Medical

Shocking: nation’s leading gynecologists recommend semi-permanent birth control for teens

Paraguard, the copper IUD

On September 20, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported:

Implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs) should be offered as first-line contraceptive options for sexually active adolescents, according to new guidelines issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College). Both the implant and the IUD are the most effective reversible contraceptives for preventing unintended pregnancy and abortion in teens and adult women.

The article continued, giving multiple reasons for The College’s recommendation:

About 42% of adolescent females ages 15–19 in the US have had sexual intercourse. … The fact that 8 out of every 10 adolescent pregnancies are unintended underscores the need for dependable and effective contraceptive methods for teens.

The article went on to describe the effectiveness of both the IUD and the implant, neglecting many important points. First, a major reason for the “effectiveness” of the implant and the IUD is not the devices’ ability to keep women from getting pregnant, but the devices’ ability to stop a new, unique human being from implanting in her mother’s womb.

ParaGuard, a manufacturer of the copper IUD states the following in its prescribing information:

Ideas about how ParaGard® works include preventing sperm from reaching the egg, preventing sperm from fertilizing the egg, and preventing the egg from attaching (implanting) in the uterus. ParaGard® does not stop your ovaries from making an egg (ovulating) each month.

It is also clear that the Mirena IUD does not typically stop ovulation in women, but instead acts to stop implantation.

Implanon, one brand of the contraceptive implant, also changes the endometrial lining – exactly the action that stops implantation.

Even aside from the major issue that The College is recommending birth control that can kill babies by stopping their implantation, it is a serious concern that they are recommending these types to young teens who are very unlikely to study out the risks and effects of IUDs and the implant for themselves.

Mirena’s full prescribing information reveals that up to half of the women who get pregnant on Mirena may experience an ectopic pregnancy. The FDA has even issued a warning letter to Bayer, Mirena’s manufacturer.

Implanon’s prescribing information specifically states that no clinical studies have been conducted in women under the age of 18. And yet The College – supposedly the nation’s experts – wholeheartedly recommends this contraception to teens.

Finally, it should also be concerning to teens and parents that The College is recommending birth control that is semi-permanent. IUDs can be removed, and so can implants, but each of these devices lasts for years at a time if allowed to remain in the body. During this entire time – while an adolescent girl’s body is still developing – The College would recommend flooding her system with unnecessary hormones, all for the purpose of not getting pregnant.

The bottom line? Parents and teens need to be educated about the true implications behind The College’s recommendation. Just because the experts say “use it” doesn’t make it safe – for teen girls or their babies.

Live Action on Facebook
  • peach

    You say half of the women using Mirena experience an ectopic pregnancy? From the article you linked to: “Up to half of pregnancies that occur with Mirena in place are ectopic.
    The incidence of ectopic pregnancy in clinical trials that excluded
    women with risk factors for ectopic pregnancy was approximately 0.1% per
    year.” Biiiiiig difference. Please correct your article.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Hey, I did just change it to say half the pregnancies that occur with Mirena. You’re right on that. I had done my research months ago on that specific point and should have rechecked it. Correction made. Still a pretty big danger for women, though, since half of occurring pregnancies should most definitely not have a high likelihood of being ectopic – a life threatening condition, as you know.

      • peach

        Thank you!

      • ProTruth2

        Still a pretty big danger for women, though, since half of occurring pregnancies should most definitely not have a high likelihood of being ectopic – a life threatening condition, as you know.

        Ectopic pregnancies occur naturally in about 2% of pregnancies in the overall population. If Mirena worked solely by preventing uterine implantation and it worked perfectly, then 100% of pregnancies among Mirena users would be ectopic, because users would have ectopic pregnancies at the same rate as everybody else and no pregnancies with uterine implantation. It should be noted, however, that Mirena’s rate of 1 ectopic pregnancy per 1000 women is lower than the ectopic pregnancy rate across the board, which may be as high as 20 in 1000. (The comparison is not exact, because the Mirena study excludes women who are already at a higher risk for ectopic pregnancies and the general population statistics do not.) That would indicate that Mirena does inhibit ovulation or fertilization, though that is not its primary mechanism.

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          Those stats are less than “not exact.” When one set of stats counts people with high risk factors and the other set doesn’t, it’s simply not a fair comparison. However, the Mirena manufacturer does state that, in some women, ovulation may cease or be altered when they implant Mirena. But, the manufacturer also states that this does not happen for most women and it is not the primary mechanism of Mirena.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ashley-Newman/1557146137 Ashley Newman

          IUD’s should not be recommended to teens, they offer 0% protection from STI/STDs. Teens are at an increased risk of STDs, which can cause Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID). To quote the Mirena IUD
          insert, side effects include, “PID…life threatening infection…embedment…perforation of the uterus…Common side effects
          include: Discomfort…expulsion…cyst on the ovary.” If the teen has
          multiple partners, she has a much higher risk of side effects and permanent damage while again, doing NOTHING to prevent or protect against disease. It’s sad that the medical community has completely sold out to Big Pharma and Big Abortion. It’s equally pathetic that so many prochoicers are so blindly led by them. Either way, those of us that keep our pants on or are faithful to our spouses should not have to pay for the stupid choices of others, that is called a CONSEQUENCE to an action. Teens should be taught that rather than the lie of consequence free sex (aka Comprehensive Sex Education).

          • Hank Fox

            Yes, of course: Babies are PUNISHMENT — the “consequence” of the sin of having sex. Every loose-moraled woman should be forced to bear a child, so she can see how wrong she was.

            This is a sick thing to believe.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Hmmm…seems to me that the people supporting abortion are the ones who believe babies are a punishment. They’re the ones that want to get rid of the babies. President Obama said:
            “I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

            It is indeed a sick thing to believe that babies are punishment and, therefore, must die.

            We want women to let their children live because 1) children are human beings with the equal right to life, no matter when or how they were conceived and 2) children are GIFTS, not punishments.

    • BunnyOle

      No, half the women who get pregnant experience ectopic pregnancy.

  • Hank Fox

    Obviously the goal is to Kill Babies. Couldn’t be anything in there about, oh, wanting babies to be born to people who actually want them. Or wanting to preserve for teens the chance at broad opportunities in life, undiminished by a single mistake. I guess it’s just the naturally murderous nature of obstetricians and gynecologists. Plus that ugly idea that a single cell is not already a cuddly cooing pink-toed living human baby.

    • Legomyeggo

      Obviously everyone with their senses about them wants the baby to be born to someone who actually wants her or him. But to encourage a lack of responsibility and accountability for one’s actions–by eliminating the consequences (pregnancy) rather than the cause (sex)–is what we are opposed to. Sadly humans lack a more efficient way to reproduce than what we have: sexual reproduction. Sadly, but not surprising, sex is the best way to lead to sexual reproduction (fancy that)! If you would like to have a broad chance at opportunities, the best way to avoid diminishing that is to NOT make the single mistake! Is it not the case that abstaining from drinking alcohol is the most logical way to avoid alcoholism? Sure, it may not be *realistic* or *practical*, which seems to be the criticism of abstinence, but when human well being and human lives are at stake, are we going to go with what’s safe or what’s practical?

      And I know that the cell comment is going to lead to the argument that a fetus or embryo or zygote is not human. The problem with such arguments is that they confuse different states of being with different types of beings. An acorn is not a tree, as they are different states of being, but both are the same *type* of being, specifically, the same genotype: oak. Same with humans. A fetus is not a toddler, a toddler not an adolescent, an adolescent not an adult, but all are equal members of the same species of homo sapiens, just at different stages of development. To say that any one is less human than the next is going to be wholly arbitrary and unscientific.

      • FractalHeretic

        It is not a consequence, it is a child. By making pregnancy the punishment for “irresponsibility”(sex), you put the responsibility of parenting in the hands of those you just defined as irresponsible.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=116400943 Leo Buzalsky

        You really hit the nail on the head. Yep, an acorn is not a tree. A fetus is not a toddler, etc. Sure, I cannot say that one is “less human,” but what I can say is one is a “less DEVELOPED human.” And guess what? That is important! Show people a picture of a fetus and they won’t recognize it as “human” even if that is what it’s DNA structure says it is. Nor will they mind much if you were to “kill” that fetus. And the so called “pro-life” movement knows this! Which is why, when they show pictures of aborted fetuses, they almost always show fetuses past 12 weeks (most abortions occur before this). Which is also why they push these arguments that a fetus is equal to a toddler or to an adult. Which is why they push these arguments that they have science on their side (argument from authority). Push these ideas enough, and maybe you’ll get people to forget that the state of being is actually a relevant component to this debate. (But you slipped up and mentioned that part of the argument! Oops!)

  • Hank Fox

    This article is also an example of mission creep, seems to me. I’ve always thought it was remarkable that the people who are most opposed to abortion are ALSO opposed to all forms of birth control, family planning clinics, and even sex education. In many of these cases, there’s definitely something else going on than this allegedly ardent love for babies. In practice, the effort often seems to come across as “What can we do to punish young men and women for having sex?”

    This is not to mention the life an unwanted child may be condemned to. The huge unspoken assumption in all the pro-life arguments seems to be “Oh, somehow that baby will be loved. It’ll just happen.” Some of us out here know it sometimes just doesn’t.

    Seems to me that any woman having any doubts at all about whether she wants to have a baby right now should have available EVERY possible way to prevent it … until she consciously and deliberately decides that she really does want a baby.

    My motto is: Every child wanted, every child loved — whatever it takes. Family planning, contraceptives, condoms, adoption, abortion. Whatever it takes.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Well, actually, I am NOT opposed to all forms of birth control or sex education. I simply think there are right and wrong ways to do these things. It’s wrong to use a form of birth control that stops a new human being from developing/implanting. It’s perfectly fine to prevent fertilization from occurring in the first place. And sex ed is good, when taught at an appropriate age (i.e., not 3rd grade) and in an appropriate environment. I fully believe that parents need to take more responsibility for educating their kids instead of leaving it to the schools.

      And this has nothing to do with punishment. It has to do with saving lives. Also, no one is assuming that all babies are loved and cared for. But just because people aren’t loved as they should be doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to life. You’re basically arguing that if a person isn’t loved, they should be killed and blotted out of existence. That’s just wrong.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=116400943 Leo Buzalsky

        Your argument is seemingly inconsistent: “It’s wrong to use a form of birth control that stops a new human being
        from developing/implanting. It’s perfectly fine to prevent
        fertilization from occurring in the first place.”
        But preventing fertilization prevents a new human being from developing (and then later implanting, etc)!
        Of course, the truth of the argument is that you have a belief that once sperm and egg meet, making that “new human being,” there is no going back. There are many of us who do not share this belief, and you have not given us a good reason why we should share this belief. “New human being” just is not convincing (and I will agree that this does produce a new human being, but there is a newer comment about oak trees that is more relevant to this discussion).

  • Hank Fox

    Reposting this comment, assuming your system ate it rather than that you deleted it:

    This article is also an example of mission creep, seems to me. I’ve always thought it was remarkable that the people who are most opposed to abortion are ALSO opposed to all forms of birth control, family planning clinics, and even sex education. In many of these cases, there’s definitely something else going on than this allegedly ardent love for babies. In practice, the effort often seems to come across as “What can we do to punish young men and women for having sex?”

    This is not to mention the life an unwanted child may be condemned to. The huge unspoken assumption in all the pro-life arguments seems to be “Oh, somehow that baby will be loved. It’ll just happen.” Some of us out here know it sometimes just doesn’t.

    Seems to me that any woman having any doubts at all about whether she wants to have a baby right now should have available EVERY possible way to prevent it … until she consciously and deliberately decides that she really does want a baby.

    My motto is: Every child wanted, every child loved — whatever it takes. Family planning, contraceptives, condoms, adoption, abortion. Whatever it takes.

  • Hank Fox

    Ah. My mistake. There was a delay in the post showing up (and I’m used to Christian and right-wing sites deleting comments they don’t like).

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      No worries. But no, we don’t delete comments unless they are violent or purely rude with no purpose for actual debate. Your comments obviously didn’t fit that =)

  • Hittman

    Free clue: An unfertilized egg is not a baby. A fertilized egg is not a baby either. Not even close.

    You’re welcome.

    • Legomyeggo

      Free clue: Different states of being =/= different types of beings. Try again.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Actually, there is no such thing as a “fertilized egg,” scientifically speaking. At the moment that fertilization occurs, a new, unique human being is created and the “egg” is no more.

      “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
      [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

      • Kristiburtonbrown

        Note that science doesn’t just call the new human being a “fertilized egg” and leave it at that as you’re doing. There’s clearly much more to accurate science than that. This new human being has a new name – and it’s properly a zygote – not a “fertilized egg.” That’s a dehumanizing term and incorrect.

  • Hank Fox
  • DelAnaya

    Sorry — We’ll never agree on this. A fertilized egg is not a human being, no matter how you try to twist the science. But the fact that you prioritize the preservation of a few cells over the welfare of teen-age women, is just immoral. You should be ashamed!

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      How am I “twisting science”? For decades, science has told us that, at fertilization, a new human being has begun:

      This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
      [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

      “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
      [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

      • DelAnaya

        You are obviously a lawyer. You are playing with words, and overlaying a legalistic definition upon biology that just doesn’t care what you think. Those cells were living human cells both before and after fertilization, but you have designated fertilization as a magic moment when you have legalistically decided that the zygote deserves the protection of a human being.

        The ability to identify that exact moment makes it convenient for lawyers. But it doesn’t give you any right to decide that that is the special moment when it has changed its legal status. That’s the arbitrary Christian lawyer talking.
        Add your two citations above to the many more – see for example: (http://www.ppl.org/index.php/publications/abortion-and-christian-faith/65-scientific-and-medical/123-when-does-a-human-life-begin – a Christian pro-life website, btw)
        This website has additional citations from the scientific and teaching literature. NONE of these citations says that a zygote is a human being. They all cite the beginning development or the potential of a human. You even admit that yourself in another post. But none of them ever insinuate that their description of biology is the basis for a legalistic determination. I’d be willing to bet that, if they knew how you were twisting their words into a legalistic justification for stopping all abortion, they would be appalled.
        You are arbitrarily attempting to use this potential to grant a zygote the rights of a human being. In the process you are prioritizing it over the rights of the mother and the family. This is by any measure immoral. You should be ashamed. Your ideas are destructive and belong in the past. We are a more caring society than that.

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          Hmmm…I don’t see how quoting exact science is “playing with words.” It appears that you just disagree with science since you insist on calling actual life only potential life. According to science, a zygote IS a human being. It’s inaccurate and unscientific to say that there is any similarity between eggs and sperm and a new human being. There is an incredible difference between cells that could become a new life if they were combined and an actual new life.

          It’s not legalistic to say that every human being should be protected under the law. That’s the principle our nation was founded on. Science tells us when human life begins, and law serves to protect those lives.

          I’m lost when you say that “NONE of these citations says that a zygote is a human being.” The citations do say that a zygote is a new human being. I think you’d like them to refer to “potential,” but they refer to what actually happens.

          Finally, I’m in no way exalting the right to life of a new, unborn human being over the right to life of her mother and family. Every human being – born or unborn – should be on an equal plain when it comes to our most basic right, the right to life. 53 million abortions is not evidence of a “caring society.”

          • DelAnaya

            As I said in my first post, we will never agree. Look at your own words: “A zygote is a human being.” You have perverted all the textbook statements – “begins the development of … “, “is a potential …”, etc., to mean that a zygote IS a human being. If you read the English in all of these texts, it’s not … and it’s not what any of those authors had in mind, especially when you use it to make an arbitrary Christian definition that a single cell – a zygote – deserves the same legal protection as a living, breathing human.

            This is especially reprehensible when it leads to restrictions on abortion and universal access to contraception. You share responsibility for the misery that anti-abortionists cause when they help to screw up the lives of millions of young women. You take away one of the few tools they have to direct their own lives. Do you have a clue what the real world is like?

            A zygote is a human cell. It is not a baby and does not deserve to be protected above the choice of a young woman. Caring society? What planet do you live on? 53 million abortions are minor in comparison to the misery of poverty, domestic violence and neglect, that many young woman live in. Their lives are made close-to-unrecoverable by an unwanted pregnancy.

            Except that which you have written in your bio, I don’t know you, but I suspect that you come from a comfortable middle class home and now you live in your sanitary little Christian bubble. You obviously have no idea what the real world is all about, but you still want to impose your Christian values on the rest of us.

            I’m a primary practitioner in Southern New Mexico. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. I see these young woman every day and I see their hopelessness and their yearning for a better life. And they make mistakes in their search for love and something better.

            I repeat myself one last time and then I’m done. You should be ashamed to be part of this perpetuation of misery – for the sake of what? For the sake of some Christian view of the sacredness of a zygote? And you think this is more important than allowing a young woman to fix a mistake? Callous and immoral.

            We will fight you in the courts and at the ballot box and put your socially destructive ideas back into the past where they belong.

  • Hey! Get This . . .

    LIFE IS PRECIOUS – How precious?
    Will ‘Pro-Life’ people fight to prevent the destruction of a single cell?
    ‘Pro-Life’ people have the illusion that any fertilized egg is equivalent to an adult organism (especially for humans). They are oblivious to this technology, which has been advancing on a predicted course. If they will adhere to their stated beliefs, they must ultimately consider ANY cell to be equivalent to an adult, for entire organisms have been cloned – not just specific tissues.
    *Mouse eggs created from stem cells for the first time*
    “Both egg and sperm cells start life as primordial germ cells (PGCs). Kyoto University … could generate PGC-like cells from either mouse embryonic stem cells or body cells that can turn into stem cells – known as induced pluripotent stem cells or IPSCs. …they were able to form embryos…”
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22340-mouse-eggs-created-from-stem-cells-for-the-first-time.html

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      It’s not an illusion. It’s science. And it’s not a “fertilized egg.” Once fertilization occurs, a new human being has begun – and that’s what human biology tells us. There is a major difference between cells that can become a new human being and cells that actually are a new human being. There is also a difference between a human cell that is alive and a living human being, complete with his or her own, unique set of DNA.

      The real science is explained in this paper: http://www.dakotavoice.com/Docs/South%20Dakota%20Abortion%20Task%20Force%20Report.pdf

  • Kristiburtonbrown

    Fertilization is anything but an arbitrary line. It’s the line that science and human biology itself draws for the beginning of a new, human life. Yes, a sperm and an egg can create a new human being, but they are not a new human being. Any line other than fertilization is arbitrary and unscientific. Several geneticists and skilled scientists explain the real facts and what science tells us in this paper:
    http://www.dakotavoice.com/Docs/South%20Dakota%20Abortion%20Task%20Force%20Report.pdf

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=116400943 Leo Buzalsky

      But a sperm and an egg are human life. And they are, in fact, “new,” too. Each of my sperm likely has a unique combination of genes. They all have half of my genes (that alone make them different than me), but which half? I don’t know how many gene pairs a human has, but the possible combinations of sperm would be 2 raised to that power. (If I had just three pairs, there would be 2^3, or 8, possible combinations.)

      In previous interactions with “pro-lifers,” the next step is for you to make a, “Yes, but sperm by itself cannot develop into a fully-grown human being.” There are two responses to this. 1) This is (seemingly) moving the goalposts. Make an argument and either stick to it or at least be honest and acknowledge your mistake. Don’t just go about changing your argument and pretending that was your argument all along when it wasn’t. (I do note that you perhaps have an “out” because you used different words with different meanings at different points of your argument. First time you use “human LIFE,” but the second time you use “human BEING.” A sperm and egg are life, but perhaps not a being. Due to your inconsistent wording, you could probably weasel your way out saying that you always meant the later.) 2) The fact that the goalposts get shifted shows the arbitrariness (if that is a word) of the argument.

      By the way, the real arbitrariness is choosing fertilization as the line. It is not so much that fertilization is an arbitrary point. Though, it seems you recognize this from the way you talk about sperm and eggs. So why, then, act like the argument was over fertilization being arbitrary? Or are you just that poor of a communicator?

      Also, I skimmed that document you linked. HEAVY political propaganda! So perhaps they found some scientists that agree with them. Whoop de doo! You realize that scientists can be biased, right? Are any of the claims these scientists make peer reviewed? Do you even realize science has a peer review process?

  • BunnyOle

    IUDs cause a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases – they need to be more focused on protection from disease, not pregnancies. IUDs are not recommended for people who have never given birth. Although much better now than past devices, IUDs can still cause sterility. There are also plenty of bad side effects related to taking hormone based birth control, blood clots, stroke, higher incidence of certain cancers.

    I don’t know how they can be so blase about it.