The medical journal The Lancet came out with a new research study confirms that pregnant women with breast cancer can give birth safely all three trimesters, without having to terminate/abort the pregnancy. Chemotherapy is considered safe because most termination does not improve a woman's chance of surviving cancer and most women don't get diagnosed with breast cancer until late in the pregnancy or after giving birth. According to the study:

Pregnant women with breast cancer can give birth safely even if they are having chemotherapy, according to new research. It is not necessary to deliver the baby early or delay treatment, said doctors writing in The Lancet medical journal.

Women are instead advised to aim to have a normal length pregnancy, because in most cases the cancer can still be treated with both chemo and surgery, said the report.

Terminating the pregnancy does not appear to improve a woman's chance of surviving the disease, it added. In the UK, 5,000 women of reproductive age are affected by breast cancer every year.

Of all cases diagnosed in women aged 30 or under, 10 to 20 per cent take place during pregnancy or in the first year after a birth.

Breast cancer in pregnant women is generally diagnosed later than usual, the report said, because symptoms are obscured by expected changes to the body such as an increase in cup-size.

It said chemotherapy could be safely given in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy and, in general, surgery was safe during any of the three trimesters.

A study in The Lancet Oncology backed up the claims, saying children exposed to chemotherapy in the womb developed just as well as those born to healthy women.

Frederic Amant a doctor from Belgium's Leuven Cancer Institute who worked on The Lancet report, said: 'The new insights we gained during our research facilitate cancer treatment and provide hope for mother and child in most cases.

'Most mothers feel stronger and are even more motivated to undergo the cancer treatment and its side effects, since she is fighting for her child as well.'

Vital action: Chemotherapy can be safely given in the second and third trimesters and, in general, surgery was safe during any of the three trimesters, said the report (file picture)

But Dr Amant admitted that breast cancer in pregnancy 'remains challenging' because in some situations advanced cancer can lead to death of mother and baby.

'Sometimes the woman's partner declares that they feel unable to raise the child in case the mother would not survive her cancer, and termination of pregnancy is opted for.

'In other situations,' he added, 'we were able to save the child though we lost the mother immediately after the delivery - for example by keeping her alive with a terminal brain tumour.

Although, the new study confirms, chemotherapy was not recommended in the first trimester because of a higher risk of harm to the baby, it was safe from the second trimester. However, according to the study:

'There is no evidence for an increased rate of second-trimester miscarriage or fetal growth restriction, organ dysfunction or long-term adverse outcome with the use of chemotherapy,' the guidelines say.

They add that most women could go to full-term and have a normal or induced delivery.

Kim Hardwick, senior cancer information nurse at Macmillan Cancer Support, said: 'Cancer during pregnancy is thankfully a rare occurrence.

 This is great news for women who have a history of cancer in their family or find themselves diagnosed with cancer while pregnant.  Sadly, I wonder how many women have been told to abort because of breast cancer or other cancers? This study gives more reason to believe women are better off letting nature take it's course with the pregnancy and to treat the illness rather than the pregnancy as a disease. Sadly, too many women treat their pregnancy as a problem or disease and terminate their pregnancy rather than treating the disease or the problem. 

Source:Mail Online

©2008 Patricia Garza

Labels: abortion, Breastfeeding, Children and Youth, moms, pregnancy, prochoice, prolife

As everyone is probably aware by now, the precious lives of Charlie&Braden Powell were violently taken over the weekend at the hands of their father, Josh Powell, more details came out yesterday describing what the autopsy report found. The  medical examiner found that the children were terrorized and tortured by their father before dying of smoke inhalation.

Apparently their father attacked both boys,ages 5& 7, with an ax by striking them in the head and neck before the house blew up. They had 'chop' cuts on them indicating they were injured, but not dead, before suffering from the heat&the smoke suffocating them to death. Despite the attempt by the social worker to call 911 for help to report the smell of gas and him slamming the door shut immediately after the boys entered the home, their lifeless& burned bodies were found alongside the father and the ax....sadly all had perished.

I don't understand why they allowed him to have off-site/in-home visits considering he was under investigation as the primary suspect in the disappearance and probably death of their missing mother, Susan Powell. Susan Powell was reported missing two years ago in Utah, and six months after one of the boys had drawn a picture with their mother in the trunk of a car while at day care about six months after his mother's disappearance in December 2009.

According to the grandparents,who were recently awarded custody, the boys were beginning to open up about their mother's disappearance and the camping trip they went on. These two things would have told me to keep their father,Josh Powell, away from them and to lock him up, apparently supervised visits weren't the proper solution for someone who was under suspicion for murder. Heck, even Casey Anthony, who was the prime suspect in the disappearance of her daughter Kaylee Anthony was put in jail until they determined whether she killed her daughter or not.

If we are going to protect and save children from situations like this, children must be removed from the suspected parent/adult&visitation should only occur at the social service office under direct supervision. It may sound like a violation of the parents rights, but until a court hears the case and a conviction or verdict is made this is the only way children will be safe from these situations.

Washington Department of Social and Health Services,  Thomas Shapley said Tuesday "Children are our focus. We work so hard to protect children," he said. "We take it to heart."Under state law, a Child Fatality Review will now be conducted by an independent panel. Shapley said his own department was studying case notes and files to learn as much as they could."We had been working with this case and doing supervised visits since the beginning of October. At no time was there any indication of threat to the children or suicide on his part," he said.

GRAHAM, Wash. (The Blaze/AP) — Josh Powell painted himself as a tortured man, ridiculed without reason in the disappearance of his wife, steadfastly insisting he was innocent until the end.
Yet the investigation and autopsy reports released late Monday show the acts of a violent man who meticulously planned the double murder-suicide of himself and his two young sons, culminating Sunday in Powell setting his house ablaze and taking a hatchet to his children’s necks.
As authorities work to determine exactly why Powell committed the murders, investigators said they‘re no closer to answering the question they’ve had for two years. But information is surfacing that the kids had started to reveal some key details about their mother’s disappearance.

In this undated photo provided by Chuck and Judy Cox, Chuck Cox sits with his grandsons, Charlie, left, and Braden, right, at the Coxes home in Pullayup, Wash. Charlie and Braden were killed along with their father, Josh Powell, on Sunday in what police said was an intentional fire set by Powell. Chuck Cox is the father of Powell's wife, Susan, who has been missing since 2009. (AP Photo/Courtesy Chuck and Judy Cox)

“We still haven’t identified or found where Susan Powell is,” said West Valley, Utah, Police Chief Buzz Nielsen, who is in charge of the investigation into the young mother’s disappearance. For now, even with the longtime “person of interest” in the probe dead, police say the case remains open, though some mysteries may never be solved.

Powell’s horrific murder-suicide seemed to come out of nowhere. Just days before, in a motion seeking custody of his children filed with a Washington state court, Powell said he missed his wife, and would remain strong for the boys.

“A lesser person would fall under the intense scrutiny I am facing, but apparently my inherent resilience as a person makes it increasingly difficult for them to pursue their agendas,” Powell wrote. “I am standing tall for my sons, but it deeply hurts to face such ridicule and abuse.

“I know my own heart is free of any guilt regardless of what people claim,” he added.

Things changed dramatically when the judge ruled against him, ordering the children to remain with Susan Powell’s parents for now.

On Sunday, Powell’s boys came for a routine supervised visit. They ran ahead, the social worker falling behind. Powell then locked the door, used a hatchet on his kids, and lit the house on fire.

Ultimately, Powell and both boys died of smoke inhalation, Pierce County Medical Examiner’s Office investigator Melissa Baker said Monday evening.

But they also suffered “chop injuries” that contributed to their deaths – 7-year-old Charles was struck on his neck and 5-year-old Braden had injuries to both his head and neck, Baker said.

Pierce County Sheriff’s Detective Ed Troyer said investigators found a hatchet that they believe was used on the boys.

“We recovered a hatchet – a small ax,” he said. “It was right there with” the bodies.

Authorities also said Powell had made thorough plans well ahead of the murders.

“This was definitely a deliberate, planned-out event,” Troyer said.

Source:

TheBlaze.com

©2008 Patricia Garza

Labels: child abuse, Crime, Divorce, family, Murder, parental rights, parents, prolife, safety

 A judge in Houston has ruled in favor of an employer who allegedly fired a woman who wanted to use the bathroom to breast-pump.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint on behalf of Donnicia Venters against debt collection agency Houston Funding. Donnicia Venters, 30, alleges the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal to discriminate against a woman "because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth."
Judge Lynn Hughes found that the EEOC's claim in the lawsuit was not recognized under Title VII and dismissed the lawsuit last week, writing in the opinion, "firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination."

Venters said she was "shocked" by the judge's opinion and hopes the EEOC appeals the judgment to obtain "justice."

"I just hope no other employer does that," she said. "It's just milk. It's actually a great thing to do. I just hope it can be an easy thing to talk to your employer about for your child."

Joan Williams, law professor and director of the Center for Work Life Law at the University of California, Hastings, said, it "makes no sense at all" to say lactation is not a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.
"Everybody knows that breastfeeding is a medical condition related to childbirth," Williams said.

First, Williams said, pediatricians have long recommended women should breast feed babies for a certain time after birth to help transmit a mother's immunity system.

Second, if mothers can't pump or nurse, they are at risk of mastitis, a breast infection which can be "extremely painful" and sharply spike temperatures, she said. 

Venters went on maternity leave Dec. 1, 2008 pursuant to the company's policy of permitting employees to take open-ended leave for surgeries or other medical issues. She said she "consistently" kept in touch with management to assure them she would be returning to work. While on leave, Venters, who joined the company in March 2006 as an account representative, said the company president promised to save a spot for her until her return. 

The floor manager relayed to the president that Venters was contemplating bringing a breast pump to the office. According to the claim, the president responded to the floor manager, "No. Maybe she needs to stay home longer."
Venters asked what he meant by telling her that her spot had been filled, and he stated "well, we thought you were not coming back." 

Texas and Alaska have pregnancy discrimination laws that require certain public employers to provide some accommodations for pregnant workers to keep their jobs. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Michigan, have passed laws requiring private employers to provide at least some accommodations. Legislators in New York introduced a bill last week related to the issue.  

©2008 Patricia Garza

Labels: Breastfeeding, breastfeedingsupport, discrimination, moms, pregnancy

I had heard about this in the news the other day and thought it was absurd, but as twitter friend @EdinCali so aptly covers the absurdity of charging a six year old with sexual assault I will let you read the story,make your own opinions and then comment on what you believe is disturbing about this event and what finally happened in the end:

The Lefts over-sexualization of children is starting to result in more absurd behavior in our school systems. Now a public school in California brings sexual battery charges against a 6 year old boy

In another stupendously stupid move by the politically correct education system, a friendly game of tag amongst 6 year olds, resulted in a sexual battery charge against one of the little children.

How innocent are our children? Not very, according to the rabid left who see sexual connotations in every move as they try to ram down their sexual mores on the rest of the citizens.

According to witnesses, a group of youngsters was playing tag on their elementary school playground, in Hercules California. Of course the very essence of the game of tag involves touching, so an innocent move by one young boy resulted in him touching another child's leg.

But since radical leftists have convinced the State of California to treat 5 and 6 year olds as if they are sexually active, this innocent touch in the course of a child's game, turned the boy into a sexual predator in the eyes of school officials.

After the allegation of illegal touching, the child was interrogated in the principal’s office for 2 hours, without his parents presence, until he confessed to his “crime." This resulted in school officials charging the little boy with a sexual battery charge, which will be on his school record. Additionally, the little boy was immediately suspended from school.

The child's father, spoke to the local news media about the situation and said his son was accused of brushing his best friend’s leg while they were playing on the school’s playground. In the American education system, particularly California, it seems the far left thinks it’s perfectly normal to make a 6 year old child register as a sex offender with a record.

©2008 Patricia Garza

This post has been a work in progress over the last month so pull up a chair,grab some coffee or tea and relax.

The past month, I've been journaling my thoughts on the upcoming Presidential elections. Here is what I have concluded regarding who I believe conservatives and teaparty voters, along with establishment Republicans should consider and get behind as President to unite the GOP. If we all unite in the primary behind the candidate that supports the most conservative issues,the one who is most trustworthy&moral, I believe we can win against Obama&defeat Romney from being our appointed nominee. It's time to put bickering aside and political pandering aside and consider who you can trust the most and who is most likable.

Here is some background on why I have come to the decision I have. I have been undecided for quite some time on who I will support for President, but after hearing the debates,deliberating over what each candidate has to offer based on experience,principles and records...I have found that the best choice is Governor Perry  Rick Santorum. This article and video included give some great reasons why Perry should have been considered and given a second look: http://www.redstate.com/explodinghead/2012/01/08/time-for-a-perry-surge/ 

At the time of originally writing this portion, Perry has had the most executive experience of any candidate,is was the most social&fiscal conservative,with military experience, is pro-Israel and would support a strong defense&regain US respect in the world again. As we all know, there aren't any perfect candidates and nobody is Ronald Reagan, but Perry is also a big supporter of the 10th amendment and he definitely deserved a second look.

We can't pick a candidate because the media says he's best or liberal states say so, but we must pick them based on their record and consistent conservative principles. While Rick Perry is was the only person in the Republican field that fits ALL three legs of Ronald Regan’s conservative stool:a social, fiscal/economic and a national security conservative, currently Rick Santorum fits this criteria best without the baggage and controversy Newt Gingrich&Mitt Romney carry. 

Unfortunately, since the time of originally writing the above thoughts...Governor Perry has since dropped out after losing in the South Carolina primaries. Too many conservatives couldn't forgive him for his debate flaws in the beginning, which many believe were due to his recent back surgery,and pain medication and then his comments regarding in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in Texas put the nail in the coffin. However, Perry had to sign the in-state tuition bill into law because it was passed by a veto-proof majority in the legislature.  This disloyalty or disunity&bickering and the media influence is why I believe Cain,Palin,Bachmann and Perry were thrown under the bus;conservatives& teaparty didn't stand by the true conservatives from the beginning.

I wish Perry would have stuck it out longer, because SC allowed open elections and independents and democrats were able to vote and distort the votes. I don't know why the GOP allows this in some states in our primaries but it is a horrible idea. Primaries should be primarily for the party that is nominating a candidate!

In result, after further vetting& contemplation, I have decided to support Rick Santorum, who I originally was considering, because he's been the most consistent on the issues from foreign policy to border control and social issues and will decrease government spending&entitlement programs. While all the candidates have their flaws,I think Santorum has grown,become more confident&has learned a lot since his days of 'big govt spending' as a Senator. I  also believe with the teaparty in place,he would not expand govt&increase taxes&entitlements under these dire economic circumstances. Other candidates like Newt and Romney are too hard to trust and based on their records are more likely to increase government programs,but at a slower pace than Obama,just without the anti-American sentiment. Finally, Ron Paul is just too far out there on foreign policy and some of his economic ideas are even unsustainable&unrealistic such as the gold standard.

In addition, well known conservative pundit, Michelle Malkin finally came out and endorsed a candidate on  Jan 30,2012. Last week on Hannity she said she was remaining  neutral and was vetting each carefully on the issues, but she has since decided Rick Santorum is the most conservative candidate left out of the remaining candidates. I must agree she is right. She has a great article out that covers the pros and cons of each of the remaining candidates and why she finally decided to support Santorum.  Here is a summary of Michelle Malkin's endorsement highlighting Santorum's strengths:

©2008 Patricia Garza