Professor allegedly fired for anti-mask stance files lawsuit

By Kate Anderson | Campus Reform

A former professor at the University of Southern Maine Patricia Griffin filed a lawsuit, Griffin v. University of Maine System, University of Southern Maine, Glenn Cummings, on July 14 after being fired in 2021 over the university’s mask mandate. 

Griffin, a former professor of marketing, claims that the university fired her after she requested data that would support the university’s mask mandate.

According to the lawsuit, Griffin attended a luncheon in August 2021 remotely that then-President Glenn Cummings attended in person. Griffin claimed that Cummings was not adhering to the mask policy which prompted her to request the data responsible for the policy. 

After making her request, Griffin’s classes were removed from the fall 2021 schedule. She was scheduled for a disciplinary hearing on August 27, 2021.

After the hearing, Griffin allegedly received a letter from Cummings accusing her of failing to adhere to the mask mandate and that she was suspended. Griffin was fired on September 22.

Campus Reform spoke to Griffin’s attorney, Stephen Smith, regarding the lawsuit. He told Campus Reform the claim that Griffin did not obey the mask mandate was “simply not true.”

“She was fired under the pretense and pretext that she didn’t, that she wouldn’t obey the mask mandates," Smith stated. "That’s simply not true. She simply asked for information about them.” 

Smith said that while Griffin didn’t believe in the mask mandates, she didn’t break them.

"I think it is fair to say she did not believe in the mask mandates, but she had never made a statement that she would not obey the mask mandates," Smith said. "She simply was challenging the assumptions and requesting information."

According to Smith, the school never provided any information Griffin requested to support the mandates. 

Religion Clause: Wisconsin Violate Archdiocese Rights In Excluding ...

Religion Clause: Wisconsin Violate Archdiocese Rights In Excluding ...:  As previously reported , last June a Wisconsin trial court issued a Provisional Writ of Mandamus ordering the Wisconsin prison system to al...

More gender confusion, anyone?

By Deacon Mike Manno 

Well, it seems that our friends on the Progressive Left are at it again. They are seemingly trying to erase any lines between the sexes; you are what you think you are, is the new mantra.

The idea goes back to the days, not that long ago, when the concept of gender identity was beginning to break ground in the American conscience. It was a time when some argued beyond the traditional viewpoint that there were men, women, and some few who felt attracted to persons of the same sex, homosexuals or lesbians, who suffered from gender dysphoria, which was widely recognized as a mental illness.

The idea that dysphoria was a mental condition was roundly attacked by the progressives until 1973 when it was removed from the category of mental disorder and reclassified as a sexual orientation disturbance by the American Psychiatric Association. The story of how the “mental disorder” was upgraded to an issue of sexual orientation is told in Robert R. Reilly’s 2014 book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything.

From there some segments of society began the push to redefine the concept of sex from one of biological reality to self-identification. Ironically at about this time, 1972, Congress adopted Title IX to provide equal access for women in the academy. This was right at the high point of the Women’s Movement and was intended to increase opportunities for girls and women in sports and other facets of their lives.

It did not take long for the left to pick up on the concept of “orientation disturbance” to gain a foothold and the effort began to change the definition of “sex” in federal law to include “sexual identity,” but reluctant lawmakers never approved the change. Defeated, but not surrendering, the liberals resorted to other measures to achieve their desired ends without a direct congressional imprimatur. This included resorting to the courts as well as administrative agencies.

Fast forward to the last years of the Obama administration when the civil rights divisions of the Justice Department and the Education Department sent a “dear colleague” letter to school administrators across the nation suggesting to them that the administration’s interpretation of the word sex in Title IX would include gender identity and encouraged them to govern themselves accordingly. That was immediately withdrawn by the Trump administration.

But now the Biden administration is not only reformulating Obama’s earlier definitions, but it is putting them into the closest thing to a law they can pass: an administrative regulation finding that sex means orientation in all academic activities — showers, lodging, athletic activities including teams, and the like. Under the proposed regulation no activity or facility can segregate by sex; sexual orientation will be respected in everything without regard to privacy rights, moral objections, or even the potential loss of girls’ and women’s opportunities.

And the rule applies to any school that takes any direct or indirect federal aid, religious or not. Thus if a local Catholic school has as much as a school lunch program that involves federal funds, that school must follow the Biden guidelines. So when your little girl goes off to band camp, guess who she might be forced to bunk with? She’ll not only be forced to compete against biological men at basketball, but would have to shower with them as well. She will be in a position to lose not only her innocence but athletic scholarships to “trans” girls, biological males who identify as women.

Nice little kettle of fish our devout Catholic president has cooked up for all you parents out there.

So where does this stand right now? Administrative rules must follow a specific path before they can be adopted, in this case the legal requirement is that the proposed rule be published and the public given time to submit comments, after which the agency — which is entirely controlled by the president — will review all the comments and either adopt the regulation, modify and adopt the regulation, or reject the regulation. If it is adopted, it will have the force of federal law.

This proposed rule will be open for comment until September 12 and the comments can be sent to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. S.W., Washington, DC 20204.

Now, after other attempts for a congressional change from biology to identity failed, you might wonder how the Biden administration can square this rule with the law as currently written. It offers as a rationale the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case involving employment law, the court held that Title VII’s prohibition against workplace discrimination on the basis of sex included sexual orientation as well.

While the bare-bones ruling would give some support to Biden’s interpretation for Title IX purposes, it should be noted that both laws were passed at different times, for different purposes, have different legislative histories, and most noteworthy, the court in Bostock specifically stated that its ruling only applied to employment law.

Additionally, in the court’s June opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, it rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate gas emissions from power plants as beyond its congressionally delegated authority. It also put in jeopardy the continued viability of the Chevron Doctrine which gave great deference to the decisions by administrative agencies.

And in another recent case a federal district court in Tennessee blocked another Biden policy from taking effect. That policy, similar to the proposed rule as above, and challenged by 20 state attorneys general, would have enforced an EEOC rule that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Enforcement of that rule is now on hold until that matter can be heard in court.

It’s probably fair to say that the current court is not friendly to the unlimited and arbitrary expansion of agency powers without specific legislative authority from Congress. If true that could be a Godsend for those fighting for a smaller and more limited federal government.

And for those who might wish to opine further, you might say that the Biden administration has brought this on itself.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.)

Most journalists live in a bubble

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

A recent Gallup poll found that only 16 percent of Americans have a great deal, or quite a lot, of confidence in newspapers. Just 11 percent have some degree of confidence in TV news. Among Republicans, just 5 percent have confidence in newspapers, as contrasted to 35 percent among Democrats.

Of course Democrats are less critical—most journalists are liberal Democrats; they give them what they want. This is not debatable. A large survey published in April that was authorized by three political scientists found that 8 in 10 journalists who cover politics identify as liberal Democrats.

"On average, the journalists in our samples are far to the left of the average Twitter user and even to the left of prominent liberal politicians like former president Barack Obama." Yet both the journalists, and the political scientists, believe this has no effect on their stories.

The political scientists contend that "journalists are just as likely to cover 'conservative' candidates as they are to cover 'liberal' candidates." Thus they conclude that "In short, despite being overwhelmingly liberal themselves, journalists show a great deal of impartiality in the types of candidates that they choose to write about when a potential story is presented to them."

The bubble these people live in is gargantuan. It is not the subject of a news story that counts the most—it is what is said about it. Jim Acosta covered President Trump. Did that make him impartial?

Similarly, a Pew survey published a few weeks ago found that 55 percent of journalists say every side does not always deserve equal treatment. However, the public sharply disagrees: 76 percent say journalists should always strive to give all sides equal coverage. This obviously accounts for why journalists are held in such low regard.

To be fair, there are times when covering both sides is not justified. Are there two sides to rape? Also, covering both sides can sometimes show partiality, not impartiality. Consider two recent stories affecting Catholics.

On July 27, a news story in the Press Herald, a Maine media outlet, said that Rev. Robert Vaillancourt, who had been placed on administrative leave for an entire year, is being returned to ministry following an investigation that concluded that allegations that he sexually abused two girls in the 1980s could not be substantiated. Records and documents were checked and 30 people were interviewed.

Where's the slant? In a vain effort to show "both sides," a spokesman for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) was given much coverage, saying he believes the women. Not only did he not offer a single piece of evidence to support his position, SNAP has been totally discredited as a monumental fraud. It exists on paper only. Take away this guy's cell phone and it doesn't exist.

Real journalists would dig deeper seeking to see if these women made up their stories to shake down the Catholic Church.

Real journalists would also have reported this week that the majority Canadian schools that housed and taught Indigenous persons were not run by Catholics. They were run by the government and Protestant denominations.

Make no mistake, there are still good journalists who strive to be objective. Sadly, they are in a minority—most of them function more like activists than true professionals. That they live in a bubble is incontestable.

 

Right to work organization supports religious liberty

Iowa Catholic Radio – Faith On Trial

Episode 324 – July 28, 2022 – Right to work legal foundation supports religious liberty in court.

Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix  

https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Chemical Abortion Is Next Pro-Life Battlefield

By Thomas Jipping with Isaac Bock, The Heritage Foundation

The Supreme Court’s June 24 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” returned “the authority to regulate abortion … to the people and their elected representatives.”

That effort will be more complicated than when the court took that authority away 49 years ago in 1973.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the three-decade trend of declining abortions in the United States is over, primarily because a majority of abortions are by chemicals, rather than surgery.

Killing a child in the womb no longer requires traveling to an abortion clinic, but can be accomplished without even leaving home with a two-drug combination approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

After the Dobbs decision, President Joe Biden vowed to keep this new trend going by protecting access to chemical abortion pills approved by the FDA.

Abortion advocates, of course, prefer the misleading term “medication abortion.” The Cambridge Dictionary, however, defines “medication” as “medicine … used to improve a particular condition or illness.” The “condition” in pregnancy is simply the existence of a living human being. Abortion destroys, rather than improves, that condition. When, as every drug commercial states, “used as directed,” abortion chemicals will kill and then expel an unborn child from the womb.

Such poisons are no more “medication” than the chemicals used in lethal injections in capital punishment.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League and later a pro-life advocate, once said that fewer women would have abortions if wombs had windows. So, here’s a peek into what happens during a chemical abortion.

The first pill, mifepristone, blocks progesterone, a natural hormone necessary for pregnancy. The lack of progesterone cuts off oxygen and nutrients, starving the child to death. Mifepristone results in the death of the child in 75% of pregnancies when it’s used.

Mifepristone is approved by the FDA for use up to week 10 of pregnancy. At that stage, a child’s heartbeat is detectable and his or her brain and lungs are forming. The child already has a clearly identifiable human shape.

If the first chemical does not kill the child, the second (misoprostol) will, stimulating uterine contractions and expelling the dead child.

Abortion chemicals, however, do not simply kill a child in the womb. Women die, and hundreds experience serious adverse drug experiences, every year. For that reason, the FDA instituted in 2007 a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which involves more restrictions than otherwise required for FDA-approved drugs.

This is the point where the politics of abortion make casualties of children and women. Abortion advocates once emphasized the relationship between a woman and her doctor. In Roe, the Supreme Court said that “the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated.”

The shift from surgical to chemical abortion, however, will steadily remove doctors from the picture and leave women isolated.

Last December, for example, the FDA removed a critical Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy  requirement that mifepristone had to be dispensed by a health care provider in person. The chemical may now be prescribed through telehealth appointments and shipped by mail without any face-to-face interaction between a woman and her doctor.

In response, 19 states have prohibited chemical abortion through telehealth, and some have introduced legislation that would ban the practice entirely. The power of states in this new area, however, is unclear. Attorney General Merrick Garland has said that states “may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”

There will no doubt be litigation, however, over the broader effect of the FDA’s conclusion about safety and efficacy.

In Mississippi, for example, a manufacturer of generic mifepristone, GenBioPro, has already sued the state based on the claim that FDA regulations take precedence over the state’s ban on telehealth dispensing of the drug.

While issues like these complicate states’ effort to combat abortion drugs, Congress can and should step in. Congress creates executive branch agencies and gives them authority to implement federal legislation.

Abortion drugs not only kill babies in the womb, and can harm their mothers, but are isolating women and undermining the necessary relationship between patients and doctors.

In the 118^th Congress, pro-life legislators must tackle this problem and limit the damage.

Samantha Bee's Obscene Legacy

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

TBS is pushing Samantha Bee to the curb, which is not a strange place for someone who has spent her entire professional life in the gutter. After seven seasons, "Full Frontal" will not return in the fall.

Bee is one of the most filthy-mouthed entertainers in American history. She is also a relentless anti-Catholic bigot.

In 2018, she showed how low she can go when she called Ivanka Trump the "c-word." After being blasted by critics, which did not include the National Organization for Women or the Feminist Majority, she issued an apology. "I crossed the line and I do apologize for that." She added that "A lot of women do not want to reclaim that word. They want it gone and I don't blame them."

A few nights later, she said that while she will refrain from using the "c-word," she admitted that it was her goal to "reclaim" it. As I said at the time, "Why would she want to normalize a word that if used to describe her own mother she would recoil?"

When this episode happened, Ben Weiss, an opinion writer for the New York Times, defended Bee and TBS. "TBS hired Sam Bee to be...Sam Bee. She's an edgy late-night comic. That's what she does."

Weiss is correct, though his observation is incomplete. Bee was chosen because she is a filthy-mouthed, anti-Catholic bigot. That's what she does.

Proof that Weiss is correct can be gleaned by considering her "comedic" content prior to starting her TBS show in 2016.

In 2010, she told NPR that she went to a Catholic school, even though her father is an atheist and her mother practices Wicca. She boasted that in her school, we "didn't have big gory Jesuses everywhere...couldn't see the blood dripping from the wounds." When asked why she likes to mock Catholicism, she answered, "That is pure pleasure for me."

In 2013, she talked about cardinals assembling in Rome to elect a new pope. She called the gathering a "grope," likening it to "molestation," saying the process was not complete until the cardinals reached "fellatio," or an "oral consensus" culminating in "white smoke rising from the chimney."

Three years later, she obscenely attacked an archbishop who had raised concerns about the pro-abortion ties of the Girl Scouts. She replied, "if you don't want girls knocked up, and you won't let them have contraception, you better teach the Boy Scouts to use some of those fancy knots on their "d***."

In October 2016, on her new TBS show, Bee took aim at Catholic healthcare policies, as defined by the bishops. She said these "decisions affecting millions of American vaginas are being made by people who have never owned one or touched one." After showing a robed Catholic priest explaining healthcare directives, she said, "Thanks, Friar Suck. When I need reproductive advice from a virgin in a bathrobe, I'll let you know."

Many more examples could be provided. In 2017, she defended legislation that discriminated against the Catholic Church in New York by exclusively holding it accountable for alleged sexual abuse offenses, giving a free pass to the public schools. When I objected, she made me the object of her condemnations.

In 2018, I started a campaign to get sponsors of her show to stop advertising on it. It worked. By providing the email addresses of her most prominent sponsors to our members, and our list of email subscribers, we were able to pick off seven sponsors: Verizon, Proctor & Gamble, Wendy's, Ashley HomeStore, The Wonderful Company (maker of pistachios), Popeyes, and Burger King.

TBS and Bee got the message and she stopped bashing Catholics.

Really talented comedians don't have to descend to the gutter to make people laugh. Bee does. That's because she's not capable of rising above it.

This week on FOT: a surprising guest!

A surprising guest this week on Faith On Trial. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work legal Defense Foundation on the foundation’s efforts to support employee religious liberty rights. He discusses the case of a Southwest Airlines flight attended who was fired, at the urging of the union, for her objections to the union’s promotion of abortion. Join us Thursday July 28 at 9:30 a.m. CT on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

See the video preview below.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation protecting religious liberty

There’s no business like “Know” business

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – From the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” department:

Last September, President Biden nominated one Saule Omarova to be the Comptroller of the Currency. The Comptroller is to ensure safety and soundness of the national banking system. It is a pretty important position in the government and to say otherwise would be an understatement.

There was just a few problems with Omarova’s credentials for the job: her alma mater was Moscow (as in Russia) State University and she had no previous banking — or even business — experience. She also believed that the government should assume the role of the private banking system and had called for the bankruptcy of the U.S. oil and gas industry. Comptroller of the Currency? Now who would think that would go well?

Of course it didn’t go well and in December she had to withdraw her nomination.

But according to a recent report, this is “emblematic of what has happened throughout the Biden administration. How does someone so lacking in professional experience and with such views so way outside the mainstream of American opinion get tapped for such a powerful position?”

That was the conclusion in a report issued this month by Stephen Moore and Jon Decker for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.

In the introduction of the report, the authors laid out their concerns:

“Americans are deeply divided on the Biden administration’s progressive economic policy priorities: the focus on redistribution of income, higher tax rates on the rich, more social welfare programs, pro-union policies, a heavier hand of regulation of business, government-directed investment, and climate change remedies aimed at a dramatic altering of America’s energy mix.

“But putting ideology and partisan leanings aside, a new concern of voters has emerged: Do the top decision makers in Congress and the Biden administration have the basic skill sets and business/management experience and acumen to oversee a $6 trillion federal government and to regulate our multi-trillion dollar industries?”

Thus they examined the backgrounds of the top 68 officials of the Biden administration, starting with the president and including cabinet members, regulatory agency officials, and White House advisers. What they found was that:

“Sixty-two percent of Biden appointees who deal with economic policy, regulation, commerce, energy and finance have virtually no business experience; only one in eight has extensive business experience; average business experience of Biden appointees is only 2.4 years; median years of business experience is zero; the vast majority of the Biden economic/commerce team members are professional politicians, lawyers, community organizers, lobbyists, or government employees.”

In contrast, the Trump administration’s figures for its similar administrators contained an average of 13 years business experience for cabinet members with an eight-year median.

Some of the specific officeholders that were singled out were Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg who is the government official who oversees “the dealings with intricate supply chain issues at our ports and other vital parts of our transportation infrastructure” as well as being the governmental administrator of over a $1 trillion industry. His qualifications for the job was as mayor of a small college town, South Bend, Ind., and failed presidential candidate.”

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm “says that she doesn’t have ‘a magic wand’ to deal with rising gasoline and home heating costs, even though her Department has helped kill vital pipelines and energy production and drilling facilities that could be increasing the supply of oil and gas and helping alleviate the crisis. She has had a hard time with reporters even citing very basic energy statistics that calls into question her familiarity with the critical national energy issues she is overseeing.”

Among others, similar digs were raised against Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra who was an attorney with no healthcare experience; and Michigan State University economics professor Lisa Cook, who was nominated to the FED and whose area of expertise is racial and gender equity issues, none of which have anything to do with the job.

Not escaping criticism was Lina Khan, a 32-year-old college professor with no business experience who was appointed chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, an agency having oversight over multibillion dollar companies. She will determine how much profits these businesses can make even though she has never earned a profit for a business in her life.

And then, even though he is not a Biden official per se, House Budget Chairman John Yarmuth, whose committee is to try to balance the nation’s revenue and expenditures, has said, according to the report, “the government can afford to spend and borrow whatever it wants and that Congress can spend like they are the banker in the board game Monopoly.”

Moore and Decker noted that in this time of economic uncertainty several key findings stood out: “The total number of years of business experience of these top 68 policymakers is 161. This means the average number of years of business experience for these policymakers is 2.4 years. The median years of business experience is closer to one year of experience. Forty-two of the policymakers have virtually no business experience whatsoever. Only one in six top Biden appointees has extensive business experience. The [research] shows that the Biden team has over 1.5 times more experience in law, over 1.25 times more experience in politics/government, and only slightly less experience in academia/policy than they do in business.”

In their conclusion, Moore and Decker chided the Biden administration for its emphasis on diversity rather than on familiarity with the administrative issues at hand. The one area that the Biden officials are missing are “talented and experienced” appointees trained in business, commerce, and finance.

“When it comes to the government: Ignorance is not bliss. These skills are sorely lacking in the Biden administration. The cascade of policy and management mistakes that are piling up in the Biden government are at least in part a consequence of this lack of basic skills and competency. Biden should fix the problem by replacing those chosen for their ideology, not the skills and talents our government needs and taxpayers rightly demand,” they concluded.

There is a lesson here for to all future presidents: Forget ideology and checking boxes when you choose your team. Your only true guideline is subject matter competence — that and a bit of common sense will go a long way to achieving a successful outcome.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

Southern New Hampshire University forbids students from inviting ‘controversial’ speakers to campus, claims to promote ‘diverse ideas’

By Sabrina Conza

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)

When new president Kyle Urban of the Southern New Hampshire University College Republicans asked the university how to invite conservative speakers to campus, the response was not what he expected. 

Instead of providing a policy detailing the mechanics for the chapter to invite speakers, SNHU told Urban the university must substantively review and approve all proposed speakers to ensure they “are not so controversial that they would draw unwanted demonstrators” to campus. The university explained it “invite[s] discussion as long as it is friendly.”

But that’s not what SNHU’s free expression promises say, as FIRE pointed out in a May 18 letter to the university. SNHU unequivocally promises students an environment which sustains the “ideals of freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of the individual.” Having made those strong promises, the university may not lay them aside when the expression in question could lead to controversy.

When university officials determine which views are worth sharing, as SNHU administrators claim the authority to do here, students and faculty will invite fewer speakers to campus.

In responding to FIRE, SNHU paid lip service to its free expression commitments but continued to stand by its insistence on reviewing speakers before they’re invited, so as to prevent controversy. SNHU said it is “confident” its “policies for speakers and political events on campus are compliant with both state and federal laws and allow for the free flow of information and ideas.” 

FIRE is far less confident, as we explained in a second letter to the university yesterday. SNHU may believe its policies are legal, but they obstruct the free flow of information by allowing only subjectively non-controversial viewpoints on campus. SNHU thus betrays its own free expression promises by demanding prior review of speakers. To be clear, “expression is not free when authorities must approve of the speakers and viewpoints expressed.” As we went on to say in our letter: 

It is not the speaker’s responsibility to cabin protected yet controversial expression to prevent protests. Instead, it is up to the university to ensure a safe environment on campus when demonstrators object to speakers’ views. 

Shutting down expression due to controversy or the possibility of it improperly endorses the “heckler’s veto” — a form of censorship that shuts down speech due to the actual or potential hostility of recipients and/or ideological opponents. Capitulating to a heckler’s veto only incentivizes objections to the speaker’s presence and/or disruption of the expression, as those opposed know the university will shut down speech deemed controversial. This is impermissible at an institution like SNHU which promises students expressive rights and, worse still, the practice undermines viewpoint diversity and the free flow of information.

When university officials determine which views are worth sharing, as SNHU administrators claim the authority to do here, students and faculty will invite fewer speakers to campus. In turn, fewer controversial and non-controversial speakers will come, and fewer viewpoints will be shared, all to the detriment of the campus community. We once again urge SNHU to reverse course.

Biden’s New Title IX Rule Guts Protections for Women and Girls. Here’s How to Fight It.

A few days after the momentous golden anniversary of Title IX—the federal civil rights law that prevents sex discrimination in any educational institution receiving government funding—the Biden administration has proposed a new rule to radically rewrite that law by, among other things, adding provisions for individuals claiming to be transgender and gutting the protections for women and girls that were originally intended. But this simple law has provided a platform for a proposed rule from the Department of Education that is replete with problems. These problems, if left unaddressed, promise to fundamentally overhaul the state of American education as it exists today. See interview with Heritage expert below.

Iowa Catholic Radio – Faith On Trial

Episode 323 – July 21, 2022 – Biden’s new Title IX regulations

Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Law and Justice Studies, the Heritage Foundation

https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Ari Fleischer is Wrong — the Media Are, in Fact, Your Enemy - The Stream

Ari Fleischer is Wrong — the Media Are, in Fact, Your Enemy - The Stream: The media should always be treated as what they are: demons, your enemies, and the enemies of the truth.

Disturbing new Title IX regulations from Biden Administration – Next FOT

This week Sarah Parshall Perry, senior legal fellow with the Heritage Foundation, rejoins us to discuss some new regulations the Biden Administration is proposing which will affect every school that accepts ANY federal funds, no matter how small. These regulations center on the rights of “trans” students. Join us this Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio.

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com.