More Victims in Portland After Ethiopian Charged With Rape of 87 and 94-Year-Old

An Ethiopian immigrant who was working as a Certified Nursing Assistant in Portland, Oregon is behind bars, charged with rape, unlawful sexual penetration and other sexual contact with patients who were 87 and 94 years old.

Around a half dozen other alleged victims came forward after the September 14 arrest of Adeladilew A. Mekonen and he is likely to face “many more charges,” the Washington County Sheriff’s Department confirmed to Breitbart News. As the online record of who is in custody in Washington County shows, the 34-year-old suspect is currently facing 18 charges.

Even more shocking: a lawsuit filed on behalf of the 87-year-old victim claims that many of the assaults could’ve been prevented had the hospital where the accused rapist worked acted after the 94-year-old victim told the hospital she had been raped back in June.

The lawsuit alleges that Providence St. Vincent Medical Center:

knew and had reason to know that Adeladilew Mekonen had abused and was likely to again sexually abuse ill and elderly female patients, including plaintiff, if he were allowed to be alone with them in their rooms, and yet defendant Providence directed and allowed Mekonen to continue to attend such female patients, including plaintiff, under such circumstances.

(Read more from “More Victims in Portland After Ethiopian Charged With Rape of 87 and 94-Year-Old” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Americans Split Evenly on Requiring Business Owners to Serve Same-Sex Weddings

Americans are closely divided on the question of being compelled to celebrate same-sex marriages, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center.

Those surveyed split evenly on whether wedding-related businesses should be required to provide services to same-sex couples, regardless of religious objections the business owners might have.

A total of 49 percent agreed, while 48 percent disagreed.

Frequency of religious attendance was one significant factor in determining respondents’ views, according to the survey published Wednesday.

Sixty-three percent of weekly churchgoers, including 88 percent of white evangelicals, said business owners should be allowed to refuse service for same-sex weddings if they had religious objections.

Among less frequent churchgoers, just 42 percent believed the same, including 34 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans.

Those surveyed also were divided on the issue of which public bathrooms transgender individuals should be allowed to use.

Fifty-one percent agreed that transgender people should be allowed to use the public restroom for the gender they “currently identify” as, while 46 percent said they should use the bathroom that corresponds with their biological sex.

On birth control, the survey found that 67 percent agreed employers with religious objections should be required to provide it in employee insurance plans.

However, Roger Severino, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, questioned the value of the findings.

“When there is significant difference of opinion on hot button issues, it is all the more important to protect religious freedom and religious accommodation,” Severino told The Daily Signal in an email. “But unfortunately, these polls are of limited value because the questions were subtly biased against religious liberty.”

Biased or leading questions can affect survey results drastically, he said.

The question regarding provision of wedding-related services to same-sex couples asked:

[Should] businesses that provide wedding services, such as catering or flowers … be able to refuse those services to same-sex couples if the business owner has religious objections to homosexuality?

“The religious objections aren’t to homosexuality generally,” Severino said. “Rather, the conflict is limited just to the forced celebration of same-sex unions against a person’s beliefs.”

A question regarding employer coverage of contraception was worded as follows:

If you had to choose, which comes closest to your view? Employers who have a religious objection to the use of birth control should be…

ABLE TO REFUSE to provide it in health insurance plans for their employees

REQUIRED TO PROVIDE it in health insurance plans for their employees, just as other employers are required to do?

“The question … implies that religious groups are seeking exemptions to requirements imposed on all employers, when in reality the coverage requirement does not apply to one third of all businesses and nearly 100 million people,” Severino said.

The Pew Research Center poll, taken in August and September, surveyed a randomly selected, nationally representative group of 4,538 adults. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.4 percentage points. (For more from the author of “Poll: Americans Split Evenly on Requiring Business Owners to Serve Same-Sex Weddings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Satanic Club Coming to Portland Elementary School

A satanic club will now be an option for students at a Portland, Oregon, elementary school.

On Tuesday, the Parkrose School District formally approved Satanic Portland’s petition to launch a club at Sacramento Elementary School.

The Satanic Temple has been targeting schools with Good News Clubs, which are sponsored by the Child Evangelism Fellowship, an organization whose purpose is to “evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

One of the leaders of the Satanic Temple said their program focuses “on science and rational thinking,” and will promote “benevolence and empathy for everybody.” (Read more from “Satanic Club Coming to Portland Elementary School” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

She Was Raped at 22. Now She Advocates for Women to Have Choice to Carry a Gun.

Amanda Collins had never planned on becoming a Second Amendment advocate. But on Oct. 22, 2007, when she was just 22 years old, her life would change forever. “I lived through the worst fear that I had had up until that point,” Collins, who’s now a mother of three, told The Daily Signal. “What happened was that while I was a student at the University of Nevada Reno, I was brutally raped.”

At the time, Collins said she obtained her concealed carry permit, but wasn’t allowed to carry a gun on campus. Had she been carrying a firearm that day, Collins believes the outcome could have been different.

Nine years later, with Collins’ convicted rapist now sitting on death row for raping and killing another victim in Nevada, she advocates for women’s right to choose. But when Collins’ talks about “choice,” she isn’t referring to the issue of abortion. Instead, Collins is referring to the right to choose how to defend herself. (For more from the author of “She Was Raped at 22. Now She Advocates for Women to Have Choice to Carry a Gun.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘He Gave Me Hope:’ Ohio Officer Prays With Grieving Man During Traffic Stop

When Mark Ross and his friend were pulled over for speeding early Sunday morning in Ohio, Ross expected to go to jail. There was a petty warrant for his arrest in Michigan, and his friend was driving with a suspended license.

Why were they speeding? Ross had just learned that his 15-year-old sister died in a car accident, and they were rushing to Detroit so he could be with his mother.

Ross explained this to the officer, Sgt. David Robison of Ohio State Highway Patrol.

“I broke down crying and he saw the sincerity in my cry,” Ross wrote in a Facebook post. The officer’s next move surprised him.

Instead of arresting Ross, Robison began to pray.

“He REACHES OVER AND BEGAN PRAYING OVER ME AND MY FAMILY,” Ross’s Facebook post reads.

In a later interview with InsideEdition.com, Ross said Robison’s actions were “overwhelming.”

Robison also offered to drive Ross to Detroit, Fox News reported.

Since Sunday, Ross’s Facebook post has been shared over 135,000 times. His story comes at a time when tensions between many Americans and police officers are high — in the last three months alone, the fatal shootings of black men by police officers have sparked protests, riots, and violence against law enforcement.

“Everybody knows how much I dislike Cops,” Ross wrote on Facebook, adding that he was thankful for Robison. “He gave me hope.”

According to InsideEdition.com, Ross’s family has invited Robison to attend the funeral services for his sister, and Robison plans to attend. (For more from the author of “‘He Gave Me Hope:’ Ohio Officer Prays With Grieving Man During Traffic Stop” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Creating ‘Three-Parent’ Babies Won’t Cure Anyone

Jones comes to the doctor and says, “Doc, I’m suffering from cancer.” Doc says, “No problem. Got the cure right here.” Doc pulls out a gun and shoots Jones in the cranium. Doc buzzes the intercom and says, “Nurse, send in Smith.” Smith comes in and Doc says, “You’re now Jones, and you’re cured.”

This make sense?

It ought to. Because this joke relies on the same logic touted by those who have created the first “three-parent” baby. These (mad?) scientists say, in effect, that by “discarding” one sick baby and replacing it with another healthy baby, they have “cured” the first. Or they say that by preventing the birth of a potentially sick first baby, and allowing the birth of a potentially healthy second baby, they have “treated” the first.

Make sense yet? No? Then we need to understand what a “three-parent” baby is.

Making Babies

The traditional scientific formula for making a baby is one dad plus one mom, or one sperm plus one egg. After insemination, two “protonuclei” form inside the mother’s egg. One of these blobs contains the father’s DNA, and one the mother’s. Swimming around these protonuclei is the mother’s mitochondrial DNA (mDNA). A short time after, the protonuclei and mDNA mix, the egg begins to cleave and away we go. The cells split and differentiate and, if all goes well, they emerge into the world, live three score and ten or so, then die. (Birth is an intermediate step after conception in this “process”.)

Under the Mary-Shellyesque technique called pronuclear transfer, two separate babies are created using two different sperm (from the same father) and two different eggs (from two women). The female protonuclei from both eggs are removed. The donor’s female protonucleus is ash-canned but her egg is kept, into which is inserted the mother’s female protonucleus. What remains in the donor’s egg is her mDNA. Hence one life is killed (at least one, since the procedure is imperfect), and a new one created with DNA from one father and two women.

A second way of doing this, and the one making headlines, is maternal spindal transfer. Before any egg is inseminated, the nuclear DNA, but not the mDNA, from a mother’s and a donor’s eggs are removed, and the mother’s nuclear DNA is inserted into the donor’s egg, which retains the donor’s mDNA. This hybrid egg is then artificially inseminated with the father’s sperm. If the resultant embryo lives, it’s inserted into the mother and the birth progresses as usual.

There are other formulations, but all end in the same position: a fertilized egg with the father’s DNA, the mother’s nuclear DNA, and a donor’s mDNA. A “three-parent” baby. Of course, the processes described are not as “clean” as they appear: errors in holding back or transferring mDNA happen.

Since all this is iffy technology, the inseminations don’t always work. In the case of this new child, according to New Scientist five separate embryos (lives) were created, “only one of which developed normally. This embryo was implanted in the mother and the child was born nine months later.” The others died. Not a good ratio, that.

When a “Cure” is Not a Cure

Why do this at all? Because there are some heritable diseases associated with mDNA. In this case, the mother had Leigh syndrome, “a fatal disorder that affects the developing nervous system” and which could be transmitted in her mDNA. Indeed, the mother has already had two children who had subsequently died from this disease. The parents wanted a child not susceptible to this syndrome, and so turned to these new technologies.

The doctor who led the team, John Zhang, of the New Hope Fertility Clinic in New York, did the procedure in Mexico where, he said, “there are no rules.” This lack of rules brings us back to the bitter joke we started with. In justifying his procedure, Zhang said, “To save lives is the ethical thing to do.” Yet Smith replaces Jones: Smith is not Jones cured.

No lives were saved by Zhang. No lives will be saved. No lives can be saved.

What happens is that some lives are prevented, while some are ended to facilitate the birth of others. No diseases are “cured.” A cure is when a person with a disease has that disease removed. In “three-parent” child-making, a person who might get a disease is either prevented from being conceived, or conceived then killed.

The hubris of Zhang and others astonishes. Any language of “curing” or “treating” diseases or of “saving” lives here is nothing but propaganda. What these scientists are doing is pure genetic engineering with the goal of creating supposedly superior beings. They are superior in the sense that they are less likely to contract certain diseases compared with others who would be born in their place. Genetic engineering won’t stop at health. There are already discussions of designing “super-intelligent” people, or giving children a strong “predisposition to musicality“, or producing other traits chosen by fashionable parents.

The Curse of Over-Certainty

As we ponder the obvious legal and ethical difficulties of having three “parents,” which are too large to go into here, we should be appalled by these scientists’ callousness. In their eagerness to make headlines and break taboos, they never stopped to think of these children’s welfare, or that of their potential descendants.

What is the precise, biological interaction between a mother’s mDNA and her nuclear DNA? What will happen to children with engineered genes at adolescence? When they wish to have children themselves? How exactly will these hideously complex biochemical and genetic interactions play out? Answer: nobody knows. What “side effects” are thus likely to occur in “three-parent” children? Answer: nobody knows.

Is human life so predictable that we can at conception unambiguously forecast the livelihoods of these engineered children? Once it gets out, and it will, that a person has been genetically engineered, how will others view him? Answer: nobody knows.

There are only guesses, ignorance, wild hope, and a brazen willingness to experiment on real people as if they were lab rats. This isn’t playing God. God loves people. This is playing Dr. Frankenstein. (For more from the author of “Creating ‘Three-Parent’ Babies Won’t Cure Anyone” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Modern Feminism: Lies, Bullies, and Whiners! Oh My!

If you want to know how to combat the social justice snowflakes of the liberal-Left, read what they’re writing. As unappealing as this sounds, it really is the best way to understand their progressive sentiments and pseudo-humanitarianism, and eventually dismantle their arguments.

Feminist blogger Luvvie Ajayi recently released her first book, “I’m Judging You: The Do-Better Manual,” a collection of essays on life, culture, social media, and fame. If you can get past the overuse of alliteration, painfully cheesy puns, and perpetual whining, you will gain insight into what has to be the most confusing, nonsensical social justice cause of our day: feminism.

Ajayi’s chapter on feminism is proof of a movement so progressive that its own proponents can’t even define it: “Believing that people should make their own choices about their own lives is ultimately what I think it means to be a feminist,” she writes.

According to Ajayi, “everyone should be a feminist,” because feminism is really just about “believing that women, and everyone, really, have the right to live life on their own terms.”
Sounds pretty unobjectionable, right? It even sounds, dare I say, conservative. Too bad not a word of it is true.

“Womanhood should be defined by each person for herself, because we are not all the same, and there’s no one way we can define it as a group,” Ajayi writes.

But if feminism is as subjective as Ajayi professes, why do people even use the term — and choose to define their entire existence on such? One word: victimhood.

Like most progressive movements, modern feminism purports to laud equality, tolerance, and freedom of expression as its primary goals. The truth, however, is that feminism promotes two unappealing visions of equality, neither of which could be considered “tolerant.”

Some feminists have attempted to reach equality by disarming and devaluing men. For these women, equality demands that the status and intrinsic worth of men be lowered for the sake of female liberation, independence, and “leveling the playing field.” This is the “fight the patriarchy” and “the future is female” group.

An alternative and more radical form of modern feminism asserts that equality demands total transcendence of sexual and all other differences — complete uniformity in role, in pay, and, consequently, in perceived value. This view not only attacks men, but any person whose beliefs or values challenge the progressive feminist agenda. I call this camp the “feminist fascists.”

“Ideology can go to hell,” Ajayi writes, “when the people who practice it consider themselves the gatekeeper.” Super tolerant.

Here’s the problem with that sentiment: Feminism is an ideology of sorts, which Ajayi even admits. And every ideology, or worldview, makes a truth claim, even if that claim is that anything goes.

The truth is, modern feminists aren’t OK with ideologies that contradict their liberal beliefs. People like Ajayi use the word “equality” to legitimize their claims of victimhood. They have the superpower of finding new ways to be perpetually offended.

Christina Hoff Sommers, AEI scholar and host of “The Factual Feminist” weekly vlog, explains how the feminist movement evolved into something its founders never intended. Instead of defending the dignity of women in the workplace and in the voting booths, today’s “intersectional feminism” unites women “at the intersection of propaganda, neurosis and rage.”

“They are bullying people now,” the “Who Stole Feminism?” author asserted in a recent interview with fellow feminist Camille Paglia.

Luvvie Ajayi notes in her book that the feminist movement has earned a bad reputation by “becoming synonymous with white women and that insidious white privilege.” Hoff Sommers agrees, and to an extent, so do I.

In her interview with Paglia, they discussed how a sort of “bourgeois protection” is being demanded by women who are least likely to experience any form of discrimination. Think: white middle-class college women and celebrities.

Ajayi writes that feminism “has been cruel by not equally prioritizing … the issues of women of color … and basically any woman who isn’t straight and white.” According to the 30-something blogger, people who question the purpose of the feminist movement “live in a dreamland” where “women are already equal.”

The irony here is that Ajayi’s adoption of “you do you” feminism only worsens this problem.

According to Sommers, intersectional feminism actually emerged in the black and Latino communities as a response to a women’s movement that attended “only to the needs of highly professional, middle class, upper middle class women.” Its main purpose was to address problems pertaining to cultural, racial, and economic minorities.

“But,” Sommers noted, “it has been appropriated by mostly middle class white women on campus.”

The term “safe space,” she added, was originally coined by early black feminists who congregated privately to discuss issues without any censorship from white feminists who didn’t have to worry about racism. As Ajayi notes, “They might be called ‘bitch,’ but we get called ‘n*gger bitch,” (edited).

Again, this is a valid criticism of the modern feminist movement, which is why it’s so mind-boggling that Ayayi, a black woman, would ascribe to an ideology that undermines any legitimate claims of oppression.

This is the tragedy of confused liberal feminism. Feminists today don’t want their “dignity” affirmed. They don’t want “justice.” They love their victim privilege too much.

Modern feminism isn’t about improving the lives of women; it’s radical progressivism by a different name.

“I just want women to be able to thrive, and my form of feminism is pretty simple: I do what I want to do and know I have the right,” Ajayi concludes the chapter.

Luvvie Ajayi does a disservice to any legitimate feminist causes by defending an ideology that doesn’t discriminate between special snowflake syndrome and genuine attacks on human dignity. To that I say, “Luvvie Ajayi, I’m judging you.” (For more from the author of “Modern Feminism: Lies, Bullies, and Whiners! Oh My!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Transgender Inclusion Moves From Bathrooms to Basketball Courts

North Carolina’s legislative body passed a bill mandating a statewide policy banning individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex, as opposed to their opinion of their sex.

The law, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, means people must use bathrooms and other public facilities where occupants can be in various stages of undress according to whether their sex chromosomes are XX, in the case of females, or XY, in the case of males.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community claims that the use of biology to determine sex is oppressive and limits alternatives. I agree. I all but argued this in a column earlier this year titled “You Are What You Say You Are.”

Let’s look at some possible benefits of freeing oneself from the oppression of biological determinism.

Say that I am sentenced to a five-year prison term for bank fraud. Though confinement can never be pleasant, I’d find it far more tolerable if I could convince the judge that though biologically I have XY chromosomes, in my opinion I’m really a woman and thus my confinement should be in a female prison with a female cellmate.

For the court to fail to take my sexual opinion into consideration would violate our Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, I could say.

The Atlantic Coast Conference, the entire NCAA, and the NBA have threatened to remove important games and championships from North Carolina because of its law denying bathroom rights to males who feel as if they are females and females who feel as if they’re males.

I am wondering just how consistent they are.

Only a few college basketball players have the skills to make it onto a professional team, but most of these players have skills that exceed most players’ skills in the Women’s National Basketball Association.

What if a college basketball star were to claim to be transgender and go out for the WNBA? Would the self-righteous NBA leaders come out and support him if he were to be refused?

Aside from this gender question is the gross pay discrimination between the NBA and the WNBA.

NBA players such as LeBron James (nearly $23 million) and Carmelo Anthony (also close to $23 million) individually earn twice as much money annually than every single player in the WNBA combined. The WNBA minimum rookie salary is $37,950, and the top salary is $107,000.

I bet that if the NBA and WNBA were to permit transgenderism, salaries in women’s basketball would rise dramatically.

It’s not just basketball that would yield benefits for those with XY chromosomes. What about allowing transgender XY people to box women in the Women’s International Boxing Association?

Then there are the Olympics. The men’s fastest 100-meter speed is 9.58 seconds. The women’s record is 10.49. What about giving XY people a greater chance at winning the gold by permitting them to compete in the women’s event? They could qualify by just swearing that they feel womanish or have gender dysphoria.

President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, Ashton Carter, wants to promote sex equality in the nation’s military. I don’t think he’s serious.

The minimum fitness test requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is to be able to do 35 pushups, 47 situps, and a 2-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less.

A weak male soldier might simply claim that he feels feminine. That would mean he could pass the minimum fitness requirement by meeting the female minimums of 13 pushups, 47 situps, and a 19:42 2-mile run. To boot, he would get to reside in the women’s barracks and enjoy all the privileges attendant thereto.

For most of history, homosexuals were persecuted unfairly. They pleaded, “Get out of my bedroom. What consenting adults do is no one else’s business.”

I share that sentiment, and for the most part, homosexuals have won that objective. Had their early campaign against persecution included a demand that males be permitted to use women’s bathrooms, the persecution they suffered would have continued. (For more from the author of “When Transgender Inclusion Moves From Bathrooms to Basketball Courts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LGBT Activists Are Coming for Your Children

Do you need to lock your doors and windows at night because a homosexual predator is coming after your kids? That is absolutely not what I mean when I say that LGBT activists are coming for your children.

I’m talking about educators and government leaders; I’m talking about celebrities and judges; I’m talking about people of influence who want to indoctrinate your children even before they get to school. I’m talking about an all-out war for the minds and hearts of your kids.

Are you equipped and ready to do what is best for these little ones?

By all means, as parents, we should teach our kids to be kind to all, especially to those who seem different and are ostracized by their peers. And we should teach by word and example that bullying is always wrong. In other words, we don’t need to teach gay is good in order to teach that bullying is bad. In the same way, we don’t need to push every boy to be a football player and every girl to be a ballerina to combat transgender activism.

But you better believe that we need to take a stand for our kids — in the schools; in the world of entertainment and social media; in the courts; in the churches — if we want to keep them safe from this destructive and deceptive indoctrination.

Consider that there are YouTube channels dedicated to teaching pre-school children that you can be a boy or a girl or neither or both, also trying to teach them the meaning of words like “queer.”

Kids this age can barely tell the difference between fantasy and reality (they play with dolls and toys as if they were real creatures), and they have virtually no understanding of sexuality or romantic attraction. Some even think they are dogs and like to walk on all fours and bark. Yet activists want to indoctrinate them with the latest LGBT talking points. This is so wrong.

I documented years ago how groups like GLSEN were going after elementary school children with “Terminology Game Cards” that quizzed students and teachers on terms like Biological Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Role, Transgender, Gender Expression, Sexual Orientation, Heterosexism, Transphobia, Asexual, Bisexual, Lesbian, Gay, Transsexual, Intersexual, Androgyny, Cross Dresser, Genderqueer, Gender Non-Conforming, Queer, LGBTQ, Sexual Reassignment Surgery, D/L (Down Low), MSM (Men Who Have Sex with Men).

And the average mom and dad probably have no clue that their little 7-year-old daughter just learned to distinguish between Genderqueer and Gender Non-Conforming in school today.

This is absolute madness.

Of course, I understand what motivates the activists and educators. They want to teach “tolerance” and they want a child who does not appear to be “gender conforming” to realize that their insides might not be in harmony with their outsides.

But that doesn’t make what they’re doing right, nor does it make it helpful. And the best motivation in the world cannot change falsehood into truth.

That being said, it is clear that LGBT activists and their allies have had ample motivation to change the thinking of Americans, beginning with our children, and already in 1995, lesbian author Patricia Nell Warren stated, “Whoever captures the kids owns the future.” (Published in The Advocate, October 3, 1995, p. 80, in the article “Future Shock.”)

How sad that these activists have been far more visionary than many of us who identify as conservative Christians and who claim to care about future generations.

Frankly, I don’t doubt that we care; I do doubt that we have been on the alert.

It is becoming increasingly common for women who partially transitioned to men to give birth to their children and even nurse them — this was graphically illustrated in one of the most disturbing images I have ever seen — while a recent headline stated, “Is this the world’s most modern family? Man who used to be a woman gives birth to a baby by woman who used to be a man.” (Stream note: You can read more about this twisted story in Jennifer Hartline’s new column “Back to Reality, Please: A Man and a Woman Make Babies“)

What effect will this have on the children? How will the child feel as it grows up and marries and has children yet knows that its “father” is actually its mother?

In keeping with this confusion, the hit ABC show Modern Family has now added a transgender child actor to its cast. How fitting (and ironic) that Modern Family will now feature an 8-year-old boy who is actually a girl. And your kids are taking all this in.

Over in Norway, “A proposed bill in the Norwegian Parliament would allow people to change their legal gender online within a matter of minutes.” And the word “people” includes children as young as 6-years-old. Yes, a child that young would have the ability to make a decision officially changing their legal gender. How can this be?

Incredibly, “The bill is expected to pass with few objections when it goes to a vote this summer. Norwegians would just have to go online and simply ‘tick a box’ to change their legal gender.”

Back here in the States, the Obama administration is ready to punish schools that will not force a 15-year-old girl to share a locker room and shower with a 15-year-old boy who identifies as a girl. This is why I say that LGBT activists (and their allies) are coming after your children.

Perhaps we can learn from the people of Mexico who recently rallied in more than 130 cities and drew crowds of over 200,000 in Mexico City alone, as they stood against redefining marriage and family in their country.

And we can do this without hating anyone. In fact, love requires us to act. Our children’s future is at stake. (For more from the author of “LGBT Activists Are Coming for Your Children” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

First Baby Born With Controversial ‘Three-Parent’ Technique

A technique to make “three-parent babies” was voted into law by the British Parliament in February 2015, but it wasn’t a “three-parent” baby born in the UK that made an ethical splash heard around the world — it was a baby boy born to a Jordanian couple treated in Mexico by a team of U.S. doctors. This procedure, called mitochondrial replacement therapy, is not legal in the U.S., so Dr. John Zhang and his team at the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City traveled to Mexico to treat the Jordanian woman.

The woman, identified as Ibtisam Shaban, has Leigh syndrome, which is a fatal disease affecting the developing nervous system, reported the New Scientist. The genes for Leigh syndrome are in the mitochondrial DNA of the mother. While Shaban did not exhibit symptoms of Leigh syndrome, she lost her first two children to the disease at ages six and eight months.

The procedure used to produce the baby, Abrahim Hassan, is surrounded by a flurry of ethical questions. In his case, Dr. Zhang removed the nucleus (which houses the majority of a person’s DNA) and placed it in the “shell” of a donor’s egg containing healthy mitochondria DNA. Another technique is to fertilize both the mother’s egg and the donor egg with the father’s sperm, then replace the donor’s nucleus with the mother’s. This technique destroys one embryo. While the mitochondrial transfer procedure is being hailed as a great accomplishment for those who have or are treating mitochondrial diseases, it also raises several serious ethical questions.

Altering the Germ Line

A child with mitochondrial DNA therapy will have DNA from three people, hence the term “three-parent babies.” Since mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child, females with three parents will permanently alter the “germ line” by passing the altered DNA to their children and so on. Dr Trevor Stammers, Program Director in Bioethics and Medical Law at St. Mary’s University, said, “Even if these babies are born they will have to be monitored all their lives, and their children will have to be as well. We do not yet know the interaction between the mitochondria and nuclear DNA. To say that it is the same as changing a battery is facile. It’s an extremely complex thing.”

Playing God

Some have charged that experimenting with DNA is “playing God,” and producing “genetically-modified” humans. “These regulations would authorize the crossing of a rubicon for the first time,” said British MP Fiona Bruce who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group. “It would authorize germ line therapy… to alter the genes of an individual. This is something defined by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as effectively constituting eugenics.”

Only Boys Allowed

At this time, the procedure is only recommended to produce male embryos, since mitochondrial diseases are passed down through females. According to Science News, the Institute of Medicine in the United States determined “it would be ethical to produce male embryos using the technique,” but as of this year federal laws still prohibit the method. This means that female embryos would be destroyed in search of a male who would not pass on mitochondrial diseases to future generations.

Risk of Crossing Ethical Boundaries

British MP Jacob Rees Mogg said once the lines have been crossed, there’s no going back. “I think the difficulty is that it starts a process which is very hard to see where it stops,” he said. “Once the germ line is changed at one point you decide that isn’t allowable in other cases … there is a very clear boundary that babies cannot be genetically altered. And once you have decided that they can you have done something very profound.” Bruce concurs, “We … have approved a technique and what that technique could be used for in the future who knows,” she said. “We’re opening a Pandora’s box.”

The concerns around what amounts to having two mothers could present a problem in the future as child custody battles grow increasingly complicated, even as same-sex couples fight for custody of a child who biologically belongs to only one of them. Others worry that the legalizing of this technique will lead to creating “designer babies” on demand. While scientists may not be able to select a preferred eye color or hair color now, selecting embryos based on sex is already being done. Selecting other desired characteristics is only a matter of time. Once the laws are in place to perform mitochondrial DNA transfers in the U.S., the question of designer babies will be a nonissue.

Genetic Abnormalities

Perhaps one of the most alarming findings has to do with the very real possibility of genetic abnormalities for the three-parent babies. “There are numerous serious risks associated with this technology,” said Dr. Paul Knoepfler, Associate Professor at the University of California, Davis. “These include most notably the possibility that developmentally disabled or deceased babies will be produced. Aberrations could lead to developmental defects in babies or also manifest in later life as increased rates of aging [or] cancer.”

Dr. Knoepfler’s concerns are hardly unreasonable. In the early 1990s, embryologists in the U.S. performed a similar technique involving DNA from three people and the results were unsuccessful. The babies who were born later developed genetic disorders, including two infants born with a missing X chromosome and two who later had serious developmental disorders. The practice was banned after the problems were discovered.

Even with the mitochondrial DNA therapy there are no guarantees that the baby will be born without the mitochondrial disease the parents were hoping to avoid. Scientists are aware of mitochondrial carryover during nuclear transfer, also known as Genetic Drift — that is, the mitochondrial DNA of the mother carrying the disease could still carryover to the created embryo and eventually take over anyway, as reported in the journal Cell Stem Cell. Professor Mary Herbert of Newcastle University commented that “we don’t know what it means for development, but it’s alerted us to the fact that we really need to work hard to get as close to zero carry-over as we can.”

Following the UK’s legalization of the procedure, MEPs wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron, calling the practice “unethical.” In an open letter, the group warned Cameron that EU law prohibited genetic alterations that will carry on to the next generation. “Your proposals violate the fundamental standards of human dignity and integrity of the person,” they wrote. “Modification of the genome is unethical and cannot be permitted.” The Center for Genetics and Society (CGS) said it was “a historic mistake” and warned the technique “will turn children into biological experiments.”

CGS added, “… [T]hey will result in children with DNA from three different people in every cell of their bodies, which will impact a large range of traits in unknowable ways, and introduce genetic changes that will be passed down to future generations through the female line.” (For more from the author of “First Baby Born With Controversial ‘Three-Parent’ Technique” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.