Tag Archive for: states

Texas State Board of Ed. Approves the Bible in Public School Curriculum

/in , , , , , , , /by

One vote can make an enormous difference. In Texas, it was a single vote that allowed biblical material to be included in the local public schools through the state-authored curriculum, Bluebonnet Learning (BL). On Friday, eight of 15 Texas State Board of Education members voted it through. Although it was not free from controversy, last week’s decision means the new curriculum will be available starting in the spring and likely put to use within the 2025 to 2026 school year.

Notably, the biblical material included in BL is optional. As The Texas Tribune summarized, “The curriculum was designed with a cross-disciplinary approach that uses reading and language arts lessons to advance or cement concepts in other disciplines, such as history and social studies.” Some of the specific Christian references and teachings integrated into BL is Jesus’s parable of “The Good Samaritan,” which can be found in Luke chapter 10, and the “Golden Rule,” found in Matthew 7. The Tribune noted that these parables are “about loving everyone, including your enemies.” The Golden Rule, as stated in the Bible, says, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.”

Those who voted against this curriculum included all four Democrats who are on the board, as well as three Republicans. According to The Daily Wire, several Democrats who voted against it felt concerned it would “force Christianity on public school children.” Of those Democrats, Staci Childs verbalized her belief that the curriculum will eventually find itself in court. She told NBC News, “[I]f a parent or a teacher who didn’t feel comfortable teaching this were to bring this up to a court, I believe they would be successful.” Childs also noted that, in her opinion, “these materials are [not] yet reflective of the experiences and the nuance of Texas students.”

Conversely, Republican board member Will Hickman celebrated the future of Texas public schools now that BL has been approved. “In my view,” he said, “these stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy. … [R]eligious concepts like the Good Samaritan and the Golden Rule and Moses [are ones] that all students should be exposed to.” Apart from the board members, it appears parents were also divided on the topic. However, The New York Times reported on one mother’s opinion, in which she stated that the incarnation of Jesus “is and always will be the hinge of all of history.” This mother also posed the question: “How would the canceling of such fundamental facts serve the education of our children or contribute to shape them morally?”

To add to the conversation, Joseph Backholm, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement, offered a comment to The Washington Stand. “The classroom will never be values neutral,” he said. “We’ve seen the aggressive way some classrooms have pushed the Sexual Revolution, which is essentially just a different religion. [So,] the fact that the curriculum includes biblical stories doesn’t mean its teaching Christianity, just that they aren’t pretending there is something dangerous about biblical stories anymore.”

Backholm agreed that “the history of America is largely Christian. It’s not possible to have a clear understanding of American history without understanding the role faith played in the lives and beliefs of our founders.” According to Backholm, “This is just one of the many ways that biblical knowledge is [simply] part of a basic education. If you learn American history, you’ll learn about the Bible.”

Ultimately, Backholm believes parents should “be the primary shapers and guardians of children, [but] we don’t want our fear of ‘religious instruction’ to make us afraid of giving a real education. [Because] in the American context, knowing about our history and culture requires knowledge of the Bible.”

FRC’s Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow of Education Studies, also weighed in with TWS. “The folks who are concerned about ‘teaching Christianity’ in classrooms have likely never batted an eye over mindfulness lessons or practice for children, Greek and Roman mythology, and other types of religious content in schools.”

She continued, “Biblical or overtly Christian content is too controversial for use in the classroom when viewed through the ‘lens of inclusivity.’” Agreeing with Backholm, she noted, “There is simply no way to separate America from its expressly Christian foundation, [even] though the educational industrial complex continues to try.” At the end of the day, Kilgannon said she’s “grateful for the Texas school board members who voted to support this measure. We must continue to pray for America’s schools, families, and school children. We must also support local leaders who take a stand for God and country.”

Kilgannon concluded, “Education has always been about state and local control. It’s our duty to pay attention to local matters and make sure our perspectives are heard.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

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

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

Abolishing Dept. of Education Will Be ‘Tremendous for our States’: State Education Official

/in , , , , , , , /by

Some officials wait in trepidation to find out if President-elect Donald Trump will follow through with his campaign promise to abolish the Department of Education. Some wait with glee.

In an online video posted last July, then-candidate Trump promised that, if elected, “very early in the administration” he would begin “closing up the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., and sending all education and education work and needs back to the states. We want them to run the education of our children, because they’ll do a much better job of it. You can’t do worse.”

The promise echoes back to 1980, when Ronald Reagan promised to close the department, which President Jimmy Carter opened that May. Bob Dole made the same promise in 1996. But Trump’s allies believe the 47th president will be the man to follow through. “In his first term, President Trump moved the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as so many Republican candidates had promised before him. I am hopeful that closing the Department of Education will be President Trump’s second term version of that long-term promise keeping,” Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council and a former Trump administration education official, told The Washington Stand. “Nearly every Republican candidate for president has campaigned on this. It’s time to make good on that promise.”

Officials at the state level are already planning ways they can improve the quality of education once the federal government no longer dictates the curriculum, standards, and conduct.

“When he eliminates the federal Department of Education, it is going to be tremendous for our states,” Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on Tuesday. “Literally every educational statistic has gotten worse since Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education.”

The most recent “Nation’s Report Card” — the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)’s long-term trends exam (LTT) — found that the average 13-year-old student’s math scores ranked the lowest in more than three decades. The number of high school seniors who did not read a single book for pleasure in the last year nearly quadrupled between 1976 and 2021-2022.

The United States is losing ground compared to other nations. “In 2022, there were 5 education systems with higher average reading literacy scores for 15-year-olds than the United States, 25 with higher mathematics literacy scores, and 9 with higher science literacy scores,” reported the National Center for Education Statistics, analyzing data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the first year of PISA, 2000, only three nations had higher average reading literacy scores than the U.S., eight outperformed the U.S. in mathematics, and seven countries did better in science literacy.

The Department of Education “was formed to close the achievement gaps, and they have not budged one little bit,” former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos told Newsmax on Tuesday. American taxpayers “spent over $1 trillion … trying to do it, and we’ve gotten nothing but worse results. It’s time to do something different.”

Education results declined as per-pupil government education spending rose from $11,221 in 1979 to $17,700 in 2023 in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Biden-Harris administration boasted of the “largest annual spike in public school spending in over 20 years,” when per pupil spending increased 8.9% between 2021 and 2022. President Joe Biden — a longtime labor union ally who boasts that his wife, Jill, belongs to a teacher’s union — requested $90 billion in discretionary spending in his most recent budget, an increase of $10.8 billion or 13.6%. Congress appropriated $79.1 billion in fiscal year 2024.

“Abolishing the Department of Education is an important and necessary step in reforming the American education system. Returning the focus of power to the states demonstrates an understanding that families are the main ‘stakeholders’ when it comes to educating children and the next generation of American citizens and leaders,” Kilgannon told TWS. “Closing the U.S. Department of Education also proves that there are consequences for poor results. It’s a rejection of the overly credentialed, expert-reliant model of policymaking and a return to the basics of local control.”

“President Trump laid out the greatest vision for education in our nation’s history. It was bold. It was conservative. These were the reforms we needed,” Walters told FRC President Tony Perkins.

Walters noted that the federal government promoted radical left-wing curricula from the top-down. “Remember, that’s also the federal Department of Education that brought you” critical race theory, diversity, equity, and inclusion; and “Common Core math. They also brought in this anti-American hatred through the curriculum and through the grants that they pushed,” said Walters. Under Biden-Harris, the U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) taught CRT and extreme transgender ideology to the children of enlisted soldiers in its 160 schools in 11 countries.

“Only about 9% of the funding comes from the federal government, but 90% of the regulation comes from the federal government,” noted DeVos. Teachers unions used DOE “as a beachhead” and “exercise tremendous power over one party.” As it stands, the Department of Education does not act “to benefit the kids. It is only to benefit the adults.”

“My goal is to see the department closed down, phased out, and depowered,” in favor of universal school choice programs, she said. “The money should follow the kids.”

Education experts say the incoming Trump administration could use a host of policies to transfer power from Washington to states and, ultimately, to parents. DeVos noted the federal government may continue providing education funds to states, for instance, through block grants. “Until the Department of Education is closed, however, we need capable leadership from folks who will ensure the department’s focus and footprint is restrained. There are many ways to reduce the size of the department, putting it on a trajectory for eventual closure,” Kilgannon argued.

Walters agrees that parents should have the greatest voice in their children’s education. If given a block grant, he would assure the money goes to parents, to choose the schooling they find best suited for their children. “[E]very child is unique. God created us that way. And the people who are going to know best for what that individual child needs are going to be the child’s mom and dad,” he said.

“The closer we can get resources and decisions to the parents, the better,” said Walters. “That’s what the elimination of the federal Department of Education does.”

Walters has tasked a state advisory panel to guide the transition of educational authority from the national to the state level when the Trump administration closes the Education Department. “They’re going to help us put together recommendations for the state moving forward. When the federal Department of Education is gone, how can we direct those dollars? How can we make sure that families know about the options available?”

“We’re also rewriting our history standards. We want to make sure that we are pro-patriotism, pro-America,” and highlight “the role faith played in our country’s history. So we’re rewriting those history standards to make sure that takes place. We’ve also eliminated CRT, any kind of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our schools,” Walters told Perkins. He added that the state has instituted “merit pay for teachers. … We’ve also created an ability for us to navigate how many illegal immigrants are in our schools.”

He also announced on Tuesday that the state “created the Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism that will continue to navigate any time a teacher is persecuted because of his or her Christian faith. We will investigate it, and we will not stand for it.”

When asked about likely impending lawsuits from the ACLU and other secularist pressure groups, Walters replied, “We’re not scared of the teachers union or a Woke mob. We’re going to continue advancing the ball.”

“We are going to take back our schools. We will not allow a Marxist teachers union to control the future for our young people,” he said. Walters also asked Christians nationwide to “continue to pray for the students of Oklahoma, for the families. … Pray for our parents; pray for our teachers; pray for our kids.”

“Don’t believe the left-wing lies that the sky is falling” when President Trump formally signs legislation abolishing the Department of Education, said Walters. “We can’t wait to implement it for the betterment of our state.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

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

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

Donald Trump Wins Arizona and Nevada in 31-State ‘Landslide’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Former President Donald Trump has won the remaining swing states of Arizona and Nevada as he cruises to the most decisive Republican victory in 20 years. Trump prevailed in 31 states, winning more than 300 votes in the Electoral College and defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the popular vote.

The 45th and 47th president of the United States appeared to win an outright majority of votes in both states. With nearly all votes counted on Thursday morning, President Trump received 52% of the vote in both Nevada and Arizona, leading DecisionDeskHQ to call both states Wednesday night.

“We congratulate President Donald Trump on his victory in the 2024 presidential election,” said Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life. “The defeat of Vice President Harris represents a clear rejection of the extreme abortion agenda that she placed at the center of her campaign.”

Trump won 81% of white evangelical Christian voters, as well as 91% of pro-life voters on his way to victory. Kamala Harris won two-thirds (66%) of Jewish voters, 63% of Muslims, and 59% who belonged to “something else.” Voters who listed “None” as their religion made up nearly one in four voters (23%); Harris carried them by a whopping 40 points (69% to 29%).

The Harris-Walz campaign’s abortion focus did not peel off enough women to win every facet of that voting bloc, exit polls from Fox News show. Although Harris won women across age demographics, Trump won white women by six points (52% to 46%) and women without a college degree by four points (51% to 47%). Trump narrowly lost Hispanic men, winning 46%, and earned a quarter (24%) of black men’s votes. The most Democratic-voting demographics were black women and black voters over the age of 45, who voted nearly nine-to-one for Kamala Harris (89% and 88%, respectively).

President Trump won white voters across the board, except for college-educated white women, whom he lost by 16 points (57 vs. 41%). Harris carried 85% of black voters, 56% of Hispanics, and 55% of those of other ethnic backgrounds (Asians, Pacific Islanders, etc.). Kamala Harris won every category of Hispanics except the traditionally conservative Cuban American community, who favored Trump by 21 points (59% to 38%). Black and Hispanic voters made up 10% of the electorate each; those of other ethnic backgrounds made up 5% of the electorate. In all, Harris carried 67% of non-white voters.

“This is a magnificent victory for the American people that will let us make America great again,” declared Donald Trump early Wednesday morning.

“We also have won the popular vote,” he added — a first for a Republican in two decades.

Trump credited his election to “a historic realignment uniting citizens of all backgrounds around a common core of common sense. We’re the party of common sense. We want to have borders. We want to have security.”

“We want a strong and powerful military, and ideally, we don’t have to use it,” said Trump. “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.” Hamas called for a ceasefire with Israel overnight Wednesday night.

The Democratic campaign’s attempt to cast the election as a defense of “democracy” — claiming that President Trump flirts with fascism and presents a unique threat to the Constitution — fell flat, because voters harbored similar concerns about both parties. A majority (55%) of voters believed Donald Trump “would bring the U.S. closer to being an authoritarian country” — but 46% believed the same of Kamala Harris. Most voters (55%) said Trump bore only “some” or no blame for the violence on January 6. A majority (50%) of voters said that Democratic rhetoric “is leading to an increase in acts of violence.”

“This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom. Together, we’re going to unlock America’s glorious destiny, and we’re going to achieve the most incredible future for our people,” said President-Elect Trump on election night. The president-elect’s assessment garnered support from an unexpected corner.

“The strong turnout in this election is a sign of the health of our republic and the strength of our democratic institutions,” said the last Republican to win the popular vote, George W. Bush, in an Instagram post on Wednesday.

Notably, Trump swept every battleground state. “I think we’re in landslide territory right now,” Democratic consultant Julian Epstein told Fox Business on Wednesday morning.

Trump’s victory drew congratulations from some who had been hostile to him. “Karen and I send our sincere congratulations to President-Elect Donald Trump and his family on his election as 47th [p]resident of the United States,” said former vice president and 2024 Republican primary challenger Mike Pence, who had withheld his endorsement from Trump. “We will continue to pray for all those in authority and urge every American to join us in praying for our incoming [p]resident, [v]ice [p]resident and elected officials at every level.”

Former President George W. Bush congratulated the Trump and Vance families, in addition to thanking President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris for their service.

“We join our fellow citizens in praying for the success of our new leaders at all levels of government,” he concluded. “May God continue to bless our great country.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

RELATED PODCAST: Breaking Down an Election for the Ages

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

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

Biden-Harris Admin Sues to Stop States from Removing Noncitizens from Voting Rolls

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

The Biden-Harris administration has hauled two Republican states into court to prevent them from removing noncitizens from the voter rolls.

As part of last Friday’s news dump, the administration’s Department of Justice announced on October 11 that it had sued the Commonwealth of Virginia over an order from to purge “noncitizens” from the ballot.

On August 7, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) issued Executive Order 35, which called for the state to assure every registered voter is a legal U.S. citizen. “This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue, it’s an American and Virginian issue. Every legal vote deserves to be counted without being watered down by illegal votes or inaccurate machines. In Virginia, we don’t play games and our model for election security is working,” said Youngkin at the time.

The Biden-Harris administration sued, claiming the action violates the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day Quiet Period Provision, which says states must curtail all such actions 90 days before an election. The DOJ filed a similar lawsuit on September 27 against the state of Alabama, after Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen (R) announced he had instituted a “process to remove noncitizens registered to vote in Alabama,” on August 13.

“Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in U.S. federal elections. That fact is not in dispute, and there is no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting in the United States. But that is not what this case is about,” claims the government’s legal complaint against Virginia.

Yet in announcing the Alabama lawsuit, Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said, “The right to vote is one of the most sacred rights in our democracy.”

As this reporter has noted at The Washington Stand:

  • In Pennsylvania, Department of State official Jonathan Marks testified that noncitizens voluntarily told the state they had illegally voted 544 times in elections held between 2000 and 2017 — representing one of every 172,000 votes cast in the swing state.
  • An official review of Georgia’s voting rolls found 1,634 noncitizens had attempted to register to vote in the swing state between 1997 and 2002.
  • Virginia removed 5,556 noncitizens from its voting rolls between 2011 and 2017. Noncitizens had voted 7,474 times between 1988 and 2017, officials found.
  • North Carolina voter rolls showed 1,454 registered voters who “did not appear to be naturalized before Election Day 2014,” according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation, and “89 attempted to vote.”

The action is virtually unprecedented. The Obama administration sued to stop then-Florida Governor Rick Scott from removing noncitizens (at Judicial Watch’s behest) in 2012. Conversely, the Trump and George W. Bush administrations sued states or localities (Kentucky, New York City, Maine, Missouri) for failing to maintain accurate voting lists, including removing noncitizens and the deceased.

A majority of Americans worry that voter fraud will impact the 2024 election, according to a NPR/PBS News/Marist poll released earlier this month. Overall, 58% of Americans shared their concerns about election integrity in next month’s election, although that is driven by an overwhelming concern from Republicans. In all, 86% of Republicans, and 55% of registered Independents, say illegal voting could impact the election, as compared to 33% of Democrats (and just 29% of confirmed Kamala Harris voters).

Once cast, there is no way to differentiate which ballot belongs to a specific person; voter fraud is permanent. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said the House must pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act to address this “clear and very real threat” to election integrity.

“The reason our movement is called election integrity is not just based on policy and procedures, but also on the character of the individuals who comprise it,” said Election Integrity Network Executive Director Kerri Toloczko in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand.

“Thousands of patriotic Americans have given selflessly of their time to become experts on their states’ election codes,” said Toloczko in a separate instance. “They have tirelessly worked in the trenches on all the aspects of the election process, researching state and county voter rolls; finding thousands of ineligible registrations, mistakes, errors, duplicates, and the like; are volunteering to serve as poll workers and observers; and who love this country so much that they are willing to take the abuse leveled at them by the corporate media, the Democratic Party, state governments, and even the federal government.”

Nationwide, 47 close elections, including 29 ties, have already taken place in 2024, according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden-Harris Admin Sues to Stop States from Removing Noncitizens from Voting Rolls

RELATED VIDEO: NYC: 20 illegal alien rapists, murderers, thieves from Venezuela are behind 50% of robberies

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

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

Republicans Outpacing Dems in Voter Registrations, but Election Integrity Concerns Persist

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

A crucial county in the swing state of Pennsylvania is flipping red for the first time in nearly 60 years, following a statewide and nationwide trend. Luzerne County, the most populous county in the Keystone State’s northeastern region, has officially registered more Republican voters than Democrats for the first time since 1970.

According to local WFMZ-TV 69 News, there are 87,415 registered Republicans in Luzerne County, against 87,332 registered Democrats, as of Monday morning. There are also 22,414 unaffiliated voters and 6,160 third-party voters. Luzerne had been a Democrat stronghold for decades, but former President Donald Trump won the county by eight points in 2020 and is poised to do so again by wider margins in November.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter said, “Pennsylvania is known as the Keystone state, and that moniker could not be more fitting for its role in the 2024 election. Without the state’s 19 electoral college votes, the paths to 270 for Kamala Harris and Donald Trump get much more difficult.” He added, “But, with a closely divided Congress, all eyes are on the state’s contested Senate race and competitive House races as well.”

Carpenter continued, “Luzerne County is probably the swingiest county in arguably the most crucial swing state, and with the news that Republicans outnumber Democrats in this key county for the first time in decades, suddenly the prospect of turning this state red at the presidential level, defeating longtime Democrat Senator Bob Casey, Jr., and Democrat Representative Matt Cartwright, is a real possibility.”

Just 10 years ago in 2014, Democrats held a lead of 47,322 registered voters over Republicans, with 111,233 Democrats registered to vote and only 63,911 Republicans. That lead has increasingly diminished over the past decade and Republicans now lead by 83 registered voters. This trend is not isolated to Luzerne County. According to Early Vote Action founder Scott Presler, Democrats have also lost their lead in Pennsylvania’s Bucks County. In 2020, there were 201,254 Democrats registered in Bucks and 185,672 Republicans, giving the Democrats an advantage of 15,582 registered voters. Now, there are 199,359 Democrats registered and 201,479 Republicans, giving Republicans a lead of 2,120 registered voters. Last year, Pennsylvania’s Beaver County was also flipped red.

Other states, like Virginia, have seen similar shifts away from Democratic Party enthusiasm. According to former state senator Glen Sturtevant (R), early voting has seen a significant uptick from prior years, with roughly 30,000 more ballots having been cast early than the same time in 2020, with a heavy Republican lean. Virginia’s solidly-red Washington County has reportedly seen a 150% early voting increase compared to 2020, Bland County has seen a 200% increase, and Smith County has seen an even greater increase.

While some battleground states are more hotly-contested, Trump has made inroads among Democrats. In Michigan, the Democratic mayor of Hamtramck, the most densely-populated municipality in the state and the nation’s only majority-Muslim city, formally endorsed Trump over Harris. “President Trump and I may not agree on everything, but I know he is a man of principles,” said mayor Ameer Ghalib. “I believe he is the right choice for this critical time. I’ll not regret my decision no matter what the outcome would be, and I’m ready to face the consequences.”

Additionally, a poll of Teamsters Union members showed that Trump is leading among the historically-Democrat-aligned voting bloc, especially in battleground states. Trump is leading Harris among the Teamsters by 18.6 points in Arizona, 15.6 points in Georgia, 33.9 points in Pennsylvania, nearly 30 points in Michigan, and 16.5 points in Wisconsin. This follows the Teamsters Union refusing to endorse Harris — the first time in decades that the union hasn’t endorsed a Democrat — after internal polling revealed that nearly 60% of union members supported Trump’s reelection campaign.

However, the Virginia Project, a voter outreach and election integrity organization, warned that polling data and voter registrations need to be accompanied by election integrity safeguards and lawyers. “Pennsylvania isn’t going to stop a 3AM ballot dump with voter registrations. The longer the question remains open and nobody can proffer a responsible party with a real plan, the more disturbing the situation is and the less likely we will carry that state,” the group warned.

The Virginia Project asked, “When Philly illegally kicks out observers, covers the windows of the polling place, and stuffs the ballot box, who exactly is going to do what exactly to stop it?” Pointing to the election integrity measures used in Virginia elections, the organization explained, “Here’s what would happen in Virginia. An observer would see something improper, and would immediately call the legal hotline. Inside 15 minutes lawyers would strike like a bolt of lightning and put everything on hold until a court can decide.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Actress Patricia Heaton Creates Nonprofit to Fight Anti-Semitism

DOJ Publishes Letter Placing $150K Bounty on Trump’s Head

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

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

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

/in , , , , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: Tenn. Appeals Court Upholds Law Protecting Minors from ‘Obscene’ Material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: School-Based ‘Health Center’ Offers Seattle Students Hormone Drugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

RELATED PODCAST: Who is the WHO?

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

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

17 State AGs Refuse to Allow Biden to Insert Abortion into Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

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


As the Biden campaign continues to push abortion as its primary focus ahead of the November elections, the administration made yet another move to ensure that abortion remains front and center by moving to insert the issue into the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act earlier this month — a move that earned a strong rebuke and lawsuit from a group of 17 Republican state attorneys general.

In mid-April, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it was controversially adding abortion into its draft rules for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, allowing workers to “ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.” But critics say the legislation was never intended to address abortion and was merely meant to give pregnant women commonsense accommodations in the workplace, including time off for medical appointments, options to sit down and stand up while working, exemptions from heavy lifting, time off for postpartum recovery, bathroom, breastfeeding, food, and water breaks, considerations for morning sickness, and more.

In response, a coalition of 17 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit last week against the EEOC, claiming that the abortion rule is unconstitutional, among other concerns. “[U]nelected commissioners at the EEOC seek to hijack these new protections for pregnancies by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions — something the Act clearly did not authorize,” said the AG coalition in a statement. “The EEOC’s rule constitutes an unconstitutional federal overreach that infringes on existing state laws and exceeds the scope of the agency’s authority.”

State attorneys general who signed onto the lawsuit include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

Last week, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) joined “Washington Watch” to discuss why he joined the lawsuit against the EEOC’s actions.

The original text “is a wonderful, bipartisan supported [bill] — and we don’t say that very often with things that come out of Washington — to make sure that we accommodate pregnant women in the workplace because we want to have healthy pregnancies and children that come to birth,” he noted. “[L]et’s make sure that we fill a gap in federal law to ensure that pregnant women have those accommodations. … And now, the EEOC that was tasked by Congress to come out with some very specific aspects of what that looks like, now want to make sure that states like Alabama would have to violate state law to somehow or another accommodate a woman who wants an abortion. Alabama is not going to stand for that, along with the [16] other states that are a part of this coalition.”

Marshall went on to point out that even pro-abortion Democrats explicitly stated that the bill had nothing to do with abortion when it was passed, which still hasn’t stopped the Biden administration’s actions.

“One of the Democratic sponsors of this bill made it very clear on the floor of the Senate that this bill had nothing to do with abortion [and] assured his colleagues on both sides of the aisle the intention of this bill,” he observed. “And yet, despite its clear language, what we see is [the] Biden administration co-opting a valid, appropriate law to be able to enforce this pro-abortion agenda. I know we shouldn’t be surprised, but it’s one of the reasons why I’m so proud of my colleagues across the country on many pro-life issues, because we’re standing in that gap that we need in this country to make sure that we can push back on an administration that’s just simply gone too far.”

Marshall further made it clear that state attorneys general have a particularly important role to play in pushing back against the Biden administration’s tendency to try unconstitutional tactics to get its policies into place.

“This is an unelected, unaccountable group,” he underscored. “… [W]e’ve seen this on multiple fronts with this administration, whether it be attacking pro-life states like Alabama. We’ve seen it with this radical gender ideology that’s being pushed through multiple federal programs. It’s why, uniquely, attorneys general in this important time in our nation have the opportunity to be able to hold [the administration] in check.”

The Alabama attorney general additionally pointed to how state law will have strong legal footing against the measure in court.

“[W]hat we see also with this particular rule is an effort to impose a federal policy of this administration on a state like Alabama, whose law is abundantly clear that we are a pro-life state in our Constitution,” Marshall explained. “… [T]o somehow or another use an unaccountable body like the EEOC to circumvent valid state law and constitutional provisions, we think we’re on solid legal footing to be able to push back and to win. … The key right now is attempting to get that initial injunctive relief, to be able to hold this rule in abeyance before its full implementation. But we feel very confident about the work of our colleagues, grateful for the efforts of Tennessee and Oklahoma to lead this charge, but do feel strongly that we’re going to prevail.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin SCOTUS Case Against Idaho Pro-Life Law ‘Turns EMTALA on its Head’: Idaho AG

Planned Parenthood’s International Reach ‘Is the Perfect Picture of Ideological Colonialism’

RELATED POSCAST:  The Economy and Fertility Rates: Are They Connected?

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

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

Leftist Immigration Policies Waste Billions of Dollars and Undermine Election Integrity

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

Several U.S. states and cities have embraced the president’s policy of a wide-open southern border, which has allowed millions of illegal immigrants to flood in. Not only are they treated better than U.S. citizens in many cases, receiving taxpayer funded housing, food, education, and health care, they have also contributed to an increase of violent crimes including harassment, rape, theft, and murder — not to mention the escalation in threats from people on the terror watchlist. But these harsh realities didn’t stop Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D) from addressing them as “newcomers” in a recent announcement.

In order to justify spending $45.9 million on illegal immigrants, he used the “newcomers” to help excuse the complete irrationality of the circumstances. As Denver is overwhelmed by immigrants, the multi-million package is meant to “fully fund programs … for 2024 and avoid worst-case scenarios projected by the city,” Fox News reported. But notably, the $45.9 million comes “in addition to $44 million in spending already secured for the program through previous budget moves,” which means illegals in this city are now receiving just shy of $90 million.

In a literal sense, taxpayers are a major source of this money. But in a metaphorical sense, American citizens are also paying through programs and services they have not willingly sacrificed. Johnston’s package, for instance, resulted in an $8.4 million cut from the city’s police department, which hurts public safety. The immense spending on illegal immigrants, which went from $2 million to $15 million in Denver between August and December of last year alone, requires budget cuts. And what do budget cuts often result in? People losing their jobs.

Johnston’s office said “it will avoid layoffs or furloughs of employees,” but that doesn’t seem like a promise worth banking on — especially considering the skyrocketing demands of the illegal immigrants. Countless stories have emerged from the border, proving that once the migrants get an inch, they take a mile. And if previous headlines of immigrants murdering young college students, squatting in occupied homes, and overrunning public facilities doesn’t labor the point of their persistence, then perhaps current headlines will.

On Tuesday, “Hundreds of illegal immigrants swarmed New York City’s City Hall … to demand more aid from the city as well as work permits,” The Post Millennial wrote. They also objected to being moved out of luxury hotels, where they were staying for free, to local shelters. Now they want more money? According to Bloomberg, the Big Apple has already “spent $1.45 billion in fiscal 2023 on migrant costs,” and they “expect to spend a combined $9.1 billion housing migrants in fiscal years 2024 and 2025.” But evidently, that’s not enough.

America needs to take the reins. Imagine an illegal immigrant claiming to live in your home, but when you report it to the police, you are the one arrested. Well, we don’t have to imagine, since that’s what happened to a 47-year-old woman in Queens. The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh explained the woman was “dragged away from her own home — in handcuffs — because someone claims to have a lease for her property.” Walsh said the squatter couldn’t “show the lease to anyone, including the police and the media. But because he claimed he had “been living there for around a month, they arrest the woman.”

These stories are prompting some lawmakers to act, as evidenced by a new bill proposed by Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) to “stop illegal aliens from squatting in U.S. homes.” The Safeguarding Homes from Illegal Entry, Living, and Dwelling Act (SHIELD Act) comes in response to Leonel Moreno, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, who posted a video on social media “explaining how to take advantage of squatting laws in the U.S.” And according to The Daily Signal, Moreno’s videos led to an uptick in illegals squatting in New York and Pennsylvania homes.

As Meuser explained, the SHIELD Act would ensure that “if an illegal were to claim squatter rights and enter an individual’s home illegally without any rental paperwork or legitimate lease, they can be arrested and deported and prohibited from ever entering the United States again.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project also warned how election integrity efforts have been compromised by the border crisis. On Monday, they highlighted a flyer found posted throughout Mexico “encouraging illegal immigrants to vote for President Joe Biden in the 2024 election.” The page read, “Reminder to vote for President Biden when you are in the United States. We need another four years of his term to stay open.” And even though federal law prohibits non-U.S. citizens from voting in federal elections, organizations are desperately trying to take advantage of the millions of new crossers.

As the Oversight Project emphasized on X, “Election integrity is under assault.” Now, they continued, “You do not need documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. You can vote if you simply swear you are eligible,” and the flyer in question “obviously seeks to prey on unsophisticated illegals and encourages them to illegally vote.” This is all pretty frustrating information. But as overwhelming as this issue has grown to be, it’s not where we give up.

Instead, when reading of all the horrible things happening, we have to understand that this is not a matter of getting frustrated and walking away, but of standing for truth and for what’s right. And every Christian can stand for what is right, even within this messy, hostile, divisive arena. Indeed, we are called to take our voices into the public square. Ephesians 5:11 states, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” And so, that is what we will do, even now. Especially now.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Inside Guatemala’s NEW Investigation Into Alleged NGO Child Trafficking

POST ON X:

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

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

Florida Voters Back Abortion Amendment and Trump

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

A new poll is reporting that nearly half of voters in the Sunshine State plan to support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a “right” to abortion. An Emerson College survey released on Thursday found that 42% of Florida voters intend to vote “Yes” on a “Amendment 4” this November, enshrining a right to abortion into the state’s constitution. Twenty-five percent of voters intend to vote “No,” and 32% of voters are unsure which way they will vote. The ballot initiative requires at least 60% support in order to pass.

A majority (56%) of Democrats and a plurality (44%) of Independents plan to vote “Yes.” Following former President Donald Trump’s recently-announced opposition to federal pro-life protections, Florida Republicans are more divided on the issue: 36% plan to vote against the abortion amendment, 30% plan to support it, and 34% are unsure.

Additionally, nearly 60% of Florida voters reported that the pro-life law banning abortion after six weeks — slated to go into effect next month after the state’s Supreme Court upheld a related 15-week abortion ban — is “too strict,” 28% said the law is “about right,” and 15% said it’s “not strict enough.” The previous 15-week ban enjoyed marginally more support, with only 43% saying it’s “too strict,” 36% saying it’s “about right,” and 21% saying it’s “not strict enough.”

Election data analyst Michael Pruser posted on social media, “I don’t think a pro-Republican position has a chance of clearing 60% in Florida, let alone an anti-Republican one. What wouldn’t pass in Kansas and Ohio during off-year special turnout will almost assuredly not pass in Florida during a Presidential year [with] Trump on the top of the ticket.”

Anticipating nearly 11 million voters (4.5 million Republicans, 3.55 million Democrats, and 2.85 million Independents) to turn out in November, Pruser explained, “To make 60% work, you’ll need a share of about 23% Republican[s]/95% Democrat[s]/77% Independent[s] to vote YES (which is always harder than NO). This gives you a total of 6,554,500 votes and a winning percentage of 60.13%.” He added, “You can also bet that [Florida’s Republican governor Ron] DeSantis will do what [Democratic Kansas governor] Laura Kelly and [Republican Ohio governor] Mike DeWine didn’t — use his office’s full weight against the amendment.”

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, argued before the Florida Supreme Court in favor of pro-life laws. In comments to The Washington Stand, he warned that “Amendment 4” would be challenged even if passed, saying, “There are constitutional challenges that I think are available.”

In addition to questions of both fraudulent signatures in putting the proposed amendment on the ballot and fraudulent votes in potentially passing the amendment this November, Staver noted, “The Florida legislature has — for many, many years — used the terms ‘unborn child’ and ‘unborn person.’” For example, Florida law dictates that if a woman is killed and her unborn child dies as a result, the killer could be charged with double homicide. Similarly, if a will leaves an estate to the deceased’s children or grandchildren, Florida law understands that to include unborn children or grandchildren. “In all these other areas of law,” Staver said, “unborn children have been recognized as legal persons. Consequently, if this were to pass, we would bring a case to the Florida Supreme Court to recognize the rights of an unborn child which already exist in the constitution which supersede this abortion amendment.”

Referring to Republicans who have begun backing away from pro-life messaging in the wake of Trump’s announcement earlier this week, Staver said, “Politicians should stand for life, not run from it. The right to life is the right of all rights, without which there is no other right. Politicians need to stand for life, not run from it.” He continued, “There are some things that transcend geographical boundaries and political parties and time, and the right to life is fundamental among those.” Staver also compared the issue of abortion to the issue of slavery, saying that neither was a matter of “states’ rights” but of universal morality.

The Emerson College survey also found that a majority (51%) of Florida voters back Trump for president, while only 38% support incumbent Joe Biden, with 11% undecided. When undecided voters were asked which candidate they lean toward supporting, Trump’s support shot up to 56% and Biden’s to 44%. Emerson College explained, “Among Biden voters, 32% support him because they dislike Trump, 24% because they like Biden, 19% care about an issue, and 14% support their party’s candidate. Among Trump voters, 31% support him because they care about an issue, 28% because they like Trump, 16% because they dislike Biden, and 14% support their party’s candidate.”

Florida voters ranked the economy as their top issue of concern (27%), followed by housing (16%), immigration (14%), and abortion (10%). Emerson College noted, “The percentage of voters who marked abortion access as their top issue is four points higher in Florida than in the most recent national poll (6%).”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Launches Pro-Abortion Ad Campaign in Arizona while Republicans Scramble to Respond

EU Politicians Call for ‘Fundamental Right’ to Abortion

Pediatrician Responds to Damning Review on Gender Identity Treatment: ‘I Remain Hopeful’

RELATED VIDEO: Florida’s Channel 25 Interview with Pro-Lifer, Willy Guardiola, as he speaks about the state of Abortion today.

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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