The Family Beacon

The news of the Supreme Court’s draft decision on Roe v. Wade has swept over our nation like a tidal wave. But as we await the final decision, there is much work to do. Fortunately, pro-lifers like Minnesota Representative Lisa Demuth (R-Cold Spring) have been valiantly working to create a culture of life in Minnesota. On May 3rd, Rep. Demuth took on the pro-abortion establishment when she submitted amendments to a bill in order to help protect mothers and their children.

The Health and Human Services omnibus bill in the Minnesota House seeks to make “historic investments in human services” by pouring cash into the health care workforce and certain health issues. All told, the 876-page bill proposes $478.7 million for health care services and early childhood programs and $270.7 million for health programs. With this increased spending came typical questions about responsible use of taxpayer money, but some looked beyond just finances.

Representative Lisa Demuth sought to amend the bill to include protections for women and children. First, Rep. Demuth argued that abortion clinics should have regular inspections and should have to be licensed annually. In the hearing, she remarked that “This is about the health and safety of women. We require other facilities to be licensed, other health care facilities, so why wouldn’t we expect the same of these [abortion] facilities?” In a truly sad bit of irony, tanning salons undergo inspections, but abortion centers do not.

Author Ibram X. Kendi, in his book How to be an Antiracist proposed that “[o]ne either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist.” His words took hold of the minds of many Americans sensitive to the racial tensions that seem to have grown stronger in recent years. Kendi claims that one cannot simply be non-racist, but one must also promote the rights of minorities (discriminated against) over the rights of the majority (discriminators).

Kendi’s ideas are being put to the test as the Biden Administration announced plans to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in every area of government. In an executive order, President Biden promised action from 140 different government agencies to achieve racial equity. Although this may seem like a step forward, the Administration’s proposed solution would only fight inequality with inequality.

Views on inequality run the gamut, with some conservatives denying that any racial injustice exists. However, we can plainly see how racial discrimination did exist in obvious ways in ways that still affect people today. Take the idea of redlining, one important example that was practiced here in Minnesota, not just in southern states. After President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was signed, companies and city planners outlined areas with large minority populations and labeled them as potentially “hazardous.” As a result, these inked-in neighborhoods saw a drastic loss in investment, and a huge spike in mortgage rates. How did this effect the minority residents? As it became more difficult to buy a house, residents were forced to rent. Without ownership of a house, or the ability to benefit from the increased value of their home, black residents suffered from poverty as some white counterparts enjoyed increased home equity.

The past week has been a historic time for the Supreme Court. Although the leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson has taken front and center in our national dialogue, another case was handed down this week that is a huge win for free speech. This case is of course Shurtleff v. City of Boston, which centers around the cities refusal to fly a Christian flag on their front steps.

Boston’s City Hall, which was built in 1968, has long been a place where private groups can raise a flag to support their cause. Three flagpoles stand before the Brutalist style city hall, one for the flag of the United States, on for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and one final flagpole for private groups. Over the long history of the city hall, not once has the city of Boston refused to fly a flag, until members of the group known as Camp Constitution requested to promote their heritage through a Christian symbol. At this request, the city refused on the basis that it would violate the Establishment Clause, which bans the coalition of church and state. Camp Constitution sued, and the decision found its way to the Supreme Court.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer authored the majority opinion in favor of Camp Constitution. The issue at hand was whether or not the views expressed on the exterior flags counted as government-endorsed speech. If they expressed the views of the governing system, Boston would have the authority to decide which flags to fly. Justice Breyer posited that while the history surrounding flag etiquette supported Boston’s position, “the city’s lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech.” He concluded that the because of this, the city of Boston’s refusal to fly a Christian flag violated the First Amendment.

The board of Twitter announced on Monday that it would accept entrepreneur Elon Musk’s $44 billion dollar offer to bring the company private. While the future of Twitter is uncertain, there is renewed hope for those who want to see Twitter become a platform devoted to free speech.

The takeover of Twitter is good news for fans for free speech. For the past eight years, Twitter and its readiness to ban dissident voices has been damaging to free speech across the world. In 2020, after the riot at the United States capital, Twitter permanently banned the account of President Donald Trump over his supposed involvement. Twitter continues to suspend the Babylon Bee and even briefly suspended our own Minnesota Family Council Twitter account. What was the violation? We simply stated that Rachel Levine (formerly Richard), Assistant Secretary of Health, is in fact, a man who identifies as a woman. Fortunately, the future looks brighter.

The race to replace the late Representative Jim Hagedorn (R-MN) is a crowded one. Since the special election was announced, some twenty candidates have officially made their bid for office. Minnesota Congressional District #1 (CD1) has often been a close race, and it has the potential to be close again after the passing of Rep. Hagedorn on February 18th. Although the district leans Republican, Hagedorn narrowly won by half of a percentage in 2018. With expectations of another close race, donors have pumped over $1 million to fuel individual campaigns on both sides.

The most well-known candidate on the Republican side is Jennifer Carnahan, Rep. Hagedorn’s widow, and former Minnesota GOP Chairwoman. A recent straw poll gave Carnahan 37% of the vote despite controversies over her record at MNGOP. Last year, questions were raised over her work relationship with Anton "Tony" Lazzaro, who is now serving time for federal sex-trafficking charges, which eventually led to her resignation. Although Carnahan denied any involvement, many GOP employees expressed how Carnahan allegedly turned a blind eye to sexual harassment in the office. Carnahan was later forced to step down from her role as chairwoman, but after her husband’s death she quickly organized a run for the seat he held. In her own words, Carnahan’s bid for office is to “to keep my husband's legacy moving forward." Her campaign has raised $151,400 with $8,000 of her own money going towards the effort.

With 20% in the latest straw polling, Rep. Jeremy Munson, a small business owner from Lake Crystal, Minnesota, has accumulated the greatest cash-flow among the Republican candidates, raising $102,000 and personally loaning $200,000 to his campaign. He has been endorsed by national politicians such as Congressmen Scott Perry (R-PA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), and Jim Jordan (R-OH).

Rob Kenney, creator of the “Dad, how do I?” YouTube channel, grew up without a father. Without a dad, Rob struggled to complete everyday tasks because he had no one to teach him. In response to this, he made it his mission to become a virtual father to millions of kids across the globe, teaching them how to shave, jump a car, and live with integrity. Rob is an excellent example of why we need to help fathers step up to the plate. Florida’s recent “Responsible Fatherhood” bill will help fathers play a more positive role in their families in the years to come.

The Responsible Fatherhood bill aims at providing educational training and mentorship programs for fathers to strengthen their involvement in the home. The bill was signed into law on April 11th, after receiving unanimous support in both the Florida House and Senate. Proponents of the bill reasoned that fathers should be supported because of the impact they can have on children. In a tweet after signing the bill into law, Governor Ron DeSantis cited that kids without fathers are two times more likely to drop out of school, and three times more likely to end up in prison (for males). These facts are reason enough to promote responsible fatherhood, but let’s look deeper.

The importance a mother in a child’s life is undeniable, but mothers and fathers both have different and crucial roles to play. While a mother may console and nurture a child, a father encourages them to reach higher and try more. Fathers prepare children for the real world by lovingly reminding children about the consequences of their actions. Perhaps more importantly, good fathers act as role models in their children’s lives, showing them how to respect others. Both mothers and fathers are instrumental in a child’s life, a fact made incredibly clear in God’s Word.

Spring is a wonderful time of year. During this season, we see the snow of winter melt away to be replaced by new life. In this cycle of nature, we experience the physical manifestation of what Easter means. The resurrection of Jesus Christ allows us to sprout out of the rocky ground and begin a new life in accordance with His Word, by the power of His Holy Spirit.

Ever since the original sin of Adam, humanity has been guilty before God and subject to his wrath (Genesis 3:14). There is no way to put it nicely. Every day, we all actively participate in rebellion from God, and without His grace, we condemn ourselves to an eternity apart from Him. Fortunately for us, the story does not end here. God, in His grace, sent His son to take on the wrath that we justly deserved (Romans 2:5). The Bible tells us that Jesus came to be the propitiation for those sins (Romans 3:25). He did so by dying on a cross. But again this was not the end of the story, because on the third day Jesus rose from the grave and ascended into glory.

In the book The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis gives a wonderful fictionalized portrayal of the importance of Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection. Edmund, one of the main protagonists, falls prone to the lies of the evil White Witch, and in doing so is condemned to die. Edmund represents us in all our weakness and sinfulness. He would be doomed to die if it were not for Aslan, the Great Lion, who takes on Edmund’s debt and dies in his place. Aslan is beaten, shamed, and killed on a cold, stone table. But, with the warmth of the rising sun, Aslan rises from the dead and the power of the White Witch is broken.

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.”