Guest Column: From ‘Liberalism’ to ‘Progressivism’

In March, with an 8-1 majority vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “counseling conversations are speech and that states cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room.” The majority included all but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who claimed in dissent that states should be able to use “police powers to establish and enforce the standards of care that bind medical professionals,” including what she called “professional medical speech.” Apparently, for Justice Jackson, that power also includes the ability to determine what should count as “scientific consensus,” given the collapse of consensus on the issue of “gender-affirming care.”  

In a concurring opinion, liberal Justices Kagan and Sotomayor noted that the Colorado law in question, which banned conversion therapy for minors, was not “viewpoint-neutral.” Had it been, they said, it would raise a different and more difficult question.” In another instance last summer, Justice Sotomayor did not agree with a Trump administration policy but also believed it was not the place of the Court to decide. Justice Jackson, on the other hand, described her appointment to the Supreme Court as an opportunity “to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues.” 

This is an example of an ongoing fissure between liberals and progressives on the political and ideological Left in America. As Colson Center Senior Fellow Dr. Glenn Sunshine has previously described, part of this difference is that standpoint epistemology, the liberal idea that each has our own truth from our own perspective, has devolved into expressive individualism, the idea that “our truth” should be imposed on everyone else as a matter of human dignity.  

The implications of this shift from “liberalism” to “progressivism” are significant, especially for rights of speech and conscience. On April 22, Lois McLatchie Miller posted a clip of a British police officer informing a street preacher that he could not share the Gospel in places or ways that “may” cause offense or dissuade people from seeking abortions. 

Back in March, Päivi Räsänen, a lawmaker in Finland, was found guilty of “inciting hatred” for calling homosexuality a “disorder” in 2004. No riots or hatred were actually incited in the over twenty years since. She was guilty of believing and expressing the wrong things. Also in March, the Chicago Bulls waived guard Jaden Ivey “due to conduct detrimental to the team.” Given the conduct regularly tolerated by sports franchises, it is notable that Mr. Ivey’s “offense” was posting a video of himself critiquing the NBA’s promotion of “Pride Month.” 

Many progressives left Twitter when it was purchased by Elon Musk, not because their ideas would be suppressed but because contrary ideas would not be. But the move to alternate social media platform Bluesky has turned out to be a mess. The progressive drive for ideological purity has stunted any real conversation. As biologist Colin Wright noted:  

I’m blocked by thousands of accounts on Bluesky I’ve never even interacted with, since I almost never post. People over there block on first contact with any ideological friction. That results in a bunch of small isolated communities. Not ideal for a social media app.  

This kind of intolerance is a feature of progressivism, not a bug. Though people often use “liberal” and “progressive” interchangeably, they are not the same thing. Like the new “dissident Right,” which devolved out of classic conservatism and rejected core tenets of it, progressivism and liberalism are not the same either.  

Liberalism calls for tolerance. Progressivism silences dissent and calls it tolerance. Progressivism claims to be about moving forward, but “forward” is just a rejection of anything old, traditional, and settled. To modern progressives, progress is transgression. They sense the world is not as it should be but are threatened by the idea that there is a way it should be. 

Divorced from reality and reason, compliance with this vision cannot be argued. Rather, it must be enforced. Thus, the shift from “encouraging all viewpoints” to punishing all dissent.

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

Family Council Asks U.S. Attorney’s Office to Enforce Federal Law Against Mail-Order Abortion Drugs

On Friday, Family Council sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Arkansas respectfully asking the office to enforce federal law as it applies to mail-order abortion drugs.

Arkansas law generally prohibits abortion except to save the life of the mother, and it is a crime for an abortionist to mail abortion drugs like RU-486 into the state.

But under President Biden, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration loosened its safety protocols to allow mail-order abortion drugs. Pro-abortion states have also enacted “shield laws” for abortionists who mail abortion drugs into states like Arkansas.

All of that has created a dangerous industry of mail-order abortion in Arkansas and across the nation.

However, the federal Comstock Act of 1873 makes it a crime to mail “every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” Family Council’s letter to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas argues that the federal Comstock Act should prevent abortionists in other states from mailing abortion drugs into Arkansas in violation of state law.

The letter says:

“Since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization returned abortion policy to the states, a disturbing workaround has emerged: the mass mailing of mifepristone directly to patients across state lines, including into states where the people’s elected representatives have enacted strong protections for unborn children.

“Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 5-61-304 and 5-61-404 prohibit abortion except to save the life of the pregnant woman in a medical emergency, and Arkansas Code Annotated § 20-16-1504 says it is unlawful for ‘any manufacturer, supplier, physician, or any other person to provide any abortion-inducing drug via courier, delivery, or mail service.’ The Arkansas General Assembly enacted these laws via the legislative process. However, Aid Access, Plan C, and a constellation of other organizations openly advertise the shipment of mifepristone into states where abortion is restricted or prohibited. This is not a secret operation. It is a deliberate, coordinated effort to circumvent the democratic decisions of states like Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and others that have enacted protections for the unborn. These providers are not merely skirting state law; they are willfully violating federal law.”

Family Council has also recently joined amicus briefs in federal court arguing that mail-order abortion drugs violate the Comstock Act.

Abortion drugs should not be available at all — much less through the mail.

We now know drugs like mifepristone and misoprostol are much more dangerous than the FDA originally thought.

A recent study by the experts at the Ethics and Public Policy Center found nearly 11% of women experienced serious health complications from abortion pills — including sepsis, infection, and life-threatening hemorrhage.

These drugs hurt women and end the lives of unborn children. That’s why we hope our federal officials will take the necessary steps to stop the flow of dangerous abortion drugs across state lines.

You can read the entire letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office here.

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