High School Boy Sexually Mutilated, Media Cheer

Convinced by media sensation, as a freshman in Cazenovia, New York, Caden Boone decided he must be a lesbian and prior to graduating high school, doctors amputated his penis. The media is heralding Boone as a hero, but statistics show that his sexual confusion will only grow and possibly end in suicide.

Will the media attend his funeral, and what will be its spin then?

. . . young boys and girls have begun to present themselves as of the opposite sex. . . . These children generally come to their ideas about their sex not through erotic interests but through a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns. [And, consider] the parents whom no one—not doctors, schools, nor even churches—will help to rescue their children from these strange notions of being transgendered and the problematic lives these notions herald.
The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions. Rather, they and their families find only “gender counselors” who encourage them in their sexual misassumptions.
-- Paul McHugh, MD, Johns Hopkins Medical School

UPDATE 10/1/15: Mother Plans Sexual Mutilation of Son, Media Cheer

UPDATE 8/3/15: Teenage 'Boy' Harvests Own Eggs to be Mother & Transgender 'Father'

For background, read Transgenderism is a 'Delusion' According to Victim

Also, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Kindergartners Taught Sex Change in Maine School

New Jersey Boy Returns to Middle School as Girl

Girl Sues Virginia School to Use Boys Restroom

Minnesota & California OK Boys on Girls' School Teams, in Showers

Male Teacher Suddenly Female, Shocks California Parents

President Obama Forces Gay Agenda on Schools via Taxpayer$$

And read governments' myriad efforts to sexualize children via public schools and also read how this sexualization is making criminals of children nationwide.



-- From "New York Times Celebrates Permanent Penis Removal At Age 18" by Eric Owens, Education Editor 6/17/15

The New York Times printed a 2,867-word, six-photo, two-correction, one-video story on Tuesday celebrating the mutilation of 18-year-old teenage boys who have decided they want to live as women, despite biological reality.

There is no law that prevents doctors from removing or otherwise altering the reproductive organs of teenagers. The age minimum is essentially governed by insurers (and Medicaid), which generally refuse to pay for the practice on children under the age of 18.

The Times interviewed Norman Spack, who is both a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Spack explained that he first heard about Dutch doctors using hormone injections and puberty blockers on early adolescent children about 15 years ago.

“I was salivating,” he told the newspaper. “I said we had to do this.”

In its 2,867 words, the Times establishes little basis for Spack’s salivation. He has treated around 200 children since 2007, though, and the drugs (unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration) are very expensive, he noted.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "CNY transgender teen shares transition journey: 'I was uncomfortable with my body'" by Allie Healy, Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard 6/16/15

[Caden/Katherine (Kat) Boone] tells The New York Times that as a kid, she [he] dressed like all the other boys. Boone's best friend was male, and she [he] liked to play with cars and video games.

Come freshman year at Cazenovia High School, Boone became depressed.

"I knew that the changes going on with puberty were not me," she [he] tells the Times. "I started to really hate my life, myself. I was uncomfortable with my body, my voice, and I just felt like I was really a girl."

It wasn't until Boone discovered the transgender world on the Internet that she [he] had a realization. She [he] read some "attributes" of transgender people and it clicked.

Once she [he] was 16 and a half, Boone began taking estrogen and a blood-pressure drug, spironolactone, that is also used to stop the actions of testosterone. In the fall of junior year, she [he] began asking her [his] peers to call her [him] Katherine, or Kat for short. . . .

On April 7, Boone underwent gender reassignment surgery at Lower Bucks Hospital in Pennsylvania. Boone's surgeon, Dr. Christine McGinn, says she had performed more than 30 operations on children under 18.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The New Girl in School: Transgender Surgery at 18" by Anemona Hartocollis, New York Times 6/16/15

[The mutilating surgery] was not easy . . . [it] involved deconstructing her male genitals and repurposing the nerves and skin as female anatomy. . [Boone] retched for days afterward. She could hardly eat. She did not seem empowered; she seemed regressed. . . . [Boone] developed aspiration pneumonia and had vomiting and dry heaves for days, normal reactions to anesthesia, narcotics and antibiotics, but Dr. McGinn said Kat was hit harder than most.

“I just want to hold Emma,” she said in her darkened room at the bed-and-breakfast in New Hope, Pa., run by the doctor who performed the operation in a hospital nearby. Emma is her black and white cat, at her home outside Syracuse in central New York State, 250 miles away.

Her childlike reaction was, perhaps, not surprising. Kat, whose side-parted hair was dyed a sassy red, is just 18, and about to graduate from high school.

Six weeks after the operation, she was still so weak that she had to take the elevator at school instead of the stairs.

At her two-month checkup, she had gained back half the weight she had lost, but still looked frail and self-conscious. She treated herself to a new hair color — strawberry blond — for graduation.

. . . With growing tolerance, the question is no longer whether gender reassignment is an option but rather how young should it begin.

But the number of teenagers going through gender reassignment has been growing amid wider acceptance of transgender identity, more parental comfort with the treatment and the emergence of a number of willing practitioners. . . .

Given that there are no proven biological markers for what is known as gender dysphoria, however, there is no consensus in the medical community on the central question: whether teenagers, habitually trying on new identities and not known for foresight, should be granted an irreversible physical fix for what is still considered a psychological condition.

Some experts argue that the earlier the decision is made, the more treacherous, because it is impossible to predict which children will grow up to be transgender and which will not.

. . . A large-scale Swedish study at the Karolinska Institute found that starting about a decade after gender reassignment surgery, transgender people were still more than 19 times as likely to die by suicide as the general population.

To read the entire horrific saga of Boone in the New York Times, CLICK HERE.

Also read All Women's College Accepts Cross-dressing Men

And read War on Women — Michigan Fitness Club Favors Transgender

In addition, read how the Gay Agenda transgender objectives are being advanced by President Obama and across the Obama administration; and by private businesses; as well as via public schools and throughout academia -- and funded by taxpayers.

New York Times Admits 22-week Fetus is a Baby!

In a stunning revelation, the liberal mainstream media have just discovered that pregnant women may, in fact, have "a person" developing in the womb — thanks to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published yesterday concerning "fetal viability."

“[We now consider viability at 22 weeks,] but this is a pretty controversial area. I guess we would say that these babies deserve a chance. [But parents need to know that] the hospital that you go to might determine what happens to your baby.”
-- Edward Bell, study leader and pediatrics professor at the University of Iowa

For background, read Abortion Outlawed in Florida for Viable Fetuses

Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.

And read Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming

What do the abortionists say?  Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

In addition, read about the Georgia teacher ousted last month for revealing President Obama's position on infants who survive abortion.

-- From "Study of premature babies adds to questions for parents, doctors" by Pam Belluck, The New York Times 5/6/15

A new study of thousands of premature births found that a small minority of babies born a week or two before what is now generally considered the point of viability can be treated and survive, in some cases with relatively few health problems.

The findings may also have implications for the abortion debate. The Supreme Court has said states cannot ban abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, and 24 weeks has generally been cited by medical experts as the time of viability.

Recently, physicians who work with very premature infants have begun to consider it reasonable to offer active treatment for babies born at 23 weeks. A 2014 summary of a workshop that involved the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics said “in general, those born at 23 weeks of gestation should be considered potentially viable” as more than a quarter of them survive if treated intensively.

The study, involving nearly 5,000 babies born between 22 and 27 weeks gestation, found that 22-week-old babies did not survive without medical intervention. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study on premature babies raises questions about abortion and medical care" by Sarah Kaplan, Washington Post 5/7/15

[The study] is heartening news in the world of pediatrics. But it also adds to a list of questions for parents, doctors and lawmakers by challenging the accepted age for “viability” — a standard that has defined the debates about abortion and intensive neonatal care.

According to Neil Marlow, a neonatology expert at University College London, many doctors have assumed that 22 weeks was too early for a child to be a candidate for intensive care because fatality rates were so high. But the NEJM study shows that those high rates are in part due to doctors’ reluctance to attempt a painful intervention on a newborn that’s unlikely to survive.

. . . the Supreme Court has long crafted its abortion rulings around the idea of viability. In Roe v. Wade the court ruled that states could not restrict abortions before the 28th week of pregnancy, at the time thought to be the earliest a newborn could survive on its own.

The 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, acknowledging that advances in neonatal care made survival of even more premature babies possible, detached the “viability” marker from the 28-week standard but left the sentiment of the original ruling intact: “We reaffirm … the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State,” read the majority opinion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hospital efforts to save very premature babies vary widely" by Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press 5/6/15

The study involved nearly 5,000 babies born before 27 weeks gestation at 24 hospitals in a research group run by the National Institutes of Health between April 2006 and March 2011.

Researchers looked at rates of comfort care versus active treatment, such as breathing machines, feeding tubes or heart resuscitation. Active treatment was given to 22 percent of babies born at 22 weeks, 72 percent of those at 23 weeks and nearly all beyond that.

Survival rates were higher for the actively treated babies — 23 percent versus 5 percent for all babies in the study born at 22 weeks, and 33 percent versus 24 percent for those born at 23 weeks.

About 12,000 babies each year in the United States are born between 22 and 25 weeks gestation. A full-term pregnancy is about 40 weeks.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "No Standard Treatment for Extreme Preemies - Practice differences appear to explain survival disparities" by Sarah Wickline Wallan, Staff Writer, MedPage Today 5/7/15

"This article raises important questions about what information should be given to parents during counseling about risks after an extremely preterm birth," Neil Marlow, DM, wrote in an accompanying editorial. "To give crude data on the survival rate among all such infants, regardless of whether treatment efforts were made, is misleading and helps to make poor survival a self-fulfilling prophecy."

"The NICHD NRN (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network) collects data only on live births in specialist hospitals and is not population-based; thus these data cannot be used to explore attitudes underlying the decision to provide or withhold treatment or to evaluate antepartum fetal deaths," added Marlow, who is from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health at University College London.

"The study should prompt physicians, hospitals, state governments, and professional societies to accelerate efforts to provide perinatal regionalization programs that will optimize access of these extremely premature babies to level 3 and 4 perinatal centers that can provide skilled, experienced active treatment in the delivery room when parents and physicians decide in favor of active treatment," F. Sessions Cole, MD, director of the division of newborn medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said in an email to MedPage Today.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Gallup poll, Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

As Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back

Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law

Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws

Also read Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif. and chairman of House Democratic Caucus) won't answer if unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is human being. (video)

Divorce Rates Drop, as well as Marriage Rates

Yesterday, the New York Times decided to print statistics showing that the rate of divorce, often erroneously quoted as being 50%, has been steadily declining for decades, but the driving forces are not encouraging as more people chose to marry later in life, or never at all.

“Two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women, so when you’re talking about changes in divorce rates, in many ways you’re talking about changes in women’s expectations.”
-- William Doherty, marriage therapist, University of Minnesota

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Marriage Rates Low Among Millennial Generation

Young Adults Rarely Marry, Seniors Divorce Often

Fewer Get Married, but Stay Married: Census

Marriage Trend: Confined within Church

One-third of Households are People Living Alone

Most Non-committal Cohabitants' First Marriage Ends

More Women Shack Up & Give Birth; Marriage Rare

Also read ObamaNation: Perpetual Poor Barred from Marriage


-- From "The Truth About The Divorce Rate Is Surprisingly Optimistic" by Brittany Wong, The Huffington Post 12/2/14

We've all heard that 50 percent of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.

And while that disheartening stat continues to get tossed around, the divorce rate isn't really at 50 percent -- and it isn't rising either. In fact, a new piece in the New York Times' data blog Upshot suggests that the divorce rate has actually been dropping for some time now. Looking at the numbers, the Times suggests the high divorce rate of the late 1970s and early 1980s may have just been a "historical anomaly," rather than a trend.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Everything you heard about divorce is wrong, sort of" by Herb Scribner, Deseret News 12/2/14

. . . Later marriages are a trend I wrote about back in October. Since the Great Recession of 2008, women have found more job opportunities than men, giving them a leg up in becoming the breadwinner at home and causing many of them to seek out men who have their finances and future secured.

Young millennial women are also sidestepping marriage to focus on personal goals ahead of forming a family, according to Deseret News National’s Emily Hales. Young women are putting other priorities — a career, having children and cohabitating — ahead of marriage, even though it’s something they really want, Hales wrote. It doesn’t help, either, that young marriages are also more likely to end in divorce, the Pew Research Center found, which has motivated youngsters to wait for marriage.

But only time will tell whether or not the divorce rate is truly declining. Family Studies reported older men and women, especially baby boomers, are divorcing at unprecedented rates. And if you adjust the current divorce rates by age, the divorce rate actually peaked in 2011 with a 40 percent increase, Family Studies reported.

And many divorce rate numbers don’t take into account the rise in cohabitating couples, who don’t always marry but still end up in separation, as Bradford Wilcox wrote about in 2013.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On" by Claire Cain Miller, New York Times 12/2/14

About 70 percent of marriages that began in the 1990s reached their 15th anniversary (excluding those in which a spouse died), up from about 65 percent of those that began in the 1970s and 1980s. Those who married in the 2000s are so far divorcing at even lower rates. If current trends continue, nearly two-thirds of marriages will never involve a divorce, according to data from Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economist (who also contributes to The Upshot).

Of college-educated people who married in the early 2000s, only about 11 percent divorced by their seventh anniversary, the last year for which data is available. Among people without college degrees, 17 percent were divorced, according to Mr. Wolfers.

Working-class families often have more traditional notions about male breadwinners than do the college-educated — yet economic changes have left many of the men in these families struggling to find work. As a result, many wait to achieve a level of stability that never comes and thus never marry, while others split up during tough economic times.

Some of the decline in divorce clearly stems from the fact that fewer people are getting married — and some of the biggest declines in marriage have come among groups at risk of divorce. But it also seems to be the case that marriages have gotten more stable, as people are marrying later.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Where Liberalism Flourishes, Population Diminishes

And read Utopian Dream Shattered by Reality of Birth Rate

In addition, read Married Birthing Nearly Extinct Among Non-college Grads and preview the violent and dismal economic future of an America without intact families as President Obama Replaces Fathers with Government Mentors

Pedophilia NOT a Crime, Says Obama-supporting Prof.

Furthering the liberal mind-set regarding deviant sex . . .

This week, the New York Times printed an Op-Ed by Margo Kaplan of Rutgers University (who formerly represented the ACLU) in which the learned law professor explains why pedophiles should not be excluded from occupations such as teaching.

“The fact that pedophilia is so despised is precisely why our responses to it, in criminal justice and mental health, have been so inconsistent and counterproductive.”
-- Margo Kaplan, assistant professor at Rutgers School of Law, Camden

For background, read Pedophilia is Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay' and also read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists

Also read Judge Says Incest OK; It's the New Gay

UPDATE 10/20/14: Gay Pedophile Teacher Says Child Porn OK to View

-- From "Pedophilia Deserves Civil Rights, Says New York Times’ Op-Ed" by Neil Munro, Daily Caller 10/6/14

Kaplan is trying to make a legal career in the regulation of expanding sexual diversity, instead of routine and lower-status practice areas, such as torts, probate, crime or copyrights. She’s focused on “legal limitations on intimate decisions, particularly the use of criminal law in areas of health and sexuality,” according to her web page.

Kaplan says criminal law should be changed so that pedophiles are only stigmatized or denied jobs if law school graduates agree that they pose a “direct threat” to children.

In the 1970s, the Catholic Church accepted the advice of many experts in the new mental-health industry, and concluded that pedophile priests could be successfully treated with private therapy. The theory was not proven correct, and it helped protect many priests as they sexually abused thousands of boys.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime" by Margo Kaplan, New York Times 10/5/14

. . . One can live with pedophilia and not act on it.

. . . [A] misconception is that pedophilia is a choice.

. . . The Virtuous Pedophiles website is full of testimonials of people who vow never to touch a child and yet live in terror. They must hide their disorder from everyone they know — or risk losing educational and job opportunities, and face the prospect of harassment and even violence. Many feel isolated; some contemplate suicide.

While treatment cannot eliminate a pedophile’s sexual interests, a combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and medication can help him to manage urges and avoid committing crimes.

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals with mental disabilities, in areas such as employment, education and medical care. Congress, however, explicitly excluded pedophilia from protection under these two crucial laws.

It’s time to revisit these categorical exclusions. . . .

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama Donor Argues Pedophilia 'Not a Crime' in NYT Op-Ed" by Katie Yoder, CNSNews.com 10/7/14

Here's a tidbit of information The New York Times left out of the bio of a professor who argued pedophilia is "not a crime" in a recent Op-Ed - she's also a President Obama supporter.

. . . In 2012, Kaplan donated $250 to Barack Obama's campaign.

An assistant professor at Rutgers School of Law - Camden, and a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, Kaplan has plans for a "Taking Pedophilia Seriously" publication to be released next year. At Rutgers, her research focuses on "legal limitations on intimate decisions, particularly the use of criminal law in areas of health and sexuality."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also click headlines below to read previous articles:

Gay Pedophile Teacher Defended by Michigan School

Homosexual Teacher Sexting Boy Resigns, Media Silent

Homosexual Teacher Jailed: Paying Boys to Sext Him

Homosexual Predator, Honored by President Obama, Arrested

Most Americans Say Gay Men Untrustworthy with Boys

Pope Removes Democrat Party Antagonist, Media Crow

In a move that American liberal media outlets tout as Pope Francis' focus toward inclusion, culture warrior Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, the archbishop emeritus of St. Louis, Missouri, has been removed from the Congregation for Bishops.

“One gets the impression, or it’s interpreted this way in the media, that [the Pope] thinks we’re talking too much about abortion, too much about the integrity of marriage as between one man and one woman. But we can never talk enough about that.”
-- Cardinal Raymond L. Burke

For background, read Burke Says Liberal Catholic Candidates Must Repent Publicly and also read Pope Francis I Says Wayward Politicians Can't Take Communion (e.g.: Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, et. al.) as well as Burke Instructs Flock: NEVER Vote for a Pro-choice Candidate

In addition, read Rep. Nancy Pelosi is a Fraud, Catholic Leaders Say



--From "Pope Changes Roster at Influential Vatican Office" by The Associated Press 12/17/13

Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington was appointed Monday to the Congregation for Bishops. The pope also reconfirmed Cardinal William Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco and former head of the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog office.

Some members of the congregation were not reconfirmed. Cardinal Raymond Burke will no longer serve in the office. The former St. Louis archbishop had been a member for several years. Burke retains his position as the head of the Vatican high court, the Apostolic Signatura.

Burke drew attention in the U.S. in 2004 when he said he would deny Communion to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Roman Catholic who supports abortion rights.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pope Francis removes former St. Louis Archbishop Burke from Congregation of Bishops" by Jesse Bogan, St. Louis Post-Dispatch 12/17/13

Some observers of the Roman Catholic Church said the move by Pope Francis is yet another example of his effort to tone down highly publicized stances on divisive social issues such as gay marriage, contraception and abortion, on which Burke has made strong remarks.

National Catholic Reporter journalist John Allen said in an email that the “face-value reading” of the changes was that Francis wants more moderate bishops, fewer who are “heavily invested in culture wars.”

In a blog post Monday after the news hit, [Religion News Service reporter David] Gibson described Burke as a “very conservative holdover from the Benedict XVI era and a fan of the kind of high liturgical finery that Pope Francis does not take to, at all.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pope Replaces Conservative U.S. Cardinal on Influential Vatican Committee" by Jim Yardley And Jason Horowitz, New York Times 12/16/13

The pope’s decision to remove Cardinal Raymond L. Burke from the Congregation for Bishops was taken by church experts to be a signal that Francis is willing to disrupt the Vatican establishment in order to be more inclusive.

“[The Pope] is saying that you don’t need to be a conservative to become a bishop,” said Alberto Melloni, the director of the John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna, Italy, a liberal Catholic research institute. “He wants good bishops, regardless of how conservative or liberal they are.”

Cardinal Burke, who came to the Vatican in 2008 after serving as archbishop of St. Louis, is a favorite of many conservative Catholics in the United States for his upholding of church rites and traditions favored by Pope Benedict XVI. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-life leaders shocked by removal of Cardinal Burke from important Vatican post" by John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews 12/16/13

Burke has been known for his outspoken championing of the high priority that Popes Benedict and John Paul II gave to the Church’s pro-life and pro-family teachings. He has especially been both praised and criticized for his frequent insistence that persistently pro-abortion Catholic politicians must be denied Holy Communion according to Canon law requirements which Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became pope, directed the US bishops to follow.

John Smeaton, President of the UK Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, told LifeSiteNews, "Cardinal Raymond Burke is a giant man of the Catholic Church and a fearless defender of unborn children, whom Mother Teresa rightly called the poorest of the poor.”

“While other leading churchmen downplay or dismiss the priority to be given to the right to life of babies before birth, billions of whom have been killed in recent years, Cardinal Burke stands strong and says such an attitude is wrong,” Smeaton added. “We need churchmen like Cardinal Burke to become bishops and so it's puzzling and disappointing to see him lost to the Congregation for Bishops which has the responsibility for appointing good bishops and to see other men appointed who don't have Cardinal Burke's clear commitment to the greatest human rights issue of the day and the gravest crisis facing the Catholic Church today.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Vatican Chief Justice: Pro-Abortion Kerry, Pelosi Shouldn't Receive Communion" by Michael W. Chapman, CNSNews.com 12/16/13

In an interview with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo on Dec. 13, Cardinal Burke explained that it is necessary to protect the Sacrament, the Communion wafer offered at Masses, from “being profaned, being violated by someone receiving unworthily,” someone “who knows that he or she is unworthy and yet presumes to come forward and to take the Holy Eucharist.”

Cardinal Burke, whose official title is Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, or chief of the Vatican’s highest court, said, “I’ve thought about it because I’ve received very severe criticism, both at the time that I was insisting on applying the discipline and also in my writing and other situations. But I have to say that, I think about it again, the discipline itself, and it’s a consistent discipline from the time of St. Paul, from the very first years of the Church, and it makes perfect sense.”

The cardinal continued, “The Holy Eucharist is the most sacred reality. It is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And I simply wouldn’t approach to receive Holy Communion if I was in a state of sin, and neither would I give Holy Communion to someone who I knew was in a state of sin.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Liberal Media Say Pope Francis OKs Gay & Women Priests

4-year-old Says I'm a Boy AND a Girl, NYT Loves It

The New York Times reports that when Alex insisted that he wanted to wear a dress to pre-school, his parents consulted with “their pediatrician, a psychologist and parents of other gender-nonconforming children.” Of course, the only reason the story is 5500 words long is to glorify the unanimous decision that Alex should wear the dress, because “the important thing was to teach him not to be ashamed of who he feels he is.”

For background, read Toddler Says He's a Girl, 'Parents' Say OK and also read 2-year-old Says She's a Boy, 'Parents' Say OK as well as Many Kids Need Sexual Mutilation, Say 'Experts'

UPDATE 9/5/16: 'Sex Change' Surgery is Toddlers' Choice, Schools Say

For links to even more news on the transgender tragedy perpetrated on children, see this links list.

-- From "What’s So Bad About a Boy Who Wants to Wear a Dress?" by Ruth Padawer, New York Times 8/8/12

The night before Susan and Rob allowed their son to go to preschool in a dress, they sent an e-mail to parents of his classmates. Alex, they wrote, “has been gender-fluid for as long as we can remember, and at the moment he is equally passionate about and identified with soccer players and princesses, superheroes and ballerinas (not to mention lava and unicorns, dinosaurs and glitter rainbows).”

When Alex was 4, he pronounced himself “a boy and a girl,” but in the two years since, he has been fairly clear that he is simply a boy who sometimes likes to dress and play in conventionally feminine ways. Some days at home he wears dresses, paints his fingernails and plays with dolls; other days, he roughhouses, rams his toys together or pretends to be Spider-Man. Even his movements ricochet between parodies of gender: on days he puts on a dress, he is graceful, almost dancerlike, and his sentences rise in pitch at the end. On days he opts for only “boy” wear, he heads off with a little swagger. Of course, had Alex been a girl who sometimes dressed or played in boyish ways, no e-mail to parents would have been necessary; no one would raise an eyebrow at a girl who likes throwing a football or wearing a Spider-Man T-shirt.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "About That Boy Who Likes To Wear A Dress" by Lisa Belkin, Senior columnist for life/work/family, The Huffington Post 8/8/12

Parents, by definition, are always behind the times. We don't lead our children into the future so much as follow them there -- responding to youngsters like Alex, who ask "why?" and cause us to ask it too.

It is not a one-directional process, of course. We learn, we teach, we learn some more. We are led by children like Alex, who, Padawer reports [in the NY Times article] . . .

It is our job to grab the baton from them, run with it, then hand it back.

"Really, Mommy? There was a time when . . . people who loved each other couldn't get married? Girls had to wear dresses? Boys could not?"

"How did those things change, Mommy?"

To read the opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "NY Times Magazine Asks: 'What’s So Bad About a Boy Who Wants to Wear a Dress?'" by Paul Wilson, NewsBusters 8/12/12

. . . This [gender-fluid] worldview was hammered home again and again by Padawer, who wrote [in the NY Times article]: “But the parents of the boys in the middle space argue that gender is a spectrum rather than two opposing categories, neither of which any real man or woman precisely fits.”

. . . Padawer also gave a shout-out to doctors who claimed “gender nonconformity” was normal, writing: “Clinicians who oppose traditional treatments contend that significant gender nonconformity is akin to left-handness [sic]: unusual but not unnatural.”

The author, so hell-bent on tolerance, could perhaps have entertained the idea of quoting experts who might object to boys wearing girl’s clothing. But the one thing the proponents of radical redefinitions of gender cannot tolerate is a view contrary to their own.

To read the opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read More Than Two Genders, Kindergartners Taught

NY Times Runs Anti-Catholic Ad, Not Anti-Islam Ad

The New York Times printed an ad from a Madison, Wisconsin-based atheist organization urging liberal and nominal Catholics to quit the Church, but when the Times was tested by a media watchdog with an ad suggesting the same to Muslims, the Times refused to print it.

“Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages? Do you choose women and their rights, or Bishops and their wrongs? Whose side are you on, anyway?”
-- Asks the ad by the Freedom from Religion Foundation

For background, read The Pope, and Obama's War on Christianity and also read Bishops Say Obama Destroying Societal Norm as well as Obama Feeds Catholics 'A Bunch of Bull'

-- From "New York Times accused of Catholic bashing, double standard on religion" posted at FoxNews.com 3/15/12

. . . when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.

Geller said her anti-Shariah ad was designed to mimic the anti-Catholic one. In calling on Muslims to quit their religion, the ad asked “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims … [do] you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims… Join those of us who put humanity above the vengeful, hateful and violent teachings of Islam’s ‘prophet.’”

Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy referred requests for comment to the letter the paper sent Geller when it declined to publish the ad.

"It is our belief that fallout from running this [anti-Islam] ad now could put US troops and civilians in the region in danger and we would like to avoid that."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.




From "NY Times accused of anti-Catholic bigotry, cowardice" by Catholic Online 3/15/2012

The anti-Catholic ad was run without fear. . . . Although there was criticism over the nature of the ad, there were no threats of violence and no calls for crusades.

Meanwhile, Catholics have criticized the Times of promoting an anti-Catholic agenda. Bill Donahue, Catholic League president, said the Time's motivation to publish one article but not the other was the result of "either bigotry or fear and they've painted themselves into that corner."

Catholics do not have a history of attacking journalists, however militant Islamists do. At least two Muslims have been jailed for threatening media professionals and other journalists and authors have gone into hiding to avoid backlash for their criticizing Islam.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New York Times protects Islam from criticism" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 3/15/12

. . . Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com . . . created [the anti-Islam] ad in the same format, with the same message, only this one said, “It’s Time to Quit Islam.”

“The craven quislings at the New York Times rejected our ad,” Geller reported.

Then in an update, she said:

Bob Christie, senior vice president of corporate communications for the New York Times, just called me and advised me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”

Mr. Christie said, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.”

I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.”

He said, “No, it’s not.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Excerpts from the full text of the NY Times ad posted at National Post:

It’s time to quit the Roman Catholic Church.

It is time to make known your dissent from the Catholic Church, in light of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops’ ruthless campaign endangering the right to contraception. If you’re part of the Catholic Church, you’re part of the problem.

Why are you propping up the pillars of a tyrannical and autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting, antediluvian Old Boys Club? Why are you aiding and abetting a church that has repeatedly and publicly announced a crusade to ban contraception, abortion and sterilization, and to deny the right of all women everywhere, Catholic or not, to decide whether and when to become mothers? When it comes to reproductive freedom, the Roman Catholic Church is Public Enemy Number One. Think of the acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, unwanted pregnancies, social evils and deaths that can be laid directly at the door of the Church’s antiquated doctrine that birth control is a sin and must be outlawed.

You’re better than your church. So why? Why continue to attend Mass? Tithe? Why dutifully sacrifice to send your children to parochial schools so they can be brainwashed into the next generation of myrmidons (and, potentially, become the next Church victims)? For that matter, why have you put up with an institution that won’t put up with women priests, that excludes half of humanity?

To read the entire text of the anti-Catholic ad, CLICK HERE.

Most Americans Oppose Obama's War on Christianity

New surveys by The Wall Street Journal/NBC News and the New York Times/CBS News both indicate that the majority of Americans do not favor the ObamaCare mandates requiring employers to provide free contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization for female employees.

For background, read The Pope, and Obama's War on Christianity and also read Obama's War on Christianity: Sen. Rubio Fires Back as well as Bishops Say Obama Destroying Societal Norm

-- From "Birth-Control Rule Debate Intensifying" by Gerald F. Seib, Wall Street Journal 3/13/12

[The Journal/NBC News survey] showed women by 53% to 38% said religiously affiliated employers should be able to opt out of the birth-control rule that requires employers, including religious institutions, to offer contraceptive drugs free of charge. Men favored a religious opt-out by a slightly wider margin.

. . . when asked whether the government should mandate that Roman Catholic and other religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges offer birth control paid for by the institutions' insurance companies—as required by the [ObamaCare] rule—Americans were opposed by 45% to 38%. Women split evenly, with 40% in favor and 40% opposed.

When Journal/NBC pollsters asked more specifically whether the government should require religious institutions to provide such contraception coverage—including the morning-after pill, which would be covered under the rule—opposition rose further. Americans overall were opposed 49% to 34%, and women were opposed by 46% to 35%.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "NYT Poll: Majority of Americans Say Employers Should Be Able to Opt Out of Contraception Mandate" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com 3/13/12

A significant majority – 57 percent -- of Americans believe religiously-affiliated employers such as universities or hospitals should be able to opt out of the Obama administration’s mandate to cover the cost of contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization for female employees, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday.

Fifty-one percent believe all employers should be able to opt out.

The New York Times/CBS News poll's questions were not exactly accurate because they only mentioned "birth control" in describing the mandate. They did not mention that the mandate also requires coverage for sterilizations and drugs that induce abortions.

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have sought to take political advantage of the controversy over whether HHS should force people--particularly Catholics--to act against their faith in purchasing or providing insurance coverage for sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives including those that cause abortions. Democrats and the administration have tried to frame the issue as a question of conservatives and Catholic bishops waging a war on women.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Obama Wants Catholic Vote but Democrat Platform Anathema

UPDATE 3/6/12 - Catholics called to vote in November (video):

Out-of-Wedlock Births: Majority for Moms Under 30

Children of America experience the most significant "class division" of the nation: Those born to married parents, and the rest who are likely destined to poverty, crime, and dependence on a nanny-state government.

Traditional marriage, childbirth, and financial stability predominates among Christians and college graduates.

For background, read Liberalism Causes Poverty in America: Study and also read Marriage Trend: Confined within Church as well as Fewer Get Married, but Stay Married: Census



UPDATE 4/12/12: Federal CDC reports nearly 1 in 4 babies born to unwed cohabitors

-- From "Young Mothers Describe Marriage’s Fading Allure" by Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times 2/18/12

Sixty-three percent of all births to women under 30 in Lorain County [Ohio] occur outside marriage, according to Child Trends [see below], a research center in Washington. That figure has risen by more than two-thirds over the past two decades, and now surpasses the national figure of 53 percent.

The change has transformed life in Lorain, a ragged industrial town on Lake Erie. Churches perform fewer weddings. Applications for marriage licenses are down by a third. Just a tenth of the students at the local community college are married, but its campus has a bustling day care center.

Older residents blamed the decline in marriage on government aid. Mary Grasso, a retired sweet shop owner, said men had stopped taking responsibility for their children because the state had stepped in with safety net programs. Ms. Grasso, 70, experienced the decline in weddings directly: Wedding cake orders fell by half during the 30-plus years she was in business.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Childbearing Outside of Marriage: Estimates and Trends in the United States" by Elizabeth Wildsmith, Ph.D., Nicole R. Steward-Streng, M.A., and Jennifer Manlove, Ph.D. -- posted at Child Trends November 2011

Having children outside of marriage—nonmarital childbearing—has been on the rise across several decades in the United States. In 2009, 41 percent of all births (about 1.7 million) occurred outside of marriage, compared with 28 percent of all births in 1990 and just 11 percent of all births in 1970.12,20 Preliminary data suggest that this percentage has remained stable in 2010. There are several reasons to be concerned about the high level of nonmarital childbearing. Couples who have children outside of marriage are younger, less healthy, and less educated than are married couples who have children. Children born outside of marriage tend to grow up with limited financial resources; to have less stability in their lives because their parents are more likely to split up and form new unions; and to have cognitive and behavioral problems, such as aggression and depression. Indeed, concerns about the consequences of nonmarital childbearing helped motivate the major reform of welfare that occurred in 1996, and continue to motivate the development of federally funded pregnancy prevention programs among teenagers and marriage promotion programs among adults.

This Research Brief draws from multiple published reports using data through 2009, as well as from Child Trends’ original analyses of data from a nationally representative survey of children born in 2001, to provide up-to-date information about nonmarital childbearing; to describe the women who have children outside of marriage; and to examine how these patterns have changed over time. As nonmarital childbearing has become more commonplace, the makeup of women having children outside of marriage has changed, often in ways that challenge public perceptions. For example, an increasing percentage of women who have a birth outside of marriage live with the father of the baby in a cohabiting union and are over the age of twenty. Moreover, the percentage of women having a birth outside of marriage has increased faster among white and Hispanic women than among black women.

To read the entire research brief above, CLICK HERE.

From "Do we no longer need marriage?" by W. Bradford Wilcox, Special to CNN 2/21/12

For Americans with a college degree, divorce is down, marital quality is stable, and family stability is up since the divorce revolution of the 1970s and early 1980s, according to research I have conducted.

However, marriage is in trouble not only in poor communities but also increasingly in Middle America -- communities where most people have a high school degree but not a four-year college degree. For Americans without a college degree, divorce remains high, marital quality is falling, and nonmarital childbearing is surging.

In general, children born and raised in a married household are more likely to graduate from college, find employment and enjoy stable marriages as adults.

Likewise, married adults are happier and less depressed than their unmarried peers. And because they work harder, act more strategically and carefully after they tie the knot, men enjoy a wage premium that may exceed 10% compared with their single peers. Married men are also much less likely to abuse alcohol, drugs or run into trouble with the law, compared with their unmarried peers.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Cost of Marriage?" by Kara Miller, Boston Globe 2/21/12

I have been fascinated by the coverage of Charles Murray’s new book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 . . .

Murray attributes the problem to several factors: a reduction in available jobs for those with high school educations, a decline in religiosity, and a disappearing stigma against out-of-wedlock births and divorce, among others.

Among white women under 30, only 8% of those with a college degree have children out of wedlock. For those who have never attended college, more than half of children - 51% - are now born to unmarried mothers.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "New brief shows nonmarital childbearing is increasingly common in United States" by Child Trends' blog 12/16/11

Nonmarital childbearing has increased substantially over the past several decades for all groups of women. Between 1970 and 2009, the percentage of all births that took place outside of marriage increased from 11 to 41 percent. Increases in nonmarital births have been more dramatic among white and Hispanic women than among black women.

Women in their twenties have the highest levels of nonmarital childbearing. In 2009, 62 percent of all nonmarital births occurred to women aged 20-29; only 21 percent occurred to teens.

A majority of all births that occurred outside of marriage were unintended--either mistimed or not wanted (50 percent of all births to cohabiting couples and 65 percent of all births to couples not married or cohabiting).

The rise in the number of children being born outside of marriage-among all groups-is linked to broader changes in family structure, most notably increases in cohabitation.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read studies showing that as Cohabitation Soars, Children Suffer and that Unwed Mothers are in Poorer Health

Indoctrinating Kids Against Non-liberal Media: PBS

Trying to counter the imminent demise of the liberal mainstream media, the so-called News Literacy Project (NLP) has infiltrated 21 inner-city and nearby schools in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Chicago with the goal of teaching children to discount Internet-based news information from non-liberal sources.

“I used to read the Daily News or the Post. Now I read The New York Times.”
-- Raquel Monje, high school senior indoctrinated by the NLP at Manhattan’s Facing History School

-- From "In the Media - Press Room" posted at the NLP website

The news-literacy movement has the potential to begin to rewrite the unflattering narratives about the press that have become so pervasive that we’ve nearly stopped questioning them—to remove the derogatory undertone from the phrase “mainstream media.” It has the potential to push back against the hijacking of the journalistic reputation—not only by a sustained and strategic smear campaign on the part of the political right (“the liberal media”), but also on the part of the political left (“the corporate media”).

To read more at the NLP website, CLICK HERE.

From "News Literacy Project Trains Young People to Be Skeptical Media Consumers" transcript posted at The PBS Newshour 12/13/11

JEFFREY BROWN, PBS Newshour: How can young people learn to be better consumers of news and information?

COLIN O'BRIEN, News Literacy Project: You want news sources that are transparent. You want to be able to see who is doing the reporting, see what their agenda is, see who funds them, see if they are, in fact, a credible source or not.

ALAN MILLER, News Literacy Project: There is so much potential here for misinformation, for propaganda, for spin, all of the myriad sources that are out there. More and more of, the onus is shifting to the consumer.

JEFFREY BROWN: And a slew of recent studies supports the notion that young people seek out traditional news sources less and less and that they have a difficult time knowing how to judge the legitimacy of the information that does come at them.

In response, the News Literacy Project, funded by a combination of foundations, corporations and individuals, develops lesson plans for teachers . . .

JEFFREY BROWN: The program also brings journalists into the classroom to run workshops.

JEFFREY BROWN: . . . the idea of making this into a national program got a recent boost from Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission.

MICHAEL COPPS, FCC: And we need to focus on bringing all these together in the public sector and in the private sector to develop an online news literacy curriculum that can be made available across the nation. This can be a powerful antidote to the dumbing down of our civic dialogue that has taken place.

JEFFREY BROWN: To further the effort, the News Literacy Project and the American Library Association are launching workshops around the country to make high school students better media watchdogs, with a specific focus on the 2012 political campaign.

To read the entire program transcript above, CLICK HERE.

Believing in Christ = Believing in UFOs: NY Times

Predictably, the New York Times Magazine printed an inquisitory piece by Bill Keller arguing that presidential candidates ought to be grilled, and severely, about their religious theology if they are conservative Christians.

For background, read Media Prepare Anti-Christian Campaign for 2012 and also read ABC News Scrutinizes Faith of GOP Candidates as well as God's Conspiracy Theory via GOP per NBC's Rachel Maddow

-- From "Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith" by Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times 8/25/11

If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan?

This year’s Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life — and to get over them. We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans. . . .

I honestly don’t care . . . [after all,] I grew up believing that a priest could turn a bread wafer into the actual flesh of Christ.

But I do want to know if a candidate places fealty to the Bible . . . or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country. . . .

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Tougher Questions for the Candidates" by Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times 8/25/11

. . . Here’s the general questionnaire I sent to the candidates [excerpts below]:

. . . (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice?

. . . What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

For Congresswoman Michele Bachmann:

. . . You have said that watching the film series “How Should We Then Live?” by the evangelist Francis Schaeffer was a life-altering event for you. That series stresses the “inerrancy” ­— the literal truth — of the Bible. Do you believe the Bible consists of literal truths, or that it is to be taken more metaphorically?

. . . One of your mentors at Oral Roberts University, John Eidsmoe, teaches that when biblical law conflicts with American law, a Christian must work to change the law. Do you agree? Are there examples where the Bible guides you to challenge existing secular law?

For Governor Rick Perry:

. . . You have been close to David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, who has endorsed your campaign. He preaches that America is a Christian nation, that we should have a government “firmly rooted in biblical principles” and that the Bible offers explicit guidance on public policy — for example, tax policy. Do you disagree with him on any of these points?

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "My Rick Perry problem — and ours" by Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of National Review Online 8/26/11

Rick Perry's overt Christianity horrifies many of his liberal critics. . . .

Let's cut through the clutter: A lot of people on the East and West coasts are bigots and snobs about "flyover types." They equate funny accents with stupidity, and they automatically assume someone who went to Texas A&M must be dumber than someone who went to Yale. Overt displays of religion trigger their fight-or-flight instincts, causing them to lash out irrationally.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bill Keller has tough questions for (only) GOP candidates" by Mike Hashimoto, Editor, Dallas Morning News 8/25/11

[Bill Keller's] latest column for the magazine is interesting, provocative and quite possibly the result of a writer ignoring his own blinders. . . .

. . . As to your specific questions to the candidates, sure, they should be asked. However, I sense a loathing of the right and Christianity. Is that the impression you intend to leave?

[Perry has] been the governor of Texas for going on a hundred years. Surely there's something in his historical actions that would prove (or, unfortunately, disprove) your premise.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Faith Questions for President Obama" by Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online 8/26/11

. . . to the extent that reporters put any of Keller’s questions — or similar such questions — to the Republican candidates, they ought also to put the questions listed below to President Obama . . . To maintain a rough parallel with Keller, I will illustrate by showing the sort of unanswered questions that could still be addressed by reporters to Obama regarding his own political development [excerpts below:]

. . . You note in Dreams from My Father that you attended socialist conferences in New York when you lived there in the mid-1980's. Archival evidence indicates that you attended the New York Socialist Scholars Conferences of 1983, 1984, and possibly 1985. Please confirm which socialist conferences you attended, and indicate whether you were present at, or were aware of, the talks by James Cone, the founder of Black Liberation Theology, and other Black Liberation Theologians at those conferences.

. . . Two of your key organizing mentors, Greg Galluzzo and Mary Gonzales, founded a group called UNO of Chicago, which you worked with closely during your early organizing years. Your other key organizing mentor, Gerald Kellman, worked with UNO just before hiring you. He specialized in linking community organizations to churches. UNO of Chicago engaged in deeply controversial Alinskyite confrontation tactics, including aggressive moves to seize control of churches against the wishes of their priests. What, precisely, was your relationship with UNO of Chicago? Were you aware of UNO’s controversial techniques for taking control of churches, as your memoir seems to indicate you were? What do you think of these tactics? How has your view on that issue affected your years of subsequent support for the work of Galluzzo, Gonzales, and Kellman?

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Homosexualists to Buy White House, Say Media

Click headlines below to read related articles:

Presidential Candidates Address Christian America

Presidential Candidates: Abortion & Marriage Top Issues

Presidential Candidates Sign Marriage Pledge

Culture War Pledge Asked of Pres. Candidates

Michele Bachmann Exposed as Christian by Liberals

Can an Evangelical Woman be President? (Bachmann)

Bachmann Believes Jesus Saves Us from Sin

Question Evolution, Says Pres. Candidate Bachmann

Texas-sized Prayers to God - Gov. Perry

Rick Perry: Teach Creationism & Evolution

IVF: 'Creating' Life & Aborting Life

A recent New York Times article presents the case for why it's justified to perform "selective reduction" when In-Vitro Fertilization results in "multiple success" or even with natural multiples -- that is, killing one or more babies in the womb to make life easier for the living.

For background, read Twins Reduced to Singleton by 'Choice'

UPDATE 8/22/11: "This isn’t meddling — it’s murder," opinion by Albert Mohler

-- From "The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy" by Ruth Padawer, New York Times 8/10/11

For all its successes, reproductive medicine has produced a paradox: in creating life where none seemed possible, doctors often generate more fetuses than they intend. In the mid-1980s, they devised an escape hatch to deal with these megapregnancies, terminating all but two or three fetuses to lower the risks to women and the babies they took home. But what began as an intervention for extreme medical circumstances has quietly become an option for women carrying twins. With that, pregnancy reduction shifted from a medical decision to an ethical dilemma. As science allows us to intervene more than ever at the beginning and the end of life, it outruns our ability to reach a new moral equilibrium. We still have to work out just how far we’re willing to go to construct the lives we want.

. . . secrecy is common among women undergoing reduction to a singleton. Doctors who perform the procedure, aware of the stigma, tell patients to be cautious about revealing their decision.

What is it about terminating half a twin pregnancy that seems more controversial than reducing triplets to twins or aborting a single fetus? After all, the math’s the same either way: one fewer fetus. . . .

Even some people who support abortion rights admit to feeling queasy about reduction to a singleton. . . .

It’s not only the parents who may feel guilty. Even if parents work hard to conceal it, the child may discover the full story of his or her origins, and we don’t know what feelings of guilt or vulnerability or loss this discovery might summon.

To read all of this very extensive article above, CLICK HERE.

From "When Two (or More) Become One: Selective Reduction for Multiple Births" by Courtney Hutchison, ABC News Medical Unit 8/15/11

Increased use of in vitro fertilization techniques has made [multiples] increasingly common. Given the high cost and failure rate of fertility treatments, some couples try to increase their chances of getting pregnant by using multiple embryos and end up facing an unexpected challenge of twins, triplets, or higher multiples -- a challenge some feel they cannot handle, emotionally or financially.

In cases of high multiple pregnancies, doctors will often recommend selective reduction for purely medical reasons. Early in the pregnancy, one or more of the fetuses are aborted from within the womb to increase the likelihood that the remaining babies (and the mother) will survive and thrive. There are numerous health concerns to both mother and infants associated with carrying multiples. Thus for decades obstetricians have offered the option of reducing down to twins, which tend to have safer outcomes. This procedure can only be done with fraternal twins, as identical twins share a placenta and cannot easily be separated.

In the past years, however, some obstetricians and their patients have turned to selective reductions even in the case of twins -- not necessarily for medical reasons, but because the couple does not feel emotionally and/or financially prepared to have two babies when they had planned to have just one.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New York Times Touts 'Selective Reduction' as a 'Half Abortion'" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 8/10/11

“This tragic outcome would have been foreseeable when ‘choice’ became the ultimate god,” [Wendy Wright, the former president of Concerned Women for America] told LifeNews in response. “Yet I doubt that anyone conceived of something so horrible, that people would deliberately conceive children then deliberately abort them simply because they are children. Morality does not change with technology; the intensity of one’s moral decisions increase when beginning with the belief that ‘you can be like God.’”

Wright says the Times article “pulls back the curtain to reveal that women and doctors are choosing who to kill like a sniper decides who to shoot, based on short-term thinking, personal benefits and which victim is accessible. It begs us to question: when will hurting someone’s feelings by saying this is wrong become less important than valuing human life? Perhaps not until it is our own life at stake.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read IVF Babies Aborted: 'Oops, Changed My Mind'