Crisis Pregnancy Centers

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, L1o2u3 said:

Why don't pro-life doctors and ob-gyns work in these centers instead of lay persons doing nothing beyond lying, simple at-home pregnancy tests and maybe ultrasounds? That would be so much more effective!

Because the point is to do anything to stop an abortion, and so in that way their lying and manipulation is fairly effective. Would these anti-choice(I refuse to call them pro-life since they care little for the lives of women) tell the truth about abortion?  None of the anti-choice medical people I've heard of seem to be much better than the lay people when it comes to lying about abortion. 

That is the whole problem with the crisis pregnancy centers, their goal is to stop pregnant women from being able to have an abortion, and to do that, a lot of lying and manipulation typically has to take place. 

[L1o2u3]

If I were to open a CPC (not planning on doing that though  ), I would put a doctor in there or at least work with a doctor/ob gyn that can help with all medical questions and prodecures (such as ultrasound, pregnany testing, glucose tolerance testing) for free or almost for free for those who can't afford it otherwise. Nurses that received accurate medical training could help them. Social workers would help applying for health insurance, scolarships, financial aids etc. and they would know a lot about insurances and would  be trained in how to deal with all the bureaucratic stuff. And they would have all the contact information on where to find the services they can't offer themselves. They would know where to find shelter if your family throws you out or your partner is abusive etc. 

They would offer parenting classes, support groups for parents and single parents. They would cooperate with lawyers when companies try to bully a mom and get her to quit the job or when employers discriminate pregnant women, single parents etc. They could also offer classes on NFP, have a library with books on motherhood, pregnancy, sex ed and women's health. For emergencies, they would maybe have a hotline you can call to get medical advice asap. 

And if it's a Christian CPC, they would not endorse hormonal contraception or abortion, but they would have like a standart reply "we personally do not believe in hormonal birth control/abortion and therefore can't provide counselling and we will not recommend that to you. If you want to know more about these options though, you can go to ... [insert a provider that offers these things]". 

Yeah. That would be my CPC  

[formergothardite]

Why wouldn't Christians endorse abortion and hormonal birth control? Those aren't non Christian activities. Dr.Tiller was murdered while he was at church.

[L1o2u3]

Well, many denominations don't endorse that  Like Catholics and many Evangelicals. And those are usually the ones that found CPCs in the first place... Otherwise, you could just open a Planned Parenthood affiliate I guess. 

[formergothardite]

I know many are against abortions and (some)Catholics and fundies are against birth control, but any group that says they are against abortion are hypocrites if they aren't fighting to hand out birth control like crazy. People have to stop believe fake, anti-choice "science" and accept that if they really want to create a women's center that has any impact on abortion rates they need to have one that is pro-birth control and pro-making birth control free and easily available. 

[L1o2u3]

There are more contraceptive methods than hormones and IUDs though  

If they are against birth control and believe that the pill and IUDs cause mini-abortions, they won't recommend them, but that would still leave condoms, diaphragms and NFP/FAM they could teach, in theory. NFP is totally free if you learn it with a book from a library or if you have friends and family that can instruct you (that would mean they know how to practice it though and not just the rhythm method). That would be a way in which they could promote birth control without having to endorse the pill/IUDs. 

[Alisamer]

15 minutes ago, L1o2u3 said:

There are more contraceptive methods than hormones and IUDs though  

If they are against birth control and believe that the pill and IUDs cause mini-abortions, they won't recommend them, but that would still leave condoms, diaphragms and NFP/FAM they could teach, in theory. NFP is totally free if you learn it with a book from a library or if you have friends and family that can instruct you (that would mean they know how to practice it though and not just the rhythm method). That would be a way in which they could promote birth control without having to endorse the pill/IUDs. 

All that is true, but that's not the point for many of these people. The point, subconscious as it may be, is to punish women for  having sex. They don't want people using ANY birth control including NFP (see: pretty much every family discussed here), and they don't want them having abortions. Their birth control method of choice is "keep your legs closed until you are married, then be joyfully available and pop out as many babies as possible" with no regard whatsoever as to what happens to the child afterward.

And these same people are almost unanimously AGAINST any government help whatsoever. They are the ones going on about welfare queens and handouts and how people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Mention children and they'll literally say the woman should keep her legs closed. Unless she's married, then she should be popping out kids, but not work to support them, that's the dad's job. God will provide! Somehow... they don't really know how. The church, maybe? Though some of them think tithing is unbiblical and some home church, so it won't be any of THEIR money going to support these poor people. They, however, like the Duggars, will happily take any donations any people or churches want to toss their way. Because they're GODLY. Not like those other people. 

I actually know someone who believes that poor people got that way themselves, and it's their fault. Born into poverty? Parents should have kept their legs closed. Too bad. Bootstraps! Welfare is bad! Handouts! He refuses to donate to any organization that helps poor people in any way (to the point of throwing a whole house full of belongings in the trash rather than donate to Goodwill or anywhere else), only to the Humane Society (gotta help the puppies and kitties!) and the local hospice who helped out his family. But when his unemployed teenage stepdaughter got pregnant, he talked her out of an abortion. Who paid for that baby's life flight helicopter ride, long NICU stay, and months of medical help including a feeding tube? Not her. Or him, or the baby's unemployed teenage father. Yep, government help there. But she NEEDED it, you see. Not like those lazy poor people who stay home and claim disability. Bootstraps!

[formergothardite]

48 minutes ago, L1o2u3 said:

If they are against birth control and believe that the pill and IUDs cause mini-abortions,

They are believe something that isn't real and if they believe fake science, should they really be running any sort of medical clinic? 

[L1o2u3]

@Alisamer True for some, but there are also many pro-life Catholics endorsing NFP (such as Abby Johnson and Matt Walsh) and promote it  

There are conservative Christians that believe sex is for marriage, but once you're married, birth control is okay (Sheila Wray Gregoire). 

The pro-life crowd is not always as homogenous as it seems to be. 

@formergothardite It is a fact that both the pill and the IUD can prevent implantation, even though it is not clear how often that occurs in reality  because there are also other mechanisms at work. If people believe that life starts at conception, then preventing implantation is abortion. Since many fertilized eggs never implant, my personal view is that this isn't abortion and that abortion only starts as soon as the implantation process has started. It is a thin border. If you believe that life starts at conception though, then every attempt at ending pregnancy or the establishment of pregnancy after conception would be abortion. I don't see anything wrong with that definition, if one defines abortion and life this way.

I personally would never take a contraception that mainly prevents implantation (like the IUD), because I prefer the methods that prevent conception in the first place by avoiding getting any sperm close to my cervix. What doesn't get there can't cause you trouble. Because then you could always still intercede and prevent ovulation (Plan B pill) or implantantion (IUD). Which I wouldn't use, but in theory, you could do that  If a method that wants to prevent implantation fails, the only option you have left is an abortion... 

 

[formergothardite]

NFP sounds good in theory, but what about those women who are in abusive relationships where they can't take control of their sex life or women who are raped, or the single mom who is working two jobs, has a couple of children and who might find NFP easy to mess up?

In real life diaphragms are only 88% effective. Also in real life condoms are only 85% effective when it comes to preventing pregnancy. 

[L1o2u3]

@formergothardite One thing that is very important for the safety of contraception is also the attitude towards the method. If you don't believe in the safety or you are annoyed by it, this may lead to less motivation to follow through with it and then failure is more likely. 

Contraception and protection from STIs in case of abuse and rape. What do you do to protect yourself? Nothing, really. If you happen to take the pill or have an IUD and then get raped, then you might not get pregnant. But that should never be the motivation for using these methods. Even though some people think all women should be on the pill to not get pregnant when they get raped. I don't support that. As if it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant through rape because she could have used contraception instead. 

Edit: If you're in an abusive relationship, I think you should try to get away asap. Giving contraception to women may help to not make that situation harder by adding a pregnancy, but I think the main goal should always be to get her away asap. 

[EowynW]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

NFP sounds good in theory, but what about those women who are in abusive relationships where they can't take control of their sex life or women who are raped, or the single mom who is working two jobs, has a couple of children and who might find NFP easy to mess up?

In real life diaphragms are only 88% effective. Also in real life condoms are only 85% effective when it comes to preventing pregnancy. 

I think the 85% is with poor use. But I could be wrong. Many women cannot handle hormonal birth control (my weird body included)  so I do think all options should be laid out with thorough research and education available for women in relatively normal situations. Many  of clients in the OBGYN clinic I work in use diaphragms & condoms successfully. 

[L1o2u3]

The Pearl Index for condoms is 2-12 afaik. 2 for perfect use, 12 for typical use. However, the combination of different methods can make it even more safer. The PI for sensiplan (the German rules) NFP + condom is 0,6 for example (sensiplan NFP with abstinence in the fertile phase is 0,4, NFP with abstinence until ovulation has been confirmed through temp + mucus is 0 perfect use). One also needs to remember though that some studies that are used for the Pearl Index also count those participants that say they use a method, but then they forget to use it and get pregnant, count as user failure, too. This is why abstinence doesn't have a PI of 0  So if you want to use a condom, but forget to, that counts as "failure with condom use" too even though technically it was unprotected intercourse.

That is also why some people feel withdrawal has a bad reputation and they argue that, if done correctly, withdrawal is totally safe. However, they also claim that there are no living sperm if the man pees after his last orgasm, but studies have produced mixed results about this. 

It isn't always easy to understand these failure rate statistics, because some give them in percent, others in "100 Frauenjahre" and these aren't always interchangeable. Also some producers of birth control do their own studies and sometimes they only test for 6 months and calculate how it would be in one year... not always reliable. 

[Terrie]

1 hour ago, L1o2u3 said:

@formergothardite It is a fact that both the pill and the IUD can prevent implantation, even though it is not clear how often that occurs in reality  because there are also other mechanisms at work.

No, it's speculation that, maybe, that could happen. The thinking goes that since we know hormonal BC can effect the lining of the uterus, one of the (many) ways BC works is preventing the egg from implanting. But it's never been proven one way or the other. 

[EowynW]

23 minutes ago, L1o2u3 said:

The Pearl Index for condoms is 2-12 afaik. 2 for perfect use, 12 for typical use. However, the combination of different methods can make it even more safer. The PI for sensiplan (the German rules) NFP + condom is 0,6 for example (sensiplan NFP with abstinence in the fertile phase is 0,4, NFP with abstinence until ovulation has been confirmed through temp + mucus is 0 perfect use). One also needs to remember though that some studies that are used for the Pearl Index also count those participants that say they use a method, but then they forget to use it and get pregnant, count as user failure, too. This is why abstinence doesn't have a PI of 0  So if you want to use a condom, but forget to, that counts as "failure with condom use" too even though technically it was unprotected intercourse.

That is also why some people feel withdrawal has a bad reputation and they argue that, if done correctly, withdrawal is totally safe. However, they also claim that there are no living sperm if the man pees after his last orgasm, but studies have produced mixed results about this. 

It isn't always easy to understand these failure rate statistics, because some give them in percent, others in "100 Frauenjahre" and these aren't always interchangeable. Also some producers of birth control do their own studies and sometimes they only test for 6 months and calculate how it would be in one year... not always reliable. 

I remember my cousin (who always used condoms for birth control) telling me before we got married that one of the keys was to stick to your plan like glue. And if one person wavered you had to be the sensible one, lol. We've always paired condom+spermicide+ FAM & abstaining during fertile periods. We are a bit paranoid right now I guess lol. 

[FeministShrew]

I can't believe this discussion is taking place in 2018. 

Myths and outright lies about birth control belong in 1918, not 2018. 

It all comes down to taking away women's control of their sexuality. 
I can understand the reason cnservative men do it, but I will never understand women trying to oppress other women in that way.

[L1o2u3]

@EowynW Yeah I never trust the "free" days/dry day rule on the beginning of the cycle in NFP/FAM and therefore never used it. Even though the risk is very small...  I have seen many couples get pregnant because they added one extra day though! Or the earliest temp rise could occur one day earlier in a future cycle... I am not super paranoid about getting pregnant though (I have short luteal phases anyway and only a few cycles a year where they would be long enough for implantation to happen), but I figured I don't need to take any extra risks. Especially since I wouldn't take plan B or abort if anything went wrong. 

I used a diaphragm + spermicide (they should never be used without one anyway) for a while and that worked too. Now we switched to condoms and that's fine with me too since we've never used up all of that spermicide anyway and then it would have to be replaced etc. 

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, L1o2u3 said:

It is a fact that both the pill and the IUD can prevent implantation,

That is not a fact. 

This being presented as a fact shows one of these issues of a medical center for women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy being run by anti-choice groups.

1 hour ago, EowynW said:

so I do think all options should be laid out with thorough research and education available for women in relatively normal situations. Many  of clients in the OBGYN clinic I work in use diaphragms & condoms successfully. 

I agree, they can work great if properly used, but it is easy to mess up. I have an NFP nephew due in a couple of months. This was by a sister who is in a stable relationship, read the books and had a friend helping her and she still managed to fuck it all up. She said it was way too hard for her and she is going to use birth control after the baby is born. Women who are in unstable, high stress situations might have a harder time making NFP work. And I would think women who end up with a crisis pregnancy might be in a unstable, high stress situation, 

All options should be presented(and PP does that) because what works for one person might not work for another and not with the "hormonal birth control is abortion" bullshit thrown in as a fact. 

2 hours ago, L1o2u3 said:

If you're in an abusive relationship, I think you should try to get away asap. Giving contraception to women may help to not make that situation harder by adding a pregnancy, but I think the main goal should always be to get her away asap. 

Well just leaving sounds easy, it is often harder than that. There was a study done on women who had a crisis pregnancy and followed what happened to the women who wanted abortions and had them and those who wanted them but were denied. It showed that what happened is that women who got abortions were able to get out of abusive situations, those who weren't stayed. By providing birth control that has a high success rate and doesn't rely on a man being willing to let the woman control her fertility and sex life, there is less chance of a pregnancy and more chance the women will be able to leave. 

This study also showed denying women abortions lowered their quality of life and even killed one woman in the study, so that is why the no abortion people are not pro-life, they are just anti-choice. I can't see an anti-choice medical center being much better than the crisis centers we have now. 

[formergothardite]

This is an article that explains how IUD's work. The anti-choice groups have done a good job making the situation seem fuzzy when it really isn't. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-iuds-work-iud-not-abortion_us_565dd057e4b08e945feca2a2

Quote

And even if a woman were to get pregnant while using the hormonal IUD (chances of which are very close to zero), the hormonal IUD wouldn’t hurt her pregnancy, which is why hormonal IUDs aren’t used as emergency contraception, according to Bryant. In fact, in this unlikely situation, the progestin in the IUD might actually help the pregnancy, since the body naturally releases the hormone after fertilization.

 

[pandora]

3 hours ago, L1o2u3 said:

The Pearl Index for condoms is 2-12 afaik. 2 for perfect use, 12 for typical use. However, the combination of different methods can make it even more safer. The PI for sensiplan (the German rules) NFP + condom is 0,6 for example (sensiplan NFP with abstinence in the fertile phase is 0,4, NFP with abstinence until ovulation has been confirmed through temp + mucus is 0 perfect use). One also needs to remember though that some studies that are used for the Pearl Index also count those participants that say they use a method, but then they forget to use it and get pregnant, count as user failure, too. This is why abstinence doesn't have a PI of 0  So if you want to use a condom, but forget to, that counts as "failure with condom use" too even though technically it was unprotected intercourse.

 

3 hours ago, EowynW said:

I remember my cousin (who always used condoms for birth control) telling me before we got married that one of the keys was to stick to your plan like glue. And if one person wavered you had to be the sensible one, lol. We've always paired condom+spermicide+ FAM & abstaining during fertile periods. We are a bit paranoid right now I guess lol. 

Bolding mine. I think it's worth noting that for many people, a bc method sustained by always having to be the sensible one or remembering to do something each time they have sex doesn't work, and that's why it does count as a bc failure when someone whose plan is condoms forgets condoms. When someone has unprotected sex instead of using their plan, condoms, that isn't just a statistic about unprotected intercourse, it's a statistic about someone failing at condom usage. A method someone finds too cumbersome to use is ineffective. If a sunscreen is 99% effective at preventing UV damage and sunburn but no one wants to put it on their body because it causes a rash, it's not an effective sunscreen. 

To be clear, I support people using whatever method of bc works for them, I'm happy you've found a non hormonal solution as you desired, same as I'm happy my low-dose bc pills exist as an option after I hated Nexplanon. I'm not slamming condoms (imperative for prevention of STIs!), just saying when options are presented and barrier methods have higher failure rates, it's right that those rates include people failing to use the method at all/using it incorrectly. Lots of people are not in a place in their life where they want the chief decider of their bc's efficacy to be their level of paranoia. Not because they feel apathetic about preventing pregnancy, but because of a million other things happening in their lives.

[L1o2u3]

@formergothardite there are two types of IUDs though. Copper (some also contain gold or silver) IUDs are used as emergency contraception for example too. Among other mechanisms, the copper also changes the uterine lining (https://www.healthline.com/health/birth-control-iud). The progestin in hormonal IUDs though changes the uterine lining too. If the uterine lining isn't as thick as normal, then implantantion is harder. 

Some sources say that the main function of the copper is being toxic to sperm. Others state that it is not clear if the inflammation of the uterine lining or sperm toxicity is the main mechanism. 

Some also claim that the hormonal IUD only is active locally. However, since hormones are transported through blood, the hormonal IUD still can affect the whole body. Even the FDA says that the Mirena only works mainly locally (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/021225s019lbl.pdf). 

 

[Terrie]

6 hours ago, L1o2u3 said:

If the uterine lining isn't as thick as normal, then implantantion is harder. 

Citation please. Everything I have found says this is a hypothesis only. 

[formergothardite]

The article I posted also discussed copper IUDs. 

Spoiler

The copper IUD works a little bit differently. It’s hormone-free and works by releasing copper ions that trigger a sterile inflammatory response, disabling sperm and thereby making it difficult for sperm to meet and fertilize the egg.  

As for the argument that a fertilized egg could be implanted in the uterus and subsequently dispelled by an IUD, Dr. Carolyn Alexander of the Southern California Reproductive Center called the situation “theoretically possible,” but extremely rare.

Bryant framed it a different way. “There are plenty of times in a natural cycle where an egg is fertilized but it doesn’t implant. Does that mean there was a miscarriage?” she asked.

Unlike the hormonal IUD, the copper IUD can be used as an emergency contraceptive method up to five days after unprotected sex or birth control failure. In that case, the device may disrupt a fertilized egg, again, in a small number of cases. Of course, that’s assuming the woman is pregnant in the first place. “When people are not using any sort of contraception, they don’t get pregnant every single time that they have sex,” Bryant said. “There’s a lot of different factors that go into whether a fertilized egg become a pregnancy or not.”

The bottom line is that the mechanism of action for hormonal and non-hormonal IUDs isn’t to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg at all. It’s to prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place. Could a series of low-probability events disrupt a fertilized egg? It’s possible, but highly unlikely.

So there is a small chance that a copper IUD might stop fertilization. Since anti-choice people are treating an unimplanted egg as being equal to a human, are they also rabidly speaking out against all the things that MIGHT cause death to a child who is already born? If not, they can go sit in the hypocrite corner and we can safely say this is about controlling women's bodies and not about the egg and sperm that aren't even medically considered a pregnancy yet. 

The FDA lists all the things that MAY happen. If you are being anti hormonal birth control based on what MAY happen in theory, well then there is a hell of a lot of things that you also need to be against. 

~Riding in a car may cause death to your baby.

~Playing outside may cause death to your child.

~Eating a hot dog might cause death to your child.

~Swimming might cause death to your child.

And the list will go on and on because in theory, everything may bring about death. 

 

[Lurky]

The thing I don't understand about unimplanted, fertilised egg = same as a breathing child, is the fact so many more fertilised eggs DON'T implant than so, and there is such a high rate of spontaneous miscarriage (IIRC it's 2 in 3 fertilised, implanted eggs miscarry, often way before a woman will realise she's pregnant) - so the "natural", God-made system is already causing the deaths of far many more million "babies" than abortion could. 

If it was the case that every egg that's fertilised is carried to term, unless they are aborted, or some terrible accident occurs, I could maybe understand...  but that categorically does not happen, and it's a vast minority of fertilised eggs that result in live babies, even without abortions.

[formergothardite]

3 minutes ago, Lurky said:

= same as a breathing child, is the fact so many more fertilised eggs DON'T implant than so, and there is such a high rate of spontaneous miscarriage (IIRC it's 2 in 3 fertilised, implanted eggs miscarry, often way before a woman will realise she's pregnant) - so the "natural", God-made system is already causing the deaths of far many more million "babies" than abortion could. 

And since birth control mainly works by preventing fertilization,  think about all the "babies" that are being "saved" when women take birth control. If they really view all these eggs that don't implant as babies, they should be encouraging birth control.