The Family Beacon

It has been a long time since American conservatives have been on the offensive. Perhaps Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is an exception, but in large part, conservative leaders are so busy attempting to reel in progressive radicalism that they struggle to enact positive change. With conservatism on defense, it is interesting to consider what kind of nation we would create if given the opportunity. The nation of Hungary provides an excellent example, along with inspiring hope for the conservative movement.

The Hungarian Fidesz party, which champions conservative values, won the 2022 election in a landslide over its liberal opponents. Not only did their Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, win another term in office, but Fidesz was able to expand their parliamentary super-majority. Their victory has set in motion the expansion of conservative values across the nation.

In large part, their victory is due to the party’s willingness to go on the offensive. Instead of promising to cut taxes and try to forestall the progressive march through institutions, they have taken proactive steps to make their country a better place.

On March 31st, the Biden Administration sent a letter to all state Attorneys General demanding that they make it easier for children who identify as transgender to receive puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-change surgeries. The goal of this, according to the Administration, is to “keep [kids] healthy and safe.” Indeed, President Biden has referred to “transgender equality” as “the civil rights issue of our time,” comparing it to Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington.

The letter outlines how the Biden Administration intends to stop individual states from banning so-called “gender-affirming care.” If a child, under the influence of teachers, peers, or parents, wants to change their gender, they will receive legal protection to do so. But most, if not all, children will outgrow their gender dysphoria by the time they reach adulthood, so why does the Biden administration think that providing so-called “gender-affirming care” is so vital?

The Administration’s rationale is that transition-affirming procedures will lower suicide rates of transgender-identified children. Transition affirmation, however, does not reduce the rates of child suicides. In Sweden, a study has shown that people who go through sex-reassignment have a 20% higher suicide rate than the base population.

To the left sat the opposition to my bill. To the right were my supporters, friends, and the police officer I was there to represent. We debated for the better part of an hour, using evidence, logic, and testimonies to make our case. In the end, our bill passed, and I walked away with a greater understanding of how our government worked. That was only half of what I learned at LEAD, a student statesmanship and worldview camp. As students, we were able to learn about culture and worldview from pastors, writers, and legislators. We had the opportunity to participate in small group discussions about topics like abortion, and how to approach it in both the political and cultural realm. In short, experience at LEAD gave me experience that has allowed me to succeed in every aspect of my life.

Our culture has shown how little it cares for our students. Instead of leading our classrooms with the pledge of allegiance, teachers have sought to integrate radical theories on sexuality and racial justice. Instead of challenging students with rigorous, critical thinking, they have allowed them to develop a blind, follow the leader mentality. LEAD, on the other hand, requires students to rise above the low expectations that culture puts on them. The ability to think critically is a crucial aspect of succeeding now, and in the future.

The victory of Lia Thomas, a male swimmer who identifies as a woman, over his female counterparts in the NCAA championship, puts another nail in the coffin of the achievements of the 20th century women’s movement, such as the existence of competitive women’s athletics. While many have cried foul over his victory, the so-called Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) could enshrine unfair competition as a legal right. The bill has already passed out of at least one Minnesota House committee, and may be voted on by the whole House soon. It’s crucial that Minnesotans know what the real cost of the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” would be.

To understand this issue, let’s look at the history surrounding the ERA. It is important to understand the difference between the Minnesota ERA and the United States ERA. In its earliest stages, the United States ERA began as a bill that sought to give women equal protection under the law, saying “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The bill, which was introduced in 1972, was never ratified at the federal level, although federal laws already prohibit sex-based discrimination in various areas such as employment.

The Minnesota ERA is a successor to the federal bill, but with a twist. The important distinction between the Minnesota ERA and the ERA of our parents’ generation is the subtle change of language. Equal protection on account of “sex” (male or female) has been changed to “gender,” opening the doors wide open to the chaotic world of gender theory.

The problems that this bill presents are obvious. First, while it may seem like an inconsequential semantic change, the inclusion of the purposefully vague “gender” allows for men like Lia Thomas to participate in women’s sports without any legal repercussions. Not only will athletes like Thomas be free to participate in women’s sports at any level, but any action to stop him will be viewed as discriminatory under the law. This was made clear in a statement from United States Rep. Maloney (D-New York), who argued that “[w]ith the ERA, we secure equality under the law for women and all marginalized genders.”

The confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson have been a relatively peaceful affair. In comparison to the ruthless attacks on Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, there has been relative civility surrounding the D.C Court of Appeals judge. While it is likely that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be confirmed, it is good to take a dive into her actual rulings and responses to questioning, not just her resume.

Jackson’s stance on abortion has been problematic for most conservatives. In the hearing, she referred to Roe v. Wade as “the settled law of the Supreme Court,” while later acknowledging that if Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe then it, too, would be treated as precedent.

But in 2001, Jackson was involved in a Massachusetts case dealing with pro-life counselors and their right to assemble outside of abortion centers. She co-authored a decision that allowed the creation of a “buffer-zone” between the counselors and the women entering the clinics.

Conservatives have also expressed concern over loud support for Jackson from pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). A statement from Planned Parenthood stressed that “Judge Jackson will play a crucial role in the direction the court takes in the future.”

Among the concerned is Senator John Cornyn from Texas, who asked why far-left groups such as Demand Justice have publicly supported Judge Jackson’s nomination. Demand Justice is a progressive activist group whose purpose is to add more justices to the Supreme Court. With a court packed by the pro-abortion Biden administration, positive abortion reform at SCOTUS would become virtually impossible for a generation.

Perhaps most concerningly, when asked about the definition of a woman by Senator Blackburn (R-Tennessee), Judge Jackson refused to give a straight answer. Should a Judge who cannot define what a woman is be allowed to preside over cases dealing with gender, sexual identity, and abortion? Behind Judge Jackson’s impressive paper qualifications lies what seems to be an entrenched progressive ideology, committed to the recent fabrication that “man” and “woman” are culturally constructed concepts, instead of God-given biological realities.

In a 93-42 vote, Maryland legislators passed a law aimed at enshrining abortion as a constitutional right. This decision came after fervent opposition from pro-life legislators in their attempts to amend the bill. If the bill is approved by the Maryland Senate, it would appear on the ballot for Maryland voters to make abortion a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

This constitutional amendment is in direct response to the U.S Supreme Court’s expected decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson case. This case could abolish Roe v. Wade and return the power to legislate on abortion’s legality to the states. If the Maryland amendment gets the approval of voters, it would make it almost impossible to make abortion illegal in that state. Some have cried foul as this bill seeks influence future elections. Neil Parrott (R-Washington County) said, “There's no reason for this bill, unless it's purely political, to turn out people in elections this coming November, and I don't think that's a great reason to vote for a constitutional amendment.”

Since the downfall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been a bastion of religious freedom in Eastern Europe. But with the invasion by the totalitarian Russian regime, which threatens Ukraine’s sovereignty, this freedom could wither away. As believers, we need to provide measured support Ukraine in their fight for independence so that religious freedom may thrive.

Russia has had a long history of religious persecution, and while the repression affects every faith, Russia’s main target has been Christianity. Vladimir Lenin, the father of the USSR wrote about how religion was poison to the people, and “there is nothing more abominable than religion.” Lenin and later Soviet leaders Stalin, and Khrushchev all led campaigns against established religion, which burned churches, imprisoned priests, and drove Christians out of the country. Khrushchev infamously stated that Christians would become extinct when he was done with them. This persecution did not end when the USSR was abolished in 1990. In 2017, the Russian Nation named Jehovah’s Witnesses as “extremists” and outlawed the practice of their religion. The Russian government under Vladimir Putin has made Christian evangelism very difficult, and has enacted training regulations on pastors and priests that demand they become recertified by a “centralized religious organization.”

American public schools no longer look after the best interests of our children. Instead, they often attempt to indoctrinate our kids with radical theories about race and sexuality. In large part, they have ceased to care for the opinions of parents and have in many cases purposefully hidden certain curriculum from the eyes of Mom and Dad. The radicalization and indoctrination in public schools can no longer be denied, nor tolerated. It is no wonder then that in a recent survey, 70% of American parents want to take control of their children’s education.

Parents should always have the final say in their child’s education, but for many years now, progressive activists have been working to take away a parent’s right to influence their child’s education. In a sad irony, Planned Parenthood demands that every woman has the right to choose to end their own child’s life, and yet in many public school districts parents have little control over what curriculum their child is taught. School districts around the state have embraced the teachings of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE). These theories are in direct opposition to what Christians believe. CRT suggests that racial discrimination issues can only be solved by more racial discrimination, and CSE teaches that sexually immoral behavior is “normal” and “acceptable.”