Following the Biden administration's decision to lift the ban on foreign aid for abortion providers, congressional Democrats are calling for the State Department to consider abortion in its assessment of global human rights. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Bob Menendez (N.J.) introduced an act to require the State Department to include abortion access in its annual reports on international human rights.

The bill identifies a lack of access to abortion as a human rights violation. "Reproductive coercion, which is any behavior that interferes with autonomous decision making about reproductive health outcomes, is a violation of human rights," the resolution says.

"The bill would require the U.S. State Department to include reproductive rights in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – including reports on the adoption of national policies to promote access to contraception, maternal health care and family planning services – to help ensure accountability around abuses on these rights," the lawmakers said in a statement.

Biden drew objections from Republicans when he removed domestic protections against taxpayer funding for abortions from his $6 trillion budget proposal. The administration has also pursued policies that could pump millions of dollars into pro-abortion organizations operating overseas.

The State Department requested a 12 percent increase for its 2022 fiscal budget, with the most significant increase going to spending on global health initiatives. The budget request includes the Helms Amendment, a provision that is supposed to limit foreign aid funding for abortion. In reality, international abortion organizations have been able to collect tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for decades through family planning programs. The agency's budget includes initiatives designed to increase that funding.

Congressional Republicans have raised concerns about the use of taxpayer money to fund international organizations that provide abortion services or referrals. Republican senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.) clashed with Secretary of State Antony Blinken at a hearing Tuesday, saying the State Department's budget proposal would devote millions of taxpayer dollars to funding abortions overseas.

"Your budget would funnel even more taxpayer dollars to these organizations by increasing the slush fund for international family planning reproductive health by $8.7 million," she said. "Promoting abortion in poor, developing nations, especially when those nations have pro-life laws in place right now, harms the most vulnerable and undermines the goodwill we seek to do with global health assistance."

Blinken denied that the budget request would fund abortions. "We take very seriously the proposition that … the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls are key to their health and well-being," he said. "We also take very seriously the proposition that we are not in the business of funding internationally abortion."

A State Department spokeswoman said the agency said "reproductive health" abroad is a matter of national security.

"The empowerment and protection of women and girls, including promoting their sexual and reproductive health and rights, is a central part of U.S. foreign policy and national security," the agency said in a statement. "The Administration takes [the Helms Amendment] and other related legislative restrictions very seriously and will work with partners to ensure compliance."

The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the role abortion would play in U.S. foreign policy.

The move to prioritize abortion echoes the Obama administration's policies, under which abortion providers successfully lobbied the State Department and received millions of dollars in funding. Biden's decision to repeal the Mexico City Policy, which bans giving taxpayer aid to international abortion providers, reversed the Trump administration's decision to cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which has funneled millions to abortion groups worldwide. In 2017, the State Department cut off funding for the population fund because of its involvement with the Chinese government's genocide against the Muslim Uyghur minority. Congressional Democrats introduced legislation in 2019 to permanently repeal the Mexico City Policy.

*This post has been updated with comment from the State Department 

The post Democrats Make Abortion a Top Foreign Policy Priority appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

A three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided against allowing the law to go into effect as legal challenges work their way through the courts. The law, passed in 2019 and titled the "Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act," includes a provision completely banning abortion in the state in the event that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. It also prohibits abortions on the basis of fetal diagnoses of Down syndrome.

If the law is found unconstitutional, it also includes several backup options for restricting abortions. It would ban abortions after 14 weeks, 18 weeks, or 20 weeks if each subsequent ban is overturned.

"We're disappointed the circuit court refused to let Missouri's law stand, especially with a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case already pending," said Sue Liebel, state policy director for the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. "Missouri lawmakers acted on the will of the people when they enacted some of the nation's strongest protections for the unborn and their mothers in 2019."

Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region filed the lawsuit. A district court judge initially blocked the implementation of the law, and the state of Missouri appealed. The three-judge panel agreed with the district court judge, and the fate of the law now hangs in the balance.

Yamelsie Rodríguez, president and CEO of the regional Planned Parenthood, praised the decision. "For now, we celebrate our continued ability to provide safe, legal abortion at the last remaining clinic in Missouri," she said.

The appeals court's decision comes ahead of a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court concerning a Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks. The only abortion clinic in Mississippi similarly challenged that abortion ban in court.

The post Court Blocks Implementation of Missouri Abortion Law appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Congressional Democrats on Tuesday reintroduced the Women's Health Protection Act, which would significantly limit the ability of states to pass pro-life reforms. The act aims to create safeguards around access to abortion in states that have passed laws restricting or outright banning abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected or after a certain number of weeks in a pregnancy. The legislation comes as Democratic senators push more taxpayer funding into federal grant programs and family planning programs that funnel tens of millions of dollars to organizations such as Planned Parenthood. These efforts accompany a budget proposal from President Joe Biden that threw out the Hyde Amendment, a decades-old provision that prevents taxpayer money from funding abortion services.

Republican lawmakers are pushing back against Biden's abortion agenda. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) said eliminating the Hyde Amendment represents a "radical" departure from the bipartisan consensus that has stood since Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972.

"Democrats are once again looking for ways to advance their radical pro-abortion agenda using taxpayer dollars," Rubio said. "Republicans will protect the Hyde Amendment, stand up for life, and reject these radical left efforts to fund nationwide abortion on demand."

State Republicans are also taking steps to prevent taxpayers from funneling millions of dollars to abortion providers. More than 20 Republican state attorneys general threatened legal action against the Department of Health and Human Services over proposed funding for abortion through the Title X program. The Department of Health and Human Services is requesting more than $130 billion in discretionary funding, a nearly 25 percent increase over its fiscal budget in 2020. The department did not respond to a request for comment on how that funding is going to be used.

While the Democratic measures have been championed by Planned Parenthood and other abortion industry groups, the policies are unpopular with the American people, particularly among independent voters. Polls suggest that a majority of independent voters support restrictions on abortion. More than 50 percent of independent voters said they would be more likely to support a Republican candidate who backs limits on abortion, compared with 18 percent who said they would support a Democratic candidate who backs unrestricted access to late-term abortions.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said popular support and scientific advancement are working against the Democratic agenda.

"The majority of voters reject late-term abortion and the Democratic candidates who shamefully advocate for it. At 15 weeks, unborn children can feel pain, and most European countries limit abortions at this point," Dannenfelser said. "There is strong support among the American people for our nation's laws to finally catch up with science and international norms."

The post Democrats Fight for Taxpayer Funding for Abortion appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Biden nominated Gwynne Wilcox to a long-vacant seat on the five-person National Labor Relations Board. Wilcox is associate general counsel for the largest local chapter of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the second-largest labor union in the United States. The union spent nearly $28 million to back left-wing super PACs and contributed more than $3 million to help get Democratic candidates elected.

The SEIU also stands to benefit from Biden's policies. In April, he proposed $400 billion in spending as part of an overall infrastructure package that would devote the funding to Medicaid "in-home" care. In many Democrat-controlled states, health workers are required to join the SEIU, which boasts nearly two million members.

Wilcox also served on a working group that produced a 2020 report that endorsed expanding the power of labor unions through many of the provisions in the PRO Act, an overhaul of labor laws that is languishing in the Senate after its passage in the House. Biden, who repeatedly pledged to be the most pro-union president in history, has endorsed the bill. The report urged federal action that "must not allow" states to have right-to-work laws, which have been enacted in 27 states.

"[The] new statute should affirmatively protect the ability of workplace exclusive bargaining representatives and sectoral workers' bargaining councils to collect fees from all of the workers on whose behalf they bargain," the report said. "Concomitantly, consistent with the PRO Act, the statute must not allow states to enact or enforce so-called right-to-work laws that prohibit fair-share agreements of this kind."

The nomination comes as the NLRB is under heightened scrutiny. Biden's unprecedented firing of the board's general counsel upon his inauguration has resulted in legal challenges to the new general counsel's legitimacy as the board moves to shift its support back toward labor unions.

Wilcox's appointment, followed by the expected replacement of a Republican appointee at the end of the summer, is likely to move the board further in the pro-union direction. Her nomination will now go before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The post Biden Taps Union Ally for Board of Federal Labor Arbiter appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

The state agreed to pay the fees stemming from two legal cases, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom and Father Trevor Burfitt v. Newsom, that saw religious leaders take Gov. Gavin Newsom (D.) to court over shutdown orders that singled out places of worship. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued the two judgments after months of legal clashes between the Newsom administration and churches in the state. Father Trevor Burfitt, one of the plaintiffs, had won a victory in December as a judge suspended Newsom's restrictions pending a full trial.

In another major victory for religious institutions, Newsom's administration agreed to prohibitions on restrictions that treat religious gatherings more harshly than secular gatherings. Any lockdowns on religious services cannot exceed "the precautions imposed on other similar gatherings of similar risk," according to the district court's order.

Courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of religious institutions that challenged coronavirus restrictions. The most significant case came from the Supreme Court in a November ruling that struck down limits placed by New York governor Andrew Cuomo (D.) on synagogues and churches in the state. The rulings all have a common theme: Religious worship cannot be treated more harshly than other secular essential activities.

Attorneys for the Thomas More Society, which argued both cases in California, said the California decisions mark a turning point for religious liberty as the pandemic recedes.

"The injunction in Burfitt was the first of its kind in the country, anticipating what the Supreme Court would later hold definitively, that houses of worship must receive the same treatment as the most favored secular comparators," attorney Christopher Ferrara said. "If favored businesses are allowed 100 percent occupancy during a pandemic, so must churches be allowed."

Newsom's administration told the Washington Free Beacon that the settlements provided "clarity and certainty" about public health standards. They also touted the state's high vaccination numbers, saying their "decisions are based on what the science and data tell us."

"These settlements resolve the cases while providing clarity and certainty to the public around the public health standards applicable to places of worship following recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court," a spokesperson said. "California has led the nation in safely reopening because our decisions are based on what the science and data tell us, and we will continue to do so as we look beyond the Blueprint."

The post Newsom Hit With Major Settlement Over COVID Lockdowns on Churches appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Soni Lloyd, a left-wing activist and teacher who unsuccessfully ran for the presidency of the United Teachers Los Angeles union at the beginning of 2020, described the United States as an "evil empire" that funds "ugly Zionism" around the world in a Facebook post on May 14. Lloyd did not respond to a request for comment on that Facebook post or another where he posted a cartoon of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu dropping bombs on Gaza with the help of the United States. After the Washington Free Beacon reached out for comment on those posts and others where Lloyd expressed anti-vaccine sentiment, he locked his Facebook profile.

The UTLA is facing accusations of anti-Semitism on multiple fronts as critics say it is prioritizing a left-wing cause over issues facing students and families. A group of parents of California schoolchildren authored an open letter to the president of the UTLA demanding an "unequivocal apology for the anti-Semitism and intolerance coming from you and the union you lead." The group, California Students United, ripped into UTLA president Cecily Myart-Cruz for leading a union more concerned with condemning the Jewish state than reopening schools.

"The leadership of the union representing our children's teachers has no business singling out one country and its people, especially a people who have been victims of discrimination persecution, and genocide for generations," the letter stated. "The position of the union you lead has thrown gasoline on the fire of what was already a volatile, unsafe, and increasingly frightening environment for Jews."

The letter comes after leaders of the union passed a resolution on May 19 condemning Israel for the fighting in Gaza and calling for an end to U.S. aid for the Jewish state. The resolution is one of a number of resolutions being considered, and its passage makes it likely that the resolution will come up for a vote in the union's policy-making body, the House of Representatives. The next meeting of the House is in September.

Another resolution, obtained by the Free Beacon and which is currently being circulated within sections of the union, calls for the end of U.S. financial aid that is being used for "incessant warfare against an indigenous people in the Middle East."

"UTLA denounces the he [sic] recent bombings in the West Bank and Gaza by the Israeli army resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilian people, mostly women and children," a copy of the resolution says. "The high intensity aerial warfare is unjust and inhumane. Palestinians have the right to self-determination free of violence and occupation."

In response to a request for comment on Lloyd's Facebook posts and the anti-Israel resolutions, a UTLA spokeswoman provided the Free Beacon with a statement that had been issued on June 1. In the statement, the union said the resolutions are part of a "democratic process" and that they do not represent the opinions of the UTLA. "Debate and disagreement are essential to democracy and to our union, even when there are deep, conflicting emotions on both sides," the union wrote. Its parent union, American Federation of Teachers, did not respond to a request for comment.

UTLA is not the only California teachers' union embracing anti-Israel causes. The United Educators of San Francisco voted in favor of a resolution that accused Israel of apartheid and war crimes and endorsed the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.

"As public school educators in the United States of America, we have a special responsibility to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people because of the 3.8 billion dollars annually that the U.S. government gives to Israel, thus directly using our tax dollars to fund apartheid and war crimes," the teachers wrote.

The post California Teachers' Union Activist Has History of Anti-Semitic Posts appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Northern District of Texas judge James Wesley Hendrix dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the nation's largest abortion provider lacked the jurisdiction to challenge the law. "Because the ability to remedy a plaintiff's injury through a favorable decision is a prerequisite to a plaintiff’s standing to sue—an ability absent here—the court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction," Hendrix wrote.

On May 17, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas filed a lawsuit to stop the Lubbock ordinance from going into effect on June 1. It declared that the city would automatically outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. "It shall be unlawful for any person to procure or perform an abortion of any type and at any stage of pregnancy in the City of Lubbock, Texas," the ordinance says. Lubbock, with a population north of 250,000 people, is the largest city in Texas to adopt such a ban.

The Lubbock ordinance empowers private citizens to sue any abortion providers suspected of performing abortions after the overturning of Roe. This places the responsibility for enforcing the law in the hands of private citizens, not the local government. Hendrix left open the possibility for further legal review of the ordinance but declined to intervene to stop it from taking effect.

The move opens another front in the war over state laws restricting or expanding access to abortion; 25 other cities in Texas have adopted similar "sanctuary city" ordinances. The ordinances have been modeled after Democrat-run cities that clashed with the Trump administration over becoming sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. Additionally, 10 states have passed "trigger" bills that will outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. The ruling also comes days after the Texas state legislature passed such a trigger bill.

Both the ACLU and Planned Parenthood said they will appeal the decision. "In spite of this ruling, we will continue to fight to protect the rights of all Texans," said Adriana Piñon, policy counsel and senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. She added that the ordinance is unconstitutional and the organization is "disappointed" in the judge's ruling.

"Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Texas will continue fighting to ensure that every person in Lubbock has access to the health care they need and deserve, including abortion," said Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Despite this disappointing ruling, the fight isn't over. We remain committed to doing everything in our power to overturn this unconstitutional law."

The post Judge Dismisses Planned Parenthood Challenge to Texas Sanctuary City appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

The law, titled the "Fairness in Women's Sports Act," restricts participation in female-only sports to biological females, based on the sex on a student's birth certificate. Florida became the ninth state to enact a ban on transgender participation in youth sports of the opposite sex. Advocates for transgender issues called the law cruel and unnecessary.

DeSantis signed the bill into law Tuesday and touted its protection of female sports. "We believe in the state of Florida protecting the fairness and integrity of women's athletics," he said at the bill signing. "I can tell you that in Florida, girls are going to play girls' sports and boys are going to play boys' sports."

DeSantis said he intends to have the law withstand threats of boycott from corporations. He specifically singled out the National College Athletic Association, which pulled events from North Carolina in 2017 over a "bathroom bill" that required transgender individuals to use bathrooms that corresponded to their biological sex. The NCAA eventually returned to the state after the governor and state legislature capitulated and repealed the law.

The legislation comes as the fight over social issues ratchets up at the state level. The contentious future of abortion and voting rights has already drawn legal battles and corporate boycotts as more Republican-controlled states enact legislation to maintain single-sex accommodations. Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles PAC, echoed DeSantis's challenge to corporations that threaten to pull business from Florida over the law.

"By joining Florida to a growing coalition of states that are moving to explicitly protect a fair playing field for female athletes, Gov. DeSantis has sent a message to the woke elite: attack us at your peril," Schilling said. "While economic boycott threats might have worked against a single state, the strength of many state leaders standing together to defend women's sports is certain to neutralize the left's favorite playbook."

De Santis's signing came on the first day of LGBT Pride Month, which opponents of the bill noted on social media. State representative Carlos Smith (D.) called the signing of the bill on the first day of Pride Month "appalling." DeSantis defended the timing, saying that the date of the bill's enactment was a coincidence.

"This bill is based in fear, not fact, and pushed by legislators who have been fed misinformation by anti-LGBTQ extremists who don’t care about women’s sports or Floridians—they care about dismantling equality and have no compunction about transgender youth being harmed in the process," said Cathryn Oakley, state legislative director and senior counsel for the Human Rights Campaign.

The post DeSantis Signs Law Restricting Transgender Participation in Women's Sports appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

The Biden administration's 2022 fiscal budget massively boosts federal spending and lacks any protections from the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer money from funding abortions. The administration issued the budget request to Congress Friday.

The budget calls for $6 trillion in funding overall, the majority of which will go to pay for entitlement programs and interest on the national debt. The Department of Health and Human Services is requesting $133 billion in discretionary funding, none of which includes the Hyde Amendment. The request represents a nearly 25 percent increase from last year.

The Biden administration did not respond to a request for comment.

Pro-life groups condemned Biden's spending priorities. The budget proposal not only reversed the pro-life policies of the Trump administration but also ran against Biden's defense of the Hyde Amendment during his career in elected office.

"For more than four decades, the Hyde family of pro-life policies has kept American taxpayers out of the abortion business, with the Hyde Amendment itself saving nearly 2.5 million lives," said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser. "The Biden budget throws that longstanding, bipartisan consensus out the window to fulfill a campaign promise to the radical abortion lobby."

Tom McClusky, president of March for Life Action, said Biden is forcing the American people to violate their consciences.

"The Biden/Harris budget is radically out of touch with the American people on the issue of taxpayer support for abortion," McClusky said. "The majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars funding abortion, yet the Biden/Harris administration removed the long-standing—since 1976—Hyde protections against such a policy."

Biden reversed his position on the Hyde Amendment during the 2020 presidential campaign after he repeatedly voted to reauthorize the amendment during his time in the Senate. After wavering on the issue, Biden said he supported taxpayer-funded abortions because of state legislatures passing restrictions on the procedure.

The post Biden Pushes for Taxpayer-Funded Abortion in Budget appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Chelsea Mitchell, a female student athlete from Connecticut, wrote an op-ed published in USA Today on May 22 about her experience as the fastest female runner in the state prior to competing against individuals who transition from male to female.

The column originally used the term male to describe those runners against whom Mitchell competed who transitioned from male to female. Three days after publishing the piece, USA Today changed the word male to transgender without consulting Mitchell.

"This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY's standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used," editors at the publication wrote after updating the article.

USA Today did not respond to a request for comment on the removal or on its editing process. The decision to edit the article after publication comes amidst debates over whether individuals who transition from male to female should be allowed to compete in female sports with physical advantages. More than 20 state legislatures are considering legislation that would ban transgender girls from competing in female-only sports. LGBT advocacy groups have condemned such legislation as attacks on trans people.

Mitchell's attorney, Christiana Holcomb from the Alliance Defending Freedom, said that USA Today was appeasing "the mob."

"USA Today violated its principles to appease the mob. This blatant censorship violates the trust we place in media to be honest brokers of public debate," Holcomb wrote on Twitter.

The Alliance Defending Freedom posted the original article to its site. In it, Mitchell describes her experience of being the first-ranked track runner in the state before she started competing against males who had transitioned to female. She wrote that she began to lose because of the physical advantages and the mental toll that took on her.

"It tells me that I'm not good enough; that my body isn't good enough; and that no matter how hard I work, I am unlikely to succeed, because I'm a woman," she wrote.

With assistance from the Alliance Defending Freedom, she filed a lawsuit challenging guidance from Connecticut officials that allowed biological males who transitioned gender to compete in female sports.

"Connecticut officials are determined to ignore the obvious," Mitchell wrote. "That's wrong. And it chips away at women's confidence and our belief in our own abilities. It's happened to me over and over. Every time I walk up to the starting line, I try to tell myself that I can overcome the unfair odds — I can win, even though the race is stacked against me."

A federal district judge dismissed the case, but Mitchell wrote that she intends to challenge that decision.

The post Newspaper Removes 'Male' From Op-Ed on Trans Athletes appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Everett, a city of over 100,000 people 25 miles north of Seattle, cracked down on pro-life demonstrations even as city officials embraced mass gatherings for left-wing protesters associated with the Black Lives Matter and Antifa movements. The city issued a ban on sidewalk protests in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic after a confrontation between pro-abortion and pro-life protesters. Lawyers for the pro-life groups alleged that the city government gave preferential treatment to the pro-abortion demonstrators by forcing pro-life advocates to move further away from the abortion clinic.

The reversal came after the Thomas More Society, a religious liberty law firm, threatened legal action on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the city was targeting the free speech rights of pro-lifers.

"It was a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the pro-life sidewalk counselors," said Thomas More Society attorney Matt Heffron. "In the end, the city did the right thing. It just takes some legal pressure at times."

Everett's deputy city attorney disagrees with Heffron. "The City implemented reasonable crowd-control measures to protect public safety after protestors from pro-life and pro-choice groups had a physical altercation," he told the Free Beacon. "After no additional events arose for over a month, the City elected to remove restrictions."

The city's crackdown on pro-life protesters comes in the wake of a contentious year of political demonstrations in Washington state. Seattle became the focus of attention during the summer of 2020 over its "CHOP" zone, a neighborhood that left-wing protesters declared an "autonomous zone." Police officers cleared the zone after less than a month of existence due to violence in the neighborhood. Over the course of nine days, there were four shootings, two deaths, and reports of widespread arson and sexual assaults. Locals who lived near the zone said they experienced vandalism and property damage and needed to ask for others to escort them home at night because of safety concerns.

By walking back the ordinance, the city of Everett avoided a court battle. In 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down on free speech grounds a Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot exclusionary zone outside of an abortion clinic. In 2020, the Court declined to hear two similar cases concerning protest zones outside abortion clinics in Pennsylvania and Chicago, but those ordinances had been more narrowly tailored to align with the Court's rulings on the issue.

Police officers for the city had disproportionately enforced the ordinance, according to Thomas More Society attorneys. The police had moved pro-life demonstrators far down the street while allowing a pro-abortion crowd to gather directly across from the clinic.

"Banishing the pro-life side to the far corners of the street while allowing the pro-choice protestors to remain near the clinic is strong evidence of viewpoint discrimination that renders this buffer zone all the more obviously unconstitutional," Thomas More attorneys wrote to the city on May 11.

The post Seattle Suburb Backs Down From Ban on Abortion Clinic Protesters appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Approximately 100 policemen surrounded a factory that served as a seminary and arrested 7 priests and 10 students, according to Asia News. The arrests occurred on May 20 in the city of Xinxiang in the Henan province. The arrests took place just days before a week of prayer was scheduled to begin on May 23.

One day after the arrests, Chinese authorities took the bishop of Xinxiang, 63-year-old Joseph Zhang Weizhu, into custody. The government made the arrests under new regulations that require any Catholic leaders to register with the government before conducting services. The bishop and other arrestees were operating illegally without registering with the Communist Party's database of Catholic priests in the country.

The Chinese government does not recognize the Apostolic Prefecture of Xinxiang, of which the Catholic priests and students are members. The Apostolic Prefecture has been in operation for decades. Several "underground" bishops, appointed by the Vatican but not approved by the Chinese government, including Zhang Weizhu, operate under the threat of arrest. Zhang Weizhu has been arrested on a number of occasions for his defiance of the government.

In 2020, Vatican leadership and the Chinese government renewed a two-year agreement on the ordainment of bishops who would be allowed to operate under the eye of the Chinese government. The Vatican touted the two-year agreement as normalizing relations with Beijing, which insisted on approving Catholic leadership in the country. After the initial agreement in 2018, the Vatican approved of state-ordained bishops and the Chinese government approved of Vatican-appointed bishops.

The arrests come as the Vatican issued a call for Catholics around the world to participate with their fellow Chinese believers in "fervent prayer" during the week of prayer.

Catholics are not the only religious minority being targeted by the Chinese government. China has committed state-sponsored genocide against its Muslim Uyghur minority, subjecting the religious group to forced labor, sterilization, and reeducation camps.

The post China Ships Off Catholic Priests and Students for Reeducation appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

The worker asks the Court to draw on its 2018 Janus decision, which barred public sector employers from mandatory union dues on First Amendment grounds. The petition, filed Tuesday, argues the 5-4 ruling did not go far enough in cracking down on union attempts to subvert right-to-work laws through mandatory dues deductions.

"This case is an ideal vehicle to resolve the exceptionally important question whether the First Amendment or the [Railway Labor Act] protects hundreds of thousands of railway and airline employees from having to opt out of subsidizing expressive associations’ political and ideological activities," the petition states.

The petition aims to have the Court rule that "window periods," or the brief period of time when workers have to opt out of the union, are unconstitutional. If workers do not opt out during the required "window period," then dues are automatically deducted from their paychecks.

The appeal comes as the Court signals its support for the First Amendment rights of union workers. But it could come into conflict with a Biden administration that is increasingly pro-union, along with a federal labor arbiter that critics say has become politicized following Biden's unprecedented firing of GOP appointees. Biden's support for the PRO Act, which is currently languishing in the Senate after the House of Representatives passed it, puts him at odds with right-to-work laws enacted by more than half of the states in the country. The passage of the act would eliminate those laws.

The petition argues the Supreme Court should clarify the application of the rights to free speech and association within the workplace.

"The Court’s recent precedents recognize: (1) opt-out procedures violate the First Amendment; and (2) this Court never sanctioned opt-out procedures as constitutional or authorized by the [Railway Labor Act]," the petition argues. "This leaves hundreds of thousands of railroad and airline employees in the dark about what constitutional and statutory protections they have against compelled expressive associations—expressive associations they are required to associate with by federal law."

The petition is likely to find a sympathetic Court. Four of the five justices who ruled in the majority on the Janus case are still on the Court, including Chief Justice John Roberts. The addition of two more conservative-leaning justices could make for a 6-3 majority in favor of workers' speech rights.

The post Worker Petitions Supreme Court To Strike Down Mandatory Union Dues appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

The letter, authored by Ohio attorney general Dave Yost, rips into a rule change to the Title X family funding program proposed by President Biden's Department of Health and Human Services that would grant abortion providers access to millions in taxpayer funding. The letter said the proposed changes would place recipients of the funding in "jeopardy of violating federal law."

"Title X reflects a compromise. It funds services that large numbers of Americans support while withholding that funding from services that large numbers oppose," the attorneys general state in the letter. "The Proposed Rule tramples that compromise, by intertwining family-planning services with the divisive issue of publicly funded abortions."

The Republicans also criticize the rule's focus on "health equity," which they say could run afoul of anti-discrimination law, because "health programs that receive funding from the Department may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability."

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment.

The Biden proposal, issued on April 15, walks back changes instituted under the Trump administration that required recipients of the program's funding to maintain a physical separation between abortion services and family planning services. "By focusing on advancing equity in the Title X program, we can create opportunities for the improvement of communities that have been historically underserved, which benefits everyone," the proposal says.

The letter comes as Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra faces bipartisan criticism on a number of fronts, including a deteriorating situation at the southern border. White House officials are frustrated with Becerra's ineffective attempts to deal with a record number of unaccompanied minors illegally crossing the border, according to Politico. A group of congressional Republicans called for increased communication from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security over security concerns surrounding child trafficking at the border.

Becerra also took flak from Republican lawmakers and pro-life groups after he falsely claimed there is no federal law prohibiting partial birth abortion. "There is no law that deals specifically with the term 'partial birth abortion,'" he said at a congressional hearing on May 17. The statement ignored the existence of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a law Becerra voted against when he was in the House of Representatives.

"Becerra can hardly plead ignorance on this topic. As a freshman congressman, he voted against the ban. This shameless lie is standard for the most radical pro-abortion administration in history," said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser.

Becerra's time as head of the department could see the most consequential Supreme Court ruling on abortion in decades. The Court's decision to take up a Missouri law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy puts decades of abortion law in the crosshairs of the justices.

The department said that the period for comment on the proposed rule change has closed and that the agency is reviewing comments on the rule.

The post State AGs Threaten Legal Action Against Biden Admin Push for Taxpayer-Funded Abortion appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

National Labor Relations Board acting general counsel Peter Ohr attempted to withdraw the agency's support for a Texas nurse who accused union and company officials of conspiring against workers. Three members of the five-member NLRB, which enforces federal labor law, said the Biden appointee ignored "significant legal issues" the case presented.

"This case presents significant legal issues regarding the duty of fair representation and the appropriate framework for resolving allegations that a union breached that duty," the board wrote in its decision. "This case presents the Board with an opportunity to examine these issues, based on a fully briefed and litigated record, and to provide guidance to employees and unions alike. Accordingly, after careful consideration, we conclude that the Acting General Counsel's motion should be denied."

The move comes as pressure ratchets up on Ohr, who is facing questions about the legitimacy of his appointment. Several workers have filed appeals in the wake of the Biden administration's firing of two Trump-era labor prosecutors whose terms had yet to expire. These legal challenges could complicate Ohr's decision to shift the board to be more favorable to union leadership, as he has withdrawn or reversed agency guidances put in place by his ousted predecessor.

Texas-based nurse Marissa Zamora accused National Nurses United leadership of striking a deal in secret with hospital management contrary to worker interests. Zamora drew backlash when she tried to organize her fellow nurses to oust the union leaders. Her complaint said that hospital management and union leaders tore down her fliers and denied her "access to post material on protected bulletin boards, where her material would be shielded from vandalism."

Former NLRB general counsel Peter Robb signaled his support for the challenge to the union's authority. Zamora's attorneys argue that Ohr did not have the authority to dismiss the case because his appointment was unlawful.

"The Acting General Counsel has no authority to unilaterally seek dismissal of Ms. Zamora's exceptions," Zamora's response to Ohr's dismissal states. "Finally, the Acting General Counsel had no authority to file the Motion because: (1) the removal of General Counsel Robb was unlawful; and (2) Acting General Counsel Ohr was unlawfully appointed."

In response to a request for comment, Ohr said, "I respect but am disappointed with the Board's majority decision, and we will wait for the Board's ruling on the merit of the case."

In a statement, National Nurses United legal counsel Micah Berul said, "The administrative law judge already found that the union did not violate the law. We agree with Chairperson McFerran that the General Counsel should not be required to continue to pursue this case when he has made a determination that it is not in the public interest to do so." Board chairwoman Lauren McFerran dissented from the ruling.

Ohr's appointment is generating controversy as President Biden's violation of decades of precedent sparks legal challenges, according to National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix.

"By moving to have Ms. Zamora's case tossed out, so-called 'Acting General Counsel' Peter Ohr is laying bare President Biden's purely ideological motive behind removing Peter Robb: to allow his union boss cronies to escape legal scrutiny when they violate the rights of workers who refuse to toe the union line," Mix said.

The hospital's management company did not respond to a request for comment.

The post Labor Board Swats Down Biden Appointee appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Five Republican lawmakers from the Committee on Education and Labor sent a letter Thursday to the secretaries of the Health and Human Services and Homeland Security departments raising concerns over how the Biden administration's policies are "fueling a child safety crisis." The lawmakers pointed to the potential for minors to become entangled in child trafficking.

"As migrants see more opportunities to enter the country, we are concerned about the harm that may befall the children and resurgence of child trafficking," the lawmakers wrote. "With record numbers of children crossing the border, we believe it is imperative to understand what the federal government is doing to protect children crossing the border. The administration must treat this crisis as the emergency that it is and actively prevent predators from exploiting weaknesses in the enforcement of our laws."

The letter requests answers to several questions concerning how the federal departments are handling the unaccompanied minors to prevent them from falling into the hands of human traffickers. It also requests details on how the agencies are coordinating to deal with the crisis. The letter is led by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R., N.C.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Early in 2021, a massive influx of children crossing the border left administration officials scrambling to arrange for detainment facilities for the unaccompanied children. March saw the largest number of unaccompanied children stopped at the border in U.S. history, with close to 19,000 being stopped by authorities. In April, the number of children detained at the border dropped but remained near a 20-year high as migrant numbers remained high overall.

The post House Republicans Demand Answers on Border Crisis appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

In February, the Department of Housing and Urban Development directed colleges to eliminate single-sex facilities. The directive came after President Joe Biden issued an executive order in January directing federal agencies "to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity," which would mean targeting religious institutions that maintain single-sex accommodations. The College of the Ozarks, a small Missouri Christian college, challenged the Biden administration for violating its religious rights in April.

On Wednesday, Western District of Missouri judge Roseann Ketchmark declined to temporarily halt the policy's implementation in the face of the school's religious objections. Alliance Defending Freedom, the religious liberty law firm arguing the case on behalf of the school, expressed dismay at the ruling and said the decision is likely to be appealed.

"Following the whims of special interest groups, lobbyists, and politicians, the administration is attempting to redefine the word 'sex' in federal law to mean sexual orientation and gender identity, rather than biological sex as that word has always been understood," ADF senior counsel Ryan Bangert said. "As this case demonstrates, the administration's twisting of words is threatening foundational liberties."

Attorneys for the Biden administration argued that the mandate is not directed specifically at the college or its policies on single-sex facilities. They also argued that the college did not face an immediate threat of legal action if it did not comply with the mandate. The college pushed back by arguing it would face financial penalties if it maintains single-sex facilities and that it did not need to wait for a legal threat to challenge the law's constitutionality.

Ketchmark ruled that stopping the directive from going into effect would not protect the college from allegations of mistreatment under the Fair Housing Act.

The administration did not respond to a request for comment on the decision.

Biden's directive cites the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which expanded anti-discrimination law to include gender identity and sexual orientation. The college says such an interpretation threatens its First Amendment rights.

"Our long-standing Christian beliefs have been threatened by the Biden administration," said Valorie Coleman, chief communications officer for the College of the Ozarks. "The Biden administration touts this change as freedom from discrimination, but it does not feel or look like freedom. Instead, our small private Christian college nestled in America's heartland faces discrimination from the government simply because of the biblical view on marriage and biological sex."

The post Judge Rules Against Christian College Suing Biden Administration Over Trans Mandate appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

"Solidarity with Palestinians from the river to the sea who went on a 24-hour strike yesterday for dignity and liberation. #palestineonstrike," the union wrote on its Twitter account Wednesday afternoon.

The union deleted the tweet three hours later and posted a tweet apologizing for engaging in the anti-Semitic trope. It added that it did not intend for its endorsement of the elimination of Israel to distract from its "solidarity" with the Palestinian people.

"We stand in solidarity with the Palestinians who went on strike for dignity and rights. We’ve removed our original post, which used a phrase with connotations that distracted from our intended message of solidarity," the union wrote. "Solidarity is important—and so is accountability. We apologize."

We stand in solidarity with the Palestinians who went on strike for dignity and rights. We’ve removed our original post, which used a phrase with connotations that distracted from our intended message of solidarity.

— The New Yorker Union (@newyorkerunion) May 19, 2021

The phrase "from the river to the sea" invokes an anti-Semitic trope that advocates for erasing the existence of the state of Israel. The phrase calls for a Palestinian state that runs from the Jordan River, which borders Israel to the east, to the Mediterranean Sea, which borders Israel to the west. The phrase is a rallying cry for Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas.

Members of the media have invoked the trope before in discussing the conflict. CNN was forced to cut ties with Marc Lamont Hill, a professor and network contributor who gave a speech calling for "a free Palestine from the river to the sea."

The New Yorker Union's tweet was posted as violence between Israelis and Palestinians appears to be approaching a ceasefire. Days of rocket attacks from both sides have prompted pro-Palestinian activists to repeatedly call on Israel to back down from its attacks on terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.

The violence has prompted political clashes within the United States Congress. House Democrats voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to block the placing of sanctions on Hamas. House Republicans then pressed the Biden administration to resist calls from congressional Democrats to cut financial support for Israel.

The post New Yorker Magazine Union Posts Anti-Semitic Tweet in Solidarity With Palestinians appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

The Democrat's administration appointed an independent investigator to look into allegations that a Walsh-appointed police commissioner abused his wife, but abruptly ordered the investigator to wrap up the investigation, according to the report, as Walsh prepared for a Senate confirmation vote to become secretary of the Department of Labor. The report, written by an external law firm, revealed that the investigation into Police Commissioner Dennis White began on Feb. 12—just one day after a Senate panel voted to advance Walsh's nomination to the floor. The auditor told city officials she had expected to complete the report in "four to six weeks" but ran into immediate roadblocks. On February 22, the Walsh administration ordered the outside investigator to halt her inquiries and gave her just two days to report her findings.

"I was asked to provide a final report of the investigation to the extent possible. As the investigation was in a preliminary phase, I was unable to make any findings at that time. I submitted a brief memorandum summarizing the status of the investigation," the investigator wrote. "l was contacted again by [city] Attorney [Susan] Weise on March 1, 2021, and informed that this investigation was to resume."

The weeklong pause helped the Democrat avoid a potentially damaging news cycle during the confirmation process. Walsh's confirmation hearing occurred on Feb. 4, and a Senate panel voted to advance his nomination on Feb. 11. The Senate confirmed Walsh on March 22 by a 68-29 margin—about six weeks after the initial investigation was launched. The report was ultimately finished in April.

A spokesperson for the Department of Labor told CommonWealth Magazine that Walsh requested an update to the investigation and had intended to wrap it up before he left office to become labor secretary.

"In late February, Walsh requested an update on the status of the investigation, in the hopes of sharing its findings with the public and resolving the issue before leaving the mayor’s office," the spokesperson said. "When it became clear that the investigation was ongoing, Walsh directed the investigation to continue, which ultimately led to the report issued [to the public on May 15]."

The Department of Labor did not respond to a request for comment on why Walsh deemed it necessary to stop the investigation in order to receive "an update on the status."

Walsh has faced scrutiny for allegedly obstructing another investigation as he awaited confirmation. When the Boston Globe attempted to obtain records related to a police officer accused of sexually assaulting a minor, the Walsh administration stonewalled the release of the documents. Acting mayor Kim Janey took office in mid-March, shortly after Walsh's confirmation, and pledged to provide "as much information to the public as possible about the circumstances surrounding the internal affairs investigation and how leadership at the time responded to the findings." She overruled the Walsh administration's objections and released a portion of the documents in April.

The post Report: Biden Labor Secretary Delayed Investigation Into Abusive Cop Amid Confirmation appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

The new law, set to take effect in September, bans abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The legislation differs from other "heartbeat" bills by allowing private citizens to sue abortion providers if they believe the provider violated the ban. The only exception to the ban is an abortion performed in a medical emergency.

"Our creator endowed us with the right to life, and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion. In Texas, we work to save those lives," Abbott said at the bill signing.

The bill comes after one of the largest cities in the state passed an ordinance declaring itself a "sanctuary city for the unborn." Lubbock, a city of more than 250,000 people in northwest Texas, joined more than two dozen towns in adopting policies that will automatically outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

The Court has signaled its willingness to reconsider the constitutionality of abortion after months of pressure from pro-life activists. The Court on Monday agreed to hear a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks. The case represents the most significant abortion-related case the Court has agreed to hear in decades. The Court's conservative majority has provided hope for pro-life advocates that the Supreme Court will reevaluate restrictions on abortion.

The High Court's decision on the Mississippi law is likely to come toward the middle of 2022 after oral arguments later this year.

Several other Republican states have passed similar heartbeat bills only to have the laws immediately challenged in court. Arkansas, South Carolina, and Montana are among the states taking swift action to ban most or all abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat.

The post Texas Joins Growing Number of States Passing Heartbeat Bills appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.