The War on Girls: Dying for Women’s Health

Source: Photobucket

I had an aunt who had blood clots because of the birth control pill.

We were lucky. Her bloods clots were in her legs and did not break off and move to her lungs, heart or brain. However, even this relatively “mild” side effect was painful and required a week in the hospital on blood thinners, which were also dangerous.

None of this was necessary. My aunt wasn’t using birth control pills because she had cancer and she needed them to save her life. She wasn’t using them because she had a disease of any sort.

My aunt took birth control pills because they had been aggressively marketed by the pharmaceutical companies and pushed by her doctor. She took them because the medical establishment and the culture as a whole has so little regard for true women’s health that they used her — along with the entire female half of the world population — as a guinea pig in social engineering masquerading as “women’s health.”

Birth control, as it is pushed by these people, is as much social engineering and eugenics as anything to do with women. Right up to the present day, dangerous chemical birth control, as well as equally dangerous methods such as the IUD, are pushed on women without regard to the consequences and without telling them that there are other, completely safe, methods of contraception.

The problem with the so-called barrier methods of birth control is that their monetary pay-off to organizations such as Planned Parenthood is relatively small or even nonexistent. It doesn’t require the expenditure of enormous amounts of federal dollars for people to simply go to the nearest pharmacy or Wal Mart and buy contraceptives off the shelves. Fitting someone with a diaphragm does require a doctor’s visit. But it is a one-shot deal.

Chemical birth control, however, requires repeated visits to medical personnel. Chemical birth control also costs a lot more than the greasy kid stuff you can buy off the shelves. Ironically, the pushers of chemical birth control are also the pushers of abortion on demand.

How do they justify this? They do it by talking about “birth control failure.” “Even the best birth control fails,” they tell us at the same time that they assure us that chemical birth control and all its health risks are a necessary evil. After all, they say, without the faintest blush of embarrassment, chemical birth control is the only “truly effective method” of birth control. However, they add, going in a circle, we need abortion as a “backup” throughout the span of pregnancy, right up to the day before delivery.

Let’s be clear about this. The greasy kid stuff works if you use it. You just have to use it.

The insanity of this whole paradigm slides right past most people, including parents. No one seems to consider that Planned Parenthood is in the schools, drumming up business for itself by pushing kids to be sexually active and telling them that they need to be “on the pill.” No one has stopped to consider that this has gone so far that a lot of parents’ first question when they learn that their young teenager is sleeping around is “are you ‘protected?’”

My question is, protected from what? Protected from the emotional damage of being reduced to meat to be sexually used? Protected from sexually transmitted diseases? Protected from the death-dealing short and long term sides effects of dosing their young bodies with artificial hormones?

Are they being protected from the risks of uterine perforations, blood clots, heart attacks and strokes that are a big part of the side effects of these things?

Are they being protected from getting breast cancer later in their lives? Who protects them from the chemotherapy and radiation that goes with that?

Are they being protected from being able to form genuine emotional commitments with young men?

What, exactly, are these young girls being protected from?

And why are we allowing the pushers of these drugs into our schools to sex educate our daughters to use them?

A current article in Vanity Fair raises disturbing questions about one of these dangerous birth control devices called the NuvaRing. Do you remember the NuvaRing? There were a lot of ads for it.

It was marketed as a freedom from the onerous requirement of taking a pill every day. The ads encouraged young women to just pop in a NuvaRing once each month and get their daily dose of artificial hormones the thoughtless way. The only trouble is that NuvaRing has turned out to have side effects that may require a number of not-so-convenient stays in the hospital and even funerals. Like every other form of chemical birth control, NuvaRing can be a killer.

Let me ask you this: If it was your daughter who died of a “massive, double pulmonary embolism” caused by this device, would you consider that “complication” an “acceptable risk” for “preventing unwanted pregnancy?”

When did this kind of catastrophic “complication” for a treatment that is being given to people who are not sick and who do not need it become “acceptable?” The fashionable — and stupid — answer is to juxtapose the statistics of complications of pregnancy and child birth with the complications of using chemical birth control. The unthinking and sheep-like public eats this bogus logic up with a spoon and allows their daughters to be sacrificed to the lie of it.

And it is a lie. It is a lie based on a totally fallacious assumption.

The fallacious assumption is that chemical birth control is the only way to prevent “unwanted pregnancy.” That is absolutely untrue. Chemical birth control is not the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It’s just the most dangerous way.

This is a NuvaRing commercial. Notice that it does — due to legal requirements — give a list of warnings. It does not include a list of side effects, including the catastrophic side effects that have actually occurred. But anyone who is really listening and not brain-washed by our contraceptive culture, would run the other way.

YouTube Preview Image

And from Vanity Fair:

When 24-year-old Erika Langhart—talented, beautiful, bound for law school—died on Thanksgiving Day 2011, she became one of thousands of suspected victims of the birth-control device NuvaRing. Elite army athlete Megan Henry, who survived rampant blood clots in her 20s, is another. With major suits against NuvaRing’s manufacturer, Merck, headed for trial, Marie Brenner asks why, despite evidence of serious risk, a potentially lethal contraceptive remains on the market …

…  Karen was on the golf course when she saw Erika’s number on her cell phone. “We can’t wait to see you!” she said. Then, she would recall, “my world stopped. It was Sean, telling us that Erika had collapsed and that the E.M.T.’s were in the apartment.” In the ambulance Erika had two heart attacks, and she was semi-conscious by the time they reached Virginia Hospital Center. According to Karen, a doctor in the emergency room asked her over the phone: “Was your daughter using birth control?” Karen said, “Yes, NuvaRing.” He removed the device and said, “I thought so, because she’s having a pulmonary embolism.”

BOTTOM: FROM CUSTOM MEDICAL STOCK/NEWSCOM.
THE MAGIC RING In the latest NuvaRing commercial, an ebullient voice says, “It’s not another pill.”

Racing for the last flight to Washington, Rick and Karen Googled “double pulmonary embolism NuvaRing.” Dozens of results came up—“NuvaRing side effects,” “NuvaRing lawsuits.”

… Before Karen and Rick reached the hospital, Erika was placed on life support. She died on Thanksgiving Day. On the program for her daughter’s memorial service, Karen stated, “Cause of Passing: Massive, Double Pulmonary Embolism—a direct result of the NuvaRing.” She had entered, she told me, “another phase of life. How I wish I could change places with my daughter.” Then her voice broke. “I am living every parent’s nightmare.”

 

  • Sus_1

    Thank you Rebecca! Excellent post.

    I’m terrified the powers that be are going to allow chemical birth control to be sold OTC. They already have the morning after pill available OTC. My objections have nothing to do with morals. It’s all about the medical issues.

    If they allow the Pill to be sold OTC, all the fighting over religious institutions being made to cover it will go away. Women won’t need a doctor for it. It would allow the government (Obama) to back down.

  • James

    Awesome article, Rebecca!

    Safe, effective, and inexpensive birth control is available on the shelf in every Walgreens, Walmart, Kwik-e-Mart, and sketchy restroom in America. Plus, unlike hormonal BC, condoms also reduce the risk of STD transmission.

    For women, the healthiest form of family planning involves female body awareness and male responsibility. This combination is non-invasive, inexpensive, and works pretty darn well. Yet the mainstream is slow to embrace it, if not outright hostile to even the suggestion.

    • irena mangone

      May I say that not all husbands will co-operate with natural family planning they want what they want ,when they want and the wife has to comply it heroise all he’ll breaks loose learnt from experience

      • hamiltonr

        Irena, there a word for that. It’s called rape. Husbands who treat their wives like this are a disgrace to their sex.

  • chasrmartin

    Oh nonsense. Women use birth control because they don’t want to get pregnant, and don’t want to be celibate. I get that you have ethical objections, but the medical risk is very low, and these are adults capable of making their own choices and taking responsibility for them. They’re not infants incapable of resisting the Evil Pharm Companies. Send out for a grownup if you don’t know one.

    • hamiltonr

      The only “adults” in a school sex education class are the people pushing and making money off of the dangerous birth control. As for the medical risk being “very low,” the risk is zero with barrier methods of birth control. On the other hand, the risk is 100% for those who have strokes or die.

      I don’t normally say things like this, but it is pretty easy for you to come on here and say things like this, since it’s not you who’s being pushed to put your health and life on the line.

    • FW Ken

      Thank you for making the case against including contraception in the healthcare act. It’s contraception, not healthcare.

  • Becky

    I have a history of migraine with aura, meaning I have visual disturbances that come on before the headache. This is very common, and it’s not generally serious. However, women who have a history of migraine with aura have something like an 8x higher risk of stroke than other women when they take birth control pills (or use other hormonal contraceptives). I was prescribed the pill for years before a new doctor bothered taking a complete medical history and told me I shouldn’t take the pill because of my migraines.

    Like I said, this is a common condition — and women are much more likely to suffer from migraines than men. I’ve never once heard anyone mention this as a reason the pill should NOT be available without a prescription, though …

    • George.a.da.Jungle

      Have you been screened for Patent Foramen Ovale? It’s a form of hole in the heart wall that is linked to migraine and stroke. It can be closed, usually via a catheter procedure, eliminating the stroke risk. Our cardiologist did screenings for $300. Totally worth it after seeing the results of a PFO stroke real up close and personal.

  • Bill S

    “My aunt wasn’t using birth control pills because she had cancer and she needed them to save her life.”

    You make a good argument using reason and logic. I can deal with this kind of argument against the pill. But it falls in the category of not putting unnatural substances in one’s body without proper medical supervision and unless it is necessary. My wife took the pill for forty years and never had a problem. Birth control did what it was intended to do and we now have two pre-planned fully grown well educated sons just as we wanted. We did not listen to anyone trying to tell us about the will of a deity or the need for us to provide more people to be indoctrinated to support any particular religion.

    I would do more research, however, before letting my wife ingest a foreign substance that could make her sick if I had to do it over again. Thankfully, the risk was minimal and everything worked out as planned.

    • hamiltonr

      Bill, your wife took a real risk with her health by taking the pill. There is also an abortifacient factor in it. My mother has smoked like a diesel since she was 17. (She’s now 88.) No lung cancer for her.

      By your reasoning, maybe we should all smoke like diesels so we could live to be 88, too.

      • Bill S

        No. I agree that no one ought to take such a risk. If I had to do it over again I would use condoms and natural family planning combined like a belt and suspenders.

  • Dave

    This is great, but personally I’d go way beyond this, and apply the same logic you have done here to all pharmaceuticals. Read Pharmageddon by David Healy. It’s all about the $$$.

    I am not comparing, on a moral level, chemical contraception to a pharmaceutical which is purported to help a health condition. One has the goal of interfering with a healthy body while the other tries to address an ill. However, if one digs into it, it is clear that the same motives of minimizing side effects, skewed studies done by the company/industry itself, etc. are present for pharmaceuticals in general as well as chemical birth control.

  • KellyAnn

    I am curious as to how “Public Catholic” publishes an article that lists (quite strongly) the evils of CHEMICAL birth control. Last time I checked, the Catholic Church wasn’t too keen on the use of condoms. Is the point of the article only to make women aware of the unsafe health issues that may accompany chemical birth control? Why is there no mention of abstinence? It is a very effective means of preventing pregnancy.

    • hamiltonr

      Actually, when I referred to personal chastity and sexual cleanliness, I was talking about abstinence. We are clearly called to chastity.

      • KellyAnn

        Respectfully, “Let’s be clear about this. The greasy kid stuff works if you use it. You just have to use it.” …this doesn’t mention chastity. Happening upon this article through the blog of a local priest – it makes a strong argument for abstaining from the use of chemical birth control. Chastity isn’t really implied. I’m not being argumentative – the article is well written – I’m just making mention of the fact that there’s no clear and strong call to abstinence.

        • hamiltonr

          I believe in chastity as a Christian virtue and what we should teach our kids. I’ll write another post about that in a few days and I’m going to do another one on nfp. The point of this post is that chemical birth control is an abuse of women and the whole public relations deal calling it “women’s health” is a lie.

          Stay tuned.

  • Pofarmer

    I’m sorry, but this is just, well, crazy and ignorant. If you would actually look up the relevant statistics, you would find out that the chance of complications from using the Pill are at least 10 times less than the chance of complications from getting pregnant. Women get bloodclots from Pregnancy, I think, about 6 times more than women on the Pill.

  • Linda Kreger

    Being well past childbearing age, I’m not as well-educated about birth control as I used to be. Still, it seems to me that as with most pharmaceuticals, it’s often just about following the money.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X