Values Voter News

Study: Turkish Women with Abortions Have Statistically Significant 66% Increase in Breast Cancer Risk / Researchers Likely Underestimated the Risk, Reports Scientist

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Press Release

Contact: Karen Malec, 847-421-4000

Date: July 28, 2009

Study: Turkish Women with Abortions Have Statistically Significant 66% Increase in Breast Cancer Risk / Researchers Likely Underestimated the Risk, Reports Scientist

"I guess they didn't get the 'memo' from the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), which declared back in 2003 that the non-existence of the ABC (abortion-breast cancer) link had been 'established'"! - Professor Joel Brind, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

A retrospective study conducted by Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty and Magee-Women's hospital reported a statistically significant 66% increase in breast cancer risk among women who'd had any abortions.

According to Joel Brind, professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York and a director at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Ozmen's team most likely underestimated the breast cancer risk associated with abortion because of a flaw known as "selection bias."

Selection bias would also explains their team's unusual findings - significantly decreased risks for women who use oral contraceptives (OCs) and hormone replacement therapy (HRT). The World Health Organization and the NCI acknowledge that use of combined (estrogen + progestin) OCs and combined HRT increase risk.

Selection bias is a flaw in the study because only hospital or clinic patients were selected as study subjects, and they were therefore not representative of the general population. According to Brind's hypothesis, a disproportionate number of "modern" women were likely represented among the controls, a group more likely to use HRT and OCs, have abortions and visit the hospital often for minor complaints. By contrast, a disproportionate number of "traditional" women were represented among the patients; women less likely to use HRT and OCs, have abortions and visit the hospital (except in cases of serious illness, like breast cancer).

To their credit, Dr. Ozmen et al. did acknowledge the likelihood of selection bias in their study, although they were not specific in attributing any effects on their results to it.

Brind's analysis of Ozmen's research can be read here.

"Although the NCI, the nation's largest funder of cancer-research, and others have worked feverishly to suppress the ABC link by publishing fraudulent research and even leaning on scientists whose studies have shown risk increases among women who have abortions, honest research occasionally escapes the NCI's purview," declared Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

References:

1. Ozmen et al. Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women - a university hospital-based nested case control study. World J Surg Onc 2009;7:37. Available at: http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37.

This week we can add 5 more First Amendment Case victories which puts us at 123 First Amendment Case victories since 06/2008 recorded at Values Voter News. See First Amendment Case Victories for all.

Georgia

Click image to view page 2 of settlement.

It’s all settled: Atlanta Public Schools officially recognizes Christian student club

ADF attorneys reach settlement in lawsuit against school district

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

• Pulpit Initiative media resources

Update 01/09/2012: John 3:16 written all over Tebow Bronco OT win but there is more!

Related: John 3:16 was the number one hit on Google this morning according to ESPN. Why?
Tim Tebow story on ESPN
A must listen interview with parents of first ever Sophmore Heisman trophy winner!!!
Tim Tebow and God's Providence

From LifeSiteNews.com....

Florida Quarterback Tebow Leaves Reporters Speechless: "Yes I am" Saving Myself for Marriage

Also says he is grateful that his mother's story has helped women choose not to have an abortion

By John Jalsevac
July 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week Florida Gators Quarterback Tim Tebow's photo may have graced the cover of Sports Illustrated, the same magazine that is best known for its annual "swimsuit issue," but the contrast between the two cover stories couldn't have been more glaring.
At 21 years of age and graced with boyish good looks, Tebow is one of the most talked about rising stars of the NCAA; but the football superstar literally left reporters speechless last week when he answered a question during a press conference about whether or not he is "saving himself" for marriage.

"Yes I am," said Tebow briefly, who then indicated he was ready for the next question. However, in the video of the press conference, a reporter is heard stumbling over his words in the background as he tries to ask a follow-up question. Tebow then laughs, obviously reacting to the reactions of the reporters in the room.
"I think y'all were stunned by that," he says. "Y'all can't even ask a question. Wow. I mean, I was ready for that question. I don't think y'all were."
It wasn't the only controversial remark that Tebow made that day. In response to another question about whether or not people may be tired of the volume of coverage devoted to the young football star, Tebow, a devout Christian, said that the level of exposure he receives is a mixed blessing. However, he said, he looks at the positive side that, thanks to his fame, he has been able to share his Christian faith with so many people.
In addition, the football star told the reporters that he believes that the publicity given to his mother's story has helped other women choose not to abort their unborn children. Tebow's mother, who serves as a Christian missionary together with her husband, was pressured to abort Tebow following a life-threatening infection she suffered while pregnant with him. Doctors pressured her to abort her son to save her own life, but she ultimately resisted the pressure and both mother and child survived the birth.
"There has been a lot of people that have been encouraged not to have an abortion because they heard the story of my mom, or they have been encouraged because they have heard me give my faith on TV or in a report or something," said Tebow.
"You know what, although there has been a backlash, oh, well. You know what, I'll deal with it if I have to. It's not a big deal to me because of the kids and people that have been encouraged by the stories we have tried to tell and by the life that I've tried to live."
Growing up Tebow would often help his parents with their Christian mission work in the Philippines. He was homeschooled by his mother, who instilled in her children strong Christian values.
Tebow was the first home-schooled athlete to be nominated for the Heisman Trophy. "That's really cool," he said at the time. "A lot of times people have this stereotype of homeschoolers as not very athletic - it's like, go win a spelling bee or something like that - it's an honor for me to be the first one to do that."

Read Roe's actual testimony before Senate committee of how she came to the pro-life position from being the very lady that legalized abortion in the infamous Roe v Wade case in 1973 (9 months before I was born).

‘Jane Roe’ To Nancy Pelosi: 'Don’t Put Abortion in Health-Care Reform Bill’

Related: Quick Video: Overpopulation is a Myth

It is true Mr Holdren didn't have the picture to the left to verify whether or not he was right but to view a human as non human even after birth, unbelievable. Secondly, those who still can't determine when life begins: is it not safer then to be sorry to approach the issue from the possibility that this is another human being's blood that is being shed via abortion and to side on the safe side and not do abortions. I mean look at the picture don't tell most that that is not a hand.

To be sensitive to those who have either voted for the pro-choice position or committed an abortion or been involved in encouraging it please do read the testimony of the very Roe of Roe v Wade before a Senate committee after she has converted to the pro-life position. There is hope of forgiveness!!!

From CNSNews.com...

When Is a Human a ‘Human Being’? Ask the White House Science Adviser

"John P. Holdren is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In 1973, he co-authored a book—“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions”—with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich......On page 235, while making an argument for legalized abortion, the authors use language that on its face says a child “will ultimately develop into a human being”—after it is born.

“To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building,” they wrote. “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

In the 70s, Obama's Science Adviser Endorsed Giving Trees Legal Standing to Sue in Court

"(CNSNews.com) – Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights.

The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.

Giving “natural objects” -- like trees -- standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.

“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.

“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.

According to Holdren and the Ehrlichs, the notion of legal standing for inanimate objects would not be as unprecedented as it might sound. “The legal machinery and the basic legal notions needed to control pollution are already in existence,” they wrote.

“Slight changes in the legal notions and diligent application of the legal machinery are all that are necessary to induce a great reduction in pollution in the United States,” Holdren added....."-Click on above link for more.

White House Science Adviser Advocated 'De-Development' of the United States

"(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, advocated the "de-development" of the United States in books he published in the 1970s.

"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. "De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation."

In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for "de-development" of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth....."-Click on link for more.

LifeNews.com reported how media is dismissing concern of taxpayer-funded abortions for Federal Employees and then reports:

Confirmed: Senate Bill Removes Ban on Abortion Funding for Federal Workers

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- To fund abortions or not fund abortions, that is the question about a Senate bill that concerns the eight million federal employees enrolled on the government's health care system. A media outlet that covers Congress claims the legislation doesn't fund abortions but a pro-life activist says it does.

As LifeNews.com reported last week, the Senate Financial Services Appropriations bill, S. 1432, would have Americans fund abortions for employees of the federal government.

Then, Jonathan Allen, a columnist for Congressional Quarterly, blasted pro-life advocates saying the concern "doesn't exist."

But Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, says the longstanding ban on abortion funding in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) has been deleted.

Johnson says Senator Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, is responsible for removing the language preventing taxpayer funding of abortions for federal workers.

"In the subcommittee that he chairs, [the Senate] approved a bill that would repeal the ban on funding of elective abortions for federal employees," Johnson said.

Johnson finds it incredulous that, "at the same time," Durbin "has been on TV assuring the public that the Hyde Amendment will prevent the Obama-backed health care bills from funding abortions -- which is untrue."

Johnson tells LifeNews.com that Durbin's removing the abortion funding ban from the bill was a case of him putting the cart before the horse of the agenda of top pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

"The pro-abortion battle plan for this year is to win enactment of health care legislation that, through powerful but veiled provisions, will result private health plans being required to cover elective abortion, and massive new federal subsidies for such coverage," Johnson explains. "Then they plan to come back next year and dismantle the remaining barriers to government promotion of abortion, such as the Hyde Amendment."

"As in a war, however, sometimes individual units get carried away and get out in front of the general's line of battle, and that is happening in Congress right now. Some pro-abortion lawmakers just can't restrain their urge to attack pro-life policies," Johnson added.

When Congress adopts the funding bill each year that covers the health insurance plan for federal workers, it has included an amendment from pro-life Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, to stop tax-funding of abortions.

A search of the new bill that Durbin's panel crafted finds the Smith Amendment prohibiting taxpayer-subsidized abortions through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) has been deleted.

ACTION: Contact members of the Senate at 202-224-3121 or http://www.Senate.gov and oppose taxpayer funding of abortions for federal employees. Ask that the abortion funding ban be added back to S. 1432.

Related web sites:
National Right to Life Committee - http://www.nrlc.org"

In what has been and continuing to be a trend amongst ABC, NBC and CBS is to ID Republican corruption but to drop the ID when Democrats are involved in corruption giving a false impression to their viewers that Republicans are the more corrupt party.

See trail of many more reports proving the above at: All 44 people arrested in FBI arrest for corruption are democrats but one. You would not know it watching ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN
Big Media only reports on fallen priests and pastors but what about fallen liberal leaders like these recent cases
Big Media continues to evidence blatant liberal media bias by how they reveal and conceal party affiliation of scandalous politicians

ABC Buries Democratic IDs in Story on Massive Dem Corruption in NJ

ABC’s Ron Claiborne on Saturday managed to file a report on vast Democratic corruption in the state of New Jersey and, at the same time, not once use the word Democrat. While reporting on an unfolding scandal that saw the arrest of a number of the state’s mayors and assemblymen, all but one a member of the Democratic Party, the Good Morning America weekend news anchor completely ignored party identification.

Claiborne vaguely explained, "44 people indicted, including three mayors, two state legislators and five rabbis and allegations of money laundering, kickbacks and bribe taking." The journalist used the same tactic as he went on to highlight the history of corruption by New Jersey politicians: "Robert Torricelli left office in 2003, under the shadow of an illegal campaign contribution scandal. And Harrison Williams resigned his seat in 1982 while under indictment for bribery."

Claiborne added, "Former Newark Mayor Sharpe James is currently serving time after being convicted on federal corruption charges." What fact is absent from this description of New Jersey’s woes? All of the above are Democrats. He continued this list by highlighting another unidentified Democrat: "Hoboken Mayor Pete Cammarano took office three weeks ago. In a matter of days, he allegedly took a $25,000 bribe."

A July 12, 2001 study by the Media Research Center found that as the Gary Condit controversy was playing out, only eight percent of network stories identified the then-Congressman’s political party after he was found to have an adulterous affair with Chandra Levy.

On March 13, 2008, the MRC’s Rich Noyes pointed out that as the coverage of Eliot Spitzer and his connection to a prostitution ring broke, only 20 percent of the stories labeled him as a Democrat. In contrast, these same news shows were much more likely to identify Senator David Vitter as a Republican when his sex scandal became public.

A transcript of the July 25 segment, which aired at 7:15am, follows:

JAKE TAPPER: We turn next to the corruption crackdown in New Jersey that saw mayors and rabbis arrested in a stunning scene that looked like something straight out of The Sopranos, perhaps with a dash of Woody Allen. The scope of the scandal, complete with a plot to traffic in human organs was shocking even for a state that's become synonymous with these kinds of scandals. Ron has been following the story in the garden state. Ron.

ABC GRAPHIC: Sate of Corruption: Garden State Scandal

RON CLAIBORNE: That's right, Jake. The latest scandal nabbed three mayors, two state legislatures and the five rabbis, it's just the latest installment in a long history and some would say tradition of political corruption in New Jersey. The scandal is breathtaking in scope. 44 people indicted, including three mayors, two state legislators and five rabbis and allegations of money laundering, kickbacks and bribe taking.

WEYSAN DUN (FBI SPECIAL AGENT): It is about crime, corruption, it is about arrogance, it is about a shocking betrayal of the public trust.

CLAIBORNE: And yet, for many people who live in New Jersey, there is something almost depressingly familiar about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It's embarrassing, but I guess you just kind of get numb to it after a while.

CLAIBORNE: The state has a reputation fairly, unfairly for political corruption. Why is that, do you think?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Because it's been corrupt.

CLAIBORNE: If some people have a sense of deja vu, it's because New Jersey has been here before, in fact, many times over many years. The state's gallery of rogues, both alleged and convicted, include two US senators. Robert Torricelli left office in 2003, under the shadow of an illegal campaign contribution scandal. And Harrison Williams resigned his seat in 1982 while under indictment for bribery. Former Newark Mayor Sharpe James is currently serving time after being convicted on federal corruption charges. And the list of other mayors and legislators implicated in corruption scandals goes on and on.

PROFESSOR BRIGID HARRISON (Political Science): It's been going on for decades, if not centuries. We've never seen the eradication of that culture of corruption that we've seen in other states.

CLAIBORNE: Harrison and others who studied New Jersey's political history, blame a weak state government and strong local governments, over 500 of them, and many of which the deal is, you got to pay to play. Hoboken Mayor Pete Cammarano took office three weeks ago. In a matter of days, he allegedly took a $25,000 bribe.

ED KAHRER (public corruption division, FBI): New Jersey's corruption problem is one of the worst, if not the worst in the nation.

DAVID LETTERMAN: Yeah, anybody here from Nee Jersey? Do we have folks?

CLAIBORNE: Not surprisingly, the garden state has become fodder for the late-night comedians.

LETTERMAN: Big scandal in New Jersey today. Did you folks hear about this? Crazy, statewide scandal.

CLAIBORNE: And the state's image wasn't exactly burnished by the hit mob series The Sopranos, which glamorized organized crime.

[Brief clip from The Sopranos]

CLAIBORNE: Michael Wildes, the mayor of Englewood, New Jersey says the bad rap is not fair.

MICHAEL WILDES (Mayor, Englewood): I think what's going on in New Jersey is the same that goes on throughout the nation.

CLAIBORNE: Still, it's a blow to the image of the garden state. A New York Times columnist writes today, no matter what dreadful embarrassment your state is facing, you can always console yourself by remembering you do not live in New Jersey. Ouch.

KATE SNOW: Ouch.

JAKE TAPPER: It's true. It’s true.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

Related: Traffic to Obama's White House Web Site Has Plummeted

RasmussenReports.com a polling company that accurately predicted the last two elections within half a percentage point has been tracking Obama's approval rating and the congressional ballot.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 28% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. That’s the lowest rating yet recorded for President Obama (see trends).....Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That is the lowest level of total approval yet recorded for this President....It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote....Just 23% believe health care costs will go down if health care reform is passed. Most (53%) expect prices would rise and 50% expect the quality of care would decline."

"Republicans retain a slight edge on the Generic Congressional Ballot and most voters still have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Fifty-four percent (54%) now say interest rates will be higher in a year. That’s a 20-point jump since April.

For more measures of the President's performance, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls..

If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

When comparing Job Approval data from different firms, it's important to keep in mind that polls of likely voters and polls of all adults will typically and consistently yield different results. In the case of President Obama, polls by all firms measuring all adults typically show significantly higher approval ratings than polls of likely voters. Polls of registered voters typically fall in the middle. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.

A Fordham University professor has rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 39.0% Democrats, 32.5% Republicans, and 28.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls"

Below is article of new study that has concluded that divorce drives up healthcare costs but also keep in mind all the related items below. Not to mention the good that married couples can do for society. See how many married couples are able to bring down the orphan rate in Colorado in just one year at: Children waiting to be adopted in Colorado cut by 36% as 150 churches unite to adopt says Colorado Dep't of Human Services

Related: UK conservative party getting it right on marriage as they reveal that single income married couples in the UK pay 44% more taxes then other OECD's...
Listen to BBC Audio Interview with ex-Tory leader recommending a period for married couples to "cool off" before divorce and cohabiting cause divorce
Faith and Family key to curbing school contacts concerning behavior problems.
Faith and Family key to curbing theft and shoplifting...
Family and Faith key to good grades, school attendance and much more...
Research shows that the breakdown in the family costs Canadian tax payers $7 billion. More evidence that God's way is the best not that we needed it.
Not only does faith and family work in America but now a study in Canada proves the same...
Video report: The importance of marriage makes it on Time Magazine

Divorce Damages Health and Remarriage Doesn't Help, New Study Finds

By Patrick B. Craine

CHICAGO, July 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Divorce and widowhood have a lingering, detrimental impact on health, even after a person remarries, research at the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins University has shown.

"Among the currently married, those who have ever been divorced show worse health on all dimensions," said University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite and co-author of a new study on marriage and health. Further, "Both the divorced and widowed who do not remarry show worse health on all dimensions," she said.

Waite, the Lucy Flower Professor in Sociology and Director of the Center on Aging at the National Opinion Research Center at the University, conducted the study with Mary Elizabeth Hughes, Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. Their research, which was based on a study of 8,652 people aged 51 to 61, will be published in the September issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior in the article, "Marital Biography and Health Midlife."

The findings are consistent with previous studies, said Dr. Mark Hayward, Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas and an expert in the field of health and marriage, in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). In his own work, he said, for example, "We actually found a very, very similar pattern to the findings that were in this study."

But while numerous studies have looked at the effect of marriage and divorce upon health, this is the first to examine both marital transitions and marital status on a wide range of health dimensions.

"Prior to this time, most people have been looking at kind of singular outcomes," Dr. Hayward said. "So in the work I've done, for example, I've looked at cardiovascular disease in particular. Other people have done the same: some people have looked at mortality, some people to depression. This study is probably one of the few studies that looks at a broader array of health, both in terms of physical and mental."

The study found that divorced or widowed people have 20 percent more chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, or cancer, than married people. They also have 23 percent more mobility limitations, such as trouble climbing stairs or walking a block. Further, people who remarried have 12 percent more chronic conditions and 19 percent more mobility limitations, but no more depressive symptoms, than those who are continuously married.

The impacts of marriage, divorce and remarriage on health are based on the ways in which the various illnesses develop and heal, study co-author Linda Waite said. "Some health situations, like depression, seem to respond both quickly and strongly to changes in current conditions," she said. "In contrast, conditions such as diabetes and heart disease develop slowly over a substantial period and show the impact of past experiences, which is why health is undermined by divorce or widowhood, even when a person remarries."

Dr. Hayward admitted the importance of helping people through difficult marriages, but emphasized the importance of helping people through divorce and after a divorce. "I think if there's any room for social policy in here," he said, "it's the issue of to what degree should we have a safety net in response to people that are suddenly finding themselves in these precarious positions. ... We do want to help people to pick up the pieces, so to speak, when their marriages go awry."

Divorce, he said, "is an incredibly adversarial situation. ... There may be room for social policy in helping people navigate these kinds of processes in ways that aren't so adversarial, and in that way mute the negative consequences of the divorce experience and what happens after divorce."

Hayward suggested that, on the level of health, divorce should not be discouraged because the health benefits of marriage may decline due to people staying in "bad" marriages.

However, previous research has shown that divorce has a worse impact on the couple's children than staying in a 'bad' marriage. A 2004 study at the University College Dublin discovered that separation even in the case of a 'bad' marriage, is more harmful to children than staying together. The study found that divorce was even more harmful to children than the loss of a parent.

Further, a book released by the Institute for American Values entitled Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce, based on a survey of 1,500 adults ages 18-35, revealed that even 'good' divorce has a negative impact on children. The book's author, Elizabeth Marquardt, commented, "Even when divorced parents behave well, their divorce confronts the child with the monumental task of having to make sense, alone, of the parents' very different beliefs, values, and ways of living - a job the parents are no longer required to do."

"As a consequence, children of both 'good' and 'bad' divorces come to feel like divided selves," she continued. "They lead a wholly separate life in each parent's world, leading over time to a troubling inner division that goes to the heart of their identity."

Fr. Thomas Dufner, a priest at a parish in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, who has been an outspoken defender of the Christian view of marriage (in 2003 he testified at a legislative hearing during Minnesota's debate on a proposed marriage amendment) told LSN that in his view this most recent study provides natural evidence in support of the traditional Christian view that marriage is "for life."

"By faith we know that in the beginning God created marriage for the good of spouses and the procreation of the race," said Fr. Dufner. "Now research confirms that health is also better for people who stay married. No surprise. Faith and reason go together confirming the same truth: What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020312.html

Study Finds Death of Parent Less Harmful Than Divorce
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/feb/04021005.html

Marital Breakdown and Divorce Increases Rates of Depression, StatCan Study Finds
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07052401.html

Even "Good" Divorce Hard on Kids, New Study Confirms
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/05110907.html

Study Details How Divorce Harms Children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2000/sep/00091903.html

Largest-Ever Study on Divorce Finds Traditional Families Stay Together
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/aug/02080705.html

Society God's way saves.....See more below: The breakdown of marriage and other, less stable, relationships generate real financial costs to society
A couple of UK studies reveal the damaging effect of the family break down in the UK costing tax payers more and the mental health of children.
A family judge in the UK blasts the BBC for moving documentaries on family breakdown out of primetime slot.
Research shows that the breakdown in the family costs Canadian tax payers $7 billion. More evidence that God's way is the best not that we needed it.
Iowa redefines marriage and undermines the institution of marriage as nothing more then a stereotype when marriage would cut child poverty by 2/3
Not only does faith and family work in America but now a study in Canada proves the same...
Faith and Family key to curbing theft and shoplifting...
Family and Faith key to good grades, school attendance and much more...
Faith key factor in sex education saving tax payers who knows how many millions in condomns, birth control, abortions, pregnancy costs etc etc..
Gay sex stats by pro-gay group in Canada reveals gay sex increases health care costs...and link to ex-gay testimony here...

WWJD Lawsuit Dismissed / Health Care Plan Webcast Tonight

www.LC.org

Minneapolis, MN – A federal class action lawsuit against Bullseye Collection Agency (Bullseye), which challenged Bullseye’s “WWJD” business motto, has now been dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs in that suit, Mark and Sara Neill, claimed they were harassed and oppressed when they received a collection letter from Bullseye that contained the same “WWJD” motto that Bullseye includes on all of its business communications. Of course, far from being oppressive, WWJD is an acronym that sometimes means “What Would Jesus Do?” Bullseye, a small, family-owned business, uses the motto as a reminder to act with diligence and respect in an industry traditionally characterized by ruthlessness and incivility.

Instead of abandoning its motto or giving up its constitutional rights, Bullseye fought back with Liberty Counsel’s assistance. Bullseye argued that “WWJD” is not oppressive as a matter of law and cannot violate the law. Bullseye also argued that if any law actually prohibits the benign and courteous use of “WWJD” as a business motto, then such law is unconstitutional, because it violates Bullseye’s freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equal protection rights.

In addition to vigorously defending Bullseye, Liberty Counsel also filed a comprehensive counterclaim against the Neills and another company, Bureau of Collection Recovery, LLC (BCR). Bullseye discovered that Mr. Neill was no stranger to the collection business but was the president of BCR, a giant competitor collection company with offices in the United States and India. Bullseye alleged that the Neills and BCR abused the legal process and engaged in a conspiracy to harm Bullseye competitively and to deprive Bullseye of its constitutional rights.

Upon receiving Bullseye’s counterclaim, the Neills decided to abandon their frivolous crusade against Bullseye. They dismissed with prejudice each of their claims, such that they can never bring them again in any court. As a result, Bullseye remains free to use “WWJD” on its stationery, and its constitutional rights remain intact.

Horatio Mihet, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, stated, “Neither the law nor the courtroom provides refuge for those wishing to harm others with their intolerance of Christian viewpoints. Christian men and women in business need not check their faith at the door of the marketplace.”

Related: Cartoons and charts exposing economic consequences for America's straying from our "In God we trust" roots

Found this Joke of the day at WND.com

"There's an old sea story in the Navy about a ship's captain who inspected his sailors, and afterward told the chief boson's mate that his men smelled bad.

The captain suggested perhaps it would help if the sailors would change their underwear occasionally.

The chief responded, "Aye, aye sir, I'll see to it immediately!"

The chief went straight to the sailors berth deck and announced, "The captain thinks you guys smell bad and wants you to change your underwear. "Pittman, you change with Jones; McCarthy, you change with Witkowski; and Brown, you change with Schultz. Now get to it!!!"

THE MORAL: Someone may be promising "Change"; but don't count on things smelling any better!"

And what are we getting for all this spending? See related posts below:

Related: School board in California rules to allow students to leave campus for abortions/contraceptives without parents knowing

From Citizenlink.com...

New York School District to Offer Pregnancy, STD Tests

Facing high pregnancy rates, the Port Chester, N.Y. school board has voted to offer confidential STD and pregnancy tests at its middle and high schools.

Parents will have an opportunity to sign a note at the beginning of the year allowing their children to use the on-campus clinic, but the school will not inform parents of tests or results.

The school board passed the proposal on a 3-to-1 vote.

“You’re talking 13 to 14-year-old children, and they, by law, do not have to notify their parents if they…tested positive,” said Board President Anne Capeci, who cast the lone dissenting vote. “From my position, that is not the role of the school district.”

Family advocates agree.

“If a girl does present herself to the school-based clinic, and it turns out she’s pregnant,” noted Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, “one of the best things that the clinic could do is involve the parents in the decision-making process.”

Navy Removes Restrictions on Navy Moms' Religious Speech

WASHINGTON, July 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Navy has announced new Community Guidelines, removing its restrictions on religious speech on its Navy for Moms website. This change is in response to a letter Liberty Counsel sent to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, demanding an end to religious discrimination and reinstatement of users' free speech rights on the website. In its response letter to Liberty Counsel, Navy Admiral J. F. Kilkenny wrote, "I have instructed my staff to remove the current restrictions on religious and political debate. The goal of the revised guidelines is to allow for more open discussion without compromising the purpose of the website...."

NavyForMoms.com was set up by the United States Navy to provide support and a means of communication for mothers and other loved ones of current and potential sailors.

A group called "Christian Chat" was established on the Navy for Moms website. A website administrator informed the group that it could not use the name "Christian Chat." The administrator said the group's name had to be changed, because such blatantly religious speech is too divisive for a public forum. The Navy for Moms Community Guidelines had also been revised to prohibit the posting of religious discussions except for prayers offered for sailors. Those restrictions have now been removed, and the Christian Chat group is free to retain its name.

Avoiding controversy is not a valid reason for restricting speech in a public forum. These kinds of restrictions on private speakers using a government- sponsored forum are not required in order to avoid a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In announcing the revised rules to its members, Rear Admiral Robin Braun said that "personal freedoms are extremely important to the Navy and my hope is that these updated Guidelines provide the best possible balance between the defense of those liberties and the integrity of the website."

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "We applaud the Navy for responding by removing restrictions on religious speech. To forbid 'Christian Chat' as a chat forum for Navy Moms, under the notion that the name is too divisive for a public forum, was absurd. About 90 percent of Americans profess belief in God, and the majority of them are Christian. Of all places, religious freedom must be respected in our armed services. To remove the word 'Christian' from a chat forum is like banning hot dogs in a baseball stadium. It is simply unthinkable."

Christian Newswire

Related: Video: Obama's birth certificate issue makes CNN and NBC. It's not about conspiracy but rather transparency as Lou Dobbs makes some valid points.
Snopes.com changes hospital of Obama's birth 90 minutes after WND.COM article but has no conclusive evidence of correction according to Wikipedia.

Back in December Values Voter News reported that Snopes.com and FactCheck.org needed some snoping and fact checking themselves on the issue of Obama's birth certificate. Both groups concluded:

"FactCheck.org says, "Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."

Snopes.com says, "State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii."."

To which Values Voter News responded by showing how Snopes.com and FactCheck.org both quoted the director of Hawaii's Department of Health confirming only that she verified an original birth certificate and nothing about where he was born. Let me quote from that post:

"...at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp. It is stated that "in October 2008, Hawaiian officials reported that they had personally verified the existence of Barack Obama's original birth certificate".

FactCheck.org agrees at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. "Update Nov. 1: The Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate."

So then Values Voter News compared the conclusion that Snopes and FactCheck made from what Dr Fukino (the director of Hawaii's Department of Health) actually said side by side:

"Snopes and FactCheck said, "The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu and State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii"

When in actuality Dr Fukino said, "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.""

So notice the misreporting from Snopes and FactCheck. Dr Fukino did not at that time state that "there is no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii" but only that an "original birth certificate" was "on record" thus giving many valid reason to reject the claims of Snopes and FactCheck at the time.

First a quick comment to note. Values Voter News has noticed that web sites change and Values Voter News has yet to verify if this is what those sites continue to say to this date. Snopes.com does not give its readers an edit history to verify changes made on their site. They only give a last updated on so and so date at the bottom of the post. See evidence of this at Snopes.com changes hospital of Obama's birth 90 minutes after WND.COM article but has no conclusive evidence of correction according to Wikipedia.

Now to what was really wanted to be said here. Dr Fukino has recently revised her original statement to now include not only that she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record" but now that she has "...seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

So the only thing she added to the statement was that she not only verified the original birth certificate/vital records but that she now has verified in addition to that that "...Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen." This is a breakthru that confirms the just criticism of Snopes.com and FactCheck.org. Notice the only difference between the two statements is that Dr Fukino has now answered the just criticism. There is another settle difference that will be noted here that being the difference between "original birth certificate" and now she says "original vital records". This may or may not matter but is documented for notes sake.

Now that Dr Fukino has stated this we can continue to conclude the facts of the case as being:

Fact 1: The Certificate of Live Birth that Obama posted on his web site being a "copy" proves there is an "original birth certificate/vital records". This naturally led many to seek the original to evidence forth the copy.

Fact 2: Dr Fukino states she verified the existence of the "original birth certificate/vital records" in '08. This naturally led many to seek to know what the "original birth certificate/vital records" actually read.

Fact 3: Dr Fukino states she has verified what is said on the "original birth certificate/vital records" namely that Obama is born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen in '09. This is naturally leading many to want to see it for themselves or to have further verification by more then one.

Fact 4: The Obama Administration has yet to release those documents to the public or anyone else as far as we know nor has Dr Fukino. This is naturally leading many to question why.

Fact 5: So the best evidence we have of Obama's natural born citizenship via his original birth certificate/vital records to date is the statement by Dr Fukino.

Now wherever you stand on this issue is up to you. These are the facts. If Dr Fukino's word is good enough for you and you think her word should settle this issue then fine. But none the less at least be understanding of those who seek better evidence when it is available to seek.

So now the obvious and fair question that Big Media and those on the left on this issue are ignoring is: Why not release the evidence? This is not about a conspiracy but rather transparency. Why not release the information to the public or to a non-partisan independent group of some sort or to respected members of both sides to verify? Is it really enough to go on this Dr's word?

So in conclusion what is at base from the perspective here at Values Voter News that is fueling the fire of this controversy is the Administration's and Big Media's inability to put out the flames by actually fanning those flames themselves by:

#1) not asking the right question of the Obama Administration which is: Why not release the original birth certificate/vital records that Dr Fukino has confirmed exists that according to her proves Obama's natural born citizenship?

#2) whenever the issue is brought up by a better informed/understanding of the issue media the Obama Administration continues to fan the flame by failing to answer the above question by continually pointing to the birth certificate they produced online which totally skirts the question.

#3) Big Media only repeats what the Administration set forth in their answer and refuses to seek the best evidence available that is known to exists.

So if Big Media and the Obama Administration want this to go away then they can take some steps forward to practice what they preach by 1) asking the right question then 2) answering the question and 3) to seek and reveal the best evidence that exists.

Again it's about transparency not conspiracy and seeking the best possible evidence when known to exist.

Visit Stop the Abortion Mandate for what you can do to oppose abortion via tax payers via health care to be sure the health of the unborn are not mutilated but also see videos at: The health of the unborn are under their biggest attack since Roe v Wade and not only that but tax payers will be paying for the attack via healthcare

Over 100,000 Letters Sent Urging Congress to Keep Abortion Out of Health Care

“Congress should explicitly exclude an abortion mandate and preserve the common ground policies supported by the growing majority of pro-life Americans.”

Washington, D.C. – Today the Susan B. Anthony List announced that pro-life activists nationwide have sent over 100,000 letters to Congress urging the exclusion of abortion from any national health care reform effort.

“As we approach the August recess, already tens of thousands of pro-life Americans have contacted Congress urging them to keep abortion out of health care,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Americans are urging Members of Congress to preserve the real common ground, our long-standing tradition of limiting taxpayer funds for abortion. This is exactly the type of policy the President has sought to achieve, one that stands the test of time, has popular support and appeals to members on both sides of the aisle. Yet both the House and Senate versions of health care reform legislation seek to undo this commonsense policy. Without language to explicitly exclude an abortion mandate, the legislation will result in Americans footing the bill for abortion on-demand in the largest expansion of government-backed abortion since Roe v. Wade.”

In an interview with CBS’ Katie Couric last week, President Obama said, “What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. [. . .] As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care.”

“Families are at the very heart of the health care issue,” said Dannenfelser. “And with pregnancy there are always two patients, mother and baby. We must establish a health care system that respects, protects and cherishes both. Congress should explicitly exclude an abortion mandate and preserve the common ground policies supported by the growing majority of pro-life Americans.”

To date this year, Susan B. Anthony List activists have sent nearly 400,000 letters urging Congress to keep taxpayer funds from supporting abortion on-demand, 112,000 of which called for the exclusion of abortion from health care. In a recent action alert, NARAL Pro-Choice America reported sending 12,500 letters to the Senate in support of an abortion mandate.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a founding member of the Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition, a coalition of pro-life organizations dedicated to keeping the abortion mandate out of health care reform.