Pro-life vid of day: Sandra Fluke likens Pill to blood transfusion
by LauraLoo
MSNBC’s Tim Carney debates religious freedom and contraception with former Georgetown Law student and now social justice attorney Sandra Fluke.
Sandra is (unfortunately) back in the news thanks to the Supreme Court agreeing to take up a case surrounding the employer contraception mandate in Obamacare.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHYFmrkUvzQ[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Kelli]
Dec.02, 2013 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
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.
Test
Not even watching. Go away Fluke. Please go.
Good choice on your part, Heather. Nauseating.
Who’s Sandra Fluke?
Navi…just someone whose 15 minutes of fame are up. I cant even stand her name!
She’s a fluke……or something.
A striking debate, they are claiming that individuals lose their first amendment rights when working with others as a corporation or group, and that we not only can restrict religious activities (smoking peyote) but actively force people to violate their moral beliefs (require people to smoke peyote). This is the bad fruit of the concept that government can go beyond restricting activity but actively compelling activity. Once government goes beyond its historical power of compelling only taxes and military defense into compelling action in the private lives of citizens, there is no logical barrier to stop government from compelling any act, other than the fashion of the times. I wonder if Ms. Fluke can say what legal barrier is there in her mind to forcing people to have abortions or take contraception?
She missed a few classes at Georgetown apparently to have advanced her argument of law school pregnancies as supporting her cause? Does not speak well of Georgetown that’s for sure!
Well, she was making an analogy to other health issues that could be morally contentious for an employer to subsidize (like Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions), not saying that birth control is just like blood transfusions.
I think it’s pretty clear that the only way to solve this issue is to stop the ridiculous practice of employers providing health insurance, there’s no reason your boss should have say over what type of healthcare you can get compensation for. Single payer all the way.
But then Jack, you’re trading a boss you can see for a bureaucrat you can’t telling you what kind of health care you can get compensation for. Your boss at least has to deal with you not working and the hassle of finding a replacement, what incentive does an unelected government official have for listening to what you have to say? Have you ever tried pleading with a government official? Businesses don’t exist to provide medical care or abortions, and neither does the government. People do not have a right to force others to provide them with something, especially something widely available for cheap throughout the country.
Well for one, I think abortion should be illegal overall, so in my perfect world no one would be subsidizing abortion legally, because it would be a criminal activity.
I think that in most ways, single payer is preferable and saves a lot of this back and forth about what employees are entitled to get with their healthcare, and saves employers from directly subsidizing things they find as immoral as birth control.
I think I will have to back Truthseeker here. If per ACA, it will be mandatory for insurance plans to cover the pill, there also needs to be coverage for fertility treatments. Many do not agree with fertility treatments as the way to conceive but the issue is for ACA not to discriminate. How many think that any democrat would quickly rationalize the pill and discredit fertility as a valid option to be covered, equating it with ”choice.”
OCare is about population control and nothing else matters. Its truly disheartening that the “flukes” (female ones) out there, are helping O to that end. They have waged a war against themselves.
I’m not saying that the ACA is the answer, but I do somewhat have to agree with Jack. Perhaps if there were more private companies providing insurance we could go straight to whatever company we wanted. Theoretically, we could purchase insurance from like-minded companies based on our individual needs (ie, won’t use fertility treatments, so no need to pay a company that covers that if a better deal without that exists, or Jehova’s Witnesses can go with a company that doesn’t cover blood transfusions, Christians can go with companies that don’t cover abortions, etc.)
Since blood transfusions are life saving, its unlikely an insurance company won’t cover them. Hospitals have gone to court to force JW children to have transfusions and I know of cases where JWs have relented and agreed to transfusions. If a JW employer feels that strongly, then why not pay the employee a stipend to purchase their own insurance? No one is forced to work for the JW employer. Am I correct that some religious faiths do not permit insurance? Are they obligated to provide it for their employees or are they given an exemption?
You go to work for an employer and you may be told his/her religious convictions will/will not permit certain things. We won’t provide insurance, we will not allow meat on the premises, our insurance only covers certain types of care. You may have no problem with this at all or…you have the choice to seek employment elsewhere.
But that’s the thing, Mary, there’s no rational reason for why insurance should be tied to employment. Not only does that leave people in the bind of being only given hours right below what would be considered “full time” so employers can legally skirt insuring them, it gives a specific employer power over what healthcare you have access to. If insurance is unaffordable for many, many people except through employment, that basically gives employers the say over what types of medical care you are able to receive. That’s ripe for abuses and the forcing of other people’s morals on those who can’t afford to search elsewhere. I think it’s immoral to force employers to directly subsidize things they are opposed to (within reason, you have to, you know, pay your employees fairly), but I also think it’s immoral to have a system where you can have no options for insurances other than the whims of your employer.
If people really care about EVERYONE’S freedom, religious and otherwise, they shouldn’t support a system that allows your boss to pick and choose what healthcare you get, it’s not like they will give you the money to go buy your own plan, it’s “choose this healthcare plan that doesn’t meet your needs, or quit”. It’s just as immoral as making Hobby Lobby subsidize Plan B.
One thing bothers me – how come contraceptive pill is somehow considered “healthcare” – it doesn’t care for your health, it doesn’t cure an illness, it doesn’t even prevent disease! And on top of that it can GIVE you a lot of health problems as a side effect.
I’m originally from Lithuania, and we’re a pretty poor country, but haven’t heard of any woman who would go around complaining that they have to pay for birth control! It’s a lifestyle choice, not healthcare! And it doesn’t cost much. And you have it for free if you practice NFP.
“I think I will have to back Truthseeker here.”
Careful Thomas R, You know the tsunami that has sucked you into in the past.
“not saying that birth control is just like blood transfusions”
That’s heartening Jack.
“It’s just as immoral as making Hobby Lobby subsidize Plan B.”
Huh? Are you seriously trying to make a moral equivalency between not offering someone a certain work benefit and forcing someone to participate in the killing another human being?
“Huh? Are you seriously trying to make a moral equivalency between not offering someone a certain work benefit and forcing someone to participate in the killing another human being? ”
Plan B doesn’t kill anyone. But anyway, yes, I do think it’s morally equivalent between forcing someone to subsidize something they have a religious objection to, and the way our system is set up to give employers power over their employees ability to access healthcare that they need.
Not really Jack,
The insurance company will also decide the rules. For instance, they will cover plastic surgery only for birth defects, disease, accident, or burns. Anything else you pay for. A second opinion may be required. They may only offer limited mental health services. There may be only certain hospitals you can go to.
As for giving the employer power, not really. As I have said there are any number of things insurance may not cover or only cover in limited amounts and employers may be limited by options and costs. Why does contraception have to be part of insurance to begin with? Is this more essential to health than gym membership, oral health products, and good personal hygiene? Prax and I joked about plastic surgery being essential to our mental health, but is that argument so far fetched for some people? But insurance isn’t about to cover all of this. That’s why you get a paycheck.
Employers force their morality on employees all the time. How to dress, code of conduct, how to handle grievances. We violate those rules we’re fired. When I began working at a Catholic hospital, we were given the religiously based rules. Take them or leave them. We knew where the door was.
Also, unlike contraception, blood transfusions are essential for saving lives. They aren’t something people make the decision to utilize for whatever reason. This is not the case with contraception.
Also Jack, universal one payer is no panacea. You think yet another useless gov’t bureaucracy is going to grant your every wish when it comes to health care? Some gov’t bureaucrat will decide what you can and can’t have. Doctors will retire or quit or simply say no more patients. Your choices will be limited. Mine and my co workers are now. Fortunately it doesn’t effect me as seriously as it does them, other than making me irate that I will have to pay out of pocket to continue seeing the doctor who has been very effectively treating my glaucoma.
Jack,
Wouldn’t mandatory high-blood pressure medicine for anyone who needs it be more effective in preventing illness and death then mandatory free BC?
“Plan B doesn’t kill anyone.”
Jack,
In your opinion is an embryo an anyone?
Oh speaking of forcing rules and morality on employees,
Try violating HIPPA, however unintentional, or ignorant of the government issued rules you may claim to have been.
Immediate, or sooner, termination, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’ve seen it happen and I can tell you, nothing strikes terror in the souls of medical personnel like the words “HIPPA violation”.
“As for giving the employer power, not really. As I have said there are any number of things insurance may not cover or only cover in limited amounts and employers may be limited by options and costs. Why does contraception have to be part of insurance to begin with? Is this more essential to health than gym membership, oral health products, and good personal hygiene? Prax and I joked about plastic surgery being essential to our mental health, but is that argument so far fetched for some people? But insurance isn’t about to cover all of this. That’s why you get a paycheck.”
First off, I know it’s like awful to mention on this blog but contraception (or more accurately, the hormones in contraception), have legit medical usage besides pregnancy avoidance.
I’m actually fine with my dream single payer system only covering contraception for medical reasons, but I’m also fine with covering all contraception that doesn’t kill anyone (I think it’s Ella out of the morning after that has proven abortive mechanism).
“Employers force their morality on employees all the time. How to dress, code of conduct, how to handle grievances. We violate those rules we’re fired. When I began working at a Catholic hospital, we were given the religiously based rules. Take them or leave them. We knew where the door was.”
Yes, they have the right IN THEIR BUSINESS! Not to yell at you, but I don’t understand what’s so difficult about that distinction. If I owned a business, I could disallow meat products on my property or while my employees were on the clock, but in what world would it be okay for me to, say, not cover heart disease in my employee insurance plans, because vegetarians have very low rates of heart disease? Or decide to fire people if they eat meat on their own time? This is what I’m saying, is that tying insurance to employment is a bad move, it gives employers too much power over people’s personal healthcare. I don’t approve of it and I can’t imagine why Republicans do.
“In your opinion is an embryo an anyone?”
Oh no, I totally don’t think that embryos are people, even though I think it should be illegal to kill them.
There’s no evidence that Plan B interferes with implantation. And considering the low effectiveness of Plan B, I think it’s probably been responsible for several conceptions when people rely on it after an “oops”!
“Try violating HIPPA, however unintentional, or ignorant of the government issued rules you may claim to have been. Immediate, or sooner, termination, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’ve seen it happen and I can tell you, nothing strikes terror in the souls of medical personnel like the words “HIPPA violation”.”
Uh yeah because HIPAA violations are illegal for one, and they involve doing things against the customers (patients) by spreading around their personal information, not stuff you do in your own life. It would be like taking private client information and telling people about it if you were a lawyer. Not exactly in the same realm as deciding what type of healthcare your employees can be compensated for.
“There’s no evidence that Plan B interferes with implantation. And considering the low effectiveness of Plan B, I think it’s probably been responsible for several conceptions when people rely on it after an “oops”!”
No evidence Jack?? It says on the insert that comes with it that it can. It is known to harden the uterus. For someone who has always claimed to be 100% pro-life and who claims to always err on the side of caution this is completely out of character for you.
Mary, they make all this big to-do about HIPPA and your right to keep medical information private but the whole while Obamacare is forcing doctor’s to digitize our medical records and send them to various government agencies. What a bunch of chumps most of voting public is.
I’ve never been anti-contraception. Plan B is just progestin, like a lot of birth control pills. And no, they have it as a warning that it’s possible that it may interact that way with the uterus but there’s no proof that it does. The FDA required that as an insert because it couldn’t exclude it (it’s a difficult thing to study).
I’ve read the actual literature and while it’s not 100%, most evidence points towards no interference with implantation. The main thing that progestin does is prevent ovulation (and it does a poor job at that given the effectiveness). There were studies done in 2007, 2009, and 2010 that showed that it doesn’t prevent pregnancy in women that have already ovulated, not interfering with implantation at all. The studies that showed the uterine lining was changed were done on animals given a much higher dosage than human women are given, and the studies done on actual women do not support that the progestin pills interfere with implantation at all.
“The FDA required that as an insert because it couldn’t exclude it” “I’ve read the actual literature and while it’s not 100%, most evidence points towards no interference with implantation.”
Jack, Since the uterine lining is formed as part of a woman’s menstrual cycle then common sense tells us that a drug used to stop menstruation would also disrupt receptivity of the uterine lining. This is completely out of character for you.
Plan B prevents implantation so one never really knows if conception took place and missed implantation in which case an embryo was killed
This is why grown men take underaged girls to get plan B. So the girl wont get pregnant and the man can keep having sex with her. Remember that girl who came to this blog and told us her story Jack?
Hi Jack, 5:49PM
My point is there are rules, imposed by both the government and employer, for whatever reason, and you will pay a stiff penalty for violating them.
BTW the HIPPA regulation is fairly new. I can remember when the rules concerning patient confidentiality were not this strict, you might get a slap on the wrist at worst. They are now and I’m not saying its all bad.
“Plan B prevents implantation so one never really knows if conception took place and missed implantation in which case an embryo was killed”
heather, there are plenty of pro-life people who cling to their hormonal BC even though they know deep down that what you are saying is true.
Hi Jack, 5:42PM
My issue isn’t contraception itself, and yes it can be used for medical reasons, but rather why is anyone entitled to it? Buy your own. Like aspirin. I may take it for occasional headaches, or a doctor may advise me to take it for medical reasons. Either way I pay for it.
As an employer, on your premises, you will impose your rules and regulations on your employees. You will also issue them a paycheck. As such they can eat as they please, exercise, take care of themselves or not, can smoke, can use alcohol, use contraception, pay their bills, buy their personal need items, etc. This is of no concern to you off your business premises.
Depending on the size of your business you may or may not be able to provide health insurance. You will have discussed this with your employees when they were hired. Also with heart disease, you are talking real health issues that may or may not be life style related. The very health conscious husband of a nurse I knew died while jogging.
You’re not being asked to pay their butcher shop bills or for their trips to McDonald’s in violation of your beliefs. Big difference.
My question is why is contraception covered and not all other health promoting items that I have mentioned? You’d be surprised the children I see come in for dental surgery, their teeth are rotten from lack of care. So why aren’t the insurance companies and Medicaid, not all these parents are financially strapped, providing free toothbrushes, toothpaste, and floss? Better yet, why don’t the parents take some responsibility for brushing their children’s teeth. If they can afford smartphones and visits to a nail salon, they can afford a toothbrush and toothpaste.
If I need to pay my own contraception, then maybe I have to budget my money or tell my partner he can use condoms, or at least donate to my contraception fund. That’s why I(we) get paychecks.
ts 6:05PM
How well I know!
However, I’m not getting myself fired!
Heather there is no evidence that progestin (Plan B) prevents implantation, and plenty of evidence that it doesn’t. If someone doesn’t want to risk the tiny chance that possibly maybe it might prevent implantation even though the evidence doesn’t support that, it’s their choice, but people who do take it shouldn’t be accused of aborting and Plan B shouldn’t be likened to stuff like RU-486.
Truth this isn’t out of character for me at all, I don’t know where you getting that. I’ve had the same opinion on hormonal contraception (which is what plan b is, the same chemicals) for years, and the evidence doesn’t support that hormonal contraception causes an abortion, at all. If the evidence supported hormonal contraceptives having specific abortive properties I would oppose them like I do Ella or RU-486. Not that difficult. There no more evidence that the pill is deadly to the unborn baby than stress is.
I said it before, and will say it again……. the lefties don’t recognize the pill as a recreational drug because for them, sex is more work than pleasure.
As for Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown rich gurl who needs you to buy her pills, she’s made herself the well deserving butt of much humor.
Hey lefties.. wake up to the news, Plan B is not effective for American women of average weight. Click on the Pharmer and scroll down for the info.
Hi Jack, I agree with a lot of things you’re saying here. I just want to say though that the Plan B insert says it does not terminate an EXISTING pregnancy. Since pregnancy is considered to start at implantation they are not considering the human lives already conceived but not yet implanted. My birth control insert (when I took it) said it could thin the lining of the uterus and prevent implantation. They admit it. You say they have to…no they don’t. Have you ever heard of drug companies admitting to harmful side effects that weren’t true? Ha! I don’t think so.
Randy Alcorn wrote a good book about the pill and how its KNOWN abortive mechanisms. That it doesn’t always cause an abortion is a miracle, not a reason to cheer it on.
Employers can do whatever they want (within reason).
If they want to offer healthcare benefits as part of the “compensation package,” in addition to free coffee, a company care, or in lieu of company care and coffee, so be it.
The issue is whether they should be able to offer healthcare purchased with pre-tax dollars.
I say “no.”
This distorts the healthcare insurance market.
The larger the employer is, the larger the incentive to offer health insurance. Larger companies can negotiate volume discounts, they can weather unfilled positions better, and they have greater interview/hiring power.
This is the greatest “health disparity” currently operating in the United States of America.
The pre-tax employer health ins tax break was implemented in WWII to encourage women to enter the labor force.
It is not some fundamental right. This issue has led to run-away healthcare expenses – by serving the half of us employed by large employers, and shafting those who are less desirable.
A values-based democratic party would end the employer-pre-tax health ins benefit law.
We should start healthcare reform with this change, and proceed from there.
Because the powers that be are all employed by large employers, no one is saying this.
As a bonus, putting small and large employers on similar footing while seeking employees would spur small business competitiveness, boosting U.S. productivity; too many of us are handcuffed to large-employer jobs partly -small part or large part – for the benefits, suppressing productivity and innovation, including loconomy (local economy- locally competitive business ventures).
Single moms would do awesome things if not handcuffed to their family health ins benefits.
There you have it.
if he won’t pay for your birth control,
he’s just not that “into” you.
There have been multiple studies done on human subjects that show no evidence of an effect on a human zygote (the brand new baby before he or she implants). They have actually show the opposite, that if ovulation has already taken place that there is the same rate of pregnancy as there is with a control group of women who haven’t taken progestin. If there is evidence than show me, the claim that it causes enough changes to the uterine lining has not been proven with human subjects with normal dosage. I don’t care what Randy Alcorn claims, he’s a minister who writes fiction and doesn’t have medical or research training. I care about actual evidence, and the evidence doesn’t support the claim. There are about a million perfectly true bad things that people can complain about Plan B and such, for one it seems that people think they can just sleep around and take it and they’ll be fine, but I don’t see the evidence that it causes abortions.
Jack,
Do you disagree with the insert that states it causes thinning of the uterine lining?
There’s no evidence that a one shot pill like Plan B can change the uterine lining. What you’re thinking of is daily doses, where that’s possible, and there is still no proven link between the change of uterine lining and interfering with implantation. Regardless of that, the Plan B thing is different because it’s a one time thing, and no mechanisms have been show to prevent implantation. Like I’ve said, multiple studies have shown no evidence of effect on implantation. You can’t just say something’s true because it makes sense to you, that’s not science.
http://nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all
That article should explain things a little better. You’re better off being concerned about the possible abortive effect of Ella, where they don’t think it causes abortions but they think it might be able to. Plan B has pretty good evidence that it doesn’t. I would wager you’re probably more likely to accidentally cause the death of your child by driving than taking Plan B.
“If there is evidence than show me, the claim that it causes enough changes to the uterine lining has not been proven with human subjects with normal dosage”
Jack, if you are willing to ignore the insert that comes with the meds and instead insist that you need to wait for clinical study results to definitively prove to you that disrupting a woman’s menstrual cycle makes her uterine lining less receptive to implantation, then you definitely do not seem like the same person that said they would always err on the side of caution. That is why I said this is so out of character for the Jack that prided himself on being 100% pro-life.
Jack it is science that a woman’s uterine lining is built as part of her menstrual cycle. It is also science that the zygote needs to implant in the uterine lining to survive. It is science that disrupting a woman’s menstrual cycle will disrupt building of the uterine lining. Why do you require a clinical study to prove these things?
Jack, the pill insert states that it does. Why do you think they are lying about this? I don’t understand this refusal to believe it.
Also, Randy Alcorn’s book is very well researched. It isn’t full of Bible verses, it is full of scientific studies that point to the abortifacient nature of the pill. I suggest you read it before you mock it.
Just read the article truth seeker, I’m tired and don’t want to argue when I answered both you and Sydney’s points already.
Sydney I wasn’t mocking Alcorn, I just don’t believe medical information from people who aren’t in the medical profession. He’s a pastor, so his area of expertise is not medical research. I’ve done plenty of lay research on the matter and the evidence doesn’t back up an abortive effect for Plan B. It’s more likely there would be an abortive effect for daily birth control, but even that does not have a proven link.
“It’s more likely there would be an abortive effect for daily birth control, but even that does not have a proven link.”
Jack, When you say it is more likely, does that mean you as a 100% pro-life person would counsel people not to use it?
I’ve read Randy Alcorn’s book. I agree that it’s well-researched, and that all pro-lifers owe themselves to read it (especially since the latest edition is available free online). It provides good evidence to demonstrate that the birth control pill thins the endometrium, and effectively dismantles the most common objections to the claim that the birth control pill is abortifacient.
That being said, I was not persuaded by his case. In over 200 pages of text, the author doesn’t make a single reference to the corpus luteum. This is a glaring omission, and he is surely aware that this is probably the most devastating challenge to his thesis. Basically, the problem with the hostile endometrium argument is that the pill works primarily by suppressing ovulation. Because ovulation triggers the development of the corpus luteum (which in turn releases hormones that thicken the endometrium to prepare for implantation), a woman who does not ovulate (because she is on the pill) will have a thin endometrium because the corpus luteum did not develop. But the only way fertilization can occur is if ovulation does first – and there is no evidence that the pill affects the corpus luteum in any way.
http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2008/06/does-thin-uterine-lining-support-pill.html
Jack: there’s no reason your boss should have say over what type of healthcare you can get compensation for. Single payer all the way.
Jack, while I agree that in the end, single-payer is really the only way to get a handle on healthcare costs for us, healthcare *is* a goodly part of many people’s compensation.
My sister is a pharmacist that used to work at the Jersey Shore. She said young people working or living there for the summer used to take it like candy. She was glad to comply because she is extremely pro abort.
I agree with truthseeker. Why cant a woman’s partner help pay for birth control? Why should the burden be on the woman? Don’t play if you don’t want to pay.
Navi,
The article you posted states that the corpus luteum secretes progesterone and estrogen in order to increase the thickening of the uterine lining. Yet these are also are the most common hormones used in OC’s to prevent ovulation. It seems counter-intuitive that the two hormones used in OC’s that prevent ovulation, progestin (biologically processed progesterone) and estrogen are also the same two hormones (though in greater concentration) secreted by the corpus luteum of the ovary to thicken the uterine lining. Am I missing something cause if this were the case then you would expect BC alone, even without ovulation, would promote uterine thickening
“But the only way fertilization can occur is if ovulation does first – and there is no evidence that the pill affects the corpus luteum in any way.”
Navi, The corpus luteum is developed from a later stage of the follicle. OCs inhibit/disrupt follicular development. Definitely interesting, I would like to know precisely how many ng/ml of hormones the typical OC puts into a woman’s blood stream.
NAvi,
Can you find out precisely how many ng/ml of hormones the typical OC puts into a woman’s blood stream and we can use that information to analyze how the presence of OCs could effect the luteal phase.
This certainly is a fun thread to read.
The realization that all birth control pills can operate by means of post fertilization mechanisms comes originally from the discovery that pills don’t always work, and that women can get pregnant while on the pill.
It was then discovered that the pills do not always suppress ovulation, with the low dose pills, and especially the progestin pills being the most problematic. In fact the Micronor (which might have changed name to Ortho-Micronor due to the Pharmer 1997 web page coming up right next to theirs) package insert admitted that ovulation occurs up to 50 percent of the time in women on that drug. I do not think that Jack is going to be able to account for the fact that the efficacy of Micronor (norethindrone) vastly outstrips its ability to prevent ovulation. Some people like to dream that it makes the cervical mucus as prophylactic as a condom, but that truly is a joke.
It has also been discovered that the efficacy of the combination birth control pills outstrips their ability to prevent ovulation. This obviously points to the operation of post fertilization mechanisms of action, and the FDA has required manufacturers to acknowledge these kinds of things.
Fertility specialists correlated a thinned endometrium with fertility problems long ago. Physicians put women on the pill to regulate menstrual cycles and mitigate menorrhagia, because the pill thins the endometrium and affects coagulation.
No, we don’t have indwelling cameras to observe directly that the early embryo goes whizzing by the unreceptive endometrium to its death. This is not needed. The math establishes that post fertilization mechanisms are operating to varying degrees based on which pill is used, and how compliant the patient is, and how overweight she is. (Note that Sonogram pics of a mobile, reactive human embryo or fetus have not convinced the lefties that the organism is alive and able to respond to stimuli. ;-)
Norethindrone is a progestin which occupies the same pharmacological class as Plan B (levonorgestrel) and the “shot”. Estrogens and progestins elicit different effects on fertility based upon when they are taken. Timing during the cycle is critical. The hormones exert feedback inhibition upon the pituitary and that in turn affects the cyclic hypothalamus. Each synthetic estrogen and progestin analog has pharmacological characteristics of its own. Sorry it is too simplistic to ask how many micrograms of hormones are contributed to the bloodstream by the pills, to determine what might be their effect upon any given reproductive process. TIMING of administration means everything. Likewise, Jack can not make any claim that the morning after pill would not affect the corpus luteum when breakthrough ovulation occurs. It all depends upon when the pill is administered. It has been determined that during and after the luteal peak, levonorgestrel morning after pills are fairly worthless, even in the smaller European women. The story for Ella, ulipristal acetate is similar.
At this time the pill sellers such as planned parenthood are reeling from the bad news that Plan B does not work for the average American female, because she weighs too much. It’s understandable that Jack would double down on the sales pitches at this time. This is a stressful time for him, apparently.
By the way, Pharmer thinks that Randy Alcorn, as a non medical professional, who consulted with BC pill developers, did an astonishingly good job of conveying the information to lay people. The fact that he obtained no profit from his endeavor adds to his credibility. Can Jack establish himself to be as independent from the pill industry and sales?
Jack, if Randy Alcorn were the one conducting the research you might have a point but he is using medical research conducted by others to prove his point (that the pill is abortifacient). I don’t understand your mindset that you as a “lay person” has done a lot of research and you totally get it even though you aren’t a doctor yourself but because Randy Alcorn has also done a lot of research and says the pill is abortifacient and you disagree with that he is somehow not qualified to understand that research (yet you are). Huh. Don’t get it.
I’m seriously frustrated, so this will be my last post.
“It was then discovered that the pills do not always suppress ovulation, with the low dose pills, and especially the progestin pills being the most problematic. In fact the Micronor (which might have changed name to Ortho-Micronor due to the Pharmer 1997 web page coming up right next to theirs) package insert admitted that ovulation occurs up to 50 percent of the time in women on that drug. I do not think that Jack is going to be able to account for the fact that the efficacy of Micronor (norethindrone) vastly outstrips its ability to prevent ovulation. Some people like to dream that it makes the cervical mucus as prophylactic as a condom, but that truly is a joke.”
I’ll say it AGAIN, the studies done in 2007. 2009, and 2010 don’t support the hypothesis that Plan B (not daily doses, the one time larger dose of the med) causes abortions. Where’s you proof that those studies are illegitimate? Where’s your support for these vast amount of post-fertilization mechanisms? I’m going to go with “you made them up” because I can’t find any support for them. And for the billionth time, the uterine thinning hasn’t been shown in people taking Plan B, it’s only been shown in people taking daily birth control. No one sees the difference in taking a pill once, albeit a higher dosage, and taking it daily for years?
And all your blabbering about my motives is just stupid. Security guards turned apartment managers don’t normally have a financial stake in pharmacology. I’ve never even had a girlfriend take the stupid pill. I don’t even, technically, think it’s a good thing, as I’ve said a million times before. I just don’t believe the evidence supports that Plan B acts as an inhibitor t o implantation because all the medical research I can find supports that. You guys give me a headache sometimes. Is your worldview so limited that you can’t imagine that someone disagrees with you if they don’t have a financial reason for doing so? I guess more than half the US profits off the morning after pill!
Sorry Sydney you commented while I was typing I’ll answer you real quick. All I meant, is that I see no need to read a compilation and interpretation of medical information by another lay person (Randy Alcorn may not be a lay person when it comes to theology, or writing terrifying books that give me nightmares, but he’s lay when it comes to medicine) when I can just research it for myself and come to my own conclusions. I prefer to read stuff by experts instead of getting some random persons interpretation (I don’t always do this if somethings way above my reading level and I have to have it interpreted, but generally I at least try to look at the actual studies/empirical data). I wasn’t trying to insult Randy Alcorn or say he didn’t do a good job, I just meant I don’t need to look at his interpretation and research when I can do my own, imo.
“Sorry it is too simplistic to ask how many micrograms of hormones are contributed to the bloodstream by the pills, to determine what might be their effect upon any given reproductive process. TIMING of administration means everything.”
Pharmer, I understand that the timing of hormone intake greatly effects the the amount of hormones in the bloodstrream and that is precisely why I am interested in levels at any given time during the menstrual cycle and how quickly they dissipate or accumulate after being ingested.
Oh, was my comment too “blasphemous”? Did it strike a nerve? Good.
Truthseeker, the issue is not so much absorption or bioavailability. The issue is that the effects of hormones (what they stimulate and what they inhibit) differ at the various different times in the monthly reproductive cycle, (or its cyclic stimulus by the pituitary and hypothalamus.
Jack, it’s hard to understand a person so firmly attached to the hormonal birth control, who isn’t obtaining some primary or secondary benefit from it. Is love for an inanimate, unresponsive (and fairly ineffective) thing rational?
Problem number one is getting science news from the New York Times. You see, a so called science reporter in the mainstream press is a light weight. I’ve been interviewed by enough of them to know. A NYT reporter could read this sentence of Anna Glasier’s 2/2010 article in the Lancet, vol 375 p555-562 comparing ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel: “The only data suggesting a plausible mechanism of action for levonorgestrel describe an effect on ovulation.” The NYT reporter would not be able to interpret what immediately followed: “Although levonorgestrel inhibits ovulation in 83 percent of cycles when given in the presence of a 12-14mm ovarian follicle, this stage is early in the ovulatory process and the risk of conception in women with regular cycles is less than 30%. By the time the follicle reaches 18-20mm (and ovulation should occur within 48hrs) and the probability of conception is over 80%, ovulation is prevented by levonorgestrel in only 12% of cycles.”
What Glasier said is that during the most fertile time of a female cycle, (48hrs prior to ovulation) when we know that most of conceptions naturally occur, levonorgestrel, Plan B, only inhibits ovulation 12 percent of the time.
Will you be accounting for the difference between the efficacy of Plan B and the low percentage of the time that it prevents ovulation during the time of a cycle when the woman is actually fertile?
If you thought that Plan B only works by preventing ovulation, then you’d be estimating from Glasier’s data that it only prevents up to 30 percent of possible pregnancies. Proponents of Plan B have been lately estimating that it works about 60 percent of the time. When it was first marketed, it was said to work 90 percent of the time.
How do you account for the difference between efficacy and the ability for Plan B to prevent ovulation? We account for it with the very reasonable suggestion that post fertilization mechanisms must be operating to keep the embryo from implanting in the uterus. This is why the drug manufacturers, admit that their products have multiple mechanisms. They know that preventing ovulation does not account for half or more of the claimed efficacy.
Either Plan B is too ineffective in even European sized women to market, or it has multiple mechanisms contributing to its efficacy. Remember, the very same Anna Glasier has found that Plan B does not work for the larger women, and that by definition means the average sized American woman.
Perhaps Jack can draw on his extensive knowledge of reproductive physiology and suggest some new pre-fertilization mechanisms of the morning after pill.
“Jack, it’s hard to understand a person so firmly attached to the hormonal birth control, who isn’t obtaining some primary or secondary benefit from it. Is love for an inanimate, unresponsive (and fairly ineffective) thing rational? ”
I am so sick of this. I don’t “love” any birth control. I actually think Plan B is very ineffective, gives people a false sense of security, among other issues. What I don’t like is the very human tendency to paint the things they dislike in the worst possible light, even if it’s not true. Drives me crazy. Like I’ve said, about ten billion times, the peer reviewed studies from reputable sources don’t back up the claim that Plan B interferes with a brand new embryo’s ability to implant. I’m really, really sorry I don’t take a random person on the internet’s opinions above actual research.
“Problem number one is getting science news from the New York Times. ”
That’s odd, I don’t get science information from the NYT, I linked the article because I was tired of truthseeker repeating himself and figured he could read about it. The studies are available to look at directly, and there are multiple discussions by qualified folk all over the place.
“Will you be accounting for the difference between the efficacy of Plan B and the low percentage of the time that it prevents ovulation during the time of a cycle when the woman is actually fertile?”
Considering that even healthy women with normal ovulation only conceive 15-25% of the time, even when measuring their ovulation and having sex with a male partner with healthy sperm count, it doesn’t seem to be that farfetched that, combined with the Plan B, that 60% effectiveness is in the card. And the VAST majority of sex that involves conception doesn’t involve someone having sex right when things are perfect for conception, barely anyone would ever get pregnant. The sperm remains in the woman for several days, so even if she’s not particularly fertile at the point she has sex, she would take the Plan B while it was still more effective, which would prevent ovulation more effectively. And none of this changes the facts that the evidence is supporting that there are no post-fertilization effects, pregnancy rates for ovulating women who took Plan B are the same as ovulating women who didn’t. If there were these massive amounts of interference of implantation of the new embryo, it seems that would be different (according to the actual people who researched it)
But I’m not a doctor or a medical researcher, I just go by peer reviewed studies by people who actually work in these fields and oversee each other’s work. I’m sure you can’t expect me to believe whatever you say just because you’ve claimed some type of intellectual high ground. I don’t actually completely believe one person about anything, preponderance of evidence is where it’s at. So, stop whining at me and show me the peer reviewed studies that back up your claims.
Can you find out precisely how many ng/ml of hormones the typical OC puts into a woman’s blood stream and we can use that information to analyze how the presence of OCs could effect the luteal phase.
I can’t find the exact numbers for the pill, though I do know that at day 21 in the menstrual cycle (luteal phase) the secum concentration for progesterone is 6 – 20ng/mL in a normal non-ovulatory cycle. As noted above by pharmer, the morning-after pill is not effective at all if it’s taken after the LH peak (which occurs with ovulation). If there’s no LH peak or the follicle doesn’t mature enough, no egg is released.
The fact that a woman can get pregnant on the pill does not support the existence of a post-fertilization mechanism. If a contraceptive could prevent implantation, that would mean even fewer women would become pregnant.
It was then discovered that the pills do not always suppress ovulation, with the low dose pills, and especially the progestin pills being the most problematic. In fact the Micronor (which might have changed name to Ortho-Micronor due to the Pharmer 1997 web page coming up right next to theirs) package insert admitted that ovulation occurs up to 50 percent of the time in women on that drug. I do not think that Jack is going to be able to account for the fact that the efficacy of Micronor (norethindrone) vastly outstrips its ability to prevent ovulation. Some people like to dream that it makes the cervical mucus as prophylactic as a condom, but that truly is a joke.
Why is the cervical mucus effect a “joke”? The top researchers in the field say the exact opposite (thickening the cervical mucus does contribute significantly to the pill’s efficacy, and that the two pre-fertilization effects are sufficient to account for it).
If I remember right, the latest estimate for Plan B’s effectiveness is “better than nothing” (lol).
“I can’t find the exact numbers for the pill”
Well I appreciate you taking the time to check for me anyway. Thanks Navi.
“I linked the article because I was tired of truthseeker repeating himself and figured he could read about it.”
I didn’t think it bore much credence as a scientific reference when I saw it was a NY Times article.
Navi, the thickened cervical mucus could possibly be a slight impediment but could by no means present a reliable barrier. Sperm survive a long time, and people do a lot of things and apply a lot of different additional products which affect that mucus. It is also a postulated effect, and not really evaluated in the conditions under which it is said to operate. So.. to dream that the thickened cervical mucus is as prophylactic as a condom really is a joke.
(Also it is not salient to any of the arguments about the morning after pill.)
Ummmm, Jack, the 60 percent effectiveness claim of Plan B is compared against the background or natural rate of pregnancy production. I guess if that is not well understood, than no true evaluation of primary research, and what the data means is possible. Since you were not impressed with Anna Glasier I think the other researchers certainly will not be up to snuff. She is probably the most rigorous and forthright of the proponent researchers.
It remains that researchers are convinced that “eggs get laid” by women who have taken daily or morning after birth control drugs. The claim that ovulating women who took plan B had the same rate of conception as a control group who took placebo….very much needs to be tested with an adequate group size of women who are below 165 lbs.
Greater than three fourths of background conceptions would be occurring in those women who are past the cyclic time when levonorgestrel can stop ovulation……….. and this brings one back to contradiction with “the researchers” who claimed that Plan B was 60-90% effective, and not only worth putting on the market, but also pushed on religious institutions, and relied upon in cases of rape.
Either Plan B has post fertilization mechanisms, or the past efficacy “studies” produced false data, and it is so ineffective that it should be immediately removed from the market.
Since I’m obviously not going to convince anyone what is known about Plan B based on anything other than study design, data, and what is mathematically inferred, our debate is obviously over.
Navi, the thickened cervical mucus could possibly be a slight impediment but could by no means present a reliable barrier. Sperm survive a long time, and people do a lot of things and apply a lot of different additional products which affect that mucus. It is also a postulated effect, and not really evaluated in the conditions under which it is said to operate. So.. to dream that the thickened cervical mucus is as prophylactic as a condom really is a joke.
Hostile cervical mucus actually is a common fertility problem:
http://www.ivf.com/ch15mb.html
Furthermore, the progestogen IUD (which essentially works the same way as a progestogen-only pill) has been demonstrated to block sperm transport:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782410003598
(Also it is not salient to any of the arguments about the morning after pill.)
Indeed, sperm can travel through a fertile mucus membrane well before the morning after pill is taken (so the only way it can prevent fertilization is by stopping or delaying ovulation).
Either Plan B has post fertilization mechanisms, or the past efficacy “studies” produced false data, and it is so ineffective that it should be immediately removed from the market.
It is an interesting problem. It would be like a heart attack drug going from “will reduce the number of heart attacks in the population by 50%” to “it’s better than nothing for an at-risk patient” to “it doesn’t work at all if the patient is at or above the mean weight”.