Illinois Democrats Seek the Abolition of Sex-Segregated Bathrooms

Illinois Democrats Seek the Abolition of Sex-Segregated Bathrooms

School Choice Promotes Social Justice

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

As Catholics, we are called to support a preferential option for the poor. While some may debate what is the best way to achieve this, evidence suggests providing children with quality education remains one of the greatest determinants in socioeconomic status. Particularly, offering low-and middle-income students opportunities to access high-quality Catholic and charter schools has not only improved their educational attainment but greatly enhances their social mobility.

Therefore, policymakers who wish to offer a preferential option for the poor should mirror recent legislation passed in Florida and Indiana, two states that have demonstrated the effectiveness of school vouchers.

Recently, the state legislature in Florida has voted to expand its existing school choice vouchers making them available for more families. Already one of the most ambitious voucher programs in the country, last academic year, the state offered more than 36,000 students an average of $7,000. Next year, Florida intends to make eligible even more children by raising the household income cap to 375 percent above poverty. This means a family of four with about $100,000 in income for the year could participate in the voucher program. Further, the Sunshine State would annually increase the caps by approximately 28,000 new students.

Additionally, Florida will create special-needs scholarships for about 20,000 students. These scholarships are similar to education savings accounts that families can use for tutoring and related purposes. But perhaps one of the best elements of this legislation is that it would offer Florida students already enrolled in Catholic or charter schools eligibility for these vouchers.

Indiana, too, has recently expanded its decade-old voucher program. Indiana will now offer vouchers to 48,000 students a year. Families making $145,000 a year would be eligible for vouchers amounting to 90 percent of tuition support levels. Like Florida, the Hoosier State would establish education savings accounts for children with special needs. Further, Indiana's budget increases per student grants for charter schools.

In a recent interview with Today's Catholic, former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who signed Indiana's first school voucher bill into law, reflected on the success of the program. "Providing poor and minority families the same choice of schools that their wealthier neighbors enjoy is the purest example of 'social justice' in our society today."

Unfortunately, there are many policymakers who want to deny this social justice to the poor. Chief among them is New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. For years, he has waged war on the city's charter schools. His animosity for these learning options for children who would be condemned to failing public schools was so apparent that during his first year in office the state legislature passed a law preventing him from evicting charter schools from city property.

Undeterred by this law and with little regard for actually bringing about social justice, de Blasio's Department of Education recently failed to provide a new location for Success Academy, a charter school in Queens that primarily services minority students. As the school year comes to a close, these students will need to find a new school for the fall.

But even as his term is set to expire at the end of the year, New York students will have no reprieve. Of all the Democrats running for mayor, only Ray McGuire has said he would support putting no caps on the number of charter schools in the city. The rest basically support the status quo, keeping children prisoners in failing schools.

Unfortunately, even with the proven success of Florida and Indiana, too many policymakers decline to pursue a preferential option for the poor and provide them with the purest form of social justice.

This week's Faith On Trial

 

Relentless Attack on New York Pro-Life Advocates First Amendment Rights Continues

(April 29, 2021 – Brooklyn, NY) In a battle to uphold their First Amendment rights, peaceful pro-life advocates have requested an en banc (before the entire bench) rehearing by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of the decision rendered by a three-judge panel. Thomas More Society attorneys have filed the petition for a rehearing on behalf of pro-life sidewalk counselors from Brooklyn’s Church@TheRock. These church members and their pastor, Rev. Kenneth Griepp, were originally targeted by now-disgraced former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. 

The federal lawsuit, brought against Pastor Griepp and nine members of his congregation in June 2017, charged the Church@TheRock members with harassment of abortion-bound women outside of the Choices Medical Clinic abortion facility in Jamaica, Queens, despite the fact that the Attorney General’s lengthy targeted surveillance campaign produced no evidence that they violated the law. 

The church members regularly engaged abortion bound women in discussion, offering information about life affirming alternatives and a willingness to listen. They also shared factual information and participated in prayer. 

Schneiderman labeled their speech “harassment” and asked the court to declare it to be “obstruction” under the Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits blockage of abortion facility doorways. 

“The FACE Act specifically exempts constitutionally protected advocacy from its prohibitions,” explained Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Stephen Crampton. “We argued that almost the entirety of the Attorney General’s case consisted in prosecution for just such protected expressive activity. The district court agreed, rejected the credibility of the state’s witnesses, the merits of the state’s arguments, and the request for the injunction itself.” 

“Had Schneiderman succeeded,” observed Crampton, “the current United States Attorney General, operating under a pro-abortion administration, would be filing similar complaints in every state, and every pro-abortion state attorney general in the country, like Schneiderman, would be doing the same. The effect on pro-life sidewalk advocacy across the country would be disastrous. The abortion industry was watching this case, and still is.” 

After a sexual abuse scandal forced Schneiderman out of office, his successors, first Barbara Underwood, and then Letitia James, each have continued to prosecute the baseless lawsuit. 

Crampton and Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Martin Cannon represented the Church@TheRock throughout the lengthy trial in New York. The trial was marked by notorious moments. The owner of the Queens abortion facility – one of the biggest and oldest in the country -- called pro-life advocates the “American Taliban.” A prosecution witness falsely accused the church members of violence, but her testimony was later shown to have been lifted from an article about the actions of other people at a different abortion clinic several years earlier. 

The July 2018 decision by U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon, of the Eastern District of New York, denied the state’s request for a preliminary injunction in People v. Griepp et al. On March 10, 2021, the Second Circuit reversed that decision in part, issuing an opinion favoring the state’s position in this contentious court case that had featured fabricated evidence against the Church@TheRock defendants. 

The Second Circuit classified the following as “physical obstruction” under the FACE Act: 

• Approaching patients and attempting to hand them a leaflet, causing them to “deviate slightly from their path” and to be delayed by “one second” “at most”
• Causing a patient to walk around a life-advocate in the cramped, crowded context of the sidewalk entry area (crowded primarily by clinic “escorts”)
• Delivering a leaflet to the driver of a vehicle who has voluntarily stopped the car and rolled down the window to communicate with the life advocate 

The court further held that even minor, inadvertent contact with a patient or an “escort” could constitute a “use of force” violation under FACE, and that a person commits “harassment” under a local ordinance if she continues speaking, even for a moment, with a person who has indicated even implicitly that he or she does not welcome the message. The court decided that such an implicit indication has occurred where a person remains silent or declines to receive printed information. 

Read the Petition for Panel Rehearing En Banc here [https://thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Griepp-Petition-for-Rehearing-as-filed-04.07.21.pdf]. 

Read more about the case here [https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/rock-solid-for-life-the-outcome-of-a-federal-trial-in-new-york-is-critical-to-the-future-of-pro-life-sidewalk-counseling/]. 

About the Thomas More Society

The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago, Omaha, Rancho Santa Fe, California, and Fairfield, NJ, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org

 

 

An effort to 'silence dissenters': California targets pro-life sidewalk advocates

An effort to 'silence dissenters': California targets pro-life sidewalk advocates: 'The abortion industry is doing everything they can in California to increase their bottom line and silence dissenters in every corner of society.'

This Thursday (4-29) on Faith On Trial

This week’s guests:

Attorney Rita Gitchell, special counsel for the Thomas More Society on the rights of human embryos and what happens when human brain cells are injected into monkey embryos.

Columnist Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute on what “woke” schools are teaching (or not teaching) our kids.

Faith On Trial deals with societal and legal issues that affect people of faith and it airs every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central time. It can be heard at 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streams live on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also listen to previous broadcasts and where you also can download our free and convenient app. 

New York tries forcing nuns to pay for abortions

WASHINGTON – Multiple orders of Catholic and Anglican nuns, alongside several Catholic dioceses, Christian churches, and faith-based social justice ministries asked the Supreme Court late last week to hear their case against New York’s abortion mandate. In Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell, the diverse coalition of religious organizations sued New York after its Department of Financial Services required that all employers cover abortions in their health insurance plans. After losing in the state court, the religious organizations have now petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their right to operate their ministries without being forced to provide abortions.

“Our faith tells us that every life is precious from the moment of conception to the final breath. That’s why we spend our lives praying and serving to lift others’ burdens,” said Mother Miriam, of the Sisterhood of Saint Mary, the oldest religious order founded in America in the Anglican tradition. “New York has told us that if we want to hold our beliefs about the sanctity of life, we have to stop serving non-Anglicans. We cannot compromise on our religious beliefs, or in our service to people of all faiths or no faith at all. That’s why we need relief from the Supreme Court.”

When the New York State Department of Financial Services initially proposed the abortion mandate, it promised to respect the First Amendment by exempting employers with religious objections. But after facing pressure from abortion activists, New York narrowed the exemption to protect only religious entities whose purpose is to inculcate religious values and who primarily serve and hire coreligionists. This narrow exemption thus doesn’t apply to most religious ministries that serve people regardless of their faith. For example, the exemption doesn’t extend to the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm and their Teresian Nursing Home because they serve the elderly and dying regardless of religious affiliation. Nor does it extend to the First Bible Baptist Church, which operates social justice ministries for underserved community members.

“When New York instituted its abortion mandate, the Little Sisters of the Poor were already two Supreme Court victories into their battle against the contraceptive mandate. Now they’ve won for a third time, sending the clear message that the government can’t make nuns do its dirty work,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket. “New York’s failure to learn from the Little Sisters’ saga that you can’t make nuns pay for abortions is beyond reason. The Court needs to step in and teach New York that lesson.”

The story of nuns being ordered to pay for drugs and procedures that violate their religious beliefs has already played out at the federal level. In 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services ordered employers to cover controversial contraceptives and abortifacients in their health care plan or face crippling fines. Immediately, a lawsuit was brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor—an order of Catholic nuns who dedicate their lives to serving the elderly poor. Three times the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, saying that if the government wanted to find a way to provide contraceptives and abortifacients, it couldn’t force the nuns to help.

The Long Knives Are Coming Out

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) - I think we’ve probably known all along that in the current state of things our religious liberty would be under attack. I’ve written about those things and my radio program has highlighted many more. Until recently, however, the attacks have been somewhat muted, limited to isolated instances, and, at least to the general public, not very brazen.

But with a new political magisterium of faux Christianity, faux patriotism, faux liberty, along with the growing acceptance of a cancel culture, the New Left has ratcheted up the ante and no longer tries to conceal its vulgar attacks on Catholicism, people of faith, and conservative Christians.

So while the Equality Act, endorsed by the president and the majority party leaders of Congress, is pending before the Senate, an act which would stifle churches’ ability to teach and live out their beliefs, especially in the area of sexual morality, a legal challenge has raised the possibility that religious colleges might be cut off from federal funding upon which they have been dependent.

Acolytes of the New Left, operating under the name of the Religious Exemption Accountability Project (REAP), have filed suit in an Oregon federal court on behalf of current and former students to prevent future students from using tuition grants, student loans, and any other federal financial assistance at schools that operate according to Christian beliefs on sexuality.

The crux of the argument is that the religious exemption afforded to religious institutions under Title IX are unconstitutional because it allows for discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sexual and gender identity.

According to the Department of Education website, “Title IX generally prohibits a recipient institution from excluding, separating, denying benefits to, or otherwise treating students differently on the basis of sex in its educational programs or activities.” But it does not apply “to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization.”

That, according to REAP, is unconstitutional, and on its website argues, “REAP’s lawsuit asserts the constitutional and basic human rights of LGBTQ+ students, seeking to end the sexual, physical, and psychological abuses perpetrated under the religious exemption to Title IX at thousands of federally funded schools, colleges, and universities across America.”

The class action suit was filed on behalf of 33 current and former students of some 25 Christian colleges that receive federal funds from the Department of Education. The 33 named plaintiffs are claiming to represent more than 100,000 sexual and gender minorities attending religious institutions where, REAP suggests, they were discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The 67-page suit lists each student, the college he or she (using the person’s proper pronoun) attended, and briefly how they were discriminated against. Some seemed quite trivial, such as the complaint by Rachel Held, a bisexual women attending Messiah University, “Messiah believes that the Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.” Rachel is engaged to another woman. Messiah University is a private Christian school in Mechanicsburg, Pa., whose motto is “Christ Preeminent.”

Lauren Hoekstra is a self-identified “queer woman” who attended Dordt University in Sioux City, Iowa. Apparently what Lauren found so intolerable were “activities that the school has declared unbiblical include ‘promoting or advocating sexually immoral activity,’ ‘extramarital sexual relations,’ ‘homosexual relations,’ and ‘transgendered behavior’.” Dordt is a private Christian institution affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church.

I could go on, but I think you get the drift. Anyway, the catchall takeaway is summed up in the fourth paragraph of the lawsuit: “When taxpayer-funded religious institutions require sexual and gender minority students to hide their identity out of fear, or to behave contrary to their fundamental sexual or gender identity, the unsurprising consequences are intense pain, loneliness, and self-harm. Students perceive that their campus, and even their government, believes that they are inferior in dignity and worth.”

None of the colleges are named as defendants in the lawsuit. In fact, the only defendants named are the Department of Education and several department officials in their official capacities. Thus, if that is left to stand, the Biden administration would very likely “settle” the suit favorably to the plaintiffs.

However, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), representing four Christian colleges, has petitioned to intervene in the case to argue for the defense. Intervention in a lawsuit would allow a party not originally named in the suit to enter as an actual party. The theory being that the intervenor may have rights that would be affected by the court’s decision. Intervention can be granted by right, when the party can show that he cannot be adequately be represented by either of the existing parties, or it can be permissive when in the court’s opinion the claims by the intervenor has common elements of law or fact with the suit.

ADF has petitioned under both theories, but it is difficult to imagine a federal judge denying the request. In its 27-page motion and brief, ADF says, “The very existence of Title IX’s Religious Exemption is at stake here, yet none of the current parties are religious educational institutions that benefit from this exemption. This case asks whether the Department may continue to grant and recognize religious exemptions enshrined in Title IX and required by the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Religious Schools are Christian universities and seminaries that qualify for the Religious Exemption….The court should not assess the Religious Exemption’s constitutionality without hearing from the very institutions the exemption was designed to protect.”

Of course sometimes what happens in court can be a crap-shoot, especially when the litigants forum shop. Paul Southwick, the president and lead counsel for REAP, was asked why file in Oregon rather than in D.C. His reply was that it was close to him and “the Ninth Circuit [Court of Appeals, in whose jurisdiction is Oregon] tends to take a view of the Constitution and civil rights that aligns with our lawsuit.”

David Cortman, ADF vice president of U.S. litigation, suggested:

“This lawsuit wants the federal government to tell Christian schools, ‘To continue accepting students who have federal financial aid, all you have to do is to start acting contrary to your own beliefs.’ That’s neither reasonable nor constitutional. No court should grant a radical request to rewrite federal law and strong-arm religious colleges by stripping their students of much-needed financial aid. For that reason, we are asking the court to let our clients intervene in this lawsuit so that they and their students can defend their freedoms under federal law and the Constitution.”

“The very existence of Title IX’s Religious Exemption is at stake here, yet none of the current parties are religious educational institutions that benefit from this exemption,” said ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker. He noted that those who filed the lawsuit are asking the court “to declare the Religious Exemption unconstitutional and seek a permanent injunction rescinding and prohibiting religious exemptions for institutions that hold beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender disfavored by some. The court should not assess the Religious Exemption’s constitutionality without hearing from the very institutions the exemption was designed to protect.”

It would seem likely that ADF’s motion will be granted, the battle will be joined, and the topic of the religious exemptions will come front and center with the Biden administration, after the litigation ends, having the option to either withdraw the exemption, as the Obama-Biden administration tried, or to restore it with restrictions.

Time will tell. But I can assure you, more of these religious attacks are coming and the strong defense which Mr. Trump would have provided won’t be there for us. The long knives will be coming.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Faith On Trial at IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

 

Religious freedom doesn't matter to Biden WH, says attorney

Religious freedom doesn't matter to Biden WH, says attorney: In a move perceived by an attorney as a White House attack on religious freedom, the Biden administration is appealing a court decision allowing religious hospitals and doctors to opt out of gender-transition procedures.

Debunking 4 Claims the Radical Left Uses to Justify Their Supreme Court Coup

By Liberty McArtor 

Proponents of court-packing argue that adding more judges to our nation’s judiciary is the magical solution to urgent problems, and even paint the picture that doing so is an act of goodwill. But far from being a necessity, court-packing is a brazen power-grab by one political party to fix the number of Supreme Court justices or federal judges to get the political results they want.

And when we look at the history of court-packing across the world, there’s no way around it: Court-packing is a dangerous scheme with severe implications that would erase freedom and rights for future generations and destroy America’s constitutional order.

To equip you—and all Americans—in exposing the lie and the radical plan to overthrow America’s court system, here are four common (or rather, bogus) court-packing claims debunked with facts and logic.

1. Myth: The Supreme Court has been stolen.

Fact: The Supreme Court currently has nine highly qualified, legitimately appointed and confirmed justices. The far Left just doesn’t like some of them.

The reason court-packing advocates say the Supreme Court was “stolen” is because they disagree with the political party and the president who appointed the latest three justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett). For instance, they claimed that Justice Barrett’s confirmation happened too quickly. But as First Liberty President and CEO Kelly Shackelford has noted, justices have been confirmed in the same fashion nearly thirty (30) times. In fact, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Justice Barrett replaced, was confirmed in a similar time frame.

Ironically, stealing the Supreme Court is exactly what would happen if the coup attempt to add two, four or even six more justices were to succeed.

2. Myth: Court-packing has popular support.

Fact: Court-packing is widely unpopular—and historically has been within both parties. 

Polls conducted in the last few years show the majority of Americans oppose court-packing.

• In 2020, a New York Times-Siena College poll found that fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely voters opposed packing the Supreme Court.
• In 2019, Rasmussen polls found that only twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans favor packing the Supreme Court with additional justices.

What’s more, opposition to court-packing is prevalent across the political spectrum.

Here are some quotes from several politicians and prominent figures on both sides of the political aisle, starting with the current president:

• President Joe Biden (D):

In 1983: “President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. … But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make.”

In 2020: “I’m not a fan of court packing.”

• Ted Cruz (R-TX)

In 2020: “Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power.”

• Joe Manchin (D-WV)

In 2020: “I want to allay those fears, I want to rest those fears for you right now because when they talk about whether it be packing the courts, or ending the filibuster, I will not vote to do that.”

• Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

In 2020: “I can’t think of a more destabilizing event for America than changing the number of [justices] on the Supreme Court every election cycle, because it becomes a winner take all for the Court.”

• Jon Ossoff (D-GA):

In 2020: “We shouldn’t expand the Supreme Court just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.”

• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933 – 2020):

In 2019: “If anything would make the court look partisan…it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.'”

The truth is both parties have long opposed court-packing, and the sudden flip by a select group of elites on the Democratic side on this issue exposes this scheme for what it really is: a barefaced power grab.

3. Myth: Court-packing is a routine procedure.

Fact: Changes to the size of the Supreme Court are very rare in America’s history, and the few partisan attempts at court-packing have been failures.

Congress has changed the number of Supreme Court justices only a total of seven times in American history. The radical Left distorts this fact to make you think court-packing is normal. But in nearly 250 years and 120 Congresses, the seven prior changes (many of them due to workloads and the addition of states to the Republic) do not offer a justification for packing the Court today. On the contrary, the seven changes show how rare court-packing is in America. What’s more, the number of Supreme Court justices hasn’t changed at all since 1869—that’s over 150 years!

4. Myth: Court-packing will save democracy.

Fact: Court packing will crush civil liberties by making the Supreme Court a partisan tool of whoever holds power.  

Using a baseball metaphor, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts once said of a judge’s role, “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”

What would happen if several partisan justices were added to the Supreme Court—justices who were instructed to “pitch” and “bat” for the team that appointed them? The Supreme Court would become an extension of the party currently in power. The fundamental principle of the “separation of powers” would be destroyed.

If more and more partisan judges are added to courts every election cycle, those in the minority—people who don’t agree with the current ruling party—would have their freedom squashed under the weight of a rigged judiciary. Civil liberties like religious freedom would have no stable protection.

Far from saving the principles of our democratic republic, court-packing would lead to the demolition of constitutional rights—just like it happened in other nations, such as Venezuela and Argentina.

###

Liberty McArtor is a freelance writer in the state of Texas. As a contributor to FLI Insider, published by First Liberty Institute. Liberty covered various topics, including historical articles about the role of faith during the American founding and religious liberty in the military. Liberty earned her bachelor’s degree in journalism from Patrick Henry College and previously worked as a radio producer in Washington, D.C.

 

Americans Are Clear: Don’t Pack the Supreme Court

Washington, DC—First Liberty Institute today announced the results of a nationwide poll from Mason Dixon Polling & Strategy revealing more than two-thirds (2/3’s) of Americans oppose adding seats to the Supreme Court of the United States. First Liberty, the nation’s premier law firm dedicated exclusively to religious liberty, commissioned the poll. 

Read he results of the poll here. 

“Court-packing is a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary,” Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, & Chief Counsel to First Liberty said.  “Other countries have done this, with disastrous results. Americans recognize that court-packing is a brazen power-play by political extremists to overthrow our court system.  The last thing our country needs right now is a coup on the Supreme Court. We need our Constitutional system. It is the envy of the world.” 

The poll, conducted by Mason Dixon of registered voters nationwide April 15-19, suggests that 68% of all respondents oppose court-packing.  Importantly, self-identified Independent voters overwhelmingly reject plans to pack the court (68% opposed). 

### 

About First Liberty Institute

First Liberty Institute is a non-profit public interest law firm and the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.

Illinois Gov. Pritzker's Recommendations for Corrupting All Government Schools

Pritzker's Recommendations for Corrupting All Government Schools

This week's Faith On Trial

Guests: Tom Jipping, Senor Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation on court packing. Julie Blake, Senior Counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom on the case of a small Christian college that is suing the Administration because it mandates that the college place biological males into female dormitories and assign them female roommates, putting its religious freedom at risk

Nobody Cares

By Judie Brown, President American Life League

A longtime pro-life advocate recently told us a very sad story. As he stood in front of an abortion facility praying the Rosary and holding a sign, someone rode by on a bicycle and yelled, “Give it up. Nobody cares.”

That story struck a chord in my heart because what that individual yelled out at a faithful defender of the babies tells us exactly what is wrong with our nation today. We are living in a time when millions of our fellow human beings are going to their deaths, and most folks couldn’t care less!

I can give you plenty of examples of the “nobody cares” mantra, but here are just a few.

Headlines report that the president of the United States, Joe Biden, is undoing Trump administration regulations that prevented Planned Parenthood from referring expectant mothers to places where their babies can be killed by abortion. Reporters quoted a Biden administration official from HHS, who said: “Ultimately, continued enforcement of the 2019 rule raises the possibility of a two-tiered health care system in which those with insurance and full access to health care receive full medical information and referrals, while low-income populations with fewer opportunities for care are relegated to inferior access.”

Once again, we are told that killing a baby prior to birth is healthcare—a popular smokescreen about which nobody cares.

This “healthcare” not only results in a dead baby, but it’s not unusual for it to also harm the mother. We saw this recently when, at a Charleston, South Carolina, Planned Parenthood abortion facility, a 36-year-old patient bled uncontrollably and had to be rushed by ambulance to a local hospital. Tiffany, the Planned Parenthood official who made the call to the emergency services, not only laughed during the call but had no idea what an advance directive was or exactly how much help the patient might need.

This is the definition of women’s healthcare these days, but nobody cares.

Back in Washington, DC, Biden’s Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mail-order abortion pills for the duration of the pandemic. A woman can now use telemedicine to talk to a doctor from her home. He then prescribes her the pills, and they are mailed to her, which she takes alone. While we wondered aloud why the Catholic bishops’ USCCB did not speak out immediately, the fact remains that once again pro-death counterfeit-Catholic Biden found yet another way to approve of abortion!

This is the Biden administration’s idea of women’s healthcare, but nobody cares.

So the beat goes on. In Nebraska, a corrections officer resigned because the state denied an inmate’s request to abort her child. And in Arizona, state resident Garin Marschall wrote in a local newspaper about his wife’s abortion. He opined: “When people say abortion is healthcare, it is not just a slogan, especially for people managing a health crisis. People get abortions for many reasons, making their own determinations based on their circumstances. For some, they find out new information during their pregnancy that changes everything.”

Please note that, in this case, it is the new information about “pregnancy” that makes an abortion decision the “right thing,” not new information about their child. This sort of dehumanization of the human being prior to birth occurs so many times a day that we cannot count them. And nobody cares.

Yet as we know—and as I told our fellow life defender—it is precisely because there are people all over this nation who do not care that we work hard every day to shine the light of truth in this moral darkness. You see, thousands of us do care! And we will continue to care, inspired by truth.

At the heart of our efforts to focus on the innocent person at every stage of his development is the fact that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. Pope Benedict XVI taught us to be cognizant of this greatness in every human being when he said: “Man is not a lost atom in a random universe: he is God’s creature, whom God chose to endow with an immortal soul and whom he has always loved.”

God loves every one of us, including the fellow on the bicycle who said “nobody cares.”

God loves and cares, so we persist because we do too!

 

This week (4-22) on Faith On Trial

Last week Capitol Hill Democrats announced a plan to add four new judges to the Supreme Court. How does the proposal to add justices affect justice and our civil and religious rights?” Joining us for that discussion Thursday on Faith On Trial will be Tom Jipping, Senor Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

After we’ll be examining the case of a small Christian college that is suing the Administration because it mandates that the college place biological males into female dormitories and assign them female roommates, putting its religious freedom at risk. Joining us to review that case is the author of the lawsuit Julie Blake, Senior Counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Faith On Trial airs this and every Thursday at 10 a.m. central for Faith On Trial on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also find and listen to our older programing.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Three things most people don't know about assisted death.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Three things most people don't know about assisted...: This article was published by Rosemary Frei on April 12, 2021 By Rosemary Frei The cadence is increasing of jurisdictions introducing, norm...

Big bucks in sowing division

Big bucks in sowing division: A cultural issues writer says most parents don't realize that they are paying to fund racial division in their kids' schools.

Is Twitter A Common Carrier?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) Two weeks ago I wrote about Judge Laurence Silberman’s critique of the current state of the U.S. media, which he found to be biased against conservatives and Republicans. By way of warning, the judge, a member of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote: “The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefore is — I say this advisedly — fundamentally un-American.”

The context of the case in which the judge made those remarks concerned how he saw the judicial misuse of the Supreme Court’s rulings requiring the showing of “actual malice” by certain plaintiffs in defamation cases. That standard, the judge opined, allowed the media to “cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” And, he noted, most of the false aspersions cast were against Republicans and conservatives.

In addition to taking on the press, the judge also criticized social media for its display of favoritism by banning certain persons and issues from their platforms. But now another judge, this time Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas, took up a similar issue in another case. This one involved actions President Trump took to keep people from commenting on his Twitter feed.

The plaintiffs had alleged that Mr. Trump violated their First Amendment rights by blocking their comments. At the heart of the issue was Twitter’s policy of allowing users to block others from republishing or responding to posts. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the comment threads were a “public forum” and that the plaintiffs’ rights were violated by the block. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal as moot, since Mr. Trump was out of office (in fact, the case name had been changed to reflect the change of administrations).

Justice Thomas concurred with the decision, and like Judge Silberman, used the opportunity to opine on what he considered possible erroneous protections given to digital platforms, such as Twitter, and how those protections are out of step with the times by “applying old doctrines to new digital platforms. . . . Respondents have a point, for example, that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s account resemble a constitutionally protected public forum. But it seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it.”

He continued, “The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least. Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages. Twitter barred Mr. Trump not only from interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all Twitter users from interacting with his messages.”

The case, he said, highlighted the difficulty surrounding digital platforms in trying to apply old legal doctrines to the new digital platforms. He suggested that it did show that some aspects of the president’s account did appear to resemble a public forum which is constitutionally protected. Then he observed that it is difficult to claim something that a private entity has an unrestricted right to do away with is such a protected forum.

Since “unbridled control” of the Twitter account belonged to a private entity, that entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment. Thus, in general, private parties can do as they wish. But he noted that there are several exceptions to that rule and suggested: “If part of the problem is private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then part of the solution may be found in doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude.”

Some legal doctrines do limit that right. Foremost among them, and most analogist to the current situation, involves common carriers and public accommodations. In each the entity involved is required to service all customers, and in the case of common carriers, must do so in exchange for certain privileges.

“This Court long ago suggested that regulations like those placed on common carriers may be justified, even for industries not historically recognized as common carriers, when ‘a business, by circumstances and its nature . . . rise[s] from private to be of public concern’.”

One example of business of this type is the telegraph, Justice Thomas wrote, because telegraphs “resembled” and were “analogous enough” to railroads and other common carriers.

Since the government required that common carriers cater to all, the government usually provided some benefit, for example, protection from competition and immunity from certain types of lawsuits. In the case of the telegraph, and now telephonic communications, that protection was against defamation lawsuits. Thus the government places these companies in a special category.

“In many ways, digital platforms that hold themselves out to the public resemble traditional common carriers. Though digital instead of physical, they are at bottom communications networks, and they ‘carry’ information from one user to another. A traditional telephone company laid physical wires to create a network connecting people. Digital platforms lay information infrastructure that can be controlled in much the same way. And unlike newspapers, digital platforms hold themselves out as organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public. Federal law dictates that companies cannot ‘be treated as the publisher or speaker’ of information that they merely distribute.”

As a result Congress has given these platforms immunity from certain types of suits but it has not imposed corresponding responsibilities. “Yet Congress does not appear to have passed these kinds of regulations. To the contrary, it has given digital platforms immunity from certain types of suits, with respect to content they distribute but it has not imposed corresponding responsibilities, like nondiscrimination, that would matter here,” he stated, referencing §230 of the Communication Decency Act which protects these platforms.

Turning to businesses that are public accommodations, he wrote, “The long history in this country and in England of restricting the exclusion right of common carriers and places of public accommodation may save similar regulations today from triggering heightened scrutiny — especially where a restriction would not prohibit the company from speaking or force the company to endorse the speech….There is a fair argument that some digital platforms are sufficiently akin to common carriers or places of accommodation to be regulated in this manner. . . .

“Much like with a communications utility, this concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over speech. When a user does not already know exactly where to find something on the Internet — and users rarely do — Google is the gatekeeper between that user and the speech of others 90 percent of the time. It can suppress content by de-indexing or down-listing a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results. Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person’s information flow through similar means.”

Thus, Justice Thomas suggests that if the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, the concept could be the basis for laws that restrict its ability to de-platform most users. And: “Even if digital platforms are not close enough to common carriers, legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation….Twitter and other digital platforms bear resemblance to that definition.”

Now, if there is that much concern over the ability of Twitter, Facebook, and the rest to limit speech and control the flow of information, the good Justice might just have the answer. But if you read his comments you’ll see that the effort must start with legislation, either on the state level or through Congress. Interesting options; glad these two jurists took the time to put their ideas down.

Now, who’s going to follow up?

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central Time on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

The Search for Perfect Pronouns and Social Destruction -

The Search for Perfect Pronouns and Social Destruction -

NCAA's Anti-Religious Bias

 By Catholic League president By Bill Donohue

Collegiate sports and professional sports have traditionally been apolitical. They have also been at least tacitly supportive of traditional moral values. No longer. They have now laid anchor with the politics of the left, and that, in turn, has led them to adopt an aggressively secular worldview, one that is increasingly anti-Christian. Consider the NCAA.

On April 12, the NCAA Board of Governors stated that it "firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports. This commitment is grounded in our values of inclusion and fair competition." It also said that it will not hold championship events in locations that do not agree with its position.

Truth to tell, the NCAA does not believe in inclusion and fair competition: It believes in exclusion and unfair competition.

Its policy of restricting championship events to locales that conform to  its transgender politics manifestly excludes parts of the country that maintain a Christian view of sex and sexuality. Moreover, there is nothing fair about allowing males to compete against females in athletics.

There is something else going on here that needs to be addressed. Why is the NCAA promoting sex reassignment therapy when it is well known how dangerous it is to the psychological and physical wellbeing of those who undergo it? To this point, are NCAA officials aware that hormone therapy causes physical changes that are irreversible?

Sweden has a comparatively long history of accommodating transgender persons. It does not have an admirable record. In fact, what we know should give us pause. For example, the suicide rate for those who undergo sex reassignment therapy is astonishingly high, and the range and scale of psychiatric disorders are also disturbing. None of this has anything to do with stigma—Sweden enthusiastically embraces the transgender community.

In this country, the American Heart Association has concluded that those who undergo sex reassignment therapy have higher rates of strokes, heart attacks and blood clots. Another study found that females who transition to males have a greater risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes.

In 2018, the Annals of Internal Medicine published the results of a major study conducted by distinguished universities and research institutes on this subject. Those men who switched to female experienced rates of stroke that were "80 to 90 percent higher" than biological women.

Last month, the Mayo Clinic reported on several risk factors for males who transition to female. They include blood clots, high blood pressure, infertility, Type 2 Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke and breast cancer.

It is a sure bet that the NCAA will distance itself from reports of serious health issues that arise from transgender athletes. They will claim they have nothing to do with them.

In March 2021, the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that male athletes who transition to female maintain their body mass and strength for up to three years, putting natural-born women at a major disadvantage. In other words, once the change takes place, biological women will be hamstrung for years.

Even if there weren't any serious side effects to sex transitioning, there is still the anti-Christian bias that is evident in the NCAA's policy.

For instance, states such as Mississippi, Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas have banned transgender participation in women's sports, and all of them are overwhelmingly Christian. Is it by accident that none of them are allowed to host an NCAA championship contest? Or is it a direct consequence of the NCAA adopting the anti-Christian animus that colors the politics of the left?

The NCAA commitment to inclusion stops short when it comes to Christian schools. None of the 25 members of the Board of Governors hail from these states, and the two religious-affiliated board members—from Georgetown University and Hamline University—represent schools that are unabashedly "progressive," not orthodox.

In general, male athletes are faster and stronger than female athletes. That is why everything from pre-school athletics to the Olympics are sex segregated. Similarly, we have the Special Olympics for the disabled. There should also be a forum for transgender athletes, even if it is limited to regional competition.

The NCAA should stay out of politics, stay away from affirming sex transitioning, and stay clear of imposing punitive measures on Christian states and schools.

This week's Faith On Trial program

Supreme Court Coup: Exposing the Radical Plot to Overthrow Our Judicial System

 

California! Who Needs It?

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) Ahhh, California. A place where Americans used to look to for innovation, culture, and that yearning to live and breathe free. Its air was clean and its beauty and climate were a magnet for the rest of the country. We used to sing about “California Girls” and “Cable Cars” as if they were national treasures, and its agriculture was celebrated as coming from “the land of fruit and nuts.”

Well, it’s still the land of fruit and nuts, but not the agricultural kind. The political kind. The California legislature is full of it, fruits and nuts, that is. They have considered and adopted more than their fair share of crazy ideas that they seriously consider in the mainstream.

Who, for example, can forget that enlightened piece of legislation that eliminated boys’ and girls’ toy departments from stores? Yes, every Californian should be able to differentiate between a Barbie Doll and a toy truck when choosing a birthday gift for their little non-binary bundle of joy. What a wonderful piece of legislative forethought that would only confuse us poor, uneducated bumpkins in the Midwest who still need the assistance of sex-designated departments to aid our decision process.

My guess is that it will take a while for my legislature to adopt such an inspired piece of legislation. I don’t think Iowans’ wokeness is as developed as theirs is.

Anyway, that stellar political leadership has now introduced another piece of fruity lawmaking that will enshrine the state’s reputation. It seems now they are proposing to make — as a condition of high school graduation — their version of ethnic studies. Now that may not sound too bad at first blush, but as they say, the devil is in the details.
The legislature directed the California Department of Education (CDE) to develop a model curriculum on ethnic studies that local schools could use. That curriculum includes teachers leading chants to Aztec gods of human sacrifice. Yes, California is setting the stage for their children (binary, non-binary, or just plain confused) to learn how to chant praises to these gods — of course, God forbid the school choir sing “O Holy Night” for the school’s winter solstice pageant — but chanting praises for Quetzalcoatl (ket-zolÈkooah-tl) or Tezcatlipoca, (tez-ca-tlee-poh’-kawell), that’s just fine for the Golden State.

So what would these chants sound like? According to the Pacific Justice Institute, there are at least five distinct deities for whom chants have been approved by the CDE. Here is one of the jotty tunes your little one will be singing himself to sleep with:

Quetzalkoatl, Quetzalcoatl, x2
The morning & evening star of venus double helix of human beings
fearless here it’s, precious blessed beautiful knowledge,
gaining perspective, on events & experiences our ancestors endured,
allows us to become more realized human beings learning
to be listening to each other’s hearts and our elders with humility, dignity,
Indigenous brilliance & wisdom in our hearts and our energies, remembering . . . ancestral memories, planning, future trajectories,
la cultura cura, with remedies of knowledge,
healing epistemologies, ecologies
in life, home, streets, school, work, & life, fueled by. . . .

I think you’re really going to have to get a good beat down to get the kids to remember this. But this is education in the land of fruit and nuts that every parent wants their kiddies to know. By the way, if it matters, Quetzalcoatl was the Aztec feathered snake god who was related to the gods of the wind, merchants, and the patron god of the Aztec priests.

Time for another one? This can be so fun and educational. Tezcatlipoca is the god of the Great Bear constellation and the object of a myth that tells the story of how he (she or whatever) expelled Quetzalcoatl and induced Big Q to sin. Here’s his peppy little chant:

Tezcatlipoca, Tezkatlipoka, x2
smoking mirror, self-reflection
We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective bysilencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love,
for our gente representin’ justice, (justice)
local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice).

Of course, if you’re in California don’t expect you little offspring to be singing these toons right away. Despite the monumental step forward in education this act takes, California schools aren’t opening soon. You’ll just have to hire a private tutor to learn the melodies.

But while the schools will remain closed, your hard-working and tolerant lawmakers are planning more utopian lawmaking. This one is in the form of police reform called AB655, the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (CLEAR Act). According to the bright lights sponsoring this measure, the act is to combat “the infiltration of extremists in our law enforcement agencies.”

CLEAR Act would require background checks for all officers who have “exchanged racist and homophobic messages,” or, as we would call it, “hate speech” which it defines as “advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”
Now, what that means in real life is translated for us by the senior staff attorney for the Pacific Justice Institute, Matthew McReynolds, as a way to purposefully and arbitrarily classify as “hateful” ideologies that oppose such things as abortion and so called same-sex marriage.
“Under the guise of addressing police gangs, the bill at the same time launches an inexplicable, unwarranted, and unprecedented attack on peaceable, conscientious officers who happen to hold conservative political and religious views,” wrote McReynolds. “Indeed, this is one of the most undisguised and appalling attempts we have ever seen, in more than 20 years of monitoring such legislation, on the freedom of association and freedom to choose minority viewpoints.”

“Should the state now ban from public service qualified, fair-minded people who happen to hold religious or political views that conflict with controversial Supreme Court decisions on marriage and abortion?” asks Greg Burt, director of Capitol Engagement with the California Family Council. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional violation of religious liberty and freedom of speech. It is also a tyrannical abuse of power from a politician seeking to ruin the lives of those he disagrees with.”

Put that one right up there with the worship of Tezcatlipoca. I wonder if that lesson-plan calls for the actual sacrifice of a child. Naaah, not ones in school anyway.
“Ket-zol Kooah-tl here I come, right back where I started from….” Hey, that’s a catchy tune.

(You can reach Mike at DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 10 Central Time on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

 

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment Rights for Pro-Life Wisconsin

(April 14, 2021 – Madison, Wisconsin)  The Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with Pro-Life Wisconsin, represented by the Thomas More Society, in an April 14, 2021, ruling that the state does not have the authority to limit capacity on businesses without the approval of Wisconsin’s lawmakers.

Pro-Life Wisconsin was among the organizations and businesses whose rights were violated as Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’s administration evaded the legislative process to set arbitrary and discriminatory rules under cover of COVID-19 prevention. The majority decision in Tavern League of Wisconsin v. Andrea Palm and Wisconsin Department of Health Services upheld a previous ruling from the Court of Appeals that favored Pro-Life Wisconsin and the other organizations and businesses in the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit was filed in response to an emergency order issued in October 2020 that limited the number of people at indoor public gatherings to 25 percent capacity. The order limited businesses without capacity limits to 10 people. An injunction against the emergency order was issued after the lawsuit by The Tavern League, which was joined by Pro-Life Wisconsin and others, said that Palm illegally bypassed the state’s proper rulemaking procedures. 

Andrew Bath, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and General Counsel, responded to the decision, “The Wisconsin Supreme Court has affirmed what we have said all along, that, under our constitutional system of separation of powers, no branch of government is a rule unto itself. The rights of Pro-Life Wisconsin and the other plaintiffs were violated when the Evers Administration engaged in dictatorial rule rather than follow the law. Those rights have been vindicated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which today declared the administration’s illegal order to be neither ‘valid’  nor ‘enforceable.’ We hail the court’s decision because the very notion of citizen self-government was at stake in this case.” 

Bath added, “The outrageous fact that the Secretary-designee included a punishment of civil forfeiture of assets for noncompliance with her excessive regulations shows that the move was more about absolute power than disease prevention. As we have seen, the United States Supreme Court continues to protect rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution – even in a pandemic. We are pleased that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has protected rights guaranteed by the state constitution and halted the administration’s attempt to do an end run around the people’s representatives - in violation of Wisconsin law.” 

Dan Miller, State Director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, stated, “We thank the Wisconsin Supreme Court for its prudent, decisive, and common sense reading of the law as it was written. This rebuke of Governor Tony Evers' abuse of power is a win for the people of Wisconsin. Those who love liberty are forever indebted to the Thomas More Society for its tireless work on this case. This case was not just about how the executive branch overreached its power in the name of public health, but how a handful of citizens and constitutional law experts stood up to tyranny and won." 

In March 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the governor’s statewide mask mandate, ruling that two of the governor’s executive orders regarding masks were “unlawful” under Wisconsin state statutes. 

Read the Supreme Court of Wisconsin order issued in Tavern League of Wisconsin v. Andrea Palm and Wisconsin Department of Health Services on April 14, 2021, on bypass from the Court of Appeals, here [https://thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PLW-v.-Palm-WI-Supreme-Court-Opinion-4-14-21.pdf] 

About the Thomas More Society

The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago, Omaha, Rancho Santa Fe, California, and Fairfield, NJ, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org 

This week (4-15) on Faith On Trial:

Bryan Neihart, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom on a challenge to a state law that forces photographers to take part in same-sex weddings and prohibits them from communicating their views on marriage.

Sarah Perry, the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, on the trans-gendering of children during school hours only. Shush, don’t tell your parents.

Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of earlier programs you may have missed.

How Leftists Want to Make Schools More Dangerous - Return to Order

How Leftists Want to Make Schools More Dangerous - Return to Order

Today the Police, Tomorrow the Military - Return to Order

Today the Police, Tomorrow the Military - Return to Order

Public Schools Resist Competition

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

The waiting list to get into charter schools is considerable in most cities. Most on the list are non-white. They want an alternative to the public schools. Why? For the same reason that rich people do: the public schools are unsatisfactory, and in many cases they are positively dreadful. But unlike the rich, most minority parents cannot afford to send their children to private schools.

Enrollment at Catholic schools during the pandemic is down overall, though there are many important exceptions. Many low-income parents, and those who are out of work, cannot pay the tuition. A report by the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) found that "Disadvantaged communities have been particularly affected by recent closures [of Catholic schools] with more than half of the closed schools located in low-income urban areas."

However, there are some places where Catholic enrollment has surged—Boston and Cleveland are just two cities that have witnessed an uptick. The NCEA study found that "In 2020, nearly 40% of Catholic schools report that they have a waiting list for students—an increase of more than 11 percentage points from 2019." The increase is due to the failure of the public schools to open. That there has been no outbreak of Covid cases in these Catholic schools is undeniable.

One might think that those educators who are truly interested in quality education for black and brown students might be promoting charter schools and school choice. But few are. One of the most striking attacks on charter, Catholic and Christian schools was published on April 12 in USA Today by Derek W. Black and Rebecca Holcombe; he teaches law at the University of South Carolina and she is the former Vermont Secretary of Education.

They call for an end to charter schools and to school-choice programs. In doing so, they are consigning minority students to dead-end schools, the effect of which is to increase racial inequities. If someone were to devise a policy to punish the poor—to deny upward social mobility for Hispanics and African Americans—they could not suggest a better way to do so.

Public school advocates have always been worried, if not terrified, of competition. Their number-one goal has always been to create a total public-school monopoly, even if it means discriminating against minorities.

Black and Holcombe complain that some Christian schools adopt textbooks that advance "anti-science and white-centric ideology." Their resort to racist labeling is invidious, but this is what we have come to expect from those who want to indoctrinate students in critical race theory; it is now the norm in California.

These educators are exercised about a Christian textbook that allegedly teaches that "dinosaurs and humans lived together." They should instead worry about the California curriculum that teaches that Jews are "gaining racial privilege." 

Similarly, Black and Holcombe fret over a Catholic school whose website says faith "is weaved into every aspect of life" at school. It is a sure bet that they are not perturbed by public schools that tell young boys and girls that they can switch their sex. Nor are they likely to object to public schools that weave racism into every part of the curriculum, including math.

If we were sincere about helping minority students, we would promote more charter schools and fund more school-choice initiatives, the exact opposite of what these two sages recommend.