Thoughts From A Conservative Mom

Posts Tagged ‘Parenting’

I’m proud to join the ranks of homeschooling parents this fall, as I begin teaching Kindergarten with my oldest, 5-year-old Eva.  It’s going to be an adventure, having a preschooler and one-year-old in the mix, but completely worth it!

This fall, as moms and dads around the country are getting backpacks stuffed with pencils and notebooks and scissors and glue, ready for their children to take to school, a rapidly increasing number of families are sending their children … nowhere.

Instead, more and more parents are opting to educate their children at home. In fact, statistics show the number of homeschooled students in the U.S. has nearly doubled over the past 10 years, making learning at home the fastest growing form of education in country.

“Homeschooling grew from 1.7 percent of the school age population in 1999 to 2.9 percent in 2007, a 74 percent relative increase over 8 years,” states Dr. Brian D. Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute.

And according to a NHERI fact sheet, those percentages have continued to climb. NHERI estimates the homeschooling movement has been growing at 5-12 percent per annum over the past several years, a quicker clip than private schools are growing, while public schools are seeing their percentages decline.

The total number of students now forgoing school buses for learning at home is best estimated in the neighborhood of 1.9 million – 2.5 million children.

“The increasing popularity of homeschooling should not come as a surprise,” claims a statement from The Old Schoolhouse Magazine, a popular periodical for home educators. “Parent-led, home-based education is now bordering on ‘mainstream’ in the United States.”

Read more at World Net Daily

Forced Participation: Public Education’s Fatal Flaw

Homeschooling: Socialization not a problem

In April, 2002, Minnesota parents concerned about curriculum content in a freshman class at Big Lake High School were invited to sit in on the class and see the content for themselves. That is, until principal Darrel Easterly found out. Suddenly, the morning of their scheduled visits, several moms learned that they had been banned from the school due to “privacy laws.” Mary Stultz, one of the moms, was stunned. “I was in total shock and spent the morning talking to a lawyer,” Stultz told writer Laura Adelmann at the time.

Another mom called Big Lake Superintendent Bob Lageson, who assured her it “should never happen again.” Yet, within weeks, the local school board was meeting to discuss adopting a policy requiring parents to make an appointment three days in advance of a visit, and granting to the principal wide discretion to prevent parents from entering the building even then.

After an unprecedented public outcry, the school board softened the three day requirement for parents of students to merely “as much advance notice as possible” – but they passed the new restriction. They even granted to the principal authority to detain unauthorized visitors until law enforcement arrives, citing criminal trespass laws.

Today, the current student handbook (pp.7-8) declares that “Big Lake High School does not allow students to bring guests or visitors to classes,” which includes parents. Even more importantly, the events that unfolded in Big Lake have played out numerous other times as well, throughout the country. And the courts have consistently upheld such decisions.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can halt the erosion of parental rights nation-wide, and restore to parents the right to visit their child and see what is being taught. This will not allow individual parents to shape curriculum for an entire school, but it will allow any parent to remain informed of classroom content, and hopefully to opt their child out of material they find offensive.

Please act to protect the right of concerned parents to monitor their child’s education. Sign the petition and get more information at ParentalRights.org.

Parents of 50 Million U.S. Children Soon to Lose Parental Rights

News Wednesday afternoon that an armed gunman had entered the cable TV headquarters of Discovery Communications in Silver Spring, Maryland and begun taking hostages alarmed people throughout the Washington, D.C. area and around the country. As law enforcement officials negotiated with the suspect, posts on social media outlets inevitably began arguing over the ideological motivations of the hostage-taker, James J. Lee. Conservatives were quick to point out the suspect’s radical environmentalist manifesto, while left-leaning sources disclaimed any connection. News a few hours later that the suspect had been shot and killed by police spawned a round of smug black humor, concluding that he had been successful in accomplishing one of his chief demands, a smaller world population.

The immediate verdict from the online world seems to be that Lee was simply insane, even as differently motivated voices tried to pin the source of his insanity on each other. If we take a step back, though, we can look at the demands he made — which law enforcement officials said “mirrored” those in his online manifesto — and see the wider context of Lee’s beliefs.

His focus on population control is clear from the beginning. Lee demands that the Discovery Channel and its affiliates must “Focus…on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.” On the topic of immigration, he recommends that we “find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that” and in order to safeguard the future of wildlife, he writes that doing so “means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”

While his rhetoric is crude and offensive, that doesn’t mean his ideas don’t have wider currency. From the time of Paul Ehrlich’s infamous 1968 manifesto The Population Bomb to the work of groups like Zero Population Growth (first re-branded as simply “ZPG” and currently known as “Population Connection”), the specter of unsupportable population growth has been one of the environmental movement’s greatest scare stories. It’s the kind of all-encompassing disaster that was supposed to be hard to ignore — even if you didn’t care about the environment, the pitch goes, you have to be worried about overpopulation! You don’t want millions of people to starve to death or see wars spawned by a fight over food and scarce natural resources, do you?

But how does a concern over famines and resources depletion translate into the vicious anti-human ideology of a James Lee? The answer is clear — combine one old theory about the inherent limitations of mankind with one new theory about the alienation of human beings from the rest of the natural world. Lee provides us with all of the leads we need when he demands that the Discovery Channel “develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences.”

Read more at American Spectator

The Malthusian Delusion and the Origins of Population Control

James Lee Discovery Channel bomber – Al Gore disciple

My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn – James Jay Lee’s bible

John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

Call for two-child limit on families from the Government’s leading green adviser

Fewer Children to Save the Planet?

Environmentalism Is the New Religion

Inhofe: Some Senators Share Holdren’s View That Born Babies Are Not ‘Human Beings’

People asks: How many kids are too many?

An Action Alert from ParentalRights.org:

If your children attend public school, you are among those parents whose rights will end the moment your child enters the school. That’s because in 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in Fields v. Palmdale School District “that the Meyer-Pierce right [of parents to direct the upbringing of their children] does not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”

You read that right. Parental Rights “[do] not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”

“We conclude that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on the subject [of sexuality] to their students in any forum or manner they select” (emphasis added).

Of course, most parents contend they don’t have a choice in where their children are schooled. Either economic constraints or personal circumstances leave them with no practical alternative to the local public school. And that leaves no parental rights at all.

Please act to reverse this assault by big government courts against parental rights. Sign the petition and get more information at ParentalRights.org.

Then, please pass this on. Every parent of a public school student needs to know the extent to which the courts have robbed them of their rights. Add this message to your Facebook account, or it on virtually any other social network.

Looking Ahead

This is the first of several court cases we plan to review for you in the coming weeks. The courts’ disregard for the traditional formative role of parents in a child’s life needs to be brought to light. And while the Parental Rights Amendment will not give parents any greater power to control the school’s choice of curriculum, it will protect their right to pull their individual child out of any program of an outrageous or offensive nature, like the program in the Palmdale case. (To read more from this case, click here.)

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Communications Director

School condom distribution program includes first graders, denies parental notification

Threat to Parents’ Rights a Bigger Issue than Rights of a Child

The Obama administration is, once again, entangled in controversy over sex education.

Yet this time, it is not about what the administration is trying to implement, but about what it is withholding – and apparently for political reasons.

A taxpayer-funded study that indicates parental and adolescent support of abstinence education is not being released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as it does not support the administration’s objective – or that of vocal “safe sex” activists – of eliminating all abstinence-education funding.

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a division of HHS, funded a survey of 1,000 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 and their parents, in order to measure parent-adolescent communication and adolescent attitudes toward sex and abstinence.

The American Public Health Association’s (APHA) website reveals the only is results of the survey:

“Adjusting for all other factors in the model, parent and peer factors are more consistently associated with differences in adolescent attitudes about sex and abstinence than are measures of adolescent exposure to sex and abstinence topics in a class or program.

Additionally, parent attitudes are more important in influencing adolescent views than the level of parent communication with their adolescent.”

The executive summary revealed that:

• 70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: “It is against your values for your adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage.
• 70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: “Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do.”
• Adolescents had similar responses for the two questions.

During an APHA conference, researcher Lisa Rue, Ph.D., who specializes in adolescent behavior, was intrigued by the study and requested the full report. She was summarily denied access.

Rue then resorted to submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which was also denied because it was “pre-decisional and deliberative” – even though it was presented in public twice.

Read more at CitizenLink

Science or Ideology? What Lies Behind the Abstinence Education Debate

Teen Pregnancy Hype

Sexually explicit reading assignments: is your child’s innocence being stolen?

A Report on the U.N.’s Shocking Sexuality Guidelines

School condom distribution program includes first graders, denies parental notification

“In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk.  The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in an perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.”  – Mission Statement, John D. Rockefeller’s General Education Board, 1906

The Daily Caller reports:

If Education Secretary Arne Duncan has his way, kids would be spending a lot more time at school — and a three-month summer would be a thing of the past.

Duncan joked with attendees at a luncheon at the National Press Club Tuesday in Washington that he would like schools to stay open 13 months out of the year. Then he told the audience of over 100 that he seriously supports longer school hours.

“In all seriousness, I think schools should be open 12, 13, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 11-12 months of the year,” Duncan said. “This is not just more of the same. There would be a whole variety of after-school programs. Obviously academics would be at the heart of that. But you top it off with dancing, art, drama, music, yearbook, robotics, activities for older siblings and parents, ESL classes.”

You have to ask yourself why? And the answer is so ridiculous that once you see through the smokescreen you see that this is about control of your children. They don’t trust you to raise your children. They know better.

So why does Mr. Duncan think we need longer school days and years?

Daily Caller reports:

“As you guys know, our world has changed, our economy has changed,” said Duncan. “The days of telling kids to go home at 2:30 and having mom there with a peanut butter sandwich, those days are gone. Whether it’s a single parent working one, two, three jobs or two parents working, the hours from 3 o’clock to 7 o’clock are a huge anxiety, and that’s why we have to keep our schools open longer.”

So let me get this straight. Many parents can’t be home with children when they come home at 2:30 and that’s bad so instead of giving parents tax breaks or incentives to stay home with their children they decide to spend more taxpayer money to keep schools open 12 months a year and 12 hours a day making it harder for parents to be able to afford to stay home because they have to pay for all these programs.
The question must be asked whether parents staying home with children is a societal good. And if so shouldn’t the federal government be doing more to encourage it, rather than making it harder.

But when they say more time at school, they actually mean less time with family.  This is their end game. Remember “It Takes a Village.”  Well, the village looks an awful lot like the federal government. And a lot less like Mom with a peanut butter sandwich.

Read more at Creative Minority Report

H/T Barbara Curtis at MommyLife.net

The Shocking Origins of Public Education

Mama Grizzlies: Obama Wants More Time With Your Cubs

Stealth Education Overhaul

Threat to Parents’ Rights a Bigger Issue than Rights of a Child

Daycares Don’t Care: How Can a Daycare Love?

Adolescence is now accepted by most Americans as a strange and difficult period marked by wild swings of mood, outbursts of temper, rudeness, rebelliousness, and personality changes — all involuntary.

They would be surprised to learn that this period was unknown, unrecognized, and unseen in every previous civilization, culture, and society throughout the immensely long history of humanity. It is, even today, unknown in large areas of the inhabited world.

I recall marveling at the calm that pervaded families in South America during my last extended stay there in the early 1950s. I did not hear a single rude response by a teenager to anyone. No doubt it was different in the slums, but this was the atmosphere among the middle and upper classes.

In earlier times, this was once true even in the United States, the land now known for difficult children. There was even a time when there were no adolescents.

That was, of course, a time beyond the memory of even our oldest inhabitants: a time before the Civil War, during the First American Republic. Our great social changes began after that conflict; after huge waves of immigration came via the new, safer steamboats; during the period when many Americans anxious for a higher, more complete education, went to Europe — and especially to Germany — to study.

One of these was G. Stanley Hall, who earned a doctorate in psychology under William James at the new Johns Hopkins University in 1878. Hall went to Germany for two years and was swept up in German psychological research and became especially interested in the mental development of children.

Hall conducted numerous “studies” of children during the 1880s and 1890s, and in 1904 issued a landmark book cumbersomely titled Adolescence: Us Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education.

That title alone should have warned the wary, but it was a time when a number of savants were appearing with novel theories about human behavior. Dr. Freud, addicted first to opium and then cocaine, had convinced many of his patients that he could read thoughts of which they were themselves unaware. Lombroso’s theory that a criminal was an anthropological type with certain physical characteristics still had a following; so did phrenology: the idea that the contours of the skull indicated mental and spiritual qualities. It was a time, in other words, when — in the name of science — human beings were being redefined by various individuals who claimed to possess supernormal powers of observation and insight.

Dr. Hall was one of these. His theories fit inside spread of Spencer’s social Darwinism and the fashionable belief in the perfectibility of Man through formal, secular education. He thought the embryo in the womb repeated Darwin’s evolution of humanity from the sea, and that the stages of childhood repeated the stages of social evolution from pre-savagery to civilization. He left the definition of civilization unstated and seemed to believe that it was a permanent condition achieved in the West in 1905.

Dr. Hall argued that childhood consisted of “three stages, each with a parallel in racial history” and each requiring certain set teaching approaches. Infancy and early childhood were equal to pre-stages of culture, and parent/teachers should allow the child to play with blocks and to exercise freely. At six or seven, he believed the child experienced various crises leading to the “pre-adolescent” years of eight to twelve, when behavior is comparable to “the world of early pigmies and other so-called savages.’”^[1]

At this point (six or seven) the child was, in Dr. Hall’s view, ready for school — and its discipline. But a new period of crisis, he believed, arrived between thirteen and eighteen — which he termed adolescence.

Hall compared this to ancient and medieval civilizations. He believed it was a crucial period, “because it prepares the youth for the acquisition of knowledge, mores and skills that will determine the future of the individual and, by extension, that of the human race.”

He also believed that it was “a stormy period . . . when there is a peculiar proneness to be either very good or very bad.’”^[2]

There does not seem to be any basis for this conclusion. Throughout all the previous centuries of Christianity — and of Judaism before that, twelve had been considered the age of maturity. Both confirmation in the Christian religion in Pre-reformation centuries, and the Bar Mitzvah in Judaism (then and now) took place at that age. Thereafter, a young person was expected to behave as a responsible adult, and to assume a place in adult society.

Boys in New England whaling towns went to sea and rose to become masters of clipper ships in their early twenties Girls married at sixteen and set about raising a family, managing a home and behaving as matrons. Their counterparts around the world behaved the same. Life began early; tantrums may have occurred, but they had no general rationale connected to age: everyone was held responsible, and God was not blamed for anyone’s misbehavior.

Social life, however, is replete with imitative patterns. People are apt to behave as they are expected to behave — whether well or foolishly.

Read more at Vision Forum

The media are forever trying to create a division in the Republican Party between those who care most about so-called social issues and those who want priority for fiscal issues. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is the most recent politician to fall into this trap by asserting that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.”

The truth is that social and fiscal issues are locked in a political and financial embrace that cannot be pried apart. Those who emphasize runaway government spending and out-of-control debt and deficits must face the fact that those trillions of dollars are being spent by government on social problems.

Those who care about Big Brother’s dictatorial intrusions into our daily lives and privacy must come to grips with how and why Big Brother has vastly increased his regulatory power. Government powers, as well as the money in government’s hands, have expanded to deal with social problems.

In order to reduce government’s size and power, and restore the limited government sought by fiscal conservatives, they simply must address the social issues. It’s the breakdown in our culture that has caused millions of Americans to depend on government for their living expenses and for solutions to their personal problems.

In the not-too-distant past, we had a society where husbands and fathers were the providers for their families. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock babies born last year (41 percent of all births) and their unmarried moms now look to Big Brother as their financial provider.

The decline of marriage is not only the biggest social problem America faces today, but it’s also government’s biggest financial problem.

Read more at Canada Free Press

Husbands/Fathers – not government – protect against poverty

If you’re a parent, you’re probably too busy doing the day-to-day work of raising your children to worry about an international treaty that could actually undermine your authority over them.

But if you’ve ever insisted that your teenager drag himself out of bed on a Sunday morning to attend church with the family, or required him to find a part-time job to pay for the increase in your car insurance, or – heaven forbid – if you’ve ever spanked a young child for an act of willful disobedience, there are folks who’d like to override your parental judgment.

Folks like President Obama, in fact.

The issue of parental rights is at the heart of the ongoing debate over the US’s failure to ratify the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Up to now, it’s been a worried American homeschool community that most vocally opposes the CRC. That’s because the treaty clearly places responsibility for the education of children in the hands of the federal government. Such a mandate would certainly threaten the freedom of states to allow, and of parents to choose, homeschooling as an option to educate their children.

But it’s not just homeschooling parents who ought to be nervous about the CRC. We all should because the language of the treaty – which would supersede all American law other than the Constitution – radically changes the authority structure between parents, children and the state.

Read more at Townhall.com

Parental Rights in Danger

Who will raise kids: Mom, Dad or state?

Support the Parental Rights Amendment!

Watch out for those Momma Bears!

If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. And if you’ve been to a tea party, you know Momma ain’t happy at all.

Forget “angry white men.” In the male-dominated world of conservative politics, the tea party stands out as a movement of energized and organized women. In particular, moms.

Moms like Sarah Palin, of course, who’s been described as the “Momma Bear” of the tea party movement. But more important are the thousands of women at the state and local level who created this political phenomenon.

Moms like Christen Varley, the suburban mother of four who organized the successful tea party rally on Boston Common last month. Moms like Karen Miner Herd, who calls herself “one of the founding mothers” of the tea party movement in Virginia.

Her favorite tea party sign? “Menopause Was Change Enough for Me.”

In fact, a recent Quinnipiac poll of voters found a majority of tea party supporters—55%—are women. To put that in perspective, only 48% of women voted for George W. Bush in 2004. And just two years ago, President Obama won 56% of the female vote.

“Motherhood itself has become a political act,” says Ms. Loesch. “And the tea parties are an extension of our need as moms to protect the future for our children.”

Keli Carender isn’t a mom, but the Seattle-area 30-something is the mother of the tea party movement. She held the very first rally of the modern tea party era to protest the so-called stimulus package, days before Rick Santelli’s infamous CNBC rant.

The tea party idea “just clicked in the minds of conservative women,” she says. “Most women I know are thinking ‘I’m taking care of my family and the government’s taking care of it’s business—right?’ Then they see what the government is really doing and they saw ‘Whoa, whoa! I guess I’ve gotta take care of their mess, too.’”

Read more at the Wall Street Journal

Hush, little citizen. The Nanny State knows best. Be a good serf and let us make even the most basic daily choices on your behalf.

Convinced that Happy Meals and other food promotions aimed at children could make kids fat as well as happy, county officials in Silicon Valley are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.

The proposed ban is the latest in a growing string of efforts to change the types of foods aimed at youngsters and the way they are cooked and sold. Across the nation, cities, states and school boards have taken aim at excessive sugar, salt and certain types of fats.

Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald’s, the limits would include all of the chain’s Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.

Supporters say the ban would encourage restaurants to offer more-nutritious foods to kids and would make unhealthful items less appealing. But opponents believe it amounts to government meddling in parental decisions. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will consider the proposal Tuesday.

Read more at the LA Times

American women of the 19th century knew from personal experience — from their grandmothers, their mothers, their aunts, their cousins, their sisters — that there was a high risk of death in becoming pregnant. And…should they survive pregnancy and childbirth, there was a high risk that their children would die young. In hindsight we may say that such risk was a normal part of life. Indeed it was, yet the young women could have chosen to forego marriage or sex and saved themselves. Instead, they did not. Instead, they married and had children, choosing to have many children — thereby increasing the risk to themselves. They had physical courage.

In reflecting on their physical courage (a courage which men had, and have, no counterpart), I thought of the courage of pioneer women.

The pioneer women could do it all. They could take care of themselves, take care of their husbands, take care of their children, take care of their neighbors, and take care of their elderly. They could farm and ranch, ride horses and shoot a rifle, slaughter and cook, change diapers and home-school, and on and on.

Forgive me for thinking that today’s women — or at least the media-created stereotype of today’s women — are decidedly different. What 19th century woman would not have loved to have been able to become pregnant — with only a remote chance of death for either herself of her child? Nineteenth-century women, indeed all women who lived before 1950, would truly envy today’s women. But today’s New Woman not only strives to prevent pregnancy but, should she become pregnant, will contemplate killing her child in the womb — for whatever reason she deems acceptable.

Read more at the American Spectator

In Germany, the government intrudes into even the most intimate personal decisions, such as what names you can give your children.  Is this the direction that Americans want to go? 

So you’ve endlessly searched YeahBaby.com for baby boy names and finally found the fit for your upcoming arrival. Since you love Mark Twain novels, you’ve decided to name your baby boy ‘HuckleBerry.’ You’re done, right??? Well, not if live in Germany. All German baby names must be approved by the German Standesamt, also known as the ‘Office of Vital Statistics.’ And your name HuckleBerry is going to be rejected!

German law mandates a baby name must reflect the sex of the child, and not endanger the well being of the child. Once a baby name is chosen, the expectant parents must register the name with the Standesamt. The Standesamt relies on a guide book which translates to ‘the international manual of the first names’. The manual is referenced for making decisions on whether a baby name is acceptable.

Read more at YeahBaby.com

In case you needed a good laugh, check out this Utopian “Road Map to a New Economics” which starts off with this dreamy-eyed intro designed to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about their good intentions:

When thinking of a new economics, let’s not think of stocks, bonds, derivatives, or other financial instruments. Let’s think of children. Let’s ask what kind of economic policies and practices are good for children. Let’s ask what’s needed so all children are healthy, get a good education, and are prepared to live good lives. More fundamentally, let’s ask what kind of economic system helps, or prevents, children from realizing their great potentials for consciousness, empathy, caring, and creativity — the capacities that make us fully human.

We must design such a system, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the economically sensible thing to do, particularly as we move into the postindustrial knowledge-information era where the most important capital is what some economists call “high-quality human capital.” Indeed, Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen concurs that the aim of sound economic policy must be human capacity development.

These sentiments could have been ripped out of the pages of the Humanist Manifesto.   These people want to “develop” your children into “high-quality human capital” (and if you dare to get in their way, prepare for them to circumvent your parental rights or downright assault them, as the UNCRC is designed to do).  

Funny, that’s exactly what Public Schools were designed by the Progressives to do: mass produce “human resources” and a “productive workforce” to serve the collectives’ economic utopia.

Too bad it takes a hard look at the brutal lessons of history and willingness to face reality - not just good intentions - to realize that the best gift we can offer our children is liberty, not a “designed” economy which will inevitably lead to the tyranny of the “designers”.   

One can understand why these starry-eyed dreamers aren’t willing to make the “tough love” choices proposed by realists such as Paul Ryan. 

It’s been over 40 years, but the hippie fantasy of utopia stubbornly refuses to wake up and face real life.  It’s OK to come off your trip, Boomers!  We promise personal responibility and liberty aren’t that bad.  In fact, living in the real world of adulthood actually has its perks!  And that’s exactly what we plan to prepare our children to do: make it in the real world.

 Why my daughters will NOT be getting this vaccine!

From Jill Stanek:

By Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, reposted at VacTruth.com, March 31:

Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of all cancer deaths, so it was somewhat surprising when the US Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked approval of Gardasil, a Merck vaccine targeting the human papilloma virus that causes the disease, in 2006.

As of Jan. 31, 2010, 49 unexplained deaths following Gardasil injections have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. By contrast, 52 deaths are attributed to unintended acceleration in Toyotas, which triggered a $2 billion recall….

 No recall for Gardasil, which is required for 6th-grade girls in DC, MD, VA, and many other states. Parents can opt out, but few know the true risks….

Hollingsworth goes on to describe 2 deaths and a stroke of young women following Gardasil injections. She says pro-abort Sen. Barbara Mikulski has requested an investigation into the death of 21-year-old Emily Tarsell, who lived in Mikulski’s home state of MD.

My own congressperson, Debbie Halvorson, pushed mandatory Gardasil vaccinations of pre-adolescent girls in 2007 as an IL state senator, prompting me to write the “Debbie does…” series (I and II)

Here is a glaring example of the rush by pro-abort feminists to try to stave off the consequences of illicit sex, in this case a vaccination against the HPV STD, to the detriment of the health and safety of girls and women.

Meanwhile they disparage the obvious, full proof, free, guaranteed to be safe and healthy answer, which is abstinence and monogamy.