News & Commentary

Pediatricians blast new app giving 12-year-olds access to abortion-inducing drugs without parents

American College of Pediatricians

November 7, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The American College of Pediatricians is alerting parents to a dangerous new mobile phone app called Nurx. Dubbed the “Uber for birth control,” Nurx enables teens as young as age 12 to obtain contraceptive and abortive medications including the pill, vaginal ring, Plan B and Ella without parental knowledge or local physician oversight.

Sexual activity in adolescence is associated with harmful emotional and physical consequences including depression, suicide, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and sexual exploitation at the hands of abusive boyfriends or sex traffickers. Easy access to contraceptives that bypasses parents and a physician visit, as Nurx does, increases the likelihood of teens experiencing these bad outcomes.

Adolescents are cognitively and emotionally immature. They need parental wisdom and oversight to compensate for their emotional impulsivity and their limited capacity to assess risk.  All hormone based contraception has serious potential side effects including stroke and cancer; some increase the chance of contracting an STI. Plan B is embryocidal at certain points in a girl’s menstrual cycle, and Ella works the same way as the abortion pill.  All women, especially adolescent women, benefit from a face-to-face encounter with a physician to discuss these risks.

Dr. Patricia Lee June of the American College of Pediatricians Board of Directors warns,

Nurx wrongly excludes those who know the child and her health history best — her parents and her physician, and places the full responsibility for a life-changing healthcare decision on a girl’s shoulders. When it comes to achieving optimal teen health, connected parents – not Smartphones – are paramount.

For more information about how you can become a connected parent and promote sexual responsibility to your child visit our Family Cycle and Sexual Responsibility pages at www.Best4Children.org.

“The Eucharist and the Pro-Life Movement”

Fr Stephen Imbarrato of Priests for Life speaks about the impact of the Eucharist on his life and the power the Eucharist brings to the Pro-life Movement in America.

Stop Denying Science. Birth Control Isn’t Necessary For Women’s Health

By 

Planned Parenthood is marshalling women to #Fight4BirthControl, because apparently allowing those with moral objections to opt-out of the Obamacare contraception mandate is disastrous for women’s health. I wonder if the women using this hashtag understand how the contraception mandate works. Or how insurance works. Or birth control itself, for that matter.

To recap, the Obama administration’s contraception mandate directed employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception, including embryocidal methods, at no direct cost to employees. Several lawsuits challenged the mandate for violating the religious freedom of religious employers who object to providing birth control, including methods that may result in the loss of an embryo. So the Trump administration released a rule that allows any employer—publicly traded, nonprofit, or otherwise—to opt out of the mandate for religious or moral reasons.

Anyone who has followed the mandate controversy closely know this rollback will likely only affect a small percentage of employers. Birth control is so ingrained in our culture and medical community that the majority of employers already chose to pay for birth control prior to the mandate.

But there is another important conversation to have beyond what the mandate did or didn’t do: whether birth control is “necessary” for women’s health, and whether it should therefore be “free.” As a woman who has taken contraception for health-related reasons and suffers a chronic, life-threatening medical condition, and as a physician with a particular focus on fertility awareness and women’s health, I think the hysteria concerning the contraception opt-out is dishonest about the real answers to these questions.

Birth Control Doesn’t Treat Reproductive Problems Well

I know from personal experience and my medical practice that birth control is not the only, or even the best, way to treat the reproductive issues women experience. I also know as an adult who has paid for health insurance that no insurance is ever expected to cover all aspects of personal health care, even for life-threatening conditions. The treatment I need for my life-threatening asthma requires a substantial co-pay from me, which no “mandate” has been provided to alleviate.

Two medical emergencies in college revealed this tension, which I think deserves more weight in our conversation about the contraception mandate, and what is considered “necessary” in health care. Like many young women, in high school and college I suffered from debilitating menstrual cramps once a month. The pain was intense and seemed to drain me of all my energy such that I couldn’t get out of bed for at least one or two days.

The doctor I saw at the student health center was very kind and eager to help. She decided the best course of action would be to take the birth control pill. The doctor explained that the pill worked by suppressing my normal hormones almost entirely, preventing me from having true menstrual bleeds. Since I wasn’t sexually active, my cramps lasted only a couple days a month, and I worried about the side effects of the pill, I asked if I could take anything else that would eliminate the pain but not interfere with my natural cycle.

Not really, she explained, unless I had a crystal ball and could predict when I would get the cramps again—then, maybe, I could pre-medicate with an anti-inflammatory medication. So I started taking the pill. Thankfully, I did notice a difference right away. However, when my hair started to fall out, to the point that I had a huge bald spot, I decided to stop taking the pill. There had to be a better way!

I later discovered that if I tracked my menstrual cycle, I could better predict when my period would begin, and if I took ibuprofen a day or two before, my period was not nearly as painful. For me, the solution was simple, but I have a close family member who experienced even more severe pain with her periods. So, she started charting too, and consulted with a physician trained in NaPro Technology who discovered endometriosis.

Rather than temporarily suppress symptoms with the pill, the doctor performed the surgery necessary to truly eliminate the disease. My family member and I experienced real relief when charting allowed us to identify and treat the root causes of our pain, all without taking the pill. And the good news is, charting our cycles costs very little and has no harmful side effects.

We Should Focus Resources on Truly Critical Medication

This brings me to my second medical emergency: an asthma attack during a time I could not afford preventive medications.

When I was in college, my medications and doctors’ visits were covered under the student health insurance plan. Yet I still had to pay a significant medication co-pay for my steroid asthma inhalers. So often at the beginning of the school year, after paying tuition and purchasing a semester’s worth of textbooks, I didn’t always have the money to refill my asthma medications, especially for the steroid inhaler designed to prevent asthma attacks.

On one cold fall day in early October, this almost led to my demise. I was literally running late to my English writing seminar. The air was much colder than I expected, and as a result it triggered a severe asthma attack. I was halfway to class and my rescue inhaler did not seem to be working. I decided to walk the rest of the way to my classroom and did my best to not draw attention to my late arrival, but it was obvious I was in severe respiratory distress.

Thankfully, somebody had already called 911. When paramedics placed an oxygen mask over my face, I could feel the relief like a person walking in the desert for days taking her first sip of cold water. The air never tasted so good. And I promised myself that, no matter the cost, even if it meant eating Ramen noodles for a month, I would make sure to purchase my preventive asthma medication.

When I see the hysteria regarding the cost of birth control and women having to pay those fees, I think of that moment. I nearly died because there was no “mandate” that covered the cost of my preventive asthma medicine.

Women deserve relief from the conditions that disrupt their reproductive systems. As a physician with a particular interest in fertility and women’s health, I strongly believe women can learn to better monitor and manage reproductive health issues by charting their cycles and working with physicians trained to use those charts to aid in diagnosing and managing the true underlying causes of gynecological ailments.

As an added bonus, when couples learn to chart from a trained instructor, they can use this information to prevent pregnancy or even plan to have a baby. The birth control pill cannot “cure” anything, from acne to cramps to endometriosis; it simply masks symptoms of underlying hormonal issues. While it can help prevent pregnancy and then only some of the time, it does so by suppressing the normal function of the woman’s reproductive system.

Furthermore, as a patient who suffers from a chronic disease, I would rather see our health care dollars be spent to ensure people like me have access to medications that can truly prevent life-threatening complications. Why do we “fight for birth control,” but not drugs that allow people to breathe?

Dr. Marguerite Duane, a board certified family physician and adjunct associate professor at Georgetown University, is co-founder and executive director of FACTS – the Fertility Appreciation Collaborative to Teach the Science. She is a member of Women Speak for Themselves.

On contraception, church must continue to defend life, cardinal says

German Cardinal Walter Brandmuller greets Professor Josef Seifert at a conference on Blessed Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae,” in Rome Oct. 28. The conference was organized by Voice of the Family, a coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) See HUMANAE-VITAE-CONFERENCE Oct. 30, 2017.

By Junno Arocho Esteves Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) — The acceptance of artificial contraception by some Christian churches and communities beginning in the 1930s has led “to the monstrosity of what is today known as procreative medicine,” which includes abortion, said German Cardinal Walter Brandmuller.

Inaugurating an Oct. 28 conference anticipating the 50th anniversary of Blessed Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” Cardinal Brandmuller told participants that in ignoring traditional church teaching men and women today have seated themselves “on the throne of the Creator.”

In “Humanae Vitae,” published in 1968, Pope Paul underlined the responsibility that goes with human sexuality and marriage. While he taught that couples can space the birth of their children for valid reasons, they must use only natural methods of avoiding fertility. Birth control, he said, causes an “artificial separation” of the unitive and procreative aspects of married love.

In his speech at the Rome conference, Cardinal Brandmuller said that after the Second Vatican Council, the church faced significant pressure — including from within its own ranks — to endorse contraception as “morally justifiable” just as the Anglican Church had done at the 1930 Lambeth Conference and the U.S. Federal Council of Churches, the precursor of the National Council of Churches, did in 1961.

Nevertheless, he added, Blessed Paul defended the sanctity of life and brought “temporary closure to a series of doctrinal affirmations on the matter of contraception.”

“Humanae Vitae” proves that ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the process of “paradosis,” or teaching based on church tradition, and “ensures that the faith of the church develops in the course of time” while remaining faithful to Christ’s teachings, Cardinal Brandmuller said.

He prayed that the document would continue to “irradiate the ‘splendor veritatis’ (‘the splendor of the truth’), capable of illuminating the current darkness of minds and hearts.”

Cardinal Brandmuller, former president of the Pontifical Commission for Historical Sciences, was one of four cardinals who formally asked Pope Francis to clarify his teaching on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. When the four prelates did not receive a response, they released the letter — commonly referred to as the “dubia” — to the press.

 

Newsweek’s uninformed freak-out over possible Trump administration policy on birth control

Reprinted below is part of the article FACTS co-founder Dr. Marguerite Duane authored in response to the recent Newsweek article perpetuating misinformation about fertility awareness based methods (FABMs). 

October 24, 2017

by Marguerite Duane, MD

Newsweek is sounding the alarm that “The Trump administration wants to replace reliable birth control methods with ‘fertility awareness,’ a dubious family planning method that fails nearly a quarter of women every year.” Claiming that fertility awareness based methods are the same as the “rhythm method”, they imply that women with irregular periods or young girls can’t learn to chart their cycle, and that this could be a “disaster for women’s health.”

However, Newsweek is wrong on all accounts.

Fertility awareness is not a family planning method equivalent to the “rhythm method.” Fertility awareness based methods, or FABMs, refer to a group of family planning methods that work by teaching a woman how to track specific signs to identify when she may be fertile, and when she is not. Unlike the rhythm method, which was developed in the 1930s and is based on retrospective calendar calculations to predict future fertility, modern fertility awareness based methods allow women to use daily observable physical signs to identify her potential fertility in real time.

More importantly, these methods are based on solid scientific research and women may not only use them to prevent pregnancy, but also to achieve pregnancy, as well as monitor their health.

With ovulation based methods, including the Billings Ovulation Method and the Creighton Model, a woman tracks cervical fluid sensation and/or observations only, following certain guidelines to identify her fertile period or the 3 – 6 day window when she is capable of getting pregnant. With the sympto-thermal method, a woman tracks both cervical fluid and basal body temperature and uses these observations to identify her potential days of fertility. With the sympto-hormonal or Marquette Method, a woman tracks cervical fluid and/or urinary hormones to identify her fertile window.

To claim that these science-based fertility awareness based methods fail “nearly a quarter of women every year” is completely inaccurate.

21113950353_6ded64b4b3_k

This widely quoted figure is based on retrospective surveys from 1995 and 2002 in which women with unintended pregnancies were asked to recall which family planning method they were using at the time of conception. From this number, the rates for all natural or fertility awareness based methods were combined and one estimated unintended pregnancy rate was generated.

However, lumping together effectiveness rates for the 86% of women who reported using the outdated calendar rhythm method with a minority of women using newer methods masks the true effectiveness rates of modern FABMs. Modern FABMs incorporate different signs and guidelines for use, so reporting one combined rate for all natural methods, based on an overwhelming majority of women who reported using the rhythm method misrepresents the actual effectiveness of individual modern FABMs.

The real effectiveness rates of modern FABMs with correct use range between 95.2 and 99.6%, based on the highest quality published medical research. Even with typical use, the unintended pregnancy rates range from 2-14% per year, which are comparable to most commonly used forms of birth control. However, unlike conventional birth control methods, the World Health Organization recognizes FABMs as the only family planning methods that have no medical side effects.

Newsweek claims that “the calendar method asks a lot of young girls, who often learn little about sex and reproduction.” Fortunately, with fertility awareness based methods— again NOT the calendar-rhythm method—the goal is to teach women of all reproductive ages to monitor their cycle to better understand their health and more importantly identify their ovulatory pattern and window of fertility.

This information is sorely lacking even among adult women, as a 2014 study showed that 40 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 40 were not familiar with the ovulatory cycle and their time of fertility. Yet a study of 235 girls, aged 15 – 17 years trained in the Billings ovulation method, “proved that teen-age women can distinguish patterns of ovulation and anovulation by self-detection of cervical mucus.”

More importantly, another study showed a significant decrease in teen pregnancy rates with the implementation of TeenSTAR, a sex education program that aims to help youths manage their emerging sexuality and fertility through charting their cycle with the Billings method. Pregnancy rates for girls in the TeenSTAR program ranged from 3.3 – 4.4 percent, which was significantly less than those in the control group, where pregnancy rates ranged from 18.9 – 22.6 percent.

Dawn Laguens, an executive vice-president for Planned Parenthood, states that the Trump administration’s encouragement of fertility awareness “reveals not only a disdain for women’s health and lives, but a lack of understanding of the basics of sexual and reproductive health.”

Actually, the opposite is true. Teaching all women to understand and monitor their fertility through the use of fertility awareness-based methods, shows a high level of respect for women.

It recognizes that women, even teenagers, can learn to monitor and manage their fertility without resorting to drugs and devices that suppress the normal function of their reproductive health system. It offers relief from birth control drugs and devices that often have numerous side effects—side effects which women are exposed to 365 days a year, even though science shows us women are only capable of getting pregnant 70-80 days a year. It gives women the tools they need to understand their bodies and take control of their health based on solid scientific evidence.

What could be more empowering?

Marguerite Duane is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a board-certified family physician and adjunct associate professor at Georgetown University. She is also co-founder and executive director of FACTS (the Fertility Appreciation Collaborative to Teach the Science). She is a member of Women Speak for Themselves.

‘Right to life’ means right to abortion and euthanasia, says UN committee

Jonathan Abbamonte | Nov 2 2017 |

As reported earlier this year, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has been attempting to redefine an important international human rights treaty by claiming that the “right to life” means that states should legalize abortion under expansive terms.

This past July, the committee released a document called General Comment No. 36 which seeks to reinterpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to say that states “must” provide access to abortion, and permit states to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.

However, the ICCPR never mentions abortion or euthanasia. On contrary, the treaty explicitly recognizes that “Every human being has the inherent right to life.”[1]

In response, the Population Research Institute (PRI), in concert with other pro-life organizations and academics around the world, has called upon the Human Rights Committee to protect the right to life at all stages of development.

We made clear to the committee that neither the ICCPR nor the customary norms of international law obligate any state to legalize abortion. We further endeavoured to debunk some widely held myths pro-abortion advocates commonly use in justifying an invention of a “right” to abortion. My full written comment on behalf of PRI to the Human Rights Committee can be viewed here.

Several countries have also responded to General Comment No. 36, condemning the committee’s pro-abortion activism.

While the Human Rights Committee has gained a reputation for routinely subjecting countries to rebuke for their pro-life laws, General Comment No. 36 would permit the committee to place considerably more pressure on states to legalize abortion.

The quasi-official document states that countries “must provide” access to abortion in cases of health, rape, incest, fetal disability and “in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman substantial pain or suffering.”[2]

The same document also calls on independent states to remove criminal sanctions for abortionists that break the law, and to repeal laws which place “humiliating or unreasonably burdensome requirements on women seeking to undergo abortion.”[3]

There would be much at stake if the comment is adopted.

The ICCPR is one of the oldest, most revered and widely adopted United Nations human rights treaties. States that have adopted the ICCPR (i.e. “state parties”) are bound by international law to faithfully observe the treaty’s terms. The United States, as a state party to the ICCPR, is bound by the U.S. Constitution to abide by the treaty.

General comments are essentially official statements by the committee on how they interpret the treaty.

And while their legal status is subject to much debate among international law scholars, most observers agree that general comments are highly esteemed, authoritative, quasi-juridical statements that play an ever increasingly important role in the development of “soft” law.[4] They have been invoked by various international courts including the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and have, on occasion, even been cited in decisions by domestic courts, including a federal district court in the United States.[5],[6]

While states are free to ignore the parts of general comments that do not accord with their obligations under the ICCPR, they are widely recognized as authoritative and can place increased pressure on state parties to comply.

The Human Right Committee is tasked with monitoring the implementation of the ICCPR, with writing general comments, and with offering non-binding recommendations to state parties on fulfilling their obligations under the treaty.

But, as we were keen to point out, the committee has no authority to create new obligations or to reinterpret the treaty in manner contrary to the text of the ICCPR.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), treaties must be interpreted “in good faith” and according to “the ordinary meaning” of the text in its “context and in light of its object and purpose.”[7] Many of the framers of the ICCPR understood this well and carefully crafted the language of the treaty under the assumption that the treaty would “not admit of progressive implementation of its provisions.”[8]

As mentioned already, article 6(1) of the ICCPR explicitly recognizes the right to life of “every human being” and that this right should be “protected by law.”[9] Article 2 of the covenant declares that this right should respected “without distinction of any kind” including by “birth or other status.”[10] Article 7 further prohibits anyone to be subjected to “torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Abortion procedures crush, poison, or dismember the unborn child, many of whom are able to feel pain, and clearly constitute the most cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment imaginable.

Article 6(5) even specifically recognizes the right to life of the unborn child as distinct from the life of its mother. Article 6(5) prohibits the death penalty to be carried out on a pregnant woman:

“Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.”[11]

During the drafting process for the ICCPR, state parties made it clear that article 6(5) was included in the treaty precisely to protect the life of the unborn child. The Official Record of the proceedings of the 819thmeeting of the Third Committee summarized the comments of the Israeli delegation as follows:

“…the authors of the original text had specified that sentence of death should not be carried out on a pregnant woman principally in order to save the life of an innocent unborn child.”[12]

The Japanese delegation echoed this sentiment at the following meeting, saying to the effect, “the main reason for inserting the provision concerning pregnant women was to avoid involving in the death penalty a person who was not connected with the crime.”[13] It is thus impossible to read any “right” to abortion into the ICCPR.

Moreover, international law does not create any obligation on states to legalize abortion. The U.N. Charter seeks to promote “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction.”[14]The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes that “every child has the inherent right to life”[15] and that the “child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”[16] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while not in and of itself constituting a customary norm in whole or in part, is nevertheless highly esteemed and provided the inspiration for the ICCPR. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims without qualification that “everyone has the right to life.”[17]

It is impossible for the Human Rights Committee to claim that states are obligated to legalize abortion under customary international law. A significant number of countries protect the right to life for the unborn child by law, several of them from the moment of conception. In fact, a majority of U.N.-recognized states (56%) have not legalized abortion under even the minimum cases the committee is now demanding that they be provided.[18]

It is clear that no so-called “right” to abortion exists in either the ICCPR or in states’ obligations under international law. On the contrary, the ICCPR recognizes the right to life for “every human being,” including the unborn child, the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.

The Human Rights Committee must abide by its mandate and must cease its attempts to reinterpret the covenant in a manner never intended by state parties.

Jonathan Abbamonte is a research analyst at the Population Research Institute. 

Contraception leads to more abortions

 (Human Life International)

While we need a variety of pro-life groups hacking away at the anti-life monster, it is enormously futile and indeed grossly shortsighted to overlook the chief source of baby-killing, which is contraception. – Father Paul Marx, OSB

I’ve written before about the link between contraception and abortion: that is, statistically contraception use actually increases, rather than decreases the abortion rate. For some reason, this claim is still met with shock and disbelief, even though top pro-abortion leaders have been admitting this truth – self-evident to anyone who examines the facts – since the 1960s.

However, a pair of new studies from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), a leading UK abortion provider, has given us a new, and even more horrific understanding of the infernal symbiosis that unites contraception and abortion.

The first study found that over half (51.2%) of the 60,000+ women who came to their facilities for an abortion in 2016 were using at least one form of contraception at the time they become pregnant. This first finding is not surprising. In fact, the only shocking thing is that it was “only” 51% – other recent BPAS studies have found that as many as 66% of women seeking an abortion at their facilities were using contraception.

So much for “safe, cheap, and effective”!

However, the second study is the one that truly makes the stomach turn. Surprised by the fact that the number of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks (i.e. when the baby is essentially fully-formed, and might even be able to survive outside the womb) has not decreased over the past decade, BPAS launched a study to find out why women were waiting that long before aborting. The answer? You guessed it: contraception.

It turns out that when women are on contraception, they are significantly less likely to recognize the signs of pregnancy until extremely late. In the first place, BPAS observes, hormonal contraception disrupts a woman’s menstrual cycle, removing one of the most obvious indicators of pregnancy. More importantly, however, because women are constantly told how “effective” contraception is, they simply assume it is “impossible” that they could be pregnant. Consequently, when they experience indicators that they’re pregnant, they either overlook or misinterpret those signs.

Contraception and Murderous Despair

The BPAS report says that when the women on contraception found out they were pregnant they were “shocked” and “devastated.”

Think about that for a moment! I understand that pregnancy can be a vulnerable time, even for women who were trying to become pregnant. And yet, how horrible that the news of the existence of a new human being – objectively an extraordinary and beautiful miracle – should be greeted not with joy by the mother, but despair! And not just any kind of despair: a despair that is so all-consuming, so dark, so bleak, that the response is to try to destroy the child.

This is what the lie of contraception has done to us: it has robbed us of a precious part of our humanity. By creating the false expectation of sexual pleasure free from the natural consequences of sexual intercourse, it has primed mothers and fathers to greet the existence of their own children not with joy, but dark, murderous despair!

The BPAS study includes some heart-rending details. Speaking of one woman, named “Catriona,” who was seeking a late abortion, BPAS states: “She is upset as she can now feel the pregnancy but feels abortion is the best for her.”

“Catriona” is “upset” because she can “feel the pregnancy.” “The pregnancy”! What she is feeling are the little fingers and toes of her child brushing against the sides of her womb. She is feeling her fully-formed, growing, healthy child stretching out its body, exercising its new-found strength, filling in the shrinking space in her womb with fleshy limbs, pressing its precious head up against her ribs, kicking his legs.

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13).

Contraceptive Failure: Far More Common than You Think

To BPAS’s very limited credit, they are one of the very few pro-abortion organizations that are honest about how pro-contraception propaganda creates deadly false expectations. In their latest report, BPAS laments that, despite the fact that all current contraception fails some of the time, “public discourse and some family planning initiatives frequently imply that abortion can always be avoided through the use of contraception.”

This is far from true. As BPAS points out, “each year 9 in every 100 women using the contraceptive pill, the most popular method of contraception in the UK, 6 in every 100 using the contraceptive injection, and nearly 1 in every 100 using the IUD (copper coil), will become pregnant.”

I want you to stop and think about that statistic very carefully. Because it is a lot worse than most people realize at first.

Men and women are constantly told, from the time they’re in elementary school, that the best (and even only) way to avoid an unplanned pregnancy is to use contraception. In reality, as many as 9% of sexually active women on the pill will become pregnant…every year! That means that if a woman relies on hormonal contraception to avoid pregnancy throughout her 31-35 fertile years (on average), the chances she will experience an unplanned pregnancy at some point are not “slim.” In fact, it’s practically certain that she will!

And when that unplanned pregnancy happens? What will she do? That’s where BPAS’s diabolical logic enters in. “The answer to unsafe abortion is not contraception, it is safe abortion,” says BPAS Chief Executive Ann Furedi in the recent study.

The Great Contraceptive Lie

Before the invention of artificial contraception, everyone understood that there was only one infallible way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy: to avoid engaging in baby-making activities with anyone with whom you were not prepared to have a baby.

This is not to say that everyone followed this principle. The human race hardly invented fornication and adultery in the 20th century! And yet, the point stands: everybody knew the consequences of having sex, even if they still sometimes chose to risk the consequence nonetheless. The vast majority of people chose not to take the risk, unless they were in a stable, long-term relationship – i.e. marriage – and prepared to welcome a child into the world. If they did take the risk with someone with whom they did not intend to have a baby, and subsequently found out they were pregnant, while they might be disappointed or even terrified, they would not have been surprised. They knew that biology worked, even if they didn’t fully understand how it worked.

We “advanced” moderns, however, have spun for ourselves an elaborate fable: a fable of our limitless capacity to control nature using technology, and therefore to conduct ourselves sexually however we want, without any consequences. Decades ago Human Life International Founder Father Paul Marx identified this lie, and he spent his life trying to warn the world of its deadly consequences. In his book, The Death Peddlers, he warned:

The foolproof contraceptive does not exist, and sociological studies have shown, almost without exception, that intensive contraceptive programs, by emphasizing the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, also reinforce an intention not to bear an unwanted child under any circumstances; that is, there is a greater likelihood that women experiencing contraceptive failures will resort to abortion.

Elsewhere he wrote, even more poignantly:

… the more you sow contraception, the more you reap sexual sins, family and social disorders, venereal diseases, and deadly AIDS — and the more you must make available “abortion services” to take care of the “contraceptive failures”.

The truth is, we will never end the violence of abortion until we eradicate the underlying cause: i.e. the contraceptive mentality, which is the foundation for the entire sexual revolution. As Father Marx repeatedly said, no matter how good the intentions and efforts to stop abortion are, unless, we address the systemic root cause, contraception and its selfish mentality, everything is an exercise in futility.

 

Nothing to celebrate: 50 years of abortion in Britain

Philippa Taylor | Oct 30 2017

Last Friday marked 50 years since the passing of the UK’s  Abortion Act, 1967, which permitted abortion on very wide grounds. In these last five decades nearly 9 million unborn babies have been aborted in England, Scotland and Wales.

That figure has, of course, also impacted the lives of 9 million women, some of whom are celebrating this anniversary of the Act while many will instead remember and regret their abortion(s) and the harm each one brings to both mother and child.

While I strongly believe there are two victims for every abortion, for now I deliberately focus on the unborn victims, not the women, and the almost incomprehensible scale of destruction of innocent lives.

Nine million lives lost is a truly staggering figure.

Incredibly, that number of lives lost is higher than the combined populations of Scotland and Wales (see also here).

Let’s break the figures down a bit more.

On current abortion rates, every year we lose more lives than could fill three London Olympic Stadiums(approximately 200,000 per year).

Every month we lose the equivalent of 11 Titanics (over 16,000 per month, since 1992).

We lose many more than the number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks every week in England, Wales and Scotland (3840 per week).

And every day the number of unborn babies who are aborted would completely fill an Airbus A380(approximately 550 per day).

These are illustrations of the numbers of lives lost.  Imagine the difference in England and Wales if those were all alive today?  Which brings me to Northern Ireland where, in a poignant and striking contrast, there are an estimated 100,000 people who are alive today because they do not have the 1967 Abortion Act, but have a different law.

In other words, one in ten people under fifty in Northern Ireland are alive because of the more restrictive law on abortion there.

This number could fill their national football stadium five times over. Each one a precious, valuable human being who is alive today but would have never have had the chance of life in the rest of the UK.

An anniversary is a time for stopping to remember something very special or something very sad. It is either a celebration, such as of a marriage or a special birthday, or it is a time to commemorate a tragic event, such as a death.

I for one know which this 50th anniversary will signify: 9 million innocent lives lost. For me it is a time for commemoration of 9 million unborn children who have silently disappeared.

Please take a minute or two to stop and remember, by watching this short video we have put together at CMF to mark the Anniversary.

Philippa Taylor is Head of Public Policy at Christian Medical Fellowship. She has an MA in Bioethics from St Mary’s University College and a background in policy work on bioethics and family issues. Republished from the CMF blog with permission.

It’s ‘impossible’ to change Catholic teaching against contraception: Cardinal

Pete Baklinski

ROME, October 28, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The Church’s teaching against contraception as expressed in Humanae Vitae is an “extraordinary example” of how the “truth of faith” deepens and develops while “continuing to be identical to itself,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller stated at a conference in Rome today.

Brandmüller made his remarks as he opened a conference titled Humanae Vitae at 50: Setting the Context that was organized by Voice of the Family. The conference took place at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Image
Cardinal Brandmüller addressing the ‘Humanae Vitae at 50’ conference in Rome, Oct. 28, 2017.Diane Montagna / LifeSiteNews

German Cardinal Brandmüller is a world renowned-scholar of church history, having published numerous books on the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Reformation. He holds a doctorate in theology and is the former President of the Pontifical Commission for Historical Sciences. He is one of the four Cardinals who signed the dubia [questions] to Pope Francis asking if the Pope’s 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia conforms to perennial Catholic teaching.

Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical Humanae Vitae [Of Human Life] celebrates its 50th anniversary next year. Catholic academics including Josef Seifert and Father George Woodall have outlined how Pope Francis’s teaching on marriage and family, especially as expressed in Amoris Laetitia [Joy of Love]could be used to overturn Catholic teaching against contraception.

Brandmüller told conference attendees that it is “impossible” for the Catholic Church to change it’s teaching in Humanae Vitae, what he referred to as a “doctrinal document” that was “truly prophetic.”

The Encyclical states that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of human life” and calls the use of contraception (including the pill, condom, withdrawal, and other methods) “intrinsically wrong.”

“Humanae Vitae provides an extraordinary example of the workings of the process of parodosis, which means transmission of the doctrine of the Church. When the truth of faith is received, adopted and transmitted, what happens is that what is received, when adopted and transmitted, responds with deeper understanding and more precise expression to the needs of the respective present, while continuing to be identical to itself,” he said.

“In all of this, contradiction between yesterday and today is impossible: it is the Holy Spirit who acts in the Church of Jesus Christ to guide this process of paradosis. It is the Holy Spirit who ensures that the faith of the Church develops in the course of time, just as an adult person continues to be identical to the infant it was in the past, an intuition formulated by Vincent of Lérins as early as 430 and elaborated upon by Blessed John Henry Newman,” he added.

The Cardinal said that the Catholic Church must withstand pressures from Protestant churches and from the world that want to see the Church use “situation ethics” to accept contraception as morally legitimate.

Instead, he said, “tribute should be paid” to the “doctrinal document whose prophetic nature has, over time, also been acknowledged by leading non-catholic thinkers.”

“In this Encyclical, Paul VI brought temporary closure to a series of doctrinal affirmations on the matter of contraception, instigated by Pius XI in Casti connubiiand continued by Pius XII and John XXIII. These were ultimately taken up, developed and deepened by John Paul II,” he said.

“The Conference inaugurated today has called for this renewed reception, adoption and more profound transmission of the truly prophetic teaching of Paul VI in the year 2017,” he added.

How We Rescue a Sexually Broken Generation One Life at a Time

SUSANNE MAYNES   OCT 26, 2017   |   1:21AM    WASHINGTON, DC

Imagine standing on the shores of a dark, stormy sea. As you peer over perilous waters, you hear voices cry out. Horrified, you realize people are struggling out there in the tempest, about to sink beneath the angry waves.

Suddenly a rescue boat appears. Workers make their way quickly to the victims, tossing life preservers toward them. The boat makes its way back to shore.

At first you feel relief—but then you realize something is wrong. Only a few people disembark. The rescuers shake their heads, muttering, “They just don’t grab the life preservers anymore. How are we supposed to help them?”

And then you hear them—a multitude still crying out, fighting to keep their heads above the dark waters.

Here’s the point of the illustration: we live in a day and age of unprecedented sexual brokenness. The only world our youth have ever known is a world of legalized abortion, homosexual marriage, common divorce and cohabitation, as well as gender confusion. They are indoctrinated that “not judging” others means it’s wrong to say that some behaviors are sinful.

Porn is just a click away. Peer pressure is intense.

This is the world’s religion, where sex is god. This is where sexual “liberation” has taken us. And a generation cries out, drowning in a raging sea of life-and-soul-threatening choices.

Before we attempt a rescue, though, we need to know something about that sea. We need to discover why people don’t always trust the methods we may want to use to help them.

We must understand their frame of reference before we can speak into their lives.

This is where it’s so helpful to volunteer or work at a pregnancy help center. Our thorough training helps us understand culture so we can minister effectively to those whose idea of “normal” is anything but.

Here’s how I put it in Unleashing Your Courageous Compassion: 40 Reflections on Rescuing the Unborn:

“Today’s sexual landscape is chaotic and bewildering. In the name of freedom, we’ve opened the door to a kind of sexual feeding frenzy that leaves victims strewn in its wake.

College students come to PRCs for pregnancy tests shortly after they land on campus as freshmen, or six weeks after attending the latest sex educator’s lecture, or after a weekend hookup with a friend-with-benefits (a relationship based on casual sex with no strings attached). A teenage girl goes to a party, gets so drunk she passes out, and later has no idea which of the boys who raped her is the father of her baby.

… Of course, unplanned pregnancies often result from the mess and heartache of using sex as a meaningless commodity. Abortion presents itself as the answer to this dilemma. Many times, the issue is that the baby’s father is the “wrong guy,” because the mother was involved with two or more men around the same time and fears being found out.”

Things have changed drastically, even in the last few years.

Last month, I had the privilege of addressing ReGenerate, an on-campus student ministry at our local state college, on the topic of “Stewarding Your Sacred Human Sexuality.”

The ministry leaders had told me beforehand that one student had just become a Christian two weeks before after living in homosexual sin. Another female student was struggling with same-sex temptation as well.  A number of girls in the group had been sexually abused.  Other students had been wounded by the shame that comes from a toxic mix of living outside God’s plan for our sexuality and encountering Christians seemingly more interested in record-keeping than forgiveness.

I could have simply reminded these students about God’s moral boundaries concerning sex, and then invited them to sign abstinence pledge cards, but that would have been inadequate at best, and harmful at worst.

These students didn’t need to hear that saving sex for marriage guarantees having the best sex ever (maybe, maybe not).  They didn’t need a message about how sexual purity somehow rivals salvation in its importance. They didn’t need to try harder in their own strength.

As young singles navigating a war zone, they needed the hope of the gospel as it applies to their sexuality.

They needed conversion, not merely to heterosexuality or abstinence, but to total belief, trust and obedience to Christ in every area of life, including their sexuality.

The message these students needed was a biblically sound, logical, hopeful message about stewarding their sexuality—a message including God’s moral boundaries, but also His grace for those who have transgressed those boundaries.

So I apologized for the church’s mixed message about sex, and assured the students that sex is one of God’s very best gifts—a gift He wants them to look forward to and enjoy for a lifetime. I talked about their value as image-bearers of God. I described sex as a treasure worth guarding.

I explained the brain science behind bonding hormones, and how God wired humans this way so that married couples can stick together for a lifetime—but that this ability is impaired when used improperly. I described the emotional, relational and spiritual benefits of sex within a marriage covenant, and the serious damage done by sex outside of marriage.

I told them the real definition of “unprotected sex” is sex outside of a marriage covenant.

Finally, I assured them Jesus takes fragmented hearts and makes them whole again.

The topic was heavy, but the students were engaged. A number of good discussions were prompted. To use our stormy sea analogy, these young people were grabbing life preservers and hanging on.

Here’s the thing: our rescue operations must be well-strategized. If we are to reach this post-truth generation, including Christians influenced by the world, we must gain their trust.

We must understand the pressure they face daily. We must ask good questions about their relationships, hopes and dreams. We must help them see how the gospel relates to human sexuality.

A multitude cries out from the dangerous waters of unrestrained sex. Will we toss them a simplistic message about rules and self-effort—or will we offer them the hope of the gospel?

LifeNews Note: Susanne Maynes writes for PregnancyHelpNews, where this originally appeared.