Pre-K expansion has been one of the Left’s priorities for years, with many, such as former president Barrack Obama, being key advocates. 

Studies from some organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute, have found such government pre-K expansion programs to have little evidence of a large positive impact when children enter kindergarten. But many have persisted with the idea that the government is the best-equipped party to direct people’s lives at the earliest age possible. 

Pre-K expansion is on the horizon in Mississippi as well. On December 10, 2020, the University of Mississippi Center for Excellence in Literacy Instruction and Mississippi Campaign for Grade-Level Reading offered a virtual, statewide viewing of a new documentary called, Starting at Zero. 

This documentary focuses on the potential effectiveness of early, state-controlled pre-K programs. In addition, it entertains the question of whether there is a worthwhile return on investment on children participating in Head Start programs as early as possible, even “starting at zero.” This is a film that advocates for state-priorities to be in the lives of children from birth, featuring left-leaning leaders from across the country such as Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam.  

Unfortunately, the documentary also includes leaders with conservative reputations. But just because a strong conservative leader supports a policy, it does not always mean that the policy itself is conservative. 

In early 2020, the Mississippi Legislature PEER Committee issued a report that found that the state’s pre-K programs had little positive effect on the ultimate learning outcomes of children after pre-K. Despite these findings, former Governor Phil Bryant voiced his support in the documentary for this program of government involvement in children’s lives that starts at the earliest possible age.

Following the documentary showing, Ole Miss held a panel entertaining the merits of the documentary for Mississippi's education policy. On the panel were various state leaders and representatives of this movement to expand government oversight starting at birth: Willa Kammerer, the director of Starting at Zero; Tonya Ware, project director of ReadyNation in Mississippi; Rachel Canter, Executive Director of Mississippi First; Dr. Carey Wright, State Superintendent of Education in Mississippi; Jason Dean, chairman of the Mississippi Board of Education; Nita Thompson, Executive Director of the Mississippi Head Start Association; and Holly Spivey, Head Start Collaboration Director and Education Policy Advisor for Governor Tate Reeves.

The primary focus of the discussion centered around the potential return on investment early childhood programming gives to the economic infrastructure of the State of Mississippi. However, the means of this return appear not to be sufficient through means of private childcare. 

Instead, the panelists advocated State-sanctioned and State-funded child programming.  This theme is revisited throughout the event as the panelists suggest that it is necessary for the government to partner with families and take an active role in the child-rearing process.

The panel exhibited significant interest in pursuing child education and oversight at even earlier ages. In the December 2020 meeting, Dr. Carey Wright commented that $7.8 million has already been applied to these early learning programs through grants and government funding. 

That amount has since more than doubled to $16 million. Wright called for the State to prioritize and give more funding to MDE to use in these programs. She further noted that the goal for the Mississippi Board of Education is to ensure that every child has access to early childhood programming.

Dr. Jason Dean suggested that such programs offer the perfect opportunity for the State to teach young children the “soft skills” needed for acceptable social interaction. He further contended that the State must break down the walls between economic, academic, and social issues and start treating these aspects of child development as really different sides of the same coin. “I think we all agree on the policy. I think we need to come up with the plan, especially a funding plan,” Dean said.

Holly Spivey and Nita Thompson commented about their desired picture for those children from birth to 3 years of age. Thompson mentioned the desire for every element and level of child education to work towards the same goal(this goal was left somewhat ambiguous). She additionally equates this issue not only as an economic matter but as a healthcare matter as well, making sure that there is government-funded healthcare for all children to participate in this education programming and meet government healthcare priorities as well.

Despite Governor Reeves’ conservative stance on most policy issues, Spivey indicated that Reeves has a strong interest in expanding government’s involvement in the lives of children at an earlier age, based on her knowledge as his education policy advisor. 

State leaders have exhibited interest and support for these kinds of policies to expand government oversight into the lives of young children, even by mandatory force in some cases. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if traditional values will be overridden by the novel concept of starting pre-K at age zero.

The Ole Miss panel meeting can be viewed at the following link:  https://youtu.be/2K1WZ5AgMu8

(JACKSON, MS) – The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will hear arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. The case considers whether Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is constitutional. 

In 2018, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) played a key role in drafting the law and educating lawmakers about the important role the legislation would play in both protecting women’s health and protecting the lives of unborn children. 

This commonsense law strikes the right balance for Mississippi by protecting the health of women considering abortion and in protecting the lives of the unborn. It protects women from serious and significant risks and protects the life of the unborn child with a beating heart who can move, hear, taste, see, and feel pain. 

Dr. Jameson Taylor, Senior Vice President for Policy, comments: “Roe v. Wade is old case law based on old science. Here in Mississippi, we have sought to update our abortion laws so that they meet the commonsense standard that limits abortion after the first trimester. We are thankful the Supreme Court is listening to states who believe it’s time to take a second look at what the science is saying.” 

Continues Dr. Taylor: “The scientific evidence confirms that the risk of a mother dying from an abortion skyrockets after the first trimester. That’s why a majority of Mississippi voters and lawmakers strongly agree our state laws should protect women and not put them at greater risk of death or injury from later-term abortions. Nearly every other country in the world follows the same standard and does not permit abortion after the first trimester because it is much more dangerous for women and an obvious violation of human rights.” 

The risk of a mother dying from an abortion increases more than 2,100 percent between 8-weeks and 18-weeks of pregnancy, according to the scientific literature. Maternal mortality increases by 38 percent with every week after 8-weeks gestation. 

“The whole point of state regulation of abortion is to protect maternal health and to uphold the state’s general interest in protecting life,” concludes Dr. Taylor. “Instead of basing abortion law on a so-called viability standard, it’s time for the court to put women’s health and safety front and center. Late-term second and third trimester abortions are dangerous for women. That’s why the viability standard completely misses the mark in terms of protecting women.” 

This legislation brings Mississippi into standing with most of the rest of the world. 92 percent of other nations limit abortion after the first trimester. The U.S. is one of only four countries that permit abortion-on-demand throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. We find company on this issue with North Korea and China. 

For more information or to request an interview with Dr. Taylor, please contact Communications Director, Hunter Estes, at [email protected]. 

“People overestimate what they can accomplish in one legislative session and underestimate what they can accomplish in ten.”

In this series, we are conducting a review of what Mississippi lawmakers have accomplished over the last 10 years. Again, the list provided here is not comprehensive, and we feature only the policies we like, some of which were initiated by MCPP (marked by an *asterisk* below).

Mississippi is one of the most pro-life states in America; although, it is not THE most pro-life state. Louisiana held that distinction until Arkansas recently passed a flurry of pro-life laws in 2020. Still, policymakers in Mississippi have steadily advanced the right to life, enacting balanced measures aimed at protecting the right to life and protecting maternal health.

Here are some of the highlights:

Twenty-week abortion ban: This law (HB 1400), sponsored by Rep. Andy Gipson in 2014, prohibits abortions performed after the baby is 20-weeks old. The law has not been challenged in court.

Dismemberment ban: This law (HB 519) bans second trimester abortions that entail the dismemberment and removal of the dead baby (also known as a D&E abortion). Mississippi was the fourth state in the country to pass this law. It was sponsored by Rep. Sam Mims in 2016. The law has not been challenged in court.

15-week abortion ban: This law (HB 1510), sponsored by Rep. Becky Currie and championed by Senator Joey Fillingane in 2018, prohibits abortions performed after the baby is 15-weeks old. The law has been blocked by a federal court and is under review at the U.S. Supreme Court.*

Heartbeat ban: This law (SB 2116), sponsored by Sen. Angela Hill in 2019, prohibits abortion after the baby’s heartbeat is detected: generally, at about 6 weeks. The law has been blocked by a federal court.

Life Equality Act: This law (HB 1295) prohibits abortions performed with discriminatory intent against a mother and unborn child because of the child’s sex, race or disability. The law was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Crawford in 2020. The law has not been challenged in court.*

Resolutions have been filed in the Mississippi House and Senate opposing the controversial concept of “Critical Race Theory.”

House Concurrent Resolution 62 and House Concurrent Resolution 87 both make clear their opposition to critical race theory. These resolutions were introduced by Representatives Chris Brown, Dan Eubanks, and Dana Criswell. Senate Resolution 56 deals with the same issue and was introduced by Senator Angela Hill.

Critical Race Theory has its roots in academia. It has been festering in the halls of our colleges and universities for decades but has only recently taken on a new energy as its students have entered public life in institutions across the nation.

Its core teaching is that people are separated into classifications of “oppressed” and “oppressor.” It categorizes America as a fundamentally racist country whose every institution is designed to maintain white supremacy, and thus it concludes that those institutions must be overthrown.

The Theory erases the notions of personal responsibility and individual liberty. It crushes the agency and dignity that is unique to each person and ascribes the results of one’s life to the color of his or her skin.

The Heritage Foundation created a brief overview of the Theory and its implications here.

The House and Senate resolutions cite the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the 14^th Amendment before lambasting the foundational teachings of critical race theory.

The resolutions state that, “critical race theory and related ideologies propagate divisive and untrue concepts that teach one race or sex is inherently superior to another and that individuals of one race or sex should be deprived of basic rights simply because of their race or sex.”

They further note that, “it is contrary to the laws of God and nature that an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex and that individuals should thus be discriminated against in the classroom, the workplace or any public forum or place.”

The resolutions will now have the chance to be considered by the Mississippi House and Senate over the coming days.

This morning, Gov. Tate Reeves signed the Fairness Act (SB2536) into law. The law will require that public schools, universities, and community colleges designate sports teams as either male, female, or coed, as based on biological sex.

The law was sponsored by state Sen. Angela Hill (R-Picayune) and it had 21 cosponsors in the Senate.

Recent polling revealed that the legislation has wide support across political demographics. The poll sought approval for a state law that prohibits biological males from competing on female-only teams. In sum, 79 percent of registered Mississippi voters support such legislation. 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 Governor Reeves has signed this bill into law and established protections for the rights of girls and women who engage in competitive athletics,” stated MCPP Executive Vice President, Lesley Davis.

Davis gave a powerful defense of female sports in her piece here.

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.”

She continued, “Mississippi owes a debt of gratitude to those who stepped up and supported this legislation. We are especially grateful to Senator Angela Hill for authoring this law. We are also thankful to Governor Reeves for signing it, and for the work of Senator Rita Potts Parks, Senator John Polk, and Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann. We also thank Speaker Philip Gunn, Rep. Becky Currie, Rep. Stacey Hobgood-Wilkes, and Rep. C. Scott Bounds for their support in the House. Mississippi’s female athletes and future female athletes thank you.”

The issue is becoming increasingly topical around the nation as female athletes have had to compete in athletic events with biological males in certain states. Such competition puts scholarship opportunities, awards, and recognition for female athletes up in the air.

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.

MCPP’s Dr. Jameson Taylor interviewed Selina Soule and shared her perspective on joining the lawsuit and the need to defend female sports. Read the interview here.

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.

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.