Families Fight Pornography on the Frontlines

 This guest post is from Benjamin Hands, Regent Law 3L:

Recently, states are passing laws requiring pornographic websites to verify the age of its visitors. The Supreme Court heard Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton on January 15, 2025, to decide what constitutional standard should be applied to these laws regulating pornography. When approaching this legal issue, it is important to keep in mind the holistic impacts of pornography on individuals and society. The proliferation of sin, confusion, and pain caused by pornography burdens our adolescents with a weight that is brought with them into all aspects of their lives. While free speech advocates want to ignore the pain pornography causes to so many Americans, the struggles of our fellow Americans follow them into their marriages, families, and society as a whole.

 The prevalence of pornography is often called an epidemic, and the harmful effects of pornography cannot be ignored. Studies show that pornography use causes depression, low self-esteem, decreased appetite, and poor mood. E.g., Haseeb Mehmood Qadri et al., Physiological, Psychosocial and Substance Abuse Effects of Pornography Addiction: A Narrative Review, Cureus (2023), https://www.cureus.com/articles/131357-physiological-psychosocial-and-substance-abuse-effects-of-pornography-addiction-a-narrative-review#!/. Indeed, pornography can be classed as an addiction as it has all the same hallmarks of substance addictions. E.g., id.; Matthew Fradd, The Porn Myth 24–25 (2017). Not to mention the spiritual harm pornography causes. Pornography encourages lust, therefore distancing from God those who watch and create pornography. Further, Jesus Christ calls us to love our spouses with our entire body and soul, but pornography teaches our adolescents that sex is about gratification, not marital love. Sex should be an important part of fostering a loving marital union designed to reflect God’s love for us and create life inspired by that love. But pornography instead takes love out of the equation.

Our families are on the frontlines of helping and dealing with those who are suffering from pornography addictions. Spouses are harmed by being objectified while children who watch pornography are harmed emotionally and physically, and they carry that pain with them when interacting with those around them. It is vital to heal families impacted by pornography addictions and reverse the effects of pornography on our country. America has a long history of decidedly treating obscenity as not protected by the Constitution. Pornography itself is inherently obscene. Therefore, legally pornography should not be held to a high constitutional standard and states should vigorously tackle pornography to heal the pain and confusion it has caused

A Christian Response to the Global Fertility Crisis

 Reprinted from the Regent University Center for Christian Thought & Action: A Christian Response to the Global Fertility Crisis - Center for Christian Thought & Action

The Guardian recently shared an interesting article: “The global fertility crisis: are fewer babies a good or a bad thing? Experts are divided.” Indeed, some think even something like climate change is so important that no one should bring children into the world because of it.  According to the Harvard Gazette, “Some activists and scholars adopt an ‘anti-natalist’ philosophy when thinking about the climate” citing “groups like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement among those who believe that ending human reproduction is the kindest thing for the planet.”

The reality is that while the world population is slowly growing, the fertility rate of the United States continues to shrink. According to the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School researchers, replacement level for any population is a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.1, meaning an average of 2.1 children born to every 1000 women of child bearing age in any population will keep that demographic at a stable level for that population group.  Higher rates result in substantial population growth, and lower rates bring population demise.  The United States TFR in 2023 was 1.7.  This low TFR means that the U.S. population will dramatically shrink to irreplaceable levels in the next three generations. These levels have been in steady decline since 2007. America is very likely in demographic demise, and most certainly in population decline.

Population decline is a serious threat to many nations. Japan’s birth rate, for example, fell to a new record low of 1.2, and the UK birth rate is below the U.S. at 1.57. Population decline can have economic consequences, such as fewer workers contributing to the national economy, higher costs for pensions and health care, and pressure on public finances. It also affects education, culture, and politics. 

 

And incentives are altered when there is no influence of a Christian world view.  Dual Income couples with No Kids - or DINKs – are interested in financial stability, flexibility, and building wealth, rather than building a family. Millennials also present a paradox, as while they are not in a rush to marry, most unmarried Millennials say they would like to marry. Among unmarried  individuals, generally one child is the norm for those who choose to parent – again bringing down the TFR.

 

Simultaneously, the Biden administration has allowed nearly 8 million undocumented immigrants into America since 2021. Some argue that immigration is one way to prop up the economy, but it has also brought serious negative consequences, burdening federal government spending and state spending. Recently the city of Denver had to cut spending and reallocate funding for the illegal immigration crisis.  Immigration is clearly not the way to solve America’s declining population for this and a host of other reasons.

 

What should the Christian response to population demise be? Christians in the United States have more children on average than religiously unaffiliated people, as research reveals that Christian women have a TFR of 1.9 versus 1.6 for women that do not claim faith in Christ. But what does this really mean for one with a Christian worldview? Is there still a mandate to Christians to be fruitful and replenish the earth? Genesis 1:28 says “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground’.”

God’s Word still matters to serious Christians today. While the church tends to operate at a macro level, considering member numbers, family numbers, and societal contributions, individuals operate on a micro level, considering the implications of having a large family in terms of economics, and their ability to care for many children.

While Christians can lead the way away from population demise, we can also agree that a wise response to family planning and the dominion mandate is not one of mindless reproduction. Rather, women, men and families all benefit from better work conditions in the 21^st century, remote working allowing for a family focus, and increased household income.  Indeed, the parenting team concept is critical to the health of the individuals in the family and the family itself.  So should a Christian family have more children because the TFR in American is too low? The quick answer is No, a Christian family should not have more children simply for the sake of raising America’s TFR, or just to have more children. Instead, Christians should have more children if they can do so responsibly to honor God, raising those children to love and serve Him for generations to come. 

What are the potential positive implications if Christians lead the way in reproduction and raising their children in the faith? Fertility rates can rise to healthy levels by transferring faith values intentionally to the next generation. A few more Christian families having 2 children rather than 1, or 3 children rather than 2, and raising them with a solid Christian worldview, can make a tremendous difference. That difference could happen through adoption as well – becoming a family for a child who needs one.

Love and natural affection are the roots of a solid family. Economists might call this parental altruism, but C.S. Lewis in his The Four Loves, refers to this family love – or storge – as the natural affection between parents and children, and siblings with each other. “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity... for there the Lord bestows His blessing, even life forevermore.” Psalm 133:1, 4.

Christian couples understand that when their love for each other is manifested in a child it is a miracle from God. The blessing of children can never be overstated, and yes, it does fulfill the Genesis 1:28 mandate as God leads for each particular family. This is amazing love. And “whatever you do in word or deed do all to the glory of God.” Colossians 3:17. This advances family restoration.

Why Collaborative Divorce is more helpful to Family Restoration than Litigation

 

This guest post is from Regent Law 2 L Harrison Hunter:                  

         

Unfortunately, in today’s society, divorce occurs far too often. Divorce litigation can be extremely harmful to the relationship between the separating spouses and their relationships with their children. Fortunately, litigation is not the only process available to spouses when seeking a divorce.

One alternative is “collaborative family law.” Collaborative family law is a resolution process in which separating spouses agree that they will not seek litigation. Instead, the separating spouses agree to work together, in a collaborative manner, that is grounded in open communication and places the needs of their children first. Collaborative family law generally includes a family lawyer who will participate in the settlement negotiations.

Collaborative family law is generally more cost effective than traditional litigation, but more importantly it is much more civil. Separating spouses in collaborative family law determine their own outcomes and do not have to deal with the public exposure of the intricate details of each participant’s family and financial life.

Participants in collaborative family law also have an opportunity to work with specialists to support the settlement agreements. While there are a variety of types of specialists that participants of collaborative family law can utilize, arguably the most important of these is a family coach. Family coaches will work with participants in overcoming emotional and communication hurdles between separated spouses and their children which will help them resolve issues more effectively.

Collaborative family law helps avoid emotionally and financially taxing litigation while prioritizing the needs of the participant’s children. By focusing on communication and the needs of their children, participants in collaborative family law are well situated to rebuild the family dynamics and relationships with their children post-divorce.

3 Principles for IVF Parents

 

In light of yesterday’s Executive Order Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) parents who dream of having a child through IVF now have greater hope and access to those services.  As the Order states, “infertility struggles can make conception difficult, turning what should be a joyful experience into an emotional and financial struggle. My Administration recognizes the importance of family formation, and as a Nation, our public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.”

This is wonderful news, and yes, it should be easier, and better thought through by parents who choose to avail themselves of this miracle reproductive technology. 

Three very clear and necessary guiding principles must assist these very special parents: 1) parent all your created embryos, 2) protect all your created embryos, and 3) protect your marriage. Let’s call this the magic of three.

One: Parent all your created embryos.

First, in your excitement to embark on the road to parenthood, create only as many embryos as you are committed to parenting. They are your children, and you are responsible for them. State laws may or may not assist in this principle, but your first concern must be that the embryos you create are your responsibility as their parent. Only create as many as you are willing to parent. 

Two: Protect all your created embryos.

Second, never choose the options of “destruction, discarding, or experimentation” for your embryos.  These will be three of your five choices (the other two being gestation toward birth, and donation for adoption). Choosing destruction, discarding, or experimentation is choosing death for your child.  Your embryos are not just medical or scientific creations; they are your children. From the moment they come into existence, they are lives—unique, whole, and worthy of protection. Each embryo carries the same dignity as the child you long to hold in your arms. To treat them as excess, discardable, or experimental is to deny the truth of their Creator. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart” (Jeremiah 1:5). From the beginning, God sees and knows each life. Your embryos are not mere potential—they are already known, loved, and entrusted to you as their parents. Indeed, every year more human children die from IVF than do from abortion. This is a tragic and largely ignored reality, yet no less true. Protect all your created embryos.

Three: Protect your marriage.

Third, guard your loving marriage.  Many couples who seek to build their families through IVF struggle through the arduous process, to the destruction of their sexual oneness and the emotional detriment of their marriage.  Don’t allow this to happen to you.  There is a plethora of cases where divorcing IVF parents litigate the fate of their embryos because their efforts to build their families have destroyed their marriages. Take care of your spouse, and guard your marriage. Your children need your strong marriage as the foundation for your family. Protect your marriage. 

These principles ought to be agreed upon by mother and father at the outset of the process, and directions given to involved physicians, counselors, and lawyers accordingly. Doing so in writing is an excellent safeguard for everyone – especially for your miracle IVF children. 

IVF parents, you are in charge of this process.  As the EO states, “infertility struggles can make conception difficult, turning what should be a joyful experience into an emotional and financial struggle.” Never allow your dreams to be hijacked by immoral choices of death for your embryos.  And never allow you, your spouse, or your children to become merely a commodity for the booming IVF industry. “You are not your own, therefore glorify God with your body,” (I Cor 6:20), protecting too the embryonic bodies of your children as their parents, parenting them from the outset, and protecting your marriage. Pursue IVF by the magic of these three guiding principles.

Is Funding Planned Parenthood a Tax-Payer Requirement?

 

This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh whether states can put their citizens’ health first and direct limited Medicaid resources to the most qualified healthcare providers in their states rather than to abortion facilities, such as Planned Parenthood.

On Dec. 18, the high court agreed to hear Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (formerly captioned Kerr v. Planned Parenthood), where, on behalf of the Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Alliance Defending Freedom is asking the court to protect South Carolina’s right to direct taxpayer dollars to qualified providers of life-affirming, comprehensive health care.

A pro-life family restoration focus challenges not only the ideology of Planned Parenthood, but its efficacy to protect the health of women. Abortion is not health care, and it does not restore families.

Virginia’s Slayer Rule: When Crime Prevents Inheritance

 

This guest post is from Cassidy Eason, Regent Law 3L:

In the world of wills, trusts, and estates, one of the most striking legal principles is the "Slayer Rule." Rooted in equity and public policy, the rule ensures that individuals who intentionally and unlawfully kill another person cannot profit from their wrongdoing. Virginia’s version of the Slayer Rule, codified in Va. Code § 64.2-2500, is a fascinating example of how the law navigates morality and justice in estate distribution.

What Is the Slayer Rule?

The Slayer Rule embodies the principle that "no one should profit from their own wrong." In Virginia, this means that a person who is convicted of—or found to have unlawfully and intentionally killed—another individual is disqualified from inheriting from the victim’s estate. This disqualification applies regardless of the method of inheritance, including under a will, intestacy laws, or even through survivorship in joint tenancy.

Proof Beyond Conviction

Interestingly, the Virginia statute does not require a criminal conviction to invoke the Slayer Rule. Civil courts may determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the killing was unlawful and intentional. This lower burden of proof allows the rule to apply even if criminal proceedings are inconclusive or result in an acquittal.

Practical Implications and Policy Considerations

The Slayer Rule exemplifies the law's effort to balance fairness and deterrence. It prevents the moral outrage of a killer benefiting from their crime, while also providing clarity for estate administration. However, the rule also raises questions: Should it apply to manslaughter or killings committed under mitigating circumstances? Should restitution to the victim’s family be prioritized over strict disinheritance?

How Virginia Compares

While most states have some version of the Slayer Rule, there are differences in scope and application. For instance, some jurisdictions allow the rule to apply to cases of voluntary manslaughter, while others impose more stringent requirements for proof. Virginia’s relatively straightforward approach makes it a strong example of clear legislative intent to uphold justice.

The Slayer Rule is more than a legal technicality—it reflects the interplay between law and morality. Virginia’s treatment of this doctrine ensures that justice prevails, even beyond the grave. For anyone drafting estate plans, understanding this rule is essential, as it underscores the importance of naming contingent beneficiaries and considering all possible outcomes.

By understanding the nuances of Virginia’s Slayer Rule, estate planners, legal professionals, and clients can better navigate the complexities of inheritance law while ensuring the law serves its ultimate purpose: justice.

 

Female is Very Good

 

My recently published article, The Abolition of Women, represents legal scholarship that is expanding the literature surrounding women's rights, especially in contemporary culture. In the vein of C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man, it labors to reveal that feminist cultural ideology today is actually working toward the annihilation of women, rather than the liberation of women.  

Essentially the article argues that "feminist legal theory, with the original objective of bringing equality for women, has been twisted to effectuate a form of annihilation of women and women’s rights." Covering reproductive rights, motherhood, and female spaces, among other important concepts subject to conflict today, it examines whether the notion of “woman” may be being reimagined toward annihilation by ideology that deconstructs the uniqueness of women, unwittingly creating the potential abolition of woman.

For example, the falsehood that women "need" abortion in order to achieve socioeconomic success in America is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on women and girls today. Many women don't realize that this purported feminist ideology actually produces the opposite effect and furthers discriminatory views towards pregnant women and motherhood. When a system undervalues pregnancy and motherhood, naturally we will see more resistance to accommodate for either in employment, in education, essentially everywhere. We can see this when we look at discrimination in the workplace. Professor Helen Alvare points out that pregnancy discrimination has risen over 50% in the last 15 years.

Furthermore, "[a]bortion has not reduced sexual violence, and in many ways has facilitated violence against women and children." This is a significant but oft overlooked point. Studies show that the rates of intimate partner violence and reproductive control are higher for women who have abortions. Also, there are many reports that illustrate the prevalence of coerced abortions. One recent study found that over 60% of women felt some form of pressure to abort their preborn child. Young women are particularly vulnerable, and often opt for their last resort of a late term abortion because they have no support from the father of their child or from their community.

The article takes on current feminist thinking and works to free women from the bonds of weak ideology by empowering both women and men to realize that female is certainly “very good.” (Genesis 1:27, 31).  

Recognizing the potential for the abolition of woman can help to avert it and simultaneously advance family restoration.

A Personal Perspective on Organ Donation

 

This guest post is from Lauren Kessler, Regent Law 2L:

Organ donation is often seen as a generous and selfless act, but it’s essential to understand the full picture before making a decision that impacts not only your life but also your loved ones. Missouri law outlines specific provisions for organ and tissue donation, including the creation of a donor registry and the procedures involved. However, my personal experience has given me a different perspective on this issue.

I once believed in the nobility of organ donation, but that changed after a close friend’s tragic car accident. She was young, full of life, and had signed up as an organ donor. When the accident claimed her life, her parents were shocked by what happened next.

The hospital staff informed them that her status as a donor meant her organs would be taken immediately. The family had no say in the matter due to the binding legal consent she had given through the donor registry. Afterward, her parents were devastated when they saw her body. The procedures left her unrecognizable, and the experience added immense grief to their loss. Her parents had no idea she had signed up as a donor and were unprepared for the emotional and physical reality of what organ donation entails. Their pain made me question whether the system truly respects the wishes of families and donors alike.

Organ Donation Laws in Missouri

Missouri’s organ donation laws, particularly § 194.220 and § 194.225, govern the process of making anatomical gifts. Here’s an overview of how it works:

1.      Donor Registry: Missouri maintains a First Person Consent Organ and Tissue Donor Registry, which is overseen by the Department of Health and Senior Services. While people can choose to add their names to this registry, it’s entirely voluntary.

2.    Legal Consent: Adding your name to the registry signifies full legal consent to donate your organs or tissues upon death. This consent allows your organs to be used for transplantation, therapy, research, or education.

3.     Withdrawing Consent: Even if you withdraw from the registry, your family or designated agents can still make the decision to donate your organs unless you’ve formally refused under a separate provision (§ 194.235).

4.    Methods to Make a Gift: Donors can authorize anatomical gifts through a driver’s license, a will, or by communicating their intent during a terminal illness or injury in the presence of witnesses.

While these laws are designed to streamline the process and encourage organ donation, they raise critical questions about consent, family dynamics, and the emotional toll on loved ones.

The Case Against Organ Donation

1.      Lack of Family Involvement: Missouri’s laws prioritize the donor’s consent, which can leave families feeling powerless and blindsided in moments of profound grief.

2.    Emotional Trauma: The physical appearance of a loved one after organ procurement can be distressing, as my friend’s parents learned firsthand.

3.     Moral and Ethical Concerns: Organ donation often involves invasive procedures, and some may question whether these align with their personal or religious beliefs.

4.    Pressure to Donate: Society often portrays organ donation as a moral obligation, which can make individuals feel pressured into a decision without fully understanding the consequences. 

Making an Informed Decision

Organ donation is a deeply personal choice, and it’s crucial to consider all aspects before deciding. If you’re thinking about becoming a donor, ask yourself:

• Have you discussed this decision with your family?
• Do you understand the emotional and physical impact on your loved ones?
• Are you comfortable with how your body might be treated after death?

While I respect those who choose to donate, my experience has shown me the importance of careful consideration and open conversations with family members. Ultimately, your decision should reflect your values, beliefs, and priorities.

Missouri’s organ donation laws aim to simplify the process, but they can leave families unprepared for the emotional challenges that come with it. My friend’s story serves as a sobering reminder that what seems like a selfless act can have unforeseen consequences for those left behind. Before you make a decision about organ donation, take the time to weigh the pros and cons and discuss it with your loved ones.