The End of Aging articles in National Geographic

When we say/write "media" does that include National Geographic? Yes. I've been trying to read "End of Aging" series in the Sept. 2026 issue. (It's a bit late for me, but never mind.) Here's the quote: "Scientists needed immature stem cells--cells that exist in humans before they begin to differentiate into our organs, nerves, and blood--for much of their research work. BUT THE NATURALLY OCCURRING SOURES, DISCARDED EMBRYOS FROM ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE EFFORTS, were tricky to obtain. The U.S. government, for instance, had all but prohibited their use since 2001."

That's not true. President Bush had stopped government funding for buying fetal material, much of it from abortions and IVF, with our tax money except for lines already in use. Private funding continued. There is no prohibition for venture capital or foundations. "On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced a policy limiting federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research to certain lines already in existence as of that date, subject to ethical conditions described by the administration (including derivation from surplus IVF embryos with consent and without financial inducement). The White House fact sheet preserved in the George W. Bush Presidential Archives captures the official framing of that decision."

This was a good decision because without that, many women could have become cell line producers for money (and there are women who would have done it, too, just as some women are using other women's wombs to bear their kids so they don't have to stop careers or mess up their figures.)

Of course, President Obama who also loved abortion on demand and partial birth abortion, reversed that act in 2009. (I think he announced it at a Catholic university.) Meanwhile, Induced pluripotent stem cells (reprogrammed from adult tissue) and adult stem cells are generally less regulated federally, with fewer ethical hurdles than embryonic stem cells. They still require compliance with human subjects protections if classified as research involving humans.


https://stemcellhistory.com/us-embryonic-stem-cell-policy-dickey-wicker-bush-obama/ (although this link shows its bias toward "progressive" ethics of using human stem cells, it's the best I could find in a few minutes)

Proof that Joe Biden hates women

Absolute proof that Joe Biden (or his stand-ins for Obama) hates women.

Trump reversed many of the anti-woman regulations (never voted on by Congress) developed by Obama's swamp team around Title IX. It puts men in women's private spaces--locker rooms, bathrooms, clubs, prisons, etc. If there were no other reason to vote for Trump, this would be it. 

Our Constitution allowed, in Title IX, separation and differences when sex was relevant. Now it's discrimination. The word gender with all its wokey wanky hanky panky meaning has replaced "sex" in Title IX. The regulation also affects men in that there are kangaroo courts (victim advocates) at any school that gets federal funds, even for lunch or 4-H, to use against boys and men since sexual harassment now can mean anything, such as using the wrong pronoun. The males have no right to question or to even ask for the evidence. It's impelled speech, and loss of freedom of speech. 

There will be law suits--it's been coming for 2 years and people are prepared. Donate to fight this anti-woman, anti-female, anti-Christian regulation from the Department of Education. 

It's bad for everyone. Gay or straight, black, white, brown or Asian. It's a disaster for the Constitution, which it completely bipassed. It eliminates free-speech, freedom of religion, and due process, and all the election laws which are supposed to give us a representative government. No one elected these creatures in the regulatory swamp.

Department of Education’s New Title IX Rule Just as Bad as Expected  (dailysignal.com)