Top Ten Contraceptive Myths

Good morning everyone!

No matter how well-informed our parents were, or how many times we had that "birds and the bees" conversation with our parents, each and every one of us grew up thinking something crazy about sex and the way babies were made. I remember my best friend Baron insisting that babies came out your belly button when we were in the third grade, and I unfortunately believed until I was 20 that women could only take the "morning after pill" once in their lives, and if they took it again it would kill them (not true my dears, as it's simply a high dose of birth control hormones it has no more harmful side effects than birth control).

So that's why I was so pleased to see this piece in the UK's Mirror about the top ten contraceptive myths:

1 You can't get pregnant if the man hasn't ejaculated
2 You can only get pregnant mid-cycle
3 You can't get pregnant if you're breastfeeding
4 The morning-after pill has to be used the next day
5 Hormonal contraceptives can reduce fertility
6 You need a break from the Pill or patch
7 The Pill makes you fat
8 The implant moves around the body
9 Only mums can use an IUS or IUD
10 Two condoms are safer than one

But I'm curious about all of you. What misinformation did you grow up believeing? And when did you learn that it wasn't true?

Why does this prevention message seem so half-hearted?

Yes, yes, I've seen it -- Bristol Palin talking about preventing teen pregnancy on the Today Show, Good Morning America and every national network that covered the Candie Foundation Town Hall meeting in NYC.

It's definitely a relief to see a national conversation about our disproportionately high teen pregnancy rate, especially one that's focused on prevention. But why are we spending so much time talking about why teen pregnancy is bad and almost no time talking about how to not get pregnant? What kind of message are we sending to kids when we admonish them for making the 'wrong' decisions but then give them no tools to make the 'right' ones? Or when the only 'prevention' method you employ is to talk about how hard it is to be a teenage mother? Doesn't that assume teenagers become pregnant only because they want to?

PS - I love Emily Douglas' piece at RH Reality Check on how shame is an ineffective method of birth control. And check out Planned Parenthood's new web site that actually does feature practical information on how to prevent pregnancy!

So how would you market the "male pill" to men?

You may remember, a few weeks ago we were all excited about the possibility of a male contraceptive pill, even while we were wondering whether or not we'd trust the men in our lives to take them.

Well the BBC is reporting that scientists are close to perfecting a testosterone shot that would act as birth control as well -- easier to remember than a daily pill, and a great option should all the trials prove successful.

The only problem? The BBC has been calling the shots "contraceptive jabs."

I don't know about you, but calling something a "jab" is probably the best way to make it sound unappealing. Still, I got to wondering how they will market the final product to men. Sarah Haskins did a great piece on birth control companies coining the the concept of "period control" instead of contraception, but what's the male equivalent?

Will they jut be brave and go with a straight up contraception message? Will theytalk about paternity or one-night stands? What would appeal to the men you know?

Becasue Skinless Sheep Are Gross

Thanks, Midwest Teen Sex Show.

Congressman John Boehner admits condoms aren't stimulating, don't help America grow

Thanks Brian!

Protect Women's Health -- Send Your Comments to HHS

Last month, the Bush Administration proposed a dangerous new Department of Health and Human Services rule, which would jeopardize the health of women across the nation. In a NY Times op-ed, Senator Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards explain:

It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.

If you read the news, you probably know that many Americans are facing difficult economic times. Millions are uninsured, and even more are under-insured. More and more, people are relying on low-cost health care from providers that receive government funding. And yet, the Bush administration is working to make it more difficult for low-income women to receive necessary medical care? Remember that women might not even know they're not receiving full information -- people tend to trust their doctors, and under this rule doctors would not have to inform patients of options they don't agree with.

You can help by writing Health and Human Services today. The rule has a 30 day comment period from the public before a decision is made about whether or not to instate it. But time is running out -- the deadline is September 25. You have only a couple of days to make your voice heard. Send your letter today, and urgently pass along the message to all of your friends and family!

Bad Bedroom Behavior

Oh, I get it now. Having a good time in bed is the reason that the world is seemingly falling apart. How could I not know that all that sex was contributing to the overall decline of our planet? Damn, I'm so stupid. I should have known there was price to pay for all that joy, and love, and intimacy and sharing.

Why just yesterday Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales told married couples that “there should be discipline and self-control” among couples.

Couples who have the discipline to practice the Church-sanctioned natural family planning methods are “in possession of true values of life” and tend to pass it on to their children. They also tend to be good citizens, he said.

“If there is discipline in the marital bed, then there is discipline in the streets, there is discipline in schools, there is discipline in the government,” Rosales added.

OK people? Control yourselves in bed already! Got it? I mean who isn't jonesing for more government discipline?

Catholics Asked to Tell Their Bishops to End Ban on Contraception

It has been 40 years since Pope Paul VI made a decision that plunged the Catholic Church back into Medieval times concerning the lives and health of women.

According to Catholics For Choice, "... a decision was announced that has had a catastrophic impact on the poor and powerless around the world. On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI slammed the door on the hopes of the vast majority of Catholics and confirmed a complete prohibition on modern methods of contraception. The papal encyclical Humanae Vitae was a defining moment in modern church history and continues to be a source of great conflict and division in the church. It is a little-known fact that before Humanae Vitae was released the hand-picked Vatican Birth Control Commission voted overwhelmingly to recommend that the church rescind its ban on artificial contraception. However, the pope rejected that recommendation and today, the rupture that Humanae Vitae caused between the Vatican and lay Catholics remains."

Join Catholics For Choice is calling for a ban on this unfortunate policy.

“It is well known that Catholics, particularly those in the global north, have ignored this ban. It is time for them to speak out and say enough is enough. We need Catholics to pick up the telephone or send an e-mail to their local bishop saying that it is time to change church policy. Less-privileged people—who often only have access to health care through Catholic-run facilities or live in countries where the Catholic hierarchy has considerable influence over public policy—are dying as a result of the ban,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice.

"...Today polls show that Catholics, at least in the West, dissent from the teaching on birth control, often by majorities exceeding 80 percent. And that ... "it will also continue to be the most widely flouted injunction of the church at the level of practice," writes John L. Allen Jr., the senior correspondent for The National Catholic Reporter in today's The New York Times.

Sadly, there is a brutal double standard inherent in that reality - while Catholics in developed nations openly flaunt the policy due to ready access to health care, women in developing nations are enslaved by the policy and suffer dire consequences at its hands.