When Mississippi State and Ole Miss play in the Super Regional round in the NCAA baseball tournament this weekend, the majority of players in the dugouts and on the field will likely be paying some or most of their tuition and other costs.

The reason is college baseball’s nonsensical scholarship limit. Right now, Division I schools can only offer 11.7 scholarships that can be divided up among 27 players. 

Most players don’t receive a full scholarship and the minimum that can be awarded is 25 percent. Try to do that math in your head for kicks.

The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, which is an organization for smaller college athletic programs, offers an even 12 scholarships in baseball. 

NCAA Football Championship Subdivision (once known as Division I) football, in comparison, offers 85 scholarships. The difference is that football generates lots of revenue and most college baseball programs lose money. Lots of money.

According to the most recent NCAA’s revenue and expenses report from fiscal 2016, 114 Division I schools played baseball and the average program had a $658,000 loss. 

At the next highest level, the Football Championship Subdivision, the average program lost $93,000. This level can offer only nine scholarships per year.

In addition to the revenue issue, any additional scholarships for baseball would have to be offset under Title IX with additional ones for women’s sports. Considering that baseball is a money loser for most schools like most women’s sports, the scholarship number will likely remain where it is.

College football became a revenue monster because of TV contracts with the various conferences, which have revenue-sharing agreements that allow even the also-ran teams on the field to enjoy the largesse.

College baseball is a regional, warm weather game with little interest outside the Southeast and Pacific coast. Even with the rise of conference networks, there is only a smattering of college baseball games broadcast during the regular season. 

For example, one team from the Midwest, Michigan, advanced to the 16-team Super Regional round. That means potentially lucrative TV markets (and the resultant advertisers) in the Midwest and Northeast are shut out with little interest by viewers.

Even the biggest winners on the diamond are struggling financially.

The Southeastern Conference is the 900-pound goliath of college baseball, with six of its teams advancing to the Super Regional round. Despite the success, most of its individual programs aren’t making money.

According to a 2017 story in the Baton Rouge Advocate, only four SEC baseball teams made a profit or even broke even in 2016. Ole Miss barely made a profit (more than $28,000), while LSU made $1.5 million.

The rest, which includes Mississippi State, lost money on baseball that year. This was before State’s new Dudy Noble Field opened for business in 2018, with its array of luxury suites and other revenue-enhancing features. 

For college baseball to get more scholarships, increasing revenue like Mississippi State did with its state-of-the-art stadium is going to be the rule. Some schools in the Snow Belt, such as Buffalo University, will decide to phase out baseball. 

Getting a national TV contract for the stronger conferences would probably help grow the sport and its fanbase.

Even if those things come to fruition, just getting the sport to a nice, even 12 scholarships might be a tough battle. 

Eliminating the math headaches for college baseball coaches trying to divvy up their precious few scholarships might make that a worthy effort.

While liberal states push to legalize abortion to the moment of birth, pro-life states are responding. 

Last week, Alabama passed the strongest pro-life legislation in America. Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, banning abortion in nearly all cases. The only exception has been reserved for the physical endangerment of the mother’s life. Mental and emotional reasons for aborting will not qualify.

Predictably, left-wing media headlined that 25 men passed the pro-life bill. Also predictably, they left out the Pew polling data that Alabama women are more pro-life than the men of the state. This came after a debate where Alabama State Rep. John Rogers shocked America with a despicable statement that “some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later.”

This year, pro-life measures such as Heartbeat bills swept the nation, limiting abortion at the point of an ultrasound detectable heartbeat. A fetal heartbeat begins around 21 days post-conception but is currently detectable with ultrasound closer to 6 weeks gestation. Ohio, Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi worked tirelessly to pass these Heartbeat bills, which were all almost immediately halted by activist judges. 

Unsurprisingly, the Hollywood elite raged online about trending Heartbeat bills. A slew of celebrities even promised to boycott Georgia for filmmaking due to their Heartbeat bill.

While a growing number of states stepped up to protect life, a couple of states tragically passed pro-abortion legislation. New York, being the most extreme, legalized abortion to the moment of birth and decriminalized the death of any preborn child. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam was in favor of similar legislation in his state that ultimately did not pass. Gov. Northam infamously added in a radio interview how medical professionals might keep born alive infants “comfortable” while they die following a failed abortion.

In Connecticut, pro-life pregnancy centers are fighting for their lives as the legislature considers restricting their ability to ethically advertise. If successful, this legislation will meet a battle with NIFLA, the pro-life organization that triumphed at the U.S. Supreme Court last summer with a similar case brought forward in California.  

Given this traffic jam of pro-life and pro-abortion legislation across the country, one might ask why now? What’s causing this huge flux in abortion legislation? 

In short, the battle has restarted over Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that first legalized abortion in all 50 states in 1973. Pro-life legislation like Alabama’s are welcoming disputes to higher courts. 

On a national scale, this is the most politically feasible time to introduce pro-life legislation since the Reagan era. With two Trump-appointed SCOTUS justices, the first president to speak at the March for Life, lower court appointees recommended by conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation, the first Pro-life Senate Caucus, a pro-life cabinet, a civilian pro-life advisory council for Trump, a Supreme Court win for pregnancy centers, an executive order to end funding for the Mexico City Policy, and large social demonstrations such as last week’s ultrasound blasted in Times Square, it’s a good time to be pro-life. 

The pro-abortion lobby also knows this. They also know that the number of abortions in the country continues to decline. 

They have responded accordingly – with a screeching war cry. The left has tried so hard to back peddle this progress that they have gone too far even by some self-described pro-choicers standards. The U.S. Senate blocked efforts to protect babies born alive from failed abortions. New York, Virginia, and other usual culprits scrambled to become America’s biggest loser on abortion policy. 

In some cases, these efforts brought them to a 360 degree, not a 180 degree, turn. Actress and social activist, Alyssa Milano, laughably called for a “sex strike” in response to the success of the pro-life movement. “Our reproductive rights are being erased,” she tweeted.“Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.” 

Of course, conservatives have always offered abstinence as a great option to prevent unplanned pregnancies. In a strange twist of mental gymnastics, many on the left joined the #sexstrike and joined the sentiment of the religious right—only introduce sex when you are willing to accept the possibility of a child being conceived.  The dichotomy has joined the ranks of the twilight zone. So, what can we pull from this conglomeration of legislation, cultural response, and political climate? 

It’s come down to this – there is a blossoming Culture of Life and an aggressive Culture of Death. The Culture of Death will not passively lose. It’s becoming more and more difficult to take a stance in the middle, as the culture of death becomes more radicalized against any choice other than abortion. 

When our descendants look back on this critical era, where will you say you stood? 

Men have recently started competing against women in sports, and winning. Is that fair?

If the Equality Act becomes law, it will become much more common. This bill, which is backed by nearly 300 members of Congress, will assuredly pass the House this year and be a top priority issue for any future Democratic Senate or White House. 

Under the proposed legislation, all federally funded entities would be required to interpret “sex” to include “gender identity.” If a man identities as a woman, they are to be treated as a woman. That includes, notably, high school and college sports.  

Why have men and women always competed separately when it comes to sports in the first place? And why are they still? We are in the 21st century, right? A woman can do anything a man can do and even more, right? Believe me, I am all about girlpower. 

But as equal as the sexes are, our biology will never be the same. The objective of equality of outcomes is fundamental, but the objective of the equality of outcomes is fundamentally flawed.

On a very basic level, the two genders are divided not because of their genders, but because the biological gender they are born with results in certain hormonal levels which have a lot to do with the level of athletic ability that person can achieve. One particular hormone is testosterone. You will find much more of this in men. In fact, men’s testosterone levels are around 280 to 1,100 Nano grams per deciliter while women’s normal levels are between 15 and 70 Nano grams per deciliter. This hormone increases bone density, and causes muscle mass growth and strength. It also triggers facial hair growth, so women everywhere should be thankful our bodies don’t produce more of that.  

In light of this difference, pitting genders against one another physically would not challenge either competitor to achieve their highest athletic ability.

However, there are female athletes with a much higher level of testosterone than the average female. This includes Caster Semenya, a 2016 Olympic gold medalist in middle-distance running. The International Association of Athletics Federations has attempted to regulate situations such as these by making a separate classification for athletes of Difference of Sexual Development (DSD) and will require those athletes to reduce their blood testosterone levels if they want to compete internationally. For some, situations like Semenya, justify allowing transgender women to compete with biological women. But using a statistical anomaly on the very outer bounds of the distribution mean of physiological traits to set policy for all is scientifically absurd.

What exactly happens when a male declares himself to be female? Do his hormone levels drop to match that of the average woman automatically? And as a result of that, does his athletic ability suddenly change to match that against whom he competes? Does his lung capacity decrease? How about his body fat percentage and muscle mass, does that change? No. Simply, when a man begins the process of becoming a transgender woman, he goes on hormone reducers. On the other hand, when a woman begins the transition from female to male, she is put on steroids, raising the level of testosterone. 

Over time, these hormonal changes affect the individual’s body. But it won’t change them completely. Transgender women will still have more muscle mass and higher bone density than the average cisgender female, allowing them an athletic advantage, in a way, like Semenya. These advantages are physiological. They are present as a result of nature, not as a result of societal pressures or oppressive expectations.

As a former collegiate athlete, the idea that a subpar male athlete could declare himself a female, then swoop into women’s sports, dominate, and bump girls out of the running to receive a college scholarship, or win a state title, or get to playoffs, or compete at a national level, strikes me as taking opportunities away from women, not the other way around. 

Girls and women should not be told to accept this as the new normal. In the name of progress and equal opportunity, it’s the height of irony to tell women they should just accept a scientifically un-level playing field which clearly discriminates against their gender.  

In case we have forgotten, the strides women have made in sports have been rather recent. Of those who competed in the 2014 Olympics, 40 percent were women, compared to 2.2 percent in the 1900 Olympic games. The Women’s National Basketball Association has only been in existence for 23 years. National Pro-Fastpitch was only established in 2004. The Women's Tennis Association has been around for less than 50 years. Sports have opened numerous doors for women, but those doors have not  been open long. 

Why would we let men, claiming they know what being female is like, come in and boot us out of our own opportunities? 

The attempt to allow men to compete in women’s sports, or the larger Equality Act, is simply an attempt to erase the reality of biological sex. It’s absurd.

Mississippi recently hosted its largest pro-life walk yet. 

Three-hundred and fifty eight registered walkers and 52 partner churches raised over $70,000 for The Center for Pregnancy Choices Metro Area at their first annual LifeWalk. This exceeded their goal by over $20,000. 

Due to generous local business partners underwriting the event, 100 percent of LifeWalk proceeds will go to serving the women of Hinds, Rankin, and Madison counties facing unplanned pregnancies. 

The CPC Metro Area offers free and confidential medical-quality pregnancy tests, high-quality sonograms, options counseling, literature, parenting classes, referrals to community services, infant supplies, and prenatal vitamins. They are funded solely from the generosity of local Mississippians, their businesses, and their churches. 

The two clinics in North Jackson and Fondren are staffed with registered nurses and trained decision specialists. Their medical capabilities are made possible by their medical director, two volunteer radiologists, and a pharmacy that provides prenatal vitamins. 

Truly, the Jackson area community makes their mission possible. 

Each of the 52 participating churches had a Walk Ambassador who assembled their own walk teams. Each walker raised their own sponsorship in their respective spheres of influence and set personal goals accordingly. Highland Colony Baptist Church stands out as a church that went above and beyond, raising the most funds of any participating church. Nine families raised $1,000 or more for the clinics, while 22 others raised $500 plus by their own accord. First Baptist Church in Raymond formed the largest team, with 32 walkers. A young woman from Clinton raised over $2,700 as an individual. Funds poured in from Madison, Ridgeland, Jackson, Flowood, Brandon, Pearl, Terry, Florence, Raymond, Clinton, Star, and Pelahatchie.

It is abundantly clear—Mississippi is a pro-life state. We are ready to put our money where our mouth is. We are literally walking the walk we talk. Following Gov. Phil Bryant signing our Heatbeat Bill this session, recently halted by a court order, we see that Mississippians will not wait for courts to catch up with our progress. 

Neither the state nor federal government fill the gap for the women of Mississippi quite like The CPC Metro Area does. 

Voluntary associations and local philanthropy show us that private institutions and individuals support women in crisis. 

Unplanned, released in a limited number of theaters across the nation in March, tells the story of Abby Johnson’s conversion from a Planned Parenthood Clinic Director to a pro-life activist.

The movie came in 4th place in box office sales over opening weekend, doubling expected ticket sales, and earning over $6 million three days after its release. This unexpected success is accompanied by controversy and apparent censorship of an impactful Christian and pro-life story.

This is exactly why we should be paying attention.

Since its release, the movie has dealt with extensive censorship issues on social media. Twitter briefly suspended the movie’s account. Though it was restored, due to public outcry, this act of censorship leaves us with questions. Was it an executive decision, made by Twitter? Was it caused by a reaction from complaints by pro-choice users? Twitter claims that they suspended the account because it was linked to an account that violated the website’s rules. Is this vague claim true? The movie’s account also suffered a quick and drastic decrease in followers, which is also entirely unexplained.

It appears as if discussion and promotion of the movie is being intentionally suppressed by mainstream media. Furthermore, it appears as if the nature of this censorship is political.

Similarly, the R rating, given by the Motion Picture Association of America, was also politically controversial. Unplanned was likely the first Christian movie, produced by Pure Flix, to receive an R rating. It did not contain nudity, sexuality, or foul language. Did the movie deserve the rating that it received, or could it have been another attempt at censorship of conservative Christian voices by mainstream media?

Candidly, the movie graphically detailed surgical abortions, a chemical abortion, and the aftermath of a botched abortion. These scenes portrayed the ugly reality and the haunting violence of abortion. The R rating could serve as warning for parents who may not want their children to witness such images, or post-abortive women who may be disturbed by such images.

However, it is reasonable to ask why a 13-year-old girl is legally permitted to obtain an abortion without parental consent (depending on the state) but not permitted to watch a movie about abortion? Deserving or not, the R rating successfully reduced the number of teenagers that a pro-life message could reach. It also prevented advertisement of the film on most major cable networks.

The various censorship efforts by mainstream media demonstrate why we need to pay attention to discussion surrounding the movie and why we need to watch the film for ourselves.

Unplanned changes the stigmas and the generalizations typically attached to Christian-made movies. Often, Christian films, even high grossing movies such as Gods not Dead, written by the same screenwriters as Unplanned, are painfully predictable, naïve, and one-sided. Christian-made movies often tend to self-righteously “candy-coat” issues and remain blissfully ignorant to ugly realities – as if they are scared to touch anything that may actually represent the gospel of a savior that ate with tax collectors or prostitutes. It is as if they are afraid to acknowledge our call to live in the world.

Unplanned changes these stigmas in a remarkable manner. The power of storytelling is immeasurable. Telling a story truthfully is an act of bravery. Abby Johnson tells her story without reservation and it is a difficult story to hear. It is not a story that is blind to ugly realities. The abortion scenes are heart-wrenching and she highlights well the paralyzing hopelessness that women experience when facing a crisis pregnancy.

It is not a one-sided story. Viewers of the film will witness difficult truths, such as the fact that women who work for abortion clinics are rarely ill-intentioned. They truly believe that they are serving and helping other women.. They are not malicious adherents to the manipulative nature of the Planned Parenthood corporation and they do not revel in the death of an unborn baby. I believe they are simply misguided, as Abby Johnson tells us that she was for many years. Likewise, pro-lifers do not always practice love, nor do they always truly want to help women in crisis. Instead, they scream slurs and label women “baby-murders.” They hold up signs of aborted fetuses and utilize scare tactics. Like most things in life, there is more gray than black and white.

This point was made clearly in the distinction made between 40 Days for Life, a non-profit organization dedicated to quietly praying outside of abortion clinics and offering women the hope of another option, and the people dressed as grim reapers who harassed women as they walked into the clinic. The film does not naively believe that the divide between the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is consistently black and white.

Another case often brought against Christian-themed films is their tendency to preach to the choir. Ideally, Unplanned will open thousands of eyes and reach just as many hearts. Ideally, it will create dynamic and edifying conversations between the two sides of the pro-life vs. pro-choice fence. I believe that it has the potential to accomplish all of this and more – especially because of its timely release. The current political atmosphere surrounding the issue of abortion is volatile. Heartbeat bills are being passed in numerous states, as well as born alive acts and late-term abortion laws.

Yet, what if the film only reaches conservative Christians? Is it then a waste of money? Would it then be a waste of a powerful story, told bravely? This is not the case. In my experience, conservative Christians may know what abortion is, the basic definition of terminating a pregnancy, and they may vote for politicians who uphold the sanctity of life, but they may not know what abortion means.

Most conservatives have not have witnessed the violence of abortion. They may not know that abortion is a violation of women’s rights. They may not know how difficult abortion is, both physically and emotionally. Conservatives may not understand the cold and manipulative nature of the abortion industry. They may not have heard the heartbeat of an unborn child. Conservatives may not have faced  the reality of an unplanned pregnancy. They may not know that fetal parts are removed from abortion clinics in industrial-sized, blue barrels. Conservatives may not have witnessed a mother mourning a child she has never even met. There are so many people who do not know what abortion means. Just because abortion is a controversial and contentious issue does not indicate that the majority of people are well-informed, including conservative Christians.

Go and watch Unplanned. Go and appreciate the power of storytelling and the honesty of one Christian film. Go and learn what abortion really means. Go and support liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Officials at the University of Iowa have recently challenged a small group of Christians, students of the university, for supposedly threatening the university’s human rights policy.

The group, called Business Leaders in Christ, were accused of violating university policy by not allowing a gay student to serve as vice president of their group. Members of the group stated that allowing a gay student to serve as vice president of their group would conflict with their core beliefs – the belief that marriage is rightfully intended for one man and one woman. 

The court ruled in favor of Business Leaders in Christ and determined that the University of Iowa could not strip them of their rights.

This case demonstrated the sad reality of religious discrimination in America and specifically, religious discrimination on college campuses. Few of us have heard or seen any media coverage of this case. It brings to light the fact that religious discrimination, in America and on college campuses, extends far past what our mainstream media chooses to report.

The University of Iowa attempted to “de-recognize” a Christian group of students for pledging allegiance to their own faith and upholding their own ideals. The violation of rights and targeted discrimination in this act were significant. Yet coverage of the incident has been sparse.

We live in an age in which we worship at an altar of tolerance but the media remains markedly deaf to a case that involved acute intolerance and discrimination based upon one’s religious beliefs. Why? It is vital that we ponder the answer to this question.

Had this been a case of discrimination involving people and events serving the purposes of the left more adequately, would our newsfeed have provided us with more details? Had the rights of an openly Christian group not been upheld in a court of law, would we have heard more?

The lack of media coverage and the hypocritical nature of the discrimination are alarming. The officials who de-recognized the group claimed that they did so based the university’s human rights policy. Yet, where were the rights of the members of Business Leaders in Christ? Where were their natural rights to choose a leader who upheld the core tenants of their common faith?

Even as school officials claimed that the Christian group was practicing intolerance, the university simultaneously infringed on religious freedom and practiced their own brand of intolerance.

The implications of this incident are far-reaching. How we choose a college could be one implication. The way Christians are perceived by the world is yet another.

I am fortunate enough to pursue my chosen field of study at a Christian university. It is a university where I am free to express my faith in all areas of my life. Yet, one should not have to attend a Christian school, as a Christian, to obtain the rights of religious expression. The process of choosing a college should be largely based on how well a student thinks a particularly university can prepare a prospective student for entry into his or her chosen profession.

If the “everything is political” era now extends to college, however, it may become necessary for a Christian student to consider the factor of freedom of speech and religious expression when choosing a school.

The issue of religious discrimination on college campuses, safeguarded by the media’s neglect, seem to be deliberate and systematic. It is slowly teaching the world to be distrustful of Christian expression of faith. It consistently and quietly encourages and magnifies harmful stigmas and generalizations attached to Christianity.

For instance, during what little media coverage there was of this issue, reporters never mentioned if the gay student was denied participation in the group altogether or if the student was merely denied a leadership role.

The recent Iowa court case is just one example of countless others that highlight how Christians are discriminated against on college campuses. The examples are big and small – from paper grading scandals to Christian student group expulsion.

It is an emerging crisis of a violation of our rights as Americans and it is a crisis largely ignored by mainstream media.

“Would you buy a car without test-driving it?”

So goes the degrading adage warning couples to cohabitate before marriage. Besides insinuating that a wife might want to divorce her husband because he often misses the laundry hamper and occasionally snores, cohabitating just to “test out” marriage is a bad idea.

With recent statistical results from Institute for Family Studies, we can see this isn’t just opinion. The disadvantages to living together before marriage are clear. And this impacts not just the individual or couple, but all taxpayers.

Despite overwhelming evidence that cohabitation leads to statistically significant disparities in levels of commitment, instances of infidelity and conflict, satisfaction, and stability, the majority of American adults believe that cohabitation is a good idea.  

In fact, 65 percent of American adults agree that dating couples ought to move in together before marriage. More specifically, 76 percent of millennials are very likely to endorse the move-in compared to 36 percent of the elder generation. While trends show that you’re more likely to support cohabitation if you’re non-religious or liberal in ideology, Christians and conservatives are still in support of it in startling numbers. Liberals are in favor by 86 percent compared to the still high 37 percent of conservatives. Self-professing Christians have the lowest approval rating of cohabitation, but at the alarming, and rather surprising, rate of 40 percent.

We culturally accept that “serious” couples will move in together as a final test of compatibility or as a grand gesture of commitment. Or was that just every romantic comedy I’ve ever seen? In fact, research shows that the most common reason for sharing a home is actually just spending more time together.

Couples should second-guess their decisions to become roommates according to IFS’s findings. Studies controlled for education, relationship duration, and age found that cohabitating couples had lower levels of commitment, higher likelihood of infidelity and conflict, and an increased likelihood of the relationship ending. These results pale in comparison to married individuals reporting greater satisfaction with their overall relationships. They self-describe as “very happy” more often compared to live-in couples. Married couples are much more likely to report themselves in the top groups for satisfaction, commitment, and stability.

The effects of poorer relationships don’t just affect the couples involved. They also greatly stunt the healthy development of involved children. According to the Census Bureau, three million children live with unmarried parents in America. By age twelve, 40 percent of children will live in a cohabitating household, usually with a mother and her live-in boyfriend. Four out of 10 children born in the United States are born to unmarried women with the majority (58 percent) born to women living with the child’s father.

Does this imply that all unmarried parents are bad parents?

No, absolutely not. Nearly every parent wants what’s best for their child and would move mountains to get them the best of everything they can. That’s exactly why these findings are so critical to express to Americans, especially in our state of Mississippi, where unwed birth rates are the highest in the nation.

Here are the factual risks for children in unmarried households:

• Single mother families are about five times as likely to experience poverty as married-parent families.
• In 2015, 7.5 percent of married-couple families were in poverty, compared to 36.5 percent of single mother families.
• Boys raised in single-parent households are more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, again controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity.

The evidence is clear. Married couples are statistically more content and actualized in their relationships than unmarried couples sharing a home. Once couples bring children into the mix, disparities between married and unmarried couples grow and affect our children more often and with more magnitude.

And this impacts everybody, as taxpayers will be footing the bill for the various welfare programs that support those families in poverty. And despite the best of intentions to help citizens like single mothers, we know, based on years of evidence and analysis, that such programs don’t act as a trampoline for escaping poverty. No, welfare programs actually work as snare nets, trapping single mothers into a life of dependence that discourages working and marriage through perverse incentives and roadblocks from federal mandates.

To avoid such unintended consequences, the “success sequence” remains a good public policy prescription for young people. Graduate from high school. Get a Job. Get married. Have children. Do it in that order, if at all possible.

This column appeared in the Madison County Journal on March 21, 2019. 

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy commends Governor Phil Bryant for capping off a lifetime of pro-life public service by signing the Fetal Heartbeat bill today.

The “Heartbeat bill” allows abortion until the point at which a baby’s heartbeat is detected – about the middle of the first trimester.

“A majority (58 percent) of Mississippi voters believe abortion should only be permitted to save the life of the mother. Eighty-four percent of voters believe abortion should be limited after the first three months of pregnancy,” said Dr. Jameson Taylor, vice president for policy at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. “This polling was done well before lawmakers in New York radicalized the abortion debate by making abortion available to a woman on demand any time during her entire pregnancy. Only 8 percent of Mississippi voters support such a policy.”

“The Heartbeat bill is popular because everyone knows a heartbeat is a sign of life,” continued Dr. Taylor. “Intellectual and scientific honesty demands a reconsideration of Roe, a 50-year-old decision based on old science. 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds are showing women that their unborn child is alive. At six weeks, the child has a beating heart. Soon after, it can sense light, move, hear and taste. Whatever you want to call it, this living thing has the ‘form’ of a human person, as the Supreme Court recognized in the Gonzales decision.” Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) upheld a partial-birth abortion ban, even in cases of pre-viability.

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood) reports that “the risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy.” The risk of the mother dying as a result of an abortion increases more than 2,100 percent between 8-weeks and 18-weeks of pregnancy. Maternal mortality increases by 38 percent with every week after 8-weeks gestation.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the states have “legitimate interests from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of women” (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992)). Further, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the states have an “important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life,” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973), and specifically that “the State has an interest in protecting the life of the unborn” Casey (1992).

See statewide polling results here.

A new report outlines the continued generosity of Mississippians.

While many complain that Mississippi is usually first on the bad lists and last on the good lists, Mississippians have always been recognized for their generosity. Another report confirms this.

The Fraser Institute’s Generosity Index measures charitable donations as recorded on personal income tax returns in Canada and the United States.

Because the Fraser Institute  is based in Canada, this report tracks donations from Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories, as well as the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data is from the 2016 tax year.

The repot calculates the percentage of tax filers donating to charity, the percentage of aggregate income donated to charity, and the average annual charitable donation.

Mississippians gave 1.67 percent of their income to charity, which was good enough for 10th among the 64 states and provinces. Utah was first at 3.18 percent, followed by Georgia (2.31), Arkansas (2.07), Alabama (1.86), and Idaho (1.78).

The average annual charitable donation was $7,135, which was good enough for 13th. Wyoming was first with $12,991, followed by Arkansas ($10,935), Utah ($10,165), South Dakota ($10,020), and Tennessee ($8,644).

The report also showcased the noticeable differences between giving in the United States and Canada. The 13 Canadian provinces and territories took 13 of the bottom 14 spots when it came to percentage of aggregate income donated to charity. West Virginia’s 0.74 percent was slightly below Manitoba’s 0.76 percent.

But on average annual donation, the Canadian provinces and territories took the bottom 14 places.