Mary, Did You Know?

On Christmas the entire world celebrates the birth of Jesus. The miracle of birth is always a sacred moment, and this most holy nativity of all invites us to ponder and explore the miraculous details of our own beginnings.

A month ago, I wrote about the self-sufficiency of the human embryo. I said, “your mother’s body didn’t add anything to your being. All the womb does is to provide a safe environment and nutrition.” One of my friends shot back that it sounds terribly dismissive of the mother’s contributions to talk this way.

Has was right, of course. The mystery of human life is not easily boiled down to a pile of parts. While it is true that the human organism directs its own development from the zygote stage all the way through adulthood, this isn’t the whole story. There are three remarkable scientific facts that testify to the beautifully deep relationship between a mother and her child.

First, let’s talk about mitochondria. These are the tiny “engines” in your cells that generate the energy of life (ATP synthesis). While their numbers can vary widely, from only a few to more than 2,000, the typical cell has around 50-100. But here’s the remarkable thing: All of your mitochondria are from your mother!

Within moments of sperm-egg fusion, immediately after you came into being, the mitochondria from your father’s sperm (which was the mitochondria of your paternal grandmother) was selectively destroyed so that only your mother’s remained.

Throughout the rest of your life, the powerhouses of your every cell are descended from your mother. And if you become a mother, your children will inherit the same mitochondrial strain.

But there’s more. Not only the mitochondria but also the entire cytoplasm of your mother’s egg became your own cytoplasm at conception. (The cytoplasm is the gel-like substance in the cell surrounding the nucleus.) It is filled with proteins, RNA and a variety of organelles besides mitochondria. All these things have an essential role in making you who you are.

With all the genetic tinkering that we have grown accustomed to hearing about, many people have been led to the false and simplistic conclusion that we are merely the sum total of our DNA. This is not true.

Our DNA provides the raw material for our development. It sets the boundaries for what we can and cannot be. But there are billions of variations within these boundaries that are decided by the way that your cytoplasm interprets and expresses the DNA. It alone determines when certain genes are turned on, when they are turned off, how long they are kept on and to what degree. All these factors working on identical genes can produce remarkably different people.

This is why identical twins – even clones – are never quite identical. They are twins in that their DNA is identical, but they are unique because their identical DNA was actuated within different cells by different cytoplasm. What is beautiful and remarkable for our little meditation on motherhood is this: all these differences are completely determined by the mother. The father has no influence over them.

Identical twins: Linda and Leora Eisen

Put in terms of the Christmas story, this means that the tiny powerhouses, the mitochondria that energized Jesus’ cells, were neither from Mary’s father, Joachim, or even from the Holy Spirit! It was, rather, the mitochondria from Anna, and Anna’s mother before her.

It also means that Jesus’ height and musculature and hair color – his appearance in general – was not simply predetermined by the genetic makeup of his DNA. They were interpreted and expressed by the influence of Mary alone.

A second remarkable fact of motherhood is in the phenomenon of “chimera.” A chimera is “an individual … with two or more genetically distinct populations of cells” (Merriam-Webster). The most common way to form a chimera artificially is by means of organ transplant. A donor kidney transplants the unique DNA of the donor into the body of the recipient, and as that kidney continues to live within the recipient, its cells continue to replicate the donor’s DNA.

But the more common chimera, by far, is completely natural. It happens whenever a woman gets pregnant, but it is not the pregnancy itself that is a chimera. In the pregnancy, a unique person with genetically distinct cells is growing within her. This person is self-directing and not dependent upon his mother for his substance, only for nourishment and a hospitable environment.

But that doesn’t mean there is no bond between mother and child. Rather, cells from the developing child always cross the placenta wall and enter into the mother’s body. These cells tend to form colonies in random places within the mother. One child may leave a colony of cells in her brain; another child’s cells may be found in her liver, or in her heart. Every mother is a chimera made up of her own genetic cells living side by side with the cells of every child she has ever carried – even if those that did not make it to term.

This phenomenon, known as “fetal microchimerism” may explain what so many men wonder at. How can mothers have such an incredibly strong bodily connection to their children? Wonder no more. This fact of biology is a gift and blessing given only to mothers; no man can ever experience it. She literally has living keepsakes in her body from every child she has conceived.

This inspires a new line for the popular carol: ‘Mary, did you know that the flesh of Jesus always lives within you?’ It puts a new spin on Luke’s observation: “Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19).

The third part of our motherly meditation comes from a study recently released by the University of British Columbia.

“The study, published Nov. 22 in Development and Psychopathology, involved 94 healthy children in British Columbia. Researchers from UBC and BC Children’s Hospital asked parents of 5-week-old babies to keep a diary of their infants’ behavior (such as sleeping, fussing, crying or feeding) as well as the duration of caregiving that involved bodily contact. When the children were about 4 ½ years old, their DNA was sampled by swabbing the inside of their cheeks.”

After analyzing the DNA swabs of their sample group, they were able to see healthier, more mature cells in those infants that received more comforting bodily contact. Four years later, the mother’s touch was still felt!

This is utterly remarkable. The emotional comfort and support that a mother gives her infant child is not only emotional or spiritual. It has scientifically detectable effects upon the body at the chromosomal level.

So, mothers, don’t sell yourselves short. The child you carried may have been an independent and self-directing human being, but he was not disconnected from you. You supplied the interpretive environment to build a body from his DNA. You provided the mitochondria that still powers his cells. You received a life-long souvenir in his living cells, still thriving in your body. And your every caress and kiss and coo made his body strong.

These are only three recently discovered phenomena. These glorious connections have bonded mothers and children for millennia before we ever discovered them. What other wonders still remain to be learned?

Further Reading:
The Federalist - 4 Ways Moms and Their Children Remain Physically Bonded for Life

WyoFile Talks with the Wyoming Pastors Network

Article by Andrew Graham with Rep. Cathy Connolly and Rev. Jonathan Lange
WyoFile: Perspectives | The Sundance Fallout from Two Sides

With Malice Toward None and Charity for All

One of our deepest human needs is the need to communicate. Babies left unattended in orphanages suffer. The worst punishment in the gulag was the isolation cell. The silent treatment between people kills relationships.

We are social creatures, built for community. Community, in turn, depends on communication. In fact, both community and communicate are formed from the Latin prefix “com,” (meaning,“together”) and the root “uni,” (meaning “one”). A community is created out of many people together becoming one, and it is can be created only by communication.

Therefore, whatever fosters communication fosters community, and what hurts communication hurts community.

Recently, I was going through some old things and stumbled across a speech I gave in this community over nine years ago. It was the inaugural meeting of “Conversations on Christ.” Over two dozen people gathered at the Howard Johnson’s to talk about talking.

I said: “I believe that the best correction will come from within--from each one of us taking careful assessment of his or her own self. As each of us is drawn into the conversation and becomes eager to address contemporary problems we will find the honesty and courage to examine and criticize ourselves. That is where growth into Christ and unity under Christ's word will be fostered. I believe that each of you loves Jesus and has the personal integrity to benefit from this opportunity without need of harangues or diatribes. In fact, these would be counterproductive to our high purpose.”

That project, begun nine summers ago, led me gradually from conversations with other churches, to seeking out constructive conversations with the entire community. Eventually, it led to this weekly column, Only Human.

What I spoke that day, I still believe. Then, I spoke in terms of Christ and Christ’s word. But the same is true of every person and every word. Unity is fostered by people who love each other, together searching for the truth. It does not come by harangues or diatribes, but by honest and courageous self-examination.

No matter how deep the disagreements are, a conversation can only begin if you think of the other person as a full human being. That means, at least two assumptions: First, that people have integrity, that is, are truthful in their speaking. Second, that they love all people as much as you do.


When we don’t believe these things about somebody, communication breaks down. Spouses no longer talk, but shout. Friendships are strained and broken. Communities are
divided.

But the temptation to deny these two assumptions can be strong. Oftentimes, we will be unable to reconcile a person’s words in one sentence with his words in another. When that happens, it is easy to question his or her integrity, and communication breaks down.

There’s a better way. Instead of assuming a lack of integrity, we can ask for help in reconciling the two statements. In that way the conversation goes forward, understanding is increased, and goodwill is re-affirmed. This way of listening is helpful for keeping peace in the home, church, and community.

The same is true when reading ancient books. While no one cares about self-contradictory authors, we are often profoundly challenged by reliable authors who only seem contradictory, but are not.

Leviticus 19:18 is a good example. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” is quoted as much by believers in the Scriptures as by those hostile to Biblical values. When used to criticize Biblical values, it is most often in reference to a passage found only a few verses earlier.

Leviticus 18 prohibits several sexual crimes most of which are still unanimously condemned. But one prohibition, no longer universally condemned, has become a reason to accuse the Author of Leviticus and anyone who still agrees with Him as a hater. At one and the same time, His integrity and His charity is questioned. Is that fair? Is it at least possible that love itself motivates the Author to warn against self-harm?

To assume the Author of Leviticus to be either hateful, or self-contradictory does not treat Him with either integrity or love. The better way to “love your neighbor as yourself” is to seek the deeper harmony by assuming both integrity and love.

Let’s start by considering the word, “neighbor.” This word includes every single human being with whom you will ever come in contact. There are no exceptions. We are to love them because God loves them. You may ask, “How can I know that God loves them?” The answer is simple: they exist. Nobody can live unless God gives them life. So, the very fact that people are alive means that God wants them to be alive.

And that puts them in a very special place. This is true of everybody you know, from the president to the embryo. Because God has given them life, he expects you to love them. It is the God-like thing. Human beings are created to love as God loves, because we are created in God’s image.

What, then, is love? It starts in the heart. It is a sincere and unbreakable desire for a person’s well-being. It is to renounce every desire to use a person for your own personal gain, and think only of his or her interests and needs.

Love concerns itself with your neighbor’s physical well-being, his mental well-being, his emotional well-being, and his spiritual well-being. That, after all, is how God loves you. He is bent on your total well-being.

Every drop of rain, every snowflake, every ray of sunshine was created for you. Every meal you are given, every person in your life, every breath of air, every beat of your heart is a gift of God for your well-being. Every word of encouragement, every word or warning, every word of instruction, every word of forgiveness is a gift of God for your well-being.

“If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). That means that we are charged by God to take an interest in the physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being of every conceivable person. Then, we are to take care of him or her with our energy, our goods, our words, and our prayers.

This is a high calling, and an impossible task. “When Jesus’ disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, ‘Who then, can be saved?’ But Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible’” (Matthew 19:26).

Yes, the love of our neighbor and the fostering of community seem impossible tasks. And without God, they are. But with God all things are possible. Even this.

Our community choir sang about this in the words of Abraham Lincoln. They are chiseled in stone at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

Wyoming Creative Professionals Join Amicus

Gallons of ink have already been spilled discussing the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Right Commission. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, declined to design a cake for an occasion that he could not celebrate. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is charging that he did not decline because of the occasion, but because of the customers. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday, Dec. 5.

In addition to the arguments presented by the two sides of the case, there have been no fewer than 95 “Friend of the Court” briefs (Amici Curiae) filed by interested parties. One of these Amici was filed by 479 creative professionals from across the nation, including me and four others from Wyoming. Readers of the Uinta County Herald will also be interested to know that Bethany Lange, one of our recent reporters also signed on to the brief from her new home in Indiana.

While much of the analysis of Phillips’ case concentrates on his right to religious liberty, the “Creative Professionals” brief is primarily interested in free speech issues. As Justice Anthony Kennedy was writing his opinion for the majority in the Obergefell v. Hodges case that created a “Constitutional right” to same-sex “marriage,” he faced serious concern that this absolutist position would strip the freedom of speech from anyone who dissented.

Therefore, in his majority opinion, he sought to calm these fears with a strong statement, “that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with the upmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” It’s hard to argue with that statement. It proclaims the right of all adherents of religion to continue advocating their doctrine.

Kennedy went even further. He allowed for both “disagree[ment]” and “open and searching debate,” also for non-religious reasons. After all, the right to free speech is not only for theological debates, but for scientific and philosophical debates as well. Everyone seeking truth in any discipline was assured by Kennedy that his ability to speak freely on the matter of marriage would not be curtailed.

Creative professionals of every variety took heart. Since the founding of our nation, precedent after Supreme Court precedent has established that free speech protections include also every conceivable form of art. Artists express themselves in a variety of ways. Painters, sculptors, architects, mimes, bloggers, florists, authors, bakers, clothiers, musicians, web designers, and more, all engage in conduct that is expressive without ever moving their lips. All of it is protected as “speech” under the U.S. Constitution.

So, what happened? Now, Jack Phillips stands before the court, hat in hand, pleading with it to return his ability to create wedding cakes of his choosing. Isn’t cake artistry included in this list anymore? When the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights threatened fines and the loss of his business license unless he designed a certain kind of cake, is that compelled speech? Isn’t that forbidden by the U.S. Constitution?

“The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected Jack Phillips’ compelled speech claim, finding ‘the compelled conduct here is not expressive’” (p. 4). The Commission knows full well that it cannot compel speech or any kind of expression under the Constitution. So, to force Phillips to make a cake, it must deny that it is “expressive,” and therefore, is not free.

To do this, it changed the subject. For the Commission, as soon as Phillips opened his doors to the public, his art became pure commerce. "In focusing on the commercial business of a pastry shop, instead of the art involved in creating a specifically designed wedding cake, the state court did not account for the actual speech prone to compulsion in this cause" (p. 6).

This is the sleight of hand that made creative professionals all over America come together to write an Amicus. Colorado’s Commission seems to hold that you can only be an artist if you don’t take any money for your creations. But as soon as you take money for your work, the state gets to tell you what to create, when and how.

Colorado is not unique in this position. In similar cases from Arlene’s Flowers in Washington, to Elane Photography in New Mexico, to Melissa’s Sweet Cakes in Oregon, the state’s prosecution of shop owners under “discrimination” laws depends on the very same legal assertion: art is no longer art when it is sold for money. As New Mexico’s court put it, “While photography may be expressive, the operation of a photography business is not.”

Our Amicus Brief summarizes: "The striking similarity in these three separate state court decisions is enough to suggest a pattern. With each court acting as though the relevant “speech” is the desire to avoid doing business with select individuals, they all ignored the existence of the underlying art and its forced expression. These states make light of the dilemma that creative professionals face – depicting their distinct creations of art as nothing more than commercial transactions – in requiring them to speak in a way that conflicts with their consciences and strips them of their First Amendment freedoms.”

The compelled speech at issue here, is not “doing business with select individuals.” Every one of the artists in question has always served all customers regardless of sexual orientation. The speech at issue is the artist being compelled by the state to say that “same-sex marriage should be condoned.” Exactly what Justice Kennedy promised would never happen.

If the state can compel a message simply because money is changing hands, whose speech can it NOT compel? The most public cases currently are focused on artists who work on Main Street, having physical shops with doors that open out on the street.

But the same law that brought Phillips to the Supreme Court, Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), also requires Lorie Smith, a website designer, either to “promote same-sex marriage or remain silent.” If she uses her online art to “continue to advocate with the upmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned,” as Justice Kennedy assured us she could, she will “suffer fines, intrusive investigations, and Orwellian re-education.” (p. 13).

The Brief from 479 Creative Professionals summarizes: “Given the protection afforded artistic expression, creative professionals suffer a direct infringement on their fundamental rights when the government compels them to create art promoting a particular viewpoint or message. As illustrated by the stories herein of people actually affected, the coercion can be palpable: if creative professionals in the wedding industry decline to promote same-sex marriage through their art, they face crippling fines, loss of business, government re-education, and even jail time. It is difficult to imagine a more onerous and effectual compulsion to speak.”

I believe Justice Kennedy was sincere when he wrote the Obergefell decision. I believe he was fully persuaded that the court could create a Constitutional right to same -sex “marriage” while simultaneously protecting the freedom of all Americans to speak in disagreement.

Now this question has come back to the very same court, and once again it appears that Kennedy will be the deciding vote. It will be interesting to see whether he is able to draft a decision that defends the solemn assurances that he gave just two years ago.

Casper City Council Considers Discrimination Resolution

On Tuesday, Nov. 28, the Casper City Council discussed the possibility of an “anti-discrimination resolution.” Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG) argued that the city should go on record affirming “the right of LGBT citizens in Casper to live free of discrimination in all its forms.”  After a twenty-minute discussion, Mayor Kenyne Humphrey told the assembly that it would be discussed again at another work meeting sometime in the future.

Even though the title of the resolution speaks of “discrimination of any kind,” its repeated focus is on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” I wish to contribute to the discussion here by giving a brief history of this language.

The phrases: “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) were first rolled out on March 26, 2007 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. They were imbedded in “the Yogyakarta Principles,” which had been drawn up a few months earlier by a conference of about 30 legal scholars in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. You can read an excellent legal summary of these principles in “Ten Years of International Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Laws: Lessons Learned” (Public Discourse, March 27, 2017).

Wyoming started seeing SOGI language when Representative Cathy Connolly (D-Laramie) sponsored HB 142 “Discrimination,” in January 2011. This bill and its variations has been proposed and defeated at least four times. After its 2015 defeat, the LGBT lobby announced their intention to go local and try passing SOGI ordinances city-by-city in order to build momentum for a state law.

They began in Laramie. In April of 2015 a SOGI ordinance was proposed that criminalizes various acts of free speech and the free exercise of religion in the public square. Many concerned citizens came to the city council to object that it seemed to be in open conflict with the First Amendment.

Their objections were dismissed by the seven council members intent on voting for the ordinance. They claimed that a single line (9.32.070) generically acknowledging the First Amendment, should be enough to address their concerns. But amendments to put these assurances into writing were rejected. This heightened concerns that the SOGI ordinance did not recognize the free exercise of religion even within the walls of Laramie’s churches. In the end (May 2015) Laramie passed one of the most draconian SOGI ordinances in the entire United States.

As the LGBT lobby moved on to Jackson and Cheyenne, they ran into opposition that had been galvanized by Laramie’s strident overreach. At the July 20, 2015 meeting of Jackson’s Town Council, strong opposition from the public persuaded Mayor Sara Flitner to ask the city attorney for a more careful legal analysis of the ordinance, patterned after Laramie’s.

Jackson attorney, Audrey Cohen-Davis, reported back to the Council on Nov. 16, 2015: “The legal issues involved with passing an ordinance are significant and challenging… in order to enforce a discrimination case at the municipal level, the ordinance must criminalize discrimination.” (Nov. 16, 2015, Jackson Town Council). These legal concerns caused Jackson to halt attempts to pass the “Laramie Ordinance.” Instead, they decided to pass a “Resolution.”

Ordinances have the force of law, and require a formal process of three public readings and debate extending a month or more. Resolutions have no legal force, but neither do they require careful deliberation. They can be adopted by a city council in a single meeting. This has the advantage of inserting the Yogyakarta SOGI language into the public record, without the disadvantage of extended public scrutiny.

Since Jackson passed its SOGI resolution in December 2015, Gillette (September 2016) and Cheyenne (October 2016) followed suit. After nearly three years, Wyoming has one SOGI ordinance, and three SOGI resolutions.

Even though SOGI resolutions are far easier to pass, opposition can still be strong. Cheyenne’s City Council heard public testimony until 11:30pm from a standing-room-only crowd.  Key council members were persuaded to vote for the resolution with the understanding that this would put the SOGI matter to rest. Only three months later, they found that the matter was not over and that the LGBT lobby was gearing up for another push to pass a SOGI ordinance (this push failed in August 2017).

But if a resolution has no force of law, what’s the point? The point of these resolutions is the same as the point of Laramie’s ordinance. It is not to change things on the ground (Laramie has yet to enforce the ordinance, even though there have been apparent violations.) The point is to build momentum for a state law.

Wyoming Public Media, a biased supporter of the LGBT lobby, wrote about Gillette’s resolution with surprising candor, “The resolution has no real legal power but is designed to encourage the Wyoming Legislature to take action.” (Gillette Adopts Non-Discrimination Resolution, Sept. 22, 2016).

Similarly, the Casper Star Tribune quoted Dee Lundberg, spokesperson for P-FLAG, explaining their desire for “a resolution instead of the legal requirements of an ordinance [in order] to gain community support, ‘it’s better to have a win in our column.’” (Casper City Council Backs Sexual Orientation Equal Rights Resolution, Tom Morton, November 29, 2017)

Let that sink in. The published purpose of SOGI resolutions is not to do anything for the people of these cities, but to help the international LGBT lobby push an agenda by scoring a “win in our column.” Apparently, the ubiquitous argument that SOGI resolutions are of “benefit to the economy,” not only lacks supporting data, but is not the real point anyway.

This is obvious in the very title of K2 Radio’s article. Even though the Casper City Council took no vote, and did not even place the SOGI resolution on the agenda for a vote, it breathlessly claimed: “Casper City Council Backs Sexual Orientation Equal Rights Resolution.”

Today, Jack Phillips is standing before the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a victim of one of the first SOGI ordinances passed in America. Lakewood, Colorado believes that its SOGI ordinance gives it the right to force Jack into celebrating same-sex “weddings” if he wants to do business in Lakewood. The city has forbidden him from baking any wedding cakes at all (40% of his business) unless he will first publicly promise to make wedding cakes for same-sex “weddings.”
Lakewood is not forcing Phillips to make cakes for Halloween because SOGI language does not protect Trick-or-Treaters. Nor is Lakewood forcing him to make cakes celebrating divorce. SOGI language does not cover divorcees. SOGI language is only concerned with equal rights for some people.

The title of Casper’s proposed resolution speaks of “discrimination of any kind.” But when council member, Chris Walsh, brought up the possibility of using that same language in the body of the resolution, instead of using only SOGI language, PFLAG opposed the idea.

Dee Lundberg specifically opposed a resolution passed by the City of Sheridan to reject “discrimination of any kind and to respect the inherent worth of every person, without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, handicap, sex, age, gender, veteran status, or political affiliation.”

Rob Johnston, President of PFLAG, explained, “the reason that the language is in this case specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals is because we feel that sometimes if it is not included, then it is excluded, and we don’t want that to happen.”

As Jack Phillips stands before the Supreme Court seeking his right to be who he is and speak his own mind in the city of Lakewood, I am certain that he wishes that he had been included in their anti-discrimination ordinance. By not being included, he has been excluded. None of us should want that to happen.

The real question is whether SOGI language is inclusive enough, or whether it is designed to exclude certain people, viewpoints, religions or denominations. Opponents of SOGI language are not arguing for discrimination, but against it. Nobody should be treated unfairly no matter what they think, or feel, or say.

Nobody.

Corporations Committee Considers Gender References

Rep. Daniel Zwonitzer testifies before the House Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee, of which he is the chairman, on Jan. 26. (Andrew Graham/WyoFile)

The Joint Interim Corporations Committee met in Sundance on Nov. 20. Their unusually full hearing room was abuzz with nearly 70 people who wanted to weigh in on the draft bill called “Statutory Gender References.”

This is a rehash of HB 212, which failed in last February’s General Session despite the last-minute flurry of effort by Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, co-sponsor of the bill and chair of the committee that sent it to the house.

The summary of the bill says that it is to “amend archaic language; [and] codify rights of parties legally authorized to marry in Wyoming…” In plain English, “Statutory Gender References” (SGR) changes more than 60 Wyoming laws in one fell swoop. The bulk of these changes are in Title 14 regarding child custody.

The “archaic language” that it targets is virtually every reference to husband or wife, male or female, his or her, mother or father, man or woman, paternity, widow – anything that might specify a legal distinction between the sexes.

But it’s more than an exercise in search and replace. It alters the very definition of “parent” at its core. The net effect of its drastic re-orienting of child custody law is to change fundamentally Wyoming family law.

For this reason, some objected that SGR violates Article 3, Section 24 of Wyoming’s Constitution, “No bill, except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of the laws, shall be passed containing more than one subject…” SGR’s sponsors generally painted it as a mere “general revision of the laws.” But when Zwonitzer said, “I do believe this is a fundamental bill,” he seemed to agree with the objectors’ point.

Certainly, there are sections which merely clarify existing laws. For instance, it amends various property and civil laws by replacing the words “husband and wife” with “spouses,” and in Title 15 it replaces “policeman” with “police officer.” But these relatively innocuous changes are the smallest part of the bill.

The bulk of it (27 out of the bill’s 43 pages) is concerned with changing either child custody laws (Title 14), marriage laws (Title 20) or birth certificates (Title 35). 

Current law defines “parent” as either the “legal guardian,” “natural parent” or “adoptive parent.” The SGR law would add a fourth definition of parent: “a person adjudged as parent...in judicial proceedings.” This creates a new category of parent and, along with it, a new power for the courts.

Natural parents are created by God when conception takes place. At that moment, a new child has a natural father and a mother. Governments recognize these relationships but don’t make them. Courts get involved only if natural parents give their parental rights to others. This is called adoption. Courts oversee it to make sure nobody is exploited. But, again, they only recognize what others have done.

In some circumstances, a court may assign that legal guardianship for the welfare of the child. But, even here, it cannot deny the reality of natural parentage. Courts have never held the authority to make or unmake natural parents. SGR would change that.

This new  category, “person adjudged as parent,” draws on language already present in Wyoming statute but falls into the error of equivocation. It uses the same term with a different meaning than before.

The current term, “adjudicated father,” is not a different kind of father. It is the natural father as determined by the evidence presented in a court of law. When we see a child, nobody asks if it has a father, only who the father is. We also know that our pool of candidates is immediately narrowed to the Y-chromosome crowd.

What is new in SGR is that adjudication is no longer about discovering the truth but denying it. Adjudicated parentage, under SGR, disregards the fact that a child already has both a natural mother and a natural father. In their place, and quite apart from adoption laws or legal guardianship protocols, the court simply declares a person (male or female) to be “a father” of the child, but not necessarily “the father.”

Yes, you read that right. Under Title 35-1-411 SGR explicitly adds the word “she,” to the section where “the person to be named as the father sign[s] an affidavit of paternity.” This deliberately creates the possibility that a woman could be named as “a father” simply by signing an affidavit.

Until now, Wyoming family law has steered a neutral path in debates over assisted reproduction. 14-2-403 (d) explicitly declines to authorize surrogacy in the state of Wyoming. But, without coming clean in its summary statement, SGR inserts paragraphs into Title 14-2-904 and 905 that would create a new legal framework for surrogacy!

Under this proposed framework, fatherhood can be made by judicial fiat. Not only that, but a claim to paternity can also be denied on the mere ground that two people have previously been assigned parental rights, and it makes no difference whether either of them is the natural father, or even an “adjudicated father.”

Finally, there is another curious consequence of these changes. Thirty-eight times, SGR replaces the word “father” with “parent,” and an additional 14 times, it replaces “paternity” with “parentage.” The net result of this neutering frenzy is not to keep things neuter. On the contrary, it opens the door for courts to meddle in matters of maternity where the natural maternity is not in the slightest doubt.

For 5,000 years of recorded history, motherhood has been the easiest of all relationships to establish. The blood, sweat and tears of labor are the irrevocable badge of motherhood. Witnessed by doctors, nurses and midwives there is never any question about who the mother of a child might be.

Under SGR, a bloodless piece of legal parchment would trump even the fact of a child issuing forth from a woman in labor. Any person -- male or female, single or married -- could sign a legal document that claims motherhood and strips the pregnant woman of any maternal rights to care for the child that she is bearing.

This doesn’t fill gaps in Wyoming family law, it creates them. Current laws safeguard the parent-child relationship established either by conception or by adoption. The creation of a new “adjudicated parent” category and surrogacy laws that enable the purchase of a woman’s maternal rights undermine those protections.

This fundamental overhaul of Wyoming family law is being presented as a mere update of “archaic language.” That is both disingenuous and dangerous.

Children should not be pawns in an ideological game. Laws should not be written that establish obvious falsehoods as legal truth. The government has no legitimate power to break and remake the natural bonds of mother and father.

Thankfully, when SGR finally came to a vote, Senators Agar and Nethercott, together with Representatives Blackburn, Edwards, Eyre, Furphy, Lindholm and Lone, opposed the measure. Senators Case, Pappas, Scott and Sweeny joined Representatives Byrd and Zwonitzer approving the bill.

Even though the nays prevailed last Monday by an 8-6 margin, don’t think that this is the last you will hear of it. Already at the meeting co-sponsors Zwonitzer and Connolly indicated that it would be brought up again during the budget session.

Further Reading:
WyoFile: Perspectives: the Sundance Fallout from Two Sides
Daily Signal: "GOP Congressman, Trent Franks to Resign for having discussion of surrogacy with female staffers"

Dennis Prager Visits UW Campus

Two weeks ago, I didn’t know very much about Dennis Prager. I had heard his name and had seen a couple of his videos from Prager University. But I didn’t even know that he has been a nationally syndicated columnist and radio host for 35 years.

So, I’m truly thankful that the Wyoming Tribune Eagle publicized the “Protest Dennis Prager” Facebook page (Conservative Firebrand Dennis Prager to Visit UW, Nov. 3, 2017). It gave me a reason to listen to Dennis Prager himself and compare that with how he was characterized in the newspaper.

I am also thankful to the UW chapter of Turning Point USA and their President, Jessica Leach. Given the vitriol that was aimed at their group and the physical violence experienced by both guest and host at Middlebury College, bringing Mr. Prager to Wyoming required considerable bravery on her part.

Credit should also be given to UW President Laurie Nichols. A protester wrote, “This will be another Milo situation,” invoking the vandalism, riots and costly property damage that happened at Berkley. Whether these were being threatened or merely predicted, the administration was put in a hard place. Thankfully, it did not cower. Bravo!

Nichols wrote, “I encourage our university community to consider that the principles of free speech and campus inclusiveness should not be mutually exclusive; that is, they should not conflict with, but rather reinforce each other. Inclusiveness is about widening the circle of voices, including more perspectives from different backgrounds, all free to speak, free to disagree, free to discuss and debate.”

Wyoming can be proud of the way our students and administration handled themselves. The handful of protesters at the event were respectful and caused no property damage. The event was filled to capacity by an attentive and appreciative audience. The Q & A following Prager’s speech was thoughtful and measured.

Prager began his speech by talking about the rhetoric from the Protest Dennis Prager Facebook page, which called him “a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, red-baiting, anti-academic, climate-denying, rape apologist,” and a comment which called him an “anti-Semite.” The life-long, practicing orthodox Jew pointed to his published books on the Torah and Jewish concerns and asked if it's reasonable to accuse a man of hating himself. The irony that a Jew should be accused of anti-Semitism during Holocaust Education Week is over the top.

Not only did Prager call out the slander, he addressed the bigger problem saying, “[We have] a crisis in America. The crisis is the creation of lies about decent people. And it needs to be acknowledged for what it is – lies about decent people.” Differing with others is not the problem, he said. “But there is a very big difference between differing with people and throwing the worst possible labels onto a human being who doesn’t deserve it.”

He went on, “Aside from smearing decent people, which is in itself a terrible thing, what [these people] are doing is they are completely undermining the fight against real racism, real white supremacy, real misogyny, real xenophobia.”

“When the real Nazis and anti-Semites and racists and misogynists and white supremacists show up, there will be no vocabulary left.” By using such terms as weaponized labels, stripped of their meaning, it strips us all of the ability to fight against real evil.

After an extended discussion of these points, Prager got to the main theme of his talk, “Why Socialism Makes People Selfish.” His answer to this question begins with a simple observation: “The only thing that has ever raised large numbers of people from abject poverty is capitalism.”

Nothing else in the history of humanity has had such widespread positive impact on people. This fact can be established by pages of statistics, historical data, and sociological theories. But the simplest way to see it is to remember that immigrants from all over the world seek to enter America because of her freedom.

Capitalism, after all, is not some economic theory devised by eggheads and taught in universities. Capitalism is simply a name for what happens when people are free. It is not imposed from top down. It is the form that freedom takes in the marketplace.

If you are interested in lifting the greatest possible number of people out of abject poverty, you will be interested in free markets. But socialism is interested in something else. Socialism is interested in equality. For socialists, inequality of any kind is a problem to be solved.

Here’s the problem: The freedom to be different is the very freedom that makes inequalities – differences. The only way to solve the problem of inequality is to take away the freedom to be different. Similarly, capitalism is full of inequalities because capitalism is full of freedoms.

Prager said, “inequality only bothers people who are bothered by inequality.” Of course, that’s redundant. But it is profoundly true. The mere fact that someone may have more than I have need not bother me in the least. I can choose to covet, but I don’t have to, and it serves no good purpose.

Socialism’s obsession with equality cannot help but lead to covetousness. Karl Marx was not ignorant of this. He counted on it. The Marxist state depends on people set against each other, and fostering covetousness does this better than anything.

The God of the Bible, on the other hand, explicitly teaches us not to be covetous. He teaches people to be content with what they have and to live at peace with all people. It is precisely for this reason that the communist state was at perpetual war with Christianity. How can you foment class warfare when people are content with what they have?

This theological observation creates observable results in free nations. Citing statistics from a Johns Hopkins study of charity (Forbes (Dec. 26, 2008), Prager pointed out that “Americans give more to charity per capita than any other people in the world.” Conversely, “Among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets tend to have lower rates of giving.”

This is a fascinating fact, which deserves an explanation. Prager answers that America was founded on a basic hierarchy of needs: “I have to first take care of me, then my family, then my community, then my whole society… Socialism kills all four. The state will take care of me. The state will take care of my family. The state will take care of my community. The state will take care of my society.”

According to this explanation, socialism doesn’t make people selfish because of its failures. It does so because it is effective. Whether or not socialists intend to make people selfish, socialism as a system does just that. It is extremely effective at doing what it sets out to do.

But socialism does not set out to lift the maximum number of people out of poverty. That’s simply not its goal. Its goal is equality, achieved at the price of freedom. In order to accomplish this, it sets out to teach selfishness. At this it is very good.

Prager gave a challenging and invigorating talk. There is much here to ponder and still more to research. President Nichols’ words are worth hearing again: “Inclusiveness is about widening the circle of voices, including more perspectives from different backgrounds, all free to speak, free to disagree, free to discuss and debate.”

I am thankful to have heard Prager’s speech. It was recorded and placed on YouTube. I would encourage you to hear it for yourself.

Third Annual WPN Conference

Gender and Sexuality

November 14, 2017

10:00am Navigating the LGBT Issue with Grace and Truth Based on his book, "Loving My (LGBT) Neighbor, Glenn shows how these do not make up a monolithic community but persons with different characteristics and needs. This informative and sensitive presentation breaks down the letters of the LGBT acronym helping us to love with grace and truth. PowerPoint slides.

1:30pm Marriage as Gospel from Genesis to Revelation Sometimes we become so wrapped up in the cultural jargon of our day that we can lose sight of the forest for the trees. Glenn takes us through the over-arching Biblical narrative beginning with the marriage of Adam and Eve and culminating with the marriage feast of the Lamb. PowerPoint Slides.

3:30pm Manhood as Social Construct In this provocatively titled presentation, Glenn explains how manhood is developed differently than womanhood. From this perspective, he explains the challenges we face today in passing along genuine masculinity to the next generation. PowerPoint slides.

PRESENTER:

Glenn T. Stanton is the director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family. He debates and lectures extensively on the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and parenting at universities and churches around the world.

Stanton also served the George W. Bush administration for many years as a consultant on increasing fatherhood involvement in the Head Start program.

Stanton is the author of eight books on marriage and families and a regular columnist for various blogs. His latest book, “Loving My (LGBT) Neighbor: Being Friends in Grace and Truth,” explores how Christians should interact with gay or lesbian neighbors in a Christ-honoring way. He is also the co-writer of “Irreplaceable” a film seen in theatres nationwide, and the co-author and creator of “The Family Project,” a 12-session small group DVD curriculum produced by Focus on the Family.

Stanton earned bachelor’s degree in philosophy, communication arts and religion and a master’s degree in philosophy, history and religion from the University of West Florida.

Science, Religion and the HHS Mission Statement

The US Department of Health and Human Services recently described its mission as “serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception.” A statement like this should draw cheers from every quarter.

It should not be controversial for an agency created to protect “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to include all human life in its mission goals. Sadly, what shouldn’t be controversial, is.

The HHS has since revised its Mission Statement to omit the phrase “beginning at conception.” We can no longer know whether it is concerned with all Americans, or only some of them.

I don’t know what forces conspired to purge this language from the HHS Mission Statement. But I do know that some critics thought that protecting human life from the moment of conception violated “the separation of church and state.” That accusation needs to be answered.

First, a point of fact. The phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution. Not even the idea is found in the Constitution. The Constitution was designed to allow the church, and church members to have full-throated participation in the government without having to deny their faith as the cost of doing business.

The non-establishment clause, the free exercise clause, and explicit prohibitions against a religious test for public office are all designed to let people of faith into the government, not to keep them out.

Building on this point of fact, we must make a second point. It is a highly dangerous practice to use labels in place of sound reasoning. If we allow viewpoints to be excluded from the public square just because they are “religious,” without actually considering whether they are true, we will all become idiots.

Imagine living in a society where those in power could overturn the plain truth simply by calling it “religious.” In fact, you don’t have to imagine it. We are dangerously close to this already.

Progressive ideology is in the process of dismantling and marginalizing any number of the most basic facts of human well-being, facts which were universally understood only a few years ago. If this dangerous trend is not stopped, none of us can guess which truths will be overturned next.

Let me emphasize that phrase, “none of us.” The previous paragraph was not intended to be partisan. It doesn’t matter which side of the aisle is attacking the truth. When the truth falls, both sides are hurt in unpredictable ways.

So, a third point is this: basic biology is not a distinctly religious belief. It is common knowledge which does not require any divine revelation or ecclesiastical authority to prop it up.

Believers take a lot of unjust criticism for being unscientific and gullible on points of basic knowledge. In cases where believers make moral judgments in agreement with non-believers, based on the very best modern embryology, it should call for dancing in the streets, rather than more unjust criticism.

Having made these three general points, let’s look at basic embryology to see if the HHS statement was sound.

I was recently privileged to hear Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine. On a Saturday in September she laid out for us the amazing details of the first moments of human life.

The most fundamental fact of modern biology is that your body is continually replicating cells both to grow new tissue and to replace dying cells. From the day you were born, you have been growing and thriving through this process. Even though your cells are continually changing, you still remain you.

As we trace you back in time, we know that entire organs both come into being and mature at different points in your history. All of this is directed by the genetic code found in every one of your cells.

The science of embryology has traced this continual development all the way back to a single-cell organism called the zygote. What is most amazing about a zygote is that it is entirely self-contained and self-directed.

Just as your current body grows, matures, and repairs damage on its own – so long as you have a safe environment and adequate nutrients – so also a zygote. From the moment you came into being as a zygote, you had absolutely everything you needed to grow, mature, and repair yourself – so long as you had a source of nutrition and a safe environment.

Put another way, your mother’s body didn’t add anything to your being. All the womb does is to provide a safe environment and adequate nutrition. Otherwise, the developing embryo is completely self-sufficient.

In fact, while the womb is the usual place for the development of the child, there have been several amazing cases where a child was nurtured to full term in ectopic pregnancies. In Ogden, in 1999, a bouncing baby named Sage Dalton was delivered by C-section after developing fully to term outside her mother’s womb. There have even been four documented cases of children being brought to full term in their mothers’ livers!

Given that from the zygote stage onward, we are fully independent and self-directed organisms, let’s have a close look at the moment when the zygote comes into being.

One critic of the HHS Mission Statement claimed that “no new life is formed [when the zygote comes into being since] “the egg and the sperm were already alive.” This argument was published recently in the Las Angeles Times by Dr. Richard Paulson.

But everyone has already known since the days of Louis Pasteur that all life arises from life. Nobody would ever claim that a new life could possibly arise from non-living material. The question is this: when does a new life come into being?

The simple scientific answer to this question can be answered by comparing both the makeup and the function of the cells that come together, with the zygote that results from their coming together.

The makeup of the living sperm cell is purely the genetic material of the father. The function of the sperm cell is to move toward an egg (oocyte) and fertilize it. Once it has reached its goal, the sperm cell ceases to be. It dissolves altogether so that it no longer has its original makeup and it can no longer do what it was designed to do.

The egg, likewise, is made up totally of the genetic material of the mother. Its function is to receive fertilization from a sperm cell. Once this happens, not only does its genetic makeup change by the addition of the sperm cell’s material, but it no longer functions as an egg.

Immediately, the new cell secretes chemicals which prevent any further fertilization. It no longer acts like an egg at all. That’s why embryologists don’t call it a “fertilized egg.” There is no such thing. It is a human zygote, a new single-celled human being who will grow to maturity if fed and sheltered.

None of this is special revelation from heaven. We can see it with a microscope. Standard textbooks on embryology don’t establish “religion,” just common knowledge. Those that use the “religion” label to set aside plain truth are simultaneously attacking religion and science.

Someone at Health and Human Services wanted their Mission Statement to reflect the truth. Let’s hope that someday it will.

Cultural Renewal and the Lutheran Reformation

As the only Lutheran pastor in Evanston, I can hardly let the 500th anniversary of the Reformation pass without comment. After all, anything that lasts a half-millennium has earned some careful thought. So, I ask your indulgence (pun intended) to do so.

On October 31, 1517 Dr. Martin Luther nailed 95 “theses” to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, Germany. This door served as the town bulletin board, and the “theses” were tightly reasoned sentences which Luther wanted to defend in a formal academic debate.

The debate was prompted by an audacious fund-raising scheme worked out between Pope Leo X, and Albert, his newly appointed Archbishop of Mainz, Germany. To make a long story short, the pope authorized Albert to sell plenary papal indulgences. This meant that “full remission of all temporal punishment due to sin,” could be obtained for money.

As a pastor, professor, and loyal son of the Church, Luther was aghast. When his own parishioners crossed over into Albert’s territory to buy indulgences, he sought to correct the abuse while clarifying the doctrine of indulgences which had already been disputed for some time.

His theses were more than an academic exercise. They struck a nerve which set all of Europe abuzz. When someone translated them into German and published them far and wide, the Reformation took on a life of its own.

Even Luther could not have guessed that, 500 years later, the entire world would be remembering the occasion. But here we are.

However, not all remember it fondly. Some lament it as the day when a hot-headed young professor smashed a once-united Christendom into a million splinters, sects, and denominations. Even though Luther himself fought tirelessly against this needless fragmentation, he is faulted for unleashing a movement which he could not control.

This viewpoint is not unreasonable when others celebrate Luther’s reforms as the opening salvo in a centuries-long rebellion against, not only papal authority, but secular authority as well. They think Luther represents the first stirrings of our modern spirit, that thumbs its nose at all authority, opinion, tradition -- even decency – whatever would hinder any individual’s self-will.

This spirit of rebellion led to the bloody French Revolution of 1789, then to its even bloodier daughter, the Bolshevik Revolution, on the 400th anniversary of the Reformation. These revolutions, in turn, spawned communism in countries throughout the world making the 20th century into the most murderous century in human history.

In our culture, the spirit of rebellion against authority has come full-circle. A large minority, disproportionately represented in academia, government, press, and the entertainment industry, is in open rebellion against the authority of the God Himself.

Is this the inevitable legacy of Luther’s Reformation? I submit to you that it is not.

Quite the opposite. Luther’s own attitude was not a rebellion against authority, but the profoundest submission to it. His famous words at Worms in 1521, summarize the entire spirit of the Lutheran Reformation: “I am bound by the Scriptures, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

Luther did not consider his own conscience to be the final authority. He considered the Scriptures to be that. He was not seeking freedom to follow his own will, he was admitting his complete submission to God’s will. That is the Spirit of the Reformation.

As I was considering how to write about the Reformation here, my initial plan was to keep the focus on the secular legacy of the Reformation. I could talk about how Luther translated the Bible into German, thus allowing common peasants to participate in the most important conversations of the day.

I could talk about how Luther’s emphasis on giving the common citizen access to the Scriptures led inevitably to the literacy education for every man, woman, and child – not just for the elite. If you value our schools, thank Luther.

I could talk about how Luther’s Reformation placed the family at the center of the economy, replacing the central planning of both the church and state.

But as I considered these things, I realized this would leave out the most blindingly obvious part of the story. The reason for learning to read was to read the Bible. The most important conversations of the day were about the nature of God – who is He, and how are we related to Him?

Luther’s assertions about the generous nature of God, and our relation to Him as our gracious Creator, were not just an internal Church debate. It involved secular kings, academics, printers, artists, farmers, ranchers, absolutely everyone. The Reformation effected the entire culture, because it was a conversation about the most important things in life.

Ponder that! The real news of about the 500th anniversary of the Reformation is how we have been conditioned to scrub the main point out of the story. It’s as if our whole culture were being pressured to tell the story of the Civil War without mentioning slavery.

In a day when questions of God and theology are being systematically excluded from the public square, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation reminds us that these questions still are the beating heart of all life and culture. We ignore them to our own peril.

As Anthony Esolen wrote in his recent book, Out of the Ashes, “The role of religion in human life is not little. It is essential: without it there is no culture at all, because culture is a cultivation of the things that a people considers most sacred.”

Luther did not seek to reform the culture. He sought to reclaim a Biblical view of God. Benefits to the culture came in the bargain. As C. S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity, “Aim at Heaven and you get Earth ‘thrown in.’ Aim at Earth and you will get neither.” Jesus said the same: “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33).

And what kind of benefits come to a culture that is focused on God? Those who would marginalize religion blame Christianity for repressing self-expression and absolute freedom to do whatever I please. Is this true? Hardly.

Again, Anthony Esolen reminds us of what the culture looked like before we agreed to leave God at the margins. “In that culture of ‘repression’ people were free to leave their keys in the ignition of the car, to leave their doors unlocked at night, to let their children range all over town without supervision, to have shooting clubs in the public schools, to leave bicycles outside of a store without worrying that they would be pinched, to ride in the back of a pickup truck without getting stopped by the police, to tell children to get out of the house and stay out till suppertime, to have those kids walk a mile or two to school and back every day without worrying about kidnappers or perverts, to call on their neighbors (whose names they knew) when they needed some sugar or flour or when they wanted to play cards, to send their children to a parochial school without paying any tuition, to show up at a movie theater or a bowling alley at nine years old without arousing suspicion, to belong to men’s clubs and women’s clubs (whereof there were plenty to choose from) without being accused of hate or bigotry; and so forth."

If you would like this kind of culture to return, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation reminds us of how it came to be. It was built by a people who largely understood God as our gracious Creator. It was built by a people whose “conscience was held captive to the Word of God.”

Sue and Settle: Why Regulation by Litigation Must Stop

Last Monday, October 16, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its intention to put an end to “Sue and Settle” practices which undermine the regulatory process put in place by the US Congress.

“Sue and Settle” is a little known, but disproportionally impactive practice that happens in federal bureaucracies. It skirts the normal regulatory process and shuts out the voices of millions of people with legitimate interests and useful contributions.

Since Wyoming’s economy relies so much on the energy industry and agriculture, EPA rules impact us more than a little. So, Secretary Pruitt’s announcement is welcome news for all Wyomingites. To understand its implications, we need to understand, first, how the EPA was designed to work.

The federal code that currently governs the regulatory process spells out in detail an orderly and reasonable way for citizens to have their say.

Through Congress, we, the people, have told agencies how to notify us of the proposed changes. We have told them how long they should give us to send them our comments. We dictate how seriously they must take our comments, and many other details of the process.

When any agency is making policy for more than 300 million Americans, it is a real challenge to reach a reasonable consensus on compromises needed to live together. That’s representative democracy.

But suppose some subsection of the EPA, or even its appointed secretary, wanted to skip all those rules and simply impose his will on the American people without following the law and doing the hard work of compromise and consensus.

Enter “Sue and Settle.” Here’s how it works. Some agency bureaucrat goes to have a lunch meeting with a special interest group that agrees with the regulations they want to impose. He simply tells them to file a lawsuit against the EPA. Shoot, he might even tell them exactly how to word the lawsuit.

Once the suit is filed, the lawyers of the special interest group sit down with the EPA bureaucrats, who agreed with them in the first place, and together they draw up a settlement for the lawsuit which spells out the desired regulations. They include in this settlement an accelerated timetable for implementing rules which skips over the time mandated by law.

They may even put in a clause that reimburses the environmental group for their attorney fees, or pays them directly for damages of some sort. Finally, they make it so that the regulations can’t be altered by future EPA actions, thus insulating their rule-making from future attempts to modify it.

After they have drawn all this up behind closed doors, they simply file a motion with the judge saying, “we’ve settled out of court.” The judge doesn’t have to ask if other interested parties have had their say, or have been accommodated. He doesn’t have to ask whether these regulations are the best compromise possible, or whether they express the consensus of the American people.

The judge simply declares, “by entering this consent decree the Court is only accepting the parties’ agreement to settle, not adjudicating whether EPA’s legal position is correct.” And violá, the final rule is written without all that cumbersome time and trouble to work out the details with other Americans who also have legitimate claims and valuable viewpoints.

If you don’t like the final rule, you have to sue the EPA. The lengthy process of arguing through the details happened while you were excluded from the table. Now your only remedy is to go back to the same court that rubber-stamped the settlement. Not a very promising option.

If you sometimes feel that your voice is no longer heard in Washington, there’s a good chance that it’s because of some “Sue and Settle” deal that you never heard about. In fact, the scenario I just described, is not merely hypothetical. It is roughly what happened in the EPA’s Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rule.

The MACT rule bypassed the most significant controls which congress has placed on the EPA because it was the result of a lawsuit known as American Nurses Association v. Jackson. It went into effect in December of 2011 at an estimated cost of $9.6 billion per year.

Is the MACT Rule the best and most efficient way of achieving environmental quality while balancing our interests in jobs, energy, national security and a thousand other considerations? Who knows? We skipped all that part.

A February 25, 2014 document from the Heritage Foundation gives a sampling of ten rule changes that happened through “Sue and Settle.” Together they cost upwards of $125 billion dollars annually, and they’re only the tip of the iceberg.

The negative effects of “Sue and Settle” practices are much more than economic. There are several negative consequences which should concern all citizens no matter who is in power.

First, these practices put special interest groups in the driver’s seat. They undermine presidential control of the executive branch of government and empower activists and unelected appointees to set government priorities.

When unaccountable bureaucrats are colluding with courts and special interest groups, they are not working with you. That means your vote counts for less and less. It’s no wonder that a large segment of voters feel powerless and angry in the face of an unresponsive government.

Second, when rulemaking is rushed, laws which require public notice and a fair opportunity to comment are bypassed. This doesn’t streamline the process of taking every factor into account. It simply excludes the valuable wisdom and expertise of the people who are most knowledgeable about the day-to-day realities of the issue.

As a result, agency regulations fall prey to the most stupid and easily foreseen problems. The Soviet Politburo added arrogance to ignorance and caused unnecessary shortages and hardships throughout the USSR. Our system is designed to avoid that. Ivy-league lawyers negotiating a settlement behind closed doors simply do not have the detailed knowledge and experience necessary to avoid mistakes.

Third, when negotiations are bypassing the legal requirements, it is impossible for the people being regulated to know the rules well enough to comply. This is what happened in our own state. As the MACT rules were going into effect in early 2012, the industry leaders themselves had a whale of a time just finding anybody who knew the rules.

Fourth, when the power to make regulations is taken from the executive agency and transferred to a judge, the flexibility of that agency to respond to ever-changing realities is severely hampered.

Legally, for the EPA, or any agency, to change their policy, all they need to do is to adopt a new policy. But when the judicial branch is involved through “Sue and Settle” policy is frozen in place. Suddenly, the executive branch is barred from changing its own policy by an unelected judge. The separation of the branches is compromised.

Scott Pruitt’s move to end regulation by litigation at the EPA is a commendable goal. Let us hope that other agencies make the same commitment. As citizens in a representative democracy, we should insist on our rights to have a seat at the table. Bureaucrats in collusion with special interest groups are a threat to all Americans.