More >>

It pains me to state the obvious.' I hate to remind people to ignore the unimportant.' I often find myself asking, why do people obsess about idiots who are doing the wrong thing?' But unfortunately the idiots seem not only to stick around, but the stupider they get, the more the media wants to talk about them.'And then they do something really dumb and I get really ticked off.'The octuplet lady... Let's call her Ms. Mommy, because there is no Mr. Mommy in sight... is back in the news because, while she insists that she won't take government money to help support her self-centered decision to have her own private herd of toddlers, she will take Mastercard and Visa -- from YOU!'Yes -- this mommy of 14 has launched a website soliciting donations to help her feed, diaper and toilet train these beautiful little gifts from God who, in reality, are now legally the chattel of the most narcissistic mother alive.' So, if you want to make sure they get their Gerber's, you better pull out your wallet because begging for help from strangers appears to be this woman's new career path.'Now, it would be nice if I could at least say that Ms. Mommy learned HTML programming so she could make her own website.' Then, at least, she would have a skill that she could use (at home) and make some legitimate coin while the kidlets are sleeping.' But no, Ms Mommy's got some Hollywood public relations firm to design and put up the site, complete with links to PayPal in order to slurp your money faster.''So is the money raised for the kidlets going to pay the PR firm for their web design?' Well, FoxNews says "The website was created by the Killeen Furtney Group, a Los Angeles-based public relations and marketing firm retained by the mother following the birth of her six boys and two girls. Her publicist, Joann Killeen, declined to indicate how much had been donated thus far, but stressed that her firm designed the website for free." Pro bono?' More like Pro Promo.' Joann Killeen was a bit more honest and forthcoming just a week ago when she acted like the mommy of the moment resembled a cash cow.' The Los Angeles Daily News reported on February 3rd: "Ms. Mommy retained Los Angeles publicists Michael Furtney and Joann Killeen on Friday and since then, the agents said they had fielded dozens of interview requests and offers for book, film and television deals. But Killeen said this morning that offers have not yet been reviewed. Some media reports speculated that Ms. Mommy might be paid as much as $2 million for an interview. Killeen said today she believes people will be 'very impressed' when Ms. Mommy begins relating her tale, 'and we will work with our client to decide what's the best vehicle for her to tell the story.'" And all I keep thinking about is the 14 little children who desperately need a safe, secure home in order for them to achieve the American Dream while their mommy is whipping them around in her own personal nightmare.''Is there any good news here?' Well, apparently the Bimbo Mommy has decided no more kids.' In her maybe paid for, maybe not interview on The Today Show, she told Ann Curry the octuplets were a sign from God that she should stop having children. And according to the Associated Press, "she also said she'll support her family on student loans until she finishes her master's degree in a year or two and finds a job."'Well, I support her decision to NOT have any more kids and I'm just waiting for the website where I can donate money to have Ms. Mommy's tubes tied. More >>

More >>

I am writing this blog on Nadya Suleman, octuplet mom, under duress.' I was told that a significant number of you wished for my point of view or comments on this occurrence.' My answer was, "Do I really have to comment on the obvious?"'I am disgusted with this woman for being educated in child developmental psychology and still intentionally robbing children of a dad (she had in-vitro fertilization with embryos from sperm donor) and the opportunity to get the kind of attention one out of fourteen children clearly won't get.I'm disgusted with the clinic and physicians who, knowing she already had six children and no husband or reasonable means of support (except for workman's comp lawsuits), and frankly, must be somewhat emotionally troubled, still impregnated her with multiple embryos -- more than the recommended number for a woman under the age of 35.I'm disgusted with the media for making a big deal about these freak situations without proper judgment and criticism and for starting programs for "freebee" bailouts with charitable support.I'm disgusted with Child Protective Services which I don't think has even considered taking these children away from this self-avowed baby-mill and placing them up for adoption into two-parent households, with a married mom and dad.Every Mother's Day my psyche is assaulted with front page stories coast-to-coast about unwed mothers' joy and glee and Mother-of-the-Year Awards to celebrity moms who clearly put their careers before their children (bless those who are "nannied!").So - this blog is in honor of and directed to the women who do it right: get married to good man who can support a family; wait until they're settled and have the emotional where-with-all to sacrifice in order to receive the huge rewards of mothering their own children.I'm sorry the media doesn't care about you...but your husband, your children, Dr. Laura, and a society grateful for the wonderful human beings you raise do care about you. More >>

With all the hoopla surrounding celebrity minors who get pregnant ' out of wedlock ' everyone seems to forget or ignore the price that their children pay.' Obviously, a Jamie-Lynn Spears or a Bristol Palin has a source of financial and family support, but that situation is the exception and not the rule.' Glorifying teen motherhood and supporting it (think of John McCain with Bristol Palin's 'baby daddy' in a photo-op, for goodness sakes) does a gross disservice to the realities of the situations.Babies need adult parents ' a Mom and Dad, who are (preferably) married.' Or are babies just accessories to be called 'cute,' and then passed on to the hired help?A recent study by the Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy pegs the annual cost to taxpayers at almost $10 billion per year.' Spread that wealth!' Less than 40% of teen mothers earn a high school diploma, and their children are far, far more likely to go into foster care and eventually end up in prison than children born to even slightly older mothers, writes University of Delaware economist Saul Hoffman in Kids Having Kids:' Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy .Linda Lausell Bryant, the Executive Director of Inwood House, a New York non-profit that assists teen mothers is frustrated by the racial issues involved.' The vast majority of girls are black or Hispanic. 'It's a double standard.' If you're a poor kid of color, it's a bad thing.' If you're affluent and white, it's not so bad.' She explained to the Associated Press that many of the girls served by Inwood House had already dropped out of high school before they got pregnant, and saw motherhood as a chance to add meaning to their lives, which may have been punctuated with abuse, abandonment and/or chaotic homes. 'It is a dream,' she says, 'of raising a child the way they wish they'd been raised ' being the kind of mother they never had. That's the fantasy ' it's very powerful.' Our celebration of teen pregnancies leads young girls in the wrong direction:' increasing poverty, despair, child abuse, abandonment, and even infanticide. Why am I one of the only voices in the media stating that what Bristol and Jamie-Lynn did was wrong? More >>

If I were any more disgusted with modern parenting my head would explode.' I just about screamed so loudly that they could hear me in Dallas, where the Dallas Morning News published a piece with the headline:' "Social Networking Sites Cater to Moms and Babies."' What?' What?' What?' Internet social networking for babies?' What the heck does that even mean?I'll tell you what it means: it's another self-centered, insensitive, lazy, neglectful way for most mothers to pretend they actually care about their children and are making the sacrifices and efforts to give kids what the kids NEED.Here's a great comment from the article: "The messages, of course, are from parents, usually moms, who say sites such as TotSpot provide them with TIME-SAVING ALTERNATIVES to PLAY DATES and FACE-TO-FACE RELATIONSHIPS..." [Note:' The capitalization is mine].So let me understand this...these so-called mothers spend time on the computer posting pictures and descriptions of their kids to virtual strangers (which we now call virtual "friends") and get texted back with the saying, "You've been tickled," and they assume that this in any way serves any need for any baby or toddler?Other equally ridiculous mothers (and all these women actually gave their real names...is there no shame?) are quoted as saying that they don't have time (what happened to MAKING time) for actual play dates...this way they can connect with moms and kids without leaving the house or the office.Since when were play-dates only about the moms?' I always thought play-dates were about introducing children - FACE TO FACE - to other children, adults, environments, pets, experiences, and so forth.' I didn't realize play-dates were just "jabber jabber" time for busy busy women who seem to wish to live in a virtual world rather than the concrete one their children will have to deal with eventually.' These are probably the kind of women who get crazed when their husbands choose to do the same with naked women on the internet.Aside from the oh so obvious problems with parents putting information about children on the internet (a pedophile's play land), it directs children (from the time they're infants and toddlers) toward a life on the computer instead of in the park, the back yard, the street, a friend's home, etc.Many of the parents spoke about being "proud" of their babies and wanted to show them off and have them - even before they can burp on their own - have their very own social web page.' This is so utterly pathetic.This is all about three things:1. FEELING, versus' BEING connected.2. FAKING being a parent who nurtures, protects, teaches, and loves by a web page''''3. SHOWING off your child and text-gossipingLet me go back to that one most damning statement in the Dallas Morning News piece: "The messages, of course, are from parents, usually moms, who say sites such as TotSpot provide them with time-saving alternatives to play dates and face-to-face relationships, while helping them connect with parents and children in nontraditional ways." We've come a long way, baby...we've become women...mothers...who are too busy to introduce our kids to life.' Great. More >>

"Disney Accused by Catholic Cleric of Corrupting Children's Minds," was headline from The UK Telegraph that obviously caught my eye and curiosity.' I grew up with all the Disney cartoon movies...and save for Snow White shacking up with a lot of dwarfs with funny names - but no funny business - I can't think of anything corrupting about that Disney era.In fact, moral stories were always at the center: good guys and gals were ultimately saved and rewarded; and bad guys got their comeuppance in spades. What possible problem could Christopher Jamison, the Abbot of Worth in West Sussex, England have with Disney?He argues that the Disney Corporation pretends to provide stories with a moral message, but has actually helped to create a more materialistic culture which is in danger of losing its soul because of growing consumerism and the decline of religion.'Whoooo.' He's got something there.' These movies are wolves in grandma's clothing?' They present a dichotomy of good and bad and then market the heck out of it and make oodles of money seducing kids into buying all kinds of junk in the image of the cute - or nasty - images on the screen.Father Jamison targets the behavior of Disney in particular, which he says is "a classic example" of how consumerism is being sold as an alternative to finding happiness in traditional morality.' While he acknowledges that Disney stories carry messages showing good triumphing over evil (i.e., moral battles) he argues that this is part of a ploy to persuade people that they should buy Disney products in order to be a good and happy family and make them greedy for the merchandise that goes with them.While Father Jamison makes an obviously good point...it is a matter of the free market.' I don't begrudge Disney trying to make a buck selling stuffed animals and t-shirts based upon their story characters.' I do begrudge the weakness of parents saying, "Yes, dear," each time their child yells and demands something.' How 'bout instead of giving in so readily, you tell them to save up their money from putting out the trash or collecting leaves so they can buy their heart's desire for "101 Dalmatians" plastic or stuffed dogs?' The children will learn patience, and the art of saving toward a goal - actually gaining pride in earning what they desire.' In fact, after they work that hard and that long, that toy may not look as nearly as interesting a use of their hard-earned change.' This way, your children learn self-discipline, self-control and a real appreciation for the value of "junk," so they can make an informed decision as to how important it really is to them. More >>

There have been innumerable skirmishes all over America concerning whether or not parents should get notification, much less a say, in whether their kids can visit the museum of natural history during school hours (usually yes), get their ears pierced (also yes) or have an unborn baby scraped or sucked out of their bodies (ahh...that would be a "NO" if you ask Planned Un-Parenthood, the ACLU, and a host of other ultra-liberal, feminista organizations).Generally, the concern these organizations present have to do almost solely with the imagined sociopathy of America's parents: that they will savage or murder their pregnant daughters, or toss them bodily from their homes into the murky night and swampy streets. They have not, however, ever come up with any instances of that happening - but what do facts matter when you want to make sure an abortion is always available when a kid wants one?For the third time in the last four years, California voters were asked to weigh in on teen abortion, determining whether doctors would be required to notify parents at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor...you hear that?' ON A MINOR CHILD!There are those who think abortions are so important to the well-being of children that they believe that children are capable of making that decision on their own.' That's why a piece by Kenny Goldberg (KPBS-FM radio in San Diego) is so blatantly clear on the limitations of the thinking of children.The Vista Community Clinic in California sees hundreds of teens a month for reproductive health issues.' Mr. Goldberg interviewed some of those teenage girls to see what their opinions and concerns were regarding their parents' knowing about their abortion appointments.' Here is a typical example: "I don't think I would tell my parents, because I feel like they would look at me as someone who's already messed up - like early in my life, and I'd feel like I was a disappointment." Hey - that sounds like a valid reason to terminate the life of a baby in one's body without a parent to talk to about alternatives or to help.By the way, most of these parental notification initiatives allow for children who come from abusive families to notify another adult relative - like a grandparent or aunt/uncle - or ask a judge for a waiver.With respect to those options, another teen says "Pregnancy already weighs on you enough.' So to even add court issues to that - that would just be insane - I mean, it would be so much harder to deal with." Come on folks - kids who worry about parental disappointment, and the burden of dealing with judges or other adults, clearly are not mature enough to make life-and-death decisions for another human being.I do know, from my years on the air, that there are many parents who would wholeheartedly support their child's abortion so that they would get that problem out of the way so their kids could just get on with school and sports.' Unfortunately, they leave their child with a legacy of always knowing they eliminated their first child because of an inconvenience.' That's better than facing some disappointment or legal procedure?I believe parents ought to be with their children to help them through any and all crises...from not making the basketball team or cheerleaders, to facing the reality of having created a human life. More >>

Jeremy, one of my listeners, wrote an impassioned email, shocked that a child psychologist is looking for someone to take care of her not yet born baby due in January. "I found it stunning that someone has already given up the chance to take care of their baby before it's even born.' You would think a child psychologist would know better, but even they want to put career before kid.' I wonder how important the kid would feel if he read his mother's ad 10 years from now - seeing his 'mother' in a hurry to find someone to take care of him as soon as he/she was born?" Well, that got my attention, and I clicked onto the job posting site, and leaving out the name and city of the woman in question, here's what she posted: "I am a child psychologist looking for a nanny for my baby who will be born in January. I am looking for a very special person who has experience with childcare- including caring for newborns. This person should have education in a field related to childcare/ psychology etc. and have had CPR training (or will get it). This person should be at least 25 years of age and responsible. This person should be exceptionally loving, patient, and sensitive... someone who I can trust with my new baby. I would like for this person to begin in February, providing approx 15 hours per week and then starting in April, approx 35 hours per week (7 hours per day, M-F). I am willing to pay the right person $11 per hour. If you think you are this person, please send resume to _________' and include your contact info. Thanks!" I don't even know where to start.' She wants someone with her education, CPR training, at least 25 years old, responsible, patient, loving and sensitive - someone who can be trusted with her newborn....ahh....isn't that the description of a mommy and not a nanny?''''You should also know that this therapist lives and works in a wealthy community.''''I couldn't resist...so, I answered the ad...kind of: "Dear 'Child Psychologist' Parent-to-be: Your posting asking for childcare for a yet to be born child has stirred up quite a bit of negative commentary...especially since you are someone trained in the emotional and psychological needs of children.' Would you be willing to offer a statement of explanation as to how your training led you to the conclusion that your hands- and heart-on parenting was not necessary for your child's healthy and happy development?" Sincerely, Dr. Laura Schlessinger''''The answer...well, an answer...came rather quickly: "I am shocked by this insensitive and judgmental email from you.' I wish I could stay home with my baby but I cannot afford to do this.' But this is none of your business.' You don't know me or anything about my life.' You are not a doctor of psychology.' You should keep your unsolicited opinions to yourself." I responded: "I am a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist.' I merely gave you the information that has come to me and gave you the opportunity to explain your position in response to the emails I received.' There is nothing insensitive about concern for the well-being of a child and respect for the mother-child bond." Now - sidebar - as far as "not affording" to take care of her own baby, she was prepared to pay $1500/month and she lives in an extraordinarily wealthy part of the United States, and with a psychology license, she can always work evenings.'''''She responded: "You are very off base, insensitive, and downright incorrect to think or say that there should be any concern for the well-being of a child or a mother-child bond just because the mother must work.' Research shows (here it comes!) that it is the quality of the mother-child relationship that defines secure attachment, not whether the mother works.' I believe it is optimal for moms to stay with their babies as much as possible, but unfortunately, not everyone can afford to stay home everyday with their baby.' I hope that you show more sensitivity in the future." I'm confused...if she believes it is optimal for moms to stay with their babies, why does she cite research that says the opposite?' Also, why is a traditional viewpoint insensitive and judgmental while an "alternative" viewpoint is simply fact?''''My final communication ended with, "Frankly, I am concerned that you're not going to be there for your new infant.' You could always work at night after your baby starts sleeping through the night.' Until then, you could do what I assume you had in mind when you determined to be pregnant: be a mommy, your baby needs that from you and you will be wonderfully transformed by the experience.''''"Don't you understand why I am writing you?' I am trying to give you back the gift you're giving someone else for $11/hour.' Surely your studies have shown you how important the first three years of bonding to mother are?' It seems you've only taken in the feminista nonsense that mothering is all about the mother.''''"You see me as judgmental (there is a right and wrong) and insensitive - no way, I am trying to be sensitive to what you are giving up and what the child will miss in you." Warmly, drl More >>

There were two trucks circling Bradenton, Florida last week.' Displayed on the sides and backs of the trucks were enlarged photos of dead fetuses in various poses.' Needless to say, this caused a bit of a stir.The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, a Southern California-based anti-abortion group, was established in 1990, and conducts nationwide projects on anti-abortion messages usually involving large billboards, signs and photo murals.' Their initiative is to influence voters to select pro-life candidates.' Bill Calvin, the group's regional director says, "We studied all the successful movements in American history.' We need to dramatize the injustice we are fighting." Pictures are worth a zillion words.' "Choice" or "women's reproductive rights" are rather benign ways of describing the death of a human being.' In fact, it has been very smart of the pro-abortion folks to use such words and phrases, because in America, issues of choice and rights are very important.' Also, such words distract people from the realities by taking all passion and compassion--as well as horror--away from an act that terminates innocent human life (unlike the death penalty which terminates a guilty human life).I thought long and hard about what I wanted to say about this truck and its photos, especially since children see them.' Then again, children see blatant sexuality and/or horrific violence on television, music videos and games, magazines, and the Internet.' All of those "every day" visual images don't have a decent point to make - they are strictly for prurient motivations and making a dollar.When my son was 5 years old I started teaching him about sex.' I told him that it was a special experience between a husband and wife that brought immense pleasure, good feelings between them, and often... a baby.' I went on to explain that he ought not engage in that behavior - sex - as a child because (a) he couldn't take care of a wife and child, and (b) because the girl could get an abortion.' He said, "What's an abortion?"' I replied, "It's when the baby is taken out of the woman's body."' He said, "What happens to the baby?"' I said, "It dies."' He said, looking astonished, "You mean they waste a perfectly good baby?"' I said slowly..."Yes."I have railed against feminist groups and Planned Un-Parenthood who don't' want to give women who are considering an abortion a sonogram and then a day to think about their decision to terminate, keep or put the baby up for adoption.''''The feminista types use words like harassment, offensive, disturbing, intimidation, shame and such to protect women from vividly seeing the realities of their baby in their bodies.The same words have been used for these photographs.' Yes, they are disturbing...and they should offend ... the act is offensive. More >>