Study: The Most Generous Cities All Have This One Thing in Common

In the most generous cities in America, most adults donate overwhelmingly through local churches, according to a new study.

Churchgoing Americans are among the most generous people in the world, and cities with the highest percentage of people who give to charities are also the cities who give most often to churches, a new report from Barna Group finds.

Barna, a research group that focuses “on the intersection of faith and culture,” found the most generous cities by looking at the percentage of adults who make charitable donations on a regular basis.

Ninety-two percent of adults regularly donate to charitable organizations in El Paso, Texas and the nearby Las Cruces, New Mexico. About 74 percent of those who donate regularly give through local churches and religious institutions, Barna found.

The study also shows that the most generous cities are not necessarily the most well-off or economically “upscale.” Barna defines upscale as the percentage of adults with income greater than $75,000 per year, and downscale as adults with household income of less than $20,000 per year. (Read more from “Study: The Most Generous Cities All Have This One Thing in Common” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chelsea Clinton’s Dud Speech Full of Gargantuan Contorted Garbage

Chelsea Clinton introduced her mother, Hillary, and just before she walked out on stage, a video of “Hillary Clinton’s life” played. Both instances were an attempt to humanize Hillary, a woman who’s often seen as dry, boring, cold and off-putting. Distraction as a technique is as old as politics itself. Not only did this attempt fail, it shows how desperate Democrats are to keep voter’s focus off her record as a Senator and Secretary of State, and on her charming husband, motherly warmth and grandmotherly affections.

Chelsea Clinton

Following an evening of rousing speeches, including General John Allen and a pep talk by singer Katy Perry, Chelsea Clinton had the honor of introducing her mother. The final speech on the final night of the convention is the grand finale — the epic moment everyone is there for — no doubt she was tasked with continuing to build the momentum. Unfortunately, Chelsea’s delivery was rigid, dry, boring and predicable. Her tone sounded flat, her stories, one-dimensional and unmoving.

Had this been Chelsea’s first time giving such a speech to such a large audience, a pass might be in order. But Chelsea has literally been immersed in the realm of politics for so long, she undoubtedly is either completely jaded and this speech was a farce — or she actually believes this is real. Either way, she’s had many years to practice and has yet to learn how to give a rousing speech — the one comfort is perhaps she will take last night as a sign and go into a career other than politics.

Chelsea’s speech, as is often common with personal friends or relatives of the politician in the current spotlight, was meant to humanize Hillary Clinton, both because that makes the most obvious sense, as Chelsea is her daughter, and also because it couldn’t hurt. Not only were Chelsea’s attempts to humanize Hillary sparse and superficial — either in light of or regardless of, it’s clear this was an attempt to distract from Hillary’s actual political record, previous fundraising, and general liberal stance on major issues.

Who Is Hillary Clinton?

Anyone running for President should have their character, politics, record, behavior scrutinized. At a convention, the candidate and team get to project these things for targeted voters. In her speech, Chelsea described Hillary as her “wonderful, thoughtful, hilarious mother” and said one of her earliest, most fond memories was of her mother reading Goodnight Moon, a book nearly everyone recognizes. Also, doesn’t the thought of a younger Hillary Clinton reading a book to a much-younger-looking daughter conjure up warm fuzzies? Of course. That’s the idea.

Chelsea continued to describe her mother as loving, doting, consistent and a fighter. “Every single memory I have of my mom… is that regardless of what was happening in her life she was always always there for me. Every softball game, every piano recital…” She continued to paint an idyllic childhood: Sundays in church and time at the local library. “Whenever my mom was away for work, which thankfully didn’t happen very often, she would leave notes for me to open every day,” she said describing one note about the Eiffel Tower, when Hillary went to France to learn about their education system. “I treasure each and every one of those notes,” she said.

Chelsea transitioned to mentioning her parents’ political careers, but even those were painted with a broad stroke — “education, healthcare… were… what was keeping them up at night.” She quoted Hillary, “Public service is about service — “even if her fight for universal healthcare left her exhausted. Chelsea said when people ask her how her mom keeps going she responds. “She never, ever forgets who she’s’ fighting for.”

These anecdotes are not only vague and hardly even heart-warming, it’s a long-winded way of saying very little. Unlike, perhaps, Donald Trump, it’s not vague because we don’t know much about the type of President he’d be, it’s vague because with hefty careers both as a Senator and Secretary of State, we know exactly what type of President Hillary will be. Needless to say, it will have nothing to do with “public service” or Goodnight Moon.

Clinton’s record

While it’s not wrong to want to elect a president voters can rally behind, feel connected to or “believe in,” such things do not always contribute to a person actually being a good president. They are, basically, worthless when it comes to the role of Commander in Chief. Chelsea essentially told voters tonight: My Mom was around occasionally; she was a good person — vote for her.

This droll attempt to make Hillary the flaming liberal who, together with her husband, have earned $132 million in speaking fees since 2001, a nice Grandma who likes to Facetime with her grandkids and just wants to be a public servant is such a gargantuan, contorted, ball of outright lies, it’s hard to believe Democrats say these things, let alone actually believe them. While the former seems so disingenuous, it’s hard to take seriously, I fear the latter may actually be the reality, and thus much more alarming.

As nice as Chelsea might be, and as wonderful as a Grandmother Hillary might be, rather than take the anecdotal (if banal) word of a daughter who’s been living in a political bubble since birth, it might be wiser to look at why the convention so desperately tried to make Hillary look like “A Nice Grandma Who Wants To Serve.” Hillary’s as good at being liberal as she is at Facetiming her Grandkids. She was the 11th most liberal senator before she took on her role as Secretary of State which landed her smack in the middle of an FBI investigation even bigger than the Benghazi disaster. Hillary’s human, and that’s just fine, but that doesn’t make her fit to be President, regardless of how many nice words Chelsea says about her. (For more from the author of “Chelsea Clinton’s Dud Speech Full of Gargantuan Contorted Garbage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Actress Debra Messing Goes After Singer Blake Shelton’s Donald Trump Remarks

Debra Messing is apologizing for her social media outburst.

The outspoken Democrat, 47, came under fire Thursday after she urged Gwen Stefani to take Blake Shelton to task for his comments about Donald Trump.

Shelton, 40, didn’t exactly endorse the Republican nominee when he told Billboard, “Whether you love him or hate him, he says what he thinks, and he has proven that you don’t always have to be so afraid. A lot of people are pulling for him, no matter how much Hollywood fights it.”

Messing had a knee-jerk reaction to the remarks, tweeting to Stefani (before later deleting it), “Omg. How? @gwenstefani please talk to your man to not vote for the person who will STRIP you of your rights.”

Stefani never responded, but Shelton stood up for himself in a series of tweets of his own. “Hey before this gets going like it always does… I haven’t [endorsed] ANYBODY for president,” he wrote. “And I [I’m] not going to. I don’t do that s–t. My comment about ‘wish there was another option but there’s not’ is across the board … period. Now go dig up another story.” (Read more from “Actress Debra Messing Goes After Singer Blake Shelton’s Donald Trump Remarks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: Obama School-Transgender Policy Child Abuse

The family policy experts at the Ruth Institute warn that the Obama administration agenda to push transgenderism on public schools, including demanding that boys be allowed in girls showers and vice versa, forces children to adopt the “ideological agenda” of homosexuality.

The organization has issued a report on the recent “Guidance to Help Schools Ensure the Civil Rights of Transgender Students” released by the departments of Justice and Education.

The guidance requires that public schools and universities allow students to choose their “gender identity” and grant them access to gender-specific facilities.

It would allow a man to shower with girls, for example, if he says he is a woman. Obama’s rules specifically forbid schools from asking for any sort of documentation or evidence . . .

Texas, jointed by eight other states, has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration policy, charging it has “conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.” (Read more from “Report: Obama School-Transgender Policy Child Abuse” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Lifers: Planned Parenthood’s #DNCinPhilly Scare Video Misrepresents Pro-Life Activists

Pro-life sidewalk activists are pushing back against a seven-minute “virtual reality” presentation by Planned Parenthood at this week’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

According to The Daily Signal, “In the video, pro-life protesters are heard calling women ‘whores,’ telling them to close their legs, referencing Bible verses, and asking ‘who’s going to stand up for the rights of the child?’”

“We have taken this really brand new technology of virtual reality with the age-old art of storytelling,” Kristen Tilley, an official at Planned Parenthood Action Fund, told The Daily Signal, “to share the experience of what far too many people go through just to access the basic reproductive health care, but really, especially abortion.”

Several pro-life advocates, however, told The Stream that such behavior is atypical of pro-life activists outside abortion clinics across America the country.

Pro-life activist Larry Cirignano insisted that “most people outside abortion mills peacefully pray or hold signs.” And Jonathan Darnel said, “Of course it has to be virtual reality. Real reality would not serve the narrative they are trying to build.”

Language is Important

Some of those the pro-abortion movement refer to as protesters the pro-life movement refers to as sidewalk counselors. From a guidebook written by Judith Fetrow and found at the website for Catholic television network EWTN:

The clinics present us with a tremendous opportunity to reach out to those people who will not come to our churches, and who seldom see God’s love. It was the sinners, those who had little to do with the religious leaders of the time, whom Jesus sought to reach. At the killing centers, one may find the radical left, those involved in the occult, the walking wounded from churches (in some cases), the homeless, the clinic workers, the abortionists, the mothers, the fathers, the AIDS victims, and those who simply need the Lord.

Jesus dined with the publicans and sinners. He said that it was the sick who need a doctor; that situation has not changed. … What better place to show life and peace than a place of death and despair? Just as Jesus reached out to the thief on the cross, we should feel compelled to reach out to the abortion-bound mom …

The top three qualities the guidebook lists as essential for a good sidewalk counselor are empathy, sincerity and unconditional acceptance.

“Bad Apples” Seen in Planned Parenthood Virtual Reality

Cirignano conceded that not every sidewalk counselor or clinic protester lives up to this standard. “Some people get emotional when confronting Planned Parenthood escorts who are taunting them,” he said, and “some people scream to be heard because of barriers placed between the pro-life advocates who are offering alternatives and the Planned Parenthood advocates who are looking for profits.”

Lauren Handy, a sidewalk advocate, post-abortive counselor and full-time activist who regularly holds graphic images of abortion victims, conceded that “there are bad apples in every basket” and that what she saw in the Planned Parenthood virtual reality video “were the bruised and moldy ones.”

“I saw well-meaning people make costly mistakes,” she said. “We are dealing with a situation where someone is about to be killed for profit, and the lack of training/understanding of crisis intervention displayed by those in the video will do more harm than good.”

Like Handy, Cirignano did not downplay those portrayed in the video. However, he said, “They are the exceptions, not the rule.” He said that “the virtual reality we need to show is the Silent Scream or a modern 4-D version from the baby’s perspective of feeling pain.”

Handy said that “demonizing” those pro-life activists who have taken a mean and angry approach in the past “would be a disservice to the movement. We need to reach out to them/offer them training and encouragement to become more effective.”

In her guidebook for sidewalk counselors, Faltrow says that the work is emotionally draining and that burnout is a common danger. But like Handy, she insists it’s all worth it. (For more from the author of “Pro-Lifers: Planned Parenthood’s #DNCinPhilly Scare Video Misrepresents Pro-Life Activists” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Police Officer Denied Service at Restaurant, Cook Says ‘I Ain’t Serving That’

A cook at restaurant chain Noodles & Company denied service to a police officer in uniform Monday night in Alexandria, Virginia.

A female officer with the Alexandria Police Department walked into the restaurant on Duke Street for a meal at roughly 6:30 p.m. when an employee came out of the kitchen, pointed at the officer and said they would not cook for her. The officer said the employee also made a joke she could not hear and other employees started laughing at her, reports NBC Washington.

“You’re going to have to take me off the line, I ain’t serving that,” the unidentified employee said to a cashier in the store.

The officer left the store without being served and reported the incident to her supervisor. Alexandria Committee of Police Vice President Peter Feltham said the manager of the restaurant is investigating the incident and will “discipline” any employees involved, reports WUSA9 . . .

Feltham and Alexandria Police Chief Earl Cook met with the manager at the restaurant, who apologized for the actions of his employees. He also reportedly agreed to post signs reading “We Support Blue Lives” on the restaurant’s doors. (Read more from “Police Officer Denied Service at Restaurant, Cook Says ‘I Ain’t Serving That'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Evangelical Leader and Bestselling Author Dies

Tim LaHaye, an evangelical leader and the author of more than 60 books, died Monday in a San Diego hospital at the age of 90.

LaHaye is best known for penning the 16-book Left Behind series with Jerry B. Jenkins. The books sold more than 80 million copies and topped the bestseller lists of The New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly and the Christian Booksellers Association.

Pastor Jerry Falwell, a friend of LaHaye, told Time magazine in 2005: “In terms of its impact on Christianity, it’s probably greater than that of any other book in modern times, outside the Bible.”

His co-author Jenkins said: “The Tim LaHaye I got to know had a pastor’s heart and lived to share his faith. He listened to and cared about everyone, regardless of age, gender, or social standing. If Tim was missing from the autograph table or the green room of a network television show, he was likely in a corner praying with someone he just met- from a reader to a part-time bookstore stock clerk to a TV network anchorman.”

LaHaye co-founded the Institute for Creation Research with the late Dr. Henry Morris. He also founded two Christian high schools, a system of 10 Christian schools, and what is now San Diego Christian College.

LaHaye wrote about his marriage on Facebook during his recent wedding anniversary: “69 years ago today I married the love of my life, Beverly LaHaye. She has been my faithful partner in marriage, parenthood, ministry, and many things we never dreamed. We are still in love today! God has been faithful to us and we continue to claim as our life verse, Proverbs 3:5 & 6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths.’”

(For more from the author of “Top Evangelical Leader and Bestselling Author Dies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Pastor Fights Against Government Restrictions on Political Sermons

When the Rev. Gus Booth found out the IRS was dropping its inquiry into Warroad Community Church where he preaches, he was actually disappointed.

“We wanted to go to court,” Booth told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “This is the First Amendment vs. the IRS code. One standard of the law would win.”

The IRS has almost never fully enforced the Johnson Amendment, which the new Republican Party platform calls for getting rid of. The language of the platform is:

Places of worship for the first time in our history have reason to fear the loss of tax-exempt status merely for espousing and practicing traditional religious beliefs that have been held across the world for thousands of years, and for almost four centuries in America. We value the right of America’s religious leaders to preach, and Americans to speak freely, according to their faith. Republicans believe the federal government, specifically the IRS, is constitutionally prohibited from policing or censoring speech based on religious convictions or beliefs, and therefore we urge the repeal of the Johnson Amendment.

Republican nominee Donald Trump echoed the platform’s policy position in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention Thursday night, saying, “An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views.”

The IRS commenced its probe of the Warroad, Minnesota, church in early 2009 after Booth endorsed John McCain, R-Ariz., in the 2008 presidential election. The church had to turn over documents and minutes from meetings. However, in July he got a letter saying the probe was dropped for procedural reasons, but with a warning that it might start again.

Booth, the author of the 2014 book Shhhh! Be Quiet Christian, was one of 33 pastors across the country to endorse a candidate on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” a day promoted annually by Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty organization. The point was to prompt the government to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status, creating grounds for a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment.

Rarely Enforced

The Johnson Amendment was named for then-Texas Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, in 1954. Johnson and other lawmakers were concerned 501(c)3 nonprofit groups would get involved in the elections, on behalf of opponents. So just before the Senate’s summer recess, Johnson pushed through an amendment that would rescind a charitable nonprofit’s tax-exempt status if such an organization — including churches — campaigned for or against a political candidate.

To say this law isn’t enforced very often is one area of agreement between the ADF and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a group usually opposed to religious expression in the public square.

“Although church audits are rare, when an audit is warranted we would like to see the IRS enforce the law,” Americans United spokesman Simon Brown told The Daily Signal in an email. “We believe the IRS is not taking church audits as seriously as it should and we have pushed the agency to step up its enforcement in this area.”

“Since 1996, Americans United’s Project Fair Play has reported more than 100 churches to the IRS for what we believe was unlawful political activity—this means they used church resources to endorse or oppose candidates for public office,” Brown continued. “While we want houses of worship to keep their tax exemption, we also want the very few organizations that do not follow the rules to be thoroughly investigated by the IRS.”

An IRS spokesman did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said he hasn’t read the Republican Party platform language, but broadly spoke to President Barack Obama’s views.

“I haven’t seen the language that’s included in the platform. I think I would just reiterate something I think the president has said, which is that one of the founding values of the country is the separation of church and state, both to ensure that state interests are not interfered with by religious authorities, but also to make sure that state interests are not interfering with the work of religious authorities,” Earnest told The Daily Signal during a White House press briefing.

“So the president believes that both our institutions of state and our institutions of religion in the United States both benefit significantly from observing that principle.”

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, denounced the Republican Party’s platform.

“The Republican platform seeks to turn America’s houses of worship into miniature political action committees,” Lynn said in a statement. “I can’t imagine a more disruptive idea for our nation’s religious community or a real impediment to campaign finance reform.”

A “Violation of the Constitution”

Experts on the Johnson Amendment cite two cases of usage, only one of which was fully enforced. The other lasted about two years.

The IRS revoked the presumptive tax-exempt status of the Church at Pierce Creek in Conklin, New York, because the church bought newspaper ads in 1992 opposing Bill Clinton’s candidacy. Federal courts ruled the church crossed the line. However, this dealt with the organization opposing a candidate rather than regulation of what a pastor can say from the pulpit.

In a matter that deals more directly with what pastors oppose, the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, faced a near two-year investigation from the IRS after a 2004 sermon opposing the war in Iraq. The IRS dropped its investigation, but the church reportedly spent $200,000 in legal bills.

Tax-exempt status should not be conditioned on what a pastor says from the pulpit, contends Christiana Holcomb, ADF legal counsel, calling the law an unconstitutional infringement on free speech and the Establishment Clause.

“We have welcomed the IRS to really enforce this so we can make a challenge to the law, and make the public aware that any regulation of a pastor’s sermon is a clear violation of the Constitution,” Holcomb told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “But even without going to court, the IRS has used intimidation, bullying, and harassment tactics.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, which sponsors the “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” each year, has the signature of 4,100 pastors calling for the end of the Johnson Amendment.

Among those is the Rev. Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in San Diego, California, who has spoken out against the Johnson Amendment for years, and recently wrote the book Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today’s Tough Issues, which urges pastors to speak out on public affair.

“I have sent my sermons to the IRS. I’ve had people on the left wing calling, saying they will report me to the IRS. I say, ‘please do,’” Garlow told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “What Thomas Jefferson meant by separation of church and state is no government interference in the pulpit.”

Garlow added, “Whether we’re talking about a conservative biblical-based church or a left-wing nonbiblical-based church, I want the Johnson Amendment gone for everybody.”

A “Cloud of Ambiguity”

But, if the Johnson Amendment has never really been enforced, why bother getting rid of it?

“The law itself is less powerful than the implications,” Garlow said. “It hangs with a huge cloud of ambiguity over pastors and lay people who think they can’t speak out on anything political or think it’s illegal to register voters.”

Booth adds a future administration might have more confidence in imposing the law.

“That’s a big if,” Booth said. “If the government thinks it can tell us what we can’t say about politics, it will think it can tell us what to say in our theological messages. If the government told me I’m not allowed to preach about baseball, my next sermon would be about baseball. This is not about politics.”

There are three primary reasons to be concerned about the law, said Hiram Sasser, deputy chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom advocacy group. The first is that pastors feel compelled to self-censor; the second is outside groups — such as the Americans United — have a means to threaten a church with litigation; and the third is that internally church members pressure pastors not to speak out on important issues out of fear of losing tax-exempt status.

“Since the founding, churches would have election Sundays, where the pastor would talk about the candidates and issues of the day,” Sasser told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “If the IRS were to try to enforce this, it would lose.”

Sasser said the most relevant case would be in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in 2012 that federal discrimination laws don’t apply to religious organizations in selecting religious leaders. Sasser said the decision was about church autonomy that would extend to speech.

Sasser said Americans United for the Separation of Church and State routinely send warning letters to churches, which chills speech.

The organization contends that it is not trying to threaten or intimidate churches.

“Every election season, Americans United sends letters to thousands of houses of worship from a variety of faiths and denominations,” Brown, the Americans United spokesman, said in an email. “These letters are intended to educate clergy about what the laws does and does not allow regarding political activity by 501(c)(3) organizations. We want every house of worship to maintain its tax exemption and that is why we send the letters.”

The IRS should assure that religious organizations are allowed to talk to their own members about public issues to their own people, said Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society for The Heritage Foundation.

“The IRS has used the Johnson Amendment as a stick to threaten religious institutions that preach to their own members about faith and morals,” Severino told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. He later added, “The threat is always out there when activists with anti-religious groups go into houses of worship and essentially spy, then report them to the IRS. Neighbors should not spy on neighbors as IRS enforcers.” (For more from the author of “A Pastor Fights Against Government Restrictions on Political Sermons” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Parents Beat Back Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Mandate in Texas Schools

Administrators of a Texas school district changed guidelines for transgender students to involve parents and work with families on a case-by-case basis, after an uproar among parents.

The Fort Worth Independent School District announced the two new pages of guidelines dated July 19 after parents and others had a chance to speak at school board meetings, six public forums, and five meetings of a safety advisory panel, among others.

“The new guidelines place a heavy emphasis on involving parents and trusts students, teachers, and parents to work together to make the right decisions,” Superintendent Kent Scribner said in a prepared statement.

“We are grateful Superintendent Scribner reversed and repealed his illegal transgender directive,” a group of students, parents, and taxpayers called Stand for Fort Worth, said of the change.

The school district, comprised of 143 schools and 87,000 students, said it received comment from 235 individuals, including 119 separate emails.

“The new guidelines reflect what we’ve heard from students and teachers, parents and pastors,” Scribner said. “Our focus from the beginning has been the safety of all children and that, overwhelmingly, was the concern we heard from our parents and others.”

The previous eight pages of guidelines, approved by Scribner in April, allowed students to use the male or female restroom of their choice and directed school personnel to address a student by the name or gender pronoun he or she prefers, even without permission from a parent or guardian.

The Board of Education Trustees oversees the management and policymaking of the Fort Worth school district.

Scribner prepared the original guidelines, “completely done in secret,” and without “all the board members being aware of it, much less having parents having input on the process,” Julia Keyes, a Fort Worth resident and mother of five children, told The Daily Signal.

“It kind of came as a shock,” Keyes said.

Keyes, a member of Stand for Fort Worth, said parents and others were “outraged” and sent over 2,000 emails to school board members to hold the superintendent accountable.

“It was really the community that rose up,” Keyes said.

In May, the Obama administration issued a transgender student directive to schools around the nation, threatening to withhold federal funding if schools do not open up restrooms and shower facilities based on a student’s chosen gender identity.

Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal:

Texas and 23 other states have already sued the administration over its lawless edict on school showers, bathrooms, and dorms. So it’s not surprising to see concerned parents in Fort Worth and around the country standing up to school bureaucrats to ensure the safety and privacy interests of their children.

“We feel good about the guidelines as they stand,” Keyes said. “However, trust has been broken with the superintendent.”

In an email to The Daily Signal, Matthew Kacsmaryk, deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, said Scribner’s original guidelines overrode rights guaranteed by the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution:

Like its federal counterpart, [Scribner’s directive] was replete with speech codes that violated the free speech clause, shower mandates that violated the free exercise clause, and parent blocks that violated the 14th Amendment rights of parents to the care, custody, and management of their children.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, called for Scribner’s resignation over his unilateral implementation of the original guidelines.

Kacsmaryk said the Fort Worth school district’s original directive “expressly discouraged use of binary terms like ‘boy’ and ‘girl’” and made “no reasonable accommodation for dissenting Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, and Protestants who adhere to the Book of Genesis and continue to believe that God ‘created them male and female.”

The First Liberty Institute lawyer, who consulted with Keyes and her husband before Scribner backed down, added:

This is not diversity but displacement, the absolutist imposition of a sexually revolutionized view of the human person without any accommodation for religious dissenters who may have a different view of man and woman, male and female.

The group Stand for Fort Worth said it had “mobilized a bipartisan, multiracial coalition of students, taxpayers, and parents who were initially excluded from the process but whose voices have now been heard.”

The new guidelines say the school district will work with parents to create individual support plans for transgender students to address “the student’s unique needs.”

If the student requests access to an opposite-sex restroom, locker room, or related facility, the campus administrator, the student and his or her parent or guardian, and guidance counselor will review the request on a case-by-case basis.

The goal will be to create a “safe and supportive environment for students impacted by the accommodation with due recognition of the privacy rights of all students,” the guidelines say. (For more from the author of “Parents Beat Back Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Mandate in Texas Schools” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Difference Between Privacy Rights in Abortion and Same-Sex Locker Rooms Cases

When most Americans consider the right to privacy they think about the privacy they enjoy in their homes and person. They don’t think about killing unborn children in the womb.

But that is not true of liberal activists. To them, the right to privacy is all about abortion because seemingly everything is about abortion on demand: a non-negotiable doctrine of the secular-political faith.

So it comes as no surprise that ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser sees Alliance Defending Freedom’s simultaneous defense of young boys’ and girls’ right to privacy in school showers and locker rooms and strong and unwavering opposition to abortion as hypocritical.

But he misses the mark completely.

The right to privacy that protects young boys and girls from being forced to shower and change in front of members of the opposite sex is not based on the left’s tortured view of “privacy” that was created out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged that the “right” invented in Roe to kill children in the womb was “heavy handed judicial activism.” Roe is a legal disgrace that ADF has and will tirelessly fight to overturn.

The privacy claim ADF asserts—the right to privacy in one’s unclothed or partially unclothed body—is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions. Courts have said that this is the right test for protection under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Roe obviously fails that test because, at the time of the court’s decision, there was not even a whiff of historical evidence that killing unborn children was an accepted, deeply rooted practice in the United States. Any look at history shows the opposite was true.

In stark contrast, the privacy right ADF defends easily meets the “deeply rooted” test under the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence. It is indisputable that citizens have a right to privacy that protects them not just in their homes, but also from government-compelled exposure of their unclothed bodies to persons of the opposite sex.

As ADF explains in its Illinois lawsuit challenging the federal government’s gender identity mandates (read paragraphs 359-387), this right is a basic and essential aspect of personal liberty that has historically been protected in American law and society.

As Ginsburg has said, Roe was an act of political will—outcome-based jurisprudence, pure and simple. And its notion of “privacy” involves one person exterminating another person for convenience. How does that have anything to do with “privacy,” again?

But ADF’s locker room privacy argument truly protects the person—barring the exposure of one’s unclothed body against one’s will—a right grounded in basic aspects of human liberty and dignity that any government ought to protect.

So the answer to Millhiser’s “hypocrite” charge? Easy: Vindicating the long-established, much-cherished, historically-based privacy right of boys and girls, who would be scared, scarred, humiliated, and degraded by government policies that force them to change clothes in the presence of the opposite sex on a daily basis at school, lends not one whit of support to the “right” to abortion concocted in Roe. Simply put, the privacy claims in abortion and locker room cases are apples and oranges.

In reality, it is the left that is struggling with consistency problems here. Its (mistaken) position that locker room privacy arguments are based on the same privacy right invented in Roe raises an obvious question: How can Roe protect the horrific practice of killing unborn children but not protect something as basic, elementary, and historically as grounded as shielding one’s unclothed body from the view of opposite-sex strangers?

And what of the left’s newest invented “right,” the right to be free from governmental policies that harm one’s “dignity” (see Obergefell v. Hodges). How can government policies that force young girls and boys to expose their partially or fully unclothed bodies to opposite sex peers not violate this newly discovered right?

If I’ve learned one thing over the years, it’s that when the left cries “hypocrite,” it’s only to deflect attention away from the fact that it has nothing meaningful to say. And in this instance it serves one further purpose: to avoid answering for its own hypocrisy. (For more from the author of “The Difference Between Privacy Rights in Abortion and Same-Sex Locker Rooms Cases” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.