hice.

Pro-life advocates have dug in for a long fight against the amendment. “We must oppose Proposition 4. Not only will this measure bring dangerous late-term abortions back to Florida, but it will allow girls who aren’t old enough to get their ears pierced on their own get an abortion without” parental consent, said Daniel.

“In a state where 25% of abortion centers failed inspections, it’s no surprise they want to be completely unregulated to increase their profits at the expense of women, girls, and babies,” Daniel, a Tampa resident, told TWS. “Those girls and the women who have abortions will be put at risk when this measure eliminates every abortion health regulation on the books.”

Democrats seized upon the two Supreme Court rulings to tout their viability in November. Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chávez Rodríguez, believed the rulings gave the president and his party an “opening” in the increasingly Republican state. Christina Reynolds, senior vice president of communications for EMILY’s List, said although “we’ve had our heart broken before” in Florida, she hopes the ballot initiative “draws some focus to Florida that might otherwise not be there.”

All parties acknowledge it would be difficult to defeat President Trump, who lives in his 17-acre Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. And Republicans have determined not to back down from abortion as a campaign issue in 2024.

The ballot initiative will prove an uphill fight, especially as many party leaders have devoted little money to opposing the well-funded abortion industry’s expansion in a string of state elections. Staver said the “silver lining” in the Proposition 4 ruling is “we could bring another challenge to have the court rule on the personhood of the child based upon the Florida constitution itself.”

But in the meantime, pro-life advocates rejoice over the collective impact Governor DeSantis’s political and judicial decisions will have on the unborn.

“Thousands of lives will be saved by this law,” said Live Action founder Lila Rose.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida Must Vote This November Against Abortions Up to Birth

Four Pro-Life Americans Convicted of Peacefully Protesting Abortion, Face Federal Prison

Joe Biden Wants 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor in Prison for Peacefully Protesting Abortion

Nebraska Democrat Becomes Republican After Democrats Censure Him for Voting Pro-Life

POST ON X:

TRUMP: “November 5th is going to be called ‘Christian Visibility Day’, when Christians turn out in numbers that nobody's ever seen before”

pic.twitter.com/y1lCBA0742

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) April 2, 2024

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.

DeSantis Signs Bill Targeting Addictive Social Media and ‘Digital Trafficking’

March 28, 2024/in Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Science, Social Issues/by Family Research Council

The Sunshine State is moving to protect children from “addictive” social media and the “danger” of online predators. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill into law on Monday prohibiting minors under the age of 14 from opening or operating social media accounts on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others.

H.B. 3 bars children under 14 “from creating new accounts” and requires “social media platforms to terminate certain accounts and provide additional options for termination of such accounts.” The legislation also requires minors aged 14 and 15 to obtain parental consent before creating social media accounts and mandates “age verification measures for internet sites that contains [sic] obscene or ‘harmful’ content, unsuitable for minors,” such as pornographic websites.

“Documentation of the deleterious effects of social media on children abounds, and yet we still seem hesitant to place governmental authority over this powerful force. I am glad to see efforts like the one in Florida,” Family Research Council Senior Fellow Meg Kilgannon said in comments to The Washington Stand. “The need to protect children from online predators specifically is very real, but the general effort to rein in social media in favor of authentic relationships and in-person engagement is more important than ever.”

In a brief speech before signing the legislation, DeSantis said, “One of the things that I know a lot of parents have had concerns about is the role that the internet and social media play in the upbringing of young kids.” He continued, “Now, with things like social media and all this, you can have a kid in the house — safe, seemingly — and then you have predators that get right in there, into your own home. You could be doing everything right, but they know how to get and manipulate these different platforms.” Referring to his own family and his role as governor, DeSantis noted, “One of the things that informs me on issues relating to children is just being a dad of young children.”

Following DeSantis, Florida House Speaker Paul Renner (R) said, “Knowing what I know now, none of us can afford to be on the sidelines when it comes to social media, when it comes to hardcore pornography that our kids are being exposed to.” He explained, “We know from law enforcement, we know from our prosecutors, that social media is the primary platform in which children are trafficked, in which pedophiles … pretending to be children, come after our children, and that more crimes against children happen on these platforms than any other venue.”

“Our bill is focused on addiction, and when you think about it, children are not set up to handle the addiction that some of us as adults have had to face and step away from,” Renner continued. “A child in their brain development doesn’t have the ability to know that they’re being sucked in to these addictive technologies and to see the harm and step away from it.” Referring to social media as “digital trafficking,” the speaker asked, “If I said to you that a company was going to take children, use addiction that causes them harm for profit, what does that sound like? Sounds like trafficking to me.”

Florida Senator Erin Grall (R), who sponsored the Senate version of the bill, stated that social media companies “have made our parenting difficult by addicting our children.” She said that although she expects the law to be upheld if challenged in courts, “it always comes back to the parents,” who she said have “abdicated our responsibility” and allowed addictive social media platforms to serve as “babysitters.”

Grall’s original bill was vetoed earlier this month by DeSantis, who wanted stronger language protecting parental rights and addressing internet anonymity. The new law will take effect on January 1, 2025.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

POST ON X:

Failure to prosecute crime in New York (and many other US cities) allows violent criminals to assault women at will!

The governor had to call out the national guard just so people could ride the subway. https://t.co/G6cx8X0GAc

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 28, 2024

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.

Why Are Individual States Forced to Do ‘the Federal Government’s Job’ Securing the Border?

March 9, 2024/in Courts & Law, Elections, Hot Topics, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

The rate at which illegal immigrants are coming into the U.S. is already astonishing on its own. And yet, with each new headline, the circumstances become even more flabbergasting. What has many American citizens scratching their heads is the fact that many states are treating those who are in the country illegally better than those who are here legally.

The American dream used to be about working hard to accomplish great things in a great country. Regardless of your background, if you were an American citizen, you could work your way to success. But now, American citizens are getting the short end of the stick. Taxpayers work tirelessly to provide for themselves and their families only to see their hard-earned dollars fund the housing, food, education, and medical bills of illegal immigrants.

For most Americans, buying a home is a long-term goal many spend years working toward. But just recently, California proposed legislation that seems to further mock those in this country who save money to do things the right way. The legislation, The Post Millennial wrote, “would expand the zero-down, no-payment home ‘loan’ program [California] has to illegal immigrants.” Originally, this program was not offered to migrants.

In response, California State Senator Brian Dahle (R) said, “Assembly Bill 1840 is an insult to California citizens who are being left behind and priced out of homeownership.” He added, “I’m all for helping first-time homebuyers, but give priority to those who are here in our state legally.” But isn’t that the cry of many Americans as illegals take over our streets?

Some states are trying to take matters into their own hands, since the Biden administration seems intent on making the crisis worse. However, as states try to protect their communities from this invasion, their efforts are thwarted time and time again by those who seem to have little regard for this country’s laws.

Arizona, for instance, had a Republican-sponsored bill that would allow police to arrest illegal immigrants in the state. But the Arizona Border Invasion Act was vetoed by Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) who claimed “the legislation was anti-immigrant and likely unconstitutional.” She continued, “I know there’s frustration about the federal government’s failure to secure our border, but this bill is not the solution.”

But do you know, Governor Hobbs, how frustrating your actions are?

As the Arizona Senate Republican Caucus expressed in a statement: “From human smuggling to child sex trafficking, rapes, murders, drug trafficking, fentanyl overdoses, high-speed chases, subsequent deadly crashes, and other atrocities, local law enforcement personnel have reached their breaking point trying to protect the lives of our citizens from this invasion.”

And I wish I could say it was just Arizona facing these threats, but states like Texas are going through similar madness.

On Monday, the Supreme Court had temporarily blocked a law in the Lone Star State that would also allow police to arrest illegal immigrants. The Hill reported, “In an order signed by Justice Samuel Alito, the high court blocked Texas from enacting the law until March 13, giving the state until March 11 to respond to the Justice Department’s request asking to pause the law from taking place.”

It’s not surprising “the Biden administration is against” this law “because they want people to be coming into this country illegally,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said on Tuesday’s episode of “Washington Watch.” But “what effect will this have on the border crisis the Biden administration has enabled?”

Texas State Representative David Spiller (R) responded first by noting that, if the bill were to go into effect, “Texas will have the authority, as no other state does … to secure [its] own borders” by being able to “arrest and order the return of people that arrive here in [the] state, in our country illegally.” But he added that the Supreme Court decision was something he considered “reasonable” since the law will likely still be able to go into effect in a couple days.

Even so, it doesn’t alter the fact that Texas is “doing the federal government’s job to secure our border,” he pointed out. “But in the meantime, Texans will protect Texas.” Which, unfortunately, seems to be the most that can be done at the moment.

As Perkins said, we’ll have to keep “watching this closely as it makes its way through the court system.” And as this crisis continues to unfold, we’ll have to watch closely to see who the Biden administration will ultimately defend.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Mayorkas Orchestrated the Illegal Invasion

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.

Tag Archive for: State Legislation

Proposition 4