Kerby Anderson
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment practices have been in the news for some time. But there is growing evidence that the popularity of ESG mandates is fading.
Alison Schrager writes that “The ESG Bubble is Bursting.” Sure, individuals would like to invest in corporations that reflect their values, but she says, “what counts as virtuous is rarely cut and dried.”
Vivek Ramaswamy warns “How Woke Capital Politicizes Your Retirement.” He explains that politics have quickly come to dominate index funds. When you buy an index fund that is managed by these big fund managers, “you’re promoting ESG objectives whether you want to or not.”
Mark Joffe argues in his op-ed that ESG investment practices “distract investors and corporate management from maximizing long-term profitability.” It diverts from priorities that align with increased productivity and focuses on a “shifting array of inconsistently defined social-impact criteria.” That is why he concludes that “ESG is Bad for the Economy.”
Yale law professor Jed Rubenfeld and Former US Attorney General William Barr argue that “ESG Can’t Square with Fiduciary Duty.” They cite a letter written by nineteen state attorneys general warning that the ESG used by one of the fund managers appears to involve “rampant violations of the sole interest rule a well-established legal principle.”
Focusing our attention and investments on companies that are concerned about the environment and their social responsibility may sound like a good idea. But the number of articles coming out is a reminder to all of us that often the details in a policy matter.

Penna Dexter
A false abortion narrative lives in our presidential politics.
The narrative is that state restrictions on abortion passed since the Dobbs decision in 2022 are placing women in serious danger. Supposedly hospitals, fearing they’ll run afoul of state law, are refusing to treat women for miscarriages or abortion complications.
Abortion advocates, including our vice president, blame the Supreme Court for the death of Amber Thurman, age 28, following a medication abortion. She was 9 weeks pregnant with twins.
Medication abortions accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in 2023. The sustained growth in the use of the abortion pill since it was approved in 2000 is due, in large part, to the FDA’s progressive easing of restrictions on its use. (Many medical experts contend the FDA did not adequately study its safety.) The FDA approved the 2-drug regimen to be used during the first seven weeks of pregnancy and, in 2016, extended the requirement to 10 weeks’ gestation and allowed non-physicians to prescribe the drugs. In 2021 the Biden administration eliminated the requirement that women seeking a medical abortion be evaluated in person by a medical professional.
A Wall Street Journal editorial states the obvious:

“Thurman’s death affirms what antiabortion activists have argued: that the two-pill abortion regimen is far more dangerous than its advocates claim.”

Since Georgia’s abortion law bans abortions after six weeks gestation, Amber Thurman, made an appointment at a North Carolina clinic for a surgical abortion. She arrived too late for the appointment. Rather than reschedule the surgical abortion, Amber opted to begin a medical abortion. She took the first pill and drove back to Georgia. At home, days later, she vomited and passed out. She was taken to a Stockbridge, Georgia hospital. The babies had no heartbeat. Standard treatment involves an antibiotic and a DNC, but it was hours before Amber received either. She died of sepsis.
No court decision or law prevented her timely treatment.

Kerby Anderson
For centuries, marriage was defined as one man and one woman. But various states and then the Supreme Court in its controversial 5-4 decision ruled that every state must recognize same-sex marriage. That was not the end of the debate. The House of Representatives recently passed the deceptively named Respect for Marriage Act to codify the Supreme Court decision.
There are many good reasons to reject the concept of same-sex marriage, which I recount in our Point of View booklet on a Biblical Point of View on Same Sex Marriage. Many of those arguments that were cited before the 2015 Supreme Court decision are now coming to fruition. And we don’t have to guess how the redefinition of marriage will affect religious liberty. We have seen it play out in the courts.
Nevertheless, a greater percentage of Americans now support same-sex marriage. When Gallup first began tracking support for same-sex marriage in 1996 a quarter of Americans (27%) backed legalization. The most recent poll found that seven in ten (71%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by law as valid.
This significant shift illustrates three important points. First, activists presented same-sex marriage as “marriage equality” as illustrated by the bumper sticker that merely had an “equals” sign. Second, Americans tend to take their cues from what is legal. Third, most pastors need to explain the importance of the biblical definition of marriage.
One group of Americans that does still oppose legalized same-sex marriage are weekly churchgoers. In fact, approval for same-sex marriage in this group has fallen a few percentage points in the last few years. By contrast, Americans who seldom or never attend church are much more likely to support same-sex marriage.
That is why pastors must remind their congregation of what the Bible says about marriage, and why it is still important in the 21st century.