Eleven years ago, I found out that I was pregnant with my second child.  A few weeks later, I was diagnosed with cancer.  My surgeon suggested that we might need to "interrupt" the pregnancy.  Thank God my OB/GYN and my oncologist did not see the need for that.  I had chemo while pregnant( let me tell you that bald AND pregnant is not the best look for a woman).  I also delivered a healthy baby boy, who nearly 11 years later, is finishing up 5th grade, smart as a whip.  He's a bright firecracker in our lives, and we would be diminished without him.  Furthermore, I think that--even though I have subsequently been treated two more times for cancer--my outcome would have been much worse if I had "interrupted" the pregnancy.  I don't think I would have had much of a mindset for recovery under a burden of guilt.  I don't fault the surgeon for his suggestion--treating cancer during pregnancy can be difficult, and 11 years ago he had little experience with it.  I hope his experience with me has changed how he treats similar patients.

Since we have almost every other executive agency working against Republican presidents, I don't see much difference.

Same thing happened to me.  Click on the link to contact the pool manager--it'll send an email to the pool manager and later on it should work for you.

 By the way, I'm registered as KayBeer again, since KayBee was already in use.

I'm a bit dismayed by the tone of comments in this thread--they strike me as saying:  "Bullying's going to happen.  Targets should either suck it up or strike back.  Anyway--it builds character."

As the mother of a special-needs child ( a natural target for bullies) and someone who was teased relentlessly as a child, is it wrong of me to NOT want such a thing to happen to my child?  And is it wrong of me to ask the schools (and by extension, the parents) to try to keep it from happening?  My child isn't able to defend himself--both by his nature and by the schools' requirements.  Nor does he/will he have the ability to process the experience and shake it off easily in adulthood.  If our children are required to be in schools, then it seems to me that there should be an effort to protect at least  the defenseless among them from bullying, just as we try to prevent them from physical harm such as school shootings.

A diagnosis can also let the in-laws (and others) know that it isn't (just?) bad parenting.

Diagnosis for diagnosis' sake is pointless.  But when it leads to a deeper understanding of the deficits and also leads to more effective ways of relating and responding to your child, I'd say it is well worth it.

It isn't about defining my child by his limitations, but understanding the possibility of limitations and trying to compensate in other ways.  It's about realizing that sending that fledgling from the nest may be a little more difficult and a little more scary.  But mostly it's about wanting that child to reach his full potential and doing whatever is necessary--yes, even accepting GOVERNMENT SERVICES provided by the education system (as imperfect as it is)--to help see that happen.

Are autism spectrum disorders overdiagnosed?  Maybe so.  Is there an element of quackery in discussions of cause and treatments?  In my opinion, yes.  But neither of those factors mean that the condition does not exist.

In August 1974, Richard Nixon resigned due to pressure from the GOP Establishment. 

Just because the "Establishment" doesn't like you, doesn't also mean that you are not a deeply flawed person--and candidate.

I guess Newt just isn't offbeat enough in my direction. I applaud his ability/willingness to tell it like it is (in some instances); that's what I like about Tancredo and Keyes.  But I'm with James that Newt is a rent-seeking insider.  Having lived through Newt and his antics in the 1990s, I can't see living through a tiresome repeat.  I dream of a better candidate (calling Paul Ryan). 

 Okay--I admit that I'm usually on the losing side (I was a Tancredo supporter in 2008, then switched to Alan Keyes after Tancredo dropped out), so clearly my thought processes are whacked out.  But I have a visceral dislike for Newt, and he has so many vulnerabilities and so much baggage that I don't see how he could possibly win (and making a few debate points against Obama just isn't worth it).  We already have an egomaniac/megalomaniac in the White House.  I can't imagine how having two of the running against each other would possibly be helpful to our country.  I don't love Mitt Romney as a candidate, but I will vote for the anti-Newt.

 Hahahaha----1.8  But I'm feeling a little cranky this morning.

Thanks, King Prawn!

FWIW, in today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank is trying on the argument that it is 2000 and Romney is playing Al Gore, at least personality-wise.  Wish I could link to the article, but I can't--in spite of Claire's recent tutorial (which I also can't link to).

Darn it all, I've been to Target 3 times in the past 4 days, and nobody's taken MY picture!

Dave--Thoughts and prayers for you!  Been there, done that a bunch of times--WAAAAAYYYY worse than childbirth, but then-I had 2 C-sections, so I guess it doesn't compare.  Drink up and may this be the last time!

Honestly, I don't think I can support Huntsman, because I don't believe he can/will be tough enough on China. 

Thanks, VDH!  I actually feel a bit of optimism after reading this!

Darn it--I can never make these links work!