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.


Former Lesbian Harmed by Sexual State

by The Ruth Institute Staff

A few years ago, The Ruth Institute analyzed the case of Lisa Miller, who fled the country with her biological daughter, to protect the daughter from the alleged abuse of Lisa’s former partner. Lisa, a former lesbian, was damaged and harmed by the Sexual State. Lisa's former partner used the power of the family courts to force Lisa to share custody with her, by redefining the "presumption of paternity" to the gender-neutral "presumption of parentage." Now Lisa Miller is back in the news – hoping to receive a presidential pardon.

 

The case is strange and disconcerting for anyone who is familiar with it. Lisa Miller (interviewed for her story in 2008 by Lifesite News) – had a difficult life: by the time she was seven she was paying the mortgage, making sure food was on the table, and dealing with her parents’ divorce. Due to that and her mother’s mental illness, she got addicted to speed, and when she was married, her husband introduced her to alcohol. After a failed suicide attempt while recovering from alcoholism in the hospital, she was transferred to a psych ward.

 


While in the psych ward her therapists decided, without consulting her husband, that the reason she had so many struggles was because she was a lesbian. Clearly, they told her, the struggles she was facing came from difficulties “coming out.” Later, after divorcing her husband, she followed their advice.

 

The therapists encouraged her to be a lesbian (rather than working out her relationship with her husband), and told her that even if her first relationship with a woman didn’t work out (it didn’t), that doesn’t mean that the second one wouldn’t (it didn’t either).

 

The incredible thing was that she had all of this childhood trauma (what 7 year-old should be balancing checkbooks and taking speed?) that the therapists hardly delved into and didn’t really discuss with her. Talking a patient into a sexual identity based on the therapists’ hunch, and disconnected from the facts of the patient’s case, seems like it might be malpractice.

 

This also brings up another question about the immutability of sexual preference. After both of her failed relationships with different women, and the abusive, though longer-term relationship with Janet Jenkins, she decided that actively living a lesbian lifestyle wasn’t for her (not to mention her doubts about her sexual preference during that span of time). Can sexual preference be immutable if people’s sexual preference changes? If sexual preference is immutable for some people but not others, how is the law to deal with a category like that?

 

Lisa’s life became more difficult as she moved in with, and later became joined in a civil union with, Janet Jenkins. Lisa said, “Janet and I did not have a typical relationship.We were together – however, there was rarely any intimacy.Maybe once or twice a year and this was consistent throughout the relationship.I personally did not feel that way.This upset Janet a great deal and a lot of the abuse centered around that, as well, with name-calling and things like that… I actually, ended up leaving her in 1999 because the relationship had turned violent”

 

While many of us may be confused as to why Lisa might stay in a relationship that became more and more abusive, Lisa explained it in terms of a comfort zone. “For me, being with her, and this is going to sound weird, but it was like a comfort zone because I was used to being abused growing up… with women, what I was trying to do was trying to recreate a mother/daughter bond that I never had.”

 

After Lisa and Janet got back together, they moved to Vermont and obtained a civil union in 2000. In 2001 Lisa decided to have a daughter via artificial sperm donation. Janet generally maintained that she wasn’t interested in the child, and was not helpful during the pregnancy. The birth certificate lists only Lisa Miller as the parent.

 

According to Lisa, even though Jenkins was granted some parental rights after the dissolution proceedings began (though they lasted more than 5 years). Jenkins’ involvement with the child was minimal, even skipping the court ordered dates for visitation.

 

As far as the sordid allegations of the proceedings go, what Lisa Miller alleges Jenkins did isn’t pretty. She recounts that her daughter said that Jenkins would bathe naked with her (as a 5 year-old girl!), and that her daughter would come back from the few visits she did have and mime committing suicide. After that, Lisa cut off visits, and eventually fled the country to protect her daughter from an allegedly abusive and erratic ex-partner.

 

Dr. Morse said of this heartbreaking case, “Lisa Miller was one of the early victims of the Sexual State. Her case convinced me that redefining marriage would redefine parenthood in ways that few people were taking seriously. Lisa Miller entered into a civil union with another woman and had a child through an anonymous sperm donor. Lisa no doubt believed that she was the mother of the child. The government redefined parenthood, right out from under her. She had no idea that by entering into a civil union, she had given parental rights to the other woman, something that does not happen in stepparent situations.

 

“When those visits became abusive, Lisa tried to prevent them. The bias of the court in favor of the non-parent was so strong and the power of the family court so arbitrary, that Lisa could not protect her child. She fled the country with her daughter. She had the assistance of two brave Mennonite pastors and a Christian businessman.

 

“I support a presidential pardon for Lisa Miller, and for Philip Zodhiates, Timothy Miller and Kevin Miller.”

 

Support Lisa Miller by signing the petition at LifeSite News today!



CA demands insurance companies cover breast removals for trans teen girls

The Department of Insurance, led by openly homosexual Ricardo Lara, reclassified normal breasts as ‘abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects.’

This article, which quotes Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, was written by Doug Mainwaring and posted January 6, 2021, at Life News.


SACRAMENTO, California, January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — California’s Department of Insurance has signaled it will now require health insurance companies operating in the state to cover double mastectomies for gender dysphoric teenage girls. The government agency asserted the removal of their breasts is no longer considered “cosmetic” surgery but is instead required “reconstructive” surgery of “abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects.”

In other words, the healthy breasts of confused teenage girls are deemed “abnormal structures” and “congenital defects” if that girl decides she is a boy. The state of California now equates breasts on gender dysphoric young girls with other medical conditions such as cancer or trauma.

The move by the commissioner’s office was triggered by an inquiry from San Diego’s TransFamily Support Services regarding past denials of coverage for “male chest surgery for patients under 18 years old who are transitioning from female to male.”

 


 

“For far too long, individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria have had to battle a host of challenges to get access to gender-affirming care in order to be their true selves,” said Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara in a statement, responding to the transgender activist organization.

Lara blamed “[s]ocial stigma, misconceptions about gender dysphoria and its treatment, and outdated medical criteria,” which he insisted without exception are “barriers to necessary medical care that can lead to tragic results for individuals with gender dysphoria, especially for our transgender youth.”

Lara himself is openly homosexual.

At Lara’s urging, the Insurance Department’s General Counsel issued an Opinion Letter stating that “denying coverage for mastectomy and reconstruction of a male chest based solely on age is impermissible under state laws requiring coverage of reconstructive surgery.”

Brandon Showalter, a journalist who in recent years has emerged as an expert on the tragic medical mutilation of healthy young bodies enabled by the cult of transgenderism, called the procedure “breast amputation surgery.”

The change in language is an “unethical, predatory, and despicable attempt to even more viciously abuse children via gender ideology,” Maria Keffler, co-founder of the recently-formed Partners for Ethical Care, told Showalter on Monday.

“By circumventing parental consent in order to medicalize children without any minimum age restriction, the California Department of Insurance, whose very letterhead claims to ‘Protect, Prevent, and Preserve’, does exactly the opposite,” said Keffler.

“The active promotion of transgenderism has resulted in massive uncontrolled and unconsented experimentation upon children and adolescents,” Dr. Michelle Cretella, MD, FCP, president of the American College of Pediatricians told LifeSiteNews previously. “This is child abuse.”

“Transgenderism is a psychological disorder, not a biological one,” said Cretella.

“The commissioner is requiring insurance companies to pay surgeons to remove the healthy breasts of emotionally distraught girls and women and implying it is ‘necessary treatment’ — yet we already have multiple studies demonstrating that mutilation does not treat gender dysphoria,” Cretella told PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil.

...

 

“This is the Sexual State at work,” declared Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, author and founder of the Ruth Institute.

“The insurance companies, no doubt, would prefer not to pay for expensive, unnecessary surgery. And now the Insurance Commission, which is a relatively obscure agency of the state, is acting at the behest of activists, putting pressure on insurance companies.”

Roback Morse told LifeSiteNews that she wondered if the California Insurance Commission will apply the same amount of pressure to health insurance providers to cover surgery costs when these same patients choose to revert to their biological sex in the future.

Read the full article here.

 

 


Make 2021 the Year of Truth

COMMENTARY: The United States is deciding right now what and who it is going to be for the next 500 years.

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first posted

The year 2020 was tough. Many of us had been joking about how great it would be when 2020 ended and we could start fresh again. But in our hearts, we know that 2021 is not likely to be any better. In fact, given the events of yesterday, it may be worse. We are afraid to face this: We feel as if we are staring into the abyss. We can’t figure out what to do. So, we do nothing, and scare ourselves even more.

Therefore, let us face our fear.

The world we once knew is gone.

That world is not coming back.


We in the United States have enjoyed a period of peace and unprecedented prosperity. We never imagined that in our own lifetimes our nation could be radically transformed. But here we are on the precipice of dramatic change.

Every 500 years or so, the world shakes itself apart. Five hundred years after the Great Schism in 1054, the unity of Christendom was shattered further, this time by reformers and revolutionaries. Those events within the Church shaped the world for the next 500 years, for better or for worse. Similar shake-ups happened through inventions and discoveries like those from the turn of the 15th century through the 16th century, when the New World was discovered.

Today, the world is shaking itself apart once again. The country that inaugurated the “March of Democracy” and self-government has degenerated into a technocratic oligarchy with powers beyond Machiavelli’s wildest dreams. What was once an age of reason and science has morphed into an age of “political science”: Scientific truth is whatever the people in power say it is. What was touted as an age of religious tolerance has become the age of more Christian martyrs than all the preceding centuries combined.

Yes, our world is shaking itself apart. But, eventually, the upheaval will come to an end, and our world will reorganize and stabilize. We are deciding right now what and who we are going to be for the next 500 years.

In my opinion, the One Big Issue, the issue behind all the other issues, is the issue of truth. The people who have claimed for years that there is no such thing as “truth” have revealed themselves as either self-deluded fools at best or flat-out liars at worst. Their claims were meant to disarm you and me from fighting for the truth. “That will lead to an inquisition,” they said. Guess what? They are running inquisitions left and right, literally.

We can safely predict that moral relativism as an intellectually respectable philosophy is dead and gone — and good riddance. Oh, sure, some people will continue to talk that way. But fewer and fewer people will take that talk at face value. No one can any longer hide behind the idea that “my truth” is a sovereign that demands unquestioning respect from others. For us as believers, this means that we can’t hide behind our First Amendment “rights” to our beliefs no matter how irrational they may seem to others. We must be prepared to publicly defend our beliefs and our conduct with reasoned arguments.

This may sound as if we are abandoning our First Amendment religious-liberty protections. Newsflash: We have already lost nearly all of our basic religious liberties. Our very capable attorneys are fighting for their lives for scraps from the table of the Secular Ruling Class.

On the plus side: The Secular Ruling Class must also justify and explain itself. When they claim that truth leads to tyranny, more of us will recognize this as a con job. What they are really saying is, “This is what we want. We can’t defend it. We’re hoping to scare you into not defending your beliefs. We are going to try to chase you off the field by undermining your confidence in the very idea of truth itself.” When they talk about “their truth,” we will recognize that what they mean is: “Now that we have power, we’re going to do what we want.”

And “what they want” is none too attractive. In the recent past, we have seen shocking revelations of wrongdoing by the rich and powerful. We have become aware of the sexual abuse of children in public schools, the Boy Scouts, sports and, most scandalous of all, in churches, especially our own Roman Catholic Church. We have become aware of the weaker being sexually harassed by the stronger: employees by their employers; aspiring actors by producers; seminarians by their religious superiors. We’ve become aware of the collusion of public officials and businesses with enemies of the United States.

These revelations have been demoralizing. But now that we are getting used to the idea, we can see that the revelations are actually a double blessing. First, we are better off knowing than not knowing. These things have undoubtedly been going on in secret for a long time. Second, these activities are now widely decried as indefensible and wrong. No moral relativism here!

We should be grateful, not fearful, when the new year brings further revelations of wrongdoing. I like to picture the Holy Mother of God lifting up rocks. Dark, slimy, creepy-crawly things are scurrying around, looking for cover.

Once we know the problems, we have an obligation to deal with them to the best of our ability. For those with specialized professional skills and connections, that means jumping into the judicial or medical or political or ecclesial or media fray. Fight for the truth, and stop cooperating with untruth in your area of expertise.

Many of us will take smaller and less public steps. Maybe you’ll be the church secretary or election observer who blows the whistle. Maybe you’ll be the friend who gives a fired whistleblower another job and a place to live. Maybe you’ll keep rallying your friends and family to keep attention on the problems you know about. Choose an arena in which you can accomplish something, small though it may seem. But do something.

Up until now, the enemy has conquered by winning lots of little skirmishes, taking lots of small fields. Most of the time, he was unopposed.

No more. Make up your mind to get together with fellow believers and educate yourselves. Speak the truth. Take a stand.

How we conduct ourselves as believers today will have far-reaching consequences. Let 2021 be the Year of Truth.

 


NBC Again Smears Ruth Inst. as a “Hate Group”

“NBC’s second broadside against the Ruth Institute is both predictable and pathetic,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., the Institute’s founder and president.

Following its December 9 story, on December 12, NBC did another “exposé” of supposed hate groups that received funding under the Paycheck Protection Program, using information provided by the thoroughly partisan Southern Poverty Law Center.

“SPLC has become the attack dog of the Sexual Revolution,” said Morse. “Its victims include the American Family Association, Family Research Council, the American College of Pediatricians, and Liberty Counsel, as well as the Ruth Institute.

“SPLC’s formula is the essence of simplicity. If you oppose same-sex marriage, you’re a hate group. If you affirm that there’s no science behind what’s called transgenderism, you’re hateful.”


Morse added, “Like so many Sexual Revolutionary groups, NBC and SPLC have given in to the totalitarian impulse. Their tactics are meant to foreclose debate. If they pin the ‘hateful’ label on an organization, no one has to consider its arguments. Because neither entity can answer our arguments, they try to label us hateful and ignore us. It’s a sign of intellectual impotence.

“The Ruth Institute has fought many of the worst effects of the Sexual Revolution. More than any other organization, we have exposed clerical sex abuse. We also provide support for the victims of divorce, pornography, and other forms of sexual exploitation.

“Far from helping victims, NBC has been credibly accused by its former reporter, Ronan Farrow, of shutting down an investigation of charges of sex abuse against former studio head Harvey Weinstein.

“So, while the Ruth Institute was working to support victims of sex abuse, according to Farrow, NBC was protecting a sex offender.”

Morse noted ironically, “We’ve got to be one of the few ‘hate groups’ whose leadership and staff include Catholics, a Jew and an Orthodox priest, as well as Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Mormons. We have also collaborated with African pro-life groups, trying to help them protect their right to have as many children as they want. Odd behavior for a group that is allegedly the Second Coming of the Ku Klux Klan.”

Late last week, in association with Life Petitions, the Ruth Institute launched a petition demanding NBC issue a retraction of its December 9 story, stop using the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source, and “cease harassing and defaming organizations that are working to defend the family, the bedrock of American civilization.” The petition gathered more than 6,600 signatures in just a few days despite the busy holiday season.

Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

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 media@ruthinstitute.org.


Ruth Inst. and Life Petitions Demand NBC Stop Smearing Pro-Family Groups

Life Petitions and the Ruth Institute have launched an online petition demanding NBC retract its December 9 story, insinuating the Institute is a hate group.

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., explained: “Using the Southern Poverty Law Center as its source, NBC reported that 14 ‘hate groups’ received a total of $4.3 million in COVID relief administered by the Small Business Administration.

“The Institute was one of the smallest recipients, receiving $30,000 through the Paycheck Protection Program, which allowed us to keep the lights on and pay staff salaries.”

The petition notes: “By the SPLC’s standards, hate groups would also include women’s athletic associations which oppose allowing ‘transgendered’ men to compete in women’s sports. Likewise, parents who object to men in cocktail dresses and tiaras interacting with children at Drag Queen Story Hour are equally hateful.”

The petition discloses that the sum received by the Ruth Institute was a trifling compared to the millions given to Planned Parenthood affiliates and strip clubs.

“Apparently, the SPLC finds nothing hateful about the killing of unborn children and nothing degrading to women about pole dancing. With its story on ‘hate groups’ getting COVID relief, NBC has firmly established itself as a tool of the Sexual Revolution.”

Morse said NBC’s credibility problems go far beyond its December 9 story. “During the past campaign, coverage by the networks, including NBC, was 67% positive for Biden but 95% negative for Trump.”

The petition charges: “On the sexual front, NBC’s biases stand out as particularly odious. Ronan Farrow, formerly an NBC News investigative reporter, credibly claims they ordered him to stop investigating the Harvey Weinstein story. NBC denies this, but their denial is flimsy.”


Besides the retraction of its story, the petition demands that NBC stop using SPLC as a source, and “cease harassing and defaming organizations that are working to defend the family, the bedrock of American civilization.”

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

Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

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



PornHub's Problem isn't Consent

This article was originally published December 17, 2020 in the National Catholic Register.

by Jennifer Roback Morse

I commend New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Visa and Mastercard for exposing and fighting the plague of the sexual exploitation of children on the internet. Kristof’s pathbreaking story shows just how widespread kiddie porn really is, and how easily the innocent can be entrapped in its snares. Hawley has introduced legislation making it easier for victims to sue. And Visa and Mastercard have withdrawn their services from the Pornhub site. This issue transcends liberal and conservative, left and right. However, something more needs to be said.

In his Dec. 4 story, Kristof focused on the pornography distribution site Pornhub. He noted that a search on the site for “girls under 18” and “14yo” both yielded more than 100,000 videos. They include the rape of children, as well as strangulation and other vile acts. The mega-site attracts more than 3.5-billion visits a month, making it the 10th most-visited website in the world.


Largely in response to this story, Visa and Mastercard announced that they would no longer allow their cards to be used to pay for services on Pornhub. In addition, Hawley filed the Survivors of Human Trafficking Fight Back Act, creating a private cause of action for victims of rape and sex trafficking. The act would allow victims to sue websites that knowingly depict forced sex acts, criminalize the knowing distribution of videos of coerced sex acts, including criminalize “revenge porn,” which is the non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit images by an ex-lover to cause embarrassment or distress to the victim.

All these are good steps. I very much appreciate Kristof and The New York Times for this reporting. However, there is still one thing that troubles me.

Kristof stated, “The issue is not pornography but rape. Let’s agree that promoting assaults on children or on anyone without consent is unconscionable. The problem with Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein was not the sex but the lack of consent — and so it is with Pornhub. ... It should be possible to be sex positive and Pornhub negative.”

Perhaps it “should be possible.” But I’m not convinced. I think this is one of those exquisite distinctions that is possible in theory, but not possible in fact. The reason? The underlying principle of pornography is that sex is a recreational activity with no intrinsic moral or social significance. The only possible problem with porn or with any sex really, is a lack of consent. Assenting to this view of human sexuality is, I suppose, what it means to be “sex positive.

But this view places more weight on the concept of “consent” than it can reasonably bear. We’ve seen throughout the #MeToo movement, that power imbalances can blur the lines between consensual and nonconsensual sex. As Catholics, we have seen many of our bishops ignore the sexual harassment of seminarians, under the theory that they were adults. And I think we have all seen enough to conclude that being “sex positive” does not actually empower the potentially weaker party. Potential victims, such as seminarians in relation to their superiors, employees in relation to their bosses, and children in relation to anybody, are not in a position to give meaningful consent. Our current crop of ideas about sexuality actually disarms potential victims, placing too much responsibility on their shoulders and ignoring their vulnerability relative to the offenders.

Kristof quotes some of the victims. Their responses are telling.

"I had expected the survivors to want to shut down Pornhub and send its executives to prison. Some did, but others were more nuanced. Lydia, now 20, was trafficked as a child and had many rape videos posted on the site. “My stomach hurts all the time” from the tension, she told me, but she doesn’t want to come across as hostile to porn itself.

“I don’t want people to hear ‘No porn!’” Lydia told me. “It’s more like, ‘Stop hurting kids.’”

In my opinion, Lydia doesn’t need to be “nuanced.” She has every reason to be angry. She should not have to worry about whether she comes across as “hostile to porn.” She has every right to be just as darned hostile as she wants.

Here is Kristof again:

"I asked Leo, 18, who had videos of himself posted on Pornhub when he was 14, what he suggested.

“That’s tough,” he said. “My solution would be to leave porn to professional production companies,” because they require proof of age and consent."

I don’t think this line can hold. “Consent” isn’t strong enough. An arbitrary age isn’t strong enough. The underlying problem is that too many of us believe sex is a recreational activity to which all consenting adults are entitled. In fact, some go so far as to believe that a person cannot have a healthy or meaningful life without plentiful sexual activity.

These ideas about human sexuality have put down very deep roots in individual minds and in public institutions. As a culture, we have no objective moral reference point by which to judge any particular intimate encounter, apart from “consent." And let’s face it, we can easily deceive ourselves when we are deciding whether to excuse ourselves or restrain ourselves. In an intimate encounter, almost by definition, there is no one else around to judge us. The power of “sex positive” ideas will bulldoze through the thin line of “consent.”

I propose an alternative view of human sexuality. No one is “entitled” to sexual activity. Sex is something sacred, that potentially holds the literal power of life and death. The lifegiving potential of sex, the life-threatening power of sexual exploitation, we should accept these as facts, not as outmoded prejudices that we are well rid of.

I don’t think poor Leo should be put in a position to have to say this is “tough.” What happened to him was wrong. What led up to what happened to him was also wrong, including the thought processes and ideas.

I hope people from across the political spectrum can work together to eliminate the sexual exploitation of children. It’s an issue of justice for the victims of child sex abuse. This plague is eating away at the soul of our society. I appreciate Nicholas Kristof’s important work on this subject. I do hope he will be willing to rethink some of his ideas. He is right on the brink of a breakthrough. And I also hope everyone reading this, will pray for him.

 



NBC News and SPLC Spread Fake Hate

stop fake hate, fake hate damages lives and livelihoods, fake hate, traditional christianity is not fake hateIn response to a December 9 NBC News story alleging the Ruth Institute is a “hate group,” the Institute’s President, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse Ph.D., called the charge “an outrage.”

“The Ruth Institute is a global, non-profit organization leading an international, interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love,” Morse said. “If fighting sex abuse, pornography, and divorce makes us a hate group, so be it.

“The Ruth Institute has done two thorough statistical analyses of clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church, pulling no punches, sparing no sacred cows. Meanwhile, NBC News has a terrible record on sexual abuse. Ronan Farrow credibly claims that they ordered him to stop investigating the Harvey Weinstein story.”

The NBC story that provoked Morse’s comments concerned the Paycheck Protections Program, designed to provide relief to small businesses affected by the coronavirus lockdowns. NBC reported that 14 organizations – designated hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center – got a total of $4.3 million in disaster relief administered by the Small Business Administration.


“NBC relies on the Southern Poverty Law Center for the ‘hate group’ designation. This just means the Ruth Institute is a group the SPLC hates. Big deal. They raise a lot of money with their hate-mongering tactics. In 2018, their net assets were a half billion dollars,” Morse said.

Like NBC, the SPLC has its own credibility problems on sexual issues. According to PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil, author of the book, Making Hate Pay, SPLC: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC Founder Morris Dees has been accused of harassment and creating a difficult environment for female employees.

The NBC story also quoted “experts” who are “troubled” by these “extremist groups” receiving federal stimulus money.


Morse noted: “The NBC article is a thinly veiled call for more government oversight of these loans. The reporters sought experts who would muse aloud about whether the government should forgive Paycheck Protection Program loans to these groups subjectively designated as ‘hate groups.’ The Ruth Institute received roughly $30,000 through the Paycheck Protection Program. That’s a fraction of the funding received by Planned Parenthood affiliates.”

Additionally, according to Reuters, dozens of strip clubs qualified for between $11.5 million and $27.95 million in COVID disaster relief. “We fight the idea that women are merchandise. They promote it,” Morse said.

She concluded: “The Ruth Institute has done as much as anyone to keep the issue of clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in the public eye. In addition to our statistical analyses, we have given a platform to victims of clergy sexual abuse. Both the SPLC and NBC are morally compromised on sexual issues. Those creeps have a lot of nerve going after us.”

Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

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.

 

 



Internet Child Porn Issue Transcends Left and Right--Ruth Inst.

“We commend New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof and U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) for exposing and fighting the plague of the sexual exploitation of children on the internet,” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

In a December 4 story, Kristof focused on the pornography distribution site Pornhub. Morse commented: “The writer noted that a search on the site for ‘girls under 18’ and ‘14yo’ each yielded more than 100,000 videos.”

She charged: “The Pornhub videos include the rape of children, as well as revenge pornography, strangulation, and other vile acts. The mega-site, which attracts more than 3.5 billion visits a month, making it the 10th most-visited website in the world, does nothing to police its content. It has no incentive to do so. Like other sex-traffickers, it monetizes the suffering of children.”

Along with Senators Joni Ernst (R-IA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), Hawley has filed the Survivors of Human Trafficking Fight Back Act, creating a private cause of action for victims of rape and sex trafficking – as well as those whose intimate images are distributed without their consent -- to sue websites that profit from their suffering and degradation.


The act would allow victims to sue websites that knowingly depict forced sex acts, criminalize the knowing distribution of videos of coerced sex acts, criminalize revenge porn, and require sites like Pornhub to create notice and takedown procedures.

“This is an issue that transcends liberal and conservative, left and right,” Morse said. “It’s about justice for the victims of child sex abuse and fighting a plague that’s eating away at the soul of our society.”

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

Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

See also:

Ruth Inst: “Cuties” Proves Need for Presidential Debate on Family Issues

Virtue Signaling Without Virtue: porn industry brags about its voluntary shutdown over coronavirus

Melea Stephens “The Pornography Effect: The Problems Reach Further Than You Could Imagine”

Dr. Don Hilton “Can We Actually Lose Our Empathy? What Pornography Does to The Mind”

Melea Stephens "Everything you need to know about porn, dangers and side effects

Chris McKenna "Protecting Young Eyes"

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

 


Circuit Court Lifts Same Sex Attraction Therapy Ban

therapy, therapy for same sex attracted individuals, ban on therapy for same sex attracted individuals, ban on therapy for same sex attracted individuals, ban on therapy for same sex attracted individuals lifted in Florida

A U.S. federal court just ruled that two people have the right to talk about whatever they want to talk about. “What?” you may say, “why is this even an issue?” Good question.

In Otto v. City of Boca Raton, therapist Robert Otto sued the Florida city of Boca Raton for the right to talk with clients, in the privacy of his office, about their feelings of sexual attraction, the impact those feelings may be having on their lives, and strategies for improving the quality of their lives. Why did Mr. Otto need to go to court over this, you may ask?


The City of Boca Raton and the county of Palm Beach, at the behest of certain activist groups and professional societies, had passed an ordinance banning “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy” or, to use a more neutral term, “Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.” The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned these ordinances.

But why would a city government ban a particular therapeutic practice in the first place? Why would an activist group want them to ban private speech?

Supporters of the Sexual Revolution are committed to the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, immutable trait, comparable to race. If the activist groups can convince the law that being gay is like being black, then the entire anti-discrimination legal structure can be used to treat self-described “sexual minorities” as a legally protected class. This is why the claim that people have no meaningful choice over their sexual orientation is so politically important. These ideological groups not only claim that change is impossible. They go so far as to claim that trying to change sexual orientation will be actively harmful.

So that is why cities are banning certain types of therapy: They are trying to prop up a false belief that happens to be useful to politically powerful groups. If this ban were left in place, therapists like Robert Otto and his colleagues would be unable to provide help to people who come to them seeking an alternative to the politically popular view.

Here is the problem: It is simply not true that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. There is no “gay gene.” Being gay is nothing like being black.

African Americans know full well that this is true. A person’s race is immediately obvious. A person’s sexual orientation may not be. The thoughts, feelings and behaviors covered under the umbrella term “sexual orientation” include many items that are chosen. Skin color is not chosen in any way. In fact, many African Americans are deeply offended by this high-jacking of the moral authority of their civil rights movement. In the immortal words of Rev. Charlene Cothran, “You can see that I’m black from a block away. I can’t change my skin color.”

In fact, sexual orientation is an ambiguous term, not a well-defined scientific category. Sexual orientation is a complex multidimensional phenomenon with numerous meanings and interpretations. Scientists from various disciplines have used the term to refer to sexual desires, sexual activity , sexual fantasies that involve mostly imaginary partners of the same sex, self-identification as “gay,” or some combination of these. In their 2016 article, psychiatrist Paul McHugh and biostatistician Lawrence Mayer review this issue, going all the way back to the first major systematic statistical study of sexual orientation in 1994. The team of University of Chicago researchers found “While there is a core group (about 2.4 percent of the total men and about 1.3 percent of the total women) in our survey who define themselves as homosexual or bisexual, have same-gender partners, and express homosexual desires, there are also sizable groups who do not consider themselves to be either homosexual or bisexual but have had adult homosexual experiences or express some degree of desire.” More recently, Dr. Lisa Diamond, a well-respected researcher and a self-described lesbian, has stated: “There is currently no scientific or popular consensus on the exact constellation of experiences that definitively quality an individual as lesbian, gay or bisexual rather than curious, confused or maladjusted.” Presumably, some of the “curious,” “confused” or “maladjusted” might voluntarily show up in a therapist’s office, hoping for help.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit actually examined the evidence about sexual orientation change efforts. The court stated:

“[The Defendants] present a series of reports and studies setting out harms of SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.) But when examined closely, these documents offer assertions rather than evidence, at least regarding the effects of purely speech-based SOCE. Indeed, a report from the American Psychological Association, relied on by the defendants, concedes that ‘nonaversive and recent approaches to SOCE have not been rigorously evaluated’” (page 21).

The court’s careful look at the evidence is very important, in my opinion. But even more importantly from a legal perspective, the bans on therapy are bans on speech. After all, the therapist is simply talking with the patient about his or her problems. Prohibiting speech is a dangerous business. In legal terms, “content-based regulations” of speech are subject to “strict scrutiny,” meaning, a government better have a darned good reason to restrict speech based on the content of that speech. The 11th Circuit said, “because the ordinances depend on what is said, they are content-based restrictions that must receive strict scrutiny” (page 6).

In fact, the court said that the ordinances are even worse. Not only are these content-based regulations, but these ordinances also indulge in what is called “viewpoint discrimination.” The therapy bans prohibit some viewpoints while permitting others.

The majority decision found viewpoint discrimination in the exceptions that the ordinances contain. “Counseling that provides support and assistance to a person undergoing gender transition,” is not considered “conversion therapy,” and so is permitted. The court observed, “No such carveout exists for sexual orientation. The ordinances thus codify a particular viewpoint — sexual orientation is immutable, but gender is not — and prohibit the therapists from advancing any other perspective when counseling clients. That viewpoint may be widely shared in the communities that passed the ordinances, but widespread agreement is beside the point; the question is whether a speaker’s viewpoint determines his license to speak” (page 12).

Banning therapy surrounding a condition that is not scientifically well-defined is way too broad. Speech-based sexual orientation change efforts have not been proved to be harmful. Content-based regulations of speech are unlawful. Viewpoint discrimination is unlawful. These ordinances are unconstitutional and bad public policy.

Counselors in these Florida jurisdictions at least, can now feel free to discuss issues of same-sex attraction and sexual identity with their clients. That is why is why I am grateful that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as it did. I will let the court have the final word:

“We understand and appreciate that the therapy is highly controversial. But the First Amendment has no carveout for controversial speech.”

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 full citation for the University of Chicago study is: Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Chapter 8 examines homosexuality. The quote is from pp. 300-301, based on information in Figure 8.2 and Table 8.2.

 

This article was originally published at the National Catholic Register

 



Ruth Inst. Outraged by Australian Drag Queens’ Suit Prohibiting Criticism

Ruth Institute Founder and President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., said a lawsuit by two Australian Drag Queens, “shows just how far the Sexual Revolution will go to silence dissent.”

The “performers” are suing Christian leader Lyle Shelton (former managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby) over his blog posts about the picketing of a Drag Queen Story Hour at the Brisbane Library. Shelton referred to the duo as “dangerous role models.”

Morse observed: “Now these men who dress as women claim their professional careers have been damaged, and they suffered emotional harm. They’re demanding $20,000 in damages, an apology, and removal of the postings. They also want Shelton permanently enjoined from making such comments in the future – in effect, gagging him for life.


Lawfare has increasingly become the favorite tactic of the Sexual Revolution,” Morse said. “Finding a compliant court to embrace even the most outrageous cause of action is easier than arguing their case in the court of public opinion or duking it out in the legislative arena. Instead of a debate, they want to punish speech. They’ll use any excuse to involve their critics in expensive and protracted litigation. Even if the cause of action is implausible, they hope they can force family advocates to amass huge legal bills to defend themselves, in anticipation of an out-of-court settlement.”

Morse drew parallels between this Australian case and the American case of pro-life investigative journalist David Daleiden. Last year, a California jury ordered Daleiden and others to pay $1.5 million in damages for exposing Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby body parts.

“Across the English-speaking world, the Sexual Revolutionaries seem to be playing from the same playbook,” Morse remarked. “Planned Parenthood never denied the illegal transactions. They simply alleged that Daleiden had invaded their privacy and caused them substantial harm. Every time someone like Lyle Shelton or David Daleiden loses, the rights of all of us are in jeopardy.”

See Morse’s interview with Daleiden’s attorney, Paul Jonna, here.


Tags

Support the Ruth Institute