Our Body, Parts Ourselves: Komen and the New Divide in Women’s Health

Thanks to Susan G Komen’s recent decision to defund Planned Parenthood, proponents of women’s health are being forced to choose between the leading breast cancer advocacy group and the leading provider of women’s preventative health services.

On the surface, this may seem like it is forcing people to choose between being pro-choice and being anti-breast cancer, but the dividing line is much more complex than meets the eye. Planned Parenthood is an important ally in the fight against breast cancer; the organization provides nearly 750,000 annual breast exams to underserved women. By no longer giving grants to Planned Parenthood, Komen is denying these women a vital preventative service. Komen has been a leader in funding prevention, early detection, and awareness. Walking away from a provider of these services is an unacceptable deviation from the Komen mission.

Since hearing this announcement yesterday, I have been struggling with the realization that I cannot support Komen as long as it has this policy. This is not a decision I reached lightly. I have been a proud supporter of Komen since high school. I have done everything from exclusively using their stamps to captaining Race for the Cure teams. I even defended the organization in a McDermott Minute post. The work I did for Komen helped me feel empowered against breast cancer after my family was affected by the disease.

There are three considerations that have led me to this decision:

1) This action has made me lose respect for Komen as an organization. I cannot support an organization that is putting its image in the eyes of anti-abortion groups above its mission to improve women’s health. I also find Komen’s excuse for why they are cutting PP funding cowardly. Komen is claiming this decision is purely based on their policy of not funding organizations that are under investigation. It is an insult to our intelligence to suggest this is not politically driven, or not the result of Komen appointing a new, anti-choice Vice President. Komen is kowtowing to political pressure and trying to act like they are being completely apolitical.

2) I am angry that Komen is creating a divide in the fight for women’s health. Women’s health is constantly under attack from the right, and it is vital that all women’s advocacy groups stand together to ensure women have access to proper health care. Suddenly women’s health advocates across the country are being forced to choose between two of the leading women’s health organizations. Why would Komen choose to make itself a divisive force in the women’s health community?

Breast cancer and reproductive rights advocates are being attacked together, so they need to fight back together. Last week marked the 39^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the rulings 39^th year came with a record number of restrictions on reproductive services. The fine print of many of these restrictions also cut off access to breast exams and cancer screenings.

Last year, I had the honor of representing AAUW at the Rally for Women’s Health on the National Mall. It was in the midst of the budget showdown, and Republicans were using Title X funding, which provides cancer screenings for women, as a bargaining chip. I was impressed by the range of organizations that had come out to support Planned Parenthood. The rally made it clear that we stood together as one body in the fight for women’s health. One speaker at the rally was a single mother with breast cancer. If she had not gotten a breast exam at Planned Parenthood, she may not have found her cancer in time. I remember feeling so proud in that moment that I raised money for Komen, an organization that funded early detection services at Planned Parenthood. Now, the pride of that moment has been diminished*.

3) If Komen’s actions were caused by pressure from anti-abortion groups, it is time for us to pressure it right back. Komen seems to be under the impression that appeasing anti-abortion groups is worth backlash from pro-choice groups. We need to show Komen that they are wrong. For Komen to recognize the error of its ways, it needs to understand how much support it is risking. Since the announcement, Komen has already lost support and suffered the resignations of top officials. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been showered with donations. We need to make sure this backlash continues to gain momentum.

My view at the Women's Health Rally

So, it is with a heavy heart that I have decided I will not be supporting Susan G. Komen until it reverses this decision. The energy I put into the Race for the Cure will be better directed toward organizations that puts women’s health first. I am pro-cancer-prevention, I am pro-choice, I am pro-women, and I’ll be damned if I have to give up one of these values for the others.

*Read more about my experience at the Women’s Health Rally on AAUW Dialog.

Yes We Can Again

I had a wake up call Sunday.

It happened when Facebook informed me that January 8, 2011 was the 4^th anniversary of the Yes We Can speech.

As I reflected on the speech, I realized that I need to get more involved in the election. When Obama made this speech four years ago, I was already an involved supporter. I had canvassed, phone-banked, started an Obama Facebook group, and made my own fundraising page on mybarackobama.com. (This was only the start … as my college friends will tell you. By the fall of 2008 I turned every gathering of more than four people into an opportunity to recruit volunteers for the local campaign office.) 

I have done some things already this go-around, but my tweets and Facebook posts don’t equal the enthusiasm and vigor I poured into the campaign at this point four years ago. 

This is, of course, largely a symptom of being a member of the incumbent's party (what up 1996!), as there is no threat of my candidate being ousted in Iowa or New Hampshire. But I will admit it is also due to my own political fatigue. I think a lot of us are politically frustrated, and that has taken a toll on our energy level as we enter 2012. 

As I watched the Yes We Can for the first time in a long time, I had two important realizations:

1) Yes, we actually did make headway on these goals! I know a lot of progressives feel defeated, but don’t lose sight of what has been accomplished. The Obama Administration has succeeded against great odds in creating sweeping health care reform, getting our troops out of Iraq, making college financing easier, and ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. These are major victories that we have been working towards for a long time. Do we still have work to do? Yes, but that’s why it is imperative that we gain momentum and live to fight another four years.

2) Obama’s still in this, and he needs us with him! A lot of people think Obama has a hard fight ahead of him, but that does not mean he is out. Don’t forget that when Obama made the Yes We Can speech he had just lost the New Hampshire primary. Obama ultimately won the general election in a wide victory (by contemporary presidential election standards), but we know from the primaries he is a clutch player. For example, the Yes We Can speech came out of a defeat, and his Philadelphia speech on race was the result of a potential political liability (his association with Rev. Wright) that could have cost him the nomination.

We need him to have his Yes We Can moments, but we also need to support him the way we did four years ago. I know a lot of you are frustrated –and I understand why. But I still believe, as I did when I watched this speech four years ago, Obama is our best bet to bring us towards a better future.

If a trip down the Yes We Can memory lane is not enough to get you pumped, go read some of the republican candidates positions… that will light a fire under you, trust me.

[Note: Sorry it’s been awhile since I’ve posted! Work and life have been keeping me busy.] 

How we Talk about Breast Cancer

As an advocate for women’s health, and as the daughter of a breast cancer survivor, I think it’s important to reflect on some of the stories, and controversies, that surrounded Breast Cancer Awareness Month as it draws to a close.

There has been some controversy over the corporate embrace of pink October, as some people think companies are profiting off of cancer. It is true that some ‘pink products’ are sharing very little to none of their proceeds with breast cancer charities. Check the fine print and see if money is being donated before you buy. While there may be some taking advantage, all the pink products and corporate partnerships are a staunch reminder that we have come a long way since the days when breast cancer was a taboo topic that few discussed. Thanks to Breast Cancer Awareness Month and organizations like Susan G. Komen For the Cure, the breast cancer community has come out of the shadows.

While pink October has been generally embraced by the public, this year’s awareness month came with a reminder that “breasts” are still a taboo topic.

The Cheerleading squad at Gilbert High School in Arizona made headlines this month when T-shirts they made to raise money for breast cancer were banned by the principal, who deemed that the T-shirt slogan, “Feel for Lumps, Save Your Bumps”, was inappropriate in a school setting. The principle made it clear that he was not against breast cancer awareness and had encouraged a wear pink campaign, but did not approve of the T-shirt phrasing.

I can’t help wondering what expression the principle would have found appropriate. The slogan stayed away from more suggestive language such as “knockers” or “boobs”. If the relatively innocuous ‘bumps’ was too edgy, what would have cut it? Something tells me the anatomically correct ‘breasts’ would have also been deemed inappropriate for a school setting. I also worry that if we treat ‘check for lumps’ as stepping over some decency line, we make the very topic (and therefore the act) of self-exams inappropriate or taboo. This is certainly not the message we want to send to young women.

It is clear that dialogue surrounding breast cancer is still somewhat suppressed. This is a complex and common disease, and we need to be able to reference a full and uncensored lexicon to fight it head on.

2011 DC Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

So, how complex is it? Usually, more complex than news articles report. This was clear in one of the most reported stories of Breast Cancer Awareness Month: E! News anchor Giuliana Rancic, 37, announced that she discovered she has early stage breast cancer when she received a precautionary mammogram before a fertility treatment. Rancic said that she went public because she wanted other woman to know they could be at risk (sending her major kudos and well wishes).

Some reporters decided to look into the official mammogram guidelines, and I was disappointed with their take on preventative care. Deborah Kotz of the Boston Globe reviewed the guidelines and came to the conclusion that women under 40 don’t need to get mammograms unless they are at high risk or have a family history of breast cancer.  Kotz states, “Unfortunately, women may hear Rancic’s story and assume that they, too, should have a mammogram in their 30s.”

The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes women know when they are high risk. Don’t think you have a family history of breast cancer? You could be wrong. If you are the child of only children or from a small family there is a possibility that breast cancer runs in your gene pool but has not manifested in the small sampling that is your family. Also, remember that for older generations breast cancer was a taboo topic and many women never discussed it even inside their families. This is where I am lucky to be the daughter of a breast cancer survivor; I know my family history, and my Doctor has informed me to start getting mammograms at 35.

Kotz does make the point that mammograms are not always effective on younger women who have dense breast tissue. This can lead to misdiagnosis, but can also mask tumors (shout out to CA State Senator Joe Simitian who recently tried to pass legislation requiring doctors to inform patients when they have dense breast tissue). So, what’s a girl to do with all this conflicting information? Talk to your Doctor, know your options, and most importantly “Feel for Lumps, Save Your Bumps”.

Note: This post was written before Susan G. Komen decided to defund Planned Parenthood. While I respect the work Komen has done in the past to increase awareness, I am cutting my ties with the organization. You can read about my decision here: http://mcdermottminute.blogspot.com/2012/02/our-body-parts-ourselves-komen-and-new.html 

Embracing the Occupation

SEIU Support at Occupy San Jose

There have been a lot of questions and concerns about Occupy Wall Street. My main question is – Why did it not happen sooner? Progressives have spent most of this recession being on the defensive. Let’s not forget it was the conservative ideas such as deregulation that got us into this mess. Remember the few months after the recession when we talked about regulation? In case you forgot, it was before people with tea bags hanging from their sun visors started marching against big government. We got preoccupied with being on defense, and allowed the conversation to shift away from the financial sector and the growing wealth divide.

Occupy Wall Street is our chance to get back on offense. It’s time to re-announce ourselves as the true populists, and uniting together to fight for the 99% sends that message loud and clear. While Democrats and other progressive organizations are joining the cause, some are still very hesitant. One of the largest concerns is that the protests are too liberal, or at least that they will be viewed that way. The main point of Occupy Wall Street is that people are tired of a political reality that protects corporations and the top 1% and hurts the people who have already suffered the most. The protection of average people from corporate greed is a basic progressive principle, and we should not be afraid to embrace it.

It’s time to stop running scared from our own message. The left seems to be under the impression that our progressive views will never be accepted, and that we have to move to the middle to get anything accomplished. Think of our current political climate as a game of tug-o-war. We keep walking right up to the dividing line and republicans do not hesitate to pull us over. Conservative designed and bipartisan backed policies got us into this mess, so let’s return to fighting for our core principles. As Seth MacFarlane recently said on Real Time with Bill Maher, “We’ve tried conservatism, and we’ve tried center-ism. The one thing we have not tried is liberalism”. Occupy Wall Street is showing the world how many people want, and need, more progressive policies.

In an effort to practice what I preach, I decided to embrace Occupy Wall Street by attending an Occupy San Jose rally last Sunday. I’ll admit that I was expecting to be underwhelmed by a satellite occupation, but it was a fantastic and inspiring event! Students, teachers (including my 11^th grade English teacher), unions, the Democratic Party, and local politicians all showed up to lend their support. The racial and ethnic diversity of the area was well represented at the event, and activists of all ages were working together.

Me with former San Jose City Council Member Forrest Williams

The crowd gathers to hear speakers

The press following the rally missed a vital aspect of what the protest is accomplishing. Occupy San Jose is bringing the progressive base back together after a long hiatus, and it is having the same impact across the country. In addition, November 2012 is only 13 months away, and this could provide incredible momentum.

As I was leaving the Occupy San Jose Rally, I heard a woman (pictured below) telling a man “we are the people! This is what the majority of the people want!”

I try not to borrow ideas from Richard Nixon, but the woman’s comments made me think about the concept of a silent majority. Have progressives been acting as a silent majority? We have certainly been silent. As the occupied streets of cities across the U.S are demonstrating, we are not going to be silent anymore. Instead of debating the possibility of a silent majority–a term that is as annoying as it is impossible to prove–I would rather focus on becoming a loud majority. Only time will tell what Occupy Wall Street becomes, but it has gotten progressive ideas, rhetoric, and action flowing once again! With our populist message out in the open, a majority is certainly possible.

  

Protester waves flag on 4^th and E. Santa Clara

Have you been to an Occupy Wall Street event? Leave a comment with your experience!

The Next Few Minutes: I’ll start to tackle the rhetoric of immigration policy in the next post. Also, stay tuned for more on Occupy Wall Street, as special reports come in from some of our New York ‘correspondents’. 

Welcome to the McDermott Minute!

Hello Friends, Politicos, and Random Internet Surfers,

This will be a space to discuss the intersection of social justice, policy, and political rhetoric. Like many progressives, I am frustrated with how many battles we seem to be losing. We can talk negotiation tactics all we want, but the truth is that most of us are surrendering the argument the second we open our mouths. A major problem lies within ‘the conversation’ –how we talk, or don’t talk, about political, social, and justice issues.

For too long progressives have allowed conservatives to define and design the conversation, and then wonder why we can’t make headway against the formidable but intellectually flimsy conservative machine. How can we expect a progressive outcome to emerge from a conservative framework? Just look at the debt ceiling debate –how could Democrats possibly expect anything but a slaughter when they were agreeing to address an ostensibly “urgent deficit crisis” constructed by conservatives. Progressives should have been fighting for our framework of relieving the dept by investing in our economy. Instead, they were fighting tooth and nail to not have vital services cut. It’s time to ditch the conservative rhetoric and develop an approachable, concise, progressive message.

In addition to retooling our language, the progressive movement (a term I use to describe what we can and must be) needs to refocus on core progressive issues and values. We can’t expect to pen progressive policies with a centrist focus. For example, how can we expect people to believe that a policy will specifically hurt minorities if we rarely acknowledge racial inequality and oppression? We can’t address problems we don’t talk about.

The McDermott Minute will critique areas where the conversation has been co-opted, point to areas where justice issues are being ignored or misrepresented, and develop progressive ideas, focal points, and strategies.

I had some hesitation about starting a blog, but I’m hoping to use my hesitations to turn out a better product. I don’t want to be another blogger shouting into dead space. This blog will not be a place for me to rant about the latest thing the republicans did –although I’m sure that will seep in from time to time. I want this blog to be a place to develop ideas and rhetoric that can be put into action!

While I have been talking about starting this blog for a while, I have been dilly-dallying, until recent events inspired me to get the ball rolling. The Occupy Wall Street protests have demonstrated –by way of contrast– just how silent the progressive voice has been the past two years. As Van Jones said recently about the Tea Party, “I’m not mad at them for being loud. I’m mad at us for having been so quiet”.

There is palpable momentum behind our movement and the time has come for us to use our voices and organize. This is my way of joining the public conversation, sharing my ideas with you, and providing a forum for you to join in shaping the progressive dialogue. The success of this blog will be determined by how useful it is and how many conversations it sparks, so please share your thoughts as it proceeds.

Keep on Critiquing!