Stories about real heroes can help make heroic boys

We hear much today about the “boy crisis”, the “trouble with boys”, and a “war against boys”.
These problems are real. The lack of father figures and male mentors, the overwhelming predominance of female teachers in the early school grades, an obsession in many cases with video games, the prejudice of both the classroom and our society at large in favour of girls as opposed to boys — all these are reasons boys are floundering while their female counterparts ride the success wave.

by Jeff Minick
[Reprinted, with permission, from Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota, U.S.)]

But there’s one more explanation for this phenomenon of broken boyhood: a lack of real heroes. In times past, teachers and parents introduced adolescent males to heroic men, whether fictionalised characters like Ulysses, Sir Galahad, and D’Artagnan and his Musketeers, or historical figures like Richard the Lionheart, Winston Churchill, and for that matter, Moses and Jesus Christ.

I was introduced to figures like these through Classics Illustrated, a comics series I found in Weatherwax’s Pharmacy of Boonville, North Carolina, at the age of seven. That series influenced my imagination and developing code of morality and manhood. Add the Childhood of Famous Americans series, the Hardy Boys, some of the Landmark books, and many other assorted juvenile works of history and literature, and by sixth grade the foundation of my notions of the heroic were well-established.

William Jones Jr., author of Classics Illustrated: A Cultural History, had a similar experience with these comics based on historical events and great literature. It was 1956, and the five-year-old William was with his father picking up a prescription at Hall Drug Store. There he spotted a comic book in a spinner rack with a picture of Davy Crockett on the front. His father bought him that comic, and from that moment on William became enamoured with Classics Illustrated, writing, “Nothing else I read as a child had as significant an impact on my developing imagination….”

Unfortunately, we live in a time when heroes are toppled, sometimes literally, from their pedestals, or else are blighted, judged by their flaws rather than their virtues and courage. Men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, and others from the South are, for example, considered first and foremost as drivers of slaves rather than of the nation. Teachers and the so-called “progressives” of our culture point to the evils of colonialism wrought by Columbus, the flaws in Abraham Lincoln’s sometimes ambiguous stances on slavery, and so on.

This debunking of heroes has left boys with two categories of figures for emulation: superheroes and celebrities. Both categories contain their own flaws in serving as examples of heroism. Superheroes, for example, aren’t real. Spiderman may embody virtue, but his power comes from the bite of an arachnid, not from human travail. He’s not even as real a fictional hero as Dickens’ Sydney Carton. As for sports figures and movie stars, they dominate the public square not by their good character, but by their talent.

They frequently make poor exemplars for young boys.

C.S. Lewis was spot-on regarding today’s culture when he wrote, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.”

So, what is a hero? The best definition I know comes not from a dictionary, but from the famous 1910 “Man in the Arena” speech by Theodore Roosevelt, who served as U.S. president from 1901 to 1909.

Here is the two-sentence gold nugget that dispenses with today’s cynics and delineates a hero:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or
where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is
actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly;
or who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and
shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the
great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the
triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.”

That man in the arena may be a politician sticking up for the truth, a soldier bleeding on a forlorn battlefield, an entrepreneur fighting for all he’s worth to keep his business afloat, a husband and father who gives his all for his wife and children. It might also be that teenager who breaks up a fight rather than filming it on his phone, who refuses to join others in his class in cheating on a test, who defends the good and the true at the risk of mockery.

Instil this “man in the arena” heroism in our sons by way of example and by stories, and they’ll become better students, better workers, better husbands, and better fathers.

In short, they’ll become better men.


About the author
Jeff Minick is an American author, who also teaches Latin, history and literature to home-schoolers. He is a convert to Catholicism and hosts his own website at www.JeffMinick.com. He is a widower of 10 years with four grown children, three of them married, and 12 living grandchildren. He lives in Front Royal, Virginia, the northern gateway to the scenic 150-mile-long Shenandoah Valley. The above article first appeared in Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota), September 30, 2026, and is reproduced by permission.


Principal bullied out of job over LGBTQ+ awareness day concerns

An Australian public-school principal is taking a stand against LGBTQ+ bullies who’ve forced her out of a 34-year teaching career. Ironically, Janelle Rowe faced disciplinary action for “underperformance” after she proposed replacing LGBTQ+ “Wear It Purple Day” with “Bullying No Way Week.”

by Rod Lampard at The Daily Declaration

Although the punitive measures are being sold as unrelated, Human Rights Law Alliance’s John Steenhof is arguing that the evidence proves otherwise.

Principal the ‘best leader I have ever worked with’

Internal employment documents uncovered through Freedom of Information (FOI) showed Mrs Rowe had been described as “outstanding” and “highly capable.”

The FOI also quoted at least one teacher stating that Rowe is “the best leader I have ever worked with in my 40-year career.”

Furthering the connection, the ACT school’s disciplinary process included Rowe “being placed under supervision and instructed to celebrate” and lead the LGBTQ+ safetyism day on 28 August, while forcing her to wear purple.

So, “this was never about underperformance,” Steenhof exclaimed.

Rowe’s reasons for trying to replace “Wear It Purple Day” were due to “concerns about sexualised content being taught to children as young as four.”

“Wear It Purple Day is not simply a ‘wear purple’ dress-up day,” she said in HRLA’s 7 September press release.

“Its focus is to indoctrinate children with LGBTQ+ ideology from a young age and normalise it every year through this national awareness day.”

“Under the school system’s own codes of conduct, it is inappropriate to expose children to content of a sexual nature.”

“My primary concern was about child protection and our duty of care as educators,” Rowe explained.

This is what drove the haters her way.

Bullying and disregard for child safeguards

After speaking out, complaints were made to the ACT Education Directorate. HRLA argued that this resulted in the disciplinary action.

Rowe “also received threats that the union would be brought in to pressure her to keep Wear It Purple Day.”

She “was then subjected to allegations that Rowe was being motivated by her Christian faith.”

Bullied, Rowe was forced to resign.

In HRLA’s statement regarding the case, Rowe said, “I chose not to go to Fair Work because I wanted to be able to speak freely and help parents understand what was really going on in schools and enable them to protect their children.”

“Talking with primary school-aged children about sexualised content goes against the National Child Safe Standards,” she added.

It also goes against “related procedures, policies, and codes of conduct we are trained on and expected to uphold as educators.”

“Scenarios where sexualised content is shared with children,” Rowe asserted, “are considered Reportable Conduct, Inappropriate Conduct, or Misconduct.”

She called the “entire process procedurally unfair and religiously discriminatory,” adding that it has caused her “significant psychological harm.”

“Wear It Purple Day” concerns

“Wear It Purple Day” began in 2010, and its reach goes far beyond the education system.

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) warned about it in 2021, saying, “Promoted as a day in which to ‘celebrate diversity and young people from the LGBTQIA+ community’, a darker, very alarming, side has emerged.”

“Wear It Purple is a member organisation of ILGA World (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association).”

“Under a cloak of ‘gender equality’ speak,” ACL explained, “this influential global federation is currently lobbying for governments to erase child protection policies and to lower the age of consent for minors.”

That lobbying involves the “Feminist Declaration,” which in part demands that governments abolish limitations on age and disability consent to sex laws.

Section 14, for instance, blatantly calls for the removal of age of consent laws that “protect children and young people from sexual exploitation and abuse.”

As ACL’s Wendy Francis noted, “What possible reason is there for us to remove these provisions?”

Referring to Janelle Rowe’s case, The Daily Telegraph described the clash with education bureaucrats as a “bitter dispute”.

Offered column space, DT said the ACT Education Directorate declined to comment, citing “privacy considerations.”

Canavan and Shelton protest

Two high-profile names who did weigh in, though, were Nationals Senator Matt Canavan and Family First’s Lyle Shelton.

Horrified, Canavan protested on X, asking, “What is going on in our schools? A principal with 34 years of teaching experience has left because she was being forced to teach about alternative ‘lifestyles’ to 4-year-olds… 4-year-olds!”

National/State secretary for the Teachers Professional Association of Australia (TPAA), Edward Schuller replied, “It gets so much worse. There is a network of government-funded organisations providing graphic sexual education to students.”

He linked his August interview with Karl Stefanovic and a petition, adding, “These groups have received over $230m in funding in just the last 5 years. Parents and teachers are fighting back — join them.”

You can read more here, although reader discretion is advised.

Lyle Shelton was just as concerned.

He posted a statement online declaring that Rowe “should be LAUDED, not driven from her profession.”

“Australian schools,” Shelton stated, “are no place for promoting radical LGBTQ+ sexual and gender-fluid ideology to children.”

“Janelle Rowe should be regarded as a hero for having the courage to say what countless Australian parents are thinking: four-year-olds do not need LGBTQA+ sexual and gender” training.

Schools should be teaching zero tolerance for bullying, he added, “But that does not require schools to promote harmful ideas about sexuality and gender identity to infants and primary-school children.”

“Wear It Purple Day should be banned from Australian schools, not the brave teachers who call it out.”


By Rod Lampard. Republished with permission from The Daily Declaration. The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good. 


Global effort to shut down eugenic baby mills

Governments from multiple countries recently signed a political declaration calling for an international moratorium on surrogacy and advocating a complete worldwide ban.

by Diana L. Banister at C-Fam

The declaration warns that women and girls in surrogacy arrangements “face medical risks, coercion, exploitation and loss of agency that fall disproportionally on vulnerable populations with limited access to legal remedies.” It also points to psychological, emotional, and identity-related impacts on children born through surrogacy, along with risks of abandonment and human trafficking.

“Surrogacy is no longer a matter confined to domestic legislation or individual choices,’ said Eugenia Roccella, the Italian Minister for Family, Natality and Equal Opportunities. “ It has become a global phenomenon increasingly shaped by international markets, cross-border arrangements, and profound inequalities within and between societies.”

A $600,000 lawsuit recently filed in Canada against a surrogate mother reveals the legal and moral complications of the practice. Two years after giving birth, the mother was sued by the same-sex couple who hired her because she refused to abort the child after it was diagnosed with a cleft lip and a possible heart defect at 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The child, conceived through in vitro fertilization using a donor egg and sperm from each of the men, has had one reported medical incident, but is otherwise healthy. The lawsuit alleges the mother failed to “follow the direction regarding decisions affecting the fetus’s medical care.”

Research indicates that 33% to 40% of those commissioning surrogates are same-sex couples. Homosexual male couples represent a substantial majority of this group, while heterosexual couples make up about 66% of surrogacy arrangements overall. The “Gayby Boom,” as it is called, represents the largest demographic in gestational surrogacy, which requires an egg donor, an IVF procedure, and a surrogate.

Celebrities who have engaged surrogates, such as Kim Kardashian, Nicole Kidman, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Neil Patrick Harris, have also boosted the popularity of the practice.

According to a UN study on surrogacy published late last year by the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, Reem Alsalem, surrogacy is now worth nearly $14.95 billion a year and is expected to grow to $99.75 billion by 2033.

Alsalem gave a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council during the recent session and again stressed her concern for the women who are most vulnerable to violence because of the surrogacy practice.

“The states that are joining the declaration today recognize that surrogacy raises fundamental concerns relating to human dignity [and] the commodification of women and children,” said Alsalem. “They recognize that these concerns are not only limited to commercial arrangements, but that fragmented national approaches will facilitate the growth of a global cross-border market that transfers harm onto women and children in more vulnerable jurisdictions…This declaration shows that policy action is possible.”

The declaration was released in June, during the 62nd session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, by the Holy See along with Italy, Chile, and Cameroon. It was announced as the first step toward abolishing the practice they believe involves the “commodification of human life and women’s reproductive abilities.”

More than 220 organisations from 40 countries have been working together on a coordinated international strategy to end surrogacy.

by Diana L. Banister at C-Fam. The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.


Rising costs aren’t stopping young couples from having children

Despite our assumption, it is not financial concerns that are stopping young couples from having children; rather, it is a lifestyle choice.

By Sarah Wilder at Intellectual Takeout

It’s no secret that rising costs are devastating Americans right now, and that young people are feeling the brunt of it. For the generation currently starting families, these costs are particularly stressful. Undoubtedly, the prospect of pinching pennies to pay for astronomical labor and delivery bills, car seats, formula, and strollers on top of life’s basic necessities is too significant to bear, causing some to forego having children in the first place.

“It’s just crazy right now,” one would-be mother said in a recent New York Times interview. “I have always told my husband, like, if we were rich, I would definitely have kids.”

Why aren’t young couples actually having children?

But do such financial hardships truly account for our plummeting birth rates?

Former Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse went viral this week, bemoaning the fact that Americans are foregoing children because they’ve “decided that being distracted by a dopamine hit around Candy Crush might be a good way to spend your time.” Folks were quite angry by this comment. Rising petrol costs, lack of paid parental leave, and expensive childcare are the real reasons adults aren’t having children, they argued.

Yet that’s not what statistics say.

In 2024, Pew Research surveyed childless adults. Infertility, wanting to focus on “other things,” or lack of the right partner were among the reasons for not having children. The cost of children was on the list, but hardly on the top.

Almost 40% of childless adults age 50 or older said the top reason they didn’t have kids was because “it just never happened.” Childless adults under 50 listed their top reason for not planning to have kids as “they just don’t want to.” Indeed, for adults over 50, that reason accounted for 31% of those surveyed, compared to 57% of respondents under 50.

Economic concerns admittedly ranked higher for those under 50 than those over, but didn’t even make it into the top three reasons. Only 12% of adults over 50 chose “couldn’t afford to raise a child” as their reason, and still only 36% of those under 50 chose that reason.

It seems that young people mostly don’t want kids because they don’t see why they should want them. In other words, young people believe the proponents of kids bear the burden of proof, while those over 50 found some tangible reason (however faulty) for their childlessness.

Alleviating the economic hardships of young Americans to encourage childbearing and to ease the burden of those with children is surely a worthwhile cause. But it won’t fix our birth rate.

It’s time to encourage young families

In order to encourage young people to have kids, we must address the real reason they aren’t having them. They’re simply not sure if they’re valuable – economically, socially, or relationally.

Regarding the economic front, young people should realize that more kids were born in worse conditions throughout history. That’s not to dismiss the economic woes of this generation, but they simply aren’t at the level yet that should keep anyone from having children.

Socially speaking, it is true that communities don’t welcome children and the chaos and joy they bring like they once did. Public spaces often shun children and their parents. Child-free spaces are considered the right of every childless adult. But the way to fix that isn’t to reinforce our willfully-barren society in their efforts to avoid having children. Instead, the more children there are in a community, the more that community will have to adapt to their presence.

On the relational aspect, consider that children will love you, and you will love them, in the most selfless and pure way one can be loved by another human. They will show you how fulfilling a life lived for others can be. With each child, your capacity for love will simply expand. In your old age, they will be the living legacy that carries you in your twilight years.

Yes, children are worth every cent.


By Sarah Wilder. The above article first appeared in Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota), and is reproduced by permission.

AI robots do not a good education make

The suggestion that AI robots should be used to educate children is an opportunity for a renewed focus on the real nature of education.

by Sarah Reardon at Intellectual Takeout

Several weeks ago, Melania Trump garnered attention for proposing an innovative educational methodology: robot education. At the “Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit,” she was escorted by a humanoid, “American-made” robot as she presented the potential lustre of AI’s future: humanoid robots could provide a “personalised” education, reminiscent of the tutoring models of centuries gone by.

Melania asked her audience to envision a robot called Plato through whom “access to the classical studies is now instantaneous.” She continued: “Humanity’s entire corpus of information is available in the comfort of your home. Plato will provide a personalised experience, adaptive to the needs of each student. Plato is always patient, and always available.”

Forget about the fact that an “always available” robot sounds somewhat ominous. Instead, Melania appealed to the virtues lauded by the corporate world, “analytic skills and problem solving,” as well as “deep critical thinking and independent reasoning abilities.” Children who learn from such robots, she maintained, could have a “more well-rounded lifestyle,” including more time for play and extracurriculars.

Can robots really teach?

Melania’s proposition sounds similar to programs already in operation, such as homeschooling platforms that utilize AI or the in-person Alpha Schools, where students, under the direction of human guides, spend about two hours daily on schoolwork, thanks to personalised AI tutors. Where her proposition differs is in the use of a three-dimensional humanoid robot, not merely a web-based persona, as tutor. Regardless, Melania’s “Plato” and existing AI education models both spring from a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and education.

Any education model that tasks AI with teaching or training human beings undermines the fundamentally relational nature of humans. This is merely one aspect of its danger, but a significant one. Human beings require physical interaction and relationship with other humans in order to flourish, whether in spiritual, emotional, or intellectual areas of life.

Without a certain amount of relational input, whether from classmates in a traditional classroom, a homeschooling mother, or a private (human!) tutor, learning becomes an isolating and Sisyphean endeavor. This is one reason why programs of individual “self-education” in the style of “Good Will Hunting” require a rare and precocious personality to be effective.

Nowhere is the need for relational input in education more evident than in research about COVID. When lockdowns and mandates pushed institutions toward online and asynchronous classes, student outcomes suffered. Students simply did not learn as much when their education was mediated by screens, video calls, and online discussion boards as when education was mediated by physical interaction. While students have returned to physical classroom since COVID, student outcomes continue to suffer as “heightened absenteeism” and “educational technology” gain steam. While computer-based learning and educational technology can be utilised for good in some circumstances, as in specialized degree programs, they are not wise pedagogical models when applied broadly.

Education should be communal

Our need for human interaction is not a “bug” that can be fixed by increased exposure to or refinement of computer-based learning or humanoid systems. It is part of our nature: from the Garden of Eden onward, it is clear that “it is not good for man to be alone” – that we are designed for fellowship with each other and God.

We are, after all, not computers ourselves, however much our minds and bodies follow discernible patterns. We are living, breathing, earthly, fleshy creatures. “It is easy for me to imagine,” Wendell Berry famously wrote, “that the next great division of the world will be between people who wish to live as creatures and people who wish to live as machines.”

AI education requires a mechanistic view of man. It outsources human tasks of teaching, guiding, conversing, and correcting to a non-human entity, thus treating the student as a machine for knowledge accumulation rather than a creature needing formation and direction.

In this way, the faulty pedagogical theory behind AI education is also evident. AI education assumes that the end of education is the mere acquisition of knowledge, which, in this framework is “an inert substance that can be delivered by robots,” as Mary Harrington recently wrote. If the primary aim of education is for students to learn facts, then robots could be useful. They could even, in some cases, make for good teachers, better at least than the forgetful grandfather who worked as a professor for 40 years or the eager but unpracticed recent graduate new to the elementary school.

But knowledge is not an inert substance composed of discrete facts, and education aims at more even than knowledge.

Robots can’t develop the whole person

If the aim of education is wisdom and the shaping of a person, then people will be needed, body and soul. If the aim of education is to, as John Milton wrote, “repair the ruins of our first parents,” or to, as Hugh of St. Victor wrote, “restore within us the divine likeness,” then students will not only need people, but those whose souls seek the true, good, and beautiful and their source in God alone.

“Plato,” however patient he may be, will be no match for a flesh-and-blood human teacher, with all his faults, who loves his students and directs them toward divine wisdom.


by Sarah Reardon. The above article first appeared in Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota), and is reproduced by permission.

Cancelled child psychiatrist takes gender fight to court

Child psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer faces a November court showdown with Queensland Health after being fired for questioning gender-affirming care protocols for children.

by Rod Lampard for The Daily Declaration

The second showdown between Dr Jillian Spencer and Queensland Health is set for November.

Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA) announced the date in a recent statement published online.

This will be decisive, they said.

“The Court has allocated a two-week hearing window in the first two weeks of November.”

HRLA then added that the window will mark “a major step in what has become a closely watched case.”

Of special interest is Spencer’s professional protest against “no questions allowed” ideologically based “gender-affirming care.”

Her case, HRLA determined, is “at the intersection of proper care for vulnerable children, professional integrity, and the rapidly evolving debate around gender ideology.”

“Key deadlines have been met, including filing further evidence in February.”

“These court dates allow some certainty going forward,” HRLA explained.

Fired for asking questions

While the November date is welcome, Spencer’s case, they said, is another example of “the process is the punishment.”

A child psychiatrist with over 16 years of experience, and a mother of three, Jillian Spencer has had to endure “four years of legal proceedings.”

Recalling reasons for the legal challenge, HRLA said,

The QCH suspended, then fired her.

In effect, Spencer wasn’t fired because she spoke disparagingly about those who identify as LGBTQ+. Spencer was fired because she dared to exercise her right to question the legitimacy of the ideology propping them up.

Spencer’s dismissal, HRLA argued, “reveals a failure in protecting fundamental freedoms in this country.”

HRLA’s case directs attention to discrimination against Spencer for freely sharing her views.

Filed by HRLA as a political discrimination case, this is the second of two lawsuits.

Spencer’s first case challenging her unfair dismissal from the Queensland Children’s Hospital went before the Qld Supreme Court in April.

This was a judicial review, Spencer said on X, “of the Termination Letter sent to me by the Queensland Children’s Hospital for speaking up about the harm to children from gender interventions.”

Questions asked, she added, were:

  1. “Did the hospital adequately consider my implied right to freedom of political expression under the Constitution?
  2. Did the hospital adequately consider my right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act?”

A judgment is yet to be handed down.

Forcibly removed from psychiatry conference

Spencer is in the free speech fight for the long haul.

She was allegedly assaulted by a security guard at this week’s Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) conference in Melbourne.

The guard appears to have forcibly removed her from the conference on Monday for silently protesting the college for cancelling Queensland Doctor Andrew Amos’ membership.

Her protest was a sign that simply read: “RANZCP kicked out Dr Amos. Why?”

As an AusDoc report recalled, AHPRA banned Amos from clinical practice after he questioned “gender medicine on social media.”

RANZCP booted Amos soon after, which, AusDoc said, is an automatic response whenever a doctor is suspended.

Frustrated about how she was treated, Spencer took to X to further protest RANZCP.

The X post also called out “gender-activist psychiatrist colleagues [for] lying in chat groups, saying: ‘She lay on the floor herself’.”

Responding to claims she was hyping up the incident, Spencer added two screenshots of a statement given to Queensland police about the incident.

In the statement, she testifies to walking up an aisle holding the sign above her head.

This was held for about eight minutes, as she moved to a sitting area.

Spencer said security approached her, declared that the sign was prohibited and told her to leave.

Just over a minute later, the security officer allegedly pulled her to the ground, then apparently dragged her down the stairs.

Spencer said, “he continued dragging me to a flat area near the main stage.”

RANZCP’s CEO, Damian Ferrie, turned up and told Spencer the sign was advertising. He accused her of “disrupting the presentation and ruining it for 2,000 people.”

Rather than offer comfort or understanding, Spencer said Ferrie tried to take the sign from her. This was despite her obvious state of shock and tears.

“I just sat on the ground for the next 5 to 10 minutes crying,” Spencer testified.

Another security guard turned up, who helped Ferrie escort her out the door.

While Spencer was being removed from yet another medical forum, for simply asking questions, RANZCP was patting itself on the back for being “allies” of those who identify as LGBTQ+.

“It was a fantastic turnout this morning at the LGBTIQA+ people and allies morning tea at the RANZCP conference,” they wrote.

“Thanks to everyone who came along to connect and share their support for our LGBTIQA+ community.”

Spencer responded, “They’re smiling, and I’m bruised.”

The pictures, which show Queer flags plastered all over the room like it’s 1930s Nuremberg, only serve to validate Spencer’s protest.

PRIDE activism is harming professionals, the vulnerable and weakening Australia’s healthcare system.

They are not just demanding absolute, unquestioning allegiance in every aspect of life; they are cancelling evidence-based dissenters.

With the help of HRLA, Dr Jillian Spencer is holding the line.

Please consider actively praying for Dr Spencer and her family.

Also consider supporting the Human Rights Alliance’s important work here.

You can read The Daily Declaration’s ongoing and extensive coverage of Spencer’s fight for free speech here.


By Rod Lampard. Republished with permission from The Daily Declaration. The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good. 

The anti-natalist legacy of Paul Ehrlich

The recent death of Paul Ehrlich (1932–2026), that master of anti-natalist propaganda, should cause us to consider the far-reaching consequences of his doctrine. As the author of The Population Bomb, (Note: all page references given below refer to this work) written in 1968, Ehrlich helped shape the disastrous demographic policies which many countries around the world are currently scrambling to reverse.

by Kathy Clubb

Among his predictions was the frightening spectre of overpopulation and world-wide famine to be experienced in the 1970s. By tying food availability to increasing population, Ehrlich successfully sowed enough fear into the academics of his day to ensure that his message would be taken up and disseminated into the unsuspecting community at large.

Contraception

Ehrlich

Central to Ehrlich’s policies for population control was contraception; this was to be subsidised by the government and especially was to be made available to the poor.

He lauded the U.S. government’s multi-million-dollar funding of the supply and research of contraception during the 1960s, saying that, until that time, the government had spent as much on family-planning as it had on “rat control” (p. 85).

Perhaps the Freudian slip reveals the disdain Ehrlich had for human fertility.

He even suggested that some form of sterilisation agent could be added to the water or food supply, writing that “doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size” (p. 131).

Ehrlich singled out the Catholic Church for its stance against contraception, mentioning the controversy elicited by the 1968 papal document, Humanae Vitae. He noted,

“The announcement of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae was greeted by a great wave of protest from within the Catholic Church. This dissent was not limited to lay people; it existed throughout the clergy as far up into the hierarchy as the rank of cardinal.” (p. 136)

In The Population Bomb, he praised U.S. federal bills aimed at limiting families to two children and legalising abortion. Although the former thankfully never came to fruition, the latter was eventually to be realised with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.

Abortion

Ehrlich deemed legal abortion a sign of progress in the fight to stop population growth. He praised state abortion laws — already one-third of the American states had legalised abortion by the time his book appeared (p. 89).

He was at pains to ensure that scientists indoctrinate the populace with the notion that a newly- conceived zygote is in no way the same as a fully-formed foetus. He said: “They must point out the biological absurdity of equating a zygote (the cell created by joining of sperm and egg) or fetus (unborn child) with a human being.” (p. 138)

By every metric, this goal has been achieved, perhaps beyond his wildest dreams. Readers may recall attempts by the UK Guardian newspaper in (October 18, 2022), to show what “a real pregnancy looks like” in the first trimester. An accompanying image shows white fibres with the caption, “Tissue from five weeks of pregnancy to nine weeks”:

Ehrlich
Image from the UK Guardian (photo credit: MYA Network). Reproduced under “fair use” terms.

By contrast to anti-natalist propaganda, a science-based Baby Life Begins diagram shows what a child at five weeks’ gestation actually looks like. (Click here for the video version)

Ehrlich

Demographics and population control

Unsurprisingly, Ehrlich praised China’s attempts to halt the growth of its population. He lauded its one-child program, citing the “very strong social and political pressures also are exerted to limit
amilies to a maximum of two children…” (p. 206), while failing to mention that those “very strong pressures” include forced abortion — even in the third trimester — as well as forced sterilisation.

Ehrlich also praised the early efforts of Japan to curb its population through the legalisation of abortion, which he said was “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control”. Through its anti-natalist agenda, Japan was able to halve its birth rate, but it later realised the demographic impact of a falling birth rate and tried to reverse course.

Ehrlich condemned this policy change, writing that “one can only hope that young Japanese couples have more sense than their government does” (p. 84). It would seem his confidence in Japan’s younger generation was not misplaced: a recent poll shows that 60 per cent of young Japanese are planning never to have children.

Like the Japanese authorities, many nations are discovering that their efforts to halt population growth were ill-advised. Even the ultra-progressive leaders at the United Nations acknowledge there is a problem with declining populations. Yet, thanks in large part to the efforts of Paul Ehrlich, they are unable to devise a way to encourage women to have more babies.

The ‘bright side’ of global famine

According to Paul Ehrlich and the scientists he cited, the optimum global population limit was around 1 billion citizens. He thought the earth possibly “had a chance” if a population of four to five billion could be maintained (p. 157).

Yet, for all his dire predictions of global famine, Ehrlich was remarkably upbeat about the consequences of such an event. In fact, he believed human tragedy of such a scale could actually serve his agenda. He wrote:

“Indeed, even if the worst happens, short of the end of civilization, efforts toward solving the population problem may not be in vain. Suppose we do not prevent massive famines. Suppose there are widespread plagues. Suppose a billion people perish. At least if we have called enough attention to the problem, we may be able to avoid a repetition of the whole mess. We must make it impossible for people to blame the calamity on too little food or technological failures or ‘acts of God’. They must at least face the essential cause of the problem — overpopulation.” (p. 158)

The role of academia

Ehrlich’s influence points to the role played by universities and other academic institutions in furthering anti-Christian agendas such as population control. Techno-Marxism’s “long march” through the institutions chose those platforms for good reason: it is difficult for spineless politicians and other policy-makers to dissent from apparently well-researched conclusions being thrust on them by the intelligentsia.

According to the pro-life author, “Alyosha” (a pseudonym), at his Between Two Ages Substack account,

“Real policy isn’t debated in X threads, YouTube clips of normie legacy news shouting matches, or in the campaign rhetoric of elections. It is formulated in dry academic literature, incubated in the classrooms of elite universities, and ultimately executed through the quiet, logistical restructuring of society.”

His conclusion reminds us that Ehrlich was not alone in his calls for population control: he was simply one of the loudest voices at a particular moment in history:

“The core objective of the transnational elite has remained remarkably consistent for over half a century: the scientific management, reduction, and absolute control of the human population.”

Our greatest asset

As most Christians acknowledge, a nation’s greatest asset is its children, especially those raised in stable households by both of their biological parents. While Ehrlich spread the lie that the reproductive act should be separated from its consequence — procreation — the future belongs to those who can integrate both, welcoming children as gifts from God and trusting in Him to provide for the needs of their families.


About the author 
Kathy Clubb is an Australian mother and grandmother and home-educated her children for the
best part of 30 years. She has undertaken official pro-life work for 10 years, first in Tasmania, and
then in Victoria. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria’s abortion
exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018.
Her articles have also appeared at Family Life International, LifeSiteNews, Online Opinion, Caldron
Pool and Fidelity magazine.

Academics advocate forced abortions for ‘impregnated girls’

A disturbing new research paper from Canadian academics argues that teenaged girls should be given forced abortions. They write that sedation may be required because “Such a patient might interpret her pregnancy as a baby and feel love for it and a desire to be a mother. She might believe that by having an abortion she is killing her baby.”

Parents and carers have a “moral duty” to ensure under-18s abort their babies, researchers have argued.

Professor Kimberley Brownlee and PhD student Alyssa Izatt, both at The University of British Columbia, claimed that “in relation to children, we should be ‘pro-abortion’” and promoted forced abortions for those who express a wish to carry their babies to full-term.

In a paper published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Ethics, the academics branded attempts to discourage under-18s from having an abortion as “antigirlism”.

‘Sedation or restraint’

Brownlee and Izatt said that adults should view a child’s “impregnation as a malady and take steps to terminate it”. Similarly, doctors should revise their approach “so that adequate medical care includes abortion care”.

They wrote: “A critic might balk at our contention that doctors should provide abortion care to a girl who has contrary preferences or an aversion to the procedure.

“Such a patient might interpret her pregnancy as a baby and feel love for it and a desire to be a mother. She might believe that by having an abortion she is killing her baby.”

In such instances, they proposed, carrying out an abortion might justifiably “require sedation or physical restraint”.

Totalitarianism

Writing in the National Review, author and philosopher Wesley J. Smith warned that the “push for unlimited abortion access is now advancing beyond the issue of ‘choice’” and described Brownless and Izatt’s rationale as “totalitarian”.

He said: “The authors claim that abortion is always in the best interest of girls because of the many supposed harms of giving birth, mothering, or allowing the baby to be adopted. Failing to immediately abort costs girls their ‘carefreeness,’ don’t you know.”

Smith added that “the fact that an article as authoritarian in its argumentation as this one appeared in one of the country’s most prestigious philosophy journals — and passed peer review, no less — is deeply troubling”.


Republished from The Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches. The Christian Institute is committed to upholding the truths of the Bible which we believe is inerrant and the supreme authority for all of life, and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

Children are not life’s accessories

High-profile working mothers may not be the best models for young conservative women. Their attempts at juggling stressful jobs with raising children are undermining the case for motherhood.

by Sarah Wilder

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is under fire for a viral clip from an event with Turning Point USA CEO Erika Kirk. In the clip, Leavitt tells a young woman in the crowd that she should pursue both motherhood and a career because “actually being a mom and having a family and having a job, it gives you the greatest perspective.”

She goes on to say that “you can have the hardest, worst, most stressful day at your job, but when you go home to a beautiful baby and children who are just happy to see you no matter what, it is the most refreshing, beautiful thing.”

children
Karoline Leavitt shared this image of herself feeding her baby at work

A lot of the debate over women working vs. staying home devolves into preachy pedantics from both sides regarding how much time a mother can or should work, at what age she can or should work, and what kind of work she can do. These conversations are nearly always fruitless because each woman’s circumstance is different. Many women do simply have to work to make ends meet, others are fooling themselves that their job that barely covers the nanny’s salary is necessary.

The core problem with Leavitt’s mentality isn’t just that she works an all-hours, high-stress job away from her young children. Nor is it just that she is painting an unrealistic picture of what’s “possible” as a working mother to women who are not going to land one of the most high-profile careers in comms in the country. Indeed, Leavitt could have a nanny bring her baby along for nursing sessions easily, but most working moms will have to pump alone in a bathroom while a daycare worker bottle feeds. She is definitely setting up her audience of normal women in normal careers for disappointment – but that’s not the whole issue.

Leavitt speaks about gaining “greater perspective” as a working mom than she would otherwise. Many criticized her for claiming her job offers her perspective on her motherhood, but she was actually claiming the opposite. For her, the job comes first and her children are the cute little perspectives she cuddles for a couple hours at home before bedtime. It’s a complete reversal of the natural order. For Leavitt, her children are a good thing because they are a net benefit to her career.

So rather than hand-wring over whether White House press secretary falls in the pre-approved list of acceptable jobs for mothers, let’s start with the principle: Mothers should prioritize motherhood, which looks like hands-on, bodily nurturing of her very young children. In the same way, fathers should prioritize fatherhood, which looks like protection and provision.

Once we get these priorities in order, the obsessive online debates over whether a man should change diapers or a woman can bring in an income seem tangential to the real issue. Mothers must seriously ask themselves if their jobs are becoming their identity over motherhood, and whether their career exists for the good of the children or the other way around.


by Sarah Wilder. The above article first appeared in Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota), and is reproduced by permission.

While we were sleeping – abortion

This post is from a series by Jim Twelve, highlighting key aspects from each chapter of his new book, While We Were Sleeping: A Wake-up Call For All Christians (2025). This theme of this chapter is abortion and, citing the pro-life organisation, Love Australia, Jim urges all Australians to do their part to make abortion unthinkable.

Jodie Pickard is the Founding Director of Love Australia, a leading prolife organisation that first began as Love Adelaide. Love Australia’s latest endeavour is the introduction of the House of Refuge ministry to Australia, in partnership with Love Life America. This mission is to equip churches across Australia to be safe havens—where those experiencing an unplanned or crisis pregnancy have no need to seek an abortion clinic and where those who have been hurt by abortion can find healing.

Now that’s a novel approach. Like many of my readers, no doubt, I have felt increasingly frustrated, powerless and angry that the agenda to kill unwanted life has gained acceptance in our so-called civilised society.

Here’s a short extract from Jodie’s story:

Jodie’s Houses of Refuge ministry presents the church with a tool they can employ with no government restriction, while at the same time giving church leadership a positive platform from which they can address the elephant of abortion in society.

What can we do?

Every year in Australia, 88,000 babies are lost to abortion. As Proverbs 31:8-9 urges us, we must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Unborn babies are the most vulnerable in our society.

Love Life began in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2016, and has now spread across the whole of the USA. They celebrate this testimony on their website:

The British Medical Journal (24 March 2026) reported on what they believe was driving parliament to decriminalise abortion to birth:

As of 25 March 2026, Dame Sarah Mullally became the new Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the Church of England. She is proudly pro-choice and not pro-life. Sarah, along with all the other bishops in the House of Lords, could have blocked this amendment to decriminalise abortion to birth, but they didn’t. It’s devastating when church leaders stay silent and effectively become complicit in this barbaric method of birth control (cf. Chris Wickland, below).

What the Bible says

Back in my school days, I remember debates about abortion. ‘What about the victims of rape?’ my opponents would say. ‘Whatever happened to adoption?’, I would reply.

For You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret… — Psalm 139:13-15a

God has created every one of us and, for Him, there is no suggestion that life begins at birth; it is much earlier, at the point of fertilisation of the egg by the sperm.

In Bible times, the Lord was clearly grieved by His children’s idolatry in their adoption of the ways and customs of the surrounding nations (Canaanites, Moabites in particular).

The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.
— Jeremiah 7:30-31

Parents brought their sons and daughters to be burnt in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, immediately south of the walls of Jerusalem, seeking to gain a blessing from their false gods. Our one true God declared: it had never entered His mind!

In a video, Aline and Rodrigo take us on a tour of the Valley of Ben Hinnom (transliterated as Geenna or Gehenna in Greek). They unpack the scriptures while we admire the peaceful parkland where children play.

It is telling that this valley has not been built on, in contrast with the Cedrom Valley, just around the corner, between the old city and the Mount of Olives, which is filled with gravestones and a number of churches.

It is said that the Valley of Ben Hinnom has been cursed for all time on account of these child sacrifices. In many ways, I see this valley as a monument to the atrocity dating back thousands of years.

Abortion is our society’s sacrifice for “the good life“. We dress it up with justification, but in the end, it’s murder.

What about the doctors and nurses who violate their hierocratic oath to keep their jobs? Most of us will never see an abortion, but they handle them on a regular basis.

I will never harm my suffering friend, because life is sacred, from the tender fruit that he once was in his mother’s womb to that first sight he gave out between her legs when he opened his eyes to the world.
— Extract from Hippocratic Oath (translated by Amelia Arenas)

Let’s ask God to show us how we can take a stand against abortion.

If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
— 2 Chronicles 7:14


By Jim Twelves.  Jim also has a YouTube channel, where he posts a reflection on each chapter of his new book.

This article first appeared at The Daily Declaration and is reproduced here by permission. The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good.