Today at 11:00 a.m., EDT, FRC will host a Family Policy Lecture by Dr. John G. West, of the Discovery Institute entitled, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: The Disturbing Legacy of America’s Eugenics Crusade.” If you can’t join us on location here in D.C., be sure to watch the live webcast of the event. Here are the details:

This year marks the centennial of the world’s first forced sterilization law, passed by the state of Indiana in March 1907. By the early 1930s, some 30 states had enacted similar laws as part of a secular crusade to breed better humans known as “eugenics.” Promoted in the name of Darwinian evolution, eugenics led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today. Why did America’s leading scientists and scientific organizations embrace eugenics for so long? Was eugenics a logical application of Darwin’s theory, or a terrible misuse of it? What is the connection between the eugenics movement and the population control movement that arose in the 1950s and 60s? Most importantly, what are the lessons we can learn from eugenics for today’s controversies over science, bioethics, and public policy? Dr. West will explore these questions and more.

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

|

A new video from FRC Action:

|

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

Comments: 3 |

If you were asked to name the technologies whose proliferation inadvertently threatens the human race, what would you include? IEDS? Assault rifles? Nuclear warheads?

Add this one to your list: the sonogram machine.

The widespread use of sonogram technology–coupled with liberal abortion laws–has made it possible for women to identify the sex of their child so that those without a Y chromosome can be killed before they’re even born. Last year, in a speech before the U.N., demographer Nicholas Eberstadt revealed the details of this frightening trend:

Over the past five years the American public has received regular updates on what we have come to call “the global war on terror”. A no-less significant global war—a war, indeed, against nature, civilization, and in fact humanity itself has also been underway in recent years. This latter war, however, has attracted much less attention and comment, despite its immense consequence. This world-wide struggle might be called” The Global War Against Baby Girls”.

The effects of this war on girls can be seen in the changes in the sex ratios at birth. Eberstadt explains that there is a “slight but constant and almost unvarying excess of baby boys over baby girls born in any population.” The number of baby boys born for every hundred baby girls, which is so constant that it can “qualify as a rule of nature”, falls along an extremely narrow range along the order of 103, 104, or 105. On rare occasions it even hovers around 106

These sex ratios vary slightly based on ethnicity. For example, in the U.S. in 1984 the rates were: White: 105.4; Black: 103.1; American Indian: 101.4; Chinese: 104.6; and Japanese 102.6. Such variations, however, remain small and fairly stable over time.

But Eberstadt finds that in the last generation the sex ratio at birth in some parts of the world has become “completely unhinged.” Consider this graph from provinces in China in 2000:

Continue reading »

Comments: 3 |

Teen girls from intact families with frequent religious attendance averaged the fewest sexual partners (0.47) when compare to (a) their peers from non-intact families with frequent religious attendance (0.93), (b) peers from intact families with low to no religious attendance (1.14), and (c) peers from non-intact families with low to no religious attendance (1.55).

Source: Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation 2006), pp. .

(HT: FamilyFacts.org)

|

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

|

Friday’s USA Today included an article noting that despite moves toward legalizing “civil unions” in states like New Hampshire and Oregon, “fewer gay couples are choosing to enter civil unions or register as domestic partners” (Andrea Stone, “Some say civil unions dropping off,” April 20). For example, in Connecticut, the number of same-sex couples who entered into civil unions in the first 15 months that they were legal was only 18% of the number of same-sex “unmarried partner” households counted in the 2000 census. (By contrast, 92% of opposite-sex couples who live together in Connecticut are legally married.)

The article quotes one homosexual activist as suggesting that same-sex couples are “waiting for marriage.” But it certainly undermines the argument that same-sex couples are being seriously harmed by lack of access to the legal and financial “benefits” of marriage, if 82% don’t even bother to access those “benefits” once they are granted them under state law.

The article says that in Massachusetts, where they do have same-sex civil “marriage,” about 9,000 such “marriages” have occurred since 2004. However, it fails to note that this is barely more than half the number of cohabiting same-sex couples identified in the census (again, in contrast to heterosexuals, among whom the married outnumber the cohabiting by a ratio of more than 10 to 1). These figures constitute empirical evidence that a majority of homosexuals do not “need” the “benefits” of marriage, and relatively few even want to participate in the institution of “marriage.”

What they really want is the official government affirmation that homosexuality is identical to heterosexuality—period. But by winning “marriage” and then not participating in it, they advance the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage—that is, they destroy any social norm suggesting that marriage is the preferred context for living together in a sexual relationship (even more than heterosexuals have). This is one of the ways that same-sex marriage harms the institution of marriage—yes, even for heterosexuals.

See also FRC InFocus: “How many benefit from same-sex ‘marriage’ in Massachusetts?”

Comments: 5 |

Okay, first scientists in Serbia discover a mineral with the properties of kryptonite – then other scientists discover an Earth like planet that is larger then our Earth and in a solar system with a red sun.

Am I the only geek wondering what Lex Luthor thinks of all this?

Comments: 1 |

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

|

A story from Canada could give new meaning to sibling rivalry:

MONTREAL – In what is considered a world first, Melanie Boivin has donated her eggs to her daughter who is sterile because of a genetic condition called Turner’s syndrome.

The Montreal lawyer’s eggs are to be frozen until her seven-year-old daughter, Flavie, becomes of age to bear a child through in-vitro fertilization.

If she chooses to become pregnant, Flavie will be giving birth to her genetic sister and Boivin will simultaneously become mother and grandmother.

The possible outcomes from this scenario boggle the mind. Would this make Flavie’s spouse (assuming he consented to fathering a child with his mother-in-law’s eggs) a stepfather-husband to Flavie? Would he be progenitor to his own sister-in-law? Would the child have a brother-in-law-father, a sister-mother, and a mother-grandma? My head hurts just from thinking about all the possible permutations.

What’s equally bizarre is the apathy some ethicists have toward the matter. University of Toronto philosophy professor and “moral scholar” Wayne Sumner argues:

When it comes to donor gametes, it is “irrelevant” who donates the eggs, Sumner said.

“I don’t see it as all that significant – the scrambling of generations .I don’t have concerns about whether it’s natural or normal.

“It’s a little odd for (Boivin), who will have both a child and a grandchild simultaneously, but people wrap their heads around these things.”

Just a little odd? Consider my head unwrapped.

Comments: 3 |

The Economist is reporting a study by internet market research firm Hitwise that suggests pornography on the ‘net may be in decline:

…the Hitwise data suggest that sex sites are now being dethroned. In Britain search sites overtook sex sites in popularity last October—the first time any other category has come out on top since tracking began, says Hitwise. In America, the proportion of site visits that are pornographic is falling and people are flocking to sites categorised “net communities and chat”—chiefly social-networking sites such as MySpace, Bebo and Facebook. Traffic to such sites is poised to overtake traffic to sex sites in America any day now.

Good news, right? Not necessarily. As the article suggests, “adult” material — like the rest of the internet at large — may simply be changing venues. A decline pornographic websites has corresponded with an increase in porn in other areas of the web, such as peer-to-peer file sharing networks, social networking websites, and “virtual worlds” like Second Life.

Parents, don’t stop monitoring your kids’ internet usage just yet…

Comments: 1 |

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

Comments: 2 |

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

|

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |

Here’s FRC’s press release:

FRC Praises Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
April 18, 2007

Washington D.C. – Today, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement welcoming the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-birth Abortion Ban.

“This is a victory for a commonsense measure that is overwhelmingly favored by over 70 percent of the American people who increasingly support protections for unborn children. This brings the nation’s abortion policy one step closer to the views of the American people. Americans are against unlimited abortion and the partial-abortion ban is the first meaningful limitation on abortion in over thirty years.

“We applaud the Court for recognizing the legitimate interest that Congress has ‘in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.’ The Court rejected the idea that a group of partial-birth abortion doctors should hold veto power over the abortion policy of the entire country. The Majority is to be commended for respecting the intent of Congress who represent the American people. This is a violent and inhumane act that is never medically necessary according to the American Medical Association.

“I want to thank President Bush, Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH), and former Senator Rick Santorum for all their hard work over the years to pass this legislation.”

Comments: 1 |

So says the Las Vegas Sun. (via Drudge)

UPDATE: Here’s more.

And the opinion:

|

Talk about a bad first day . . .

A 17-YEAR -old rookie plumber has burned down a £5 million ($12 million) waterside mansion in southwest England, after a soldering task during his first day on the job went horribly wrong. More . . .

|

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

Continue reading »

Comments: 3 |