Study: Only 4 Percent of Millennials Hold a ‘Biblical Worldview’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Four percent of millennials hold a biblical worldview, according to a recent study.

The American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI) published results of a survey earlier this month. The survey measured the core beliefs of millennials compared to older generations.

The study shows that millennials hold more liberal views of things like socialism and same-sex marriage than older generations. But there’s another big difference. Millennials are much less likely to become conservative in the future.

While it’s normal for younger generations to hold liberal views, they drift to the right over time. Not so for millennials.

“Millennials are so far to the left-of-center” that “even a typical amount of repositioning” will leave them very liberal, says George Barna. It’s unlikely that even 10 percent will ever hold a biblical worldview, he says. Barna is the Executive Director of the ACFI and is cited in the study.

Millennials vs. Older Generations: Major Differences

ACFI conducted the study in February 2017. It measured responses from 1,000 millennials, that is, those under age 30.

Notable findings include:

Only 59 percent of millennials identify as Christian. This compares to 72 percent of adults from older generations.

Only 33 percent of millennials (one in three) are born again Christians.

Only twelve percent of millennials identify as conservative. Twenty-six percent are liberal. For adults
older than 30, conservatives outnumber liberals two to one.

Almost have (44 percent) of millennials prefer socialism over capitalism.

As many as 15 percent of millennials identify as LGBT. Only six percent of those over 30 identify as LGBT.

The only question more millennials than older adults held a biblical worldview on? Whether all people are good. Millennials are less likely to believe this than adults over 30. This lines up with the biblical concept of original sin and man’s fallen nature.

Worldview Development: Christians, Get Busy

What exactly is a worldview, anyway? “A comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint.” That’s according to Merriam-Webster.

Dictionary.com defines the the original German word, weltanschauung. “A comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity’s relation to it.”

So how do people develop their worldviews? Barna says that parents are the most powerful influencers of worldview. And most often, a person’s worldview develops between 18 months and 13-years-old.

There will of course be exceptions to this rule. But in general, “the worldview a person possesses at age 13 is … the worldview they will die with.”

What does this mean for future Americans? “Millennials entering their prime childbearing years,” Barna notes. They will likely pass their current worldview to their children. Christians must take action if they want future generations to embrace a biblical worldview.

Christians will need to “step in and impact the spiritual well-being of our future adults,” he says.

Growing Trends

ACFI’s study on millennials’ worldview isn’t the first to reach these conclusions. Recently The Atlantic noted that people are leaving the church in large numbers. The Pew Research Center also noted the trend among millennials. (For more from the author of “Study: Only 4 Percent of Millennials Hold a ‘Biblical Worldview'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

So It’s Come to This: A Feminist Is Calling for Female Slavery

/0 Comments/in , /by

For as long as I’ve been politically aware, the word “feminism” has evoked feelings of divisiveness, nastiness, and misandry. It’s at the extreme end of politically loaded words, producing strong reactions in anyone who hears it. For some, it is a rallying cry of justice and equality; for others, it is hatred made flesh. Why should this be?

My mother, who grew up in the 1960s, feminism’s heyday, remains a self-described feminist and insists that the term means only that women should have the same rights as men. Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word thus: “The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.”

What’s so objectionable about that? By this definition, everyone I know is a feminist, myself included. What sort of backward chauvinist would argue that women shouldn’t have the same rights as men?

The answer, apparently, is Sarrah Le Marquand, an Australian feminist and the editor-in-chief of “Stellar” magazine. In a piece penned for Sydney’s “Daily Telegraph,” Le Marquand argues that female parents of school-aged children should be legally required to enter the workforce and get a job.

That’s right: a philosophy that once demanded more rights for women now demands more restrictions. Men are free to work or to choose to stay home with their children. Women should be denied that choice, for the good of womankind. The ultimate goal of feminism is for women to have no choices except for those permitted them by society’s elites.

Le Marquand has a snappy retort to these objections. She parries accusations that she is against female choice by… openly admitting that she doesn’t care about female choice. Clever. She writes:

“Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that ‘feminism is about choice’ is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

This position is so staggeringly self-contradictory and antithetical to the stated aims of traditional feminism that it practically leaves one at a loss for words. Fortunately, we already have a word for legally compelling someone to work against her will. At the risk of triggering you, here it is: Slavery. One cannot help but be reminded of George Orwell’s chilling slogan of totalitarianism: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why feminism has become so toxic a term in modern discourse. This is why it’s hard to take feminism seriously at all, along with those intellectual women who gather in seminars to giggle about whether men, as a gender, are obsolete, in decline, and just plain unnecessary.

To the extent that there remains a philosophy that stresses equal rights as one of its primary tenets, that is blind to gender, as well as to color or creed, and that does not gin up its followers by engaging in identity politics, it has a different, perhaps less familiar name: libertarianism.

To the libertarian, women as well as men should be free to live and prosper as they choose, without interference from aggressors of either gender. The law should give no preference to one group of people over another, for we were all born with the same rights, rights inherent to our humanity. To the libertarian, you should be able to live the life you choose. And we would never dream of making you work rather than take care of your kids. (For more from the author of “So It’s Come to This: A Feminist Is Calling for Female Slavery” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Arizona Passes Law Requiring Abortionists to Save Babies Born Alive During Botched Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

It could hardly come at a better time.

On Wednesday, the Arizona state legislature passed a law requiring late-term abortionists to try to save the lives of babies born alive during botched abortions. The same day, a late-term abortionist from Arizona got caught implying that she committed infanticide.

“You have to pay attention to who’s in the room” if a baby is born alive, Dr. DeShawn Taylor told investigators with the Center for Medical Progress. “Because the law states you are not supposed to do any maneuvers after the fact to try to cause fetal demise.”

“Arizona is so conservative,” the former medical director for Planned Parenthood Arizona said. She implies that she commits infanticide against babies born alive. Even as late as 24 weeks.

“Why does it matter who’s in the room if you’re following the law?” asked State Rep. Maria Syms.

She joined the majority that passed the “Delivered Alive Infant Clarification Act” (S.B. 1367) through both chambers on Wednesday. (34-22 and 18-11, respectively.)

But first this commonsense measure had to face down a scorched-earth PR campaign. It presented abortion as “compassionate” and treated medical treatment to newborns as “torture.”

Saving Lives, Not Violating Decision

Sen. Steve Smith sponsored the bill. It requires that anyone who performs abortions from 20 weeks “promote, preserve and maintain the life” of children born alive. Signs of life include “breathing, a heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation [or] definite movement of voluntary muscles.” The legislation exempts severely handicapped babies certified to survive three months or less.

Abortion facilities must have lifesaving equipment on hand. Abortionists must have an emergency treatment plan. Those who do not comply can get fined or lose their medical license.

Democratic Rep. Ken Clark said trying to save infants’ lives is a “horrendous process.” He said that “it deprives the family and the doctors of the ability to decide.”

But at that point, it is no longer an abortion. It’s a birth. And anything that “continues” the abortion process is murder by anyone’s definition.

“It’s striking how Dr. Taylor describes the law as prohibiting her from finishing the abortion once the baby is outside the womb,” said Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod. “This is precisely why we need S.B. 1367.”

More Babies Surviving at 22 Weeks

The most infamous case of a “post-birth abortionist” is Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell snipped babies’ spines with scissors in his West Philadelphia abortion facility. He was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder and is serving life in prison without parole.

Abortion supporters called the bill — which would cut into abortionists’ bottom line — unnecessary. “Fetuses born at 20 and 21 weeks gestation have a zero percent chance of survival.” So testified Neonatologist Peter Stevenson.

But a study in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that nearly one-in-four babies born at 22 weeks could survive with treatment. That prompted University of Iowa pediatrics professor Dr. Edward Bell to tell the New York Times that 22 weeks is a new standard of viability.

Democrats’ Inconsistency

The abortion lobby tried to present medical care as sadistic. Stevenson said that since the babies were unlikely to survive, caring for them prolonged their suffering. He called that “unethical.” Arizona State University professor Dr. Kristy King called the measure “ghastly.” The feminist activist also called it a “fetus torture bill.” Planned Parenthood derided it as “cruel legislation that attempts to stigmatize [and] shame.”

But Planned Parenthood also opposed Arizona’s “Mother’s Health and Safety Act,” signed by then-Governor Jan Brewer in 2012. It prohibited all abortions after 20 weeks on the basis that those unborn babies can feel pain. (It was later struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.)

So, which is it? How can trying to save babies at 20 weeks inflict unspeakable pain if dismemberment abortion is a painless procedure?

The only thing Democratic lawmakers consistently maintained was a positive view of abortion. For instance, Rep. John Allen told the chamber about his daughter, who survived being born with only one hemisphere of her brain. Democrat Lela Alston countered by saying that aborting her handicapped daughter was an act of “great compassion and love.”

Some of them wore pink on the floor to support Planned Parenthood.

Will Gov. Ducey Sign the Bill to Save Babies?

Republicans maintained the hope that one day science will learn to save children at ever-younger ages. “Someone had to be the first to be born at 30 weeks,” said State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth. Over time doctors perfected the technology to preserve life at that stage. “There will be a child at 20 weeks who is viable.”

Babies as premature as 21 weeks have survived.

Jewels Green, a former abortion facility worker who is now pro-life, said a relative was one of the early ones to beat the odds.

“My cousin weighed about two pounds when he was born at six months’ gestation — in 1971!” Green told me. “He is now a strong man.” The military veteran is “proud to have served in Iraq.”

“If doctors could save such tiny babies in 1971, think what we can do now,” she said. (For more from the author of “Arizona Passes Law Requiring Abortionists to Save Babies Born Alive During Botched Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ladies, Would You Rather Be Married to Mike Pence, or Anthony Weiner?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The latest batch of manufactured outrage on the left has been produced by the Mike and Karen Pence profile that revealed some tools Mike uses to live out his marital vow of faithfulness. As Anika Smith wrote here at The Stream:

Mike and Karen Pence abide by a version of the Billy Graham Rule. In a 2002 interview, then- congressman Pence said he doesn’t drink without his wife present, nor does he dine alone with other women.

This common-sense rule stands out in a town like DC, where many, many marriages have fallen apart because of affairs.

As Smith’s piece pointed out, feminists on social media looked for ways to cast the Pences’ mutually agreed upon rule for their marriage as dehumanizing for women. Or something.

It amazes me that the same secular relativists who will defend any sexual fetish will presume to remark on the details of a marriage. Aren’t both of the Pences “consenting adults”? If fidelity is their kink, who are we to judge?

And wasn’t it just five minutes ago that the same feminists were outraged that Donald Trump did not take steps to be faithful to his pre-Melania wives? That he acted and talked like a “player”? Morality changes so quickly on the left that it’s difficult to keep up.

Take the Survey, Girls

In fact, it’s really hard to believe that any woman who has ever been in love with a man genuinely objects to the Pence Plan. To test that out, I created a little Twitter poll, which appears below:

Women want men to be more like:

Mike Pence
Anthony Weiner
Bill Clinton
Bruce Jenner
— John Zmirak (@JZmirak) March 30, 2017

Any woman who actually felt “triggered” when she read about the Pences owes the rest of us her answer.

Of course, the response I expect instead is the typical feminist “audible eyeroll.” Then a lengthy and testy insistence that those aren’t the only options. Who am I to say that women need to pick among those four alternatives? “There you go again, limiting women’s options and depriving them of agency … just like you want to limit their reproductive health care options!”

The proper response to that, of course, is the line I’ve used before on college campuses: “Oh, I’m not really pro-life. I’m anti-choice. Life is cheap, and they’re only babies. I just want to restrict women’s reproductive health care options.” That ends the conversation, every time.

If I worked at a godless or a Jesuit college, or a big, timid corporation, I might expect to be summoned to Human Resources with a complaint from a nameless female co-worker that my Twitter poll made her feel “unsafe.”

There is No Fifth Option

The truth is that those four choices are exhaustive. You have to pick one. Just so, each man must pick which road he will travel down. In the moral life nothing is fixed. You are always in motion toward goodness and health or sin and sickness, till your last dying breath.

Mike Pence has clearly taken the measure of himself, and determined what he needs to do to keep his sexuality within the bonds of a loving marriage. For a handsome fellow in a position of power, his rules seem sane and sensible. They bespeak a man who knows the reality of temptation, who loves his wife and their marriage enough to take the simplest steps to protect them.

Male sexuality is a real thing, with a genuine shape that differs from the feminine variety. (Though both sexes clearly cheat, and women must stay on guard as well, as Chelen Vicari sagely notes.) The male sex drive is a force of nature, made strong for good biological reasons, and tainted (like everything else) by the Fall. Like anger, ambition, acquisitiveness, or any other drive it must be controlled. Or it controls us.

Or You Could Marry Bill Clinton

Which brings us to Option B, Bill Clinton. Are the women who mock the Pences for their marital plan ready to talk about Bill and Hillary’s arrangement? You know, where Bill cheats with weaker, poorer women, then bullies and blackmails them into silence with his wife’s sullen consent and active support?

I bring this up not solely to mock and humiliate the Clintons on a deeply personal issue. Bill Clinton could be the picture in the dictionary next to “Piggish Male Behavior.”

If a powerful man (like the governor of a state, or a vice president) wants to treat women this way, he will not be short of takers. But lesser men can get away with it too — as the tens of millions of single moms in America could testify. The generation of fatherless kids who are growing up today would back them up.

As grateful as they were that Bill was solidly pro-abortion, I don’t think most feminists would choose the Clinton option.

Carlos Danger Signals

Am I saying that if a man doesn’t take steps like Mike Pence, he will end up acting like Bill Clinton? No.

He could act like Anthony Weiner — humiliating a young and beautiful wife by dragging his sex drive through the bottomless online sewers of pornography and “sexting.”

There is plenty a man can get away with and get addicted to online without ever meeting a stranger in the flesh. I don’t think I need to spell this out, or to point out how damaging that can be to a healthy marriage. Skeptics can ask poor Huma.

So feminists won’t pick Weiner.

Pray for Bruce Jenner. Don’t Imitate Him, Even a Little

If they’re true to their theories, feminists would surely choose Bruce Jenner. Set aside the mental illness which drives the poor man to such gross extremes as dosing himself with dangerous drugs, humiliating his children and camping around in drag.

What feminists really claim to want from men is a milder version of Jenner: Someone who suppresses, beats down, and denies what it means to be a man. Who internalizes the guilt that feminism sprays men with like a firehose. And yet who (like Jenner) is somehow still attracted to women. A tame man, a damaged man, a man who is no threat at all.

At least that’s what feminists think they want. In fact, they’re probably secretly more attracted to Clinton. They’d be better off with Pence. What they’ll end up with is Weiner.

Who said that there’s no justice in the world? (For more from the author of “Ladies, Would You Rather Be Married to Mike Pence, or Anthony Weiner?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Right to Affirm That States Can Defund Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

It isn’t often that Congress moves a heavy burden off the backs of the states and allows them the freedom to be actual “laboratories of democracy.” Yet the Senate did just that Thursday in voting 51-50 (with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie) to invoke the Congressional Review Act to rescind an Obama administration rule that prohibited the states from defunding Planned Parenthood.

The rule blocked states from redirecting public health funding to other health care providers that better serve women’s health. But now the Senate has joined the House of Representatives, which passed the resolution earlier this year, and the measure heads to President Donald Trump’s desk, where his signature is expected.

Fifteen states have acted to defund Planned Parenthood and others who perform elective abortions in the last couple of years, reasoning that America’s largest purveyor of abortions (the organization is responsible for over one-third of a million abortions annually in recent years) doesn’t need taxpayer dollars to offer an elective procedure that most people recognize as the destruction of human life.

Public opposition notwithstanding, the Obama administration passed a “midnight rule” in December 2016 through the Department of Health and Human Services that interpreted Title X, the federal family planning program, to prohibit states from redirecting health care dollars away from groups like Planned Parenthood and toward public health agencies that outnumber the abortion behemoth 20-to-1 and (unlike Planned Parenthood) offer a wide range of preventive and holistic health care services.

Alliance Defending Freedom, Susan B. Anthony List, and Charlotte Lozier Institute had filed comments with HHS urging it not to enact the rule. The midnight rule had stopped states that had passed these public health care funding laws—including Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Ohio—from fully implementing them. Now, with the president’s approval, taxpayer dollars can again flow to where they are needed most.

The timing of the Senate vote comes a day after new undercover video evidence surfaced to remind us why Planned Parenthood doesn’t deserve public funding. In the new Center for Medical Progress video, Dr. DeShawn Taylor, former medical director of Planned Parenthood of Arizona and longtime abortionist at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, describes how to deliver intact babies in late-term abortions to harvest high-quality body parts.

Taylor displays an eager willingness to ignore Arizona and federal law, which requires that babies who are born alive during an abortion receive medical care in an effort to keep them from dying. When undercover investigators asked Taylor what measures were in place to assess whether the baby was alive, she responded, “[Y]ou need to pay attention to who’s in the room, right?”

This callous and utter disregard for the value of human life is reason enough to ensure that Planned Parenthood never gets another dime of taxpayer funding. But the latest video is not alone, of course.

In addition to the numerous other videos that the Center for Medical Progress released previously (videos confirmed to be unmanipulated and authentic by a respected forensic analysis and cybersecurity company), federal and state audits have revealed waste, abuse, and potential fraud that add ample additional reasons for states to keep money away from Planned Parenthood.

The Obama administration never took any of that information seriously, but clearly both the House and Senate have. Trump can rest assured that his signature on the new measure that the Senate just passed will be more than justified. It’s simply common sense that states should be allowed to prioritize taxpayer money in ways that best serve women, and with the president’s signature, that’s exactly what states will once again be free to do. (For more from the author of “Congress Right to Affirm That States Can Defund Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Charges Against Pro-Life Investigators Show Government’s Double Standard on Investigative Journalists

/0 Comments/in , /by

The undercover Planned Parenthood videos published in 2015 made one thing abundantly clear: Big Abortion skirts the law for its own gain, going to great lengths to hide its illicit activities not only from the public, but even from its own employees.

After such revelations, it seems like common sense that the government would defund Planned Parenthood. After all, taxpayer money should not go to fund abortions or the illegal practices going on behind the organization’s closed doors.

But abortion cronies seem to be on a different page entirely: Punish the journalists and protect the abortion giant that is lining their pockets.

First, they tried—and failed—to convict Center for Medical Progress investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt in Texas. But now, California wants a shot at it. This week, the state attorney general charged Daleiden and Merritt with 15 felonies.

Now Planned Parenthood said in a statement on the charges, “Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong.” But if that’s true, the organization has nothing to fear from the Center for Medical Progress’ work.

In response to the charges, the Center for Medical Progress released a new undercover video featuring the former medical director of Planned Parenthood Arizona, DeShawn Taylor.

Taylor is shown on camera discussing what appears to be an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure and the illegal sale of baby body parts.

She also talks about intentionally avoiding an Arizona state law that requires abortionists to transport babies who show signs of life after an abortion to a hospital.

Then, she laughs.

“Well, the thing is, I mean the key is, you need to pay attention to who’s in the room,” she says.

Who is in the room also determines whether or not she can pull out intact “specimens” to sell to fetal tissue procurement agencies. She says she must be sensitive to her staff who might be uncomfortable if the aborted child comes out looking too much like a baby.

And by the way, don’t call it a “baby,” she says. “It’s creepy.”

It’s obvious that Planned Parenthood will stop at nothing to protect its abortion gold mine, even keeping secrets from their own employees. They wouldn’t want to make anyone in the room feel uncomfortable.

But what about the baby in the room?

Investigative journalists like Daleiden have been instrumental in casting light on deceptive practices in big government, big business, and now, big abortion.

In the past, investigative journalists have been lauded for their work.

They were applauded when they uncovered the Watergate scandal. No one has batted an eye at the many undercover investigations run by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

In fact, animal rights organizations in California have uncovered animal abuse by becoming employed and secretly filming conditions at farms and slaughterhouses.

But the state hasn’t charged them with 15 felonies.

Daleiden and Merritt’s investigative work, just like these other examples, brought to light illegal practices and abuse of power that would have otherwise remained hidden from the public.

Isn’t that the purpose of journalism—to reveal the truth? It should concern all Americans that California’s attorney general is trying to strip journalists of the freedom to do their jobs and report the truth.

Big abortion has effectively used its network of abortion cronies to attempt to bring swift punishment against Daleiden, but the reaction to Planned Parenthood’s illegal practices has come much slower.

A handful of states have rightly defunded the abortion giant. And while the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives released a report recommending that Planned Parenthood no longer receive federal funding and that those who have illegally profited off of the sale of baby body parts be prosecuted, little action has been taken thus far.

When our government acts more quickly to strip journalists of their freedoms than to act against an organization breaking state and federal law, then something is wrong. That is what’s truly “creepy.” (For more from the author of “Charges Against Pro-Life Investigators Show Government’s Double Standard on Investigative Journalists” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Murkowski Votes to Force States to Continue Planned Parenthood Funding, VP Pence Breaks Tie Vote

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Vice President Mike Pence voted to allow states to defund Planned Parenthood Thursday. His vote tipped a divided Senate.

Passed in the House last month, the bill overturns part of the Health and Human Services (HHS) Mandate. The former rule prevented states from defunding abortion clinics.

States are now free to opt out of funding services of Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X focuses only on family planning.

Republicans are using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the HHS rule. It allows a new Congress to overturn last-minute actions of the previous administration. The Obama administration passed the HHS rule in December 2016. As The Atlantic reported, it was a “last-ditch attempt to protect Planned Parenthood.”

The Senate needed Pence’s vote since two republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, voted to keep the rule. Two independents and every Democratic senator also voted to keep the rule.

The Associated Press reported that a final vote could happen later Thursday. Pence will likely have to break the tie again.

Editor’s Note: A second vote was held. An ailing Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) obtained permission from his doctor to return to Washington for one day. Isakson cast his vote to deny federal funding to abortion providers. The legislation was sent to President Trump, who is expected to sign it.

(For more from the author of “Pence Breaks Tie in Vote Allowing States to Defund Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Transgender Inmates Should Have Bras, Make-Up, Corrections Department Says

/0 Comments/in , /by

Transgender California prison inmates would be allowed to have bras, cosmetics and other personal items corresponding to their gender identities under proposed rules filed with state regulators on Tuesday . . .

Transgender female inmates housed in men’s facilities could have feminine undergarments, lip gloss and mascara, for instance, while transgender male inmates in women’s prisons could wear aftershave and boxers.

A federal magistrate previously ordered the state to provide some of the items. However, attorneys for transgender inmate Shiloh Quine are still sparring with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation over the details, with another court hearing set for April 27. (Read more from “Transgender Inmates Should Have Bras, Make-Up, Corrections Department Says” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Left and Right Unhappy With Repeal of North Carolina’s Bathroom Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

A legislative compromise watering down North Carolina’s “bathroom law” leaves access to public bathrooms muddier than ever, conservative opponents of the change say, and it removes the standard of privacy espoused last year by state officials.

“They’ve taken away that baseline of privacy that ensured that [use of] every multi-occupancy restroom, locker room, and shower in the state’s public buildings would be based on a person’s biological sex,” Kellie Fiedorek, counsel at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Thursday.

This means, Fiedorek said, that a man won’t be arrested for entering a women’s restroom, unless someone decides to press charges.

“If a male wanted to use the females’ restroom, there’s nothing to really prevent him from doing that, unless someone finds him in there and they want to file a trespass action,” she said.

The state Senate passed the bill Thursday by a vote of 32-16, and the House then passed it 70-48.

The deal, the work of Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, and the Republican leaders of the state Legislature, repeals the bathroom law, also known as House Bill 2.

That law, praised by some and assailed by others, required that individuals use restrooms and locker rooms in schools, public universities, and other government buildings that correspond with their biological sex.

The main provision of the bill reads:

State agencies, boards, offices, departments, institutions, branches of government including the University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Community College System, and political subdivisions of the state, including local boards of education, are preempted from regulation of access to multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities, except in accordance with an act of the General Assembly.

Advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans had labeled the law as hateful and encouraged businesses and tourists to boycott North Carolina as a result.

The state’s Republican governor, Pat McCrory, lost re-election to Cooper by a close margin in November, conceding four weeks later, after signing the bathroom bill into law in March 2016.

Cooper hailed the deal to repeal the law.

“l support the House Bill 2 repeal compromise,” Cooper said. “It’s not a perfect deal, but it repeals House Bill 2 and begins to repair our reputation.”

The bill prevents any local government from adopting or amending an existing law regulating employment practices and public accommodations until Dec. 1, 2020, Fiedorek noted.

Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, and House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, helped craft the deal.

“Compromise requires give and take from all sides, and we are pleased this proposal fully protects bathroom safety and privacy,” Berger and Moore said in a joint statement.

U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he approved of the repeal. In a prepared statement, Tillis said:

North Carolina’s brand and continued economic prosperity should not be beholden to the loudest voices on either the far left or the far right who don’t have our state’s best interests in mind. I’m glad that state lawmakers were able to reach a commonsense compromise to repeal House Bill 2.

Democrat lawmakers opposing the measure for not going far enough to protect transgender individuals included state Sens. Jay Chaudhuri of Raleigh; Mike Woodard and Floyd McKissick of Durham; Valerie Foushee of Hillsborough; Jeff Jackson of Charlotte; and Don Davis of Greenville, The News & Observer reported.

But Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that North Carolina lawmakers gave in to special interests.

“North Carolina’s political leaders caved to the demands of big business and special interests,” Ryan said, adding:

This is a prime example of what I have called ‘cultural cronyism‘—when the left can’t win on an issue through normal political persuasion, they get progressive big businesses to use their outsized market share to make economic threats to pressure the government to do their bidding—at the expense of the common good.

Jackson tweeted his reason for opposing the measure:

McKissick called the measure a “heartless compromise” and said he “couldn’t support it as a matter of philosophy and principle.”

The Human Rights Campaign, which advocates LGBT rights and calls itself “America’s largest civil rights organization,” called the legislative deal “dangerous”:

The organization also tweeted that lawmakers who supported the measure “betrayed” those who aren’t heterosexual:

(For more from the author of “Left and Right Unhappy With Repeal of North Carolina’s Bathroom Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New ‘Children’s’ Book Has Prince Charming Finding True Love With Farm Boy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Here is a short argument to keep in mind as you read about a new “children’s” book that promotes homosexual relationships.

If there is nothing morally wrong with same-sex relationships, then there is nothing wrong with exposing children to same-sex relationships. After all, kids will see same-sex relationships around them in our culture. And some kids will go on to form same-sex relationships. So, if there is nothing wrong with such relationships, why not show kids stories about men in love?

This was the implicit reasoning used by authors Adam Reynolds and Chaz Harris who wrote Promised Land. This is a picture-book about how “a young Prince and a farm boy meet in the forest and their newfound friendship blossoms into love.”

The Prince’s mother is divorced and has taken up living with an evil man. The evil man covets Farm Boy’s land. The land sits, as expected, in an Enchanted forest.

The book ends with a lovely picture of the Prince and Farm Boy smacking each other on the lips over the words, “They got married and started their own family.”

That is, of course, impossible. Two men cannot marry. And two men certainly cannot start a family. That is biologically impossible. These are not only theological truths. They are scientific realities as well.

Well, nobody expects Reality in a children’s fantasy. Magic isn’t real either, but that didn’t slow sales of, or enthusiasm for, Harry Potter. We shouldn’t therefore be critical of fantastical elements. But can we say anything against positive portrayals of homosexual love?

We cannot. Not if we cannot also say, out loud and in public, that homosexual love is immoral. Now love between two men, or two males, need not be immoral. A father loves his son. A man loves his friend. But if homosexual love is different than the love of two friends, what is that difference? It is sexual desire. Yet that desire is objectively disordered. The desire, if one indulges it, often leads to homosexual acts, which are immoral and sinful.

But if we cannot say that, then we cannot say that Promised Land should not be shown to children. And we cannot say that it should not be shown to children in schools. The only argument we can muster against it would be based on some bad effects of doing so. “We cannot show the book,” the utilitarian might argue, “because we do not want to pay for it.” What happens when a generous soul then donates copies?

We have reached a point in our culture where we could teach Promised Land in schools, but we could not teach about the Promised Land!

“And God almighty bless thee, and make thee to increase, and multiply thee: that thou mayst be a multitude of people. And give the blessings of Abraham to thee, and to thy seed after thee: that thou mayst possess the land of thy sojournment, which he promised to thy grandfather” (Genesis 28:3-4).

What an inversion.

The press is in love with Promised Land. Huffington Post says the book is about a place “where all people are equal no matter what they look like or who they love.” It’s obvious the author of that sentence has not thought through all its implications. Should men who love children be celebrated? Doesn’t Equality demand such a thing?

Harris told Huffington Post a truth: “The [kinds of media] we consume as kids and young adults form our attitudes towards those around us. … Most importantly, they influence our attitudes towards ourselves. … If we can be heroes in stories, we’re seen more positively in the real world.”

That homosexual relationships will be seen in a more positive light is just the effect Promised Land will have.

Teen Vogue calls Promised Land “required reading” and that says that the book “smashes any taboo around the subject” of homosexual relationships. It does, too.

The book has already set off a debate in New Zealand (home of the authors). Women’s Weekly asks, “Should children be taught about homosexuality in school?” The question was, as you might guess, mostly rhetorical.

What this book is doing is no different than what Disney did in Beauty and the Beast. That’s the new movie to made a point to show “an exclusively gay moment.” And they did it in a charming way. Kids who saw the movie would, as calculated, look with a kinder eye on homosexual relationships.

As they should, if there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships.

Update: Santa Claus to be “Gay” Too

Just in is news that another picture-book will feature Santa Claus in a homosexual relationship with a black man. Time reports the book will be titled Santa’s Husband and will go on sale on 10 October. (For more from the author of “New ‘Children’s’ Book Has Prince Charming Finding True Love With Farm Boy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.