Government's Continued Push to Regulate our Lives

Whether it's food, sexual education (as early as Kindergarten), or which part of our nations history is important, the nanny state knows better how to raise your children. At least according to the left.

Just a couple of weeks ago in Raeford, North Carolina, a school confiscated a preschool girls lunch because they felt it was "not nutritious", replacing her homemade turkey sandwich with chicken meat nuggets. h/t @BBUHM at TORARADICAL.com

UPDATE: A second mother, Diane Zambrano, says her 4-year-old daughter, Jazlyn, in the same West Hoke Elementary School class as the little girl whose lunch gained national attention earlier this week, had her lunch of a cheese and salami sandwich on wheat replaced last month with nuggets, sweet potato, bread, and milk. via The Blaze, 2/17/12

UPDATE 3/7/12: The teacher who replaced the child's lunch, Ms. Maynor, has been suspended indefinitely. However, the policy that required Ms. Maynor to seize the girls lunch has not been changed.

Last week, in Lansing, Michigan, during a legislative hearing at the state capitol, Debbie Squires, the associate director of the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association, explained to the House Education Committee why her association opposed allowing more online schools. “Educators go through education for a reason,” Squires said. “They are the people who know best about how to serve children. That’s not necessarily true of an individual resident. I’m not saying they don’t want the best for their children, but they may not know what actually is best from an education standpoint.”




As the Education Action Group at Big Government rightfully points out, Squires’ comments are noteworthy because they give parents and citizens a window into the minds of the nation’s self-proclaimed education experts. Despite their talk of “collaborating” with parents to reform public education, the establishment honestly believes that parents are too ignorant and ill-informed to choose the best learning option for their child. Not only that, but they believe charter schools and cyber schools are consuming tax dollars that rightfully belong to the government-run public schools. They argue that the only thing preventing traditional public schools from producing amazing student results is a lack of money.

The Education Action Group also points out, that despite an 82.5% increase per pupil, the U.S. Department of Education has been on a consistent academic decline. The facts suggest otherwise. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Services, per pupil spending increased by 82.5 percent – in constant dollars – from the 1980-81 school year to the 2008-09 school year. What did taxpayers get in return for their increased investment? From 1980 to 2010, Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) scores in critical reading dropped one point (from 502 to 501), while the average math SAT score increased a meager 24 points (492 to 516). (A score of 500 is considered to be average.)

The Left in our country, from the top down, continue to drain our freedoms in the name of 'compassion'. They believe that we the people aren't capable of making the best decisions for our lives, and whether their policies or government forced legislation causes harm or takes away our individual liberties, as long as the good intentions are there... well, that's all that matters.


As Bob Beckel, liberal contributor to Fox News' The Five, said on January 18th 2012; “We liberals made a terrible mistake going back 30 years ago. We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing. We had things like public housing and we had welfare payments and all that bred dependency, and it was our responsibility, we did it for the right reasons, we need to change that. But the way you change it is not to say that it’s an opportunity society alone that’s gonna do it. It’s gonna require some government intervention. That’s our point.”

Right. Government caused the problem, so let's just trust the government to solve it.

Depoliticizing the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

Read the studies, look at the facts, keep an open mind, do not base your opinion on your beliefs about abortion and determine for yourself: Is there a link between abortions and breast cancer? What is your opinion? All comments welcome. Also, if anyone has links to other, independent studies, I'd be interested in seeing them.

The recent events of the Susan G. Koman Foundation pulling and then renewing support for Planned Parenthood has brought up, once again, the issue of “does Abortion increase the risk of breast cancer?”

As a nurse, I was interested to know the facts. It seems that there are a lot of studies out there with differing viewpoints. Both sides use the studies that support their views as “proof” one way or the other. The interpretation of the studies has been so politicized, that it is difficult to determine if there is a connection or not.

This topic is coming up again because of the Koman Foundation’s monetary support of Planned Parenthood. If there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer how could the Koman Foundation, whose main goal is eradication of breast cancer, support an organization who’s main focus is abortion? That is the issue, but both organizations have stated that they believe there is no link between abortions and breast cancer.

But why should the Koman foundation be funding Planned Parenthood? What does Planned Parenthood have to do with breast cancer? According to both the Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood the funding is for breast cancer screenings. In my opinion Planned Parenthood is not the best use of this money and the Koman Foundation would be better able to provide breast screenings more cost effectively if they removed the middle man. This opinion has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood’s abortions, but rather it makes better business sense. It seems that the Koman Foundation is bending over backward to accommodate Planned Parenthood and I find their connection suspect. It seems, to me, that there must be something more going on. In order to do justice to the topic, I am eliminating both the Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood from the discussion.

Back to the topic of abortion and breast cancer. I have looked over many studies, and there are studies to support both sides.

First, let me start by saying that I am pro-life. I do not believe in abortion and I believe that abortion is the killing of a baby. In conversations I have never used the alleged abortion/breast cancer link to support my belief. I do not need there to be a link between abortion and breast cancer for me to be pro-life. To me, the killing of an unborn baby is wrong, plain and simple. I have approached the topic with an open mind and have tried to present both sides fairly.

Those who support the “no-connection” theory, and that it has been proven debunked, will show you these from The National Cancer Institute based on a 2004 report of a 2003 workshop: "Risks of Abortion and Miscarriage" and "Causes of Cancer".

They include the results from a wide variety of studies and have been determined to be definitive proof by those who believe there is no connection. I have found that almost all of those who support the "no-connection" theory reference either this fact sheet or the conference that reported the study that this fact sheet is based on.

The American Cancer Society also links back to the above information from the National Cancer Institute report and they make the conclusion: "At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer."

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynocologists (ACOG) also refers to the 2003 workshop and the above information. They however preface the information with the following statement: "This document reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed."

On the other side of the debate is Dr. Joel Brind who counters in this 2005 article, in the “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons”, that there was reporting bias in the 2003 workshop and subsequent 2004 report.

Dr. Brind has also mentioned that during the 2004 seminar, conflicting viewpoints were not allowed to be presented. In essence he is saying that, instead of investigation all data and letting the data dictate if the theory is true, they found data to support their theory and disregarded the rest. In some cases they may have even manipulated the studies to fit the theory.

This video of Dr. Brind is from the “Life Matters” program, again politicizing the issue.

It is difficult to look at all of these and not say they are biased. Each side has an agenda. On one side are the pro-abortionists wanting to prove that there is no increased risk of abortion and breast cancer, and then the pro-life side that wants to use the link as additional ammunition against abortion.

I do need to point out that the video’s that feature Dr. Brind give logical thought as to WHY there is a risk whereas the other studies simply say there is no link, end of story. Also Dr. Brind, while not the only one supporting the connection, is the most vocal. There are medical groups that support the connection theory, as well. Again, this list is published by abortion/breast cancer coalition.

So who do you believe?

I have done some research and came across this article from 2010, which is peer reviewed, but no one has yet used it as a weapon in this abortion/breast cancer link war. "Radiological Diagnostics of Frequent Interruption of Pregnancy as a Primary Factor of Breast Carcinomas." The conclusion of this study is that “Based on the researches done for the purposes of this project, we concluded that artificial interruption of pregnancy is one of the numerous causes (factors) of breast cancer arising.” This study does not appear to have any bias and does not seem to have been sponsored by any group.

In addition, the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute believes there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Here is the text from a pamphlet by the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:

Abortion & Breast Cancer: Is there a Link? What is the Truth Behind the Controversy

How Does the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Work?

Two principles account for the link:

1. Estrogen Exposure

2. Breast Lobule Formation

Estrogen Exposure

As soon as conception occurs and even before implantation in the uterus, the embryo secretes a hormone, hCG (Human chorianic gonadotropin), which causes the mother’s ovaries to produce more estrogen and progesterone. This causes the mother’s breasts to become sore and tender.

In a viable pregnancy, estrogen levels increase 2,000% by the end of the 1st trimester. This surge in hormones causes the breasts to grow by making more Type 1 & 2 lobules where cancers can start. The breast doubles in volume by 20 weeks.

Breast Lobule Formation

•After 32 weeks of pregnancy, the Type 1 and 2 lobules mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules in preparation for breast feeding.

•If the pregnancy ends by elective abortion, the increase in numbers of Type 1 and 2 lobules formed in the first two trimesters provide more places for cancers to start, increasing risk.

•Women who never carry a pregnancy beyond 32 weeks never fully mature their breast tissue and have increased risk.

•Women who delay full-term pregnancy past age 30 have a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than those who carry a pregnancy to term by age 20.

A Woman’s Choice

A woman who chooses induced abortion of her first pregnancy:

•Denies herself the risk reduction of a full-term pregnancy.

•May never have children—a risk for breast cancer.

•Or, delay a full-term pregnancy which increases her risk of premenopausal breast cancer by 5% per year delayed after age 20.

A woman who chooses induced abortion after she has had a child:

•Denies herself a further 10% reduction in risk by another full-term pregnancy.

•Will have increased the number of Type 1 & Type 2 lobules where cancers start in her breast.

Here is a video that explains why it is believed that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer but it also has a segment where Dr. Brind’s explains about studies and how they should be done. This video is put out by an organization that supports the abortion/breast cancer link.  

Note: the 2007 study that is mentioned in the video, cames after the 2004 report that supposedly “debunks” the theory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Research Analysis, My Opinion:

Being that there are such conflicting reports, I cannot state for certain that there is not an abortion/breast cancer link. If you compare the evidence from one side or the other, the side supporting the link has presented a much better case with better references. The National Cancer Institute's fact sheet that everyone else seems to reference is lacking the information department. They make a list of findings, "studies show," but really no reference to the studies upon which those findings are based. 

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, on the other hand, seems to believe there is a connection as addressed in their pamphlet.

In addition, if you remove all of the previous studies that have been biasedly used and focus on the independent study of 2010, there seems to be more proof that there is a link than there is not. If there is a link and there is a cover up, would those involved in the cover up be guilty of negligence? Would they not be criminally liable for withholding pertinent information from those receiving abortions? It is unlikely there will be a conclusion to this debate anytime in the near future. Though in my mind it seems there is, indeed, a connection between abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer.

Remembering Milestones: John Glenn and Friendship 7

Four days from now, on February 20, it will mark fifty years since the day that John Glenn orbited the earth in Friendship 7. In what was then an amazing feat of technology, Glenn in his spacecraft orbited the earth three times in five hours.

The mission was not without danger. The Atlas rocket type, which launched him to fame, had exploded many times on the pad. And during the orbits, the heat shield began signalling failure. Luckily for Glenn, it held and he survived the reentry.

He was instantly a hero for being the first American to do so. The Kennedy administration quietly had NASA block him from further space travel, as they did not wish to risk him. But in 1998, at the age of seventy-seven, he made it happen, after which he was banned from it by his wife of sixty-nine years.

Glenn, a long time Senator for Ohio, ran for President in 1984, without success. He mourns that his United States no longer mounts it's own space missions. In which he is not alone, Buzz Aldrin, second man to walk on the moon, also rails against that, even writing on why we should be heading towards Mars.

Adoption Disguising Kidnapping

In an increasingly alarming trend children are being separated from their parents, in what basically amounts to kidnapping by government agencies. Illegal immigrants who are deported, are often being done so without their children. The children, instead of being sent back with their parents, are being placed in foster care and sometimes even given up for adoption.

In what is but one instance, the children of Felipe and Marie Montes were taken away from them, after he was deported, even though she wasn't. She is still living in North Carolina, trying to get them back, but they are about to be given up for adoption. To make things worse, two of their three children, were abused while in foster care. Both of the parents, and their American neighbours have petitioned for all three of them to be sent to join their father in Mexico.

Immigration is an important issue. But even more important is the family. A private party who did what government agencies do, would be imprisoned for kidnapping. These acts are clearly illegal and immoral, and must be stopped. If we are to deport the parents, we should not be breaking up the family, the children should be sent with them.