Lift Up Your Hearts!

The largest factor in the restriction is undoubtedly fear of lawsuits. Another is an observed increase in the number of cases of ruptured uterus in recent years. What the otherwise excellent article does not mention is changes in obstetrical practice that may have contributed to the rise in uterine ruptures, such as interference with the natural process of labor (e.g. unnecessary anesthesia and augmentation of labor), and use of single intead of double rows of sutures when closing the Caesarean incision.

Women are not giving up without a fight. They give birth at home, or wait until the last minute (or later) to head for the hospital, or even labor in the hospital parking lot to avoid being forced into a c-section. Dr. Cherouny, of the University of Vermont, tells hospitals, "You must be ready. Even if you don't want to do VBAC's, you will. The patients will make you."

Because the risks to both mother and child are elevated after a c-section, no matter whether the subsequent birth is by VBAC or repeat Caesarean, it is critical that freedom of choice be preserved. Mothers, fathers, doctors, midwives, and hospitals must work together to make intelligent, informed decisions that are right for each individual family.

To view the entire article, you must register with the New York Times, but it is free and worth the effort.

Wearing nothing but a cap, a diaper, and a supportive sling, the baby is snuggled against his mother's (or father's) naked chest, 24 hours a day. The constant skin-to-skin contact keeps the baby warm, promotes breastfeeding, and improves communication between mother and child. Research indicates that the technique is as safe and effective as incubator care. In addition, it reduces the severity of infections and strengthens the parent–child bond.

"It's at least as good as taking care of babies in incubators," says lead author Juan Gabriel Ruiz-Pelaez, a pediatrician at Javeriana University in Bogota. "And we are convinced it has distinct advantages—especially regarding the emotional aspects of the relationship between mother and infant."

Ruiz-Pelaez says medical personnel may be resistant to the technique because "instead of having a baby carefully scrutinised with alarms and monitors, you go back to something that looks very simple and unreliable—a human body."

"Western" medicine and medical practicioners have contributed incalculably to the health of developing nations, often at great sacrifice. Without demeaning those efforts and successes in any way, it's nonetheless essential that we have the humility to recognize that our solutions aren't always the best, and develop the grace to accept non-technological, non-pharmaceutical therapies from third-world countries, midwives, grandparents, "old wives," and other sources of creative wisdom.

They were from Old Saybrook and Higganum, Connecticut, and served in the 101st Machine Gun Battalion of the 26th Division during World War I.

And for all of our current servicemen and women, I offer the following prayer from the Book of Common Prayer (U.S. Episcopal Church, 1979 version)

Almighty God, we commend to your gracious care and keeping all the men and women of our armed forces at home and abroad. Defend them day by day with your heavenly grace; strengthen them in their trials and temptations; give them courage to face the perils which beset them; and grant them a sense of your abiding presence wherever they may be; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The obvious solution is to walk both uphill and down whenever possible. What I want to know, however, is the reason for the differences. It's easy to make a case for walking uphill as the "best" exercise: it expends more energy, makes more demands on the heart and lungs, and seems to be a better workout for the muscles. Walking downhill is certainly easier, although I do find it harder on the knees. What is it about downhill walking that confers the unique positive effect on blood sugar? What is different about going downhill? It uses different muscles, and is a higher impact walk, jarring the body somewhat. No doubt the walkers also covered the same distance in a shorter time. Can any of these differences explain the benefit? If not, what? I hope someone is looking into this question, as well as trying to replicate Dr. Heinz Drexel's findings.

• What are the risks of climate-related injury and death (heat stroke, frostbite, and other risks of exposure or inadequate shelter)?
• What are the risks/benefits of the state's relationship to the sun (increased risk of skin cancer, decreased risk of rickets)?
• How many days per year are people likely to engage in outdoor activity (not driven indoors by cold or heat)?
• How likely would one be to find a good doctor/hospital when necessary?
• How free are people to make their own health care choices?
• What is the general quality of the air and water?
• What regulations are enforced concerning a healthy environment—everything from industrial and agricultural pollution to building codes and smoke-free workplaces?
• What is the rate of violent crime?
• How likely is one to be killed or injured in an auto accident?
• What is the threat of potential disasters (earthquake, volcanic eruption, tornado, hurricane, terrorist strike)?
• Are there any state-specific disease problems (high incidence of hepatitis, tick-borne disease, plague)?
• What is the general infectious disease rate?

In other words, when considering how good or bad living in a state might be for one's health, of greatest interest are those factors over which an individual has little or no control. While this study includes some of those, it confuses the data with factors that I see as irrelevant, such as the percentage of the population that smokes (a marginally important enviromental factor), and the high school graduation rate (utterly unrelated to a particular person's health risk).

Homeschooling is legal in Pennsylvania, but the regulations imposed on homeschooling families are among the strictest in the nation. Recently, one family decided to sue the state on grounds that the rules impose an unreasonable restriction on their freedom of religion. Reading that article, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's editorial in response, reminds me that we must never, never become complacent about our rights, nor take our freedoms for granted. The Post-Gazette wonders,

To us, the requirements seem rather minimal. Parents must submit an annual affidavit to the local school superintendent outlining their educational goals. They must turn in a log at the end of the year showing what subjects were taught and when. A neutral, certified teacher reviews the work and interviews the child. Standardized tests are required at several grade levels.

What is the problem with that?

One problem is that such an attitude betrays appalling ignorance of what homeschooling is all about. It is not about taking the philosophies, methods, systems, procedures, and materials of school and trying to squeeze them into one's living room. Rather, homeschooling liberates children and families to pursue learning in creative ways that are not possible when subjected to classroom-mentality restrictions.

Putting unnecessary shackles on independent learners actually inhibits learning. Requiring logs of “what subjects were taught on what days, what work was done and the time spent on it,” and similar attempts to force a “school at home” mentality on Pennsylvania’s home educators would have stifled our family’s liberal—and liberating—approach to education.

I'm glad we lived in Florida when our children were of school age. Florida's homeschooling regulations are still unnecessarily invasive, but require less than a quarter of what Pennsylvania demands. Pennsylvania would definitely not have approved of our home education program. However, even the most ardent critic of homeschooling would have difficulty saying that our approach did not provide a proper education. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, the University of Rochester, the Eastman School of Music, and Pittsburgh’s own Carnegie Mellon University are among the schools that considered our children’s educations to be very fine indeed. Our success was due in great measure to freedom from the “school mentality” that Pennsylvania’s rules impose.

I wish this couple, and others who are pursuing the freedom of religion angle, success in their efforts to reduce the Commonwealth's intrusion into that most personal, and critical, area of ours lives: the education of our children. However, I would hope that all of Pennsylvania's homeschoolers would see this as their issue as well. The right to educate our children in the way that we deem best should not be limited to those with strong religious convictions.

Pennsylvania’s educational, historical, and cultural resources would appear to make it an ideal location for a homeschooling family. Florida offers less culture, but more of the freedom that breeds enthusiastic, lifelong learners. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Pennsylvanians could have both?

A research scientist can only say that the effect applies to the population studied: elderly people. It doesn't take much imagination, however, to expect that other studies will show similar benefits among more, and maybe all, populations.

Thus far I have tried to remain fairly nonpartisan in my political commentary, but the time has come to take a stand. I have been a Democrat all my voting life, although I’ve been gradually coming to realize that the party I thought represented compassion and liberty acts in reality as if it cared no more—and in many ways less—about such things than the Republicans.

George W. Bush has sufficiently disappointed and embarrassed me that the Democrats probably could have saved my vote by putting forth a moderate candidate who would present himself as a positive alternative. Instead, they chose John Kerry.

Without detailing the intellectual and visceral internal debate behind my voting choices, I include some brief comments on the issues both candidates seem to think paramount, based on their advertising rhetoric:

Iraq and the War on Terror

While decrying specific actions and policies, I withhold judgment on the general nature of Bush’s approach to both wars. Nothing intelligent can be said until we have the advantage of looking back from an as yet unknown future. Even Europe’s biggest newspaper, Germany’s Bild, recognized that when it gave its endorsement to President Bush. (Quotation from TurkishPress.com)

Noting widespread opposition to Bush in Europe, Bild said that history had proved another conservative Republican US president, Ronald Reagan, to have been on the right side of history.

"We thank him for the end of the Cold War and reunification. It is very possible, that we will also be thankful to George W. Bush one day," it said.

It is also possible that electing Kerry might bring us more support from other countries, not because of anything he might or might not do, but because a new president would offer a face-saving way for opponents to turn around. On the other hand, I think that removing Bush from office sends a very bad message to our enemies in Iraq and to terrorists everywhere: that Americans are weak, undisciplined, and best of all, impatient, easily discouraged by difficult, drawn-out work, easily fooled into complacency. What our enemies lack in technological firepower, they more than make up for in patience, and must find our fast-food attitudes toward warfare contemptible. Bush has had four years to make and learn from mistakes; what we do not need now is a new set of people and a new set of mistakes.

The Economy

I speak as one for whom the exportation of American jobs is personal reality, not political rhetoric: President Bush did not cause the problem, and a President Kerry cannot solve it. It is the reality of the global economy, the down side of the same system that brings us low-priced toasters and telephone service. Presidents are happy to take credit for good economic times, and their opponents glad to blame them when the economy turns sour, but in reality the forces are largely out of their control. Sound economic policy is like a healthy lifestyle: for lasting, positive change we need the equivalent of good eating and exercise habits. A presidential candidate’s promise of better economic times is as useless—and sometimes as harmful—as a crash diet.

Health Care

The trouble with both candidates is that they think they can fix America’s health care problems by governmental action. That’s even more foolish than expecting to solve our educational problems with No Child Left Behind or any other program. As with education, the health care problem is deeply rooted in the system itself; in many ways, the system IS the problem. The more a candidate pretends that he has the power to fix either one, the more I fear that his meddling will do lasting damage.

The Verdict

Tomorrow I will cast my ballot for Bush/Cheney. I wish I could be voting for someone instead of against someone else. I wish my own Democratic Party would come up with a candidate whose positions don’t violate my basic principles. I wish we could have an election in which issues were honestly discussed, and candidates would speak respectfully of their opponents’ virtues even while explaining how they would do a better job. (Stranger things have happened—the Boston Red Sox won the World Series!) In the meantime, I will try to vote intelligently, to practice patience, and to remember that, no matter what, God is still in control (and is never up for re-election).

As I have written previously, I believe that Florida's voting procedures in 2000 were as fair and accurate as any in the country, and better than some.

I have no such assurance this year. Four years ago, any irregularities were minor and mostly attributable to innocent mistakes. Now everyone knows that Florida matters, and the stakes are so high that I no longer trust either side to resist the temptation to pretend that the ends can justify the means. The negative ads, on both sides and at all levels, have convinced me of one thing: that neither side can be expected to take the high moral ground on anything important.

People who tried the new early voting system found themselves harassed and harangued, as the rules against polling place electioneering were discovered to apply only to election day. Others, who thought they were registered to vote, discovered too late that their registrations had disappeared. There is a huge push for people to vote, vote, vote!—it doesn't matter if you know anything or care about anything, just vote!—as if the act of voting were a magical spell to bring forth wise decisions. And the state is crawling with Carpetbaggers, folks from other states here for the sole purpose of meddling in our election!