Thursday, March 17, 2022

What is happening with our children?

This week Erika Sanzi, director of outreach for Parents Defending Education (www.//defendinged.org) joined Deacon Mike and Gina to discuss how many children are being

politically indoctrinated by classroom teachers and school administrators against their parents’ wishes and how sometimes that indoctrination is done without the knowledge or consent of the parents. She warned our listeners of the dangers of both suppressed speech as well as compelled speech in schools today and how this affects students today.   

You can listen to the program here: https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/fe7b8be1/parents-defending-education-31722

Faith On Trial is heard 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, and streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can hear this program and any that you may have missed. 

West Virginia passes bill banning abortions sought because baby has Down syndrome

CHARLESTON, West Virginia (LifeSiteNews) – West Virginia lawmakers gave final approval Saturday to legislation that would prohibit abortions that specifically target children with disabilities for extermination.

The Unborn Child with Down Syndrome Protection and Education Act forbids abortions in which the abortionist has not “first confirmed that the abortion is not being sought because of a disability,” including Down syndrome or any other “presence or presumed presence of a genetic, physical, emotional, or intellectual disability or diagnosis in the unborn human being including, but not limited to, chromosomal disorders or morphological malformations occurring as the result of atypical gene expressions.”

The law does not apply in cases of medical emergency, defined as “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions,” or for “severe fetal condition[s]” that are supposedly “incompatible with life outside the womb.”

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Religion Clause: Kansas Teacher Sues Over Requirement To Use Studen...

Religion Clause: Kansas Teacher Sues Over Requirement To Use Studen...:   CNN reported last week on a lawsuit filed by a Fort Riley, Kansas middle school teacher who was disciplined for refusing to call a transg...

To whom do your children belong? Next FOT

Erika Sanzi
This week on Faith On Trial, Deacon Mike and Gina will try to answer that question with the help of Erika Sanzi, director of outreach for the Parents Defending Education organization. We’ll discuss the issue in many schools where parents’ rights are being pushed aside by school authorities, some of whom now claim that parents must “earn” the trust of their children especially concerning their gender identities.

Parents Defending Education is a national grassroots organization working to reclaim our schools from activists imposing harmful agendas. Through network and coalition building, investigative reporting, litigation, and engagement on local, state, and national policies, we are fighting indoctrination in the classroom — and promoting the restoration of a healthy, non-political education for our kids – https://defendinged.org/.

Faith On Trial is heard 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, and streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can hear this program and any that you may have missed. 

Monday, March 14, 2022

Child abuse or health-care?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – In today’s highly polarized society it seems that it is almost impossible for Americans to agree on anything, no matter how reasonable the answer sounds. Playing out in Texas is a case in point where there seems to be no consensus over whether genital mutilation of children is abuse.

As many of you know who have followed this column, or my radio program, the issue of “gender reassignment” continues to bedevil the body politic, and rarely is the issue examined as a question of biology and mental health. Over and over again we have reported on situations in which children, sometimes very young children, are being manipulated by adults around them for political or social reasons.

Unfortunately these situations keep cropping up and they usually follow the same pattern: Children are exposed to some type of transgender reading or discussion in school and as a result at least one of the little darlings, after being told that they can be whatever sex they want, will begin to raise questions about their own gender identity, only to be encouraged to explore their feelings, usually with a counselor who specializes in such matters, and who will “affirm” the child’s feelings and suggest that they not tell their parents immediately.

If and when the parents are informed, they are usually told that their bundle of joy is now a bundle of sexual confusion which could lead to depression and suicide. The parents are basically told that if they do not act immediately their untreated child will be in grave danger and the state might have to intervene and remove junior from his home. A pre-determined “specialist” is recommended to the parents with the warning that failure to act could result in criminal charges for child endangerment.

Obviously not all such cases follow the exact pattern above, but while there are differences in how each case is treated, this provides a fairly typical outline of what happens in these situations. Of course, where a child manifests a real problem and the parents and school handle the situation appropriately, the issue never surfaces and folks like me never hear of them.

As we look at this issue, however, we must understand there is a recognized mental health issue with gender dysphoria. That should not be up for debate. Unfortunately of late, people suffering from gender dysphoria are no longer given the help they need and, instead, are being mainstreamed into society as if their condition was akin to a mild personality quirk.

Thus, too many children are being rushed to physicians and mental health professionals who are all too quick to provide “gender-affirming health care,” which by its name reveals no attempt to find out what is creating a kid’s problem but only seeks to affirm his choice of identity.

Two local instances come to mind. One was told to me by a parent of a college student studying to be a social worker. The teaching point was to take “questioning” students to clinics where gender-affirming therapy, and sexual reassignment surgery can be performed.

Now I’m not a physician, but it seems to me the first step should be a little probe into what is causing the problem rather than jumping right into a major psychological and possible surgical makeover for the patient. But alas, that’s not happening, which leads me to my second observation: There is a kid locally who attends high school as — hold on to your hats — a cat. Where are our competent mental health professionals?

Of course I have to admit that my profession has something to do with the problem: Parents with lawyers can make unreasonable demands.

Anyway, going back to where I started this column, in Texas the attorney general, a man named Ken Paxton, last month released a 13-page legal opinion that certain forms of “gender-affirming health care” could be considered child abuse. He noted that certain puberty-blocking drugs, among others, as well as surgery causing genital mutilation of minors could be criminally actionable.

His opinion also notes that minors are legally incapable to give consent to such medical decisions which leaves the onus on the parents.

Paxton implied that moving too fast to a surgical response flies in the face of recent studies that show up to 98 percent of youths with childhood-onset general dysphoria are resolved naturally with the child returning to his biological identity. He cited studies that show that a high rate of young women (under 21), now sterilized by the procedure, regret their surgical decision at a much higher rate than those who elected the procedure later in life.

Also noted in Paxton’s opinion was the connection between the gender transition procedure and the drugs used with sterilization of the children involved. Citing a Supreme Court case which called procreation a basic right (Skinner v. Oklahoma, forced sterilization of a habitual felon, 1943), Paxton noted that the minor involved in such cases not only cannot legally give consent to the treatment, but cannot consent to waiving his right to reproduce.

In Texas the state is now investigating parents’ involvement with their children’s gender-affirming treatments. One such investigation has been stopped by a court order, which Paxton is challenging in an appeals court.

The president has even weighed in, issuing a statement clearly on the side of the transgender community and directing the Department of Health and Human Services to protect such children and “putting the state of Texas on notice that rather than weaponized child protective services against loving families, child welfare agencies should instead expand access to gender-affirming care for transgender children….

“In the United States of America, we respect the rights and dignity of all families. Transgender children bring fulfillment to their parents, joy to their families, and are made in the image of God,” he said.

This, of course, is not an argument that will go away soon. But remember, this is about our children and what is best for them; that is, after all, the primary duty of their parents, and only belongs to the state by default. But that responsibility requires the decision-makers to consider the full impact of the choices they make for their little ones and not to get swept up in a pseudo-intellectual argument that tends to conveniently follow New Age sociological trends than tried-and-true bedrock principles that have come down to us from antiquity.

Of course, this is not to denigrate those whose backgrounds, lifestyles, or mental or emotional make-ups have made them susceptible to this new plague. They should be helped which doesn’t mean we ignore biological realities and just give them a pass.

 That is condemning them to a lifestyle they don’t deserve which could be avoided.

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

Mexican diocese to deny communion to Catholic politicians who voted to legalize abortion

(Catholic News Agency) – After the legislature of the Mexican state of Sinaloa voted to legalize abortion up to 13 weeks, the Diocese of Culiacán announced that Catholic politicians who voted in favor of the law will not be able to receive the Eucharist or be godparents.
 
In  a statement, Father Miguel Ángel Soto Gaxiola, director of the Culiacán Commission for Life, Family, Youth and Laity, officially announced that Catholic lawmakers who voted in favor of abortion that the decision to deny them Communion is "the recognition of the objectively unworthy state of a person to receive the Body of Christ.”

Continue reading at: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250656/mexican-diocese-to-deny-communion-to-catholic-politicians-who-voted-to-legalize-abortion 

Why liberals love masks

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

Why do liberals love masks? There is no debate about the evidence, only the reasons for it.

Peter J. Pitts is a former Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner and a visiting professor at the University of Paris Medical School. He lives on the upper west side of Manhattan, the most left-wing neighborhood in New York City. He has a gripe: Why are his neighbors so obsessed with masks? Worse, "they don't want me to take mine off either. And they're aggressive about it. Withering stares and cutting comments."

What Pitts experienced is more than anecdotal evidence: it is an accurate reflection of contemporary liberal thought and behavior.

On March 10, New York Times writer David Leonhardt analyzed data on mask wearing along ideological lines. "Mask wearing remains far more common in liberal communities than conservative ones," he concluded. That's why liberals are still not going to restaurants in cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, Oregon, and Cambridge, Massachusetts; restaurant traffic is at least 40 percent below prepandemic levels.

Similarly, a Morning Consult/Politico poll that was recently released found that 71% of Democrats said local leaders should continue to encourage vaccinations and masks in indoor spaces; less than half of Republicans agreed.

It is easier to find a college student burning an American flag than a mask. They love masks. That's because most are liberals, and almost all of them are taught by left-wing professors. Again, the evidence is indisputable.

A College Pulse survey of college students released last September found that eight in ten favored mask mandates for indoor settings. Just last month, dozens of students walked out of class at the University of Nevada, Reno to protest the repeal of the mask mandate. Nearly 1,700 students signed a petition demanding a reinstatement of the mandate.

But why? Why do liberals love masks?

The same liberals who love mask mandates are quick to insist on "bodily autonomy" when it comes to risky sex practices, abortion and drugs. They don't want to be told about restrictions on those behaviors. But when it comes to mask mandates, their interest in "bodily autonomy" ends, and not just for them—for everyone.

College students are known for being anti-authority, which helps to explain their disdain for cops and the clergy. Yet they bow to the authority wielded by campus administrators and faculty.

How to explain these apparent inconsistencies?

Sex is fun. Drugs are fun. Liberals reason that the risks outweigh the fun. The same is not true of mask wearing: no one is deprived of fun by wearing one, and it may keep us healthy, without which there can be no fun.

Cops and the clergy pass judgments on conduct that many college students find unobjectionable. Professors promote postmodernist ideas that are seen as nonjudgmental—there is no such thing as truth and we should be free to experiment with our bodies—notions that facilitate the prospects of fun.

It is narcissism that best explains their selective interest in "bodily autonomy," and their selective attitude towards authority figures, not some principled philosophical predilection. Liberals also tend to be statist who are comfortable with big government, while conservatives tend to be anti-statists. This helps explain the different postures with regard to mask mandates.

If there is something about liberalism that accounts for the narcissistic strain in many of its adherents, it is the liberal fixation on individual rights, and the relative absence of interest in individual responsibilities. Rights free us to do what we want; responsibilities burden us. The former is attractive to narcissists, not the latter.

The ideological split on mask mandates is a microcosm of the larger divide between liberals and conservatives. Their respective leanings would not matter if our society were not so polarized, but because it is,  they matter greatly.

Of course, one way to stop the polarization is get our eyes off of ourselves and on to others. But that is not a very liberal idea.

Saturday, March 12, 2022

Religion Clause: Lawsuit By Nun Seeks A Religious Exemption From D....

Religion Clause: Lawsuit By Nun Seeks A Religious Exemption From D....: Litigation over the denial of religious exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates continues. This week, a suit was filed in the D.C. federal di...

Friday, March 11, 2022

This is how 'Marxist working groups' operate in higher education

By Mckenna Dallmeyer  

(Campus Reform) – Universities across the country sponsor working groups at the graduate level. 

These groups are most often invite-only and restricted to graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty. They center around a common interdisciplinary research interest or inquiry such as artificial intelligence, modern literature, or economic systems.

Conferences, seminars, and public events are often hosted by working groups during which academics gather to discuss the topic of interest and review articles or papers solicited from the academic community.

Commonly, working groups host reading groups where members complete assigned readings surrounding the working group’s topic of interest. 

In American colleges today, Marxism is a popular area of inquiry for working and reading groups. 

The University of Florida sponsors The Working Group for the Study of Critical Theory, which focuses on “alternatives to the reigning paradigm of the disciplines” and “imagining and creating more just and fulfilling ways of living in the world.” 

Campus Reform reached out to the university about the group. 

Hessy Fernandez, director of strategic communications and marketing, said that the university “fosters an environment where divergent ideas, opinions and philosophies new and old can be rigorously discussed and critically evaluated in the academic environment.”

“The working group’s meetings are housed in the Department of English and are available, but not required to graduate students and faculty who are interested in evaluating these topics,” Fernandez continued.

The Working Group for the Study of Critical Theory advertises that it “supports” the Marxist Reading Group at UF. 

The Marxist Reading Group was established to “encourage the study of Marxist theories at the University of Florida.”  Recent readings include “Diversity, Difference and Caribbean Feminism: The Challenge of Anti-Racism,” “The Myth of Marxist Homophobia,” and “Theories about Sex and Sexuality in Utopian Socialism.” 

Since 1999, the group has hosted an annual conference three of which were titled “Enthusiasm for Revolution,” “Toward a Democracy with Rights,” and “Marxism and (Bio)politics.” 

In 2019, the Marxist Reading Group hosted its 21st Annual Conference centered around the topic of “Political Paralysis,” which “investigate[d] how current Marxist cultural criticism continues to enable utopian horizons in the face of a seemingly static present.”

“What role does Marxist cultural criticism play in dark times,” the event’s flier asked of scholars. 

In 2020, the Marxist Reading Group hosted its 22nd Annual Conference centered around the topic of “Marxist Sexualities.” The group issued a call for papers considering “ecofeminism,” “queer/feminist/Marxist pedagogies,” “sex work and issues facing sex workers,” among others. 

“In what practical ways might an attenuated focus on sexual politics open Marxist praxis up to activists beyond the academy,” the website poses. 

In 2021, the group’s 23rd Annual Conference discussed “Marxism and Neoliberalism Today” and sought to “investigate the ways in which Marxist praxis can be practiced and reinforced within the situated politics and policies of today, as well as the potential for the creation of new Marxist spaces and collectives in the era of neoliberalism.” 

But Marxist working groups also operate in digital spaces. 

H-net is an independent, non-profit scholarly association that hosts a jobs board for university jobs in the humanities. The website also offers an open academic space to academics who wish to collaborate and engage with one another. 

An H-Net network centered around Marxism and Communism is H-HOAC, which stands for "H-Net network for Historians of American Communism."

H-HOAC is built on the work of "The Historians of American Communism" which comprises professors from New York University, Texas A&M University at Galveston, American University, and the University of Southern Indiana, among others.

Members explore the “history of American communism, American anti-communism, Soviet espionage in America, American ties to the Communist International and Red International of Trade Unions, social justice and cultural movements sponsored or endorsed by the Communist Party and other related topics.”

This year, H-HOAC members Stephen F. Austin State University professor Dana Cooper and University of Mary-Hardin Baylor professor Claire Phelan issued a call for papers that address the “intersection” of “motherhood and communism.” 

Marxist working groups are active all over the country. 

At the University of Pennsylvania, a working group called “Variations” concentrates on “Marxism, critical theory, and literary theory.” In Fall 2018, the group hosted a reading group studying Karl Marx’s “masterwork” Das Kapital

The Interdisciplinary Marxist Working Group at the University of California, Berkeley, focuses on the “ongoing relevance of Marxism to the current historical moment, as an explicitly global project.”

Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor for executive communications, told Campus Reform that the university’s administration believes in the “importance of diversity of perspective."

"Therefore," Mogulof continued, they "do everything in [their] power to uphold our Principles of Community which, among other things, commits us to, ‘ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views held by our varied communities.’”

“Academic programs like a discussion group have latitude and independence to pursue their academic interests as they see fit. At the same time, as is the case with all academic programs, they do not speak for or represent the values, perspectives or positions of the University,” Mogulof continued. 

At New York University, the Marxism Working Group is “grounded in the political-economic critique of capitalism” and concentrates on “Marxist accounts of race and gender.” 

Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences sponsors a group called Marxism and Materialism, which examines “contemporary uses across historical, humanistic, and social scientific disciplines that engage the dilemmas of political economy, power, and domination.”

Yale University’s Marxism and Cultural Theory explores themes that include “postcolonial theory,” “socialist feminism,” “black Marxist thought,” and “Marxist theories of the state.” 

Campus Reform reached out to all of the groups, universities, and individuals mentioned in this article for comment. The article will be updated accordingly. 

House Democrats Pass Spending Bill Forcing Americans to Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz - LifeNews.com

House Democrats Pass Spending Bill Forcing Americans to Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz - LifeNews.com: Democrats are nothing if not consistent. Every year they work feverishly to force Americans to fund America’s abortion industry and this year was no exception. Late last night, the House approved a $1.5 trillion bill that sets new federal government spending levels and funds agencies through October. The funding bill is a massive financial shot […]

Thursday, March 10, 2022

Religion Clause: Legal Responses Continue To Texas Ban On Gender Tr...

Religion Clause: Legal Responses Continue To Texas Ban On Gender Tr...:  As previously reported , last month Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an Attorney General Opinion concluded that a number of procedures ...

Babies could be killed 28 days after birth under proposed Maryland law, attorney warns

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland (LifeSiteNews) – Legislation proposed in the Maryland Senate would allow babies to be left to die for as long as the first 28 days after birth, according to analysis from a pro-life attorney.

Senate Bill 669 is also known as the Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022, but the problems go beyond the use of “person” in place of accurate references to women having babies. Senator William Smith, a Democrat, sponsored the legislation, which will have a hearing on March 15.

“[T]he bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion,” American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) attorney Olivia Summers wrote in her analysis.

This is because the legislation prohibits investigations and criminal prosecutions for women and medical professionals for a “failure to act” in relation to a “perinatal death.”

“In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death,” Summers wrote, “and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.”

She said that the language used is unclear, so the law could be interpreted to “prevent investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!”

The Maryland Code does not define “perinatal,” Summers said. A 2020 law does define “perinatal care” as the “provision of care during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum and neonatal periods.”

A definition on MedicineNet, a website owned by WebMD, defines it as “the 20th to 28th week of gestation” to “1 to 4 weeks after birth.”

Summers, with the ACLJ, noted in her analysis that the state already has a safe haven law that allows parents to leave a newborn baby with a responsible adult without fear of prosecution.

“Under the Safe Haven law, a distressed parent who is unable or unwilling to care for their infant can safely give up custody of their baby, no questions asked,” the Maryland Department of Human Services explains. “Newborns can be left at hospitals or law enforcement stations.”

“There is absolutely no reason for Maryland Senate Bill 669’s attempt to prevent someone who lets their baby die from being investigated,” Summers said. ”This bill just further exposes the complete lack of regard abortion advocates have for innocent human life.”

“If they truly want to protect life and women, then legislators could simply extend the length of the safe harbor provision already in place,” she said.

Senator Smith, the bill’s sponsor, did not provide a comment on the ACLJ’s analysis of the legislation. The office responded to the initi

This week’s Faith On Trial program: legal battle over physician assisted suicide

Joining Deacon Mike and Gina this week was Chris Schandevel, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) who just yesterday argued against physician assisted suicide in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. The case involved a challenge to a Massachusetts law that prohibited assisting with a suicide as a violation of an individual’s constitutional “right” to assistance with his suicide. Mr. Schandavel gave us his report on how yesterday’s oral arguments went, how ADF got involved, and what we might expect to see from the court.

You can listen to the entire program by following this link:

https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/c7e7de9c/physician-assisted-suicide-31022

In addition, after Mr. Schandevel’s segment the deacon and Gina briefly discussed several news items that we might hear about later: the state raid of a child care center where two and three year olds were separated and asked about their mask use from San Diego, California, and a bill in the Maryland legislature which would allow “post birth” abortions up to a month after a baby’s birth. So stay tuned for upcoming issues.

Faith On Trial is heard 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, and streams on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can hear this program and any that you may have missed. 

Wednesday, March 9, 2022