Use of Contraception Drops, Slowing Decline of Abortion Rate

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/health/05abort.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Contraception use has declined strikingly over the last decade, particularly among poor women, making them more likely to get pregnant unintentionally and to have abortions, according to a report released yesterday by the Guttmacher Institute.

The decline appears to have slowed the reduction in the national abortion rate that began in the mid-1980's.
snip
Among sexually active women who were not trying to get pregnant, the percentage of those not using contraception increased to 11 percent from 7 percent from 1994 to 2001, the latest data available, according to numbers Guttmacher analyzed from the National Survey of Family Growth, a federal study.

The rise was more striking among women living below the poverty line: 14 percent were not using contraception in 2001, up from 8 percent in 1994. Better-off women — those who earned more than twice the poverty rate — were also less likely to use contraception: 10 percent did not use any in 2001, up from 7 percent in 1994.

and allow pharmacists the "right" not to dispense drugs prescribed by a doctor because of the pharmacists' fweelings about fertilized eggs... Meanwhile, social services are cut (yet remain largely non-existant to those without children).

Sorry, I have to take of my shoes and get back in the kitchen now.

where do you keep the chain that attaches you to the stove?

More and more cannon fodder in the making for future imperial wars. :sarcasm: :puke:

The women should just keep their knees together. Those nasty lustful ignorant women causing all these births. No wonder the GOP hates them. They deserve it. (Freeper off)

is as I posted above: The need for more "cannon fodder" to fill the ranks of the military. The ruling class is depending on us little people to come through for them. After all, how are the rich supposed to continue to be amused and entertained in today's World? Especially since they have put all those restrictions on the new fad, Cage Matches. Poor Poor Nero can't get his fiddle out if we don't open our borders and procreate expendable soldiers for future war games. :P

if there were more options for male contraception, other than condoms and vasectomies.

paid for under prescription drugs...go figure, more testorone needed

Sure is okay for men to have sex. But not women.

permanently mess with one's natural hormones (the pill) is NUTS. The correlation between cancer and the use of the pill is very clear when you take a broad look at the population.

(And just to be really clear, there is no link between abortion and cancer).

Tubal ligation is effective, for sure. But a LOT of work, and permanent.

Condoms are ridiculous, although sadly, effective, but just absolutely SILLY.

The only effective method is the IUD and American women are more willing to contaminate their bodies with artificial hormones than use the IUD, which is kinda nuts. And in some cases the docs won't even place the IUDs without the hormones, which goes right back to screwing with the natural hormone balance.

The norplant? Holy crap, another hormone, cancer inducer. The patch? Same thing.

Women need safer, more effective birth control, end of story.

Until then, abortion remains a safe and effective form of birth control.... and one with the least side effects and damage.

against certain forms of cancer; may lead to a slightly hire risk for other forms. But overall, the "contemporary" pill (much lower hormone doses than the original pill) is pretty safe, as long as you don't smoke while using it.

Aside from preventing pregnancy, it can prevent menstruation when used continuously; for more on this, go to noperiod.com . A brilliant secondary use of the pill! (Norvasc, the vaginal contraceptive ring, is even better for this - just have to deal with it once every 3 weeks (or 4 weeks, if you're not all that worried about getting pregnant).

Are you sure you did not mean Nuvaring? Or perhaps Norplant?

their medicines).

All the 'benefits' sure sound nice, right? But look at the massive increase in the cancer rates once it was introduced.

And considering all the problems they've encountered with HRT for menopause makes me very, very concerned about this.

there's not much to support what you say, and they have looked. There are some groups of women for whom the pill is not recommended (smokers, for example) but for a large percentage of the population, the pill appears fairly safe (safer than the risks of pregnancy, for example, and unless you're willing to not have sex, the pill may be the best answer for you, once you've evaluated your options).

new medications designed to 'make you feel better" and to 'cure depression" turned out to be on pharmacuetical payroll; and who are now the same quacks trying to tell women they're not horny enough AND that HRT won't hurt you, I am willing to err on the side of common sense and instinct.

I know that messing with your hormones has proven to be a very serious mistake, as has been most recently proven with the menopausal HRT crap.

I know cancer is now an epidemic, previously not seen. I know that cancer rates in populations where the women aren't taking hormones is significantly lower.

It's just important to follow your instincts. I have a bad, bad feeling about the pill. I firmly believe in a couple years we'll find out that it has indeed been found to be negatively detrimental to women.

that they feel is best for them.

Doctors aren't scientists though, and although many doctors try to keep up on the literature by reading a few journals a month, it's usually time in excess of the hours (often well beyond 40/week) they put into their practice. Unfortunately, they're as human as the rest of us, and studies have shown that (as a group) they're just as susceptible to the "repetition = truth" phenomenon.

Additionally, drug manufacturers' research is more suspect that research funded by a government agency such as the NIH. The issues related to health are often extremely complex, and we're still figuring out the relevant factors (which are often dependent on the individual's genes, as well as environmental factors such as stress level caused by job or family, or fitness level, and so on), thus the "butter is bad/butter is better than margarine/use olive oil!" phenomena where the recommendations keep changing.

Many other factors can influence cancer rates. For example, in breast cancer, obesity is now thought to play a role; given the epidemic of obesity in the US, obesity may contribute to the rate of breast cancer. Additionally, all the synthetic chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis certainly contributes to cancer rates (the contribution depends on the chemical and the cancer). Even the types of food a person eats can contribute to propensity to develop certain types of cancers. Even the choice to not go through pregnancy in order to have a child can lead to a greater rate of cancer: studies have shown that pregnancy protects against certain types of cancer. Flying exposes you to a higher rate of radiation: have you chosen to not fly because of this? People on a day-to-day basis engage in behaviors which are more likely to cause them to die at an earlier age (speeding, careless driving, not exercising, eating unhealthily) than using the pill - it's important to keep the risks of each decision in perspective.

As far as the pill is concerned, current thought is that it may be protective against some cancers but may lead to a slightly higher risk for certain other types of cancer.

Each person needs to weigh the risks and make their own decision, but it's important to have the big picture and understand the risk relative to other behaviors they engage in.

"....unless you're willing to not have sex..."

Yes, abstinence has worked throughout the centuries.
:sarcasm: (added sarcasm just to be safe)

I couldn't take it even before I hit 36 years old - and now I can't because I smoke (not that I want to be a raging lunatic in fear of my hormonal changes in the first place. I always said that the Pill works because no man wants to have sex with a nut, anyway).

The ONLY contraceptives I can use are the Sponge and any other barrier method: IUD, condoms, etc - oh and the good old fashioned rhythm method that is surprisingly effective for ME (not everyone can do that, but, thanks to the Princess and the Pea syndrome, which allows me to feel the exact minute I ovulate - I am not kidding - I can actually do this).

Just a note, however, even women over 35 who don't smoke run a real risk of strokes from hormonal contraceptives, as well. It's just not safe for us "old broads" who still love having sex with our men.

I am one of them. Any woman who has any scar tissue from Pelvic Inflammatory Disease is generally not given the option of having an IUD, as the foreign body in the uterus can cause a relapse.

Women who have menorrhagia are also not given IUDs because they increase bleeding.

While some women who have them have had relatively easy IUD insertions, for most women, it is very painful. Once in, it can make cramping worse.

In addition to women with menorrhagia or scar tissue, those with immune issues (such as diabetes) are at higher risk of infection with an IUD.

I opted for a tubal ligation and uterine ablation, and haven't regretted it for a nanosecond!

Yes, it's true. I had blind-spot migraine headaches when I was taking B.C. pills, and doctors told me it's a warning sign of arteries "closing off", which could signal a stroke.
The first time I had a migraine with blind spots, I was frightened. The second time it happened, I asked a doctor. I was advised to never take birth control hormones of any kind, for risk of a possible stroke.
According to that doctor, RU-486 would not be acceptable for me. No large doses of ANY birth-control hormone. I could risk a stroke, even though I am in excellent cardiovascular heath.

So yes, birth control pills are potentially dangerous for many women. Me, for example. I can never take birth control hormones, for the risk of a stroke, specifically blood vessel "infarctions". I never have migraine headaches, now that I've stopped taking birth-control-pills.

RU-486 is not a hormone in the estrogen/progesterone sense, it is a prostaglandin.

I found that out the month I tried BC Pills. I have migraines anyway (and blind spots are common in migraines; I lose all vision in my left eye during most of them) but that month - WOW. I'm sure being pregnant would've been worse, but not by much!

as a common side effect of BC Pills.

migraines are connected to your menstrual cycle, you might consider this. (This is an off-label use of Nuvaring, although there is a pill (Seasonale) approved for continuous use (well, continuous use really means 3 months without a period, and then you go a week without taking the pill/using Nuvaring). noperiod.com has information about this.

With the pill you have a daily cycle of a high level of hormones from the pill, and then a dip, whereas Nuvaring is continuous release, and the level of hormones needed is lower (with the pill, because the hormones have to protect 24 hours, the hormone level in that one pill has to be enough to keep your levels up for 24 hours, so at some points in the day, you have a hormone level much higher than is needed to protect against pregnancy. The patch to a degree solves this problem, but nuvaring is something you put in monthly and then forget about.

I have no need for contraception anymore (tubal ligation) but I do get migraines. I get them any time in my cycle though, so they are not hormonally related.

if you consistently get migraines at the same point in your cycle, there's a good chance the migraines are related. Some people have no problems at all related to the constantly changing hormones, while others may react to the fluctuation of one or another (or a combination of them).

Using the patch or nuvaring continuously essentially "squashes" the highs and lows of this fluctuation which in some people can help with migraines (when I go off nuvaring for one week every 3 months, I get migraines, although they're not quite as bad as they were when I wasn't using any BC.)

Different bodies react differently so people just have to try different things until they find something that works.

I had my tubes tied a year & a half ago. The surgery took 22 minutes & I was on my feet the next day. Only a tiny incision on my belly button that you'd really have to look for. I'm glad to have done it & not have to worry about birth control anymore!

I took the pill for 17 years & had no side effects. My hormones were in worse shape without the pill than with it; I never had a regular cycle & would have 9 or 10 periods a year. (But getting pregnant was like rolling off a log. Go figure!)

Of course, YMMV.

I am not an easy surgical patient; for one, there's something wrong with my connective tissue that makes my pelvic organs really hard to get to, so my tubal ligation was a bitch and a half for my doctor, but not so bad for me. I had to stay overnight (I have to stay overnight for just about anything) but after being discharged, I went to the laundromat and did my laundry.

I've never used anything else. Never had an STD, never had an accidental pregnancy, and when I wanted to get pregnant, I got knocked up on the first try -- my hormones weren't out of whack.

You might not like them, but don't speak for anyone else.

I am extremely skeptical of synthetic hormones for people who do not have some sort of specific deficiency, like a glandular disorder. The endocrine system is very delicately balanced, and it doesn't seem either natural or healthy to tamper with it.

Furthermore, I've never met a single person who didn't experience some discernable adverse effects after starting birth control pills, and statistically the percentage of users with serious complaints is staggeringly high. No thank you.

I've only ever used condoms, and I've never had any problems whatsoever - not to mention that they have the simultaneous benefit of protecting against STDs, which is no minor concern. I am considering getting a Paragard someday though, just to be extra safe.

IUDs (intra-uterine-devices) are under-rated.

In the 80's and early 90's it struck terror into everyone and condom use skyrocketed, for obvious reasons. But even though the epidemic is as bad as ever it seems americans have become far more complacent with their fear of it. Where it used to be a thought of "damn right I'm gonna use a condom", may now be an afterthought. It just doesn't seem as prevalent in our society as something to be feared as it was back then. And if that's true, then condom use has probably gone down too. And if it has, that very well could be part of the above numbers.