As Ole Miss gets ready for their first football game of the season on Saturday, university officials are marching forward with plans to remove the Confederate statue near the entrance to campus. 

Interim Chancellor Larry Sparks, who holds the position while the Institutions for Higher Learning searches for the next Ole Miss chancellor, said the school intends to move the statue to the Confederate cemetery, near the old Tad Smith Coliseum. 

The university has submitted plans to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History and the IHL. Once the university receives the green light, the school hopes to have the monument relocated within 90 days. 

The push for the statues removal began to get increased attention last fall when a group known as the Students Against Social Injustice staged a protest and issued demands of the administration, something that is now common practice among left-wing campus organizations. 

According to SASI, the university must remove the Confederate statue from campus and speech codes must be implemented to “protect students from the racist violence we experience on campus.” And, the next chancellor “must” meet with this group to discuss their demands.

Last spring, the Associated Student Body voted to relocate the statue, as did three other governing bodies. 

SASI, which includes students and liberal professors, has since been putting their own markers on the statue marking the number of days since the ASB vote.

Before the SASI push to move the statue, the university placed plaques on various locations on the campus, including the statue. This was done in early 2018 as part of a years-long process. These plaques are designed to "contextualize" names or objects on campus.

The politics of division might reign in our major cities. But in places like Jackson, hospitality and communal spirit are alive and well.

With senior year of college comes the expected announcement of one’s next steps in life. At Georgetown University, where I spent my undergraduate career, as well as at many other elite schools around the country, it seems that at least a plurality of students plan on either continuing their education or going to major consulting firms. While one can choose many roads, they almost all seem to lead to the same urban areas: D.C., New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or San Francisco.

In January, rather than follow the well-worn paths of some of my friends and colleagues, I chose to accept an opportunity at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, a state think tank in Jackson. I had friends who understood the decision, and I had friends who were perplexed by it. Over the next five months I found myself having to explain and defend why anybody would want to live in the South, declining the comforts so easily found in the nation’s largest cities.

Frankly, I understand the confusion. For at least four years, our mindset as students was centered around life in Washington, D.C., a vibrant urban area. The mainstream news outlets, our social media feeds, the movies we watched, and the politics we followed all suggested that big cities were the only places worth being, because that’s where the action was and will continue to be.

However, as I packed up the UHaul and left Georgetown behind, I felt a sense of comfort. The words “Go west, young man, go west,” so often attributed to Horace Greeley, played repeatedly in my head. I was proud of the fact that I was escaping the behemoth that is Washington, off on a new adventure.

For the past 10 years, since my dad had been transferred to the Pentagon in 2008, I had lived in or around D.C., and grown quite used to the city and its people. Entering Georgetown, I was sure that I wanted to stay in the area and get involved in politics. However, over the course of four years, as the tidal wave of progressive opinion steadily beat against me, it became clearer and clearer that the values I held dear were not fully acceptable on the campus or in the city. I was attacked and belittled, not only for my conservative politics but for my Christian faith.

It took far less than four years for me to grow tired of this toxic state of public discourse. Furthermore, for many in D.C.’s young political scene, too great attention was given to developing one’s next career steps rather than one’s self as a person. Jobs often took over life, and little time was left for other commitments. As I evaluated where I would go after college, I decided that, while I wanted a rewarding job, I also wanted to find an area where I could continue to grow in my faith, to get involved on the local level, and to develop myself as an individual. I wanted to find a community in which I could become attached and build a home. And I realized that all of this would be difficult in D.C.

On campus, the relentless culture of outrage was alive and well, as “woke” activists constantly pushed the boundaries on the next issue and demanded that all stand in lockstep with them as a testament to intersectionality. In moving South, all of that dissipated. The professional outrage is absent and community organizations are flourishing. People tend to spend more time at the local bluegrass exhibition than they do protesting.

In Jackson, people care more about the church community you’re a part of than the job title you hold or whether you have an R or a D next to your name. In Jackson, “Southern hospitality” is alive and well: people know their neighbors and sincerely care about how they’re doing. In Jackson, I have found my spirits lifted. It has become clear to me that, while the politics of division has taken center stage nationally, outside the cities, on the communal level, the best of our country is still thriving.

Undoubtedly, Mississippi is not a perfect place, far from it. But this state is built on a strong set of foundational values, which have provided a pleasant sense of relief against the growing social and political tribalism that was ever present in D.C. I have been welcomed into a community. It is here that I plan to put down roots, and I would strongly encourage others to think about doing the same.

This column appeared in the American Conservative on August 7, 2019.

As the battle over abortion continues to wage across the country, clinics have found themselves in the spotlight for the little interest they seem to show in health of women they claim to serve.

Often, abortion clinics are heralded as champions of women’s rights – safe-havens that provide reproductive healthcare services, protect essential rights of privacy, empower the right to choose, and empower the idea of autonomy over a woman’s own body. 

Is this really the whole truth? What might be unearthed if this newfound spotlight was taken advantage of and used to explore further into the practices and agenda of the abortion industry, heralded as an emblem of feminism? 

Recently, a pro-life organization, Americans United for Life, or AUL, released information containing lists of all the violations brought forth by the respective state departments of health against abortion clinics in each state. This compilation offers intriguing insight and astonishing validation to abortion clinic horror stories.

There are six states with only one abortion clinic remaining in operation; Mississippi is one of these. The pink building on North State Street is the last standing abortion facility in Mississippi. It is called Jackson Women’s Health Organization, or just JWHO, and is cited in the report released by AUL with numerous violations. 

Examples of the violations, in Mississippi and those that occurred in other states, are: 

• Quality assurance programs were not properly implemented.
• Autoclave and sterilization procedures were not followed.
• Facilities were generally “unclean,” including some where there was evidence of bloody drainage and fluids on exam tables.
• Dried blood and/or rust was found on equipment.
• Instruments labeled as “sterilized” displayed dried blood and/or rust.
• Reusable equipment and instruments were not cleaned and sterilized.
• Contaminated syringe containers were stored incorrectly.
• The bodily remains of aborted children were stored in the same refrigerators as medications and/or food.
• Staff members in some facilities were unable to locate sterile suturing supplies and equipment.
• In a Chicago abortion business, a recovery room technician was observed retrieving a paper towel from the garbage and using the same paper towel to cover a tray that would later serve food to patients.
• Patients were further exposed to unsanitary conditions by improper water temperatures for laundry. 

JWHO was cited by the Mississippi Department of Health in a statement of deficiencies and a plan of correction, with a, “failure to ensure a safe and sanitary environment.”

As stated in AUL’s report, “patients were further exposed to unsanitary conditions by improper water temperatures for laundry, sterilizers not being cleaned monthly, single-use vials being used multiple times and on different patients, vaginal probes not being disinfected between uses, and infectious waste not being stored or disposed of properly.” 

JWHO was cited with a “failure to ensure that staff are properly trained for their duties.” Examples of this violation are: 

• Medical staff did not have the necessary credentials.
• Failure to ensure that medical staff-maintained certifications.
• Failure to document staff qualifications.
• Failure to perform background checks.
• Failure to collect information from the National Practitioners Data Bank on prospective employees.
• Failure to conduct orientation programs for new employees.
• Failure to conduct annual training.

This particular issue is further perpetuated by, “itinerant providers” or, “fly-ins.” These are doctors that fly hundreds of miles away from their homes to abortion facilities. This reality raises the question: what profit motive is there to cause a doctor to trek hundreds of miles away from his home to perform an abortion?

As an example: Willie Parker, a doctor who has been known to provide abortions in Mississippi, lives in Chicago, 750 miles away from his abortion patients. As a result, abortion doctors often do not have local hospital admittance privileges. 

Willie Parker is an abortion provider, public figure, and a self-proclaimed women’s rights advocate. As stated in his official website, “his work includes a focus on violence against women, sexual assault prevention, and reproductive health rights through advocacy…” Interestingly, Willie Parker has recently been accused of sexual assault. The irony and the hypocrisy of the abortion industry only continues. 

Improper standard of patient care is an issue that is further perpetuated by another citation highlighted in AUL’s report. JWHO was found to have, “unlicensed, unqualified, and untrained staff providing patient care.”

As stated by AUL’s report, “The abortion facility failed to ensure that required medical professionals were present during abortion procedures and when patients were in the facility or could not provide proof of required professional licenses, training, or qualifications.” 

The reality that JWHO is little concerned with safety and patient care is only reinforced by the remaining violations detailed in AUL’s report. The last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi has also been cited with the following violations: 

• “Failure to adopt, follow, and / or periodically review health and safety protocols.” This violation includes a failure to review the proper protocol required to administer abortion-inducing drugs.  
• “Failure to purchase and maintain required equipment.”
• “Failure to properly handle medications.” This citation includes failing to properly document the use of controlled substances and narcotics in patient records. 
• “Failure to comply with physical plant standards.” This violation includes a failure to provide personal privacy for women during patient evaluations and counseling sessions. 

JWHO is also a repeat offender. 

• In 2009 and 2011 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to meet standards for emergency power.” 
• In 2009 and 2010 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to meet standards of sanitation.” 
• In 2009 and 2011 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to meet clinic personnel standards.” 
• In 2009, 2010, and 2011 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to meet standards for structural soundness.” 
• In 2009 and 2011 – JWHO was cited with a, “failure to adopt or follow health and safety protocols.” 

Repeat offenders are prevalent in 11 states. Mississippi, with only one abortion clinic left standing, is one of the 11 states. This indicates incredible negligence. Unfortunately, this negligence is not isolated to JWHO. 

The owner of JWHO, Diane Derzis, owns two additional abortion facilities, in Richmond, Virginia and Columbus, Georgia. The Virginia abortion clinic, Capitol Women’s Health Clinic, is cited with four of the same violations as JWHO. These violations are: 

• Failure to ensure a safe and sanitary environment.
• Failure to ensure staff are properly trained for duties.
• Failure to purchase and maintain required equipment. 
• Failure to comply with physical plant standards. 

Derzis previously owned an abortion facility in Birmingham, Alabama that was closed in 2012 by the state health department due to numerous health code violations. 

This negligence is not simply isolated to the few abortion clinics that Diane Derzis owns, however. It is a trend, an epidemic of abortion clinic malpractice that pervades every state in the nation. This ugly reality is made abundantly clear by AUL’s report.

While abortion facilities, such as JWHO, are regulated by the state, pro-life pregnancy resource centers, such as The Center for Pregnancy Choices, or CPC, located in the Jackson metro area, are not regulated by the state – but rather, self-regulated. It is an interesting contrast. 

On one hand, JWHO and seemingly countless other abortion facilities, have proven a lack of adherence to legallymandated standards of safety, health, and overall patient care. Abortion facilities have fallen short and failed these regulations repeatedly. 

On the other hand, many pregnancy resource centers across the nation, including the CPC, are HIPPA and OSHA compliant by self-mandate. In addition, the CPC adheres to strict codes of confidentiality and professionalism by free association with national networks such as: Care Net, Heartbeat International, and The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Most pregnancy resource centers belong to at least one of these organizations; and each organization has a set of terms concerning care and competence that must be agreed to in order to secure membership. The CPC is also overseen by an OB/GYN with local hospital admittance privileges and staffed with registered nurses who are both well qualified and properly certified. 

In the past, federal judges have blocked abortion bans and kept abortion clinic doors open. One might ask, are state regulations actually beneficial if abortion clinics fail to meet these standards and are aided in this negligence by court rulings? If left to the free market, rather than court rulings, would JWHO still be open? Even more, are abortion facilities helping or harming women? 

In recent news, Missouri may become the first abortion free state after the state Department of Health has refused to renew a St. Louis Planned Parenthood’s license. The state Department of Health has declared this abortion facility unfit to be licensed yet, pro-choice activists are labeling this loss tragic, bemoaning the this incredible afront to their rights, and screaming that the legislature must remove themselves from their uteruses.

It almost seems as if pro-choice activists are blind to the discrepancy posed between the abortion industry’s claims of championing women’s rights and their apparent inability to meet minimal standards of safety, health, and overall patient care. It is simply impossible to uphold women’s rights and simultaneously treat women who are seeking help with blatant negligence. Why isn’t this fundamental truth more obvious? 

Mississippi is viewed as ground zero in the nation’s battle over abortion. There is no other state in which this discrepancy is more apparent. In the 2016 documentary, Jackson, Diane Derzis was quoted saying, “This [tragic story] is a direct result of the Mississippi legislature trying so desperately to outlaw abortion while ignoring the health of pregnant women.”

One might pose the question to Derzis, does the problem fall upon Mississippi legislature, or does it fall upon you and abortion facility owners like you? 

What if the issue is really that abortion facilities are praised for manipulating women into their doors, with empty empowerment about autonomy and choice, and harming them for the sake of monetary gain? In 2017 there were 2,594 abortion procedures performed at JWHO. On JWHO’s website, it states that abortion procedure fees range from $600-$800. Therefore, a conservative estimate would calculate that JWHO earns over $1.5million a year.

In contrast, the CPC is a nonprofit organization that offers free services and strives to offer true empowerment and education concerning all the lifegiving choices a woman really has. If pro-choice activists believe so vehemently in choice, why have they created a society that so often views abortion as the only choice? 

In light of this invaluable information, we can arm ourselves with the truth and question widespread information that is presented as irrefutable truth. We can arm ourselves with the truth that pregnancy resource centers, like the CPC, are dedicated to walking alongside women from the first pregnancy test to long after birth, offering free services, counseling, and physical support.

Pregnancy resource centers, across the country, are the true safe havens for women – helping women who feel as if abortion is their only option, instead of harming them. 

We can arm ourselves with the truth that abortion facilities, like JWHO, operate under a pretense of empowerment, feminism, and healthcare; but, in reality, fail to meet even minimal standards of safety, health, and overall patient care.

The abortion industry is nothing but a poorly disguised agenda of monetary gain and manipulation – an industry that harms women who feel as if abortion is their only option, instead of helping them. 

A newly tenured professor at Ole Miss has a message for his students and it has little to do with wishing them luck in the upcoming school year.   

James Thomas, an assistant professor of sociology at Ole Miss otherwise known as InsurgentProf, took to Twitter Tuesday night to share his thoughts regarding President Trump’s rally in Greenville, North Carolina. Thomas described millennials who support the president as “modern day Hitlerjugend” and declared that “any and every humanities and behavioral/social science teacher has an obligation to put these racist remarks in proper context.”  

That’s awfully strange rhetoric for a professor who teaches at a university where a large portion of the student population identifies as conservative, even if the leadership and most professors don’t share that view.

While Thomas’ rhetoric may seem like standard fare for the everyday woke leftist of 2019, Thomas has a long history of inflammatory statements regarding conservatives. The most notable of which was last year when he called for liberal activists not just to disrupt the meals of Republican lawmakers but rather to “put your whole fingers in their salads. Take their apps and distribute them to the other diners.”

Though Thomas is free to have his views, as I’m sure they’re shared by many staff members in his department, Thomas now finds himself in the upper echelon of academia with his recent accomplishment of reaching tenured status. While outspoken and at times brash, Thomas isn’t the problem with Ole Miss. He is merely a symptom of the larger academic culture of the university itself. 

Ole Miss has become so dedicated to the ideals of fabricated diversity, identity politics, and social justice, it celebrates and advances professors like Thomas to the highest levels of the university power structure. Would an equally dedicated conservative professor enjoy the same opportunities of advancement?.  

It’s important to remember that it wasn’t too long ago that well-respected, Oxford businessman Ed Meek was forced to sacrifice his $5 million donation to the university and suffer harm to his professional reputation after making social media comments that were deemed politically incorrect and generally “problematic” by the established academic class of leadership in Oxford.  

Considering that people like Thomas put such an emphasis on “equal justice,” it’s odd that Thomas’ comments weren’t  met with the same strong condemnation by his peers. In fact, one might call it hypocritical – assuming one were not worried about energizing the thought/speech police of the progressive movement.

Ole Miss is at an inflection point and needs now, more than ever, to return to foundational basics. 

This starts by encouraging an environment where opinions contrary to Professor Thomas, or any other academic ideologue, are welcomed – even encouraged – as long as such opinions are delivered in respectful and responsible ways. It starts by encouraging true diversity of thought and reasoned debate that comes from the academic tradition of the scientific pursuit of truth. It starts by emphasizing a culture which prioritizes assertive citizenship participation on issues rather than demonstrations of outrage. It starts by recognizing the value of each individual within the university rather than focusing on the rights of a collective group

The University of Mississippi has an opportunity to reclaim its former position as the preeminent academy for a classical, liberal arts education  in the state and in the South. It wasn’t so long ago that people like William F. Buckley, Jr. came to Oxford to host nationally televised, Socratic debates between the nation’s best thinkers of the left and right. 

If we don’t move back toward the center, we may slowly disintegrate into the University of Nowhere.

The nation’s largest teachers union has adopted a new policy affirming a fundamental right to abortion, while rejecting the idea that student learning should be a priority of the union.

At their recent convention, the National Education Association, of which the Mississippi Association of Educators is an affiliate, affirmed a new business item that reads:

“The NEA will include an assertion of our defense of a person’s right to control their own body, especially for women, youth, and sexually marginalized people. The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade.”

This is a sharp change from prior years when they attempted to walk more of a middle ground, saying they support “reproduction freedom,” not abortion, while bragging about not spending money in regards to pro-abortion legal services.

As we have seen with the left, abortion has moved from “safe, legal, and rare,” to legal until the moment of birth and funded by taxpayers. And if you disagree with that you are evil, anti-woman, and essentially support violence against women. 

But the bigger question is, is it necessary for the NEA, or its affiliates, to take a position on abortion? NEA is certainly a left-wing organization, that has never been in doubt. But, what does abortion have to do with education or teachers? 

One might presume a rejected item that calls for a renewed emphasis on quality education would be more in line with the NEA. That read:

“The National Education Association will re-dedicate itself to the pursuit of increased student learning in every public school in America by putting a renewed emphasis on quality education. NEA will make student learning the priority of the Association. NEA will not waiver in its commitment to student learning by adopting the following lens through which we will assess every NEA program and initiative: How does the proposed action promote the development of students as lifelong reflective learners?”

But, alas, the union rejected those ideas. 

According to the most recent data available from the union, the NEA has just 4,561 members in Mississippi, compared to over 54,000 in Alabama. The numbers in Mississippi show a 5 percent drop in the past five years. 

If you’ve had an opportunity to check the news recently, you might have noticed a lot a talk about Ole Miss. And we’re not talking about their latest purchase of $4,500 trash cans. Though, that certainly should raise a few eyebrows. 

It has now been roughly 230 or so days since Jeffrey Vitter announced his resignation as Chancellor of the University of Mississippi, making him the first person ever to resign his post, and in turn triggering a leadership vacuum.  

With the departure, both state and local media have spent a great deal of time talking about who is in the hunt for the chancellorship. Yet not much has been written or said about what the candidates want to achieve.   

The question the IHL, students, alumni, and facility should be asking those who seek the chancellorship is not what’s on their resume but what does their Ole Miss look like?  

The university finds itself at a critical juncture – between the solidification of the progressive academic movement, centered on political correctness and multiculturalism, that has dominated the school for the last few years –and the real kind of progress in terms of academic rigor and freedom, diversity of thought and speech, citizenship, enrollment, and culture.   

Going into this next academic year, Ole Miss will no longer be under NCAA sanctions, will be entering into its second year of being in the top half of one percent of research institutions, and will still be healing from the wounds inflicted by the demonstrations (related to Confederate monuments) which took place last April.  

If any man or woman earnestly seeks to carry this office with the style, grace, acumen, humility, and effectiveness of former chancellors, then that potential leader should be communicating a bold plan for the future of Ole Miss. Such a plan should not include following the modern script of the edutocracy. Today’s academies of higher education suffer from many self-imposed wounds. America is losing faith in the value of sending its next generation of civic and business leaders to college. Reversing that dangerous trend is going to require someone with a clear vison but also with the intestinal fortitude to withstand the slings and arrows of the higher education establishment.

The university needs now, more than ever, a chancellor who holds a deep reverence for the school’s traditions and institutions as well as the opinions of its students and alumni. This chancellor will need to possess practical ideas for turning around declining enrollment, for increasing the number of in-state students, for strengthening academic programs across the board, and for creating an environment where free expression is preserved and cherished. 

Ole Miss has the potential to be far greater than a mere punchline in the jokes made by the state’s political class. All it really needs is strong leadership. We’ve been there before. But strong leadership is in such short supply, especially if that leader is also required to bring terminal degrees and a publishing pedigree. 

The search of the next chancellor isn’t just about whether the IHL picks someone who is qualified. There is no shortage of well-credentialed, academic administration careerists. I’m sure the list of qualified candidates is long and distinguished.

The most important qualification right now should be about a candidate’s vision for Ole Miss. What can it become? What should its graduates know? What principals and ideas underpin the institution in such a way that a degree is unmistakably valuable and unique? The people of the state of Mississippi, the alumni, the faculty, the students, and even the world, await the results of this incredibly important hire. 

So what will Ole Miss become? 

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.