The rumors are true. NFL quarterback Tom Brady and his wife, Brazilian model Gisele Bundchen, will be expecting their first child in December. Rumors started circulating in March, but Brady denied the upcoming event until an interview with ESPN’s Chris Berman that will air Sunday.

“I told her no Sundays,” he joked with his wife concerning Lamaze classes. Adding “It couldn’t be harder than training camp, so I’ll be prepared.” He also was quoted on saying, “The women are the ones who have to do all of the work, we just have to be there to support them and so it’ll be nice to do that.”

According to Forbes, the 29-year-old Bundchen is the highest paid model for the last year earning 25 million dollars for various appearances in advertising campaigns.

Brady, who is 32, is due to come back Monday from a knee injury that kept him from playing for the better part of last season. This will be Brady’s second child. His first, Jack, was born in 2007 from a prior relationship with actress Bridget Moynahan.

She is a hermaphrodite, which refers to the combination of female and male sexual organs.

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) has yet to confirm these results, however, whoever has watched Semenya run knows that her body, not only her abilities, do not immediately resemble that of a woman’s.

So the question is, when these results do become confirmed, what will become of Caster Semenya? Will she be ousted by the athletic federation and prohibited from competing as a woman? Will she be allowed to compete as a woman after hormone treatment to reduce her testosterone levels and even surgery to remove her internal testicles? And if she agrees to this, will she be able to compete on the level she has so far? The answer is no.

If she undergoes anti-androgen therapy to correct her condition, her masculinity, strength and endurance will decrease, and she will no longer be able to compete at her current levels. Since testosterone is directly related to athletic performance, it would be unfair for any woman to compete with her, in the same manner that injecting testosterone (a form of doping) is also unfair.

After IAAF confirms the sex test results, the IAAF’s actions will have the potential of turning this into an identity debate of what it means to be a woman or a man and where those identities become blurred.

Beautiful women, even those with respected intelligence and professional demeanor, are not safe from the luring eyes of paparazzi and lustful admirers. ESPN sports reporter Erin Andrews recently became victim of invaded privacy by this guiltless group.

For reporters that must travel for assignment, a hotel room acts as a home away from home. Here they can step out of the spotlight and relax before diving back into the crazy world of the media. In the case of Erin Andrews, her home away from home transformed into a media craze when someone recorded her through a peephole.

Search engines overflowed with hunts to witness Andrews exposed. Because Andrews earned her esteemed reputation through her qualifications as opposed to her beauty, the fact that the peephole gave an extremely restricted view made no difference to irreverent fans.

The moment word spread of the video, Andrews’s legal team went to work trying to rid her image from the internet. The video posted on YouTube brought the question of whether the naked woman was actually Andrews. Despite the uncertainty, the video was immediately blocked. It later appeared on a Google search cache and from there was also removed. Her lawyers continue to rid the internet of this devastation and promise to take legal action against those responsible for releasing the video.

Erin Andrews is proof that provocative women are not the only faces in the media that get undeserved invasions of privacy due to beauty. Andrews did not consent to her exposure across the internet placing the guilt on those who willingly view the video knowing her devastation.

Around 2,730 breast cancer patients that live in Quebec, with breast cancer are to be retested.
Health Minister Yves Bolduc stated that if the new results of the tests determine the treatment that the patients are currently on should be changed, the new treatment will have the same effect like it had been started 1 year ago.

This past June, medical experts by Bolduc stated that the results were true, but the samples need to be retested just to reassure the breast cancer patients.

The women that will be retested 162 live in Laval, 445 in Monteregie, and 1,033 in Montreal.

The retesting will not be done in Quebec, because of the laboratories work load already, but having them done in the United States or another province. That will also assure that the new results are impartial.

Breast cancer patients that are discovered to have a high number of HER2 genes of the cancer cells tend to be a more aggressive type of cancer and it will respond to the treatment of Herceptin.

The review that was done was the results of 9,463 tissue samples of patients that had been diagnosed with breast cancer in April 2008 and June of 2009.

It was explained by Bolduc that the 6,733 patients that will not be retested had their tissue sample results done by an outside lab.

Such is the case for Farrah Fawcett. The sixty-two year old actress has had a long and public struggle with cancer, with tabloid reports trying to keep tabs on every development of her disease and any other health issues that that former “Charlie’s Angels” star may have experienced. Every routine checkup Fawcett went to resulted in outlandish rumors.

Yet, despite the over the top nature of the rumors, Fawcett noticed the shred of truth they were based on, leading the actress to believe that there was a leak somewhere inside of her treatment facility, and not amongst her friends and family.

To prove her suspicions, Fawcett decided to take matters into her own hands, for the sake of her own privacy. When she was informed in 2007 that her cancer had returned, Fawcett made the difficult choice to keep that information to herself, not even telling her friends and family about the setback. This put the onus on the UCLA Medical Center, where Fawcett had received treatment, to hold to its ethical standards and maintain its patients’ rights.

When the story hit the tabloids a few days later, Fawcett had all the proof she needed to begin considering legal options. The hospital did discover the source of the leak, and the suspected employee quit and was then charged with felony counts of violating federal medical privacy laws.

The music starlet was catapulted to national attention after an alleged assault against her by her then-boyfriend, Chris Brown. The drama surrounding the incident was made worse due to its timing, right before Rihanna’s scheduled appearance at the Grammy Awards. The entire situation was made worse when photos of Rihanna’s battered face were leaked, which sparked an internal investigation at the Los Angeles Police Department to discover the source of the leak.

Today, a new set of mysteriously leaked photos is causing the singer even more trouble. This time, the photos allegedly feature Rihanna undressing herself provocatively. These photos appear to have been taken by Rihanna herself, seemingly as part of an interaction with Brown during their relationship.

Rihanna, who is reportedly devastated by the photos, has holed up in Hawaii to work on her latest album. Her record label is demanding the photos be removed, saying that they are harmful to their artist, though the label will not confirm that it is in fact Rihanna in the photos.

While the legal battle gets underway, the question still remains: who leaked the photos? Initial suspicions implicated Brown, who is dealing with excessive negative publicity due to the altercation and impending legal issues from the incident prior to the Grammys. However, since one of the photos includes Brown in a mildly compromising position and he adamantly denies that he is responsible, the source of the leak is still unknown.

This settlement between Google, Association of American Publishers, and the Authors Guild was made back in October. A fund of over one-hundred million would pay out the authors. Back in 2005, publishers and authors sued Google’s book online scanning project, which had dealt with copyrighted books, and public domain.

Some say that Google has the right to monopoly the books for online access since the deal was done.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice was called by a nonprofit group, to investigate Google and their plans to scan these books to the online database. Google was planning on scanning books that are copyrighted, but the person that holds the rights, can’t be found. They are known as “Orphan” books.

John Simpson, an advocate for the nonprofit group had sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General, wanting the government to intervene with this settlement between Google and the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers stating that the settlement needed to be relooked at to see if it took the consumers interest or not. Simpson also stated in his letter that this settlement, that was done, protects Google, but there is no protection for others. Simpson describes it as a barrier for other competitors to join in on the digital book process.

The digitized book business has become competitive and on the rise in the market. Back in March Sony had announced it eBook domain free for readers.

With the legal people chatting with Google and the other businesses involved, we shall see soon what the investigation will bring forth.

The 13-11 vote broke down roughly on party lines: all ten Republican senators opposed the measure, while one Democrat joined them. The bill only achieved its narrow passage with an amendment from the version passed previously by the State House, allowing for the gendered designations of “bride” and “groom.” Previously the bill only allowed parties to a marriage to be designated as “spouses.” The State House will be required to approve the changes.

Democratic Governor John Lynch has said in the past he believes the word “marriage” should be reserved only for heterosexual couples. It is unclear whether he will sign or veto the measure. New Hampshire already allows for civil unions between same-sex couples; if the bill is passed these unions will be renamed “marriages.” Passage of the bill would also make gay marriage legal in a majority of New England states—only Maine and Rhode Island still exclude gays from marriage protections.

One other state—California—legalized gay marriage through the courts only to see the rights stripped by approval of a controversial 2008 ballot initiative. New Hampshire’s bill is still a compromise: couples, both gay and straight, will choose between “religious” or “civil” tiers of marriage.

The 13-11 vote broke down roughly on party lines: all ten Republican senators opposed the measure, while one Democrat joined them. The bill only achieved its narrow passage with an amendment from the version passed previously by the State House, allowing for the gendered designations of “bride” and “groom.” Previously the bill only allowed parties to a marriage to be designated as “spouses.” The State House will be required to approve the changes.

Democratic Governor John Lynch has said in the past he believes the word “marriage” should be reserved only for heterosexual couples. It is unclear whether he will sign or veto the measure. New Hampshire already allows for civil unions between same-sex couples; if the bill is passed these unions will be renamed “marriages.” Passage of the bill would also make gay marriage legal in a majority of New England states—only Maine and Rhode Island still exclude gays from marriage protections.

One other state—California—legalized gay marriage through the courts only to see the rights stripped by approval of a controversial 2008 ballot initiative. New Hampshire’s bill is still a compromise: couples, both gay and straight, will choose between “religious” or “civil” tiers of marriage.

The Institute also predicts as many as 55,000 gay couples will travel to Iowa to marry legally over the same three year period.

At 8:00 AM county recorders in the state will open. As a requirement of marrying, couples will need to bring a witness that is at least 18. They’ll also need photographic identification and a completed marriage license application. The cost for a license and certificate will be $35 and an additional $5 will be required for the judge to waive the three day waiting period.

A Senator from Grafton, Merlin Bartz, said that he urges county recorders that do not agree with same-sex marriages to refuse to follow the ruling. He’s also pushing for a “conscience clause” to be added to the state law so that any recorder that opposes the same-same pairings can legally do so. The state, however, has already said that any state recorder that fails to honor the law and issue licenses to any qualified individual may be fired.