Great & busy weekend!

This weekend was a flurry of activity. The weekend started quite early for me since as a state worker I was furloughed (forced no-pay day off) on Friday, but since Friday's are my normal day's off (4-10s), Thursday was my substitute day.

Thursday mom, Rachel, & I went to the bra store. We went to Perfect Fit first, but the nice lady (owner) told us to go somewhere else because she was closing soon. The lady didn't want me (us) to get started with one person, then have to switch. The place she sent us was ok, but I wasn't terribly impressed. I was also quite disappointed because they didn't have any bras in my size. I understand that I'm an odd size, but since it was a bra store, I was hoping to go home with one that fit. On a whim I call the first lady back to ask if she had my size. She said she did, so I went back to her. She personally fit me with 2 separate bras that immediately lifted a weight off my shoulders (literally) and made my chest feel (and look) better. It was also Rachel's 18 month birthday! :-) 

Friday  Andrew, the kids, & I went to Lowe's and Kroger. Let me repeat that, all four of us - including an 18 month old & a 3 year old - went to Lowe's and Kroger. Can you say workout! ;-)Once we got home dad brought a skid-steer (the actual name for the things called "Bobcats" - smallish front-end loaders) to our house. Andrew & Simon got to unload it & drive it around a bit.

Saturday, Andrew & Simon worked with the skid-steer for dad for most of the morning. My mother-in-law also had a get-together at her house. She was going to have her pool put in, but it was so muddy that she decided we'd just have food & hang out. She & I got the kids an inflatable pool - that was a BIG hit with the kids!

Sunday my brother & his family had a get-together at their house in Waverly. We decided to go to Mass in Morganfield about an hour away, but an hour & 1/2 later than our usual Mass. We were about 10 minutes (or less) from the church when I hear Rachel cry, up-chuck, & cry. The wonderful aroma of the car (it was already about 85 degrees outside) was not pleasant. I called mom to have her help me with the kids before Mass. Luckily I planned ahead & brought clothes for everyone to change into. Rachel's change of clothes wasn't as cute as the original dress, but it was adorable none-the-less. Once we got to my brother's new house I had to take the carseat completely apart. The washable/removable portions went into the washer while the rest was hosed off in the backyard. The best part though was that Rachel was fine the rest of the day - must have been a bad banana or something on the ride to Morganfield. The kids played around. Simon got to drive a 'princess' motorized car, ride a pink bike (complete with pink helmet), & play on the wooden play-set. Rachel rode in the 'princess' motorized car, got run-over by aforementioned car, & played on the smaller plastic playset. The ride home was *much* less eventful than the ride there! :-P

Monday (today) my father-in-law had a get-together at his house. We ate steaks & other yummy foods. The adults talked. Simon got to ride on his motorized John Deere tractor complete with wagon. Rachel rode in the wagon behind him for a little. She had to quit riding when Simon turned too sharply and dumped her out! Then we came home & I let the kids play in the sprinkler. It was so hot that otherwise they were going to have to stay inside. My plants needed water anyway! Rachel LOVED it! Simon thought it was pretty awesome too!

 

The only bad note was late this afternoon. Someone (1st) called me asking for computer help (or so I thought). Before hanging up, I found out that the computer help I was giving was actually to 'spy' on me. The 1st someone told me in a hurt-tone-of-voice that someone else told them I was bad-mouthing them on FB. The 1st someone wouldn't tell me who said it or what it was. I immediately got that sick-to-my stomach-feeling that comes from being accused - even if innocent. I said I couldn't think of anything I'd said that was bad-mouthing. The 1st someone said they'd see for themselves in that same hurt tone. If I were a stronger person I'd have been confident that I'd done no wrong & not let it bother me. However, instead I'm a weak person that ponders, obsesses, and worries when someone tells me something like this. So later I called to tell that person that I was hurt & upset that they'd think that of me. Later Andrew spoke to that 1st someone. They still won't give us the name of who said these hurtful things. However, the bad-mouthing posts have kind of been elucidated. As I read them - even trying to do so from the other person's perspective - I cannot find anything 'bad-mouthing' about them. Yet, I still cannot let it go because I have pretty constant contact with that 1st someone. I cannot stand that anyone thinks I would maliciously malign them in a public forum like FB. Especially since I'm 'friends' with LOTS of people that are also friends with the 1st someone. I guess that's how I got into this tangled web to begin with - one of these 'friends' of mine/friends of the 1st someone went back several months at minimum to find something slightly negative (about a product given to us by the 1st someone - not about the person) to feed the 1st someone. At least that's the post that the 1st someone mentioned to Andrew.

I'm having a prolonged panic attack about this issue now. I just can't let it go like I know I should. I keep looking for something offensive about this person on FB or even here on my blog, but I CANNOT find anything. Its like a hidden-object game where the hidden object is described as circular in a field of marbles. Its driving me crazy. I want to cry - I NEVER want to cry. I actually feel like someone punched me in the chest. I keep telling myself to be confident that I'm NOT that type of person (to malign someone in a public forum - especially this 1st someone). I just find that I can't take my own advice. :-(

The "J"-word

I have been accused of being the "J"-word more times than I'd like. As an out-spoken, conservative, pro-life, and Catholic woman, I am apparently the epitome of the "J"-word. Since I have strong opinions and am very pedantic, I get labeled by the "J"-word quite frequently. If you're not sure what the "J"-word is, I'll enlighten you. It is judgemental.

For instance, I consider the following statement to be 100% absolutely without a doubt true: The Catholic Church is opposed to abortion and birth control. You may say, "But Erika, there are exceptions. You can't just make that statement without qualification." I would say, "There may be exceptions to birth control (NEVER abortion), but the root of the statement is true." Then usually, the conversation degrades to, "You're so judgemental. You can't tell every woman out there that she cannot be on birth control and follow Catholic teaching." My reply is usually something along the lines of, "I am merely stating that the Church prohibits abortion and birth control. In some instances, the Church may say it is ok for an abstinent woman to take birth control for a medical condition.** However, the Church strongly encourages the aforementioned woman to seek out other means of treating her condition." The discussion usually degrades to more name-calling and me preaching on and on by the book (typically Scripture, the Catechism, and science).

A tidbit I like to throw into the arena, at this point, is that by labeling me as judgemental, you are being judgemental. The bottom-line is that, in my opinion, being pedantic is what we are called to be as Catholics. Rules are rules. Even exceptions are supposed to be just that - exceptions. Tolerance to those outside the guidelines can be just as bad, if not worse, than being judgemental. Moral relativism does not conform to God's command to follow his laws.

Yes, I've read Scripture. I've had numerous bible quotes tossed my direction with the "J"-word. I can typically reply with my own bible quotes. Scripture does tell us, "Judge not lest ye be judged." (Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37) However, Scripture also tells us to remonstrate the sinner (Ephesians 5:11, 2 Timothy 4:2, Jude 1:15). Actually there is even an instance in Scripture where the initial portion concerns not judging one another, but the second part deals with avoiding putting scandal in front of others (Romans 14:13). Even by the first scripture alone (Matthew 7:1), if someone wants to judge me on the same matter (birth control), then they are free to do so.

Even in the midst of dangerously low iron levels, debilitating menstrual pain, repeated miscarriage, and threats of my death and/or horrible birth defects if I became pregnant too soon after chemotherapy I have never taken birth control. I have stood in front of doctors as they belittled and tried to badger me into taking birth control. Doctors, nurses, and lay-people have laughed at me, given me doom and gloom predictions, and tried to insinuate that I was stupid. I even had one doctor basically tell me that I would never be able to have children if I didn't go on birth control. Even my own husband has, at times, asked me to consider it. However, I have always stood firm in my morality and refused. So, if anyone thinks I'm expecting other women to do what I have not done myself, they are sadly mistaken.

If the above is your definition of judgemental, then I guess you should stop reading my blog & 'un-friend' me on FB. I will not stop my pedantic ways simply to make your life easier. Yes, I may try sweeten my phrasing a bit, but sugar-coating the truth sometimes ends up diluting it all-together. Yes, sometimes after the "J"-word is thrown at me, I react instead of continuing factually. I am human and it does hurt my feelings sometimes to be considered judgemental. Sometimes I may persist in being "judgemental" by pointing out that adherance to the Church's teachings is what makes us Catholic (if you're Catholic). If that hurts your feelings or makes you question your Faith, I'm sorry, but it is still truth. I try very hard not to judge people, only actions. I've been told that saying that is trite and means next to nothing or is infuriating to my audience. Well, I don't know how else to say that I still love and respect the person, but I know the action is wrong. I will never condone immoral behavior simply to make nice. In my opinion, that is part of my personality.

Please know and understand, I do not consider myself better than anyone. I am not holier than thou or perfect by any means. Instead I am just like everyone else, doing my best to live my life according to God's plan. I expect, (more often than not) deserve, and desire to be corrected on certain issues myself. No, I may not always like being corrected, but I try to avoid jumping to conclusions and being hurt. That is one reason why I am so dogged in my explanations. I sincerely want to let others know the Truth (God's), but I don't want them thinking it is my truth verses their truth. Therefore, I use Scripture, the Catechism, and science to offer testimony to my stance. I always try to avoid off-the-cuff answers on topics that I'm not personally familiar with the research and/or Church teaching. However, given my nature, I am likely to try to ferret out the Truth shortly after a conversation. Then I may revisit the discussion with my facts and figures in mind.


**The Church strongly encourages women (and men) to be fully open to life in all phases of their own lives. The Church also recognizes (unlike the secular world) that birth control is almost always a 'band-aid' for women's health issues. Therefore, instead of the woman being cured of whatever ails her, birth control merely gives her some relief from her symptoms while she seeks out moral and ethical means of treating her problem. If a woman is sexually active, due to the abortifacient effects of most birth control, she is called to be abstient while using the birth control drugs - even if the purpose of these drugs in her medical case is not to prevent pregnancy. Birth control drugs, by their own package inserts, "disrupt the lining of the uterus and prevent implantation". Denying that simply because a woman has an underlying problem does not change the fact that those embryos seeking implantation are killed by mechanism of the drug. If you believe life begins at conception then most if not all birth control drugs are abortifacient.

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.



Erika



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.