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.


Ruth Institute Honors Three for Promoting Family Values

By Pamela Seal

This article was posted July 20, 2020, at LCDiocese.org.

LAKE CHARLES — A former “fake-news” journalist for Cosmopolitan, a urologist expelled for defending the integrity of the medical profession, and an attorney devoted to promoting the dignity of the human person were all honored on July 17 for their efforts to promote family values.

The third annual Ruth Institute awards dinner was part of a two-day Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution held July 17-18 at Treasures of Marilyn’s. The Ruth Institute provides decades of research to support individuals and families harmed by divorce, the hook-up culture, and other forms of family breakdown.

Recipient of the Public Witness of the Year Award was Sue Ellen Browder for her courageous expose in her book, Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women’s Movement. As the dinner’s keynote speaker via video, Browder shared details of how she helped invent the “Cosmo Girl” during her two decades of writing for Cosmopolitan magazine after she was hired in 1971.


Sue Ellen Browder was the keynote speaker via
video message at the Ruth Institute's Annual Awards
Dinner and Survivor's Summit on July 17 at Treasures
of Marilyn's in Lake Charles. She is also this year's
recipient of the Public Witness of the Year Award.

While Browder did not live the lifestyle that she was soft selling to other women, she said she honestly believed that people knew the stories she was writing about casual sex, contraception and abortion as a woman’s path to personal fulfillment were all a fantasy.

“It wasn’t until I became a Catholic at the age of 57, after I had been away from Cosmo for many years, that I could look back at what I had been doing and see the damage it had done to the culture,” she said. That’s when she knew she had to come clean and seek forgiveness.

The propaganda that was used to sell the sex revolution’s false values to American women were stories that were made up to make it seem as if single women were having these happy-go-lucky sex lives, said Browder.

“Propaganda is the language of the serpent. It contains some truth, but it is twisted,” she said. “Modern propaganda is far more subtle and sophisticated than a straight-out lie. It is purposely designed not just to change what you think, but also to change how you act.”

Browder said God was never mentioned in Cosmopolitan. She also said that telling the truth about contraception, abortion, the sexual revolution and anything that is sold by Cosmo advertisers is considered an attack.

“What made me most miserable in my life was having an abortion when I was 27,” Browder said upon reflecting on her conversion experience in 2003. “What made me happiest was my beautiful 40-year marriage. Today, what has healed the pains of my past and brought me the deepest joy I have ever known is my relationship with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

Receiving the Professional Integrity Award was Dr. Paul Church, a practicing urologist for more than 35 years and an Assistant Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School in Boston before his retirement from clinical practice in 2017.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the
Ruth Institute, presents the Professional Integrity
Award to Dr. Paul Church for his efforts to defend
the integrity of the medical profession.
Church accepted the award virtually since
COVID-19 prevented him from attending the event.

Dr. Church was fired, and his medical license nearly revoked when he challenged hospital superiors to be more truthful about the health consequences of high risk LGBTQIA+ sexual behavior. Met with increasing efforts to silence his concerns, he was eventually expelled from the medical staff in December 2015. Two other hospitals where Dr. Church held appointments expelled him as well, and a fourth hospital revoked their staff position offer fearing repercussions from the LGBT community.

In his acceptance of the award via a video message, Dr. Church said in its decision to expel him, it was evident the medical center had chosen the path of political correctness and promotion of a social agenda unrelated to a practice of medicine or the advancement of healthcare.

“It’s easy to become discouraged in this climate of political correctness and censorship and rejection of the truth,” he said. “We aren’t winning many battles, but we must continue to fight the good fight and support prayerfully and financially those organizations on the frontlines like the Ruth Institute.”

The Public Activist Award was presented in person to Cathy Cleaver Ruse, whose professional experience spans the fields of communication, public policy and law.

The “condescending” attitude of the Fairfax County School Board in Virginia is all it took to light a fire under Ruse when she learned her local school board voted to allow transgender bathrooms.

Cathy Cleaver Ruse, left, accepts the
Public Activist Award from Dr. Jennifer
Roback Morse during the third annual
Ruth Institute's Awards Dinner on July 17.

Even though her children attend Catholic schools, when she heard there was only one “no” vote for the policy, she decided to attend a board meeting so she could meet the person who cast the lone vote.

“A woman named Elizabeth Schultz was my new hero,” said Ruse. “I thanked her and told her I wanted to help. I have been singularly focused about five years now. It was if God anointed me to go fight for this.”

Ruse serves as Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Legal Studies and Legal Supervisor for Ave Maria School of Law/Culture of Life Foundation Washington Externship Program.

Live-streaming and online programs during the Summit were available on topics including: Surviving Childhood Sexual Abuse, Clergy Sex Abuse By the Numbers, Pornography as a Public Health Crisis, Medical Issues in the LGBT Subculture, Reporting on the Transgender Movement, and Protecting Your Family from Pornography. Each topic concluded with a Q&A discussion panel.

  • ••••••••
  • The Ruth Institute, founded by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse in San Diego in 2008, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. It has since relocated to Lake Charles in 2015. For more information, visit www.ruthinstitute.org or call 760-295-9278. To learn more about Sue Ellen Browder's conversion story, click here.


    The United Nations Advances the Sexual Revolution – What’s to Celebrate?

    This year marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. “The Ruth Institute will not be celebrating,” said Founder and President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. “What could have been a force for peace and understanding has led the war on unborn children and human reproduction.”

    Since its founding in 1969, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has spent an estimated $20 billion facilitating abortion and forced sterilization campaigns worldwide. President Trump ended U.S. funding of UNFPA in 2017, saving taxpayers $32.5 million annually.

    Morse explained: “At the time, the U.S. administration noted UNFPA’s complicity in China’s notorious one-child policy -- which included forced abortion and involuntary sterilizations -- affecting half a billion women over 30 years. The UN agency has held up China’s program as a model for developing nations to follow.”


    Coalitions Director of the Ruth Institute, Don Feder said, “The United Nations Population Fund has sowed the wind and is reaping the whirlwind with its attack on human reproduction. Worldwide, the fertility rate is half of what it was in the 1960s.”

    “It will be impossible to maintain industrialized civilization with declining populations,” Feder continued. “With pension costs and medical care for the elderly rising, and tax revenue declining from fewer workers, national budgets will be caught in a squeeze. Loneliness and suicide among the elderly will also rise. As it slips into old age, a whole generation will be left with no children or grandchildren to visit them in retirement – or one child a thousand miles away who may call them once a month. We can thank the United Nations for this human tragedy.”

    Feder will be addressing population control and demographic winter at the Ruth Institute’s Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution, July 17-18 in Lake Charles, LA. Learn more about the Summit 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.

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

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


    Cardinal Pell’s Acquittal Contains Message for Retired Professionals: Get to Work!

    This article was first published April 14, 2020, at the NCRegister.

    COMMENTARY: The people who have the most to offer in combating the sexual revolution also have the most to lose from doing so.

    by Jennifer Roback Morse

    Respected commentator Father Raymond de Souza observed a little-known fact about the convoluted case of Australian Cardinal George Pell: “No judge who had a future to worry about sided with Cardinal Pell. Every judge whose future was secure from recriminations for judging fairly sided with the cardinal.”


    One such fair judge was the lone dissenter on the lower court, Justice Mark Weinberg. Father de Souza’s observation has implications far beyond one Australian legal case. Let me come right to the point: Retired professionals, we need you back on the playing field!

    Let me explain.

    Obviously, the top jurists in the Australian legal system do not have “a future to worry about.” These judges on the highest court of the land are the ones who ultimately exonerated Cardinal Pell. Let’s zero in on Weinberg, who, as noted above, was the lone dissenter at that level. His 200-page dissent utterly demolished the majority opinion, which upheld Cardinal Pell’s convictions. Father de Souza pointed out something I did not previously realize: Weinberg is a 71-year-old retired judge who is called in for special cases because of his expertise.

    Let’s apply this seemingly offhand observation to the broader situation of living out Catholic teaching in the modern world. The entire developed world is in the grip of an ideology that is every bit as toxic and irrational as communism or fascism. This ideology demands conformity, imposes penalties for dissent, and controls all the major institutions of society. The ideology promises to create heaven on Earth, if only we allow the ruling savior class enough power to reshape law, media, education, entertainment and, of course, the judicial system.

    The ideology I’m speaking of is the one spawned by the sexual revolution. We can all have carefree, unlimited sex. No unwanted babies. No broken hearts. No loneliness. We’re told that the sex of the body is not a real constraint on anything, so we can remake our society and our bodies in any way we want. Children don’t really need anything from their natural parents, so we don’t really need any social norms requiring permanence in sexual relationships. If we just continue to reshape the institutions of society, we will eventually arrive at that wonderful world where sexual activity is sterile unless you have quirky lifestyle preferences and happen to want a baby: heaven on Earth.

    The only major institution in the world holding out against this ideology is the Catholic Church. And even parts of the Church have “gone wobbly,” in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s colorful phrase from a different era about a different totalitarian ideology. Cardinal Pell’s “crime” was that he actively resisted the claims of the sexual revolutionaries. The child-abuse charges were trumped up against him. There are clerics around the world who are much guiltier of much worse things who are getting far better treatment within their own countries’ legal systems and the international media than poor Cardinal Pell. Why single out him, of all people? Interesting question, no?

    I’ve written before about the commonalities among the cases of Theodore McCarrick, Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. And I’ve written quite a lot (a whole book, in fact) about the dynamics of the sexual revolution and what keeps it chugging along, in spite of its irrationality and crimes. Long story short: Delaying childbearing is the de facto social price of getting an education and entering the professions.

    Many people accomplish that delay, not by sexual restraint until marriage, but, rather, through the use of contraception and, in many cases, abortion. This fact tilts the educated and professional classes toward favoring the sexual revolution and the unfettered license it touts. The people most likely to be in positions of influence, power and wealth either think the sexual revolution is just grand, or secretly know that it isn’t but have a guilty conscience about it. In either case, an outsized percentage of people in the professions have a strong incentive to keep the sexual revolution going. People like Cardinal Pell, who dissent from the sexual revolution’s orthodoxy, disturb the consciences of many journalists and jurists.

    Members of the professions who do not agree with the sexual revolution know all about the pressure to conform to its tenets. I have heard from Catholic lawyers and doctors, as well as evangelical Protestant therapists and social workers, about the difficulties of trying to do their jobs. The people who have the most to offer in combating the sexual revolution also have the most to lose from doing so.

    Yet these are the very people we need to fighting for the integrity of their professions. These are people who know the fields of law or medicine or journalism. They can speak to the specific problems in the libraries and schools. They know how their profession operates. They know the important people and have connections an outsider can’t have.

    This brings me back to Cardinal Pell. What if Mark Weinberg hadn’t come out of retirement to take this case? Where would Cardinal Pell be today if Weinberg had decided to check out and do the Australian equivalent of playing golf that day? Only someone who is both qualified and relatively detached from social pressure could render the type of impartial ruling that Weinberg did.

    Retired doctors, nurses, teachers, attorneys: This is my plea. Find creative ways to influence your profession for good. Join or form alternative professional organizations or independent practices. No one can fire you anymore. You have nothing to lose now, and you still have a lot to offer. Get to work. We need you!

     


    Our Annual Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution is Coming!

     

    Educating yourself is the first step in fighting the effects of the sexual revolution in your life and among loved ones.

    The Ruth Institute is hosting its Third Annual Awards Dinner and Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution, and you're invited.

    Learn how to confront and survive trends in transgenderism, the LGBT subculture, the pitfalls of population control, post-abortion trauma, same-sex parenting, childhood sexual abuse, and more.

    The summit will include various sessions loaded with information. Have you ever wondered, for example, how pornography is affecting people’s lives? The Summit’s class “Protecting Our Children from Our Pornified Culture” will open your eyes. These and other facts about pornography will be discussed:


    • The average age of first exposure to porn is 11 years old
    • 25% of search engine requests are related to sex
    • 35% of downloads from the Internet are pornographic
    • 40% of Americans say they regularly visit porn sites
    • 70% of men aged 18 to 24 visit a porn site at least once a month
    • One-third of all Internet porn users are women
    • Conditions frequently associated with porn addiction include depression, anxiety, mood disorders, substance abuse, memory problems, and erectile dysfunction
    • In the United States, 68% of divorces involve one party having what is described as an obsessive interest in pornography

    For this and many other well-researched presentations, save the date:

    Third Annual Ruth Institute Awards Dinner and

    Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution

    PROTECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

    July 17-18, 2020

     


     



    Student Pro-life Activists NOT Single-Issue Voters!

    Students Care About a Broad Range of Issues Related to the Sexual Revolution

    Despite common stereotypes, most pro-life activists are NOT single-mindedly focused on abortion. The Ruth Institute conducted what may be the first survey of pro-life student opinion on other social issues at the Students for Life Pro-Life Summit on January 25 in Washington D.C. This Summit followed the annual National March for Life and was attended by more than 3,000.

    Ruth Institute Founder and President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., explained: “With almost 10% of those attending the Summit taking the survey, we believe we have a representative sampling of the attendees. Since they are the future of the pro-life movement, we wanted to learn what other issues concern them.”

    Of the 252 who took the survey at the Ruth Institute booth:


    • 83% said they were concerned about euthanasia
    • 83% said they were troubled by the decline of marriage
    • 66% mentioned contraception as an area of concern
    • 59% said they were troubled by what’s called comprehensive sexuality education
    • 50% said they were concerned about surrogacy and
    • 47% named the worldwide decline of fertility

    The ages of those who took the survey ranged from 12 through 76, with an average age of 28. The respondents were 71% women and 77% Catholic.

    Dr. Morse observed: “Despite a general belief to the contrary, pro-lifers aren’t single-issue activists. They care about a broad range of issues which, like abortion, are related to the Sexual Revolution.”

    Other questions on the Ruth Institute survey included:

    • 1.What brought you to the pro-life position?
    • 2.What do you think is the best argument to advance the pro-life cause?
    • 3.What is the best practical solution to abortion?

    Morse said, “We were honored to be able to participate in the Summit. It was an exciting event that brought together student activists and leaders from across the country to learn and network. It also gave us the opportunity to conduct this important survey, perhaps the first of its kind.”


    'The Sexual State': How Government and Big Donors Gave Us the Sexual Revolution

    By Tyler O'Neil

    This article was first published October 4, 2018, at PJ Media.

    Cover of "The Sexual State" by Jennifer Roback Morse.

     

    In 21st century America, sex is all around us: on television, in movies, in classrooms, in politics, and even in churches. Sex permeates our desires, our expectations for relationships, even our identity. The Sexual Revolution goes far beyond the LGBT movement, and it has fundamentally reshaped American society. But few Americans actually grasp exactly where this revolution came from. An explosive new book reveals that government and wealthy donors, rather than impersonal historical forces or newly liberated women, propelled the Sexual Revolution.


    "The State bears the greatest responsibility for the toxic sexual culture in which we live," Jennifer Roback Morse,founder of the Ruth Institute (RI), writes in "The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologues Are Destroying Lives And Why the Church Was Right All Along." She presented five other explanations for the Sexual Revolution, and found each one wanting.

    Many have suggested that the Sexual Revolution came about through the inevitable and impersonal "march of history." This view does not work "because it robs us and our forbears of human agency." Even the overhyped birth control pill "is just an inert piece of technology" that people could decide to use or not use, or use in different ways.

    Morse also rebuts the feminist narrative, which suggests that "these changes have been one long string of victories for the benefit and advancement of women." Ironically, the very success of women's liberation "undermines the claim that women have been completely powerless and dominated by the patriarchy throughout all of recorded history." Furthermore, the author argues that "the pro-life movement is dominated by women," suggesting that not all women want more of the Sexual Revolution.

    Perhaps the most common explanation for the Sexual Revolution is the "liberationist narrative," which posits that everyone is more free thanks to new sexual norms. This view also cannot explain how age-old oppression was immediately dissolved in one generation, Morse argues.

    Furthermore, many people "have become less free, in fact actually oppressed, by the very forces that are supposedly liberating us. The breaking of family bonds has increased the size and scope of the State, including the intrusion of the State into the everyday lives of ordinary people." She mentions college sex tribunals, family courts — which even rule on which schools and churches children can attend — and higher taxes to pay for social workers who manage tough divorces and family breakdown.

    Morse also rejects the "over-population narrative," which suggests that "too many people create ecological disaster and economic backwardness," so the State needs to control population through birth control and abortion. Interestingly, advocates of this narrative "haven't been able to adapt the narrative to the changing circumstances of population decline, which the Over-Population Narrative itself helped bring about."

    Finally, the author turns to a "steal capitalist narrative," explaining the Sexual Revolution by pointing to the many people who benefit financially from family breakdown. Abortionists, pharmaceutical companies, the fertility industry, pornographers, divorce professionals, family court judges and lawyers, medical professionals who specialize in sexually transmitted diseases, and social workers all perversely benefit from family breakdown, contraception, and abortion.

    Even higher education and employers benefit from women choosing to get married later, to go to school and to work, rather than raising a family. Morse claims that employers benefit from easy divorce as well, as women are less able to rely on their husbands to financially support them. She suggests that these factors cement the Sexual Revolution, but they do not explain it.

    The author boils the Sexual Revolution down to three basic "ideologies:" the Contraceptive Ideology separates sex from childbearing; the Divorce Ideology separates sex and childbearing from marriage; and the Gender Ideology eliminates the distinctions between men and women that individuals do not explicitly embrace.

    "The Sexual Revolution needs the State for one major reason: the premises of the Sexual Revolution are false," Morse declares. "Sex does make babies. Children do need their parents, and therefore marriage is the proper and just context for both sex and childbearing. Men and women are different." The Sexual Revolution requires "reconstructing society" around a rejection of these basic truths, so it involves a great deal of propaganda.

    "If you can make people believe Bruce Jenner, the 1976 male Olympic decathlon winner, is a woman, you can make them believe 2 + 2 = 5. If you can make people afraid to say, 'Bruce Jenner is a man,' you can make them afraid to say anything," Morse quips. "The Sexual Revolution is a totalitarian ideology with a blind commitment to the implementation of its tenets, regardless of the human costs."

    The book begins with a list of victims of the Sexual Revolution, a topic for a future article. Those victims include children of divorce, spouses who did not want to get divorced, women who waited too long to have children, young women who wanted to abstain from sex, and more. Suffice it to say, the Sexual Revolution has harmed many people.

    Morse narrates how the state unleashed the Sexual Revolution, beginning with the Supreme Court contraception case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Contraceptive Ideology predated this decision and played a large role in pushing the Court to change the law on contraception.

    The author cites liberal attorney Leo Pfeffer and conservative historian Allan Carlson, who agreed that governments will consider contraception necessary once they have established welfare states — in order to prevent the subsidized poor from having children. Tragically, the U.S. government pushed contraception before Griswold, pushing contraception in post-World War II Japan and other foreign countries considered to be U.S. interests.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, USAID started pushing contraception and abortion, thinking these "family planning" efforts would help other countries defeat poverty. These policies were also wrapped up with the ugly eugenics movement in America.

    In order to downplay the ugly history of eugenics, contraception activists turned to the work of Alfred Kinsey, an academic who claimed that "up to" 67 to 98 percent of American men ha had premarital sex and that 69 percent of American males had at least one experience with a prostitute. His claims were shot down by other researchers, who exposed his shoddy methods. But the Rockefeller Foundation funded his research and sent his crackpot theories mainstream.

    Planned Parenthood and its allies enjoyed connections to elites, and helped push the Court in the direction of legalizing contraception for anyone across the country.

    Similarly, elite institutions and big donors pushed no-fault divorce, Morse argues. After Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law in 1968, the American Law Institute (ALI), founded with support from the Carnegie Foundation, crafted model legislation to insert the state in between husbands and wives — and favor the spouse who wanted a divorce.

    The ALI pushed for decriminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults, a key plank that struck down states' ability to regulate obscene materials and contraception.

    By 1974, all but five states had adopted a form of no-fault divorce.

    Morse argues that no-fault divorce positions the power of the state on the side of whichever spouse least wants the marriage to continue. This damages spouses who are committed to the marriage, but it also damages children who do not grow up with both of their parents. It also empowers the government, which now mediates between divorced mothers and fathers.

    The author argues that the claim "the kids will be all right" is propaganda. She cites the work of Judith Wallerstein, who found that divorce has a long-term impact on children — damaging their prospects for romantic relationships in adulthood. Similarly, the worries about husbands abusing wives are overblown, as studies have shown that women and children are more likely to be abused in cohabiting relationships than in marriage.

    Finally, Morse argues that the government and elites pushed the "Gender Ideology" — long before transgender identity went mainstream — in order to encourage women to be "ideal workers:" "a person who never takes time off, is never sick, whose mental and psychological focus is entirely on the job."

    "We've built a society around the premise that our educated women must be permitted to time their 1.6 pregnancies right down to the minute when it's most convenient. But convenient for whom? All too often, it means the convenience of the employers, or the interests of the career path, or of those who hold the student debt which the young woman or young couple must pay down," Morse claims.

    The author does not lament the fact that women have entered the "managerial class," highly paid professions which do not involve manual labor. She herself is a member of this class. Rather, she suggests that the pressures of work and the benefits of this class enable people to overlook the obvious differences between men and women.

    "People who do manual labor aren't deluded for a moment that men and women are interchangeable," Morse quips. For this reason, men are vastly over-represented in the dangerous professions.

    Women's involvement in the workforce need not be connected to the Sexual Revolution's Gender Ideology, the author argues. "I claim the right to participate in the labor market as women, not as men in skirts." She suggests that "educated women would be better off if they accepted that their fertility peaks during their twenties and planned their lives around this fact."

    Morse lays out a basic life plan: Women should go to college for a liberal education, not a vocational one. They should get married and have kids early, using their higher educations to be involved in educating their kids. "Let your husbands support you. Trust them. Be grateful for them," and when the children are older, go back for an advanced degree and work.

    Tragically, activists are pushing on all these issues and more. Morse discusses same-sex marriage in a chapter on the Gender Ideology. She recalls the battle over California's Proposition 8.

    "The 'Yes on 8' campaign was arguably the largest grassroots campaign in history," she writes, noting that California's secretary of state website crashed because there were over 5,000 pages of contributors to the campaign. Yet modern "progressives" "took Proposition 8 to court on flimsy pretexts and rich people's money."

    After Proposition 8 passed and the people had amended their constitution, California's attorney general refused to defend it. The people's will failed thanks to an effective pocket veto. in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry(2013), the Supreme Court ruled that proponents of ballot initiatives like Proposition 8 could not defend such laws in court, enabling Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) to resume same-sex marriage in the state. Now-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) performed the first same-sex marriage after this ruling.

    As with Proposition 8, wealthy liberals continue to push Sexual Revolution issues, particularly abortion and contraception. George Soros and Warren Buffett continue to fund abortion groups, and they use their money to "shape political institutions so they can use the government to recreate the world in their own image and likeness," Morse alleges.

    Importantly, the book notes that contraception carries health risks for women, and some studies have shown that hormonal contraception is as likely to cause cancer as smoking. "Smoking has been all but banned, tobacco companies have been sued, and smokers have been socially shunned," Morse writes. "By contrast, the government actively promotes the use of hormonal contraception while the media plays down the risks."

    Abortion, often considered an alternative should contraception fail, also carries tremendous health risks to the mother, which medical associations keep secret for political reasons, the author argues. She also notes that wealthy donors funded abortion activists who convinced the Supreme Court to strike down Texas regulations treating abortion clinics like any other medical facility.

    "When the people of Texas, acting through their duly elected state legislators, enacted health and safety legislation for abortion clinics, the elites of society knocked it down," Morse declares.

    "The Sexual State" makes a compelling case that state power and wealthy elites pushed the Sexual Revolution, and people should fight back. While Morse does address LGBT issues, her book mostly focuses on the negative impacts the Sexual Revolution has had on family life, harming faithful spouses, children of divorce, and many others.

    Morse, a Roman Catholic, presents a very Catholic view of these issues and champions the Catholic Church's approach. Her book was ill-fated to release shortly after the sexual abuse scandal broke, but her points still stand.

    The book may be too polemical, but it raises important questions about the hidden harms of the Sexual Revolution and who benefits from this humongous social change.

    "The Sexual State" is an important book for libertarians to wrestle with, as it presents a compelling case that big government benefits from the Sexual Revolution, and that marriage and family would help weaken the power of the state.


    'The Sexual State': How Government and Big Donors Gave Us the Sexual Revolution

    By Tyler O'Neil

    This article was first published October 4, 2018, at PJMedia.com.

    Cover of "The Sexual State" by Jennifer Roback Morse

    In 21st century America, sex is all around us: on television, in movies, in classrooms, in politics, and even in churches. Sex permeates our desires, our expectations for relationships, even our identity. The Sexual Revolution goes far beyond the LGBT movement, and it has fundamentally reshaped American society. But few Americans actually grasp exactly where this revolution came from. An explosive new book reveals that government and wealthy donors, rather than impersonal historical forces or newly liberated women, propelled the Sexual Revolution.


    "The State bears the greatest responsibility for the toxic sexual culture in which we live," Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute (RI), writes in "The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologues Are Destroying Lives And Why the Church Was Right All Along." She presented five other explanations for the Sexual Revolution, and found each one wanting.

    Many have suggested that the Sexual Revolution came about through the inevitable and impersonal "march of history." This view does not work "because it robs us and our forbears of human agency." Even the over-hyped birth control pill "is just an inert piece of technology" that people could decide to use or not use, or use in different ways.

    Morse also rebuts the feminist narrative, which suggests that "these changes have been one long string of victories for the benefit and advancement of women." Ironically, the very success of women's liberation "undermines the claim that women have been completely powerless and dominated by the patriarchy throughout all of recorded history." Furthermore, the author argues that "the pro-life movement is dominated by women," suggesting that not all women want more of the Sexual Revolution.

    Perhaps the most common explanation for the Sexual Revolution is the "liberationist narrative," which posits that everyone is more free thanks to new sexual norms. This view also cannot explain how age-old oppression was immediately dissolved in one generation, Morse argues.

    Furthermore, many people "have become less free, in fact actually oppressed, by the very forces that are supposedly liberating us. The breaking of family bonds has increased the size and scope of the State, including the intrusion of the State into the everyday lives of ordinary people." She mentions college sex tribunals, family courts — which even rule on which schools and churches children can attend — and higher taxes to pay for social workers who manage tough divorces and family breakdown.

    Morse also rejects the "over-population narrative," which suggests that "too many people create ecological disaster and economic backwardness," so the State needs to control population through birth control and abortion. Interestingly, advocates of this narrative "haven't been able to adapt the narrative to the changing circumstances of population decline, which the Over-Population Narrative itself helped bring about."

    Finally, the author turns to a "steal capitalist narrative," explaining the Sexual Revolution by pointing to the many people who benefit financially from family breakdown. Abortionists, pharmaceutical companies, the fertility industry, pornographers, divorce professionals, family court judges and lawyers, medical professionals who specialize in sexually transmitted diseases, and social workers all perversely benefit from family breakdown, contraception, and abortion.

    Even higher education and employers benefit from women choosing to get married later, to go to school and to work, rather than raising a family. Morse claims that employers benefit from easy divorce as well, as women are less able to rely on their husbands to financially support them. She suggests that these factors cement the Sexual Revolution, but they do not explain it.

    The author boils the Sexual Revolution down to three basic "ideologies:" the Contraceptive Ideology separates sex from childbearing; the Divorce Ideology separates sex and childbearing from marriage; and the Gender Ideology eliminates the distinctions between men and women that individuals do not explicitly embrace.

    "The Sexual Revolution needs the State for one major reason: the premises of the Sexual Revolution are false," Morse declares. "Sex does make babies. Children do need their parents, and therefore marriage is the proper and just context for both sex and childbearing. Men and women are different." The Sexual Revolution requires "reconstructing society" around a rejection of these basic truths, so it involves a great deal of propaganda.

    "If you can make people believe Bruce Jenner, the 1976 male Olympic decathlon winner, is a woman, you can make them believe 2 + 2 = 5. If you can make people afraid to say, 'Bruce Jenner is a man,' you can make them afraid to say anything," Morse quips. "The Sexual Revolution is a totalitarian ideology with a blind commitment to the implementation of its tenets, regardless of the human costs."

    The book begins with a list of victims of the Sexual Revolution, a topic for a future article. Those victims include children of divorce, spouses who did not want to get divorced, women who waited too long to have children, young women who wanted to abstain from sex, and more. Suffice it to say, the Sexual Revolution has harmed many people.

    Morse narrates how the state unleashed the Sexual Revolution, beginning with the Supreme Court contraception case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Contraceptive Ideology predated this decision and played a large role in pushing the Court to change the law on contraception.

    The author cites liberal attorney Leo Pfeffer and conservative historian Allan Carlson, who agreed that governments will consider contraception necessary once they have established welfare states — in order to prevent the subsidized poor from having children. Tragically, the U.S. government pushed contraception before Griswold, pushing contraception in post-World War II Japan and other foreign countries considered to be U.S. interests.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, USAID started pushing contraception and abortion, thinking these "family planning" efforts would help other countries defeat poverty. These policies were also wrapped up with the ugly eugenics movement in America.

    In order to downplay the ugly history of eugenics, contraception activists turned to the work of Alfred Kinsey, an academic who claimed that "up to" 67 to 98 percent of American men ha had premarital sex and that 69 percent of American males had at least one experience with a prostitute. His claims were shot down by other researchers, who exposed his shoddy methods. But the Rockefeller Foundation funded his research and sent his crackpot theories mainstream.

    Planned Parenthood and its allies enjoyed connections to elites, and helped push the Court in the direction of legalizing contraception for anyone across the country.

    Similarly, elite institutions and big donors pushed no-fault divorce, Morse argues. After Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law in 1968, the American Law Institute (ALI), founded with support from the Carnegie Foundation, crafted model legislation to insert the state in between husbands and wives — and favor the spouse who wanted a divorce.

    The ALI pushed for decriminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults, a key plank that struck down states' ability to regulate obscene materials and contraception.

    By 1974, all but five states had adopted a form of no-fault divorce.

    Morse argues that no-fault divorce positions the power of the state on the side of whichever spouse least wants the marriage to continue. This damages spouses who are committed to the marriage, but it also damages children who do not grow up with both of their parents. It also empowers the government, which now mediates between divorced mothers and fathers.

    The author argues that the claim "the kids will be all right" is propaganda. She cites the work of Judith Wallerstein, who found that divorce has a long-term impact on children — damaging their prospects for romantic relationships in adulthood. Similarly, the worries about husbands abusing wives are overblown, as studies have shown that women and children are more likely to be abused in cohabiting relationships than in marriage.

    Finally, Morse argues that the government and elites pushed the "Gender Ideology" — long before transgender identity went mainstream — in order to encourage women to be "ideal workers:" "a person who never takes time off, is never sick, whose mental and psychological focus is entirely on the job."

    "We've built a society around the premise that our educated women must be permitted to time their 1.6 pregnancies right down to the minute when it's most convenient. But convenient for whom? All too often, it means the convenience of the employers, or the interests of the career path, or of those who hold the student debt which the young woman or young couple must pay down," Morse claims.

    The author does not lament the fact that women have entered the "managerial class," highly paid professions which do not involve manual labor. She herself is a member of this class. Rather, she suggests that the pressures of work and the benefits of this class enable people to overlook the obvious differences between men and women.

    "People who do manual labor aren't deluded for a moment that men and women are interchangeable," Morse quips. For this reason, men are vastly over-represented in the dangerous professions.

    Women's involvement in the workforce need not be connected to the Sexual Revolution's Gender Ideology, the author argues. "I claim the right to participate in the labor market as women, not as men in skirts." She suggests that "educated women would be better off if they accepted that their fertility peaks during their twenties and planned their lives around this fact."

    Morse lays out a basic life plan: Women should go to college for a liberal education, not a vocational one. They should et married and have kids early, using their higher educations to be involved in educating their kids. "Let your husbands support you. Trust them. Be grateful for them," and when the children are older, go back for an advanced degree and work.

    Tragically, activists are pushing on all these issues and more. Morse discusses same-sex marriage in a chapter on the Gender Ideology. She recalls the battle over California's Proposition 8.

    "The 'Yes on 8' campaign was arguably the largest grassroots campaign in history," she writes, noting that California's secretary of state website crashed because there were over 5,000 pages of contributors to the campaign. Yet modern "progressives" "took Proposition 8 to court on flimsy pretexts and rich people's money."

    After Proposition 8 passed and the people had amended their constitution, California's attorney general refused to defend it. The people's will failed thanks to an effective pocket veto. in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that proponents of ballot initiatives like Proposition 8 could not defend such laws in court, enabling Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) to resume same-sex marriage in the state. Now-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) performed the first same-sex marriage after this ruling.

    As with Proposition 8, wealthy liberals continue to push Sexual Revolution issues, particularly abortion and contraception. George Soros and Warren Buffett continue to fund abortion groups, and they use their money to "shape political institutions so they can use the government to recreate the world in their own image and likeness," Morse alleges.

    Importantly, the book notes that contraception carries health risks for women, and some studies have shown that hormonal contraception is as likely to cause cancer as smoking. "Smoking has been all but banned, tobacco companies have been sued, and smokers have been socially shunned," Morse writes. "By contrast, the government actively promotes the use of hormonal contraception while the media plays down the risks."

    Abortion, often considered an alternative should contraception fail, also carries tremendous health risks to the mother, which medical associations keep secret for political reasons, the author argues. She also notes that wealthy donors funded abortion activists who convinced the Supreme Court to strike down Texas regulations treating abortion clinics like any other medical facility.

    "When the people of Texas, acting through their duly elected state legislators, enacted health and safety legislation for abortion clinics, the elites of society knocked it down," Morse declares.

    "The Sexual State" makes a compelling case that state power and wealthy elites pushed the Sexual Revolution, and people should fight back. While Morse does address LGBT issues, her book mostly focuses on the negative impacts the Sexual Revolution has had on family life, harming faithful spouses, children of divorce, and many others.

    Morse, a Roman Catholic, presents a very Catholic view of these issues and champions the Catholic Church's approach. Her book was ill-fated to release shortly after the sexual abuse scandal broke, but her points still stand.

    The book may be too polemical, but it raises important questions about the hidden harms of the Sexual Revolution and who benefits from this humongous social change.

    "The Sexual State" is an important book for libertarians to wrestle with, as it presents a compelling case that big government benefits from the Sexual Revolution, and that marriage and family would help weaken the power of the state.


    Siena Symposium speaker: ‘Contraceptive ideology’ creates new layer of inequality

    by Susan Klemond

    This article was first published at The Catholic Spirit May 1, 2018.

    The economy and upper-level decision-making in the United States are built on delayed childbearing — a consequence of the sexual revolution and widespread promotion of contraceptives, said Jennifer Roback Morse in her April 26 talk at the University of St. Thomas.

    As a result, power is concentrated among highly educated and disproportionately childless elites.

    “The decision-makers in our culture — the people who occupy the higher echelons of the professions — are selectively more likely to be people who have postponed childbearing, people who are more likely to be in favor of contraception and abortion because that’s kind of how they got it done,” said Morse, founder and president of the Louisiana nonprofit the Ruth Institute.

    The St. Paul event was sponsored by the Siena Symposium for Women, Family and Culture, and attended by about 200 students and other adults. After receiving the Siena Symposium’s 2018 Humanitarian Leadership Award, Morse presented “Recovering from the Sexual Revolution: ‘Humanae Vitae’ in 2018” in honor of the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter outlining Church teaching on the regulation of birth.

    Morse also described other ramifications of what she called a “contraceptive ideology,” such as separating sexual intercourse from creating human life and its effects on women, children and families.


    The Ruth Institute focuses on the impact that family breakdown has on children. An author and speaker, Morse was a spokeswoman for California’s 2008 Proposition 8 campaign defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

    Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, introduced Morse and presented her with the award. “She is at the forefront of helping people understand the ecosystem in which children, families and the broader society flourish,” he said.

    The Siena Symposium was founded in 2003 as an interdisciplinary faculty group at the University of St. Thomas that seeks to develop the new feminism called for by St. John Paul II.

    The contraception ideology creates a new layer of inequality in U.S. society, Morse said. While the overall contraception failure rate is 8 percent, birth control pills are much less effective for poor, young and unmarried women than their wealthier counterparts, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which collaborates with Planned Parenthood on research and policy regarding “sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

    Morse traced the social and legal history of contraceptives, noting that contraception ideology is totalitarian because the goal has always been controlling population through widespread promotion.

    “Making contraceptive technology legally available has never been good enough for the true ideologues,” she said.

    With billions of dollars in backing from top leaders, the sexual revolution’s promotion of unlimited sexual activity as a right through contraception ideology is one way it conflicts with children’s best interests, Morse said.

    Julia Lindell, 17, attended the talk to learn more about what her faith teaches and how to defend it. A parishioner of St. Peter in Forest Lake, she said she is learning to recognize contraception ideology, including in her high school sex education classes.

    “There’s a lot about how we’re being brainwashed,” said Lindell, who’ll graduate from Forest Lake High School this spring. “We don’t realize how much this is impacting us. We don’t realize it’s changing the way we’re thinking when we view the family and marriage culture.”

    Friends recommended the talk to Andrew Ratelle, 30, a parishioner of Holy Family in St. Louis Park. He noted the net economic effect of contraception propaganda.

    “All my friends, we’re all millennials and we’re seeing this fallout, and it’s generated a lot of resentment among people of our generation that are of any background, religious or non-religious,” he said. “They’ve suffered the effects of this propaganda and ideology that’s infected our culture.”

    The sexual revolution — and contraception ideology — deny the human body, Morse said, adding that the false image of a society built around the idea that sex doesn’t make babies can’t naturally support and reproduce itself.

    But, she said, “If you’re going to build a society around the idea that children come from sex, that children have rights, etc., you can do that. Nature will reinforce your view that sex makes babies on a fairly regular basis.”


    The Double-Edged Sword of Infertility

    by Betsy Kerekes

    This article was first published May 26, 2017, at CatholicLane.com.

    The pain of infertility or impaired fertility comes in more than one form. The first is the obvious suffering of the couple who wants so badly to have a child but, for whatever reason, is unable to.

    The second is the judgment of others in their Catholic community.

    I’ve experienced this first-hand, despite having three children—an amount that’s considered large by the world’s standards, but, “My gosh, what’s wrong with you?” by Catholic standards. In the Catholic community, five children is barely skating by, six is marginally acceptable, 7-8 is a passing grade, 9-10 means you’re a model Catholic, and at 11+ you’re being fitted for your halo. One’s place in the Catholic hierarchy becomes dependent on the size of one’s family.

    So what of the family of one or none? Even though this semi-tongue in cheek ranking is never spoken about in polite Catholic society (at least society polite enough to not do so when I’m around) Catholic couples, men and women alike, intrinsically know it and fear it, that is, if they don’t measure up. They automatically qualify their family size.

    One woman said, “I have one child, but we really want more…” She then proceeded to explain her difficulties conceiving. Upon. The. First. Meeting.

    One man said to me: “We have two, but we wanted more. We love kids!” as though I would think otherwise.

    Or modestly with a qualifier, “We have one child. We’re grateful God has allowed us to have one,” the second sentence speaking volumes of, “So don’t think we did this on purpose.”

    Why the need to explain?


    One woman told me that on the first day of Kindergarten at a Catholic school, another mom said, “Why do you only have one?” She felt compelled to tell this stranger her history of miscarriages and other fertility struggles.

    I’ve even fallen prey to this need to explain myself to total strangers. Here’s the typical situation: I’m at a Catholic mom’s group, and, as is typical, there’s at least a half-hour of chit-chat before we all get down to the business of the Bible study, Catholic book discussion, or Miles Christi document review. I’ll exchange names with someone and the small talk inevitable leads to family size. Quite often, “How many kids do you have?” is what immediately follows, “What’s your name?” Like so:

    Newly-Met Woman: “So, how many kids do you have?”

    Me: “Three.” Watches wheels turn behind the woman’s eyes as she processes this information coupled with my apparent age. I look old enough to have at least six by now. Her face softens as she gives me the benefit of the doubt, thinking I may have gotten married later in life. She tests this theory by her next craftily-worded question that will reveal all she needs to know about me.

    NMW: “How old are they?”

    Now the jig is up. There’s no hiding my apparent crime now.

    Me: “11, 8, and 6.” I hold my breath in anticipation of her next move as I see the corners of her eyes crinkle ever so slightly.

    NMW: “Ah,” she says shortly. Her smile seems a lot less natural now. If she doesn’t move on to speak with someone obviously pregnant with triplets, I’m left to flounder my excuse involving an ectopic pregnancy that evidently left me handicapped in the fertility arena, not being able to get pregnant for five years now, etc. I’ve usually lost her by this point, as she sees someone more worthy over my shoulder, ie, a young mother of seven.

    I remember a mom of half a dozen at least telling me about a mutual friend pregnant with her fourth, all of which had been two years apart or less thus far. “She’s on track to have a nice big family,” she says to me in approval.

    Dear Catholic women and men of large families, we all have our struggles. For some of us, having a large family, or even any children at all, isn’t in the Capital-P Plan. Please don’t assume that those of us slow out of the fertility gate are doing something wrong like using NFP without serious cause, or, heaven forbid, contracepting. Please don’t expect us all to be baby-making machines like the rest of you.

    The day I arrived back to work from my honeymoon, a mom asked me if I was pregnant. Another mom told me her husband asked if I was pregnant yet. It took one miscarriage and then another year to have my first child. After which, it took a long time to get pregnant a third time. I suffered endless comments after that first child reached six months (six months!) about how she needed a friend and, “You want to have them close in age so they’ll get along well.”

    And here I thought I’d get a reprieve once I’d finally had a child. It didn’t last long. I had to explain to those who had no business knowing, that my cycle took forever to return, after which point, we did indeed conceive right away, but apparently a spacing of more than two years is unacceptable.

    My husband has long since stopped telling me when people at his Catholic workplace have asked if we’re expecting again. I suspect that as the years have rolled by, people have long since given up asking too.

    More recently, I had the misfortune of commenting how sad it made me to see my husband holding someone’s infant child knowing that I wasn’t able to give him another baby. A father of eight said to me, “That’s on you, Betsy.”

    “No, it’s not,” I said, knowing full-well that I was doing nothing to inhibit pregnancy. He apparently begged to differ.

    “That’s on you, Bets,” he insisted, with a bob of his head for emphasis, having worked out in his mind that I have no more children because I, and I alone, have decided it that way.

    “I have literally no control in the matter,” I told him.

    He shook his head sadly, apparently in sorrow at the denial of my own selfishness. It was at that point that I walked away and avoided eye contact with him for the rest of the night. I managed to compartmentalize this encounter until I got home and was ready to cry, rather than have it spoil my evening out with friends.

    “So this is what people apparently think of me,” I told my husband. He had no answer or consoling words for me. He, too, understands that this is life in the Catholic bubble. I love my Catholic community, and am so grateful to have it, but, ladies and gentlemen, God does not will large families to us all. Please know that it’s not possible for all of us to keep up with the rest of you model Catholic citizens. Also, note that this is not like Biblical times where women’s apparent infertility is a sign of sin and disfavor from God. On the contrary, He gives each of us suffering as our path to Heaven. For some that cross is more obvious to the outside world, which only adds to its weight.

    So the next time you meet someone with only a few children or no children at all, who launches into her fertility history just to prove its not her fault, please put a hand on her shoulder and say, “It’s okay. I know it’s rough, and I’m sorry. I’ll pray for you.”

    You have no idea what a breath of fresh air and salve to the wound that would be for women, and their husbands, to hear.

    Betsy Kerekes is co-author of 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage (Ave Maria Press 2013) and 101 Tips for the Marrying the Right Person (Ave Maria Press 2016). She also blogs at Parentingisfunny.wordpress.com.


    Hobby Lobby and The War Among Women

    This article was also published at Christianpost.com here.

    You have no doubt heard that the men of the US Supreme Court are making war on the interests of American women. You may, however, have some doubt as to which interests of which women. I maintain that there has been a War Among Women for the past 50 years or so. And most of the time, the Elite Women prevail over Everywoman. But not this time.

    Everywoman: embedded within the family / Elite Woman: alone at the top Let me tell you about a friend of mine named Katie.  She is a brilliant attorney, who works part-time for a non-profit public interest legal organization. Katie has nine children, whom she homeschools. She lives out in the country in coastal California. By any reasonable reckoning, Katie, is “having it all:” big family, country living in one of the most beautiful places on earth, and meaningful, intellectually challenging work.

    However, it is safe to say that Katie is highly unlikely to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court. She has other concerns. She does not have the single-minded focus on her legal career that would allow her to be a serious contender.

    I too, have had a wonderful advantaged life: meaningful work, good family life. But I never chaired an economics department. I never sat on any prestigious commissions. I wasn’t given any political appointment as my childless or male peers have done.

    Which brings me back to the subject at hand: whose interests do the women on the Supreme Court actually represent?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg 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 child-bearing. Her two children were born when she was 22 and 32. Thanks to radical feminism, highly educated women have a much more difficult time doing these things. They can go to law school and have a career alright. But getting married and having children sometime before menopause, not so much.

    Justice Ginsburg had the lifelong support of her husband in her career aspirations. Thanks to no-fault divorce, women today cannot count on a lifetime of mutual support with their husbands. Justice Ginsburg has been safely insulated from the negative fallout of the Sexual Revolution which she and her radical feminist colleagues did so much to champion.

    The other two women on the Supreme Court, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, are childless. It is highly unlikely that the two of them understand and respect the lives and aspirations of women like my friend Katie and me. And for less educated women, family is everything and “career” is a job to put food on the table. Elite women know nothing of Everywoman, the people who have endured the Sexual Revolution, and who do not have high status jobs as compensation.

    Do you think for one moment my friend Katie feels “oppressed” by the Hobby Lobby decision, or that she wishes the Women of the Court had prevailed? Did I mention that she works for a pro-life pro-bono public interest law firm?

    As a rule, the Elite Woman prevails over Everywoman, who wants her children and family more than she wants status, money or career. The Sexual Revolution has been an imposition by the Elites upon the masses, from the beginning. From the beginning, it is the people of modest means who have suffered from no-fault divorce, and hook-ups and instability and relationship churning and non-marital childbearing. A recent study from Johns Hopkins University demographers shows that 87% of women without a high school diploma had at least one child outside of marriage, compared with only 32% of women with college degrees. (Table 1A).

    Women like Katie and I are willing to let ourselves see the harm that the Sexual Revolution had done to the poor. Our lives do not depend on defending the Sexual Revolution. By contrast, for many Elite Women, the Sexual Revolution has made possible their lives as they know them. They literally cannot imagine what their lives would be like without contraception, with abortion as a back-up plan.

    As I say, Katie and I will never occupy the seats of power that are available to childless women. We have many achievements to our credit, but Elite Women will run the show. We have good lives: I do not regret for one moment, the choices I have made. But there is no getting around it: childless women have an advantage over mothers in the competition for power and influence.

    All I can say is: thank God for the men on the Supreme Court. At least someone is sticking up for Everywoman against the Elite Women.


    Jennifer Roback Morse is Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, which inspires the Survivors of the Sexual Revolution to recover from their negative experiences and share their stories with the young.  Join us here. 

    Support the Ruth Institute