Dressed in pink, and in some cases holding infants, supporters of Lindsay Clancy showed up outside the Massachusetts courtroom where she’s standing trial for strangling her three children to death.
Hundreds of women crowded outside the Plymouth Superior Court as the sun rose Thursday morning for a silent vigil. They clasped hands and stood in a circle for a moment of silence to honor Clancy. The killer has received a flood of support online from mothers who insist they relate to her mental health struggles. 
Hashtags such as “We Are All Lindsay Clancy” have been trending on social media throughout the trial as scores of women voiced their support.
“We stand in silence, united hand in hand, wearing pink, to show Lindsay Clancy the peaceful support she deserved,” a <a href="https://bodyoffbeat.wixsite.com/standinpeaceforlinds/post/organize-gathering-in-your-city">website</a> promoting the vigil says. Other flyers listed on the site promoted rallies in New York City, Phoenix, Fort Worth, and other cities around the country. 
Clancy’s defense attorney was interviewed Thursday morning and said he thought the support of the gathered crowd was “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lindsay-clancys-lawyer-hints-at-whats-to-come-as-trial-nears-its-end">amazing</a>” for his client.
This case has national attention as arguments rage over who is to blame for the death of three innocent children, aged 5, 3, and 8 months. Some of Clancy’s supporters claim the murders are the fault of the healthcare industry pushing medication with serious side effects. Others have gone so far as to accuse Clancy’s ex-husband, Patrick, of being the true murderer and framing her for it. 
But there are also many followers of the case who believe that even if Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis, that’s not enough to excuse her from the consequences of her actions. They point out that if she is found “not guilty” by reason of insanity, there’s a chance she could be committed to a mental health facility for some time and could then be released. After that, she could theoretically have more children if she wanted.
Clancy pleaded not guilty to the charges of first-degree murder, but the defense has never suggested someone else murdered her children. Instead, her defense team is trying to prove she should not be held criminally liable for actions committed while taking multiple prescription drugs and suffering postpartum psychosis.

Clancy Supporters

Lindsay Clancy Supporters Send Coordinated Message Outside Murder Trial

Lindsay Clancy

Massachusetts

Murder

postpartum depression

trial

Women

After backlash to her egg-freezing stunt this week, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went after conservative men.
In a rambling video following her social media post in which she showed herself freezing her eggs, the 36-year-old unmarried leftist pivoted from personal fertility updates to an all-out assault on Right-wing men, accusing them of creating a culture that devalues women and pressures them into dynamic-skewed relationships.
Instead of sticking to biological facts or policy solutions, Ocasio-Cortez spent most of her post cooking up a sweeping, evidence-free indictment of conservative dating dynamics and male behavior.
Ocasio-Cortez invented a bizarre conspiracy, claiming conservative culture doesn&#8217;t just encourage early marriage, but secretly pressures young women to marry men much older than them because Right-wingers &#8220;aren&#8217;t pressuring men to be ready&#8221; at young ages.
&#8220;I do think there&#8217;s a certain amount of anxiety or stress that can come with feeling like you are in a race against biology that men simply don&#8217;t have to engage in,&#8221; she said. &#8220;In straight relationships, who are women supposed to be having babies with? So naturally, they want you to then not only have kids young but implicit in that have kids young with someone much older than you. Because the piece that they aren&#8217;t talking about, they aren&#8217;t pressuring men to be ready to have a baby as young as the way that they are pressuring women to have a baby when they&#8217;re young.&#8221;
The congresswoman flatly declared that Right-wing culture does &#8220;nothing to make sure that men &#8230; respect and value women,&#8221; ascribing uniform, toxic behavior to tens of millions of American men without a single shred of proof.
&#8220;For all of these Right-wing people, who are harping about women having to and needing to have families at a young age — and again, if that&#8217;s your choice, that&#8217;s amazing — but they are doing nothing to make sure that men in their culture respect and value women,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez added. &#8220;In fact, many of their biggest examples are of men who treat women horribly.&#8221;
Of course, Ocasio-Cortez conveniently refused to name a single figure, leaving her accusations vague, unsubstantiated, and impossible to refute.
She insisted that how male conservative politicians speak about women translates directly into broader societal harm and toxic dating conditions, declaring that women are taking notice because &#8220;that stuff doesn&#8217;t stay there.&#8221;
Capping off her tirade against conservative men, Ocasio-Cortez skipped any real evidence and opted for a dramatic moral warning: &#8220;God don&#8217;t like ugly.&#8221;
Rather than addressing genuine discussions around family formation or fertility timelines, she chose to reduce a deeply personal medical choice into a partisan culture-war attack against conservative men. All she left behind was hot takes, strawmen, and zero actual evidence.

House Backs Trump Iran War Budget Despite Midterm Election Fears

AOC Cooks Up Right-Wing Dating Conspiracy After Egg-Freezing Backlash

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

babies

Children

Conservative Men

Dating

Relationships

A top conservative women&#8217;s organization has rolled out a sweeping family policy agenda that aims to make it easier for Americans to raise children, care for aging parents, and afford family life — all while avoiding any new federal entitlement programs.
Independent Women&#8217;s <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/flourishing-families-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;Flourishing Families&#8221;</a> project, shared exclusively with The Daily Wire, includes proposals on maternity leave, child care, education, elder care, housing, health care, workplace flexibility, and taxes. Each issue is addressed with a focus on choice and finds ways to help families while avoiding big government policies that conservatives recognize don&#8217;t work.
Among the report&#8217;s most notable proposals is so-called &#8220;Earned Leave,&#8221; Independent Women&#8217;s signature paid leave plan that seeks to give new mothers and caregivers more time at home without creating a new taxpayer-funded benefit.
Rather than establishing a federal paid leave entitlement, the proposal allows moms to voluntarily access a portion of their Social Security benefits they&#8217;ve already earned after a child&#8217;s birth or adoption. Parents who use the benefit would &#8220;repay&#8221; the cost by delaying their retirement benefits for several months later in life, making the proposal budget-neutral.
<a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/flourishing-families-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">READ THE FULL &#8216;FLOURISHING FAMILIES&#8217; REPORT HERE</a>.
&#8220;The weeks after welcoming a new baby are one of the most important times in a family&#8217;s life,&#8221; Independent Women President Carrie Lukas told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Many parents want more time at home with their newborn but simply can&#8217;t afford to take unpaid leave. Earned Leave was designed to solve that problem without forcing taxpayers to finance a new government program.&#8221;
Lukas said parents could plan ahead by filing paperwork with the Social Security Administration before the birth of their child, allowing them to access benefits immediately after welcoming a child.
The idea has significant support. Independent Women commissioned a national poll of more than 2,000 Americans that found Earned Leave outperformed a traditional tax-funded federal paid leave program, according to Lukas. The survey found 78% of Americans believe workers should have as much control as possible over benefits they&#8217;ve earned, while 67% said paid leave proposals should remain budget-neutral and avoid imposing costs on people who never use them.
&#8220;Everyone recognizes that new parents — especially moms — need time off after the birth of a child,&#8221; she said. &#8220;The problem with government entitlement programs is they often impose costs on everyone while changing incentives for employers who are already providing benefits.&#8221;
Lukas emphasized that Earned Leave gives Americans access to benefits they&#8217;ve already earned, as opposed to state-run paid leave systems that are funded through mandatory payroll taxes. &#8220;Most people won&#8217;t use it because they won&#8217;t want to delay retirement,&#8221; she said. &#8220;But for families who truly need it, it can be a lifeline during one of the most important moments of their lives.&#8221;
&#8220;We believe it&#8217;s possible to support families without making government bigger,&#8221; Lukas added. &#8220;Earned Leave is about giving parents more flexibility and more choices using benefits they&#8217;ve already earned rather than creating an entirely new government program.&#8221;
Another notable proposal deals with elder care. Heather Madden, Independent Women&#8217;s vice president for policy initiatives, said the organization&#8217;s American Caregivers Act was specifically designed for older Americans who don&#8217;t require full-time medical care, but still need help at home.
&#8220;There are many older Americans who don&#8217;t need a nursing home or intensive medical care, but also can&#8217;t safely manage entirely on their own,&#8221; Madden told The Daily Wire. &#8220;They may simply need someone to drive them to appointments, prepare meals, help around the house, or provide companionship.&#8221;
The proposal would allow qualified organizations to recruit, screen, train, and place college students with seniors who need non-medical assistance. Students would receive housing and a stipend in exchange for helping with daily tasks, which would in turn give families a lower-cost alternative before more intense care becomes necessary.
&#8220;Instead of forcing families to choose between doing everything themselves or moving a loved one into a nursing home before it&#8217;s truly necessary, the American Caregivers Act gives them another option,&#8221; Madden said.
The proposal wouldn&#8217;t just benefit seniors. &#8220;It would also provide much-needed relief for family caregivers who are balancing careers, raising children, and caring for aging parents,&#8221; Madden explained. &#8220;Public policy should make it easier for families to care for one another, not leave them with impossible choices.&#8221;
Madden also noted the program could help lower the cost of college for participating students, comparing the initiative to the State Department&#8217;s au pair program.
The report also makes school choice and parental rights a focus, acknowledging that parents, not government officials, know what&#8217;s best for their children.
For example, Independent Women calls for expanding Education Savings Accounts, charter schools, and other school choice options. The group also proposes strengthening parental rights laws that guarantee curriculum transparency, access to student records, and parental consent on issues that relate to gender and sexuality.
Education Savings Accounts would allow families to use public education dollars for approved educational expenses, including private school tuition, tutoring, homeschooling materials, and other learning services. The concept has already proven popular in states that have adopted similar programs. Florida, for example, enacted an Education Savings Account-style scholarship program that has been widely praised by participating families and supporters as a major expansion of school choice.
The report also outlines changes for increasing housing affordability by reducing regulations, strengthening health care price transparency, protecting flexible work arrangements, and reforming tax and welfare policies to reward work while making it easier for Americans to start and sustain families.

Family

READ IT: The Sweeping Family-First Policy Agenda That Won’t Make Government Bigger

childcare

Education

Family policy

Paid Family Leave

Parental Rights

public policy

Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced Saturday that she is freezing her eggs and filmed herself injecting hormones into her stomach, describing the decision as a “privileged” opportunity to gain more control over how she balances her personal and political life.
&#8220;Normally, I keep my private life quite private. But I have made the decision to freeze my eggs. And I want to share this because I was weighing it for a very long time, and there isn&#8217;t a ton out there, and it can feel very daunting,&#8221; the <a href="https://x.com/ABCPolitics/status/2086456076501938580?s=20">potential 2028 presidential contender</a> said. &#8220;I am aware there is, very strangely, a political &#8216;risk&#8217; or &#8216;tax&#8217; that could come with sharing this information.” 
In a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/stories/aoc/">series of Instagram posts</a>, the 36-year-old, who is childless, described to her millions of followers the “reflective mood” she has been in recently and the pressures that ultimately led to her decision.
“There&#8217;s also this flip side where you have to then grow up in the public eye, in a time that most people usually get to grow more privately,” she lamented. “And when you get elected later in life, you&#8217;ve made all of your mistakes in private. You&#8217;ve learned. You&#8217;ve grown in private. But when you get elected in public, and when you&#8217;re young, you have to do all of that in public.”
In one video, the self-described Democratic socialist is seen unboxing the medication, lifting her shirt, and injecting herself in the stomach as she begins the egg retrieval process. “Don’t be weird about this, even though I know all of you will be,” she told the camera before administering the shot. 
AOC, who was first elected to Congress at age 29, said she is documenting her fertility journey to help educate women about what she described as a lack of awareness surrounding women’s health, including puberty, pregnancy, and menopause.
On the fertility front, it’s a notable shift in tone for the Bronx leftist, who has long championed feminist causes, including abortion-on-demand, while previously telling young people to reconsider having children because of climate change.
“Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around, and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio-cortez-people-maybe-shouldnt-reproduce-due-ryan-saavedra">February 2019 Instagram live video</a>. “And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?&#8217;”
A woman’s fertility is closely tied to the number and quality of eggs in her ovaries, with age playing a major role in egg quality. Research has found that fertility declines significantly with age, with women in their mid-30s generally having lower chances of conceiving than women in their 20s, according to <a href="https://www.trianglen.dk/en/about-fertility/female-infertility/egg-quality-and-female-age">Trianglen Fertility Clinic</a>. By the late 30s, fertility declines further, and after 41 years, the egg quality declines rapidly.
For AOC, the biological clock is ticking — and she knows it.
“I feel empowered to make this choice. I think it&#8217;s a very privileged position that I&#8217;ve been able to make, and it&#8217;s also a result of, I think, changes in technology that have also made it more financially accessible,” she said. “This is a choice that I am making to feel more in control of my life.”

Bicameral Democrats Call For Civilian Climate Corps To Be Included In Reconciliation Process

AOC Freezes Her Eggs After Telling Others To Question Having Kids

Climate Change

Democrats

Fertility

freezing eggs

News

Socialism

Socialists

The 1980s were a tamer time for movies. Films rated “R” for extreme content, &#8220;Die Hard&#8221; or &#8220;Flashdance,&#8221; for example, now seem benign when placed alongside the gorefests or sexually gratuitous scenes that are standard fare on today’s large and small screens. However, the Dustin Hoffman movie &#8220;Tootsie,&#8221; given a modest “PG” rating on its release in 1982, now feels shockingly boundary-pushing and transgressive when viewed through today’s culturally charged lens. 
The plot centers on brilliant but struggling New York actor Michael Dorsey, who is too much of a perfectionist to be offered work anymore. As his long-suffering agent, played by the film’s director, Sydney Pollack, warns him: “No one will hire you.” Providing moral support to a friend and fellow actor, Sandy, at her audition for the role of an administrator in a daytime TV hospital soap opera, Dorsey realizes he can simultaneously circumvent his difficult reputation and experience, as he puts it: “one of the great acting challenges an actor could have,” by pretending to be a woman and auditioning for the role. Michael duly becomes “Dorothy Michaels,” wins the part of hospital administrator, Emily Kimberly, and proves an instant hit with the viewers, production crew, and cast members alike. So convincing is he as a woman, the showrunner congratulates him as “the first female character who is her own person.” 
Despite his newfound wealth and professional success, Michael soon comes to realize how stressful being a woman can be. As Dorothy Michaels, he gains a terrifying insight into how women are routinely patronized by their male co-workers or simply ignored. The very title of the movie, &#8220;Tootsie,&#8221; comes from the demeaning term the show’s director uses to address women when he cannot be bothered to remember their names. Casual and sometimes threatening objectifications of women are brought home to Dorsey on numerous occasions. In one particularly fraught evening, the father of an actress he has fallen in love with proposes marriage to him, and upon returning home he is pursued to the point of assault by a male co-star who has stalked him back to his apartment. “This is a nightmare,” he mutters to himself as he tries to get rid of his amorous suitor without blowing his cover. 
Dorsey becomes desperate to leave the soap opera — partly because he cannot handle the exhausting attention “Dorothy” is receiving, and partly because he is falling in love with his beautiful co-star, Julie, who plays a nurse on the show. But his agent tells him he cannot break his contract and confess what he has done. Admitting that all along he was a man pretending to be a woman would be treated by the studio executives as “major fraud.” This declaration alone feels genuinely scandalous to a modern sensibility trained to internalize the mantra “trans women are women” as an unquestionable orthodoxy. The way Dorsey figures out a solution to his predicament — ad-libbing live on camera after a pre-recorded scene has accidentally been wiped — is one of the funniest <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBBPFkMG1hY">moments</a> in the whole movie.
And it is as a screwball comedy rather than social commentary that &#8220;Tootsie&#8221; works best. Not only does the film contain humorous insights into what New York was like in the early 1980s — as, for instance, one character saying it would be cheaper to get mugged than to get a taxi — but the real hero of the film is Dustin Hoffman. The brilliant but impossible Michael Dorsey we see at the beginning of the movie is clearly based on Hoffman himself. By playing off his real-life reputation as a notorious control freak, Hoffman displays remarkable generosity and humility as an actor, disarming the audience from the outset. 
Drawing on what psychologists might laud as the healthy ability to acknowledge one&#8217;s own absurdities, Hoffman plays Michael Dorsey absolutely “straight.” There is no knowing wink to the camera that this is really Dustin Hoffman under the wig, and none of the camp a less confident actor might have reached for in his depiction of Dorothy. That earnestness, paired with his evident willingness to mock his own reputation, establishes a safe, playful tone that allows the movie&#8217;s satire to grow organically without feeling mean-spirited. It is from this foundation that the film&#8217;s comedy of gender errors can flourish. 
None of this is to say the film asks us to excuse the men who patronize or endanger women. The director who can’t be bothered to learn a woman’s name is condescending, not confused. The co-star who follows Dorsey home and won’t leave is not a hapless victim of crossed signals; he is, by any reasonable measure, committing sexual assault. That Michael is genuinely rattled by it, entirely unprovoked as it is, tells you how little he understood before he had to live it, and it&#8217;s one of the film’s sharpest jokes at male expense.
Yet the film&#8217;s brilliance lies in its recognition that men and women are bound to disappoint each other and that a healthy society must learn to accommodate that awkward reality. While Michael Dorsey witnesses the ugly side of male chauvinism, he also discovers the impossible, romanticized ideals women harbor about the opposite sex. In a brilliantly comedic reality check, Dorsey, back to being a man, uses his inside knowledge to feed Julie, the actress he has fallen in love with, the exact chat-up line that she had earlier confided in him — while thinking he was Dorothy — was her dream for how a man would approach her. Far from sweeping her off her feet, the line freaks her out, and she throws a drink in his face.
It is a hilarious reminder that human beings rarely match the fantasies we project onto them. A mature culture doesn&#8217;t respond to this inevitable gap between expectation and reality with outrage. It accepts that romantic and social interactions are a messy business where we must learn to forgive each other’s inevitable shortcomings.
This is a skill a healthy society still needs alongside its capacity to name real wrongdoing because most of daily life isn&#8217;t made up of &#8220;Tootsie&#8221;-grade sexism but of much smaller frictions: the clumsy joke, the misread cue, the tactlessly phrased opinion. For those types of interactions, a functioning, pluralistic society relies on an unwritten social contract: the presumption of good faith, sometimes called the benefit of the doubt. Civil society flourishes not because people stop making mistakes, but because a healthy culture defaults to reading most missteps as foolishness rather than malice.
This presumption of charity is the bedrock of social trust. It acts as a buffer against paranoia and lets people speak, collaborate, and navigate their differences without constant fear of social excommunication. Naturally, bad characters exist; some people are genuinely manipulative or worse. But a society that structures its everyday norms around the worst of its members, rather than its ordinary ones who are all too capable of daily disappointments and calumnies, ends up asking everyone to live in a permanent defensive crouch.
There is a reason everyone who meets Dorothy Michaels falls in love with “her.” Dorothy is patient, unflappable, endlessly wise about other women’s problems and without appetites or wounds of her own, the ideal of a woman precisely because she is a performance, not a person. Michael is talented but insufferably arrogant, capable of friendship and ruthless exploitation in the same afternoon. Julie is warm and funny but dragging the wreckage of a messy love life and a habit of choosing men who treat her badly. Neither of them is anyone&#8217;s fantasy. What &#8220;Tootsie&#8221; understands, and what a culture chasing moral perfection keeps forgetting, is that real intimacy is only available to people who can tolerate the whole, flawed picture of somebody else, essentially the version of them that lets you down and misjudges the moment. Dorothy can be loved by everyone precisely because she is unreal. Loving an actual person is a harder and far more interesting kind of work.
The film&#8217;s real gift, then, is not naivety about human nature but proportion in how we respond to it. By letting us laugh at how men and women clumsily relate to each other, the film treats indignity as something survivable, even comic, rather than a mortal wound. It reminds us that a mature response to the disappointments of the opposite sex is neither to pretend them away nor to let them become the only thing that ever happened to you, but to meet them with the resilience to make sure they don’t get the last word. In a world obsessed with phantom standards of perfection, the messy, frustrating reality of genuine human relationships offers a more satisfying reward.
***
This article is part of <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.

GettyImages-529338939

What A 1982 Comedy Teaches Us About Men And Women

Gender

Movies

Upstream

For years, the fertility industry has attacked restorative reproductive medicine with two contradictory arguments. 
The first is that RRM is not real medicine. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) dismisses it as an unrecognized subspecialty, and editorials in the industry&#8217;s own journals characterize it as unscientific and ideologically driven. 
The second is that the infertility treatment is unnecessary because fertility clinics already provide the thorough diagnostic workups and root-cause treatment that RRM promises. When the federal government proposed an “excepted fertility benefit” earlier this year to address the “diagnosis, mitigation, or treatment of infertility or infertility-related reproductive health conditions,” ASRM objected that the rule&#8217;s emphasis on treating underlying conditions covers “a gap that does not exist” because standard care already includes thorough workups and root-cause treatment.
Notice that these claims cannot both be true. If the fertility industry is to be believed, RRM is either quackery or exactly the care the industry already delivers. Yet a <a href="https://iirrm.org/real-world-fertility-evaluation-care-prior-to-in-vitro-fertilization/">study</a> released in July suggests the truth is neither. The care that supposedly makes RRM redundant is, for many patients, not happening at all.
The <a href="https://iirrm.org/real-world-fertility-evaluation-care-prior-to-in-vitro-fertilization/">study</a>, conducted by researchers at the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine and now under peer review, analyzed roughly five million insurance claims and identified commercially insured patients who were diagnosed with infertility and went on to receive IVF between 2021 and 2024. For each condition the study covered, the researchers asked a straightforward question: Before these patients began IVF, did they receive the evaluations and first-line treatments that ASRM&#8217;s own published guidelines recommend? 
The study did not measure clinics against RRM&#8217;s more extensive protocols. It measured them against the fertility industry&#8217;s own standards, written by the professional societies to which these physicians belong. The result? The industry failed its own test. 
Across nearly every condition studied, care gaps ranged from roughly 13 to 78 percentage points, depending on the workup. Within one month of an infertility diagnosis, up to 12% of patients had already started IVF before the basic diagnostic picture was complete. Only 1% of men had completed the two semen analyses that guidelines recommend as the starting point of any male evaluation. By nine months, 70% to 85% of patients had begun IVF, while many of the evaluations and treatments the industry itself recommends sat below 40% completion, and several remained in the single digits.
The condition-by-condition numbers are worse. Take endometriosis, a chronic disease affecting <a href="https://womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/endometriosis">more than 11%</a> of American women between 15 and 44 and <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3538128/#R2">making up</a> 30% to 50% of infertility diagnoses. Among younger women with the condition, only 9.3% received the recommended first-line intervention by nine months, while more than 80% had already started IVF. 
Hyperprolactinemia, a hormonal disorder usually correctable with an inexpensive daily pill, showed a gap of nearly 60 percentage points: 25.7% of women received the recommended dopamine agonist, while 85.5% had begun IVF. Likewise, care for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-medical-myth-that-failed-millions-of-women">PMOS</a>, the most common cause of ovulatory infertility, ran the same way: Guidelines say letrozole should be the first-line drug for inducing ovulation, and it costs a few dollars a cycle, but only 34.1% of these women had been prescribed it by nine months, while 78.4% had begun IVF.
Men fared no better. Male-factor problems contribute to roughly half of infertility cases, yet the male half of the workup was the more neglected one. Among men diagnosed after recurrent pregnancy loss, just 3.2% received the recommended sperm DNA testing and 24.5% a karyotype, while 81% had already begun IVF. Notably, a semen analysis is not only a fertility test: male infertility signals undiagnosed conditions that carry consequences long after the question of conception is settled, which means a skipped workup leaves a question about a man&#8217;s health not just unanswered but unasked.
Why does this matter? Because infertility is not a standalone disease. It is a symptom of underlying conditions, such as endometriosis, PMOS, and thyroid disorders in women and low sperm count, low motility, abnormal sperm, and varicoceles in men, with diagnoses split roughly evenly between the sexes. RRM diagnoses and treats those conditions in the hope that couples restore their health and go on to conceive naturally. 
When a clinic moves a couple into IVF without completing the recommended evaluation, it is not simply choosing one fertility treatment over another. It is bypassing the diagnosis of a disease that will continue to affect that patient&#8217;s health, whether or not the IVF cycle produces a child. This is precisely the distinction restorative reproductive medicine exists to address: RRM identifies and treats the underlying condition so that couples can conceive naturally, while IVF bypasses the body to create human embryos in a laboratory setting. IVF may result in the live birth of a child, but it cannot heal anyone, and, in fact, results in much higher rates of adverse outcomes for the mother and baby. 
While I don&#8217;t think that individual doctors, who are themselves captive to the health insurance model, are motivated by financial gain, it is hard to ignore the economics of fertility clinics. Over a third of U.S. fertility clinics are now owned by or affiliated with private equity firms, up from just 4% in 2013, and these clinics perform more than half of all IVF cycles in the country. Private equity does not invest in slow medicine. These firms buy businesses with high patient turnaround and recurring revenue, and they impose a standardized operating model designed to maximize both.
The economics of fertility care help explain how this pattern became standard practice. Diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility in both patients takes time, and a full restorative evaluation and course of treatment typically runs $7,500 to $15,000. A single IVF cycle costs $15,000 to $30,000, succeeds 25% to 35% of the time, and generates additional cycles when it fails or when a couple returns hoping for another child. A treatment model that resolves a patient&#8217;s condition does not produce that kind of recurring revenue.
The public seems to have noticed as well. Earlier this year, when the Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury departments proposed the excepted fertility benefit, a new insurance option designed to cover the diagnosis and treatment of infertility-related conditions, the agencies invited the public to weigh in. The response was extraordinary by the standards of federal rulemaking. Most proposed rules pass through their comment periods in near silence; about 80% draw 10 or fewer comments. 
By the time this one closed on July 13, the docket held 4,652 comments. And the message was consistent. By two preliminary counts, at least 62% of commenters called for greater access to root-cause care, from fertility awareness-based methods to treatment of underlying reproductive health conditions, and many asked that restorative reproductive medicine be named and promoted in the final rule. ASRM, faced with thousands of Americans asking for exactly the care it insists patients already receive, responded by asking the government to withdraw the rule entirely.
The comment docket is no outlier. A March survey by Carrot, a fertility benefits company, found that 89% of women would prefer to try a less invasive option before IVF if it came with clinical guidance, and 78% said better information alone would make them more likely to pursue non-IVF options. Interest in metabolic health support topped every option surveyed, yet fewer than half of the women had ever had a single clinical conversation about metabolic health in their entire fertility journey.
The demand for this medicine is real, and it is growing along with the problem it addresses: More than <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr202.pdf">16% of married women</a> now experience infertility, and most intend to have another child. RRM&#8217;s record with these patients deserves attention, too. Women with <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/08/25/beyond-ivf-finding-root-causes-infertility-can-lead-more-successful-outcomes/">one to nine failed IVF cycles still have nearly a one in three chance</a> of conceiving through restorative care.
The fertility industry can keep calling RRM fake medicine, or it can keep insisting it already provides the same care. It cannot do both — and after the review of five million insurance claims, it cannot credibly do either. The billing records show an IVF-first approach that routinely bypasses the industry&#8217;s own guidelines. American families have said clearly that they want something better, and federal policy and public awareness campaigns should ensure they can find it.
***
Emma Waters is a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation and the author of the book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lead-Like-Jael-Timeless-Principles/dp/1510783539/ref=sr_1_1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lead Like Jael: Seven Timeless Principles for Today’s Women of Faith</a>” and host of the new podcast &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/@rethinkingfertility" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/@rethinkingfertility&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1783520571890000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0iXgoblF18btxePh28hFTy">Rethinking Fertility</a>.&#8221; 
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Gemini_Generated_Image_g46nvcg46nvcg46n

What The Fertility Industry Doesn’t Want Couples To Hear

Health

Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM)

The European Broadcasting Union just dropped new guidelines telling cameras how to film female athletes. No more low angles from behind or beneath. No prolonged close-ups of body parts. No slow-motion replays that don’t “contribute to the understanding of the sporting action.” All in the name of preventing the “sexualization” of women on screen.
I reject it. I think it’s stupid. 
These guidelines treat ordinary athletic movement as inherently suspect when it comes from a woman. A low angle under a high jumper or pole vaulter isn’t automatically pornographic. It’s often the best way to show the height and the technique. Slow motion isn’t automatically leering. It’s how we see elite skill and athleticism. 
When we decide that certain shots of women require special moral scrubbing while the same shots of men are just “good television,” we are not protecting women. We are reinforcing the idea that their bodies are the problem.
Film athletes playing their sports. That’s it. That’s the job. Capture the leap, the strain, the power, the precision, the moment she clears the bar and the moment the finish line breaks. 
Do it for the men. Do it for the women. Same cameras. Same angles. Same standards. 
The idea that we need a special rulebook because women’s bodies might make someone somewhere have a thought is exhausted, condescending nonsense.
What’s next? Hijabs and total body coverings for female athletes so no bad men get distracted? 
For years there have been cries to change the uniform for gymnasts — the leotard — to something more demure. But that is the uniform for good reason. I know this firsthand. I was a gymnast. The 1986 U.S. National Champion, in fact. The leo, as we called them, provides the most comfortable, least interfering outfit for an athlete flipping and flying through the air. Nothing gets caught on the bar or the beam. Nothing flies over the athlete’s head. Anything looser would be dangerous. If it covers the legs, it’s a problem on bars, where the thighs hit the bar for casting to handstand. Anything covering the legs can be slippery against the fiberglass in a way that skin, covered in chalk, is not.
The leotard exists because it works. It is functional. It is the tool that lets the athlete do her thing at the highest level. Just like the swimsuit. Should swimmers not wear bathing suits now because they are too revealing and show women’s bodies? 
The argument in gymnastics always comes up when a pedophile coach is arrested. Like it is somehow the athlete’s fault that he’s a sexual assaulter and abuser and serial rapist. It’s her outfit, you see. It’s the “what was she wearing?” approach. No. Just no. 
It’s his fault for abusing young girls. Whoever he is. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-victims-of-usa-olympic-team-doctor-larry-nassar-to-be-be-paid-380-million-in-settlement">Larry Nassar</a>, Don Peters (the 1984 Olympic coach now banned from the sport for allegedly assaulting three gymnasts) — the list of gymnastics creeps goes on and on.
While of course nothing should be gratuitous in shooting female athletes, we don’t need separate rules for men and women. Film the athletes. Film what they do: their athleticism, their feats, their leaps and jumps and strength and flair.
Should athletes be offered more modest uniforms if they prefer? Sure. Why not. But we don’t need to upend the world of sport so that pervy men don’t perv. I’ve got news: Pervy men are gonna perv no matter what. You can dress every female athlete in a potato sack, and the creeps will still find a way to ogle. The solution is not to hide the athlete. It is to stop treating her body as the story and start treating her performance as the story.
I spent a career in a sport where the uniform is skin-tight for good reason. I know what it feels like to have people fixate on the outfit instead of the work. The answer was never to make us cover up. The answer was to demand that people look at the gymnastics. Look at the performances on bars and beam and floor exercise. Look at the amazing thing that a remarkable athlete just did. And, yes, rid the sport of pedophile coaches and instate a governing body that actually cares about its athletes. 
These new guidelines treat women’s bodies as the problem. The irony, of course, is that in the name of protecting women’s sports, they implement silly camera guidelines while these same broadcasters won’t take a stand to ensure women’s sports are actually for women only. 
Give us our sports back. And stop the special rules. Stop the pearl-clutching about athletic uniforms. Film the athletes. All of them. The same way. Their bodies are not the scandal. Their excellence is the point.
***
Jennifer Sey is the CEO of XX-XY Athletics. She is an author, filmmaker, and retired national champion gymnast.
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" 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.

Gemini_Generated_Image_6hkw9h6hkw9h6hkw

The Strange New Rules For Women’s Sports Coverage

Europe

Women Sports

What happens when an organization founded to preserve history decides it can no longer preserve the very definitions upon which it was founded?
Recently, at its Continental Congress, the Daughters of the American Revolution rejected a proposed bylaw amendment that would have defined &#8220;woman&#8221; for purposes of membership. <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/27/daughters-american-revolution-defeats-proposal-block-transgender/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/27/daughters-american-revolution-defeats-proposal-block-transgender/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1784134832324000&amp;usg=AOvVaw38iW2zXCsc3k1_fWIVsA6z">The resolution read</a>: “Resolved, That in Article III, Section 1 of the Bylaws, the term ‘woman’ shall be understood to clearly mean a woman who was born female, and therefore, individuals who were born male shall not be eligible for membership.” By rejecting this bylaw amendment, the organization chose not to adopt language that supporters believed would preserve DAR as a female-only organization.
In the days that followed the vote, many chapters expressed disappointment with both the outcome and the organization&#8217;s response. The official DAR message failed to address their central concern over whether the organization intends to remain a space for women only.
If you’re not in DAR, it’s easy at first glance to give this a “so what?”
DAR exists to preserve history, and, ironically, an organization dedicated to preserving truth about the past is now struggling to acknowledge objective reality in the present. But bigger than that, it represents one more step in a broader cultural movement where we are asking — rather, guilting — women to surrender spaces created specifically for them.
Created to preserve American history and uphold constitutional ideals, DAR was founded by women in 1890. The organization exists and is deeply rooted in service because descendants accepted a responsibility to preserve these ideals, not merely sit in the privilege of being born of them. That calling comes with the responsibility to acknowledge hard truths.
My own journey into DAR wasn’t easy. It took years of genealogical research alongside my grandmother, gathering documentation and verifying lineage. I originally intended to join under the lineage of Oliver Wolcott on my maternal grandfather’s side, linking me to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This was complicated by a courthouse fire where all records were destroyed, so I opted to take the path of joining under my maternal grandmother, a path where the documents were easier to find. This linked me to some horse thieves instead, but, hey, they were patriots nonetheless. Every document I located felt like another thread reconnecting my family to the American story. There were so many hoops I had to jump through, and the deeper I dug, the more I appreciated that patriotism is not merely inherited; it is cultivated through understanding the sacrifices that came before us, and that patriotism and our history must be preserved — the good and the bad.
DAR asks its members to honor historical truth. Every application depends upon documents that cannot be altered to fit our preferences. Birth records matter. Marriage records matter. Death records matter. Genealogy is built on objective facts. Historical preservation depends upon objective facts. If those two things are true, why is it not expected that women’s organizations should likewise depend upon objective definitions? If an organization explicitly dedicated to historical accuracy cannot maintain a clear distinction between a man and a woman, both equally important to our society in their own right, that organization risks undermining its own credibility.
DAR was created by women. Women built it. Women have sustained it for generations. Women deserve organizations created specifically for women, and DAR itself is part of women&#8217;s history. At a time when women had few opportunities to lead national civic organizations, these women built one of their own. Preserving that legacy is itself an act of historical preservation.
Increasingly, women are told that maintaining female-only spaces is exclusionary rather than legitimate. The burden has shifted from explaining why men should enter women&#8217;s organizations to explaining why women should have organizations of their own. For women, it is a burdensome responsibility to explain routinely why we matter and why we uniquely bring value. Supporting women&#8217;s spaces is not hostility or hate toward anyone else.
DAR is not without real historical failures. Black women were wrongly excluded despite qualifying ancestry — an incorrect decision that took us far too long as an organization to rectify. And now, we face another one of those moments where we are failing women, women whose ancestors were the reason our nation exists today.
The question before today&#8217;s DAR is whether an organization founded by and for women should remain one. In the pursuit of making every institution open to everyone, we risk forgetting that some institutions exist precisely because they were created to serve a particular purpose.
One of my favorite stories from DAR came during my first visit to its museum in Washington, D.C. Displayed prominently is one of President James Monroe&#8217;s 1817 armchairs. After the chair was sold from the White House grounds in the 19th century, it eventually found its way into DAR&#8217;s collection. Years later, when the White House sought to reacquire pieces of its original furnishings, DAR refused to part with it. The women who said that chair belonged with DAR felt their responsibility was not to surrender history for cash, but to safeguard it for future generations — an edict they would never abandon. I cannot help but wonder what those women would think of today&#8217;s debate over preserving the organization&#8217;s own identity.
Women who believe this decision departs from the organization&#8217;s founding purpose must stand up and speak out about it. Courage requires speaking up when it is uncomfortable. I do not relish this controversy. I do not like the copious amount of hate I receive because I believe in the importance of protecting women and our spaces, but the courage to do what is right and just means speaking unpopular truths.
The women who founded DAR understood that preserving history required courage. Sometimes that courage meant preserving stories that were uncomfortable. Today, it means preserving truths that are unpopular. Institutions are not preserved through silence but through conviction.
When an organization founded to preserve history decides it can no longer preserve the very definitions upon which it was founded, we already know what happens. Institutions slowly lose sight of the very purpose they were created to preserve. If we cannot, and will not, preserve the truths closest to us, we should not be surprised when future generations stop trusting us to preserve the truths of those who came before us.
***
Taylor Hathorn is a visiting fellow at Independent Women. She has over 10 years of experience in cybersecurity, policy, public relations, and nonprofit management.
This article is part of <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.

GettyImages-6410-000447

A Historic Women’s Organization Couldn’t Define ‘Woman’

History

Transgender

For years, millions of women were told they didn’t have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) because they lacked ovarian cysts. The recent rename to polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) is a course-correct that admits medicine misunderstood the condition all along, and we could not be more pleased.
The &#8220;cystic&#8221; framing has misled patients and clinicians for decades. Women presented classic symptoms — high insulin, stubborn weight, acne, irregular cycles, and facial hair — only to be told their ovaries looked “normal” on an ultrasound, so they didn&#8217;t have PMOS. The diagnosis hinged on a feature that isn&#8217;t even the central problem, and countless women have spent years suffering with a real condition that was never properly named.
The rename puts the truth front and center. PMOS is a multi-system condition affecting metabolism, hormones, skin, and mental health, with insulin resistance at its core, and women will now be seen and diagnosed even when their ovaries look normal on a scan. Roughly one in eight women are diagnosed with this condition, but around 20% of women in their fertile years suffer undiagnosed.  
At its roots, PMOS is the same metabolic slowdown postmenopausal women experience with waning hormones and declining muscle, except it&#8217;s hitting women in their teens, twenties, and thirties, when their metabolism should be thriving.
To every woman with this condition, we see you and know what you’re facing. PMOS is chronic, but there is so much hope. Chronic doesn&#8217;t mean unmanageable, and for many women it can go into deep remission. 
My (Pearl&#8217;s) daughter Meadow was diagnosed as a teenager, and the standard advice of a strict low-carb diet actually made things worse. When she shifted to gentle, fiber-rich carbs, anchored her meals around lean protein, added movement and more veggies, and incorporated a supplement called myo-inositol, her insulin numbers dropped, her cycles normalized, and the condition went into deep remission. It&#8217;s an encouraging pattern we&#8217;ve seen with other women, too.
Some women need more powerful tools, and we’ll get to those. But for every woman with PMOS, lifestyle is the foundation to healing, and we believe four things consistently move the needle.
First, anchor every meal in protein, 25 to 30 grams four times a day. Protein is the body&#8217;s natural GLP-1 stimulator, the same incretin hormone the new weight-loss drugs mimic. Women with PMOS produce less GLP-1, and protein repairs the body. 
Second, don’t shun healthy carbs and get in wise fats. Do ditch sugar and processed foods. When anchored with protein, fiber-rich carbs like beans, legumes, and mid-glycemic fruits such as apples and papaya are an insulin-resistance weapon. 
A 2018 University of Saskatchewan trial found that women with PCOS who ate lentils, chickpeas, and beans saw <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/add-beans-chickpeas-lentils-improve-diet-1966215">significantly greater drops in insulin response</a> than those on a standard diet. Because insulin resistance makes blood sugar testier, go easy on higher-sugar carbs such as white potatoes, bananas, and grapes until yours is better controlled. Wise fats such as avocado, whole eggs, butter, and coconut oil (in moderation) are crucial for endocrine health. For fat loss, the Trim Healthy Mama approach effectively separates fat-focused and carb-focused meals while keeping protein in every one.
Third, add more veggies. Intramuscular fat droplets are one of the largest drivers of insulin resistance. Non-starchy veggies help scrub them out.
Fourth, move your body. You don’t have to boot camp yourself to exhaustion, but two to three strength training sessions a week turn muscle into a glucose sponge. Gaining back lean body mass is key to combating insulin resistance. Beware punishing cardio; it spikes cortisol and works against you. A simple rhythm of strength training paired with walking is doable and effective.
Finally, a word about the pill. The standard medical answer for PMOS has long been the birth control pill, and visible symptoms can seem to improve with it. But the pill doesn&#8217;t fix the underlying condition; it puts the ovaries into a chemically induced menopause. It raises C-reactive protein inflammation and the risk of depression, blood clots, heart disease, and breast cancer, while lowering libido. It can also worsen thyroid problems—a real concern for women with PMOS, who already trend low on thyroid and on the incretin hormones that regulate appetite and blood sugar.
For women whose symptoms don&#8217;t yield to lifestyle changes alone, three tools are worth discussing with your doctor. First, get a full thyroid panel. Most doctors stop at TSH and T4, but women with PMOS need free T3 and Reverse T3 measured too. Restoring thyroid function with the right hormone support can be a game-changer. Second, ask about bioidentical progesterone, which <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740675720300165">some endocrinologists believe may</a> help the brain and body restore normal rhythms disrupted by PMOS, with the bonus of tamping down the hormonal cascade that drives acne. Third, a small, carefully prescribed dose of a GLP-1 medication can fill the gap when the body isn&#8217;t making enough on its own — a bridge, not a crutch.
Used wisely, these tools meet the body where it is.
PMOS is real. But so is the room to heal, and women deserve to hear that too.
***
Pearl Barrett and Serene Allison are the founders of Trim Healthy Mama and New York Times bestselling authors of the forthcoming title &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+seven+skills+to+lasting+health&amp;adgrpid=185689537145&amp;hvadid=779621993755&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvexpln=0&amp;hvlocphy=9210807&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvocijid=5550474026117812759--&amp;hvqmt=e&amp;hvrand=5550474026117812759&amp;hvtargid=kwd-2460996756465&amp;hydadcr=15555_13842827_8870&amp;mcid=ef3debac22cb3f278916e22a279fd059&amp;tag=googhydr-20&amp;ref=pd_sl_1os91ya29f_e">The 7 Skills to Lasting Health</a>.&#8221;
This article is part of <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.

Vertigo and dizziness sensation, multiple face effect

The Medical Myth That Failed Millions Of Women

Yael Eckstein, president and global CEO of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, brought thousands of women together at the Turning Point USA Women&#8217;s Leadership Summit in Texas with a speech that wove together personal loss, Biblical wisdom, and a challenge to embrace God&#8217;s calling — however fearful the moment.
Eckstein arrived straight off a plane from Israel, where she lives and works, and opened with characteristic self-deprecating humor. “Have you ever felt like your life is everything you&#8217;ve never dreamed of?” she asked the crowd. “I&#8217;m just a Jewish woman from Israel raising four children, trying to listen to what God is saying to me every single day and follow exactly where he leads.”
At the heart of her address — which followed Erika Kirk’s — was a single Hebrew word: hineni — &#8220;here I am.&#8221; She invited the audience to say it aloud, explaining that the word carries a meaning far deeper than its translation. “It doesn&#8217;t mean ‘God, I have it all figured out.’ And it doesn&#8217;t mean, ‘God, I&#8217;m fearless.’ &#8230; It simply means, ‘God, I&#8217;m available. God, I&#8217;m listening. God, here I am.’”
“I think that word matters now more than ever because if we&#8217;re honest, the world feels very heavy,” she continued. “We open up our phones and we see war and division, hatred, loneliness, anxiety. Can you guys relate to that? It can feel like darkness is winning, right? We just saw that. Who interrupted Erika&#8217;s speech? It was darkness.”
“But I have seen something else. I have seen that when people choose to open up their eyes to where God is moving and decide to bring light to the darkness, like what each one of you is doing, miracles happen,” she declared. “I have seen biblical prophecy come to fruition in our generation. I&#8217;ve seen Christians and Jews stand together in ways that generations before us could have only dreamed about and that Jesus would have been happy with.”
Eckstein spoke candidly about the moment her own capacity to say hineni was tested. Seven and a half years ago, her father, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein — who built the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews into the largest nonprofit organization in Israel — passed away suddenly, and she was asked to step into his role. She was young, grieving, and terrified. “I remember thinking, ‘Okay God, surely you have the wrong person,’” she recalled. But drawing on the biblical examples of Moses, Esther, Ruth, Mary, and David — none of whom felt ready — she found her footing. “God was never looking for perfection. He was looking for willingness.”
Standing before the audience, she described that pivotal moment: “In that darkest moment in my life, a mourning child with shaking hands and a terrified heart, I answered God the only way I knew how. I looked up to the heavens and I said, ‘Hineni — here I am. Use me, Lord, in whatever way you see fit.’” The result, she told the crowd, has been more than one million people reached annually through her organization&#8217;s humanitarian work — feeding the hungry, sheltering Holocaust survivors, and delivering aid to war zones in Israel, Ukraine, and Ethiopia.
Her message grew even more personal when she revealed that her 19-year-old daughter is currently serving in the Israeli army, stationed less than half a mile from the Gaza Strip and commanding 80 soldiers. “As a mother, I can tell you there are nights where I want to hold on to her so tightly and never let her go,” Eckstein said, her voice steady. “But then I remember this: light is not built through comfort alone. It&#8217;s built through courage.”
She closed by reframing the conference&#8217;s name — HER — adding a letter: HERE. “The greatest thing that each one of you can offer God is not perfection. It&#8217;s your presence, your openness, your willingness to answer when he calls.”
Her final charge to the crowd was simple and sweeping: “When God calls your name, don&#8217;t wait until you&#8217;re fully prepared. Answer him with faith, with courage, with an open heart. &#8230; Say it — say it every single morning when you wake up: Hineni. Lord, here I am.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W48_D3Tgb3Y?si=lahXQmn7eI0xbSg-" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

creation of Adam by Michelangelo , Rome Italy March 08 creation

‘God, Here I Am’: Leader Of Jewish-Christian Organization Inspires Women At TPUSA Event

International Fellowship of Christians and Jews

TPUSA

Women’s greatest legacy is their children, Isabel Brown, host of “The Isabel Brown Show” on The Daily Wire, told attendees at Turning Point USA’s 2026 Women’s Leadership Summit on Saturday.
The three-day women’s conference, held June 5–7 in San Antonio, Texas, featured speakers from across the conservative movement, including Brown, Alex Clark, Riley Gaines, Erika Kirk, and Allie Beth Stuckey. Brown spoke on the Left’s attack on motherhood and encouraged young conservative women to have families.
“It is normal, healthy, and beautiful for you to want to bring new life into the world,” Brown said. “It’s a gift that is only available to women. It’s the only experience humanity has to participate in the creation of new life right alongside God.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Isabel Brown: “It is normal, healthy, and beautiful for you to want to bring new life into the world. It&#8217;s a gift that is only available to women.”<a href="https://x.com/theisabelb?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@theisabelb</a> live at WLS 2026 <a href="https://t.co/9GNO5WqiaZ">pic.twitter.com/9GNO5WqiaZ</a>
— Turning Point USA (@TPUSA) <a href="https://x.com/TPUSA/status/2063368586757066913?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 6, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Brown argued that modern culture increasingly devalues motherhood and traditional family formation, while elevating individual fulfillment above sacrifice and service to others.
“Despite calling me out by name repeatedly, the women of The View weren’t really upset about me,” Brown said. “They were threatened by the fundamental truth that the women sitting in this room know and live out every day: that our greatest contributions are bigger than ourselves.”
Brown also encouraged attendees to reject fears surrounding marriage and raising children.
“Have the courage to fall in love, to get married, and to have children, more children than you think you’re ready for, and far more than you think you can afford,” Brown said.
The Daily Wire host also pointed to Mary, the Mother of God, as the ultimate example of feminine virtue and self-sacrifice.
“Her greatest legacy will always be how she raised God incarnate to become a man, in what she gave rather than what she received,” Brown said.
While acknowledging that many women pursue successful careers, Brown said motherhood remains the most important calling for many women and noted that many of the conference&#8217;s speakers balance professional success with raising families.
Brown also reflected on the sacrifices associated with motherhood, arguing that suffering and hardship can draw people closer to God.
“We do live in a world where we experience pain, discomfort and suffering, but the beauty of suffering is that it uniquely links our experience to that of God, who enduring the ultimate hardship and pain to the point of death for the redemption of all of us,” Brown said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Isabel Brown: “We do live in a world where we experience pain, discomfort and suffering, but the beauty of suffering is that it uniquely links our experience to that of God.”<a href="https://x.com/theisabelb?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@theisabelb</a> live at WLS 2026 <a href="https://t.co/kCexonVwaA">pic.twitter.com/kCexonVwaA</a>
— Turning Point USA (@TPUSA) <a href="https://x.com/TPUSA/status/2063371103402401802?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 6, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The summit also featured remarks from TPUSA CEO Erika Kirk, who reflected on the mission of the organization founded by her late husband, Charlie Kirk.
“He saw a generation drifting away from faith, away from a sense of purpose, and he wanted to cultivate a space for community, a space that was so needed, especially on college campuses,” Erika Kirk said of her husband. 
At one point during her speech, a heckler attempted to interrupt Kirk, but was removed from the venue.
“It’s important to remember that happiness comes and goes, and I pray that you find it,” Kirk told the heckler as the woman was removed.
After the audience applauded, Kirk urged attendees to pray for their opponents rather than view them as enemies.
“You pray for your enemies. You pray for those that persecute you,” Kirk said. “That’s not the enemy. We know who the real enemy is.”
&nbsp;

Isabel Brown

Isabel Brown Urges Women To Embrace Motherhood At TPUSA Women’s Summit

Erika Kirk

Republican Women

The Daily Wire

Turning Point USA

Democrat lawmakers are pushing a federal bill to make businesses pay for female workers to take time off for period pain — an issue they&#8217;ve framed through the lens of &#8220;economic violence.&#8221;
The bill, called the Reproductive Healthcare Leave Act, would require employers to provide up to 12 days of paid leave per year for female health issues, including period pain and menopause symptoms, and also covers abortion and vasectomies.  
Notably, the legislation would hit incredibly small businesses, too, even if the owner has as few as five employees. And it&#8217;s backed by abortion giant Planned Parenthood. 
&nbsp;
<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; border: 0; height: auto;" title="DW Player" src="https://public.dailywire.com/preroll-player/embed.html?playback-id=b6QXC8fKimDhfWwJWy01Q6rGds2dvCAcW&amp;ad-tag-url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fiu%3D%2F61914415%2Fdw.video.article%26description_url%3Ddailywire.com%26url%3D%26tfcd%3D0%26npa%3D0%26sz%3D640x480%26min_ad_duration%3D5000%26max_ad_duration%3D60000%26gdfp_req%3D1%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26vpos%3Dpreroll%26output%3Dvast%26plcmt%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26vpa%3Dclick%26vpmute%3D0%26impl%3Ds%26correlator%3D%5Bcachebuster%5D" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
&nbsp;
Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), who attended the presser last month, said women are tired of being told to &#8220;tough it out&#8221; when it comes to their period and suggested the issue is also about ethnicity.
&#8220;While the system is broken for all women, it is in a full blown crisis for Latinas,&#8221; the Democrat said. &#8220;The nationwide 17% of Latinos lack health insurance — more than double the rate of white Americans. Over 20% of adult Latinos in Arizona have been forced to completely avoid medical care because they simply cannot afford it.&#8221;
&#8220;Latinas are the backbone of our workforce, and yet they&#8217;re disproportionately concentrated in low wage and hourly jobs that lack flexible sick leave,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Forcing a worker to choose between paying her rent or losing a day&#8217;s pay to recover from a grueling gynecological procedure is not a choice; it&#8217;s an economic violence.&#8221;
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ), who is sponsoring the Reproductive Healthcare Leave Act, recalled during the presser the pain she&#8217;s experienced from her period.
“Today, we are here to talk about women&#8217;s pain and how long it&#8217;s been overlooked,” Ansari said. “Like most women, I have a very personal experience with reproductive health pain.&#8221;
&#8220;In the summer of 2015, while starting my career in New York City, I woke up on floor of my local bodega drenched in sweat being dragged into an ambulance,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Two male paramedics hovered over me and continued to ask me if I was pregnant. I had passed out from period pain. Even now, every month, I have days where it feels like barbed wire is tightening inside me. I&#8217;ve taken 2,000 milligrams of ibuprofen in twenty-four hours and still been in tears from the pain. Often end up on the bathroom floor in the fetal position, crying, moaning, or vomiting. Still, I put on a blazer and gone to work.” 
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) is also backing the bill. “I know that many of you understand that we&#8217;re sick and tired of women having to be expected to say, &#8216;suck it up,&#8217; or still perform at the highest level,&#8221; Tlaib said at the presser. &#8220;They&#8217;re expected to show up to work despite incredibly painful periods and sit through meetings after being denied competent health care. And for far too long, women&#8217;s pain has been minimized, ignored, dismissed, and even politicized.”
As highlighted by some online, Democrats like Tlaib are advocates for so-called trans rights, or allowing males who identify as female in women&#8217;s spaces. In fact, Tlaib once said a bill aimed at protecting girls sports was effectively &#8220;legalizing discrimination.&#8221;
However, for this bill, the definition of women has reverted back to reality and biology.
<iframe loading="lazy" style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&amp;href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Frepyassansari%2Fvideos%2F1290628656062932%2F&amp;show_text=true&amp;width=560&amp;t=0" width="560" height="429" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Screenshot 2026-06-02 at 7.52.06 AM

‘Economic Violence’: Dems Hold Presser Demanding Paid Time Off For Periods

Economy

Jobs

Menu