“Are You Mom Enough?” According to whom?

Why is it exploitative? Everyone is talking about the cover photo, fighting about the cover photo, debating the appropriateness of an older child breastfeeding, however very few are truly discussing Attachment Parenting in a beneficial light. The mother and son on the cover have been exploited to sell Time and it worked. In addition, extended breastfeeding has been made to look ridiculous because of the unnatural pose.

The Chicago Tribune sums it up quite nicely:

Nancy Mohrbacher, an officer with the Chicago Area Breastfeeding Coalition, said the cover has sparked the wrong questions.

“The question is not are you mom enough, but is our culture family friendly enough,” Mohrbacher said. “The question is not how should we parent, but how do we support and value parenting in our society.”

“One of the reasons there can be a conflict with attachment parenting in our culture is we don’t have family-friendly environments. It’s not part of our culture. We’re expected to have a strict dichotomy between family and the rest of our lives.”

But is the Time cover attempting to promote those conversations, or just trying to stand out at a tough time for magazines? Or both?

“The point of a cover is to get your attention,” Stengel said on MSNBC, “and this gets your attention.”

Sally Pipes at the New York Post discusses BamCare’s War on Women–Health hazards we can’t ignore.

President Obama leads Mitt Romney among women — for now. That will change if voters focus on what the ObamaCare law does to their health care.

Simply put, the president broke a host of promises about an issue of particular concern to female voters. Unless the law is entirely junked by the Supreme Court, it will drastically limit the choices of millions of Americans, while reducing the quality of our care.

In fact, the ObamaCare law has already set up the architecture for denying coverage for procedures that the government finds to be too expensive — no matter what your doctor (or actual medical science) recommends.

The new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute specializes in comparing the effectiveness of various treatment methods. Such research has been used for years in Britain to limit which treatments the government will pay for. A new drug or procedure must be deemed to provide sufficient bang for its buck.

This methodology will not be limited to treatments.  Expect greater limitations on potentially life-saving tests. Soon younger women will have less chance of getting a routine pap smear under ObamaCare. (Perhaps punishment for those who refused Gardasil?) Our government will provide loads of free contraception (in addition to forcing all employers to do so through their heath insurance plans), but no pap smears for younger women because, apparently, their chances of contracting cervical cancer is lower. Just like the policy in the United Kingdom that has worked out so well for these women.

But again, you have to ask yourself the question–If statistical probability is being used to decide that younger women don’t deserve a life saving test like a pap smear, then why will every young women in this same age group not only be offered but be ENCOURAGED to have invasive prenatal testing when statistically the chances of their babies having Down syndrome or other chromosomal anomalies is nearly astronomical?

When you realize both policies result in death and money savings, you can see the heartless logic involved. By the way, if you’re wondering how prenatal testing results in death; 9 out of 10 babies (fetuses for those on the left) prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted–creating even greater savings!

The Life of Julia

Why is Julia so helpless? Seriously, why? Why does this woman flit along in life accepting whatever direction her government led by Barack Obama sends her as though she’s a cow being herded into the chutes with the other cattle until she ends up in that community garden waiting to die? Why? Who seriously wants to live like that?

Dependence on the government is a frightening thing. Remember, whatever the government gives you, the government can just as easily take away–with consequences of course. For instance, if Julia lived in Ohio in 2002 and her Zachary was born with a disability, the government would provide Early Intervention. But wait, there are too many in the system in her county in Ohio so her son is waitlisted for much needed Physical and Occupational Therapy (illegally I might add). No problem, Julia calls around looking for a private physical therapist who would offer services to her son, but much to her dismay, no one offers services like that to infants because it’s already offered for “free” through the government. Poor Julia, poor Zachary. Poor everyone depending on those services should they be pulled out from under them. Where would they go?

Let’s be serious. Julia would never have given birth to an imperfect Zachary. Obamacare provides for automatic invasive prenatal testing without regard to her young age and her low risk of having a child with Down syndrome. If Julia’s child receives a diagnosis of Down syndrome, her hand is held and she’s told how awful having a child with Down syndrome would be for her. She won’t be able to handle it, so her government will handle the “problem” for her with a free abortion.

How nice that Obamacare will offer invasive prenatal screening for Down syndrome regardless of age even though the chances of a 22 year old having a baby with Down syndrome is less than .2%. Julia finds it odd that in spite of her promiscuity, she won’t be offered a Pap Smear at that same age even though her chances of having HPV are 44.8%. Why do you suppose that is?

People have questioned where Julia’s husband is in this idyllic story (or if she even has a husband). Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan had a theory. Julia’s significant other was whisked away by the government under spurious evidence that he may have some remote tie to a terrorist organization. Julia won’t have to be bothered with him for a long, long time because under the NDAA, he can be detained indefinitely on this slight suspicion.

Such is the dream life of Julia. No adventure. No character-building experiences of failure and struggle. No satisfaction of knowing she is self-made.  But hey, she’s got that cool garden to look forward to.

Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP),  responded to parent’s protests in an interview with SonntagsBlick.

“It was no doubt stupid to call it a ’sex box’ – we will change that. But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents,“ he said.

“Without taking anything away from the parents,” except the ability to exempt their own children from the “lessons.”

Some parents have called for their children to be exempted from sex education. Eymann says he is strictly against exemptions, although he is aware this will not make him many friends:

“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has. The shared values that it teaches are very important…”

In other words, not only can the parents not opt out, the Basel dude is admitting that having that captive audience, however young, is important for indoctrination.

How long before Sex Kits are jammed down our throats (sorry for that).

I don’t like money that much.  It, like, disassociates you from your food.  I’m like ‘I just have $5.00 so I’m just going to pay you this. Thank you for your food and thank you goodbye.’

Oh and this!

Do we ever think about us as a species and Transcending the Planet? To be able to leave the planet and to see the planet reproduce another species like ourselves that has the ability to reach a higher awareness and a higher level of life.

Dude – that’s already happened.  We’re called Conservatives!

This is a great video from Andrew Breitbart…

Putting our health care in the hands of the government also puts the cost of that health care in the hands of the citizenry. I’m upset about that, but that’s not where I’m going. Continue to follow me.

Think about it, if you’re paying for something, don’t you want to have a “say” in how that money is spent? Of course we’re all frustrated with the way our government spends our money, and most of the time, we don’t have a clue where it’s going. Maddening. However, it’s just a little bit different with health care. Continue to follow me.

While we won’t be able to see where all of the money goes, we will see it in our neighbors, in the older couple who selfishly wants to continue to live, the middle age couple who dared to flout the results of their amnio and gave birth to a child with Down syndrome, or in the terminally ill young adult who goes to any medical length to gain just a couple more years.

We’re told rationing won’t happen, but it’s completely inevitable.  When it does, the examples above will be seen as blatant burdens upon a system with diminishing resources. They will no longer be neighbors or that sweet family from the school. Everyone will now feel they have the right to comment on and insert themselves into the most intimate decisions of their neighbors lives–after all, who is paying for it?

It is seriously upsetting that this woman has a podium from which to spew blatant idiocy. I’m not an engineer, but I realized the steel beams in the WTC buildings didn’t actually “melt.”

Here’s what Popular Mechanics had to say. 

Today I was on a Mommy board and a link was posted explaining why Kal Penn (Kumar/Kutner) left House. His leaving was bad enough but is he seriously taking a position in the Obama administration?

I understand it was your decision to leave House. True?
KAL PENN: Yes. I was incredibly honored a couple of months ago to get the opportunity to go work in the White House. I got to know the President and some of the staff during the campaign and had expressed interest in working there, so I’m going to be the associate director in the White House office of public liaison. They do outreach with the American public and with different organizations. They’re basically the front door of the White House. They take out all of the red tape that falls between the general public and the White House. It’s similar to what I was doing on the campaign.

Will you actually be working in the White House?
PENN: This particular office is in the executive building. The White House has two buildings: the actual White House and an old Navy building called the Old Executive Office.

Are you there as long as Obama’s in office?
PENN: A lot of that stuff is up in the air. This is a relatively recent development.

Safe to say you’re taking a huge pay cut?
PENN: Oh, yeah. There’s not a lot of financial reward in these jobs. But, obviously, the opportunity to serve in a capacity like this is an incredible honor.

I know this isn’t big news, but it certainly is interesting.