“One cannot teach abstinence and chastity to the youth and then hand out a condom or put the child on birth control and expect the abstinence message to be taken seriously. Instead, as medical providers, we need to speak of the beauty of chastity and waiting for sex within marriage which is the most sound advice for their overall psychological, spiritual and medical well-being. What the teens then do with the information affords them some responsibility for their own actions.” --Maria Meyers, M.D.
December - April 2010: Birth Control
FIND PAST HOMEPAGE TOPICS UNDER "CURRENT HEADLINES" IN THE LEFT MENU...
The Bitter Pill - 50 Years Later
Pro-Abortion Group Sues FDA to Promote Plan B Drug to Teens
Surgeon: Birth Control Pill A ‘Molotov Cocktail’ for Breast Cancer
Poll: Women Uninformed About Medical Dangers of Birth Control Pill
Famous Austrian Abortion Doctor Warns Against Trusting in Condoms
This is Your Brain on Steroids / Women's Brains on Steroids: Birth Control Pills Appear to Remodel Brain Structure
Birth Control Pills Shown to Alter Structure of Women’s Brains
Dangers of Ortho Evra Patch May Have Been Covered Up
Did Drug Maker J&J Hide Birth Control Patch Risks?
BC Government Sues Contraceptive Patch Manufacturer
The Rising Popularity of Tubal Ligation Reversal Across the Globe
Resource: 50 Years of the Pill: Shocking Statistics -- http://www.hli.org/store/50-years-of-the-pill-shocking-statistics.html
Condom Minimum
IUD Works for Emergency Abortion "Birth Control": Study
PFLI Condemns FDA Approval of ella, the Chemical Cousin of Abortion Pill Mifepristone (RU 486)
New Abortion Pill ella - Ulipristal Acetate (UPA) - Approved 13 Aug 2010
The European Package Leaflet for ellaOne
QuickStats: Use of Selected Contraceptive Methods by Married Women of Childbearing Age in the United States, 2006--2008, Compared with Married Women in Selected Countries with Low Fertility Rates,* 2000--2008 [CDC]
U.S. Spent $2 Million on Study Promoting Condom Use Among Intravenous Drug Users in Kazakhstan
The Birth Control Pill Documentary -- www.vimeo.com/12090300 and www.28daysonthepill.com
The Pill's 50th: Documentary Reveals Largely Hidden Controversy
Commentary: Media Misses Impact of the Pill
Canadian Women Sue Birth Control
Pill Manufacturer
Hormonal Birth Control Increases Female Sexual Dysfunction
PENTAGON OFFICIALS REQUIRE PLAN B
Lawmakers Raise Concerns about Pentagon Approval of Plan B Pill for U.S. Bases
WOMEN ULTIMATELY DON’T BENEFIT
FROM THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACEPTION
The Birth-Control Riddle
New Safety
Label for Birth Control Pills: Bayer to Include Blood Clot Risks on Yaz
and Yasmin Packages
Law Firms Bringing Suits Against Pharmaceutical Companies Continue to Increase
Birth
Control Pill Concerns Bring Lawsuits but Few Solid Answers
Warning for Patients on
Birth Control Shot Depo-Provera
NEW ROUND OF FORCED STERILIZATIONS IN CHI-COMS: GRIM REMINDER OF "CONTRACEPTIVE", ABORTION CULTURE
5 June 10 -- National Day to Expose Chemical Contraceptives As Environmental Pollutants
ANOTHER NEW MORNING AFTER PILL...
The Bitter Pill - (50) Years Later
"50 years of the Pill: A Comprehensive Analysis" was such a success that HLI America is considering taking it on the road to other cities!
December 3, 2010 will be marked as the day that 8 courageous speakers stood together to tell the world the real story on how America has changed demographically, medically, legally, socially, politically, culturally, and ethically because of the Pill. HLI America also sponsored a new poll which reveals how many women and young girls take the Pill, what they know, and what their attitudes are.
Here are the presentations that were made:
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi
The Pill and Breast Cancer: The Connection Uncovered
Dr. Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon, will document how the ignorance of physicians, callousness in text books, and corruption on the part of the pharmaceutical industry and the National Cancer Institute have each played a role in the continued sky rocketing statistics of premenopausal breast cancer. She will explain the biologic basis of oral contraceptives as a leading cause of the 660% increase of premenopausal breast cancer since 1973. She will show the continuing research studies that support the role oral contraceptives have played in the classification of oral contraceptives as Group I carcinogens by the World Health's Organization's International Agency on the Research of Cancer and discuss the patient's right to informed consent.
Jennifer Lahl, RN
The Inconvenient Truth of Eggsploitation: The 50 year Fallout of "the Pill"
The infertility industry in the United States alone has grown to a multi-billion dollar business. What is its main commodity? Human Eggs. Egg donation is risky business and the egg donation process is inherently risky, from beginning to end. What are those risks? The answers to these questions will disturb you.
Dr. Theresa Deisher
After 50 Years of Contraception: Humans Beings are Now Commodities for Biomedical Research and Medical Therapies
When society treats other human beings as possessions rather than gifts, human beings become commodities. Over the 50 years which followed the introduction of the Pill, biomedical advances have incorporated the exploitation of other human beings into the very fabric of biomedical research and medical therapies: autism disorder, lupus, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's. If one insists on proclaiming a gain from these grisly practices then the imminent reality of reproductive cloning might be celebrated, but no medical benefits can legitimately be asserted.
Prof Janet Smith
Contraception, Why Not? The 50 Year Results Are In
After 50 years of the Pill this presentation will reveal the resulting changes that have come to relationships, marriage, family size, and the culture.
Phill Kline
The Legalities of the Pill and the Floodgates Now Opened
What are the legal effects of giving the Pill to minors? How has the promotion of the Pill opened the floodgates in other areas of ethics, law and society?
Dr. John Bruchalski
The Contraceptive Revolution in Gynecology: The Medical Reality
Sexually stressed? Not satisfied with your sexual performance? Want more than a "pap & pill check"? Working with women and families "at the bedside" as a clinician for 25 years, Dr. Bruchalski will explore how "the pill" altered the doctor-patient relationship, and has clinically impacted the health of the women he has seen daily for over two decades. His conversation with the audience will touch on the medical approach to the use of contraceptives, how medical students receive their education on contraceptives and why patients are beginning to ask for alternatives.
Patricia Bainbridge
The Forces Behind the Pill: Then and Now
This presentation reveals the forces behind the development of "the Pill" and how those individuals and organizations-along with governmental agencies and the mainstream media-promoted the widespread acceptance and use of "the Pill."
The below article was written by Joseph Klee of Columbus, Ohio who attended the conference. Conference attendees traveled from over 17 states.
When the truth is presented, it takes on a life of its own. We will continue in hopes that women across America begin to examine the physical and spiritual effects that hormonal contraception is having on their bodies and their souls. Jenn Giroux, RN Executive Director, HLI America
The Bitter Pill - (50) Years Later
By Joseph Klee
Dr. Theresa Deisher, Jennifer Lahl, Prof Janet Smith, Phill Kline, Patricia Bainbridge, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi and Jenn Giroux (Dr. John Bruchalski not pictured)
A most significant conference was hosted recently in the nation's capitol, to examine a subtle but very portentous phenomenon in our world.
Earlier this same year, various media outlets marked the 50th Anniversary of the introduction of the Oral Contraceptive (OC) pill, which came to be referred to simply as "the Pill".
Even though its administration is done privately in one's own home, and is a commodity eluding public attention in general, its widespread use has proven to have altered our world in ways that one would have thought unimaginable.
Although secular news sources have typically lauded the OC pill as revolutionary in affording "reproductive freedom" to women, the various speakers at this conference - "50 Years of the Pill: A Comprehensive Analysis" - showed the reality to entail more of enslavement and heavy penalties for its use.
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, Co-director, Sanofi Aventis Breast Care Center (Steeplechase, NJ) and renowned surgeon specializing in breast cancer surgery, began her presentation citing the mystifying 660% increase in non-invasive breast cancer between the years 1973 and 2000.
She asked why young male athletes would not be permitted to use (hormonal) steroids, as there is a risk of developing liver cancer, but meanwhile young women are not infrequently practically forced to use them by their mothers - in the form of contraceptive steroids, or birth control pills.
This latter "medication", a true Class I carcinogen, not only increases the risk of liver cancer, but of breast and cervical cancers as well (as reported in the prestigious British medical journal "The Lancet"; and in research by the IARC - International Association on Research on Cancer, both in 2005).
Jenn Giroux, conference organizer, Executive Director of HLI (Human Life International) America, and an experienced RN, cited the FDA's proposal to put ". . . very explicit, almost gruesome pictures" of tobacco-using cancer victims on cigarette labels. When, she asked, will we see "young corpses in coffins, emaciated cancer patients and college-age stroke victims" on hormonal birth control prescriptions?
The medical implications of the pill, troubling both in its severity and in the not uncommon denials of such dangers, do not constitute the only serious concerns.
Dr. Carl Djerassi, the Austrian biologist who played a large part in the OC pill's development, recognizing the large-scale depopulation trends arising from (50) years of its use, has himself lamented the pill as a "demographic disaster".
Other conference speakers cited the various ways that the pill has cheapened human sexuality, and by stripping this practice of its sacred character, has opened the floodgates to numerous disturbing bioethical nightmares.
Those treating infertility are becoming increasingly morally reckless in pursuit of human eggs.
Such traffickers are showing true racist and eugenic tendencies, as they dangle huge fees before the eyes of cash-strapped "elite", physically attractive, and overwhelmingly Caucasian young women in prestigious universities, whose eggs fuel international markets.
This depraved commerce has appropriately been coined "eggsploitation" by presenter Jennifer Lahl, R.N.
Dr. Theresa Deisher, of the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, declared that "after (50) years of contraception, human beings are now commodities for biomedical research and medical therapies".
As the contraception-induced erosion of medical ethics continues, more and more human eggs are needed to facilitate embryonic stem cell research and cloning initiatives.
Former Michigan State professor and HLI Board Chair, Dr. Patricia Bainbridge, outlined the slick campaign behind the marketing of the pill to America - a product amassing $3.5 billion in sales in 2008 alone.
Despite the developmental work of Drs. Carl Djerassi and Gregory Pincus, several popular news magazines went out of their way to heavily publicize and promote the work of fellow OC pill developer Harvard doctor John Rock...
More than once, conference attendees asked "Where are the lawsuits?", given the harmful legacy that this "bitter pill" has inflicted on our society. [Hopefully] someday the OC pill will be met with the same public opprobrium that tobacco products have come to experience.
Encourage your friends and family to sign up for HLI America For Life and Love e-Newsletter. Sign up today by clicking http://visitor.constantcontact.com/manage/optin/ea?v=0018nJcGPmgGohsW3jiAH3Iaw%3D%3D and selecting HLI America Newsletter.
Pro-Abortion Group Sues FDA to Promote Plan B Drug to Teens
A pro-abortion legal group filed a lawsuit today to force the Food and Drug Administration to allow sales of the contorversial PLan B drug over the counter to all customers — which would include teenage girls.
Currently, the Plan B drug is restricted to women over the age of 18 and younger teens must still obtain a prescription for the morning after pill from a physician. In March 2009, a federal court ordered the Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its decision preventing minors from purchasing the morning after pill without a prescription.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is complaining “the Obama Administration’s FDA has ignored a court order to reconsider its refusal to make emergency contraception (EC) available over-the-counter to women of all ages.”
Nancy Northrup, the president of CRR, added, “the FDA has disregarded the evidence and is breaking the president’s promise to restore scientific integrity to federal policies. The Center for Reproductive Rights is taking the FDA back to court today.”
The pro-abortion group sued the FDA in 2005 for not granting over-the-counter status to the Plan B drug and the agency later agreed to make the morning after pill available without a prescription but only to women 18 and over.
“The Center continued to pursue its case because there are no medical grounds for denying young women access to emergency contraception,” Northrup contends.
Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America, responded to the lawsuit in comments to LifeNews.com.
“Plan B has been an utter failure in reducing pregnancies and abortions, and its availability may increase sexually transmitted diseases,” she said. “Rather than admit they were wrong, CRR is diverting attention by running to the court to impose a political judgment.”
“This radical abortion group is attempting to bypass doctors and parents so that minor girls will be vulnerable to adults who would manipulate them. This won’t benefit girls, who would rely on this ineffective drug and end up pregnant or with a disease. It will only benefit drug companies and abortion groups,” she added.
Previously, Wright said the age restrictions need more enforcement, not less.
She worries a parent, older sibling or other relative or older friends could purchase the morning after pill for young teens, avoiding the requirement that they visit a doctor first before using the drug.
Wright said selling the morning after pill over the counter will make it easier for men who abuse young women to cover up their crimes.
“Any adult male who is having sex with a minor could walk into a pharmacy, buy the drug, and coax the girl into taking the pill,” she said.
Wright also said that Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates were given certain restrictions by the FDA on the dangerous abortion drug RU 486, but that those haven’t been followed.
“Those restrictions have never been followed, women have died, yet no one has been punished nor the drug approval pulled,” said Wright.
The morning after pill has been hailed by abortion advocates as a method of reducing abortions, but stats in the United States and elsewhere prove otherwise.
According to the London Daily Mail, teen pregnancy rates in England are now higher than they were in 1995 and pregnancies among girls under 16, below the age of sexual consent, are also at the highest level since 1998.
That is despite the British government spending £300 million (that’s over $454 million for those of us in the United States) in an attempt to cut the number of teen pregnancies in half by promoting comprehensive sexual education.
The British teen abortion rate, according to the newspaper, has also climbed steadily since 1999 when the government released its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy.
In 2008, officials in Sweden reported that the number of abortions increased 17 percent in Sweden from 2000 to 2007 despite sales of the morning after pill increasing during the same time period.
The morning after pill became a drug that could be sold over the counter in Sweden in 2001. In that time, sales of the drug tripled in the nation’s capital and doubled nationwide.
Still, new national figures show 37,205 abortions in Sweden in 2007, up approximately 17 percent from the 30,980 done in 2000. In Stockholm, 10,259 abortions were done — a 6.9 percent increase in just one year from the 2006 figures.
Meanwhile, last year the number of abortions in Scotland rose for the third straight year despite a heavy push for women to use the morning after pill.
Abortions in Scotland rose four percent according to a report from the British National Health Service and now number 13,703. That increase came after NHS reported 13,081 abortions in 2006, up from 12,603 the previous year — an increase of nearly 3.8 percent.
Not only is the increased promoting of the morning after pill resulting in more abortions, not less, the number of women having repeat abortions is increasing as well.
NHS reports more than a quarter of women, 26.3 percent, who had an abortion in Scotland in 2008 had at least one prior abortion before that. That’s 3,600 women who had one or more abortions prior, according to the government’s statistics.
Finally, a report from Planned Parenthood of Western Washington shows abortions are on the rise in Washington state even though it participated in Washington state’s Take Charge pilot program.
Take Charge is a Medicaid section 1115 Waiver program initiated in 2001 to provide free contraceptives to low-income women not already covered under Medicaid. It was originally funded for five years in 2001, then extended for three more years, and comes up for renewal in 2009.
Yet the PPWW annual report indicates abortions rose 16 percent from 7,790 in 2006 to 9,059 in 2007.
The failure of birth control, the morning after pill, and contraception to lower the number of abortions is no surprise to Dr. Joseph Stanford, associate professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
He says studies he and fellow researchers have done show a lower effectiveness rate than the 89 percent that Plan B maker Barr Laboratories claims.
“We did more a precise meta-analysis that shows it’s effective only 72 percent of the time, and even that number is optimistic,” he indicated.
He said studies from Europe, China and the United States show that the morning after pill does notreduce abortions. [emphasis added]
[16 November 2010, Ertelt, Washington, DC, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/16/nat-6857/ ]
Surgeon: Birth Control Pill A ‘Molotov Cocktail’ for Breast Cancer
How often do doctors in America prescribe a Group One carcinogen - one recognized as a “definite” cause of cancer - to otherwise healthy patients?
Answer: as often as they prescribe the hormonal birth control pill.
This little-known fact about the pill was presented by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast surgical oncologist and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, who shared her expertise on the drug at the “50 Years of the Pill” conference in Washington, DC on Friday.
“When is it ever right to give a Group One carcinogen to a healthy woman?” she asked the audience. “We don’t have to take a Group One carcinogen to be liberated.”
Lanfranchi offered a wealth of statistical data from various sources to support a fact that is known by the medical community to be true yet is rarely acknowledged: use of the pill has been strongly linked to an increased risk of breast cancer.
The pill is also believed to increase the risk of cervical cancer and liver cancer.
“This stuff is not new, it’s not magic, it’s in the literature,” she said, linking pill use to the 660 percent rise in non-invasive breast cancer since 1973. “Women want to know, and women have a right to know, what researchers have known for over 20 years.”
She compared media treatment of the pill’s cancer risk to that of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which was found to be carcinogenic in 2002. Once word got out, 15 of 30 million women in America taking HRT stopped; by 2007, invasive breast cancer in women over 50 for estrogen-receptive positive tumors dropped 11 percent.
Meanwhile, she noted, hormonal contraception - essentially the same drug as HRT and with a similar cancer risk, about 25-30 percent - continues to be touted as harmless and even healthy.
And yet, the International Agency on Research of Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, classified hormonal contraceptives in 2005 as a Group One carcinogen along with asbestos and radium.
Unlike the HRT discovery, “I don’t remember one six o’clock news report about that information,” said Lanfranchi.
While even medical textbooks attest to the 30 percent increase in cancer risk, Lanfranchi noted a pervasively dismissive attitude: one British medical textbook she cited said that, “Considering the benefits of the pill, this slight increased risk is not considered clinically significant.”
Not clinically significant? “To whom?” Lanfranchi asked, showing a sobering photograph of one of her own cancer patients...
While breast cancer caused by the pill is often caught early, she said, the pill’s “benefits” are hardly a reason not to mention its dangers.
“This is what you have to go through when you’re cured. You lose your hair, you lose your breast,” she said.
Had [this patient] been told of the risk, Lanfranchi said, “she would very well have been one of those women who would have chosen not to take the pill.”
The surgeon explained that the extra estrogen received by taking the pill not only encourages excessive multiplication of breast tissue - usually a normal occurrence in the menstruation cycle - but, when metabolized, can also directly damage breast tissue DNA.
Because breast tissue remains susceptible to cancer until it undergoes a stabilizing transformation in the childbearing process, said Lanfranchi, the pill is particularly dangerous to women who have not yet had their first child: perhaps the most popular demographic among pill users in the U.S.
To show just how much of a threat the pill posed to young women, Lanfranchi pointed to several statistics, including a 2006 Mayo Clinic meta-analysis that concluded that breast cancer risk rises 50 percent for women taking oral contraceptives four or more years before a full-term pregnancy.
In 2009, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that women starting the pill before 18 nearly quadruple their risk of triple negative breast cancer... [Dr. Lanfranchi also mentioned a 2004 study by Hakan Olsson, a Swedish oncologist, which makes stunning comments about the effects of the pill.]
“It’s like you took this molotov cocktail of a Group One carcinogen and threw it into that young girl’s breast,” said Lanfranchi. “Is this child abuse?”
In a world where 50 percent of teenagers are on the pill, Lanfranchi lamented that publicly controverting the deep social dependence on the pill has become nearly impossible - even though the message would save countless women’s lives. She sympathized with doctors who would find the information hard to swallow.
“It’s hard to talk about this because you’re changing a culture ... I want to think that I did good, that I helped my patients, that I did better because of what I did,” she said. “25 years down in my career, when I hear that I’ve been handing out a Group One carcinogen for the last 25 years, I’m going to be resistant to that.”
Related:
Breast Cancer Link with Abortion and Hormonal Contraceptives Featured in You Tube Videos
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1991/00/9100109
Study: Abortion, Hormonal Contraceptives Influence Breast Cancer Risk
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1990/90/9090807
Major U.S. Study Shows Oral Contraceptives Increase Breast Cancer Risk 44%
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1961/feb/6102502
Comment: Posted by nurseejohnson on Dec 6, 2010
In addition to terrible risk of breast cancer, there is also the danger of blood clots which travel to the lungs, heart or brain. As a stroke nurse I have seen numerous young women affected by stroke caused by the use of hormonal contraceptives. I have also seen older women who still use HRT become victims of stroke. I know of other patients who have had pulmonary emboli which are life threatening because of OC use. If this were the cigarette industry the outrage would be resounding. The contraceptive mentality is so profound in the medical field that it seems that the health of a woman is unimportant so long as she contracepts. It is outrageous to me, as a woman, that this information is not made available to women in the physician’s office. A woman has a right to know how serious the danger is to her body when she is prescribed a drug.
[6 Dec 2010, Kathleen Gilbert, WASHINGTON, D.C., LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/surgeon-birth-control-pill-a-molotov-cocktail-for-breast-cancer?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=270b9834cb-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_06_2010&utm_medium=email ]
Poll: Women Uninformed About Medical Dangers of Birth Control Pill
In association with a conference held in the nation’s capitol today about the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, a pro-life group has released the results of a new poll.
The survey finds women are generally uninformed about the potentially dangerous medical risks and ramifications associated with the oral contraceptive pill.
Human Life International America released a new national poll surveying teenaged and adult women showing widespread usage of the birth control pill despite women not knowing much about potential harmful effects.
The poll, conducted by professional firm the polling company/WomenTrend surveyed more than 800 women aged 15‐44 in the United States.
Once learning that the birth control pill can raise the risk of contracting breast cancer, about 40 percent of women in the poll were more deterred from using it than before.
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a New jersey-based breast cancer surgeon, is a presenter at the HLI conference and she says women need to know more about the potential problems.
“The most egregious omission affecting a young woman’s life is the fact that in 2005, the International Agency on Research of Cancer listed oral contraceptives as Group I carcinogens for breast, cervical and liver cancer,” she says. “You’ll find cigarettes and asbestos in the same group as risks for lung cancer.”
The poll found 78 percent of women have used the birth control pill and a 35% began using it under the age of 18. Thirty‐five percent of women aged 15‐44 who were surveyed said that they currently take oral contraceptives, while an additional 43% said that they had in the past but no longer do.
Fewer than one‐in‐five (19%) said they had never used oral contraceptives.
Three-fifths of women said they began taking the Pill to prevent pregnancy, and nearly two‐thirds said that is the reason why they are still on it. This was the top reason across all demographic groups. Regulation of menstruation was the second‐most common reason why women began oral contraceptives and remain on it
Women were less likely to have used another form of hormonal birth control — like contraceptive shots or patches – as two-thirds said they had never done so; 11% said they currently do, and 19%
said they did at one point.
Three‐in‐five women said they took the Pill (or used another form of hormonal birth control) after becoming sexually‐active for the first time.
The survey found a majority of women don’t know the side effects of the pill and were more likely to share those sides effects than information about significant medical problems the pill caused.
All women surveyed – regardless of contraceptive use – said that knowing “there is new evidence to suggest that taking hormonal contraceptives may increase the risk of breast cancer” would give them serious pause; 44% concluded they would be less likely to take them, and 3% would be more likely. Still, 44% said such research made no difference to them.
While 49% of women were warned by a friend or physician about weight gain and 23% of headaches, only 40% were told of blood clots and the risk of stroke and 19% of increased risks of breast cancer.
Related Links
* Human Life International America -- http://hliamerica.org/
* Polling Data -- http://hliamerica.org/files/2010/12/hliamerica-survey-analysis.pdf
In a second question, 54% of women said that use of the Pill for pregnancy prevention would not be worth it if further research shows that there is a definitive link between use of hormonal birth control and cancer; 32% said the risk would be worth the benefits of pregnancy prevention.
Ultimately, the poll found women generally believe the birth control pill has had a positive effect on them, their families, and society. By margins of at least 6‐to‐1, the impact of birth control was deemed more positive than negative on society, marriages, and relationships in the U.S. [3 Dec 2010, Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/03/nat-6908/
***********************
Looking for a Pro-Life Physician or NFP Instructor?
http://hliamerica.org/provider-search
************************
Famous Austrian Abortion Doctor Warns Against Trusting in Condoms
Christian Fiala, one of the most famous abortion doctors in Austria: Condoms as a preventative aid is only partially effective -- protection only "from some" sexually transmitted diseases.
Of all things, Christian Fiala, one of the most famous abortion doctors in Austria, had warned on Wednesday against the use of condoms and in another broadcast he allowed that condoms as a contraceptive method are only partly effective.
"They tend to lead unnecessarily to undesired pregnancies and therefore to terminated pregnancies," said Fiala. Actually his Firm Gynmed has noticed an upswing in the number of undesired "condom pregnancies". According to an actual Gynmed Study (2009) over a third of all unwanted pregnancies (35 Percent!) occur, despite the use of a condom.
The abortion doctor further maintains that condoms actually protect from some sexually transmitted diseases but according to scientific studies of heterosexual youth there are no risk groups for sexually transmitted infections represented. The main risk group according to Fiala, are adult homosexuals, followed by adult heterosexuals.
Fiala had agreed to the broadcast because of the presentation of a study by a Condom Firm. "The study of the Condom Firm is great as an advertisement, but it is not in the interest of the young and doesn't serve for the improvement of their health" insisted Fiala to the gathered news media...
Link to original... http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=28774
[4 Nov 2010, Tancred, http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/11/famous-abortion-doctor-warns-against.html ]
THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON STEROIDS
A new study in the journal Brain Research finds that women taking hormonal contraceptives show structural changes in areas of the female brain responsible for higher order cognition. Although no behavioral testing was done to test the possible risks or benefits of these changes, as Scientific American comments, “The possibility that an accepted form of chemical contraception has the ability to alter the gross structure of the human brain is a cause for concern, even if the changes seem benign -- for the moment.”
Women's Brains on Steroids: Birth Control Pills Appear to Remodel Brain Structure
By Craig H. Kinsley and Elizabeth A. Meyer
It seems that weekly we hear about some professional athlete who sullies himself and his sport through abuse of steroids. The melodrama unfolds, careers and statistics are brought low and asterisked, and everyone bemoans another fallen competitor. Yet there are millions of cases of steroid use that occur daily with barely a second thought: Millions of women take birth control pills, blithely unaware that their effects may be subtly seeping into and modulating brain structure and activity.
It is a huge experiment whose resolution will not be known for a while, but a new study in the journal Brain Research [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed] demonstrates that the effects are likely to be dramatic. It found that birth control pills have structural effects on regions of the brain that govern higher-order cognitive activities, suggesting that a woman on birth control pills may literally not be herself -- or is herself, on steroids.
The human brain is a remarkable structure, not least because of its seemingly infinite capacity for change, adapting millisecond by millisecond. Indeed, a structure with tens of billions of neurons, each of which has the ability to elaborate and branch and become more complex, while changing its activity in the process, is the very definition of change. This so-called neuroplasticity is a hallmark of the nervous system. It can, however, be augmented, boosted, by artificial means, and if we are not careful, the brain may go all catawampus.
Steroid hormones, which are excreted by endocrine organs such as testes and ovaries, flow in abundance throughout the bloodstream, reach target organs and structures, and exert powerful effects on them. To wit, the cock’s comb, the buck’s antlers, the lion’s mane, the blood-engorged uterus.
What of the mammal’s nervous system? It turns out that the brain is a veritable sponge for steroid hormones. In the male, the androgen testosterone (or a metabolite) binds to brain receptors and sculpts that structure into the aggression-promoting, sex-craving, risk-taking regulator with which we are all familiar.
By the same token, the comparative lack of androgen hormones in the female produces the kinder, gentler, softer neural substrate that distinguishes itself from the male by dint of its vastly different behavioral repertoire.
Whereas the subtle structural effects of naturally-occurring steroid hormones and sex differences in the brain have been extensively studied, few studies have examined the role of synthetic hormones on changes in the human brain.
What happens, then, when the female brain gets a significant and artificial dose of steroid hormone, either progesterone, estrogen or both? We know what happens below the waist, the pregnancies prevented. What happens above the neck, as this steroidal tsunami washes over the neural coastline?
It appears that the brain, that sensitive organ replete with steroid receptors, reacts to its hormonal milieu with startling structural modifications.
Researcher Belinda Pletzer, of Paris-Lodron-University Salzburg, and her colleagues used MRI and voxel-based morphology to examine the brains of men; women on the pill; and “naturally cycling” women not on the pill.
The researchers found that males have considerably larger areas of gray matter in brain regions associated with learning and memory, known as the parahippocampal gyrus and hippocampus, as well as an area associated with emotional regulation, the amygdala. These data are consistent with many studies that provide evidence for gender differences in brain and behavior.
Further, naturally cycling women showed an increase in gray matter volume in the right fusiform/parahippocampal gyrus when circulating levels of estrogen and progesterone were low versus the phase when levels of these hormones were both high.
Does that increased gray matter translate into enhanced performance? It is not clear. Research into the hormonal regulation of cognition is extremely complicated. As Pletzer mentions, human fMRI studies have revealed that these areas are associated with spatial navigation abilities. Other work suggests that hippocampal–dependent spatial memory is enhanced by higher levels of estrogen. Under some conditions, however, estrogens have no effect or can even impair performance in rats.
Additionally, in Pletzer’s study, women using hormonal contraceptives showed larger gray matter volumes in the prefrontal cortex, pre- and postcentral gyri, the parahippocampal and fusiform gyri and temporal regions, when compared to naturally cycling women.
The brain works like a neural beehive; the proper coordinated functioning of groups of tasked neurons are important to successfully accomplish a variety of mental tasks -- even the sensory processing and motor coordination needed for something as simple as picking up a hot cup of coffee without scalding oneself. Again, we do not know whether this increased gray matter translates into better or worse performance, but there likely is little good about treating a woman's brain like a spongy accordion.
Further, although the Pletzer data are suggestive, there are other methodological and interpretational issues worth considering. For example, the authors did not examine levels of circulating hormones in the male and female subjects (e.g., testosterone or estrogen, respectively). Such data would have been helpful in determining the timing of the neural structural effects.
Furthermore, the types of hormonal contraceptive were not examined, lumping them all into a vague “hormonal contraceptives” group. There is a high level of variability and differential ratios in levels of estrogen and progesterones in birth control pills.
Pletzer’s team, despite showing significant neuroanatomical alterations, did not perform behavioral or cognitive tests of their subjects that could have helped explain the meaning or functional consequences of the changes.
Comparing other published work with the Pletzer study allows us to make inferences, but they are, at best, speculative given the unique details of the current research. There are pretty large differences in the structure of the brain that are attributable to cyclic fluctuations in natural hormones, and that appear to be due to unnatural concentrations of synthetic hormones. But since the authors did no cognitive testing of their subjects, we can only speculate about the behavioral effects.
Last, birth control pills also keep hormones low. So, there are two simultaneous events tugging at the data, a confound: the hormonal effects of the pills themselves, and the lowering of the normal hormones, both of which could bring about the structural effects. So even the actual hormonal basis underlying the reported structural differences remains unclear.
Still, overall, the Pletzer data do reveal some startling effects of oral contraceptive hormones. There are natural hormonal fluctuations that are a consequence of menstrual cycle oscillations, and which have organic effects of their own, but these have been a part of female mammals’ lives since time immemorial. Now, we are superimposing onto this sensitive substrate a steroid hormone cocktail with the potential of marking the brain in dramatic fashion.
The possibility that an accepted form of chemical contraception has the ability to alter the gross structure of the human brain is a cause for concern, even if the changes seem benign -- for the moment.
In any event, women need to have all of the medical and now, neurobiological, information they can use in informing their personal contraceptive decisions.
Like the rest of life, and like the steroid choices made by those ballplayers, there are costs and benefits. The benefits are well established; the costs, however, are still coming to light.
[Brain Res. 2010 Aug 12;1348:55-62. Epub 2010 Jun 13; Menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptive use modulate human brain structure; 28 Sept 2010, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=womens-brains-on-steroids&sc=emailfriend ; 5 Oct 10, Abstinence Clearinghouse, www.abstinence.net]
Brain Res. 2010 Aug 12;1348:55-62. Epub 2010 Jun 13. Menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptive use modulate human brain structure.
Pletzer B, Kronbichler M, Aichhorn M, Bergmann J, Ladurner G, Kerschbaum HH.
Department of Cell Biology, Paris-Lodron-University Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Abstract
Sex differences in human brain structure have repeatedly been described, but results are inconsistent. However, these studies hardly controlled for cycle phase of women or the use of hormonal contraceptives. Our study shows that these factors are not negligible, but have a considerable influence on human brain structure. We acquired high-resolution structural images from the brains of 14 men, 14 women, who did not use, and 14 women, who did use hormonal contraceptives. Women, who did not use hormonal contraceptives, were scanned twice, once during their early follicular and once during their mid-luteal cycle-phase. Regional gray matter volumes were compared by voxel-based morphometry. Men had larger hippocampi, parahippocampal and fusiform gyri, amygdalae and basal ganglia than women. Women showed larger gray matter volumes in the prefrontal cortex, pre- and postcentral gyri. These sex-dependent effects were modulated by menstrual cycle phases and hormonal contraceptives. We found larger volumes in the right fusiform/parahippocampal gyrus during early follicular compared to mid-luteal cycle phase. Women using hormonal contraceptives showed significantly larger prefrontal cortices, pre- and postcentral gyri, parahippocampal and fusiform gyri and temporal regions, compared to women not using contraceptives.
PMID: 20550945 [PubMed - in process]
Birth Control Pills Shown to Alter Structure of Women’s Brains
by Mara Hvistendahl
October 1, 2010 (popsci.com)
A new study explores the surprising cognitive effects of contraception.
You aren’t yourself anymore. It’s a familiar complaint heard by women who have recently gone on birth control pills. Now studies are providing evidence for what many of those women, and the men who love them, have long known intuitively: the pill can alter the female brain, making a woman act like a different person.
The pill turned 50 this year, and it has gone through many iterations since the Food and Drug Administration gave the pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle a green light to market the first oral contraceptive on June 23, 1960.
Drug companies continually roll out contraceptives containing lower doses of hormones and entailing fewer side effects.
But women who have gone on hormones can point to the effects that have stubbornly endured: moodiness, depression, decreased libido. (This last one makes some birth control pills perversely effective. Not only do they protect you from pregnancy if you do have sex, they also zap your desire to have sex in the first place — and turn you into an unstable mess, which may in turn zap your partner’s interest in sex.) But believe it or not, we still know very little about the consequences of taking daily hormones on a woman’s brain.
That is changing, say Craig H. Kinsley and Elizabeth A. Meyer in Scientific American. They point to a recent study in the journal Brain Research comparing the brains of women on birth control pills with brains of other women and men. When the study’s authors examined high-resolution images of participants’ brains, they found the women on hormones showed more matter in some areas of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with cognitive activities like decision-making.
The Brain Research study prompted breathless news reports suggesting that the pill makes you smarter. But Kinsley and Meyer point out that the brain works like a “neural beehive,” and disturbing one part of the hive could impact the other.
The fact that one brain region becomes larger than the next does not mean a woman on hormones is more intelligent or effective. It is also possible that her brain is going haywire. (Kinsley and Meyer actually use the word “catawampus.”)
That may be why in some situations estrogen has been shown to impair performance in rats. Other studies have suggested that the pill may change a woman’s preferences to the point of affecting her taste in men.
They compare the pill to steroids, which are known to cause increased aggression in men.
Could the stints of hyper-masculine behavior known as “‘roid rage” have their equivalent in women?
Hopefully future studies will shed light on what many couples know to be intuitively true.
http://hliamerica.org/news-commentary/birth-control-pills-shown-to-alter-structure-of-womens-brains/
DANGERS OF ORTHO’S EVRA PATCH MAY HAVE BEEN COVERED UP
Internal documents obtained by reporters reveal that patient reports showed the risks of this hormone birth control patch to be much greater than those of the Pill. Users were twelve times more likely to suffer strokes and eighteen times more likely to develop blood clots, although most were unaware of the heightened risk. Serious medical events, even death, are alleged to have been caused by the continuous stream of estrogen into the body. [posted 28 Sept, 2010]
Did Drug Maker J&J Hide Birth Control Patch Risks?
NBC News has obtained private internal documents from Johnson &
Johnson which suggest the company knew about an increased risk of death
in connection with using the birth control patch, but put women in
danger anyway. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39303345#39303345
The Patch contains 60%
more estrogen than the pill, and it is introduced directly into the
bloodstream through the skin (not through the digestive system).
It has been found that the
Patch is 18 times more likely to cause blood clots, and 12 times more
likely to cause strokes than the pill.
J&J knew about this for years.
Two VPs tried to stop the company from releasing Ortho Evra, but they quit or lost their jobs.
Thousands have suffered adverse effects. At least two dozen women have died.
J & J has quietly paid
$68 million to settle lawsuits; but this is miniscule compared to the
$1.6 Billion J&J makes in the Patch sales profit.
Wolfe notes: "Risks outway the benefits" and that it should be taken off the market.
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39303345#39303345 , MSNBC; 22 September 2010, ALL Pro-Life Today]
BC Government Sues Contraceptive Patch Manufacturer
The British Columbia government has filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson Inc., claiming the maker of the "Ortho Evra" contraception patch “aggressively marketed the contraceptive without disclosing the safety hazards associated with Evra.”
The lawsuit claims that women using the patch “did not receive any warnings about the increased risk of developing blood clots, pulmonary emboli, strokes, heart attacks or deep vein thrombosis associated with Evra.”
The BC government is seeking to recover past and future health care costs associated with caring for women who develop serious and sometimes fatal illness as a result of using the dangerous hormonal contraceptive.
The patch delivers the hormones estrogen and progestin directly into the bloodstream through the skin, whereas oral contraceptives, which contain a similar amount of the drugs, must pass through the digestive system before being absorbed.
Health Canada approved the contraceptive in 2002, following approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001.
The lawsuit claims that, although doctors reviewing the clinical trials of Evra before its approval recognized the potential for serious health problems from the use of the patch, Johnson & Johnson was negligent in providing adequate label warnings, failed to conduct long-term use risk studies, and failed to provide Health Canada with complete and accurate risk information.
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical have faced a string of lawsuits since introducing the Ortho Evra patch.
In 2006, 43 US women sued the company, which was facing approximately 400 similar lawsuits, after suffering long-term debilitating effects from the patch.
At least 23 women have died from the use of this form of contraception, including an 18-year-old New York fashion student who collapsed in a city subway station. An autopsy on Zakiya Kennedy's body found a blood clot had moved into her lungs, and the medical examiner ruled that the clot was a side effect of the Evra birth control patch she was using.
Vancouver pharmacist and writer Cristina Alarcon told LifeSiteNews she is "ecstatic" to see the BC government take this action on behalf of women who are injured by the use of this product.
"I am ecstatic to see that perhaps our government is beginning to take women’s real healthcare needs more seriously," she said. "The history of artificial contraception was fraught with problems from its inception. Today, we continue to be used as guinea pigs for every new brand of synthetic contraceptive that hits the market."
Noting that in 2005 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the UN’s World Health Organization, classified hormonal contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens for breast, cervical, and liver cancers, Alarcon observed that "the carcinogenic effects of the Pill are always downplayed for political and ideological reasons. The Pill is a huge money maker for Big Pharma."
"The Evra patch has problems, but then so does the current birth control pill," Alarcon concluded.
See related:
43 More Women Sue over Birth Control Patch Dangers
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06110206.html
Woman Sues “Birth Control” Patch Manufacturer for Pulmonary Embolism
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/sep/05091303.html
Abortion-Causing Birth Control Patch Manufacturer Faces Class-Action Lawsuit
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05072703.html
18 Year-Old New York Student Dies Suddenly from Birth Control Complications
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/04040606.html
[7 October 2010, T.M. Baklinski, VANCOUVER, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100710.html ]
The Rising Popularity of Tubal Ligation Reversal Across the Globe
by DeAnn Norton
September 24, 2010 (Buzzle.com)
There is no question that the procedure called tubal ligation is very popular across the United States. It’s a permanent form of female sterilization that is commonly done after a woman has had her final baby. However, as with many decisions that we make in our lives there’re always people who regret them later on. Some women rush into the decision or don’t realize that they will later have a lifestyle change will cause them to want to have another child. This is why tubal ligation reversal has become a popular procedure in the United States and abroad.
The Chapel Hill Tubal Reversal Center in North Carolina has seen its share of patients from all across the globe. These doctors are specialists in tubal ligation reversal, so they often get letters and e-mails from women in many different countries who wish to travel to the United States to have their tubal ligation reversed. Recently, they received a positive pregnancy test report from a patient in Australia who had a reversal two years ago.
Before undergoing the outpatient procedure, women need to first meet with a qualified surgeon who is well-versed in doing tubal reversals. Many doctors are not even aware that this procedure exists, so it might be necessary to do a little research to find the right doctor.
The surgeon will likely want to see the original surgical report from the tubal ligation. This will tell him numerous things including what kind of tubal ligation was done. There are several different methods that can be used including clips, rings and coagulation. Each one has its own rate of success when it comes to doing a reversal.
Before doing a tubal ligation reversal, the doctor will also want to know how long the remaining tubal lengths are. If the previous doctor cut or burned off too much of the fallopian tubes, it may not be possible to reconnect them in such a way as to allow for natural pregnancy.
A woman’s age is also an important factor as our fertility naturally declines as we get older.
http://hliamerica.org/news-commentary/the-rising-popularity-of-tubal-ligation-reversal-across-the-globe/
Condom Minimum
This morning [4 Oct 2010], Indiana University released the findings of a "National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior" by its Center for Sexual Health Promotion.
The fact that there's considerable overlap between this group and the Kinsey Institute (also at Indiana U.), which was founded by the notorious sex researcher and degenerate Alfred Kinsey, suggests that the data should be taken with a grain of salt (and a shot of penicillin). Nevertheless, we can expect to see a lot of media reports delving into these findings in the days to come.
The New York Times focused on the discovery that adolescents aged 14-17 were the age group most likely to use condoms.
This undermines the argument by some that abstinence education leaves sexually active teens too ignorant to protect themselves.
However, the problem with treating condoms as "central to global sexual health efforts," as the study declares, is that condom promotion also promotes the myth of "safe sex"--the idea that if you only use a condom, you will be "safe" from unplanned pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.
That's simply not true. Condoms can reduce some of the risks of sexual activity, but they can never eliminate them.
Abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control, so promoting abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage should be the central focus of our "sexual health efforts." [4 Oct 2010, FRC.org]
IUD Works for Emergency Abortion "Birth Control": Study
An abortifacient copper intrauterine device was 100 percent effective at emergency contraception [sic] in a study of almost 2000 Chinese women who had the device implanted up to five days after unprotected sex. The communist government of China strictly enforces a "one child" forced abortion policy.
The device - called Copper T380A, or Copper T - continued to be effective at preventing continuation of an existing pregnancies a year after it was inserted. Copper T, marketed as ParaGard in the United States, is a T-shaped piece of flexible plastic wrapped in a layer of copper that is inserted into the uterus.
ParaGard was removed for a number of years from the US market due to lawsuits and health dangers it posed to women. It works by stopping sperm from reaching the egg and by preventing an embryo (human baby) from implanting in the wall of the uterus, thus rendering it a de facto abortifacient device (causes early abortion).
Doctors in Rhode Island are currently under investigation for implanting hundreds of women with cheaper, non-approved versions of Copper T and another type of intrauterine device, Mirena.
[ http://link.reuters.com/cug73n , BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, online July 7, 2010; http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2010/08/06/eline/links/20100806elin003.html]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PFLI Condemns FDA Approval of Chemical Cousin of Abortion Pill Mifepristone (RU 486)
Pharmacists For Life International releases the following statement:
In many places of employment a gigantic board is posted listing the shortages and outages of essential medications, such as antibiotics, pain relievers, anesthetics and drugs for sedation. This problem has been significant for years, and has worsened considerably in the last year, impeding pharmacists' ability to provide vital care for our patients.
The FDA has placed the approval of this "chemical cousin" analog of mifepristone (sometimes known by its antiquated experimental name, RU 486) ahead of the need to address this severe health care issue.
Our disgust for the deadly FDA action is profound and beyond the ability to verbalize.
Ulipristal acetate, according to its own developers, can kill human embryos and feti. It is marketed in Europe as EllaOne® .
The low dose 30mg form of Ella®, has been prioritized for approval by the U.S. FDA, which would have served the citizens of the U.S. better by adequately addressing the current, rolling shortages of truly lifesaving and essential medications, rather than chemicals whose main intent is to snuff out a nascent life in the first few weeks of existence.
The embryocidal doses of ulipristal acetate may now be stockpiled and accumulated by prescribers or patients for "medical" chemical abortions at home, sidestepping the so-called regulation of mifepristone/misoprostil (the other abortion drug brought to the US in the 1990s by the Population Council and whose $4 million experimentation bill was entirely footed by mega-billionaire Warren Buffett).
This will lead to additional life-endangering problems for the targeted adolescent girls and women, as well as giving continued cover for sexual predators of underage girls and incestuous abusive relationships.
The FDA is expected to continue in its long tradition of relegating females to lowest class health care status.
PFLI roundly and vehemently denounces and condemns the FDA for this inappropriate use of its drug regulatory power to destroy life rather than approve and regulate medicines which actually are life-saving and preserve health.
[MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 16, 2010, PFLI, Christian Newswire]
New Abortion Pill ella - Ulipristal Acetate (UPA) - Approved
On August 13, 2010, the FDA approved a new abortion pill, ella. The drug will be released to the public by the end of this year and made available with a prescription. Unfortunately, ella is attractive to the public because it works for up to 5 days after "unprotected sex." Plan B (Levonorgestrel), currently the most commonly used "emergency contraceptive" pill, is only recommended for use up to 3 days after unprotected sex.
Ella, Ulipristal Acetate (UPA), is a selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM). SPRMs block the action of the hormone progesterone, which is necessary for ovulation and implantation to occur. Progesterone also maintains the lining of the uterus and supports the embryo.
Currently, the only other legal SPRM drug available in the United States is RU-486 (mifepristone). Although ella acts similarly to RU-486, it is being billed as an emergency contraceptive.12,3 Seven women died after taking RU-486 within six years of the drug being on the market.4 There is reason to believe that ella might also be unsafe for women. Because of its similarity to RU-486, there are concerns that ella may have similar, serious health risks including severe bleeding, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, serious infections, and even death.
Ella is designed to be taken as a single dose within 5 days of "unprotected sex." It is thought to inhibit and delay ovulation, attempting to prevent fertilization. However, ovulation may or may not have already occurred before ella was taken. Ella also alters the lining of the uterus, which, if fertilization occurs, can prevent an embryo from implanting, causing an abortion.5,6
Another potential problem with ella is that the FDA cannot prevent unapproved use of the drug. Planned Parenthood already administers Plan B to women past the recommended 3 day time frame,7 prescribes RU-486 for use at a lower dosage than that approved by the FDA,8 and administers RU-486 after the 49-day time frame that the FDA approves.9 There is no guarantee that they will not administer ella past the recommended 5 day time frame as well.
Ella has the potential to cause great harm to women who use it off-label or after the FDA approved time frame, especially in cases where women take higher doses of ella than those approved by the FDA. Although the FDA has studied limited data on ella since its October 2009 release in Europe, it has not yet proven that taking the approved dose or a higher dose of ella cannot cause an abortion before and after implantation. Ella has caused abortions in rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and macaques (a type of monkey) in recent studies, suggesting that it could do the same to humans.10
Since ella has the potential to cause abortions after implantation (as well as before), it is being improperly labeled as an emergency contraceptive. According to the FDA's own definition of abortion, an abortion cannot take place unless implantation has occured."11 So, the FDA is allowing a drug on the market that causes abortions even according to its own standards, but is deceptively labeling it an "emergency contraceptive." Because of this, women might take ella within 5 days of unprotected sex and unknowingly abort an already implanted embryo fertilized during an earlier sexual encounter. At this time, the FDA does not require women to take a pregnancy test before being prescribed ella to prevent this from happening. Ella enables the government to fund such abortions because it is labeled as an emergency contraceptive and can, therefore, be distributed by Title X clinics.
At least one preborn child exposed to ella in a study had visual development problems and delayed gross motor skills after birth.12 Still, the FDA failed to conduct further studies on ella's potential to cause birth defects among babies exposed to ella in the womb or through breastfeeding. The FDA has also failed to conduct the necessary studies regarding ella's effect on females under the age of 18.
Negative side effects of ella are many and include abdominal pain, menstrual disorders, mood disorders, fatigue, renal pain, genital pain, breast pain, blurred vision, depression, insomnia, muscle spasms, kidney infection, tremor, and pelvic inflammatory disease.13
HLA has taken steps to inform the public of the detrimental effects of this drug by including an explanation of ella in its newest publication, You Can Stop Injustice.
For more information about Human Life Alliance and its publications, visit www.humanlife.org or call 651-484-1040.
To read more about the FDA ok and possible funding through Obama care click here.
1. Food and Drug Administration. "Background Document for Meeting of Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs (June 17, 2010)." May 2010.http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/ReproductiveHealthDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM215425.pdf
2. Drug Watch. "RU-486." 2010.
http://www.drugwatch.com/ru-486/
3. Danco Laboratories. "Mifeprex Product Labeling." p. 26. 2005.
11. CNN. "FDA panel endorses 'morning after' pill." 2006.
12. Food and Drug Administration. "Background Document for Meeting of Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs (June 17, 2010)." May 2010.
http://www.drugwatch.com/ru-486/
[Human Life Alliance, 19 August 2010]
The European Package Leaflet, filled with dubious terminology...
http://www.ellaone-registry.com/en/download/package_leaflet_EN_240909.pdf
www.ellaone-registry.com
One of the key phrases in this piece is that Ella One is referred to as a "Progesterone Modulator." Progesterone is necessary to maintain a healthy pregnancy, by stimulating the thickening of the uterine lining in preparation to receive a fertilized egg (a conceived child). Anything that disrupts this process -- or in their choice of words "modulates" this process by reducing progesterone levels -- will prevent the developing embryo from implanting in the uterine lining (endometrium), leading to spontaneous abortion.
QuickStats: Use of Selected Contraceptive Methods by Married Women of Childbearing Age in the United States, 2006--2008, Compared with Married Women in Selected Countries with Low Fertility Rates,* 2000--2008
* France, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
These countries were selected because they have birth rates and abortion rates lower than the United States and because they have comparable data on contraception among married women from a large national survey. Data are from a United Nations compilation of national survey data. Results are based on large samples and are adjusted to national totals in each country.
Additional information is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf Adobe PDF file. Low fertility is defined as a total fertility rate (TFR) of ≤2.1. TFR is the average number of births per woman, based on current age-specific birth rates. In 2006, the TFR in the United States was approximately 2.1 children per woman A TFR of 2.1 is the replacement value of a population (i.e., the rate, without migration, at which the number of persons in a population would be stable).
Among countries with low fertility (total fertility rates of ≤2.1), a higher percentage of married women of childbearing age in the United States rely on female sterilization (24%) as their method of contraception, compared with women in other countries (range: 4%--9%).
Women in France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are more likely to rely on oral contraception (29%--44%) than women in the United States (16%). Women in France use the IUD (22%) to a greater extent than women in the United States (5%), whereas the male condom is used by partners of approximately 25% of married women in Spain and the United Kingdom, nearly twice the percentage found in the United States.
Alternate Text: The figure above shows the use of selected contraceptive methods by married women of childbearing age in the United States, 2006-2008, compared with married women in selected countries with low fertility rates from 2000-2008.
Among countries with low fertility (total fertility rates of ≤2.1), a higher percentage of married women of childbearing age in the United States rely on female sterilization (24%) as their method of contraception, compared with women in other countries (range: 4%-9%). Women in France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are more likely to rely on oral contraception (29%-44%) than women in the United States (16%).
Women in France use the IUD (22%) to a greater extent than women in the United States (5%), whereas the male condom is used by partners of approximately 25% of married women in Spain and the United Kingdom, nearly twice the percentage found in the United States.
[Source: Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982--2008. Vital Health Stat 2010;23(29). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf Adobe PDF file ]
[CDC, MMWR Weekly, July 23, 2010 / 59(28);879
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5928a5.htm?s_cid=mm5928a5_e ]
U.S. Spent $2 Million on Study Promoting Condom Use Among Intravenous Drug Users in Kazakhstan
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68156
The National Institutes of Health has spent over $2 million on a study that, among other things, seeks to incease condom use among intravenous drug users in Kazakhstan. Dr. Nabila El-Bassel, a Columbia University professor in the School of Social Workreceived funding for the study from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [ ALL Pro-Life Today | 23 June 2010]
View the full Birth Control Pill
Documentary "28 Days on the Pill" now by clicking:
www.vimeo.com/12090300
The DVD "28 Days on the Pill" is available from PFLI at the PFLI Store
-- http://www.pfli.org/shop/contents/en-us/d1.html
Visit - www.28daysonthepill.com
The Pill's 50th: Documentary Reveals Largely Hidden Controversy
Dr. Albert Mohler has stated, "I cannot imagine any development in human history, after the Fall, that has had a greater impact on human beings than the pill."
View the full documentary "28 Days on the Pill" now by clicking: vimeo.com/12090300
A concerned citizen, his family and a nurse friend investigate throughout North America to uncover the truth about the birth control pill. The debate has been raging for over a decade and yet many people don't know about it. How could this be? How does the pill really work? Can everyday oral contraceptives really cause abortions? Why are so many people uninformed?
Discover how this could be a deadly silence. Find out what has shocked doctors and nurses.
Whether Christian or not, women across the board do not have a real understanding of how the pill actually works. Does it only prevent ovulation? What do the inserts and pharmaceutical guides really say? How is it that women consume something when they know very little about how it actually works? Do women and men really care?
The producers believe they should be given the opportunity to make an informed choice. No matter what one's conclusions are, they believe everyone has a right to full information and informed consent. Whether on the left or the right, we should all agree, informed consent in the medical community is paramount.
This is a good start to the investigative work of how informed we really are, what we take for granted, who might know and may not want to tell.
The question is why? Why the silence? The topic that for many has been too hot to handle.
The documentary features: Dr. Albert Mohler (quoted in Time Magazine's recent article on The Pill), The Duggars (19 children and counting), Christian author Randy Alcorn (i.e. Heaven, Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?) and Dr. Walt Larimore (formerly with Focus on the Family).
Be informed! Inform others!
View the full documentary "28 Days on the Pill" now by clicking: www.vimeo.com/12090300
The DVD is available from PFLI at the PFLI Store -- http://www.pfli.org/shop/contents/en-us/d1.html
Visit - www.28daysonthepill.com
[Independent Producer, TNL Productions; PharmFacts E-News Update, 13July 10; MEDIA ADVISORY, July 13, 2010 /Christian Newswire]
Commentary: Media Misses Devastating Impact of the Pill
Few of us could escape the celebration in the media of the 50th anniversary of the approval of the Pill in the USA. In May of 1960, the U.S. Food and Frug Administration (FDA) approved the first oral contraceptive. Since then, it has infiltrated nearly every corner of society.
But let me highlight some of the consequences of the Pill's approval that were not mentioned in the extensive press coverage:
* In 1960 there were five recognized sexually transmitted diseases; today there are more than 30 [ed. perhaps 50]
* In the 1960s, it was claimed that abortion would decrease due to "more effective" contraception; instead, 52 million U.S. children have been aborted since 1973. If these children represented a country, it would rank 23rd in population in the world -- this is nearly the population of France.
* Marriages were to be better without the worry of pregnancy, yet divorce has skyrocketed since the 1960s.
* Our-of-wedlock children are becoming the norm; currently 37 percent of U.S. babies are born to single moms, and fully 70 percent of U.S. children will grow up in a household of divorced or single parents.
These are just some of the social consequences of the Pill.
For individual women, there are also health concerns that are being largely ignored.
I read one editorial that opined the Pill is so safe it should be available without a prescription. And yet, ample evidence contradicts this, and the impact of oral contractptives on the risk of breast cancer is just one example of a serious health risk from the Pill that is being ignored or neglected [ed. and even denied].
In 2005, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a technical arm of the World Health Organization) declared the combined oral contraceptive (the most commonly used form of the Pill) a carcinogen due to its documented negative effects on the risks of breast, cervical, and liver cancers.
Overall, women on the Pill are at about a 24 percent increased risk of breast cancer. For women who use the Pilll for four years or longer prior to their first full-term pregnancy, the risk is 52 percent higher than women not on the Pill.1
Is anyone telling young women this when they fill their prescriptions? (For perspective, the drug Vioxx was pulled from the market when it was shown to increase overall risk of cardiovascular problems by 59 percent.2)
A [2009] study from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center concluded that women younger than age 45 who are using oral contraceptives are at a 2.5-fold higher risk for triple negative breast cancer (this type represents about 10 percent of all breast cancer cases and generally has a bad prognosis for long term outcome).3
The study also found those who started taking oral contraceptives before age 18 were at a 1.9-fold increased risk for ANY type of breast cancer. Would mothers allow their teen daughters to use the Pill to treat acne if they knew this?
A 2009 study from the Mayo Clinic 4 examined the risk of smoking on breast cancer. Expectedly, the survey found smoking increased breast cancer risk by 25 percent. The same study observed, however, that women who had been using oral contraceptives for 11 years or more, more than DOUBLED their risk of breast cancer.
Finally, a study published in January [2010] reported declining breast cancer rates in California teachers aged 50 and older. Invasive breast cancers declined 24 percent between the survey windows of 2000-2002 and 2003-2005.5
Why the decline? This correlated with a 64 percent decline in the use of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT). Importantly, the rates of in situ cancer (those not impacted by hormones) remained constant throughout this window as did overall breast cancer rates among those women who never used HRT.
This confirmed an earlier study using U.S. cancer statistics showing declining rates of breast cancer between 2001 and 2004 but only among women older than 50.6
So, in older women we have now clearly established that if you take away the carcinogen, breast cancer declines. How many women might reconsider long-term use of the Pill (which contains the same artificial hormones as HRT) if this was made clear to them?
When more people start talking openly about all of the facts about oral contraceptives, we just might see a change in attitude.
During the same 50-year span in which the Pill came to be seen as a near panacea, cigarette smoking has gone from being seen as an integral part of the glamorous lifestyle to a dangerous habit with all kinds of legislation restricting its use.
Let['s hope] it won't take nearly as many years, tragic health consequences, lives lost, and lawsuits before society wakes up and says NO to the Pill.
References:
1. Kahlenborn et al, Mayo Clin. Proc. 2006; 81(10):1290-1302
2. Graham et al, Lancet 2005:365:475-481
3. Dolle et al, Cancer Epid. Bio. Prev. 2009;18(4):1157-1166
4. Croghan et al, Breast Jl 2009;15(5):489-495
5. Marshall et al, Breast Cancer Res.2010;12:R4
6. Ravdin et al, NEJM 2007;356:1670-1674
[July/August 2010, Family Foundations "Central Intelligence", Michael Manhart, CCL Executive Director]
Canadian Women Sue Birth Control Pill Manufacturer
A group of Canadian women is suing Bayer Pharmaceutical, claiming that the contraceptive pill manufacturer does not adequately inform users of the potential serious health risks associated with the oral contraceptives Yaz and Yasmin.
The legal firm of Siskinds LLP is representing the group.
It will present evidence that the hormonal birth control pills cause conditions ranging from decreased bone density to strokes, gallbladder problems leading to surgery, pulmonary embolisms, and numerous other serious health issues.
[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10060804.html, Life Site News; ALL Pro-Life Today | 09 Jun 2010]
Hormonal Birth Control Increases Female Sexual Dysfunction
Taking hormonal birth control can relieve worries about getting pregnant, but it also increases the risk of developing low sex drive and other forms of female sexual dysfunction.
This finding held true for women who took either oral or non-oral types of hormonal birth control, according to a new German study. [http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/hormonal-birth-control-increases-female-sexual-dysfunction.html, Emax Health; ALL Pro-Life Today, 04 May 2010]
Hormonal Birth Control Pill Reduces Women’s Sexual Function: Study
At the same time as the hormonal birth control pill turns 50, researchers have found a link between it and sexual dysfunction in the women who take it. In a German study, 32 percent of over 1,000 women surveyed who took the pill, were found to have some form of sexual dysfunction.
“Our data show that hormonal contraception in particular, was associated with lower desire and arousal scores when compared with other contraceptives,” the researchers, led by Lisa-Maria Wallwiener, MD, of the University of Heidelberg, wrote. The group experiencing the lowest levels of sexual dysfunction was that using non-hormonal forms of birth control.
“The effect of hormones is there, we have an association. But, at this time, we cannot say if this is causality,” said co-author Dr. Alfred Mueck, professor in the Centre of Women's Health at the University of Tubingen. “We can only say there might be an effect of hormonal contraceptives (on sexual functioning). But this is only one factor beside other factors that can influence sexual function.”
A study, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, examined results from 1086 female German medical students and found that those taking birth control pills and other forms of hormonal contraception were at the highest risk for low libido and arousal problems. Lack of sexual desire is the main problem that women report, along with lack of orgasm, an inability to become aroused, and painful intercourse.
The researchers believe that the pill can lower circulating levels of testosterone, the hormone needed to stimulate sexual desire and regulate blood flow to the genitals, in both sexes.
The journal’s editor-in-chief, Dr. Irwin Goldstein, wrote, “When you fool around with your sex steroid hormones, you gamble with your sex life.”
“The value of this paper is to remind us that 300 million users of the pill (worldwide) are putting themselves at risk (of sexual changes), with extremely limited informed consent that this is happening,” Goldstein said.
The women, from six different medical schools, filled out online questionnaires designed to identify problems with sexual function within the past four weeks based on the “Female Sexual Function Index,” a validated scale consisting of 19 questions on the physical details of sexual function.
Of the group, about 90 per cent used contraception, and almost all had been sexually active in the previous four weeks. Eighty per cent were in a “stable relationship,” that was defined as having had the same sex partner for at least the past six months. 70 per cent of the women surveyed used hormonal contraceptives.
Since their introduction in the early 1960s, hormonal contraceptives have become one of the two most popular methods of artificial contraception, next to sterilization, with an estimated 300 million women using them worldwide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the pill on May 9, 1960.
Elaine Tyler May, 62, a University of Minnesota history professor and author of the book “America and the Pill” told Associated Press this week that the expectations held for the pill in the early 60s have failed to materialize.
“Married couples could have happier sex with more freedom and less fear. The divorce rate might go down and there would be no more unwanted pregnancies,” she said. “None of those things happened, not the optimistic hopes or the pessimistic fears of sexual anarchy.”
Despite May’s assurance about “sexual anarchy,” however, statistics show that while the number of people getting married continues to fall in most western countries where the use of the pill is common, those same countries have seen an explosion of sexually transmitted diseases and out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
Nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended and nearly half of those end in abortion... [7May2010, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050701.html ;
Life Site News; Pro-Life Today, 10 May 2010]
PENTAGON OFFICIALS REQUIRE PLAN B
-- Pentagon officials have issues a requirement that Plan B [the
morning after pill] which can act as an abortifacient, be stocked in all
U.S. military bases, domestic and abroad.
[March 2010, Cincinnati RT Life News Brief]
Lawmakers Raise Concerns about Pentagon Approval of Plan B Pill for U.S. Bases
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050705.html
Life Site News
A cadre of U.S. Congressmen has demanded that the U.S. Department of Defense explain its decision to stock the abortifacient Plan-B contraceptive on U.S. bases, citing concerns over the health effects it may have on female soldiers, conscience protections, and the potential for exploitation of minors.
WOMEN ULTIMATELY DON’T BENEFIT FROM THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACEPTION
According to economist Timothy Reichert, the free availability of birth control has split the single mating “market” into separate markets for marriage and for free sex, “created thanks to the significant cost reduction of sex uncoupled from pregnancy.” Traditionally, the marriage group has been equally made up of men and women, but Reichert claims that an imbalance now exists which does not economically favor women and their children.
The Birth-Control
Riddle
Despite all of the birth control options available today, the rates of
unplanned pregnancies remain high: Almost
half of all pregnancies in the U.S.—some 3.1 million a year—are
unintended, according to the most recent government survey, from
2001.
Almost half (48%) of unintended pregnancies involve
contraceptive failures.
NOTE: Past surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (pro-abortion) indicated that 54% - 56% of women procuring abortions had used some form of birth control that failed during the month they became pregnant.
SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT—DON'T USE THE PILL!
5 June 10 -- The Pill Kills Day
Guest commentary by Marie Hahnenberg
NOTE: visit www.ThePillKills.com for links imbedded in this article
Today [22 Apr 10] as Americans celebrate Earth Day, perhaps some families will plant a tree or buy some energy-saving light bulbs. Perhaps some co-workers will try carpooling or a school will start a recycling project. As stewards responsible for caring for [our world], the above efforts are good.
But I’d like to spotlight one issue that receives far less attention: A dangerous drug that is so common that most women don’t even know what they are putting into their bodies, is adversely affecting the environment. I’m talking about the birth control pill.
I do not understand why so many women who say that they care about the environment, take steps to eat organic foods and buy earth-friendly cleaning products for their homes are putting a completely inorganic, unnatural and dangerous drug into their bodies [-- and then into our water supply --] every day. If you care about your health and the environment, why would you jeopardize both by taking an oral contraceptive or any other synthetic estrogen replacement drug?
In 2006, the United States Geological Survey performed a study on fish in the Potomac River and found that 80 percent of the male smallmouth bass had intersex characteristics, meaning these male fish were growing female reproductive parts. The cause? Synthetic hormones from birth control pills, secreted through a woman’s urine, are contaminating our rivers and lakes. Since synthetic estrogen is part of the reason why male fish are becoming more feminine, then what kind of things will happen if our brothers, fathers and husbands come into contact with it?
According to Conrad Volz, co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute’s Center for Environmental Ecology, “We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use.”
In fact, according to the study that Volz and his team in Pennsylvania did back in 2007, the fish caught in the water they were testing may also carry enough chemicals that mimic the female estrogen hormone to cause breast cancer cells to grow.
This is dangerous stuff! If your family’s drinking water comes from a water treatment plant, it would be important to find out how the plant treats the estrogen that is found in the water, and how much estrogen remains in your drinking water.
Women say that they take the pill for a variety of reasons. Are you or someone you know on birth control pills …
For irregular periods?
Well, guess what! The pill does not fix the reason you have irregular periods; it simply masks the problem while increasing your chances of getting a blood clot or pulmonary embolism.
There are doctors trained in NaProTECHNOLOGY who can actually solve medical issues and help you! Please inform the women you love, because so many do not realize there are other answers out there that actually work.
Remember, too, there are many reasons why women have irregular periods and if you find a doctor who is willing to help you rather than just give you a prescription for the pill, then you are on the right path.
To find an expert in your area, go to http://onemoresoul.com/nfp-providers.
For sexual freedom?
Oh, come on, any independent woman today only has to do a quick internet search to find the long list of side effects from the pill. Once you see those, you can easily determine there is no freedom in that at all.
Don’t forget about the mysterious part of our creation called pheromones. These hormones are what help attract a male and female to each other, and this chemical attraction takes place through our sense of smell, the olfactory nerves.
However, the pill can affect this natural phenomenon. A woman could fall for a man she would not normally fall for if she were not on the pill.
A young woman in her twenties recently told me that while she was on the pill in high school, she ended up giving herself to a guy that she was getting to know. After she got off the pill, she no longer wanted to be with him. All that she could offer by way of explanation for her change of heart is that she couldn’t stand the way he smelled! I sure wouldn’t call that sexual freedom—a teenage girl gives in to the pressures of a boy and becomes blinded by the pill? It’s what American Life League calls the “pill goggles” effect.
Then why?
Because women don’t know any better. It’s what our society has accepted as a norm. But that’s where you and I come in, to break down these falsehoods and educate others about the realities behind this deceiving, decidedly un-environmentally friendly drug.
Not only can the birth control pill kill you; it’s not always going to prevent a little baby from being created—and when that happens, the thinning of the lining of your uterus brought about by the pill can cause abortions.
Birth control is certainly not a friend to the environment. The pill, patch and other birth control products cause a lot of harm to our environment. American Life League is calling all of the real environmentalists and earth friendly Americans to join us and protest the pill.
On Saturday, June 5, join women and men across the country as we get the word out that the pill kills! Wearing the Pill Kills T-shirt or holding the Pill Kills sign will help us draw a lot of attention, giving us the perfect opportunity to be witnesses.
Get out and help spread the word.
And let’s clean up our water—not just by purchasing expensive equipment to clean it, but by using more natural ways to control our fertility. Look into the Creighton Model, the ovulation method or another form of natural family planning and spacing of children.
If you’re not married, then respect yourself and those around you by remaining abstinent and please, save the rest of us from being in danger.
We are already seeing the devastating effects of synthetic estrogen on our fish. Who knows what we may discover years down the road from the “fresh” water we drink.
[22Apr10, ALL Pro-Life Today, Marie Hahnenberg is the director of American Life League’s Pill Kills project. Visit www.ThePillKills.com or e-mail
]
Interested in GOING GREEN? Then protest the birth control pill and help save our environment! Join American Life League in the largest annual protest against the birth control pill and similar birth control products.
Scientists around the world have discovered that high amounts of estrogen, resulting from use of hormonal contraceptives, are now entering our water and are feminizing male fish!
For more information, go to www.ThePillKills.com
New Safety Label for Birth Control Pills: Bayer to Include Blood Clot Risks on Yaz and Yasmin Packages
Bayer HealthCare said Friday it has added new information about the risks of blood clots to its contraceptive pills Yaz and Yasmin.
In cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration, the company said it added new labeling stating that the risks of blood clots with Yaz and Yasmin are similar to those with other oral contraceptives.
The statements are based on two large, multiyear studies of more than 120,000 women taking contraceptives in the U.S. and the U.K.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Yaz and Yasmin each contain a combination of drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol, derivatives of naturally occuring female hormones. The drugs were Germany-based Bayer's top-selling pharmaceutical franchise last year, with combined sales of $1.64 billion.
[9April10, updated 11:36 a.m. CT, D.C., http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36322007/ns/health-womens_health/ ]
LAW FIRMS BRINGING SUITS AGAINST PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES CONTINUE TO GROW
There must be a growing number of women hurt by artificial chemical birth control methods; why else would the advertisements for legal action due to injury be increasing?
Here is a typical advertisement:
"Yaz®, Yasmin® and Ocella® Side-Effects
"Have you or a loved one used Yasmin®, Yaz®, or Ocella® and experienced serious side effects or injury?
"You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.
"The commonly reported side-effects to Yaz®, Yasmin® and Ocella® are relatively mild, such as decrease in sex drive, weight gain, nausea and vomiting, headaches, susceptibility to yeast infections, vaginal discharge, and breakthrough bleeding or spotting.
"Additionally, very severe side effects to the drug and even death have been reported, such as:
Birth Control Pill Concerns Bring Lawsuits but Few Solid Answers
When the oral contraceptives Yasmin and Yaz came on the market in 2001 and 2006, respectively, they were thought to be safer than other birth control pills because they contained a different kind of synthetic progestin.
But in a flurry of lawsuits against the pills' maker, Bayer HealthCare, attorneys claim that the progestin contained in the pills, drospirenone, is the cause of health problems, including deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in the deep veins), strokes, heart attacks and gallbladder disease.
[http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-yaz-20100419,0,2851244.story ; 26Apr10, PFLI PharmFacts E-News Update]
Warning for Patients on Birth Control Shot Depo-Provera
Predictors of Higher Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Loss and Use of Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (DMPA), an article in the January 2010 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, can be a useful tool when presented to patrons of clinics and businesses that dispense birth control.
It was found that “of the initial 240 DMPA users, 95 completed 24 months of follow-up. Forty-five of the 95 DMPA users (47.4%) had at least 5% BMD loss at the lumbar spine or femoral neck by 24 months.” And the conclusion reached was that “the risk of higher BMD loss associated with DMPA use may be reduced by quitting smoking and increasing calcium intake. Having had a child is also protective.”
In its overview of Depo-Provera (the DMPA birth control shot), Planned Parenthood lists the following side effects: “Irregular bleeding is the most common side effect, especially in the first 6 to 12 months of use. There are also some less common side effects:
* change in sex drive
* change in appetite or weight gain
* depression
* hair loss or increased hair on the face or body
* headache
* nausea
* sore breasts
There is no way to stop the side effects of Depo-Provera — they may continue until the shot wears off, in 12 to 14 weeks.”
“Because the birth control shot is long lasting, it can take a long time to get pregnant after getting your last shot — anywhere from nine months to more than a year. So, Depo-Provera is not a good birth control method for you if you’re thinking of getting pregnant soon.”
It is not as if Pfizer, the maker of Depo-Provera, is hiding the fact that the drug causes bone loss, it is just pertinent that the user reads it. The package labeling of the Depo-Provera shot reads “Use of Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection may cause you to lose calcium stored in your bones. The longer you use Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection the more calcium you are likely to lose. The calcium may not return completely once you stop using Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection.”
It also includes this warning about cancer: “However, women under 35 years of age whose first exposure to DEPO-PROVERA Contraceptive Injection was within the previous 4 to 5 years may have a slightly increased risk of developing breast cancer similar to that seen with oral contraceptives.”
[23 Feb 2010
http://media.pfizer.com/files/products/ppi_depo_provera_contraceptive.pdf ]
Category(s): Birth Control
Tag(s): birth control shot, bone loss, cancer risk, depo-provera, DMPA, Pfizer, Planned Parenthood
NEW ROUND OF FORCED STERILIZATIONS IN CHI-COMS GRIM REMINDER OF "CONTRACEPTIVE", ABORTION CULTURE
Washington, DC (23 April 2010) – Communist China shocked the world anew this week with its latest forced-sterilization campaign in Puning City. Population controllers aimed to sterilize 10,000 men and women by April 27.
“The world is condemning this as a brutal human rights atrocity,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, “but how far is the United States from this reality? We already subsidize sterilizations, birth control and abortion for the poor in this country and around the world. President Obama’s new health care policy incentivizes population reduction. Are we not also, like China, eliminating “undesirables” from our society?”
“China is merely farther along the same road the United States is travelling,” Sedlak continued, “one in which human rights and the very nature of man, woman and the family are first devalued, then disregarded and finally persecuted.”
Twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth. China’s brutal one-child policy is often enforced by violence, imprisonment and coercion techniques. In Puning, the parents of those couples who will not comply are reportedly being “detained” by authorities.
“While we distractedly look at China, we must also face our own human rights abuses. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s eugenics philosophy is alive and well in poor neighborhoods and ghettos around the country," Sedlak said.
"Population control, eugenics, abortion and sterilization to eliminate undesirables are a reality not just in China – but right here, right now in Washington, D.C. and all over the United States."
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Sky News: China: Authorities Plan to Sterilise 10,000 to Curb Births (23 April 20)
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/China-Authorities-Plan-To-Sterilise-10000-People-To-Ensure-They-Meet-Family-Planning-Targets/Article/201004415613125?f=rss
inthenews.co.uk: Campaign Launched to 'Sterilise 10,000 People In China (16 April 2010)
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/world/china/campaign-launched-to-sterilise-10-000-people-in-china--$1371709.htm
FoxNews.com: China Tries to Sterilize 10,000 Parents Over One-Child Rule (16 April 2010)
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/16/china-tries-sterilize-parents-child-rule/
[PharmFacts E-News Update, 26Apr10]
ANOTHER NEW MORNING AFTER PILL -- Ellaone, also known as Ulipristal, is a new pill said to "prevent" pregnancy up to 5 days after intercourse. With the older "Plan B" pill used within 24 hours after sexual activity, there is always the possibility that fertilization -- and thus pregnancy -- has not occurred.
With Ellaone "effective" up to 5 days after intercourse, however, if fertilization has occurred, the tiny human will be killed. This is not an [ambiguous] contraceptive; this is an abortion agent. [March 2010, Cincinnati RT Life News Brief]
Current Headlines 
