Investigations Religion

Fracking Titans Spend Millions Proselytizing School Children

Brie Shea

Conservative radio host Dennis Prager's eponymous website seeks to insert religious and political right-wing propaganda directly into schools, and he has the generous backing of two of the richest men in the United States—Dan and Farris Wilks.

For more than 30 years, Dennis Prager has been a conservative radio host and author. His broadcasts air three hours a day, five days a week across the country, beating the conservative drums against what he sees as a host of “liberal” evils—marriage equality, feminism, and multiculturalism. He has called campus rape culture a “gargantuan lie to get votes” promoted by the “feminist left.”

More recently, Prager has developed an ingenious method of getting his conservative opinions to a new kind of audience, one harder to reach via traditional media channels.

Starting in 2011, Prager founded Prager University, an online resource that produces short videos on Prager’s favorite extremist tropes. While the program claims it is directed toward all students, including those at college, many of the videos are clearly aimed at middle school and high school children, including those attending public schools. The website is not accredited as an academic institution, nor does it offer certifications or diplomas. Instead, courses are offered for free in the form of five-minute animated video lectures. PragerU was started with the intent to promote Prager’s version of Judeo-Christian values and combat the “liberal bias” conservatives believe is so prevalent in America’s education system.

The website covers a variety of topics from economics to philosophy with some of the “world’s best thinkers.” PragerU also supplies religious material, from videos about Genesis to a series on Bible passages.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

One video features Tammy Bruce, a Los Angeles-based conservative radio host who contributed a political science course, Feminism 2.0, in which she reminds students that women have men to thank for feminist progress.

“It is easy for feminists to forget this, but it was men who gave up their monopoly on political power and gave women the right to vote,” Bruce says in the video. “Men who invented birth control, the refrigerator, the washing machine, and so many other devices that liberated women.”

In recent years, the religious right has worked assiduously to erode the separation of church and state that has traditionally been a cornerstone of American society. Last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby is perhaps the most high-profile example of this effort. In that case, the Court decided that the Constitution allowed private companies to dodge public policy if they claim that policy violates their religion.

But Prager University is noteworthy in two respects: the program seeks to insert right-wing religious and political propaganda into schools by providing content directly to teachers and students; and it has the generous backing of two of the richest men in the United States.

Prager University’s largest donors, Dan and Farris Wilks, have spent the last few years using the fortune they made from the fracking boom to fund extreme right-wing causes.

The brothers sold off their Frac Tech shares a few years ago, but they still manage Interstate Explorations, an oil and gas field services company based out of Texas. The two are reportedly worth an estimated $1.4 billion apiece.

Their families reside in Cisco, Texas, where Farris serves as a pastor at Yahweh 7th Day Church, which draws its teachings from both the Old and New Testament. By financing Prager University, the Wilks apparently hope their beliefs will reach a wider, younger, and more impressionable audience.

Prager University declined to respond to Rewire‘s questions for this article, saying that this is “a very busy time for us and due to time constraints we won’t be able to fulfill your request.”

PragerU could be encouraging schools to violate the U.S. Constitution, David B. Cruz, professor of law at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, told Rewire.

“The basic constitutional principle is that public schools may teach about religion, but they may not teach religion,” Cruz said.

“If a school assigns (or gives credit for watching) multiple videos with explicit Christian content, even if there’s secular content too, that could lead a court to conclude it has violated the Establishment Clause. Even assigning or giving credit for watching a single video conveying a message that a student watching it should accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, whatever secular content it may also have, would almost certainly be held unconstitutional by a court if the school were sued.”

Attempting to Bring Right-Wing Content Directly to Students and Educators

Prager has been vocal about his fears that American children are taking on progressive, modern values.

“It’s sad when a parent who believes, for example, in the American Trinity of ‘Liberty,’ ‘In God We Trust,’ and ‘E Pluribus Unum’ has a child who believes that equality trumps liberty, that a secular America is preferable to a God-centered one, and that multiculturalism should replace the unifying American identity,” he wrote in 2013 for the National Review.

In a later column he went on to describe different ways in which to raise your child so they won’t become a liberal. His first step was to “explain to your children—repeatedly—what America and you stand for.” Prager says this sentiment was the reason he started Prager University.

According to its curriculum, PragerU has over 160 courses planned. Topics of instruction include economics, policy, foreign affairs, the left/right divide, government, culture, environmental studies, United States, Constitution, Europe, religion, character and a topic called “male/female,” which appears to relate to one of Prager’s regular radio segments by the same name. Courses already available cover life studies, religion/philosophy, political science, history, economics, and the Ten Commandments.

At present, there are over 70 courses available for viewing, with an additional course uploaded every Monday. Videos are available for anyone to watch at the Prager University website or on YouTube. The PragerU website allows the viewer to download transcripts for each course. If you register with the site, PragerU will keep track of the courses you have viewed and award you “credit.”

Current course offerings have titles such as, Who Are the Racists: Conservatives or Liberals?; The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: ChristiansFeminism vs. Truth; and War on Boys. Classes listed but not yet available include Abortion and Morality, The Case for Having Children, The Poverty Myth, and The Welfare State and the Selfish Society.

This past year, PragerU embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign to bring more attention to its website. The website uses social media and advertises each new course through YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. According to its own metrics, the site accumulated over 24 million unique video views last year. The number was 1.6 million in 2013. But social media isn’t the only way PragerU is acquiring more viewers and students.

A major priority for PragerU is developing relationships with educators “in college, high school, middle school and homeschools,” according to its 2014 annual report. The website launched two partnership programs last year in an attempt to reach young students across the country. With PragerU’s Educator Program, educators who sign up receive free study guides and lesson plans to go along with the course videos. Prager University is also partnering up with high school teachers and college professors to bring Prager courses into the classroom through the PragerU Academic Partnership program. With this program, according to PragerU, “educators from California to South Carolina to Australia award their students extra credit for watching PragerU videos.” Teachers simply register their class on the website, have their students sign up, and then are able to monitor their student’s progress.

So far, more than 3,000 educators have signed up for the Educator Program, with another 200 educators enrolled in the Academic Partnership Program. While Prager University doesn’t have a public listing of those enrolled in the Educator Program, it does provide a list of schools and classes participating in its Academic Partnership program. The majority of the schools listed appear to be private Christian schools or home school programs. Out of the 200 schools listed, Rewire was able to identify 14 public schools, from elementary through high school. It is unclear how many of the 3,000 educators using the Educator Program are from public schools.

To learn about their involvement with the program, Rewire attempted to reach out to the public school teachers who were listed as participating educators. Of the two that actually responded, each claimed they hadn’t signed their students up for the program and only used the videos sparingly to garner debate. The remaining teachers listed as participants did not respond to Rewire’s requests for interviews.

The faculty list includes many well-known conservative talk-show hosts, columnists, professors, and think-tank specialists.

Christina Hoff Sommers from the American Enterprise Institute decries the recent wave of “feminist propaganda” in Feminism vs. Truth. In War on Boys she laments the boy-averse trends prevailing in grade school classrooms.

“As our schools become more feelings centered, more competition-free and more sedentary, they move further away from the needs of boys,” Sommers said. Eliminating zero-tolerance policies, bringing back recess, and inspiring the male imagination are just a few reforms Sommers believes would help young boys perform better in school.

Conservative writer and economist, George Gilder has provided three lectures, two about capitalism and the third about what he terms, the Israel Test. According to Gilder, the best way to determine a society’s success is its attitude toward Israel. If you admire and try and emulate their success, your own success will follow. “People who resent achievement, who fail the Israel Test, tend to become poor and violent.”

In a move that should make Prager’s fracking donors happy, the site recently launched a fundraising campaign to support a five-part video series “investigating the truth behind climate change hysteria.” The series, according to the site, will attempt to “end the debate between science and sensationalism” in regards to global warming. Another video filed under “political science” is entitled, Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel.

According to the curriculum, there are 16 courses (two series) planned on the subject of religion. Videos currently available include: a ten-part series on the Ten Commandments; Does God Exist? 4 New Arguments; God and Suffering; God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?; and Is Evil Rational?

Videos still to be released include:

  • The Most Important Verse in the Bible
  • What Would Make You Believe?
  • The Rational Case for God’s Existence: Design
  • Why Believe?
  • The Genius of Genesis
  • Difficult Bible Passages: A Seven-Part Series
  • Does the Bible Condone Slavery?
  • Is the Bible Sexist?
  • Why Are the Jews “Chosen”?
  • Good, Evil, and God

Recently, the site held a Ten Commandments Student Essay Contest, complete with cash prizes of up to $1,500.

The conservative content goes well beyond religion courses. In a Life Studies course, entitled What Every Graduate Should Know, Prager says:

The ultimate statement of counterculture and individual strength in America today is to take the God of Judaism and Christianity seriously. If you want to be an individual and to be strong, affirm a higher value system that enables you to say no to the prevailing culture. When you know to whom you are accountable and when you march to the beat of that Higher Drummer, you will lead a more peaceful, happy and good life.

This type of supplemental curriculum is perfectly acceptable in homeschools and private schools. Public schools, however, must adhere to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

“Public school officials shouldn’t be encouraging students to ‘take the God of Judaism and Christianity seriously,’” Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom and Religion and Belief, recently explained to Rewire. “Those sentiments might well be suitable for Sunday school, but certainly not public school. Decisions about the religious upbringing of children should be left in the hands of parents, not public school officials.”

It is unclear how many public school teachers are actually having their students view Prager courses, let alone the videos with religious content. One thing is certain: using this type of material under the guise of extra credit or voluntary participation does not mean the teachers are exempt from the Religion Clauses.

“Making the materials optional does not shield them from First Amendment scrutiny,” says Mach. “Of course, it would be even worse if they were mandatory. But the courts have made clear that curricular materials that endorse and encourage religious devotion in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the courses are elective, rather than mandatory.”

Fracking Billionaires Give Millions to PragerU

In 2013, at a Pastors and Pews event sponsored by the American Family Association, Dan Wilks had this to say about education: “I just think we have to make people aware, you know, and bring the Bible back into the school, and start teaching our kids at a younger age, and, uh, you know, and focus on the younger generation.”

His brother Farris went on to add: “They’re being taught the other ideas, the gay agenda, every day out in the world so we have to stand up and explain to them that that’s not real, that’s not proper, it’s not right.”

In total, Prager University has received $6,550,000 from the Wilks family. Fifty thousand dollars came from the Heavenly Father’s Foundation. Run by Dan Wilks and his wife, Staci, Heavenly Father’s Foundation usually limits its contributions to churches and local crisis centersincluding a drug and rehabilitation center and one crisis pregnancy center. The rest came from Farris and JoAnn Wilks through the Thirteen Foundation, with $250,000 in 2013 and $6,250,000 approved for future payments.

Prager University is an exempt 501(c)(3) organization, so it is difficult to know who else is funding it because it isn’t required to publicly name its donors. The $300,000 from the Wilks in 2013 accounted for a quarter of the public support received by the Prager University Foundation, with its total revenue for the year at $1,198,251. Searching through the 990s of various foundations, Rewire was able to identify additional contributors. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation supplied $215,000 between 2010 and 2013. Other sizeable contributions (greater than $20,000) came from the Robert and Nina Rosenthal Foundation and the Millstein Family Foundation.

Still, the $6,550,000 awarded to Prager University Foundation from the Wilks is almost double what the site took in from public contributions from 2010 and 2013 combined ($3,662,704).

According to recent 990s from the Thirteen Foundation and Heavenly Father’s Foundation, the Wilks family has continued to provide millions to their usual anti-choice groups and anti-LGBT organizations. Combined, their foundations contributed $11,325,270; with an additional $21,575,913 scheduled in future payments. A majority of the contributions from the Thirteen Foundation go to extreme religious right groups. Groups such as Online for Life (Media Revolution Ministries), Liberty Counsel, Life Dynamics, Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association have all benefited from the generosity of the Wilks.

The millions awarded to Prager University are a first for the Wilks and further highlight the right’s attempt to reform education by reinforcing conservative values in children before they reach college. For years, conservatives have been trying to push legislation regarding the privatization of public schools; whether through expanding charter schools or supplementing voucher programs. Conservatives claim that a free market and “school choice” provide for a superior form of education. It doesn’t hurt that a majority of private schools also have a Christian or Catholic affiliation or integrate religion into their curriculum.

Prager once described conservatism as being based on “what is right” rather than “how do I feel?” He went on to explain:

That is why a religious woman who is pregnant but does not wish to be is far less likely to have an abortion than a secular woman in the same circumstances. Her values are higher than her feelings. And that, in a nutshell, is what our culture war is about—Judeo-Christian values versus liberal/leftist feelings.

The religious right seems to believe that the education system is the perfect battlefield to win this “culture war” taking place in America. While conservatives continue to push for privatization, efforts on public schools center around curriculum. Whether by pushing creationism, lowering comprehensive sexual education standards, or refusing Common Core, with resources like Prager University and financial supporters like the Wilks, their efforts have been enormously strengthened.

Culture & Conversation Abortion

With Buffer Zones and Decline of ‘Rescues’ Came Anti-Choice Legal Boom, Book Argues

Eleanor J. Bader

University of Denver's Joshua Wilson argues that prosecutions of abortion-clinic protesters and the decline of "rescue" groups in the 1980s and 1990s boosted conservative anti-abortion legal activism nationwide.

There is nothing startling or even new in University of Denver Professor Joshua C. Wilson’s The New States of Abortion Politics (Stanford University Press). But the concise volume—just 99 pages of text—pulls together several recent trends among abortion opponents and offers a clear assessment of where that movement is going.

As Wilson sees it, anti-choice activists have moved from the streets, sidewalks, and driveways surrounding clinics to the courts. This, he argues, represents not only a change of agitational location but also a strategic shift. Like many other scholars and advocates, Wilson interprets this as a move away from pushing for the complete reversal of Roe v. Wade and toward a more incremental, state-by-state winnowing of access to reproductive health care. Furthermore, he points out that it is no coincidence that this maneuver took root in the country’s most socially conservative regions—the South and Midwest—before expanding outward.

Wilson credits two factors with provoking this metamorphosis. The first was congressional passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994, legislation that imposed penalties on protesters who blocked patients and staff from entering or leaving reproductive health facilities. FACE led to the establishment of protest-free buffer zones at freestanding clinics, something anti-choicers saw as an infringement on their right to speak freely.

Not surprisingly, reproductive rights activists—especially those who became active in the 1980s and early 1990s as a response to blockades, butyric acid attacks, and various forms of property damage at abortion clinics—saw the zones as imperative. In their experiences, buffer zones were the only way to ensure that patients and staff could enter or leave a facility without being harassed or menaced.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The second factor, Wilson writes, involved the reduced ranks of the so-called “rescue” movement, a fundamentalist effort led by the Lambs of Christ, Operation Rescue, Operation Save America, and Priests for Life. While these groups are former shadows of themselves, the end of the rescue era did not end anti-choice activism. Clinics continue to be picketed, and clinicians are still menaced. In fact, local protesters and groups such as 40 Days for Life and the Center for Medical Progress (which has exclusively targeted Planned Parenthood) negatively affect access to care. Unfortunately, Wilson does not tackle these updated forms of harassment and intimidation—or mention that some of the same players are involved, albeit in different roles.

Instead, he argues the two threads—FACE and the demise of most large-scale clinic protests—are thoroughly intertwined. Wilson accurately reports that the rescue movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in hundreds of arrests as well as fines and jail sentences for clinic blockaders. This, he writes, opened the door to right-wing Christian attorneys eager to make a name for themselves by representing arrested and incarcerated activists.

But the lawyers’ efforts did not stop there. Instead, they set their sights on FACE and challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds. As Wilson reports, for almost two decades, a loosely connected group of litigators and activists worked diligently to challenge the buffer zones’ legitimacy. Their efforts finally paid off in 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court found that “protection against unwelcome speech cannot justify restrictions on the use of public streets and sidewalks.” In short, the decision in McCullen v. Coakley found that clinics could no longer ask the courts for blanket prohibitions on picketing outside their doors—even when they anticipated prayer vigils, demonstrations, or other disruptions. They had to wait until something happened.

This, of course, was bad news for people in need of abortions and other reproductive health services, and good news for the anti-choice activists and the lawyers who represented them. Indeed, the McCullen case was an enormous win for the conservative Christian legal community, which by the early 2000s had developed into a network united by opposition to abortion and LGBTQ rights.

The New States of Abortion Politics zeroes in on one of these legal groups: the well-heeled and virulently anti-choice Alliance Defending Freedom, previously known as the Alliance Defense Fund. It’s a chilling portrait.

According to Wilson, ADF’s budget was $40 million in 2012, a quarter of which came from the National Christian Foundation, an Alpharetta, Georgia, entity that claims to have distributed $6 billion in grants to right-wing Christian organizing efforts since 1982.

By any measure, ADF has been effective in promoting its multipronged agenda: “religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and the family.” In practical terms, this means opposing LGBTQ inclusion, abortion, marriage equality, and the right to determine one’s gender identity for oneself.

The group’s tentacles run deep. In addition to a staff of 51 full-time lawyers and hundreds of volunteers, a network of approximately 3,000 “allied attorneys” work in all 50 states to boost ADF’s agenda. Allies are required to sign a statement affirming their commitment to the Trinitarian Statement of Faith, a hallmark of fundamentalist Christianity that rests on a literal interpretation of biblical scripture. They also have to commit to providing 450 hours of pro bono legal work over three years to promote ADF’s interests—no matter their day job or other obligations. Unlike the American Bar Association, which encourages lawyers to provide free legal representation to poor clients, ADF’s allied attorneys steer clear of the indigent and instead focus exclusively on sexuality, reproduction, and social conservatism.

What’s more, by collaborating with other like-minded outfits—among them, Liberty Counsel and the American Center for Law and Justice—ADF provides conservative Christian lawyers with an opportunity to team up on both local and national cases. Periodic trainings—online as well as in-person ones—offer additional chances for skill development and schmoozing. Lastly, thanks to Americans United for Life, model legislation and sample legal briefs give ADF’s other allies an easy way to plug in and introduce ready-made bills to slowly but surely chip away at abortion, contraceptive access, and LGBTQ equality.

The upshot has been dramatic. Despite the recent Supreme Court win in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the number of anti-choice measures passed by statehouses across the country has ramped up since 2011. Restrictions—ranging from parental consent provisions to mandatory ultrasound bills and expanded waiting periods for people seeking abortions—have been imposed. Needless to say, the situation is unlikely to improve appreciably for the foreseeable future. What’s more, the same people who oppose abortion have unleashed a backlash to marriage equality as well as anti-discrimination protections for the trans community, and their howls of disapproval have hit a fever pitch.

The end result, Wilson notes, is that the United States now has “an inconstant localized patchwork of rules” governing abortion; some counties persist in denying marriage licenses to LGBTQ couples, making homophobic public servants martyrs in some quarters. As for reproductive health care, it all depends on where one lives: By virtue of location, some people have relatively easy access to medical providers while others have to travel hundreds of miles and take multiple days off from work to end an unwanted pregnancy. Needless to say, this is highly pleasing to ADF’s attorneys and has served to bolster their fundraising efforts. After all, nothing brings in money faster than demonstrable success.

The New States of Abortion Politics is a sobering reminder of the gains won by the anti-choice movement. And while Wilson does not tip his hand to indicate his reaction to this or other conservative victories—he is merely the reporter—it is hard to read the volume as anything short of a call for renewed activism in support of reproductive rights, both in the courts and in the streets.

Commentary Politics

No, Republicans, Porn Is Still Not a Public Health Crisis

Martha Kempner

The news of the last few weeks has been full of public health crises—gun violence, Zika virus, and the rise of syphilis, to name a few—and yet, on Monday, Republicans focused on the perceived dangers of pornography.

The news of the last few weeks has been full of public health crises—gun violence, the Zika virus, and the rise of syphilis, to name a few—and yet, on Monday, Republicans focused on the perceived dangers of pornography. Without much debate, a subcommittee of Republican delegates agreed to add to a draft of the party’s 2016 platform an amendment declaring pornography is endangering our children and destroying lives. As Rewire argued when Utah passed a resolution with similar language, pornography is neither dangerous nor a public health crisis.

According to CNN, the amendment to the platform reads:

The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life [sic] of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography which [is] closely linked to human trafficking.

Mary Frances Forrester, a delegate from North Carolina, told Yahoo News in an interview that she had worked with conservative Christian group Concerned Women for America (CWA) on the amendment’s language. On its website, CWA explains that its mission is “to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens—first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society—thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The amendment does not elaborate on the ways in which this internet monster is supposedly harmful to children. Forrester, however, told Yahoo News that she worries that pornography is addictive: “It’s such an insidious epidemic and there are no rules for our children. It seems … [young people] do not have the discernment and so they become addicted before they have the maturity to understand the consequences.”

“Biological” porn addiction was one of the 18 “points of fact” that were included in a Utah Senate resolution that was ultimately signed by Gov. Gary Herbert (R) in April. As Rewire explained when the resolution first passed out of committee in February, none of these “facts” are supported by scientific research.

The myth of porn addiction typically suggests that young people who view pornography and enjoy it will be hard-wired to need more and more pornography, in much the same way that a drug addict needs their next fix. The myth goes on to allege that porn addicts will not just need more porn but will need more explicit or violent porn in order to get off. This will prevent them from having healthy sexual relationships in real life, and might even lead them to become sexually violent as well.

This is a scary story, for sure, but it is not supported by research. Yes, porn does activate the same pleasure centers in the brain that are activated by, for example, cocaine or heroin. But as Nicole Prause, a researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Rewire back in February, so does looking at pictures of “chocolate, cheese, or puppies playing.” Prause went on to explain: “Sex film viewing does not lead to loss of control, erectile dysfunction, enhanced cue (sex image) reactivity, or withdrawal.” Without these symptoms, she said, we can assume “sex films are not addicting.”

Though the GOP’s draft platform amendment is far less explicit about why porn is harmful than Utah’s resolution, the Republicans on the subcommittee clearly want to evoke fears of child pornography, sexual predators, and trafficking. It is as though they want us to believe that pornography on the internet is the exclusive domain of those wishing to molest or exploit our children.

Child pornography is certainly an issue, as are sexual predators and human trafficking. But conflating all those problems and treating all porn as if it worsens them across the board does nothing to solve them, and diverts attention from actual potential solutions.

David Ley, a clinical psychologist, told Rewire in a recent email that the majority of porn on the internet depicts adults. Equating all internet porn with child pornography and molestation is dangerous, Ley wrote, not just because it vilifies a perfectly healthy sexual behavior but because it takes focus away from the real dangers to children: “The modern dialogue about child porn is just a version of the stranger danger stories of men in trenchcoats in alleys—it tells kids to fear the unknown, the stranger, when in fact, 90 percent of sexual abuse of children occurs at hands of people known to the victim—relatives, wrestling coaches, teachers, pastors, and priests.” He added: “By blaming porn, they put the problem external, when in fact, it is something internal which we need to address.”

The Republican platform amendment, by using words like “public health crisis,” “public menace” “predators” and “destroying the life,” seems designed to make us afraid, but it does nothing to actually make us safer.

If Republicans were truly interested in making us safer and healthier, they could focus on real public health crises like the rise of STIs; the imminent threat of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea; the looming risk of the Zika virus; and, of course, the ever-present hazards of gun violence. But the GOP does not seem interested in solving real problems—it spearheaded the prohibition against research into gun violence that continues today, it has cut funding for the public health infrastructure to prevent and treat STIs, and it is working to cut Title X contraception funding despite the emergence of Zika, which can be sexually transmitted and causes birth defects that can only be prevented by preventing pregnancy.

This amendment is not about public health; it is about imposing conservative values on our sexual behavior, relationships, and gender expression. This is evident in other elements of the draft platform, which uphold that marriage is between a man and a women; ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its ruling affirming the right to same-sex marriage; declare dangerous the Obama administration’s rule that schools allow transgender students to use the bathroom and locker room of their gender identity; and support conversion therapy, a highly criticized practice that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation and has been deemed ineffective and harmful by the American Psychological Association.

Americans like porn. Happy, well-adjusted adults like porn. Republicans like porn. In 2015, there were 21.2 billion visits to the popular website PornHub. The site’s analytics suggest that visitors around the world spent a total of 4,392,486,580 hours watching the site’s adult entertainment. Remember, this is only one way that web users access internet porn—so it doesn’t capture all of the visits or hours spent on what may have trumped baseball as America’s favorite pastime.

As Rewire covered in February, porn is not a perfect art form for many reasons; it is not, however, an epidemic. And Concerned Women for America, Mary Frances Forrester, and the Republican subcommittee may not like how often Americans turn on their laptops and stick their hands down their pants, but that doesn’t make it a public health crisis.

Party platforms are often eclipsed by the rest of what happens at the convention, which will take place next week. Given the spectacle that a convention headlined by presumptive nominee (and seasoned reality television star) Donald Trump is bound to be, this amendment may not be discussed after next week. But that doesn’t mean that it is unimportant or will not have an effect on Republican lawmakers. Attempts to codify strict sexual mores are a dangerous part of our history—Anthony Comstock’s crusade against pornography ultimately extended to laws that made contraception illegal—that we cannot afford to repeat.