Rosie O'Donnell never minces words. Part of the reason we love her, right? In supporting Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson, whose mother, brother and nephew were tragically murdered in Chicago, she blamed "guns and domestic violence."

In her blog, O'Donnell wrote, "Guns and domestic violence are a lethal combination — injuring and killing women every day in the United States. A gun is the weapon most commonly used in domestic homicides. In fact, more than three times as many women are murdered by guns used by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than are killed by strangers’ guns, knives or other weapons combined. Contrary to many public perceptions, many women who are murdered are killed not by strangers but by men they know."

Those men could be husbands, ex-husbands or even stepfathers.

She also cited these stats:

• Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. In 2000, 1,247 women, more than three a day, were killed by their intimate partners.

• Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds of were killed by their intimate partners.

• Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.

• In 2002, 54 percent of female homicide victims were shot and killed with a gun.

Details are still sketchy on who shot Hudson’s family.

Hudson’s mother, Darnell Donerson and brother Jason Hudson were with the Oscar winner’s nephew, Julian King, at the boy’s home in Chicago. His mother, Julia Hudson, was not in the house at the time of the murders.

After going through the stress of many in vitro fertilizations, I vivdly remember signing a paper giving the unused embryos to scientific research. In my mind, it was the least I could do since, thanks to this modern day miracle, I could possible conceive the child I so desperately wanted.

But I also realized that the pain — both physical and emotional — of this process could also break couples apart. It was right there in front of me, as I witnessed the cumulative strain on people in the waiting room.

What, I wondered, would happen to their embryos if indeed they broke up? A woman on fertility drugs can produce as many as 20 or 30 eggs. Who would get them?

The nurses would smile and tell me not to worry about it, especially since my husband and I were, they said, such a happy couple. Naturally the reporter in me wanted answers. Where exactly did the embryos go? Did they go into one large unpatrolled laboratory where a rogue nurse would sell them elsewhere. And then, in years to come, I'd meet my lookalike in the mall.

Yes, I know, it seems like something out of a Robin Cook medical thriller, and I laughed at how fertile my imagination could be. So did the nurses. Everything, they assured me, was properly monitored and nothing could happen to the embryos without both parents’ consent.

With in vitro fertilization (IVF), doctors usually implant no more than four fertilized eggs to prevent high-multiple births. In Oregon, a divorced couple split on what to do with their six frozen fertilized eggs, and the case ended up in the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Laura Dahl and her former husband, Darrell Angle, had stored their “embryos” with Oregon Health and Science University, where she had undergone IVF. (For the sake of argument, the court called the fertilized eggs “embryos,” although they said that, technically, they would become embryos only once implanted in a woman’s womb.)

With the country embroiled in a tainted-milk scandal, a Chinese woman is suing her husband for the right to breastfeed her son, and therefore prevent her husband from divorcing her.

What is as pure as mother’s milk, or as safe? That’s a question that even Confucius would have trouble debating. But a Chinese court will now have to.

The couple met online and married quickly, in September, 2007. Clearly they didn’t use eHarmony and didn’t know the perils and pitfalls of online dating.

Almost before they got to know each other, a baby was conceived. But while she was pregnant, she says, her husband took too many pregnant pauses. He was away for long stretches of time.

Once the son was born, her husband snatched the baby, telling her, “If you want to see your son, we have to divorce.”

She looked for her son, and finally found him after a frantic search — and with her breasts and temper engorged — at her husband’s sister’s house, and took him away. The victory was short-lived.

The husband went ahead and filed for divorce, but the court rejected his request because it ruled that when a child is still breastfeeding, a husband cannot file for divorce. Dripping with venom, the husband ignored the court’s ruling, rounded up a group of friends, and took the child away again, by force.

How dare he?

Now the wife is suing her husband to get the child back, and to breastfeed without interruption.

The court has yet to rule on this case. But your FWW scribes will keep you abreast of the situation as it unfolds.

Talk about a bitter pill. In order to get health insurance, a devoted husband divorced his wife just so she would qualify for Medicaid and could have chemotherapy.

As Rudy Friece, a 72-year-old truck driver, told the “Star Banner” newspaper in Ocala, Florida, he and Emily had been happily married for almost 50 years, had two children, seven grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. But they divorced in order for Emily to have weekly $2,800 treatments for terminal bone cancer.

Through the divorce they wiped out her right to their joint assets, thus making her eligible for Medicaid, which is intended for the poor. It would pay all of the medically necessary costs.

Medicare, which Emily qualified for based on her age, has deductibles and upper limits for hospitalization. In addition, Medicare would reimburse only 80 percent of approved out-patient treatments and doctor bills.

She could stay married and collect Medicare, but it wouldn’t cover enough; or she could get divorced and get Medicaid to cover her treatments.

Isn’t this the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard?

Friece said his wife refused to consider a divorce for a while out of principle. She burst into tears at the thought of dissolving their marriage. But as her cancer progressed, she gave in. “I told her she had no choice,” Friece told the newspaper. “She was getting worse and worse.”

In 2005, the couple picked up a guidebook on marital dissolutions, and marched into an Ohio courthouse, their $75 divorce petition in hand. Do you know what the judge told this loving couple, divorcing out of desperation?

Rudy Friece said the judge told them, “I've never given anyone a dissolution that had been married this long.”

Now another reason why divorcing parents should minimize fighting – it’s bad for your kids’ health. No, not just their emotional health – we knew that – but stress affects your kids’ immune systems too and could create increases in asthma and eczema.

According to a story by Jane Collingwood at PsychCentral, research in Germany at Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research discovered that stressful events during childhood are increasingly suspected of playing a role in the later development of asthma, allergic skin disorders, and allergic “sensitizations.”

The researchers took blood samples from 234 6-year-old children participating in the ongoing LISA (Life style-Immune System-Allergy) study. The blood was tested to measure levels of a stress-related neuropeptide called VIP and immune markers, such as the cytokine IL-4, related to allergic reactions.

Children with separated or divorced parents showed particularly high VIP levels and immune markers, as did those who had moved. However, severe disease, parental unemployment or death of a family member led to “no remarkable changes.”

As lead researcher Gunda Herberth told Collingwood, “As tragic as these events are, they are obviously of less significance for the stress reactions of children than for example a separation or the divorce of parents.”

The study is in the journal Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.

The link between stress and the immune system has always been suspected — common sense — but science is only now beginning to tease out risk factors.

Another study supports these recent findings. Parental stress can raise the risk of wheezing among children with no family history of asthma.

Along with qualities like “devoted,” “adventurous,” “successful,” and “cute,” the checklist of women deciding what they want in a man may now include “the fidelity gene.”

A study by a behavioral geneticist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockhom confirmed what we already knew — when it comes to monogamy, it’s not about us, it’s about them.

Some guys, well, can't help themselves. You can blame the genes when he can't keep it in his jeans.

The gene in question controls the number and location of vasopressin receptors in the brain. Vasopressin is a hormone secreted during sexual activity that increases the likelihood of pair bonding.

One allele, or alternate form of a gene, and there are fewer vasopressin receptors. Two alleles and there are way fewer vasopressin receptors.

As The Washington Post reported, the finding is striking because it not only links the gene variant — present in two out of five men — with the risk of marital discord and divorce, but also appears to predict whether women involved with these men say their partners are emotionally close and available, or distant and disagreeable.

The presence of the allele also seems predictive of whether men get married or live with women without getting married.

"Men with two copies of the allele had twice the risk of experiencing marital dysfunction, with a threat of divorce during the last year, compared to men carrying one or no copies," said Hasse Walum, a behavioral geneticist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, who led the study. "Women married to men with one or two copies of the allele scored lower on average on how satisfied they were with the relationship compared to women married to men with no copies."

Losing a job often means a spouse can’t afford to pay a divorce settlement. When Steven became Susan Stanton at age 48 after a sex-change operation, the Largo Florida City Commission fired Steven/Susan from his/her job as city manager — a job that paid $157,000.

The grounds: after 20 years on the job, and just when he decided to become a woman, they lost trust in him/her, and felt he/she was no longer leadership material.

That left Donna Stanton, the wife of the new Susan Stanton, in a quandary when they tried to figure out equitable distribution.

According to a story in “The Tampa Tribune” by reporter Stephen Thompson, and court documents, Steven/Susan Stanton amicably mediated his divorce from his wife of 18 years. The wife, Donna, would get $4,756 in alimony and an additional $799 a month in child support for their 15 year old son. Their marriage lasted 17 years.

Because Steven/Susan no longer has a job, he/she offered Donna Stanton a lump sum of $50,000 from his/her retirement account to cover the roughly first ten months of alimony.

That would make him current through December.

But — and here's the kicker — according to the settlement, if Steven/Susan doesn't get a job by then, even though he/now/she has applied for 100 city manager jobs, Donna Stanton is entitled to more from the retirement account.

One good thing: sex change and broken marriages make for great movies, or at least they did in 2003, when Tom Wilkinson starred with Jessica Lange in the highly-regarded television drama “Normal,” about a man who wants to become a woman after 25 years of marriage and two children.