Is our President for real?

[meegannie]

Yeah, the problem is right now I make a decent amount, but I have to save since I'm moving at the end of May and won't have any income for a year and a half. I'm thinking about it, but I think I'd rather wait until September when I'm under the national health care system in England and can have the same doctor the whole time instead of going to doctor here, having side effects after I move, and being without medical coverage.

Thanks for the info, though. It makes me feel a little more at ease. Most of my friends have made me terrified of it!!!

 

[pax]

Hey, I'm glad I could help. E-mail or PM me if you ever have any questions/issues.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Meggie and pax you both have valid points, but the pill isn't always something to trust. There are so many types, to know the effects it will have on your body is virtually impossible until you try it. I am anti pill now, after it causing me 2 years to fall pregnant, but that is another story for another day

Another link on the effectiveness of contraceptions, glad others raised this point:
http://www.e-gynecologic.com/birthcon.html
And I'm not posting this to rub it in to zooropa that his beliefs on the effectiveness of condoms are incorrect, more that this details the effects and effectiveness of many of the popular forms of birth control.

One thing I hate, is that the birth control onus somehow always leads back to the woman. Regardless of method, if the 2 individuals engaging in sex DO NOT want a pregnancy to result, it is an equally binding responsibility. Condoms, pill or whatever. Both parties have to share the responsibility.

 

[pax]

There are so many types, to know the effects it will have on your body is virtually impossible until you try it.

Angela is right about this--not only are there so many different types of pills, but of course every woman's individual body is different too. I'm just saying that since the effects are different for everyone, meegie doesn't necessarily *have* to be *terrified* of *all* birth control pills.

Ange is right about something else--birth control is everyone's problem! (Guys, you listening?)

 

[meegannie]

One thing I hate, is that the birth control onus somehow always leads back to the woman. Regardless of method, if the 2 individuals engaging in sex DO NOT want a pregnancy to result, it is an equally binding responsibility. Condoms, pill or whatever. Both parties have to share the responsibility.

Very true. I'm lucky to have the world's best fiance.

 

[Zooropa]

http://www.well-net.com/womenshealth/contraception/contraceptionspermacidalagents-1.html

condoms + spermicide = 99.9%

low numbers on condom effectiveness are affected by improper usage.

 

[Clark W. Griswold Jr]

low numbers on condom effectiveness are affected by improper usage.

Yep. If I recall correctly, the studies that show condom effectiveness 86% of the time also include in their data instances when they were planned to be used, but never even made it out of the wrapper.....

Who's to blame; the rubber or the "rubbies"?

 

[pax]

low numbers on condom effectiveness are affected by improper usage.

EXACTLY.

 

[gvox]

low numbers on condom effectiveness are affected by improper usage.

Now this is just getting silly. Of course the numbers are lower because of improper usage, because of the logistics involved in using it during the heat of the moment for instance. Improper usage doesnt change the fact that as a method it is still far less effective than others.

There is no improper usage variables during the act involved in the methods with the better effectiveness rates, so of course they are better.

Now if your argument was about STDs, fine, but in the real world condoms aren't all that great in preventing pregnancies.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Angela is right about this--not only are there so many different types of pills, but of course every woman's individual body is different too. I'm just saying that since the effects are different for everyone, meegie doesn't necessarily *have* to be *terrified* of *all* birth control pills.

Ange is right about something else--birth control is everyone's problem! (Guys, you listening?)

Pax you are definately right about this! Meggie, make a huge song and dance about your concerns when you speak to your doctor. Listen to any info you can get your hands on, hear what side effects people have, so you are aware of what *might* happen, discuss your concerns with the doctor and make sure he/she listens closely and answers whatever you ask. Tell the dr as much as you can about yourself as well, in terms of cycle and so on. The doctor will most likely have to play by ear as well and it *can* take a while to find the right one for you. Dont be scared! Be informed!

Contraception shouldn't be so hard for people. If condoms are your scene, make sure there are no petroleums in sight, the person with the shortest, cleanest fingernails can do the 'honours', remove all jewelry of course, CHECK THE USED BY DATE! Dont store them improperly!
Man, I sound like a Sex Ed worker lol. Guys if you really dont like condoms and sensitivity is that important, drill your girl about what other method she is using. Dont feel embarrassed to ask the 20 questions. You have a right to know. It takes 2 weeks of regular and proper use of the pill for it to be at its peak effectiveness. Its your life too guys, being careful may kill the mood a bit, but it can save a literal lifetime of problems after.

[/end sex ed rant]

 

[oliveu2cm]

but I also have a massive fear of gaining ANY weight. I'm just afraid it would screw up my metabolism forever.

Meegannie, I've been on the pill for a few years now due to the fact I would not be able to take other health-related medicines if I was not on the pill. The other medicines had severe birth-related defects and although I was not sexually active I still had to be on birth control to receive the medication.

That said, I gained no weight while i was on the pill. At one point I thought I was gaining weight, but that was more from senior year partying . I recently read that studies are coming out saying weight gain from pills are a myth - I'd say it is at least rarer than more people thing and definitely varies from person to person. Basically, if you feel you are gaining an ill-proportioned amount of weight on the pill, stop. Or look into the other forms of contraceptives like that shot you get every 3 months to prevent pregnancies. But I wouldn't be scared of the weight gain, and I used to feel exactly as you did.

 

[Zooropa]

Now this is just getting silly. Of course the numbers are lower because of improper usage, because of the logistics involved in using it during the heat of the moment for instance. Improper usage doesnt change the fact that as a method it is still far less effective than others.

There is no improper usage variables during the act involved in the methods with the better effectiveness rates, so of course they are better.

Now if your argument was about STDs, fine, but in the real world condoms aren't all that great in preventing pregnancies.

Well, I live in the "real world" and will stand by my assertions that condoms are the most effective means of contraception both for pregancy pretection and health. I guess in my ultimate revelation of hypocrisy, I don't take issue with prescription birth control perse, I've had several girlfriends use them in the past. However in all instances I went w/ my girlfriend to see her doctor and get all in the info about side affects and we made the decision together. As an FYI to any out there, Depro (the Shot) had terrible side affects on one of my girlfriends, weight gain, loss of sex drive, mild depression and at this point (at least when I last spoke to her) she may be infertile. So, the whole gist of my agruement rests on two things, one is just to be careful when using presription contraceptives. Condoms are a safe alternative that are just if not more effective without the side affects, and two, Dr. Hagers beliefs and practices may be safer for women. It's not fair to dismiss them outright because you believe it is a choice issue. I agree wholeheartedly, that religion should not dictate policy, but many times, these "religious beliefs" are relevant without thier religious origins (i.e. abortion, dangers of hormonal therapies, abstinance etc....).

Hope no one hates me or thinks I'm misogynistic.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Now-

What about the fact many women take birth control pills to alieviate severe discomfort for their period? I mean, I believe in the power of prayer but gimme a break. My sister suffered from uncontrollable pains, resulting in having to take days off of school, during her period. Then she started taking the pill and she no longer experiences that pain. So this bafoon would deny her and others in her position an effective means of medication for the purpose of pain relief??

ANd on this whole subject. The idea of him being head of the FDA committee is absurdddddddddddddddddddddd! AND it insults me as a woman.

 

[gvox]

one is just to be careful when using presription contraceptives. Condoms are a safe alternative that are just if not more effective without the side affects, and two, Dr. Hagers beliefs and practices may be safer for women.

One has to be careful when taking any prescription. Thats just common sense. I would be curious to rates of adverse reactions vs. allergic reactions to latex as well.

Condoms are not 'just if not more effective' for preventing pregnancy, that is not factual. In real life practice they are far less effective.

Is what this Dr indicates about the safety of women, or more the sacredness of personally held belief? In terms of contraception and birth control, the latter seems to be the case. And that is what has people up in arms, that the person who Bush wants to appoint just so happens to hold all the same beliefs as he does, that are more based on religious/personal reasons than on common sense or medical fact.

 

[Zooropa]

Some interesting notes.....

"It is reported that Dr. Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist by training, refuses to prescribe birth control pills to unmarried women unless "they insist and reject his advice to abstain?. "

http://www.ppmarmonte.org/takeaction/index.asp?step=2&item=2345

================================

"David Stevens, executive director of CMA, said pro-choice groups are afraid Dr. Hager will expose the dangers of RU-486 and the FDA's dismissal of health concerns. He also defended Dr. Hager's writings.
"Dr. Hager is not saying prayer instead of medicine. He's saying prayer and medicine," Mr. Stevens said, adding that 99 percent of doctors agree religion has a positive effect on healing and 86 medical schools offer courses on the topic.

He has written 41 journal publications, 14 book chapters and six books, and has served on the faculty at Emory University School of Medicine and the University of Kentucky School of Medicine. He was named one of the "Best Doctors for Women" by Good Housekeeping magazine in 1997."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021017-787168.htm

======================

"The panel's chair will be Dr. Linda Giudice, chief of reproductive endocrinology and infertility for the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the Stanford University Medical Center.

Dr. Scott Shields Emerson a professor in the Department of Biostatistics at the University of Washington was among nine other physicians named to the panel. "

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/134603036_ndig26.html

==============================

""I always thought that he handled his religious beliefs well," said Dr. Frank Miller, a longtime UK OB-GYN and a past national president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

"He's getting trashed because of his beliefs," said Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical Association. Stevens, a Kentucky native and Hager's longtime friend, said Hager's national profile has increased in the past several years.

A national post wouldn't be unprecedented for him. Earlier this year, Hager became a member of two federal health advisory committees -- a CDC panel on sexually transmitted diseases and cervical cancer and an advisory committee for women's services with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services administration.

Stevens said that Hager did not solicit the FDA post.

Ruth Ann Childers, spokeswoman for Central Baptist Hospital, said Hager was contacted by Linda Arey Skaladany, an FDA senior associate commissioner who develops lists of nominees for committees.

"She nominated him based on his credentials," Childers said. "He's never met her [and] doesn't know her.""

http://www.acljlife.org/news/abortion/021014_doctor.asp

==================================

The New York Times reported that Hager said he prefers not to prescribe contraceptives to single women but will if they insist and reject his advice to abstain from sex.

The Times quoted Hager as saying he was "not against medication. The fact that I'm a person of faith does not deter me from also being a person of science."

If chosen, Hager would be only one voice on an 11-person panel to weigh in on various issues, noted Bill Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. The panel is scheduled to meet next month to discuss hormone replacement therapy.

Hager is a nationally recognized expert on women's health issues, is well-published in medical literature and highly regarded at the University of Kentucky, Pierce said.

"He treats women every single day. He's well-qualified to help with this subject matter," Pierce said.

Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, said Hager "is the latest victim of religious profiling."

"What NOW and other pro-abortion advocates really believe is that even if a candidate is well-qualified and a good doctor, they can't be an outspoken Christian and get appointed to the FDA," Connor said.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/4299377.htm

=========================================

Hager is not being considered to head the 11-member committee, Pierce said. He wouldn't say who nominated Hager, but called the Kentucky doctor "an outstanding physician."

Such public uproar is highly unusual over advisory committees, which are influential but make no binding decisions and usually operate far from the limelight.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/4299398.htm

======================================

So, from this we see:

1. Dr. Hager does not rely completely on religion, quite the contrary.
2. He is well respected by his peers and a reputable "womens" magazine.
3. DOES NOT REFUSE presribing contraceptives to single women, he may recommend that they not take them, but if the insist, he will give them to them.
4. He will not head the commitee, rather he will be just 1 of 11 panel members. Shouldn't the panel at least represent those that believe in a more conservative medical practice?
5. He has served on federal commitees before, so why the outrage now?
6. He would serve on an advisory commitee, which has no final say in policy.


See what happens when we take a report from a pro-choice group as fact, without even bothering to validate it's claims?

 

[BVS]

3. DOES NOT REFUSE presribing contraceptives to single women, he may recommend that they not take them, but if the insist, he will give them to them.
4. He will not head the commitee, rather he will be just 1 of 11 panel members. Shouldn't the panel at least represent those that believe in a more conservative medical practice?

6. He would serve on an advisory commitee, which has no final say in policy.

This eases some of my anxieties, somewhat...

See what happens when we take a report from a pro-choice group as fact, without even bothering to validate it's claims

But we can take this for fact without any bias?

"What NOW and other pro-abortion advocates really believe is that even if a candidate is well-qualified and a good doctor, they can't be an outspoken Christian and get appointed to the FDA," Connor said.

Come on. "Pro-abortion", I think the use of this term instead of pro-choice shows just a little bit of bias in this information.

The point is just because you found information that favors your views, you can't take it for fact either.

 

[Zooropa]

This eases some of my anxieties, somewhat...




But we can take this for fact without any bias?



Come on. "Pro-abortion", I think the use of this term instead of pro-choice shows just a little bit of bias in this information.

The point is just because you found information that favors your views, you can't take it for fact either.

Any self-intereted association (Pro-Life/Chioce) is going to be guilty of bias.

No matter how you want to say it pro-choice is pro-abortion when you refer to legislation.

I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that everything I posted is factual. If anyone can find information to the contrary, be my guest. The thread began with a host of accusations that all were preceded by "it has been reported". There is no factual evidence to back up the claims made in the original post. All the information I posted w/ the exeption of one, come from mainstream media outlets, not activist groups. So yes, I do take it as fact.

 

[nbcrusader]

Both labels (pro-abortion/pro-choice) are inherently false. Many who believe abortion should be allowed would not have one themselves. And many who call themselves "pro-choice" do not believe in individual choice as an across the board principle - just for abortion.

 

[pax]

I can't believe I'm doing research during spring break

I'm not convinced, Zooropa. Although it was hard to find what I would consider to be unbiased sources, I played with Google for a little while and came up with these links:

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2002/10/10/ke101002s292212.htm

NOTEWORTHY: He has also condemned the birth control pill, used by an estimated 10 million American women, saying it has provided a ''convenient way for young people to be sexually active outside of marriage.''

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html

NOTEWORTHY: [He] recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome...In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

http://www.slaughter.house.gov/NR/exeres/DD3935E2-3680-484E-AC69-4A2D0CE972F2.htm

NOTEWORTHY: "As a former health-care professional I am appalled by Dr. Hager's practice to refuse his female patients the right to make informed medical decisions about their own health," stated [Rep. Louise] Slaughter [D-NY, a microbiologist with a master's degree in public health]. "Refusing give women access to birth control is not only unthinkable, it is unethical."

http://www.arhp.org/advocacy/legislativenews101602.cfm

NOTEWORTHY: Dr. Hager is a conservative ob/gyn who has been known for relying on his religious beliefs to make medical decisions, such as only prescribing birth control to married women, and recommending prayers for headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Dr. Hager has strong ties to the Christian Medical Association and the anti-abortion group Focus on the Family. He is author of the book "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now". ARHP [Association of Reproductive Health Professionals] urges its members to oppose the appointment of Dr. Hager.

(Looks like his colleagues don't hold him in very high esteem.)

But incidentally, according to this article, Hager is a done deal anyway:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/134603036_ndig26.html

 

[pax]

"If you think abortion is the worst thing you can imagine, then you should support contraception even more."
--Frances Kissling, President of Catholics for Free Choice

(Just a quote I found that I liked--thought it fit nicely in this thread.)

 

[Zooropa]

Re: I can't believe I'm doing research during spring break

I'm not convinced, Zooropa. Although it was hard to find what I would consider to be unbiased sources, I played with Google for a little while and came up with these links:

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2002/10/10/ke101002s292212.htm

NOTEWORTHY: He has also condemned the birth control pill, used by an estimated 10 million American women, saying it has provided a ''convenient way for young people to be sexually active outside of marriage.''

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html

NOTEWORTHY: [He] recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome...In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

http://www.slaughter.house.gov/NR/exeres/DD3935E2-3680-484E-AC69-4A2D0CE972F2.htm

NOTEWORTHY: "As a former health-care professional I am appalled by Dr. Hager's practice to refuse his female patients the right to make informed medical decisions about their own health," stated [Rep. Louise] Slaughter [D-NY, a microbiologist with a master's degree in public health]. "Refusing give women access to birth control is not only unthinkable, it is unethical."

http://www.arhp.org/advocacy/legislativenews101602.cfm

NOTEWORTHY: Dr. Hager is a conservative ob/gyn who has been known for relying on his religious beliefs to make medical decisions, such as only prescribing birth control to married women, and recommending prayers for headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Dr. Hager has strong ties to the Christian Medical Association and the anti-abortion group Focus on the Family. He is author of the book "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now". ARHP [Association of Reproductive Health Professionals] urges its members to oppose the appointment of Dr. Hager.

(Looks like his colleagues don't hold him in very high esteem.)

But incidentally, according to this article, Hager is a done deal anyway:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/134603036_ndig26.html

1. He is hardly alone in his sentiments regarding the pill. Again, he would be just 1 out of 11. His beliefs reflect a large portion of the population. Should these beliefs be excluded?
2. This goes along with his prayer/spritual healing philosophy. Note the vagueness though of "sources". But, It's fair to say that "sources" quoted in my post are equally vague.
3. In your quote from Rep. Louise Slaughter, you neglected to mention that she prefaces the arguement with "If this is true". Therefore, her arguement is not based on fact, rather on assumption. We all know what happens when we assume right??? (ASS-U-ME)
4. Your last source is an advocacy group, and their for in herently biased. They vehently oppsosed spiritual healing, which in fact has shown to be effective in treating mild to moderate disorders.
5. AHHHH, so what if he's not going to be appointed, I'm enjoying the debate anyhow.

 

[Zooropa]

Hmmmm, just thinking, so many people go out of their way to avoid Genetically modified foods, and hormone enhanced dairy protects due to medical studies that show links to cancer and other serious health afflictions, yet don't seem to object to many of these same practices being used in contraception and other medications. Just thinking out loud on this...................

 

[oliveu2cm]

hellllooooooooooooooo!

NOTEWORTHY: [He] recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome...In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

I just can't get over this one!!!







and bush wants him in POWER?!

 

[pax]

Re: Re: I can't believe I'm doing research during spring break

4. Your last source is an advocacy group, and their for in herently biased. They vehently oppsosed spiritual healing, which in fact has shown to be effective in treating mild to moderate disorders.

1.) Where does it say that they vehemently oppose spiritual healing?

2.) Even if it is an advocacy group, it's a group of reproductive health care professionals. Doesn't that tell you something about how this man is viewed by his peers?

 

[verte76]

Hmmmm, just thinking, so many people go out of their way to avoid Genetically modified foods, and hormone enhanced dairy protects due to medical studies that show links to cancer and other serious health afflictions, yet don't seem to object to many of these same practices being used in contraception and other medications. Just thinking out loud on this...................

Some of these therapies are indeed a bit risky. But they beat the heck out of the alternatives. I don't want the government to make too many decisions for me.

 

[Scarletwine]

What about the studies showing use of low-dose progesterone, birth control pills that reduces the incidence of breast cancer, cervical cancer, and uterian cancer. Birth control pills have the opposite effect of hormone replacement therapy. They reduce the amount of estrogen in the body, that is typically increased during pregnancy and at a times throughout a women's cycle.

This appointment is just in line with Bush's other appointment. He put a logger in charge of our forests, an oil exec wanting to drill in Alaska, a corp. exec in charge of the EPA ( ok a little exaggurated but close).

edited:

I have nothing against Christian Scientist, but aren't his methods very close to parents relying on prayer to cure cancer stricken children?

 

[Discoteque]

as a conservative, God fearing, pro-life American woman, I tend to agree with Zooropa's comments on much of this, but I'll go further:

Sex outside of marriage brings:
- unwanted pregnancy which may lead to abortion
- a myriad of STDs, many of which have no cure, and can even kill you
- lots of guilt and shame
- plumetting self-esteem for some when a sexual relationship ends
- tendency to "compare" your mate with those who came before
- lack of trust between mates if they have both had sex before marriage

What about Abstinence? (remember that one?) It really is the only "fix" for these. Sex wasn't created to be the thing that its become. It should not be a mere right of passage, but a priviledge and a gift.

to believe that a person should wait for marraige to have sex is not a "bent" persepective. There are many who feel that this is appropriate. Nor is it wrong to try and discourage it, if at all possible.
I never said I outright support Bush's decision. Read my posts, quite the contrary, I don't like religion dictating policy, however to me, it's the lesser of two evils, I rather have him, than an uber-liberal who promotes abortion, radical & unproven scientific methods etc.
My apologies if you found this appalling.

I certainly didn't, tho I'm sure some folks think my comments probably are. No apologies on this one.

 

[Scarletwine]

as a conservative, God fearing, pro-life American woman, I tend to agree with Zooropa's comments on much of this, but I'll go further:

What about Abstinence? (remember that one?) It really is the only "fix" for these. Sex wasn't created to be the thing that its become. It should not be a mere right of passage, but a priviledge and a gift.

I certainly didn't, tho I'm sure some folks think my comments probably are. No apologies on this one.

Give me a break. We aren't talking about the youth pastor of your church. This is a national position that must take in all walks of life, religions, and no religion. This is a f**king health position. While the church has wonderful and useful teaching for life, that has (unfortunitely) little to do with real life. Real life statistics show:
1: the more sex education a person gets - the later the first act of intercourse

2: the more sex education given - the less teenage pregnancy

3: the more sex education given the lower the teenage STD rate

I don't deny the effectiveness of abstinence, but statistic have shown the above for over 20 years. I was lucky to grow up in a bible belt that believed in sex ed.

 

[pax]

Give me a break. We aren't talking about the youth pastor of your church. This is a national position that must take in all walks of life, religions, and no religion. This is a f**king health position.

Scarletwine--I understand that you vehemently disagree with Discoteque's position, but please keep it civil.

That said, abstinence-only sex ed. is, in my opinion, a nice thought--but nothing more. Abstinence should be taught first, but information about and access to contraceptives and condoms should also be given.

 

[anitram]

The medical community is split wrt the links between breast cancer and birth control pills. Large numbers, if not the majority of practicing physicians find the links to be statistically insignificant.

Once again, I say, it is up to each individual to make their own choice after weighing all the risks. Surely, there are some (headaches, nausea, weight gain or loss, breast tenderness, potentially cancer links), but a lot of it is also fearmongering, and the line must be drawn someplace. Zooropa, remember when you're out there demonizing the pill, that many women who may be reading it depend on this medication daily and for them, it may have changed their lives infinitely for the better, risks and all.