The Perils of Prosperity: Guest Column

A few weeks ago, the New York Post reported that, Gustavo Gordillo, a prominent official in the Democratic Socialists of America lived in a $1.5 million home owned by his parents who, in turn, live in a 5,000 square foot home in Boca Raton that’s listed for $3.1 million. Even accounting for NYC’s high housing prices, this seems pretty lush for someone speaking up for the oppressed of the country. 

Recently, Ohio chocolate heiress Grace Ryan, who campaigned for one of the most radical DSA politicians, posted about the need for socialism from her boat while “summering” at the lake. And the new self-described socialist mayor of Seattle recently came under scrutiny when it was discovered that, at 43, her professor-parents pay for her child’s childcare, at $2,200 a month. 

History is full of stories about the children of wealthy elites who adopt radical socio-political causes, coming out as enemies of “the system” that gave them their lives. Dubbed “Lulu Lenins,” and “Neiman Marxists,” these are modern incarnations of “champagne socialists” who have the financial luxury of never having to live out of their own bad ideas. 

Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong also did not grow up poor but were comfortably middle class before embracing murderous ideologies. Ayaan Hirsi-Ali just reminded the world that Mohammed Atta, one of the leaders of the 9/11 attacks, was not born into an impoverished situation, but studied architecture and urban planning before turning radical. And, Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire. 

As it turns out, there’s often a strong correlation between adopting extremist ideology and privilege. In more recent days, the new supporters of Islamism and neo-Communism tend to be college students from relatively well-to-do families. 

Such is the danger of undisciplined prosperity. George Orwell once quipped that “some ideas (are) so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” And some are so unrealistic that only those insulated by comfort could entertain them, while never facing the consequences of worldviews and ideologies that get reality and the human condition so wrong.  

This is, in addition to an incredible intellectual curiosity, what makes Ayaan Hirsi-Ali’s voice so credible. Not only has she experience life lived in both a family and in nations under the control of Islamism, but she also walked through the personal desert of trying to find meaning without God. When she reminds us of the true nature of Islamic radicalism and the struggle of secular elites to take seriously true belief, we should listen. As she so aptly put it:  

Twenty-five years later, the more uncomfortable truth is that the West has become much better at finding, capturing, or killing men like Atta, but still hesitates to confront the milieu he emerged from: the institutions, networks, doctrines, funding streams, and civilizational ambitions that shape him long before he appears on a watchlist. 

An obvious lesson is for parents who live with financial blessing. We must teach our kids to appreciate having what we did not earn without forgetting where it came from and how vulnerable it all can be. We need to teach them what is true, as well as how to recognize what is not true, especially when it comes in the form of oppression narratives and false compassion.  

Teaching truth will sometimes look like letting them fail and, if so, what it means to be resilient and to try again. When done rightly, sports can be one of the most effective means to teach endurance, self-sacrifice, and the hard truth that success never comes easy. When done poorly, it can affect how they think about every other part of life. 

And, of course, teaching history is essential. A generation that doesn’t know that socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried or that communist governments murdered millions in the twentieth century—or even that Osama Bin Laden was the bad guy of 9/11—will be easily deceived by simplistic and even silly ideas about people and how best to help them. 

This would be doubly tragic since, as Ayaan Hirsi-Ali put it, we will need the next generation on the essential project of restoration. As she wrote:  

Civilizational resilience is not a vague confidence that democracies always muddle through. It is the hard capacity of a people to see its vulnerabilities clearly, repair them in time, and deny its enemies the use of its virtues as weapons. 

I’m pleased to announce that Ayaan Hirsi-Ali will be joining us for the 2027 Colson Center National Conference June 4-6, in Charlotte, NC. Register now at colsonconference.org!

Copyright 2026 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Three Things You May Have Missed About Last Week’s Pro-Life Lawsuits

Last week, the State of Arkansas joined Louisiana and Alabama in two new, multistate lawsuits over abortion drugs.

Since 2022, Arkansas law has generally prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother, and it is a crime for an abortionist to mail abortion drugs into Arkansas. But Biden-era policies and state “shield laws” enacted by pro-abortion legislatures have made it possible for abortionists in other parts of the country to mail abortion drugs into states like Arkansas.

Last week’s federal lawsuits challenge this dangerous mail-order abortion industry. But many of the news stories about the lawsuits overlooked important facts pro-lifers need to know.

Below are three things you may have missed about last week’s pro-life lawsuits:

1. These are Actually Two Lawsuits Addressing Abortion Pills from Two Different Angles

Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama filed two different lawsuits that address abortion pills from two different angles.

The lawsuit Louisiana v. New York was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court against the States of New York, Massachusetts, and California. It argues that these three states have created legal systems specifically designed to protect abortionists who break abortion laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alabama, and it asks the Supreme Court to strike down their state “shield laws.”

The second lawsuit is Louisiana v. Nouhavandi, which was filed against 29 people and organizations in federal court in Louisiana. It alleges the people and groups named in the lawsuit are part of a nationwide network that ships abortion pills through the mail. Louisiana v. Nouhavandi says these organizations and individuals committed deceptive trade, designed their operations to avoid state medical laws, and have harmed women and girls.

The Louisiana v. Nouhavandi lawsuit includes approximately 90 exhibits it says support these claims.

Most of the media coverage seems to be focused on the Louisiana v. New York lawsuit that asks the U.S. Supreme Court to stop pro-abortion states from giving special protection to abortionists who send abortion pills through the mail.

Overturning these pro-abortion “shield laws” would be a huge victory, but winning the deceptive trade case in Louisiana v. Nouhavandi could be just as important.

2. Louisiana v. Nouhavandi Says Abortionists and Their Associates May Have Engaged in Racketeering

The Louisiana v. Nouhavandi lawsuit accuses 29 individuals and organizations of “a sweeping, coordinated scheme to violate” abortion drug and consumer protection laws in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama, writing:

“The scheme is simple. The organizations operate websites advertising abortion drugs in Plaintiff States [Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama]. The organizations use a short questionnaire in which website users (anonymous men, women, and children) can represent (or misrepresent) their alleged pregnancy status. The website users then pay a fee for the abortion drugs or represent that they cannot afford the fee (in which case most organizations will assume the cost). Some organizations then use mail-order pharmacies to ship the drugs (predominantly from California) to addresses in Plaintiff States; others handle their own shipments after ‘pill-packing parties fueled by pizza and wine.’ The drugs are then used to abort babies in Plaintiff States and, in documented instances, send women to emergency rooms with severe bleeding and excruciating pain.”

The lawsuit goes on to argue that this scheme not only violated consumer protection laws, but also may have broken state and federal laws against racketeering.

On page 85, the lawsuit says:

“Given the allegations in this complaint, Plaintiff States believe that Defendants—or at least a subset of Defendants—are violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO) and its state law counterparts. At this time, however, Plaintiff States lack a complete picture of the full extent of Defendants’ conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff States reserve their rights to amend their complaint to add federal and state RICO claims if discovery confirms Plaintiff States’ belief that Defendants are violating RICO. In addition, Plaintiff States reserve their rights to amend their complaint to add further corporate entities and individuals that discovery reveals to be implicated by the schemes detailed above.”

In lawsuits like this one, the “discovery” process gives the lawyers at the attorney general’s office an opportunity to subpoena documents, conduct depositions, and collect evidence.

The Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama attorney general offices seem to believe that racketeering has occurred and that the discovery process will show just how much.

3. A Third Lawsuit Is Coming “Soon” Against an Abortion Pill Seller Overseas

The Louisiana v. Nouhavandi consumer protection case mentions Aid Access — an abortion pill seller that Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin sent a cease-and-desist letter to in 2024.

Aid Access advertises that it provides “abortion services” to all 50 states by selling abortion pills online and working with abortionists to send the pills through the mail.

But Aid Access is located in Amsterdam, and it is not included as a defendant in the Louisiana v. Nouhavandi lawsuit. However, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama apparently plan to sue Aid Access soon.

A footnote on page 35 of the lawsuit says, “Due to unique issues surrounding foreign service of process, Plaintiff States will soon file a separate lawsuit against Aid Access.”

In other words, at least one more lawsuit is still on the way.

Conclusion

We appreciate Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin working with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall on this important issue.

Abortion drugs are dangerous. They hurt women, and they kill unborn children.

Research shows nearly 11% of women experience serious health complications from abortion pills — including sepsis, infection, and life-threatening hemorrhage.

These drugs should not be available at all — much less through the mail without an in-person visit with a doctor. That is why Family Council is encouraging pro-lifers everywhere to ask the federal government to stop letting abortionists deliver abortion drugs through the mail.

Arkansans should be proud of their pro-life leaders at the Attorney General’s office and in the state legislature.

We are confident our federal courts ultimately will recognize how dangerous these abortion drugs are and let states like Arkansas enforce their pro-life laws.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.