Colin Brazier, the British author of an upcoming release — and father of six himself — teamed up with a Swedish researcher to test some of the old theories about large families.

Not only did they find that raising children was much less expensive with each addition, but there were many health and social benefits as well. 

[R]ecent studies showed growing up with a sibling was a shield against some food allergies and serious illnesses such as multiple sclerosis and some cancers, but did not explain why there was not more protection for children who spend a lot of time with others in day care or school.

In a previous piece for the Daily Mail, Mr Brazier said: “One study, of half a million Army conscripts, revealed that one in ten only-children developed asthma. In the largest families the figure was closer to one in 200.”

He argued that children in larger families learned to walk and talk earlier than only children because they are encouraged by their siblings, and show greater emotional intelligence. He also said they are better at waiting their turn.

“Some of the most recent evidence even suggests that a child with a brother and/or sister will have more evolved language skills and do better at exams,” he wrote.

As a mom of seven, I am clearly biased on this one. And I sincerely believe that everyone knows what number is right for them, whether it be zero, one or 19. I also sincerely believe that too many parents buy into the prevailing sentiments that having a large family is too expensive, or that children from large families don’t get enough attention. As Clare Halpine wrote so accurately on The Corner today, we have to “re-think our negative assumptions” about raising children in today’s world.

Obviously, large families present certain limitations and have their own challenges, but if parents feel a calling to expand their family — either through another pregnancy or through adoption/fostering — they should consider letting go of the conventional constraints. They should follow their hearts.

After writing about Monsters University below, I thought I’d pass along this review of The Lone Ranger. I’m not sure, but I don’t think the author liked it. Here are the clues:

When the film first brings together the man who will be the Lone Ranger, the horse who will be called Silver and the Indian called Tonto, there’s a sequence with Tonto leading Silver and the unconscious Ranger unceremoniously dragging behind. Then the horse stops to pass excrement — before dragging the Ranger’s head right through the pile of poop.

There, in a nutshell, is the movie’s attitude toward its source material.

and

One of the most head-scratching things about this movie is that Disney had the gall to debut such explicitly anti-American fare over the Fourth of July holiday. Consider a set piece with the band playing “The Star-Spangled Banner” under a banner reading “A Nation United” at a railroad ceremony as Tonto commandeers one of the trains, in the process tearing the bandstand to pieces and ripping down the “Nation United” banner. The heroes almost literally pull apart the united nation in order to stop the bad guys.

I haven’t seen the movie, nor am I planning on seeing it.  However, I wanted to pass along the review in case you moms and dads were considering taking the kiddos.  After all, you don’t want to waste your day off from work on something that might work against the values you’re trying to instill in the kids this Independence Day weekend.

Read the whole review here.

Like many of you, my husband and I packed up our three kids and headed to the movie theater this weekend to see the latest Pixar movie, a sequel to Monsters, Inc. called “Monsters University.” It was a delightful little film – maybe without as much heart as other great Pixar flicks like Wall-E, Finding Nemo, or Up – that the whole family enjoyed. That’s why I was surprised to read an article by Inside Higher Ed’s Kevin Kiley who portrayed the movie as leftwing propaganda:

But more than a comment on college, Monsters University is a film about diversity, the innate differences between individuals, and the institutions and situations that help foster connections and understanding between those individuals. Which makes it fitting that the film is released today in the shadow of a potential landmark Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action expected to come next week.

The movie is about the challenge of limited talent and the realization that hard work can only take one so far – and sometimes not even as far as people who are just “born with it.” But it’s also about what students in the social and intellectual crucible of college can learn from each other and how those interactions shape worldviews and change lives.

One can walk away from the movie with the impression that the administrators and faculty at Monsters University would happily join in the amicus brief filed in the affirmative action case by a group of private university administrators who said “a diverse student body adds significantly to the rigor and depth of students’ educational experience. Diversity encourages students to question their own assumptions, to test received truths, and to appreciate the spectacular complexity of the modern world. This larger understanding prepares . . . graduates to be active and engaged citizens wrestling with the pressing challenges of the day, to pursue innovation in every field of discovery, and to expand humanity’s learning and accomplishment.”

It’s like we didn’t see the same movie. The French family felt the film was a nice send up of the modern university’s self-importance – a mockery most conservatives would applaud.  [Spoiler alert!] 

Mike Wazowski is the little one-giant-eyed green monster lovingly voiced by Billy Crystal. When he was a kid, he wanted to become a “scarer,” a monster who harnessed “scream energy” from frightened children. (The fact that this G-rated movie was able to pull off this plot without scaring my five year old was pretty impressive indeed.)  But the university professors and administrators didn’t believe he was born with the natural talent required to become a scarer. Student James P. Sullivan (John Goodman), who goes by the nickname “Sulley,” is the exact opposite of Mike. Sulley is lazy, rude, and floats by on his good name and inherent confidence.

What I loved about the movie is what Kiley disliked:

The other surprising lesson from the end of the film (Spoiler Alert) — and where it arguably makes its biggest departure from the current understanding of higher education – is that, after getting expelled from MU, Mike and Sulley manage to achieve success without earning their degrees, by working their way up the bureaucracy at Monsters Inc.

That notion certainly plays into the popular zeitgeist that questions the value of a college degree, reinforced with the Gateses and Jobses and Zuckerbergs that have captured public imagination. But it is an ending that certainly runs counter to the data. While several prominent college dropouts have made names for themselves by starting companies and creating innovative products, the idea that, in the modern economy, a pair of college dropouts could work their way up from the mailroom to the scaring floor in the world’s largest corporation strains credulity.

I guess I should admit now that I’m one of those stories that “strain credulity.”  I’ve dropped out of three colleges, my highest degree is from Henry County High School in Paris, Tennessee, yet I’ve managed by the grace of God to create a writing career with two books on the New York Times best seller lists. I almost can’t believe it either. But the idea that hard work can propel you into success is hardly leftwing propaganda. Rather, this is a deeply American idea – one that my parents taught me and their parents taught them. (In fact, my dad is another example of what I call an American success story – he dropped out of high school six times before joining the Army, getting his GED, and later getting his college degree in his fifties. Perhaps there’s hope for me yet!)

Kiley described this denigration of college as “the biggest departure from the current understanding of higher education,” which might be true.  Perhaps in some circles, the “current understanding” of college is that it’s a necessary step after high school that students must take to ensure future success. However, as college costs skyrockets “beyond credulity,” many are taking a second look at actual value of higher ed. The currently bad state of the economy doesn’t necessarily suggest that people should keep spending tens of thousands of dollars at college, only to get spat out into a faltering, jobless market. Clever students might wisely choose another route. (This would have the added benefit of avoiding the rampant liberal indoctrination prevalent in colleges today.)

Far from being propaganda, Monsters University is a delightful film about believing in one’s dreams and working hard . . . and it’s a great story regardless of one’s political affiliation.

The important caveat in this study was that the results were based on questionnaires, as opposed to objective observation, but the findings are interesting.

Many parents think they’re setting a positive role model for their teens by exercising and staying fit, but the kids don’t seem to care, a study in the Journal of Adolescent Health suggests. . . . The study found there was little correlation between teens’ fitness levels and whether the teens had one or both parents who regularly engaged in physical activity.

Having a normal-weight father or a mother who was physically active on a regular basis didn’t significantly influence adolescent fitness, the study found. Physically active siblings also had little effect on teen fitness.

More here.

American women are skeptical about government’s ability to positively influence our living habits, according to a recent poll by the Independent Women’s Forum. Twice as many women believe that government’s efforts will be useless or counterproductive than believe they will be succeed at encouraging healthier choices.

Yet even this finding may overstate what women believe government should be doing on our behalf. That’s because women often have only a small part of the story when it comes to health information. 

Take salt and attitudes toward the government’s role in trying to encourage Americans to reduce their salt intake. In the IWF poll, women were asked whether they believed government should tax salt to discourage its use, regulate the amount of salt that can be included in food products, or do nothing. American women were about split on whether government should take action: 46 percent were for regulations, 5 percent for taxes, and 46 percent wanted government to do nothing. 

Given that Americans have recently been bombarded with alarmist headlines blaming excess salt consumption for millions of deaths, it’s pretty amazing that only about half of American women see a role for government in regulating salt.

And when IWF asked that questions again, with the preface that “new research on the topic has questioned the relationship between salt intake and cardiovascular (heart) disease,” just 29 percent of women agreed with the statement: “Government still should try to reduce how much salt and sodium people eat” while 52 percent said, “It is best to wait to study the issue more before the government reduces how much salt and sodium people eat.”

In other words, support for government intervention fell by about 40 percent when women knew that the science of salt isn’t settled. And in fact, this question could have included much stronger cautions about the health impact of attempts to reduce salt intake. Some researchers believe that it might not just be unnecessary for a large segment of the population to reduce their salt intake, it may actually be bad for them in terms of their health. Government-recommended levels of sodium may actually be too low for some, causing health problems, and attempting to rid sodium from one’s diet could encourage over-eating of other foods.

Responsible media and public officials who actually want to encourage better health outcomes for Americans should keep this in mind. While Americans distrust both the media and politicians, the information they have does have an impact on their support for policies.

. . . is stop giving unsolicited advice, apparently.

Advice giving, especially unsolicited, is tricky. Being on the receiving end can be annoying and make us defensive. But giving advice can be frustrating, as well, particularly when the intended beneficiary of our wisdom makes it clear it isn’t welcome – or takes the same recommendations we’ve been giving for months from someone else. The whole advice issue is typically hardest to navigate with the person we know the best: our spouse or partner.

In a series of six studies that followed 100 couples for the first seven years of marriage, researchers at the University of Iowa found that both husbands and wives feel lower marital satisfaction when they are given too much advice from a spouse, as opposed to too little. And – surprise! – unsolicited advice is the most damaging kind. The most recent study was published in 2009 in the Journal of Family Psychology.

Other interesting findings include what happens when too little advice is given, how men and women differ when offered advice, and how we should explain to our spouses exactly what we are seeking from them.

More here. 

More companies are offering it, but new dads are not really using it. 

Yahoo Inc. announced in April that new fathers can take eight weeks off at full pay. Bank of America Corp. offers 12 weeks of paid leave, and Ernst & Young a few years ago bumped its leave policy from two weeks to six. Fifteen percent of U.S. firms provide some paid leave for new fathers, according to a survey from the Society for Human Resource Management to be released on Father’s Day.

It sounds like progress, but in reality men are reluctant to take time off for a variety of reasons, ranging from a fear of losing status at work to lingering stereotypes about a father’s role in the family.

The overwhelming majority of the 85 percent of fathers who do take leave only stay home for one or two weeks. This despite the fact that 60 percent of fathers in double-income families feel conflicted about work vs. family responsibilities. However, there is often a stigma attached to taking longer leave and many feel pressure or resentment from coworkers.

A forthcoming paper from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management found that men who are active caregivers get teased and insulted at work more than so-called traditional fathers and men without children.

Active fathers are seen as distracted and less dedicated to their work – the same perception that harms career prospects for many working mothers, said Jennifer Berdahl, the study’s lead author, adding that such men are accused of being wimpy or henpecked by their wives.

This is truly sad in light of the fact that there are long-term benefits from parents’ taking longer leaves.

A 2007 study from researchers at Columbia University found that fathers who take longer leaves are more involved in child care months after returning to work. And a paper by a Cornell University graduate student Ankita Patnaik earlier this year examined leave-policy reforms in Quebec and found that more generous and equitable parental-leave policies led to a greater likelihood that mothers will return to their employers after maternity leave.

More here.

After years of slow but steady progress, it looks like flex options in workplaces are being pulled back. Last year it was Bank of America, and this year Yahoo! and Best Buy have reined in workflex for their employees. The choice made by the new Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer– said to be the first Fortune 500 tech CEO to run a company while pregnant – seemed to really cut working mothers to the quick. And the two working moms who developed Best Buy’s workflex program were floored.

[Best Buy is] sending a clear message that they are more concerned with having leadership excel at monitoring the hallways, rather than building a leadership team that excels at defining clear, measurable results, and holding people accountable for achieving those results. While we agree that Best Buy must take drastic measures to turn their business around, moving back to a 20th century, paternalistic ‘command and control’ environment is most certainly not the answer

In fact, any so-called leadership team can effectively get ‘all hands on deck’, dictate hours and delegate tasks, while their people brag about how many hours they put in ‘at the office’. That’s easy. But only true leadership has the ability to get ‘everyone on point’ with a workforce vs. a workplace that’s fluid, nimble and focused on what matters: measurable results.

A recent employee-benefits survey by the Society of Human Resource Management has shown a statistically insignificant change in all measures of flexible-work options, despite the positive effects, such as fewer employee absences, that these options provide.

Despite the the rise of cloud technology, completely distributed companies, and more modern company cultures, there’s been almost no change over the past four years.

Still, there’s a hope for gradual progress. Another 4% of employers say they’ll offer some telecommuting options within the next year.

Charts and more here.

Via Business Insider:

This Kleiner Perkins VC Says Google Glass Turned Her Into A Super Mom

Well, being a partner at Kleiner Perkins is already pretty super. Let’s read about the amazing properties of her glasses:

Trae Vassallo wants to “dispel the myths” about Google Glass.

Vassallo is a Glass owner and a general partner at venture capitalist firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

She was talking about wearable tech on stage today at the Bloomberg Next Big Thing Summit.

Vassallo often wears Google Glass in “sunglass mode” with darkened lenses. She tends to wear them on top of her head, not over her face, unless she’s driving or running around outside with her kids.

Vassallo admitted being “mortified” the first time she wore Google Glass in public. But since then, she’s become a fan. She said the device’s built-in video and still cameras have made her a ”superparent.”

“I’ve taken thousands of photos of my kids and amazing video,” she said. With Glass, she’s captured moments that would’ve slipped away if she’d had to reach for a camera. 

Likewise, Vassallo feels more efficient. Using Glass, she can do research and book appointments, even while driving, without taking her eyes off the road.

Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure booking appointments while driving using your glasses is a distraction — and adding extra distractions while driving with your kids in the car is what they call “bad parenting,” not “super parenting.” And taking pictures without having to reach for your phone to take a picture or video does not exactly make one a “super mom.” 

Oh, and I’m sure it was a simple oversight that Business Insider didn’t mention that Kleiner Perkins is in a partnership with Google Glass.

Super mom — Super VC — same difference?

Recently, I forgot to send the registration form to the folks running a summer camp that I knew my oldest would love.  It’s now full so he’s out and I feel guilty. 

My middle child recently got a new bike, but I unknowingly bought one that is far too heavy and much too big for his slight frame. So, this summer he’ll learn to ride on a terrifyingly large bike. He probably won’t take to it and I feel guilty. 

My youngest has an aggressive streak. He’s well known on the playground for pushing down pink-clad girls with grosgrain-ribbon-tied pigtails. I suspect it’s because I spent less time with him as a baby. Yup, I feel guilty. 

Do I rely too much on television?  Would we have clean clothes and a relatively orderly house if I didn’t? Are they reading enough? Saying “may I” instead of “can I”? Are they polite, respectful, appropriately daring and courageous yet sensitive, empathetic, and kind to animals? Do they play well with others when out of my view? Probably not. More guilt. 

Guilt is a mother’s best friend. It never leaves her side. It is always there talking to her, needling her, nudging her, keeping her company. This emotion connects all mothers. We women may differ in all sorts of ways – race, income, career choices, likes and dislikes, political opinions, child-rearing techniques – but we all have this one thing in common: mommy guilt.  

In fact, according to a national online survey just released by the Independent Women’s Forum, “mommy guilt” is pervasive among women. According to the poll, two-thirds of women say they sometimes feel badly about not doing enough to eat right and live healthily. Sadly, its single mothers – arguably the mothers who deal with the most stress – that experience the most guilt.  

This news will be reassuring to many women. After all, misery loves company and there is genuine comfort in knowing you’re not alone. Yet, women should be aware that their guilt is proving to be a goldmine for many environmental and public-health organizations that capitalize on mommy guilt in order to further certain regulatory goals.This mommy-guilt industry is made up of organizations that present themselves as moderate voices working to ensure the health, safety, and happiness of families, yet they actively work to make life more difficult for overwhelmed mothers by spreading outright lies about perfectly normal and inexpensive products. 

Take for instance the recent “investigation” conducted by the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition (a harmless-sounding alliance of dozens of separate radical environmental and public-health nonprofits) which found that “hazardous chemicals” can be found in children’s rain gear. 

To a busy mother, this might seem like a legitimate issue. But hopefully some mothers will realize that while most children’s raincoats are in fact made of vinyl (which does contain chemicals), kids aren’t actually eating their shiny, yellow raincoats – which is the only way these “toxic” chemicals could cause any sort of harm. Of course, this little detail isn’t mentioned by the activist group, leaving mothers with yet another reason to panic (and clean out the coat closet).  

So, what would make these groups make such preposterous charges against something as innocuous as a child’s raincoat and rain boots? 

I’ve got a hunch: money has something to do with it. After all, what parent wouldn’t want to support an organization standing between their child and the harmful and toxic products sold in stores. 

It’s time for moms to start ignoring these alarmist claims of danger around every corner, tucked into every closet, and under every kitchen sink.  

I only worked outside the home as a mom for a few years, but I still feel for the working parents of today (along with very busy stay-at-homes) who want to give their kids something better than take-out or highly processed dinners. Thankfully, the “nearly homemade” market is booming.

This moment may sound familiar: It’s 4 p.m. on Wednesday, and you realize the dinner you had been planning to make isn’t going to work out.

It’s one of the most stressful points of weekday life, according to consumer research. Now in response, packaged-food companies and grocery stores are developing meals that aim to strike a delicate balance. They are quick and simple to prepare, but still feel like cooking a homemade meal.

The target market is a lucrative one. Companies say these are homes where women – and increasingly men – like to cook when time allows, and they generally spend more on groceries. They often feel guilty relying on frozen foods or boxed meals, but a busy day can back them into a prepared-food corner.

Companies are concentrating on meals that include just the right amount of steps, take just the right amount of time to prepare, and can include a little bit of fresh product that the consumer can add. These meals are an attempt to strike the balance between simplicity and activity, so parents can get a nice meal on the table without feeling like they’re “cheating.”

More here.

As is evidenced by the positive effects that peer pressure can have, a new study suggests that teens are influenced by others not so much because they are less capable of making rational decisions, but because they crave social acceptance more than adults do.

Peer pressure is often seen as a negative, and indeed it can coax kids into unhealthy behavior like smoking or speeding. But it can also lead to engagement in more useful social behaviors. If peers value doing well in school or excelling at sports, for instance, it might encourage kids to study or train harder.

And both peer pressure and learning to resist it are important developmental steps to self-reliance, experts say.

The research also suggests that you should get to know your kids’ friends early – and cut your older teen some slack.

Peer influence during adolescence is normal and tends to peak around age 15, then decline. Teens get better at setting boundaries with peers by age 18 according to Laurence Steinberg, a psychology professor at Temple University.

And an earlier school of thought about teenage brains is being challenged.

In years past, people thought teens didn’t have fully developed frontal lobes, the part of the brain critical for decision-making and other more complex cognitive tasks. But a growing body of work seems to show that teens are able to make decisions as well as adults when they are not emotionally worked up. Instead, the key may be that the reward centers of the brain get more activated in adolescence, and seem to be activated by our peers.

The research has also found the key factors of resisting negative peer pressure: being popular, having a family with low dysfunction, and having good communication skills. 

Much more here.

U.S. News & World Report has published the results of a study by the National Council on Teacher Quality, a nonprofit advocacy group. It is the first comprehensive review of the education programs for elementary and high-school teachers at U.S. colleges. The report, as examined by the Wall Street Journal, is not good.

U.S. colleges of education are an “industry of mediocrity” that churns out teachers ill-prepared to work in elementary and high-school classrooms. . . . The [NCTQ], which has long promoted overhauling U.S. teacher preparation, assigned ratings of up to four stars to 1,200 programs at 608 institutions that collectively account for 72% of the graduates of all such programs in the nation. . . . 

The council included criteria such as the selectivity of the teacher programs, as well as an evaluation of their syllabi, textbooks and other teaching materials. It said fewer than 10% of the programs earned three or more stars. Only four, all for future high-school teachers, received four stars. About 14% got zero stars, and graduate-level programs fared particularly poorly. . . .

As evidence mounts that teacher quality is one of the biggest determinants of student achievement, critics have complained that teacher-training programs have lax admission standards, scattered curriculum, and fail to give aspiring teachers real-life classroom training. The report echoes the complaints, saying many graduates lack the necessary classroom-management skills and subject knowledge needed. The report contends that it is too easy to get into teacher-preparation programs, with only about a quarter of them restricting admissions to applicants in the top half of their class. The typical grade-point-average to get into undergraduate programs is about 2.5, it said.

The report also found that 75 percent of the programs were not preparing their graduates to teach reading to young students.

More here.

The bad news: High-school dropouts earn $10,000 less per year than graduates, face a much higher unemployment rate, are more than twice as likely to live in poverty, are 63 times more likely than a college grad to be incarcerated, and will cost society an average of $292,000 in their lifetime.

The reasons why they drop out, according to a 2012 survey:

Absence of parental support or encouragement (23 percent)

Becoming a parent (21 percent)

Lacking the credits needed to graduate (17 percent)

Missing too many days of school (17 percent)

Failing classes (15 percent)                         

Uninteresting classes (15 percent)

Experiencing a mental illness, such as depression (15 percent)

Having to work to support by family (12 percent)

Was bullied and didn’t want to return (12 percent)

The good news: Progress is being made in efforts to help at-risk dropouts return to high school to complete their education, even after they have turned 18.

New data and technologies offer greater opportunity to find and reconnect out-of-school youths than ever before. Educators say emerging intervention models hold promise not just to build credits for an equivalent certificate, but to rebuild dropouts’ academic, social, and emotional foundations for success beyond high school. . . .

Boston is one of a network of cities, including Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Portland, Ore., that have established “re-engagement centers”—one-stop shops to help returning students find a new school or online classes; connect with social workers and therapists when needed; and plan for college and a career. . . .

Ultimately, Jobs For the Future’s Lili Allen believes dropout recovery will be judged not on whether students get a high school diploma, but on whether they are really prepared for life after graduation: college, careers, family, and a productive civic life.

“There’s a growing recognition,” she says, “that this population needs to not just make it over that first finish line but really needs to make it through postsecondary if they are going to sustain family-supporting careers.”

Policymakers are hoping to attach responsibility to school systems, tying in increased funding to how many of the returning dropouts eventually graduate.

Rather than getting annoyed when your children say they are bored — or feeling guilty that you are not providing them with activities — new research suggests that parents should look at what may be the real problem.

Kids who complain of boredom aren’t necessarily lazy or slacking off, but are actually in a tense, negative state, says a 2012 study in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. Frustrated and struggling to engage, they often find themselves unable to focus their attention or get started on satisfying activities.

The overwhelming majority of kids turn to video games when they can’t focus, but overstimulation is the last thing they need. Instead, parents should talk to their kids to determine if anything is troubling them and encourage them to figure out a plan of action.

But for those times when your child really does need to fill their time, planning ahead is key.

Planning in advance can help kids get through the mental paralysis that comes with boredom. Dr. Laura Markham recommends helping a child make a “Boredom Buster Jar,” a bottle of paper slips with the child’s ideas for things to do. Such a tool can also help guide nannies or sitters who need ideas.

Suggesting a little drudgery can spur a child’s imagination, too. Try saying, “I could use a little help cleaning the closet,” Dr. Markham says.

Time to draw up a few lists . . . 

CNN Money:

Today’s LEGO characters are looking increasingly angry and carrying more weapons, indicating an important shift in the way kids play and interact with toys.

New research by robot expert Christoph Bartneck at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand shows the number of happy faces on tiny LEGO figures is decreasing.

“We cannot help but wonder how the move from only positive faces to an increasing number of negative faces impacts on how children play,” he said in a statement.

And let’s not forget this story from last week: A six-year-old boy was given detention for brandishing a toy gun – a toy gun the size of a quarter from one of his LEGO figurines. Comprehensive LEGO–figurine reform is long overdue, if you ask me, especially when “robot experts” are signaling the alarm. 

I’m joking, of course — except that there’s no way I’d let my kids have this one:

Get out the tissue NOW.

What a noble venture in honor of military dads serving overseas.

There are sound reasons why we choose to protect those under the age of 18 with certain legal restrictions. Unfortunately, all those reasons seem to fly out the window when it comes to “reproductive rights.” The Obama administration has decided not to fight a judge’s order to make the Plan B emergency contraceptive available to anyone without a prescription. Although the president himself is said to still be against selling Plan B to underage girls, as are the majority of Americans, apparently he will allow the FDA to simply throw up their hands in defeat.

In a letter Monday to U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman in New York, who has called the age restrictions “politically motivated” and “scientifically unjustified,” the administration said it would drop its appeal in the case and abide by Korman’s order to make Plan B One-Step contraceptive pills available to women and girls of any age without a prescription.

The age restrictions are “politically motivated”? It couldn’t possibly be that removing the age restrictions is a “politically motivated” response to the abortion lobby, could it? And “scientifically unjustified”? I love it when men with law degrees are given the power to decide which scientific research is valid.

How about just common sense? You can argue all you want about the efficacy of the drug and whether or not it is dangerous when used as directed. We have restrictions on buying drugs that contain pseudoephedrine because of the potential for abuse. Is there no potential for abuse with Plan B?

Those opposed to the sale have mentioned many of the pitfalls that can occur with this policy: Young women could use the drug as their birth control of choice. Over and over. Engaging in unprotected sex, and opening the door to STDs. There is the danger of having the drug slipped to them by a vengeful boyfriend or, even worse, by their abuser.

And just think of the immature mind: “It has to be taken within three days? Hmmm . . . It’s been a week. Maybe if I take, like, ten of them — that’ll do it.”

But the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks a fourteen-year-old is an adult, capable of dealing with the perils of sexual activity. 

Speaking at a news conference, Dr. Cora Breuner, a pediatrician at Seattle Children’s Hospital, said the ruling made her proud “as a woman and as a doctor and as a mother of three children.“

“This statement and this ruling are long overdue and especially welcome by all of us at the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Breuner said.

However, she said more needed to be done to be sure the pill was affordable to all women, regardless of their finances. It should be priced so that sexually active women 14, 15 and 16 years old can afford it, Breuner said.

I have daughters who are 16 and 14. They are top students, mature and capable, who can handle adversity. There is no way you could convince me that they would be able to deal with the swirling emotions and complexities of making this serious medical decision on their own. Perhaps they are not as “street smart” as the average girls their age, but is that how we should define the capability to make such decisions?

A certain lobby wants to pretend that there is nothing wrong with pre-teen/teenage sexuality and the use of emergency contraception, but we parents know our daughters. We know this is a battle worth fighting. For them.

Nothing says “Father of the Year” like embarrassing your child’s mother in public.

NBC has the details.

While Governer Cuomo is doing all he can to make New York state the most extreme abortion provider in the nation, New York City is doing all it can to steer teens toward abortion clinics. Apparently forty percent of pregnancies ending in abortion in the boroughs just isn’t enough.

The New York City Health Department’s NYC teen website now includes an app that teens can download to their smart phones to get information on “sexual health,” including where they can get birth control and abortions.

The app, under the heading “Important Links and Info,” has three main links – Where to Go: sexual health services; What to Get: condoms and birth control; and What to Expect: at the clinic. Under the health services link the user can choose what service they want, including Gold Star clinics (those that offer free birth control and other services), emergency contraceptive or Plan B, and abortion.

If the user picks abortion, they can then choose the area in the city where they want to find services. If the user picks Manhattan, for example, they will be directed to three places that perform abortions – Family Planning Clinic, Harlem Hospital; Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Center; and Project Stay – Services to Assist Youth at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

Under the “info” tab on the app, teens are told that New York state does not have parental consent law when it comes to getting sexual health services.

More here.