Trump Right to Fix Obama’s Unlawful Transgender School Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Trump administration acted Wednesday night to fix the Obama administration’s unlawful “gender identity” school policy and return authority to parents and teachers in the states.

Civil rights officers in the Department of Justice and the Department of Education issued a joint letter saying the administration was rescinding the policy, which had required schools to allow transgender students to use the restrooms, locker rooms and similar facilities of their choice—or face loss of federal funds.

In the letter, they said the Obama mandate did not show “due regard for the primary role of the states and local school districts” in making education policy.

The Trump administration is doing the right thing in correcting Obama’s unlawful overreach, which imposed a one-sided solution on all 50 states. Parents and teachers in local schools now can work to find win-win solutions that protect the dignity, privacy, and safety of all students.

For years, the Obama administration unilaterally had redefined bans on “sex” discrimination to include “gender identity.”

The problem came to a head May 13, when Obama’s Justice and Education departments sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to our nation’s schools, informing them that “both federal agencies treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX,” a 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded schools.

With this decree, the Obama administration directed all schools to allow “students to participate in sex-segregated activities and access sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity.”

Schools were told they had to allow students access to bathrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, and hotel rooms for overnight field trips based entirely on the self-declared gender identities of their students.

On Aug. 21, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled the Obama administration’s attempt to redefine sex was unlawful, and blocked the decree from going into effect.

O’Connor held that it “cannot be disputed that the plain meaning of the term sex as used … following passage of Title IX meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female,” and he placed a nationwide injunction on the administration’s guidance to schools.

The Justice Department, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, appealed this ruling Oct. 20.

But on Feb. 10, with Jeff Sessions as the nation’s new attorney general, the Justice Department withdrew that motion for a stay and cancelled the scheduled oral arguments.

The Trump administration rescinded the Obama guidance saying officials would interpret the word “sex” in Title IX to mean “gender identity.” Instead, the administration will allow parents and teachers to work together in local schools to find nuanced solutions that address the needs of everyone.

Wednesday night’s moves signaled a change in position that could have a significant impact on the Justice Department’s controversial Title IX lawsuit against North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act (known as HB2), which the Trump administration inherited.

The actions also could affect a Title IX gender identity case, currently set for oral argument at the Supreme Court next month, that depends in large part on the Department of Education’s position.

Dignity, Privacy, and Safety Concerns

Last week at The Heritage Foundation, a panel of women explained the many policy problems with “gender identity” laws.

As one of them said, “when gender identity wins, women always lose.”

The panelists—a rape survivor, a lesbian, a feminist activist, a stay-at-home mom, and a conservative—explained how people who identify as transgender should be free to live as they want, but that the law shouldn’t therefore eliminate women-only spaces or redefine what it is to be a woman.

While we must be sensitive to the dignity, privacy, and safety concerns of people who identify as transgender, that is not a reason to ignore the dignity, privacy, and safety concerns of everyone else.

Unfortunately, the Obama-era policies were entirely one-sided. They favored the concerns of people who identify as transgender while entirely discounting the concerns of others.

Safe Spaces for Women, a group that “provides survivors of sexual assault with care, support, understanding, and advice,” recently submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court explaining how gender identity policies can negatively impact sexual assault survivors:

Safe Spaces for Women has a strong interest in ensuring that the voices of women who have suffered sexual abuse are heeded when policies are made that may directly affect their physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. This includes policies that require educational institutions covered by Title IX to admit to female showers, locker rooms, and restrooms biological males who identify as female. While Safe Spaces for Women bears no animus toward the transgendered community, it is deeply concerned that … survivors of sexual assault are likely to suffer psychological trauma as a result of encountering biological males—even those with entirely innocent intentions—in the traditional safe spaces of women’s showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

The brief goes on to note that the guidance from the Obama administration was issued “without giving those affected a voice in the process. … improperly circumvent[ing] the notice and comment process when that process was needed most.”

Likewise, Kenneth V. Lanning, a 40-year veteran law enforcement officer who specialized in sex crimes for the FBI at Quantico for 20 years, explains the problem with “gender identity-based access policies” for sex-specific intimate facilities.

Lanning says “the problem with potential sex offenses is not crimes by transgendered persons,” but rather “offenses by males who are not really transgendered but who would exploit the entirely subjective provisions” of such policies “to facilitate their sexual behavior or offenses.” Lanning explains that:

Allowing a man, based only on his claim to be [a] transgendered woman, to have unlimited access to women’s rest rooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, showers, etc. will make it easier for the type of sex offense behavior previously described to happen to more women and children. Such access would create an additional risk for potential victims in a previously protected setting and a new defense for a wide variety of sexual victimization.

Indeed, as The Daily Signal previously noted, such sexual victimization already is occurring by men who have disguised themselves as women.

What to Do Now

Wednesday night’s actions by the Justice and Education departments will lead to good policy outcomes, which is why it should not be limited to Title IX.

The Trump administration should extend this decision to every area where federal agencies have imposed new “gender identity” rules on the American people without basis in law, without congressional authorization, without considering legitimate countervailing concerns, and without the support of the American people.

Congress should make such administrative actions permanent by reintroducing and passing H.R. 5812, the Civil Rights Uniformity Act, which clarifies that the term “sex” does not mean “gender identity” for the purpose of interpreting civil rights statutes. This would have the benefit of undoing the past and current abuses of Title IX, as well as preventing future abuses of other civil rights law.

Passing the Civil Rights Uniformity Act would ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges would not get to unilaterally reshape policy affecting women and girls. It would allow schools to continue providing separate bathroom and locker room facilities and sports teams based on biological sex, not gender identity.

It also would address other unilateral Obama-era “gender identity” reinterpretations in health care, emergency shelters, housing, and employment. At the same time, such legislation would properly leave states and private entities entirely free to provide nuanced, sensitive, and reasonable accommodations of people who identify as transgender.

Up until last year’s prime-time interview of the celebrity then known as Bruce Jenner, few Americans ever had had a conversation about transgender issues. It’s a conversation we need to have.

But the Obama administration tried to shut down these discussions before they’ve even begun. The Obama administration attempted to force a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire nation rather than allow parents and teachers and local schools the time, space, and flexibility to find solutions that work best for everyone.

The Trump administration has taken the first steps to correct this.

While the Obama administration attempted to rewrite law to impose a federal “gender identity” policy on the entire nation, the Trump administration is respecting federalism, local decision-making, and parental authority in education.

For most Americans, concerns related to transgender students are a new reality. Rather than follow the Obama administration’s rush to impose a top-down solution on the entire country, the Trump administration is allowing the American people to have these conversations, consider all the relevant concerns, and make policies that will best serve all Americans.

Good for them. (For more from the author of “Trump Right to Fix Obama’s Unlawful Transgender School Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Latest Court Decision Blocking Texas’ Attempt to Defund Planned Parenthood Shows Need for Congressional Action

/0 Comments/in , /by

A U.S. district judge has blocked the state of Texas from cutting off Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding. This is the sixth instance in which a court has prevented a state from denying Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood: Arkansas, Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana have also attempted to make Planned Parenthood ineligible for funds.

On Dec. 20, 2016, the Office of Inspector General at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission sent a final notice informing Planned Parenthood that its participation in the state’s Medicaid program would be discontinued.

Referencing Center for Medical Progress videos released by pro-life activists in 2015, the notice informed Planned Parenthood that the inspector general “finds you are not qualified to provide medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal and ethical manner under … state and federal law pertaining to Medicaid providers.”

According to Judge Sam Sparks’ ruling, the notice outlined specific alleged violations of accepted standards of medical practice by Planned Parenthood:

1. “A history of deviating from accepted standards to procure samples that meet researcher’s needs.”

2. “A history of permitting staff physicians to alter procedures to obtain targeted tissue samples needed for their specific outside research.”

3. “A willingness to convert normal pregnancies to the breech position to ensure researchers receive intact specimens.”

4. “An admission that ‘we get what we need to do to alter the standard of care where we are still maintaining patient safety, still maintaining efficiency in clinic operations, but we integrate research into it.’”

5. “An admission that Planned Parenthood gets requests for ‘information from our study sponsor on what data they need that is not our standard of care,’ and that [Planned Parenthood] provides what is needed by creating a separate research protocol or template that can include medically unnecessary testing.”

6. “A willingness to charge more than the costs incurred for procuring fetal tissue.”
Planned Parenthood sought a preliminary injunction claiming that Texas violated a federal statute commonly referred to as the Medicaid “free choice of provider” provision, which says that beneficiaries may obtain medical services “from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person qualified to perform the service or services required … who undertakes to provide him such services … ”

On Tuesday, Sparks sided with Planned Parenthood and issued the requested injunction.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately announced plans to appeal the decision, sharply criticizing the judge’s decision to rule that “willingness to violate state and federal law on manipulating abortion procedures and profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, making false statements to law enforcement, and misleading multiple courts were insufficient grounds for Texas to exclude Planned Parenthood” from the state’s program. Planned Parenthood has denied any illegal activity.

In a press release, Texas Right to Life expressed disappointment in the decision, but added that it “hopes Texas will soon prevail in the decision to award Medicaid contracts to ethical providers that offer health services to Texas women and families”

Congress should follow Texas’ lead and end federal funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers.

Disqualifying Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers from receiving Title X family planning grants, Medicaid reimbursements, and other grants and contracts does not reduce the overall funding for women’s health care.

The funds currently flowing to abortion providers can instead be distributed to health centers that offer comprehensive health care without entanglement with abortion on demand.

Congress should take this step in the context of the upcoming budget reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare, ensuring that package includes a provision (just as the 2015 version of the bill did) that would make Planned Parenthood affiliates ineligible from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for one year after the enactment of the bill.

Ultimately, Congress should send the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which passed in the House of Representatives in January, to the president’s desk for signature. (For more from the author of “Latest Court Decision Blocking Texas’ Attempt to Defund Planned Parenthood Shows Need for Congressional Action” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Blocks Texas Cutting Medicaid to Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Texas can’t cut off Medicaid dollars to Planned Parenthood over secretly recorded videos taken by anti-abortion activists in 2015 that launched Republican efforts across the U.S. to defund the nation’s largest abortion provider.

An injunction issued by U.S. District Sam Sparks of Austin comes after he delayed making decision in January and essentially bought Planned Parenthood an extra month in the state’s Medicaid program.

Texas is now at least the sixth state where federal courts have kept Planned Parenthood eligible for Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services, although a bigger question remains over whether President Donald Trump will federally defund the organization. (Read more from “Judge Blocks Texas Cutting Medicaid to Planned Parenthood” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facebook Freezes out Christian Mom for Quoting Bible About Homosexuality

/0 Comments/in , /by

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg says he wants to use his platform to build a worldwide “inclusive community.” However, a Christian ‘vlogger’ found out there appears to be no room in it for her as long as she quotes Bible passages about homosexuality.

Elizabeth Johnston, aka the “Activist Mommy,” says there is a big disconnect between Zuckerberg’s recent call for a global “inclusive community” and Facebook’s “censorship of Christians.”

“They are muzzling me and my biblical message while Mark Zuckerberg claims that FB is unbiased,” she stated in a news release.

She has had her page frozen three times now, twice in seven days, because of her posts. Last week, she posted her argument that the Bible condemns homosexuality, using Old and New Testament sources. Facebook summarily removed the post and suspended her access to the page. It also stripped her of her ability to respond to private comments for three days.

Once she was unfrozen, she complained about censorship and restored the original blog. Facebook removed it again. She was frozen for another seven days and cut off from her 70,000 followers. (Read more from “Facebook Freezes out Christian Mom for Quoting Bible About Homosexuality” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Washington Supreme Court Rejects Religious Liberty for Florist, Puts Her Assets at Risk

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Washington State Supreme Court today unanimously upheld a judgment against a florist who declined to create a floral arrangement for a same-sex marriage. She had previously provided the gay couple flowers for other occasions, but told them she couldn’t supply flowers for their “wedding,” because same-sex marriage was incompatible with her Christian beliefs.

The court held that the government can force individuals to provide artistic works and participate in events they disagree with. The nine justices claimed that Barronelle Stutzman violated anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. The court found her personally accountable, meaning the state can seize her home, personal property, savings and bank accounts to pay any damages fines or attorneys fees awarded against her.

The Court Says: No Violation of Her Rights

A Southern Baptist, Stutzman lives in Richland, one of the most conservative areas in Washington state. She has been in the florist business for 30 years, having started out delivering flowers in her mother’s business. She now owns Arlene’s Flowers.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the gay couple sued her in 2013. Ferguson has been making a name for himself aggressively pursuing a liberal activist agenda as attorney general, with aspirations for higher office.

In 2016, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom fined Stutzman and awarded attorney’s fees against her. Stutzman appealed the lower court’s decision to the state’s highest court.

The Washington State Supreme Court found forcing her to provide flowers for a gay wedding did not violate her constitutional rights. She provided services for people of other religions, the judges argued, and had no grounds for refusing service to anyone else. “As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion said.

However, Stutzman was not objecting on the grounds that her services would constitute an endorsement of another religion. She was objecting on the grounds that doing that would condone and aid something against her religion, thus violating her freedom of religion.

She also objected on the grounds of free speech, not just freedom of religion. The court rejected her claim that its interpretation of Washington’s anti-discrimination law violates her right free speech.

A Case About Crushing Dissent

Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom which is representing Stutzman, denounced the decision. “This case is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist,” she said. The ADF issued a press release explaining how the activist ACLU operates to force through these types of cases.

I will mention that the ACLU raised $24 million in a single weekend recently. And this is what is does with its treasure: file suit against a humble grandmother who was literally minding her own business on the day when she referred a long time customer (who she served dozens of times fully aware that he is gay) to nearby florists who would be willing to celebrate same-sex weddings. While ADF is providing, as we do for all of our clients, free legal representation, the ACLU can and will come after her for legal fees that may top out north of a million dollars.

The organization said the decision marked “a decisive blow against fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.”

ADF intends to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar case in 2014 involving a photographer who refused to service a same-sex wedding.

A page has been set up to help Stutzman. An effort is being made to encourage President Trump to sign an executive order protecting religious freedom. Others are talking about raising funds for her.

Stutzman says this isn’t about herself, but about the bigger picture of protecting the Constitution. She warned in an op-ed in The Spokesman-Review (in Spokane), “Does anyone really believe that a government that gives itself the power to force people to believe (and not believe) things and can order artists to create state-sanctioned messages will only use that power to bend one small-town florist to its will — and then leave everyone else alone?” (For more from the author of “Washington Supreme Court Rejects Religious Liberty for Florist, Puts Her Assets at Risk” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

My Son’s Response to American Girl’s New Doll Tells Me Everything I Need to Know

/0 Comments/in , , /by

After more than three decades in business, the makers of the American Girl doll have released an American Boy doll. Logan Everett wears plaid, plays the drums and — you read that right — is a boy doll. There may be many nuanced reasons for this new doll — after all, girls might want to play with boy dolls a la Ken and Barbie. Or, heck, since American Girls, the dolls, and books are so popular, why shouldn’t boys join in on the fun? But given the timing of this announcement and our culture’s obsession with eradicating traditional gender roles, this is another progressive ploy, a “Holy, gender-stereotypes-are-so-2005,” sidekick sentiment, like Robin is to Batman.

Eradicating gender is sometimes okay

Given the explosion of gender-neutral clothing lines and the call for gender-neutral toys, I’m actually surprised American Girl headed in this direction. In 2015, Target removed their gender-specific labels from children’s toys and bedding. It’s hard to keep track of when gender matters and when it doesn’t. (I also hope Logan doesn’t get confused and end up wanting to be a girl? In 2020 Logan might be “Laura!”) Of course, girls will want to play with the boy — he’s a novelty after all — and I’m sure some boys will too. Especially young ones. This mom said her little boy wanted an American Boy doll so much, last year she made him one herself by hacking off an American Girl doll’s hair and the like.

Very young children aren’t always as gung-ho for or against gender-specific toys as one might think. For example, my five year-old girl has put a play dress on my three year-old boy for giggles and he’s clueless. If you must know, I gently explain dresses are for girls and we remove it, throw a do-rag on his head, and hand him a sword. (I know! I’m so antiquated!)

But does this mean boys should be as drawn to “girl” toys as “boy” toys? Does it even matter?

Boys will be boys

I think it does matter. Here’s why: Whether intentionally or not, American Girl is forcing political correctness and a discussion of gender stereotypes onto an age and gender that doesn’t want it. When boys are young, especially boys who don’t struggle with dysphoria at all — which is a very real issue — they seem generally and naturally drawn to what adults would call “boy” toys.

As a mother of two boys and two girls we have plenty of boy, girl, and gender-neutral toys.

Still, when you throw it all into the playroom and let the heathens at it, one of my girls gravitates towards really girly things like dolls; the other plays with both (but mostly her older brother).

The two boys, however, embrace their masculinity like Peter Pan embraced Neverland. Since they could talk they have gravitated towards boy toys, have made boy sounds for everything, and have chewed things into the shapes of boy toys. Once at a science museum, my son and his friends were playing in the “colonial” frontier area which had a cabin, fake firewood, and fake food. Ten minutes later they were playing Army and were shooting each other with fake bananas. Bananas.

This is actually okay. For a mother of boys, “boys will be boys” isn’t just a slogan we utter when they get toothpaste all over the counter or create a fort in the backyard out of branches and duct tape. It is — at least for me — a way to celebrate masculinity. Boys generally will be boys and why shouldn’t they be? Why shouldn’t we as a society, instead of commanding they give up their innate boy traits and be just like girls who want to play with dolls, celebrate this instead of criticizing? The joy of a boy lay in his grubby hands and loud nature and ferocious, curious spirit. From those things we see traits that carry into manhood: Men who love to fix, build, problem-solve, create, command, lead, and protect. What would we be as a society without these?

Do boys grow up to be violent criminals more than girls? Yes. Is it because they turn bananas into guns at the science museum? I doubt it. Should I encourage them to play with dolls more? I could certainly try, but when I showed my nine year-old son the picture of Logan he scrunched up his freckled face and said, “Why would they do that?”

As a mom, I’ve actually found all my children play best with toys that are basically gender-neutral and can be played with repeatedly in a myriad of ways: Think Legos versus a Nerf gun. On the other hand, Legos, blocks, Moon Sand, Play-Doh, Lincoln Logs, board games and Dominoes have all been well-loved.

Research even supports this concept. These professors found, through various studies and watching children play with very gender-specific toys, gender-neutral toys, and anything in between that range, “[S]trongly gender-typed toys appear to be less supportive of optimal development than neutral or moderately gender-typed toys.” This 2015 op-ed in the New York Times made a whole case for gender-neutral toys saying gender-specific toys can actually “negatively impact a child’s development.”

Get your facts straight

So if that’s the case, why the sudden push for an American Boy doll for girls and boys alike? Sure, more money, more variety — it’ll make some people very happy. But it looks like progressive marketers and liberal media needs to have a pow-wow to really figure out: Does gender matter? If not does it only matter when it’s traditional — girls are doing girl stuff and boys are doing boy stuff — then there’s a monumental effort to criticize and flip it around to be more progressive?

It’s bogus for the commercial industry at-large to succumb to reversing stereotypes especially on a segment of society — young boys — who are completely comfortable being male and whom we should encourage thusly: Make bananas into guns, not boys into dolls. It plays into male psyche to provide and protect as it plays into the female psyche (in general) to nurture and comfort. Of course girls can be soldiers and guys can cook in the kitchen, but this isn’t really about that is it? Deep down, everybody knows many people fall very naturally into gender-specific roles and are just fine with it, celebrating when it’s convenient, decrying it when it’s a matter of political correctness. That needs to stop. (For more from the author of “My Son’s Response to American Girl’s New Doll Tells Me Everything I Need to Know” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Pro-Life Legacy of Norma McCorvey, the ‘Roe’ of Roe v. Wade

/0 Comments/in , /by

Jane Roe did not live out her life by the script.

As the “Roe” of the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, she would have been expected to be a staunch pro-choice advocate for the rest of her life.

She wasn’t.

Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, died Saturday in Texas of a heart ailment. She was 69.

In an ad from 2008, as the Catholic News Agency noted, McCorvey detailed her change of views on abortion after she became a Christian in the mid-1990s.

“Upon knowing God, I realized that my case, which legalized abortion on demand, was the biggest mistake of my life,” she said.

“You see, abortion has eliminated 50 million innocent babies in the U.S. alone since 1973. Abortion scars an untold number of post-abortive mothers and fathers and families, too.”

It wasn’t the first time she’d spoken about her pro-life perspective.

“I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America,” McCorvey said in testimony in 2005 before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation.”

She detailed her journey over the years from abortion advocate to pro-life activist in that testimony, in which she mentioned the baby she ultimately chose not to abort:

I am glad today that that child is alive and that I did not elect to abort. I was actually silent about my role in abortion for many years and did not speak out at all. Then, in the 1980s, in order to justify my own conduct, with many conflicting emotions, I did come forward publicly to support Roe v. Wade. …

Then around 1992, I began to work in abortion clinics. Like most Americans, including many of you senators, I had no actual experience with abortion until that point. When I began to work in the abortion clinics, I became even more emotionally confused and conflicted between what my conscience knew to be evil, and what the judges, my mind and my need for money were telling me was OK. I saw women crying in the recovery rooms. If abortion is so right, why were the women crying?

Even Sen. Hillary Clinton on January 25, 2005 was reported by The New York Times to finally admit ‘that abortion is a sad, even tragic choice for many, many women.’ Actually it is a tragic choice for every child that is killed and every woman and man who participates in killing their own child, whether they know it at the time or not. Many women will be in denial and even pro-choice for years like I was.

But participating in the murder of your own child will eat away at your conscience forever if you do not take steps to cleanse your conscience, which I will discuss later.

I saw the baby parts, which are a horrible sight to see, but I urge everyone who supports abortion to look at the bodies to face the truth of what they support. I saw filthy conditions in abortion clinics even when ‘Roe’ was supposed to clean up ‘back alley’ abortions. I saw the low regard for women from abortion doctors.

My conscience was bothering me more and more, causing me to drink more and more and more. If you are trapped in wrongdoing then all you can do is justify and defend your actions, but the pain gets worse and worse, so I drank a lot to kill the pain.

Finally, in 1995, a pro-life organization moved its offices right next door to the abortion clinic where I was working. I acted hatefully towards those people. But those people acted lovingly to me most of the time. One man did angrily accuse me at one point of being responsible for killing 40 million babies, but he later came to me and apologized for his words and said they were not motivated by love. The answer to the abortion problem is forgiveness, repentance, and love.

McCorvey was, to understate it, an unlikely pro-life activist.

But her own conversion on abortion gives hope that other Americans will follow in her footsteps. (For more from the author of “The Pro-Life Legacy of Norma McCorvey, the ‘Roe’ of Roe v. Wade” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Last-Minute Abortion Extortion Is on the Congressional Chopping Block

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. House of Representatives sent a loud and resounding rebuke this week to a last-minute Obama abortion rule that forced states to fund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

H.J. Res. 43, a congressional resolution “[p]roviding for congressional disapproval” of a rule dealing with funding of abortion providers under Title X passed in the lower chamber by a vote of 229-188. It would overturn an 11th-hour Obama rule that created a major roadblock for GOP promises to strip Planned Parenthood of taxpayer dollars.

The lame-duck policy issued in mid-December equated to a “parting gift” to the abortion industry and “was in keeping with his Administration’s actions over the last eight years,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

“Planned Parenthood which, according to their latest annual report, performed 323,999 abortions in a single year, does not need or deserve taxpayer dollars,” Dannenfelser added. “Obama’s legacy of forcing Americans to finance the abortion industry is being steadily dismantled by our new pro-life President and the pro-life Congress.”

Under the pro-abortion extortion policy, every state receiving Title X funding is subject to losing those monies if their legislatures dared redirect public funds away from abortion clinics in any form or fashion.

“It’s scandalous for taxpayers to fund a private organization that performs a procedure regarded as murder by half the country.” wrote Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz of the rule in December.

“Even those who call themselves ‘pro-choice’ should at least respect the moral issues involved to the point that the taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund it … To now take this immorality a step further and block individual states from cutting off state funding is beneath contempt.”

According to recent statistics, Planned Parenthood shows that it and its affiliates receive over half a billion taxpayer dollars annually, while providing over 300,000 abortions and spending tens of millions on pro-abortion political causes.

Meanwhile, public funding of abortion at the federal level remains up in the air, as the Republican Congress — elected on an extremely pro-life platform — gears up for a budget fight. Despite the promises, congressional conservatives are concerned that it might not happen anytime soon.

“We’re also hearing that the defund Planned Parenthood language may not stay in” the upcoming budget bill, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio (A, 96%) recently told CNN. A congressional aide also told the outlet that, as legislators work out the details of the spending package, such language “would be one of the first things to go.” (For more from the author of “Obama’s Last-Minute Abortion Extortion Is on the Congressional Chopping Block” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Like Oil and Water: Ashton Kutcher’s Open Borders Stance and Anti-Human Trafficking Work Just Don’t Mix

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ashton Kutcher has been widely commended for his humanitarian efforts to protect children around the world from sexual exploitation and abuse. He’s also received praise for his open-borders advocacy. The problem is, these two causes are at war with each other.

Kutcher delivered an impassioned speech on combatting the global problem of child sex trafficking. Wednesday at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting. The actor and activist called on leaders to join him in tirelessly defending every child’s “right to pursue happiness.”

Kutcher’s testimony came weeks after he delivered a similarly passionate speech at the annual Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards, voicing his disapproval of President Donald Trump’s executive order that temporarily banned travel from seven Islamic-majority countries deemed a “security risk.”

“Hello to everyone watching at home and in airports that belong in my America,” he said before presenting the first SAG Award. “You are part of the fabric of who we are, and we love you and welcome you.”

Kutcher should be commended for his work to combat child sex trafficking; it is always right and just to look out for society’s most vulnerable. But unfortunately, his views on immigration directly contradict this effort.

Consider all of the people — women and children especially — who have suffered abuse as a result of lazy vetting. Think of all the “rapefugee” incidents in Europe. The Gatestone Institute has worked tirelessly to document and draw attention to the crisis that has affected the entire continent.

If you care about the vulnerable, you care about vetting out jihadists and rapists. You care about national security.

Sex trafficking is, as of now, a bipartisan issue. Experiencing life as a sex slave is one of the most tragic and regrettable situations imaginable. If only liberals could see how their blind, idealized view of all refugees and immigrants harms the very groups they wish to protect. (For more from the author of “Like Oil and Water: Ashton Kutcher’s Open Borders Stance and Anti-Human Trafficking Work Just Don’t Mix” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Proponents of ‘Diversity’ Tried to Force My Religious Group off Campus

/0 Comments/in , /by

Recent news about U.S. colleges has not been flattering. We’ve seen a tidal wave of stories from campus protests and violent riots, to sexual assault and purported millennial “safe spaces.”

But obscured by the attention-grabbing headlines is the reality that many students are actively engaged in campus communities that foster cultural and intellectual diversity, encourage innovative thinking, and create opportunities for enriching and helping others in their campus communities and around the world.

I know, because that’s part of my story.

As a student at Missouri State University, I was first a member, then a leader, of Chi Alpha—a student Christian organization devoted to supporting students of faith and promoting campus diversity and community service.

As one of the most engaged students on campus, the best part of my college experience was seeing the huge variety of student groups—faith-based or otherwise—working, sometimes together and sometimes independently, to promote and act on shared values that were important to each groups’ members.

More than any class assignment, the interaction with students and interest groups allowed me to see that all groups on campus, even those with diametrically opposing viewpoints, can flourish under the same university banner.

Yet politicians and campus administrators in some states are trying to push certain groups off campus for daring to be distinct. Religious groups that require their student leaders (not general members) to actually believe and uphold the groups’ beliefs and mission are being accused of bigotry and kicked off campus.

In a puzzling irony, this aggressive ideology only sacrifices true campus diversity and academic freedom in the name of ambiguous and subjective political correctness.

My participation and leadership in Chi Alpha showed me the true value of campus diversity. While Chi Alpha is religious in nature, I interacted and became friends with students who chose to be a part of Chi Alpha for a safe and uplifting social environment.

Some joined Chi Alpha to participate in our shared ethos of community service and humanitarian efforts, like our partnership with feedONE, feeding starving children worldwide. Other students valued our work promoting campus diversity.

I personally led multiple service trips, like taking Chi Alpha students to work with the homeless in Milwaukee, the widowed and orphaned on a New Mexico Navajo reservation, and neglected elementary school children in Kenya.

For all of us, our shared Christian faith fostered a commitment to each other and to caring for others no matter who they are or where they come from.

Schools Are Squelching, Not Empowering, Student Choice

Whether motivated by faith or not, all students should be free to join their own groups to express shared values. But faith-based groups are especially being targeted. Two recent examples come to mind.

Just last year at Southeast Missouri State University, virtually every religious student group on campus was discriminated against because the groups required their leaders to share their faith (to essentially practice what they preach) while other campus groups like fraternities and sororities were allowed to continue selecting both leaders and members based on the groups’ mission or purpose.

Only after months of lobbying (and months of academic distractions) were religious students at the university able to regain equality with the other campus groups.

And two years ago, my fellow Chi Alpha student leader, Bianca Travis, had her entire Chi Alpha chapter a California State University campus.

Despite 40 years of service within the Cal State community, including assisting the school with international students, helping campus police hand out free water during major student activities, and fundraising to address issues like human trafficking, Travis and her friends were singled out, denied the ability to function equally alongside other student organizations, and literally locked out of their meeting space.

All this because they required their leaders (again, not their students) to uphold the group’s mission and purpose.

These are just two examples. Similar problems are going on in Florida, Indiana, Maine, New York, and Washington. All across the country, religious organizations are being scrutinized and investigated for a leadership philosophy that almost all groups with student leaders share.

The only difference is that the religious nature of these groups make it easier for misinformed, misguided administrators to yell “foul play.”

Let Students Freely Engage

A true commitment to academic freedom, diversity, and intellectual engagement (objectives that all colleges and universities say they desire) requires giving students and groups the ability to operate freely as they add value to their campuses by sharing their unique perspectives—religious or secular.

The world is a complex place. Forcing certain groups off campus and thus shielding students from ideas in college won’t help students adequately prepare for the increasingly diverse world ahead of them.

All student groups—even those who require their leaders to uphold their mission to adequately function—must have an equal place at the table.

True academic freedom and diversity cannot exist otherwise. (For more from the author of “Proponents of ‘Diversity’ Tried to Force My Religious Group off Campus” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.