Breast Cancer and Media Bias

Last night NBC national news reported on a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) which documented a significant increase in malignant breast cancer among young women (under 34).  NBC’s chief health correspondent (a doctor), cited possible causes for this increase as obesity, smoking, or other, as yet, unknown factors.  This got me riled up because there have been numerous recent studies demonstrating the link between the use of contraceptives and breast cancer, and also the link between abortion and breast cancer.   How could NBC fail to mention any of this?  This information is readily available to anyone with access to the internet.  Rather than expound on it myself, here are quotes I obtained in less than 2 minutes.  This is not just pro-life propaganda, the first four quotes are from the National Cancer Institute (cancer.gov) and I found it in just 3 clicks:

·        A number of studies suggest that current use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) appears to slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among younger women. However, the risk level goes back to normal 10 years or more after discontinuing oral contraceptive use.

·        Oral contraceptive use is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer; however, this increased risk may be because sexually active women have a higher risk of becoming infected with human papillomavirus, which causes virtually all cervical cancers.

·        A 1996 analysis of epidemiologic data from more than 50 studies worldwide by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer found that women who were current or recent users of birth control pills had a slightly higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who had never used the pill.  The risk was highest for women who started using oral contraceptives as teenagers. 

·        A recent analysis of data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which has been following more than 116,000 female nurses who were 24 to 43 years old when they enrolled in the study in 1989 found that the participants who used oral contraceptives had a slight increase in breast cancer risk. 

This next one is from sciencedaily.com:

·        Apr. 4, 2012 — The first large-scale U.S.-based study to evaluate the link between an injectable form of progestin-only birth control and breast cancer risk in young women has found that recent use of a year or more doubles the risk. The results of the study, led by breast cancer epidemiologist Christopher I. Li, M.D., Ph.D., of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, are published online ahead of the April 15 print issue of Cancer Research. 

Although the national press chooses to ignore this, the Catholic press, published this 2 years ago in the National Catholic Register:

·        The 2009 Jessica Dolle study of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center appeared in the April 2009 issue of the cancer epidemiology journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

·        The research showed that women who start using oral contraceptives before the age of 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times. Recent users of oral contraceptives within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times.

·        Furthermore, the study is noteworthy because it contained an admission of the link between abortion and breast cancer by National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton, who had previously influenced the agency to deny an abortion-breast cancer link.

·        The study showed a 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions, and one of the study’s tables listed abortion as a “known and suspected risk factor.” 

This one is from slate.com:

·        Last summer, in a study of more than 50,000 African-American women, Boston University epidemiologist Lynn Rosenberg found a 65 percent increase in a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer among those who had ever taken the birth-control pill. The risk doubles for those who had used the contraceptive within the past five years and had taken it for longer than 10 years. 

 

It is not remotely possible that the doctor who serves as NBC’s medical editor and advisor, could be totally unaware of these studies.  Never the less, no mention of them was made in her report, probably because NBC, like so many others in the media, continue to promote the notion that birth control and abortion are an integral part of “women’s health care.”  The Obama administration has even referred to them as “important preventive health measures,” as if denying anyone access would be a detriment to their health, when in fact the opposite is true.  It seems to me the Catholic Church has had it right all along: contraceptives are injurious to women’s health, and have led to an unprecedented increase in STDs and cancer.   Abortions not only kill a baby, but numerous recent studies demonstrate higher risk of breast cancer and premature birth in future pregnancies.   Why has the media ignored these numerous and well-documented studies?  The obvious answer is that it doesn’t fit with their agenda.

Fundamental Rights

January marked the celebration of the federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. who was instrumental in moving our country toward civil rights for all its citizens.  Although our country had abolished slavery 100 years earlier, in 1963 when Martin Luther King made his famous speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial, basic civil rights were being denied to blacks and others who were not welcome in society.  The Civil Rights act rightly corrected this situation, which is now seen in retrospect as a gross violation of fundamental rights. 

Now there are many who seek to define fundamental rights even more broadly.  Governor Cuomo in New York has proposed a bill he refers to as “progressive,” in which abortion is defined as a fundamental human right which cannot be limited in any way.  The new law would preclude any restrictions on abortion and reverse existing limitations on late-term abortions, as well as parental notification.  Moreover, the new law would empower the State of New York to require every licensed health care provider, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists and hospitals to provide abortion services, or risk losing their license to practice in that state, effectively removing any conscience protections.

New York’s abortion rate (33% of all pregnancies) is already twice the national average.  Add in miscarriages (14%) and only 53% of all New York pregnancies result in a birth.  In New York City the abortion rate is 41% (and even higher in minority neighborhoods).  Does anyone seriously think that there’s a problem with access to abortion in New York?  This redefinition of “fundamental rights” is worth remembering when you hear the second reading at mass this coming Sunday:

Their end is destruction.  Their God is their stomach;
their glory is in their “shame.”
Their minds are occupied with earthly things.
But our citizenship is in heaven,  (Phil 3:19)

It’s no wonder that the U.S. Census in 2010 resulted in the loss of two congressional seats in New York.  In 1920, Russia became the first nation to legalize abortion, but 16 years later Stalin outlawed it again because he was so concerned about the lack of babies to support their economy.  He even offered stipends to mothers for having 3 or more children.  Abortion was legalized again in 1955 and Russia had one of the highest abortion rates in the world, once again slowing population growth significantly.  In response to the low birthrate, in 2011 Russia implemented restrictions on abortion, limiting it to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and requiring a 7 day waiting period, “for women to reconsider their decision.”   President Medvedev explained that this was done out of concern for “a falling birthrate and plunging population.”  The new law also requires abortionists to spend 10% of their advertising budget on literature describing the dangers of abortion to women’s health, and made it illegal to describe abortion as a safe medical procedure.

Meanwhile, Governor Cuomo is determined to promote abortion as a fundamental right, while abrogating the conscience rights of health care providers, not to mention the babies’ right to life.  Is it really “progressive” to kill 33% of all babies and turn a blind eye to the consequences?

Lent and Aging

As Lent begins, Rose and I find ourselves living among a community of septa- and octogenarians.  Although we are now closer to 70 than 60, we are considered young in this neighborhood.  It is interesting to observe and live with the various responses people have to the aging process.  A few fight it tooth and nail (literally) and try to disguise it with youngish attire, jewelry, and make-up, but most are handling it with good humor and modesty.  The exercise classes are full, the golf course and tennis courts are jammed, and it seems everyone is out walking or biking.

The word lent comes from the Latin word “lento” meaning slowly, but is also intended to mean “Spring” which seems to come so slowly.  Reflecting on that, it is no coincidence that we begin this liturgical season being reminded of our mortality and ultimate return to the earth.  Aging is the very natural process of doing just that.  Our bodies are no longer as flexible or strong as they used to be.  Our skin sags, bulges, bears the lines and signs of aging, and our hormones are in decline.  Nothing could be more natural, and so it got me wondering why God would intend our lives to suffer this inevitable process.   We have now passed beyond our most productive years, but seem to have entered a time of more reflection.  Our bodies are slowing down to the point that we have more time to think quietly about our lives and our past.  In youth we were compelled by the hormones coursing through our bodies, to separate from our parents, seek mates, and begin families.   Now we are more like monks, reflecting not on what we are to do, but what we have done, and whom we have become.  In a very real sense, aging forces our souls to mature, preparing us not for death, but for our next great adventure in life beyond death.   At last, our soul is becoming stronger than our bodies, and less influenced by the demands of our bodies.   We are less concerned now with our utility, and more aware of our character.   This is exactly as it should be.

Even as our bodies become a caricature of our former self, and more notable for the lines and exaggerated features we now display, our lives take on more character, not just for ourselves, but for our families who care for us and continue to learn from how we handle this time of life.  Lent is a season of reflection and so is old age.  When we’re younger, old age and death always seem distant.  For those of us in our 7^th and 8^th decades,* not so much.   Facing our mortality is good for our soul, and the closer we get to the end of our lives, the easier it is to focus on death and rebirth into life after death.  This is not something to be fought-off or disguised, but rather, an opportunity to reflect and prepare our soul for the journey ahead, unencumbered by the demands of our bodies.  Like lent, old age need not be a sorrowful time, but a time of joy and anticipation for all that lies ahead.   Of course that implies we have faith in the Word of God who has promised us eternal life.  I hope this lent brings each of your closer to that realization and belief, which is also a source of confidence and hope.

*(At the age of 60 we have completed 6 decades and begin our 7^th).

Love is Patient ...

Sunday’s Epistle from St. Paul is commonly heard at weddings because of its description of Love:

Love is patient, love is kind.
It is not jealous, it is not pompous,
It is not inflated, it is not rude,
it does not seek its own interests,
it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
it does not rejoice over wrongdoing
but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, endures all things.

These are beautiful words describing the kind of love we all hope to achieve in our lives, especially in marriage.  But wait there’s more.  The Love St. Paul is describing is not merely idealized, it is perfect.  We aspire to such great love, but inevitably we all fall far short.  Only God loves perfectly.  In fact, St. John uses the word Love to describe God Himself.  Another way of looking at the verses above is to substitute the word “God” for the word “love,” and we begin to understand something about the nature of God.  His love is so perfect that He died for us; not just for us, but for our sins!

It’s easy to love a person whom we view as nearly perfect, and it’s wonderful to have feelings of love for that person, but feelings are not love, they are just emotions, and emotions are fleeting.  Looking more closely at St. Paul’s definition of love, it becomes evident that love is a stream of choices, choices to put the good of another person ahead of our transitory feelings.  The kind of love St. Paul is describing is a conscious decision to act in certain ways (loving ways) even when, especially when we feel like doing otherwise.  In short, love is self-sacrificing.  The challenge is to put our pride, temper, lust, and self-interest in check, lest they make us impatient, brooding, or quick-tempered.    The human condition is such that we often allow our emotions to direct our words and actions, rather than real love which is self-sacrificing.  Love, in this sense, is a theological virtue. 

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), “A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself” (CCC, no. 1803).  There are many human virtues which are habits of mind and will that support moral behavior.  They help us control our passions, guide our conduct, and avoid sin.  They are rooted in self-control, sense of duty, and self-discipline.  We acquire virtues from our parents and others whose good example shows us the path to a virtuous life.  However, only three virtues are considered theological: Faith, Hope and Love.  This is because they relate directly to God and are not acquired through human effort, but rather, are infused within us as gifts from God.  Consider for example, the powerful love we feel at the birth of a child.  That love is so overwhelming that we would do absolutely anything to protect and care for that infant.  Sadly, that love is destroyed when a child is taken from the womb.    

At the heart of real Love is belief in the dignity of every human person.  The obligation to respect the dignity of every person is often forgotten in our culture which exalts individual autonomy.  In many cases, love devolves into mere sentimentality which puts us at the mercy of our feelings.  This imperfect love is too often based in a sense of fairness in which relationships are maintained on the basis of “what I’m getting out of it.”  When another person is viewed as an object of our personal satisfaction, we are motivated by lust, not love.  When relationships are characterized by rudeness, self-interest, quick tempers and rejoicing over wrong-doing (to use Paul’s words) Love is not present. 

While it may be disheartening to reflect on our failure to love one another as St. Paul describes, we must remember that God alone is perfect and we need His grace (Presence) in our lives if we are to come anywhere close to loving as He loves.  Jesus established a covenant of love on our behalf and “Love never fails.”  God loves us despite our failings, and He has given us the immense gift of free will, so that we may learn from our mistakes, knowing that He died so that we may live, and live eternally in the presence of perfect Love.  We will never get it perfectly right in this world, but we get glimpses of the joy of perfect love every now and then.  This and more awaits us.  For now, the best we can do is work at maintaining a loving relationship with God, so as to benefit from His grace (Presence) in our lives, enabling us to love more completely in this life.