Tag: Contraception

Blog Posts

Tell the Truth: They’re Not Abortifacients, But Anti-Abortifacients

Marysia

In the debate over contraceptive coverage in the United States, many opponents have repeated the argument that they do not want to be forced to pay for "abortifacients," namely IUDs and hormonal contraceptives such as "the pill" and the emergency contraceptive Plan B.

But, as All Our Lives continually points out, this isn't what the scientific evidence says. Check out, for example, the references in our "Family Planning Freedom Is Prolife" slideshow.

In fact, these very methods are among the most effective reversible methods at preventing conception. So, they're not abortifacients. They are anti-abortifacients.

We have already discussed the grave real-life consequences of the misinformation here. Unfortunately, they go far beyond any blog post.

The Supreme Court of Honduras has just ruled that emergency contraception amounts to abortion and thus should be subjected to the same criminal penalties. Never mind that Honduran women's access to all kinds of family planning–pregnancy prevention–is severely restricted and the government.

If you appreciate the work of All Our Lives, please join us in challenging the rampant misinformation about how such methods of birth control work. Wherever you live, don't let it go unchallenged. Refer those who perpetuate it to our slide presentation, which lists specific scientific studies.

You will likely encounter complete resistance from some people, especially those who both categorically oppose birth control and want to interfere in others' right to make their own decisions about it.

But others will welcome the good news that these methods are anti-abortifacients. And if those of us who believe in family planning freedom say nothing, women will continue to suffer, and unborn babies to die.

Blog Posts

On the contraception mandate

Jen R

I should point out before I begin that in this post, I am speaking for myself only. The All Our Lives board is not unanimous in the details of our opinions on requiring religious employers to provide insurance that covers contraception, though we are united in our belief that widespread access to contraception is vital.

I have a problem with the whole way this whole issue has been framed as “making churches pay for something they find morally objectionable.” Health insurance that someone earns as part of their employment compensation package is theirs, not the employer’s. If an institution’s religious freedom does not extend to allowing them to tell the employee that she can’t use her salary to pay for contraception, why should it extend to telling the employee that she can’t use her insurance benefit to pay for contraception? Yes, the money to pay the premium is coming from the employer, but so is the money to pay her salary. As far as I can tell, the difference is that religious institutions have been able to restrict the way that employees use their insurance benefits in a way that they have not been able to restrict the way that employees use their salaries, but the ability to do something does not make it a right. If there were some kind of special money that could be used to buy anything except contraception, would it be a violation of religious institutions’ First Amendment rights to require all employers to pay in standard money?

I’m an atheist. I rely on the separation of church and state to protect my freedom. Because of that, I’m leery of anything that even remotely smacks of government interference in religion or religious interference in government. That’s why I can appreciate the impulse behind the Adminstration’s accomodation allowing religious institutions to offer restricted insurance to their employees while still requiring the insurers to provide contraception coverage to those employees. I won’t claim to respect the belief that contraception is intrinsically evil. I think it causes great harm and is based on a number of false premises. But I do respect people’s right, as much as is possible in a pluralistic society, not to cooperate with something they think is evil. What happens, though, if Jehovah’s Witness employers decide that their employee’s insurance plans shouldn’t cover blood transfusions? What if Scientologist employers decide that their employees shouldn’t be covered for psychiatric treatment? At what point do we decide that a person’s right to practice their religion is interfering with another person’s right to live their life without having to submit to the rules of that religion? The degree of the employers’ “cooperation with evil” in these cases is remote — paying a benefit which the employee decides to use for a purpose condemned by the employer’s religion — while the impact on the employee who is restricted in their use of their own benefit is direct. The same is true of insurance coverage of contraception.

Blog Posts

Plan B Misinformation Has Real-Life Consequences for Rape Victims

Marysia

Elise Hilton is the mother of an intellectually and psychiatrically disabled young woman who was recently raped. As Meghan discussed in a recent post, women with disabilities are at pronounced risk for sexual abuse and assault.

It fell upon Hilton to decide whether or not her daughter should take Plan B emergency contraception. As LifeSiteNews.com reports, Hilton decided against Plan B for her daughter on the grounds that the drug may "take the life of an innocent child."

But up to date, correct scientific information about Plan B probably could have saved Hilton a lot of her agony over this decision and alleviated her fears of endangering a very young grandchild. Levonorgestrel type emergency contraceptives work entirely before conception. In fact, they have no possible mechanism for hindering implantation or otherwise working after sperm meets egg.

How often do rape victims and their loved ones suffer unnecessarily because of the myths out there-spread by prolifers and prochoicers alike-about emergency contraception and how it does and doesn't work? How many unintended pregnancies and abortions happen?

We wish Hilton and her daughter healing. We call for people to rise up against the rape and abuse of human beings with disabilities and bring an end to it. And we will work all the more to replace misinformation about Plan B with the facts that rape survivors and their loved ones need and deserve to know in the midst of a crisis.

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Pfizer birth control recall

Jen R

Pfizer has announced a recall of 1 million birth control pill packets, saying that there was a packaging error that led some of the packets to have too many active pills and some to have too few. This press release from Pfizer contains information on how to tell whether your pills are subject to the recall. If you are using birth control pills, check your packet to make sure that you are not accidentally put at risk for unintended pregnancy.

Blog Posts

Any Loss of a Child Is Sad

Marysia

Michelle Duggar has miscarried her 20th child with her husband Jim, according to People.com

I cannot help but wonder how many women with pregnancy-related medical risks end up conceiving and losing babies because they feel, or someone else feels, G*d doesn't want them to use family planning.

At the same time: condolences to this family, as to any other, who loses a child.

Blog Posts

What new research on hormonal contraceptives means for family planning freedom

Jen R

A study recently published in Lancet Infectious Diseases found that women with HIV-positive partners who used the injectable hormonal contraceptive DMPA were twice as likely to contract the virus than women who did not use DMPA. In addition, HIV-positive women using DMPA were twice as likely to pass the virus to their HIV-negative partners than women who did not use it. (Other hormonal contraceptives were also implicated in increased HIV transmission, but so few women in the study were using them that the sample size was not large enough to yield statistically significant findings.)

The theory is that the hormones have an immunological effect.  The difference between the DMPA and non-DMPA-using groups was not due to a difference in condom use; that was one of the variables the scientists controlled for in their analysis.

The researchers noted that contraceptive use was based on self-reporting, raising the possibility of recall bias. They recommend doing followup studies using randomized trials to confirm or disconfirm the findings. They also recommend that:

Women should be counselled about potentially increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition and transmission with hormonal contraception, especially injectable methods, and about the importance of dual protection with condoms to decrease HIV-1 risk. Non-hormonal or low-dose hormonal contraceptive methods should be considered for women with or at-risk for HIV-1.

The New York Times reports that the World Health Organization has scheduled a meeting for January to discuss whether the evidence is strong enough to warn women that DMPA may increase their risk of contracting HIV.

We advocate informing women that there may be a risk. However, we also acknowledge some complicating factors. Pregnancy itself can be dangerous for many women, particularly those in the developing world who may have already had many children and who lack access to modern health care. Pregnancy may even increase the possibility of HIV transmission. If women stop using effective contraception for fear of HIV transmission, they might end up less safe — particularly if this study is later disconfirmed by randomized trials.

What does all of this mean for family planning freedom? The position taken by All Our Lives is that women should have access to all safe family planning methods, and all relevant information about them based on the strongest available evidence, to be able to choose the appropriate methods for their own situations. Some methods are safe for some women and not for others; that's one reason that a wide range of methods needs to be available to every woman. Many women in the developing world use DMPA because it can be administered by personnel with little medical training and each injection lasts three months, meaning that it can be used in situations where women have little access to medical facilities. Better access to medical care would allow more women to choose from alternative methods that do not carry an increased risk of HIV transmission.

Blog Posts

Our Pro Contraception Article in New Consistent Life Ethic Journal

Marysia

Thanks to Aimee Bedoy, editor of the new consistent life ethic journal Life Matters. She published our article "Family Planning Freedom Is Prolife" in the inaugural issue.

All Our Lives has encountered active censorship not simply when we have sought cooperative action on birth control with prochoice groups, but when we have tried to civilly raise this issue within the organized prolife movement as such.

Never mind (as the article points out) that most who identify as prolife on abortion support contraceptive rights. We welcome this opportunity to get matters out in the open.

Please read, support, and send your own work to this welcome new journal.

Blog Posts

More Evidence That Contraception Is Prolife

Marysia

According to a 2006 paper from the British medical journal The Lancet, "Family Planning: The Unfinished Agenda", 13% of global maternal mortality is caused by abortions that are medically unsafe for women (as well as unborn children, for whom all abortions are unsafe). However, an estimated 90% of these maternal deaths (as well as the accompanying fetal deaths) could be prevented through access to effective family planning methods. 90%! That would represent an 11.7% drop in total maternal mortality worldwide (as well as prenatal mortality). This agenda remains unfinished, alas. But look how many lives it could save, whatever abortion's legal status in the countries where it becomes a reality.

Blog Posts

Vital services for women to be available without co-pay under Affordable Care Act

Jen R

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has accepted the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations about women’s health care services that should be provided by all insurers without co-payment under the Affordable Care Act. Among these services are HIV screening and counseling, domestic violence screening and counseling, support for breastfeeding, and contraception. These recommendations will be in effect for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012. Religious organizations which are opposed to contraception may opt out of having that coverage provided by their insurance.

All Our Lives applauds HHS’s acceptance of the recommendations. Having these vital services available without a co-payment will help more women and children live healthy lives as well as making it easier for women to avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion.