Over the past year, everything shut down—almost everything. Abortion was deemed essential, and Mississippi’s sole abortion facility remained open. Any time abortion is available in Mississippi, the Center for Pregnancy Choices Metro Area remains even more available with free resources.

With abortions averaging sixty per week in our Fondren community, we know there is an urgent demand for the needs that come from unexpected pregnancies. For every woman who has searched for abortion out of fear and uncertainty and instead found hope and life-changing support from a community that cares, CPC Metro Area is essential. 

We have the freedom to do so in Mississippi. Yet, these free and confidential services, unfortunately, are being threatened. 

For over 32 years, CPC Metro Area has offered free material, emotional, and spiritual support to women facing pregnancy decisions. Their staff walks women through pregnancy tests, offers options counseling for parenting, adoption, and abortion, and gives women the opportunity to have free sonograms. Materially, they offer free diapers, clothes, prenatal vitamins, and other parenting supplies at our clinics. 

Their local partner churches host single mothers’ support groups, throw baby showers and establish long-term communities for young families. They are committed to facing unplanned pregnancies alongside women. They maintain relationships with them from their first call to long after a child is born. 

For women who do choose abortion, they offer confidential abortion recovery groups. While they are a life-affirming ministry, they offer hope to women wherever they are without judgment or condemnation. Jackson’s CPC locations are the largest pregnancy medical clinics in the state, with one of their two clinic locations 100 yards from Jackson’s abortion facility. They represent a variety of resources offered by nearly 40 pregnancy centers spread across the state. 

So why would anyone want to threaten its existence in our community?

The newly established Biden administration has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as head of the U.S Health and Human Services. In 2018, the same Becerra challenged pregnancy centers in a landmark Supreme Court case, NIFLA v Becerra. Thankfully, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, representing pregnancy centers, won at the Supreme Court. The potential HHS leader has already established a strong desire to stifle the speech and existence of pregnancy centers and their free services. 

In the name of “choice,” Becerra appears dead-set on removing the choices of parenting or adoption support from our local communities. 

Women continue to face unexpected pregnancies but with the added financial, emotional, and medical hardships we all have faced in the last year. They continue to find pregnancy centers online for help. CPC Metro Area is funded by local churches and individuals, divorced from any government agency backing, yet this administration seems adamant about limiting their services. 

Service-oriented nonprofit costs have increased and many anticipate increasing needs in 2021. This free-market approach exceeds the normal state agency rates of success at a much lower cost. We need them to remain in our city and throughout our state. 

This is the practical response to the demand for abortion in Mississppi. 

Whether seasons of elections, policy changes, social movements, or pandemics hit the borders of Mississippi, CPC Metro Area will fight to be here. If you would like to join hundreds of Mississippians interested in saving lives today, learn more about their upcoming LifeWalk here. 

Our response as Mississippians is clear—we must focus on practical solutions today rather than place our hope in politicians’ plans for tomorrow. Make your voice heard to keep free speech and freedom of association for abortion alternatives in our community.

As a high school student, Selina Soule was thrust onto a national stage.

Why? Because she dared to speak the truth.

A Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference policy allows male athletes who identify as girls to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams. During Selina’s four years in high school, that policy resulted in two biological males winning 15 women’s state championship titles in track and field—titles that were previously held by 9 different girls. Within just three years, girls across the state were denied over 85 chances to compete in elite athletic competitions.

Selina was one of those girls.

Clearly, this policy isn’t fair. Men and women are different—and those differences matter, particularly in athletes. A majority of Americans agree. 77 percent of likely voters from swing states oppose male athletes competing in women’s sports. 79 percent of Mississippi voters, in particular, support a state law prohibiting male athletes from competing in women’s sports. Indeed, even 74 percent of Californians support such a policy.

But no one was speaking up for Selina and the other female track athletes in Connecticut.

With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, she and three other high school girls filed a lawsuit against the state to help preserve a level playing field for female athletes.

Our Senior Vice President, Dr. Jameson Taylor, reached out to Selina and asked her to explain why she decided to take this stand.

How did you get involved in track and field?

I have been competing in track and field since my mom introduced me to it when I was a little girl. Track means everything to me. I would wake up every day and go to school, just waiting to get to the track, waiting to run, waiting to jump.

Connecticut allows boys who identify as girls to compete in girls’ sports. How did that impact your high school athletic experience?

During my four years of high school track and field in Connecticut, I was forced to compete against two male athletes who identified as girls. I would line up for my race and know the outcome before the gun even went off. Those two male athletes would dominate the field, and us girls were left competing for third place. No matter how hard we trained and how far we pushed ourselves, they beat us time and time again. It was frustrating, heartbreaking, and demoralizing.

I have lost countless opportunities over the past few years—opportunities to compete on world class tracks, to win titles, and to advance to the next level of competition. During my junior year, I was denied the chance to compete at the New England Regional Championship. I missed qualifying in the 55-meter dash by just two spots—two spots that were taken by biological males.

Why is it so important for girls and women to have separate sports teams?

Boys will always have a physical advantage over girls. That’s why we have women’s sports in the first place. Science and common sense show us that boys are, on average, stronger and faster than girls. So it’s fundamentally unfair to let male athletes come in and dominate girls’ sports.

Female athletes deserve the same opportunity as boys to excel and chase our dreams. But allowing male athletes to compete in girls’ sports shatters those dreams and takes away opportunities that so many of us have spent years working to obtain.

What do you hope to accomplish with this lawsuit?

This isn’t about self-expression; this is about our right—a woman’s right—to win.

I want to make sure that young girls don’t have to face the same pain that I felt throughout my four years of high school. I worry how many college recruiters, who only have a limited number of scholarships and slots on college track teams to award, will skip over the names of other female athletes and only look at the name at the top of those results—a name that belongs to a biological male athlete.

And if changes aren’t made soon, we are facing the complete eradication of women’s sports.

Fortunately, Mississippi lawmakers are taking a stand to protect girls and women like Selina. Senate Bill 2536, known as The Fairness Act, would ensure public schools and universities protect the integrity of female sports by designating teams based on biological sex. Sponsored by Sen. Angela HIll, this bill has passed the Senate and will soon come up for a vote in the Mississippi House. The bill must pass by March 10.

***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***

Contact: Hunter Estes, [email protected]

Breaking: Senate Votes to Pass Fairness Act, Protect Female Sports

Senate Bill 2536 would require public school, university, and community college teams to be designated as either male, female or coed, as based on biological sex.

The bill is sponsored by state Sen. Angela Hill (R-Picayune) and has 21 cosponsors.

Polling of registered Mississippi voters shows that 79 percent support such legislation. The poll revealed that a state law to prohibit biological males from competing on female-only teams has broad support across political demographics: 87 percent of Republicans support the legislation, along with 83 percent of Independents and 65 percent of Democrats.

“Mississippians are breathing a sigh of relief now that Mississippi’s senators have voted overwhelmingly to protect the rights of girls and women who engage in competitive athletics,” stated MCPP Executive Vice President, Lesley Davis.

She continued, “Unlike what is happening in other states, our girls’ and women’s’ records will not be shattered by biological males competing against females. Women deserve to compete on a level playing field. Allowing males to compete in women’s sports destroys fair competition and women’s athletic opportunities.

“Mississippi owes a debt of gratitude to those in the Senate who stepped up and supported this legislation. We are especially grateful to Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann for his strong leadership and Senators Rita Potts Parks, John Polk, and Angela Hill. We also thank Speaker Philip Gunn, Rep. Becky Currie, Rep. Stacey Hobgood-Wilkes, and Rep. C. Scott Bounds for signaling their support in the House. Mississippi’s female athletes and future female athletes thank you.”

Three high school girls who run track in Connecticut filed a lawsuit last year challenging a policy of allowing male athletes to compete against girls. The three — Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell — have been beaten consistently in track meets by a pair of transgender athletes born as males. 

The lawsuit says the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s rules allowing transgender athletes to compete with girls poses a threat to Title IX because of physiological differences between men and women after puberty. Boys and men have more muscle mass and larger lungs and hearts and thus have the capacity to run faster and jump farther than most girls and women.

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funds. The law, passed in 1972, has led to a massive growth in the number of athletic opportunities for women. The NCCA currently allows member schools to set their own policies in this area, with the condition that a biological male competing on a women’s team must undergo at least one year of testosterone suppression. Several studies suggest, however, that even after a year of such treatment biological males enjoy a physical advantage over their biologically female peers.

MCPP’s Executive Vice President for Public Policy, Lesley Davis, is available for comments or interviews. Please contact Hunter Estes ([email protected]) with all requests.

***END***

Given the cultural revolution in which we currently find ourselves, it should not be surprising that we are having debates over the once-obvious question of whether it is fair for biological males to compete against biological females in sports. Senator Angela Hill (R., Picayune) is leading the charge in Mississippi to protect the civil rights of our girls and women to compete in female sports by sponsoring Senate Bill 2536.  Entitled the Fairness Act, this bill would ensure that only biological females compete on public school girls’ sports teams in our state.

This issue is of particular importance to me because many years ago, I was an athlete. I played four sports growing up, and I started my freshman year on the women’s basketball team at Mississippi State University. My high school basketball team was nationally ranked and finished first in Mississippi my junior year and second my senior year. We routinely practiced against our school’s varsity boys’ team, which had nowhere near our record or ranking, in order to improve our skills. 

Despite our being at the top of our game in high school women’s sports with an All-American player and numerous others who went on to play college ball, the boys’ team handily beat us every time. Most of their starters could dunk a basketball. None of us on the girls’ team could.

Even now, no one makes a serious claim that biological boys/men in their natural state do not have a natural athletic advantage over biological women. Allyson Felix is probably the fastest female sprinter in the world, holding more records than Usain Bolt. Her best time for the 400 meter is 49.26 seconds, but just in 2017, that time was beaten over 15,000 times by boys and men. In other words, thousands and thousands of male athletes ran better than the fastest woman in the world.

Similar lopsided results occur in tennis. Venus and Serena Williams once boasted they could beat any male tennis player ranked outside the TOP 200.  In 1998, a male ranked 203^rd took them up on their wager and handily beat them both decisively, 6-1 over Serena and 6-2 over Venus. What if we never knew of a Serena and Venus Williams because they never had the space to compete and advance to the top of their sport?

As a little girl, I was inspired by the few female athletes that were featured prominently, females such as Coach Pat Head Summit, Cheryl Miller, Jackie-Joyner Kersey, Florence (Flo Jo) Griffith Joyner, and Chris Everett, and Martina Navratilova.  Fortunately, a lot has changed in female sports since I played.  For one, back in the ‘80’s, only our parents, high school coaches, friends, and boyfriends sparsely filled Humphrey Coliseum to watch our games. Today, at least prior to COVID, you can hardly get a ticket to the Mississippi State University Women’s home basketball games. In fact, the facility attendance record was recently set and is held by the MSU women’s team.

The incredible growth in women’s sports over the past almost 50 years has been in part the result of the enactment of Title IX in 1972, a federal law specifically designed to create equal opportunities and access for females in education and athletics.

Before Title IX, an estimated 3 percent of girls in America participated in sports; today, about two in five (more than 40 percent) of girls play sports. The number of women playing college sports has increased by more than 600 percent. The impact Title IX has had on young girls and adult female athletes is immeasurable.  I for one am incredibly grateful for the added confidence, perseverance, work ethic, leadership skills, teamwork, and countless other life lessons sports gave me. It is not a coincidence that 98 percent of female CEOs played competitive sports. Competitive athletic experiences for young women carry over into their professional lives.

Yet, all of this hard-fought progress women have made in athletics could be eroded if our state lawmakers fail to ensure that our girls have a level playing field. This issue has been thrust into the limelight by the transgender rights campaign that is sweeping our nation.

Over the last few years in Connecticut, for instance, two biological males who had never distinguished themselves when competing on male track teams came to identify as girls/women. They were allowed to join their respective schools’ girls’ track teams and compete in track meets against biological girls. It should come as no surprise that they dominated girls’ track by winning 15 state championships, in the process stripping away 85 opportunities for biological females to advance to higher levels in girls’ track. Along the way, they broke 17 girls’ state track records, records no girl will likely ever get close to.

I have compassion for trans athletes’ struggles, and I understand their desire to compete in sports. Yet, we can’t pit one group against the other. We must be able to have honest, biology-based discussions on the matter without name-calling, fear of being cancelled, and without assuming evil motives of those with whom we disagree. 

Too many today are afraid to state the obvious: that male-bodied athletes competing with biological women put females at an inherent and fundamentally unfair competitive disadvantage. We must not be forced to dismiss these most basic biological facts so as to bend the knee to a fashionable social revolution. We must not be afraid to state what is so clearly true: that this revolution will almost certainly destroy many of the gains of female athletes over the past 50 years.

Trans athletes’ desire to compete in sports must not come at the expense of women’s rights to compete, to be safe, and to win. When we ignore the undeniable biological advantage that males have over females, girls are harmed, harmed by the loss of medals and trophies, loss of records, loss of podium spots, and loss of college recruitment and scholarships, not to mention what, for some women, are quite lucrative sports-related careers. In what are referred to as “power sports,” girls have been and will be severely physically harmed.  To use one of the favorite phrases of the left, where are the “safe spaces” for young girls and women? Where is the concern for their physical and mental health and the character development that comes from competition?

Physicians like Michelle Cretella have been stating the obvious, that men and women are profoundly genetically different, and that no hormone therapy or body-altering surgery can reverse these biological changes. “[M]en and women have—at a minimum—6,500 genetic differences between us.  And this impacts every cell of our bodies—our organ systems, how diseases manifest, how we diagnose, and even treat in some cases.”

Fortunately, at least for now, most Americans see past the claims of today’s cultural revolutionaries and hold on to the science that dictates that biological men and women are profoundly physically different, even after hormone treatment.  They can also see where women’s sports will be in the years to come, if girls and women’s sports are not protected. Polling last year in ten battle-ground states on this issue revealed that 75 percent of those polled were against biological males competing in female sports.  Additionally, recent polling in Mississippi by Mason-Dixon demonstrated that 79 percent of Mississippi voters support legislation like Senator Hill’s. This includes the support of 87 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Democrats, and 83 percent of independents.

So where does this leave Mississippi girls and women athletes? We cannot look to Washington to protect the civil rights of these young girls and women in Mississippi. Mississippi is one of only ten states that has no policy addressing the participation of biological male athletes in girls’ high school sports. Some of the track-running high school girls from Connecticut have filed suit in a case that is expected to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their case is strengthened by laws in any states that have been enacted to protect women’s sports.

As a woman and former athlete, I am grateful to Senator Hill for her leadership on this matter, despite the inevitable and vicious attacks that will come from the revolutionaries on the Left who do not desire to solve the problem together. Mississippians need to know that, if passed, The Fairness Act will protect the young girls and women in our state.  We as a nation and a state have made too much progress for women’s rights over many decades to now watch it all be taken away.

Lesley Andress Davis the Executive Vice President of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

A bill in the Mississippi legislature would require sports teams at the state’s public schools, universities, and community colleges to be designated only for one biological sex.

Senate Bill 2536 would require any public school, university, or community college team to be either designated for those of one biological sex or the other (in addition to an exception for co-ed teams).

The legislation also has a clause that would allow any student who reports a violation of the law and is retaliated against by the school or other athletic association to have the right to injunctive relief and damages. 

Another would allow a student whose bodily privacy was violated to have the same rights.

The bill is sponsored by state Sen. Angela Hill (R-Picayune).

Recent polling suggests that 79% of all Mississippians support such legislation. The same poll also revealed that the bill has broad support across political demographics. 87% of Republicans support the legislation along with 83% of Independents and 65% of Democrats.

While there have not been any cases of those born as males competing against girls in Mississippi, the issue has become a nationwide one as 16 states allow transgender high school athletes to compete without restrictions. 

Three high school girls who run track in Connecticut filed a lawsuit last year to challenge Connecticut’s policy of allowing male athletes to compete with girls in sports. They are represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The three — Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell — have been beaten consistently in track meets by a pair of transgender athletes born as males. 

The lawsuit says the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s rules allowing transgender athletes to compete with girls poses a threat to Title IX because of physiological differences between men and women after puberty. Boys and men have more muscle mass and thus have the capacity to run faster and jump farther than most girls and women.

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funds. The law, which was passed in 1972, has led to a massive growth in the number of number of athletic opportunities for women. According to the NCAA, the number of female athletes in in 1982 was 74,239. By 2019, that number grew to 221,042, an increase of 197 percent.

Mississippi is one of only ten states that has no policies toward male athletes competing against females.

In November, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Tennesee may prohibit eugenic abortions of preborn children based on race, sex, or genetic abnormality. This summer, Governor Bill Lee signed an omnibus pro-life bill with a variety of additions to abortion law.  Several abortion advocacy groups immediately filed emergency lawsuits, and District Judge William Campbell temporarily blocked the restrictions from taking effect.

Among the several conditions Governor Lee signed into law, not every limitation is active. Some restrictions will still be challenged in court. However, a ban on discriminatory abortions on the basis of race, sex, and genetic abnormality is now active law. Mississippi celebrates our neighbors to the North joining us in correcting this discriminatory practice. 

Mississippi passed The Life Equality Act (HB 1295) this summer, making Mississippi one of the nation’s leaders in the protection of life. This bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Crawford (R- Pass Christian), and the Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Jenifer Branning (R- Philadelphia) — two powerful female voices for the most vulnerable in our state. 

The bill's first step was made possible by Rep. Nick Bain's ( R-Corinth) leadership during the House committee vote. Sen. Brice Wiggins (R- Pascagoula) led the Senate committee vote, advocated for boldly by Sen. Joey Filingane (R-Sumrall) before the Judiciary B committee. Sen. Jeremey England (R- Ocean Springs) took to social media for this critical piece of legislation, “I believe it is of the utmost importance that our laws are applied equally and that they provide equal protection of our God-given rights.”

The Mississippi House Members who co-sponsored the bill alongside Rep. Crawford were Rep. Brady Williamson, Rep. Steve Hopkins, Rep. Stacey Hobgood-Wilkes, Rep. Lester Carpenter, Rep. William Tracy Arnold, Rep. Dana Criswell, Rep. Donnie Scoggin, Rep. Dana McLean, Rep. Chris Brown (20th), Rep. Dan Eubanks, Rep. Shane Barnett, Rep. Jansen Owen, Rep. Gene Newman, and Rep. Randy Boyd. 

The law signed into effect by Governor Tate Reeves prevents abortions from taking place because of diagnoses like Down Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis. Even in non-fatal cases, as many as 67 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted in the United States. Respectively, an estimated 95 percent of babies given a prenatal diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis are aborted. Increasingly, evidence displays the presence of abortions taking place when families prefer male babies to female. Just as devastating, pregnancy decisions are sometimes made on the basis of the race of the child. This bill makes a strong stand against the taking of a preborn life due to prejudice. Mississippi has made it illegal for abortionists to knowingly carry out discriminatory abortion, with criminal penalties. 

What does this mean for Mississippi?

With more states joining the movement to end discriminatory abortions each year, many legal experts anticipate these limitations soon moving to the US Supreme Court. This will be a groundbreaking case to follow because it may set the precedent on states’ abilities to restrict abortion before the age of viability when there is a proven state interest in providing protection to minority groups. This case, in turn, could call into question previous rulings across the courts of America. Tennessee and Mississippi will be strong allies calling to question—do states have the right to protect those being discriminated against, whether in the womb or outside of it?

It’s a question I hear a lot. Conservatives usually support sweeping tax cuts and lower regulations for corporations, so many people are confused as to why these businesses seem to oppose conservative politicians. Progressives often get riled at the mere thought of the question; after all, so much of left wing ideology is devoted to limiting the power of business interests.

And yet, corporations at least seem to be liberal. Big businesses regularly host diversity seminars, publicize their support for LGBT acceptance movements, and, as of recently, some have started openly supporting race-based affirmative action and backing left-wing social movements such as Black Lives Matter. There is no equivalent outreach to conservative movements from big business. So, are large corporations truly “progressive”? Have the CEOs of America’s largest companies become committed supporters of social justice and the redistribution of wealth?

No, of course not. When we see big businesses in America show support for traditionally liberal causes, it is all a cost-benefit calculation. Supporting liberal social causes—particularly identity politics—is the most reliable way to attract young, urban customers with little risk to their bottom line.

This summer, McDonald’s tweeted its support for the Black Lives Matter movement and “social justice.” Yet, the McDonald’s branch in Azerbaijan has tweeted support for the suppression of ethnic Armenians in their disputed homeland. Google fired an employee for expressing conservative-leaning views on gender roles—after he was asked for his opinion on the issue. Yet, Google has enthusiastically aided China, an authoritarian dictatorship, in creating a censored search engine.

Examples like this show us that, when practical, countless corporations will abandon liberal principles to aid their bottom line. The defining interests of corporations continues to be making money, so this should not be too surprising.

But why does big business support progressive causes in the first place?

Corporations want consumers. They want talented employees. But a sufficiently large corporation wants cultural relevance as well; they want the trendsetters and the well-connected to both buy from them and work for them. Corporate America has calculated that that cultural relevance is centered in coastal, liberal, and urban areas. They have calculated that the “cool” people live in big cities, not the rest of America. And in response, they publicize support for causes that they believe to be more popular in those areas rather than in the Bible Belt or Middle America.

Arguably more important is to look at the issues that big business entities are not supporting: $15 minimum wages, increased taxes on the wealthy, etc.; corporations remain silent on issues that could actually lose them money. But identity politics, increased immigration, and LGBT acceptance all offer perceived potential monetary, social, and cultural gains, so naturally those just happened to be the issues that many corporations engage with and promote.

In a warped sense, big business is killing two birds with one stone. Not only do they ignore progressive policies that could hurt their profits, but by indulging in liberal causes that do them no harm—identity politics in particular—they could very well be distracting young liberals and leftists from opposing big business or seeking action on bottom line-threatening policies in the first place.

A liberal focused on gay marriage is less likely to be a liberal focused on regulating big business. A socialist focused on “people of color” is a socialist not focused on the working class as a whole. In an ironic twist, corporations acting “liberal” might end up hurting the radical left more than anyone else. So let us not be surprised when we find out that when businesses extoll liberal views, it is still just a business decision.

Ty Usey is a senior at Jackson Preparatory School.  He is interested in economics, engineering, and he participates in cross country, chess team, and quiz bowl.

Every year, the 2,700 pregnancy resource centers in America serve women in the midst of an unexpected pregnancy. They offer medical, material, emotional, and spiritual resources for women and men facing a decision about their pregnancy. These centers walk with women and their families from the first pregnancy test to long after the baby’s birth. 

Last month’s release of Charlotte Lozier Institute’s Pregnancy Center Services Report revealed stunning findings about these local non-profits. 

Nationwide in 2019, pregnancy centers served local communities with: 

• Nearly 732,000 pregnancy tests
• Over 486,000 free ultrasounds
• 160,200 STI tests
• Nearly 1.3 million packs of diapers
• Over two million baby outfits
• More than 291,000 clients attended parenting and prenatal education programs
• More than 21,000 clients received after-abortion support
• More than 881,000 students attended sexual risk avoidance education presentation

In Mississippi, we have nearly 40 pregnancy centers dispersed throughout the state. 

These centers offer their services completely free to their communities. They are loosely banded together with national network partners like Heartbeat International and CareNet. This decentralized movement of free service clinics and centers include the assistance of nearly 69,000 staff and volunteers, with 78 percent of them being volunteers. Over 10,000 of these staff and volunteers are licensed medical workers.

It is estimated that pregnancy resource centers saved American taxpayers $270 million in 2019.

The vast majority of pregnancy centers receive no government funding whatsoever. Despite not having the support of government agencies and grants, pregnancy centers are extremely efficient at distributing goods and services according to the needs of their cities and counties. 

One of The CPC Metro Area’s two clinics can be found 100 yards from the state’s last abortion facility in Jackson. Inside, you can find a sonogram machine donated by an evangelical non-profit. This allows women considering abortion to view their child on a big screen, funded by local donors, for free. 

The waiting room and counseling rooms are filled with donated brand new furniture, the hallways lined with art donated by local artists. 

The clinic is kept cool and warm by a donated HVAC system. 

Medical and administrative staff and supplies are solely funded by churches and individuals from the greater metro area. 

The free prenatal vitamins are covered by a local pharmacist. 

The sonograms reviewed by radiologists who donate their time and expertise. 

An OBGYN compassionately offers expertise as a medical director. 

The single moms’ support groups are hosted by some of the nearly 100 local church partners, and baby and maternity supplies rush in so quickly, storage can barely be maintained. 

Even the Center’s websites, graphic design, and video production is given as free talent and time from local professionals. This is just one of the three dozen PRCs Mississippians support by their own accord. 

When left to coordinate needs with resources freely, it’s amazing what this spontaneous assortment of non-profit centers can accomplish. 

Enrollment at Ole Miss is down for the fourth year in a row according to new data from the Institutions of Higher Learning. 

Ole Miss had an enrollment of 18,668 for the fall of 2020, compared to 19,421 last year. This represents a drop of 3.9 percent. When the University of Mississippi Medical Center enrollment is included, total enrollment for the University of Mississippi system increases to 21,676, but that is still down 2.7 percent from last year. 

Total enrollment for Mississippi’s eight public universities is 77,154, down from 77,894 a year ago. That represents a continued trend more than a newfound fear because of a virus, indicating that families aren’t particularly worried about sending their children to college. From 2018 to 2019, enrollment dropped by about 1.5 percent. 

Enrollment is up at two universities in the state. Mississippi State saw an increase of 3.4 percent to 22,986. (Mississippi State is now larger than the total University of Mississippi enrollment.) The University of South Mississippi saw an increase of 3.3 percent to 14,606. 

The five other public universities each experienced declines, some more dramatic than others. Delta State lost more than 20 percent of its students, a decline of more than 700 on the campus that now has fewer than 3,000 students and is no longer the fifth largest university in the state.

* Includes both the University of Mississippi and UMMC. 

Mississippi Valley State University remains the smallest university in the state at 2,032 students after seeing enrollment decline by 5.4 percent this year.