Friday, August 14, 2015
It's 2015 and pretty little girls still like dressing up
Feminists have failed
Just ONE abortion or miscarriage 'increases the risk of complications with future pregnancies'
Feminists always deny this
Women who go through just one abortion or miscarriage are more likely to face complications during future pregnancies, scientists have warned.
It has long been established that undergoing several abortions or enduring more than one miscarriage increase's the risk of problematic subsequent pregnancies.
Among the recognised complications, these women face higher chances of vaginal bleeding, pre-term birth, low birth weight and placenta complications.
But, a new study has now revealed those women who experience a single interruption in pregnancy during the first trimester, are 30 per cent more likely to face complications in future, than women who have not experienced a pregnancy loss.
They include higher rates of induced labour, caesarean sections and retained placenta after delivery.
But whether the first pregnancy was ended intentionally or spontaneously made little difference.
Researchers at Tel Aviv University, led by Dr Liran Hiersch, analysed 15,000 deliveries at Rabin Medical Center in Israel over the last five years.
They compared the pregnancy outcomes of nulliparous women - those who experienced a single previous first-trimester interruption - with those of primigravidas women - those in their first pregnancy with no past history of abortion or miscarriage.
They focused on women who had either a naturally occurring miscarriage, known as a spontaneous abortion, or who had what’s known as an inducted, or induced, abortion using medication or surgery.
Women were excluded if they had a history of multiple abortions or miscarriages, lacked prenatal care, were pregnant with multiples or had pregnancies complicated by stillbirth or major fetal abnormalities.
Overall, the researchers found that women with a previous pregnancy terminated by miscarriage or abortion were older.
In addition they had a higher rate of fertility treatments and were more likely to have diabetes during pregnancy than the control group of women who didn’t have a prior terminated pregnancy.
Among the women with a past terminated pregnancy, 53 per cent had miscarriages, 33 per cent had abortions and another 14 per cent didn’t have the type of termination specified in their records.
About seven per cent of women with a prior abortion or miscarriage had labour induction, compared with about five per cent of women pregnant for the first time.
Caesarean deliveries were performed for 25 per cent of women with a prior terminated pregnancy, compared with 18 per cent of the other women.
Retained placenta after birth - where the placenta fails to deliver - occurred with about seven per cent of women who had a history of miscarriage or abortion, compared with roughly five per cent of the other women.
But extensive bleeding, a serious side effect of the placenta failing to emerge after the baby, was rare and happened in roughly three per cent of the deliveries regardless of the women’s prior pregnancy history.
The researchers note that previous studies exploring the effect of a single pregnancy loss on future outcomes were based on incorrect assumptions.
Past research compared outcomes between women who never gave birth before with those whose first pregnancy ended in a normal delivery, the researchers at Tel Aviv said.
Dr Liran Hiersch, who assessed only those women who delivered their first infants and compared them with those who had only one or no pregnancy loss in their past, said: 'A history of normal pregnancy is considered protective from adverse outcomes, so this group already had an advantage over those who had pregnancy loss in their past.
'This, I believe, was the main advantage of the methodology of our study in comparison to previous reports.'
Dr Hiersch said it is important to emphasise that a single pregnancy loss is a 'very common event' during a woman's reproductive years. 'In most cases it has no effect on future fertility or pregnancy outcome,' Dr Hiersch added.
'In addition, although we found that a single early pregnancy loss was associated with an increased risk for subsequent adverse pregnancy outcome, the effect was mild.
'Our findings should be taken into account together with other parameters when assessing the risk for adverse outcome.
'We hope this study will be incorporated in the usual risk assessments.
'Doctors should know there is another element to factor in when assisting a woman before labour.'
The researchers are currently planning to conduct a major prospective study on the subject.
The study was published in the Journal of Maternal Fetal and Neonatal Medicine.
The Christian Purge Has Begun
Chaplains banned from preaching that homosexuality is a sin
It wasn’t so much a choice as it was a demand. Chaplain David Wells was told he could either sign a state-mandated document promising to never tell inmates that homosexuality is “sinful” or else the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice would revoke his credentials.
“We could not sign that paper,” Chaplain Wells told me in a telephone call from his home in Kentucky. “It broke my heart.”
The Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice revoked his volunteer credentials as an ordained minister — ending 13 years of ministry to underage inmates at the Warren County Regional Juvenile Detention Center.
“We sincerely appreciate your years of service and dedication to the youth served by this facility,” wrote Superintendent Gene Wade in a letter to Wells. “However, due to your decision, based on your religious convictions, that you cannot comply with the requirements outlined in DJJ Policy 912, Section IV, Paragraph H, regarding the treatment of LGBTQI youth, I must terminate your involvement as a religious volunteer.”
Wells said that every volunteer in their church received the letter — as did a Baptist church in a nearby community.
The Kentucky regulation clearly states that volunteers working with juveniles “shall not refer to juveniles by using derogatory language in a manner that conveys bias towards or hatred of the LGBTQI community. DJJ staff, volunteers, interns and contractors shall not imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
For years, Wells and his team have conducted volunteer worship services and counseling to troubled young people — many of whom have been abused.
“I sat across the table from a 16-year-old boy who was weeping and broken over the life he was in,” Wells said. “He had been abused as a child and turned to alcohol and drugs to cope. He wanted to know if there was any hope for him.”
Wells said he had been abused as a young child — so he knew he could answer this young man’s question. “I was able to look at him and tell him the saving power of Jesus Christ that delivered me — could deliver him,” he said.
But under the state’s 2014 anti-discrimination policy, Wells would not be allowed to have such a discussion should it delve into LGBT issues.
“They told us we could not preach that homosexuality is a sin — period,” Wells told me. “We would not have even been able to read Bible verses that dealt with LGBT issues.”
For the record, Wells said they’ve never used hateful or derogatory comments when dealing with the young inmates. “They are defining hateful or derogatory as meaning what the Bible says about homosexuality,” he told me.
Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, is representing Wells. He said the state’s ban on Biblical counseling is unconstitutional religious discrimination.
“There is no question there is a purging underway,” Staver told me. “The dissenters in the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage warned us this would happen.”
Staver is demanding the state immediately reinstate Wells as well as the other volunteer ministers. “By restricting speech which volunteers are allowed to use while ministering to youth detainees, the State of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice have violated the protections given to private speech through the First Amendment and the Kentucky Constitution,” Staver wrote in his letter to state officials.
He said the policy “requires affirmation of homosexuality as a precondition for ministers providing spiritual guidance to troubled youth, and singles out a particular theological viewpoint as expressly disfavored by the State of Kentucky.”
In other words — Kentucky has a religious litmus test when it comes to homosexuality — and according to the Lexington Herald-Leader — they aren’t going to back down.
The DJJ told the newspaper that the regulation “is neutral as to religion and requires respectful language toward youth by all staff, contractors and volunteers.”
State Sen. Gerald Neal, a Democrat, dared Christians to challenge the law in court. “I’m just disappointed that the agendas by some are so narrow that they disregard the rights of others,” he told the newspaper. “Let them sue and let the courts settle it.”
Among those backing Wells is the American Pastors Network.
“Pastors and all Americans must wake up to the reality of expanding efforts to cleanse our nation of all moral truth,” APN President Sam Rohrer said in a statement. “When pastors and all Christians…are forced by government agents to renounce sharing the very reality of sin, they are in fact being prohibited from sharing the healing and life-changing potential of redemption.”
Folks, I warned you this would happen. The Christian purge has begun — and it’s only a matter of time before all of us will be forced to make the same decision Chaplain Wells had to make.
Will you follow God or the government?
If I were Secretary of Defense, here’s the FIRST position I’d eliminate
by LTC ALLEN WEST (US ARMY RET)
I remember when the mantra of "every kid gets a trophy" began to take hold in our youth athletic programs. Well, now that philosophy of social utopianism has permeated throughout our culture and now in a place where it absolutely has no place. In life, there are standards and no one's entitled to "have" anything - well, besides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, that is not the societal vision of the liberal progressives; theirs is based upon egalitarianism. That, however, is not consistent with the duty and mission of our armed forces.
I was sent the following article from a distinguished retired Special Forces officer, Brigadier General Remo Butler, who was and continues to be a role model for me. As reported in USA Today:
Many of the Pentagon's elite commando units - including the Navy SEALs - are overwhelmingly led and manned by white officers and enlisted troops, a concern at the highest levels of the military where officials have stressed the need to create more diverse forces to handle future threats.
Black officers and enlisted troops are scarce in some special operations units in highest demand, according to data provided by the Pentagon to USA TODAY. For instance, eight of 753 SEAL officers are black, or 1%.
An expert at the Pentagon on the diversity of commando forces said the lack of minorities robs the military of skills it needs to win.
"We don't know where we will find ourselves in the future," said Army Col. Michael Copenhaver, who has published a paper on diversity in special operating forces. "One thing is for sure: We will find ourselves around the globe. And around the globe you have different cultural backgrounds everywhere. Having that kind of a diverse force can only increase your operational capability.
Special Operations forces, including SEALs and the Army's Green Berets, are often the face of the American military in foreign hot spots where they rescue hostages, raid terrorist camps and train local troops. SEAL Team 6 famously raided Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan and killed him. As the military sheds conventional forces - the Army will pare 40,000 soldiers in the next few years - special operators' ranks continue to be filled as demand for their unique capabilities remains high.
US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) based in Tampa, does not track that information on its nearly 70,000 civilian and military personnel, said Kenneth McGraw, a spokesman. Gen. Joseph Votel, SOCOM's commander, declined to speak to USA TODAY for this story, said Col. Thomas Davis, another SOCOM spokesman.
Votel did address the issue last month at the Aspen Security Conference and stressed the need for diverse commando units, which operate in almost 90 countries. The average enlisted special operator is 29, married with two children and has deployed four to 10 times, Votel told the audience.
What he didn't say is that most of them are white.
"SOCOM needs diversity, we need people of color, we need men, we need women to help us solve the problems that we deal with today," Votel said. "So we need good people; men, women, people of all colors."
What we need is a highly trained, well-resourced military focused on defeating our enemies. What these folks fail to understand is that in the community of warriors, no one cares about pigmentation. They care about honor, integrity, character and fierceness.
What I don't want to see is all of a sudden the focus turn to having "black faces" instead of elite warriors. Diversity is not the goal of the U.S. military; it is to fight and win the nation's wars. On the battlefield, bullets don't seek out someone based on skin color. This design of social egalitarianism has no place in our military.
And spare me the diatribe about the integration of blacks into the U.S. military. From the days of Crispus Attucks, black men have shown they're brave and willing to stand and fight for one single objective: liberty. The men of the 54th Massachusetts and the Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th and 10th Cavalry didn't seek preferential treatment. As well, the 369th Harlem Hell Fighters, Tuskegee Airmen and Montford Point Marines achieved not because of their skin color, but because of their character.
There's no need for "diversity agents" to try and manipulate the composition of our armed forces, sacrificing our effectiveness in pursuit of fairness, under the guise of enhanced increased capability. And what's most disconcerting is the infiltration into the military of this ill-conceived mindset - namely the Pentagon joining in on this folly.
The statement from an "expert at the Pentagon on the diversity of commando forces" - since when did the U.S. military need an expert on diversity of commando forces? I can tell you right now, if I were Secretary of Defense, that's the first position I'd eliminate!
The deduction of this so-called expert - "the lack of minorities robs the military of skills it needs to win" - is utterly disrespectful to the men and women serving, sacrificing and committing themselves in fighting for this nation today.
The strength of our military is we do not see color; we only see the oath we take to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And in doing so, each man and woman who takes up that oath serves in their best capacity - not one based on respective differences, but rather united in the commonality of being an American.
Our elite forces are elite because of their standards - and "monkeying" around with their composition based on some insidious research about diversity is stupidity. There are things that must be earned in life, and so it is with titles such as Green Beret, Ranger, Delta Force, Navy SEAL, Recon Marine and Air Force PJ. These are not just little plastic trophies to be handed out by the gods of diversity. They represent time-honored impeccable standards of excellence and elitism that only a few are called to seek, and even fewer attain.
On my chest I wear three sets of wings: Army Master Parachutist, Army Air Assault and the Navy/Marine Corps Parachutist. Those were not given because I was a minority. They were earned because I sought to "Be All I Could Be." I didn't get these through some diversity-approved course; rather, I entered as others and proved myself worthy.
At a time when we're facing countless global enemies from Russia, China, Iran and Islamic jihadism, it's not about the skin color of the person pulling the trigger to send our enemies to hell. It's about the qualifications and their ability to do so. Diversity in our Special Operations forces means committed men and women who have diversified skills and talents enabling us to defeat the enemy. The policies of our Defense Department MUST not be about meeting quota goals, but rather in placing the MOST qualified, trained and ready force on the field of battle. No one cares about skin color, save those who only care about inane statistics they can show for their own elevation.
Once upon a time, the government said every American had a right to own a home and boasted of an increase in minority home ownership. Standards were lowered and what ensued 30 years later, in 2008, was a financial collapse. The folly here will result in an even greater collapse with ramifications on the national security of this republic.
For America, it's never been about the skin color of the warrior. It has been, and must always be, about their oath of service and commitment to victory - not diversity.
How About a little Compassion for We the People?
By Lloyd Marcus
Nothing ignited my late mom's Baltimore living-in-the-hood anger more than someone “messing” with one of her “nine months” (her kids). I have a similar protective reaction to attacks on the Tea Party/We the People.
Not only have We the People had to endure mainstream media, Democrat, and GOP establishment attacks, some on our side are attacking us for not being “smart enough” to reject Donald Trump. I say, have a little compassion for us. We are witnessing our beloved once great nation becoming a banana republic (dishonest and lawless government) right before our eyes. As patriots, we have faithfully done all the right things. And yet, the wrong things keep happening.
On Fox News Brit Hume called us (the Tea Party) the far right. Senator John McCain called patriots who attended an anti-illegal immigration rally “crazies.” House Majority leader John Boehner called us the "far right". Will somebody please tell me what is “crazy” and “far right” about expecting government to function according to our laws and the Constitution?
And then, these arrogant (language I will not use as a Christian) have the audacity to call us stupid for rallying behind Donald Trump.
Where is the compassion for We the people? Yes, my heart goes out for the people. Political Action Committees and GOP candidates raised funds, promising to git-r-done only to leave patriots suffering a string of broken promises. Adding insult to injury, betrayers in the GOP which we gave the House and the Senate call us names; even launching a war on conservatives and the Tea Party. For crying out loud, how much more are We the People expected to take?
To date, my favorite presidential contender is Ted Cruz. Cruz gets it. He sympathizes with all We the People have gone through and vows to fight to make things right, when given the chance.
In essence, both parties said, screw you to We the People. Our Washington cartel is going to further its agenda and there “ain't” nothing you Tea Party yahoos can do about it. The GOP took us (We the People) out to sea and threw us overboard. Trump threw us a lifeline. Do not attack us for accepting it.
Imagine a fire is raging out-of-control consuming my home. A gang of Hells Angels bikers approaches from over the horizon. They jump off their bikes and begin helping me extinguish the fire. Do I throw up my hands yelling, “Stop! I don't approve of your lifestyle”? Or, do I simply say thank you?
Please do not conclude I am comparing Trump to the Hells Angels. I am simply saying while you may not agree or even like everything about Trump, the man has unquestionably positively impacted the political landscape. For one thing, illegal immigration would not be on the table if Trump had not made it an issue; standing firm, while bombarded by both parties and the MSM.
Also, the way Trump has dealt with the liberal bias mainstream media has influenced others not to be so easily pushed around by these bullies. With the Left obsessed with forcing conservatives/Republicans to apologize, Trump refuses to go there. It drives the Left crazy. I love it!
The Left regard apologies as blood in the water to totally destroy, devour and end the campaign of a conservative/Republican.
The Fox News strategy to “get Trump” during the GOP debate was extremely unfortunate. I agree with Mark Levin who said Fox blew a major opportunity. Twenty-four million Americans tuned in to the debate greeted with soap opera questions rather than exposing the horrors Obama has released upon our country and how the GOP contenders plan to fix it.
For example: seventy percent of the population is unaware of the butchery and black marketing of baby body parts happening behind the walls of Planned Parenthood which is still praised by the Democrats. Why on earth was the debate moderators focused on a feud between Trump and Rosie O'Donnell? Truly unfortunate.
By the way, Bill Clinton was surrounded by affairs and scandals including allegations of rape; none of which came up during past debates.
Ted Cruz understands Trump's popularity and thinks it is unwise for the GOP to “smack Donald Trump with a stick.” Rather than joining the chorus of those calling patriots idiots for liking Trump, Cruz understands and sympathizes with We the People. Cruz's message is “make me your president and I vow to champion your cause.”
Cruz was shortchanged during the GOP debate receiving very little time on camera. Still, Cruz's closing comments caused him to soar in the polls; direct, strong and sincere. I am confident Cruz's numbers will continue to grow.
I will not judge or be upset with my brother and sister patriots who are high on Trump. Any of our 17 contenders are far superior to a Democrat who will surely continue Obama's evil transformation of America. My gut tells me Ted Cruz will break the tape finishing first.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.