Conference turris::womannotes-v1

	The problem is that the abortion issue and contraceptive issue
	are not seperate.  Many anti-choice groups are also anti-contraceptive.
	They feel that some forms of contraceptive are also forms of
	abortions.  For example, the IUD causes an abortion by not
	allowing the fertilized egg to attach to the uterine wall.  Some
	also feel that "the pill" is a form of abortion (I'm not exactly
	sure how "the pill" works, and am confused about different types
	of "pills").  The upcoming constitutional ammendment in Mass.
	would give the legislature the right to make certain contraceptives
	illegal if they legislate that they are forms of abortion.

	I agree with you that increasing the use of contraception
	will decrease the amount of abortions performed (although
	people still get pregnent while using contraceptives, and the
	fear of contraceptive-caused damage to the fetus would encourage
	abortion).  I get very mad that the same people who are
	anti-abortion drop the problem there and do not address
	the methods to stop the pregnancy in the first place, or the
	care of the then unwanted child.  We need more sex-education
	in schools, and the support of groups like planned parenthood
	which helps people obtain contraceptives.

	...Karen

To step in (although I swore I wouldn't):

I heard a similar news report to the one that JimB put in the base note.
The issue seemed to revolve mostly around the inability of the various
pharmaceutical companies to buy liability insurance for the 'field testing'
of new drugs. In these litigatious times, it would be a major risk for
even the largest chemical companies to adequately test their drug on
even willing volunteers, because any and all of those involved could later
sue the company. The US government will not (rightly) let an untested 
drug onto the market. Worse though is that the US Government _may_ not
allow the manufacturer to test the drug in other countries and then apply
those results to the US marketplace.

I don't see it related to the present 'debate' on abortion, but more 
related to the current hysteria of the lawsuit.

			Nigel

    re .1                            
    There are two types of "pill". The Pill - the one that probably
    caused the 'sexual revolution " of the late 60's and early 70's
    acts on the body to mimic pregnancy. It acts on the pituitary to
    cause it to cease producing the hormones that ripen an egg and
    ready the uterus for implantation. It does not abort a fertilized
    egg rather, it prevents an egg from maturing. John Rock who developed
    the pill was a Roman Catholic had hoped that the pill would  be
    acceptable to his church as a birth control method precisely
    because it did not involve any mechancial method of preventing
    conception (as did the diaphragm and condom) nor did it involve
    any kind of abortion. Rather it mimics a natural condition, and
    regulates a natural cycle. (Who remembers all the young women who
    had the pill perscribed for them to "regulate" their menstural
    cycles?)
    The other pill - the morning after pill - uses a heavy dose of hormones
    to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting and thus is an abortifact.
    
    As to the fundamentalists and contraception, my impression is that
    they feel that pregnancy is a punishment for immoral behavior. People  
    should have to "pay" if they "sin". Some have recently started to
    deal with the fact that this punishment means a baby that a woman
    is not prepared to raise. However, to date, the only only thing
    that I have heard of is taking young women into homes and feeding
    them a heavy dose of their brand of religion, in exchange for taking
    care of the woman during her pregancy and placing her baby for
    adoption. My major objection to this is that to take advantage of
    the support the woman has to buy into their particular brand of
    Christianity. With the exception of groups like Golden Cradle,
    there seems to be very little in the way of a non denominational
    support system for women who choose to carry a baby rather than
    abort it but don't feel capable of raising a child.  
    (This leads  into the whole subject of adoption in general - but
    I think that is outside of the topic under discussion.
    Bonnie                              
    

>       that most of the major IUDs are no longer available. (They may
>       have claimed that only one major model is still available, but
>       my hair-dryer drowned out some of that part.) 
        
        Minor point, but just in case anyone cares: there is indeed
        apparently one IUD still available in the U.S.... the
        Progestasert (spelling vaguely uncertain).  Plastic and
        hormones.   They tend to fall out, incidentally.
        
        As for abortion laws... of course they won't stop abortions.
        There were abortions, and lots of deaths due to them, long
        before abortions were legal.  Abortion laws just take us
        back to the old days, where rich people to go another country
        to get one, and poor people get them in back alleys with
        unsterilized coathangers from dirty quacks.  
        
        But then, the primary objective of Reagan and his
        "fundamentalist" cohorts seems to be to take civilization
        back a couple of hundred years to when they'd like to think
        things were "simpler" and "better".
        
        Better, and wider spread, contraception is extremely important
        for a lot of reasons.  I just wish those catholics would
        have the sense to allow them... that might help the situation
        quite a bit, even with only the currently available
        contraceptives.
        
        Until something is done about the perception that nobody
        is responsible for their own actions, research---or at least,
        products---in areas like contraception are likely to be few
        and far between, and approval will take forever.  Companies
        just can't afford to take that sort of risk... if it doesn't
        work perfectly for just one person, they could be bankrupted.
        
        There are a *lot* of diverse causes for the current situation.
        I doubt if there are any single, or simple, solutions.
        Education is probably the most important.
        
        	/dave

    What really burns me about the "pro-lifers" is not the anti-abortion
    stand (which I don't agree with), but their refusal to allow
    sex education in the schools. For some reason, they seem to believe
    that sex education involves reading the KAMA SUTRA and watching
    porno movies. If kids knew the responsibilities one assumes when
    entering a sexual relationship and the possible consequences thereof,
    there would be alot fewer teenage pregnancy. Look at the questions
    ASK BETH gets sometimes. There are still alot of myths being
    disseminated amongst the young, and most of it is lies told by boys
    to girls to reassure them they won't get pregnant. If those girls
    knew the Truth, there may be less teenage sex (if contraceptives
    were not freely available) and there would definitley be fewer
    pregnancies.
    
    But anyway, I find the idea that sex is and of itself sinful very
    repugnant. Sex can be sinful when abused, but it is also an expression
    of love. 
    
    (sorry I was interrupted and lost my train of thought, so I'll leave
    this uncompleted.)
    
    sm

re .3

Cardinal Bernard Law (Boston Archdiocese) announced about 6 months ago that
the church was going to set up a program to "take care" of pregnant women
(maybe specifically teens).  I never heard anything about that plan, after
the initial announcements.  Anyone know what happened to this?
					-- hs

	    If anybody has a contraband copy of SEXCETERA around, please
	let me know.  I typed in some long notes about contraception,
	and I think they'd be appropriate for this notesfile.
			<_Jym_>

    Good news!  A new type of IUD is (or soon will be) available in
    the US.  My understanding is that an extensive safety study was
    done, and the company is going to go ahead & release it here.  Guess
    I won't need to take that little trip to Canada after all.
    
    Seems it is to be a copper T (a T-shaped piece of plastic with copper
    wire wrapped around the stem and a single filament leading into
    the vagina), very much like the copper 7 I have come to know and
    love.
    
    Anyone know where it can be found?  My GYN wants to remove the old
    one but I'd like to have a new one inserted at the same time.
    
    Lee

    There was an article in the Dallas paper last weekend about it.
    That article said it isn't available yet, but the company (I forget
    their name) plans to start marketing it around the first part of
    '88.  I'd imagine your doctor will get information on how to obtain
    them.
    
    The manufacturer is avoiding liability by requiring each recipient to
    read and sign an extensive warning, as well as initialing each
    individual risk that is listed.  That way no one can claim they weren't
    told of the risks. 
    
    Personally, I don't see why the manufacturers didn't resort to that
    in the first place instead of taking the darn things off the market!
    
    							Pat
    							an IUD proponent

    At the World S.F. Convention this year was a local expert on
    the biological sciences.  He was a Dr. Jack Cohen (sp?), and (among
    many other fascinating things) said that he had gotten interested
    in why males produced so many zillions of sperm, and as a result
    of his investigations he now thought that a male contraceptive
    would be possible, easy to implement, and safe to use.
    
    Interesting, huh?
    
    							Ann B.

How is the new IUD really differnt from the old IUD?

RE: .10

Thank God!

Jim.

    re: new IUD
    
    from what I've seen it is a "T" version of the old Cu-7, and has
    NO similarity to the Dalkon Shield.  On the stem of the "T", a slender
    copper wire is coiled, to help in the contraceptive action.
    Presumably, it will need to be changed when the Cu has totally eroded,
    about 3 years for the Cu-7.  
    
    Major safety factor is that the string which passes through the
    cervix is a monofilament, very similar to nylon fishing line.  The
    string for the Dalkon Shield was multifilament -- like normal thread,
    I guess, and served to wick all the nasty germs and yeasts from
    the vagina to the uterus where a uterine infection would occur,
    leaving all sorts of nasty residues (fibroids? closing Fallopians
    in some cases) if you were lucky enough to find and kill the infection
    before it killed you.
    
    re: limiting liability
    
    Yup, that's exactly it.  You can still sue (and win, I am told)
    even if you've signed a waiver saying you won't hold <> responsible.
    They have you sign to deter you from trying...
    
    When anyone finds out about the copper T, let me know because my
    copper 7 is due for replacement.
    
    Lee

    re. gale
    i called my doctor in concord in november about an IUD
    
    he is still putting them in
    
    i will assume that it is the new one
    
    
    kelly