The following is an edited transcript excerpt from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1933-the-new-ayatollah-of-iran-is-gay?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
We&#8217;re not supposed to say anything but good about people who&#8217;ve just died. As the saying goes, speak no ill of the dead.
This man, however, left a wake of death, destruction, and catastrophe wherever he went. And most people don&#8217;t even know his name: Paul Ehrlich.
I write about Paul Ehrlich at some length in my book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Speechless-Controlling-Words-Minds/dp/1684510821/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Y2L5GPaNcg2v5jnT9SD5ksR5a40NcpExppW6aHVVBg2FzlIHja61O5i6m-pH9wpIMWHGSkrLhkrd8rHzMDQN1iA3BuBH-UVJi0EyStx6M6l_7HKhwR0GKrN8w6e8rOUE18q_fPEggyexww619c7-BErp7yFNm38xTMhU_w6ZaMi3k03CxrXWwSCCSRcazdNo3eNXnHdUbDw3bae74VylSnpc0SFRJr6jlNhYAX6vRAs.q0vDzxnV2mm76BoF3WDe4Demnp2J-5X6usahlx1IIbo&amp;qid=1773785807&amp;sr=1-2">Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds</a>.” 
And now, here we have his obituary in <a href="https://x.com/SonnyBunch/status/2033466323842331077">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
“Premature,” lol. The abject refusal to just admit this guy was completely wrong is one of the funnier Boomer-coded traits. <a href="https://t.co/oM5GYgDEtR">pic.twitter.com/oM5GYgDEtR</a>
— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) <a href="https://twitter.com/SonnyBunch/status/2033466323842331077?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Source: @SonnyBunch/X.com
The headline and sub-headline reads: 
<blockquote>Paul Ehrlich, who alarmed the world with The Population Bomb, dies at 93. 
His bestselling 1968 book, which forecast global famines, made him a leader of the environmental movement, but he faced criticism when his predictions proved premature.</blockquote>
Here we go. Big lie. 
His predictions “proved premature.” What were his predictions? His prediction was that if the population grew any more, we would have widespread famine, because the Earth could not sustain all those people.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1933-the-new-ayatollah-of-iran-is-gay?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-1054531" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
His prescriptions, therefore, were to stop having kids and sterilize people. We should use the government to reduce the population. These policies of his led to the one-child policy in China and forced sterilizations in India. This guy is — not single-handedly, but pretty close — responsible for the population crisis (or depopulation) that we face today.
And they say his predictions &#8220;proved premature.&#8221; 
Since he made his prediction that we would inevitably face mass starvation because the population was growing too much, since that time, the world population has doubled and global malnutrition has been cut dramatically. Today there are twice as many people as when he made his prediction, and we are more well-fed than ever.
It&#8217;s not that his predictions proved premature. They were completely wrong. Totally wrong. 
The New York Times is covering for Ehrlich in its obituary of him. Ehrlich did more evil than almost anybody in the 20th century. And the consequences of his stupid predictions and prescriptions — because he prescribed policy to governments — were mass evil.
The consequences of his ideas led to mass death, sterilization, the violation of basic rights, and he never let up on it.
Here is Paul Ehrlich, in the 1970s, discussing the problem as he saw it:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In a 1970 interview, Paul Ehrlich stated: &#8220;The FCC should see to it that large families are always treated in negative light on television.&#8221;
He added that if this approach failed, then the government should &#8220;legislate the size of the family&#8221; and &#8220;throw you in jail if you have… <a href="https://t.co/Ij7C5eso4W">pic.twitter.com/Ij7C5eso4W</a>
— Gentry Gevers (@gentrywgevers) <a href="https://twitter.com/gentrywgevers/status/2033583323864568245?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Source: @gentrywgevers/X.com
In the interview, Ehrlich says,
<blockquote>The first thing the government should do is try and take the pressure off to reproduce &#8230; Young couples — if they don&#8217;t have children — people say, &#8216;gee, they must be sterile.&#8217; They never say, &#8216;gee, maybe they like good wine and going to the theater and so on, they prefer that to scraping diapers.&#8217; So there&#8217;s pressure to have children. So the first thing that should happen is that the president ought to say, &#8216;From here on out, no intelligent, patriotic American family ought to have more than two children, preferably one, if you&#8217;re starting a family now.&#8217; He ought to make the FCC see to it that large families are always treated in a negative light wherever they appear &#8230;  you can move to giving women bonuses for not having babies, that almost certainly would do the job. 
If that didn&#8217;t have the effect, then you could move to changing the tax structure so that people who had the money and had the children paid more for them — in other words, increase taxes on people with children rather than decrease them, since when they have the children they require more services. 
If that doesn&#8217;t work, then you&#8217;ll have the government legislating the size of the family. And people say, &#8216;Oh that&#8217;s impossible, government can never intrude and tell you how many children to have.&#8217; Well, I got news — you know it intruded a long time ago and told you how many wives you can have and there&#8217;s not the slightest question that if we don&#8217;t get the population under control with voluntary means that in the not-too-distant-future, the government will simply tell you how many children you can have and throw you in jail if you have too many.</blockquote>
So God tells us in the book of Genesis to &#8220;Be fruitful and multiply.&#8221; 
This Antichrist figure comes out in the 1970s and says, &#8220;Do not have children. It&#8217;s unpatriotic to have children.&#8221;
It&#8217;s funny because patriotism comes from the word &#8220;Pater,&#8221; meaning father — it&#8217;s an extension of filial piety, it&#8217;s an extension of the family — and he&#8217;s saying the pro-family thing to do is to destroy your family.
He says, first we&#8217;re going to incentivize people — we&#8217;re going to discourage them culturally. Say having kids is bad, you should just drink good wine instead. 
All these arguments you hear today — Don’t you want to travel? Don’t you want to have experiences? Don’t have kids.
And if that doesn&#8217;t work, we&#8217;re going to pay people not to have kids. Give women bonuses. Subsidize it. Say instead of having kids, go work at the widget factory, do spreadsheets, we’ll give you money.
That doesn&#8217;t work? Okay, now we punish you. Forget the carrot, now it&#8217;s the stick. If you have kids, we&#8217;re going to tax you. We&#8217;re going to make you pay for the privilege.
And if that doesn&#8217;t work, we&#8217;re just going to stop you from having kids.
What does that mean in practice? Because China implemented this. It means forced abortion. The government comes in and kills your child. You want to keep your child? No. Government kills your child.
It leads to policies like in India, where people were told you can only get access to food and resources if you sterilize yourself.
That happened because of this guy. Because of his book. Because of his ideas.
He said in &#8220;The Population Bomb&#8221;: 

<blockquote>The battle to feed all of humanity is over… hundreds of millions of people will starve to death… nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.</blockquote>
Totally wrong. Could not have been more wrong.
He said we must have population control — hopefully through voluntary means, but by compulsion if necessary. That was his thesis.
He described population growth as a &#8220;cancer.&#8221; Population growth just means more people. So if more people are a cancer, then people are the disease.
Human beings are a disease.
The left has held on to that view for a very, very long time. And this is where the truly wicked origins of leftism — which endeavors to invert reality — began, during the French Revolution as an assault on the Church. This is where the real satanic, Luciferian character of liberalism really begins to show itself. One of the fruits of liberalism is the view that human beings are a disease that must be cured, that must be eradicated from the earth. 
And now this guy is eradicated from the earth. And it&#8217;s sad, because every man&#8217;s death diminishes me because I&#8217;m a human. 
As John Donne wrote in his famous poem, &#8220;No Man is an Island&#8221;:
<blockquote>No man is an island entire of itself; every man 
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; 
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe 
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as 
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine 
own were; any man&#8217;s death diminishes me, 
because I am involved in mankind. 
And therefore never send to know for whom 
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.</blockquote>
We should pray for him, because he led a very, very evil life. And in many ways, maybe he didn’t fully understand what he was doing. “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
But we can’t just think about him — we have to think about the institutions.
This guy got everything wrong. Not a little wrong — perfectly wrong. And he never paid a price for it. He kept his positions, his prestige, his influence. His policies were implemented. They led to enormous harm. And the institutions backed him up.
And now one of the chief cultural institutions, The New York Times, is still covering for him — still saying his ideas were just “premature.”
Not premature. Wrong.
And as a final note, that idea — “forgive them, for they know not what they do” — this connects to something else.
The world feels tense right now. The stakes feel higher. There’s conflict in Iran, division at home, a lot of strain in the culture. For Christians, this is Lent. And if you’ve paid attention over the years, this season often feels like that — more tension, more conflict, more difficulty. In the story, this is the period in the desert, the temptation, the struggle.
And then comes Easter.
I’m not saying everything magically gets better overnight. But if you believe in spiritual realities, that there is a meaning to history, a rhythm to the liturgical calendar, then it’s not surprising that things feel strained right now.
Sometimes things look like they’re falling apart — like when Christ was crucified on Calvary — right before they come back together.
That’s the pattern.

Paul Ehrlich at a press conference this afternoon at Macquarie University.Internationally famous biologist, Paul Ehrlich, is visiting Australia and will be taking the position of Visiting Professor in Environmental Studies at Macquarie University.

One Of The Most Evil Men In History Just Died

Abortion

babies

Birth Control

Children

China

Death

Obituaries

Opinion

Population

The New York Times

For years, the abortion debate has been framed almost exclusively around law and ideology. But behind the slogans are women making deeply personal decisions often under intense financial pressure. <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3729671/">National research</a> consistently shows that the cost of raising children, especially childcare, weighs heavily on those decisions.
March 12 is National Working Moms Day. At Human Coalition, we are taking this moment to celebrate the hardworking moms we serve as the nation&#8217;s most trusted life-affirming alternative to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry. Every day, we serve pregnant women who are already working to support their other children and fearing that they can&#8217;t possibly welcome another child in their current circumstances. 
But if we’re serious about honoring working moms, we need to confront an uncomfortable truth: childcare is one of the most consequential factors shaping decisions about work, family, and even abortion. 
According to Human Coalition, a national pro-life organization that serves thousands of pregnant women each year, <a href="https://www.humancoalition.org/impact/blog/continuum-of-care/">76%</a> of women seeking abortion say they would prefer to parent if circumstances were different, and financial reasons figure prominently in many of those decisions. Nearly 40% cite <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3729671/">economic concerns overall</a>, and more than one in four say they “<a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf">can’t afford a baby and childcare</a>.” 
These are not abstract statistics. They represent women staring at bank accounts, calculating rent, daycare, groceries, and gas, and concluding they have no room left for a new baby.
Consider “<a href="https://www.humancoalition.org/impact/blog/how-does-childcare-affect-a-womans-abortion-decision/">Cindy.</a>&#8220;
When she first came to Human Coalition, pregnant with her second child, Cindy was overwhelmed and unsure whether she could choose life. With practical support, she completed her GED, secured childcare vouchers, and started working. Stability seemed within reach.
Then her employer changed her hours. She lost childcare. Without childcare, she lost her job. One scheduling shift unraveled everything.
Human Coalition walked with her again, helping her regain stability. But Cindy’s story illustrates a broader reality: for many working-class mothers, childcare access is fragile. One disruption can mean lost income, lost opportunity, and a life thrown off track.
That’s why recent reforms in the Working Families Tax Cut deserve real attention.
The legislation included meaningful steps to strengthen childcare access and expand flexibility for working- and middle-class parents. Lawmakers <a href="https://www.ffyf.org/policy-priorities/tax-policy-and-child-care/#:~:text=The%20tax%20code%20was%20updated%20in%20July,or%20provide%20child%20care%20for%20their%20workforce">reinforced funding</a> streams by increasing the Child &amp; Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC), expanding dependent care assistance program (DCAP) limits to $7,500, and boosting the Employer-Provided Child Care Credit (Section 45F) to encourage business-supported care.
The bill also modernized certain eligibility pathways and acknowledged something working mothers have long understood: that affordable childcare isn&#8217;t a subsidy for working parents; it&#8217;s a foundation for a culture that makes room for new life.
And without accessible childcare, financial stability slips away for some of the most vulnerable moms in our nation.
These reforms matter because the cost burden is staggering. In 2024, parents reported spending roughly 22% of their income on childcare and nearly 30% of their savings just to maintain it. A new<a href="https://americanfamilysurvey.byu.edu/american-family-survey-2025"> 2025 American Family Survey</a> showed that the average annual price of center-based child care is $15,570, rivaling mortgage payments in many communities.
And even when families can afford care, they often can’t find it. More than half of Americans live in a “<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/childcare-deserts-labor-shortage-infrastructure-affordable-childcare-working-parents-2021-11">childcare desert</a>,” where there are at least three children for every licensed childcare slot.
This isn’t just an affordability crisis. It’s an access crisis.
The cultural conversation often assumes Americans don’t want families anymore. The data tell a different story.
A 2024 peer-reviewed paper from scholars Lyman Stone and Clara Piano found that states with less restrictive childcare regulations have meaningfully smaller “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/coep.12677">fertility gaps,</a>” which represent the gap between how many children women say they want and how many they actually have. In the state with the most burdensome regulations, simply adopting the regulatory environment of the least restrictive state would increase fertility rates by roughly 13%. 
Strikingly, in every state, the average desired family size remains above the replacement level of 2.1 children.
Women want children. They need the structural support that makes those children economically possible.
The goal here isn’t to replace immediate family or community support with government. It’s to remove unnecessary barriers that make family formation financially perilous. Smart childcare reform can expand options for those who need them most. If we want stronger families, a healthier economy, and a culture where moms don’t feel forced into abortion by their circumstances, we cannot ignore the role childcare plays in all three.
National Working Moms Day shouldn’t be reduced to social media tributes and corporate platitudes. It should prompt serious reflection about the policies shaping women’s real-life experiences. For many women standing at the edge of a decision between life and death for their unborn child, it can be an undeniably pro-life policy.
We’ve made meaningful progress. But until no woman feels cornered into a permanent decision because of a temporary economic barrier, our work isn’t done.
* * *
Clare Ath is the senior policy analyst at Human Coalition, one of the largest pro-life organizations in the nation, which operates a network of telecare and brick-and-mortar women’s care clinics across the country.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Toddler girl embracing mother in doorway as she gets home from work

The Hard Truth About Being A Working Mom In America

childcare

employment

Mothers

You’re not ready to become a mother.
I wasn’t &#8220;ready&#8221; when I became one at 29. I definitely wasn’t ready to be married at 22, either. Happily, I did it all anyway. And then I watched as I steadily grew into these roles, finding my footing with a little grace, a lot of missteps, and more joy than I would’ve ever expected.
For this, I’m probably an anomaly — and definitely not a good feminist, according to The New York Times, which on Friday published its latest <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3hYnYfwr9CW_joLMOUB1GT">article</a> about the precipitous decline in the U.S. birthrate. The framing was predictable: this is a good thing, insisted the gaggle of childless twenty-something women interviewed for the piece, because it means women are finally waiting until they’re &#8220;ready&#8221; to have children.
The most obvious first rebuttal to this argument are the statistics on marriage, motherhood, and happiness. According to the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), the <a href="https://www.compactmag.com/article/get-married-young/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.compactmag.com/article/get-married-young/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3-NbsFdVUogNa1Ku-mQhlO">happiest</a> young women in America are married moms, and it’s not close.
And the longer women wait to marry and have children, the less likely they’ll be able to reach those milestones — socially and biologically. Recent IFS <a href="https://ifstudies.org/insights?id=3886" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ifstudies.org/insights?id%3D3886&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0TJTJPhmOurlAEs7kT_KPJ">research</a> indicates that women’s odds of having children fall dramatically after they turn 30.
But the deeper issue with framing the debate over falling birthrates as a feminist win is the suggestion that anyone is ever &#8220;ready&#8221; to become a mother. By today’s cultural standard — what Brad Wilcox has called the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFzU4ND77tA" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DNFzU4ND77tA&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1FLr-6BB0wE7G5jU5CLi1-">Midas Mindset</a>” — the term &#8220;ready&#8221; usually has capitalist connotations. It’s defined by having a certain income, reaching a certain level of professional success, or having racked up enough life experiences, like traveling and dating around before settling down.
Indeed, the women <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1772321232845000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3hYnYfwr9CW_joLMOUB1GT">interviewed</a> by the Times — the young marketing student who regrets having to care for her siblings while her mom hustled to make ends meet; the recent grad who wants to build her career first; and the gym employee who “enjoys the [childless] peace” with her husband — are all under the impression that being ready for kids is primarily a logistical and financial proposition.
But if this standard were real, we should expect there to come a moment in most women’s lives when they’ve reached some or all of these benchmarks, prompting them to wake up and suddenly find they’re ready to become mothers.
But that’s not what’s happening. Because that’s not how any of this works.
The women featured in the Times seem to believe that becoming a mother is something they can accurately imagine ahead of time. They believe it’s an endeavor that will someday fit into pictures of their lives they’ve already painted. The problem is that motherhood doesn’t lend itself to that kind of logic. There is no analog to having children by which women (or men, for that matter) can ever really make an informed decision not to do it. That would be like saying, “I’ve looked at this from every possible angle, and I’ve decided not to live on Mars.” To say such a thing would be to have no actual idea what we’re choosing or not choosing.
What many of the women interviewed by the Times don’t seem to understand is that to become a mom is to fundamentally change. A woman in her early twenties can look at the prospect of motherhood as if it were simply another life choice. She might think “maybe I’ll move to another city,” or “maybe I’ll break up with my boyfriend,” and she can pretty fairly imagine what those experiences would be like, because she’d still be herself when or if they happened. But to contemplate motherhood as the same sort of question is a category error. Because when she becomes a mom, she will change so fundamentally that she, frankly, has no business making decisions today on behalf of that stranger.
That probably explains why childless women who try to defend their decision tend to overestimate the hard parts of motherhood and wildly underestimate the wonderful parts. Rose Paz, a young college student who spoke to the Times, said she doesn’t want to have kids right now because it would be a financial struggle, and she remembers the painful experience of watching her own parents stress out over money.
I can empathize with that fear, and it’s true that below poverty, motherhood can be a daily crisis. But if Ms. Paz is imagining some future point in her life in which she won’t feel stressed about money — that is, I’m sorry to say, a fundamental misunderstanding of both stress and money. Life just doesn’t work that way, and motherhood has nothing to do with it.
Another woman, a social demographer, told the Times that the falling birthrate is a “success story” because women are finally making sure they have their &#8220;lives in order&#8221; before having kids. &#8220;We spent decades shaming women for having kids under the wrong circumstances, for not having their ducks in a row… now they are holding up their end of the bargain,” she said.
Certainly, no woman should ever be shamed for having a child; much less a woman whose deadbeat partner has chosen to abandon her to single motherhood. But the social stigma on teen and single motherhood was never really about women having kids when they were poor; it was about women having kids when they weren’t married. These supposedly empowered women claiming to have taken back control of their own lives aren’t talking about making sure a man commits to them before having babies; they’re talking about making enough money.
Again, that’s not the right perspective. The happiest women in America are married moms. Past a certain level of basic material security, the hardships of parenthood aren’t really mitigated by more money, because they’re much deeper and much more existential than the merely financial. They are mitigated by marriage, though. And that’s because, just as it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, it also takes a man and a woman to raise a baby.
It turns out, the best parts of marriage and motherhood have nothing to do with money, either. In my experience, they are surprising and unscripted. The best parts are finding your babies in bed, reading under the covers with a flashlight. It’s when they say “ex-shepally” when they mean “especially.” It’s watching their hair grow wild and curly. It’s catching them being kind to a young stranger. It’s seeing yourself care more about them than your own comfort, when you hadn’t really known that was possible.
I’m almost 40 now, with two young daughters and a marriage going on 17 years. I can’t imagine a deeper source of both vulnerability and joy than this family of mine. I can reasonably imagine what life would have been like if I hadn’t gotten married young. I remember what it was like to travel alone, to answer to no one but myself, to sleep in on Saturdays, and to pee in solitude.
Women who haven’t married or had children, however, don’t have the same insight into their own what-ifs. They may really believe that not having children during their healthiest childbearing years is the path toward their deepest happiness. But they don’t know it, and they’re almost certainly wrong. From a Christian perspective, I believe this is why God made childbearing something totally outside our control.
The hard things in life are usually the very best things, but most of us don’t have the strength, on our own, to choose the hard things. Young women should get married and have babies anyway. They’ll see — I mean this literally — exactly what I mean.
Maria Baer is a contributing writer at the Institute for Family Studies and co-host of the Breakpoint podcast with The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.
<div>
<section class="css-88lhuq">
<div id="post-body-text" class="css-o2tmhu">
<div class="e1lu91wr0 css-5a7pfj" data-narration-container="true">
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>

Mother of Girls

No One’s Ready To Be A Mom

Motherhood

New York Times

Parenting

Welcome to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
I’m a Luddite in many ways, at least in theory. I hate social media, prefer to spend my free time in nature — usually with a gun, bow, or rod and reel in my hand — and long for the days when you could buy a truck with a manual transmission. In fact, I have often quipped that America went to heck in a handbasket when Ford stopped putting manuals in their F-150s (2008, for those keeping track). I’m not a big fan of governments regulating just about anything, but I applaud the fact that millions of Americans have gravitated toward the MAHA movement, which prioritizes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rfk-flips-the-food-pyramid-and-announces-massive-changes-to-dietary-guidelines">whole foods</a> over modern, processed garbage.
If you called me a redneck or Jesus freak, I would have a hard time beating the allegations, but even as an old-school Midwesterner, I find many on the Right’s insistence that American life was better in the 1950s, or any glamorized bygone era, to be preposterous. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/24/americans-take-a-dim-view-of-the-nations-future-look-more-positively-at-the-past/">found</a> that &#8220;around six-in-ten (58%) say that life for people like them is worse today than it was 50 years ago.&#8221; This is unfounded. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/economist-thomas-sowell-alarmed-trumps-tariffs-may-spark-worldwide-trade-war" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/economist-thomas-sowell-alarmed-trumps-tariffs-may-spark-worldwide-trade-war&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1771705058176000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2LD7Zvboy56-RaMc8K3Mv_">The economist Thomas Sowell</a> is right about a great many things, including the fact that there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
I despise many of the side effects of the massive industry surrounding modern medicine. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/best-of-2025-the-experts-are-finally-admitting-that-adhd-is-a-scam" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/best-of-2025-the-experts-are-finally-admitting-that-adhd-is-a-scam&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1771705058176000&amp;usg=AOvVaw39O6UpkChLorueBKQd6UIK">Overmedication</a> is a serious problem, and a healthy lifestyle is often a far better option than whatever a doctor may be prescribing. But when trouble comes knocking, it sure is great to have the kind of doctors and hospitals we take for granted today.
In 1950, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. was 29 deaths per 1,000 live births. Today, that number is around five out of 1,000. Childbirth is so remarkably safe in the modern world, at least in developed countries, that most people never think about mortality rates, but a couple of generations ago, there was a strong chance neither of my children would have survived. My daughter required an emergency C-section after my wife labored for several hours with no progress. Of course, C-sections were not uncommon in 1950, but they were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-women-arent-50-more-likely-to-die-from-childbirth-today-than-a-generation-ago" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-women-arent-50-more-likely-to-die-from-childbirth-today-than-a-generation-ago&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1771705058176000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3NH7Rl_-azH8AWHB4aZR2p">riskier</a> for both the mother and baby.
The beginning of my son’s life in 2024 was more difficult by orders of magnitude. My wife’s water broke at 28 weeks, and the little man arrived at 29. As I sped to the hospital at 5 a.m., I assumed there was a 50-50 chance our boy would survive. He was well under three pounds, and I had never personally met anyone who had a baby at his gestational age. At the hospital, however, the doctors and nurses were shockingly calm and professional. I almost couldn’t believe it when they said, “He’s doing great.”
In 1950, there would have been essentially nothing that most hospitals could have done for my son. <a href="https://www.nicuawareness.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-advances-in-neonatal-care?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nicuawareness.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-advances-in-neonatal-care?utm_source%3Dchatgpt.com&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1771705058176000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0_dKbPiC3DLnDgSerQBJ8D">Neonatal</a> care was nonexistent or in its infancy, depending on where you lived. Specialized incubators, ventilation, and steroid treatments were primitive, if available at all. Today, babies born at 29 weeks survive at a miraculous clip north of 90%.
I wouldn’t wish a nearly three-month stay in NICU on my worst enemy. It was certainly the most trying time of our lives, but by my son’s original due date, we were bringing him home, something that would have been nearly impossible before NICUs became widespread in hospitals across the West in the early 1970s. In a generation, modern medical advancements completely transformed how premature births are viewed in the developed world, not to mention the countless diseases, such as polio and smallpox, that have been almost entirely eradicated in the West. When was the last time you thought about malaria? There is a reason why the deadliest killer in human history is an afterthought outside of the third world.
Even when I’m in the woods, away from modern technology and the worries of 21st century life, I’m still the beneficiary of modernity. Heroes of the American outdoors, such as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/episode-1-daniel-boone?elementPosition=4&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Daniel Boone</a> and Davy Crockett, used inaccurate, expensive, and unreliable flintlock muzzleloaders to hunt big game. Terms such as “flash in the pan” and “keep your powder dry” are references to the myriad ways those rifles often failed to go boom, leading to an empty dinner table — or much worse in a combat scenario. I can get my cheap Ruger bolt-action rifle wet, forget to clean it, or even drop it out of a tree stand, and it&#8217;s still going to get the job done. Trail cameras, GPS mapping, modern camouflage, and scent control all give us a leg up on the tasty animals we love to hunt. Anyone who has fooled around with old, unreliable outboard motors will tell you how nice it is to power a boat with a modern, direct injection engine that fires up at the turn of a key.
I’m generally an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/what-will-power-the-ai-revolution">artificial intelligence</a> skeptic, but where did I go to find infant mortality rates from the 1950s? You guessed it: ChatGPT. Of course, I double-checked the numbers since AI is still notoriously, and sometimes hilariously, wrong on occasion. But as a writer, I’d be a fool not to use AI to source my work.
As much as I complain about the downfall of the manual transmission, my teenage, stick-driving self would never have imagined connecting a smartphone, which didn’t exist, to my truck using technology that didn’t exist, so I can listen to almost any song ever written for a measly $12.99/month. Modern life, the internet in particular, brings unique challenges that did not exist a generation ago. But I do know for a fact that those who insist that we got the short end of the stick never had a preemie.
***
Brady Leonard (<a href="https://twitter.com/bradyleonard" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/bradyleonard&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1771705058176000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3xW8B8U6olS-OfXAGfYCuk">@bradyleonard</a>) is a writer, musician, and host of <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-no-gimmicks-podcast/id1207009705" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-no-gimmicks-podcast/id1207009705&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1771705058176000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0eK8wJN6vsP-ActNqEXSSd">The No Gimmicks Podcast</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Human and robot polygonal hands

I’m A Manual-Driving, Gun-Toting Skeptic — And I’m Glad I Live In 2026

Health Care

medicine

Upstream

As if the 2020s couldn’t get more surreal, the United States is no longer only a global leader in economic and military power — but it has now become the go-to international hub for mass-producing babies.
This is not hyperbole. Chinese video-game billionaire <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/chinese-billionaires-surrogacy-pregnancy-7fdfc0c3">Xu Bo</a> has reportedly fathered over 100 children — 12 of whom so far have been born via surrogates in the USA, thus gaining birth-right citizenship. Bo says he wants at least 20 US-born offspring — all boys (superior to girls) to one day take over his business. When a Los Angeles Court denied Bo parentage rights over 4 of these babies in 2023 — none of whom he had actually met yet, as he had been “busy” — it exposed the uncertain terrain of international surrogacy arrangements. Where, and to whom, did these children now belong?
In another disturbing story in the press this week, a surrogate mother in Nevada is now suing a Chinese couple in California, alleging she was deceived about their identities and intentions, learning only after giving birth that she had carried the twenty-sixth child for the same pair in quick succession. Some of the babies had been hospitalized by abuse. According to reports, the FBI is now <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/02/04/us-news/surrogate-sues-chinese-parents-of-26-she-claims-duped-her-tell-me-the-truth-about-the-baby-i-carried/">investigating</a> whether the couple were selling these babies they were producing at scale.
Meanwhile, members of Congress are <a href="https://blakemoore.house.gov/media/press-releases/representatives-blake-moore-john-moolenaar-introduce-legislation-to-prevent-foreign-adversaries-from-abusing-american-surrogacy-industry">scrambling</a> to address federal loopholes that allow foreign nationals to use American surrogacy services while securing birthright citizenship for those children.
The free market is one of the great engines of American prosperity, but it has never meant that anything and everything may be bought and sold. America prohibits the sale of organs, the sale of votes, and the sale of citizenship. Western countries do so not because we oppose free markets, but because we understand that some things are too fundamental to human dignity and national integrity to be reduced to commerce.
Surrogacy crosses that line. Under surrogacy, a child becomes a commodity exchanged for cash. Women become raw materials to be exploited for reproductive gain. Payment structures, abortion clauses, ‘selective reduction’ decisions in the case of twins or triplets — all are negotiated with a “surrogate” mother in advance, and are usually at the discretion of the “commissioning party”. Whatever sales language is used — “intended parents,” “journey,” “compassion” — the structure is unmistakably commercial. And increasingly, it is international. <a href="https://eggdonorandsurrogacy.com/surrogacy-trends-2025/">Projections</a> suggest the global surrogacy market will exceed $129 billion by 2034.
Even in situations outside of the extreme, surrogacy is harmful to children. Every surrogacy deal, no matter how well-intentioned, deliberately inflicts a severance wound on a newborn baby – isolating her from the only mother she has ever known – and places her in the care of the adults who commissioned its trauma. Psychologists warn that this kind of early separation can produce lasting harm — post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, attachment disorders, developmental delays, and behavioral issues in later childhood. What adults call a miracle, the child experiences as loss. We don’t allow puppies or kittens to be separated from their mothers until at least 8 weeks following their birth. The commodification of human newborns is striking in comparison.
A national ban on surrogacy is obviously necessary to protect babies from being commercialized, and women’s bodies from being commodified as wombs-for-rent. But a domestic ban will not be enough to fully prevent this exploitation. It isn’t only Chinese billionaires who look to take advantage of reproductive technologies abroad.
Where American couples have found the cost of surrogacy prohibitive at home, they’ve looked to economically vulnerable women in lower-GDP countries – Mexico, Guatemala, Nigeria, across Southeast Asia – to rent their wombs for less. To end exploitation, America must shut down their own role as a consumer in the global trade too.
National bans have turned into an international cat-and-mouse chase. When India banned surrogacy for foreigners after years of operating as a hub for cheaper “reproductive tourism,” international surrogacy clinics quickly migrated to Nepal and Thailand. When Thailand restricted commercial arrangements following scandals, agencies shifted operations over to Cambodia. After Cambodia shut them down, they popped up in Laos. Bans move in the right direction, but we need a global crackdown, fast, to prevent the overseas baby trade from flourishing from one country to the next.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, is in agreement. She called for a complete global abolition of surrogacy in her <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-calls-recognition-surrogacy-system-violence-exploitation-and-abuse">recent report</a> to the United Nations, highlighting human rights abuses intrinsically interwoven in the use of women’s bodies as gestational vessels. The United States is in a powerful international position to embrace this mandate and take a lead on the world stage.
A national ban on surrogacy is an imperative to prevent exploitation at home, but further work must be done to ensure that wealthy American couples don’t continue this unethical practice by buying babies from overseas. For this administration, that means pursuing international cooperation on the issue; negotiating agreements to prohibit such trade; and promoting a shared commitment to protect human dignity across borders. America should have no part in the global trade of human life — be it as consumers or suppliers of the goods. Babies simply aren’t for sale.
* * *
Lois McLatchie Miller (@LoisMcLatch) is a writer and commentator from Great Britain.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Doctor examining a pregnant woman

How America Became A Hub For Global Surrogacy

Pregnancy

Surrogacy

The former president of Ireland, Mary McAleese, has claimed baptism denies babies their human rights.
Her comments were highlighted in an article in the <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2026/01/11/mary-mcaleese-baptism-is-a-key-catholic-recruitment-tool-it-denies-babies-their-human-rights/">Irish Times</a> with the headline: “Mary McAleese: Baptism denies babies their human rights.”
This woman is nominally Catholic, but doesn’t agree with the teaching or practice of the Catholic Church. I believe she is a canon lawyer, but somehow she was radicalized. She also says this is the real issue we need to focus on — the great injustice in the world today.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
No one is Catholic by birth and the notion of ‘Baptismal promises’ is risible, writes Mary McAleese <a href="https://t.co/8WopKFeMhi">https://t.co/8WopKFeMhi</a>
— The Irish Times (@IrishTimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/2010386279486136346?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @IrishTimes/X.com
She’s not a prelate. She’s not a theologian. She’s a politician. And she says the real injustice, the real violation of human rights in our world, is not immigration, not foreign policy, not the economy, not how we treat the poor. It’s not even abortion, the wholesale slaughter of little babies, no — it’s baptism.
It’s difficult to see how one arrives at that conclusion or that obsession without demonic influence. Now, I’m not someone who says there’s a demon under every rock. We live in a world where the material and immaterial are not totally separable, nevertheless, I’m not demon-hunting all the time.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1889-president-trump-fights-anti-white-racism?elementPosition=6&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
It’s very difficult to understand how the former president of Ireland can say the great human rights violation of our time is baptizing babies. Because it is supposedly “bad.&#8221;
One could try to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you could argue that infant baptism is technically a violation of human rights because, after the Fall, humans deserve death. Sin and death pervade the world, and in our fallen nature what we deserve is death, and baptism saves us from death.
Many people have different views of baptism, but you do see it in Scripture. Our Lord <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A14&amp;version=RSVCE">says</a>, “Let the little children come to Me.” You see baptisms of children in the book of Acts multiple times. In 1 Peter 3:21, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203%3A20-22&amp;version=NKJV">Saint Peter essentially says</a> baptism now saves you. There are many theological discussions about what that means exactly, but baptism is what demarcates us as Christians. Plenty of people disagree with infant baptism, but it is the traditional practice of the Catholic Church.
But setting those theological debates aside, the closest one could get to her argument is that baptism denies babies their human rights insofar as it saves them from the consequences of the Fall of man. And that’s a good thing. Isn’t that a good thing?
My last point: this woman, who says baptism violates babies’ human rights, supports abortion. She supports legally murdering babies in the womb, but not baptizing them once they are born. The only way to reach that conclusion is either to follow the perversity of liberalism to its end, or through demonic influence. I don’t see any other explanation.
And it really makes me raise an eyebrow at other Left-wing politicians.

Inauguration of Ireland’s New President Connolly

Former President Of Ireland Claims Baptism Denies Babies Their Human Rights

Baptism

Catholic Church

Catholics

Christianity

Church

Infants

Ireland

Michael Knowles

It’s a sure sign of Christmas when we hear Nat King Cole crooning about chestnuts roasting on an open fire. While few of us have experienced eating such warm roasted chestnuts, we can surely relate to seeing “tiny tots with their eyes all aglow.”
When children experience the bright lights of the Christmas Season, they can hardly open their eyes wide enough to take in all the beauty. From living room Christmas trees to sparkling downtown squares, bright, colorful decorations are everywhere. And, as the lyrics remind us, the bright lights are most exquisite when they are reflected in the eyes and on the faces of children, especially young children. 
What do we really see on these precious little faces? What best describes the look of wonder reflected in the wide eyes of children taking in the lights?
It’s joy.
The innocent expressions of wonder on the face of a child can bring joy to all of us, even when things aren’t stellar for us adults. A child’s perception of this light-filled season can even melt the hearts of all the Scrooges in our midst.
That’s because children don’t just reflect the season; they are represented by the central character in the Christmas story. After all, the Christ Child is the focus of the attention of all the participants in the nativity. The lowly animals, the shepherds, the wise men, and, of course, Mary and Joseph. Our front-yard nativity sets may have all of those frozen figurines at once, even though the story itself plays out over a longer period. Just as the Star of Bethlehem lit that special night more than two millennia ago, the bright lights we see today can brighten even our darkest nights.
Yet the message of joy that still flows from that manger came with its own set of challenges, many of which we still face today. The pregnancy was unexpected. Housing insecurity was real. A government edict forced an ill-timed travel issue. The soon-to-be husband was not the father of the baby. Such challenges have the potential to steal joy, not bring it. And yet, after 2,000 years, we memorialize it on our lawns, over the mantel, or in dioramas that dominate our home décor. No matter the conditions of their conception, babies have a way of bringing joy and smiles.
Carl Sandburg once said, “A baby is God&#8217;s opinion that life should go on.” That is true with every new life, as much as it was with the Christ Child. The next generation is the hope for the future of our families, our communities, and of the world.
The story of Mary and the manger reminds us that every woman should be loved and supported in her pregnancy, despite her immediate circumstances. The spark of life within every child in the womb should be welcomed and nurtured, cherished and treasured. Temporary obstacles should be overcome so that every tiny tot has a chance to be filled with wonder and joy at Christmas. Each of us should do our part to help someone near us, or close by us, or maybe even someone we’ll never get the chance to meet, be able to greet their little one with joy and gratitude.
That is what motivates the life-affirming work of pregnancy help in communities all over the country every day of the year. Whether around the kitchen table in a maternity home or through an ultrasound at a pregnancy medical clinic, or in the placement of a child into an adoptive family, pregnancy help provides real help for real needs to those dealing with temporary challenges.
All pregnancies are temporary, even the unexpected ones. And every life should have a chance to make a positive mark on the world and future generations.
That holy night reminds us of more than the value of just that one child. That “silent night” stands as a powerful proclamation for each of us to welcome the work of God when it comes as a baby. We should make way, or “prepare him room,” for “love’s pure light” to shine into, and through, our hearts at this special time of year and all year long. That’s what empowers each of us to light up with joy and sing, “Joy to the World!”
* * *
Jor-El Godsey is president of Heartbeat International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25">Christmas Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>

Little Girl Decorating Christmas Tree.

Joy To The World, One Child At A Time

Bible

Christmas

Jesus Christ

Pro-Life Movement

An opinion piece in Canada’s <a href="https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/dur-surely-it-cannot-be-that-babies-born-alive-after-an-abortion-are-left-to-die/64535">Western Standard</a> sheds light on a deeply troubling reality: one in four late-term abortions in Alberta, Canada, resulted in a baby being born alive — and many were left to die without medical care.
According to the Western Standard, the federal agency responsible for compiling and reporting health data across Canada, <a href="https://files.constantcontact.com/f67685af801/45d9acaf-ab1c-4bdd-9ba6-2378fb034aa0.pdf">Canadian Institute for Health Information</a> (CIHI), reported a total of 133 late-term abortions in Alberta in the 2023-2024 year. Based on data analyzed by pro-life researchers and originally raised in the Alberta Legislative Assembly, this should spark serious concern — and immediate action — not only in Canada, but also in the United States.
According to the Canadian data, out of 133 late-term abortion procedures, 28 babies survived the abortion. These weren’t “non-viable tissue,” as the abortion industry so often claims. They were living, breathing infants, whose humanity became undeniable in their cries and movements.
Instead of receiving medical attention, however, they were abandoned and left to die. These aren’t abstract numbers — these are living, breathing children.
I know this reality all too well because I am one of those statistics. I survived an abortion in 1977.
When my birth mom was 31 weeks pregnant, her mother, a prominent nurse at a local hospital, forced her to have an abortion to end my life. For days they injected a saline infusion into the amniotic fluid, a solution designed to poison and scald me until I was delivered dead. On the fifth day, I was born, leading my birth mom to think the abortion was successful. I was then rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) — and, unbeknownst to her, I lived and was placed up for adoption.
At <a href="https://abortionsurvivors.org/">The Abortion Survivors Network,</a> we know firsthand the weight of such statistics — because we are living proof that survival is possible. It isn’t easy being an abortion survivor. What many don’t know is that while we fought to survive physically as babies, that mental fight continues well into adulthood. We shouldn’t have to continue to fight something we defeated as babies.
There are roughly over 10,000 late-term abortions performed annually in the U.S. and that is a conservative estimate. If even 25% resulted in a live birth, as the Alberta data suggests, that would amount to 2,500 infants born alive every year.
Yet in the U.S., each state has different reporting requirements and laws. For example, in Minnesota there is no ban for abortion regardless of what trimester a woman is in, she could be at 35 weeks and decide she no longer wants the child, and she can legally seek an abortion. Aside from states differing on abortion law, there is no nationwide federal requirement to report when a child is born alive during an attempted abortion. And because there are no federal “born alive” reporting standards, there is a lot we don’t know. The pro-abortion crowd may say it &#8220;doesn&#8217;t happen” but how would they know if there is no tracking, reporting and they refuse to listen to survivors and mothers?
This lack of adequate data stems from several factors, including variations in state reporting requirements or perhaps some states choosing not to report abortion data at all.
Opponents of <a href="https://abortionsurvivors.org/fetal-survival-in-second-trimester/">Born Alive protections</a> often argue that surviving infants who are born-alive are often too premature or sick to survive. But that misses the point entirely. Our data show that infants refute the opponent’s arguments about viability — these babies who were diagnosed with fetal anomalies survived being aborted in the second trimester.
Our medical system cares for premature babies, critically ill newborns, and children with disabilities every day — why should it be any different for a baby born alive after an abortion?
The measure of a humane society is not whether every life can be saved, but whether every life is treated with dignity and given a chance.
What we need is strong federal Born Alive legislation that does the following:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Requires mandatory reporting of all instances where infants survive abortion attempts.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mandates medical care for every baby born alive, no matter the circumstances of their birth.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ensures long-term physical and mental health support for both the child and the mother when the abortion procedure fails.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Establishes medical training and legal accountability, so that no infant is left to die without intervention.</li>
</ul>
It’s time to ask: How many babies survive abortions in the U.S., but do not survive the system’s silence?
These children deserve our voice, our laws, and our care.
Every child who survives an abortion deserves to be more than a statistic.
* * *
Melissa Ohden, is the founder and CEO of <a href="https://abortionsurvivors.org/">The Abortion Survivors Network</a> and is a pro-life speaker, leader, and advocate who often appears on television and radio shows. She has spoken on Fox News, The 700 Club, Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), One America News (OAN), Hannity, Focus on the Family, and more. Having earned her Master’s in Social Work, Melissa is also the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/You-Carried-Me-Daughters-Memoir/dp/0874867886/ref=sr_1_1?crid=15IEJ3OBI06GO&amp;keywords=you+carried+me&amp;qid=1694023247&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=you+carried+me%2Cstripbooks%2C95&amp;sr=1-1">You Carried Me: A Daughter’s Memoir</a>.
If you or someone you know is an abortion survivor, please reach out to Melissa Ohden at <a href="mailto:melissa@abortionsurvivors.org">melissa@abortionsurvivors.org.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Asian newborn lying down crying on crib in the incubator during the first day of life

Born Alive After Abortion: Canada Reports Data — Why Not America?

Canada

Hospitals

A pre-born life frozen since 1994 has finally been welcomed into the world, in what is believed to be the oldest embryo ever brought to birth.
Tim and Lindsey Pierce utilized embryo adoption to grow their family, per the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/baby-embryo-30-year-birth-ohio-129926d4456dcba4781f155898aca7d8">Associated Press</a>. The Ohio-based couple is part of a small movement of people who focus on frozen embryos currently suspended in time.
For many Christians who believe life begins at conception, it is unthinkable to “dispose of” these fully unique human persons even at their very early stages of development. But embryo adoption remains an underutilized option, especially considering estimates that more than 1.5 million frozen embryos are currently being stored in the United States today.
The Pierces adopted the frozen embryo from Linda Archerd, 62. 
She said she had four frozen embryos after undergoing an IVF procedure more than 30 years ago and gave birth to one daughter. But then she and her husband divorced, stalling her plans to expand her family further. Still, Archerd thought about her embryos and believed they deserved a chance at life, too.
“I felt all along that these three little hopes, these little embryos, deserved to live just like my daughter did,” Archerd told AP.
She found the Pierces through an embryo adoption agency. One embryo did not survive the thaw, Archerd told the outlet. Two embryos were transferred, but only one implanted, resulting in the live birth of one little boy on Saturday.
The biological mother of the donated embryos said she looks forward to meeting her son, named Thaddeus Daniel Pierce, which was one of the stipulations she put forth for the adoption.
Archerd said she already sees the family resemblance. “The first thing that I noticed when Lindsey sent me his pictures is how much he looks like my daughter when she was a baby,” Archerd said. “I pulled out my baby book and compared them side by side and there is no doubt that they are siblings.”
“I’d love to meet them some day,” she said. “That would be a dream come true to meet — meet them and the baby.”
Lindsey Pierce told <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/29/1120769/exclusive-record-breaking-baby-born-embryo-over-30-years-old/#:~:text=The%20embryos%20were%20created%20in,Christian%20%E2%80%9Cembryo%20adoption%E2%80%9D%20agency.&amp;text=A%20baby%20boy%20born%20over,for%20the%20%E2%80%9Coldest%20baby.%E2%80%9D">MIT Technology Review</a> that she and her family are doing fine. “We had a rough birth but we are both doing well now,” the new mom told the outlet. “He is so chill. We are in awe that we have this precious baby!”
“The baby has a 30-year-old sister,” she said. The outlet also noted that she and her husband, Tim, who are 34 and 35 respectively, were only toddlers when their future son was conceived.
“We thought it was wild,” Lindsey said. “We didn’t know they froze embryos that long ago.”
“We didn’t go into it thinking we would break any records. We just wanted to have a baby,” she added, noting how her family thinks the whole thing is “like something from a sci-fi movie.”

Three Decades Later, Life Begins: Ohio Baby Boy Born From 1994 Frozen Embryo

Ohio Baby Conceived, Frozen In 1994 Becomes 'Oldest' Embryo Ever Born

Adoption

Health

Medical Research

Ohio

Science

A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/virginia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia</a> NICU nurse has been arrested after at least seven babies suffered inexplicable broken bones.
Erin Strotman, 26, has been charged with felony child neglect and felony malicious wounding over injuries to one baby at Henrico Doctors&#8217; Hospital in Richmond, police announced Friday.
The maximum penalties for the two charges are 10 and 20 years in prison respectively, although authorities emphasized that they are still investigating the injuries to the other babies.
Three babies were hurt just weeks ago in November and December, and four more babies were previously injured during the summer of 2023.
The Henrico County Police Division <a href="https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2025/01/03/henrico-doctor-arrested-and-charged-in-connection-with-nicu-investigation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> it is conducting a &#8220;thorough investigation&#8221; that includes reviewing &#8220;dozens of videos from inside the NICU.&#8221; Detectives are looking into the cases from both 2023 and 2024 as part of this &#8220;broader investigation,&#8221; police said.
Last month, a couple spoke out, <a href="https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/henrico-doctors-investigation-2023-dec-27-2024?ref=henricocitizen.com#google_vignette" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a> Virginia Child Services informed them that one of their premature newborn twins, who had suffered a fractured leg, had been physically abused by a NICU employee.
“It’s my baby boy. I feel like I’ve done nothing to protect him and that hurts. It pisses me off,” Dominique Hackey, the twins&#8217; father, <a href="https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/henrico-doctors-investigation-2023-dec-27-2024?ref=henricocitizen.com#google_vignette" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> CBS 6 before Strotman&#8217;s arrest.
“Somebody needs to be held accountable for my son, for everybody’s kid, somebody needs to be held accountable, it’s too many in such a short period of time,” he said.
The injuries forced the hospital to stop admitting newborns to its NICU &#8220;out of an abundance of caution,&#8221; Henrico Doctors&#8217; Hospital <a href="https://people.com/woman-arrested-multiple-babies-suffer-unexplainable-fractures-same-virginia-hospital-8768674" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> on Christmas Eve.
&#8220;While fractures occasionally happen with pre-term babies since they lack full fetal bone development, we are actively working to determine how these fractures occurred,&#8221; the hospital <a href="https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/henrico-county/henrico-doctors-hospital-stops-nicu-admissions-after-babies-found-with-unexplainable-fractures/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
On Friday, the hospital also confirmed a &#8220;former employee&#8221; has been arrested in connection with the NICU fractures.
&#8220;We are both shocked and saddened by this development in the investigation and are focused on continuing to care for our patients and providing support to our colleagues who have been deeply and personally impacted by this investigation,&#8221; Henrico Doctors&#8217; Hospital <a href="https://www.hcavirginia.com/locations/henrico-doctors-hospital/specialties/womens-care/labor-and-delivery#nicu" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement.
&#8220;We are grateful to those colleagues, who have dedicated their professional lives to the care and safety of our patients, as well as to law enforcement and the other agencies who have worked aggressively and tirelessly with us on this investigation,&#8221; the hospital said.
The case eerily echoes that of Lucy Letby, the British neonatal nurse convicted of murdering seven babies around 2016. No deaths have been reported in the Virginia case, however.
She <a href="https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/henrico-county/former-nurse-makes-first-court-appearance-after-being-charged-with-child-abuse-in-henrico-doctors-hospitals-nicu-investigation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appeared</a> in court for the first time on Friday and is being held without bond and barred from contact with children. She is expected in court again on March 24.

Premature neonate in incubator

Virginia NICU Nurse Arrested After Seven Babies Suffer Broken Bones

Child Abuse

Crime

U.S.

Virginia

One of the biggest lies that the Left loves to tell about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/pro-life">pro-lifers</a> is that they only care about babies before they’re born.
No matter how many times it’s been disproven, through the existence of pro-life charities for underprivileged families, crisis pregnancy centers, and loving foster families ready to help, the deception persists.
Despite these false rumors, there are always companies and individuals quietly doing good work and proving that pro-life really means pro-life, from conception to natural death. <a href="https://everylife.com/">EveryLife</a>, a company selling premium diapers, wipes, and apparel, proved that they truly believe in helping people when they need it most. The Florida-based brand recently donated more than 1 million diapers and 1.3 million wipes to families affected by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/hurricane-helene">Hurricane Helene</a> in North Carolina and Hurricane Milton in Florida.
“It was just phenomenal to see so many organizations… Christians, conservatives stepping up and helping these families that really needed [help] desperately after the devastating hurricanes,” brand co-founder and president Sarah Gabel Seifert told The Daily Wire during a phone interview.
EveryLife partnered with Freedom House, City Serve, Convoy of Hope, Operation Airdrop, and many others to make deliveries of diapers and wipes via semi-truck, helicopter, ATV, and horseback as access to affected areas remained a challenge. EveryLife also worked closely with local churches, fire rescue teams, and pregnancy resource centers to get the requested supplies to families in need.
They did this work through their “<a href="https://everylife.com/products/buy-for-a-cause?selling_plan=5498536216">Buy For a Cause</a>” program, which gives customers a way to directly help by donating diapers and wipes to those in times of need. The hurricane relief campaign was only supposed to last for three days. But due to overwhelming response, EveryLife kept the donations going from October 1 until the 17th.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1729077615157000&amp;usg=AOvVaw17Kprl74oE9DYOLREdiBPU">MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28</a>
“The testimonies that rolled in from the families on the ground, as well as these organizations that we were able to work with – it’s tearjerking, the amount of impact we were able to have in such a short amount of time,” Seifert said.
“One of our foundational values as a company is that we’re rooted in faith and I think that really inspires a lot of what we do. My heart was breaking for God’s people and we really couldn’t sit on the sidelines and watch it happen,” she continued. “Obviously we couldn’t do it all, but we knew that we could at least provide some of the products that so many of these families needed.”
Seifert called it “an honor and a blessing” to be able to contribute to the hurricane relief effort.
Diapers may not be top of mind when thinking about how to use spending power to combat liberal companies. But surprisingly, all the major diaper brands &#8212; including Pampers, Huggies, Hello Bello, Honest, and Coterie &#8212; support abortion, either with company messaging or through financial contributions.
“They’re putting their money towards the very thing that’s against their customer. It doesn’t make sense,” Seifert said.
“We believe every child is a gift from God deserving love, protection, and celebration,” she said of their company values, mentioning that “many people are coming for their values,” but are staying for a product that’s superior in quality to the mass marketed brands.
“I feel like we’re just getting started,” Seifert said of the brand’s mission, which includes continuing to give back to the community through their ongoing &#8220;<a href="https://everylife.com/products/buy-for-a-cause?selling_plan=5498536216">Buy For a Cause</a>&#8221; program. Anyone interested can purchase a diaper and wipes bundle for $50, which will be shipped to a pro-life partner organization serving families in crisis.

diaper

Pro-Life Diaper Company Donates More Than 1M Baby Supplies To Hurricane Victims

Charity

Hurricane Helene

Hurricane Milton

Social Issues

A major Massachusetts hospital group will no longer automatically file child abuse or neglect reports for babies who are born with illegal drugs in their systems.
Mass General Brigham, the state’s largest hospital network, <a href="https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/press-releases/updating-system-policies-perinatal-testing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> Tuesday that babies born with “substance exposure” will no longer be immediately reported to state welfare agencies unless there are other concerns that the baby is being abused or neglected.
&#8220;&#8216;Substance exposure&#8217; alone, including treatment with methadone or buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, does not require a report of abuse or neglect in the absence of protective concerns for the infant,&#8221; Mass General Brigham <a href="https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/press-releases/updating-system-policies-perinatal-testing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a Tuesday release.
An abuse or neglect report to the state should only be filed if there is &#8220;reasonable cause to believe that the infant is suffering or at imminent risk of suffering physical or emotional injury&#8221; under the new policy.
Under the new policy, hospitals will also require written consent outside of emergencies before conducting a drug test on newborns or mothers.
The hospital system <a href="https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/mass-general-brigham-changing-infant-neglect-report/3327237/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cited</a> &#8220;racial and ethnic inequities,&#8221; saying that &#8220;more punitive approaches&#8221; to substance abuse during pregnancy &#8220;disproportionately affect Black individuals.&#8221;
&#8220;Studies — including some within our system — have found that Black pregnant people are more likely to be drug tested and to be reported to child welfare systems than white pregnant people,&#8221; the hospital system said.
The previous reporting requirement for babies born with drugs in their systems was criticized because it included women taking opioid addiction medications like buprenorphine or methadone, which babies can be born dependent on.
Some women have <a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/06/03/study-stop-mandatory-child-abuse-reporting-for-infants-exposed-to-addiction-medications" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> stopping their medications out of fear of losing custody of their babies.
The new policy is meant to &#8220;reduce stigma&#8221; and improve access to substance abuse treatment, the hospital group said.
“Our new perinatal testing and reporting policy is the latest step in our efforts to address longstanding inequities in substance use disorder care and to provide compassionate, evidence-based support to families, while addressing substance use disorder as a treatable health condition,” <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/04/02/these-massachusetts-hospitals-wont-automatically-file-neglect-reports-for-babies-born-with-drugs-in-their-systems/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Sarah Wakeman, the hospital system&#8217;s senior medical director for substance use disorder.
“The goal here is balancing the safety of infants and families,” Wakeman <a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/04/03/mass-general-brigham-newborn-drug-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.“A positive toxicology test does not tell you anything about someone’s ability to parent. Actually, a positive buprenorphine test tells you this person is engaged in treatment.”
Mass General Brigham has labor rooms in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Boston Medical Center previously made a similar change to its policy on reporting newborns born dependent on drugs their mother was taking.

Newborn Infant

‘Racial Inequities:’ Massachusetts Hospital Group Won’t Automatically File Neglect Reports For Babies Born With Drugs In Systems

Massachusetts Hospital Group Won't Automatically File Neglect Reports For Babies Born With Drugs In Systems

Drugs

Massachusetts

Menu