Gingrey's argument is rather pathetic. It is not based in anything except rhetoric.

He is imposing a 'belief system' into the facts about a woman's reproductive capacity. He sees his words as important to validate the "Pro Life" initiative to bring pregnancy as a real outcome to sex as punishment for sex outside marriage. Heck, it is punishment inside a marriage if the pregnancy is unwanted.

Dr. Gingrey completed his internship (click here) at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, and his residency at the Medical College of Georgia. He also completed a rotation during this time at Doctor's Hospital in Columbus.

He is a licensed physician and needs to be peer reviewed. That it to begin with.

Fact Sheets by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (click here)

The website Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Power and Potential is overt about racism and pregnancy.

This graph clearly is interested in victimizing pregnancy of teens by ethnicity. That is not needed. Unwanted pregnancies need options, including birth control, CONDOMS for young men and abortion when contraception fails.

When young women, girls and their families do not have options, are not educated to the facts of pregnancy then what results are high pregnancy rates.


Georgia has the 13th highest adolescent birth rate (click here) in the United States. Source: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System.  National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 60, Number 1. Births: Final Data for 2009. November 2011.


I sincerely expect EVERY STATE in the country to offer young women, especially girls, the option of an abortion. Children should not being having children.

Dr. Gingrey's understanding about infertility and 'casual behavior' to CURE the problem is grossly incorrect. There can be issues at times. Sometimes advise to THE MAN is more important than the woman. It is not about relaxing, except, to allow the testicles to descend ever so gently from the scrotum in shorts rather than briefs. Sometimes sperm are sensitive to body temperature and aren't in sufficient numbers or motility to make it to the target ovum. Sometimes men have to appear less macho when trying to have a baby and actually air the darn things in shorts so they aren't over cooking the sperm.

Men may find a higher fertility rate if their balls look more like walnuts than smooth golf balls. I wish them all the luck and happiness they deserve.

So, Dr. Gingrey needs reorientation to casual treatment of infertility and certainly not victimize and make guilty the prospective mother. While emotional tensions surround the act of sexual intercourse I doubt seriously that is the overwhelming reason for infertility in couples. Sexual tension can precede intercourse and not the interruption of it. I mean the couple has to get each other's attention after all.

There may be a reason why the Right Wing is stuck in the past.

I thought this was an excellent interview with Judge Scalia. It also portrays the profound difference between the Justices when they make decisions.

There are conservative judges that sincerely do not see an obligation to address the modern era. I do believe Justice Scalia explains these differences quite well. He doesn't do a compare and contrast, however, he does discuss the values dictating his focus on the USA Constitution.

Some coin this as a Living Constitution. Does the USA Constitution actually assign the right to Justices, the Legislature and the Executive Branch to treat it in a way it is responsive to a modern day society. Basically, the Founders were movers and shakers themselves, so when contextualizing the Constitution as a 'carved in stone' document it is not the best endearment of our heritage.

The Founders, including scientists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, remained skeptical the USA Constitution would actually serve the people and remain as a stable form of government. The Founders definitely were interested in creating a nation of, by and for the people. They were not interested in creating a dictatorship of their own words and purpose.

But, in appreciation of Judge Scalia and his reasoning, he does clearly state the limitations of the Second Amendment. It is not as though his point of view is null and void. He does hold a valuable view of the Constitution, that is not it at all. It is the fact that view overrides the realities Americans now live in as they seek the best understanding of the USA Constitution to their new realities opposed to those of the Founders.

I also believe Judge Scalia can be political in his decisions, too. I mean "Broccoli?" Give me a break.

Can the federal government make you buy broccoli? (click here)

The public policy geek in me can't stay away from this one. It is a very interesting map. Both California and Mississippi have an aggressive policy to provide public health services regardless of income.

Mississippi receives Medicaid for 20% of its population compared to the USA which receives 18%. (A link for the curious - click here) The majority of recipients of the Mississippi program are children. 68% of Mississippi children are covered by Medicaid with 32% of adults. California is 18%, 58% and 42% which are closer to national averages. DC is 25%, 40% and 60%. Those are higher averages than the nation.

A Weekly Influenza Surveillance Report (click here)

While not everyone will receive a flu vaccination, Public Health policy usually dictates as many should be vaccinated to prevent epidemics. So, while spead is from east to west and eventually the ranking of California will no doubt change, the fact the recovery rate of any widespread occurrence is recovering more quickly in states leaning toward aggressive public policy in vaccinating as many as possible is significant. No doubt those vaccinated, if they succumb, will recover more quickly than if they weren't vaccinated. So, while effectiveness from this strain of flu may be only 65% or so, that doesn't mean the vaccination never was effective for a better outcome.

There are economic impacts of the flu. The obvious is time off from work from being ill and the need to take care of children.

By LINSEY DAVIS (@LinseyDavis) and AMANDA KEEGAN
Jan. 11, 2013

The flu outbreak (click here) that is sweeping the nation has caused one school district in Oklahoma to cancel classes as 25 percent of the student body is ill with the flu.

On Thursday, the Kiefer public school district announced they would cancel today's classes to give students the weekend to rest as nearly 150 of the 650 student-body are suffering from the flu.

Kiefer, located 30 minutes south of Tulsa, will use today's day off to clean all of the water fountains, lockers, desks and chairs in the school district,according to ABC News affiliate KTUL....

The National RIFLE Association has been controlling the dialogue regarding guns.

What does anyone believe that dialogue is going to look like, considering where it is today? The NRA is now living its prophesy.

The chart to the right is from 1994.

The only approach for the USA to state it has a profound reason to effect gun control, is to call in the reality of statistics that prove guns in our society at these levels are dangerous to the people whom were elected to Congress and the Executive Branch.

- How many rapes were prevented or stopped because the woman was carrying a concealed weapon or otherwise?

- How many crimes were ended or prevented when guns were present to prevent the crime?

- How many guns are used for sport in the USA?

- How many guns are used for target shooting?

- How many gun owners participate in SAFE competition to ultimately lead to participation in events such as the Olympics?

- What are gun owners saying about their guns? Do they have social acceptance because they own? They carry? They stand for the Second Amendment defined as the NRA would define it?

- Do owners like owning their guns? Do they use them regularly? Practice? Do they feel more secure with a gun in their possession? Do they worry about owning a gun? Do they worry about carrying a gun? Do they worry in a wholesome way? Is there a limit to the presence in their own lives to the gun in their life?

- Do they spend money on securing their guns? Do they have a bedside table with a lock where the gun is stored? Do they pay warehousing fees on ownership of large amounts of ammunition and guns? Do they fear an adverse outcome to owning a gun?

From the thread at the blog this entry was about two months ago (11/12).

...For fun, (click here) I put together a fairly conservative breakdown of the costs associated with owning/using a competition gun and the 1st thing that is clear is the cost of a quality firearm is only about 11% of the equation....

I always chuckle when I think of the enormous amounts of ammunition and guns purchased after an event that brings about discussion of gun control. Like, where does that money come from to do that? Guns and ammunition are not cheap, so like do these folks run to Pay Check Advance? What does a man say to his 'woman' when it arrives home and the checking account is severely damaged after a trip to the gun shop in these occasions? My favorite fantasy to that potential reality is, "Look, honey, I have to protect my family and no government is going to stop me. I don't care if we can't pay the mortgage right now. If they come to evict us, they'll never succeed, okay?"

This is a chart from the standard argument that when gun legislation in the UK was enacted the crime statistics went up. That is not exactly the case, so the statistics used have to be real. Impacting these statistics are the definitions used, namely what is crime, what is violent crime, what is homicide and what is not as well in all these cases. The USA needs its own statistics to 'find' the reason why legislation effects dynamics of crime and why it does not. To simply state gun legislation causes higher crime rates is not accurate. To state that means people with guns were actually acting as a threat to the escalation of crime. Not so. People are not out there preventing crime. As a matter of fact vigilantes are not allowed to carry out the role of police officers. So, these arguments have to be met with economic dynamics that would effect government budgets to reduce officers in its society. Economics also causes higher crime rates or prevents them. There is a lot here that dictates crime rates. Crime rates are not directly connected to the incidence of guns. It is a gross deception. Crime and its prevention is the role of the government, not the citizen. These statements by the NRA are focused to convince people they are accurate in the face of many other factors that contribute to crime and violence. There has to be a none biased examination of American crime as well as American violence. Both are not the same, but, most people think they are because Americans frequently equate crime with guns. Follow? There needs to be sanity brought to the arguments of the private sector stating they have the best arguments. They do not. They have AN argument and it is based in economic success and political pressure.

The ethical problem in the USA within the federal government are the amendments attached to what could be effective legislation in order to water it down and perhaps make it ineffective. This is corruption. When it comes to controlling violence and saving lives I would object to any and all amendments to weaken the words of the legislation. Why go through asking police officers how to best protect their lives and the lives of the communities where they work, if it will be undone by an NRA amendment?

If we are to end the slaughter. And we are talking about children. If we are to end the slaughter, we need to have the best policies, the best outcomes, the best realities. Not those that serve a faux agenda by extremists. Please. Let's keep this one real.

- What do police officers say about defending the law these days? More dangerous, less dangerous? Is there a profoundly good dynamic in their jobs when large volumes of guns exist within the USA society? Have they ever lost anyone due to a gun? How do they cope with that? Is your union proving to be an effective advocate for gun safety in the USA to reduce the gun crimes you face? Do you seek that type of advocacy from your unions as well as seeking pay and benefits? Do you believe they are trying everything they can to stop this momentum in the USA?

- Do gun owners and police officers believe the Second Amendment is being enforced by the courts in the spirit it was intended? Why or why not? Do they believe the Second Amendment as been perverted for the sake of economic benefit? 

- Has a gun owner / police officer visited gun manufacturers? Why or why not? With such a supposedly important aspect to the USA Constitution and the brevity of life and death in the balance don't they feel a need to understand the industry better? 

- What do gun owners/purchasers believe is a realistic number on the amount of guns any one person should own in the USA? If no limit, why? A no limit capacity doesn't speak to respect of the Second Amendment or does it?

- Should Concealed Carry permits require proof of need? Is there such a thing as unreasonable possession? Should ownership be limited to those who take lessons and to what extent does that add an unreasonable demand to ownership, especially in the demands on the industry for sport. What do hunting permits prove to gun ownership for sport? Should a gun owner be viewed through the lens of USE as well as ownership? If a gun owner / purchaser doesn't find use of the guns, except, in hoarding them what does that say about a law allowing it? What does that say about the people that will be victimized by that dynamic?

Have a better day? Yes or no?

Prove the case and win the day.

I would not over estimate this ? fact ?

From Politico:

NRA TELLS PLAYBOOK it has gained over 100,000 new paid members in the past 18 days (Newtown shooting was Dec. 14), from 4.1 million to 4.2 million: “Our goal is to get to 5 million before  this debate is over.” Membership is $25, and comes with a choice of three gifts: Rosewood Handle Knife, Black & Gold Duffel Bag or Digital Camo Duffel Bag. Meeting with Vice President Joe Biden at 1:45 p.m. in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building today will be James Jay (Jim) Baker, the NRA’s director of federal affairs, who works for Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA’s chief lobbyist). Baker has dealt with Biden personally many times before, and they both are fixtures at the Delaware beach. Baker was in Cox's post during the ’90's for the Brady Bill and first assault-weapons bill.

This is not necessarily a loyalty issue, the NRA provides a list of participating retailers who offer discounts with membership (click here).

Folks will join the NRA before they purchase. I doubt these are all new members either. Newly renewed, maybe to purchase the ammunition for the gun a person hasn't used in eons because the stuff is so expensive. So, statistically, there has to be at the very least 5% ... actually...more 10% of former members coming back for one reason or another.

There are also people willing to act to reduce extremism by joining and acting against the lousy political agenda put forward as their members wishes. For the most part memberships of large faceless organizations like this are silent partnerships. When people join and seek to effect change within the organization it can actually make it to the leadership to tone down their rhetoric. And that is all the NRA has, is rhetoric in what they consider to be advocacy. So, unless there is a valid opinion poll taken of their membership, which never happens (it is always volunteer reporting to any of their internal polls), there is no way of knowing why or who is actually joining the NRA.

The NRA has irrelevant advocacy. They simply tweak the extremism. That is brainless, rhetorical mind speak. That is not advocacy.

If the NRA leadership had brains rather than air space between their ears, which makes them really boring people to listen to at meetings with a Vice President of the USA, they might realize there is a real dynamic, including statistical analysis, of what is effective gun ownership in the USA that will prevent extremism and prevent marshaling in Martial Law.

Here again, the NRA is a populous organization seeking nothing more than common sense understandings among their members. They don't seek to reach a higher level of understanding. It is completely obvious where there is no significant basis to the NRA rhetoric. It is extremely obvious in other nations where the NRA has introduced their rhetorical fear of one another based on horrific incidents.

Today, the NRA is trying to use the rape issue to bring market penetration to India. The NRA is diabolical. There are very interesting laws in India to prevent escalation of gun ownership in a population of over a billion people. There are inheritance laws that provide for guns to be passed down from generation to generation will being about obsolete weaponry over time anyway, but, it sincerely prevents huge explosions of guns in the society there. 

The NRA is seeking to turn the rape issue into a 'murder the rapist' issue. That is sincerely wrong headed. Women do survive rape in India. They survive it in Pakistan, too, where it is used to 'shame' populous ideation / culture. I am not saying it is correct women should be raped, but, what I am saying is turning rape into a murder is worse than allowing the population to sincerely address oppressive gender issues allowing rape to exist in the way it does. It is far better for women in both India and Pakistan to bring about democratic change in their political systems and government than to seek to become a society of armed women. The guns will ultimately be used against a woman. They will be used against them physically and politically. The guns will provide more of a reason to oppress women and not elevate their arguments and concerns.

That is another thing. Women actually believe a gun is an equalizer. It sincerely is not. Women are not as physically strong as a man. A man will assault a woman with a gun seeking to over power her and commit the crime anyway. Ultimately, a man while succeeding in his crime can then use the woman's personal gun to heighten the crime and possibly bring about her death. But, that is something no one will ever hear from the NRA or will find research on by the NRA.

There are many intelligent approaches to personal gun ownership and use. Many. The NRA is far from taking the high road to being an advocate. Their relationship with their membership is not what I would call valuable in most lives anywhere in the world, yet alone the USA.