- For Survivors
- Resource Center
- Make a Difference
- Summit 2020
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.
Posted on: Monday, June 22, 2020
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s disastrous Bostock decision, the Ruth Institute’s Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution takes on extreme urgency. The Summit, to be held July 17-18, in Lake Charles, LA, will analyze the many ways the Sexual Revolution needs the power of the State to do its destructive work.
Ruth Institute President, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., stated, “The Bostock ruling redefines “female” and “male” for purposes of law. The Obergefell decision redefined marriage. The Federalist Society vetted Gorsuch, appointed by Pres. Trump, who wrote the majority opinion. This terrible ruling shows that the conservative legal establishment has no idea how to address sexual and social issues. The Sexual Revolution attacks both the individual and the family. At our Summit, we’ll take a hard look at some of the most destructive pathologies the Global Ruling Class has inflicted on ordinary people.”
Expert presentations will include:
The program will also include testimony from Survivors of the Sexual Revolution, as well as activists’ panels, question and answer sessions and general discussions.
Among the participants on the Surviving the LGBT subculture panel are journalist Doug Mainwaring and Pulse Nightclub shooting survivor, Luis Ruiz. Both left the LGBT subculture.
Morse observed: “After the Bostock ruling, social conservatives of all faiths have realized beyond any shadow of a doubt: we are on our own. Participants at our Summit will have the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be part of redefining the direction of the social conservative movement. The encounter with experts and their analysis, the first-hand testimony of Survivors, and the experience of effective activists, will inspire participants. They will come away with new friends as well as practical tips on how to get involved and make a difference.”
Posted on: Tuesday, April 14, 2020
This article was first published April 14, 2020, at the NCRegister.
COMMENTARY: The people who have the most to offer in combating the sexual revolution also have the most to lose from doing so.
by Jennifer Roback Morse
Respected commentator Father Raymond de Souza observed a little-known fact about the convoluted case of Australian Cardinal George Pell: “No judge who had a future to worry about sided with Cardinal Pell. Every judge whose future was secure from recriminations for judging fairly sided with the cardinal.”
One such fair judge was the lone dissenter on the lower court, Justice Mark Weinberg. Father de Souza’s observation has implications far beyond one Australian legal case. Let me come right to the point: Retired professionals, we need you back on the playing field!
Let me explain.
Obviously, the top jurists in the Australian legal system do not have “a future to worry about.” These judges on the highest court of the land are the ones who ultimately exonerated Cardinal Pell. Let’s zero in on Weinberg, who, as noted above, was the lone dissenter at that level. His 200-page dissent utterly demolished the majority opinion, which upheld Cardinal Pell’s convictions. Father de Souza pointed out something I did not previously realize: Weinberg is a 71-year-old retired judge who is called in for special cases because of his expertise.
Let’s apply this seemingly offhand observation to the broader situation of living out Catholic teaching in the modern world. The entire developed world is in the grip of an ideology that is every bit as toxic and irrational as communism or fascism. This ideology demands conformity, imposes penalties for dissent, and controls all the major institutions of society. The ideology promises to create heaven on Earth, if only we allow the ruling savior class enough power to reshape law, media, education, entertainment and, of course, the judicial system.
The ideology I’m speaking of is the one spawned by the sexual revolution. We can all have carefree, unlimited sex. No unwanted babies. No broken hearts. No loneliness. We’re told that the sex of the body is not a real constraint on anything, so we can remake our society and our bodies in any way we want. Children don’t really need anything from their natural parents, so we don’t really need any social norms requiring permanence in sexual relationships. If we just continue to reshape the institutions of society, we will eventually arrive at that wonderful world where sexual activity is sterile unless you have quirky lifestyle preferences and happen to want a baby: heaven on Earth.
The only major institution in the world holding out against this ideology is the Catholic Church. And even parts of the Church have “gone wobbly,” in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s colorful phrase from a different era about a different totalitarian ideology. Cardinal Pell’s “crime” was that he actively resisted the claims of the sexual revolutionaries. The child-abuse charges were trumped up against him. There are clerics around the world who are much guiltier of much worse things who are getting far better treatment within their own countries’ legal systems and the international media than poor Cardinal Pell. Why single out him, of all people? Interesting question, no?
I’ve written before about the commonalities among the cases of Theodore McCarrick, Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. And I’ve written quite a lot (a whole book, in fact) about the dynamics of the sexual revolution and what keeps it chugging along, in spite of its irrationality and crimes. Long story short: Delaying childbearing is the de facto social price of getting an education and entering the professions.
Many people accomplish that delay, not by sexual restraint until marriage, but, rather, through the use of contraception and, in many cases, abortion. This fact tilts the educated and professional classes toward favoring the sexual revolution and the unfettered license it touts. The people most likely to be in positions of influence, power and wealth either think the sexual revolution is just grand, or secretly know that it isn’t but have a guilty conscience about it. In either case, an outsized percentage of people in the professions have a strong incentive to keep the sexual revolution going. People like Cardinal Pell, who dissent from the sexual revolution’s orthodoxy, disturb the consciences of many journalists and jurists.
Members of the professions who do not agree with the sexual revolution know all about the pressure to conform to its tenets. I have heard from Catholic lawyers and doctors, as well as evangelical Protestant therapists and social workers, about the difficulties of trying to do their jobs. The people who have the most to offer in combating the sexual revolution also have the most to lose from doing so.
Yet these are the very people we need to fighting for the integrity of their professions. These are people who know the fields of law or medicine or journalism. They can speak to the specific problems in the libraries and schools. They know how their profession operates. They know the important people and have connections an outsider can’t have.
This brings me back to Cardinal Pell. What if Mark Weinberg hadn’t come out of retirement to take this case? Where would Cardinal Pell be today if Weinberg had decided to check out and do the Australian equivalent of playing golf that day? Only someone who is both qualified and relatively detached from social pressure could render the type of impartial ruling that Weinberg did.
Retired doctors, nurses, teachers, attorneys: This is my plea. Find creative ways to influence your profession for good. Join or form alternative professional organizations or independent practices. No one can fire you anymore. You have nothing to lose now, and you still have a lot to offer. Get to work. We need you!
Posted on: Tuesday, March 17, 2020
By Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first published on March 16, 2020, at The Stream.
Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself. This fact, which no serious person denies, marks a new era in the unfolding of the Sexual Revolution. For years, we have been told that the Sexual Revolution was part of the March of History into a glorious day of progress, peace and pleasure for everyone. We ordinary folk can now say without doubt to the members of the Elite Ruling Class who have been foisting this nonsense on us: you aren’t fooling us anymore.
In my book, The Sexual State, I offer several possible reasons why the Elites of society are so invested in promoting the Sexual Revolution. Some are just ideologues. Some are making money from the Sexual Revolution. Some enjoy the power rush they get from being part of a movement to remake the world in their own image.
Here is an even simpler explanation. Some rich and powerful people want to have sex without consequences or even inconvenience. The Sexual Revolutionary ideology and all the policies that support it, provide these people with encouragement or cover or both.
I did not emphasize this point very much in my book. It is generally bad manners to assume bad faith, unless the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence is now overwhelming. Some highly placed advocates of the Sexual Revolution just wanted to get laid.
Stephen Reinhart, “the Liberal Lion,” was the Chief Justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Under his reign, the Sexual Revolutionaries could count on the Ninth Circuit for favorable reinterpretations of law. One of his former law clerks recently revealed he had a pattern of sexual harassment of his female subordinates. Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein made numerous films that implicitly or explicitly supported the Sexual Revolution or attacked the Catholic Church or both. We now know that he was a notorious predator, pervert and sex addict, thankfully consigned to prison for the next 23 years.
Speaking of the Catholic Church, the disgraced former cardinal, now Mr. Theodore McCarrick, was big on promoting Catholic teaching on “social justice.” Church teaching on sexual morality: not so much. In fact, McCarrick downplayed to the point of suppressing an instruction from Pope Benedict XVI telling the U.S. clergy that they ought to take a tougher stand on pro-abortion, self-proclaimed “Catholic” politicians. The pope wrote a letter that then-Cardinal McCarrick failed to deliver. Who would have thought? A sexual predator (a homosexual predator, to be sure) dragged his feet about proclaiming Church teaching on abortion.
And speaking of homosexual predators, what about Terry Bean? You remember him, don’t you? He was the Democratic fundraiser and gay rights activist who has been accused of sexual abuse of boys.
And then of course, there is Jeffrey Epstein himself, the proprietor of an island for sex slavery for his rich and powerful friends. Gosh, isn’t it sad that he killed himself?
Seriously, members of the Elite Ruling Class, do you expect us to believe Jeffrey Epstein killed himself? Some wags in Le Krewe d’Etat created a Mardi Gras float featuring Hilary Clinton strangling Jeffrey Epstein. This “disturbing” float attracted attention all the way across the pond in the U.K. press. A Denver story even has an amateur video.
Memo to Sexual Revolutionary Elites: We don’t believe Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
Your corporations blast pornography into the public square. Your sports leagues groom young girls to think sex with strangers is empowering. Your “educators” and politicians inflict graphic sexual “education” on children, against the wishes of their parents. This “educational material” is so graphic, the live broadcast of the Washington State legislative debates included a warning label: “Mature Subject Matter — Viewer Discretion Advised.” Yet the legislature voted it into the classroom of every public school in the State of Washington.
Your allies in higher education conscript generations of college students as shock troops for the Sexual Revolution. You divert their attention from your shameless exploitation and keep them focused on your preferred scapegoats the “Religious Right.” You have used your microphone in the media to cover up Epstein’s crimes. You are seemingly more concerned about who leaked the cover-up story, than about the cover-up itself.
You notice how I said “seemingly.” That is an old habit. I generally avoid making rash statements that I cannot prove. But in an environment of massive cover-up and deception that includes seemingly (there’s that word again) every institution in society, certainty is no longer possible. I’m not in a court of law where I have to prove your crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. I am in the court of Public Opinion. And we have reached a verdict on the Ruling Class and the Sexual Revolution.
We believe you are capable of any crime, including murder, rape, pedophilia and perjury. You have abused our good will. We believe you, the Elite Ruling Class, are using every institution of society to embolden predators and disarm victims.
You have used up the benefit of the doubt. We will give a respectful hearing to internet conspiracy theories we would have dismissed only a short time ago. When in doubt about sexual crimes or cover-ups by the Ruling Class, the presumption goes against you. In a pinch, all ties go to the guy in the tinfoil hat, not the guy in the designer business suit. As Michael Brendan Dougherty put it: we believe paranoia stands to reason.
“Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.” Whenever you see that meme, understand what the people of this country are telling you. We don’t trust you. We don’t believe you. And you have only yourselves to blame.
Posted on: Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Last week, the judge in the case of James Younger, the seven-year-old-boy whose mother wants to turn him into a “transgendered” girl, issued a gag order preventing James’ father from discussing the case publicly. Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. said, “This is an egregious abridgement of the father’s First Amendment rights.”
James’ divorced parents each sought sole custody. His mother, who’s been making him wear dresses, painting his nails, and telling him he’s a girl named “Luna” since age three, has been taking him to a “gender clinic.” She wants to use drugs, and possibly surgery, to complete the process. His father is adamantly opposed.
Morse continued: “If the case hadn’t been publicized, due mostly to the interviews the father did, few of us would have known about what could have been a terrible miscarriage of justice. I believe the judge’s resolution of the case – including giving the parents joint medical decision-making – was due in part to an extraordinary public outcry.”
Matt Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, says, “It’s fairly straightforward that you can’t gag a father from talking about his son to the media.” Staver calls the order “an outrageous decision by the court that’s clearly unconstitutional.”
Morse added: “Family court judges have an astonishing amount of power. Judge Kim Cooks could have given the mother everything she wanted – sole custody and the unimpeded power to effectively castrate her son. That’s what the jury recommended.If the case was decided in the dark, the judge might have confirmed it.” A petition in support of the father on Life Petitions has more than 86,000 signers.
In another Texas custody case, where four-year-old Drake Pardo was taken from his family over what was alleged to be medical abuse, a Dallas-area judge issued a similar gag order against the family.
A week ago, Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins submitted a brief on behalf of the state of Texas calling the gag order “unconstitutional,” writing that the order “is plainly overboard and cannot be squared with the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees.”
Morse stated: “Injustice grows in the dark. The #SaveJames case deserves the widest possible exposure and unhampered discussion. The father’s freedom of speech must be restored.”
In a recent webcast of The Dr. J Show on the Ruth Institute Youtube page, Morse revealed the hidden dimensions of the case. “Transgenderism, third-party reproduction, and divorce all increase the power of the state over the lives of ordinary people. This is the Sexual Deep State at work.”
Morse explained, “Our #SaveJames campaign is part of the Ruth Institute’s overall mission to counter the Sexual Revolution and speak out for its victims.”
The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.
Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.
Find more information on The Ruth Institute here.
To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, email email@example.com.
Posted on: Monday, February 12, 2018
New York is sacrificing a child's best interest in favor of "marriage equality."
By Jennifer Roback Morse
Published on February 9, 2018, at The Stream.
A little girl in New York is in foster care, even though her father is a perfectly fit parent. The court will not even recognize him as her father. How is this possible, you ask?
The little girl’s mother is in a same sex union. The girl is in foster care, because of neglect petitions pending against both the mother and her lover. The five-judge panel agreed that the fact that the child was in foster care was “relevant” and “concerning.” They nevertheless denied the father’s request to prove his fatherhood.
In the court’s logic, this man “merely donated sperm, belatedly asserting parental rights.”
In other words, he is not a father unless we say so.
The news stories about this case focus on its implications for “Marriage Equality.” The Daily Beast story has a sub-headline: “judges rule in favor of marriage equality over biology in case of 3-year-old girl.” A Canadian paper, The National Post describes the case this way:
Without legal advice, Christopher and the women drew up a contract in which he waived any claims to paternity, custody or visitation, and the women waived any claim to child support. But troubles arose, and they disagreed on Christopher’s access to the child … In April 2015, Christopher went to court, seeking an order for a paternity test, and later for custody of the child.
The Post is not too clear on what “troubles arose.” We get a clue, from the court documents (page 18), which The Daily Beast cited only in passing, that the child has been in foster care for a lengthy “period of time” since the 2015 hearing.
Perhaps this explains why he “belatedly asserted parental rights.” Maybe he saw what the child welfare authorities eventually saw. These women were neglecting the seven-month-old child.
Christopher volunteered his sperm as a “humanitarian gesture” to two women who were family friends. He evidently absorbed the Grand Gay Narrative that assures us:
If the Grand Gay Narrative is true, a man might logically conclude that donating his sperm could be a “humanitarian gesture.” He might well believe that agreeing in advance to stand down from active fatherhood was a fine thing to do, costless to himself and his child, and beneficial to these two women.
The problem is that the Grand Gay Narrative is false. Biology does matter. Both parents and children care about their biological connections. Being raised by a same sex couple does present risks to kids, compared with being raised by one’s own biological parents. The people who say otherwise base their opinion on highly suspect, cherry-picked data, from small unrepresentative samples. Frankly, most of it is highly publicized junk science.
Neither of these women has pulled herself together enough to have the little girl returned to her care. I was a foster parent in San Diego. I know that child welfare agencies try to give parents every opportunity to reunify with their children. If the child has been in foster care “for a lengthy period of time,” these two women must be bad news. Christopher was trying to be a nice guy in 2014 when he donated the sperm. He has been trying to be a responsible father since April 2015 when he first petitioned the court.
Isn’t this how we want men to behave toward the children they sire?
The five-judge panel was not interested.
We believe that it must be true that a child born to a same-gender married couple is presumed to be their child … A paternity test for an outsider, who merely donated sperm, belatedly asserting parental rights, would effectively disrupt, if not destroy, this family unit and nullify the child’s established relationship with the wife, her other mother. Testing in these circumstances exposes children born into same-gender marriages to instability for no justifiable reason other than to provide a father-figure for children who already have two parents.” (emphasis added.)
News flash to the judges: a child in foster care is already “exposed to instability.” Is letting her father be involved more disruptive than foster care?
The court’s ruling does not protect the child’s best interests. Their ruling circles the wagons to protect the Grand Gay Narrative.
“Marriage Equality” advocates assured us that removing the gender requirement from marriage was only a matter of making same sex couples the legal equivalent of opposite sex couples. This case shows that “Marriage Equality” creates a whole round of new inequalities. Some fathers are permitted to be involved in their children’s lives. Others are not: the law actively blocks Christopher from his own child. Some children have a legally recognized right to their fathers. Others, like this little girl, do not.
She only has the parents the government allows her to have. And that is way too much power for any government.
Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017
By Ryan MacPherson, a Ruth Institute Circle of Experts member
This article was first published at hausvater.org on January 22, 2009 (36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade).
Book Review: Won by Love, Norma McCorvey (with Gary Thomas), (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998)
In her own small world she was Norma McCorvey, a battered, then abandoned, wife and drug addict, pregnant but not desiring a child. The wider world would know her as “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The story told there was tragic: a woman gang raped, forced into pregnancy, and denied the opportunity to terminate that pregnancy since abortion was outlawed in Texas. This story, however, was a lie—fabricated by attorney Sarah Weddington, who herself had obtained an illegal abortion and now was on a mission to make abortion available legally. When McCorvey became “Roe,” she provided the tool Weddington needed to push the issue in the courts. But after McCorvey signed “Roe’s” affidavit, affirming the fabricated story as her own, Weddington reneged on her promise to help McCorvey deal with her crisis pregnancy. Weddington did not even so much as telephone McCorvey until four months after the child was born.
The “Roe” of Roe v. Wade did not abort her baby, a child saved, ironically, by an attorney’s need for a pregnant plaintiff in order to sue for abortion access. McCorvey had never even been inside an abortion clinic, though later she would work for one. She was both the victim of deceit and the perpetrator of deception. Marijuana helped her to cope. So did alcohol. And coarse humor, too: “I tell women we aren’t killing little babies on Wednesday; they have to come in Thursday through Saturday to do it.” (150) But her verbal defense mechanisms, like her lesbian relationship with an abortion clinic coworker, only took her deeper into the pit of despair and anger, a bitter mixture of relentless grief and suppressed guilt.
Even “Jane Roe” knew that abortion killed babies. While working at A Choice for Women, she tried to refer a sixth-month pregnant woman to an ob-gyn, but her supervisor insisted that the woman have access to the abortion she was seeking. Unable to cope, McCorvey had to take the afternoon off; she binge-drank for the two weeks following. Back at the clinic, she refused to be assigned to the “Parts Room,” where the remains of aborted children were stored in jars for transfer to a disposal facility, after first being counted and collated to ensure that no body parts were left in their mothers’ wombs following the procedure. She did, however, accept an assignment to console women afterwards, who grieved in the recovery room with confessions of having just killed their babies. No, it was not knowledge that McCorvey or her coworkers lacked; abortion clearly killed babies and devastated their mothers.
Love, not knowledge, was the missing piece in the puzzle of their fractured lives. And “God is love.” (1 John 4:16) God had turned the heart of Flip Benham, an alcoholic pro-choice unbeliever, toward Himself, transforming him into a Christian pro-life pastor who joined Operation Rescue. McCorvey called him “Flip Venom” when Operation Rescue moved into the office space next to A Choice for Women. The name-calling didn’t stick, however, since no venom came from Flip’s mouth. He spoke in love, as did his fellow “rescuers,” including Ronda Mackie and, the most loving and lovable of all, her seven-year-old daughter Emily.
Emily played on the sidewalk in front of the two adjacent offices: her mother’s Operation Rescue and McCorvey’s A Choice for Women. It was a brilliant Operation Rescue strategy: cute children playing gleefully outside, testifying by their casual existence the severe reality behind the “services” provided by A Choice for Women. Emily did more than deter women from seeking abortions; she smiled and greeted, she hugged and conversed with Norma McCorvey, a woman who had given birth to three children, aborted none, and yet facilitated the abortions of many at her clinic and millions through her role as “Jane Roe.” Finally, McCorvey admitted that she loved children. “Then why,” asked Emily, so innocently and so gently, “are you letting the little ones die inside?” (91) Had Pastor Flip asked the question, or any other adult, McCorvey would have responded with her standard mouthful of foul obscenity. For a seven-year-old girl, however, she had no defense. “I never answered her,” she later recalled. “I couldn’t.” (91)
In the months that followed, McCorvey became attached to Emily, and to her mother Ronda. A budding friendship bridged the gap between an Operation Rescue worker and an abortion clinic employee. McCorvey found herself, inexplicably, referring late-term clients away from A Choice for Women and toward Operation Rescue, knowing full well that since late-term abortions had the best profit margin she was sabotaging her boss’s business. One day Ronda Mackie took Norma McCorvey out for lunch and mentioned that Emily had nearly been aborted. Ronda’s fiancé and parents-in-law-to-be had urged the termination of an inconvenient pregnancy, back when Ronda herself was still an unbeliever.
Now the abortion question was too personalized to remain a question; the answer was clear, even to McCorvey, and made clearer still by the love of the Operation Rescue picketers, who never returned McCorvey’s invectives. “I love you,” echoed the voice of little Emily, a survivor of the abortion culture. “I forgive you,” said Pastor Flip, himself a penitent sinner.
Americans mark January 22 as the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but for “Jane Roe” the real turning point came on August 8, 1995. On that day she “renounce[d] the devil and all his works, and the sinful desires of the flesh” (187). She repented of her drug abuse, her lesbian self-defilement, her hatred toward pro-lifers, and her role in the deaths of the 35 million children aborted in America during the preceding 22 years. When Pastor Flip immersed her in the waters of Holy Baptism, she arose a new person. She had been won by love.
Her story amazes the reader, in places seeming too good to be true. But on closer inspection, it’s too good to be false. Love, not hatred, changes hearts,
even the hardest of hearts. The conversion narratives of Ronda Mackie and Flip Benham are encouraging enough; the redemption of “Jane Roe” into “Norma
McCorvey, Christian” (177) reveals the Gospel at its brightest. But the message does not stop there; the Gospel keeps shining, as forgiveness in Christ
also transforms Connie Gonzales, her former coworker and some-time lesbian partner. Remarkably, “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton—the companion
case to Roe v. Wade—also repented. “Doe” (Sarah Cano) joined McCorvey in March 1997 as the two women publicly identified themselves
as “new creatures in Christ and children of God” while dedicating the National Memorial for Unborn Children in Chattanooga, Tennessee (236).
Forgiveness does not come easily; Christ suffered greatly and died to make it possible. “It was so hard for me to conceive that the Lord had forgiven me,” acknowledges McCorvey, “especially after so many children had been killed. But He has forgiven me and restored me. And, gradually, I have learned to trust His Word more than my own feelings.” (228) Though painful emotions still return, bringing with them doubts concerning God’s love, McCorvey finds comfort especially in these passages: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17); “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)
Norma McCorvey’s story concludes with words of hope. “If God can forgive Norma McCorvey—Jane Roe—and her role in abortion, surely
he can forgive you as well.” (229) Her conversion reveals not only the limitless love of Christ, but also the effectiveness of Christ’s servants who
“speak the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15)
For Ronda Mackie, loving Norma McCorvey meant trusting her to watch over her daughter Emily who began regularly visiting the reception room of A Choice for Women. Emily brought gifts of her own artwork, labeled “Jesus loves you, Miss Norma.” A child’s love communicated a message that anti-abortion ranting and raving, with slogans like “Abortion Stops a Beating Heart,” could not. “This is what happens when Christians are willing to face their enemies and adopt the most powerful strategy ever devised—the strategy displayed by Christ’s death on the cross, the strategy of laying down your life so that others, including the unborn, might live. This is what it is like to be won by love.” (240)
McCorvey’s autobiography calls to repentance both the abortion perpetrator and the abortion protester: the one for taking innocent life and the other for too often fighting a culture of death with a culture of hate. Either way, the world needs more people like Emily, a child spared from abortion and a spokesperson of truth in love. And to become like Emily, one first needs Christ, who did not spare Himself, but lived and died for the truth in love. Christ practiced “lifestyle witnessing” to the extreme. The gift of His Spirit empowers others to do the same.
If more people would read Won by Love, then they could understand more clearly the gracious will of God amidst one of our nation’s greatest tragedies. Let’s just hope they don’t keep it to themselves. Christ’s love, communicated in actions and not just in words, transformed America’s most infamous abortion advocate into a Christian defender of purity and life. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if no one could ever hear the phrase “Roe v. Wade” without remembering “Jane Roe’s” repentance and Christ’s forgiveness?
Dr. Ryan C. MacPherson is the founding president of The Hausvater Project. He lives with his wife Marie and their children in Mankato, Minnesota, where he teaches American history, history of science, and bioethics at Bethany Lutheran College. For more information, visit www.ryancmacpherson.com.
Posted on: Monday, July 11, 2016
by Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first posted at The Blaze on July 5, 2016.
So a radical feminist and two childless women walk into a courtroom. How do you expect them to rule on abortion or contraception? Their lives as they know them, depend on both.
In Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas law regulating abortion clinics as if they were any ordinary medical facility. You have no doubt heard that this was somehow a victory for women, in the ongoing and everlasting War Against Women.
Actually, I believe there is no War Against Women, but a long-standing War Among Women. And this time, like most of the time, Elite Women prevail over “Everywoman.”
Consider the three women currently serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. Whose interests do these women actually represent?
The most senior female member of the court is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a lifelong radical feminist. Let’s look for a moment at her personal life. Justice Ginsburg had the lifelong support of her husband in her career aspirations. Thanks to no-fault divorce, women today cannot count on a lifetime of mutual support with their husbands.
Justice Ginsburg came of age in the short historical window of time when women could still get married, have kids, go to law school, and have a career after child-bearing. Her two children were born when she was 22 and 32, in 1955 and 1965 respectively.
Thanks to radical feminism, highly educated women have a much more difficult time doing these things. They can go to law school and have a career all right. But getting married and having children sometime before menopause, not so much. Justice Ginsburg has been safely insulated from the negative fallout of the Sexual Revolution which she and her radical feminist colleagues did so much to champion.
The other two women on the Supreme Court, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, are childless.
It is highly unlikely that the two of them understand the aspirations of women who want their babies and stable marriages. For most women, family is everything and “career” is a way to put food on the table. Elite women know nothing of Everywoman, the people who have endured the Sexual Revolution, and who do not have high status jobs as compensation.
I am acutely aware of all this because I am a bit of an outlier among my educational class. That is a fancy way of saying I am a freak. I left a tenured university position back in 1996 to give more attention to my children who needed me, and my husband who wanted me and who I, in turn, wanted. No one gives up tenure. Believe me. My friends quietly thought I had lost my mind, except for one dear friend who told me I was a counter-cultural radical.
I had been in line to become the head of my department. Obviously, that didn’t happen. I never sat on any prestigious commissions. I haven’t received a plum political appointment like my childless or male peers have. Mind you, I’m not complaining. I do not regret my choices for a moment. I have encountered plenty of other women with advanced degrees who have made similar choices with no regrets.
No, my point is different. Delayed childbearing is the price of entering the professional classes. Tenacious focus is the price of remaining in the upper echelons of those classes. Placing a high personal value on life, marriage, family and the next generation puts a woman at a disadvantage in the competition for high-end jobs.
Put another way, childless women have an advantage over mothers in the competition for power and influence. For many elite women, the Sexual Revolution has made possible their lives as they know them. They literally cannot imagine what their lives would be like without contraception, or without abortion as an easy back-up.
The Sexual Revolution has been an imposition by the elites upon the masses. From the beginning, it is the people of modest means who have suffered from no-fault divorce, and hook-ups and instability and relationship churning and non-marital childbearing.
The Everyman and Everywoman regularly vote for lawmakers who promote pro-life legislation. But elites in the judiciary consistently overturn it. And that is what happens when a radical feminist and two childless women walk into a courtroom.
Posted on: Friday, November 13, 2015
COMMENTARY: A tenured professor of English is threatened with dismissal because he challenged one of the sexual revolution’s core assumptions.
Robert Oscar Lopez, a tenured English professor at California State University-Northridge, is on the verge of being suspended without pay, ostensibly due to a conference he organized a year ago. In fact, I believe this is not the real reason why this man of Puerto Rican and Philippine heritage, who knows six modern languages as well as Latin and Greek, is being hounded out of his job.
Lopez’s parents divorced when he was a toddler. His mother formed an intimate relationship with another woman. His father disappeared from his life for a long time. Lopez believes that these events were traumatic for him, and he has been outspoken in saying so. His countercultural views are an embarrassment to the Sexual Revolutionary Establishment at his university and beyond. They believe he must be silenced. Getting him fired is one step toward that end.
I was one of the presenters at the conference in question, “Bonds That Matter.” And, unbeknownst to me, I was one of the sources of controversy in Lopez’s interaction with the Cal State administration.
Lopez invited me to present at the conference on the topic of divorce. I was eager to be part of the event, as my organization, the Ruth Institute, agrees with his general perspective: that it is unjust to deprive a child of a relationship with his or her parents without good reason. Millions of children have their relationship with a parent damaged by parental divorce.
I agreed to waive my usual fee, as a way of supporting this initial effort of Lopez’s new organization, the International Children’s Rights Institute. As part of our agreement, the Ruth Institute was permitted to have a display table. We did not sell anything, nor did we offer participants the opportunity to sign up for our newsletter, activities we normally do when I speak at events. I did not mention anything regarding homosexuality, gay marriage or gay parenting during my talk, which you can listen to for yourself.
Imagine my surprise when I received a call from Lopez, many months later, asking me about some Ruth Institute brochures.
“Did you pass out this brochure called ‘77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage?’” he said.
“No. They were probably lying on our book table. Why do you ask?”
He asked because a student had filed a complaint against him. These brochures were submitted as evidence that his conference had created a hostile environment. Mind you, the student who lodged this complaint received an A in the course in question and did not file her complaint until after she had graduated.
I confirmed that I did, however, pass out and discuss another pamphlet, “Are You a Survivor of the Sexual Revolution?” — which you can look at for yourself. We have revised the artwork since the conference and made modest changes to the content. In fact, the version the students saw did not include the last sentences about children of same sex-parents, under “Gay Lifestyle Refugee.”
I believe the sexual revolutionaries despise Robert Lopez because he challenges one of their core assumptions. The sexual revolution is based on the idea that all adults able to give meaningful consent are entitled to unlimited sexual activity with a minimum of inconvenience. What they never mention is this: Children just have to accept whatever adults choose to give them.
Lopez believes that children have rights to a relationship with both of their parents, in the absence of some unavoidable tragedy. Children have a right to know their identity, so that all adults without exception can know their cultural heritage and genetic identity. These entitlements of children impose legitimate obligations and limitations on adult behavior, including, potentially, public policy and personal sexual behavior.
All of us who presented at that conference agree with this basic point. We disagreed among ourselves about the exact nature and contours of those obligations and limitations. But this common ground created a fruitful avenue for serious discussion.
The very concept of children’s rights that impose limitations on adult sexual behavior threatens the fragile intellectual structure of the sexual revolution. The true revolutionary is counting on no one noticing that sex makes babies and that children need their parents.
The true revolutionary needs to change the subject away from this topic,and on to any other topic. For example:
Here is a link to a summary of the case. Here are the letters filed on behalf of Lopez by attorney Charles LiMandri of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund and by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Looking at these documents, any sensible person must conclude that the answer to all these questions is “No.” Yet these are the questions the sexual revolutionaries, including the students with their frivolous complaints and the University Equity and Diversity Establishment, would prefer to discuss.
Never mind whether children are traumatized by the divorce of their parents. Never mind whether children feel wounded by the state-sanctioned loss of one parent through third-party reproduction. Never mind whether surrogate mothers are fully informed about the health risks they face. Never mind whether some adoption practices improperly commercialize and commodify children and harm their mothers.
The university should drop all charges against Robert Oscar Lopez. Please sign our petition to the chancellor of the California State University System, asking him to drop all charges.
Posted on: Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Posted by Jennifer Roback Morse
Bishop Robert McElroy, recently appointed Bishop of San Diego by Pope Francis, issued a statement on the Supreme Court's marriage ruling. The statement reads in part:
The Catholic Church, along with other faith traditions, teaches that the nature of marriage and the family cannot be redefined by society, as God is the author of marriage and its corresponding gift of co-creating human life. The legal recognition of marriage is not only about personal commitment but also about the social commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of their children. It is for this reason that it is important for government to give a unique status to marriage between one man and one woman both in law and in public policy. The Catholic community of San Diego and Imperial counties will continue to honor and embody the uniqueness of marriage between one man and one woman as a gift from God- -in our teaching, our sacramental life and our witness to the world.
The Ruth Institute expresses its appreciation to the Bishop of San Diego for his clarity and leadership.
If you wish to thank Bishop McElroy, you may write to him at:
The Most Reverend Bishop Robert McElroy,
Bishop of San Diego
P.O. Box 85728
San Diego, CA 92186-5728
Posted on: Wednesday, July 01, 2015
posted by Jennifer Roback Morse
In a statement released on June 29, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality, marriage, and the family. The statement reads in part:
Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.
The Ruth Institute expresses appreciation to the leadership of the Latter Day Saints for their clear teaching. If you wish to share your appreciation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, you may write to them at:
Dear President Monson
President Thomas Monson
Office of the First Presidency
47 East South Temple Street,