- Resource Centers
- Knowledge Base
- Make a Difference
This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.
Posted on: Monday, July 19, 2021
Kathy Schiffer - This article was originally published on the National Catholic Register
Our society is under attack from within. Those in the helping professions — doctors, educators, counselors — all have faced a challenge from the Cancel Culture. The culture wrought by the sexual revolution demands that we abandon our Christian principles, replace the traditional family and embrace a whole new culture of sexual “freedom” which promotes same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism, premarital and extramarital sex and abortion as societal goods.
The Ruth Institute will challenge the prevailing narrative with its fourth annual Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution July 16-17. This year’s event will bring together experts to discuss the global sexual revolution, citing the casualties and the medical costs. The participants will lay out solutions to reclaim the professions and strengthen the traditional family.
The Register spoke with Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, about the theme for this year's summit, with its focus on those in the fields of medicine, education and therapy.
“What the professions all have in common,” Morse explained, “is that they are under tremendous pressure from the left to conform to a false narrative. And the central problem is common to all of the professions, not just the ones we're talking about. In social work, for example, the same pattern is evident: [Sexual revolution ideologues] weasel their way into the profession, manufacturing fake evidence and reshaping the narrative.”
One example of such blatant distortion, Morse reported, was a resolution passed by the American Medical Association members at their annual meeting in June. The AMA advocated for the removal of sex from birth certificates. “Designating sex on birth certificates as male or female,” claimed AMA Board Chair-Elect Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, M.D., “perpetuates the view that sex designation is permanent and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity. This type of categorization system also risks stifling an individual's self-expression and self-identification and contributes to marginalization and minoritization.”
Morse reported that last year, at the Ruth Institute's 2020 Summit, they learned that Planned Parenthood had been distributing cross-sex hormones to teenagers. Until that time, pro-life sidewalk counselors had been trained to help an abortion-minded woman to choose life, but they were not prepared to counsel teens who arrived at the clinic planning to initiate a sex change.
Morse worked with Dr. Michelle Cretella, the executive director of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), developing a way to encourage teens with gender dysphoria to seek help, instead of seeking life-altering surgery. Together they came up with a pamphlet for sidewalk counselors to use. That pamphlet, titled “Your Pain Is Real,” will be introduced Friday and Saturday.
Attendees of the summit will explore four related themes: the global sexual revolution; counting the casualties; medical costs; and the demographic winter and the future of freedom and family.
Speakers Expose the Fallacies Behind the Transgender Movement
The topic of transgenderism is one which several of the summit’s speakers have faced personally.
Walt Heyer experienced gender confusion as the result of an abusive childhood. He took hormones and underwent surgery to adopt the appearance of a female, then lived for eight years appearing to be a woman until stopping in 1991. Heyer, whose story is told in Ryan Anderson's 2018 book When Harry Became Sally, talked with the Register about his presentation at the Survivors' Summit.
“The issues are significant,” Heyer said, “in that the idea of changing genders is false. No one today has the medical expertise to biologically change what is innate and fixed from conception; that is, when the sperm hits the egg, gender/sex is immutable and as such, cannot be changed by using hormones or performing radical surgical procedures. The infallible truth is that a person can only changepersona (public presentation), not gender or sex (biologically innate and fixed). My role [in the summit] is to bring a perspective of truth that is so often neglected, earned through my experience of living as a woman for eight years.”
As a young child, Erin Brewer experienced intense self-hatred and loathing for her female body. She cut her hair short, wore her brother's hand-me-downs and was verbally and physically aggressive toward her classmates. A caring school counselor led her parents and teachers to help resolve her gender confusion by reinforcing her female identity, exposing her to strong and talented women and putting her in girls' groups such as Brownies.
Today, Brewer is a well-regarded therapist who specializes in helping gender-dysphoric teens. She is co-founder of the Compassion Coalition, an international group for those fighting to ban invasive, harmful, unproven medical interventions for gender-confused children, as well as co-founder of Partners for Ethical Care, a group to raise awareness and support efforts to stop the unethical treatment of children by schools, hospitals and mental healthcare providers under the duplicitous banner of gender-identity affirmation.
Brewer will join Heyer on a panel titled, “Putting the Pieces Together: Equipping the Pro-Life Movement to Confront Trans-minded Clients.” Brewer told the Register, “My goal is to help educate people that transitioning is not an identity, but it's an experimental medical intervention that is both dangerous and harmful. All the research has shown that the best treatment is watchful waiting, supporting kids who are genuinely distressed. Often these children have underlying mental health issues; many are autistic.”
Brewer warned that society is doing these troubled children a serious disservice with skewed messages about what is normal and healthy development. “The goal of activists,” Brewer warned, “is to subvert the whole concept of biology.” As an example she cited a transgender activist who, in December 2020, called for all children to be placed on puberty blockers until they are old enough to decide for themselves what gender they would prefer.
The Demographic Winter
Don Feder, the Ruth Institute’s communications director and coalitions coordinator, warned about the worldwide decline in fertility. Even secular sources, he told the Register, are beginning to realize the real problems that a reduced birth rate will have in the years ahead.
“On May 24, the New York Times had a story,” Feder said, “with the ominous headline, ‘Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications.’”
Feder had never expected to read such a headline in the New York Times. “I guess, though,” he said, “you can only close your eyes to reality for so long. It's become so obvious — not just that fertility rates are declining, but that we're soon going to go into population decline.”
Feder was disappointed that still, most people among the “population control” crowd still have blinders on that prevent them from seeing the future. He noted that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had recently received an environmental award from the United Kingdom-based population control group Population Matters, after announcing their intent to have no more than two children. The group called the couple “role models” for taking such a strong stand against overpopulation.
But despite the impervious population control advocates, Feder warned of dire consequences for civilization.
“I saw that China will lose half its population by 2100,” Feder said. First Chinese officials permitted only one child, and now, seeing the looming population crisis, they have permitted two. But still, Feder noted, the outlook of the Chinese toward children has been deeply affected.
“In the past, the most important thing in Chinese culture was family, tradition,” Feder said. “For Confucius, the family is everything. But now although the government is permitting more children, today most Chinese, especially in cities, are saying, ‘We don’t want two or three children; we don’t want children at all.’”
The worst-case scenario for the declining birth rate in China could actually signal the end of a civilization, said Feder.
“You need people to maintain a society,” he said. “You can do without natural resources; but you can't do without people.”
He pointed to China's neighbor to the east, Japan, where they have an expression called “lonely death.” An industry has grown up in that Asian nation to remove the remains of old people who died at home by themselves, with no family to care for them. The fertility rate in Japan has fallen to 1.3 children per woman, Feder said, while in industrial nations, the replacement level (the level needed to maintain a population at the current level) is 2.1.
Here in the United States, the fertility level has been below replacement level for five or six years now. According to Feder, “Every year, we’re told the birth rate is the lowest it's ever been. In my generation, the average woman had 4.1 children; now, it’s below 2.”
For information on how to attend the Ruth Institute’s Fourth Annual Summit For Survivors of the Sexual Revolution July16-17, either in-person at Treasures of Marilyn’s in Lake Charles, Louisiana, or via live-streaming, go to ruthinstitute.org/summit-2021 .
Posted on: Monday, April 26, 2021
Testimony for Texas Bill Repealing Unilateral Divorce
House Bill 3188 filed by Representative Matthew Krause
Jennifer Roback Morse Ph.D.
April 26, 2021
I support the repeal of unilateral no-fault divorce. The public mistakenly believes that “no-fault” divorce means that two sensible people can dissolve their marriage, by mutual agreement, without a finding of fault. In reality, only about a quarter of divorces take place by mutual consent. This fact, not widely studied or appreciated, means that roughly 75% of divorces take place against the will of one of the parties.
This fact has the following consequences:
The losses to children from divorce are staggering and well-documented. One survey of the literature cataloging the harms to children from divorce includes more than 300 footnotes. Another 25-year study shows that far from kids “getting over it,” the harms from divorce “crescendo” during adolescence and young adulthood. A few highlights from these surveys include these losses for children:
These considerations lead me to support an end to unilateral no-fault divorce. No citizen should have the right to unilaterally inflict costs of this magnitude on their spouse and children without a finding of fault. No government should have a policy of always taking sides with the party who wants the marriage the least.
Through unilateral divorce, the legal system incentivizes disloyalty. This policy is unworthy of a free people and a great nation.
Dr. Morse’s Qualifications:
Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), pg. 160-161, Figure 5.2, reports on a survey of 3,900 divorces, asking which party wanted the divorce. Only 27% of men and 24% of women said: “We both wanted it to end.” This is the only survey of which I am aware that even asks the question about mutual consent to divorce.
Patrick F. Fagan and Aaron Churchill, “The Effects of Divorce on Children,” Marriage and Religion Research Institute, Research Summary, January 11, 2012. This comprehensive 48-page survey contains over 300 footnotes.
Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: The 25 Year Landmark Study, (New York: Hyperion,
Posted on: Wednesday, October 07, 2020
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.
The discussion of elite women vs “everywoman” is based on the chapter entitled, “On Class Warfare.”
Posted on: Wednesday, September 30, 2020
“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.
Posted on: Thursday, September 24, 2020
Children of divorce, we are told, don’t suffer negative effects from their parents’ divorce. Unhappy marriages drag the parents down, which makes everyone unhappy. The solution, which permeates nearly every aspect of media, public policy, therapy, and even some quarters of the clergy, is divorce ideology, including switching sexual partners at will. This solution, complete with smiling, happy children, is preached as the ill for what ails us.
Instead of the promised panacea, many divorced parents find their pre-divorce problems still plague them. The probability of another divorce increases in a second marriage. And children, so often an after-thought in the whole process, are left suffering tremendous negative side effects.
All too often, children are not permitted to voice their real feelings. Love inside the family feels fragile: the kids have absorbed the message that people sometimes leave each other, or get kicked out. They may view love as unreliable. Even if children could verbalize their feelings, (which they can’t) they are afraid to risk losing their parents’ love. They don’t want to upset mom or dad. The children are silenced, or learn to silence themselves.
The children of divorce are socially invisible. If they have a problem, we take them to therapy. We put them on medication. But we never admit that maybe the adults should have worked as hard on their marriages as they seem to work on managing their divorce. And we certainly never tell the adults not to remarry.
So many children of divorce struggle massively with the emotional toll that the divorce took on them. From their perspective, each parent is half of who the child is. When the parents reject each other, they are rejecting half of the child. They may tell the child, “We still love you: we just don’t love each other.” The child cannot make sense of this impossible contradiction. In my opinion, this is the underlying reason for the negative side effects of divorce on children.
We, as a society, are faced with two competing world-views on divorce: 1. Divorce Ideology and 2. The traditional sexual ethic. Divorce ideology, reinforced by our media and culture, prioritizes parents’ sexual desire over all else, minimizes children’s rights, and requires state intervention. Children of divorce are not valued by the ideology or even the system.
The traditional sexual ethic, on the other hand, starts with the premise that children have identity rights and relational rights to their parents, that marriage exists to not only bind children to their biological parents, but to protect these rights, and naturally places legitimate obligation on the parents to protect and care for their biological children. When children are deprived of these rights without an inescapable reason, it is an injustice to the children.
We talk about protecting the rights of vulnerable populations, but we often forget that children are among the most vulnerable populations. We discard the systems built over thousands of years to protect them, and then silence them with the power of the state and a shattered family dynamic. No wonder children of today are struggling so much. Isn’t it time we changed our societal approach?
Leila Miller has done us all a great service by giving a voice to the Children of Divorce. Please read her book, Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children of Divorce Speak, share it with friends, family, counselors, teachers, and pastors. Break the silence. Do it for your own family, and for the families of future generations.
If you are a child of divorce, have suffered negative effects because of divorce, or know someone who has, please visit our resource page here. Our resource page contains information to understand the why, the how, and the consequences of divorce culture, and has resources to help survivors.
Posted on: Wednesday, September 23, 2020
“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 email@example.com.
Posted on: Tuesday, September 15, 2020
By John Zmirak
This interview was published on September 15, 2020, at The Stream.
Jennifer Roback Morse is a scholar, wife, mom, and author. She founded perhaps the best comprehensive pro-life, pro-family think tank, the Ruth Institute. Her work documents the devastating impact of the Sexual Revolution on society’s weakest, most vulnerable people, especially children. The Stream’s John Zmirak interviewed her about her sobering book, The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why the Church Was Right All Along.
John Zmirak: You founded the Ruth Institute. Can you please explain its mission?
Jennifer Morse: The Ruth Institute is an international interfaith coalition defending the family and building a civilization of love.
In your book The Sexual State you make a bold claim: the Sexual Revolution is a totalitarian movement. Why do you say that?
The key insight is that the goals of the Sexual Revolution are Utopian fantasies. The Revolutionaries promote the belief that a good and decent society should do everything possible to separate sex from babies, separate both sex and babies from marriage, and eliminate all distinctions between men and women.
But all these goals are impossible. Sex actually does make babies. Children do need their parents. Life-long marriage between their parents does protect the needs of children. Men and women are really different.
The Revolutionaries can demand unlimited power, once they have convinced people that these high-minded but impossible goals are non-negotiable and unambiguously good. After all, doing the impossible takes a lot of power to achieve as well as a lot of propaganda to sustain. These fantasies also require a scapegoat, someone to blame when the impossible fails to materialize.
You compare the Sexual Revolution with literal political revolutions, like the Russian Revolution and the French Revolution. What inspired you to make this comparison?
As I studied the Sexual Revolution, several similarities with the Bolshevik Revolution began to emerged in my mind. First, the ideological formula for these revolutions is exactly the same. An impossible ideal requires massive amounts of power and propaganda, plus a preferred scapegoat. That equals social chaos and increased concentrations of wealth and privilege.
Second, the body count of the Sexual Revolution is enormous, just considering the aborted babies alone. Add in the suicides, depression, unhappiness, loneliness and all the other consequences of family breakdown and sexual license. It is a staggering toll.
Finally, the concentrations of power into the hands of the Sexual Revolutionary ruling class, the intolerance of dissent, the use of “reeducation” programs. All these features are strikingly similar to communist regimes and movements around the world.
Are you saying the Sexual Revolution was a Marxist movement?
Close but not exactly. It is quite true that Marx and Engels despised the nuclear family. However, there are plenty of non-Marxists who are big supporters of the Sexual Revolution. John D. Rockefeller III and Henry Kissinger were not Marxists in any meaningful sense. They were, however, big advocates of population control policies. And without the rest of the Sexual Revolution never would have gotten off the ground. They were dreadful elitists too, of course. I think it is better to see the Sexual Revolution as a free-standing ideology, all on its own, not a special case or offshoot of something else.
Talk about some of the “idealists” who helped launch the Sexual Revolution. What were their most outrageous claims?
My favorite wack-job would be Wilhelm Reich, who actually wrote a book entitled The Sexual Revolution. His basic belief was that children are “entitled” to have sex. He went downhill from there. He also claimed to have discovered a biological energy called “orgone.” In 1940 he started building “orgone accumulators,” devices that his patients sat inside to harness the reputed health benefits. The FDA took a dim view of his claims. He died in prison for consumer fraud.
In your work, you point up the yawning gap between these sexual ideologies and the truths of human nature — social, biological, and moral. What are some of the most significant?
I recently interviewed Paul Kengor about his book The Devil and Karl Marx. He said something so true and profound that it took my breath away. He said, “All totalitarian ideologies try to change human nature.” The Marxists believed they could change human nature so that we could abolish private property and still have economic prosperity.
The Sexual Revolutionaries take a direct aim at the most basic facts of human nature. The Sexual Revolutionaries despise the fact that men and women are different and that sex makes babies, which in turn creates legitimate demands on parents to behave responsibly.
As a woman with a doctorate, I was expected to place my children in daycare and have absolutely no negative feelings about that. God spared me from going too far down that path, by sending me an incredibly needy first child who could not possibly have survived daycare. I took the professional “hits” involved in stepping off the career path laid out for me. When you see women dropping off their infants at day care, with tears streaming down her cheeks, and she thinks she must toughen up and do it anyway, that is the power of the Revolutionary war against human nature.
The Sexual Revolutionaries hate the human body and its limitations. They hate the world as it actually is and are out to recreate the world. In this respect, they really are a Gnostic death cult.
In the Russian Revolution, there were winners and losers. Who are the winners in the Sexual Revolution? Who are the losers?
At the Ruth Institute, we describe those who are harmed as “victims” and hopefully “survivors” of the Sexual Revolution. The Survivors include:
The Survivors also include all the people I would describe as “refugees” from the hook-up culture or the LGBT subculture. That is, people who participated in it, and walked away from it because it made them miserable. We can also include those whom I call the “Heartbroken Career Women.” I mean women who made their educations and careers their top priority and were not able to have as many children as they wanted. This is a widespread phenomenon in virtually every developed country. Figure 1 in this study is devastating. Behind this sterile chart are millions of heartbroken women.
Who are the kulaks and the Gulag prisoners of the Sexual Revolution?
The kulaks were the scapegoats for the Soviet system. The current scapegoats are Christians who are holding out for traditional sexual morality. “If only you Christians would stop making everyone feel guilty, we could all have a lifetime of guilt-free, problem-free sex.”
The Gulag prisoners are the people who are silenced: Children of divorce are not allowed to complain. Their parents are happy, so they must be happy. Likewise, people whose spouses abandoned them without cause. These people are not allowed to complain, their spouses have “moved on;” why can’t they? The people whose health has been ruined or whose contraception hurt them. They are supposed to be satisfied with a payout from Big Pharma and a gag order. All these people are socially invisible. They are blamed for the suffering inflicted on them by the Revolution.
Your group holds an annual conference for the “Survivors of the Sexual Revolution.” Can you share with us some of the past speakers, and their video testimonies?
Yes, we conceived the idea of a Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution as a way of bringing people together. We gather experts on the various subject matters, survivors of the sexual revolution, and activists who are trying to accomplish some positive change. Last year, we featured “Survivors of Divorce” and “Survivors of the LGBT Subculture.” The witnesses were unbelievably powerful. We had an adult woman whose parents divorced when she was five. Also a man whose wife abandoned him for another man, and a woman who is both a child of divorce and an abandoned spouse.
This year, we discussed survivng childhood sexual abuse,
pornography and the LGBT subculture. And if I do say so myself,
my talk on how “The Global Ruling Class Likes Pedophilia” was a real eye-opener.
I have also interviewed a number of Survivors on my video podcast, The Dr. J Show.
I wrote at The Stream that the real suffering of poor people, especially black people, thanks to the Sexual Revolution is being hijacked by radical groups like Black Lives Matter. Instead of acknowledging the real damage done by elite ideologies like Sexual Liberation, these groups seek a scapegoat, a conspiracy theory.Finish the article here.
Posted on: Friday, September 11, 2020
This article was first posted September 11, 2020, at LifeSiteNews.
By Paul Smeaton
LifeSiteNews and the Ruth Institute have launched a petition calling for an additional presidential debate to be held focusing on family issues, the cornerstone of American life.
“Everything begins with the family. Everything depends on the family. It impacts every area of life,” the petition reads.
“A strong economy depends on the next generation learning the virtues of hard work and discipline in the family. Strong national defense requires individuals who are willing to sacrifice for their families, even more than the national interest.”
Three debates are scheduled on September 29, October 15, and October 22, to cover public health, including COVID-19, public safety, the economy, and defense/foreign policy.
But Ruth Institute President Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., says that there must be a debate focused on family issues, because “the decline of the family is at the root of most of our problems.”
“Honestly, I’m shocked that we even have to state this obvious point: Every human life begins with a family. Every significant challenge the United States faces can be improved by strengthening the family,” she said.
At such a debate, voters could hear clear answers on important questions from the two men bidding to become president. The debate could address questions such as:
What do you intend to do about the horror of legalized abortion?
What are your views on sex-selection abortion and disability-selection abortion?
What are your views on medically unnecessary surgeries, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones for minor children?
Would your administration declare pornography a public health crisis, as 16 states have already done?
Morse points out that the breakdown of the family and the over-sexualization of society create massive problems which affect the economy, the criminal justice system, public health, education, and even national defense.
“The rioting in our cities is in part the result of family breakdown,” she said.
“We’re calling for one debate focused exclusively on what the candidates will do to support the family.”
Morse says that unless pro-family advocates raise their voices then issues like marriage, the right to life, parental rights in education and health, sex education in schools, pornography, population control, and declining fertility will be overlooked entirely or treated as an afterthought during this election.
“We believe this is the first time such a debate has been proposed by anyone,” Morse said. “We at the Ruth Institute and our friends at LifePetitions think it’s about time.”
PETITION: Call for an additional Presidential Debate on Family Issues! Sign the petition here.
Posted on: Thursday, September 10, 2020
Partnering with Life Site News, today, the Ruth Institute launched a petition to the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates calling for a 4th debate to be focused on the family.
Ruth Institute President Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., explained: “The decline of the family is at the root of most of our problems. We’re calling for one debate focused exclusively on what the candidates will do to support the family.”
She continued: “Honestly, I’m shocked that we even have to state this obvious point: Every human life begins with a family. Every significant challenge the United States faces can be improved by strengthening the family. The breakdown of the family and the over-sexualization of society create massive problems affecting the economy, the criminal justice system, public health, education, and even national defense. The rioting in our cities is in part the result of family breakdown.”
Three debates are scheduled on September 29, October 15, and October 22, to cover public health, including COVID 19, public safety, the economy, and defense/foreign policy.
Morse said, “These are all important issues to be sure. But unless something is done immediately, the family will once again be ignored. Issues like marriage, the right to life, parental rights in education and health, sex education in schools, pornography, population control, and declining fertility will be overlooked entirely or treated as an afterthought.”
She added: “We believe this is the first time such a debate has been proposed by anyone. We at the Ruth Institute and our friends at Life Petitions think it’s about time.”
Sign the petition here.
Posted on: Monday, August 17, 2020
The United States Commission on Unalienable Rights has issued its long-awaited report, and, not surprisingly, sexual radicals have launched an all-out attack.
Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse stated: “We applaud the Commission for an excellent exposition of the origins of human rights. But we wish it had gone further and issued a strong defense of the natural rights that are currently under assault.”
The Commission’s report pointedly did not mention the right to life, or children’s rights to a relationship with both of their parents, or parents’ rights to educate their children.
“Sexual radicals will not be satisfied by anything less than total surrender to their ideological agenda,” Morse said. “No sooner was the report issued than groups like Planned Parenthood and the LGBT Human Rights Campaign began attacking it. Instead of trying to avoid controversy, the Commission should have come out unequivocally for the rights to life and man-woman marriage.”
Morse noted: “The sexual ideologues called the Report an attempt to ‘substitute the ideology of the administration’ for recognition and protection of reproductive and LGBT rights as ‘human rights imperatives.’ These ‘imperatives’ are pure fantasy.”
Morse continued, “The rights they assert to be ‘universal’ were created by activist courts and were unknown a few decades ago. The right to life and the definition of marriage are based on natural law and were recognized in U.S. law until overturned by bad Supreme Court decisions.”
“The distinguished Commission on Unalienable Rights did an admirable job of tracing the development of rights in the United States,” Morse explained. “Then it stopped short of defending the right to life.” The Commission was appointed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to advise the State Department on the origins of human rights, to help it in its dealings with foreign governments and international bodies.
The Ruth Institute supported the creation of the Commission. The Ruth Institute’s Rev. Mark Hodges testified before it, and
Dr. Morse testified at a hearing on February 21st. At that time, she presented Chairman Mary Ann Glendon of the Harvard Law School with a petition signed by more than 8,000 activists and leaders (including Gov. Mike Huckabee and Alveda King – the niece of civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) calling on the Commission to support an understanding of rights related to the family, including:
Click here for the Ruth Institute’s press release on the presentation of its Make the Family Great Again Petition.