Breakpoint

As mid-term elections loom, both pro-abortion candidates and the Democratic party — not always for the same reason — have been working to advance abortion "rights" and access as a central issue in November. Increasingly, three common myths are touted by abortion advocates and pro-abortion media sources: (1) that abortion is healthcare, (2) that ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages will be treated as abortion in a post-Roe society, and (3) that the abortion pill is safe. To counter these myths (as well as a few others), the American Association for Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) has launched a campaign to put fact sheets into the hands of medical professionals. This information is vital not only to prevent patients from being misled but also as a public statement of solidarity for pro-life doctors and nurses. A few days before the campaign's launch, the pro-abortion American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology threatened to revoke the certification of pro-life OB-GYNs, for disseminating what they called misinformation about "reproductive health care, contraception, abortion, and OB-GYN practices." In essence, the board is saying that any OB-GYN that disagrees with their stance on elective abortion could lose their license to practice. As Alexandra DeSanctis, co-author of Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, wrote recently in National Review, the vagueness of the board's claims regarding its version of "misinformation" is nothing other than "veiled intimidation." This is why the work of AAPLOG and all pro-lifers in correcting the oft-repeating myths of healthcare is so vital. In stark contrast to AAPLOG's fact sheet, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has its own, and it directly states, "Abortion is essential health care." Sometimes all it takes to misrepresent truth is an adjective or, as in this case, a missing adjective. While in rare and tragic situations, a sick preborn child can put the mother's life at risk, that kind of essential healthcare does not justify the vast majority of abortions that are "elective." OB-GYNs are trained to recognize when life-giving medical intervention is necessary for a pregnant mother. In these heartbreaking cases, medical professionals work to save the mother. In elective abortions, medical professionals work to kill the child. Adding the word "elective" to "abortion" tells the truth about the completely different situation in which a decision is made to end the life of a preborn child who is not endangering the mother's physical health. That is not healthcare. And, according to AAPLOG, 93% of OB/GYNs do not provide elective abortions. Most enter the field to help women care for preborn babies — not take their lives — and they are able to tell the difference. A second myth addressed by the AAPLOG fact sheet is that "women with ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages will not receive the care they need." Each of these situations is categorically different from elective abortion. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus. In these cases, the baby will not survive no matter what the doctors do. In fact, up until July, Planned Parenthood's website explicitly stated that treatment for ectopic pregnancy was not equivalent to an abortion. That statement was removed when it became a convenient talking point. As DeSanctis has written, none of the legislation in any of the 50 states eliminates care for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages. Doctors who would refuse care for an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage are misinterpreting their state's laws, and to claim otherwise is patently false. A third myth that the AAPLOG fact sheet repudiates is that "chemical abortions are a safe and convenient option for women." Last December, the Food and Drug Administration extended their pandemic policy that mail-order chemical abortions be made available without requiring a patient to meet with a medical professional in person. And recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated that it plans to find ways to protect access to chemical abortions. Even if there were not the ethical problem of taking a human life, abortion medication is meant to be used before 10 weeks of pregnancy. If a woman is not required to see a medical professional, there is no way to confirm how far long the pregnancy is. Everyone who cares about building a culture of life should be clear on the facts about abortion and women's health. AAPLOG's website includes counters to six other abortion myths. And, Alexandra DeSanctis will be speaking at the next Lighthouse Voices series on her book, "Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Our Culture and Disadvantages Women." Join us at 7 p.m. (Central time) on October 4th either live (if you live near Holland, Michigan) or on livestream. You can register for free by visiting focusonthefamily.org/lighthouse-voices.

Anytime that doctor-assisted death is legalized, what begins as a so-called "right" to die soon devolves into a duty to die. For example, defenders of Canada's expansive policy of Medical Aid in Dying frequently claim that its supposed safeguards will prevent a simple cost-benefit analysis when it comes to deciding who should live and who should die. However, the truth has slipped out a few times now. Back in 2017, the publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cited a report that Medical Aid in Dying could result in "substantial savings across Canada's health-care system" to the tune of $136.8 million a year. Those "savings" happen when high-cost patients are put to death. Aaron Trachtenberg, author of the report, said it frankly: "In a resource-limited health care system, anytime we roll out a large intervention …. cost has to be a part of that discussion. It's just the reality of working in a system of finite resources." And that's why decisions about life and death should never be put into "systems of finite resources." Putting a price tag on what is priceless cheapens it. And human lives are priceless.

In November 2016, a student at Oberlin College in Ohio attempted to steal two bottles of wine from Gibson Bakery. The owner confronted and then chased the student down the street. He was arrested and later pleaded guilty to shoplifting. Recently, nearly six years after the incident, a judge ordered Oberlin College to pay more than $35 million in damages to the bakery. How did just two bottles of wine become so expensive? The student who shoplifted is black. The shop owners are white. That was enough to start an uproar on the Oberlin College campus. The story is an example of a culture that is in a critical theory mood. The day after the incident, Oberlin students started to protest the treatment of the accused outside of Gibson's Bakery. Soon after that, the Oberlin student senate passed a resolution that called for Oberlin College to "officially condemn Gibson's Bakery" as a racist institution. Professors got involved, passing out fliers and encouraging students to join the protest. The college then severed longstanding catering contracts with the bakery. Neither the protestors nor the school ever claimed the student had not shoplifted but, in their public statements, the fact that he did was conveniently ignored. This allowed them to turn the shoplifter, the store owner, and even the bakery into symbols that served a narrative they were telling. In a recorded audio, one student protester yells, "Shoplifting, the stuff on the surface, does not matter. This runs so much deeper." It is not uncommon for any discussion of critical theory, in any of its forms, to be dismissed. After all, critical theory, we are told, is an academic theory that few people have studied. That, of course, is true. Few people have studied the original source materials for this formalized theory. This dismissal not only ignores that many of those who dismiss concerns about critical theory are those mostly actively advocating its core ideas, it misunderstands the way that ideas work within a culture. If you happen to be listening to this commentary on radio, you have two people to thank: German physicist Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, who discovered radio waves in the 1880s and Guglielmo Marconi, an Italian engineer who invented wireless radio communication in the 1890s. However, whether you knew these names before now and regardless of how well you understand how radio waves work, it is still quite possible to conceptualize radio and to hear my voice. Worldviews often work like this. A person does not have to fully understand an idea before being shaped by it. When Oberlin College faculty and administration determined, in the face of the evidence, that the white bakery owners were guilty and the student was not, they were applying a critical theory lens to the situation and interpreting the facts accordingly. When the Oberlin College student said that the shoplifting did not matter because of deeper issues at play, the student was parroting a critical theory way of thinking about the world, in which every interaction must be understood and explained by the demographic groupings of the people involved. Moral status is awarded based on these groupings, not on actions. Certain groups are oppressed, and others are oppressors. End of story. Far from being "too complicated" of a theory to infect culture, critical theory offers a simplistic substitute for the actual complexities of life and people. We cannot determine a person's character by tallying their list of demographic features or applying assumptions of privilege. Individuals are not stereotypes, but critical theory reduces them to such. No one need be able to pronounce multisyllabic academic jargon used by critical theorists to be infected by this mood. We simply are infected by it. A few months ago, a friend told me of something that points to the level of cultural infection. She had asked a friend of hers, a junior high teacher, how many students in that class identified as LGBTQ. The answer, offered immediately in a sort of "don't you know this" tone, was, "Oh, all of them do." "All of them?" my friend replied. "Are they sexually active?" "Not at all," the teacher replied. "But none of them want to be straight or cis." Ideas that have infected college students, academics, and junior highers should not be so easily dismissed. The first way to counter infectious cultural moods is not to share that mood. Intentionally, and especially with our own kids, we must talk about and treat every human being as essentially valuable as image bearers of God, and as equally fallible because of their common descent from Adam and Eve. These are essential truths about the world and people and are far better ideas than the ones assumed by the critical theory mood. Ideas are especially dangerous when assumed, as C.S. Lewis once put it, so we must also not allow the bad ideas to go unchallenged, lest they become normalized. Finally, within a critical theory framework, in both its academic theory and cultural mood forms, there is no possibility of forgiveness or redemption. In a Christian vision of God and people, there is. In Christ, there is solid ground for forgiveness (He first forgave us) and for finding redemption (He has taken the punishment for our guilt). So, in Christ, we not only counter bad ideas, we point to a better way.

John and Maria discuss that parents who are engaged in community organizations or events can promote Christian morality, and even have a redemptive influence, without being deemed Christian nationalists. Afterwards, they point out how Lila Rose, founder and president of the pro-life organization Live Action, powerfully debated with Dr. Phil and other audience members on the Dr. Phil show. They conclude with how the story of the lawsuit against Oberlin College shows the "critical theory mood" of our culture.

A new workplace trend, called "Quiet Quitting," isn't about quitting your job but about how hard you work while there. It's about rejecting "the idea of going above and beyond," said one influencer. "You're still performing your duties but you're no longer subscribing to the hustle culture mentality that work has to be your life." There's been so much upheaval in the economy and the workforce lately, and Christians can point to a better way: God designed humans to work, but not for work's sake or even consumption's sake. Work is a way we image God, making the world all it can be. And God also gave the gift of rest, baking the Sabbath into the creation and even modeling it for us. It's almost as if God knew that after the fall, humans would be tempted to make work an idol. (Hint: He did know.) What "quiet quitting" misses is that it's not about whether or not to "go above and beyond." It's about whether our work has purpose, not as an end in and of itself, but as an act of worship, excellence, and love of neighbor.

It's tempting to think that secularized academics are too intellectual to ever come to the kind of "childlike faith" that Jesus described, or that, if they ever were to trust Christ, they'd have to abandon their academic pursuits. However, like once-liberal theologian Thomas Oden or once-radical feminist English professor Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, the case of Rodney Stark suggests otherwise. Dr. Stark's research and reading, specifically about the impact of Christianity in history, was part of what moved him to become a committed believer. Stark was born in North Dakota in 1934. Oddly enough, he played high school football with Alvin Plantinga, the great Christian philosopher. After a stint in the army, he studied journalism in college, graduating in 1959. Once, during his early career as a reporter, he covered a meeting of the Oakland Spacecraft Club where the speaker claimed to have visited Mars, Venus, and the moon in a flying saucer. After Stark reported the story straight, with no sarcasm or snide comments, he was assigned all of the odd stories that came along. Stark's ability to treat people's beliefs seriously and recognize that, at least for them, these beliefs are plausible, was a key element in his decision to shift from journalism to sociology. In 1972, after completing his graduate work at the University of California-Berkley, he was hired as a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington. Stark focused his research on why people were religious. How did they understand their faith? What did they get out of it? How did they live it out? From this focus, Stark developed a theory of conversion that emphasized social relationships, felt needs, and personal choice. In essence, Stark concluded that conversion was a rational choice, based on the expectation that one would receive more from the religion than it would cost to join it. He was among the first sociologists to recognize that competition between religious groups increased the overall religiosity of a community. In other words, a religious group with a monopoly tends to get lazy and neglect meeting needs and conducting outreach. Stark was also critical of the standard academic view that secularization was an inevitable result of modernization. Instead, he argued this idea was wildly wrong because sociologists misunderstood religion and failed to account for religious revivals and innovation. His book The Rise of Christianity was published in 1996. In it, Stark argued that the incredible growth and spread of Christianity were because it offered more to people than any of its competitors. In particular, Stark argued that the rapid growth of the Church was, in large part, due to how Christians treated women. This, especially compared to the pagan treatment of women, led to more conversions, which led to the faith being spread through social networks. Also, prohibitions of abortion and infanticide led to an organic growth of the Church, and how Christians responded to persecution and plague led to a growth in credibility. The Rise of Christianity was so groundbreaking that it was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. After this, Stark focused his work on the history of Christianity. After writing two books on the historical impact of monotheism — first One True God in 2001 and then For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch Hunts, and the End of Slavery in 2003, Stark wrote what may be his greatest book, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, in 2005. In 2004, the year before The Victory of Reason was published, Stark commented, "I have trouble with faith. I'm not proud of this. I don't think it makes me an intellectual. I would believe if I could, and I may be able to before it's over." The Victory of Reason first brought Dr. Stark to the attention of Chuck Colson, who was astounded that a self-professed agnostic sociologist was clear-eyed and honest enough to recognize and highlight the effects of Christianity on the world. Chuck featured The Victory of Reason on Breakpoint and included it in the Centurions Program (now known as the Colson Fellows). After the commentary aired, Rodney Stark contacted Chuck Colson, and thanked him for the kind words. He also told Colson that he had come to faith in Christ, which he publicly announced in 2007. In 2004, Stark became the distinguished professor of the social sciences at Baylor University, as well as the co-director of the Institute for Studies of Religion and founding editor of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. Although Baylor is a Baptist school, Stark preferred to call himself an "independent Christian" and continued to produce important and sometimes controversial books on Christianity, history, and culture. Throughout his career, Stark was an irascible critic of political and religious biases in the academic world, especially in his own field of sociology. His intellectual brilliance is attested by his groundbreaking work, and his intellectual honesty and integrity by his faith, a faith he studied for many years.

One of the most sensational claims of abortion advocates is that "pregnancy is more dangerous than legalized abortion." This argument is largely based on a 2012 study by Elizabeth Raymond and David A. Grimes in the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. However, as James Studnicki and Tessa Longbons described recently in National Review, this claim is "demonstrably false." By its own admission, the Raymond and Grimes study underreported maternal deaths associated with abortion. While deaths involving pregnancy and childbirth are subject to national data collection in the United States, no consistent metric exists for reporting deaths related to abortion. In other words, the data sets Raymond and Grimes used compared apples and oranges and "should have rendered the paper's conclusions invalid." In fact, multiple other studies reach the opposite conclusion. In Finland, for example, researchers found that mortality after abortion is three times higher than childbirth. Much of the so-called "conventional wisdom" on abortion is invalid and treats pregnancy itself like a disease, unborn children as a pathogen, and abortion as a cure. None of which could be farther from the truth.

Science is supposed to be objective, an undeniable source for truth not subject to fads or fashion. The phrases "scientists say" or "the science is settled" is supposed to inspire hushed awe and open ears. Scientists are supposed to serve as arbiters of truth, at least on questions within their fields of expertise, able to settle disputes and sort fact from fiction. Many progressives, especially, employ the phrase "the science says" to silence disagreement about everything from climate policy to gender ideology. "The science," at least in certain circles, is an authority appealed to in order to end debate and dismiss critics of favored policies. Increasingly, the theory that science is a neutral arbiter or source of truth looks shaky, especially when scientific publications openly announce their commitment to ideology over evidence. Bell Curve author Charles Murray recently tweeted an editorial published by the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Human Behaviour. Murray (who is no stranger to what happens to those who publish politically incorrect findings) highlighted a section in which the editors announced they will be censoring scientific results that do not conform to a favored political narrative. Specifically, the editors reserved the right to amend, refuse, or retract "[c]ontent that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, [or] (dis)ability …" They also reserved the right to censor content that "undermines — or could be reasonably perceived to undermine — the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of" any of these categories, as well as to refuse submissions that are "exclusionary of a diversity of voices …" It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how language this sweeping could be used. For instance, studies that find children do best in homes with their biological mother and father could be "reasonably perceived" by the editors of Nature Human Behaviour to suggest the "inherent inferiority" of same-sex parents. Research that finds female athletes are disadvantaged when competing against biological men could "undermine ... the rights and dignities" of transgender opponents. A study that finds little girls do better in societies that don't practice female genital mutilation could be censored for its "assumption of inherent … cultural superiority." As Murray tweeted, "It is hard to exaggerate the scientific insanity this represents." Even psychologist and science author Steven Pinker, no friend of Christians or religious conservatives, slammed the journal, tweeting: "Nature Human Behavior [sic] is no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed … (how do we know articles have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness)?" It's a good question, and one more people should be asking. Increasingly, the scientific enterprise itself is looking shaky, not only because of political correctness but because the practices on which science depends — peer review and replication — are breaking down. Consider an analysis published in the journal Science last year in which behavioral economists at the University of California found that the least reliable studies are the ones other scientists cite the most. This team analyzed over 20,000 papers in some of the top psychology, economy, and science journals, and found that "studies that failed to replicate since their publication were on average 153 times more likely to be cited" than studies that did — mostly because their findings were more "interesting." And this problem was found to be worst in leading journals Nature and Science. The takeaway here is not that science is bad. On the contrary, science is a gift of God, made possible in how He made the world and His image bearers. Science has made the world immeasurably richer, and the world arguably owes a debt for these riches to Christian assumptions and pioneers. However, scientists and science editors are human and just as vulnerable to bad ideas and dangerous ideologies as other humans. Reform can happen within a field of knowledge. Thus, science can regain its authority as a source of truth and public good, rather than propaganda. Christians in the sciences have an especially important role to play, as voices protesting ideologically loaded conclusions and as examples of integrity and objectivity. Until that reform happens, anything announced with "the science says," especially on intensely politically charged issues, should be greeted with suspicion. As Pinker said, we have a right to know whether their claims "have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness."

Recently (and finally), the United Nations has released a report condemning China's treatment of Uyghurs. Given China's clout within the UN, its strenuous PR and lobbying campaigns, and its ability to intimidate scholars and witnesses, the report's release was delayed for months. Finally, in the final few minutes of UN human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet's term, the report was released. The report strongly condemned China's actions and called for "urgent attention" from the UN, validating years of warnings by watchdogs, observers, and activists worldwide. This one report by itself may not change the terrible situation on the ground for the Uyghurs in China's Xinjiang province, but nothing will change without first telling the truth. As one article in the Associated Press noted, "That the report was released was in some ways as important as its contents." Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, was himself a witness to the internment of untold millions in the former USSR. He put it this way, "The simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in falsehood.… One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world."

Religious liberty is a human right. So why are American courts so confused? In recent months, American courts have continued to grapple with the size, scope, and even the definition of religious freedom. For Christians who believe that religious liberty for all is a public good, there's good news and bad news. The good news includes the decision from the Fifth Circuit two weeks ago in the case of Franciscan Alliance, a group of Catholic hospitals and doctors that sued the federal government in 2016. Rules issued from the Biden Administration would have forced doctors within Franciscan Alliance to perform so-called "transition surgeries" on patients with gender dysphoria, as well as provide abortions for patients who requested them. Lawyers for the hospital system argued that these procedures are violations of the oath doctors take to "do no harm" to their patients, and therefore a violation of the doctors' religious freedom. Thankfully, the Fifth Circuit respected Supreme Court precedent and ruled in favor of Franciscan Alliance. The bad news includes a case out of New York, in which a trial court ruled that Yeshiva University, a Jewish school in New York City, must allow an LGBTQ club to establish on campus. The university argued the club's mission openly violated the school's religious beliefs about sexuality. In a particularly bizarre ruling, a judge sided with the LGBTQ club by reasoning that Yeshiva University is not a religious institution. "Yeshiva" is the Hebrew word for "a school that studies the Talmud," or ancient rabbinic writings on Scripture. Still, the judge cited Yeshiva University's charter, which refers to the school as an "educational institution," as evidence that the school therefore cannot be religious. The question at the heart of each of these cases is the same: What does it mean to be religious? Though it is good news for everyone, doctors and patients, that Franciscan Alliance will not be forced to mutilate bodies in the name of "transgender medicine," the judge in this case ruled explicitly that the government could not violate these doctors' religious beliefs. It is not good news that the reality that men and women are different is being denied, or that bodies are being mutilated and called "healthcare," or that opposing being involved is reduced to a "religious belief." In the same way, the idea that we should not take the life of a child in or out of a mother's womb should be obvious, not reduced to merely "religious." In one sense, every law is religious in the sense that they are predicated on some view of the universe, human nature, and morality. They assume that certain things ought to be done and others ought not to be done. Everything we do, including where we work, what we value, and how we raise our kids, is built upon moral beliefs about the world, whether Christian or not. Even if we don't always act consistently with those beliefs, religious liberty ensures the right to call upon these views inside and outside of Church, synagogue, mosque, or Twitter. In our culture, however, certain views are designated "religious" and others are not. Therefore, the "religious" views are considered biased exceptions to be tolerated. In fact, progressive judges and administrations often deem policy positions they don't like as "religious" as a way of suggesting they should not be taken seriously in the public square. In other words, taking innocent human life and mutilating healthy bodies are presented as the "obviously right" views, and opposing these horrors is dismissed as "religious." All of which says a lot about the moral status of our culture. Further, it misunderstands the meaning of "religious" and leads to obvious violations of religious liberty. Christian doctors within the Franciscan Alliance cannot leave their worldviews at the operating room door. Yeshiva University doesn't stop being religious when it educates. In fact, it educates because it is religious. The Supreme Court, at least currently, recognizes this reality, but some lower courts do not. Thus, the absurd ruling that claims Yeshiva University is not religious because it educates, or the one in Colorado which held that a Christian school chaplain wasn't in a "religious position," or the lower court ruling from a few years ago that attempted to force a group of Catholic nuns to pay for abortion and contraception. In such a conflicted time, Christians must, more and more, live like Christians. We must compellingly demonstrate that the resurrected Christ we worship in one building one morning a week shapes how we live and act in any other building every other day of the week. And we continue to defend religious liberty as a public good for all people. About this, the U.S. Constitution is clear. Hopefully, our nation's courts will gain clarity too.