Data Consistently Shows Getting Married, Having Kids is Good for Mental Health

From lifenews.com

As data continues to show that young people are reporting increasing rates of despair, experts say that a renewed focus on the happiness that marriage, raising children, and church attendance bring can help reverse the trend.

New statistical analysis published earlier this month revealed some sobering facts, including the overall trend that unhappiness is peaking among the young (those aged 18-24) and then declining with age in 44 countries, including the U.S. and the U.K. Particularly in the U.S. over the last roughly quarter century, the rate of young people who say they are in despair (defined as those who say their mental health was not good for the last 30 consecutive days) has risen sharply. For men, it has more than doubled since 1993, rising from 2.5% to 6.6% in 2024. For women, the outlook is even more dire, almost tripling from 3.2% to 9.3%.

As to the causes behind the rising rates of despair among the young, analysis authors Alex Bryson (professor of Quantitative Social Science, UCL), David Blanchflower (professor of Economics, Dartmouth College), and Xiaowei Xu (senior research economist, Institute for Fiscal Studies) say that research into the reasons behind the surge remain “inconclusive,” while acknowledging that excessive screen time is likely a “contributory factor.”

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

But sociologists like Brad Wilcox, a professor at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, say that the cultural deemphasis and ridicule of marriage and family life is likely a prime culprit in the surging rates of unhappiness among the young. As he wrote Monday, “Data consistently show that marriage and children confer compounding benefits to both men and women. Married men and women ages 25 to 55 are almost twice as likely to report they are ‘very happy’ with their life than their unmarried peers, according to the 2022 General Social Survey.” In addition, “Married people enjoy more financial stability and better emotional and physical health outcomes.”

Wilcox went on to observe that data from a recent survey of 3,000 American women revealed that “married mothers are among the happiest in the country,” reporting “less loneliness, more physical touch and deeper meaning and connection in their relationships than their unmarried and childless peers.”

As for men, Wilcox noted a theme particularly keyed in on by the late Charlie Kirk, who Wilcox credits with ushering in a new era of popular acceptance of marriage and family among young men, who crave a mission, “grounding their lives in responsibility and meaning in something bigger than themselves.” Wilcox pointed to a recent NBC survey, which found that young men who voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election ranked “having children” as “the highest marker of personal success, followed by financial independence, a good job and marriage.”

In an Instagram post shortly before his death, Kirk wrote, “Having a family will change your life in the best ways, so get married and have kids. You won’t regret it.”

Wilcox also highlighted a speech that Kirk gave at a church, where he emphasized church attendance as the third key element to giving meaning to the lives of young men alongside marriage and raising children. “What young people are screaming is, they say, ‘Give me a structure that I can live my life by,’” Kirk remarked. “Especially young men … [they want] more saying, ‘Stop being a boy and become a man.’”

There are, in fact, indications that Millennials and Generation Z are leading the charge in a new surge in church attendance. According to recent research from Barna Group, Gen Zers now lead older generations in church attendance, averaging 1.9 weekends per month. Millennials are a close second, with an average of 1.8 weekends per month. Barna’s report notes that these numbers represent “a steady upward shift since the lows seen during the pandemic” and “are easily the highest rates of church attendance among young Christians since they first hit Barna’s tracking.”

This upward shift in church attendance among the young could mark a turning point in the dire mental health data that continues to surface. Research shows that those who attend church regularly report higher rates of happiness and civic engagement than those who are religiously unaffiliated or are inactive members of religious groups.

Still, it remains to be seen whether surveys indicating renewed interest in having children among young men will translate into more marriages and more children, with both marriage and fertility rates currently at or near record lows. The jury is also out on whether young people who are newly attending church will become church members for the long haul.

“Discipleship is absolutely essential,” Family Research Council’s David Closson told The Washington Stand earlier this month. “Jesus’s Great Commission was not simply to make converts but to ‘make disciples’ — to teach people to obey everything He commanded.” It’s good to see young people returning to church, Closson noted, but “that’s only the beginning.”

Katy Faust: The parenting study that should have stopped gay marriage

In 2012, a bombshell study was published that should have changed everything. It was rigorous, national in scope, peer-reviewed, and its findings were clear: children do best when raised by their married mother and father. In any other context, such a conclusion should’ve helped shape public policy and cultural consensus. But because the study threatened to halt the march toward same-sex marriage, progressive forces moved swiftly, not to debate it, but to destroy it.

The study in question was the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), led by sociologist Mark Regnerus. It asked a simple question: how do children fare when raised by a same-sex couple household? The answers were sobering. Across dozens of indicators, emotional health, education, income, and relationship quality, those raised in homes with same-sex parents fared worse than those raised by their married biological parents. And this wasn’t anecdotal or cherry-picked. It was the largest such study ever conducted, with over 3,000 participants and a design meant to capture young adults’ retrospective accounts of their upbringing—not parents’ self-reporting.

To understand why this study was so threatening, you have to understand what was at stake. One of the major legal and cultural arguments against redefining marriage was grounded in child welfare. If children do best with their mother and father, then laws privileging that structure aren’t hateful, they’re rational and legitimate. They exist not to punish adults, but to protect children. The link between marriage and child well-being was strong, and advocates for same-sex marriage knew it.

So they set out to sever that link.

In the years leading up to and following Obergefell, a tidal wave of studies emerged—many with tiny sample sizes and design flaws—claiming there were “no differences” in outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples. The media, academia, and courts largely accepted these claims without question, often attacking anyone who suggested otherwise. The Regnerus study broke that narrative and was met with coordinated outrage.

His critics leveled a common charge: the comparison group was unfair. Regnerus had compared children of stable, married heterosexual parents to those who’d had a parent in a same-sex relationship—but many of those same-sex households, they argued, were unstable or formed after a divorce. That critique has some validity, but it also misses a massive point. Same-sex parenting, by design, involves severing a child from one of their biological parents. Whether through divorce, surrogacy, sperm donation, or adoption, a child is raised by adults who are not both their mother and father. That loss matters. And the data suggests it hurts.

Even in scenarios where a same-sex couple raises a child from infancy, the structure itself requires an intentional rupture, either the absence of a mother or a father. And while adoption also involves separation, best practices in adoption recognize and validate that loss. In contrast, same-sex family formation is celebrated, subsidized, and socially affirmed, often without any acknowledgment of the child’s biological disconnection.

Relationship stability matters, too. Even in “stable” same-sex unions, studies have shown higher levels of relational churn and open relationship dynamics compared to heterosexual marriages. And family instability (especially romantic or residential turnover) is one of the strongest predictors of poor child outcomes. When kids experience constant change in who’s parenting them, where they live, and what home means, they suffer.

All of this was already clear in the original NFSS data. But just in case the skeptics weren’t convinced, something remarkable happened recently. In 2023, researchers conducted a multiverse analysis of the Regnerus data, running it through 248 different statistical models to see if the original findings held up. The result? Across every single model, children raised by parents who had same-sex relationships experienced worse outcomes. The “LGBT-parent effect” persisted, regardless of assumptions, controls, or coding differences. Regnerus’ work was completely vilified but now completely vindicated.

That should have been front-page news. But it wasn’t, because the truth is inconvenient.

We all know (intuitively, biologically, spiritually) that children long for both their mother and father. No amount of academic theory or legal redefinition can erase that basic human longing. And no amount of cultural pressure can make it disappear.

We’ve normalized every alternative. We’ve shouted down dissenters. We’ve demanded that reality conform to ideology. But children don’t lie. They remember. They know who’s missing.

It’s not bigotry to say that kids deserve both their mom and dad. It’s not hateful to acknowledge that certain family forms are better for children. It’s love that tells the truth. And the truth is this: no matter how many policies or pronouns change, biology still matters. Mothers and fathers still matter.

Why We Fight: Restoring Marriage for the Sake of Children

At Them Before Us, we defend a child’s right to their mother and father—in law and policy, with technology, and in culture. While the world centers adult desires, we center the rights, needs, and voices of children.

That’s why we’re fighting for the restoration of marriage—not as a lifestyle preference, but as a child-protective institution. Marriage isn’t about affirming adult relationships; it’s about safeguarding the child’s fundamental right to be raised by their mother and father. When we redefine marriage to suit adult wants, we sever the biological bonds children crave (all while calling it progress).

The Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in 2015 was more than a legal shift. It was an injustice to children. By eliminating the state’s interest in promoting mother-father homes, it elevated adult satisfaction above child security. We won’t stand by in silence.

That’s why we launched EndObergefell.com—to gather those who believe marriage must once again serve the well-being of children, not the desires of adults. If you care about truth, justice, and children, now is the time to speak.

Because biology still matters. Mothers and fathers still matter. And children are worth fighting for.

Major Study Shows Abortion Pill Is Dangerous To Women

Close up shot of smiling woman holding capsule pill and glass of water. Image focused on capsule

From Heart Beat International

A major new study confirms what we see every day: the abortion pill is dangerous for women.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) issued a groundbreaking report today that shows more than 1 in 10 women (10.9%) experienced serious adverse events for chemical abortion—not less than 0.5% as claimed on the mifepristone label. 

That’s 22 times higher than the rate reported in clinical trials cited by the FDA.

These events include serious complications like sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection, hospitalization, and even surgery.

Here’s what you need to know:

  • There is an official report that proves chemical abortion is not “safe and effective” as advertised.
  • FDA safeguards have been weakened over the years, allowing abortion pills through telehealth and mail without proper oversight. We now have even more evidence that these removed protections are necessary and must be restored (at minimum).
  • Our role is critical—women deserve real options, real care, and real hope.

Read the Report

Meanwhile, California and New York are suing to stop Heartbeat International and pregnancy help organizations from telling women that Abortion Pill Reversal is “safe and effective.” Now with real-world data, we can show even more clearly that the real danger lies with chemical abortion itself—not with the safe, natural progesterone treatment we offer.

What You Can Do:
✔ Educate your staff about the risks of the abortion pill (use the 10.93% figure noted in the report). 
✔ Talk with your clients about the full truth—chemical abortion can cause serious harm.
✔ Promote APRN confidently—women have the right to know they can seek help to save their pregnancies.
✔ Share this report—EPPC.org/publication/stop-harming-women

Bottom line: Women deserve better—and we are here to offer it.

Babylon Bee: Women Shocked To Learn Pill Designed To Murder Babies Might Not Be Safe

Women Shocked To Learn Pill Designed To Murder Babies Might Not Be Safe

Health·Apr 28, 2025 · BabylonBee.com

Image for article: Women Shocked To Learn Pill Designed To Murder Babies Might Not Be Safe

SEATTLE — Women across the country have been shocked to learn that mifepristone and misoprostol, pills designed to murder babies in the womb, might not be all that safe.

Studies are now showing an alarming rate of debilitating and lethal side effects that can occur when taking the pill that is specifically made to kill babies.

“I never would have thought a pill that is specifically designed to kill a child could possibly be harmful,” said one woman. “They should really put that on the label.”

“This is alarming,” said another woman who had just ordered the pills over the phone without even seeing a doctor first. “The very pill that violently destroys an unborn child could also be dangerous? It is a real cause for concern.”

Health experts from Planned Parenthood are encouraging women to ignore the latest concerning studies and have more abortions. “You’ll work up a tolerance to the potentially lethal side effects if you take the pill constantly,” said Dr. Ellen Mortia. “I recommend ignoring all warnings and ordering more mifepristone and misoprostol. We now offer them in cherry flavor!”

At publishing time, women were further shocked to discover that surgical abortions are pretty dangerous too.

No Matter What They Call It, Abortion is Killing a Baby

From LifeNews.com

Recently, I have noticed a trend among young pro-abortion advocates that is concerning. They have set their sights on changing the definition of abortion. By making subtle changes, they seek to dramatically broaden the definition and application of the word. If successful, this linguistic attack would pose significant threats to the unborn and their mothers by blurring the lines between abortion and legitimate medical care.

Abortion is correctly defined by the American Academy of Pro-Life OBGYNs as “any drug, device, or procedure used to ensure the death of the human being in utero before, during, or in the process of separation of the mother and her embryo or fetus.”

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

Within the broad national conversation on abortion, the colloquial version of this definition has been more or less accepted. We all know that a cesarean section is not an abortion. We all know a miscarriage is not an abortion. When legislation is debated in the public square, we all operate under this common understanding.

So what, then, are abortion advocates trying to change? They want to broaden the understanding of abortion to include any procedure that ends pregnancy. This was on display in a viral video featured on the Jubilee YouTube page, where a young abortion advocate debated Ben Shapiro and claimed that cesarean sections are abortions. However, this strategy is not limited only to younger pro-abortion advocates.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) policy on abortion states, “People should be able to access abortion care where and when they need it, including for such purposes as abortion care, miscarriage management, and perinatal palliative care.” [emphasis added]

ACOG has tragically become a shameless promoter of abortion. Now, they claim that caring for a woman who has had a miscarriage is “abortion care.” Equally sinister is the claim that perinatal palliative care falls under the umbrella of abortion.

Broadening the scope of the word “abortion” to include non-abortions is dangerous to mothers and their babies.

Take, for example, a woman who lives in a state with strong pro-life protections. If she is told that her state has outlawed abortion and that abortion includes miscarriage care, she may be misled into believing that miscarriage care is not legal. Often perception becomes reality, and if women believe they cannot legally access legitimate medical care the consequences could prove devastating.

In addition, this shifting of definitions could impact existing legislation, causing confusion and litigation. Women and their babies deserve to be told the truth. Changing the definitions of words does them a great disservice by muddying the waters of legitimate medical care.

Should Christians Celebrate Halloween?

Should Christians Celebrate Halloween?

Halloween has only become a big deal in Australia over the last few decades. As a boy growing up, it barely rated a mention, except through the ever present American TV shows. In Australia, it was generally ignored, considered irrelevant.

Recently in a quick trip to my local Woolworth store, I was surprised to see a big crate of oversized orange pumpkins. In America, Halloween is now the second biggest commercial holiday, only behind Christmas. I don’t know that we are at that point yet, but clearly retailers are pushing the band wagon.

The promotion of the dark side of the spiritual realm raises the question, should christians celebrate Halloween. It is not a simple question to answer definitively, but on reflection, the answer is “No.”

The Origins of Halloween

Halloween has its roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain. This festival marked the changing seasons and the descent into winter. Winter was seen as a season of death, because in the places where the Celts lived, plants did not grow , animals hibernated or moved to warmer places.

It was the beginning of the Celtic year and they believed Samhain, the lord of death, sent evil spirits abroad to attack humans, who could escape only by assuming disguises and looking like evil spirits themselves.

In 837 Pope Gregory III named November 1st as All Saints Day, a day to celebrate al the saints who have reached eternal life in heaven. All Saints Day was also known as All Hallows Day and the night before became known as Hallows Eve or Halloween. In Christian Europe it was a time to reflect on the character of the great saints.

The pagan beliefs and practices never died out completely. With the decline of christianity as a cultural force in much of the West, it is not surprising that Halloween has been reinvented as a season to celebrate the dark side of spirituality.

Our Response to Halloween

The starting point for a christian response to Halloween is to recognise that the spirit realm is real- demons are real, witchcraft is real, spiritism is real.

In the past the church has responded to cultural forces such as Samhain by christianising them, that is appropriating them and converting them to a christian purpose. As the light of the gospel is being rejected by our culture, the darkness of Halloween is gaining ground. The old approach of appropriation no longer applies.

Some argue that christians should be shining the light of the gospel at this time of the year. How that can be done varies from place to place. In parts of the USA the main focus on Halloween is not the spooks but on fancy dress and parties. Clearly christians can and should be involved in being light in these situations.

Some churches, again in the USA, opt to produce other Halloween celebrations that are more in line with the gospel.

However where people are asked to celebrate the occult in any form, christians should generally not be present. Not only are these things unhelpful, they can lead to demonic oppression by participating in things that the Lord has specifically forbidden.

In 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 we read: “Don’t team up with those who are unbelievers. How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness? What harmony can there be between Christ and the devil?”

The celebration of Halloween presents just one more opportunity (or challenge) for the believer to be in the world but not of the world.

Standard of Living

Today we had some new blinds installed in our house. The very first thing that the installer did was to hold a spirit level around the architraves of each window. Most of the windows were fine, but one was significantly out of square and the blind needed some adjustment to fit the space.

We don’t think about it often but standards are involved in everything we do. In fact they make the modern world possible.
Imagine if the manufacturers of phones each had their own frequency and the network operators had their own ideas. Everybody in Australia would be forced to use the same phone, which would be less convenient than having a choice of products all following the same standards and protocols.
If oil companies were able to deliver any old fuel to the service station, we wouldn’t know for sure that our model of car was compatible with the fuel. Our cars would not function correctly and might even be severely damaged.
Even in agriculture, one of the oldest and more stable industries, grain and other products have to meet a certain standard or the price paid by customers is greatly reduced.
When it comes to the way we live, we think there shouldn’t be any standards. We feel we should be free to do exactly what we want when we want. We don’t want anybody setting standards for us.
Just like the phone manufacturers have to agree with the networks about standards in order to make our phones work well, our mindsets and relationships need standards that allow us to run our lives effectively.
The creator of all things has provided us with a book that doesn’t just set the standards, but gives us illustrations of how things go wrong when we ignore the standards.
We are living in an age where we are pretty much free to live our lives how we see fit. We set our own rules. We are also living in a time of unprecedented levels of relationship breakdowns, anxiety, depression and other mental illnesses.
This might be a good time to check out what the Bible says about our lifestyle choices, and bring that spirit level to see if we can make better choices.

Woman with no brainwave activity wakes up after hearing her daughter’s voice


From lifesitenews.com

The awakening of a mother who had no brainwave activity further calls into question the long-held medical understanding of so-called ‘brain death.’

Featured Image A 36-year-old mother without brain activity woke up after hearing the voice of her one-year-old daughter, one of many incidents that calls into question the long-held medical understanding of so-called “brain death.”

Father Michael Orsi, who has heard the play-by-play of the remarkable episode from one of the nurse anesthesiologists involved, told LifeSiteNews that the woman recently went to the hospital for a double endoscopy. While patients normally wake within five to 10 minutes of the end of the procedure, the mother did not wake up – hospital staff found her heart had stopped.

She received CPR, and soon her heart was beating on its own again. Believing she had suffered a stroke, they sent the mother to receive an MRI and found she had no brain waves. She was then transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) and put on a respirator to help her breathe. 

After two days in ICU, the husband told the nurse on duty that if his wife could only hear the voice of her one-year-old daughter she would be OK. Amazingly, when he prompted his daughter to speak over his cell phone to her mother, she woke up. She was “in perfect condition,” according to Orsi.

The priest has verified the details of the chain of events with the woman’s doctor, Omar Hussein, who has also confirmed to LifeSiteNews that the mother woke up upon hearing the voice of her daughter. Hussein has said there is no way he can scientifically explain what happened.

However, the longtime medical “consensus” on brain death in the U.S. has been contested by various doctors, some of whom point out that patients can indeed go on to recover consciousness after meeting what has been considered official criteria for brain death. 

Dr. Heidi Klessig recently explained that such cases of recovery after flatline EEGs (no brainwaves) can likely be attributed to a condition called Global Ischemic Penumbra, or GIP:

Woman without brainwave activity wakes up after hearing her daughter’s voice

Like every other organ, the brain shuts down its function when its blood flow is reduced in order to conserve energy. At 70 percent of normal blood flow, the brain’s neurological functioning is reduced, and at a 50 percent reduction the EEG becomes flatline. But tissue damage doesn’t begin until blood flow to the brain drops below 20 percent of normal for several hours. GIP is a term doctors use to refer to that interval when the brain’s blood flow is between 20 percent and 50 percent of normal. 

During GIP, the brain will not respond to neurological testing and has no electrical activity on EEG but still has enough blood flow to maintain tissue viability – meaning that recovery is still possible. During GIP, a person will appear “brain dead” using the current medical guidelines and testing but with continuing care they could potentially improve.

subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic

Just last month, the New York Times shared the results of a large study that found at least a quarter of unresponsive patients (those diagnosed with a coma, vegetative state, or minimally conscious state) have some awareness.

During the study, teams of neurologists asked 241 such unresponsive patients to do “complex cognitive tasks,” such as imagining themselves playing tennis. Remarkably, 25 percent of the patients exhibited the “same patterns of brain activity seen in healthy people.”

“It’s not OK to know this and do nothing,” remarked Dr. Nicholas Schiff, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, the Times reported.

“This puts a whole new light on the Terri Schiavo case,” Fr. Orsi told LifeSiteNews, referring to a court’s decision to allow the husband of a cognitively disabled woman in a persistent vegetative state to have her refused nutrition and water so that she would die a slow and painful death of dehydration.

The priest pointed to the implications these findings have for the care of unresponsive patients, including in response to their capacity for mental distress.

“Imagine the terror of that, listening to what they’re going to do,” he said regarding times when the decision is made to pull the plug on an unresponsive patient. “Or hearing how it’s time to call in the organ transplant team. This is horrible.”

“Brain death” guidelines in the U.S. were revised this year to state that it occurs in individuals with catastrophic brain injury, and no evidence of function of the “brain as a whole,” a condition that must be “permanent.” Klessig has pointed out that “under the ‘brain as a whole’ formulation, people can be declared dead while parts of the brain are still working, as evidenced by electrical activity on EEG.”

Klessig has also highlighted the fact that, according to the new guideline, “(t)he panel chose to use the term permanent to mean function was lost and (1) will not resume spontaneously, and (2) medical interventions will not be used to attempt restoration of function.” 

“The fact that medical interventions ‘will not be used’ implies that they might have been used and might have been successful if used. This fact alone reveals that these people are not dead, since there exists a possibility of resuscitation!” she wrote.

Klessig noted that the diagnosis of brain death becomes “a self-fulfilling prophecy: most people diagnosed with BD/DNC very quickly have their support withdrawn or become organ donors.” She is calling for AAN guidelines to be scrapped in favor of “the traditional definition of death: cessation of cardiopulmonary function.”

“Brain death is a legal fiction that removes civil rights from vulnerable brain-injured people, who, under the United States Constitution, possess an ‘inalienable right to life,’ deserve protection, and should be treated as mentally disabled persons,” Klessig maintains.