Tuesday, April 19, 2011

A post to SGK about why I don't support them...

I'm reading your [Susan G Komen's] press release about your donations to Planned Parenthood. This statement stuck out to me.

"And while Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood."

If you truly think that - not only are you apparently incapable of thorough research, you are also sadly mistaken. Even in poor areas citiy, county, AND free clinics ALL perform almost all the same services that PP does - EXCEPT abortions. I live in a state where the only PP facilities are over 2 hours away. My area is rural and therefore poor. Our state-wide average income is significantly below the nation-wide average. However, we have city, county, and free clinics where the poor can get the healthcare they need. Why not fund these clinics instead of Planned Parenthood?

Your press release also indicates that you closely monitor how the funds are used at PP. While its commendable that you monitor the situation, you must be deluding yourself to think that a) the reports are entirely accurate and b) that your funds don't help pay for the 'controversial' aspects of PP. The ex-director of a TX PP facility has explained how creative expansion/condension is used to give the illusion that certain services are performed at higher rates than others. She detailed the bundling of abortion care visits as one - even if there were several visits. She also detailed the UN-bundling of birth control, cancer screenings, etc - even if all the actions took place at one time. In her example, if a months supply of contraception was given to a woman, the accounting showed 30 visits. However, if a woman came in for a consultation for abortion one day, had an abortion another day, and came back in for a post-abortion check-up and/or for complications, the accounting showed only one visit. This creative accounting is further appplied to organizations like yours who "try" to control where their funds are used.
As for your dellusion that your funding doesn't help PP fund abortions, let me give you a real-world example. If you know someone is a drug addict and you give them money - you are complicit in their further drug use. Even if they swear the $$ you give them goes only to feed themselves (or their family), the fact is that ANY $$ given to them frees up MORE $$ for them to spend on drugs. So even if PP doesn't use your funds to directly fund abortions, the fact that you give them $$ AT ALL, allows them to provide abortions by giving them more $$ from other parts of their budget to devote to abortion. Another example is slightly repulsive (but I think your ties to PP are repulsive, so...). If I bake brownies, but use 10% feces to extend the batter, would YOU eat them? No matter what piece you take out of the brownie pan, there's going to be a portion of feces in your sample. This same logic works with your organization and its association with PP.
Your press release also uses two "Catholic" ethicists to validate your donations to PP. However, what you failed to realize is that the Catholic Church did NOT endorse their statements. There are also Catholics who believe that abortions are ok. However, the Church teachings and laws PROHIBIT abortions. The Catholic Church has even come out with statements directly from the Vatican indicating that supporting political candidates who further abortion vocally is IMMORAL. The Vatican allows local bishops to refuse the Eucharist to abortion supporting politicians. The Eucharist for us is "real food and real drink" and gives us graces to join closer with God. In other words, the Eucharist is not just some symbol that is easily bandied about and given without consequence. Therefore, while the Vatican hasn't directly come out with a statement against PP or your organization, the ground-work is present.
The Catholic Church also has written into Church law that the ends CANNOT justify the means. Therefore, the "Catholic" ethicists' statement, "The good that Komen does and the harm that would come to so many women if Komen ceased to exist or ceased to be funded would seem to be a sufficiently proportionate reason” is directly counter to what the Catholic Church actually teaches. If you also notice, these ethicists couch their statement with the ambiguous wording "would seem". The truth is these ethicists DON'T know. The Catholic Church ALWAYS teaches us to err on the side of caution - especially when matters of life & death are at the forefront.
Before anyone reading this thinks that the Catholic Church doesn't care for women in crisis pregnancies, suffering from cancers, etc, do a little research. The Catholic Church has MANY of its own charities that provide care and loving options for women in these situations. As a matter of fact, most of the Catholic charities of this ilk continue to care for women in these situations long after the decision has been made and the baby (in the case of a crisis pregnancy) grows and develops into a toddler. The same is true of the Pro-Life organizations - their care, prayers, and support continue past the pregnancy phase & into the life stage for both mother AND baby. The Catholic Church also teaches that God can and does forgive our failings. However, if our failings are repetitive with no effort to reconcile or reform, the Church leaves the final judgement to God. The Catholic Church teaches to "love the sinner, but hate the sin." The basic summary of this is that we can judge actions as right or wrong (or even ambiguous), but we love, offer support and prayers, and encourage people of all walks of life to strive to live holy lives. We all rely on God's mercy.
As for the absence of a link between breast cancer and abortion, while there are studies that refute the link, there are also studies that acknowledge the link. Again, the truly *caring* option would be to err on the side of caution. However, in absence of an organization following that credo, there is other evidence in the medical community that other "services" provided by PP INCREASE breast cancer risks (as well as other breast cancers). For instance, a respected study found that for an unknown reason, women who used hormonal birth control were more likely to suffer from triple negative (TN) breast cancer than their non-birth control counter-parts. The women effected by this are often younger than the 'typical' woman with breast cancer as well. Triple negative breast cancer is one of the most devastating forms of breast cancer because it is typically very fast growing AND does NOT respond to any of the preventative drugs available currently.
These articles below are more current than the 2008 article you cite in your PR piece. The fact of the matter is that breast cancer rates have increased since birth control and abortions became more common. The exact cause-effect relationship is unknown, but it seems logical to again err on the side of caution until more evidence can be performed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21446095 article about breast cancer & birth control
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20068186 article about TN breast cancer & birth control
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19462841 article about breast cancer & abortion
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20364336 article about breast cancer & abortion
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19356229 article about breast cancer & abortion
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771534 article about breast cancer & abortion
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18771039 article about barriers to the truth about abortion/birth control as they relate to breast (and other) cancers

So, in my opinion, if your purpose is to TRULY reduce breast cancer, your organization should not support any other organization that provides abortions and/or wide-spread birth control use. More research needs to be conducted to identify the true relationship of the various risk factors and breast cancers (as well as other cancers). Perhaps that is the direction SGK should go instead of sending funds to PP.


PS: For what it's worth, I am an almost 2 year breast cancer survivor (BRCA1 TN Stage II). I was diagnosed at 20 weeks pregnant with my daughter. I was only 28. I had never been on birth control or had an induced abortion (although I did have 4 miscarriages as well as one successful birth 21 months prior to my daughter's birth). I took chemotherapy while pregnant, delivered a healthy baby girl exactly on her due date (no c-section or inducement necessary), and began more chemotherapy after delivery. I have also had a bilateral mastectomy, my ovaries removed, as well as my uterus removed. I am constantly bombarded with well-meaning people who would like to donate to your organization in my name. They would like to Race for the Cure, etc, but I always try to politely thank them & steer them away from your organization because of your ties to PP. While I don't know it as fact (since I've never set foot in a PP), I am reasonably sure that had I gone to PP for my diagnosis my daughter would be in a biohazard bag instead of at her grandmother's playing as only a 16 month old can. The other option presented me by PP would probably mean neither she nor I survived. The ACS, sadly enough, would probably have given me the same advice. However, I found MD Anderson in Houston, TX. They have been giving pregnant women chemotherapy for at least 20 years with no problems in the children. Other cancer centers have as well. However, most places do not recognize that pregnant women have BETTER survival & prognosis if they maintain their pregnancies AND get treatment than non-pregnant women or those who abort. This erroneous information is something SGK should correct as it affects about 1 in 3000 women diagnosed with breast cancer (not to mention other cancers). However, until my diagnosis I'd never heard of such a thing. Again, that would be something else SGK should use their $$ to promote instead of PP.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Current events

Its been a while since I've written. Live is crazy busy! I recently started working 4-10s. So I work from 7am to 6pm Monday through Thursday. It makes for long days, but it also makes for long weekends! Simon & Rachel are enjoying the extra time as a full family. The weather has also improved significantly, so we're spending a lot of time outside. I'm also getting ready to embark on a slightly new journey. I'm going to try to become a board member for Right to Life of Owensboro.

That new journey is actually just a continuation of my life's passion - LIFE. Speaking (writing?) about life brings me to the current events in our country. The Senate has been debating a government shut-down. The Democrats refuse to give-up on the Title X funding for Planned Parenthood. The Republicans refuse to compromise on this very important life issue. Now just to clarify, the Republicans (and pro-lifers) don't want all Title X funding cut. Instead we just want Planned Parenthood cut out of tax-funding. The reason is this - all the innocuous services that Planned Parenthood performs (cancer screenings, well-woman check-ups, immunizations, & birth control) are also provided by county health departments, crisis centers, as well as private clinics. The biggest money-maker for Planned Parenthood that sets them apart from these other clinics, is abortion. Since the country is SO divided on this issue (actually more than 1/2 the country when polled thinks abortion should be rarely if ever performed), it just seems logical to not use tax money to fund abortions. Now before you say that Title X isn't funding abortions, lets talk logic -- not rhetoric. If Planned Parenthood performs all the innocuous services at a low cost, but charges based on a 'sliding scale' for abortions. If the government gives Planned Parenthood money for the innocuous services, than money is freed up for abortion services. As an online friend of mine and past-Planned Parenthood director says, the money that goes into

Total Pageviews

Smiling already at 2 weeks

Smiling already at 2 weeks
Rachel has been smiling as a response to other people since day one.

And two shall become one...

And two shall become one...
In 2006, Andrew & I became one before God and family! Shortly thereafter we became 3 with the birth of Simon in 2008... Then 4 with the addition of Rachel in 2009!

Erika's Miracle Journey Continues's Fan Box