Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.


Media for Pope’s Pro-gay Comments a Distraction for McCarrick S*x Abuse Cover-up says Ruth Inst.

“Pope Francis does not have the authority to change Church teaching. He knows this. The media’s barely-concealed glee that the Catholic Church is ‘progressing’ is a distraction. We should put the emphasis where it belongs: on the continued cover-up of then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s homosexual predation,” said Ruth Inst. President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. “Why is the Vatican suppressing a report on his crimes?”

In an interview with a Mexican reporter in 2017, Pope Francis seemed to endorse same-sex unions. However, as Ruth Inst. Senior Research Associate Fr. Paul Sullins explains: “a personal, spontaneous statement by the pope in an interview has no doctrinal authority.

“The most recent authoritative statement on the matter declares, ‘The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions,’” Sullins noted.


“We need to get the conversation back where it belongs,” Morse said, “which is the Vatican covering up massive crimes of homosexual predation. Trying to convince people that they are more ‘gay friendly’ than the supposedly outdated Church is changing the subject. According to the Catholic News Agency, the Vatican opened its investigation of McCarrick two years ago. Rumors have circulated for months that the report is completed – a report that names who knew about McCarrick’s crimes, when they knew, and why they covered up for him.”

An August 11 editorial in the National Catholic Reporter explains, “Theodore McCarrick was promoted through the ranks of the Catholic hierarchy for decades, despite multiple, then-secret reports of his sexual misconduct with seminarians.” He was made archbishop of Washington, D.C. in 2000 and a cardinal in 2001, while he was abusing young men in the Church.

“We insist that the McCarrick report be released immediately,” Morse said. “It’s been more than a year since Pope Francis ordered it. We understand that the report has been completed. It should have been released. That it hasn’t is a scandal. What are they hiding?”

Fr. Sullins, retired professor of sociology at the Catholic University of America and now Senior Research Associate of the Ruth Institute, has authored two definitive reports on the correlation between homosexuality among Catholic priests and clerical sexual abuse, including “Report on Clergy Sex Abuse.”


Dr. J Show Explores Abortion Breast Cancer Link

“Because October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we chose to focus on the abortion breast cancer link -- ABC,” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

“On the latest Dr. J Show, I interviewed Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, MD, who has spent decades documenting the ABC link.”

Before her retirement, Dr. Lanfranchi spent more than 33 years as a breast cancer surgeon practicing in New Jersey. She is also the co-founder and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.

Morse noted: “Only 15% of women who smoke get cancer, while 5-10% of women who’ve had an abortion get breast cancer. In both cases, the risk is very real.”


Lanfranchi reported: “In a period when 48 million abortions were done on American women, the incidence of breast cancer rose 40%.” Moreover, “Romania enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates when abortion was illegal but has developed one of the world’s highest rates since abortion was legalized.”

She added, “By 1995, after abortion was widely legalized in the West, 17 studies worldwide (8 on American women) showed a statistically significant abortion breast cancer link.”

Morse charged: “Some in the medical community and media have either ignored or tried to discredit this research. But our first concern should be women’s health, not trying to bolster a political position, for or against abortion.”



Barrett Didn’t Have to Apologize. Homosexuality is not Innate, Says Ruth Institute

October 16, 2020

For Immediate Release

“Judge Barrett did not have to apologize at all for using the expression ‘sexual preference,’” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., “Homosexuality is not innate.”

Morse was commenting on an exchange in the course of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) objected to Barrett’s use of the expression (in regard to Obergefell v. Hodges) which she said was “offensive to the LGBT community,” whereupon Barrett apologized.

Morse remarked: “The LGBT community, so-called, can take offense at anything they want. We certainly can’t stop them. However, science has now proven beyond doubt that there is no ‘gay gene.’ Whatever combination of nature and nurture, choice and chance, may be at work for any particular person’s situation, hard genetic determinism is certainly not correct.”


She added: “Self-identifying as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ or ‘transgender’ is certainly a choice. Living a sexually active life with partners of the same sex is a choice, in fact, a whole series of choices.

“Unfortunately, we now have science by interest-group intimidation,” Morse charged.

In a commentary on a study in the August 30, 2019 issue of the publication Science, Fr. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., the Ruth Institute’s Senior Research Associate, remarked that the study “explodes the false narrative that being gay is an innate condition that is controlled or largely compelled by one’s genetic makeup.”

Sullins explains: “Rebutting decades of search by LGBT scientists for a ‘gay gene,’ the study’s first author flatly concludes ‘it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation from genetics.’” http://www.ruthinstitute.org/ruth-speaks-out/born-this-way-no-gay-gene

Morse added: “But this false narrative of gay at birth, or homosexuality as an innate condition, was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision mandating same-sex marriage in Obergefell. That’s why the LGBT movement and its apologists become hysterical at the suggestion that homosexual behavior is a choice, implied in the expression ‘sexual preference.’ For the Sexual State, there’s so much at stake here.

“Ironically, the same politicians who say ‘listen to the scientists’ when it comes to COVID, are saying ‘Don’t listen to the scientists; listen to us,’ when it comes to homosexuality,” Morse remarked.

On June 5, 2020, Morse interviewed Dr. Walter Schumm of Kansas State University on efforts to silence research on gay issues.

 


Born this way? No, there is no “gay gene”

 

Born this way? No, there is no “gay gene”

 

 

Rev. Donald Paul Sullins, Ph.D

 

This article was originally published at https://mercatornet.com/the-gay-gene-myth-has-been-exploded/24683/

 

The findings of a study of the genetic basis of homosexuality published last year in the journal Scienceexplode the false narrative that being gay is an innate condition that is controlled or largely compelled by one's genetic makeup.

Rebutting decades of search by LGBT scientists for a “gay gene”, the study's first author flatly concludes “it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation just from genetics”.

This is putting it gently.

 


 

The study found that a person's developmental environment–the influence of diet, family, friends, neighborhood, religion, and a host of other life conditions–was twice as influential as genetics on the probability of adopting same-sex behavior or orientation. The genetic influence did not come from one or two strong sources but from dozens of genetic variants that each added a small increased propensity for same-sex behavior.

A genetic arrangement based on a large number of markers across the genome means that virtually all human beings have this arrangement, or large portions of it. In other words, not only did the study fail to find some controlling gene for gay identity, it also established that gay persons are not genetically distinct from all other human beings in any meaningful sense.

Gay persons, we might say, have a perfectly normal human genome.

Proponents of LGBT normalization, which includes the publishing journal and mainstream media reporters, have tried to put the best face on this result. As if the issue were tolerance of gay people's lifestyle choices, the New York Times quotes one of the authors saying, “I hope that the science can be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same-sex behavior is”. LGBT activists declared that the study “provides even more evidence that being gay or lesbian is a natural part of human life”.

Indeed, the study found that genetic propensity for same-sex behavior is not very different from that of 28 other complex traits or behaviors and is related to a propensity for other risk-taking behavior such as smoking, drug use, number of sex partners or a general openness to new experience.

But the longstanding and emphatic claim of gay activists in law and public policy has not been that same-sex activity reflects upbringing or lifestyle factors, but is an inborn difference that is discovered, not developed; a distinct and fixed element of a person's nature that is unchangeable.

Emotionally and sexually, same-sex orientation is not a matter of who persons choose to become, they have claimed, but who they already are. To use the colloquial phrase, they were born this way.

A linchpin of the evidential basis for the Supreme Court decision sanctioning same-sex marriage, for example, was that same-sex orientation reflected an “immutable nature [which] dictate[d] that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.” (Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, p. 4).

And the point of conflict for tolerance today is not so much for people who want to identify themselves as gay or lesbian, but for people who want, for themselves personally, to avoid or resist such an identification.

On the grounds that they would be denying their immutable nature, numerous legislative and judicial efforts are currently underway to outlaw voluntary therapy for or deny the legitimacy of adults who experience some level of same-sex attraction but do not want to engage in same-sex relations or identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

In the very jurisdictions where persons with same-sex orientation are now free to identify as gay and to engage in same-sex marriage, LGBT ideologues are working to deny the same persons the freedom to decline to identify as gay and to engage in opposite-sex marriage, on the premise that they would thereby be doing violence to who they really are.

This study pulls the rug out from under such thinking.

If gay and lesbian persons are genetically normal, what basis is there for considering them a distinct, protected class subject to preferential treatment under the law or for prohibiting other genetically normal persons from refusing to engage in same-sex behavior?

The study finds that most persons with the identical genotype as gay or lesbian persons (by an approximate ratio of 2 to 1) end up, for various reasons of social environment or development or personal principle, not engaging in same-sex relations. Shouldn't such persons have equal freedom and legitimacy to do so?

In a free society that values personal autonomy, it is not an appropriate function of law to penalize personal lifestyle choices, no matter how vehemently some may disagree with them or politically incorrect they may be. If it ever did make sense on the premise that gay persons were born that way, in the absence of such a compelling genetic difference, it is impossible to reasonably maintain that tolerance of homosexual behavior requires intolerance of heterosexual behavior.

In light of these implications, some of the scientists involved in the study, who are themselves gay, have publicly opposed its publication. Strikingly unaware of their own bias, they expressed concern that the study findings would be “misconstrued” to “advance agendas of hate”.

In less heated language, they are concerned that it might be interpreted in ways with which they disagree. For them, the benefits of increased understanding of human behavior in this area did not outweigh the perceived negative political implications of the findings for the expression of gay identity.

The lead authors of the study, some of whom are also gay, are to be commended for resisting the impulse to suppress scientific evidence for the sake of political expediency. Although sadly often violated today, the conviction that the dissemination of evidence and ideas should not be censored by political considerations is fundamental to modern science.

Or as a wise man once said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”.


 

 



In Vitro Fertilization: The Costs and American Consumerism

Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett is a danger to families who desperately want children. So says Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., based on an advertisement which Barrett signed back in 2006, which included the statement that “we defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” This, Duckworth suggests, disqualifies Barrett from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Duckworth, who has two daughters through IVF, told Fox News: “If a fertilized egg is a person, then that really has significant negative consequences for a family like mine that desperately wanted to have children.”


I don’t know Judge Barrett from Adam. But I do know something about infertility and the IVF industry. The IVF industry appeals to the worst instincts of American consumerism. The Catholic critique of artificial reproductive technologies is morally defensible.

It is common for people struggling with fertility to ask about in vitro fertilization costs – to try and understand how to incorporate those into their family budgets. One cost aspect not often considered is the cost in human lives, and the impacts this will have on the couple and their children.

Get what you want, the way you want it, when you want it. Sounds like a fine idea. Pick the one you want. Pay for it. Ignore all the others. Or just throw away anything you are tired of or don’t want, or that doesn’t satisfy you. Or you could turn it in for a refund. Or maybe you could buy a few extras to keep on hand just in case you want more. You can always throw them away later. Or maybe donate them to a charity.

“Have it your way,” is a fine advertising slogan for hamburgers. Take advantage of quantity discounts and stock up just in case, is a fine strategy for buying paper towels. The costs associated with such transactions are minimal, especially since they only involve objects. But the “object” in question when considering artificial reproductive technologies is not an object at all, but a person.

IVF, IVF baby, in vitro fertilization

You may ask, “What is IVF?” to put it simply – My spouse and I have our eggs and sperm removed from our bodies and we pay a stranger to mix them. Or, I buy the sperm or egg of a stranger. I pay someone to mix their gametes with mine. I look at the embryos. With the help of an expert with exquisite taste, I choose the ones I want. I throw away the rest. Or, maybe, I put them in cold storage, just in case I decide I want them later.

This is the “assisted reproductive technology” industry, including IVF, surrogacy and related technologies. Consumers of this product are sometimes called “commissioning parents.” The fact that people want the product is supposed to be a sufficient moral justification to allow them to have what they want, regardless of the costs involved.

Two points for the record: First, we must never regret the existence of a particular child, no matter how that child was conceived. Disapproval of the circumstances of a person’s conception does not translate into a belief that the person so conceived is unworthy or defective. Presumably, everyone opposes rape as an immoral act. But a child conceived in rape is still a full member of the human race, fully deserving of respect, love and legal protection. Likewise, the IVF baby (a child conceived through artificial means) is fully human, fully deserving of respect, love and legal protection.

Second, do not try to dismiss my arguments with the assertion that I don’t know the pain of infertility. As a matter of fact, I do. My husband and I dealt with infertility for four painful years. We can attest that it is a miserable experience. What we deny is that the depth of our misery or the intensity of our desire for a child is relevant to the question at hand.

infertility, childless couple 

Duckworth herself raised one of the crucial questions. Without seeming to realize the significance of her statement, she told Fox News:

“In my case, with both of my girls, they looked at two or three fertilized eggs, not even embryos at this point, and said, you know, this one isn’t very viable,” Duckworth explained. “The third discarded could result in my doctor being criminalized.”

This is when Duckworth stated: “If a fertilized egg is a person, then that really has significant negative consequences for a family like mine that desperately wanted to have children.”

What exactly is the third “discarded” thing? Duckworth says these zygotes are “not even embryos” at this point. Does she deny that the zygote is alive? How can a non-living thing be “viable” or “not very viable?” The terms “zygote,” “embryo,” and “fetus” describe stages of biological human development, not the development into a human person.

This is the first of the contradictions of this position. If the zygote is chosen, it is Duckworth’s precious child. If it is discarded, does that mean it never was anything or anyone of value? Imagine the psychological cost on a person who treats the smallest, most vulnerable humans with such callous disregard.

Here is a related ethical dilemma. Suppose they don’t want to discard the embryo, but they don’t want to gestate her right away, either. So they freeze her. Later, they unfreeze her, gestate her, and then she becomes their precious child. What was this person during the time that she was frozen? An object? A nonperson?

Now you may think that I am causing problems here, because I referred to the frozen embryo as a person. “You blurred the distinction between the zygote and the embryo and the ultimate person. If we would just all get on board with the proper terminology and proper thought process, that all these problems would go away.”

But honestly, it doesn’t have to be me who raises this question. What if one of the living children herself brings up these topics? “Hey Mom and Dad, what about all my frozen siblings? Did you guys really kill a couple of my siblings on the very day that you “chose” me to live? I could have been the one that got frozen or killed.” And so on.

Will you have answers for these questions? Will your answers be good enough for her? For that matter, will your answers be good enough for you and for your child’s other parent as the years go by? Was the cost of the IVF worth it?

I have known people who have been in agony for years over their frozen children. I know an adult man whose mother revealed that she had an abortion when he was a teenager. The “survivors guilt” and disorientation he experienced were surreal. These questions will not all go away, just because no one is asking them right now.

Questions of this kind flow directly from the initial proposition that children are best viewed as the objects of their parents’ will. If the parents want the child, the child has legally recognized rights. If the parents do not want the child, they can do anything they want, at least before birth, and possibly beyond.

happy family, wanted children, loved children

The most coherent alternative moral position is each child is an unrepeatable gift from a loving God. God created this particular child to reflect his goodness in some unique way. Our participation in the procreative process is to love our child’s other parent and allow God to bless that love as he deems best for all of us. As parents, we accept the children God gives us and care for each of them to the best of our ability. If God does not give us children, we accept this fact with grace and move on with our lives.

As I say, I do not know Judge Amy Coney Barrett or what she believes. But I do know this: the IVF industry is indefensible. The Catholic alternative is both intellectually coherent and morally defensible. And I am not ashamed to say so.

 

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.


 

 

 

This article originally posted at https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/amy-coney-barrett-s-fitness-for-the-supreme-court-in-vitro-fertilization-and-american-consumerism


 


 



Amy Coney Barrett’s Fitness for the Supreme Court: In Vitro Fertilization and American Consumerism

by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

This article first posted at National Catholic Register on October 13, 2020.

COMMENTARY: I don’t know Judge Amy Coney Barrett. But I know something about infertility and artificial reproductive technologies.

Amy Coney Barrett is a danger to families who desperately want children. So says Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., based on an advertisement which Barrett signed back in 2006, which included the statement that “we defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” This, Duckworth suggests, disqualifies Barrett from the U.S. Supreme Court.


Duckworth, who has two daughters through IVF, told Fox News: “If a fertilized egg in a person is a person, then that really has significant negative consequences for a family like mine that desperately wanted to have children.”

I don’t know Judge Barrett from Adam. But I do know something about infertility and the IVF industry. The IVF industry appeals to the worst instincts of American consumerism. The Catholic critique of artificial reproductive technologies is morally defensible.

Get what you want, the way you want it, when you want it. Sounds like a fine idea. Pick the one you want. Pay for it. Ignore all the others. Or just throw away anything you are tired of or don’t want, or that doesn’t satisfy you. Or you could turn it in for a refund. Or maybe you could buy a few extras to keep on hand just in case you want more. You can always throw them away later. Or maybe donate them to a charity.

“Have it your way,” is a fine advertising slogan for hamburgers. Take advantage of quantity discounts and stock up just in case, is a fine strategy for buying paper towels. But the “object” in question when considering artificial reproductive technologies is not an object at all, but a person. I buy the sperm or egg of a stranger. I pay someone to mix their gametes with mine. I look at the embryos. With the help of an expert with exquisite taste, I choose the ones I want. I throw away the rest. Or, maybe, I put them in cold storage, just in case I decide I want them later.

This is the “assisted reproductive technology” industry, including IVF, surrogacy and related technologies. Consumers of this product are sometimes called “commissioning parents.” The fact that people want the product is supposed to be a sufficient moral justification to allow them to have what they want.

Two points for the record: First, we must never regret the existence of a particular child, no matter how that child was conceived. Disapproval of the circumstances of a person’s conception does not translate into a belief that the person so conceived is unworthy or defective. Presumably, everyone opposes rape as an immoral act. But a child conceived in rape is still a full member of the human race, fully deserving of respect, love and legal protection. Likewise, the child conceived through artificial means is fully human, fully deserving of respect, love and legal protection.

Second, do not try to dismiss my arguments with the assertion that I don’t know the pain of infertility. As a matter of fact, I do. My husband and I dealt with infertility for four painful years. We can attest that it is a miserable experience. What we deny is that the depth of our misery or the intensity of our desire for a child is relevant to the question at hand.

Duckworth herself raised one of the crucial questions. Without seeming to realize the significance of her statement, she told Fox News:

“In my case, with both of my girls, they looked at two or three fertilized eggs, not even embryos at this point, and said, you know, this one isn’t very viable,” Duckworth explained. “The third discarded could result in my doctor being criminalized.”

Duckworth added: “If a fertilized egg in a person is a person, then that really has significant negative consequences for a family like mine that desperately wanted to have children.”

What exactly is the third “discarded” thing? Duckworth says these zygotes are “not even embryos” at this point. Does she deny that the zygote is alive? How can a non-living thing be “viable” or “not very viable?” The terms “zygote,” “embryo,” and “fetus” describe stages of biological human development, not the development into a human person.

This is the first of the contradictions of this position. If the zygote is chosen, it is Duckworth’s precious child. If it is discarded, does that mean it never was anything or anyone of value?

Here is a related ethical dilemma. Suppose they don’t want to discard the embryo, but they don’t want to gestate her right away, either. So they freeze her. Later, they unfreeze her, gestate her, and then she becomes their precious child. What was this person during the time that she was frozen? An object? A nonperson?

Now you may think that I am causing problems here, because I referred to the frozen embryo as a person. “You blurred the distinction between the zygote and the embryo and the ultimate person. If we would just all get on board with the proper terminology and proper thought process, then all these problems would go away.”

But honestly, it doesn’t have to be me who raises this question. What if one of the living children herself brings up these topics? “Hey Mom and Dad, what about all my frozen siblings? Did you guys really kill a couple of my siblings on the very day that you “chose” me to live? I could have been the one that got frozen or killed.” And so on.

Will you have answers for these questions? Will your answers be good enough for her? For that matter, will your answers be good enough for you and for your child’s other parent as the years go by?

I have known people who have been in agony for years over their frozen children. I know an adult man whose mother revealed that she had an abortion when he was a teenager. The “survivors guilt” and disorientation he experienced were surreal. These questions will not all go away, just because no one is asking them right now.

Questions of this kind flow directly from the initial proposition that children are best viewed as the objects of their parents’ will. If the parents want the child, the child has legally recognized rights. If the parents do not want the child, they can do anything they want, at least before birth, and possibly beyond.

The most coherent alternative moral position is each child is an unrepeatable gift from a loving God. God created this particular child to reflect his goodness in some unique way. Our participation in the procreative process is to love our child’s other parent and allow God to bless that love as he deems best for all of us. As parents, we accept the children God gives us and care for each of them to the best of our ability. If God does not give us children, we accept this fact with grace and move on with our lives.

As I say, I do not know Judge Amy Coney Barrett or what she believes. But I do know this: the IVF industry is indefensible. The Catholic alternative is both intellectually coherent and morally defensible. And I am not ashamed to say so.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the founder and president of The Ruth Institute. Her latest book is The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies are Destroying Lives (and how the Church was Right All Along).

 

 


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The Sexual State in a Black Robe

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first posted at National Catholic Register on October 6, 2020.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was doubtless a fine person and dedicated to her ideas. I pray for God’s mercy on her soul, and solace to her family. But sadly, her ideas and her legacy on the U.S. Supreme Court have aided Sexual Revolutionaries in the deconstruction of sexual morality and the family. And the contentiousness that has already emerged around the process of replacing Ginsburg proves one thing beyond doubt: The Sexual Revolution depends on the power of the state to enforce its tenets.

Take the most immediate and obvious example of abortion law. The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned democratically-enacted measures that sought to protect preborn life and abortion-minded women. States such as Louisiana and Texas attempted to enact modest health and safety restrictions on abortion. Ginsburg was part of the majority that overturned those laws, which had been enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people.


Ginsburg was similarly accommodating to revolutionary views of the biological sex of the body, as applied to LGBT issues and “transgenderism.” In 2015, she was part of the majority that redefined marriage in the Obergefell case. This past June, she voted to apply workplace anti-discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the gender-confused. The legal category of “women” corresponding to biology, is in the process of being replaced by a newly created legal construct of “people who say they are women, including biological males.” In other words, this ruling erases women. Thus, I find it ironic that Ginsburg is being hailed as a champion of women’s rights.

Overall, Justice Ginsburg was part of the Sexual Revolution’s coalition that seeks to redefine the meaning of human sexuality in law and society. Some of us recognize that the sexual act has the potential to create new life. The revolutionaries want to create a society in which sexual activity is normally sterile. Some of us embrace the responsibilities that flow from the life-giving potential of the sexual act, including the responsibilities to care for our children and to love our child’s other parent. The revolutionaries resent these responsibilities and want to downgrade them from obligations to options. Some of us believe that the sexual act is sacred and should be confined to marriage. The revolutionaries believe the sexual act is a recreational activity with no moral significance. They wish to reconstruct law and society around this belief.

Or perhaps I should say, they want to reconstruct society around this fantasy. The babies do keep appearing, after all. That is why the revolutionaries are so desperate to keep abortion unrestricted. The abortion license is an attempt to conceal the evidence that the revolutionary belief system is morally and intellectually bankrupt. The revolutionaries could count on Ginsburg to prop up their ideas. All the while, this coalition of people claim to be acting for the benefit of women.

But many women, all up and down the socio-economic ladder, long ago gave up on contraception and abortion as the keys to happiness and freedom. For these women, family is their highest priority and source of meaning. For many such women, “career” is a job to put food on the table.

By contrast, many women in powerful and prestigious positions cannot imagine what their lives would be like without contraception and abortion. They have made serious educational and financial commitments to become part of the managerial class. Motherhood is generally an impediment to professional success. Not always of course: The current leading candidate to replace Justice Ginsburg, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, has successfully combined a successful career with mothering a large family. But she is an unusual case, as she herself no doubt knows very well. In general, the deck is stacked against women who have children, too early or too many. De facto, delayed childbearing has become the price of entering the professional classes. Typically, female newscasters and college professors and jurists and doctors act as cheerleaders for the Sexual Revolution. These elite women of the managerial class know nothing of the “everywoman,” those who have endured the Sexual Revolution and don’t have high status, well-paid jobs as compensation.

At the time of Ginsburg’s death Sept. 18, three women sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ginsburg was the only one of the three who had any children. She came of age in the short window of time when women could still get married, have kids, go to law school and have a career after childbearing. She had her two children when she was 22 and 32. She also had the lifelong support of her husband in her maternal and career aspirations.

Such support today is a blessing too few women experience thanks to no-fault divorce. Women today can’t count on permanence in marriage. Women can, of course, go to law school and have a career all right. But getting married and having children sometime before menopause? Not so much. Justice Ginsburg and her radical colleagues do not seem to recognize the downsides to their revolutionary aspirations.

For Ginsburg, the Sexual State trumps the First Amendment’s freedom of religion, along with common sense and basic science. She consistently solidified the most radical tenets of the Sexual Revolution using the power of the state. This is why I say that Ginsberg was the personification of the Sexual State in a black robe.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is founder and president of The Ruth Institute.

Her latest book is The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives (and How the Church Was Right All Along).

The discussion of elite women vs “everywoman” is based on the chapter entitled, “On Class Warfare.”

 


In Gratitude for Our Many Blessings – Ruth Institute’s Third Annual Rosary Around the Lake to Take Place October 11

In spite of the coronavirus and the devastation Hurricane Laura wrought on Lake Charles, The Ruth Institute will hold its Third Annual Rosary Around the Lake in Lake Charles, Louisiana, on Sunday, October 11.

Due to a variety of unique difficulties, this year’s event will not be around the lake, but around the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (935 Bilboa Street) instead.

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., said: “Between all the uncertainty created by the coronavirus and Hurricane Laura, we wondered if it would even be possible to hold the event this year. But we decided that prayer is more important now than ever. Please help us show Our Blessed Mother how grateful we are for the many blessings and protections she has showered on us.”

Morse noted that even though Lake Charles was devastated by Laura, “Both our Cathedral and the Shrine of Our Lady Star of the Sea were untouched. And our clergy here in Lake Charles have made Christ in the sacraments present to us. We are truly blessed!”


Participants will assemble inside the Cathedral and recite the Joyful Mysteries at 2:30 PM, and then process around the neighborhood. Benediction and recitation of the Sorrowful Mysteries will take place at an outdoor altar. The event, concluding with recitation of the Glorious Mysteries, will be over by 4 PM.

A Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form will be celebrated at the Cathedral at 5 PM.

Bishop Glen John Provost of Lake Charles wrote to Morse: “I wish to commend you for organizing this worthy demonstration of our faith in Our Lord and His Blessed Mother. Please be assured of prayers and gratitude and looking forward to the event.”

As in years past, the Lake Charles event will be part of an international prayer event, Rosary Coast to Coast. This gathering involves tens of thousands around the world.

More on Rosary Around the Lake: https://rosaryaroundthelake.com/

More on Rosary Coast to Coast: https://rosarycoasttocoast.com/

The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization leading an international interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, contact info@ruthinstitute.org.


What is Surrogacy and Why You Should Oppose It

What is surrogacy and why you should oppose it

Gestational Surrogate, gay couple

While most people have a cursory understanding of surrogacy, most haven’t thought through its implications. What is surrogacy? Broadly speaking, it is a situation where a woman agrees to carry a child to term for another person, or couple. Gestational surrogacy is when the mother that carries the baby is not biologically related to the baby. It usually starts with in-vitro fertilization, a donor's eggs are harvested, fertilized outside the body, and a tiny human being comes into existence.


For the pro-life individual it doesn’t seem bad thing, it means more babies going to more homes. For the progressive, it seems ok because people to fulfill their reproductive goals. The larger implications, however, should cause everyone to pause. Surrogacy is a market for humans, exploits women and children, and gives the surrogate mother fewer protections than adoption.

Buying and selling humans generally has the connotation of slavery, and isn’t often associated with smiling birth-mothers, and crying recipients. On the other hand, the surrogacy industry is estimated to be worth $30 billion worldwide. Local surrogacy centers pay up to $55,000 to qualifying surrogate mothers. The cost of surrogacy for the “commissioning parents” ranges from $90,000 to over $130,000. Any time we buy and sell some good or service, that's a market.

Embryo fertilization, invitro fertilization, surrogacy

The difference in economic situations between the surrogates and the commissioning parents unfortunately leads to economic exploitation, even within the United States. There isn’t a lot of law or regulation governing the surrogacy industry. 31 states have no regulations regarding surrogacy, and a lot of surrogacy interactions are governed by contracts, many of which provide for custom-made babies. These contracts also place the surrogate mothers in an exploitable position. To remedy this, Sweden has banned all surrogacy.

Surrogate mothers have fewer rights than adoptive parents. There are too many horror stories to share here, regarding the commissioning parents mistreatment or abuse the surrogate mothers before the baby is born. And no matter what behavior the commissioning parent engages in, from the moment the baby is born, the surrogate mother generally has to relinquish the child. Even mothers who place their baby for adoption can choose to keep her after she is born.

Anderson Cooper and partner, surrogacy, co-parenting

We justify poorer treatment of surrogate mothers, ostensibly, because they are paid. Surrogacy contracts place the reproductive capacity, choices, and body of a poor woman, outside of her control, and into the hands of wealthier, more powerful people. This arrangement seems to stand at odds with the concept, beloved of the Sexual State, that a woman has a moral right to decide what to do with her own body. If a woman has a right to decide what to do with her body, can a few slips of paper place someone else in control of her reproductive choices and health?

Surrogacy created humans, also known as embryos, usually are treated as less than second-class citizens. Doctors often implant multiple eggs, hoping for some to survive. In the event that multiple do survive, the surrogate can be contractually required to abort some of the babies via “selective reduction.” In the case that additional embryos are created and not implanted, they face an indefinite freeze, are donated to science, or are destroyed immediately. When the children are born, sometimes the “commissioning parents” will refuse to take disabled children.

This isn’t an abstract issue either. Senator Tammy Duckworth recently criticized Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s stance on aborting fertilized eggs. Senator Duckworth said, “She supports groups like the St. Joseph County Right to Life, which says they support the criminalization of IVF procedures that would result in the destruction of fertilized eggs… In my case, with both of my girls, they looked at two or three fertilized eggs, not even embryos at this point, and said, you know, this one isn’t very viable.” The third egg was “discarded.” It is inhumanly callous to treat a human, no matter how small, as an inconvenience to be discarded.

distressed girl, children with no link to parents

Additionally, the legal status of the child is thrown into limbo. Surrogacy may involve as many as five separate individuals: the egg donor, the sperm donor, the gestational carrier, and the two commissioning parents. With all these participants involved with the creation of a baby, sorting out who has parental rights becomes a terrible tangle.

Owning, controlling, and selling humans debased the “owners” and dehumanized the men and women who were enslaved. Even though slavery and the slave trade were banned over 150 years ago, we are still dealing with the repercussions. We ought to ask ourselves if we should engage in another market for human beings. This surrogacy market that not only allows for the selling of humans, but economically exploits the mothers, and cuts the baby’s biological ties to the woman who carried her.

Tags

Support the Ruth Institute