Please reply to this email to arrange an interview.
Senators Should Stop Playing Games With Religious Liberty and Marriage – The misnamed Respect for Marriage Act, however, would erase the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that preserved man-woman marriage at the state and federal levels before it was rendered totally inoperative by the Supreme Court’s Obergefell and Windsor decisions. Congress should not double down on the Supreme Court’s mistake, especially when the only practical effect of the bill would be to put a giant target on the backs of people and institutions of faith. To be clear, there is no risk of any legally married same-sex couple losing any of their benefits or legal status. So the only reason to add Congress’ explicit blessing for such unions now is to cement same-sex marriage as national policy that can be used as a club by government agencies, such as the IRS, to deny traditional religious institutions tax-exempt status, licenses to assist in adoptions, and government funding and contracts. Heritage Expert: Roger Severino and Jay Richards
Biden’s energy policies encourage global instability – Energy is not just a domestic policy issue, but a foreign policy requirement. Nations that are energy reliant are vulnerable while those that are energy dominant control spheres of influence. America would likely not be sending arms to Europe if she had already been sending tankers and freighters of affordable, reliable energy. But such exports presume a robust domestic energy industry capable of exceeding demand at home and projecting power abroad. Biden clearly never learned this lesson from history. Now would be a good time to start. Heritage Experts: EJ Antoni and Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Education Dept. says 'clerical error' deleted thousands of comments on Title IX 'gender identity' proposal - The Department of Education’s claim that the error in the number of comments is due to a clerical error doesn’t pass the smell test. Far more likely is that they don’t want the American people to know how unpopular this policy change is. The “comment” that the Department has offered as an explanation for its ‘clerical error’ which accounts for the drop in comment totals from 349,000 to 184,000 is actually an internal policy statement from 2013 from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. We’re being led to believe that a 9 year-old internal policy document from a different agency under the Obama administration just happened to show up in the comment portal for the most controversial regulatory change in a generation and apparently accounts for a differential of 160,000 comments. American people deserve answers from the admin on this irregularity in the rulemaking process—one that is designed by law to be transparent for the benefit and protection of the people who will be most impacted by it: American parents, students, and taxpayers. Heritage Expert: Sarah Parshall Perry
‘Mudge’ Reveals No Other Choice: Congress Must Act - On Tuesday, Peiter “Mudge” Zatko testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about his allegations surrounding his whistleblower report from August. The cause for this hearing amounted to intense concerns executives at Twitter failed in their responsibility to protect user data. A bipartisan strand of disappointment in Twitter, as if they were a long-treasured American manufacturer just recently succumbed to poor leadership, persisted through the hearing. Americans should examine if there ever was a perch off which Twitter fell to cause this disappointment in the company’s utter lack of concern for any outcome besides profit. Senators can rightly express shock at the absence of internal security policies, but much of that shock should be directed at the lawmakers who have allowed an oligarchy to grow in Silicon Valley. If Mudge’s testimony is not enough to compel federal lawmakers to turn over the tables inside the temple of Silicon Valley, then America needs new lawmakers. Heritage Experts: Will Thibeau and Jake Denton
Newsom’s ‘Commission on the State of Hate’ Is More Nefarious Than It Seems Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., on Tuesday announced five appointments to his new Commission on the State of Hate, and they don’t bode well for conservatives in the Golden State. According to Newsom’s office, the commission will “assess data on hate crimes in California, provide resources for victims, and make policy recommendations to better protect civil rights.” The commission aims to help all Californians, but Newsom has nominated a slate of Democrats and activists—without including a single Republican—to serve on it. Worse, one of the top nominees has a history at the Southern Poverty Law Center. Those four words should send a shiver down the spine of conservatives. While the Southern Poverty Law Center began as a public interest legal nonprofit representing poor people in the South, it has long since morphed into a far-left smear factory, branding mainstream conservative and Christian organizations “hate groups” and placing them on a map alongside the Ku Klux Klan. It brands socially conservative organizations “anti-LGBT hate groups” and national security nonprofits “anti-Muslim hate groups.” Heritage Expert: Tyler O’Neil
Supreme Court Hands Short-Term Win to Pride Group, but Encourages Yeshiva University to Return – Yeshiva denied the application of the YU Pride Alliance, a group opposed to and hoping to change Yeshiva’s teaching on this issue, for recognition as an official student group. The alliance sued in state court, claiming that Yeshiva’s decision violated New York City’s Human Rights Law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects religious institutions’ decisions about who may further their religious mission and “the ability of religious schools to educate in accordance with their faith.” Even as recently as last term, in a case similarly addressing the intersection between religion, education, and the government, the court clarified that the Constitution does not permit—let alone require—the government to discriminate against religion. The conflict involving Yeshiva fits squarely within that line of cases, and its ultimate outcome will likely strengthen religious freedom, even if it takes a little longer to get there. Heritage Experts: Thomas Jipping and Sarah Parshall Perry