Penna Dexter
There’s nothing like a looming re-election battle to derail, or at least delay, a politician’s campaign promises — especially radical ones like allowing men to compete in female sports.
In July 2022, the Biden Administration released a proposed revision to Title IX that effectively forces every school district to allow transgender athletes to compete in school sports. This means biological men on women’s teams and in their locker rooms.
The Washington Stand points to the latest Gallop poll on the issue, which shows that nearly “70% of Americans — including 55 percent of Democrats — don’t want their daughters on teams competing with biological boys.”
The new guidelines were scheduled to be released in May, and then pushed out to October and look likely to miss that deadline. The regulations have not even been sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review, a necessary step that can take up to 120 days.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was passed in recognition of the inherent distinction between men and women. It prohibits discrimination based on sex in any educational program or activity that receives federal assistance. A huge beneficiary has been women’s sports.
Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville says he coached girls’ basketball when Title IX kicked in and the numbers of girls playing high school sports exploded. The senator explained that Title IX “opened up facilities, funding, athletic scholarships — and almost immediately you saw the rise and dedication of women’s sports across our country.”
The Department of Education reports a “historic number of comments” on this issue. Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon, an education official in the Trump Administration, told The Washington Stand, “The fact that the rule isn’t final means that overwhelming public comments made a difference.” She expects the rule to be published closer to the election “to get the rule in place late in the game, and deal with the consequences after the election.”
They are stalling, but not dropping this. 

Kerby Anderson
Over the last few years, we have heard more pundits and futurists talk about transhumanism. It is an intellectual and cultural movement that seeks to transform the human condition. The leaders of this movement want to use the developing technologies to eliminate aging and enhance human potential.
Two primary ways they want to do this is through genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. They want to genetically create “the new man,” and they want to use technology to merge humans with machines. My previous booklets on A Biblical Point of View on Genetic Engineering and A Biblical Point of View on Artificial Intelligence can provide some helpful background.
One part of the equation concerns technology. The leaders of transhumanism believe we are on the cusp of a technological threshold in both artificial intelligence and human-machine technology.
The leaders of transhumanism also see genetic engineering as a tool to be used to speed up the process of evolution. We can use genetics to enhance and improve humans. If we believe that humans are merely the product of the undirected forces of evolution, then certainly intelligent scientists can “improve on nature.”
Evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley looked forward to the day in which scientists could fill the “position of business manager for the cosmic process of evolution.” Transhumanists believe that possibility is within our grasp. One proponent explained that transhumanism is “humanity taking control of its evolutionary destiny.”
But if humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), then we can and should use genetic technology to treat and cure the physical effects of the Fall (Genesis 3). That does not mean we should usurp the role of the Creator and breed a superhuman race.

Kerby Anderson
The First Amendment has 45 words that provide free speech, a free press, and religious liberty. Most Americans say they approve of the First Amendment free speech protections, but there are some concerning issues once you start asking additional questions.
Nearly all Americans (91%) think First Amendment protection for freedom of speech is a good thing. But it becomes clear that Democrats and younger voters are more likely to support governmental regulation of speech, especially on social media.
For example, just over one-third (34%) of Democratic voters say Americans have “too much freedom.” A much smaller percentage (14.6%) of Republicans agree with this assumption. In fact, Republicans are quite likely (46%) to say Americans have “too little freedom.”
Age is another factor. Those under age 30 are more open to censorship by the government. More than four in ten (42%) feel it is more important for the government to censor to protect national security. A much smaller percentage (26%) of Americans over age 65 felt that way.
Poll respondents were read this famous statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Less than a third (31%) of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with the statement, compared to a majority (51%) of Republicans that approved that sentiment.
Poll respondents were shown headlines and then told they were false. Even when Republicans knew the content was false, they were half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed. And they were more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship.
This survey shows a significant partisan divide and age divide that makes it easier for the mainstream press and social media to censor unpopular ideas. It is time to go back to the foundation of the First Amendment.