Posted at http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/12/hillary_clinton.php#comments

Much like Al Gore's claim that he invented the internet, Hillary is taking credit for the reduction in teen pregnancy rates between 1995 and 2005.

"To address this important issue, my husband issued a call to action in 1995 to America's parents and leaders to join together to cut America's teen pregnancy rate by one-third over a decade. In order to help achieve this ambitious goal, I helped launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, and we successfully achieved a one-third reduction by 2005"

Never mind that during this period, abstinence among teens was on the rise and state restrictions on abortions were given new strength by the Supreme Court's 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision. For example, a study by professor Michael New of the University of Alabama found that pro-life legislation, and not the influence of Bill or Hillary Clinton, resulted in significant reductions on the abortion rate among minors.

And never mind that the partial birth abortion ban, which Hillary opposed and voted against, may have significantly changed public perception on abortion and its acceptability.

Yes, folks, Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that increased abstinence and pro-life legislation did not have an impact on teen pregnancy and abortion rates. And of course, she blames the recent rise in teen birth rates on the Bush administration:

"But the report released today indicates that under President Bush's leadership, we may be falling off track"

So let's get this straight - Hillary caused teen pregnancy rates to drop by 1/3 over the span of a decade, George Bush is responsible for the recent rise in teen birth rates, Bill Clinton did not have sex with “that woman”, and Al Gore invented the internet. Given these facts, how could anybody doubt that putting Hillary in the Oval office will once and for all end teen pregnancy?

Shortly after the publication of Douglas Kirby's Emerging Answers 2007, a study which found that abstinence programs were not effective, and after Virginia Governor Tim Kaine rejected federal funding for abstinence until marriage programs, a new study to be published in 2008 shows that a Virginia based program has been effective in delaying sexual activity.

Of course, you know which study made the headlines...

Interestingly enough, Dr. Stan Weed, the author of this new study, is on the Effective Programs And Research Task Force, which reviewed Emerging Answers in early 2007.

Being on this task force should give Dr. Weed an equal standing and equal credibility in the media. After all, if he wasn't a credible researcher, he wouldn't be on the task force along with Dr. John Santelli, who is the Department Chair of the Population and Family Health department at Columbia University, would he?

When Douglas Kirby or Dr. John Santelli publish studies supporting comprehensive sexuality education programs, headlines across the nation echo, and quite often misrepresent, the conclusions of their work.

For example, the Associated Press' recent headline describing Emerging Answers reads "Report: Abstinence not curbing teen sex" - yet this headline is misleading.

This AP headline, as well as others, has caused me to suspect that reporters don't actually read the studies, and if they did, they don't actually understand the issue well enough. Consider that in Emerging Answers, Kirby acknowledges that abstinence increased from 1995 to 2005. (Page 28, paragraph 3) Had the reporter read this paragraph, they wouldn't have been able to honestly pen such a misleading headline.

Interestingly enough, I wasn't able to find an AP story about Dr. Weed's study. And this isn't the first time the media has ignored studies supporting abstinence until marriage programs.

It seems that a double standard exists - if a study supports contraception and comprehensive sexuality education, it is considered newsworthy, but if a study supports abstinence, it is not.

Dr. Weed's study will be published in the Jan/Feb issue of American Journal of Health Behavior. You can read more about it here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88807.php

In closing, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine rejected Title V funding since he wanted to fund programs that are evidence based. Now that there is evidence that Virginia's program is effective, Gov. Kaine should accept the funding.

PS:

What can be done to about the media blackout of studies supporting abstinence program? Well, here are some ideas..

1. Bring these studies to the attention of reporters who you have spoken with in the past
2. Announce this study on your blog or website in a prominent location
3. Email news about the study to your mailing list
4. Send out press releases discussing the study
5. Email news about Dr. Weed's study to your friends.

Recently while traveling on a bus to Coney Island with my son, I overheard a conversation between two men regarding abortion. One of the men was talking about how his girlfriend was pregnant and that he didn't want the baby, didn't want the woman, didn't want the responsibility and was pushing for an abortion. The gist of his conversation was that all he wanted was "relations" and not a "relationship" from this woman.

He explained that his girlfriend wanted to get pregnant, and she saw to it that it happened (I won't go into details as to how how), so he felt trapped. Though he blamed her, he's just as much to blame - she didn't get pregnant by herself.

Now this baby, created for the purpose of testing a relationship, was now destined for a hellish death. While most pregnancies that end in abortion are unplanned, some, like this one, are. This man can't force this mother to have an abortion, but she did agree to abort and had scheduled an appointment.

Essentially, this woman saw some benefits to being pregnant, and when these benefits didn't materialize, she turned to abortion. (For more information on this subject, see "Contraceptive Risk taking and Abortion: Results and Implications of a San Francisco Bay Area Study" by Kristin Lurker.)

My son in tow, I approached the man and spoke with him for a few minutes regarding his situation, and then exited the bus at our stop. I'm not sure what the final outcome was, but hopefully he took our conversation to heart and allowed his child to live despite the circumstances.

Later that day I heard a song which summed up the attitudes of many men towards sex. The line that stood out was "But they just want relations, they don't want relationships." Unfortunately for this woman, and this unborn child, this is all the man wanted. And if she and the unborn child suffer the tragedy of abortion, this man will simply move on, leaving her scarred, hurt, used, and abandoned.

Here is the music video for the song, and below are the lyrics.



S.E.X. - Lyfe Jennings
(Man)
Hey yo you,
You see most cats would take advantage of you right now
But I ain't gon do that, you heard
Imma give you the game, right
Imma give it to you because
I dont want somebody to give my little girl the game
So she could find her s.e.x.

(Man)
Life's a trip
Heard you just turn 17 and finally got some hips
Hustlers on the block go crazy when you lick your lips
But they just want relations, they don't want relationships
(Welcome to the real world)
It ain't the same
Fellas old enough to be your daddy know your name
Everybody's talkin bout how much that girl dun changed
Cant quite put your finger on it but you feel it's strange
Like's it's fire in your vains

(Chorus)
Girl it's just your s.e.x.
Momma's secret
And daddy gon go crazy when he finds out that his baby's found her
S.e.x., take a deep breath
And think before you let it go

(Man)
The block is packed
Baby got an attitude and proud to holla back
Momma's giving advice but she ain't tryna hear that
Not because its wrong, just her delivery is wack
(Shay, get your butt in this house, if I see you with another boy, I swear..)
Life is rough
You say that your not ready for sex but you're in love
He says if you really loved him, you would give it up
Momma says that's just a line guys use to get your stuff
Which one will you trust?

(Chorus)
Girl it's just your s.e.x.
Momma's secret
And daddy gon go crazy when he finds out that his baby's found her
S.e.x., take a deep breath
And think before you let it go

(Woman)
Hey yo Lyfe,
She might take it better coming from a woman (get 'em girl)
See, he'll tell you all kind of things to get in your pants, yeah
Baby, it's a fact that once it's gone, you'll never get it back (never get it back)
Hold on to your innocence
Use your common sense (your worth waiting for)
Be strong
Honey, don't give in, blessings come with patience
Till we meet again, i'm praying for you

(Chorus)
Girl it's just your s.e.x.
Momma's secret
And daddy gon go crazy when he finds out that his baby's found her
S.e.x., take a deep breath
And think before you let it go

In an opinion piece published today on the Huffington Post, author Christina Page asserts that it is the “Pro-choice” movement which “takes responsibility for finding effective solutions” to the problems of unintended pregnancy and abortion.

Ms. Page claims that it’s an unacknowledged fact that “pro-choice policies that result in dramatic declines in the need for abortion” and that the “pro-choice movement is the only side working on prevention of unintended pregnancy.”

I’m not sure what planet she lives on, but it doesn’t sound like this one. “Pro-choice” policies have not resulted in dramatic declines in abortion – either Ms. Page hasn’t done her homework, or she is ignoring decades worth of data.

The impact of “pro-choice” policies can bee seen by examining historical data. The data reflects the influence of “pro-choice” policies and court cases which resulted in the liberalization of contraception and abortion laws:

During the 1970s, the percentage of women aged 15-19 who ever engaged in premarital sex rose from 30.4% in 1971 to 43.4% in 1976, and rose again to 49.8% in 1979. Not only did the number of those who had sex before marriage increase, but the pregnancy rates of both married and unmarried women in this age group increased as well: 95.1 in 1972, 101.1 in 1976, and 109.4 in 1979. [2] Abortion also increased - for this same group, the abortion rate rose from 19.1 in 1972 to 34.3 in 1976, and rose again to 42.4 in 1979. [3] Despite increasing access to more effective methods of contraception, the abortion rate for this group continued to climb, peaking at 43.5 in 1988.

In light of the data which shows increases instead of decreases, her argument that “pro-choice” policies “result in dramatic declines in the need for abortion” is simply not credible.

If it wasn’t pro-choice policies which led to dramatic declines in abortion, than what did?

Contrary to her accusations that “Study after study suggests the right to life approach is actually the root of the problem: leading to more abortions and later ones too,” pro-life efforts have lead to measurable reductions in abortions.

In “Analyzing the effect of state legislation on the incidence of abortion among minors”, Professor Michael New of the University of Alabama demonstrates that the declines in abortion are the results of pro-life efforts: Parental involvement laws, Medicaid funding restrictions, and informed consent laws – efforts that that the “pro-choice” movement has repeatedly fought against tooth and nail.

Furthermore, the increase in delay of first sex among younger teens helped to lower abortion rates as well, and when combined with abortion and Medicaid restrictions, it’s clear that “pro-choice” policies and efforts do not deserve the credit Ms. Page attributes to them. It’s also clear that a “pro-choice” presidential candidate will seek to eliminate these restrictions and policies which have led to measurable reductions.

Ms. Page may wish that these pro-life efforts and the decline in abortion were coincidental, or that President Clinton is somehow responsible for the declines, but this simply isn’t the case. To credit contraception or the pro-choice movement with these declines is political spin at its best.

Not only does Ms. Page claim that “pro-choice” movement is responsible for the declines; she actually claims that it is the only side working on the prevention of untended pregnancy – a claim which is blatantly false.

The pro-life movement works to prevent unintended pregnancies by promoting the only foolproof way of preventing them - sexual abstinence. Abstinence, unlike contraception, does not have a failure rate. In fact, abstinence never fails – people do. Ceasing to abstain from sex is abandonment of, and not failure of, abstinence.

Ms. Page tries to make a case that abstinence programs are associated with higher rates of HIV/AIDS, STDs, and teen births, yet these problems are not associated with abstinence. Rather, they are associated with a lack of abstinence from all sexual activity. The problems she blames on abstinence are fruits of “pro-choice” philosophy, policy, and lifestyle.

Finally, Ms. Page points out that some young women may indeed wait a few months or weeks until to obtain an abortion without parental consent, but if she and the pro-choice movement were really concerned about late term abortion, they would be pushing for bans alongside the pro-life movement instead of opposing them.

In closing, it’s true, as she claims, that the electorate has been bamboozled and is hungry for truth – but what she doesn’t acknowledge is that it’s the pro-choice movement that has been doing the bamboozling all along with half truths and myths. The electorate is indeed hungry for the truth, and as it comes to light, they move further and further away from the “pro-choice” camp.

Endnotes

[1] Hofferth, S., Kahn, J., & Baldwin, W. (1987). Premarital sexual activity among U.S. teenage women over the past three decades, Family Planning Perspectives, p. 46, 19, 46-53.
[2] Guttmacher Institute, (2006). U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity , Table 2.1 Rates of birth, abortion and pregnancy and numbers of births, abortions, miscarriages, pregnancies and population all among women aged 15–19, by year, 1972–2003, Page 5, Retrieved November 19, 2006 from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf (pdf required).
[3] Ibid.

A group of Seminarians made some really nifty videos exemplifying the differences between Natural Family Planning (NFP) and Contraception. They're quite neat! Check them out on YouTube here:

Intro video

NFP V. Contraception 2

NFP v. Contraception 3

NFP V. Contraception 4

A group of Seminarians made some really nifty videos exemplifying the differences between Natural Family Planning (NFP) and Contraception. They're quite neat! Check them out on YouTube here:

Intro video

NFP V. Contraception 2

NFP v. Contraception 3

NFP V. Contraception 4

Posted by Ruben on ContraceptionBlog.com, the official blog of the No Room for Contraception Campaign.

After being off of the market since 1995, the Today (r) Sponge contraceptive was reintroduced this past May.

A recent press release announcing a new marketing effort for the contraceptive paints a rosy picture of the effectiveness of this method.

The Today(r) Sponge is safe, effective and has been used by millions of women. In clinical trials, the Today(r) Sponge has proven to be 89% - 91% effective in preventing pregnancy with no serious adverse events reported in over 1800 Today(r) Sponge users(1).

Yet this press release doesn't tell the whole story. The 89% - 91% figures are for perfect use, and do not reflect real world ("typical") failure rates. For women who haven't given birth, sponge contraceptives have a "typical" failure rate of up to 16%, and for women who have, the failure rate is as high as 32% (Hatcher et al., 2000)

If this contraceptive becomes popular among younger, unmarried women, it is highly probable that their pregnancy rates will rise- especially if it is adopted by poor, cohabitating teens. This group already has a terrible track record with the pill and condoms, methods with lower typical failure rates.

Source:

Hatcher, R, et. al, Contraceptive Technology, 18th Revised Edition, Ardent Media, Inc, New York 2004.

Posted by Ruben on Contraceptionblog.com

Jennifer Roback Morse wrote an excellent commentary on getting the government out of promoting "comprehensive" sex ed programs and contraceptives.. Here are some excepts:

The commonly quoted failure rates of 8% for the Pill and 15% for the condom are inflated by the highly successful use by middle-aged, middle-class married couples. Yet, the government promotes contraception most heavily among the young, the poor and the single. The “overall failure rates” are simply not relevant to this target population.

A poor cohabiting teenager using the Pill has a failure rate of 48.4%. You read that correctly: nearly half of poor cohabiting teenagers get pregnant during their first year using the Pill. If she kicked her boyfriend out of the house, or if she married him, her probability of pregnancy drops to 12.9%. At the other extreme, a middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 3% chance of getting pregnant after a year on the Pill.

Over 70% of poor, cohabiting teenagers using condoms, will be pregnant within a year. By contrast, the middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 6% chance of pregnancy after a year of condom use.

Contraceptive failure doesn't always lead to abortion, but it certainly sustains the demand (at least among adolescents and young adults.)

"Generic" sex ed isn't at issue here, after all teaching teens about their bodies is ok. The real controversy centers around so called "comprehensive" sex ed programs which teach teens how to try circumvent the natural functions of their bodies via contraceptives.

Further resources:

• Comprehensive-Sex-Ed.com


• The Bait & Switch of Sex Ed


• Contraception and Abortion


• Teaching Teens Fertility Awareness

h/t Tim from ProlifeBlogs.com

The results of a recent CDC survey reveal that approximately 96 percent of adults aged 20-59 have had ever had sex. Of all those surveyed, almost 82 percent had sex before or at 20 years of age. Of those who ever had sex, approximately 85 percent did so before or at age 20 - most of which was premarital. (An earlier Guttmacher study found that by age 20, 77 percent of respondents had sex, and 75 percent had premarital sex.)

This isn't surprising in a culture that promotes hook ups, cohabitation, contraception, and abortion. What is surprising is that 100 percent of adults haven't had sex by age 20.

Some might argue that there isn't anything wrong here, that this is normal and healthy behavior.

The problem with that argument is that this behavior is not healthy - it results in disease transmission, demand for abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, broken hearts, and unhappiness.

According to the Office of National AIDS Policy, one quarter of all new HIV infections occur in people under the age of 21. Approximately 75 percent of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infections, which increase the risks of cervical and oropharyngeal cancers, occur in people aged 15-24.

Disease isn't the only problem - there are mental consequences of premarital sex as well. For example, sexually active teens are more likely to attempt suicide than those who are not. Adolescent women who engage in premarital sex are three times more likely to experience depression as those who don't. Abortion also poses a threat, as it is associated with an increased risk of depression and anxiety.

These are just a few of the problems associated with premarital sex - there are numerous other problems as well.

While this behavior may be "normal" in a sexually corrupt culture, it's anything but healthy. There isn't a healthy reason for young people to engage in premarital sex to begin with - in fact; it is a threat to public health.

While contraceptives don't cause teens to have sex, they do enable them to do so, a point those on both sides of the issue seem to miss.

There is a healthy fear in the pro-life movement that addressing contraception may be counterproductive in the efforts to win public opinion. This fear is partially based upon the idea that the public won't tolerate a ban on contraception.

Unfortunately, this well founded fear has often resulted in near silence about the negative aspects of contraceptives, including the role it plays in adolescent sexual decisions.

How do contraceptives impact on these decisions? Simply put, contraceptives (and abortion) act as an "insurance policy" against unplanned pregnancy (and birth), lowering the perceived risks of premarital sexual activity. This "policy" enables people who would normally not engage in sexual activity to do so. Unfortunately for many, these policies often fail, resulting in pregnancy and disease transmission.

Religious beliefs also have a role in the avoidance of this issue - many non-Catholic denominations approve of contraceptive use among married couples, so they are reluctant to even speak out on the issue to begin with. The thinking is that the prohibition against premarital sex already covers the use of contraceptives, and that use by unmarried teens is implicitly forbidden. Yet that ignores the public health crisis that exists in part due to easy access to contraceptives by teens.

Many pro-life advocates do not see contraceptive use as an urgent problem to address. Yet easy access to contraceptives by teens, without parental consent, enables many of them to become sexually active to begin with. And in the near future, many of these same teens will end up at abortion and STD clinics.

Requiring parental consent for contraceptives has the potential to preclude abortion and disease transmission for teens that are not yet sexually active. It can also put a serious dent in the health crisis posed by teen sexual activity.

It's a shame that so many people have sex by age 20 - not only for what some may call puritanical reasons, but for the fact that this only perpetuates the long standing health crisis fostered by teen sexual activity. But until the public learns about the many downsides of teen access to contraceptives, the crisis isn't going to improve significantly.

(c) 2007 Ruben Obregon

h/t to Tim from prolifeblogs.com for pointing out the errors in the original commentary

Dutch Doctors call for contraceptive to be removed from the market

A report from the Copenhagen Post reveals that Denmark’s leading birth control pill has been alleged to be the cause of the deaths of two women.

Yasmin, also available in the United States, is a third generation, low dose oral contraceptive pill

So far, Dutch authorities have recorded 40 cases of venous thrombosis among women using the drug, as well as the deaths of two women aged 24 and 17.

Oral contraceptives, as well as the birth control patch, have been associated with venous thrombosis, a serious and potentially deadly condition.



The Dutch Medicines Agency (DKMA) denied that Yasmin was any more dangerous than other oral contraceptives, but the “other” drugs are probably third generation as well. Third generation oral contraceptives have come under fire in the United States recently with the group Public Citizen calling for their removal from the market.

However, on their website, the DKMA does warn of increased blood clots among users of oral contraceptives:

Yasmin's summary of product characteristics specifies that the risk of blood clots is higher during the first year when a woman is taking contraceptive pills. In addition, it appears that in one year there are 20-40 blood clots for every 100,000 women taking contraceptive pills. By comparison, in one year there are 5-10 blood clots for every 100,000 women who are not taking contraceptive pills. Consequently, there is an increased risk of blood clots in women taking contraceptive pills.

Just like the FDA, the DKMA seems to be satisfied with a few women dying each year from use of oral contraceptives. I wonder how many patients are actually warned of this increased risk?

For further reading:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7342/869?view=full&pmid=11950727

A report from the Administration for Children and Families released on Tuesday found that several federally funded comprehensive sex ed programs examined contained medical inaccuracies.

For quite some time, critics of abstinence until marriage policies have critiqued such programs as being medically inaccurate, and promoted CSE programs as being "medically accurate." Based upon this report, it seems like their claims about the accuracy of CSE programs were unfounded. However, I won't make the same mistake they do an paint all CSE programs as being inaccurate. But this certainly destroys the claims that such programs are in fact "medically accurate".

Here is one excerpt from the report Review of Comprehensive Sex Education Cirricula

Most comprehensive sex education curricula reviewed contain some level of medical inaccuracy. Of the nine curricula reviewed, three had no medically inaccurate statements.6 The most common type of medical inaccuracy involved promotion of nonoxynol-9, a common spermicide; three curricula had medical inaccuracies involving nonoxynol-9.7 While condoms with nonoxynol-9 (N-9) had previously been recommended for reducing the risk of HIV and
other STD in the 1990s, research over the last decade has demonstrated that nonxynol-9
is at best ineffective against STDs and HIV, and at worse increases

Since these programs are supported with federal dollars, I wonder if the ACLU will threaten to sue the Government over medical inaccuracies, as they threatened over abstinence until marriage programs?

And I wonder where Dr. John Santelli's 20 page declaration on the scientific and medically inaccurate aspects of these CSE curricula is at? He had no problem writing one to address medical inaccuracies of some federally funded abstinence programs, so where is his one for these programs?

For background on the ACLU, Santelli, and medical inaccuracies regarding three abstinence until marriage programs, read the Washington Post story:

Condom Information in Abstinence Programs Called Inaccurate

h/t http://www.citizenlink.org

Whenever a new study is published that "proves" once and for all abstinence until marriage programs don't work, you hear about it on the news. Both headlines and bloglines across the nation scream "Abstinence-only programs don't work - fund Comprehensive Sexuality Education programs instead!"

But when a study shows that abstinence until marriage programs do work, all you hear are the sounds of crickets chirping...

For example, last week the study "Abstinence" or "Comprehensive" Sex Education? was released. The study found the following:

We have found that well-designed and well-implemented abstinence education programs can reduce teen sexual activity by as much as one half for periods of one to two years.

The study further criticizes the recently published Mathematica study, which is promoted by the media and the left as the be-all-and-end-all final-word-on-the-issue study proving that abstinence until marriage programs don't work. Yet, as of today, I haven't found any mainstream or alternative press stories on this new study.

This isn't a new problem, for example, contraceptive and abortion friendly organizations like the Guttmacher Institute and researchers like Dr. John Santelli are able to create headlines across the country with their studies and statements, without question as to the accuracy of their work. It's almost as if they wave a magic wand and create headlines...

Now, when a report on this issue is produced from researchers like Dr. Stan Weed, there seemingly aren't many headlines from the press or left leaning blogs.

I wonder what the Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy thinks about this study - they were pleased with the findings of the Mathematica study - I'll bet they won't be to thrilled about this study.

On that note, I mentioned Dr. John Santelli - read this summary of a report produced by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which criticizes two of his and his co-author's works... I've read many of his studies and cite them often in articles I write, and I find this critique to be on the money. Unfortunately, the media treats his studies as if they are infallible, and as soon as he makes statements, headlines across the nation report echo his words and conclusions.

You may wonder why pro-life advocates even use his studies, despite the problems mentioned in the critique. One reason is that using the contraception lobby's own data and research eliminates the claim of bias on our part - after all, how can they argue against their own work?

Read more at http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061304.html
h/t lifesite.net

In a recent post on the Generations for Life blog, John points out that advocates for so called comprehensive sexuality education programs are in bed with the pornography industry. The Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health is holding an "adults only" fundraising event. (Last year's event was at Playboy's executive offices.)

The bottom line is that those pushing these programs don't see anything wrong with casual sex and aren't out to prevent it in any way. They are opposed to abstinence because their own lifestyle doesn't include it. Don't be fooled by the "abstinence plus" phrase - it's just their way of making these programs seem innocuous and more acceptable.

Read about it at
More Evidence that "Comprehensive" Sex Education Is a Bad Idea

A study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility found that levonorgestrel, the drug contained in Plan B emergency contraception, may possibly preventation implantation after all. (Preventing implantation interrupts an existing pregnancy and is an abortive mechanism.)

Despite the fact that the manufacturer lists that the drug may prohibit implantation, advocates of Plan B have argued that the drug does not act in this manner. Many point to the Chilean Institute for Reproductive Medicine studies on rats and monkeys as proof that Plan B doesn't cause abortions.

Others claim that the medical definition of pregnancy begins after implantation and therefore Plan B is not an abortifacient - perpetuating the myth that pregnancy begins at implantation.

The study found that in preventing ovulation, the drug was only 8%-49% effective depending on the amount of delay in using it. When the possible abortifacient mechanism, as well as other mechanisms, had an effect the effectiveness ranged from 16% to 90% in preventing pregnancy and birth.

This isn't good news for Catholic Hospitals that are distributing emergency contraception. And it's not good news for advocates claiming that emergency contraception prevents abortion - if prohibits implantion, Plan B only changes when, not if, an abortion occurs.

But don't expect this study to make headlines across the nation. And don't expect pro-abortion bloggers to report on it either - facts don't matter when it comes to contraception unless it helps their cause.

For more information on the controversy over the beginning of pregnancy, visit the pregnancy page.

The abstract can be found at:
http://www.fertstert.org/article/PIIS0015028206047327/abstract

h/t Catholic News Agency

By Ruben Obregon

Pro-lifers ready for a comeback, an article in the Washington Times, takes a look a the future of the pro-life movement.

In this article, Daniel McConchie, executive director of Americans United For Life, is quoted as saying:

"Many pro-life groups don't take a stand on contraception -- 'We're happy for any way to avoid abortion,' Mr. McConchie said -- and most Americans are likely to support a more-birth-control approach because so many of them use it themselves."

Except that a "more-birth-control" approach hasn't caused a reduction in abortion since abortion was legalized in all 50 states.

In fact, amongst adolescents, contraception has only helped to make the abortion situation worse. Why?

For the most part, teens are forward looking in their decisions to become sexually active, and the option to use contraception has a profound effect on these decisions.

According to the study Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003, the increase in premarital sex amongst a group of teens turning 15 during the years 1964-1973 "may be partly due to increased availability of effective contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that sex would lead to pregnancy." (Finer , 2007)

The influence of contraceptives on adolescents is reflected in the change in attitudes and behaviors concerning premarital sex.

In the late 1950s, only 12% of young women approved of premarital sex, and by the 1980s that figured jumped to 73%. (Wells & Twenge, 2005) Much of the change occurred between 1960 and 1969, prior to Roe v. Wade, when contraceptives became increasingly available to more and more unmarried women despite a patchwork of state restrictions.

The change in attitudes and behaviors regarding premarital sex was not isolated to the 60s - it has carried forward through subsequent generations, though to varying degrees. While some blame the sexual revolution for this problem, the revolution would have died much earlier were it not for contraception.

The increase in the number of sexually active adolescents, combined with the typical failure rates (and non use) of contraception, is reflected in the abortion and pregnancy rates which continued to rise well into the 1980s.

Abortion rates for women aged 15-19 started to fall in the mid to late 80s, and the pregnancy rates would start to fall in 1991. The main reasons for these declines are parental involvement laws, Medicaid restrictions, increased abstinence, and an improved economy. Contraception, contrary to the claims of many, was not the primary reason for the declines.

Its time that the pro-life movement pulled its collective head out of the sand and address the issue of contraception. Contrary to the fears of many, this doesn't mean calling for a ban on it. Rather, the focus should be on informing the public on the many negative aspects of contraception, including how it affects teen pregnancy and abortion rates.

Author's Notes: The focus of this commentary is not Mr. McConchie - his statements merely echo the sentiments of the pro-life movement at large.

Ruben is the President and co-founder of the No Room for Contraception Campaign. The NRFC website is located at http://www.noroomforcontraception.com

References

Finer, L.B. (2007). Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003, Public Health Reports, January - Febrary 2007, Volume 122, pp. 73-78, The Guttmacher Institute, available at http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf

Wells, B.E., & Twenge J.M. (2005). Changes in Young People's Sexual Behavior and Attitudes, 1943-1999: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis, Review of General Psychology, 2005, Vol 9, No 3, pp. 249-261, American Psychological Association