House Panel Recommends Criminal Investigation of Planned Parenthood Affiliate

/0 Comments/in , /by

The House of Representatives’ Select Panel on Infant Lives has recommended the Texas Attorney General prosecute a Planned Parenthood affiliate that allegedly, and illegally, sold fetal parts to the University of Texas. The House also approved continued funding for its investigative panel, by a party-line vote of 235 to 176, with just two Democrats voting with the majority.

The Referral

The referral, made earlier today, was formally announced by Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) on the House floor (starting at 3:24 of the video). According to Love, “the Panel learned that Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast violated both Texas and U.S. law when it sold baby parts to the University of Texas.”

A panel spokesperson confirmed the referral to The Stream. It is the ninth from the Select Panel, which has determined that fetal harvesting company StemExpress, the University of New Mexico and other for-profit and non-profit organizations violated various state and/or federal laws in Ohio, California, New Mexico, Florida and other states.

In California, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed lawsuits against two companies after the panel’s referral. Two other abortion centers have been referred for prosecution in addition to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.

The referral is not the first federal controversy for the Planned Parenthood affiliate. In 2013, it settled with the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations that it overcharged Texas and the federal government for various products and services. The $4.3 settlement did not require Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast to admit guilt in the case, which was brought by a former employee-turned-whistleblower.

The Funding

Approximately an hour after Love spoke, the House voted to fund the Panel with up to $800,000 above and beyond the $790,000 already slated for investigations of the fetal harvesting industry. The money comes from taxpayer-funded House reserve funds that have already been appropriated for use by the House, and will fund the Panel until its statutorily-limited existence ends with the start of the 115th Congress.

Democrats have condemned the Panel, calling the money spent on its investigations a waste of taxpayer resources and the investigations themselves “a witch hunt.” The Panel’s Ranking Member, Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, responded after Love’s speech that “bogus referrals do not a conviction make.”

Panel Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), however, said that the investigation has “reveals that the unethical and potentially unlawful practices of some bad actors may be putting important research at risk. Considering all that our Panel has identified, despite having barely a year to conduct this investigation, it is now up to us to build on this work, to hold our government accountable, and to stop these affronts to human dignity.”

Pro-Life Groups React

The Center for Medical Progress, which provided undercover videos in 2015 that led to the Panel’s creation, said in a statement that the Panel’s findings and Texas referral “confirm the criminal activity at Planned Parenthood that CMP’s videos documented and show that the wrongdoing goes even deeper than anyone first suspected.”

“Law enforcement and elected representatives at all levels must now act quickly to bring Planned Parenthood to justice under the law and prevent any more taxpayer subsidies from flowing to Planned Parenthood’s barbaric criminal enterprise,” concluded the pro-life group.

In a press release, Texas Right to Life praised the prosecution referral. “The diligent work of the federal House Select Panel under the leadership of Pro-Life stalwart Representative Marsha Blackburn has renewed hopes in Texas that the shocking evidence revealed by the Center for Medical Progress will be thoroughly investigated and those at fault held accountable to the full extent of the law,” said the group.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said that the Texas referral “is the appropriate next step in bringing justice to bear on a group that clearly sees itself as above the law.” He urged Congress to “once again use the reconciliation process to redirect taxpayer dollars away from Planned Parenthood,” as the legislative body did less than a year ago. (For more from the author of “House Panel Recommends Criminal Investigation of Planned Parenthood Affiliate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Life Progress: License of Ohio Abortion Clinic Revoked, Maryland Late-Term Abortionist Quits

/0 Comments/in , /by

An abortion facility in Ohio run by one of the nation’s most notorious abortion doctors has had its operating license revoked by Rick Hodges, director of the state’s Department of Health, CBS News reported.

The license was revoked after abortionist Martin Haskell’s Women’s Med Center of Dayton failed to obtain a transfer agreement with area hospitals, a requirement for abortion facilities in Ohio, CBS News reported. The clinic also failed to name the required number of physicians to standby as backup for emergencies — the only way abortion facilities can be exempt from the transfer agreement.

The clinic plans to appeal the order and has 15 days to do so, according to Dayton Daily News.

As reported earlier by The Stream, Haskell is credited with being the first to scientifically describe partial-birth abortions, after having carried out 700 of the horrific procedures himself.

The closing of Women’s Med Center of Dayton is being credited in part to the pro-life non-profit Created Equal through its Killers Among Us project, which discouraged area physicians from supporting the abortion clinic. The campaign is “aimed at calling out doctors involved in abortions, which included posters, mailers and vehicles circulating through the doctors’ neighborhoods publicizing their names,” Dayton Daily News reported.

“Other ob/gyn’s in the community saw what was going on and didn’t want to be a part of it,” said Jennifer Branch, attorney for the clinic.

Created Equal celebrated in a news release Thursday, with National Director Mark Harrington saying “Our efforts combined with local activists have had an impact.”

Katie Franklin, spokeswoman for Ohio Right to Life, said the organization is “very grateful to see that action is being taken on this facility, and we are hoping thousands of lives in Dayton are saved in the long run.”

Maryland Late-Term Abortionist Walks Out of Clinic

News of the clinic’s revoked license follows the end of another abortionist’s practice — specifically, his practice of providing late-term abortions.

Operation Rescue, a pro-life activist organization, reported last week that Leroy Carhart of Maryland has officially stopped providing late-term abortions at Germantown Reproductive Health Services (GRHS). According to Operation Rescue, GRHS previously provided abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

But many abortions performed by Carhart were far from safe. Possibly as many as 12 women were transported from his clinic to emergency rooms after botched abortion attempts, Operation Rescue reported in March. One of his patients died after complications following her abortion procedure at 33-weeks.

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said Carhart’s retirement from late-term abortions is “something to be grateful for.”

“Carhart’s brand of very late-term abortions are morally reprehensible and very dangerous, having taken the lives of countless viable babies and two of his patients,” Newman continued. “We have worked for years to end this atrocity, and today, Maryland is free from the dangers posed by Carhart.”

Carhart still performs abortions up to 20 weeks at a facility near his hometown in Nebraska, according to Operation Rescue. (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Progress: License of Ohio Abortion Clinic Revoked, Maryland Late-Term Abortionist Quits” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

3 Ways Ivanka’s Inner Liberal Is About to Go WILD in Trump’s White House

/0 Comments/in , /by

Now that her father, Donald Trump, will soon be President Trump, Ivanka Trump walks the line between her father’s stated conservative positions and the liberal elite society she is a member of.

A new Politico report confirms as much, with regard to the Ivanka-liberal elite connection. Ivanka also has the ears of her father, as we all know.

So what leftist causes will Ivanka champion in the Trump administration? Here are three biggest possibilities:

1. Climate change

“Ivanka wants to make climate change—which her father has called a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese—one of her signature issues, a source close to her told Politico. The source said Ivanka is in the early stages of exploring how to use her spotlight to speak out on the issue,” Politico’s Annie Karni writes.

Is Ivanka’s influence on climate change apparent already? While campaigning for president, Donald Trump stated he would “cancel” the Paris Agreement, a brainchild of the United Nations. Since getting elected, however, Trump has signaled that he’s open to keeping an executive commitment to the Paris climate accord to limit greenhouse gases. He now says that he is “looking at it very closely” and that he has an “open mind” about it.

2. So called “equal pay”

During her speech at the Republican National Convention in July, Ivanka promised that, as president, her father “will change labor laws” to ensure equal pay for women: “He will fight for equal pay for equal work, and I will fight for this too, right along side of him.”

Ivanka hasn’t been quiet about pushing the liberal myth about women being paid less for equal work — thus the need for equal pay laws. And now that her father is to assume the Oval Office, she’ll exert a lot of influence in advancing the cause.

But Congress is the only entity that can constitutionally change labor laws, and the last equal pay bill Congress considered went down in flames in the GOP Senate two years ago. Earth to Ivanka: A GOP Congress isn’t going to pass an equal pay bill in 2017 either.

3. Paid parental leave

In addition, Ivanka promised that her father “will focus on making quality childcare affordable and accessible for all” during her showcase RNC speech. Sure enough, Trump floated a government welfare plan shortly thereafter that would, among other things, establish a six-week national maternity leave policy, paid for by unemployment insurance.

Now that Trump has been elected president, he has a huge and powerful platform from which to advance any cause he likes. He clearly has taken advice from Ivanka before, and it’s likely he’ll continue to be a vector for his daughter’s leftist agenda.

But it would be far better for Donald Trump to shape policy based off a little something called conservatism and more importantly the U.S. Constitution. (For more from the author of “3 Ways Ivanka’s Inner Liberal Is About to Go WILD in Trump’s White House” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Abortion Providers Will Be Required to Bury or Cremate Aborted Babies, Abortionists React

/0 Comments/in , /by

The bodies of aborted children in Texas must be buried or cremated, according to a new rule adopted by the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. The rule, proposed by Gov. Greg Abbot in July, goes into effect on December 19th.

The rule essentially requires that the remains be treated like any other person’s remains, and prohibits their being disposed of in a landfill or by grinding up the bodies and discharging them into the sewer system. “I believe it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life,” Abbot said in an email.

Their bodies can no longer disposed of in the same way as what the New York Times called “other forms of biological medical waste.” The rules added provisions to the existing code, “that afford protection and dignity to the unborn consistent with the Legislature’s expression of its intent,” according to the preamble to the rules.

The new rules covers the bodies of children who miscarry in a hospital. It exempts parents who miscarry or abort children at home.

Abbot has also called for other changes in the law to protect the bodies of aborted children. In his 2016 Report to the People of Texas, Abbot had called for making “partial-birth abortion a felony in Texas” and also making it “illegal for doctors to risk a woman’s health by altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal body parts.” He added “we must criminalize any sale or transaction of fetal body parts or tissue in Texas by an abortion clinic for any purpose.”

The Abortion Reaction

The abortion industry reacted immediately. They are threatening to sue the state, claiming that the regulations restrict women’s right to abortion and that abortion providers will face extra costs.

“Texas politicians are at it again, inserting their personal beliefs into the health care decisions of Texas women,” Stephanie Toti, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement reported by Texas Tribune after the measures were proposed this past summer. “The Center for Reproductive Rights is prepared to take further legal action to ensure that Texas women can continue to access abortion and other reproductive health care without interference by politicians.”

The state’s health department says the opposite is true — that the costs associated with funerals will be offset by costs currently incurred by hospitals and clinics to transport, incinerate or otherwise dispose of an unborn baby’s body. Its spokeswoman said that the department’s research showed the cost will be “offset by costs currently being spent by facilities on disposition for transportation, storage, incineration, steam disinfection and/or landfill disposal.”

The pro-abortion Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association and the Healthcare Waste Institute of the National Waste and Recycling Association opposed the new rule. It has also been opposed by the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas.

According to the New York Times, the head of the Texas branch of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas attacked what she called “the addition of non-medical ritual.” The new rules are “a thinly veiled attempt to shame Texans who have abortions and make it harder for the doctors who provide them,” she said.

The Pro-Life Response

Texas Right to Life Legislative Associate Emily Horne told The Stream that “we are appreciative of the new policy that provides dignity to pre-born children who have died. These laws give unborn children the same dignity that is already required of pre-born babies that die after 20 weeks. And, more is required because a death certificate is required after 20 weeks.”

Horne told The Stream that her organization will aim to “pass laws that will save some of these deaths from occurring in the first place” when the Texas legislature returns to session in January.

The new rule is “nothing revolutionary,” Horne said. “But you’re not hearing that. This law treats unborn babies with the dignity they deserve.” (For more from the author of “Texas Abortion Providers Will Be Required to Bury or Cremate Aborted Babies, Abortionists React” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Media Shocked That Chip, Joanna Gaines Attend Church Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

/0 Comments/in , /by

Never fear, America — Buzzfeed and Cosmopolitan are working hard to make sure millions of innocent viewers don’t accidentally enjoy watching TV shows where the stars are Christians with traditional Christian beliefs.

After embarking on what Cosmopolitan described as a “deep-dive” (that involved watching easily-accessible internet videos and reading a church’s online statement of faith), one Buzzfeed reporter Kate Aurthur “uncovered” the fact that HGTV stars Chip and Joanna Gaines’s pastor, Jimmy Seibert of the mega Antioch Community Church, “takes a hard line against same-sex marriage.”

Aurthur’s Buzzfeed article details what Seibert preached the Sunday after the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage in 2015. (What she doesn’t mention or perhaps doesn’t realize is that thousands of churches across the nation likely preached a similar message.)

After talking about Genesis, and saying that marriage is between “one man and one wife,” Seibert emphasizes the fixedness of this idea. “This is a clear biblical admonition. So if someone were to say, ‘Marriage is defined in a different way,’ let me just say: They are wrong,” he says from the pulpit to applause from the congregation. “God defined marriage, not you and I. God defined masculine and feminine, male and female, not you and I.”

Aurthur also takes issue with Pastor Seibert’s opinion that many people who identify as homosexual were abused as children and his statement that God can change their lives:

We can change, contrary to what you hear. I’ve worked with people for over 30 years — I have seen hundreds of people personally change their direction of same-sex attraction from a homosexual lifestyle to a heterosexual lifestyle. It doesn’t mean they don’t struggle with feelings, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t hurting, it doesn’t mean it’s not challenging. But they have chosen to change. And there has always been grace there for those who choose that.

According to Aurthur, it is still “unclear” whether the HGTV Fixer Upper stars Chip and Joanna actually agree with their pastor’s “severe” views — a point Cosmopolitan writer Gina Mei desperately hopes they clarify soon.

Twitchy compiled a long list of people who found Aurthur’s “deep-dive” ludicrous, with tweets like:

The ‘Deep-Dive’ That Reveals Nothing New

Aurthur may think she has uncovered something new and shocking by pointing out an evangelical pastor’s commitment to biblical teaching, but she hasn’t. Curbed, an outlet of Vox Media, casually referenced Antioch Community Church’s beliefs regarding homosexuality in an October article entitled “Is Fixer Upper a stealth feminist fantasy?” (Aurthur actually links to this article in her own — perhaps she didn’t realize that the Curbed reporter also had the ability to Google search Antioch’s statement of faith and did so first.)

Chip and Joanna have been discussing their Christianity for a long time. They write about their “devout” faith in their newly-released book, The Magnolia Story. They have been interviewed about their faith numerous times (just Google “Chip and Joanna Gaines Christians”) and have shared their religious testimony in videos for Baylor University — the Baptist college they both attended — the Christian ministry I Am Second, and others.

So why the sudden uproar? Because certain people on the political Left are attempting to ab-normalize basic Christian beliefs, coloring them as extreme, oppressive, and hateful. The hype surrounding Buzzfeed’s groundbreaking exposé is simply the latest example in this growing trend.

What the Left Fails to Understand

Apparently a common tenet of leftist ideology is that to disagree is to hate, particularly when it comes to Christians who value a biblical understanding of sexuality and marriage. But this tenet is wrong.

One great example of congeniality and respect shared between two very different people is Dr. Michael Brown’s recent column, “The Gay Rabbi and My Mother’s Funeral.” As Dr. Brown, a Messianic Jew and outspoken critic of the LGBT movement writes,

It really is possible to love your gay neighbor as yourself while at the same time opposing the goals of gay activism, and it really is possible to recognize that every human being is created in the image of God (yet fallen) while at the same time having massive differences on religious, cultural and moral issues.

Many seem to forget that even as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy decided in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015, he reaffirmed the very beliefs currently causing the reporters at Buzzfeed and Cosmopolitan to freak out. In Obergefell v. Hodges, Kennedy writes:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

Could this mean that while same-sex couples can now legally decide to get married, people of certain religious faith may legally disagree with the morality of that decision (and perhaps even live their lives accordingly)? Shut the front door!

PSA: It’s Okay to Like Celebrities You Disagree With

As Dr. Brown writes in his piece, it’s perfectly possible to develop relationships with those you disagree with.

So if you are a liberal Fixer Upper addict who could care less where Chip and Joanna attend church but are being made to feel guilty for your lack of care by Buzzfeed or Cosmopolitan, breathe easy. It’s just a TV show, and watching it doesn’t mean you condone the views of its stars.

Christians routinely find ourselves in such situations. I’ll wager that there are plenty of Christians who, like me, love Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings despite the fact that he is outspokenly gay, repeatedly watch Saving Private Ryan despite the fact that Tom Hanks is a recipient of the LGBT Outfest’s Trailblazer Award, and loved Downtown Abbey even though it follows the complex and sometimes heart-wrenching story of a gay supporting character.

But what if you are actually surprised and upset to discover that the Gaineses probably support their pastor’s “unmoving position … on same-sex marriage?” Jumping on the bandwagon, Us Weekly also reported Buzzfeed’s apparent discovery and included tweets from concerned fans.

If this is you, then by all means, ignore the show. Cancel your subscription. Send your money to the Human Rights Campaign and not Antioch Community Church. It’s a free country.

But the millions of Americans who identify with the Texas couple’s faith and agree with Antioch’s pastor shouldn’t be made to feel “hateful” simply because they hold a belief that has been around for millennia. (For more from the author of “Media Shocked That Chip, Joanna Gaines Attend Church Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dollywood Employee Finds Burned Bible Page After Wildfires

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The day after wildfires tore through Gatlinburg, destroying more than 150 structures, killing at least three people and displacing thousands, Isaac McCord was doing his part to help out, picking up debris from the Dollywood park grounds.

Gripping his rake, he revisited a spot in Craftsman Valley he had skimmed over after his co-worker, Misty Carver, quipped, “Is that how you clean your room?” Provoked, he said he had started “really getting in the nooks and crannies” under a park bench when he caught a glimpse of a piece of paper lying in a puddle of water — soggy, seared and torn in two . . .

“As soon as I got down on the ground, I noticed it was a Bible verse, and I was like holy crap,” McCord said in a phone interview on Tuesday night. “It was in a puddle of water. I said, ‘I want to take care of this the best way I can,’ so I gently scooped it up and carried it out the best I could” . . .

In silence, the pair pored over the page, the edges of which were burned black, rendering many words illegible. But parts of the right side of the page were preserved enough to get the message across: it perfectly reflected, McCord said, the tragic natural disaster that had thrust Gatlinburg and Sevier County into the national spotlight the night before.

“O Lord, to thee will I cry: For the fire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness, and the flame hath burned all the trees of the field,” the page reads, according to a picture of the page posted on McCord’s Facebook. (Read more from “Dollywood Employee Finds Burned Bible Page After Wildfires” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Artists’ Free Speech Rights at Stake in Washington Florist Case

/1 Comment/in , /by

An African-American marketer should not be forced to create an advertising campaign for a white supremacist group. Nor should a Muslim graphic designer be required to develop a webpage promoting Jewish teachings, or a Democrat freelance writer be ordered to draft political speeches for Republicans.

Most agree with this, but Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson apparently does not.

Through his advocacy, he is trying to construct a real-life dystopia in which these and similar professionals will be forced to create expressive materials—like advertising campaigns and webpages—to promote, and even celebrate, ideas that violate their convictions.

The most recent evidence of this came when the Washington Supreme Court heard arguments in Ferguson’s case against Barronelle Stutzman.

Stutzman is a 72-year-old floral artist who serves everyone in her community, regardless of their race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. But because of her deeply held religious beliefs about marriage, she cannot custom design floral arrangements to celebrate a same-sex wedding.

So while she has been glad to serve Rob Ingersoll—a gay man—for nearly a decade, she could not use her artistic expression to celebrate his nuptials.

To Ferguson, this sort of conscientious objection is, well, legally objectionable.

Some who oppose Stutzman’s desire to peacefully live out her convictions argue that designing floral arrangements is not art or constitutionally protected expression.

That argument—which ignores the many U.S. Supreme Court cases that so broadly define expression that even nude dancing is considered constitutionally protected—is not Ferguson’s. He admitted that Stutzman’s floral design work is “a form of expression,” and that “arranging these flowers is no less speech than writing a poem celebrating a particular message.”

So Ferguson’s position is that if an artist makes a living through her expression, she must accept all requests to create expression, regardless of whether she considers some messages deeply offensive. Or she must be punished.

We know this because one of the justices asked Ferguson whether constitutional principles of free expression ever protect a business owner who is accused of violating a so-called nondiscrimination law. And he said that they would not.

Further highlighting his extreme views, Ferguson went so far as to say that Stutzman could not “do the wedding flowers for heterosexual couples and have another employee handle it for same-sex folks.”

So it’s not enough for, say, an LGBT business owner who designs shirts for a gay pride festival to have her employee design shirts for the group protesting the festival. She must actually do it herself. Are we really to believe that American law, rightly understood, is such a conscience-crushing steamroller?

We’re not talking about business owners refusing to provide someone a mundane, unexpressive product—like a meal or a box of laundry detergent—because they dislike that person’s race, religious, or sexual orientation. We’re talking about compelling people to use their artistic talents to create messages or actively participate in expressive events that they cannot in good conscience support.

Imagine that you’re a black citizen living in America, that you worked hard to build a profitable marketing company, and that you’ve developed successful advertising campaigns for various black community groups. Now suppose that a white supremacist organization asks you to develop a similar campaign for their local chapter.

You, of course, are happy to do work for white customers, but understandably will not create advertisements that promote a group whose goals conflict with your identity as a black man or woman. You are obviously not rejecting a customer based on race. You are opting not to promote an idea you reject.

Yet Ferguson, it seems, would have you create that speech, your conscience be damned. You “voluntarily” entered into business, he would say; now you must accept the “consequences” of the law as he sees it.

Capitulate or close your business. Never mind that your family would lose its only means of financial support. You should’ve thought of that, so his argument goes, before pursuing your career aspirations.

Or put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim who immigrated to the United States to avoid religious persecution and who later earned a degree in graphic design and started a small business.

After seeing your best work online, a Jewish group asks you to create its website, which will include a page explaining why Jewish Old Testament teachings are correct and Islamic teachings are wrong. Unable to broadcast messages that conflict with the heart of what you believe, you refer the organization to another company.

If you do business in Washington, you better keep an eye on your mailbox because, assuming that we can take Ferguson at his word, you’ll be hearing from him soon.

It doesn’t matter how much you’ve overcome to get to where you are or how much this lawsuit will devastate your new business. Accommodation for your conscience has no place in Ferguson’s world.

But Ferguson is simply mistaken about the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing citizens to express (or help communicate) messages that they find objectionable.

The government cannot force an individual to be an “instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable.”

Our nation’s highest court clearly affirmed that principle when it unanimously found that the state of Massachusetts could not force an organization to include the message of an advocacy group in its parade. Neither, then, can the state of Washington compel expressive professionals to create speeches that they don’t want to support.

But unless the Washington Supreme Court sets Ferguson straight, all who create expression in the marketplace have ample cause for concern, whether you’re a floral artist with conservative Christian views about marriage or an LGBT promotional printer who doesn’t want to create materials that criticize same-sex marriage.

That’s why this issue—freedom for expressive professionals—should cross partisan and ideological lines. No one—Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal—should want to live in the world that Ferguson is trying to create. (For more from the author of “Artists’ Free Speech Rights at Stake in Washington Florist Case” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jihad on the Quad? Ohio State Attacker Reported to Be Somali Refugee

/0 Comments/in , /by

Multiple reports are now indicating that the Ohio State University attack could have a possible Islamic terror connection, as the suspect has been identified as a Somali refugee.

According to NBC, “The suspect’s name was not released, but law enforcement officials told NBC News he was an 18-year-old Ohio State student, a Somali refugee who was a legal permanent resident of the United States.”

CBS News corroborated that report.

Officials have identified the suspect as Abdul Razaq Ali Artan.

As Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz has previously noted, “Since 1993, we’ve admitted roughly 115,000 Somali immigrants nationwide — mostly through the refugee program — at an average clip of 10,000 a year. Almost 100 percent of them are Muslim. Minnesota is home to at least 30,000 Somalis.”

There are at least 38,000 Somali residents in Columbus, Ohio, alone. That number is second only to Minneapolis, which was the nearby scene of another stabbing rampage earlier this year, in which 10 people were wounded.

The story here is not, as some would make it, about guns and an “active shooter.” Rather, it is yet another example of an Islamic terrorist admitted to the United States without proper vetting. (For more from the author of “Jihad on the Quad? Ohio State Attacker Reported to Be Somali Refugee” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Surprise! Conservative Theology Keeps People in Church

/0 Comments/in , /by

A recent study found that conservative theology (meaning a more literal interpretation of scripture) is a much better driver of church attendance than liberal theology, according to a five-year academic study of Canadian churchgoers.

This isn’t surprising whatsoever and should be a big fat “duh” moment for everyone remotely familiar with Christianity and/or the Holy Bible in the first place.

According to a story at the Guardian:

“If we are talking solely about what belief system is more likely to lead to numerical growth among Protestant churches, the evidence suggests conservative Protestant theology is the clear winner,” said David Haskell, the Canadian study’s lead researcher.

The findings contradict earlier studies undertaken in the US and the UK, which attempted to discover the underlying causes of a steep decline in church attendance in recent decades but concluded that theology was not a significant factor.

The findings corroborate research published in Baylor sociologist Dr. Rodney Stark’s The Triumph of Faith last year, which also found that while liberal Protestant denominations have been hemorrhaging membership for years now, conservative Catholic and evangelical congregations are actually growing, while actually levels of irreligion are holding steady.

“I don’t know what study ever found that doctrine didn’t matter in church growth,” Stark told Conservative Review in an email. “It always matters a lot. Note which churches are shrinking rapidly – all liberal – and which are growing rapidly, all traditional/conservative.”

A 2011 Study by the National Council of Churches also found similar trends among conservative evangelical and Pentecostal denominations.

But why is this? Why are those archaic strains of thought, the ones that Hillary Clinton advisers Jon Podesta, and Jennifer Palmieri mocked as “backwards” in the now-infamous “Catholic Spring” emails? After all, conventional wisdom would dictate that more progressive, comfortable, and permissive brands of Christianity ought to sell better than those whose prescriptions seem out of step with a post-Sexual Revolution society. Wouldn’t it?

Perhaps conservative theology is the key to attendance simply because it is much closer to the truth than all the various strains of modern liberal theology that tells the church to get with the times. After all, if you subscribe to the bible as written, you’d have to believe in all sorts of taboo things like natural marriage and the unborn child’s fundamental right to life. It would make far more sense for someone to avoid all the negative things that come with those beliefs — unless, of course, those beliefs are true.

Perhaps G.K. Chesterton put it best when he said, “We do not want, as the newspapers say, a Church that will move with the world. We want a Church that will move the world.” In order for that to happen, the church, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, has to stick to the script, rather than make it accommodate the very world from which it seeks to save souls.

After all, we’re talking about the greatest story ever told in the greatest book ever written. Some watered-down, platitude-laden, post-modernist-friendly, safe space-approved substitute just won’t do.

If what you’re hearing from the pulpit makes little to no claim to absolute truth, why listen? If worship — what we render to God, and how we render it — is not of dire importance, why get up out of bed to a church on your day off? If you’re looking for a social club with a message that makes you fit in with your friends at cocktail parties, why not sleep in an hour and just meet them for brunch? It has to be far more appealing than the coffee and donuts they give you after service anyway.

But that’s the wonderful, transformative thing about Christianity: It doesn’t matter whether or not a belief is socially palatable, contemporary, or popular. It never has. The only thing that matters is whether or not that belief is true. And there is no substitute for the truth, once it is revealed.

Once people find the truth, they’ll suffer all sorts of calumnies and abuses for it. They’ll even die for it, as we’ve been tragically and heroically reminded of by the martyrs of the Islamic State over the past two years. And, yes, you can be for absolutely certain they’ll actually get out of bed and get to church for it. (For more from the author of “Surprise! Conservative Theology Keeps People in Church” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Must End the Obamacare Sex Change Mandate on Day 1. Oh, You Didn’t Know About That?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Over the summer, without much notice at all from the national media, President Obama’s transgender agenda quietly crept out of the locker room and into your doctor’s office, thanks to a largely underreported Obamacare rule.

The Health and Human Services transgender mandate, which went into effect in July, forces doctors to participate in sex changes if they conduct procedures that can also be a part of a sex transition. It does this by following the example of other agencies by expanding the traditional definition of sex discrimination to include people suffering from gender dysphoria.

“We believe that it is important to ensure that civil rights protections are extended to transgender individuals to afford them equal access to health coverage, including for health services related to gender transition,” reads a section of the federal registry.

So what does this “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities” mandate mean in practice? It means that a great deal of doctors are going to be subject to much coercion, courtesy of Obama’s administrative state.

Have you ever performed a mastectomy for breast cancer? Congratulations: You now have to perform sex-change surgeries for women who want to look like men, according to executive fiat. Ever performed an orchiectomy because a patient had testicular cancer? Ditto.

And this applies to child patients, too. Indeed, under the new regulatory regime, any doctor who has ever prescribed hormone therapy but doesn’t want to help a teenage boy look like a girl now stands accused of sexual discrimination.

And the regulators in charge don’t want to allow any room for dissent, either.

“[W]e decline to adopt a blanket religious exemption in the final rule as any religious concerns are appropriately addressed pursuant to pre-existing laws such as RFRA and provider conscience laws,” the registry reads.

Wait, you mean the same laws that were invoked to protect Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor? Sometimes you have to wonder if there’s somebody in Obama’s HHS who just enjoys suing people with traditional beliefs.

Now the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is helping represent multiple clients in lawsuits in Texas and North Dakota stemming from the mandate, which they say (in similar fashion to the abortion and contraception mandates) violates the conscience rights of religious health care providers.

“No doctor should be forced to perform a procedure that he or she believes will harm a child,” reads a statement from Becket senior counsel Lori Windham. “Decisions on a child’s medical treatment should be between families and their doctors, not dictated by politicians and government bureaucrats.”

The distinction is worth noting because the HHS created the rule despite the American College of Pediatrics calling transgender conditioning child abuse in a paper earlier this year. Other research also suggests that a vast majority of cases of gender dysphoria in children will naturally resolve by adolescence’s end — without permanently altering the child’s life and body. But hey, they say that is what “progress” looks like, folks.

But the good news for religious people is that this can all be reversed by close of business on Jan. 20, 2017. As Congress prepares for the upcoming legislative session, there’s already discussion among Republicans on whether Obamacare should be fully or partially repealed, and how that should be accomplished.

This could get ugly, but fixing this egregious problem — just like removing the abortion and contraception mandates that have proven to be equally as damaging to conscience rights — is that it can be undone with a single use of the “pen and phone” that created it in the first place.

In addition to the skyrocketing premiums, collapsing exchanges, and host of other problems associated with the law, Congress now just has one more reason to completely scrap the system before spring. But, even if some less-than-conservative Republicans manage to misread the struggles of the American people and stymie a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, at least President Trump could (and should) quickly eliminate the madness that is the transgender mandate.

Do it for the kids … and the consciences. (For more from the author of “Trump Must End the Obamacare Sex Change Mandate on Day 1. Oh, You Didn’t Know About That?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.