FBI To Retract Catholic 'White Supremacist' Memo, Launch Internal Investigation

 The FBI has vowed to launch an internal investigation to look into a now-retracted, leaked document which advised the agency to infiltrate groups of Roman Catholics which were 'at risk of committing acts of extremist violence,' the Daily Caller reports.

According to the document, Catholics "characterized by the rejection of the Second Vatican Council" are prone to embracing "anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology."

The Second Vatican Council, which concluded in 1965, supplanted the 16th-century Latin mass with the vernacular Novus Ordo form - which some groups have rejected while attempting to preserve the old Latin liturgy while continuing communion with Rome.

The FBI document cites the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), including the group's list of "Radical Traditional Catholicism Hate Groups."

The document showed that the FBI’s field office in Richmond was considering infiltrating groups of traditionalist Roman Catholics who prefer the Latin mass, a whistleblower revealed Wednesday.

Former FBI agent and whistleblower Kyle Seraphin published the alleged document, which he wrote is “dated January 23, 2023” and originated with an “intelligence analyst within the Richmond Field Office.” Seraphin, who describes himself as a “confirmed Catholic” in his bio, did not say how he obtained the document. -Daily Caller

According to the agency, the document, which originated from the Richmond field office, "does not meet the exacting standards of the FBI" (lol), and the Bureau will probe how it came to be, reads the report.

"Upon learning of the document, FBI Headquarters quickly began taking action to remove the document from FBI systems and conduct a review of the basis for the document," the FBI told the Caller. "The FBI is committed to sound analytic tradecraft and to investigating and preventing acts of violence and other crimes while upholding the constitutional rights of all Americans and will never conduct investigative activities or open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity."

'Sound analytic tradecraft...'

 According to the FBI report, the agency assessed with "high confidence" that threats from so-called 'radical traditional Catholics' (RTCs) can be dealt with via "source development," among other strategies.

The document expresses the FBI’s concern that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) will use traditionalist Catholic social media groups and parishes as “facilitation platforms to promote violence.” It also connects RTCs to an “increase in hostility toward abortion-rights advocates on social media in the run-up to and aftermath of” the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Among the Catholic or Catholic-adjacent groups mentioned in the document are the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), the right-wing Catholic news outlet Church Militant and “groypers,” the nickname for followers of traditionalist Catholic political commentator and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. -Daily Caller

According to the memo, there is a "growing collaboration" between Church Militant and Fuentes' America First group, which shows evidence of increasing ties between traditional Catholics and extremist groups.

"The FBI report is based on ‘reporting’ by far-left extremists group and media outlets which clearly demonstrate zero understanding of Catholic theology. Those voluminous errors then found their way into this FBI report where flat out false conclusions are drawn," Church Militant told the Caller, adding that they have "zero connection" to Fuentes.

"Church Militant (and all faithful Catholics) in no way hates women, blacks, jews, immigrants or anyone else we may be accused of hating. To disagree with social or political points of view does not signify ‘hate’. It signifies disagreement."

"Likewise, to bolster its fear-mongering, the FBI report goes on to try and draw an imaginary link between Catholics and ‘white supremacy’ yet never defines what that ubiquitous term actually means," the statement continues. "Church Militant does not believe that ‘whites are superior’ or non-white races are somehow inferior. We are faithful catholics and Catholic teaching abhors such a notion. CM has zero connection to any person or outfit who espouses these anti-Catholic ideologies and condemns such beliefs. The FBI report falsely suggests that all of this is bound up in potential violence aimed at abortion supporters. For the record, Church Militant in no way shape or form supports physical violence against those with whom we disagree on moral/political issues of the day."

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fbi-retract-catholic-white-supremacist-memo-launch-internal-investigation

DexCom Q4 beats

 DexCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: DXCM) today reported its financial results as of and for the quarter and fiscal year ended December 31, 2022.

Fourth Quarter 2022 Financial Highlights:

• Revenue grew 17% versus the same quarter of the prior year to $815.2 million on a reported basis and 20% on an organic1 basis.

• U.S. revenue growth of 17% and international revenue growth of 15% on a reported basis. International revenue growth was 27% on an organic1 basis.

• GAAP operating income of $125.4 million or 15.4% of revenue, an increase of 1,530 basis points compared to the fourth quarter of 2021. Non-GAAP operating income* of $172.1 million or 21.1% of revenue, an increase of 1,940 basis points compared with the same quarter of the prior year.

Full Year 2022 Financial Highlights:

• Full year revenue grew 19% versus the prior year to $2.91 billion on a reported basis and 20% on an organic1 basis.

• U.S. revenue growth of 16% and international revenue growth of 28% on a reported basis. International revenue growth was 31% on an organic1 basis.

• GAAP operating income of $391.2 million or 13.4% of revenue, an increase of 250 basis points compared to 2021. Non-GAAP operating income* of $485.1 million or 16.7% of revenue, an increase of 510 basis points over the prior year.

Fourth Quarter 2022 Strategic Highlights:

• Received FDA clearance for the Dexcom G7 CGM system for people with diabetes ages two years and older. Dexcom G7 represents the most accurate2 and simple CGM system from the most covered3 CGM brand.

• In support of National Diabetes Awareness Month, partnered with Dexcom Warriors Patti LaBelle, Mark Andrews and Bambi Northwood-Blyth in an awareness campaign designed to advocate for greater access to diabetes care

• Advanced international portfolio strategy with the introduction of Dexcom ONE in Belgium, Croatia, Greece, Italy and Romania

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dexcom-reports-fourth-quarter-fiscal-210300684.html

AARP is Cheering on the Socialist Left's Takeover of Our Health System

 It’s not your grandparents’ AARP anymore. Whether it’s their celebration of the Inflation Reduction Act or historical support of Obamacare, AARP has become more and more brazen in its partisan support of Democratic policy priorities. This overt party favoritism flies in the face of their “non-partisan” claim and is an extreme disservice to their members and their values. AARP cannot maintain its “unbiased” reputation while simultaneously cheering the socialization of America’s health system.

AARP members are just everyday Americans, each with a range of views, philosophies, and backgrounds. Younger people can join AARP earlier now and enjoy the perks of getting discounts and reading the AARP magazine. What members ought to consider however, are what AARP concentrates its lobbying efforts on in Washington; policies that betray the interests of seniors, are endorsed by a single political party, and hand the golden goose to health insurance companies.

For years, AARP has, seemingly without critique, advocated for and supported policies that lead America down a path that actually hurt its members. Too few have been willing to call attention to the group’s conflicts of interest. Most recently, AARP supported a proposal that inhibits the healthcare freedom of their members and sets us on a course toward fewer cures and fewer drug options.

That’s precisely what they did when they celebrated President Biden’s deceivingly named Inflation Reduction Act, which included a damaging provision that essentially hands the government the power to mandate drug prices on manufacturers under Medicare Part D.

The ugly truth is that government price setting will be disastrous for Medicare patients when seeking treatment options, as not all providers will be able to foot the government’s bill. Additionally, the cost this will have on drug research and development will stall the innovation of improved treatments and novel cures for years, meaning patients with currently incurable diseases are now going to be forced to wait longer. Did AARP even do its homework before giving the IRA its stamp of approval?

On top of this law kneecapping innovation and access, the $270 billion it raids from Medicare are being reallocated for left-wing spending wish lists, including toward subsidizing electric vehicles. What’s worse, its that insurance companies will also be getting a piece of the Medicare pie, meaning that money meant to help seniors afford their medicines are instead being sucked up by their insurance providers. AARP’s members are the first-line casualties for these Medicare cuts, and AARP’s support of the law defies the supposed purpose of the organization.

AARP’s policy positions suggest they are more than comfortable with the government taking the reigns of our health system and curbing America’s health freedom. Laws like the Inflation Reduction Act are the government’s incremental baby steps toward full-scale socialized medicine in this country, where no one is a winner. So why would AARP have betrayed its members in such a way? Could it be for financial gain?

A new report from Juniper Research Group details AARP’s public advocacy conflict of interest. Not only does AARP support laws that help insurance companies, but they get handsomely paid by them over $1 billion a year. This staggering amount of tax-free revenue creates an incentive for AARP to support policies that pad the pockets of the insurance companies that bankroll them. AARP’s membership subscription revenues are just peanuts in comparison.

Socialized medicine may not seem bad to the folks at AARP, but its incremental implementation in the U.S. should be fought tooth and nail for the sake of seniors and patients across the country who value access and options for their healthcare and medications. Legislators need to remember that AARP no longer represents America’s seniors when their lobbyists come into their offices. It’s time to stand up to organizations like AARP, who take advantage of public trust to foist left-wing policy to benefit themselves, not their dues-paying members. Enough is enough.

Jack Kalavritinos is the Executive Director of CPAC’s Coalition Against Socialized Medicine and Gerard Scimeca is Chairman and Co-Founder of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2023/02/03/aarp_is_cheering_on_the_socialist_lefts_takeover_of_our_health_system_879582.html

Want Fentanyl Vapes? Keep Banning Flavors

 Across the country, government officials have warned the public about fentanyl-tainted electronic cigarettes and vaping devices. While there have been a handful of such incidents, regulators should resist the urge to restrict access to products that are legally on the market. Further limits or bans will only result in more negative impacts caused by consumers obtaining illicit vapor products.

In January, Governor Chris Sununu (R-New Hampshire) remarked that “fentanyl is now in all different types of substances, whether that be cocaine, methamphetamine, fake pills, or vape cartridges.” In addition, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody noted that fentanyl can “possibly” be found in “illicit vaping pods.”

In 2019, the Drug Enforcement Agency did find a vaping device that contained fentanyl, yet fentanyl has never been found in regulated and legal e-cigarette products that one would find in a licensed vape shop and/or gas station.

Despite this, policymakers are now routinely introducing legislation that would ban the sale of safe and legal flavored e-cigarette products, and the Biden administration remains committed to removing menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars from the entire U.S. market. There is already a booming marketplace on the web. Take for example this Craigslist ad in New York City that offers flavored e-liquid in a variety of flavors, from peach to cotton candy. The seller informs the potential customer to “[i]nteract with [them] the same way [one] would a sales person.” Alarmingly, this seller is not interested in providing potential customers with information regarding the products that they may be consuming, noting that any questions about their “cost, date purchased, where purchased, why selling is no one’s concern.” In California, which recently enacted a ban on flavored tobacco and vapor products, a dubious seller named “menthol man” is offering to deliver menthol cigarettes for $15 a pack.

Similar to the nation’s failed experiment with alcohol prohibition, bans on tobacco and vapor products will only help to strengthen the black market and increase the profits of clandestine actors that skirt both regulations and taxes. And, due to continued delay by the FDA authorizing the thousands of American e-cigarette manufacturers, these questionable international companies have already been able to infiltrate the existing marketplace with thousands of counterfeit vapes.

Officials in the UK seized more than 300,000 counterfeit vapes in December alone, with one official saying that “vapes being seized … has risen ‘dramatically.’” A widely circulated video of a manufacturing facility making fake ELFBAR disposable vapes depicts young-looking factory workers who are seemingly testing out the product by vaping on each fake disposable. ELFBAR has worked with Chinese officials to shut down more than a dozen such facilities.

Policymakers should avoid policies that would only further the illicit tobacco product. In 2017, the U.S. State Department declared the global illicit tobacco trade a “threat to national security,” and that it is a “lucrative crime for some terrorist groups.” Exorbitant excise taxes on cigarettes already cause consumers to seek out illicit tobacco products; banning regulated flavored vapor products will only force those consumers to seek out illicit vapor products. As such, this could create incentives for terrorist groups and other bad actors to add vapes to their illegal product portfolios.

Banning flavored vapor products has all been in reaction to youth vaping rates in 2019. While the media continues to decry a youth vaping epidemic, which fuels calls to ban e-cigarettes, youth use of e-cigarettes has significantly declined, halving between 2019 and 2021. Studies and surveys show that young people are also not citing using e-cigarettes because of flavors.

Meanwhile, similar studies and surveys show that adults do enjoy flavors and that flavors help adults maintain smoking cessation. These adults do not deserve to be exposed to fentanyl vapes, or any illicit vape.

The fentanyl epidemic is raging out of control in this country. Lawmakers must refrain from flavor bans as it will only lead to issues with vapes that are far greater than nicotine.

Lindsey Stroud is a visiting fellow at Independent Women's Forum and the director of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2023/02/09/want_fentanyl_vapes_keep_banning_flavors_880695.html

How Medicare Shapes Drug Prices

 While drug makers have discretion over how to price their products, they are clearly responsive to the incentives they face. In a new paper, we study whether the incentives from one major public program—Medicare Part D—have contributed to higher list prices of branded drugs over time.

One of the most notable recent trends in drug markets is the divergence of list and net prices of branded drugs. While all drugs have manufacturer-reported list prices that tend to increase with time, insurers typically buy branded products at much lower “net prices” that reflect statutory discounts (e.g., in Medicaid) or negotiations (e.g., in private markets or Medicare). Patients, however, often owe cost sharing that is a function of the full list price.

This phenomenon has attracted significant policy attention and likely reflects a host of factors. Pharmacy Benefit Managers, for example, are paid in a way that incentivizes them to prefer drugs with a high list relative to net prices. Insurers may also benefit because this pricing strategy can moderate premium growth by increasing costs for the relatively few patients taking expensive medications. This gives drug makers a reason to set high list prices and offer large rebates.

Beyond these market-wide explanations, experts have argued that the design of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit, Part D, may incentivize insurers to favor drugs with high list prices and large rebates. In short, due to the current Part D benefits design, insurers are liable for a small share of costs once spending is high enough. High list prices coupled with high rebates can help move beneficiaries into these portions of the benefit (and offload more spending on the federal government). Those incentives grew following policy changes in 2011 and 2018.

In a newly released paper in Health Services Research, we empirically test this theory. If Medicare Part D includes a particularly strong incentive for drugs to have high list prices and high rebates, then this phenomenon should be more pronounced for drugs that predominantly target the Medicare market.

To test this, we compared two key metrics for each brand drug in our sample: (1) the fraction of patients taking the drug who are on Medicare, and (2) the ratio of the net and list price of the drug. The former measures how important the Medicare market is to a drug while the latter captures the difference between list and net prices.

To summarize the main result, the figure below shows the relationship between these variables in 2010, when the incentive was weaker, and in 2019, when the incentive was stronger. The size of each data point reflects the net sales of each product.

Over time, the net-to-list price ratio of branded drugs fell in general, indicating a larger difference between net and list prices. However, this was much more pronounced for drugs with large Medicare market shares. We found similar results when using a quasi-experimental approach. This result is consistent with the theory that Medicare Part D encourages higher list prices of brand drugs coupled with large rebates.

Importantly, however, these data clearly suggest that other factors matter. Among drugs with similar Medicare market share, we still observe large variation in pricing strategies, even in 2019. This suggests that other incentives, like those mentioned above, affect the way that drug makers set prices.

Figure: Comparing Medicare Market Shares and Net-to-List Price Ratios of Brand Drugs, Select Years

Note: This figure replicates results from figure 1 of “The Influence of Medicare Part D on the List Pricing of Brand Drugs,” forthcoming in Health Services Research.

Looking forward, we expect these incentives to abate as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) drug pricing provisions are implemented. Beginning in 2025, the design of Part D will change to give insurers much stronger incentives to manage high-spending enrollees and lower the incentive to prefer drugs with relatively high list prices. Future research can examine whether the patterns we observe change as a result.

https://www.aei.org/health-care/how-medicare-shapes-drug-prices/

Childhood Obesity Epidemic Calls for Cutting Screen Time in Schools

 As the American Academy of Pediatrics issues new guidelines recommending the radical solutions of weight-loss drugs and even surgery for curbing childhood obesity, it’s worth revisiting an obvious but largely ignored treatment for poor health: turning off the screens.

Screen time skyrocketed for children during the COVID-19 pandemic—by 52% according to some studies and closer to 100% for adolescents in particular. Over the same period, children doubled their rate of body mass index increase, accelerating an already steep rise in the rate of childhood obesity, which was over 20% before the pandemic.

The AAP in fact does dedicate a small subsection of its extensive report to the association between screen time duration and unhealthy weight gain. More than just two hours of screen time a day is associated with a higher risk of becoming overweight or obese, the report notes. That limit is far surpassed by the average child, who now spends more than four hours a day in front of a screen.

The AAP guidelines attribute this increased risk of obesity to two factors. Firstly, screen time is by and large sedentary, leaving less time for physical activity. Secondly, the longer children spend in front of a screen, the likelier they are to encounter unhealthy food and beverage depictions that influence their own dietary choices.

These are good but modest warnings. If the only health risks incurred by sitting before a screen come from misleading advertisements and reduced bodily movement, parents might combat these simply by monitoring content and mandating exercise. A deeper dive into the AAP’s decades of research on children and media use, however, reveals more complex and intractable dangers.

In 1999, the academy issued a policy statement urging parents to “avoid television viewing for children under the age of two years,” a recommendation the academy has since reaffirmed. As infants’ brains develop and begin to perceive shapes and colors, they need tactile experience and face-to-face interaction to grasp the existence of other objects and, most importantly, people.

When infants encounter the mere images of objects and people on a screen, “their brains are incapable of making sense or meaning out of all those bizarre pictures,” a leading AAP pediatrician explains. Even worse, they stop trying to do so, in a sense becoming passive before the screen’s constantly changing overstimulation.

The effects can be lasting, “training [developing brains] in effect to expect intense input and making reality underwhelming or even boring by comparison,” to quote another specialist.

Is it any surprise that a child who has come to expect audio-visual overstimulation would also overeat? Or that a child for whom reality has become underwhelming may develop other diseases of despair?

Once we consider the associations between early childhood screen time and attention problems, psychological problems, and memory problems (including increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia in adulthood), obesity seems to be one strand in a larger web of maladies. Tackling screen time may get us closer to the root ill.

Yet, from a government policy standpoint, reducing screen time can be as elusive of a goal as reducing obesity. Is there anything one can do, other than raise one’s own children differently and encourage other parents to do the same? America (thankfully) is not China, after all. The law can’t dictate how children spend their time at home.

Given America’s wise constitutional limits, schools often take center stage in conversations about children’s health and safety, and with good reason. As the AAP’s new clinical guidelines emphasize, schools play a significant role in shaping choices and habits since children spend so much of their time there. If schools can use their influence to improve students’ nutritional diets, how much more might they influence their digital diets?

Educators could start by rethinking 1-to-1 computing, the practice of providing each student with a personal laptop or tablet that he or she uses all day at school and then takes home for further work and study (or entertainment) at night.

Introduced in the 1990s as personal computers became more affordable, 1-to-1 computing programs in schools had become commonplace by the beginning of 2020. The pandemic made them nearly universal. By the end of the 2020-2021 school year, 90% of school districts were providing PCs to every middle and high school student, and 84% were doing so at the elementary level.

Among the shrinking minority of schools that don’t employ 1-to-1 computing are, ironically, some of the most selective schools in Silicon Valley. The tech-free private schools popular among Big Tech executives have garnered media attention for years for their prohibition of screens in favor of cultivating familiarity with nature through gardening and taking care of farm animals as well as teaching handwork skills like knitting, cursive writing, and woodworking.

Other outliers include private and charter classical schools, marked by their commitment to primary documents over sweeping summaries, enduring texts over this week’s New York Times bestsellers, and the written and spoken word over screens.

Classical education advocates share the conviction that “the single most important technology continues to be the book,” as the chief academic officer of the charter school network Great Hearts recently quipped.

For school administrators and teachers who find ditching PCs too radical, however, implementing stricter cellphone policies might be a less daunting way to reduce student screen time. This fall, an elite boarding school in Massachusetts made headlines for banning smartphones on campus, permitting only flip phones or Light Phones that allow calling and texting but no email, internet, or social media.

After just a few months, both teachers and students reported improved well-being, citing better friendships and stronger classroom engagement—findings echoed by parents of North American yeshivas, where rabbis have enforced similar smartphone prohibitions.

Still, many parents balk at attempts to restrict student cellphone access, voicing concerns over safety and transparency. In the face of such pushback, it can be easy to forget how new and experimental 24/7 wireless connectivity still is.

As Henry Kissinger notes in his latest book, we are “in the midst of a transformation in human consciousness so pervasive as to be nearly unnoticeable,” embracing it “largely without understanding of its long-term effects.”

Before we embark on still newer experiments in treating recognized social ills like childhood obesity, it might be wise to reevaluate the experiments that are already underway.

https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/childhood-obesity-epidemic-calls-cutting-screen-time-schools

From Swiping to Sexting: Enduring Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

 Few topics capture our interest as completely and intensely as dating and romantic relationships. The process of finding a partner—and the struggle it frequently entails—is an omnipresent feature of the American cultural landscape, appearing in movies, literature, art, and popular music. But until the recent past, dating was an activity that occurred mostly during late adolescence and young adulthood and much more rarely thereafter.

Today, Americans spend a much greater part of their lives single. The rise of divorce and delay of marriage mean that dating occurs later in life and our dating lives last much longer than they once did. Not only are Americans spending more time dating, but the goals for dating, which at one point primarily served as an avenue to marriage, are less clear than they once were.

The January 2023 American Perspectives Survey sheds some light on dating preferences, experiences, and perspectives. The national survey of more than 5,000 adults age 18 and older, including nearly 800 single adults, finds that Americans have strong dating preferences when it comes to living at home, being unemployed, and smoking. These are especially salient considerations for women. Politics is another important consideration for many Americans, especially committed partisans. Most Republicans and Democrats say they would be much less interested in dating those of the opposite political persuasion.

Dating practices that frequently grab headlines, such as ghosting and sexting, are not all that widespread, and, in the case of sexting, it may occur less frequently today. Generation Z is significantly less likely than millennials are to report sending sexually explicit images of themselves to someone they are dating.

The survey also finds that infidelity is a disquietingly common experience, especially for women. Nearly half of women say that a partner or spouse has been unfaithful, including more than six in 10 black women.

The new survey also reveals that, despite the growing popularity of online dating sites and apps, many users feel ambivalent about what they have to offer. Among the roughly one in four Americans who have ever used an online dating platform, experiences are mixed. Roughly as many users report a positive experience as a negative one. Women are especially critical of online dating, reporting significantly more negative experiences than men.

Even as online dating has made it easier than ever to become romantically involved with a complete stranger, younger Americans appear increasingly interested in dating people they already know. Young adults are more than twice as likely as seniors to report that they were friends with their partner or spouse before they started dating. Most older Americans say their spouse or partner was once a stranger.

The Rise of Single America

No social change has altered the fabric of American life so profoundly as the decline of marriage. In 2021, only about half of Americans, with slightly more men than women, report being married. The US Census Bureau reports a steady decline in marriage rates going back 50 years.[1]

Reasons for marriage’s decline abound. As professional opportunities for women grew over the past few decades, they became more financially independent, reducing the immediate economic necessity of marriage. Shifting views about gender roles and legal changes to divorce law also contributed. National economic disruptions that disproportionately affected working-class men have also been cited as a factor.[2] Additionally, growing suspicion of—and in some cases outright opposition to—traditional social arrangements among young adults may reduce interest in marriage. A rising number of young people raised by divorced parents may have contributed an overall feelings of skepticism about marriage as well.

Marriage is also facing increasing competition from other types of social arrangements such as cohabitation. The number of Americans cohabitating with their romantic partner has more than doubled over the past three decades.[3] It has become a widely accepted practice, particularly among younger Americans. Nearly six in 10 younger Americans report having cohabitated with a romantic partner.[4]

Nowhere is the decline of marriage more evident than in the lives of young adults. Overall, more than one in three Americans have never been married. Only 25 percent of younger adults (age 18 to 34) are currently married, a dramatic decline over the past few decades. In 1978, younger adults were almost twice as likely to be married (59 percent).[5]

Although more Americans today have never been married, many do not describe their relationship status as single. More than three in 10 (35 percent) Americans have never married, but only about one in five (21 percent) are currently single. What’s more, many Americans who have never married have been in committed relationships for years. Over half (53 percent) of Americans who have never been married and are currently living with their partner have been in the relationship for at least five years. Nearly one in three (32 percent) Americans living with their partner have been together for at least 10 years.

[MORE}

About the Author

Daniel A. Cox is a senior fellow in polling and public opinion at the American Enterprise Institute and the director of the Survey Center on American Life.

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/from-swiping-to-sexting-the-enduring-gender-divide-in-american-dating-and-relationships/