Today, I am pleased to present a very special guest blogger, Jennifer Magnuson (see bio at botton of post) who has previously been published on the Imperfect Parent. She writes about the brouhaha over this weeks Baby Talk magazine, which features a baby and a booby:

Just for fun go ahead and catalogue some of today’s magazine’s covers on the stands.  I did, and here are a few of my favorites: Oil-slicked young woman clad in thong and two triangles of fabric with mussed hair and heavily lidded eyes made up to indicate she was either highly sedated or, you know,  just had sex.  Teenage starlet (note: just a few years older than my sticker collecting daughter) clad in a credit card and several strategically placed flowers begging readers to ”Leave me alone!  I’m not a heroin addict/anorexic/blood collecting party girl!  I’m just like you!”  And finally, the profile of a cherubic infant nursing at the breast of its mother. And the breast?  Only partly exposed, not even a hint of nipple or aureola to be found (try saying the same  for most outfits on the red carpet).  To top it off, no headlines denying rape charges, child abuse, or secret trysts with baby-sitters while fourth wife seeks a restraining order.

Yet which image stirs up good old American “outrage?” You got it.  The child.  Nursing. 

Breastmilk is not only naturally taylor-made for baby (we are, ahem, mammals), but one that has been touted as a miracle serum, preventing or reducing everything from childhood cancers to SIDS.  Just as notable, it’s now associated with higher developmental test scores and higher IQs.

Apparently, most “outraged” Americans weren’t breastfed.  Not only that, but roughly half of polled Americans think breast feeding shouldn’t be done in public.  That’s right.  Babies shouldn’t be allowed to eat in public. At best, we should relegate them to the bathrooms.  I know from personal experience that sitting on a questionably sanitary public commode promotes milk letdown like nobody’s business.  There should be a law, people.  Just like there is against feeding your children caffeinated sodas, junk food and forgetting to teach them that exercise is necessary.  Oh, strike that.  File that one under wishful thinking.

Babytalk Magazine clearly didn’t take in to account the  IQs of many of its readers when it chose to run the shocking image of an infant being nourished at the breast for their August issue.  Thousands of readers wrote in and commented on the cover, many stating their outrage, shock, and bewilderment at such an “inappropriate” image.  Yeah, ewww, a baby nursing.  What were the editors thinking?  Hadn’t they read last month’s Vogue, which featured The Donald and Melania Trump with newborn son, and most importantly, a bottle, in Melania’s perfectly manicured hand?  Or were they too distracted by the other pictures highlighting a smirking Trump and pregnant spouse teetering on her Manolos practically straddling the ramp to The Donald’s personal jet (paging Dr. Freud)…but I digress.  Because we need to focus on the disgusting monument to motherhood that is being presented, nay, pushed onto the public by those crazed editors at Babytalk.  What’s next, an issue dedicated to Brittany Spears’ new parenting book?  Because there’s a line, Babytalk, and you have crossed it.  And crossed it big. 

There’s also a new moniker out there for people like me who think nursing has nothing to do with immodesty and flaunted sexuality: Lactivists.  Yeah, that’s clever.  I’m going to put it on my calling card, next to Feminazi. 

According to an AP article by Jocelyn Noveck, opponents to Babytalk’s cover declared it “gross” and were forced to shred the magazine lest their teenage offspring see the cover.  Because that’s what teenage boys are into you know, babies nursing at a mom’s breast.  I wasn’t brave enough to explore the contents of some of the more popular skin magazines out there, but I’ll bet you’ll find pages of lactating women on horses, or nursing moms on the beach, or twins in a barn with breast pumps.  I’m thinking of supplementing my income with a centerfold of me applying bag balm to my cracked nipples.  I just can’t figure out if my favorite thing is sunsets or kittens.

Jennifer Magnuson is a full-time parent to a brood of four (and still breastfeeding her youngest), guardian to cats, dogs, chickens and more, and has been married since the dawn of time. She is a regular columnist for Sanity Central, and has written for several feminist publications. She attended the University of Oregon and Portland State University and holds a B.A. in Sociology, as well as extensive post-graduate training in the field of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Bookmark to:
   

Here’s a guy that really loves his SUV (and really hates children)…

From 6abc.com action News — Authorities are looking into new charges against a Philadelphia school district police officer, accused of pulling a gun on a toddler who sprayed water on his SUV.

Parents and neighbors are outraged at the turn of events that terrorized a group of children, and ended with a judge drastically reducing the charges.3-year-old Davonne is back to riding his bike today, but for him, his twin sister, and his seven-year-old brother, child’s play will never be the same 

The man who allegedly pulled the gun on the toddler is 42-year-old David Bradley; a next-door neighbor who went ballistic according to Hudson after her youngsters accidentally squirted his Jeep Grand Cherokee during a water gun fight.

Bradley was arrested after he allegedly pulled out a real gun during the incident and shoved it in the three-year-old’s face.

In case you missed it, this guy is a cop. A really, really, really, really bad cop.

What a fucking jerk.

Bookmark to:
   

A new law has been passed that restricts the “rights” of a person who aids and abets a minor crossing state lines to get an abortion, except a minor’s parent.

I think this is the one of the “safest” laws against abortion because I doubt that droves of underage children are pulling a Starsky and Hutch to go under the fetal sledge hammer. What I mean by “safest” is that this law is terribly inconsequential. Most minors shouldn’t go to another state without their parents to begin with, let alone have a medical precedure done. I say that with the belief that abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

While I certainly don’t think it’s going to create back alley abortions, I also don’t think it’s going to change our population stats either. To me, it reeks of Democrats trying to appease the religious right and tell ‘em it’s okay to vote D come November.

Now, this conservative chick has an interesting, if not humorous take on it:

The New York Times Thursday morning is one of those big media outlets that are cheering on obstruction, calling the Child Custody Protection Act “mean.” The Times, along with some Senate opponents of the Act, have latched onto the idea that there should be an exception for grandmothers (some senators also want clergy exempted). They ask: What if a scared girl’s grandma wants to help her by taking her from Pennsylvania to New Jersey to have an abortion?

Well, think about it for a second. There should be a poll, actually. How many grandmas — unless your grandma was a Margaret Sanger sister-in-arms, would march for such an exception? Better yet: Moms out there — who among you thinks that your father-in-law — or your own Pop, for that matter — should be able to take your 15-year-old daughter to another state for a secret abortion? Go ahead, raise your hand.

And every dad who thinks his mother-in-law — or even his own beloved Mom — should be able to take his baby girl to another state for an abortion without his or his wife’s knowledge, raise your hand.

I didn’t think there would be many takers. Read the rest…

Bookmark to:
   

Liberals cheer, child advocates jeer.

I take back my begrudged agreement that I could tolerate Andrea Yates being found to be insane if she were to remain in a mental institution for the rest of her life. What the public and the jury didn’t know (now being reported in the news) and in a twist of horrible injustice, Andrea Yates acquittal will likely see it that she enjoys all the pleasures of someone who didn’t methodically drown her children. She was found INNOCENT by reason of insanity. She will now have the opportunity to be free in just a few weeks. All it will take is the same people who champion Andrea Yates and held candle light vigils for her, to allow her to enjoy her freedom in the wake of the most heinous and brutal murders she committed.

Andrea Yates is the feminist’s and liberal’s mascot, an inspiration for deeply immoral and child loathing people. Justice prevailed for a woman who enjoyed the very painful death of tiny children begging and pleading for their lives and crying for their mother not to hurt them;  kill them.

And if you don’t believe me, read the following liberal/feminist blog post who touts Andrea as “good mother”. (If torturing your children to death makes you a good mother, what does that make the rest of us?) What do you expect from far leftists, many of whom think that infantcide should be legal. (I was enlightened to that on the daily kos.)

But it was clear to me from the moment the 42-year-old Texas mother first appeared in court five years ago that Andrea Yates was nuts. Out of her mind. I have never seen a mother look dead.
Scratch a mother and if she’s honest, she will tell you there are moments. Horrible moments when she was so sleep-deprived and exhausted and overwhelmed that she wanted to throw her babies against the wall. Then just as she was ready to lose it someone intervened. A husband. A babysitter. A friend. An astute ob-gyn who could see the telltale signs and made sure she got treatment. But Andrea Yates never had a chance. No one intervened. No one listened. She never got the mental health care she so desperately needed. Like all mothers in this culture she was expected to be a saint.
Yates was by all accounts a good mother. Even though she was left alone day after day with five children under the age of 7. Even though she suffered from post-partum depression after at least one of the births of her children. Read the rest…

Cindy from “Super Silly Us” gets it right though:

Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is such an oxymoron. She did it (therefore she’s “guilty”) but we’ll pretend she didn’t do it because she’s insane (a legal term, NOT a medical term). Why don’t they call out all the other reasons people commit crimes? Not Guilty by Reason of Poverty, Not Guilty by Reason of Stupidity, Not Guilty by Reason of Boredom.

She DID it, dammit! Who cares why? She was capable of doing it once, she’s very likely capable of doing it again. I know they likely won’t let her out of the mental hospital, but a hospital as punishment as opposed to a prison? Why not just put other serial killers in the local Holiday Inn? Because that’s what she is, a serial killer, and she’s being coddled by a legal system that’s gone so terribly wrong. We reward the criminals, we make sure their precious “rights” aren’t violated, and in so doing we forget about the victims and we create future victims. Read the rest…

Andrea Yate’s children were tortured so badly, they pissed and took shits in the bathtub as they experienced a scene so horrific and painful, the older one begged her not to do it. And the liberals and feminists held candle light vigils and fought for her right to kill children in one of the most gruesome serial murder tragedy ever. It’s all good in their effort to diminish personal responsiblity. Who needs personal responsibility anyway? In fact, who needs 5 little kids? Feminists feel children are inferior and owned by them as a material object in which they have a right to do whatever they want with.

For the liberals and feminists in this Country that cheer her acquittal, she has become your martyr, only she gets to go free and we, as a society, have to live with that social injustice synonymous with pissing on her kid’s 5 graves.

Fact: The criminally insane have more power and more rights than innocent victims, especially children, who are discarded by liberal and feminists.

Bookmark to:
   

While the left tries to rationalize the work of insurgents or find new ways to blame the United States of unfathomable atrocities on children and humanity that these evil bastards (Islamo facists) inflict, I will not stand by silent and allow anybody to excuse their behavior. It has become a social faux pas to differentiate between good and evil in certain political groups in America. Why?

Even though Ann Coulter is farther right of center than I prefer and makes her living off of hyperboles and shock talk, she does bring up an interesting contradiction that I often find on the left and one of the reasons why I think the left are bad spokespeople and inferior advocates for children. Jim Kouri writes of this contradiction that I was never able to accept or understand in his article, Ann Coulter’s Right: Liberals Always Aid Terrorists and Thugs on The Conservative Voice:

One of her major assertions is that as a rule Democrats will always side with murderers, robbers and terrorists. They don’t side with rapists only because the crime of rape provides an opportunity to score points with feminists while denigrating white males. Unless, that is, the rapist happens to be black and the victim white, in which case they will side with the rapist because it allows them to indulge in race politics and utter soundbites about lynchings in the south.

It appears the Dems are unintentionally proving Coulter’s point during the Israeli battle against arguably the most powerful terrorist group on the planet, Hezbollah.

For instance, Senate Democratic leaders on Friday demanded that President George W. Bush dispatch “a high-level special envoy” to the Middle East to work with allies and negotiate an end to the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah terrorists who are using civilians as shields in Lebanon.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, said in a letter to Bush — that was simultaneously delivered to every major newsroom in the world — that they were “surprised” that Secretary of State Condi Rice planned only a brief visit to the region.

While saying about ten times a day that they support Israel, they are taking issue with the Bush Administration’s lack of a plan to bring about a cease-fire. The good senators are very upset that Bush’s “disengagement” is allowing the Israelis to kill, maim and injure every terrorist they can locate.

Which begs the question: Why would the president wish to broker a cease-fire against a terrorist group that not only kills Jews, but also killed over 240 US Marines stationed in Lebanon as peacekeepers in 1983?

If anything, President Bush should be concerned about the Israelis having enough ammunition, bombs, rockets, missiles, tanks and planes. That’s the kind of engagement necessary to send those religious cutthroats to their 72 virgins.

“Hi there, Ehud. It’s George. You got enough ammo and equipment? Good. Well let me know if you need anything. Wait… Ehud. How about some of our bunker busters?”

The major media organizations, which we all know are lapdogs for the liberal politicians, are bombarding the American people with the key talking point that the Democrats support Israel. It’s the same type of support they generously bestow upon our own troops — you know, the troops they call Nazis, cold-blooded killers who run gulags and torture prisoners, while terrorizing women and children in the dark of night. Yeah, those troops. Good thing these libs support the US troops. I’d hate to hear what they have to say about our military if they didn’t support them.

So our friends on the left support Israel, but they want them to stop killing terrorists. It’s part and parcel of what Coulter describes in her book as a love affair with savages.

“But innocent Lebanese are being killed,” the libs say. Well, the fault for that should be pinned on Hezbollah, which uses civilians as human shields. The libs want the Israelis to use “proportionate force,” what ever the hell that is. Do they want Israel’s soldiers to strap on explosives and conduct suicide missions against Lebanese civilians? And isn’t it proportionate when Hezbollah and Hamas fire rockets into Israel’s cities killing and maiming civilians, and Israel fires their rockets and missiles into Lebanon? Actually, the civilian deaths and injuries caused by Israel are collateral, while Hezbollah is targeting civilians. Read the rest…

I’m not sure when it became a matter of academic achievement to blur the lines of right or wrong. While the liberal way of thinking would have you believe that it is a matter of philosophical translation, I think most people in the middle of the spectrum believe that a society cannot function without accountability and the general consensus of what is right and what is wrong. Ideally, it should have nothing to do with religion — although much of our core morality is rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs — but one of humanity. It is wrong to kill, it is wrong to sexually violate a child (or adult for that matter), it is wrong to steal etc., etc. This should not be a matter of political correctness. Some behaviors should be viewed in black and white. Some behaviors are both socially and morally unacceptable and should not be left up to the political advantages of supporting these unacceptable behaviors without consequence. Once we become afraid to declare certain behaviors immoral or quite simply “wrong”, we unleash monsters like Hitler and allow it to happen or even worse, try to justify it.

Read the following story from The New Zealand Herald (and something that was barely reported here in the United States), and ask yourself how anybody can justify the actions of terrorists or sympathize with their cause(s) and not be condemned as if they committed the same such crimes agaisnt humanity:

In the first six months of the year the number of Iraqi civilians dying violently rose by 77 per cent.

The UN report paints a picture of Iraqi society dissolving under the stress of cumulative violence.     

Nobody is safe.     

A tennis coach and two players were shot dead in Baghdad for wearing shorts.     

Militias threaten the families of homosexuals ’stating they will begin killing family members unless men are handed over or killed by the family.’

Sectarian differences are behind most killings. Assassinations are often carried out by the security forces themselves.

On 3 June, for instance 50 police cars surrounded the al-Arab mosque in Basra and killed ten of the twenty people inside.

Sunni suicide bombers attack crowded Shia mosques and markets in order to cause maximum casualties.

Kidnapping, often of children, is common and the victims are frequently killed regardless of whether or not they have paid the ransom.

In one case the body of a 12-year-old Osama was reportedly found by the Iraqi Police in a plastic bag after his family paid a ransom of 30,000 US dollars.

The boy had been sexually assaulted by the kidnappers, before being hanged by his own clothing.

The police captured members of this gang who confessed to raping and killing many boys and girls before Osama. Read the rest…

Now mind you, these children who were raped, tortured, killed and some the victims of the Islamo-facist’s snuff films (little children here, folks), were Iraqi children. And no, America didn’t make ‘em do it, the devil didn’t make ‘em do it, George Bush didn’t make ‘em do it and the Jews didn’t make ‘em do it. This is not the time to try to figure out who’s right and wrong here, because if American’s are even questioning it, I fear we’ve gone too far to even save us. It’s not complicated. Basic human rights and common sense should tell you that this brand of Islam is wrong and needs to be stopped.  If that is a dilemma you cannot reason with, then I fear you might be a danger to the future of our children both in your ability to protect them and in the message it sends them.

Bookmark to:
   

I keep coming back to the same question because the answer still shocks and offends me.

What is an innocent child’s life worth??

Apparently, it’s worth about 20 years. Seems like the victim is cheated twice, doesn’t it?

 The murderer gets to serve some time and then live his (or her) life, by way of judge or jury, yet the tiny little victim gets no trial. They didn’t get to speak or defend themselves, their fate was already decided by some sick bastard who doesn’t deserve to lick spit off of dog shit, let alone whether or not a baby lives. I will never understand how we can allow sick, immoral low-lifes to play God (or more appropriately, Satan) and then give them the respect and dignity and opportunity to do it again…yes, again…

A 45-year-old man who served time in a Connecticut prison for suffocating his daughter more than two decades ago is in a Charlotte jail, charged with murder in the death Friday of his girlfriend’s 19-month-old daughter.

Marshall Vann Crenshaw Jr. is being held without bond, charged with killing Na’ziyah Lavon Miller.

Police say Crenshaw was not Na’ziyah’s biological father, but lived with the child and her mother in their east Charlotte apartment.

Police have not released the name of the victim’s mother, nor any details of the toddler’s death.

Crenshaw, known to friends and family as Vann, was found guilty of murder 20 years ago in the April 1985 death of his 10-month-old daughter, Dale-Lyn, in Manchester, Conn. Court records show he was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

It was not clear Saturday when Crenshaw was released. Reporters at the Hartford (Conn.) Courant, which covered Crenshaw’s 1985 trial, said Connecticut officials indicated he was released in 2001. But a friend of the family said she thought it was about a year ago. Read the rest…

Bookmark to:
   

Once in awhile, when I stumble upon an article like this one, I have to ask, “Where have you been all my life and why is this information withheld from the American public?” In an analysis written by David Hogberg entitled, “Don’t Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others“, the poor U.S. infant mortality rate is explained and critically examined to shed light on a very perplexing state of our healthcare system.

In the quake of quasi-scientist mother’s running their mouths off about things they do not know about, falsely representing themselves as experts on health, nutrition and medicine all over the net and then using it against the mainstream to roll their eyes of disgust as they criticize the lifestyles of the average American parent. Granted, the average American could probably use some positive lifestyle analysis, however, to use the net as a platform to spout off political and moral rhetoric, especially when it comes to breastfeeding vs. formula feeding or the quality of our healthcare system, with the motive to convince the mainstream into the hate, fear and self-loathing column, is a gross misrepresentation of their abilities and knowledge. It’s not all their fault however–Buyer Beware!

Often times, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. is thrown into the faces of those who choose a more conventional and mainstream-parenting path, not unlike the majority of parent’s offline. Through information blitzing, whereby the internet is bogged down with people who have a lot of time on their hands and a hatred for moms that use the power of technology, medicine, convenience, practicality and good old fashion common sense to guide their parenting decisions, instead of solely relying on their own bodies and paranoid distrust of government and business to drive their motives and parenting decisions.

So, next time a parent pulls the, “You know, the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate [and it’s because of you and your unenlightened behavior]”, point out to them that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Infant Mortality

At first glance, infant mortality appears to be a good measure of a health care system.  First, it assumes interaction with a health care system since most babies born in the industrialized world are born in a hospital or other health care facility.  It also satisfies the second criterion of assuming that health care professionals can affect the outcome, since doctors and nurses have a direct impact on the survival chances of a newborn.  If infant mortality were accepted as an adequate measure based on those two criteria alone, then the U.S. health care system is one of the least effective in the industrialized world.  This can be seen by constructing a table using the data on infant mortality utilized in the report from the Physicians for a National Health Program.  Table 2 shows that on infant mortality, the U.S. ranks below all nations save New Zealand.

But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think.  The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations.  The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then “breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles… is considered live-born regardless of gestational age.”16   While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not.  Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland “an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living.”17   This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland’s infant mortality measure.

Switzerland is far from the only nation to have peculiarities in its measure.  Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation.18  The United Nations Statistics Division notes many other differences.19  Japan counts only births to Japanese nationals living in Japan, not abroad.  Finland, France and Norway, by contrast, do count births to nationals living outside of the country.  Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium.  Finally, Canada counts births to Canadians living in the U.S., but not Americans living in Canada.  In short, many nations count births that are in no way an indication of the efficacy of their own health care systems.

The United Nations Statistics Division explains another factor hampering consistent measurement across nations:

…some infant deaths are tabulated by date of registration and not by date of occurrence… Whenever the lag between the date of occurrence and date of registration is prolonged and therefore, a large proportion of the infant-death registrations are delayed, infant-death statistics for any given year may be seriously affected.20

The nations of Australia, Ireland and New Zealand fall into this category.

Registration problems hamper accurate collection of data on infant mortality in another way.  Looking at data from 1984-1985, Eberstadt argued that, “Underregistration of infant deaths may also be indicated by the proportion of infant deaths reported for the first twenty-four hours after birth.”21  Eberstadt found that in the U.S. and Canada more than a third of all infant death occurred during the first day, but in Sweden and France they accounted for less than one-fifth.  Table 3 shows that the pattern still holds today.

Inconsistent measurement explains only part of the difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world.  Were measurements to be standardized, according to Eberstadt, “America might move from the bottom third toward the middle, but it would be unlikely to advance into the top half.”22  Another factor affecting infant mortality Eberstadt identifies is parental behavior.23  Pregnant women in other countries are more likely to either be married or living with a partner.  Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own.  In the U.S., pregnant women are far more likely to be living alone.  Although the nature of the relationship is still unclear (it is possible that mothers living on their own are less likely to want to be pregnant), it likely leads to a higher rate of infant mortality in the U.S.

In summary, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful.  Thus, just like life expectancy, infant mortality is not a reliable measure of the relative merits of health care systems.

Bookmark to:
   

There’s a difference between being stupid and being neglectful or harmful. Regardless of intent, if you seriously harm a child, you need to be held accountable. I am suddenly reminded of that sick fuck who took his baby and threw him out the window, smashed his head against his car and threw him into a canal where the 3- month old drowned (if he wasn’t already dead yet). It’s a tale of unimaginable torture, pain and brutality. My question is, would anybody entertain the idea of letting that guy off if he claimed to simply be having a bad day??

My gut reaction is one where I think that some counter-culture, el la naturale parents have contributed to the following story of neglect, but then I think that it is more indicitive of: A. Really bad parents and B. Really stupid parents.

Babies were not meant to be vegans nor were they meant to suffer the consequences of radical ideologues. Haven’t we learned anything in the last few days of middle east debaccle? Radicalism is bad. Extremes — bad. Refusing to give your baby anything that’s been in the same room as an animal (hyperbole) — bad. Imposing your own whacky tobaccy beliefs on your baby — bad.

This whole idea of, “Well, they loved their baby (or children) though. Can’t you see they’re good people deep down?” is bullshit and we shouldn’t tolerate it. The parents of suicide bombers claim to love their kids too. Wake up America. The lines of moral clarity are becoming indistinguishable when it comes to the abuse of children.

Of course, the parents in question, the ones that nearly starved their baby to death to save a chicken, did serve their time considering their neglect didn’t lead to death. It probably would have if authorities didn’t step in however. My main beef (no pun intended) with the following story is the arguement that these were actually loving and caring parents who wanted what was best for their children. They may have served their time, but good parents they are not.

She’s a healthy 6-year-old now, well enough to be on hand when her vegan parents - convicted of nearly starving her - were freed yesterday by a Queens judge. Little Ice Swinton’s father and mother were released on orders from the state’s highest court, which tossed their felony conviction for lack of evidence. “Daddy’s home,” said Joseph Swinton, 35, after he and his wife walked out of state Supreme Court. “It feels great.” But Swinton and his wife, Silva, also 35, could not see Ice or her brother, Ini, 5, because they lost custody of the children after their conviction.“I want to go inside, I want to see Mommy,” Ice was heard telling her grandfather outside the courthouse in Kew Gardens.“Not now. Later,” he told the pretty girl, unable to explain that a court order still only allows her to see her mother once a week.In 2002, when she was 16 months old, Ice weighed just 10 pounds and was severely malnourished. The Swintons were arrested and charged with first-degree assault and child endangerment. They said their family’s vegan diet was not harming the kids.Swinton had served four years and his wife three years when the Court of Appeals in Albany earlier this month threw out the assault conviction, leaving only the misdemeanor counts.“They were devoted parents, loving parents, but misguided,” said Joseph Swinton’s trial lawyer, Ronna Gordon-Galchus. “They should not have been prosecuted in a criminal setting.”

“I’m always thinking about both my children,” Silva Swinton said as she hugged supporters after her release. “I was just trying to be the best mother I could be …. I’ve been looking forward to this day for a long, long time.”

 

 

Bookmark to:
   

Try living outside your safe, comfortable, privileged American life and enlighten yourself with a movie recommendation by Beast Mom’s Christina Hyun.

I just watched the documentary, “Born Into Brothels”. It’s a film about children born to prostitutes in Calcutta. I came away from the film being reminded that children are not only resilient (to a degree), but also capable of rising above horrible circumstances. If you want to see a different perspective on motherhood and childhood than your usual American film about families, watch this documentary.

Director, Zana Briski, went to Calcutta to photo-document women in the brothels in India - a story hidden away from the world at large. She found herself captivated by the womens’ children instead. She gave the children cameras and taught them how to take pictures. The children took amazing photographs of their everyday circumstances. Some of the kids were never even allowed to go outside the brothel. Ms. Briski went on to try to get these children into good schools which was a monumental challenge in itself as no reputable school would accept children of “sex workers”. She finally got some of the children accepted only to have some of the relatives refuse to release the children. An aunt of one of the girls was determined that the girl should “join the line” (become a prostitute) and make money for the family rather than go to school. Another man just didn’t want his son in school, no further explanation given. Read the rest…

Born Into Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light Kids can be rented from Blockbuster or Netflix or bought from Amazon.

And I don’t wanna hear whining and bitching from some suburb outside of Milwaukee about the tragedies of NCLB or how soccer games shouldn’t have winners or losers or how soda machines at school are making your kids fat or how the bus should drop your kid’s ass off at the the front door or how offended you were that the school holiday performance included a deeply religious song like “Santa Claus is coming to Town”. Watch this movie and shut your mini-van driven, mom-wearing jeans, overweight ass up!

Bookmark to:
   

An ethics debate ensued over parents who get most of their information from the internet…

For more and more parents, the decision to vaccinate is no longer as simple as trusting federal recommendations and school requirements. Concerns about overwhelming immature immune systems and suggested links between mercury in vaccines and increasing autism rates (the Institute of Medicine found no relationship between the two), have led some to reject vaccines.

And while those charged with public health struggle to impart the message that higher rates of vaccinations protect everybody, pediatricians are on the front lines of the debate, coaxing, listening to fears and, in some cases, parting ways with parents who refuse to submit their children for the 11 vaccinations now recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In Washington, parents can opt out of vaccination requirements for school enrollment if they have philosophical or religious objections.

In 1999, seven counties had a 5 percent or greater exemption rate for school admissions. By 2004, that number had grown to 15 counties. King County’s exemption rate increased from 3 to 4 percent during the same period.

 

Dr. Edgar Marcuse, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine and a physician at Children’s, said that unlike previous generations, parents now don’t necessarily see a huge threat from the diseases vaccines protect against.

In 1967, when Marcuse finished medical school, there were four common immunizations available — polio, measles, rubella and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

Today, the immunizations include vaccines for diseases that many parents have never seen, including rotavirus and Hib, Haemophilus influenzae type B, which can cause meningitis.

It can be difficult to persuade some parents to accept the small risk associated with vaccination to combat a disease they have no experience with, Marcuse said.

“We’ve wiped out Hib, but the public was never aware of the disease and never knew it went away,” Marcuse said.

Some doctors decide they can’t keep a child as a patient if their parents refuse to vaccinate, said Diekema, who will be speaking along with Marcuse at today’s conference.

Those physicians insist that the parent and the doctor have an obligation to protect both the individual child and the community. Diekema, however, believes a gentler approach is more effective.

“That’s not a strong enough obligation that I have a right to fire them from my practice” or call Child Protective Services, Diekema said.

Instead, asking parents about their concerns, trying to discern if they’re getting accurate information and patience (for example, suggesting the vaccinations be staggered rather than giving an infant three in one day), can ease their anxiety, Diekema said.

So basically, this whole summit was about how to deal with misinformed mothers and fathers who think that everything they read on the internet is true.

Bookmark to: