“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.

In 1925, a group of mothers came together, committed to commemorating their sons who had tragically been lost in the blood bath that was World War I. To this end, they organized the community, fundraised, and erected the “Peace Cross” in Bladensburg, Maryland with the assistance of the, non-religious, American Legion.

Today, nearly 95 years later, some are claiming that this cross cannot remain on public land, as it represents an establishment of religion by the state. On February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of The American Legion v. The American Humanist Association. The Court will soon release its important decision, which may set a precedent for the future existence of memorials around the United States.

It is worth noting that the land and statue were initially owned and cared for by the American Legion, before being taken over by the state. Since 1961, the state of Maryland has cared for the statue and land. Thus, the interpretation of the Establishment Clause pushed forward by the American Humanist Association is ahistorical and fails to account for the precedent of Supreme Court cases, which have previously granted the continued existence of similar memorials. This includes Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry. First, the state did not originally erect the memorial, and second, the intention of the memorializers was to put up a symbol of peace, in the way they best knew, and so they turned to the cross.

The American conception of the First Amendment does not necessitate societal freedom from religion, but rather freedom of religion. What makes America unique is that, unlike many European societies, the United States has consistently reestablished not only the freedom to private conscience, but the freedom of public expression of one’s faith.

In this guarantee, our Constitution ensures that the American people are allowed to publicly display their religious beliefs. The mothers of Bladensburg and the American Legion practiced this public expression in their establishment of this monument to the 49 fallen soldiers. And in entrusting this monument to the state, did not intend for the state to make a public establishment of the Christian religion, but rather intended for the enduring memorialization of America’s involvement in World War I, and the citizens that it lost in that war.

The implications of this case are significant, and will have a wide ranging impact on the state of memorialization and religious expression in the United States.

Where will the line will be drawn in regards to monuments and memorials if the Supreme Court takes the side of the Humanist Association? If one takes a walk through Arlington National Cemetery, a number of monuments will be seen that bear the shape of crosses, and the Star of David. All around the country there are crosses that adorn battlefields and town squares. Will all these be torn down?

Far from state establishment of religion, these markers commemorate those who have given their lives for this country, citizens who gave all in defense of the rights and liberties every American should retain.

How confused is a citizenry that  insists the memorials of yesterday must be torn from the ground and uprooted?

If nothing else, we ought to respect the dead, and especially those who served the nation in combat and died in battle, enough to commemorate them in the way chosen by the families of the fallen. That is a fundamental American liberty, the right of religious freedom, and it is enshrined in our Constitution. Let’s hope the U.S. Supreme Court does not let The American Humanist Association put that asunder.

The United States Senate blocked the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Monday. All but three Senate Democrats voted against the measure, preventing its passage with 53 in favor and 44 opposed. The Act needed 60 votes to proceed.

The bill would have punished doctors who failed to provide medical care to infants accidently born alive in failed abortion attempts. Late term abortions are committed in at least 7 states across America. Recently, New York became one of the most radical pro-abortion states in the US.

Upon learning of this legislation, many wonder what is so controversial about protecting the lives of babies born alive in a medical setting.

Senate Democrats and the abortion lobby contend that the Act is simply a ploy to shame women seeking third trimester abortions. President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Leana Wen, said in her statement, “This legislation is based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.”

For people like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, surviving failed abortion attempts is a reality. In Melissa’s case, she was left to die by medical staff and only spared because of the actions of kind NICU nurses. Recently, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam advocated for babies accidently born alive to be “kept comfortable” while they await their death. To be clear, babies left to die after failed abortions die of starvation, cold body temperatures, and oxygen deprivation.

Doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath by not caring for born alive babies must be held accountable. As the left argues that infanticide is already illegal, they seem to be confusing themselves on whether or not leaving babies to die is infanticide or not. Bill author Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) argues that we need to make the penalty for this circumstance that doesoccur in reality abundantly clear for the medical community.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called the proposed legislation “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family.” If outlining the punishment for neglecting infants born alive is anti-doctor, anti-woman, and anti-family, America should buckle its bootstraps in preparation for more horrific and backwards abortion legislation.

The truth is, many on the left do not value any unwanted human being if it can be called reproductive rights and gleaned for political points. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) exposes their actual thought process for blocking the act: “…Women, in consultation with their families and doctors, are in the best position to determine their best course of care.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D- NH) claimed the legislation “would interfere with the doctor–patient relationship and impose new obstacles to a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.”

Their statements have pointed out that they actually do approve of post-birth infanticide if it is “neatly” decided between a woman and her doctor.

Dressing up infanticide with political buzzwords and phrases doesn’t change what it is—a doctor’s approval and aid in facilitating the death of a newborn child.

Hate is back in style but that’s no thanks to those who extol it. Those making their living from it are the ones truly prospering.

The conservative viewpoint on hate is that it is morally wrong to endorse any ideology that seeks to deprive an individual of his or her God-given right to life and liberty. And just as this extends to Neo-Nazis, it also extends to those who advocate for the deprivation of rights for anyone who presents ideas which oppose their own.

Liberals, progressive academics, and much of the mainstream media see this quite differently. When you understand how much of their wealth, power, and influence comes from a monopoly on outrage, it should come as no surprise.

American liberalism now abides by three principles. The first, if you do not demand groups which oppose progressivism be dismantled by the state or vigilantes granted special privilege by the state, you are complicit. Next, if you do not see people who hate as enemies of the state, only to be dispelled by force either provided by the state or vigilantes granted special privilege by the state, you are an enabler. Finally, if you do not participate in the crowdsourcing of outrage culture, which provides the foundation of the Hatred Industrial Complex, you are racist/homophobic/xenophobic/sexist and bigoted. Because the list of names a liberty-minded conservative can be called grows daily, I’m sure I missed a few.

Any violation of these three principles can lead you to be named as part of the irredeemable class, ineligible to work or live in this society. And this is true regardless of your ideology. After decades of educating academics who go on to train the permanent class of bureaucrats in government, progressives have finally gotten what they have longed for. No, not a world without hate, but a cultural super weapon which can be deployed to destroy anyone who challenges their power.

Progressive ideology cannot exist in a world based on the equality granted through objective judgements of character. It can only exist in a world where the permanent government class and the academics have the power to force their ideological opponents into submission. On the rare occasion the super weapon fails, progressives can quietly encourage people to stage inauthentic crimes of a bigoted nature to force through policies by crowdsourcing online outrage or through the vast network granted to them by political professionals and their allies in much of the national media.

The list of manufactured outrage from social stagecraft is long and distinguished.  From actor Jussie Smollett’s recently staged homophobic attack to Jackie Coakley’s erroneous report that a University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi engaged in her gang rape during initiation rites to Nick Sandamann’s media crucifixion for smiling,  and to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s attempted show trail, the left’s Kabuki theatre game is strong.

But, do you remember the 2014 racist incident at Oberlin College in which the faculty were fully aware the events were staged by students so that they could force through diversity programs? What about the arson of an African American church defaced with pro-Trump graffiti in Greenville, which turned out to have been perpetrated by one of the members? Don’t forget about the Episcopal church in Indiana, which was defaced in a false flag attempt. These serve as a few of the hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of examples of fake stories distributed by mainstream media to invoke outrage. In most cases, the invalidated stories were later quietly disregarded because the truth does not matter to people who seek to control our opinions and viewpoints.

Each of these “false flag” incidents under the guise of defeating hate, was carried out as an effort to make liberty-minded conservatives in America guilty by association.

The people in the Hatred Industrial Complex, whether members of mainstream media, academic progressives, or government careerist, despise the things you and I hold dear. They’re disgusted that you love your country or your spouse. They resent your respect for foundational ideas like natural rights and a constitution written to preserve those principals. They hate that you and I believe in God and have the temerity to associate with others who value religious liberty. The people in the HIC believe they know best and they aren’t interested in hearing your dissent, especially if it emanates from a rural town or a red state.  Unless you agree that America is a fundamentally unjust place with only victims and victimizers, we must spend trillions to save the planet from climate catastrophe, and capitalism is the root of all evil, you’re seen as an obstacle to progressive utopia. What exactly does this utopia look like? I’m not sure but I know it’s a place where the HIC can keep lining their pockets and leveraging their power.

Without a concerted effort by every liberty-minded conservative to limit the Hatred Industrial Complex, those who truly are the legitimate victims of crimes motivated by bias will no longer have the capacity to pursue justice. The very foundation of equality and justice under the law will be eroded and eventually destroyed.  If we don’t put up a fight for the real American values, truth will be lost to the theater of the outrageous.

If outrage soon becomes the policy currency, most of us are going to wind up being flat broke.

Both the State Senate and House have passed legislation that prohibits the abortion of an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat. Gov. Phil Bryant is standing ready to sign the bill into law once lingering differences have been settled.

This bill comes in the wake of the recent and shocking New York legislation, along with similar legislation concerning late term and post birth abortion.

If the heartbeat bill becomes law, the only way to obtain an abortion after the heartbeat is detected would be when medical emergencies, the life of the mother or loss of major bodily function, necessitate. The bill also stipulates that the Mississippi State Board of Health is to regulate the appropriate methods for performing an examination to detect the fetal heartbeat.

Furthermore, any physician who does perform an abortion procedure without first detecting a fetal heartbeat will be subject to license revocation or disciplinary action. The ramifications of this bill are far reaching on both sides of the debate.

Bryant, a fervent defender of life, has stated that an unborn child is a human being and he/she have rights bestowed upon them. When questioned about the recent legislation in New York, along with other states, he commented that he hopes that these blatant attempts to grow a culture of death will shock people into realizing just how horrific this movement has become and motivate action. It appears that this just might be true.

The states of Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee are also attempting to pass versions of a heartbeat bill and enforce stricter abortion laws.

Naturally, abortion proponents will do all they can to stop this.

This is not simply a political debate; it is a deeply personal one. Pregnancy centers around the nation, including the Center for Pregnancy Choices in Jackson, witness the powerful testimonies of women choosing life after hearing or seeing their baby’s heartbeat. As someone who has personally heard the accounts of such women, I can attest that it is a tender and life-altering moment.

“We see lives changed when women are able to connect with their baby through sonogram images, Erin Kate Goode, the executive director of CPC, stated. The CPC has seen this truth reflected in so many of its client’s journeys.

One expectant mother who visited CPC said, “Once I got my free sonogram, I fell in love with my baby, and I knew right away I wanted to keep her.”

“I saw my little bitty baby,” another former patient said, “I saw its heartbeat. I did my nervous laugh, attempting to hold back my tears, as I watched my tiny baby jump and dance around. That’s when I knew that I was going to do this, whatever it took.”

While the debate is considered from every angle, the same truth emerges; an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat is a life.

The heartbeat bill only reinforces what medical science has known all along, a heartbeat is not only an indication of a viable pregnancy, it is intrinsically bonded with life. It is with hope that we witness life beginning to win and it is with pride that we know Mississippi is a pioneer of the movement to value every heartbeat.

Many people are still wondering what the future holds in Oxford.

It’s been three months since Jeff Vitter announced he would leave his role as Chancellor of the University of Mississippi, leaving behind a legacy which could best be described as tattered.

A tenure marred by declining enrollment, the prohibition of the playing Dixie at football games, the removal of the state flag from university property, and NCAA sanctions could leave little to the imagination as to why people seemed to always be asking, “What’s going on at Ole Miss?”

In Vitter’s departure, both conservative and progressive students who were displeased with his leadership rejoiced in the notion that the university could restore its stature. Yet to date nothing has changed.

Larry Sparks, who took over as Chancellor following Vitter’s resignation, has indicated that the extent of his interest in the role extends only to keeping the seat warm for whomever the Institutions for Higher Learning selects. But it still remains unclear as to who that may be.

The question Ole Miss grapples in the selection of its leadership is one which has consistently been asked throughout all actions undertaken by the university: What exactly is Ole Miss and what does it want to become?

If you were to ask students and alumni, the vast majority would say they treasure Ole Miss as a bastion of southern heritage and tradition, seeking its preservation for future generations to enjoy. However, if you were to ask university faculty that sentiment would rarely be echoed, if at all. It is this disconnect which has led Ole Miss to where it finds itself today.

A faculty comprised of out-of-state academics which insist it undertake self-flagellation in repentance for existing in a place which high minded costal liberals deem reprehensible cannot coexist with the interests of those the university is meant to serve. It is with this knowledge that Vitter built the legacy which would eventually destroy him, acting to intentionally subvert democracy under the pretext that any change presented with indignation is inherently good.

The nature of all organizations is that those who are held responsible for its decisions are held responsible for its culture. When the organization is one which has a mission to serve, the culture should exist in service of the values and interests of its constituents.

For Ole Miss to find a chancellor who can properly serve the community is one who can understand a clear definition of Ole Miss and remain committed to its values. The next leader doesn’t necessarily have to be from Mississippi, but he or she definitely can’t be against Mississippi and expect to lead successfully.

Ole Miss finds itself at a moment of definition where it may move beyond its fatigue and capitalize on its potential as a university to attract and retain world class talent to Mississippi.

The last two Chancellors at Ole Miss have left much to be desired before an early departure from their roles. All eyes will be on the next leader, because a large contingent of the Ole Miss faithful know the school is on very thin ice today.

The question, “What are you doing?” propelled Twitter from a small Silicon Valley startup to one of the most influential social media companies in the world – at least for the one in twelve Americans on Twitter.

Lauded over by the news media as a convenient prop to introduce what on its face would seem like an impartial cross section of America, all metrics indicate that Twitter has been struggling to maintain its foothold in an increasingly volatile digital climate.

So why do we care so much about Twitter? The blue checkmarks giving us our news do. While only roughly eight percent of Americans use Twitter, it wouldn’t be hyperbolic to suggest that 100 percent of those in the news media do.

If you were to look at recent data, Twitter’s market share has dwindled to a mere 24 percent of adults. Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat, meanwhile, are continuing to expand their presence beyond that of the microblogging service. Twitter explains their decline in market share as the byproduct of a changing landscape, however it is worth noting that Twitter has changed a considerable amount itself.

The platform was once hailed as a revolutionary device that would topple authoritarians and usher in an era of global free speech. Now, it has turned into a carefully curated echo chamber where the most minor of utterances can translate into the complete destruction of someone’s personal life, if not become national news.

In the fall of 2013, data showed Twitter was the most popular social media platform for teenagers in the United States. For those who used and later disregarded the service five years ago, not much thought could be attributed to their past tweets.

However, if they were to pursue a sport professionally or a life in outward facing public service then there is a very real possibility that something they posted erroneously could become national news.

Those entering into the social media market for the first time know this well and are less likely to expose themselves to outward risk as platforms less prone to gaffe, such as Snapchat and Instagram, gain foothold. In short Twitter is no longer the platform of the Arab Spring, it is the Twitter of Kyler Murray and lest we forget, Covington Catholic.

When an entire industry in part relies on a service which represents a waning eight percent of the population as a demonstration of widespread American sentiment and in turn treating every action as a premeditated statement, the message becomes disconnected from common thought and is perhaps why the media has such difficulty connecting with the values of middle America.

Twitter from all indications is not dead, in fact it is far from it. Yet we have so commonly accepted Twitter being presented as a cross section of our nation’s public understanding that we have become, in a word, hypnotized by statements which come to us in 280 characters or less. The prerogative of concise communication is that it may deliver maximum impact. On Twitter this manifests itself in wit overpowering fact and outrage before process.

The advice I would give to those spending too much time on Twitter is to take a moment and experience the world, it’s far kinder than it seems.