ADF suing NY on behalf of Christian photographer

ADF suing NY on behalf of Christian photographer: A photographer in New York state wants to operate her business according to her faith but is facing prohibition on free speech and a jail cell, and is waiting on the day the state tries to trap her. 

This week's podcast of Faith On Trial's radio program

This week's podcast of Faith On Trial: Georgia Howe, the Daily Wire, on the graphic sexual content in a Texas school District. Mark MacDougal, executive director of Ruth Harbor Ministries, on its Christ-centered homes, programs, and services for young women facing unplanned pregnancies. Every Thursday morning at 10 a.m. CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also hear podcasts of earlier programs.

This week's Faith On Trial -- April 8

This week  on Faith On Trial:

Georgia Howe, the Daily Wire, on the graphic sexual content in a Texas school District.

Mark MacDougal, executive director of Ruth Harbor Ministries, on its Christ-centered homes, programs, and services for young women facing unplanned pregnancies.

Thursday morning at 10 a.m. CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also hear podcasts of earlier programs.

Court: Wayne State’s actions “obviously odious to the Constitution” Federal court protects InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, holds university liable

WASHINGTON – A federal court just ruled against Wayne State University, finding that it discriminated against InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a religious student club, when it kicked the group off campus for requiring its leaders to be Christians. As the court stated, at Wayne State, “Student groups were permitted to restrict leadership based on sex, gender identity, political partisanship, ideology, creed, ethnicity, and even GPA and physical attractiveness.”

However, religious groups were not allowed to require that leaders share any of a group’s religious beliefs, and at Wayne State, it was a “small group of Christians, who were denied [student organization] benefits because they require their Christian leaders to be . . . Christian.” The court concluded that Wayne State’s actions to force religious groups to accept leaders “who may be hostile to [their] religious tenets” were obviously wrong and “strike at the heart” of the First Amendment: “No religious group can constitutionally be made an outsider, excluded from equal access to public or university life, simply because it insists on religious leaders who believe in its cause.”

Because Wayne State’s actions were “obviously odious to the Constitution,” the court held Wayne State officials personally liable for violating the rights of Wayne State’s religious students. 

“The law is crystal clear: universities can’t kick religious student groups off campus just because they choose leaders who share their faith,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket. “The court’s common-sense ruling today means that InterVarsity must be treated fairly, just as it had been for 75 years at Wayne State, and now can continue its good work serving a diverse campus community.” 

InterVarsity’s student group had been a part of Wayne State for three-quarters of a century, holding Bible studies and providing a place for community discussion. InterVarsity is open to all students, but, like many other student groups, it requires its student leaders to adhere to its mission and purpose. The university never had a problem with its policy until 2017 when, during a routine club membership reapplication process, Wayne State told InterVarsity that asking its leaders to share its faith was “discriminatory” and deregistered the group. 

But the court said Wayne State had things backward—it was the school that had discriminated against the small student group: “Disparate and discriminatory treatment of religious groups due to their religious character violates the Free Exercise Clause.” In fact, Wayne State’s attempt to control a religious group’s leadership selection was “categorically barred by the Constitution.” And the law on this point was so clear that the court held that Wayne State officials are personally liable for their actions. 

In 2018, Becket sued Wayne State on InterVarsity’s behalf, since the group had been excluded. Wayne State relented and let InterVarsity back onto its campus but argued that it still had the right to remove the group later. Today’s ruling safeguards InterVarsity and sends a clear message that accommodation, not discrimination, is the best policy.

One-Party Press In America

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) – Anyone who has been even a casual reader of this column knows of my affinity for the profession of journalism and my deep disdain for the manner in which it is practiced today. Naturally, then, I was pleased and surprised that a federal appeals court judge also took aim at the press, and social media, while ruling on a case before him.

The judge is Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who took senior status in 2000 but is still eligible to hear and rule on appellate cases. The case was an unremarkable one involving Liberian officials who were suing an international human rights organization for defaming them in a report by implying that they had accepted bribes. The lower court had dismissed the case

This issue on appeal was whether or not the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged actual malice by the defendant company. The issue of malice, as articulated by the Supreme Court in its legendary ruling in the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, was a key issue. In Sullivan, the court ruled that for a public official to prevail in a defamation case, the official must not only prove the legal elements for defamation, but must also prove that the defamatory statements were made with “actual malice” — meaning that the defendant knew the statements were not true or published them with reckless disregard for their truth.

Sullivan came out of the civil rights era of the 1960s when a local official in Montgomery, Ala., sued the Times over a full-page advertisement which criticized the local police for mistreatment of civil rights protesters which contained several inconsequential factual errors. Nonetheless a local jury found against the paper and awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in damages. The Supreme Court overturned the trial court award 9-0, holding that it violated the First Amendment and establishing the “actual malice” standard for such suits.

Subsequent cases expanded the protection beyond public officials to public entities, such as the defendant in the case being heard by Judge Silberman.

In his partial dissent to the panel’s affirmation of the lower court, Silberman objected to what was considered “actual malice.” From there he went on to criticize the Sullivan decision as “policy driven” and having “no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution…the actual malice requirement was simply cut from whole cloth,” he wrote.

But then he went further, criticizing the press, social media, and, by implication, the Democratic Party.

“I recognize how difficult it will be to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule such a ‘landmark’ decision. After all, doing so would incur the wrath of press and media. But new considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make The New York Times decision a threat to American Democracy. It must go,” he wrote.

“I readily admit that I have little regard for the holdings of the Court that dress up policymaking in constitutional garb. That is the real attack on the Constitution, in which — it should go without saying — the Framers chose to allocate political power” to the political branches. “The notion that the Court should somehow act in a policy role as a Council of Revision is illegitimate,” he said before going off on the press and one-party rule by the Democrats.

Pointing out that the original suit against the Times was to curb its criticism of local officials by the northern press, he noted that the day after the jury verdict was announced, “The Alabama Journal (a Montgomery paper) celebrated the result. An editorial trumpeted that the case would cause the ‘reckless publishers of the North…to make a re-survey of their habit of permitting anything detrimental to the South and its people to appear in their columns’.”

Continuing he opined that the Sullivan case increased the power of the media, which initially needed that protection to cover the civil rights movement. But, he warned, “As the case has subsequently been interpreted, it allows the press to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity. It would be one thing if this were a two-sided phenomenon.” Citing statistics and reports of press accusations predominately target conservative and Republican politicians, he noted that over the years since, cities, especially those controlled by Democrats, have been served only by a liberal press.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party — not just controversial individuals — is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the 1970s. Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets….The orientation of these…papers is followed by the Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as The Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television — network and cable — is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

Then he turned his attention to Silicon Valley which “also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.” He noted how Facebook and Twitter have also curbed Internet free speech on their platforms.

“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination raises the specter that the government effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.”
He noted there are a few exceptions to “Democratic Party ideological control” of the media such as Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Yet, he observed, there are attempts to muzzle Fox News and some of the other conservative networks that have emerged in recent years. The Democratic Party’s dominance in the press and social media has been estimated at adding between eight and ten percent to its vote in a typical election, he said.

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” he penned.

“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness — if not eagerness — to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”

Two footnotes Judge Silberman placed in his opinion are worth noting: “The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefor is — I say this advisedly — fundamentally un-American. As one who lived through the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women can support such actions.”

And finally, another dig at the current state of society: “The reasons for press bias are too complicated to address here. But they surely relate to bias in academic institutions.”

Thank God for Judge Silberman. Unfortunately, however, you won’t find much about this argument in either the media or academia. Such is the world we live in today.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central Time on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

 

Christian Bashers Invent Christian Nationalism

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Scholars rightly take umbrage when pundits and activists exploit their work for political purposes. The latest example, at least in religious circles, is the way in which a new book, Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics, is being received by militant secularists.

The authors, David Campbell, Geoffrey Layman and John C. Green—all of whom have distinguished records—maintain that the number of Americans who no longer claim a religious affiliation is growing quickly, accounting for a secular surge. The data support their thesis.

Their volume becomes somewhat more controversial when they attribute some of the exit from religious institutions to the more conservative members of the Republican Party. The authors say that many Americans have an "allergic reaction" to mixing religion and conservative politics. They further note that "a secular-religious divide" may lead each side to view the other "with suspicion and perhaps even hostility."

As I have recounted in reviewing their work in the past, these authors are well aware of the fact that the secularization of American society has been going on for decades. Layman previously cited 1972 as the pivotal year when secularists took over the Democratic Party. Twenty years later he wrote that "The Democratic Party now appears to be a party whose core of support comes from secularists, Jews, and the less committed members of the major religious traditions."

In 2004, Green directed a survey by the Bliss Institute at the University of Akron on this subject and found similar results. Campbell's work in this area is consistent with these findings.

Unfortunately, those who are more interested in propaganda than scholarship are using their work to advance their own agenda. The latest to do so is Adam Gabbatt, a reporter for The Guardian; it is being flagged by Yahoo.

In his news story of April 5, Gabbatt offers a fair presentation of Secular Surge, but then descends to politics when he says that "Christian nationalists" are "thrust[ing] their version of religion into American life." He finds support for this view by citing Alison Gill, vice president for Legal and Policy at American Atheists. She cites a report by the organization, "2020 State of the Secular States," that claims Christian nationalists are at the forefront of this movement.

To begin with, Layman, Campbell and Green never use the term "Christian nationalists" in their book. More important, although this label is mentioned 12 times in the report by American Atheists, never once is it defined. It's just bandied about, the way it always is.

"Christian nationalists," according to the report, are those who believe in such things as religious exemptions, pro-life legislation, school vouchers, homeschooling, and our national motto, "In God We Trust." Fairly common stuff. In other words, American Atheists thinks that a very large swath of the American public qualify as "Christian nationalists."

To be sure, there are Christian extremists, but I hasten to add that they are far less influential than their secular counterparts. A militant brand of secularism has gripped the country, and this includes many of those in elite positions of power.

We don't have to worry about "Christian nationalists"—we have to worry about those who are promoting this fiction as a weapon to assault our Judeo-Christian heritage.

 

How To Keep Corporate Wokeness From Destroying America

How To Keep Corporate Wokeness From Destroying America: Democrats long ago abandoned working-class blacks and whites in favor of identity politics, corporatism, and leftism. It's time for the GOP to step up.

This week – April 1 – on Faith On Trial, Iowa Catholic Radio

This week – April 1 – on Faith On Trial, Iowa Catholic Radio

Michael Berry, attorney, First Liberty on his recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on claims of religious extremism by Christians and Catholics.

Dr. Anne Hendershott, professor of sociology, Franciscan University, and author of The Politics of Envy on the resentment and discrimination against Asian-Americans.

Every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central on Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Biden And The Bishops At Easter

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

During the presidential campaign season last year, it was obvious that candidate Joe Biden was not having an easy time with some U.S. bishops. After he won the election, that observation was validated. Now that we are at Easter, it is undeniably true that the president's relationship with many bishops is rocky, if not seriously strained. 

Last summer, Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin issued a tweet that was both sarcastic and pointed. "Biden-Harris. First time in awhile that the Democratic ticket hasn't had a Catholic on it. Sad." The dismissal of Biden's professed Catholic status was lost on no one. 

A month before the election, Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Biden should not receive Communion, adding that he was not a Catholic "in good standing." 

A few weeks after the election, Archbishop José Gomez, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, opined that President-elect Biden supported policies that "attack some fundamental values we hold dear." Noting that it could be confusing to Catholics to see a Catholic in the White House who rejected the Church's teachings on abortion and other matters, Gomez appointed a Working Group, chaired by Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron, to help the bishops "navigate" this "difficult and complex situation." 

In December, the recently retired archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, said that Biden's support for gay marriage and abortion rights meant that he "should stop defining himself as a devout Catholic." On the day he was inaugurated, Biden's press secretary, Jen Psaki, called the president a "devout Catholic." 

Archbishop Gomez, speaking for the bishops' conference, also weighed in on inauguration day. "I must point out that the new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences." 

A week later, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, chairman of the bishops' Pro-Life Committee, teamed up with Bishop David Malloy, the head of the bishops' International Justice and Peace Committee, to take Biden to task for promoting abortion overseas. "It is grievous that one of President Biden's first official acts actively promotes the destruction of human lives in developing nations." They said his executive order "is antithetical to reason, violates human dignity, and is incompatible with Catholic teaching." 

In February, Naumann, the archbishop of Kansas City, Kansas, said that Biden "should stop defining himself as a devout Catholic," noting that he is "100% pro-choice on abortion." He accused Biden of "usurping the role of the bishops and confusing people." What should be done? "The bishops need to correct him, as the president is acting contrary to the Catholic faith." 

Within days of Naumann's remarks, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas declared that "Biden is not a real Catholic." In March, Bishop Richard Stika, who heads the Diocese of Knoxville, tweeted that Biden "likes to brag on his Catholic background when convenient. So very dishonest!" 

At the end of March, Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, who leads the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, said that Biden "should not present himself" for Communion. He cited Biden's long history of supporting abortion rights, saying that if politicians are "living in a way or holding positions that are contrary to church teaching, then the Minister of Communion has to deny them the sacrament." 

Paprocki's comments were followed by Cardinal Burke's. Speaking of Biden, he said that "a person who claims to be Catholic and yet promotes in such an open, obdurate, and aggressive way a crime like procured abortion is in the state, at least, of apostasy." He concluded that the penalty for the "crime of apostasy" is "excommunication." 

As we approach Easter, the bishops, as well as millions of practicing Catholics, are not going to have their concerns about Biden allayed by photos of him clinging to his rosary beads. He cannot at once declare himself to be a "devout Catholic" while at the same time supporting abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, sex transitioning for minors, and the war on religious liberty.

It's time for President Biden to stop living a lie.

 

This week -- April 1 -- Faith On Trial

This week on Faith On Trial: Is there bias against Christians in the military? Mike Berry from First Liberty will join us for that discussion. Dr. Anne Hendershott from Franciscan University will also join us for a discussion of envy and resentment against Asian-Americans. 

Faith On Trial, 10 a.m. CT Thursday on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also listen to podcasts of previous programs.

Should College Administrators Know What The First Amendment Means?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) Here’s a quick test — see how you score yourself. Should college administrators be punished for adopting policies that curb free speech even when they claim that there is no definitive ruling against the restriction they adopted?

Or, to put it into legal terms: “Whether qualified immunity shields public university officials from liability when the reasoning — but not the holding — of a binding decision gave the officials fair warning they were violating the First Amendment.”

The quote above comes from a brief asking the Supreme Court to review a case from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld a lower court decision that college administrators clearly violated the free speech rights of a student but did not award her damages for that violation. And that refusal came in spite of the wording of 42 U.S.C. 1983 which states:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

The case is called Ashlyn Hoggard v. Ron Rhodes, et al., and it has been appealed to the Supreme Court by what is called a petition for a writ of certiorari which is the legal mechanism used by litigants to request a hearing before the top court. The facts are similar to those found in other cases.

Ashlyn Hoggard was a student at Arkansas State University when she tried to establish a student chapter of Turning Point USA on campus. In order to submit a proposal to the school’s administration to recognize the chapter she had to have at least five other students as charter members, draft a constitution for the group, and file an application with the school, among other things. In attempting to drum up interest in her plan, Ashley and a representative of Turning Point took a seat at a table in the student union area where interested students could chat and pick up information on Turning Point.

To make a long story short, Ashley was soon visited by two university officials, Sarah Ponder and Elizabeth Rouse, who told her she could not use the table located as it was in an area the appeals court called the “Union Patio.” They did tell her that she could use the campus “Free Expression Area.” Now according to the campus rules, the Free Expression Areas — there were two of them — comprised about one percent of the campus and students were required to apply for and receive permission 72 hours in advance to use them.

Noting that she was at an out of the way table and was not disturbing anyone, nor was she actively soliciting other students, but passively waiting for them to approach her, Ashlyn objected. The officials told her she was violating an unwritten policy that only allowed tables in the student union to be used by registered student groups and university departments. The officials then called campus police who ordered her out.

The two officials concluded by telling Ashlyn and the Turning Point representative that they couldn’t speak anywhere on campus without telling the officials first and the responding campus police officer told them they could be arrested.

The lower courts easily concluded that the school officials violated Ashlyn’s First Amendment rights. Since there was no written policy specifying who could or could not use the tables in the student union, the policy, according to the court of appeals, “simply emerged from the bureaucratic aether.” The court also found that it was undisputed that neither Ashlyn nor her companion created any disturbance, and, in fact, there had been no complaints about what they were doing.

The unwritten policy gave, according to Ashlyn’s attorneys, “unfettered authority to grant or deny speakers permission to set up a table.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), representing Ashlyn, issued a statement condemning the university’s actions: “Arkansas State’s previous policies unconstitutionally gave university officials free rein to shut down student speech even in open areas of campus, restricted most expressive activities to small zones that totaled about one percent of the campus, and required advance permission for students to speak anywhere on campus.”

Ashlyn then sued the university seeking an injunction and compensatory damages for the infringement on her First Amendment rights. However, the state legislature then passed legislation repealing the university’s free speech policies rendering most of the case moot. Both parties then moved for summary judgment on their claims and the district court granted the school’s motion, allowing Ashlyn’s case but dismissed her claim for damages against the school officials, the court ruling that the school officials could not be held responsible for the damage claim because the officials were entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity is the legal concept that protects public officials from civil suits unless the official violated a clearly established legal right to which a reasonable person would have knowledge. Police officers, for example, have it.

Ultimately, the appeals court found that there was a clear violation of Ashlyn’s rights, but again upheld the lower court’s decision on the issue of qualified immunity. That is the issue that is being presented to the Supreme Court: Can school officials be forced to personally pay for their infringement of a student’s constitutional rights?

The matter that raises hackles in this case involves how clear the precedent was in these student free speech cases are, and that is where this issue gets sticky. There have been several cases where the university was upheld in its decision to remove unruly or disruptive students, or non-students, from campus. However, in most of them the courts state in dicta that the school officials acted properly only in reaction to the actions of the student or non-student.

In a court opinion, dicta is an opinion expressed that does not go directly to the specific matter before the court. Often it is an expression of opinion that goes beyond the facts before the court and are not considered legal precedent, such as when the court says you can deny an unruly non-student’s expression.

There is now a split in the circuits on this question: Can dicta be so specific that it outlines the parameters of the law which school officials should know? Or can school officials defend themselves by pointing to the unruly non-student case and claim that the result vindicates them? Or is Ashlyn correct and the school authorities should have known they were trampling on free speech rights even if it only was through dicta?
This is an in the weeds case, inside baseball, if you will. But while the focus is on a very narrow legal point, a ruling in favor of Ashlyn will go a long way to protect the First Amendment rights of students.

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

 

Sex Transitioning For Minors Is Child Abuse

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

It is all the rage among elites in many quarters to sanction sex transitioning for minors. It is time to call this madness for what it is—child abuse. The damage that is being done is incalculable. Consider what this process involves.

Puberty blockers are used to facilitate the sex transition process. These medications stop the normal estrogen or testosterone progression in girls and boys during puberty, affecting vocal chord changes, the development of breast tissue, brain development and the like. So little is known about the long-term effects of puberty blockers that some doctors say we are dealing with a "blank slate."

Children who want to continue physically transitioning by taking hormones create a real challenge for doctors, never mind the child. The physical changes are irreversible. Minors who transition are at risk later in life for heart disease, diabetes and blood clots. Taking the hormones of the opposite sex can also reduce fertility. Are adolescents really capable of making these permanent life-altering decisions?

The mental problems associated with sex reassignment are multiple, and they are so serious as to make one wonder what kind of health professional would countenance it. Adults who undergo the transitioning are at risk not only for depression, but suicide. It will not due to say that these maladies are a function of the lack of support these people receive. If that were the case, why do transgender people suffer from high rates of suicide in places like Sweden where they are totally accepted?

If adults are at risk mentally following sex reassignment, we can only guess what minors are likely to be faced with down the line. Do those who profit from their "services" even care?

Dr. Rachel Levine is a man who now identifies as a woman. He was chosen by President Biden to be his new assistant health secretary. Given his status, both physical and professional, it is important to know what his position on sex transitioning is. [Note: Many insist that a biological man who transitions to a woman should be called "she" or "her," and that the correct term is gender transitioning, not sex transitioning. But they don't count. Truth counts.]

When Roger Severino was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Trump administration, he asked Levine a question that even an elementary student could answer. "What does it mean to be male or female?" The good doctor couldn't answer.

At the Senate hearing for Levine, Sen. Rand Paul asked him a pointed question. "Dr. Levine, do you believe that minors are capable of making a life-long changing decision as changing one's sex?" Levine dodged the question saying, "Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field."

Paul followed up with another question. "Do you support the government intervening to override the parent's consent to give a child puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and/or amputation surgery for breasts and genitalia?" Levine dodged the question again saying, "Senator, transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field."

Levine is not alone in refusing to answer such basic questions. At the Senate Finance Committee hearing on Xavier Becerra, Biden's nominee to head HHS (he has since been confirmed), Sen. James Lankford said, "The vast majority of Americans do not believe that a nine-year-old child can consent to puberty blockers or that a thirteen-year-old girl can consent to a double mastectomy." He then asked Becerra what his position was on such matters. The best Becerra could promise is that he would follow the law.

Is President Biden aware that these men think it is okay for minors to switch their sex? Absolutely. He himself says that little kids should be afforded the chance.

Last October, during a town hall conversation, Biden was asked by a mother of a transgender child what he would do to help people like her and her child. "The idea that an 8-year-old child, a 10-year-old child decides, you know, 'I want to be transgender, that's what I think I'd like to be, it'd make my life a lot easier'—there should be no discrimination."

Does Biden believe that parental consent should be required before a minor can elect to sex reassignment? We do not know, but we do know that parental consent is already being ignored in some places, leading to lawsuits. 

Most children who seek to transition, if given time, will change their minds. What they are experiencing is not normal.

According to Dr. Paul McHugh and Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, two prominent psychiatrists who are experts in this field, the idea that "a person might be 'a man trapped in a woman's body' or 'a woman trapped in a man's body'—is not supported by scientific evidence." We need to help young people who suffer from this disorder to get better, not get deeper into trouble.

Once the boys and girls are subjected to the treatments, it is too late. Unfortunately, Biden is stacking his administration with those who are ratifying his twisted vision of the sexes.

It's time we put an end to this child abuse.

 

America at the End of Empire - Frontpagemag

America at the End of Empire - Frontpagemag

The Search for Perfect Pronouns and Social Destruction -

The Search for Perfect Pronouns and Social Destruction -: The Search for Perfect Pronouns and Social Destruction

Pod cast of this week's Faith On Trial radio program

This week's program on censoring student / staff free speech rights on campus.