Prevention magazine: Birth Control Ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter DenRat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DenRat

Guest
I received my August 04 Prevention issue today and it featured the special report called: “Special Report: BIRTH CONTROL BAN What you need to know”. It was pro-Pill and pro-Planned Parenthood and anti-NFP. Generally the article was about pharmacists and doctors who refuse to prescribe or fill Rx for birth control pills.

There was a side window article on NFP:

“What’s Natural Family Planning?
The natural family planning method (NFP) advoctated by Milwaukee physician Cynthia Jones-Nosacek, MD, and other anti-Pill doctors, involves avoiding intercourse during the most fertile day of a woman’s cycle. Success depends on accurately p(name removed by moderator)ointin those days by using one or more techniques: tracking changes in cervical mucus, charting the rise and fall in body temperature, using a fertility monitor, and/or relying on the rhythm method, in which a woman and her partner don’t have intercourse on certain days in the middle of her cycle. Whith typical use, the failure rate for NFP can be as high as 25%; for the pill, it’s 6-8%.”

I’m not well-versed on the subject but I know there are many people here who are. I would suggest a letter-writing campaign to Prevention; politely worded explaining the risks associated with the Pill for the women and the success with NFP. I looked for a web address but the article doesn’t appear online. You may have to buy it. If you refuse, I can offer quotes from my copy. Who knows? Maybe they will write an article on the benefits of NFP and get it into the mainstream!

God Bless,
Denise
 
When done correctly, NFP is 99% effective. They skew the facts “a bit.”
 
It certainly sounds like they didn’t mention the horrible anti-woman side effects of the pill and other hormonal therapies.

Or the indignity of a woman being asked to chemically sterilize herself so that her male partner can pleasure himself anytime he wants without consequence or regard for her physiology.

How anti-woman. Why aren’t feminists angry about this! Why aren’t they writing the letters?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

I feel so betrayed.
 
I hope the Couple to Couple League gets wind of this. They have all the info at their finger tips. My impression is that it is difficult to get mags to print positive info about NFP partly because they get a lot of $ from the drug companies who produce the contraceptives. I share the frustration in the feminists who don’t get it–when will women stop being overrun by all this hype that to be free means to deny how God made us?!
 
So, much for another “helpful” healthful magazine. What’s that song? And another one bites the dust?

Doesn’t all the advertisements on the TV from those litigators (attorneys) who are asking "have you taken prempro, provera etc, etc, etc…Call us today as you may have serious health problems associated with these forms of hormone therapy or birth control…

gotta be some fire there’s alot of smoke
blessings
 
OK, so no one seems to be interested in writing Prevention magazine to give their personal and positive uses of NFP. Unfortunately, I used the pill as a young woman and my husband had a vasectomy after our two sons were born. I’m not well-versed on this subject and wouldn’t be able to provide a fair testemonial. Had I read this article 20 years ago, I would have been angry that I might be inconvenienced when trying to fill prescriptions and might go to Planned Parenthood. If there was a thoughtful response on the benefits of NFP, I would read it with interest and possibly change my thoughts.

I still think if they were indundated with polite thoughtful letters from women on the health benefits of NFP they might explore the topic. Afterall, they report on mental health issues as well. They write articles on benefits of herbs and holistic medicine. I have noticed they get much advertising from drug companies but that doesn’t preclude them from reporting on “alternatives”.

To leave it up to Couple to Couple League would give them the impression that NFP is just a theory and not a useful, healthy family planning method.

God Bless,
Denise
 
Did it mention that the Pill is potentially abortifactient? I thnk someone needs to write to the author… :mad:
 
I think it’s very misleading to compare the failure rate of NFP to BCP. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. People assume because some woman who uses NFP and has 7 kids that that proves the method doesn’t work. The difference though is if you compare a woman using the pill and a woman using NFP, the woman using the pill is not open to life at all, the woman using NFP is open to life and understands it as a gift from God. Therefore the more family-oriented woman using NFP is more open to “taking chances” or having more kids. I think these magazines are too influenced by the drug companies. Can you imagine the advertising funds they’d lose by publishing an article telling the truth about BCP, or even barely mentioning that they are abortificients? (sp?)
 
I’m not very surprised by the report and false statistics. Most physicians are completely ignorant of NFP. They are neither aware of the modern methods for recognizing a woman’s fertility, nor are they aware of its effectiveness, both for preventing and achieving pregnancy. While I was in medical school, the only thing I heard about NFP was, “…and then there is the rhythm and blues method, and it does not work”. I pray that this will change. For highly educated science orientated people, the unwillingness to look at objective data is inexcusable.
 
I would be willing to write a letter, but I"d like to see the article first. I can’t find it on their website. Thanks
Jennifer
 
Wow, I’m surprised. I thought Prevention was a major proponent of healthy living! What a disappointment. They were quite groundbreaking back in the day. Now, apparently, they’ve totally compromised their commitment to good health through better living for some liberal social agenda! Very disheartening!
 
urgggg, that really upsets me, my sister developed a blood clot from taking the pill and it almost killed her, why are those things never told??? Along with all there things listed as so called good they must list the dangers, one death is one too many!! 😦
 
NFP can also be used to increase the chance of getting pregnant for those who want to have children. They did not mention this as well.

And if not proper polled, can skew the results drastically. For instance, “While using NFP, did you become pregnant?” Yes, we achieved what we wanted to do. Polltaker marks one failure to avoid pregnancy.
 
That is certainly true. I have had exactly one surprise child since I began using NFP–I had twins instead of the singleton that I’d originally thought would be the result. As far as a surprise pregnancy–nope, I always knew if I’d be ending the month pregnant or not.
 
40.png
masondoggy:
I think it’s very misleading to compare the failure rate of NFP to BCP. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. People assume because some woman who uses NFP and has 7 kids that that proves the method doesn’t work. The difference though is if you compare a woman using the pill and a woman using NFP, the woman using the pill is not open to life at all, the woman using NFP is open to life and understands it as a gift from God. Therefore the more family-oriented woman using NFP is more open to “taking chances” or having more kids. I think these magazines are too influenced by the drug companies. Can you imagine the advertising funds they’d lose by publishing an article telling the truth about BCP, or even barely mentioning that they are abortificients? (sp?)
Click to expand...
NFP “failures” are due to what my dear sister politely calls “operator error”. (wink)

BTW, years ago, I used the pill. When I first started, I read the package insert with the graphs and everything about the risks of stroke, heart attack and blood clots. Nah, it’ll never happen to me. 7 months later, I’m in the hospital with a big, fat, juicy deep-vein blood clot. No laughing matter, this is life-threatening. 9 days in the hospital and 6 months on Coumadin (blood thinners). As a result, I had to be on blood-thinners (not oral) during my pregnancies.

The pill is no joke and the fact that its still on the market at all is astounding given the very common and serious side effects.
 
Thanks for the links to the article. He is the letter I sent to the editor.
Dr Paul:
Dear Editor,
As a practicing pediatric endocrinologist, I frequently evaluate and treat adolescent girls with menstrual irregularities. I am very familiar with both the medical and moral issues related to the use of oral contraceptive pills. Therefore, I was very disappointed to read the article by Caroline Bollinger on the “problem” of health care providers refusing to prescribe oral contraceptives. For a magazine on Prevention, the complete lack of objectivity in presenting the real health issues related to use of oral contraceptives was inexcusable. While the article correctly mentioned several benefits in using OCPs, it failed to mention any of the many definitively documented adverse effects of these medications (such as hypertension and stroke). It also dismissed outright the benefits of natural family planning, which can be as effective as the Pill. Since the author chose not to research this topic, I would be happy to provide you with the numerous studies, published in peer reviewed journals, which establish this fact. The comment by Dr Beth Jordan on the impact to public health was particularly disturbing. Her contention that loss of access to OCPs will lead to a rise in unintended pregnancy and abortions fails to acknowledge that unintended pregnancies have not decreased since the introduction of these medications decades ago. Quite the opposite, unintended pregnancies have increased dramatically. While I agree that there are many medical indications for OCPs besides birth control, the article failed to mention that in many of these conditions, safer and more effective alternatives to the Pill exist. The article also failed to mention that most practitioners prescribe the Pill for a myriad of symptoms without ever fully investigating the underlying cause. In addition, while the magnitude of the implantation effect of OCPs has been debated, the fact that this effect does occur is undeniable. Again, if you would like the published evidence, I would be happy to provide this for you. The article presented the decisions of physicians not to prescribe the Pill as motivated solely by political and/or moral concerns. It failed to present the view, held by many such physicians, that this practice is also motivated by a genuine concern for the health of their patients. Physicians, after all, are obligated above all “to do no harm”. If your goal is to truly educate the public on preventative medicine, your article was very irresponsible. While accusing doctors who refuse to prescribe contraceptive pills as forcing their moral and/or political views on helpless patients, the tone and content of the article resulted in the same effect from the opposing perspective. While it is very good to discuss this issue, I expect more objectivity from your magazine in presenting this complex, emotionally charged topic.
Click to expand...
 
Below is a copy of a letter sent to the author of the article by a member of the NFP list. This list is an email loop of NFP researchers, teachers, doctors, nurses, and health professionals that helps us keep in touch with treatments, ideas, and trends in the movement. Dr. Stanford is a leading NFP teacher, educator, and researcher in this country, and the letter below is a terrific response to the misleading approach Prevention took with the article.

We will not have the healthcare industry treat NFP use and research with any respect until they begin to see that women will not stand to be used anymore by an Ob-Gyn industry that is focused on money and not the good health of women in America.

Enjoy Dr. Stanford’s letter…

John
1/2 of an NFP teaching couple for the Couple to Couple League.​

 
RE: Article in Prevention, August 2004, pages 151-159, 184-185.
“Access denied. Growing numbers of doctors and pharmacists across
the country are refusing to prescrive or dispense birth control
pills. Here’s why.”

Dear Caroline Bollinger,

Thank you for the courtesy of sending me a copy of the
above-referenced article.I respect your effort to present the different sides of the issues and your right to advance your own conclusions, which of course differ from mine.

However, I must point out that your story leaves out a number of
important issues, and as such is seriously imbalanced, presenting
more facts on the side that you favor and unfortunately leaving out
relevant facts on the side that you do not favor.
  1. You mention a number of physicians, including myself, who choose not to prescribe the pill because of our assessment of its effects on the earliest stages of human life. This is accurate. Then you mention the fact that many physicians use the pill to treat various gynecologic conditions, also accurate. You fail to mention that those of us who do not prescribe the pill offer positive options for women who wish to treat these conditions without using birth control pills. The incorrect implication is that those of us who do not prescribe birth control pills simply leave women hanging with no options for their gynecologic problems. In fact, we do offer them viable medical treatments, and many women seek us out because they are looking for treatments for their endometriosis, bleeding, pain, fibroids, PMS, etc., that do not involve birth control pills. (You might also have noted that the FDA has approved birth control pills for only two uses: contraception and acne.)
  2. You perpetuate a common inaccurate usage of talking about a
    “fertilized egg” implanting in the uterus. At the time of
    implantation, the early embryo (the technical name at this stage is
    “blastocyst”) is around 100 cells large. How accurate is it to call
    an embryo of 100 cells a “fertilized egg”? Doing this inaccurately
    plays down the absolute facts of early human development, regardless of whether you believe that pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation. In the only “verbatim” quote you attributed to me, I specifically told you that I preferred the term “embryo” or “preimplantation embryo” over “fertilized egg,” for accuracy, but instead you put the term “fertilized egg” into the quote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top