You've probably heard that more and more female babies are being born, but you may not have noticed recent news stories about female hormones polluting our water supply. And more than likely you didn't know these two stories could be connected.
Health officials estimate over 100 million women worldwide take some form of hormonal contraceptive, but there is little media attention given to scientists’ growing concerns about its environmental impact. Why? Where are the environmentalists protesting in the streets? Why have I yet to hear any real outcry from government, media, or even celebrities?
First, what do researchers and scientists have to say about the effects of estrogen in the world’s water supply? Not much. One of the only studies I could find was by Dr. Karen Kidd, of the University of New Brunswick and the Canadian Rivers Institute.
Kidd states:
“We've known for some time that estrogen can adversely affect the reproductive health of fish, but ours was the first study to show the long-term impact on the sustainability of wild fish populations.” Her studies show that estrogen from birth control pills is flooding into the water system through sewage, negatively affecting fish populations:
"What we demonstrated is that estrogen can wipe out entire populations of small fish—a key food source for larger fish whose survival could in turn be threatened over the longer term." Of course if this is happening to our fish populations, what about humans drinking the same water? How do these types of hormones effect human populations long term?
The UK’s
Independent recently published an article titled, “
It's official: Men really are the weaker sex.” This particular article explains how hormones are affecting the world’s male population:
“… [N]ew American research … shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminised genitals."
So now that we know gender-bending chemicals have started showing up in our water, what does that mean to us, practically speaking? Are we supposed to stop taking drugs, especially drugs that are the supposed cure for unwanted children? The liberals sure aren't suggesting anything of the sort.
Author Iain Murray hit the nail on the head, discussing this issue in his book, The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You To Know About—Because They Helped Cause Them. He writes:
Why don't we have more outcries about hormones, and campaigns to save the fish populations? Why aren't environmentalists lobbying on Capitol Hill to keep these chemicals from being dumped into our rivers?...
Maybe because the source of these chemicals is not some corporate polluter, but something a little more dear to the Left: human birth-control pills, morning-after pills, and abortion pills. The contraceptive pill has fundamentally changed American life, making sex more casual, morals looser, husbands and wives more distant. It has messed with women's fertility. In short, it has been a game-changer, in some fundamental and not-so-good ways.
Ironically, the environmental groups have long been on the same page as the abortion-industry foot soldiers, embracing anything that assuages fears of overpopulation (no longer a worry, as Western countries, particularly in Europe, face plummeting birth rates). ... But by any standard typically used by environmentalists, the pill is a pollutant. It does the same thing, just worse, as other chemicals they call pollutants.
I wouldn't put it past the far left. I mean, continuing to allow estrogen in the water supply cultivates their ideas of “feminizing”our culture, as they have never been shy about portraying society’s masculine figures as homophobes, rapists, and predators who need to get in touch with their feminine sides. Of course, it might not just be anything more sinister than good, old-fashioned laziness. People do not want to give up their lifestyle. Birth control being bad would pretty much change how all Westerners (even a lot of conservative Christians) live their lives.
If the pill feminizes male fish, what does it do to male children? It must do something—decrease fertility? feminize boys, i.e., create gays? ... Could there be an insidious motive for allowing estrogen to remain in the human water system?
Although I personally wouldn't argue that hormones in the water are indeed making our boys gay or that feminists are withholding viable information from Americans about this dilemma, you have to admit the possibility that there is something very unnatural affecting the fertility of women in the U.S. is unsettling. I believe the finger points straight to birth control, morning-after pills, and other abortion pills. I believe Murray gets it, claiming this hormone-in-the-water problem is something liberals want to ignore, but how long can they? Murray goes on to say:
We may soon have reason to regret our embrace of the little white pill. For the first time, mainstream culture and the left may be forced to take a look at the side effects of oral contraceptives. Never mind the women, of course. Never mind the men and children affected in various emotional and other ways. The fish! Have mercy on the fish!
