Archive for August, 2011

The Tunnel of Parenthood

by Emily Sederstrand

Author Emily Sederstrand with her husband Tom and her son Owen

Author Emily Sederstrand with husband Tom and son Owen

In 2005, my husband, Tom, and I relocated from Ohio to upstate NY with three young children in tow. God provided for us, and we quickly made wonderful and faith-filled friends. Soon after settling in, I was invited to a “mom’s dinner,” an evening out to get refreshed. There, I was introduced to Joan, who was at the time the mother of nine and newly expecting her tenth. I looked at her in awe, unsure how anyone could have nine children!

“Oh,” she exclaimed, “you’re in the darkest part of motherhood! It’s going to get better!”

Joan was elegant and well-spoken. She turned to me and cheerfully asked, “So, what are the ages of your children?” I answered a bit sheepishly, “4 ½, 2 ½, and 1 ½,” unsure of where the conversation was heading. “Oh,” she exclaimed, “you’re in the darkest part of motherhood! It’s going to get better!” Say what? I was totally surprised, and frankly, relieved. (more…)

The Pill and Breast Cancer. Why the Ignorance?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO9F8fF5blE]

Transcript:

Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, MD:

The Current State of Affairs

Most physicians, family docs and I think OBGYNs, and most researches if you ask them,
“Does the birth control pill increase the risk of breast cancer?” They will go back to a study which was a pooled analysis of all the world studies, done in 1996. It look at 54 studies, 53,000 women, 25 countries and they basically said their conclusion: “Women who are currently using combined oral contraceptives or have used them in the past 10 years are at a slightly increased risk of having breast cancer diagnosed, although the additional cancers tend to be localized to the breast.”

So, what does that mean? (more…)

New Perspectives on Contraception

By Donald DeMarco, Ph.D.

“New Perspectives on Contraception is an excellent
summary of the battle between good and evil in modern times,
where the battlefield has been over the graves of millions of helpless
babies, conceived lovelessly and ruthlessly destroyed, where the casualties
have been marriages and other relationships fragmented by
contraception, where the only answers that could have solved the
problems of these unhappy people were Truth and Love.”

“It is hoped that this book will find a wide distribution. It could be
extremely helpful to priests, marriage counsellors, senior High
School students and young adults contemplating marriage.”

Evelyn L. Billings John J. Billings

In order to view this page you need Flash Player 9+ support!


Get Adobe Flash player

PDF

Women who take steroidal contraceptives are at increased risk of HIV/AIDS infection

By Jennifer I Kimball, Be.L. and Steven W. Mosher

Hormonal contraceptives alter women's local and systemic immunities making HIV infection more likely

Thirty years after the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported the first US case of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), the disease continues to stretch its shroud of death across the world. This, despite the billions of dollars that have been invested in the development of vaccines, spent on anti-retroviral therapies, and strewn about in condom distribution and sexual education schemes.

 

But there is a strange and disturbing trend now evident in the new cases of HIV/AIDS being reported, and it concerns women of reproductive age.

According to the most recent report of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, published in 2009, close to 50% of all newly acquired Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-1 infections across the globe now occur in women of reproductive age. Only a decade before, in 1998, only roughly 36% of reported cases concerned women of all ages. Why this vast increase? Why, when treatment for HIV has become more accessible and the overall death toll has slowly been decreasing, are more and more women being infected? And why is the increase concentrated in women in their childbearing years?

Heterosexual intercourse is the point of transmission for the majority of these newly infected women. No surprise here. But sex is not just sex these days. Heavily funded population control programs have promoted, and even imposed, powerful, steroid-based contraceptive drugs on tens of millions of Third World women. What they trumpet as “greater global access to family planning methods” has in fact given the HIV virus greater access to women’s bodies by altering women’s local and systemic immunities, cervico-vaginal responses and protective vaginal flora—all in directions that make infection more likely.

Statistics gathered over the past 20 years reveal a parallel between an increase in contraceptive drug use and an increase in HIV-1 infections in women. Several epidemiological studies over the same period also seem to demonstrate a link. These studies were conducted with various cohorts of women from married mothers to single adolescents to “sex workers”, and were carried out, for the most part, among the populations of users of African family planning clinics. A link between the use of contraceptive drugs and HIV-1 disease acquisition and progression seemed evident, although most of the studies—for whatever reason—failed to draw any consistent or strong conclusions about this link. And none suggested that family planning programs ought to be modified or scaled back as a result.

One meta-analysis of 28 studies in 1999 suggested a positive association between oral contraceptives and HIV-1 incidence. A later study, however, carried out in 2006, claimed that there was no overall risk of acquiring HIV-1 as a result of such drug use. Such disparate results enable the promoters of population control programs to continue to rely on such contraceptive drugs, claiming, “the science is not settled.” Many of the organizations involved in such programs are, for obvious reasons, reluctant to offer clarity to women on the correlation between contraceptive use and HIV- disease prevalence in women. Indeed, several studies almost seem designed to deliberately obscure this fact.

Additional evidence of such a link comes from other studies that conclusively demonstrate that hormonal contraceptive use is positively associated with an increased risk of several other sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) such as Chlamydia.

So why are the studies involving HIV-1 transmission so inconclusive? Reasons include poor controls on variables such as age and sexual lifestyle variants, infrequent assessment, lack of follow-up and widely varying contraceptive delivery methods. Attempts at rendering comparative data are difficult, and some of the statistical compilations and some of the meta-analytical efforts, seemed designed to serve population politics.

There are other lacunae as well. Few studies consider the different effects of estrogen and progesterone—and their synthetic steroid-based counterparts–on vaginal and cervical structure and immunity. The studies that have been done broadly compare “hormonal contraceptive” use to HIV-1 acquisition and progression across a diverse range of deliverables–oral, injectible, intra-uteral, etc.—that are lumped together under one generic “hormonal contraceptive” title. The most common such amalgamation, Combined Oral Contraceptives (COC’s), consists of both hormonal (estrogen-like compounds) and steroidal (progestin) agents that work together to prevent ovulation, taken daily as “the pill.”

Other forms of contraceptive delivery include progestogen-only, such as the high-dose injectables Depo-Provera (DMPA) and Noristerat, moderate-dose pills, low-dose subdermal implants and laced intra-uterine devices (IUD’s). These steroidal forms of preventing pregnancy affect the female reproductive system somewhat differently than their estrogen-like counterparts. In low-dose delivery regimens, progestins cause a thickening of cervical mucus inhibiting sperm viability and penetration. In high-dose delivery, cervico-vaginal changes also occur: follicular development is halted along with ovulation and the endometrium is thinned. The progestogen-only effects are clear: they weigh heavily on women’s cervico-vaginal structure and protective flora, hence reducing a woman’s ability to ward off infection. As far back as 1991 abnormal changes in the condition of the cervix was found to be strongly been associated with increased susceptibility to HIV/AIDS acquisition.

The chain of reasoning is straightforward: Women who take drug-based hormonal and steroidal contraceptives are at increased risk of STI’s. HIV/AIDS is an STI. Therefore, women who take powerful steroid-based drugs called “hormonal contraceptives” are at increased risk of contracting the HIV virus.

It’s time that researchers and policy makers faced these facts responsibly, for women’s sake.

Original Source POP.org

HHS Guidelines Violate Liberty of Catholic Colleges

From the Cardinal Newman Society press release:

New health plan guidelines announced by the Obama Administration would significantly violate the religious liberty of Catholic colleges and universities and the families who entrust students to Catholic education.

“The HHS guidelines would force Catholic colleges to violate the law or violate the Catholic faith,” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “Neither option is acceptable.

“It appears that Catholic colleges will be forced into the untenable position of helping students as well as employees obtain free contraceptives and sterilization,” Reilly said. “Our religious freedom is under attack.”

Under the new guidelines to be implemented as part of the Affordable Care Act signed into law last year, health plans will be required to cover without co-pay “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

The guidelines include a very narrow religious exemption that applies primarily to churches, but would likely not exempt most Catholic colleges and universities that serve students regardless of their religious beliefs. The guidelines exempt a religious employer that “(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization…” Such language has been used in California and other states to ensure that most religious organizations are not exempted from contraceptive mandates.

“The HHS language is ambiguous and likely to be interpreted with a bias against Catholic agencies,” Reilly said. “For instance, does a college ‘primarily’ serve Catholic students if more than half the students are Catholic? 75 percent? What is the threshold? It’s left to the discretion of federal bureaucrats who have demonstrated repeated disregard for Catholic institutions.”

“Meanwhile, this only increases the importance of Catholic colleges ensuring a strong and consistent Catholic identity, including clear ‘hiring for mission’ policies, so that they can demand First Amendment protection from unfair laws and regulations,” Reilly added.

The Cardinal Newman Society has raised serious concerns about increasing threats to the religious liberty of Catholic colleges and universities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has failed to reply to an appeal from Belmont Abbey College, which was charged with “discrimination” for refusing to include contraceptives in its employee health plan. This year the National Labor Relations Board has twice ignored federal court rulings and asserted jurisdiction over Catholic colleges. An attorney is suing The Catholic University of America for allegedly violating the District of Columbia Human Rights Act by reverting to single-sex dorms.

Take Action NOW!