close

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.

New York made headlines recently for passing legislation that will legalize abortion to the moment of birth.

The New York state Senate voted 38-24 in favor of the “Reproductive Health Act” last week. This bill has passed the state Senate before but has failed to pass the Assembly in past years. This time, the Assembly passed RHA 92-47.

Press and social media have been in outraged battles over the passage of this state legislation. The implications of this law have shaken up the entire nation.

In Mississippi, it has triggered an influx of volunteer applications and donations to pregnancy help centers from appalled Mississippians across the state.

The cleverly named “Reproductive Health Care Act” is horrific and unconscionable.

This law has five major consequences that should incite fear and disgust in us all:

Most level-headed Americans are appalled at these changes to the New York penal code. Sadly, abortion has only been limited in the third trimester in 43 of our 50 states prior to this legislative session.

What took America over the edge was New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo calling for the entire state to celebrate following his signing of the bill into law. He called for One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit in pink, exalting the decision.

Cuomo, who is Catholic, maintains his support of the law despite pending talks of his excommunication from the Catholic Church for violating fundamental beliefs of his own faith. In defense of his unjustifiable actions, he stated, “I’m not here to represent a religion.”

Any decent human can understand the humanity of a child in the third trimester no matter race, religion, or creed.

In an attempt to one-up Cuomo, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam advocated that post-birth abortions ought to be allowed in his state. He voiced support of a bill in his state allowing abortion up to the moment of birth even if the baby was born alive by accident.

A baby born alive would be “kept comfortable” and only “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.” If a mother did not want the child born alive, that baby would be left to die a slow and painful death at a medical facility with medical professionals present.

Fortunately, that bill was defeated in committee.

In our state, Mississippi Center for Public Policy advocated a bill last year that banned abortion after 15 weeks gestation. It was halted 30 minutes after Gov. Phil Bryant signed it into legislation by a temporary block. In November, activist District Judge Carlton Reeves blocked the law. Mississippi has not given up Bryant’s dream of making Mississippi the “safest place for an unborn child in America.” The 5th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals will be next to hear the case.

As the law stands, abortion is legal up to 20 weeks gestation in Mississippi.

Mississippi is listed as one of four “trigger law states” that will almost immediately ban abortion if the 1973 decision of Roe vs. Wade is reversed. The abortion lobby is working creatively to prevent states from limiting or banning abortion at any level.

Mississippi may be in far better shape than states like New York or Virginia, but we must remain vigilant in defending our state’s right to rule in defense of preborn children.

Someone has to stand for the life of the preborn while the left crowns the “right to choose” as more valuable than life itself.

There are many things we can do to lift up all children. And we don't need to sacrifice our own children to make that happen.

In a recent NBC Think article, author Noah Berlatsky reflected on Mississippi State University (MSU) Assistant Professor Margaret Hagerman’s new book “White Kids: Growing Up with Privilege in a Racially Divided America.” Berlatsky opens with the conflicting pride he felt when his child lobbied his private secondary school to recognize Columbus Day as Native People’s Day because the school should not celebrate “white imperialism.” (His son’s effort was successful.)

Ignore for a moment that Columbus Day is a celebration of human achievement, global trade, and multiculturalism that has been celebrated for more than a century, including in multiple Latin American, non-white countries. Ignore also that instead of educating the student on the rich tradition of this holiday, the school wasted time accommodating an uninformed child’s protest about a holiday he clearly doesn’t understand.

Held up to any scrutiny, this situation is absurd, but not more absurd than Berlatsky’s reflections on it. Berlatsky is conflicted because, while he is proud of his child’s “anti-racist activism,” he feels shame for his white privilege affording his child an education at an expensive private school where school administrators take such activism seriously. In his view, this exemplifies the much larger problem of structural racism. He then explores the MSU professor’s book.

How About Help the Needy Instead of Hurting Children?

One of the many lazy assertions in this book is that even anti-racist white parents “actively reproduce inequality” by not spending enough time discussing racism with their children and by giving their children books whose characters happen to be white. There is no end to the left’s shaming of people who have done nothing more than teach their kids to be good people to the best of their ability.

Berlatsky has done nothing wrong, and unlike Hagerman suggests, Noah has not actively reproduced racism. On the contrary, his son obviously demonstrated his awareness and opposition of racism at a young age. In an attempt to appease his ideological possession, Noah brainstorms over possible lifestyles choices that might mitigate his child’s privilege footprint.

He pulls from Hagerman’s book: “Everyone is trying to do the best for their kid,” she says. “But I actually think that there are times when maybe the best interest of your own kid isn’t actually the best choice. Ultimately, being a good citizen sometimes conflicts with being good parents. And sometimes maybe parents should decide to be good citizens over being good parents.”

Berlatsky mulls over a few examples of this. “That could mean voting to raise taxes so to better fund public schools. Maybe in our case it should have meant choosing a public school rather than a private one.”

This Isn’t Only Stupid, But Evil

It’s incoherent, at best, to imply that worse parents make better citizens. While white liberals ponder the various ways they should have neglected their kids to appease “oppressed groups,” I and many other millennials reject this ideological disease.

I am a young, half-white mother and wife who has seen the expansion of the radical left politically correct culture since I was in elementary school. When Gillette is lecturing you about how to behave, you know things have gone too far. The only result of this decades-long Marxist campaign is more outrage at good people.

According to many on the left, I am supposed to teach my son of the repressive nature of his existence as he develops. I am to tell him at every turn to sacrifice himself to others for the transgression of being himself. This thinking is not only intellectually pitiful, but also profoundly evil.

How About Some More Constructive Responses

The smallest minority is the individual. I reject the notion that my son’s value is determined by his skin color, sex, or life circumstance. I look forward to teaching my son about self-discovery. I want to see him develop his talents and learn to appreciate the talents of his peers. I want him to feel the joy of hard work and achievement, and to admire the qualities of others in a society that appreciates individuals.

If we raise our children to appreciate individualism, then we will end all the various flavors of collectivism, from racism to white privilege. Teaching our children about the horrors of imperialism, slavery, and racism is critical. However, there is no greater good to be gained by sacrificing the quality of my child’s education or economic circumstance.

To maximize the quality of each child’s path to quality education, economic prosperity, and social well-being, I propose a few different policy points. School choice, not mandated-by-ZIP code education, will give children the propensity to thrive. Rather than blame individuals who move to a highly rated school district or make them feel guilty for choosing to send their child to a private school, open the door to more students to do the same.

Eliminating barriers to economic progress, such as excessive licensing, will create a world of jobs for entrepreneurs, especially low-income entrepreneurs. While licensing was once limited to areas that most believe deserve licensing, such as medical professionals, lawyers, and teachers, this practice has greatly expanded over the past five decades.

In my home state of Mississippi, approximately 19 percent of workers need a license to earn a living. This includes everything from a shampooer, who must receive 1,500 clock hours of education, to a fire alarm installer, who must pay more than $1,000 in fees to become licensed. In total, there are 66 low- to middle-income occupations that are licensed in Mississippi. Similar stories exist is every state, yet the outcomes are the same: higher cost for consumers and less opportunity for entrepreneurs.

Finally, promoting, or at the very least not discouraging, marriage will lead to more intact families and the benefits that surround it.  The success sequence––graduate from high school, obtain employment, and get married before having children––has long been debated, but it is undeniable from numerous points of view that following these (not so simple) steps will put an individual, and a family, on the path to prosperity.

This, of course, will require a cultural response, similar to anti-smoking campaigns, as much as a government response. Unfortunately, too few people seem interested in taking up the cause of marriage, despite it being the leading cause of inequality in American children’s lives.

I want what is best for my son, and I will do what it takes to make that happen, no matter the political trends. And that is the best thing we can do for a better society.

This column appeared in The Federalist on January 30, 2019.

As many prepare for end-of-year charitable contributions, data from the Internal Revenue Service continues to show Mississippi as one of the most charitable states in the country.

According to the IRS, some 250,000 Mississippians took an itemized deduction for charitable giving last year. The average deduction in the Magnolia State was $7,135. This is the 12th highest average in the country.

The top five charitable states were Wyoming ($12,991), Arkansas ($10,935), Utah ($10,165), South Dakota ($10,020), and Tennessee ($8,644).

Along with two of Mississippi’s neighbors coming in the top five nationally, Alabama placed ninth at $7,543 per contribution and Louisiana was 18th at $6,646 per contribution.

The five least charitable states were Rhode Island ($3,354), Maine ($3,643), Hawaii ($4,112), New Jersey ($4,326), and Wisconsin ($4,391).

As a note, this isn’t necessarily total amount of giving, but the total amount that eligible taxpayers deducted on their income taxes in 2016. A donation that was made but not reported on tax filings would not be counted in this report.

And as the standard deduction will be increased because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that passed last year, it is assumed that far fewer individuals and families will itemize their deductions this year. That will impact tax filings, but what effect it has on actual charitable giving remains to be seen.

Today, abortions are occurring less often in America than they have at any time since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states in 1973.

Laws on legal abortion vary from state to state, with Mississippi setting the limit to abortion at 20 weeks gestation. The state’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks has come to a pause as it fights its battle in the courts.

Despite the temporary setback, recent Center for Disease Control reports on abortion rates have brought good news to those on the pro-life side of this issue.

The CDC’s 2015 report indicates a downward trend in abortions since their climax in the 1980s. In 2015, the United States experienced 638,169 abortions. This is a two percent drop from 2014 data. In Mississippi, abortion percentages reflect this trend.

Hinds County, home to the only abortion clinic in the state, ranked first in abortion rates. But, it saw a drop from 23.2 percent to 20.7 percent of pregnancies ending in abortion. Still, one in seven pregnancies ending in abortion in Hinds, Rankin, and Madison counties is nothing to celebrate.

However, it is worth investigating what is causing this downward trend—especially if we want it to continue. One correlation is the rising number of pregnancy centers.

Charlotte Lozier Institute’s 2018 Pregnancy Center Report showed that an estimated two million people received free services at pregnancy centers this year. These pregnancy centers operate as private nonprofits and ministries with an estimated 67,400 volunteers including 7,500 licensed medical professionals. And they have saved American taxpayers an estimated $161 million.

Nationally, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates had a huge 2018 Supreme Court victory that saved the longevity of these centers from state legislatures who would rather see them shut down. In Mississippi, we can claim over 40 pregnancy centers and clinics. The largest pregnancy medical clinic in the state is The Center for Pregnancy Choices-Metro Area, with two locations in Jackson. These pregnancy centers offer pregnancy tests, sonograms, supplies, referrals for adoption and medical needs, counseling, and parenting classes as some of their services.

The pro-abortion lobby frequently targets pregnancy centers that save taxpayers millions and offer compassionate, free services to women facing unplanned pregnancies. “Fake Clinic” is the branded name given to pregnancy centers by the pro-abortion community. In our state’s capitol, “Fake Clinic” signs and fliers have littered our streets with the hope of swaying women against attending their appointments with The CPC. Instead, patient numbers have increased at metro area clinics. And ninety-four percent of patients leave reporting full satisfaction from their visit. Not one patient has reported a poor experience on exiting surveys.

One wonders if a government agency ever received such phenomenal reviews.

The numbers speak volumes. The free market is handling the subject of unplanned pregnancies far better than any government agency. The private donors, volunteers, and pregnancy center employees of Mississippi are driving solutions to end abortion in our state.

Anja Baker is a Contributing Fellow for Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

We can learn many wonderful lessons from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. But more than that, it is something families with young children have enjoyed for generations.

On the Day after Thanksgiving, my wife, my three boys, and I sat down to watch the classic holiday movie, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Since that time, the boys have asked me to read the original book each night before bedtime. And I’m pretty sure they’ve asked their mamma to read it a time or two during the day.

Unbeknownst to me, I was apparently subjecting my children to levels of sexism, racism, homophobia, and bullying that may never be repaired. And you can go ahead and add any other phobias or “isms” that diligent, gender studies majors busy themselves discovering and warning the rest of us about.

Yes, Rudolph is the latest subject of our outrage culture. It seems there are more and more people who live their lives to be outraged. But this outrage seems quite the stretch.

As you probably know by now, this is not a joke, but an actual argument from Huffington Post. While most of America is laughing at the outrage, there are some who literally wake up each morning, scour the latest news, and then find something about which to be offended by. And then they write about it. And outlets like Huffington Post publish it

What is the goal? To bring down what you and I love? To shame the traditions people grew up with or the pastimes that make us feel good? If someone wants to be outraged by something, anything, they can be. They simply pick something, add an “ism” to it, and the story is written. However, in this case the story is really an attack on something families have enjoyed together for generations – a classic holiday tale. Personally, I don’t think it’s by accident.

These attacks are not isolated to Rudolph, and this won’t be the last time. When this passes, there will be something else in our culture to petition.

In this case, as is becoming the norm with the social outrage crowd, the attack doesn’t even make sense. Spoiler alert, the previously outcast misfit toys end the reign of terror brought on by the Abominable Snow Monster. Rudolph, the formerly shunned kid with unique qualities, saves Christmas and becomes the hero. The minority characters who were previously neglected and unfairly treated, are welcomed into the community and the lonely misfit toys are given loving homes.

Social justice is delivered by the acts of individuals seeking their place in the world and discovering the usefulness of their own individual blessings and others coming to recognize those gifts. No, there were no transgendered reindeer. Mrs. Donner doesn’t attend feminists book studies with Mrs. Claus. And the elves didn’t create a union and force members to pay mandatory dues. But the classic movie does teach a wonderfully “woke” story about the value of life and how we all have purpose in this world, even if it takes us, or our neighbors, a while to understand it.

Some people will never be happy. But whether it is something serious or a movie about a reindeer with a red nose, we should never give in to this authoritarian mob seeking to find offense with every tradition some may hold dear. With this mob, no concession will ever be enough.

I’m reminded of another classic children’s story in which the author warns, “if you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll just ask for a glass of milk.”

There is income inequality in America, but it is dictated by individual choices. Just three life choices can define if one will be trapped in a life of poverty or if they will be on a path to prosperity.

For years conservatives, and some liberals, have been advocating for what has been labeled the success sequence. On the surface it’s relatively simple, and there are some variations, but it generally looks like this: Graduate from high school, obtain employment, get married, and then have children only after you are married.

More people than ever are graduating from high school, though that may also be due to a decreasing of standards. Job prospects vary depending on the economy of the day, and where you live, but right now jobs are plentiful. But as we know, it is the second half of the equation – getting married and waiting until you are married to have children – that appears to be a little more difficult. And with dire results.

In the 1960s, as our country embarked on the Great Society and implemented social welfare programs in the name of combating poverty, out-of-wedlock births stood at less than 5 percent nationwide. That percentage had remained stagnant going back to the 1920s. But since the 1960s, it has spiked to over 40 percent.

In Mississippi, the latest numbers show 53.2 percent of children born in the state are to unwed mothers. Though that is slightly better than the 54 percent mark in 2014.

Why does this matter?

Well, here is what the data shows.

Of the lowest fifth earners in our country, those with an income range of up to $24,638:

Of the top fifth, those who earn more than $126,855:

Many things in life can dictate one’s income. Fortunately, when it comes to graduating high school, working, and getting married before children, each individual can control what path he or she takes.

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram