Biden's inversion of Title IX is devastating for men and women alike

 By Nicole Russell, Human Events

For over 50 years, Title IX has functioned as an imperfect but still valuable tool through which to help ensure that men and women are treated equally. Title IX elevated women, not above men, but to the same bracket, giving them the boost they needed to be treated equally. Last week, President Joe Biden made good on his campaign promise and revised Title IX to the detriment and safety of men and women alike.

Through the Education Department, the Biden administration has released new rules which essentially codify gender identity into the law, equal to sex discrimination. Schools can’t treat students differently and locker and bathrooms will be based on gender identity. The rules also loosen sexual assault due process procedures and colleges now can no longer be required to hold live hearings to allow students to question one another. Instead, college officials will be able to interview students separately and schools must use the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof to show guilt.

“The final regulations will help to ensure that all students receive appropriate support when they experience sex discrimination and that recipients’ procedures for investigating and resolving complaints of sex discrimination are fair to all involved,” the rules say.

Of course, in America, every student should be treated equally under the law, but Title IX already exists for that. It is not perfect. People are flawed and so is the legal system. But Biden’s new rules ensure that practically speaking, transgender students are also treated as a protected class, with rights that might usurp male, but especially female, students.

Now, under the new rules, which go into effect August 1, a woman’s right to safety and privacy in a bathroom, to live with only women in a dorm, or to compete in sports via an athletic scholarship could all be threatened under the premise of sex discrimination. This could spark new debates about the right of a woman to have privacy and safety in places like restrooms and locker rooms. It seems like it leaves little recourse for women under the new Title IX. These new rules erase any acknowledgment or protection of sex-based spaces, which is fundamental to privacy and safety for females.

This is not to claim that transgender people are inherently predatory or attempting criminal behavior. Loose policies open up loopholes for predators looking to commit crimes. We’ve seen this already in California prisons where transgender females are locked up with other women and commit crimes.

While Biden did not specifically ban schools from passing policies that protect female athletes, this rule almost ensures that women will lose more opportunities at sports scholarships, awards, and competitions, and the spots will go to transgender competitors who possess superior physiological prowess. Biden’s inversion of Title IX obliterates scholarships or awards intended for women only, destroying the original purpose of Title IX in the first place. We’ve already seen this happening in college and professional athletics from swimming and track and bicycle racing.

Biden’s erasure of due process in college for men accused of sex crimes is also unfair and frankly, discriminatory in its own way. While many allegations of rape are true, and rape is still the most under-reported crime, false accusations of rape do occur and they destroy men’s lives and reputations. Men accused of rape deserve an unbiased and fair process to defend themselves. Biden’s new rules could create kangaroo courts full of accusations and bias, not proof and evidence, destroying any chance of due process, which every student deserves.

Biden chose to protect the rights of transgender people in a way that erases the distinction between men and women. This will have the effect of reducing women’s rights altogether, something feminists have fought for, for decades. It is ironic that some of the most progressive politicians of our time have set in place policies that set women back many years.

This new rule will undoubtedly invite legal challenges to Title IX and perhaps questions about the executive branch’s overreach and consistent attempts to enforce life-altering policies through government bureaucracies. Shouldn’t these only be reserved for the will of the people to decide through Congress? Every President does this, including Republicans, but when does it go too far? Biden’s rule seems actually less like an attempt to ensure nationwide equality and more of a radical attempt to shore up the vote of young progressives wrapped up in these issues. He’ll need them since he’ll be losing moderates and middle-aged voters tired of his tanking economy and weak stance on foreign policy. But it could come at a greater cost to the millions of women counting on Title IX to ensure quality for themselves and their daughters.

Religious animas is no myth

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Over the past few months the mainstream media has been fixated over the legal troubles of our former president. All court action whether it be the Fani Willis Show from Atlanta or the complete breakdown of the New York Judicial system, $450 million in fines for fraud in which there was no victim, illegal immigrants beating cops and released from jail without bond, and the like.

          But what has been missing from all of the legal reporting is how much anti-religious bias is being initiated by or in reaction to local and state prosecutions against people of faith. And, unfortunately, in a weekly column such as mine, or on a weekly radio broadcast, there is only enough time to focus on one or two matters, if that.

          So I decided to do something different. I went to my bookmarked religious liberty sites and decided to pick a few cases out to highlight the problem that does exist as more and more units of government come crashing down on local churches and people of faith. Here is a sampling of what I found on a short afternoon of internet surfing:

          In Colorado the state legislature created a preschool funding program to provide all parents with at least 15 hours per week of free preschool education for their kiddies. That’s fine as it sits, but the Colorado Department of Early Childhood has ruled that children enrolled in a Catholic school’s preschool program are not eligible. The state was sued by Catholic and other parents. A federal judge held a bench trial in January with no reported ruling as of this date; the case is listed only as “continued.”

          Parents in Maryland fought back against a Montgomery County Board of Education requirement that forced reading materials that promote transgenderism and gender identity on preschoolers and elementary students. A group of parents representing several faiths sued to protect their school-aged children from receiving non-age appropriate materials that violated the parents’ beliefs. In August of last year a federal judge ruled against the parents. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in December, a ruling has not been made.

          California has a special education program that provides funds to help parents who have children with disabilities. Part of the funding comes from a federal program created by the Disabilities Education Act. Under federal law the funds can be used at any school, public, private, or religious. However, under California law the funds may not be used in conjunction with a religious school, thus Catholic school parents are shut out of the program unless they transfer their children to a secular school.

          In 2017 the New York State Department of Financial Services issued a regulation that all employers cover abortion in their employee health insurance programs. A coalition of religious groups and individuals filed suit in state court which ruled in favor of the state regulation. An appeal was made to the U. S. Supreme Court which vacated the ruling and returned the case to the New York courts to reconsider its ruling, which is where the case sits right now.

          Just in the last few weeks the story emerged from Washington State in which a fifth-grade girl asked her middle school principal if she could form an afterschool prayer club so she and her friends who feel left out of other groups could come together. She and her mother met twice with the principal about the proposed club. In spite of the fact that the school had clubs for Marimba dancing, global reading, green policies, a chess club, and a recently added Pride Club, the principal turned down the request by claiming that there was no funding available. The little girl is now being represented by First Liberty who will, if necessary, take the school and its principal to court over the matter.

          In San Diego County a local black pastor, Dennis Hodges, was removed from a police and community relations board, over his views on human creation and transgenderism, both issues unrelated to his roll on the board. He had originally been appointed to the board because of his community activities and his relationship with the black community. The lawsuit which has been filed claims that Pastor Hodges removal from the board was a violation of his First Amendment (religion, speech) rights.

          Santa Clara County, California is being sued by a local church, Calvary Chapel of San Jose for using geofencing methods to spy on church members during the COVID pandemic. The county had levied a $1.2 million fine against the church for not abiding by COVID restrictions which curbed the church’s ability to worship publically. Geofencing is typically used by police to track lawbreakers, in this case those who attended the banned church services.

          When Pines Church in Maine applied to the local high school to use part of its facilities for Sunday services, a normal situation in many locales. However when Pine officials appeared before the board to consider the request they were peppered with questions about gay marriage, abortion, conversion therapy, gender reassignment treatment, and sexual ethics for children. As a result of the questioning, negotiations for the use of the building collapsed. The resulting law suit claims the board violated the state’s public accommodations act, as well as the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.

          I did save one for last because it epitomizes what is going on in the area of religious liberty.

          In Albany, California a group of devout Christians and members of the local Lions Club joined together to build a large lighted steel and plexiglass cross on property that was owned by one of the participating members. The cross was constructed and dedicated on Easter 1971. Since that time the Lions Club lighted the cross every Easter and Christmas seasons. When lit the cross can be seen for miles, taking the message of the Gospel to all who can see it. The area surrounding the cross can be used for religious meetings, religious services, and weddings. 

          Since its erection, the Lions Club has taken care of the cross and provided all necessary maintenance, and has paid all the utility bills.

          All went well with the cross until 2016 when a complaint from an atheist group caused the city to ask the Lions Club to remove the cross. The Lions refused setting up a period of harassment by the city. The city ordered the disconnection of electrical service to the cross. It took four months for the Lions to get it restored. The city then filed a condemnation action against the cross.

          The Lions replied with a Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech defense. In January the Alameda County Superior Court ruled in favor of the city and ordered the cross removed. The court held that “The Lions Club has not shown that its organizational purpose, its mission, involves promoting religious activities,” and thus could not assert a religious expression argument.

          The court further ruled, “The Lions Club cites no authority for the proposition that it has a right to speech in a manner that violates the Establishment Clause.” Apparently, according to the court, religious expression rights are not accorded to non-religious organizations.

          Naturally, this litany could continue and, unless effectively combated by committed people of faith, will continue. This matter is serious. It requires your attention in in all areas, spiritual, legal, and political. If not we will simply let Jesus be crucified again. 

#

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

Nebraska Governor Pillen signs school choice bill

Republican Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen signed a bill Wednesday that would expand school choice to more of the state’s families. The Nebraska Examiner reported that the bill, LB 1402, “will devote $10 million to the state treasurer to distribute private K-12 scholarships to prospective students.” Both Pillen and the bill’s sponsor, State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, R-Elkhorn, are Catholics. READ

Jesuit university’s health plan appears to cover abortion

Jesuit-affiliated Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH, appears to list abortion on its student health insurance plan. The university maintains that it does not cover abortion. “[Xavier’s] plan not only appears to cover abortion – it looks like the school specifically added it into the coverage,” Hope College student William Hurley wrote in The College Fix Tuesday. “A ‘policy endorsement’ on the plan appeared to delete an ‘exclusion’ of abortion,” Hurley indicated.  READ

Report: new NPR CEO has ties to middle east revolutionaries

Conservative scholar Christopher Rufo reported he has uncovered alleged evidence which purports that new National Public Radio (NPR) CEO Katherine Maher had connections to radical revolutionaries in the Middle East. “Katherine Maher helped advance Color Revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, arguing that regime-change operatives could ‘govern a country’ by capturing radio stations,” Rufo wrote in an X post announcing his report Wednesday.  READ

This week’s FOT podcast is now posted

 Listen here: https://faith-on-trial.simplecast.com/episodes/dexter-dugan-justin-butterfield-4-26-2024-6v6j_fbg

Why Are Leftists So Miserable?

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

 

It was the day after Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election. I was smiling (I had run Reagan’s campaign in the North Hills of Pittsburgh), but most of the other professors at La Roche College (now a university) were sulking, and many appeared depressed. However, their mood was not uncharacteristic of the way they were most of the time: There are a lot of unhappy campers in the professoriate, especially in the liberal arts.

 

Nothing has changed.

 

In a new study by psychologists in Finland assessing the state of mind of radical social justice devotees, it was found that those who bought into progressive ideas are profoundly unhappy. Published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, the researchers started with a sample of 851 persons, mostly students and professors at the University of Turku, and then expanded it to 5,030 adults. They distinguished between those who hold to a traditional liberal perspective and those who identify with a  radical one. They focused on the latter.

 

The researchers devised a Critical Social Justice Attitude Scale (CSJAS) that measured seven aspects of what they deemed as representative of “woke” politics. Most of the items dealt with race, though one tapped transgenderism (the idea that the sexes are interchangeable). For example, “University reading lists should include fewer white or European authors” was deemed reflective of the “woke” view.

 

Social justice attitudes, the study’s authors said, “perceive people foremost as members of identity groups and as being, witting or unwitting, perpetrators or victims of oppression based on the groups’ perceived power differentials; and advocate regulating how or how much people speak and how they act if there is a perceived power differential between speakers, and intervening in action or speech deemed oppressive.”

 

The conclusions were riveting.

 

Regarding the initial small sample, it was determined that high CSJAS scores were “linked to anxiety, depression, and a lack of happiness.” On the larger sample, “this lower mental well-being was mostly associated with being on the political left and not specifically with having a high CSJAS score.” Women were more likely than men to have high CSJAS scores, which explains why their happiness quotient was smaller.

 

The researchers noted that their findings were consistent with that of other studies on this subject. They are right about that.

 

“Liberals, especially liberal women, are significantly less likely to be happy with their lives and satisfied with their ‘mental health,’ compared to their conservative peers aged 18-55.” According to University of Virginia sociologist W. Brad Wilcox, this was “the big takeaway from the 2022 American Family Survey, a striking new poll from YouGov and the Deseret News.”

 

In 2023, Musa al-Gharbi, a sociologist at Columbia University, examined data from many studies on this subject and concluded that conservatives are indeed happier than liberals. He said this finding “is consistent across countries and extends back in time.”

 

The question remains: Why are those on the left so miserable?

 

For starters, consider this. Imagine waking up each day thinking the world is made up of oppressors, racists, sexists, homophobes and their victims. Is that likely to put a smile on your dial?

 

It’s actually worse than this. Left-wing professors, which is to say most of them in the social sciences and humanities, love to bask in their negativity. Smug as can be, they love thinking that those who don’t share their views are ignorant buffoons; they, of course, are the only really bright ones. Their darkness is their defining characteristic.

 

But why do these malcontents think this way?

 

It has much to do with what Catholicism calls the sin of pride, the belief that we are self-sufficient human beings and have no need for God. The big thinkers believe they are too smart to believe in God. Too bad they aren’t smart enough to know that boys who claim to be girls should not be allowed to compete against girls in sports and shower with them. There must be a cavity in their brain when it comes to sex.

 

It must be said that while those on the left are the most likely to be unhappy, it has been my experience that extremists on the right are just as likely to be despondent.

 

I have often said that when I encounter a highly educated person, or an activist, for the first time, I know within minutes if I am dealing with an extremist. The individual could be on the right or the left—it doesn’t matter. The common denominator is humorlessness. They rarely smile and their bouts of laughter usually come at someone else’s expense.

 

Smiling is important. Laughter is important. They are staples of mental health. Hanging around those who are habitually unhappy—for reasons wholly due to their cast of mind and their inflated idea of who they are—is a chore. It’s also a bore.

 

The Finnish psychologists learned that left-wing “woke” mavens find it hard to be happy. The deeper problem is that they actually like it that way. 

Ilhan Omar’s daughter banned from Barnard facilities

Barnard College reportedly suspended the adult daughter of controversial far-left Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN, following the student’s participation in a massive pro-Palestine protest at Columbia University, where Jewish students were threatened with violence. Isra Hirsi, 21, claims that the school banned her from her dorm and its dining hall. Barnard is an elite and prestigious women’s college partnered with adjacent Columbia.  READ

Migrant crime abounds in NYC

A Home Depot store in a New York City suburb reportedly hired guards equipped with bulletproof vests and a German Shepherd to ward off surging migrant crime. The story broke the same weekend a youth soccer game was canceled at a nearby park in East Harlem after dozens of migrants stormed the field. New York Police Department (NYPD) officers were called to the scene, yet even after this, the migrants still refused to leave.  READ

Catholic Bishops Slam Biden for Trying to Force Christian Employers to Fund Abortions

By Hannah Hiester, CatholicVote

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has denounced the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for violating religious freedom and forcing all employers to provide accommodations for employees to have an abortion.

CatholicVote previously reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a new rule on April 15 that requires employers “to provide reasonable accommodations,” such as leave time, to employees if they wish to have an abortion. The rule falls under the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty, said in a news release that “No employer should be forced to participate in an employee’s decision to end the life of their child.”

“The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as written, is a pro-life law that protects the security and physical health of pregnant mothers and their preborn children,” he added. “It is indefensible for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to twist the law in a way that violates the consciences of pro-life employers by making them facilitate abortions.”

CatholicVote reported in August 2023 that in addition to being supported by pro-life organizations, the PWFA was approved by pro-abortion groups, as the language left room for facilitating abortion access.

“The original act required employers to reasonably accommodate a worker’s pregnancy, childbirth, and ‘related medical conditions,’ but left the interpretation of those terms to the Biden administration’s EEOC, the federal agency responsible for regulating workplace discrimination laws,”  CatholicVote reported at the time.

News from the Iowa Catholic Conference

The 2024 session of the 90th General Assembly adjourned for the year “sine die” (without a day) early on Saturday morning. Here’s what happened on the legislative front last week from the Iowa Catholic Conference (ICC) perspective:

The “standing” appropriations bill is generally the last one of the session. As it has for many years, SF 2443 limits the amount of money going to public schools to provide transportation services for nonpublic school students. The total appropriation is about $9 million. If this limitation was not present, the funding would be about 25% higher.

SF 2443 also allocates $2 million in new money for the Department of Public Safety for 12 jobs “to address the rise in illegal immigration and related criminal conduct such as drug trafficking and human trafficking, or as assigned by the commissioner of public safety."

SJR 2004 passed the House. It is a constitutional amendment proposal that passed both chambers this year and will be eligible for consideration next session before it would go to a vote of the people. SJR 2004 would require a flat income tax. HJR 2006, passed earlier in the session, is a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature to raise the income or corporate tax. The ICC has opposed both proposals.

A new part of SF 2435, the education appropriations bill, allocates $2.1 million in new money to the Department of Education for providing professional development for teachers in public and nonpublic schools. The legislation also includes funding for a person at the department to help nonpublic schools with special education issues. These are positive developments.

SF 2368, supported by the ICC, requires public schools to give charter and nonpublic schools the right to match the top offer when selling public school buildings. SF 2368 was passed by both chambers and goes to the governor for her signature.

Opposed by the ICC, HF 2319 was passed by the Senate and heads to the governor for her signature. It forbids local governments from participating in projects where individuals are provided with periodic cash payments that are unearned and that may be used for any purpose. The concern among legislators supporting the bill is that people will not work if they receive money with few obligations attached to it. In a Polk County UBI program being tested, more than two-thirds of the people have a job. About 30% are unpaid caregivers. 

HF 2672, eliminating the tax credit for forests, was not taken up by the Senate for debate. A Senate amendment would have significantly improved HF 2672 by requiring local landowners to only pay a little bit. The ICC opposed the bill as drafted, and we’ll likely see a new version next year.

The Iowa House did not take up HF 2690, which was supported by the ICC. It related to the "Medicaid for employed people with disabilities" (MEPD) program and would allow employed people with disabilities who are married to retain more monetary resources (up to $21,000) before going over the limit and losing coverage.

In other news, HF 2586 was signed by the governor last week. It allows school staff to get a professional permit to carry guns at school. HF 2652 also passed the chambers and will go to the governor. It provides funding for public schools for weapons detection systems, weapons and stipends for personnel who get one of the professional permits. It also requires all schools to have access to a public safety answering point (radio), which will be paid for by pandemic funds. These proposals were a top priority of the legislature. 

Education Savings Account applications are open for Fall 2024

The application period for Iowa’s Education Savings Account program is open until June 30. If your family received an ESA this school year, you still must reapply. For this fall, Students First ESAs are awarded based on the following eligibility:

• A student that was approved and used an ESA in the 2023-24 school year
• A student entering kindergarten at an Iowa accredited nonpublic school
• A student that attended an Iowa public school in the prior year
• A student enrolled in an accredited nonpublic school with a household income at or below 400% of the 2024 Federal Poverty Guidelines, $124,800 for a family of four

For the fall of 2025, all students will be eligible.

Pope Francis meets with pro-abortion Dem senator

Pope Francis met with Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-GA, during a private audience at the Vatican Saturday. Warnock is the senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church and “has come under fire for using Sacred Scripture to justify the practice of abortion,” Catholic theologian Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., wrote for Breitbart. “Warnock, who was endorsed by abortion giant Planned Parenthood, has publicly stated that abortion is consistent with his role as “a Christian minister,’” Williams added.  READ

FBI Probe Of Catholics Still Unresolved

 By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

 

On Thursday, April 18, 2024, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael E. Horowitz released his report on the FBI's leaked memo targeting Catholics, and once again the loyal sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have been slapped in the face.

 

While the IG's report notes that the memo "improperly conflated religious beliefs of activists with the likelihood they would engage in domestic terrorism," it goes on to say that there was no evidence that "anyone ordered or directed" an investigation of Catholics because of their religious beliefs.

 

To say that no one ordered an investigation of Catholics because of their religion is about as persuasive as saying no one ordered an investigation of blacks because of their race.

 

Frankly, the IG's report does little to bring this issue to a close. It is overly vague, ambiguous, and littered with contradictions. Catholics deserve a better accounting of the FBI's and DOJ's actions.

 

The IG insists that the memo grew out of the FBI's investigation of alleged domestic terrorists. But if the intent of this investigation was to focus on right-wing nationalists, how did Catholics become the focus of the leaked FBI memo last year? Why did the FBI look into establishing sources and other contacts in the Church, instead of focusing on the stomping grounds unique to right-wing nationalists? The IG's report has nothing to clarify these questions.

 

Further, the IG's report admits that one of the woman authors of the leaked memo says she was "really interested in this resurgence of interest in the Catholic Church" by what the FBI claim are domestic terrorists. This statement alone contradicts the claim in the IG's report that Catholics were just tangentially connected to the FBI's investigation of genuine targets. From the jump, the authors clearly were "interested" in the Catholic Church.

 

Ultimately, the IG's report does not put this matter to rest. Certain elements within the FBI and DOJ went rogue and have not been held accountable for their actions. For a year, they could have taken proactive steps to assure Catholics across the country that these renegades faced serious consequences; however, they have admitted they were "aghast" and even "appalled" by the leaked memo but took no substantive actions to resolve the matter.

 

Therefore, I call upon the Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to exercise its oversight authority to get to the bottom of this once and for all. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has rightfully pointed out that the IG's report glosses over the fact that critical files associated with the memo were deleted. This is a serious breach. These files are federal records and bureaucrats cannot just destroy them on a whim.

 

Additionally, Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) has shown great tenacity in taking on the FBI. I would encourage him in the strongest terms possible to call for new hearings on this matter so we can hear directly from IG Horowitz to clear up the vagueness and ambiguities in his written report.

 

Last year, I sent several letters to Rep. Jordan with direct questions that would help allay the fears of Catholics regarding the FBI's memo. Many of them remain unanswered. It is paramount we get the answers to these questions:

 

Was it someone from outside the FBI that crafted this egregious abuse of power?

 

Has there been a broader internal investigation of the FBI seeking to learn if other agents have also been spying on Catholics?

 

How common is it for FBI agents to infiltrate houses of worship—of any religion—employing "tripwire sources"?

 

What did they intend to do with the information once they completed their probe?

 

Without new hearings and concrete efforts not only to resolve the lingering questions but also to hold these rogue agents accountable, Catholics will rightly remain skeptical of the FBI and DOJ. We are not walking away from this, and I will have more to say on this in the future.

Investigation: border crisis sparked spike in child labor

The Biden administration’s Department of Labor “filed a lawsuit in late March against a California poultry processor and its affiliated entities, accusing the firms of using ‘oppressive child labor,’” Blaze Media reported. According to the complaint, minor workers were hired to use “sharp knives” to remove bones from raw poultry. Blaze Media investigates. READ

Special Edition of Faith On Trial: Garabendal!

Special edition of Faith On Trial: The alleged apparition of Mary at Garabandal, Spain. Listen to the podcast now:

https://faith-on-trial.simplecast.com/episodes/special-edition-garabandal-ted-flynn-4-20-2024-1fsZgb1D

 

State threats to our religious freedom

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Recently, the Iowa Catholic Radio Network carried two individual segments – one from Minnesota, the other from Indiana – that shed a glaring spotlight on how anti-Catholic and anti-religious elements in society are attempting to undermine our traditional values and beliefs, as well as our ability to follow the tenets of our faith and to apply them to our daily travails.

          Our program, Faith On Trial, has been on the air at Catholic Radio since May of 2013 and focuses on how law and society affect people of faith. During that time we’ve covered hundreds of religious based lawsuits, had guests from the major religious liberty law firms, experts from institutions such as the Heritage Foundation, pro-Christian and pro-family organizations, such as the Family Research Council, as well as a host of other guests, including an FBI whistleblower and an expert Catholic ethicists.

          While we’ve under gone changes in our days and times, the program now airs each weekend for one hour and is podcast on our web site. It consists of two interview segments with guests usually on related topics. But recently we had two back-to-back programs that I think highlighted the lurking problem we face in our society today.

          During the weekend of March 20 we had an attorney from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Joe Davis, who detailed a case from Indiana that Becket lost which involved a state investigation against two loving Catholic parents who were accused of neglecting and verbally abusing their son who was suffering from gender dysphoria.

          The investigation, which was prompted by an anonymous complaint, included a charge that the parents refused to call their son by his preferred pronouns and female name. The result of the investigation found that there was no neglect or verbal abuse, and that the parents had sought mental health counseling for their son for observable mental irregularities as well as for an eating disorder.  

          However, the parents explained that as devout Catholics they believed that the immutable characteristics of sex could not be changed and they tried to discuss that with their son. They did not call him by a female pronoun but agreed to call him by a mutually agreed upon nick name. That did not matter to the state who removed the boy from his parents’ home claiming that their actions contributed to his eating disorder and placed him in an LGBT-friendly foster home, where his eating disorder became worse. The parents were allowed to visit with their son as long as they did not mention their religious beliefs.

          The parents appealed through the state courts and were denied a return of custody. An appeals court upheld the removal ruling that the parents’ First Amendment rights did not apply to private speech in the home. In March the United States Supreme Court refused to review the matter. The boy has now aged-out of the juvenile system without returning home.

          The parents now live in fear that the state might try to remove their other children over their religious beliefs.

          Anonymous complaints? Resisting the LGBT gospel? No free speech in the home? No religious conversations? Who was the boy’s rightful parents and what happens to their beliefs and values? 

          At the same time we were airing this story another came across the wire: Washington State denied the renewal of a foster care license because the foster parents were unwilling to promote the state’s gender ideology.

          The other radio interview came from Minnesota where this paper is published. It was aired the weekend of April 4 and the guest was Jason Adkins, executive director and general counsel for the Minnesota Catholic Conference.

          Minnesota has a Human Rights Act which prohibits discrimination against persons based on traits such as race, disability, religion, and sex. In 1993 it was amended to include sexual orientation. As is the normal practice in these matters, there was an exception protecting religious organizations from being forced to act against their beliefs.

          Last year the legislature amended the Act again this time adding protection for gender identity. Unknown at the time was that in an apparent oversight the religious exemption was omitted leaving religious institutions unprotected. When that discrepancy was uncovered it seemed only a simple matter to add language to the new law that would restore the religious exemption.

          But what appeared to be a simple oversight which needed only a few words of correction became much more.

          As the Catholic Conference explained, when the bill to amend the law was introduced, the Democrat controlled legislative leaders made it clear that the omission of the exemption was no oversight and they had no interest in amending the law. The “oversight” was intended to persecute some faith communities because of their “bigoted” beliefs over the concept of gender identity. They saw the attempt to add the exemption as “disturbing, appalling, and infuriating” and that the proposed amendment is just an “excuse for hatred.”

          Unfortunately for the state’s religious communities, neither the legislative leadership nor the Democrat governor have the exemption on their to-do lists for this session, leaving churches to the perils of a law without a religious exemption. In addition, there is now at least one church forced to defend itself from legal action due to the omission of the exemption.

          Now what does this mean for the religious communities in Minnesota if the law is allowed to stand as written? Christian schools could be forced to hire gay-friendly teachers and administrators, school curriculums could be forced to acknowledge that gender is fluid and can be changed, churches and other religious organizations could be denied state benefits due to their bigotry and hatred. Depending on how far the enemies of Christ want to take this, some such communities could be forced out of business and outlawed.

          Fortunately the Catholic Conference has the support from the leaders of several other religious communities: Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, the Islamic Center of Minnesota, and the Association of Christian Schools International. But will that be enough to turn the governor, the legislature, and the Democratic Party around or will they still view conservative religious beliefs as hateful. All this, of course, coming from the party of tolerance.

          These are only two stories from amongst the many that we broadcast every week, but they tend to demonstrate the depth to which religious animas will dive in an attempt to strike at people whose only crime is their religious faith and their desire to live that faith. Of course I could go on about some of the more appalling stories, such as Covid church closings, pastors being fined for holding services, surveillance of traditional Catholics by the FBI, government imposed transgender ideologies in schools, and the like. But these are two that should hit home with any believing person.

          We need prayer, but we can’t forgo political and legal action. If we fail now, then what? The possibilities are endless, and none are good.

#

 (You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him every week on Faith On Trial on the Iowa Catholic Radio Network, or the podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/ the programs mentioned in this article are Episodes 405 and 406).

 

KYLE SERAPHIN: FBI’S TARGETING OF CATHOLICS THREATENS ALL CHRISTIANS

FBI whistleblower and CatholicVote’s 2023 Hero of the Year Kyle Seraphin tells his powerful story as he warns that the Bureau will not stop at targeting Catholics. “Slowly but surely, the FBI is probing its way into all religious communities. All Christians are in the crosshairs,” he wrote. “[T]he idea of [the FBI] targeting a so-called ‘radical Baptist’ or ‘radical Lutheran’ in the near future is certainly on the table.”  READ

Cease and Desist: Barn Worship Banned

SCOTUS Lets Idaho Protect Children From Medical Mutilation

 WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order allowing Idaho to enforce its statewide ban on harmful puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and irreversible mutilating surgeries for minors. With Chief Justice John Roberts abstaining from any opinion, the High Court ruled 5-3 to largely vacate a lower court’s decision to fully block Idaho’s law. However, the High Court allowed puberty blockers and hormone treatments to continue for the two anonymous teenagers whose families sued to block the law. 

In 2023, Idaho enacted the “Vulnerable Child Protection Act,” which criminalizes the act of mutilating children through “gender-related procedures” as a felony. According to the law’s text, violators can face substantial prison time for a term “of not more than life.” While the law was set to take effect January 1, 2024, a federal district court temporarily blocked it citing the law “likely” violates parents’ equal protection and due process rights under the 14th Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled that parents have the right to seek “specific medical treatment” and approve “gender procedures” for their children. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined Idaho’s appeal and kept the law from being enforced. 

While the case regarding the two families is still under litigation in the lower courts to determine a permanent decision, Idaho’s attorney general filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court claiming the injunction was too broad asking it to be limited to just the two plaintiffs seeking access to drugs. Idaho is seeking to enforce the law statewide in all other circumstances. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored on of the High Court’s majority opinions, sided with Idaho and stated the district court chose to impose a “universal injunction” that prevented the state from enforcing all aspects of the law instead of a “narrower” injunction that just allowed access to the drugs the two plaintiffs sought. He noted that mutilating surgeries were not at issue in the case and questioned the need to block the entire law. 

“In this case…the district court went much further, prohibiting a State from enforcing any aspect of its duly enacted law against anyone,” wrote Justice Gorsuch. “Among other things, this meant Idaho could not enforce its prohibition against surgeries to remove or alter children’s genitals, even though no party before the court had sought access to those surgeries….” 

Justice Gorsuch stated that even the district court admitted the plaintiffs had no contention with the surgical bans under the law. Due to this admission, Justice Gorsuch noted the district court’s universal injunction was an “extraordinary remedy” that “defied” the “foundational principles” of an injunction, which should be tailored based on how likely it is to succeed on the merits and how it must not be “more burdensome” on the state than necessary. 

Justice Gorsuch further stated that when a state is prevented from enforcing a law enacted by its people’s representatives, “it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” He concluded that “prompt execution” of a law, “absent a showing of unconstitutionality,” is always in the public interest. 

Justice Gorsuch concluded that “prohibiting the surgical removal of children’s genitals” has never been specifically held as “offensive to federal law” and the lower court’s ruling “clearly strayed” from “traditional bounds.” 

At least 23 states have passed legislation banning medically mutilating procedures on children. Similar laws in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Oklahoma have been upheld by federal courts, while laws in Alabama, Florida, Indiana, and Montana are temporarily blocked as legal challenges are adjudicated. In Arkansas, a federal judge declared in June 2023 that the state’s “Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act” was unconstitutional holding that restricting health care professionals from making referrals for “gender-related procedures” was content and viewpoint discrimination. However, Arkansas has appealed the ruling, and the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the state’s request for all 11 judges on the Court, rather than a three-judge panel, to hear its appeal. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Medical mutilation has devastating consequences on children and is never the answer to gender confusion. No one has the right to harm a child. More laws like that in Idaho are needed to protect children from being irreversibly harmed.”