Orange Frosted Hostess Cupcakes

cupcakes

feature image from Steven Brisson

Maureen Norton-Hawk, co-author of Can’t Catch a Break: Gender, Jail, Drugs, and the Limits of Personal Responsibility, recently learned that  a participant in our project with poor and criminalized  women has been murdered. Linda’s remains were found  a few days ago in a wooded area near Boston. In light of this sad news, I’ve published a bit of the pertinent article from the local news station, WCVB, followed by Maureen’s heartfelt eulogy. We only wish that as much effort had been put into finding her a home while she was alive as has now been put into identifying her bones.


BROCKTON, Mass. Jan. 7, 2015 —The second set of human remains found in a wooded area in Brockton have been identified, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Wednesday. Cruz said the remains were that of Linda Schufeldt, 51, of Quincy.

Eulogy for Linda

by Maureen Norton-Hawk

You could hear her before she ever arrived at my office door. She was always talking rapidly at least one or two octaves above normal. Plopping down on the office chair she would reach into her rolling suitcase that was her constant companion and pull out a package of orange frosted Hostess cupcakes. With a grin she would hand the confectionary to me as she knew that I had a soft spot for them. I never asked how she, as a poor and often homeless woman, could and would give so generously. But that was Linda.

Given her history, one might expect an angry bitter vengeful woman who had been beaten up by life one time too many. Instead of anger, she was an unusually happy, smiling and trusting person who, because of these traits, often found herself exploited or abused. Each time she was victimized she would pick herself up and start again.

It appears that she was brutally murdered. She did not deserve to die this way. As importantly, she did not deserve to live the way that she had to live. In addition to fighting her own personal struggles, she was faced with well-intentioned agencies that always fell short of what she needed. So she would start down the long road to recovery, fail when support was withdrawn or when she did not live up to the formal regulations and then have to start again. At least you don’t have to struggle anymore Linda. Rest in peace.

The Women of Can’t Catch a Break – Christmas 2014 Updates

800px-Downtown_Crossing_Boston_Massachusetts_in_Winter_Snow

This is the second “Reader’s Guide to Updates” on the women of Can’t Catch a Break. (Click here for the previous update.) Not all of the conversations, observations and anecdotes that I’ve posted here are profound, but I post them to help all of us (my readers as well as myself) remember that these women are real, multi-faceted people who, like us, face challenges both trivial and great, and who, like us, respond to those challenges in a variety of (often inconsistent) ways.

This post centers on their experiences around the Christmas 2014 holiday season. For many Americans, holidays present economic and interpersonal challenges. For poor, marginalized, ill, criminalized and homeless Americans those challenges are magnified. How can one afford to buy gifts when living on a monthly $700 SSI check? How can one put on the kind of family Christmas celebrations that television and movies show (incessantly!) when one doesn’t even have a home, or when one has lost custody of her children, or even worse – when one is sitting in jail or in a closed rehab facility?

But it’s not all bad news. The holidays can also bring out the best in people. Several women of Can’t Catch a Break received donations of toys to give their children — toys donated by generous strangers. One woman celebrated with her children for the first time in a decade. And one woman cooked her first Christmas dinner ever with a group of new friends. Continue reading

Video: Can’t Catch a Break

public talk

My colleague Maureen Norton-Hawk and I recently had an opportunity to speak about our book Can’t Catch a Break: Gender, Jail, Drugs, and the the Limits of Personal Responsibility at a book launch at Suffolk University.

This link will take you to a four minute segment on our struggles to find an appropriate way to describe the criminalized and marginalized women whose stories we tell in Can’t Catch a Break. In this video we explain why we rejected “criminal” “homeless” and a few other descriptors, and why we decided to go simply with “women.”

This link will take you to the full forty-five minute video that includes a brief reading from the book and well as a few of our funny and not-so-funny experiences as researchers.

Video: Alternatives to Incarceration

Electronic-Monitoring11

As awareness is growing of the costs (both financial and human) of mass incarceration, we’re hearing more about alternatives to incarceration. These alternatives include various sorts of electronic monitoring, intensive supervision, drug courts and mandated drug treatment.

While I am in favor of almost any plan that keeps non-violent people out of jails and prisons, I think it’s important to take a critical look at what is meant by “alternatives to incarceration” and how these actually play out given the broader contexts of dominant American ideas concerning crime, justice, gender and race. Do ATI really challenge the assumptions regarding who is ‘guilty’ and what it means to be ‘fixed’? Without fundamental changes in how we view human rights and relationships, ATI can too easily become a way to broaden the net of people caught in the correctional system.

This video clip by Meredith Berg includes some of my thoughts as well as comments by two proponents of ATI, one who works with a small not-for-proft organization and one who works in the correctional system.

You can read more about the thin line between ‘punishing’ and ‘treating’ here:
Incarceration by Any Other Name: A Return to the Cuckoo’s Nest?

Eulogy for Elizabeth

courthouse

This was a hard week. Threatened with a 60 year prison sentence for firing a warning shot in the presence of her chronically abusive husband, Marissa Alexander agreed to a plea “bargain.” She’ll spend another 65 days in jail, on top of the 1,030 days she’s already been locked up.

Two days earlier, my friend Elizabeth was murdered by a man against whom she had taken out a restraining order. Francesca, a mutual friend, commented when she heard about Elizabeth: “The courts don’t realize that a piece of paper doesn’t save you. It’s exactly what it is — a piece of paper.”

Elizabeth (a pseudonym) was one a group of women I first met more than six years ago as part of a long-term project aimed at understanding the daily lives of Boston-area women who have been criminalized, marginalized and abused. Not always easy to be around, Elizabeth frequently wept from the pain in her life – the death of her sister and of her boyfriend, ten years of homelessness, numerous assaults, rape, struggles with alcohol and depression, a broken collarbone and shoulder that had not healed properly. But at unexpected moments she’d look up from her wad of tissues and, cracking a grin, poke fun at her own propensity to break into tears not only when sad but also when someone did something nice for her. Like buying her a cup of coffee. Or saying “Happy Birthday.” Or remembering that she once won a beauty contest. Or praising her generosity in sharing a cigarette or a dollar with someone who had even less than she had. Or giving her the mass transit pass to which she was entitled for participating in the project. “You are so nice to me and I don’t deserve it. I’m a whack job,” Elizabeth would tell me on a regular basis.  Continue reading

Outcast Island

Long_Island_Bridge

October 9, 2014 marked the end of an era for Boston’s homeless, ill and marginalized residents when the sole bridge to Long Island was closed after a state inspection declared it too unstable for vehicles. One of several small islands (“Harbor Islands”) of the Massachusetts Bay, Long Island’s geographic separation from the mainland has made it a prime location for isolating social outcasts over the years. In 1882, the City of Boston purchased property on Long Island for an almshouse, a residence for unwed mothers, a chronic disease hospital, a nursing school and a “Home for the Indigent.” In subsequent decades, a treatment center for alcoholics was added. Recently, it’s the site of homeless shelters, Boston Public Health residential facilities and a variety of residential programs for “recovering” addicts and people involved with the Courts.

According to reports in the Boston Globe, the decrepit state of the bridge was well-known to government officials. But it’s been years since the City or State has invested resources in replacing or fundamentally repairing the bridge to the metaphorical “nowhere” of shelters for the homeless and other social undesirables. Reachable only by limited shuttles, Long Island effectively served to keep homeless and sick people out of sight and out of mind for over a century.

Isolated from the mainland, people who stay at the various shelters cannot get to the Island before 2 PM or after 9 PM; once there, they cannot leave after the shuttles are finished running for the day; and (except on rare occasions such as blizzards) shelter residents must depart the Island no later than by the 9 AM mainland-bound shuttle.

Elizabeth, a woman who has navigated what she calls “the homeless life” for ten years explains, “Everyone knew the bridge was dangerous. I always went on the bus [that crosses the bridge to the shelter] with my heart in my throat and just prayed to God that we’d get across. But I had nowhere else to go.” Francesca, insecurely housed for nearly as long as Elizabeth, declares, “I hate that bridge. I always felt that if it went, I’m gonna be swimming with the fishes.”  Continue reading

Why Brain Science Won’t Cure Poverty

brain science

This article was first published by The Conversation.

Recently I’ve seen news reports with headlines like this one: “Can Brain Science Help Lift People Out Of Poverty?

This particular article described the near miraculous recovery of a woman who grew up surrounded by violence in the housing projects, became a “single mom on welfare” who wasted her money and damaged her health with a pack-a-day smoking habit, and was stuck in an abusive relationship. Then, with the help of “a novel program that uses the latest neuroscience research to help women dig themselves out of poverty” by making better choices, she quit smoking, got rid of the bad boyfriend, earned a business management degree and landed a job as an administrative assistant. It’s not the only article I’ve seen recently that is looking at brain science as a way to cure poverty.

The enchantment with neuroscience to explain social misery has spread among individuals and organizations with longstanding commitments to progressive social change. “What the new brain science says is that the stresses created by living in poverty often work against us, make it harder for our brains to find the best solutions to our problems. This is a part of the reason why poverty is so ‘sticky,’” explained Elisabeth Babcock, chief executive of the nonprofit Crittenton Women’s Union. Recent research from Princeton University has suggested that living in poverty can have an impact on concentration. Other research has found a similar correlation between poverty and neuroscience.

There is growing public discourse invoking neuroscience to re-emphasize that poverty really is bad, that bullying and abuse really hurt children, and that someone who has experienced rape or torture really is suffering. But uncritically invoking neuroscience is a risky propositionContinue reading

Paid Sick Leave: It’s More Than Just a Day Off

sickleave

feature image via Cody Glenn, The Daily Journal

Francesca, a woman I have come to know during the past seven years, has tried hard to rebuild her life after fleeing an abusive marriage, overuse of pain medication, homelessness and a stint in prison. She popped into my mind this week when I read an article about Maria Fernandez who died of exhaustion. Working more than eighty hours a week at minimum wage jobs in fast food chains, she sat down in her car to take a nap between shifts. A gas container tipped over and Maria never woke up.

With a prison record, Francesca can barely find one job, let alone the four that Maria juggled. But she certainly understands what Maria was going through at Dunkin Donuts. A couple of years ago Francesca was hired at a Boston-area Dunkin Donuts where she worked erratic, long shifts at the whim of the manager. She rarely knew ahead of time when she’d be called into work, or for how many hours. After a few weeks she found herself in pain — bone spurs in her foot had been exacerbated by the long hours standing on her feet. Her manager told her that if she took off time or reduced her shifts he would let her go. Fortunate to be a recipient of Massachusetts’ generous health insurance coverage, she went to her doctor who gave her an orthopedic boot to wear at work. Unfortunately, the boot caused her to trip at work and she was fired on the spot.

Paid Sick Leave

In a mid-term election cycle that resulted in few reasons for young, sick, poor or vulnerable Americans to look forward to positive changes in their circumstances, there was at least one bright light. Massachusetts voters (yes, the same folks who voted in Republican Charlie Baker for governor) approved a ballot measure in support of the country’s most robust requirements for providing paid sick leave to workers. The new Massachusetts law entitles people to earn up to 40 hours of paid sick time each year if they work for businesses with 11 or more employees; staff at smaller companies would earn 40 hours of annual unpaid sick time. Sick leave could also be used to care for a sick child, spouse, or parent.

With that vote, Massachusetts joins two other states (California and Connecticut) and about a dozen municipalities. Paid sick time questions were also on the ballot in three cities in this election, and passed in all three.

It’s not hard to argue that paid sick leave is good for everyone, not just for Francesca or Maria. For parents, it means being able to take off from work to care for sick children. For consumers, it means less likelihood that the people serving your meal, ringing up your groceries or checking you in at the doctors’ office will spread germs by coming into work sick. It also means less likelihood that someone doped up on Nyquil will be at the wheel of a car or truck. Or that construction workers, bank tellers and security guards will make the kinds of illness-induced errors that can lead to roofs collapsing, money going astray, or weapons making it into public institutions. But it doesn’t end there. Paid sick leave is also good for employers: Productivity and profitability go down when workers are forced to come to work when they are sick. One study on the impact of illness on productivity estimates that businesses lose twice as much money to workers who show up at work while sick then when workers stay home due to an illness.

Tip of the Iceberg

But there are more macro reasons that the four sick leave ballot votes are a cause for elation. On a deep level, paid sick leave pushes back against a corporate culture in which workers, and especially low-wage workers, increasingly are treated as replaceable cogs in the money-making wheel.

In the best of all possible worlds (actually, in the world that the labor movements of the early twentieth century fought hard to create), employers and employees would collaborate in creating a safe working environment, a first rate product, and profits for the company and livable wages and solid benefits for the employees. In that world, the health and safety of the employee would be seen as serving not only the moral but also the financial good of the employer. Employers would understand that they could not prosper without the dedicated services of their employees. They would nurture that dedication through an occupational culture of respect and fairness, and they would do everything in their power to hold onto their employees’ services. These employers would know that it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the workplace environment minimizes the risk of injury and thus minimizes lost workdays, and that in the case of accidents or illness employees receive the best possible medical treatment so that their return to work is expedited. These employers would also respect that their workers have lives outside of the factory or store or restaurant or office. They would understand that workers, like themselves, are also human beings living in the frail bodies. And workers, like employers, are embedded in the family and social networks of mutual obligation that provide the truest safety net when we – as all humans do – are born, give birth, become ill, age and die.

This scenario is rooted in an idealized business ethos of respect that recognizes the mutual dependency between owners and workers, and it is actualized through specific health and safety programs that employers support on both moral and business principles. Employers know that it is economically inefficient to deal with frequent turnover in their workforce so they want employees to work for them for a good long time, to improve their job skills, and to develop company loyalty. To some extent, it is irrelevant whether this goal is driven by pure altruism, by the profit motive, or by a combination of the two. Whatever the motive, in our ideal world, it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to link health care to employment or for workers to depend upon their employers to compensate them for work related injuries.

Unfortunately for American workers, however, that ideal world does not exist (at least, not outside of occasional nostalgic TV sitcoms). The current American work world is highly mobile and transient; many of the largest employers in, for example, the fast food industry, seek ways to structure employment so that workers are easily interchangeable; multi-national conglomerates neither feel loyalty towards their employees nor expect their employees to feel loyalty towards them; small businesses go under faster than they get started; and manufacturing and other business associations spend billions of dollars lobbying Congress and state legislatures to limit laws requiring and enforcing workplace safety standards.

In the real world, employees and employers often experience their relationship as more adversarial than cooperative. Rather than collaborate on a mutually beneficial social contract that balances the well being of workers with profits and productivity, employers increasingly have chosen to pursue immediate profits. Employers frequently view living wages, strong worker benefits, and safe working conditions as coming at the expense of profits. Investing in the health of employees often is seen as superfluous in an economic climate in which the growing caste of the working poor can be hired on a temporary or contingent basis, and in which plants and factories can be moved to South America or Asia — places where employers need not bother with things like paid sick leave, health insurance or worker’s compensation, labor unions, environmental regulations, or child labor laws.

What’s Next?

Successfully passing paid sick leave ballot questions in a few states and cities cannot reverse decades of policies that created the work environments in which Francesca and Maria live, and die. But it is a meaningful move pragmatically for hundreds of thousands of people, and a meaningful move symbolically in terms of collective recognition of basic human rights of workers.

So, as I write this I can, for a few minutes at least, feel a bit better about the 2014 mid-term elections. That is, until I remember that Republican leaders have made clear that one of their highest priorities will be the repeal of Obamacare, which while far too watered down for my own tastes, does require employers of large companies to offer health insurance to their employees.

You can read more about these issues in Uninsured in America: Life and Death in the Land of Opportunity by Susan Sered and Rushika Fernandopulle.

Sex, Gender and Informed Consent

yes-means-yes-ca

A shorter (and much pithier) version of this essay was published today in the Washington Post.

California’s SB967 – better known as the “yes means yes” law – clarifies the contours of sexual consent. For universities to receive state funds, they must now employ an “affirmative consent standard.” That means that both parties must actively, consciously and voluntarily agree to engage in sexual activity.

“Yes means yes” addresses both the high rate and the particular nature of sexual assaults on college campuses. According to studies one in five college women have been sexually assaulted. College victims are especially likely to be raped by someone they know and / or while incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. And they are less likely than women in the general population to define their experience of sexual assault as “rape” or to report assaults to law enforcement authorities. Because most campus rapes are not carried out by self-conscious criminals who set out to commit sexual assaults, SB967 makes use of the opportunities offered by a college setting to reduce sexual violence through education rather than solely through punitive actions.

Critics have argued that this measure will be impossible to implement on the grounds that “consent” is too difficult to gauge, that it constitutes government intrusions into the privacy of one’s bedroom, that it unconstitutionally presumes guilt, and (I assume mockingly) that it will require all men to tape video cameras to their genitals in order to prove that women continue to consent throughout the entire sexual encounter.

Concerns regarding the nature and feasibility of consent are not new, and fortunately for California and other states considering similar laws, these concerns have been thoroughly and successfully addressed in other settings. As the former Chair of the Institutional Review Board (the body that reviews the ethics of research involving human subjects) at Suffolk University, I have seen how well-developed, refined and extensively evaluated protocols for informed consent in human subjects research contain real protections for vulnerable populations as well as the flexibility to allow research to thrive.

Clearly, there are differences between research and party settings in terms of the business-like atmosphere of research interactions versus the recreational atmosphere of college interactions, the clarity with which the roles of researcher and subject versus the roles of college class mates are defined, and the amount of planning that goes into research versus a party.

But there are significant similarities as well. In both settings everyone involved may assume that all parties to the interaction have everyone’s best interests at heart and that there are no or minimal risks to participation. It is these kinds of assumptions — both by researchers and by subjects — that led to tragedies such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in which rural African American men were given free meals (and burials) for participating in the study, but were neither told that they were infected with nor were they treated for syphilis and to the need for subsequent restrictions on human subjects’ research.

Protocols for protecting human subjects recognize the power differentials inherent in the relationship between researchers (in possession of knowledge, institutional backing, monetary resources and access to goods and services such as new medical treatments) and human subjects. Gendered interactions similarly are inherently unequal given the greater incomes, financial assets, political power, physical size and strength of men, as well as the far greater likelihood that women (nearly one in five) have been raped at some time in their lives.

If regulations, whether for human subjects’ research or for sexual consent, at times seem tedious, we acknowledge that past injustices and current inequalities legitimately demand heightened scrupulousness in ensuring true, informed consent. Informed consent does not mean reading off a list of bureaucratic legalese. To the contrary, it entails authentic conversation regarding the roles of all participants.

How would this play out in a college setting?

Just as a researcher cannot acquire informed consent from a comatose or cognitively impaired subject, “yes means yes” requires that all parties to a sexual encounter are conscious and sufficiently sober to give meaningful consent. Consent does not necessarily need to be verbal – it can be indicated by a vigorous nod of the head or by moving in closer to the partner to the interaction. But it can never be assumed simply by the absence of aggressive resistance.

Along the same lines, it is the responsibility of the researcher to share with potential subjects all information needed to make an informed decision, and to clarify that the subject heard and understood that information. In terms of “yes means yes,” this principle translates into the responsibility of potential sexual partners to disclose information such as HIV status, the existence of other committed relationships, or actual motivations behind the encounter (for instance, whether the encounter is part of a fraternity initiation ritual).

Researchers are required to present potential subjects with a real choice regarding participation; we are not permitted to offer substantial monetary incentives and we are not allowed to withhold access to services or resources for those who do not wish to participate. The responsibility of researchers to refrain from badgering, tricking, or threatening subjects or potential subjects directly translates to the college setting where potential sexual partners should be trained to avoid pressure such as “If you don’t have sex with me I’ll tell people you’re a frigid bitch and you’ll never be invited to another party” or trickery such as inviting a first year student to a “cool” frat party with the intention of plying her with alcohol and manipulating her into a sexual encounter.

Particularly relevant to colleges, researchers are required to inform and remind human subjects that they may leave the study – with no negative repercussions and no need to justify or explain their decision – whenever they wish. In terms of SB967, a kiss really can just be a kiss and both parties to the kiss can walk away without threatening or humiliating accusations of “leading me on.”

In human subjects’ research, as in sexual encounters, no law will change the behavior of those few individuals truly intent on hurting others. While the initial push for human subject’s research regulation came about in response to the horrific Nazi medical experimentation on powerless victims, I don’t believe that the best ethics board in the world could have stopped Nazi doctor Josef Mengele.

Along the same lines, I do not believe that SB967 will stop a perpetrator who consciously sets out to assault a fellow college student. It will, however, educate the many men who do not wish to be abusers on how to assess their own behavior and interactions. It will empower the many women who are not sure whether they really can say “no,” or if the unwanted sexual encounter really was “rape” to report and confront harmful actions and policies. And it will obligate colleges to provide compulsory and meaningful training in gender equity to women and men.

In human subjects’ research the bottom line is that we educate researchers to make honest and intelligent efforts not to exploit or cause harm to others, and we acknowledge that in the heat of the moment (yes, researchers do get passionate) we might be tempted to use our status or power to coercively. As a community of well-intentioned scholars, we welcome the guidance on how to minimize the risk of doing so. In that light, it’s hard to see why there has been so much opposition to “yes means yes.”

Read more here on why “yes means yes” is good for women and men.

Pink Ribbon Extravaganza

Woman-showing-pink-ribbon-to-support-breast-cancer-cause-via-Shutterstock-615x345

A newer version of this post (with more great photos) can be read here.

It’s October – the leaves are turning yellow, porch ornaments are coming up pumpkin orange, the first frost is sparkling silver, and everywhere I turn the sight of pink ribbons assaults my eyes and affronts my sensibilities. The annual pink ribbon extravaganza, surely one of the most successful marketing campaigns in history, has millions of Americans walking, running, racing and selling merchandise “for the cure.” Having spent the first half of my career studying religious rituals, I can’t help but think that many of the ribbon bearers see their little scraps of pink as an amulet or a charm, a means of warding off an enemy over whom one feels impotent. If we just wear or sell enough pink ribbons during the month of October, we hope or we bargain with the cancer gods, then maybe we’ll be safe from breast cancer for the coming year.

10well_ribbon-blogSpanMaybe I’m a cynic, or an agnostic, but as a means of averting breast cancer I’d rather put my money on cleaning up toxic chemicals from the environment than on adding a bunch of pink ribbons to our November trash piles or on painting pink ribbons on football fields while the NFL allows known rapists and batterers to play in the league.

Winners and Losers

When my mother became ill with and eventually died of breast cancer in 1971, no one talked about it – not even her close friends were present to offer aid or comfort. Yet, today, as we paint the town pink, I am concerned that we have come to see breast cancer as a relatively normal part of the female life course: puberty, pregnancy and childbirth, followed by menopause and breast cancer. Pushing against this cultural tide, I feel a need to yell: Breast cancer is not normal; nor is it pinkly feminine or cute. The rise in rates of breast cancer over the past century is a palpable sign that something is wrong with our world.

America loves winners, and we have come to regard women who are diagnosed with but do not die from breast cancer as heroic battlers. Those women who die are hidden, lying somewhere outside of the victory circle, “victims” in a culture that at best pities and at worst blames victims for their own misfortunes. It feels absurd to have to say this, but it needs to be said: Breast cancer can’t be cured by the optimism or will power or athleticism or fighting spirits or strength of character of women who are afflicted with the disease. Breast cancer should not be treated as a challenge or as a measure of one’s moral fiber.

And it should never, ever be treated as a commodity.

Big Bucks

Gayle A. Sulik draws attention to some disturbing implications of the ubiquitous pink ribbon. First, pink ribbon marketing, like all “cause marketing,” primarily benefits the company, not the charity or cause. Second, as a result of cause marketing, people actually give less to charities. And third, pink ribbon and other cause marketing can mask conflicts of interest, like when companies promote the idea of cancer research but also manufacture, disseminate, or sell products that contain toxic or carcinogenic ingredients.

timberland-komen-01

Over the past few years the failure of the pink ribbon movement was brought home to many of us when the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, the most visible promoter of pink racing for the cure, announced that it would no longer fund breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood, the health care home for millions of young and low-wage women. This decision, believed to reflect the Komen’s Foundations’ capitulation to anti-choice advocates, was reversed when donations to the organization plummeted in response.

 

Where is the Evidence?

Victory laps in races for the cure, together with the ubiquitous pink ribbons, may lead people to believe that far greater strides have been made in preventing and treating breast cancer than have actually been made. In a 2014 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D., Ph.D. and Peter Jüni, M.D. report that data show no evidence that routine mammography screening of women at average risk saves lives. A high-quality study made public by the Swiss Medical Board, “acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death attributed to breast cancer for every 1000 women screened, even though there was no evidence to suggest that overall mortality was affected.”

The NEJM article also cites research showing that many American women overestimate their personal risk of breast cancer and the benefits of mammograms. In a study of U.S. women’s perceptions, “717 of 1003 women (71.5%) said they believed that mammography reduced the risk of breast-cancer deaths by at least half.” Exacerbating the dangers, as a major Canadian study discovered, 21.9% of breast cancers found through mammography screening represented over-diagnoses. In other words, thousands of women each year undergo surgery, radiation and chemotherapy for non-life threatening cancers.

Breast Cancer Action, a national non-profit organization calling for transparency in breast cancer research, treatment and education, has these harsh words to say: “While corporations [such as manufacturers of mammography equipment] have made billions off the disease, progress in breast cancer treatment, prevention, survival, and inequities has not been forthcoming. Three million women in the U.S. are living with breast cancer. Up to one-third of all breast cancers will metastasize, even when found in the early stages. Black women are still 40% more likely to die of breast cancer than white women. And each year, 40,000 women die of breast cancer.”

We Can Do Better

PieChartWhile spending on breast cancer detection and treatment continues to increase, funding for prevention – for learning about the causes of breast cancer – is far less marketable. This year, in my home state, the Massachusetts legislature failed to fund research on potential carcinogenic impacts of chemical exposure despite clear findings that there are specific communities in Massachusetts with particularly high rates of breast cancer. According to reports, “The Massachusetts Senate [2015] budget … did not include a $500,000 request to fund water quality and public health research by Silent Spring Institute.  The Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition requested this funding on behalf of its sister organization, Silent Spring Institute to study exposure to toxic chemicals in drinking water and homes in Central Massachusetts and on Cape Cod. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives failed to approve funding for Silent Spring Institute in the FY 2015 House budget. This is the second year in a row that budget requests for important water quality research in both the House and Senate have been excluded.”

********************

Today, when I walked past the Massachusetts State House on my way to work and saw pink ribbons everywhere, women’s health pioneer Barbara Ehrenreich’s words came to mind. Writing about her own experiences with breast cancer, Ehrenreich wrote, “What sustained me through the ‘treatments’ is a purifying rage, a resolve, framed in the sleepless nights of chemotherapy, to see the last polluter, along with say, the last smug health insurance operator, strangled with the last pink ribbon.”

In honor and memory of my mother, Bernice C. Starr, let me say “Amen.”