Feminists' Anti-Babies Backfire: Girls Love Them

The Virtual Infant Parenting program uses "robot babies" (designed to simulate and exaggerate the worst aspects of caring for newborn children) that are assigned to teenage girls to discourage pregnancy, but the largest study of its kind has determined that the program actually arouses desires for motherhood in young teenage girls.

"We never went into the study thinking this would increase teen pregnancy. . . . Unfortunately that's the finding."
-- Sally Brinkman, University of Western Australia

For background, read God Created Woman to Give Birth and Breast-feed

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Teenage Pregnancy & Birth Rates Drop to Historic Lows

Too Many Minority Babies, Obama's Feds Say of Teen Births

America Self-destructing via Feminist Childlessness: Census Reports

Government Teenage Uterine Control Success Touted

-- From "Robot baby schemes may increase teen pregnancy: study" by Madeleine Coorey, Agence France-Presse 8/26/16

Researchers found that girls between the ages of 13 and 15 who were given a simulator infant to look after were actually more likely to become pregnant early in life than those who had simple sex education.

Of those who had charge of a doll, 17 percent recorded at least one pregnancy -- whether carried to full term or terminated -- by the age of 20.

Of all the girls who fell pregnant, 53.8 percent of those who had the robot baby terminated the pregnancy compared with 60.1 percent in the control group.

The researchers said while that difference was not huge, it indicated participants who had exposure to the robot baby appeared more likely go through with the pregnancy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'Pretend Mommy' program doesn't deter teen pregnancy" by Dennis Thompson, HealthDay News 8/25/16

Australian girls given a baby simulator for a weekend were 36 percent more likely to become pregnant during their teenage years, compared to girls in a control group who only received standard health education, researchers found.

Overall, the live birth rate was double for girls who participated in the infant simulator program -- 8 percent compared with 4 percent for the control group, researchers found.

The baby simulator program also appeared to convince girls to give birth rather than seek an abortion once they became pregnant, Brinkman said.

These results run counter to the intention of the program, which has been implemented in as many as 89 countries worldwide. It should make school districts think twice about employing baby simulators in their pregnancy prevention efforts, Brinkman said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Robot babies that schools use to discourage teen pregnancy may do opposite, study finds" by Paige Cornwell, Seattle Times staff reporter 8/25/16

To help discourage teen pregnancy, many students in the Seattle area and nationally are given lifelike, robot babies that cry throughout the night. Unlike eggs or plants used to represent babies in some human-development classes, these dolls require feeding, burping and diaper changes. Like real infants, sometimes even that doesn’t stop their crying.

The Australia program was adapted from one in the United States, formerly known as “Baby Think It Over” and now called “RealCare Baby 3.” Along with Seattle, area schools districts that use RealCare Baby 3 include Highline, Everett and Kent.

The doll’s creator, Realityworks, says more than half the school districts in the [U.S.] have purchased its products.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study: Robot baby dolls don’t curb teen pregnancies. In fact, they may increase abortions" by Ben Guarino, Washington Post 8/26/16

The babies, which can run about $1,000 apiece, are programmed to cry, scream and sleep. Computers tucked within the dolls register when the babies are changed, burped, fed or — in instances where everything goes drastically wrong — when they “die.”

“We’ve had midnight telephone calls from parents saying: ‘Please tell me how to turn it off, my daughter’s going crazy,’” as Janette Collins, a London-based youth counselor said to the Financial Times last October. “It’s the very few girls who score really well that you have to look out for. In my experience they’re the ones who go off and get pregnant for real — you’ve accidentally taught them they can cope.”

“Anecdotally, a lot of the students really enjoyed the program,” study author Sally Brinkman, of Australia’s Telethon Kids Institute, told the Sydney Morning Herald. “There was a lot of positivity around the program, so it didn’t really work in putting the kids off.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Teen pregnancy program had a reverse effect: study" by Kate Aubusson, Sydney Morning Herald 8/26/16

The gurgling dolls may have inadvertently made teen motherhood too appealing, with many students doting on their electronic progeny and enjoying the attention that came with it, the researchers said.

"We definitely were not saying you can't become a teenage mother. We didn't want to demonise that, but the intention was clearly behind the program to increase contraceptive use and if you were going to have a baby to do it in a healthy way, and part of doing it in a healthy way was to delay," [Dr. Brinkman] said.

"Evidence now suggests they do not have the desired long-term effect of reducing teenage pregnancy. These interventions are likely to be an ineffective use of public resources for pregnancy prevention," Dr Brinkman said.

The simulators were currently used by more than 40,000 institutions worldwide . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Free Condoms Cause More Student Pregnancies: Study

And read Abstinent Teens the Norm, Moral Sex-Ed Works: Study

Birthing Transgender Kids: Gender-Neutral Names

Statistics from President Obama's Social Security Administration show that the fastest-growing trend in naming newborns is gender-neutral first names, thus eliminating the need for future name changes once the child "decides its gender identity."

"Today’s parents have moved beyond the dichotomy of boy and girl names. They want their children to grow up and be themselves, free from stereotypes. Boys can wear nail polish, girls can ride skateboards. It’s all good."
-- Linda Murray, Editor in Chief, BabyCenter (which declared 2015 “the year of the gender-neutral baby”)

"Think beyond the conventional choices. Any name not traditionally used for people (names of trees places, words and those that are invented) by definition transcend gender and can work equally well for girls or boys. There’s no reason that Arrow can’t be a girl’s name and Alaska a boy’s. . . . Feminism is cool again, gay marriage is the law of the land and transgender celebrities have come into the mainstream."
-- Pamela Redmond Satran, baby-name expert

For background, read Parents Allow Babies to Choose Gender From Birth

-- From "Is Hayden a Boy or Girl? Both. ‘Post-Gender’ Baby Names Are on the Rise." by Alex Williams, New York Times 8/18/16

. . . At a time when Banana Republic has done away with pink and blue distinctions in a children’s line, some high schools have stopped using graduation gowns with different colors for boys and girls, and unisex is de rigueur in fashion, gender-blurring baby names are on the rise among American parents.

The numbers seem to bear this out. Researchers at Nameberry analyzed the baby name registry from the Social Security Administration and found that the number of babies given unisex names like Harper, Tatum and Quinn had risen 60 percent in the last decade, to 67,831 babies in 2015.

The most popular unisex names in 2015, the researchers found, were Hayden (about 39 percent girls, 61 percent boys) Charlie (about 48 percent girls, 52 percent boys), Emerson (about 60 percent girls, 40 percent boys), Rowan (about 35 percent girls, 65 percent boys), and Finley (about 60 percent girls, 40 percent boys). Rounding out the post-gender Top 10 were River, Dakota, Skyler, Phoenix and Tatum.

. . . in an era marked by Caitlyn Jenner’s endlessly publicized transition from Bruce, as well as gender-bending shows like Amazon’s “Transparent,” the unisex baby name may also prove to be in its infancy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gender-Neutral Baby Names Are In For 2016 . . ." by Maddy Foley 2/2/16

Nameberry, one of the top baby name destinations on the Internet for expecting parents, recently compiled a list of their top 50 baby names for 2016. . . . one of the top Nameberry observations was the surge in gender-neutral monikers.

. . . here are some of my personal favorites from Nameberry's ranking. Good for boys, good for girls, good for choose-whatever-word-you-like-because-gender-is-a-construct:  Riley, Avery, Rowan, Finley, Peyton, Jude, Sage, Augustine, Arlo, Charlie.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "25 Super-Cool Unisex Baby Names" by Nicole Fabian-Weber, Cosmopolitan 4/22/16

When it comes to naming your kid these days, there really aren't any hard and fast rules — especially in regard to gender norms. The hottest names are actually being used for girls and boys. (Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, who both have popular unisex names, are obviously the coolest parents for choosing to name their baby girl James.)

To read the entire article above, and see all 25 "Super-Cool" names, CLICK HERE.

Georgia Atheists Decapitate, Eat Fetus (cookies)

This week, the North Georgia Skeptics Society held a pro-abortion rally at the University of North Georgia (UNG) displaying fetus-shaped cookies, which the atheists tore limb-from-limb (simulating abortion procedures) and bit the heads off while laughing.

“Abortion should remain legal because … my vagina is too pretty to let a fetus crawl out.”
-- Student's testimony

For background, read of the utter disregard of the human remains from abortions.

And read how feminists despise any humanization of fetuses.

-- From "Atheists display foetus-shaped cookies at university pro-abortion rally, horrifying students" by Jonah Hicap, Christian Today 4/23/16

UNG Students for Life posted the photos on its Facebook page, saying the images were distasteful.

"Personally, I cannot imagine why one of your members felt it a decent or clever thing to dismember baby cookies by breaking off their heads. Even to simply allow that on your table was tasteless, irresponsible, and vile—there is absolutely no removing yourself from that," wrote Carly McCurry, president of Students for Life, in a letter addressed to Skeptics Society on Facebook.

McCurry said another photo showed more dismembered baby heads in plastic containers with the eyes marked with red colour.

McCurry narrated that one professor yelled at her to leave and checked her permits while the Skeptics Society was openly playing loud rap music that discussed holding women down and raping them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Campus pro-abortion display: Baby-shaped cookies with heads broken off" posted at The College Fix 4/20/16

Several social media posts detail an apparent pro-abortion rally at the University of North Georgia held last week at which cookies in the shape of babies were reportedly eaten and had their heads broken off.

The details emerged in part thanks to popular conservative blogger Matt Walsh, who received a tip from a campus source and sounded the alarm on Facebook this week. His campus source said some of the cookies were eaten.

“This is dark and disturbed in ways that can’t be fully described. I’ve been saying this about the pro-abortion movement for a long time. As much as you might want to give ‘pro-choicers’ the benefit of the doubt, the fact remains that they are advocating for the murder of human children. That is an insidious, terrible, deeply evil thing. And they are carrying it around with them in their hearts and in their souls,” Walsh continued.

A request for comment from the university’s campus media affairs office on Wednesday by The College Fix was not immediately returned.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Hillary Clinton Says Abortionists Must Defeat Christianity

Utah Decries Porn—Causes Erectile Dysfunction etc.

Yesterday, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed first-in-the-nation legislation declaring that pornography has created a “public health crisis” that impacts brain development, causes myriad disorders, and leads to a plethora of negative effects on society including addictions, violence, human trafficking and causes permanent harm to children.  Ironically, many liberal and feminist organizations are applauding this move by the oft-criticized conservative state.

“Pornography encourages viewers to view their sexual partners in a dehumanized way, and it increases the acceptance and enjoyment of sexual violence and harmful beliefs about women, sex and rape.”
-- Dawn Hawkins, National Center on Sexual Exploitation

UPDATE 8/16/16: Pornography Causes Erectile Dysfunction, Psychiatrists Say

For background, read how more and more schools incorporate pornography in the curriculum because experts say it belongs in the classroom.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Homosexual Teacher Says Child Porn OK to View

Homosexual Teacher Arrested for Watching Anal Sex Pornography in Classroom

California Government Enables Pornography Industry

Also read Failed Sexual Utopia Plagued by Rampant Disease



-- From "Utah leaders call pornography a public health crisis" by The Associated Press 4/19/16

A host of speakers including Gov. Gary Herbert spoke Tuesday during a ceremonial signing of a state resolution declaring pornography a public health crisis. They said it warps children's minds, damages mental health, undermines marriages and contributes to sexual violence.

The non-binding declaration in the predominantly Mormon state of Utah doesn't ban anything, but echoes concerns raised by many conservative religious groups as porn becomes more accessible on smartphones and tablets.

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult entertainment trade group, called it an "old-fashioned" morals bill that is driven by ignorance and opposition to sex education.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Utah’s governor signs resolution calling porn a ‘health hazard’" by CNN Wire 4/20/16

S.C.R. 9 Concurrent Resolution on the Public Health Crisis: This resolution declares that pornography is “a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms.”

It also says pornography “equates violence toward women and children with sex and pain with pleasure, which increases the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse images, and child pornography.”

H.B. 155 Reporting of Child Pornography . . . requires that computer technicians who find child pornography during their work should report it to law enforcement officials. The bill further stipulates that “the willful failure to report the child pornography” would be a class B misdemeanor.

H.B. 155 also specifies that Internet service providers are not liable if the provider “reports child pornography in compliance with specified federal law.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "‘Evil, degrading, addictive, harmful’: Utah officially deems porn a public health crisis" by Niraj Chokshi, Washington Post 4/19/16

[State senator] Todd Weiler, the resolution’s chief Senate sponsor, acknowledged the ridicule he received when he first unveiled the measure, which largely focuses on pornography’s impact on children.

The resolution is non-binding and requires no public spending, so its impact rests on community action, Weiler said. Parents must make it safe for children to speak with them about pornography, he said. Communities must mobilize to limit its access, for example, in places that offer free wireless internet access.

“If a library or a McDonald’s or anyone else was giving out cigarettes to our children, we would be picketing them,” Weiler said. “And, yet, our children are accessing pornography on their tablets on these sites and we seem to be okay with that.”

“This is a $7 billion industry,” Weiler said. “Help us protect children from your evil, degrading, addictive, harmful substances. If adults want to do that, that’s their choice, but we’re talking about developing adolescent minds of our nation’s future.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Utah Governor Declares Porn A Public Health Crisis" by Katie Jerkovich, Daily Caller 4/19/16

“This isn’t just a religious moral issue,” said Republican state Sen. Todd Weiler. “Some people want to make this about sex education; no boy or girl needs to see those images to learn how families are created.”

But not everyone was in favor of the declaration. An adult entertainment trade group sent out a statement in response to the move.

“The true public health crisis are socially conservative politicians like these who have fought adequate, science-based sexual health education for over 35 years,” said the Free Speech coalition.

“We should live in a society where sexuality is spoken about openly, and discussed in nuanced and educated ways, and not stigmatized.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Is porn immoral? That doesn’t matter: It’s a public health crisis." by Gail Dines, professor of sociology at Wheelock College in Boston, posted at Washington Post 4/8/16

. . . no matter what you think of pornography (whether it’s harmful or harmless fantasy), the science is there. After 40 years of peer-reviewed research, scholars can say with confidence that porn is an industrial product that shapes how we think about gender, sexuality, relationships, intimacy, sexual violence and gender equality — for the worse. By taking a health-focused view of porn and recognizing its radiating impact not only on consumers but also on society at large, Utah’s resolution simply reflects the latest research.

Extensive scientific research reveals that exposure to and consumption of porn threaten the social, emotional and physical health of individuals, families and communities, and highlights the degree to which porn is a public health crisis rather than a private matter. But just as the tobacco industry argued for decades that there was no proof of a connection between smoking and lung cancer, so, too, has the porn industry, with the help of a well-oiled public relations machine, denied the existence of empirical research on the impact of its products.

Because so much porn is free and unfiltered on most digital devices, the average age of first viewing porn is estimated by some researchers to be 11. In the absence of a comprehensive sex-education curriculum in many schools, pornography has become de facto sex education for youth. . . .

As the evidence piles up, a coalition of academics, health professionals, educators, feminist activists and caregivers has decided that they can no longer allow the porn industry to hijack the physical and emotional well-being of our culture. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Teen Students Across America Learn to Produce & Distribute Child Pornography

And read Child-Self Porn Legalized in New Mexico: Sexting

Women's Breasts vs. Men's: Could Police Discern?

After a New Hampshire judge essentially legalized topless female nudity, state lawmakers considered a bill banning bare female breasts/nipples in public, but critics explained that such a law would require police officers to determine if the offender is a man or a woman and because of the myriad new transgender rights, any apparent female offender could simply claim to "identify as a man" and thus negate the infraction.

"It's a shame that some folks are more concerned with exposing their breasts in public places than they are concerned about how families and children may be impacted by being forced to experience this evolving societal behavior.  This is about a movement to change the values of New Hampshire society."
-- Rep. Brian Gallagher (R), New Hampshire House of Representatives

For background, read how conservative lawmakers continually try to counter the sexual revolution of gay/transgender rights.

Also read President Obama Demands Communal Nudity in Public Schools

And read San Francisco Law Ensures Nudity at Parades, Festivals

-- From "'Nipple bill' killed by New Hampshire House" by Garry Rayno, State House Bureau, New Hampshire Union Leader 3/9/16

The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee had voted last week, 18-0, to kill the bill, with several members saying passing the bill would guarantee the law would be challenged in federal court because it violated equal protection rights under the Constitution.

Some on the committee said the place to enact restrictions is at the local level, not statewide, and others noted that if a women had commited a second offense under the proposal she would have had to register as a sex offender and could have spent up to seven years in jail.

New Hampshire, like most states, does not have laws prohibiting women from going topless if men are allowed the same privilege.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "NH nipple ban rejected, saving cops from 'uncomfortable position'" by The Associated Press 3/9/16

The House voted against making it a misdemeanor for women to show their breasts with "reckless disregard" for whether it would offend someone. The bill was partly a response to a "Free the Nipple" movement that led to two women being cited for going topless at a Gilford beach. A judge dismissed that case in February.

Bill supporters had cautioned that allowing women to go topless at beaches could lead to them also going topless at libraries and Little League games. They said they were trying to shield families and children.

[However, the House committee reported that] the bill also would place police officers "in the uncomfortable position of having to determine the gender of a potential offender."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Lawmakers Behind 'Nipple Bill' Warn of Societal Decline" by Kathleen Ronayne, Associated Press 2/29/16

At Monday's public hearing, backers of the legislation cautioned that allowing women to go topless at beaches will create a slippery slope where women are going topless at public libraries and Little League baseball games. [Rep. Brian] Gallagher and Rep. Peter Spanos, a co-sponsor of the bill, said New Hampshire could lose tourism dollars if women are wandering public places with their breasts uncovered. Both said they brought the legislation in response to concern from constituents over the incident in Gilford.

But opponents charge such a ban violates the constitution by creating different standards for men and women. Kari Stephens, a Hampton resident who said she goes topless at the beach, argued lawmakers shouldn't be taking away a right that women in New Hampshire already have.

The New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union also opposes the bill.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Feminists vs. Super Bowl Ad 'Humanizing Fetuses'

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) lambasted a Doritos commercial that aired during the 50th Super Bowl yesterday because an unborn child was depicted in an animated ultrasound image as being aware of his/her surroundings, including of the father with his Doritos snack chips.  The recognition of a fetus as a functioning human being (personhood) is the antithesis of abortion advocacy.

For background, read how Ultrasound of Baby Jesus Riles Abortionists During Christmas

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Pro-life Super Bowl Commercials Censored

Christian Super Bowl Commercials Censored by FOX

Atheists' Super Bowl Ad Attacks Christians, Prayer

Anti-Christian, Pro-abortion Feminists Storm Super Bowl

Also read Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!



-- From "NARAL goes on angry Super Bowl tweetstorm" by Kristen East, Politico 2/7/16

NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading advocacy group on the issue of abortion, started firing a string of tweets about ads running during Super Bowl 50 on Sunday night, criticizing several in particular as "transphobic" or "sexist."

The group had announced it would be live-tweeting the event to call out "sexist" advertisers and their creations. . . .

Snack companies couldn't catch a break, apparently. NARAL called out a Snickers commercial for being "transphobic" and a Doritos ad for "humanizing fetuses" . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion rights group is mad at Doritos Super Bowl ad" by Jennifer Brett, Atlanta Journal-Constitution 2/8/16

In the commercial, a guy munching away on a bag of Doritos during his wife’s ultrasound attracts the attention of their unborn child, who makes a hasty exit, presumably to share Dad’s snack.

NARAL also complains that the ad reinforces “sexist tropes of dads as clueless and moms as uptight.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Super Bowl Ads Are a Hit for Mountain Dew, Miss for Doritos" by Gerry Smith, Bloomberg Business 2/7/16

Don’t mess with babies. Unless they are attached to puppies and monkeys.

That is one of the marketing lessons to come out of Super Bowl 50 . . .

For better or worse, Pepsi’s Doritos brand certainly knows how to create some buzz. In one of its Super Bowl spots, a woman is getting an ultrasound while her partner stands by, eating Doritos. She gets upset at his lack of decorum and throws a chip across the room. Her unborn fetus goes after it, and everyone screams. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion group attacks Super Bowl ad showing ultrasound" by Kelly Sloan, Trunews 2/8/16

One of the biggest abortion groups in the U.S. has attacked one of Sunday’s Super Bowl ads for being “anti-choice”, but the commercial was about Doritos.

The National Abortion Rights Action League also accused Snickers of being “transphobic” for an ad which depicts a grumpy man wearing the white dress made famous by Marilyn Monroe. Once he ate the candy bar, he turned into the real Monroe, because he wasn’t hungry any more, according to Breitbart.

The group also blasted a Hyundai ad on Twitter, calling it “sexist” and “misogynistic”, when an advertisement aired about a dad following his teenage daughter on a date. They claimed his concern for his child was taking away her autonomy and “stalking her”, as The Daily Caller reported.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read how broadcast media are biased against Christian athletes.

Breast Cancer Solution Includes Breast-feeding

Once again, God's design of women has been proven . . .

"The evidence outlined in the series, contributed by some of the leading experts in the field, leaves no doubt that the decision not to breast-feed has major long-term negative effects on the health, nutrition and development of children and on women's health."
-- Cesar Victora, The Lancet series author, of Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil

"We want to encourage breastfeeding but I've also seen patients in tears who can't do it. This article makes it seem like developed countries, rich women, they should all be breastfeeding. But for working women, it's harder for them to breastfeed."
-- Dr. Jennifer Wu, obstetrician-gynecologist, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York

For background, read God Created Woman to Give Birth and Breast-feed

Also read Women Who Birth More Children Live Longer, Study Finds

-- From "Breastfeeding could Save 800,000 Infant Deaths and 20,000 Breast Cancer Deaths Worldwide: Study" by Sandra Hicks, The California Post 1/29/16

As per the study article published online Jan. 28 in The Lancet, the decrease in children's deaths is equivalent to 13% of all deaths in children younger than 2 years of age. The report finds that the current breast-feeding practices cost the world's economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Cesar Victora, of Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil, said there is a widespread misconception that the benefits of breast-feeding only relate to poor countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Victora added that the new study highlights the fact that breast-feeding saves lives and money in all countries, rich and poor alike.

. . . researchers said that breastfeeding increases children's intelligence and may protect them against obesity and diabetes later in life. For mothers, long-term breast-feeding reduces the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Researchers estimated that poorer thinking skills among children who aren't breast-fed cost the global economy about $302 billion in 2012. The loss in high-income countries alone was $231 billion. Increasing breast-feeding rates for infants younger than 6 months to 90% in the United States, China and Brazil, and to 45% in the United Kingdom, would lower treatment costs of common childhood illnesses.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Worldwide Boost in Breast-Feeding Could Save 800,000 Lives: Study" posted at HealthDay News 1/28/16

Only one in five children in high-income countries is breast-fed for 12 months, the researchers said. And, only one in three children in low- and middle-income countries is exclusively breast-fed for the first 6 months.

Increasing breast-feeding rates for infants younger than 6 months to 90 percent in the United States, China and Brazil, and to 45 percent in the United Kingdom, would lower treatment costs of common childhood illnesses -- such as pneumonia, diarrhea and asthma. This could save health care systems about $2.5 billion in the United States, $29.5 million in the United Kingdom, $224 million in China and $6 million in Brazil, according to the study.

Despite the many benefits of breast-feeding, rates are low, especially in high-income countries, the study showed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study: Breastfeeding could save more than 800,000 lives a year" by Mary Brophy Marcus, CBS News 1/28/16

[Speaking about high-income countries, such as the United States, Dr. Jennifer Wu] said a six-week maternity leave from work makes it difficult to continue nursing for a full year.

"At six weeks, you barely have gotten breastfeeding on track. When you go back to work, breast milk goes down because you're away from the baby and can't breastfeed every two or three hours," said Wu.

She said some professions are particularly demanding. "If you're a teacher, it's really hard to find 30 minutes." There's not just time pumping, but setting up and cleaning breast pump equipment.

"There aren't many jobs where you can walk away from your job and do every few hours," Wu said. "In New York and elsewhere here in the U.S., we work very long workdays, maybe 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. at night and with a commute that may extend the day from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m."

She said waking up every few hours at night to breastfeed is difficult and women become sleep-deprived. "It's virtually impossible to breastfeed all night long and then work all the next day."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New Research Shows That Breastfeeding Matters Everywhere and Could Save Millions of Lives and Dollars" by Werner Schultink, Chief of Nutrition, UNICEF (Huffington Post) 1/28/16

The leading medical journal The Lancet just released a new Series on Breastfeeding with remarkable new evidence on the health and economic benefits of breastfeeding. . . .

Now more than ever we know what needs to be done to support and enable mothers to breastfeed. With such compelling evidence, all of us, including governments, donors, development agencies, the research community, the private sector and civil society need to step up. Breastfeeding can be dramatically improved in a short period of time.

Low and middle income countries such as Burkina Faso, India, Malawi, Peru and Zambia, and high income countries such as Norway, Sweden and Finland, have shown that it is possible to maintain high breastfeeding rates or increase rates in a short period of time provided political commitment, strong policies and programs are in place.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Breastfeeding saves lives, boosts economies in rich and poor countries" by Catharine Paddock PhD, Medical News Today 1/29/16

The two-part [Lancet] series is the most detailed analysis of levels, trends and benefits of breastfeeding around the world.

In a podcast interview for the series, Prof. Victora says while we are only "beginning to scratch the surface," a lot of evidence is emerging about the biology of breastfeeding and the components and properties of breast milk.

He quotes a colleague who likens breast milk to "very exquisite personalized medicine" because it reflects the biological interaction between the mother and her child, "something that formula will never be able to imitate," he notes.

He says we are also beginning to understand that breast milk has epigenetic effects - that is, it influences the expression of genes that control cell activity and development. And, another recent discovery is that breast milk contains stem cells.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Breastfeeding Could Add $300 Billion Into The Global Economy" by News Staff, Science 2.0 1/29/16

The depth and breadth of the Breastfeeding Series included 28 systematic reviews and meta-analyses--22 commissioned specifically for the Series. In total, more than 1,300 studies were reviewed to provide the most exhaustive look at the benefits, determinants, and trends in breastfeeding to date.

According to Series co-lead, Dr. Nigel Rollins with the Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health at the World Health Organization, "This new research demonstrates that breastfeeding results in improved child development, with huge economics gains for individuals, families, as well as at the national level."

For each of the first two years a mother breastfeeds over her lifetime, she decreases her risk of developing invasive breast cancer by six percent. She also benefits from reduced ovarian cancer risk.

Approximately 20,000 breast cancer deaths are prevented each year by breastfeeding; improved rates could prevent another 20,000 deaths each year.

Limited or nonexistent maternity leave. Short maternity leave (up to six weeks) increases the odds of not breastfeeding or stopping early by 400 percent;

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Doctors Say Abortion Causes Breast Cancer — Media Silent

'Free' Abortions Promised by Hillary Clinton

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has, in exchange for the endorsement of Planned Parenthood, pledged to repeal the decades-old "Hyde Amendment" that restricts federal funding of abortion (except in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment) as “it’s just hard to justify” because “reproductive rights are a fundamental human right.”

“I will say, consistently and proudly, Planned Parenthood should be funded, supported, and celebrated – not undermined, misrepresented, and demonized.”
-- Hillary Clinton

However, state after state cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood as its president, Cecile Richards Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

For background, read Hillary Says Abortionists Must Defeat Christianity as she also Promises Even MORE 'Transgender/Gay Rights'

Also read Hillary Receives Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Award

-- From "Hillary Clinton doesn’t mince words on her plans to repeal the Hyde Amendment" by Katie McDonough, Fusion 1/11/16

When asked if she would support congressional efforts to repeal the Hyde Amendment, Hillary Clinton wasted no time pondering her answer: “Yes.”

Restrictions like Hyde have had devastating consequences for women. According to data from the Guttmacher Institute [which is associated with Planned Parenthood], one in four women are forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because they can’t afford a medical intervention without insurance.

But last year, House Democrats introduced a bill—The EACH Woman Act—to challenge Hyde and require abortion coverage under all healthcare and insurance provided by the federal government. The measure would also prohibit states from placing restrictions on private health insurance companies looking to offer a full range of reproductive health services, including abortion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hillary Calls for Free Abortions for Medicaid Recipients" by John McCormack, The Weekly Standard 1/11/16

Opposition to direct federal funding of elective abortion is so strong that Democrats didn't attempt to repeal the Hyde amendment when they held the White House and overwhelming majorities in the Congress from 2009 to 2011. A 2010 Quinnipiac poll found that American voters opposed public funding of abortion by a 40-point margin--67 percent to 27 percent.

Although a President Hillary Clinton would likely face tough opposition in Congress to repealing the Hyde amendment, it may only take one Supreme Court appointment to accomplish that goal. Restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion were upheld by the Supreme Court by a 6-3 decision in 1980 and by a 5-4 decision in 1991.

In 2009, Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Bill Clinton appointee, said she was "surprised" the Court upheld the Hyde amendment because she believed "concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of" would lead the Court to declare a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded abortion. It would only take the replacement of just one Republican-appointed justice to give liberal activists a solid majority on the Supreme Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hillary Clinton Comes Out for Taxpayer-Funded Abortions" by Ian Tuttle, National Review 1/11/16

. . . not only does Hillary Clinton want abortion on demand up until the moment you can shake Junior’s hand; she also wants to force taxpayers, abortion opponents included, to pay for it. This is more than coercion; it’s public policy as vindictiveness, a taxpayer-funded middle finger at every person of goodwill with whom she disagrees.

Hillary is not the first Clinton to oppose Hyde. During his 1992 campaign, her husband promised to kill the amendment . . .

It’s worth noting that the Hyde Amendment is hardly a solution to the question of taxpayer funding for abortions. Money is fungible: The $500 million taxpayers give to Planned Parenthood may not [currently] be used to pay for abortions directly (according to the amendment), but that’s a $500 million cushion on top of which Planned Parenthood can conduct its slaughterous business. But at least the amendment recognizes, and seeks modestly to accommodate, people’s differences of conscience on this issue.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "How Hillary Clinton embraced the female vote and won loyal followers" by Jessica Valenti (in Des Moines, Iowa), UK Guardian 1/12/16

. . . at a New Hampshire event at which Planned Parenthood endorsed Clinton, the Democratic candidate embraced the reproductive health organization’s president Cecile Richards to the tune of Katy Perry’s Roar, and promised to the youthful and diverse pro-choice crowd: “I will always have your back.” . . . the events mark the latest stage in what is increasingly looking to be an explicitly feminist presidential campaign.

[Hillary Clinton] has chosen to take a stronger stance on abortion during this campaign [compared to 2008]. As a senator and throughout her career Clinton has supported pro-choice policies, but she has also come under fire in the past from pro-choice advocates for what they say is language that stigmatizes abortion.

Clinton’s past mantra on the procedure has been “safe, legal, and rare,” a formulation that suggests there’s something inherently wrong with abortion. Now, though, instead of talking about reducing the number of abortions, or insisting that they should be rare, she seems to be heeding the call of reproductive rights and justice activists such as Aimee Thorne-Thomsen, the vice-president for strategic partnerships at Advocates for Youth, who has written: “What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves?”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Hillary Agrees 'Family Planning' Critical to Global Warming

And read Hillary Advocates Abortion for World-wide Health Care

Virgin Births: IVF Eliminating Fatherhood

Fertility clinics are now furthering the notion of the “synthetic family” by making fathers obsolete in procreation even among non-lesbian women who prefer to give birth prior to sexual intercourse with "Mr. Right."

"Some wish to save sexual intercourse for a special relationship. They feel they have not found the right partner to share sex with, but they know they want a baby now."
-- Tracey Sainsbury, The London Women's Clinic

For background, read IVF: Women Living & Procreating Without Men as well as UK: Women Win Right to Children Without Fathers

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Gay Skin Cells Can Create Babies, Scientists Say

Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

Human Eggs Best When Fresh, NOT Frozen - DAH!

Married Birthing Nearly Extinct Among Non-college Grads

Also read President Obama Replaces Fathers with Government Mentors

-- From "Women who have never had sex give 'virgin birth' through IVF, say doctors" by Jess Staufenberg, UK Independent 9/28/15

About 25 young women in the UK who are hetereosexual and in their twenties have opted for IVF in the past five years because they feel ready to be a parent, doctors told the Mail on Sunday.

Whilst some religious groups have said a child should be brought up in a traditional family, one doctor said these single mothers are often more emotionally and financially stable than others who have been left to bring up a child after a relationship breakdown.

The news follows up a survey in 2013 which showed that one in every 200 women in the US reported to have become pregnant without having had sexual intercourse.

Out of these women, 31% said they had signed a chastity pledge whereby they vow, usually for religious reasons, not to have sex. About 28% of those girls' parents said they rarely talked to them about sex or contraception - compared to only 5% of other women who became pregnant and had had intercourse.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Virgin Births: 25 Heterosexual Women In Britain Have Given Birth Without Ever Having Sex" by Ellen Wallwork, The Huffington Post UK 9/28/15

Fertility treatments have opened up the ways by which women and men can become parents and four British IVF firms have said they had assisted a heterosexual virgin to have a baby: Care Fertility, The London Women’s Clinic, Create Fertility, and the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre.

The decision to provide fertility treatment in such cases was criticised by some religious groups, who claimed it undermined the importance of bringing up children in stable marriages, as well as from Josephine Quintavalle, from the group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, who said to the Mail:

"The message from nature is for a male and female to have a child, and I am saddened that we are willing to distort this.

"The diminished role of the father is not desirable for the child. Once you start down this route, where do you stop?"

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Rise of the virgin birth: four IVF clinics admit taking on such cases" by Laura Donnelly, Health Editor, UK Telegraph

Fertiilty doctors said single women who had never had sexual intercourse were seeking donor-assisted treatment – at a cost of around £5,000 – because they wanted to have a child now and save sex for a “special relationship”.

Maha Ragunath, medical director of its clinic in Nottingham, said: “The number of single women I see has doubled over the last decade and single women now account for at least ten per cent of my patients.

“A lot of them are very young, in their 20s, sometimes studying or doing very ordinary jobs and often living with their parents, rather than career women who have been driven and focused too much on their work”

“They are extremely happy to go ahead on their own and don’t care about the implications that might bring for the child or how they would go into a new relationship.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Virgin Births: Women Become Impregnated Thanks To IVF Treatment At British Clinics" by Ted Ranosa, Tech Times 9/28/15

Supporters of the traditional family system, however, have blasted the "distorted" move, stating that it was turning young children into "teddy bears" that are to be "picked off the shelf."

Some religious groups have also claimed that the move undermines the value of having children brought up in a stable marriage, while one leading psychotherapist has warned that a mother who has never been in a relationship could potential harm the development of the child.

Imam Suhaib Hasan, head of the Islamic Sharia Council in the UK, accused doctors engaged in providing IVF treatment to patients of acting like God.

Hasan said that when the man is removed from the aspect of a family, the woman becomes merely a breeding machine. He added that it effectively denies the right of the child to have a father.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Virgin Babies: Side Effects After Birth" by Anna Amad, The Science Times 9/28/15

Professor Robert Winston said "test-tube babies could suffer terrible health problems because the clinics were using IVF techniques which had not been properly tested."

He added, that the risk could include birth defects, genetic damage which may not emerge until adulthood and an increased chance of cancer. The medical profession was ignoring the evidence of problems that could take place.

Aside from that, he stressed the long-term attack of IVF, and follows a growing body of evidence that test tube babies are less healthy than the naturally conceived children.

Conversely, another study had been generated by Lord Winston at over three million normal conceptions and 40,000 IVF babies that found that IVF babies were two and half times more likely to have a low birth weight and prematurity compared to those babies with normal reproduction. Since it is not 100% guaranteed, it can lead to unsuccessful birth cycle.

Winston even stated, that small babies are more likely to grow up to develop vascular disease, diabetes, hypertension and osteoporosis.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Feminism Destroying America: Census Childlessness

And read Women Who Give Birth Live Longer and Healthier

Human Eggs Best When Fresh, NOT Frozen - DAH!

Breaking new research has discovered that if a man and woman have sexual intercourse they are more likely to conceive a baby than if they have separate experiences with scientists.  (Well, that isn't exactly the study findings, but it's close.)

"The reasons for lower live birth rates with use of cryopreserved oocytes remain to be established."
-- Study authors

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Donor Eggs & IVF 'Creates' Life, Causes More Death

Frozen Embryo Custody Lawsuit to Set Precedent

Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

Toddler to 'Own' 11 Future Children: An IVF Wonder

-- From "Study: Fresh eggs better than frozen for successful IVF" by Stephen Feller, UPI 8/11/15

Donated eggs frozen and used for in vitro fertilization lead to live births less often than those that have never been frozen, though researchers said the difference between the two is small.

Researchers at the Center for Human Reproduction in New York reviewed data from the 380 fertility centers in the United States, which are responsible for 92 percent of all IVF cycles. The research is from 2013, the first year the American Society for Reproductive Medicine said that oocyte cryopreservation, or freezing donated eggs, was no longer considered an experimental procedure.

Women whose implanted embryos used fresh eggs had live births 49.6 percent of the time, as compared with 43.2 percent of the women who used frozen eggs. When factoring the number of embryos women received, the live birth rate was 56.1 percent for fresh eggs and 47.1 percent for frozen eggs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In IVF, success rate for frozen donor eggs lags behind use of fresh eggs" by Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times 8/11/15

Researchers examined data from 380 fertility clinics that reported their successes and failures in 2013 to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Those clinics represented 81% of all fertility clinics operating in the U.S. that year, and they performed 92% of all IVF cycles, the researchers wrote.

Though fertility clinics routinely freeze embryos, they began freezing eggs more recently. Only in 2013 did the American Society for Reproductive Medicine declare that egg-freezing no longer was “experimental,” according to the JAMA report.

Freezing eggs makes in vitro fertilization much more convenient for patients and doctors because the egg donor and the recipient don’t need to have their cycles synced. It also has the potential to make IVF less expensive because eggs retrieved from a single donor can be shared more easily among several women. “However, the added convenience and lower cycle costs must be balanced against the lower live birth rates with use of cryopreserved oocytes,” the study authors wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "IVF Birth Rates Slightly Lower With Frozen Oocytes" by Tara Haelle, Medscape Medical News 8/11/15

The data raise more questions than the authors can answer, Edmond Confino, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, told Medscape Medical News. . . .

"Using eggs frozen by one center and thawed by another has potential negative impacts on success rates because of the use of different protocols," Tomer Singer, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, told Medscape Medical News. . . .

A notable finding in the study is the high number of egg donation cycles (20%) that used frozen eggs, according to Richard J. Paulson, MD, chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. "That is a high number and indicates that the use of frozen eggs for egg donation is clearly on the rise," Dr Paulson told Medscape Medical News. "It also substantiates the idea that in the future, frozen donor eggs banks are going to be used more commonly."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Delaying motherhood by freezing eggs could harm birth chances" by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, UK Telegraph 8/11/15

Many fertility experts now recommend cryopreservation for women who want to become mothers in later life, because younger eggs are known to be healthier.

Apple and Google even pay for their female employees to have the procedure, which normally costs between £3,500 and £5,000, so that they can forge ahead with their careers.

But a new study suggests that the freezing or thawing process may damage eggs and could reduce a women’s chance of becoming a mother.

Last year Dr Geeta Nargund, a fertility expert from the Create Fertility European Centre of Excellence suggested that egg freezing would become the new birthday present of choice for 30 year old women. The late Prof Carl Djerassi, who invented the Pill also told The Telegraph shortly before his death that contraception will become obsolete because women will choose to freeze their eggs while young and then be sterilised.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Frozen Eggs Have A Lower Live Birth Rate Than Fresh Eggs, Study Says" by Charlotte Alter, Time Magazine 8/11/15

[The Center for Human Reproduction's Dr. Vitaly A.] Kushnir says the disparity in live birth rates could be partly explained by the fact that patients tend to start with a larger number of fresh eggs than frozen eggs, since donated frozen eggs are often packaged in smaller bundles. “If you start with 10 embryos rather than 5 embryos, you have a better chance of selecting the best embryo,” he says. “But it could also be that freezing and thawing diminishes the quality of the egg.”

He noted that while freezing eggs is no longer considered “experimental,” it’s still not a foolproof procedure, and emphasized that it tends to be easier to freeze embryos than eggs. “With an egg, its only one cell; it either makes it or it doesn’t,” he says.

Another important thing to note is that this study measured frozen eggs from egg donors, who tend to be much younger than women who electively freeze eggs for fertility preservation. Egg donors tend to be between 18-25 (the cutoff age for Egg Donor America, one egg donation center, is 29) while women who freeze their own eggs tend to be in their mid-late 30s. Since most doctors think egg quality can decline with age, women who freeze their own eggs might see even lower live birth rates than the donor eggs in this study.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Teenage 'Boy' Harvests Eggs to be Mother & 'Father'

Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law

Satanists in St. Louis, seizing the recent Supreme Court religious liberty Hobby Lobby decision, will be backing an anonymous adherent called "Mary" in a battle against a new state law restricting abortion.  Rallying behind the Satanists are the abortion advocates.

“[As] a faith community that ascribes to seven central tenets that track closely with humanism, [we are] seeking a religious exemption from Missouri’s 72-hour abortion waiting period on the grounds that the law violates [our] sincerely held beliefs about bodily autonomy.”
-- St. Louis chapter of the Satanic Temple

For background, read Democrat Governor Abortion Veto Nixed by Missouri Lawmakers

Also, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Satan vs. God Is Supreme Court Justice's Decision

Satanists For Abortion Shout Down Texas Christians

Pope Francis Warns of Satan; Media, Take Heed!

Also read of the nationwide influence of The Satanic Temple

-- From "Missouri Satanist: 72-hour waiting period for abortions violates my ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’" by Travis Gettys, Raw Story 4/30/15

The woman, identified only as Mary by her local Satanic Temple, said she regards the waiting period as “a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion” and plans to challenge the law on religious grounds, reported the Friendly Atheist blog.

The waiting period places an “unnecessary burden” on her religious belief that her body is subject to her will alone, she said.

“The waiting period interferes with the inviolability of my body and thereby imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my sincerely held religious beliefs,” she said.

The Satanic Temple [TST] set up a GoFundMe page to help Mary pay transportation and lodging costs to travel hundreds of miles to St. Louis, where the state’s only abortion provider is located.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "How should Satanists deal with mandatory abortion waiting periods?" by Lucien Greaves (a.k.a. Doug Mesner), The Satanic Temple, posted at Orlando Weekly 5/1/15

The Hobby Lobby ruling, affirming that the corporation’s “deeply held beliefs” allowed them to declare certain contraceptives as abortifacients when in fact they were not, set a precedent whereby TST could firmly declare a protected belief in the illegitimacy of anti-abortion state-mandated [informed consent laws].

Recently, a member of The Satanic Temple informed us that she soon intends to present our exemption letter as she seeks an abortion in the state of Missouri. However, in Missouri, women seeking abortions are faced with a problem far more dire than that of insulting and inaccurate state propaganda: they are also required a 3-day (72 hour) waiting period for the procedure. With only one clinic in the state, those traveling a substantial distance often are forced to take significant time away from work while paying for overnight lodging. In response, we are providing an exemption from the waiting period, similar to the exemption from Informed Consent materials.

. . . One’s body is subject to one’s own will alone, therefore the process by which one arrives at decisions related to one’s body should never be subjected to the degrading arbitrary whims of petty, pious politicians. The 72 hour waiting period is nothing more than an offensive, intentional imposition upon a deeply personal decision-making process. There is no medical justification for the waiting period, only the ignorant hope that some women may — some time within that 72 hours — only then first consider the ramifications of their choice, consequently reversing course.

. . . We shall seek to defend our exemptions in court if they are not respected. . . .

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Satanist woman plans to claim ‘religious freedom’ in order to get around the required 72-hour waiting period" by Cassy Fiano, Live Action News 4/30/15

Three states currently require a 72-hour waiting period before having an abortion: Utah, South Dakota, and Missouri. . . . A Missouri woman going by the name of ‘Mary’ is a Satanist, who plans on claiming that the state’s 72-hour waiting period is a violation of her religious freedom.  [She wrote to her abortionist (Planned Parenthood):]

As you know, state law requires a waiting period after I first receive counseling before I can undergo an abortion. I regard a waiting period as a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion by instilling an unnecessary burden as part of the process to obtain this legal medical procedure. The waiting period interferes with the inviolability of my body and thereby imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my sincerely held religious beliefs.

This letter constitutes my acknowledgment that you have notified me of the state mandated waiting period, but demands that you do not abide by this obligation because the waiting period offends my sincerely held religious beliefs, which take precedent.

So basically, being pro-abortion is now a religious belief, plain and simple. . . .

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

In addition, read Planned Parenthood Prays (to their god) for More Abortions and also read Mississippi Abortionist: God Called Me to Kill Babies as well as Liberal Clergy Praise 'Compassionate Abortions'

And read President Obama Provokes Second 'In God We Trust' Movement

Wisc. Catholic College Welcomes Abortion Feminist

Despite objections by thousands of alumni, students, and even Bishop David Ricken, President Thomas Kunkel at St. Norbert College in De Pere, Wisconsin invited pro-abortion, anti-family activist Gloria Steinem to speak Tuesday night because, as Kunkel said, it's important that students see and hear, in person, those who oppose Church teachings.

“. . . the connection of abortion rights to the feminist agenda is a sad one and calls into question the logic” of inviting Steinem.
-- Bishop David Ricken, Diocese of Green Bay

“Why are the same groups against lesbians and birth control? The patriarchal system… controls reproduction and says it’s only moral and okay when sexuality... can end in reproduction. And everything else is wrong. That means sexual expression between two men or two women, it means women’s ability to control it ourselves [is wrong].”
-- Gloria Steinem

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Nun Blasted by North Carolina Parents for Teaching Catholicism

California Parents Say: Drop Morals for Catholic School Teachers

Notre Dame Rejects Students for Natural Marriage

Students Demand Catholic School Hire Gay Teacher

Also read Pope Francis Blasts Liberal 'christians' as Pagans and read how Pope Francis condemns abortion and speaks of the selfishness of those who shun procreation.



-- From "Gloria Steinem speaks at St. Norbert College" by Kelly Schlicht, WLUK-TV11 (Green Bay, WI) 4/22/15

Kunkel says regardless of the religious affiliation, a college should present all sides of an argument.

“I respect where people are coming from on this. But we feel that we are a college and part of what we do is you have people from all walks come to campus. It doesn’t mean that you necessarily endorse everything they say or what they stand for,” said Kunkel.

When asked [Tuesay night] how she became a feminist, Steinem recounted covering an abortion hearing as a journalist in the 1960s.

“Why is it illegal, why is it dangerous, who owns women’s bodies,” said Steinem.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Catholic college gives abortion-rights icon higher billing than pro-life speaker" by Kate Hardiman, University of Notre Dame, posted at The College Fix 4/29/15

Steinem, who has stated that her own abortion at 22 was a positive experience and said abortion would be considered a “sacrament” if men got pregnant, was invited by St. Norbert to speak about domestic violence.

TFP Student Action, a project of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, tried to get St. Norbert to cancel Steinem’s appearance by circulating a petition that drew nearly 28,000 signatures.

“How on earth can a woman like Gloria Steinem who has such a public pro-abortion and anti-Catholic record be invited to give a lecture at a Catholic institute [sic], which ought to be a cornerstone in the defense of innocent life and moral values?” the group said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Green Bay Catholic bishop opposes Gloria Steinem visit" by Patti Zarling, Green Bay Press-Gazette 1/31/15

"Even though Gloria Steinem has appeared at St. Norbert College before my time as the bishop of this diocese, and acknowledging that she has appeared at other Catholic colleges and universities, I do not approve of the appearance of Gloria Steinem at St. Norbert College," the bishop's statement says. "I have conveyed my strong disapproval to the abbot, the president of the college and the chair of the board."

[Bishop David] Ricken said. "Her whole career and life is a grand affirmation of the pro-abortion movement. These types of approaches are outdated, tired and confusing ways to approach these issues, especially given the fact that the Catholic Church has new approaches to women's issues that are fresh, life-giving and highly respectful of the human person."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Feminist Steinem Touts Abortion, Ridicules Church at St. Norbert College" by Kimberly Scharfenberger, The Cardinal Newman Society 4/29/15

Abortion advocacy, support for euthanasia and applause for excommunicated and “ordained” women priests—such were the highlights of last week’s “dialogue” with radical feminists Gloria Steinem and Bell Hooks on the Catholic campus of St. Norbert College in De Pere, Wis.

Nevertheless the College went forward, and the activists’ dialogue, titled “Talking Together: A Legacy of Solidarity,” predictably highlighted contempt for “patriarchal religions” and pushed support for abortion rights and euthanasia. A video of their dialogue indicates that Steinem and Hooks barely touched on the subject of domestic violence but focused instead on “reproductive rights” and societal ills caused by the patriarchy.

Thomas Kunkel, president of St. Norbert College, opened the event, welcoming the more than 800 participants who reportedly attended.

“As the face of the women’s movement… Gloria Steinem leaves us in awe,” said Dr. Karlyn Crowley, professor of English, as she introduced Steinem.

Hooks is frequently hosted as a teacher-in-residence at St. Norbert College. Last year, the College even presented the “year of bell hooks” which featured “programs that celebrate bell hooks, the prolific scholar, social justice advocate, feminist and canonical writer.” In her book Feminism is For Everybody, Hooks claimed that “one cannot be anti-abortion and an advocate of feminism.” She also declared that “without the right to safe, inexpensive, and free abortions [women] lose all control over their bodies.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "St. Norbert College and the Catholic vision of life" by Bishop David Ricken, The Compass News, Inc. 1/8/15

Several months ago, I received many letters, emails, calls and complaints about St. Norbert College’s invitation to Gloria Steinem to give a presentation on their campus. . . .

. . . I find the invitation of Steinem to be quite mystifying. . . . It would be so refreshing if we heard the leadership and faculty use these new voices to help our young people live a life of integrity and holiness and to truly embrace life and peace for the most innocent of all.

Catholic vision and teaching are truly liberating if they are integrated into the life of a college campus. How refreshing it would be if St. Norbert College were to decide to be a vibrant Catholic College that embraces the church and her teaching in its entirety, not just the social justice teachings (which SNC does so well), but also the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Gospel and the church. Rather than excusing it by finding ways to reason around it or to argue against it, why not embrace it with a real and comprehensive intentionality?

The invitation of Ms. Steinem gives the impression that the college may be merely giving lip service to the fundamental value of every human life instead of embracing the “Gospel of Life” with a clear intentionality.

Long live the “Gospel of Life” and those who defend it unapologetically!

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Abortionists Must Defeat Christianity, Hillary Clinton Says

And read Feminism is Destroying America, Census Report on Childlessness Shows

Abortionists Must Defeat Christianity, Hillary Says

Thursday in New York at the Women in The World Summit, in her first presidential candidate speech, Hillary Clinton denounced “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases” for denying abortions to women and called on fellow feminists to counter such Christian influence in America and around the world.

For background, read Hillary Agrees 'Family Planning' Critical to Global Warming

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Abortion Rate Declines, Democrats Want More Access

Democrats' Life Mission is to Kill the Unborn, Says Mississippi Governor

Catholic Bishops' Warning: Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin'

Christians Defeat Abortionists in 2014 Tennessee Vote

Also read Gallup Poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed



-- From "Clinton: 'Deep-seated' beliefs block abortion access" by Mark Hensch, The Hill 4/24/15

“Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we've passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Clinton said.

“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will."

“And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” Clinton added.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "What Happens When Hillary Clinton Talks Reproductive Health on the Trail" by Arit John, Bloomberg News 4/24/15

During Hillary Clinton’s keynote address at Thursday’s Women In the World conference, the presidential candidate said that despite a drop in the rates of death during childbirth, women still don’t have access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth,” and that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” to achieve the full advancement of women. . . .

Reproductive health does includes abortion, but unsafe abortions account for only 13 percent of all global maternal deaths, according to a 2010 report from the University of Essex. The report also found that:

Globally, around 80 percent of maternal deaths are due to obstetric complications; mainly haemorrhage, sepsis, unsafe abortion, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, and prolonged or obstructed labour […] Almost all cases of maternal mortality are preventable. An estimated 74 percent of maternal deaths could be averted if all women had access to the interventions for preventing or treating pregnancy and birth complications, in particular emergency obstetric care.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hillary On Abortion: ‘Deep-Seated Cultural Codes, Religious Beliefs And Structural Biases Have To Be Changed’" by Kerry Picket, Reporter, Daily Caller 4/23/15

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

The event took place at the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center. Media CEO Tina Brown welcomed other women to the stage, including Ashley Judd and Helen Mirren, as well as numerous female political activists and businesswomen.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hillary Clinton Pushes Abortion in First Speech as Candidate: Too Many Women 'Denied' Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 4/24/15

During the speech, Clinton also touted the new pro-abortion Attorney General the Senate confirmed on Friday. “Finally, finally, Loretta Lynch will be able to assume the position she has trained her lifetime for,” Clinton said. And she condemned the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision protecting pro-life businesses from being forced to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees.

Last year, Clinton said that to be pro-woman is to be pro-abortion. . . .

Recently, Clinton refused to say if she would support any limits on late-term abortions.

In her role as Secretary of State Clinton pressed for abortion on an international scale. . . .

Clinton says she admires Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Hillary Receives Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Award

In addition, read and view a vintage interview with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger