My name is Catherine Morgan, I'm a writer, nurse, and mother. This is a blog about women's issues, health & wellness, inspirational thoughts, and other stuff too. If you like this blog, you will love BlogHer.com where I am also a contributing editor for Health & Wellness.
Find out all the places I blog at by going to catherine-morgan.com.
Today is March Forth For Child Care and Head Start day, and you can help make a difference by calling or emailing your members of Congress. All day today, advocates for children will be joining-in to voice their support of an increase in funding for the Head Start program. This is such an important issue, and I hope you will consider taking action to support our children.
Head Start is one of the most cost-effective programs we have in this country. We need more Head Start, and we need full day Head Start programs (much of the funding only pays for a few hours of services) so that low income working parents can take advantage of the enormous benefits Head Start offers children and families. It is a comprehensive early learning program that supports the total well-being of children.
. . .
Further, study after study shows that quality early childhood programs like Head Start significantly reduce the incidences of teen pregnancy, juvenile crime, being held back in school, and other social ills that develop later in life. Every $1 we invest today in these programs saves taxpayers somewhere between $7 and $17 in future costs due to negative consequences of poverty.
Today, all across the country, thousands of advocates are joining together to March Forth in support of increased funding for child care and Head Start by calling or e-mailing their Members of Congress.
We are joining together because our children deserve a better and brighter future. Under the President’s budget, 200,000 low-income children and their families will lose child care assistance, and 14,000 children will lose Head Start.
Please add your voice by calling or e-mailing your Members of Congress today.
Here is how you can take action and help…
To call your representatives, use the script below and dial toll-free at 1-888-460-0813. The operator who answers the phone will ask which Senator or Representative you would like to speak to. To find out who your Senators and Representative are, search our directory before you call.
Tell the staffers who answer the phone in your representatives’ offices:
Hi, my name is (INSERT NAME.) I’m a constituent. (If you are also a parent, child care provider, community leader, etc., feel free to mention that as well.)
I am calling because I believe that child care and Head Start are essential programs for children and families. I urge Senator/ Representative (INSERT NAME) to support an increase of $874 million for child care and $1 billion for Head Start in this year’s budget.
And he cited the committee’s own calculations from last fall that showed that the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year,
The national Head Start program, which was a legacy of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” offers preschool to families unable to afford a private program. We don’t know how it functions elsewhere in the country, but in Morris County, Head Start is as refreshingly bipartisan as can be. Republicans and Democrats are on its board, and Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, R-Harding, long has been a supporter.
Well, not really. It sounds like a good plan though. The truth is…I have no motivation, I haven’t been able to stick to a diet in years, and yoga is just another four letter word to me. When if comes to healthy living…I’m slowly but surly becoming the poster child (middle-aged woman) for unhealthy living.
So, I started this post thinking I might find some motivation to stop eating so much ice-cream and cookies. And then I came across this…
We all know there are people who bitch at their fat spouses for gaining weight, and gym owners who berate and shame fat people. And don’t forget random people on the street who yell things and throw garbage at the overweight and obese. In case that just isn’t motivating enough for you, we now have the talking “diet tile” that you put on the floor in front of the fridge.
Humiliation every time I take a step toward the refrigerator? Not exactly what I had in mind.
I do like the idea of changing my goal from losing weight, to living healthy to 100.
I am changing my goal officially (see near top of right side bar under photo) from a goal of healthy weight of 140 lbs to a long term goal of Living Healthy to 100 and beyond.
Who wants to join me in setting their goal for a Fabulous, Awesome, Tenacious and Healthy life (a.k.a. F.A.T. Attitude) instead of worrying over numbers on the scale?
It’s an excellent idea. But, who am I kidding? I couldn’t even make it to 30 being healthy, and now (don’t tell anybody) I’m even older than that. I know…It’s hard to believe.
So, anyone want to convince me yoga is the perfect thing for me right now? Want to tell me why you love it? Or have you (like me) had some not-so-fantastic experiences with the whole thing? I’m curious about the general yoga consensus among our readers…(see 40 comments on yoga)
And then, I remembered reading this interesting post…
I got it into my head that I should try yoga. Pretty much, the only things I know about yoga are, it’s a form of relaxation, it helps with flexibility, it’s good for one’s balance and it doesn’t require me to bounce around too much.
I had one problem with the yoga class; it’s held at my local hospital for the 55+ gang on Tuesday evenings and, as it happened, I had an appointment to get a pedicure last Tuesday. Pretty much, what I know about pedicures is it’s a form of relaxation, your feet and legs receive a massage and it, too, requires no bouncing.
Hmm. What to choose, what to choose…
What would you choose? A pedicure is sounding pretty good to me right now. I guess I’m not doing so great in the “motivation” area. And, isn’t that the only way I’ll ever be successful in my quest for health living? I know. I know. Maybe I’ll start being motivated on Monday.
Universal Healthcare, Medicaid, and Cancer – by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at BlogHer)
I’m not sure how much we really needed a study to determine that uninsured people are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer too late to be treated successfully. In most cases, a person actually needs to see a doctor to be diagnosed with a disease. So, is anyone surprised to find out that poor, uninsured people, aren’t going to the doctor? I didn’t think so. The only thing this study does do, is underscore the healthcare crisis we are currently facing (with 47 million Americans uninsured), and the need for all Americans to have access to quality healthcare. However, in order to prevent this study from being used as an argument for some type of universal healthcare…Medicaid has been thrown into the mix.
Here is an example from The New York Times, of how the news of this new study is being reported…
A nationwide study has found that the uninsured and those covered by Medicaid are more likely than those with private insurance to receive a diagnosis of cancer in late stages, often diminishing their chances of survival.
Cleverly, someone decided to throw a monkey wrench into this study, by comparing having no insurance at all, to having Medicaid. I say “cleverly”, because without that little snip-it of information, this study would appear to be the perfect argument for universal healthcare. But now some can argue, that Medicaid is a government program that isn’t working…So, how could the government ever be capable of implementing a healthcare program that would work?
Now, this might not be the biggest revelation ever, but it seems that people who don’t pay a lot for their health care get lesser-quality care. I can hear the wingers already screaming that this is obviously a failure of public insurance, as private insurance leads to better care.
I admit, I know very little about Medicaid, but when you dig a little deeper into the reporting of this study, it appears there is more to the “Medicaid” aspect then meets the eye.
This study seems to find that having Medicaid is still better than being one of the 47 million that are uninsured…
Results showed that uninsured patients were 90% more likely and Medicaid patients were 40% more likely to be diagnosed with stage II than stage I disease compared with those who had either private insurance or Medicare (difference not significant between the two latter groups).
And, are the Medicaid patients in this study mostly from nursing homes? If so, this study on Medicaid and nursing homes seems to indicate the problem is more to do with the actual care being given in nursing homes, and less to do with being insured with Medicaid.
A study in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that Medicaid patients in nursing home care receive limited cancer services. While the prevalence of cancer in nursing home patients is 1 in 10, according to Dr. Bradley and coauthors this population has received little attention in outcomes research.
The report concludes that nursing home patients had a preponderance of late or unstaged disease, high mortality with a few months of diagnosis, low hospice use, and very little cancer-directed treatment, even among patients with early stage cancer where treatment can alleviate symptoms.
I’m pointing these discrepancies out because – If this study is really going to be used to help determine our country’s healthcare policy, then we need to understand a few things. Most importantly, that the problems facing Medicaid are much different than the problems facing any plan to insure the uninsured. In other words…Don’t use statistics on orange trees, to determine whether or not to grow an apple tree.
Also see:
Health Insurance only for the Healthy — If 47 million uninsured Americans is not high enough a number of vulnerable people who often do not visit the doctor soon enough to receive an early cancer diagnosis leading to a higher cancer survival rate, Blue Cross of California is looking to increase the number of uninsured — with the help of doctors.
Anyway, I still don’t know what this post is really about, I guess it could mean different things to different people. If you have good insurance it may mean one thing…but if you have a parent in a nursing home, or are uninsured yourself, probably something totally different. What does this information mean to you? Will these issues have any affect on how you vote in November?
A Tour Around Health and Political Blogs, that are taking on the issue of healthcare reform. — by Catherine Morgan (cross posted at BlogHer and CatherineBlogs)
With more and more people becoming uninsured in our country, healthcare reform is becoming an increasingly important issue.
Voters are interested in knowing where the candidates stand on the issue of healthcare. Now you can find health bloggers and political bloggers addressing healtcare reform. Here is a quick tour around some of these bloggers talking about the issue of healthcare and healthcare reform.
As for issues, if voters are concerned about healthcare, “they probably don’t perceive too much difference between Clinton and Obama,” says Blendon, who is also a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health. “I think they believe that either Democrat will try to do something big. Healthcare won’t become an issue until the general election.”
But in November’s general election, healthcare will be at the center of the debate, Blendon declares. “John McCain now appears to be the front-runner among the Republicans, and if, in November, he turns out to be the party’s candidate, he will not see providing health coverage for everyone as a priority for his administration,” says Blendon.
“Nor will Republican Congressmen view universal coverage as something that their constituency wants.” As I noted in a post last week, polls show that “the majority of Independents and Republicans are not convinced that health care is a “fundamental right.”
So an election that pitted either Clinton or Obama against McCain would become, in part, a referendum on healthcare reform. Who would win? “Again, it would be very close,” says Blendon. “We’re in a hostile environment for Republicans, but McCain is stronger than his party.
Where do the candidates stand on this life changing issue? One place to look would be health08.org. This is a site put together by the Kaiser Family Foundation, who claims to be non-partisan, non-profit, private operating foundation.
Another grassroots organization fighting for healthcare reform is Americans for Health Care. Here you will also find a comparison of the candidates, along with updates and ways to take action.
The New York Times also has a candidate comparison, which still includes folks that have dropped out, in the Election Guide 2008. I am not sure how up to date this one is, you know how those political beings change direction mid stream more often than not.
Should you care about the flap over healthcare “mandates”? Does it really tell us anything about whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is more likely to deliver healthcare reform?
In yesterday’s New York Times, Paul Krugman said “Yes.” He pointed out that Clinton’s plan favors mandates that would require everyone who can afford the premiums to sign up for healthcare insurance. Low-income and lower-middle income Americans who cannot afford the premiums would receive subsidies from the government, just as they do in Massachusetts.
It’s certainly no secret that an election year is upon us. I say this over and over – one person can make a difference! One voice can echo, and cause other voices to rise in unison. As we face the election of new officials it is important to raise our voices so that our healthcare needs are met. We need to make certain that each and every person has access to quality care!
There’s been a lot of talk here at BlogHer about Gardasil, over the past year or so. I wrote about it a year ago, trying to articulate my feelings on it as a mom to a daughter who would soon be eligible for vaccination. Catherine Morgan has kept her finger on the pulse of the matter with multiple posts, including pointing out that several young girls have died within hours of receiving the vaccination.
My initial optimism was, perhaps, premature.
In the meantime, various states have been discussing mandating the vaccine, or trying to, with varying levels of success. (Check out Vaccine Awakening for a good explanation of what recently happened in the Virginia legislature.)
The day is almost over, but I didn’t want to let it go by, without my own Blog for Choice. It’s another year, and another anniversary of the seminal abortion-rights decision Roe v. Wade. This year, the 35th anniversary, is actually a pretty big one, even though we’ve not yet heard much about this issue from the presidential candidates in either party — for the most part, the Democratic candidates all agree with each other as do the Republicans. Plus, it doesn’t appear to be that big of an issue so far in this election cycle. And that certainly makes sense—there are a lot of issues that people perceive to require greater attention (i.e. ending the war, better health care, dealing with the economy, addressing immigration, etc.), plus I have a hunch that because of its divisive nature, folks would rather come together around the issues that we might be able to agree on.
Hydration: Facts and Fiction — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at BlogHer)
When if comes to hydration there are many more facts to report than fiction. I think the most important thing to remember about proper hydration is that, not all hydration is created equal. For example; one cup of coffee is not equal to one cup of water. That’s because coffee is a diuretic – so are many other beverages, such as tea and soda.
Proper hydration is essential to good health, and necessary for the prevention of dehydration…
Mild dehydration rarely results in complications – as long as the fluid is replaced quickly – but more-severe cases can be life-threatening, especially in the very young and the elderly. In extreme situations, fluids or electrolytes may need to be delivered intravenously.
Why is hydration so important for good health?
How do you know if you are drinking enough water? And how much water do you need to drink?
Obviously, staying hydrated is essential to any good exercise program…I found an interesting recipe for making your own sports drinks at WebMD. It’s as easy as mixing one can of frozen concentrated juice with nine cans of water (instead of three).
Some say hydration is important for a clear complexion, others say this is just a myth.
Poor hydration causes the elimination system to become inefficient. When this happens the body starts eliminating waste and toxins through the skin. This can cause acne.
Poor hydration can also cause the skin oil to become thicker and increase the possibility of it getting trapped in the pores leading to acne.
So…It may be that needing 8 to 10 glasses of water each day isn’t exactly true. However, getting enough water each day is certainly an important part of overall health and wellness.
We’ve been talking a lot about making healthy lifestyle changes since the New Year. If you are one of the millions that wants to become healthier in 2008, you may be interested in this program…
The American Cancer Society is introducing an exciting new program on Thursday, it’s called The Great American Health Challenge. The campaign is designed as a comprehensive prevention and early detection program. It’s a simple program with four interactive tools to provide information and encourage healthy lifestyles.
BlogHer’s Good Health-a-thon is all about what we can do, little by little, day by day, week by week and month by month to live healthier. It’s not a matter of saying “I’m going to go to the gym more this year” and then reviewing your progress in January of 2009, only to discover you haven’t actually used your gym card since mid-February.
Instead, the point of the Good Health-a-thon is to have each of us set simple, attainable, health-related goals for ourselves throughout the year. Our goals can be anything we want, but with the idea of broadening our definition of “health” well beyond calorie counting.
The presidential campaign has taken an interesting turn in the last few days. It’s finally become apparent to the media, the pundits, and the candidates, what has been obvious to women all along…Women hold the key to the White House, ignore them and you shall be locked out.
How important will the “women’s vote” be in the 2008 presidential election? The answer – It’s going to be more important than anyone can even begin to imagine. If that fact hadn’t been abundantly clear before now, it certainly should be after Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama won in Iowa with the majority of women voting for him there, and Clinton won in New Hampshire with the majority of women voting for her there. When all is said and done, the next President of the United States will be coronated not by the media, but by the women.
So, do your homework candidates. This election is not about race, gender, or tears…It’s about the issues, especially the issues that are important to women voters. You will need a message that resonates with all women voters…all colors, ages, income levels, married, single, soccer moms, and single moms. Don’t feel bad men, women ultimately want what’s best for the country, so that includes you too. And NEWS FLASH…Just “pandering” to the women is not going to do the trick, we can actually see through that.
Four Tips To A Long Life — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at BlogHer)
I was surfing the health and wellness news trying to decide what to post on tonight, and I came across this Reuters article… Four Health Changes Can Prolong Life 14 Years. Who wouldn’t want to prolong their life by 14 years?
So, would you make a “resolution” to make four lifestyle changes, if it would increase your life by 14 years? Better than a New Years Resolution, this would be a “Life Resolution”.
What are the four changes to a longer life?
1) Stop Smoking
2) Eat Five Servings of Fruits and Vegetables a Day
3) Exercise
4) Limit Alcohol Consumption
The lifestyle change with the biggest benefit was giving up smoking, which led to an 80 percent improvement in health, the study found. This was followed by eating fruits and vegetables. Moderate drinking and keeping active brought the same benefits…
Well, that seems pretty simple. While we’re on the subject, why not surf around for some other ways to live longer?
There are few things that cause you more stress and worry than your weight. If you gained a few pounds over the holidays, don’t panic…..yet. According to an article (reprinted below) about a study published last November, people who are a little overweight actually live longer.
Could you live longer if you walked faster? Apparently so…
New research following 500 older people for nearly a decade found quicker walkers were less likely to die. Nine years after initial gait speed was measured, 77 percent of slow walkers had died, compared to only 50 percent of medium speed and 27 percent of fast walkers.
As our population ages, our society is finally recognizing that old age is a gift. Despite some of the negative images in the media, it really is possible to embrace our elderhood as a creative and spiritual journey.
People who have aged successfully share common characteristics.
There is no question that most of our lifestyle choices are what will determine whether we age in good physical and mental health or fall prey to sickness and disability. Although it may be a cliché, moderation is the key in everything. By practicing moderation and following these ten tips, you too can be a “long-liver” and, more importantly, enjoy your elder hood in the process.
Happy New Year everyone! This is one of my most popular posts, and since everyone seems to be talking about dieting and weight loss, I figured now was a good time to re-post. Hope you like it.
You heard right. All you can eat. And it’s not a gimmick. How can that be? All you can eat diet? No diet is all you can eat? Well you are right, and wrong. No starvation or quick fix theme diet, is ever going to be an all you can eat diet. And we all know there is no pill or powder that allows you to eat anything you want and still lose weight. So, what exactly is an ALL YOU CAN EAT DIET?
It’s the last day of 2007, and I thought I would do this post on some of the hot topics from BlogHer Health and Wellness. So, in no particular order, here is what I think are the top ten. — read the full post at BlogHer.
The number of overweight children in the United States is growing at a very alarming rate. Kids are spending much less time being active, and much more time sitting in front of a TV, computer, or video-game. For this reason we are seeing an increase in children developing diseases (such as Type 2 Diabetes) that are normally associated with overweight adults. This is very troubling, especially considering that it is preventable.
Preventing your children from becoming overweight means adapting the way you and your family eat and exercise and the way you spend time together. Helping your children lead healthy lifestyles begins with you, the parent, and leading by example. — read full article
A recent study also finds that children with type 2 diabetes are more likely to develop kidney disease…
Children and teens diagnosed with type 2 diabetes are five times more likely to develop kidney disease later in life than those who develop diabetes as adults, a recent study found.
The findings underscore the importance of preventing — or at least delaying — the onset of type 2 diabetes, doctors say. — read full article
Tina at Public Spark has some tips for preventing childhood obesity…
I am not a nutritionist therefore cannot give you the 411 on diet, but I thought it would be interesting to take a psychological perspective on it. Obesity is a major problem that exists in our society today. If we can stop it early on, I believe that that we can decrease the problem later on. My boyfriend and I came up with some techniques that we would like to use when we have children. — read full post
Bev from That’s Fit has some tips from Bob Greene on childhood obesity…
Exercise physiologist Bob Greene, Oprah’s fitness trainer, had a few things to say about combating childhood obesity while in Toronto last week. He believes parents can make a significant difference. — read full post
Hi everyone. I want to take this opportunity to tell you that I am helping to launch a new blog by Care2. It’s called the Care2 Election Blog, and I will be the primary blogger. I hope you’ll stop by and check it out.
I’ll be here at the Care2 Election Blog each day with posts on the latest election news, political commentary and, of course, will address campaign issues that are especially important to the Care2 community, with an emphasis on non-profits. Since this is Care2’s first blog, I hope to get as much feedback from the members of the community as possible…and I look forward to hearing all of your comments and suggestions (so please…don’t be shy). — read my full first post here
If you are not already familiar with Care2, you should go over and check them out. It’s a site that makes it easy to take action on issues that are important to you.
The rate had been steadily declining since 1991, after an intense educational campaign, that included contraception, condom use, and the risk of Aids and sexually transmitted disease. But now, for the first time in 14 years, statistics show a 3% increase in teens having babies.
Hmmm…looks like abstinence only programs don’t work. Oh, have I said that before? Sounds familiar, but now there is a new study that is saying the same thing. Last week, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released a study confirming that ab-only programs don’t delay sex. Even more exciting, the review of teenage sexual behavior also concluded that comprehensive sexuality education does delay the initiation of sex, reduces a teen’s number of sex partners, and increases condom and contraceptive usage. Hurray!
Needless to say, this is terrific news. So I ask you all this: Why have we spent over $1.5 billion in the last ten years on abstinence only? And why is Congress even considering a bill to spend another $141 million on it?
It seems to me that with teen pregnancy on the rise, this would prove that abstinence-only programs are not working. However, instead of recognizing the failure of these programs, the Bush administration is increasing funding.
Ideology, not science, has been driving America’s response to the twin epidemics of teen pregnancy and STD/HIV infections. Funding for abstinence-only censorship programs is dramatically increasing. All told, abstinence-only programs have received over half a billion dollars in federal funds since 1997, and the Bush administration requested yet another sharp increase to $204 million for fiscal year 2007. By 2009, President Bush proposes that funding for abstinence-only programs reach $270 million.
This huge investment of taxpayer funds in abstinence-only programs conflicts with scientific and medical research: abstinence-only programs are not proven effective and may in fact result in riskier behavior by teenagers. Responsible sex education programs, on the other hand, have demonstrated positive results such as delayed initiation of sex, reduced frequency of sex, and increased contraceptive use. — read full article here
Parents really shouldn’t be relying totally on schools to teach their children about sex anyway. It’s not any easy subject to talk about with our children, but it is very important that we do (especially given this latest information on teen pregnancy). Here is a site that seems to include all aspects of sex education…Teensource, and here is one on talking to you kids about sex.
Don’t wait too long to have these conversations. Kids are experimenting with sex and drugs earlier and earlier. The younger you start the easier it will be to continue bringing it up. A great conversation starter might be after you and your child have seen a movie with sex or drugs being part of the content. “What did you think about that movie? What did you think about the choices that Josie made? What would you have done? Do you have any questions about anything that you saw?”
If your child ignores you or doesn’t want to talk about it don’t give up. Keep looking for opportunities to bring up those uncomfortable issues. Soon you will notice that it isn’t so awkward after all!
In May, according to NPR, “Democratic Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made it clear that Democrats do not intend to re-fund a $50 million grant program for abstinence-only sex education. Dingell says he considers the funded programs ‘a colossal failure.’”
“Democrats would still include money for abstinence teachings in schools, but would combine it with comprehensive sex-ed program* that would teach about birth control and other safe sex methods.” (Click here to read the full USA Today article.)
The abstinence-only grant was set to expire on June 30, 2007.
However, despite Democrat statements and the factual studies that revealed the fallibility and lack of efficacy of abstinence-only education, in June, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations voted to increase federal funding for community based abstinence-only education programs (CBAE) in this country by $27.8 million.
In November, the increase amount was officially set at $28 million for a grand total of $141 million. President Bush would like that amount increased to $204 million for 2008.
Could this be what Bush has in mind?
An easy solution to the problem of teen pregnancy.
If we just had a couple more million to add some critical “family values” classes along with the “abstinence only” program, it wouldn’t matter that the teen birth rate is increasing. It would go something like this…High school counselors could stop pushing college on everyone (it’s getting awfully expensive anyway), and instead they could encourage parenting classes. Picture this…The “advanced placement” pregnant teens could take classes in wedding planning. This could even help solve the divorce problem in our country…With no education and just their husband to count on, these women would be virtually trapped in their marriages, with no possibility of getting a divorce or making it on their own.
What do you think about these new statistics? How do you feel about our government spending millions of tax dollars for abstinence only programs? Do you think the schools should be teaching sex educations? Do you talk openly with your kids about sex?
An open question to the candidates:How will you address the problem of teen pregnancy if you are elected president?
The nation’s teen birth rate has risen for the first time in 14 years, according to a new government report.
The birth rate had been dropping since 1991. The decline had slowed in recent years, but government statisticians said Wednesday it jumped 3 percent from 2005 to 2006.
“It took us by surprise,” said Stephanie Ventura of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a co-author of the report. — see full article here
It seems to me that this latest report proves that abstinence-only programs are not working.
Ideology, not science, has been driving America’s response to the twin epidemics of teen pregnancy and STD/HIV infections. Funding for abstinence-only censorship programs is dramatically increasing. All told, abstinence-only programs have received over half a billion dollars in federal funds since 1997, and the Bush administration requested yet another sharp increase to $204 million for fiscal year 2007. By 2009, President Bush proposes that funding for abstinence-only programs reach $270 million.
This huge investment of taxpayer funds in abstinence-only programs conflicts with scientific and medical research: abstinence-only programs are not proven effective and may in fact result in riskier behavior by teenagers. Responsible sex education programs, on the other hand, have demonstrated positive results such as delayed initiation of sex, reduced frequency of sex, and increased contraceptive use. — read full article here
I would love to know how these programs have spent over half a billion dollars of taxpayer money teaching abstinence? I would also like to know what the current presidential candidates will do when elected to lower the rate of teen pregnancy in this country?
A man purposefully puts RU-486 in a woman’s drink, causing her to miscarry, not just once but twice (CNN News clip).
This is truly a heinous crime and an affront to a woman’s right to choose. A woman’s reproductive rights are sacred, and just as no man should be aloud to force a woman to have a child if she is not ready, no man should be able to force her to lose a child if she is choosing to keep it.
This man (and I use that term lightly) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, sending a clear message to any man or woman who would consider poisoning a pregnant woman for the purpose of having her miscarry.
Since Wisconson is one of 37 states that has a fetal homicide law, one of many charges this [sorry excuse for a] man will face is attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child.
However, I think the main focus of this case should be the violation of the woman, although I have no problem with this man being charged with murder since the state already has a law that allows for that. Since there are many other charges as well as murder here, I would leave it up to the judge or jury to decide the extent of this person’s punishment. Regardless of the charges, I would hope that this case be treated very seriously, and have serious consequences.
It seems odd to me, but many are taking this clear criminal violation of a woman, and turning it into a debate over abortion. For example…If a woman has the right to terminate her own pregnancy…Why shouldn’t a man be able to secretly and maliciously terminate a woman’s pregnancy if that’s what he wants to do? No, I’m not making this stuff up…
Potential Problems with Tamiflu, and Questioning The Benefits of the Flu Vaccine — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at BlogHer)
New warnings from the FDA about possible psychiatric events being observed in some patients that have taken Tamiflu and Relenza (antiviral medications used to minimize the symptoms of the flu).
When it comes to the flu, there are two aspects of concern. First…Are the medications safe? And second…Are the vaccines beneficial? Here are some of what’s been in the news and on the blogs recently.
Personally, I choose not to get the flu vaccine. In general, I just feel we are over vaccinated in this country. And maybe it’s just been a coincidence, but when I have gotten the flu vaccine, it seemed to exacerbate my already problematic medical conditions.
In documents prepared for the meeting next week and posted on the FDA’s Web site, agency staff recommended that Tamiflu’s label be strengthened to note: “In some cases, these behaviors resulted in serious injuries, including death, in adult and pediatric patients.”
The FDA staff also reviewed Relenza, a drug in the same class as Tamiflu, recommending its label be changed to note “reports of hallucinations, delirium and abnormal behavior” observed in some patients taking the drug. — Read Full Article
Reports of neurological problems in children taking the flu drugs Tamiflu and Relenza mean the medicines need a warning label on their packaging, according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety review released Friday.
According to the Associated Press, the safety review follows 25 deaths among Tamiflu users under the age of 21, most of them occurring in Japan. In five cases, children fell from windows or balconies or ran into traffic, the AP said. — read full post
It seems the main controversy over the Flu Vaccine, has been over the possible adverse reactions to it. But equally as important, is discovering whether or not there is an actual benefit to this vaccine…And studies are now beginning to show, that the benefits may not be as great as we have been led to believe.
A new report has been released in which the effectiveness of flu vaccinations is queried. Focusing on their performance within the elderly, the report asserts that no data exists to suggest that yearly flu jabs prevent those involved from contracting significant illnesses in future years.
Those behind the report conceded that flu stood as an “important contributor” towards illnesses including emphysema and bronchitis. However, they added, no marked difference was noticed in the frequency of either condition within those that had had vaccinations, and those who passed on them. — Read Full Article
Offering a sharp critique of the evidence, the authors of the study offered several reasons for questioning the notion that flu immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
1. Even thought vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15% to 65% since 1980, the overall mortality due to pneumonia and influenza in elderly people has increased in that period.
2. Few randomized, placebo-controlled trials have examined flu vaccine effectiveness in elderly people. The largest and best study, done in the Netherlands, showed a 50% reduction in confirmed flu cases among all the volunteers, but the reduction for those older than 70 was only 23%.
(Blogger’s Note: for regular folks, that still left only a 50% effectiveness. The flu vaccine has more listed side effects than any vaccine package insert I have ever read, including a host of respiratory problems such as ASTHMA)
There was no significant reduction in influenza-like illness. (Blogger’s Note – so you don’t get the flu, but you get flu-like. What a nice exchange!)
3. A number of investigators have reported finding evidence of flu vaccination benefits in the elderly by analyzing the records of large healthcare organizations. But these studies typically are flawed in that investigators looked for an effect on all-cause mortality, a nonspecific outcome, rather than on lab-confirmed flu.
4. Further, many such studies may be marred by a subtle selection bias, wherein relatively healthy older people were more likely to be vaccinated, thereby making vaccination look more beneficial than it really was.
So…How do you feel about these latest findings? Do you get the Flu Vaccine? Why or why not? Are you concerned about the possibility of psychiatric problems related to the anti-viral medications used to treat the flu? Would you let your child take it if prescribed?
