Child Protective Services and Obese Children

The past week saw a signficant increase in the number of search engine hits for obese children and intervention, but it wasn't to report some new medial breakthrough in their care. Rather, this attention was spurred by a recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) article, recommending the removal of a small number of morbidly obese children from their parents when they are believed to be in imminent danger. There are a number of serious discussion growing out of this particular article, but it is also accompanied by a considerable amount of name calling come from various directions in the comment sections. In contrast, I hope to provide my readers with some questions to challenge the articles in a logical and much needed manner.

Overall, as the article itself (and another article from Pediatrics in 2009), emphasizes, childhood obesity is a serious problem that is affecting more and more children across our nation. No one can seriously argue that we are not facing an epidemic. These morbidly obese children are facing diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension not only in their future adulthood, but sometimes beginning in their childhood. With such staggering numbers growing and with such serious consequences, most agree that something must be done. The problem begins here, with the simple question "What do we do?"

Therefore, a goal of the proposed intervention should be stated. Do we aim for a perfect weight? Do we aim for a threshold of weight loss? Do we just try to avoid the comorbidities listed above? Before implementing any solution, we need a reasonable target. The article from Pediatrics provides a somewhat clearer picture of its purpose in contrast to the JAMA article which discussed the importance of avoiding complications but did not put this into a simple purpose statement. The Pediatrics article proposes a target of avoiding the complications of morbid obese which present an immediate threat to the child's health. This seems reasonable at face value prior to a closer scrutiny.

The closer scrutiny asks two questions: First, "Is the intervention effective at reaching this goal?" In the case of removing a child from their families in order to treat their obesity, case studies are presented, but no study is presented as anything near conclusive evidence. Basically, the authors are saying that they once knew a patient with this condition that benefitted from this intervention. It worked for them, so it should work for everyone else just as well. To their credit, the authors of the Pediatrics article try to address successful strategies such as lifestyle interventions, medical therapies, and surgical therapies. However, neither article provides any study level evidence that removing children from their parents is either effective for the stated problem, or is effective without producing harmful effects in other important areas of a child's life. They seem to be advocating for something rather untested, basing their claims mainly on anecdotal evidence. That concerns me greatly.

The second question is "Is that target worth the cost of the intervention or solution?" This addresses something alluded to above: what side effects may occur from this intervention. If I prescribe a pill for a patient, they are reasonable to ask what are the side effects. If they advocate removing children from their parents, it is reasonable, if not a requirement to ask "What ill effects may be predicted by this intervention?" Obviously, there are a number of potential harms from this intervention. Removing children from the parents to whom they are dearly attached and placing them in foster homes may not result in long term benefits overall even if weight is lost. Our foster system is not able to absorb these vulnerable children nor care for the stigma such a placement will entail.

I hope to revisit this issue soon, but so far I am not convinced by the arguments or proofs found in these articles. I have not heard convincing reasons to overturn the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children.

Stimulus Money for Education

I find information from a number of sites for this newsletter and usually summarize them before inviting you to read further at your leisure with a link. This time I will only provide a teaser riddle and a link to the full story.

How much brainwashing can be purchased in Nebraska with $130,000 of Obama's stimulus money? GO HERE to find out!

Homosexual Role Models in Textbooks

Have you ever wondered who decides how material is chosen for inclusion into school textbooks? There is so much for children to learn, yet so little time. Who is the all knowing wizard that selects or rejects each bit of information for these textbooks which are then spread across 50 states to "educate" the children of our great nation. I am no expert on this issue, but what I have heard as the answer to this question does not surprise me one bit. As the largest states, Texas and California's educational systems determine what information is included in textbooks. If the textbook producers want to sell their textbooks, California and Texas are the two biggest customers. Always please the customer, especially the big ones!


Who cares? Why write an article about this? Well, it goes like this. The California Senate passes Senate Bill 48 that requires that textbooks includes teaching about homosexual figures in the social studies classes. (the so-called FAIR Education bill also prohibits the inclusion of "homophobic" material in the historical lessons of books). If the governor signs the bill, then California will need textbooks with positively portrayed homosexual figures included in social studies books. Book publishers will produce the books and sell them to California as well as across the nation. Abracadabra and there you have homosexuality dressed up for our nation's school children.


In a LifeSite.News article, Archbishop Jose Gomez from Los Angeles had this to say about the bill:


"...forcing schoolchildren to learn about historical figures and their sexual orientation without parental consent "amounts to the government rewriting history books based on pressure-group politics. It is also another example of the government interfering with parents' rights to be their children's primary educators." "



I am thankful that we homeschool and therefore do not need such textbooks, but maybe you know someone whose children attend public schools and need to know about this story. Consider passing it on to them and start a discussion about this threat to our children's moral future.

Sexual Freedom and Your Child

The International Planned Parenthood Federation has released some alarming new educational material concerning the sexual rights of youths according to international law. "Exclaim!" and "I Decide" have been released as the the UN Youth conference is nearing and provide some scary insights into what Planned Parenthood believes is best for our children. I am printing out Exclaim for closer reading as I type this, but a LifeNews article, which is what originally sparked my curiosity, provided some initial understanding of this sexual indoctrination propaganda.


Here is a quote from the article describing Exclaim!


"The guide also contains some self-contradictions. It cites the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,Article 5 that states, "Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents." However, the guide insists that parents and the State are legally responsible for promoting a worldview and values that are held distinctively by IPPF. The guide demands liberalized abortion, self-identified (rather than biological) gender on identification papers, unrestricted access to contraceptives, and various other contentious claims."


The article also describes how Exclaim! uses the Convention on the Rights of the Child to promote sexual rights for youth:

"Although no right to sex or sexual pleasure exists in binding international documents, the guide goes through a list of human rights found in international law and explains how they can be read as sexual rights. Under the "right to know and learn" includes "bringing an end to abstinence-only sex education programs and promoting evidence informed approaches to comprehensive sexuality education.""



After reading Exclaim! and I Decide, I hope to provide further insight into these horrendous educational instruments. STAY TUNED!