POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH

Why I do not celebrate International Women’s Day (and what I propose in its stead)

Janice Fiamengo

International Women’s Day has come and gone once again. March 8 is the day we are exhorted to turn our attention to women: to their achievements and struggles, their courage and their suffering, their indispensable roles in our societies – and to what more can be done, mostly with men’s tax dollars, to promote and advantage them. When I say ‘turn our attention,’ I am speaking only metaphorically, of course. Our attention is always turned toward women, perpetually and ceaselessly: in praise, in awe, in defence; with outrage and indignation.

This year, as the International Women’s Day (IWD) website informs us, we are to focus on the concept of ‘equity,’ accepting that ‘equal opportunities aren’t enough’ and that ‘equal isn’t always fair.’ After 40 years of affirmative action hiring for women, special legal status, targeted promotions, and ceaseless affirmation – and at a time when women are already faring far better than men in education and employment – the promoters of IWD demand yet more women-only opportunities, special benefits, set-asides, hiring targets, start-up monies, government grants, and other gender perquisites in addition to all the accompanying pro-female hoopla. To add a dollop of ludicrous dolour, the IWD website announces ‘sadly’ that, ‘Gender parity won’t be attained for well over a century.’

To say that I do not celebrate International Women’s Day is to put it too mildly. I not only object to it but believe that the day – and all of its nauseous ideological, political, legal, and economic baggage – should be immediately retired and blotted from the calendar.

International Women’s Day exacerbates the combined self-glorification and self-pity too many women already exhibit when they think of themselves as women. Though the 1960s was supposed to free women from regarding themselves first and foremost as ‘the Other’ in Simone De Beauvoir’s words, IWD instead heightens the constant dreary self-regard, telegraphing that women’s experiences, sorrows, and triumphs – simply because they are women’s – deserve special recognition and massive wealth transfers. The rigged game is revealed by the fact that International Men’s Day (November 19) has at best a nominal existence, passing every year in near-complete oblivion.

The Marxist theorist, writer, and labour activist Clara Zetkin, who is generally credited with inaugurating IWD in 1910, at least made clear that women would necessarily work in concert with men to achieve ‘the social emancipation of labour’. In her 1909 essay German Socialist Women’s Movement, she explicitly opposed ‘the bourgeois women righters’ credo’ that women should join with other women to ‘strive exclusively for women’s rights’. Zetkin favoured a ‘class-war of all the exploited, without difference of sex, against all who exploit, without difference of sex’. That she also favored special meetings and measures to advance women suggests a contradiction in her ideology, but at least her platform did not depict all women as all men’s victims.

Today, any emphasis on cooperation and shared endeavour, any recognition of men’s humanity, achievements, and needs (aside from their need to overcome ‘toxic masculinity’ and defer more perfectly to women) – is strikingly absent from IWD pronouncements, which continually equate ‘gender equality’ (or ‘equity’) solely with advancing women.

In this, IWD is, of course, merely a microcosm of our culture generally. Whether the issue is suicide or drug addiction, employment or incarceration, homelessness or homicide, our societies always emphasise the impact on women, even when men are the vast majority of suicides, drug overdoses, workplace fatalities, prison inmates, homeless, or homicide victims. The IWD website speaks continually of ‘gender parity’ without once mentioning that in education, employment, health, and longevity, women have been doing better than their male peers for decades.

This is rank prejudice, and no civilised country should endorse it. IWD should be labelled a relic of an outmoded era in which women’s humanity was wrongly valued above men’s. School children should be taught that countries where IWD is still observed are strange and dangerous places for men and children because of their antiquated, irrational, and unjust practices.

Along with the cancellation of IWD should come a concerted effort to challenge and, ultimately, stamp out related manifestations of female supremacism and feminist bigotry. Expressions of preference for female humanity, such as ‘The Future is Female,’ should be held up to ridicule and contumely. Indications of anti-male animus, now an all-too common currency in our elite and public cultures, should become as unacceptable as statements of anti-Semitism and anti-black racism. All people of good will should loudly boo any such statements when they occur. Anyone who lobs around statistics about female victimisation should have lobbed back at them, with force, the multitudinous evidence of male disadvantage.

In place of International Women’s Day, a new day might be instituted to stress intersexual cooperation and harmony rather than division and animosity. It could be called International Men and Women’s Day. Men could pledge their support for women, and women could pledge their support for men – only the latter would be anything new or unusual. Politicians could speak of men’s and women’s distinctive needs and contributions. In particular, women could come forward to celebrate the men in their lives, enumerating the satisfaction and joy of giving back to men and loving them.

Dignitaries at the United Nations as well as in various non-governmental organisations would make speeches about the importance of amity, trust, and cooperation between men and women. School children could do projects about how each sex can better understand the other, and could learn about how men and women have cooperated and depended upon each other throughout history. Advertising and popular culture could be mobilised to spread a positive message about the new day.

For too long, International Women’s Day has been open and unabashed about its sex-based exclusions, actively channelling energy, resources, and compassion away from men towards women with a raft of false claims to support its chauvinism. Anyone genuinely interested in social flourishing should reject it without apology.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/why-i-do-not-celebrate-international-womens-day-and-what-i-propose-in-its-stead

*********************************************

Democrats Really Do Hate America

Derek Hunter

Honestly, if you’d told me just a few years ago that the Democrat Party would become a party that literally hates the United States…well, I probably would have believed you because they do and have for a very long time. However, if you’d also told me they would proudly proclaim that hatred with regularity, that entire cable networks would be dedicated to preaching that hatred, you probably would’ve lost me there. Not anymore.

I would not have believed any political organization would proudly proclaim they despise that which they seek to lead, but that’s where we find ourselves now. There are countless examples of this, everywhere you look. Even the President of the United States calls half the country monsters and transphobes simply because we don’t think children should be subjected to sexualization of any kind, let alone having an adult grind their crotch in their face, or have their body butchered in the name of some weird “progress.”

There are literally hundreds of examples on a weekly basis of some leftist on cable news smearing everyone and the country and “fundamentally this” or “that to the core.” Hell, Joy Reid makes a living simply burping out “this person is a racist” or “that thing is racist.” She’s so oppressed she’s paid millions of dollars per year to chase away the audience from the show before hers. If merit mattered, Joy would be homeless. But she has her job for different reasons, ability be damned.

Then we have this piece from the New York Times, it really boils everything the left is now down to its essence. Democrats are only close to honest when dealing with other Democrats, and the Times is the ultimate choir-preacher.

It’s entitled, “Can We Put an End to America’s Most Dangerous Myth?” Is it about the idea that country was founded on and for racism? No, the Times makes too much money off that one.

So, what is this “myth”? “Our most toxic myth is our “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” individualism,” the piece contends.

Yes, that’s right, individuality is “toxic.” The idea that Americans are independent, able to live within their means and stand on their own is a huge problem…says the Communist Manifesto, er, this column.

“So, yes, some independence is worth honoring,” the author allows. “But other strains are not as positive. For instance, being required to be ‘independent’ when we are ill and without adequate health insurance coverage is not to be recommended. Neither is having to take care of our children entirely on our own, in the silo of our immediate family, without a state-supported nursery in sight. And going into debt for simply covering the cost of our own or our children’s college education is far from salutary.”

Socialism, essentially, is what she’s pushing for here. Never mind looking at why some many of those “problems” exist (Democrat policies), just know that you shouldn’t have to deal with them because…progressive, or something.

What the column is complaining about isn’t individuality, really, it’s responsibility. That your actions have consequences and you should maybe consider them when making choices. No, Democrats would rather absolve you of the consequences for your actions – a political priest – as long as you obey them. They’ll give you just enough to get by, bless away your mistakes, and never look back at the destruction in their wake.

Meanwhile, people will be so dependent on government for their existence, and desperate for more absolution, that a blind loyalty will be created in the voting booth. Like a junkie always in need of another hit, people hooked on the concept of no personal responsibility are always in need of being told it’s not their fault, especially when it is.

The conclusion of the piece reads, “Dependence is, if you think of it, a form of connection and social cohesion. It brings us closer to others, which at this moment in America might be the thing we need most.” That’s exactly the opposite of reality, of what we need. Unless, of course, your goal isn’t to empower people or get out of their way so they can make their lives better, but rather to make people serfs; junkies who will do your electoral bidding if you just give them another hit. I’m not saying that’s what Democrats want to do, but it’s what Democrats want to do…

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2023/03/16/democrats-really-do-hate-america-n2620635

************************************************************

The fanatical foot soldiers of feminism

So, another International Women’s Day has come and gone, and the usual plethora of dubious statistics, socialist ideology, and tendentious history, coupled with unrelenting virtue signalling, back-slapping, and the obligatory passive aggression, has been foisted on an innocent and unsuspecting public. And once again women the world over have fallen for the idea that International Women’s Day is simply a celebration of women and their achievements – and not the public face of a radical movement intent on overthrowing almost everything the average woman (or man) holds dear. It’s simply astonishing the disparity between the ideological reality of modern feminism and it’s benign perception by the public. This is particularly so in relation to women who have been propagandised into believing that feminism and women’s rights are the same thing. Or, to use a big word, coterminous.

Feminists, to give the members of an ideological cult a backhanded compliment, have been unrelentingly clever. They’ve weaponised an evolved female personality trait that privileges appearance (and sexually attracts men) – makeup, clothes, pretence, coquettishness, charm, sexual innocence – and which disguises reality (the female will to power) and made it into a grand political strategy.

This apparently benign, civilised, temperate trait disguises the feminist ambition of overthrowing the ‘patriarchy’, that unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, which is as irrational as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and is the ideological motivation behind a host of invented or imaginary discrimination. Feminists claim that everywhere, at all times, in every situation, there is systemic oppression of women that is invisible to all but the elect, who are currently, and because of feminism, the woke. The contemporary problem for feminists, though, is while the foot soldiers of Woke feminism are fanatical, they aren’t particularly bright.

For example, the guileless theme of this year’s International Women’s Day, ironically, was ‘equity’, which is an incongruous idea for feminists to champion, because, after half a century of female-positive discrimination, what equity implies is that women cannot compete with men on a level playing field. Moreover, what the concept of equity ignores, paradoxically, is the fact that women are absolutely the equal, or are superior, to men in multiple ways – women do hold up half the sky, but perhaps, in contrast to feminist ideology, not in the ways that feminists have been shouting, or shrieking about, sorry, we’re not supposed to say that, for decades.

This is the root of the problem. Because, while biology, to be clear, is not destiny, it is definitively an aspect of what the philosopher Martin Heidegger, to give one example of common-sense reasoning, called ‘facticity’: the reality of age, strength, intelligence, attractiveness, sex, stature, personality, etc., that delimits life’s possibilities for people in the reality-based world in which we live. (What Heidegger poetically called the Worldhood of the World.) There is no denying this truth, no matter how many feminists claim that everything is socially constructed. We are, to paraphrase that modern-day sage, Kenny Rogers, dealt cards in the game of life, and each of us play the game to the best of our ability because there’s no alternative. Equity, then, is a chimera or a strategy for social control.

Two broad subterranean ideas, though, hide under the benevolent surface of modern feminist activism: the divisive ideas of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the more important, but ignored, idea that the anti human rights, anti science, and the anti fact-based epistemological agenda of Wokeness is the culmination of feminist theory. We’ve reached peak feminism and it’s an ugly, repellent vision of society, one which brooks no dissent, idiosyncratic thought, or eccentricity – the fundamentals, in other words, of freedom, justice, and democracy.

What feminists have done is brought the virtues and vices of an all-female high school to the international stage and put the head girl in charge. In the same way that too much masculinity is ugly, too much femininity is toxic. When feminists are not being malicious, they’re being passive-aggressive, crying, or saying the proverbial ‘it’s fine’. Culture is now so dominated by female personality traits that mental strength and competence are derided while weakness is celebrated, which is the opposite of what feminists have relentlessly told us about the psychology of women. Neuroticism and anxiety, personality traits that feminists claimed the patriarchy falsely ascribed to females, are now the modus operandi of institutions, because of feminism, in western democracies. Woe betide any man who doesn’t bow down to these strictures. A trembling upper lip, the emotion of the moment, or the invocation of unkindness or hate speech, in other words, anything a woman doesn’t want to hear, in any situation, overrides facts and evidence.

The current feminist zeitgeist in which we unwittingly find ourselves is also a recipe for civilisational collapse, because no society can survive on a diet of never-ending emotional incontinence. From women marching wearing ‘pussy hats’, which definitively ensures that you won’t and can’t be taken seriously; to the unequivocal statement that ‘all men are rapists’; to the sheer idiocy of making an issue of ‘manspreading’; to the factually provable statement that ‘believe all women’ is the epitome of dishonesty and injustice; to claiming, correctly, that men commit most violent assaults, while simultaneously saying there’s no biological difference between men and women, but that women need protection from men because women and men are different; to the idea that biological males should be allowed to play women’s sports or allowed in women’s spaces (the small number of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists doesn’t invalidate the overarching theme). There is an endless list of peevish, envious, malicious examples of feminist ‘theory’ masquerading as intellectualism. We now live in the world of feminism and feminist ‘knowledges’. Everything is upside down, inside out, and illogical, which is ironic, because feminists have claimed that female irrationalism is a millennia-long conspiracy of the patriarchy. But, as the saying goes, here we are.

Happy belated International Women’s Day. Remember, though, when International Men’s Day comes around, you’ll hear nothing except a lone cricket or the silence of the grave. Then again, men don’t need to be constantly reminded how stunning, brave, strong and powerful they are. The future, of course, in case you’ve forgotten for five seconds, is female.

Welcome to the asylum.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/the-fanatical-foot-soldiers-of-feminism/

*********************************************************

Racist pantries?

If you ditched cereal boxes for uniform glass containers and opted for plexiglass storage bins in your fridge, you may be engaging in classist, racist and sexist behaviors, one Chicago professor contends.

Dr. Jenna Drenten, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University, argued Tuesday that the recent obsession with organizing kitchen and pantry spaces — a TikTok trend she dubbed “pantry porn” — is pushing societal standards the average American cannot keep up with while tricking consumers to spend more money.

The “new minimalism” approach is just a thinly veiled excuse to entice people to buy more items — containers, labels and storage space — that give off the decluttered appearance of simple living, Drenten wrote for The Conversation.

“Storing spices in coordinated glass jars and color coordinating dozens of sprinkles containers may seem trivial. But tidiness is tangled up with status, and messiness is loaded with assumptions about personal responsibility and respectability,” the professor stated.

“Cleanliness has historically been used as a cultural gatekeeping mechanism to reinforce status distinctions based on a vague understanding of “niceness”: nice people, with nice yards, in nice houses, make for nice neighborhoods.

“What lies beneath the surface of this anti-messiness, pro-niceness stance is a history of classist, racist and sexist social structures.”

According to Drenten’s research, the social media influencers who push pantry porn are “predominantly white women who demonstrate what it looks like to maintain a ‘nice’ home by creating a new status symbol: the perfectly organized, fully stocked pantry.”

Even celebrities have joined the trend, further peddling it.

Kim Kardashian showed off her massive walk-in fridge in 2020 — and two separate average-sized others — that was peppered with glass jars filled with different condiments for frozen yogurt.

Last year, sister Khloe Kardashian bragged about her extravagant pantry that is packed with items on floor-to-ceiling shelves. Photos show most of the items — pastas, fig newtons and goldfish — are stored in glass containers while other plastic, wrapped foods are stowed in wicker baskets.

Drenten emphasizes that orderly pantries have been a status symbol since the late 1800s when only the wealthy could afford the space to hide both the food and the people who prepared it.

In the centuries since, pantries have evolved to be part of the open floor plan. How well the homeowner maintained the pantry and organized the space served as a new status marker instead.

She believes the recent trend of “pantry porn” was only exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic when shortages in the supply chain surged: “Keeping stuff on hand became a symbol of resilience for those with the money and space to do so.”

The Kardashians and other “pantry porn” celebrities have set the societal standard for an ideal mother, wife or woman, Drenten argues, but the aspiration falls apart for those who can’t afford the money or time to maintain the upkeep.

“Pantry porn, as a status symbol, relies on the promise of making daily domestic work easier. But if women are largely responsible for the work required to maintain the perfectly organized pantry, it’s critical to ask: easier for whom?” Drenten questioned.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/16/pantry-porn-rooted-in-racist-sexist-behavior-loyola-doctor/

****************************************

This Jerusalem-Based Pregnancy Center Is Fighting to Help Women and Their Unborn Babies

Efrat sits in a quiet Jerusalem neighborhood, a pregnancy center housed in a modest-looking building with a noble goal: to give Jewish women the resources necessary to choose to save their babies.

Efrat has saved the lives of 83,467 children since its founding, according to the cheery signs on the wall in the pregnancy center’s storage center, where center Executive Director Nir Salomon energetically explained the pregnancy center’s mission to our visiting group of American Catholics.

The pro-life organization has helped at least 100 more babies come into the world since my early March visit to the center, Salomon shared in a phone interview Monday. He emphasized that Efrat aims to empower women to make their own choices about their babies without pressure from husbands, boyfriends, parents, or other outside influences.

“When a woman comes to us, we tell her, ‘You have an option to abort. It is legal in Israel. But you also have the option to have a child,'” he said. “And that is the unique proposition of Efrat.”

Efrat was founded by the late Holocaust survivor Herschel Feigenbaum, who believed “that our children are our future.” Feigenbaum wanted to create a nonprofit encouraging childbirth to replace the many Jewish children slaughtered throughout the Holocaust, the organization’s website explains.

That dream didn’t take off until Dr. Eli Schussheim came along in 1977 and officially launched the organization now known as Efrat, intending to offer women professional consultations on their pregnancies. Schussheim’s goal evolved into offering women even more than that—giving them the choice not to abort their unborn babies, and empowering them to choose life through resources and opportunities.

Many Israeli women considering abortion already have children, Salomon said, noting that 56% of the women Efrat helps are married. Often, a woman’s husband has told her that they cannot afford another child. Efrat wants these families to know that they can, in fact, afford another baby—and Efrat will help make that baby’s entry into the world smoother.

“We will provide everything they need so that an additional baby is not an additional financial expense,” Salomon said. “We can’t solve all of your money problems, but the baby won’t be an additional expense.”

A family’s fear may boil down to something as simple as a crib, Salomon said. The family cannot afford a crib and thus feel like they cannot afford a child. That simple act of providing Israeli families with that crib, or even with diapers or formula, is a major game-changer.

“We bring them to this room and we show them, this is what you are going to get when the baby is born,” Salomon explained, as he walked about the storage room, pointing to diapers, baby formula, strollers, bath basins, and more.

Concerns do not end there, of course. Many families want to know how they will afford their baby after he or she is born. Here Efrat also has an answer—for the first two years after the baby’s birth, Efrat sends the families a box of baby products and food every month.

Those packages are put together by volunteers, many of whom are Israeli youth. According to Efrat’s estimates from a few years ago, the center sends eight to 11 baby packages a day and over 3,500 food packages every month.

The center plans to soon provide free housing to take in pregnant women whose families have turned them away. Expectant mothers can live in the rent-free lodgings during their pregnancy and for six months afterward.

Efrat also wants the mother to become physically, emotionally, and financially secure—through the center’s new “Working Moms” program, Efrat performs vocational assessments for the women and seeks to connect them with government bodies and place them in jobs where they can flourish.

“We started these programs because we felt responsible for the next stage,” Salomon said.

The pregnancy center’s volunteers offer emotional support and counseling as well as the aforementioned financial support. If a doctor has recommended that a woman abort her unborn baby, Efrat’s team of medical professionals will offer her a free second opinion—a service informed by one of the babies that Schussheim saved earlier in his career by offering a mother a second opinion (an occurrence that helped Efrat come into conception).

“When a woman dials our number, it’s because poverty has cornered her into believing that abortion is her only option,” one of the center’s pamphlets reads. “For thousands of women and their babies, your help can mean the difference between terrifying hopelessness and a joyous, independent future.”

Abortion is legal in Israel, but women must first go through an “abortion committee” to receive permission to get the abortion, Faydra Shapiro, a senior fellow with The Philos Project, shared with The Daily Signal.

“In order to get an abortion funded through the public system in Israel, a woman needs to present her case to a committee that must authorize the procedure,” Shapiro said. “The committee is made up of social workers and doctors.”

Schussheim, who died in 2021, reportedly wanted one of those committee members to be a dentist.

“They said, ‘Why should it be made up of a dentist?’” Salomon recalled. “He says, ‘Because dentists try to do anything before they uproot a tooth.’”

Shapiro, a specialist in contemporary Jewish-Christian relations, said that “criteria to authorize an abortion include being young (under 18), being older (over 40), severe medical problems with the unborn child, and the pregnancy as a result of an illicit union (being unmarried, adultery, incest etc).”

Almost all requests are granted, even if married women lie and say they got pregnant as the result of an affair, Shapiro said.

“This up to 24 weeks gestation,” she noted. “After 24 weeks, the committee process is different and more stringent.”

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Israel’s former health minister, Nitzan Horowitz, called for abolishing the committees in an attempt to “show how liberal he is,” Salomon explained. “They brought us in to counter him.”

Efrat suggested an alternative to the committees: a mandatory 72-hour cooling off period that begins after the mother meets with a social worker, who will listen to her and find out if the abortion is truly what the woman wants.

“We are not willing to rubber-stamp abortions,” Salomon emphasized, noting that Efrat encouraged the health minister to create pamphlets (from the state, not from Efrat) showing women the wide range of options available to help them care for their child—including things like day care.

In spite of Efrat’s efforts, Israel ultimately made it easier for women to obtain abortions through a policy approved in late June giving women access to abortion pills through the country’s universal health system, allowing women to abort their unborn babies at local health centers rather than at hospitals and surgical clinics, and exempting women from appearing before the special committees.

The committees will review women’s requests for abortions digitally and will only have an in-person hearing if they deny a mother an abortion, according to The Washington Post. The publication noted that it is highly unlikely the committee will deny a woman an abortion.

Salomon took issue with the Israeli politicians who latched on to the reversal of Roe v. Wade and portrayed Judaism as pro-abortion. Their representations are not true, he insisted.

“It is unfortunate that that is the position they have taken,” he said. “By no means is Judaism a pro-abortion religion.”

Israelis also view abortion differently than citizens in the United States, where demonstrations took place for months following the leak of the draft opinion indicating Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned.

Shapiro notes that abortion in Israel is “officially controlled” in the sense that “there is no ‘abortion on demand.’” But at the same time, most women who want to abort their babies are allowed to do so.

“First, Judaism not only permits but in some cases actually requires abortion if the life of the mother is at actual risk from her unborn child,” she said. “Second, there is a desire on behalf of the religious establishment to avoid children of illicit unions: a child born as a result of adultery or incest (this does not include a child born to an unmarried woman) is mamzer in Jewish law and only allowed to marry another mamzer.”

“Third,” she continued, “Israel is generally a country that both has strong pro-natal policies and values and at the same time has a quite liberal sense of personal freedoms and choice. These issues make the situation quite complex and unlike that of the U.S.”

According to Shapiro, “abortion is simply not part of the political landscape” in Israel. “The religious Christian pro-life arguments about when life begins and the murder of the unborn simply do not work here,” she said.

American and Israeli thoughts on abortion may differ, but Efrat has had its fair share of support from pro-life politicians. Near the entrance of the building, on the inside walls, pictures depict Schussheim with a slew of lawmakers, including Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Republican Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer, Republican Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Republican South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee, and former House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“I wish I were as successful here in the United States as you are in Jerusalem,” former Republican Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, who died in 2017, is quoted saying. Salomon told The Daily Signal that some of these politicians visited Efrat themselves, while others attended an Efrat event in Washington, D.C.

Efrat seeks to serve women outside Israel as well. The organization has fundraising arms internationally in Brooklyn, New York, and in Toronto, according to the center’s literature, and Salomon said that Efrat plans to put down roots in Hollywood, Florida—and hopefully either New York City or Los Angeles next.

He pointed to the thousands of pregnancy resource centers throughout the United States, noting that many of these centers are Christian or religiously inclined. For Jewish women, Salomon said, it can be confusing and alienating to go to hear rhetoric about Jesus Christ—even though he acknowledged that such rhetoric comes from an incredibly loving place.

“Christians have become more and more interested” in the idea of Jewish pregnancy centers, he explained, adding that the common sentiment he hears is, “We want to support Israel and we want to support life.”

“I don’t see any other greater meeting of those two things than what Efrat is,” he said.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/03/14/jerusalem-based-pregnancy-center-fighting-help-women-unborn-babies