Planned Parenthood launches campaign against Pope Benedict XVI

This is hilarious. I'm sure Pope Benedict will rethink his position. (Sarcasm)

dont you mean "Planned Non-parenthood"

how many moms are coming out of their clinics?

*cast bait*

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

"nominal Catholics and non-Catholics"

Correction -
nominal Catholics = non-Catholics

And it is because of treasonous Rockefeller Republicans like the Bushes of Kennebunkport that Planned Parenthood achieved recognition and credibility after its founding. Don't forget that.

Pray before you go to the clinics.

Prayer at the clinics (pray before you go) only makes pro-lifers look like a bunch of religious FREAKS, and stops people who might otherwise be willing to participate in the protest from joining. How many more clinics would have been shut down if stubborn people like you would have recognized that truth? And how foolish of you to continue to resist that truth and insist you are right.

Pro-life is not just Catholic or religious issue. The sooner people begin to realize that the better.

I was so happy when I joined FR to be able get together with a group of people and protest in a normal manner.

They are just after an expanded donor list, finding some more dupes willing to risk their souls to them.

THE FDA SAYS ONLY 1% OF LATEX DEATHS ARE REPORTED

Delayed contact dermatitis from chemicals in rubber has been recognized since the 1930s.4 But except for rare early reports, clinicians did not appreciate systemic allergic reactions to latex proteins until 1979, when case reports began to appear in Europe. 5

Latex allergy erupted in the United States shortly after the Centers for Disease Control introduced universal precautions in 1987. By late 1992, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 1133 reports of serious allergic reactions and anaphylaxis occurring to patients and health care staff associated with 30 classes of latex medical devices. There were 15 patient deaths associated with latex barium enema catheters.5,6

The FDA estimated that the reports represented only 1% of actual occurrences.6

Today, researchers hypothesize that the latex allergy outbreak is the result of multiple factors including deficiencies in manufacturing processes, increased latex exposure, hand care practices, immunological cross reactivity, and changes in latex agricultural practices.1,7,8, 45

Latex allergy affects between 8%-12% of workers in all health disciplines. Latex allergy also affects up to 51% of children with spina bifida, and approximately 1% of the general population.

http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/workplac/wklatex.htm

____________

New US government website attacked for comments on sexuality and effectiveness of condoms

The wording of information about condoms on the site is also potentially misleading (they mean factual). US abstinence education programmes usually only mention condoms when referring to their potential for failure.

The 4parents.com site suggests that condoms offer only “moderate” protection against HIV and gonorrhoea, “less” protection against Chlamidya, herpes and human papilloma virus, and that the ability of condoms to protect against syphilis “has not been well studied.” Although these claims are backed by reference to studies looking at the effectiveness of condoms, they do not acknowledge that the studies were, almost exclusively, conducted in populations with a high prevalence, or risk of sexually transmitted infections.

____

The rest of the article (attacking the new semi honest official statements on condoms) is a pathetic attempt to defend condoms citing the one and only study (if you can call it that) conducted over twelve years ago that claimed that condoms reduced 'AIDS' in the 132 couples studied. As usual the 'conclusions' section of that report which said 'in real world use condoms failed up to 32% of the time' was ignored.

This study has been contradicted by ALL the 400 subsequent studies almost without exception.

________

Do Condoms Protect Against Small Viruses?

The use of condoms is widely recommended to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, including those caused by such viruses as herpes simplex, hepatitis B, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The efficacy of condoms in these circumstances, however, is unknown.

The water-leak test used to ensure the integrity of condoms can detect holes as small as 3 to 4 m in diameter, but sexually transmitted viruses are much smaller, with diameters of 0.04 to 0.15 m. A previous study demonstrated that about one third of condoms tested allowed penetration of HIV-sized polystyrene spheres.

________

Condom Use Linked to Risk of Preeclampsia

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/433419?srcmp=wh-051002

LOS ANGELES (Reuters Health) May 09 - Women who are not exposed to a partner's sperm prior to pregnancy because the couple used condoms may be at increased risk for developing preeclampsia, a new study presented here concludes.

The findings suggest that when the uterus is repeatedly exposed to sperm, a woman's immune system may become accustomed to this "foreign" genetic material, said Dr. Jon I. Einarsson, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

However, when a woman's body has only recently been introduced to the sperm because she stopped using barrier contraception and was trying to conceive, she may have an immune reaction to the paternal genetic material that causes arterial damage and contributes to preeclampsia, Dr. Einarsson suggested. This reaction may be heightened because the placenta produces paternal proteins similar to those on sperm, he told Reuters Health.

Preeclampsia affects about 7% of pregnant women, yet little is understood about why the condition develops, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The Baylor study findings were presented Wednesday during the College's annual meeting.

Dr. Einarsson described his team's findings for 113 women who developed preeclampsia during their pregnancies and another 226 women who did not.

He said those who used barrier methods and had only been having sex with their partners for a short period of time were most at risk. "Women who used barrier methods who had been having sex with their partners for less than 4 months prior to getting pregnant had a 6.5-fold increased risk of getting preeclampsia, compared with women who did not use barrier methods and had been in a sexual relationship for more than 12 months," he said.
Most women in the study who reported using barrier contraception relied on condoms, while some also used diaphragms. Women who relied on the withdrawal method also were included in this group.
"Women who use barrier methods exclusively prior to pregnancy should consider changing to an alternative method 4 to 6 months prior to getting pregnant, especially if they have other risk factors for preeclampsia, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or if they are overweight," Dr. Einarsson recommended.

Reuters Health Information 2002. © 2002 Reuters Ltd

_________

Are condoms a greater health risk than the std's they don't really protect against?

It is politically correct to advocate condoms but every day the evidence increases that they do little to protect and may pose a very serious health risk. It is hard for the CDC and FDA to examine these risks as they have been so vocal in promoting condoms but could their silence lead to dire consequences. I for one having done exaustive research strongly feel so.

"...... new concerns are arising regarding allergic or other toxic reactions to various components of latex condoms such as vulcanization accelerators, latex proteins, spermicides and finishing powders."

"* Studies are needed to evaluate the best lubricants to use in the manufacture of condoms. Evidence suggests that the right quantity, type and placement of lubricant is important for condom functionality, acceptability and safety.

In addition, the added value and risk presented by spermicidal lubricants and by dry finishing powders (e.g. talc or cornstarch) should be critically examined."

"Since the late 1980s the reported incidence
of allergy to natural rubber latex has increased dramatically, as much as 12 -fold."

"Latex allergy is incurable, although the symptoms, such as itching, soreness, painful blistering, runny noses, swollen eyes, asthma symptoms and anaphylaxis can be ameliorated.

Everyone who has contact wi th natural rubber latex is potentially at risk from sensitisation.

Both patients and health care workers can be at risk from allergic reactions to natural rubber latex. Over the past decade, allergic reactions to natural
rubber latex have become a major public health concern."

" Once a person has developed latex allergy, however mild, they are “sensitised” to latex and are at risk from severe allergic reactions."

"Delayed cell-mediated reactions are the most common form of hypersensitivity reaction to natural rubber latex. These reactions are to individual chemical residues from the production process such as accelerants used in the vulcanisation process which is required to strengthen the product.

The residual chemicals may bloo on the surface of the products and can be absorbed through the skin upon contact."

"Potent Carcinogen found in Most Condoms

Recent study has discovered the presence of a very potent carcinogen in most condoms. Small amounts of this chemical are released whenever condoms are used.

Nobody knows whether this is serious yet however it is not likely to be healthy to expose the reproductive organs to cancer-causing substances on a regular basis.

This is a potentially serious issue for much of the world's population that cannot afford or access other forms of birth control. I hope further studies will follow on this soon. Could this be related to the rise in cancer in women, and men as well? "

"Talc...(on condoms)...may result in fallopian tube fibrosis with resultant infertility. Question raised by Doctors Kasper and Chandler in Journal of the American Medical Association. (JAMA) 3/15/95
-from Nutrition Health Review, Summer 1995 n73p8(1)"

"A possible tie between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, long suspected because of talc's chemical similarity to asbestos, was strongly supported last week when a study found a higher risk of the cancer among women who used feminine deodorant sprays. The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that women who used talcum powder in the genital area had an increased ovarian cancer risk of 60% and women who used feminine deodorant sprays had a 90% increased risk."

-from The University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter, April 1993 v9n7p1

"Benzene. In addition to the effect on fertility, some researchers believe overexposure to chemicals may also contribute to testicular cancers. In fact, a 2000 study concluded that there was a link between sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer.
Among the study participants, men in couples with fertility problems were more likely to develop testicular cancer. In addition, low semen concentration, poor sperm motility, and abnormal sperm morphology were all associated with increased risk for testicular cancer."

"a recent Lancet study (2002;360:971-977) found frequent use may in fact increase the risk of HIV transmission.
The head of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations, Don Baxter, said up to 10 percent of condoms sold in Australia include nonoxynol-9 as a lubricant. "Not a high percentage of condoms use nonoxynol-9, it's usually a particular brand, but they are fairly widely available," he said. Baxter advised all gay men to avoid using condoms with nonoxynol-9 and said AFAO would call for the product to be withdrawn from pharmacy shelves. "

"The allergens that cause reactions in individuals with spina bifida are particle bound proteins that are less able to be dissolved in water than some of the other latex proteins"

* Talc - This is found in baby powders, face powders, body powders as well as some contraceptives such as condoms. Talc is a known carcinogen and is a major cause of ovarian cancer when used in the genital area. It can be harmful if inhaled as it can lodge in the lungs, causing respiratory disorders."

Condoms contain compounds known to cause cancer and serious birth defects in substantial quantities

New US government website attacked for comments on sexuality and effectiveness of condoms

The wording of information about condoms on the site is also potentially misleading (they mean factual). US abstinence education programmes usually only mention condoms when referring to their potential for failure.

The 4parents.com site suggests that condoms offer only “moderate” protection against HIV and gonorrhoea, “less” protection against Chlamidya, herpes and human papilloma virus, and that the ability of condoms to protect against syphilis “has not been well studied.” Although these claims are backed by reference to studies looking at the effectiveness of condoms, they do not acknowledge that the studies were, almost exclusively, conducted in populations with a high prevalence, or risk of sexually transmitted infections.

____

The rest of the article (attacking the new semi honest official statements on condoms) is a pathetic attempt to defend condoms citing the one and only study (if you can call it that) conducted over twelve years ago that claimed that condoms reduced 'AIDS' in the 132 couples studied. As usual the 'conclusions' section of that report which said 'in real world use condoms failed up to 32% of the time' was ignored.

This study has been contradicted by ALL the 400 subsequent studies almost without exception.

The CC answers to God...to God's Word. And I admire them for NOT kow-towing to the popular PC crap.

So do I, although I'm not exactly a 'good Catholic'(I haven't even been to church in years...)