Showing posts with label Birth control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Birth control. Show all posts
How to talk about abortion . . . without feeling nervous
Beth Chase posted this PDF from Planned Parenthood of New York City, advising readers on how to talk about controversial subjects such as abortion, sex education, birth control, and reproductive rights.
Group claims distribution of contraceptives by Planned Parenthood violates state law
Group claims distribution of contraceptives by Planned Parenthood violates state law | New Hampshire NEWS06: According to New Hampshire Right to Life, the clinics lost their ability to dispense birth control pills, RU-486, the morning-after pill and related prescriptions in June 2011, when the Executive Council voted to halt state participation in the funding of the clinics.
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Website promotes alternatives to contraceptive culture
College-aged students flashy website promotes alternatives to damaging contraceptive culture | LifeSiteNews.com: In colleges from Texas A&M to Notre Dame and beyond, young people are using their media savvy skills to promote a chemical-free marriage. The youth-based network launched 1flesh.org, which presents countless scientific arguments against the now standard forms of contraceptives and offers an alternative -- natural family planning.
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Emergency contraception: What you may not know
In response to the June 5 New York Times article on emergency contraception, Dr. Joe DeCook of the American Association of Pro-Life Ob/Gyns writes:
In overview, the reason for the article is this: The FDA drug labeling suggests that Plan B may inhibit implantation as well as delay ovulation. When approved in 1999, that was a politically correct conclusion: "take the EC, it will work somehow!" That the post-fertilization action would be abortifacient became more widely realized, especially in recent years. Many doctors won't prescribe an abortifacient drug, and so won't prescribe EC. And the HHS Contraception Mandate requires that we do. Suddenly, the post fertilization potential effect became a practical and a "conscience" downside. Not so politically correct now. So the "scientists" have hurried up to document that the literature does not substantiate post fertilization effect. And they are asking the FDA to change the labeling. Political correctness, not science, drives this NYT article. Fact is, current science cannot conclusively prove, nor disprove, Plan B's abortifacient action.
The NYT article also mentions that James Trussel, a leading EC expert, says Plan B effectiveness is actually 52%, not 89% as noted on the drug literature. (wait and see if THAT gets changed in the drug literature). Plan B sells for between $40 and $50, which a desperate woman (or man) will pay. It contains 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel, an inexpensive drug—consider that 21 pills of alesse, a standard birth control pill, contain a total of 2.1 mg of levonorgestrel, (plus the estrogen component) and the generic sells for about $18. The profit margin for Plan B is double. Desperation will pay money... Effectiveness may be 52%, if taken in the 5 day pre-ovulatory window when it will be effective (day 8 thru 12 of a 28 day cycle) It is no bargain, no matter how you look at it.Read more:
Did you know that Plan B delays ovulation only if given in the 5 days before the 48 hour luteal peak window? It does not work if given on day 1 to 7 of a 28 day cycle. And it does not work if given during the LH surge, or after ovulation. How many times is Plan B taken in the correct window of time? Further, it is often mentioned that Plan B will thicken the cervical mucus to slow sperm transport. Bizarre idea. The sperm is through the cervical mucus minutes after coitus, long before any mucus change takes place.
Ella, on the other hand, is different from, and more effective than Plan B. It is a progesterone blocker with a long half-life, and it affects the function of the secretory endometrium. And there is also evidence that it affects the CL function after ovulation. By these two mechanisms, it will undoubtedly adversely affect implantation (abortifacient action), which is why it can be effectively used up to 5 days after intercourse (when Plan B is useless). This fact is well noted, but the literature generally does not mention the possibility ofå abortifacient action.
FDA Quietly Changes Its Guide to How the Morning-After Pill Works
Daily Beast: The Food & Drug Administration quietly updated its consumer guide to birth control (PDF) this week, deleting claims that two kinds of contraceptives—the morning-after pill and the copper IUD—can prohibit an egg from implanting in the womb after fertilization. The changes are significant because a number of religious groups, pro-life activists, and politicians view contraceptives that prevent implantation as the equivalent of an abortion since the egg has already been fertilized.
Study: Depo Provera Use Increases Breast Cancer Risk
Study: Depo Provera Use Increases Breast Cancer Risk | LifeNews.com: A new study of women using the Depo Provera birth control drug finds the risk of breast cancer is increased, according to information released today from the on Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.
The group notes a study of 1,028 women ages 20-44 in the April 15, 2012 issue of Cancer Research found that recent users of Depo Provera (DMPA) for 12 months or more had a statistically significant 2.2-fold increased risk of developing invasive breast cancer.
The authors, Christopher Li and his team (including Janet Daling) at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center called it the “first large scale U.S. study” examining the link between Depo Provera and breast cancer. They concluded it’s the fifth study “conducted over a diverse group of countries that have observed that recent DMPA use is associated with a 1.5- to 2.3-fold increased risk of breast cancer.”
'via Blog this'
The group notes a study of 1,028 women ages 20-44 in the April 15, 2012 issue of Cancer Research found that recent users of Depo Provera (DMPA) for 12 months or more had a statistically significant 2.2-fold increased risk of developing invasive breast cancer.
The authors, Christopher Li and his team (including Janet Daling) at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center called it the “first large scale U.S. study” examining the link between Depo Provera and breast cancer. They concluded it’s the fifth study “conducted over a diverse group of countries that have observed that recent DMPA use is associated with a 1.5- to 2.3-fold increased risk of breast cancer.”
'via Blog this'
Dr. Lanfranchi: The perilous pill
STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Dr. Lanfranchi: The perilous pill: In her June 2 presentation at ALL’s national symposium on the pill, breast surgeon Angela Lanfranchi outlined the four major mechanisms by which the pill kills women, showing them to be anything but inconsequential: (1) The pill causes blood clots which can result in heart attack, stroke, or fatal pulmonary embolism; (2) the pill causes cancer; (3) the pill makes it easier to get potentially lethal infections; and (4) the pill makes it more likely users will die violent death.
See also Panelists warn of birth control's threats to health, minorities
'via Blog this'
See also Panelists warn of birth control's threats to health, minorities
'via Blog this'
Morning-after pill labels may be wrong about implantation
MSNBC: Labels inside every box of morning-after pills, drugs widely used to prevent pregnancy after sex, say they may work by blocking fertilized eggs from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Respected medical authorities, including the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic, have said the same thing on their Web sites. Such descriptions have become kindling in the fiery debate over abortion and contraception.
Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg’s ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, “the moral equivalent of homicide,” as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives “abortive pills.”
But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.
It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents’ definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.
Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg’s ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, “the moral equivalent of homicide,” as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it. Mitt Romney recently called emergency contraceptives “abortive pills.”
But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.
It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents’ definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.
U.S. focus on birth control may raise new concerns
A ruling last week on the morning-after pill, as well as government recommendations on new forms of birth control, could have long-lasting effects on women's perceptions of its safety, health experts say. Reuters
Statement on Plan B by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
"In February 2011, Teva Women’s Health Inc. submitted to the FDA a supplemental new drug application for Plan B One-Step. This application sought to make Plan B One-Step available over the counter for all girls of reproductive age. The science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use. However, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately. I do not believe that Teva’s application met that standard. The label comprehension and actual use studies did not contain data for all ages for which this product would be available for use.
" . . . The average age of the onset of menstruation for girls in the United States is 12.4 years. However, about ten percent of girls are physically capable of bearing children by 11.1 years of age. It is common knowledge that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age." HHS
" . . . The average age of the onset of menstruation for girls in the United States is 12.4 years. However, about ten percent of girls are physically capable of bearing children by 11.1 years of age. It is common knowledge that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age." HHS
Study: birth control shot linked to memory loss
Research at Arizona State University has found that the synthetic progestin hormone medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), used in the injectable contraceptive Depo Provera, is linked to memory loss. “What we found was pretty shocking – animals that had been given the drug at any point in their life were memory impaired at middle age compared to animals that never had the drug. We also confirmed that in the subjects that only received the drug when young, the hormone was no longer circulating during memory testing when older, showing it had cleared from the system yet still had effects on the brain,” said researcher Braden. LifeSiteNews
2011 COUNSELOR TRAINING DVDs
International Life Services:
- The Pill and It's Effects: A Tape For Center Counselors
- Our Bodies Wonderfully Made: A Tape For Center Clients
- The Teen Brain Under Construction
- Helping the Male Decide For Abstinence
ACOG Recommends IUDs In New Practice Bulletin
ACOG Recommends IUDs In New Practice Bulletin: Intrauterine devices, or IUDs, are suitable for nearly all women, including those who have just delivered a baby, who have had an abortion or miscarriage, or who have a history of ectopic pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists now says. The ACOG's new practice bulletin covers the copper T380A IUD, the levo-norgestrel intrauterine system, and subdermal etonogestrel implants.
Unintended Pregnancies Cost Government $11 Billion a Year
Unintended Pregnancies Cost Government $11 Billion a Year - WSJ.com: Unintended pregnancies likely cost the federal and state governments more than $11 billion a year, estimated a study published Thursday from the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public-policy organization.
'You're not going to balance the budget by implementing pregnancy-prevention policies--it's a small slice of the pie,' said Adam Thomas, research director at the institution's Center on Children and Families and co-author of the paper, which was published Thursday in [the pro-abortion] Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. But he said that reducing the costs that the government pays for the medical care of women who didn't intend to get pregnant and their young children could narrow the federal deficit.
Editor: Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood embraced the study's findings.
'You're not going to balance the budget by implementing pregnancy-prevention policies--it's a small slice of the pie,' said Adam Thomas, research director at the institution's Center on Children and Families and co-author of the paper, which was published Thursday in [the pro-abortion] Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. But he said that reducing the costs that the government pays for the medical care of women who didn't intend to get pregnant and their young children could narrow the federal deficit.
Editor: Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood embraced the study's findings.
Contraception manufacturer beset with lawsuits, investigation over device
Over 700 lawsuits against Merck Pharmaceuticals are moving forward in U.S. court, even as the company is fending off accusations of ethical violations for its attempts to market the NuvaRing birth control device overseas, without making mention of its risks. The lawsuits allege serious injury and death caused by the use of the NuvaRing - a small ring which is inserted into the vagina for three weeks, then removed for a week and reinserted. It sends a constant flow of hormones into the body in order to suppress fertility. LifeSiteNews
New studies point to clot risk of Bayer's Yasmin contraceptive
New evidence emerged on Friday that women taking Bayer's best-selling contraceptive Yasmin may run a higher risk of dangerous blood clots than those using older birth-control pills. Two studies showed that users of pills containing drospirenone, one of the hormones used in Yasmin, had a two to threefold higher risk of venous thromboembolism than did users of those containing the older synthetic hormone levonorgestrel, according to British Medical Association. Reuters
QUERY: Brochure on contraception?
A director asked whether BFL had a "nice, concise brochure on why centers don't provide or refer for contraceptives." She went on to describe how "when you have a mother looking for a contraceptive for her daughter because 'you know they are going to do it anyway' you want to have a concise answer. We have brochures on the types of contraceptives and their failure rates."
We don't have that type of brochure. We do deal with the issue in our training manual, and maybe we should put something together -- with input from you. But I also thought I would query the list and ask if you know of any such brochure that's already out there.
Use the comment feature to respond, or email me.
We don't have that type of brochure. We do deal with the issue in our training manual, and maybe we should put something together -- with input from you. But I also thought I would query the list and ask if you know of any such brochure that's already out there.
Use the comment feature to respond, or email me.
Get to Know: Drug Watch
DrugWatch.com aims to educate the public about side effects and interactions associated with thousands of prescription and over-the counter medications, including those that may be used by women during pregnancy or to prevent pregnancy. Many medications used by women shortly before or after becoming pregnant have the potential to cause serious side effects and complications. Some birth control medications such as Yaz may cause permanent birth defects and potentially-fatal cardiovascular problems such as blood clots, heart attack and stroke, but many women are unaware of the potential risks of these medications.
Planned Parenthood's Birth-Control Myth
Planned Parenthood's Birth-Control Myth - The Daily Beast: Planned Parenthood claims women get more abortions if they don’t have access to contraception—though research suggests otherwise. . . .
Planned Parenthood continues to claim that without its contraception services the abortion rate will go up. This deception smacks of a fleecing of taxpayers in an effort to promote an ideological agenda, rather than a sincere effort to help women plan families.
What is that ideology, exactly? To find out, you have to dig through Planned Parenthood’s tax forms because the group certainly isn’t going to tell you. According to its most recent tax filing, the purpose of Planned Parenthood Federation of America is to provide leadership in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”
So it is, in reality, a population-control organization. Funny, this was never mentioned in the gauzy $200,000 advertising campaign launched last week. It also doesn’t make it into the “About Us” section of the group’s website, which repeatedly claims its mission is to protect women’s health, when in fact the real mission is to keep the birth rate at whatever level the leaders believe it should be.
Author's Note: Kirsten Powers writes, "I made a serious error in reporting this column that undermines the conclusion I drew. I compared statistics on contraceptive use from a January 2011 Guttmacher Institute fact sheet to a year 2000 study on the same issue. However, I did not realize that the 2011 fact sheet derived its statistics from the year 2000 numbers, so my argument was not supported by the data. I should also note that I sent my conclusions and the relevant numbers to a Planned Parenthood spokesman before the piece posted, but he did not correct the factual issue at the time. I am deeply sorry for the error, which invalidates my piece."
Editor's note: Kirsten, I'm confused. I appreciate your commitment to veracity, but what part of the article is now invalid? If I were you, I wouldn't go so far as to say all of it is. You still have the statistics from Spain.You still have their own documentation as to the reasons women abort. You still have the statement from Planned Parenthood's 990. You still have their admission about mammograms. It's still right and proper for you to raise questions about their funding.
Planned Parenthood continues to claim that without its contraception services the abortion rate will go up. This deception smacks of a fleecing of taxpayers in an effort to promote an ideological agenda, rather than a sincere effort to help women plan families.
What is that ideology, exactly? To find out, you have to dig through Planned Parenthood’s tax forms because the group certainly isn’t going to tell you. According to its most recent tax filing, the purpose of Planned Parenthood Federation of America is to provide leadership in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”
So it is, in reality, a population-control organization. Funny, this was never mentioned in the gauzy $200,000 advertising campaign launched last week. It also doesn’t make it into the “About Us” section of the group’s website, which repeatedly claims its mission is to protect women’s health, when in fact the real mission is to keep the birth rate at whatever level the leaders believe it should be.
Author's Note: Kirsten Powers writes, "I made a serious error in reporting this column that undermines the conclusion I drew. I compared statistics on contraceptive use from a January 2011 Guttmacher Institute fact sheet to a year 2000 study on the same issue. However, I did not realize that the 2011 fact sheet derived its statistics from the year 2000 numbers, so my argument was not supported by the data. I should also note that I sent my conclusions and the relevant numbers to a Planned Parenthood spokesman before the piece posted, but he did not correct the factual issue at the time. I am deeply sorry for the error, which invalidates my piece."
Editor's note: Kirsten, I'm confused. I appreciate your commitment to veracity, but what part of the article is now invalid? If I were you, I wouldn't go so far as to say all of it is. You still have the statistics from Spain.You still have their own documentation as to the reasons women abort. You still have the statement from Planned Parenthood's 990. You still have their admission about mammograms. It's still right and proper for you to raise questions about their funding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)