Back Up or Primary Birth Control Day?
Yesterday was Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign Day of Action to promote the morning-after pill, according to a NARAL email alert.
The 2-pill MAP regimen contains 8-20x the potency of 1 birth control pill (see chart below). It has never undergone long-term studies. No one knows how these mega-doses of female steroids will impact women, particularly teens.
But up til now the other side has disputed our logical concern that some girls and women would use the MAP as a primary method of BC if made available over-the-counter. And why not? Much easier than the daily pill grind, and no doctor visits/prescriptions involved.
To this day, PLan B, the most known MAP manufacturer, says don’t do it:
But look what yesterday’s NARAL email alert said:
The industry has been whining loudly since last autumn about the government halt to subsidizing birth control pills on college campus “health centers.”
Is not NARAL subliminally advocating the MAP as a primary method of BC? A girl having illicit sex a couple, few times a month or just during spring break may think that’s a great idea.
Aside from that, NARAL’s email alert was just silly….
Read it in its entirety below. Does NARAL think its audience is full of mathematically challenged idiots? It likely is.
NARAL 1st complained about the high cost of MAPS (“$40-70 in pharmacies nationwide”) but then said the high cost of BCs, which sans the government subsidy is “$30 to $50 a month” according to US News and World Report, would drive women to purchase the MAP. I’m not an accounting major but still see NARAL’s fear-mongering is laughable. Could it do no better?
Here is a BC for MAP substitution chart posted by the Feminist Women’s Health Center, a group of northwest U.S. abortion mills, indicating the MAP regimen is a mega-dose 8-20x 1 BC:
NARAL email alert, March 25, 2008:
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s interesting that NARAL chose March 25, the traditional feast of the Annunciation, and which pro-lifers have in recent years also fittingly commemorated as the International Day of the Unborn Child) as the “Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign Day of Action”.
Is the repeating paragraph a “technical glitch” on Naral’s part?
You know, they bully pharmacies into carrying the dang stuff, and now they act like babies because these same pharmacies charge fifty bucks for it. What a bunch of losers.
Gosh, if you’re so worried about those poor girls overmedicating themselves on Plan B, wouldn’t it be a good idea to try to help lower those BC costs again so that they’re NOT relying on emergency contraception?
Sorry, I forgot solutions weren’t your strong point.
And honestly, it’s a bit rude to assume that $40-70, or even $30-50 is within EVERYONE’S budget range, especially when they were able to pay much less before.
One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don’t do anything at all
Go ask Alice
When she’s ten feet tall
hmmm, some groups are trying to make birth control accessible and affordable. (less abortions?) and we attack them, why?
I can’t help smiling every time Jill mentions “illicit sex.” Sex is not illicit. Sexuality is part of being alive.
HEY FOLKS,
TIME TO GET OF THIS FEMALE-HORMONE KICK.Ttime to get off this female hormone kick that has left men out-of-the-loop. There is a new genetically modified corn, that will sterilize males … yep –
STERILIZE MALES!
No more armchair coaching.
the blog I quote: “. While we are on the topic of genetically modified “Frankenfoods”, here is a must read: a GM corn is now in the food supply which causes male sterility. If you have any doubts at all that there are serious forces at work which are intent of reducing the population, please read this (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=563). If you can figure out how this is NOT a depopulation move, please write to me at dr.laibow@gmail.com and let me know.”
John
Sexuality is part of being alive.
Posted by: Hal at March 26, 2008 9:51 AM
So is nesting comfortably in your mother’s womb, but you tend to forget that.
I think they should rename it “flush $70 down the drain” — Every study, every time shows MAP making NO difference in pregnancy rates….and these are studies where the women had a full bottle available to them in THEIR HOUSE. So access wasn’t an issue. The pill just doesn’t work. It also makes plenty of sense when you remember the story about how PP gets the pills for like $2 a piece in a special deal with the manfacturer. Then they turn around and sell them for $20-$30 a piece. Don’t even get me started on their complete lack of informing women about how their basic fertility works. I’ve had clients buy these pills a day after their period…..a time when they probably have very little chance of becoming pregnant. (I had one girl call me b/c she was bleeding so heavily and the nurse at PP told her she couldn’t help her. She called the local hospital and they had little to no understanding of the MAP and told her to call our local pregnancy center) No one gives them that info but they gladly take their $25 bucks. I have an even better name….”Back up our bank accounts” day.
What studies would those be Mandi? The studies I’ve seen show that even the Yuzpe regimen is effective at preventing pregnancy, and that the progestin only methods are even more effective.
…and emergency contraception has been around since 1974, so I don’t think that you can honestly claim that it hasn’t gone through any “long term studies”….
Who controls women’s bodies anymore? Certainly not women. How quick women are to hand over control of their bodies to pill manufacturers.
Mandi – lets see one of those studies? And from a medical journal – not a pro life or anti contraception website.
You all talk like the concept of emergency contrapcetion is new. Just because they concentrated the pills in to a package of 2 doesn’t mean its NEW. The technique of taking a high dose of regular birth control pills has been around for DECADES, and is known to be effective. Concentrating it in to 2 pills and having it available OTC is simply a safer and easier way to make this method available.
Every study, every time shows MAP making NO difference in pregnancy rates….
*****************
These studies are published where?
Who controls women’s bodies anymore? Certainly not women. How quick women are to hand over control of their bodies to pill manufacturers.
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 26, 2008 11:24 AM
*************
Oh yeah – so much better to hand over control of their bodies to the catholic church and go with the archaic delusion that sex is only for reproduction and preventing pregnancy is *wrong*
Please dont try to pretend someone adhering to the ‘policy of the Vatican’ is going to be objective about contraception.
If anyone really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancies, hence abortions, they’d be fighting tooth and nail in favor of contraceptives being readily available. But we dont see that. That’s because the real issue isnt pregnancy, it isnt contraceptives, and it isnt abortion. The real issue is the antichoice attitude towards women – the attitude that sex is for *making babies* and that is all its for, that women who arent married shouldnt be sexually active, that even married women who arent willing to continue a pregnancy shouldnt be having sex, and with many, the attitude that using contraception is ‘wrong’. There are exceptions, but by and large the real issue is with women, not with pregnancy.
Texas Red, would you ever have an abortion?
How quick women are to hand over control of their bodies to pill manufacturers.
Don’t like pills, CC? Try the Nuva ring or the Ortho Evra patch. The ring is the b.c. method vastly preferred by my wife and I. If you are concerned about all those excess hormones systemically, it delivers a lower dose locally instead, where it is needed. And you don’t have to worry about forgetting your pill, because you only have to change it once a month. It makes it very easy to skip periods, too.
No, it is not the pill manufacturers who have control over womens’ bodies, CC. Rather, big pharma has handed control over their bodies to the women themselves.
Thank you TexasRed! You said that so well.
Big pharmaceutical companies have control over everyone’s bodies and everyone’s wallets because they pay off so many people in office.
Check out this article about cholesterol-lowering medication.
Apparently it doesn’t really help at all… and the doctors should have known.
and these are studies where the women had a full bottle available to them in THEIR HOUSE
These must be very interesting studies, mentioning that the women had in their posession “full bottles” of medication that is not prescribed in “bottles,” but in packets. I’d love to see them, Mandi. Where did you find them?
and these are studies where the women had a full bottle available to them in THEIR HOUSE
These must be very interesting studies, mentioning that the women had in their posession “full bottles” of medication that is not prescribed in “bottles,” but in packets. I’d love to see them, Mandi. Where did you find them?
If anyone really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancies, hence abortions, they’d be fighting tooth and nail in favor of contraceptives being readily available. But we dont see that. That’s because the real issue isnt pregnancy, it isnt contraceptives, and it isnt abortion. The real issue is the antichoice attitude towards women – the attitude that sex is for *making babies* and that is all its for, that women who arent married shouldnt be sexually active, that even married women who arent willing to continue a pregnancy shouldnt be having sex, and with many, the attitude that using contraception is ‘wrong’. There are exceptions, but by and large the real issue is with women, not with pregnancy.
Posted by: TexasRed at March 26, 2008 11:46 AM
Just thought that deserved a repeat.
Thank you TexasRed! You said that so well.
Posted by: Edyt at March 26, 2008 11:59 AM
****************
Youre welcome :)
Texas Red, would you ever have an abortion?
Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 11:47 AM
**********************
Its a moot point. I havent been able to get pregnant since I was 30 and had to have a partial hyst. But under some circumstances, yes, I would end a pregnancy.
“Oh yeah – so much better to hand over control of their bodies to the catholic church and go with the archaic delusion that sex is only for reproduction….”
This is not a correct summary of Catholic teaching on sexuality. I’m sure Catholics who are far more knowledgeable than me (such as MK, John, or Bobby) will jump on and explain what the actual Catholic view is….
S.
“If anyone really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancies, hence abortions, they’d be fighting tooth and nail in favor of contraceptives being readily available. But we dont see that. That’s because the real issue isnt pregnancy, it isnt contraceptives, and it isnt abortion. The real issue is the antichoice attitude towards women – the attitude that sex is for *making babies* and that is all its for, that women who arent married shouldnt be sexually active, that even married women who arent willing to continue a pregnancy shouldnt be having sex, and with many, the attitude that using contraception is ‘wrong’. There are exceptions, but by and large the real issue is with women, not with pregnancy.”
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..
But up til now the other side has disputed our logical concern that some girls and women would use the MAP as a primary method of BC if made available over-the-counter. And why not? Much easier than the daily pill grind, and no doctor visits/prescriptions involved.
Good GOD that is stupid! I don’t know about you, Jill, but I like to have sex more than just once a month. Most people in happy relationships like to have sex at least twice a week. Plan B costs $30-40 per dose, so why on Earth would ANYONE choose to pay hundreds of dollars a month for Plan B when they could buy condoms or get on regular birth control for a lot cheaper?
Haha – Reality, SOOOO true.
I always keep a pack of EC around incase a condom breaks. If I used that as my primary BC, hahahaha, ohhh man, I’d need to be a very wealthy girl.
That whole argument makes ZERO sense. I don’t know ANYONE who could afford, or would CHOOSE to, drop 40 bucks on EC everytime they had sex.
So Plan B is the equivalent of taking a large number of regular BC pills? Because one of those was 40 pills to equal Plan B!
I’m no pharmacist, but I don’t think that can be good for you.
My friend took Plan B once..and she got violently ill and had to go to the emergency room. It’s some pretty potent stuff.
Maybe that’s a good reason to call it Emergency Contraception… it sends you to the emergency room.
Haha, CC, I never thought of it like that! That’s some good marketing right there!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..
Posted by: Anonymous at March 26, 2008 1:09 PM
************************
Proves you have to hide from everything I said – thank you. If you had an intelligent response, a valid defense then you would have presented it. You prove I was right.
“Oh yeah – so much better to hand over control of their bodies to the catholic church and go with the archaic delusion that sex is only for reproduction….”
This is not a correct summary of Catholic teaching on sexuality. I’m sure Catholics who are far more knowledgeable than me (such as MK, John, or Bobby) will jump on and explain what the actual Catholic view is….
S.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 26, 2008 1:08 PM
***************
Its exactly as I presented it whether you want to face that fact or not.
If your EC fails, your condom fails, your whatever fails and you get an abortion… that doesn’t convince anyone you have control over your own body. It only tells me that you’ve LOST CONTROL of your body, otherwise you wouldn’t have to “fix it.” Saving yourself for marriage demonstrates total self-control over your body.
If the Vatican forced Catholic women to take a pill that made you abstinent, then good Catholic women would have lost control of her body. But the reality is that a woman in control of her body CHOOSES to save herself for marriage because of the proper formation of conscience (or as TexasRed would rephrase it, “indoctrination”).
My friend took Plan B once..and she got violently ill and had to go to the emergency room. It’s some pretty potent stuff.
Posted by: Elizabeth at March 26, 2008 1:58 PM
Sorry Elizabeth, only Heather can make her point by refering to someone she knows with the exact same problem/experience/issue.
Hal, it’s not my fault that I know lots of people. Don’t be so jealous.
No, but Hal, really, this girl is the only person I *know* of that used Plan B..and she did have to go the emergency room that night. I remember it because she told me that as they were filling her info. out before they took her back to a room, she threw up all over the lady’s desk. It was pretty bad. This is also the same “friend” who cried when I wouldn’t have an abortion. We aren’t friends anymore..she’s gone a little crazy, crazier than she was when I knew her because she’s a Scientologist now.
If your EC fails, your condom fails, your whatever fails and you get an abortion… that doesn’t convince anyone you have control over your own body. It only tells me that you’ve LOST CONTROL of your body, otherwise you wouldn’t have to “fix it.” Saving yourself for marriage demonstrates total self-control over your body.
If the Vatican forced Catholic women to take a pill that made you abstinent, then good Catholic women would have lost control of her body. But the reality is that a woman in control of her body CHOOSES to save herself for marriage because of the proper formation of conscience (or as TexasRed would rephrase it, “indoctrination”).
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 26, 2008 3:19 PM
****************
So if someone has sex outside of marriage it ‘proves’ they ‘dont have a conscience’. Yeah, right. And yes, Id say the RCC attitudes towards women and sex are indoctrination and very unhealthy.
Hal, I don’t know of anyone who’s ever used Plan B. How does that grab ya?
Hal, I don’t know of anyone who’s ever used Plan B. How does that grab ya?
Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 3:39 PM
***********************
Do you really imagine they’d tell you if they did?
Just trying a little joke Heather. All in good nature, and no disrepect intended.
Do you really imagine they’d tell you if they did?
umm, yeah…I mean it depends on the friend of course…but it’s not like it.could.never.happen TR. Got any better comebacks then THAT?
TR, perhaps not. Hal, I knew you were:]
Uh…TexasRed… the opposite of a properly formed conscience is not ‘without a conscience’, rather, it is an improperly formed conscience.
Therefor, a woman who willfully chooses to have sex before marriage has an improperly formed conscience.
“a woman who willfully chooses to have sex before marriage has an improperly formed conscience.”
Boy, I couldn’t disagree more.
Therefor, a woman who willfully chooses to have sex before marriage has an improperly formed conscience.
Ummmm, I don’t really agree with that.
Sorry for the delay in responding to your requests. I’ve been away from my computer. I don’t have the time (or energy – cuz I’m the momma to 4…soon to be 5 little boys) but I will post a link with what I think summarizes all the other studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17197603?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
I’ll paste here their conclusion, “In all but one study, increased access to emergency contraceptive pills was associated with greater use. However, NO STUDY found an effect on pregnancy or abortion rates. CONCLUSION: Increased access to emergency contraceptive pills enhances use but has not been shown to reduce unintended pregnancy rates.”
This was an article published by Dr. James Trussel, Director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton. He is on the board of NARAL and is a senior fellow at Guttmacher so I’m sure his credentials will be sufficient for even the most hard-lined pro-abort.
Oh, and I’m sure that any woman who even waits for marriage to have sex, then chooses to use contraception because -GOD FORBID- she doesn’t want to get pregnant, also has an improperly formed conscience…..
*rolls eyes*
Just a little more info for those of you interested. Trussel provided a web seminar on the efficacy of of EC’s. Here are the summaries from his powerpoint presentation:
1. Trussell previously hoped (published in 1992) that EC would reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion by half.
2. 15 years later 11 studies have consistently showed no decrease of pregnancy rates from use of ECs.
3. Trussell also stated that a future decrease in pregnancy rates from EC use is highly unlikely – an astounding admission.
4. He then quoted TH Huxley when he stated “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
5. Due to difficulties in estimating the expected pregnancy rates, the published efficacy in the package insert of EC is almost certainly too high.
6. The only thing he could say about the actual efficacy of Plan B was that it was “more effective than nothing”.
Lastly, at the end of the seminar there was a pause before participants asked questions. Dr. Trussell commented that everyone must be too depressed.
Hieronymous – In the Yuzpe study they used the very crude (read unscientific) method of determining ovulation by adding 14 days to the last period. Anyone who has studied basic fertility knows that most women do not ovulate on day 14 so they are basing their entire study on an estimated day of ovulation — and this is the study you’d still like to cite?? It was concluded in the April 2003 edition of Contraception that “CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the absolute levels of effectiveness for the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception and the cost-effectiveness of this regimen have probably been overstated when based on conception probabilities by cycle day relative to day of ovulation.”
Basically
Yes, I would say married couples who use contraception also have improperly formed consciences.
Point proven. How sad. *rolls eyes again*
Well, I guess that married couples shouldn’t have sex at all. It would just be WICKED of the woman in the relationship to decide she doesn’t want to be pregnant at a given time, because she might have other things she wants to do besides have kids at that time. Such an EVIL wench.
But I’m seriously excited as heck about the new male birth control pill. My boyfriend brought it up last night. *EXCITEMENT*
mwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
above was me. :)
One time I was late getting my birth control renewed and the doc wanted me to take Plan B just in case, so I did.
The results?
Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Didn’t feel a damn thing. Got lunch after I took the pills, came home, watched TV, went to class that night.
So maybe some people react horribly, but I took it under my doctor’s view and she made sure to tell me to eat so that it wouldn’t upset my stomach, and I was fine.
Wow, I guess I should be dead now though, right? Or have breast cancer? Or be bleeding out the anus or whatever else you guys believe?
Lyssie, ME TOO!
Can you imagine how great it will be to be doubly or triply protected? Two people on BC and wearing a condom… what are the odds all three will fail? Still have to watch for the STDs though.
“Proves you have to hide from everything I said – thank you. If you had an intelligent response, a valid defense then you would have presented it. You prove I was right.”
No, it’s just that I’m so tired of that silly old story that I fell asleep…..
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ…..
(oops forgot to sign before)
S.
“Its exactly as I presented it whether you want to face that fact or not.”
TexasRed – you clearly know nothing about Catholicism. It is well-established that the Church views human sexuality as both unitive and procreative, and practicing Catholics must not do anything to violate either of these facets of sexuality.
“2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”[144] Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them….
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. ”
Good day.
S.
Red,
Despite what Monty Python said, a practicing Catholic doesn’t need to have a child every time they have sex. Believe me, my wife and I would have a lot more children than 2 if that were the case.
S’ quotes from the Catechism may be a little hard to read by unaffiliated laymen, but what they boil down to is:
1) Sex unifies a couple, and creates and strengthens a spiritual bond. This special bond is why casual sex is wrong. Sex is also very pleasurable and is very good.
2) Sex is also procreative by its very nature. Part of the sacred nature of sex is that it is the one way we can co-create with God. Interfering with this natural order (whether to create life outside of sex or to prevent life) is wrong.
This is the Church’s teaching.
“But I’m seriously excited as heck about the new male birth control pill. My boyfriend brought it up last night. *EXCITEMENT*
mwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!”
The feminists are so immature.
Immature? Explain exactly why being excited about a new contraceptive method is immature. Considering your claim to fame is cheap, meaningless one-liners, give me a concise, logical reason for being “immature” about something that is medically exciting. Keep it short if that’s all your mind can handle. (Keep in mind, I work in the field of biology…the biological background to this new contraception is bloody BRILLIANT).
And by the way, I prefer to think of myself as an equal-humanist rather than a feminist. We are first and foremost human beings, not first and foremost gender/race/ethnicity/etc. I would rather view other people as humans first, not as “women” and “men”. It is for that reason that I think of myself less as a woman and more as a human being. Everything else is just details. There is no reason to divide humanity because of these paltry differences.
Here, Jasper, just for you…I revamped my prior comment so as to seem more “mature”:
“It is exciting to know that the new male birth control pill is just a few months from being on the market. This topic was brought to my attention by my boyfriend last night. It was rather riveting to think of this new breakthrough in contraceptive technology.”
Better, or what? :D
Owned.
Lyssie, yes, you are.
Edyt, I don’t deny that being a humanist has, by default, feminist ideals….one of which is that the sexes are inherently equal. We are equal, that is undeniable. Society just has to be changed to reflect that fact. But I also view races to be equal, ethnicities, etc….which is also something I actively work toward. Get what I mean? I am not first and foremost a feminist….I view humanity to be first, not gender or race, or any other arbitrary, petty differences. :)
Everything else is just details. There is no reason to divide humanity because of these paltry differences.
I really wouldn’t call carrying a human being in my body and helping that human body grow through the use of my body, “paltry differences.”
I also wouldn’t call my body being able to make the food to sustain my baby after he/she is born for AT LEAST 6 months to a year as, “paltry differences.”
I mean, if you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty here, women ROCK WAY MORE based on anatomy alone.
I view humanity to be first, not gender or race, or any other arbitrary, petty differences. :)
What, like age?
Oh, okay. I thought you were trying to disown the feminist label because of the bad press it’s gotten in the past decade.
But your explanation makes perfect sense. =)
Elizabeth, what I mean is that there’s no difference big enough to consider a human unequal. Because I have the capacity to create human life does not mean I am any better than the man across the street who cannot. He has other strengths. (Although i do agree, we are pretty awesome…but claiming superiority just gives people who don’t believe in inherent equality ammunition to bring us down). Just because I understand genetics easily doesn’t mean my boyfriend can, like I can’t understand his politically-genius mind. Does that make us unequal intelligence-wise? Hell no.
No, I don’t believe humans are unequal..I believe they are different though. People often equate different with bad, but I don’t. Men and women are different, there’s no getting around it, but they’re both equal.
Yeah…I know what you mean. It’s just that SO MANY PEOPLE equate “different” with “unequal”….it’s really sad. Individual men and individual women are different…with different abilities and such. The difference between men and women shouldn’t be such a gap that humans can’t span it. It’s pretty pathetic to believe that our society can’t grasp the idea that different does not mean “unequal”.
Yeah, it is strange. We’re ALL different so I don’t really get it. They must have missed that Barney episode. But NOT ME. I’ve seen every.episode.ever.TWICE.
help me.
Elizabeth,
Just say no. To Barney.
Hi Lyssie and Elizabeth,
there are a few details about ‘equality’ that I think should be answered before you close-this-book. How can someone be ‘unique’ and ‘equal’ at the same time? ANSWER: Not possible.
the word ‘equal’ is a mathematical term of comparison … like 4 = 4; 87265.1483 = 87265.1483. and it is a strict-comparison. When the term is applied to humans, we tend to low-ball human dignity …. so if a high-bound person believes that humans are worth an ‘9’ will say they’re a ‘3’ because some depressed judge says that-folks-must-be-equal. All the while human value is 54,082 …. how we gonna find out if we persist with an ‘equality’ mantra?
Carla: Elizabeth, Just say no. To Barney.
Ha! Don’t get me started on Barney…. I used to advise going so far as to never miss a chance to beat up anybody dressed as Barney, but I’ve since backed off of that position.
http://members.aol.com/TrueHumor/barney.htm (Barney is the Devil!)
People are equal in some ways and unequal in others.
Hi Mandi, you posted this:
Sorry for the delay in responding to your requests. I’ve been away from my computer. I don’t have the time (or energy – cuz I’m the momma to 4…soon to be 5 little boys) but I will post a link with what I think summarizes all the other studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17197603?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
I’ll paste here their conclusion, “In all but one study, increased access to emergency contraceptive pills was associated with greater use. However, NO STUDY found an effect on pregnancy or abortion rates. CONCLUSION: Increased access to emergency contraceptive pills enhances use but has not been shown to reduce unintended pregnancy rates.”
This was an article published by Dr. James Trussel, Director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton. He is on the board of NARAL and is a senior fellow at Guttmacher so I’m sure his credentials will be sufficient for even the most hard-lined pro-abort.
Posted by: Mandi at March 26, 2008 4:49 PM
You do realize that study was about whether increased access to emergency contraception has an effect on population, right? And that it was not a study on whether EC is effective, right? So it doesn’t prove your point at all.
On the other hand, here is a link to study by Trussel that actually addresses whether the Yuzpe regimen has an effect on pregnancy rates (the conclusion is that it is 74.1% effective):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T5P-3WM59GH-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c89cd05776698b1544ee8ec40c7bbffc
And here is a link to another Trussel paper discussing the effectiveness of the progestin-only methods, which are estimated at anywhere from 59 to 94%:
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ec-review.pdf
So really, it’s hardly “every study you’ve seen” says that EC is totally ineffective, is it? It was one study, and that one didn’t even talk about the actual effectiveness of EC, just access.
Hi Mandi, you posted this:
Sorry for the delay in responding to your requests. I’ve been away from my computer. I don’t have the time (or energy – cuz I’m the momma to 4…soon to be 5 little boys) but I will post a link with what I think summarizes all the other studies. (I took the link out)
I’ll paste here their conclusion, “In all but one study, increased access to emergency contraceptive pills was associated with greater use. However, NO STUDY found an effect on pregnancy or abortion rates. CONCLUSION: Increased access to emergency contraceptive pills enhances use but has not been shown to reduce unintended pregnancy rates.”
This was an article published by Dr. James Trussel, Director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton. He is on the board of NARAL and is a senior fellow at Guttmacher so I’m sure his credentials will be sufficient for even the most hard-lined pro-abort.
Posted by: Mandi at March 26, 2008 4:49 PM
You do realize that study was about whether increased access to emergency contraception has an effect on population, right? And that it was not a study on whether EC is effective, right? So it doesn’t prove your point at all.
On the other hand, here is a link to study by Trussel that actually addresses whether the Yuzpe regimen has an effect on pregnancy rates (the conclusion is that it is 74.1% effective):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T5P-3WM59GH-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c89cd05776698b1544ee8ec40c7bbffc
And here is a link to another Trussel paper discussing the effectiveness of the progestin-only methods, which are estimated at anywhere from 59 to 94%:
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ec-review.pdf
So really, it’s hardly “every study you’ve seen” says that EC is totally ineffective, is it? It was one study, and that one didn’t even talk about the actual effectiveness of EC, just access.
Hieronymous – I’m not sure how my studies don’t apply here. What difference does it make if they were studying effectiveness or access? The reality was that access did nothing to decrease pregnancy rates. Do women not take MAP to decrease their pregnancy rates?? I’m not even addressing the Yuzpe study because it boils down to more guesswork. The fact is they have no evidence or proof as to when those women ovulated. There is a new method that allows researchers to use ultrasound to determine ovulation. A study using this may provide some better answers but I’m not aware of a study doing this. The reason there aren’t studies on the effectiveness are this: (quoted from your second link)
“Calculation of effectiveness, and particularly the denominator of the fraction, involves many assumptions that are difficult to validate. Accurate estimates of efficacy depend upon accurate recording of timing of intercourse and cycle day (so that timing of ovulation can be estimated). One study compared self-report of cycle day with urinary pregnanediol concentrations to demonstrate that over 30% of women presenting for ECPs had inaccurately dated their own menstrual cycles, believing themselves to be in the fertile phase of their cycle when they were not. In the same study, 60% reported more than one act of intercourse in the cycle, indicating that pregnancies attributed to ECP failure may actually be the result of intercourse earlier in the cycle.20 Another study found that 99 women were between days -5 and +1 when the day of ovulation (day 0) was estimated as usual cycle length minus 13. However, hormonal data indicated that only 51 of these 99 (56%) were in fact between days -5 and +1.21 In another recent study, cervical smears showed that more than one-third of women requesting ECPs had no sperm present in the vagina, and those with sperm present had fewer sperm than women attempting to become pregnant.22 The risk of pregnancy for women requesting ECPs appears to be lower than assumed in the estimates of ECP efficacy, which are consequently likely to be overestimates. Yet, precise estimates of efficacy may not be highly relevant to many women who have had unprotected intercourse, since ECPs are often the only available treatment. A more important consideration for most ECP clients may be the fact that data from both clinical trials and mechanism of action studies clearly show that at least the levonorgestrel regimen of ECPs is more effective than nothing.23″
Boy this is convincing stuff. Basically he says, “give the manufacturer money because it is better than doing nothing…” And that was really my point in the beginning. Taking the MAP is the equivalent to flushing your money down a toilet (hey that is probably also better than nothing…)
Hieronymous – I’m not sure how my studies don’t apply here. What difference does it make if they were studying effectiveness or access? The reality was that access did nothing to decrease pregnancy rates. Do women not take MAP to decrease their pregnancy rates?? I’m not even addressing the Yuzpe study because it boils down to more guesswork. The fact is they have no evidence or proof as to when those women ovulated. There is a new method that allows researchers to use ultrasound to determine ovulation. A study using this may provide some better answers but I’m not aware of a study doing this. The reason there aren’t studies on the effectiveness are this: (quoted from your second link)
“Calculation of effectiveness, and particularly the denominator of the fraction, involves many assumptions that are difficult to validate. Accurate estimates of efficacy depend upon accurate recording of timing of intercourse and cycle day (so that timing of ovulation can be estimated). One study compared self-report of cycle day with urinary pregnanediol concentrations to demonstrate that over 30% of women presenting for ECPs had inaccurately dated their own menstrual cycles, believing themselves to be in the fertile phase of their cycle when they were not. In the same study, 60% reported more than one act of intercourse in the cycle, indicating that pregnancies attributed to ECP failure may actually be the result of intercourse earlier in the cycle.20 Another study found that 99 women were between days -5 and +1 when the day of ovulation (day 0) was estimated as usual cycle length minus 13. However, hormonal data indicated that only 51 of these 99 (56%) were in fact between days -5 and +1.21 In another recent study, cervical smears showed that more than one-third of women requesting ECPs had no sperm present in the vagina, and those with sperm present had fewer sperm than women attempting to become pregnant.22 The risk of pregnancy for women requesting ECPs appears to be lower than assumed in the estimates of ECP efficacy, which are consequently likely to be overestimates. Yet, precise estimates of efficacy may not be highly relevant to many women who have had unprotected intercourse, since ECPs are often the only available treatment. A more important consideration for most ECP clients may be the fact that data from both clinical trials and mechanism of action studies clearly show that at least the levonorgestrel regimen of ECPs is more effective than nothing.23″
Boy this is convincing stuff. Basically he says, “give the manufacturer money because it is better than doing nothing…” And that was really my point in the beginning. Taking the MAP is the equivalent to flushing your money down a toilet (hey that is probably also better than nothing…)