Dr. Laura
Dr. Laura, America's #1 Relationship Talk Radio Host
On: SiriusXM Triumph Channel 111
Call 1-800-DR LAURA (1-800-375-2872) 11am - 2pm PT
Internet-Media
05/13/2010
IconLast week, I posted a blog entitled "Accidental Sex?" in which I commented about an article in Seventeen Magazine entitled " Shocking Ways You Could Get Pregnant By Accident ."'I got an email from a listener who had written to Seventeen to complain about the article.' She sent me a copy of their response, or as she said: "let's be sure not to alienate anyone, was their bottom line.' Good grief!"'Good grief, indeed.' I'll let you be the judge.' Here's the letter from Seventeen: Thank you for your letter.' We are very interested in all of your comments, questions and concerns. Seventeen has a readership of millions of girls, and it is our mission, indeed our obligation, to give these girls information, entertainment and advice they can turn to.' As the oldest magazine in existence for teenagers, we also have 60 years of experience in talking to them and finding ways of getting them to listen.' We have found that when teens feel they are being lectured, condescended to, or getting nothing but "don'ts," they stop listening. What we attempt to do in every article is to give teens basic facts and warnings, in an effort to make sure that if they do decide to take a step, like to become sexually active, they are aware of the most likely issues and safety conditions and will at least think twice about what they are doing and try to do it in the most responsible way possible. We at Seventeen work as best we can to get the right kind of message across without alienating readers.' We will continue to try to give our readers advice that works, and to serve them as well as we can. Thanks again for writing us. Sincerely, The Editors More >>

Tags: EducationFamily/Relationships - TeensInternet-MediaInternet/MediaParentingSchoolSexSexualityTeens
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconAny woman who has ever been pregnant knows how absurd it is when we hear about some young woman who did not know she was pregnant until the moment at which she is giving birth to a full-term baby.' Preposterous, of course.' Its more like she's not willing to take responsibility.' Well, the February issue of Seventeen magazine focuses on "Shocking Ways You Could Get Pregnant By Accident."' Huh?The cover piece does mention the option of not having sex, and even points out that "studies show that girls who have a big plan for their future are significantly less likely to get pregnant," but the main focus of the magazine article is not about how to avoid sex simply because you feel all tingly and your girlfriends are doing it or the guy tells you that you won't be popular if you don't.' It's mainly about accepting that it'll probably happen, so this is how you talk him into a condom or how you take the pill (which, by the way, does not protect against sexually-transmitted diseases)."...sex is a natural, healthy and fun part of loving relationships."' That is a fact.' What Seventeen does not take an entire issue to explain is that every time you feel butterflies or are hot for someone, it isn't love.' The issue does not spend page after page extolling the virtues of mature awe, respect, admiration, friendship, trust, etc., which take years to develop and can really only take place once you're a mature adult.Surely Seventeen magazine knows that the number one issue for teens is acceptance and fitting in.' To be such a formidable influence in the lives of teens and to be so remiss in cheating them out of the blessings of true intimacy - instead, touting the fulfillment of urges as love justifying sex - is a sad, irresponsible, and disgusting misuse of their power. More >>

Tags: Family/Relationships - TeensInternet-MediaInternet/MediaParentingSexSexualityTeens
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconPhilosophers throughout the ages have contemplated and agonized over what causes people to fall in love.' Sociologists and psychologists have done the same over what causes people to stay in love.' Now neuroscientists are trying to solve both their problems by taking brain scans of folks in love looking for the "cause" of love.The report of their work prepared by the Wall Street Journal (2/8/08) seems to miss the main point.' Looking for brain sites of increased activity in people who after many years of marriage still feel fabulously in love, is not likely due to some abnormal hyperactivity in centers associated with affection or pleasure.' It is the opposite way around.' People who behave consistently in a loving manner constantly stoke the fires of affectionate and passionate love - all which will show up in their brain scans.The couple they "analyzed," the Turners, are described up front: "Ann Tucker is pushing a shopping cart through the produce section of a supermarket in Plainview, N.Y., when she turns to kiss her husband.' The supermarket kiss is a regular ritual for the Tuckers.' So are the restaurant kiss and the traffic-light kiss.' 'I guess we do kiss a lot,' says Mrs. Tucker...Mrs. Tucker is living happily ever after, and scientists are curious why." Why?' That's easy: she and her husband constantly behave like people in love.' Feelings follow behavior and both feed into brain pathways that become "well-worn" through constant activation.So, stop looking for supplements, hormone injections, or implanted brain stimulators, miracles or moonspots.' Instead, behave like a man/woman in love and you'll create what you wish for. More >>

Tags: CharityInternet-MediaInternet/MediaMen's Point of ViewPersonal ResponsibilityStay-at-Home MomValuesWomen's Point of View
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconIn a never-ending supply of lows, TV's newest contribution to the destruction of dignity, modesty, and compassion is on the Fox Network, entitled " The Moment of Truth ."' The basic concept is to have people admit to immoral, illegal, embarrassing, stupid, crass or just plain dumb behavior while attached to a "polygraph," which purports to determine whether the answer given by the contestant is "truthful."' Truthful answers are rewarded by cash, up to a half-million dollars.' It's sickening to see what some folks will destroy in their own souls and relationships for money - even a lot of money.The New York Times ( January 25, 2008 ) described a scenario on the series' premiere show: 'Ty, a personal trainer, said 'yes' when asked if he has delayed having children because he is not sure that Catia, his wife of 2 1/2 years, would be his 'lifelong partner.'' After he replied, a disembodied female voice delivered the verdict:' 'The answer is....(long dramatic beat) TRUE!'' The camera panned to Catia, who stopped smiling and murmured 'I'm dying here.'' Her friend, April, turned to her and asked in a semi-whisper 'Is it worth $100,000 to learn that?'"Well, financially, it wasn't worth anything because when Ty was asked whether he had ever touched a female client more than was strictly necessary, his "no" was determined by the polygraph to be a lie, and he lost all his winnings This is sick stuff.' All truths ought not to be spoken.There is a new film out with a plot that I believe appropriately condemns society for caving into the basest part of human nature.' There is a "bad" guy who murders people and puts their lingering, torturous death on the Internet live.' The more people who log on....the faster and more horrific the victim's death.' What happens?' Well, more people log on.' The parallel is inescapable.' Shame on Fox, but more so, shame on us. More >>

Tags: Internet-MediaInternet/MediaMotherhoodMotherhood-FatherhoodParenting
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconI sometimes hear from people who think I'm too harsh on my callers.' There are many reasons for the way I deal with someone who calls my program, but my particular approach is always in direct response to what I intuit from the callers themselves.'' Here's an email I got from Morgan, who titled her correspondence "Thanks For Your Advice and for TEARING Into Me!" I called you the other day, and was shocked to hear you for real in my ear!' My question was about why I was complaining about my fianc' a lot lately.' My complaints were about his extra weight, being quiet on road trips, an, lately, his constant wearing of a baseball hat!' You listened PATIENTLY to what I was nagging about, and then you truly laid into me...and well, I really needed it! You told me that I wasn't marrying myself, and if I wanted to be with someone exactly like me, well, marry myself (ha!), but not stay and complain.' You also stated that I was comparing him to me, and that wasn't helpful.' He is his own man - a quiet, baseball hat-wearing man.' Then you said that I should thank him for putting up with me for so long. It is really interesting to me that I have always prided myself on treating others the way I wish to be treated-- my students, my colleagues, my friend--but that I had been treating my own fianc' in a negative, terrible and condescending manner, instead of thanking him every day for coming into my life.' He is the most gentle, generous and loyal person I know, and the truth is I have been feeling crappy about myself and projecting that onto him. Well, I went home and re-read "Ten Stupid Things Women Do To Mess Up Their Lives," and got to the part that asks the reader to think about whether they would want their future daughter to be dating their partner.' It really sunk in.I'd love it if my future daughter would be dating someone like my fianc', but I don't think I'd want my future son dating someone like I have been lately! Good wake-up call for me, Dr. Laura.' I've listened to you for eight years.' You are a true voice of reason, morality, and plain common sense in my head! More >>

Tags: CharityDatingInternet-MediaInternet/MediaMarriageMen's Point of ViewValuesWomen's Point of View
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconIn response to my blog on the degeneration of interpersonal relationships through Facebook, MySpace, and the swell of gossip media outlets, I got this from Paul French: You are so correct.' My wife came across a great quote from Eleanor Roosevelt that I believe explains a lot of this:' 'Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.' Thanks, Paul! More >>

Tags: Internet-MediaInternet/MediaParentingSocial NetworkingValues
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconA recent essay in the New York Times (December 2, 2007) talked about the growing popularity of social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, and others where the word "friends" is used to describe email relationships with folks we barely know.' Humans are gregarious creatures and fare better belonging to networks of family, community, spiritual groups, clubs, and so forth - all of which are sustained through face-to-face contact.The bottom line is that the more time we spend online, the less time we spend having true relationships complete with challenges, vulnerability, risks and profundity.' These are not real-world relationships with depth.' These on-line relationships are shadows and facsimiles which ultimately amount to little more than casual, superficial experiences.One mother, Jene, who listens regularly to my radio program, sent me this letter her 21 year-old son wrote to Facebook.' I suggest you show this to all your children and read it twice yourself if you are hooked to on-line pseudo-friendships: "As a mother of two young adults, I've witnessed their obsessive involvement with the many electronic forms of communication that are all the rage in recent years...email, instant messaging, texting, and the several web-based social networks like Facebook and MySpace.' All are useful communication tools, but often counterproductive in really getting to know people. It came to my attention that my 21 year-old son took a bold step recently and closed down his Facebook account by writing a breaking-up letter and posting it as a good-bye.' When he shared it with me, I was touched, relieved, and very proud of his stand.' I asked him if I might share this with you.' His grin, soft laugh and nod of his head spoke volumes: 'Facebook, we need to have a DTR (defining the relationship) talk...It's not all your fault, it's mostly mine...This is the end of you and me, Facebook.' I'm leaving you because I have spent more time browsing your pages than I have been spending in the pages of The Good Book.' And I can't live like that anymore.' I've let you become a monster...you've taken too much of my time and my thoughts.' Maybe it's just my lack of self-control or discipline, but you're addictive to me.' I'm ashamed of the number of times I check you daily.' If I were able to grasp how much time I have spent swimming though your endless ocean of profiles, I would be able to bear the guilt. Here's why: because of your profiles, I've become lazy.' Because of you I found myself talking with person after person, asking them questions that I already knew the answers to.' On many levels I've substituted and even avoided personal interactions with people because of your artificial and superficial means of communication.' You have diluted my perception of true social interaction. You've made me a coward.' There's a difference between a Facebook friend and an actual friend.' Everyone knows the difference, but when one tries to reach across the barrier from Facebook friends to actual friends it just isn't the same. Facebook, you're not all bad.' You have your benefits.' I must admit, you allow me to network and keep in touch with people with whom I normally wouldn't have been able to...but at what cost?' Wasting time Facebooking people I'll never meet has distracted me from meeting the person sitting next to me in class, or has kept me from calling up and hanging out with an old friend because Facebooking is just as good?' I beg to differ. In some form or another, you've hindered my investment in the relationships with those genuine people hiding behind the idealistic profiles they've made of themselves.' Let's face it, I don't perceive myself in the same way someone else perceives me.' From now on, I only want to know people for whom they truly are; not for what you (Facebook) says they are.' I just can't trust you. 'This might seem radical, but I have to make up for lost time.' This hurts me just as much as it hurts you, but I have to take a stand.'Logging out for good, Kyle.'" I am so very impressed with Kyle's maturity and good sense. More >>

Tags: Eat Less-Move MoreExerciseHealthInternet-MediaInternet/MediaMySpaceSocial Networking
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconGo ahead and guess what came out as Number 3 on AOL's "Top Searches from Mobile Devices."' Right!' It's porn.' The Wall Street Journal's Carl Bialik ( The Numbers Guy ) got the original list in a draft press release, and said he "pointed out the surprising entry" to a spokeswoman, who said that normally, such terms are "scrubbed from the list."' And guess what?' When the final list was released, "porn" was nowhere to be found, replaced by "iPhone," which was pushed up to Number 3 from Number 4 on the original draft release.It gets even better...."...Britney Spears and Saddam Hussein could each top the category of 'celebrity' and 'news,' respectively, in lists from multiple search engines.' Those search engines willing to share numbers beyond their news releases made clear that, in search land, the troubled pop singer trumped the late dictator.' Searches for Ms. Spears ran six times those for Mr. Hussein on Yahoo!, and nearly 600 times on Lycos."How embarrassing for our nation.'[sources:' Bialik article:' you can search it on WSJ.com under The Numbers Guy for December 21.' Title of article is "What Topics Filled (Clean) Minds in '07?' For One:' An Asterisk or use the link here: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119820461738044109-lECMb7qhI7UaxADXmlRkefZGJhI_20081220.html?mod=rss_free ] More >>

Tags: Internet-MediaInternet/MediaMorals, Ethics, ValuesSocial IssuesValues
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconFirst, full disclosure. Years ago, a journalist from Vanity Fair called me. She was supposedly friends for 20 years with my then-chief of staff, and wanted to interview me. And having some brains in my head (I don't trust this stuff), I asked my associate about her, and she said "Y'know, she's been a friend of mine; I'll vouch for her." So, I said 'OK, I'll call her, feel it out, and then make a decision.'I called her, and she gave me a line of lies (that I found out later were a line of lies) about how I was a cultural phenomenon and she wanted to study this sociologically, and understand the points of view about how they became popular (but they weren't), and she gave me this whole line, and I thought "OK, I like the point of view; she's supposedly friends with my chief-of-staff who has known her and says she's a decent person," and I agreed to do it.Meanwhile, my editor at HarperCollins said "Don't. Trust me on this. Don't. Trust me on this. Don't. Trust me on this. Don't." Turns out (I'm going to go back and forth in history a little bit), after the article was out, my editor, who was protecting her source who was a dear friend who worked at Vanity Fair , said "I couldn't tell you because I promised " - don't you hate those? --- I couldn't tell you, because I promised, but that Vanity Fair , according to my source (a male who works there, whose name I do not know, or I'd give it right now) said that they actually had a planning meeting to set me up and do a hatchet piece. I'm telling you this because I want clarity that what I'm about to say is not vengeance. You've heard me say I love vengeance....I love it. Justice, vengeance - all one thing to me. I love it! And you've also heard how I want you to go get it, usually by being really nice ('cause that kills the bad guys) and being happy and successful.That woman from Vanity Fair came for the first meeting with me and I knew I was in trouble, when I came in and sat down, and she took a look at my figure and disdainfully asked me if I was a size zero, while she was somewhere between fat and obese, and I was trying to get her an appropriate sandwich, but she wanted to eat something with a lot of mayonnaise - I knew there was a problem from that point on, to be honest with you. And I was right. It was just a nasty hatchet piece of people saying gossipy stupid things and it was really mean. The writer's name is Leslie Bennetts. Really mean . But I found out way too late that that was Vanity Fair 's plan - it was their little editorial meeting, according to my editor at HarperCollins who's not there anymore and not related to this. But she didn't tell me in time. She said, "Well, I warned you!" A little more information would have been more helpful.The reason I'm bringing this up as disclosure, is that this same person is coming out with a book pretty much telling women not to stay home with their kids. Now, let me say something about women's magazines. By and large, women's magazines completely ignore me. "I am my kid's mom." You'd think one year in 31 years that I've been in the media - that one year I would have been made "Mother of the Year" in one woman's magazine. A couple of years ago, we tried to have a women's magazine "editor and publisher" luncheon with me when one of my new books came out. HarperCollins was going to pay for the lunch, I was going to appear...everybody eats, and I'd do a Q&A. They had to cancel it - nobody would come. Whenever they do articles like on mothers staying home, who do you think in the entire United States you would really think they'd ask for a quote, besides me? It doesn't happen. Okay?So, I want you to know that I've been getting e-mails from you folks about Ladies Home Journal and Glamour magazine doing a little one-page on this book which is encouraging women to do the wrong thing and be paranoid. Let me just share with you two of these letters. This one is from Christie: I was appalled today when a friend e-mailed this to me from Glamour magazine. The article tells stay-at-home moms that they will become dependent financially and lose themselves. I'm a stay-at-home mom to a beautiful six month old baby girl. I am a wife to a Navy officer (my warrior!), and I am dependent on him. Yet, I know that my family is dependent on me! My husband and child NEED me to do the tasks that make our home run smoothly in order to feel safe, secure and loved! I thank you for reminding your listeners on a daily basis the importance of being dependent on your spouse in your marriage both ways, and to be your kids' parents. Yes! That's the part Leslie doesn't seem to get! I don't know what her home life is like, but mutual dependency is a good marriage. This is from Jennifer: I was appalled at coming across an article in Ladies Home Journal (like a rabbit, it keeps multiplying!) . It's entitled "Why Moms Should Work." For women who have quit their jobs to stay home with the kids full-time, here's a reason to think twice. There's a whole page article she writes about why you shouldn't stay home with your kids. You have to read this! I will only tell you the last paragraph of the article. It says: "There's stress attached to everything we do. Women need to accept that it's fine to be a good-enough parent, a good-enough homemaker, a good-enough wife. We have richer, more satisfying lives when we do a reasonably good job at a multiple of tasks, than when we strive for this insane perfectionism in a single, limited role." I was crushed that she called staying at home with your children a limited role. I'm my 7 year old son's mom and the wife of my husband of 10 years. I'm certainly proud of that and firmly believe the reason my life is so good is because of women like you, Dr. Laura. You believe in us, and we praise you for that. I can't thank you enough for your voice, what you do for your country, and thank you for the tools for a happy home. And that includes staying home with our children. By the way, across the country, young women are jettisoning careers to stay home with their kids. According to The Wall Street Journal (printing information from the US Census Bureau), an estimated almost 6 million mothers stayed home to care for their families in 2005 - 1.2 million more than a decade ago. The trend of opting-out has been broader than previously believed, with women at all income levels taking job breaks. Meanwhile, Leslie Bennetts is paranoid about divorce, your spouse losing a job, and widowhood, as though the only answer to that was across-the-board "do not be at home, do not take care of your kids, do not be your husband's girlfriend"....get your job, be secure, just in case something horrible happens. Well, my answer to something horrible happening is find another way to deal with it if and when it does, rather than knee-jerking, giving up on your family.Last but not least, I'm going to close with this letter from Yvette: Thank you so much for your hard-hitting, yet Godly (if I may say so) advice. I had considered divorcing my husband, pursuing a Vice President job within a Fortune 500 Top 50 company, until I recently took your words to heart. My dear and understanding (for the most part) husband and I have been married for over 13 years, and we have a phenomenal 10 year old son. Although I had read many of your insightful books, I still worked 60 or so hours a week. I claim only stupidity, selfish desires and adhering to the current social norm. I have recently been available to listen to your daily broadcast, which is a godsend. Dr. Laura, I am so self-centered, that I was focusing solely on my career, impressing my boss, scoring myself the bigger paycheck, and securing the coveted VP slot, that I put my marriage and motherhood on the back burner. I must say, you have reminded me of my true calling. Thank you so much. I am now about to become my son's mom and my husband's wife. Thank you for helping me realize that no paycheck, no status can take the place of my true calling. For the first time I can remember, I actually apologized to my dear husband for not listening. Dr. Laura, it finally occurred to me that if I don't listen to my husband (who is, by the way, the most selfless person in the world and only has our family's best at heart) I'll never be blessed in the way that God desires. Of course, this occurred while I work. So I have a journey ahead. I know that sometimes we all need something from another person, therefore, please remember that, in reciprocation, I am ready to be of service to you in any way I can. You go home and take care of your babies. That's how you'll be of service to all the world - a better chance of raising good kids to be decent citizens, to go out and do wonderful things in the world.So, my comments about Leslie Bennetts' book are not vengeance. I have gone on to be happy, functional, secure, and continue with my career. That's my vengeance on what she tried to do. But warning you that women's magazines, and this sort of book, do not function in the best interests of families, children, or women is important to me. Encouraging women to do the wrong thing by making them paranoid about disasters, so they should only strive to be good-enough moms when they're around, good-enough wives if they have the time, but the work is everything, is exactly what for decades and decades women complained their men were doing. And paranoid feminists like Leslie Bennetts are telling you to go backwards in history and hurt the family... just like men who were never home and never involved did. More >>

Tags: CommitmentInternet-MediaInternet/MediaMarriageParentingStay-At-Home-Moms
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
05/13/2010
IconFeminism Kills Women: Betty Friedan's negative view of so-called "women's work" created a movement that turned family life upside down and wrenched women from their homes. Turns out, women's work, is the very thing that saves women's lives! Research following 200,000 women from nine European countries for an average of over 6 years and 3,423 cases of breast cancer determined that women who exercise by doing the housework can reduce their risk of breast cancer by 30% among the pre-menopausal women and 20% among the post-menopausal women. "The International authors said their results suggested that moderate forms of physical activity, such as housework, may be more important than less frequent but more intense recreational physical activity in reducing breast cancer risk." The research is published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention .The women in the Cancer Research UK-funded study spent an average of 16-17 hours a week cooking, cleaning, and doing the washing. Experts have long been touting physical exercise can reduce the risk of breast cancer, probably through hormonal and metabolic changes. What kind of exercise, though, has been debated. Most of the research to date has examined the link between exercise and breast cancer in post-menopausal women only. This latest study looked at both pre- and post-menopausal women and a range of activities, including work (right now, only my fingers are getting a work-out), leisure (hitting the C button with my thumb to change channels is obviously a step down), and housework (I actually like folding clothes). "All forms of physical activity combined reduced the breast cancer risk in post-menopausal women, but had no obvious effect in pre-menopausal women. Of all the activities, ONLY HOUSEWORK SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE RISK OF BOTH PRE- AND POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN GETTING BREAST CANCER."Don't hold your breath to find this information on Lifetime Channel for Women, "Oxygen," "The View," college and university women's studies programs, "Cosmo", or any other of the women's magazines out there. Excuse me while I go vacuum. Cindy Sheehan: Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in 2004 at the age of twenty-four. Brought up by his ultra-liberal mother did not keep him from re-enlisting for a second tour to fight for his country. Picture that against the unbelievable photos published around the world of his mother hugging Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who, by the way, "has said he will not renew the license for the country's second largest TV channel. Radio Caracas Television, which is aligned with the opposition, supported a strike against Mr. Chavez in 2003." (BBC News, December 29, 2006). Rocky #?: I stopped going to Rocky movies after the second. I loved the first; finding it tender, motivational, exciting, touching, and dramatic. I really didn't want to go to see the current Rocky film. I figured it was a silly attempt to get some mileage out of a franchise that needed to be put to rest. I was seriously wrong. "Rocky Balboa" is probably one of the best films I've seen... ever. It has the sentimentality of a film like "The African Queen." Sylvester Stallone, now widowed, is living in and on his past. He runs a restaurant named after his deceased wife, Adrian. He tells the same, lame war stories of past fights to all the patrons and sits for hours in front of his wife's grave. His son is weak, insecure and bitter, feeling like his life is nothing because he lives under his dad's shadow. Stallone looks and feels like well, crap. And this is what makes this movie so special.Rocky has something to learn and something to say. I don't want to ruin it for you, so just trust me and go see it. More >>

Tags: ChildrenFeminismInternet-MediaInternet/MediaMovie ReviewMoviesParentingSocial IssuesStay-at-Home Mom
PERMALINK | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS  Subscribe
Make an Appointment
Stay Connected
or connect at a place below
Latest Poll
How do you deal with a problem in a relationship?
Archives  |  Results
Programs
About Dr. Laura
Letters
E-mail of the Day
From Listeners
Audio & Video
YouTube Videos
Stay at Home
Parenting
Relationships
Simple Savings
Work at Home
Tip of the Week
Subscription
Membership
Help & Support
Family Premium Help Center
Podcast Help
Contact Us
Legal
Terms of Use
© 2020 DrLaura.com. Take on the Day, LLC
Dr. Laura is a registered trademark of Take On The Day, LLC.
Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Powered By Nox Solutions