Archive | Page 3

If we’re just matter, why do we matter? Modern bioethics is built on a question most people never stop to ask: What is a human being? Because the answer to that question isn’t abstract, it determines how we treat the most vulnerable people among us. From IVF and embryo selection, to assisted suicide and end-of-life care, to gene editing and transhumanism. We are already making decisions about who counts and who doesn’t. In this episode, I sit down with Dr. Ashley Fernandes, a physician, bioethicist, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and the Associate Director of the Center for Bioethics at the Ohio State University, College of Medicine — to expose the deeper philosophical divide shaping modern medicine: Read More ›

On April 7, Wesley J. Smith participated in a Heritage Foundation-hosted discussion titled, “Organ Harvesting: Communist China’s Hideous Shop of Horrors.” He was joined by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jay Richards, Representative Chris Smith (R–NJ), Jan Jekielek (Senior Editor of The Epoch Times, host of “American Thought Leaders”), Ethan Gutmann, and Bob Moffit. While the majority of the conversation centered on the human rights abuses occurring in China, Smith warned the audience not to be blind to similar atrocities happening here in the West: [T]his is about what’s happening in China — let’s call that a 108-degree fever. But what’s happening in the West, along similar lines, is a 102-degree fever. So you have bioethicists in the most notable medical and Read More ›

On April 7, Wesley J. Smith appeared on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins to discuss the findings of a Finnish study that adolescents who received gender-affirming interventions suffered worse mental health outcomes, contradicting years-long claims that gender-confused children need gender-affirming care in order to avoid worsening mental health. Begins at 18:12

A new medical study out of Finland has found that gender-dysphoric adolescents and young adults who were subjected to gender reassignment interventions had worse mental health outcomes than a control group that did not receive such bodily alterations.

The study tracked 2,083 people who had sought medical services for gender confusion between 1996 and 2019. The findings are quite specific. From, “Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted Specialised Gender Identity Services in Finland in 1996-2019,” just published in Acta Paediatrica (my emphases, citations omitted):

Gender-referred adolescents showed significantly higher psychiatric morbidity than controls both before (45.7% vs. 15.0%) and ≥ 2 years after referral (61.7% vs. 14.6%). Those referred after 2010 had greater psychiatric needs than earlier cohorts, both before (47.9% vs. 15.3%) and ≥ 2 years after (61.3% vs. 14.2%) referral. Among adolescents who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric morbidity increased markedly during follow-up — rising from 9.8% to 60.7% in feminising gender reassignment. After adjusting for prior psychiatric treatment, all gender-referred adolescents had similarly elevated risks of psychiatric morbidity, with hazard ratios approximately three times higher than female controls and five times higher than male controls.

But what about previous studies that gender ideologues often cite to justify puberty blockers and mastectomies for underage patients? They were inadequate to the task at hand:

The science establishment is continuing its drift into mysticism regarding environmental issues. Our latest example comes from Nature — the most prestigious science journal in the world — extolling an Australian environmental scientist who lists a river as her co-author on science papers. Elite science is besotted with the “knowing” of indigenous people — no matter that it is often an expression of mystical religious belief. Sure enough, the subject of the story is an indigenous scientist named Anne Poelina: Conservationist Anne Poelina has a deep connection to the fresh water that runs through the dry red-rock landscape of the Kimberley region in Western Australia. Poelina identifies as a Nyikina Warrwa woman, and her people are the Traditional Custodians of Read More ›

On April 7, 2026, the Heritage Foundation will host a discussion among experts on the Chinese Communist Party’s practice of forced organ harvesting on its citizens. Wesley J. Smith, Chair and Senior Fellow of the Center on Human Exceptionalism and host of the Humanize podcast, will be among the list of panelists. Also presenting will be long-time Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jay Richards. Other panelists include Representative Chris Smith (R–NJ), Jan Jekielek (Senior Editor of The Epoch Times, host of “American Thought Leaders”), Ethan Gutmann, and Bob Moffit. From The Heritage Foundation event description: They will examine reports of forced organ harvesting associated with the CCP, explore the broader human rights implications, and review current legislative initiatives in the U.S. Read More ›

Did birth control give women freedom or did it fundamentally change feminism itself? Before the 1960s sexual revolution, before the Pill became mainstream, Margaret Sanger was already advancing a radical idea: that women could not be free unless their fertility was controlled. She didn’t just promote contraception, she reframed it as essential to freedom, autonomy, and progress. But what if that idea didn’t actually expand freedom…what if it redefined womanhood? In this episode of Bioethics Babe, I sit down with Dr. Angela Franks, theologian, author of Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility, to uncover the deeper story behind the birth control movement. We explore: This isn’t just about history. It’s about the ideas that shaped our culture Read More ›

Brave new world alert! Scientists used a machine deployed in organ transplant medicine to keep a surgically removed human uterus alive for one day, furthering the goal of being able to use donated uteri experimentally over long periods of time, including for gestation. From the MIT Technology story: The team members want to keep donated human uteruses alive long enough to see a full menstrual cycle. They hope this will help them study diseases of the uterus and learn more about how embryos burrow their way into the organ’s lining at the start of a pregnancy. They also hope that future iterations of their device might one day sustain the full gestation of a human fetus. The machine is technically Read More ›

The push for unlimited abortion access is now advancing beyond the issue of “choice.” A newly published article in Ethics, the University of Chicago Press’s prestigious peer-reviewed journal, argues that pregnant minors must abort — even if that requires coercion and force.

The authors, a University of British Columbia philosophy professor and an aspiring philosopher, emphasize the fact that minors are children. From “Justice for Girls: On Provision of Abortion as Adequate Care” (citations omitted, my emphases):

Both opponents of abortion and liberal defenders of a woman’s right to control her own body make a mistake in relation to impregnated children. They both overlook that an impregnated girl is a child. As such, the adults responsible for her care should never pressure or compel her to continue a pregnancy. Nor should they confront her with the three “options” of abortion, adoption, or mothering, as medical professionals are currently advised to do. Instead, her adult caregivers should view her impregnation as a malady and take steps to terminate it.

On the transgender issue, we are continually told — I don’t know about these particular authors’ views — that a minor girl can decide to have her puberty blocked or breasts removed. Somehow, when it comes to continuing a pregnancy, she can’t?

Do cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in jeopardy justify abortion? These are the hardest questions in the abortion debate: emotionally charged, deeply tragic, and often used to challenge the pro-life position. But how should we think about these cases from a medical, ethical, and human perspective? In this episode of Bioethics Babe, I sit down with Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, priest, neuroscientist, and Senior Ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, to take on these difficult questions head-on. We explore: If you’ve ever wondered how to think clearly and compassionately about the hardest cases, tune in to this discussion. For Episode Resources, please visit the episode page here. For more information, the latest episodes, and additional Read More ›