WTE: Religious freedom depends on self-restraint

Dr. James Tonkowich, nationally known author and longtime head of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Washington think tank, spoke in Cheyenne last Friday. He was the keynote speaker at the sixth gathering of the Wyoming Pastors Network. His remarks are worth pondering.

Tonkowich came from Wyoming Catholic College in Lander to summarize  2,000 years of western history under three general headings: 1) from the dawn of Christianity to the middle ages, 2) from the Reformation through America’s Constitutional Convention, 3) from the 1800s and to the present.

Religious liberty was entirely unknown in the pre-Christian world. Tertullian, a Christian teacher from North Africa, was the first to articulate the principle. He wrote: “It is only just, and a privilege inherent in human nature, that every person should be able to worship according to his own convictions.” He argued this not from revelation, but from common sense.

First, human beings are by nature rational creatures. They have an internal sense of right and wrong that can be persuaded by logical argument, but not by force. Governments that punish consciences are violating an inherent human right.

Second, religion, by definition, is voluntary. Adherents willingly conform to the truth as they know it. One’s understanding may change with learning, but the desire to follow truth is human nature. That’s why coercion is the exact opposite of religion.

Third, divinity, by definition, is good. No god worthy of that title could desire harm to people. Thus, governments that hurt the faithful cannot be acting for God.

Tertullian’s arguments powerfully influenced the Roman world. Just over a century after they were first heard, Licinius, a pagan, and Constantine jointly issued the Edict of Milan (313). This granted the full and free exercise of religion to every religion without exception.

This remarkable statement said that “reverence paid to the Divinity merited our first and chief attention.” It called religious liberty “profitable to mankind in general,” “a salutary measure,” and in agreement with “right reason.”

Constantine and Licinius both saw that religious liberty “befits a well-ordered state and the tranquility of our times.” Pagan and Christian agreed that religious liberty is good government and a necessary ingredient in keeping the peace.

Sadly, this edict was violated almost as soon as the ink dried. Humankind’s will to dominate is a vice that poisons everyone who has ever lived. Christians after Constantine used power to violate religious liberty just as pagans had before him. Every time they did so, it led to the destruction of economies, societies, families and countless human lives.

No matter who violates these freedoms, the result is always the same. Whether they be pagans or Christians, Roman Catholics or Protestants, Puritans or Progressives, violators of religious freedom disrupt peace and instigate war.

Today, America stands at another turning point. New religious ideas are gaining political power. Ideas that deny the existence of God are as religious as those that affirm him. But every single person still carries the same impulse to dominate all others. Secularists are tempted to use the powers of government to impose new religious ideas, just as many other groups have tried and failed in the past.

As a warning against this abuse of power, the Edict of Milan still has relevance. “[Religious freedom] befits a well-ordered state and the tranquility of our times.” It is not a value that benefits only one side of a debate. It benefits everyone equally.

However, this principle can only govern from within. By definition, those without the power to stop violations of religious freedom can only hope that those in power stop themselves. Political, economic and social power can always be used to violate religious freedom and repeat the evils of past orthodoxies.

The only people capable of preventing these evils are those who wield these powers. They must learn from history that every group that has ever tried to curtail religious liberty for the good of mankind has failed miserably. They have only unleashed senseless death and destruction.

Good intentions do not matter any more than bad intentions. Human nature is what it is. This is the basic truth that requires self-governance. Self-governance is not the mere ability to elect one’s own external rulers. It is the hard work of governing one’s own internal desires.

Every human being is infected with the desire to dominate. The stronger one becomes, the more power he has to act on this evil desire. That means the only real protection against it is a conscience that declines to act on it. That’s self-governance.

Neither laws, nor constitutions, nor social pressures can accomplish the granting of religious freedom. Only the human being who understands the danger of violating it will desire to protect others. God grant us such people in our time.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on January 31, 2020.

Religious freedom is responsibility of everyone

Dr. James Tonkowich, a nationally known author and longtime head of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Washington think tank, spoke in Cheyenne last Friday. He was the keynote speaker at the sixth gathering of the Wyoming Pastors Network. His remarks are worth digesting for a larger audience.

Tonkowich spoke of religious freedom through the centuries and drew thoughtful discussion from dozens present, including two Wyoming state representatives from both parties, and one senator. You can listen to the remarks yourself.

Dr. James Tonkowich,
Wyoming Catholic College

During the course of the day Tonkowich organized 2,000 years of western history under three general headings: 1) from the dawn of Christianity to the middle ages, 2) from the Reformation through America’s Constitutional Convention, 3) from the 1800s and to the present.

It is an oft-forgotten fact that religious liberty was entirely unknown in the pre-Christian world. Deities were local; and worship was mandatory. In Rome the emperor was styled “pontifex maximus” (highest priest). Sincerity and heart-felt devotion were irrelevant to the Roman mind, but refusal to participate in the public rituals was not to be tolerated.

Christians who confessed Jesus as the only true God, and refused to worship the Roman deities, lived under constant threat of punishment. From time to time, their neighbors would report them to authorities who would give them a choice: either offer a pinch of incense to the emperor or die a shameful death.

Roman citizens would be beheaded. But non-citizens could be burned alive, fed to wild beasts, crucified or killed in many other horrible ways. The Roman empire was not alone. Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks all did the same.

Tertullian, a Christian teacher from north Africa, was the first to articulate the principle of religious freedom. He wrote: “It is only just and a privilege inherent in human nature, that every person should be able to worship according to his own convictions. For one person’s religion neither harms nor hurts another.”

He wrote this not to convince his fellow believers, but to convince the emperor who ruled in the year 200 A.D. Therefore, he did not use the Bible to support his claim. Rather, he argued from the commonly known nature of religion, of divinity, and of humankind.

Human beings are, by nature, rational creatures. They have an internal sense of right and wrong that can be persuaded by logical argument, but cannot be moved by coercion, torture or death. Governments that punish a person for living out his understanding of the truth, are violating an inherent human right.

Religion, by its very definition, is voluntary. It is borne of a willingness to conform oneself to the known truth. One’s understanding of the truth may change as more information becomes available, but the willingness to follow truth is constant. Since true religion can only arise from a free heart, religious coercion is the very opposite of true religion.

Similarly, the divinity, by definition, is the source of every good. Here, Tertullian argued from a shared sense of goodness that no god worthy of that title could desire harm to people.

Tertullian’s arguments powerfully influenced the Roman world. Just over a century after they were first heard, Licinius and Constantine jointly issued the Edict of Milan (313). While Constantine was sympathetic to Christians, Licinius was not. Nevertheless, they both agreed on one of the most remarkable statements ever heard.

It read, in part, “[A]mongst those things that are profitable to mankind in general, the reverence paid to the Divinity merited our first and chief attention, [snip] …we judged it a salutary measure, and one highly consonant to right reason, that no man should be denied leave of attaching himself to the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind directed him.”

Notice, especially, that this remarkable edict did not simply give religious freedom to Christians. From its first appearance in history, religious freedom has been for every single human being. They went on to say, “it befits a well-ordered state and the tranquility of our times.”

That two politicians—a pagan and a Christian sympathizer—jointly saw that religious liberty is good for the state (not only for the Church), is remarkable. They further saw that it is a necessary ingredient in keeping the peace (tranquility).

Sadly, this edict was violated almost as soon as the ink dried. While the first one to violate it was the pagan emperor Licinius, later Christian emperors would also not be without blame.

This observation became a theme that came up again and again during the course of Tonkowich’s presentation. Humankind’s will to dominate is a vice that inheres in every citizen and every politician who ever lived. It was never unique to only one side of a contention.

Time and time again, those who gained power thought that they could violate religious liberty for the good of the state or society. Time and time again, these violations led to the destruction of economies, societies, families and countless human lives.

It doesn’t matter who violates these freedoms, the result is always the same. Whether they be pagans or Christians, Roman Catholics or Protestants, Puritans or Progressives—no matter who uses government power to advance their religion, the peace is breached and warfare is not far behind.

Today, America stands at another turning point. New religious ideas are gaining political power. Ideas that deny the existence of God are as religious as those that affirm him. But every single person still carries the same impulse to dominate all others. Secularists are tempted to use the powers of government to impose new religious ideas just, as many other groups have tried, and failed in the past.

As a warning against this abuse of power, the Edict of Milan still has relevance. “[Religious freedom] befits a well-ordered state and the tranquility of our times.” It is not a value that benefits only one side of the debate. It benefits everyone equally.

This is a principle, however, that can only govern from within. By definition, those without the power to stop violations of religious freedom can only hope that those in power stop themselves. Political, economic and social power can always be used to violate religious freedom and repeat the evils of past orthodoxies.

The only people capable of preventing these evils are those who wield these powers. They must learn from history that every group that ever tried to curtail religious liberty for the good of mankind failed miserably. They only unleashed senseless death and destruction.

Melissa Klein, fined into bankruptcy
for declining to bake a cake.

Good intentions do not matter any more than bad intentions. Human nature is what it is. This is the basic truth that requires self-governance. Self-governance is not the mere ability to elect one’s own external rulers. It is the hard work of governing one’s own internal desires.

Every human being is infected with the desire to dominate. The stronger one becomes, the more power he has to act on this evil desire. That means the only real protection against it is a conscience that declines to act on it. That’s self-governance.

Neither laws, nor constitutions, nor social pressures can accomplish the granting of religious freedom. Only the human being who understands the danger of violating it can stand to protect others. God grant us such people in our time.

Sixth Annual WPN Conference

10:00 am Dr. James Tonkowich, The Early Christian Roots of Religious Freedom 

1:30 pm Dr. James Tonkowich, The Christian Ideas that Drove America's Founding Documents

3:30 pm Dr. James Tonkowich, Current Attacks on Religious Liberty 

6:00 pm Banquet
Rev. Jonathan Lange, Christianity's Unique and Essential Contribution to Public Discourse

• Note: Files are linked on Dropbox. The opening screen invites you to sign up for an account, but this is not necessary to downloading the files. Simply decline and move to the file.

PRESENTER

James Tonkowich, D. Min. 
is a Senior Contributor to The Stream, is a freelance writer, speaker and commentator on spirituality, religion and public life who has contributed to a wide variety of opinion websites and publications.
He is the author of The Liberty Threat: The Attack on Religious Freedom in America Today from St. Benedict Press and Pears, Grapes, and Dates: A Good Life After Mid-Life. Jim also serves as Director of Distance Learning at Wyoming Catholic College and is host of the college’s weekly podcast, “The After Dinner Scholar.”

Additional Resources:

Online Course from Wyoming Catholic College (audio)
Religious Liberty in America

1. Religion, the State, and the Bible (note the Oxford comma)
2. A Pinch of Incense
3. Broken Uniformity
4. Early Experiments
5. Religion and the Founders
6. We the People
7. Religion in the Early Republic
8. The Wall of Separation
9. Religious Liberty and Popery in America
10. Across the Great Divide
11. Storm Clouds Gathering
12. The Cloudburst and the Future


"© Copyright 2020 by James Tonkowich. All rights reserved

WTE: Evanston game warden exemplifies good government

Nick Roberts has been Evanston’s game warden since 2014. He is a central figure in the success of game management in southwest Wyoming.

Success means different things to different people. To the hunters, it might mean putting lean meat in the freezer or teaching a child respect for the land. To the ranchers it means keeping the wild herds from destroying thousands of dollars’ worth of hay. To taxpayers, successful management means fewer dollars spent compensating ranchers, plus healthy, abundant wildlife.

The game warden keeps a pulse on all these needs and many more. He is the face Wyoming Game and Fish. Policies may be set in Cheyenne, but they are carried out by a solitary man in the field. He is responsible not merely for a book of regulations. He is there to bring the policies to life and to strike the balance that the lawmakers intended.

As employees of the state, wardens enforce wildlife and boating statutes passed in the legislature, as well as regulations determined by the Game and Fish Commission. They enforce no federal laws.

Wardens must have, at a minimum, a bachelor’s degree in a field related to wildlife management. They must pass a standardized warden examination and maintain certification as a Wyoming Peace Officer.

A senior warden, like Roberts, has to be a self-starter. With minimal supervision, he is “responsible for fish, wildlife and watercraft law enforcement; wildlife management data collection, interpretation and decisions; addresses human-wildlife conflict resolution, wildlife depredation investigations and injured wildlife calls,” according to the state’s job description.

He deals with a wide array of people and a diverse set of issues. This requires good judgement and thoughtful discretion. A warden can make, or break, the public’s confidence in government.

To be a competent officer begins with understanding what the state is. One must know both its source of authority as well as how that authority is to be used.

Broadly speaking, God Himself is the source of all authority. As St. Paul puts it, “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1 ESV). The proper use of this authority is “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14).

This, immediately, raises the question: “what is ‘good’?” Categories of good and evil are not arbitrary proclamations of governments. They are objective realities—tied to the reality of God Himself. Government’s responsibility is to understand the objective good and to govern accordingly.

For the Department of Game and Fish, this begins by acknowledging that God has given humankind responsibility to care for the land and the creatures that inhabit it. Within this management, principles such as equitably sharing resources, preventing cruelty and respecting personal property all come into play. While there are no divinely decreed herd sizes or damage compensation, these human judgements cannot float free of the principles at stake.

Just as it is vital to understand these parameters on lawmaking, it is also necessary for peace officers to understand their place in community. Armies are ruled from the top down. Governments are built from the bottom up.

Families are the foundation of every government. Fathers, mothers and children originally had the management responsibility for the land and its animals. When families come together in community, they see the need for cooperation between households. That means governments are best understood as exercising the coordinated authority of the families in their jurisdictions.

The best governmental officers know the diverse families that they serve. They understand their needs and interests. Most of all, they care about them. When the officer is part of the community, those he serves are friends and neighbors.

State laws are a framework for service, not a platform of power. We pay peace officers a salary because we appreciate their help in balancing the needs of a community. They treat people with respect and love because they are like family.

This is the way governments are supposed to work. Governmental institutions may be necessary evils, but the people who serve them are not evil. Properly understood, officers and the citizens they serve are not antagonists, but friends. Heavy-handed government officials tempt citizens to despise government itself. Both the misuse of authority and the hostile reaction are misguided.

Nick Roberts is one example of a way of governing that unites communities rather than divide. He is loved and respected by the rancher as well as the hunter. Even those who don’t know him, can know that he is looking out for their interests behind the scenes.

You may know of such officials in your neck of the woods. When you see them, thank and encourage them. They are gifts from God and living examples of good government.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on January 24, 2020.

The Federalist: Groups That Profit From Abortion Are Too Biased To Represent Women’s Interests

After decades of pretending the interests of abortionists match the interests of women, June Medical v. Gee is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to let women be heard.

More than 200 legislators recently filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court about June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Dr. Rebecca Gee, in her capacity as secretary of the Louisiana Health Department. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case March 3, 2020.

The amicus challenges June Medical’s “third-party standing,” and asks the Supreme Court to uphold Louisiana’s overwhelmingly bipartisan law protecting women by requiring all abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion facility.

Continue reading on the Federalist.

 

 

Local game warden exemplifies good government

It’s ten below zero and half an hour before most people head for work. There he is, pulling a hapless hunter out of a snowbank. That’s not his job. He just does it because it needs to be done. That’s the way Nick Roberts is. He has been Evanston’s game warden since 2014.

I ask if he’s running a towing service on the side. He just smiles while we share a memory of him pulling my son out of the same bank. Three groups of late-season elk hunters had just watched the day break from the ridge near Don Proffit’s grave. Strangers who had just met talked easily and worked together in the hope of a successful hunt.

Don Proffit, Evanston legend

Success means different things to different people. To the hunters, it might mean putting lean meat in the freezer or teaching a son how to respect the land. To the ranchers it means keeping the wild herds from destroying thousands of dollars’ worth of carefully cultivated feed. To the taxpayers of Wyoming, successful management of wildlife means fewer dollars spent compensating ranchers, plus healthy, abundant wildlife.

The game warden keeps a pulse on all these needs and many more. He, with his dog Blue, is the face of local game management. Policies may be set in Cheyenne, but they are carried out by a solitary man in the field. He is responsible not merely to enforce a book filled with regulations. He is there to bring the policies to life and to strike the balance that the lawmakers intended.

Although much of their work takes place on federal land, game wardens are not federal officers and do not enforce any federal laws. As employees of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, they have the responsibility to enforce wildlife and boating statutes passed by our state’s legislature, as well as regulations determined by the Game and Fish Commission.

At minimum, wardens must have a bachelor’s degree in a field related to wildlife management. They must pass a standardized warden examination and maintain certification as a Wyoming Peace Officer.

For Roberts, his path began at Iowa State University where he earned a bachelor’s degree in wildlife management. After graduation, he worked seasonally in wildlife positions and construction for a number of years until he decided to become a warden.

After passing the Game Warden Examination and various criminal and psychological background checks, he was hired by Game and Fish in 2010 and spent three months at the Law Enforcement Academy in Douglas. That, and training in the field, qualified him to be a warden. He served in Cody, Alpine and Cheyenne before he was promoted to Senior Warden and assigned to the Evanston district.

A Senior Warden has to be a self-starter. With minimal supervision, he is “responsible for fish, wildlife and watercraft law enforcement; wildlife management data collection, interpretation and decisions; addresses human-wildlife conflict resolution, wildlife depredation investigations and injured wildlife calls,” according to the state’s job description.

All of this requires him to be knowledgeable both in the habits of wildlife and in the intricacies of Wyoming law. But that is only part of the job. As the primary representative of the Game and Fish Department, he deals with a wide array of people and a diverse set of issues. Competent in skills ranging from horsemanship to firearm safety, he must work as easily with a weekend hunter as with other law-enforcement officials. With such a wide range of duties—and the need for discretion and decision-making—a warden can make, or break, the public’s confidence in state competency.

To be a competent officer of the state begins with understanding what the state is. One must know both its source of authority as well as how that authority is to be used.

Broadly speaking, God Himself is the source of all authority. As St. Paul puts it, “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1 ESV). The proper use of this authority is “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14).

This, immediately, raises the topic of moral judgments. Categories of good and evil are not arbitrary proclamations. They are objective realities—tied to the reality of God Himself. Just governments do not decree what is good or evil, they discern it. Whether it be the state legislature, the Game and Fish Commission, or the warden in the field, government’s responsibility is to understand the objective good and to govern accordingly.

For the Department of Game and Fish, this begins by acknowledging that God has given humankind responsibility to care for the land and the creatures that inhabit it. Within this management, principles such as equitably sharing resources, preventing cruelty and respecting personal property all come into play.

Bear River State Park's resident elk

While there is no divine decree about the number of hunting licenses to be issued, or the compensation owed to a rancher who loses hay to a herd of hungry elk, we are not free to make laws and regulations about these things that contradict the principles at stake.

Just as it is vital to understand these parameters on lawmaking, it is also necessary for peace officers to understand their place in the chain of command. Unlike the military, governments do not operate by a top-down hierarchy.

Rather, the foundational building block of every government is the family unit. Fathers, mothers and children originally had the management responsibility for the land and the animals that roamed on it. When families come together in community, they see the need for cooperation between households. This is the reason for governments.

Hence, this is the reason that governments are best understood as exercising the coordinated authority of the families in its jurisdiction. That makes government officers much more like fathers than like dictators.

Unlike an arbitrary dictator that imposes decrees from afar, the best governmental officers know each, and every, family that they serve. They understand their diverse needs and their temptations. Most of all, they care about them, like neighbors and relatives, because the officers are part of the community themselves.

From this standpoint, local officers understand state laws as a framework for service and not as a platform of power. We pay them a salary because we appreciate what they do for the entire community. They treat people with respect and love because what is good for one is good for the whole community.

This is the way governments are supposed to work. Governmental institutions may be necessary evils, but the people who serve them are not evil. Properly understood, officers and the citizens they serve are not antagonists, but friends.

Nick Roberts exemplifies this kind of community service. He will likely be embarrassed for me to say so, but that is only because it is genuine. I appreciate his fatherly approach. I believe the ranchers do, as well. Even if you have never met him, I hope you will feel better knowing that he is looking out for your interests behind the scenes.

Many rightly bristle at governments that act like overlords. Some citizens react by despising government itself and adopting a hostile attitude toward anyone who works for the state.

There is a better way. I have talked about one exemplary individual. Look around yourself and consider other faithful servants. Take heart and be encouraged. Thank them and encourage them, as well. They are a gift from God.

WTE: Wyoming delegation speaks up for women

Over 200 legislators from both parties recently filed an amicus with the Supreme Court. Wyoming’s entire congressional delegation (Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, and Representative, Liz Cheney) signed on. The brief challenges the plaintiff’s standing and asks SCOTUS to uphold the overwhelmingly bi-partisan law protecting Louisiana’s women.

Here’s the gist. Think about restaurants that violate basic health codes. Customers have gotten sick from contaminated food and injured in substandard facilities. Would you expect the health department to take action to protect the public?

Now, what would you think if those restaurants sued to overturn those necessary regulations. Worse, what if they claimed to represent the health interests of the very people that they sickened and injured? Rather than complying with the same standards that govern every other restaurant, they call them “undue burdens” that could price them out of the restaurant business. That’s chutzpah!

That’s what Louisiana’s June Medical Services L.L.C. has told the court.

This corporation has a history of substandard patient care. The Louisiana state Department of Health has documented dozens of instances of unsanitary, expired, missing and improperly stored instruments, medications, and medical supplies. June Medical has repeatedly subjected unsuspecting patients to the hands of unlicensed and uncredentialed medical staff.

These violations have resulted in injury to patients and violations of patient rights. Other clinics, also entrusted with the care of women, denied their right to have incest and child rape reported to authorities. Instead, victims were sent home to their tormenters. Other patients had their uterus destroyed through medical incompetence. One clinic even employed the convicted murderer, Kermit Gosnell, as an independent contractor.

These violations were enabled because June Medical, and outpatient surgical centers like it, were exempted from standards that applied to all other outpatient surgical centers.

In 2014, Democrat Representative, Katrina Monroe introduced legislation to close this loophole and protect the women of Louisiana. It passed their House 85-6 and their Senate 34-3. It merely required that abortionists have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

This rule saves women’s lives, but abortionists don’t like it. When it comes to safe health practices, the interests of for-profit abortion mills and women are in conflict. So, how does it make sense for a clinic to have standing before the court as though it represents the interests of women?

The first 21 pages of the 35-page friend-of-the-court brief argue this point. The following eight pages argue that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was right to uphold Louisiana’s law and should be sustained.

The remaining five pages point out numerous self-contradictory opinions from the Supreme Court that have resulted from conflating two contradictory interests—the interests of abortionists and the interests of women.

SCOTUS has repeatedly said that states have a legitimate interest in ensuring that physicians and clinics be held to basic standards of care. But by treating Planned Parenthood, NARAL and various abortion mills as though they represent the interest of women, they have repeatedly undermined the legitimate interests of states that protect women.

Last week the Wyoming Tribune Eagle published an article titled, “Delegation signs on to call for Roe v. Wade review.” In it, Nick Reynolds never once hinted at the unsanitary, dangerous and illegal activities that hurt women. Instead, Reynolds characterized the entire brief as “anti-abortion” without even acknowledging its pro-women argument.

How, then, could he completely omit any discussion of the first 29 pages of a 35-page brief? Is this the kind of responsible reporting that Wyoming deserves? Is that even worthy of the opinion page?

Most alarming, Reynolds counts Cheney’s public stance against killing a newborn child as “against abortion.” This is beyond the pale. How old does a child have to be before it is beyond the reach of abortion rhetoric?

There are two people involved in every abortion. There is the child who is being destroyed and there is the woman who is undergoing an invasive surgical procedure. Reynolds and certain extreme politicians have become so focused on the child that they completely overlook the woman.

In a headlong rush to remove every obstacle to the quick and cheap destruction of the child, they forget that once he is out of the birth canal it is no longer an abortion. That is infanticide.

Both federal law and Wyoming statute recognize a newborn child to have the full protection of the law. Enforcing this law is not “anti-abortion.” It is simply humane.

Their single-minded focus on destroying the unborn child also blinds them to the interests of women to have the full protection of public health laws.

Wyoming’s congressional delegation sees both the woman and the child. Its members are asking the court to address the interests of both—especially when they conflict with the interests of abortionist mills. Wyoming should be proud.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on January 17, 2020.

Wyoming delegation joins amicus for women's health

Wyoming's Delegation: Sens. John Barrasso, Mike Enzi, and Rep. Liz Cheney

Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, together with Wyoming’s lone Representative, Liz Cheney, joined 206 other legislators from both parties asking the Supreme Court to uphold a 2014 law from the state of Louisiana. Their primary argument is that June Medical Services L.L.C. lacks legitimate standing to sue Louisiana.

To understand their point, think about a restaurant with a history of health violations. How many violations of basic health codes, how many instances of customers getting sick from contaminated food would be acceptable? Would you want to know about its failures? Would you expect the licensing board to make and enforce policies to protect the public from its unhealthy practices?

Now, what would you think if that restaurant sued the state for enforcing health regulations. Worse, what if it sued, not in its capacity as a dining establishment, but as though it is a champion for the health of its customers. While conceding that it is an unhealthy and unsafe establishment, it complains that basic hygiene standards are an “undue burden.” It claims that poor, unsuspecting diners might be deprived of its germ-infected food if the new policies go into effect. That’s chutzpah!

Prosecution's exhibit in Kermit Gosnell's murder trial

That, essentially, is what June Medical Services has done to the state of Louisiana. This corporation has a ten-year history of substandard patient care. The Louisiana state Department of Health has documented dozens of instances of unsanitary, expired, missing and improperly stored instruments, medications, and medical supplies. June Medical has repeatedly subjected unsuspecting patients to the hands of unlicensed and uncredentialed medical staff.

Far more than mere technicalities, these violations have resulted in repeated injury to patients and violations of patient rights. Similarly, other clinics in Louisiana violated laws that require the reporting of child abuse. In 2009 and 2011 Delta Clinic in Baton Rouge failed to report instances of incest and child rape. Girls that should have been given help were, instead sent home to their rapists.

Patients were put out on the street before they were medically stable. They were medicated by incompetent and unqualified staff. Minors underwent surgery without parental consent. Last year, a patient was forced to undergo an unplanned hysterectomy. Due to medical incompetence, she has lost the choice ever to have a child.

The list of atrocities goes on and on. If this sounds similar to the laundry list of violations that preceded Kermit Gosnell’s murder conviction in Philadelphia, it should come as no surprise. Leroy Brinkley, operator of Delta Clinic in Baton Rouge, used to employ Gosnell as an independent contractor.

How is it possible that so many violations and unsafe procedures could be perpetrated on the people of Louisiana for decades? In large part, it is because June Medical, and outpatient surgical centers like it, were exempted from the standard certification requirements that applied to all other outpatient surgical centers.

It is this loophole in public safety laws that Louisiana closed in 2014. Democrat Representative, Katrina Monroe proposed the legislation to protect the women of Louisiana. It passed their House 85-6 and their Senate 34-3.

Recommended book

The law recognized that, when it comes to safe health practices, the interests of for-profit abortion mills and Louisiana’s women are in conflict. For the sake of women, the state Department of Health has a legitimate interest in requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. So, how does it make sense that the clinics can sue to overturn the law on the pretense that they represent the interests of women?

That question is the main thrust of a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief filed by over 200 legislators—including all three of Wyoming’s congressional delegation (Mike Enzi, John Barrasso, and Liz Cheney). The first 21 pages of the 35-page brief argue this point.

The following eight pages argue a second point. Here the legislators simply agree that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was right to uphold Louisiana’s law. They "strongly urge the Court to uphold the decision [of the Fifth Circuit] and to provide clarity regarding the bounds of the Government’s ability to safeguard the lives and health of their citizens.”

The third and final section of the amicus spends five pages documenting 47 years of confusing and self-contradictory opinions from the Supreme Court. The confusion has come from the court’s vacillating between two contradictory interests—the interests of abortionists and the interests of women.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that states have a legitimate interest in ensuring that physicians and clinics be held to basic standards of care. State policies about cleanliness, certifications, inspections, documentation and licensing for medical facilities and practitioners should benefit all patients, and not exclude the entire abortion industry.

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and various abortion mills hang an “anti-abortion” label on any and every attempt to make abortion clinics safer. Thus, they have prevailed on the court to exempt themselves from patient-centered legislation. Unlike any other industry, the court blindly assumes that the interest of abortionists is identical to the interest of those who enter their clinics.

Nick Reynolds

Last week the Wyoming Tribune Eagle published an article titled, “Delegation signs on to call for Roe v. Wade review.” Nick Reynolds, reporter for the Casper Star Tribune, managed to write this entire article without ever once hinting at the unsanitary, dangerous and illegal activities at the heart of the lawsuit.

Clearly Reynolds read the same brief that I did. He quoted from it. How, then, could he completely omit any discussion of the first 29 pages of a 35-page brief? Is this the kind of responsible and informative reporting that Wyoming deserves?

Reynolds can only see the brief as “anti-abortion.” He seems completely deaf to its pro-women argument. Worse still, he lists Representative Cheney’s stance against the killing of a newborn child as “against abortion.” That is utterly frightening. How old does a child have to be before it is beyond the reach of abortion?

At least he recognizes that there are two people involved in every abortion. There is the child who is being destroyed and there is the woman who is undergoing an invasive surgical procedure. Acknowledging both gives us a place to begin the discussion.

Both federal law and Wyoming statute recognize the person who is born to have the full protection of the law. Enforcing this law with just and effective penalties ought not to be counted as “anti-abortion.” It is, rather, simply humane.

As for the child before he is born, extreme politicians and their media enablers can only focus on making it cheaper and quicker to destroy him. They should pause at least long enough to recognize that a woman is also involved. The single-minded focus on that child should not overpower the interest of the woman to have the full protection of public health laws.

Surely, we can agree on that, at the very least. Wyoming’s congressional delegation signed on to a brief that supported women while simultaneously asking the court to address the confusion caused by 47 years of contradiction. For that Wyoming should be extremely grateful.