Top Pro-Life Leaders Slam Trump for Calling Heartbeat Protections for Unborn ‘Terrible’

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Former President Donald Trump is drawing fire from pro-life leaders for describing Florida’s heartbeat protections for the unborn as “terrible.”

“I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake,” Trump told NBC’s new “Meet the Press” host, Kristen Welker, in an interview that aired Sunday. The former president was referring to Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signing state legislation banning the abortions of babies after a heartbeat has been detected.

Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, and Iowa all have passed similar laws, though Ohio’s and Iowa’s laws are held up in court. Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia have almost completely banned abortion with limited exceptions, such as for preserving the life of the mother.

And to the chagrin of top pro-life groups, Trump also would not say whether he would support protections for babies after 15 weeks of gestation, suggesting that he would seek solutions to the abortion debate that both Republicans and Democrats could embrace.

“What’s going to happen is, you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months,” Trump said. “You’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy.”

While Trump’s recent remarks have provoked concerns from pro-life groups that he does not support strong legislation protecting life, he has previously been heralded as the most pro-life president in American history—and he will always have the lasting legacy of appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Trump also made history as the first president to attend the national March for Life in person, for appointing a slew of pro-life federal judges throughout his four years as president, for signing an executive order protecting infants born alive through botched abortions, and for significantly cutting Planned Parenthood’s federal funding.

But his newest comments sparked a strong response from pro-life leaders.

“Laws protecting the unborn are not a ‘terrible mistake,’” Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and President Kristen Waggoner said Sunday. “They are the hallmark of a just and moral society. Governors who protect life should be applauded, not attacked. And while we’re at it, men can’t become women. This is also based on a simple biological reality and one necessary for a just and moral society.”

Live Action’s founder and president, Lila Rose, decried Trump’s remarks as “pathetic and unacceptable” in a Sunday post on social media.

“Trump is actively attacking the very pro-life laws made possible by Roe’s overturning. Heartbeat laws have saved thousands of babies,” she said. “But Trump wants to compromise on babies’ lives so pro-abort Dems ‘like him.’ Trump should not be the GOP nominee.”

The pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America called for “every single candidate” to be “clear on how they plan to” save “the lives of children and serving mothers in need.”

“It begins with focusing on the extremes of the other side, and ambition and common sense on our own,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said. “Anything later than a 15-week protection for babies in the womb (when science proves they can feel pain) as a national minimum standard makes no sense.”

CatholicVote President Brian Burch said that the former president’s remarks have “sparked concerns among Catholics over whether he is committed to leading on this issue in the way he did during his first term.”

“Pro-life Catholic voters helped deliver him the White House in 2016, and a record number of votes in 2020,” Burch warned. “He cannot expect to win again without these same voters. Any Republican presidential hopeful must draw a clear contrast to the extreme, taxpayer-funded, unlimited abortion agenda of [President] Joe Biden.”

Some, like American Principles Project’s Terry Schilling, pushed for conservatives to hold their fire and wait to hear what type of protections for the unborn that Trump supports.

“Let’s at least see what national limit he backs before the hysterical takes,” Schilling said in a tweet pointing out that Trump had appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Daily Wire host Michael Knowles similarly suggested that Trump has “been extremely pro-life (e.g., Dobbs, 1st POTUS to speak at March For Life)” and has “proved himself capable of winning at least 1 general election.”

“Doesn’t excuse bad answers, but actions speak louder than words,” Knowles said.

Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent pro-life activist and president and CEO of The Family Leader, argued that “when a leader doesn’t have convictions on the most basic right of all, the right to #life, this is what you get.”

“Ugh,” he continued. “The ‘let’s make a deal’ message isn’t a win for babies, and it won’t win the #POTUS.”

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh described Trump’s remark as “an awful answer from a moral perspective” and also “stupid politically.”

“You can’t win over Democrats by going squishy on this issue,” Walsh said. “Republicans have tried that brilliant strategy for decades and accomplished exactly nothing by it. Defend life clearly powerfully and unequivocally. That’s the only way.”

Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal. His former vice president, Mike Pence, told The New York Times on Sunday: “Donald Trump continues to walk away from the pro-life legacy of our administration.”

“There’s no negotiating when it comes to the life of the unborn,” Pence said. “We will not rest, we will not relent, until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the nation.”

And DeSantis responded to Trump’s remarks in an interview Monday with Radio Iowa.

“Donald Trump may think it’s terrible. I think protecting babies with heartbeats is noble and just and I’m proud to have signed the heartbeat bill in Florida and I know Iowa has similar legislation,” the Florida governor said.

“I don’t know how you can even make the claim that you’re somehow pro-life if you’re criticizing states for enacting protections for babies that have heartbeats,” he added.


This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

NBC’s Kristen Welker Lied Repeatedly About Democrats’ Extreme Abortion Position

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes


Nearly every single elected Democrat supports forcing states to allow unborn children to be killed throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Kristen Welker brazenly and repeatedly lied in a bizarre, conspiracy-laden debate with former President Donald Trump on Sunday. The show was her first time as the permanent host of “Meet The Press,” previously hosted by Democrat activist Chuck Todd.

Welker interrupted her own pre-taped debate with the president to insert her own “fact checks” that were false or were not responsive to actual claims Trump made. For example, she falsely claimed there is no evidence President Biden had pressured Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict his primary political opponent, Trump. In fact, in addition to statements calling for efforts to prevent Trump from running, that pressure campaign was publicly laundered for all the world to see through The New York Times on April 2, 2022, in an article headlined “Garland Faces Growing Pressure as Jan. 6 Investigation Widens.” The article reported that Biden was extremely frustrated by Garland not having indicted Trump and, further, that Biden was telling people he wanted Trump prosecuted. The Times’ White House stenographers said Biden “wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action.”

Trump noted in a response to Welker that Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling scandal implicates Biden, so Welker interrupted the pre-taped interview to insert a defense of Biden in which she responded to something Trump didn’t say. She claimed there was no evidence Biden personally benefited financially from his family’s influence-peddling scheme. But even if the point was relevant to what had been said, there is evidence — in the form of multiple texts from Hunter Biden claiming he pays his father’s bills. Those messages were found on the laptop Welker previously downplayed and ignored when she moderated a 2020 presidential debate.

Welker also pushed an absolutely insane conspiracy theory held by some activists on the left that Trump had wrestled a Secret Service agent in an armored vehicle on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump seemed taken aback that his debate partner either believed that outlandish story or pretended to believe it.

WELKER: So you dispute that account?

TRUMP: Dispute it? Who wouldn’t dispute it? She’s — the craziest account I’ve ever heard. You mean that I was in “The Beast,” and she said I was in “The Beast,” and the Secret Service didn’t want — so I took a guy who was like a black belt in karate and grabbed his neck and tried to choke him —

WELKER: What happened —

TRUMP: How ridiculous.

Welker also complained about the lack of a military crackdown on Jan. 6 rioters and falsely claimed that then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had nothing to do with preparing the Capitol for protests. In fact, security of the Capitol was one of her main jobs as speaker. The House sergeant at arms is the chief law enforcement officer for the site and serves under the speaker. Multiple law enforcement officials have criticized Pelosi for not acting on intelligence regarding the Jan. 6 protest. NPR reported that Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund made six requests of House and Senate security officials for National Guard troops but was denied. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser also discouraged National Guard help.

Shocking Lies About Abortion

But none of that is as bad as Welker’s brazen lies about Democrats’ actual abortion agenda. Much of the interview was devoted to Welker pushing her own pro-abortion talking points. For example, her first question sounded like it could have been written by Planned Parenthood, in which she pushed the false pro-abortion claim that directly and intentionally killing an unborn child in the womb is sometimes medically necessary for women. “So my question for you, Mr. President, is: How is it acceptable in America that women’s lives are at risk, doctors are being forced to turn away patients in need, or risk breaking the law?”

TRUMP: So you have Roe v. Wade, for 52 years, people including Democrats wanted it to go back to states so the states could make the right. Roe v. Wade — I did something that nobody thought was possible, and Roe v. Wade was terminated, was put back to the states. Now, people, pro-lifers, have the right to negotiate for the first time. They had no rights at all, because the radical people on this are really the Democrats that say, after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, nine months, and even after birth you’re allowed to terminate the baby —

WELKER: Mr. President, Democrats aren’t saying that. I just have to, Democrats are not saying that.

Welker lied in her response. In fact, nearly every single elected Democrat supports forcing states to allow unborn children to be killed throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Given a choice of whether to vote for or against legislation requiring states to permit the killing of unborn children up to the moment of birth, nearly all elected Democrats vote enthusiastically for that.

It’s an extreme and radical position, but it’s one they hold, on the record. It is indisputable.

For example, on Feb. 28, 2022, only one Democrat senator voted no on a radical abortion bill. As Alexandra DeSanctis wrote, the bill “is an effort to ‘codify Roe,’ not only declaring abortion a fundamental right — for any reason, throughout all of pregnancy — but also nullifying any state law that prohibits or regulates abortion. The bill would forbid state laws protecting unborn children after they’re old enough to survive outside the womb. It would nullify bans on abortions chosen for discriminatory reasons, such as the unborn child’s sex or diagnosis with a disability. It would prohibit even the most modest regulations such as informed-consent laws, waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, and even safety standards for abortion clinics.”

It passed the Democrat House the previous year with only two Democrats voting against it. Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, who for some time claimed to be pro-life, voted for the bill. That’s how much Democrats are embracing a radical pro-abortion agenda, contrary to Welker’s lies.

Guy Benson noted that the 2017-2018 Congress voted on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, with exceptions. Roughly 97 percent of congressional Democrats voted against it. “Only 7 countries on earth allow barbaric abortions after 20 weeks. This is their official position, as a matter of record,” Benson wrote.

Laws protecting children who have reached 15 weeks’ gestation are popular. Corporate media, however, lie about the extremism of Democrats’ stated position in an effort to help them politically.

When Trump mentioned that in a 2016 debate, he had called Hillary Clinton out for her support of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, Welker falsely claimed Democrats do not support that. In fact, Clinton struggled to respond precisely because she does believe there should be no protection from abortion for any child for any reason at any point in pregnancy.

When Trump referenced that some Democrats even support having newborn children die, Welker claimed no Democrat supports that. In fact, that was a major issue in 2019 in Virginia. A Democrat delegate in the Virginia legislature named Kathy Tran pushed legislation allowing abortion even when a mother is delivering a baby, to which Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam said in support of the legislation that if such a situation were taking place, the baby would be delivered and allowed to die.

Welker lied about Democrats’ actual position on abortion at least four times in her debate with Trump. Her panel of analysts to discuss her debate with Trump included Laura Jarrett, the daughter of top Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, and two other left-wing journalists.

Trump’s Response

Trump’s response to the questions generated quite a bit of anger among supporters of Gov. Ron DeSantis and other pro-lifers — and rightly so. Trump was asked if he supported DeSantis’ signing of a heartbeat bill, passed by the Florida legislature. That bill protects children who have detectable heartbeats from being killed.

“I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake,” Trump said, part of his primary strategy of attacking DeSantis for everything, including his greatest policy achievements. Whether Trump was speaking morally or speaking politically, he was wrong. It is never a terrible thing to protect unborn children from having their lives violently ended. Thousands of babies’ lives have been saved via heartbeat laws. And if by “mistake,” he meant a political miscalculation, he’s wrong there as well.

Govs. Brian Kemp of Georgia, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Greg Abbott of Texas also signed abortion bans in the months leading up to their 2022 reelections, and all of them were reelected resoundingly. DeSantis won reelection by nearly 20 points.

When the Supreme Court finally overturned the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision, returning abortion law to the people, it meant that state and federal legislatures could once again decide abortion law. States such as California will enact radical pro-abortion laws while other states such as Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia will be more in line with the rest of the developed world in allowing some protections for unborn children.

To say it’s a mistake for pro-life states to pass pro-life laws is simply wrong, both morally and politically.

The rest of Trump’s response was mostly about finding some ground between Democrats’ radical support of abortion through the moment of birth and a complete ban. While many pro-lifers want all unborn children and their mothers to be protected from the violence of abortion, there is a political argument for pointing out how radical Democrats’ position is and pushing for a compromise around 15 weeks, an extremely popular position with voters. Trump’s problem is that he seems to be resting on his laurels of being the first United States president to address the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., and having appointed three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. These are admittedly impressive laurels.

Trump’s 2016 election rested in large part on the support he received from pro-life voters. He served them well as president. But he should remember that the pro-life political movement didn’t end with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In many ways, the Dobbs decision merely allowed that movement to begin to fight for state and federal laws that protect unborn children and their mothers. Trump should not take continued pro-life support for granted even as he pushes against a propaganda press and attempts to make known how radical and extreme Democrats are on abortion.

Weekend Read: How Abortion Hurts Women

Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

Each year, almost three million American women face an unplanned pregnancy. When a pregnancy is unwanted and those involved are not ready, willing or able to parent, that is a dilemma for which there is no ideal solution.

The obvious options for one facing an unplanned pregnancy are abortion, parenting and adoption, but few among us know much about the pro’s and con’s of those three options. Let’s explore.

How Abortion Hurts Women

Abortion is presented as a safe, quick, painless answer. And we dupe women into believing that by withholding the rest of the story. During the last fifty years of unfettered abortion access in this country, we’ve learned what abortion does to the female body. We’ve been able to observe and study the side effects over time among large groups. Those findings reveal significant risks to women’s health.

Yet we don’t hear about the side effects of abortion from those who are selling them. Society tells us that there’s no downside to abortion. That is simply not true.

Elective abortions can exact an immense physical and emotional toll on women. Most women who undergo abortion procedures are not made aware of the long-term effects, but numerous studies have documented them in three categories—compromised mental health, preterm births, and increased risk of breast cancer.

Compromised Mental Health

Hundreds of US studies have examined the association between abortion and mental health. The most comprehensive source is the research done by Dr. David C Reardon, Dr. Priscilla Coleman, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, known as AAPLOG.

AAPLOG, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. AAPLOG ‘s mission is to encourage and equip its members and other concerned medical practitioners to defend the lives of both the pregnant mother and her pre-born child.

Both pro-life and pro-choice researchers agree that “the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems.” Large studies done with nationally representative samples and a variety of controls for personal and situational factors indicate abortion significantly increases risk for the following mental health problems:

• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance abuse
• Suicide ideation and behavior

Suicide, specifically, is a serious risk, based on the much-studied correlation. Young women, under 18 years old, account for 15–30% of abortions and have a significantly higher suicide rate than their peers: compared with women who delivered, women were 6.5 times more likely to die by suicide during the year after an induced abortion. AAPLOG says that another large study found a 155% increase in suicidal behavior post-abortion.

“Literally every large scale study of the abortion and mental health link has revealed higher rates of mental illness among women.”

For many women who’ve chosen abortion, reconciling with the decision is a life-long endeavor. Dr. Coleman notes in a 2015 interview that about 50% of women who have abortions do believe that they are “terminating the life of a human being,” and that belief tends to make the aftermath more traumatic. As ultrasound technology improves, we’re able to clearly see the human formation even earlier.

About 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins. A recent survey of 5577 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world showed a consensus: 96% of those experts in biology agree that human life begins at fertilization. That makes it increasingly difficult for a pregnant women to deny that she is carrying a human life, a dissonance which can lead to compromised mental health issues and even PTSD-like trauma.

The trauma is undeniable.

I saw this firsthand at a Rachel’s Vineyard (abortion recovery) retreat: it was attended by 19 women, ranging in age from their 20s to their 80s. It made a lasting impression on me that women in their 70s and 80s sobbed as they shared their stories. They were still grieving their abortions, many decades later. These care programs and support groups give women a place to talk with others and share their experience, process their grief and forgive themselves. With this assistance, post-abortive women can finally get closure, heal and move on with their lives.

Preterm Births

Abortion increases the risk of very preterm births—that is babies born between 22 and 26 weeks, at the edge of life—for any future pregnancy.

As of November 2021, 168 studies have been published on the association between abortion and preterm birth (PTB). These tiny babies require neonatal intensive care support to survive, and many of the 22–24 week-old babies don’t survive. Very premature births of post-abortive women result in over three million infant deaths worldwide each year.

AAPLOG writes on their findings :

  • First trimester induced abortion is one of the top three risk factors for preterm births.
  • Surgical abortions are associated with a “dose effect,” meaning an increased number of abortions confer increasing risk of PTB (because the cervix is weakened with each subsequent procedure).
  • Two or more abortions increase a woman’s risk of future preterm birth by up to 93%, and her risk of VERY preterm birth by more than 200%.
  • Preterm births can have health risks for a baby. Vital organs have not had enough time to fully develop.
  • Also, preterm birth leads to an increased risk for short and long term complications such as cerebral palsy, impaired vision and/or hearing and impaired cognitive development.

The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (RCOG) acknowledges the association of surgical abortion and PTB, as does the AAPLOG. Despite the evidence presented in these 168 peer-reviewed science-based studies, the largest providers of abortions in the US do not inform patients of the association between surgical abortion and later preterm births. AAPLOG recommends that information about the increased risk of preterm births after surgical abortion should be included in informed consent practices prior to surgical abortion.

Increased Risk of Breast Cancer

In their Committee Opinion 8: Abortion and Breast Cancer, AAPLOG states:

“The protective effect of a full-term pregnancy on breast cancer risk has been known since the Middle Ages when it was noted that nuns had a higher risk of breast cancer than women with children. Medical authorities agree that a full-term pregnancy lowers a woman’s risk of breast cancer. . . . These facts are not controversial and are acknowledged by all medical organizations.”

An abortion-breast cancer link passes every one of the standard criteria which determine if causation can be deduced. These same criteria were used in 1964 by the U.S. Surgeon General to determine causality of cigarettes in lung cancer promotion. Today they prove causation of the link between abortion and breast cancer.

America was not content to blindly follow when the tobacco industry denied a link between tobacco and lung cancer, based on its own studies. AAPLOG suggests applying the same wisdom here.
There is a scientific, biologically plausible mechanism for breast cancer promotion caused by electively terminating a normal pregnancy. Here’s that explanation in a nutshell:

Over the course of a woman’s life, her breast tissue will develop into four different types of lobules. All women are born with Type 1 lobules, which mature into Type 2 lobules at puberty. The lobules type is important to note because 99% of all breast cancers arise in Types 1 & 2 lobules. Types 3 & 4 lobules are resistant to breast cancer.

During the first half of pregnancy, she will see a sharp increase in Type 2 lobules. Beginning at 20 weeks, her Type 2 lobules will begin to mature into Type 4 lobules. As pregnancy continues beyond 32 weeks, 70-90% of her breast tissue has matured into Type 4 lobules by week 40, and the risk of future breast cancer is reduced. There is a 90% risk reduction when she carries a pregnancy to term compared to if she remained childless.

After lactation ceases, the breast forms Type 3 lobules. After menopause, these Type 3 lobules regress to Type 1 lobules, but the protection gained from earlier term pregnancies is permanent and provides lifelong protection to these Type 1 lobules.

What’s the Risk?

Ending a pregnancy before 32 weeks stops the Type 2 lobules from developing into Type 4 lobules. That is, ending a pregnancy early stops breast development at a time when there is an increased amount of cancer-vulnerable Type 2 lobules. The longer a woman maintains Types 1 and/or 2 lobules, the higher her risk of breast cancer.

Ethical medical practice obligates a physician to counsel a woman considering abortion that this decision may increase the risk of breast cancer later in life

Chemical abortion

In 2000 the FDA approved the two-drug “abortion pill,” and women have been able to perform their own early abortions—up to 10 weeks of gestation—without leaving their homes.

First, the woman takes the mifepristone pill, or RU-486. Then, 24 to 48 hours later, the woman takes misoprostol or Cytotec. Together, these drugs induce delivery.

In 2021, the FDA made it easier to get a chemical abortions by phone: the “in-person dispensing requirement” — stating that mifepristone be given only in health-care settings such as clinics, medical offices, and hospitals — was removed.

Verifying that a pharmacy is certified does not replace in-person medical care. If the procedure is done at home, without a medical exam and without an ultrasound, then:

• The viability of her pregnancy cannot be confirmed. If the pregnancy is ectopic (in the fallopian tube), she’ll need specialized medical care.
• The stage of her pregnancy is not confirmed. In practice, women are often unsure how far along they are. If she’s past that ten-week maximum, attempting a chemical abortion at home can be dangerous.
• Taking these pills alone at home, she may be far from emergency medical care when it’s needed, which is often.

Intense pain, bleeding, and contractions may last for days and necessitate intervention: “Seventeen states maintain records of state Medicaid reimbursements for abortions and subsequent emergency room (“ER”) treatment within 30 days of the abortion. Based on this data, in 2015, the rate of ER visits per 1,000 women who underwent a chemical abortion in the past 30 days was an astonishing 354.8.” Thirty-five percent go to the ER after attempting an abortion at home. Women taking these drugs at home alone, without medical supervision or access to a doctor, may be risking their health. And at-home, chemical abortions are growing quickly as requests for mail-order abortion pills surged after the Roe reversal. They now account for over half of the abortions in the US.

Summary: Let’s Be Honest about Abortion

The short-term and long-term effects on women from induced abortion—compromised mental health, increased risk of preterm births, and increased risk of breast cancer—are not well known. The dangers of at-home chemical abortions are also not well known. But they should be. Medical professionals are obligated to provide relevant information about the effects of abortion on women prior to any procedure as a matter of “informed consent.” In the area of abortion, they simply don’t.

We don’t do women any favors by suggesting that abortion is a quick, easy solution without negative, lasting effects on the women we love.


Terri Marcroft is an adoptive Mom to her 24-year old daughter, Founder and Executive Director of Unplanned Good, an organization dedicated to promoting the idea of open adoption for women facing unplanned pregnancy. For more information, please see The article above is a condensed excerpt from her book Pro-Choice Pro-Adoption: It’s Time for a Loving, Positive Response to Unplanned Pregnancy published in 2022.


Supporting References

National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information.
Article: The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities by David C Reardon

AAPLOG Practice Bulletin No. 7, Abortion and Mental Health, December 30, 2019. FINAL-Abortion-Mental-Health-PB7.pdf (

Reardon, David C., et al. “Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women.” Southern Medical Journal, vol. 95, no. 8, Aug. 2002, pp. 834+. Gale Academic OneFile. Accessed 26 Oct. 2022.

Reardon DC, Craver C. Effects of Pregnancy Loss on Subsequent Postpartum Mental Health: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4):2179.

Jacobs, Steven and Jacobs, Steven, The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins (November 29, 2021). Jacobs, S.A., The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins, Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 36, Number 2, 2021., Available at SSRN:


Chinese Professor With World Economic Forum History Leads Critical Race, Gender Theory Research On Children At ASU, NAU

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

A professor hailing from China with a World Economic Forum (WEF) background is behind critical race and gender theory research on children at two of Arizona’s taxpayer-funded universities.

Sonya Xinyue Xiao teaches psychological science and performs developmental research on moral and gender development at Northern Arizona University (NAU). Xiao was a postdoctoral scholar at the Arizona State University (ASU) T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (SSFD) from 2020 to 2022, where she taught until last year. NAU has Xiao on a tenure track.

Presently, Xiao is also an affiliated research fellow for the Cultural Resilience and Learning Center (CRLC) in California and a member of the Diversity Scholars Network in the National Center for Institutional Diversity at the University of Michigan (UM). Xiao’s UM profile declares her social priority on children, youth, and families, with her specific focus pertaining to that priority on gender, sexuality, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, social class, and socioeconomic status.

“[Xiao] is investigating how early adolescents’ multiple intersecting identities in gender and race/ethnicity are related to their prosocial behavior toward diverse others over time, with youth from diverse ethnic racial backgrounds,” stated her UM profile.

Additionally, Xiao has served as the programming committee member for the Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Caucus of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) since 2021. The SRCD has repeatedly opposed efforts to restrict or ban gender transitions for minors.

Xiao’s published research papers have declared the need for parents to raise their children to embrace gender theory in themselves and their peers, under the claim that rejection results in poor social and emotional outcomes later in life, as well as to engage their children in diverse friendships, under the claim that those as young as preschoolers can be racist.

Characteristics aligning with progressive critical race and gender theories are what Xiao defines as “prosocial behaviors” throughout her research

Last year, Xiao contributed to a chapter entry in a book, “Gender and Sexuality Development.” The chapter expanded the understanding of gender to many gender identities.

Xiao’s work includes “gender integration,” which studies the differences between genders with the ultimate goal of total integration. Xiao’s team with the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (SSSFD) holds the belief that gender is fluid and not binary; they receive federal funding through the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

Xiao’s research has also relied on participants’ self-reported gender identities. Elsewhere, her current research team’s most recent release of preliminary findings asked children “how much they think they look like girls and how much they think they look like boys,” and reported that 10 percent thought they looked like both genders, and nearly one percent believing they didn’t look like either gender.

In May, Xiao’s work on gender integration was featured in an IES blog series focusing on “research conducted through an equity lens.” SSSFD professor Carol Martin said that their work aims to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion in education. Martin further insisted that teachers need to break up naturally-occuring gender segregation in their students to encourage diversity.

“We study the importance of having diverse classrooms (mixed-gender in our case) and breaking down barriers that separate people from each other but stress that this diversity matters only when it is perceived as inclusive and fosters a sense of belonging,” said Martin. “For some students, additional supports might be needed to feel included, and we hope to identify which students may need these additional supports and what types of support they need to promote equity in classrooms around issues of social belongingness.”

According to her LinkedIn, Xiao attended Tianjin University of Science and Technology before beginning her career as a teacher at Zhenguang Primary School in Shanghai, China. While at Tianjin, Xiao had two notable back-to-back volunteering stints in 2010: first, a two-month gig at the Shanghai World EXPO 2010, then a month-long gig at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Summer Davos. For the latter gig with the WEF, Xiao reported providing document and verbal translation at the Lishunde Hotel, as well as assistance to conference attendees.

China’s practice of its cultural subversion tactics on U.S. soil, especially involving children, have been widely reported over the years, most recently concerning TikTok. While the Beijing-based company behind the app pushes content ranging from the mind-numbing to dangerous to foreigners, it restricts Chinese youth to a domestic version, Douyin, which contains only educational and inspirational content. In its short existence, TikTok has become a major influence in American children’s development.

Papers published while at ASU or NAU where Xiao was the principal author are listed below:

  1. Meet Up Buddy Up: An Effective Intervention To Promote 4th Grade Students’ Prosocial Behavior Toward Diverse Others
  2. Parents Matter: Accepting Parents Have Less Anxious Gender Expansive Children
  3. Family Economic Pressure And Early Adolescents’ Prosocial Behavior: The Importance Of Considering Types Of Prosocial Behavior
  4. Parents’ Valuing Diversity And White Children’s Prosociality Toward White And Black Peers
  5. Being Helpful To Other-Gender Peers: School-Age Children’s Gender-Based Intergroup Prosocial Behavior
  6. Interactions With Diverse Peers Promote Preschoolers’ Prosociality And Reduce Aggression: An Examination Of Buddy-Up Intervention
  7. Young Adults’ Intergroup Prosocial Behavior And Its Associations With Social Dominance Orientation, Social Positions, Prosocial Moral Obligations, And Belongingness
  8. Early Adolescents’ Gender Typicality And Depressive Symptoms: The Moderating Role Of Parental Acceptance
  9. A Double-Edged Sword: Children’s Intergroup Gender Attitudes Have Social Consequences For The Beholder
  10. Gender Differences Across Multiple Types Of Prosocial Behavior In Adolescence: A Meta-Analysis Of The Prosocial Tendency Measure-Revised
  11. Characteristics Of Preschool Gender Enforcers And Peers Who Associate With Them
  12. Will They Listen To Me? An Examination Of In-Group Gender Bias In Children’s Communication Beliefs
  13. Longitudinal Relations Of Preschoolers’ Anger To Prosocial Behavior: The Moderating Role Of Dispositional Shyness.

Xiao has also contributed in over a dozen other research papers uplifting critical race and gender theories, as well as promoting “nurturant parenting,” described as inductive discipline and punishment avoidance, versus the disciplinary model of “restrictive parenting,” described as punitiveness, corporal punishment, and strictness. That paper on nurturant versus restrictive parenting further advised that white parents should avoid restrictive parenting to ensure their children behaved better toward non-white peers.

Other papers to which Xiao contributed argued that white parents who claimed to be color-blind or were displaying evidence of “implicit racial bias” caused their children to have less empathy toward Black children.


This article was published at AZ Free News and is reproduced with permission.


Wealthy Democrats Aided And Abetted The Biden Border Crisis, Now They’re Whining About It

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Amid the scrum of news this week about Democrat-led schemes to put former President Donald Trump on trial during the GOP primaries and rig the 2024 election in plain sight, you might have missed a cautionary tale out of New York City, where Democrat millionaires are whining about a migrant crisis they helped create.

A group of more than 120 executives, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Larry Fink of BlackRock, and Jane Fraser of Citigroup, sent a letter to the Biden administration and congressional leaders asking for more federal aid to New York, to help with what they call “the humanitarian crisis that has resulted from the continued flow of asylum-seekers into our country.

Credit where credit is due: These wealthy New York executives seem to have figured out the connection between huge numbers of illegal immigrants — sorry, “asylum-seekers” — and the humanitarian crisis that always follows.

It’s a connection many of us made years ago, back when massive waves of illegal immigrants were overrunning Texas border towns and gathering in sprawling makeshift encampments along the north banks of the Rio Grande. Unable to house or even properly process these people, federal border officials resorted to dropping them off at bus stations in places like McAllen and Del Rio, Texas — relatively small towns with few resources to cope with the thousands of illegal immigrants released from federal custody, sometimes on a daily basis.

But so long as the chaos and crisis stayed in south Texas, Democrats in deep-blue enclaves like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles were happy to tut-tut anyone who claimed there was a problem at the border or suggested that maybe we should do something to stop the flow of illegal border-crossers. If you complained or proposed solutions, you were a racist — just like those Border Patrol horsemen with their “whips.” How dare they try to stop foreigners from illegally entering the country right in front of them?

But now that hotels and shelters are filled to overflowing in these cities, now that the crisis has come directly to open-border Democrats’ homes and places of work, wealthy urban elites want the government to do something about it. (A New York Times story this week mentioned that new arrivals are being forced to sleep outside over-capacity shelters, including one at the Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown, “just blocks away from JPMorgan’s offices.”)

The New York letter, whose list of signatories includes people like Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf, ends with a plea to Washington “to take immediate action to better control the border and the process of asylum and provide relief to the cities and states that are bearing the burdens posed by the influx of asylum seekers.”

Of course, to hear White House flack Karine Jean-Pierre tell it, President Biden is controlling the influx of migrants at the border and, in fact, has stopped the flow! She actually said that this week, even though as Bill Melugin of Fox News was quick to point out, it’s completely false.

Leaving aside idiotic White House spin, do the wealthy letter-signers of New York realize that one very effective way to “better control the border” is for state and local law enforcement to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure illegal immigrants under an order of deportation by an immigration judge are actually deported? Do they know that kind of enforcement is a powerful deterrent to would-be illegal border-crossers abroad, and lack of such enforcement is a powerful pull factor that encourages more illegal immigration?

It would seem they do not. These are the same people, after all, who tacitly supported a 2019 law making it much easier for illegal immigrants to get a driver’s license in New York, thus shielding them from detection, while also prohibiting ICE and CBP from accessing New York DMV records.

Did the current Democratic mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, support this policy when it was introduced four years ago? He was a state senator for years; surely he knew about it. Today, Mayor Adams says that any plan to address the migrant crisis in his city that does not involve stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border “is a failed plan.”

I hate to be the one to break it to him, but stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border means taking away the incentives for people to illegally cross the border in the first place. Making it easy for illegal immigrants to get a driver’s license, for example, while helping to shield them from federal immigration authorities, is a recipe for more, not less, illegal immigration.

New York is of course only one state among many that have passed such laws. Indeed, a vast illegal immigrant sanctuary network has sprung up nationwide in recent years among blue cities, states, and counties that have enacted laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies that hinder immigration enforcement and shield criminal aliens from ICE.

Still, even amid the crisis, with migrant families sleeping on the streets of New York and other major cities, blue-state elites don’t quite seem to grasp what’s happening, which is why they aren’t demanding deportation but better processing and expedited work permits for “asylum-seekers” — policies that do nothing but provide more and stronger incentives for migrants to enter the United States illegally.

And make no mistake: Would-be migrants are acutely aware of the incentives and disincentives at work here. As Todd Bensman of the Center for Immigration Studies noted in a recent interview, “All U.S.-bound immigrants pay very, very close, almost academic attention, to any and all policy pronouncements uttered or implemented by American leaders about immigration. They also pay close attention to news of all immigration-related court rulings. The reason they are so disciplined is because this or that policy or court ruling either makes illegal entry easier or harder.”

Which means, in turn, that surges in illegal border crossings of the kind we’ve seen since Biden took office — a record 2.3 million border arrests last year and on track for the same or greater this year — are driven almost entirely by policy decisions coming out of Washington, D.C., and legal rulings from the federal judiciary.

If New York millionaire Democrats paid half as much attention to border policy as illegal immigrants do, maybe they’d grasp what’s going on at the border, and why. Maybe they could then start to make sense of the anger and frustration of working- and middle-class residents of their cities, who increasingly show up at public meetings to express outrage at the migrant crisis. One woman, a Chicago resident speaking at a recent meeting about a migrant shelter in Hyde Park, was blunt about it: “I don’t want them there. Take them someplace else or send them back to Venezuela. I don’t care where they go. This is wrong. You got 73 percent of the people homeless in this city are black people. What have you done for them?”

Maybe, just maybe the wealthy elites who run our blue cities are beginning to wake up and realize that soon that woman’s question will be on the lips of every resident of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and every other place where Democrats have helped create the conditions for this crisis.

Here’s hoping they can connect the dots. If they can’t, they can always go down to the local migrant shelter and have an asylum-seeker explain it to them.


This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Half Of All Fentanyl Seized In U.S. Is Caught In Arizona

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell warns about the importance of drug-related education of youth in her National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day statement Monday.

Mitchell cited the 2022 Arizona Youth Survey, in which 47% of eighth graders said they do not know of the deadly drug, according to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.

“This is something that we can’t afford to have them not know about because what we’re finding is that fentanyl is laced in all different sorts of street drugs,” she said. “We have seen overdoses in young people double since 2019.”

According to county data from 2020 and 2021, synthetic opioids were related to 91% of overdose deaths of people between 15-24 years old. In addition, the county states that the synthetic opioid death rate has skyrocketed by 6,000% between 2012 and 2021.

She encouraged parents to talk with their children about the substance and said that “It’s not a drug. It’s a poison.”

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that over 150 people die each day in the United States due to synthetic opioid overdoses, which include fentanyl. The agency says that it is 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. Its legal usage is typically for prescribed pain relief medication. In Arizona, that estimate is over five people daily, according to the Arizona Department of Health Services.

As Arizona is a border state, it’s become a hub for fentanyl trafficking, as the substance is regularly seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in large quantities. The Drug Enforcement Administration said that over half of fentanyl is stemming from the Arizona-Mexico border, NewsNation reported earlier in August. Some of those seizures are larger than others, as The Center Square reported that nearly a ton of fentanyl was seized by authorities at the Arizona border between March and May through “Operation Blue Lotus” and “Operation Four Horseman.”

Of all of the fentanyl seized across the nation, half of it is seized in Arizona because we are a border state,” Mitchell said.


This article was published by Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

Weekend Read: Revolutionary State of Mind

Estimated Reading Time: 11 minutes

Editors’ Note: The debate about legalization may not really be the debate. Smoking tobacco is legal, but restricted. Advertising is banned and its use is now severely frowned upon in today’s culture. Even the tobacco companies themselves must fund education against their own product. But marijuana gets a pass. It is an approved way to ruin your lungs and psyche. With our streets filled with drug-addled people, educational scores and productivity falling, why would we encourage any type of constant public inebriation? You likely know people who would recoil against anything with GMO-related products in their cornflakes but regularly scramble their synapses with pot. In a similar context our schools are riddled with Ritalin. Is marijuana a gateway drug to even worse stuff? Maybe. Once the mind concedes that satisfaction and a sense of peace can be induced artificially, why not move on to even more potent substances? You have conceded already that you can achieve “satisfaction” with life on the cheap, via the wonders of chemistry. No hard choices are required on your part. Why not move on to even more powerful and effective methods to carry out the fraud you have accepted?  The fact is most of the arguments of the legalization crowd ( it will reduce crime, it is benign, no worse than booze, and the state can make money) have proven to be wrong. The worst argument was people will use it anyway. Well, yes, but then again, since legalization, the use of extremely powerful strains has increased markedly. Don’t think use has increased?  Try renting a car in Denver – it will likely reek of marijuana. In Phoenix since recreational marijuana was legalized, dispensaries are almost plentiful as coffee shops. When the societal costs of treatment, lost productivity, and homelessness are figured in, we cannot be sure marijuana is profitable for the government. Besides, is it really all that wise for the government to become a money maker from people’s vices? And for our libertarian friends, to argue against incarceration is one thing, but for those that pride themselves on the embrace of reason, why even hint at the use of something that scrambles the brain, the place where reason is supposed to reside? Eliminate reason, and you have a revolutionary state of mind and a cult, as the author suggests.


As marijuana legalization has failed on its own terms, its proponents must be regarded as revolutionary cultists.

Marijuana is the idol and emblem of a movement and a cult. It is not just a drug, and its enthusiasts, though nowadays they have a lot of money, are no mere lobby. Try to fight them, and you will see what I mean. I have been doing so for more than a decade and I have not even scratched their paintwork. It is quite obvious when you think about it.  By the time I was at college in England, more than 50 years ago, the use of dope was very nearly universal in my generation. I was almost alone among my fellow students, at the fashionable new University of York in northern England, in not being a regular user. And this was because I was that rare thing in those times, a Puritan. As a serious Bolshevik revolutionary, I would do nothing to attract the attention of the police. And in any case, we believed that the proper response to an unjust world was to overthrow its institutions and replace them with our own, not to stupefy ourselves into dozy contentment.

Our planned revolution, an Edwardian-style seizure of power based upon an angry, organized working class led by a revolutionary party, would in fact flop utterly. The very idea of a proletariat became absurd. Even as we conspired and propagandized, the revolutionary movement was shifting and transforming itself into a vast all-embracing attack on the existing Christian culture of the Western nations. And as it turned out, drugs were a central part of that, alongside a complete transformation of sexual morality and family life. Their actual revolution, whose slogan was “Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll” rather than “Workers of All Lands Unite” would succeed beyond all measure.  

There is an astonishing passage in Ian McDonald’s clever book on the songs of the Beatles, Revolution in the Head, that explains this. MacDonald wrote of the 1969 song “Come Together” that “enthusiastically received in campus and underground circles, ‘Come Together’ is the key song of the turn of the decade, isolating a pivotal moment when the free world’s coming generation rejected established wisdom, knowledge, ethics, and behavior for a drug-inspired relativism which has since undermined the foundations of Western culture.”

Allan Bloom, in his once-celebrated, now-forgotten The Closing of the American Mind, made a similar connection between the effect of drugs and their ally, the new music. He said,

In my experience, students who have had a serious fling with drugs—and gotten over it—find it difficult to have enthusiasms or great expectations.

It is as though the color has been drained out of their lives and they see everything in black and white. The pleasure they experienced in the beginning was so intense that they no longer look for it at the end or as the end.

They may function perfectly well, but dryly, routinely. Their energy has been sapped, and they do not expect their life’s activity to produce anything but a living, whereas liberal education is supposed to encourage the belief that the good life is the pleasant life and that the best life is the most pleasant life.

He then made a metaphorical connection between the drugs and the music that goes so closely with them, saying that, as long as they listen to the music on their headphones, “They cannot hear what the Great Tradition has to say. After its prolonged use, when they take it off, they find that they are deaf.” Drugs destroy the old landscape of literature and art and leave blighted minds craving different sorts of satisfaction.

I can remember this going on, the invasion of our young lives by music so utterly distinct from anything that had gone before that it was as if some sort of euphoric substance had been put in the air and the water.  We thought we could hear the Chimes of Freedom flashing, and there was no doubt at all that marijuana was part of this mystical re-evaluation of the world. I recall it more clearly perhaps because I consciously rejected it around the age of 19, turning instead towards Beethoven’s symphonies and the Marxist classics. For me, Petrograd in 1917 took the place of Jerusalem, the source of the world’s most profound myth and of mankind’s most exalted aims. I confess this frankly rather bizarre set of beliefs to explain how it came to be that I was not interested in the phony Holy Communion of the shared marijuana joint, reverently rolled in semi-darkness, ceremoniously lit, and then piously handed round the group of initiates, all of whom were knowingly breaking a law that in those days was sometimes still actually enforced. Who needed the Catacombs?

I thought I had something better than this, and in a way I did. At least my revolution concerned itself with reason, history, and a thirst for justice, however, twisted and misdirected. Theirs was just the ultimate expression of self-pity, the poor bruised soul soothed by the sweet fumes of tetrahydrocannabinol. And by the time I realized I did not have anything better after all, I was adult enough to be suspicious of the drug culture anyway.

It was in the course of trying to combat the campaign for marijuana legalization, over many years, that it came to me that I was not challenging reasonable opponents but fanatics and zealots. I would slog to some campus meeting, armed with carefully-researched facts, mostly about how the law against the possession of marijuana was not in fact enforced. And I would find my opponents, often obviously intelligent people, behaving as if I had never even opened my mouth. I might as well not have turned up. They simply repeated the false claim that I had rebutted, making no attempt to challenge my facts. The mythology of the persecution of drug abusers was an essential part of their lives. It was part of the case for legalization. Therefore it could not be abandoned. Therefore challenges to it must be ignored. What did it matter if it simply was not true? As for the strong circumstantial evidence, and the powerful correlations, which suggested that this might not be the moment to put such a drug on open sale, and to allow it to be advertised, this too was ignored as if it had not been said. Mental illness? There was more evidence that peanuts were dangerous to health (I have been told this in supposedly serious debates).

Then there would be the “What About Alcohol?” segment of the discussion in which the presence of one disastrous legal poison was somehow stated to be an argument for the licensing of a second such poison. And finally, we would reach “What About Portugal?” or “What About Amsterdam?” in an attempt to pretend that the legal changes in these places showed drugs to be harmless, claims now utterly exploded and never very firmly based. Even the Washington Post no longer believes the claims about Portugal and Amsterdam, and recently reported on the squalor and crime in both places. It is equally easy to discover that two civilized law-governed nations, Japan and South Korea, successfully discourage marijuana use by the simple method, formerly common in Western nations, of prosecuting and punishing its possession. But you will find this will make no difference either. The drug legalization advocates will perhaps giggle but certainly change the subject.  It is as if our entire culture had decided to ignore Sir Richard Doll’s discoveries about cigarettes because smoking was so important to our culture.

I am arguing against a fanatical faith with the weapons of reason, the very thing the “New Atheists” claim (in my view falsely) to be doing in their battle against Christian belief. But while anti-God diatribes and sermons won the New Atheists’ praise for their alleged courage, originality, and brio, I receive none of that. Like most other socially conservative positions, opposition to marijuana legalization is increasingly an embattled minority view, pretty much heresy. I struggle to make the case on major broadcast media, and when I do I often find that the officially neutral presenter is (in practice) as opposed to me as the drug advocate against whom I am debating. But in this instance, the heretic wins no credit for his individuality, independence, or defiance of fashion. Rather the reverse.

Those who take up this cause are defying the spirit of the age. And, as so often in such matters, it helps to turn to one of the smarter and more honest thinkers of the new era, Aldous Huxley, to find out what is going on.  His Brave New World, an increasingly accurate prophecy of our hedonist, deliberately irrational, and ignorant civilization, absolutely requires the fictional drug Soma to make it function. In a world where humans have learned to love their own servitude, the mind must be kept from fretting, doubting, experiencing, or expressing discontent. Not only is Soma used to quell a riot among the lower orders, who end up simpering and embracing each other after the police soma sprays have done their work; it silences the questing minds of the elite too. Soma, Huxley explained, had “all the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects…there is always delicious Soma, half a gram for a half-holiday, a gram for a week-end, two grams for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon.”

Don’t you long for some? In Huxley’s world you could ingest it in the form of ice cream, and refusers were liable to end up in exile on the Falkland Islands. But you cannot get it. You will never be able to get it. Huxley suggested that biochemists, hugely subsidized by a drug-loving state, had somehow managed to make it harmless, but that must be a fantasy. It seems to me that the history of all mind-altering drugs suggests that they must exact a hard price for the artificial joy, and for the undeserved rewards, which they provide. But the advocates of drugs want this not to be so, and will not acknowledge that it is so.

And now here comes the point at which the deep revolutionary nature of the marijuana legalization movement emerges. There may be a parallel elsewhere, but in Britain the moment came in London in the summer of 1967. This was around the time of the first rock festival at Monterey, prototype of hundreds of pseudo-religious gatherings of worshippers of the new morality which to me strongly resemble the services of a new religion. A significant member of the London counter-culture, John “Hoppy” Hopkins, was sent to prison in June of 1967, after being caught in possession of marijuana. He insisted on jury trial, knowing that he would as a result face a higher sentence if convicted, and used the occasion to proclaim that marijuana was harmless and that the laws against it should be greatly diluted. The jury found him guilty, and the judge sent him to prison for nine months (much less than the maximum ten years he could, in theory, have gotten), calling him “a pest to society.”

Hopkins was a founder of the then-influential magazine International Times, an organizer of the equally revolutionary UFO Club, and a friend of many in the London world of drugs and music. His arrest and imprisonment created alarm among many fashionable and powerful marijuana users. They feared that the old establishment was at last taking the issue seriously, and they did not like that.  Hopkins’s conviction was swiftly followed by an “emergency meeting” in the back room of the Indica Bookshop, another small fortress of dope culture in the London of the time. There should be a painting of this occasion.

Afterward, a brilliant and witty young American then living in London, Steve Abrams, assembled the mighty coalition that would then set about informally destroying the United Kingdom’s laws against marijuana possession. Abrams was a member of a body that had read Brave New World, yet deliberately called itself the SOMA Research Association, and consciously pursued the aim of a hedonistic social revolution. Abrams recruited the superstar Paul McCartney to the campaign and, within a short time, had assembled a battalion of notables, including all four Beatles, the novelist Graham Greene, and a gallery of London’s great and good, to sign an advertisement in the London Times that was published to general amazement in that then-powerful newspaper, on July 24, 1967. It called for the evisceration of the marijuana laws.

And here is the significant part. The call was heeded. Much of its program would be quite swiftly adopted—often de facto rather than de jure—by both major British political parties, the police, and the courts. The key changes were that possession would be regarded far more lightly than trafficking and that marijuana would now be treated separately from (and more leniently than) the other bogeyman drugs, in those days heroin and LSD, and given a special classification of its own. This is the origin of the common false belief that this drug, many of whose users end up seriously mentally ill for life, is “soft.” It was also the beginning of a long salami-slicing process during which the actual penalties imposed for its possession grew so small they became invisible, and after that, the police simply ceased to notice its presence at all. London in the summertime now smells of marijuana. It was the moment at which modern Britain embraced the complex, contradictory view of drugs—that they are harmless, but that those who hurt themselves and others by their use should be treated as medical victims rather than punished as criminal transgressors; that those who use them should not have their lives ruined by criminal penalties, even though they may ruin their own lives and those of their families with drug abuse. This also goes with the elevation of the idea of “addiction” to official status, thus robbing all drug abusers of free will and undermining any attempt at deterrence.

The defeatist language associated with these defeatist attitudes is often found in the mouths of people who regard themselves as political conservatives. They speak of “soft” drugs, of “addiction” and of “treatment,” quite unaware that by doing so they are spreading the propaganda of the enemy. Some of these also adopt the revolutionary slogan that the “War on Drugs” has “failed,” which requires the acceptance of the fiction that there has ever been any such war. Even Alex Berenson, whose book Tell Your Children has been a potent corrective to much public falsehood about marijuana, concluded that “decriminalization” of marijuana might be a reasonable compromise. Between what and what? 

Legalization has already failed on its own terms. The smiling promise that it would “take the drug out of the hands of criminal gangs” has not been fulfilled. Where it is legal, illegal, untaxed, and unregulated, markets flourish alongside. All that has happened is that marijuana is now also in the hands of greedy businessmen, remarkably like the old “Big Tobacco” types we all claim to dislike so much. Any concession to this lobby is an abandonment of the rule of law and of common sense. Meanwhile, the circumstantial evidence of the dangers, mental illness, criminal violence, the ruin of families, grows—and remains circumstantial because no rich and powerful force has any interest in researching these miseries.

Back in the 1960s, my generation thought we could have a Revolution in the Head. I remember it, the shiver of anticipated pleasure and longing, the Pied Piper’s enchanting tune luring us away from the dull and the work, the dutiful and the ordinary. We thought it would free us. Many still think this and have not noticed, as they skip and dance through the grim gates of the new world, what is written above them—something about abandoning hope, though the lettering nowadays is much obscured by moss and decay—and how strangely dark it looks down there.


This article was published by The American Conservative and is reproduced with permission.


Judge Halts Arizona Transgender Sports Ban, Horne Promises Appeal

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

A federal judge ruled against Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne in a lawsuit over banning transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams in schools.

Arizona District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, ordered a preliminary injunction that will allow girls who identify as transgender to play for their school’s girl’s sports teams.

“Plaintiffs will also suffer severe and irreparable mental, physical, and emotional harm if the Act applies to them because they cannot play on boys’ sports teams. Playing on a boys’ team would directly contradict Plaintiffs’ medical treatment for gender dysphoria and would be painful and humiliating,” the court document states. “Plaintiffs’ mental health is dependent on living as girls in all aspects of their lives.”

However, Horne insists that the final decision maker will be the U.S. Supreme Court, which leans conservative.

“We will appeal this ruling. This will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they will rule in our favor,” Horne said in a statement Thursday. “The Plaintiffs in this case claimed that this only involves pre-pubescent boys, but we presented peer-reviewed studies that show pre-pubescent boys have an advantage over girls in sports. The only expert presented by the Plaintiffs was a medical doctor who makes his money doing sex transition treatments on children and who has exactly zero peer-reviewed studies to support his opinion.”

The law, known as the “Save Women’s Sports Act” was passed by the Republican-led Legislature and later signed by former Gov. Doug Ducey in March 2022. Other Republican-led states, such as Tennessee, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Alabama, have similar laws on the books. According to 13 News, two transgender girls sued Horne in order to get the opportunity to play for the girls’ teams at their schools. 

How Democrats and Their Media Allies Cooked Up a Phony Supreme Court ‘Legitimacy Crisis’

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The legacy media has signaled that it’s all in on the Left’s cooked-up Supreme Court “legitimacy crisis.”

This week, Senate Democrats plan to vote on Supreme Court ethics rules that are clearly meant to give them the ability to hector and harass the court to get the decisions they want. The vote coincides with an increasingly aggressive media campaign to create the appearance that the Supreme Court is mired in scandal.

There’s no question the Left has launched this scheme because it is infuriated by the Supreme Court’s recent decisions.

A Supreme Court leaker struck the first big blow in 2022, releasing the upcoming draft opinion that would ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade. The opinion did not mark an aggressive change—it merely overturned the badly reasoned Roe decision, which had effectively outlawed abortion restrictions across America. That leak inspired death threats against justices, alongside political threats from Democrats in Congress.

More defeats this year, on affirmative action and the student loan bailout, have sent the left-wing media machine into overdrive.

The loss on affirmative action was particularly stinging given how unpopular racial preferences in admissions are. Without elite institutional backing, the issue is a dead letter with the American people.

The Left had become so accustomed to every institution doing its bidding that its only strategy in the face of defeat revolves around putting a metaphorical stick of dynamite under the Supreme Court and setting it off.

Every scheme Democrats have drawn up to deal with this challenge like court packing — has come off as obviously partisan and downright reckless.

They need the media to step in and make this all seem serious and noble. As you would expect, their friends in the media have been happy to oblige.

Politico basically acknowledged that the legacy media en masse is all too eager to carry water for the Democrats’ crusade to pulverize a Supreme Court they no longer control. This was from Monday’s Politico Playbook—a widely read media newsletter:

Fourteen months ago, our colleagues Josh Gerstein and Alex Ward’s revelation of the Supreme Court’s draft Dobbs opinion didn’t just upend American politics and abortion policy — it also ushered in a new era for the media’s coverage of the court.

No longer do SCOTUS reporters principally cover only the cases before the high court. Now they’re focused more regularly and aggressively on ‘the justices’ business dealings, relationships, and ethical issues,’ as well as the broader politics around the high court, Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein reports in a new story that interviews Josh about the shift.

The “new era” that they are referring to is one in which those on the Left must endure Supreme Court decisions they don’t like. Therefore, they will now do anything to smear the court and delegitimize it until they get decisions they like again.

Politico noted that media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post are suddenly pouring resources into “asking explosive ethics questions” about Supreme Court justices.

After not caring to ask questions for generations our noble, objective media has suddenly become highly interested in ethics reform on the Supreme Court. What incredible and surely coincidental timing for the Democrat Party messaging effort.

They are here to convince Americans that the Supreme Court’s “crisis of legitimacy” is something other than the cooked-up Democrat campaign to bring the high court to heel.

Where was this legitimacy crisis when the Supreme Court sided in favor of Obamacare by reclassifying it as a tax? When that decision came down, the legacy media celebrated it as a wonderful affirmation of the Supreme Court’s institutional integrity.

That phase is over. The Bat Signal has gone up. The Left’s media pawns are in full delegitimizing mode now.

As columnist Dan McLaughlin wrote in National Review, some of the media’s “explosive” revelations about Supreme Court justices have been hilariously shallow non-stories. Apparently, some of Justice Clarence Thomas’ former clerks used Venmo—a commonly used money transfer app—to receive money for a Christmas party. A lawyer who worked on the latest affirmative action cases also happened to attend that party.

All the party attendees had clerked for Thomas at some point. The bill was $20. So, it was roughly equivalent to a fast-food lunch in a big city these days if you splurge on dessert. I guess we’re supposed to believe this sum swayed Thomas’ opinion on affirmative action, even though Thomas surely had no long public record of statements on the issue.

Get ready for a series of stories about how Thomas or Justice Samuel Alito, or any one of the other justices on the Supreme Court not controlled by the Left, once bought a hot dog at a baseball game that pro-life advocates also attended—a scandal of the highest proportions, implying that we need to restore Roe v. Wade or something.

As I’ve noted time and again, those on the Left will seek to destroy any institution they don’t control. They don’t care about constitutional limits, they don’t care about the structure of government, checks and balances, or anything like that. They only care about amassing power and enforcing their agenda.

If that means bulldozing the court, so be it. If that means empowering an activist court to overstep its bounds and act as a kind of super-legislative body as it did during the Warren Court era of the mid-20th century, again, so be it.

This latest campaign to intimidate and smash the court has been obvious and cynical to anyone paying attention.

In the end, this moment reveals a lot more about leftists than it does the integrity of the justices they seek to impugn.


This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

You Are the Population They Want to Control

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Worldwide birthrate per 1,000 people follows a very predictable trend. In “developed” and/or wealthy nations, the birthrate is low and in nations at the lower end of the economic development scale, the birthrate is high. Nothing new there.

Many countries, including the US, have birthrates that either are too low to sustain current population levels or are stable. Since 1970, the population of people born in the US has been stable at below 300 million. In fact, some estimates show a decline in population. All of the population growth in the US during this time period has been due to immigration. That is why the USA has grown to 336 million people in 50 years. This trend has only increased in recent years.

There were a record 44.8 million immigrants living in the US in 2018, making up 13.7 percent of the nation’s population. This represents a more than fourfold increase since 1960, when 9.7 million immigrants lived in the US, accounting for 5.4 percent of the total US population

For Jill and I growing up in a blue state, we were indoctrinated at an early age by the public school system that having two children was the responsible thing to do to save the planet from overpopulation. That careers were more important than having a large family. That women would find more fulfillment in a education and career, as opposed to staying at home. That women should defer motherhood until college and a career were firmly established. That this was the responsible path to take. Today, young women receive the same messaging from our government, our schools systems, and mainstream corporate media.

This messaging by the US government is still as strident as when I was in my youth 50 to 60 years ago.

The truth is that UN’s Agenda 2030 asserts that migration is a human right. What this means in practicality is that persons born in countries with high birthrates have a right to migrate into wealthy countries with low birth rates.

To begin – migration is not a “human right.” Property laws and nation states exist for a reason. To assert otherwise is to assert that there is a one-world government which is in control of migration. Another usurpation of authority by the UN and the WEF.

This nation’s rules and regulations, our very Constitution do not apply to non-citizens. This is by design. Let’s abide by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, not UN agreements, such as Agenda 2030, which was signed by a US president and never ratified by the Senate.

Our country has done a fine job of convincing the American populace that large family size hurts families and individuals in aggregate. We were told that the reward of that, for better or worse, would be a stabilized population over time and preservation of the American way of life, environment, cultural heritage and associated economic opportunities for US citizens. And yet still they persist. This week, Kamala Harris specifically stated that a reduced population was key to children being able to breath and drink clean water. This is not the first time she has asserted this false narrative.

When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water.” – Kamala Harri

Yet, the Biden border crisis grows ever more urgent and the rate of illegal immigration continues to surge. It is a no brainer to think that an option to reduce population might be as simple as reducing immigration, if that was their true intent.

The truth is that the US has a vibrant and amazing culture. A heritage built on independence, free speech, shared values, and strong work ethic. This heritage can easily be diluted by too much immigration. Just look what is happening France right now. Open migration policies have worked to cause a vast instability within the nation. France literally can no longer integrate so many people, with such different sets of cultural norms into their core national culture. This is not progress.

Under globalism, the heterogeneous cultures throughout the world are being weaponized as a way to destroy diversity; a path towards enabling a single, globalized government controlled by the UN and the WEF. Which is precisely what open borders, the immigration policies of the UN and even Kamala Harris’ statements seem to be working towards. It is time to end this nonsense and get back to a closed and orderly immigration system.

There are over 8 billion people in the world. The US can not take all those that wish to immigrate. To think otherwise is foolish.

America has to be an independent and free nation. We need to rely on Americans for our goods and services. A strong economy is one that meets its own needs internally. Whereby goods, services, medical care, and energy are produced domestically. A strong nation doesn’t need to import low-wage earners to do its dirty work. The bizarre directive of reducing the naturally born population while importing new immigrants serves no functional purpose except to further globalize the USA.

By accepting large numbers of immigrants while reducing our own American population, we further regress as a nation, and we will continue to accelerate economic devastation of both middle class and urban poor citizens. A new world order where migration is a right, borders are open and the UN controls the ebb and flow of populations is ceding American nationalism and will destroy the American experiment in self-governance.

Our government needs to stay out of the business of enforcing population measures.

Which brings me to the mRNA genetic shots. People worry that the mRNA jabs have some sequence or component, such as the lipid nano-particle or genetic code, which are causing sterility. And that these were intentionally designed to cause a decrease in fertility worldwide. This is not a completely unrealistic fear.

For years, there have been rumors of abortion vaccines and anti-fertility vaccines being developed in India and Africa. With evidence being presented for and against these rumors. But we do know for sure that China used forced sterilizations and forced abortions on its own citizens. Now, China worries that their population levels are crumbling rapidly. Government controls on family choices are immoral. The idea of a vaccine to control population is repugnant.

Which brings me to a newly published Nature paper that shows that using adeno-associated viral vectored techniques, cats can be permanently sterilized. In this essay, I don’t want to get into the science behind this (let’s defer that to a later essay) but I do want to discuss the ethics of developing “gene therapy” techniques that rely on viral vectors for sterilization.

To begin with, such a fertility gene therapy technique using adeno-associated virus (AAV) “gene therapy” vectors could be accidentally or purposefully modified to be infectious. This requires a recombination event (rescue) of another related adenovirus, which could be a wild type. Once that happens, the viral vector could be replication competent: ergo infectious. Although AAV “gene therapy” vectors are not a full replicating virus; the truth is that in a research setting, using the full virus to create infectious products is relatively simple. It could be as simple as missing a purification step or a recombination event. If such a product were to escape or be released into the general cat population, it would be a disaster. If such a vector had a rescue event in an injected animal, it could literally create a new virus. What happens if it were to infect on other feline species, such as cheetahs, big cats, cougars or bobcats? There is a scenario whereby it could decimate the population of an endangered species or all the cats . Furthermore, there is a possibility that such a virus could jump species – even into humans. Adeno-associated viruses are respiratory viruses, so can spread easily. What happens then?

Not to mention, we already know that NGOs and governments are willing to consider reducing population via vaccination or forced sterilization. Who is to say whether an organization, perhaps even one with the “best of intentions” in mind (or believing that “the ends justify the means”), would be willing to go there. After what we have experienced over the past three years, I would consider it in the realm of possibility. Kamala Harris, Bill Gates and the WEF and UN all have made their positions crystal clear. Population reduction is imperative.

There must be more regulatory controls on biological research for both animals and humans.

But in the meantime, we have to consider that the government doesn’t really care about population control. You can know them by their actions, not their words. Their words endorse low birthrate as a pathway to population stabilization, but their actions enable rampant population growth due to immigration. The DATA indicate that what they really are striving for is a New World Order, whereby the UN becomes the dominant force of the world, with nation states nestled under their organizational structure. One in which out-migration combined with regional population control via government-enabled birth control (via both pharmaceuticals and deployed propaganda) is designed to augment that process of enabling populations born in economically disadvantaged regions to gain control of more economically advanced nations and infrastructure while destroying the cultures and politico/economic structures which have historically enabled the economic development of these more advanced regions.


This article was published by the Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Author -Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr