The Battle Continues Between Bevin, Beshear and the Mainstream Media

CONTACT: Brandon Porter, 270-576-1755

DATE: January 26, 2017

NOTE: Audio Clips are available

The war of words between the Governor and Attorney General rose to new levels on Wednesday as Governor Bevin took exception to a story by Deborah Yetter in the Courier Journal saying that Attorney General Andy Beshear is defending the ultrasound bill recently passed in the General Assembly and signed by the Governor.

Governor Bevin said that Beshear’s request to be removed from the case shows he has no real intentions of defending either of the new pro-life laws, “He filed a motion stating he was taking no position and so he does not intend to defend either one of them.”  Gov. Bevin asserts the Attorney General is responding to the pressure of his political party rather than defending the laws of Kentucky, “The bottom line is there was a lot of pressure on him to not defend these and it’s from the people that support him and other liberals. I think he buckled to them rather than to the will of the people of Kentucky and that’s unfortunate, it’s irresponsible, and it’s a slap in the face to the taxpayers of Kentucky.”

In a statement released Wednesday afternoon Attorney General Beshear wrote, “My office is actively defending agencies sued over House Bill 2. In doing so, we have taken the most aggressive action possible, moving to have the entire case dismissed as to those agencies.”

In a Facebook Live post on Wednesday Governor Bevin took aim at the mainstream media. In a Wednesday afternoon interview with Richard Nelson of the Commonwealth Policy Center, Bevin said, “If something can be retweeted, reposted, liked, forwarded, or flagged that’s what it’s about. So more and more of the traditional media have become more and more tabloid like. Whether it’s true or whether it’s not true as long as it’s sensational and it gets people talking that’s what leads the charge now.” He says people should do their own investigating and that is the reason he’s using social media, “Don’t assume we or anything any individual says as straight up truth. Make your own interpretation as best as you see fit, but rather than waiting for something to be spun and then to be spun back to the truth we’ve just taken it straight to people through social media.”

Bevin’s video has been viewed more than 60,000 times on Facebook.


If used please cite the Commonwealth Policy Foundation and please email

Important Questions in the Transgender Debate August 2, 2017 by Brandon Porter

Envision a hospital delivery room a few years from now.  After hours of work, a baby cries for the first time as the people in the room celebrate a new life.  After the baby’s vital signs are checked, the doctor works on the birth certificate.  Instead of checking a box that says male or female, the doctor checks a box that says human.  There’s no way to indicate whether the child is a boy or girl on the birth certificate and the doctor doesn’t even consider the question.


Some Kentuckians might favor a birth certificate like this.  Tuesday Meadows, a transgender person that lives in Lexington, wrote in the March 2015 edition of LinQ magazine, “I feel like I am free to express my gender however it suits me.”  Meadows isn’t alone in this sentiment and the debate over transgenderism is at the forefront in public policy, on university campuses, and all across town.


In those debates, however, are we asking the right questions?  Are we asking the questions that will help preserve human flourishing not only for this generation, but for the ones to come?


In a debate on WEKU radio’s Eastern Standard in Richmond on July 27, 2017, Meadows was a guest of a panel discussion on the impact of President Trump’s policy change on the role of transgender people in the United States military.  During the debate, Meadows raised the question, “What is a male and what is a female?  How do we know?  Is it our biological body?”  The questions were addressed to a previous comment by Richard Nelson of the Commonwealth Policy Center. Meadows concluded his questions by asking, “Are you God?”  The host of the program said they were almost out of time so the questions would have to stand as rhetorical.


The questions asked by Meadows are interesting ones.  They are good questions that shouldn't be rhetorical.  They need an answer.


In an op-ed published on on July 30, 2017, Is the Justice Department Right about Gay Rights and the Law?, Pennsylvania attorney Danny Cevallos argued that the definition of sex, currently defined as biological gender by the U.S. Justice Department, should be set by Congress. 


If that happens, does that make Congress God?  Or at least God’s spokesperson?


It wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. Government has spoken for God. When the founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, they said the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were given to all men from their Creator.  They believed the government doesn’t give those rights, they recognize them.


Benjamin Franklin, not known to be a Christian, recognized a creator.  In a letter written in 1790, Franklin said, “Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.”


If you mention God in the public square today, at best you’ll be immediately reminded of the separation of church and state, and you might even be silenced completely. It shouldn’t be this way.  If we’re going to find answers to important questions, shouldn't we be free to invoke the Creator and His wisdom?

Back to blog