Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Study shows that children of divorce twice as likely to have a stroke

Science Daily reports on a peer-reviewed Canadian study that links an increased risk of stroke to divorce.

Excerpt:

“We were very surprised that the association between parental divorce and stroke remained so strong even after we had adjusted for smoking, obesity, exercise and alcohol consumption,” said [study leader Esme] Fuller-Thomson.

[...]Of the 13,134 total study respondents, 10.4 percent had experienced parental divorce during their childhood, and 1.9 percent reported that they had been diagnosed with a stroke at some point in their lives. When adjusting for age, race and gender, the odds of stroke were approximately 2.2 times higher for those who had experienced parental divorce.

When other risk factors — including socioeconomic status, health behaviors, mental health, and other adverse childhood experiences — were controlled in a logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio of stroke for those who had experienced parental divorce remained significantly elevated.

One of the reasons that we have so much divorce is because feminists and trial lawyers lobbied to relax divorce laws – this was the first redefinition of marriage. In this redefinition, we lost the stability and permanence of marriage. Now marriage just means a temporary relationship for people to have feelings of being “happy” and “in love”. It never used to mean that – it used to mean a promise to love another person regardless of how you felt.

Look at this article from Focus on the Family by Amy Tracy.

She writes:

God is very clear, however, that He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). He also says, “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). According to the New Testament, there are two justifications for divorce: infidelity (Matthew 5:32) and desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15).

Now, I had always taken the rule of Dr. Laura for this. She says that you can get divorced for adultery and abandonment (as above), but she allows allows for physical abuse and drug addiction. But it looks like the Bible is more strict than Dr. Laura, even.

Look at these old-fashioned wedding vows – they reflected the view that marriage was permanent, and that it was meant to persist through hardships and trials:

______, I love you. I prayed that God would lead me to his choice. I praise Him that tonight His will is being fulfilled. Through the pressures of the present and uncertainties of the future I promise my faithfulness, to follow you through all of life’s experiences as you follow God, that together we may grow in the likeness of Christ and our home be a praise to Him.

______, I give you this ring, wear it with love and joy. I choose you to be my husband: to have and to hold, from this day forward. For better, for worse, for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health; to have and to cherish, as long as we both shall live. And hereto, I pledge you my faithfulness to show to you the same kind of love as Christ showed the Church when He died for her, and to love you as a part of myself because in His sight we shall be one.

I love you, ______, and I thank the Lord for the love that has bound our hearts and lives together in spiritual fellowship of marriage. I will love, honor, cherish and obey you always. As we enter upon the privileges and joys of life’s most holy relationship and begin together the great adventure of building a Christian home, I will look to you as head of our home as I have looked to Christ as Head of the Church. I will love you in sickness as in health, in poverty as in wealth, in sorrow as in joy, and will be true to you by God’s grace, trusting in Him, so long as we both shall live.

The reason we cry when we read those vows (well, at least I do) is because we know that loving someone as an obligation is an enormous responsibility and sacrifice of our own selfish needs. That’s what marriage USED to mean, before no-fault divorce laws. But today people on the left and the right seem to be perfectly fine with them! Even many “Christians” seem to be fine with them.

I also noticed that Stephen Baskerville has an article on no-fault divorce up in the American Conservative. (Note: I do not endorse paleo-conservatism)

Excerpt:

First: Marriage exists primarily to cement the father to the family. This fact is politically incorrect but undeniable. The breakdown of marriage produces widespread fatherlessness, not motherlessness. As Margaret Mead pointed out long ago—yes, leftist Margaret Mead was correct about this—motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. The father is the weakest link in the family bond, and without the institution of marriage he is easily discarded.

[...]The notion that marriage exists for love or “to express and safeguard an emotional union of adults,” as one proponent puts it, is cant. Many loving and emotional human relationships do not involve marriage. Even the conservative argument that marriage exists to rear children is too imprecise: marriage creates fatherhood. No marriage, no fathers.

[...]Here is the second unpleasant truth: homosexuals did not destroy marriage, heterosexuals did. The demand for same-sex marriage is a symptom, not a cause, of the deterioration of marriage. By far the most direct threat to the family is heterosexual divorce. “Commentators miss the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine traditional understandings of marriage,” writes family scholar Bryce Christensen. “It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it.”

[..]Thus the third inconvenient fact: divorce is a political problem. It is not a private matter, and it does not come from impersonal forces of moral and cultural decay. It is driven by complex and lucrative government machinery operating in our names and funded by our taxes. It is imposed upon unwilling people, whose children, homes, and property may be confiscated. It generates the social ills that rationalize almost all domestic government spending. And it is promoted ideologically by the same sexual radicals who now champion same-sex marriage. Homosexuals may be correct that heterosexuals destroyed marriage, but the heterosexuals were their fellow sexual ideologues.

Conservatives have completely misunderstood the significance of the divorce revolution. While they lament mass divorce, they refuse to confront its politics. Maggie Gallagher attributes this silence to “political cowardice”: “Opposing gay marriage or gays in the military is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue,” she wrote in 1996. “The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda.”

No American politician of national stature has seriously challenged unilateral divorce. “Democrats did not want to anger their large constituency among women who saw easy divorce as a hard-won freedom and prerogative,” writes Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. “Republicans did not want to alienate their upscale constituents or their libertarian wing, both of whom tended to favor easy divorce, nor did they want to call attention to the divorces among their own leadership.”

If we social conservatives care about children, then we need to be opposed to no-fault divorce. We need to be more careful about who we choose to marry, and not choose mates because of “chemistry” or “hotness” or because our friends approve of them based on arbitrary cultural standards. There are defined roles for the participants to a marriage, and there is a design for marriage, and there are specific tasks that need to get done. Marriage is a job, and it requires skills to execute difficult tasks that are morally obligatory. It’s not about immature selfish adults pursuing happiness at the expense of their children. It’s not about feelings. It’s not about sentimentality. It’s not about fun.

Divorce causes damage to the health and well-being of children, resulting in behaviors that will give us less liberty (greater intervention of government) and higher taxes (for social welfare programs) later on. There are consequences to selfishness and irresponsibility in relationships. Other people do not exist to entertain you. Relationships are not a form of recreational activity. At least they should not be for Christians. For Christians, the goal of relationships is to get the other person to have a closer relationship with God and to be equipped to serve God better. If children are the result, then the same obligation applies to them. That is the purpose of relationships in Christianity.

Filed under: Polemics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

White House review of VA finds “corrosive culture” to blame for poor patient care

The Wall Street Journal reports.

Excerpt:

A White House review of the VA health system points to a culture that has degraded the timely delivery of care and requires a restructuring to improve transparency and accountability.

Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Sloan Gibson and Rob Nabors, White House deputy chief of staff, told President Barack Obama on Friday that significant further action was needed to address systemic problems.

Six weeks after the president dispatched Mr. Nabors to assess problems within the VA, the president’s aide outlined a long list of issues affecting access to timely care at VA medical facilities.

Mr. Nabors’s work is the latest in a series of reviews and reports issued in the past two months, including those from the VA’s independent inspector general, the Office of the Special Counsel and the VA itself. The new report found what Mr. Nabors described as a “corrosive culture” that affects employee performance and patient care. He added that the Veterans Health Administration structure has “impeded appropriate management, supervision and oversight.”

The review also found that the VA’s goal for scheduling many medical appointments within 14 days is “arbitrary, ill-defined and misunderstood.” That goal had been set in 2011. The VA recently eliminated that 14-day target.

Mr. Gibson praised the report. “We know that unacceptable, systemic problems and cultural issues within our health system prevent veterans from receiving timely care,” he said in a statement.

The White House has scrambled to respond to evidence of widespread mismanagement within the VA and to fill a growing number of vacancies in top posts. An internal assessment also revealed improper appointment-scheduling procedures and efforts to hide long wait times across the VA health system.

Another interim report from the VA inspector general confirms that:

The VA’s independent inspector general office has said it would likely issue in August its full report on its sweeping review of the department. An interim report, issued just days before Mr. Shinseki’s resignation, showed problems throughout the VA. They included employees tinkering with official patient appointment wait times to make them seem much shorter than the actual times veterans were having to wait.

In case you were wondering why this is all happening in the VA health care system and not in the private health care system, it’s because the VA is 100% pure government-run health care, as health care expert Avik Roy explains in Forbes magazine. The VA is not scandal is not some sort of aberration from government-run health care. Long wait times and patient deaths are essential to government run health care, in practice.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , ,

Justina Pelletier’s family promises to sue Massachusetts for kidnapping their daughter

From Life News.

Excerpt:

The family of Justina Pelletier, the teenage girl at the center of a national parental rights dispute, vows to pursue legal action against the state of Massachusetts for what they say was essentially an abduction of their daughter.

Earlier this week, Massachusetts Juvenile Court Judge Joseph Johnston signed the order for Justina to go home following a 16-month dispute between her family and state officials. Lou Pelletier said in a text message, “This battle has been finally won. The WAR will not be won until we stop this from happening to ALL CHILDREN!!”

Pelletier, said, “It’s an unbelievably emotional day… I’m still shellshocked. It has been 16 months of torture, but finally justice is being done.”

The first order of business for the family is to get Justina well and evaluate her after her treatment, or lack therof, by state officials.  In her sixteen months under the “care” of the state, Justina Pelletier’s health deteriorated from being a vibrant figure skater to being confined to a wheelchair, unable to walk on her own.Pelletier says his daughter has “no feeling at all below her hips” and is now confined to a wheelchair.

In a picture, right, her father is shown having to carry her into their home.

Next, they are considering legal action. The Pelletiers are pursuing legal action against the Massachusetts officials who took custody of Justina.

According to the Hartford Courant:

Pelletier said he plans to pursue legal and legislative action against the Massachusetts officials who took custody of Justina.

“This is just the beginning,” Pelletier said. “There’s going to be a Justina law,” because hospitals are “taking kids, using DCF to be their little wingman. I’m going to be the guy that’s going to change that.”

If you haven’t been following the kidnapping story, the Courant article is a GREAT summary of everything.

I would like to see them sue Massachusetts and maybe score one for parents who are tired of having their parental autonomy and authority undermined by fascists. Taxpayer-funded fascists, no less. The Pelletier family paid for the DCF and the judge to do this to them.

Can you imagine that parents are paying fascists to torture their own child so that she has permanent disabilities? It’s incredible, but that’s what it means to pay taxes to a secular government – you’re paying for things that you would never spend your own earned money on if you had the choice. And they think they are doing you a favor – providing you with a service. Because you are too stupid to know how to parent your own child. Throw them all in jail, throw away the key.

Filed under: News, , , , , , ,

DCF social workers reverse their support for kidnapping of Justina Pelletier

The UK Daily Mail reports.

Excerpt:

A Connecticut teenager is closer to being returned to her parents after the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families decided she was better off in the care of her family than the state.

The final decision now rests with Judge Joseph Johnston who gave the state permanent custody of Justina Pelletier in March.

The move came after a highly publicized battle involving differing diagnoses from doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital and Tufts Medical Center and allegations of medical child abuse against her parents.

The 16-year-old made an impassioned plea to go home earlier this week, and DCF has removed its longstanding opposition to the idea. DCF now claims that Lou and Linda Pelletier have met the conditions asked of them in order to get their child back.

They will all now be looking to see if the judge agrees.

[...]The Pelletiers’ trying ordeal began 16 months ago when they submitted their daughter for evaluation at Tufts University hospital.

Justina’s case has gained attention after a diagnostic dispute between her doctors at Tufts Medical Center and at Boston Children’s Hospital over whether her deteriorating condition was primarily a physical or a psychiatric problem.

She was being treated at Tufts for more than a year for mitochondrial disease, a group of genetic disorders that affect how cells produce energy, often causing problems with the gut, brain, muscles, and heart.

However, doctors at Children’s hospital took a different view and concluded that her physical symptoms were primarily caused by psychological disorders.

After the conflicting diagnosis, doctors allegedly gave Justina’s parents the bewildering and heart-breaking news that they wouldn’t be able to take their daughter home.

Justina’s parents refused to accept that her condition was psychological in nature and tried to discharge her and bringing her back to Tufts.

Speaking of the moment their daughter was taken away from her, the teenager’s mother said: ”They came in, and they said we cannot take Justina out of the hospital.

‘They called DCF (Department for Children and Families).

‘They said Justina had ‘somatoform disorder,’ a form of mental illness that is characterized by physical symptoms.’

Linda and Lou Pelletier were escorted out of the hospital by security, and within the short space of four days they had lost custody of their beloved daughter.

In my previous post on this story, I noted that parental visits were conducted under armed guard. That’s what the state did to these parents.

I hope we will see a close to this story soon. I would like to see DCF social workers and the medical personnel at the Boston Children’s Hospital charged and tried in a criminal court for what they did. Maybe the charges could be something like child abuse or kidnapping. I hope that the people who made the decisions that took the girl away from her parents will see significant jail time. Then parents might start to have faith in their hospitals and social workers – which they are paying for. But then again, this is Massachusetts. It’s probably too much to hope for common sense there.

 

Filed under: News, , , , ,

Are biological fathers or unrelated men more dangerous for children?

This article from the Weekly Standard answers the question.

Excerpt:

A March 1996 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics contains some interesting findings that indicate just how widespread the problem may be. In a nationally representative survey of state prisoners jailed for assaults against or murders of children, fully one-half of respondents reported the victim was a friend, acquaintance, or relative other than offspring. (All but 3 percent of those who committed violent crimes against children were men.) A close relationship between victim and victimizer is also suggested by the fact that three-quarters of all the crimes occurred in either the perpetrator’s home or the victim’s.

A 1994 paper published in the Journal of Comparative Family Studies looked at 32,000 documented cases of child abuse. Of the victims, only 28 percent lived with both biological parents (far fewer than the 68 percent of all children who live with both parents); 44 percent lived with their mother only (as do 25 percent of all children); and 18 percent lived with their mother and an unrelated adult (double the 9 percent of all children who live with their mother and an unrelated adult).

These findings mirror a 1993 British study by the Family Education Trust, which meticulously explored the relationship between family structure and child abuse. Using data on documented cases of abuse in Britain between 1982 and 1988, the report found a high correlation between child abuse and the marital status of the parents.

Specifically, the British study found that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in stable nuclear families. Even when the boyfriend was the children’s biological father, the chances of abuse were twice as high.

These findings are consonant with those published a year earlier by Leslie Margolin of the University of Iowa in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect. Prof. Margolin found that boyfriends were 27 times more likely than natural parents to abuse a child. The next-riskiest group, siblings, were only twice as likely as parents to abuse a child.

More recently, a report by Dr. Michael Stiffman presented at the latest meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in October, studied the 175 Missouri children under the age of 5 who were murdered between 1992 and 1994. It found that the risk of a child’s dying at the hands of an adult living in the child’s own household was eight times higher if the adult was biologically unrelated.

The Heritage Foundation’s Patrick Fagan discovered that the number of child-abuse cases appeared to rise in the 1980s along with the general societal acceptance of cohabitation before, or instead of, marriage. That runs counter to the radical-feminist view, which holds that marriage is an oppressive male institution of which violence is an integral feature. If that were true, then child abuse and domestic violence should have decreased along with the rise in cohabitation.

Heritage also found that in the case of very poor children (those in households earning less than $ 15,000 per year), 75 percent lived in a household where the biological father was absent. And 50 percent of adults with less than a high-school education lived in cohabitation arrangements. “This mix — poverty, lack of education, children, and cohabitation — is an incubator for violence,” Fagan says.

Why, then, do we ignore the problem? Fagan has a theory: “It is extremely politically incorrect to suggest that living together might not be the best living arrangement.”

The moral of the story is that it is a lot safer for children if we promote marriage as a way of attaching mothers and fathers to their children. Fathers who have a biological connection to children are a lot less likely to harm them. And a lot of social problems like child poverty, promiscuity and violence cannot be solved by replacing a father with a check from the government. We need to support fathers by empowering them in their traditional roles. Let the men lead.

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wintery Tweets

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,223,494 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,966 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,966 other followers

%d bloggers like this: