Archive | Page 4

A few months ago, I posted about a Republican-sponsored bill in Wisconsin that would preempt local communities from enacting “nature rights” ordinances. I wrote at the time: If the bill passes, I suspect that the Democrat governor will veto it. Nature rights was adopted into the platform of Florida’s Democratic Party, and I predict it will eventually become a plank of the national party as it is becoming a zealous progressive cause as a means of combatting climate change and hobbling capitalism. But at least a veto would be clarifying. Later, Wisconsin Democrat legislators heightened my expectation by filing a resolution in support of granting nature “inherent rights, including the right to exist, flourish, regenerate, and be restored.” The Republican Read More ›

In one of the great atrocities in human history, Chinese political prisoners are tissue-typed and later murdered and harvested to supply the country’s thriving organ transplant black market. How long have regime enemies been so targeted and how does the system work? For years, that has been difficult to discern fully. China is one of the world’s most secretive societies Read More ›

An article in The Lancet decries the recent 17th World Conference on Bioethics, Medical Ethics, and Health Law for failing to condemn “genocide.” Of course, the authors are referencing Israel’s self-defense in Gaza. From, “Silence on Genocide at the World Conference on Bioethics:” Between Nov 24 and Nov 27, 2025, the International Chair in Bioethics held its 17th World Conference on Bioethics, Medical Ethics, and Health Law in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Despite being hosted in a nation whose President has vocally condemned the “genocide in Gaza” at the UN, the conference stood in stark contrast to its setting. No scheduled sessions discussed the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe, representing a profound disconnect between the event’s location and its content… If an organisation claiming Read More ›

The University of Sussex has published a “toolkit” to enable political and legal action to grant “rights” to trees. This is consistent with the radical environmentalist activism seen in many universities, such as Harvard Law, which is now teaching “nature rights” principles and strategies to students.

“Tree rights” is a subset of the overarching “nature rights” movement, which also includes “river rights,” “ocean rights,” and even “rights for the moon.” I don’t have space to discuss the entire 186-page advocacy treatise — developed over three years, evidencing the energy and commitment of nature rights activists to their cause — but here’s a fair nutshell overview.

As we have seen before, “tree rights” advocacy principles are steeped in mysticism and neo-paganism. From “The Rights of Trees, Woodlands, and Forests Toolkit”:

Alongside economic and functional values, many belief systems recognise trees, woodlands and forests as living, sacred, intelligent beings. In Pagan, Celtic and many Indigenous worldviews, trees are ancestors, teachers and kin. Such worldviews align with the Rights of Nature movement, which recognises nature not as property, but as a rights-bearing community of life.

In other words, tree rights advocacy is based substantially on irrationality. Trees are alive, to be sure. But they are not “intelligent.” Good grief, they aren’t even sentient. Sacred is a religious concept, as is the myth or belief (take your pick) that they are our “ancestors.”

In an age of IVF, embryo selection, and a rapidly expanding fertility industry, couples facing infertility are often given a clear message: if you want a child badly enough, technology can make it happen. But what if that’s not the whole story? What if infertility is not just a medical condition to be solved but a profound personal, relational, and even spiritual trial? And what if a life without biological children can still be deeply meaningful and truly fruitful? In this episode of Bioethics Babe, I sit down with Leigh Snead, author of Infertile but Fruitful, fellow with the Catholic Association, and co-host of the nationally syndicated show Conversations with Consequences to explore the deeper questions surrounding infertility in the Read More ›

Planned Parenthood is having a rougher time than it once did. Fifty or so clinics have closed due to financial difficulties associated with defunding from the government. Not to worry! As reported in the New York Times — a California clinic is offering cosmetic procedures to help keep the doors open. First, the Times‘ reporter Alisha Haridasani Gupta, describes the core mission of PP clinics. Notice what she leaves out: Nationwide, Planned Parenthood, which provides birth control, preventive sexual health screenings, prenatal care and primary care for millions of patients, many of them on Medicaid, is facing enormous challenges. These include significant cuts to Medicaid reimbursements, increased costs of treatments and staffing, and a “hostile political environment,” said Angela Vasquez-Giroux, Read More ›

The usual suspect medical and science journals have featured far fewer columns promoting progressive politics of late. Alas, it couldn’t last forever. The New England Journal of Medicine just published two opinion articles decrying immigration enforcement as inimical to public health.

The first column focuses generally on the adversity the author believes is caused to illegal immigrant communities by enforcing the law:

Current immigration enforcement is disrupting medical follow-up, exacerbating mental health symptoms, causing more patients to skip preventive care, and deepening mistrust in public institutions. In my clinical practice, I have seen sharp increases in anxiety, school absenteeism, deferred visits, and acute psychiatric symptoms after enforcement events. These effects are both predictable and preventable. Clinicians, health systems, and policymakers should recognize immigration enforcement as a social determinant of health currently implicated in a public health crisis and act accordingly. [Citations omitted.]

In other words, don’t enforce the law.

What is death? It’s the moment a human being ceases to exist. But when is that exactly? We tend to think we know the answer, but what if the question is not that simple, especially when it comes to brain death? In this episode of Bioethics Babe, pediatric neurologist Dr. Christopher DeCock examines one of the most important questions in medicine, law, and bioethics: What if the medical criteria used to declare someone brain dead are not actually proving what we think they are proving? Current brain death determinations are largely based on clinical brain death criteria developed by the American Academy of Neurology, including coma, absence of brainstem reflexes, and apnea testing. But do these tests truly demonstrate the Read More ›

As the West lunges toward propagating a right to be made dead, the deleterious societal impacts of being legally “MAIDed” (killed by “medical assistance in dying”) are becoming increasingly clear. A recent professional analysis published in the Psychiatric Times illustrates the lethal influence on mentally ill suicidal people — including youth — in the Netherlands. From “Psychiatric Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Young People, Procedural Medicine, and the Limits of Psychiatry” (citations omitted): Requests for euthanasia on psychiatric grounds have risen sharply, with a disproportionate increase among young adults and, more recently, minors. The Dutch model, once presented internationally as careful and balanced, is now attracting attention for a different reason: growing uncertainty about whether psychiatry has crossed a boundary it Read More ›

Turnabout is fair play, they say. So on this episode of Humanize, Wesley is the guest, interviewed by the “Bioethics Babe,” the podcast of Center on Human Exceptionalism Fellow Arina Grossu Agnew. Arina and Wesley discuss the nature of transhumanism, its philosophical, moral, and political implications, its role as a substitute for religion, its threat to human equality, and whether Read More ›