close

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.

Graduating from high school, obtaining employment, and getting married before having children is still the best path out of poverty.

A recent essay in the New York Times tells the story of a life in poverty. This same story could be told of countless individuals in Mississippi.

Unfortunately, something that could be productive for a larger discussion misses that mark. Under the headline, “Americans want to believe jobs are the solution to poverty. They’re not,” we learn about the struggles of Vanessa Solivan, a home health aide in New Jersey.

Vanessa is a single-mom with three children. As a home health aide, she makes between $10 and $14 per hour. She works part-time, between 20 and 30 hours a week. If we took the average of both those numbers, 25 hours a week at $12 an hour, Vanessa would make a little more than $15,000 a year. Even with the Earned Income Tax Credit, before other welfare programs, she would only be bringing in about $20,000 per year.

No one would argue that is not enough to live on, particularly with three kids. Though, Vanessa’s story isn’t quite aligned with the headline.

Full-time jobs, and a two-parent household, are the solution to poverty; not single-parents with part-time jobs

Why is Vanessa only working part-time? She wants to work more hours but can’t. Several years ago, during the Obamacare debate, Republicans rightly were arguing that these new requirements will only encourage employers to prefer part-time workers. We often talk about the law of unintended consequences when it comes to government policy, but this was a consequence you didn’t need a public policy degree in order to predict. But policy makers just chose to ignore it. Or they blamed business owners for the terrible sin of “worrying about their bottom line.”

If Vanessa were working full-time, her income would be closer to $30,000, roughly a third more income to make her household budget a little more manageable.

While there is certainly nobility in working in healthcare, if Vanessa had a better K-12 education than most who grow up in poverty, could she have been better prepared for a more sustainable career path? Perhaps if she had had access to a voucher, tax credit scholarship, or a charter school, her career would have gone in a different direction and she would have a higher income today. But alas, to most on the left, the path to better public education outcomes will only come from spending more money, despite decades of evidence to the contrary

And what about the fathers of Vanessa’s three children? One is dead from a gunshot wound after spending time in prison. The others provide occasional support, but nothing of substance. Unfortunately, this is a story that is very common in America today. Since the 1960s, when our country adopted most welfare programs in the name of a “Great Society,” out-of-wedlock birth rates have gone from about 5 percent to over 40 percent. In Mississippi, it’s 53 percent.

And disastrous results have followed

According to newly released Census data, only 17 percent of the lowest fifth income earners, those who make less than $25,000, are married. Conversely, 76 percent of the highest fifth, those with an income above $125,000, are married.

Now, if Vanessa had followed what conservatives refer to as the “success sequence,” and obtained employment and got married before having children, the New York Times writer would have had quite a different story. Even if we assume she is working the same job, and her husband enjoyed a comparable salary, the couple would be making about $48,000 per year working full-time.

The underlying message in a story like this from the New York Times is that the economy does not work for everyone. Jobs aren’t the answer. No one is dismissing the plight of those who struggle. But simply providing more welfare benefits will not move Vanessa, or others like her, off this generational cycle of poverty.

Rather, it starts with smart policy, like the Hope Act that Mississippi adopted in 2017, modeled after 1990s era “welfare-to-work” reforms. The new law requires able-bodied individuals without dependents to obtain employment or job training to continue receiving food stamps. And the path up the economic ladder includes the work of churches, non-profits, and the private sector reaching out and providing a helping hand in ways that only they can.

Those who start out in poverty certainly start out further behind. But we know there are paths to a better future. The problem is that the government, unfortunately, is usually more of a barricade than a guiding light on that path to more prosperity and opportunity.

This column appeared in the Madison County Journal on September 20, 2018. 

The Family First Initiative Summit, hosted by Governor Phil Bryant, First Lady Deborah Bryant and Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Dawn Beam, was recently held to bring together leaders across the state to work together to address the problems created by multigenerational family breakdown. In welcoming attendees, Gov. Bryant affirmed that Mississippi is already being recognized as a leader among states in reunifying families and helping children in crisis.

Part of the solution is an innovative public-private partnership between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Families First for Mississippi, a Mississippi-based nonprofit. The aim of the partnership is to provide wraparound services – whether it be job training or family counseling – that helps families get back on their feet. The goal of the summit was to create a network to expand these services and help Mississippi families. As Dr. John Damon, CEO of the Mississippi-based nonprofit Canopy Children’s Solutions put it, “If families get just a little bit of help, they can make it.”

Longtime supporters will know that MCPP has played a significant policy role in helping strengthen Mississippi families, overseeing passage of a gold-standard welfare-to-work reform and, this past session, helping pass a tax credit for donations to nonprofits who work with children in crisis, children with special needs, and low-income families. We are proud to continue to partner with the Governor and the First Lady in creating a Better Mississippi.

Pregnancy centers in Mississippi are providing free support and services for women that will eliminate the demand for abortion, regardless of any new rulings from the Supreme Court.

It is a wonderful time to be a pro-life Mississippian. It’s an even greater time to be a pro-life Mississippian with passion for free markets. The Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area, with two Jackson locations, is a force to be reckoned with for our state’s abortion industry.

In fact, the Fondren and Frontage Road centers may just be the thing that makes Mississippi the first abortion-free state in the nation.

Supreme Court’s latest decision on pregnancy centers brought us closer to that reality than ever

If it were not for the Supreme Court rulings of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton, Mississippi would likely already be free from the requirement of legal abortion. Time and time again, abortion laws have passed our state legislature, often with the tireless work of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, only to be halted by activist judges, and ruled as “undue burden” in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The “undue burden” that halts the courts from ruling in favor of our state’s wishes refers to women needing to leave the state to find doctors who will commit abortions. It takes time to overturn court decisions, pass legislation, and see court seat changes.

The Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area isn’t willing to wait for court processes to end abortion in our state. Private donors, churches, and local community groups fund free services that wipe out the demand for abortion far before the courts catch up to the conscious of Mississippi residents. With one lone abortion facility in our state, Jackson Women’s Health is standing on one leg.

The death of over 2,500 Mississippi babies annually takes place in the famous “pink house” in Fondren. Nearly half of the women obtaining abortions are from Hinds, Madison, and Rankin Counties. To put that in perspective, 1 in 7 pregnancies end in abortion in the tri-county area. Despite being a pro-life state, despite our overwhelmingly pro-life legislature, and despite our Bible belt reputation, abortion remains a reality for thousands of women in our state.

This is where The Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area penetrates the market—with compassion and practical care

The CPC Metro Area offers medical-quality pregnancy tests, high-quality sonograms, counseling, literature, parenting classes, referrals to community services, infant supplies, and prenatal vitamins for free. Conversely, the JWHO abortion facility charges hundreds of dollars for consultations, sonograms, and counseling all pointed towards their highest profit product: abortion. They do not offer support for women desiring to carry their pregnancies to term. Under the banner of “choice,” women often enter and leave JWHO feeling as though abortion is their only choice.

The nurses and staff of The Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area journey alongside pregnant women of all ages, races, and backgrounds to ensure they are informed of all resources available to them. A woman who enters the CPC Metro Area is counseled by a trained professional to hear her story and educate according to her needs. She will then receive a free sonogram, where she will be able to see her baby. She will leave with prenatal vitamins and literature to help make her decision. This woman can return or call back for help at any time she needs to be heard. Following her decision to carry to term, she can enroll in free parenting classes to prepare for her unplanned parenting experience and receive supplies such as diapers and clothes as incentive for participating. Following her decision to abort, she may still return for post abortive healing sessions with a group Bible study.

When a woman learns that there are ways to meet the needs of her unplanned pregnancy, she often feels the relief of not having to go to the pink house across the street. Instead, the entire staff celebrates her, her pregnancy, and her child.

Heavy, burdensome regulations threatened the freedom of pregnancy centers like The CPC Metro Area around the nation

The narrow 5-4 NIFLA vs. Becerra decision to protect the rights of charitable pregnancy centers is monumental. The law in question placed burdens on pregnancy centers that would force their staffs to betray their own conscience and offer confusing, conflicting information. Pregnancy resource clinics would have been mandated to include information on how to obtain abortions and, if not medically licensed, required to display a lengthy disclaimer in several languages that they do not employ medical professionals.

These charitable organizations, that save states millions of dollars with their non-governmental services, were to be treated as “fake clinics” with ulterior motives. Imagine visiting a salad bar and noticing mandated advertising of the burger joint next door. This is the world the “pro-choice” community wanted for pregnancy options. Instead, the court ruled that it was indeed the right of the pregnancy centers to offer their free services without the burden of intrusive advertisement regulation.

With Justice Kennedy’s seat pending for confirmation, many Americans are hopeful that the courts will catch up to the desires of states to determine their own conscious on abortion legality. In the meantime, the Center for Pregnancy Choices- Metro Area will be here, in Jackson, meeting the real needs of Mississippi women.

English statesman William Wilberforce and his Clapham Sect that started the movement to end the slave trade believed that culture is upstream from politics. Mississippi, the Hospitality State, the most philanthropic state in the nation, and arguably the most pro-life state in the nation, is that culture shift. We will rise up and meet the needs of women beyond the date that politics catches wind of our success.

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court issued perhaps its most important opinion of this term in a case called Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling struck a blow for tolerance in America.

That last sentence will come as a surprise to my liberal friends.

A little background if you haven’t heard of the case: In Masterpiece, the plaintiff was Jack Phillips, an expert cake baker and devout Christian. For years Jack ran his store, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and made elaborate, beautiful cakes for weddings and other special occasions. His cakes are works of art. If you don’t believe me, visit his website, masterpiececakes.com, to see for yourself.

In 2012, two gay customers entered Jack’s store and asked Jack to design and bake a cake for their same-sex wedding. Jack said he would gladly bake a cake for the two of them for any other reason, but his religious convictions prevented him from baking a cake for a gay wedding. The couple then filed a discrimination complaint against Jack, claiming he violated a Colorado law which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jack showed that he had happily served gay customers before, and that he did not refuse to serve people based on their sexual orientation, but instead simply refused to participate in a ceremony that conflicted with his faith.

The State of Colorado found Jack in violation of the statute. During the hearing on the matter, Colorado officials compared Jack’s arguments to arguments for slavery and the Holocaust. The government ruled Jack had to reverse his store’s policy, and store employees had to undergo reeducation about the harm they had allegedly caused.

Jack decided he would not be steamrolled, though. He took the matter to court, arguing that Colorado had taken away his First Amendment rights. He endured years of public criticism for standing up for himself and his store. His case eventually wound its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Jack’s favor, 7 to 2.

The Court said Colorado acted in a hostile way during Jack’s hearing. They said Colorado was inconsistent, too. Colorado allowed gay cake bakers, for instance, to deny service to customers who wanted a message on a cake that was hostile to same-sex marriage. But when it came to Jack, Colorado insisted that he make cakes for gay weddings.

The Court made the right call when it ruled in Jack’s favor. The Court prevented a world where a black wedding photographer could be forced to take photos at the wedding of a white supremacist, or a Jewish cake baker could be forced to work for an anti-Semite. Artists shouldn’t be forced to speak messages that conflict with their views.

The case has a long list of other consequences, too, and some of them are local. Mississippi passed a bill not long ago called HB 1523, which protects the religious liberty rights of Mississippians who oppose same-sex marriage. HB 1523 already led to one lawsuit, which was thrown out, and I predict it will generate more litigation. While the Court in Masterpiece did not speak directly to a statute like ours, its statement that “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views” could help the state defend HB 1523.

The far more important consequence, though, is the signal this ruling sends to society. To be sure, Masterpiece involves an emotional issue for many. America is still a nation divided on the question of gay marriage. I have many close friends and even family who disagree with my views on the matter. Those disagreements have taken on an ugly form in the last few years. People of faith who have a particular understanding of marriage are called bigots and publicly shamed.

This volatile disagreement is just as much a product of a cultural divide as it is an ideological one. People feel that entertainers, media personalities, giant corporations (Bud Light even tells me to believe in gay marriage now), and others located in a few, elite zip codes enforce a code of beliefs, and if you violate the code on this issue, you may as well be a defender of Jim Crow. In short, people feel bulldozed over what they believe.

It can be hard to be a person of faith in such an environment. We must show others that a person can believe in traditional marriage and also believe all human beings have dignity and worth. But if you cannot convince them of that, you have to be willing to fight for your views.

For those of us willing to fight, we found help from an unexpected source this week: nine lawyers in robes in Washington, DC.

This column appeared in the Clarion Ledger on June 12, 2018. 

Like individual rights, the family as an institution preceded the institution of government.  History has shown that the type of family that is most beneficial to society—and to children—is the two-parent family that begins with marriage between a man and a woman.  An indispensable component of ordered societies, the family is where children are best taught character, honor, the importance of hard work, virtue, citizenship, and respect for authority. As the fundamental building block of society, the family’s prosperity is essential to the development, advancement, and continuation of society. When families are healthy, communities are healthy; when families deteriorate, communities deteriorate.  

All levels of government should protect this foundational unit.

Welfare programs initiated in the 1960s had the unintended consequence of devaluing the contribution of a father to the family—resulting in a sharp increase in female headed single-parent households. (For more on this, see Principle #6.) Those programs still favor unmarried couples over married ones. Another example of harmful policy is the “marriage penalty” in the federal tax code, which causes married couples to pay more in federal taxes than they would if they were single. (Fortunately, Mississippi no longer has a marriage penalty in our state’s tax code; exemptions and deductions for married couples are double those for singles. Still, married couples in Mississippi are affected by the federal penalty.)

Marriage is a relationship unlike any other between humans. Far more than a mere "contractual" arrangement, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. Because of its unique position, and because the stability of society is so indissolubly bonded to the stability of the institution of marriage, government does have a responsibility to protect it.

When it comes to raising children, government should not substitute its judgment on what constitutes the “best interest” of a child. Parents know their children best and can best understand what their family needs.  How can a bureaucrat or politician judge better than parents?  Only in unambiguous cases of habitual abuse or neglect should government step in. In cases that are so dangerous that a child must be removed from the home, the child should not be returned unless there is clear evidence the parents have radically changed their behavior.

Perhaps the most consistent way government interferes with the decisions of parents—especially in low and middle-income families—is by taking so much of their money that both parents are forced to work, even if they believe their children would be better served by having one parent at home. Ironically, the money taken by government is justified many times as being spent "for the children."

It is imperative that the type of family to be esteemed and taught as the ideal is the one based on traditional marriage. Government officials must carefully consider the long-term impact policies will have on the family and should do nothing that undermines or harms the traditional, marriage-based, two-parent family. When government officials understand this role, they will govern with humility and restraint.

This is an excerpt from Governing By Principle, MCPP's ten principles to guide public policy. 

View the article

Many free-market think tanks believe it is counter-productive for think tanks to engage in the culture wars. They think our time should be focused exclusively on policy research, legislative outreach, and legal action. And while those activities are important for limiting government and encouraging individual flourishing, we should also be engaged in the war taking place in our culture.

The reason culture wars are important is, while policy, political, and legal actions tend to be lagging indicators of what is happening in our society, culture is a leading indicator. Culture signals what people believe and what they value. Want to know where our world is headed? Don't look to the halls of Congress or the Mississippi Legislature. Politicians follow the lead of the masses. Instead, look to the most popular TV shows, movies, and sports stars. They are shaping how people think about what is morally right and fair.

Presently, the progressives (opponents of free markets and limited government) dominate discussion in the culture wars. If conservatives and libertarians fail to engage on culture, we will lose when it comes to policymaking and litigation down the road. The fight begins in the culture.

Fighting progressives in the culture wars is akin to weeding your garden. If you want to grow a beautiful flower, you need to feed it sun, water, and nutrients, but you also need to remove weeds. If left unattended, invasive weeds can grow stronger. If not pulled early, they can take root in the soil and begin to compete with your flower. Over time, weeds can steal the water, sunlight, and nutrients. They can become bigger, taller, and stronger than your precious flower. While we focus on nurturing the fragile flower of liberty, we also must fight the weeds of collectivism, liberalism, and progressivism.

I'm encouraged by the culture debate that took place in NFL stadiums about national anthems last year. While progressives have infected the arts, higher education, Hollywood, and news, we still have a chance to keep sports inoculated from the disease. Until recently, sports have maintained their status as a great unifier of people from different backgrounds. No matter our race, color, sex, age, country of origin, or political interests, we share a love for our teams. As NFL owners, players, ESPN, and ESPN's parent company, Disney, learned the hard way, sports consumers want their sports delivered free of social commentary and political opinion. If a consumer wants political analysis, there are plenty of other channels.

The NFL controversy was just a small skirmish in the larger culture war. There will continue to be social justice warriors who are constantly in search of a victim to protect. There will still be virtue signalers who want to show how compassionate they are but ignore the broader consequences of their actions. Folks will continue to do things like sit for a national anthem, for instance, even if it erodes a unifying, patriotic gesture that should be used to bring us together. But the NFL skirmish showed those with traditional values could win. There is a time and a place for rigorous debate about social policies. That time is not during the national anthem of our nation's sporting events. If nothing else, perhaps we preserved the joy of watching live sports delivered to our devices without political interruption. It remains to be seen how long the defense will hold, though. We must keep fighting.

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