Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Jalsevac

,

Pregnant with an IUD: Pro-abortion writer baffled after contraception fails; decides to abort

John Jalsevac
John Jalsevac

December 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – How could she get pregnant while using what is touted as a practically fool-proof method of contraception? That’s what a woman writing at the pro-abortion website RHRealityCheck.com wants to know.

In a post suffused with anguish, the woman, writing under the initials NW, expresses her bewilderment at the failure of her Intrauterine Device (IUD), and describes the process that led her to “fix” the problem by having her child aborted.

“I just had the quite bizarre experience of getting pregnant,” begins NW’s article. “Bizarre because for the last two and a half years, I’ve had the Paraguard IUD - as effective as tying your tubes, they tell me.”

At first, NW says, she couldn’t believe she was pregnant. It wasn’t until she was staring at the positive pregnancy test that the truth began to sink in.  Even then she refused to believe it, and took another test. And another. Finally, she went to the doctor, who confirmed what she already knew: she was pregnant.

After some discussion with her boyfriend, NW decided to schedule an abortion with Planned Parenthood the following Saturday.

“When I put down the phone I’m hit with a wave of relief…Something went wrong, but now there are steps to fix it,” she writes.

“But,” she continues, “that still leaves a week of being pregnant.”

The sensations of being pregnant were more than NW bargained for, and she writes that during the moments she experienced nausea or a loss of appetite at work, she was hit with the truth that no one else knew: “There’s another person growing in this room.”

At the same time, during an ultrasound she looks at the screen and says, “What the hell are you? You aren’t a person yet.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

On the morning of the day of the abortion, NW suddenly wanted to discuss the possibility of keeping the baby with her boyfriend. But ultimately she decided that “we’re not there yet.”

“I want us to be sure without a faulty copper wire forcing our hand,” she writes.

After the abortion NW spent the day at home with her boyfriend. “And then,” she says, “it’s Sunday and I’m not pregnant any more…My boyfriend works on a paper due that night. I chat about authors and law school. And life goes on.”

While pro-abortion activists routinely claim that increased use of contraception will decrease abortion rates, pro-life advocates have argued that the data points to the opposite conclusion. The solution to the high abortion rate, they say, is not increased contraception, but rather to educate people on responsible sexual behavior.

According to Brian Clowes, a researcher with Human Life International, NW’s experience is all too common. “This story is about only one of the nearly two and a half million contraceptive failures that occur in the United States each year,” said Clowes, “and nearly half of these end in abortion. 

“Women (and men) have been conditioned to use devices that just do not do what they are billed to do - prevent pregnancy” he said. He pointed out that “when our pills or IUDs or condoms fail, we feel entitled to ‘fix’ the problem with abortion.”

“Contraception has made us spiritually and emotionally lazy,” he said.

The comments under NW’s article suggest that her experience is not an isolated one.

“I, too, thought that I was safe with Paragard, but after 5 years (it is supposed to last 10), I became pregnant with my third child,” wrote one commenter, who said, however, that she decided the baby was “meant to be” and gave birth to her.

The same commenter said that she conceived her first child while she was on the pill. “I wish there were better, safer, and more effective options than abstinence and getting your tubes tied,” she said.

Another woman echoed the same experience, saying she became pregnant while using the IUD some 40 years ago.

Another recounted how she performed an abortion on a woman with an IUD two days earlier. She insisted that IUD’s are effective, just not “perfect.”

A different commenter protested that IUDs are 99 percent effective, to which another explained in response: “What birth control producers mean when they say 99% effective is that if 100 women have sex for 1 year using that particular form of BC, only 1 will get pregnant. Therefore if you account for the fact that women don’t only have sex for one year, the risk is actually slightly higher than 1% of women still getting pregnant.”

One study released in 2011 showed that in Spain, the abortion rate rose in proportion to the availability of contraception, a result that confused the researchers who expected to find the opposite result.

In response, Dr. Dianne Irving, a bioethicist at Georgetown University and a former bench biochemist with the U.S.‘s National Institutes of Health, said that “years of scientific studies around the world” have established the link between contraception and abortion.

“Since it is…a long-recognized and documented scientific fact that almost all so-called ‘contraceptives’ routinely fail at statistically significant rates resulting in ‘unplanned pregnancies’, is there any wonder that elective abortions are socially required in order to take care of such ‘accidents’?” asked Dr. Irving. “Thus abortion has become a ‘contraceptive’ in and of itself.”

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook