At SCOTUS, Give Free Speech Life
Even a driving rain at the Supreme Court couldn’t keep the crowd of pro-lifers away. Despite yesterday’s downpour, they flocked to the marble steps — the final stop of a three-year battle to protect free speech. Abortion activists were there too, blasting their speakers every time a conservative got up to talk. It turned out to be the perfect example of what this case is all about. While we were fighting to be heard outside, attorneys inside argued why California shouldn’t be allowed to drown pro-lifers out.
Even a driving rain at the Supreme Court couldn’t keep the crowd of pro-lifers away. Despite yesterday’s downpour, they flocked to the marble steps — the final stop of a three-year battle to protect free speech. Abortion activists were there too, blasting their speakers every time a conservative got up to talk. It turned out to be the perfect example of what this case is all about. While we were fighting to be heard outside, attorneys inside argued why California shouldn’t be allowed to drown pro-lifers out.
For the Left, laws like the 2015 “Reproductive FACT Act” are nothing new. Liberals have spent years trying to put the squeeze on conservatives and their right to operate by their beliefs. Just weeks ago, we were in front of this same court, asking the justices to stop forcing Christians to promote messages that violate their beliefs. In December, the target was baker Jack Phillips. Today, it’s thousands of pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) across America.
The idea was outrageous on its face. California Democrats decided to force PRCs to help advertise what they’re trying to discourage: abortion! Under the law that Gov. Jerry Brown signed, every pro-life center had to post information in huge 48-point font — sometimes in as many as 13 languages — about where these mothers could get a free or low-cost abortion. California officials would fine PRCs $500 for the first offense and then $1,000 every day they didn’t comply. With most of these operating on shoestring budget — half of them only bring in about $125,000 or less of revenue a year — this could have a devastating effect. Obviously, that’s the point. If liberals can’t shut down the competition, they can at least use it for free publicity!
Pro-lifers came out swinging against the idea — not only because it detracts from the positive alternatives to abortion but because it violates these centers’ freedoms of speech and religion. Imagine if anti-war protestors had to recruit for the Army or Alcoholics Anonymous had to post directions to the closest liquor store. “Everyone would agree that’s not fair,” FRC’s Cathy Ruse and Patrina Mosley wrote in an op-ed for yesterday’s Washington Examiner.
Even The New York Times, hardly a bastion of pro-life thinking, sided with pregnancy resource centers. In a powerful column, “The Abortion Case That’s Really about the First Amendment,” the writers explain why people on both sides of the issue should fight the policy.
The idea may seem appealing to readers whose sympathies lie with California in this case, but it is nonetheless a recipe for widespread, ideologically motivated censorship. And that is not speculation; it is how this rule has played out. When government officials are given the power to regulate speech they deem professional, they abuse it — immediately and with unseemly zeal. Americans have strongly held and widely divergent opinions on the first issue. But if we are to preserve our ability to openly and honestly debate abortion rights — or any issue — we should all stand united on the second one.
Some liberals argue that the notices aren’t meant to compel speech but to stop any center from giving out “incomplete or misleading information.” But if it’s misleading information California’s worried about, why isn’t it policing Planned Parenthood? It’s the one that prides itself on hiding the truth about unborn children, abortion, and its lifelong effects. “That’s not a baby growing inside of you,” one abortion worker was caught telling an expectant mom.
The abortion movement is so intent on discrediting PRCs that it’s exposing its own hypocrisy. If anyone wants women to have the truth, it’s pro-lifers! Unlike Cecile Richards’s group, these centers tell moms what Planned Parenthood won’t: that there are ways of coping with unexpected pregnancies other than abortion. And unlike their competition, they don’t have a financial stake in the outcome.
“Planned Parenthood,” Cathy and Patrina point out, “is the largest abortion provider in the U.S., has revenues of well over a billion dollars annually and gets more than a half billion dollars from taxpayers every year. They have plenty of money to get out their pro-abortion message in any venue they want.” Pregnancy resource centers don’t have that luxury. They aren’t powered by millions of taxpayer dollars but by thousands of volunteers, each of whom is serving out of a passion for life, not financial gain.
Some people might be surprised to know that while Planned Parenthood is serving fewer women than ever, PRCs reach over 2.3 million people a year. As I told the people at yesterday’s Supreme Court rally, I’ve had the privilege of serving on the board of a pregnancy care center for more than 20 years. I’ve traveled the country helping these organizations raise money from God-fearing Americans. And this isn’t money that’s spent on political campaigns or candidates. It’s not money blown on flashy Hollywood appearances or fundraisers. It’s money that goes directly to ultrasound and medical services, options consulting and education, and even childbirth and parenting classes. Why would the government punish that kind of outreach? Why would it discriminate against loving and compassionate people whose only goal is to give women and children the best chance at life?
As President Trump’s attorneys made quite clear, “There are multiple alternative potential ways the state might pursue [this] without infringing petitioners’ speech, including advertising state-sponsored services itself.” No one should be compelled to speak a message against their beliefs — not cake bakers and not pregnancy resource centers. Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees on both counts!
For video of yesterday’s rally (including the screaming protestors!), see below.
Originally published here.
Vox Unhinged by Trump’s Cabinet
President Trump’s Cabinet (like America’s population) has a high percentage of Christians, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise when he nominates another. Tell that to the liberals at Vox, who are quite beside themselves to learn that Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick for secretary of state, is not only a Christian but actually thinks like one!
“That Pompeo is an evangelical Christian is, on its face, not particularly notable; 25 percent of Americans are,” Tara Isabella Burton writes. “But Pompeo’s specific brand of evangelical Christianity, with its insistence on seeing Muslim-Christian relations as an apocalyptic holy war, makes him an unnerving choice for such a senior foreign policy position.” Then, as if it were breaking news, she informs readers that Pompeo has told people, “Jesus Christ … is the only solution for our world.”
Conservatives poked their share of fun at the website for its shock. “Vox scoop: Mike Pompeo is a Christian,” one man joked on Twitter. “Local Christian is a Christian,” said another. “Follower of Christ says something followers of Christ typically say,” posted one. The jabs went on and on. One reader told the outlet that it might want to consider hiring an observant Christian so that it can spare itself this kind of embarrassment. “Um, this is just kind of mainstream Christian theology.”
But just because Christianity is mainstream doesn’t mean the far-Left has learned how to cope with it. We saw how Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) reacted when the president nominated other men and women of faith. While 80 percent of Democrats in Congress claim to be Christians, some of them have gotten quite comfortable checking those beliefs at the political door. And many would prefer conservatives did the same. There’s just one problem: That’s not how America is supposed to work.
Extremists will say Christians have three options: leave their faith at home, hide it, or have no faith. But that’s a religious test — the very kind our Founders specifically discouraged in Article VI of the Constitution. “No Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States,” it states — as clearly today as it did in 1787. Fortunately for Mike Pompeo, the American people are onto this strategy. After the unfair treatment of Russell Vought and Judge Amy Barrett, Vox’s warnings won’t be taken nearly as seriously as its underlying message that these anti-religion extremists are sending: Christians aren’t welcome in public service.
Originally published here.
Lake Causes Waves With Two-Gender Answer
Basic biology is something people should know before they get to college. Unfortunately for Lake Ingle, that wasn’t the case. When he tried to explain what should be common knowledge about men and women, he got a lesson in political correctness instead!
The class was Christian Theology. But Lake’s professor at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania seemed to know less about theology than basic science, if that’s possible. During a lecture called “Christianity 481: Self, Sin, and Salvation,” Ingle took issue with the video Alison Downie showed her class of a pastor who identifies as transgender. After it was finished, Downie asked the female students if they had any thoughts on the “reality” of “mansplaining,” “sexism from men,” and “male privilege.” When no one spoke up, Lake did. He explained that biologists agreed there are only two genders — infuriating the professor, who accused him of “disrespectful objection,” kicked him out of the class, and told him not to come back.
After she referred him to the campus’s Academic Integrity Board, Lake was informed by Provost Timothy Moerland, “You are barred from attending this class in accordance with the Classroom Disruption policy.” Ingle was astonished, telling Fox News that the fight isn’t over. “My professor is violating my First Amendment rights because of the fact that my views and ideology is different from hers. So she took it on herself to silence and embarrass me — bully me — for speaking up in class.” It’s my belief, he went on, “that every human being has the freedom and right to identify, dress, and represent oneself as they see fit. I think this is all an attempt to silence my views personally because they contradict the ones she pushes in class so evidently.”
The school’s disciplinary board was expected to rule on Lake’s case Monday. If he loses, Ingle won’t be able to graduate in May. That’s okay, he told reporters. It’s helped him to decide what he wants to with his life: educate. “When you see that kind of misuse of intellectual power, you want to be the person that comes back and does it responsibly and with morals,” Ingle said. “Instead of being the purveyor of your ideology, you can be a [professor].”
And another university is already lining up to make that goal a reality. Our good friend, Oklahoma Wesleyan President Dr. Everett Piper, wants to invite Lake to a campus where his views won’t be punished. “I’m officially offering Lake Ingle tuition waiver to take our version of ‘Christianity 481’ and other remaining coursework at @OKWUniv where we still teach biology and Christian orthodoxy.” Lake is already on board. “It would be an honor,” he said.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
