Contraception - Chemical Methods / Hormonal Contraception / Emergency / Morning After Pill

May – January 2012: Birth Control

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

 

NEW! Study: Birth-Control Depo-Provera Shots Tied to Breast-Cancer Risk — Depo Provera = 'Neutron Bomb' in the 'War on Women'

NEW! Bayer Said to Pay $110 Million in YAZ Birth Control Cases

NEW! Other Medical Uses for the So-Called Birth Control Pill  

NEW! "Plan B" Still Not Available Over-the-Counter for Minors

NEW! The Costs of Contraception

Breast Cancer – Oral Contraceptive Study From Germany: The Earlier the OCP is Started, the Higher the Breast Cancer Risk

Studies Showing Benefits of Contraception Fall Short

Birth Control Pill Recall: Lots of Generic Norgestimate & Ethinyl-Estradiol Tablets Made in India Pulled…

Recall Raising New Concerns About the Safety of Foreign-Made Generics

South African Condom Failures Result in Massive Recall

FDA Eyes Stronger Warning on Popular Birth Control: Higher Risk of Dangerous Clots   

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…

Study: Birth-Control Depo-Provera Shots Tied to Breast-Cancer Risk — Depo Provera = 'Neutron Bomb' in the 'War on Women'

'Our hypothesis going into this study was that we did expect to see an increased risk'

Recent use of the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera for at least a year was associated with a doubling of young women’s breast cancer risk, a new study has found.

However, users’ breast cancer risk dropped to that of non-users within several months of stopping Depo-Provera injections, researchers report in the journal Cancer Research.

Depo-Provera, injected every three months, was approved as a contraceptive in the United States 20 years ago. Convenient, highly effective and relatively inexpensive, Depo-Provera is used by about 1.2 million U.S. women, or 3.2 percent of those who practice contraception, according to the latest data from the Guttmacher Institute, a research and education organization that focuses on reproductive health.

The injectable birth control method is the only contraceptive in the United States that contains the same progestin, or synthetic hormone, as Prempro, the postmenopausal hormone therapy pill.

A landmark government study called the Women’s Health Initiative found that Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin, increased women’s breast cancer risk by 24 percent, while Premarin, which contains only estrogen, did not increase risk.  

‘’Our hypothesis going into this study was that we did expect to see an increased risk of breast cancer associated with Depo-Provera,” says Dr. Christopher Li, a breast cancer epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and lead author of the new study.

Data on the relationship between Depo-Provera and breast cancer risk are limited, the researchers write. Li and his coauthors say theirs is the first large-scale U.S. study specifically designed to evaluate the relationship. Results from similar studies conducted in other countries have been mixed, they write.

Li’s team recruited 1,028 women who’d been diagnosed with breast cancer and 919 women who had not. All the women were 20 to 44 years of age and lived in the Seattle area. About 3 percent had used Depo-Provera within the last five years.

Compared to women who had never used Depo-Provera, those who had received injections within the previous five years were 2.2 times more likely to have been diagnosed with breast cancer, the scientists found. Family history, obesity, age and pregnancy history didn’t seem to make a difference.

Age is the main risk factor for breast cancer, so while a doubling of risk might sound alarming, Li emphasizes that the actual number of breast cancer cases in women in their 20s and 30s is very low.

“Breast cancer among young women is still a rare disease,” he says.
According to the National Cancer Institute, women in their 30s have a 1 in 233 chance of being diagnosed with the disease. By comparison, the odds of being diagnosed with breast cancer for women in their 60s is 1 in 29.

“However,” Li and his coauthors write, “there are numerous contraceptive options, and so further clarifying the benefits and risks associated with each option is important as women consider what choices might be best for them.”

Joan Campion, spokewoman of Pfizer, the maker of Depo-Provera, said, "As part of the Depo-Provera label, physicians are already advised on benefits and risks of Depo-Provera, including the risk of breast cancer. Pfizer currently believes that changes to benefits and risk profile are not warranted as a result of this observational study."

[Published: 6 April 2012, Rita Rubin, http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11023876-birth-control-shots-tied-to-bre

ast-cancer-risk-study-says?lite ]

Bayer Said to Pay $110 Million in Yaz Birth-Control Cases

By Jef Feeley and Margaret Cronin Fisk – Apr 13, 2012
Bayer AG (BAYN), Germany’s largest drugmaker, will pay at least $110 million to settle about 500 lawsuits over claims that its Yasmin line of birth-control pills caused blood clots, in the first resolution of cases over the product, people familiar with the agreements said.

Officials of Bayer, based in Leverkusen, Germany, agreed to pay an average of about $220,000 a case to resolve the claims that its Yasmin and Yaz contraceptives caused sometimes fatal clots that can lead to heart attacks and strokes, two people familiar with the settlement said. The people sought anonymity because the accords haven’t been made public.

Bayer fell 2.5 percent in German trading today, and its American depositary receipts dropped 3.8 percent. The settlements came after a federal judge in Illinois postponed a Jan. 9 trial of a suit accusing Bayer and some of its units of misleading women about the health risks of its birth-control pills so a mediator could try to negotiate a settlement.

The case was the first set for trial of more than 11,000 lawsuits over injuries allegedly caused by the drugs.

“Sounds to me like mediation is paying off,” Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability law at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said in a phone interview. “As a German company, Bayer probably would like to avoid the risks and costs of litigation in U.S. courts. Mediation tends to be a less- expensive way to deal with these kinds of cases.”
Stronger Warnings

The settlements come as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration April 10 ordered Bayer and other contraceptive makers to strengthen the blood-clot warnings on their products.

Pills like Bayer’s Yasmin, which contain a synthetic hormone called drospirenone, will have warning labels saying researchers have found they may triple the risk for clots.

Bayer’s contraceptives generated $1.58 billion in sales in 2010, making them the drugmaker’s biggest-selling drugs after Betaseron, a multiple sclerosis medication. The Yasmin drugs have been the focus of regulators who question their safety.

“Bayer HealthCare confirms that some cases pending in the current YAZ/Yasmin litigation in the U.S. are being settled,” Rosemarie Yancosek, a U.S. spokeswoman for the drugmaker, said in an e-mailed statement. She declined to comment on the number of cases settled or the amount of the accords.

Bayer’s American depository receipts, each worth one ordinary share, fell $2.60, or 3.8 percent, to $65.83 in over- the counter trading today. Shares in Germany dropped 1.28 euros, or 2.5 percent, to 50.56 euros.
Prior Settlements

Bayer officials said in a Feb. 28 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that the drugmaker has settled 70 cases over the Yasmin line of contraceptives.

Those settlements included “terms and conditions which Bayer views to be reasonable,” officials said in the filing. “Bayer will continue to consider the option of settling individual lawsuits in the U.S. on a case-by-case basis.”

The company is expecting additional suits, officials said in the SEC filing. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned that women taking the pills were 74 percent more likely to suffer blood clots than women on other low-estrogen contraceptives.

The FDA examined data on more than 835,000 women who took pills containing drospirenone, including Bayer’s Yasmin line of birth-control pills, according to the FDA report.

Bayer’s Yasmin was the No. 4 oral contraceptive in the U.S. in 2011, with 4.6 percent of the market as of September, according to data from IMS Health.
Wave of Litigation

Since 2009, the German drugmaker has faced a wave of lawsuits in courts across the U.S. alleging the birth-control pills caused sometimes fatal blood clots. Lawyers suing the drugmaker cited FDA reports of at least 50 deaths tied to the pills from 2004 to 2008.

Lawyers for former Yaz users contend in court filings that Bayer officials sought to market the contraceptive fgor unapproved uses and misled women about the drug’s health risks

The cases filed in federal courts were consolidated before U.S. District Judge David Herndon in East St. Louis, Illinois, for pretrial proceedings.
Scheduled Trials

Herndon scheduled a series of trials for early this year so juries could begin weighing claims that Bayer and its units marketed Yaz and other contraceptives as safer than rivals’ products while knowing they posed a higher clot risk.

At Bayer’s suggestion, Herndon called in Stephen Saltzburg, a George Washington University law professor, to serve as a mediator. Saltzburg’s job was to explore the possibility of “settlements in this litigation,” Herndon said in a December 2011 order. The judge put the trial schedule on hold while Saltzburg met with lawyers for the drugmakers and former Yaz users.

Among the lawyers settling Yaz cases as a result of Saltzburg’s efforts are Mark Robinson, Chris Seeger and Michael Burg, the people familiar with the accords said.

Those three lawyers are serving on the so-called plaintiffs steering committee in the cases before Herndon, according to court filings. That group helps decide how the consolidated cases should progress through the litigation process.

Burg, a Denver-based plaintiffs’ lawyer who handles product-liability cases, also is listed in court filings as co- lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the Yaz cases. He declined to comment on the settlements in a interview today.

Seeger, based in New York, and Robinson, a Los Angeles- based attorney, didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment on the settlement.

The case is In re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation, 09-md-02100, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis).
 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/bayer-said-to-pay-110-million-in-yaz-birth-control-cases.html  ; PFLI PharmFacts E-News Update –  16 Apr 2012]

 

 

 

 

Other Medical Uses for the So-Called Birth Control Pill          

People frequently ask whether it is acceptable to take birth control pills in order to regulate a woman's menstrual cycle when they are irregular or to reduce the severity of extreme menstrual pain.

The answers to these questions have two components-a moral component and a medical component.

Morally, if a woman is not sexually active (thus eliminating the contraceptive aspect of the birth control pill), there would be no moral wrong committed. It is the contraceptive (and abortifacient) effect of these medications that are morally wrong, not the steroid drugs that are in them.

Even if a woman were married, so-called birth control drugs could be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive (and abortifacient) effect. Whether or not they should be used at all is another discussion.

Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using. However, it is important to remember that the birth control pill will, more frequentl

y than not, eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. Plus, the birth control pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking.

Medically speaking, one needs to examine the cause of the irregularity or of the pain associated with a woman's menstrual cycle. There are two causes of menstrual pain, the first being common to all women and pain in general and the second cause limited to a few women affected by a certain disease state.

A woman's menstruation is the end of the process of ovulation or development of an egg [an oocyte] for that cycle. At the beginning of the cycle, after her bleeding is finished, usually several days of quiet time for a woman's body occurs that is different for each woman. A "follicle" or fluid-filled sac begins to develop in one or the other ovary, gradually getting to the point of rupturing to release the egg. This process is associated with increasing estrogen.

After this fluid filled sac or cyst ruptures, the egg is released into the woman's fallopian tube and the sac collapses to form another structure called a corpus luteal cyst. This cyst now begins to produce progesterone to change the lining of a woman's uterus to make it ready for a baby to grow and develop there. Estrogen is also produced by this new cyst, the corpus luteum, though in lesser amounts than before the egg was released.

If the egg is not fertilized, after about 10-13 days on average, the hormone levels fall and a woman begins to menstruate. So, a woman's cycle is simply the "play" of these two hormones: estrogen in the first part of the cycle, lesser amounts later and, finally, progesterone at the second half of the cycle.

The bleeding a woman has is further influenced by the production of a family of chemicals that cause muscles throughout the body, as well as the uterus (which is simply a complex bundle of smooth muscles) to contract, called "prostaglandins." These prostaglandins are responsible for a woman's menstrual pain as well as nearly any muscle spasm or strain anywhere in the body.

So the pain at menstruation is influenced by the hormones estrogen and progesterone in any given cycle as well as the production of prostaglandins. A woman's pain can be reduced by influencing either or both of these factors.

Most modern, low-dose birth control pills are simply a combination of artificial estrogens and artificial progesterones. They are very high POTENCY compared to the natural ones, however, primarily to make them active even after digestion in the stomach. This high degree of potency (as well as their being not exactly like what the body produces) is what gives them all of their side-effects and dangerous complications. Nearly ALL women will suffer some degree of these effects, whether or not the woman is actually aware of any symptoms.

The action of these hormones in the pill are threefold:

They stop normal functioning of the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal axis, thereby interfering with the release of an egg;
They interfere with normal functioning of a woman's cervix (the opening of the uterus or womb);
They interfere with the normal lining of the uterus, making it very "thin", keeping a baby from implanting.
Thus all so-called "birth control pills" can be abortifacient. It is easy to see then that the so-called birth control pill does not "regulate" anything in a woman's cycle. These hormones only superimpose a "drugged" state of a woman's body that has certain effects, chief among these being to stop a woman from getting pregnant (by any means, even stopping a baby already conceived from being received into his/her first home-his/her mother's uterus, an abortifacient effect).

This "drugged" or altered state of a woman's reproductive cycle does have certain effects that appear desirable, in spite of the risks of major complications and side-effects. However, for women with very painful periods, since the birth control pill decreases the amount of uterine lining she develops in any given cycle, the smooth muscles of the uterus contract less at the time of menstruation, thereby reducing the pain from a "normal" cycle.

There are several alternatives to the use of the so-called birth control pill:

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (or NSAIDs) of which Ibuprofen is the most commonly known. Ibuprofen acts to actually stop the production of those pain-causing compounds we saw earlier: prostaglandins. A typical prescription dose is 600-800 mg. three times daily. Taken during menstruation, this will be beneficial for most women. It is as simple as taking 3-4 Advil three times daily during menstruation. Another good NSAID is naproxen (sold OTC as Aleve or its generic] taken as 275mg twice daily. NSAIDs should be taken with food or milk to avoid gastrointestinal distress in some people.

Natural progesterone given cooperatively with a woman's cycle may actually reduce the amount of pain and bleeding a woman has in any cycle by supporting her body with natural progesterone, just like her body produces in the second half of her monthly cycle. This hormone is available everywhere by prescription in the form of a product called Prometrium [PFLI Note: which just came out in generic form at the beginning of April].

This natural hormone has NONE of the risks of birth control pills and actually makes most women feel better, as opposed to most women getting ill with their first few cycles of birth control pills. For women charting their cycles with NFP (Natural Family Planning), this is given Peak + 3 through Peak + 12 at 200 mg. taken by mouth at night before retiring. This will help to oppose the effects of estrogen that may be building up the lining of a woman's uterus excessively, thereby reducing the cramping at menstruation.

Natural progesterone is also a smooth-muscle relaxant having direct effects on the smooth muscles of the uterus reducing their contractions and thereby decreasing the pain. Again, there are NO KNOWN risks or complications with the use of natural progesterone. The product Prometrium is in a peanut oil base and, therefore, women allergic to peanuts cannot use Prometrium and may need a pharmacist to compound a progesterone capsule for them without peanut oil elements.

Supplemental calcium at about 1,000-1,500 mg per day taken with Vitamin D3 […] is also helpful to decrease smooth muscle contractions. This can be taken every day, along with other supplemental vitamins a woman may take. It is safe through pregnancy as well.

Flax seed oil at about 1,000 mg one to 3 times a  day may also be helpful. Flax seed oil is a good source of essential fatty acids (EFAs, such as omega-3 and omega-6, DHA, EPA and others) which are probably deficient in many modern diets. Other good sources of EFAs are Evening Primrose and Fish Oil Capsules. These EFAs are necessary for the production of the body's hormones in both men and women and they may be able to boost a woman's hormone levels that are deficient and causing various cycle abnormalities, including pain and abnormal bleeding.

Diet and exercise cannot be emphasized enough and should be at the top of the list, but these are usually the last things a patient wants to hear from her doctor. Women should be encouraged to read Marilyn Shannon's excellent book, Fertility Cycles and Nutrition, as a good primer in this area. [Vitamins and nutritionals mentioned in this book are available at a pro-life source the American Pro-Life Enterprise.]

Patients should also be encouraged to engage in regular exercise at least 30-40 minutes 4-5 times per
week. The research is very clear that exercise reduces pain in chronic pain states, decreases anxiety, burns fat and promotes a general sense of well-being. Regular exercise should become as important a part of our routine as prayer.

This review has addressed the normal aspects associated with painful and/or irregular menstruation for most women. Pain can additionally be caused by certain diseased states like endometriosis that require further evaluation and possible surgery. The above alternatives to birth control pill use are for all women to be able to use in correcting various cycle abnormalities, but, if these modalities have little to no effect on the problems after about 3-6 cycles, further medical evaluation needs to be considered.

The Pill Kills, an annual event designed to educate the public about the harmful nature of the birth control pill and other birth control products, will be held on June 2 this year.

[Adapted from an article by ALL Staff Members with contribution from Paul Hayes, MD and some additional notes/comments added by PFLI E-News; PFLI PharmFacts E-News Update –  10 Apr 2012]

"Plan B" Still Not Available Over-the-Counter for Minors

The FDA approved "Plan B", or the morning after pill, to be safe for girls under the age of seventeen to purchase over the counter. However, the Secretary of Health, Kathleen Sebelius, overturned the FDA's decision and kept the mandate in place that girls who are seventeen years and younger must see their physician to receive the morning after pill. This ruling, however, anti-choice it may seem, doesn't cover up the Obama administration's pro-abortion agenda. [9 May 2012, abstinence.net]

The Costs of Contraception

…The HHS directives should also give rise to another discussion, one that so far has not been undertaken: a discussion not of the legality of the mandates, nor of the morality of contraception, but of the physical costs of contraception, of the negative consequences it may have for the health and well-being of the women who use it. This aspect of the question has been all but totally ignored. For their part, the liberal partisans of the HHS mandates speak as if hormonal contraception is simply an unmitigated good, a clean gain, for women. Indeed, their argument suggests that such contraception is so unequivocally good that there can be no reasonable argument about the propriety of mandating its coverage as a health care benefit.

This assumption deserves to be challenged because it is untrue. That is, hormonal contraception carries certain physical costs in addition to the benefits touted by its proponents. Unless these costs are frankly acknowledged, American women will be in no position to make an informed choice about whether or not to use contraception. Yet presumably Americans of all ideological persuasions could agree that women should be in a position to choose or reject contraception based upon full knowledge of its potential physical consequences…
(click link below for remainder of article)
[20 Apr 12, Carson Holloway, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-costs-of-contraception?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1ac942e436-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_04_19_2012&utm_medium=email

 

 

 

 

BREAST CANCER – OCP STUDY

6 Dec 11, Brent Rooney: German study: the earlier OCP (Oral Contraceptive Pill) started, the higher the Br Cancer risk
"Correlation of Age at Oral Contraceptive Pill Start with Age at Breast Cancer Diagnosis", The Breast Journal, Anne-K Imkampe, MPH and T Bates, FRCS, Breast Unit, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, Kent, United Kingdom, DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01181.x, Wiley Periodicals

OCP Use and Age at Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Abstract: Breast cancer is progressively diagnosed with increasing age. This study aimed to determine whether women who started using the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) at an early age developed breast cancer earlier than women who started using the OCP later in life. A database review of 1,010 breast cancer patients, who had used the OCP at some point in their life, was carried out. Associations of age at OCP start with age at breast cancer diagnosis were determined by multiple linear regression analysis, considering year of birth, year of diagnosis, age at first pregnancy, number of live births, age at menarche, and length of OCP use. There was evidence of a linear trend between age at OCP start and age at breast cancer diagnosis. Women who started using the OCP aged 18 years or younger were, on average, 4 years younger at breast cancer diagnosis than women who started using the OCP over the age of 30 years, and women who started using the OCP aged 22–25 years were, on average, 3 years younger (p-value for trend <0.001). The age when the OCP was started was positively associated with the age when breast cancer was first diagnosed.

Correlation of Age at OCP Start with Age at Breast Cancer Diagnosis
There was a strong positive relationship between age at starting the OCP and age at breast cancer onset (correlation coefficient r = 0.58, p < 0.001). This relationship remained for nulliparous women (n = 619, r = 0.67, p < 0.001) and also for women who started using the OCP after their first pregnancy (n = 380, r = 0.72, p < 0.001). Table 2 shows the estimated effect sizes by age band of OCP start relative to the age group >-31 years.

In the unadjusted model, women who started the OCP at age <-18 were, on average, 17 years younger at breast cancer onset than women who started using the OCP over the age of 30 years. A large proportion of this difference in diagnosis age was accounted for by year of birth and the age difference reduced to an average of 3 years (estimate of the mean difference between the two groups: -2.74, 95% confidence interval from -4.51 to -0.97).

Further adjustment for diagnosis year, age at first pregnancy, number of live births, age at menarche and length of OCP use narrowed the confidence intervals and an early start to the OCP was associated with an approximately 4 year earlier breast cancer onset (estimate of the mean difference: -4.11, 95% confidence interval from -5.35 to -3.10).

DISCUSSION
Breast cancer is an uncommon disease in young women. A number of risk factors have been suggested that may lead to the development of early onset disease (13).

The results of the present study suggest a linear relationship between age at OCP start and age at breast cancer onset.

In the UK, the OCP was first introduced in 1961 and subsequently there was significant variation in the age of OCP start over time, which is demonstrated in the current analysis. However, the observed correlation remained even after adjusting for birth year in the statistical model. This finding is consistent with other reports that found the use of the OCP to be the strongest predictor for breast cancer presentation at a young age (14,15).

The OCP is thought to potentially increase breast cancer risk by inducing high breast proliferation rates. Alternatively, it has been suggested that estrogen metabolites may directly act as carcinogenic agents.

Specific References (32 Total References)
13. Velentgas P, Daling JR. Ris

k factors for breast cancer in
younger women. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1994;16:15–24.
14. Delort L, Kwiatkowski F, Chalabi N, et al. Risk factors for
early age at breast cancer onset—the ‘‘COSA program’’ populationbased
study. Anticancer Res 2007;27:1087–94.
15. Jernstrom H, Loman N, Johannsson OT, Borg A, Olsson H.
Impact of teenage oral contraceptive use in a population-based series
of early-onset breast cancer patients who have undergone BRCA
mutation testing. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2312–20.

Studies Showing Benefits of Contraception Fall Short

In recent weeks, a number of media outlets have been touting studies which purportedly show that greater access to contraception lowers both abortion rates and the rate of unintended pregnancies. In fairness, some of these studies are a step up from the research that the Guttmacher Institute typically publishes. Some have appeared in peer-reviewed journals and analyze actual data. Unfortunately, the evidence they provide is far from conclusive.

For instance, Mother Jones and the blog Faith in Public Life both recently cited two separate studies which showed that women who obtained greater quantities of birth-control pills were more likely to continue using birth control. Both studies appeared in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. One analyzed women from El Paso, Texas, and the other looked at women from California.

The obvious problem with both studies is that the women who obtain a larger quantify of birth-control pills might be different from the other women in the study. That is, women who obtain a large quantity of birth control might be more committed to their decision not to have children. Conversely, women who obtain smaller quantities of contraception might be less certain of their short-term childbearing plans. There exist other problems with these studies as well. For instance, the study of El Paso women only analyzes discontinuation rates. It does not specifically analyze how the quantity of contraception provided affects either abortion rates or the rates of unintended pregnancies.

Now, the California study is more interesting. It did analyze both abortion rates and pregnancy rates. However, the results were inconsistent. Women who obtained three months’ supply of birth-control pills were actually more likely to get pregnant and obtain an abortion than women who obtained only one month of birth-control pills. Only among the cohort that received a year’s worth of birth-control pills were there reductions in both the pregnancy rate and abortion rate.

However, again it is possible that the differences were due to the attitudes of those women who obtained a year’s supply of birth control rather than the actual availability of the contraception itself.

Last week, the New York Times got in on the act. On their Economix blog they touted an analysis by Adam Thomas of the Brookings Institution. He argues that a media campaign, improved sex-education classes, and expanded access to contraception would all significantly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

The research he cited on contraception was interesting. A Brookings study analyzed states that received waivers to expand their Medicaid family-planning services. They found these expansions led to small but statistically significant increases in contraceptive use and decreases in the birth rate for teens and non-teens.

However, these results should be interpreted with caution.

First, the Brookings study did not appear in an academic journal and hence, has not made it through the peer-review process.

Second, states that received waivers to expand their Medicaid family-planning programs might be different from other states. For instance, states with resources for a Medicaid expansion might be performing better economically.

Greater contraceptive use could come from women having more disposable income or women making a greater effort to prevent pregnancy to take advantage of better employment opportunities.

Also, the results might reflect the fact that states which are expanding Medicaid family-planning programs might be more politically liberal and have contraceptive usage rates that are rising faster than other states.

Taking the results of the Brookings study at face value, they still show that expansions in Medicaid family-planning programs caused only relatively small changes in both contraceptive usage rates and birth rates. These results are consistent with previous research by both Guttmacher and the CDC which shows that a small percentage of sexually active women forgo contraception due to either the cost or lack of availability. All in all, the ability of government programs to increase contraceptive use seems very limited.

Ever since the announcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate, the mainstream-media spin machine has gone into overdrive touting the purported public-health benefits that will flow from increased contraceptive use.

However, they have provided little research indicating that the mandate would either increase the use of contraception or reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate.

Additionally, the media invariably ignores research which shows that hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer, and liver cancer…

— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan –Dearborn, a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, and an adjunct scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter at @Michael_J_New. This article originally appeared on National Review Online and is reprinted with permission.
[15March2012, Michael New PhD,  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/studies-showing-benefits-of-contraception-fall-short?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d0be217a5f-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_03_15_2012&utm_medium=email ; and  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/16/study-showed-birth-control-usage-increased-abortion-rates/]

 

 

 

Birth Control Pills Recall: Lots of Generic Norgestimate and Ethinyl Estradiol Tablets Made in India Pulled… Recall Raising New Concerns About the Safety of Foreign-Made Generics

Seven lots of generic norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol tablets were recalled by Glenmark Generics Inc. USA, the Food and Drug Administration said.

A batch of birth control pills manufactured in India for US distribution has been recalled due to a packaging error that could make the pills ineffective, US health authorities said on Monday.

Seven lots of generic norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol tablets were recalled by Glenmark Generics Inc. USA, the Food and Drug Administration said.

The company said the tablets were manufactured and packaged by Glenmark Generics Ltd. India. and distributed to wholesalers and retail pharmacies across the United States between September 21, 2011 and December 30, 2011.

"As a result of this packaging error, the daily regimen for these oral contraceptives may be incorrect and

could leave women without adequate contraception, and at risk for unintended pregnancy," Glenmark said in a statement.

It was not immediately clear how many packets were affected by the error, which rotated some of the pills by 180 degrees out of the usual sequential order and left the lot number and expiry date visible only on the outer pouch.

To Help Identify Recall — TIP

"Any blister for which the lot number and expiry date is not visible is subject to recall," Glenmark added in a statement.

Doctors urged women who may have been taking the pills to immediately begin using a non-hormonal form of contraception, inform their health care provider immediately and take a pregnancy test if they have any symptoms of pregnancy.

"This is extremely disturbing," said Steven Goldstein, an obstetrician-gynecologist at New York University Langone Medical Center and Professor at the NYU School of Medicine, adding the recall raised new concerns about the safety of foreign-made generics.

"This problem with generics manufactured outside of the USA is of great concern to me as a clinician. I often allow and encourage patients to try generics as long as they do not have nuisance side effects however I have always assumed them of equal quality control to the branded products."

Glenmark Generics has operated its manufacturing plant in India since 2003.

The recall is the third to affect US consumers in the past six months involving contraceptives.

On February 1, US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer recalled one million packets of birth control pills over a similar packaging error, though those pills were manufactured in the United States.

A separate recall was issued in September 2011 by the pharmaceutical company Qualitest in Alabama, due to packaging errors that affected 1.4 million packets of birth control pills distributed in 2011.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/birth-control-pills-recall-lots-generic-norgestimate-ethinyl-estradiol-tablets-made-india-pulled-article-1.1029796#ixzz1njAl4FQN
[AFP RELAXNEWS, February 28, 2012, http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/birth-control-pills-recall-lots-generic-norgestimate-ethinyl-estradiol-tablets-made-india-pulled-article-1.1029796]

 

South African Condom Failures Result in Massive Recall

1.35 millions condoms given out prior to celebrations put on by South Africa’s governing political party, the African National Congress, have been recalled due to complaints that the locally made prophylactics were defective.

Spokesman Jabu Mbalula of the health department of the province of Free State, which distributed the condoms before the Jan. 6-8 celebrations, said they had recalled the entire batch of 1,350,000 condoms around Jan. 18, according to an Associated Press report.

South Africa’s AIDS Treatment Action Campaign spokesman Sello Mokhalipi said his organization lodged a complaint with the government after “we had people flocking in, coming to report that the condoms had burst while they were having sex,” adding that people were panicking because they themselves or their sex partners were infected with AIDS.
1.35 million condoms have been recalled in the latest failure of condom standards

“We poured water into the condoms and they were leaking, not just in one place, they were leaking like a sieve,” Mokhalipi said, describing improvised tests carried out at the Treatment Action Campaign office in the city of Bloemfontein where the African National Congress celebration took place.

“People came from all over and probably took many away with them, so those condoms are now all over the country,” Mokhalipi said.

The government has had to recall leaky condoms in the past. A 2007 recall of 20 million defective condoms manufactured locally was traced to a testing manager at the South African Bureau of Standards having taken a bribe to certify the faulty condoms. In 2008 another 5 million defective condoms reportedly had to be recalled.

Health department spokesman Mbalula confirmed to the media that all the condoms handed out by his department were from shipments that had been quality tested by the South African Bureau of Standards.

South Africa has the highest number of AIDS cases in the world, reported to be 5.6 million. The government’s efforts to reduce the number of infections by distributing hundreds of millions of free condoms have had little effect.

Dr. Edward Greene, the former director of the AIDS research project at Harvard University, said in a Vatican Radio interview about the African AIDS epidemic last June that in populations where HIV is not restricted to prostitutes but is found in the general population, condoms are counterproductive. “Condoms have never been found to be used consistently in any general population.”

“We now know that having multiple concurrent sexual partners is what drives the so-called hyper epidemics of southern and east Africa. So, discouraging multiple concurrent partners is the single most important intervention on behavior change that will bring down HIV rates,” Dr. Greene said.

“Condoms have not proven to work very well,” he concluded.
[Jan 31, 2012, T. Baklinski, Johannesburg,   http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/south-african-condom-failures-result-in-massive-recall?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cebec6f343-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_01_31_2012&utm_medium=email

FDA Eyes Stronger Warning on Popular Birth Control: Higher Risk of Dangerous Clots

Health officials are weighing stricter labels on the widely used new generation of birth control pills, based on data showing they may put women at a higher risk of dangerous blood clots.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff reviewed studies comparing an older generation of birth control with newer pills that contain the compound drospirenone, such as Bayer AG's popular Yaz and Yasmin.

In a report released on Tuesday, the reviewers said the body of evidence shows conflicting data on a link between pills containing drospirenone and blood clots, but the link could not be ruled out either and that fact may warrant a new label.

"Because of the consistency in recent reports for an increased risk, product labeling should reflect that very real possibility," they said. A panel of outside experts advising the FDA is due to vote on the labels on Thursday.

Most common contraceptive pills combine the hormones estrogen and progestin, which help block ovulation and sperm. They can also increase the chance of a woman getting blood clots than if she didn't take birth control pills, particularly as she ages.

"While it's rare, it's heartbreaking when this happens. When there are safer options available, we can't let this continue," said Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network, one of several consumer advocacy groups that argue the drugs should be taken off the market entirely.

Drawing a definitive conclusion that adding drospirenone elevates the risk has been also complicated by the fact that risk of blood clots also goes up if a woman smokes, has clogged arteries, a family history or other health problems.

HIGHER RISK OF DANGEROUS CLOTS

An FDA study earlier this year found a higher risk of venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) in women, especially those younger than 35, who were taking Yasmin. A similar conclusion was drawn about Johnson & Johnson's Ortho Evra contraceptive
patch, which does not contain drospirenone. FDA advisers will discuss Ortho Evra on Friday.

With VTEs, a blood clot occurs in one of the deep veins in the body, such as the leg or pelvis, and then travels to the lungs. The study also reported a higher risk of arterial thrombotic events, or ATEs, in older women on Yasmin. VTEs and ATEs can significantly increase the risk of strokes or death.

Court documents unsealed on Monday allege that Bayer failed to inform the FDA or the public about adverse VTE events linked to Yasmin before the drug was approved in May 2001. Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler is expected to testify in upcoming trials against Bayer that the company, Germany's largest drugmaker, withheld reports of dangerous blood clots.

Yaz, a reformulated version of Yasmin, remains one of the top-selling contraceptives in the United States. Bayer raked in $374 million in Yaz sales last year and twice as much at the peak of Yaz's popularity in 2009, according to data from IMS Health.

The number of prescriptions filled for Yaz also dropped more than by half to 5 million in 2010 from 11 million in 2009, according to IMS.

The company makes newer Beyaz and Safyral pills, versions of Yaz and Yasmin that add levomefolate to raise levels of folate, which is thought to help fertility.

Apart from preventing pregnancy, Yaz and Beyaz also have a secondary indication to treat moderate acne and symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder, a severe mood problem.

In briefing documents for the FDA advisers, Bayer maintains that when used according to the label, benefits of using Yaz and its other drospirenone-containing pill outweigh the risks.

Labels now include a boxed warning that smoking increases the risk of serious cardiovascular problems, especially in women over 35. Warnings also highlight higher risk of blood clots associated with birth control pills.

[December 06, 2011,  Alina Selyukh, D.C., Reuters, Additional reporting by Anna Yukhananov in Washington; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Steve Orlofsky]

 

 

 

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 t

he 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

 

 

&nbs

p;

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, th

ey 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/]