Skip to main content
Pro-Family
Register
Donate
Register

Blog Archives

Religion & Morality in America by Tim Barton

As we prepare to celebrate America’s 250th year, we should also anticipate opposition from those who question whether America should be celebrated. Nevertheless, the reasons to commemorate this historic milestone are substantial.

 

The Length of an Average Constitution in the World

  • According to a study conducted by the University of Illinois along with the University of Chicago Law School, researchers sought to answer the question: “What is the average lifespan of a constitution in world history?”
  • They concluded that, over the past 1,000 years, the average lifespan of a constitution is 17–19 years.
  • On September 17, 2025, America celebrated 239 years under the same governing document—the Constitution.
  • The United States is the longest-standing constitutional republic in the history of the world.
    • Thomas Ginsburg is a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Zachary Elkins is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois. James Melton is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois. This article is an excerpt from their book, The Endurance of National Constitutions, published 2009 by Cambridge University Press.
    • They have a separate website for all their constitution data here, which includes a portion of the book mentioned above (here) where they actually say 19 years is the life expectancy of a national constitution (see page 2 in that pdf).

(https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lifespan-written-constitutions)

 

What is the Source of American Ideals?

  • Professor Donald Lutz of the University of Houston conducted a study, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (1988). He and his team conducted their research in the 1970s and 1980s to understand why the Constitution has worked so well, and where the ideas that shaped this successful document originated.
  • They studied the Founding Fathers to determine the sources from which they drew their ideas. This included reviewing early state constitutions, the Founders’ letters, and any other writings they could locate in order to trace the inspiration behind America’s constitutional government.
  • They specifically examined whom the Founding Fathers quoted most often in order to identify their intellectual influences. In total, they reviewed 15,000 representative writings and catalogued 3,154 quotations.
  • Here are the three most frequently cited individuals:
    • Charles Montesquieu: 8.3% – The most quoted individual. He authored The Spirit of the Laws (1750) and was a Christian during the Enlightenment era.
    • William Blackstone: 7.9% – The second most quoted individual.
    • John Locke: 2.9% – The most quoted individual specifically during the American Revolution Era.
  • However, the most cited source in all the Founders’ writings was not an individual—it was the Bible, which accounted for 34% of all quotations.
  • Lutz noted that they counted only quotations that appeared within quotation marks. He stated that if they had included all Biblical references—including those not placed in quotation marks—the total would have exceeded 50%.

 

Examples from Founding Fathers of their Reliance on the Bible

The General Principles of American are Rooted in Christian Principles

  • John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ran against each other for the presidency to become the second President of the United States. In the early years of the nation, the candidate who received the most votes became President, and the runner-up became Vice President.
  • Both Adams and Jefferson wrote extensively about their faith, theology, and doctrine, raising and discussing many questions. Toward the end of their lives, they exchanged numerous letters reflecting on their experiences and beliefs.
  • On June 28, 1813, John Adams wrote a letter to Jefferson in which he reflected on the Revolution and stated:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208)

 

The Bible’s Influence on the Declaration

  • Christianity’s influence on the American founding was widely accepted as a well-known fact in early American history.
  • In 1928, a Duke University professor named Alice Baldwin wrote a book titled The New England Clergy and the American Revolution. In it, she observed:

“There is not a single clause in the Declaration that had not been first preached from American pulpits prior to 1763.”

  • The ideas expressed in the Declaration were the same ideas the Founders had been hearing from their pastors for decades.
  • The book includes appendices containing sermons that correspond to the various clauses quoted in the Declaration.

 

The First Time the Founding Fathers Came Together, their First Motion was to Open in Prayer

  • John Adams wrote to Abigail Adams on September 16, 1774, describing their first meeting:
    • “When the Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a Motion, that it should be opened with Prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of N. York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, because we were so divided in religious Sentiments, some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians and some Congregationalists, so that We could not join in the same Act of Worship.—Mr. S. Adams arose and said he was no Bigot, and could hear a Prayer from a Gentleman of Piety and Virtue, who was at the same Time a Friend to his Country. He was a Stranger in Philadelphia, but had heard that Mr. Duchè (Dushay they pronounce it) deserved that Character, and therefore he moved that Mr. Duchè, an episcopal Clergyman, might be desired, to read Prayers to the Congress, tomorrow Morning. The Motion was seconded and passed in the Affirmative. Mr. Randolph our President, waited on Mr. Duchè, and received for Answer that if his Health would permit, he certainly would. Accordingly next Morning he appeared with his Clerk and in his Pontificallibus, and read several Prayers, in the established Form; and then read the Collect for the seventh day of September, which was the Thirty fifth Psalm.1—You must remember this was the next Morning after we heard the horrible Rumour, of the Cannonade of Boston.—I never saw a greater Effect upon an Audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that Morning.”

(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0101)

  • Historical records indicate that the opening, including both prayer and Scripture lessons, lasted for two hours.
  • The men in that room were not chosen for their spiritual prowess; they were chosen for their political understanding and their ability to lead. These were the individuals the people trusted to guide them in the midst of political opposition.
  • John Adams, after their time of prayer and Scriptures, encouraged Abigail:
    • “I must beg you to read that Psalm…Read the thirty-fifth Psalm to your friends. Read it to your father.”

 

Continental Congress Call to Prayer

  • In another letter, dated June 11, 1775, John Adams writes to Abigail about the Continental Congress’s call to prayer. Adams says:

“We have appointed a Continental fast. Millions will be upon their knees at once before their great Creator, imploring His forgiveness and blessings; His smiles on American councils and arms.”

(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0146)

  • This gives us an indication of what Adams believed about the American culture of his time—namely, that he expected millions to pray.

 

Prayer was Common in Early America

  • The Continental Congress issued 15 Prayer Resolutions during the American Revolution.
    • There were two types of resolutions.
    • 1) Prayer and Fasting
    • 2) Prayer and Thanksgiving
  • There were 1,400 prayer proclamations issued in New England alone prior to 1815.

(William DeLoss Love, The Fast and Thanksgiving Days of New England (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1895), 464-514, “Calendar,” https://archive.org/details/fastthanksgiving00loverich/page/464/mode/2up.)

 

John Adams Writes to Abigail Adams about The Events of the Revolution

  • In a letter dated October 26, 1777, John Adams writes to Abigail about how the Americans defeated and destroyed a British vessel armed with 20 cannons—and another with 64 cannons.
  • This was incredibly impressive for the time because America did not yet have an official navy. Great Britain was the number-one military power in the world because it possessed the world’s most formidable navy and controlled the seas.
  • When America separated from Great Britain, all of the British warships remained with Britain. America had none, so the new nation began trying to build its own. What it did have were commercial shipping vessels, which the Americans armed with whatever cannons they could obtain. These improvised vessels were used to fight back against the British.
  • In the Smithsonian, you can see an original gunboat from 1776—the Gunboat Philadelphia—which looks much like a rowboat outfitted with cannons.
  • This is why John Adams was amazed that the Americans managed to destroy a British warship carrying 64 cannons, as well as another carrying 20 cannons.
    • “Mr. Colman goes off for Boston tomorrow. I have seized a moment to congratulate you on the great and glorious success of our arms at the northward and in Delaware River. The forts at Province Island and Redbank have been defended with a magnanimity which will give our country a reputation in Europe. Colonel Greene repulsed the enemy from Redbank and took Count Donop and his aid prisoners. Colonel Smith repulsed a bold attack upon Fort Mifflin; and our galley disabled two men of men, a sixty-four and a twenty-gun ship, in such a manner that the enemy blew them up. This comes confirmed this evening, in letters from George Washington, enclosing original letters from officers in the forts. Congress will appoint a Thanksgiving, and one cause of it ought to be that the glory of turning the tide of arms is not immediately due to the Commander-in-Chief nor to southern troops. If it had been, idolatry and adulation would have been unbounded—so excessive as to endanger our liberties, for what I know. Now we can allow a certain citizen to be wise, virtuous, and good without thinking him a deity or a savior.”

(John Adams to Abigail Adams, October 26, 1777, Letters of John Adams Address to his Wife, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston : Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), II:14, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Letters_of_John_Adams_Addressed_to_His_W/yp0zAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover.)

 

John Adams Explanation for the Events of the Revolution

  • John Adams wrote to Abigail Adams on December 15, 1777, saying:
    • “It appears to me the eternal Son of God is operating powerfully against the British nation.”

(https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L17771215ja&bc=)

  • You can see the full quote here:

“…One Evening, as I satt in one Room, I overheard Company of the Common sort of People in another, conversing upon serious subjects. One of them, whom I afterwards found upon Enquiry to be a reputable, religious Man, was more eloquent than the rest-he was upon the Danger of despizing and neglecting serious Things. Said whatever Person or People made light of them would soon find themselves terribly mistaken. At length I heard these Words — “it appears to me the eternal son of God is opperating Powerfully against the British Nation for their treating lightly serious Things.”

 

George Washington Acknowledges the Hand of Providence

  • George Washington wrote to Brigadier General Thomas Nelson, Jr., August 20, 1778, and said simply:

“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations. But-it will be time enough for me to turn preacher, when my present appointment ceases; and therefore, I shall add no more on the Doctrine of Providence.”

(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-16-02-0373)

 

The Peace Treaty of Paris is Signed in 1783

  • The Peace Treaty officially ending the war was signed by John Jay, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.
  • The title of this document is most significant:

It reads, “In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity”

 

George Washington, America’s Most Prominent and Significant Leader, Points to Religion

  • Washington says in his Farewell Address September 17, 1796:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”

(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0440-0002)

  • Out of everything he said in his Farewell Address, the only things he identified that that were indispensable were religion and morality.

 

John Adam’s Letter to the Massachusetts Militia

  • In a letter dated October 11, 1798, John Adams wrote in part:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”

(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102)

  • Our Constitution is built on the premise of granting freedom to the people. But freedom only works when it rests on a moral foundation.
  • The Founders believed that “religion” was Christianity and that “morality” came from the Bible, because that was the source from which people learned right and wrong. They warned that without Christianity and the Bible, America would not succeed.

 

Historian Stephen Colwell from the 1800’s Affirmed the Founders Belief in Christianity

  • Colwell said of the Constitutional Convention:

“It was in the very spirit of true Christianity that the hospitality and blessings of the United States were offered to all the world; all were invited to enjoy and not to subvert. The Christian men of that day…intended that the nation should continue to be a Christian nation…They did not place Christianity beneath nor over their political institutions: it was rather to be the atmosphere which they breathed who administered them. It was to be the source of their inspiration who sought to make them [the blessings] available for human advantage. These institutions and laws were to be the instruments of Christian men for the good of the whole human family.”

(Stephen Colwell, The Position of Christianity in the United States In Its Relations With Our Political Institutions (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co., 1854), 12-13, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Position_of_Christianity_in_the_Unit/MX-fdBufxhAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA12&printsec=frontcover.)

  • He said Christianity was the atmosphere the Founding Fathers breathed.

 

Howard Chandler Christy’s Painting from 1940

  • It is one of the most famous paintings of the Constitutional Convention. Measuring 20 feet tall and 30 feet long, it hangs in the U.S. Capitol Building. On the 137th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution, Congress commissioned a painter to create a depiction of the historic event.
  • Howard Chandler Christy, a noted painter of the time, was chosen for the task. Christy said he wanted to study the Founding Fathers before creating the painting, where he learned how highly they valued the Bible. He researched whether the Founders had any lists of books or resources present in the room as they wrote the Constitution.
  • Christy concluded that people who valued the Bible as much as the Founders did—and quoted it as frequently—most likely had a Bible in the room. Therefore, he included a Bible in the painting, in the bottom right-hand corner. The Bible is open to Matthew 5, depicting the Sermon on the Mount.

(https://lawliberty.org/the-conventions-story-on-canvas/)

Conclusion

God should always be part of what He created. He established three primary institutions: 1) Family, 2) Church, and 3) Government. Christians should recognize God’s essential and necessary involvement in all three.

 

We would never say that God should be excluded from the family or the church, yet too often Christians have wrongly assumed that God should be pushed aside in government.

 

What about those in society who argue that we should not “legislate morality”? Put simply, every piece of legislation regulates morality. The question is not whether we legislate morality—it is whose morality will guide our laws. If people suggest that we should not legislate morality according to the greatest standard ever given—the teachings of Jesus—then whose standards will we use? Either we rely on an objective standard based on the Bible, or we depend on human reasoning, which is ever-shifting and inconsistent.

 

There are countless examples from early America that illustrate this simple point: God’s ways work, and those who walk according to the Lord are blessed. All of the early colonies were founded in a covenantal fashion. While not all fully followed the covenant, their formation reflected a recognition of God’s authority and guidance.

 

John Winthrop’s Sermon Before they Depart for America

  • Winthrop’s Sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity” says in part:

“For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.”

(https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/a-model-of-christian-charity-2/)(https://www.masshist.org/publications/winthrop/index.php/view/PWF02d270)

 

President John Quincy Adams Links the Birth of the Nation to the Birth of the Savior

  • John Quincy Adams, the son of John Adams, served as a diplomat to Paris at the age of 10 and to Russia by the age of 14.
  • On the 63rd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, he delivered an anniversary speech in which he posed several rhetorical questions:
    • “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation?”
    • “Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity…”

(An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at their request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837. https://wallbuilders.com/resource/oration-july-4th-1837/)

  • None of the Founding Fathers believed they were creating a secular government. They all understood that they were establishing a government grounded in Christian principles.

 

Benjamin Franklin, Considered One of the “Least” Religious Founding Fathers, Believed in Prayer

  • It was Benjamin Franklin who called for prayer during the Constitutional Convention.
    On June 28, 1787, Franklin said in his speech:

    • “In this situation of this Assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights, to illuminate our understanding?”
    • “In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers were heard, and they were graciously answered.”
    • “All of us engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
    • “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs the affairs of men.”
    • “If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”
    • “I firmly believe this; and I also believe without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel, and we shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.”
    • “I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”

(https://wallbuilders.com/resource/franklins-appeal-for-prayer-at-the-constitutional-convention/)

 

Scripture reminds us in Psalm 127:1, “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.” In everything we do, the Lord must be part of it. Proverbs 14:34 says, “Righteousness exalts a nation…” If we want to make America great again, we must restore the foundation that made her great in the first place.

 

Here is what makes a nation great: doing it God’s way. Everything we do should be rooted in Scripture. Nehemiah 2:17 says, “Come, let us rebuild…that we will no longer be a disgrace.” Our call is to rebuild—regardless of what others may say—rolling up our sleeves, placing one stone at a time, and faithfully restoring what has been broken.

If you are a lawmaker who would like assistance with legislation in your state, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We would love to serve you. 

If you would like to donate to our mission at PFLN to help lawmakers advance religious freedom and constitutional policies, we greatly value your support! You can make a tax-deductible donation here. 

Life, Liberty and Property by Tim Barton

Access this resource in an easy to print PDF here.

A Biblical and Historic Understanding of Private Property

It’s important to understand what the Bible says about private property. It’s also worth noting that the Founding Fathers drew heavily from Scripture in forming their beliefs as they established America.

Biblical Perspective

The foundation of Christian beliefs about private property begins with the understanding that we are all stewards of what God has given us. God created the heavens and the earth. Only after He made the heavens and the earth did God create humanity—male and female—and bless them, commanding them to “fill the earth and subdue it.”

  • Psalm 24:1 – “The earth is the Lord’s and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein.”
  • Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
  • Genesis 1:27-28 – “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.”
  • Genesis 2:15 – “Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.”

 

The Abrahamic Covenant

  • Genesis 12:1-3 – The Lord said to Abram…I will give you a land…‘I will make you into a great nation…’”
  • When the Israelites were enslaved, God did incredible miracles to free them and lead them to Mount Sinai, where He gives them the Ten Commandments.

 

The Ten Commandments

  • Two of the Ten Commandments deal with private property.

1.) Thou Shall Not Steal

2.) Though Shall Not Covet

  • The Bible says you do not take someone else’s stuff, and you don’t even dream of taking someone else’s stuff.

 

Samuel Warns Israel that Kings will Take their Property

  • 1 Samuel 8 the Israelites ask for a King and Samuel warns the people of Israel of the dangers of having a king, and one of the things he warns them about is that a king will take their property.
    • 1 Samuel 8:10-18 – “So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, ‘This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest [a]young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.’”

 

Attacks on Private Property

  • Whatever the Bible says, the devil’s game plan is exactly what God says—but in reverse.
  • Throughout history, we see attacks on private property.
  • Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto said, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: the abolition of private property.”
    • (Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, trans. Frederick Engels (1969, original 1848), 22.)
  • In the 2030 Agenda from the World Health Organization they have a line that states simply, “You will own nothing, and you will be happy.”
    • This originates from a 2016 essay by Danish politician Ida Auken, titled “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” The piece was published as part of the World Economic Forum (WEF)’s series on future scenarios.

 

The Founders Perspective on Private Property

  • The Founding Fathers were students of the Bible.

 

John Locke

  • He was the individual most quoted by the Founding Fathers during the American Revolution.
  • In his Two Treaties of Government, Locke writes that God has not given kings authority over the land.
    • John Locke says in Chapter V: Of Property, and again in Chapter IX: Of the Ends of Political Society and Government (Section 124): “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”
  • In Chapter II: Of the State of Nature (Ch II, Section 6), Locke further expounds on private property.
    • Locke writes, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

 

Samuel Adams

  • Leader of the Sons of Liberty and known as the Father of the Revolution.
    • He wrote the first ever publication from the Committee of Correspondence where he says, “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”

(“The Rights Of The Colonists, A List of Violations Of Rights and A Letter Of Correspondence, Adopted by the Town of Boston, November 20, 1772,” The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams, ed. William V. Wells (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1865), I:502.)

 

The Declaration of Independence

  • Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
    • “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
  • Some may wonder why he wrote “happiness instead of property.”
  • The Virginia Declaration of Rights (written June, 1776) was very influential on Jefferson.
    • The author of this was George Mason, known as the Father of the Bill of Rights. And he had two reasons why he didn’t sign the Constitution.
      • ) It didn’t have a bill of rights.
      • ) It didn’t end slavery.
    • Section 1 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights states: “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

(The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thrope (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), VII:3813.)

  • This document comes out the month before the Declaration.
  • Some people tried to advocate that owning slaves was considered their “property” which is likely why they didn’t use the word “property” in the Declaration.

 

John Dickinson

  • Dickinson was known as the Penman of the Revolution and wrote 12 “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” (He was also a member of the Continental Congress, Governor of Pennsylvania and Delaware and Signer of the U.S. Constitution.)
  • One of the early essays he wrote stated,
    • “Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds—-that we cannot be happy without being free—that we cannot be free without being secure in our property—that we cannot be secure in our property if without our consent others may as by right take it away.

(John Dickinson, “Letters from a Farmer: Letter XII,” 1767, The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington: Bonsal and Niles, 1801), I:275.)

 

John Adams

  • In 1787, John Adams wrote a work titled ADefense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States of America, and in it he said,
    • “Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty.”
  • Jefferson agreed, echoing:
    • “The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a source of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

(John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), VI:8-9.)

 

Arthur Lee

  • Lee was a diplomat during the American Revolution who helped secure our alliance with France. He wrote to Great Britain in defense of Americans saying,
    • “The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty.”

(Arthur Lee, An Appeal to the Justice and Inhabitants of the People of Great Britain, in the Present Dispute with America (London: 1776), 19.)

 

James Madison

  • Madison, while serving in Congress in 1792, wrote an essay titled “On Property,” stating,
    • “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.”
  • He continues:
    • “More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience, which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection for which the public faith is pledged by the very nature and original conditions.”

(James Madison, “Property,” originally published in The National Gazette, March 29, 1792, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906 ), VI:101-103.)

 

The Founders’ Perspective on Property Tax

The Founding Fathers’ perspective on property tax was nuanced. Many believed that property taxes could be permitted, provided they were approved by the people’s elected representatives.

 

John Jay

  • He was the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. He wrote a letter to the New York legislature in 1778, telling them
    • “It is the undoubted right and unalienable priviledge of a freeman not to be divested, or interrupted in the innocent use, of Life, Liberty or Property, but by laws to which he has assented, either personally or by his Representatives. This is the Corner Stone of every free constitution, and to defend it from the iron hand of the Tyrant of Britain, all America is now in arms; every man in America being most deeply interested in its preservation. Violations of this inestimable right by the King of Great Britain, or by an American Quarter Master; are of the same nature, equally partaking of Injustice, and differing only in the degree and continuance of the injury.”

(John Jay, “A Hint to the Legislature of the State of New York,” 1778, The Founders Constitution, https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendV_due_processs12.html.)

 

John Marshall

  • Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. John Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court in the case McCulloch V. Maryland in 1819, wherein he wrote:
    • “It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable to the utmost extent to which the government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.”

(McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316, 428 (1819).)

  • He stressed that the legislature acts upon its constituents, and if it’s the will of the people, then they are not acting against the people.

 

Daniel Webster

  • Webster, known as the “Defender of the Constitution,” was a noted attorney and served in the US House and Senate for nearly 30 years.
  • He gave a speech in 1820 in Plymouth on the 200th anniversary of the Pilgrims. He said,
    • “For the purpose of public instruction, we hold every man subject to taxation in proportion to his property, and we look not to the question whether he himself have, or have not children to be benefited by the education for which he pays. We regard it as a wise and liberal system of police, by which property, and life, and the peace of society are secured.”
    • (Daniel Webster, “Discourse in Commemoration of the First Settlement of New England, Delivered at Plymouth, on the 22d Day of December, 1820,” The Speeches of Daniel Webster, and His Master-Pieces, ed. Rev. B. F. Tefft (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1854), I:101)

 

While the Founders were not opposed to property taxes, they believed there should be boundaries, safeguards, and clear limitations in place. They consistently emphasized the importance of protecting the stability of the people’s ownership of property.

 

Joseph Story

  • Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, author of Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States and called the “Father of American Jurisprudence,” was appointed to the Court by James Madison.
  • In 1829, he was giving a speech at Harvard and said,
    • “The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point. I call them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become worthless or visionary.”

(Joseph Story, “Discourse Pronounced Upon the Inauguration of the Author as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University,” August 25, 1829, The Miscellaneous Writings, Literary, Critical, Juridical, and Political of Joseph Story (Boston: James Munroe and Company, 1835), 453.)

  • He continued:
    • “What remains to nourish a spirit of independence, or a love of country, if the very soil on which we tread is ours only at the beck of the village tyrant? –if the home of our parents, which nursed our infancy and protected our manhood, may be torn from us without recompense or remorse?”

(Joseph Story, “Discourse Pronounced Upon the Inauguration of the Author as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University,” August 25, 1829, The Miscellaneous Writings, Literary, Critical, Juridical, and Political of Joseph Story (Boston: James Munroe and Company, 1835), 453.)

  • Story believed that if you take people’s property, you will remove the spirit of patriotism.
  • Story continues:
    • “There can be no freedom where there is no safety to property or personal rights. Whenever legislation render the possession or enjoyment of property precarious—whenever it cuts down the obligation and security of contracts—whenever it breaks in upon personal liberty or compels a surrender of personal privileges, upon any pretext, plausible or otherwise—it matters little whether it be the act of the many or the few, of the solitary despot or the assembled multitude; it is in its essence tyranny.”

(Joseph Story, “Discourse Pronounced Upon the Inauguration of the Author as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University,” August 25, 1829, The Miscellaneous Writings, Literary, Critical, Juridical, and Political of Joseph Story (Boston: James Munroe and Company, 1835), 447.)

  • He is warning them, you don’t want to bring people to the point where they are not sure they will be able to keep their property.

 

There is Moral Clarity on the Issue of Property Tax

  • In the Bible, property is considered to be an inheritance for your children.
    • 1 Chronicles 28:8 – “Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of the Lord, and in the hearing of our God, be careful to seek out all the commandments of the Lord your God, that you may possess this good land, and leave it as an inheritance for your children after you forever.”
    • The Bible gives clarity on the limitations of the moral decisions of government. The government was not to take what God had given someone. The Government (the prince) is not permitted to take people’s property. Ezekiel 46:18 – “Moreover the prince shall not take any of the people’s inheritance by evicting them from their property; he shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property, so that none of My people may be scattered from his property.”
  • Anything that threatens, endangers, or challenges what the Bible says makes someone a good man must be considered a bad law. The government should not make it more difficult for someone to be a “good man” according to Biblical standards.
    • Proverbs 13:22 – “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children,
      but the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.”
  • The Year of Jubilee is another example of God’s affirmation of private property.
    • In that designated year (which occurred every 50 years, or once a generation), God commanded that each family’s land be returned to them. What God had given to them, He intended to remain with them.

 

Conclusion

For many Americans today, property taxes now threaten their ability to keep their homes and their property. Some are living in homes that are fully paid off—homes they worked for or that were passed down through generations—and yet rising property taxes have reached levels that make it impossible for them to remain in their homes, or which allows government to take their lifelong home from them. This is immoral.

Legislators should oppose what is immoral and promote what is morally good. This issue deserves careful consideration by lawmakers in states across the country to ensure that property taxes are applied in ways that are both moral and just.

Access this resource in an easy to print PDF here.

If you are a lawmaker who would like assistance with legislation in your state, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We would love to serve you. 

If you would like to donate to our mission at PFLN to help lawmakers advance religious freedom and constitutional policies, we greatly value your support! You can make a tax-deductible donation here. 

Major Victories for Religious Freedom in Texas!

Now is the most opportune time for states to take the lead on religious freedom. For far too long, conservatives have been forced to focus solely on defending religious freedom—but now is the moment not just to defend it, but to advance it. This is a time for lawmakers to think innovatively about areas of society where religion has been excluded for so many decades that people no longer even consider they have the right to express their faith.

We are greatly encouraged to see legislators across the country doing exactly that. They are re-examining state laws to ensure that America’s rich history of Judeo-Christian values is once again incorporated into society and welcomed in the public square, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

This session alone, more than 20 bills have been introduced across the country aimed at restoring the Ten Commandments in public schools. We’ve assisted lawmakers and state education leaders with many bills and policies that welcome the Bible and prayer back into classrooms. Dozens of additional bills have been introduced that address permitting chaplains in schools, allowing religious release time, and—in Arkansas—legislation was passed to ensure the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers are included in the state’s education standards.

Texas has done an exceptional job addressing nearly all of these religious freedom issues. Last session, they passed legislation allowing chaplains in schools. And as this year’s session nears its close, lawmakers have passed several landmark bills championing religious freedom.

David and Tim Barton were honored to testify in support of two key bills: the Ten Commandments Bill and the Prayer in School Bill—both of which have now passed the House and Senate.

Tim Barton, David Barton & Matt Krause, with First Liberty, Testifying in Senate Committee Hearing

If you would like to donate to our mission at PFLN to help lawmakers advance religious freedom and constitutional policies, we greatly value your support! You can make a tax-deductible donation here. 

Texas to Display the Ten Commandments in Public School Classrooms

Under this soon to be new law SB 10, the Ten Commandments will be displayed in every public elementary and secondary school classroom across Texas. These timeless principles have long served as a moral compass in American society and were once foundational in public education.

States like Louisiana and Arkansas have passed similar legislation, and we are thrilled to see Texas join them. At our annual conference for state lawmakers, we’ve spent years educating leaders on the historic and legal significance of the Ten Commandments—especially in light of recent shifts in Supreme Court precedent that now make this change possible.

We are deeply grateful for the leadership of Sen. Phil King and Rep. Candy Noble, members of the Pro-Family Legislative Network (PFLN), who sponsored this monumental legislation.

Restoring Prayer and Bible Reading in Public Schools

This legislation, SB 11, permits school districts to adopt policies allowing every campus to offer students and staff the opportunity to participate in a time of prayer and reading from the Bible or other religious texts. We applaud Sen. Mayes Middleton and Rep. David Spiller for their sponsorship of this legislation. 

Religious Release Time – Permitting Parents to Excuse Their Child for A Religious Course, such as a Bible Study

Texas law, with the final passage of SB 1049, will explicitly affirm that parents or guardians may excuse their children during school hours to attend religious courses, such as Bible studies, off-campus. Sen. Phil King led on this bill along with Rep. James Frank. We presented this policy at our annual conference last year and are excited to see Texas pass this bill.

What to Learn More About Why Now is the Time to Advance Religious Freedom? 

First, understand the Lemon Test.
In 1971 in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman the Court announced its new test for determining the permissibility of public religious expressions. It stipulated that for a public religious activity to be constitutional, it must: (1) have a primarily secular purpose, (2) not advance religion, and (3) avoid creating any government entanglement with religion. As you can imagine, this test prohibited nearly all religious displays of religion. The original religious protections of the First Amendment were thus dramatically curtailed.

Over seceding years, the Lemon Test produced increasingly absurd results. The modern Court has now acknowledged that not only was the test flawed but it held an inherent bias against religion.

Second, know the new History and Traditions Test.
Nearly 50 years later, the Supreme Court rejected the Lemon Test in its 2019 ruling in the Bladensburg Cross Case. The Court stated, “retaining established religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices….gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality.”

In other words, if something religious has been part of the fabric of American society and culture for a long period of time (such as crosses, invocations, Ten Commandments displays, et al.), then they must be presumed to be constitutional. This was a dramatic reversal from the Court’s recent decades of decisions, but a clear return to the Constitution’s original intent.

Three years later in 2022, in the cases Shurtleff v. Boston and Kennedy v. Bremerton, the Court openly rejected the Lemon Test.

This is why the opportunity not just to protect religious freedom, but to advance it, is greater now than at any point in the last 50 years.

If you are a lawmaker who would like assistance with legislation in your state, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We would love to serve you. 

If you would like to donate to our mission at PFLN to help lawmakers advance religious freedom and constitutional policies, we greatly value your support! You can make a tax-deductible donation here. 

Civics Education Bill – Teaching the Founding Fathers’ Religious Beliefs

April 8, 2025 – Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signs HB 1705

Arkansas Representative Hope Duke authored a strong civics bill requiring the teaching of the Founding Fathers’ religious beliefs and their impact on America’s founding. As a former teacher, Rep. Duke recognized the importance of educating the next generation about the Creator-endowed inalienable rights that form the foundation of our freedoms.

“The purpose of this legislation is for students to learn the intent and meaning behind the documents that created our government. In order for our country to go the right direction, we have to understand the reasoning behind the path our Founding Fathers chose. This bill will ensure students in Arkansas will study how the religious and moral beliefs of the Founding Fathers influenced those decisions. Their intent matters,” said Rep. Duke.

David and Tim Barton testified in support of the bill in the House committee and were honored to stand alongside Rep. Hope Duke as Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the bill.

Senate Sponsor: Sen. Joshua Bryant, Rep. Hope Duke, and Tim Barton

The law will ensure students learn:

“How the religious and moral beliefs of the founding fathers influenced the founding of the United States and documents and concepts relevant to the founding fathers’ religious and moral beliefs, including without limitation: 

(A) The identity of the “Creator” as viewed by the founding fathers; 

(B) The nature of mankind, or “human nature”, as viewed by the founding fathers; 

(C) The constitutional requirement for a republican form of government, including the separation of powers and federalism, and the fatal tendency of democracy; 

(D) The religious and moral beliefs held by the founding fathers, whereby there is a Creator, and that man is endowed by that Creator with inalienable rights; 

(E) The definitions of “religion” held by the founding fathers, particularly as found in Section of the Virginia Declaration of Rights; 

 (F) Why there was a demand for a Bill of Rights as a condition for the adoption of the United States Constitution; 

(G) To what extent the founding fathers recognized historical events and texts, such as the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, the New Testament, and the experiences of the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, and these teachings as a basis for American law and public policy; 

(H) To what extent the founding fathers recognized the English Common Law, the Magna Carta, and the English Bill of Rights as a basis for American law and public policy; and 

(I) How the recognition of inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence formed the framework for the abolition of slavery in the United States; and How the freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of the United States can be traced to the beliefs of the founding fathers.”

We hope many more states follow Arkansas’s lead by putting strong requirements in place for civics education.

If you would like assistance on legislation in your state, please let us know. We would love to assist you with resources and testimony support.

Arkansas Becomes 2nd State to Pass Ten Commandments Display in Schools Bill

Senate Sponsor: Sen. Jim Dotson, with Tim Barton and David Barton testifying in support of SB 433

Arkansas has become the second state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom (K–12), every public university classroom, and in government buildings.

In the 2024 legislative session, we were honored to assist Louisiana Rep. Dodie Horton with testimony and support, as Louisiana became the first state to return the Ten Commandments to American classrooms. This followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the outdated Lemon Test, replacing it with a “history and traditions” standard.

While more than 30 similar bills related to the Ten Commandments were filed during the 2025 legislative session, Arkansas was the first state this year to successfully pass and sign such a bill into law.

There are a few key differences between the Arkansas and Louisiana legislation. Arkansas’s statute falls under the same code section as its “In God We Trust” display requirements for public schools. Additionally, the Arkansas display is far simpler than Louisiana’s—it does not require a disclaimer. The poster will feature only the text of the Ten Commandments. The law also applies not just to public school classrooms but to government buildings as well.

The Arkansas law allows both private and public funds to be used for the displays if necessary. However, during the hearing, bill sponsors clarified that there are no plans to use state funds; they anticipate the displays will be privately funded and donated.

Tim and David Barton, along with Pro-Family Legislative Network Executive Director Audrea Decker, were honored to stand alongside PFLN members Senator Jim Dotson and Representative Alyssa Brown as Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed this historic legislation to restore the Ten Commandments to Arkansas classrooms.

Audrea Decker, House Sponsor Rep. Alyssa Brown, Senate Sponsor Sen. Jim Dotson, Liberty Counsel Senior Litigation Counsel Richard Mast, Sen. Clint Penzo, David and Cheryl Barton, Tim Barton

This law will help ensure students understand the Ten Commandments long-standing importance in America as a foundational part of our history and traditions. 

Understanding the History of Supreme Court Precedent and Religious Displays 

To understand what is happening with this surge of Ten Commandment legislation across the country, it’s important to know the history of the Supreme Court’s standing on this issue. Religious freedom is a bedrock of America’s Founding and the Ten Commandments have long been part of American education. However, in the Supreme Court’s decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), they set a new criteria called the Lemon test to determine if government actions violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The test had three main components:

  1. Purpose: The action must have a secular purpose.
  2. Effect: It must not advance or inhibit religion.
  3. Excessive entanglement: It must not excessively involve the government with religion.

For the last several decades expression of America’s religious heritage has been restricted as the Lemon test prohibited many religious displays and dramatically curtailed the original religious freedom protections of the First Amendment.

The Lemon test was the culmination of separationists’ fight to eradicate all references to religion from the public sphere. They used the Lemon test to block as many displays of America’s religious heritage as they could, including Ten Commandments displays and veterans’ memorials. One of the largest upheavals was in Stone v. Graham in 1980. The Supreme Court used the Lemon test to strike down Kentucky’s law requiring that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public schools. This was a turning point in America, as schools across the country removed their Ten Commandment displays.

Supreme Court Overturn of the Lemon Test, Leads with History and Tradition Test

Since the Supreme Court’s implementation of the Lemon test, thousands of cases have been decided by this faulty standard for the past 50 years. However, in recent years the Court reverted back to America’s original interpretation of the First Amendment and in the case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The Court overturned Lemon and instead looked to America’s history and tradition for whether the government may recognize our religious heritage.

Expanding Religious Freedom in Public Life

America can once again welcome religious displays back into the public square if they are part of our nation’s long-standing history and traditions. Nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments in classrooms and courtrooms, can all be reintegrated into American society. The time is ripe for moral and religious support to be encouraged in schools and in the public square.

Considering Ten Commandment Legislation in Your State? We are ready to help! 

We continue to work with legislators across the country on this issue through our Pro-Family Legislative Network. If you would like assistance with similar legislation in your state, please let us know.

Backtracking on the Sanctity of Life: The Dangers of Tennessee’s Recently Passed IVF Bill

By Audrea Decker, Executive Director of the Pro-Family Legislative Network

Tennessee lawmakers just passed legislation that pro-life Americans nationwide should find deeply troubling. The so-called “Fertility Treatment and Contraceptive Protection Act” (HB 533 / SB 449), signed into law by Gov. Bill Lee (R) on April 24, is being hailed by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a victory for “reproductive freedom” and a means to limit “political intrusion.” But beneath the surface, this new law undermines Tennessee’s long-standing pro-life practices long opposed by those who believe life begins at conception.

Rep. Chris Todd (R), along with ten other legislators, signed a letter to Gov. Lee urging him to veto the legislation, but he failed to do so, consistent with his track record of not vetoing a single bill to date.

This is not just a Tennessee issue. The fact that Tennessee—a deeply pro-life state—has enshrined this bill into law could pave the way for conservative states across the country to make the same dangerous mistake.

You cannot legislate on reproductive technologies or contraception without first addressing the most fundamental question: When does life begin? For pro-life Americans, the answer is clear—life begins at fertilization. That belief is the cornerstone of laws that protect the unborn.

 

Pro-life Tennessee lawmakers had a real opportunity to approach reproductive technologies and contraception with care — protecting unborn life while still ensuring parents have access to innovative medical options. But this bill falls far short of that goal.

Let’s examine why this legislation is so problematic.

First, this law creates a statutory right to create and genetically test embryos—with no safeguards.

Your embryos — precious, often limited, and possibly your only chance at biological children — should receive ultimate protection. However, in vitro fertilization (IVF) routinely entails the destruction of embryos after genetic testing, if those embryos are deemed “undesirable.” This bill imposes no requirements for safekeeping and fails to clarify whether embryos can be destroyed without consent, through negligence, or who bears responsibility.

Further, the bill directly contradicts Tennessee’s existing pro-life laws that recognize an embryo as a person and stipulate prenatal non-discrimination. These laws are critical to ensure babies are not discarded because of their sex, race, or disability.

Rep. Gino Bulso (R) explained during floor debate that three sections of Tennessee Code recognize embryos as human life; TCA 39-13-107 and TCA 39-13-214 define unborn children as persons at any stage of gestation, while TCA 39-15-213 recognizes life beginning at fertilization.

Rep. Bulsoemphasized, “At fertilization, we bring into existence a new human being. We have all 46 chromosomes, the entire genetic makeup of a human person. Eye color is determined, hair color is determined, every genetic trait that a person later develops is there from the moment of fertilization, also known as conception, forward—which is why we outlaw abortion even at the embryonic stage.”

He added, “If you were to concede that you could kill an embryo, then you have given up any scientific argument to outlaw abortion at any further portion of a pregnancy. Because from fertilization forward, you have the same kind of being.”

That’s the slippery slope Tennessee has just stepped onto. By ignoring the personhood of embryos and endorsing practices that facilitate their destruction, this bill undermines all laws that protect life from the moment of conception.

Meanwhile, researchers are already exploring ethically fraught uses of embryos in experimental technologies, including as a power source to fuel artificial intelligence. Though it sounds like science fiction, this is already underway.

Second, this law codifies access to abortion-inducing drugs.

During debate, bill sponsor Rep. Iris Rudder (R) confirmed that “emergency contraception” in the bill includes Plan B, the “morning-after pill.” Many pro-life voters would be stunned to learn that their Republican representatives just voted to affirm and protect access to such drugs.

However, since this language was wrapped inside a bill labeled “Fertility Treatment and Contraceptive Protection Act,” it becomes easier to obfuscate the real impact. Some lawmakers may not have even realized what they were voting for. Will the rest of the pro-life community in Tennessee and elsewhere know the difference?

Maybe that’s exactly the strategy. Progressive organizations such as the ACLU don’t support pro-life bills—they support bills that advance their radical agenda. Their endorsement of this legislation should have been a red flag.

Other states have taken steps to address IVF-related uncertainty. For example, Alabama legislators clarified in statute that IVF providers cannot be held criminally liable for the death or damage of an embryo, but are still vulnerable to civil liability. Georgia enacted simple language this session ensuring that IVF remains legal without undermining other pro-life statutes.

Tennessee went much further. Rather than clarifying existing laws or protecting parents and embryos, Tennessee legislators created broad new “rights” to abortion-inducing drugs and reproductive technologies that could be used to pressure insurance providers and employers. Moreover, it could violate the religious or moral beliefs of Tennesseans who object to the destruction of unborn life.

The Bottom Line

Tennessee’s law may have been crafted with good intentions—to support families and ensure access to fertility treatments—but its consequences are dangerous. It permits genetic testing that leads to embryo destruction, creates new rights to use drugs like Plan B, and stands in direct contradiction to Tennessee laws that have protected life from the moment of fertilization for decades.

Ultimately, this law has substantially weakened the very statutes that have made Tennessee a national leader in the pro-life movement. Unless pro-life advocates speak up, other states may now follow Tennessee’s example. Lawmakers in other states should see Tennessee’s new law as a cautionary tale, not a blueprint. And Tennessee lawmakers must act swiftly next session to undo the damage before it spreads.

If you would like assistance with similar legislation in your state, please reach out to us at PFLN. We are here to assist you.

Unborn Children Are Being Harvested to Create Human Batteries. This Must Stop.

By Jack McPherrin

In recent decades, tremendous breakthroughs in stem cell research and application have allowed a myriad of new medical treatments for diseases and conditions once thought uncurable, which is generally a good thing for society. However, some novel stem cell research has clearly breached a serious ethical line, such as the use of embryonic stem cells to create synthetic organoids for biocomputing. Ultimately, unborn children are being harvested as an energy source to power rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), a development that should deeply concern every person on this planet.

AI consumes energy at an unprecedented scale, which has led to equally unprecedented global appetite for more efficient energy sources. For instance, a simple query to ChatGPT requires approximately 10 times more energy than a typical Google search. As a result, those who use AI—which is already most individuals and companies to some degree—are desperately searching for ways to consume less power and cut their rapidly rising costs.

To meet that demand, scientists have begun embracing the concept of biocomputing, something that until very recently has been purely in the realm of science fiction. Biocomputing is essentially a merger between biology and computer technology. And, biocomputers have already been built out of a combination of lab-grown human brain tissue with electronic circuitry.

For example, Swiss tech startup FinalSpark is now selling biocomputers that consist of four miniature lab-grown human brains—called organoids—that are embedded with silicon chips. FinalSpark’s cofounder Fred Jordan has said that because of the energy efficiency of these biocomputers, “computing may ultimately become an activity with no ecological footprint,” thereby becoming a poster child of the green energy movement. FinalSpark claims that its product—the Neuroplatform—is up to one million times more energy efficient than current computing hardware.

FinalSpark’s Neuroplatform has already been adopted for biocomputing research by universities around the world, including the University of Michigan in the United States. Other U.S. universities are dabbling in biocomputing as well; the University of Southern California received a $2 million grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation in 2024 to advance its biocomputing efforts.

Some might find this new scientific advancement exciting and see the potential for its application in fields such as energy and medicine. Unfortunately, the reality is that the construction of biocomputers entails a very ethically dark process.

As mentioned, biocomputers are lab-grown human brains outfitted with electrodes. These brains are grown from extracted human stem cells, and are then “taught” to conduct tasks through electrical stimulation or through the injection of chemicals such as dopamine. When these brains perform a task in the way that researchers want, the organoids are “rewarded” with dopamine; if they do not perform a task in a desirable manner, they are “punished” through electric shocks. Further, organoids only survive this process for approximately 100 days, at which point new organoids are grown to replace them.

Putting aside what is essentially the creation, enslavement, forced experimentation, and death-by-torture of a life form for scientific advancement, the sourcing process for stem cell extraction is even darker.

It is well-established that human embryos have been used in stem cell research for decades, though the proliferation of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has made it much easier for researchers to obtain them. Embryos that are created through IVF but ultimately not used are often donated to universities or scientific institutions for medical research. Concerningly, there is no way to track the amount of embryos that are donated for research, though studies have estimated that up to 59 percent of IVFpatients are willing to do so.

And, because we are unable to track embryo disposition, we also are unable to track exactly how many donated embryos are being used to create organoids for biocomputing. That said, it is very clear that embryos are being used for this purpose.

For example, a study published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences illustrates the different sources of stem cells that organoids are derived from, including embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, and adult stem cells.

Another study published in Frontiers in Science states,

“The past decade has seen a revolution in brain cell cultures, moving from traditional monolayer cultures to more organ-like, organized 3D cultures—i.e., brain organoids. These can be generated either from embryonic stem cells or from the less ethically problematic iPSC typically derived from skin samples.”

Other sources corroborate the same information. And, scientists seem to have few ethical qualms with using embryos for such research. Harvard Medical School bioethicist Insoo Hyun stated in the journal Cell in 2024: “Since the cognitive bar is set so high for personhood, it seems premature to worry about whether brain organoids, neurological chimeras, or embryo models deserve the same ethical protections normally afforded to persons.”

Ultimately, scientists like Hyun do not consider embryos and unborn life to be truly human, because they are not yet “sentient.” As such, any experimentation with or use of them is justified.

To conclude: we are faced with two problems. One is that we are creating, enslaving, and ultimately killing lab-grown human brains to power artificial intelligence, among other uses. That is disturbing enough on its own. Far more disturbing, especially on an ethical level, is that scientists are using embryos of unborn children to create those brains.

Though there are many ways that policymakers can protect unborn life more generally, there are also ways by which state legislators can stop embryos from being used in this specific manner.

At baseline, a human embryo created through IVF must be clearly defined in state statutes as a fertilized human ovum composed of one or more living human cells and human genetic material that will develop into a child—and therefore have certain rights granted by law. Further, state legislators should expressly prohibit state taxpayer funds from creating, destroying, or risking harm to human embryos in the course of research experiments, including at publicly funded state universities. In concert, state funds should be prohibited from being used to transport fetal tissue across state lines, thereby circumventing the aforementioned prohibitions.

Researchers, scientists, and academics may claim that that such restrictions will halt all their progress on not just organoid creation and a supposed energy-efficient utopia, but also the advancement of other aforementioned “lifesaving” technologies and treatments. First, nothing is truly “lifesaving” if the destruction of unborn life is a prerequisite. Second, the claim is not even true; adult stem cells can easily be used in place of embryonic stem cells and are, in fact, substantially more effective than embryonic stem cells.

Embryos are prenatal human beings. They deserve the same or greater protection as any form of human life, especially from being experimented upon and used as an energy source. It’s up to us to save them from this fate.

 

Read the op-ed published by The Blaze here.

If you would like assistance with legislation on the topic in your state, please reach out to us at PFLN. We are here to assist you.

 

Displaying the Ten Commandments in Schools

In recent years, various proposals have emerged across the nation to display copies of the Ten Commandments in public settings, including schools. Many object to such suggestions, believing the Judiciary has determined such displays to be unconstitutional. While this was true over past decades, as a result of recent court decisions, that prohibition no longer exists. With this legal change, a brief overview of the original use of the Decalogue in public settings, its removal during the judicial activism of the 1970s and 1980s, and the new position taken by the Court will be useful.

To read the full brief on the history of the Ten Commandments in America’s public schools, click here.

If you would like assistance with legislation on the topic in your state, please reach out to us at PFLN. We are here to assist you.

Pro-IVF Bills Are Proliferating. Pro-Life and Pro-Family Legislators Must Be Wary.

Legislation designed to ensconce the “right” to in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been introduced in several states during the 2025 legislative sessions. IVF is promoted as a way for women and couples that cannot conceive a child naturally to achieve pregnancy. And, while millions of children have been conceived through IVF, the process entails significant risks to the health of women and children that must be more widely understood.

Advocates frame pro-IVF bills as protecting individual rights surrounding the pursuit of creating a family. For example, North Dakota HB 1477 stipulates that “the state or any political subdivision of the state may not implement, administer, or enforce any law, rule, or policy that has the effect of prohibiting, limiting, delaying, or impeding access to assisted reproduction services or fertility treatment, or otherwise violate the rights provided for in this section.”

The bill goes on to list the rights of the individual, which include receiving fertility treatments from health care providers and entering contracts with health care providers to handle, test, store, ship, and dispose of an individual’s reproductive genetic material. Similar bills—pushing the same individual rights-oriented narrative—have been introduced in Texas, Tennessee, Maryland, Vermont, and several other states.

Advocates of these bills are attempting to construct a narrative where anyone who opposes pro-IVF bills is an enemy of freedom, women, children, and families. However, this is a false narrative; nothing could be further from the truth. These bills—written and heavily lobbied for by major players in the fertility industry such as Planned Parenthood—do nothing to protect women or children. The IVF industry is almost entirely unregulated and can cause significant harm to those who are unable to make a choice (children) or are unaware of the risks (women).

Harms to Children

The most obvious and severe harm to children is the violation of a child’s right to life. IVF involves simply discarding embryos that are deemed undesirable, which is the equivalent of aborting children. In fact, more babies are likely killed each year as a result of IVF than through more traditional methods of abortion.

Studies have shown that approximately 7 percent of embryos are ultimately implanted. The remaining 93 percent of embryos—millions of unborn children—are either outright destroyed or indefinitely frozen, with small odds of ever being used. Often, embryos are discarded simply because they are considered “undesirable,” such as being the wrong sex or having genetic abnormalities. The United States is a particularly popular destination for IVF because most U.S. clinics allow for this type of embryo selection, which—while essentially being a form of modern-day eugenics—is incredibly lucrative. Profits to the fertility industry are expected to soar from $18,475 billion in 2021 to $28,236 billion by 2025.

On top of this, the few babies that end up being allowed to survive the IVF process are prone to significant physical, cognitive, and developmental disabilities. Research has indicated that children born through IVF are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, brain damage, and other substantial health risks. Studies have also shown that children born through IVF have a much higher risk of cognitive impairment; one study found that IVF babies are 58 percent more likely to have intellectual disabilities by the age of eight or older.

Children created through IVF can also struggle with many different developmental problems. For example, it has been estimated that between 30,000 and 60,000 children per year are born to third parties, which can lead to identity problems stemming from the fact that these children do not know the identities of their biological mother and father.

Further, because these children are born from anonymous sperm or egg donations—which is a largely unregulated process—dozens or even hundreds of half-siblings could be living in the same geographic area and be entirely unaware of it. As those children grow up together, they could accidentally begin incestuous relationships with their relatives and produce offspring of their own.

Harms to Women

As with children, there are many ways that women can be harmed through the IVF process. The earliest stage of IVF entails injecting hormonal medications to stimulate a woman’s ovaries, which can result in several severe side effects, including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). In severe cases, OHSS can be life-threatening.

During the egg retrieval phase, organs near the ovaries can be damaged. Though uncommon, this can require emergency surgery or even blood transfusions. This phase can also result in pelvic infections; in severe cases, surgery may need to be performed to remove the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and/or the uterus.

Further, IVF makes significant pregnancy complications more likely to occur. Having a pregnancy with more than one baby—such as twins or triplets—is more common with IVF. This poses significant risks to both the mother and/or the children, including high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, maternal hemorrhage, miscarriage, and premature birth—the last of which often leads to lifelong health problems for the child.

Ultimately, as the IVF-induced harms to children and women make clear, opposition to pro-IVF bills is entirely justified. Legislators should not fall prey to the false narrative that any resistance to pro-IVF bills constitutes being an enemy of families and freedom.It is impossible to be pro-IVF while also being pro-women, pro-children, pro-family, and pro-life.

If you would like assistance with similar legislation in your state, please reach out to us at PFLN. We are here to assist you.

Carbon Capture & Property Rights

The Heartland Institute 5 Carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects have become an increasingly popular method by which climate activists pursue their ultimate goal of global “net-zero” carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Rather than focusing upon the societal harms of climate alarmism in general, this paper will focus specifically on the harms inflicted by CCS, with a particular emphasis upon the revocation of private property rights through the use of eminent domain.

This paper begins with a brief background of the chain of events and overarching agenda that has spawned CCS and an explanation of the CCS process. It then covers the significant public health and environmental problems that can be the direct result of CCS projects, as well as the massive public-private partnerships and funding mechanisms that incentivize the proliferation of CCS. The paper will close by clarifying how CCS indeed poses an imminent threat to Americans’ fundamental private property rights and providing specific recommendations for policymakers to protect those rights and push back against the green agenda.

Read the rest of the paper here.

Reach out to us here if you would like assistance with legislation in your state.