One declaration sparked a nation. The other sparks confusion.



This week, my university emailed a Fourth of July reflection that caught my attention. It claimed the “backbone of our independence” is entrepreneurship and praised secular universities as the seedbed of innovation — and, by extension, democracy itself.

I’m all for business. Enterprise, creativity, and free markets foster prosperity and reward initiative. But business doesn’t create liberty. It depends on liberty. Markets flourish only when justice, rights, and human dignity already exist. In other words, business is a fruit of independence, not its root.

Our freedoms — legal, political, scientific, and economic — grow best in soil nourished by the belief in human dignity grounded in something greater than man.

As we celebrate Independence Day, it’s worth remembering the true foundation of American freedom. The Declaration of Independence doesn’t just announce our break with Britain — it explains why that break was just. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” it says, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

That single sentence tells us where rights come from: not from governments or markets, but from God. Human equality doesn’t rest on ability, wealth, or status — qualities that always vary. It rests on the shared reality that each of us bears the image of the same Creator.

This truth isn’t just historical. It remains the cornerstone of liberty. Without it, terms like “human rights” or “justice” collapse into slogans. If rights don’t come from God, where do they come from? Who gives them? And who can take them away?

Contrast our Declaration with the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document says people “have” rights — but doesn’t explain why or where they come from or why rights matter. It invokes no Creator, no image of God, no natural law, no self-evident truth or moral source beyond political consensus. Rights, it suggests, are whatever the international community agrees they are.

That’s a dangerous idea. If rights come from consensus, consensus can erase them. If governments or global committees grant rights, they can redefine or revoke them when convenient. There is no firm ground, only shifting sands.

Many Americans now prefer this softer, godless version of human dignity. They invoke justice but reject the Judge. They want rights without a Creator, happiness without truth, liberty without responsibility. But rights without God offer no security — and happiness without God dissolves into fantasy. It’s a mirage.

This project of cutting freedom off from its source cannot last. Our freedoms — legal, political, scientific, and economic — grow best in soil nourished by the belief in human dignity grounded in something greater than man.

RELATED: The most memorable epocha in the history of America

  ivan-96 via iStock/Getty Images

We live in God’s world. That distinction matters. A society built on contracts negotiates rights. A society built on covenants honors obligations to the truth. The difference isn’t just theological — it’s civilizational.

By rejecting the Creator, we don’t advance progress. We erase the foundation that made progress possible. C.S. Lewis put it this way: “You cannot go on 'explaining away' forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away.”

Explain away God, and you explain away the reason rights exist.

So this Independence Day, remember what liberty really means — and what sustains it. We’re not free because we said so. We’re free because we answer to a law higher than any court or committee. We are created equal because we are created — period.

Entrepreneurship has its place. But the American experiment wasn’t born from a business plan. It began with a declaration that acknowledged God. If we want that experiment to endure, we must not forget what made it possible in the first place.

Gay marriage has a hidden cost — and children are paying the price



Ten years ago, a great injustice was done to children.

In Obergefell vs. Hodges, the Supreme Court equated two things that for children will never be equal: Same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. One pairing unites children with two people to whom they have a natural right. The other separates children from one — or both.

Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children.

As many of us predicted, gay marriage eroded children’s right to their mother and father. It turns out, when you make husbands and wives legally optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become legally optional in parenthood.

Family redefined, kids sidelined

Since 2015, activists have been arguing state by state that equality requires making parenthood gender-neutral and elevating “social parents” (unrelated adults in the home who have not undergone background checks). Fathers have been legally erased from birth certificates to accommodate “two moms” and vice versa. Activists have insisted on requiring insurance or the government to fund the creation of fatherless and motherless children. Biology and adoption are bypassed in favor of “intent-based” parenthood. Giving same-sex couples equal access to the marital “constellation of benefits” denied children equal access to their own mother and father.

Politicians have followed suit.

RELATED: Rainbow rebellion: How Christians can take back what Pride Month stole

When was the last time you heard a lawmaker say that children need a mom and dad? Odds are, it's been about 10 years. In 2013-14, the phrase “every child deserves a mother and father” appeared in over 30 congressional speeches. By 2023-24, it surfaced fewer than five times.

The message is clear: Redefining marriage redefined the family. Dissent is now discrimination.

Culture followed the court

But it isn't just law and politics. The Supreme Court's decision had a massive impact on culture, especially on kids.

The education establishment went all in on the Court-appointed family makeover. Before 2015, the National Education Association still referred to “mothers” and “fathers” in lesson plans and holiday activities. But after the ruling, it began purging traditional language.

Its 2020 “Checklist to Support LGBTQ Students” advised teachers to replace “mom and dad” with “family” or “caring adult.” GLSEN’s 2016 re-release of Ready, Set, Respect! toolkit conditioned kindergartners and first- and second-graders to believe that a mom and dad, two moms, two dads, or no mom or dad, all are perfectly normal.

What the Court de-gendered in law, teachers now de-gender in the classroom.

Publishers followed the court’s lead — and the money.

In 2021, Americans bought nearly five million LGBTQ-themed fiction books. By 2023, that figure had topped six million, a 173% increase since 2019. Many aimed to normalize motherless and fatherless families to children such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "My Two Dads and Me."

We lied to children, using school curriculum and sweet librarians, about the one thing every child longs for instinctually — to be loved by their mother and father.

The culture shift and the legal restructuring contributed to a booming fertility market. Surrogate pregnancies more than doubled from 2.2% in 2011 to 4.7% in 2020. Fertility clinics often direct gay couples to surrogacy grants in the name of “equitable access to parenthood.”

These children did not lose their mothers to tragedy. They lost their mothers to adult “equality.”

Enough is enough

Many good-hearted Americans, even conservatives, supported gay marriage because they felt it was a way to love their LGBTQ neighbors. Some stammered for a response to the question: “How will my gay marriage harm anyone else?!” Others were bullied into silence by accusations that they were “on the wrong side of history.”

After 10 years, we have seen the results. Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children.

The truth is, their “marriage” redefined all families, and children across the nation are paying the price. That so-called “right side of history” has turned out to be the side of child victimization.

RELATED: Is same-sex marriage about to get the Dobbs treatment?

About 50 years ago, the Supreme Court made a devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children in the womb are fully human and worthy of life. It took nearly 50 years to overturn the child-victimizing Roe v. Wade.

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court made another devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children come from a man and woman and have a right to that man and woman. It redefined the institution that every society throughout history has employed to unite children to that man and woman.

We can't wait another 50 years to undo this injustice.

A coalition of child defenders is rising — Christians, conservatives, parents, pro-family leaders, ordinary moms and dads, and the children of LGBT parents themselves. We are committed to reclaiming the institution of marriage on behalf of the most vulnerable in the country: children.

Erasing moms: How the left discards women — but keeps their parts



The baby-buying business is booming.

Powered in part by affluent gay male couples, for a few hundred thousand dollars they can purchase eggs from a poor woman, pay for a lab-arranged conception, and then "buy" another poor woman to carry the baby through surrogacy — right up until the doctor rips newborn Junior away from her hands and gives him to his two new daddies.

The baby-buyers are calling all the shots here. The women who are poor enough to submit to this have no virtually no voice.

This is evil for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that buying a baby is human trafficking. (And let’s not forget that not every baby-buyer wants to raise a child. Some want to resell. Human trafficking of human trafficking.)

Since we just celebrated Mother’s Day, we need to spotlight this abhorrent practice and how it shapes our view of mothers.

Here's the truth: It teaches us that moms aren't really needed. It teaches us that a woman in a child’s life brings nothing special that two men can’t replicate. The media eagerly publishes stories about gay dads and how they can “bond just as well” with children as the real mother who’s been paid and sent away.

So, ladies: Your contribution as a mother isn't special. Women and men aren’t really that different. You goofy Christians and your “God created two genders” nonsense has been disproved! When it comes to children, we can mix and match parents at will. We just don’t need moms.

This is what the progressive, liberal culture wants us to believe about mothers.

Oops, hold on a second

Well, we might still need women for one thing. Not their feminine nature or anything they bring to the table as a creature different from a man. No, all we need from women are their eggs.

The franken-scientists haven’t yet figured out how to create their own, so for now, we need to use women for their ovaries.

After all, what could be better than flooding the female body with a bunch of hormones in order to harvest their eggs in a procedure that nobody has ever described as pleasant? Oh, and those additional hormones? Yeah, they're implicated in the rise of certain cancers for women undergoing this process.

As Nadya Williams says in her excellent article “The Babies Money Can Buy,” this procedure is “only the latest cost our society is willing to exact from women to go against their biology in order to play the fertility game (as it becomes in the process) by men’s rules. ... Egg freezing, after all, is a lucrative business, largely fueled by women trying to extend their childbearing years. But it is also fueled by men who decide to have children without, well, ever marrying a woman.”

Yes, the “we find women icky” crowd are happy to find a woman who can’t quite make ends meet and buy parts of her to make their new mom-less child.

How is this acceptable?

Oops, just one more second

Because science hasn’t yet perfected a viable alternative womb option, this practice tells women: We need to keep you around for now, but just as an incubator for our lab-made child. Sound good?

Baby-buyers prey on women in desperate financial straits with this generous offer: You can have all the discomforts of pregnancy and all the pain of childbirth, but no baby! Your hormones will be totally wacky afterward, and you’ll probably feel quite sad to lose the little person who grew inside of you.

In fact, as Williams explains:

There are additional emotional costs that are involved in carrying a child for nine months. Pregnancy is the ultimate bonding process for mothers with the baby in utero. The surrogate’s body, hormones, emotions — all these combine to treat the baby as her own, because that is how pregnancy is naturally designed to work.

Yes, the original Designer got it right the first time, and women — and their babies — are the ones who pay this soul-destroying price of separation from the little human they grew. You’ve probably read of cases where surrogates went to court to get a baby back, but savvy baby-buyers make sure their contracts are airtight. Even in cases where they decide they don’t want the baby and want it aborted.

After a woman bids a permanent farewell to the child she carried, maybe she'll receive the extra bonus of recovering from surgery, since some buyers prefer their surrogates to have a C-section. Never mind that the procedure is far riskier, requires a longer recovery, and has been known to cause a lifetime of complications.

The baby-buyers are calling all the shots here. The women who are poor enough to submit to this have virtually no voice.

Again. How is this acceptable?

Now, I understand that not every surrogate is in these circumstances, but we must grapple with the facts as we have them — and they don't paint a pretty picture.

Women and children, last not first

Remember when our culture encouraged men to put women and children first? Yeah, not so anymore. Now, we can just erase women completely.

Case in point: Colton Underwood, who starred on the reality show “The Bachelor” before coming out as gay. He and his now-husband recently bought eggs and a womb to create a motherless baby, then posed in the hospital with the child shortly after taking him from his mother. Afterward, they claimed their child has no mother at all.

Both the woman who carried the baby and the egg donor — completely erased.

Most surrogacy arrangements like this are highly questionable ethically. How did we get to the place where two rich guys can buy or rent a woman’s body parts?

Of course, it's objectionable for anyone to do it. But the fact that our culture is now celebrating two men purposefully creating a motherless child is especially disgusting. It smacks of misogyny, and it hurts the child who was created to be mothered — not just fathered.

How is the child hurt? Because that Designer I mentioned created these little ones to be nurtured on the outside by the person who carried them inside. We know about mother-child bonding: It’s emotional and physical.

Before birth in any pregnancy (including surrogacy), the child’s genetic material crosses through the placenta and circulates in the mother’s blood, according to Dr. Kristin Collier, a bioethicist. The child literally becomes part of the mother. How cruel and wrong for the child to be taken from her. Countless studies have demonstrated other ways in which the maternal-child bond is irreplaceable for a child’s long-term health.

Yes, other situations rupture the maternal-child bond. But this situation is unique because the baby was created expressly to be taken away from its mother, expressly to live a life with no mother. That makes it even worse.

It is ironic that the progressive left embraced the book and TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale" as a rhetorical tool, darkly warning how President Trump or Republicans or pro-lifers want to enslave women and force them into bearing children.

Those "warnings" come from one side of the same mouths that celebrate two gay daddies making not one but two new forever-motherless babies.

Do they not see how we are inching toward a similar dystopian outcome? A woman-rejecting, woman-disrespecting, woman-using, woman-abusing outcome? Do they not see that even in that show, the birth mothers are devastated when their babies — who are products of rape — are taken from them?

And we must remember the children who will never have a mom in their lives. It's a tragic loss for them, just like it is when a young mother dies or some other situation removes a mother from her children.

But at least those kids know who their mother is and sometimes will get a new mom in their lives. Until recently, humans have universally recognized and honored this crucial fact: Children need a mother. And not just daughters, by the way, though it’s sad to think about a girl growing up without her mother.

Yes, our dysfunctional culture is also rewriting the importance of fathers, and two women should not create babies who will never see or know their father. But surrogate fathers are not the same because a man’s contribution to a lab-conception process is much — shall we say — quicker and simpler.

No, this denigration of the role of a mother hits women and children the hardest.

Think about this the next time you see two daddies showing off their new designer baby on social media, which invariably generates likes and positive comments from those who fail to think deeply about this and from those who don’t understand the flawed nature of the research on same-sex parenting.

That research, for the record, is often conducted using participants recruited from LGBTQ advocacy organizations, and it mostly focuses on parental perception, not actual outcomes for children.

Them Before Us, an organization devoted to putting children’s needs before adult “wants” (including the need for a mother and a father), is a great resource for learning more about how to protect motherhood, fatherhood, and children.

There’s never been more of a direct attack on motherhood.

It's not the news we want to discuss around Mother’s Day, but when mothers are deemed unnecessary, that’s nothing to celebrate.

The abortion pill’s body count — and the progressive cover-up behind it



Progressives routinely advance their agenda by obscuring the suffering of women and children. Every cultural revolution they champion, from redefining marriage to dismantling biological sex to flooding the country with abortion pills, demands one thing: suppression of consequences.

During the gay marriage debate, we were told it was all about adult love and equality. In reality, children paid the price.

This is the progressive playbook: Minimize harm, deny casualties, and move the Overton window.

With the transgender surge, Americans were assured it was just about “letting people pee in peace.” In reality, it meant lost female swim and track records, male rapists in women’s prisons, and irreversible surgeries on minors.

And now it's the abortion pill. Sold as “a safe, effective, FDA-approved method for people to end a pregnancy in the comfort of their own homes,” it has quietly become one of the most dangerous medical products routinely given to American women — no doctor visit required.

A groundbreaking new study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center shatters the illusion of safety around mifepristone, the abortion drug created by Danco Laboratories and greenlighted by the FDA. Based on real-world insurance claims (versus the previous shallow clinical trials) the data shows that one in 10women who take the abortion pill suffer a serious or life-threatening complication: sepsis, hemorrhaging, emergency surgery, hospitalization — even death.

“Simply stated,” the report says, “mifepristone, as used in real-world conditions, is not ‘safe and effective.’”

Naming the victims

The study analyzed a staggering 865,727 chemical abortions between 2017 and 2023, drawn from an all-payer insurance claims database covering private insurers, Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Unlike the cherry-picked participants in controlled trials, these women represent the actual population using mifepristone today.

The EPPC found that 10.93% of women experienced serious adverse events within 45 days of their abortions — a rate 22 times higher than what the FDA reports on its drug label, which still cites outdated trials from as far back as 1983. As the authors note, those clinical trials enrolled just 30,966 people and were conducted under tightly controlled conditions. The real world doesn’t work that way.

And the real world has already buried the dead.

Amber Nicole Thurman, a 28-year-old medical assistant and mother from Georgia, died on August 19, 2022, from septic shock after experiencing complications from a medication abortion. After taking abortion pills, she developed a severe infection due to retained fetal tissue.

In 2017, 23-year-old Keisha Atkins underwent a late-term abortion in New Mexico, using mifepristone and misoprostol. She developed sepsis and required transfer to the University of New Mexico Hospital. Her condition rapidly worsened, and she died during emergency surgery.

Atkins and Thurman are not rare exceptions. Candi Miller, a 41-year-old mother, and Porsha Ngumezi, 35, also suffered fatal complications. Other unnamed victims fill the record. These women represent just a fraction of the tens of thousands who faced serious complications after taking mifepristone.

The EPPC report confirms what these stories reveal: The FDA has abandoned its responsibility to women in pursuit of politically pressured expediency.

In the name of “access,” the FDA has dismantled the original safeguards it once demanded when approving mifepristone in 2000.

Back then, patients were required to make three in-person visits. Only physicians could prescribe the drug. Pills had to be administered in a clinic or hospital setting. Providers had to be able to diagnose ectopic pregnancies and provide emergency surgical care if needed. Adverse events had to be reported.

Now? One telehealth call. Pills mailed to your house. And no obligation to report complications — unless the woman dies.

Returning to reality

In light of such overwhelming evidence of harm, the EPPC report recommends that “the FDA immediately reinstate its earlier, stronger patient safety protocols to ensure physician responsibility for women who take mifepristone under their care, as well as mandate full reporting of its side effects.”

The EPPC is right. Because the data is damning.

The study used the FDA’s own criteria to identify serious adverse events: infections, transfusions, ER visits, repeat surgeries, and psychiatric emergencies, all coded through ICD-10 and CPT medical billing systems. And while the report was cautious — tracking events within 45 days instead of the 72-day window used by FDA trial data — the outcome was still catastrophic.

“We included CTCAE Grade 3 (severe) and Grade 4 (life-threatening),” the report notes. “We did not include Grade 1 (mild) or Grade 2 (moderate).”

In other words, these weren’t headaches or stomach cramps. These were emergencies. And the women were often alone.

Chemical abortions now account for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in America. That means mifepristone is not a niche product — it’s mainstream. And yet the public has been systematically lied to about the risks, even as the federal government continues to loosen restrictions.

This is the progressive playbook: Minimize harm, deny casualties, and move the Overton window. It worked with marriage. It worked with gender. It’s working with abortion pills — unless we stop pretending.

Justice requires living in reality. And the reality is that women and children are the consistent casualties of the progressive utopia.

We owe women more than euphemisms about “empowerment.” We owe them truth, compassion, accountability — and, in this case, stricter regulations that once existed for their protection.

The EPPC’s report is only the beginning. As more real-world data emerges, the FDA and drug manufacturers will be forced to answer the one question they’ve dodged for decades: How many women must suffer and die before “safe and effective” actually means something again?

Is same-sex marriage about to get the Dobbs treatment?



Could Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, face Roe v. Wade's fate?

Last month, Idaho lawmakers overwhelmingly passed House Joint Memorial 1, which declares that the Idaho legislature rejects the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell and formally asks the Supreme Court to "restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman."

The memorial accuses the Supreme Court of adopting a definition of "liberty" that the framers of the Constitution "would not have recognized." Whereas the framers declared in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," the memorial accuses the Supreme Court of declaring in Obergefell that "citizens must seek dignity from the state." The memorial, moreover, accuses the Supreme Court of treating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment "as a font of substantive rights," therefore "exalt[ing] judges at the expense of the people from whom they derive their authority."

Ultimately, the memorial demands the issue of marriage be returned to the "several states and the people."

What is most interesting about the memorial is that it was crafted to mirror the language of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The question seems not to be if the Supreme Court will hear a direct challenge to Obergefell — but when.

Case in point: In his forceful Obergefell dissent, Thomas condemned the "dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights" while warning that when strayed from the Constitution, "substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."

Thomas resurrected his argument seven years later when he wrote a concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the landmark Supreme Court case that overturned Roe.

In light of the Dobbs ruling that abortion is not a form of "liberty" protected by substantive due process rights because it is neither "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" nor "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Thomas argued that "all of this Court's substantive due process precedents" must be reconsidered, specifically highlighting Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell.

"Substantive due process ... has harmed our country in many ways," Thomas argued. "Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."

That opportunity may come sooner than later.

While the Idaho memorial does not carry the force and effect of law, according to the Idaho Capitol Sun, it is a shot across the bow that signals a growing willingness to challenge Obergefell and the jurisprudence on which it stands.

The Supreme Court, however, will not revisit the legal question of same-sex marriage until it receives a direct challenge to the Obergefell precedent.

But it is not hard to imagine such a challenge emerging in the near future.

While the Obergefell decision legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states, more than 30 states still have state constitutional amendments or statutes banning same-sex marriage. Democrats, concerned about a potential Obergefell reversal, warn that more than 200 million Americans live in states where same-sex marriage would become illegal if Obergefell falls.

Not only is there a legitimate argument that marriage is an issue of state's rights, but Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito have written on the consequences of the Obergefell decision for Christians.

After the Supreme Court chose not to hear a case involving Kim Davis — the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses because of her Christian faith — Thomas and Alito described Davis as "one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision" and warned that "she will not be the last."

"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws," the duo wrote in 2020.

"It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law," they explained. "But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch."

In their eyes, the Supreme Court chose to "privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment" in Obergefell through "undemocratic" means.

The only remedy, according to Thomas and Alito, is future intervention from the Supreme Court.

Still, there are significant differences between abortion and same-sex marriage that would make overturning Obergefell insurmountable.

For example, support for same-sex marriage remains statistically high: About 70% of Americans support it, according to Gallup. Abortion never enjoyed such widespread support. Even more important is that reversing Obergefell would raise the complex legal question of what to do with existing same-sex marriages. Would they be invalidated? Grandfathered in?

Only the Supreme Court's nine justices can answer that question. But if Dobbs proved anything, it's that the Supreme Court is willing to overturn long-standing precedents to correct legal transgressions.

With growing cultural and political backlash against woke ideology, the question seems not to be if the Supreme Court will hear a direct challenge to Obergefell — but when.

Voting For Trump Is The Clear Moral Choice For Pro-Lifers

The idea of 'punishing' Trump and Vance for their stances either by abstaining or by voting third party is not only morally incorrect but politically suicidal.

Allie Beth Stuckey slams Ted Cruz for calling IVF treatment a 'right’



Republicans have announced a new bill that declares in vitro fertilization a right, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is leading the charge alongside Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.).

“We came together, and said let’s draft a simple, straightforward, federal bill that creates a federal right that you as a parent have a right to have access to IVF,” Cruz said.

“If you want to have a child and you need medical assistance to do so, that should be your right,” he concluded.

"A right to IVF," Allie Beth Stuckey mimics in clear disagreement.

Associate professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Andrew T. Walker is also extremely disappointed.

“I was really discouraged with this legislation coming out from two senators,” Walker tells Stuckey. “This is obviously coming in the aftermath of the Alabama Supreme Court decision from earlier in the year, but I think tragically, they’re going further out in support of a practice that, tragically, most Americans are just woefully misinformed about when it comes to what IVF is.”

“It’s an affront to human dignity, in the service of so-called support for human dignity,” he adds.

Stuckey is in firm agreement.

“Yes, we like to say that when technology takes us from what is natural to what is possible, Christians have the responsibility to ask, ‘But is this moral?’ And more important, ‘Is this biblical?’” Stuckey says.

“Catholic teaching takes issue with removing or with separating reproduction from sex, which I think is good, and I think is fair. Because when you make that separation, all kinds of ethical issues flow from that,” she adds.

Not only is the process unnatural, but it isn’t consistent with the beliefs of those who claim to be pro-life.

“If life starts at conception, then how we treat embryos matters. IVF very often includes a eugenics process of selecting the best embryos and discarding the others,” Stuckey explains, adding, “If life begins at conception, then how can we say that we have a right to IVF when inherent in IVF is the mistreatment of these little human beings made in God’s image?”


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Levin: Unraveling America's legal beginnings



Despite what the reprobates and historical illiterates on the left will have you think, our founding fathers drew on the philosophy that our inalienable rights derive from natural law — God.

But it’s not always out of malice.

Rather, it’s mostly because “they’re not very bright,” Mark Levin says, noting that the media is one of the worst offenders.

“The media in this country, they abuse their authority. They lie and they try and preach the radical left agenda,” Levin says.

And a reporter on MSNBC is proving Levin right.

“There’s many different groups orbiting Trump, but the thing that reunites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians by the way, because Christian nationalist is very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don’t come from any earthly authority, they don’t come from Congress, they don’t come from the Supreme Court, they come from God,” the Politico reporter said.

“Obviously, she doesn’t know a damn thing about American history,” Levin says.

At the time that the country was founded, John Locke was the most important philosopher. He spoke at length about free will, the individual, unalienable rights, natural rights, and natural law — just like the great Aristotle.

“He talked about natural law, which is a universal law,” Levin explains. “In other words, murder is wrong, whether a man passes a law or not.”

“Morality does not come from man; morality comes from a higher authority,” he adds.

This is what our country was founded on because our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

“That’s the modern-day Democrat Party, that man gives us rights and privileges and we need the right man,” Levin says, adding that “it’s a very dangerous ideology, and it’s preposterous.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Levin: THIS is how Democrats are getting around the Constitution



The best way to try to prevent tyranny is to divide the power.

That’s why judicial, legislative, and executive each have their own branches within the United States government.

And as Mark Levin says, “That’s why the delineation of the authority as best as they could under each one of those branches is spelled out in the most fabulous governing document in the history of man: the United States Constitution.”

“Everything I just told you was rejected by the Democrat Party,” Levin says.

“If you’re trying to put together an autocratic centralized regime, you’ve got to get around the Constitution. And today, you’ve got to get around the Constitution if you want to implement the Marxist agenda,” he adds.

According to Levin, Joe Biden himself repeats Marxist phrases.

“Joe Biden is a very stupid and sick man, but he knows how to repeat phrases. When he says, ‘Bottom up and middle out,’ what he’s trying to say is ‘I want you to follow bottom up and middle out, but we’re not really about bottom up and middle out,’” Levin explains.

Marx did not use the same phrasing, but he did talk about the same thing.

“Marx talked about bottom up and middle out without using those phrases. It was called the proletariat that was going to overthrow the management and executive class, as he would call it,” Levin adds.

When you look at the Democrat Party through the same lens as dictators and philosophers past, it all starts to make sense.

“They’re repulsive, they’re unconscionable,” Levin says. “The Democrat Party projects onto the Republican Party everything it’s done to this country. From racism to anti-Semitism to economic dislocation and on and on and on.”

Levin believes the only thing standing in the way of their all-out takeover is the Constitution.

“The Democrat Party hates the country. It’s trying to destroy our constitutional system,” he says. “It’s all about power.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Why Judges Need The Anchoring Truths Of Natural Law, Not Just Conservative Legal Philosophy

In his new book, Hadley Arkes explains that conservative judges enamored by originalism and textualism might find themselves abandoning moral reasoning in the process.