Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘birth control’

Study Says All Hormonal Birth Control Raises Breast Cancer Risk — But Don’t Expect The FDA To Tell You


BY: GRACE EMILY STARK | APRIL 10, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/10/study-says-all-hormonal-birth-control-raises-breast-cancer-risk-but-dont-expect-the-fda-to-tell-you/

birth control pill pack
Elevating a woman’s risk of breast cancer even a little bit should be a serious consideration for doctors and health-care institutions.

Author Grace Emily Stark profile

GRACE EMILY STARK

MORE ARTICLES

The facade of “safety” around hormonal birth control continues to crumble: Researchers at Oxford Population Health’s Cancer Epidemiology Unit have recently shown that progestin-only hormonal contraceptives, long billed as the “safest” birth control option because of their lack of estrogen, definitively raises one’s risk of breast cancer, similarly to combined hormonal contraceptives (which contain both synthetic estrogen and progestin).

Furthermore, the Oxford researchers found that breast cancer risk, while it declines after discontinuation of hormonal birth control, still remains elevated for ever-users of hormonal birth control (when compared to never-users). Of course, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still won’t cop to increased risks for breast cancer for ever-users of birth control — just for current users — and they are also currently evaluating whether to make a progestin-only pill the first-ever over-the-counter birth control pill in the United States. 

Unsurprisingly, in another instance of “nothing to see here, folks,” headlines abounded with the results of the Oxford study for a few weeks, carefully emphasizing the “slight” or “small” increase in breast cancer risk. And the experts, of course, were quick to chime in with all the benefits of hormonal contraception, insisting women shouldn’t see this as a reason to go flushing their pills. 

ABC’s Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton had this to say, for example: 

So listen, I talk to women about this every single day. You have to talk about risk vs benefit. It is clear that hormonal contraception lowers the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer, but it increases the risk of clotting. When you put that head to head, it’s about individualizing that risk-benefit and option-risk for the woman. If you talk to any OB/GYN, they will say, we have a line, ‘pregnancy is much higher risk than any associated risk with birth control pills or hormonal contraception.’ So you have to have that conversation based on you and your health-care provider.

While I agree that health-care decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor, is it really true, with everything we know about the risks and side effects of birth control (and we know an awful lot), that it’s really that much “safer” than a nine-month pregnancy? Women, after all, tend to be on birth control for years — perhaps even decades — at a time. And the oft-touted benefits of hormonal birth control reducing ovarian and uterine cancers? Well, Dr. Ashton might be surprised to learn that pregnancy has those, too.

It’s also worth mentioning that while ovarian and uterine cancers can undoubtedly be devastating diseases, the average woman’s baseline risk for breast cancer is far greater than her risk for ovarian or uterine cancer; in fact, breast cancer is now the world’s most commonly diagnosed cancer. In other words, elevating the average woman’s risk of breast cancer even a little bit should be a serious consideration for doctors and health-care institutions indeed. In fact, one might argue they have a moral imperative to help women lower their risks for breast cancer.   

Unfortunately, despite increasing, high-quality evidence of the harms of birth control (of which breast cancer is only one among a lengthy list of risks), health-care organizations such as the FDA are loath to give women true informed consent about these drugs. In 2019, the Contraceptive Study Group (CSG) submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA requesting they add a black box warning to hormonal contraceptives given the mounting evidence for breast cancer risks for ever-users of these drugs (evidence the Oxford study has yet again corroborated).

Yet in a partial response to the CSG’s petition, published a full three years later in 2022, the FDA refused to supply women with this warning. One wonders what leg they have to stand upon now, and if they’ll continue to ignore these significant risks to women — which can be entirely avoided through the use of highly effective, drug- and side-effect-free measures for family planning known as fertility awareness-based methods.

With the publication of the Oxford study, the FDA has once again proven itself at odds with the best scientific evidence on this matter, which even the National Cancer Institute acknowledges. Again, this is largely because of the “benefit” of preventing pregnancy, which evidently trumps all other considerations — even ones that could take the lives of women.


Grace Emily Stark is a freelance writer with published work in multiple outlets, and she is the Editor of Natural Womanhood. Grace is also a current Ramsey Institute Fellow at the Center for Bioethics & Culture, and a former Novak Alumni Fund Journalism fellowship recipient. Follow her writing at GraceEmilyStark.com.

American Academy of Pediatrics Promotes Murder of Future Patients


BY: OLIVIA HAJICEK | JULY 21, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/american-academy-of-pediatrics-promotes-murder-of-future-patients-2657707088.html/

A nurse with a little girl.

The American Academy of Pediatrics called for “reproductive justice” and advocated for pediatricians helping minors get abortions without their parents’ knowledge in the July issue of its official journal Pediatrics. Like other pro-abortion advocates who exploit young and vulnerable girls to advance their agenda — as in the recent viral story of the 10-year-old Ohio rape victim — the article used the story of a 14-year-old Guatemalan immigrant girl to argue for a more “holistic approach to reproductive rights that considers factors such as race, language, and socioeconomic status on the reproductive health of women.”

According to the article, the girl experienced complications after taking the abortion drug misoprostol and went to a facility that gave her a surgical abortion and helped her with the “judicial bypass” process so she could do it without her parents’ knowledge. After the abortion, the girl received a Nexplanon implant — a type of birth control that increases the chance that any pregnancy that occurs will be ectopic and puts the female at greater risk of blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes.

The academy’s takeaway from this story, which it foisted upon its readers, was that the “pediatric community” should “advocate for reproductive policies that expand access to care for adolescent patients.” In other words, it thinks doctors should push for making it easier for kids to abort their own children. Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics wants to hide this from minors’ parents and couches its concern in terms of the “deeply intertwined social, economic, and cultural barriers” of racial minorities.

“Now more than ever, training programs should ensure that pediatric residents competently provide culturally sensitive, nonjudgmental counseling around abortion care, contraception, and judicial bypass,” the article said.

Dr. George Fidone, who has a large private practice with five clinics in Texas, told The Federalist that the journal has become increasingly left-leaning. “Years ago the lead article might be on meningitis or pneumonia or a new vaccine or whatever,” he said. “Now it’s all about trans health, gender fluidity, how we’re supposed to counsel people, starting at very young ages, about the notion of gender fluidity or whatever.”

The article also said the academy “joined 38 other physician groups in opposing the passage of Texas Senate Bill 8,” which prohibits abortions after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected.

“So the American Academy of Pediatrics is advocating for the wholesale murder of unborn children,” Fidone said. “What? What has the state of our academy become?”


Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at olivia.hajicek@gmail.com.

Author Olivia Hajicek profile

OLIVIA HAJICEK

MORE ARTICLES

If You Let Government Parent, Don’t Be Surprised When It Claims Your Kids


Reported By Julie GunlockNOVEMBER 16, 2021

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/16/if-you-let-government-parent-dont-be-surprised-when-it-claims-your-kids/

Glenn Youngkin’s gubernatorial win in Virginia sent a clear message to government bureaucrats: treat parents with more respect. Parents are paramount to their kids’ welfare and education, and they have a right to be angry when treated otherwise. Yet parents should also reflect on how we got here and consider how they share at least some of the blame.

For decades, public schools have encroached on some basic parental responsibilities — from feeding kids to health care to helping with homework. Is it any wonder school officials view themselves as the leading authorities on your children?

Consider that, today, a huge number of kids are dropped off at schools before the classes even begin, as early as 6:30 a.m. Kids are watched and fed a simple breakfast. This program, known as “before care,” allows parents to head to work early, which may be necessary for parents who work an early shift. Yet it’s also used by parents who want an early start to the day and a hassle- and kid-free morning.

Many parents also seem happy to let schools feed their kids. The school lunch program, originally designed to help low-income families, is now feeding any child, regardless of need. In fact, according to the School Lunch Association, 7.7 million students paid full price for a school lunch in 2019, meaning the child’s family did not qualify for a reduced or free school lunch.

The full price for a school lunch varies but it averages at about $2.48 for elementary school and $2.74 for high school. Even with rising inflation, that’s enough to make a simple meal for a child. Yet so many parents who could easily do this themselves instead opt to let the school feed their kids because it’s convenient.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture also funds weekend, holiday, and summer meal programs. This is on top of the generous food assistance that’s already provided to needy families through various programs. During the COVID shutdown of schools, even wealthy moms partook of these free food giveaways, since the USDA waived all requirements to show enrollment in the school meal program.

Working late? No sweat! Like the “before care” program, most schools now offer “after care” programs so that parents can work late. Participating students are typically assisted with their homework and fed. Not having to do homework with your kid sounds nice, but it also robs parents of knowing what is being taught and how their kid is doing with his or her schoolwork.

Students are even able to seek medical treatment without their parents’ consent. In Alexandria, Virginia, the high school’s “Teen Wellness Center” will alert parents if a child is seen for a cold, acne, or a few other minor illnesses. But parents are not informed if their child is there for a pregnancy test, diagnosis, and treatment of a sexually transmitted disease (including HIV), a prescription for birth control, “behavior change counseling,” mental health counseling, or substance abuse counseling. These services are all offered free of charge, so at no point would a student need to inform a parent.

Those who advocate for keeping children’s medical care private from parents often cite concerns about abuse arising from a parent finding out about their child’s sexual activity or its consequences. Yet school officials seem less concerned about the harms that could result from letting a child navigate these traumatic and potentially life-altering health conditions without assistance from their parents.

As for discipline, parents rarely have a place at the table. While schools used to be willing to contact parents, share information, and work as partners in setting kids on a better path, today, restorative justice programs cut out parents (and law enforcement), and reduce discipline to a performative joke.

If parents want to be respected by school officials, they need to stop ceding parenting basics to others. By placing these duties in the hands of teachers and school officials, parents have weakened their case that they are the primary caregivers for their children. I’m glad parents are fighting for their rights, but they should never have given up so much authority over their children’s upbringing in the first place.

Julie Gunlock directs the Independent Women’s Network and its Center for Progress and Innovation. She is the author of “From Cupcakes to Chemicals: How the Culture of Alarmism Makes Us Afraid of Everything and How to Fight Back.”

In Historic 7-2 Decision On Obamacare – Supreme Court Says Trump’s Birth Control Exemption Is Lawful


Reported By Adam Casalino | July 8, 2020

In Historic 7-2 Decision On Obamacare – Supreme Court Says Trump’s Birth Control Exemption Is Lawful

What’s Happening:

President Trump has been an outspoken critic of Obamacare since before he entered office. Once president, he began rolling out reforms that weakened Obamacare’s stranglehold on the medical industry.

One of his reforms was to expand birth control exemptions for any employer who expressed concerns based on religious or moral grounds.

The fight was taken to the Supreme Court. And in a historic 7-2 decision, the court says Trump’s birth control exemption is lawful:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Trump administration’s expansion of ObamaCare birth control exemptions for employers…

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority on Wednesday, said the move by federal agencies under President Trump to expand the carve-outs was lawful.

During the Obama administration, religious nonprofits were the only groups that could claim and exemption from paying for contraceptive coverage. Any other business, regardless of the employers’ religious or moral leanings, was forced to pay for birth control.

According to the Trump administration, this violated the employer’s religious rights. Additionally, he expanded the exemptions so that businesses of all kinds can refuse to pay for employee’s birth control if it conflicted with their beliefs.

Naturally, progressive activists challenged the order, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas wrote that employers with “religious and conscientious objections” to birth control should be exempt from this rule.

In a surprise ruling, two of the court’s liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer sided with the conservative wing, giving them the 7-2 decision.

Critics of Obamacare frequently questioned the need for employers to pay for a person’s birth control. If it’s “their body, their choice” they argued, why was it someone else’s responsibility to provide contraceptive?

Such concerns were overlooked by the Obama administration, which conservatives accused of trying to push birth control against religious people’s objections.

This ruling strikes a huge blow against Obamacare and moves the U.S. closer to a possible revoke.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court ruled to uphold Trump’s expansion of birth control exemptions under Obamacare.
  • The court decided employers don’t have to pay for contraceptive, if it conflicts with moral or religious beliefs.
  • The ruling was a historic 7-2 decision.

Source: The Hill

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Adam Casalino

mm
Adam Casalino is a freelance writer, cartoonist, and graphic designer. He is a regular contributor for the Patriot Journal. Find his other work: http://www.talesofmaora.com

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Monday, February 11, 2019


Top Stories

He Stabbed His Girlfriend’s Stomach to Kill Her Baby, Won’t be Charged Because of New York’s Abortion Law
Andrew Cuomo’s Approval Rating Hits a New Low After Signing Law for Abortions Up to Birth
President Trump’s Approval Rating Soars to 52% After Pro-Life State of the Union Address
Nick Sandmann’s Attorney Says Nathan Phillips “Will be Sued for His Defamatory Lies”

More Pro-Life News
WATCH: These Abortion Survivors are Horrified About Bills to Legalize Abortions Up to Birth
Amy Klobuchar Supports Abortion Up to Birth, Voted Pro-Abortion 36 Out of 36 Times
Accused Murderer Not Charged With Killing Woman’s Unborn Baby Thanks to New York’s Abortion Law
33 TV Shows in January Slam “Terrorist” Trump, But Praise Abortion
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

SIGN THE PETITION: Excommunicate Andrew Cuomo for Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth

MORE PRO-LIFE NEWS FROM TODAY

44% of “Pro-Choice” Voters in New York Oppose New Law for Abortions Up to Birth

New Mexico Bill Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth Would Force Doctors and Nurses to Do Abortions

Notre Dame Professors: Pro-Life People are Just White Supremacists in Disguise

1,500 Physicians Protest British Doctors’ Group’s Plan to Support Assisted Suicide

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

Abortion Clinic That Does Abortions Up to Birth Calls 911 After Abortion Causes Seizure

Man Admits Giving Girlfriends Abortion Pills Without Their Knowledge, Killing Six Babies

House Democrats Block Request to Vote on Bill to Stop Infanticide For a Third Time

Massachusetts Bill Would Legalize Abortions Up to Birth, Repeal Parental Consent Law

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2019 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and More for Monday October 9, 2017


Tag Cloud