World Health Organization: The Pill causes cancer in humans

My doctor won’t give me Hormone Replacement Therapy to help relieve my menopause symptoms. He says those hormones are associated with increased health risks. Yet, if I were 40 years younger and asked the doctor for oral contraception, he would prescribe it in a snap.  Even though hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives consist of similar hormones with similar risks for cancer and other illnesses.

The World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens since at least 2005.   However, they issued a public statement, attempting to reassure the public:

Read more…

Categories: contraception Tags:

A happy marriage is better than a messy divorce.

July 23rd, 2014 No comments

Accolades for 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage

“How can something as wide and complex as marital conflict be addressed by a book so slender and simple? Our culture stresses the wedding day and forgets the married life–until the wheels start coming off and then it’s often too late. But there is hope. This wise and practical book is not only for couples who want to make their good marriages great, but even better for couples who, for their own unique and pain-drenched reasons, find themselves tempted to give up on the dream. To Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse and Betsy Kerekes go the laurels for this much-needed manual for strengthening men and women for what G.K. Chesterton called the ‘duel to the death which no man of honor should decline.’” –Patrick Coffin, Host of Catholic Answers Live 

Pick up a copy here.

The inequality of “marriage equality”

July 22nd, 2014 No comments

the inequality of marriage equalityNote: since “equality” is paramount for “marriage equality” supporters, next time you are discussing the marriage issue with them, point out their unequal arguments and also how “marriage equality” is contributing to children’s inequality. See what their response is.

“Marriage equality” relies on unequal arguments. When it comes to “rights,” “marriage equality” supporters make arguments based on gay rights, but they refuse to accept arguments based on children’s rights. When it comes to “outcomes,” they refuse to argue about the outcomes of gay sexual activity, but will argue about the various studies regarding children’s outcomes under various family structures. Not only do they argue unequally, “marriage equality” is contributing to children being treated unequally under the law. Read more…

My prediction about the Princeton Professors…

Yesterday, I predicted that the debate between two Princeton professors would not broach what I consider to be the crucial questions on the marriage issue.

Princeton Professors duke it out over the definition of marriage.

Princeton Professors duke it out over the definition of marriage.

The opening salvo by Professor Emeritus James Doig seemed more concerned with catching Professor Robert George in some inconsistency than in really exploring what the redefinition of marriage might ultimately mean.

In my reaction to his article, I posed these question. I consider them the most crucial issues.

How will redefining marriage redefine parenthood? Are we happy with that redefinition? And do we really want to change the relationship between the State and the citizen in the way that this redefinition really entails?

And I predicted that the week-long exchange between the Princeton Professors would not address these issues.

Today’s response by Professor Robert George has many interesting arguments and ideas. But he does not remotely answer these questions.

Stay tuned. Maybe Professor Doig will take them up tomorrow.

I’m not holding my breath.

No one is doing what the Ruth Institute is doing: inspiring the Survivors of the Sexual Revolution to to recover from their negative experiences and share their stories with the young. Join us here.

 

Asking the Right Questions about Marriage

Over at The Public Discourse, Professor Emeritus Jameson W. Doig of Princeton began a dialogue with Professor Robert George also of Princeton on the proper definition of marriage today. Professor Doig’s point appears to be that Professor George has not been consistent in his views. My point is not to defend Professor George: he is a big boy and can take care of himself.

My point is that Professor Doig’s entire article avoids some important questions. How will redefining marriage redefine parenthood? Are we happy with that redefinition? And do we really want to change the relationship between the State and the citizen in the way that this redefinition really entails?

The problem begins with Professor Doig’s very first paragraph.

I want to begin with two Vermonters, Ann and Ellen, who have been together as a couple for more than thirty years. They have three children—Bert, who has graduated from college and is now married (to Maria) and working in a small business in Vermont, and Alison and Beth, who are in high school, both doing well in their academic work and excelling in soccer. One of the three is adopted, and Ann is the birth-mother of the other two.

Ripped out of the picture, by design.

Ripped out of the picture, by design.

Do you see who is missing from this equation?  Without knowing anything else about this family, we know that the father of Ann’s biological children has been safely and legally escorted off the stage. The children will never have the opportunity to have a relationship with their father.

Most children have a legally recognized right to know and be cared for by both of their Read more…

The Sexual State: The Purpose of our government

babies are inconvienentWhat is the purpose of government?  Let us look around us to draw the conclusion. Based on what we observe our government doing, we would have to conclude:

The real purpose of the government is to give people the sex lives they want, with a minimum of inconvenience.

You want to have sex without having a baby? No problem, we’ll give you contraception at no cost to you.

You want to have sex and you got pregnant and you don’t want the baby?  That’s inconvenient. We’ll give you an abortion.

You want to have sex with someone you aren’t married to?  Your spouse and children are inconvenient.  We’ll give you a no-fault divorce so you won’t be inconvenienced by your obligations to your spouse and children. Read more…

Categories: Sexual State Tags:

Dear Bob: Letters to a Hopeful Marriage Apologist

July 18th, 2014 Comments off

Note: I get many letters from people asking for studies or quick answers to defend marriage to their friends. I get so many of these requests, I decided to put together a set of standard responses. I hope this series will be helpful for more people than those particular individuals who have written to me. With some time and study and practice, anyone can become a Marriage Apologist within their own sphere of influence! 

Dear Bob,

Anyone can become a Marriage Apologist, including you!

Anyone can become a Marriage Apologist, including you!

Thanks for your note. I am so glad that you feel motivated to explain the truth about marriage to your friend.  I am eager to enlist you in our campaign for “one man, one woman, for life!”

I am sorry to say, however, that I cannot just give you a list a studies “showing gay marriage is bad for society.”  First off, such studies don’t exist in the form that you are asking about. And second off, your friend is unlikely to be persuaded by such empirical evidence anyhow.  But you probably guessed that already!

Let me give you a few first steps. First: educate yourself about marriage itself. If we don’t know what marriage is, and why it is good for society, we won’t have a clue as to the significance of a gender requirement.

( And BTW, I suggest that you avoid the term “gay marriage” and similar terms.  Our position is that there is no such thing as “gay marriage.”  We should not argue about whether “gay marriage is good for society.”  That already accepts your opponents’ terms of debate. But I digress.)

As a first step in educating yourself, I suggest studying Love and Economics. You can do this two ways. If you are a reader, you

Listen to Ruth Institute podcasts.

Listen to Ruth Institute podcasts.

can buy the book from the Ruth Store and read it. If you are a listener, you can go to our podcast page and listen to this recent talk that I gave to about 150 law students. I think it will be a good level for you, reasonably sophisticated, without assuming Read more…

Tip #27 from 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage

July 16th, 2014 Comments off

Listen to what your spouse is tring to tell you during a conflict. Sometimes conflict arises because one person is trying to hold the other accountable for misbehavior, bad habits, or character flaws. You’d probably rather hear about your character defects from your spouse who loves you, than from your boss during an exit interview.

How well do you typically do on your New Year’s resolutions? Did you lose ten pounds? Are you down to only a pack a day? Are you exercising eight days a week? Well why not work on something a little more internal? Park your pride in the still-cluttered garage, and listen to what your spouse has to say. You may not enjoy it at the time, but you may end up thanking him or her later.

Get your copy here. And don’t forget that you can order a special personalized edition signed by both authors by ordering here.

Transformational marriage

July 16th, 2014 Comments off

Very interesting article over at Ethika Politika, called “Choosing Transformational Marriage,” by a young lady named Elizabeth Stoker Bruening.  She makes the point that we are all so freaked out over whether we stay married or get divorced and how we feel, that we overlook the transformational nature of marriage itself.  She observes that the raft of “quick fixes” to prevent divorce or create happiness:

already mistake the nature of the institution. In the ‘romantic’ view, marriage … was only ever a declaration of love; the deluge of media mediating on how to restore affection, satisfaction, or interest to a marriage is evidence of this

"till death do us part"

“till death do us part”

sense of divorce as the inevitable outcome of weakened sentiments.

Yet, all these projects intend to manipulate marriage to better serve one’s own purposes, while … marriage is better thought of as a purpose to be served, in which the long story of love unfolds.

Marriage lasts wherein the couple allow themselves to be transformed by it, and faithfully commit to that transformation, re-orienting the way they relate to one another and the marriage itself by willful habitation to the virtues of charity and kindness.

I agree with Mrs. Bruening that the best view of marriage is to see it as a purpose worth pursuing, rather than as a vehicle for Read more…

Biblical Sexual Ethics Workshop

July 14th, 2014 Comments off

Sponsored by the Salt and Light Council

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse will be speaking July 22,  6-7pm PST8-9pm CST9-10pm EST.,  on The Marriage Debate and the Sexual Revolution.”

Place: Join.Me meeting: https://join.me/SaltandLightCouncil

REQUIREMENTS: This will be a nationwide, Join.Me meeting from The Salt & Light Council (SLC) office hosted by Dran Reese, SLC President. Viewers will need a computer and a phone line. Space is limitied. First come, first served. Invite your church or group and watch it together.

Jennifer is a Senior Fellow in Economics at the Acton Institute and regular contributor to National Review Online and The National Catholic Register. She received her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester. Until recently, Jennifer was a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. She has been on the faculty of Yale University and George Mason University, and is the author of Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work. Jennifer was named as “one of the top nine Catholics of 2013” by Our Sunday Visitor News Weekly.