British Abortion Business Admits Birth Control Does Not Prevent Pregnancy
Birth Control Patch Label Reflects Increased Risk of Blood Clots
NEW! The High Cost of Birth Control
NEW! Fertility Treatment is Very Successful but Largely Ignored by Medical Field
NEW! Birth Control Pills Spark Debate Over Environment…
FERTILITY TREATMENT IS SUCCESSFUL BUT LARGELY IGNORED BY MEDICAL FIELD.
NaProTECHNOLOGY (Natural Procreative Technology or NPT) is a dramatically successful, but not well known or practiced method of diagnosing and treating gynecological diseases and infertility in women. It is a morally acceptable and very cost effective method of restoring fertility, using a fertility-care based medical approach, rather than a fertility-control approach.
This new reproductive science works cooperatively with the natural fertility [menstrual] cycle.
It has been developed as a series of medical applications based on a standardized assessment of the biomarkers of the fertility [menstrual] cycle, known as the Creighton Model FertilityCare System. It can be used to evaluate and treat infertility, miscarriage, irregular cycles, ovarian cysts, premenstrual syndrome, postpartum depression and many other women's health conditions.
When used to treat infertility alone, NaProTechnology has a success rate of 76% in assisting couples to achieve pregnancy – remarkably superior to the 10-15% success rate of in vitro fertilization, and without the enormous financial cost and adverse emotional and other psychological effects of in vitro fertilization.
NPT was developed from thirty years of scientific research in the study of the normal and abnormal states of the menstrual and fertility cycles by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers, director of the Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction and the National Center for Women's Health in Omaha, Nebraska.
Dr. Hilgers is currently a senior medical consultant in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive medicine and surgery at the Institute and a clinical professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Creighton University School of Medicine.
According to Dr. John B. Shea, medical consultant for LifeSiteNews.com, NPT has not been accepted by the majority of the medical profession because "in reference to female infertility, NPT competes against a well financed option, in vitro fertilization [IVF], that is already deeply entrenched in the marketplace and in political circles."
"Furthermore, physicians who might be interested in NPT experience a lot of peer pressure to view NPT as an oddball kind of medical care simply because they had not heard of it in medical school," Dr. Shea explained.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), which maintains a fully staffed Office of Public Affairs in Washington D.C., and a web site that contains a vast amount of information on reproductive matters, does not have any information on NPT posted on its website.
In an article entitled "10 Reasons to Choose NaProTechnology Over In Vitro Fertilization" by David Picella (http://www.majella.us), the moral implications of IVF are clearly delineated.
IVF involves the destruction of embryos: "An analysis of ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) data from 1983 to 1986 demonstrated that the transfer of 1,372 embryos (3.2 per woman) resulted in 81 live births. From this data, it is necessary to create 16.9 living embryos to produce one live birth. The higher reported rates of success for IVF procedures usually means more embryos are being transferred which increases the risk of multiple births."
IVF necessitates "Selective Reduction": "One of the most objectionable things about IVF is that it can result in a situation where a woman is forced to deal with a dangerously high multiple pregnancy rate. Pregnancy risk increases dramatically with the number of babies in the womb. Frequently, women are compelled to selectively "reduce" (i.e., kill) additional babies in the womb due to unacceptably high pregnancy risk."
NPT employs natural sexual intercourse rather than a laboratory procedure: "In IVF, the sperm and eggs (gametes) are collected through masturbation (male) and harvesting (female) where they meet in a laboratory to form embryos which are then reintroduced into the woman's body. NPT, on the other hand, relies on a natural act of intercourse to achieve pregnancy."
Information on NPT may be obtained from the following websites:
The American Academy of Fertility Care Professionals
http://www.aafcp.org/naprotechnology_and_infertility.html
The Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine
http://www.iirrm.org/
[From www.lifesitenews.com, 3/17/2008; 17Mar08, Commentary by T. M. Baklinski, LifeSiteNews.com; NaProTECHNOLOGY]
BIRTH CONTROL PILLS SPARK DEBATE OVER THE ENVIRONMENT. Wherever possible, Tina Casale switches to compact fluorescent light bulbs; she also recycles daily, rides in carpools or walks when she can, and, as a third-grade teacher, has made it a priority to ensure that global warming is a frequent topic in her science discussions.
But in the eyes of some activists, Casale could be doing more to save the environment: Namely, tossing out her birth control pills.
Birth control pills, like batteries and baby bottles, have become the latest item in American homes to become a focus of environmental and health concerns. As scientists debate the effects of synthetic hormones that are flushed into waterways, the potential threat has sparked a clash between advocates and critics of the pill.
"I've heard a little bit about the bad things that birth control can do to the environment," said Casale, 26, who lives in New York City. "If it's causing major problems, I guess I would stop. But to me, the health effects of the pill are a much greater concern than the fate of fish."
In 2003, a group of scientists in Washington state made headlines when they discovered that traces of synthetic estrogen in the state's rivers had reduced the fertility of male fish. Hormonal birth control pills and patches were blamed. Two years later, a team of scientists funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found trout with both female and male characteristics. The culprit, again, was synthetic estrogen.
David Norris, a physiology professor at the University of Colorado, said it is not just estrogen's possible negative effects on aquatic environments that concern him as much as the exposure of these hormon
es to humans, especially fetuses and newborns. Norris said numerous reports show that estrogenic chemicals in water can result in thyroid problems and an adrenaline imbalance. Thyroid inhibitors are of major concern because they affect the nervous system's development and can cause permanent mental retardation.
Although Norris points out that certain foods, plastics, cosmetics, personal-care products and animal wastes are also causing water contamination, studies in Boulder Creek, Colo., have shown that fish are about 10 times more sensitive to the contribution of estrogen from birth control pills than they are to estradiol, the type of natural estrogen excreted by animals like cows.
The National Catholic Register and WorldNet Daily, a conservative Web publication, seized on the findings, the latter calling birth control pills "poison." The discovery left some environmentally conscious women shaking their heads, unsure of what to make of all this talk of genetically mutated fish and unsafe drinking water.
"It gets me angry," said Tracy Oetting, 47, an environmental and political activist from Washington. "It appears that there is no concern for women or the environment if everyone is OK with the eco-damage that hormones can do to women, men, fish and animals."
Laurel Butler, 60, a New York member of the Sierra Club, a grassroots environmental organization, says she doesn't believe in infringing on other people's rights to make decisions. But if birth control pills are proven to be the culprit, she says she would stand by a law that protects the environment against estrogen.
"Why aren't women in this generation doing more to protect the environment?" Butler said. "You've got a population screaming for instant, easy birth control and pharmaceutical companies answering to their demands. Who is responsible for the environment?"
Effect is disputed
The discourse about hormone-free waters has extended to online message boards and other sites. One group on Facebook started an anti-estrogens campaign. On its home page, the small group shares claims that a decrease in human sperm count over the years is a result of hormones in drinking water and urges women to stop taking the pill if they're not in a relationship.
But many women and women's groups are not buying into the message.
"It sounds to me like this is a pollution issue rather than a birth control issue," said Kaycie Rene Booher, 20, a student at the University of Central Missouri. "People are jumping for a chance to discredit birth control as an important option for women's health and safety."
Heather Trim, the urban bays and toxics program manager at the People for Puget Sound in Washington, warns women that there is no evidence in the United States of the human impact of contaminated estrogen water, and that women should not discard their pills just yet.
"Estrogen is also found in products like hair straighteners and plastics," said Trim. "It's not necessarily just birth control."
Paige Novak, an associate professor of engineering at the University of Minnesota, agrees.
"There isn't a whole lot of funding going toward updating waste center treatments," she said. "The problem might be resolved just by updating the plants."
Amy Allina, the program director of the National Women's Health Network, says women should be aware that some forms of contraception, such as the patch and vaginal ring, seep more hormones into the environment because they are discarded directly into the garbage after use. The competition among pharmaceutical companies for a slice of the oral contraceptive market is so fierce, she said, that the development of an "eco-friendly" birth control pill could be just around the corner. Bayer and Pfizer, two leading makers of birth control pills, did not respond to requests for comment.
"At this point we just don't know if the benefits of the pill outweigh its negative environmental effects," Allina said. "Unfortunately, women need to make a decision based on imperfect information."
[posted 15March08, Lisa Cupido, Columbia News Service, http://www.star-telegram.com/408/v-print/story/529055.html]
April 29, 2007
Estrogen overload: Widespread use of birth control pills harming the environment
Millions of women in the United States ingest excess estrogen every day in the form of birth control pills. Within 24 hours, the effluent from those 12 million doses ends up in our sewage systems. And then?
The April 17 Scientific American reported results of a study warning that “many streams, rivers and lakes already bear warning signs that the fish caught within them may also be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow.”
“Fish are really a sentinel, just like canaries in the coal mine 100 years ago,” says Conrad Volz, co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute's Center for Environmental Ecology. “We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use.”
According to the Freshwater Institute’s Fisheries and Oceans section, “The potent synthetic estrogens excreted by women taking hormone replacement therapy or birth control pills are not completely broken down in the sewage treatment process and are discharged into waterways.”
While cautioning that the exact process of hormonal confusion is not yet clear, the Scientific American article continued, “But the [estrogenic] effects on the fish themselves were clear: the gender of nine of the fish [tested] could not be determined.”
“Increased estrogenic active substances in the water are changing males so that they are indistinguishable from females,” Volz found. “There are eggs in male gonads as well as males are secreting a yolk sac protein. Males aren't supposed to be making egg stuff.” [http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=25291453-1c9e-46d2-8aab-05ab487fb751]
THE HIGH COST OF BIRTH CONTROL. There have been campaigns on college campuses throughout this school year to raise awareness of the “high cost” of birth control. Next week, one will be held at the University of Kentucky during so-called Affordable Birth Control Week.
Unfortunately, birth control supporters are only focusing on the initial financial costs of purchasing a month’s supply of birth control pills. They are overlooking the many other costs associated with using birth control pills:
· bacterial infections, because the pill weakens the immune system
· increased susceptibility to the AIDS virus (HIV), because the pill weakens the immune system
· pelvic inflammatory disease (an infection of the fallopian tubes that can cause sickness or sterility)
· infertility (unable to bear children)
· cervical cancer
· ectopic pregnancy
· shrinking of the womb (endometrial atrophy)
· mood swings and depression
· breast cancer
· blood clots
· birth defects in children conceived while their mothers are on the pill
· stroke
· weight gain
· harm to the environment {"Estrogen Overload" – see below}
· death to women
· early abortion
[http://www.rockforlife.org/know_faqs.php#BCPcauseabortion]
What I would suggest is this: If you are a college student, educate yourself and educate your campus, especially if a campaign like the one mentioned above is coming. Here are a couple of ideas:
· Make a flier and/or poster using the information above. Title it “The Cost of Birth Control Is Too High!” That should spark some interest. Hand these out and/or post these all over campus.
· Hand out our “Birth Control Pills: How They Work” brochure. You can order them here. If you can’t afford them, e-mail us here and maybe we can work something out. We also have them in Spanish!
If you end up initiating an educational campaign on your college campus, let us know.
www.RockForLife.org
Pregnant? Don’t know what to do? Call 888-550-7577.
Had an abortion? Need help or healing? Call 877-HOPE-4-ME
[Rock for Life, 28Feb08]
BRITISH ABORTION INDUSTRY ADMITS BIRTH CONTROL PILL DOES NOT PREVENT PREGNANCY. A British-based abortion business that operates abortion centers internationally admitted on 29Jan08 that women in Australia are getting pregnant and having abortions despite the use of birth control.
Abortion advocates have long claimed that advocating contraception is better than abortion limits in reducing abortion figures.
However, Marie Stopes International released a report 29Jan08 showing that more than half [70 per cent, 7 of 10] of women who have an unplanned pregnancy were using birth control at the time.
Some 43 percent were on oral contraceptives when the pregnancy occurred and another 27 percent reportedly used a condom at the time. MSI acting Chief Executive Officer Jill Michelson told Macquarie National News that the answer to the problem is more education about birth control.
"Women will be shocked when they see these figures because I think they believe fairly strongly that the contraception they're using is covering it," Michelson said.
"The other thing it brought out also, it's not only the pill that's not working. People still get pregnant after having sterilization," Michelson admitted. "People still get pregnant after all forms of contraception."
The news isn't surprising to pro-life advocates who haven't seen abortion rates decline following massive promotion of birth control and contraception.
The Scotland government reported 13,081 abortions in 2006, up from 12,603 the previous year — an increase of nearly 3.8 percent despite an aggressive campaign to get the morning after pill to women there.
That the morning after pill is ineffective in preventing pregnancy also isn't a shock to Dr. Joseph Stanford, associate professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
He's previously written how studies he and fellow researchers have done show a lower effectiveness rate than the 89 percent Barr Laboratories claims.
"We did a more precise meta-analysis that shows it's effective only 72 percent of the time, and even that number is optimistic," he indicated.
He also noted that studies from Europe, China and the United States show that the morning after pill does not reduce abortions. [29January 2008/30Jan #4231, Ertelt, LifeNews.com, Canberra, Australia]
BIRTH CONTROL PATCH LABEL REFLECTS INCREASED RISK OF BLOOD CLOTS. The FDA has announced a label change 18Jan08 on Johnson & Johnson’s Ortho Evra Contraceptive Transdermal Patch informing consumers that their risk of a blood clot, possibly resulting in a pulmonary embolism, is increased.
The study group included females aged 15 to 44 years old. Women using the patch receive a 60% higher dose of estrogen than Pill users. The agency said it believes the patch is a safe and effective method of contraception, but recommends that women with concerns or risk factors for serious blood clots talk with their health care provider about contraceptive options.
The possibility of blood clots was first placed on the Ortho Evra label in September 2006.
Ortho Evra is a prescription patch that releases hormones through the skin into the blood stream.
Because the hormones are processed by the body differently than hormones from birth control pills, women using the product will be exposed to about 60% more estrogen than if they were using typical birth control pills, FDA said. The World Health Organization lists estrogens used in contraceptives as carcinogenic (cancer-causing) agents.
[http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-18-contraceptive_N.htm, AP; . [“FDA Announces Ortho Evra Label Will Include New Data On Increased Risk Of Blood Clots, Medical News Today, 01-24-08, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94964.php; 24Jan08; Abstinence Clearinghouse, 20Feb08]