NBC reveals its anti-life agenda

Last week, I blogged about this commercial and stated that I wasn't sure how I felt about it. I'm still not sure how I feel about it, but the commercial is back in the news. The makers of the commercial, catholicvote.com tried to buy a 30 second commercial spot for this weekend's Super Bowl. The cost of the commercial is $3 million, but they had the money to buy the spot.

NBC originally told them they could buy the commercial spot, but has since refused to air the commercial claiming that they won't run political advocacy ads.

Yeah.

That's right.

A pro-life commercial is now political advocacy.

How can they call it political advocacy? It doesn't mention one political party, and actual seems to congratulate their hero, Barak Obama. All I can say is at least NBC's bias is now out in the open. Pro-life commercials are bad. I would think (in this time of economic crisis) that they would be glad to air whatever ads they could- especially at that price. And, apparently they have yet to sell out all the Super bowl commercial spots. Hmm. Interesting isn't it?

While I'm still not sure that I like the ad, there is no denying that it is tastefully done. It's not graphic; it never even mentions the word abortion. It just asks you to imagine the potential of life. NBC has certainly aired more daring commercials before. But, as we have all known, NBC is a left wing organization that is going to force its views on everyone.

My response is going to be to boycott the Super Bowl this year. Feel free to join me.

(Course, that really isn't a big sacrifice to me since I don't watch football anyway. Still, the sentiment is there. I'll pray for the NBC organization as well. Only prayer will make them into a pro-life organization.)

Oh Happy Day!

Happy News! I often feel bad about how negative the tone of this blog tends to be. It's not intentional, but I want to keep people informed on important things that are happening in the world around law and life, and unfortunately, it seems like the negative stories get featured most prominently. Not today though!

There are still people fighting for a culture of life- even in politics it appears. Wyoming is in the news right now, about assisted suicide- but not for the reason you might expect. House Bill 120, initiated by Right to Life of Wyoming would criminalize assisted suicide in the state of Wyoming. (Currently Wyoming is one of five states that have no laws on the books dealing with assisted suicide.) I don't know if the Bill has the votes needed to pass, but I pray that it does. It looks like the bill has made clear provisions for palliative care, so the pro-death argument that anti-assisted suicide legislation will render doctors unable to deal with patient's pain is invalid.

All I can say is way to go Wyoming Right to Life! It's initiatives like this that the pro-life movement needs to get behind and lobby for. (Really, that's all I can say. Maybe this is why there aren't a lot of positive stories on the blog- I agree, and so don't have much to say.) Anyway, I will be praying and cheering for House Bill 120 and I ask all of you to do the same. If you have family or friends in Wyoming (or you are in Wyoming) please urge them to contact their local representative and encourage them to vote for the bill.

If/As soon as this bill passes, I will let you know!

Media Bias Hits Home

Apparently the media cheerleading for the left has hit campus newspapers as well. On Monday, the pro-life group at my university hosted a Silent No More Awareness Campaign. The group invited the campus paper, The Sheaf, to cover the story, which they did. You can read their article here.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: Before I go any further, I suppose I should make it clear that I am a member of the campus pro-life group, but I will do my best to give fair, unbiased coverage about the facts. Also note that this post is going to be something of a rant because I am seriously annoyed. My apologies in advance. ***

(See, at least I'm honest about my bias upfront. The rest of the media could learn something from that.)

Despite giving half a page to the story, the coverage of the actual presentation is one sentence. "They [Silent No More] have a group of women who have had abortions tell their stories and explain why they regret that decision." So, here is my (relatively) unbiased news coverage of the event.

On January 26, 2009 the U of S Students for Life (USSL) hosted a group called Silent No More on campus. This group spent the day with a table set up in the Arts Tunnel. The display featured large signs which read "I regret my abortion." A group of 6 women from Silent No More presented their personal story and experience of abortion at 12pm and 4pm that day in a classroom in the Arts building. These testimonies included the women giving the reason they had their abortion, the physical, mental and spiritual harm they suffered as a result of that abortion. Before the women began giving their testimony, the spokeswoman for the group outlined the history of Silent No More and its chief goals and aims; the most important being that women who suffer from Post Abortion Syndrome can find help. At the end of the presentation, the spokeswoman offered the names and contact information for groups that help women to heal from abortion. Several of the women who gave their story testified to the help they found at a retreat known as Rachel's Vineyard. Attendance at the 12pm presentation was approximately 12 individuals. At 4pm, upwards of 40 individuals filled the classroom to hear the presentation.

There, is it so hard to give an unbiased version of events? When you are putting the story on page 2, in the news section, I would expect it to be a news story, not an editorial. Of course papers are free to editorialize; in fact the editorial pages of newspapers tend to be my favorite pages, but you need to make it clear to others when you are editorializing and when you are setting out the facts of an event that happened.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: I will now begin to editorialize and do not claim to be unbiased in the following paragraphs ***

The rest of the Sheaf's article rehashes a story they ran a few weeks ago, and not surprisingly gets the facts wrong. For example they state that those who attended the noon presentation were either pro-choice women from the Women's Centre or "directly involved with Silent No More or related to the presenters." I was at the noon presentation, and my recollection is that there were 2 people from the USSL, 2 women not involved with Silent No More or the USSL, the daughter of one presenter, the 4 women from the Women's Centre, 2 people from the Sheaf and 3 other people I did not know, plus the 6 women involved in the presentation.

But, more to the point, why does who attended matter? And, if counting attendees was so important to the story, why did they not come back to the 4pm presentation; the one that occurred after classes were over for the day, and note that over 40 people attended, none of whom were involved in the presentation or related to those giving the presentation? Oh, I know, because that would take away from the spin they are trying to subtly put on the article.

They also manage to work in the fact that Silent No More is affiliated with Anglicans for Life. What purpose is served by noting that? I'm surprised actually that they didn't note that it is also affiliated with Priests for Life, which is, at least in the politically correct world a far more damning connection. Who cares who they are affiliated with unless you are trying to connect them with that radical and dangerous group known as Christians- After all, as everyone knows, all pro-lifers are motivated by religious ideals and couldn't possibly be speaking from a scientific or intellectual perspective.

And, the "fact" that annoys me most is the assertion that the USSL failed to attend a meeting set up on December 5. That makes the USSL look like they have something to hide now doesn't it. I agree it would merit publication, except for the fact that it isn't true. No meeting was set up for December 5 that the USSL had any knowledge of (and I have the e-mails to prove that statement if anyone cares to read them). While I may not be a lawyer yet, I did study the tort of libel in first year law. The Sheaf is getting awfully close with some of the stuff they are publishing. (I keep decrying the lack of practical hands on experience in law school; maybe I should take this on…)

I also find it interesting that a formal harassment complaint has been made against the USSL. Again, to my knowledge no one has made a formal complaint; in fact, just yesterday I was told on the record that no formal process had yet begun. Again, getting very close to libel.

My point in this rant, which may have escaped you due to it's length, is that once again the "free press" has proven itself to be neither unbiased nor too concerned with actually reporting the news. Spinning things to go your way is much more fun apparently. At least other papers have the excuse (such as it is) that they are trying to sell papers, and sensationalization sells. The Sheaf has no such excuse- all U of S students pay a fee that goes directly to The Sheaf, and the paper is freely distributed on campus. That's right- I'm paying to have this publication publish facts that they spin and outright lie about. Doesn't that just take the cake.

(I will likely be blogging more on this topic as it develops. Comment if you don't want to hear more, otherwise you will hear more.)

The Destruction of our Future

Scary, scary stuff today. At the close of the March for Life last week, columnist Don Feder gave a presentation on the coming "Demographic Winter." To read the full text of his talk, go here. While some people like to talk about the overpopulation of the world, Mr. Feder paints the opposite picture. As a result of abortion, contraception and the general culture of death, the West is in the process of collective suicide.

2.1 That's the important number. In 1979, the number was 6. Today, it is 2.9. What is 2.1 you ask? It's the replacement birthrate- the number of children an average woman needs to have to ensure the population stays the same size. Globally, the average number of children women have is 2.9. That's dangerously close to falling below the replacement birthrate level of 2.1- only 30 years ago, the average woman had 6. In the so-called "advanced" societies of the world, the birthrate has fallen well below 2.1. In Russia, the number is 1.17; Italy and Spain are at 1.5. Canada is at 1.53. That's scary. As Mr. Feder put it, with below replacement level birthrates our "Schools will be turned into nursing homes. Playgrounds will become graveyards."

And, as he also pointed out, euthanasia will become a way of life. How can it not? If we have fewer and fewer young people, we have fewer and fewer taxpayers to support the pension systems. What better way to save money that to kill the elderly? (I'm joking of course)

In many ways, what we are doing right now is the same thing the Black Death did in Europe in the 14^th century. We are depopulating the world at an extreme rate. We've built a society that depends on people, and yet we are not reproducing the people needed to fill those positions. When the Black Death killed off 1/3 of the population of Europe, it set in play massive social changes that unleashed great upheaval on the world and in many ways set development back for generations.

Yet, when the Black Death abated, more children were born to replace those who were killed. Here, we are not having children, so there are no children for them to have to replace those who die. In Russia today, more pregnancies end in abortion than end in birth. More people die every year in Russia than are born. At the very basic level, eventually, everyone will take on more and more work. There is a maximum output that anyone can produce, and eventually things will fall by the wayside in an attempt to just keep the basics functioning. Can you imagine a world where we no longer have technology advancing, where we no longer have cars or computers because there is no one left to build them? Humans have basic needs- food, water and shelter. If the population keeps dropping, we will eventually have to stop working in luxury areas and focus simply on production of food for survival. What happens to us then?

Scary, scary thoughts indeed.

The Swiss Example

Switzerland is an interesting country. Historically, they have followed the beat of their own drummer; managing to stay neutral in two world wars and most wars prior to those; giving a home to the early protestant reformers and having all citizens join the military so they can enforce their neutrality. Unfortunately, they have not stayed neutral in the culture of life vs. death war. Switzerland is the home of Dignitas, the "death with dignity" agency. For a fee, they will help those who want to die, die. The law doesn't provide any procedures for assisted suicide; you simply need to show up at their door, pay the fee and two hours later you can be dead. This has made Switzerland a tourist destination for people around the world who want to die, or are being pressured to die so they aren't a burden on their families.

I've never bought the death with dignity argument, but this article from the Daily Mail horrified me. I thought I'd heard all the horrors around assisted suicide, but the stuff described in the article is beyond comprehension. I don't know how anyone can claim Dignitas provides a dignified death- if even half of what this article alleges is true Dignitas is the biggest fraud around. A former Dignitas employee alleges that Dignitas is all about profit; they pawn the property of those who come to die, and they've convinced wealthy patrons to leave large amounts of money to them. The deaths are far from dignified; one woman who was in a wheelchair was manhandled up the stairs, screaming in agony because she didn't fit into the elevator, they prescribe and have patients administer lethal drugs in less than two hours and left a man in agony for 70h after the suicide machine failed to kill him and the only concern was that patients were backing up waiting for the room to empty so they could die.

Dignitas' response to these allegations is that the employee is merely disgruntled and they now enforce a privacy agreement over all employees to keep their mouths shut. I felt queasy just reading this article. That said, I thank God that I can still be horrified. I haven't been so desensitized by this culture of death that articles like this fail to shock and appall me. We need to keep assisted suicide illegal in Canada so that things like this can't legally happen in Canada. If we find out that people are participating in so called death with dignity, we need to prosecute them and we need judges to enforce strict sentences on the perpetrators of these crimes. We need politicians with a backbone who will legislate laws that criminalize and punish those who aid in suicide and we need a media that doesn't parrot the culture of death's lines that people with disabilities, mental illness or terminal illness have a duty to die. To have all that, we need a population that is pro life and not afraid to speak out.

Let Switzerland be an example to us. If we don't speak out, it could be Canada that is a death-tourism hotspot and it could be our parents, children, family or friends that are dying on the floor of a dirty room, convulsing in comatose pain because someone figures they can profit more from their death than in helping them to live.

Not Sure…

I don't know what to think about this video. I see the point they are trying to get across, but I don't know that they made it in the best way. They are obviously trying to comment on the common point of view that a child who will grow up poor is better off never being born, but I don't know that Barak Obama was the best choice. After all he is a man who supports abortion very vocally.

I've watched this video a few times now, and my initial reaction really hasn't changed; I felt uncomfortable with it, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. I like the idea, but I'm not sure they made their point in a very concrete way. The organization who made the video is Catholic Vote, but when their logo flashed up at the end, I wondered if they were trying to say Catholics should vote Obama, or, well I'm not sure what. The idea of the video is good, but in the end its presentation seems off and unclear. At the end of the video I'm left wondering exactly what their message is. And I know this organization is pro-life, but I've been to their website before. I'm not sure that the average person seeing that video is going to go to their webpage after watching the video, so I don't know that they are really getting their point across.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

I'm sorry for the short post tonight- it's been a crazy day. Also, I'm going to be on the road this weekend dealing with some family stuff, so I may not post tomorrow. Fresh posts on Monday at the latest though! Have a great weekend.

An Open Letter to Tolerance

My Dear Friend Tolerance:

I don't know where you have gone, but I'm asking, nay, begging you to please come back to this world. I fear something terrible must have happened to you because I know that you would never let such atrocities be committed in your name if you were able to speak out. Your name has been co-opted by your most evil cousin Intolerance. He is using your proud name to push down and aside all those laboring to share conservative values with the world. For example, if someone dares to suggest that killing children while they grow inside their mother's womb, Intolerance cries out your name and says those people are not Tolerating the different viewpoints this modern world needs to allow for. He also smacks down anyone who dares to suggest that perhaps all this "progress" is dangerous for the entire world. Many times these voices crying out for the unborn are timid, quiet voices, just gaining the courage to speak. And in your name Intolerance shouts them down and drowns them out.

You may be wondering what if I can give you examples, but there are so many, I almost don't know where to start. However, today I learned exactly where I need to start. I need to start on a university campus in Saskatchewan. It may be small and insignificant in the grand order of things, but it is my campus and my home. At a University Student's Council meeting (a perfidious, dangerous place) a friend of Intolerance (who happens to work for one of Intolerance's chief disciples, the Woman's Center) got up to speak in your name. She asked the council to deny the campus pro-life group the right to host a Silent No More Awareness Campaign because such an event is "systemized harassment that should not be tolerated." In her mind, such an event displays a level of discrimination akin to intolerant White Supremacist groups. She then went on to accuse the pro-life group of refusing to show up at meetings to discuss previous harassment complaints for intolerant behavior. The worst part of all this my friend? It's that the pro-life group had no idea such a motion was even going to come before the Council, so they were not there to defend themselves. They had to find out when they read the campus newspaper. Such terrible allegations were printed for all the campus community to read, with the pro-life group given no change to respond.

Had they been given a chance, you can be assured they would have explained that first and foremost, a university campus is to be a tolerant place where different ideas and viewpoints can be discussed in a calm reasoned matter, without calling groups names and casting aspersions on their character. They then would have stated that they were aware of the complaints, and that they made every effort to set up a mutually agreeable meeting time, but that their e-mails were sometimes not responded to, and that as far as they know, no meeting was ever set, so how could they possibly have failed to show up? And finally, they would have said that they are guaranteed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You see where this is going don't you my friend? This group is being accused of intolerant behavior, when really, it is the people who are trying to shut them down that are intolerant. In their world, people with dissenting opinions have no place speaking out. Instead of dealing directly with the arguments, the forces that oppose them cry out in your name that these groups are intolerant, bigoted and even racist. What happened to the marketplace of ideas?

Oh Tolerance, I fear that until you return to claim your rightful place back, Intolerance will rule and dissenters will be shut down. Please come back soon; I realize now that growing up, I didn't realize how lucky I was to have you protecting me. I miss you.

Most sincerely yours,

Sarah, a Catholic Law Student

P.S.- When you come, please ask Honesty, Dignity and Respect to return with you. You have no idea how much we need all of you.

And so it begins

Today the United States inaugurated its 44^th President. Barak Obama was sworn in as President accompanied by much fanfare. While I am not American, I can't help but follow the story of Obama that has just begun to unfold in the US. The US is the only superpower in the world right now, so the man who leads it will come under much scrutiny. Had I been American, I would not have voted for Obama, for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that Obama seems to be the most anti-life leader ever elected in North America. He has promised to pass FOCA (the Freedom of Choice Act) as soon as he can, and his views on life scare me. He can do a lot of damage in 4 years, and even more if he is re-elected.

I don't think Obama will live up to everyone's expectations. No one can live up to the hype that currently surrounds Obama. He is being hailed by some almost as if they believe he is the second coming of Christ. He is not. He is only human, as weak and sinful as any of us. He's already backing off from some of the promises he made in the election campaign; for example the Guantanamo Bay situation. For whatever reason, he has realized that the situation in Gitmo is not as simple as he thought. We can only hope that he will realize that with many of his extreme positions, because a lot of people could die if he maintains them.

I choose to believe that the worst won't happen. Why? Because if we fear Obama as much as we should (and I think we do) we will all spend more time in prayer, lifting up life issues to God. With prayer all things are possible, and so we need to pray. The novena against FOCA which ends today is just the start. We need to be praying for Obama's conversion and change of heart, and we need to be praying for the unborn, the weak and the vulnerable more now than ever before. I hope you will all join me in adding an intention for the United States, and its leaders especially to your daily prayers.

Tonight, as the United States comes under a new administration, I hope you will all join me in praying, "God Bless the U.S.A."

Of Left and of Right

It struck me today as I was reading through my various news sources that we have become a world that politicizes everything. Maybe this is just the way the world has always been, but today is the first day that I really thought about it. What I mean is, we take every story and idea and look at it and report on it through the lens of politics, the lens of left and right, rather than just looking at the facts and coming to our own conclusions about what those facts mean.

For example, let's look at global warming, or climate change, as we are to call it now. Our governments spend billions on attempting to reduce CO2 emissions with the hope that it will somehow stop global warming. However if anyone stops to ask if we can actually link CO2 emissions to rising temperatures, or, heaven forbid if global warming is even happening, people jump down their throat quicker than you can say "Ice Age." Invariably such people, regardless of their credentials are attacked for being right wing whackos in the pocket of mega-corporations. The same things happen when a scientist publishes or tries to publish any research that might deny the climate change theory. Why? Because people stand to make money off of the global warming fear mongering.

Another example is the ongoing embryonic stem cell debate. Some scientists claim that embryonic stem cells and embryonic stem cells alone are the only way to find a cure for things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. And yet, in the decade or so that we've been working with stem cells, embryonic ones have given humanity exactly 0 treatments or potential treatments, while adult and cord stem cells have helped in the creation of numerous therapies; including the potential to regrow teeth. A recent report says that scientists have concluded that embryonic stem cells are of no use in fighting Alzheimer's, but that report is not making it out into the public sphere. Why? Because the embryonic stem cell community likes the advocacy and public opinion that goes with having Nancy Regan as a spokeswomen. That kind of advocacy draws in funding dollars. So what if it won't ever cure Alzheimer's, people will donate money that will help find other cures.

Recent press releases by the Vatican have been the victim of this politicization as well. Take Pope Benedict's 2008 year end address where he was accused of being homophobic and stroking the fires of homophobia. The actual text of his words received very little airtime; the reporting was on the shock, outrage and betrayal that the homosexual community felt as a result of his remarks. People spoke of the church needing to get with the times.

Take the current love-fest with the upcoming Obama inauguration. From the hype everyone is making about it, you'd think the Savior was returning. From the media coverage, I almost expect Obama to heal the sick and give sight to the blind. It's as though the man is singlehandedly going to fix every single problem the world has- and he's going to do it all on the day he's inaugurated.

I could go on with examples, but I think this is sufficient to make my point. Take any current event, and look at the coverage of that event by various new sources. I guarantee that you will find some form of spin in it; spin designed with the purpose of politicizing events so that, I think, we all take sides against each other. The media has a big role to play in this. They no longer report the news; they report opinion and slant the facts to fit their editorial bent. I have no problem with that, done in the context of the Opinion pages of the newspaper; we know that what is published there is not passing itself off on news, but when it's done (as it is regularly) in the news section, the media does us all a disservice. Why does everything have to be filtered and placed along the left/right spectrum? With a few rare exceptions, the media is left wing. Their coverage of everything is slanted to the left. Humans are smart; we are more than capable of reading something and drawing our own conclusions. And yet the media insists on making everything on the left sound like its heaven sent and everything on the right is going to destroy the world?

Before I go much further, I want to recognize that some in the right are just as guilty as some in the left, myself included. As soon as I hear a report that says the polar ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising, or that embryonic stem cells are the miracle cure for all our ailments, or that the pope has revealed himself to be a homophobe, or that Obama is going to raise the US back to the level of respect it had pre-Bush, or anything along those lines, my immediate thought is to dismiss it as "lefty crap." It's as though the first thing I do when reading something is identify the author's particular slant, decide the article is left wing crap, or God's honest truth and then I read the article, with those biases firmly in place.

Even as I write this, a part of me (the non-law side) wants to just say it must be lefty crap and leave it at that. Yet, after almost 3 years in law, I find I can't just do that, much as I might like to. The common law model of law (which Canada, the US, Britain, Australia and some other countries use) is an adversarial model. We are taught that each side will advocate for its own position as zealously as possible, and the trier of fact (either the jury or the judge) will look at the evidence on both sides and come to a conclusion about what really happened; what the truth is. Justice is supposed to be blind (trust me, it's not) but that is the ideal that we want to live up to.

However, I don't believe anyone can ever fully put their biases aside when making decisions. Anyone who tells you they can is lying, naïve or a lefty. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it does mean that we have to recognize our biases, and we should candidly admit to them, so that our audience knows where we are coming from. I really realized this when listening to my little sister (she's 13) talk about politics the other night. She spoke eloquently about her political beliefs, but she couldn't defend them. She had no arguments to back them up. And I think that's partially my fault. I spend a lot of time talking about how the left is destroying this country, but I don't give her the background. She loves and trusts me, and as a result, my political beliefs have become her political beliefs, without her really understanding what they mean. I think the same thing happened to me as a child; my dad talked politics, and I love and trust him, so I adopted what he said. It wasn't until I came to university and I really had to defend them that I learned what they meant; what the values behind them actually stand for. I think that is just a part of growing up; just like an infant learning to talk- we learn by repeating what we hear, and over time we come to understand what we have been repeating, and then we either accept it, or we don't.

In some ways I think the media is still the child parroting back what it has heard at home. Until you are secure in, and understand the reasons for, your beliefs, you can't step up and say, "I am a social conservative, a Catholic and an advocate of small government; what most people would term right wing" (fill in your own political persuasions here) and I believe x because…" For a real discussion or dialogue to occur, you have to be able to identify yourself in terms that the rest of the world can relate to. Those terms may not be as precise as you would like, but they give others a frame of reference to understand your point of view. The media is still a child because they can't, or won't do this yet. They still claim to be unbiased when they are really a cheerleading squad for their beliefs. And until they grow up, we will be stuck with this left wing/right wing lens being placed on all events they cover.

I guess what I'm saying is question everything anyone says; break it down; identify biases (including your own) and then come to your own conclusion and be prepared to back them up. If you know why you believe what you do, no one can beat you in a debate. They will be reduced to name calling to try to make your point go away, because you are secure in who you are, and they don't know what to do with that.

Of Broken Hearts and Shattered Dreams

This week in the tunnel (the place where campus clubs can set up displays) SHIP (the student health initiative program) set up its display on how to keep you life balanced while at school. This group does many laudable things including giving students tips on de-stressing, eating properly and cheaply, and staying fit. However, their biggest focus (from what I can see; I've never used their services) is on "sexual health" and that bothers me, especially since my tuition dollars go to fund this organization (and I have no choice but to pay these fees.)

The goal of their sexual health services is to keep university students healthy by teaching them "safe sex" methods, giving STD information and helping students find the "right contraception for you." Obviously as a Catholic I have serious moral issues with that, but that's not what I want to talk about with this post. I recently ran across this article talking about the "Hook-up Culture" on campuses. The premise of the article is that scientific evidence can demonstrate the severe psychological impact of "no-strings sex" on college age people. The article suggests that rising infidelity among young couples can be directly traced to the years of casual sex that occur for many people in the college years. From the article:

"There are many possible explanations for that shift, but the habits of heart cultivated by today's hook-up culture qualify as a leading culprit. It's hard to imagine better preparation for adultery than years of emotionally detached, random sexual couplings. And the "marriage-lite" solution embraced by growing numbers of cohabiting young couples -- many of whom are refugees from the hook-up culture and too skittish for marriage -- may exacerbate the problem, as the temporary mindset they learn in their live-in romances transfers to their marriages."

I've been on a university campus for the last 6 years and I can attest to the hook-up culture that permeates college life. From what I've seen in law, and from what I've heard from friends in other professional colleges (med, vet med, etc) that hook-up culture gets worse the longer you spend at university. It also seems to be correlated with the amount of alcohol consumed- the more you drink, the more casual sex you have. I fear for my generation every time I attend a law school event. It's a small college, and on Monday gossiping about who hooked up with who is the thing to do. I've also seen the physical and mental harm this behavior causes. Friends nurse broken hearts when they find out their boyfriend cheated on them Friday night because they were here and he got drunk and didn't realize what he was doing. I've seen friends cry because they guy they hooked up with never called them back and ignores them whenever they try to talk to him. I have no idea what the long term effect of this will be on their psyche, but as the article says "emerging consensus among experts that today's anything-goes campus sexual mores carry lasting consequences we only have begun to understand. And those consequences extend well beyond unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases." I don't want that to be true for my friends, but I think it might be.

And yet, as this article mentions at the very bottom, there is hope. Some of my generation are rebelling against this culture of hook-up sex and booty calls by creating campus groups that pledge chastity. The founders and members of those groups are decidedly countercultural, but they bring great hope and joy to me. I don't want to see my friends and family ruin their lives and marriages because society tells them that casual sex is harmless fun. In some ways, the rebels of my generation are formed directly out of the rebels of my parents generation (the sexual revolution generation). We have seen the results of the free-love ways of our parents, and we don't like them. Many grew up with parents who fought then finally divorced, or parents who committed adultery or parents who just weren't there. Consciously or unconsciously we've recognized that sex for the sake of sex doesn't make you happy, and so we refuse to buy into society's "safe sex" message. And just as we have to fight the pro-life revolution and be witnesses and examples, we need to do the same in our personal lives.

I thank God that we have that chance, and I pray we will be successful, for our sake and the sake of our children.