Penna Dexter
The US Centers for Disease Control recently published guidance for new parents using a word I had never heard until a couple of weeks ago. The word is chestfeeding.
In an article in Today’s Parent magazine, lactation consultant Azura Goodman defines the word. She writes:
“Chestfeeding or bodyfeeding can refer to feeding your baby milk directly from your body. This term is used by people who don’t identify their anatomy with the term “breast.”
She explains that she uses the term chestfeeding in order to be inclusive “rather than narrow in on one population.”
When transwomen — let’s be clear: these are biological males — (when they) go to the CDC website looking for information on feeding newborns, they will find the affirming statement that “transgender and non-binary individuals may give birth and breastfeed or feed at the chest.”
Biological males cannot give birth. They can, however, be given hormones which mimic changes that take place in biological women’s bodies during the late stages of pregnancy. Apparently, this regimen results in some men producing a nipple discharge that a couple of transgender doctors claim can be pumped out and sustain a baby.
One of the hormones used in this protocol is domperidone, which, the FDA warns “can pass into breast milk in small amounts and can sometimes give babies an irregular heartbeat.” The CDC helpfully notes this.
The CDC’s advice on chestfeeding also applies to transgender males — biological females — who have breast-removal surgery and still want to coax a little milk out of what’s left. What a tragic sacrifice to have made. But what truly loving parent — biological or adoptive — would allow their child to be fed this toxic brew especially when it’s usually to allow a confused male to feel “seen” or satisfy a disordered desire to experience breastfeeding.
The CDC’s “guidance” on chestfeeding is not medical advice or a legitimate recommendation for the care and feeding of infants. The post-COVID CDC is embarrassing.

Kerby Anderson
Pete Hegseth is the co-author with David Goodwin of the book, Battle for the American Mind. A central part of their book is an in-depth discussion and history of progressive education in America.
Pete Hegseth is the co-host of Fox & Friends and is the host of the Fox Nation documentaries. He will be speaking at the Point of View banquet this fall. That is appropriate since this book parallels many of the insights found in the book Public Education Against America written by Marlin Maddoux, founder of the Point of View radio talk show.
The book begins with the title, “The 16,000-Hour War.” After students spend 16,000 hours of K-12 indoctrination, they come out of the government schools hating America. They roll their eyes at religion and have little interest in history. The book documents the elitist roots of progressivism and its deliberate influence in education today. One chapter describes the “straight line from critical theory to antifa.”
As we have documented in previous commentaries, we spend more money on education than most other countries and yet have very little to show for it. Some of our nation’s students can barely read and write. They certainly have few skills in critical thinking. Few can reason with any discernment.
David Goodwin provides one solution: classical Christian education. We need to recover a lost philosophy of education. He explains that reason and virtue are the two towers of freedom. Wonder and beauty help students to learn to love the right things.
The educational establishment today is controlling the “supply lines” of future citizens. If we want to make a difference in this country, we need to understand there is a battle for the American mind.

Kerby Anderson
Christians have always needed to know how to defend the Christian faith ever since Peter admonished us to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” That is even more true with so many people skeptical about God, Jesus, and the Bible.
Douglas Groothuis and Andrew Shepardson are the co-authors of an introduction into classical apologetics with the title, The Knowledge of God in the World and the Word. The primary focus is to put forth various arguments for the existence of God and then finish with a defense of the Bible and a presentation of the truth about Jesus and His resurrection. Here is a summary of just three of the chapters in their book.
The cosmological argument recognizes the relationship between cause and effect. This then points to a First Cause of the cosmos that is transcendent to the cosmos. This argument is even more powerful now that scientists believe the universe had a beginning.
The moral argument derives from the realization there must be objective morality. If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist. But they do exist and point to God’s existence.
The design argument claims that God’s fingerprints can be found all over creation. William Paley proposed this argument, but scientists in the 19th century and early 20th century dismissed it. However, we now see what has been called the “return of the God hypothesis” because of the discovery of the fine-tuning of the universe.
In my interview with the two authors, I mentioned that more and more scientific evidence has accumulated to bolster some of these arguments. No wonder some have described us as living in the golden age of apologetics.