FIND PAST HOMEPAGE TOPICS UNDER "CURRENT HEADLINES" IN THE LEFT MENU...

FLASHBACK: CDC LISTS PILL AS GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_contraception

Health Canada Warns Bayer Birth Control Pill has High Risk of Clots

FDA Revisits Safety of Newer Birth Control Drugs

Does Planned Parenthood Secretly Support the Plan B Decision?

Denying Plan B Drug to Teenagers Protects Girls’ Health

Commentary: Emergency Contraception?

Unrestricted Availability of Abortifacient Morning After Pill in Spain Results in Soaring Sales

Planned Parenthood 'Banks' Tax Money Hurting Women with IUDs...

Health Canada Warns Bayer Birth Control Pill has High Risk of Clots

In June Health Canada announced that it would be reviewing the safety of the contraceptive pills Yaz and Yasmin over concerns users may experience a two to three times greater risk of developing blood clots, compared to those who use other brands of contraceptive pills.

The results of the review, released December 5, state that “drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives (marketed under the brand names Yasmin and Yaz) … may be associated with a risk of blood clots that is 1.5 to 3 times higher than other birth control pills.”

Health Canada explained that it considered several recent observational studies evaluating the risk of blood clots with drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives versus other oral contraceptives.

“Overall, the body of current evidence suggests that the risk of blood clots is 1.5 to 3 times higher with oral contraceptives that contain drospirenone relative to those that contain levonorgestrel, a different hormone.”

“To put this into perspective, if the estimated risk of developing a blood clot among women taking a levonorgestrel-containing birth control pill is 1 in 10,000 women per year, as some studies have estimated, then the risk in women taking a drospirenone birth control pill is about 1.5 to 3 women in 10,000 per year,” Health Canada says.

“The drug labels for Yasmin and Yaz have been updated to include information on the studies and the recommendation that, when prescribing an oral contraceptive, health professionals consider the risks and benefits of drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives for a specific patient in light of her risk for developing blood clots, and relative to the risks and benefits of other birth control pills on the market.”

Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the company that manufactures all four of the brand name drugs that contain drospirenone (Yaz, Yasmin, Beyaz, and Safyral) reported that Yaz and Yasmin alone earned Bayer $505 million in the first half of 2011, which makes it the third highest earning drug for the company.

Health Canada downplays the danger of oral contraceptives stating, “Blood clots are a rare but well known side effect associated with all birth control pills. The risks of blood clots are higher with pregnancy and childbirth than with oral contraceptives,” and “Overall the risk of blood clots with any oral contraceptive (including Yasmin and Yaz) is very small.”

However, Bayer is facing almost 10,000 Yaz-related lawsuits in the U.S. from women who say the drug manufacturer misrepresented the dangers associated with using the birth control pills – side effects including stroke, cardiac arrest, blood clots, and gallbladder problems.

As Bayer reported in their stockholder newsletter, the company is currently facing a “number of lawsuits pending in the United States and served upon Bayer” numbering “about 9,300 as of July 16, 2011.” Bayer notes that, “Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered personal injuries, some of them fatal, from the use of Bayer’s oral contraceptive products Yasmin™ and / or YAZ™.”

One of the “fatal personal injuries” involves an 18-year-old New Jersey college student, Michelle Pfleger, who died of cardiac arrest after taking Yaz for acne treatment. A blood clot had lodged in her lungs resulting in her sudden death on her way to classes on September 24, 2010. Her mother Joan Cummins filed suit against Bayer on May 10.

In Canada a group of women initiated a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2010 claiming that the contraceptive pill manufacturer does not adequately inform users of the potential serious health risks associated with its oral contraceptives.

The lawsuit alleges that Bayer downplayed the serious side effects of the pills, failed to conduct proper research before releasing them onto the market, and failed adequately to warn patients and doctors about the increased health risk associated with use of Yasmin and Yaz.

Matthew Baer, legal counsel at the firm of Siskinds LLP, which is representing the group, told the media that he has evidence about the health risks of Yasmin and Yaz that has been linked to over 25,000 reported cases of adverse effects and several deaths.

One of the litigants in the suit, Christine Lovelace of Halifax, related that after she began taking Yaz she developed strange symptoms that culminated in a transient ischemic attack, or mini-stroke. “I went paralyzed all down my left side and I lost my ability to communicate. It was terrifying,” she told CTV.
She said the symptoms disappeared after she stopped taking the drug; however she still suffers from nerve damage to her left hand and foot.

“We believe that through this lawsuit Bayer will be required to explain to Canadian consumers what it knew about the risks associated with using Yasmin and Yaz and when it first became aware of those risks,” said Matthew Baer. “In this case, as with all of these types of cases, we are concerned about whether Canadians were adequately warned of the risks associated with using the products in question.”

Siskinds LLP is advising Canadians who have experienced adverse events from Yasmin and/or Yaz to visit their website or to call 1-800-461-6166 ext 2341.

A video explaining the lawsuit and information on financial compensation of potential class members who are victims of Yasmin or Yaz is also available on the website.

[December 6, 2011, Thaddeus Baklinski, Ottawa,  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/health-canada-warns-birth-control-pill-has-high-risk-of-clots?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=315791ed54-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_06_2011&utm_medium=email]

 

FDA Revisits Safety of Newer Birth Control Drugs

Comment: Note this quote:
"Newer drugs like Yaz are no more effective than older pills, generally allowing one unplanned pregnancy per year for every 100 women." This is why so-called comprehensive sex ed, more "free" birth control, etc. sold as "common ground" solutions will never lead to the end of abortion or diminish the promotion and funding of Planned Parenthood. And note that natural family planning is never even mentioned in articles like these, even thoug NFP removes the safety hazards of artificial birth control. N Valko RN

Birth control drugs that were heavily promoted as having fewer side effects and the ability to clear up acne and other hormonal bothers are under new scrutiny from safety regulators.

 
Research suggesting that newer birth control formulations are more likely to cause blood clots than older drugs has prompted the Food and Drug Administration to consider new safety measures in meetings later this week. The increased risk is slight, but significant because blood clots can cause heart attacks, strokes and blockages in lungs or blood vessels, which can be fatal.

Regulators could order new warning labels on several contraceptives that gained popularity in the last decade, including Bayer's pill Yaz, which was the best-selling birth control pill in the U.S. for 2008 and 2009.

MORE: Yasmin, newer birth control drugs increase risk of blood clots, FDA says
Yaz, Yasmin and similar drugs use a version of a female hormone which appears to reduce side effects found in older drugs, including bloating and mood swings.

Bayer AG spent more than $270 million on TV and magazine advertisements for Yaz between 2007 and 2010, according TNS Media Intelligence. Such big-budget campaigns are rare for birth control products. One advertisement featured young women singing the Twisted Sister anthem, "We're Not Gonna Take It," while popping balloons labeled "moodiness," "bloating" and "acne."

Sales of Yaz have fallen since regulators forced Bayer to correct advertisements that overstated Yaz's benefits and as safety questions drew scrutiny in both the U.S. and Europe.

FDA also is reviewing research on clot risks associated with Johnson & Johnson's weekly Ortho Evra patch, which is marketed as an "option for busy women who are looking to simplify life." The drug uses a different version of the female hormone progestin.

Millions of women have used the products since they launched a decade ago, but recent studies comparing the medical histories of women taking the newer drugs to older ones suggest a slightly higher risk of blood clots in the legs and lungs. Last year, the U.S. market for female contraceptive drugs totaled $3.4 billion, according to IMS Health.

Sorting out the blood clot risk of birth control drugs is especially difficult because all hormone-based drugs increase the risk of clotting. Further complicating the matter is that clots can be caused by factors such as smoking, obesity or family history.

Yaz, Yasmin and other pills containing a synthetic hormone called drospirenone are the focus of a discussion Thursday. The next day's meeting focuses on the Ortho Evra patch, which uses the hormone norelgestromin.

Bayer says its studies have shown no difference in blood clot risk between its drugs and the older birth control drugs. But several large, independent studies suggest the risk with Yaz and similar medications is slightly higher. The latest analysis by the FDA estimates the risk of a blood clot with drospirenone-containing pills is 1.5-fold higher than other hormone-based contraceptives. That translates into an estimated 10 in 10,000 women on the newer drugs experiencing a blood clot, compared with 6 in 10,000 women on older contraceptives, according to the FDA.

"It's a very small percentage of patients that develop these, but it's such a serious side effect that I think doctors have to use a lot of caution," said Dr. Jennifer Wu, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York.

Even if Yaz and other newer drugs get additional warning labels some doctors say they don't expect to stop prescribing them. They point out that the risk of blood clots with any birth control pill is still far lower than that associated with pregnancy and birth, when hormone levels and reduced blood flow increase clotting risk.

"At the end of the day I tell my patients the absolute risk is still very, very low compared to pregnancy and post-partum risk," said Dr. Rebecca Starck, of Cleveland Clinic's Fairview Hospital. "There are still many benefits to combination birth control pills."

The Ortho Evra patch already carries warning labels about an increased risk of blood clots compared with pills. Some, but not all, studies suggest patch users have twice the risk of clots. The FDA will try to further define that risk using the latest data.

Most birth control drugs use a combination of two female hormones, estrogen and progestin, to stop ovulation and help block sperm. But for decades many women have reported bloating and mood swings as side effects.

Introduced in 2001, Yasmin was the first birth control pill to use a new form of progestin called drospirenone, which appeared to have fewer side effects. The reformulated version of the drug, Yaz, was approved in 2006 with approval to claim on the label that it decreased acne and a severe type of mood disorder.

Yaz quickly grew into the best-selling birth control pill in the U.S. Sales plummeted more than 50 percent in 2010, after the company was forced to run corrective TV and magazine advertisements.

Among other problems, the FDA said the company's commercials suggested Yaz could treat premenstrual syndrome when it has only been shown to decrease incidence of premenstrual dysphoric disorder, a severe mood disorder associated with major depression.

Yaz currently ranks fourth in sales among contraceptive pills in the U.S.

Newer drugs like Yaz are no more effective than older pills, generally allowing one unplanned pregnancy per year for every 100 women.

"Many women will do fine on the older generation drugs, but some women will not," said Dr. Petra Casey, of the Mayo Clinic. "I think the newer drugs help many women in terms of mood and the water retention."

About 4,000 lawsuits against Bayer argue that any additional risk with the newer drugs should have been detected and emphasized to the public.

On Thursday, Cindy Rippee will tell the FDA panel about her 20-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, who died Christmas Eve 2008 when a blood clot traveled to her lung. Rippee says her daughter had been taking Yasmin for about two months.

"I really feel that if my daughter had been told about the increased risk she would have made a different decision," said Rippee, of Escondido, Calif.

[5 Dec 2011, AP, Washington, http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-12-05/FDA-revisits-safety-of-newer-birth-control-drugs/51654030/1

Does Planned Parenthood Secretly Support the Plan B Decision?
When the Obama administration announced its decision Wednesday to not allow teenage girls to purchase the Plan B morning after pill over the counter without a doctor’s prescription, Planned Parenthood was slow to respond.

The abortion business was one of the last pro-abortion groups to put out a public statement condemning the decision and, unlike it’s fellow pro-abortion organizations, it did not send out messages on Twitter in the lead-up to the decision asking for the Obama administration to approve the over the counter status.

Planned Parenthood eventually responded with a fairly boilerplate press release and, yesterday, its president Cecile Richards released a letter demanding a meeting with pro-abortion HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who was a close ally of Planned Parenthood’s affiliate during her time as governor of the Midwestern state.

Amanda Marcotte, a noted pro-abortion blogger, highlighted what initially appeared to be surprise by most pro-abortion activists, saying, “this victory for women’s health [was] snatched away at the last minute by Sebelius, sending shocks of confusion and betrayal through the pro-choice community, who always thought of Sebelius as a member in good standing.”

But some pro-life advocates are questioning whether Planned Parenthood is really all that upset at the decision, saying it stands to make millions financially from selling the morning after pill at its clinics at a marked up cost.
[Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 12/9/11, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/09/does-planned-parenthood-secretly-support-the-plan-b-decision/

Denying Plan B Drug to Teenagers Protects Girls’ Health
 The recent overruling of the FDA decision to sell Plan B over the counter (OTC) to children as young as eleven years of age has engendered no small amount of outrage by proponents of the FDA plan, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has come in for severe criticism from women’s health and advocacy groups. Setting aside for a moment the undercurrent of abortion and the distrust between warring parties over the issue, this decision by Secretary Sebelius is a victory for the very children the FDA purports to serve and protect.

According to FDA labeling on Plan B:

“Ectopic pregnancies account for approximately 2% of all reported pregnancies. Up to 10% of pregnancies reported in clinical studies of routine use of progestin-only contraceptives are ectopic.”

That represents a five-fold increase in the incidence of a potentially fatal side effect of the drug’s usage in those taking the drug. The very issue proponents of OTC Plan B sale cite for selling to young adolescents, their fear of parental knowledge and involvement in their sex lives, heightens the risk of fatality in the very young.
For remainder of article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/09/denying-plan-b-drug-to-teenagers-protects-girls-health/




Commentary: Emergency Contraception?

You've heard that the FDA, the federal Food & Drug Administration, has approved what it calls an “emergency contraception kit”. It has stated that women can use these pills up to three days after unprotected sex and that this will prevent pregnancy in almost every case.

This is not true! To understand why, let's look at what actually happens. After sperm are deposited inside of a woman, they rapidly swim through the uterus, through the tubes, and out to the ovary. This passage takes as little as thirty minutes. If she has ovulated, if an egg awaits, fertilization then occurs immediately. One sperm then enters the ovum and proceeds to unite its 23 chromosomes with the 23 female chromosomes in the nucleus of the ovum. From sperm entrance until the first cell division takes place is about one day. From then on, rapid cell division occurs.

For the first week of life, this new human embryo floats freely down his or her mother's tube, journeying to the womb. When one week old, he or she plants in the nutrient lining of the womb.

If fertilization has occurred, and if the woman takes the “morning-after” pill within a few hours or days after the “event”, the hormones in the pill harden the lining of the womb. Then, when this tiny human embryo reaches the womb, he or she cannot implant and dies. The effect of the pill, then, is to kill this tiny human at one week of life. The effect is a very early abortion.

Pro-abortion forces have labored mightily to claim that “pregnancy” does not begin until the embryo has attached to the uterus. It may well be that the mother's body is not directly affected until that time, but this human embryo is already one week old when this occurs. Reading and listening to the news accounts, you've heard the term “pregnancy” used interchangeably with “human life”. They are not the same.

It has long since been scientifically proven that human life begins at that first-cell stage. And whether you call her “pregnant” at conception, or at implantation one week later, is a mere matter of semantics. The fact of the matter is, a human life exists at the beginning and dies at one week from the effect of this pill. In fact, then, this pill is not emergency contraception – rather, it is emergency abortion.

Reporting has claimed, correctly, that if the embryo has already attached, the pill apparently does no harm. It is true that the pill, then, would not cause an abortion, but it is not proven that it's harmless. Let's not forget the tragic harvest of genital deformity in girls and boys born to mothers who were given an artificial estrogen compound, DES, back in the 1950s, while pregnant. In any case, since the baby is one week old when he or she plants, that's several days after she's taken the pills.

Spokeswomen for the National Right to Life Committee, among others, have made another claim, and that is that this pill stops ovulation and therefore is a contraceptive. This may be possible in a few occasions. It would work this way: A woman has sex on Saturday night and takes the pills Sunday morning. She has sperm inside of her. Her body was programmed to ovulate Monday night. Without the pills, she could have conceived Monday night, because sperm can live and be active enough to fertilize for 72 hours or more after entering her body.

If she took the pills Sunday morning, it is theorized that this might block her Monday night ovulation. If that were true, then this would be a contraceptive effect. One problem here is that this mechanism has not been proven – it's only a theory. The major problem, however, is that it would occur in only a very small percentage of cases, and that in the overwhelming majority of times, she would have become pregnant within the hour after she had sex, and the pills would cause an abortion.

The reports have also mentioned this – and they've been correct in separating the effect of these pills from the effect of the French abortion pill, RU 486. The RU 486 pill is taken three weeks or more after conception and two weeks or more after implantation. Its effect is to kill a developing baby after his or her heart has begun to beat. It's clearly an abortion drug and operates quite differently from a “morning after” pill.

So, let's recap. After sex, sperm swim out to the ovary in as little as thirty minutes. If she has ovulated, conception occurs immediately. If she takes these pills after the act, they cannot prevent pregnancy, for she has already conceived. What they can do is prevent implantation at one week of life – and that's an abortion.
[10 Dec 2011, Life Issues Institute,  J.C. Willke MD]

Unrestricted Availability of Abortifacient Morning-After Pill in Spain Results in Soaring Sales

Use of the abortifacient morning-after pill in Spain has risen by 83% in 2010, the first full year of over-the-counter availability of the dangerous drug, according to a report by ANSAmed news service.

The Spanish Ministry for Health approved the sale of the morning-after pill without a doctor’s prescription, and with no age restriction, in September 2009, citing a need for “emergency contraception” and to reduce “unwanted pregnancies.”

“It is an emergency method of contraception, not to be used except in emergencies,” said Health Minister Trinidad Jimenez in a press release at the time. “We don’t want it to become another means of contraception.”

However, mounting evidence has shown that the drug is both ineffective for its stated purpose of reducing unintended pregnancies, and is being abused the world over as a common method of contraception.

In a study released in May this year by Planned Parenthood’s former research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, head researcher Megan L. Kavanaugh said that although use of the morning-after pill in the U.S. has doubled since the Food and Drug Administration authorized over-the-counter sales, the easy availability has not resulted in a reduction in “unintended pregnancies.”

“So far there’s no evidence that this is happening,” admitted Kavanaugh according to a Reuters report.

Another contraception and abortion pushing organization, RH Reality Check, admitted in a blog posting in 2009 that emergency contraception (EC), or the morning-after pill, “is not as effective in reducing unwanted pregnancy rates at a population level as we once hoped.”

The authors of the report, which originally appeared in the journal Contraception, also admit that the promised effectiveness of EC was greatly exaggerated in a bid to gain lucrative financial support for the method in anticipation of huge profits for pharmaceutical companies...
[19 Dec 11, T. Baklinski, Madrid,
For remainder of article, visit -- http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/unrestricted-availability-of-abortifacient-morning-after-pill-in-spain-resu?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7a2120d4e7-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_19_2011&utm_medium=email]

Planned Parenthood Banks Tax Money Hurting Women With IUDs

It is strange to think about the things that happened at Planned Parenthood while I was there. I thought so many things were “normal.” Looking back, I see how they were anything but.

We had hundreds of protocols. Some were pretty common sense, others were not. One protocol in particular has really got me thinking over the past couple of weeks…IUDs. And IUD is a birth control method that is inserted into the cervix. They function in several different ways; however, the primary way they work is by creating a hostile uterine environment so that a fertilized egg would not be able to implant on the uterine lining.

Part of our protocol talked about the insertion and removal. The other part talked about when they could be inserted. Get ready for this…

Our protocol stated that IUDs could be inserted on pregnant women in order to cause an abortion. Yes. You read that right. If a woman came in and was early pregnant, we would insert an IUD to cause an abortion. She would have only been a few days pregnant. A pregnancy test would not have shown up positive. We didn’t have a confirmation of pregnancy.

Out of sight, out of mind, right? How many children have been aborted because of this dangerous protocol? What is the real number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood? We will never know. Did we tell patients that this protocol would abort their child? Of course not.

A woman came in one day complaining of severe abdominal pain. She had an IUD. During her exam, it was determined that her IUD was the source of her discomfort…it would have to be removed. I came in to assist. I couldn’t believe what I saw. On the end of that IUD was a tiny baby. We estimated the child to be 9 weeks. That baby had been growing on the end of a birth control device. But not to worry, Planned Parenthood says IUDs are safe.

While working at Planned Parenthood, I decided an IUD would be the best method for me. After 3 years of use, I had no side effects…so I thought. After I had my IUD removed, I realized there might be a problem with my body. I had never had a problem getting pregnant, but several months had now passed, and every pregnancy test came back negative. What was going on? I had some blood work run and was told I didn’t produce several hormones. My body had tried to produce the hormones while the IUD was in…but the IUD won. My body couldn’t compete. I am only pregnant now because of NFP, supplemental hormones and an amazing doctor.

I found out several months ago that a woman had miscarried because of an IUD inserted at my clinic. She was pregnant when it was inserted. That isn’t supposed to happen…but mistakes are made…her child paid the price.

She went to the emergency room because she was having severe abdominal pain. She didn’t know she was pregnant until they did an ultrasound to find out what was wrong. There was her baby. His heart had stopped. She had to deliver her baby and have her IUD removed all in the same visit to the hospital. He was 18 weeks old. Why did this happen? Because an IUD is made to abort children.

So, why would Planned Parenthood lie and say IUDs are safe?

Planned Parenthood pays less than $300.00 for an IUD…they are reimbursed over $750.00 from the federal government (our tax dollars).

Is that a good enough reason? It is for Planned Parenthood.
Patients first? Prevention first? No. Money first…and always.
[Abby Johnson | Washington, DC, 12/29/11,  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/29/planned-parenthood-banks-tax-money-hurting-women-with-iuds/]