A transgender man who identifies as non-binary and genderqueer filed a federal lawsuit against his employer and union after they denied top surgery was merely cosmetic. “This lawsuit is about my control…

When asked by the Daily Caller News Foundation whether he agrees with the designation of Hamas as a terror group‚ Democratic Rep. André Carson of Indiana failed to provide a clearcut answer.Instead‚…

What would happen if a star swallowed a tiny black hole?

It's not what we thought.

This was a big one.

Test your musical knowledge with our quiz.

Ryan Burge is a data analyst who synthesizes information about religion and politics in the United States. He publishes his findings and observations regularly on Substack. Last week‚ he wrote an article titled “How Weird Is the Religious Composition of Harvard’s Student Body?” In it‚ he examines the results of a poll Harvard conducted of this year’s freshman class. According to the poll‚ nearly half — more than 46 percent — of Harvard’s freshman class identifies as “atheist” or “agnostic.” (An even higher number — nearly 65 percent — describe themselves as “progressive” or “very progressive.”) Burge explains how much of an “outlier” Harvard’s student body is compared to the general U.S. population‚ in which only 12 percent self-identify as either atheist or agnostic. But Burge also points out how different Harvard’s student body is from other college students. He references a survey of 55‚000 college students at more than 250 universities conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. According to the FIRE survey‚ only 21 percent of this year’s freshmen consider themselves atheist or agnostic; Harvard’s number is more than twice that. Even more striking to Burge was how few Harvard freshmen are Protestant Christians. A 2022 Pew Research poll showed 43 percent of all Americans consider themselves Protestants. The FIRE survey of college students shows that fully 30 percent identify as Protestants. At Harvard — once perhaps the premier university founded by Protestants‚ and whose first motto was “For the Glory of Christ” — only 6 percent of this year’s freshmen describe themselves as Protestants. In doing some of my own research‚ I came across the results of a 2015 Pew Religious Landscape Study on atheism in America. Pew’s data offers some insight into the composition of Harvard’s first-year students; fully 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 say they are atheists. (Note that this Pew study did not ask about “agnostics.”) The numbers drop dramatically in older groups of Americans: among 50- to 64-year-olds‚ only 14 percent are atheists‚ and only 9 percent of 65-plus Americans are. The Pew study provides plenty of food for thought with other data points. More than twice as many atheists are men‚ for example‚ and nearly 80 percent of all atheists are white. (The numbers are quite low among minorities‚ as well as first- and second-generation immigrants.) But what really struck me was a question Pew asked about “belief in absolute standards of right and wrong.” Those polled could choose from two options: the first was‚ “There are clear standards for what is right and wrong.” The second was‚ “Right or wrong depends on the situation.” Fully 83 percent of American atheists chose the second option. I thought immediately of the testimony given by the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania‚ the Massachusetts Institute of Technology‚ and Harvard last week at a congressional hearing investigating antisemitism on American college campuses. When asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” was “bullying or harassment” under university policies‚ Penn’s President Elizabeth McGill refused to answer affirmatively‚ calling it “a context-dependent decision.” Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. and Harvard President Claudine Gay were equally noncommittal‚ insisting that chanting for the deaths of Jews might or might not violate their school’s codes of conduct‚ “depending upon the context.” When confronted with what should have been the simplest of moral and ethical questions — whether calling for the genocide of an entire class of people was at the very least a violation of university policies against bullying and harassment — none of these academic leaders of esteemed institutions of higher education could bring themselves to give an unqualified “yes.” I have no idea what these women’s religious beliefs are or are not. But I find their testimony notable‚ in light of the Harvard poll‚ the Pew data and the shocking behavior the country has observed on college campuses since the Oct. 7 slaughter of 1‚200-plus Israeli Jews by Hamas terrorists. The reluctance to admit to objective standards of right and wrong — even in the face of truly egregious behavior — smacks of arrogance and pride. “It depends upon the context” sounds like “It isn’t wrong unless we say it is.” The Bible warns against this. In the Old Testament‚ the prophet Isaiah writes‚ “Woe to them who are wise in their own eyes.” (Isaiah 5:21) The book of Proverbs says‚ “Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil.” (Proverbs 3:7) And in the New Testament letter of the apostle Paul to the Romans‚ he warns that when we exalt ourselves over the laws of God‚ we lapse into error: “[T]hey glorified him not as God‚ neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations‚ and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise‚ they became fools‚ and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image of corruptible man.” (Romans 1:18-23) The expression “pride goeth before destruction‚ and a haughty spirit before a fall” — also from the book of Proverbs — is a lesson here. The outrage after last week’s congressional hearing has been so great that McGill resigned her position at the University of Pennsylvania. There are public calls for the resignation of Kornbluth and Gay‚ as well. Although Harvard’s governing board has issued a public statement unconditionally and unanimously supporting Gay‚ she is now under scrutiny for plagiarism in her academic research. Even if Gay or other individuals remain in their positions‚ the institutions themselves will suffer the consequences. Harvard and other institutions of higher education are (within legal limits‚ of course) free to foster the culture they want. But Americans have no obligation to support that culture — at Harvard or elsewhere — either by financial donations‚ sending their children there‚ or hiring their graduates. To find out more about Laura Hollis and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists‚ visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: The Left’s Systemic Anti-Semitism: It Isn’t Just the UPenn President An Academic Reckoning on Anti-Semitism and Speech The post Atheism and Antisemitism at America’s Universities appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Academic dishonesty strikes many people as boring. After all‚ it is academic. It is not like Sam Bankman-Fried‚ the “crypto king‚” making $8 billion disappear into thin air. It is not like Florida dentist Charlie Adelson paying a hitman to kill his former brother-in-law. Academic dishonesty is typically just too small for the perpetrator to win admission to the criminal hall of fame. Sometimes‚ however‚ it is worth paying attention to the mischief on campus. We owe much of COVID hysteria‚ and a good deal of climate hysteria‚ to professors who have lied their way to prominence‚ invented graphs out of whole cloth‚ and stigmatized legitimate questions as “disinformation.” Now comes the case of Claudine Gay‚ the president of Harvard University‚ who is credibly accused of plagiarism. “Credibly accused” in this case means flagrantly guilty but supported by people who find it inconvenient to acknowledge the facts. These are the same sort of people who say that Hunter Biden’s business ventures had nothing to do with old Papa Joe. So what are the facts? Back in October‚ I was among a handful of people who had early access to a cache of documents that provided side-by-side comparisons of essays Claudine Gay had published over a 20-year span and earlier essays published by other researchers. The evidence was as plain as a red barn in a snowy field that Gay had appropriated the work of others and passed it off as her own. It is important to add one of President Gay’s favorite words here: context. She has written very little over the course of her academic career — at least very little by the usual standards of someone in a professorial career‚ and extraordinarily little for someone granted tenure at Harvard University. In the controversy since the story about her plagiarism broke‚ there have been lots of references to her “scholarship‚” but few if any descriptions of what publications comprise that body of work. So‚ let’s fill the gap. According to her Harvard resume‚ Gay has published 11 journal articles in addition to her Harvard Ph.D. dissertation. These are: “Doubly Bound: The Impact of Gender and Race on the Politics of Black Women” (with Katherine Tate)‚ Political Psychology‚ 1998. “The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation‚” American Political Science‚ 2001. “The Effects of Majority-Minority Districts and Minority Representation on Voting Participation in California‚” Public Policy Institute of California‚ 2001. “Spirals of Trust: The Effect of Descriptive Representation on the Relationship between Citizens and their Government‚” American Journal of Political Science‚ 2002. “Putting Race in Context: Identifying the Environmental Determinants of Black Racial Attitudes‚” American Political Science Review‚ 2004. “Seeing Difference: The Effect of Economic Disparity on Black Attitudes Toward Latinos‚” American Journal of Political Science‚ 2006. “Legislating Without Constraints: The Impact of Constituency Preferences on Policy Representation in Majority-Minority Districts‚” Journal of Politics‚ 2007. “Moving to Opportunity: The Political Effects of a Housing Mobility Experiment‚” Urban Affairs Review‚ 2012. “Knowledge Matters: Policy Cross-Pressures and Black Partisanship‚” Political Behavior‚ 2014. “Americans’ Belief in Linked Fate: Does the Measure Capture the Concept?” The Journal of Race‚ Ethnicity‚ and Politics. “A Room for One’s Own? The Partisan Allocation of Affordable Housing‚” Urban Affairs Review‚ 2016. She also co-edited one book‚ Outsiders No More? Models of Immigrant Political Incorporation‚ which was published by Oxford University Press in 2013. Her work focuses on identity politics. While it has appeared in respectable academic journals‚ none of it could be counted as a major contribution to her field. She never established herself as a thinker whose views require serious reckoning by other scholars‚ and her cumulative work might never have warranted close examination were it not for her elevation first to the deanship of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and then earlier this year to Harvard’s presidency. At that point‚ her meager record of scholarship began to attract some attention. How could someone with so little proven talent in her chosen profession have risen to the pinnacle of the American academic world? A simple answer was that she played the race card very effectively. That was true‚ but obviously not enough to vault her past numerous other black academics who have much better records of accomplishment. The decisive difference was that during the summer of 2020‚ while the George Floyd riots were tearing apart American towns and cities‚ and liberal universities were in an orgy of self-incrimination for their histories of “systemic racism‚” Gay had the Machiavellian cunning to put herself forward as the person who could “transform” Harvard into a place where the pursuit of “racial justice” would subordinate all other values. Her views on this were presented in a letter to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in August 2020. No one doubts that the letter was entirely her own work. It is a recipe for black privilege in every aspect of the university: faculty hiring‚ the appointment of administrators‚ fellowships‚ the curriculum‚ academic standards‚ fast-tracking promotions for minorities‚ and even a new “inclusive visual culture‚” which probably meant tearing down statues and removing pictures of non-minorities‚ and replacing them with depictions of POC. (READ MORE: Backlash Against Harvard’s Claudine Gay Is Indictment of ‘Diversity‚ Equity‚ and Inclusion’) Gay had well and truly embarked on this before Hamas launched its grisly Oct. 7 attack on Israel and before she came under ferocious criticism for defending the Harvard students who celebrated the Hamas atrocities. Forced to say that she doesn’t entirely approve of anti-Semitism‚ her stand was so unconvincing that the House Committee of Education and the Workforce summoned her‚ along with the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and MIT‚ to explain their positions on a national stage. But while this theater was happening‚ the plagiarism scandal was already playing out in the background. The evidence of Gay’s wayward appropriations was provided to some journalists at the New York Post in October‚ one of whom interviewed me. The New York Post‚ however‚ then turned to some of the scholars whom Gay had plagiarized and asked them what they thought. This was a mistake. First‚ it tipped off the Harvard establishment that people were on Gay’s trail. Harvard immediately did two things. It threatened the New York Post by putting it in contact with its high-powered defamation lawyer‚ and it appointed a Potemkin committee to engineer a usable excuse‚ if not an outright exoneration for Gay’s dishonesty. Some of the people Gay plagiarized were her friends and colleagues and not likely to turn their backs on arguably the most powerful person in American higher education. Naturally‚ they said they weren’t bothered by the copying and the Post returned to me with the question‚ “Is it really plagiarism if the source says it is OK?” This is important. My answer then and now is: yes‚ it is still plagiarism‚ and it is still serious. The person who has been copied is not the main victim. The main victim is the academic community on whom the fraud has been imposed. The academy‚ for better or worse‚ is a community built on trust. When a scholar publishes something‚ the community assumes it is the original thought and words of the author unless it says otherwise. The writer can always say‚ “I am paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson.” Or‚ “This is my interpretation of what Malcolm X said on that occasion.” Or‚ “As Ibram X. Kendi has written‚ ‘My moment … coincides with the televised and untelevised killings of unarmed human beings at the hands of law enforcement officials‚’ followed by a citation‚ in this case to Kendi’s book Stamped from the Beginning. No one is saying that a scholar has to invent the world from scratch when writing a book or an article. Almost every work of any worth is a conversation with those who have gone before. And the merits of any new work of scholarship depend on how adroitly and with what wisdom the new writer brings to the task of recognizing and building on previous work. Claudine Gay knows that‚ at least in some dim fashion. Her articles are festooned with citations to other people’s work — and in some cases to the very people she has plagiarized. What? If she has cited them‚ how can she be guilty of plagiarism? In the course of the last 35 years‚ I’ve had the unpleasant duty of dealing with quite a few plagiarists and have grown used to this pattern. Plagiarists often play with fire. They steal sentences‚ whole paragraphs‚ or even pages of someone’s work; they cite none of that; and then elsewhere in the same document they cite the same author’s work on a more incidental point. Gay is a classic plagiarist in her use of these dodges. Harvard has now successfully engineered a cover-up by ignoring its standing procedures for dealing with plagiarism and relying instead on a ghost committee reporting directly to the board. That committee couldn’t quite say there was no plagiarism‚ but it observed instances of “inadequate citation” and said there would be some after-the-fact corrections. The rhetoric of the Harvard Corporation aims at minimizing what it cannot entirely cover up. Many Americans will give a cynical yawn to all this. What’s new? A cynical‚ self-serving elite has once again displayed its cynical‚ self-serving nature. The woke establishment is protecting its own. That’s true‚ but forcing Harvard to face up to its mistake in appointing Claudine Gay as president has its rewards as well. Harvard is paying a tremendous financial and reputational cost for Gay’s performance before Congress and the American public. The plagiarism scandal amplifies that‚ and it is not likely to disappear. In my dealings with plagiarists‚ I have learned that plagiarism is a repetitive practice. Almost every plagiarist keeps plagiarizing‚ and Gay has plainly done so in at least four well-documented instances. What about her other publications? I predict Harvard’s ad hoc committee on covering up Gay’s transgressions will have a lot more work to do. Peter Wood is the president of the National Association of Scholars. READ MORE: Harvard Students Question Presidential Selection Process Amid Claudine Gay Plagiarism Scandal Michelle Wu‚ Blasted for No-Whites-Allowed Holiday Party‚ Has Long History of Radical Racial Activism The post Copy That‚ Claudine appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A few columns ago‚ I addressed the subject of what it takes for one to be “obnoxiously gay‚” a description that I applied to Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg in my 2022 book The Revivalist Manifesto‚ which recently returned to public attention thanks to CNN’s using it as fuel for a hit piece on House Speaker Mike Johnson‚ who wrote the book’s foreword. I asked this about Buttigieg and what it is to be obnoxiously gay: Here’s something to ponder: If Pete Buttigieg is not obnoxiously gay‚ then which of the following are true?: It’s impossible for anyone in modern America to be obnoxiously gay; It’s possible for someone to be obnoxiously gay‚ but you aren’t allowed to notice; or There is a threshold for being obnoxiously gay that Pete Buttigieg has yet to meet. That returned to mind this week when a coalition of the obnoxiously gay and their sycophants decided to prey upon Abilene Christian University‚ a small private college in West Texas that is serious about educating students with a Biblical worldview in ways that Pete Buttigieg would not approve of: Abilene Christian University is revisiting its sexuality policy after over 2‚000 students‚ alumni and friends of the university voiced concerns about Holy Sexuality Week‚ a school event on relationships and sexuality some claimed included one-sided‚ exclusionary messages about LGBTQ people. “You gave a public platform to people who denied the lived reality of LGBTQ+ Christians‚ claimed inaccurately that homosexuality lacks a genetic basis‚ and made the ludicrous and hateful statement that ‘the opposite of homosexuality is holiness‚’” said a Nov. 16 letter written by Wildcats for Inclusion‚ a new alumni group formed in the wake of Holy Sexuality Week. In an email to the group‚ university President Phil Schubert said the board of trustees plans to review the school’s “Sexual Stewardship Policy” in January. But in an interview with Religion News Service‚ Schubert said that while he can’t speak for the board‚ he doesn’t expect the policy to change‚ largely because the board dedicated extensive time to researching‚ praying over and developing its policy in 2017. That policy calls for “chastity outside of marriage between a man and a woman” and for the university “to create an inclusive environment for all students — even those who disagree with ACU’s beliefs — so long as they refrain from sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman.” “We don’t have a neutral position on this‚” Schubert said in response to concerns about one-sided messaging at the event. “We’re a faith-based institution of higher learning that is governed by a board of trustees that is deeply faith committed. And so they’ve chosen to provide some guidance on this. So I understand that some would like there to be equal representation of affirming and traditional views of marriage‚ but that’s not where the university sits today. And it’s not what we feel is the responsibility we have to teach and mentor students according to what we believe the Bible instructs.” Who are the 2‚000? The guess here‚ and it’s certain to be an accurate guess‚ is that they’re a whole lot more “friends” of ACU than actual students or alumni. By the way‚ since when is homosexuality genetic? It would seem that if ever a “gay gene” had been isolated during the largely complete project of mapping the human genome‚ that news would have gotten out. And yet this group seems to have some secret proof denied to the rest of us‚ including President Schubert and the board. If you aren’t serious about the things Abilene Christian University teaches‚ you’re highly unlikely to be a student or alumnus of Abilene Christian University (and you shouldn’t be). This isn’t MIT‚ Stanford‚ or Pepperdine‚ nor is it the University of Alabama‚ Tulane‚ or the Colorado School of Mines. There are very few external things going on around that school that would attract people who couldn’t care less about the Christian faith ACU brings to its educational mission. Abilene‚ Texas‚ lacks beautiful beaches‚ great snowskiing‚ a French Quarter‚ or SEC football‚ though the university’s basketball team did make a nice NCAA Tournament run a couple of years back. Meaning this is precisely the same play we’ve seen run again and again by the obnoxiously gay. This is the same pressure campaign they bring against the Christian bakers‚ florists‚ wedding planners‚ and others who refuse to service gay weddings and trans “gender reveals” out of allegiance to their faith. Finding a florist willing to decorate a gay wedding is painfully easy to do‚ and yet the obnoxiously gay will seek out those conscientious objectors in the culture war and demand they be conscripted for frontline action. With a penalty of millions of dollars in legal defense fees for those who stand against the obnoxiously gay. We can all agree this is obnoxiously gay‚ can we not? It’s certainly more consequential than P-Butt’s protestations that he was more Christian than the Christians who criticized his lifestyle as running afoul of Scripture‚ and without question it’s more acute than those photos of Buttigieg and his husband in a “birthing bed” with their adopted children — as Buttigieg was taking a leave of absence from his job running the Department of Transportation in the middle of a supply chain crisis. They’re attempting to cancel‚ or corrupt‚ a Christian university for taking the position that sex is for procreation — a position the Bible is hardly unclear on — on the grounds that this is discriminatory to people who practice sodomy. That’s a direct — call me crazy‚ but I’d say it’s obnoxious‚ and I don’t think I’m wrong — attack on the First Amendment right of ACU’s board to practice its freedom of religion‚ association‚ and expression. And if you’ll permit me to note it‚ this is something else — the war on faith — that I give a full exposition to in Racism‚ Revenge and Ruin: It’s All Obama‚ my new book that makes a splendid Christmas gift for you and yours (it’s available at Amazon in hardcover and Kindle format now). Prior to Barack Obama’s political rise‚ a case like the one currently unfolding at Abilene Christian would have been almost unthinkable; 16 years later‚ it’s drearily viewed as inevitable. But after the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases‚ where Obama’s Justice Department goons attacked Christian businesses and religious organizations for objecting to Obamacare’s demands that they pay for abortifacient pills in their company health plans‚ the traditional American worldview is now subversive and dangerous and highly disfavorable. At least ACU isn’t running a Latin mass on campus. If they were‚ the Obama redux administration of Joe Biden would surely send in the FBI to have a look around. I’m also reminded of a Michelle Obama quote from back in February of 2008 that is depressingly appropriate here: Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation‚ that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual‚ uninvolved‚ uninformed. Much of that isn’t true — the Obamas have spent the last 16 years attempting to maximize the uninformed among the American people‚ particularly when it comes to the things they were doing to this country. But the quote was certainly a harbinger of the most important aspect of Obama’s America — relentless‚ hyperaggressive cultural and political agitation against traditional Americans. Which has become the national state of being‚ as the Christians of Abilene are experiencing today. From the looks of it‚ the obnoxiously gay have met their match in President Schubert and his board. They’re going to need our support‚ though‚ because once these people go on the attack‚ they rarely‚ if ever‚ give up until they’ve destroyed their targets. The post The Obnoxiously Gay Come for Abilene Christian University appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

With abortion cast as a “losing issue” for Republicans‚ former Trump counselor and campaign manager Kellyanne Conway thinks she’s found the silver bullet: contraception. Conway visited Capitol Hill this week to propose that Republican candidates shift their talking points to avoid criticisms from Democrats that the “GOP is anti-woman.” She cited studies and opined about bipartisan appeal‚ but Conway neglected the massive shortcomings in her proposal — pushing contraception isn’t really politically plausible‚ isn’t pro-life‚ and certainly isn’t pro-woman.  Conway Jumps on the Contraception Bandwagon  In a poll commissioned by Independent Women’s Voice‚ Conway found vast public support for‚ as Politico reports‚ “policies that make contraception cheaper and more available.”  READ MORE: Shane Dawson and Ryland Adams’ Use of Surrogacy Showcases the Practice’s Grotesqueness Nearly 90 percent of respondents agree that “it is more important than ever that women have access to the most modern and effective contraception method of their choice regardless of where they live‚ how much it costs‚ and where they receive health care services.” Polling found that over 80 percent of self-described pro-lifers agreed.  Quite a few people also believe that Congress should play an active role in decreasing the number of unplanned pregnancies by increasing the availability of contraception: 78 percent of respondents and 66 percent of pro-life respondents agreed. Voters get scared off by abortion bans‚ but voters really like contraception. So if Republicans simply switch from the less popular position to the more popular one‚ they can win votes‚ win elections‚ and … ban abortions once they’re in office? Either Conway thinks that Republican candidates can dodge the abortion question on the campaign trail — to be clear‚ they can’t — or she wants the GOP to drop the abortion issue altogether and pivot to pushing pills. Neither scenario seems likely to earn Republicans extra seats come November. (RELATED: Nikki Haley Misses the Mark) Contraception Isn’t Pro-Life  “Contraception” is a blanket term for various methods of fertility suppression‚ which Conway and Higgins failed to tease out in their polling. The broad category is made up of both abortifacient and non-abortifacient contraception. Abortifacient contraception‚ like some oral contraceptives and intra-uterine devices (IUDs)‚ doesn’t actually prevent the creation of a new human life. Instead‚ abortifacients prevent the implantation of the new life by turning the womb into an inhospitable environment.  Planned Parenthood clearly advertises the Plan-B “morning-after pill” as emergency contraception. To promote contraception as a “winning issue” for the pro-life movement is to ignore the reality of what abortifacient contraceptives actually do.  Even non-abortifacient contraception isn’t pro-life. Reliance on contraception causes a “contraceptive mentality.” Women who become pregnant while using contraception are likely to seek an abortion‚ in no small part because they have already closed themselves off to life. Unsurprisingly‚ the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute found that half of American abortion patients became pregnant while actively contracepting. (RELATED: The Satanic Temple Attempts to Bring Abortion to Pro-Life States) “Statistics actually suggest that increased access to birth control *increases* the abortion rate because it leads to more unplanned pregnancies‚” explained Alexandra DeSanctis Marr‚ author of Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing. Contraception separates sex from procreation‚ and it does the pro-life movement little good to pretend that the sexual revolution can be dealt with in half measures.  Trying to Win Over Women  Conway couches her recommendation as a way to combat claims by Democrats that Republicans don’t care about women. Heather Higgins‚ CEO of Independent Women’s Voice‚ joined Conway on her trip to the Capitol and attempted to spin contraception as a pro-woman solution to criticism from the left. “In order to advance their political interests‚ the left has hijacked the definition of ‘women’s health’ and advanced a fearmongering fantasy narrative that conservatives are anti-woman and anti-women’s health‚” Higgins said.  She’s right in her diagnosis. The Left has conflated abortion with health care for decades (while objecting to attempts to make abortion clinics comply with basic standards for health care facilities)‚ even as it relentlessly attacks the GOP as the party of misogyny. But crying‚ “Democrats are the real misogynists‚” isn’t particularly convincing if Higgins’ recommendation is that Republicans start pushing contraception. Among contraceptive users aged 15–29‚ 28 percent relied on “female permanent contraception‚” which refers to the irreversible destruction of the fallopian tubes. This is the most commonly used form of contraception‚ but it’s unclear whether Conway and Higgins have reckoned with it. Are they suggesting that Republicans should campaign on taxpayer funding for the irreversible mutilation of the female reproductive system? After all‚ most Americans want Congress to play a role in making contraception even more widely available than it already is.  Or would Conway and Higgins rather hedge their bets with the pill‚ the second-most-common form of contraception? Used by one in five contracepting women‚ hormonal birth control treats natural female fertility as a disease. It prevents ovulation‚ eliminating a woman’s period. Instead‚ a woman on the pill experiences occasional random bleeding that seems like a light period but is instead withdrawal bleeding prompted by a dip in pill-provided hormones.  OB-GYNs have seen growing numbers of Gen Z and millennial women opting out of birth control in recent years as they become increasingly aware of its harmful effects. This isn’t just a fringe movement; even the New York Times has taken note. Jessica Grose‚ a liberal journalist who often writes about women’s issues‚ recently noted: Over the years‚ I have heard anecdotally about — and experienced — various side effects to different types of contraception: heavy breakthrough bleeding and abdominal pain with IUDs‚ mood disturbances with different types of pills‚ and sexual side effects with everything.  Despite the medical side effects‚ Conway and Higgins seem to have no problem pushing contraception as a cure-all for both unplanned pregnancies and unappealing election results. It’s a familiar move‚ one used by Democrats time and time again‚ except with abortion. But something tells me that Republicans won’t be able to beat the Left at its own game — especially not while abortion remains top of mind for many voters‚ with contraception access a near non-issue in coming elections.  Mary Frances Myler is a writer from Northern Michigan now living in Washington‚ D.C. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE by Mary Frances Myler:  Kim Jong Un‚ Demographic Destiny‚ and DINKs Whitmer Signs Michigan’s Green New Dystopia Is Friendsgiving the Future? The post Kellyanne Conway’s Contraception Gambit appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.