‘Sources tell us that Tennessee school teachers are being trained to use the preferred pronouns of students and that they must keep that knowledge hidden from parents in some cases.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
For 50 years the definition of sex meant biological sex. But the Biden Administration is proposing changes to Title IX that would make the definition of sex include sexual orientation and gender identity.
These changes will:
– Allow biological males to participate in girls-only sports and school activities.
– Make bathrooms, locker rooms, and overnight field trip housing available based solely on “gender identity,” not on someone’s biological sex.
– Apply sexual harassment rules to students and teachers who “misgender” another student or teacher. This means that if someone refers to someone by their biological sex (instead of their gender identity) or doesn’t use the person’s “preferred pronouns,” they will be punished for sexual harassment.
– Encourage schools to hide a student’s gender transition from their parents.
These proposed Title IX rules threaten free speech rights. By rewriting federal regulations, the Biden Education Department will punish teachers and students for exercising their right to free speech on campus.
Using the “wrong” pronoun to refer to another student could land a child or teacher in hot water, facing a possible Title IX investigation and punishment. Sources confirm to us that at least one student in a Tennessee school last year has been on the receiving end of school discipline for not using a student’s preferred pronouns.
The Defense of Freedom Institute has a portal where concerned parents and citizens can write to the Federal Department of Education about the proposed changes to Title IX.
Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) has a policy that states it is a violation of personal rights for any student, teacher, administrator or other school district employee to violate the personal rights of others which includes “intimidation, harassment/hazing, physical force or threat of physical force against all persons… motivated either in whole or in part by hostility to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, religious belief, gender (including gender identity), age, disability or sexual orientation…”
The Metro Nashville Board of Education passed a resolution last spring “affirming the physical, mental, emotional support of all students, staff, parents and stakeholders regardless of gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation.”
MNPS also teaches about gender identity in their Lifetime Wellness Course which includes Sexual Health Education.
When school boards promote filth what may one then expect from the students? Garbage in; Garbage out!
‘Waukee Northwest High School has another book containing sexually explicit messaging. The district previously decided to pull “Gender Queer” from the school library due to its vulgar content, which Google calls adult sexual content and Facebook says violates its community standards for sexual activity.
The following video is typical of the left and their agenda to silence any voice contrary to their own. Take note that the language used in the video unveils the character of some of those interviewed.
‘The Justices wrote that the previous law was incorrect. It had forced “a theory of life” on the nation, defined by the passing of “an arbitrary point in a pregnancy”.
In the June 24, 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned the 50-year-old mandate for nationwide legalized abortion, there were many excellent points of truth. But the incorrect theory of life is critical and brings up another one of the great evils of evolution theory – underlying as it does so much of what is called “a culture of death”.
The Roe v. Wade Court of 1973 had coined the term “trimesters”. It was a word invented to allow for the dehumanizing of an unborn person during the early stages of pregnancy, and thus the purposeful taking of the life. Justice Harry Blackmun admitted it was their invented “framework”1 so that they could arbitrarily divide the abortion code into three different time-frames. By doing this, they attempted to deal with the inconsistency of allowing abortion when the killing of a human being is murder. There were to be no exceptions for abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy – considered essentially a “non-human” phase of pregnancy.
The theory that human life is not present from the beginning of pregnancy owes its modern basis to the Theory of Evolution. True biological science actually affirms that each individual of any species must start their life-cycle as an exact copy of the progenitor cell. This is understood from the routinely proven biological principles of “Fixity of Species” and the “Law of Biogenesis”. Furthermore, the Bible tells us repeatedly in Genesis 1 that all created life will reproduce in no other way except “after its kind”.
You might give people in the early 1970s – especially under the pressure of the sexual revolution and women’s liberation – an excuse to have abortions. Both ultrasound scans and genetic science were not as developed as they are today. People learned they could use “science” – taught through the Haeckel embryo drawings – to argue that a fetus was not truly a human life. It is an excuse you will hear to this very day – another great evil, given “scientific support” by the pseudo-science of evolution.
Zoologist Ernst Haeckel drew his infamous embryo drawings in the year 1874. He was a zealous proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and he proposed that human embryos retraced their evolutionary history as they grew in the womb. He coined the technical terminology for this supposed retracing of evolutionary history as life develops: “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself was convinced of Haeckel’s argument. In fact, he declared that the similarity of vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages – which he thought demonstrated their descent from a common ancestor – was “the strongest single set of facts” supporting his theory!
You can see in Haeckel’s presentation of embryos three rows of eight different species – fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit and human. By separating them into three rows – showing early, middle and late stages of development – Haeckel conveniently created three divisions for the Roe v. Wade Court to split its ruling into three “trimesters”. In this way, evolution once again promoted a culture of death – as it has in undergirding Nazism, Communism, eugenics, and other false and godless philosophies.
For over 150 years, the drawings have been used in textbooks to proclaim evolution. Yet, they are known frauds with Haeckel’s “embellishments”. For instance, he drew the mammalian embryos with gill slits in place of wrinkles. There are no perforations like gills in the mammalian embryos! And yet, Haeckel said the embryos were going through a “fish” stage of development.
Even the late renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 2000: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.”
But let’s continue to think critically about the argument. What kind of proof is mere similarity? Is similarity of appearance sufficient evidence in a court of law? Or do we need better evidence to draw a conclusion – like fingerprints and DNA? I suppose if you go back all the way to fertilized egg cells, all life would look pretty similar on a macro scale – though hugely different genetically. And, if a developing baby is not “viable” until a more “independent” stage, is a baby not human until his arm and leg lengths are of adult proportions? Or maybe until she can speak? Or when he can feed himself?
We rapidly descend into infant sacrifice, for which the pagan nations around ancient Israel were judged, the Bible says. And we actually have many advocating for essentially that in our society today! On May 16, 2022, for example, after news of the pending decision had been illegally leaked, all 49 Senators of one political party voted for the most radical abortion bill proposed in the history of the United States Congress – including abortion right up to birth.
Like so much agenda-driven “research”, Haeckel did his work with an end-point in mind. In that sense, he was like anthropologist Margaret Mead and entomologist-turned-sexologist Alfred Kinsey. They both laid “scientific” groundwork for increased sexual promiscuity and deviancy through the last century. Both did “research” with an agenda driven by their own deviancy, desired outcomes and evolution-supported worldviews. Both are now thoroughly debunked.2,3 And both have been used for years to justify conclusions desired by those who push a godless and/or subversive agenda of sexual license – as has Roe v. Wade.
1 Desanctis, A., “Little Known Facts about Roe v. Wade”, National Review, Jan 23, 2017.
2 Freeman, D., Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, Harvard University Press, 1983.
3 Reisman, J.A. and Eichel, E.W., Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Huntington House, 1990.
‘Many people today do not seem to realize that the same poisonous philosophy (evolutionism) that justified killing under Hitler1has also infected the American abortion mentality.
According to documents released in February 10, 1992, “Joseph Mengele, the Auschwitz death-camp doctor known as the ‘Angel of Death’ for his experiments on inmates, practiced medicine in Buenos Aires for several years in the 1950s. He ‘had a reputation as a specialist in abortions,’ which were illegal.”2 It should not be surprising that one who extinguished life at Auschwitz would practice a similar grisly crusade on life in the womb.
Humans Emerging From Embryos?
Carl Sagan encouraged the fiction that life in the womb traces an evolutionary history. We “must decide,” he wrote, “what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge.”3 He compared the appearance of the developing embryo to “a segmented worm” and added that “something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian…become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail.” The face becomes “reptilian… (then) somewhat pig-like.” Eventually, it “resembles a primate’s but is still not quite human.”
In the article, evolutionary thinking offered yet again “justification” for extinguishing life thought to be subhuman. This, of course, is pseudo-science and nonsense. The science of genetics has confirmed that the embryo is identifiably human from the moment of conception.
Sanger—“Babies in the Womb”!
Another insidious development occurred earlier in the century (about the time Hitler himself was forming his ideas). It involved Margaret Sanger (1879–1966), the founder of Planned Parenthood (a major promoter of abortions in America today). She has been given the unusual title, “Father of Modern Society.”4 Her evolutionary mentality will be documented below, but first there should be a consideration of her views relating to abortion.
In her Woman and the New Race, Sanger offered a conflicting message about this issue. On the one hand she wrote, “I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”5 Pro-lifers would heartily agree! She even referred to “babies” in the womb—not using the now “politically correct” term, fetuses: “There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion.”5
Her message was inconsistent, however. Not only did Linda Gordon, author of Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right—a major work dealing with the history of birth control in America—indicate that Margaret Sanger “defended women’s rights to abortion,”6 Sanger herself, in the very volume denouncing abortion already cited, wrote, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”5 This hardly sounds pro-life.
Whatever may be said of Sanger’s confused views, her legacy is an organization that certainly encourages and participates in the killing of thousands and even millions of, to use her phrase, America’s “infant members.” What was it about her philosophy that allowed for this?
“Defectives,” “Dependents,” and “Morons”!
Hitler’s link to evolution has already been documented.1 He put survival-of-the-fittest into action, and millions of “unfit” people died as a result. Many Americans believe that something comparable to what happened under the leadership of Hitler is happening now in America. “Babies in the womb,” most of them healthy and fit, have been slaughtered by the tens of millions in the United States of America—1.21 million in 2008 alone!11
What some may not realize is that the same poisonous philosophy that infected Hitler also influenced Margaret Sanger. She said Charles Darwin observed “that we do not permit helpless human beings to die off, but we create philanthropies and charities, build asylums and hospitals and keep the medical profession busy preserving those who could not otherwise survive.” Her view was that such philanthropies and charities were “ameliorative” at best, and that some so-called benevolences were “positively injurious to the community and the future of the race.”
Her following words (content-wise) sound like they could have been spoken by Adolf Hitler himself: “The most serious charge that can be brought against modern ‘benevolence’ is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.”
One wonders how far Sanger would like to have taken her eugenics. She reported a study of the United States Army and concluded that “nearly half—47.3 percent—of the population had the mentality of twelve-year-old children or less—in other words, that they were morons.”7
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”6 Many years prior, Sanger said, “Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)”8
Birth control for Sanger was “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit.” A eugenist, she defined the field as “the attempt to solve the problem from the biological and evolutionary point of view.” She wanted to change things “to the construction and evolution of humanity itself.”8 She advocated applying “a stem and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”9 Revealing pro-choice tendencies, she went on to promote the notion of giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilizations.”8 Ms. Sanger assumed “the evolutionary process of man”10 and argued that the “intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development”5 She hoped for a motherhood that would refuse “to bring forth weaklings.”5 Such a motherhood “withholds the unfit brings forth the fit.”5 She wrote of “woman’s upward struggle”5 and described the “lack of balance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’” as “the greatest present menace to civilization.”7
Rejection of the Only Solution!
The Lord Jesus Christ sanctified life in the womb by living there Himself for nine months (Is 49:5, cf. Lk 1:35). He also created every womb that was ever made (Jn 1:3). As the promised “seed” of the woman (Gn 3:15), He came to rescue daughters (like those for whom Margaret Sanger expressed concern throughout her writings) from their burdens of pain, suffering, sin, and death. He came to set them free (Jn 9:36), and many women would testify that they have indeed been set free and will be set free even from death.
Margaret Sanger, however, wrote of a different Jesus—“a Jesus who (would) not die upon the cross.”5 In place of the real Jesus who understands suffering intimately, she chose the hollow shell of evolutionary “science.” Sadly, she wrote, “Interest in the vague sentimental fantasies of extra-mundane existence, in pathological or hysterical flights from the realities of our earthiness, will have through atrophy disappeared, for in that dawn men and women will have come to the realization… that here close at hand is our paradise, our everlasting abode, our Heaven and our eternity.”7 But how is Margaret Sanger qualified to make such pronouncements?
Her present bodily “abode” is very undesirable (coffin? charred remains?), but Jesus is alive with a resurrected body in heaven! After He was resurrected, He proclaimed, “I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death” (Rv 1:18, KJV).
Jesus’ teachings about the future, contrary to Margaret Sanger’s preachings, were neither “vague sentimental fantasies” nor “pathological,” and they will never “atrophy.” Heaven and earth may pass—but His words will never pass away (Mt 24:35). He emphatically said, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (Jn 11:25–26, KJV).
Conclusion
The evolutionary mentality behind abortion is bad science and leads to bad ethics. On the positive side, Margaret Sanger did encourage attention to a very important subject—to what she called “the titanic strength of the sexual instinct.”7 Indirectly, she was affirming the Scriptural truth that “love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave…Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be condemned” (Sgs 8:6–7, KJV).
She sought to promote birth control. The ultimate need, however, is for Holy Spirit control. The Lord Jesus Christ, after receiving from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, shed Him forth upon the earth for the benefit of His followers (Acts 2:33). The only way an unbeliever can experience this loving presence and control is to bow the heart in repentance and faith before the Sovereign Creator-Savior, Jesus Christ.
(This article is an update of one originally published in Impact #27, May 1992, by the Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. Reprinted by permission of the author.)
Notes
1. Paul G. Humber, “The Ascent of Racism,” Impact (Institute for Creation Research, February 1987). 2. Nathaniel C. Nash, “Mengele an Abortionist, Argentine Files Suggest,” The New York Times, February 11, 1992, p. A8. 3. Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, “Is It Possible To Be Pro-Life And Pro-Choice?” Parade Magazine, April 22, 1990, pp. 5, 7. 4. Elasah Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (New Hope, Ky: CUL Publications, 1989). 5. Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1920), pp. 44, 45, 63, 126, 159, 226, 229, 232, 234. 6. Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right (New York: Grossman Pub., 1976), pp. 223, 332–33. 7. Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1922), pp. 8, 25, 103, 113, 123, 170-171, 263, 275–76. 8. Raymond Pierpoint, Editor, Report of the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (London: William Heinemann [Medical Books] Ltd., 1922), pp. 31, 199. 9. Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April, 1932, pp. 107, 108. 10. Margaret Sanger, Editor, “Self Preservation,” The Woman Rebel, April 1914, p. 16. 11. See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (accessed December 14, 2011).’https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues
“Self-love,” or what would better be described as selfishness, was used to justify killing unborn babies in abortions Wednesday at a U.S. House committee hearing about the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Fox News reports Democrat lawmakers called on Sarah Lopez, an “abortion storyteller” from the pro-abortion group We Testify, to testify at the hearing.
Lopez told Congress that aborting her unborn baby was one of the best decisions of her life, and she intends to fight so that every woman has a “choice.”
Was Hitler a MONSTER? Well, if he was what are those promoting the abortion industry?
Murdering babies is set in concrete as ‘Minnesota and Illinois are the only states in the upper Midwest that where abortion rights are solid in their constitutional law, and would see no change to abortion access should the ruling be overturned. A federal law falling will not change anything in either state.
However, Minnesota is preparing for an Influx of people coming to the state for reproductive care.
Attorney General Keith Ellison, the president of the upper Midwest region of Planned Parenthood, and a law professor from Mitchell Hamline all spoke Tuesday morning about the state’s plans.
Sarah Stoesz, the regional president of Planned Parenthood, said they are increasing staff and their physical footprint right now to prepare for more patients coming from other states for abortions. She says they’ve already stopped abortions appointments in South Dakota, which has a trigger law in place, which means there’s an automatic state abortion ban that goes into place if the federal right is overturned.’https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/no-one-will-be-prosecuted-ag-ellison-says-abortion-rights-are-protected-in-minnesota/
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”6 Many years prior, Sanger said, “Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)”8
Conclusion
whatyareckon 