Racism is Not the Reason

There have been a number of stories popping up on our media radars lately about white police officers shooting African American criminals, from Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman (who is actually half white, half Latino) in Miami Gardens, Florida, to Michael Brown and Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri.  These two shootings alone have sparked numbers of protests, nationwide movements, rallies, and even viral hashtags, such as “#blacklivesmatter.”  The issue that these protests and social media movements are focusing on is not trigger happy cops, but rather anti-Black racism in the police force as well as in the greater community and country.  Clearly there is a problem of police brutality and excessive use of force by officers in our police departments today, but is racism really the root of this problem?  Is this why we have seen so many of these similar cases in the news lately?  No, it is not.  I am not saying that none of the white police officers involved in these cases are motivated by such factors, but there is a huge media bias when it comes the coverage of these shootings.  We hardly ever hear of black police officers shooting white men, or even blacks shooting blacks.  It is not because this phenomenon is rare or nonexistent, as I will illustrate in a few minutes, but rather it is a lack of effort by the nationwide media to cover these stories and properly inform the public.  Whether this oversight is deliberate or unconscious I will not get into, but the fact remains these shootings are not issues of racial prejudice and discrimination as the media persuades us to believe.  The public needs to stop turning these cases into prejudicial killings and let the statistics and examples I will present in this essay speak for themselves.  Maybe then we can get to the real root of the problem and take measures to prevent future criminal encounters and police shootings from happening.

First I would like to tell you about some recent police shootings that are very similar to the cases that we have been hearing about, but have not received nearly as much media attention.  Have you heard the name Dillon Taylor?  Probably not unless you live in Utah, because the nationwide media was largely silent on the subject.  He was a twenty year old white man, and soon to be father, who was shot by a black police officer in Salt Lake City, Utah toward the end of last year.  His friends and family claim that he was unarmed and was most likely just reaching down to pull up his pants, which was confirmed when they discovered no weapon on his body.  The police officer thought that he was reaching for a gun and prepared for the gunfight he thought would ensue after Taylor refused to put his hands up, just like many other officers involved in shootings.  But there have been no major riots and protests, no huge press stories, and no comments from Barack Obama.  The investigation has proceeded normally, and the verdict was ultimately that the shooting was justified, according to the evidence presented on the body camera.  Whether it was or not is not in question, but rather the media coverage, or lack thereof, that it received.

Here is the body cam video of Dillon Taylor's shooting. 

Another case from almost three years ago is remarkably similar to the case of Michael Brown.  Gilbert Collar was an unarmed 18 year old man from Mobile, Alabama who was under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs at the time of his shooting, similar to Michael Brown, who was under the influence of behavior-altering pot when he was shot.  The major difference between the cases is that Collar was white, and the officer who shot him, Trevis Austin, was black.  Another noteworthy difference is that Collar, unlike Brown, never touched the officer, and was also much more obviously unarmed because he was naked, so there was no gray area or possibility for misunderstanding.  The reports say that Collar was ambling around under the influence when he arrived at the campus police station at the University of South Alabama.  He started walking toward Austin, who backed up with his gun drawn for several feet and then proceeded to shoot Collar when he came within five feet of him.  Ashley Rich, the District Attorney in Mobile County, said in a press conference following the release of the decision of the grand jury that “At no point during the ensuing moments did Gilbert Collar every touch Officer Austin… Officer Austin had ample opportunity to obtain his baton and pepper spray, to holster his weapon and to use his own physical abilities, if necessary, or to prolong the situation and wait for back up to arrive.”   Does this sound like a justified shooting?  If Michael Brown deserves retribution and awareness for an unjust shooting, then Gilbert Collar clearly does as well.  Why has this not received more attention?  Where is Al Sharpton?  It has been almost three years, and there still have not been any major social media movements or buildings being burned down in his name.  Where is the justice for Gilbert Collar?

Let us look at the statistics of officer-involved shootings in the United States from the past few years.  According to an article on Slate.com titled “Black Teens Vastly More Likely to Be Killed by Police Than Whites Even After Adjusting for Crime Rates,” a recent study by ProPublica using FBI data claims that black teens between the ages of 15 and 19 are 21 times more likely to be killed by police officers than white teens of the same age cohort.  They assert that even accounting for the difference in the crime rates between blacks and whites (the claim is that blacks commit 2 to 3 times as many violent crimes as whites) does not provide an adequate explanation for this vast difference in the number of police killings.  But the data they were provided with does not take into account the whole picture.  The data they received is self-reported from only 1.2% of police departments in the country, which means that there are over 17,000 other departments from which we are not receiving any data on their officer-involved shootings.  Furthermore, the majority of the departments that are reporting their data are located in urban settings, which have higher black concentrations.  The areas that are reporting their officer-involved homicide data are actually 50.3% more black than the areas that do not report.  So already the data is skewed, as the number of black deaths are automatically going to be overrepresented.  The statistic that they quoted, that blacks are 2 to 3 times more likely than whites to commit violent crimes, is also a misrepresentation, because that rate takes into account the violent crime rates for people of all ages, rather than specifically black and white teenagers, which obviously will be very different and greatly affect the conclusion of the study.  Black teenagers are actually 9 times more likely to commit murder than white teens.   This means that there is a greater probability of police officers having tense encounters that may result in shootings with black teenagers than with white teenagers.

I need to include a disclaimer at this point and inform you that I am in no way excusing the brutality and violence that has been occurring among the police officers lately.  Nor am I condoning the use of lethal force in order to detain a criminal, although there are cases in which it may be necessary to protect the life of the officer that is involved or the safety of other civilians in the area.  Clearly the power and authority that the police force are exercising via violent means of detaining and/or containing criminals is an issue that needs to be addressed by our judicial system, but let us not be illusioned that the motivating factor behind this brutality is solely racial prejudice.  The media overplays the role of race in these police homicides when the real problem is the power that we have given and continue to allow our police force to exert in order to maintain a safe and peaceful environment in our cities.  But, on the flip side, this critical, scrutinizing eye that we have been looking at our law enforcement officers with lately takes away from all the sacrifices that our police officers make for us, as well as the incidents and horrors that many of them face.  The recent shooting of white officer Brian Moore, a member of the NYPD, by Demetrius Blackwell is a prime example of this lack of respect we have for our men in blue.  As Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said in a recent interview with Fox News reporter, Sean Hannity, “There’s no doubt that had Brian Moore shot and killed the suspect who shot him, it would have led to news, it would have led every news outlet in America [to write], ‘White Officer Shoots Black Suspect.’  And I think that’s sick.”    This “cops’ lives don’t matter” attitude that our nation has is sickening, disrespectful, and ungrateful to all the men and women who risk their lives daily to uphold the morals and laws of justice that our country has been built upon.

Another unfortunate side effect of this blindness and “oversight” by the media to give us all the facts and turn these cases into racial prejudice issues is the justification that we try to give to the rioters in Ferguson, Missouri and more recently in Baltimore, Maryland.  These protestors are not people fighting injustice and trying to have their voices heard, they are criminals who need to be treated and dealt with as such.  I will use the protests in Baltimore as my example, since it is the most recent.  There “protests” are being motivated by the death of Freddie Gray, a twenty-five-year-old black man who died after a week of being in police custody on April 19th from a mortal spinal injury, the cause of which is still under investigation.  Soon after the rioters took to the streets, the majority of whom are black, in order to “have their voices heard” and seek justice for Gray.  So far, they have looted and burned 20 businesses, 140 cars, and have injured 20 police officers.  Matt Walsh makes a good point in his article on the Blaze that, “either way, the fact remains that Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray were not law abiding, helpful, constructive members of society. That doesn’t mean they deserved to die, but it does mean they put themselves in a category of people who are more likely to be involved in violent interactions with cops. And that category isn’t “black people” — it’s “criminals.””  Have you seen Freddie Gray’s criminal record?  He was a commonly known drug dealer with 18 arrests to his name.  So maybe he was being profiled, but certainly not because of the color of his skin, but rather he was more susceptible to have such encounters with the police simply because he is a criminal.  This does not justify any acts of violence perpetrated by the police officers who have handled any of the cases, but it does take the issue of race out of the picture.  It is also worth nothing that 50% of the Baltimore police department is black, as well as the commissioner, deputy commissioner, and mayor.  Taking this into account, I must ask the question: who is perpetrating this supposed black  discrimination in this city?  I have no answer, most likely because there is not one.  Baltimore also has a history of black-on-white crime.  In 2012, there was concern about a number of black teens who were terrorizing an upscale neighborhood, targeting whites. One of the most disturbing cases involved a white tourist in the area was beaten, stripped, and robbed by black criminals, which was video taped and observed by a crowd of bystanders who did nothing to help the poor man.  If anything, there seems to be anti-white prejudice in the city of Baltimore, certainly not the opposite.  These black protesters are not “heroes” fighting against the victimization of those of darker skin in order to achieve social justice, they are and always will be criminals, no matter the circumstances.  The real heroes, if you ask me, are these citizens of Baltimore who stood holding hands in front of the police in their riot gear, sparing them from the barrage or objects and insults that were being thrown at them.

To sum this up, officer-involved shootings are not about race.  The media gives much more coverage to cases that involve white cops shooting black criminals, automatically overplaying the involvement of the parties’ races.  If you dig a little, it is clear that these types of shootings are not the standard.  There are plenty of examples of cases of black officers shooting white people, or even black cops shooting black criminals.  Black protesters are also using racial discrimination as their excuse for acting out in such violent and criminal manners, and the media and society as a whole allow this supposed “victimization” of blacks to continue, which distracts us from the greater problem at hand.  Police brutality is a problem that needs to be addressed, but let us not be illusioned that their motivation is always and only racial prejudice.  To conclude, I will leave you with this rather amateur but informative video that will give you a more visual understanding of the information I have just presented to you in this essay.  

"White Cops Aren't Victimizing Black Youth" Summary and Critique

                Jack Kelly wrote an intriguing article for Real Clear Politics entitled "White Cops Aren't Victimizing Black Youth."  He discusses how blacks are victimized by the media and the government, especially in the cases of white cops shooting black criminals.  Ezra Ferrerri, an Italian journalist, is quoted in the article stating, "black deaths matter only if the killer is a white cop."  Kelly also lists some statistics of murder victims in St. Louis, Missouri and across the United States.  In St. Louis, 1,138 of the 1,265 murder victims between 2003 and 2012 were black, and 90% of those were killed by other blacks.  Compare that to the statistics across the United States, and we see how similar the rates are.  94% of blacks killed between 1976 and 2011 were killed by other blacks.
 
              Young black men are also twice as likely as young white males to be shot by police officers, and are also more likely to resists arrest.  Kelly argues that these reasons are quite logical when you take into account that more than two thirds of the police officers in America are white, and about one half of violent crimes are committed by blacks.  Thus it is only natural that white cops will shoot black criminals so often.  Finally, Kelly looks at the incidence of police brutality, especially in the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.  He claims that even black witnesses swore that excessive force was not used against Michael Brown by the white officer, which was consistent with the physical evidence.  He also mentions the mod violence that was committed by the protesters following that case, in which they looted mostly black-owned businesses in the area and burned down a black church.

                I agree with his statement that these people "aren't 'protesters' who were 'trying to make their voiced heard.'  They're criminals."  I completely agree with this statement.  If we look at the statistics that Jack Kelly presented, it is logical to conclude that the majority of police shootings would involve a white cop and a black criminal.  This does not undermine the brutality of many police officers, which is a problem all of its own, but it does show us that the media blows these cases out of proportion.  We are not presented with all the facts, and therefore the cases that make the "big news" tend to be more biased and racially discriminating in coverage.

It's Not About Race

              In her article on the CNN website entitled, "The Real Reason Ferguson Has Military Weapons," Kara Dansky condemns the militarization of local police forces and the supposed racism of white police officers toward the black community.  She insists that "the weaponry has changed, but the target is still the same."  Dansky uses examples from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting of the black Michael Brown by a white police officer to illustrate her point, stating that in the images on the news one sees "white police officers beating black protesters" and "young black men lying face down in the street with police officers standing over them with assault rifles."  Later on she claims that "54% of people impacted by the paramilitary searches were people of color." 

             While she definitely makes many thought provoking claims throughout her article, I believe that she greatly simplifies and misjudges the situation.  What she fails to address is the fact that these protests in Ferguson were planned and organized well before the trial, and the destruction that they have caused in the community has been devastating.  She does not mention the fact that these protesters, both black and white, broke into stores and businesses, looted their goods, caused destruction right and left, and even shot and killed multiple police officers.  This issue, therefore, is not one of race, but rather one of respect and common decency.  While I do not agree with the militarization of the police force, the police officers were simply trying to control the masses and protect the safety and lives of themselves and the civilians in the area from the barbaric actions of the mobs.  Their actions, though obviously extreme when taken out of context, were justified. 

             Unfortunately, because our society is so concerned with matters of race, a simple case of a police officer being threatened by a criminal and forced to shoot to preserve his life is blown out of proportion because it was done by a white man against a black man.  The issue of police officers taking extreme measures in order to maintain this control is obviously a topic that needs to be addressed, but let us not turn this into a matter of white supremacy.  Rather, let us look at the motivating factors behind these people's actions and address the issues therein.

Substance Over Sogginess: The Great Darcy Debate

Fitzwilliam Darcy: causing women to swoon and setting impossibly high standards for men for over two hundred years.  Having been memorialized in Jane Austen’s famous 1813 novel Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy has become a well-known and cherished character in the literary world.  Countless Austen aficionados have fallen in love with his honesty, honor, and charming, gentlemanly manners.  Throughout the years, many men have attempted to portray this beloved and noble cavalier, from Laurence Olivier in 1940 to Colin Firth and Matthew Macfadyen in the 2000s, but have any of these ambitious actors truly succeeded in this endeavor?  Have any of these men been able to fill this distinguished gent’s shoes?  While several men have rendered remarkable and commendable performances, there has been one man whom I believe merits special recognition for his outstanding and superior performance: Matthew Macfadyen.  In the 2005 British adaptation of the book, Matthew Macfadyen perfectly captures not only Darcy’s dynamic persona, but also embodies his dark and mysterious visage.  

          Before I plead my case, though, or rather Matthew Macfadyen’s case, let me paint a picture of the character of Jane Austen’s Darcy for those of you who may not have had the pleasure of getting to know him.  At the beginning of the novel, Mr. Darcy is a proud, rich, and rather socially awkward bachelor with an aloof and snooty attitude toward those who are of a lower social status than he.  To use Austen’s own words, “he was the proudest, most disagreeable man in the world, and everybody hoped that he would never come there again (chapter 3).”  So basically, Darcy is a snobbish piece of work and nobody likes him, except perhaps his best friend Mr. Bingley and his not-so-secret admirer Miss Bingley (the aforementioned friend’s sister).  But, unfortunately, Elizabeth Bennet, the object of his affections, finds him the most detestable man in existence.  But the unsuspecting Elizabeth does not know the real Mr. Darcy, that is, the misjudged man beneath the ego.  This man is dignified, honorable, surprisingly humble, and absolutely charming.  All it took was a beautiful, headstrong woman to expose these qualities and reveal to Darcy himself that those of a lower social class are not to be looked down upon after all, as had been instilled in him from his youth.  By the end of the book, both Darcy and Elizabeth have learned to lay aside their prejudices and (spoiler alert) end up falling in love and getting married.  That is Mr. Darcy, and the premise of Pride and Prejudice, in a nutshell.

          Now that the groundwork is laid, let me tell you why I believe that Matthew Macfadyen perfectly depicts the illustrious Fitzwilliam Darcy.  From the moment that Macfadyen enters the scene, the audience feels his sense of superiority and aloofness, especially as he surveys the crowd at the ball, looking down upon those he deems less fortunate than he.  But nearly every man who has played Mr. Darcy has been able to achieve this same outward pride, so what is it about the character of Macfadyen’s Darcy that sets him apart from the rest?  It is the awkwardness and anti-socialness that he so perfectly captures.  Darcy is an introvert, which is clear when he says in the novel, “I certainly have not the talent which some people possess… of conversing easily with those I have never seen before.  I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done (chapter 31).”  Rebecca Harrington, an editor on the Huffpost website, admits that “Matthew Macfadyen’s Darcy is different.  He stammers.  He shifts his weight often enough.  His hair was upsetting.  He seems at times to almost be crawling out of his own skin.  His Darcy is awkward and perhaps less attractive, but rather more real.”  I completely agree with her statement that he is simply more real.  He gives a more accurate representation of the true nature of Darcy.  The pride and sense of superiority that has been instilled in him from infancy makes him uncomfortable and awkward in social situations, which Macfadyen captures brilliantly.  This characteristic adds a completely different dimension to the character displayed on the screen.  

As to the claim that it makes him “perhaps less attractive,” that may be true, but it is still more accurate to the original Mr. Darcy.  Shaina Ghuraya touches upon this subject in her article comparing Colin Firth’s Darcy with Matthew Macfadyen’s Darcy.  She mentions the fact that Firth fans commend his dark, brooding, and sexy performance, but asserts that the Darcy that Jane Austen is not really like that.  She insists that “part of what makes Mr. Darcy such an endearing character is that he really is none of those things.  Sure he is proud, arrogant, and definitely handsome, but he is also shy, socially inept, and awkward.”  Macfadyen captures all of those characteristics; it is as simple as that.

Many people, though, argue that Colin Firth’s performance is superior.  Joan Klingel Ray, who is an English professor at the University of Colorado, claims that “the Darcy in the film (with Matthew Macfadyen) does not have the quality of attractiveness that Colin Firth has.  I don’t want to cause any offence but Colin is simply a much better looking man than Matthew.”  In response to this, I have to ask the question: who cares?  I disagree with her that Colin is the better looking man, but the looks do not matter so much as the character, which Matthew clearly embodies more accurately.  If you look past the steamy wet shirt scene that Firth is so famously known for, you will see that it is the innocence and vulnerability that Macfadyen portrays that is exactly what makes Mr. Darcy so attractive, and not the eye candy that is Colin Firth.  Firth does present the pride and aloofness of Darcy perfectly, but he does not bring the added dimension of introvertedness and social awkwardness that Macfadyen does.  It is also worth mentioning that Macfadyen only had a couple hours to develop this complex and intriguing character, while Firth had an entire television season.  That fact speaks for itself of the ingenuity and superiority of Macfadyen’s performance.  

  
        While this modest review will not end the age-old debate over who played the best Mr. Darcy, the fact cannot be denied that Matthew Macfadyen captures Jane Austen’s Darcy brilliantly and accurately.  His multidimensional performance portrays not only Darcy’s hubris, but also his awkwardness and charm, perfectly.  His innocence and vulnerability have captured the hearts of countless Austen enthusiasts.  Jane Austen herself would have been proud.

"He Took His Skin Off For Me"

                "He Took His Skin Off For Me" portrays a deep and hidden message about love: that if you want someone to love you, you have to show them that same amount of love in return.  The woman expected the man to give everything he had to her, he gave up his skin, but she was not willing to do the same for him.  Love does not work this way.  It is a give and take kind of relationship.

                 Her unwillingness to reciprocate his love for her caused him to grown unhappy and resentful of the sacrifice that he had made for his beloved.  He became completely vulnerable to her, barring his inmost self to the world, but she still did not return this love like he desired.  She ignored the fact that his job was suffering, that he had lost his friends, and that he was in agony from the lack of protection from the cold.  She saw him looking at his skin, wishing he could put it back on, but still selfishly held on to the sacrifice he was making, unwilling to show her love in an act of similar magnitude.  You cannot expect someone to give himself/herself to you unless you are ready to completely give yourself to that person as well.

Virunga Movie Review

Virunga is a tantalizing and thought-provoking documentary portraying an in depth view of the conflicts in the Congo, told from the perspectives of a journalist covering the story and the park rangers who are protecting Virunga park.  This park is unique because it is the only natural habitat of a certain type of gorilla, which are endangered and are quickly dying out.  It is also home to many other forms of wildlife which the park rangers have sworn to protect with their lives.  The British company SOCO is attempting to exploit the natural resources, namely oil, of the land in the Congo which includes areas of the park.  This would displace the gorillas and other animals in the area, and destroy a beautiful and awe-inspiring piece of nature.  A rebel group has since risen up in the Congo in order that this company might take over the land.  This group, M23, have displaced thousands of individuals and families because of their fighting, and have killed almost 130 park rangers since 1996. 

In the movie, we get an insider look of the conflicts that have ensued, and we see the effects that is has had on the local people and the environment.  SOCO has denied any illegal movements or wrong-doings, but through the use of undercover interviews in this documentary, we see the true nature of it's employees.  They downplay the importance of the park in order that they might receive more support for their endeavors.  SOCO and M23 are motivated by money and power and give no thought to the repercussions.  But the people of Virunga know the real story.  They understand the beauty of the park and the need to protect the natural inhabitants.  They are willing to and have given their lives in order to save the home of these gorillas.

This movie gives these people a voice.  It gives them the power to spread their story to the rest of the world in order to raise awareness to the crimes against the country and against nature itself that SOCO is trying to commit in the Congo.  Virunga is a powerful documentary.  Maybe, hopefully, it will help save this beautiful park and its primate inhabitants.

Women Deserve More than Hormonal Birth Control

            Hormonal birth control is dangerous and puts women at risk of serious and unnecessary health problems.  Unfortunately though, many women are not informed of these risks nor are they educated on safer, natural alternatives.  In a world that is increasingly concerned with "going green" and being more healthy and organic, it is interesting that there is a strong push use artificial means of family planning when there is a completely natural and viable alternative available.  Natural family planning is that alternative.  It is just as effective as hormonal contraception when utilized properly, and it does not involve ingesting fake hormones and putting your body at risk in order to avoid pregnancy. 

            Hormonal contraceptives come in several forms, the most common and widely used of which is known as the pill.  But all varieties contain some synthetic form of estrogen and/or progesterone which disrupts a woman’s natural cycle and tricks her body into thinking that it is pregnant.  Pregnancy is avoided by either preventing ovulation or not allowing the fertilized egg to implant into the uterine wall, thus aborting it. According to the CDC, 17% of women living in the United States between the ages of 15 and 44 are currently on the pill, and roughly 80% of women in the same age group have taken the pill at some point in their lives.  Side effects of these fertility suppressors include migraines, weight gain, decreased libido, breast tenderness, increased risk of blood clots, and irregular bleeding or spotting, to name a few.  While many of these symptoms are simply irksome and not very serious or unmanageable, other symptoms, such as the increased possibility of blood clots and breast cancer, can and have proven to pose serious and sometimes fatal health risks for many women.  How many women really know about the risks they are taking?  The unfortunate answer is probably not too many, because we women put a lot of trust in our doctors instead of taking the time to do the research for ourselves.  

           The media does not help in this case, because they tend to highlight the positive side effects of the pill, such as in this article on WebMD.  Planned Parenthood, a highly esteemed and trusted source for reproductive health information, also advocates the use of the pill.  On their website, they do identify certain risk factors associated with the pill, but they also assert that it does not cause any problems in the long run, but rather “that over the long term, use of the pill has offered many health benefits to millions of women worldwide.”  This claim is falsified by studies that prove otherwise.  This one from 2007 showed that the risk of artery-clogging plaques increased 20 to 30% for every 10 years that a woman is on the pill.  If such a prestigious and influential establishment like Planned Parenthood does not provide us with adequate material on the subject, how are women supposed to be informed of the consequences of choosing this form of birth control?

  

          These risks are also often underplayed by the physicians and individuals who are recommending this option to women.  Jamie Hergenrader was one such woman who did not understand the danger that her birth control posed to her health until she nearly died of a blood clot in her leg, mistakenly thinking that it was simply a muscle cramp.  According to Jamie in article on the Huffington Post website, “I had no reason to worry because I had no idea what kind of damage birth control could cause.”  Hergenrader fortunately was able to be properly diagnosed and treated, but many women are not so lucky.  A study conducted in France in 2013 found that 20 women die every year from untreated blood clots caused by the pill, and another 2,500 suffer non-fatal blood clots, which leave many with lifelong health problems.  Several women still have to take regular injections of blood thinners in order to avoid any future occurrences of clots, even though they no longer take hormonal contraceptives.  Another little known side effect of the pill worth mentioning is the increased risk of stroke.  According to the American Stroke Association, “Women who take even a low-estrogen birth control pill may be twice as likely to have a stroke than those who don’t….”  These synthetic hormones seriously mess with a woman’s body, and too many women find that out the hard way.

            The use of hormonal birth control also depletes a woman’s body of several important vitamins and nutrients.  The metabolism of these pills requires the liver to use extra amounts of vitamin C, B-complex vitamins, magnesium, and zinc.  Deficiencies in these nutrients can cause weight gain, mood swings, depression, fluid retention, and heart disease.  This additional side effect is rarely, if ever, mentioned by doctors and the companies who produce the contraceptives.  Again, women are not being informed of consequences of ingesting these synthetic hormones.  Additionally, if these side effects aren’t enough to discourage someone from taking these pills, Dr. Carolyn Dean asserts that the long-term effects of most of the birth control pills on the market have not been studied.  This means that we have no idea of the the effect they have on a woman’s long term health or her future fertility.  

              The pill is also considered to be a group one carcinogen, significantly increasing a woman’s risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer, and liver cancer.  To put this in context, it is classified alongside radium and arsenic according to their carcinogenic properties.  Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a prominent breast surgical oncologist who co-founded the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.  She has been providing breast health care to women for over 25 years, and during most of those 25 years she prescribed hormonal birth control to many of her patients, but now speaks out against its use.  Speaking at the “50 Years on the Pill” conference in Washington D.C. in 2010, she questions, “When is it ever right to give a group one carcinogen to a healthy woman?  We don’t have to take a group one carcinogen to be liberated.”  I support Dr. Angela’s view that we women do not need to suppress our fertility in order to be “liberated.”  There is nothing “liberating” about disrupting a woman’s natural cycle in order to prevent a fundamental process that is necessary to perpetuate the human race through the use of synthetic hormones that cause cancer, among other things.  Fertility is not a problem that needs to be solved.  Many women do believe that this is the case though.  They believe that by removing the possibility of conceiving a child from the sexual act allows women to go to college, advance their careers, and ultimately have more control over their own lives.  But is increasing your risk of cancer in order to achieve this end really liberating?  No.  We women deserve more than that.  We deserve a better, natural way to take control of our fertility.  

  

          All of this considered, though, I do understand that many women believe that they need to pill in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and therefore choose to overlook the harmful effects it has on their bodies.  The pill is rather effective, but even then, between one percent and eight percent of women get pregnant every year while on the pill, depending on whether most women are using it properly or not.  But what if I told you that there is a way of preventing pregnancy that is just as effective, natural, does not cause any of these harmful and troublesome problems, and all that it involves is a pen and some paper and a bit of self control?  This method is known as natural family planning.

 Natural family planning is a method of family planning that involves a woman charting her menstrual cycle through the use of one or more methods that brings about a greater awareness of her cycle and fertility.  It is completely natural, safe, and effective when utilized properly.  The effectiveness rates among couples who are really committed and responsible about using this method are around 90%.  This is comparable to the effectiveness of hormonal methods of birth control, which is right around 91%.  So there really is no difference in the effectiveness of each, contrary to what you may have been told by popular media.  While it may take some effort to learn the methods, the benefits greatly outweigh the time it takes.  There are no harmful side effects, it provides a woman with a greater understanding of her body and her natural cycle, and it actually improves a husband and wife’s relationship.  

In a study on the differences in the relationships between couples using natural family planning (NFP) and couples using hormonal contraceptives, the findings indicated that “the NFP couples in this study felt that their method of family planning helped them to gain a greater fertility awareness, increased communication, provided self-control and confidence, a shared responsibility… and provided them with more ways of expressing their intimacy.”  Contrast this with the results from the couples using contraception, who indicated that they did not feel like their method of family planning had any impact on their relationship.  While their method of birth control did reportedly have any negative effect on their relationship, it certainly did not bring them closer together and encourage communication, as in the case of the NFP couples.  Couples who use NFP have a significantly lower divorce rates as well, only 0.2%.  While correlation does not necessarily mean causation, these findings are still representative of the effects that the fertility awareness method has on a couples relationship.

       
      In conclusion, hormonal fertility suppressors are dangerous to a woman’s health and are not worth the risk.  They cause an unnatural imbalance in a woman’s hormone levels, which can cause several problems, some riskier and more life-threatening than others.  There is no cause for women to subject themselves to this when there is an equally effective and safer method of birth control available.  Natural family planning is exactly as its title implies: natural.  It has no harmful side effects, is just as effective, and brings couples closer together.  Do not believe the media hype that the risks of hormonal contraceptives are negligible.  Do the research and take the time to educate yourself on natural alternatives of family planning.  Take the time to chart your cycle and become more aware of your natural, bodily rhythms.  We women deserve more than fake hormones and risky side effects.  We deserve a better, safer, and natural way to take control of our fertility and our lives.