Government-Compelled Speech

Last Tuesday, non-profit clinics that educate people on the health risks of smoking, and help get them the resources to quit, took a southern tobacco-state to federal court.

These clinics are already fighting an uphill battle. They operate in a state that subsidizes tobacco growers by using tax-payer money to buy cigarettes for free distribution. Then, the state enacted another law designed to target anti-tobacco organizations.

The law requires every quit-smoking clinic to post a government-worded sign, visible to everyone who enters the clinic, that says, “This state has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost [cigarettes] for eligible [smokers]. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [phone number].”

The very reason that these clinics exist is out of love for smokers who are overwhelmingly encouraged and pressured to smoke. The last thing they want to do is be the conduit for yet another message that makes smoking more attractive. But not only are they compelled by law to deliver the message, both the size of the print and the number of languages in which it must be printed are also legislated.

Testimony during the law’s passage in 2015 leaves no doubt that its intent is to hamper the work of these clinics. During committee hearings, sponsors of the law testified, “Unfortunately, there are nearly 200 licensed and unlicensed clinics… [which] aim to discourage [smoking and help those seeking to quit].”

The law was passed to ensure that people would not be “confused or misinformed” about their rights to free or low-cost [cigarettes]. It states, “[smokers] should receive information about their rights and available services at the sites where they obtain their care,” – meaning the quit-smoking clinics themselves.

With such a broad aim, you would think that the government-worded signs would be placed wherever health care is received. But the law includes language which exempts thousands of medical clinics so long as they already participate in state programs to distribute cigarettes.

Lawyers for the clinics pointed out that the 200 non-smoking clinics scattered throughout the state comprise more than 98% of the clinics covered by the law, while many thousands are exempt.

Imagine by now: your blood is boiling enough to start writing letters and fighting this grossly unjust and harmful law. All you need is the name of the state where it’s happening.

Please forgive me. I lied.

There is no southern tobacco state that is doing any such thing. Nobody is subsidizing big tobacco. No state is giving away free cigarettes. Nobody is forcing quit-smoking clinics to promote smoking. I made that all up. But I had a lot of help.

The quotations above are all taken from a different case which actually was argued before the Supreme Court last Tuesday. It was the case of NIFLA v. Becerra. The quotes are verbatim. Only the words in the brackets are changed. There I substituted “quit-smoking” for “pregnancy,” “smokers,” for “women,” and “free cigarettes” for “free abortions.”

Becerra is the Attorney General of California, which really does use taxpayer money to subsidize the world’s biggest, and most profitable abortion corporation. While the Hyde amendment prevents the federal government from using your tax dollars to pay for abortions, the state of California has no such restrictions. They encourage abortions by paying for them with state funds.

Still, there are over 200 clinics in a population of nearly 40 million, that have no government funding. They operate by the sheer generosity of ordinary people who care about women and children. They have studied the literature and observed their own family and friends who have struggled after abortions.

They have seen for themselves how abortion hurts women and men, children and families. Out of love for these people, and with no hope of profit or gain, they maintain clinics to help complete strangers who come in to talk realistically about the physical, reproductive, emotional and spiritual risks of abortion.

They want to know if there are any viable alternatives, or support networks that can help them if they choose not to get an abortion. Little of this information is volunteered by the state.

It is these clinics that have been targeted by The California Reproductive FACT Act of 2015. This law requires non-profit pregnancy centers, but hardly any other women’s clinics, to deliver a message that they believe is harmful to women and antithetical to their very reason to exist.

The state of California had a tough day at the Supreme Court. Even justices Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor – typically pro-abortion politicians – expressed loud misgivings about the California law.

The swing-vote on abortion and free speech issues is usually Anthony Kennedy. Even he openly scoffed at California’s lawyer when he suggested that the law could be remanded back to a lower court to iron out the rough spots. Kennedy said, “You want me to have a remand for them to tell the court what a ‘billboard’ is?”

As Nicole Russell wrote in The Federalist, “Hint to California: When you have frustrated Kennedy and Ginsburg with your burdensome, discriminatory law, it’s unlikely to stand.”

Let’s hope she’s right. But the very fact that this law has been enacted at all, and that it has passed numerous court challenges for more than two years is chilling.

I began this article with an extended fable. I spun a yarn about a similarly crazy law meant to protect big tobacco and crush the free speech of quit-smoking clinics. I did this for a good reason.

I know, as well as you, that if I had mentioned abortion in the opening lines of the column, a sizable portion of my audience would have yawned and tuned out the rest of the column. I knew that a state’s compelling speech in favor of tobacco would be outrageous, while a state’s compelling speech in favor of abortion would be blandly approved saying, “well, if it’s the law, it’s the law.”

This attitude, which approves any state-compelled speech that I want to hear, while only getting worked up if the state compels speech that I don’t like, is totalitarian to the core. It is willing to use the awful power of the state to promote one idea over another. It produces an environment where whoever works the levers of power, determines what is “truth.”

Pontius Pilate lived in such an environment and knew how to work its levers. One day he stood looking the Truth squarely in the face and was not able to recognize Him. All he could manage was a weak-minded and dismissive question, “What is truth?” (John 18:38).

The fact that this case has passed muster in every state and federal court to date, demonstrates just how corrupt our judicial system has become. Worse, the relative silence of our press corps reveals how complicit our newspapers and media outlets have become in taking away our rights of free speech. Are they so naïve as to think that the levers of power will never be used against them?

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I could have started this week’s column with an up-front analysis of how California is forcing pregnancy resource centers to promote the very harm that they exist to reduce. Perhaps the editorial staff of this paper would have used its own freedom of the press to editorialize against the law even if they disagree with the message of pregnancy clinics.

I would like to think so. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Until they do, it is up to us to stand against government-compelled speech wherever it may be found. It is our fundamental line of defense of the truth, against the exercise of raw, governmental power.

The Federalist: People With Down Syndrome Deserve Our Love, Not Genocide

 

Killing those with Down syndrome serves no rational purpose. It is a policy born of ignorance and fear. Worse, what it communicates to those so affected is simply unimaginable. 

 

Ann Turner Cook recently celebrated her 91st birthday. You may not recognize her name, but you surely know her face. She is the iconic baby sketched in charcoal who has graced Gerber baby-food jars since 1928.

Gerber recently initiated an annual photo contest to name a national “Spokesbaby of the year.” This year more than 140,000 pictures were submitted, and on February 7 Gerber announced the winner, Lucas Warren.

Continue reading at the Federalist.

Meet Lucas Warren

Ann Turner Cook recently celebrated her 91st birthday. You may not recognize her name, but you surely know her face. She is the iconic baby sketched in charcoal that has graced Gerber baby-food jars since 1928.

More recently, Gerber has initiated an annual photo contest to name a national “Spokesbaby of the year.” This year more than 140,000 pictures were submitted, and on February 7 Gerber announced the winner.

Lucas Warren is the eighth annual Gerber Spokesbaby. Son of Courtney and Jason Warren of Dalton, Georgia, Lucas has an infectious smile and an endearing personality. The photo that made him famous caught him in mid-giggle sitting in an overstuffed chair with white pants and aqua shirt, bare feet, and black polka-dot bowtie to complete the ensemble.

The name “Lucas” means “light.” He is certainly that. Courtney said, "We hope this opportunity sheds light on the special needs community and educates people that with acceptance and support, individuals with special needs have the potential to change the world -- just like our Lucas!"

Part of what makes Lucas so adorable is genetic. Of course, that’s true of every photogenic person. He can’t take credit for his facial features or physique. Nor can he be blamed. These things are just as much a part of who he is as his gender, eye color, and inborn talents.

People have always appeared, in every nation, who have shared Lucas’ endearing characteristics. They have also shared a number of physical and mental challenges. In 1866, John Langdon Down described this grouping of characteristics, which came to be called, “Down Syndrome.” Later, in 1959, it was discovered that most (not all) of the people who share these characteristics have an extra copy of the 21st chromosome pair.

All human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes. When there is an extra copy at position 21, there are three, instead of two. The technical name for this is “trisomy 21” (meaning three chromosomes at the 21st position). For reasons that nobody fully understands, it tends to manifest itself in a cluster of symptoms that are similar, but not identical, from one person to another.

In 2006 the United Nations declared March 21 to be World Down Syndrome Day. The date was chosen because, when written: 3-21, it connotes 3 chromosomes at the 21st position.

Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon said, "On this day, let us reaffirm that persons with Down syndrome are entitled to the full and effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Let us each do our part to enable children and persons with Down syndrome to participate fully in the development and life of their societies on an equal basis with others. Let us build an inclusive society for all."

As we mark World Down Syndrome Day, let’s start by noting that it is a chromosomal reality, not a disease. Every person is born with a specific genetic makeup. It is unalterably a part of who you are. This specific makeup is duplicated in every single one of your 100 trillion cells. You cannot change your genes any more than you can change your past.

This condition is not a virus like the flu, nor is it an infection like pneumonia, still less a cancer. It is much more like blue eyes and blonde hair. But even this isn’t quite it. Blue eyes and blonde hair are hereditary. Down syndrome is not. It is not a family trait that is inherited or passed on to the next generation. It is simply a genetic trait appears in some people.

That’s why Iceland’s attempts to wipe out Down syndrome are pure evil. You cannot wipe it out like a disease, with drugs and inoculation. You cannot even wipe it out like a race, through genocide and sterilization. You can only wipe out individual people who have it, with no hope of preventing it in the next generation.

Killing people with Down syndrome serves no rational purpose. It is a policy born of ignorance and fear. Worse, what it communicates to those so affected is simply unimaginable. Did nobody in all of Iceland consider how a person with Down syndrome would react to a national policy which calls for his or her utter extinction?

For that matter, did the ACLU, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood give any thought to the 250,000 people with Down syndrome living in America, or 6 million worldwide? What is it like to be told that others have the right to kill you based on a single gene?

Yet every state that has enacted a law to prohibit genetic discrimination has met the litigious fury of abortion activists. Most recently a federal judge has stopped Ohio’s law from going into effect this Friday (March 23, 2018), while Indiana’s law was halted last September. North Dakota’s law is still in effect, while Utah is on the verge of passing its own.

To treat people with Down syndrome as though they had a disease is both unjust and ignorant. But neither should we treat people with Down syndrome as though their genes don’t matter. What cannot be changed should not be punished, but neither should it be ignored.

Basic human rights require that we treat all people with equal human dignity while also respecting the realities of their bodies. This is true whether we are considering the XY chromosomes in the 23rd position that make people male or female, or a triplicate chromosome in the 13th, 18th, or 21st place. Each is unalterably part of their humanity and should be treated as such.

The fact that people with trisomy 21 often experience significant challenges to their health is no different than the fact that people with cancer in their genes will also experience significant challenges to their health.

But trisomy 21 became singled out from every other genetic challenge around 1970 when tests became available to screen for it prior to birth. Although such tests can produce as many as 25 false positives for every true instance of Down syndrome, nearly nine in ten children are aborted after a positive test.

If prenatal tests should be developed that can detect cancer-causing genes, will those people also be eliminated in similar numbers? For that matter, how long before we come to the point of eliminating people on the basis of a prenatal diagnosis that they will, one day, die?

Trisomy 21 happens when either the mother’s egg (88%) or the father’s sperm (8%), contains a duplicated chromosome at the 21st place. When the child is conceived, and this DNA strand combines with the other, instead of the usual 23 sets of pairs, the set at place 21 is a triad.

Triplicate chromosomes (trisomies) can occur at any of the 23 places on the DNA strand. However, we rarely see people other than trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) and trisomy 23 (Intersex). People with trisomy at other places on the DNA chain usually do not survive to birth.

Some believe that genetics is simply a matter of dumb luck. If so, choice only enters when we either accept or eliminate its products. But for those who believe in a God who creates all things, genetics is already a choice, made by One higher than ourselves.

God Himself has chosen to make trisomy 21 and 23 so that people with them do not die before birth. These naturally live and grace us with their presence. They are a specific gift of God and not a “problem” to be fixed.

A society that keeps this view in mind will never make people with Down syndrome feel unwanted or undervalued. It will be “an inclusive society for all,” as Ban Ki-moon urged us to build. Still more, it will be a society that loves and is loved.

Those who know people with trisomy 21 have experienced God’s gift directly. There are few people on earth today who are so filled with joy, and bring so much joy to those around them. I have never known a parent of someone with Down syndrome who would trade this joy for a more “healthy” child.

On this World Down Syndrome Day, seek out such people and experience the joy for yourself.

Further Reading:
The Federalist - People With Down Syndrome Deserve Our Love, Not Genocide

Who Decides What Happens in Places of Worship?

HEA 34 (HB 141) is not a gun bill; it is a government bill. “Concealed Weapons in Places of Worship” is not about whether concealed weapons will be in places of worship or not. It is about whether church or state decides the matter, and whether it is enforced by guns or by the Word of God.”

Short of armed guards and metal detectors, the only people who can keep guns out of the sanctuary are the worshipers themselves. This is as obviously true as it is routinely forgotten.

Worshipers whose piety prohibits armaments in the house of God will empty purses and pockets of knives and guns without being asked. Those who see no conflict between piety and what is in their purse may, or may not, be corrected by church authorities.

It is an entirely different matter when the state enacts a law. These neither depend on religious sensibilities, nor on respect for sacred spaces and clergy. Rather, state laws rest upon the threat of fines and incarceration. Such threats may, or may not, persuade worshipers to leave weapons at home. But they definitely do invite secular power into the church.

Laws and rules can only accomplish two things. 1) They can instruct people about what behavior is expected. 2) They authorize punishment and correction for those who are caught breaking them.

When the church sets the rules, it remains clear that the church retains both the teaching authority and the enforcement of the rules. State laws—even those in complete agreement with church rules—assert that the state has teaching authority in the house of God, and necessarily transfer the enforcement authority from the church to the state.

That’s what current Wyoming law does. It brings the state inside the walls of churches, stake houses and synagogues. It requires the “chief administrator” of a church to write a permit for anyone with a weapon. If he fails to do this, law enforcement officials are automatically authorized to arrest the carrier and punish him or her with a $750 fine and six months in jail.

Of course, nobody objects to a church’s authority to institute and enforce a weapons ban. The problem is that when the state makes the decision, it must also enforce it, stripping the church of its proper enforcement authority.

To see the problem, just imagine if the state did the same thing in every house. Instead of letting homeowners make and enforce their own rules, what if the state decreed that if any person carried a weapon into a home without written permission, the police could enter that home and arrest the perpetrator—even if the homeowner isn’t bothered by the weapon, but simply forgot to write a permission slip. That is exactly how current Wyoming statute treats houses of worship. HB 141 was introduced to right this wrong.

The “Principle of Subsidiarity,” involved here, is precisely why the U.S. Constitution was written to limit the power of the state. Alexis de Tocqueville observed this principle at work in communities across America as he reports in his classic study “Democracy in America.”

The term “Subsidiarity” was coined by the First Vatican Council in 1891. It means that "a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level" (Oxford English Dictionary). Simply put, the state should never make a law if the issue can be handled perfectly well by the church or family.

This doctrine recognizes that families and churches are the most basic building blocks of society. It recognizes that flourishing societies are made up of individuals, families, churches and various mediating institutions that have robust self-governance. Every decision that could be made at a local level, but is usurped by a higher level of governance, weakens families, churches and ultimately society itself.

The application of the Second Amendment within houses of worship is just exactly one such decision. Do we really think that a priest, bishop or pastor is powerless to enforce the gun policy of a congregation? Do we think that elders, parish councils or stake presidencies are too ham-handed to decide a sensible policy, faithful to the Scriptures that they preach?

While current law does allow the decision to be overridden by the local parish council, it does not allow for enforcement to be reclaimed by the local church authority. This creates serious unintended consequences.

If a woman’s purse accidently falls off the pew and spills out a gun carried for self-defense, the local pastor or priest would normally have any number of sensitive and discrete options to deal with the sticky situation. These options might range from privately asking her to exercise more care to publicly assuring the congregation that she will lock the gun in the car from now on. He can even call law enforcement and ask for assistance.

But under current law, those options can be denied. She has technically broken the law and may be fined up to $750 and be incarcerated for six months. The decision about whether or not to press these charges lies not with the local parish but with the local prosecutor. Suddenly, an indiscretion that could easily have been handled in-house can be blown out of proportion by anybody who wants to enforce the letter of the law.

As I write these words, I am remembering a group of courageous and principled Trappist monks who died as martyrs near Mt. Atlas, Algeria, in 1996. Their story is told in a beautiful movie called “Of Gods and Men.”

As a civil war swept the nation, their monastery became increasingly vulnerable to attack. Local officials begged them to leave for their own safety. The monks, out of love for the local village, refused. The Algerian government, in a final bid to keep the monks safe, wanted to station troops to protect the monastery with guns. The monks refused even this.

They were kidnapped on March 27, almost 22 years ago, and beheaded on the 21st of May. The movie won the Grand Prix at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival. It powerfully illustrates both of the principles involved in HB 141.

By refusing to weaponize the monastery, the monks voluntarily applied their doctrine to the difficult situation they faced. Not all will choose their course of action, but all should have the freedom to do so.

Self-sacrificial love is a deliberate, personal choice to follow in the footsteps of God. The less it is self-consciously chosen, the less it is like Christ. Government intervention in matters pertaining to the house of God undermine faith, whether that intervention happens to agree with a person’s faith, or not.

Governor Mead’s signature on HEA 34 (HB 141) should not be understood as state approval of guns in the house of God. It is the very opposite of the state enforcing its opinion over church matters. By repealing a bad statute, it correctly renounces any state authority over otherwise-lawful activities in places of worship, and recognizes that the church, and only the church, should teach and enforce rules on church property.

Anniversary of a "Dred-ful" Decision

Dred Scott

On this day (March 6) in 1857, the nine-member Supreme Court of the United States handed down one of the most infamous decisions in its 230-year history. The case involved a slave named Dred Scott who sued for his freedom.

Originally named Sam, Scott was born a slave in the state of Virginia. In honor of his deceased brother Eldred, he changed his name to “Dred.” His first owner, Peter Blow, raised him with his sons, who later would help him sue for freedom.

But when Peter died in 1832, Dred was sold to Dr. John Emerson. Emerson was an army surgeon who travelled from base to base--Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin and Louisiana. During all this time, even when they were living in the free states of Illinois and Wisconsin, Emerson got additional money by sub-leasing Dred, his wife Harriet and their two daughters to other masters.


During this time, Dred was also saving his money to one day purchase his family’s freedom. Finally, back in Missouri, Dr. Emerson died in 1843. At that point, Dred and his family became the inherited property of the widow, Eliza Emerson. Soon Dred offered her the full amount to buy freedom for his family. But she refused.

It is hard to imagine the injustice and outrage of the situation. Put yourself in their shoes. For no other reason than the circumstances of their birth, a man and his wife and children had been spending all their time and energy enriching others for five decades.

Despite this disadvantage, they had managed to save enough to buy four slaves and so purchase their own freedom. But even their money had no power; their fate as a family lay entirely in the arbitrary whims of the owner. Repeatedly he offered the money for freedom. Repeatedly Eliza refused to sell.

With no other choices available, Scott filed a petition with the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, on April 6, 1846. After 15 months of legal wrangling, the suit was thrown out on a technicality. Scott was unable to prove that Eliza was his owner.

How is that for irony? The court left legal ownership of an entire family in the hands of Eliza because Dred could not prove that she legally owned him.

Eventually, there was a re-trial. Then, nearly four years after filing suit, Dred Scott and his family were awarded their freedom. But it was short-lived. Eliza immediately filed an appeal with the Missouri Supreme Court. Two years later, on March 22, 1852, the decision was reversed, and the Scott family was returned to slavery under Eliza.

Scott appealed this ruling in the U.S. Circuit Court of Missouri. He argued two major points: First, that both the “Missouri Compromise” of 1820 and the “Northwest Ordinance” of 1787 outlawed slavery in Illinois and Wisconsin and meant that he was legally freed when his owner brought him to these places. Second, that the Missouri Supreme Court reversed its own precedent when it overturned the ruling that had granted him freedom.

The state of Missouri argued that since Scott was currently living in Missouri, he was legally a slave and could not sue for freedom. If he wanted his freedom, he should have sued while living in a free state.

When the federal circuit ruled against Scott, he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The Court heard arguments on two separate occasions, first in February and again in December of 1856.

Justice Taney wrote for the Court

Finally, on March 6, 1857, SCOTUS handed down its infamous landmark ruling: 1) Slaves are property and have no rights; 2) Freed African Americans are not citizens and have no right to use the federal court system; and 3) Federal laws prohibiting the spread of slavery into the western territories are unconstitutional.

The first prong of the ruling effectively declared slaves to be nonhuman. The obvious humanity of the slaves had always been a strong point in the favor of abolitionists. Arguing from the Declaration of Independence, they merely had to point out that “all men are created equal.” From this, it was obvious that slaves had a moral claim to be treated equally under the law.

By declaring that slaves have no rights, the Court denied what was obvious to everyone--that these men are human beings who have unalienable rights. No court and no government can either give or remove rights that are unalienable. These rights come directly from God and do not depend on human laws.

The second prong of the Dred Scott ruling went further still. While the first spoke of people based on their current slavery, which could be removed by the owner granting freedom, the second made their disadvantage permanent and unchangeable.

Famously, Abraham Lincoln had an answer for this second ruling. He reminded Americans that the courts were only granted the power to decide how the law applied to the specific cases in front of them. They had the power to declare that Dred Scott was not a citizen (no matter how unjust that decision was), but they could not force anyone to treat other freed slaves in the same unjust way.

So, Lincoln directed the U.S. Patent Office to grant patents to freedmen. He directed the Passport Office to grant passports to the same. In short, in every way that he could, Lincoln saw to it that his administration recognized freedmen as equal citizens under the law. This is an excellent reminder to legislators, governors and presidents today in the face of unjust overreach by the courts.

It was, however, the third prong of the Dred Scott decision that was the cause of the worst bloodshed ever seen on American soil. By declaring duly passed federal laws unconstitutional, the Supreme Court outraged and saddened decent people all over America. These people had been working tirelessly for decades to bring a peaceful end to slavery by compromise.

Already in 1787, the year that the U.S. Constitution was ratified, they had succeeded in passing laws that prohibited new states from becoming slave states. Then, in 1820, they compromised again and allowed Missouri to become a slave state while Maine became a free state. This compromise also drew an imaginary line westward from the southern border of Missouri and prohibited any territory north of that line from being slave territory in the future.

But now, the Supreme Court had unilaterally wiped out these painstaking compromises. Humanitarians were rightly outraged. Worse, they got the unmistakable message that compromise was useless. No matter what peaceful solutions they might work out in future negotiations, they could be wiped out by nine unelected men in black robes. Civil war was on the horizon, and the Supreme Court cut off at the knees the efforts of everyone working to avert it by compromise.

Today, as we observe the 161st anniversary of the Dred Scott decision, let us take the opportunity to do three things. First, we mourn the terrible injustices done to African Americans by people who refused to see the obvious, our common humanity. Second, let us mourn the loss of our own humanity whenever we fail to recognize the humanity of any person, from human embryos to those suffering with Alzheimer’s or Down Syndrome.

Finally, let us learn the lesson taught by Lincoln of how to stand uncompromisingly in the face of tyranny wherever it may be found. Others may rule and act unjustly, but nobody, not even the Supreme Court of the United States, can force you or me to act unjustly in the exercise of our duties to family, to Church and to one another.