OpinionThu Mar 15, 2012 - 2:11 pm EST
Studies showing benefits of contraception fall short
March 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com)—In recent weeks, a number of media outlets have been touting studies which purportedly show that greater access to contraception lowers both abortion rates and the rate of unintended pregnancies. In fairness, some of these studies are a step up from the research that the Guttmacher Institute typically publishes. Some have appeared in peer-reviewed journals and analyze actual data. Unfortunately, the evidence they provide is far from conclusive.
For instance, Mother Jones and the blog Faith in Public Life both recently cited two separate studies which showed that women who obtained greater quantities of birth-control pills were more likely to continue using birth control. Both studies appeared in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. One analyzed women from El Paso, Texas, and the other looked at women from California.
The obvious problem with both studies is that the women who obtain a larger quantify of birth-control pills might be different from the other women in the study. That is, women who obtain a large quantity of birth control might be more committed to their decision not to have children. Conversely, women who obtain smaller quantities of contraception might be less certain of their short-term childbearing plans. There exist other problems with these studies as well. For instance, the study of El Paso women only analyzes discontinuation rates. It does not specifically analyze how the quantity of contraception provided affects either abortion rates or the rates of unintended pregnancies.
Now, the California study is more interesting. It did analyze both abortion rates and pregnancy rates. However, the results were inconsistent. Women who obtained three months’ supply of birth-control pills were actually more likely to get pregnant and obtain an abortion than women who obtained only one month of birth-control pills. Only among the cohort that received a year’s worth of birth-control pills were there reductions in both the pregnancy rate and abortion rate. However, again it is possible that the differences were due to the attitudes of those women who obtained a year’s supply of birth control rather than the actual availability of the contraception itself.
Last week, the New York Times got in on the act. On their Economix blog they touted an analysis by Adam Thomas of the Brookings Institution. He argues that a media campaign, improved sex-education classes, and expanded access to contraception would all significantly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. The research he cited on contraception was interesting. A Brookings study analyzed states that received waivers to expand their Medicaid family-planning services. They found these expansions led to small but statistically significant increases in contraceptive use and decreases in the birth rate for teens and non-teens.
However, these results should be interpreted with caution. First, the Brookings study did not appear in an academic journal and hence, has not made it through the peer-review process. Second, states that received waivers to expand their Medicaid family-planning programs might be different from other states. For instance, states with resources for a Medicaid expansion might be performing better economically. Greater contraceptive use could come from women having more disposable income or women making a greater effort to prevent pregnancy to take advantage of better employment opportunities. Also, the results might reflect the fact that states which are expanding Medicaid family-planning programs might be more politically liberal and have contraceptive usage rates that are rising faster than other states.
Taking the results of the Brookings study at face value, they still show that expansions in Medicaid family-planning programs caused only relatively small changes in both contraceptive usage rates and birth rates. These results are consistent with previous research by both Guttmacher and the CDC which shows that a small percentage of sexually active women forgo contraception due to either the cost or lack of availability. All in all, the ability of government programs to increase contraceptive use seems very limited.
Ever since the announcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate, the mainstream-media spin machine has gone into overdrive touting the purported public-health benefits that will flow from increased contraceptive use. However, they have provided little research indicating that the mandate would either increase the use of contraception or reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate. Additionally, the media invariably ignores research which shows that hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer, and liver cancer. All in all, it is safe to stay the main effect of the HHS mandate will be the erosion of the conscience rights of Catholics and others who oppose artificial contraception on moral and religious grounds.
— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan –Dearborn, a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, and an adjunct scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter at @Michael_J_New. This article originally appeared on National Review Online and is reprinted with permission.
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.