Sick and twisted: public high school helps child get abortion without parental consent

I heard this story last night on the news and I was disgusted! A clinic within a Seattle Washington public high school helped a 15 year old child, a minor, go for an abortion after she tested positive with a pregnancy test that she had taken at the school. The child's mother was furious and has recently gone public about her ire, and I would say rightly so.

I was shocked to realize that there are such morally corrupt people in this world. This clinic lobbied a minor, without parental consent, to terminate a pregnancy. Worst of all, "they [the school clinic] just told her [the child] that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility." Children at all ages look to adults for guidance. What kind of person would think it is acceptable to teach an impressionable child that personal responsibility is dead and that saving a few bucks is more important than saving a life?

Even if you separate from the abortion issue, this clinic's subversion of the family unit is deplorable. What kind of person thinks that it is acceptable to teach a minor that they should lie and hide information from their parents?

I know abortion is a divisive issue, and that there are people that fervently believe in a woman's right to choose. But, I think even pro-choice individuals would have to agree that the actions of this Seattle school clinic are radical and disgraceful. I think every parent expects his rights as his child's legal guardian to be respected here in America.

If you want to protect your parental rights, fight back and reclaim them! If you find this equally appalling, ask your local school district what their policy is on the acquisition of parental consent before termination of a pregnancy. Also, be advised that you should read the fine print and ask questions before you unknowingly sign away your parental rights. The mother of this Seattle teen signed a consent form with the clinic at the beginning of the year, assuming it was to grant permission for the clinic to give her child simple or routine medical care in her absence. This matter extends beyond the school district. You may find that you have to lobby your local representatives in order to overturn state legislation that permits such predatory practices on a child patient.

Please share this article to parents, or anyone, that you know.

Scientist misrepresents research in a bizarre op-ed piece

CNN news featured an article that I have linked to the title of this post. It was titled "Love, sex and the male brain." It was full of interesting and controversial comments from Dr. Louann Brizendine. CNN listed that she has the following credentials:

1. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
2. National Board of Medical Examiners
3. Clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco.
4. Founder and director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic

Naturally, she must be a credible and reliable scientific voice, right?

I started reading the article that claimed men have a larger dorsal premammillary nucleus which makes them more territorial and hormone fluctuations cause elderly men to become grumpy or jovial. She also states that testosterone is what makes men, well, men. I must say, this is quite a banal hypothesis. Therefore, I don't think Dr. Brizendine will be receiving the Nobel Prize anytime soon.

Where Dr. Brizendine lost me as a reader was when she claimed that men are hardwired biologically to ogle attractive woman in front of their significant other because of testosterone. In essence, she was accusing the male sex of being primitive cave men who can't control themselves. One, I'd argue that woman can and do partake in this same behavior. So this is not a testosterone dependent behavior. In reality, it is a socially learned behavior that simply reflects a lack in social manners and etiquette. Both sexes are equally attracted to people. The real issue is what your parents do or do not teach you is the ideal manner in which to comport oneself. Basically this boils down to whether the person is of the mindset that they see nothing wrong in continuing to window shop for a more attractive model.

Forget this controversial material. After all, Dr. Brizendine was providing an op-ed piece. What bothered me the most is her assertion that female pheromones make men produce prolactin to become doting fathers. Now, this is where I became angry because this seemingly reputable scientist is falsifying scientific data to strengthen her thesis.

First of all, pheromones are well studied in animals and lower organisms. However, very few respected scientific studies have provided data to support the concept of human pheromones. Now, this doesn't mean they don't exist, it's just that they have not been scientifically proven to the extent that it is accepted as fact for animals.

Secondly, her example of pheromones being secreted in order to induce the brain to synthesize prolactin for the benefit of creating a bond with a newborn actually comes from studies in rats. That's right, rats! Furthermore, she has the sexes reversed. The published study titled "Male pheromones initiate prolactin-induced neurogenesis and advance maternal behavior in female mice" from the journal Hormonal Behavior was published in 2008. As the title reveals, it was actually the male rats that released the hormone to strengthen the mother's bond with her pups.

I understand making mistakes, but flagrant manipulation of data is an entirely different beast. Regardless of your area of expertise, you have an obligation to not mislead people intentionally. This article by Dr. Brizendine is nothing more than an irresponsible op-ed piece that overstates and misrepresents scientific data. One can only assume that perhaps she chose to do this in hopes of promoting her new book and upcoming television appearances. Nonetheless, such abuse of power through distortion of the truth at any level should not be condoned.

Another instance of misleading UN global warming data?

Followers or regular readers may remember my earlier posts (noted below) that discussed a United Nations (UN) claim that sadly has gained considerable traction in the mainstream media. Back in 2006, the UN published a report stating that the livestock industry is the major culprit behind global warming. I went on to post my frustration and concern regarding the radical response within Massachusetts to this UN report. Specifically, the city of Cambridge and my own university dining facility have implemented "Meatless Monday" or "Friday Flexitarian" dietary policies in order to combat global warming.

You also may remember that I notified my university dining facility that I would no longer be purchasing food from them as long as such a personally invasive policy was endorsed. They responded, but expectantly were not swayed to change the policy because of my one email. But, today I may have gained some surprise support.

When perusing internet news, I stumbled across the following American Chemical Society (ACS) report:

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_024369&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=28aee2ce-192f-4158-8d7b-136c8433e8eb

This article describes a recent presentation at an ACS meeting by University of California scientist, Dr. Frank Mitloehner. In his talk, Dr. Mitloehner directly challenges the 2006 UN report which claims that the livestock industry is the leading greenhouse gas producer, responsible for 18% of the total global emissions. The basis of his argument is that the the UN did not equitably compare the livestock and transportation (fossil fuel) industry. Specifically, Mitloehner explained that the UN calculated the livestock industry greenhouse gas footprint by counting all sectors of the livestock industry, from growing animal feed, to animal digestive emissions, as well as downstream steps of processing meat and milk into foods. By totaling these many steps, the UN arrived at the widely quoted 18% figure stamped on the livestock industry. However, this same broad analysis was not done for the transportation industry. Dr. Mitloehner discussed that the "transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving and not all other transport life cycle" stages such as the acquisition, processing, burning and shipping of fossil fuels. Inclusion of these other parameters would actually show that transportation dwarfs the livestock industry contribution to global greenhouse gas emission.

Now, this doesn't meant that efforts shouldn't be made to improve the livestock industry. As Dr. Mitloehner states, this "this lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue. I would even argue that it has once again discredited the UN's credibility and underscores the shoddy nature of their scientific analyses. Furthermore, it highlights the ridiculousness of liberal policies to ban meat in the wake of sensational media hype over this issue.

Needless to say, I forwarded this ACS article to my university dining facility. I am interested to see what their response will be in the wake of learning that their personally intrusive "Friday Flexitarian" meal station was irrationally radical and not based on a sound data analysis.

I don't know if you agree, but rather than worrying so much about this fictitious cow and pig threat to the planet, maybe we should be more worried about the transformation of people into such easily manipulated sheep!




Earlier referenced posts:

Friday, March 12, 2010
Flexivores welcome, or not!
http://aroguescientist.blogspot.com/2010/03/flexivores-welcome-or-not.html

Sunday, February 14, 2010
Cows and pigs are responsible for global warming
http://aroguescientist.blogspot.com/2010/02/cows-and-pigs-are-responsible-for.html

Founding fathers rejected virtuous atheisim, shouldn't we?

My March 8 posting (linked to the title of this post) focused on a recent public school curriculum battle over the central role of religion in our nation's history. Hearing about this controversy rekindled my interest in this subject matter. If anyone is interested in this issue, I've found that W. Cleon Skousen's "The Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World" is an easily digestible source of information.

What I've deduced to be the root cause of the recent Texas text book controversy is the fact that there is a growing popular movement within our contemporary American society. This new belief structure embraces the idea that our nation can remain prosperous and just without religion. How can this be accomplished? Through acceptance of the frequently espoused concept of virtuous atheism.

What is virtuous atheism? It is the idea that one can be an atheist, one who does not believe in the existence of a god, but still live a moral and virtuous life. While this is possible for some individuals, its success on a national scale is dubious. This is precisely the reason why our founding fathers articulated their fundamental belief in the importance of religious education in schools.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin all believed in the central importance of religious education in creating a moral and virtuous constituency. Thomas Paine commented that such teaching would ensure that the American people would continue to be "industrious, frugal and honest." For these reasons, the founding fathers advocated teaching core religious principles in schools. Now this didn't mean teaching the Bible, because even in their day the founders were sensitive to denominational differences. Therefore, the founders desired that five fundamental religious beliefs common to all religious sects be taught. It was through this prioritization of core beliefs about the human condition that America became a humble, just and educated people.

Just 40 years after the founding of our nation, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his book "Democracy in America" about America's recipe for success. De Tocqueville noted how "in New England every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution...it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things." If the founding fathers had achieved such a high educational standard, it makes one wonder whether the contemporary pressure to expunge these lessons from the public educational curriculum has been a monumental mistake.

Our founding fathers knew what was at stake by not teaching these principles to each generation of Americans. In the words of Thomas Paine, author of "Common Sense," the founders looked to Europe and saw "luxury, indolence, amusement, and pleasure." Furthermore, they saw the chaos that ensued as a result of popular dechristianization and atheism movements during the bloody French Revolution. In order to safeguard our fledgling nation against the moral decay prevalent in Europe, the founders sought to uphold religious virtue in its citizenry through the home, church and schools.

Some might argue that religious virtues being taught in school, or being present in a politician, violates the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. However, this is not so. This is because separation was never meant to strip morals and virtue from public officials or the public educational curriculum. Rather, it was meant to ensure individual religious freedom and prevent the church from becoming a tyrannical ruling power, akin to a monarch, who oppressively taxed (through exorbitant tithes) or exerted total and corrupt political authority.

The American realization of separation of church and state was recognized by de Tocqueville. While the prevailing belief in Europe was "that religion and liberty were enemies of each other," de Tocqueville observed that Americans were living proof that personal liberty and religious faith could co-exist. Unlike in Europe, de Tocqueville admired how in America the "clergy remained politically separated from the government but nevertheless provided a moral stability among the people which permitted the government to prosper." This is precisely what the founding fathers dreamed of, a government ruled by the people who in turn were guided by religiously based virtue.

Sadly, somewhere within the 20th century, the motivation behind separation of church and state has been distorted from the original intent. This perversion has happened because of contemporary political agendas. As a result, the true and tested morals and virtues revered by the founders have been erased from the public school curriculum. In addition, politicians are lambasted for voting their conscious in an effort to hold the American people to a higher moral code of conduct.

In reality, this political contentiousness is nothing new. De Tocqueville explained how in Europe it was common practice that "unbelievers...attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a [political] party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government." Even in his day, de Tocqueville keenly realized the false adversarial relationship created in the minds of progressive atheists. Instead of realizing the disagreement was solely in a religious sphere, they elevated the conflict into the political plane.

Unquestioningly, this 170 year old observation by de Tocqueville still accurately depicts today's political arena. This makes one realize how not much has changed. Our forefathers struggled with these same competing belief structures. Yet they wisely saw the threat of virtuous atheism and they chose to reject that path. As a result, we have inherited a powerful and prosperous nation. Therefore, as a nation, we must question the potential outcome of continuing down a pathway of religious rejectionism.

Praise for "No Apology"

A few years ago, Mitt Romney gave a speech at a Department of Homeland Security conference that I attended in Boston. His latest book "No Apology, The Case for American Greatness" reminded me of the content of his speech from 5 years ago.

This book discusses the various problems America is now faced with. Romney touches on foreign threats, as well as our lagging defense spending and failure to produce scientists and engineers. In addition, Romney offers free-market solutions to our economic, health care, energy and educational struggles. Throughout the book, Romney shares his vision on how to move our country forward while staying true to our nation's lofty ideals.

On the potential eve of a new entitlement program, Romney's book is very timely. One chapter of "No Apology" is devoted to the existing entitlement programs promised by our government. Social security, medicare and medicaid are bleeding us dry. The numbers quoted in this book were staggering. In 1965, President Johnson estimated social security would cost $500 million a year. Now in 2010, the annual expenditure is $500 billion, 1000 times higher than anticipated. To understand just how large the entitlement burden is on our economy, Romney states that "the total cost of US entitlement programs accounts for more than half of all federal spending...and is 11 percent of our GDP." For comparison, Romney points out that the entire defense budget is only 4% of the GDP, and that is while we are in two major wars.

Seeing these data is enough to give any rational person pause pertaining to the proposed Obama-care legislation. This controversial health care bill will account for 6% of our GDP. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced today that this bill is conservatively estimated to cost $940 billion for 6 years of government spending (I am excluding the four years we are suppose to pay into the system without receiving benefits). How can any responsible citizen not stop and ask will this entitlement program balloon by a factor of 1000 in forty years just like social security?

At times, Romney's position may be viewed as controversial. Particularly, in his call to decrease pregnancies out of wedlock. However, the statistics about the percentage of pregnancies out of wedlock were shocking. Back in 1960, only 7% of births were to people out of wedlock. Now, some 40% of all pregnancies are out of wedlock. Romney goes on to connect this pregnancy epidemic with our nations economy. He points out that many pregnancies that don't result in marriage often stunt the economic potential of the parent, child and consequently the US economy as a whole.

With regard to education, Romney is pro-choice. Romney supports the right to choose to send children to better performing schools, whether public or private. In addition, Romney offers insight into how to improve our public schools, something essential to our future national prosperity. At the same time, the book's education chapter publishes data showing how smaller class size and more money don't necessarily translate into improved student success. In reality, the only way to improve the educational system is to improve the quality of the teachers. One staggering fact outlined in Romney's book states that "In Finland, they (teachers) are recruited from the top 10 percent; in South Korea from the top 5 percent. But in the United States...our teachers are generally drawn from the bottom third of graduates." This fact was appalling.

Finally, this book leaves the reader with the sentiment that our country has been and still is a great country. Sure we make mistakes and have had flawed policies at times, but overall our country and military is there when it matters for people around the world. Romney offers a refreshingly frank opinion of how ludicrous it is to empathize with the enemies that hate our country and ideals.

I highly recommend this book if you are looking for a simple synopsis of contemporary geopolitical and social challenges coupled with practical small-government solutions. In the wake of all the political shape-shifting in Washington, it is nice to hear a principled and coherent policy agenda that concurrently cultivates the American work ethic, individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Modern day eugenics right here in America

The first thing that comes to mind with respect to eugenics, is Nazi Germany's work to cleanse the population of people they deemed genetically undesirable due to their handicap, low intelligence or sexual orientation. But surely eugenics isn't still happening, and certainly not in America, right?

Well, according to a recent FOX News article (linked within this post's title) eugenics is freely being endorsed by a North Carolina based social organization called Project Prevention. The focus of this organization has been to reduce births to drug-addicts, a seemingly noble idea. Unfortunately, the methods employed by this organization are nefarious.

Recently, Project Prevention has decided to offer drug-addicted woman a $300 incentive to not become pregnant. It sounds harmless until you hear the lengths to which this organization will go in order to achieve this objective.

As cited in a recent BBC News article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8500285.stm), Project Prevention has pushed women to use long-term birth control. But most deplorable of all, this organization has had a hand in the permanent sterilization of 1,226 woman and 35 men.

Clearly, there is something tragic about a child being exposed in utero to drugs and or being born into a volatile home. However, this does not give Barbara Harris, the founder of Project Prevention, the right to rob men and woman of their reproductive potential. In fact, this work seems downright criminal. After all, alcoholic intoxication is sufficient to negate sexual consent in criminal rape cases. Therefore, it seems logical that the Project Prevention clients, who are addicted to powerful illicit narcotics, could not be able to provide legal consent to irreversible sterilization procedures.

If you find this organization's work to be as alarming as I do, please share this article with others. Hopefully, by raising public awareness, we can stop this domestic eugenics program.

Flexivores welcome, or not!

You may remember my post from February 14, 2010. In that post I discussed Cambridge Massachusetts' recommendation for a mandatory meatless day to help the environment. Well, this intrusive proposition appears to have been embraced even across the river in Boston.

Today, my cafeteria within the university's research building, actually had a food station labeled for "flexivores." What's a flexivore, other than a made-up word? According to the creators of this word, a flexivore is a person that eats meat, but chooses to incorporate less or no meat meals into his diet.

You know why this made me so angry? What was so infuriating is the fact that, rather than just presenting this food station as a vegetarian option, the cafeteria publicized this station with some imaginary flexivore label. This label, provided with the definition outlined above, was in plain view in what was essentially a brain-washing propaganda effort to plant the seed in our minds that we should become more conscious of cutting out meat from our diet.

I'm sorry, but this manipulation is deeply disturbing and alarming. In addition, it's insulting that the catering group or even the university would condone displaying this message. As if this silly flexivore label would make it easier to swallow the fact that we were being subjected to a forced dietary restriction.

Later, when I went online to find contact information to send a letter to the catering company hired by my university, I discovered that this organization has implemented a "Meatless Monday" at one of our university's Cambridge based dining facilities under a new "sustainability" initiative. Let me just say that I told the catering organization that they would lose my business if its policy was to infringe on our rights.

If you enjoy being in charge of what you do or do not eat on a daily basis, then join me in saying flexivores are NOT welcome! More importantly, don't let government or organizations start to chip away at your rights and personal freedom. If you do, you'll wake up one day and realize you have none left.