Scientists are one step closer to curing what has so far been an incurable disease.

On Monday, the FDA approved the first pill to help prevent HIV. The pill, named “Truvada” acts as “a preventive measure for healthy people who are at high risk of acquiring HIV through sexual activity, such as those who have HIV-infected partners.”

Gilead Sciences Inc., the company manufacturing Truvada, initially marked the pill in 2004 for individuals who were already infected with the HIV virus. Since then, the pill has been modified to act as a preventative to the HIV virus. The pill is to be taken daily and is estimated to cost $14,000 annually.

The decision to approve Truvada comes in the wake of an approval of “OraQuick,” an at-home test for HIV “which detects the presence of HIV in saliva collected using a mouth swab and returns a result within 40 minutes, aimed at people who might not otherwise be tested. The FDA has said the test is not 100 percent accurate.”

However, the FDA’s decision to approve Truvada is contested. Organizations within the HIV community, such as the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, are worried that such a pill will be abused and not used correctly “saying [Truvada] could give patients a false sense of security and reduce the use of condoms, the most reliable preventive measure against HIV.”

But, in light of the fact that there have been “50,000 new [HIV] infections per year for the last 15 years” and that “it’s estimated that one-fifth, or about 240,000 people, are unaware that they are infected,” Truvada marks a significant step forward to curbing the number of individuals infected with HIV.

On a recent trip to buy a printer at Office Depot in Brentwood, Tennessee, the kids and I noticed a sign on the checkout which read “Be Brave,” with the tagline: “We Supply Bravery.”  As the wife of an Iraq vet, I found it interesting that a major office supply store would extol back-to-school shoppers to be courageous.  After all, America could use more bravery!

But I read on, and realized the initiative was a partnership with the person who best represents “bravery” in our modern world: Lady Gaga. Apparently, the singer, in an attempt to promote her song of the same title and make the world a better place, has created the Born This Way Foundation which has this stated mission:

…to foster a more accepting society, where differences are embraced and individuality is celebrated. The Foundation is dedicated to creating a safe community that helps connect young people with the skills and opportunities they need to build a kinder, braver world. We believe that everyone has the right to feel safe, to be empowered and to make a difference in the world. Together, we will move towards acceptance, bravery and love.

Office Depot pledges to donate 25 percent of the sales of limited edition “Born This Way” products directly to the foundation, with a guaranteed donation of $1 million. So how does Lady Gaga want you to create a better, braver world?

If you’re “brave” enough, read more here. 

The uniforms our athletes will be wearing to the 2012 Summer Olympic Games were made in China. A few thoughts:

1) Having our American athletes, who are competing on behalf of our national pride, wear our greatest creditor’s uniforms is simply embarrassing. Besides the trade imbalance that exists, we consistently accuse China of slave labor, an underage workforce, forced abortions, imprisonment, manipulation of currency, and a state-controlled media. Yet we contract them to make the uniforms to clothe athletes that represent our country, which stands for everything China does not. How depressing.

2) Michelle Obama is supposed to be championing the young designers in America, while her husband is supposed to advocate “for the working man” and for keeping jobs in America. What are we doing? Mrs. Obama couldn’t use the same insistence she exhibits in her “lose weight” campaign and demand the president step up to the plate and say, “We will have one of Mrs. Obama’s designers manufacture these uniforms”? Where was Anna Wintour? Perhaps she should dedicate less time to lobbying for an ambassadorship to Great Britain and more time to promoting the Save the Garment Center.

3) These young designers that contribute to Obama’s website for re-election should be livid that they were not asked to do this. Maybe this will be the turning point? Are they only good for raising money? Are they only good for dressing the first lady when she wants to make a statement? They are not to be considered when true manufacturing work is needed? Very, very sad.

“Gendercide” has been in the news recently with Live Action’s undercover films demonstrating Planned Parenthood clinics’ repeated willingness to perform abortions based on the mere fact that the pre-born child was a girl. Is this practice very common in America? A Patheos writer discusses:  

A Gallup poll taken last year found that 54% of young men prefer to have a boy, compared to 19% who prefer a girl. Young women showed no statistically significant preference and older women slightly preferred a girl.

Another study, this one published by Arthur Shostak in 1984, surveyed 1000 men who accompanied their wives or girlfriends to abortion clinics; 45% confessed that they had pressured their partners to abort (and these were the men who were “supportive” enough to accompany their partners to the clinic). If young men are likely to pressure their partners to abort, and young men also show a stark preference for boys, it would seem to follow that young men are more likely to press for an abortion when the baby is a girl. Even the ultra-pro-life Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that sex-selective abortion appears to take place among some American populations.

Did early advocates of legalized abortion imagine this scenario? The article “Fathers, Don’t Abort Your Daughters” was written by a father admittedly disappointed when he found out his wife was carrying a girl. His change-of-heart has turned to an emotion plea, and it’s well worth a read.

Can this be true?

 A government agency has Wrentham, Massachusetts has banned tenants at a public housing complex from displaying the American flag outside of their homes.

The Wrentham Housing Authority announced the ban to residents through a letter taped to their doors on Wednesday. The unsigned letter states that the policy was enacted in response to a complaint filed by one of the tenants to the state Department of Housing and Community Development over the Fourth of July.

The letter said: “Wrentham Housing Authority has been informed that the public display of the American flag in common areas is not permitted.” It goes on to say that tenants may still display flags inside their homes, but not outside.

As The Sun Chronicle reports, Barbara Marshall, one of the Wrentham tenants, refuses to take down her flag. (She is the only resident still hanging a flag outside her home). Marshall said veterans have played an important role in her family history. “All my family is so indebted to the veterans, to that flag.”

The Wrentham Housing Authority gave no further explanation for the ban, nor did it provide details of the solitary tenant’s complaints.

UPDATE:

The Boston Globe reports that Jason Lefferts, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community, has announced the immediate reversal of the flag ban. “We were not aware of this decision when it was made, and it was a mistake that is being corrected immediately,” said Lefferts.

The ban caught the attention of Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) who lives in Wrentham. Brown told The Globe that he was “deeply disturbed to learn of the misguided decision.” He went on to say “Flying the American flag should never be controversial, and no citizen should ever be prevented from doing so.”

Details here.

I’ll leave it to Kathryn to comment further.

When I lived in New York and Philadelphia, I was cautious about publicly disciplining my children, since I knew mothers in liberal northeastern cities differed greatly with my approach. For example, I once was chided by a mom in a library for getting on to my daughter for wandering off while I was trying to check out her books.

“You get back over here,” I said quietly, and my daughter began to throw a bit of a fit. In my urgency to avoid a public confrontation, I lapsed into the very unoriginal but still effective, “Keep it up, and I’ll really give you something to cry about!”

Another mom, ever so gently, pulled me aside. “You know, you really needn’t be so sharp with her,” she said. “The girl is obviously just trying to read books, and you will intellectually stunt her.”

The only thing I was trying to stunt was her defiance of basic instruction — a battle I fight with all three of my children. My insistence that my kids actually obey me put me at odds with friends who laughed when they saw me correct the kids at the playground. My friend Rene once said memorably, “I don’t use the word ‘obey’ with my kids, because it sounds so . . . Biblical.”

Incredulous, I asked her, “What do you do with the speed limit?”

I thought of these incidents when an incendiary headline popped up my Facebook and Twitter feeds repeatedly: Spanking Linked to Mental Illness. With great hesitation, I clicked through to read this first paragraph:

Although the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly discourages spanking, at least half of parents admit to physically punishing their children. Some research suggests that as many as 70-90 percent of mothers have resorted to spanking at one time or another. A new study published in the journal Pediatrics may cause parents to think more carefully before laying a hand on their little ones.

How do you like that language? Half of parents “admit” to physically punishing their kids, as if it’s a drug habit or a tax fraud that requires confession.

Well, I “admit it.” I spank my kids.

What damage does the article say I’m doing to my children? I braced myself and read on:

Researchers examined data from more than 34,000 adults and found that being spanked significantly increased the risk of developing mental health issues as adults.

This includes: mood disorders, depression, anxiety, personality disorders, as well as alcohol and drug abuse.

Feeling guilty yet? Don’t. Because there’s an interesting tidbit of information buried in the article that the alarming headline obscures:

“We’re not talking about just a tap on the bum,” study author Tracie Afifi, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, explained in a statement. “We were looking at people who used physical punishment as a regular means to discipline their children.” However, the analysis excluded individuals who reported more severe maltreatment such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, or exposure to intimate partner violence.

In other words, this study is not about spanking at all. It’s about slapping, shoving, grabbing, hitting, physical/sexual/emotional, and more. Did we need a study to tell us that abusive behavior is, well, abusive? Slate writer — and mom — Melinda Wenner Moyer tried to get to the bottom of the issue, but found inherent difficulties in studies trying to determine the effects of disciplinary measures:

Researchers at Oklahoma State University investigated whether nonphysical punishments are also associated with delinquent behavior later in life. They found that psychotherapy, grounding, and sending children to their rooms all make kids more antisocial. The researchers don’t actually believe that psychotherapy causes behavioral problems—they just wanted to show that these kinds of studies identify associations that aren’t necessarily causally linked the way you would expect.

In other words, as she summed up nicely, “Discipline is associated with behavioral problems in part because discipline is caused by behavioral problems.”

So where does that leave the parent? In the same place we were before this misleading article came out: in charge of our own families, responsible for the spiritual, physical, and emotional well being of our little ones, and not affected by headlines on Facebook.

I admit it. 

I’m sick of researchers trying to shame me with a misleading study and a scary headline, which could’ve more accurately read, “Spanking Causes Mental Illness . . . in Social Scientists Who Hate Spanking.”

UPDATE:

Thank you, Loraine, for pointing out the mistakes in the way I presented the case in the above article.  The quotation I cited did explicitly state that the analysis excluded individuals who reported more severe maltreatment such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, or exposure to intimate partner violence.”

However, I went back to the original study on which the article with the “Spanking Causes Mental Illness” headline was based, my assertion that the study is flawed still stands (notwithstanding my carelessness above!)  Melinda Wenner Moyner explained the flaws of the study, which was in the July issue of Pediatrics, :

In fact, the study has nothing to do with spanking at all. Canadian researchers asked 34,000 adults how often they had been pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped, or hit by their parents or other adults when they were children. The authors explain that they were trying to assess the long-term effects of regular harsh physical punishment, which, they write, “some may consider more severe than ‘customary’ physical punishment (i.e., spanking).” Ultimately, the researchers reported that adults who have mental problems are more likely to say they were pushed, grabbed, shoved, slapped, or hit by their parents than healthy adults are.

A new Quinnipiac University Poll was released today showing President Obama has a 46 to 43 percent lead over Governor Romney among American voters. But what’s most interesting about the poll’s findings is that Romney has a 51 to 38 lead over Obama among married voters, while unmarried voters back Obama 54 to 34 percent.

Of the married voters, men favor Romney 54 to 35 percent and women favor Romney 49 to 42 percent. On the other hand, among single voters Obama leads 47 to 38 percent among men and 60 to 31 percent among women.

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, writes, “Although much has been made about the gender gap and how President Barack Obama’s lead among women fuels his campaign, the marriage gap is actually larger and more telling.”

The gap could reflect the divergence of priorities between the married and single.

Brown adds: “Married voters are more likely to focus on the economy and health care, while single voters are more focused on issues such as gay rights and reproductive issues.”

Well, if this doesn’t get your kids interested in science, nothing will:

A new chemical could make human teeth ‘cavity proof’ – and do away with the need for visits to the dentists forever.

The molecule has been called ‘Keep 32′ – after the 32 teeth in a human mouth.

The chemical was designed by dentists in Chile, and wipes out all the bacteria that cause cavities in just 60 seconds in tests.

Apparently, the chemical protects teeth for hours after brushing and could virtually eliminate cavities forever.  Read more about it here.

First Lady Michelle Obama will be making a stop today at a Miami high school. But Renier Diaz de la Portilla, a school-board member, wants the event canceled on the grounds that it amounts to a campaign visit.

Diaz de la Portilla said in a press release that “President Barack Obama’s liberal political machine planned the event at Barbara Goleman Senior High School in Miami Lakes even though the district has a very specific policy banning political activity in tax funded Miami-Dade public schools.”

Diaz de la Portilla is currently running as a Republican for a seat in the House and has served two terms as a state representative. He added: “The use of public schools, whose only focus should be to educate our children, for political gain is downright wrong . . . our schools are places for learning, not places for politicking.”

The Huffington Post reports that Walter Harvey, the school board’s attorney, claims that under the board’s policy, all groups, including political and religious, can apply to use schools facilities.

While I’d like to agree with Diaz de la Portilla that the school environment should not be the forum for campaigning, I’m inclined to dismiss this event — as long as our first lady sticks to those hot-button issues we’re all dying to hear about: the stress of gardening at the White House and sharing her “fashion forward” advice.

Do you remember when a contestant on The Bachelor took the California Bachelor on a hometown date to her conservative Christian parents? They were Southerners, didn’t drink, and definitely didn’t believe in living together before marriage.

The Bachelor assured them that he, too, held traditional values, except that he later confessed he thought it was silly not to live together before tying the knot. The parents refused to give their blessing, the Bachelor realized their cultural and moral differences, and the daughter was sent home in the next “limo of shame.”

This season has been very different because the Bachelorette is a southern mother. At the onset, she said she wouldn’t be making out in hot tubs or living together before marriage.

But last night’s episode seemed customized to test her morality. On every season of The Bachelorette, the producers give the main contestant an opportunity to spend the night with three of the remaining options, in what is euphemistically called “The Overnight Date,” but what would be more appropriately called the “Put Out or Get Out Date.” 

How did she handle the situation? And how did one of her dates handle it?

You’ll be surprised.

I’m sure you saw this coming?

The public schools of Easton, Massachusetts are considering a ban on homemade treats for birthdays and other special events as part of a Bloomberg-esque campaign to fight childhood obesity. School board member Lori Han claims that kids “can celebrate a birthday without a cupcake.” Furthermore, schools will provide a list of “safe” foods, including fruits and cereals, for such special events. More information is available here and here.

In spite of the fact that Whoopi Goldberg was the narrator, I watched a documentary yesterday called Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey.

I know many of you aren’t Sesame Street fans, but who doesn’t love red, furry, huggable Elmo? After all, he’s an international hero to millions of children — and remember in 1996 when the Tickle Me Elmo doll started shopping mall riots that would’ve made Rodney King shudder?

This is the story of the soft-spoken puppeteer, Kevin Clash, who gave him life. Rarely are movies suitable for all ages, but this one delighted our 4, 11, 13, 37, and 43-year-old family members. It also challenged me a bit as a parent.

Read why — and see the trailer — here.

Below, I wondered if Jane Pitt’s endorsement of Governor Romney would make for awkward political conversation over Thanksgiving dinner, but — natch — a reader pointed out to me via Facebook that Angelina Jolie doesn’t believe in Thanksgiving:

“Angelina Jolie hates this holiday and wants no part in rewriting history like so many other Americans,” a friend of the actress tells me. “To celebrate what the white settlers did to the native Indians, the domination of one culture over another, just isn’t her style. She definitely doesn’t want to teach her multi-cultural family how to celebrate a story of murder.”

Read the PopEater story here, which speculates that Brad might be more pro-Thanksgiving than Angelina.

(No matter whether they celebrate the holiday, they certainly have some adorable kids!)

Nancy French is the editor of the Faith and Family Channel at Patheos and blogs with her husband David at the modestly titled blog, “The French Revolution.”

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Check out the “correction” at the end of their article welcoming the College’s first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life.

Do you ever wonder if Thanksgiving meals are awkward for other families, not just yours?  I think conversation at the Pitt household might be a little strained this year, too.

When The Bachelor debuted on ABC, Kathryn Lopez wrote about the new show:

Overall, the show was silly. And we’d be no less if it had never aired . . . If the girls were a little less gorgeous and the setting and set-up a little less ridiculous, it might pass a little more for reality. But for what it was, it wasn’t too bad. Marriage doesn’t often get an endorsement like it on primetime television, with young people who claim to want “true love” and marriage. And they’re doing more handholding and talking, too, than jumping in and out of bed to find it. . . .

If you were among the 18.2 million Bachelor viewers and then turned on ER or Greta or went to sleep, or otherwise got on with your life, I’m not sure you didn’t walk away with a decent feeling about marriage. “The Bachelor” has a point when he defends the whole concept: “People have met in stranger ways. If the right person for you is in a certain place, even on an incredibly crazy show like this, you’ve got to take the chance.”

Since then, the show has produced zero successful marriages, depending on whether you count Bachelor Jason Mesnick. That notorious bachelor did propose to Melissa Rycroft, but unceremoniously dumped her by the “After the Rose” ceremony. (Jason ended up marrying another contestant, Molly Malaney.) In fact, only three other couples have stayed together from the Bachelor/Bachelorette franchise: Trista Rehn and Ryan Sutter, Ashley Hebert and J.P. Rosenbaum, and Ben Flajnik and Courtney Robertso. 

Sadly, even host Chris Harrison is divorcing.

But is this the season that will turn it around? Emily Maynard is an unconventional Bachelorette. Yes, she’s gorgeous and charming. However, as a southern Christian, she’s already said that she won’t be filmed making out in hot tubs or having overnight dates. So far, so good. With the finale coming up, Emily’s managed to live up to her moral standards. But now that she’s narrowed down her options to three, next week is the infamous “overnight dates.” This is when producers offer a romantic suite to Emily and (each!) of the remaining contestants on subsequent evenings. Will she be able to withstand the pressure?

Her track record so far suggests she might be able to return the always ridiculously old-fashioned key to the producers. (Perhaps a magnetic key card just doesn’t conjure romance?) As a previous Bachelor contestant, she turned down an offer for an overnight date from Brad Womack, citing that she didn’t want to set a bad example for her daughter. (Her daughter’s father was killed in a tragic airplane crash, so much of this season has been filmed in her home state of North Carolina.)

Yes, Kathryn, it’s still a silly show. The locales, the perpetually fresh roses, the spray tans, and the ubiquitous hot tubs don’t seem much like real life. But what does seem real is the heartbreak following the most recent seasons’ proposals and break-ups.

When discussing the show’s premise with my thirteen-year-old tonight, she said, “The Bachelorette is like socialism.  If people weren’t flawed, it just might work.”

Still. I find myself hoping Emily will somehow defy the odds and find true love.

You might also enjoy these Bachelor-related articles:

Religion on The Bachelorette: It’s There, But Just Below the Surface

Mormons Create “The Mormon Bachelor”

Jef Holm: I’m Not a Practicing Mormon

The Bachelorette: I Won’t Shack Up Before Marriage

“A soldier of the Revolutionary War.”

“United States Navy, World War II.”

“A soldier of the Korean War.”

It was 7:00 a.m. on June 30, and my two oldest kids and I were placing flags on veterans’ graves before our church’s annual “faith and freedom” service. As we passed by the graves, I tried to give short history lessons.

“Members of the ‘Continental Line’ weren’t militia. They were some of the first units of the regular army, and they stood toe to toe with the British army.”

“The Korean War was one of the most brutal in our nation’s history, and if you go now to Korea you can see with your own eyes what we won. You can see with your own eyes the difference between freedom and tyranny.”

“Francis Scott Key wrote our national anthem during the War of 1812. Are you familiar with all the verses? When you see the whole song you see the faith that was common to our founding generation.”

It’s become fashionable in recent years to deny that America is an exceptional nation and to embrace the mindless relativism of postmodernism. Yet our history tells a different story, and while we are far from perfect (what collection of people ever is?), one has to be intentionally obtuse to miss the dramatic ways God has blessed this nation and has used this nation to bless countless others.

Read the rest of my husband’s reflection here and Happy 4th of July!

Remember when big corporations were considered greedy? When Governor Romney’s “corporations are people too, my friend” line drew some laughs? Remember when corporations were the representatives of the dreaded 1 percent?

That was oh-so-two-months-ago. For the fourth year in a row, President Obama declared June “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month,” and corporations used this opportunity to revamp their image. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community has written a proud chapter” in American history, the president said:

From brave men and women who came out and spoke out, to union and faith leaders who rallied for equality, to activists and advocates who challenged unjust laws and marched on Washington, LGBT Americans and allies have achieved what once seemed inconceivable. This month, we . . . recommit to securing the fullest blessings of freedom for all Americans.

That’s when your favorite companies began bragging about their commitment to homosexuality in an effort to attract the homosexual buying community and their liberal friends. Kraft Foods photoshopped an Oreo cookie with rainbow stuffing, made to celebrate Gay Pride month. General Mills (owner of Betty Crocker) opposed a ban on same-sex marriage in their home state of Minnesota. AT&T tweeted their support: “It’s gaypride and @ATT is celebrating. Let the picture tagging begin,” linking to a YouTube video in which the corporation brags that they have been more gay-friendly (and for a longer time) than other companies.

One look at the laughable “diversity statement” of General Mills demonstrates these companies are not simply extending their hand to a potential customer base with a large percentage of disposable income:

We cultivate an inclusive environment by considering all dimensions of diversity — not just the primary areas such as gender, race and sexual orientation — but also cultural aspects including values, preferences, beliefs and communication styles.

General Mills forgot the asterisk, however, by the phrase “all dimensions of . . . values, preferences, beliefs,” which reads:

*This excludes the values and beliefs of anyone who has traditional beliefs about homosexuality shared by three major religions for the past 3,000 years.

After all, does the company really respect the values and beliefs of its Christian customers and employees as the company with this political stand (opposing a same-sex marriage ban) and moral stand (proclaiming gay sex is a higher and more important “value” than traditional Christian values)?

And these companies are doing this with kids’ breakfast cereals and cookies.

In other words, “Gay Pride Month” is a political and moral statement by the Obama administration and large corporations to marginalize and shame people who don’t want to celebrate all things gay.

Maybe corporations are sick of being criticized by the 99 percent. Maybe they’ve gotten tired of simply making products and now want to become our moral leaders. Maybe General Mills is trying to appease Michelle Obama, especially since Lucky Charms can’t be grown in her garden and are still available to purchase in New York.

But perhaps instead of all the self-congratulatory ads and rainbow colored cookies, they should try to make quality products and respect all of their customers’ values.

After all, heterosexual conservative Christians are customers too, my friend.

Related Articles:

Coming Out of the Pantry: Homo-snacks-uality

Homosexuality, Morality, and Talladega Nights Theology

Kraft Foods Shows Lack of Concern for Conservative Customers