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.


Dr. J Show Explores Abortion Breast Cancer Link

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

October 16, 2020

For Immediate Release

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


In Vitro Fertilization: The Costs and American Consumerism

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

IVF, IVF baby, in vitro fertilization

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

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

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

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

infertility, childless couple 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

happy family, wanted children, loved children

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

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

 

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.


 

 

 

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


 


 



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

by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 


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

by Jennifer Roback Morse

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


In First Presidential Debate, the Family Was Lost in the Shuffle

“Last night’s confrontation between President Trump and former Vice-President Biden shows the need for a separate debate focusing solely on family issues,” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

Partnering with Life Petitions, the Ruth Institute has a petition calling for a debate on family-related issues. More than 6,000 signatures have been collected.

Morse observed: “Last night’s debate covered the Supreme Court, COVID-19, the economy, and race and violence, among other pressing concerns. It was entirely predictable.

“This is all well and good, but the family lies at the heart of all of these concerns,” Morse noted. “Urban crime and violence are spurred by the decline of the family in inner cities. Strong families are the foundation of a strong economy. Intact families have found it easier to weather the coronavirus storm.”


Morse explained: “It’s a case of missing the forest for the trees. At the root of many of our most perplexing problems is the decline of the family, and a revival of family values is the solution.

“Some people claim that it ‘takes a village to raise a child.’ We think that is code for ‘let the government raise children and run the family.’ We at the Ruth Institute believe exactly the opposite. We believe it takes a family to raise a village, or a community, or a nation.”

Morse added: “Families in America want to know what the candidates would do to end the horror of abortion (currently verging on infanticide), if they would declare pornography a public health crisis (as have 16 states), what they would do to stop sex-trafficking, if they’re concerned about so-called transgender medical procedures for minor children, if they support using U.S. foreign aid to force developing nations to adopt Western-style laws on abortion and homosexuality, and how they would strengthen man-woman marriage, currently under attack on so many fronts.

“Last night’s debate in Cleveland strengthened our commitment to promoting a presidential debate on family issues,” Morse said.

Sign the Ruth Institute/Life Site petition calling for such a debate.


Ruth Inst. Happy BLM Moving Away from Anti-Family Rhetoric

“Given renewed support for the family during an election year and after the COVID lockdown, even a radical group like Black Lives Matter has toned down its anti-family advocacy,” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

Morse noted that the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which founded BLM in 2013, recently removed from its website the statement: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.”

“This is the standard utopian dogma of the radical left,” Morse said. “Despite the cliché that ‘it takes a village to raise a child,’ children are raised best by mothers and fathers providing a loving home in which they can grow and flourish.”


Morse added: “All of the pathologies which afflict the black community – including crime and drugs – can be traced to the decline of the black family.

“On the other hand, collectively, African Americans are more supportive of the traditional family and man/woman marriage than just about any other demographic. I learned that when I was spokeswoman for Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“I don’t think the Black Lives Matter Global Network had a sincere change of heart,” Morse observed. “The founders describe themselves as ‘trained Marxists.’ Wherever Marxists have come to power, from North Korea to Cuba, they have sought to replace the family with the collective, be it the state or the party.

“Still, its move is an unspoken acknowledgement of the popularity of the family in these perilous times, and reason why our petition for a pro-family presidential debate is more important now than ever.”

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

Sign the Ruth Institute/LifeSite petition for a presidential debate on family issues here.

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


Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was the Sexual State in a Black Robe

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg was doubtless a fine person and dedicated to her ideas,” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. “I pray for God’s mercy on her soul, and solace to her family. But her ideas are dividing America.”

“For Justice Ginsburg, the Sexual State trumped everything else, including First Amendment freedom of religion, common sense and basic science.”

Calling the late Supreme Court Justice “the personification of the Sexual State in a black robe,” Morse explained: “She consistently solidified the most radical tenets of the Sexual Revolution using the power of the State. She used the highest law of the land to overturn democratic processes that tried to protect traditional sexual morals.”


In abortion cases where even most of the court’s liberal members favored restraint, she remained an unapologetic champion of abortion without exceptions. Justice Ginsburg allowed radicals to use the power of the State to enforce their views on LGBT issues, including “transgenderism.” In June, she was part of the majority that applied workplace anti-discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to homosexuals and the gender-confused.

According to Morse, “This marked the first time the Supreme Court equated so-called sexual orientation with race and religion – a move which would have confounded the authors of the ’64 law. Although meant to cover employment, the decision will inevitably lead to removing remaining barriers to a distinction between women and men who call themselves women, their DNA notwithstanding.”

“The ruling essentially erased women,” Morse observed. “So it’s ironic that Justice Ginsburg is being hailed as a champion of women’s rights.”

“In addition, her dissents showed a marked hostility to religion. For instance, in Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania (2020), six justices upheld a Trump rule exempting the sisters from a provision of the Affordable Care Act, which would have forced them to provide contraceptives to employees through their health insurance plan. Ginsburg was one of only two justices who dissented.”

“In 2016, Donald Trump was elected to put the brakes on the Sexual State. He can make a significant step in that direction with a prompt replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

Sign the Ruth Institute/LifeSite petition calling for a 4th presidential debate on family issues.


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

Commenting on the outrage provoked by the child pornography of Netflix’s “Cuties,” Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., said: “With this highly eroticized portrayal of 11-year-old girls, the global ruling class is once again pushing the envelope on pedophilia. This latest example of the pornification of our culture shows the need for a 4th presidential debate, exclusively on issues impacting the family.”

Partnering with LifeSite, the Ruth Institute has an online petition calling for a debate focusing on what the candidates would do to strengthen the family and counter the various threats to the family.

The petition currently has more than 5,700 signers.

“‘Cuties’ is just the latest example of a growing anti-family culture,” Morse said. “Others include the two egregious Supreme Court rulings at the end of June, one striking down the mildest restrictions imaginable on abortion, and the other which would allow so-called transgenders to participate in women’s sports – thus effectively ending women’s sports.”

 


 

Such a debate might include the following questions for the candidates:

  • Would you have your Attorney General investigate the possibility of bringing up Netflix on child pornography charges?
  • Should pornography be declared a public health crisis on the federal level, as it has in 16 states?
  • Do you support a born-alive law to protect abortion survivors?
  • Should foreign aid be conditioned on recipients accepting Western sexual norms, including legalizing abortion and normalizing homosexual relations?
  • What is your opinion of medically unnecessary surgeries and drugs for minors trying to change the sex of their bodies?

“Questions such as these will not be asked in the three scheduled debates September 29 and October 15 and 22, but for families, they are just as relevant as energy policy, trade, and public health concerns. That’s why we’re pushing so hard for a fourth debate on family issues,” Morse explained.

Sign the petition here.

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

Pornography and sexual exploitation were topics included in the Ruth Institute’s recent Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution.

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

 

Tags

Support the Ruth Institute