by Kristin Putnam
If you were to go to the American Cancer Society website looking for a list of Known Carcinogens[1] (substances that are known to cause cancer in humans), you would find references to two lists compiled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the National Toxology program. The ACS concurs with these agencies methodologies in compiling each list. The National Toxology program lists 56 substances. The IARC lists 107 substances and provides a lengthy paper on their website[2] for each substance, outlining the reasons for classifying it as a carcinogen. The consensus on these lists will not provide many surprises: Tobacco, Ultraviolet Tanning Beds, Asbestos, and Estrogen-Progesterone Oral Contraceptives among others.
The following article is not meant to endorse or disparage any political position or candidate. Rather, it is meant to help us examine ourselves and motives in the light of a recent events.
During a recent appearance on Fox News’ “Huckabee,” presidential hopeful Mitt Romney stated that he was in favor of the Personhood Amendment, which declares that human life begins at conception. Shortly after this, Romney was at a town hall meeting in Iowa[1] where a woman stood up and voiced her concern that the Personhood Amendment would outlaw hormonal contraception, which is used by millions of women. Without missing a beat, Romney responded that he was not against hormonal contraception. He was against anything that effected life after conception, “contraception prevents conception. I am not against that.” The concerned citizen continued and urged Romney to have staff look into this statement because it is known that hormonal contraception prevents implantation, not always conception. He smiled, said thank you and changed the subject. Continue reading
In July 2011, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology released a pamphlet stating several doctors’ endorsement of Intrauterine Devices (IUD) as “as safe and effective birth control.” IUDs were once unpopular in the United States, nevertheless, use has persevered. Physicians are starting to recommend IUDs more frequently, especially non-hormonal, copper IUDs. However, as Delicia Yard of ClinicalAdvisor.com points out, “The devices may raise the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease and subsequent infertility.” Prescribing information for a popular IUD lists these common side effects: headache, abdominal/pelvic pain, irregular bleeding, depression, migraine, nausea, acne, back pain, genital tract infection, ovarian cysts, dysmenorrheal, breast pain, and unintentional expulsion of the device. Despite this, it has been said that IUDs are “the most cost-effective form” of birth control available.
How does this newly popularized birth control stand up to the Billings Ovulation Method™ (BOM)? Continue reading