Last Thursday, Governor Matt Meyer delivered his first State of the State address for the year, declaring that “the state of the state is strong.”
But the real question is this: What does Governor Meyer believe makes Delaware strong?
Because if you listened closely to his remarks, it became very clear that his definition of strength was not neutral—and was certainly not a definition shared by all of Delaware.
One of the most revealing moments in the nearly hour-long address was when Governor Meyer offered enthusiastic praise to Attorney General Kathy Jennings. He said he was proud of her work on the front lines defending the state from attacks, and for her commitment to securing funding that is not beholden to cruel or harmful restrictions. He closed by saying that together they would continue to “work unapologetically to stand up for our values, welcome all communities, and do what’s right.”
Those words sound uplifting at first listen—but just like his claim that the state is “strong,” they need translating.
So let’s start with what he meant by “the front lines.”
The “Front Lines” of Litigation
When Governor Meyer praises Attorney General Jennings for defending Delaware from attacks, does that include her defense of laws that violate the First Amendment?
One clear example is the recent case filed–NIFLA v. Jennings—a federal lawsuit brought by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. This case challenged the Delaware law that would force pregnancy care centers to post messaging about abortion that drowns out their own message. NIFLA filed a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from going into effect, which the state ultimately agreed to the court order prohibiting them from enforcing the law.
That bill was a perfect example of content-based discrimination—the most heavily scrutinized form of speech regulation under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court had already ruled on this issue in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 when the Delaware Legislature introduced SB 300, making clear that the government cannot compel private organizations to promote messages they disagree with.
We warned the General Assembly that SB 300 was unconstitutional. We cited the Supreme Court precedent. And yet, it was ignored and passed anyway—leading to litigation that could have been avoided.
And this wasn’t the first time.
In 2022, Delaware passed a mail-in ballot law that was so poorly written it violated the state constitution. It, too, was challenged in court—after it had already passed both chambers and been signed into law.
So when the Governor praises the Attorney General for fighting “on the front lines,” the reality is that many of those “front lines” exist because unconstitutional legislation was pushed through in the first place. WE are on the front lines fighting against the evils of abortion, while AG Jennings is on the other side of that line.
And It’s Happening Again
Unfortunately, that pattern continues.
Also this past week, we saw House Bill 272 filed—marketed as a state version of the federal FACE Act. But instead of mirroring the federal law, this bill goes much further.
The federal FACE Act already criminalizes force, threats, and physical obstruction at abortion clinics. But HB 272 adds sweeping new language that makes it illegal to:
“interfere with another person in order to discourage any person from obtaining or providing reproductive health services.”
That single sentence changes everything.
What does it mean to “discourage”? Who defines that?
Could a peaceful sidewalk counselor, standing on public property, be accused of “interference” simply for speaking? What about a parent, teacher, or pastor who expresses a pro-life viewpoint in a school or church setting?
The bill does not limit this language to clinic entrances as the federal FACE Act suggests by name. It does not define “discouragement.” And it does not clarify who gets to decide when speech crosses the line. This kind of language is grossly broad—and that is always a dangerous place for legislation to stand. Legislation needs to have clear, narrowly tailored definitions to ensure that a law’s original intent is carried out without being stretched far beyond its purpose later on. When a statute is this vague, it invites selective enforcement, subjective interpretation, and ultimately, constitutional abuse.
This is not about safety, or about so-called public order as the bill title suggests. This is about speech regulation.
Representative Heffernan, the sponsor of HB 272, said the bill is necessary because the federal FACE Act is now being used only for “extreme cases.” Her apparent response to this is to expand government power to criminalize persuasion itself.
Such an adjustment is not one to take lightly, but to see it for the threat to free speech that it is.
HB 272 will be heard Wednesday, January 28th at 10:30 a.m. and we must pay close attention to how this bill is discussed.
Funding Without “Cruel Restrictions”
Now let’s return to another phrase in the Governor’s speech: that AG Jennings has fought to secure funding “free of cruel or harmful restrictions.”
What he is referencing is the federal government’s decision to limit funding to school districts that expose children to sexualized ideological content.
Rather than accept those guardrails, Delaware joined a lawsuit against the federal government—arguing that schools should continue receiving funds even while advancing gender ideology in their classrooms.
So when the Governor talks about “harmful restrictions,” he is not referring to harm done to children.
He is referring to limits placed on ideological instruction.
“Unapologetic” Values
Finally, Governor Meyer said the state would continue to “work unapologetically to stand up for our values.”
And that is an important moment in the speech—because the values he is fighting for are not ours.
They are not the values that honor God’s design for human life, family, and truth.
They are not the values that protect children from ideological harm.
They are not the values that uphold religious freedom as a foundational right, not a competing interest.
They are unapologetic about redefining morality, elevating abortion to the same status as religion, and using government power to reshape speech, education, and even biology itself.
So when he says “our values,” we must be clear:
Those values do not represent the convictions of many Delaware families—and they do not reflect the principles we stand for.
That is why this moment matters. Because if one side is going to advance its worldview without apology, then we must be just as bold in defending ours.
They are not apologizing for elevating abortion to the same status as religious freedom.
They are not apologizing for pushing gender ideology on children.
They are not apologizing for redefining family, biology, and truth.
And they will not apologize for opposing the very legislation we will be supporting this Wednesday at 1:00 p.m.—Senate Bill 215, which protects fairness in girls’ sports. SB 215 recognizes the truth of biology and protects girls from potential harm or unfairness by having to compete with biological boys.
Our Response
So here is the real question:
If the progressive left is unapologetic about their values, how much more should we be about ours?
Our values are grounded in truth.
They protect children.
They uphold religious liberty.
They strengthen families.
This week, we ask you to take action.
- Oppose HB 272
- Support SB 215
Sign up to testify. Prepare your comments. Stand for what is right.
You can find best practices for testifying at DelawareFamilies.org/Updates, that is also where you can go to send your comments directly to the legislators to oppose HB 272 and support SB 215. We’ve done what we can to make this process as simple as possible. For questions on how to testify and take action, you can also reach out to us directly at info@delawarefamilies.org.
This Wednesday, we hope that you will be praying with and for us. Standing together for truth.
Because a truly strong Delaware is one where God is honored, religious freedom flourishes, families thrive, and life is cherished.
That is the Delaware worth fighting for.