News from the Iowa Catholic Conference

 

You are invited to participate in our Zoom webinar on Thursday night, Jan. 30, for a short update and time for Q & A on our current issues of interest. It’s scheduled for 7 p.m. Register here.

Smuggling bill passes subcommittee

HSB 15 passed a subcommittee on Jan. 22 and is eligible for consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. The bill creates a new state crime of smuggling when a person knowingly conceals an undocumented person from law enforcement, or encourages or induces an undocumented person to enter or remain in the U.S. The ICC opposes the bill.

Safeguarding American communities and upholding the rule of law are laudable goals. However, it is already against federal and state law to traffic in humans. We are also concerned the bill could be interpreted to criminalize providing basic charity to immigrants by overzealous authorities. We have seen authorities in at least one state attempt to shut down some Catholic ministries that were helping migrants.

We appreciate the language in HSB 15 that, for an offense to be committed, would require the person to knowingly be smuggling for payment or some other benefit.

Several bills supported by the ICC passed a subcommittee:

• SSB 1012 would allocate a million dollars to support “Double Up Food Bucks.” This would provide matching funds for SNAP (food stamp) benefits spent on fruits and vegetables. This helps promote healthy eating and Iowa’s small farmers too.
• SSB 1028 requires schools to present an ultrasound video to students that shows the presence of the brain, heart, and other vital organs in early fetal development, as well as a computer-generated age-appropriate video that shows prenatal human development throughout every stage of pregnancy. We think this will help students understand the beauty of a baby’s early days.
• HF 1 provides that public schools accept nonpublic school students for an activity if the nonpublic school does not offer the activity. This is in response to some public school districts ending participation agreements with nonpublic schools after the passage of Education Savings Accounts.

Response to executive orders

Upon taking office, President Trump issued many executive orders. In response, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), offered the following statement, in part: “Many of the issues President Trump addresses in his recent Executive Orders, along with what may be issued in the coming days, are matters on which the Church has much to offer. Some provisions contained in the Executive Orders, such as those focused on the treatment of immigrants and refugees, foreign aid, expansion of the death penalty, and the environment, are deeply troubling and will have negative consequences, many of which will harm the most vulnerable among us. Other provisions in the Executive Orders can be seen in a more positive light, such as recognizing the truth about each human person as male or female.”

Following that statement, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Migration, said:

“The Catholic Church is committed to defending the sanctity of every human life and the God-given dignity of each person, regardless of nationality or immigration status. Church teaching recognizes a country’s right and responsibility to promote public order, safety, and security through well-regulated borders and just limits on immigration ... 

“While an emphasis on anti-trafficking is welcomed, several of the executive orders signed by President Trump this week are specifically intended to eviscerate humanitarian protections enshrined in federal law and undermine due process, subjecting vulnerable families and children to grave danger. The open-ended deployment of military assets to support civil immigration enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border is especially concerning … Likewise, indefinitely halting refugee resettlement is unmerited, as it is already proven to be one of the most secure legal pathways to the United States.” 

For current Congressional action alerts from the U.S. Catholic bishops, go to www.votervoice.net/usccb/home. 

Infanticide bill fails to advance

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R.21), while the Senate failed to overcome the 60-vote procedural threshold for its version (S.6). The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would require health care providers to give children born alive after an attempted abortion the same medical care that they would for any child born at that same gestational age and to transport them to a hospital.

The heartbreaking reality of coerced abortion: A mother’s unforgettable testimony

As the legal case Women’s Life Care Center v. Ellison unfolds, it is bringing to light numerous troubling stories about the irreversible pain caused by coerced abortions.

One such story is that of Brittany Weston, who submitted a declaration in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in this case. 

Her testimony reveals that women had been facing coercion at Planned Parenthood Minnesota, Planned Parenthood North Dakota, Planned Parenthood South Dakota, and Planned Parenthood North Central States (PPMNS/PPNCS) facilities for many years before Women’s Life Care Center v. Ellison was filed.

In 2005, Weston was dating a 41-year-old man when she discovered that she was pregnant. She was 22 years old and on the cusp of graduating from college at the time.

“When she found out at a medical clinic that she was pregnant, she immediately ruled out an abortion. She wanted to raise her baby herself,” the Women’s Life Care Center v. Ellison complaint states.

But the baby’s father demanded that she get an abortion. According to Weston’s declaration testimony, he eventually coerced her into going to a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“There was no discussion about the reason for an abortion. The ‘counselor’ just had to check a box. In fact, there was no counseling at all,” says Weston in recollection of the day of the abortion. “No discussion of the risks. There was no information about how I could keep my baby, or what organizations were available to give me assistance.”

PPMNS only required a signature of “consent” and payment upfront without having Weston speak with a counselor first. 

Despite suffering from depression and her reluctance to proceed, Weston’s counseling session lasted only five minutes. Weston claims that its only purpose was to ensure she had signed the consent form.

PPMNS made no effort to determine if Weston was voluntarily submitting to the abortion. Realizing this, Weston became distressed. She recalls that she “bawled her eyes out” and exclaimed to a PPMNS worker, “I feel like I’m killing my baby if I go through with this.”

PPMNS proceeded with the abortion anyway.

“I felt completely helpless. No one was helping me,” Weston remembers. “I was being pressured to have an abortion, and all Planned Parenthood was doing was making that abortion happen.”

Later that year, Weston submitted a declaration in the Planned Parenthood v. Rounds case, testifying that the baby’s father forced her to have an abortion and PPMNS subjected her to an unwanted procedure. 

Then, in 2006, she submitted another declaration of the same facts in the PPMNS v. Daugaard/Noem case using the pseudonym “Jane Doe #1.”

PPMNS failed Weston and other mothers by not providing essential counseling on the abortion procedure or offering resources to help them keep their children. 

Now, Weston is standing up for other mothers who underwent coerced abortions by supporting the plaintiffs of Women’s Life Care Center v. Ellison. Please consider supporting the plaintiffs in their fight for life by making a meaningful contribution here. Learn more about the case here.

Biden Teed It Up For Pro-Life Pardons

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president 

President Trump deserves great credit for pardoning 23 pro-life protesters who were arrested under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Kudos are also deserving for the Thomas More Society and all the pro-life organizations that never gave up. But it would be remiss not to cite the pivotal role of President Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ).

 

Biden teed it up for Trump. Indeed, the selective application of the FACE Act, and other laws, made it morally and politically easy for Trump to pardon the protesters. To be exact, Biden’s DOJ showed little interest in going after those who violated the FACE Act when they blocked crisis pregnancy centers. Even top officials in his administration admit to this.

 

In November 2023, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified that 70 percent of the FACE offenses were committed by abortion-rights activists. Yet they resulted in just two charges. Moreover, we learned from Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta that pro-lifers were disproportionately targeted. Subsequently, it has been reported that 97 percent of FACE Act cases have been invoked against pro-life demonstrators.

 

It is not just the unequal application of the FACE Act that angers those in the pro-life community.

 

Where was law enforcement when Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, New York, and other cities were being burned during the riots following the death of George Floyd? Why were Antifa and Black Lives Matter allowed to beat and kill with impunity? Why were there no consequences for torching police stations and widespread looting? Why were pro-Hamas students and professional agitators allowed to block entrances to college campuses, terrorizing Jewish students?

 

If the police disproportionately arrest black offenders, it is called racial profiling. If those who espouse one point of view are routinely censored, but those who espouse a contrary view are not, it is called viewpoint discrimination. So what should we call it when pro-life demonstrators are arrested for breaking the FACE Act, and almost all the pro-abortion protesters get away with violating the same law? Pro-life profiling?

 

If a cop were to arrest everyone for going between 60 and 70 miles per hour in a 60 mile an hour speed zone, but almost never arrests those who go more than 70 miles an hour, we would want to know why.

 

With regard to Biden’s corrupt DOJ, we already know why. The Biden administration was angry over the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. Ergo, they unleashed the powers of law enforcement to go after pro-lifers.

 

That all of this happened during the tenure of a man who calls himself a “devout Catholic” makes it all the more sickening.

President Trump Pardons 23 Pro-Lifers Targeted by Biden Justice Department Under the FACE Act

 (Washington, D.C.) On January 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump granted pardons for 23 pro-life advocates who faced weaponized prosecutions brought against them by the Biden Department of Justice under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. 

Earlier this month, Thomas More Society attorneys submitted to the Trump administration formal requests for presidential pardons on behalf of 21 of those pro-life advocates who have been unjustly prosecuted, convicted, and in several cases, imprisoned, by the Biden DOJ. The following were the peaceful pro-life advocates on behalf of whom Thomas More Society submitted pardon requests: Joan Bell, Coleman Boyd, Joel Curry, Jonathan Darnel, Eva Edl, Chester Gallagher, William Goodman, Dennis Green, Lauren Handy, Paulette Harlow, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, Jean Marshall, Fr. Fidelis Moscinski, Justin Phillips, Paul Place, Paul Vaughn, Bevelyn Beatty Williams, Calvin Zastrow, Eva Zastrow, and James Zastrow. 
 
In their letter submitted to President Donald J. Trump, Thomas More Society attorneys urged “that these pro-life Americans are deserving of full and unconditional pardons.” The communicated pardon request package included 21 individual pardon requests, one for each pro-life advocate, outlining the specific facts of each case, their upstanding personal and moral character, and the reasons why President Trump should grant a presidential pardon.
 
“Today, freedom rings in our great nation. The heroic peaceful pro-lifers unjustly imprisoned by Biden’s Justice Department will now be freed and able to return home to their families, eat a family meal, and enjoy the freedom that should have never been taken from them in the first place,” reacted Steve Crampton, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel. “These heroic peaceful pro-lifers were treated shamefully by Biden’s DOJ, with many of them branded felons and losing many rights that we take for granted as American citizens. Today, their precious freedom is restored. What happened to them can never be erased, but today’s pardons are a huge step towards restoring justice. Thank you to President Trump and his team for righting these grievous wrongs of the previous administration.” 

“Today is a new day for the pardoned pro-life advocates who have suffered FBI raids, federal prosecutions, and severe punishment for peacefully and courageously witnessing for life. We thank President Trump for keeping his promise to these pro-life mothers, fathers, grandparents, pastors, and priests,” added Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation. “What happened to these peaceful pro-life individuals must never happen again. We urge Congress to act swiftly in repealing the FACE Act to make sure that the Justice Department can never again weaponize this law to target peaceful pro-lifers with severe charges.” 
  
About Thomas More Society 
Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and freedom. Headquartered in Chicago and with offices across the country, 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, please visit the website at thomasmoresociety.org.

Dems block bill protecting babies who survive abortion

Senate Democrats blocked the advancement of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act Wednesday. The Republican-backed legislation would have required medical care for infants born alive during botched abortions. READ

Common ‘error’ in interpreting Catholic teaching on deportation

Father Peter Totleben, O.P., recently cleared up a common “error” in interpreting the Catholic Church’s nuanced teaching on “deportation.” The definition of the kind of “deportation” explicitly opposed in certain Catholic texts “does not apply to deportation in the colloquial sense that Americans use the term,” the priest explained. READ

Connecticut School Teacher Ordered to Remove Crucifix from Workspace or be Terminated from 30-Year Teaching Job

Teacher has been suspended for weeks and faces losing job for having small cross hanging on wall near her desk.

New Britain, CT—First Liberty Institute and the law firm WilmerHale sent a letter to officials at the New Britain School District in Connecticut on behalf of Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a 30-year veteran teacher, demanding that the school reinstate her after she was placed on administrative leave for refusing to remove a small crucifix from her workspace.

“Requiring a teacher to purge their workspace of anything religious is blatant discrimination that violates the First Amendment,” said Keisha Russell, Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute. “The Supreme Court said in the recent Kennedy decision that teachers have the right to engage in personal religious expression under the Free Exercise Clause, including when students are present.”

Marisol has taught in the Connecticut public schools for 32 years. For the last 10 years, she has placed a crucifix by her desk along with other personal items such as student artwork and a church calendar. As a devout Catholic, the crucifix reminds her to pray and helps her remain calm throughout the day as she faithfully teaches her students. On Friday, December 6, 2024, she was brought into a meeting with the vice principal and abruptly told that unless she removed the crucifix by her desk by Monday morning she would be disciplined for insubordination.  She was later told she could put the crucifix in a drawer or under her desk, so students wouldn’t see it.  After she did so, Marisol started to sob, feeling as though she “hid it under a bushel,” rather than let her light shine. After many tears and prayer, she returned the crucifix to its original location. She was then suspended without pay for two days during the holiday season as the school waited for her to comply and hang the crucifix under her desk in a place the school administration called her “private space.” Now, she is on administrative leave during the grievance process. The school district said it is considering whether to terminate Marisol.

In the personal space next to their desks, other teachers display photos of family and friends, images of Wonder Woman and Baby Yoda, a miniature of the Mona Lisa, New England Patriots football team pennant, inspirational quotes, a photograph of a statue of the Virgin Mary, and a mug referencing a Bible verse.

In the letter, the attorneys explain, “Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and under the Connecticut Constitution, the District may not abridge its employees’ free speech rights, nor their rights to freely exercise their religion.”  The letter continues, “Fewer than three years ago, in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court held that a public school football coach could not be fired for engaging in personal prayer, even when he did so visibly at the 50-yard line of the stadium after home games.  The plaintiff, Coach Kennedy, was represented by First Liberty Institute, co-signatories to this letter, at the district court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.”

###

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.ttps://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025.01.21-Demand-Letter_Executed_Redacted.pdf

MAID: Why the Government Wants You to Kill Yourself - Kelsi Sheren

President Trump Executive Order Rebukes Gender Ideology

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Within hours after taking office, President Donald Trump signed a pivotal executive order defending women by recognizing only two sexes, male and female, and ordering the executive branch to abandon the “false” gender ideology.

The executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” reverses Biden-Harris administration policies that sought to eradicate the distinction between the two sexes.  The order rescinds Biden’s infusion of gender identity into Title IX sex-discrimination protections that allowed for gender-confused males to invade women’s sports and intimate spaces – something a federal judge recently struck down nationwide as unconstitutional. Now, President Trump’s order specifically rejects the concept of “gender identity,” orders federal agencies to remove all external messages promoting gender ideology, and to return to just using the binary term “sex.”

As the order reads, gender ideology is the “false claim” that “males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa,” while requiring society to believe that it is all true.

“This is wrong,” stated the order. The Trump administration notes that this “coercive” ideology has led to a “fundamental attack” on the safety and dignity of women, but that federal policy moving forward will protect women by being based solely on “biological truth.”

The order simply defines a man and a woman in strict biological terms:

“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.”

“‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”

The order declared that “sex” is an “immutable” trait, and therefore, “is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”

According to the order, the Biden-Harris administration used the 2020 Bostock decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to require “gender identity-based” distinctions across federal law. President Trump noted this has “harmed” women and ordered the U.S. Attorney General to issue guidance that corrects this misuse of Bostock and protect sex-based distinctions that are permitted under statutory language.

To further restore policies based on biological sex rather than gender identity, President Trump also ordered:

·     > all agencies and federal employees acting in an official capacity to use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable federal policies and documents.

·     > all agencies end the federal funding of gender ideology where permitted by law.

·      >federal prisons not to detain biological males in women’s prisons or house them in women’s detention centers.

·      >all agencies to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.

·      >the Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs to present proposed bill text within 30 days to codify the definitions in this order.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “President Donald Trump’s executive order is a massive and welcomed policy shift that dispenses with the false, unscientific premise that a person can change their gender. This order will require thousands of medical and other forms to return to common sense questions that include the biological reality of male and female. This commonsense order returns the U.S. Government to the biological reality that gender is fixed at birth. Governance based on fact not fiction will allow the nation to once again protect the privacy, safety, and fairness for women and girls.”

Coerced and silenced: A mother’s fight to challenge Minnesota’s abortion laws

Clara Munger, a plaintiff in the landmark case Women’s Life Care Center v. Ellison, is challenging the foundation of Minnesota’s abortion laws, claiming she was coerced into an abortion she did not want due to a lack of informed consent and proper counseling.

In this case, Munger and other mothers are bravely sharing their emotional and psychological scars from being coerced into abortions they never wanted.

“If anyone at Planned Parenthood, or the State of Minnesota, ever told [me] that the abortion was a murder punishable by life imprisonment, and that [my] signature operated to grant immunity from prosecution for such a murder, [I] never would have submitted to the abortion,” says Munger.

A young woman from Minnesota, Munger found herself in a difficult, emotionally charged situation when her boyfriend – the father of her child – pressured her into seeking an abortion. Despite her hesitance, she ultimately gave in to his demands. 

According to the legal complaint filed by renowned pro-life attorney Harold Cassidy, Munger’s experience at the Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS/PPNCS) facility in Rochester only deepened her distress.

“There was no counseling, no discussion of alternatives,” the complaint states. 

It continues: “Clara ruminates about the loss of her child, experiencing ‘an emptiness and hollowness’ with deep sadness, depression and anger. She finds it one of the greatest painful experiences in her life.”

Now, Munger is taking on the very system she believes failed her at the most critical moment of her life.

The case centers on the claim that neither the medical facility nor the state of Minnesota provided proper informed consent, which could have prevented Munger from going through with the abortion.

Her legal team contends that the lack of informed consent, the absence of counseling, and insufficient safeguards violated her rights.

Minnesota’s abortion laws allow abortions up to 24 weeks with minimal counseling or waiting periods. Co-plaintiff Women’s Life Care Center claims that these laws leave women vulnerable to manipulation and regret, prioritizing convenience and profit over the sanctity of life.

Women’s Life Care Center v. Ellison is not just about legal rights – it’s about the human cost of a decision that was never truly hers.

The case’s outcome could have wide-ranging implications for abortion laws and practices in Minnesota and beyond, particularly in how women are treated when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

By sharing her story and standing up against the abortion industry, Munger is igniting a critical dialogue on the future of abortion laws in Minnesota – and across the country – ensuring that every mother’s voice is heard.

Learn more about the case here. If you wish to support Munger and the other plaintiffs as the case progresses to court, please consider contributing here.

Pope’s Idea Of Poor Migrants Is Flawed

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

 

On the eve of the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Pope Francis called him a “disgrace” for pledging to deport illegal aliens. The pope said that doing so “makes poor wretches, who have nothing, pay the price for the imbalance.”

 

If the typical illegal alien were a “poor wretch” who owns “nothing,” the Holy Father’s criticism would have merit. But such is not the case. To be blunt, his understanding of who these migrants are is flawed.

 

Historically, the poorest of the poor are rarely, if ever, the ones who migrate from poor countries to rich countries. Quite frankly, the poorest of the poor are so undernourished, and physically disabled, that they don’t have the stamina to migrate. It’s those who don’t share these characteristics who migrate.

 

This observation is backed up by the social science. Oxford economist Paul Collier has spent much of his career studying the poorest people on earth. A summary of his work found that “Those who seek entry to wealthy countries are rarely the poorest of the poor; they are those with the resources and skills necessary to migrate.”

 

This is certainly the case with those who have been crashing our southern border.

 

Migrants who are truly poor can’t afford cell phones. But many of those who have made their way to the U.S. come with them. If they don’t have one, U.S. taxpayers pay for them: we are spending over $100 million a year supplying hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with a smartphone. Moreover, if these migrants owned “nothing,” as the pope says, why is it that millions of them have money to pay the drug cartels, gangsters who exploit them in their quest for entry?

 

If these migrants were as poor as the pope thinks they are, why is it that most of them (54 percent) have a high school education or beyond? According to statistics provided by Migration Policy, 24 percent of “the unauthorized population” have a high school diploma or equivalent; 12 percent have some college or associate’s degree; 18 percent have a bachelors, graduate, or professional degree.

 

In terms of family income, 74 percent are at or above the poverty line. Indeed, 43 percent make at or above 200 percent of the poverty line. These are not “poor wretches.”

 

Americans are a generous people, but they don’t like to be played. Public officials, and those who police the border, have often noted how widespread the game of ripping off the taxpayers is. Even President Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, recently admitted that “The reality is that some people do indeed try to game the system.” These are not “poor wretches.”

 

A Pew Research Center survey found that almost 8-in-10 Americans (78 percent) believe that immigrants living illegally in the U.S. should not be eligible for public assistance. Also, “Majorities say immigrants living in the U.S. illegally are making things worse when it comes to public resources such as housing, education and health care (66%), crime (63%), and the economy (54%).”

 

Where is the compassion for these Americans?

 

Those who have come to America illegally are not a monolithic demographic. Some are fairly well off, some are not. Some are good citizens, some are not. Some are honest in their quest for citizenship, and some are gaming the system.

 

A prudent approach to the problem of illegal aliens requires that some basic distinctions be made. It also behooves us not to see them as “poor wretches” who own “nothing.” Indeed, this is true of almost none of them. 

The final corruption of Joe Biden

By Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor, The Hill 

 

With only 15 minutes to go as president, Joe Biden snatched infamy from the jaws of obscurity.

With record-low polling and widely viewed as a “failed” president, Biden completed his one-man race to the bottom of ethics by issuing preemptive pardons to members of his own family.

The pardons were timed to guarantee that the media would not focus on yet another unethical act by this president. He need not have worried. For four years, the media worked tirelessly to deny or deflect the corruption scandal surrounding the Biden family.

The pardoning of James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John Owens and Francis Biden brought an inescapable clarity to the corruption of what is known in Washington as Biden Inc.

I have written about the Biden family’s corruption for decades. Influence-peddling has always been the favorite form of corruption in Washington, but this city has never seen the likes of the Biden family. Millions of dollars were secured from foreign sources and distributed to various Biden family members.

Biden repeatedly lied about the influence peddling. He long denied knowing about his son’s foreign clients or business. He denied ever meeting Hunter’s clients. Later, photos and emails showed that Biden had clearly met these clients and knew about the business deals. He was fully aware that his family was cashing in on his name and various offices.

Even Biden’s claims about handling the Trump cases were recently contradicted. While long claiming that he left these cases to the Justice Department and took no position on the merits, the Washington Post recently reported that Biden was irate over the failure to prosecute Trump before the election. He also reportedly lashed out at Attorney General Merrick Garland and said he regretted his appointment in light of the failure to nail Trump.

One of the most glaring lies was that he would never pardon his son. Few people believed him. Indeed, Hunter Biden’s bizarre criminal defense made no sense unless he knew that he had a pocket pardon if all else failed.

Once he was forced out of the presidential race, Biden was freed up to sign a pardon for any and all crimes committed over a ten-year period by his son. He insisted that he really hadn’t been lying. He claimed that no ordinary person would have been tried for his son’s crimes — a manifestly untrue statement. He also emphasized that he had to take this step as a father of a son who was a hopeless addict and has now been clean for years.

However, the latest family pardon shatters even that rationalization. These Bidens are not even charged with any crimes, but Biden wanted to give them cover from any possible prosecution for anything. It was the ultimate sign of contempt for the intelligence of the American public and the integrity of his office.

Biden has long exercised situational ethics and, with his powers coming to an end, the situation demanded that he cash out before his credit ended. In granting these pardons, Biden was seeking to protect not just his family but also himself. He was the object of the influence peddling and repeatedly lied to bury the scandal. This insulation of his family serves to move the threat farther from himself.

Biden, however, may have been too clever by half this time. In the final moments of his presidency, He broke into the open and exposed not just himself but his allies in the media. Reporters are now fully visible as willing dupes in one of the greatest corruption scandals in the history of this country.

In his pardon statement, Biden insisted that “the issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.” Of course, that is the very opposite of what most people will conclude. More importantly, the pardons will not end the threat to his family.

Figures such as James Biden have been accused of lying to Congress about the influence-peddling operation. He can still be subpoenaed and, if he lies, he can be charged with a new crime.

Indeed, after James Biden’s pardon, it will be argued that he has less of a basis to claim the right to remain silent about any alleged crimes that have been during the period for which the pardon applies. (He could argue that there is a danger of state charges, but that is less credible due to the running of statutes of limitation and other factors.)

The pardons, if anything, make such an investigation even more compelling for those who want answers to longstanding questions of corruption.

Biden sealed his legacy with a finality that escapes most presidents. While his diminished mental capacity will remain an issue for historians, his longstanding lack of ethics was conclusively established with these pardons. It was Biden’s final act of corruption.

For a president who liked to call others “lying dog-faced pony soldiers,” Biden proved that, in the world of political corruption, the ponies are entirely optional.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Statement Regarding President Trump’s Announcement that Military Members who Refused COVID Vaccine Will Receive Backpay

 Washington, D.C.—The following statement may be attributed to David Hacker, Vice President of Litigation and Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute, regarding President Trump’s announcement that military members who refused the COVID-19 vaccine will receive back pay: 

 

The battle to restore those members of the military who stood up for their beliefs against the vaccine mandate was a long and difficult battle, but our Navy SEAL and military clients never gave up.  We are thrilled that those members of the military who were guided by their conscience and steadfast in their faith will not be penalized in their military careers and are grateful to President Trump for standing with our military and restoring these brave, faithful warriors.

 

In January 2022, First Liberty Institute and Hacker Stephens LLP, representing dozens of U.S. Navy SEALs and other Naval Special Warfare personnel, won the first injunction in the nation against the military’s vaccine mandate in Navy SEALs v. Biden.    A settlement reached in July 2024 ensures that Navy service members who refused the COVID vaccine for religious reasons have an opportunity to have their records corrected and their careers protected, considering the next three promotion “boards must not consider any adverse information related solely to COVID-19 vaccine refusal in cases in which a religious accommodation was requested.” Servicemembers who elected to leave service after being mistreated by the Navy will also get their records corrected.

 

# # #

 

About First Liberty Institute

First Liberty Institute is the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.