The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> heard oral arguments on Tuesday on whether to reinstate certain <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/fda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FDA</a> restrictions on mifepristone, the drug that is used in more than half of the abortions in the United States.
The arguments come as a group of pro-life physicians, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, sued the Biden administration after it lifted restrictions on the mailing and prescribing of abortion pills. The physicians say that the previous limits should be reinstated for safety reasons and that the FDA relaxed its guidelines for politicized reasons. Changes in 2016 and 2021 made mifepristone available by mail and allowed the drug to be prescribed by medical providers who are not physicians. 
“Women should have the ongoing care of a doctor when taking high-risk drugs. The FDA betrayed women and girls when it unlawfully removed the necessary in-person doctor visits that protected women’s health and well-being,” ADF lawyer Erin Hawley <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/us-supreme-court-hear-arguments-tuesday-about-fdas-recklessness">said</a> in a statement before arguments began. “The FDA’s own label for abortion drugs says that roughly one in 25 women who take them will end up in the emergency room. Yet the federal government continues to defend its reckless actions that jeopardize women’s health and safety.”
The case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, came to the court after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-appeals-court-makes-decision-on-the-mailing-of-abortion-pills" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> in August that mifepristone should not be distributed through the mail or prescribed via telemedicine. Hawley, the wife of Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), is arguing for the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine while the Biden administration is being represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
During arguments on Tuesday, Prelogar argued that mifepristone was safe to prescribe online and said that the pro-life doctors challenging the FDA lacked standing. She also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/26/us/abortion-pill-supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claimed</a> that “only an exceptionally small number of women suffer the kinds of serious complications” that pro-lifer advocates have said come with the prescription of mifepristone. 
According to data from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, more than 60% of abortions in the U.S. in 2023 were done via medication. The total reported was 642,700 in the formal healthcare system, which is likely substantially less than the number of medication abortions that may have been done by women ordering from non-certified websites. 
Justice Samuel Alito pushed Prelogar on the standing issue, saying that someone should be able to challenge the FDA’s rollback of mifepristone restrictions.
As arguments began in the case, both pro-life and pro-abortion rights activists gathered outside the Supreme Court. Aid Access, a group that ships abortion pills across the country, had robots outside the court dispensing pills while one activist held up a sign saying, “I’m (a) trans man, and I need abortion pills.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Here at the Supreme Court, where Aid Access is distributing abortion pills with robots. Dystopian, much? <a href="https://twitter.com/DallasExpress?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DallasExpress</a> <a href="https://t.co/JZMMTtdouz">pic.twitter.com/JZMMTtdouz</a>
&mdash; Patrick Hauf 🇻🇦 (@PatrickHauf) <a href="https://twitter.com/PatrickHauf/status/1772598892971835861?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Pro-life groups have urged the Supreme Court to rule against the FDA, saying that the agency irresponsibly rolled back restrictions. 
“The FDA’s decision to weaken commonsense safeguards, removing doctors from the process, shows they prioritize ending unborn life over the health and safety of women,” said Dr. Ingrid Skop of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “Their stories must be heard, but abortion advocates, working with corporate media, have gaslighted them into silence. I hope the Supreme Court holds the FDA accountable for their reckless actions.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Several scientific studies on the potential harm of abortion pills <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/completely-unjustified-medical-journal-retracts-major-studies-critical-of-abortion-pill-ahead-of-supreme-court-clash" target="_blank" rel="noopener">were retracted</a> in February, years after they were first published, when the publisher conducted a review due to a single reader complaint. The authors of the studies say the retractions are a politically motivated effort to discredit research that was cited in a federal judge’s order that sided with doctors looking to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone. They believe that the research was targeted to discredit findings on the potential dangers of mifepristone ahead of the Supreme Court&#8217;s consideration of the issue.

Women’s March Mobilizes Hundreds For “Bans Off Our Mifepristone” Action Outside Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Allowing Mail-Order Abortion Pills

Abortion

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Courts

Politics

Pro-Life Movement

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

A proposed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/tennessee" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee</a> bill that would prevent banks from discriminating against people based on their political or religious views advanced in the state House on Tuesday amid national concerns that financial institutions are targeting conservatives. 
The Republican-backed bill advanced in the House’s Subcommittee on Banking and Consumer Affairs by a 5-1 vote along partisan lines. 
“The trend of freezing bank accounts based on religious or political beliefs is deeply worrying to me,” Rep. Jason Zachary (R-Knoxville), the bill’s sponsor, said. “We will put a stop to this dangerous practice in Tennessee because having to self-police speech for fear of being denied financial services is not representative of our state’s values. Tennessee Republicans will continue protecting the right of citizens to freely express their convictions.”
The proposal, <a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2100" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2100</a>, would prohibit financial institutions from denying or canceling services to people based on a person’s speech, opinions, and affiliations, as well as a person’s religious beliefs, exercises, and affiliations. It would create an amendment to Tennessee’s consumer protection laws and would not impact quantitative factors banks already take into account. A previous version of the proposal included insurance companies, but the bill was amended to remove those provisions. 
Zachary <a href="https://tnga.granicus.com/player/clip/29797?view_id=703&amp;redirect=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> before the subcommittee that the state attorney general’s office was currently dealing with cases of customers who have had their banking restricted in the state. 
“This legislation is extremely important to the well-being of Tennesseans and this puts this under the Consumer Protection Act and ensures that our Tennesseans are not discriminated against,” he said. “And if the banks aren’t doing this, which we’ve heard over and over again, ‘we’re not doing this,’ then they’re not going to have any problem with the bill.”
On Tuesday, Chris Lee of the National Shooting Sports Foundation and FirstBank CEO Chris Holmes gave additional testimony. 
Lee testified in support of the bill, pointing to moves by some financial institutions to target the firearm industry. Lee pointed to gun <a href="https://www.citigroup.com/global/news/perspective/2018/announcing-our-us-commercial-firearms-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">policies</a> rolled out by Citigroup in 2018 that refused to work with partners who sold guns to people under the age of 21 or sold high-capacity magazines and bump stocks. Citigroup attempted to get other financial institutions to join but failed to rally any additional support. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1709731418042000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Rpfa0a-gECGBBfyE_tF46">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Holmes, who opposes the bill, said it would lead to burdensome regulations and could mean that banks would be required to work with businesses involved in pornography or marijuana. Zachary said that banks could still follow policies about not doing business with such entities and that his bill only applies to banks with $100 billion in assets or more. 
The bill, supported by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the National Committee for Religious Freedom, now moves on to the House Commerce Committee.
The proposal comes as congressional lawmakers look into whether federal law enforcement pressured financial institutions to help them snoop on the financial transactions of supporters of former President Donald Trump and people who had visited outdoor stores like Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shops.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/religious-liberty-advocates-warn-tennessee-lawmakers-about-dangers-of-politically-motivated-de-banking" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Religious Liberty Advocates Warn Tennessee Lawmakers About Dangers Of Politically Motivated ‘De-Banking’</a>

Sunset Behind the Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville, Tennessee

Bill To Protect Customers From De-Banking For Religious, Political Reasons Advances In Tennessee

Banking

Citigroup

Discrimination

General

Tennessee

A federal judge in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/north-dakota" target="_blank" rel="noopener">North Dakota</a> ruled on Monday that the Biden administration cannot compel Christian employers and health care providers to pay for transgender surgeries and other procedures.
Judge Daniel Traynor for the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/christian-employers-do-not-have-cover-gender-transition-judge-rules-2024-03-04/">ruled</a> in favor of the Christian Employers Alliance, which had challenged the Biden administration’s interpretation of federal discrimination law. Traynor, a Trump nominee, <a href="https://adfmedia.org/case/christian-employers-alliance-v-us-equal-employment-opportunity-commission">said</a> that the Christian groups were protected under religious liberty protections from being forced to provide “gender transition services.” 
The judge ruled against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Health and Human Services interpretation of discrimination law, which would mandate that every employer covers transgender surgeries. Traynor said that the Christian Employers Alliance&#8217;s “religious beliefs are substantially burdened by the monetary penalties it faces for refusing to violate its beliefs.”
“Here, CEA’s sincerely held religious belief is that male and female are immutable realities defined by biological sex and that gender reassignment is contrary to Christian Values,” Traynor <a href="https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/ChristianEmployersAllianceOrderSummaryJudgment.pdf">wrote</a>. “As a result, performing or providing health care coverage for gender transition services under the EEOC and HHS coverage mandates impinges upon CEA’s beliefs. CEA must either comply with the EEOC and HHS mandates by violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or else face harsh consequences like paying fines and facing civil liability.”
The Christian Employers Alliance first filed the lawsuit in October 2021 and took issue with the Equal Employment Opportunity commission&#8217;s interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that employers needed to cover transgender surgeries. It also challenged the Health and Human Services&#8217; interpretation of sex to include gender identity for discrimination purposes. 
The decision was celebrated by the Christian Employers Alliance and the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the group. 
“We are overjoyed our members will not have to choose between the biblically based employee benefits and quality healthcare they provide, and the threat of federal enforcement and massive costs for practicing their faith,” Christian Employers Alliance President Shannon Royce said. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1709731418042000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3Rpfa0a-gECGBBfyE_tF46">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
ADF Senior Counsel and Director of Regulatory Practice Matt Bowman praised the court for blocking the Biden administration’s mandates. 
“All employers and healthcare providers, including those in the Christian Employers Alliance, have the constitutionally protected freedom to conduct their business and render treatment in a manner consistent with their deeply held religious beliefs,” Bowman said. “The employers we represent believe that God purposefully created humans as either male or female, and so it would violate their religious beliefs to pay for or perform life-altering medical procedures or surgeries that seek to change one’s sex.”

A surgical light in an operating room in hospital.

Federal Judge Rules That Christian Employers Do Not Have To Pay For Transgender Surgeries

Biden Administration

Department of Health and Human Services

North Dakota

Religious Liberty

transgender surgery

Saturday Night Live made headlines this weekend for all the wrong reasons. During Weekend Update, a cast member suggested that Donald Trump stumbled and introduced a “new term” to the debate called “de-banking.” What followed was a rather feeble attempt at mocking the former president.
In reality, de-banking is no laughing matter. It means losing essential financial services, like a bank account, payment processing, or even insurance, because of your views. And it is on the rise — so much so that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments involving the issue this term.
Funny enough, the case originates in the Empire State (“Live from New York,” anybody?), where the National Rifle Association is challenging New York’s attempt to coerce banks and insurance companies to withdraw services from the group. The NRA alleges that the Department of Financial Services — at the behest of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo — used its vast power to regulate “reputational risk” along with back-channel meetings, public investigations, and threats of fines to punish the group for its Second Amendment advocacy. 
This is not an isolated incident. A string of religious ministries and conservative groups have also been <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/resources/instances-of-viewpoint-based-de-banking" target="_blank" rel="noopener">victimized</a> by de-banking. As Alliance Defending Freedom points out in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in support of the NRA’s position, pro-life group Heartbeat International was recently canceled by its insurance provider over its “anti-abortion” advocacy.
Likewise, Bank of America de-banked Indigenous Advance Ministries, an ADF client that serves impoverished Ugandan widows and orphans. The bank closed Indigenous Advance’s long-standing account as well as the account of a local church that donates to the ministry. The bank claimed it no longer wanted to serve their “business type” and that Indigenous Advance exceeded the “bank’s risk tolerance.”
It did this right before a planned mission trip to Uganda, sending Indigenous Advance scrambling to open new accounts and drastically reducing the funds for the trip. It couldn’t pay its Ugandan ministry partners — who live meal to meal — for several weeks. And it had to temporarily reduce aid to the impoverished people they serve.
Similar instances of de-banking abound. Former Brexit leader Nigel Farage’s high-profile case resulted in the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/natwest-board-backs-ceo-alison-rose-over-farage-account-row-2023-07-25/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ouster</a> of megabank NatWest’s CEO. Serial offender JPMorgan Chase’s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/jpmorgan-targeted-by-republican-states-over-accusations-of-religious-bias-903c8b26?mod=Searchresults_pos1&amp;page=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hit list</a> includes the <a href="https://familycouncil.org/?p=25159" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arkansas Family Council</a>, <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/chase-bank-missouri-conservative-group" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Defense of Liberty</a>, and U.S Ambassador Sam Brownback&#8217;s <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/stop-troubling-trend-politically-motivated-debanking-opinion-1787639" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Committee for Religious Freedom</a>.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Weekend Update: Trump Ordered to Pay $83 Million, DeSantis Endorses Trump - SNL" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QLt6xK33mUc?start=133&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
There are many reasons for this phenomenon, but the root cause is vague terms of service. 
“Reputational” and “social” risk policies pervade financial institutions. Customers at all 28 commercial banks scored in Alliance Defending Freedom’s <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/business-index" target="_blank" rel="noopener">index</a> that measures corporate respect for free speech and religious freedom are currently vulnerable to de-banking.
Most alarmingly, 7 of the nation’s 10 largest commercial banks — including the top 3 — have “reputational risk” or “hate speech” policies. These policies’ overly broad and subjective language permit employees to discriminate based on a customer’s viewpoint and then hide their viewpoint-based actions behind opaque standards. They also allow abuse by government regulators.
A positive ruling in the NRA case — which, in a comedic twist that should provide fodder for SNL writers, is being argued by the ACLU — would affirm that the government cannot carry out its censorship schemes by co-opting third parties as censors. That would help. But that does not address the many de-banking decisions that can be laid at the feet of private actors.
The solution to this problem may lie with the states. This state legislative season presents an opportunity for states interested in protecting against politicized de-banking to act. Any such law should focus on the worst actors – the largest banks and payment processors. Thanks to wide-reaching government benefits, such as greater lending power, FDIC insurance rates, subsidies, bailouts, and an anticompetitive chartering system, these institutions dominate their markets over state-level competitors yet are responsible for the worst de-banking incidents.
At a minimum, the law should prohibit denial of services based on religious or political beliefs, give customers the right to ask for a detailed explanation when services are denied, empower the attorney general to enforce the statute, and provide aggrieved customers a private right of action.
No one should have to worry that they could lose their bank account, insurance coverage, or other essential financial services because of their religious or political views. Yet it’s clear that vague financial service policies abused by private and government actors pose a serious threat to everyone’s freedom of speech and religion.
So, an inadvertent thanks to our pals at SNL for bringing up de-banking. It’s about time we talked about it. And it’s about time for the law to require viewpoint neutrality from the biggest banks and payment processors.
* * *
Jeremy Tedesco is senior counsel and senior vice president of Corporate Engagement for <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=wallstreetjournal&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

SNL’s Colin Jost on Weekend Update

SNL’s Trump ‘De-Banking’ Gaff Accidentally Elevates Hot Button Issue

SNL’s Trump 'De-Banking' Gaff Accidentally Elevates Hot Button Issue 

Bank of America

Banks

Christians

Conservatives

Donald Trump

JP Morgan

Readers Pass

It’s the first day back from the Christmas holidays. Your 12-year-old son comes down the stairs, ready for school. You take a second look. He’s in a skirt, heels, and lipstick.
Do you have a right to ask him to change?
Under new proposals in Scotland, you could face criminal penalties if you ask him to do so repeatedly – on “at least two occasions.”
Perhaps your son, in retaliation against your repeatedly expressed concerns, reports you to local authorities. He feels “distressed,” he says, because you are being “controlling,” or “pressuring” him to “act in a certain way.”
According to the draft “<a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/ending-conversion-practices-scotland-scottish-government-consultation/">conversion therapy ban</a>” opened to public consultation this week, you’ve now met the threshold – you&#8217;re accused of adopting a “coercive course of behaviour in the context of conversion practices.”
Your crime carries a potential penalty of up to seven years imprisonment; or an unlimited fine; or both.
As if parenting Gen Alpha wasn’t challenging enough.
Since the early public introduction of the concept, bans on “conversion therapy” have undergone a radical evolution at the hands of politicians and activists. Once explained as a necessary protection from electro-shock chairs and other abuses, activists have now expanded the concept dramatically to one that is far more opaque. Physical abuse has long been illegal, and obviously, rightly so. But now, as evidenced by the proposed new law, a ban on “conversion therapy” seeks to restrict something even more far-reaching – the act of basic parenting.
The law would allow social workers and state authorities to interfere in the relationship between parent and child in an unprecedented way. This follows an ideological pattern of Scotland’s famously “woke” government set long in the tooth. Citizens will remember the attempt throughout the 2010s to assign every child in Scotland a “named person” &#8211; a personal government official with access to private information, set to swoop in as a substitute parent. The overreaching scheme was brought down in court. But it’s clear that in Scotland, “mother” (or father) is far from trusted to know best.
<div id="attachment_679695" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-679695" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="size-large wp-image-679695" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/01/GettyImages-1915190884-864x576.jpg" alt="EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND - JANUARY 10: Emma Roddick, Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, leads a debate in the Scottish Parliament on The Impact of UK Government Asylum Policy and Legislation in Scotland, on January 10, 2024 in Edinburgh, Scotland. (Photo by Ken Jack/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/01/GettyImages-1915190884-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/01/GettyImages-1915190884-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/01/GettyImages-1915190884-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/01/GettyImages-1915190884.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND &#8211; JANUARY 10: Emma Roddick, Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, leads a debate in the Scottish Parliament on The Impact of UK Government Asylum Policy and Legislation in Scotland. (Photo by Ken Jack/Getty Images)</div>
Certainly, we need social care systems in place to rescue children from truly abusive situations. But the ability of a parent to advise, raise concerns, persuade, teach, and discipline a child is paramount in raising the next generation. Instead of being supported to play their role well, parents are placed under a terrifying, and well-founded, fear of losing their children or being locked up in prison, all the while navigating the extreme sensitivities of a child who may be struggling with a wide range of issues. The number of kids now identifying as “trans” is skyrocketing – especially amongst girls, and kids with autism. Any evidence they’ll be better off with an alter-ego gender is, at best, supremely contested. And the potential damage they can inflict upon their bodies in the process is severe.
Aren’t those who push kids down a path of such significant transition the ones truly guilty of practicing “conversion therapy”?
Confusion abounds. Fear mounts. Scotland could well be fast becoming the hardest place to raise a family in the West.
And what of the kids? As parents self-censor to avoid banishment, a generation is raised having never heard the word “no.” If there is no real discussion, objection, or concern raised to decisions they make at home, how will they possibly cope in the world at large, where a diverse and tolerant society requires that they hear other views than their own? 
Children are not adults. Who knows where we’d all be today if we’d been empowered too early to make life-changing decisions?
And parents are not children. The vast majority are committed to doing the job of raising their children well. Many hold firm, science-based beliefs in the immutability of biological sex. Many have committed to steer their child away from an ideological path potentially leading to severe bodily harm and permanent, life-altering decisions.
Common sense is not a crime. Mums and dads might not be perfect, but the state is a terrible parent.
* * *
Lois McLatchie Miller is a Scottish commentator and spokesperson for Alliance Defending Freedom UK. Follow her: @LoisMcLatch
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Scottish Daily Politics 2024

Prison Penalties For Parents Who Refuse To ‘Trans’ Their Kids? Welcome to Scotland.

Prison Penalties For Parents Who Refuse To 'Trans' Their Kids? Welcome to Scotland. 

LGBTQ

Parents rights

Scotland

Transgender

United Kingdom

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> has allowed an Idaho law making it a crime to perform an abortion to take effect before it weighs in on the law. 
A federal judge had previously blocked implementation of Idaho’s “<a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch6/sect18-622/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Defense of Life Act</a>” after the Biden administration sued to overturn the law saying that it violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in April, but will allow the law to be enforced in the meantime. 
“We are very pleased and encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision today. The federal government has been wrong from day one. Federal law does not preempt Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. In fact, EMTALA and Idaho’s law share the same goal: to save the lives of all women and their unborn children. Today, the Supreme Court’s decision is a big step in stopping the administration’s lawless overreach. The people of Idaho have spoken with clarity on the issue of life,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said. 
The law says that those who administer abortions shall be punished with two to five years in prison and the suspension of medical license on first offense and revocation on second.
In response to the decision, the White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/05/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-supreme-court-order-on-idahos-abortion-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claimed</a> that the law “denies women critical emergency abortion care required by federal law.” The Biden administration has argued that federal law would allow doctors to do abortions in circumstances not allowed by state law. 
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade has enabled Republican elected officials to pursue dangerous abortion bans like this one that continue to jeopardize women’s health, force them to travel out of state for care, and make it harder for doctors to provide care, including in an emergency,” the White House said. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1702741302552000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0j7iIgqNi0bR5AgQ4rgPM4">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped appeal the decision to block the law to the Supreme Court, said that the Biden administration wanted to use the EMTLA to “force emergency room doctors to perform abortions.”
“The government has no business forcing doctors to harm their patients or violate their duty to provide life-saving care to all, including unborn children. We are proud to serve alongside the state of Idaho to ensure emergency room doctors can freely and safely serve women and their families,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley. 
The Supreme Court is also set to decide this year on a case over mifepristone, the drug used in over half of all abortions.

Donald Trump Asks US Supreme Court to Overturn Colorado Ballot Ban

Supreme Court Allows Idaho Abortion Law To Stay In Effect As Biden Admin Sues

Idaho

It was only a very short time after Jesus’s birth over 2,000 years ago that persecution began.
As related in the second chapter of Matthew, King Herod sought to find the whereabouts of the newborn Jesus in order to kill him, fearing that he might challenge his rule one day. After Jesus and his family escaped into Egypt, Herod gave vent to his rage by slaughtering the children of Bethlehem.
Yet Herod’s rage was in vain. He himself died soon after, and Jesus soon returned and began his ministry.
This same pattern plays out across the world now more than ever. Governments and enemies of Christianity persecute Christians who recognize that their first allegiance is to God. But because of the faith of these Christians, they give witness to the enduring strength of Christ, and triumph.
Christmas is a time to remember the persecuted, as Jesus and the Holy Innocents were persecuted that first Christmas. But it is also a time to give thanks to God when their witness has triumphed over their persecutors.
Northern Nigeria is a place where the Church faces some of the worst persecution on earth. According to Open Doors, roughly <a href="https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/persecution-trends/">90%</a> of all martyrs in 2022 — over 5,000 Christians murdered for their faith — were from Nigeria.
One of those martyrs was Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu, a Christian student at a university in Sokoto State, who in May 2022 was <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/a-christian-stoned-to-death-for-blasphemy-in-nigeria-when-will-it-end/">stoned to death</a> and burnt by her Muslim classmates because of her faith in Jesus. Another Christian woman, <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253128/nigerian-mother-charged-with-blasphemy-for-defending-murdered-christian">Rhoda Jatau</a>, faced a mob and was arrested for blasphemy after the mob accused her of sharing a video that insulted Islam because it condemned the lynching of Deborah.
Rhoda sat in a jail in Bauchi State, Nigeria, for over 18 months because of the accusations. She only saw her family and lawyers at court hearings.
But through her witness to the injustice of the treatment of Christians in Northern Nigeria, both by extremist Islamist mobs and baseless prosecutions, her case caused national outrage.
Earlier this month, after enormous national outcry, Rhoda was finally <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/rhoda-jatau-bail">released</a> on bail, able to spend Christmas this year with her family in safety. While the charges against her are still pending, many within Nigeria and internationally are pushing for them to be dropped fully.
Other legal victories this year within Nigeria may make it easier for Christians in the northern part of the country to practice their faith. As with many places where Christians are a religious minority, converts to Christianity, particularly from Islam, often find it extremely dangerous to practice their faith. <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/evangelist-acquitted-nigeria">Daniel Kefee</a>* was an evangelist in Northern Nigeria who brought a young Muslim woman, Hafsatu*, to Christ. But when her family found out, members of her family threatened to kill her. She sought out help from Daniel, who found a Christian residential school that could care for her.
For helping Hafsatu, Daniel was charged by Nigerian authorities with kidnapping. Yet Daniel and his lawyers bravely presented to the court the reality of what had happened. In an astonishing result given the region, the judge not only acquitted Daniel, but prodded the prosecutors, asking them, “should the defendant have left the girl, what would have happened with her?”
Also this year, in another state in Northern Nigeria, a young woman named <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/mary-nigeria">Mary Olowe</a>* similarly converted to Christianity and faced death threats from her family. She was able to flee and filed for a restraining order against those who threatened her. Once again, the court issued a remarkable decision, granting the order and explicitly recognizing as a fundamental right Mary’s ability to change her religion from Islam to Christianity without facing any threat of violence.
Even when a remedy through the courts is not possible, we often can see God working through the persecuted to further His kingdom. In Sudan, <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/nada-hamouda-us">Nada and Hamouda</a> were a married Christian couple who were baselessly charged with adultery by prosecutors after their conversions to Christianity from Islam. When Hamouda, the husband, converted after encountering the local church, Nada’s brother threatened the couple, and a Sharia court dissolved their marriage. But soon after, Nada returned to her husband and became a Christian as well. That is when Nada’s brother sought the police to bring charges against them.
Nada and Hamouda could not remain in Sudan. Either they would be convicted and face lashes and potential exile, or they might be freed but hunted down by Islamists. With the help of international partners, they were able to flee to the United States. Now, they have become leaders within their local church community in the U.S., sharing their stories of persecution, witnessing to the grace of the Gospel, and spending their first Christmas <a href="https://youtu.be/L3T5q4JlOBQ?si=kq8OnohJa9nuZjvZ">free and in safety</a>.
We remember the vulnerable and the persecuted at Christmas because of the vulnerability and persecution that our own Savior faced even in those first nights in Bethlehem. But let us also see how God is revealing the hope found in the Gospel and the promise of Christmas even now in these stories from just this year around the world.
* * *
Sean Nelson is an international human rights lawyer serving as Legal Counsel for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International. ADF International has supported the cases of Rhoda Jatau, Daniel Kefee*, Mary Olowe*, and Nada and Hamouda.
*These names have been changed to protect these individuals’ identities.
 The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Catholic Protest In Lagos

90% Of All Christian Martyrs In 2022 Were From This African Country

Africa

Court

Murder

Nigeria

A petition calling to boycott Macy&#8217;s stores and refrain from watching this year&#8217;s Macy&#8217;s Thanksgiving Day Parade has garnered more than 40,500 signatories objecting to the event&#8217;s apparent transgender agenda.
The parade, set to take place in New York City, has generally been accepted as a family-friendly affair <a href="https://www.iloveny.com/blog/post/history-of-the-macys-thanksgiving-day-parade/#:~:text=Since%201924%2C%20the%20Macy%27s%20Thanksgiving,this%20beloved%20event%20through%20Manhattan." target="_blank" rel="noopener">viewed</a> by tens of millions of Americans each year. This year, however, two characters associated with the event&#8217;s performances are so-called non-binary or transgender.
&#8220;The non-binary and transgender extravaganza on display this Thanksgiving will be brought to you by Macy’s during their annually sponsored Thanksgiving Day Parade,&#8221; reads a <a href="https://onemillionmoms.com/current-campaigns/say-no-to-the-macy-s-thanksgiving-day-parade/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> hosted by One Million Moms, a division of the American Family Association. &#8220;Unless they are forewarned about it, this year’s holiday parade will potentially expose tens of millions of viewers at home to the liberal LGBTQ agenda.&#8221;
&#8220;Performances showcased in the parade will include music from two Broadway musicals, &#8216;&amp; Juliet&#8217; and &#8216;Shucked&#8217;, both of which feature transgender and non-binary performers in major roles,&#8221; the petition says.
Notably, the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade in 2021 featured a pop singer named Kim Petras, who&#8217;s been dubbed the “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200301191447/https://www.papermag.com/kim-petras-clarity-project-2639362951.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-testid="standard-link">world’s youngest transsexual</a>.&#8221;
President of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alliance-defending-freedom-adf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (ADF), Kristen Waggoner, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/thousands-sign-petition-macys-non-binary-trans-extravaganza-planned-thanksgiving-day-parade" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reacted</a>, “Macy’s inclusion of a non-binary transgender character in a parade is just another example of an ideological war that’s being waged on families, and customers are saying they’ve had enough. But it seems that corporate brands that were once trusted just still aren’t getting the message.”
&#8220;Shame on Macy’s for promoting and sponsoring this type of entertainment,&#8221; the One Million Moms petition reads. &#8220;We still cannot trust Macy’s Dept. Store. It is clear that Macy’s does not have our children’s best interests in mind. Macy’s needs to know that trust must be earned, and once trust is lost, it is difficult to get back.&#8221;
As of Wednesday morning, the petition has 40,543 signatures.
&#8220;I do not agree with the LGBTQ agenda you are pushing on families during your Thanksgiving Day Parade,&#8221; reads a blurb aimed at those signing the petition. &#8220;My family and I will not watch this indoctrination. Since this event goes against our beliefs and values, Macy’s has left conservative and Christian families with no choice but to avoid the parade and its stores, even during the holiday season. My family will not support Macy’s; you have lost our trust.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
For Macy’s part, the department store is moving forward with the Thanksgiving Day events.
“For nearly 100 years, the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade has showcased the very best in entertainment, delighting Americans everywhere with the most popular music acts, the best of Broadway, our country’s finest marching bands and dance teams, and giant balloons and floats that capture your imagination,” a Macy’s spokesperson said in a statement, National Review <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/macys-to-proceed-with-non-binary-performers-in-thanksgiving-parade-despite-petition/#:~:text=“For%20nearly%20100%20years%2C%20the,capture%20your%20imagination%2C”%20a%20Macy%27s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> Tuesday.
“Every performer and volunteer is there with one mission — to entertain millions of spectators and kick off the holiday season. We look forward to celebrating this iconic Thanksgiving tradition again&#8230;,” the spokesperson added. 
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-macys-pulls-all-chrissy-teigen-products-after-messages-show-how-she-bullied-teen-girl" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Report: Macy’s Pulls All Chrissy Teigen Products After Messages Show How She Bullied Teen Girl</a>

Tom Turkey by Macy’s float is waiting for the parade to start during 96th Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade on November 24, 2022 in New York City.

‘Non-Binary And Transgender Extravaganza’: Tens Of Thousands Boycotting Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, Department Store

Tens Of Thousands Boycotting Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade Over 'Liberal LGBTQ Agenda'

Business

Macy's

nonbinary

Parade

Social Issues

Thanksgiving

A Finnish politician who was on trial over her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality was found not guilty after the “hate crime” charges she faced were dismissed on Tuesday. 
Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen faced state charges related to her sharing a 2019 tweet that included pictures of Bible verses,  a radio debate she had in 2019, and a pamphlet she wrote on marriage back in 2004. The Helsinki Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the charges and those faced by Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who published Räsänen&#8217;s 2004 pamphlet called “Male and Female He Created Them.”
“I am deeply relieved. The court has fully endorsed and upheld the decision of the district court, which recognized everyone’s right to free speech,” Räsänen <a href="https://adfinternational.org/breaking-finnish-parliamentarian-found-not-guilty-of-hate-speech-for-bible-tweet-and-other-expressions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> after the court ruling was announced. 
Räsänen, a member of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/finland" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Finnish</a> parliament, was supported in her defense by the Alliance Defending Freedom International. The prosecution must cover Räsänen’s legal bills according to the appeals court. 
“It isn’t a crime to tweet a Bible verse, or to engage in public discourse with a Christian perspective. The attempts made to prosecute me for expressing my beliefs have resulted in an immensely trying four years, but my hope is that the result will stand as a key precedent to protect the human right to free speech. I sincerely hope other innocent people will be spared the same ordeal for simply voicing their convictions,” Räsänen added. 
While Räsänen was unanimously acquitted by the District Court of Helsinki for the same charges back in March 2022, state prosecutors sought to appeal the lower court’s ruling earlier this year. 
The appeals court said that it had “no reason, on the basis of the evidence received at the main hearing, to assess the case in any respect differently from the District Court. There is therefore no reason to alter the final result of the District Court’s judgment.”  
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-friday-gift-guide" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPING GUIDE</a>
During the case, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/finnish-politician-back-in-court-for-criminal-interpretation-of-bible-verses" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prosecutors argued</a> that they “can limit freedom of expression in the outward expression of religion.” They also said that the 2019 tweet was criminal because of Räsänen’s interpretation of the verse. “You can cite the Bible, but it is Räsänen’s interpretation and opinion about the Bible verses that are criminal,” one prosecutor said.  
Paul Coleman, the executive director of ADF International, celebrated the ruling but added that hate speech laws were dangerous for societies. 
“While we celebrate this monumental victory, we also remember that it comes after four years of police investigations, criminal indictments, prosecutions, and court hearings. We applaud the Helsinki Court of Appeal’s ruling in this case, and we work towards the bigger victory when such ludicrous cases are no longer brought,” he said.

Screen Shot 2023-11-14 at 7.01.23 AM

Finnish Court Dismisses Hate Crime Charges Against Politician On Trial Over Christian Beliefs

Christianity

Finland

Free Speech

Hate Speech

Marriage

Sexuality

Over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">landmark victory</a> for free speech in <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">303 Creative v. Elenis</a>. The court reaffirmed the bedrock First Amendment principle that the government may not compel Americans to speak a message that violates their beliefs. That freedom protects everyone, and all views — those that we like and those that we loathe.
But it’s one thing to acknowledge these truisms, it’s another thing to apply them. That is now the responsibility of lower courts across the country. And it’s our responsibility, as citizens, to safeguard this cherished freedom.
In 303 Creative, the Supreme Court held that Colorado could not misuse a law to compel graphic designer Lorie Smith to design custom websites that celebrate a view of marriage that violates her beliefs. That decision rightly resolved a critical legal question that had been percolating in lower courts for years.
But many artists before Lorie endured a different outcome. And other artists are still waiting for courts to apply 303 Creative to prevent state or local governments from compelling their speech.
Ten years ago, the <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/nm-supreme-court-price-citizenship-compromising-your-beliefs?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico Supreme Court</a> decided that a state law required photographer Elaine Huguenin to create photographs that contradicted her religious beliefs. That decision forced Elaine to close her business to avoid betraying her faith. Adding insult to injury, one New Mexico Supreme Court justice infamously told Elaine that sacrificing her beliefs was “the price of citizenship” in America.
Around that same time, cake artist Jack Phillips first drew the ire of Colorado officials. He was asked to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. Jack declined because that would have forced him to express a message about marriage he does not believe. Colorado sued him, and his case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/us-supreme-court-rules-favor-colorado-cake-artist?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticized</a> state officials for demonstrating “a clear and impermissible hostility towards” Jack’s faith.
Undeterred, just a few days later, Colorado took legal action against Jack again. But the state quickly settled after evidence revealed Colorado’s ongoing hostility against Jack. Now, he’s in the midst of his third related lawsuit, which the <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/colorado-supreme-court-takes-jack-phillips-free-speech-case?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Supreme Court will hear next year</a> .
Throughout the country, artists whose businesses and creations are inextricably connected to and guided by their faith found themselves bearing the weight of government coercion.
<a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/floral-artist-asks-us-supreme-court-protect-her-freedom?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Barronelle Stutzman</a>, a great-grandmother and custom floral artist from Washington, spent nearly 10 years standing for her constitutional rights. She eventually settled her case, which allowed her to retire with her conscience intact. Blaine Adamson, a promotional print shop owner, had to defend his freedom to design custom t-shirts consistent with his beliefs up to Kentucky’s Supreme Court. Along the way, he received vitriolic emails and calls. Large customers pulled their business, too. 
Many other artists — including <a href="https://adflegal.org/client/brush-nib-studio?__cf_chl_tk=lMuNoPKCpfzqa5op0eKt5GzOSgMMzgsYQ4HThjGUz1o-1698175632-0-gaNycGzNFCU?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">calligraphers</a>, <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/telescope-media-group-v-lucero?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">videographers</a>, and <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/amy-lynn-photography-studio-v-city-madison?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">photographers</a> — also took a stand to defend their freedom to create art reflecting their deeply held beliefs.
These artists have three things in common. First, they serve all people, including those who identify as LGBT. Their decisions to accept or decline a project always depend on the message they’re being asked to express, not on the identity of the person making the request.
Second, each artist has faced severe penalties for violating the law — devastating financial costs, mandatory educational programs, and jail time for declining to say something they don’t believe.
And third, each of them simply wants the freedom to create art that is consistent with their faith. Put differently, they desire the freedom to decide for themselves what messages to express through their art.
The 303 Creative decision assures them — and all Americans — of this right. But the implications of this ruling now come front and center in <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/after-supreme-courts-landmark-free-speech-ruling-photographers-ky-ny-seek-also-create?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">two separate cases</a> that are currently on appeal.
These cases involve <a href="https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/ChelseyNelsonOnePageSummary.pdf?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chelsey Nelson</a> and <a href="https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/CarpenterOnePageSummary.pdf?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Emilee Carpenter</a> who create photographs and write blogs that celebrate their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Chelsey and Emilee are challenging local laws that would compel them to promote different views of marriage.
Both have asked their respective appellate courts to apply the same First Amendment protections affirmed in 303 Creative to their cases.
Their arguments go like this. Photographs and blogs are speech; they communicate ides. Chelsey and Emilee gladly serve people of all backgrounds, including those who identify as LGBT. Like most artists, there are some messages they can’t create, regardless of who asks. And 303 Creative held that the government cannot compel an artist to say something that contradicts their beliefs. That’s a right that runs to the soul of what it means to be an American.
It’s a right so many have sacrificed so much to preserve for their fellow citizens. May our nation’s best judges recognize the worth of that sacrifice – not as “the price of citizenship,” but as its highest privilege.
Bryan Neihart is legal counsel with <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Supreme Court of the United States 303 Creative v Elenis

After Landmark SCOTUS Ruling On Free Speech, More Artists Ask For Help In The Fight

Freedom of Religion

A court ruled against a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/wisconsin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wisconsin</a> school district policy that allowed teachers and officials to address students by new names and pronouns without parental consent.
Waukesha Circuit County Court sided with two sets of parents in a Tuesday ruling against a Kettle Moraine School District policy that allowed school officials to refer to students by new names and pronouns without parental consent. The court ruled that the policy violated parental rights, saying parents should know about any changes.
“The School District could not administer medicine to a student without parental consent. The School District could not require or allow a student to participate in a sport without parental consent. Likewise, the School District cannot change the pronoun of a student without parental consent without impinging on a fundamental liberty interest of the parents,” <a href="https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/TF-Decision.pdf">wrote</a> Circuit Court Judge Michael Maxwell.
The case began after two sets of parents, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and the Alliance Defending Freedom, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wisconsin-parents-sue-school-district-saying-that-educators-referred-to-their-daughter-with-male-pronouns-and-name-without-their-knowledge" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sued the school district</a> in November 2021 over the policy. 
One of the sets of parents said they took their 12-year-old daughter out of the Kettle Moraine school system after finding out that her teachers were referring to their daughter by a male name and using male pronouns without their knowledge. The girl ended up deciding to stop identifying as a boy. 
After protesting the matter, the parents say that the school cited its policy that said educators did not need parental consent to use a different pronoun or name than those given by the parents. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“The School District abrogated the parental rights of [the parents] on how to medically treat [their child] when the district decided to socially affirm [the child] at school despite [the parents] requesting it does not. Through its policy of disregarding parental wishes on a medical or health related decision and with how fast questioning one&#8217;s gender can arise, [the parents] are at real risk of being harmed,” the court decision said. 
Lawyers for ADF and WILL celebrated the decision, saying it was a &#8220;major win for parental rights.&#8221; 
&#8220;The court confirmed that parents, not educators or school faculty, have the right to decide whether a social transition is in their own child’s best interests. The decision should be a warning to the many districts across the country with similar policies to exclude parents from gender transitions at school,” WILL deputy counsel Luke Berg <a href="https://will-law.org/will-adf-secure-groundbreaking-legal-victory-in-parental-rights-case/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.

Photo of a blue metal lockers along a nondescript hallway in a typical US High School. No identifiable information included and nobody in the hall.

Parents Win Ruling Against Wisconsin School District Over Pronoun, Name Change Policy

Gender Pronouns

U.S.

Wisconsin

Throughout history, the greatest threat to free speech has always been authoritarian governments seeking to suppress dissent. That is still true today, even in America. Thankfully, a robust First Amendment has proved a necessary and valuable <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/missouri-v-biden-fifth-circuit-tech-censorship-white-house-covid-pandemic-86051c19" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bulwark</a> against censorious government autocrats. Historically, those on the political Left have proven to be some of the fiercest defenders of broad speech protections. Not so today. To be sure, many on the political Left still pay lip service to the notion of a strong First Amendment. But far too often, they do so while actively promoting ideologies that ultimately render those protections worthless.
The ongoing debate over males participating in female sports is a prime example. Radical activists regularly <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/04/21/riley-gaines-sfsu-growing-attack-free-speech-college-campuses/11695771002/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shout down and physically assault</a> anyone who dares to assert that men should not compete in women’s sports. The typical response from many leftists is to ignore the criminals committing violent acts against peaceful speakers. Instead, they blame the victim. They do so by advancing a noxious idea: the right to free speech does not protect anyone from the consequences of that speech. In other words, if someone does not like what you have to say, they have the right to punch you in the face, physically disrupt and shut down your speech, or chase you out of the room and restrain you in a room for hours while waiting for police protection.
This was the prevailing liberal response to a recent event held at the Mary L. Stevens Branch of the Yolo County Library. On August 20, Moms for Liberty – Yolo County, CA organized an event entitled “Forum for Fair and Safe Sport for Girls.” The event was scheduled to feature various speakers including Kim Jones, co-founder of Independent Council on Women’s Sports; Sophia Lorey, Outreach Coordinator at California Family Council and former collegiate athlete; Erin Friday, co-lead of Western Region of Our Duty-USA; and Allie Snyder, concerned mother and women’s rights advocate. 
Unfortunately, a library official shut down the event almost immediately. Why? Because one of the speakers used the phrase “men in women’s sports.” According to the official, California law prohibits use of the term “men” when referring to men who identify as women.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
California Public Library Silences Female Athlete <a href="https://t.co/dHYaxBFlr1">pic.twitter.com/dHYaxBFlr1</a>
&mdash; CA Family Council (@CAFamily) <a href="https://twitter.com/CAFamily/status/1693459291410497772?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 21, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
After video of the <a href="https://www.californiafamily.org/2023/08/california-public-library-silences-female-athlete/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">library shutting down</a> the event was shared on social media, the library allegedly received three separate bomb threats. The organizers of the event issued a statement denouncing the threats. They made clear that violence is never an appropriate response to speech you disagree with.
In response to this situation, the Sacramento Bee published an <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article278881104.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">op-ed</a>. The writer agreed that the organizers engaged in protected speech and that the library likely violated their First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, the writer asserted that the event organizers are responsible for the threats. How? Because the views espoused by the organizers are also allegedly held by the perpetrators of the bomb threats.
This is nonsensical. First, it is unfair to assume that the threats were made by someone sympathetic to the event. More importantly, no one is responsible (legally or morally) for another person’s unlawful actions simply because they may share similar views on certain topics. If this were true, Martin Luther King, Jr. would be responsible for all the violent acts of the Black Panther Party. That’s a ridiculous notion. But those advancing this argument are not worried about logic or reason. Regardless of their high-sounding rhetoric, their goal is the same as every other autocrat: shut down all dissent through whatever means necessary. Here, they conflate speech with violence in an attempt to shut down one side of the debate.
Our country’s history is rife with debates on all manner of controversial topics including slavery, women’s suffrage, prohibition, and numerous wars. Many on both sides of these debates undoubtedly advanced arguments that were offensive to the other side. Yet, we trusted previous generations to have the intelligence and strength of character to evaluate the merits of these crucial debates without claiming the other side’s speech was equivalent to violence.
I believe our country is better for having gone through the slow and painful process of debating controversial topics involving competing deeply held beliefs.
The same holds true for our current debates on essential topics such as immigration, climate change, abortion, freedom of speech, religious freedom, and gender identity. The outcome of these debates has the potential to significantly affect the life of every American, either for good or for ill. Exercising the God-given right to participate in these great debates is at the heart of what it means to be an American.
Tyson Langhofer serves as senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom at <a href="https://adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a>, which is representing Moms for Liberty – Yolo County, CA and the other speakers at the event.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Entrance of the college library

California Library Shuts Down Moms For Liberty Event Over Misgendering Trans Athletes

California

Gender Identity

Library

Transgender Athletes

Menu