Here is the Heritage Take on the top issues today.Please reply to this email to arrange an interview.





<[link removed]>



Big Tech’s Big Moment Finally Arrives at Supreme Court <[link removed]>
– The question presented <[link removed]> in Gonzalez is whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency
Act immunizes interactive online providers (like YouTube) from liability when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider (like ISIS), or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) concerning that information. Thus far, the modern-day Roberts court is largely guided by textualism—faithfulness to the plain and ordinary meaning of words within the laws they interpret. So, the Gonzalez case provides a golden opportunity for the court to clarify exactly what the Communications Decency Act Section 230 shield covers and what it doesn’t. Knowing that most Americans consume their news on digital devices <[link removed]>, and knowing that
the flurry of midterm elections <[link removed]> will shortly be upon us, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Heritage Expert: Sarah Parshall
Perry <[link removed]> 
 
What I’m Seeing on Texas’ Border With Mexico <[link removed]>
– Americans “need to understand that what’s happening here is moving into their backyards,” Chapoy said. “And Martha’s Vineyard … that was nothing, that was just 50 [migrants],” she said, referring to the 48 illegal immigrants from Venezuela flown by <[link removed]> Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this month to the resort island off the coast of Massachusetts.  Local leaders in Texas border towns such as Del Rio and Eagle Pass say migrants pass through their communities every day, but they’re not staying. Instead, they’re moving into the interior of the United States. To fix the situation <[link removed]> at the southern border,
Martinez said, both sides “have to come together and work together to solve this problem.” “The problem … is that the far Right and the far Left outnumber the people that are going to get things done,” the sheriff said. Martinez said he knows that citizens of other countries want to go to America to “better themselves,” but believes they must “do it legally.” The problem, he said, is “there’s not a mechanism in place that would make [immigration] flow smoothly without, you know, taking years in the pipeline, in the system, because it’s broken everywhere.”
Heritage Expert Virginia Allen <[link removed]> 
 
Stop the Attacks Against Peaceful, Pro-Life Americans <[link removed]> –
Pro-abortion politicians from President Joe Biden on down haven’t just been silent about the attacks on pro-life organizations. They’ve helped fan the flames. For their part, some members of Congress are demanding <[link removed]> answers. Should they get the chance next year, pro-life lawmakers should hold oversight hearings and hear directly from Justice Department employees under oath. In any case, the Biden administration should—at the very least—call for an end to the violence. The FBI must answer <[link removed]> for its selective enforcement of the law. Congress must follow through <[link removed]> on its commitment to
conduct oversight on the Biden administration’s policies. And every American should resolve to uphold our country’s foundational principles of free speech and peaceful expression. We can’t afford not to. Heritage Expert: Melanie
Israel <[link removed]>  
 
Drag Queen Conservatism is the Real Threat to Religious Freedom <[link removed]> – Times have changed. Now Christians who adhere to biblical sexual ethics feel intense public pressure to keep their beliefs private. The LGBT community, conversely, is affirmed and supported by every institution in the country, from the federal government to professional sports leagues. Drag queen conservatives have a choice to make. The past 20 years have proven that our cultural norms will always be shaped by someone’s worldview and values. We will either have a society that believes adults sexualizing children in libraries, schools, and public venues <[link removed]> is a protected form of speech or one that condemns such behavior with the righteous indignation it deserves.
Heritage Expert: Delano
Squires <[link removed]> 
 
Michigan’s Radical Proposition 3 Ballot Measure Would Go Far Beyond Just Codifying Roe v. Wade <[link removed]> – When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its Dobbs decision this summer, abortion did not become illegal in the U.S. The court simply ruled (rightly) that there is no right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution. That returned the question of abortion to the states. Some states had pre-existing pro-life laws that soon sprung to life. Other states responded with new protections for unborn human beings. Some states’ highest courts have claimed a right to abortion was secretly lurking in their state constitutions all along. Finally, some states are pushing to create such a right in their state laws. Perhaps the most egregious is Proposition 3, the “Right to Reproductive Freedom” state constitutional amendment, which is up for a vote next month <[link removed]> in Michigan. Proposition 3 would enshrine abortion as an absolute right <[link removed]> in state law. That’s bad enough, but since it’s written so vaguely—probably by design—it would do a lot more than that. If voters approve this amendment, they could unwittingly be rejecting not only the right of the unborn to life <[link removed]>, but
the rights of parents to protect and direct the upbringing of their minor children. Heritage Experts: Jay Richards <[link removed]> and Emma Waters <[link removed]> 
<[link removed]>

-