Contributed by Anthony Esolen

In 1999, at the ripe old baseball age of 35, Barry Bonds, one of the five or six greatest players ever to carry the bat, was finally beginning to wear down. Even aside from the effects of aging, the long baseball seasons take their toll on the body: nagging little injuries, a pulled muscle here, a sprain there, a touch of arthritis, a fractured bone that never quite healed right. The muscles don’t contract with the same old lightning speed. You’re smarter, and you make fewer mistakes, but your batting average drops, you lose range in the field, and you’re out of the lineup more often. So it was with Bonds that year. He batted just .262 and played in 102 games, his lowest figures in a decade. What with his power and his batting eye, he was still a great player, but his best years were behind him.

Except that they weren’t, not exactly. Bonds arrived in camp the next year with a new body. He had put on weight, but lost body fat. And his bat speed was breathtaking, so much so that pitchers were afraid of leaving the ball anywhere over the plate. In 2001, the 37-year-old Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs, 24 more than he had ever hit before, and slugged .863, almost 200 points more than his previous high. From 2000 through 2004, Bonds’ records are wholly unlike those of any other player in baseball history, as witness his unimaginable 232 walks in 2004, when he was 40 years old.

Well, we know the reason for these strange results, and for the sudden ability of otherwise ordinary infielders to slam the ball over the fence to the opposite field. It’s “steroids,” the popular term for artificial testosterone, ingested to repair and build muscle. Some of these steroids may be legally prescribed for certain medical conditions, normal aging not among them. Similar drugs that were legal at the time, like the androsterone taken by Mark McGwire in 1998 when he hit 70 home runs, meet with the reproach of fans anyway. Lovers of baseball have, with remarkable unanimity, decried these years as the “steroid era.” They accuse the players of a kind of cheating that goes far beyond the gamesmanship, say, of a pitcher “cutting” the ball on his belt buckle, or a man on second stealing signs from the catcher. In fact, they seem unwilling to elect any of the cheaters to the Hall of Fame, at least until many years pass by.

They are also not going to accept the argument that the ingestion of testosterone is a matter of individual choice. That is because of the nature of the game. It would give an advantage to the players who “juice”—a considerable advantage, as it turns out. It would also compromise the venerable history of the game, making it impossible to judge the worth of contemporary players against that of players past. In other words, to allow the use of testosterone would immediately immiserate those who do not use it; and it would alter the game itself. It would do so, moreover, by means of a tissue-growing hormone that poses obvious medical risks: the growth of cancerous tissue, for instance.

Yet, when one compares this sex hormone, testosterone, to the sex hormone now in the news, estrogen, it is hard to see why, on medical and social grounds alone, the one would be severely restricted and the other so freely dispensed that people are ready, not simply to affirm its legality, but to mandate that people and institutions violate their religious faith to purchase it for women who want it.

There are some medical uses for estrogen, as there are some medical uses for testosterone. These are not at issue. The Catholic Church does not oppose the use of estrogen to treat a disease. But there is also an immediate health-related benefit that testosterone secures. It builds and repairs muscle. That is, taken by itself, a good thing. If it helped Barry Bonds to swing a bat, it would help Barry the Miner to swing a pickax, or Barry the Infantryman to climb up a cliff, or Barry the Roadworker to heal from the battering his frame takes when he spends a day with the jackhammer. Yet we judge, correctly, that these Barries should not be ingesting testosterone. As I see it, we do so for three reasons: the benefit is not necessary; the benefit is outweighed by the risks of the drug; and the use of the drug by some men would put others at an unfair disadvantage—it would immiserate them. The first two reasons have to do primarily with the individual; the third, with society.

Now compare this drug to estrogen. Unlike testosterone, estrogen does not confer any obvious medical benefit upon a woman who ingests it. Its use when ingested for non-medical reasons is to fool the body into the condition of pregnancy when it is not actually pregnant. If anything, the drug is attended by a host of troubles, from minor annoyances to those severe enough that some women cannot use it. Testosterone will help Barry lift things up and put them down, and that, considered alone, is a good thing. We need strong men to lift things up and put them down. But estrogen enhances no such practical performance.

Someone might justify the use of testosterone on the grounds that our bodies are always repairing muscle; indeed the only way to build muscle is to tear it down and “persuade” the body to compensate by building even more. I do not buy the argument. I only note that it makes at least a superficial claim to being medical in nature: it has to do with a bodily function that needs repair. But the use of estrogen as contraception is not medical at all. Quite the contrary. A couple who use estrogen to prevent the conception of a child do not ingest the drug to enhance the performance of their reproductive organs, or to heal any debility therein. Their worry is rather that those organs are functioning in a healthy and natural way, and they wish they weren’t. They want to obtain not ability but debility. They want not to repair but to thwart.

Here it is usually argued that the drug is medical because it prevents a disease. But that is to invert the meaning of words. When the reproductive organs are used in a reproductive act, the conception of a child is the healthy and natural result. That is a plain biological fact. If John and Mary are using their organs in that way, and they cannot conceive a child, then this calls for a remedy; that is the province of medicine. It is also the province of medicine to shield us against casual exposure to communicable diseases—exposure that we cannot prevent, and that subjects us to debility or death. Childbearing and malaria are not the same sorts of thing.

Moreover, estrogen, like testosterone, is a tissue-growing hormone, and therefore subjects the woman who ingests it to a much higher risk of developing cancer, not to mention other serious medical troubles. Indeed, if it were not dangerous, drug companies would not be struggling to keep the dosage as low as possible. So the widespread use of estrogen actually involves widespread and grave medical harm. In a country as large as ours, with breast cancer as common as it is, even a smallish increase in the risk of cancer would mean thousands of deaths; and the increase in risk is not small.

And this brings us to the heart of the matter. The argument for the use of this drug is not medical (since it does not remedy anything, it does not shield against communicable disease, and it actually subjects the user to medical risk). It is social. It is simply this: Without the drug, many millions of sexually active women would become pregnant who do not wish to be so. But now we are not in the realm of individual choices alone. We must address the whole of society. We must address the common good.

Here is where the comparison with testosterone helps clarify matters. Again, if Bonds uses the drug, that immediately immiserates those who do not wish to use it. It helps this player, here, turn on the inside fastball. But no player is an island unto himself. The drug hurts everyone, because it hurts the game itself; it is destructive of the common good.

The same is true of the artificial estrogen. It “helps” this couple, here, do the child-making thing, without making a child. It “helps” that couple, there, do the marital thing without being married. But it immiserates all those couples who, in a healthier age, would not wish to do so. It alters everyone’s view of what marriage and sexual congress are for. The result is, as anyone with a little common sense could predict, that there are far more children born out of wedlock now than there were before the artificial estrogen changed the whole nature of the game. We have produced now generations of people who have never known an intact marriage. The sexual revolution has devastated the lower classes, and renders us ever less willing to practice the difficult and self-denying virtues, while we are ever more willing to surrender genuine liberty for the illusions of license.

Anthony Esolen is Professor of English at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island, and the author of Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child and Ironies of Faith. He has translated Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata and Dante’s The Divine Comedy.  This article appeared on March 8, 2012 at Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Good and is reprinted here with Dr. Esolen’s permission.

Tobacco companies continue to market cigarettes like the brand Eve to women by associating smoking with an image of liberation, autonomy and even sexual independence and pleasure.   Ads like this one for Eve cigarettes seem ludicrous given the known hazards of smoking, a habit anything but liberating or sexy.    

By and large, women simply know better now and view this corporate targeting of girls and young women for self-destructive consumption as offensive.

Or have we learned lessons from the tobacco industry’s lucrative exploitation of women?

Take Ella for example.  Watson Pharmaceuticals markets and sells Ella as an oral medication which, taken within 5 days of sexual intercourse, effectively disrupts or prevents pregnancy. 

EllaOne tablets contain the active ingredient ulipristal acetate, which is a selective progesterone receptor modulator.  It works by acting on the body’s receptors for the naturally occurring female sex hormone, progesterone. It is not fully understood how this medicine prevents pregnancy. It is thought to work by preventing ovulation and fertilisation and also by altering the lining of the womb, depending on which stage of the menstrual cycle the woman is at.

One dose of this “hormonal inhibitor” can cause nausea and vomiting, dizziness and headache, abdominal and menstrual pain, as well as tiredness and mood swings.  More rarely reported side effects include kidney problems.   

The dose sells for approximately $40.  

Watson Pharma is anxious to develop and tap the female market on this product which promises a veritable treasure chest of cash.  Consider the short history of Ella’s cousin, Plan B, another “morning after” pill.

The popularity of the morning-after pill Plan B has surged in the year since the federal government approved the sale of the controversial emergency contraceptive without a prescription.  Plan B sales have doubled since the Food and Drug Administration authorized the switch for women 18 and older last August, rising from about $40 million a year to what will probably be close to $80 million for 2007, according to Barr Pharmaceuticals, which makes Plan B.

From the experience with female-targeted tobacco, women should fairly be asking a range of questions about this medication:  How does it work?  What affects does it have on my body?  Are there long term consequences to using one, two, three, even more, doses of Ella?  Can I get cancers or other diseases from using Ella?  Can Ella impact my future health, including my future fertility?  How does my access to, and use of, this drug impact my sexual partner, my sexual outlook and my emotional health?  Will I be more vulnerable to STDs?  Will Ella improve my sexual autonomy and control as promoted in its advertising?

The immediate objection to the Ella-Eve comparison is that the U.S. Federal Drug Administration has approved the use of Ella as “safe” – while the U.S. Surgeon General continues efforts to convince the public that cigarette smoking is “unsafe.”  Women want to believe that the government – and its stamp of approval – offers the singularly significant reassurance to the female market that the product will not harm them and that women do not have to think about these questions. 

But the FDA’s imprimatur is anything but convincing.  Here’s the undisputed reality: 

1. “It would be fair to say that EllaOne is so new that not a lot is known about its mode of action, or possible long-term effects.”  “The manufacturers say that it ‘is thought to work by stopping your ovaries from releasing an egg’. They also state that ‘it may also alter the environment in the womb’.”

2.  “There are no long-term studies on the safety of [morning after medications] in women under 17, after repeated use or effects on future fertility.”

3.   “Ella should not be taken if you are already pregnant.  There is little information on whether Ella would harm a developing baby.”

4.  “Using ella may make your regular hormonal birth control method less effective.”

5.  Ella provides no protection against sexually transmitted diseases.

What is the import of this reality?  This means that the FDA approval of the use of Ella is akin to approving smoking an occasional Eve cigarette – but even that single use may result in significant consequences, including impacting a current pregnancy and increasing likelihood of an unintended pregnancy and exposure to STDs.

The “unknowns” about Ella, like the unknowns about tobacco, have not slowed Watson Pharmaceuticals’ effort to convince females that Ella will keep their romantic sex-life healthy and happy while insuring their “eggs” do not go out to “play” with the sperm searching for its own “date”.  Their website features a handy “refer a friend” automated, personalized email feature so that girls and women can spread the word and enlarge the market.

Ella may, in time, prove to be an acceptable drug with no long term, deleterious impact on women’s health or the environment.  Or, once studied and understood, it may prove to a profoundly profitable pursuit targeting, creating and cultivating a female market upon which the long term health and even environmental consequences will prove dire – like cigarettes.   Is Ella an Eve in disguise?  It’s impossible to say – but it is not impossible to discuss if women of all faiths and political stripes would put down their agendas and talk about Ella the way we all talk about Eve. 

Why do women today reject tobacco products that pollute air and body while embracing hormonal products arguably as harmful? 

I suggest we talk about fertility controlling drugs like “Ella” with the same concerns and skepticism we discuss tobacco products like “Eve” – both products targeting females to create market demand among girls and young women.  In today’s post, I look at the development, sales and marketing of cigarettes, like Eve, and how women learned that, despite serious health consequences, they had been manipulated and duped into smoking.  Tomorrow, I will explain why we should be talking about products like Ella, a “morning after” pill, with the concerns and skepticism we learned from our disastrous experience with tobacco.  

Since 1971, when the Liggett Group introduced the demurely named “Eve” line of cigarettes, some number of women have inhaled enough designer smoke into their lungs that they are now dead.  They have died from the cancers, heart disease and strokes associated with prolonged use of nicotine.  Since 1971, men, women and children who enjoyed the company of the now deceased Eve smokers have suffered discomforts and aggravated conditions breathing the very feminine Eve smoke blown their way.  

We all regard the imagery used to sell Eve cynically.  There is nothing feminine in a smoker’s cough or nicotine addiction, any more than a well dressed corpse wearing cute, tidy Tods.  We know this because of the tireless and focused efforts of thousands of tobacco opponents who, using media, litigation and advocacy, have exposed the shameless marketing techniques of “engineered consent.”  Creating demand among women by associating products with female liberation, independence and autonomy distracts from and neutralizes the (now) well known long term consequences of smoking. 

The market for female-targeted cigarettes – like Eve – was first engineered when long term health and environmental consequences of smoking were unstudied and undocumented.  Tobacco companies continued to develop the market even as they ignored, denied and then concealed smoking’s long term impacts.  Author Allan Brandt has chronicled the industry’s lucrative success in coaxing females to choose smoking. 

Many would link cigarettes with a new sexual accessibility among adolescent women, a marker of independence and autonomy . . . a symbol of beauty, glamour, and sexuality for women.  Women at colleges and universities quickly became committed to the important meanings the cigarette conveyed about them.  Smoking became a “choice” and a powerful symbol of breaking with convention. 

Eventually, social policy took notice of both the long term consequences of smoking and the marketing stunts of tobacco companies.  While unable to illegalize smoking, social policies and initiatives developed to severely disfavor the “choice” to smoke, using steep taxes and graphic warnings while also tightly restricting smoking in public as well as advertising. 

Today, a woman can choose to smoke, but she does so at substantial expense and fully informed that she places her future health and quality of life at risk.  Society frowns upon – even shames – her choice to smoke for its impact on her health as well as the impact on the larger environment.

Many of us who grew up as the dangers and deceit of Eve were stubbornly and slowly exposed now marvel at women’s willingness to ingest hormone-tampering drugs – like the morning after pill Ella.  Are these “liberating” sex-promoting, hormonal products – some of which are “as easy (for women over 17) [to obtain], as say, buying cigarettes” – the female nicotine of the 21^st Century?   There are critical questions to ask and answer as girls and young women are vigorously targeted as a developing market much the way tobacco companies targeted and developed a market in cigarette smoking.  Indeed, the female-targeted pharmeceutical market is poised to explode.

Hormonally-based, fertility controlling drugs may become even easier to get than cigarettes as drug companies convince government to mandate their availability to women free of charge. 

In tomorrow’s post, I propose that we apply the lessons learned from “the glamour and autonomy” of female-targeted cigarettes to the developing, hot market for “sexually liberating” hormone-tampering drugs like Ella.  Just how much do we actually know about the impact of these new drugs – marketed to promote independence and power in a woman’s sex life – on a women’s long term health and on the health of the environment?

Girls Deserve Better than Statutory Rape and Secret Abortions:   Would you let some man take your daughter to surgery without telling you? How about taking her across state lines?

Unbelievably, there is no legal protection against taking a child across state lines for an abortion even if you live in a state that requires parental notification or approval for an abortion upon a child.

Who takes under-aged, pregnant girls across state lines for abortion?  ~most often, it’s noncustodial, older men who are sexual predators seeking to conceal the crime of statutory rape or other noncustodial adults involved in sex trafficking of minors.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness month.

Feminists for Life has long championed protections against sexual assault.  We are the only pro-life member of a task force which helped pass the Violence Against Women Act and we are the only feminists who testified before the US House Judiciary in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci and Connor’s Law).

Feminists for Life opposes all forms of violence against women and children – including abortion and rape.  Every rape is non-consensual.  Every rape is forced.  Every rape is wrong.  There are no exceptions.  There are no exceptions for sexual assaults committed by family members or friends.  There are no exceptions for sexual assault by strangers, sex traffickers or johns, for statutory rape of minors or group sexual assaults, for sexual assaults of boys or for rape by coercion or facilitated by alcohol or drugs (such as Rohypnol).  Whether domestic or international, every rape is wrong.  and justice for all.

Feminists for Life demands an end to violence and discrimination in every circumstance.  We encourage efforts that prevent violence against women through resources, support and education. We favor prosecution of those who commit acts of violence against women and children.

Feminists for Life urges consistency in our laws, focus on prevention, and provision of support for those who have experienced various forms of violence.  Rapists should be prosecuted no matter if the victim becomes pregnant or not, no matter if she has an abortion, miscarriage or live birth.  And it goes both ways.  If the rapist is a woman preying on minor boys, the adult is responsible. 

Our consistent belief in feminist principles is why we support passage of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), H.R. 2299.

The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution recently voted to support CIANA.  If passed, CIANA would provide up to a one year imprisonment for anyone who performs an abortion on an out of state minor not accompanied by a parent.  Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has 158 co-sponsors and bipartisan support; Senator Marco Rubio has introduced a companion bill in the Senate.

Opponents of the bill argue that in some circumstances pregnant girls turn to adults not their parents for help in crisis pregnancy.  If these adults, such as grandmothers or adult sisters cannot assist the teen in procuring an abortion across state lines, opponents argue, then minors will seek unsafe alternatives to terminate pregnancy.

Experts reject this argument.  Dr. Bruce Lucero – who has performed over 45,000 abortions – cautioned that men who get minors pregnant, not the minors’ parents, are the issue.   Dr. Lucero wrote in the New York Times,

“. . . a parent’s input is the best guarantee that a teen-ager will make a decision that is correct for her—be it abortion, adoption or keeping the baby. And it helps guarantee that if a teenager chooses an abortion, she will receive appropriate medical care.”

Teenagers seeking abortions out of state, Dr. Lucero added, often delay until the procedure is more expensive and riskier.  Without parental involvement, pregnant minors are less likely to return to clinics for follow-up care or tell their parents they are suffering complications following an abortion.

Polls consistently show that 70% of Americans strongly favor parents being notified when a minor seeks an abortion, and that a majority of Americans also favor laws that would prevent the transportation of minors over state lines to circumvent parental notification.

The lives of young girls are irrevocably changed by predators who rape them then transport them for a secret abortion. Girls—as well as Women Deserve Better^® than Abortion. Parents have a right to know and a responsibility to protect their daughters.

Serrin M. Foster has lead Feminists for Life since 1994. Read Serrin’s original testimony before the US House Judiciary in support of Laci and Connor’s Act: http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/serrinuvva.htm and Serrin’s answer to the key question, “what about rape?” as it relates to abortion.  She invites you to join Feminists for Life on Facebook.  Link to  http://www.facebook.com/FeministsForLife

Inter-religious dialogue tells us something about gender:  it can show us how different cultures have dealt with the questions that New Feminists ask today.

Dialogue is an important part of the human experience.  Our existence as persons comes to us through our relations with others.  To establish good, healthy relationships, we need to be able to speak, to learn from each other. Through dialogue, we get to hear the views of others.  We get to understand them and who they are: we find a way to respect them as a person even if we do not agree with their views or actions. 

The dignity of the human person requires an openness to the other, to let the other make themselves known. It also expects reciprocity.  When we come together to dialogue we want to be heard.  We must come willing to share who we are, what we believe.  Especially important in dialogue is the need to be honest about oneself, one’s experiences in life, one’s beliefs and practices.  We shouldn’t hide from someone that which we think they don’t want to hear.  We must be able to reveal to the other; that is, we must become vulnerable to them.  We can’t hide what appears to be a point of contention with someone else.  If we do so, we are being dishonest.  We are giving them a false sense of who we are and they will come out of the discussion not really understanding us.  This is what I have learned through my exploration of inter-religious dialogue.  It is a truth not just for inter-religious dialogue, but for all dialogue when we come across someone who is different from us.  It shows us how and why we can learn from people from all kinds of faiths. 

Inter-religious dialogue also can tell us something about gender. It can show us how different cultures have dealt with the questions that New Feminists ask today. We can learn about the difficulties people have faced as a result of their gender, difficulties which might raise questions as to what different religious traditions believe about gender even today.  Since New Feminism is concerned about the human experience, about the real-world lived experiences of people from all faiths and backgrounds, I want to bring up two interesting examples from Buddhism where the question of gender had been raised.  Through them, we can see the questions which come to us today are not new ones, not ones exclusive to the Western tradition: they are universal questions which can be examined time and time again, always reforming our thought. 

The first example comes from the beginning of Buddhism.  Siddartha (the Buddha) was a man of his time.  Though he questioned the structures of society and ontologically overturned them, he also saw that cultural traditions were not something one can entirely repudiate and expect people to listen.  His way was a middle way, where he accepted the relative value of one’s culture while working to transform society from within.  He criticized the absolute nature of the Hindu caste system, but he saw one could use it as a relative structure for morality, emphasizing that the true “brahmin” was not one who was born a brahmin, but one who earned it through deeds. 

Because he relativized the caste system, one might think Siddartha would have dealt with the place of women in society.  In reality, it took the action of his friend, Ananda, to raise the question.  Siddartha had been teaching men how to become monks, but he had nothing similar for women.  Siddartha’s aunt, Mahapajapati, wanted to become a nun.  Ananda asked the question:  are women incapable of entering Nirvana?  Siddhartha said no, they could also attain Nirvana.   

That being the case, Ananda asked why the Buddha had been hesitant in allowing women to form their own monastic communities?  Siddartha said that if women were willing to follow eight conditions he set forth, he would allow the creation of a female order within the Buddhist community (the Sangha).  In this way, Siddartha was to establish a rule for women, to allow them to become nuns, separate from, different from men, but nonetheless, capable of Buddhist practice and attaining Nirvana.  The ramifications of this would be questioned time and again. 

In my next post, I will explore them as I address one of the most important  and interesting ways the question of gender was re-addressed in Buddhism, one in which cultural biases were further negated.  The response allowed a positive value of the feminine gender while denying the prejudices against it from times past (unlike the Buddha’s).

We know for sure that there is hope for prevention of breast cancer.

Look at what happened in 2002 after the Women’s Health Initiative Study became known to the public when it made the 6 o’clock news. Women found out that hormone replacement therapy, Pempro, increased breast cancer risk by 26%.  That summer 15 million or half of the 30 million women that were on HRT abruptly stopped.  As one of my patients said, “I’d rather have hot flashes than cancer.” 

Just a few years later in 2007, it was reported that there was an 11% decline in breast cancer rates in women over 50 with estrogen receptor positive cancers. After much scientific debate, those in the medical field conceded that the decline in rates was attributable to the reduction in the use of HRT. 

Information that these hormones could cause breast cancer was in the medical literature for over 20 years.  But when that knowledge was put in the hands of women who needed and considered it, many acted upon it and breast cancer rates fell. 

What do you think will happen when women learn that these same hormones are in oral contraceptives but in much higher doses?  Will half of the 75% of premenopausal women in theUnited Stateswho take hormonal contraceptives stop these hormones like their mothers did after menopause? 

Since 1975, according to the National Cancer Institute SEER data, non invasive breast cancers have increased in women less than 50 by 400%.  What if they learn that in 2005 the UN’s World Health Organization listed oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens, the same group that contains asbestos and cigarettes?  I bet that they will learn about the safer methods of fertility control, especially if they have a family history of breast cancer. 

Breast cancer rates would fall for premenopausal women too. 

What if women knew that having children and breastfeeding decreased breast cancer risk substantially?  Would we wait so long to have our children if we knew that a woman who waits to have her first child at 30 has a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than the woman who has her first child at 20?  I wouldn’t have waited until I was 41 to have my first and only child if I had known. Unplanned pregnancies could bring unplanned joy and adoption could be a better option. 

It is often said by cancer organizations that 70% of women with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors and that we should give them money to find a cure.  It is simply untrue that 70% of all breast cancer patients have no identifiable risk factors.   If 75% of women of reproductive age have taken oral contraceptives they are at increased risk.  If 20% of the women in this country remain childless, they are at increased risk.  If 50% of post menopausal women have taken hormone replacement therapy, they are at increased risk. 

Let’s be more than “aware” regarding breast cancer.  You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to be aware that breast cancer exists and is a threat to many women.  It’s on the TV news and cable channels, radio, the internet, magazines, newspapers, and even the shopping channel as a patient once told me.  You can’t even go to the grocery store during “awareness” month without being faced with pink ribbons on food containers to benefit one organization or another. 

Let’s be proactive and not just aware. Let’s be proactive make women aware that breast cancer is curable in many cases if not in at least half those diagnosed with screening mammograms. 

We already know lots about what causes breast cancer and what can increase a woman’s risk.  Breast cancer is not the fickle finger of fate randomly pointed at women.  There are many other avoidable risks. We can hope and expect to reduce breast cancer rates with prevention. 

And what of the hope in survivorship? 

There are 2.5 million survivors of breast cancer in our country right now.  Wouldn’t it be a shame if they worried everyday that their cancer might come back, waiting for the other shoe to drop or with the sword of Damocles over their head?  Not able to enjoy life to the fullest?   Or didn’t do the things that would reduce the risk of it coming back?

They need to know that there is a wonderful survivorship programs around the country. The name of one program is Transitions.  It is a national Wellness Community program that helps women to overcome the challenges of survivorship.  There is also a Kids Connect program that helps children to overcome the challenges of having a parent with a cancer diagnosis. 

In a nutshell, hope comes through knowledge and the gift of faith. Both are free for the asking. Visit www.bcpinstitute.org. 

(This two part post was adapted from a speech given by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, MD FACS during the 7^th Annual Shades of Pink Celebration Proclaiming Breast Cancer Awareness Month.)

Breast cancer not only affects a woman, it affects her spouse, family, friends and most especially her children.  What better way to conquer fear than the grace of hope.  Hope in a cure.  Hope in prevention.  Hope that whatever it is they will be challenged with, that they will be able to surmount it and live their lives to fullest each day into their survivorship. 

This is part 1 of a two part post on breast cancer.  Today, I focus on the hope in a cure.   

We all hear that 1 in 8 women, or 12.5% of women, will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. That is the cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer. It is a statistically derived number that assumes all women will live to be the age of 82 and not die of something else first. Many times, women hear that number 1 in 8 and they look about the room and start counting off: “1, 2, 3” and they believe that someone in that room will get breast cancer if there are more than 8 of them. 

But we also need to know that if a women has no risks for breast cancer (other than that she is a woman, living in this country and getting older) her risk of getting breast cancer is only 3.3%.

Unfortunately few women have no risk factors.  But even if she has a risk factor that increases her risk 100%, or doubles her breast cancer risk, her risk is now only 6.6%.  That’s a lot different from one in eight. 

We also need to hear that a woman’s chance of dying from breast cancer in this country is 1 in 35, or less than 3%. 

So can we really hope for a cure?

 Most women are unaware that it’s already happening.  Lots of women are being cured without great fanfare. You see, one is only officially cured of breast cancer when one dies of something else first, like a heart attack in old age. That’s just how statistics are done and reported.  We hear about 5 and 10 year survival rates.  Maybe some 10 year survivors will have a relapse of cancer.  So we have to wait until they die of something else first before we say they were cured.

But what about women who have stage 0 breast cancer, also known as ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS? With a partial mastectomy and radiation, they have a 97% cure rate.  With mastectomy they have a 99.9% cure rate.  No chemotherapy is needed to cure them. According to the American Cancer Society, there were 62,280 women diagnosed with in-situ breast cancer in 2009. We can expect that a minimum of 60,411 to be cured!  We just can’t know who they are until they die of something else first.

What about women with Stage 1 invasive breast cancers? Those are the women with small tumors, less than ¾ of an inch, which have not spread to the lymph nodes under the arm. Those women have a 95% cure rate. Since there are many patients with Stage 1 breast cancer treated at my clinic, I would expect the vast majority to be cured with present treatment regimens.

At the Steeplechase Cancer Center where I work, 53% of all patients who are found to have cancer were detected just because they went for a screening mammogram – nobody thought they had cancer when they were screened.  Slightly over half, 53%, were Stage 0 and Stage 1.  That’s why mammograms are so important.  They give women excellent odds for a cure and no bookie would take a bet against them. 

Based upon data when treatment wasn’t as sophisticated and effective as it is now, the 5 year survival rate for tumors up to 2 inches and which had already spread to local lymph nodes, or Stage 2 breast cancers, is 86%.  So I do believe there will be even higher cure rates in the future. 

Tomorrow, we will take a look at the hope in prevention of breast cancer.

Stand Up for Religious Freedom San Francisco rally took place on Friday, March 23 at the Federal Building Plaza.  It was one of the 140 rallies held on Friday across the country, coast to coast.  Armed with copies of the Women Speak for Themselves open letter to President Obama, Michele Coldiron and her fellow New Feminists gathered over 250 signatures.  I spoke at the rally and offered the New Feminist perspective on the HHS mandate.

Good afternoon everyone! I am here to talk to you as a FEMINIST.

I am a lawyer and a feminist:  a New Feminist.  I come from a long line of authentic feminists who caused change in this country: ending slavery and child labor, treating the poor with compassion, securing the right to vote for women. 

These authentic feminists caused change because of their religious convictions.  Susan B. Anthony fought for the right of women to vote from her religious conviction that God gave women the same dignity as men. Katharine Drexel fought racism and the Ku Klux Klan from a religious conviction that God made all persons with equal dignity. 

I could stand here all day and go through long list of women who changed this country because they acted upon their religious convictions.  These are women – like all of the women here today – who say, “I cannot just sit around and talk about my religious convictions.  That’s ridiculous.”  Religious conviction without action, without the right to act upon it, is hot air.

President Obama wants to take away the right to act, the right of Catholics and people of faith to act upon their religious convictions regarding abortion and contraception.  He wants the Catholics to go to the back of the bus and stay there.  He wants them to stay in the back of the bus and chat among themselves.     

I am a Catholic and I do not want to go to the back of the bus.  I don’t want my bus fare to pay for abortions and contraception that I know are bad for women, men, children and families.  I know these are wrong through my religious convictions. 

You may not agree with me about my religious convictions, but I think you will agree that I have a right to say so and to act upon my religious convictions.

President Obama and Secretary Sebelius think my religious convictions on these issues are nothing but hot air.  They should know better.  They should remember Rosa Parks.  In 1955, Rosa Parks refused to stay in the back of the bus.  She was a woman of religious conviction and action.

One day Rosa Parks said, “No, I will not go to the back of the bus today.  I will never go to the back of the bus again.” 

Every woman here today, every single one of you is just like Rosa Parks.  We are women like Rosa Parks and we are sitting down in the front of the bus today. We are demanding our right to act upon our religious convictions. 

Being here today means you are a woman of action and a woman of faith. Nearly 25,000 women of action and women of faith have signed a letter to President Obama demanding our rights to practice our faith in public.  We want you to join us and sign the letter.  There are women in the crowd who can give you a copy of the letter and take your signature.  Or you can go to www.WomenSpeakForThemselves.org and sign the letter.

It’s short and sweet and to the point. 

We are women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Many, at some point in our careers, have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been part of the religious mission of that school, or hospital, or social service organization. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work Catholic institutions perform in the community – particularly for the most vulnerable — but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.

Those currently invoking “women’s health” in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of “costless” birth control with “equality,” note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.

No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake. Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. We call on President Obama and our Representatives in Congress to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.

Please join us.  Please sign this letter.  Refuse to take your religious convictions to the back of President Obama’s bus.

What does it say about a society which permits, no, which condones the use of medicine and technology for the sole purpose of creating human life just to destroy it? It says we are a culture that has morally lost its way.

My Sister’s Keeper, Jodi Picoult’s novel turned film takes on an important and real-life issue known as “savior sibling.”

A “savior sibling” refers to the creation of a genetically matched human being, in order to be the savior of a sick child in need of a donor. This requires creating human embryos in vitro, then, using pre-implantation technology, the embryos are tested, and the one deemed genetically compatible is implanted into the mother’s womb. Once that baby is delivered, the cord blood is collected because it provides a perfect match for the sick sibling. Later on, bone marrow, blood, or even organs, can also be taken and used for transplantation for the sick sibling.

Savior siblings are already a reality, and the use of such practices in the United States is not prohibited. Adam Nash is a well-known savior sibling in the U.S. Adam was born in 2000 to rescue his sister Mollie, who was diagnosed with Fanconi’s anemia. Mollie would have otherwise succumbed to death if not for a matched donor. The Nashes created 30 embryos and went through four rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF) to finally produce Adam. Of course, the ethics of the disposition of the 29 other embryos is quite problematic. Adam was chosen, 29 other human lives were not, simply because their DNA was not able to rescue Mollie from a deadly diagnosis.

In Picoult’s story, the film opens with a voice-over narration of Anna Fitzgerald, the savior sibling. Anna describes herself as a “designer baby.” Note to self: Beware of euphemisms. Euphemisms are rampant in the world of IVF. Selective reduction refers to a situation in which many embryos are transferred into a mother’s womb, and then if too many of them implant, the physician, (with the parents’ consent), removes the “extra” embryos. Family balancing, social sex-selection and gender selection are terms used to discuss the use of these technologies to intentionally select your children based on their sex and your preference for a boy or a girl. The practice of social sex-selection is banned in Canada, so Canadians who wish to order the sex of their children come to the U.S. Surely these are symptoms of a culture in decline!

Anna Fitzgerald, the self-described designer baby — designer not as in Prada, or Gucci — was designed for the purpose of being the donor for her sick sister, Kate. Anna suggests that the doctors took the best part of her mom’s DNA and the best part of her dad’s DNA and voila — the perfect match was made. If we as a society are going to be able to have an earnest conversation on the ethics of creating savior siblings, we must be intellectually honest with the facts. Embryos — as in multiple embryos, were created, and then tested, and only the one that would provide the genetic match was brought to term. The other embryos were discarded.

And here is the heart of the ethical matter. Technology, apart from any ethics, has progressed to the point where, for the first time in history, we are able to intentionally create human life and allow it to fully develop solely because we need that life to save another. And perhaps even more worrisome is the reality that other lives were created and destroyed because they did not meet the need of another. In our desire to relieve suffering, seek healing, and avoid death, we have crossed a bright ethical line by seeking to use one human life for the good of another.

Whether we look for moral guidance from our religious texts or to secular historical documents, it is important that we as a society remain rooted in the belief in the inherent dignity of all persons. The U.N. Declaration on Human Rights warns that wherever there is “disregard and contempt for human rights,” “barbarous acts” are sure to follow. Surely, the rights of the savior sibling have been denied when from their first breath they are being used as a means to an end.

Early in the film, Anna hires an attorney and announces, “I want to sue my parents for the rights to my own body.” From the moment of birth, she has been denied the full rights to her own body, and to willingly and freely be her sister’s keeper.

So what is holistic health, and how can women on all sides of the issue come to practice it?

Holistic health is not just eating organically or not eating organically. For if holistic health only accounts for the food we put into our bodies, it is not truly holistic. To be holistic, we must view the human being as a whole—not as many parts. We must see all of that whole—mind, body, soul—as valuable, and perhaps even sacred. Holistic health takes into account consequences to any part of the self or to those outside of the self. It only allows for harm if harm is an unintended consequence of a good action. It never allows for harm for the sake of some good outcome.

To treat the body holistically is to constantly pursue that which is good for the human being with regard for that human being’s total self. If we are splitting the self into parts—seeking the good for only the body, only the mind, or only the soul—then we are not fulfilling the duty we have to our loved ones and to ourselves.

And so I challenge those who fall into the category of the stereotypical holistic health promoters: be more holistic. To those mothers concerned with their children’s fruit and vegetable intake versus their sugar intake—be concerned also with their good intake versus their evil intake and admit that such a distinction exists just as clearly, if not more. For I can guarantee you, from a holistic health perspective, the evil will actually cause more harm than the sugar. To those women (and men) who avidly practice yoga and meditation to bring balance to their bodies and spirits: learn and master the practice of virtue to bring balance to everything. Although I’m pretty sure yoga is helpful, I know with full certainty that virtue is.

The other day I was talking with my friend on the phone about green smoothies. We were sharing tips and various health advice and after getting off the phone with her I thought about how nice it is that we can encourage and even challenge each other in our pursuit of bodily health. But then I immediately thought of how much luckier I am for the conversations I’ve had with her and other friends about our pursuits of moral health. Because this type of conversation is all too rare.  In fact, such conversations among friends have become fairly taboo. We figure that moral decisions should be completely up to the individual and that we shouldn’t meddle. And yet, we find it entirely appropriate to meddle in peoples’ health decisions. Most mothers haven’t stopped taking their kids to the doctor. But many mothers have stopped taking their kids to church. Most girlfriends work out together and give each other tips on staying in shape, but most girlfriends don’t give each other substantial tips about how to stay married or how to find deep fulfillment in life. Something seems to be terribly out of balance! (And anything out of balance should not be allowed within the ideology of holistic health.)

And on the other side of the spectrum—those who see the hypocrisy of the stereotypical natural health gurus and therefore completely dismiss such ideologies—I challenge you as well to be truly holistic in your thinking. I speak to the moms who do mind what comes out of their kids’ mouths… but don’t mind so much about what goes into them. Or those who take their children to church, but don’t take their children to see different doctors when maybe the mainstream one isn’t taking into consideration the child’s whole body perspective. To this group (and I used to be part of it)—you know the body is a temple. And that’s not just a quote to encourage fifteen-year- old girls to be modest. It means that God gave you something very precious to take care of and it is your solemn duty to do so. Do whatever research, get whatever second opinions you need—find out how it is best to take care of that temple and do it well. Be open minded because we don’t fully understand the body yet and there are always new ideas coming out about how we can better take care of it. Don’t be stubborn and lazy. Don’t snicker at the juice-drinking, bra-less yoga teacher when she stands on her head. She may have a virtue that you don’t have. Sure, you may have some she doesn’t have. But both the body and soul are important, and as one who understands the soul you should know well the duty you have to your body.

Unfortunately, I cannot find the speaker of this quote, nor the quote in its correct form. But I once read a quote on a tea bag said by an Asian philosopher and it went something like this: Your body is the only house your soul will ever have. If you destroy your body, where will you go? I think it makes a good point to those who like to think they can eat, drink, and exercise or not exercise however they like as long as they go to church on Sunday. Conversely, I know of a Jewish philosopher who once said: What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? I also think that this quote makes a wonderful point to those who like to think they can act however they feel according to their changing and relative morality, as long as they attend their yoga classes, drink their juice, and recycle their plastics.

Being holistic isn’t easy. I’m always finding glitches in my program and gaps in my life where I’m not reaching the good for my whole self. Being holistic can be frustrating, and sometimes it may not seem worth it. I’m sitting here typing and my back and legs hurt from the fibromyalgia pain I can’t seem to cure. My head also hurts because I haven’t developed the discipline to go to bed earlier and get the sleep I need. And my soul? What about the courage and patience I wish I had more of? Sometimes I wonder if any of it is progressing at all. But I am ever reminded that holistic health is not a result, but instead, a way of life. Holistic health won’t always “cure” everything. In fact, it may not seem to “cure” anything—and that is in no way our fault. As soon as we worry about the specific results, we become compartmentalized in our thinking and miss the point. And what is that point? That we do the best we can. Because in the end holistic health is about love. About sacrificially loving everyone and everything who has been entrusted to us completely and entirely. And that love has the potential to lift the human person above and beyond the sickness, (even if the sickness remains). The attitude of holistic health won’t always cure, but it will bring about true peace for the whole self, even when the parts may be disjointed, stubborn, or falling apart. It is an attitude that actually sees beyond death—and into a time when everything will be made whole again.

So let us, for the sake of ourselves and all who depend on us, think and act holistically.