SOME BRIEF STORY BACKGROUND TO THE EXPLOSIVE BOMBSHELL SCOOP THAT IS REPORTED BELOW IN THIS POST
The anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute had — for a Â long time –Â cultivated a relationshipÂ with Regnerus before approaching him to commission a $785,000 study that would 1) demonize gay people and; 2) be available in time for pernicious exploitation during the 2012 elections.
The study — published onÂ June 10, 2012Â — was ostensibly, but not actually, on same-sex parents’ child outcomes.
And, it was purpose-designed and booby trapped for use against the rights of real-life gay parents in the present day, though it did not study them.
NOMâ€™s founder and mastermindÂ Robert P. George, moreover, is a senior fellow with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, as well as aÂ board memberÂ of the Family Research Council, an SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group known for spreading malicious falsehoods against its umpteen millions of victims, those umpteen millions of victims being the entire LGBT community as well as all heterosexuals who are supportive of LGBTersâ€™ equality.
After all, a lesbian couples’ supportive grand-parents, parents, aunts and uncles, cousins and brothers and sisters do not want Robert George and his anti-gay hate group(s) impinging on their families’ happiness with bullying non-acceptance of gay human beings.
Since the publication of the fraudulent Regnerus study, enemies of gay rights â€” led by Robert Georgeâ€™sÂ Witherspoon Institute,Â NOMÂ andÂ FRCÂ â€“ have beenÂ perniciously exploitingÂ the â€œstudyâ€ as a basis for their anti-gay fear-and-hate-mongering disinformation campaigns.
In response to those anti-gay hate groupsâ€™ disinformation campaigns based on the fraudulent Regnerus study, responsible scientists have taken action to correct the scientific record to the public.
For example, a Golinski-caseÂ amicus briefÂ analyzing the Regnerus study asÂ scientifically invalidÂ was jointly filed byÂ 1)Â the American Psychological Association;Â 2)Â the CaliforniaÂ PsychologicalÂ Association;Â 3)Â the American PsychiatricÂ Association;Â 4)Â the National Association of Social Workers; andÂ 5)Â its California Chapter;Â 6)Â the American MedicalÂ Association;Â 7)Â the American Academy of Pediatrics; andÂ 8)Â the AmericanÂ PsychoanalyticÂ Association.
In an echo of when the American Sociological Association banned Paul CameronÂ — (a gay-bashing charlatan whom Robert George’s anti-gay-rights groups love to quote) –Â and declared that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, due to his intentional distortions of the scientific record, the American Sociological AssociationÂ (ASA) is poised toÂ take actionÂ against the Regnerus study.
Separately, over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s sentÂ a letterÂ to the journalÂ Social Science Research, which published the fraudulent Regnerus study, complaining of its lack of intellectual integrity and its suspiciously rushed publication schedule.
THE ANTI-GAY-RIGHTS WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE’S BRAD WILCOX —
A REGNERUS SCANDAL CORRUPTION KINGPIN?
Keeping in mind that the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute was the main funder of the fraudulent, anti-gay Regnerus “study,” and that Regnerus got a known minimum of $785,000 in study funding:
1) Brad Wilcox is: Director of the Program on Marriage, Family, and Democracy at the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, which funded Regnerus;
2) Brad Wilcox also is: An editorial board member of “Public Discourse,” which is published by the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, which funded Regnerus;
3) Brad WilcoxÂ also is: An editorial board member of the journal Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study;
4) Brad WilcoxÂ alsoÂ has a history of professional collaboration with Mark Regnerus;
4)) Brad Wilcox alsoÂ is: Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia;
5) Brad Wilcox alsoÂ is: Documented as having been a paid Regnerus study consultant, and having assisted Regnerus with data analysis;
6) Brad WilcoxÂ also is: Apparently, one of the peer reviewers whom editor James Wright allowed to rubber stamp the Regnerus study with unwarranted approval for publication;
7) Brad WilcoxÂ also is: An editorial board member of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute’s publication Public Discourse. Regnerus saw gay-bashing comments in support of his study, made on line by Robert Oscar Lopez. Regnerus contacted Lopez first and then conducted correspondence with him. Shortly thereafter,Â a gay-bashing essay in support of the Regnerus study appearedÂ on Public Discourse, where Brad Wilcox of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, which funded Regnerus, is on the editorial board.
8) Brad Wilcox alsoÂ is: among the 18 signers of a Baylor baptist university letter supporting the Regnerus study. The letter contains multiple deliberate distortions of scientific records, all in support of Regnerus, but in apparent violation of the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics for public communications about sociology. Â According to a Baylor spokesperson:Â â€œBaylor expects students not to participate in advocacy groups promoting an understanding of sexuality that is contrary to biblical teaching.â€Â Four signers of the Baylor letter are officials with the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, which funded the Regnerus study. In signing the Baylor letter, Brad Wilcox and three other Witherspoon officials failed to disclose their direct connection to Regnerus’s funding.
HOW DOES THIS ALL FIT TOGETHER?
Brad Wilcox of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute has a long personal history with Mark Regnerus.
Luis Tellez, President of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute also has a long personal history with Mark Regnerus.
The anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute approaches Regnerus about doing a gay parenting study, offering him a $55,000 “planning grant.”
With Regnerus’s anti-gay parenting study plan formed, heads of the anti-gay Witherspoon Institute arrange for Regnerus to have his known minimum study funding of $785,000.
Consultants with no expertise in gay parenting are paid to participate in the Regnerus study design. Regnerus includes some non-gay-bashers among the consultants, but is said to have paid no attention to their suggestions.
With the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox on the editorial board of the journal Social Science Research, the invalid, anti-gay Regnerus study zooms directly to the top of SSR editor James Wright‘s pile of 335 submissions.
The Regnerus submission gets aÂ “Wham bam, thank you mam!”Â rushÂ through Social Science Research‘s channels of approval for publication, seemingly appropriate to the various forms and levels of prostitution that were taking place.
In response to the science-based complaint letter sent to Social Science Research by over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s, editor-in-chief James Wright and editorial board member Darren Sherkat conspire in an “audit” of the publication of the Regnerus “study.” Sherkat says the study should never have been published, and releases information that the peer review was corrupt, yet exonerates Wright and says he may have made all of Wright’s same decisions.
Multiple journalists send Freedom of Information ActÂ (FOIA) requests to the Regnerus’s University of Texas at Austin (UT) for Regnerus-study related communications, including those between Regnerus and the Witherspoon Institute. Though UT officials can not decideÂ whether Regnerus is going through a misconduct inquiry or a misconduct investigation at the school, UT asks Republican Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for FOIA exemptions, claiming that releasing the requested communications could comprise UT’s investigation of Regnerus.
With multiple journalists believing that their Regnerus-related FOIA requests are stalled in limbo, Social Science Research‘s Darren Sherkat reveals the following in online comments:
“UT did respond to my FOIA seeking to identify conflicts of interests with anonymous reviewers and the editor of SSR.” (Bolding added).
As part of his “audit,” Sherkat learned the identify of the peer reviewers, whom SSR ordinarily keeps secret from the public.
SSR was intending to continue keeping the peer reviewers’ identities secret from the public.
However, the Freedom of Information Act request that Sherkat made to UT was for Regernus study-related documents that UT had involving those who did the peer review of the Regnerus study for Social Science Research.
And, because Sherkat had to specify the peer reviewers’ names in his FOIA request, in order to get the documentation that he wanted, whatever documentation UT gave him in response to the request would involve documentation for the peer reviewers. Â But, the documentation would reflect work the peer reviewers had done on the Regnerus study, apart from peer reviewing it.
Sherkat needed that documentation from UT to check for conflicts of interest. (Boy, were there ever conflicts of interest!)
This reporter contacted the UT office that processes FOIA requests.
I said: “If UT’s rationale for not releasing any of the Regnerus study-related documentation was that releasing it would compromise the investigation of Regnerus, why did you release FOIA-requested documentation to Sherkat but not to the rest of us?”
Several days later, I received the same documentation UT sent to Sherkat.
Two of the same paid Regnerus study consultants appear also to have been Regnerus study peer reviewers:
1) Paul Amato; and
2) Brad Wilcox, of the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, the chief funder of the Regnerus study
That is to say: 1) Brad Wilcox had a long, personal history with Mark Regnerus, and; 2)Â Brad Wilcox is an official at the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute, the chief known funder of the Regnerus study; and 3)Â Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox is on the editorial board of Social Science Research, which wound up publishing the Regnerus study, after; 4) Social Science Research editor James Wright permittedÂ Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox, a paid Regnerus study consultant; to be a 5)Â peer reviewer, rubber stamping the Regnerus study for publication.
I spoke with Dr. Gary Gates of the Williams Institute about the the Regnerus peer reviewers’ conflicts of interest.
“The smoking gun here is that a majority of the peer reviewers had specific fiduciary conflicts of interest. This is known, irrefutable evidence that the Regnerus study was not published through appropriate professional peer review. As paid study consultants, these peer reviewers had economic interests in making sure the study got published. Their names in the profession were invested into the Regnerus study, because they had been paid to consult on it. If their study design turned out to produce a study not suitable for publication, then their ability to get future paid study consulting jobs would be affected. If it’s true that one of the paid consultants also is with Witherspoon, which funded the Regnerus study, then that escalates this problematic situation up to another level. The main issue with conflicts of interest is the perception of bias. The duty of the journal editor and more broadly of the academy, is to be sure that the thing is free of conflicts of interest. The basic fact that peer reviewers were paid study consultants is enough to invalidate the peer review process. In the interest of science, the study should be retracted and put through genuine professional peer review, with none of the reviewers having any conflicts of interest. It is objectively true that two peer reviewers had fiduciary conflicts of interest. It is further true that a mass of prominent experts in the field picked up on the study’s methodological flaws that the peer reviewers allowed through. Whether or not the peer reviewer’s fiduciary conflicts of interest were the reasons they missed the study’s methodological problems, the peer review process was not valid. Social Science Research editor James Wright, and Elsevier, the publisher, should be extremely worried about the reputation of their journal in the academy and beyond. Commentators, including the editor Dr. Wright, can say what they want; Wright’s views on this are not shared by the leaders in his field. Our science-based letter of complaint to be posted shortly includes the signatures of the editor-in-chief of the leading academic journal for family sociologists, The Journal of Marriage and Family,Â and of Dr. Erik Olin Wright, President of the American Sociological Association. The Regnerus study should be retracted from publication and put through genuine professional peer review.”
To sign a petition telling the editorial board of Social Science Research to 1)Â salvage the ethically contaminated reputation of their journal; by 2)Â retracting the Regnerus study from publication and putting it through ethically appropriate and professional peer review prior to any future eventual re-publication, go here.
New York City-based novelist and freelance writerÂ Scott Roseâ€™s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His â€œMr. David Cooperâ€™s Happy Suicideâ€ is about aÂ New York City advertising executive assigned to aÂ condom account.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Right Wing Evangelicals Are ‘Marinating’ in ‘Information Aimed at Making Them Fearful, Hostile’: Journalist
Rather, he argued, it is part of a deliberate campaign to radicalize and terrify them into loyalty — and part of what’s driving that is a “disproportionality crisis” of the information they are receiving.
““If you go to church on Sunday morning, you are going to be in the word with your pastor for, you know, 30 minutes, maybe 40, 45 minutes, and you sing some songs, and you say the prayers, and then you are out in the world for the rest of the week,” said Alberta. “And for most of these folks, as they’re out in the world, they are marinating in talk radio, in cable news, in social media—all of this information that is aimed at making them angry, fearful, hostile.”
Whereas they may hear Jesus’ message of tolerance, love, and forgiveness “on Sunday morning for 45 minutes, but then for 4, 5, 6, 10 hours during the week, you’re hearing the exact opposite. And it’s that ratio being so far out of whack that I think is really at the heart of the crisis here.”
And that’s assuming they’re at a church that will even give them messages of love and forgiveness in the first place — many pro-Trump pastors, like Greg Locke of Tennessee, have messages that are far angrier.
“[Trump] may not share their views, he may not sit in the pews with them, he may not read the good book like they do, but in some way, that’s his superpower,” Alberta explained. “He is free to fight in ways that are, you know, unrestrained, unmoored from biblical virtue. And that relationship with Trump has obviously evolved over the last eight years. What started as this very uneasy alliance for a lot of evangelicals with Trump has now morphed into this situation where, look, desperate times call for desperate measures. The barbarians are at the gates and we need a barbarian to keep them at bay.” This means that Trump’s increasingly dictatorial rhetoric is a natural outlet for the rage and frustration these evangelical voters are being fed.
None of this is to say that Trump has completely unified the evangelical world. Cracks have appeared in recent months, with prominent evangelical leaders like Bob Vander Plaats of Iowa endorsing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis out of concern about Trump’s electoral viability.
Editor’s note: Tim Alberta is an award-winning g journalist, a staff writer for The Atlantic, and author of “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism,” and “American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump.”
‘Straight Up Flout the Law’: Trump Declares Judge Chutkan No Longer Has Power Over His Case
Reacting to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling last week that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution just because he was President during the time he attempted to subvert the U.S. Constitution and overthrow the government by overturning the results of the election, attorneys for the criminally-indicted ex-president on Thursday declared the judge no longer has any power over the case while they appeal her ruling.
Noting that the appeal “could take weeks or months,” Politico reports, “In the meantime, he says, Chutkan must postpone all deadlines and cede her authority over the matter.”
“Citing ‘political costs to President Trump and this country’ if the case were to move forward, Trump’s lawyers argued Thursday that he’s entitled to an ‘automatic stay’ while he appeals Chutkan’s ruling last week.”
Trump’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is “asking that court to overturn Chutkan’s ruling and dismiss the indictment against him,” Forbes adds.
Trump had also argued that he is immune from prosecution because the Senate did not convict him after his second House impeachment, this one for “incitement of insurrection.” Judge Chutkan also denied that claim.
“’The filing of President Trump’s notice of appeal has deprived this Court of jurisdiction over this case in its entirety pending resolution of the appeal,’ Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro wrote. ‘Therefore, a stay of all further proceedings is mandatory and automatic,'” Politico reports. “Trump’s attorneys indicated that even if Chutkan doesn’t grant the stay, they plan to ask the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to do so and intend to operate as if there is one in place.”
Trump lawyers say unless Chutkan reverses her ruling, they will ignore all deadlines and other court procedures, unless they are told otherwise.
The Trump lawyers’ motion says, “all current deadlines must be held in abeyance until, at minimum, this motion is resolved. President Trump will proceed based on that understanding and the authorities set forth herein absent further order of the Court.”
“Very much in character,” The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie wrote of the move by attorneys for the ex-president. “Trump is purporting to straight up flout the law.”
Former U.S. DOJ official and FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissman, a professor of law, said Trump was acting “Impudently.”
Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut, of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy, on Monday at Slate wrote Judge Chutkan’s opinion ruling Trump cannot claim presidential immunity for trying to overturn the 2020 election, “is meticulously crafted with the Supreme Court in mind. The decision deploys every methodology of constitutional interpretation, including textualism, each variety of so-called originalism, attention to constitutional structure and underlying premises, functional considerations, and history.”
House Republican’s Bill Aims to Put LGBTQ Children in Adoption and Foster Care at Risk
In September, the Biden administration’s Dept. of Health and Human Services announced new proposed rules to protect LGBTQ youth in foster care or adoption agencies, and included the basic requirement that any child who identifies as LGBTQI+ be placed in a supportive environment, “free of hostility, mistreatment, or abuse.”
Now, a far-right MAGA Republican Congressman, Jim Banks of Indiana who is running for the U.S. Senate, has proposed legislation that could harm not just LGBTQI+ kids but all children awaiting foster care or adoption, by stripping federal funding from agencies that abide by the Biden administration’s protections for those children.
Rep. Banks is a far right-wing extremist who forged multiple congressional documents sent to federal agencies and voted to not certify the 2020 election. He is also an anti-LGBTQ activist and anti-science climate change denier who opposes a woman’s right to choose, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage.
“For too long,” the Dept. of Health and Human Services said in its announcement, “LGBTQI+ children have faced significant disparities in the child welfare system. LGBTQI+ youth are overrepresented in foster care, but face worse outcomes, including poor mental health, higher rates of homelessness, and discrimination just because of who they are in some foster care settings.”
“LBGTQI+ children often have unique needs and deserve care that affirms their identities,” HHS noted, stating its proposed rule “would require that child welfare agencies ensure that each child in their care who identifies as LGBTQI+ receive a safe and appropriate placement and services that help them thrive.”
It would also “protect LGBTQI+ youth by placing them in environments free of hostility, mistreatment, or abuse based on the child’s LGBTQI+ status,” and “would require that caregivers for LGBTQI+ children are properly and fully trained to provide for the needs of the child related to the child’s self-identified sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”
Fox News reports, “Banks’ bill, the Sensible Adoption for Every (SAFE) Home Act, would prevent child welfare agencies and related groups that receive federal funding from getting those funds if they refuse prospective parents who insist against the child’s stated LGBTQ status.”
That means parents could foster a 14-year old girl or boy who identifies as lesbian, bisexual, or gay and force they to say they are straight. They could adopt a 15-year old transgender boy, block him from any medication or counseling he might have been receiving, and force him to wear clothing that does not conform to his gender identity. Depending on state law, they could force an LGBTQI+ child into dangerous so-called conversion therapy that has been likened tom torture.
Congressman Banks told Fox News the “Biden administration is cruelly preventing countless children in the foster care and adoption system from going to loving homes just because parents are opposed to irreversible sex change procedures on kids,” falsely suggesting all LGBTQI+ kids are transgender and falsely suggesting all gender-affirming care involves “irreversible sex change procedures.”
“This isn’t a liberal or conservative issue. This is just plain wrong, and every sane person knows it,” Banks added.
- News2 days ago
Jim Comer Decimated by NBC Reporter in ‘Under Two Minutes’
- News3 days ago
‘Does America Need More God?’: Mike Johnson Laments LGBTQ High School Kids
- OPINION2 days ago
‘Hardball? You Bet’: Dems ‘Need to Be Prepared’ After McCarthy Exit Urges Top Political Scholar
- News3 days ago
‘Aiding and Abetting’: Speaker Johnson Blasted for Blurring Faces of J6 Participants
- News3 days ago
No Regrets: Tuberville to Continue Blocking 4-Star Generals While Releasing Hold on Other Officers
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
Mike Johnson Likens Himself to Moses, Tells Christian Nationalists God Charted His Path to Speaker
- News2 days ago
‘What Bible Is He Reading?’: Morning Joe Trashes Mike Johnson for ‘Lie After Lie’ to ‘Keep His Job’
- News3 days ago
Florida GOP Chair Could Face ‘Censure or Discipline’ After Rape Allegation and Three-Way Sex Claim