Prevention magazine: Birth Control Ban

[johnnyjoe]

continued…

1. You refer to a “long-standing” medical definition of pregnancy. I
   suppose it is a matter of judgment whether a definition that was
   revised by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists starting in 1968 is “long-standing.” However, you neglect to mention that there is a much longer standing scientific definition of pregnancy going back to the early 1900s that pregnancy begins at fertilization (conception), which is still found in most medical dictionaries and held by embryologists, over half of practising obstetrician-gynecologists, and according to a number of recent public polls, about half of the general public.
2. You give two stories of women that experienced difficulty getting prescriptions filled for the pill. A more balanced presentation would have included a story or two from women who wanted to find an alternative to the pill (either for family planning or for gynecologic problems) and had difficulty finding a doctor who would prescribe anything other than the pill. Or from one of the many patients who is grateful to have a physician who treats them without using the pill. Or from patients who were disappointed that their doctors never told them there was any possibility that the pill might act in a way inconsistent with their personal moral beliefs about human life. These are the common scenarios we hear from women that come to us. Every physician has at least a few patients who leave their office dissatisfied for one reason or another. How is it balanced to give only testimonials from dissatisfied patients, and not from satisifed ones? Do you think that all physicians offering exactly the same type of medicine will meet the needs of all patients?

 

[johnnyjoe]

continued…

1. Finally, you perpetuate common myths about NFP by equating
   calendar rhythm with modern NFP methods based on biomarkers of fertility. NFP is a large topic that would require an article of its
   own to begin to address it. But even so, your description of NFP is so incomplete that if someone was interested in finding out more or possibly using it, they would be seriously hampered in doing so. Can they learn it from a book or on the internet, or is there professional instruction available? Are all methods the same? Where are the reliable websites for NFP information? You quote the high end but not the low end of “typical” use pregnancy rates, elsewhere in the article you discuss “perfect use” pregnancy rates for the pill but you never mention them for NFP, and you do not discuss the many couples who successfully use NFP to achieve pregnancy.

I touched on most of these things during our discussions. I
respectfully and regretfully submit my disappointment with denying your readers access to these important facts and viewpoints that would be necessary for them to have sufficient information to make their own informed decisions based on their personal values.

Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH
Associate Professor
University of Utah
Health Research Center

 

[LauraL]

God bless Dr. Paul and Dr. Stanford!!! :tiphat:

Prevention used to be a really good source of information for people wanting reasonable and responsible alternative to traditional American medical practice; now it’s more often than not supporting the very things it used to oppose. Rodale sure has gone downhill :tsktsk:

 

[DenRat]

mrS4ntA:

Did it mention that the Pill is potentially abortifactient? I thnk someone needs to write to the author…

Yes, they did but called it “Post-Fertilization”. From the article:

“The Post-Fertilization Effect: Fact or Fiction?
Manufacturers of oral contraceptives have long claimed that the Pill provides three lines of defense against pregnancy: It prevents ovulation (most of the time), blocks sperm by thickening the cervical mucus, and, should all else fail, theoretically reduces the chances that a fertilized egg will implant in the uterus by hormonally altering the uterine lining.
But does this so-called post-fertilization effect really happen? Truth is, nobody knows. ‘There is evidence that the Pill’s effect on the uterine lining interferes with implantation or has a post-fertilization effect,’ says contraception expert Felicia Stewart, MD, codirector of the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy in San Francisco. ‘Documenting it owuld be a very difficult research task.’
David Grimes, MD, a clinical professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, says the Pill and other hormonal contraceptives work primarily by preventing ovulation.
Concensus comes from a surprising source. ‘The post-fertilization effect was purely a speculation that became truth by repetition,’ says Joe DeCook, MD a retired OB/GYN and vice president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ‘In our group the feeling are split. We say it should be each doctor’s own decision, because there is no proof.’
Further clouding the issue is the fact that even among women trying to become pregnant - women obviously not taking the Pill - fertilized eggs fail to implant 40 - 60% of the time. They’re eliminated when a woman menstrates.”

It goes on and on using the terms such as “anti-pill”, “reproductive rights advocates”, “antiabortion underground”, etc. You have to read it. It’s all pro-abortion.

God Bless,
Denise

 

[DenRat]

Excellent letters by both doctors Paul and Stanford.

Thanks,
Denise