The Link Between Virtue and Public Welfare


For the founding fathers, virtue and public welfare were inseparably linked. In their understanding, a society lacking virtue was left without the ethical framework necessary to generate the moral character that allows for a healthy and happy society.

While overseeing the formation of his new nation, President George Washington advised his fellow citizens not to forget this indispensable axiom. At the start of his presidency, Washington warned in his first inaugural address, “We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”

As his presidential administration came to a close eight years later, Washington reiterated this statement, asking rhetorically, “Can it be, that Providence [God] has not connected the permanent [happiness] of a nation with its virtue?”

The founding generation likewise believed that the American experiment of republican self-government and constitutionally limited civil government would only survive if the people remained virtuous.

John Adams, writing to the Massachusetts Militia, explained, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The blessings of a free and prosperous civil society can be preserved only if the people maintain their virtue. Our collective happiness depends on us advocating strong morals in the public square and imparting them to the rising generation.

Let’s recommit ourselves to this critical task. Our national welfare demands it.

The article was originally written for the Indiana Family Institute.


Marriage Rates Decline, Concerning Social Scientists

The percentage of single adults reached a new record high in 2016, according to a recent report by the U.S. Census Bureau. But social scientists say the precipitous decline in marriage rates over the last four decades has resulted in negative consequences for individuals, families, and communities alike.

Only 59 percent of men and 69 percent of women under 35 years old have ever married. In 1976, 88 percent of men and 95 percent of women had married before turning 35 years old.

Young adults aren’t forgoing romantic relationships entirely, however. The number of young adults cohabitating with their boyfriends or girlfriends has increased by more than 1,200 percent during the same period.

Social scientists have found that individuals who delay marriage or cohabitate miss out on numerous benefits that follow from tying the knot. Marriage causes men to become more productive, increasing their success at work and improving their financial well-being. Their wives are more likely to have a fulfilling sex life and are less likely to become victims of sexual assault. Married men and women are emotionally, psychologically, and physically healthier than their unmarried peers.

Children also benefit from growing up in a household where both parents are married. Such children are statistically less likely to have behavioral problems, experience poverty, or suffer abuse. They are also more likely to do better in school and have healthy families of their own when they grow up.

The trends outlined in the Census Bureau report are concerning. Healthy communities are the product of healthy marriages, and healthy marriages promote individual contentment and fulfillment. Therefore, we must always work to ensure that we encourage marriage, thereby strengthening individuals, families, and communities.

This article was originally written for the Indiana Family Institute.


Public School Employee Threatened With Discipline After Offering to Pray for Coworkers

Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 12.05.53 PM

Private expression of religious faith is under attack in public schools.

Toni Richardson, who works with special needs children at a Maine high school, was approached by school officials for allegedly violating the First Amendment and the “separation of church and state.”

What misdeeds had she committed? She had told a Christian coworker that she was praying for him or her and used phrases including “That’s such a blessing.”

After learning of these supposedly grave violations, school officials told Richardson that telling other teachers “‘I will pray for you’, and ‘you were in my prayers’ is not acceptable—even if that other person attends the same church as you.” She was informed that continuing to “use phrases that integrate private and public beliefs when in public schools” would result in “discipline or dismissal in the future.”

Thankfully, our friends at First Liberty accepted Richardson’s case and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on her behalf. School officials have since backed off their original claim that Richardson must give up her First Amendment right to free religious expression when she enters school each morning. In an updated memo, they now affirm that “comments such as ‘God Bless You’ or ‘I am praying for you’ are permissible when made to co-workers outside of the hearing of students.”

The Constitution protects a person’s right to express their faith. Public school teachers shouldn’t be forced to pretend as if they aren’t Christians at their workplace. Unfortunately, more and more Christians are finding themselves in the crosshairs of school officials who are armed with a dangerous misinterpretation of the First Amendment and ignorance of the true meaning of “separation of church and state.”

The founding fathers who framed the U.S. Constitution believed that our nation’s schools should teach the Bible and Christian morality. Prayer and Bible classes were once common in public schools. Yet our school system, aided by the Supreme Court, has strayed from this founding conviction.

We’ve not only forgotten the central importance of teaching the Bible and Christian morality to the next generation so that they may faithfully fulfill their obligations as free citizens, but we’ve also begun targeting Christians within the public school system.

Fortunately, Richardson is no longer at risk of losing her job for showing Christian love and care to her coworkers, a privilege many other Christians in public schools currently lack.

This article was originally written for the Indiana Family Institute.


A “Fragile Superhero” Shows the Inherent Value of Children With Disabilities

KadenHave you heard about “fragile superhero” Kaden Casebolt? 

Kaden is a five-year-old boy born with osteogenesis imperfecta, a very rare disease that makes a person’s bones extraordinarily brittle.

Meeting with Kaden’s mom while she was still pregnant, doctors recommended she get an abortion. They informed the expectant mother there was a 95% chance her son wouldn’t survive birth. But even if he did, doctors said he wouldn’t survive long after.

Kaden’s mom declined to abort her preborn son. In an interview with BBC3 this summer, she says she made the right decision. 

Although Kaden has had over 40 broken bones requiring frequent surgeries, he “loves life.” Kaden is fascinated by superheroes, and he enjoys playing with his superhero action figures. He’s particularly fond of Superman, who impresses Kaden with his flying skills and suit.

“I think Kaden loves superheroes so much because he feels like he is one,” his mom said. “He’s already overcome so much, and he can still do the impossible.”

The doctors who recommended abortion were wrong, something Kaden’s mom says is evident in her son’s happiness and great potential.

“I’m very glad that I didn’t listen to the doctors who told me that he wouldn’t live, or walk, or do anything,” Kaden’s mom said. “If I did listen to them, then I wouldn’t have a strong little boy doing everything they said he couldn’t do.”

Every person deserves a chance at life. But too many preborn children with disabilities are aborted and denied the opportunity to live happy lives.

Thankfully for Kaden, he has parents who understood the infinite value of their son. They chose life.

This article was originally written for the Indiana Family Institute.


Do Our Rights Come From Government or From God?

Chuck Todd, MSNBC commentator and host of NBC’s Meet the Press, was seriously uneasy after Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore won the Republican primary last week.

Chuck.jpgAfter disparaging the senatorial candidate’s religious beliefs (“The phrase Christian conservative doesn’t even begin to describe [Moore],” Todd said disdainfully), the NBC pundit questioned how well Moore understands the Constitution.

Roy Moore, who has previously served as the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, often says our rights come from God, not government. Chuck Todd calls Moore’s view “very fundamentalist.” According to Todd, those who believe our rights are God-given don’t “believe in the Constitution as written.”

In accusing Roy Moore of infidelity to the Constitution, Chuck Todd demonstrates his own ignorance of the American founding.

The founding fathers understood that our rights come from God. As the Declaration of Independence proclaims, all people are created equal, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

The constitutional framers recognized this important truth: if our rights are given to us by government, then government can take those rights away. In the words of John Adams, it’s because our rights are “derived from the great Legislator of the Universe” that they “cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws.”

Like too many today, Chuck Todd believes government can give, change, and take away the rights of the people, depending on the whims of the majority and the ambitions of those in government. Their philosophy asserts that some rights, like the freedom of speech and religious liberty that protect the right of bakers and photographers to decline participation in same-sex wedding ceremonies, are antiquated. On the other hand, the “right” to marry a person of the same sex, which was never given by God, can be declared into existence by a Supreme Court decision.

But our founding fathers knew the truth—our rights do indeed come from our Creator, and no government can take those rights away.

This article was originally written for the Indiana Family Institute.


Proposed New Rule Would Allow “Third-Gender Option” on WA Birth Certificates

Marilyn_Monroe_Birth_Certificate (1)The Washington State Department of Health has announced its intention to adopt a new rule allowing a “third-gender option” on birth certificates.

If implemented, the new rule would formalize the department’s process for changing sex designation on birth certificates and add an option for a “non-binary” sex designation.

The Department of Health plans to begin gathering comments on the proposed rule next month. It hopes the rule will be adopted and implemented by January 2018.

In 2009, the Washington State Department of Licensing made it more difficult for Washingtonians to change their gender designation on driver’s licenses in an effort to reduce identity fraud and aid policing. The department has since reversed its policies.

Washington State isn’t alone in its proposal to offer a “third-gender option” on government documents. Oregon became the first state to offer the option on driver’s licenses and state ID cards in June, and California will shortly follow suit if a bill recently passed by the state legislature is signed by the governor.

The California bill faced opposition from the California Family Council, which “believes government documents need to reflect biological facts for identification and medical purposes,” said Greg Burt, the organization’s director of capitol engagement.

“Eye color, hair color, height, weight, and Sex: These are all listed on a driver’s license because these physical characteristics can be independently verified by physical evidence,” he said. “If you allow someone who is physically male to list themselves on a government document as a female, or vice a versa, then the government will be legalizing a lie.”

Up north, Canadians can now choose the “gender X” designation on their passports after their government changed its policy earlier this week.

Commenting on the “gender X” designation now available on Canadian passports, Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews that “the government is trying to force its citizenry, en masse, to deny scientific fact and biological reality.”

According to Fonseca, the “sexual revolutionaries” pushing for these changes “are willing to put our country’s national security and our privacy at risk.”

This article was originally written for Family Policy Institute of Washington.


Is abortion constitutional? Let’s ask the founders

Supreme_CourtIs abortion constitutional? The Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade (1973) that an expectant mother has a “fundamental right to abortion.” According to Supreme Court logic,  this right to abortion is protected under the penumbral right of privacy supposedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

To see whether the Roe decision is an accurate interpretation of constitutional rights, it is important to understand the intentions of the authors of the Constitution. Did they advocate legal abortion protected by the Constitution?

One of the most authoritative sources for learning law during the founding era was William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, was so well-liked by the founding fathers that he was the second most frequently cited thinker in the American political writings of the founding era. American law students studied his work so religiously that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that “Blackstone is to us what the Koran is to the Muslims.”

Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.” This right to life is legally binding “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Per Blackstone,

“For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”

Interestingly, Blackstone also explains that fetuses “in the mother’s womb” are legally considered “to be born.” Thus, the law considered a fetus to be his or her own person, independent of the mother.

From these commentaries, the founding fathers learned that any abortion perpetrated after the stirring of an infant in the mother’s womb was a “heinous misdemeanor.”

American courts upheld this traditional common law approach in characterizing abortion as a misdemeanor. Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

Similarly, St. George Tucker, a Madison judicial appointee and professor of law at the College of William and Mary, explained in his celebrated legal treatise on American law that it is  “a great misprision [misdemeanor]” to “kill a child in its mother’s womb.”

Laws in American states criminalized abortion from the beginning. For example, Virginia law outlawed the practice of using “potion” to “unlawfully destroy the child within her [womb].” These laws were crafted by many of the same individuals who framed the Constitution.

It is therefore inconceivable that the framers intended constitutional protections for abortion as a “fundamental right.” Indeed, the framers believed the opposite. From their perspective, the unborn child has a fundamental right to life, a right that would be infringed by an abortion that ends his or her life.

A “fundamental right to abortion” does not exist in the Constitution or its amendments. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to argue that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments intended to protect abortion under some vague and unwritten “right to privacy.” That so many courts and judges have for so long upheld a legal doctrine antagonistic to the Constitution reveals the rogue nature of the modern judiciary.

This article was written for the Family Policy Institute of Washington.