Pregnancy
Pregnant Women Take Tylenol to Defy Trump in Viral Trend
We have reached a new low. Pregnant liberal women are now posting videos of themselves swallowing Tylenol pills on camera, claiming they are doing it to “own Trump.” This strange new stunt comes in response to President Trump’s recent warning about the possible risks of acetaminophen use during pregnancy. Instead of sparking a thoughtful conversation, it has triggered a wave of performative defiance on social media. Trump’s Warning on Tylenol and Pregnancy President Trump, joined by health officials, spoke about studies suggesting a link between heavy acetaminophen use during pregnancy and rising autism rates. He stressed that pregnant women should be cautious and only use the drug when truly necessary, such as to control a high fever. The president pointed out that some groups who avoid pills altogether report lower autism rates. He made it clear that women should consult with their doctors before taking any medication while pregnant. Trump did not call for a ban. He did not say women could never take Tylenol. He simply urged caution, which is not unreasonable given the sensitive nature of pregnancy. His message was about protecting babies and making decisions with medical guidance. (RELATED NEWS: Autism Hope Grows With Promising Developments) Social Media Stunts: “Taking Tylenol to Own Trump” Instead of treating this like a serious issue, some women decided to make it a political spectacle. Videos popped up online showing visibly pregnant women holding up Tylenol pills and swallowing them on camera. Their captions read things like, “I trust science, not Trump,” or, “I’m a pregnant woman and I’ll take Tylenol if I want.” This kind of behavior isn’t empowering or brave. It is reckless performance designed to score political points. What is accomplished by risking your child’s health for likes, views, and applause from strangers online? The answer is nothing—except fueling more division and cheap political theater. Doctors were speaking out online, including Dr. Nicole Saphier: Pregnant women popping Tylenol like Tic Tacs just to stick it to Trump — please stop. Don’t weaponize your pregnancy for a political point. Consider acetaminophen only when absolutely necessary, for the shortest duration and lowest dose, even the makers of Tylenol say this. — Nicole Saphier, MD (@NBSaphierMD) September 23, 2025 Accusations of an “Attack on Women” Some activists went even further, claiming Trump’s warning amounted to an “attack on women.” They tried to frame his remarks as an attempt to control female bodies. In reality, the warning was about protecting unborn children from potential risks. The notion that caution equals oppression is absurd. Every doctor gives pregnant women advice on what to eat, drink, or avoid during those nine months. No sushi, no alcohol, limited caffeine—these are all common guidelines. Nobody calls that an “attack on women.” Yet when the warning comes from Trump, activists twist it into a political weapon. A Biden-Era Warning and the Scientific Debate During the Biden administration, a Salon article highlighted how the science around acetaminophen and developmental risk has long been contested. The article pointed to the SAME STUDIES used by the Trump administration and lawsuits alleging that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) could increase risks of autism, ADHD, and other developmental disorders. But as the article stresses, the science is not settled. One key study, published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2019, found that acetaminophen was “associated with increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in children.” Meanwhile, a 2021 review in Nature Reviews Endocrinology argued that “prenatal exposure to APAP [acetaminophen] might alter fetal development, which could increase the risks of some neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders.” That same review called for more research and for “precautionary action.” In the Salon story, Matthew Rozsa writes: “The period of fetal development is a very vulnerable stage,” Hugh S. Taylor, chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the Yale School of Medicine, told Yale News regarding his support of a 2021 statement urging pregnant women to exercise caution before taking acetaminophen products. “Things are moving, changing quickly. The changes that occur during that time period are then programmed for the rest of our lives. Things that don’t affect adults may affect these crucial developmental windows.” A 2018 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology cautioned that although “acetaminophen use during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for ADHD, ASD, and hyperactivity symptoms,” the findings “should be interpreted with caution given that the available evidence consists of observational studies and is susceptible to several potential sources of bias.” In short: under the Biden administration, the narrative around acetaminophen in pregnancy was already tangled. The science shows potential signals. Political Symbolism Over Common Sense The real issue here is not Tylenol—it is symbolism. For some, taking a pill on camera became a way to show loyalty to their political tribe. What should have been a sober conversation about pregnancy and health turned into a circus act of defiance. This is what happens when politics consumes every part of life. A medical question becomes a test of party loyalty. A pain reliever becomes a culture war weapon. The baby in the womb becomes an afterthought while the spotlight shines on the mother’s political performance. Why This Matters At the heart of this mess is a deeper problem. Our culture rewards outrage and stunts more than responsibility and truth. Social media encourages people to seek attention by going to extremes. And when it comes to pregnancy, that is dangerous. Women should not be pressured into ignoring medical advice just to make a political point. Babies should not be put at risk so their mothers can rack up views on TikTok. Leaders should not be vilified for offering health warnings simply because of their political party. This story matters because it reveals how broken our discourse has become. When everything is viewed through the lens of politics, even a warning about a common over-the-counter drug becomes a battlefield. The Takeaway Trump’s point was simple: if risks exist, why not err on the side of…
Pregnancy Robots: Miracle or Ethical Nightmare?
Humanoid robots may soon replace human surrogates in pregnancy for infertile couples. Reports from Chosun Biz suggest that China is developing a pregnancy robot with an artificial womb capable of carrying a baby to term. The idea has shocked many, but it reflects a growing effort to use technology to solve infertility. This innovation could replace the complex, expensive, and sometimes controversial process of human surrogacy. It also raises profound ethical, medical, and social concerns that the world is only beginning to discuss. (MORE NEWS: Court Nixes California AI Deepfake Law, Free Speech Wins) The Reality of Infertility Infertility is not rare. In the United States, about 19% of women ages 15 to 49 experience infertility if they have never given birth. 6% struggle to conceive even after having one or more children. 9% percent of men ages 15 to 44 also face infertility, according to CCRM Infertility. The causes are divided fairly evenly. One-third of cases are due to male factors, one-third to female factors, and one-third involve a combination. A 2019 NIH study revealed that African American women ages 33 to 44 are twice as likely to face infertility compared with Caucasian women. Couples often spend years and thousands of dollars on infertility treatments with no guarantee of success. Some pursue adoption. Others hold out hope for a biological child, even if it requires experimental or unconventional methods. That desperation fuels interest in surrogacy and even possibly technology like artificial wombs. According to Southwest Surrogacy, the CDC reports that the number of gestational carrier cycles rose from 3,202 in 2012 to 8,862 in 2021, with a high of 9,195 in 2019. The shortage of willing surrogates creates a gap that technology promises to fill. The question is whether a robot womb is an acceptable answer. The Birth of the Pregnancy Robot As reported in Chosun Biz, the pregnancy robot concept came from Dr. Zhang Qifeng, founder of Kaiwa Technology in Guangzhou, China. His company hopes to have a prototype ready by 2026. Qifeng says, “The artificial womb technology is already in a mature stage, and now it needs to be implanted in the robot’s abdomen so that a real person and the robot can interact to achieve pregnancy, allowing the fetus to grow inside.” (MORE NEWS: Catherine Zeta-Jones and the U.S. Homeownership Divide) The potential financial appeal is strong. Human surrogacy in many countries costs between $100,000 and $200,000. By comparison, Dr. Zhang claims that a pregnancy robot could carry a child for about 100,000 yuan, or $14,000. The enormous price difference alone is likely to attract attention from families who cannot afford traditional surrogacy. How a Robot Pregnancy Might Work Although details remain scarce, the idea is that the robot would replicate the biological environment of a womb. It would be filled with artificial amniotic fluid and connected to the baby through tubing that provides nutrients. The process would simulate every stage of pregnancy from conception to delivery. Experiments in animals suggest this may be technically possible. In 2017, researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia successfully kept a premature lamb alive in an artificial womb. The lamb floated in a transparent vinyl bag filled with warm water, and a tube was connected to the umbilical cord. That system acted more like an incubator than a full womb, but it showed that external gestation could sustain life beyond a very early stage. Legal Barriers Across the Globe Surrogacy is already a highly regulated or even banned practice in many countries. Italy, Germany, France, and Spain ban all forms of surrogacy. They are unlikely to approve the use of robots for pregnancy. In the United States, laws vary. States like Nebraska and Louisiana have banned surrogacy altogether, while others allow it only under strict guidelines. Introducing robot surrogates would pose new legal challenges about parentage, liability, and regulation. Ethical Concerns Safety is the most immediate question. Who decides when artificial wombs are safe for human pregnancy? If a child is harmed due to technical failure, who bears responsibility—the parents, the doctors, or the company? Child development is another concern. A mother’s body contributes not only nutrition and protection but also hormonal and biological cues that influence brain growth, bonding, and immune system development. Removing the maternal connection could have consequences that do not appear until years later. There is also the risk of social stigma. Would children born from artificial wombs be viewed as engineered products rather than natural human beings? Commercialization adds another layer. If pregnancy becomes a product sold by corporations, children risk being treated as commodities. This shifts reproduction from a personal or family matter to an industry driven by profit. Gender roles would be disrupted as well. Technology that removes women from pregnancy undermines their unique place in human life. God made women to be in the role of mother and nurturer. Assigning a generic, emotionless robot to this role would move the needle in the wrong direction for women. The Slippery Slope Toward Designer Babies Artificial wombs would further the creation of designer babies, where parents select physical or intellectual traits before birth. What begins as a solution for infertility could evolve into a system of human engineering. Governments could misuse the technology. Artificial wombs could be used for population control, eugenics, or mass manufacturing of children selected for certain traits. The line between innovation and abuse is thin. (MORE NEWS: Sydney Sweeney ‘Good Jeans’ Outrage Explained) Final Thought Artificial womb robots may sound like a solution for infertile couples, but the risks far outweigh the promises. Children are not products, and motherhood cannot be outsourced to machines. This technology threatens the sanctity of life, the God-given role of women, and the very meaning of family. Without clear moral boundaries, artificial wombs would reduce babies to commodities in a marketplace driven by profit rather than love. Once we sever pregnancy from the mother, we risk erasing the bond that defines human nurture and dignity. True solutions to infertility should support families, protect children,…