New Law Allows Govt to Seize Children If Parents Oppose Their ‘Gender Identity’

Legislation passed by the Canadian province of Ontario has granted authorities the right to take children away from parents who refuse to accept their children’s “gender identity.” Critics of the new measure launched a petition aiming for a repeal of the “totalitarian” child abuse bill.

Out of Ontario’s 86 legislators, 63 voted in favor of Bill 89 or “The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017” on June 1.

The legislation replaces the Child and Family Services Act which used to govern child protection, foster care and adoption services in the province.

The new law includes “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered by child protection services “in the best interests of the child.”

It deprives parents of their earlier right to “direct the child’s education and religious upbringing.” (Read more from “New Law Allows Govt to Seize Children If Parents Oppose Their ‘Gender Identity'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘God Restores’: Olympic Gold Medalist Who Grieves After an Abortion Wants to Help Other Post-Abortive Women

Four-time Olympic gold medalist in track and field Sanya Richards-Ross recently penned a memoir. In it she revealed that she had an abortion right before the 2008 Olympics. The experience left her feeling loss and grief. But after a moment when she experienced God for herself in Bejing, she began the healing process. Now she says God restores, and through her book hopes to help other women who’ve suffered loss because of abortion.

‘The Toughest Time of My Life’

Just before the 2008 Olympics in Bejing, Sanya Richards-Ross found out that she was pregnant. She was at the top of her game and was favored to win gold that year. She didn’t see a way to have a baby during the height of her career and chose to have an abortion. In her new book, Chasing Grace: What the Quarter Mile Has Taught Me About God and Life, Sanya opens up about what she called the toughest time of her life.

In an interview with Newsworthy with Norsworthy, Sanya said she wasn’t sure she wanted to include the abortion in her book at first. “I literally prayed about that for almost two years because it’s something that is really private. A lot of women don’t talk about it.” Sanya felt like she’d been chasing something her entire life, whether that was gold medals or the best version of herself.

God’s Grace

“Ultimately what I learned was, while I was chasing all these things, what really kept me going was God’s grace.” She decided to add the story of her abortion because “I felt like if I didn’t share the moment of my life where I did feel God’s grace the most I felt like it would’ve been disingenuous to my journey.” If it wasn’t for God’s grace, she wouldn’t have been able to recognize that the decision of her abortion didn’t define her. “I am the person I’m striving to be,” she said, “I have to work on it every single day.”

Sanya felt that if she won her race in the 2008 Bejing Olympics it would take her shame away. She’d just had the abortion and was on the brink of a breakdown. “But then,” she said, “there was another part of me that was like, ‘I don’t deserve this victory.’”

God’s Presence

Her experience with God’s presence came as she was getting off of a bus in Bejing just before the race. “I felt literally, emotionally, physically lost. God wrapped His arms around me … He just hugged me and told me He loved me and I was going to be okay.” It was then that she said she felt a peace that passes all understanding. “All of a sudden, I just felt like, Oh my God — God has already forgiven me. Now I’ve got to forgive myself.” It didn’t happen overnight for Sanya, but “it was the beginning of recovery for me.”

She spent time between the Bejing races with her family, talking to her parents and praying. She returned to the last race revived and energized. “I had an amazing experience running from behind and beating Team Russia, so I’m grateful for that.” She received a bronze medal for her individual race but won gold in her team’s relay. She went on to win Olympic gold in 2012 in the 400-meter race.

‘To Glorify God’

While she worried about how people would receive her story, “Ultimately, I did it to glorify God. To tell people that ‘You can come back from any decision no matter how hard it is to make or no matter what you thought about it in the past. You can still have God along with you along the journey.’”

‘God Restores!’

Sanya is continuing to heal from her abortion. She is now looking forward to the birth of her second child. Although she still tears up about her experience, she has a message for other post-abortive women: “God restores!” Every time she tells her story she heals a little bit more, she said. “Healing means ultimately understanding that God has forgiven you. I think when you do that, then it really helps you to process that, ‘Look, God doesn’t love the way I love, you know, He loves me unconditionally and we all make mistakes.’” (For more from the author of “‘God Restores’: Olympic Gold Medalist Who Grieves After an Abortion Wants to Help Other Post-Abortive Women” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why We Kill Disabled Kids: For the Same Reason Cain Killed Abel

Like many non-fiction writers, I’m a frustrated novelist. I’ve written a total of three. Each one stinks up a very old box in storage. But why? I’ve had to admit that characters don’t interest me very much except as hand puppets for arguing over what really grabs me: abstract ideas. A master of psychology like Dostoevsky could afford to work philosophical arguments into his stories. When I try it, the outcome reads, as one writing teacher told me, “like Maoist propaganda.” He was a leftist, but I don’t think he meant that as a compliment.

The Science Fiction Novel I’ll Never Write

But if I could write convincing characters, there’s one story I’d like to tell. What if we came across a group of humans who’d never endured the Fall? Or let’s go sci-fi: What if some scientist took DNA from the Shroud of Turin and cloned some? Sin passes through the blood, as St. Paul tells us. And Jesus’ blood didn’t have any. So right there you’ve got a sci-fi basis for how this could happen. Imagine some unhinged biologist in Italy opened up his lab and revealed that he’d created a thousand biological copies of Jesus Christ. (They’re purely human. No scientist can reenact the Incarnation.) Even better, this doctor did some tinkering and made a thousand females whom they could marry.

What would such people be like? That’s what I’d find interesting to picture. We’d get to meet Adam and Eve again, before the Fall. We’d be able to see mankind as God intended him originally — not hag-ridden by temptation. Not cut off from God by an infinite gap that only divine Grace could possibly bridge, at the cost of the Cross. No, man as he was meant to be. Doing what he was meant to do, as easily as dogs do. No struggle against the constant pull of a tainted will and darkened intellect. Virtue coming naturally. Kindness welling up easily. Good sportsmanship all round.

Catholics believe that Mary, too, was spared Original Sin (through the grace of Christ, which vaccinated her at conception. Don’t ask, I don’t want to argue about it, and I promise not to read any comments contesting it). So we RCs can look at the Gospel accounts of her actions for hints of this. But there isn’t that much there, really. Just a few lovely, tantalizing anecdotes. So even Catholics should find this question interesting. In fact we do; large swathes of our traditional theology are devoted to distinguishing firmly between what belongs to Grace, and what to created nature.

What Would Unfilled People Really Be Like?

That would be the fun part of the book: Laying out in fine detail just what people are like when they’re just what God meant us to be. Not the patched-up, battered creatures that even Christians redeemed by Grace still are throughout this life: full of scars from our sins, old nagging temptations, gross imperfections and regrets. Not what we’ll become at the Resurrection, when even our wounds will be transfigured, and every fall will seem to us happy. No, the simple, plain creatures that Milton tried to envision in Paradise Lost. That Lewis imagined on Malacandra in Out of the Silent Planet. You have to admit that this is an exciting challenge for a gifted novelist. (Too bad I’m not one.)

Then the book would turn very sad, very quickly. Because it’s obvious what the rest of us would do to these unfallen creatures as soon as we got bored of studying them.

Why We Target the Innocent

We would kill them. All of them. Quickly. Not even a breeding pair would survive in captivity, anywhere on earth. They would disappear like the Dodos, flightless birds that had known no predators till the white man landed, found them and ate them. Every last one.

How do I know this? There’s a long, long list of incidents that point to this melancholy conclusion: Sinful man envies innocence (even relative innocence), and because he cannot attain it, he often decides to destroy it. That’s why Cain killed Abel. Why Joseph’s brothers attacked him. Why the Egyptians targeted the Hebrews. It’s why the mighty Roman Empire over and over again wielded its legions against little Judea. It’s why so many in Jesus’ time and place agreed that He needed to die. It’s why the most helpless minorities, like Jews and Gypsies and the handicapped, attracted Hitler’s most savage hatred.

The great Christian thinker Rene Girard developed a philosophy of history based on this insight. He said that “scapegoating” the innocent lies at the heart of fallen human civilization: that every city is built with the lime of human blood. It was only the coming of Jesus that unmasked and began to unmake this.

But I don’t need elaborate theories or historical lists of victim groups to prove my point. To know that this book would be too sad to write, even had I the talent.

Hunting Down the Handicapped

We only need look at the fate of Down’s Syndrome children today. It’s not enough that unborn children per se are as innocent as it is possible to be, after the Fall. We destroy one in three of those. In our rights-obsessed, virtue-signaling West that will turn reality upside down lest some drag queen be banned from the restroom of his choice … more than 90 percent of children detected with this disorder are killed in the womb.

Even when allowed to live, few of these will ever reach the mental age where they can commit a serious sin. Parents report that Downs Syndrome kids are usually happy, loving, guileless and kind.

And Satan hates that more than anything on this earth. He hates it as he hated Adam and Eve. So he goads us, their luckless descendants, to feel that very same hatred. He casts it as fear. Of the inconvenience, the burden. He dresses it up as “compassion.” We are too kind, too generous to let such hapless creatures draw a breath, or walk the earth. It’s for their “own good” we tell ourselves. But we know better.

We bury that knowledge. Whole countries like France censor videos depicting how happy, how good, how innocent and lovable these hunted children can be. If only someone would love them, would offer them the care and protection that we pretend we offer the innocent and the helpless. We good, good tolerant humanitarian people, who don’t need the blood of Christ to wash us clean. No, we don’t need that, and we don’t need those kids to remind us how tainted we really are. And so we kill them.

So that’s why I won’t write that novel. I couldn’t bear it. (For more from the author of “Why We Kill Disabled Kids: For the Same Reason Cain Killed Abel” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let’s Help Military Families by Adopting a ‘GI Bill’ for Their Children

President Donald Trump made helping the “forgotten man” a key theme of his presidency from the get-go.

The challenge for Trump is how to aid the forgotten man by shrinking the programs and institutions that left him behind to begin with while moving toward policies that will help him thrive in the 21st century.

One of the forefronts of that important shift is in expanding education choice, which Trump has announced as one of the priorities of his administration.

In Trump’s first speech to a joint session of Congress he said, “I am calling upon members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth.”

But how can Trump bring school choice to parents across the country without violating the principles of federalism and interfering with state-level innovators who are at the forefront of reform?

The answer is to create school choice within existing federal education programs that actually have a constitutional warrant, not the least of which is a program designed to serve our armed forces.

The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke and Anne Ryland propose just that in their paper, “A GI Bill for Children of Military Families: Transforming Impact Aid into Education Savings Accounts,” which was recently profiled by The Washington Post.

In a clear reference to the famous GI Bill of the 1940s, which provided education benefits to soldiers upon their return home from World War II, Burke and Ryland’s proposal would bring better education options to over 600,000 children of military families.

The proposal is an innovative way to further the school choice revolution that will hopefully transform America’s K-12 education system, while specifically helping our heroes’ most precious commodities: their children.

Our Constitution is explicit in the necessity to provide for national defense. This plan will help ensure that we provide for those who stand as its bulwark.

Failing Those Who Serve

The paper highlighted how a survey conducted by the Military Times found that a staggering 35 percent of military personnel surveyed said that unhappiness with their child’s education was a critical factor in their decision to remain or leave the armed services.

Many of these families live in states and localities with failing public schools, so if they wish to continue serving their country, they may have to do so amid concerns about the schooling options available to their children.

This is unacceptable, and should be concerning to Americans who believe in taking care of the people who dedicate their lives to defending this country.

Military families already bear the strain of long deployments, constant travel, and stress of deploying into harm’s way.

Additional pressures on our troops, such as concern about their children receiving the education that is right for them, is one Congress can and should attempt to resolve.

However, over half of active-duty military families in the U.S. dwell in states that have no school choice options for them to escape to if their local public schools do not align with their needs.

High-population states like California and Texas, which have the highest number of military families, have no private school choice options whatsoever.

This problem can be alleviated by having Congress redirect roughly $1.3 billion in funds from the Impact Aid program, created to bring federal tax dollars to school districts with military and federally-connected populations, directly to military families through education savings accounts specifically created for them.

Importantly, it would require no additional taxpayer money and would simply be using funds that already exist.

But like with other school choice programs, interest groups have come out to attack any proposal that breaks up the government school monopoly.

Breaking the Status Quo

The National Association of Federally Impacted Schools’ director charged that the military kids school choice plan was “misguided” in a recent interview with Politico, and claimed that it would “dismantle a program based on fairness to taxpayers.”

This echoes arguments that teacher unions in particular have made about school choice in general.

Changing funding mechanisms from districts to individuals threatens the exclusive control over how the money is used, but empowers parents and individuals to decide for themselves what services work best for them.

The National Association of Federally Impacted Schools also released a statement saying that “changing Impact Aid into an [education savings account] would burden local taxpayers with higher taxes and require students to go without.”

The charge that the plan would raise taxes for districts is incorrect. There is simply no reason to increase local taxes to pay for students who are no longer in the public system.

Even the Obama administration recognized the need for reforming Impact Aid.

In recent budget requests, both the Trump and Obama administrations suggested eliminating Impact Aid for federal property, arguing that districts have had plenty of time to adjust their tax rolls to federal acquisitions made decades ago, and that Impact Aid dollars should be directed to federally connected children.

The Obama fiscal year budget request said:

It is the administration’s policy to use available Impact Aid funds to help pay for the education on federally connected children and fund programs that serve federally connected children. Payments for federal property compensates LEAs [districts] for lost property tax revenue due to the presence of federal lands without regard to whether those districts educate any federally connected children as a result of federal presence.

Implicit in that argument is that if the kids aren’t there, the dollars should follow them to where they are: their chosen schools. If the kids leave a district school, the dollars should follow the child.

The Next Generation

Adopting school choice to better serve those who serve us would be a major boon to these families who have carried an enormous weight for the rest of us.

It would also help ensure that the next generation of military personnel—who in very high numbers come from military families—receive a first-rate education that will help them through life.

It will ease the minds and burdens of these families if Congress and Trump can give them the tools they need to thrive. We have a duty not to forget or neglect these people to whom we owe so much.

The forgotten child of the forgotten man will be given the opportunity to succeed and pursue the American dream. (For more from the author of “Let’s Help Military Families by Adopting a ‘GI Bill’ for Their Children” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bernie Sanders Just Applied a Religious Test to a Christian Nominee for Public Office

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the use of a “religious test” for any office or public trust. But Bernie Sanders got very close to doing just on Wednesday. It was during the confirmation hearing for President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

During Russell Vought’s confirmation hearing, Sanders took issue with an article Vought wrote for conservative website The Resurgent in January 2016, reported The Atlantic. In his article, Vought defended a Christian school that had fired a professor for expressing solidarity with Muslims. Sanders objected to Vought’s statement in the article: “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

Sanders objected. “In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,” Sanders told the committee at the hearing. “This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards.”

Later Sanders asked Vought, “Do you believe that statement is Islamophobic?” “Absolutely not, Senator,” said Vought. “I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith.”

Sanders continued to berate and interrupt Vought. “I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America, I really don’t know, probably a couple million. Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?” Vought replied that he was a Christian, but Sanders quickly cut him off. “I understand you are a Christian. But this country is made up of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion. But there are other people who have different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?”

Vought tried to explain the concept of imago dei to Sanders. “As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals … .” Sanders cut him off again and asked Vought if his comments were respectful of other religions. Vought reminded Sanders that the article he wrote was as a Christian about a Christian university, which “has a statement of faith that speaks clearly with regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.”

In response, Sanders told the committee: “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about. I will vote no.”

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention responded to Sanders’ religious test in the hearing.

Senator Sanders’ comments are breathtakingly audacious and shockingly ignorant — both of the Constitution and of basic Christian doctrine. Even if one were to excuse Senator Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Senator Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office in defiance of the United States Constitution. No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office. While no one expects Senator Sanders to be a theologian, we should expect far more from an elected official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

(For more from the author of “Bernie Sanders Just Applied a Religious Test to a Christian Nominee for Public Office” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Michigan Doctor Mutilated the Genitals of as Many as 100 Girls, Says US Attorney

A Michigan-based doctor and her associates mutilated the genitals of as many as 100 girls before being caught, a prosecutor told a federal court Wednesday.

The startling allegation occurred during court proceedings involving a case against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, who is facing charges for mutilating the genitals of two Minnesota girls.

“Due to the secretive nature of this procedure, we are unlikely to ever know how many children were cut by Dr. (Jumana) Nagarwala,” said U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward, according to the Detroit Free Press. “The Minnesota victims were not the first victims.”

Nagarwala is alleged to have cut the genitals of the girls as part of a religious rite of passage. The two girls are believed to have been told to keep the practice a secret.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman granted bond to Dr. Fakhruddin Attar and his wife, Farida Attar. Dr. Attar is accused of allowing Nagarwala to use his clinic, located just outside Detroit, to engage in the mutilations, while his wife allegedly held the girls’ hands down during the procedure. (Read more from “Michigan Doctor Mutilated the Genitals of as Many as 100 Girls, Says US Attorney” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Wonder Woman’ Is a Box Office Hit in US, but Its Star Is Controversial in Middle East

The new Wonder Woman movie has been a smash at the box office, having grossed $129 million in its first five days in U.S. theaters and more than $220 million worldwide.

While many movie fans are anxious to see the new Warner Bros. film, people in Lebanon won’t get the opportunity. That’s because the film was banned last week by the country’s ministry of economy and trade.

The ban was not because of content the country deems offensive but rather because of its lead actress, Gal Gadot. She is an Israeli.

Lebanon bans Israeli products because it is at war with Israel.

Supporters of the boycott say it’s not Gadot’s nationality prompting the boycott, but rather the time she spent in the Israeli military — a requirement for Israeli men and women over 18 — and her public support of the Israeli military in the 2014 Israeli-Gaza conflict in which more than 2,200 people died, many of them civilians. More than 2,000 of those casualties were Palestinians.

In a Facebook post in 2014, Gadot said she was sending prayers for Israeli soldiers “who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas.”

A group called Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel urged the Lebanese government to ban the film.

“The state took the right decision,” Samah Idriss, a member of the boycott campaign, told The Associated Press.

Officials in Jordan are also considering banning the movie in that country.

“We remind the Jordanians of their obligation to boycott the film, and we refuse to be partners to the crimes of the Zionists and to increase their profits from this film. The Arab audience will not be involved in projects that represent Zionism and the Israeli army,” said a statement from one of the Jordanian campaigns against normalization with Israel, according to Ynet, an Israeli website.

Not everyone in Lebanon agrees with the decision to ban the film.

“Resist what?” wrote popular Lebanese blogger Elie Fares of her government’s decision. “A movie about an iconic superhero who’s been part of pop culture for over 70 years. A movie in which the lead actress happens to be Israeli but who’s not portraying ANYTHING related to her ‘country’ in any way whatsoever.”

In Jerusalem, Gadot’s performance and the movie’s success are being hailed.

The Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv displayed electronic billboard messages for Gidot this week that read, “We’re proud of you Gal Gadot” and “Our Wonder Woman,” according to The Jerusalem Post. (For more from the author of “‘Wonder Woman’ Is a Box Office Hit in US, but Its Star Is Controversial in Middle East” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Memo to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar

Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar’s screeching about birth control and rights, Christians and the Taliban has sunk to depths of hysterical dopiness previously uncharted.

Once again, they gathered around their table of gab last week to smear those who don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s contraception. They sounded the alarm over the impending calamity about to fall on American women who would be deprived of their God-given right to all manner of contraception at no cost to them. The sky is falling! Women are simply doomed! And it’s all because of mean-spirited, uptight, religious fanatics — such as the Little Sisters of the Poor — who want to impose their beliefs on everyone and force every woman to live by their religious rules.

“How are these people any different than the Taliban?” they asked, for the umpteenth time, with total exasperation.

Well, Whoopi and Joy, let me help you with a few, obvious distinctions.

First, let’s start with your beloved birth control. It’s not medicine, because fertility is not a disease. Fertility isn’t a malfunction of any bodily system, but in fact a healthy and proper function. Medicine treats disease.

I wasn’t aware that diabetics received their insulin free of charge, or that people with heart disease received their medication free of charge, or that cancer patients received their life-saving treatments free of charge. If actual medicine that treats actual diseases and actually keeps people alive is not given out for free, why in the world should the Pill, the patch, or the IUD be thrown at women like confetti? Women do not deserve free contraception just because some want it.

Let’s also remember that the Pill is widely available for about $10 bucks a month, and has been for at least a decade now. Yeah, it’s an outrageous expense! (And if even ten dollars is just too much, I can tell you how to avoid pregnancy for free.)

No one is taking away women’s contraception, or telling any woman she can’t use it if she wants to. The folks doing the imposing here are you. You want to impose the demand of free contraception on every individual and employer, and those who dare to object to your unreasonable demand are branded misogynist, religious fanatics who want to keep women down. (Oh, yawn.)

Now, onto this crazy obsession you have with conflating Christians with the Taliban. I’m Catholic, so I’ll speak for my own Church — especially since I know you have a special contempt for the Catholic Church. Let’s do an easy comparison to start with.

The Catholic Church has been educating girls all over the world for many, many, many centuries now.

When girls and women were condemned to a life of illiteracy and ignorance by the authorities of the time, the Church came in and upheld their dignity and worth and educated them. The Church is still doing that all over the world today.

In contrast, the Taliban forbids girls to be educated. Girls who desire an education risk execution if caught. Perhaps you remember Malala Yousafzai?

The Catholic Church not only does not sanction, but expressly forbids, child marriage, and any manner of forced marriage. No marriage exists unless the man and woman both enter into it with total, free assent.

In contrast, the Taliban has no such concern for age or freedom. Young girls are often forced into marriage.

Women under the Taliban cannot be out in public without a blood relative. They cannot have contact with any males other than their husband or blood relatives. They are covered from head to toe in the burqa.

They cannot speak loudly in public. They must not be visible from the streets, so the windows of their houses must be painted or covered.

There is no Catholic sanction for girls to be mutilated, tortured, shot, burned with acid, sold into slavery, raped under the guise of marriage, held captive in their homes, or regarded as property.

In contrast, a young girl named Bibi Aisha tried to flee a forced marriage, and when she was caught, the Taliban cut off her nose and ears to make an example out of her, lest other young girls get any ideas.

With all of these facts as foundation, you still want to insist that not wanting to be forced to pay for someone else’s birth control is the equivalent of the Taliban? If so, no one should take anything you say seriously.

You preach “tolerance” while practicing intolerance. You chat up rights while wanting to violate the rights of others. You claim, “Just let me do what I need to do and leave me alone” even as you demand that Catholic nuns who spend their lives caring for the poor and outcast fork over the money for your abortion and birth control pills. Worst of all, you loathe any suggestion that one’s sexual activities really are one’s own responsibility.

But here’s the truth: No one owes you or anyone else free contraception. Buy your own Pills and devices if you can’t live without them. (For more from the author of “Memo to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

7th Circuit Codifies Transgenderism Into the Constitution

Well, the political elites believe that it is settled science that the weather has permanently changed for the rest of time because of capitalism, but human sexuality is evidently not settled science. In fact, according to the courts, it is settled science for a man to be a woman.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest federal appeals court to codify transgenderism into law and the Constitution.

Although Obama’s executive mandates for transgender bathrooms have gone by the wayside (thanks to Attorney General Jeff Sessions overruling the liberal whims of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos), the courts are engaging in their own social transformation on behalf of the defeated Democrats.

In Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, a unanimous opinion from the three-judge panel ordered a Wisconsin school district to allow a girl to use the boys’ bathroom in school. Following in the footsteps of the Sixth and Fourth Circuits, this Seventh Circuit panel (which included GOP-appointee Ilana Rovner) ruled that the 1972 Title IX education law and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause cover transgenderism as a protected class.

As the courts redefine our national sovereignty, rewrite election laws and redistricting in favor of Democrats, redefine criminal justice law for mass murderers, and mandate publicly funded abortions, they are using their self-acclaimed status as kings to redefine sexuality retroactive to laws and amendments codified long before the sexual-identity movement was in vogue.

In an emotional screed disguised as law, this opinion uses male pronouns to describe a woman with female parts. In any other era, these judges would have been deemed mentally unstable to serve on a bench.

While refusing to recognize biological sex as immutable — or, even significant — the court contended that there is absolutely no disruption or privacy concerns over opposite sexes using the wrong bathrooms:

A transgender student’s presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing their bodily functions.

The court then appealed to common sense to disregard any remaining privacy concerns as “conjecture and abstraction”!

Why is it I have a sneaking suspicion that when Title IX was drafted in 1972 (much less when the 14th Amendment was drafted in 1867), they completely understood the privacy concerns but would have never fathomed judges maniacally referring to a Y chromosome as an X chromosome?

Amazingly, the legal liberals are the ones with the hypocritical arguments, even according to their own twisted logic. How could this school district be guilty of violating equal protection and engaging in stereotyping for actually applying science equally, and not going along with the deliberate stereotyping requested by the plaintiff?

There is no greater stereotype than saying that a girl, despite being a girl, should be treated like a boy because she acts out in a “manly” way. The entire sexual-identity movement is built upon the very sex stereotypes they want to codify into law but also protect from discrimination.

This is part of a broader hypocrisy in which the transgender lobby is filing lawsuits to apply disability laws to gender-confused individuals — but, on the other hand, are suing on discrimination grounds for stereotyping and recognizing this “disability” as a disability and not as a natural phenomenon.

Either way, the courts will always reach the legal conclusion that best promotes the socially licentious political outcome .. even when the “jurisprudence” is contradictory.

Last year, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits said that transgenderism being codified into civil rights and the Constitution is “settled law,” demonstrating how irremediably broken the courts are. This is not just the Ninth Circuit; we have yet to find a single circuit willing to understand the most immutable laws of nature. Thus, it’s not surprising that almost every court is creating a right for Somalis to immigrate. If marriage and human sexuality are subjective, so are the borders of a nation.

Although the Supreme Court punted the Fourth Circuit case (Grimm v. Gloucester County) because that one was built upon Obama’s obsolete transgender mandate, it is quite clear that another case will end up before the high court within the next year.

Given Justice Anthony Kennedy’s history on this issue — and his penchant for being influenced by growing momentum in the lower courts and the legal profession — it’s fairly safe to say we will be confronted with the transgender version of Obergefell in the near future.

The transgender case comes just two months after the Seventh Circuit codified sexual orientation into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This circuit, like many others, is drifting more and more to the far left. A number of the GOP appointees, such as Richard Posner and Ilana Rovner, are among the worst offenders.

There are only two reliable originalists on the court (Michael Kanne and Diane Sykes). This is why it’s so important for Trump to immediately fill the two vacancies on the court with known originalists. Even more importantly, this is yet one more reason to make the courts less consequential by reforming their jurisdiction and scope of power. (For more from the author of “7th Circuit Codifies Transgenderism Into the Constitution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Former Marine’s Religious Liberty Case

The Supreme Court declined to hear a case Monday involving a former Marine court-martialed in part for refusing to remove a bible verse from her work station. This means the ruling against LCpl Monifa Sterling from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces stands.

The decision not to hear the case “is going to affect the religious freedoms of all of those who serve us in uniform,” warned First Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford. “And that really is a shame.”

Shackelford’s nonprofit is defending the former Marine. He called the CAAF decision a “travesty.” “The military court’s outrageous decision means federal judges and military officials can strip our service members of their constitutional rights just because they don’t think someone’s religious beliefs are important enough to be protected. Our service members deserve better.”

United States v. Sterling was appealed to the Supreme Court last December. But the case is not as simple as it appears on first blush.

Sterling’s Court Martial

In 2013 Sterling displayed the phrase “No weapons formed against me shall prosper.” Summarized from Isaiah 54:17, the phrase was taped around her desk. When her supervisor objected, Sterling claimed displaying it was her First Amendment right. Sterling also noted that her coworkers displayed personal items at their desks. Later Sterling’s supervisor tore the phrase down. Sterling replaced the phrase, only to have it removed again.

A court-martial followed. But refusing to remove the phrase wasn’t all Sterling was charged with. As The Stream previously reported, she was also charged with refusing an order, failing to report for duty, and lying about why she didn’t wear the proper uniform. She was convicted and given a bad conduct discharge.

Exercise of Religion?

First Liberty only disputed the conviction regarding the Bible verse. But last August, the CAAF considered the verse in the context of Sterling’s other charges:

This is not the usual case where an individual or group sought an accommodation for an exercise of religion and it was denied. Nor is it a case where the practice at issue was either patently religious, such as the wearing of a hijab … Rather, the claimed exercise of religion at issue in this case involved posting the printed words “[n]o weapon formed against me shall prosper” at a shared workspace in the context of Appellant’s contentious relationship with her superiors.

First Liberty attorney Mike Berry previously told The Stream the CAAF set a dangerous precedent. He claimed it could force service members to prove the importance of their beliefs in order to enjoy Constitutional protection.

People shouldn’t be required to declare intentions “before we engage in religious activity,” he said.

Not Discouraged

Despite the CAAF’s ruling, First Liberty saw an “unusual” number of briefs supporting Sterling. Seven amicus briefs urged the Supreme Court to hear Sterling’s case. Amici included 13 retired military generals, 14 state attorneys general, 36 Congress members, and Dr. Simcha Goldman. Goldman was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case involving the right to wear a yarmulke while in uniform. Goldman lost 5-4 in 1986.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin was one of the generals who signed onto the amicus brief. Boykin said Monday the Supreme Court’s decision will have the “unfortunate effect of allowing a chill on religious expression in the military to continue.” He says the ruling, “only underscores the need for the Trump administration to root out the anti-religious animus allowed to fester in the military during the Obama administration.”

Meanwhile, Shackelford claims he isn’t “discouraged” by Sterling’s outcome. “In fact it’s going to really cause us to redouble our efforts,” he said in a video. Shackelford noted First Liberty was previously undefeated in its military cases.

“We plan to keep that record going,” he said. “Eventually we will get this taken care of across the country.” (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Former Marine’s Religious Liberty Case” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.