I was a bit flabbergasted when a recent caller to my radio program described how incredibly resentful she was that her elderly aunt, deep in Alzheimer's Disease, would repeat and repeat and repeat old history again and again and again.' This caller was furious that her aunt wouldn't recognize her, wouldn't deal with the here and now, and was so "unbelievably annoying with the same old stories."What pressed my "flabbergasted" button the most was that this caller had been neglected and abandoned by her mother and father and had been raised by this aunt.' Notions of gratitude, graciousness, patience and, above all, respect seemed beyond her view, as she was simply focused on what she wasn't getting from her aunt now .' This caller was no sensitive, confused, na've teenager - she was in her late forties!I explained that the word shouldn't be "wouldn't;" it is, indeed, "couldn't."' It was as though the caller was hauling her resentment about her abandonment by her parents into this "mental abandonment" by her aunt, and making the decision not to see her aunt anymore out of ancient, misplaced rage.By the end of the call, I think she understood and realized that, as uncomfortable and annoying as her aunt's behavior might be, she was as honor-bound to be there for her aunt, as the aunt had been there for her. More >>

All media outlets recently went "buzzy" over the alleged conspiracy by a group of minor girls to get themselves pregnant.' My immediate concern went to the babies these children were so carelessly producing.' The real issue for me is that the babies are going to be born into troubled circumstances.It is terribly sad that these children had so little to hold on to and look forward to that they used this as a way to feel connected, important, and/or loved.' I can only hope that their babies will - because of all this critical scrutiny - be adopted into loving two-parent (Mom and Dad), mature, stable marriages and families.' This ultimately is in the best interest of the children. More >>

Legend has it that one of the top commercial theatre producers on Broadway once joked:' "There's no profit like non-profit."' Taking a page out of what could easily be a Tony Award-winning script, the Los Angeles Times has reported that the former Vice President for Finance and Administration for [Un]Planned Parenthood's Los Angeles affiliate has filed a whistleblower lawsuit, alleging that various [Un]Planned Parenthood affiliates overcharged California and the federal government by at least $180 million from the late 1990's through 2004.What was the alleged scam?' The Family Research Council reports that California [Un]Planned Parenthood affiliates would purchase oral contraceptives at a special discount price offered only to non-profit organizations, and then bill California's Medi-Cal program for "up to twelve times as much as they paid ."According to an article in the Los Angeles Times (3/8/08): "A 2004 state audit of Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties - one of nine affiliates statewide...identified more than $5.2 million in overbillings just during the 2003 fiscal year."To make matters more unbelievable, in 2004, [Un]Planned Parenthood complained that a lower reimbursement rate could imperil its survival (God forbid!) and lobbied Sacramento, the California state capital,' to get a law passed allowing it to continue to bill at the same usurious rates!Just for a chuckle, I decided to take a look at tax returns (Form 990's) for the Los Angeles chapter for the past three years to see what impact this new law has had.' According to the 2005 and 2006 Form 990s, the Los Angeles chapter has had $53 million in revenue and $12.5 million in surplus ("non-profit speak" for profit! )' That's a 24% profit - I mean "surplus" - margin!' Holy moly!Where is the media outrage over this story?' Leave aside the policy debate which has been effectively stifled by the anti-life forces and has allowed [Un]Planned Parenthood's personal agenda to become de facto public policy.' How dare our lawmakers ratify and institutionalize the price-gouging and the pickpocketing of California taxpayers!' According to the Times the lawsuit was filed "under seal" in 2005, after the state legislators apparently had ratified and sanctified the alleged misbehavior of the past.'At the very least, [Un]Planned Parenthood's non-profit status should be seriously reviewed, based on their clear record of turning dimes into dollars. More >>

Earlier this week, I got a call from a 36 year old woman who has been "shacking up" with her boyfriend for four years.' She wants to have children, but senses his ambivalence.' The answer I gave her applies to all the otherwise intelligent women who do this.You should move out and say "I've decided I've made a horrible mistake and the next time I'm living under the same roof as a man, I'm going to be his wife!"You don't demand anything.' You don't threaten anything. You act like a dignified woman, instead of an unpaid whore.' It's as simple as that.' A man who loves and respects a woman wouldn't treat you like that.When I asked this caller "What would you tell your son?" at first, she didn't understand that I was raising a hypothetical question about how she would explain this behavior to her "future" child.' She started to say, "Well, if you're both happy, and you're both-" and I immediately cut in and said she should not make babies.' If you're going to do that to your kid, don't have any.' If you're going to tell your daughter "...as long as you're happy and you're screwing your brains out every night with a guy who doesn't want to commit his life to you, it's all okay!" - we don't need any more parents like that.'That's why we have such chaos in our whole society - because you think "happy" at any one moment is the highest value.' I think honor, sacrifice, and commitment are a higher honor than taking your daily "happiness" temperature, because a man staying true to his wife, who has terminal colon cancer, instead of dating is not happy .' Is he happy ?' Then that can't be the highest quotient!If you want the world to deal on "happiness," then you have to understand that your man will leave you any day you don't make him happy, and will not honor you or any vow, because he doesn't have to!' You've already taught him that if you're "happy," that's the only thing that matters.I don't think firemen are happy to run into burning buildings.' I don't think they're "happy" doing that.' I don't think police are "happy" to surround a building where somebody says he's going to shoot everybody.' I don't think they lay awake in the morning and go "Gee, that makes me happy!"' They have honor and sacrifice and duty and commitment to something higher than "feeling good" in and of themselves.' Don't have children if you're going to teach them about "happiness."' We have enough chaos in our society because people are doing what they "feel" like when it has no meaning and no projection into the future.'If you teach your sons to screw girls if it makes them happy, and as long as she's smiling and you don't have to make any commitment, don't make babies.' We just don't need any more parents like you.' We just don't. More >>

Jianguo "Jack" Liu, a Distinguished Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University, has published a study that shows that divorce is bad for the environment. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science - http://csis.msu.edu/Publication%20files/PNAS_divorce_environment.pdf ) With rising divorce rates, there are more households with fewer people, thereby taking up more space per person and using up more energy and water. A refrigerator, for example, uses roughly the same amount of energy whether it belongs to a family of four or one parent and child.' Liu estimates that Americans spend an extra $3.6 billion annually on water as a result of the extra households created when people divorce.''Turns out that this is not just a problem in the United States.' Around the world, even in developing countries and places like China with strict religious policies on divorce, personal commitments are not being kept and those policies are being ignored.' Divorce rates are rising, leading to a profound assault on the environment because a married household actually uses resources more efficiently than a divorced household.' The number of rooms per person in divorced households is 33% to 95% greater than in married households.I figure, if you can make noise and a commitment to the environment, you ought to be able to make love and a commitment to your marriage...if for no other reason than saving the environment.Oh yes, interesting news on Bloomberg.com. It seems that the energy being used to get all those folks to the United Nations meeting on climate change in Bali, Indonesia, will cost in energy use the equivalent of 20,000 cars emitting pollutants one year.' ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=aPbfclqokwcw )Can't they all stay home and just have a conference call? More >>

First, full disclosure. Years ago, a journalist from Vanity Fair called me. She was supposedly friends for 20 years with my then-chief of staff, and wanted to interview me. And having some brains in my head (I don't trust this stuff), I asked my associate about her, and she said "Y'know, she's been a friend of mine; I'll vouch for her." So, I said 'OK, I'll call her, feel it out, and then make a decision.'I called her, and she gave me a line of lies (that I found out later were a line of lies) about how I was a cultural phenomenon and she wanted to study this sociologically, and understand the points of view about how they became popular (but they weren't), and she gave me this whole line, and I thought "OK, I like the point of view; she's supposedly friends with my chief-of-staff who has known her and says she's a decent person," and I agreed to do it.Meanwhile, my editor at HarperCollins said "Don't. Trust me on this. Don't. Trust me on this. Don't. Trust me on this. Don't." Turns out (I'm going to go back and forth in history a little bit), after the article was out, my editor, who was protecting her source who was a dear friend who worked at Vanity Fair , said "I couldn't tell you because I promised " - don't you hate those? --- I couldn't tell you, because I promised, but that Vanity Fair , according to my source (a male who works there, whose name I do not know, or I'd give it right now) said that they actually had a planning meeting to set me up and do a hatchet piece. I'm telling you this because I want clarity that what I'm about to say is not vengeance. You've heard me say I love vengeance....I love it. Justice, vengeance - all one thing to me. I love it! And you've also heard how I want you to go get it, usually by being really nice ('cause that kills the bad guys) and being happy and successful.That woman from Vanity Fair came for the first meeting with me and I knew I was in trouble, when I came in and sat down, and she took a look at my figure and disdainfully asked me if I was a size zero, while she was somewhere between fat and obese, and I was trying to get her an appropriate sandwich, but she wanted to eat something with a lot of mayonnaise - I knew there was a problem from that point on, to be honest with you. And I was right. It was just a nasty hatchet piece of people saying gossipy stupid things and it was really mean. The writer's name is Leslie Bennetts. Really mean . But I found out way too late that that was Vanity Fair 's plan - it was their little editorial meeting, according to my editor at HarperCollins who's not there anymore and not related to this. But she didn't tell me in time. She said, "Well, I warned you!" A little more information would have been more helpful.The reason I'm bringing this up as disclosure, is that this same person is coming out with a book pretty much telling women not to stay home with their kids. Now, let me say something about women's magazines. By and large, women's magazines completely ignore me. "I am my kid's mom." You'd think one year in 31 years that I've been in the media - that one year I would have been made "Mother of the Year" in one woman's magazine. A couple of years ago, we tried to have a women's magazine "editor and publisher" luncheon with me when one of my new books came out. HarperCollins was going to pay for the lunch, I was going to appear...everybody eats, and I'd do a Q&A. They had to cancel it - nobody would come. Whenever they do articles like on mothers staying home, who do you think in the entire United States you would really think they'd ask for a quote, besides me? It doesn't happen. Okay?So, I want you to know that I've been getting e-mails from you folks about Ladies Home Journal and Glamour magazine doing a little one-page on this book which is encouraging women to do the wrong thing and be paranoid. Let me just share with you two of these letters. This one is from Christie: I was appalled today when a friend e-mailed this to me from Glamour magazine. The article tells stay-at-home moms that they will become dependent financially and lose themselves. I'm a stay-at-home mom to a beautiful six month old baby girl. I am a wife to a Navy officer (my warrior!), and I am dependent on him. Yet, I know that my family is dependent on me! My husband and child NEED me to do the tasks that make our home run smoothly in order to feel safe, secure and loved! I thank you for reminding your listeners on a daily basis the importance of being dependent on your spouse in your marriage both ways, and to be your kids' parents. Yes! That's the part Leslie doesn't seem to get! I don't know what her home life is like, but mutual dependency is a good marriage. This is from Jennifer: I was appalled at coming across an article in Ladies Home Journal (like a rabbit, it keeps multiplying!) . It's entitled "Why Moms Should Work." For women who have quit their jobs to stay home with the kids full-time, here's a reason to think twice. There's a whole page article she writes about why you shouldn't stay home with your kids. You have to read this! I will only tell you the last paragraph of the article. It says: "There's stress attached to everything we do. Women need to accept that it's fine to be a good-enough parent, a good-enough homemaker, a good-enough wife. We have richer, more satisfying lives when we do a reasonably good job at a multiple of tasks, than when we strive for this insane perfectionism in a single, limited role." I was crushed that she called staying at home with your children a limited role. I'm my 7 year old son's mom and the wife of my husband of 10 years. I'm certainly proud of that and firmly believe the reason my life is so good is because of women like you, Dr. Laura. You believe in us, and we praise you for that. I can't thank you enough for your voice, what you do for your country, and thank you for the tools for a happy home. And that includes staying home with our children. By the way, across the country, young women are jettisoning careers to stay home with their kids. According to The Wall Street Journal (printing information from the US Census Bureau), an estimated almost 6 million mothers stayed home to care for their families in 2005 - 1.2 million more than a decade ago. The trend of opting-out has been broader than previously believed, with women at all income levels taking job breaks. Meanwhile, Leslie Bennetts is paranoid about divorce, your spouse losing a job, and widowhood, as though the only answer to that was across-the-board "do not be at home, do not take care of your kids, do not be your husband's girlfriend"....get your job, be secure, just in case something horrible happens. Well, my answer to something horrible happening is find another way to deal with it if and when it does, rather than knee-jerking, giving up on your family.Last but not least, I'm going to close with this letter from Yvette: Thank you so much for your hard-hitting, yet Godly (if I may say so) advice. I had considered divorcing my husband, pursuing a Vice President job within a Fortune 500 Top 50 company, until I recently took your words to heart. My dear and understanding (for the most part) husband and I have been married for over 13 years, and we have a phenomenal 10 year old son. Although I had read many of your insightful books, I still worked 60 or so hours a week. I claim only stupidity, selfish desires and adhering to the current social norm. I have recently been available to listen to your daily broadcast, which is a godsend. Dr. Laura, I am so self-centered, that I was focusing solely on my career, impressing my boss, scoring myself the bigger paycheck, and securing the coveted VP slot, that I put my marriage and motherhood on the back burner. I must say, you have reminded me of my true calling. Thank you so much. I am now about to become my son's mom and my husband's wife. Thank you for helping me realize that no paycheck, no status can take the place of my true calling. For the first time I can remember, I actually apologized to my dear husband for not listening. Dr. Laura, it finally occurred to me that if I don't listen to my husband (who is, by the way, the most selfless person in the world and only has our family's best at heart) I'll never be blessed in the way that God desires. Of course, this occurred while I work. So I have a journey ahead. I know that sometimes we all need something from another person, therefore, please remember that, in reciprocation, I am ready to be of service to you in any way I can. You go home and take care of your babies. That's how you'll be of service to all the world - a better chance of raising good kids to be decent citizens, to go out and do wonderful things in the world.So, my comments about Leslie Bennetts' book are not vengeance. I have gone on to be happy, functional, secure, and continue with my career. That's my vengeance on what she tried to do. But warning you that women's magazines, and this sort of book, do not function in the best interests of families, children, or women is important to me. Encouraging women to do the wrong thing by making them paranoid about disasters, so they should only strive to be good-enough moms when they're around, good-enough wives if they have the time, but the work is everything, is exactly what for decades and decades women complained their men were doing. And paranoid feminists like Leslie Bennetts are telling you to go backwards in history and hurt the family... just like men who were never home and never involved did. More >>