Friday, August 19, 2011

Cohabitation Linked to Unstable Families


Special Report - August 17, 2011

Children today are more likely to spend time in a cohabiting household and to suffer a myriad of negative lifetime effects as a result, than they are to experience the divorce of their parents, according to a new report released Wednesday by a team of family scholars from some of the nation’s leading educational institutions. The report, “Why Marriage Matters: 30 Conclusions from the Social Sciences (Third Edition),” is the long-awaited comprehensive summary of the latest research pointing to the importance of marriage to child wellbeing. Co-sponsored by the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values and by the National Marriage Project (NMP) at the University of Virginia, the report is written by a team of 18 scholars chaired by W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the NMP.

The report’s major finding is that cohabitation, which it notes has increased 14-fold since 1970, has replaced divorce as the main contributor to the rising rates of family instability in the United States. In fact, by the age of 12, more children today will spend time in a cohabiting family than will experience the divorce of their parents (see figure 2 from report). While a decrease in parental divorce is certainly a good thing, the increasing rates of cohabitation, particularly for children, is not, because, as the report points out, “cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage.”

“In a striking turn of events, the divorce rate for married couples with children has returned almost to the levels we saw before the divorce revolution kicked in during the 1970s. Nevertheless, family instability is on the rise for American children as a whole,” explains Professor Wilcox in a press release. “This seems in part to be because more couples are having children in cohabiting unions, which are very unstable. This report also indicates that children in cohabiting households are more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems—drug use, depression, and dropping out of high school—compared to children in intact, married families.”

Among the key findings in report regarding cohabitation:

  • About 24 percent of all children are born to cohabiting parents, which the report notes is more than the percentage of children born to single mothers.
  • An additional 20 percent of children will spend some time in a cohabiting household with an unrelated adult (often because of the divorce of their parents), meaning that “more than four in 10 children are exposed to a cohabiting relationship.”
  • Cohabiting parents with children are more likely to break up before the child turns 12 than married parents with children (see figure 5 from the report).

The report describes the “rise in cohabiting households” as “the largely unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of children’s lives in today’s families.” It details the latest research on cohabitation, which shows that compared to children raised in intact, married families, children in cohabiting families “do significantly worse” on several social, educational and psychological outcomes; and that children in cohabiting households are also significantly more likely to suffer from physical, emotional and sexual abuse than children in either intact married families or single parent families (see figure 3 from report);

Finally, the report includes the following three conclusions that echo the previous findings from the 2002 and 2005 editions of “Why Marriage Matters”:

  1. “The intact biological, married family remains the gold standard for family life in the United States.
  2. Marriage is an important public good, associated with a range of economic, health, educational, and safety benefits that help local, state, and federal governments serve the common good.
  3. The benefits of marriage extend to poor, working-class, and minority communities, despite the fact that marriage has weakened in these communities in the last four decades.”

“This important report shows why the North Carolina statutes against cohabitation are needed,” said Alysse ElHage, associate director of research for the North Carolina Family Policy Council. “The State is correct in recognizing and supporting marriage as the only domestic union that should be recognized. An intact family unit with a married mother and a father is the best place to raise children, and we are pleased that North Carolina law supports this reality.”

Related resources:
Census Report Examines Cohabitation - November 9, 2010
Marriage Beats Cohabitation - March 5, 2010
Most Children Live With Parents - July 27, 2010
Characteristics of Cohabiting Adults Studied - July 16, 2009

Report Analyzes Cohabitation Effects - June 23, 2008
How Cohabitation Undermines Marriage and the Family - Findings - June 2005

Copyright © 2011. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Abortion Has Caused 300K Breast Cancer Deaths Since Roe

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/17/11 4:44 PM

A leading breast cancer researcher says abortion has caused at least 300,000 cases of breast cancer causing a woman’s death since the Supreme Court allowed virtually unlimited abortion in its 1973 case.

With tens of millions of abortions since the high court’s decision and research confirming abortion increases the risk of contracting breast cancer, undoubtedly a large number of breast cancer cases, caused by abortion, have occurred over the last 38 years.

Professor Joel Brind, an endocrinologist at Baruch College in New York, worked with several scientists on a 1996 paper published in the Journal of Epidemiol Community Health showing a “30% greater chance of developing breast cancer” for women who have induced abortions. He recently commented on how many women have become victims.

“If we take the overall risk of breast cancer among women to be about 10% (not counting abortion), and raise it by 30%, we get 13% lifetime risk,” Brind explains. Using the 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade figure, we get 1.5 million excess cases of breast cancer. At an average mortality of 20% since 1973, that would mean that legal abortion has resulted in some 300,000 additional deaths due to breast cancer since Roe v. Wade.”

Brind said his estimate excludes deaths from the use of abortion to delay first full term pregnancies – a recognized breast cancer risk.

Karen Malec, the head of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, a public awareness group, says the number of studies showing the abortion-breast cancer link continues to grow in the years since Brind’s groundbreaking 1996 analysis of the major studies at that time.

“During the last 21 months, four epidemiological studies and one review reported an abortion-breast cancer link,” she noted. “One study included National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton as co-author. We count nearly 50 published epidemiological studies since 1957 reporting a link. Biological and experimental studies also support it.”

“Experts proved in medical journals that nearly all of the roughly 20 studies denying the link are seriously flawed (fraudulent). Like the tobacco-cancer cover-up, these are used to snow women into believing abortion is safe,” Malec added.

Surgeons like Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey who has extensively explained how abortion increases the breast cancer risk, have seen first-hand how abortion hurts women.

In 2002, Angela Lanfranchi, MD testified under oath in a California lawsuit against Planned Parenthood that she had private conversations with leading experts who agreed abortion raises breast cancer risk, but they refused to discuss it publicly, saying it was “too political.”

As the co-director of the Sanofi-aventis Breast Care Program at the Steeplechase Cancer Center, Lanfranchi has treated countless women facing a breast cancer diagnosis. Lanfranchi was named a 2010 Castle Connolly NY Metro Area “Top Doc” in breast surgery.

In an article she wrote for the medical journal Linacre Quarterly, Lanfranchi talks about why abortion presents women problems and increases their breast cancer risk:

Induced abortion boosts breast cancer risk because it stops the normal physiological changes in the breast that occur during a full term pregnancy and that lower a mother’s breast cancer risk. A woman who has a full term pregnancy at 20 has a 90% lower risk of breast cancer than a woman who waits until age 30.

Breast tissue after puberty and before a term pregnancy is immature and cancer-vulnerable. Seventy five percent of this tissue is Type 1 lobules where ductal cancers start and 25 percent is Type 2 lobules where lobular cancers start. Ductal cancers account for 85% of all breast cancers while lobular cancers account for 12-15% of breast cancers.

As soon as a woman conceives, the embryo secretes human chorionic gonadotrophin or hCG, the hormone we check for in pregnancy tests.

HCG causes the mother’s ovaries to increase the levels of estrogen and progesterone in her body resulting in a doubling of the amount of breast tissue she has; in effect, she then has more Type 1 and 2 lobules where cancers start.

After mid pregnancy at 20 weeks, the fetus/placenta makes hPL, another hormone that starts maturing her breast tissue so that it can make milk. It is only after 32 weeks that she has made enough of the mature Type 4 lobules that are cancer resistant so that she lowers her risk of breast cancer.

Induced abortion before 32 weeks leaves the mother’s breast with more vulnerable tissue for cancer to start. It is also why any premature birth before 32 weeks, not just induced abortion, increases or doubles breast cancer risk.

By the end of her pregnancy, 85% of her breast tissue is cancer resistant. Each pregnancy thereafter decreases her risk a further 10%.

A woman can use this information to make an informed decision about her pregnancy. If she chooses to abort her pregnancy for whatever reason, she should start breast screening about 8-10 years later so that if she does develop a cancer, it can be found early and treated early for a better outcomes.

text4baby Contest!

Text4baby is a free health text messaging service that provides information and resources for pregnant and new mothers. The text4baby program just launched the Summer Sign-Up Contest, an opportunity to spread the word about the important text4baby effort.

The top 20 contestants who enroll the most women in the text4baby service between now and September 10th will win a year’s supply of baby products and a special gift, courtesy of text4baby’s Founding Sponsor, Johnson & Johnson. To participate in the Contest, visit www.text4baby.org.

Want to Be on TV?


The Bill Cunningham Show premieres this fall on TV stations nationwide; the 60-minute talk show will be topically driven. The show is currently putting together a show on teen pregnancy and seeks teen girls who were recently pregnant or who are trying to get pregnant and who are willing to appear on national television. If you know anyone who might be interested in sharing their story, please send an email to nyctalkguest@gmail.com. Please visit www.thebillcunninghamshow.com for more information.

The High Cost of Unintended Pregnancy

A new research brief from the Brookings Institution's Adam Thomas and Emily Monea details the high costs of unintended pregnancy. Among their findings:

  • Taxpayers spend about $12 billion annually on publicly financed medical care for women who experience unintended pregnancies and on infants who were conceived unintentionally.
  • Taxpayers could save an estimated $6 billion if all unintended pregnancies could be prevented.

Read the full brief here