A federal judge on Monday waived a rule requiring an in-person visit before obtaining the abortion pill after the ACLUargued that the requirement poseda “substantial obstacle”during COVID-19. The abortion pill is subject to the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) protocol,and with good reason. In the 20 years that the abortion pill regimen has been legal in the U.S., thousands of women have experienced adverse effects and 24 have died. In May of this year, a woman who had taken the abortion pill was rushed from a Texas abortion facility to a nearby hospital as her oxygen levels dropped due to severe blood loss. Ignoring the dangers of the abortion pill, the ACLU filed a lawsuiton behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic demanding thatthe FDA to waive the REMS requirement of an in-person visit.
Writing for Live Action, Nancy Flanders points out,
The purpose of undergoing a physical examination before taking the abortion pill is to ensure the gestational age of the child is not more than 10 weeks, that the woman is either Rh negative or positive, and that the pregnancy is not ectopic. In any of these cases, taking the abortion pill poses a potential health risk to the woman, including the possibility of future pregnancy loss, hysterectomy, and death.
Demanding the removal of in-person visits shows a serious disregard for the safety and well-being of women, and U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang was wrong to bow to the abortion lobby’s demands.
“Who am I to impose my beliefs on someone else?” has become an increasingly prevalent attitude among Christians, especially young Christians, as seen in recentdata indicating a growing acceptance of the LGBT movement among Evangelicals. According to political scientist Paul Djupe, 90% of Evangelicals believed their religion forbade homosexual behaviors in 2007. By 2020, that number had dropped by almost 30 percentage points. According to anotherresearcher, this is especially prevalent among young Evangelicals, with roughly 50% of Evangelical Christians between 18-35 affirming same-sex marriage in 2018. Alongside of this trend, many young people in the church have adopted a deeply secular attitude and treat Christian faith as simply one belief among many. Because of this, they increasingly see standing up for biblical teaching on sexuality as “imposing” their beliefs on others.
Christianity is not simply one belief among many equally valid options.The world is not a neutral space. As Abraham Kuyper put it, “There is not a square inch in all of creation over which Christ, who is Lord of all, does not declare, ‘Mine!’” God reveals himself both in Scripture and in nature, and what he reveals about himself and his handiwork in nature is in harmony with what he reveals in Scripture because God is consistent and does not change (Numbers 23:19). This means that we can and should expect to see nature affirming what the Bible teaches about sexuality, and we should point others to the way that nature affirms biblical teaching on sexuality and the family.
A Freedom of Information Act request filed by the March for Life organization revealed this week that Planned Parenthood North Central States, based in St. Paul, received a forgivable loan through the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) worth $5-10 million. Only one other Planned Parenthood affiliate received more than $5 million, and PP North Central States also reported the highest numbers of employees retained, 495, of any PP affiliate that received money through the program.
Their loan was approved on April 10, 2020, when elective surgeries were still banned in Minnesota under Governor Walz’s emergency order. But Planned Parenthood, supported by the state government, continued to perform abortions instead of conserving personal protective equipment (PPE) for hospitals treating COVID patients.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 rulings today that are big victories for religious freedom. First, in the Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru case, the Court ruled that religious schools cannot be forced to hire and employ teachers that don’t hold fast to the school’s faith and religious practices. Next, in the Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania case, the Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule that said religious employers cannot be forced to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans, if doing so would violate that organization’s religious beliefs.
Religious schools, not the government, should have the final say in their hiring and firing decisions. The Court’s ruling protects the First Amendment by acknowledging that. Justice Samuel Alito wrote,
The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.
On June 30th, the Supreme Court upheld religious freedom in education by ruling against a provision in the Montana state constitution that was used to excluded religious schools from tax-funded scholarship programs in Espinoza v. Montana. The case was brought before the court by three families who were recipients of the Big Sky scholarship fund, which focused on providing educational opportunities to low-income families and families of children with disabilities. Big Sky was part of a state program that granted a tax-credit to anyone who donated to participating scholarship organizations, which would then enable students to attend private schools by sending money directly from the scholarship organization to the school on behalf of the student.
When Kendra Espinoza, Jeri Anderson, and Jaime Schaefer attempted to use the fund to send their children to Stillwater Christian school,they were blocked by the Montana Department of Revenue on the basis of a “no-aid” provision in Montana’s state constitution. This no-aid provision was based on the Blaine Amendment, a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the late 1800s specifically designed to block funding to Catholic schools. While the amendment failed to pass the U.S. Senate with the necessary 2/3majority, similar amendments were adopted by over 30 states. These amendments lead to policies that single-out religious schools for different treatment simply for being religious, blocking them from grants and scholarship programs that are available to other private schools.
“But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” Jeremiah 29:7
This weekend, we celebrate our nation’s birth, not because our nation is perfect, but because our founding 244 years ago was the down payment on the promise of self-governance that could improve our nation over time.
That bold statement is possible because our Founding Fathers provided the longest-lasting framework of government in which “We the People” have the privilege and responsibility to exercise our rights as citizens “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution)
Earlier this week, the Minnesota Department of Health released its annual report on abortion in Minnesota, finding that 9,922 abortions were committed in Minnesota in 2019. This marks a slight increase from the year before when there were 9,910 abortions committed in Minnesota.
Of those 9,922 abortions, 8,252 (83%) were performed after fetal heartbeat was detectable via ultrasound. Three babies were born alive during botched abortion procedures, but all three died shortly after. The report also revealed that 43% of the abortions performed in Minnesota were covered by public assistance, a sobering reminder that taxpayer dollars are being used to perpetuate abortion.
60% of the women who had an abortion in Minnesota last year had given birth at least once before, and 38% had previously had at least one abortion. Planned Parenthood continues to play an overwhelming role in Minnesota’s abortion industry, and in 2019 it committed 65% (6,451) of the abortions performed in our state, marking a steady increase in the percentage of abortions carried out by Planned Parenthood in Minnesota each year.
MINNEAPOLIS - Minnesota’s largest Christian public policy group, Minnesota Family Council, made the following statement about today’s Supreme Court ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo.
Today’s decision shows once again that the Supreme Court’s whole approach to abortion jurisprudence is antithetical to the goal of protecting human life. As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent, “[The Court's abortion decisions] created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.”
Minnesota Family Council’s Director of Public Policy, Veronica, Faye, made the following statement: “Let’s be clear: when abortion businesses, who do not have women’s best interests at heart, are allowed to speak for women in courts of law, we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. Under the Louisiana law the Court struck down this morning, the state required abortion clinics to abide by the same standards of care required of other ambulatory surgical centers. By holding abortion clinics to a lower standard, the Court is failing women and girls. Abortion always kills a child, and often hurts a woman. All of Louisiana’s abortion clinics have been cited for safety violations - why would the Court trust them to have women’s best interests at heart? Minnesota Family Council will continue to work in state and federal legislatures, and in the court system, to fight for the God-given right to life.”
This week marked 48 yearssince Title IX became law,opening the door for women and girls to have equal opportunitiesto compete in sports. In the time since then there has been a remarkable increasein female involvement in athletics. Now, two in every five girls plays sports, ten times the number that did when Title IX went into effect.In less than 50 years, Title IX has created opportunities for women and girls offering advantages that go far beyond the accolades of the playing field.
Lisa Hoffer is one of those young women.Lisa began playing softball when she was five and basketball when she was seven. An accomplished athlete, she received multiple awards throughout high school, including All Conference Honors in both sports, the ExCEL Award during her junior year, and becoming her high school’s All Time Women’s Leading Scorer in basketball during her senior year. She has gone on to play both sportsat Bethel University where her basketball team qualified for the NCAA tournament this year.
I never thought I would have to tell my children that there would be negative consequences for believing that God created us distinctly male or distinctly female, or, that the U.S. Supreme Court would redefine “sex,” in certain provisions of the law, contradicting basic biology.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion concerning the meaning of the word “sex” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. Six unelected Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court turned biology and the English language on its head when the majority held that “sex” has the same meaning as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in discrimination claims.” Dissenting, Justice Alito, stated “There’s only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation…A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.” Citing to the myriad of unsuccessful attempts by Congress to change the meaning of the word “sex” in Title VII, he explained, “[t]he questions in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not.”
Casting aside biological realities will have consequences, despite the majority’s contention that “bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind” are for another day. We’re still left wondering about the impact of this ruling on religious freedom – particularly religious schools and other ministries. And what about the impact on women? We’re still left to wonder, can a male identifying as a female really win a women’s sports title? This decision certainly serves as an invitation for lower courts to continue building on this narrative, further redefining the meaning of the word “sex.” The consequence are real, and the outcomes are unpredictable, as the Court left many of these questions unanswered. Surely a myriad of lawsuits seeking these answers are forthcoming.
Many abortion activists insist that “abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor!” This line of argument is used in an attempt to shut down the abortion debate, painting the pro-life movement as an intrusion on women’s privacy and healthcare. But how accurate is this claim? The claim that abortion is “between a woman and her doctor” makes two assumptions. First, that the woman seeking an abortion is the only person affected by her decision,and secondly, that abortion is performed exclusively for medical reasons.
Regarding the first assumption, we have to keep in mind that abortion is really about the life of the child in the womb. Neither a woman nor her doctor have the moral right to make a decision to end the life of another human being. Because of this, we cannot say that abortion is a private decision that ought to be kept between a woman and her doctor. In no other circumstances would we say that two people have a right to make a “private decision” determining whether or not another person should live or die. The death of millions of innocent humans is an issue that touches every single member of our society because disregard for the value and dignity of human life anywhere is a threat to human life everywhere. It is not up to a woman and her doctor to decide that a child does not get to live.
Yesterday the St. Paul City Council voted unanimously to enact a ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” following Minneapolis’s lead last fall. Despite the rhetoric, the ban is actually an attack on individual choice in health care as well as on the constitutional rights of therapists, patients, and families. St. Paul’s proposed ban could prevent mental health professionals from helping patients explore all options when addressing questions over sexual orientation and gender identity, something they should be free to do. “Young people should have access to voluntary, compassionate, client-driven care in the field of sexual identity that pursues the goals of the patient, including living in accordance with biblical teaching on sexuality or becoming more comfortable with their biological sex,” said John Helmberger, CEO at Minnesota Family Council.
The difference between what these bans claim to address and what they actually target is significant. Proponents of “conversion therapy” bans frequently point to horror stories of extreme, abusive instances of aversion therapy tactics. No one is arguing that these unethical practices should be used. Any licensed mental health professional who attempts to utilize such methodsshould lose their license. But as World magazine noted regarding Minneapolis’s ban, “Minneapolis council members… missed one glaring problem: Most tales of abuse apparently do not involve a licensed mental health professional.” These bans only address the actions of licensed mental health professionals who are already held to a standard of ethics that keeps them from resorting to the tactics described by proponents of these bans. If so-called “conversion therapy” bans were really addressing abusive situations, they would be redundant. The “conversion therapy” that these bans seek to limit is talk therapy, in which a licensed mental health professional helps their client through questions and conversation.“Conversion therapy” bans limit what counselors can say and what kind of questions they can ask when their client is dealing with questions regarding their sexual identity.
In March, as nursing homes were beginning to limit visitors in order to slow the spread of COVID-19, the heartwarming story of a man visiting his father at a Minnesota nursing home every day, sitting outside his window while chatting with him on the phone, made its way into many social media feeds. The story offered encouragement and hope in the midst of uncertainty. Come what may, the most vulnerable members of our communities would be cared for and we would weather this storm together. Putting nursing homes in lockdown and keeping families away from loved ones may be difficult, but if it was keeping people safe, it must be worth it, right?
By late Aprilthings had shifted. It became clear that elderly populationsmight not be as safe in nursing homes as people had hoped, and by the third week of May, Alpha News reported that Minnesota had the highest percentage nursing-home related COVID-19 deaths nationwide. What happened? Minnesota had followed New York and other states in funneling COVID-19 patients out of hospitals and into nursing homes.
During the height of the COVID-19 lockdowns, the Abortion Pill Rescue Network received a record number of calls. In February a mother gave birth to twins who were saved through the abortion pill reversal. Early this year a little boy named Isaiah celebrated his first birthday thanks to the Abortion Pill Rescue Network. To date the Abortion Pill Reversal Network has saved over 1,000 babies. Now abortion pill reversal websites are currently under attack as a pro-abortion “watchdog” group, Campaign for Accountability (CFA), demands that the FDA remove these websites.
Abortion pill reversalwebsites offer lifesaving hope. When a woman begins the abortion reversal process, the abortion industry has already made their money off of her, so why are the abortion industry’s allies dead set on taking down these websites? Because women who change their minds and find help from abortion pill reversal groups to save their babies challenge the abortion industry’s narratives. By choosing hope, they demonstrate that women do not need abortion in order to be successful and they promote a culture of life through their actions. Abortion pill reversals empower women to choose life, and that threatens the abortion industry and their allies.
Like the rest of the nation, New York City has seen protestors flood the streets in response to the killing of George Floyd. And yet, as protestors gather by the thousands, the city is still technically under lockdown and is scheduled to begin phase one of reopening next week. Throughout the state,worship services are still limited to gatherings of no more than 10 people and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has threatened to permanently close churches in New York City that hold worship services without his permission. A week ago he said that it would be “very dangerous” to reopen churches, saying that “it is not the time to start large gatherings of any kind.”
In a press conference yesterday, Mayor de Blasio was asked why the city is applying one standard to protestors and another to everyone else. De Blasio responded by saying,
When you see a nation, an entire nation simultaneously grappling with an extraordinary crisis seeded in 400 years of American racism… That’s not the same question as the understandably aggrieved store owner, or the devout religious person who wants to go back to services. This is something that’s not about which side of the spectrum you’re on. It’s about a deep, deep American crisis…
In the days following May 25, the world witnessed the horror and injustice of George Floyd’s death, face down on the ground with Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s knee on his neck. In killing Floyd, Chauvin demonstrated a complete disregard for Floyd’s value and dignity as one of God’s image-bearers. It was a violation of the 5th Commandment, and those of us who are pro-life should be as outraged and grieved by Floyd’s murder as we are by abortion. In both cases, the destruction of human life is a grievous sin and a crime.
God hates injustice, and George Floyd’s death should grieve and anger us because it grieves and angers God. All earthly injustice finds its final, eternal end in the justice of God. This is a source of hope in the midst of evil; ultimately, justice will prevail. It is also the reason that we love and pursue justice now. We seek earthly justice because we love the God who is just and because earthly justice points people to who God is.
Right now Minnesota is facing tragedy upon tragedy and injustice upon injustice. In the time since George Floyd was killed, we have watched as our cities have erupted in flames and rioters and looters have exploited the situation, drowning out the voices of peaceful protestors,endangering people, destroying homes, and robbing people of their livelihoods. The actions of the rioters display a disregard for human life and dignity as they wreak havoc and desolation on communitiesthat are already struggling from the economic implications of COVID-19. What we are witnessing in our cities right now is the devastation that human sinfulness unleashes on fellow image-bearers.
A year ago next Monday, Former Vice President and presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden declared the LGBT agenda to be his number one campaign priority. Although he is currently centering his campaign around this issue, the former vice president’s shift to embrace this radical agenda has been gradual. His critics on the left have described him as slow to outline policy proposals advancing the LGBT movement and Senator Bernie Sanders has criticized Biden’s record as not being pro-LGBT enough.One liberalcommentator pointed out that this shift is typical of Biden’s stance—he begins moderate and then moves to a more extreme position. While Biden may have a history of being less extreme than other left-wing politicians, the policies outlined by his current campaign are anything but moderate. In fact, he has centered his campaign around some truly radical viewpoints, which has earned him an endorsement from the largest LGBT organization in the U.S.
In the time since he publicly declared the LGBT agenda to be his top campaign priority, Biden has, among other things, publicly committed to making Equality Act legislation a priority within the first 100 days of taking office if he is elected. The so-called Equality Act would make gender identity and sexual orientation a protected status under the Civil Rights Act. This would mean that if a biological male claiming to be female demanded entry to female locker rooms or restrooms, it would be a civil rights violation to deny him entry. His “gender identity”would override the privacy rights of women and girls. Similarly, schools would be required to allow male athletes who identify as female to compete on girls’ sports teams. Biden’s proposed policies would also allow male inmates to be housed in women’s prisons on the basis of genderidentity, with Biden explaining, "In prison, the determination should be that your sexual identity is defined by what you say it is [and] not what the prison says it is."
Beginning today,churches in Minnesota will be allowed to once again gather for worship, according to a revised order from Governor Walz on Saturday and updated guidelines from the Minnesota Department of Health.
On May 18, Governor Walz’s shelter in placeorder was replaced with the Stay Safe Minnesota order, which outlined the first phase of the gradual reopening of the state. To the disappointment of many people of faith, the new order left places of worship in limbowhile allowing secular businesses to open up.Many churches had been preparing safe opening plans, only to be told that church services are “unpredictable” and therefore less safe than going shopping. As Minnesota Family Council’s Renee Carlson pointed out, “If any predictable ordered gathering exists it is worship services,” a fact that Walz has since acknowledged.
The early days of the COVID-19 outbreakcoincided with ongoing efforts in multiple states to keep radical, agenda driven comprehensive sex education (CSE) out of children’s classrooms. Parents in Washington state have been working to repeal a recent mandatory comprehensive sex ed law, finding ways to creatively connect with other parents and get the word outduring a pandemic, while in Texas, parents have been fighting Austin Independent School District’sexplicit sex ed program that was expected to be taught in May. After the stateprevented schools from using Planned Parenthood’s curriculum, the school district opted for an even more radical curriculum from a Canadian abortion provider.
Concerned parents had planned an organized sit out, which then moved to an online event. As schooling shifted online, the school district suddenly chose to cancel sex education for the year. While they did not cite parental concernsas their reason for the sudden decision, the number of parents speaking up probably did not make the school eager to bring this controversial curriculum into students’ homes. If Austin ISD had not cancelled their sex ed program for the year, what might those parents have discovered being taught in their children’s online classrooms?
After lending her name to the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion,Norma McCorvey, better known as Jane Roe, became a pro-life ally,appearing at marches, rallies, and outside of abortion facilities to tell herstoryand defend life.Then yesterdayheadlines crowing that “Woman behind U.S. abortion ruling was paid to recant” and “The woman Behind Roe v. Wade didn’t change her mind. She was paid” began sweeping across the internet. According to a documentary set to air on Hulu this Friday,McCorvey eitherrecanted her pro-life stance near the end of her life, or perhaps never was pro-life at all.
The documentary called “AKA, Jane Roe,” tells the story of Roe v. Wade from the viewpoint of an aging Norma McCorvey, using footage from shortly before her death. In the film she refers to her statements as her “deathbed confession.” McCorvey says, “If a young woman wants to have an abortion—fine… You know, that’s why they call it ‘choice.’ It’s your choice,” and suggests that her public pro-life stance was financially motivated, although it is worth noting that, contrary to the headlines, there is no evidence that she was actually paid to becomepro-life.
