TX Lives Up to Its Reputation— Now the Largest “Sanctuary City” for the Unborn

A federal judge has dismissed Planned Parenthood’s (PP) lawsuit seeking to invalidate an ordinance outlawing abortion in a major Texas city— arguing a “lack of jurisdiction.”

Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of TX, appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, tossed the lawsuit filed on behalf of the abortion provider against an ordinance banning abortion in the city of Lubbock.  “Because the ability to remedy a plaintiff’s injury through a favorable decision is a prerequisite to a plaintiff’s standing to sue — an ability absent here — the Court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction,” Hendrix said in his ruling, as reported by The Texas Tribune.

PP of Greater TX filed a lawsuit against Lubbock, asking a federal judge to declare the voter-approved ordinance outlawing most abortions within the city limits except for cases when a woman’s life is at risk unconstitutional.  The ruling comes after oral arguments were heard in Hendrix’s court during which he expressed reservations about the scope of his authority over the ordinance, The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal reported.

In response to Hendrix’s decision, the city of Lubbock released a statement acknowledging that “the City has reviewed the June 1 Court Order in the litigation challenging Lubbock’s Sanctuary City of the Unborn ordinance and is pleased with the result.”  Praising the judge’s “thorough and well-reasoned opinion,” the city vowed to “vigorously defend the ordinance in any litigation that may be filed.”

Hendrix’s ruling follows PP’s announcement that it will no longer perform abortions at its Lubbock facility.  In a statement released, PP of Greater TX— the TX affiliate of the nation’s largest abortion provider, which operates a clinic in the city, indicated that “Abortion services will be provided when legally permissible.”  The announcement comes after Lubbock’s abortion ban, approved by more than 62% of the city’s voters, went into effect— making the town of over 250,000 residents the largest “sanctuary city for the unborn” in the U.S.

The abortion provider chastised the ordinance for creating “significant barriers and the need to travel a minimum 600-mile round trip or out of state for patients seeking to obtain an abortion.”  “Due to the controversial ordinance passed on May 1, Lubbock residents are currently required to travel to access a safe, legal abortion,” said PP of Greater TX CEO Ken Lambrecht.  “This ban on abortions provides no exemptions, even in cases of rape or incest.  The ban on abortion violates patients’ constitutional right to an abortion and we’re in court to block this ban for Lubbock patients.”

PP opened up a clinic in Lubbock— the 11th largest city in TX— last year.  As the organization noted in its lawsuit, a “health center operated in Lubbock by a separate PP entity was forced to close” in 2013 “following the State’s imposition of a series of state funding cuts and abortion restrictions.”

Shortly after the abortion provider announced its intentions to open a new facility in Lubbock, Republican lawmakers representing the city in the TX state legislature urged Lubbock Mayor Dan Pope, also a Republican, to “take all necessary actions to prevent them from opening.”  Additionally, the lawmakers called on Pope to enact an ordinance making Lubbock a sanctuary city for the unborn.  When city officials unanimously opposed the idea, pro-life advocacy organizations successfully pushed to put the issue before the voters in a referendum, which passed on May 1.

While the overwhelming majority of the sanctuary cities for the unborn are located in TX, the movement has recently spread to other states.  In addition to two cities in Nebraska, Lebanon, OH, passed an ordinance declaring itself a sanctuary city for the unborn last month, making it the first city in the Buckeye State to enact the ban.  [read my blog of June 16, 2021]

Twenty-eight cities have declared themselves sanctuary cities for the unborn, and more than 3-dozen cities in TX and FL are considering banning abortion within the city limits.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

When the President Doesn’t Put Our Money Where His Month Is

If there is one reason why problems associated with race in America persist, it is because we pretend to address problems caused by one sin by exchanging them with other sins.

President Joe Biden recently issued a proclamation recognizing 100-years since the race massacre that occurred in the Greenwood District in Tulsa, OK, in 1921.  Greenwood was a wealthy black neighborhood— a center of black business, known as Black Wall Street— that was ravaged in two days of rioting by white racists.  It resulted in the death of hundreds and the loss of property of thousands.  It is, indeed, another tragic and painful memory of race relations in our nation’s history.

The proclamation issued by Biden states, “The federal government must reckon with and acknowledge the role that it has played in stripping wealth and opportunity from black communities.”  The problem is: the Biden Administration continues federal policies that damage black communities— while it pretends it is addressing the problems.

As a starter, let us consider that at the same time the president issued this proclamation, he sent an unprecedented $6-trillion federal budget to Congress that— for the first time ever— omits the longstanding Hyde Amendment.  [The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976 and named for its sponsor, IL Rep. Henry Hyde, prohibits use of federal funds to pay for abortion— except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.]  Every federal budget since the Hyde Amendment has included a rider with this provision— except this year’s— thanks to Biden and ‘demon-rats’ party.

So, while Biden issued one proclamation recalling the tragedy of a massacre of black Americans, he now wants new federal policy that would use federal funds to subsidize another massacre.

Abortion policy in our nation amounts to nothing short of a massacre of and tragedy for black Americans— born and unborn.  According to National Right to Life, 62.5-million unborn children have been destroyed in the womb since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand in 1973.

Per the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about one-third of all abortions are done on black babies.  Given this, we can estimate that since 1973, some 21-million black babies have been destroyed in the womb.

Despite the words in the president’s new proclamation— indicting the federal government in causing damage in black communities— this is exactly what he wants now: to bring the federal government in to fund the abortion massacre.

But the damage done by abortion to black Americans goes beyond this massacre of unborn black children.  It has tangible, damaging effects on the well-being of the black family.

Why, after all these years, do poverty rates persist so much higher, on average, in black communities compared with national averages?  Data shows a compelling correlation between family structure and incidence of poverty.

Per the Census Bureau’s “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019” report and per Statista, the incidence of living under poverty is more than four times higher for black families headed by a single woman than for black families headed by a married couple.  And 41% of black families are headed by a single woman.

Per data from Pew Research Center, in 1970, 3-years before the Roe v. Wade decision, around 10% of black adults over 25 had never been married.  By 2012, this had more than tripled, to 36%.  Abortion undermines the values of the traditional family.  And traditional family values provide the offramp from the cycle of poverty.

In the words of Star Parker, President of the Center for Urban Renewal & Education, “The persistence of problems in black communities stems from federal policies that pretend to fight the sin of racism with the sins of the destruction of life and family.  Now Biden not only wants to continue this destruction; he wants to use our tax dollars to subsidize it.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Fear and Honor

There is much confusion, of late, in understanding fear.

Fear comes in two basic forms:

The first side of fear controls by intimidation, retribution, and ruin.  When people fear something or someone in this manner, they bend their own principles and beliefs in hope of avoiding catastrophe and achieving mere survival.  Actions typical here include lying, cheating, and theft.  In other words, ignoring truth and reality in order to achieve a desired end goal, or avoid the honest work that would otherwise be required.  The goals found here are short-lived and very temporary.  An often heard statement would be— “I deserve it, even though I did not earn it.”— Or— “If I don’t do as ‘they’ say, I will lose …”  God says— “Hear Me, you who know what is right, you people who have My law in your hearts; do not fear the reproach of men or be terrified by their insults.” (Isaiah 51:7)

 

The second side of fear is found in the beautiful form also known as respect and honor.  Here, people understand the love and provision offered as for their real benefit.  Psalm 2:11 tells us to— “Serve the Lord with fear…” However, the results now include blessings, purity, and true knowledge (Psalm 19:9; 111:10; 128:1).  This fear respects and embraces the reality and love of God for us.  It replaces threat of ruin with the blessings of the Lord.  It replaces evil desires with the holy desires of God (Psalm 37:4).  If God gives the desires, then they are His holy desires.

In the May 2021 edition of WorldNetDaily’s monthly Whistleblower magazine, no less than seventeen or so examples are enumerated that the current Biden Administration has been using to rule and govern through the ugly side of fear.  Editor David Kupelian writes— “Team Biden has done its very best to keep Americans in a constant state of fear and confusion.”  As an example, he highlights the use of the magic word COVID. “… the Biden Administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress are pushing astronomical spending bills, the Democrat-socialist wish lists, and a never-ending stream of perverse, reckless, revolutionary, unconstitutional, corrupt and just plain stupid initiatives.”

Another consequence of all of these policies is now raising its ugly head.  The glut or need for workers is being seen throughout the country as businesses have jobs to offer, but a workforce that is unwilling to work.  Greed and laziness are part of this.  People are opting to stay at home and collect “free money” from the government rather than go back to work and earn respectable wages.  “I can collect more by doing nothing” is a common phrase.  This philosophy not only promotes laziness and greed, but it also supports the notion that higher minimum wages are expected and deserved.

As Christians it is needful for us to be willing to stand against the ugly side of fear and stand in respect and honor of that which God offers.  Psalm 147:11 tells us that— “the Lord delights in those who fear Him.”  Further, Isaiah writes— “In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear … Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you … whoever attacks you will surrender to you.” (Isaiah 54:14-15)

Be encouraged that the Lord drives out fear (1 John 4:18), and “Blessed are all who fear the Lord, who walk in His ways.  You will eat the fruit of your labor; blessings and prosperity will be yours.” (Psalm 128:1)

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Think Before You Speak

Proverbs 16:23 says— “The hearts of the wise make their mouths prudent, and their lips promote instruction.”  This proverb reminds all of us that we ought to think with humility before we speak.  This wisdom becomes especially important for public figures— whose words weigh heavily on the public consciousness.  To be called “out of touch” is a quintessential insult.  Unfortunately, it is an accusation that could be leveled at any one of us.

Perhaps Prince Harry can be excused for having lost his mother at a young age; but, surely, his father (or the monarchy) should have taught him— Think before you speak!

Given this information, it is unsurprising that Prince Harry ignited a firestorm on both sides of the pond when he said:

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers, I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here [USA] a short time.  But, you can find a loophole in anything.  You can capitalize or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said.  I believe we live in an age now where you’ve got certain elements of the media redefining to us what privacy means.  There’s a massive conflict of interest.”

This comment incited negative responses across the board— from Republican Representative Dan Crenshaw to Brexit leader Nigel Farage.  Their general consensus was summed up by the words of Farage— “For Prince Harry to condemn the USA’s First Amendment shows he has lost the plot.  Soon he will not be wanted on either side of the pond.”

Most of us see the irony in Harry using the freedom of speech to criticize the First Amendment that protects it.  Sadly, he does not.  How could he?  He comes from a country that has banned the “hate speech” that United States courts have refused to prohibit under the First Amendment.

In contrast to the United States, the United Kingdom has passed laws like Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), which makes it illegal to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress.”

Given Harry’s diminishing role as a member of the British monarchy, insensitive comments like this are seen as a social sin— because they are perceived as the result of a lack of self-awareness.  Consider Galatians 6:3 which says— “If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves.”  What many found especially galling about Harry’s comment was the fact that he felt it was an issue on which he could legitimately comment.

We can all learn from this incident by keeping in mind that we should not speak thoughtlessly or from a position of ignorance— especially when we occupy positions of public scrutiny.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel 

The Biblical Case for Intellectual Property

Although the Bible is rarely used to engage in political theory, it is clear from reading the text that the Torah cared a lot about property rights.

Take Deuteronomy 19:14— “Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess” or Exodus 22:1— “Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.”

Commentaries on the former verse indicate that it was a means of discouraging people from encroaching on one another’s livelihood.  This latter verse points to the fact that stealing an ox required greater boldness from the thief and had a greater impact on the economic status of the victim.  Consequently, it carried heavier penalties than the theft of other livestock.

In short, both verses recognize two principles that were clearly considered part of Jewish law:

1) that landowners had a protected right to earn a livelihood with their private property, and

2) the amount of effort coupled with the economic impact of a theft increased the penalty associated with the crime.

The reason for this extensive discussion is simple: It establishes that the Torah protects property rights.

President Joe Biden made an unprecedented move in May to express public support of a waiver of patent rights for COVID-19 vaccines.  This announcement comes after nations like India and South Africa pressured the United States to release the biotechnology that made the vaccines possible to the rest of the world.

Before Biden’s announcement, Albert Bourla, the Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, sent a letter to the United States Trade Representative noting that:

“I worry that waiving of patent protection will disincentivize anyone else from taking a big risk … The recent rhetoric will not discourage us from continuing investing in science.  But I am not sure if the same is true for the thousands of small biotech innovators that are totally dependent on accessing capital from investors who invest only on the premise that their intellectual property will be protected.”

The observations of Mr. Bourla reflect the reasons for which the Torah sensibly punished infringements on property rights.  Although the idea of waiving intellectual property rights is ostensibly being peddled on the basis of altruism, it is misguided.

“Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions” is a quotation famously attributed to American-English poet T.S. Eliot.  While one might imagine there are good intentions behind the idea of waiving the intellectual property rights assigned to companies like Pfizer, there is a reason the Godly wisdom of the Bible protects rights to property.

If Biden’s push for the waiver of intellectual property rights succeeds, not only will the companies who developed the vaccines have their livelihoods impacted, the effect will be catastrophic.  No other company will be incentivized to take the risk of developing pharmaceuticals if their rights to their ideas will be revoked.  This move will surely have a far worse impact on humanity than the minor “harm” caused by the cost of vaccines sold on the free market.  

As the Torah indicates, private businessmen have the right to protect the source of their livelihood and the enormous economic implications of denying their intellectual property rights makes this protection all the more important.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

University Discrimination for a Student’s Beliefs is Vindicated

Florida State University (FSU) has settled a religious freedom lawsuit on behalf of former student Jack Denton, who was discriminated against for sharing his faith in a private student club chat.  Denton served as the Student Senate president at FSU.  Prior to this role, he was actively involved in student government.  He shared his Catholic faith with his peers— many of whom he considered friends— in a private chat.

The conversation debated the ethicality of Black Lives Matter and organizations like ACLU as they relate to Catholic beliefs.  Denton held that the groups advocate for beliefs contrary to Catholic teachings.  His private messages were shared on social media— at which time the words spoken in love and concern were misrepresented and taken out of context.  He was then removed from his office and forced to undergo religious tests.

One user wrote of Denton’s views, “I am disgusted that other Catholics are attempting to stand behind him with his outdated and extreme cult mindset.  Those who choose not to denounce Jack Denton tonight should expect the same action and scrutiny from the entire community moving forward.”

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)— the Christian nonprofit advocacy group— took Denton’s case to court, after the FSU failed to address the violation of Denton’s First Amendment rights.  “Public universities can’t single out and punish students for their religious beliefs,” said ADF legal counsel Logan Spena.  “We are pleased that Florida State has finally affirmed its commitment to students’ First Amendment rights on campus. All students should be able to peacefully share their personal convictions without fear of retaliation.”

ADF pressured FSU to reinstate Denton as Senate president while the case was investigated and brought to court.  The university complied in October, 2020.  The university also agreed to issue a statement under the settlement agreement that affirms the school’s intention to protect their students’ First Amendment rights, as well as restoring Denton’s lost wages, covering attorney’s fees, and issuing $10,000 in damages to him.

“Today’s college students are our future legislators, judges and voters.  That’s why it’s so important that public universities model the First Amendment values they’re supposed to be teaching students,” said ADF senior counsel Tyson Langhofer— Director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom.  “Student governments should be encouraging and respecting robust debate and ideas, not silencing and punishing students for expressing their beliefs.  We are encouraged that the university has finally reached the right conclusion.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

A ‘Sanctuary City for the Unborn’

The Lebanon City Council, whose city has a population of about 20,000, voted recently to pass Ordinance 2021-053— which bans abortion in the community.  The meeting had a packed crowd, with several locals speaking for and against the ordinance before Councilman Doug Shope, who sponsored the proposal, spoke about the measure.

“We had been talking about some of the ridiculous sanctuary city things that have been done in other parts of the country,” said Shope— citing, as an example, sanctuary cities for those who entered the United States illegally.  “Wouldn’t it be great if we had a sanctuary for the unborn?”

Councilwoman Krista Wyatt, who opposed the ordinance, resigned from the city council in advance of the vote, denouncing the political climate of the local government.  “Multiple Republicans have reached out to me to indicate while they do not support abortion, they do not feel it should be made into local legislation that conflicts with state and federal laws,” said Wyatt, as reported by Fox 19.  “There is a core group of people who have hijacked the council to force their personal, political and religious views on the entire citizenship of Lebanon.  It is not fair to the citizens and is not the role of a city council member to be a moral compass.”

Created Equal— a pro-life group that helped Shope get in touch with the group Sanctuary City for the Unborn to craft the ordinance— celebrated the result of the city council vote.  “Ohio is once again taking the lead to protect children, and more cities are joining this movement every week,” stated Mark Harrington, President of Created Equal, in an emailed statement.

The Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) denounced the ordinance, and in advance of the vote threatened legal action against Lebanon.  “This hyper-local strategy is another attempt by antiabortion extremists to stigmatize and ban abortion in Ohio, by whatever means necessary,” stated Freda Levenson, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio.  “Anti-abortion politicians in Lebanon have no business interfering in people’s lives and healthcare.  We will do everything in our collective power to ensure this effort is dead on arrival.”

More than 20-cities in Texas and two cities in Nebraska have passed similar ordinances to protect the unborn.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel 

Equality Act— A “Clear & Present Danger” to Religious Freedom

Earlier this year, the Democrat-led U.S. House of Representatives passed the pro-LGBTQ bill by the narrow margin of 224-206.  The controversial bill— backed by President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and numerous other Democratic leaders— amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in the list of protected classes in education, employment, and public places.  The measure has been with the Senate Judiciary Committee since mid-March.

Freedom of conscience would be out the window says Ken Starr— a former federal judge and President of Baylor University from 2010-2016.  He warns that the Equality Act (H.R. 5) is at the “very top” of his fears about the erosion of religious freedom in America.  “If enacted, the Equality Act would quash conscientious objections on the part of faith-based individuals,” Starr told Christian Headlines.  “... I view the Equality Act as a clear and present danger to something that is foundational to our constitutional order, our religious liberty— and that is freedom of conscience.  The coercive powers of the government are going to be boldly expanded if the Equality Act is passed into law.”

Starr says that it is not only imperative for laypeople to “speak into the culture effectively,” but for all Americans to be aware of the legal and political battle for religious liberty that is currently being waged against the anti-Christian mandates of the Biden Administration.  And should the Equality Act become law, Star argues religious liberty will become increasingly rare— as one’s faith will no longer be protected in many legal matters.

“The text of the Equality Act explicitly forbids individuals from using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to sue based on claims within the Equality Act,” explained Christian Headlines, which noted that senators were told that the proposed law would close or punish thousands of religious organizations.  “That law— signed by President Clinton— prevents the government from ‘substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion.’ ”

The dignity and respect enforcement of the pro-LGBTQ law would make it illegal for Christian business owners to deny services that compromise their faith— such as a Christian baker refusing to make an LGBTQ-themed wedding cake celebrating homosexual behavior that is condemned in the Bible as immoral.  “It would mean that individuals such as Jack Phillips, the famous Lakewood, CO, baker who could not in conscience create— using his artistry, his creative powers— a cake to celebrate a non-traditional wedding … it means he loses – he's out,” Starr explained.  “That’s just a single and simple and understandable example of what it would mean for RFRA not to apply.”

Starr contends that even though a series of pro-LGBT rulings have been issued over the past years by the U.S. Supreme Court, he is confident that the conservative-majority bench— thanks to three appointments by former President Donald Trump— will find the right balance and protect religious liberty … even as Biden ponders stacking the court with liberal appointments.  “It can be done— it can be done by saying, of course, every person should be treated with dignity and respect,” the advocate of religious liberty assured.  “And so, let’s use the bakery example again— the LGBTQ customer should come in, be treated with dignity and respect just like anyone else, to be able to buy anything in the store.”  However, he maintains that a Christian baker should not be compelled to create or celebrate something that runs contrary to his or her religious beliefs.  “Respect the views and dignity of all persons,” Starr impressed.  “Don’t use the coercive powers of the government to quash the expression that is informed by freedom of conscience.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Nigeria ‘Killing Field’ of Christians

Eight Christians were killed and a church was burned down on May 19th— during an attack by gunmen in the Chikun area of Kaduna State of Nigeria.

International Christian Concern (ICC), a persecution watchdog, reports Samuel Aruwan, the Kaduna State Commissioner for Internal Security and Home Affairs, confirmed the report in a statement to the media.  Aruwan said “bandits” also burned down several homes during the attack, which consisted of unknown gunmen shooting sporadically at civilians.

As CBN News has reported, these “bandits” or “unknown gunmen” are often radical Muslims who target Christians in their relentless attacks on villages across the West African country.

In another unrelated incident, The Premium Times newspaper reports Nigerian Navy troops stationed in the Kujama General Area killed three bandits and arrested two accomplices after repelling an attack on Wakwodna community, near Kasso village, Chikun Local Government Area.  According to the Kaduna state government, the naval troops responded to reports of an attack on the village.  The gunmen fled into the surrounding jungle when confronted by the troops, abandoning several rustled cattle. The cattle were rounded up by the troopers and returned to their owners.

“Two locals who were injured in the exchange were evacuated for medical attention,” Aruwan said.

Nasiru el-Rufai, Governor of Kaduna State, was informed about the attack on the village and expressed his sympathies to the families of the victims, according to the newspaper. The governor also condemned the attack on the church building and directed the State Emergency Management Agency to respond to the needs of the villagers.  He also commended the Nigerian Naval troops for their swift response against the gunmen.

Recently, in The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) 2021 Annual Report, Commissioner Gary L. Bauer described Nigeria as a “killing field” of Christians, and warns that the nation is moving toward a Christian genocide.  “All too often this violence is attributed to mere ‘bandits’ or explained away as hostility between farmers and herdsmen,” Bauer wrote.  “While there is some truth in these assertions, they ignore the main truth: radical Islamists are committing violence inspired by what they believe is a religious imperative to ‘cleanse’ Nigeria of its Christians.  They must be stopped.”

According to the rights group Intersociety Rule of Law, 1,470 Christians were murdered and over 2,200 were abducted by radical Islamists in Nigeria during the first four months of 2021.  Of the 1,470 Christians murdered, 800 of those were killed by the Muslim Fulani Herdsmen, according to the group’s report.  The rights group included a 26-page reference in their report citing backup statistics which aided their findings, along with eyewitness testimonies and survivor stories.  The report also says that despite the Nigerian government’s insistence that violence in the country is due to “herder-farmer clashes” and has no real religious motives, an extensive investigation concludes otherwise.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Biden Outspending Obama in Tax Funded Abortions

President Joe Biden has funneled nearly 20 times as much taxpayer money to the abortion industry as Barack Obama had at this point in his presidency— according to an analysis by a leading pro-life organization.

In office for only four months, Biden has directed almost $500-billion in federal funding to the abortion industry through legislation and executive action— in some cases bypassing longstanding restrictions that prevented taxpayer dollars from directly paying for abortion. Of that total, up to $386.7-billion could directly fund abortion, according to the Family Research Council (FRC)— a Washington-based organization focused on traditional values.  This puts Biden on course to be the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history, said Connor Semelsberger, Director of Federal Affairs for Life & Human Dignity at FRC— which did the analysis.  “If you look at the four years of the Trump Administration, more was done for the pro-life movement in his four years than under eight years of the Bush Administration to advance pro-life policies,” Semelsberger told The Daily Signal.  “Now, the Biden Administration is on track to surpass the Obama Administration’s eight years on pro-abortion policies.”

The stimulus bill Biden signed in March exempted $459-billion from long-standing restrictions on taxpayer money going directly to abortion.  This included language from the Hyde Amendment that prevents tax dollars for domestic abortions and the Helms Amendment that prevents tax dollars for abortions abroad.  Biden and congressional Democrats promoted the $1.9-trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP) as COVID-19 relief legislation.  Language such as the Hyde and Helms amendments— imposed years earlier by Congress— didn’t prevent taxpayers’ money from going to the abortion industry.  But Planned Parenthood (PP) previously could not use the federal funds for abortion— and could target it only for other health care or overhead issues.  Exempting spending from these restrictions allows tax dollars to be used directly for abortions.

“The ARP contains an astounding range of funding streams that lack pro-life protections,” said Melanie Israel, a policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation— the parent organization of The Daily Signal.  “For funding both foreign and domestic, the legislation failed to retain the various pro-life policy riders typically attached to federal spending measures to explicitly prohibit abortion funding and abortion coverage in federal programs,” Israel said.

During the debate over the ARP, Reps. Jackie Walorski (IN-R), Cathy McMorris (WA-R), and Virginia Foxx (NC-R) offered an amendment similar to the Hyde Amendment— to prevent the bill from funding abortions.  This amendment gained 203 co-sponsors, but was voted down by the House’s Democratic majority.

“On top of the ARP, the Biden Administration is currently working to rescind the Trump Administration’s pro-life protections for the Title X family planning program,” Israel told The Daily Signal.  “Planned Parenthood walked away from the program over the Trump Administration’s pro-life policies.  If this regulation is finalized, Planned Parenthood will once again have access to millions in federal family planning funds.”

In addition to spending in the “stimulus” bill, Biden’s executive actions have provided another $12.1-billion to the abortion industry.  Most recently, a $10-million forgivable loan through the Paycheck Protection Program went to PP of Greater New York, and another $850,000 loan through the program went to PP Keystone in Warminster, PA.  During the pandemic, however, PP clinics throughout the USA also got such loans during the Trump Administration.

In breaking down the $459-billion for abortion included in Biden’s stimulus bill, the FRC cites several funding avenues, including direct funding for abortions and money for abortion lobbying overseas.  Funds from the ARP that could be used to pay for abortion directly include $350-billion for state and local governments that don’t have guardrails against funding abortions.  This money is tilted toward blue states such as California and New York, according to FRC.  As passed, the ARP also includes $8.5-billion that could be used to fund PP; $7.6-billion for public health workers; and $7.6-billion for community health centers.

FRC notes that about $704-million could subsidize abortions overseas.  This includes $500-million in humanitarian grants to the United Nations that lack Helms Amendment protections to prevent the U.N. from using the money to pay for abortions.  Moreover, about $10-billion could be used overseas to lobby in favor of abortion.  The bulk of that, $8.7-billion, is aimed at contraception and sterilization and could go to entities such as International PP Federation and MSI Reproductive Choices, according to FRC.

At home, $81.7-billion will go to health plans that cover abortion and $50-million to the Title X family planning program that could be directed to PP and other abortion businesses that previously withdrew because of the Trump Administration’s pro-life changes.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responded to inquiries for this report.  PP Federation of America also did not respond to a request for comment.

Biden’s executive actions also opened up $12.1-billion in funding for abortion— mostly outside the USA.

Two days into office, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris issued a statement marking the 48th anniversary of the SCOTUS’s Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand in every state.  They said: “In the past four years, reproductive health, including the right to choose, has been under relentless and extreme attack.  We are deeply committed to making sure everyone has access to care— including reproductive health care— regardless of income, race, ZIP code, health insurance status, or immigration status.”  The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.

On Jan. 28, Biden signed an executive order rescinding a Trump Administration policy (Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance) that prohibited tax dollars from going to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion.  Biden’s executive order also withdrew the U.S. from the Geneva Consensus Declaration— a U.S.-led agreement among 34-countries that declared abortion is not an international human right and shouldn’t be promoted as a method of family planning.  The order took steps to resume funding for the United Nations Population Fund— which promotes abortion.

In April, the HHS Office of Population Affairs published a proposed rule to rescind the Trump Administration’s Protect Life Rule governing Title X by the end of the year.  This was in response to Biden’s Jan.28 executive order.  That same month, the Food and Drug Administration stopped enforcing federal regulations that require chemical abortion pills to be dispensed in person.  Also in April, the National Institutes of Health announced plans to repeal a Trump Administration policy restricting taxpayer funding for research using tissue from aborted babies.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Democrats Threaten to ‘Pack the Court’

Democrats are vowing that any action by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to alter the legal precedent on abortion will add “fuel” to the push among some in their party to add seats to the nation’s highest court.

Congressional Democrats issued the warning after the SCOTUS announced that it would decide on the constitutionality of Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban by hearing the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  [read my blog posting of May 28, 2021]  The state of Mississippi is asking the court to review a lower court decision finding that the ban on abortions more than 15-weeks into a pregnancy is unconstitutional.

Democrats fear that with the SCOTUS consisting of six justices appointed by Republican presidents and three justices appointed by Democratic presidents, the justices could uphold the pro-life state law— thereby striking a blow to the longstanding SCOTUS precedent in Roe v. Wade [in 1973] establishing the right to obtain an abortion nationwide.

According to The Hill, Senators Richard Blumenthal (CT-D) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI-D), are among the lawmakers promising to push for changes to the SCOTUS— if the nearly half-century-old court decision is overturned.  “It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles,” Blumenthal said.  “It’s already driving that movement.”

Calls for adding more justices to the SCOTUS— an idea derided by critics as “court packing”— have grown considerably since the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as an Associate Justice shortly before the 2020 presidential election.  Barrett’s confirmation caused particular outrage because she replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg— a figure beloved by progressives.

Additionally, Democrats have accused Republicans of hypocrisy because they blocked the confirmation of Merrick Garland, who then-President Barack Obama nominated to the SCOTUS in 2016— his final year in office.  At the time, Republicans argued that because it was a presidential election year, voters should have the opportunity to decide who (between candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump) they wanted to pick the next SCOTUS justice.  In 2020, Democrats maintained that Republicans did not give voters the same opportunity.

Last month, congressional Democrats introduced a bill to increase the number of justices on the SCOTUS from nine to 13.  If passed, the legislation would nullify the effect of the nominally 6-3 conservative majority— by giving President Joe Biden the opportunity to appoint four new justices to the bench.  However, the legislative effort to increase the size of the SCOTUS has gained little traction— as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA-D) has said that she will not bring the legislation up for a vote.

A poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy, Inc. on behalf of the conservative religious liberty law firm First Liberty Institute, found that 68% of Americans opposed the generic addition of justices to the SCOTUS compared to 27% who supported the idea.

While the American people as a whole gave the proposal of “court packing” a cool reception, Democrats were split on the idea— with 50% expressing support for it.  When asked specifically about the legislation introduced by congressional Democrats to add four seats to the SCOTUS, 65% of respondents opposed the bill while 31% supported it. A supermajority of Democrats (63%) indicated their support for the proposal, while the overwhelming majority of Republicans (95%) expressed disapproval of the effort.

Although prominent progressives have wholeheartedly embraced court-packing, some liberals, including the late Ginsburg herself, have expressed hesitancy about altering the composition of the highest court in the land.  In 2019, Ginsburg weighed in on the push to add justices to the SCOTUS, which was much more subdued at the time.  “If anything would make the court appear partisan it would be that,” she asserted.  “One side saying when we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to.  So I am not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation.”

Stephen Breyer, the (now) longest-serving liberal justice on the SCOTUS, echoed his late colleague’s concerns.  He warned about the implications of court-packing at Harvard Law School recently, urging “those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes such as forms of court-packing to think long and hard before they embody those changes in law.”  Stressing the need to preserve the court’s reputation as “guided by legal principle, not politics,” Breyer emphasized that “structural altercation motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that trust.”

As progressives in Congress advocate for legislation to increase the size of the SCOTUS outright, Biden signed an executive order establishing a Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, a bipartisan group of constitutional scholars and retired judges that will look at the feasibility of possible reforms to the court.  The commission will report its findings to the president after 180-days.

Blumenthal pointed to expanding the SCOTUS as one of many potential remedies that advocates of a “seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court” would seek to implement in the wake of a hypothetical court decision “chipping away at Roe v. Wade.”  Other potential reforms floated by Blumenthal include “making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain number of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”  Whitehouse listed other potential reforms to the SCOTUS that could follow a rollback of Roe v. Wade— specifically expressing a desire to require “proper disclosure and transparency” of the “gifts, travel and hospitality” received by the judges as well as “people who are behind front-group amicus curiae briefs” that were “funding the political advertisements for the last three judges, writing $15-million and $17-million checks.”

Even as the SCOTUS has yet to hear arguments in the case surrounding the Mississippi abortion law, Whitehouse is working to raise awareness about what he claims is the takeover of the court by special interest groups.  Recently, Whitehouse announced that he was “starting a new series of Senate floor speeches (with a brand-new chart) exposing the scheme by right-wing donor interests to capture the SCOTUS and achieve through the court’s power what they cannot through other branches of government.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

HHS Secretary Denies Laws Banning Partial-Birth Abortions

The top U.S. health official denied the existence of a federal law that bans partial-birth abortions nationwide during a congressional hearing last week— receiving criticism from a prominent pro-life activist organization.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-R), asked Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra during a House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee hearing if the Biden Administration would uphold legislation banning partial-birth abortion. Bilirakis also asked Becerra, if he believed the practice was illegal.

“We will continue to make sure we follow the law.  With due respect, there is no medical term like ‘partial-birth abortion,’ and so I would probably have to ask you what you mean by that to describe what is allowed by law,” Becerra said.  “Roe v. Wade is very clear.  It [set a] precedent that a woman has a right to make decisions about her reproductive health and we will make sure that we enforce the law and protect those rights.”

When Bilirakis asked (again) if he agreed with the law banning partial-birth abortion, Becerra responded that “there is no law that deals specifically with the term ‘partial-birth abortion.’  We have clear precedent in the law on the rights that women have to reproductive health care.”

When further questioned on the topic by Rep. John Joyce (PA-R), Becerra said that his question “is not so much with the term partial-birth abortion, [it] is with what the rights are of the woman … I will make sure we are providing women with the protections they need on their reproductive rights.”  He further argued that while the term partial-birth abortion is “recognized in politics, it is not a medically recognized term.”  “Perhaps if you were to talk about what you probably know as dilation and extraction, which is a procedure used by OB-GYNs like my wife to care for a woman who is having a difficult pregnancy where there is a chance the fetus will not survive, then we can talk about that,” said Becerra.  “But what I am saying to you is that under the law, a physician or any provider of healthcare must make sure that he or she abides by the law.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of leading pro-life advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement that Becerra has no excuse to “plead ignorance” on the partial-birth abortion topic and said his avoidance of the question was a “shameless lie.”  “During his confirmation hearings, Xavier Becerra dodged questions about his stance on partial-birth abortion— when an unborn child is partially delivered and then killed— deflecting with repeated claims that he would ‘follow the law’ as head of HHS,” Dannenfelser said in a statement— “Now the top health official in America, Becerra outright denies the existence of a law banning partial-birth abortion since 2003.”

Becerra voted against the bill when it passed in the House in 2003 by a vote of 231 to 142.  Because of that, Dannenfelser argues that “Becerra can hardly plead ignorance on this topic.”  Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld the law in 2007. “This shameless lie is standard for the most radical pro-abortion administration in history,” she contends.  “It should not be hard to recognize that partially delivering a baby and then suctioning his or her brain is not only illegal, but utterly inhumane.”

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, signed by President George W. Bush, prohibits physicians from “deliberately and intentionally” performing partial-birth abortions.  The legislation argues that a “moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion … is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.”  In a partial-birth abortion, the physician will partially deliver a child and killing it before the full delivery from the mother.  The law describes partial-birth abortion as “an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child’s body until either the entire baby’s head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby’s trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb.”  The bill states that the “overt act” “usually” results in the “puncturing of the back of the child’s skull and removing the baby’s brains.”

In a Senate hearing in February, Sen. Mitt Romney (UT-R), asked Becerra why he voted against the partial-birth abortion ban.  “Most people would agree that partial-birth abortion is awful,” Romney said.  Becerra responded by saying that he understands that people have “different deeply-held beliefs on this issue, and I respect that.”  “I understand that we may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find some common ground on these issues,” he said.  “Everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you are going to live a healthy life.”  “I think we can reach common ground on many issues, but on partial-birth abortion it sounds like we’re not going to reach common ground there,” Romney responded.

At the time, Sen. Mike Braun (IN-R) asked Becerra if the Biden Administration would commit to not using tax dollars to fund abortions.  “We will follow the law when it comes to the use of federal resources,” he said.  

Dannenfelser, who served as the co-chair of the 2016 Trump campaign’s pro-life coalition, argued that “Becerra’s responses further reveal the extremism of Biden-Harris Democrats.”

Carol Tobias, President of National Right to Life, said, “Becerra’s answers were disingenuous, evasive at best.”

“The members’ attempts to have Secretary Becerra clarify his stance on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act were more revealing of the Secretary’s position than the Secretary’s ambiguous answers during his Senate confirmation hearings,” Tobias said in a statement.  “As a member of Congress, Secretary Becerra voted against passage of the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.  The law passed and was found to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

New Gender Identity Policy Could Force Health Pros to Violate Conscience

The Biden Administration’s new policy— redefining sex— puts doctors at risk, says President Terry Schilling of the American Principles Project (APP).

The Biden Administration has announced that it would reinterpret “sex” in the context of health care anti-discrimination laws to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”— reversing a Trump Administration policy that defined “sex” as gender assigned at birth.

“Make no mistake,” Schilling said, “the policy announced by Health & Human Services (HHS) today is not about ‘fix[ing] a broken bone’ or ‘screen[ing] for cancer risk.’  No American was being denied access to these treatments for identifying as ‘LGBTQ.’ Rather, this policy is really about forcing hospitals and medical professionals to adhere to leftist ideology regarding sexuality and gender— and in particular to provide sex-change procedures to all comers, including children.”

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will interpret Section 1557 and Title IX prohibitions on discrimination based on sex to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and on the basis of gender identity, HHS announced in a memo.  “The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has made clear that people have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex and receive equal treatment under the law— no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.  That’s why today HHS announced it will act on related reports of discrimination,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement.  “Fear of discrimination can lead individuals to forgo care— which can have serious negative health consequences,” Becerra said.  “It is the position of HHS that everyone— including LGBTQ people— should be able to access health care, free from discrimination or interference, period.”

Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine also said in a statement that HHS seeks to “enhance the health and well-being of all Americans.”  “All people need access to healthcare services to fix a broken bone, protect their heart health, and screen for cancer risk,” Levine said.  “No one should be discriminated against when seeking medical services because of who they are.”

President Schilling (APP) told The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) that though Levine and Becerra paint the HHS move as one “all about lifesaving care for transgender people,” the HHS announcement is merely “a way for the federal government to use its full weight and coercion to do the most controversial aspects of the gender identity stuff, which is gender transitions for minors.”  “There’s not some rash across the country where gay people are going in to get their broken arm fixed and the doctor is like, ‘Oh, sorry, you’re gay. I’m not helping you,’” Schilling said.  “We would know about those cases immediately.”

Schilling presented DCNF with a hypothetical scenario in which parents take a child diagnosed with gender dysphoria to a doctor that does mastectomies.  The doctor finds out that the child doesn’t have breast cancer, that the child is a 15-year-old girl who is gender dysphoric, Schilling suggested.  If that doctor doesn’t perform the surgery, the parents can sue the doctor on civil rights grounds, Schilling said.  He also noted that this scenario could play out similarly for doctors who have an issue prescribing puberty blockers to kids who wish to begin transitioning.  “Those doctors are also at risk,” Schilling said. “It’s basically forcing doctors to do off-label treatment for gender dysphoria, and it’s a total nightmare.”

The new policy reverses a June 2020 Trump-era rule that had defined “sex” as gender assigned at birth and clarified that sex discrimination does not include abortion when it comes to health care and coverage.

The former Obama Administration had redefined sex discrimination in 2016 to include abortion and gender identity— defined as “one’s internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

Under the Trump-era policy, HHS returned to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination “according to the plain meaning of the word ‘sex’ as male or female and as determined by biology.”  “HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress,” Roger Severino, former director of OCR, said in June 2020.  “We are unwavering in our commitment to enforcing civil rights in health care.”

The Biden Administration’s new interpretation will guide OCR in conducting investigations and processing complaints, an HHS press release said, but will not “itself determine the outcome in any particular case or set of facts.”  HHS also noted that “OCR will comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel