Last year the Federal Communications Commission overturned the Obama-era policy (referred to as “net neutraliy”) that “had placed Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon under the strictest-ever regulatory oversight.”

The “net neutrality” debate has gone for several years but is now back in the news as a state rather than a federal issue. Last year, the attorneys general from over twenty states, including Illinois, sued to overturn the FCC’s action. Now legislation has been introduced in Springfield to apply “net neutrality” principles to Internet service providers that operate in Illinois.

The Illinois Family Institute occasionally addresses things that seem to be outside the realm of what would be considered “pro-family” issues. A closer look reveals that, as I’ve said often, all the issues are the same. Giving just one example of my point, the policy debate is typically between those who want more government and those who want less.

Three years ago, social issues commentator Stella Morabito wrote an article titled “15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality: Don’t fall for the ‘marriage equality’ sales pitch. It’s a deception.” In it, she wrote (and notice her reference to “net neutrality”):

Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

She goes on in her article to discuss the problem of “unintended consequences” that result when too many “Americans are in a fog” about the details backing up Leftist policy proposals.

I confess to not having investigated the issue of “net neutrality” until I was asked to write about it for IFI. Like a lot of people, I rely on writers and policy experts I’m familiar with and trust to provide short cuts for me to figure out which is the right course of action. Unfortunately, sometimes I disagree with my favorite writers, so that reliance is not foolproof.

In this case, however, I do side with “my trusted advisers.”

What’s in a Name?

Note Stella Morabito’s title mentioned above: “‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality.”

That reminds me of the “Affordable Care Act”? Like millions of others, my own health care policy soon became unaffordable after that monstrosity was enacted.

Leftists know how to deceive, so when something is called “net neutrality,” watch out. As one Chicago Democrat said, “A free and open internet is important to promoting a democratic society.” We have good reasons to suspect that “free and open,” means expensive and closed.

What it net neutrality? To its supporters, it is big government looking out for us little guys. Its opponents see it as a power grab by bureaucrats and lobbyists. Supporters believe it is our friendly and helpful government coming to the rescue of helpless people against large meanie corporations. Opponents say is it more government meddling that makes things worse.

Since the FCC acted, the cry from Leftists nationwide is “The fight for net neutrality is just beginning!” At the other end of the political spectrum, Heartland Institute president Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D. and former Kansas Congressman, said: “The FCC’s vote today [over-turning Obama’s regulation] is a vote for freedom from big government control of the internet.”

In the same article, Heartland policy expert Seton Motley agreed:

“The Trump administration is rightly and reasonably restoring that pre-2015 status — you know, the one that in 20 years transformed the internet from ‘What’s that?’ into one-sixth of our $18 trillion economy. There was nothing wrong with that internet. In fact, there was trillions and trillions of dollars’ worth of right with it.”

Seton then took the gloves off:

“Net neutrality is more of a religious concept than an economic one. Old-fashioned, heavy-handed utility regulation is what these zealots are really asking for. Their followers, like lemmings, support them based on ignorance, foolishness, and, as we have seen in some cases, malevolence. [Federal Communications Commission] Chairman Ajit Pai and the other FCC commissioners who joined him deserve our thanks for standing up to this mob and putting the interests of the country, as well as sound economic principles, first.”

Yes, I side with them.

That’s the big picture. For those who want to learn more specifics about the impact of having or not having “net neutrality,” below are several recommended articles and some excerpts from them. Included in the following is an explanation of why the words “net neutrality” are used, some technical information, and a review of similar regulatory actions by the government that impeded genuine technological progress.

* * * * *

Recommended Articles

How Ditching Net Neutrality Will Give Consumers More And Better Options

Do you really want ‘all or nothing’ to be your only choice in Internet plans? That’s what you get with so-called ‘net neutrality.’

From the article:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who supports overturning so-called net neutrality, told Reason in an interview: “It’s telling that the first investigations that the prior FCC initiated under these so-called Net Neutrality rules were involving free data offerings…To me it’s just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get, and companies that want to provide, free data.”

Letting Business Evolve Freely Makes Stuff Better Faster

The FCC under the Obama administration seemed to assume that “the more things change, the more we should force them to stay the same.” But the new and improved gadgetry we’ve grown accustomed to over the past couple decades has accompanied business models almost as innovative as the technology itself. We have “freemium” models for software, a dozen monetization strategies for websites, ride-hailing apps with experimental pricing algorithms, subscription-based video streaming services, and tons more creative ways to connect users and providers.

Other points made in the article:

• “Business is constantly evolving along with our technology to serve our varied interests. So why would we treat Internet service providers (ISPs) any differently than providers of other goods and services?”
• “Why stifle innovation by shoving them into the categorical box of “utility,” snapping the lid shut, and then sitting on it?”
• The FCC chairman said that “80 percent of fixed wireless providers have ‘held back on investing’ in infrastructure because of these [net neutrality] rules. While new tech may increase speeds and sites will continue to evolve, government has effectively frozen in place the way Internet is packaged and paid for. That can only serve the interests of the well-established players.

So, wait, big corporations like this governmental meddling? Yes.

• “It’s been harder for small ISPs to invest and expand under net neutrality the past two years. This set of policies hasn’t done anything to break up the pseudo-monopolies of Comcast and other Big Evil Corporations.”
• Under our current system, the giant telecom companies might be able to dominate the industry with terrible customer service, mediocre speeds, high prices, and opaque contracts forever.

Here is Daniel John Sobieski writing at American Thinker (another one of my “advisers”):

Net neutrality’s dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. “F.C.C. plans net neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms,” wrote the New York Times. Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provide content.

Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control and in the name of providing equal access to all they sought to regulate the access of everybody. They, in effect, sought to put toll booths and speed bumps on the information superhighway.

. . .

President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his power grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what we saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth and speak their minds in an unfettered environment.

Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their customers. The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of corporate greed.

The Internet, perhaps as much as the first printing press, has freed the minds of men from the tyranny of those gatekeepers who know that if you can control what people say and know, you can control the people themselves. And that is what President Obama feared. In a May 2010 commencement speech to graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained that too much information is actually a threat to democracy.

The article includes what Obama had to say — you should read it and image what the reaction would’ve been if President Donald Trump had said that.

Again, here is Sobieski:

Net neutrality was not designed to liberate but to suppress. It is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet that like Obama’s war on Fox News and conservative talk radio is designed to marginalize and silence those who disagree with those in power.

Here again is Robert Tracinski:

AT&T’s Monopoly Offers A Cautionary Tale For Net Neutrality

The history of AT&T shows how the Internet as we know it was born out of rejecting the policies that are the backbone of ‘net neutrality.’

Last week’s announcement that the Federal Communications Commission will soon vote to roll back “net neutrality” regulations has produced a lot of hysterical overreaction, with headlines proclaiming, “FCC Is Revving Up to Destroy the Internet as We Know It.”

This obviously counts on the audience’s ignorance of history. The Internet started in 1969 (depending on what you count as the Internet), and the Internet “as we know it,” i.e., what we used to call the World Wide Web, has been around for 22 years. For most of that time, the idea that the FCC has anything at all to do with the Internet would have been considered ridiculous (as it still should be). So I don’t think reversing a regulation that was only imposed two years ago is going to DESTROY the Internet.

I recommend all these articles. The next one gives a terrific history lesson, and dramatic real-life examples of how government regulation can impede innovation and (dare we use the word progressives claim ownership of…) “progress.”

Here the article’s close:

“It’s a tragedy,” [technology entrepreneur Bill] Frezza says, “to see people using the same arguments that were used back in 1913 to try to re-regulate the Internet.” If we don’t learn from telecom history, we will be doomed to repeat it.

The following article by Harry Khachatrain contains more details on the technological complexities — I can’t say I followed it all, but key facts were easy to understand:

Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

The topic of net neutrality is one of the hottest debated issues of the modern day, and for good reason. We all use the internet and thus have a natural tendency to weigh in on issues regarding its regulation.

The internet, however, is a complex hierarchical structure riddled with reams of vagaries. Without first understanding them, people shouldn’t attempt to propose legislation.

Unfortunately, from Congressmen to commentators to comedians, this is exactly what we’ve been seeing regarding net neutrality.

Khachatrain asks, “why does Google itself support Net Neutrality?”:

Google is a huge proponent of Net Neutrality. Their website is outfitted with an uppity “We Stand Together. Support a #FreeAndOpen Internet” slogan.

However, Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.

Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as “the fast lane”), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best.

For even more! — here are a few more articles:

Goodbye Net Neutrality; Hello Competition

We should take our deregulation where we can get it.

Here is one key paragraph:

What was sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers was actually a sop to industrial giants who were seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power.

Under the heading “Neutrality was Deceptive,” he writes:

But when you look closely at the effects, the reality was exactly the opposite. Net neutrality closed down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erected barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.

So what are the costs to the rest of us? It meant no price reductions in internet service. It could mean the opposite. Your bills went up and there was very little competition. It also meant a slowing down in the pace of technological development due to the reduction in competition that followed the imposition of this rule. In other words, it was like all government regulation: most of the costs were unseen, and the benefits were concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

Here is Maureen Collins also writing at The Federalist, where she also included some important tech-facts, as well as Internet regulatory history):

Why ‘Net Neutrality’ Is Nothing More Than Corporate Power Grab

Giving the federal government control of the Internet wouldn’t bring greater freedom—it would enable bureaucrats and lobbyists to run the show.

Recently, you may have heard the scary news that the Trump administration is trying to destroy the internet. Last week, tech companies like Twitter and Facebook had a “week of action” to promote “Network Neutrality,” an initiative of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which the new Trump-appointed commissioner Ajit Pai is threatening to roll back.

However, like many things these days, this supposed threat is fake news. The name “net neutrality” may sound appealing, commonsensical, or even modern—but the truth is that the FCC has been pushing this initiative for the past decade, despite several Constitutional challenges. When you strip down the internet jargon and flashy activist promotions, net neutrality is nothing more than a New Deal-era power grab. It’s outdated, unfair, and ultimately puts the government in charge of policing web content.

Here is Robert Tracinski writing at The Federalist:

The Hypocritical Dishonesty Of The Net Neutrality Campaign

Underneath Mozilla’s blatantly hypocritical posturing about ‘censorship’ and freedom of speech, net neutrality is really just about a money grab.

The Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to turn Internet service providers into regulated utilities, which the Trump administration has just reversed, was never about stopping them from controlling content. It’s actually about money. It’s about who pays for all of that bandwidth we’re using. To be more specific, it’s about trying to make certain unpopular companies (like Comcast) pay for it, so that other, more popular companies (like Netflix) don’t have to.

Two more items worth mentioning. First, the new Trump-era FCC chairman was seriously harassed and even had death threats.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh talked about net neutrality back in November of last year — here is a part of what he had to say in opposition to it:

The government does not mean cheaper. The government has never meant cheaper. The government doesn’t mean equal. The government doesn’t mean fair. It never has. What the government means, in this context, is reduced services and less competence. It is competition that makes prices lower. It’s competition that enables innovation, better services. And this is a classic example of liberals succeeding in making people believe that corporations and industry are the enemy of people, that they are out to harm people, that they’re out to financially screw people…

And the government is the great fixer, government is the tamer of these wild financial beasts who want to deprive you of your Netflix and your Hulu and whatever else you watch. It’s classic how they have succeeded in making people believe that only the government can fix problems and make things fair. When you look at anything the government has its hands in, it isn’t efficient, it isn’t cheap, and it doesn’t work!

Worldview Conference May 5th

Worldview has never been so important than it is today!  The contemporary culture is shaping the next generation’s understanding of faith far more than their faith is shaping their understanding of culture. The annual IFI Worldview Conference is a phenomenal opportunity to reverse that trend. This year we are featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Traditional Values Coalition says one major corporation may be a special target of the Obama administration in forcing acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

President Barack Obama has announced plans to sign an executive order banning government contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s essentially the intent of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would provide special protections for the LGBTQ community. The controversial measure has not passed the U.S. House.

Andrea Lafferty with Traditional Values Coalition tells OneNewsNow the political intent of the proposed executive order is clear – even to some in the liberal press.

“The Washington Post even reports that it is meant to ‘help rally the Democratic base in an election year when voter turnout will be critical,'” she notes. “Another point that’s made is that a number of wealthy homosexual donors did not give money to the Democratic Party because the president had not moved on this issue.”

That same Post article cites gay-rights activists who describe the “executive ENDA” as the fourth and final step Barack Obama can take as president to expand protections for LGBT Americans.

According to Lafferty, about a fifth of the U.S. labor force is government contractors or subcontractors that would have to comply; but one, she believes, is a special target.

“The homosexual advocates have targeted ExxonMobil,” she states. “They do hundreds of millions of dollars of business with the government, and these activists are mad that ExxonMobil will not add the LGBT to their non-discrimination policy – and because of that they want to punish ExxonMobil.”

But at the last shareholders meeting, ExxonMobil officials said there was no need for it since they don’t discriminate. Family advocate Matt Barber predicted after that vote that Obama “may well try to force Exxon to comply with the strong-arm tactics through some kind of executive order.”

Lafferty says homosexual activists and their supporters are after all corporations that won’t protect them, so the executive order is a partial victory.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to express your concerns about the frequent and blatant usurpation of the legislative process by the executive branch.  The president should not make law unilaterally.  The U.S. Constitution requires that our national laws be created and approved by both the House and the Senate.

 This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

The Obama Administration has announced that it is implementing a mandate that all health insurance plans must include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. The mandate requires that all health insurance plans must provide coverage for any and all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which includes abortifacient drugs such as Ella and Plan B.

The health insurance edict, announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, will take effect on August 1st. Sebelius was given authority to issue the mandate under the terms of President Obama’s health care legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That bill empowered Sebelius to determine what “preventative health care services” must be incorporated in all health insurance plans sold and offered in the United States.

The only exceptions to the mandate will be churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship. Religiously-based hospitals, educational institutions, and non-profit organizations will be required to comply with the law effective August 1, 2013.

This means that Christian organizations who offer health insurance benefits for their employees will be compelled to violate their religious convictions by covering the costs of abortion-inducing drugs. This also means that Catholic hospitals and other Catholic agencies will be required to underwrite contraceptive coverage and the costs of sterilizations that violate their religious beliefs.

The expectation is that many Christian employers will cease providing health insurance to their employees rather than pay for drugs that violate their religious conscience.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has sharply denounced the new mandate. “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. The Obama Administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand. This is a challenge and compromise of our religious liberty.”

Archbishop Dolan also derided the one-year grace period given to religious entities to comply with the law. Sebelius said the one-year delay was offered to accomodate religious liberty concerns. Dolan strongly disagrees. “In effect, the President is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Anna Franzonello, staff attorney for Americans United for Life, echoes the Archbishop’s perspective. “The Obama Administration has added insult to injury by providing religious non-profits a year to ‘adapt’ to this coercive mandate. There should be no expiration date for individual freedom of conscience.”

“Essentially, Secretary Sebelius is giving Christian employers a year to get their priorities straight and align their consciences with the anti-life agenda of the Obama Administration,” Franzonello adds.

Under the new health care edict, all health insurance plans issued must provide coverage for FDA-approved contraceptives without co-pay or deductible charges. Drugs like Ella and Plan B, marketed as so-called “emergency contraceptives,” have been endorsed by the FDA.

While these drugs function as contraceptives, they also operate as abortifacients. They are designed to break down the lining of the uterus so that the uterine wall cannot support the implantation, nidation, and continuing growth of a developing embryo. In the eyes of Christians who subscribe to the religious belief and biological fact that human life begins at conception, these drugs can cause a chemical abortion.

The Cardinal Newman Society, a group that advocates for Catholic principles in Catholic universities, blasted the new contraceptive mandate. “It is the greatest irony, that by worshiping the cult of ‘choice,’ the Obama Administration has determined that religious organizations lack the freedom to act in fidelity to their beliefs. The White House has sold the First Amendment for a few pennies of political support from the abortion lobby.”

Two universities have already filed suit in federal court arguing that the abortion drug mandate violates federal conscience law protections. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing Colorado Christian University and Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina in those lawsuits.

Become a Sustaining Partner of our Work

You can become a Sustaining Partner with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form. Your gift will go even further than ever because:

• Our paperwork will be reduced.
• Our income will be more predictable, leading to improved cash management.
• Our administrative costs will be reduced, putting your gift to work immediately.
• It is simpler and saves time for you!

According to Open Doors, an organization whose mission is to strengthen and equip Christians to stand firm for Christ in the most oppressive countries around the world, “Nigeria had a total of 300 confirmed martyrs in 2011, Egypt at least 60 and Iraq 38. Open Doors defines a martyr as one who loses her or his life as a result of identification with Jesus Christ.”

Because of the often overly expansive or elastic use of words like “discrimination,” “oppression,” and “persecution,” Open Doors offers this helpful clarification of what constitutes persecution:

Though it is sometimes difficult to identify the difference between persecution and the everyday inconveniences of living in a world hostile towards Christianity, there are some clear defining factors.

Persecution occurs whenever a believer is denied the protection of religious freedom, prevented from converting to Christianity because of legal or social threats, physically attacked or killed because of their faith, forced to leave their job or home because of the threat of violence, or imprisoned and interrogated for refusing to deny their faith.

The International Bulletin of Missionary Research reports that “‘the number of [Christian] martyrs [in the period 2000-2010] was approximately 1 million.'”

In the 2002 Geneva Report, the World Evangelical Alliance estimated that “that there are more than 200 million Christians in the world today who do not have full human rights as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, simply because they are Christians.”

In light of these tragic statistics, one might think that our government would be as concerned about the martyrdom of Christians as it is about “homophobia” around the world. Last week, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered her speech about exporting liberal American views on homosexuality, President Barack Obama sent out an equally troubling “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies” on the subject of “International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons.“

In this surprisingly detailed memo, Obama directs “all agencies engaged abroad” to “expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct.” To be crystal clear, he listed the agencies involved in this effort:

the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.

These governmental agencies are then directed to “engage” other international organizations to “bring global attention to LGBT issues.” And then every one of our agencies must “prepare a report within 180 days…and annually thereafter, on their progress,” which will be submitted to the State Department and then transmitted to the president.

I spent some time on the White House website searching for a similar memo directing all agencies engaged abroad to work toward ending the persecution of Christians but found nothing equivalent. Here is the most detailed and feeble public statement that I could find from President Obama on the worldwide persecution of Christians:

We bear witness to those who are persecuted or attacked because of their faith. We condemn the attacks made in recent months against Christians in Iraq and Egypt, along with attacks against people of all backgrounds and beliefs. The United States stands with those who advocate for free religious expression and works to protect the rights of all people to follow their conscience, free from persecution and discrimination.

On Religious Freedom Day, let us reflect on the principle of religious freedom that has guided our Nation forward, and recommit to upholding this universal human right both at home and around the world.

In addressing the Obama Administration’s disparate treatment of Christians and homosexuals, I don’t seek to pit one group against another. Rather, I hope to illustrate that the current administration is concerned less about human rights violations and more about proselytizing and political strategics. Evidence suggests that the current administration cares less about fundamental rights–those that are articulated in our Constitution–and more about normalizing disordered sexual impulses via the specious use of civil rights arguments and about the deep pockets and political power of homosexual activists.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to President Obama to ask him to stop playing politics with Human Rights and encourage him to speak out about persecuted Christians around the world.

The moral assumptions of President Obama about the nature and morality of homosexuality are not only false but also offensive to many Americans as well as many people around the world. He has no right to use taxpayer resources to try to impose his controversial policies, unproven assumptions, and theologically unorthodox beliefs on the entire world.

• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources to promulgate arguable assumptions about the nature of homosexuality (i.e., that homosexuality is biologically determined, immutable, and analogous to race) and about the morality of homosexual acts (i.e., that volitional homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual acts).
• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources that imply that moral disapproval of volitional homosexual acts constitutes illegitimate discrimination or hatred.
• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources to undermine the moral beliefs of citizens of other countries or to undermine their opposition to “same-sex marriage.”

Finally, Americans should urge our leaders to use the resources and influence of the United States to combat the persecution of Christians around the world.

Make A Tax-Deductible Donation

From IFI’s beginning, we have been motivated by love for our neighbor. We care about marriage and strong families because people matter.

This is why Illinois Family Institute is…

a voice in the culture where the need is great for strong families;

in the halls of government where priorities for families need to be articulated;

in the education arena where true ideas and beliefs are either affirmed or undermined.

Would you like to join with us? Your financial support makes you part of this work to help change the conditions in Illinois for the better.

Let me encourage you to take a moment and make an online donation to Illinois Family Institute. A gift of any size will make a difference, particularly as we approach the year’s end.

You can be part of this positive change by partnering with us today!

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

Phone: (708) 781-9328
Fax: (708) 781-9376

Evil men don’t understand the importance of justice,
but those who follow the Lord are much concerned about it.
~Proverbs 28:5

On Thursday (September 9th), the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia lifted a ban on federal taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research pending further review.

Proponents of the research involving the destruction of human embryos have been up in arms that new funding approved by President Barack Obama’s administration had previously been blocked by a federal judge. As a result of an injunction on the funding issued by U.S. Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District of Columbia, the National Institutes of Health had announced it was suspending consideration of new grants for the research.

According to Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council, “The Judge’s initial opinion noted that ‘ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo,’ and the plain language of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, passed by Congress every year since 1996, says that no federal funds shall be used for ‘research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.'”

The Judge added, correctly, that, “In this Court’s view, a stay [of the injunction] would flout the will of Congress, as this Court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so.” The judge added, “defendants are incorrect about much of their ‘parade of horribles’ that will supposedly result from this Court’s preliminary injunction.”

The appellate court decision at least temporarily reverses Judge Lamberth’s ban on the taxpayer funding.

This new legal battle has ripped open the debate over taxpayer funding of research that is unethical, illegal and complete fruitless. Rhetoric from researchers that benefit financially from the grants and politicians and organizations bent on making sure human embryos are not recognized as having any intrinsic value continues unchanged. They again are claiming that the use of human embryonic stem cells is the only hope for those who suffer from disease and paint those opposed to embryonic stem cell research as “anti-science.”

The truth is, as usual, much different. Those that oppose continued funding of failed research instead point to the multitude of successful treatments and cures from adult stem cell research. Dozens of effective and lifesaving treatments are not simply a pipe dream but a reality with adult stem cells which can be manipulated to act in much the same way as human embryonic stem cells. If we want to be pro-science and pro-hope for sufferers of disease, shouldn’t we be funding and supporting the science that is actually working and actually producing cures?

If taxpayers are going to be forced to pay for research, it should be research that is not only ethical but also successful. While much of the rest of the world has rejected human embryonic stem cell research as a hopeless waste of money, in the United States our politicians continue to try to raid the empty public trough to prop up failing research. It’s another bailout that simply must stop.