Contracepted Sex=Homosexual Sex

If you can't see video, follow this link: http://youtu.be/E8U4b6n-iRw

You've heard this factoid before-no church accepted contraception before 1930. That is, until the Lambeth Conference, when the Anglican Church decided contraception was acceptable under certain circumstances. It was all downhill after that, with Protestant denominations, one after another, following suit.

A more conservative Washington Post, on March 22, 1931, reacted with this statement:

"Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous."

The Catholic Church also, at that time clarified Her position with Pope Pius XI's encyclical Casti Conubii, On Christian Marriage.

To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words 'Increase and multiply,' is beyond the power of any human law.

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Pat Robertson would have his followers believe that Protestant churches have always accepted contraception. Being born in 1930, maybe he wouldn't remember. But a pillar of his church should make it his business to know.

On top of that, he lets his true colors show, when he talks about large families in Appalachia. He describes the poor children as "ragamuffins" and suggests they would have been better off not to be born. A tragic pronouncement for anyone to declare-who lives and who should not be born. And Protestants (and Liberals) aren't the only ones who make these pronouncements. Recall Matt. 26:11- "For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always."

Michael Voris draws a clear cut conclusion: if Robertson (and others) can claim to be pro-life, but still advocate for birth control, then they advocate against life.  For one reason, proponents of life realize the abortifacient property of birth control. Proponents of death won't draw the line between contraception and emergency contraception, and therefore abortion. More importantly, because birth control frustrates the marriage act's meaning- the begetting of children- Protestants like Robertson unknowingly open the door to unnatural unions that do the same thing.

NFP Poll- please vote!

Does counting days work?

How to save money in healthcare? Use NFP! It's cheaper and more accurate- right?

My little poll in the right side bar here has to do with NFP awareness- how much do you know?

If you want to learn more? Visit ccli.org

Do you know anyone who used it? Or thinks they used it? Get them to answer the poll.

Are you an engaged couple who knows? Are you a single person who knows?

Lots of cool NFP bloggers have been posting about making NFP more accessible to modern young couples.

Let's see where people fall on the scale of "NFP awareness."

Leave a comment with your thoughts!

Please select ALL that apply and thanks for voting !
Please RT to your followers! #nfppoll

It's about religious liberty first, contraception second!

Federal challenge to religious liberty: Bishops speak out against violation of religious freedom

Of course Catholics believe that contraception, abortion and sterilization is wrong. But that's beside the point. Although we will be forced to fund these services- as preventative services- we need first to speak up about this violation of our First Amendment rights. It is secondary what we believe- the primary focus is that we are forced to give up what we believe.

Catholics can use this as an educational tool AFTER we make it clear that this "interim final rule" is unconstitutional.

Send a form letter to HHS by clicking here.
Send a form letter to your Congresspeople by clicking here.
Email Kathleen Sebelius- our Catholic head of HHS by clicking here.

Do it now- you have until Friday afternoon and then comments are closed!

The 43rd anniversary of Humanae Vitae

Today, July 25, the Feast of St. James, is also the anniversary of the much misunderstood encyclical Humanae Vitae, or "On the Regulation of Birth" by Pope Paul VI. Where do you stand with this dry, yet landmark encyclical? This brief article reveals some of the prophecies of the encyclical, if birth control was to become the norm. Did you know that it all began in Connecticut with the Griswold v. Connecticut decision?

As we all know, those prophecies came true, and it seems impossible to turn back the clock. But what does move ahead is research. Janet Smith, in her newest "Contraception:Why Not" talk, she reveals the research of anthropologist Lionel Tiger, on the behavior of male monkeys when subject to contracepted female monkeys. Interesting study, and it explains a lot.



This week is Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, a time to pray for an increase in chastity, within and outside of marriage. On the threshold of New York's decision to redefine marriage, and more states to follow suit, we need to pray more than ever.

This anniversary day, and this NFP Week, is a time to pray for all those who courageously embrace chastity, as a single, married, celibate, or same sex attraction. It is also a day to pray for those who don't.

Miserere nobis.

There she goes again- Ortho Evra continues to kill

A Killer Named Ella

Every NFP couple out there knows that they can potentially get pregnant on Friday from sex they had on Monday. They understand that sperm can survive for as long as five days in a fertile environment. They may have enjoyed their romantic encounter at home by candlelight, but the miracle of new life happened in the produce aisle while Mom was choosing potatoes.

Read the article--  http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37847

Protected sex doesn't protect mental status

More proof that sex was meant by God to procreate and bond as husband and wife. Barriers are needed in a culture of promiscuity. Barriers are bad within marriage. To protect against pregnancy, the result of the marital act, barriers are necessary. Research proves what we already know as true.

By Hilary White

PAISLEY, Scotland, August 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Research from Scotland finding that heterosexual sex without using condoms is more likely to make people happy than "safe sex" with condoms, has stirred controversy among "sexual health" campaigners. The lead researcher wrote of the survey respondents, "The more often they have sex without condoms, the better their mental health."

In the study, titled, "Condom Use for Penile-Vaginal Intercourse is Associated with Immature Psychological Defense Mechanisms," Professor Stuart Brody of the University of the West of Scotland in Paisley gave questionnaires to 111 Portuguese men and 99 women asking questions about their sex lives and their state of mind over a period of one month. The findings are to be published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour.

The study's abstract gives the purpose as the examination of a hypothesis put forward by Sigmund Freud, "that use of immature psychological defense mechanisms correlates directly with frequency of condom use during PVI, but inversely with frequency of PVI [penile-vaginal intercourse] without condoms."

The survey found that "frequency of PVI with condoms correlated directly with use of immature defenses," according to a standard test of psychological reactions. It also found that "immature defenses" were associated with masturbation in both sexes. In general, the study concluded that condom use during PVI is associated with "psychological immaturity and predisposition to poorer mental health," including depression and suicidal tendencies.

Brody wrote, "The more often they have sex without condoms, the better their mental health." His findings suggest that condom use negates the mental health benefits of what he called "evolutionarily relevant sex." He theorized that there is a direct biochemical response in natural heterosexual relations that is blocked by condoms.

Brody wrote in the study, "Possible explanations for the interference of condoms with the health benefits of PVI include blocking of antidepressant and immunological agents in semen and genital secretions, reduced sexual satisfaction and intimacy, and psychopathology-prone persons who are more psychologically immature and/or heterosocially anxious being more likely to use condoms for PVI."

In an interview with the UK's Independent newspaper, Brody responded to criticisms from sex-campaigners at the Family Planning Association that his findings, if they were acted upon, would result in increases in sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies.

"I have an interest in the best possible science," he said. "I don't want to let anything get in the way, whether its political correctness, or religion. I have deliberately not used the term 'heterosexual sex'," he said.

"Evolution is not politically correct, so of the very broad range of potential sexual behaviour, there is actually only one that is consistently associated with better physical and mental health and that is the one sexual behaviour that would be favoured by evolution. That is not accidental."

In 2007, Brody angered homosexualist activists in the UK when he published research that found intercourse between men and women is the only form of sexual behaviour that improves "psychological and physiological function." He found that levels of prolactin, the hormone that provides the body with sexual gratification, were 400 percent higher among male and female couples who had heterosexual intercourse than those engaging in other forms of sex.

Peter Tatchell, one of Britain's leading homosexualist spokesmen, called the research "unscientific and extreme" and said it contradicted other studies by the US sex researchers Masters and Johnson. Tatchell said, "Brody's is an extreme and disparaging stance to adopt and he seems to have an ideological agenda to promote conventional heterosexual intercourse."

Brody responded at the time, "The radical left wants sex research done, but only if the results are politically acceptable to them."

Brody's previous work has also criticized the disinformation commonly promulgated in the media about the transmission of AIDS among the general population and warned that political correctness has seriously muddied the issues.

His 1997 book "Sex at Risk: Lifetime number of partners, frequency of intercourse and low AIDS risk of vaginal intercourse," concluded that "ideological knowledge" about AIDS, that asserts that heterosexuals are at equal risk of contracting the disease as active homosexuals, is more prevalent in society than evidence-based scientific knowledge gained from objective research. One reviewer called the book a "succinct indictment of people who have conflated politics and science in setting AIDS policy over the past 15 years."

Will Condoms Really Stop AIDS in Africa?

by BRIAN SAINT-PAUL

We're told by the mass media that condom distribution is the solution to the AIDS crisis in Africa and that the Catholic Church is standing in the way of that effort. The research, however, contradicts that view.

If you've watched any of the mainstream news coverage of the Catholic Church in the past month, you've heard several charges repeated over and over: The Church needs to ordain women to address the vocation shortage... the Church needs to change its attitude on contraception and abortion to better accommodate modern realities... the Church needs to moderate its stance on homosexual behavior to be more inclusive... the Church needs to drop its claim to contain the fullness of salvation, since it hinders ecumenism.
Chances are, you're already well equipped to address these objections. But there's one charge that seems to throw Catholics for a loop.

It goes something like this:

By maintaining its ban on condom use, the Catholic Church is contributing to the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Condoms have been demonstrated to prevent infection 90% of the time. If the Vatican cared more about people's lives than a rigid doctrine that most Catholics reject, they'd make an exception to allow condom use to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Such a move would do more for "life" than would maintaining a position that allows millions to die as a result of unprotected sex.

Sounds convincing at first, doesn't it? So convincing, in fact, that most Catholics have trouble addressing it.

One approach, of course, would be to explain the Catholic moral/theological position on why contraception is inherently evil. But while absolutely true, that approach isn't terribly convincing to a non-Catholic, let alone a non-Christian. After all, logic and philosophy are easily dismissed as abstractions when human life is involved.

But the debate over condoms in Africa need never get to that point. In fact, the whole matter can be settled without ever bringing in moral theology. You see, the fatal flaw in the pro-condom argument is both simple and devastating: Condoms aren't working to stem AIDS in Africa.

Take for example a March 2004 article in the medical journal, Studies in Family Planning (cited by the Zenit News Agency, June 26, 2004). Titled "Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?," the piece was a meta-review of the scientific literature on the question.

The results shocked condom advocates. In the article, researchers Sanny Chen and Norman Hearst noted that, "In many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use." In fact, they continued, "No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom distribution."

No surprise, then, that Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa — the nations with the highest levels of condom availability — continue to have the highest rates of HIV prevalence ("The White House Initiative to Combat AIDS: Learning from Uganda," Joseph Loconte, Executive Summary Backgrounder).

How could this be? After all, we're told that condoms are 90% effective.



And that's precisely the problem.

This claim — so prevalent in condom-promotion literature — is actually a tremendous strike against using condoms to reduce AIDS. Think of it: Assuming that the 90% figure is accurate (a highly contested point), that means that 10% of the time, condoms don't offer protection against transmission.

That's one out of ten.

If you and I were to go skydiving, and I told you, "Don't worry... the parachutes work 90% of the time," how comfortable would you be making that jump?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, the pro-condom lobby's exaggerations over the effectiveness of its product is actually making the problem worse, for one simple reason: Condoms provide a false sense of security to those who use them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, of course, the fact that a condom fails to "work" doesn't mean the person will automatically contract HIV/AIDS. Nevertheless, this is hardly the solution to the crisis.

You see, the pro-condom lobby's exaggerations over the effectiveness of its product is actually making the problem worse, for one simple reason: Condoms provide a false sense of security to those who use them. Being convinced of their effectiveness and feeling invulnerable, users will simply continue — or actually increase — their high-risk behavior. In this way, the claimed 90% effectiveness rate plummets in proportion to the increase in self-destructive behavior. This phenomenon is borne out in the countries that focus on condom distribution to fight the disease.



But while condoms clearly won't solve the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa (or anywhere else), there is an approach that will: abstinence. Indeed, in African nations — where HIV/AIDS is transmitted almost exclusively through sexual contact — abstinence is the obvious solution.

And better yet, it has been proven effective.

Uganda at one time had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. Starting in the mid to late 1980s, their government instituted a program to teach abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one's partner afterwards. They only reluctantly advised condoms for high risk groups (like prostitutes) whom they knew would not accept the other two approaches.

Billboards, radio announcements, print ads, and school programs all promoted the virtues of abstinence and fidelity to prevent HIV/AIDS.

The results were astonishing.

In 1991, the prevalence rate of HIV was 15%. By 2001, it had dropped to 5%. It was the biggest HIV infection reduction in world history.

Among pregnant women, the drop was even more dramatic (as reported by CNS News, January 13, 2003). In 1991, 21.2% of expecting mothers tested positive for HIV. By 2001, the number had plummeted to 6.2%. Compare this with the 2001 numbers from Kenya (15%), Zimbabwe (32%), and Botswana (38%). All three countries focus on condom distribution, and all three countries continue to see their rates rise.

But wait, the condom advocates object. The Ugandan "miracle" is simply the result of more widespread condom use.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You cannot show that more condoms have led to less AIDS in Africa.... I look at the data and I see that what might be called a more liberal response to AIDS — more and more millions or billions of condoms — has simply not worked, especially in parts of the world with the highest infection rate, Africa and the Caribbean."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not so, says Dr. Edward C. Green, an anthropologist at the Harvard University School of Public Health. Dr. Green was a strong proponent of condom distribution to stem HIV/AIDS... that is, until the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hired him to study the reasons behind the success in Uganda.

The results of his research left him little doubt. "Reduction in the number of sexual partners was probably the single most important behavioral change that resulted in prevalence decline," he noted. "Abstinence was probably the second most important change" (testimony before the Subcommittee on African Affairs, as reported by Joseph Loconte).

"It is a very indicting statement about the effectiveness of condoms," he told Citizen Magazine. "You cannot show that more condoms have led to less AIDS in Africa.... I look at the data and I see that what might be called a more liberal response to AIDS — more and more millions or billions of condoms — has simply not worked, especially in parts of the world with the highest infection rate, Africa and the Caribbean."



Unfortunately, not everyone was pleased with Dr. Green's conclusions. USAID shelved his study and enlisted a well-known condom advocate and employee of ETR Associates (an organization dedicated to "safe-sex" education) to write a new one. Apparently, USAID wasn't concerned with the apparent conflict of interest.

This is especially tragic, as the effectiveness of abstinence and fidelity education has been demonstrated by numerous research groups. As Loconte notes, evidence for the success of Uganda's approach has come from "USAID, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Harvard Center for Population and Developmental Studies, the Ugandan government, and numerous independent studies published in medical journals."

Yet we're still told condom distribution is the solution to the AIDS crisis in Africa. And the Catholic Church is an easy media bogeyman, standing in the way of that effort.
Ironically enough, Uganda's successful approach is very close to that recommended by the Church. The only exception, of course, is the African country's concession to giving condoms to prostitutes. But if the people of that nation — and indeed, of the world at large — took seriously the Catholic notion of the dignity of women and the nature of sexual intercourse, that last point would be addressed as well.

But what about allowing condoms for faithful married couples, where one partner is HIV/AIDS positive? Isn't that reasonable?

Actually, it's not reasonable at all. Love requires sacrifice. And a person who claims to love another would never knowingly put his beloved in danger. But that's precisely what this approach does.

Imagine if I get drunk one night and drive my wife around town. That's not a loving act. And it doesn't suddenly become loving just because I tell her to put on her seatbelt. When an HIV/AIDS positive person has sex with someone who's free of the disease, he puts that person at grave risk. That's not love... that's selfishness.

In a marital situation where one spouse is HIV/AIDS positive and the other negative, the loving thing to do is to abstain from sex. In those cases, love must be shown in other ways, like the self-sacrifice that abstinence requires.

It's not easy, but real love rarely is.

I'll talk to you next week,

Brian



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Brian Saint-Paul. "Will Condoms Really Stop AIDS In Africa?" Crisis E-Letter (May 19, 2005).

This article is reprinted with permission from the Morley Institute a non-profit education organization. To subscribe to Crisis magazine call 1-800-852-9962.

Further Reading The “Social Vaccine”
The AIDS Pandemic: Saving the Next Generation Latex and Life Doubts About Condoms: Science Questioning Their Efficacy in Halting HIV/AIDS
Will Condoms Really Stop AIDS In Africa?

THE AUTHOR

Brian Saint-Paul is the editor of Crisis Magazine. http://www.insidecatholic.com/

Copyright © 2005 Crisis

Missouri Conscience Bill Seeks to Reclassify MAP as Abortifacient

By John Jalsevac

JEFFERSON CITY, MO, February 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill recently introduced into the Missouri House of Representatives seeks to protect pharmacists from civil and criminal liability for refusing to dispense the morning after pill by stating that no pharmacists should be required to assist in an abortion.

What is especially unique about House Bill 1625, as compared to other conscience legislation that has been introduced in other states, is that the bill, if passed, would officially reclassify the morning after pill as an abortifacient.

The text of the bill, introduced by Representative Edgar Emery, states: "No licensed pharmacy in this state shall be required to perform, assist, recommend, refer to, or participate in any act or service in connection with any drug or device that is an abortifacient, including but not limited to the RU486 drug and emergency contraception such as the Plan B drug."

At present the FDA does not classify the morning after pill as an abortifacient, but only as a contraceptive. However, the pill has been shown to have a number of mechanisms to prevent birth, including preventing the implantation of an already fertilized egg into the uterus, which action meets the definition of an abortion. The manufacturer's own information about the drug states that the pill "may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium."

Nevertheless, at the same time as admitting that the pill may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, Plan B also insists that the "emergency contraceptive" is not an abortifacient, a claim that thus far the FDA has gone along with.

HB 1625 comes on the heels of an opposing bill, HB 1720, introduced in January by Rep. Mike Talboy, that would require pharmacists to fill "valid and lawful prescriptions for all federal Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs or devices used to prevent pregnancy, including emergency contraceptives, without delay."

HB 1720 states: "A pharmacy and its employees have a duty to treat each customer in a nonjudgmental manner and ensure that each customer is not subjected to indignity, humiliation, breaches of confidentiality, or pressure to fill or not to fill the prescription. The provisions of this subsection are fully applicable to over-the-counter emergency contraception sold to persons of legal age."

Pamela Sumners, executive director of the Missouri affiliate of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, said about the newest bill, "If you become a pharmacist, you should do your job."

However, Rep. Emery stated that the bill "is an acknowledgement that in the litigant society in which we live, there's always the threat that people who are doing things according to their conscience could be sued because someone else has a different sense of conscience." Emery's bill would ensure that no pharmacists would be subject to litigation on account of his conscience.

There She Goes Again (and again, and again, and...)

More Lawsuits Against Ortho-Evra

How we ladies do love the convenience of our patch. How wonderful to stick it on our body and forget it! It leaves so much more time for dancing and dining, and running through the rain...(wretch)

But before you "stick it" this month, Red Herring reports: The FDA has logged more than 9,100 complaints of adverse reactions to Ortho-Evra since October 2005, as compared with around 1,200 complaints for Ortho Tri-Cyclen, Ortho-McNeil’s traditional BCP, over a period of six years. The FDA said that this really only represents 1 to 10 percent of actual patch-related problems.

The latest lawsuit is filed by Carla and Jason Fletcher of Illinois, seeking 1.3 million in damages.

Is it time for the FDA to do something? Or are they just too busy patting themselves on the back for letting the Morning After Pill through?

Funerals and Breast Cancer Pledge-a-thons, gives the feminists something to do these days.

The Claims on Contraceptive Dangers are mounting

The truth will out, they say.

While we line up to purchase our "Fund the Cure" postage stamps, the true cure for breast cancer exists right in front of our own noses: hormonal contraceptives and abortion are linked to breast cancer.
While Ortho Evra and Planned Parenthood deceive women with the false glamor of the Patch, women are dying and lay on their deathbed from pulmonary embolism, stroke and dangerous blood clots. Where is the glamor in the death of a young woman?

Do these companies and organizations have true concern for women, their health and well being?

In the case of breast cancer, one might add that the more money the public gives to the cancer fundraising industry, the more women there are who develop the disease. In 1970, one in 12 women were expected to develop breast cancer. In 2004, more than 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with it. The American Cancer Society expects 216,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer and 59,000 cases of in situ breast cancer in 2004.

If the cancer establishment were truly interested in reducing breast cancer rates, it would have exhibited an interest in preventing the disease. The best way to prevent breast cancer (and cut breast cancer rates by more than one-half) is to have more children, starting before age 24, and breastfeeding them longer.

If women's lives mattered more than fundraising and protecting the abortion and the pharmaceutical industries, then the cancer fundraising industry would have long ago fingered abortion as one of the culprits responsible for these recognized reproductive risk factors - childlessness, decreased childbearing, delayed first birth, and little or no breastfeeding.

If women's lives mattered, then women would have been told in 1986 when U.S. government scientists admitted that abortion is an independent cause of breast cancer. [Stadel B, Wingo P, et al. Letter to editor, Lancet, Feb. 22, 1986, p. 436]

Woman Sues “Birth Control” Patch Manufacturer for Pulmonary Embolism

NEW YORK, September 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A 37 year old woman who suffered a pulmonary embolism after using the Ortho Evra contraceptive patch for seven months has filed a lawsuit against the patch’s manufacturer, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc.

Recent reports have indicated that the risk of developing blood clots, pulmonary embolism, heart attack and stroke may be significantly higher with the Ortho Evra patch than with other hormonal contraceptives.

Pulmonary embolism is a potentially fatal condition triggered by a blood clot that obstructs an artery in the lungs, often leaving victims with chronic health problems requiring long-term anticoagulant medications. Reports show that the deaths of at least seventeen young American women over the past two years may be related to Ortho Evra patch use.

The first fatality publicly blamed on the Ortho Evra patch came in April 2005, when a Manhattan fashion student collapsed in a city subway station. An autopsy found a blood clot had moved into the victim’s lung, and the medical examiner ruled that the clot was a side effect of the birth control device. FDA records show that seventeen patch users between the ages of 17 and 30 have suffered fatal heart attacks, blood clots and possible strokes since August 2002.

It is alleged that Ortho-McNeil was aware of the increased medical risks associated with Ortho Evra before the drug was approved and that, once approved, the company failed to adequately warn patients about these risks. The incidence of blood clots in Phase III trials of Ortho Evra was reportedly six times greater than the incidence of such events in women taking oral contraceptives.

The FDA has logged 9,116 reports of adverse reactions to the patch in a 17 month period, whereas Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a birth control pill, only generated 1,237 adverse reports in a six year period. During a 12 month period, 44 serious injuries or deaths have been associated with Ortho Evra, whereas only 17 such reports were linked to the birth control pill during a similar time period. The pattern is further magnified when usage rates are considered: Ortho Tri-Cyclen has six times the number of users as Ortho Evra.

Prior to approval, the FDA medical review expressed concerns about Ortho Evra causing venous thromboembolisms, stating: “Post-marketing surveillance for DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis) and PE (Pulmonary Embolism) events will be important, as there are potential serious adverse risks (with two cases of pulmonary emboli in the clinical trials) with this new delivery system for contraception.”

Ortho Evra was approved by the FDA in April 2002, and over 4 million women have used Ortho Evra since its approval. Ortho Evra continues to be marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.

Parker & Waichman, LLP, the legal firm representing the woman, is soliciting any women who may have been adversely affected by using Ortho Evra. They can be contacted at their web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
FDA Reveals 17 Fatalities in Two Years from Contraceptive "Sex Patch"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/sept/04092001/htm...
18 Year-Old New York Student Dies Suddenly from Birth Control Complications
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04040606.html

tv



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444

Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/

There she goes again? 23 of them have gone...

Birth Control Patch Claims 23 Lives and Counting

NEW YORK, July 15, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Federal drug safety reports obtained by The Associated Press under a Freedom of Information Act request, "indicate that in 2004 -- when 800,000 women were on the patch -- the risk of dying or suffering a survivable blood clot while using the device was about three times higher than while using birth control pills."

AP points out that the majority of the women were young and in otherwise good health and at low risk for blood clots - "women like Zakiya Kennedy, an 18-year-old Manhattan fashion student who collapsed and died in a New York subway station last April," the AP relates. "Or Sasha Webber, a 25-year-old mother of two from Baychester, N.Y., who died of a heart attack after six weeks on the patch last March."

Some doctors who reviwed the Food and Drug Administration reports "were alarmed," according to the report. "I was shocked," said Dr. Alan DeCherney, editor-in-chief of Fertility and Sterility and a UCLA professor of obstetrics and gynecology."

The patch's manufacturer, Ortho McNeil, claimed that one death attributed to the patch should not be counted because it occurred in a woman who had undergone surgery. "But an FDA reviewer, using capital letters and underscoring his comments, took issue with Ortho McNeil," the AP report continued.

"THE REVIEWER DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE SPONSOR'S ABOVE CONCLUSIONS," the reviewer's report warns. "The two cases of pulmonary embolus, a serious and potentially fatal condition, must be counted as two cases . . . The incidence rates quoted by the sponsor may be misleading." The reviewer added, "The label should clearly reflect this reviewer's safety concern about a potential increased risk."

The AP reviewed 16,000 files related to patch-related effects. "These ranged from mild rashes to deaths, and there were many duplicate reports," they said. "Within this collection of reports, the AP found 23 different deaths associated with the patch. The primary cause of death in those reports isn't always clear -- some mention suicide, others abortion. Doctors who reviewed the 23 cases found about 17 that appeared to be clot-related, including 12 from last year."

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444

Please donate to LifeSiteNews.com

related story:
Abortion-Causing Birth Control Patch Manufacturer Faces Class-Action Lawsuit

Fatalities Blamed On Birth Control Patch

Written By The Associated Press
Created:7/13/2005 3:36:46 PM
Last Updated:7/13/2005 3:39:23 PM


Gingerly, Kathleen Thoren's family gathered around her in the intensive care unit, unable to speak to their beloved sister, daughter, wife, or even stroke her hands. The slightest stimulation might create a fatal amount of pressure on the 25-year-old woman's swollen brain, warned the doctors.

"We were horrified, but we tried to just quietly be with her," said her sister Erika Klein. "In the end, it didn't help."

The mother of three died last fall, just after Thanksgiving, after days of agonizing headaches that the coroner's report said were brought on by hormones released into her system by Ortho Evra, a birth control patch she had started using a few weeks earlier.

She was among about a dozen women, most in their late teens and early 20s, who died last year from blood clots believed to be related to the birth control patch. Dozens more survived strokes and other clot-related problems, according to federal drug safety reports obtained by The Associated Press under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Several lawsuits have already been filed by families of women who died or suffered blood clots while using the patch, and lawyers said more are planned.

Though the Food and Drug Administration and patch-maker Ortho McNeil saw warning signs of possible problems with the patch well before it reached the market, both maintain that the patch is as safe as the pill.

However, the reports obtained by the AP appear to indicate that in 2004 -- when 800,000 women were on the patch -- the risk of dying or suffering a survivable blood clot while using the device was about three times higher than while using birth control pills.

The women who died were young and apparently at low risk for clots -- women like Zakiya Kennedy, an 18-year-old Manhattan fashion student who collapsed and died in a New York subway station last April. Or Sasha Webber, a 25-year-old mother of two from Baychester, N.Y., who died of a heart attack after six weeks on the patch last March.

Some doctors, reviewing the Food and Drug Administration reports at the request of The AP, were alarmed. "I was shocked," said Dr. Alan DeCherney, editor-in-chief of Fertility and Sterility and a UCLA professor of obstetrics and gynecology.

But other doctors said they would have expected some deaths and no investigation is warranted. They point to more than 4 million women who have safely used the patch and note that the FDA reports are called in voluntarily, rather than gathered scientifically.

"It doesn't jump out at me to say, 'Let's look at this any further,"' agreed Dr. Steven J. Sondheimer, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't feel that these need to be looked at in any detail."

Ortho McNeil, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, says none of the deaths can be directly attributed to the patch.

"Although we are investigating each and every one of the reports that we get, we have not drawn any causal relationships to the medication," said Dr. Katherine LaGuardia, Ortho McNeil's director of women's health care.

Not one? "Right," she said. "It's difficult to reach a definitive answer, and privacy laws prevent us from investigating as thoroughly as we wish."

Blood clots are an accepted risk from hormonal birth control because estrogen promotes blood coagulation.

But how many clots are too many?

The AP found that before the patch was approved, the FDA had already noticed nonfatal blood clots from the patch were three times that of the pill. The AP then examined what has actually happened since the patch came on the market and found that deaths also appear to be at least three times as high.

If you are a woman taking the pill who doesn't smoke and is under 35, the chance that you are going to have a blood clot that doesn't kill you is between 1 and 3 in 10,000. Your risk of dying from a blood clot while using the pill is about 1 in 200,000.

By contrast, with the patch, the rate of nonfatal blood clots was about 12 out of 10,000 users during the clinical trials, while the rate of deaths appears to be 3 out of 200,000.

Clots usually form in the legs, and become serious problems if they travel to a woman's heart, lungs or brain.

In 2000, doctors at the FDA reviewing clinical trials of the wafer-thin, plastic patch warned that blood clots could be a problem if it was approved....

read the rest of AP Report

A Guaranteed Abortifacient Form of Contraception

Isn't this wonderful? One the one hand, the medical community has finally recognized the danger of the Pill. However, with the introduction of this new drug, we can guarantee that each and every fertilized ovum will be aborted. Notice the deceptive language being employed- " an embryo would not attach to the womb wall, and a pregnancy would be impossible."

And as this is reported, Blessed Mother says this at Holy Love:

“You must understand that self-love has carried away the hearts of a vast majority of the world populace to the point of God’s Creation being convoluted towards the fulfillment of this disordered self-love. The life that God creates in the womb is defiled and discarded without regard for the soul that He creates at the moment of conception—discarded because life is not loved for what it is; or even worse, body parts are harvested as though the unborn child was a used car.”


“While Christians go to every extreme to limit reproduction and use sex only for pleasure, the nation of Islam is burgeoning forth and will soon outnumber all other populations. You do not see what lies hidden in some hearts, but I tell you that unnatural birth control is a tool Satan is using to bring destruction to your doorstep.”

Now the medical community can ensure that many more acts of coitus will result in abortion. Lord have mercy.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2005/06/05 23:14:41 GMT

Hope for new contraceptive option

Scientists are working on an alternative to the contraceptive pill which they hope would carry a lower risk of side effects.

A University of Cambridge team has discovered a molecule, STAT3, that helps embryos implant in the womb.

They say a drug that blocks STAT3 should act as a contraceptive without disrupting hormones, or raising the risk of blood clots, as the Pill does.

Details are published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Cambridge team has shown that STAT3 plays a key role in signalling to the cells lining the womb that they should allow the embryo to attach.

Without that signal an embryo would not attach to the womb wall, and a pregnancy would be impossible.

Role in tumours

Drug companies are already researching ways to block STAT3 because it has also been implicated in the formation of tumours, and diabetes.


CONTRACEPTIVE PILL
Associated with higher risk of:
Breast cancer
High blood pressure
Blood clots
Associated with lower risk of:
Ovarian cancer
Endometrial cancer
Acne

Lead researcher Dr Andrew Sharkey said the latest research suggested the experimental compounds under development might also act as a contraceptive.

"These compounds may be effective at preventing implantation in humans if appropriate dose and delivery systems can be devised to target the uterus, such as gels."

The researchers are also investigating whether deficiencies in STAT3 signalling might be responsible for certain types of infertility.

They believe it might be possible to treat some cases of infertility by activating STAT3 signalling.

Dr Anna Glasier, director of family planning for Lothian Primary Care NHS Trust, said molecules which had a specific effect on the body were the most likely to minimise the risk of side effects.

Risks and benefits

But she said modern contraceptive pills, although associated with side effects, including an apparent increased risk of breast cancer, also had beneficial effects.

For instance, the combined pill is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers, and can help to improve skin conditions, such as acne.

"If you get more and more specific in the molecules that are used to provide contraception, then you will lose all those non-contraceptive benefits," she said.

Toni Belfield, of the Family Planning Association, said: "All research into improving women and men's choices in contraception is to be welcomed.

"But what is just as important is to improve the information that we provide about current contraceptive methods, to remove the many myths and misinformation about their risks and benefits."

The research was funded by the World Health Organization as part of a programme to identify new targets for contraception development.

More Women Opting Against Birth Control, Study Finds

"Pregnancy is not a disease. . . . The women making these choices are making a conscious choice. They are not stupid," said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. "Women don't want to use birth control because of the side effects. And a lot of men refuse to use a condom."

Maybe they're onto something....