Archive for 2013

Russia Chooses Life

Steven W. Mosher, Weekly Briefing, 23 December 2013

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law banning abortion advertising. Some members of the Duma (the Russian state assembly), are talking about going even further and banning the procedure itself.  The Russian Orthodox Church, whose numbers are swelling with converts and “reverts,” is weighing in as well.  One Orthodox prelate called abortion a “mutiny against God.” I couldn’t have put it better myself.

This is an amazing turn about in a country which has long been known for its tragically high abortion rate.  Until recently, the average woman in Russia could expect to have seven abortions over her lifetime.  Even The New York Times, no  bastion of pro-life sentiment, has been compelled to acknowledge that Russia’s high abortion rate was damaging the health and fertility of Russian women. As the paper noted in a 2003 editorial, “Now the Russian government is attempting to slow the abortion rate.  It is an admirable goal, given the toll that multiple abortions have taken on the health and fertility of Russia’s women.” Not to mention the toll that abortion has taken on the unborn, and on the population as a whole.

Abortion was forced on the Russian people by the Bolsheviks (the Russian communist party under Lenin), who upon coming to power in 1920 legalized abortion up to birth without any restrictions. Their goal was to destroy the family by encouraging women to get abortions, get out of the home and into the workforce.  Russia was the first country in the world to declare war on the unborn in this way.  Of course, with its purges, mass executions, and Gulag it warred on the unborn in other ways as well.

In fact, it was the early Bolsheviks who developed the suction abortion machine that is still in use in abortion clinics today.  They actually developed two versions.  The first was the electric suction abortion machine used in abortion clinics in the U.S. and other countries. The second was the manual vacuum aspirator, a hand-held and operated abortion machine that is used in less developed countries in places where no electric power is available.

PRI has played a role in helping to turn Russia back to life.  I participated in the first Demographic Summit at the Russian State Social University in Moscow in May, 2011.  We talked with senior Russian leaders about the need to protect life.  Not long thereafter, a law was passed banning abortion of unborn babies older than 12 weeks.  It also mandated a waiting period of 2-7 days for those wanting an abortion, and required that anyone advertising abortion services include a warning to the effect that “abortion is hazardous to a woman’s health.”  Now, of course, advertising of any kind has been banned.

Taken individually, each of the laws put in place by the Russian government has a fairly small demographic impact.  The Russian government, for example, pays a one-time baby bonus of $13,000 to the parents of every newborn.  According to Russian demographer Igor Beloborodov, however, this generous bonus has only convinced 8 percent of couples of reproductive age to consider having another child.

The cumulative effect of all of the pro-life, pro-natal policies taken to date is far more significant. While there are still, according to the Russian Health Ministry, 1.7 abortions for every live birth in the country, that ratio is shrinking as the birth rate climbs and abortion becomes gradually less common.

As a result of the adoption of enlightened policies to protect the sanctity of human life, Russia’s population decline has been virtually halted, and the country has been put on a more stable demographic course.

Russia’s demographic winter is not yet over, but there are signs of a spring thaw.

Dear Friend of One More Soul,

The Staff and Trustees of One More Soul pray that
the joy of this Christmas Season saturates you and your family!


One More Soul Staff and their children

Everybody seems to love Pope Francis, including Time Magazine, which declared him ”Person of the Year” for 2013. Our new Pope is full of surprises, including interviews and off-the-cuff remarks that are sometimes mystifying and a challenge to interpret. Pope Francis has called for an EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY (Synod of Bishops) on “PASTORAL CHALLENGES TO THE FAMILY IN THE CONTEXT OF EVANGELIZATION”. A “Preparatory Document” is available at the Vatican web site.1 This Preparatory Document includes a questionnaire on “the pastoral challenges facing the family today”. AMAZINGLY, Pope Francis has invited all the world’s Catholics to email him answers to these questions, which I (Steve Koob) did. I didn’t save my responses, but here are a few thoughts on those survey questions especially relevant to One More Soul’s mission—encouraging openness to life, discouraging birth control, and promoting Natural Family Planning. All of the questions are from Sec. 7, The Openness of the Married Couple to Life. Nothing could be closer to our mission.

Q. What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae Vitae on responsible parenthood?
A: The average American Catholic has never heard a homily that clearly explains the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality, especially the teachings on marriage from Humanae Vitae. Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of NYC, and at the time President of the USCCB, essentially confirmed this statement in a Wall Street Journal interview by James Taranto.2 Here is an excerpt.
Doesn’t the church have a problem conveying its moral principles to its own flock? “Do we ever!” the archbishop replies with a hearty laugh. “I’m not afraid to admit that we have an internal catechetical challenge—a towering one—in convincing our own people of the moral beauty and coherence of what we teach. That’s a biggie…” For this he faults the church leadership. “We have gotten gun-shy…in speaking with any amount of cogency on chastity and sexual morality.”
Later in this same article, the discussion continues:
Without my [Taranto] having raised the subject, [Cardinal Dolan] adds that the church’s sex-abuse scandal “intensified our laryngitis over speaking about issues of chastity and sexual morality, because we almost thought, ‘I’ll blush if I do.’”
Yet the archbishop says he sees a hunger, especially among young adults, for a more authoritative church voice on sexuality. “They will be quick to say, ‘By the way, we want you to know that we might not be able to obey it….But we want to hear it. And in justice, you as our pastors need to tell us, and you need to challenge us.’” [Emphasis added]
This “hunger” is confirmed by Mary Rice Hasson, JD, and Michele M Hill in “What Catholic Women Think About Faith, Conscience, and Contraception”3. Here is an excerpt.
Fifty-three percent of weekly [Catholic women] Mass-goers who accept parts but not all of Church teaching indicate some openness to learning more about the Church teachings on contraception….While 72% of Catholic women say the weekly Mass homily is their primary source for learning about the faith, just 15% of those who rely on homilies to learn about their faith say they fully accept the Church’s teaching on contraception. [Emphasis added]
I conclude that couples must receive the TRUTH, or they will assume that the Church’s teaching is optional or unimportant.
Q. Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning?
A: I am confident that most diocesan marriage prep programs address “family planning” by cautioning against the use of unnatural methods and providing at least an introduction to modern methods of Natural Family Planning (NFP). A small but growing number of dioceses expect couples to take a complete course in NFP. The “serious reason” requirement for licit use of NFP might not be emphasized, thus fostering a “Catholic birth control” or “contraceptive mentality” that can poison a couple’s relationship.
Q. Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?
A: I think that couples should be encouraged to accept all the children God wants to send them. Who better than God for this task of eternal consequence? The Church teaches that children are the SUPREME GIFT of marriage. I suspect that these ideas are rarely presented.
Q. What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couples accepting this [Natural Family Planning] teaching?
A: Abstinence is difficult for many couples using NFP to prevent conception. God’s clever design of woman makes abstinence during her fertile time especially difficult because peak fertility and peak libido typically coincide. Couples do not marry to continue the abstinence of their courtship.
Q. What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education [government promoted]?
A: Our government requires that virtually all health care plans provide FREE access to contraception, abortion and sterilization, in stark contrast to Church teaching on the intrinsic evil (never permitted under any circumstances) of these practices.
Q. How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered?
A: In Called to Give Life,4 Jason Adams makes this profound statement: “Once I worried about what I would have to give up in having children; now I know that there is nothing I would not give up for my children.”5 Helping couples realize this common feeling would encourage additional children. Also, a quote from Hasson and Hill6 is illuminating:
Church-going Catholic women display greater openness to children than the average American. For Catholic women, the “ideal” number of children averages 3.5 (higher than the American ideal of two or fewer).
And if money were not a factor, the Catholic ideal would jump to 4.0.
Q. How can an increase in births be promoted?
A: Assuring that the majority of parish activities are family-friendly, including the Mass, would bring families together for mutual support and parish encouragement. The cost of Catholic education is a huge family financial burden, making homeschooling a necessity for many large families. Creative funding—such as the Diocese of Wichita’s extraordinary stewardship model7—would make a Catholic education available to all Catholic children.
One More Soul’s mission obviously supports the implied desire of Pope Francis to confront the Culture of Death with more life—the lives of children, especially from good Catholic families. The Church and society need strong functional families that can serve as “signs of contradiction” to the culturally approved realities of co-habitation, birth control, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and consequent abortion.

One More Soul needs your HELP! We’d love it if you…

  • Go to Mass and pray for us as often as possible. The Mass is the “source and summit of our faith”.
  • Purchase our great resources—like “First Comes Love”—and distribute them in your families, parishes, schools, and clubs of all kinds.
  • Give “Called to Give Life” to priests and deacons.
  • Make a tax-deductible donation to One More Soul, dated by December 31st. A generous anonymous donor has pledged $10,000 for matching. Your gift will be doubled!

Steve Koob and all the Staff, Trustees and those we serve for Jesus and His Church.

1. rc_synod_doc_20131105_iii-assemblea-sinodo-vescovi_en.html
2. 03816504577311800821270184.html
3. and contraception.pdf
4. Jason Adams, Called to Give Life, A Primer on the Blessings of Children and the Harm of Contraception, Second Edition, One More Soul, 2013, p90.
5. Jason Adams, Faithful Fertility, Discerning Just and Serious Reasons for Postponing Pregnancy, One More Soul, 2013, p11.
6. See Ref 3.
7. o coming celebrations, in you serve.

‘Miracle’ healing of unborn baby moves Pope Paul VI closer to sainthood: doctors advised abortion

BY PETER BAKLINSKI, Mon Dec 16, 2013

VATICAN CITY, December 16, 2013 ( – The extraordinary healing of a baby inside his mother’s womb has been declared medically “unexplainable” by top Vatican doctors, putting Pope Paul VI one step closer to being declared a saint by the Catholic Church.

Seventeen years ago, doctors in California offered a woman abortion as the only possible solution for the abnormality detected in her unborn baby, whom they diagnosed with serious problems that they said would result in severe brain damage, Vatican Insider reports.
Instead, the woman chose life, entrusting herself and her baby to God through the intercession of Paul VI, whose papacy ended with his death in 1978.

Pope Paul VI, born Giovanni Battista Montini, is most famous for his 1968 watershed document Humanae Vitae that upheld the long-standing Christian teaching against contraception. In the same document he also condemned “willed and procured abortion” for any reason.
To the doctors’ amazement, the woman’s baby not only made it to term, but was born without a single one of the predicted health problems.

The family was told to wait until their child was 16 – having passed puberty – before a confirmation of complete healing could be given. The child, now 17, is completely healthy.

The Medical Commission of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, chaired by Dr. Patrizio Polisca – Benedict XVI and Francis’ personal doctor – has declared the healing authentic and inexplicable.
Benedict XVI approved the “heroic virtue” of Paul VI a year ago on December 20, the first of three steps in the canonical process of declaring someone a saint.

Fr. Antonio Marrazzo, C.Ss.R., who heads Paul VI’s cause, told Vatican Radio last year that all the evidence of the baby’s healing in utero points to a “truly extraordinary and supernatural event”.
“This healing fits in with Montini’s way of thinking,” he said. contacted Marrazzo for comment but did not hear back by press time.

If the alleged miracle passes the scrutiny of theologians, cardinals, and the pope, then Paul VI will become beatified and recognized as a Blessed. A second miracle is required before he can be canonized (declared a Saint).
Paul VI’s beatification is expected within months, reports Vatican Insider.

My Time with Peter Singer

By Dan Becker

“An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, but one whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked.” Proverbs 29:27 ESV

Webster defines the word “abominable” to mean “causing moral revulsion.” Yesterday I had an opportunity to sit down during a lunch break, one-on-one, with Peter Singer the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and one of President Obama’s elite advisors for Obama Care. He is someone who openly declares the Christian worldview to be “abominable”. In fact I have spent my weekend with an entire body of scholars and left leaning world leaders in public policy . . . who openly declare Christianity to be the single most pervasive problem they face. I was not prepared for the number of presenters at an animal rights symposium who spoke to the theological underpinnings of my own “abominable” worldview.

I am here at Yale University for the last day of the “Beyond Human Personhood” Symposium. As National Field Director for Personhood USA, I was asked by my superiors to attend to see if I could garner any insight in how a leftist worldview approaches the effort of convincing our culture to accept personhood for non-human actors such as: elephants, dolphins, great apes, artificial intelligences and extra-terrestrials.

I was a little surprised to find a modicum of common ground as I observed their intense passion to promote their worldview. I can admire their sacrifice and commitment to what they hold as the true nature of things. I was wholly unprepared for the moral revulsion I felt as they described their overall agenda. They openly admitted that their goal is to “animalize” mankind as just another animal in the zoo we call earth. Their godless evolutionary pre-suppositions demand this. “Speciesism” was mentioned quite often—rightly accusing the Christian worldview of elevating all mankind as being “created in the image of God” and setting man apart from the other creatures of earth by placing all of God’s creation under mankind to act as steward “over the garden”. Countless speakers decried human exceptionalism” and Christianity’s role in promoting a worldview that demoted animals to a status under man’s “dominion.” As I mentioned earlier, I was struck by the sheer number of references to the early church fathers and various quotes from Christian theologians. This was a crowd who knew their church history and had made a conscious decision to reject the good news of Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection for our soul’s sakes. And yes . . . there was a discussion on ensoulment and the fact that Christians denied ensoulment to non-humans. Again, I want to emphasized how unprepared I was to encounter such a high level of theological content, not to mention that it was all directed at me.

At first I thought that surely there were those in the audience that might question some of the presuppositions that were being openly proclaimed, perhaps a philosophy student with an inquiring mind who could connect the dots—particularly in the area of relegating man to the same level as other animals, thereby denigrating human life and dignity. Sadly, I didn’t find a single individual in a crowd of a 100, who spoke out against the obvious policy implications that these ideas proposed.

Singer delivered the keynote in the opening session of the symposium. In it he stated that there were a number of innate characteristics that were inherent in any being who was a candidate for attaining personhood.

They include:

Cognitive or phenomenal capacity (ie. Can it experience pain?)
Intentionality of action (free will)
The capacity to plan for the future

It should be obvious from this list that many classes of human life do not meet all of these criteria. For instance, those who are temporarily comatose or misdiagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, those who have temporary or progressive stages of dementia, Alzheimer patients, some with mental or developmental disabilities, the pre-born, post birth children suffering a congenital anomaly, and yes . . . even perfectly normal children thru 18 months post-birth. These classes were not inferred, they were openly acknowledged! They allege that personhood can NOT be assigned to these classes of human life.

This will have a profound impact on public policy, particularly in the area of denial of healthcare under Obama Care. The presenters in the symposium were not just “post-Christian” they were “anti-Christian” in their formulation of a future utilitarian philosophy that would deliver “the greatest good to the greatest number” by eliminating what Germany in the 1920’s labeled “useless eaters”.

I have always wondered if our side wasn’t succumbing to a certain amount of hysteria when it came to denouncing our pro-death opponents by ascribing to them certain extreme positions. I had the perfect opportunity to find out for myself. I approached Peter Singer after the very large crowd of his admirers had left with signed copies of his books. I note that he is well-loved and acknowledged by all academically as the “father” of the animal rights movement. He is a noted world leader in bioethics. The sheer presence of so many academic heavyweights was very intimidating. I introduced myself as the National Field Director for the largest Christian “Speciest” pro-personhood group in the nation . . . Personhood USA. I had his immediate attention. I asked if we could sit down at some point in the conference . . . I wanted to ask him a few questions. He was very gracious and said he would like to. He understood that I did not intend to debate his position, rather I wanted to verify his policy objectives firsthand. He suggested we meet the following day during the lunch break, somewhere private, so that we could discuss our positions freely.

Given the same opportunity, what questions would you ask Peter Singer? I prayerfully asked God’s leading in this matter. I am not at all certain that I succeeded.

Due to another conversation with the head of the Trans-humanist movement in America, I came into the lunch area a little late. Singer was already seated at a table with a large number of admirers who were seeking his wisdom and encouragement. I ate my lunch alone. He saw me standing over against the wall, and good to his word, he excused himself from the group and made his way over to where I was standing. He said, “Daniel let’s go find somewhere where we can talk.” As we were seated, I thanked him for granting me this opportunity to get beyond the myth to the man himself. I began by restating his criteria for personhood from the previous evening’s talk and asked him if he was intentional in excluding certain classes of human life. He said he was. He reemphasized that mankind is not exceptional. I stated that the ultimate goal of Personhood USA was the legal recognition of human personhood and asked, “Was not the legal recognition of non-human personhood ultimately the goal of his movement”? He agreed that it was. I stated that “Ideas have consequences”, and he replied, They certainly do.” I continued, “Would you agree that your definition of personhood diminishes and devalues human life and dignity and could have profound implications on healthcare policy? That it might lead to rationing and denial of service for those classes he has identified as non-persons under Obama Care?” His response was that it is already occurring and that reform is needed all across the healthcare system. That his definition of personhood would provide a consistent universal ethic for all of earth’s animals.

My final question was that given human nature, my greatest fear was that even if I granted him his definition of personhood with its immediate healthcare policy implications, what would prevent those classes of human life being extended to other classes – the traditional slippery slope argument. He said, “Our open society would self-police the issue and I am fine with the process.” He thought that our democratic process would prevent abuse. I then invoked history. I said, “A decade before the Nazis came to power, Germany’s open society advocated for some of the same ends that you have advocated. Within a decade the litany of killing useless eaters had expanded to the mentally ill, blind deaf and dumb children, gypsies, Christian leaders and Jews.” At that point Godwin’s law kicked in. Godwin’s law states that whoever brings Nazism into a discussion is automatically conceding their point in desperation . . . no matter how appropriate the analogy is. He strenuously objected and replied that the society in Germany was not a free society and couldn’t be responsible for Nazism’s extremes. I replied that it was free enough. That the parents of blind children who were exterminated under the guise “of the best medical care Germany could offer”—these same parents who received an urn of ashes when their children were said to have suddenly succumbed to some deadly disease—rose in public outrage against Hitler and put enough public pressure on him to end the “T4 Action” program in 1941. I stated that this was my greatest fear with his position and that once the sanctity of life was demolished as a cultural anchor that the legal protections of personhood, being redefined and lowered to include animals, would deliver a new human holocaust. He didn’t disagree, he merely restated his position with all of its implications.

My goal at the symposium was to stay under the radar and observe where these non-human personhood proponents were coming from—to discern their underlying presuppositions and to see them as persons and not the enemy. I was not there to argue because scripture indicates that you “answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him.” Alas I failed. For probably the first time in my life it was not my mouth which got me in trouble . . . it was my feet! I had noticed a large number of tennis shoes among this otherwise very well dressed crowd, but had just assumed that it was the standard uniform for preppy liberals. My feet were shod in black “cow’s skin”! It was a dead give-away. I (and my footwear) was an abomination in their midst.

Dan Becker is President of Georgia Right to Life and Field Director for Personhood USA
See more at:

Problemas asociados con el uso de hormonas para el control de la natalidad

Mario Maldonado, MD (Endocrinólogo)
Edwin Bernardo, MD (Médico de Familia)
Michael Fragoso, MD (Pediatra) y
Fr. Juan R. Vélez, MD (Ex Internista)
Traducido por Lili Cote de Bejarano, MD, MPH

Como médicos, nosotros no prescribimos anticonceptivos hormonales para el control de la natalidad. Las razones médicas para esta decisión son las siguientes.

Los anticonceptivos orales (y todos los demás anticonceptivos hormonales para el control de la natalidad) son utilizados habitualmente para prevenir el embarazo, aunque a veces se prescriben para tratar otras condiciones médicas. Los anticonceptivos hormonales pueden causar muchos posibles efectos adversos de tipo médico, social y espiritual. La gran mayoría de las recetas de anticonceptivos hormonales son dadas por los médicos a mujeres sanas, a veces a adolescentes sin enfermedad conocida. A algunas mujeres se les prescriben anticonceptivos hormonales para el control de la natalidad, por una sencilla razón—para impedir una condición completamente normal: el embarazo.

Dado que todos los medicamentos tienen potencialmente efectos secundarios no deseados, algunos de ellos graves, es importante que los médicos sopesen los riesgos y beneficios cuando se prescribe algún medicamento. De ello se deduce que no es ético exponer mujeres sanas a riesgos para la salud a fin de evitar una situación normal. El error de exponer las mujeres a estos riesgos es todavía peor dado el hecho de que otros métodos de planificación familiar existen, como la Planificación Natural de la Familia (PNF), los cuales no tienen efectos secundarios cuando se utilizan correctamente.

Los anticonceptivos hormonales tratan la fertilidad de la mujer y la maternidad como una enfermedad

Aunque puede haber razones legítimas de índole médica y personal para evitar el embarazo, la fertilidad femenina y la posibilidad del embarazo en sí no son una enfermedad, y por tanto no necesitan “tratamiento” con una pastilla (un parche, una inyección, o un DIU).

Los anticonceptivos hormonales causan abortos

Cuando los anticonceptivos orales no suprimen la ovulación en una mujer sexualmente activa y otros mecanismos que impiden la fertilización fallan, puede ocurrir la concepción.

Los anticonceptivos hormonales interfieren con la implantación de un nuevo ser humano mediante la reducción del grosor del revestimiento del útero, y alterando moléculas y factores relacionados con la implantación. Las dosis bajas de anticonceptivos hormonales impiden la liberación del óvulo femenino solamente en un 65-75% de los ciclos.1, 2 Por esta razón, es posible que en aproximadamente un 30% de sus ciclos si una mujer tiene relaciones sexuales en su periodo fertil, existe la posibililad que suceda un embarazo y posteriormente un aborto químico.

Los anticonceptivos hormonales contribuyen a una mentalidad anti-vida

Los anticonceptivos hormonales como la Píldora, el parche, el DIU o la Inyección, sustentan la práctica del aborto. La gente inconscientemente concluye: “Si fracasa el control de la natalidad, el aborto es la solución.” En los Estados Unidos una encuesta a nivel nacional indicó que el 54% de las mujeres que tuvieron un aborto estaban utilizando anticonceptivos el mes anterior.3

Los anticonceptivos hormonales aumentan el riesgo de cáncer de seno

Las mujeres se enfrentan a un mayor riesgo de desarrollar cáncer de seno, cuando usan anticonceptivos hormonales, y este riesgo continua por lo menos diez años después de que dejan de usar hormonas anticonceptivas. Si la Píldora se toma antes de que una mujer de a luz por primera vez, hay un incremento del 44% en el riesgo de cáncer de seno.4,5

Un estudio reciente de mujeres menores de 40 años de edad en los Estados Unidos (1976-2009), también demostró un aumento estadísticamente significativo en la incidencia del cáncer de seno metastásico.6 Este tipo de cáncer de seno podría estar asociado con el uso en mujeres jóvenes de anticonceptivos orales (carcinógenos del Grupo I).

Los anticonceptivos hormonales aumentan el riesgo de trombo-embolismo pulmonar

Un estudio de 1524 pacientes en los Países Bajos, llegó a la conclusión de que los anticonceptivos hormonales aumentan el riesgo de trombosis venosa cinco veces comparado con el no uso.7

El riesgo es mayor para las mujeres que utilizan anticonceptivos hormonales y que tienen sobrepeso, fuman, o son mayores de 35 años.8

Los anticonceptivos hormonales provocan un cambio continuo en el metabolismo saludable del cuerpo

Un estudio reciente reportó que el uso de anticonceptivos hormonales vía oral, vaginal o transdérmica, produjo un aumento de los marcadores de inflamación crónica un factor de riesgo para la enfermedad cardiovascular. También, el uso de anticonceptivos combinados deterioró la sensibilidad a la insulina en mujeres jóvenes y sanas.9

Además, el uso de anticonceptivos hormonales puede producir dolores de cabeza tipo migraña, aumento de peso, cambios en el humor, y pérdida de la libido. Estos contribuyen a un aumento prematuro de la perdida de masa osea.10 Se asocian con infertilidad tras un uso prolongado, e incluso en cierta medida con el uso a corto plazo.

Los anticonceptivos hormonales aumentan la incidencia de cáncer de cuello uterino

Existe una asociación entre el uso de anticonceptivos hormonales y un aumento significativo del cáncer de cuello uterino.11 Es probable que esto sea causado por la infección con el virus del papiloma humano (VPH), el cual es transmitido sexualmente, dado que un número considerable de las mujeres que utilizan anticonceptivos hormonales tienen relaciones sexuales fuera del matrimonio y por tanto un mayor riesgo de contraer enfermedades de transmisión sexual.

Los anticonceptivos hormonales aumentan el riesgo de tumores hepáticos

Hay alguna evidencia de que los anticonceptivos orales aumentan el riesgo de ciertos tumores benignos y malignos del hígado.12

Los anticonceptivos hormonales aumentan el riesgo de ataques al corazón

Tanto la primera como la segunda generación de anticonceptivos orales han sido vinculados a un mayor riesgo de ataques al corazón (infartos de miocardio)13 y accidentes cerebro-vasculares.La tercera generación de anticonceptivos orales está asociada con un incremento en enfermedad cerebrovascular isquémica.14

Los anticonceptivos hormonales tienen efectos nocivos para el matrimonio y la sociedad

Las hormonas para el control de la natalidad fomentan la mentalidad de que los hombres y las mujeres son incapaces del auto-control y por lo tanto no son capaces de abstenerse de tener relaciones sexuales. La introducción de los anticonceptivos hormonales fue el catalizador de la revolución sexual y produjo un incremento dramático del sexo pre-marital, el adulterio, el divorcio, el aborto, y los nacimientos fuera del matrimonio. Los anticonceptivos hormonales han tenido un papel indirecto en el aumento abrumador de padres solteros, madres solteras, pobreza y otros males sociales en los Estados Unidos.15,16

Los métodos de PNF son un medio excelente para planificar la familia

PFN está libre de efectos secundarios perjudiciales para la mujer y para la familia, y cuando se utiliza por motivos serios, puede ser  muy bueno para el matrimonio.17


1. Chowdhury V, et al. Escape ovulation in women due to the missing of low dose combination oral contraceptive pills. Contraception. 1980; 22(3): 241-247.

2. Baerwald AR, et al. Effects of oral contraceptives administered at defined stages of ovarian follicular development. Fertil Steril. 2006 Jul; 86(1): 27-35. Epub 2006 Jun 9.

3. Jones, RK ,et al. Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000-2001. Perspec Sex Reprod Health. 2002; 34(6): 294-303.

4. Kahlenborn C. Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill. One More Soul, 2000.

5. Kahlenborn C, et al. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for pre-menopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006; 81(10): 1290-1302.

6. Johnson, R. H., Chien, F. L., & Bleyer, A. (2013). Incidence of breast cancer with distant involvement among women in the United States, 1976 to 2009. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 309(8), 800-805.

7. van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJ, Rosendaal FR. The venous thrombotic risk of oral contraceptives, effects of oestrogen dose and progestogen type: results of the MEGA case-control study. BMJ. 2009 Aug 13; 339: b2921.

8. Poulter NR. Risk of fatal pulmonary embolism with oral contraceptives. Lancet. 2000; 355(9221): 2088.

9. Piltonen T, Puurunen J, Hedberg P, Ruokonen A, Mutt SJ, Herzig KH, et al. Oral, transdermal and vaginal combined contraceptives induce an increase in markers of chronic inflammation and impair insulin sensitivity in young healthy normal-weight women: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2012 Oct; 27(10): 3046-3056.

10. Wooltorton, E. Medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) and bone mineral density loss. CMAJ. 2005 Mar 15; 172(6):746. Epub 2005 Mar 2.

11. Smith J., Cervical Cancer and use of hormonal contraceptives: a systemic review, Lancet, 2003; 361: 1159-1167.

12. Giannitrapani, L, et al. Sex hormones and risk of liver tumor. Ann NY Acad Sci, 2006 Nov; 1089: 228-236.

13. Tanis, BC, et. al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345(25): 1787-1793.

14. Baillargeon, JP, et al. Association between the current use of low dose oral contraceptives and cardiovascular arterial disease: a meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005; 90(7): 3863-3870.

15. Akerlof, GA, et al. An analysis of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States. Q J Econ. 1996 May; 111(2): 277-317.

16. Akerlof, GA. Men without children. Econ J. 1998 Mar; 108(447): 287-309.

17. Hilgers TW, Standford JB. The use effectiveness to avoid pregnancy of Creighton model naproeducation technology: a meta-analysis of prospective trials. J Reprod Med. 1998; 43: 495-502.

How the decline of marriage and religious belief hurts children


November 15, 2013 (Heritage) – Analysts at a recent forum on the downward trends in marriage and religion in the United States agree that the two are not isolated phenomena but, in fact, influence and exacerbate one another.

Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project, has shown that family dissolution is linked to a further erosion of civil society in which American men are increasingly disconnected from core cultural institutions, including a religious congregation. Likewise, Mary Eberstadt, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has found that marriage and family life often engender an impulse for religious engagement and that, as more couples cohabit, divorce, or never marry, religious participation has decreased.

The impact of the downturns in family formation and religious practice have real-world and long-term implications for the lives of Americans—particularly the rising generation.

Children raised by two married, biological parents tend to fare better than peers in other households. Those who grow up in married-parent families are 82 percent less likely to live in poverty, and intact families tend to fare better in a wide range of economic measures. Youth who are raised in an intact family tend to fare better on a range of emotional and psychological outcomes, have higher levels ofacademic achievement and educational attainment, and are less likely to engage in high-risk behaviors such as sexual activity or substance abuse and less likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.

Like family structure, religious affiliation and participation is linked to the well-being of individuals, families, and society. Children whose mothers more frequently participated in religious activities are less likely to exhibit aggressive and delinquent behavior. Religious practice is associated with higher levels of economic well-being and academic performance as well reductions in the incidence of crime, delinquency, drug and alcohol addiction, and problems related to physical and emotional health. Coupled with the association between religiosity, empathy, charity, and volunteerism, the improved prospects of more religious and intact families can have positive ripple effects throughout society.

Given the wide-ranging and mutually supporting benefits of religion and family, it is critical for the public interest to bolster both—and a starting point would be to support policies that promote marriage and strengthen families.

Reprinted with permission from Heritage

Euthanasia: the horrifying slippery slope


by Peter Saunders


Nov. 28, 2013 (PJSaunders) – A debate at University College London on Monday night allowed the issue of assisted suicide to be addressed.  
UCL’s Cruciform Building was the impressive setting for the motion, ‘This House would legalise Assisted Dying.’ I was in the opposition team with Lord Carlile, Baroness Finlay and Robert Preston – leading lights in the think tank Living and Dying Well.
Speaking for the motion were Lord Falconer, Baroness Jay, Sir Terence English and Prof Raymond Tallis, all of Dignity in Dying (the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and its small medical wing.
We were given seven minutes each. Here is my talk which focussed on the issue of the ‘slippery slope’.
The four main groups resisting the legalisation of assisted dying in this country – doctors, disabled people, faith groups and parliamentarians – do so primarily because they are anxious about the consequences of licensing of doctors to dispense lethal drugs.
Their concerns are both about how such a system could be regulated and also about the pressure legalization would place on vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial or emotional burden on others.
This is heightened by the evidence of incremental extension or mission creep in other jurisdictions.
In the Netherlands which legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia in 2002 there has been an increase of 10 to 20% of euthanasia cases per year since 2006 from 1,923 to 4,188. The 2012 figures included 42 with early dementia and 13 with psychiatric conditions.
In addition in 2001 about 5.6% of all deaths in the Netherlands were related to deep-continuous sedation. This rose to 8.2% in 2005 and 12.3% in 2010. A significant proportion of these deaths involve doctors deeply sedating patients and then withholding fluids with the explicit intention that they will die.
Children as young as twelve can already have euthanasia and a 2005 paper in the New England Medical Journal reported on 22 babies with spina bifida and/or hydrocephalus who were killed by lethal injection in the Netherlands over a seven year period. It estimated that there actually 15 to 20 newborns being killed in this way per year – despite this still being illegal. The culture and public conscience have changed.
In Belgium, which legalised euthanasia in 2002, there has been a 500% increase in euthanasia deaths over ten years between 2003 and 2012. High profile cases include Mark and Eddy Verbessem, the 45-year-old deaf identical twins, who were euthanised by the Belgian state, after their eyesight began to fail; then there is Nathan/Nancy Verhelst, whose life was ended in front of TV cameras, after a series of botched sex-change operations. His mother said she hated girls, found her child ‘so ugly’ at birth and did not mourn his death. And then there is Ann G, who had anorexia and who opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for the life-threatening condition.
Organ donation euthanasia is already practised in Belgium and the Belgian Senate is tomorrow discussing plans to extend the programme to minors and people with dementia (they have since recommended this). Already in parts of Belgium one in three cases of euthanasia is involuntary and half go unreported. And there has been not one prosecution for abuses in the last ten years – perhaps because the one of the lead euthanasia practitioners – Distelmans – chairs the very committee that is meant to regulate his activity.
Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, first released assisted suicide statistics in 2009, laying bare a 700% rise in cases (from 43 to 297) from 1998 to 2009. Amongst those travelling from abroad to end their lives at the notorious Dignitas facility have been many people who could not by any stretch be described as terminally ill – and included cases of people who could have lived for decades ending their lives –  with arthritis, blindness, spinal injury, diabetes, mental illness –  or people who were essentially well but could not bear to live without their spouses.
Dignitas has attracted much criticism in recent years over accounts of discarded cremation urns dumped in Lake Zurich, reports of body bags in residential lifts, suicides being carried out in car parks, the selling of the personal effects of deceased victims and profiteering with fees approaching £8,000 per death.
In the US state of Oregon there has been a 350% increase assisted in suicide deaths since legalisation. I’ll leave it to my colleagues to expand on the details but notable are two people with cancer – Randy Stroup and Barbara Wagner – who were told that the Oregon Health Authority would not pay for their chemotherapy but would happily pay for their assisted suicide – which was of course much cheaper. Is this really the kind of temptation that we wish to put before NHS managers in Britain? Is it any wonder that over 120 attempts to change the law through US state parliaments have failed?
The problem is that any law allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia will carry within it the seeds of its own extension.
And whilst Lord Falconer may claim to have limited objectives – on his coat tails are a host of other UK groups with more radical agendas – FATE, SOARS, the BHA, NSS and EXIT International.
They will not be satisfied with the so-called modest changes he seeks but they are using exactly the same arguments to advance their case – ‘compassion’ and ‘choice’
They are able to use exactly the same arguments because Lord Falconer’s position is at heart both illogical and discriminatory.
  • If adults can have it why can’t children who are judged to be Gillick competent?
  • If competent people can have it what about those with dementia who it is argued would have wanted it?
  • If people who are terminally ill why not the chronically ill or disabled who are suffering unbearably?
  • If it’s for those with physical suffering why not those with mental suffering?
Or as Exit international asks – why not the elderly bereaved and the troubled teen?
There will inevitably be pressure to extend the boundaries which may well not survive legal challenge once the so-called ‘right’ is available for some.
We will hear – it is only for this group or only for that group – but I tell you – it is only the beginning
Any law allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia in any circumstances at all will be subject to extension – or abuse.
And that it is the other problem – changing the law would give doctors a degree of power over life and death that some will inevitably abuse.
It will be doctors who see the patients, fill out the forms, dispense the lethal drugs. Some of them will push the boundaries. Some will falsify certification. There may be some who, like Harold Shipman, will develop a taste for killing and they will be very difficult to detect.
But many will simply be too busy, too pressured and facing too many demands to make the kind of cool comprehensive objective assessments that this kind of law requires. And very few of them will really know the patients or their families.
We have seen this already with abortion. We began with a very strict law which allowed it only in limited circumstances. Now there are 200,000 cases a year. Most of them fall outside the boundaries of the law. There is illegal pre-signing of forms, abortions for sex selection, abortions on demand for spurious mental health reasons. And only one conviction for illegal abortion in 45 years.
Society is reluctant to touch and question doctors. The police are reluctant to investigate. The DPP hesitates to prosecute. The courts are unwilling to convict. Parliament turns a blind eye. It is simply not safe to give doctors this sort of power because some will abuse it as they have in other countries and it will be very difficult to stop them.
It’s far better not to go there at all.


The best system available is that which we have currently – a law carrying a blanket prohibition on both assisted suicide and euthanasia but with discretion given to both prosecutors and judges to temper justice with mercy in hard cases – the current law has both a stern face and a kind heart.
In other words the penalties that it holds in reserve act as a powerful deterrent to exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people
And it works – there are very few cases observed (just 15-20 per year make the trip to Switzerland) but also very few prosecutions.
Let’s keep it that way.

Reprinted with permission from Christian Medical Comment. 

Pope Francis: Abortion ‘cries out in vengeance to God’; Church will never change teaching


by John-Henry Westen


VATICAN CITY, November 26, 2013 ( – In a high level teaching document released this morning, Pope Francis has firmly responded to those who have expressed hope that the Catholic Church may one day change its teachings on abortion, writing, “the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question.”

“I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or ‘modernizations’,” he added.


Entitled “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), the Apostolic Exhortation – a document which, while important, is of less weight than an encyclical – noted, “Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us.”

He lamented that, “Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this.”

“Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right.”

“It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development,” he said. “Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be.”

The document marks the pope’s most in-depth discussion of abortion since his election.

The pope added that it is important to do more to more to “accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The Holy Father stated that the truth about human life can be discovered with reason alone, but from a faith perspective the gravity of the evil of abortion is manifest.

“Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, ‘every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual,’” he said, quoting a previous Apostolic Exhortation by Pope John Paul II.

In previous remarks in September, the pope had condemned abortion as a manifestation of a “throwaway culture.”

“Every unborn child, though unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of the Lord, who even before his birth, and then as soon as he was born, experienced the rejection of the world,” the pope said at the time.

In a recent homily, seen by some Vatican watchers as wake up call to liberal Catholics to abandon hopes of Pope Francis altering Church teaching on abortion and contraception, he warned against the desire to “be like everyone else” and what he called an “adolescent progressivism”. “Lord,” the pope prayed, “give me the discernment to recognize the subtle conspiracies of worldliness that lead us to negotiate our values and our faith.”

Similarly, in Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis writes, “It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.”

Russia bans ads for abortion


by Thaddeus Baklinski

MOSCOW, November 25, 2013 ( – The Russian Federation has enacted a new law banning abortion advertising in the ongoing effort to stem the country’s decline in population, according to Russian media.

TR Novosti reports that the abortion ad ban is part of broader changes to Russia’s Federal Law on Advertising that include a ban on advertising campaigns offering free drug samples if these samples contain narcotic or psychotropic substances, and restrictions on the advertising of traditional “folk medicine” practices.


The Duma is considering a number of other proposals that would stop Russia’s demographic death spiral, fueled by an abortion rate of 1,022 per 1,000 births, according to some statistics. The United Nations estimates that the population of Russia, which stood at 143 million in 2008, will shrink to 116 million by 2050.

To combat the abortion epidemic, legislation has been proposed that would ban free abortions at government-run health clinics; require prescriptions for the ‘morning-after’ pill; require parental consent for teenagers and a husband’s consent for married women; and mandate a one-week waiting period before an abortion is performed. Other proposals have included increasing the 2,000 ruble ($70) monthly government subsidy offered to pregnant women.

Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute, pointed out that despite government incentives such as a baby bonus that offers the equivalent of $9,000 upon the birth of every child after the first, and calls from Russian President Vladimir Putin for families to have at least three children, abortion is still occurring in epidemic proportions.

“As long as society fails to recognize the value of human life, and wantonly destroys it in large numbers, it will be difficult to establish a new three-child norm. Abortion must cease being a way of life in Russia if her people are to survive,” Mosher said.

Earlier this month the head of the State Duma Committee for Family and Children said the Russian people must stop tolerating abortion and the recent rise in surrogacy because they threaten to “wipe out the population of Russia.”

Speaking at a history forum dedicated to the 400th anniversary of the Russian royal house of Romanov, MP Elena Mizulina said, “The problems of abortion prevention and the shift in public opinion towards abortion are currently very urgent. Although the number of abortions in Russia is falling, it still exceeds 5 million every year.”

Mizulina added that though the practice of surrogacy was relatively new in Russia, the societal implications are of great concern to her.

“We still can stop the consequences of this practice from happening. It can and must be used only in exceptional cases,” Mizulina explained.

“Humanity will probably understand one day that as we ban nuclear weapons to prevent the death of Mother Earth, so should we ban the technology destroying the natural environment and natural childbirth, the natural way of human reproduction,” the MP said.

She said that she believes the Russian people as a whole are against surrogacy, as they are in favor of “Orthodox Christian spiritual values and the family as the keeper of these values.”

Pro-life legislation aimed at rolling back Russia’s abortion culture has been strongly supported by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia proposed a series of measures on the Moscow Patriarchate’s website, urging the Ministry of Health and Social Development to make “preservation of pregnancy a priority task for the doctor” and discourage incentives for abortion.

The Russian patriarch also advocated state support for pro-motherhood media campaigns, and suggested setting up crisis pregnancy centers in every maternity hospital to help “lonely mothers in difficult life situations.”

In October, a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church blasted the legality of surrogacy in Russia as “mutiny against God.”

Dmitry Smirnov, the head of the Moscow Patriarchy Commission for Family, Motherhood and Childhood, made the comment after Russian media reported in September that a 64-year-old Russian pop star and her 37-year-old husband had two children born through surrogate motherhood.

“I would ban this, of course. We can see that a bad example is contagious,” the senior church representative was quoted to say by Interfax. “This is mutiny against God, this is very happy fascism with a contract, the money and confiscation of a child.”

Study finds increased risk of breast cancer after abortion in Chinese women

by Peter Baklinski

TIANJIN, China, November 29, 2013 Life Site News

Pro-abortion advocates have relentlessly denied a link between abortion and breast cancer, but a new study has emerged from China that seems to show that such a link not only exists, but that the risk rises with each abortion a woman has.

Dr. Joel Brind, professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York and a director at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, called the findings a “real game changer” for deniers of the so-called ABC link.

Incidences of breast cancer in China have increased at an “alarming rate” over the past two decades, corresponding with the rise of the Chinese Communist Party’s one-child policy.

The study, titled “A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females” was published this week in Cancer Causes and Control, a peer-reviewed international cancer journal.

The research was conducted by Yubei Huang et al. from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics in the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital.

The researchers say they were initially puzzled by their findings, stating that Chinese women “historically” have had lower rates of breast cancer compared to women from western countries such as the US.

They found, however, that incidences of breast cancer in China increased at an “alarming rate” over the past two decades, corresponding with the rise of the Chinese Communist Party’s one-child policy.

The one-child policy is strictly enforced, and women who transgress the quota are often forced to abort. Over 336 million babies have been aborted in China since the 1980s.

“The marked change in breast cancer incidence was parallelled to the one-child-per-family policy,” the researchers stated.

Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, said the research revals “yet another human rights violation in connection with China’s One Child Policy.”

“So, the women of China have to endure the tremendous trauma of late term forced abortion, taking their babies from them, and then years later, breast cancer, taking their health and even their lives from them,” she told

The researchers reached their conclusions after examining 36 studies that investigated the associations between abortion and breast cancer.

The overall risk of developing breast cancer among women having only one abortion increased by 44 percent.

Calling it the “dose-response relationship” researchers also found that the risk of breast cancer increased as the number of abortions increased. Two abortions increased the risk by 76 percent, three by 89 percent.

“In summary, the most important implication of this study is that IA was significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases,” concluded the researchers.

The researchers called their findings “consistent” with those of Dr. Brind, who found in a 1996 meta-analysis that women had a 30 percent greater chance of developing breast cancer after aborting their child.

“Not only does [the study] validate the earlier findings from 1996, but its findings are even stronger,” Brind told

Brind said that pro-abortion advocates should be “very concerned” about the research since it shows how “millions upon millions” of women in Asia are negatively affected by what abortion’s most vocal proponents call a “safe” procedure.

He lamented, however, that “anything that challenges the ‘safe abortion’ mythology is to be challenged, denied, belittled, discredited, dumped on.”

The Chinese research follows on the heels of two similar studies earlier this year. One study published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine in May found a 6-fold greater risk of breast cancer among Indian women with a history of induced abortion when compared to the women with no such history. A similar study from Bangladesh published in the Journal of the Dhaka Medical College in April found that women with a history of induced abortion had a 20-fold increase in likelihood of developing breast cancer when compared to women with no such history.

In a report last month, Brind called the findings of the two studies “of the sort of magnitude that has typified the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.”