Colleges’ War on Free Speech Continues

The University of Chicago’s president, Robert J. Zimmer, wrote a Wall Street Journal article, titled “Free Speech Is the Basis of a True Education.” In it, he wrote:

Free speech is at risk at the very institution where it should be assured: the university. Invited speakers are disinvited because a segment of a university community deems them offensive, while other orators are shouted down for similar reasons. Demands are made to eliminate readings that might make some students uncomfortable. Individuals are forced to apologize for expressing views that conflict with prevailing perceptions. In many cases, these efforts have been supported by university administrators.

Sharing the president’s vision, the University of Chicago’s dean of students, John Ellison, sent a letter to freshmen students that read, in part:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Those are hardly the sentiments of dishonest and spineless administrators at other colleges. At DePaul University, a visit by conservative journalist Milo Yiannopoulos was disrupted by student activists. School security refused to restore order and later banned Yiannopoulos from returning.

Conservative Ben Shapiro was invited by Young America’s Foundation to California State University-Los Angeles to deliver a speech titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem.”

University President William Covino wrote an email that read, “After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas.”

But note that the university invited leftists such as Cornel West, Angela Davis, and Tim Wise without feeling a need for differing viewpoints.

Sociologist Barry Glassner is the president of Lewis & Clark College. Morton Schapiro is the president of and a professor of economics at Northwestern University.

Schapiro wrote in The Washington Post: “I’m an economist, not a sociologist or psychologist, but those experts tell me that students don’t fully embrace uncomfortable learning unless they are themselves comfortable. Safe spaces provide that comfort.”

Both presidents, in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, said campus protests are a “sign of progress” toward diversity and inclusion and are “noble” methods of change, as opposed to the opining of “pundits and politicians … from gated communities and segregated offices.” They added, “Students are coming of age in a time of political, social and economic turbulence unseen in a generation.”

Many college administrators have generalized contempt for American values. Here’s just a bit of the evidence. A reporter from Project Veritas covertly recorded an administrator at Vassar College following through on her request to shred the Constitution.

Carol Lasser, professor of history and director of gender, sexuality, and feminist studies at Oberlin College, said that “the Constitution is an oppressive document” because it intentionally makes change a slow process. Wendy Kozol, chair of comparative American studies at Oberlin, agreed, saying, “the Constitution in everyday life causes people pain,” and added that she rarely discusses the Constitution in class and that when she does, she tends to focus on specific amendments.

The University of Michigan and Case Western Reserve University have announced safe spaces to protect students from unwelcome opinions. University of California-Santa Barbara students want trigger warnings for all classes and the right to be excused from any lessons that might “trigger” them.

The courage shown by University of Chicago administrators is relatively rare. The academic tyranny seen on many college campuses reflects a dereliction of duty by those who are charged with the ultimate control—the boards of trustees.

Trustees have the power to fire a president and his key administrators for yielding to campus tyrants. College administrators buy into today’s nonsense because they lack backbone and are cowards. Worse yet, they may see merit in safe spaces, trigger warnings, and student disruption of speakers with uncomfortable ideas. (For more from the author of “Colleges’ War on Free Speech Continues” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Catholics for Choice’ Isn’t Catholic and Neither Is Its Disgusting Message

A pro-abortion group wrongly calling itself “Catholic” is once again drawing fire from those who actually adhere to the church’s 2,000-year-old, immutable teachings on life.

This week, the group “Catholics for Choice” ran full-page, color newspaper ads in multiple states where Catholics form a significant voting bloc. One such ad that ran in the Chicago Tribune carries the heading “Abortion in Good Faith,” featuring an elderly woman named Linda saying, “It is because of my Catholic faith, not in spite of it, that I support women who make conscience-based decisions to have an abortion.”

The ad is in direct contradiction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” and that the “teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable,” and that every willed abortion “gravely contrary to the moral law.” The ad goes on to call taxpayer-funded abortions a “social justice issue.”

Catholic bishops across America have taken issue with the group’s grossly errant statement and message, especially when it comes to portraying itself as a Catholic organization.

“Despite what is implied by its name, Catholics for Choice is not a member-oriented organization and has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church,” reads a statement from the Texas Catholic Conference, a statewide association of the Roman Catholic dioceses in Texas, in response to similar ads run in the Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, and San Antonio Express-News. “Instead, it is financed by grants from a few secular organizations pushing a pro-abortion agenda. It seldom ventures beyond Washington to Texas, unless it is to buy expensive, full-page ads when it serves their pro-abortion agenda.”

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, issued a statement, calling the misleading ad offensive.

“The biggest falsehood in these advertisements is the statement that ‘as a Catholic’ a person can respect and support a decision to kill an unborn person,” reads another statement from Bishop Steven J. Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter in Houston. “The insinuation that Catholic faith can lead a person to sanction something which is always and everywhere a moral evil is fraudulent, deceitful, and simply wrong.”

This is not the first time “‘Catholics’ for Choice” has clashed with bishops over a media campaign. Last year, the group took out another full-page, color advertisement on The Washington Post’s daily Express tabloid in June smearing the National Bishops Conference “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign, which seeks to defend and uphold religious liberty against a host of secular attacks.

The ad depicts a cartoonish caricature of a Catholic bishop pointing to the reader (a la Uncle Sam), saying “We want YOU to help us discriminate.”

Ethics & Public Policy Center fellow Stephen White called the ad “old-timey anti-Catholicism” in response, saying “the folks at the Washington Post (who ok’d this travesty) and at Catholics for Choice could do with some prayers.” (For more from the author of “‘Catholics for Choice’ Isn’t Catholic and Neither Is Its Disgusting Message” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Numbers That Show Planned Parenthood’s About Abortion, Not Women’s Health

As Planned Parenthood looks to spend a record $30 million this fall to influence the November elections and keep its taxpayer funding flowing, Live Action has released a new online tool pro-lifers can use to help counter the kind of propaganda $30 million can buy.

Live Action’s new “3 Percent Abortion Myth” video dispels one of Planned Parenthood’s greatest myths—that abortion only makes up 3 percent of its services.

In order to justify its half-billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding, Planned Parenthood downplays its abortion numbers by falsely claiming that abortion only makes up three percent of its business—and instead plays up its cancer screenings and so-called “women’s health care.”

However, Planned Parenthood’s own numbers prove that it’s an abortion corporation, focused on abortion, not on women’s health care. The fact is, Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform a single mammogram and performs less than 2 percent of all women’s cancer screenings in the United States. Yet, as America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood commits over 30 percent of America’s abortions—887 abortions a day, one abortion every 97 seconds, and over 320,000 abortions last year alone.

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so focused on abortion that it aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption (it doesn’t do adoptions itself). If a woman with an unwanted pregnancy goes to Planned Parenthood, that child is 160 times more likely to be poisoned or dismembered than to be put up for adoption to a waiting family.

Live Action’s new motion graphics video not only shows that Planned Parenthood’s market share of abortions dwarfs its share of cancer screenings, it also illustrates how Planned Parenthood calculates its ridiculous 3 percent statistic to deliberately mislead the public and downplay its abortion business. The figure is derived by dividing the number of abortions it does by the total number of services it provides, counting a $10 pregnancy test or a pack of condoms the same as a $500 abortion.

Even The Washington Post and Slate have called out the abortion corporation for its deception.

Three percent is a hugely important figure to understand, because Planned Parenthood and its allies in Washington, Hollywood, and the media often use it to dismiss its critics as well as taxpayers who object to being forced to support the abortion chain with hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Three percent is not a real number, but over 320,000 abortions a year and a 30 percent market share of all U.S. abortions are.

Planned Parenthood by the numbers:

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for Pap tests is 0.97 percent. It performed 271,539 tests in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 28.1 million tests nationwide.

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for clinical breast exams is 1.8 percent. It performed 363,803 exams in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 20 million exams nationwide.

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for abortions is 30.6 percent. It committed 323,999 abortions in fiscal year 2014-15, out of approximately 1.06 million abortions nationwide.

Planned Parenthood aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption.

Planned Parenthood is spending more than it ever has — and double what it spent in 2012 – to influence this November’s election. Citizens have a right to know the truth about an organization that has a hold on the media, our elected leaders, and our wallets.

You can share this video to help counter one of Planned Parenthood’s biggest lies and help educate other voters. Planned Parenthood’s millions of dollars are no match for the millions of voices speaking up for the most vulnerable among us — our precious preborn children. (For more from the author of “The Numbers That Show Planned Parenthood’s About Abortion, Not Women’s Health” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

We Did the Sexual Revolution Once Before. It Didn’t Go Well.

How often have you heard sexual progressives claim that those of us who hold to traditional sexual morality and marriage are “on the wrong side of history?”

But as one new book points out, it’s the proponents of the sexual revolution who are embracing a sexual morality that history left behind millennia ago—in the dusty ruins of the Roman Forum.

Yes, today Western civilization is undergoing a dramatic cultural shift. In just a few short years our society has fundamentally altered the meaning of marriage, embraced the notion that men can become women, and is now promoting the idea that grown men should be welcome to share a bathroom with women and young girls. Not unexpectedly, we’re also seeing movement toward the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, and incest.

It’s precisely in times like this that we need some historical perspective. Which is why Lutheran pastor Matthew Rueger’s new book, “Sexual Morality in a Christless World,” is a timely godsend. In it, Rueger shows how Christian sexual morality rocked the pagan world of ancient Rome. The notions of self-giving love, sexual chastity, and marital fidelity were foreign, even shocking to the people of that time.

Citing existing scholarship, Rueger details the Roman sexual worldview that prevailed for hundreds of years. Women and children were viewed as sexual objects; slaves—male and female–could expect to be raped; there was widespread prostitution; and predatory homosexuality was common. Christian sexual morality might have been seen as repressive by the licentious, but it was a gift from God for their victims. (Read more from “We Did the Sexual Revolution Once Before. It Didn’t Go Well.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Two Cheers for PolitiFact Exposing Planned Parenthood’s Abortion Lie

Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) is in a tight race for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s seat, and the Super PAC for America’s largest abortion company, Planned Parenthood Votes (PPV), wants Nevada voters to believe that he voted to send women to jail for having abortions.

He hasn’t, and even left-leaning Politifact called them on it.

Heck holds a slight lead over former Nevada Attorney General Cortez Masto, a liberal and pro-abortion Democrat. While Heck’s overall record is centrist, he has voted for pro-life legislation such as a ban on abortions performed after 20 weeks’ gestation and a bill to defund Planned Parenthood.

In its ad (below), PPV claimed that “Joe Heck voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims.” Complete with a woman’s voice and the faces of several women, the ad strongly insinuates that Heck wants to throw women in jail for having abortions.

Thanks to PolitiFact, however, we know this isn’t true. Once again, Planned Parenthood is parsing words in order to fool the public. The 2012 bill referenced by PPV — and quoted by PolitiFact — literally says women cannot be prosecuted for getting an illegal abortion.

Bar To Prosecution.—A woman upon whom an abortion in violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 based on such a violation.

As PolitiFact noted, “[T]he Planned Parenthood ad fuzzes the difference between prosecuting the abortion provider and prosecuting the woman receiving the abortion.” Politifact analyzed PPV’s careful blending of ambiguous wording and misleading pictures:

The use of “for” in the sentence “Joe Heck voted to criminalize abortion for rape victims” could be interpreted to mean that rape victims would bear the legal consequences, even though the law makes clear that they would not.

In fact, the ad visually reinforces the notion that women would be left open to criminal penalties by featuring a succession of young women, none of whom wear the tools of the medical profession, such as a lab coat or a stethoscope.

PPV, which did not respond to my request for comment, defended its dishonest ad to PolitiFact:

“Joe Heck voted to criminalize abortion,” said Erica Sackin, communications director for Planned Parenthood Votes. “Whether the law sends women to jail or doctors to jail, the end result is the same: Women would have been left with nowhere to turn to for safe, legal abortion.”

I’ve long been a critic of PolitiFact’s left-leaning bias, including its own parsing of words on the issue of abortion. And while its “Half-True” ranking of the ad is too kind to PPV, PolitiFact deserves two cheers for effectively shredding the ad’s multiple levels of dishonesty, even if the final ranking leaves much to be desired. (For more from the author of “Two Cheers for PolitiFact Exposing Planned Parenthood’s Abortion Lie” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Devout’ Catholic Tim Kaine Butchers the Bible to Embrace Gay Radicalism

Speaking at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual Washington, DC dinner, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine butchered the Bible and made one of the most twisted arguments for same-sex “marriage” that you’ll ever hear. Yet the very article laying out his arguments described him as a “devout” Roman Catholic. How can this be?

Putting aside the obvious question of how Kaine could serve on a presidential ticket with the radically pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton — indeed, he has already been challenged for “saying he is both a ‘traditional Catholic’ and a strong supporter of abortion” — Kaine raised further eyebrows when suggesting that the Catholic Church could one day change its position on same-sex “marriage,” just as he has done.

In support of his viewpoint, he cited Pope Francis’s oft-quoted comment about gay Catholics (“Who am I to judge?”), failing to realize that the Pope was not sanctioning homosexual acts and relationships but rather saying, “If someone is same-sex attracted and wants to be part of the Church, who am I to judge?”

This is very different from saying, “If two men are in love and want to have a romantic and sexual relationship, who am I to judge?”

But I am not a Catholic, nor can I predict where the Roman Catholic Church will be in 5 or 50 years. What I can say with certainty is that Sen. Kaine’s use of Genesis 1 to buttress his support of LGBT activism amounts to scriptural malpractrice.

He said, “I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind, and said, ‘It is very good.’”

And, he added, “Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.”

Seriously? Kaine is going to Genesis 1 to argue for same-sex “marriage,” along with the larger LGBT agenda?

Genesis 1 and the Natural Family

Allow me to give a helpful hint to the senator: Sir, although you will find no support for your position anywhere in the Bible, the worst place you can go to argue your case is Genesis.

It is in Genesis 1 that we see the importance of gender distinctions, as God creates humankind as male and female — not as male, female, and an infinite number of variations, including agender, bigender, and third gender, along with multi-gender options like ambigender, bigender, blurgender, collgender, conflictgender, cosmicgender, crystagender, deliciagender, duragender, demiflux, domgender, fissgender, gemelgender, gendercluster, genderfluid, gendersea, genderfuzz, genderfractal, genderspiral, genderswirl, gendervex, gyaragender, libragender, ogligender, pangender, polygender and trigender.

Is this what Kaine was referring when he spoke of “the beautiful diversity of the human family” that we should celebrate? Genesis 1 states the exact opposite.

It is also in Genesis 1 that God blesses His human creation with the words, “be fruitful and multiply,” and it is only heterosexuals, by design, who can do this. That’s why, to this moment, no homosexual couple has ever been blessed by God with the ability to procreate by themselves.

The Bible and the Natural Family

This sets the pattern for the rest of the Bible, where the only marital relationships blessed by God, without exception, are heterosexual, with the male and female being uniquely designed for one another biologically, emotionally, and spiritually.

Accordingly, it is based on Genesis 1 that Paul explains in Romans 1 that homosexual acts are contrary to nature — meaning, contrary to God’s intended, natural plan for men and women.

And it is based on Genesis 1 that Jesus explains in Matthew 19 that marriage, as intended by God from the beginning, is the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

Does Sen. Kaine now have insight into Genesis 1 that not only escaped his own Catholic Church, but Jesus and Paul as well?

The Fall of Man

As for Kaine’s argument that when the Creator “surveyed the entire world, including mankind [He] said, ‘It is very good’,” — meaning that homosexuality and bisexuality and more are all good — he seems to have forgotten that “very good” was God’s description of His creation before the fall, when sin entered the world.

After the fall, His assessment changed dramatically to this: “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

So much for the “very good” assessment applying to human nature today!

Porneia

As expressed by Jesus, “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matthew 15:18-19).

And note carefully that the Greek word for sexual immorality, porneia, is used in the plural here, referring to all sexual acts outside of marriage, which Jesus defined as the union of one man and one woman (see Matthew 19:4-6).

So, the very thing that Sen. Kaine wants to celebrate, the very “diversity” that he claims God established in creation, is the precise opposite of what God intended for His creation, as stated clearly in Genesis 1 and reaffirmed throughout the rest of the Bible, from Moses to Jesus to Paul.

Mrs. Clinton’s running mate would do well to submit his thinking to the Scriptures rather than twisting the Scriptures to fit his thinking. It is the senator who must change, not the Word of God. (For more from the author of “‘Devout’ Catholic Tim Kaine Butchers the Bible to Embrace Gay Radicalism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Churches Could Be Forced to Comply With Transgender Law

Churches in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts have grave concerns about a new anti-discrimination law that could force congregations to accommodate the transgender community – under the threat of fines and jail time.

The law, which goes into effect in October, does not specifically mention churches or other houses of worship. However, the attorney general, along with the government commission assigned to enforce the law, have a different point of view. Attorney General Maura Healey wrote that places of public accommodation include: “auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls, houses of worship, and other places of public gathering.”

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the commission responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination law, reinforced that interpretation in a document titled, “Gender Identity Guidance.”

“Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public,” the document states. “All persons, regardless of gender identity, shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”

The Massachusetts Family Institute has launched a petition drive to repeal the law – warning that pastors and parishioners could find themselves in serious legal trouble.

“The law bootstraps the idea of gender identity onto existing Civil Rights laws,” MFI president Andrew Beckwith tells me. “Even having a sign in your church that says “This Bathroom is for Biological Women Only” could subject the pastor of the church to up to 30 days in jail.”

Beckwith said under the law, the sign would be treated the same as if it had said, “Whites Only.” He said the MFI reached out to the attorney general’s office for clarification on the law and they were instructed to “get an attorney.” “Churches are left not knowing whether it applies to them or not,” he said.

So who is going to be deciding what is and what is not a secular event?

“It shows religious tone deafness on the part of whoever is writing these regulations,” Beckwith said. “Any pastor I talk to is going to say their services and ministries and programs are open to the general public. That’s the whole point – to spread the Gospel and minister to the whole community.”

That’s a fact.

I’ve seen revival break out over the potato salad — during a dinner-on-the-grounds at a Baptist church in Mississippi.

Beckwith said he hopes churches will join their campaign to repeal the law — warning that “it’s going to have very real consequences on religious liberty.” “If the church doesn’t defend itself from these attacks on religious liberty, they are going to cease having the ability to make the pastoral decisions they need to be able to make,” he said.

I reached out to the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination and they told me Commissioner Sunila Thomas George said there’s really no need for alarm. “By and large, places of worship are not held to the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination statutes that deal with places of public accommodation,” she said. “We are not by any means saying that the anti-discrimination laws absolutely apply to them.”

But, they could.

“There are circumstances where places of worship hold activities at their facilities or in their buildings that are purely secular events,” she said. Among the activities that the state considers secular are soup kitchens, day care, housing, and polling places. “In those circumstances, places of worship could be seen as open to the public,” Ms. George told me. “The operative word is ‘could.’”

So let’s use MCAD’s example of a church spaghetti supper. Under the state’s guidelines, that supper could fall under the anti-discrimination law.

I asked MCAD what the church would need to do to comply with the law.

“You would want to make sure that people are treated with regard to their gender identity and treated fairly and equitably,” Ms. George told me.

So what, specifically, does that mean?

“As long as people who are transitioning or who have transitioned are able to use a restroom they identity with, I think you are complying with the law,” she said. “You would want to make sure they are accommodated. In other words, churches that hold spaghetti suppers would have to let men who identify as women use the same bathrooms as the little Sunday school girls.

The Baptist Convention of New England is among the religious groups in the region opposing the law – warning that it’s an attack on the First Amendment. “Any attempt by a small vocal activist group to strip churches of that right should be vehemently opposed by all people,” executive director Terry Dorsett told Baptist Press. “If they can take a church’s right to practice their faith away, imagine what else they can do.”

For starters, they can tell good churchgoing folks what they can do with their spaghetti and meatballs. (For more from the author of “Churches Could Be Forced to Comply With Transgender Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Senator Wants to Ban Doctors From Dismembering Unborn Babies in the Womb

Sen. James Lankford introduced legislation last week that would ban late-term dismemberment abortion across the country, in efforts to build consensus and find common ground among Americans.

“There are a lot of arguments right now about life and about its role in American society,” Lankford told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Friday.

“Obviously, not all Americans agree on the issue of life and when life begins and abortion,” the Republican from Oklahoma said. “I have asked the question, ‘Can we at least agree on some basic thing?’”

A dismemberment abortion, one of the methods that can be used in a late-term abortion, should not be used, Lankford told The Daily Signal.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., introduced identical legislation in the House last year.

The Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act defines a dismemberment abortion as an abortion that uses “clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments” to “slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off or crush it,” with the purpose of causing death to the unborn child.

When a child is too large to suction, physicians “will actually go in and rip the child’s legs and arms off and pull it apart piece by piece and then will suck out each piece of the child,” Lankford said.

The senator says this is similar to partial-birth abortion where a physician kills the baby partway through delivery. Partial-birth abortions are banned in the United States.

“We have as a nation already said we don’t do partial-birth abortions, where we have this late-term procedure where they deliver the child partially and then kill it while it’s only partially in the womb,” Lankford said.

“We know now that children who are in the womb in late-term can feel pain,” he added. “At least we should agree that in the womb when a child can feel pain, we shouldn’t pull them apart limb by limb.”

A physician that knowingly ends the life of an unborn child through a dismemberment abortion would be subject to fines and imprisonment for up to two years, according to the bill.

A woman on whom an abortion has been performed in violation of the dismemberment ban could seek civil action, including seeking “objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation” and “statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the abortion.”

“I do pray, not only for those that are yet to be born, but I pray a lot for moms that have had an abortion and the grief that they experience based on that after the fact,” Lankford said. “I pray for those that actually perform abortions that they will at some point awaken to what’s happening right in front of them.”

The legislation’s ban excludes dismemberment abortions that are performed “to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

Six states—Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana—have taken similar action to ban dismemberment abortion.

Clearly this is an effort to take some of the tactics of the past—using very graphic descriptions and inflammatory language—to ban access to abortion,” Elizabeth Nash, the states issue manager at the Guttmacher Institute, told ThinkProgress in January 2015 in response to states introducing similar legislation on dismemberment abortion.

The Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act does not limit abortions that are performed by a method other than dismemberment.

In the House, the legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice in October 2015. Twenty-four representatives currently co-sponsor the bill. Lankford introduced his identical bill Thursday in the Senate. The legislation was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

“Surely we can all agree that dismantling a child in the womb during a late-term abortion is inhumane and is not reflective of American values,” Lankford said in a prepared statement Thursday. (For more from the author of “This Senator Wants to Ban Doctors From Dismembering Unborn Babies in the Womb” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This New Reg Will Punish Churches That Use ‘Discriminatory’ Gender Practices

A draft form of gender identity regulations released by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination says churches that hold “secular” events “open to the public” must conform to gender identity pronouns and not challenge gender identity with respect to housing, employment and restrooms.

Released earlier this month and set for implementation on October 1, the updated version of the state’s “Gender Identity Guidance” declares that “places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict a person from services because of that person’s gender identity.”

A footnote declares “all charges” of discrimination “are reviewed on a case-by-case basis,” though the regulation language says, “Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.”

Additionally, the “Guidance” states, “Moreover, it is a violation of the law for any individual to aid or incite another in making a distinction, discriminating against or restricting an individual from a place of public accommodation on the basis of gender identity.”

Legislators passed the law mandating the changes on July 7, according to the LGBT group MassEquality, and it was signed by the state’s Republican Governor the next day.

MassEquality Executive Director Deborah Shields, JD, MPH, said in a statement that “the guidelines are clear, fair, and protect the safety of all people in Massachusetts. Finally, transgender people have safe and secure access to all public accommodations in the state.”

A footnote explains, “Violation of the law shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both…. In addition, the violator shall be liable to the aggrieved person for damages.”

Groups that qualify as being under the purview of the “Guidance” must take people at their word about gender identity, according to the state. “The statutory definition of gender identity does not require the individual to have gender affirming surgery or intend to undergo surgery, nor does it require evidence of past medical care or treatment.”

But the line between a religious event and a “secular” isn’t always clear cut. “Churches hold events ‘open to the general public’ all the time — it’s often how they seek new converts,” wrote Eugene Volokh at The Washington Post. “And even church ‘secular events,’ which I take it means events that don’t involve overt worship, are generally viewed by the church as part of its ministry, and certainly as a means of the church modeling what it believes to be religiously sound behavior.”

Volokh continued:

Indeed, a church might be liable even for statements by its congregants (and not just its volunteers, who are acting as agents) that are critical of transgender people. Tolerating such remarks is generally seen as allowing a “hostile environment,” and therefore “harassment.” Indeed, the statement I linked to specifically encourages people to “prohibit derogatory comments or jokes about transgender persons from employees, clients, vendors and any others, and promptly investigate and discipline persons who engage in discriminatory conduct” (emphasis added). But that’s not just encouragement; it simply reflects hostile work environment harassment law, which has long required employers to restrict derogatory speech by clients, to prevent “hostile environments.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. The same logic applies for places of public accommodation, which Massachusetts says can include churches.

PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil commented, “Ideally, the First Amendment should uphold the religious freedom of churches, Christian schools, and other faith-based organizations even in Massachusetts,” and noted that the Supreme Court probably would get “the last word on this restrictive legislation.”

But for now? “Christian ministries need to get ready for the onslaught of lawsuits leveled against them, and it might also be acceptable for them to leave, if they believe they can effectively do their ministry elsewhere,” O’Neill said. “It could be argued, however, that Massachusetts needs them now, more than ever.” (For more from the author of “This New Reg Will Punish Churches That Use ‘Discriminatory’ Gender Practices” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

IRS Redefines ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ to Eliminate Sex

In a far-reaching response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down natural marriage laws last summer in Obergefell v. Hodges, the IRS and Department of the Treasury have changed the meanings of the words “spouse,” “marriage,” “husband” and “wife.” This change was also a response to the Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which ruled that the words “spouse” and “marriage” could not be limited to heterosexual marriages.

“Husband” and “wife” now refers to “two individuals lawfully married to each other,” regardless of sex. The new definitions will give same-sex marriage couples job-protected leave to take care of their spouse’s family members under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and applies to the marital status of taxpayers for purposes of the income, estate, gift, excise and payroll taxes.

Of course, same-sex couples will now also face the “marriage penalty” for filing their taxes jointly. The “penalty” is the higher tax rate some married couples must pay if they are a middle to upper class couple with roughly similar incomes.

The proposed rule changes were announced in October, left open for comment, and finalized on Friday, with barely any fanfare or objections. One submitted comment to the proposed rule — to replace the words “husband” and “wife” with “spouse” — might have made more sense. Congress could still make that change in the future.

Another commenter suggested the IRS include the words “same-sex marriage” to better explain the changes, but the IRS dismissed the concern. According to The Washington Examiner, “Treasury and the IRS believe that the definitions in the proposed regulations apply equally to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, and that no clarification is needed. Amending the regulations to specifically address a marriage of two individuals of the same sex would undermine the goal of these regulations to eliminate distinctions in federal tax law based on gender.”

The changes do not apply to domestic partnerships or civil unions, in order to allow couples to choose alternative tax treatment that might benefit them more than being married. (For more from the author of “IRS Redefines ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ to Eliminate Sex” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.