VT Christian School Appeals Punishment for Affirming ‘that Boys Are Boys and Girls Are Girls’

In the fight over allowing biological males in women’s sports, a Christian school in Vermont (VT) finds itself in court — again.  Last year, Mid Vermont Christian School accused the Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA), the “governing body for high school sports and activities for the state’s 300 public and private secondary schools,” and VT state officials of religious discrimination for kicking them out of the state sports league after refusing to compete against a biological male in girls’ basketball.  In response to Mid Vermont’s religious freedom complaint, “U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford denied [the school’s] request for a preliminary injunction in June, ruling that the school was unlikely to prevail on the merits.”

Fast forward to last week, when The Washington Times reported the school has once again pressed the issue by asking “the appeals court in the Friday filing for a preliminary injunction reinstating its membership in the association pending the outcome of litigation.”

This case came about as a direct response to the violation of Mid Vermont’s conscience rights, as well as their concerns over safety and fairness in girls’ sports.  As a result, the school was “initially barred from participating in all activities,” The Times added.  And while little progress has been made, “last month, the school and the association reached an agreement allowing the school to participate in non-athletic coed activities, including the Vermont State Spelling Bee, the Vermont Geo-Bee, and the Vermont Mathematics and Science Fairs.”

Despite this agreement, the overall threat of religious discrimination still looms. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing the school in court, warned, “The VPA’s blatant act of discrimination and hostility toward Mid Vermont’s beliefs violates the First Amendment.”  As such, ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker said, “We are urging the court to uphold constitutional protections by guaranteeing the school can fully participate while still adhering to its religious beliefs.”

And yet, the VPA seems to be holding to their belief that Mid Vermont violated their “Policy [on] Gender Identity” and “Commitment to Racial, Gender-Fair, and Disability Awareness” and issued an “immediate determination of ineligibility.”

In response to these circumstances, Mary Szoch, Family Research Council’s director of the Center for Human Dignity, shared with The Washington Stand her perspective as a former Division I athlete. “Biological realities make it not only unfair but also unsafe for men to play women’s sports,” she stated.  And this, she added, “is overwhelmingly evident in basketball.”  Szoch continued, “As a former Division I athlete who practiced against men daily, I can attest to the fact that at comparable levels, men have an undeniable advantage over women.”  If America continues on this path, Szoch argued, “One day the country will look back at this time in history and recognize men playing women’s sports is an attempt to prioritize the wants of men, who are greatly in need of counseling, over the safety of women.”  Szoch highlighted that Mid Vermont and the girls on their basketball team being willing to go through this messy case proves that the VPA “can take away their gold medals and their spot on the starting five — but they can never take away their self-respect and their commitment to truth and fairness.”

Digging deeper into this case, it stands to reason that “Christian schools and their families have the fundamental right to live out their faith,” insisted ADF Legal Counsel Jake Reed in an exclusive comment to TWS.  “Vermont is discriminating against people of faith by penalizing them for their religious beliefs and exercise.  No school, family, or child should have opportunities that are available to everyone else taken from them simply for adhering to their religious convictions.”  Reed further explained, “We filed an opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit,” which “should be simple: No school should be penalized for standing by its belief that boys are boys and girls are girls.”  As he contended, “Every religious school has the right to adhere to its beliefs, and we are hopeful the court will agree.”  Currently, “Mid Vermont Christian School is still banned by the VPA from competing in any sports competitions,” and “every day this case goes on, it takes opportunities away from Mid Vermont children.”

“The First Amendment protects everyone’s freedom to exercise their religious beliefs,” Reed concluded, “and it does so even if those beliefs are contrary to the popular ideologies of the day.  ADF will continue to fight for those who have been punished for publicly expressing and living out their faith.”

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

MA Redefines Family Without Moms & Dads

Once again, Massachusetts (MA) is continuing to blaze the way in redefining family.  You may remember that MA was the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage in May 2004.  Eleven years later, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized it for the entire nation.

According to MassResistance, MA has passed the most radical law in the country to eliminate mothers and fathers from birth certificates.  In true Orwellian speak, the law is titled the act to “ensure legal parental authority.”  The new MA law will eliminate the legal terms “mother” and “father” and replace them with the words “person who gave birth” and “other parent,” essentially erasing mothers and fathers from the law.

The legal requirement for a parent on the birth certificate is no longer biology or adoption; it is now “a person’s intent to be a parent.”  For instance, the law replaces the biological term paternity with the legal term parentage.  “Intended” parents are now listed on the birth certificate and are immediately considered the legal parents.

Because same-sex couples are unable to bear children, same-sex couples use other means to have a child, including IUI, IVF, surrogacy, or sperm donors. Since one person of the couple is not the biological parent, the non-biological parent had been legally required to adopt the child.

The LGBTQ+ activists say that’s unfair and insist the adoption process should be abolished for same-sex couples.  So, MA once again bends the knee to the LGBTQ+ and does what they ask, passing this aggressive new law.

Governor Maura Healy (D) says MA is “proud to be a national leader and trailblazer when it comes to LGBTQ+ equality.”

This new law also legalizes commercial surrogacy for pay.  A woman can now get pregnant with a sperm donor and offer her child for sale, most likely to the highest bidder, before a surrogacy agreement is signed.  This law now legalizes baby-selling and treats both women and children as consumer products to be bought and sold.  Surrogacy is now wide open for rampant abuse.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, every single MA Republican in the House and Senate voted in favor of passing this bill.

We’ve already seen the Republican party purge many pro-life positions from its 2024 platform, including opposition to public funding of Planned Parenthood, opposition to embryonic stem cell research, support for a Human Life Amendment, and many other pro-life and pro-family issues.

MA is the “canary in the coal mine” warning of the potential danger of the next move in destroying the family.  Remember, it took just 11 years from MA approving same-sex marriage to it becoming a national law.

With this new parental equality law, MA is opposed to Christian and traditional beliefs about the family. This is the first step in an effort to radically change the law in every state to redefine family in ways that God never intended — following the same-sex marriage path to legalization.  They are coming for your state next.

They will phrase their intent as an “updating” of the laws to reflect the diversity of families.  Don’t be fooled.  It is a demonic attack against the family as God established in the creative covenant of Genesis.

This new law—and laws like it—will divide families and demolish domestic structures that have been the foundation of a civil society for thousands of years.  And this redefining has happened so fast—a little over a decade—it can only be demonic activity.

State Rep Hannah Kane a Republican and co-sponsor of the new law said, “there are many paths to parenthood and the bill “supports children.”  But does it?

As the mother of an adopted child, Belinda Brewster has seen up close the questions and uncertainties many adopted children face, wondering who they are biologically.  Where did they come from?  Who do they look like?  Do they have siblings?  Who are their “real” parents?

Research shows that children conceived through sperm donation are more likely to struggle with depression, are more confused, and feel more isolated from their families than adopted children and children raised by their biological parents.  Sperm donor children also worry about dating someone they could be related to or wondering if their real father is standing in front of them.  Nearly 60,000 children are conceived each year through sperm donation.  Almost half of donor offspring and more than half of adoptees admit, “it is better to adopt than to use sperm or eggs to have a child.”

Is the powerful LGBTQ+ lobby listening to these hurting voices?

Every child has a biological mother and a father … and they know it.  Donor children say to be told that the sperm donor should be of no importance to them hurts, and it’s a painful loss not to know them.

In addition to sperm donors, there are also egg donors for women who want to be pregnant but can’t use their own eggs, gestational hosts with no genetic connection to the baby, and the myriad of other ways modern technology allows people to have babies.

For example, you could have an egg donor, a sperm donor, a gestational host, and the “intended parents” all connected to this child … but whose child are they?  Perhaps that’s why MAs’ new law states that a child can have “more than two parents if it’s in the best interest of the child.”

Imagine the confusion the next generation of children will endure as they have to manage this unholy maze of who their parents are.  We know who the father of chaos and confusion is.

Nothing about this new Parentage Equality Act is in the best interests of the child … and certainly NOT God’s plan for His children.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Debate Moderator Fact-Checks Trump on Botched Abortions

One of the ABC News debate moderators fact-checked former President Donald Trump on babies who survive botched abortions, saying that they aren't killed.  But Minnesota (MN) records show eight babies in recent years have in fact survived botched procedures but then died after being denied life-saving care.

Trump said that MN Gov. Tim Walz (D), Harris’ vice presidential pick says “abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine.”  He also says “execution after birth -- it's execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born is okay, and that's not okay with me."  ABC News’ Linsey Davis pushed back on Trump’s statement, saying, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born.”

However, in Walz’s state and on his watch, five infants were “born alive” in 2021 during failed abortions, and none was provided life-saving care though two got “comfort care,” the MN Department of Health reported on July 1, 2022.  Three other infants were “born alive” during abortions in 2019, Walz’s first year as governor, and they too perished without life-saving care, according to a July 1, 2020, report from the same state agency.

MN was the rare state to require such born-alive abortions to be publicly reported, creating a powerful statistic for pro-life and anti-abortion forces to draw upon.

But in 2023, Walz worked with his new Democrat-controlled Legislature to eliminate both the reporting requirement and the state’s legal obligation for doctors, nurses and medical professionals to administer life-saving care to infants born alive during an abortion procedure.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Pro-Woman Policies Are Pro-Life Policies

Jeff Bradford, president of Human Coalition—one of the largest pro-life and pro-woman organizations in the U.S.—many years ago chose, along with his wife, to quietly abort their first child.  They thought the government couldn’t possibly allow legal murder.  They assumed that, because abortion was legal, it must be morally licit.

They couldn’t have been more wrong.  That tragic, irreversible mistake has haunted them for years.  It took decades of hidden grief — and then years of heart-wrenching healing, repentance, and reunification as a married couple — for them to begin to move forward from the destruction wrought by that decision.

It’s also a very important demonstration of the weight of responsibility our lawmakers carry.  In crafting laws, they actively shape the perceived moral stakes of all sorts of behaviors, especially abortion.

We cannot concede any argument to the abortion industry on the sanctity of human life.  Bickering over the point at which children may be legally killed in the womb is not meaningful legal protection, nor does it recognize the dignity of children at the earliest stages.

What’s more, fixating only on gestational protections from abortion without addressing the underlying causes does nothing for the vulnerable women who are seeking abortions in the first place.  It leaves them defenseless and alone, standing helpless at the center of our existing pro-abortion culture.

Softening pro-life laws to the point of allowing the vast majority of abortions to continue simply plays politics with human lives.  These are lives we can never get back; these are decisions that men and women can never take back.  It fails utterly to take the necessarily holistic and long-term perspective, which good politicians must and can do.

We owe women our loyalty, charity, attention, and help.  We owe women policies that offer support, to empower and inform them.  Such policies will also, inevitably, form a larger pro-life culture.  Bradford knows this because 76% of Human Coalition clients who are planning to abort say they’d prefer to choose life if they felt they could do so.

And so, pro-woman policies are also pro-life policies.  The protection and support of vulnerable women is the protection and support of their preborn children.  But it’s also the case that pro-woman policies are politically popular.

The value of expanding the child tax credit, for instance, is a rare point of bipartisan agreement.  There are compelling mainstream defenses of paid parental leave from both political camps, and bipartisan legislation aimed at expanding it already exists.

According to one poll, an overwhelming number of Americans support pregnancy resource centers despite them being aggressively demonized by self-interested abortion activists.

They welcome and support women facing the hardest choice of their lives. They give them material resources, medical references, medical support, and a community.  They help educate them about their pregnancy, about what they can expect during and after it — and what their choices are for managing their health and that of their child’s.

Holistic and meaningful community support for women will strengthen our society.  It generates loving, empowering systems.  It helps women have hope instead of fear in their pregnancy — when they need it most.

Vulnerable women and preborn children deserve equal protection under the law. Further, they deserve laws that communicate just how precious they are — and how seriously we take the work of protecting and supporting them.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Surgeon General Warns: Parenting Is Hazardous

Joe Biden’s surgeon general has made “mental health” a priority for the government.  This has both good and bad aspects to it.

There is an epidemic of “mental illness” in America, including depression, obsessive-compulsive behavior, addiction, and other impulse control problems like gambling.  More serious forms of mental illness, including eating disorders, paranoia, schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses, are dangerous to others as well as those afflicted.

Is parenting one of these “disorders?”

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy believes that parenting should have its very own warning label: parenting can be harmful to your mental health.  It causes depression, dangerous levels of stress, and high rates of loneliness.

According to a survey by the American Psychological Association, “half of parents report overwhelming stress most days, compared with 26% of other adults,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

The temptation is to classify all sorts of situations and behaviors as “mental illnesses.”  Everyday life for parents is stressful, period.  Full Stop.  End of story. Anyone who has sat up all night with a sick infant or a screaming two-year-old can define “stress” much better than childless couples.

But who isn’t feeling that way?  Elderly people are lonely and stressed.  Single men are lonely and stressed.  College students are lonely and stressed.  Gen X moms are lonely and stressed.  There’s an epidemic of loneliness and stress in this country and it’s bad for our mental and physical health, which Murthy pointed out in a previous advisory.

His stark warning doesn’t necessarily help with the real problem.  Fewer people are having children, some because they can’t—or can’t see a way to attain professional ambitions along with family ones. Politicians like JD Vance are outspoken on the primacy of parenthood, and lots of people feel the job is so sacred that it’s wrong to even talk about this.

Murthy believes that parents’ loneliness comes from their being totally and completely responsible for another human being.  Frankly, I think that’s a bogus construct.  Being responsible for another human being — a precious life that fills us at times, with unbearable joy and brings tears of happiness to our eyes — is not really a question of being alone.  Yes, there are moments of sheer terror. But there are also moments of sharing that transcend any other human experience.

Your children’s first steps, first words, and that first realization that they are making noises like adults. It’s indescribable.  But it’s not loneliness.

“Somehow, over time, we came to see parenting as an individual sport, not as a team sport,” Murthy told WSJ columnist Julie Jargon.  “Parents need the support of family members, friends, and neighbors.”

That’s how it used to be.  When I grew up, almost every house had three or four kids.  If one mother had to run an errand, it was nothing for her to call another mother so that her kids could be looked after.

We didn’t need the government for that.  It was natural; no one gave it a second thought.  Can those feelings of neighborliness be rekindled?  I’d like to try that before handing the job over to the government.

Murthy lists things government agencies, employers and healthcare professionals can do to support parents.  He wants a national paid family and medical leave program.  He recommends expanded programs to support parents in the workplace—such as training employers to recognize signs of stress.  He wants pediatricians to provide more mental-health screenings for parents when they bring in their kids.

And while we wait for those institutions to do their part—if they ever do—he says parents need to build and nurture their own support network of friends, neighbors and relatives.

Honestly, that sounds like more stress.

Invariably, when we tell the government to make our lives better or easier, we end up making things worse.  There are certainly more challenges parents are facing these days with online bullying and other issues.  There’s also the sexualized nature of society that has gotten so much worse over the last two decades.

But what can the government do about any of that?  If you want a government that can shut down porn sites, they will also have the power to shut down politics they don't agree with.

The answer to loneliness, depression, and stress lies within each of us.  Raising our children to be self-sufficient is a good start.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Noah, Nehemiah, or Nabal? Lessons on Engagement with the World

The American church — the real one that clings to the gospel — is wrestling with the current times as political turmoil encroaches on what were once apolitical, basic human activities: marriage, childbearing, choosing correctly between two restrooms.

Having withdrawn a century ago from most of the hospitals and higher education institutions they founded, the church finds itself increasingly handicapped to minister to the lost souls that might be reached through mind or body before their spirits awaken to Truth.  Lacking the leverage that past generations had in good works, we believers may find social or political discourse an increasingly futile exercise.

We are tempted to wring our hands here and wonder what might be done.  We might beg Jesus to come sooner and pine away for past decades that seemed simpler.  We might check out of the fray altogether and focus on the activities of our own families, which are admittedly much more satisfying than arguing with implacable strangers.

Yet God calls us to boldness and risk for the sake of the gospel.  I appeal to those of us tempted to withdraw to comfortable places.  I’m not convinced that any of the weak-willed responses are the right way.  The preacher of Ecclesiastes warns: “Say not, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’  For it is not from wisdom that you ask this” (7:10).  Nor should we try to escape the current conflicts: “No man has power to retain the spirit, or power over the day of death.  There is no discharge from war, nor will wickedness deliver those who are given to it” (8:8).  We are further admonished: “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked” (Proverbs 26:26).

We must “do something,” and there is hope in truth-telling:

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.  For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.  But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light.  Therefore it says, ‘Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you’ ” (Ephesians 5:11-14).

Works of darkness, once exposed, become part of God’s story (“anything that becomes visible is light”).  Those who get in the fight reflect Christ’s glory (“awake, O sleeper . . . and Christ will shine on you”).  Each generation has had its trials of mortal and immortal combat.

No one can engage in every battle.  We will not all be Wilberforces or Tubmans. How then, to prioritize our efforts?  Let us consider how three biblical figures engaged — or didn’t — in the conflicts of their times.

Noah

Noah lived in times so desperately wicked that the Lord determined to wipe out everyone but Noah and his immediate family.  It’s not clear whether Noah knew how small the final rescue total would be.  In any case, Noah’s peculiar hobby — building a massive wooden boat nowhere near an ocean over a 100-year span — attracted plenty of scornful attention.  He did not waste this opportunity; Peter called him a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5).  And it’s noteworthy that it was God, not Noah, who shut the ark’s door when it started to rain (Genesis 7:16).

We don’t have the text of what Noah said, but he provided his neighbors ample warning of the impending judgment.  While he prioritized his own family’s safety, he wasn’t focused on them exclusively.  He wasn’t content to “mind his own business” and leave his neighbors to drown without warning.

We should all aspire to be like Noah: distinguishable from the world, faithful to his God and family, and unafraid to engage his neighbors who were swept up in the violence, oppression, and immorality of the times.

Nehemiah

Nehemiah was a favored servant in the Persian court.  He asked his pagan king for the opportunity to govern the impoverished and oppressed Jewish exiles who had returned to their homeland.  Returning after 70 years immersed in a hostile culture, they had barely established a foothold in the ancient ruins in the 100 years or so since their return.  They had re-established corporate worship a generation before, but remained the prey of the local warlords and roving gangs.  Nehemiah recognized their need for physical protection, and following that, a restoration of their distinct national identity that had been rooted in their relationship to God.

He began by inspiring the Jewish survivors to take ownership of their problem and rebuild the wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:17-18).  Just as Noah had been met with scorn for his efforts, Nehemiah was met with immediate mockery and slander from neighboring governors (2:19).  This rapidly grew to threats of violence and attempted intrigue (4:8; chapter 6).  He persevered and, by his strong example, led his ragtag team to finish the wall in 52 days.

Nehemiah also had to deal with cultural rot within his own community.  He discovered the Jewish landlords were oppressing their countrymen with heavy-interest debts, and called them to account publicly (5:7).  He re-instituted the Sabbath observance by brute force (13:21), and helped to expose the infidelity of many men in his community (13:23-27).

Here are some observations about Nehemiah I find intriguing in contrast to other leaders in the Bible”

Nehemiah got no special revelation from God.  His heart broke at the reports of the oppression of his people.  He prayed and planned, then took action.

We have no evidence that Nehemiah had special skills in military leadership or masonry construction.  Yet he inspired those around him to build and provide armed security.

Nehemiah had his own set of weaknesses.  He was a dynamo of personal example and passion when on scene, but appears to have been unsuccessful in getting the next generation to adopt a passion for righteousness.  Things fell apart when he was away (chapter 13).

He lacked the absolute power of Israel’s monarchs from generations past; he was an agent of the Persian king.  As such, like today’s politicians, he was more vulnerable to persecution, including from his own people.  He chose to enter the arena and lead them anyway.

We should support our local and national Nehemiahs, those willing to wade into the cesspool of politics.  They take the spears for us, enduring the mockery and threats that anyone pursuing righteousness in that environment will attract.

Those of us with leadership skills should also consider whether we should follow in Nehemiah’s footsteps and take action without a lightning bolt from God. Yes, our families are important.  But will our children wonder someday why we lacked the courage to fight for what was right?  Or will they come to believe that nothing outside of family is worth fighting for?  What about all the other families that are being oppressed and impoverished by bad policies and capricious leaders?

Nabal

In contrast to the heroic figures above, Nabal engaged with no one but himself, and for nothing but his own pleasure and interest.  He is best known for snubbing David while the latter fled from the persecution of King Saul (see 1 Samuel 25).  His large estate of pasturelands lay in the mountains of south-central Israel, an area where David the fugitive and his band of 400 men (plus families) often took refuge.  On this occasion, David’s men had protected Nabal’s estate from raids and theft, and David sought provisions from Nabal in return.  Nabal brushed David off, and David nearly took his own lethal revenge before Nabal’s wife Abigail intervened.  Shortly thereafter, God struck Nabal dead while he feasted in luxury.

Let us consider some context to discover what a self-centered fool Nabal had become:

Israel was in a period of continuous war with the Philistines, a wealthy and militarily skillful people who occupied the western seaboard (1 Samuel 14:25). Both sides experienced victories and defeats on a fairly regular basis, and this war was unlimited in scope.  Whichever side lost would become the slaves of the other.

Israel’s western frontier was not secure, and the Philistines made frequent incursions to raid Israeli territory (1 Samuel 13:17; 23:27).  This insecure frontier also provided refuge to bandits and other criminals who pillaged targets of opportunity.

Nabal lived some distance from the Philistine frontier, but was still within reach of bandits and Philistine raiders.  The protection that David’s men had provided was worthwhile (1 Samuel 25:15-16).

Nabal had totally disengaged himself and his household from the ongoing war.

Nabal enjoyed the fruits of his labor under the protection of those he despised (25:11).  His was a life of prosperous ingratitude toward God, and indifference toward the struggles of his countrymen.

Don’t be a Nabal.

God laid out the path before us long ago:

“Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him” (Hebrews 10:37-38).

God calls us to a life of courage and risk.

Let us follow Noah in a life distinguished by righteousness, family leadership, and bold engagement with those around us.

Let us support the Nehemiahs around us who take many spears on our behalf. Let us not be too quick to dismiss whether social or political responsibility lies before us.

Let us reject the hedonist life of prosperous isolation while others fight the battles for us.

“Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the voice of his servant?  Let him who walks in darkness and has no light trust in the name of the Lord and rely on his God” (Isaiah 50:10).

Help us walk with you, Lord God.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Did Abortions Increase After Dobbs?

A liberal researcher’s latest study finds that women had more abortions during part of this year than the same period before the Dobbs decision, but a pro-life expert says the results bring him skepticism, as well as concern.  The same report noted that blue states have effectively nationalized the purportedly “states’ rights” issue of abortion by sheltering those who illegally mailed hundreds of thousands of abortion-inducing bills to pro-life states.  And the report documented that pro-life protections, at the state level, continued to save unborn babies’ lives.

The new report from the #WeCount project of the Society of Family Planning, recently released, found that the rate of abortions from January through March of this year reportedly exceeded a comparable period in 2022 under Roe v. Wade.  The Dobbs decision, which ruled that the Supreme Court wrongly invented a constitutional “right” to abortion in the infamous 1973 opinion, allowed voters to enact pro-life protections, and more than a dozen states have laws in effect protecting most children from abortion.  Yet “[f]or the first time since #WeCount began, the national monthly total number of abortions has exceeded 100,000,” in 2024, said the report.  “We observed between 94,670 and 102,350 abortions per month, with a monthly average of 98,990.”

“This increase in the national totals appears to be driven by the increase in telehealth abortions,” says the report, when abortion chains such as Planned Parenthood distribute the abortion pill to mothers without an in-person visit. Abortionists use the same telehealth technology used by doctors in the healing arts to disperse the abortion-inducing pills mifepristone and misoprostol to women without checking for attendant health concerns, potentially placing women’s lives at risk.

“This is fatal for unborn children and terrible public health.  If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion can be fatal,” said Michael New, Ph.D, a professor of political science and social research at the Catholic University of America and a scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, on “Washington Watch.” Undetected anomalies can also complicate future pregnancies.  Women who undergo chemical abortions report worse mental health outcomes, often citing the need to self-manage their abortions, including flushing their unborn child’s body down the toilet.

Despite the inherent health complications for women, the abortion pill presents great profits for the abortion industry.  “[T]he national monthly number of telehealth abortions in January-March 2024 is 28% higher than the national monthly number of telehealth abortions in January-March 2023,” said the report. “Even excluding abortions provided under shield laws, we still observe more abortions per month in January-March 2024 (monthly average of 89,770 abortions) as compared to the same period January-March 2023 (monthly average of 86,967 abortions), a 3% increase.”

Yet the report appears to credit pro-life state laws with saving lives overall.  It notes that the 14 strongest pro-life states — Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — “have experienced massive declines in the number of abortions.”

“We estimate that overall, if abortion had not been banned in these 14 states, approximately 208,040 abortions would have occurred in-person in these states in the 21 months since Dobbs,” said the report.  “[O]ur data show that due to total abortion bans or 6-week bans, at least 208,000 fewer abortions were provided in-person.”

States with the greatest number of declines since Dobbs: Texas (64,710), Georgia (39,245), Tennessee (24,775), Louisiana (16,175), and Alabama (13,335).  The largest increases came in New York (1,357), California (957), Virginia (597), Kansas (503), and Pennsylvania (430).

The abortion industry and its political allies attempted to chip away at pro-life protections by mailing abortion pills to these states illegally — and six liberal states have passed statutes that the abortion industry refers to as “shield laws,” allowing abortionists to flout other states’ laws with impunity.  “In January-March 2024, there was an average of over 6,700 monthly telehealth abortions provided under shield laws to people in states with total abortion bans or 6-week bans, and nearly 2,500 monthly telehealth abortions provided under shield laws to people in states with restrictions on telehealth abortion,” said the report.  That means abortionists carried out nearly 300,000 illegal remote abortions in states that protect mothers and their children from virtual abortion teleconferences.

The monthly increase of 6,700 virtual abortions, plus a monthly increase of 2,803 in-person abortions in other states, amounts to a total of 9,503 additional abortions a month.  Yet the report found that the 14 most protective states prevented 9,907 abortions each month post-Dobbs.

If the report’s numbers are correct, state pro-life laws saved a net total of 404 babies a month, or 4,848 lives a year.  There are reasons to question the numbers, said New.  “There are three studies looking at Texas birth data, which show that the Texas Heartbeat Act has actually saved 1,000 babies every month,” he said.  “Abortions are often hard to count because women go out of state, or they go to other countries, but babies are easy to count.  And if more children are being born, that’s very powerful evidence that these pro-life laws are having an impact.”

While the allegedly rising abortion rate provides “reason to be concerned, I don’t think there’s reason for despair,” said New, who cited numerous “reasons to be a bit skeptical” about the report’s findings. “Prior to 2022, this organization had never done any U.S. abortion estimates,” he noted.  The latest study’s numbers also conflict with results from the Guttmacher Institute, which was once formally affiliated with Planned Parenthood, and which has been conducting its studies much longer.  “It’s only relatively recently that the Society for Family Planning has started counting telehealth abortions, so I think that’s inflating the numbers a little bit.”  The SFP #WeCount report admitted, “With each report, we continue to refine our imputations and estimates for missing clinics or missing months of data. Thus, monthly totals in some states have been revised from our previous reports.”

The companies may have also provided inaccurate data.  “Telehealth abortions are self-reported by companies that send abortion pills through the mail.  These companies may have incentives to inflate their numbers.  Furthermore, the fact that abortion pills were ordered does not necessarily mean that an abortion was obtained,” wrote New at National Review.  “Some women might have changed their mind,” he added, as the report would not cover the number of lives saved through the abortion pill reversal.

One of the study’s leaders, who has dedicated her research, in part, to advancing abortion pill dispersal nationwide, celebrated the results of the latest study, noting, “It eases the burden on clinics, so it creates more space for the people who are coming to” abortion businesses, said Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, one of the study’s co-leads.  Upadhyay is a professor at the University of California-San Francisco and core faculty of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH).

A 2021 article about Upadhyay stated she was “very excited” about the California Home Abortion by Telehealth (CHAT) study, “because it could have important implications on access to abortion.”  “People don’t know that medication abortion exists and that it can be done entirely at home safely without a clinic visit,” she pointed out.  The article noted it “will also help expand the awareness about its existence and safety to people” who allegedly “need it.”  It also noted that Dr. Upadhyay deeply involved herself in social and racial justice issues within the institution.  She’s a very active member of the UCGHI Black Lives Matter task force that focuses on both small and large activities at the institution through a racial equity lens.  “It’s something that’s really needed,” Upadhyay said of the BLM/DEI movement.  Her dedication to helping the abortion industry, and pro-abortion politicians, send abortion-inducing drugs to states where they are banned shows “the other side does not view this as a state issue.  They’re trying to nationalize the issue.  Many politically liberal states are effectively exporting abortion,” explained New.  “The birth data do provide powerful evidence that our pro-life laws are saving lives and are building a culture of life,” said New.

“As the abortion pill becomes the primary means of abortion, and the federal government has greenlighted mailing them into EVERY state — abortion is an issue for Bible-believing, Christian voters,” said FRC Action Chairman Tony Perkins.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Kamala Harris Promises to Impose Abortion on All 50 States as President

Kamala Harris promised to use the federal government to expand abortion nationwide, because Americans cannot “truly be prosperous” without abortion, and pro-life Americans are “out of their minds,” said Harris while accepting the Democratic presidential nomination at the DNC.

Harris basked in the glow of the audience as she stood at the podium of the United Center in Chicago to deliver an acceptance speech long on personal history but slight on policy specifics, aside from a vow to extend the abortion industry into all 50 states, irrespective of each state’s individual laws.  “When Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law,” candidate Harris vowed.  Jarringly, as Harris made those remarks, the official DNC video feed of the acceptance speech panned out to feature a baby in the crowd.

Although Harris did not name a specific bill, the Biden-Harris Administration has endorsed, the so-called “Women’s Health Protection” Act, which goes far beyond the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling by striking down more than 1,300 state pro-life protections including laws:

Prohibiting sex-selective abortions;

Barring many abortions after viability;

Preventing abortions on babies 20 weeks or older, who are capable of feeling pain;

Disallowing abortions undertaken without parental consent or notification;

Prohibiting telemedicine abortion drug prescriptions, which involve no in-person medical examination;

Banning unlicensed individuals from carrying out abortions;

Allowing pregnant mothers to receive scientifically accurate information about their babies’ development, or to see an ultrasound or hear the child’s fetal heartbeat; and

Allowing pro-life medical professionals the right to refuse to participate in an abortion.

A more modest national abortion expansion bill, dubbed the Reproductive Choice Act co-sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), would reestablish the guidelines of the Roe and Casey decisions.  However, Senate Democrats and the Biden-Harris Administration have favored the more sweeping, top-down WHP bill.

The abortion issue emerged as the convention’s defining issue, referred to by one speaker after another.  Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), an outspoken advocate of national abortion expansion and regulation of pro-life pregnancy resource centers, promised earlier in the evening that Kamala Harris will “take on the right-wing extremists who think they should decide who has access to abortion or IVF.  Kamala will protect abortion rights nationwide.”  Warren inadvertently put abortion in a separate category from health care, stating that the Democratic Party’s agenda consisted of “groceries, gas, housing, health care, taxes, abortion.”  Earlier in the evening, former Rep. Gabrielle Gifford of Arizona, who was shot while in office, said, “Kamala can beat the gun lobby. ... She will protect abortion access!”

Harris’s acceptance speech signaled a further break with past candidates such as President Bill Clinton, who spoke on Wednesday night; as candidate, Clinton said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Harris, who has spent much of the last two years since the Dobbs decision as the White House point person on abortion, extolled abortion as a vital component of American liberty.

“I believe America cannot truly be prosperous unless Americans are fully able to make their own decisions about their own lives,” said Harris moments before invoking “reproductive freedom,” the convention’s preferred euphemism for abortion-on-demand.  Her words echoed those of Oprah Winfrey on Thursday night that abortion is part of “the American dream.”

Pro-life advocates pushed back forcefully on the notion.  “Not being allowed to kill your child does not equate to slavery,” responded Bryan Kemper, an Ohio-based pro-life advocate.

In office, Harris has seen her administration give the green light for abortionists to mail the abortion pill, mifepristone, to pro-life states in violation of federal law and furnish taxpayer-funded leave to pregnant members of the military who travel out of pro-life states to undergo an abortion.

Moments after promising to allow surgical abortion throughout the country, Harris slammed her political opponents for pro-life positions they never adopted. “We know, and we know what a second Trump term would look like.  It’s all laid out in Project 2025,” insisted Harris, although CNN’s fact-checker ranked Democrats’ continual references to the Heritage Foundation project — which President Trump has publicly disdained — false.

Trump “and his allies would limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion, and enact a nationwide abortion ban, with or without Congress,” Harris claimed.  “And get this — get this!  He plans to create a national anti-abortion coordinator, and force states to report on women’s miscarriages and abortions.”  “Simply put, they are out of their minds,” Harris thundered.

The demur 2024 Republican Party platform does not promise to enact any federal pro-life protection and leaves all new legislation protecting the unborn to the states, a position President Trump has reiterated consistently.  His campaign and allies denied Harris’s allegations.  “Fact Check: there is no circumstance in which Trump wants to track and monitor miscarriages,” retorted Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah).  “President Trump has REPEATEDLY stated he will not sign a federal abortion ban.  Kamala is a liar,” said Trump 2024 National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Yet Harris’s speech indicates efforts to distance the GOP from the pro-life issue have failed, and that the Democrats see abortion as anything but a state issue.

In economic policy, Harris vowed, “We will pass a middle-class tax cut that will benefit more than 100 million Americans.”  To date, the Biden-Harris Administration has proposed $7 trillion in tax hikes, according to the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee.

She also promised “to create jobs, to grow our economy and to lower the cost of everyday needs like health care and housing and groceries,” as well as to “end America’s housing shortage, and protect Social Security and Medicare.”  The Biden-Harris Administration presided over near-record inflation levels that peaked at 9.1% in June 2022, increasing the prices of all household staples.  “A loaf of bread costs 50% more today than it did before the pandemic,” admitted Harris at the DNC.  

Ground beef is up almost 50%.  The price of a gallon of gasoline has increased from $2.33 in January 2021 to $3.62.  “It costs a family an extra $13,300 per year for the same house compared to January 2021,” reported Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation.

Harris accused President Trump of seeking to enact “a national sales tax, call it a Trump tax, that would raise prices on middle-class families.”  She is referring to his statement that he may consider an across-the-board tariff on foreign-made goods.

Like the Democratic campaign before President Joe Biden exited the race, much of the party’s rhetoric aims at demonizing President Donald Trump and placing him beyond the pale as a figure committed to overturning “our democracy.”

“The consequences of putting Donald Trump back in the White House are extremely serious,” Harris insisted at the DNC.  “He sent an armed mob to the U.S. Capitol, where they assaulted law enforcement officers.  When politicians in his own party begged him to call off the mob and send help, he did the opposite — he fanned the flames.”  In fact, President Trump encouraged marchers to walk to the Capitol “peacefully” and posted a video online asking them to disperse — a video online platform later suppressed or removed.

“Consider what he intends to do if we give him power again.  Consider his explicit intent to set free violent extremists who assaulted those law enforcement officers at the Capitol; his explicit intent to jail journalists, political opponents, and anyone he sees as the enemy; his explicit intent to deploy our active-duty military against our own citizens,” said Harris.

The threat her opponent may lock up journalists rang hollow to investigator David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress.  Daleiden and Sandra Merritt published undercover videos showing officials at the highest levels of Planned Parenthood describing how they perform a potentially illegal partial birth abortion to harvest and sell aborted babies’ organs to scientific researchers.  After pushback from the abortion industry, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris prosecuted the undercover reporters for filming Planned Parenthood without their express permission—something Daleiden’s lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, likened to “60 Minutes” investigations.

Daleiden accused Harris of being “‘unburdened by what has been’ in 2016.” Daleiden reminded Harris, “As a citizen journalist, I had my home raided, work product seized at gunpoint, and spent an afternoon behind bars because of your fealty to Planned Parenthood.”

Harris attempted to appeal to moderate and undecided voters, promising to abide by the rule of law.  “I know there are people of various political views watching tonight.  And I want you to know, I promise to be a president for all Americans.  You can always trust me to put country above party and self,” Harris proclaimed.

That echoes a promise repeatedly made at the outset of the Biden-Harris Administration, which critics say turned out to be false.  “I will work as hard for those who didn’t vote for me as those who did,” Biden promised just one day after the media declared him winner of the 2020 election.  Biden made the same promise in his inaugural address.

Once in power, the Biden-Harris Administration oversaw the first FBI raid on the home of a former president, prosecuted peaceful pro-life advocates such as Mark Houck, and attempted to recruit informants inside traditional Roman Catholic churches.  This administration’s targeting of its political enemies has become so outlandish that the House Judiciary Committee formed a subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government to investigate it on a case-by-case basis.

Harris’s critics, especially her Republican opponent, noted that Harris has attempted to distance herself from her own record over the last three years, and to feign powerlessness as the sitting vice president of the United States.

“Why didn’t she do the things that she’s complaining about?” asked Trump immediately after the speech on Fox News.  “She could have done it three and a half years ago ... and she could still do them.  She’s got four-and-a-half, five months left.”  “She didn’t talk about China.  She didn’t talk about fracking.  She didn’t talk about crime ... She didn’t talk about housing or the trade deficit.  She didn’t talk about child trafficking that she’s allowed to happen, because she’s the Border Czar and she’s presided over the weakest border.”  “She talks, but she doesn’t do.  There’s no action.”

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel