Share the good news of marriage with your friends by forwarding this newsletter to them!

Action Item: Go over to the Ruth Blog and participate in the discussion! Chime in and Stand up for Marriage! Or, if you’re shy, just repost your favorite post on facebook.

Talking Point: Federal birth control policy has contributed to poverty. The War on Poverty needs an Exit Strategy. Defund federal birth control.

Pro-Marriage, not Anti-Gay If you're pro-marriage...you're automatically anti-gay?  Because we all know that the only reason anyone supports anything is to tick off the other side.  Seriously?  But this is the way the same-sex marriage debate is often framed: instead of addressing legitimate issues and questions that are being asked, there is labeling, name-calling, and character assassination.  Let's talk.  (Click the POD icon.)

If you'd like to comment on this podcast, you can join the already running discussion at the ruth blog.

Subscribe to the complete Ruth Institute podcasts with iTunes!

Lutheran Public Radio: Dr. J is usually on live on Tuesdays from 2-2:15 p.m. Pacific Time (Click the link to listen live or find a station near you.)

January 15--Phyllis Schlafly radio show, a syndicated program. Click here to find a station near you.

February 1--Wheaton College, near Chicago

February 2--Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio

February 3--Duquesne Law School, Pittsburgh

February 25-26--"Life and Love in the Divine Plan," conference at Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee

Do you need advice on how to improve your marriage or relationship, or on how to find the right person for you? Expert Dr. J is here for you. Click here to ask your question, which may be featured anonymously in this newsletter for the benefit of all.

Read past questions and answers here.

Need help with your marriage? You can also check out Dr. J's "101 Tips for a Happier Marriage!"

• To prevent mailbox filters from deleting mailings from The Ruth Institute, add jmorse@ruthinstitute.org to your address book

Robert Patterson’s article below talks about the unintended consequences of the Federal government’s funding of contraception since 1970. On Christmas Eve 1970, Richard Nixon signed into law the Public Health Services Act, which had the first federal program openly focused on reducing fertility. The objective was to reduce poverty through reducing pregnancy.

This weeks’ quiz looks at the changes in child-bearing behavior among teens since 1970. A pregnant teen has several options: abort her baby, place the baby for adoption, have the baby by herself, or get married and keep the baby. In 1970, abortion was not widely available. Of babies born to teenagers in 1970, roughly 70% were to married mothers and 30% to unmarried mothers.

In 2008, after nearly four decades of federal contraceptive policy, what percentage of babies born to teen mothers were born out of wedlock?

A. 30%: federal subsidy and promotion of contraception didn’t really change much.

B. 48%: today, roughly half of babies born to teen mothers are to single mothers.

C. 74%: today, nearly three quarters of babies born to teen mothers are to single mothers.

D. 87%: marriage is practically unheard of among teen mothers.

Click here to take the quiz; then, forward it to your friends!

by Robert W. Patterson, Guest Contributor. Robert Patterson is the editor of Family in America, a publication frequently graced by the writings of Dr. J and other Ruth Board members. This article is especially timely, given that it talks about Nixon’s holiday surprise, and given that we are still arguing over proper government policy toward contraception.

When he signed the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 on Christmas Eve 40 years ago, President Nixon missed the irony of starting a campaign to reduce "unwanted and untimely childbearing" just as the country was about to celebrate the "unplanned" birth of a baby born in poverty 2,000 years before.

More important, the man sometimes known as Tricky Dick would find that his attempt to outsmart his predecessor, President Johnson, would prove too clever by a half.

Just as LBJ's Great Society never delivered as promised, Nixon's social engineering effort -- dispensing heavy doses of contraception to the low-income population on the theory that fertility is a cause of poverty -- also backfired.

Better known as Title X of the Public Health Services Act, the GOP-driven legislation fostered more disordering than "planning" of families, rendering the underclass less capable of self-reliance while leaving America sitting on a demographic time bomb.

Spooked by exaggerated fears of "overpopulation" in the 1960s, the Republicans started down this road when then-Rep. George H.W. Bush, a father of six, made contraception available to welfare recipients through his markups of the Social Security amendments of 1967.

Even though birthrates among all income groups, ages and races had been declining since 1957, that wasn't enough. Title X went much further, establishing the Office of Population Affairs devoted exclusively to pushing birth control -- overseeing more than 4,500 command centers nationwide dispensing free contraceptives to girls and women ages 15 to 44.

Yet the crusade went beyond one discretionary program dependent on annual congressional appropriations to encompass a total effort -- the social equivalent of war -- that tapped the deep pockets and reach of many other federal programs, including entitlements.

Congress, for example, not only made contraceptive devices and services a mandatory part of state Medicaid programs in 1972 but also promised to reimburse states an unprecedented 90 percent of the costs of dispensing and actively promoting birth control, even to minors without parental notification.

Like all Great Society schemes, this total effort would lead to total failure. In 1970, just 10.7 percent of all U.S. births were to unmarried women, where births are much more likely to be "unwanted and untimely" because of their catastrophic effects for the mother, the child and society. Yet by 2008, 40.6 percent of all babies were born to unwed mothers, a three-fold increase from 1970.

As the chart illustrates (view chart on the blog), the pattern is more pronounced among those segments of the population the War on Fertility has targeted. Moreover, the number of single-parent households more than tripled, from 3.3 million in 1970 to 10.5 million in 2008.

With these ruinous social effects, federal birth control has contributed mightily to the perpetuation of poverty.

The unintended consequences of Nixon's War on Fertility -- which also include a massive rise in sexually transmitted diseases and infections, especially among women -- expose the folly of social interventions that Congress continues to wage under the false rubric of showing compassion for the poor. But equally destructive is the intended consequence: the nation's fertility rates have struggled to rise to replacement levels since the mid-1970s.

The birth dearth is a key reason the United States can scarcely hope to cover future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.

It turns out that in this Christmas season, just as 40 or 2,000 years ago, good social and fiscal policy is not tricky at all. It's all about upholding the married-parent, child-rich family as the social ideal.

This article was first published in The Examiner on December 23, 2010.

Read more from the Ruth Institute

Comment on this article

Support Ruth

If this email was forwarded to you from a friend and you would like to subscribe to our newsletter, click here to subscribe.