Author archives: Worth Loving

Befriending Our Opponents: A Tale of Two Presidents

by Worth Loving

July 2, 2020

In the midst of the current political divisions gripping our nation, it’s difficult to find close friendships between people with opposing viewpoints. It seems we are divided on every issue, with each side digging their heels in more and more and little hope of solving America’s greatest problems.

In such times, many are asking if there is any hope of finding common ground. I have often found it difficult to form meaningful friendships with people whom I disagree with on fundamental issues like life, family, and religious freedom. But may I suggest that friendship is exactly what we need to bring us together? What if we could form genuine relationships with those on the other side to make our nation better together? Two of our most famous Founding Fathers had significant political differences that nearly ended their friendship. Yet they persevered, giving us the beautiful story of reconciliation that we have today.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson first met in Philadelphia at the Second Continental Congress of 1775. A year later, they worked together on the committee tasked with drafting the Declaration of Independence, whose 244th anniversary we celebrate this weekend. In the 1780s, Adams and Jefferson worked together on diplomatic assignments in England and France, managing to find some time for leisure during their demanding duties as ambassadors. Over the years, they became close friends, corresponding by letter often when they were separated.

On politics, however, the two could not be more opposite and frequently debated their differences. In fact, their disagreements sometimes became personal and often tested their friendship. Adams, a devout member of the Federalist Party, favored a strong central government, a national bank, and close relations with Great Britain. On the other hand, Jefferson, an ardent Democrat-Republican, favored states’ rights, reduced government spending, greater relations with France, and westward expansion. Despite their passionate political differences, their close friendship continued for many years.

However, circumstances changed in 1801. Adams was still president but had just lost his bid for reelection in a bitter battle against Jefferson. In the final hours of his presidency before Jefferson took office, Adams made a number of last-minute judicial and bureaucratic appointments—appointees who were loyal Federalists and would oppose the incoming administration, making it extremely difficult for Jefferson to govern effectively. In fact, Jefferson later wrote that they “were selected from among my most ardent political enemies.” This political disagreement proved to be the severest test of their friendship, and the two ceased correspondence for the next decade.

After Jefferson retired from the presidency in 1809, Dr. Benjamin Rush took it upon himself to act as an arbiter and rekindle the friendship between Adams and Jefferson. However, it took two years until he was able to convince the two to resume their friendship. When one of Jefferson’s neighbors visited Adams in 1811, Adams is reported to have said: “I have always loved Jefferson, and still love him.” Upon hearing this report from his neighbor, Jefferson wrote Dr. Rush: “This is enough for me. I only needed this knowledge to revive towards him all the affections of the most cordial moments of our lives.” At Dr. Rush’s persuading, he convinced Adams to renew his correspondence with Jefferson. The two continued to write each other often until their deaths 15 years later.

Reconciliation often makes broken relationships stronger than they were before, and so it did with Adams and Jefferson. In the years following their renewed friendship, a rich correspondence commenced between the two, reminiscing about the past, discussing current events, and looking forward to what lay ahead.

On July 4, 1826, 50 years to the day after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson died at Monticello in the rolling hills of Virginia. A few hours later, John Adams passed at his home in Massachusetts. His family reported that the last dying words he spoke were “Thomas Jefferson lives,” not knowing that his dear friend had died hours earlier.  

In today’s polarizing political climate, it’s easy to see the “other side” as enemies, with the strong desire to convince those on the fence that our ideas are better. That is not to diminish our differences in worldviews. Without a doubt, liberals and conservatives both have two very different ideas for the future of America. But, on this July 4th, perhaps we can learn a lesson from two of our greatest Founding Fathers. They didn’t ignore their differences as if they didn’t exist, but they didn’t allow those differences to interfere with forming a lifelong friendship. Likewise, we don’t have to set aside our differences either because that won’t make them disappear. Being friendly isn’t abandoning your principles. Perhaps this July 4th can be different if we don’t let those differences get in the way of crossing the street and talking to our neighbor. After all, we are celebrating our nation’s independence and the freedom we have to be different.

Furthermore, as Christians, there are several biblical commands that are easy to forget in the divisive times in which we live. First, we must remember that those with whom we disagree are not the enemy. Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6:12 (ESV) that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Second, Christians are commanded to love our enemies and pray for them (Matthew 5:44). Third, Scripture tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, whether we agree with them or not (Matthew 22:39). Last, wherever God’s spirit is, there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:17). By embracing reconciliation with others, we not only encourage freedom but we also invite God’s spirit to dwell among us. 

We often quote the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But we miss the weight of its last sentence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” The signers of the Declaration no doubt had significant political differences and widely varying ideas for the future of the young nation. But they did not let those differences hinder them from forming friendships or from their ultimate goal—independence and freedom for all. These 56 men, firmly trusting in God, were willing to give up everything—their careers, possessions, and even their very lives—for the sake of freedom. Two of our future presidents—John Adams and Thomas Jefferson—both put aside their differences when they signed their names to that sacred document.

What we need in America right now is a good dose of civility and genuine friendships. Sure, there is a time and place to discuss the future of our great republic—a discussion we will continue to have and fiercely debate. But, this weekend, maybe we can take a break from debating on social media, protesting, or grasping for the next news hit and simply focus on loving our neighbor.

Let’s remember to celebrate our independence this weekend and the freedom it gives us to debate and be different. But let’s also not forget the opportunity we have to reach across the aisle and love our neighbor.

Socialism, the Coronavirus, and Bernie Sanders’ America

by Worth Loving , Israel Lopez Ramirez

April 7, 2020

Over the last month, normal everyday life in the United States has come to a screeching halt as the government works to stop the spread of the deadly coronavirus. Busy cities like New York, Los Angeles, and even Washington, D.C. have become ghost towns. Most businesses and restaurants are either shut down or open only on a very restricted basis. Grocery store shelves are empty as people scramble to grab essential items like toilet paper, water, and meat, not knowing when the lockdown will end. The stock market has plummeted and wiped out most of the Trump-era gains. Companies are being forced to lay off employees as events are canceled and revenue falls. For the first time, many in America are experiencing what food shortages and government-imposed mandates are really like.

A couple weeks ago, my roommate and I visited our local grocery store to stock up on some essential items. We weren’t planning to hoard all the toilet paper, meat, or bottled water, but we wanted to get enough in case the virus prevented us from getting out much over the coming weeks.

Growing up in eastern North Carolina, I’ve experienced my fair share of hurricanes. I’ve seen people board up their homes and stock up on generators and bottled water more times than I can count. I’ve also experienced many times how unaccustomed Southerners are to snow and ice in the winter. At the first sight of a snowflake or ice pellet, people rushed to the stores to stock up on bread and milk. To this day, I’ve never figured out why those two items seemed to fly off the shelves with the threat of winter weather. Milk sandwiches never appealed to me.

When my roommate and I visited the grocery store a couple weeks ago, I was shocked. It was relatively late in the evening and the store was still full of people. All the meat, produce, pasta, soup, milk, eggs, water, toilet paper—completely gone. As we tried to scrounge up a few essential goods, I looked at my roommate and said, “I’ve never seen anything like this before.” To which he replied, “This is what it’s like in Venezuela—but always.”

My roommate, Israel Lopez Ramirez, has lived here in the United States in Washington, D.C. for nearly three years now. Before that, he spent his entire life in Venezuela. He owned a graphic design company and enjoyed many years of economic success. That is, until socialism overtook his beloved country.

Venezuela is one of the richest countries in South America in terms of natural resources, particularly oil. As the country became more industrialized in the 20th century, it borrowed money to develop those natural resources. When the world economy went into a recession in the 1970s and 80s, demand for oil decreased and its price plummeted. In Venezuela, this resulted in skyrocketing inflation, stagnant wages, and many people losing their jobs.

Capitalizing on the nation’s economic distress, Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1999 on a pledge to save working Venezuelans from the “evil capitalists and evil corporations.” Inspired by his hero Fidel Castro, he conducted a massive takeover of the country’s health care system and private sector industries and instituted sweeping social welfare reforms. As a result, many companies left Venezuela, leaving the country with few jobs and skyrocketing inflation. Chavez also pushed through a new constitution, which gave his government more central control and began restricting many fundamental liberties like freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech.

In 2013, Chavez died and Vice President Nicolas Maduro assumed the presidency. Maduro has continued the socialist policies of his predecessor. Many Venezuelans are out of work or severely underpaid. Inflation continues to skyrocket, and most Venezuelans cannot afford even the most basic of necessities. Grocery stores continue to experience shortages due to government controls and a lack of supply. Crime is now rampant in the country as people resort to desperate measures to find these basic necessities and as the Maduro-backed military hunts down its political opponents.

When my roommate compared the empty shelves at our local grocery store to what is happening every day in Venezuela, it really hit me. Many young Americans my age are embracing socialism at an alarming rate. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has capitalized on the enthusiasm of these millennials as well as the fury of the working class. He has normalized once radical proposals like Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, and free college.

But what’s more disturbing is Sanders’ praise for totalitarian regimes around the world. He has repeatedly refused to call Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro a tyrant. Among other things, he praised the Soviet Union’s investment in culture and their mass transit system in the 1980s. In 1985, Sanders praised the media censorship of Nicaragua’s Sandinista-led government. And he has repeatedly praised the housing, education, and health care programs of Fidel Castro’s Cuba. In a 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper in February, Sanders once again praised certain aspects of the Cuban dictator’s regime. Many Democratic leaders quickly condemned Sanders’ comments, and his remaining rivals for the nomination immediately capitalized on that anger. As a result, Sanders’ polling lead evaporated, all but ending his chances at the nomination.

My roommate was forced to leave Venezuela because the government seized his assets and took over his business. Because of statements he has made on social media against the brutal Maduro regime, he cannot return to the country for fear he might be thrown into prison or worse. His family remains in Venezuela and continues to experience critical food shortages and skyrocketing inflation.

Venezuela is an example to the United States and any other capitalist nations—socialism does not work. It is always best to let markets operate free of government intervention. More importantly, it is critical to protect our fundamental First Amendment rights, something all socialist regimes inevitably take away. And while Bernie Sanders will deny any perceived comparison to the human rights violations of authoritarian regimes, some of his past statements indicate otherwise. In 2017, Sanders suggested that then nominee for Assistant Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought was unfit to hold the office because of his Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the only Savior.

While Sen. Sanders no longer has a viable shot at the Democratic nomination, we came dangerously close to having a presidential nominee from a major political party who embraced communist ideas. And while likely Democratic nominee Joe Biden is quick to criticize Sanders for his praise of communist regimes, he still supports many of the same socialist policies. He plans a further government takeover of the economy, education, and the health care system. Even more concerning is that he has made passing the Equality Act a centerpiece of his campaign, a radical piece of legislation that will severely infringe on our First Amendment and privacy rights. To put it plainly, Joe Biden is just like Bernie Sanders, except with more charm and subtlety. If he is elected president in November, he will take us down the same socialist road.

Make no mistake. History has proven time and again that socialist leaders start out by promising to work for the people. But they always inevitably descend into total government control of the economy, health care system, and education, and end up taking away fundamental freedoms. In November, we must get out to the polls and resolutely reject this radical agenda, sending a clear message to the Democratic Party and to the world that socialism is not welcome in the United States. Not now and not ever.

Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood

by Worth Loving

February 10, 2020

Recently, Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest (R-N.C.) came under fire for comments he made regarding Planned Parenthood and its founder, Margaret Sanger. Speaking to an MLK Day breakfast at Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, Forest said this: “There is no doubt that when Planned Parenthood was created, it was created to destroy the entire black race. That was the purpose of Planned Parenthood. That’s the truth.” Forest later defended his comments to McClatchy News: “The facts speak for themselves. Since 1973, 19 million black babies have been aborted, mostly by Planned Parenthood. I care too much about the lives of these babies to debate the intent of Sanger’s views when the devastation she brought into this world is obvious.”

Margaret Sanger, her sister, Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York on October 16, 1916. The clinic was later raided by the NYPD, and all three women were arrested and charged with violating the Comstock Act for distributing obscene materials. After laws governing birth control were relaxed, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

While Lieutenant Governor Forest was attacked by many on the Left for pushing an uneducated, insensitive agenda, history backs him up. The fact is that Margaret Sanger strongly believed the Aryan race to be superior and that it must be purified, a view that finds its roots from Charles Darwin’s defense of evolution in The Origin of Species. Darwin argued that a process of “natural selection” favored the white race over all other “lesser races.” Sanger advocated for eugenics by calling for abortion and birth control among the “unfit” to produce a master race, a race consisting solely of wealthy, educated whites. Sanger said she believed blacks were “human weeds” that needed to be exterminated. She also referred to immigrants, African Americans, and poor people as “reckless breeders” and “spawning…human beings who never should have been born.”

Sanger once wrote “that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” In an effort to sell her birth control and abortion proposals to the black community, Sanger said: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” In 1926, Sanger was also the featured speaker at a women’s auxiliary meeting of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.

Sanger opened her clinics in largely minority neighborhoods because she believed immigrants and the working class were inferior and needed their population controlled so as to purify the human race. That trend continues today where almost 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. In fact, although only 13 percent of American women are black, over 35 percent of all black babies are aborted in the United States every year. Abortion is the leading cause of death for blacks in the United States. According to Students for Life of America, “more African-Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.” Black babies are about five times more likely to be aborted than whites. On Halloween in 2017, Planned Parenthood’s “Black Community” Twitter account tweeted: “If you’re a Black woman in America, it’s statistically safer to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term or give birth.”

While Margaret Sanger tried to portray Planned Parenthood as a merciful organization that helps needy families, the facts speak for themselves. In her testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in September 2015, former Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards openly admitted that over 80 percent of her organization’s annual revenue comes from performing abortions and not basic health care for poor or disadvantaged women. When you dive deeper, well over 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue comes from performing abortions.

Despite this sordid history, Margaret Sanger is almost universally recognized as a pioneer for women’s rights rather than the racist she actually was. When accepting Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that she “admired Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…I am really in awe of her.” Those like Hillary Clinton are ignoring the explicitly racist statements that Margaret Sanger made throughout her life. The fact is that Sanger normalized birth control and abortion in the United States as a means to accomplish eugenics. Her ultimate goal was to eliminate non-white races, people with sickness or disabilities, children born to felons, the poor, and immigrants, to name a few.

Margaret Sanger is no heroine, and Planned Parenthood is not some merciful health care provider as the Left paints it to be. Margaret Sanger repeatedly stated her racist intentions for the whole world to see and hear, and Planned Parenthood was and still is the manifestation of those racist ideologies. America was founded on the idea that no matter your race, creed, national origin, disability, or station in life, everyone who comes here or is born here has the opportunity to live a successful, fulfilling life. Margaret Sanger didn’t believe that.

As pro-life activists, we must do our part to expose Margaret Sanger for who she really was. We must also expose the racist history of Planned Parenthood and how that history is still relevant today. For more information on Margaret Sanger and the racist roots of Planned Parenthood, check out these FRC resources: Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman and The Real Planned Parenthood: Leading the Culture of Death.

Pornography: America’s Hidden Public Health Crisis

by Worth Loving

October 30, 2019

Many public health crises are clear and easy to detect, manifesting themselves in the form of disease, food contamination, or biological warfare. At one time or another, the United States has faced similar crises head on and overcome them with swift action. However, for several decades, there has been a growing health crisis that is far more subtle but with devastating effects. It begins within the privacy of one’s home, but its effects reach across the nation. 

Not too many years ago, pornography was often difficult and costly to obtain. In fact, pornography use was so frowned upon that people went to great lengths to conceal it. Laws strictly controlled the sale and display of pornography. People would have to go to XXX stores or order through the mail to obtain it. Today, however, we face a far different scenario. With the advent of the internet, pornography is available for free to anyone at the click of a button. Untold millions have been enslaved by addiction to pornography, and many others have been indirect victims of its effects. The negative effects of pornography have reached a point where legislative and prosecutorial action is needed. It’s time for Congress and the DOJ to step up, acknowledge the obvious effects of pornography, and enforce the obscenity laws that were put in place years ago to protect the American public.

The statistics are overwhelming. A recent study found that in the United States, approximately 98 percent of men and 73 percent of women between the ages of 18-35 have viewed pornography in the last six months, for a total of 85 percent. In 2018, porn videos were watched over 109 billion times on one porn site alone. These statistics are just a sampling of the growing pornography epidemic in the United States.

Proponents of pornography often argue that it should be protected on the grounds that it harms no one, but research proves otherwise. One study found that “when men consume violent pornography (i.e. depicting rape or torture), they are more likely to commit acts of sexual aggression.” And as FRC has written about previously, there is a strong link between porn, sex trafficking, and abortion. In addition, porn “fuels child sexual abuse, compulsive sexual behavior, sexual dysfunction,” and more.

There is more than enough evidence to warrant action. In fact, pornography and its destructive effects have become so widespread that many states are moving to declare it a public health crisis. In fact, 16 states have passed resolutions declaring pornography a public health crisis. While these resolutions are non-binding, they do serve to raise awareness and educate the public about the dangers of pornography. Furthermore, the goal of such resolutions is to curb the pervasiveness of pornography and provide resources to those who are struggling.

Contrary to popular opinion, the First Amendment does not automatically protect all pornography. In fact, federal obscenity laws passed by Congress prohibit the distribution of hardcore pornography in print and digital form. However, since the Clinton administration, the Department of Justice has failed to enforce these laws and prosecute those guilty of distributing hardcore pornography.

With enough evidence now available to the public, it’s time for Congress and the DOJ to take action. Pornography is not a free speech issue. In fact, it takes away the voices of so many who are silently screaming for freedom. It is harming individuals by fueling addiction, destroying families by increasing sexual dysfunction and aggression, and ruining countless lives by exploiting victims of sex trafficking. It’s time that we demand President Trump direct Attorney General Barr to enforce existing obscenity laws and that Congress pass stricter penalties for those who illegally distribute or produce pornography.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville brilliantly describes the secret to America’s greatness with this simple statement: “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” There is nothing good or wholesome about pornography. Granting so-called “freedom” to one group, knowing that it could lead to the violation of other’s rights, isn’t freedom at all. Let’s work together to protect our homes, our local communities, and our great nation from this scourge. 

Terri Schiavo and the Slippery Slope of Assisted Suicide

by Worth Loving

May 23, 2019


I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” -The Hippocratic Oath

On March 31, 2005, Terri Schiavo died after nearly 14 days without food or water. Over 14 years have passed since her court-ordered death by starvation and dehydration. Even as I write this, Vincent Lambert, dubbed the “French Terri Schiavo,” is facing the same death that she faced unless the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities intervenes. Recently, a so-called “right-to-die” or “death with dignity” bill was passed by the New Jersey legislature and signed by Governor Phil Murphy. In Maryland, a similar bill passed the House of Delegates but failed in the state Senate by one vote. Last month, the Nevada legislature defeated a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide. Amid the renewed debate on such legislation, it’s important to understand the implications of such laws and how the story of Terri Schiavo relates to them.

Terri Schiavo’s Story – Timeline of Events

In the early morning of February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo collapsed at her home in St. Petersburg, Florida. Although no diagnosis was made, her medical records indicate a deprivation of oxygen to the brain. After being placed on a ventilator for the first few weeks following her collapse, it was soon removed, and she was able to breathe on her own for the rest of her life. The collapse left Terri with limited ability to communicate or move. Due to difficulty swallowing, a feeding tube was inserted to keep her nourished and hydrated.

In June of 1990, Terri’s husband, Michael, was granted healthcare power of attorney status because Terri had not designated a healthcare power of attorney in the event she could not speak for herself. She also began physical therapy at a rehabilitation facility in Florida where she would say words like “No,” “Stop,” and “Mommy.” In July of 1991, Terri’s physical therapy sessions were mysteriously stopped. This was the last documented therapy that Terri ever received.

In 1998, the fight for Terri’s life began. With the help of right-to-die attorney George Felos, Michael Schiavo filed a petition to withdraw life support. Judge George W. Greer heard Michael Schiavo’s petition in January of 2000. In his testimony, Michael Schiavo stated that Terri had told him in the 1980s that she would not want life support. Convinced by the testimony, Judge Greer ordered that Terri’s feeding tube be removed. On February 11, 2000, Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, appealed the order to the Second District Court of Appeals, which agreed with Judge Greer’s ruling. Both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their case.

On April 21, 2001, Judge Greer’s order was carried out and Terri’s feeding tube was removed. But after over 60 hours without food and water, a judge issued an injunction, allowing the feeding tube to be reinserted. Judge Frank Quesada ordered that Terri’s case be reheard based on new evidence. In October, Judge Greer denied a Motion for Relief from Judgment filed by Terri’s parents based on new evidence and testimony that Terri’s neurological condition had improved. After Terri’s parents appealed the ruling, Judge Greer was forced to hold a medical evidentiary hearing.

In October 2002, Judge Greer held the medical evidentiary trial. Florida law defined a persistent vegetative state as the “total absence of awareness and ability to communicate.” However, Terri did not meet this definition as she was able to, albeit on a very basic level, respond to her surroundings and communicate with her family. Judge Greer ignored this evidence and ordered her feeding tube removed once again, at the mandate of the Second District Court of Appeals.

Terri’s story gained nationwide attention in October 2003 after Judge Greer had ordered her feeding tube to be removed. At least 180,000 people had signed a petition to Governor Jeb Bush, requesting that he invoke Florida’s Adult Protection Custody statutes based on allegations of neglect. Five days later, Governor Bush called a special session of the Florida legislature. Both the Florida House and Senate passed Terri’s Law, granting Bush the authority to order Terri’s feeding tube to be reinserted.

Michael Schiavo’s right-to-die attorney George Felos immediately challenged the constitutionality of the law. Judge Baird of the Sixth Circuit ruled Terri’s Law unconstitutional on May 5, 2004. His ruling was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Terri’s feeding tube was removed for the third and final time on March 18, 2005 at the order of Judge Greer. In a rare weekend session, Congress passed the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo Act, which allowed Terri’s parents to have a federal court review their case. Robert and Mary Schindler’s subsequent request was denied by both U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore and the U.S. Supreme Court.

At 9:05 a.m. on March 31, 2005, Terri Schiavo died from severe dehydration. But Terri’s story did not end there—it was only the beginning. Her death ignited a powerful movement to save thousands of other Americans like her.

Death Without Dignity

The so-called “right-to-die” or “death with dignity” movement has established a powerful influence, particularly in the medical community. They have been able to successfully reclassify a feeding tube as “medical treatment,” making it somehow acceptable to starve and dehydrate an innocent human being to death even though we all need food and water to survive. But perhaps even more disturbing is how they have convinced the general public that some people’s lives are not worth living because of their age, illness, or disability.  

The effectiveness of the death with dignity movement, coupled with changes in public policy, now puts the lives of many people like Terri in the hands of doctors, medical boards, and ethics committees. In other words, families are being completely removed from the decision-making process of what care their family member should receive.

Contrary to the picture painted by Michael Schiavo’s attorney, right-to-die advocates, and the mainstream media, Terri Schiavo’s death was anything but “peaceful and painless.” After nearly two weeks without food or water, Terri’s lips were extremely cracked and blistered. Her skin began turning different shades of yellow and blue. Her breathing became shallow and rapid, and her moaning indicated the excruciating pain she was experiencing. Her face became extremely thin and bony, with her teeth protruding forward. Blood began to pool in her deeply sunken eyes.

This is the way Terri Schiavo died. Anyone who calls this type of death “peaceful and painless” is either ignorant or lying. There is a reason the court ordered no cameras or video in Terri’s room—they wanted to hide the truth and conceal a murder.

The Spread of Assisted Suicide and Its Slippery Slope

Laws decriminalizing assisted suicide are gaining traction. Currently, seven states plus the District of Columbia allow physician-assisted suicide. In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that nothing in state law prevented a physician from helping a terminally ill, fully aware patient commit suicide. Twenty states are debating such legislation this year alone. And while right-do-die advocates argue that these laws allow people to die with dignity, the case of Terri Schiavo proves otherwise.

Assisted suicide laws put the United States on a very slippery slope, a slope that will ultimately lead to more cases like Terri Schiavo. Most “death with dignity” laws require a doctor’s prognosis of six months or less to live in order to administer drugs that will end the patient’s life. And although doctors have far more knowledge than the average person, a prognosis is still an educated guess. That person could live weeks, months, or even years after their predicted death date. In short, assisted suicide laws could kill people who have a lot of life left to live.

Furthermore, assisted suicide opens the door to euthanasia. Assisted suicide always requires the patient’s consent and participation to hasten death, whether by taking lethal drugs or other means. Euthanasia, on the other hand, does not require the patient’s participation but can be administered completely by a doctor. Even more disturbing, not all euthanasia is voluntary. Some patients are euthanized without the consent of themselves or their family.

For example, last month, Fairview Hospital in Edina, Minnesota had threatened to remove oxygen from Catie Cassidy, a 64-year-old lung cancer patient who would have suffocated to death without oxygen. In video documented by the Life Legal and Defense Foundation, Cassidy clearly states that she wants to live. Thankfully, the Life Legal and Defense Foundation won her case and she continues to receive oxygen. But Catie Cassidy’s story represents what will happen when patient consent is disregarded and families are excluded from end-of-life decisions. As the government takes over more and more of the health care sector, they will naturally be more involved in the decision-making process. What is stopping governments from passing laws to weed out the disabled, elderly, or terminally ill—people who some would say cannot contribute anything to society?

In fact, this is already happening. Oregon, ironically the first state to legalize assisted suicide in the U.S., passed a law last year allowing patients with Alzheimer’s, dementia, and other mental illnesses to be starved and dehydrated to death. If the patient had not previously given directions about their healthcare (known as a “contrary advanced directive”) should they become mentally impaired, this bill now allows caretakers to deprive the patient of food and water. Countries that have had assisted suicide for years now—like Canada and the Netherlands—are now looking to expand their laws to allow for more and more assisted suicides, even for those who haven’t requested it. This is eerily reminiscent of the eugenics espoused by Charles Darwin and put into practice by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. It is also the premise upon which Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. America, the freest nation in the world, will cease to be free if it embraces these philosophies.  

Life is Precious at All Stages

Who are we to decide when a person should die or when a life is not worth living? Just because a person cannot care for themselves doesn’t mean they can’t contribute something to society, as Terri Schiavo’s life so clearly demonstrated. All life is precious and created in the image of God. We all have something to contribute, regardless of our age, disability, illness, or prognosis. As a nation that boasts of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” we must protect life at all stages—from conception until natural death.

The Religious Freedom of Public Officials Is Under Attack. These Three Aren’t Backing Down.

by Worth Loving

May 15, 2019


The liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will is a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.” - Thomas Jefferson

Often called America’s “first freedom,” religious freedom was key to our founding. In fact, it’s no accident that the Founders listed it as the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. It was the reason the Pilgrims made the treacherous journey across the Atlantic—to escape persecution and establish a haven of religious freedom.

In both their public and private lives, the American Founders were not shy about expressing their faith. But today, there is a growing movement to silence the religious expression of public officials, particularly Christians. On Easter Sunday, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a born-again Christian, posted John 11:25 on his government social media accounts. The verse reads, “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he may die, he shall live.’” Next to the picture was the caption “He is risen! Have a happy and blessed Easter!” The Arizona Republic quickly denounced the post as a violation of the separation of church and state, arguing that Gov. Ducey cannot use his government social media accounts to promote a particular religion. Yet when former President Obama wished everyone a “Happy Ramadan” in 2013 and 2015 from his official White House account, he was never criticized for endorsing Islam.

But Gov. Ducey isn’t the only public official who has faced such unfair scrutiny. NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine was attacked a few days prior for his comments about a Christian ministry. At a fundraiser for Capitol Ministries, an organization whose sole mission is to reach every public servant with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Bridenstine gave a few words of praise for the ministry: “I love what Ralph said earlier: We’re not trying to Christianize the US government. We believe in an institutional separation, but we also believe in influence. And that’s a big distinction and an important distinction, and that’s why I love this ministry.” Once again, leftist groups were quick to denounce Bridenstine’s comments, claiming that he used his government position to endorse a religion and violated the Establishment Clause. Yet these groups were strangely silent when former President Obama spoke at fundraisers for Planned Parenthood and even called for God’s blessing on the abortion giant.

The Left won’t even leave the Second Lady alone. In January, Karen Pence was lambasted for teaching at a Christian school that holds to a biblical view of sexuality, meaning that individuals who identify as LGBT are prohibited from working at the school. Apparently, the Left believes any association with Christianity by a public official is tantamount to violating the Establishment Clause.

It seems the Left is intent on silencing Christians who hold public office from expressing their faith. However, they seem to conveniently forget that our nation was founded on freedom of religious expression and that our Founding Fathers actively exercised that freedom while holding public office. In fact, as President, George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all called for national days of prayer. In the states, many governors including Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, John Hancock, Caleb Strong, and Jonathan Trumbull all called for days of prayer and repentance.

Furthermore, the First Amendment is clear that there should be “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This was directly in reference to the Church of England, which the former British colonies were required to support and attend. Under the new Constitution, Americans were free to support or not support the religion of their choice without any fear of government repercussion—and they don’t forfeit this right just because they serve in public office. It is just silly to claim that the comments and actions of Gov. Ducey, Jim Bridenstine, and the Second Lady “established” a religion.

One doesn’t leave their religion behind when they are elected or appointed to a government office. Yes, public officials are rightfully held to a higher standard. But one’s faith remains just as much a part of him or her as it was before, and we remain free to express it while holding public office.  

Gov. Ducey was quick to respond to his critics and showed no intentions of backing down: “We won’t be removing this post. Ever. Nor will we be removing our posts for Christmas, Hanukkah, Rosh Hashanah, Palm Sunday, Passover, or any other religious holiday. We support the First Amendment and are happy to provide copies of the Constitution to anyone who hasn’t read it.” Responding to The Arizona Republic, Ducey said: “With respect to your ‘experts,’ people don’t lose the right to free speech when they run for office. So, no, we STILL won’t be taking the post down. Not now, not ever.”

Gov. Ducey is right—it might do the Left some good to read the Constitution. They’ll be surprised to find that “separation of church and state,” which they are so quick to espouse, is found nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, it is from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1801 to a Baptist church congregation from Danbury, Connecticut—and the letter states just the opposite of what the Left calls for today. A committee from the church had written a letter to President-elect Jefferson, congratulating him on his election and urging him to protect religious freedom. President Jefferson wrote “that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God.” Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptists of his commitment to protecting the freedom of religion. He went on to quote the establishment clause and that it had built “a wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson still made public expressions of faith as president but never came close to establishing a religion as defined by the First Amendment.

The Left’s double standard is unbelievable. While advocating for tolerance, they demand that every public official submit to their agenda. Those that do not face a complete sabotage of their career. Because of this, attacks like the ones on Gov. Ducey, Jim Bridenstine, and Karen Pence will continue to escalate on Christians in public office. Like Gov. Ducey, we must be ready with swift responses. The key to preserving our freedoms—including religious freedom for public officials—lies in exercising them. If we don’t exercise those rights, we will lose them. But as long as we keep fighting, religious liberty will remain alive and well.

A True Blue Congress

by Worth Loving

March 14, 2019

Without a doubt, life, family, and religious freedom are under an unprecedented all-out assault in our nation. Many left-leaning states are following New York’s lead and further undermining the right to life. Others are embracing various aspects of the radical transgender agenda by forcing it on schools, businesses, and non-profit organizations. And, the fundamental building block of any successful society—the family—is under vicious attack from all fronts.

Despite that reality, Congress is actually more pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religious freedom than ever before. Each year, FRC Action releases our congressional scorecard, grading members of Congress on how they vote on a number of bills, nominations, and resolutions related to our core issues of faith, family, and freedom. Members who score 100 percent are named our “True Blue” members and invited to receive an award at our annual reception on Capitol Hill. Our most recent scorecard included votes on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, judicial nominees, and Planned Parenthood, among others.

This year, we set a record for the most True Blue members of Congress ever. A record 276 members of the House and the Senate received a True Blue award for their 100 percent rating on our congressional scorecard. That’s over half of Congress that stands 100 percent for life, family, and religious freedom! On February 28, many of these members joined us at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C. for our annual True Blue reception. Each member had the chance to receive an award and speak with our president, Tony Perkins. FRC Action staff also had the opportunity to talk to each member and thank them for standing with us on the foundational values of life, family, and religious freedom.

At a time when life, family, and religious freedom are being ferociously attacked, it’s refreshing to see so many members of Congress who are 100 percent committed to standing with us and fighting every day for the unborn, the family, and the persecuted. This is further evidence that our election efforts each year are paying off! Check out our scorecard to see if your members of Congress support faith, family, and freedom. If not, contact them and tell them to start standing for our shared values right away. Also, check out our Twitter page to see what our True Blue members had to say about the work of FRC Action and about standing for life, family, and religious liberty at such an important time in our nation’s history.

On the Fighting Side of Life

by Worth Loving

March 5, 2019

On January 22, 2019, the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Reproductive Health Act, one of the most radical late-term abortion laws in the nation. A few days later when asked about a similar bill proposed in the Virginia House of Delegates, Governor Ralph Northam went a step further by advocating for infanticide. The actions in New York and Virginia have since spawned a domino effect throughout the nation, with liberal politicians in several other states proposing their own radical abortion bills.

Responding to the mad rush to legalize late-term abortion and infanticide, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill designed to protect babies born alive from botched abortions. Sadly, when this legislation came up for a vote in the Senate last week, 44 Democrats voted against it. Furthermore, Democrats have blocked 11 requests for unanimous consent on this legislation, 10 times in the House of Representatives and once in the Senate. The second vote in the Senate last week was to end debate on the bill and force a vote. That’s right, Democrats have voted against protecting babies born alive from botched abortions 12 times.

Despite these setbacks, we are fortunate to have many members of Congress willing to fight for life, no matter the political repercussions. Last week, Congresswoman Martha Roby (R-Ala.) stopped by our Washington, D.C. headquarters to discuss how she and her colleagues in the House and Senate are standing up to the radical abortion agenda. In addition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Congresswoman Roby has cosponsored several other pieces of pro-life legislation including the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Life at Conception Act, the Heartbeat Protection Act, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, and the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. Declaring her intent to fight for life, Congresswoman Roby stated unequivocally: “I will continue to use my platform in Congress to serve as a vocal advocate for the unborn.” In the midst of the rush to deny innocent babies the right to life, how refreshing it is to see so many members of Congress working hard to pass legislation to protect them.

To learn more about the congressional fight to protect the born and unborn, please take time to listen to Congresswoman Roby’s presentation. Then, contact your members of Congress and tell them to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act immediately so that it can be sent to President Trump’s desk for his signature. Lastly, please visit EndBirthDayAbortion.com to learn how you can send a clear and direct message to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to protect babies now. Together, we will create a culture in which all human life is valued and equally protected.

Elections Have Consequences

by Worth Loving

February 15, 2019

Many Americans were understandably horrified when New York passed one of the most expansive late-term abortion laws in the country a few weeks ago. When asked about a similar bill proposed in his own state, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam not only defended the bill but also argued for infanticide. Now, states like Vermont and Rhode Island have been emboldened to pursue even more radical abortion bills.

The rush to lift restrictions on late-term abortions reveals a common theme—elections have consequences. For example, consider New York. While pro-choice Governor Andrew Cuomo was elected in 2011, Republicans regained control of the New York Senate. Since becoming Governor, one of Cuomo’s promises has been to legalize late-term abortion. However, the Republican-controlled Senate has continually stood in his way. But in the 2018 midterm elections, Republicans lost their majority in the state senate. This created a trifecta, with Democrats controlling the Assembly, Senate, and Governor’s Mansion. Once the new legislature convened on January 9, they wasted no time in fast-tracking the Reproductive Health Act to passage on January 22. Governor Cuomo signed it into law the same night. In New York, the 2018 elections had serious consequences for unborn babies.

Virginia also provides a prime example of why elections matter. While pro-life Republicans have not held the governorship since 2013, they have controlled the House of Delegates since 2000 and the Senate since 2013. In 2017, Republicans nearly lost control of both houses. The Senate remained in their control by one seat while control of the House of Delegates was decided by a name drawing. After Republican incumbent David Yancey and Democratic challenger Shelly Simonds each received 11,608 votes in District 94, the Virginia Board of Elections drew their names from a bowl. Yancey’s name was drawn first, allowing Republicans to retain a narrow 51-49 majority in the House of Delegates. If the outcome had only differed by one seat in each house, Delegate Kathy Tran’s New York look-a-like bill championed by pro-choice Governor Ralph Northam may very well have passed both houses and been signed into law. In Virginia, elections had serious consequences for babies, both born and unborn.

As we approach the 2020 elections, abortion will once again be a front-and-center issue. Even more so will be the issue of infanticide. An overwhelming 77 percent of voters support federal legislation known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that would protect infants who survive a botched abortion. Despite this support, Democrats continue to block this bill in both the House and Senate.

So remember when you go to the polls on November 3, 2020—the lives of perfectly viable children are in your hands. Together, let’s send a message to the Democratic Party that the United States stands resolutely against infanticide and that their refusal to condemn it is grossly out of touch with mainstream America. Let’s remind them that elections have consequences. 

Why We March: The Civil Rights Movement of 2019

by Worth Loving

January 23, 2019

Yesterday marked the 46th memorial of perhaps the deadliest decision in world history, Roe v. Wade. This Supreme Court decision legalized abortion-on-demand across America and has resulted in the deaths of some 61 million people, more than the Civil War, both world wars, and the Holocaust combined. Abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2018, killing an estimated 42 million and surpassing deadly diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and HIV/AIDS.

Despite the deadly decision, the Supreme Court did leave room for Congress and the states to regulate abortion. In 1976, Congress enacted the Hyde Amendment, an annual legislative provision that bars federal funding of abortion and has been renewed every year since. President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2004 after President Clinton had vetoed several previous efforts to outlaw the barbaric practice. The Supreme Court upheld the law in the 2007 case of Gonzalez v. Carhart. In 2017, President Trump signed the first federal pro-life law in 13 years that allowed states to withhold Title X funding from Planned Parenthood. President Trump has also appointed a record number of pro-life judges, reinstated the Mexico City policy, and barred U.S. funding of UN programs that promote abortion.

However, more progress seems to be happening at the state level. In the last decade, many states have passed laws requiring waiting periods, counseling, ultrasounds, or parental notification. Some are passing laws mandating that abortion facilities meet hospital standards, shutting down many of them as a result. Several states have enacted legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and to ban abortions after 6, 12, or 15 weeks.

One of the other few bright spots from Roe v. Wade was the vast pro-life movement that it spawned. From public policy organizations to crisis pregnancy centers to pro-life student groups, Roe v. Wade ironically “birthed” thousands of warriors for life across the entire country. One of the most visible proofs of this is the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. Since the first March for Life on January 22, 1974, it has become the largest human rights gathering in the world; and we will continue to come back every year until Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Despite this progress, there is still so much more that must be done to eliminate abortion in America. For example, abortion is still legal in the U.S. after 20 weeks, putting us in a league with totalitarian regimes like China, North Korea, and Vietnam. New York just legalized abortion up until the point of birth. We cannot call ourselves the freest country in the world if we continue to allow the most innocent and vulnerable among us to be murdered while we turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to their cries of pain. Despite all the progress since Roe v. Wade, hundreds of children will die just today in the U.S. because abortion is still legal.   

You may be wondering, “I’m just one person. How could I possibly make any difference?” There’s actually a lot you can do as one person. Here’s a few practical steps that you can take today:

  1. Pray. Pray that God would protect every unborn child from abortion and allow them to be born into loving homes. Pray for our leaders in all three branches of government that they would protect life and overturn Roe v. Wade once and for all. Pray for those that remain defiantly pro-choice or are indifferent to abortion that God would soften their hearts to the plight of the unborn. Pray for all abortion doctors, nurses, and clinic workers that their minds would be opened and that they will cease abortions today. And last, pray for those standing in the gap to eliminate abortion in America—legislators, public policy organizations, crisis pregnancy centers, student groups, and many more. The environment in which they work is more hostile than ever before, and they need our prayers for God’s protection and for them to have courage and boldness to press on.
  2. Contact your members of Congress. There are several pieces of legislation that have already been introduced that will further protect the unborn. Call, write, or email your member of Congress and ask them to support legislation such as the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. These are common-sense bills that should pass with wide bipartisan support but haven’t yet done so because not enough people contact their members of Congress and voice their support. I have been told by several people who work on Capitol Hill daily that if a member receives at least 10 phone calls, letters, or emails on a particular bill or issue, he or she will give it more attention.
  3. Educate yourself and those around you. Start with our resources here at FRC, such as “Top 10 Myths About Abortion,” “Planned Parenthood is Not Pro-Woman,” “The Best Pro-Life Arguments for Secular Audiences,” and “Stem Cells, Cloning, and Human Embryos.” Visit our website to get copies for yourself and your friends and family.
  4. Support a pregnancy resource center in your area. These centers support women with counseling, supplies, and medical care completely free of charge. Above all, they lovingly urge the women who come to them to keep their babies. Thousands of lives have been saved as a result of pregnancy resource centers. Many need volunteers and are always in need of funds. Consider raising money for your local pregnancy resource center at your church through “The Baby Bottle Campaign.”
  5. Attend the March for Life in Washington, D.C. or one near you. Making your support for the unborn public sends a message to government leaders every year that we are serious about ending abortion.

Abortion is the civil rights issue of our time and the greatest human rights violation in history. There is no greater cause for which to fight than the cause of life. I am reminded of two leaders who fought against the humanitarian evils of their day, William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. While fighting the slave trade of the British Empire, Wilberforce told those unsure of whether to support banning the practice that “you may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.” And speaking of the evils of Nazi Germany, Bonhoeffer famously said “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

We know what abortion is, and we know how rampant it is in America. Now is not the time to be silent or indifferent. It’s time to pick a side and take action to stand for life. The future of the free world depends on it.

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
FRC Action Blog blog_goto
Befriending Our Opponents: A Tale of Two Presidents
by Worth Loving (July 2, 2020)

...

Instagram ig_follow