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 >>

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 >>

A listener labeled his email to me:'"The Newest Movie "Trash" Banned in Utah! Go Utah!" I read recently that some parts of Utah had banned the release of the new film "Zack and Miri Make a Porno". The film is about a guy and girl who have nothing better in their dull lives to do but to produce a pornographic film together just for the fun of it. I, for one, am sick and tired of films that exploit women AND men!!! Whatever happened to going to the cinema and watching a good movie? Thank God that Utah, a state that won't forfeit its values and morals, stands up to films such as these, and won't let them play in theaters there. I am a high school teacher, and believe me, Dr. Laura, our kids are craving to be taught values and morals. They want direction. They need direction. Films like these are teaching them that sex is just something that can be played with. I teach a student who has been sexually abused by his own stepfather, and I'm trying to guide him and show him a bit of comfort that he has never received....It breaks my heart to know what he has suffered, and it also breaks my heart to see students being exposed to trashy sex and stupid behavior on film. This kind of sick mess makes our jobs much more difficult in the teaching arena.... it's time that we did something about this trash that's being shown to our children. " This email coincided with a US News and World Report study that sounds like "yes/no yes/no" silliness. The new research suggests that teens who spend the most time watching sexually charged television shows are twice as likely to become pregnant or impregnate someone else.No kidding.' My generation grew up on The Flying Nun and Leave it to Beaver .' I never knew anyone who knew anyone who got pregnant in high-school.'Here's where the back-and-forth nonsense begins.' First, the report says that these findings don't prove that sexy programming causes pregnancy - well, of course it doesn't " cause " pregnancy.' But it is clear that a permissive media has a huge influence on impressionable teens, opening them up to behaviors which are not in their best interests, emotionally or medically.'Interestingly, the researchers refused to "name names" with respect to which television shows they considered "sexually charged."' I guess they don't want to be open to lawsuits for suggesting that there are specific programs on the air that hurt children by opening them up to behaviors which could lead to unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, or the psychological trauma of sexual abuse.Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington who studies kids and television says that these findings "add to the growing body of evidence that what children see on screen affects their behavior in real life." I've always gotten a laugh from much of what psychological research - a soft science at best - finds.' They state the obvious like it was a revelation and they get grant money to do it.'Let's see, if we didn't think that media impacted how people behave in real life, how long would the advertising business last?' Oh please, they pay millions for product placement movies...to influence you,'' They pay millions for seconds of promotion on SuperBowl Sunday...to influence you.' It must work.' So to be "surprised" at the impact of images and behavior the media immerses our children in has got to be some kind of joke.Back to the beginning... hooray for Utah.' Parents who want to expose their children to "trash" can always buy it on the Internet. More >>

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 >>

The Pew Research Center tested the public's political knowledge earlier this year by asking 1) which party had the majority in the House of Representatives; 2) the name of the United States Secretary of State; and 3) who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain.The survey found that about half of Americans knew that the Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives, but only 42% could identify Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State.' Only a little over 25% of Americans could name Gordon Brown as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and only 18% of the public answered all three questions correctly.' Got that? Fewer than 1 in 5 Americans could answer all three questions correctly! This is why candidates for leader of the free world go on television comedy shows like Saturday Night Live , The Tonight Show , and the David Letterman Show to reach the public.' Dignified presentations obviously don't make much of an impression on the electorate.It was interesting to note which groups scored the best on this survey.' In terms of getting all three questions correct, regular readers of The New Yorker and Atlantic magazines scored the highest, at 48%.' Listeners to NPR were next at 44%, followed by viewers of Hardball (43%) and Hannity & Colmes (42%).Rush Limbaugh's audience was next at 36%, followed by viewers of The O'Reilly Factor (28%), and the audiences for Larry King, CNN, and Fox News all came in at 19%.' Now here's a surprise - out of all those who got the three questions correct, 9% of them were regular readers of The National Enquirer ! More >>

When I was a child, I looked up with admiration, respect and even awe at the people who were in public office.' I never heard much about illegal financial activities or illicit sexual relations.' News anchors always spoke with respect about our governmental officials, and debates and opinions were offered with dignity.Here I am, at 61, hearing that if you don't vote for a black candidate that you are a racist (but you're not if you're voting for a candidate specifically because they are black).' I'm hearing feminists attack a woman Vice Presidential candidate simply because she's pro-life. I'm watching television political ads which outright lie and offend basic sensibilities, with both parties presenting people who don't really have the true knowledge and experience to be the most powerful representative of the free world.' I'm seeing a candidate with child-care issues and an out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy in her family, candidates appearing on undignified mass entertainment comedy programs to win votes, and a cacophony of television and radio commentators saying the most outrageously mean things about people they don't know personally. I'm also hearing about mass cheating in voter registrations, and a populace which seems to be relatively disinterested in facts...just emotions, looks and personality.The years of vulgar reality programs and'media free speech, unfettered by responsiblity, have dumbed us down and made us crass.' According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, only 18% of Americans know which party holds the House majority, can name the American Secretary of State, or the Prime Minister of Britain.' I find this a bit scary - and very sad. More >>