Dazed and Recused? ADF Files for New Judge in Sports Case
No one in the country is playing sports right now — but when they do, three brave high schoolers are trying to make sure the competitions they come back to are fair ones.
No one in the country is playing sports right now — but when they do, three brave high schoolers are trying to make sure the competitions they come back to are fair ones. But before the girls get a fair shake in track, they’ll have to get one in court. And based on this judge, they’d better not hold their breath.
It’s one of the biggest lawsuits in country: a trio of girls suing to stop biological boys from competing in their sports. But this case, which could hold the key to the future of Title IX, hasn’t exactly gotten off to a smooth start. Before arguments even began, the judge assigned to the case — Robert Chatigny — made it clear whose side he’s on.
Thanks to a phone transcript of a conference call, the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have pretty compelling evidence that Chatigny — a Clinton appointee — has already made up his mind. During a back-and-forth between the lawyers and judge, Chatigny insists, “What I’m saying is you must refer to them as ‘transgender females’ rather than as ‘males.’ Again, that’s the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client’s legitimate interests. Referring to these individuals as ‘transgender females’ is consistent with science, common practice, and perhaps human decency. To refer to them as ‘males,’ period, is not accurate… So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as ‘males,’ understood?”
Roger Brooks was stunned. After all, the entire point of the case is to prove that these boys are males — physically, genetically, and every other way — which is why it’s unfair for them to compete as females. “If I use the term ‘females’ to describe those individuals — and we’ve said in our opening brief, we’re happy to use their preferred names, because names are not the point to the case. Gender identity is not the point of this case. The point of this case is physiology of bodies driven by chromosomes and the documented athletic advantage that comes from a male body, male hormones, and male puberty, in particular. So, Your Honor, I do have a concern that I am not adequately representing my client, and I’m not accurately representing their position in this case as it has to be argued before Your Honor and all the way up if I refer to these individuals as ‘female,’ because that’s simply, when we’re talking about physiology, that’s not accurate, at least in the belief of my clients.”
Well, the judge said, “[I]f you feel strongly… [and] and do not want to want to comply with my order, then that’s unfortunate. But I’ll give you some time to think about it, and you can let me know if it’s a problem. If it is, gosh, maybe we’ll need to do something. I don’t want to bully you, but at the same time, I don’t want you to be bullying anybody else. Maybe you might need to take an application to the Court of Appeals. I don’t know. But I certainly don’t want to put civility at risk in this case.”
By using the boys’ actual genetic identity we are putting “civility at risk” now? That’s a pretty extreme position — not to mention the judge’s veiled threat about bullying. Even more shockingly, Chatigny had conceded that he thought biology was irrelevant to gender. And that science (no one is quite sure whose) elevates radical transgender ideology over basic human anatomy.
ADF, sensing the judge wasn’t capable of neutrality, filed a motion for Chatigny to recuse himself. “A disinterested observer would reasonably believe that the Court’s order and comments have destroyed the appearance of impartiality in this proceeding. That requires recusal. To be sure, the public debate over gender identity and sports is a heated and emotional one. This only increases the urgency that court preserve their role as the singular place in society where all can be heard and present facts before an impartial tribunal.”
While that’s being resolved, there is one view they don’t have to worry about: the administration’s. In March, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest on the girls’ behalf, warning that “equal athletic opportunity” was at risk. In a pluralistic society like ours, Attorney General William Barr admitted, “we generally try to accommodate how individuals desire to live their lives — up to the point where those desires impinge on the other people’s rights. Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports deprives women of the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in sports and is fundamentally unfair to female athletes.”
Originally published here.
Latest Surveys Show a Worldview of Difference
People are reading the Bible more than ever these days — and based on a new survey, they need to! Only six percent of adults in this country have what George Barna defines as a “biblical worldview” — a shocker of a statistic that has more Christians wondering, what on earth are parents and churches teaching?
He’s been in the business for more than 25 years — interviewing tens of thousands of people. And here’s one thing George Barna has learned: No one has a pure worldview. It doesn’t matter if their worldview is biblical, postmodernism, secular humanism, new age, mysticism, whatever it may be. To some degree, he says, “we all pick and choose things that make sense to us and feel good… [then] we wrap it all together in this unique package…” But the problem for Christians is, more and more of that package doesn’t include the black and white truth of God’s word.
As part of his American Worldview Inventory, Barna — who directs the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University — asks 51 different questions about what people believe and how they live out those beliefs. Then, he explained on “Washington Watch,” “we drill down.” He asks people things like how they would define success, what is our common purpose, or the ultimate reason for living. And what he found is, there’s really no dominant perspective. On success, about one in five said, “living and healthy, productive, and safe life.” Another 22 percent said, “being a good person.” About the same amount answered, “personal happiness and freedom.” Only 21 percent replied that success is “consistent obedience to God.”
These are startling statistics when you consider that roughly 70 percent of Americans identify as Christians — and yet most of them don’t seem to know their fundamental purpose on earth. “It kind of ties in to the other things we found in the research, as well,” George pointed out, “related to what they believe about God. We’re at a point where only 51 percent of Americans now have what you might call an orthodox biblical view about God — that is, describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the universe who is perfect and just and still rules that universe today.” When Barna asked them to agree with more statements — about God’s love, existence, who He is, and His involvement in everyone’s life — only 10 percent of the population lined up on all of them. Suddenly, he said, the six percent figure with a biblical worldview starts to make sense.
But what about the evangelical community — surely, that statistic is higher there? “It is,” George replied, “but not as high as you might think.” Even people going to Bible-believing churches don’t have much of an edge in the worldview department. Only 21 percent line up on the Barna scale — a dismal number that ought to be a wake-up call to every pastor and parent in America.
It all, George insists, “comes back to our households. Because, of course, it’s the parents’ job to be developing the worldview in their children. The church is there to support the parents in doing that — whether it’s through [children’s ministry] or how they prepare the parents to do that task through the teaching in the church… But really, the most significant thing is what we do with our children… Really, it’s those early years in life that are so critical.” Believe it or not, he went on, a person’s worldview starts developing at 15 to 18 months of age — and it’s almost completely developed by age 13. That’s not a lot of time, and we — as parents — aren’t the only influencers. There’s the media, their friends, teachers, public officials. They all help shape their thinking about right and wrong, purpose, God, and life.
It all goes back to what Scripture tells us: if we teach our children when they’re young, they’ll return to it. But they’re not going to return to that which they don’t know. That’s why it’s extremely critical that parents take the leading role — even in pre-school, kindergarten, and elementary school — in teaching them a biblical worldview and helping them integrate that faith with the world around them.
The bottom line, George insists, is: we can’t keep doing what we’ve been doing. “When we talk with senior pastors across the country about worldview, more than 80 percent say they’re doing a great job.” The evidence disagrees. “When we talk with parents, we find that less than five percent of parents of kids under 13 have a biblical worldview. They can’t get what they don’t have. So we’ve got to change our plan if we want a different outcome.” And for the sake of this generation — the sooner, the better.
Originally published here.
Hack to the Future: China’s Online War
What could be worse than not finding a vaccine? Having it stolen. And right now, in the race to find a coronavirus treatment, that might be the biggest threat of all. That’s why China isn’t just putting its best scientists on the job — it’s unleashing an army of cyberthieves to break into U.S. files and steal whatever progress America’s making. Turns out, the regime wasn’t just content infecting the world — they want to control who recovers first too.
The alerts went out across health care industries, academia, research teams, drug manufacturers: lock down your data. By late February, the U.S. cyber-intelligence and defense communities were getting more and more concerned. There’d been a huge spike in attacks on “sensitive data on COVID-19-related research” by foreign hackers at agencies like HHS. Both the American and U.K. governments sent out a bulletin warning groups that this was a full-scale assault on government agencies, hospitals, labs, and universities. “There is nothing more valuable today than biomedical research relating to vaccines or treatments for the coronavirus,” Jonathan Demers, the assistant attorney general for national security, pointed out. And it would be “beyond absurd,” he argued, to think that the Chinese Communist Party’s espionage would stop during the pandemic.
“It is safe to say," one official agreed, "that there are only two places in the world” — China and Russia — “that could hit (the Department of Health and Human Services) the way it’s been hit.” And it’s no wonder, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) pointed out. “In the middle of a pandemic, what’s the most valuable intellectual property in the world? It’s the research that our great laboratories and life science companies are doing on prophylactic drugs, therapeutic drugs, and ultimately a vaccine. ”[China] wants to be the country that claims credit for finding those drugs or finding a vaccine and then use it as leverage against the rest of the world.“
The vaccine will help millions of people, yes. But in China, what matters isn’t saving lives — it’s having power to lord over the rest of the world. Whoever can inoculate first — and reproduce it — won’t just have an economic advantage. They’ll have a geopolitical one. Scott Gottlieb, the former commissioner of the FDA, wrote a sobering column in the Wall Street Journal about the consequences of coming in second — not just for Americans but for the struggling countries who don’t have the resources to develop treatments of their own. "A more prepared U.S. could inoculate Americans quickly and share the product with others.”
Of course, Senator Cotton reminded listeners, China’s been trying to hack into our systems for years — trying to get a leg up on everything from military technology to agriculture. When it comes to the virus, “there’s no doubt that our scientists and medical researchers are world-leading in the field — better than China’s. Obviously, China is a communist, authoritarian government. Free inquiry and scientific research never flourishes in such a society. They are hacking in part because they need to. But if they can hack into a company or a leading laboratory university that is researching drugs or vaccines, and even if they haven’t developed [them], they can get a head start on [the data]… and corner the market.” That should scare everyone, he explained, because if America has it, we’ll share it. “I can’t say the same thing about China.”
On the bright side, Americans from both parties are starting to recognize what a pariah the Chinese government is. Senator Cotton believes it’s time ride that wave of momentum and start playing hardball. Roll back China’s economic power. Change our security infrastructure. Beef up defense. Bring back American companies. Manufacture our own drugs and products. “We ought not let them be a part of any industry that is vital for the security, prosperity, and help of the American people.”
Including our food supply. While people worry about the meat shortage here at home, our pork exports to China have more than quadrupled since mid-March. That’s because big-name brands like Smithfield Foods have been sold to the Chinese W.H. group. Our slaughterhouses are operating at half-capacity because of the virus, and we’re shipping whatever we do have to China. It’s absurd. But maybe now, on the brink of a meat crisis, Americans will finally start paying attention to these vulnerabilities. “Our food supply chain is one of our most vital national interests,” Senator Cotton shook his head, “and that we haven’t done enough to protect it…”
Like everything else, it all points to one thing: our need to distance — a heck of a lot more than six feet — from China.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
