As expected, pundits on the left are in an uproar at the president’s claims that a doctor conspires with parents as to whether to execute their newborn baby. In Trump’s words (spoken at a recent rally in Green Bay), “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

In response, Rolling Stone senior writer Jamil Smith tweeted, “President Trump keeps telling the same lie about abortion doctors murdering healthy fetuses after delivery. This doesn’t happen. Yet he said it again last night. This is precisely the kind of hysteria that inspires people who murder doctors and patients.”

Julia Pulver, a former neonatal nurse, said this: “When a baby dies in the hospital, it is a very sad thing but it is not something that is ever chosen. It is a horrible situation thrust upon parents who want their baby, who have prepared for the baby, who have framed sonograms sitting on their desks.”

According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, “What Trump asserted, for the second time, is false, illegal, and simply not happening — nor would it happen.” She claimed that, “The president “not only straight-up lied but also vilified women, families, and doctors facing situations every single one of us prays we never encounter.”

And Huffington Post adds this: “The recent focus on the alleged horrors of late-term abortions is especially fact-free. Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks, and experts say these involve pregnancies that endanger the mother (and by extension the baby) or severe fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life.”

Let’s address these claims one at a time.

First, President Trump said nothing about the baby being healthy (contra the tweet of Smith). Instead, he spoke about the very real situation in which a baby survives an abortion (or, presumably, is born with a life-threatening defect) and is allowed to die. That’s why Congress keeps trying to pass the Born Alive Protection Act.

In its current form, the bill reads, “To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

This is a real bill designed to address real, life and death situations.

Not only so, but it was Virginia governor Ralph Northam who provided Trump with his main talking points about infanticide.

As Northam infamously said during a radio interview, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

Yet the left rails on Trump for calling this out rather than on Northam for saying it.

To repeat: These things are really happening.

An official government document dated September 23, 2016, notes that, “In 2002, Congress responded by passing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush and is current federal law. This law recognized a child who is born alive after a failed abortion attempt, as a legal person under the laws of the United States. The legal definition of live birth includes any sign of life, such as breath, heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

“Unfortunately, incidents involving born alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law was passed. Infanticide is unacceptable in a civilized society, regardless of what one may think about abortion itself. It should be uncontroversial for the federal government to supplement current law with enforcement protections for born-alive children after attempted abortions. That is why Congress must pass the proposed legislation known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504/S. 2066).”

Trump is not lying. These things are happening. They may happen just as he described (with the baby being wrapped in a blanket) or they may not (perhaps the baby is left naked and crying on a table). But they are happening, nonetheless.

Yet, to repeat, there’s no outcry from the left about these horrors. The outcry is about the president drawing attention to the horrors.

As noted by Tony Perkins, “Liberals certainly thought infanticide was real enough in 2002, when protecting infants was so uncontroversial that it passed without a single Democratic opponent. Since then, the CDC’s data only confirms these atrocities — as do mountains of eyewitness testimony, grand jury reports, survivors’ own stories, and admissions by doctors like Northam himself!”

Second, what point is made by saying, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks”? What if the sentence read, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after birth”? Would that lessen the severity of the crime? We only kill a tiny percentage of babies once they’re born!

Let’s also put this in real-life numbers.

According to a just-released CDC report, in New York City in 2015, “the number of abortions at or after 21 weeks was 1,485 while the number of homicide victims was 352.”

Shall we celebrate the fact that this (allegedly) represents “only” 1.3 percent of abortions?

These, in short, are the facts: States like New York have passed laws allowing for abortions right up to the time of delivery. Infanticide is taking place. And in countries like the Netherlands, “650 babies a year [are] euthanized so that their parents don’t have to witness them struggle with disability or disease.”

In light of all this, I’m glad that President Trump continues to speak up. He is addressing something terribly evil, and it behooves every person of conscience to stand with him in standing for the rights of “the least of these.”

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Abortion and promiscuity. Planned Parenthood and “slut shaming.” I was reminded on this, the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s disgraceful Roe v. Wade abortion-on-demand opinion, how inexorably linked are America’s abortion death culture and her ongoing sexual revolution.

As the story goes, Winston Churchill was talking with a socialite: “Madam, would you sleep with me for 5 million pounds?” he asked. “My goodness, Mr. Churchill,” she replied. “Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course.” Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for 5 pounds?” Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

Today’s “progressives” would accuse Churchill of “slut shaming.” That’s a relatively new euphemism wherein liberals paradoxically try to shame into silence those who call a spade a spade.

While she would certainly frame the demonstrable connection between abortion and promiscuity in different terms, feminist author and psychologist Valerie Tarico is well aware of the correlation. She boasts of it, in fact. In an October opinion piece at the Huffington Post, Tarico, who also served on Planned Parenthood’s Board of Advocates, writes:

“The most lasting effect of the smear campaign against Planned Parenthood may be this: Young women are done – beyond done – with being shamed for the fact that they are sexual beings, with sexual bodies that have t*ts and as*es and tw*ts and vaginas and uteruses … and they are done being forced to have babies when they choose to have sex.”

Pure class.

The “smear campaign” to which Tarico refers ostensibly denotes the groundbreaking investigative journalism of The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), which exposed smoking-gun proof that Planned Parenthood intentionally and illegally profits, in the millions, by “crushing,” dismembering alive and otherwise torturing to death our most innocent fellow human beings, and then selling their body parts for Mengelesque “medical research.”

“I remember sitting in my psychotherapy office a few years back, listening to a mother complain about her teen daughter’s attire,” Tarico continues. “‘She looks like a prostitute,’ the mother said.

“‘Yes,’ I agreed. ‘Like a prostitute – or a teenager.’”

Tarico and many pro-abort feminists like her encourage young women to look like prostitutes, or “sluts.” These days “slut walks,” wherein scantily clad, topless or fully nude gals march together in courageous, slutty unity, are all the rage – and Planned Parenthood has a revolving door through which they stream. It goes “ka-ching!” with every spin. Indeed, the abortion/STD giant manipulates young girls into “values neutral,” “consequence free sex” – something that does not exist – and then, when they get knocked up, takes their money, slaughters their babies and coldly sends them on their way.

Mix and repeat.

In an article on her own website titled, “Thirty Signs You’re a Slut,” Tarico brags of inspiring her own middle school-aged daughter into “sluthood” (the URL ends with “proud-mom-of-two-teenage-sluts”). “These days, it’s getting rather hard to hold your head high as a female if you aren’t willing to be seen as part of the slut sisterhood,” she opines.

That’s right. In the upside-down world of secular-leftism, sexual promiscuity is a badge of honor – and abortion, a rite of passage – for the upwardly mobile babe. Tarico hammers this home with a score-based inventory of benchmarks needed to “hold your head high as a female.” Among them:

• I have condoms in my purse – or bra.
• I like sex.
• I am unmarried, and I’m not a virgin.
• I wasn’t a virgin on my wedding night.
• I stand with Planned Parenthood.
• My cat is a person; a fertilized egg isn’t.
• You can count me among the 1 in 3 women who have had an abortion.
• I told my abortion story at the 1 in 3 Campaign.
• I believe sex can be rich and intimate without marriage.
• I find people of my own gender sexy.
• Submission (except, maybe, in bed) is not my thing.

Only a dying culture lionizes women who publicly impugn – with pride – their own honor and virtue, and brag about killing their own flesh and blood. Yet, to the left, Valerie Tarico represents “progress.” She’s a hero – a bold voice for “women’s rights.”

This is by design. Secular-progressives have worked hard to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional Obamacare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, get with the postmodern program and capitulate to funding abortion homicide.)

Indeed, like other feminist radicals, Tarico demands that the rest of us underwrite her stated immoral practices by paying for her and other women’s birth control and child sacrifice. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception, but to anti-Christian liberals like Tarico, religious liberty and freedom of conscience are things of the past, and the First Amendment represents an obstacle to their dystopian future.

Seriously. Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous and snuff-out her resulting offspring is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” gals, why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango. It seems to me that public groveling for free contraception, abortifacients and surgical abortion reinforces the sexist stereotype that women can’t survive without welfare – without men. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal governmental dependency.

In another column last week on the “social stigma” surrounding abortion and female promiscuity, Tarico writes, “If the wall of shame and stigma ruptures, abortion foes may find themselves up against something even more powerful: Love.”

Yep, nothing says “I love you” like ripping your baby limb-from-limb.

“Slut shame” indeed.

President Obama’s interview with The Huffington Post (HuffPost) has been treated as if the on-line publication is somehow respectable and legitimate. The topics of the interview included budget sequestration, the Iran nuclear talks, presidential pardons, overtime pay, athletic scholarships and sleep. But here are some stories from the on-line outlet you may have missed (Be advised these articles may be offensive to some):

• Porn Stars Without Makeup
• This Map Shows Where America Loves ‘Butts’ More Than ‘Boobs’
• These Striking Portraits Of Porn Stars Shine A Different Light On XXX Actors

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth notes that The Huffington Post’s “Gay Voices” section has run a video of movie scenes with full-frontal male nudity.

In addition to publishing and promoting pornography, The Huffington Post is a “progressive” platform for advocates of abortion, homosexual rights and marijuana legalization. It was named after Arianna Huffington’s ex-husband, Michael Huffington, who was born rich and then turned gay. (In this case, apparently, being gay was a choice). She used his money from a divorce settlement to start the on-line “news” service in 2005.

On foreign policy, the publication is pro-Arab, pro-Muslim and anti-Israel. One report documents how it works hand-in-glove with Al Jazeera.

The blog known as Huff-Watch has documented the publication’s “pathological, malicious incitement of hate against the U.S. military, Israel and Jews, the Tea Party and conservative individuals and organizations.”

A couple examples will suffice. One contrasts a story from The Huffington Post-sponsored World Post, quoting the Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei as criticizing the Senate GOP letter warning against an Iranian nuclear deal. The story quoted the “Supreme Leader” of the world’s number one state sponsor of Islamist terror, “without criticism or skepticism of any kind.” By contrast, The Huffington Post presented the speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave to Congress on March 3 as “Bupkis,” a term which means “of little or no value.”

Huff-Watch notes that The Huffington Post has a “longstanding pattern of pictorial bias to ensure that Iranian madmen look as benevolent and kindly as possible, and that Prime Minister Netanyahu looks as sinister and evil as possible.” It notes one photo showing Iran’s chief mullah “looking very grandfatherly,” in contrast to a photo of Netanyahu looking “angry, sinister and malevolent.”

But The Huffington Post really has a love for the homosexual movement. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to separate the “Gay Voices” section from its “Religion” section. Here are some headlines and stories from the religion section:

• “Most Mainline Protestants Embrace Gay Marriage”
• “Presbyterian Church Votes To Allow Gay Marriage”
• “Evangelical Leader Apologizes To Gays”
• “Pope Will Break Bread With Gay, Transgender Inmates”
• “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Embraces LGBT-Inclusive Definition Of Marriage.”
• “Prominent Megachurch Stops Asking Gay Christians To Be Celibate”
• “Queering the Way of the Cross: Meditations on a Queer Spiritual Journey”

On occasion, however, The Huffington Post reveals a disturbing truth in its rush to promote the “alternative lifestyle.” One such example is the piece, “How Gay Porn Helped Build the Gay Rights Movement.” The piece was actually quite informative.

The author, Mike Stabile, made a film about pornographer Charles M. “Chuck” Holmes titled, “Seed Money: The Chuck Holmes Story.” He said Holmes and other pornographers funded the homosexual rights movement directly and also lent “their mailing lists to fledgling organizations like the Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRC).” He notes that Holmes “was a prodigious donor to the HRC, and later served on its Board of Directors.”

The HRC was a big backer of Obama for president. Obama has spoken at the group’s fundraising events.

You may recall that the Charles M. Holmes Foundation was established after his death from AIDS, based on his assets, and was turned over to Terry Bean, a co-founder of the HRC and a friend of President Obama. Bean has since taken a leave of absence from the Human Rights Campaign after he was arrested on sexual abuse charges involving sex with a minor.

In a story about the Obama administration using tax dollars to celebrate the homosexual riots at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, I noted that “Bean financed a film called ‘Dream Boy,’ described as a gay, love story about a shy high school kid who gets seduced by his neighbor and school pal.”

We confirmed that the Holmes Foundation, which Bean chairs, lists an investment in Dream Boy LLC in its 2010 income tax return, and that Dream Boy LLC was the registered agent for the film when it was featured at a 2008 “Outfest” homosexual film festival. The film was rated R for sexual content, with some violence, including a rape involving teens.

None of this seems to bother Obama, however, or at least those in the administration who decide who or what publications he talks to.

If you want to study all the tricks of the trade in the matter of a “progressive” media bias that approaches the absurd, The Huffington Post is worth analyzing. One has to wonder if the editors realize how ridiculous their bias makes them look.

Originally published at AIM.org

I was just sent a link to the blog of Neuqua Valley High School math teacher and not-so-friendly atheist Hemant Mehta who seems to spend a fair amount of time monitoring my writing. He is particularly exercised by my suggestion that parents request teachers for their children who do not abuse their government-subsidized positions to promote their personal “progressive” views on controversial moral or political issues.

“Progressive” teachers who view themselves as “agents of change” promote their views on a number of topics, particularly on American history, Critical Race Theory/Critical Pedagogy (although they may not use those terms in class), homosexuality, and gender confusion. They promote their views through their own classroom comments; the films, novels, plays, essays, and newspaper and magazine articles they choose; the speakers they invite; and through their refusal to introduce resources that explore competing views, that is to say, their de facto censorship.

In my article “Challenge Teachers, Not Texts,” I offer some ways for parents to try to ascertain who the “agents of change” may be in their schools, which I learned from working for ten years at Deerfield High School and from putting four children through the same school.

I want to make clear that not all teachers who hold Leftist moral and political views exploit their classrooms to advance them. I have known some exceptional teachers who hold far Left views but have no interest in exploiting their autonomy and public resources to promulgate them. Their interest is in teaching their subject matter, not proselytizing.

But it is equally true that the teachers who most often exploit their autonomy and public resources to try to change the moral and political beliefs of other people’s children are “progressives.”

Do Public Schools Challenge Students to Think Critically About Homosexuality?

What is most laughable about Mehta’s critique of my suggestions is that while mocking my reference to “cool teachers,” he tries to make the case that “cool teachers” are those “who challenge students’ thinking from all sides and make them see things in different ways.”

I would completely agree that the best teachers are those “who challenge students’ thinking from all sides,” which is exactly what does not take place in public schools on the topics of homosexuality, gender confusion, or Critical Race Theory. Can you imagine a public school teacher even using the terms “homosexuality” or “gender confusion”? Teachers who choose to address those topics will use only the rhetorical inventions of the Left: for example, gay, gender identity, or transgenderism.

While working at Deerfield High School, I kept a list of the resources presented to students that affirmed, espoused, or embodied liberal views of homosexuality. Starting freshman year and continuing through senior year, students were exposed to lectures, classroom comments from teachers, magazine articles, plays, novels, films, skits, theater department performances, gay-straight alliance presentations, and activities that affirmed liberal views of homosexuality, while not once in four years being asked to read even a single essay by a conservative scholar like Princeton Law Professor Robert George. Is that what Mehta sees as challenging “students’ thinking from all sides”?

Unfortunately, this ideological monopoly is not unique to Deerfield High School. This is a nearly universal pedagogical and ethical problem in public schools.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, Education, and Critical Thinking

The Huffington Post has picked up Mehta’s silly and dishonest critique and included in their post the Southern Poverty Law Centers’ canard that IFI is a hate group. What many don’t know is that the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center has an “educational” project disingenuously called “Teaching Tolerance.”

The “educators” at Teaching Tolerance, like so many agents of change, foster a peculiar kind of education that encourages students to “think from all sides” and “see things in different ways” as long as those ways conform to “progressive” dogma.

Here’s one of their recent projects for elementary schools: 

Queerness Meets Early Childhood Ed

Are you a gay or lesbian teacher who has addressed queerness with your young students? An LGBT parent with P-2 children? We want to hear your stories. Send a description of 200 words or less, along with your contact information, to editor@teachingtolerance.org.

Here’s another lesson for kindergarten through fifth grade:

Do Something! Transforming Critiques of Gender Stereotypes into Activism

One of the most empowering ways to overcome the damage done by internalized gender stereotypes is to counteract them actively—on a daily basis….Children benefit from participating in such activism because it helps them understand the socially constructed nature of gender. Activism also encourages constructive change so that they are not damaged by stereotypes.

In this lesson, students will discuss the meaning and nature of activism. They will brainstorm daily strategies they can use against gender stereotypes. They will also come up with ideas for bigger social action projects in their schools and communities.

“Progressive” agents of change believe in teaching preschoolers about “queerness” and teaching elementary school students to be activists in the service of a radical sexual ideology.

Mehta, Symbols, Logic, and Truth

For someone who prides himself on his logic, Mehta, the atheist, uses little of it in his critique of my recommendations. Distracted by his own glib pseudo-cleverness, he ignores the substance of the issues I address. For example, in order to help parents know which teachers may be “agents of change,” I listed some of the symbols of the homosexuality-affirming movement, which activist teachers affix to their “spaces” to announce their moral and political beliefs, one of which is the lambda symbol (λ).

Mehta then mocked me for “going after physics and chemistry classes,” conveniently eliding the fact that the lambda is a well-known symbol of the movement to normalize homosexuality. While reveling in his ridicule, he forgets to mention that two homosexual advocacy organizations include “lambda” in their names: Lambda Legal and the Lambda Literary Awards.

Who Brings Their Views into the Classroom: “Progressives” or Conservatives?

Mehta was completely undone by my suggestion that parents find out who sponsors of Leftist clubs at their children’s schools, calling my suggestion “crazy.” He ranted:

Why? What would it matter? Teachers are legally allowed to be sponsors of those groups. If the GSA needed a faculty sponsor, I’d step up. If an atheist group ever formed at my school, I’d sponsor that, too. And if a Christian group couldn’t find a sponsor, I’d bite my tongue and help them out because they also have a right to meet after school and discuss their beliefs.

Just because teachers are sponsors of religious or political groups doesn’t mean they endorse the groups nor does it mean they espouse those views in the classroom.

But IFI won’t say that…. they just try and scare Christian parents into thinking that liberal teachers ought to be avoided at all costs….They have to make up problems to solve because no real ones exist. Anything they accuse liberal teachers of doing, they know Christian teachers have done the exact same things in a much more egregious way.

First, I never suggested it was illegal for teachers to sponsor extracurricular clubs.

Second, does Mehta actually believe that conservative Christian teachers have been using the classroom to promote their beliefs in a “much more egregious way” than have progressive agents of change, particularly on the topic of homosexuality? Can he provide evidence of conservative teachers assigning any resources that espouse conservative views on issues related to homosexuality?

Can he provide evidence that liberal teachers who assign resources that espouse liberal views of homosexuality also assign resources that espouse dissenting views?

Third, Mehta and I agree on one thing: Sponsorship of clubs is not the same as endorsement. But the reality in public schools is that the sponsors of gay-straight alliances are usually homosexuals or their ideological allies, and the sponsors of Leftist political activist groups like AWARE are usually Leftist political activists. Similarly, the sponsors of Christian groups are usually Christians. The difference is that conservative sponsors of conservative groups tend not to use the classroom as their personal platform for proselytizing.

Hemant Mehta’s Deceit

Mehta goes on to say, “They (IFI) want to rail against liberal teachers — even ones like me, who keep our religious beliefs out of the classroom.”  I rarely criticize liberal teachers who keep their keep their religious, irreligious, moral, and political beliefs out of the classroom. Generally, I wouldn’t rail against such teachers. I would applaud them.

It is true, however, that I have criticized Mehta, but he omitted the issues for which I criticized him. I criticized him first for suggesting on his very public blog that homosexuals come and kiss in front of my home. Most school districts have policy regarding how their teachers interact with the public, which I believe Mehta violated when he publicly called for homosexuals to kiss in front of my home. It was both irresponsible and unprofessional of him to make such a suggestion even in jest.

I also suggested that his very public blog reveals something of his character and his beliefs about which parents of impressionable teens may be concerned.

On his very public blog, he ardently promotes atheism, commonly uses obscene language, and has provided platforms for the advocacy of polyamory. I suggested that parents who believe that teachers are role models for their children and who recognize that adolescents can be mightily influenced by teachers may not want him as a role model for their children. Teaching is unlike other professions. Teachers, whether they want to be or not, are role models. Mehta has every right to express anything he likes on his blog, and parents have every right to decide they don’t want their children under his tutelage—even for math.

Does Student Safety Require Faculty Affirmation?

Mehta, implies that my concern with teachers posting symbols that indicate affirmation of homosexuality means that I want students to feel “isolated, abnormal, and lost,” which is an ugly lie.

In order to treat students kindly and let them know that they are welcome and even loved does not require teachers, however, to affirm all of the feelings, beliefs, values, or life choices of every student. Does Mehta believe that unless teachers announce their affirmation of polyamory, polyamorous students will feel “isolated, abnormal, and lost”?

The vast majority of teachers believe that students should be free of verbal harassment and physical abuse. It is entirely possible to enforce policy designed to curb bullying without addressing personal beliefs about homosexuality or gender confusion.  The problem is that “progressive” agents of change believe schools can’t make students who identify as homosexual or “transgender” safe unless they—the teachers—affirm “progressive” views on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

No government employee, however, has the right in their professional role to affirm controversial, unproven, subjective beliefs about homosexuality or gender confusion.

Those teachers who express their Leftist moral or political views on homosexuality or gender confusion; or their views on same-sex marriage; or on same-sex adoption; or who assert that homosexuality is analogous to race; or who suggest that opposition to same-sex marriage is analogous to opposition to interracial marriage; or who choose to teach The Laramie Project are neither ensuring student safety nor “challenging students’ thinking from all sides.” Those teachers don’t care about diversity, critical thinking, or “honoring all voices.” Those teachers who expose students to resources from only one side of an issue are not educating. They are propagandizing.  

Parents Must Oppose the Efforts of “Agents of Change”  

Parents need to take a stand against public school employees using the classroom to advance their views on controversial moral and political issues. If school administrations won’t establish policy that requires teachers who assign resources on these kinds of issues to spend equal time on dissenting resources and if school administrations won’t establish policy that prohibits teachers from expressing their personal moral and political views in the classroom, then parents should request that their children be placed in the classrooms of teachers who demonstrate such integrity on their own.

Two notes:

The back-to-school article that Mehta is criticizing will be re-posted next week. It was not supposed to have been posted until it was reformatted with IFI’s new logo.

For more on Mehta, click here, here, here, here.

For background on the dubious Southern Poverty Law Center, click here and here.

Michael Signorile, a homosexual activist, wrote a piece on Huffington Post about recently deceased astronaut Sally Ride’s homosexuality.  Here’s an excerpt from his post:

Ride’s posthumous coming out is a wonderful gift to America’s youth. And it’s what we needed right now. If astronauts are among the ultimate heroes and examples of American ingenuity, fortitude and bravery, then with that one line in her obituary — survived by “Tam O’Shaughnessy, her partner of 27 years” — Sally Ride dispeled [sic]all the ugliness foisted on this country in recent weeks by the Boy Scouts of America [and] Chick-Fil-A…. The Boy Scouts, which claims to value “good conduct, respect for others, and honesty,” believes gay kids and gay and lesbian adult leaders don’t measure up. But with her service to the country, not just as member of NASA’s space program but with her dedication to educating American children, and particularly young girls, about science, Sally Ride shows the Boy Scouts to be running purely on the fumes of bias.

Signorile is known for being a pioneer in the “outing” of homosexual journalists and other public figures. He’s also notorious for his escapades with the radical homosexual group ACT-UP, which included pointing at  then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in a church and shouting, “‘He is no man of God—he is the devil!’”

Just a few random thoughts about Signorile’s post:

• Just as Sally Ride’s homosexuality does not diminish her impressive accomplishments and should not diminish our respect for them, her accomplishments do not mitigate the immorality of volitional homosexual acts and should not affect our understanding of those acts as immoral. But homosexual activists use the accomplishments and good character traits of homosexuals as a non-rational means of transforming how society thinks about homosexuality. 

Do the accomplishments of Franklin Delano Roosevelt render adultery moral? Do the accomplishments of Martin Luther King Jr. render plagiarism or philandering moral? Do the academic accomplishments of former Columbia University political science professor David Epstein render his consensual sexual relationship with his adult daughter moral? Do the accomplishments of Father Robert Drinan (Leftist Jesuit priest, partial-birth abortion supporter, and former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts) render his fondling of Slate magazine writer Emily Yoffe when she was 18 years old moral? 

Sally Ride’s “posthumous coming out” is not a wonderful gift to America’s youth if they are snookered into believing that her accomplishments tell us anything about homosexuality. Her homosexuality is a very sad fact about her personal life. 

• According to deep thinker Michael Signorile, the Boy Scouts of America “foisted ugliness” on this country when this private organization voted to retain their historical policy regarding homosexuality.  So now any policy—even that of private organizations—that reflects the belief that volitional homosexual acts are immoral constitutes foisting ugliness on America. Does that proposition hold true for polyamory? If a private organization bans open polyamorists from leadership roles, is it guilty of foisting ugliness on America?

• Signorile tries futilely to make the case that the Boy Scouts of America believes that “gay kids and gay and lesbian adult leaders don’t measure up” in regard to standards of “good conduct, respect for others, and honesty.” Well, the Boys Scouts of America have never claimed that kids or adults who identify as homosexual are disrespectful of others or that they’re dishonest. The policy narrowly reflects the belief that volitional homosexual acts do not constitute good conduct, which does not reflect bias. There are a plethora of reasons for the belief that homosexual acts are disordered and immoral—both religious and secular. I wonder if Signorile actually knows what “bias” means. And I wonder, do Signorile’s moral claims, especially those that reflect moral disapproval, smell of bias? 

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.