I've had a liberal commentator on live television in Canada suggest that someone should slit my throat because of my support of traditional marriage.' He was not countered at that moment, nor criticized later.'' I, however, had to have bomb-sniffing dogs case a Canadian stadium before I gave a charity fundraising talk because of some nasty threats.'A fellow in West Hollywood didn't see the irony in showing hatred towards Sarah Palin by hanging her in effigy...after all, if it's not one of "us," then it's explained or excused as simply funny or an exercise of free-speech.'Calls to my radio program come from people of both genders, all age groups (5 to 81), the spectrum of races and those of various socio-economic standing, liberals and conservatives, and "straight" as well as "gay."' It would seem that socio-political positions be damned, since most all people have an interest in the well-being of their children, their intimate, family, work, or community relationships, their inner struggles, as well as morals, values, ethics, and principles.''When I helped a young male caller with his "boyfriend" problems - which are no different in their content from "girlfriend" problems: common sense, fears, communication, - I got a spate of letters like this "I can't stand it anymore! I know Dr. Laura can't refuse to help people who call in, but I am SO sick of homosexuals being crammed down our throats. I can't even turn on Dr. Laura's show and get away from it. "Decent, moral, religious, family-oriented people listen to Dr. Laura's show and don't want to listen to that crap. I feel like gay people are trying to throw their sexual preferences in our face more and more all the time with calling in to radio shows, lawsuits against people who don't bend over backwards for them, children's books, greeting cards, etc. The world really is going to HELL!' I would really have a hard time answering calls like that if I was Dr. Laura." The station that aired my radio show dropped it because "She talks to homosexuals as though they were human." These comments are generally more than balanced by ones like the following: "I've been a listener... for years and years. I've always enjoyed your show and appreciated your approach. One of your conversations today prompted me to write you. I am gay, and have had a long and challenging process in accepting my sexuality. Not only am I gay, but I'm a Christian, and generally hold conservative beliefs. Many of my friends have bought into the "victim" mindset that our community is told we have to fall into.' In my opinion, all this seeks to do for anyone is to separate and divide. They believe that everyone needs to completely accept and support gays.'"While I personally believe that this is how I was born and how God made me, I also realize that many people do not share my view. While I disagree with them, I respect their right to hold that opinion. You made an excellent point today when you highlighted the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Right or wrong, good or bad, It's simply unreasonable for anyone to demand complete acceptance of anything from anyone else. "I wish with all my heart that my gay and lesbian friends would get past their biases and listen to what you have to say about right and wrong, healthy behaviors and appropriate ways of handling conflict. Thank you for being you, standing up to those who cowardly try to tear you down and silence you, and for coming into my radio every day. You have helped me more than you will ever know!!" Speaking of hate, there's a new television series (ABC, Thursday, 10 PM) called "Life on Mars."' A New York City police detective goes spinning back in time from the year 2008 to 1973 - where he is stuck.' The 1973 cop he teams up with and he have interesting "cultural" differences.' For example, the 2008 cop describes an assault that just happened as "a hate crime."' The 1973 cop mockingly retorts - "As opposed to an "I really, really like you crime?" - pointing out the absurdity inherent in such classifications - as though all men and women were not created equal nor equal in the sight of the law. More >>

The organization "Students for Life of America" has released yet another undercover video of a nurse at a New Jersey Planned "Un-Parenthood" facility describing how an abortion would be performed on a 22 week-old unborn child and admitting that some babies survive such abortions. "It does happen," the nurse said.Well, here we are again with another YouTube.com or Eyeblast.tv video ( www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46UqG8zSU ) demonstrating either the illegality (i.e., not reporting minor girls pregnant by adult men) or immorality of Planned "Un-Parenthood" Clinics.In the SFLA's video, the nurse explains the late-term abortion procedure to the pregnant woman, while the woman questions the nurse about the details. "Is the baby alive?" asks the pregnant woman. "Usually not," the nurse replies.' The woman asks if the baby could be born alive, to which the nurse responds: "Usually, for the most part no, but it does happen.' It's an actual delivery," her explanation continues, "but it wouldn't be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die." According to the Catholic News Agency, Kristan Hawkins, SFLA Executive Director, commented on the video: "I was absolutely stunned when the Planned Parenthood nurse revealed that allowing a baby to die after being born alive is a common practice for abortionists.' This is outright infanticide." SFLA has called on Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood, which reportedly receives about $300 million in taxpayer funding each year.' Apparently, there is not a law protecting those who survive abortions.' Critics of such a bill claim that such a law or requirement - to tend to the life birth - would burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.Oh my gosh, when a human being survives the attempt to destroy them, they are left to die in order not to burden a physician and an almost-mother?' What kind of civilization thinks this way?I'll tell you what this is really about: if Planned "Un-Parenthood" saved the lives of babies who survive their abortions, then women would less likely come to them for abortions, and that would hurt Planned "Un-Parenthood's" bottom line.'According to National Right To Life ( www.nrlc.org/News_and_views/july07/nv071907.html ), the dedication of Planned Parenthood to abortion is...apparent: "against 264,943 abortions, Planned Parenthood saw just 12,548 prenatal clients. This means that it was 21 times more likely that a pregnant woman coming into a Planned Parenthood clinic would receive an abortion than receive prenatal care.' In 2005, in its entire nationwide network of over 860 clinics, Planned Parenthood saw just 248 infertility clients.' Put another way, this means Planned Parenthood Federation of America' treated just one infertility patient for every 1,068 abortions it performed.' Adoption services or referrals aren't even mentioned." Planned "Un-Parenthood" is always screeching in its fundraising warning letters that it is about protecting women's reproductive choices, but what one of its latest service reports shows is how rarely Planned Parenthood's plans involve parenthood, and just how often they involve abortion, which is why I call it "Planned Un-Parenthood." 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 >>

The great state of Nebraska was the last state of the union to sign what became the most comprehensive child safe haven law in America.' In most states, the law specifies that an infant can be left at a "safe-haven" - usually meaning a hospital or a fire department...somewhere the child will get immediate attention - without the parent having to suffer any legal ramifications.' Since the law took effect in July, some twenty-three children have been brought to safe-havens...some across state lines.Obviously, this idea came about as a means of saving lives.' The thought was that now people who might toss their babies into dumpsters or abuse them would have the opportunity to save their lives by putting them in the care of responsible people.' From here, appropriate child care would be found through adoptions or the care of appropriate and willing relatives.' I always thought this was a great idea.I had fits hearing criticism that this is abandonment or passing on responsibility.' Children in the hands of parents addicted to drugs or alcohol, suffering from various mental illnesses and overwhelmed, barely functional and generally desperate, or simply unwilling are at great risk - and if even one of them has the compassion and good sense to make use of a safe-haven...then we have saved a life...not only from death...but from abuse and a childhood leading only to troubles and problems.Society is always better off when unwanted children have opportunities with adoptive families, quality foster-families, or placement with relatives who might not even have known there was a problem.' These children will have a better chance to grow up more adjusted, and that will obviously minimize bad "acting out" (sexual or criminal variety)' or substance abuse to quell emotional pain.Unfortunately, because of criticism aimed at parents who take advantage of protecting their children rather than harming them, the Governor of Nebraska, Dave Heinemen, is calling a special session of the legislature to change the state's unique safe-haven law - amending it so that it applies only to infants up to 3 days old.' I believe this is a HUGE mistake.The communications office of the Governor prepared a statement for all Nebraskans explaining his point of view. "Children from eight families have been left at hospitals under the safe haven law.' None of the children involved were infants and one was in immediate danger.' Courts are likely to require parents and guardians to participate in parenting classes, family therapy, conflict resolution or other services in an effort to reunite youth with their families." I'm delighted that the Governor points out that there are services that MIGHT...only might...eliminate the necessity for the safe-haven - but very often, parental termination might be in the best interest of children of any age.The Governor points out that safe haven laws were not designed to allow families having difficulty with older youth and teenagers to "abandon their children or responsibilities as parents." Well, some parents just can't or won't be responsible...and abandonment would be to throw them out of the house...not deliver them to people who can help.The Governor further suggests that parents considering safe-haven might turn to local health and human services offices...well, sometimes those are not as available or supportive or empowered to remedy a desperately difficult situation.While I support his concern about protecting infants in danger...they are not the only children who need such protection.I hope Nebraska keeps its child safe haven law and doesn't dilute it down to 3-day newborns. 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 >>

I was at first stunned - then not - to read that research from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health points toward white, middle aged women as being particularly prone to depression leading to suicides.' I'm a middle aged, white, female baby-boomer, so this caught my attention, especially since the researchers seemed clueless as to what would be behind this spike.Having talked to women for over thirty years on the radio, I think I know.' We middle-aged, white females from the sixties were sold a bill of goods by the originally well-meaning women's movement.' The bits about equal pay for equal experience and competence were kind of a no-brainer.' The bits about men, marriage, sex, babies, and home-making being negatives in our lives - because, of course, they were oppressive and demeaning - also seemed obvious at the time.' So, with the introduction of consciousness raising (that is, learning to mistrust, not need, and even loathe men) and women's studies programs (which conceived of elevating women by making them perpetually angry victims), we were on our way to a collision course to today: depression and suicide.Women who dared to buck the feminista trend and actually marry and make babies, kept close to the sisterhood by not being very sexual, loving, or sensitive to their husbands - or just kept them as shack-up studs - and put their babies in day-care.' They did all of that so they could work at their careers full-time and have financial power.' The thinking was, what if "he" took off with some bimbo or died on them?' Money is power and safety!' They also did all of that so they could feel like "somebody."' I still have women tell me today that they only allow themselves to feel good when they have a successful career; the loving appreciation of a husband and children are swept aside like so much emotional dandruff.'These white, middle-aged, female baby-boomers starved themselves of the fulfilling emotional meal of actually being a hands-on mom in addition to being their husband's girlfriend.' Many of them are now divorced, and their adult children hardly spend time any time with them.' The kids learned how to spend time without Mom because she was so "busy, busy, busy" while they were growing up.I'm not surprised that so many of these women are depressed and suicidal.' Feministas lied to them that they could and would "have it all:" they only had to sacrifice the loveliest parts of their womanhood.I'm not among them, because I caught myself entering that depressive state.' I've been there...done that.' Saved by a marriage and a child! More >>

SFLA, Students for Life of America, are furious because of video of one of their undercover investigations has been pulled from YouTube.' Evidently, according to Kristin Hawkins who heads the organization, "Last week SFLA posted a video on YouTube exposing Planned Parenthood in Charlotte, North Carolina, covering up statutory rape of a 15-year-old girl." Here's the story: a college woman volunteering for SFLA entered a Planned Parenthood clinic in Charlotte, posing as a 15-year-old girl who had unprotected sex with the mother's adult, shack-up boyfriend.' She told that staff that the stud had suggested she come to Planned Un-Parenthood and get the "morning-after" pill.'''''Planned Un-Parenthood gave her the pills, and made an appointment for her to start taking birth control pills without parental knowledge or consent.' SFLA also proved that the crime was not reported by PP to local police, which is a violation of North Carolina Law.According to Ms. Hawkins, YouTube said the tape had inappropriate content - damn right it did: it showed PP breaking laws...that's pretty inappropriate.' As it turns out, YouTube has also yanked previous pro-life organization videos while it does, according to Ms. Hawkins, continue to play videos which show, for example, a young man desecrating the Eucharist.To watch SF's video visit studentsforlife.org I'm always impressed with the star-studded and blinged out locals who attend the yearly Santa Barbara Planned Un-Parenthood fund raising events even with the ongoing' stream of information demonstrating their cavalier attitude towards minor women pregnant by adult men, their disrespect for parental rights, as well as their resistance to diving full force into the adoption realm. More >>

More >>

When was the last time you took your kids to the airport and bought some candy and magazines?' Did you notice what your kids see at their "short-eye-level" when you pay for your items?' They see what they can also notice at many grocery store check-out lines and magazine racks:' they see soft porn - half-naked, provocative photos of well-endowed men and women.Now, I'm no prude.' I wear jeans below my waist, and I have some belly-button "bling."' But I do believe that there ought to be such a thing as a free society maintaining its First Amendment rights, while at the same time jealously protecting the innocence of children.A recent female caller complained that her boyfriend occasionally looked at some photos or videos of naked women on the Internet.' It is unbelievable to me that, lately,' there is such hysteria about men viewing naked women or male/female sexual encounters.' Did somebody just discover that men are very interested in sex and are visually stimulated by viewing women's bodies?Of course, Internet porn can be a problem, particularly when it becomes compulsive and a substitute for real-life intimacy, or self-medication for emotional problems.' However, much of the time, it is just a curious male having a stimulating moment.I brought up to that caller that I thought the guys who do the workout ads for some of those exercise machines are "hunks," and exciting to see.' She agreed.' If all I did was play a continuous loop of these ads, I'd be having a serious emotional problem.' There is a huge difference between "casual," and "compulsive."That said, our society has a big problem making "crass" more casual in the public square.' The fashion police should arrest most of those young women with big bellies and big butts hanging over those ridiculously low-cut, tight jeans, and short, too-tight tops, as well as young men with no tops, and with their pants falling just at or below their pubic hair line.' Their parents either don't care, or have given up attempting to be leaders, or have joined the ranks of the "crass" themselves.This society should shun malls that harbor Victoria's Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Frederick's of Hollywood, as these are establishments which use provocative photos and displays to promote their products within clear view of families and children walking through the malls.' I mean, there you are with your adolescent sons and daughters, looking up at practically naked women and men in their underwear, with seductive looks in their eyes.' What are you supposed to say to your children about that?These images tell your children that sexuality, nudity, their bodies, and intimacy are just "everyday stuff" - no big deal, certainly not private, and definitely not special.' Is that the lesson you want them to learn?One mother of a 12 year old boy wrote to me that after they came home from their town's mall in which they personally experienced all of the stuff I've just mentioned, he suggested that they should do their shopping online from now on.Not a bad idea. More >>

According to a study being released in November's American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , Internet web searching may just enhance brain activity and keep your elderly (55-75 years of age) brain working at top function.The study compared 24 subjects between the ages of 55 and 75, and discovered using MRI scans that reading a book helped stimulate certain areas of the brain that had to do with language, memory, and visuals.' They also found that searching the Internet created these same stimulations, but activated more of the frontal, temporal, and cingulated areas of the brain - areas that have a lot to do with decision-making skills. More >>