New research on the birth control pill just out:

Research presented at the 117th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology in New Orleans, has found that women who have taken oral contraceptives for three or more years are twice as likely to suffer from glaucoma, one of the leading causes of blindness which affects nearly 60 million worldwide. The researchers caution gynecologists and ophthalmologists to be aware of the fact that oral contraceptives might play a role in glaucomatous diseases, and inform patients to have their eyes screened for glaucoma if they also have other risk factors.

I can’t say I actually know anyone who has glaucoma, and I certainly know a good number of women who have been on the Pill for many more years than three.  It’s another red flag, however. When you use artificial hormones to suppress natural hormonal cycles in the body, you’re asking for trouble.

A woman can only release an ‘oocyte’ (to use the correct term) once per cycle , that is, one time each month (she can release two oocytes or more in the case of twins etc. but only at that one time).   Studies have shown that the life span of that oocyte is no longer than 24 hours.  So then why are women encouraged to take artificial contraceptives all the time? Perhaps big Pharma has a hand in this?  Just sayin’.

Kelly the Kitchen Cop quotes Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride on this matter.  In fact she quotes some great sources on this page, including my favorite foodies, The Westin A. Price Foundation.

“[The pill] causes many deficiencies, it tends to create copper/zinc imbalances, and it causes women to lose all interest in sex, which seems very counterproductive.  We need to teach young women about natural family planning and about honoring our cycles!  The estrogens in the pill are synthetic, and not the same molecules that the body produces.  Instead they’re called, “xeno-estrogens” and are harmful to the body.  The pill also causes differences in the viscosity of the blood, and can cause heart disease, stroke, and a long list of problems.  We’ve just touched the tip of the iceberg in our understanding of the complexity of  hormonal balance in the human body, we are in no position to be messing with that.”

He’s holding a press conference tomorrow because he

will table another Motion to focus on legal recognition of the equal worth and dignity of every human being.

Information for those in Ottawa who might like to attend is below. As I type that I realize it might be wise to figure out first whether it is open to the public.

DATE:             Thursday, November 21, 2013

TIME:              1:15 PM (EST)

PLACE:           National Press Theatre, 150 Wellington Street

When I say the word “Albuquerque” I think of Elmer Fudd who, if remember I correctly, was from Albuquerque.  Or was that Bugs Bunny?

But this is no laughing matter.  Today in Albuquerque, citizens will hopefully vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Ordinance.  The Ordinance reads thus:

(9)    Consequently, there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier.

(10) The Citizens of Albuquerque assert a compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that the are capable of feeling pain.

(11) The compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain is asserted in addition to the compelling interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage of viability. Neither governmental interest is intended to replace the other.

The Campaign web-site is complete with video and radio spots. 

When I reflect on this Ordinance, I  wonder if we are not at the end of the “slippery slope”.  Forty years ago when abortion was legalized in Canada and the US, advocates spoke of if being only in dire need (ie. “health” reasons), if a panel of doctors agreed, and back then we didn’t have ultrasound, so the “glob of tissue” argument flew.  Surely no one ever dreamed that today we’d be trying to convince the status quo that late second and third trimester babies ought to have their lives protected; that, yes, they actually do feel pain.  It is common medical practice to administer anesthetics to babies during prenatal surgeries, babies younger than 20 weeks. Drawing and quartering them in late abortions would be quite an ordeal from their perspective.

___________________________

Update on Albuquerque

The  Albuquerque Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Ordinance lost by 10.5% of the vote. The final tally was 44.74-55.26%.  See here.

Interesting to see that the ‘other side’s’ campaign was funded to the hilt.

The opposition to the ordinance, which would have been the first-ever municipal ballot measure to ban abortions after 20 weeks when babies are known to feel pain, outspent the pro-life campaigns by a margin of 4 to 1. In addition, Organizing for Action, which was heavily involved in Albuquerque, is essentially President Obama’s presidential campaign, which continues to advance a radical leftist agenda. Their experience helped turn out “against” votes in early voting that made the difference in the outcome of the race.

This mom took advantage of her adorable new puppy and her adorable little toddler napping together daily.  Her photos have garnered quite an audience.  See more here.

Just some of the joys of motherhood.

Interesting article in many major papers today (Globe, Post and Toronto Star) about how Canada came to have a void on abortion laws. Needless to say, Barbara McDougall doesn’t represent the views of the many women of the ProWomanProLife persuasion:

However, the judges also said a woman’s right to an abortion, especially in the later stage of pregnancy, can be subject to reasonable limits imposed to protect the unborn or the woman’s life or health, and it sent the issue on to Parliament to resolve.

The bombshell ruling elated pro-choice advocates and devastated anti-abortionists. It also created a legal gap that the newly released documents show left the Conservative cabinet bewildered. …

Health Minister Jake Epp, a devout Mennonite Christian from Steinbach, Man., persistently pleaded that an infant’s life starts at the moment of conception. Barbara McDougall, of Toronto, was the minister for the status of women and she urged more free choice for women.

Epp’s lengthy speeches predominate in the minutes, but at one point, Mulroney pointed out McDougall was the only woman sitting on cabinet’s powerful 20-member priorities and planning committee. Mulroney noted the imbalance did not represent the general population, and he warned committee members McDougall’s views on abortion “were therefore not to be taken lightly.

Abortion is neither compassionate nor liberating. Last I checked I am also a woman, therefore we can all stop with the notion so ubiquitous in politics that abortion serves women well.

In yesterday’s Globe and Mail, Leah McLaren wrote an article entitled Miscarriage: polite society’s last taboo. In the article, she asks the following:

We all know that miscarriages can be devastating. So why do we resist discussing them? Why do so many of us behave as if this common horror simply doesn’t exist?

And she provides two answers:

The answer, of course, is cultural shame….Miscarriages, like abortions and menstruation, are distinctly vagina-related, and that freaks us out.

and…

Part of the problem, I think, is that people (particularly nice, educated, middle-class, pro-choice people) are not sure what to make of the death of a fetus. Legally speaking, a fetus isn’t really a person but a part of a woman’s body. But that doesn’t mean a miscarriage doesn’t feel like a death. When a wanted pregnancy ends, a world of desired possibility is destroyed. A doorway to an imagined future of laughter, music and silly dancing is slammed shut.

To address the second point, she relies strictly on the legal definition of human being, rather than the scientific and medical understanding (as found in medical textbooks) that new life starts at conception. When an abortion or a miscarriage happen, in both cases, it is a matter of death. Not just the death of a world of “desired possibility.” An actual death. Life ends. And when a life ends, mourning and family and societal support are correct and human responses.

Due to personal circumstances, I’ve had “worlds of desired possibilities” be “destroyed” or put on hold indefinitely. I needed to mourn that. It was tough. And I’m not ashamed to admit that I got counselors and good people to walk through that reality with me.

But that loss must be, and I can’t imagine it otherwise, very distinct from losing a son or daughter. I can’t compare or reconcile the two circumstances as being similar. To describe a miscarriage as the death of “desired possibilities” is dehumanizing and doesn’t assign the proper gravity and loss to what has just been experienced by the mother and her loved ones. A life was lost.

But if you’re going to rely on Canada’s pathetic legal definition of “human being,” as McLaren does, I guess that’s the only way to reason out the tragedy. Something that was part of the woman’s body was here but no longer is.

Miscarriage is tragic. Abortion is more tragic. And very tragic indeed is this flawed perspective on human life.

I’ve quoted Barry Schwartz’s presentations before in my own workshops on the concept of choice, now NPR is picking up the scent of The Paradox of Choice. Is choice always a “good” thing? Read and watch more here. 

The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.” — Barry Schwartz

A beautiful video of twins just born and being bathed has gone viral.  They appear to be as peaceful and entwined as they would be in the security and warmth of their mother’s womb.

The comments on this video are quite touching:

• It took me a while to comprehend what was going on but I think I got it: The twins were born, but they haven’t realized that they’re separate yet. They are still so incredibly entwined that they cling to each other like one unit. Am I getting this right?

• Am I the only person tearing up at this? There’s something very powerful about the silence, about their calmness, that should be very encouraging to anyone about to have children, while they’re still pregnant. Who’d have thought we could witness this kind of serenity, this way? And yes, I’m now the proud but exhausted parent of two great boys, 5 and 3.

In the USA there have been many state restrictions placed on abortion, because that is what voters, aka people, want. Some of these restrictions get overturned by state courts, and then they are appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recently refused to hear one of those appeals from Oklahoma.

What this means in a nutshell is that the new pro-life laws (for example, banning abortions after 20 weeks or requiring counselling prior to abortion) are not allowed to stand because the state courts believe these laws contradict Roe v Wade. (My non-lawyerly understanding.)

It amounts to the people at the state level choosing and their state courts overturning, which then goes to the Supreme Court, where, thus far, they have declined to take the cases coming from the states. Clear as mud?

However, as reported in USA Today on November 13 (sorry I can’t find the link):

A steady stream of abortion cases are heading toward the Supreme Court, making it only a matter of time before the justices are likely to consider a new wave of state restrictions…

Whatever cases the justices do agree to hear, they will offer the court a chance to clarify its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld abortion rights but gave states broader authority to impose restrictions such as 24-hour waiting periods and parental consent.

Stay tuned.

More commentary on China’s tweaking of its one-child policy:

“The problem with the One Child Policy is not the number of children ‘allowed.’ Rather, it is the fact that the CCP is telling women how many children they can have and then enforcing that limit through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide,” said Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers.

“Regardless of the number of children allowed, women who get pregnant without permission will still be dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables and forced to abort babies that they want, even up to the ninth month of pregnancy.”

Government force and the cultural forces that lead to gendercide will continue apace, she said.