In a May 12 appearance before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), repeatedly denied U.S. law banned partial birth abortions. The problem? U.S. law does ban partial birth abortions and Becerra himself even voted against the law.

U.S. Code § 1531 which prohibits partial-birth abortions is the result of Congressional passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The Act, “Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

At the hearing, U.S. Representative Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) asked Becerra if he believed partial-birth abortions were illegal to which the HHS Secretary replied, “We will continue to make sure we follow the law. Again, with due respect, there is no medical term like partial-birth abortion and so I would probably have to ask you what you mean by that to describe what is allowed by the law. But Roe v. Wade is very clear, settled precedent and a woman has a right to make decisions about her reproductive health and we will make sure we enforce the law and protect those rights.”

The law defines “a ‘partial-birth abortion’ as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother’s body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother’s body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.”

Next, Bilirakis asked Becerra if he agreed with the law banning partial-birth abortions.

Becerra responded, “Again, as I said there is no law that deals specifically with the term partial-birth abortion. We have clear precedent in the law on the rights that women have to reproductive health care.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), decried Becerra’s duplicity in a media release. She stated, “During his confirmation hearings, Xavier Becerra dodged questions about his stance on partial-birth abortion – when an unborn child is partially delivered and then killed – deflecting with repeated claims that he would ‘follow the law’ as head of HHS. Now the top health official in America, Becerra outright denies the existence of a law banning partial-birth abortion since 2003.”

“Becerra can hardly plead ignorance on this topic,” the head of the national pro-life group pointed out. “As a freshman congressman, he voted against the ban. This shameless lie is standard for the most radical pro-abortion administration in history. It should not be hard to recognize that partially delivering a baby and then suctioning his or her brain is not only illegal, but utterly inhumane.”

The questioning Dannenfelser referred to came from U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) regarding the vote Becerra cast while a Democrat representative from California, prior to serving as the state’s attorney general.

Romney asked Becerra, “Most people agree that partial-birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Why?”

To which Becerra indirectly replied, “I understand that people have different deeply held beliefs on this issue and I respect that. As Attorney General my job has been to follow the law and make sure that others are following the law. … I understand that we may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find some common ground on these issues because everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you’re gonna have a healthy life.”

According to Dannenfelser, a related Act is being blocked by Democrats in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In April, U.S. Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL) filed a discharge petition demanding a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 619). However, if 218 representatives sign the discharge petition, it would force a vote in the Democrat-controlled House.

“The bill would ensure that babies born alive during failed abortions receive the same medical care that would be afforded a premature infant born at the same age,” she noted.

After preaching at my home congregation Sunday morning, I got into my car in the church parking lot to check my voicemails and messages. One of my colleagues had sent me the link to his new article, which I decided to share with my Twitter followers. To my surprise, I discovered I was locked out of my account for 12 hours for violating Twitter Rules.

But what I had done? What was the violation? There was no further information, no link to file an appeal, and no reference to an offending tweet.

Several years ago, something similar happened to me, but Twitter subsequently apologized, explaining that they had misunderstood my tweet.

This time, I was left in the dark, forcing me to search online for a way to appeal the suspension.

Obviously, this was not a serious crisis, and like many other conservatives, I knew my time on Twitter might be limited. Still, I was wondering what offense I had committed.

Minutes later, I had my answer.

I was informed that I had been locked out my account for 12 hours because of this tweet, which had been posted on January 20: “Will I get punished by Twitter for saying that, in God’s sight, ‘Rachel’ Levine (nominated by Biden to be his assistant secretary for HHS) is a man?”

Yes, that was the offending tweet. It looks like Twitter answered my question!

When biological truth conflicts with transgender activism, biological truth is banned.

When biblical truth conflicts with transgender activism, biblical truth is banned.

There was nothing hateful in the tweet.

There was nothing that would incite violence.

I didn’t even “deadname” Levine, referring to him as “Richard.”

I simply stated the truth. In the sight of God, President Biden’s nominee for assistant secretary for Health and Human Services is a man.

Someone might challenge the statement, asking what gives me the right to speak for God.

Someone else might claim to have a different perspective on God’s point of view.

And, of course, an atheist would dispute the whole notion of God.

Fair enough. We can have those debates.

But to block me for this tweet? Really?

I read the Twitter Rules carefully.

Under the category of Safety are listed these sub-categories: Violence; Terrorism/violent extremism; Child sexual exploitation; Abuse/harassment; Hateful conduct; Suicide or self-harm; Sensitive media, including graphic violence and adult content; and Illegal or certain regulated goods or services.

Then I read the categories of Privacy and then Authenticity.

What rule had I violated? Where had I sinned? What was my transgression? (For John Zmirak’s brilliant, satirical self-confession, see here.)

Then I re-read the verbiage under “Hateful conduct,” which stated, “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

So was that it? Was that my crime?

I dug down deeper into the rules, clicking the link for more information, which included this note (which, for some reason, used British English spelling):

“We recognise that if people experience abuse on Twitter, it can jeopardize their ability to express themselves. Research has shown that some groups of people are disproportionately targeted with abuse online. This includes; women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, marginalized and historically underrepresented communities.”

So that must be it. By simply stating biological and biblical truth, I had “harassed” a transgender person. What else could it possibly be?

This led then to the next question. Why did it take Twitter four days to decide I was guilty?

My only guess is that on Saturday, former governor Mike Huckabee retweeted my article about Biden’s radical, trans-activist executive order, including my twitter handle in his tweet. And given the size of his Twitter following, the tweet got lots of attention. Did this, in turn, draw attention to my account, and then my tweet?

Either way, the end result was yet another example of Twitter’s leftist censorship.

Ironically, the Twitter Rules page states that,

“Twitter’s purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.”

In reality, Twitter is stifling public conversation and harassing people who believe things as basic as this: in God’s sight, a biological male remains a male, even when identifying as a female.

Not only so, but once again, we see how affirmation of radical transgender ideology trumps science, Scripture, and even common sense.

Perhaps I’ll get blocked the next time for saying that someone who identifies as a cat (or dog or dragon or the like) is actually a human? After all, wouldn’t therians (who believe in some way that they have an animal identity) fit in the class of “marginalized and historically underrepresented communities”?

And what about Twitter’s extraordinary double standards, as Bible-believing conservatives like me get bashed and mocked and cursed by the minute on these platforms, specifically for being who we are and believing what we believe, and that is somehow fine and dandy.

Over 15 years ago, when I began to warn that those who came out of the closet wanted to put us in the closet, I was roundly mocked. “That’s ridiculous,” I was told.

Who would have believed me if I said back then, “Social media platforms will block us for saying that a male who identifies as a female is actually a man in God’s sight”? Who would have believed that?

Levine may be a decent human being and a serious professional. But he is not a woman in God’s sight whether Twitter likes it or not.

In the end, Twitter may suspend me or block me (and countless others). But they cannot change the truth.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Pro-life and religious leaders are sharply criticizing the Obama Administration’s revised contraceptive and abortion drug mandate, saying that it still requires religious employers to finance abortifacient drugs in their health insurance plans. 

“With another phony compromise, the Obama Administration continues to insult the intelligence of the American people and trample our constitutional rights,” reacted Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life.  “Our First Amendment freedom of conscience has been violated by Obamacare and these new regulations do not resolve the offense.”  

Under the “compromise” plan proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, only organized churches, associations of churches, and their “integrated auxiliaries” are exempted from the contraceptive and abortion drug mandate. 

That means religious hospitals, religious educational institutions, and many other non-profit religious ministries that are not formal departments or subsidiaries of a church, will not be included in the religious exemption.    

The federal contraceptive regulation requires that every health insurance policy issued in the United States must include coverage without co-pays for all “contraceptive” drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  This includes drugs like Ella and Plan B, which have both contraceptive and abortifacient qualities.  It also includes intrauterine devices that operate as abortifacients. 

Under the new scheme developed by the Obama Administration, religious non-profits will supposedly not have to include contraceptive coverage in their insurance policies or their self-insurance plan.  However, their insurer or third-party administrator will have to provide separate insurance policies to each of their employees that does include contraceptive coverage regardless of whether the employee wants it or not.      

The proposed “compromise” states that insurers must provide this supplemental contraceptive coverage at no cost to the employee.  This is a ludicrous concept, as the cost of such coverage will obviously be absorbed into the insurance company’s overall expenses, and be charged back to policyholders. 

“This is nothing but an accounting gimmick that forces religious organizations…to be the gatekeeper to objectionable services for their employees,” says a statement from American United for Life.  “The contraceptive coverage is legally required to piggy-back onto the insurance plan, regardless of the employer’s objections.” 

The sham compromise concocted by the Obama Administration still leaves for-profit religious employers at the mercy of the punitive mandate.  Christian business owners will still have to include coverage of abortifacient drugs in the health insurance programs they provide to their employees.  They will still face exceedingly harsh fines of $100 per day per employee if they fail to comply. 

“All Americans, not just those in church organizations, are guaranteed freedom of conscience in their daily lives and in their work,” commented Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.  “The government has no business putting religious freedom on the negotiating table, or picking and choosing who is allowed to exercise their faith.” 

“This country’s laws and constitution protect the religious freedom of all Americans, whether organized into religious bodies or not,”  says Francis Manion, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.  “Religious believers who want to conduct their businesses in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs have the same right to religious liberty as everyone else.” 

Christian medical authorities are also deriding the latest version of the mandate.  “Many employers, regardless of whether they carry a religious label or not, maintain strong conscience objections to participating in any plan that pays for pills that can cause the demise of a living human embryo,” says Dr. Gene Rudd, Executive Vice President of the Christian Medical Association. 

One of those employers is David Green, founder and President of the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores.  Green says his company will not comply with the mandate despite the failure of a lawsuit filed in federal court to protect his religious liberties.  Hobby Lobby faces fines of $1.3 million per day under the penalty provisions of the mandate. 

While Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius continues to play games with the religious freedoms of the American people, legal challenges to the abortion drug mandate continue to accumulate.  At last count, there have been a total of 44 lawsuits filed in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the mandate on religious freedom grounds. 

One of the latest to weigh in is the Drury Development Corporation, which operates the Drury chain of hotels.  Drury was founded by devout Catholic Charles Drury, and is now managed by his son Tim.  Drury has filed a friend of the court brief in a lawsuit filed by K&L Contractors, a construction firm located in Highland, Illinois. 

“The Drury family are adherents of the Catholic faith and wish to conduct their business in a manner that does not violate the principles of that faith,” reads the brief authored by Americans United for Life.  “The Drury family believes that life is a sacred gift from God and that they are not permitted to cause or pay for the direct, intentional termination of human life.  The Drury Corporation is forced to choose between conducting business in a manner consistent with its religious principles or pay ruinous fines and penalties.” 

The federal court of appeals whose jurisdiction includes Missouri is making it very clear where they stand on the constitutionality of the abortion drug mandate.  For the second time, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the mandate, this time in the case of Annex Medical, a medical device firm located in Minnetonka, Minnesota.  The 8th Circuit had previously issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the mandate against a St. Louis company, O’Brien Industrial Holdings. 

The only hope to halt application of the abortion drug mandate to every health insurance provider and consumer is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding conscientious objections based on religious convictions.  An ultimate decision by the High Court is not expected before the new regulation becomes effective.  There is a public comment period on the revised mandate through April 3rd, after which the contraceptive edict is expected to take full force and effect.

The retail craft store chain Hobby Lobby has become the latest major employer to file suit over the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive and abortion drug mandate — also known as the HHS Mandate. Hobby Lobby has gone into federal court to oppose the forced inclusion of abortifacient drugs in their corporate health insurance plans.

Under the mandate issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, virtually all health insurance policies issued in the United States must include coverage of any and all “contraceptives” approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This mandate requires coverage of drugs and devices that can destroy developing human embryos, including the abortifacient drugs Ella and Plan B, often marketed as so-called “emergency contraceptives.”

“The new government mandate requires that our family business provide what we believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance,” says David Green, the chief executive officer of Hobby Lobby, Inc. “We choose not to cover drugs that might cause abortion, such as the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.”

“It is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured,” Green adds. “We seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles. We are being forced to choose between following the laws of the country that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful and have supported thousands of our employees and their families.”

Hobby Lobby is the first major business owned by evangelical Christians to initiate litigation to block the contraceptive mandate. The company, which had its start in an Oklahoma City garage, now operates 500 stores in 41 states, employing 22,500 people. Hobby Lobby is one of the few retail chains which closes its stores on Sundays, to allow employees to enjoy a day of rest with their families.

Under the terms of the Obama Administration’s contraceptive mandate, Hobby Lobby faces fines of $1.3 million per day for refusing to comply with the contraceptive mandate. “We are required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith or paying millions of dollars in fines,” Green says. “The government is telling us we must choose which poison pill to swallow. We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”

Nearly 30 lawsuits have been filed against the contraceptive and abortion drug mandate, which took effect on August 1st for all non-religious employers. Religious institutions other than churches, such as hospitals, colleges, and parachurch ministries, have until August 1st of 2013 to comply. Most of the lawsuits to date have been filed by Catholic dioceses and by Catholic and evangelical universities.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has served as legal counsel for many of the above-named plaintiffs, and they are representing Hobby Lobby as well. “Washington politicians cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living,” says Lori Windham, Becket Fund senior counsel. “Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs.”

Liberal activists have announced a boycott of Hobby Lobby, launching a Facebook page to generate support. David Green is a poor choice for such a boycott. Green and his wife Barbara are major Christian philanthropists, and donate the majority of their wealth to charity. The company pays salaries to its starting full-time employees which are 80 percent above the minimum wage.

“Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy,” Green observes. “Our government threatens to fine a company like ours that has raised wages four years running during this national recession. It’s just not right.”

Please pray for and support Hobby Lobby and business owners like the Greens, who have the courage to put their faith into practice in the marketplace. Thank God for their willingness to take a stand on behalf of human life despite the financial consequences to them and their families.