NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > Entertainment blogs > Manhattan Diary > GOP's small government of the bedroom - best form of contraception is abstinence

Manhattan Diary by Cahir O'Doherty

GOP's small government of the bedroom - best form of contraception is abstinence

Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 08:27 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

43 Comments

Correction: Women will NOT let the politicos get away with their lies. (Or maybe women will let them get away with lies-- until next November, when the US will see a demonstration of the wrath of women at the polls. A political tsunami on the way.)

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 25, 2012, 03:04 PM EST

Women will let the Catholic politicos, i.e., the bishops, get away with their organized campaign of lies. As Sarah Posner writes on Salon, 2/23, "The opponents of legal abortion and readily, widely available contraception have already made extraordinary gains— enormous setbacks for women — at the state level. This week’s developments in Virginia, where pro-choice opposition prompted Gov. Bob McDonnell to back off his pledge to sign into law a bill that would mandate transvaginal ultrasound before abortion [legalized, high tech rape], demonstrate how robust, unabashed activism can expose the right’s extremism on these issues. But it also showed how the long game has paid off for the right, as the ultrasound bill may nonetheless become law, just without the vaginal intrusion. 'Pregnancy care centers,' some affiliated with evangelical and Catholic churches, teach that birth control is harmful and doesn’t even work. The Catholic Church— which is claiming that the federal government is infringing on its rights— disseminates false information that contraceptives do not prevent unintended pregnancy and harm women. In the ever-shifting goal post of sin, the emergency contraceptives Ella and Plan B are now falsely depicted by Obama foes as 'abortifacients,' opening the door for opponents to claim the contraceptive coverage requirement compels them to cover abortion, too." It seems there's no alternative but to call this campaign what it is: a coordinated set of lies motivated by the need to retain church power at the cost of integrity and real moral leadership.

Report abuse

Gearoid4 | Feb 23, 2012, 02:06 PM EST

No, I'm not, Eiriamach. The Ella pill like it's close relative RU-486 can get to work within a woman's body for up to 5 days after it is ingested. Sperm have been known to fertilize eggs as soon as 72 hours after intercourse and in theory these pills can prevent the implantation during this time. I realize that the medical studies on this are not decisive on this matter but more long-term data is required before we can say for sure. The ability of these pills to prevent implantation is still present due to the heavy doses of hormones that it carries.

Report abuse

adrienrain | Feb 22, 2012, 06:15 PM EST

If altar boys could get pregnant, this controversy would never have arisen. For that matter, women who have had sex with priests and conceived, report that the priest pressured them to have an abortion. Celibacy is the most artificial form of birth control there is, and every bit as virtuous as constipation.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 22, 2012, 05:49 PM EST

Gearoid4, You're simply wrong, and perhaps youy should read the research. It seems rather simple: research has shown, quite conclusively, that ella works by delaying ovulation, not by preventing implantation as heavy-dose, earlier, "morning after" pills worked: if ella delays ovulation, there can be NO fertilized ovum; if there is NO fertilized ovum, there is NO implantation. If there is NO implantation of fertilized ovum, then there is NO pregnancy and hence NO chemically induced abortion (there's nothing to abort). In order to show that ella is an abortifacient, you need to show not just that it thins the uterine lining, but that the research demonstrating ella's suppression of ovulation is wrong. Can you do that? Hint: Most likely, the reason why no clinician has demonstrated an abortifacient effect is that pregnancy does not occur during the first five days of ella's effect (in other words, ella works by suppressing ovulation). As for choice, of course no one I know of in the USA would try to force a woman to abort a pregnancy. However, parents generally have the right to decide in the case of their pregnant child. MDs often advise evacuation of the uterus because of common life-threatening complications of pregnancy in children (and the genetic anomalies common to fetuses in childhood pregnancies) and to avoid the surgery that would be necessary if the child could carry the pregnancy to term (children's bodies can become pregnant but cannot naturally give birth in most cases).

Report abuse

Gearoid4 | Feb 22, 2012, 02:45 PM EST

@Eiriamach, We know that as the Ella pill, while ostensibly an emergency contraceptive, works like it's close cousin RU-486 in preventing implantation as it works for up to 5 days after use. Thus it can be said to have an abortaficient capability, which most modern contraceptive pills possess anyway. The enforced rape and impregnation of minors or women of any age is a horrific crime and the full weight of the law should be used on the criminals who commit such atrocities. In this type of situation, the victim should always be treated with the utmost sympathy and care. As regards the fate of the life in the womb, it is very hard to be dispassionate in such a situation. But if one is consistently pro-life, then they cannot recommend the destruction of that life. Being "pro-choice" does not mean that one restricts the available options for pregnant women experiencing some difficulties, to a trip to the abortion clinic. If this term is used in it's proper context, one would include such invaluable choices as pro-life counselling, after-birth natal care or even adoption services. That is REAL choice.

Report abuse

hollabackgurl | Feb 22, 2012, 09:45 AM EST

Santorum believes that women shouldn't serve in the Armed Forces or work outside the home. They should not have access to contraception of any kind. They should be barefoot and in the kitchen. 'I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated.'

Report abuse

JosephOCasey | Feb 22, 2012, 07:04 AM EST

Nice of you to attribute a quote to Rick Santorum that he never made, it was Foster Friess who made the Bayer aspirin comment..not Santorum. If you are going to smear him, at least get your quotes straight.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 21, 2012, 09:24 AM EST

@Gearoid4, I forgot to mention that Justo Aznar *cannot* conduct clinical trials because his degree is not in medicine-- Ph.D, not M.D. He read the medical journals, articles written by real clinicians, and he did some guesswork about ella on the basis of what he read, but in ignorance-- or deliberate disregard-- of how the medical profession prescribes ella. Anyone who can read can do the same, but most who are lay people in medical science have enough integrity not to speculate wildly about research in the sciences. Again I am compelled to say that the Catholic establishment is deliberately citing pseudo-scientific, religiously-biased tracts to keep its war on women's health in play.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 21, 2012, 09:01 AM EST

Justo Aznar is a doctor at the Catholic University of Valencia; he wrote for the journal 'Medicine and Morality,' and he theorized-- with NO clinical trials-- in 2009 about the effects of ellaOne, an early version of the current pill: "It appears that its mechanism of action will depend on the time at which the drug is taken." Of course! That's why physicians do not prescribe ella for pregnant women! He speculates, "Endometrial changes may also play a role." Nice guess, doc, but guesses are not science. And endometrial changes are irrelevant since ella has been shown highly effective in delaying ovulation past the viability of even young, vigorous, teenaged sperm in the uterus. "Therefore, after evaluation of the previous studies, in our opinion, it can be reasonably concluded that ulipristal acetate (Ellaone) may inhibit or delay ovulation, while altering the endometrium, actions which explain its contraceptive effect; undoubtedly however, how the drug acts in each specific case will essentially depend on the day of the female cycle on which it is taken." He guesses that if ella is taken two days before ovulation BUT 72 hours after intercuorse, "the mechanism by which Ellaone **may** prevent unwanted pregnancies will be by an anti-implantation mechanism, in other words, abortive." Using guesswork about highly unlikely scenarios, Dr. Aznar has done the best he could for the Catholic anti-choice movement, but his conclusions ignore known facts and medical restrictions about who may take this pill and when.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 21, 2012, 08:28 AM EST

Each year in the US, more than 25,000 pregnancies result from rapes. And half of all US pregnancies are unplanned (resulting from unprotected sex). It is beyond the pale that anyone would oppose use of a medication like ella in medicine's effort to deal with these horrendous statistics, especially when one considers the number of children-- teenaged or younger-- whose lives are forever altered by rape and early pregnancies. WHERE is the concern for our children, if not for women of childbearing age? The serious risks of pregnancy, to both the pregnant woman and the fetus, do not begin to diminish until about age 20. THINK about the fate of the children who could be subjected to a Catholic regimentation of American health care for females!

Report abuse

eiriamach | Feb 21, 2012, 08:21 AM EST

@Gearoid4, Ella can cause a thinning of the uterine wall that WOULD act against implantation BUT since we know for sure that ella delays ovulation, it is virtually impossible for a fertilized ovum to be present. And the 30mg dose, as Dr. Glasier points out, is "unlikely to be strong enough to prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg" (2010 Lancet 365: “Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised noninferiority trial and meta-analysis). The ella pill is "chemically similar" to the earlier "morning after" pill (RU 486), but the amount of active chemical is far less than in RU486; hence it lacks abortifacient action. Doctors use ella to treat fibroid tumers also. The web sites you've visited to get your "information" use phrases like "arguably" and "in theory" and "possibly" to suggest that ella might be abortifacient. BUT Physicians must test for pregnancy before administering ella, and if the woman is pregnant, the MD will not administer ella! "Emergency contraception prevents ovulation. It has no impact on pregnancies that are already underway" (Van Look & Stewart, 1998). Your search for reasons to oppose the HHS mandate is more than strained; it is fanatical. Thousands of conditions interfere with implantation of fertilized ova, from a mild cold to unknown chemicals in the air or water. Many thousands of unimplanted fertilized ova flush down toilets every day, usually before women ever suspect they might have become pregnant--that is a fact of nature--though not a convenient fact for your religion.

Report abuse

Gearoid4 | Feb 20, 2012, 04:36 PM EST

Okay, Eiriamach, here is a little sample of that much needed proof that you require which gives the lie to the claim that Ella is not an abortafacient pill- CBS News notes ella’s “chemical similarity” to RU-486 (which will not be “free” under Obamacare). The New York Times describes it as being RU-486’s “chemical relative.” The Washington Post describes it as being RU-486’s “close chemical relative.” WebMD says that it works to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg — in other words, as an abortifacient. Dr. Justo Aznar writes that between 50 percent and 70 percent of the time, ella “will act by an abortive mechanism.” The European Medicine Agency acknowledges that the drug has the "ability to delay maturation of the endometrium likely resulting in prevention of implantation." For the umpteenth, pregnancy is a very natural condition that contraception seeks to prevent, thus when one applies logic to that situation, one can dismiss the "health" angle as regards it's prescription in the majority of cases. Well, you think that Mary is no model for women to follow because she give her willing consent to God's plan to bear His Son. This is a very revealing comment. You ridiculously describe my "metaphysics as very dehumanising of the female". It is the complete opposite in fact as it is a celebration of the wonderful maternal gift of giving birth to children and rearing them in a loving family, unencumbered by the false promise of freedom from those who preach about having "control over one's body" through frustrating the natural life-giving potential of one's body. @Ephraim, the rights of religious bodies are covered by the First Amendment of the US Constitution which the Obama Administration is figuratively driving a horse and coach through.

Report abuse

Harliemt | Feb 20, 2012, 03:24 PM EST

Two thumbs up hollabackgurl!

Report abuse

hollabackgurl | Feb 20, 2012, 02:11 PM EST

Rick Santorum DOES beleive that women should not work. He believes they should not be in the Armed Forces. He believes that life begins at last call in the nightclub. He believes that if you're not Christian and Catholic you're not qualified to be president. He's much more of a fanatic than this quote, if anything.

Report abuse