Archive for the ‘Contraception’ Category

Humanae Vitae vs. Big Pharma

Tuesday, July 25th, 2017

Today is the 49th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter Humanae Vitae. In 1968, with the world in the midst of a sexual revolution, it was widely anticipated that the pope would reverse Church teaching on the use of artificial contraception.

He did just the opposite. He reinforced the doctrine.

Pope Paul was not blind to what was happening outside the Vatican and he presciently predicted the further erosion of society if the use of birth control became widespread. He wrote:

“… First of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men-especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point-have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anticonceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”

All of this happened, even with the Church’s refusal to sanction artificial birth control. But birth control doesn’t only aid in the exploitation of women. It also compromises our health and our fertility. Sometimes, it kills us.

Although there are plenty of harmful drugs and devices being marketed to women and teenage girls, I’d like to focus, again, on the pills Yaz and Yasmin, which I’ve written about before. Owned by pharmaceutical giant Bayer, the pills have killed at least 200 women and sent another 60,000 to the hospital. As of January 2016, the company had settled more than 18,000 lawsuits by paying out more than $2 billion for injuries including blood clots, pulmonary embolism, gallbladder damage, strokes and heart attacks.

Yaz and Yazmin remain on the market.

Bayer is also the distributor of a diabolical little device called Essure. It’s sold to women as a permanent sterilization method that is much more convenient than a tubal ligation (both are against Catholic teaching, obviously.)

Essure is a copper coil that is implanted in a woman’s fallopian tubes. Scar tissue grows around the coils, thus blocking eggs from being released. It sounds like a bad idea and it has been for thousands of women who have had it implanted. Bayer has paid out more than $413 million in lawsuits in the U.S. and the FDA has imposed a black box warning.  Brazil has banned it altogether.

Essure remains on the market in the U.S.

I am singling out Bayer and its women-unfriendly products because you may have seen a television commercial for a new IUD called Kyleena. This device also comes from Bayer and it works by releasing the hormone levonorgestrel (the same hormone found in morning-after pills like Plan B). The levonorgestrel makes it harder for sperm to reach the uterus and harder for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus. Preventing a fertilized egg from implanting constitutes a very early abortion.

Kyleena is being heavily marketed as an easier alternative to taking the Pill, because it’s apparently too hard to remember to take a pill once a day. The commercial makes it clear that it’s aimed at young, single women, who should be put off by the mandated warnings that include potential loss of fertility and death but apparently are seduced by Kyleena’s five-year effectiveness.

I haven’t been able to find any lawsuits filed against Kyleena yet, but the FDA only approved it late last year, so some may be forthcoming. Kyleena joins four other IUDs in the lucrative contraception market: Mirena, Skyla (both are Bayer’s), Liletta and Paragard. Most use levonorgestrel but Paragard, like Essure, relies on the toxicity of copper to do its deadly work.

None of these are good for women, both for the reasons Pope Paul predicted in Humanae Vitae and because the pharmaceutical industry sees women and our fertility as a limitless source of income. They don’t care how much we are harmed, as long as they continue to reap those profits.

 

 

Posted in Catholic Church, Contraception, Emergency contraception, Health Care, Humanae Vitae, Plan B, Women's Health |
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

Contraception kills

Friday, March 13th, 2015

beyaz_birth_control-article-2-copy

 

 

Christianity Today surprised me, and many of its readers, I would guess, with an opinion piece carried below the ironic headline, “Contraception Saves Lives.”  Even more surprising, author Rachel Marie Stone lauds Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, making excuses for her eugenic beliefs and saying Planned Parenthood did not provide abortion in Sanger’s lifetime.  My colleague Bryan Kemper wrote about the Sanger apologetics in his blog, so I will concentrate on the dubious claim that contraception saves lives.

First, let’s refute her assertion, now so familiar, that hormonal contraceptives are not abortifacients. That’s nonsense. One of the ways the birth control pill works is by preventing implantation of the embryo in the uterus. That’s abortion to those of us who know that life begins at conception, which, by the way, is a scientific fact.

Now let’s take a look at some the other ways that contraception ends lives.

Ms. Stone’s article mentions the long-acting contraception called Depo-Provera, which is a-once-every-three-months injection. But here are some of the things she didn’t say about Depo-Provera.

In addition to a long list of nasty side effects – blood clots, breast cancer, ectopic pregnancy, depression, excessive weight gain, facial paralysis, hirsutism, cervical cancer, nipple bleeding, and a lack of return to fertility – Depo-Provera increases a woman’s risk of contracting HIV by 40 percent. This is particularly troubling for women in sub-Saharan Africa, where  25,000 million people – 70 percent of the world total – are living with HIV/AIDS.

The Pill is not much better for women, as I outlined in a chapter of my book, “Recall Abortion.” The Pill  poses numerous health risks, including blood clots, increased risks of cardiovas­cular disease,cervical and liver cancer,elevated blood pressure,decreased desire, sexual dysfunction and stroke.

Some Pills are worse than others. In 2006, Bayer Pharmaceuticals burst onto the market with Yaz and Yasmin, drugs that were touted as reliable birth control and miraculous cures for acne and pre-menstrual syndrome.

But Yas and Yasmin are not miracle drugs. As of 2014, Bayer had paid out $1.7 billion – BILLION – to settle 8,250 cases brought against it and there are still thousands of cases pending. Women are suffering from gall bladder disease, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and other diseases. In Canada, the deaths of 23 women have been linked to Yaz and Yasmin.

How many deaths does it take before we stop calling a drug safe? I think one death is too many, and here’s why.

After I finished giving a talk in Naples, Florida, a woman approached me to tell me a story about her friend’s daughter, who was prescribed Yaz for a serious acne condition by the campus physician. After taking Yaz for just three months, the girl collapsed one day in her dorm and was rushed to the hospital. She fell into a coma that lasted five years and ended with her death.

So please, Christianity Today, don’t tell me contraception saves lives. That is simply not true.

(For more in-depth information about the perils of the Pill, please go to www.recallabortion.com and order a copy of my book.)

 

Posted in Abortion, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Christianity, Contraception, Health Care, Maternal mortality, Women's Health | 4 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

Is It Possible to Have No Side-Effects or Regret After Abortion?

Thursday, September 18th, 2014

wachapreague-island-first-abandoned-house[1]

By Janet Morana
and Kevin Burke, LSW

During a recent radio interview on the subject of post abortion trauma a listener asked if it was possible to have an abortion and not experience any negative side-effects or regrets about the decision. Julia Fawkes Stuart conveniently penned a piece that can help us address this important question.

Stuart, while being a great admirer of Sen. Wendy Davis of Texas, has a bone to pick with Davis’ public admission of a previous abortion due to fetal disability:

Wendy Davis’ pregnancy termination stories fall solidly on the side of the “good” abortion: she wanted a baby, she was excited for a baby, and then … medical disaster struck. Completely outside her control and maternal desires, Davis’ pregnancies were compromised, and she was the smart, responsible woman who made the hard, painful choice as much for her fetus (more!) as for herself.

Stuart contends that such abortion stories serve to highlight the acceptable hard cases…and stigmatize the majority of abortions that women have simply because they do not want the baby:

Most women end a pregnancy not because it is medically necessary or because their fetus is unwell — that’s only about seven percent of terminations, according to Guttmacher [PDF] — and not because they’ve been raped or are victims of incest (that’s only about one percent of abortions) — but because they don’t want to have a baby.

Julia goes on to makes some public confessions of her own about two past abortions:

…I’ve had two abortions. Unlike Wendy Davis, mine had nothing to do with medical necessity, nor were they harrowing decisions. I just don’t want kids. Not when I had those abortions, and not now. Not ever.

Stuart has no regret for her abortion decisions:

They were not difficult decisions. I’m not ashamed about them and I suffer no guilt or second thoughts… one of the few decisions I’ve made in my life that I was 100 percent certain about…

Let’s return to the question posed at the beginning of this post. Can a woman or man have an abortion and emerge free of regret, or emotional and physical complications?

Julia Stuart would seem to support the conclusion that yes, this is possible. But let’s take a closer look.

Maternal Contraception

To be fair, without a more extensive and objective review of Stuarts life, we must speculate here based on previous post-abortion themes. But Stuart offers a clue on why abortion has been experienced thus far as such a positive and freeing decision for her:

I just don’t want kids. Not when I had those abortions, and not now. Not ever.
Why no kids? What led her to proclaim this with such force and finality…not ever! It’s as if Stuart has placed a 100% emotional contraceptive barrier between her life and her motherhood.

The Body Don’t Lie

Is this rooted in some negative childhood/family experience? Did that initial abortion further entrench the negative emotions and life experiences already present that led her to fear and reject her motherhood? Perhaps it is based on some perverted environmentalism that requires protecting the planet by ending the life of children in your womb.

Regardless, when she was pregnant for the 5 and six week periods prior to her abortions…Julia Fawkes Stuart was in fact a mother…and remains the mother of two children. Stuart’s ideology and strongly held pro choice values deny this reality.

Stuart writes that any restriction on abortion “is ultimately about undermining her autonomy over her body.” We can play games with language to rationalize reality. But the  female body is not bound by personal pro-abortion ideology and during her pregnancies Stuart underwent complex changes to protect and nurture the growing son or daughter in her womb. [Abruptly ending this process is an unnatural and traumatic shock to a woman’s body with potentially negative impact on her future health and well-being.]

A House Built Upon a Foundation of Sand

It is quite possible, based again on extensive experience from the hundreds of testimonies of those that have experienced abortion loss, that the symptoms of complicated grief from her abortions may be hidden deeply behind a tendency toward drug or alcohol abuse, depression/anxiety or other symptoms such as relational instability and dysfunction.

Women and men have shared in their testimonies that long periods of their lives were (seemingly) symptom free with no conscious awareness of any negative after-effects from their abortion procedures…in fact they felt only relief. Some would have identified as “pro-choice” on the abortion question. At some point an event in their life, a loss of a loved one, a medical crisis, or some other moment of spiritual clarity and grace shook them to the core. They found that beneath the detached self assurance…was a gaping wound from their participation in the death of their child/children. This pain led them to reach out for reconciliation and healing.

Getting to the Soul of the Matter

Let’s assume that that Stuart has no conscious awareness of any regret and no apparent post-abortion symptoms…and continues to feel relief that she is not shackled to two teenagers.

There is another aspect to the human person that has been neglected thus far in our discussion…the spiritual perspective. Here we do not need to speculate, and can speak with great clarity. Stuart is not only cut off from her mother’s heart and the natural love for the child that lived briefly in her womb, she is also suffering a potentially fatal disconnect from her soul.

God, as all the great religious traditions acknowledge, is Eternal Spirit and the source of all life. The Christian faith above all religions manifests the great dignity of the human person that lies in God sharing His Eternal nature in the incarnation of Christ in the blessed womb of his mother Mary and in the soul of every human person.

This is a great mystery.  Yet those who have attended abortion healing programs like Rachel’s Vineyard can attest to the overwhelming experience of clarity when participants encounter in a very personal way the consoling truth that the child they lost to abortion…is not lost, but living in the Lord. God shares his eternal nature even with the smallest of human beings in the womb. This is a source of great hope and consolation for it offers the opportunity for a spiritual relationship with their unborn child and when their lives end the hope of embracing their beloved child in eternity.

Abortion is An Unnatural Event – Consequences are Natural

Let’s conclude by addressing once again the question… is it possible to experience an abortion and have no symptoms, no negative side-effects, and no regrets?

The answer: For a human person with a heart and soul…participating in the death of one’s unborn child, at any stage of development from conception to natural death attacks the natural, emotional and spiritual foundation of our identity as women/men, parents and co creators with the Eternal God. To remain seemingly symptom/regret free after abortion necessitates an internal division in the emotions, body/mind and spirit. Such a division over time requires a great repression of the very natural feelings of grief and loss and conflicted emotions that follow the procedure (regardless of one’s position on abortion.) This internal disconnection normally leads to symptoms such as drug/alcohol abuse, depression/anxiety, relationship and sexual dysfunction/instability etc.

Without reconciliation and recovery from this loss, as with Julia Fawkes Stuart it can also lead to a self-chosen sterilization of not only one’s motherhood/fatherhood, but of the soul itself.

Stuart closes her article with a Pro Abortion Declaration of Independence from those that would challenge a women’s right to abortion:

Needing a reason why a woman had an abortion is ultimately about undermining her autonomy, and taking their power away. And I won’t be a part of that. I’m not ashamed of my abortions or the reasons I had them.

Stuart may remain hunkered down in her pro choice bunker. But maybe…maybe this was the first step in her reaching out and telling her story. Perhaps she will read this blog, and at first respond with either mocking dismissal or perhaps great anger. But in time it may plant the seeds in her that will take fruit at a time in the future, when she is stripped of her self-assured declarations of personal autonomy and ideology.  We can hope and pray that she might one day turn to her Creator and humbly admit that she violated something fundamental to her humanity and womanhood – that she is deeply wounded – and the blessed awareness that she is need of reconciliation and healing.

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Complications, Contraception, Feminists, Silent No More Awareness, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

Study from Finland links IUD to breast cancer

Wednesday, July 9th, 2014

IUD[1]As the outrage continues over the Supreme Court’s decision to put Americans’ religious liberty ahead of their right to free contraception, a new study from Finland shows that a type of IUD has been linked to an increase incidence of breast cancer.

CNN is reporting that, according to a study published in the journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or progesterone-releasing IUD, may be associated with a higher than expected incidence of breast cancer.

What caught my eye, though, is that levonorgestrel, a hormone that regulates ovulation, is also the used in the Plan B contraceptive, better known as the morning after pill. Millions of American women are now going to receive the IUD and Plan B free, thanks to Obamacare, and most of them will have no idea they could be increasing their risk of breast cancer.

CNN doesn’t delve into that possibility, but here’s what the Polycarp Institute, a Catholic research think tank, has to say about Plan B and breast cancer:
Does Plan B cause breast cancer?
Ironically, this question has never been asked. Theoretically, this is certainly possible especially in women who use Plan B often as a method of “birth control.” How could this be? Plan B is composed of the hormone named levonorgestrel, which is a potent progestin which is also found in some of today’s birth control pills. Birth control pills have been declared a Class 1 carcinogen (ie, the most dangerous type) by the World Health Association in June, 2005. In addition, the most recent meta-analysis published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings (October, 2006) noted that taking the birth control pill before pregnancy results in a 44% increased risk of developing breast cancer prior to age 50. Finally, levonorgestrel’s progestin “cousin” (ie, Depo Provera) has been noted to increase breast cancer by 190% in women who take 12 shots prior to age 25 (JAMA, 1995: 799-804). These data theoretically implicate Plan B if taken often enough. In addition, when a woman takes Plan B she ingests 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel within a twelve hour period of time which is nearly equivalent to the amount of progestin contained in an entire month’s worth of some of today’s low dose birth control pills (ie, 1.925 mg).

Not to get off topic, but it’s also worth mentioning that while the mainstream media is dutifully regurgitating the “fact” that Plan B is not abortifacient, the scientists at Polycarp feel differently:

Is Plan B a contraceptive or an abortifacient?
The truth is, no one knows for sure but it probably does work by causing early abortion at least part of the time. The 2010 Physician’s Desk Reference notes that Plan B “may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium.” In addition, Croxatto et al noted that Plan B only fully stops ovulation 12% of the time when given within two days of ovulation (Contraception, 2004: 442-450). This would point to an abortifacient method of action since ovulation and consequent fertilization would likely be occurring much of the time, yet visible pregnancy is usually absent. Finally, Mikolajczyk and Stanford showed via a sophisticated mathematical model, that if Plan B really were to be 75% effective, it likely would be working as an abortifacient at least some of the time (Fertility and Sterility, 2007: 565-570). In the future, researchers might be able to “prove” if and how often Plan B is an abortifacient by employing the use of a very early pregnancy tests which turn positive within the first 7 days of pregnancy (eg, EPF: Early Pregnancy Factor).

As CNN notes, most women use the progesterone-releasing IUD to treat heavy periods. That’s also the reason millions of women start taking birth control pills as teenagers. Dr. Anne Nolte, a pro-life, pro-woman obstetrician and gynecologist, points out that this is bad medicine. Instead of trying to get to the source of the problem and fix it, hormonal contraceptives like the Pill and some IUDs just shut down the system and restart it artificially. This gives doctors an easy way out and sometimes, it gives women breast cancer.

For a longer look at the Pill and its symbiotic relationship with abortion, please read my book, “Recall Abortion.”

Posted in Abortion, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Catholic Church, Contraception, Health Care, Uncategorized, Women's Health | 2 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

Pro-abort logic: Save babies by killing babies

Thursday, May 15th, 2014

abortion-is-not-health-care1[1]

To suggest that abortion is the cure for infant mortality is so bizarre that I had to read NOW President Terry O’Neill’s piece in the Huffington Post twice to make sure that’s what she actually wrote.

Here’s just a nugget of the nonsense:

We have a premature birth crisis in this country that can be directly linked to our failure to provide adequate contraception and abortion care.

Speaking like the most determined of population controllers, Ms. O’Neill posits that preventing contraception, and murdering in the womb those children who managed to get conceived anyway, is the best cure for premature birth.

I don’t know about you, but I grow weary of the discussion about “adequate contraception.” Even before Obamacare, were there places in America that were somehow bereft of over-the-counter and prescription contraceptives? Maybe in Alaska at its most remote but I’m not even sure about that. Let’s just assume that, for better or worse, everyone has access to contraception.

Ms. O’Neill then touches on the high teenage birth rates in rural America, and definitely this is a problem. But easy access to contraception is as much a contributing factor as is teenage boredom. Somewhere between the sexual revolution and now, we threw up our collective hands and said there’s no sense trying to teach teens abstinence. Instead, we taught them about birth control and everything from television and movies to Planned Parenthood’s Exclaim Campaign convinced teens that having sex was healthy and fun and the best way to make it through those awkward high school years.

But let’s move on to “abortion care,” which Ms. O’Neill says is vital in solving the infant mortality crisis. I suppose she’s thinking that if we kill babies in the womb, we don’t have to technically label them infants. If we call them fetuses, or use the term most popular in abortion clinics, the “products of conception,” we can cook the books on infant mortality.

Or, we could address the infant mortality crisis by taking a look, as the U.S. Congress did recently, at how we can improve a child’s first 1,000 days of life – from conception to the second birthday. As my colleague Marie Smith posted on her website for the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues (part of Gospel of Life ministries), a hearing in March before the House Global Health Subcommittee brought together experts on malnutrition who testified that providing adequate nutrition for a child’s first 1,000 days affects virtually every day that follows, and it looms large where both infant and maternal mortality are concerned.

In his opening statement, N.J. Rep. Chris Smith (full disclosure: he is Marie Smith’s husband) explained the critical need to focus on nutrition during this time period: “Children who do not receive adequate nutrition in utero are more likely to experience lifelong cognitive and physical deficiencies, such as stunting. UNICEF estimates that one in four children worldwide is stunted due to lack of adequate nutrition. Children who are chronically undernourished within the first two years of their lives also often have impaired immune systems that are incapable of protecting them against life-threatening ailments, such as pneumonia and malaria.

“Adults who were stunted as children face increased risk of developing chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Mothers who were malnourished as girls are 40 percent are more likely to die during childbirth, experience debilitating complications like obstetric fistula, and deliver children who perish before reaching age five.”

Wouldn’t it be a kinder, more humane, more woman-friendly solution to try to improve infant mortality through better nutrition rather than more abortion?

Ms. O’Neill also points out the increase in maternal mortality in the U.S. and, again, wags that finger of blame in the direction of the pro-life movement. While it’s true that more women are dying in childbirth now than 20 years ago, the causes are varied and do not include lack of access to abortion.

According to Reuters: “World Health Organization (WHO) experts said the increase in the U.S. mortality rate may be a statistical blip. Or it might be due to increased risks from obesity, diabetes and older women giving birth.
Marleen Temmerman, the director of reproductive health and research at WHO, said more analysis was needed.
“It’s difficult to say how many deaths are really related to increasing age, but what we know is older age in pregnant women is contributing more to the risk for diabetes and more hypertension related problems,” she told a news conference.
WHO death-rates expert Colin Mathers said improved data collection could also affect the figures.”

The United States should certainly be doing better than it is in terms of infant and maternal mortality. But to suggest that abortion will improve either of these statistics is delusional. Abortion doesn’t solve problems. It creates them.

For an in-depth look at the way abortion exploits and harms women, read my book, Recall Abortion

Posted in Contraception, Health Care, Planned Parenthood, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

How many women must die before abortion is recalled?

Wednesday, March 19th, 2014

abortion-kills-33-week-pregnant-maryland-woman1[1]

General Motors Chief Executive Officer Mary T. Barra has put herself in the spotlight as she deals with the fallout of a long overdue recall and 12 senseless deaths.

On Tuesday in Detroit, Ms. Barra answered questions from reporters about the faulty ignition switches that some company officials knew about for 10 years without taking action. Twelve deaths have been linked to the ignition switches, which could shut off the engine and disable the airbags if bumped or if a heavy key chain was attached to the ignition key. Last month, GM recalled 1.6 million cars because of the defect.

On Monday, GM recalled another 1.5 million vehicles to fix a variety of other safety defects.
Even those these recalls came too late, the company is taking the right action now. As drivers, we understand that the open road is full of risks, but as consumers, we don’t expect the product we purchased to be the thing that kills us.

Unless we’re talking about abortion and contraception. In those cases, the women who die are just the cost of doing business for a multi-billion industry. Five women have died, that we know of, in the last four and-a-half years after choosing a “safe and legal” abortion. Their babies, of course, died as well, but those deaths were planned.

In November 2009, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, didn’t plan to die when she sought an abortion at Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors, but she did, and her death helped expose the true nature of the legal abortion industry.

Alexandra Nunez, 38, told her four children she was having dental work in January 2010, but instead she went for an abortion at A1 Medicine in Queens, a one-stop abortion and plastic surgery center. The abortionist severed her artery, and she died later in Elmhurst Hospital.

Tonya Reaves, 24, may have thought she was in good hands when she sought a second-trimester abortion at a Chicago area Planned Parenthood in July 2012. The organization gets $1.5 million a day in tax money and enjoys the support of politicians and entertainers; it had to be safe, right? But the abortionist there let Ms. Reaves, the mother of a young son, bleed to death for five hours before calling an ambulance, and by then it was too late. Recently Planned Parenthood agreed to pay her family $2 million in hush money and no sanctions were taken against the doctor or the staff.

Jennifer Morbelli, 29, might not have known LeRoy Carhart’s troubled history when she and her husband and parents traveled to his Germantown, Md. clinic in February 2013. Mrs. Morbelli was 33 weeks pregnant with a very “wanted” daughter, whom they had already named Madison Leigh. But some doctor along the way diagnosed a seizure disorder for Madison and the abortion that followed killed both the baby and her mother.

Just days later and not far away, Maria Santiago, 38, lost her life in a shoddy abortion clinic – since closed – in Baltimore.

Where is the outcry for these women and hundreds of others killed by legal abortion? Where are the Congressional subpoenas and the calls for criminal investigation when contraceptives like Yaz and Yasmin, and the diabolical Essure sterilization device kill scores of women? Why are car buyers more important than women?

Abortion is a deadly and dangerous procedure that is neither safe nor rare and should not be legal. It should be recalled from the market. If you agree, please go to RecallAbortion and sign the petition. If you’re on the fence, read my book, and I’m sure you’ll agree with me before you finish the last chapter.

If you’re still not convinced, click here to read a list of the names of other women killed by legal abortion. We know there are many, many more.

Isn’t it time to recall abortion?

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Complications, Contraception, Health Care, Late-term abortion, Women's Health |
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

Why are Yaz and Yasmin still on the market?

Friday, March 7th, 2014

yaz[1]

On March 1, the German drug maker Bayer reported that it has spent $1.69 billion – BILLION – to settle 8,250 lawsuits filed by women who were harmed by the birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin. The drugs have been linked to more than 100 deaths, including 23 reported in Canada last year. Other injuries include blood clots, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

Last month, the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency warned that drugs like Yasmin double a woman’s risk of developing a blood clot. And yet in Canada, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada said the drugs are “safe and effective.”
What’s going on here?

When I was researching “Recall Abortion” in 2012, Yaz settlements in the U.S. alone had reached $402.6 million, and the FDA warned Bayer that it had to strengthen its warning about blood clots. Now it’s two years later, women are still suffering, women are still dying, and Yaz and Yasmin are still on the market because they make money – even after the legal bills are paid.

The tragedy of Yaz and Yasmin was brought home to me last month when I gave a presentation at the Legatus national conference in Orlando. A woman who heard my talk about harmful contraception approached me afterward to talk about the daughter of her dear friend. The college student was prescribed Yaz for a serious acne condition, and not long after she began taking it, she suffered a blood clot in the brain that left her in a coma for five years. When I met this woman, her friend’s daughter had just been buried. No legal settlement can compensate the loss of a daughter.

But Bayer marches on. The pharmaceutical giant last year bolstered its contraceptives holding by purchasing the California company Conceptus, maker of Essure.

Essure, which has been on the market for more than 10 years, is advertised as a permanent sterilization method that is less invasive and cheaper than a tubal ligation. It consists of metal coils that are implanted in a woman’s fallopian tubes. The resulting scar tissue acts as a sperm blocker. It’s hard to imagine how Essure ever won FDA approval, but if you go by the stories posted on a daily basis by members of a Facebook group called “Essure Problems,” it is harming women in dozens of debilitating, and even deadly, ways. And to make it worse, Essure has the status of a protected medical device so its victims can’t even sue. The best thing these women – many of them young – can hope for is to find a physician willing to perform a hysterectomy.

How many women have to suffer and die for a product to be taken off the market? Apparently, there is no magic number. The bad medicine of abortion and contraception are too profitable, too sacred in our secular nation, to let women’s health concerns get in the way.

Contrast this to the news of yet another auto recall just a few weeks ago. GM recalled 1.3 million cars to fix problems with a faulty ignition that led to 13 deaths. I don’t think there’s a driver in America who would question why that recall was necessary, and in fact GM is under fire for waiting so long to take action.

Why don’t we call for that same kind of action when women die? Why don’t we demand a recall of the drugs and procedures that are killing us?

To sign a petition to demand such a recall, go to RecallAbortion.com

Posted in Abortion, Contraception, Health Care, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

CVS should pull contraceptives from its shelves

Wednesday, February 5th, 2014

k-bigpic[1]

It’s great news that CVS has taken the bold and proactive step of committing to remove tobacco products from its shelves by Oct. 1. I applaud the decision.

But I would like to see the company go one step further by banning the sale of contraception and abortifacient drugs.

In announcing the ban on the sale of cancer-causing nicotine products, Larry J. Merlo, CEO and president of CVS, said: “Ending the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products at CVS/pharmacy is the right thing for us to do for our customers and our company to help people on their path to better health. Put simply, the sale of tobacco products is inconsistent with our purpose.”

But what is the company’s purpose in regard to women’s health?

As I pointed out in my book, “Recall Abortion,” oral contraceptives that combine the hormones estrogen and progesterone, as most birth control pills do, have been designated Class I carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization.

Beyond cancer, the Pill causes numerous – and serious – health risks to women, including blood clots, increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cervical and liver cancer, elevated blood pressure and stroke.
Shouldn’t CVS care about these known and demonstrated risks to women?

And what about “emergency contraception,” like Plan B, which is now available without a prescription to girls of any age. This is bad medicine too. The makers of Plan B don’t know exactly how it works, and no studies have been done to see how it would impact those with liver or kidney diseases. No studies have been done to determine overdose levels. This is a powerful and dangerous drug, being placed into to the hands of minors who can’t even buy cold remedies over the counter anymore.

And finally there’s Ella, another mystery drug whose manufacturers insist it is not abortifacient, even though it can be taken up to five days after unprotected sex. But if conception took place one day after, what an unsuspecting woman is doing four days later is causing a very early abortion of her fertilized embryo. Like Plan B, many of the potential hazards of Ella have simply not been studied.

If CVS is serious about wanting to protect the health of its customers, I hope they took a good hard look at the women and girls whose health and fertility are jeopardized by continued sales of contraceptives and abortifacients.

To learn more about the harmful effects of contraception, please go to www.RecallAbortion.com.

Posted in Breast Cancer, Cancer, Contraception, Health Care, Parental Consent, Women's Health | 2 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

New study from China recognizes the abortion-breast cancer link

Monday, December 2nd, 2013

abc_blocks1[1]
I’m guessing you won’t read this in the mainstream media, but today the pro-life media is abuzz with the results of a new study out of China that shows a 44 percent increased risk of breast cancer for women who have had one abortion. The risk increases to 76 percent for women who have had two abortions, and jumps to 89 percent for those who have had three.

The study was actually a meta-analysis, which means researchers combed existing studies specifically to look for the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. They found it. The researchers concluded:

“IA (induced abortion) is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases.”

Writing in the American Thinker, Dr. Mary Davenport, a member of the board of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, notes that “There is no bigger data base than China, where there are an average of 8.2 million pregnancy terminations every year, and 40 abortions for every 100 live births. Chinese researchers and physicians are unencumbered by abortion politics, and do not cover up data showing long term effects of induced abortion, as do their U.S. counterparts in governmental, professional and consumer organizations.”

The Chinese aren’t the only ones to have noticed the ABC link. There have been 70 peer-reviewed studies performed all over the world that demonstrate the ABC link, according to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon in practice since 1984. She notes that many of the studies were performed in countries, like China, where abortion is part of public policy and information on it is readily available.

In the U.S., we call abortion vital health-care for women, but questioning its safety is not allowed. That’s why, when the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study this past spring that showed an increase in the most aggressive cancers among young women from 1976 to 2009, mainstream media reporters fell over themselves to come up with a cause that had nothing to do with the legalization both of hormonal contraception (1972) and abortion (1973).

That’s also why, when researchers in a study commissioned by GE Healthcare reported in October that breast cancer rates are surging in China and the U.S., they blamed it on “women having fewer children as well as hormonal interventions like post-menopausal hormonal therapy,” without mentioning that hormonal contraception and abortion loom large in the reasons why women are having fewer children.

My whole reason for writing my book, “Recall Abortion,” was to point out the many ways abortion is unsafe for women. Breast cancer is one of the major causes of death for women in this country, and if abortion is causing more, and more deadly, breast cancers, isn’t that something we should all be talking about?

To sign the petition to demand a government recall of abortion, go to www.RecallAbortion.com. You can also order the book there, or at www.Amazon.com, where the book is also available for Kindle.

Posted in Abortion Complications, Breast Cancer, Contraception, Forced Abortion, Health Care, One Child Policy, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

Abortion, by any other name, is still abortion

Friday, September 27th, 2013

130927 blog image JM

My colleague Marie Smith of the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues this week brought to my attention some very disturbing news: A group of academics and researchers – whose work seems to suggest they have never met an abortion they didn’t like — is trying to drum up support and development funding for a new type of “post-fertilization contraception.” They envision a pill that women could take up to a month after an unprotected sex act resulted in pregnancy.

That’s not contraception. That’s abortion.

What these researchers laud as a potential wonder drug that “could serve more women and provide more benefit at a population level,” the rest of us recognize as another way to abort a child, with considerable risk to the mother. Imagine the hormonal horror of a pill strong enough to dislodge and kill a developing baby.

As I pointed out in the book “Recall Abortion,” the birth control pill is bad medicine, causing everything from blood clots to strokes to cancer. Emergency contraception is touted as safe as can be, but after reading patients reviews of Plan B and Ella, you don’t get such a warm and fuzzy feeling. Women talk about menstrual cycles knocked out of whack and lingering back and abdominal pain. And then there’s RU-486, whose mortality rate prompted the FDA to issue new warnings about its use even as its popularity, and profitability, grew. Make no mistake about it, RU-486 poses a great risk to women’s health.

But these hard facts aren’t enough to deter this band of population control advocates from calling for the development of yet another harmful pill. For this group, preventing birth is the ultimate and only goal.

In their article, “Embracing post-fertilisation methods of family planning: a call to action,” published in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, the group helpfully notes that “A woman could potentially use a post-fertilisation method on a planned schedule only once in each menstrual cycle, no matter how many prior coital acts she had had in that cycle.” The promise of spontaneity and a complete freedom from personal responsibility is what will sell this do-it-yourself abortion, they believe. Young women and girls who have drunk the Kool-Aid of “reproductive justice” would likely be the main targets of this population control campaign.

This pill has yet to be developed, thank God, but you can be sure that if it ever comes to market, it will be very profitable for some, and very, very detrimental to many — women and children.

To read what Marie Smith wrote about “post-fertilization contraception,” click here:

To sign a petition to get abortion off the market, go to www.recallabortion.com

Posted in Abortion, Contraception, Family, Health Care, RU-486, Women's Health | 1 Comment »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.