Tag Archive for: states

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.

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.

‘Every Tool and Strategy’: GOP Governors, Trump Call for Border Security — with or without Biden

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

A coalition of Republican governors is backing Texas against the Biden administration as the Lone Star State is securing the southern border. Twenty-five governors signed a joint statement issued late Thursday, supporting Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) declaration of an “invasion” and invocation of constitutional articles to enable Texas’s self-defense at the border.

“President Biden and his Administration have left Americans and our country completely vulnerable to unprecedented illegal immigration pouring across the Southern border,” the governors wrote. “Instead of upholding the rule of law and securing the border, the Biden Administration has attacked and sued Texas for stepping up to protect American citizens from historic levels of illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and terrorists entering our country.”

“We stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor, Greg Abbott, and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border,” they continued. “We do it in part because the Biden Administration is refusing to enforce immigration laws already on the books and is illegally allowing mass parole across America of migrants who entered our country illegally.” The governors concluded, “Because the Biden Administration has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states, Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation.”

The letter was signed by governors Kay Ivey (Ala.), Mike Dunleavy (Alaska), Sarah Sanders (Ark.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Brian Kemp (Ga.), Brad Little (Idaho), Eric Holcomb (Ind.), Kim Reynolds (Iowa), Jeff Landry (La.), Tate Reeves (Miss.), Mike Parson (Mo.), Greg Gianforte (Mont.), Jim Pillen (Neb.), Joe Lombardo (Nev.), Chris Sununu (N.H.), Doug Burgum (N.D.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Kevin Stitt (Okla.), Henry McMaster (S.C.), Kristi Noem (S.D.), Bill Lee (Tenn.), Spencer Cox (Utah), Glenn Youngkin (Va.), Jim Justice (W.Va.), and Mark Gordon (Wyo.). Vermont’s Phil Scott was the only Republican governor in the nation who did not sign the letter.

The letter follows an escalating standoff between Texas and the Biden administration over the nation’s wide-open southern border. After Texas began erecting barriers at the border to deter the increasing influx of illegal immigrants, the Biden Department of Justice sued the Lone Star State, and federal Border Patrol agents began removing the razor wire that Texas had set up. After the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to bar Border Patrol from removing or dismantling Texas’s razor wire, Biden’s Solicitor General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. In a 5-4 decision, the Court vacated the injunction. Almost immediately, Abbott declared that the “federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States,” since the Biden administration has not only refused to enforce border security and immigration law but actively undermined and worked against both.

On Wednesday night’s episode of “Washington Watch,” former White House and Justice Department attorney Ken Klukowski explained, “Under our Constitution, we have two separate sovereignties: you have the federal government and state governments; they are co-equal sovereigns; one doesn’t override the other.” He continued, “The Constitution assigns to each one their own specific responsibilities. And in this case, both levels — federal and state — have powers that that level of government can use that has the effect of securing the border and protecting people and property within each state.” He added, “There are those saying, ‘Oh, Texas is defying the Supreme Court.’ No, they’re not. Right now, Border Patrol agents are free to [cut] the fence, and Texas personnel are free to be setting it back up. … They can continue to try and secure the border, ironically, doing the Border Patrol’s job.”

Republican governors aren’t the only ones backing Abbott. Former President Donald Trump is also supporting Texas and calling on other states to send their National Guards to the border to help. “Joe Biden has surrendered our Border, and is aiding and abetting a massive Invasion of millions of Illegal Migrants into the United States,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Instead of fighting to protect our Country from this onslaught, Biden is, unbelievably, fighting to tie the hands of Governor Abbott and the State of Texas, so that the Invasion continues unchecked.”

He continued to say, “We encourage all willing States to deploy their guards to Texas to prevent the entry of illegals, and to remove them back across the border.” He also pledged, if elected president again, mass deportations of the over six million illegal immigrants Biden has allowed into the country, quipping, “Those Biden has let in should not get comfortable because they will be going home.”

Last year, over 14 governors deployed National Guardsmen and law enforcement personnel to Texas to assist with Operation Lone Star, Abbott’s effort to secure the border in Biden’s absence. Since the Texas governor issued his “invasion” declaration on Tuesday, other states have also mobilized their national guards.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘We Want People to Come Here Legally’: Texas’s Border Stand Promotes Migrants’ Safety, Experts Say

POSTS 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.

Ohio Becomes 23rd State to Protect Minors from the Transgender Industry

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

The bellwether state of Ohio has become the 23rd state to protect children from transgender injections and surgeries, and the 24th to safeguard fairness and privacy in women’s sports, as lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to override the Republican governor’s veto. Yet Democratic opponents claimed Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ would have supported transgender surgeries for kids, a transgender activist changed the words of a Christian hymn to support transgender surgeries, and liberals likened withholding cross-sex hormones from children to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

The Ohio State Senate voted 24-8 on Wednesday afternoon to reverse the veto of Substitute H.B. 68 by Governor Mike DeWine (R). (The Senate erroneously announced the tally as 23-9 immediately after the vote.) The bill — which combines the Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act (SAFE) and the Save Women’s Sports Act — bans the use of puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormone injections, and gender mutilation surgeries to anyone under the age of 18. It also prohibits men from competing against women in sports, prevents courts from denying or limiting custody to a parent who refuses to “affirm” their child’s transgender identity, and refuses to fund minors’ transgender procedures through Medicaid.

The Ohio House of Representatives overrode the veto on January 10 by a 65-27 margin — four more votes than when the House first passed the bill on December 14. The bill will become state law in 90 days.

“Given that five legislatures have overridden gubernatorial vetoes of legislation protecting minors from the transgender activists pushing experimental drugs and surgeries, any governor who vetoes these SAFE Act-type laws is either politically tone-deaf or being influenced by those who profit from this morally devastating, but financially lucrative industry,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. (Emphasis in original.) Supermajorities of state legislators voted to override Democratic governors’ vetoes of various gender protection bills in Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Carolina in 2023. Arkansas lawmakers also enacted the first SAFE Act over the veto of then-Governor and failed 2024 presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson (R).

Ohio to Trans Industry: ‘We Reject Your Junk Science’

“Today, Ohio has told an exploitative medical industry that we reject your junk science and will no longer allow you to experiment on our children,” said Aaron Baer, president of the Center for Christian Virtue (CCV), an Ohio-based citizen action group that spearheaded support for the override. “This marks a turning point in Ohio: we will not remain silent when our children are being harmed.” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Matt Sharp thanked Ohio lawmakers for rejecting “the politicized and harmful practice of pushing minors towards irreversible drugs and surgeries in favor of compassionate mental health care that gives them time to grow into comfort with their bodies and true identities.”

“No one has the right to harm children, and, thankfully, states have the power — and duty — to protect them,” said Sharp. “Our most basic duty as parents is to protect our children,” said Peter Range, CEO of Ohio Right to Life, in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “Our children are our greatest legacy, and today’s vote ensures our children are protected in Ohio.” Thanks to the vote, “Child gender mutilation and gender ideology as a whole will end with a whimper,” said Chloe Cole, a detransitioner who testified in favor of the bill and returned to Columbus for Wednesday’s vote.

Democrats Invoke Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., and Japanese Internment Camps to Argue for Transing Kids

The override vote overcame procedural roadblocks, disruptions by radical transgender activists, and disputes over whether the bill represented God’s will. Sen. Bill DeMora (D-25) moved to adjourn before the chamber could vote on the measure.

A transgender activist interrupted the very first speaker, Sen. Kristina Roegner (R-25), by singing an edited version of “Jesus Loves the Little Children” after fellow transgender activists booed and raised their middle fingers. “Jesus loves the little children. L-G-B-T-Q-I-A, He would be here — Jesus would be here — on their side today!” the activist belted out in the manner of a show tune, before being escorted out of the Capitol.

Democrats picked up the talking point, as Sen. Paul Hicks-Hudson (D-11) insisted overriding DeWine’s veto “does not show that Jesus does love all of us.”

“That same Jesus has determined the gender of every child. Let’s respect truly what Jesus” created, retorted Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-18). “Jesus does love all the little children, including the women who compete [in] sports,” said Sen. George F. Lang (R-4).

Yet Senate Democratic Leader Nickie Antonio (D-23) — who announced, “I’m a lesbian” during her floor speech — said refusing to experiment on children “wasn’t the Christianity I was brought up with.”

Hicks-Hudson also told lawmakers, “We are slapping” the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., who once said it is necessary to become “maladjusted.”

Another Democrat compared Republicans denying minors cross-sex hormones and gender-reassignment surgeries to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s order herding Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II. Sen. Kent Smith (D-21), who noted he encountered men who identify as female in his “side-hustle” as a part-time roller derby announcer, compared his fellow Democrats to then-Colorado Governor Ralph Carr (R), who opposed Roosevelt’s order.

Smith, who accused his opponents of the “systematic dehumanization” of trans-identifying people, said one public school official told him she had more trans-identifying children in school than those who identified as homosexual.

Antonio invoked Issue 1, stating, “A majority of the voters spoke when they told us in November that the government shouldn’t be involved in their own personal, private health care decisions.” Yet during the debate over Issue 1, proponents steadfastly denied the amendment had any impact on transgender procedures for minors.

DeMora also inveighed that H.B. 68 “is anti-science and very hateful,” “horrible,” and “the inevitable outcome of this bill will be loss of life.” Legislators should pass laws “to make it easier” for children to get hormone injections, he stated.

Cross-sex hormone injections have caused females to suffer from side effects including “erythrocytosis, severe liver dysfunction, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, increased risk of breast and uterine cancers, and irreversible infertility,” states H.B. 68. “For biological males,” such injections cause “thromboembolic disease, cholelithiasis, coronary artery disease, macroprolactinoma, cerebrovascular disease, hypertriglyceridemia, breast cancer, and irreversible infertility.”

“Suicide rates, psychiatric morbidities, and mortality rates remain markedly elevated above the background population after inpatient gender reassignment surgery has been performed,” the bill notes.

Lawmakers reluctantly added a grandfather clause for children who had already begun transgender procedures before the bill’s passage at DeWine’s request; yet he vetoed the bill anyway.

Transgender procedures are not what gender-confused minors need, said Sen. Roegner. “What they need to know is that they are loved for who they are. They need compassion; they need counseling. What they do not need is chemical castration, sterilization, or physical mutilation. We cannot let this happen to the children of Ohio,” she said. “It is medical malpractice, and it needs to stop.”

Similarly, Sen. Shane Wilkin (R-17) said safety guided his support for allowing girls to have their own space. “I, along with many in my district, do not want shared locker rooms with boys,” he said. “I find this issue is not as difficult as we’re making it out to be.”

Ohioans largely agree. Sen. Andy Brenner (R-19) revealed on Wednesday’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” that 90% of the constituents who contacted his office urged him to protect children.

DeWine Yielded to ‘Experts’ on Transgenderism and COVID

Some in Ohio expressed surprise when DeWine, a centrist Republican, vetoed H.B. 68 on December 29. One week later, DeWine banned transgender surgery for minors by executive order, and he announced new regulations requiring greater psychological counseling for adults before and after transgender procedures. “I think it’s a good way to take this issue off the table” and “talk about other things,” said DeWine.

Brenner said, in lieu of longitudinal studies tracking the long-term impact of puberty-blockers on children, DeWine yielded to the dubious “consensus” of “experts” on transgender studies — much as he did “masking and lockdowns a few years ago” in response to COVID-19. “They don’t really have the data to back up what they’re doing,” Brenner noted.

Between DeWine’s executive actions and H.B. 68, “Ohio now has one of the strongest pieces to protect children in the nation,” said Cole at a press conference alongside the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Gary Click (R-88), shortly after the vote.

“The SAFE Act and Save Women’s Sports Act are the civil rights issues of our day, ensuring that children have the right to grow up intact and that women are no longer subject to men invading their spaces,” said Click.

Wednesday was a “great day for Ohio women,” agreed State Rep. Jena Powell (R-80), who championed the Save Women’s Sports Act. “I promised to fight for integrity in women’s sports, and I did not give up until we won.” Liberty Counsel Action also called H.B. 68 “a win for the safety of women and children.”

Not everyone was pleased. “F*** the Ohio Senate,” cursed the Ohio Women’s Alliance Action Fund (which did not censor its message). OWA helped craft Issue 1, which opponents said was written to create a constitutional “right” to transgender procedures for minors without parental notification — a position OWA and many of its sponsors support. OWA Deputy Director Jordyn Close, who describes herself as “a sex and pleasure advocate … working on destigmatizing and uplifting sex work,” has said “all barriers to abortion are racist,” because “every abortion is essential.” Similarly, the capital city’s chapter of the Young Women’s Christian Alliance — YWCA Columbus — excoriated the allegedly “discriminatory bill” as “another demonstration of the state weaponizing control over bodily autonomy.”

Ohio Republicans said they stand ready to protect the state’s progress toward protecting the vulnerable and creating a more compassionate state. “I am prepared to defend it against the inevitable legal challenge,” said Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R).

While the bill’s passage is “a milestone for Ohio and the nation, there is still more to be accomplished,” said Rep. Click. “We must ensure that all individuals who experience regret have full access to both medical and mental health resources as they realign with their authentic selves.”

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.

Conservative Jeff Landry Inaugurated as Louisiana’s 57th Governor

/in , , , , , /by

The Bayou State has a new governor — a stalwart conservative Christian dedicated to faith, family, and freedom. On Sunday, former Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) was sworn in as the state’s 57th governor, succeeding Democrat John Bel Edwards. Landry was elected governor in an October primary election, winning with 52% of the vote and averting a runoff election.

Family Research Council President and former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives Tony Perkins delivered an inaugural prayer for Landry Sunday night, praying, “Father, we break with the ways of the past, where we leaned on governmental schemes and political power; today, we declare we look to You and the power of your Holy Spirit!” He prayed for Landry and all of Louisiana’s elected officials, saying, “Above all, we pray that the words and deeds of our leaders would glorify you so that your blessing upon our state will be so bountiful it will be undeniable to the rest of the nation.”

Speaking on “Washington Watch” Monday night, Perkins explained that when he first moved to Louisiana as a young man, “We didn’t have any Republicans to speak of.” Even when elected to the Louisiana state legislature, Perkins noted that there was only one statewide Republican in office and Republicans “were in the extreme minority in the legislature.” Now, he said, Republicans hold “supermajorities” in both chambers of the legislature. “Every statewide elected official is Republican,” he declared. “But it’s not just Republican. It’s about policy initiatives. It’s about ideology. It’s about commitment.”

As Louisiana’s attorney general, Landry fought hard for pro-life and pro-family values. He supported the state’s 2022 abortion ban, and urged Louisianians to “simply respect the legislature and Louisiana’s constitution,” adding, “And if you don’t like Louisiana’s laws or Louisiana’s constitution, you can go to another state.” He opposed the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates, calling the requirements an “unconstitutional and immoral attack” on Americans.

In 2018, Landry teamed up with now-speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) to support Christian prayer in public schools, following lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State alleging that school districts were “teaching” Christianity. The attorney general has also been a vociferous opponent of the LGBT agenda, including encouraging the state legislature to override the governor’s veto of a bill banning transgender surgeries for minors.

Landry announced his gubernatorial campaign in 2022 and was endorsed by the Republican Party of Louisiana, former President Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, U.S. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and others. In Louisiana, all candidates for governor appear on the ballot, regardless of party affiliation; if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, a runoff election is triggered between the top two contenders. Landry won handily with 52% of the vote, with Democrat Shawn Wilson placing second with about 26%. In his victory speech, Landry declared, “Today’s election says that our state is united.” He continued, “It’s a wake-up call and it’s a message that everyone should hear loud and clear, that we the people in this state are going to expect more out of our government from here on out.”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson attended Landry’s inauguration on Sunday, saying in a press release, “Governor Landry has been a longtime friend and champion for the people of Louisiana, and he will serve our state with dignity and a steadfast commitment as he tackles the many challenges we face.” He added that he hopes to work with Landry to “restore” Louisiana “as the best place to work, live, and start a family.”

Perkins said that Christian conservative values are core to the new governor, saying, “If you believe it, say it. And if it’s really who you are, you should not, quite frankly, you can’t hold it back. And this is who Jeff is. He spoke it. He was unafraid of it.” The FRC president also noted that mainstream media is not giving much focus to the first governor inaugurated in 2024. “It does not fit the national media’s narrative, it’s not what the Left is telling us America is, it is the total opposite,” he said. “But there’s hope that if all of us will vote, will stand, will pray, we’re going to see these same results across the nation in 2024.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

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.

Meta Is ‘Manipulating Platforms to Make Kids More Addicted’: State AG

/in , , , , , , , /by

In the wake of strong evidence pointing to the link between the declining mental health of young people and the rise of addictive social media sites, 41 state attorneys general have filed suit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, for manipulative business practices that they say intentionally target kids in order to ensnare them in social media addiction.

In October, 41 states and the District of Columbia filed litigation against Meta as reports of record high levels of mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, and suicide, continue to surface. Studies have shown that American teenagers have experienced a significant rise in depression over the last two decades, as the share of teens experiencing major depressive episodes steadily rose from 7.9% in 2006 to 14.4% in 2018. Since then, the persistent increase has continued unabated. In February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that three out of five teenage girls felt depression and one in three had seriously considered suicide in 2021.

As psychologists such as Jean Twenge have observed, the rapid increase in youth mental health issues has dovetailed almost exactly with the ubiquitous rise of smartphones and social media apps. Twenge’s most recent book “Generations” details how Generation Z’s skyrocketing use of social media directly correlates with less time spent in person with friends, less sleep, and increased loneliness.

The issue has become so alarming to health officials that in May, the U.S. Surgeon General released an unprecedented advisory warning that social media use poses a “profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.”

As a result, public officials have decided that studies and advisories are not enough — they believe that the architects of social media themselves must claim some amount of responsibility for the crisis. On Tuesday, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) joined “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” to discuss the litigation he has filed against Meta.

“We’ve exposed the manipulative practices of the Meta platform that designed features in order to make kids addicted,” he contended. “And lo and behold, screen time is bad for kids. And I think one of the problems here is that Meta has hidden their head in the sand and refused to obtain data or scientific studies to measure the negative harmful impacts on kids, and deprived the public of access to that information. … [T]hey were manipulating their platform[s] to make kids more addicted, [and] they were doing it to obtain personal information to maximize their profits. And it’s putting kids at risk.”

Bailey went on to argue that Meta’s actions specifically violated his state’s consumer protection laws.

“The mental and emotional impact of the addictive features of Big Tech social media platforms, specifically Meta in this instance, have been immediately impactful on children in a harmful way, and it violates the consumer protection laws of the state of Missouri,” he asserted. “[T]he platform is depriving parents of access to information necessary upon which to make good decisions about the health and safety of their children when they’re there, fraudulently attempting to make the kids addicted to the platform that violates the law, and we’re going to hold them accountable.”

Bailey further observed that the litigation showcases a rare example of bipartisanship, in which a coalition of 41 Republican and Democrat state AGs are coming together to put pressure on Meta for allegedly harming the mental health of children.

“[C]hild safety should be a bipartisan issue,” he underscored. “I’m proud to have joined with like-minded colleagues in other states that want to put the safety of children first and hold wrongdoers in the Big Tech social media world accountable. And certainly we’ve seen a repeated pattern of behavior from Meta, not only to abuse children in this context and to deprive the public of access to information, but to violate our constitutional rights to free speech by acquiescing to government censorship demands. … [T]his is a full court press, all hands on deck approach to make sure we’re holding this monolithic monopoly accountable.”

The Missouri attorney general also highlighted specific goals that the state litigation seeks, including monetary compensation for victims. “We … think there should be some monetary compensation for the victims,” he maintained. “We’ve got to build a fund to study this problem, figure out how bad it is, the negative emotional and mental impacts on kids, and make sure that they’re treated and taken care of in the aftermath of this fraudulent behavior.”

Bailey concluded by pointing out the parallels in the social media case with the evidence that was uncovered in the 1990s of tobacco companies attempting to hide evidence of the addictive nature of their products. “I think history will look back on this moment in time and celebrate that we took a stand to protect children against this pernicious behavior very quickly.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

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

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

As Democrats Disparage School Choice, Experts Say Increased Competition Fuels Innovation

/in , , , , , , , /by

While states have successfully expanded their school choice programs, left-wing critics argue that the programs are an “existential threat” to public education. But experts are pointing out that not only do school choice programs relieve pressure off of the public education sector and provide parents with more schooling options, they are also proving to help students thrive academically and are fueling academic competition and innovation.

On Sunday, National Review reported that Florida has seen an additional 90,000 students enroll in private schools and other “innovative” educational programs in the last year due to the universal school choice bill that was enacted this year, marking a 43% increase in the number of students enrolled in the program, which now totals over 256,000 students. The program allows any Florida family to use state scholarships funded by corporate tax credits and other state funds to send their children to the private school of their choice.

Currently, 10 states have enacted school choice programs similar to Florida’s.

As the programs have expanded nationwide, Democratic lawmakers have almost universally denounced the programs, claiming that they present an “existential threat” to the public school system by redirecting public money away from it. But as observers have noted, the financial shortfall projections that left-leaning organizations have claimed would occur have proven to be wildly inaccurate. The Florida Policy Institute estimated that the state’s school choice program would cost the state $2 billion to fund scholarships in its first year, which was almost 10 times higher than the legislature’s estimate.

“They were grossly over-inflated in their estimates, and that they did so, in my mind, deliberately to stop kids from having the kind of customized, quality education that they deserve, and only for partisan purposes and in defense of their union allies that put the needs and interests of institutions and adults over the needs of children,” said Florida House Speaker Paul Renner (R).

Renner went on to tell National Review that “we’ve had Democrat members who have reached out to us, our staff, to find out how their families can benefit from the scholarship, even though they voted against our bill.”

In recent years, public education has seen a remarkable downturn in equipping students with proficiency in basic skills. Reading and math scores are currently at their lowest levels since 1971, and the Associated Press reported in May that “40% of eighth grade students are performing below basic proficiency in history, meaning they likely cannot identify simple historical concepts in primary or secondary sources,” with 31% “performing below basic proficiency in civics.”

At the same time, recent studies have shown that students who are enrolled in school choice programs show more political tolerance than public school students, with “13 studies showing a private-school advantage and only one showing a government-school advantage.” In addition, a study of Milwaukee’s school choice program found that it significantly reduced criminal activity of students, including a 53% reduction in drug convictions, an 86% reduction in property damage convictions, and a 38% reduction in paternity suits.

As Doug Tuthill, president of Step Up For Students, contended, school choice programs will lead to “a lot more growth with very innovative 21st-century learning environments.” He went on to observe that “we’re in a weird place where the people who like to think of themselves as progressives are very, very conservative and traditional. They do not want the innovation and change. When people say, ‘You’re trying to destroy public education,’ what I hear is, ‘You’re trying to destroy my 1950s concept about what public education should be.’ And that’s true, we are trying to move away from a one-size-fits-all industrial model that’s been around really since the 1800s.”

Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, concurred, while also arguing that the rise of controversial ideologies on gender, race, and sexuality that have arisen in public schools are a direct threat to Christian families — further highlighting the value of school choice programs and the need for Christian engagement in the educational sector.

“These kinds of dire predictions of ultimate demise are typical fearmongering from the Left,” she told The Washington Stand. “They are afraid of their own demise if they are prevented from indoctrinating a new generation of leftist activists via highly politicized public education. As birth rates decline in the U.S., the fight for the minds and hearts of children will intensify. Christians need to engage in our educational system in every way: churches starting their own schools and Christians running for office or serving as teachers, administrators, or staff. Our witness is desperately needed.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED TWEET:

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

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

New College Makeover in Florida: A Case Study in Higher Ed Reform

/in , , , , , , , /by

New College in Florida has been making news lately, for all the right reasons. The Board of Trustees, with six new members appointed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R), charts a new course for New College.

For context, a little history: New College was founded in 1960 as a private university. It was later absorbed into the University of Florida system, making it publicly funded. It’s a small college with fewer than 650 students in Sarasota. To be fair, New College is a highly rated public university in Florida and in the U.S. overall. It is an “honors college” with a contract model for course work. New College lets students design their own course of study. Course work is not “graded” per se, but professors provide narrative feedback to students through a timeline they determine together. New College had the highest number of Fulbright Scholars in 2020.

But that was then. New College is getting an overhaul. As described by Chris Rufo, among the changes underway at New College: “[President Richard] Corcoran has recruited a new team that is busy rebuilding the institutional capacity of the college, which had atrophied significantly under previous administrations, and is designing a new core curriculum, which will begin with an immersive first-year study of Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ and continue to provide a foundation based in logos (the cultivation of human reason) and techne (the cultivation of the applied arts).”

Student and faculty reaction to these changes is shockingly conservative for such a progressive bunch. It seems the new Board of Trustees’ pursuit of the good, the true, and the beautiful is a regressive and oppressive insult to many current students and faculty members. They are not on board with Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz’s goal: “It is our hope that New College of Florida will become Florida’s classical college, more along the lines of a Hillsdale of the South.”

Breathless news coverage of this development ranges from the unhinged to the comical. How dare any governor (no less a Republican governor) deign to make an impact on the taxpayer-funded colleges and universities? Who is the governor to attempt to oversee publicly funded universities, regardless of the overwhelming mandate to lead he is given by the voters?

The new trustees have begun the process of remaking New College into a classical college. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion dean and a “queer librarian” were among the first to go. Tenure for five professors approved by an interim president has been denied. The College is recruiting more students and placing more emphasis on athletics as an integral part of the new New College experience.

Bringing in a larger freshman class, one that is eagerly anticipating the new emphasis on classics over social justice warfare, is one of the best ways to ensure the success of the transition. These bright new students will be great ambassadors for the cause and will quickly outnumber the disgruntled — another smart move by a very capable group and New College President Richard Corcoran. Surely this effort to diversify both the curriculum of the college itself and the student body will prove more efficient than the DEI commissariat the Board of Trustees recently removed, as displayed by the 2022 tally of the student body composition.

The cancelation of Gender Studies seems to be the final straw for the old guard. NCF Freedom filed a lawsuit challenging the defunding of ideologically biased course offerings, among other perceived indignities. We look forward to updating you on this as events unfold. Pray for New College, for the leadership team, the faculty, staff, and students. Pray that God will be known there and everywhere.

AUTHOR

Meg Kilgannon

Meg Kilgannon is Senior Fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council.

RELATED ARTICLE: Half of Gen Z Says Their Life Was ‘Transformed’ by the Bible’s Message

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

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

Brazen Crime Wave Hits Blue Cities amid Decriminalization Efforts

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

In an astonishingly brazen heist that occurred in Woodland Hills, Calif. on August 12 in broad daylight, approximately 50 individuals mobbed a Nordstrom store, stealing about $300,000 worth of merchandise and destroying display cases in the process. Experts say “smash and grab” or “flash rob” crimes like these as well as grocery shoplifting have been steadily rising in Democrat-controlled states and cities across the country due to policies that reduced the penalties for committing crimes.

The Nordstrom robbery is merely the latest in a string of incidents in California in recent weeks. An almost identical heist occurred on August 8 in broad daylight at a Yves Saint Laurent store in Glendale, in which about 30 thieves also stole $300,000 worth of luxury goods. The previous week, nine men raided a Gucci store in Century City.

It’s not just high-end merchandise that is being routinely pilfered from stores with little consequences. In Washington, D.C., a popular Giant Food store may be close to shuttering due to $500,000 worth of products being stolen as of late. Despite upgraded security measures and a record amount of stopped suspects, thieves continue to steal “everything,” according to Giant president Ira Kress, who noted that shoplifting at the grocery chain’s stores have “probably increased five to 10 times in the last three years.”

The growing thievery is part of an alarming trend in the nation’s capital, in which homicides have risen 25% since August of last year. Councilmember Trayon White (D) has called on Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) to enlist the National Guard in order to reduce crime.

Lawlessness has become so entrenched in places like San Francisco that officials recently advised staff at the downtown federal building to start working from home. The skyscraper has offices for Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Departments of Labor and Transportation, as well as staffers of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Yet due to open-air drug use and transactions, homeless individuals using the streets to relieve themselves, rising gun and knife assaults, and unruly youth fighting and committing crimes in nearby shopping malls, HHS officials advised workers to “maximize the use of telework for the foreseeable future.” Popular chains like Walgreens have resorted to locking freezers with chains as shoplifting has risen 20% over the last three years.

Experts are pointing to policies implemented in Democratic strongholds as a primary culprit in rising lawlessness. As noted by National Review’s Charles Cooke, California’s steadily climbing crime rate is arguably rooted in measures like Proposition 47, which turned nonviolent property crimes that did not exceed $950 from felonies to misdemeanors:

“And, would you believe it, the result has been a massive increase in nonviolent property crimes whose damages do not exceed $950! Couple Proposition 47 with the rise of prosecutors who do not prosecute — a national problem that is particularly acute in California — and you get that most inexplicable of outcomes: a diminishment in public order that was consciously approved by the state’s voters.”

Meanwhile in Oregon, voters enacted Measure 110 in November 2020, which decriminalized the possession of highly addictive drugs like heroin and methamphetamine. The purported goal of the measure was to establish a “humane” approach to drug addiction by providing “access to recovery services, peer support and stable housing.” However, Oregon ranks near the bottom in states with access to drug treatment facilities, and Measure 110 contained no language to establish more treatment facilities before allowing drug decriminalization.

The result has been a record number of drug overdoses in Portland in 2022, which was topped in the first eight months of 2023. In addition, shootings in the city have tripled, vehicle thefts have doubled, property crimes and burglaries have risen, and homelessness has jumped 50%, all since the measure was enacted. The once flourishing downtown has been transformed “with scenes of drugged-out people passed out in doorways or roaming downtown like zombies, babbling to themselves, and pushing around carts filled with junk.” As restaurant owners struggle to stay in business due to continual break-ins and vandalism, the flagship stores of REI and Nike, along with the last two Walmarts in Portland, have all closed.

Ken Blackwell, former mayor of Cincinnati and undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was unsurprised by skyrocketing crime rates in Democrat-controlled cities.

“If you reward bad behavior, don’t be surprised if you get more bad behavior,” he told The Washington Stand. “So the lax attitude that these big city mayors, particularly in these blue cities, have towards punishing bad behavior, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they’re going to get more of it. … The criminals will push the envelope until they meet resistance.”

Blackwell, who currently serves as senior fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at Family Research Council, went on to note that “as a mayor [who worked] with Rudy Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City, we worked on the theory of the broken window. If people see one broken window unattended to, then two, then three, then four, the disrespect for law and order will grow like wildfire. … It’s pretty straightforward in terms of human behavior.”

“It starts with this assault on innocent life, when people of all ages have disrespect for innocent life, that’s going to have consequences, whether it is a rash of violent crimes where life is disrespected, or whether it’s an assault on the notion of private property,” he concluded. “You have that in combination with victimhood when people are told over and over and over that they are victims, they feel that they can do anything without retribution.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

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

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

Newsom Imposes $1.5M Fine on California School District for Rejecting Textbook Discussing LGBT Activism

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

On Thursday, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) announced that he would be levying a $1.5 million fine on the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) over the school board’s recent decision to reject a state-endorsed textbook intended for elementary schoolchildren that discusses the infamous gay rights activist Harvey Milk.

“We’re going to purchase the book for these students — the same one that hundreds of thousands of kids are already using,” Newsom said. “If these extremist school board members won’t do their job, we will — and fine them for their incompetence.”

Joseph Komrosky, the president of the TVUSD Board of Education, has emphasized that the board’s rejection of the textbook is centered around the pedophilia that Milk, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who passed away in 1978, engaged in during his life. “My word choice [of calling Milk a ‘pedophile’] is based upon facts represented by Mr. Milk, and I don’t believe those facts are a good example for our children to learn about in elementary school,” Komrosky said in a tweet in response to Newsom’s claim that Komrosky’s tweet was “An offensive statement from an ignorant person.”

The pedophilic actions of Milk have been extensively documented. As noted by The Washington Stand’s Ben Johnson:

“Milk … had a sexual relationship with Jack Galen McKinley, a 16-year-old runaway who committed suicide after their encounter. Milk was attracted to ‘boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20s,’ wrote LGBT activist Randy Shilts in his biography of Milk, his friend. ‘Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance-abuse problems.’”

The decision by the TVUSD Board of Education is the latest in a growing movement of public school systems taking action to remove pornographic books from school curriculums and libraries in response to a nationwide outcry from parents. In February, Broward County Public Schools in Florida announced they would be removing “Flamer,” a pornographic novel, and would be reviewing other books in their schools’ library catalogues for sexually explicit content. In June, the Hanover County School Board in Virginia announced a new policy that would allow parents to file challenges to remove explicit books from school libraries.

These actions followed the enaction of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s (R) March 2022 bill that requires all school districts in the state to have their instructional and library reading materials reviewed to make sure they are free from sexually explicit content.

Meanwhile, Newsom’s unusually strong public rebuke and large monetary fine of a school district’s decision to reflect the values of the local voters may be an indication of his plans for a future Democratic presidential run.

“Gavin Newsom desperately wants to be president of the United States,” said podcast host and Family Research Council Senior Fellow Joseph Backholm on a recent episode of “Outstanding.” “California is like a glimpse into the window of the future of what happens when progressives get everything they want.”

“I think he’s absolutely running,” Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, concurred. “The question is, is he running in 2024 or 2028? And I think that we will not know that for a while. We may not honestly know that until the Democratic National Convention next year.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canadian Teacher Emotionally Abuses Muslim Students Who Stayed Home on Pride Day

Stanford Law Parts Ways with DEI Dean Who Berated Judge

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

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

California Democrats Vote against Anti-Child Trafficking Bill, Then Change Course

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

Last week, one Democrat in the California State Assembly made a rare public apology — not over a scandal, but over her position on a vote that had taken place the same week. Assembly member Liz Ortega had joined fellow Democrats just a few days earlier in blocking a bill aimed at cracking down on human trafficking of children. The move justifiably made national headlines and garnered widespread criticism. But it shouldn’t take a national controversy for Democrats to vote the right way on something as blatantly evil as the human trafficking of children.

Now, Assemblywoman Ortega says she “made a bad decision,” and in her public apology on Twitter, she wrote, “Voting against legislation targeting really bad people who traffic children was wrong. I regret doing that and I am going to help get this important legislation passed into law.”

On July 11, the California Assembly Committee on Public Safety failed to pass SB-14. The only two Republicans on the committee voted in favor. Yet not a single one of the six Democrats on the committee, including Ortega, voted in favor of the bill, instead making the cowardly decision to abstain from voting at all. The bill had already passed unanimously in the California State Senate in May with bipartisan support.

SB-14 would make “human trafficking of a minor” a “serious felony” under Section 1192.7 of the state’s Penal Code. “Serious” felonies get harsher punishments under California law and are considered “strikes” under California’s “Three Strikes Law.” Eighty-nine nonprofits and organizations and 13 individuals registered their support for the bill (including multiple district attorney’s offices, police departments, and anti-trafficking groups), while only seven groups opposed it. The State of California Department of Justice’s own website states, “California is one of the largest sites of human trafficking in the United States.” Thus, a bill aimed at making the penalty for trafficking children harsher should be something that California Assembly members of both parties can see is necessary.

After originally declining to vote for the bill, Ortega told the Washington Free Beacon, “Sending someone to prison for the rest of their lives is not going to fix the harm moving forward. And that’s the part I’m struggling with. It’s a complex issue.” Ortega’s grave misunderstanding of the criminal justice system was covered over by her with a veneer of compassion. It ignores the fact that putting a trafficker behind bars for a significant amount of time is not only an act of justice for the crimes that were committed, but it also protects the children whom the trafficker might target next were he or she not behind bars.

At the California Assembly’s hearing for the bill last Tuesday, one survivor of trafficking, Odessa Perkins, called out the Democrats’ reluctance to inflict harsher penalties for child trafficking as continuing the “horrific cycle of abuse and depravity.” As a black survivor of trafficking in California, her testimony contradicted opponents of the bill who claimed the proposal would lead to lead to overcrowded jails or contribute to mass incarceration of black individuals, saying, “I was molested and raped repeatedly by black and white men and even some women. So, it does not matter the race. What matters is saving our children. Traffickers are getting out of jail, parole, and reoffending …” Progressives who are soft on crime may try to use their tired and routine talking points, but this is simply not a racial issue, an economic issue, or even a partisan issue — it’s about protecting vulnerable children.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican State Senator Shannon Grove, expressed her shock and frustration that SB-14 was blocked, saying, “I am profoundly disappointed that committee Democrats couldn’t bring themselves to support the bill, with their stubborn and misguided objection to any penalty increase regardless of how heinous the crime.” Even Governor Gavin Newsom (D) was unhappy with the committee Democrats. The day after the committee vote, he called Grove to see how the bill might be revived. After the call, Newsom told reporters, “I want to understand exactly what happened yesterday. I take it very seriously.” He further noted that he “cares deeply” about the issue of child trafficking.

The public outcry and chastisement from California’s liberal governor was enough for most of the Democrats on the committee to reverse course entirely. On Thursday — just two days after the initial vote — the committee voted on SB-14 again. This time, it passed with six votes in favor while two Democrats still abstained from voting.

This is a small victory for justice and for the survivors of human trafficking. Next, the bill must be approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which will likely vote on the bill mid-to-late August, before going on to the full Assembly. Grove believes that “most Assembly Democrats want to vote for this bill if they are given a chance” and is hopeful that the bill will be successful.

The controversy in California comes at a time when child human trafficking is garnering heightened attention after the theater release of the movie “Sound of Freedom,” based on a true story of a sting operation in Latin American that successfully led to the rescue of dozens of children trapped in sex slavery. Negative reactions to the movie from some legacy media outlets have been outrageous. The Guardian published the following heading: “Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America.” Rolling Stone followed suit with the headline “‘Sound of Freedom’: Box Office Triumph for QAnon Believers.” The Washington Post attempted a faux nuanced tone with “QAnon and ‘Sound of Freedom’ Both Rely on Tired Hollywood Tropes.”

Many in the legacy media are trying to discredit “Sound of Freedom” — and its underlying message that the trafficking of children is a serious problem that ought to be addressed — by linking it to the QAnon conspiracy theory. But it begs the question: why? Do these progressive elites not think that human trafficking of children happens? Or is the reason even more sinister? The exact motivation is unclear; but what should be clear to Christians is that there is an intense spiritual battle surrounding this issue right now. We must pray that the darkness will be exposed, and that American’s hearts will be moved to bring the perpetrators of trafficking to justice and the victims of trafficking to freedom.

Human trafficking should be exactly the type of issue that unites everyone with an intact conscience. Human trafficking, especially of defenseless children, is a horrifying reality — one that everyone should want to see effectively combatted, and ultimately ended. The debacle over SB-14 last week was unexpected and disappointing, even for California. It might have taken a national uproar for Democrats to rethink their position on SB-14, but at least some did rethink it and change course.

We can hope that California Assembly members will now work diligently to see SB-14 pass the full Assembly. Beyond that, politicians across the United States should strategize on how our laws can more effectively address this scourge upon society.

AUTHOR

Arielle Del Turco

Arielle Del Turco is Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, and co-author of “Heroic Faith: Hope Amid Global Persecution.”

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

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

The Faults in ‘No-Fault’ Divorce

/in , , , , , , , /by

Jesus rejoiced in the institution of marriage. “He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Note the phrases: “hold fast … one flesh … what God has joined … not separate.” Marriage is, in God’s good plan, unitive and permanent, a covenant made to last. While Jesus made an exception for infidelity, God’s word makes clear that marriage is composed of a relationship that is to be as secure as our salvation in Christ. Indeed, marriage is a picture of the union of Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:22-33).

In our culture, this beautiful union has been tarnished by the availability of penalty-free dissolution. On July 6, 1969, the state of California enacted the nation’s first “no-fault” divorce law. As the state’s judicial branch website explains, this means “no one has to prove someone did something wrong to cause the divorce (this is called no fault divorce). You can get a divorce even if the other person doesn’t want one.” This measure became law under the signature of then-governor Ronald Reagan, who later told his son Michael that signing it was “one of the worst mistakes of his political career.”

In 2010, New York became the last state to enact a no-fault divorce law; today, all 50 have some form of the law on the books. Making no-fault divorce available and inexpensive is like offering a child an endless supply of ice cream and soda: Given human fallenness, something accessible that is also seen as desirable will be common. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2021 there were 1,985,000 marriages in the United States and almost 690,000 divorces — almost exactly 35% of those who tied the knot.

In total, about half of first-time marriages end in divorce; subsequent marriages end at an even higher percentage. While the causes vary widely, ultimately no-fault divorce is a precipitating factor.

It has also become common. As National Review journalist Madeleine Kearns observes, we now have “widespread acceptance of ‘no fault divorce,’ the idea that marriage, like a car, sometimes spontaneously breaks down, becoming more hassle than it’s worth.” A disturbing but accurate metaphor. “The nation saw a spike in divorce rates following the enactment of no-fault divorce laws,” writes The Daily Signal’s Daniel Davis. “Between 1960 and 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled and remained relatively steady into the 1990s.”

At the same time, consider research by the University of Virginia’s Dr. Bradford Wilcox, who heads the National Marriage Project, that “active conservative Protestants,” or Evangelicals, “who attend church regularly are actually 35% less likely to divorce than those who have no religious preferences.” Also, in 2018, Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program published research collected over 14 years showing that “regular religious service attendance is associated with 50% lower divorce rates in later life.” So, while it’s good news that among regular churchgoers the divorce rate is lower, it is still high. And the costs of divorce for the couples involved, their children, and the culture at large are wide and deep. The scars left, especially on children, are large and enduring.

Christians need to pursue Christ-honoring marriages and there are many resources to help them; some can be found at FRC.org. With that said, while personal character is not the province of government, both Scripture and the Constitution emphasize the need to restrain the excesses of human fallenness. Penalizing adverse and destructive behavior is necessary for individuals and communities, even nations, to enjoy a high measure of stability and security. Along with this, nothing strengthens the foundation of any society more than healthy, robust families. So, what can government do, for the good of everyone, to create a cultural environment in which faithful marriage is encouraged?

Policies that bolster marriage are helpful. For example, the home mortgage deduction, the adoption tax credit, and the charitable tax deduction are among those that enable families to better pay their bills. But things like the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” which essentially said that marriage is whatever any state says it is, and no-fault divorce take away from whatever else government gives.

What is not helpful is a national policy in which divorce-at-will, or with modest qualifications, is now more the norm than not. Revising state divorce policy is a tough challenge; model legislation (which includes exceptions for such things as spousal abuse and abandonment) provides guidance but has yet to be enacted. It’s hard to curb people’s desire for an easy-out.

Perhaps the most effective remedy is for believers to model the kinds of marriages Jesus envisioned. As Christian men and women demonstrate the beauty of the lifelong, exclusive, covenantal commitment He taught, the attractiveness of the one-flesh union might well make marriage more attractive.

A final note: Theologically, there’s no such thing as a no-fault divorce. There is always at least one party morally responsible for violating something God never intended to be dissolved.

AUTHOR

Rob Schwarzwalder

Rob Schwarzwalder is Senior Lecturer in Regent University’s Honors College.

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

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

NY Abortionists Kill Girls as Young as 13, but Democratic Gov Cracks Down on Pro-Life Centers

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

As the state’s leaders crack down on pro-life pregnancy resource centers, New York Democrats fund abortionists who have killed dozens of women. At least 38 women and girls, as young as 13, have lost their lives during “safe and legal” abortions carried out by the state’s private abortionists, according to a private research report furnished to The Washington Stand.

Yet that greatly undercounts the number of total abortion deaths in the state, because these numbers do not include the harms caused by the nation’s largest abortion franchise, Planned Parenthood. Then-New York City Health Commissioner Stephen Joseph noted in a June 1987 memo, “During the period between 1981 and 1984, there were 30 legal abortion-related deaths in New York City.”

“Abortion is the original quackery. Abortion is a mercenary industry preying on women in crisis for profit and power,” Rev. Jim Harden, CEO of CompassCare, a New York-based coalition of pregnancy resource centers, told The Washington Stand. “I have said for years that the abortion industry represents serial medical malpractice.”

Despite these gruesome results, New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) and other Democrats have supported abortion businesses while trying to bring the full force of the law to bear against pregnancy resource centers. Last May, Hochul gave abortionists $35 million in taxpayer funding in the name of advancing “human rights.” Abortion activists firebombed Harden’s pro-life medical network last June 7; six days later, Hochul signed a bill authorizing the state health commissioner to investigate so-called “limited service pregnancy centers,” which do not take part in abortions.

At the national level, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has introduced the “Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation” (SAD) Act to essentially fine pro-life women’s centers out of existence, asserting pro-life centers “wish [pregnant women] harm.” And abortion advocates have called efforts to hold abortionists accountable for killing mothers a “modern-day lynching.”

“Far from just turning a blind eye, pro-abortion politicians like New York Governor Hochul insist upon promoting, paying for, and protecting abortionists from criminal liability through taxpayer funds and legislation,” Harden told TWS. “Meanwhile, they generate a propaganda smokescreen for their pet industry by vilifying their only competition: peaceful, pro-life pregnancy centers.”

Killing Mothers with their Babies

New York state became an abortion pioneer three years before Roe v. Wade, when Governor Nelson Rockefeller — a three-time Republican presidential hopeful who likely died while committing adultery — signed the most lax abortion law in the nation on April 11, 1970. The state’s history of killing women began a year later, when 25-year-old Margaret Louise Smith, who traveled to the state from Michigan, bled to death on June 16, 1971. Abortionist Jesse Ketchum was convicted of negligent homicide two years later. Thus began the abortion industry’s long history of mingling the blood of mothers with their children.

At least 38 women, as young as 13 and as old as 40, have died at the hands of abortionists, according to the research report, and hundreds of documents attesting its veracity, reviewed by this author. Women died when abortionists left aborted babies’ body parts inside the woman, perforated the mother’s uterus, failed to monitor vital signs, overdosed the patient on anesthesia, or oversaw a deficient abortion procedure that sent a woman into a death-inducing coma. One 31-year-old woman died from the side effects of the early abortion pill, prostaglandin, in 1984.

The mothers killed by New York abortionists hailed from Haiti, Jamaica, Honduras, Ghana, and multiple states.

Teenagers, including those well below the state’s age of consent, have died during abortions. Dawn Ravenall, the 13-year-old daughter of two black Pentecostal preachers and an honors student, died in February 1985 when abortionist Allen Kline left her unattended in New York City’s Eastern Women’s Center after the child suffered a massive heart attack.

Sometimes, deaths come amid a series of other abuses. State health officials took no action against abortionist Abu Hayat after he perforated the uterus of 17-year-old Sophie McCoy of Brooklyn during an abortion on September 18, 1990. One year later, a baby named Ana Rodriguez was born alive, but with one arm, following a botched, third-trimester abortion at Hayat’s hands. “After Hayat’s arrest, 15 women contacted the New York County district attorney in Manhattan, and another 19 contacted the New York Police Department to register complaints that Hayat sexually abused them, botched their abortions, or mistreated them in some other way,” the report states. Hayat lost his license in 1992 — two years too late for McCoy or Rodriguez.

At other times, it is the abortionist’s indifference to life and lack of familiarity with life-saving medicine that snuffed out women’s lives too early. An abortionist named Elyas Bonrouhi, who changed his name to David Benjamin, killed a 33-year-old immigrant from Honduras and mother of four, Guadalupe Negrón, during an abortion at the Metro Women’s Center in Queens on July 9, 1993. Bonrouhi left her to bleed after he lacerated her uterus and cervix during a procedure The New York Times described as a “complicated late-term abortion” at 19 weeks. One of the paramedics said the abortionist or personnel at the facility — which one juror described as “disgusting” and “very unsanitary” — stuffed a breathing tube down the deceased mother’s esophagus instead of her trachea, causing her oxygen mask to fill up with the contents of her stomach, which she then inhaled.

“The cause of death, determined by the medical examiner, was the same as that commonly associated with back-alley butchers in the days of illegal abortion: a perforated cervix,” noted Amy Pagnozzi in the New York Daily News. State officials said the abortionist showed “depraved indifference to human life,” of the mother. Jurors agreed after just two hours’ deliberation.

The death-dealing procedure would never have taken place without the leniency of New York state officials. “New York State Department of Health officials had revoked Benjamin’s/Bonrouhi’s license in June 1993 for ‘gross incompetence and negligence’ for perforating five other women’s uteruses,” states the report. Yet officials allowed the abortionist, who had a history of shoddy work dating back to 1980, to continue working while he contested the ruling. It was their second act of grace. In 1986, “State Department of Health officials ordered an emergency revocation of his license, but Board of Regents officials overruled them and instead merely suspended his license for three months,” the report notes.

Abandoning patients becomes a recurring theme in the report. A 26-year-old immigrant from Ghana died after being foresaken by an abortionist who first practiced in the former Soviet city of Leningrad. Eurice Agbagaa passed away in January 1989, eight days after abortionist Abram Zelikman perforated her uterus, told an unlicensed employee to administer anesthesia, then left.

Similarly, Jamie Lee Morales bled to death on July 9, 2016 — 23 years to the day Negrón died — hours after abortionist Robert Rho carried out an abortion. During the late-term procedure — Morales was 24-26 weeks pregnant, possibly past the 24 weeks then allowed under state law — Rho lacerated one of her uterine arteries. When her sister arrived at his Liberty Women’s Health Care, in Flushing, Queens, Rho merely released Morales to her sister, who later took her to a hospital. Rho would plead guilty to negligent homicide two years later.

The abortionist’s attorney, Jeffrey Lichtman, called the case a “modern-day lynching.”

Harden says lynching better describes the treatment New York state is inflicting on life-saving pro-life women’s centers. “Never once has a pregnancy center sent a woman to the morgue,” Harden told TWS. “Compare that to the abortion industry in New York.”

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. ©2023 Family Research Council.

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