Filmmaker and mother Jessica Solce was frustrated by the difficulty of finding healthy, all-natural products for herself and her family. To make it easier, she created the Solarium, which curates trusted, third-party-tested foods, clothing, beauty products, and more — all free of seed oils, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and other harmful additives.
In this occasional column, she shares recommendations and research she has picked up during her ongoing education in health and wellness.
On Wednesday, the CDC moved six childhood vaccines out of the “recommended for all” schedule.
For those of us advocating for the right to oversee our own children's health, it was a day we thought would never come. It is a moment of triumph, but also a reminder of the fear and pressure we have had to overcome.
When my child was just three days old, I was yelled at and expelled from a pediatrician’s office for simply asking about delayed vaccination.
I joined the fight in 2009, not long after becoming pregnant with my first child. My parents brought me up to question and test everything; as I prepared to become a parent myself, this tendency quickly found a new target: childhood vaccinations.
While many mothers-to-be were already signing their future babies up for preschools, summer camps, and Mandarin lessons, I was staying up at night immersed in research that challenged conventional wisdom about children’s health. In 2009, that kind of information was far harder to track down than it is today.
But track it down I did. That’s how I found the work of the Weston A. Price Foundation, as well as the writings of Dr. Lawrence Palevsky. I began reading with the intention of writing a kind of thesis paper — something rigorous enough to convince myself and honest enough to defend to my family.
At the time I encountered his work, Dr. Palevsky was not what most people would call “anti-vaccine.” He recommended delaying vaccination until age two, avoiding live-virus vaccines except for smallpox, spacing doses by six months, and administering only one vaccine at a time.
This seemed reasonable to me.
Why? [Checks 2009 notes.] Based on Dr. Palevsky’s work, I believed that vaccines could activate microglia — the brain’s specialized immune cells — and that closely spaced vaccinations might overstimulate this system during early brain development.
The most rapid period of brain development begins in the third trimester and continues through the first two years of life. Vaccinating children under two, according to this line of thinking, could increase the risk of neurological issues, asthma, allergies, autoimmune conditions, and chronic inflammation. By age two, the brain is roughly 80% developed, and the view then was that certain vaccines could be introduced very slowly after that point.
So I weighed risk and reward. With a healthy baby in my care, why would I take what I believed to be a neurological risk?
That was enough to harden my resolve. I armed myself for what became a 10-year battle in New York City.
When my child was just three days old, I was yelled at and expelled from a pediatrician’s office for simply asking about delayed vaccination. I had printed multiple copies of my small “thesis paper,” like a diligent student, and in a moment of panic and adrenaline shoved them into office drawers as I held my newborn and was escorted out.
But the doctor’s tirade — invoking her intelligence, her own vaccinated children, and her authority as a physician, all while calling me an idiot — only strengthened my resolve. To me, it suggested someone constrained by her own choices, guilt, and lack of curiosity.
Even my father, a physician himself, was initially stunned when I began laying out my reasoning. But through heated debate, shared papers, and real discussion — the healthy kind — he eventually reflected on his own training and acknowledged that he had been taught to comply, not to question.
RELATED: Trump administration overhauls childhood vax schedule. Here's the downsized version.
For anyone ready to do some research of their own, I recommend starting with the CDC's Vaccine Excipient Summary, which lists the inactive ingredients contained in licensed vaccines. Perhaps you'll ask yourself, as I did, whether you want substances like formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, polysorbate 80, β-propiolactone, neomycin, and polymyxin B injected into your child’s developing body.
Once I began asking that question, it was impossible not to look at how vaccine policy had evolved. A major inflection point, in my view, came in 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which shielded vaccine manufacturers from direct liability and moved injury claims into a federal compensation system. After that, vaccine development accelerated.
Today I'm in a celebratory mood, despite how long it has taken to get here. I don’t regret the fight for a second; I only wish I had had more courage and stamina at times. Still, I rejoice in every freedom of choice returned to parents in the United States.
Let’s go, MAHA. Now do the EPA.
Chinese elites are reportedly building "mega-families" by commissioning U.S. surrogates to produce for them scores of American-born children. This practice, which has apparently encouraged the growth of a secondary industry of accommodation, has prompted concerns about underregulation of the surrogacy industry as well as about birthright citizenship.
A recent Wall Street Journal report detailed multiple cases where affluent individuals in communist China — where surrogacy is illegal — have shelled out millions for U.S.-based surrogates to "help them build families of jaw-dropping size."
At a cost of up to $200,000 per child, they can reportedly send their genetic material abroad, have their babies carried to term, delivered, cared for, and ultimately shipped back.
Xu Bo, an anti-feminist billionaire in the gaming industry, reportedly told an American family court judge in 2023 that he hoped to have 20 boys born in the U.S. through surrogacy, with the hope that they could one day take over his business. At the time, several of his surrogate-born children — whom he had yet to meet — were being raised by nannies in California.
A social media account operated by Xu noted in a message reviewed by the Journal that he hoped to have "50 high-quality sons," and Xu's company has since bragged that Xu has supposedly paid to sire over 100 children through surrogacy in the United States.
Wang Huiwu, the CEO of Sichuan-based education group XJ International Holdings, has fathered 10 girls through American surrogates using the eggs he purchased for at least $6,000 a pop from models, a musician, and others, the Journal reported. Wang apparently wants girls, as he figures they could one day marry world leaders.
Xu, Wang, and other elites in the adversarial nation who are similarly motivated to commission armies of children with American citizenship apparently don't have to step foot in the United States to start or complete the process.
At a cost of up to $200,000 per child, they can reportedly send their genetic material abroad, have their babies carried to term, delivered, cared for, and ultimately shipped back. Agencies, law firms, and nanny services have emerged to help accommodate the growing foreign demand.
RELATED: Buying fatherhood: The devastating toll of our rent-a-womb society
Nathan Zhang, the CEO of IVF USA, told the Journal that whereas his clientele were historically parents trying to bypass China's one-child policy, he has begun to see an increasing number of "crazy rich" clients who are paying for dozens or even hundreds of U.S.-born babies with the aim of "forging an unstoppable family dynasty."
Zhang indicated that he rejected one Chinese businessman as a client who sought over 200 children via surrogates after he proved unable to account for how he might raise them all. Not all such requests, however, are turned down.
The Journal cited, for instance, the case of a California surrogacy agency whose owner confirmed the fulfillment of an order for a Chinese individual seeking 100 children in recent years.
While industry groups apparently recommend that agencies and IVF clinics refrain from working with parents seeking more than two simultaneous surrogacies, such recommendations often go unheeded, fueling concerns among critics over the industry's lack of oversight.
A study published last year in the peer-reviewed journal Fertility and Sterility noted that international gestational surrogacy has grown greatly over the past two decades — of the 40,177 embryo transfers to a prospective mother in the U.S. from 2014 to 2020, 32% were for foreigners.
Foreign intended parents "were more likely to be male sex (41.3% vs. 19.6%), older than 42 years (33.9% vs. 26.2%), and identify as Asian race (65.6% vs. 16.5%)," the study said.
Of all the international parents siring children in the U.S. through surrogacy during the six-year window, 41.7% were from China.
The study stressed that "given that individuals are increasingly traveling to the U.S. for this care, it is imperative to understand the trends and outcomes of international gestational surrogacy in the U.S."
According to Emma Waters, a policy analyst for the Center for Technology and the Human Person at the Heritage Foundation, international commercial surrogacy is a "situation of immigration fraud as well as a national security risk."
After all, Chinese men — the cohort most commonly exploiting the system — can deploy their U.S.-born, China-raised, and Chinese Communist Party-influenced children to advance Beijing's interests in the United States.
Last month, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced the Stopping Adversarial Foreign Exploitation of Kids in Domestic Surrogacy Act with the aim of preventing adversarial nations, including China, from using American surrogates to obtain U.S. citizenship for their children.
"America's surrogacy system is meant to help individuals build families — it should never be the avenue to allow abuse, neglect, or deceit of innocent women and babies," Scott said. "And it's terrifying that this might be at the hands of foreign adversaries with the sole intent of having a child that is a U.S. citizen."
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to hear arguments for and against President Donald Trump's order to end birthright citizenship. Success on the part of the president may serve to devalue Chinese elites' breeding scheme.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, then-North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) stated, "This decision is a victory for the many North Dakotans who have fought so hard and for so long to protect the unborn in our state."
The law 'protects unborn children throughout gestation from abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother as well as other exceptions.'
While Burgum was ultimately right in claiming victory, his celebration was premature as it pertained to the Roughrider State. It was not, after all, until Friday when abortion was formally and finally banned in the state.
The overturning of Roe triggered a 2007 law making it a Class C felony to perform an abortion in North Dakota, except to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest.
Just prior to the law taking effect, the abortionists from the Red River Women's Clinic who moved their abortion clinic from Fargo to Minnesota successfully sued to get an injunction.
Months after South Central Judicial District Court Judge Bruce Romanick blocked the law, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the abortion ban would remain blocked while the legal battle over the law's constitutionality proceeded.
Jon Jensen, chief justice on the court, noted that the abortionists had "demonstrated likely success on the merits that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute is not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny."
Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, the former head of ND Choose Life, subsequently introduced a similar piece of legislation, which repealed and replaced the 2007 law. Myrdal's Senate Bill 2150 passed the North Dakota House and Senate in landslide votes and was ultimately ratified by Burgum in April 2023.
Desperate as ever to keep abortion legal, the abortionists behind the initial challenge filed an amended complaint asking that the same judge who previously gave them an injunction would deem the ban unconstitutional under the North Dakota Constitution.
RELATED: 'Abortion Is Everything' book for kids calls killing unborn children 'human superpower'
Romanick proved happy to oblige them, stating on Sept. 12, 2024, that the law was "void for vagueness" and that it was violative of the North Dakota Constitution, which supposedly recognizes a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability.
The state kept pressing the issue in court — North Dakota Attorney General Drew H. Wrigley (R) appealed Romanick's decision — and prevailed.
The North Dakota Supreme Court reinstated the abortion ban on Friday. While three of the five justices deemed the ban "unconstitutionally vague," the state constitution requires at least four justices to agree in order to find a law unconstitutional.
In his dissent, which was joined by Jensen, Justice Jerod Tufte said that the state district court erred both in concluding the law was unconstitutionally vague and in concluding that the state constitution protects a right to abortion broad enough to conflict with Senate Bill 2150.
Pro-abortion activists were apoplectic over the codification of the people's will on the matter of abortion in North Dakota.
"This decision is a devastating loss for pregnant North Dakotans," Meetra Mehdizadeh, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. "As a majority of the Court found, this cruel and confusing ban is incomprehensible to physicians."
Tammi Kromenaker, executive director of the Red River Women's Clinic, complained that "making it illegal just makes it harder" to get abortions.
Pro-live activists, alternatively, were overjoyed.
Ingrid Duran, the National Right to Life's director of state legislation, welcomed the decision, noting that the law "protects unborn children throughout gestation from abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother as well as other exceptions."
Myrdal, the Republican who introduced the legislation, reportedly said that she is "thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child and thereafter for that sake."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Big Fertility markets itself as a compassionate branch of the medical world that exists to help infertile couples — but instead it facilitates a return to harem logic.
Over the years, we’ve heard 'hands full' more than 'blessings' to describe our seemingly inexplicable situation.
The birth rate will go up if Americans prioritize having and raising their own children, not because they have foreigners to change diapers.
It has an object of worship, which is female autonomy, its own commandments, theological virtues, a sacrament, and even its own form of evangelization.
Establishing a norm of egg freezing and IVF will further entrench the view that marriage is a capstone in life, rather than a foundation.
Research shows that abortifacients, not lack of money, are the top driver of the world’s population bomb.
thefederalist.com
freebeacon.com
www.theblaze.com