I was able to view Blood Money last night.  I wrote a short blog on this movie in October.  This is a documentary film that talks about the business of abortion.  Even though I thought I was fairly knowledgeable about the abortion issue, this film was filled with things I had never heard and things I had never even thought of or considered about abortion.  Below I will share some of things in the film that have stuck with me.  Hopefully I won't spoil it for anyone who is going to see it.

One of the things I had never thought about regarding abortion was how, even though allowing for abortions is considered a pro-choice position, what you find with many women who have abortions is that they are doing it because they feel they don't have a choice.  They feel like that is their only option, so in a sense it is not really a pro-choice position.  It just occurred to me how ironic this is.  If this issue was really pro-choice, you would see a range of choices for the women to make, including support in the case where she decides to keep the baby.  Right now, only the pro-life movement is providing that support.

I also had not considered how easy it would be for women to go into a clinic and not actually be pregnant but be told that they were pregnant and then be convinced to go through with an abortion.  There is testimony of people who have worked years at abortion clinics and they go into great detail about the wording that they use to get women to agree to abortions.  And how if they come up with a negative pregnancy test, that they would do an ultrasound and show them a blob and say that they are pregnant.  The women would never know any different.

They talk about how easy it is to cover up botched abortions because most women will not sue because they don't want it to get out that they had an abortion.  The shame is enough to keep them quiet.  They talked about the infection rate being very high because of the number of patients per day that they get through there and they just don't have time to do a thorough cleaning of the instruments.   They talk about how easy it is make abortions look safe by not reporting any problems.  This is a serious medical surgery that women are just not given informed consent about what the potential side effects are. 

Women are not told that they could spend years with guilt and grief issues that can lead to health issues like depression that for many women can lead to suicide.  Biologically something happens in women when they are pregnant.  So, to go against that, it affects a woman's body even if she doesn't want it to.  Women will tend to be ashamed and will hide the abortion for years without telling anyone, all the while they are suffering inside. 

In addition, a woman's whole family is affected by this decision, including the father and other children.  A woman talked about the day when she told her daughter that before she had been born, she had had an abortion.  The daughter was shocked that a mother would kill her own child.  I have to wonder if she was starting to question whether she might be next (children sometimes come up with these things).

The movie talked about how abortion in-proportionately targets black women.  And how women in crisis go to a clinic and are counseled to have an abortion by people who will gain financially if the person chooses an abortion.  The councilors are trained in just what to say and do to get women to agree to an abortion.  A counselor position is really a sales position.  The woman never actually talks to a doctor till the abortion is performed, so forget about that idea that women are making this choice in council with their doctors. 

Life was talked about and how it is known that life begins at conception and to say otherwise goes against logic and science.  In order for many people to justify abortion, they have to decide that a baby who is not born is not human and is not alive.  They have to ignore the growing that is going on and the completely separate DNA that a baby has when they are conceived.  They are a complete being that only uses the mother for nourishment and a .

In our country we recognize that we have certain rights that we have that are not given to us, but are inalienable.  The first of those is the right to life.  A right is something that we have that cannot be taken from us without our consent.  For something to be a right, it cannot take away a right from someone else.  Abortion cannot be a right because it takes away the right of another human, the right to life.  Legally, abortion is breaking the law of our land.

I have made some changes in my thinking over the years on the abortion issue.  When I was in college, I always said that I personally would never have an abortion, but I didn't care what anyone else did.  Then at some point I decided that I did care about these little babies, but I still have never been outspoken on the issue except to say that this is something the courts should not be deciding.  Now I am seeing it more in the light of a human rights issue and that little babies are being killed by the millions in this country for profit and most in our country just turn a blind eye.  I am having a hard time believing that so many in our country do not see what is going on.  I hope if this movie gets out, that more people will become educated on this issue.


 
Extending unemployment benefits is being talked about again lately.  On the face, this seems like it would be the caring thing to do to help out people who have not yet been able to find work.  Anyone who would oppose something like this is surely heartless and misguided.  Right?

Well, I am one of those people who disagrees with extending unemployment benefits.  When a person looses a job, unemployment will help them out, temporarily, so that they can keep their families running while they locate work.  Many people will go out fairly quickly and locate some kind of work so that they can get on with their life.  This is how it is supposed to work. 

Others on the other hand will see this as a temporary paid vacation and will ride it out till they are close to the end of their unemployment benefits and then they will find a job.  We all know there are jobs out there, they just aren't the kind of jobs that pay what people would like.  So when someone says they can't find work, it is most likely that they can't find the kind of work that pays them what they want so financially it makes more sense to stay on unemployment and see if something they like comes along.

Since many of these unemployed people have job opportunities which are not all that appealing and would actually pay less than they are making on unemployment, it logically makes more sense to stay on unemployment till they can find a better job or till their unemployment runs out and then they will have to take a job they don't really want or find some other alternative.  In addition, unemployment will allow them to spend more time with their families which is a positive thing.  They can even do odd jobs here and there to bring in extra money, so being on unemployment can seem like it isn't such a bad thing.  I think all this makes good sense to most people since they figure it really is their money that they have been paying into the system so why not use it.

So, what happens then when someone hears that their unemployment will be extended?  The people who have not yet gone back to work will continue on with what they had been doing previously instead of taking a pay cut to do a job they don't want to do.  Why take the lower paying job now when they can just stay on unemployment?

So how does this impact everyone else?  If a person continues to stay out of the work force and just live off unemployment, then the unemployment levels will continue to be low.  Isn't one of the goals here that we want to get people back to work and the economy going again?  If we continue to extend unemployment, people who have just been riding it out, will continue to ride it out waiting for a good job to come along.  Without that unemployment, they will be forced to take whatever job they can find, which in turn will help out the economy which will eventually provide the type of job they are looking for. 

Additional to all this, once we have people back to work, even if they are working lower paying jobs, there will be more tax revenue coming into the government.  Our politicians should love this since we have lots of bills we need to be paying with all the spending we are doing.

I know taking a job somewhere like McDonald's or as a newspaper carrier are not prestigious jobs that require an expensive college degree, but they do provide money.  Sure, you might have to work a couple jobs in the short term to bring in enough money for your family.  You might even have to pack up and move your whole family across the country to find work, but these are the kind of things that people do in order to provide for their families.  Slowing down the inevitable is not really helping anyone.  Keeping people artificially out of the work force does not help the economy which in turn will not help create the kind of jobs that these people would like to have in the long run.  It's like a vicious cycle.

If you want to get people back to work, you cannot continue to encourage them to not work.  With the unemployment benefit being extended yet again, logically it will make more sense for someone not to work.  It is like they are getting something for free.  That is just how the brain seems to work.  For example, it is amazing how many people will buy something just because it is free even if they don't need it.  That just seems to be human nature.  I know several people who got a flu shot because it was free, not because they actually wanted it.  But we know that nothing is ever actually free.   We always pay for it in one way or another.  In the case of extended unemployment benefits, we are paying by artificially keeping the economy from growing.

It won't be the end of the world if they extend unemployment yet again, but it certainly will not help bring the economy back or bring people the jobs that they are looking for.  It may seem like the caring thing to do, but it is similar to allowing your adult child to live at home instead of encouraging them to get out and on their own.  Parents can really hinder the growth of their children in the same way that the government can create people who are dependent on them.  A parent can be there to help out in the short term, but I think most people realize that if this arrangement continues for long, it will make it harder for the adult child to get back out on their own.  This is the same thing that can happen with unemployment if it is allowed to go on for too long.
 
I just came across the International Medical Council on Vaccination.  It states in the header: Critical Thinking for a Critical Dilemma and it says it is A Resource for Physicians and Laypersons.  This website is put together by doctors to educate other doctors as they are first learning about vaccine dangers.

You can listen live to the upcoming webinars, like Debate on Vaccination: Do Vaccines Cause Autism?  This one is at 8pm on Dec. 13th.  I imagine it will be archived and added to their past webinars which can be found on their site.

Take a look at all the different videos and webinars that go into all areas of the vaccine debate.  The first one I took at look at was Graphic Reality: The Charting of Truth.  This presentation is full of all kinds of graphs that talk about diseases and vaccines from many different countries.  You will see declines in all diseases, including those without vaccines, coming down at the same rate before vaccination was ever begun.  There are graphs showing certain conditions like diabetes going up and down with the curve of certain vaccination rate.  If you are researching vaccines, this is a must see video that will give you information that would be hard to put together all on your own.

Overall, I can't believe I haven't come across this site before.  It is such a wealth of information on the vaccine issue.  And most of that information comes in the form of videos that you can sit and listen to and watch, which is one of my favorite ways of learning.
 
If you have not seen Vaccine Nation by Gary Null Phd., now would be a good time to view it.  It talks some about the history of vaccines and discusses the case where a man was accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome.
 
I have been spend some time listening to Milton Friedman talk about his views on government and libertarianism and wanted to share a few short videos.  If you go to youtube, there are many other videos on Milton Friedman that you can watch as well. 

Here are a few more videos talking different myths:
 
One of the website I visit almost daily is Feebie of the Day.  Every weekday they offer a free resource and today's resource was a link to Heritage History.  Heritage History says it "Puts the Story Back into History."  The idea is that rather than teach history from a textbook where someone else is interpreting history for you, you instead read from storybooks of the time. 

Heritage History has taken many old books that are no longer copyright protected and converted them to an online format for easy access.  They even have color pictures included.  They cover many different civilizations and offer other features with their website like maps, the ability to ask question and read responses, and also their advice on history teaching.  I think this could be a huge part of any history education and it is free.

I hope you will find this resource useful.  I have also compiled other online book websites on my Free Online Books page.
 
Picture
In December I will be traveling by plane with my husband and three young children.  We have had our tickets for months now, but I recently heard that I would be asked to go through the new x-ray scanners at the airports that we were using.  My first thoughts were about whether they were safe.  As a mother who does not routinely use drugs or x-rays on my children or myself, I really don't want to use the x-ray scanners just so that we can fly.    I have heard that the scanners are safe but I have learned enough over the years to know not to trust something just because those in authority say it is safe.

I came across a letter written by some physicists at the University of California back in April 2010.  In it they address their concerns with the backscatter  x-ray technology that is being used.  They have a list of health concerns that they feel need to be answered.  Many of those concerns have to do with several at-risk populations such as the elderly, those at risk for breast cancer, immune-compromised individuals, children, pregnant women, and they even worry about damage to testicles or eyes because of the proximity to the skin. 

These physicists are calling for an impartial panel of experts to reevaluate the potential health risks because the negative effects may outweigh the benefits for increased detection of terrorists.  They point out that there have been many cases where errors have been made because of failure to recognize adverse events and that in the past, crisis have led to decisions that had unintended consequences.

With these questions still left unanswered, I have decided to "opt out" of these scanners on grounds related to my original health concerns.  So really, the only option for my family is to undergo pat downs or what they are calling enhanced pat downs.  I'm not sure exactly what all this will entail but I am really not looking forward to it because I tend to be modest and really don't want someone feeling around on my private parts or on my kids' private parts. 

So, at this point, we either don't fly (we already have the tickets), we go through the x-ray machines, or we get patted down.  I don't know how bad this will end up being, but I know several people who told me that they were uncomfortable enough when they were patted down that they will be doing the scanners next time.  I believe that is the real intent of the enhanced pat downs, so that people will choose to go through the scanners.  I certainly hope I am not harassed for choosing to opt out of the scanners. 

The more thought I have put into this, the more uneasy I have become with this whole security thing.  The government tells us that because of last years incident where a man had explosive powder on him, that they will need to use these new scanners or pat down procedures to keep us safe.  The time line on this sounds very suspicious to me.  Why would this company just happen to have developed this machine unless they knew that someone would be buying it?  I venture a guess that the government intended on using these machines all along and the incident last year just made it convenient to convince people that it was necessary for their safety.  Never let a crisis go to waste is what comes to mind.

And if they had intended on using it all along, why not just say so, especially since I heard reports that these machines may not even detect the explosive power that was used in last years incident.  I would like to know whether it will actually detect the substance as they claim.

Is there anyone out there that really believes that these machines or the pat downs will make us safer?  I think we are pretty safe already, so how much safer can we get?  Flying is already one of the safest forms of transportation.  And hasn't it been 9 years since 911, which was the last time that an American has been injured in the US by a terrorist, unless I am forgetting something.  So are we really that unsafe right now that we need these machines, or are they creating fear so they can push these machines for whatever reason (financial, power, etc.)?

If a terrorist really wants to terrorize us, who really thinks these scanners or pat downs will stop them?  Really?  A terrorist could not come up with any other ways of terrorizing?  I think that they could and very well might.  So again, will these scanners and pat downs really make you safer?

Now I have come to the part of all of this that has really got me frustrated.  You can pretty much disregard the whole first part of this blog because what I am going to talk about next is the most important part because it effects all Americans, not just those who go to airports. 

Are these scanners and pat downs constitutional?  The TSA says it has a mandate to do whatever it can to keep us safe, but it forgets that it HAS to operate within the confines of the US Constitution.  The TSA is the government, and the Constitution tells the government what it can and can't do.  It doesn't matter how well intentioned the government is, they HAVE to follow the Constitution.

It says in the US Constitution Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment:

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It seems pretty clear to me that if a person is not suspected of being a terrorist or suspected of something else, then they cannot legally be searched.  And really, if you look at the 4th Amendment, they don't even have the right to go through our effects (luggage) either.  I heard someone say that we are all suspects.  I disagree.  The American people are not terrorists, so why are we being treated like it?  But I guess the day when we are all treated like criminals has arrived, but, unlike criminals, we don't have to do anything suspect to have them search us. 

Why am I a suspect more than our President and Congress people who do not have to go through the scanners or pat downs?  Why can airports opt out of the scanners all together?  Aren't the passengers at these other airports terrorist suspects too?  Why in some airports do only random people have to go through these procedures?  What if you miss the one person who aims to set off a bomb on the plane?

Have we as a country decided that we are all guilty unless proven innocent?  These searches are blatantly unconstitutional and We the People should not stand for our rights being violated.  Are you someone who feels that we will be safer because of these procedures and this is just the price we have to pay for keeping safe?

So what if next week someone decides to use an explosive that they insert into there body cavity (which these scanners and pat downs cannot detect)?  Will they then require passengers to go through body cavity searches?  Or what if they choose some other method of terror that is yet to be thought of?  Or how about a roadside bomb?  Will they require traffic stops to search your vehicle?  Is this any different than what they are doing at the airports now?  They would say that they are doing it to protect you.  What if the car bomber puts the bomb in a body cavity and the roadside check does not catch the bomb?  Will they have to implement body cavity searches during roadside checks?

I know this all sounds ridiculous, but this is one of my points.  No matter what you do, there will be other ways for terrorists to terrorize us.  Giving away what freedoms we still enjoy in this country is not going to make us safer.  It will just make us less free.  I have started to get that feeling the people in Nazi Germany must have had just before their government started terrorizing its own people. 

If you are not an airline traveler, why should any of this concern you?  Because this is an "in your face" violation of our US Constitution.  If our government can get away with this in the name of security, then they can use this same reasoning to do just about anything they want.  Where else might they decide to implement these searches in the name of security?  What is to stop them from violating other rights if they know we will not stop them?

Please do not stand by and say that this is okay like many others have been doing.  It is our duty as citizens to keep our government in check.  The Constitution is just a piece of paper if it is not enforced.

The following video sums up a lot of this:

 
Did you know that there may not be such a thing as shaken baby syndrome (SBS) and that it is really just a theory to describe symptoms that are seen.  There is a website called Shaken Baby Syndrome Controversy that has information that draws attention to those falsely accused of SBS, blunt force trauma, and abusive head injury.

Over the last several years I have come across many accounts where a parent was accused of SBS.  There was a case where parents where accused of causing rib and skull fractures of their 3 premature triplets.  I thought this was a good example that shows doctors need to look a bit further at the cause of these injuries.  Nutritional deficiencies and vaccines were implicated in this case.

There have been many doctors who have been calling out the problems with the SBS diagnosis.  Dr. Harold Buttram MD wrote and article called Shaken Baby/Impact Syndrome: Flawed Concepts and Misdiagnosis that reviews 22 cases involving SBS and what he has found.

Unfortunately if there are cases of SBS that are actually caused by something else, like malnutrition or vaccines, then we may very well have many parents serving time in prison, away from their children, who are completely innocent of these injuries.  I hope in the coming years that this situation gets ironed out and any innocent people are acquitted and no new people are forced to go to prison who did nothing wrong.


 
I just came across this article Painkillers linked to defects in baby boys.  It says "The Danish study found that boys born to women who had used aspirin or ibuprofen (which is often sold as Nurofen in New Zealand) during pregnancy, especially during the fourth to sixth months, were more likely to have undescended testes, a condition known as "cryptorchidism". Paracetamol showed the same trend, but the evidence was weaker."

Everyone needs to make their own decision on whether or not to use any drugs during pregnancy.  I just want it to be an informed decision so hopefully this will help with that decision making process.
 
I have known for several years now that fever is a natural defense chosen by our body to help heal from something and that suppressing a fever could lead to a prolonged sickness and can allow the sickness to get deeper into the body.  A new study suggests the same thing, though more study is needed. 

In the article That Dreadful Fever May Be Good For You it says:  "Study co-author Kyle Perrin said the results were striking and showed that animals given drugs to fight a fever were more likely to die from flu."  It goes on to say that it is clear that fever in all animals is protective.

Hilary Butler wrote about this in her blog post called Shock ...Horror -treating fever could be bad for you!.  She has been talking about fevers for years now and trying to get the word out on the use of acetaminophen (aka Tylenol) and other antipyretics and their effect on our immune system.