Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god?' Just be good for goodness' sake" will appear on Washington D.C., buses starting this week and running through December.' The American Humanist Association recently announced the controversial $40,000 holiday campaign.Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group told the Associated Press: "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion." No matter what side of the Christmas and God wars you may be on, that is one lame excuse for challenging the majority of people in the United States who are "believers" (92% according a poll by the Pew Research Center).'I am Jewish and have never felt "alone" because the end-of-the-year holiday event of the country was "Christian"; Christmas is a lovely spectacle no matter what your beliefs, and for those who are seriously Christian, it is additionally a sacred time.Last month, the British Humanist Association upped the ante with their bus sign campaign, which said: "There's probably no God.' Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." At least the American version still holds to the idea of doing good , while the British version is like letting kids go wild in a candy store claiming there are no such things as cavities or obesity.''''American Family Association president, Tim Wildmon, calls the American Humanist's ad, "...stupid.' How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God?' God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong.' If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world." Don Feder, editor of the "Boycott The New York Times" website, demanded equal space in the New York Times for the display of religious symbols as he perceives the paper to have a "relentless drive to secularize society." Feder writes: "The New York Times gives the game away when it insists that public property 'must be open to all religions on an equal basis - or open to none at all.'' In other words, a town that chooses to display the Ten Commandments - which are sacred to 90% of the American people and an integral part of our nation's heritage - has to give equal space to every other faith and New Age sect that's out there.' In reality, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to prohibit a state church, like the Church of England.'"If the Founders thought giving one religion preference was odious, why was Congress's first official act to hire a Christian chaplain?' And why did the first Congress appropriate sums of money for Christian missionaries to the Indian tribes?' What about 'In God We Trust' on our currency and 'One Nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance - which clearly give preference to Judeo- Christian tradition over Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Summunism?" To read more from Don Feder's point of view: www.boycottnyt.com and www.aim.org . More >>

There have been a number of lawsuits over the years concerning the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) during relatively casual sex in relatively casual relationships.' The New York Post published a story about a forty-seven-year old attorney who filed suit against his wife of twenty-two years, charging that her straying had left him with Herpes Simplex virus 2, an STD that caused him to experience "pain, suffering, emotional, mental, psychological and physical injuries and the loss of enjoyment of life."I guess he figured that if he had it, and had sex with her, that she'd contract it and then he'd blame it on her during their estrangement so that he could leverage his position with respect to collecting back monies he'd have to give her in a divorce.' I guess that's it...because she filed papers last month with the results of her blood test which was negative for HSV-2, commonly known as genital herpes, with which the lawyer husband says he's infected.Nonetheless, the question still remains: who is responsible for the transmission of an STD in a casual or dating relationship?' Is it the full responsibility of the infected individual to reveal in advance of any sexual activity that they have the communicable disease?' Or, is it the responsibility of each and every individual to not rely on the kindness of strangers?I believe that anyone who knowingly transmits an STD should be prosecuted criminally and sued civilly.' The severity of the consequences should match the seriousness of the STD.' Some of the STDs are curable with medication; others are simply controlled with medication; some may lead to a higher incidence of cancer; and some are a virtual death sentence.'Considering these factors, people who don't ask - much less are foolish enough to believe it when they're told, "No, I don't have anything," - who don't take precautions such as condoms (which aren't foolproof), who have multiple sexual partners, and who don't value the monogamous commitment of marriage after both people have complete physicals and blood tests to ensure a "clean slate," have to take some responsibility onto themselves for their foolishness.It's like this: when you let your dog loose off the leash and it runs into the streets to be run over by a speeding car...the car actually killed the dog; but you put the dog in the place where it could happen.' That is shared liability and shared moral obligation.DO ask, and DO tell; and be truthful. More >>

I know I have made myself quite a controversial subject by my insistence that children be loved, cared for and raised by their mommies and daddies instead of hired help and institutionalized child care. As I have said many times, children evolve each and every day...and those minutes need to be influenced by and experienced with the people who matter the most. This is why I am thrilled about the one-sided effect of the current economic problems in America.According to a recent report in USA Today , parents nationwide are telling day care providers that "they must scale back or abandon their services. Instead, they keep kids at home with grandparents or up-end their work-life balance because gas and food prices have become prohibitive and average child care costs outpace rent and mortgage payments - even for those drawing salaries." Of course, the day care industry is scurrying around trying to come up with a plan to save itself. Many are offering all kinds of hours and financial deals. The USA Today article, after noting that the 2005 U.S. Census Bureau data (the most recent available) indicated that 2.65 million preschoolers attended day care, and that current statistics of un-enrollment were not available, called the situation "distressing."Sure it's distressing for an industry that has been so effective in its marketing, that parents who actually raise their own children are made to feel guilty for doing so. But it is not distressing for the children, who will now be in the arms of people who love them and are there to teach, nurture, support, and experience life with them.Sure it's distressing for parents who have to reconsider and reconfigure their lives to accommodate raising their children. But, they will find surprising rewards in the true experience of family.The hysteria from the child care industry has included dire warnings that parents will leave their kids home alone, in cars, or with strangers who might hurt them. That sort of child neglect and endangerment goes on in spite of filled-up day care establishments and should be dealt with through social services (to help families make better adjustments in their priorities) or through the legal system (where children are removed to live with safer relatives or foster care).If it is true that every cloud has a silver lining, then the "shine" is there for many children of parents who can no longer pay the $3,000 to over $10,000 a year for day care, because mommy or daddy is coming home to you . More >>

More >>

More >>

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 >>

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 >>