Kerby Anderson
No doubt you have noticed that pundits and politicians seem to be constantly warning about a threat to democracy. This has intensified during this election season. Republicans and Democrats may not agree about much, but they both are sounding the alarm about a threat to democracy from their opponents.
It is worth mentioning that the idea that there is a threat to democracy isn’t just an American phenomenon. This year of 2024 will be the biggest voting year in history. Some 4.2 billion people (more than half of humanity) live in the 76 countries that are scheduled to hold elections or have already held elections.
Many of these elections will not be free or fair or secure. Fortunately, most people living in developed countries will be able to cast their vote in a way that will determine the political future of the country. And that brings us back to the United States.
First, this country isn’t a democracy, but is a constitutional republic. The framers were rightly fearful of a majority rule that could become a mobocracy. It’s also worth noting that before the founding of this country, representative government was hardly the norm. The framers gave us checks and balances and a structure of government to protect individual rights.
Second, consider which political group is trying to remove those checks and balances. Progressive groups want to abolish the electoral college, pack the court, and eliminate the allocation of two senators to each state. They also believe that most important decisions should be made by an elite group of unelected experts.
This election season, pay attention to the people shouting the loudest about a threat to democracy. In many cases, they are the same people who have been putting forward policies and proposals that would put an end to democracy.

Kerby Anderson
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a case related to the abortion pill. That is why pro-life researchers question the decision by an academic publishing company to retract studies that suggest significant health risks after taking chemical abortion drugs.
Earlier this month, Sage Publishing announced it has retracted three studies related to the abortion pill. The justification was that there were undeclared conflicts of interests. The study authors, they contend, did not disclose their ties to a pro-life organization.
One of the authors spoke to the Christian Post and explained that she and her fellow researchers never concealed their connection. In fact, they fully disclosed who they were affiliated with and even reported that the studies were funded by a pro-life institute.
I don’t claim to know all the details of the dispute, but I must admit that the reaction seems like a classic case of the genetic fallacy, where data is dismissed based solely on the source or origin rather than its content.
Facts are facts. Data is data. If an argument for abortion comes from researchers working with a pro-abortion group like the Guttmacher Institute, it should be evaluated based on factual analysis. Likewise, an argument against abortion or the abortion pill that comes from researchers working for a pro-life group should be evaluated the same way.
The reason for these studies was to determine the safety or lack thereof of chemical abortion compared to surgical abortion. The only research group that would likely be interested in that question would be pro-life researchers. They would want to know what percentage of women end up in the emergency room after using the abortion pill. This should be relevant data in the Supreme Court decision.