“WOMEN constitute more than half the population in the United States. Yet our health-care system treats women’s health needs as if they are something outside the normal realm of services.”

In an OpEd article published in the Seattle Times, Tuesday, August 18, Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood VOTES! Washington, stated,” Women are penalized in the U.S. health-care system because of their anatomy, paying 68 percent more out-of-pocket for care than men.”

In her article, “Get health-care reform right for women” Elaine Rose argues that health-care reform should carefully consider how to best meet women’s needs.

WOMEN constitute more than half the population in the United States. Yet our health-care system treats women’s health needs as if they are something outside the normal realm of services.

Women’s health care is in fact basic health care: annual gynecological exams; pap smears to screen for cervical cancer; breast-cancer screening, and birth control. Unfortunately, in our current health-care system, women are penalized simply because of their anatomy. On average, women of childbearing age pay 68 percent more out-of-pocket for their health care largely because of reproductive-health needs.

As our nation continues debating health-care reform, we need to make sure that we get it right for women. This generation of women — and our daughters and granddaughters — depends on it. Reproductive health care should not be separated out as something unusual. It is simply basic health care for women.

Internationally, it has long been established that offering reproductive-health services and information improves the health and well-being of women, families and entire communities. Why is it that here our elected officials still struggle to recognize the tremendous value of these services?

The public gets it. Polls have shown that 75 percent of all voters favor making it easier for women at all income levels to obtain contraceptives. Yet elected officials like Washington’s U.S. Reps. Dave Reichert, Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris Rodgers voted this July in favor of an amendment that would have defunded Planned Parenthood and denied reproductive-health services to thousands of women in their districts and millions of women across the U.S. The funding at stake was federal Title X money, which provides essential, basic health services like contraception and cancer screening to the poorest women in our country.

While reproductive-health services are basic, like many health services, they deal with personal and private matters. Women depend on reproductive-health-care providers who are confidential, nonjudgmental and qualified to handle their specific concerns. For many women, a community reproductive-health-care clinic is their only contact with the health-care system. It’s where they get their birth control and also many primary-health-care needs met.

Research has shown that six out of 10 women who visit a reproductive-health-care clinic consider it their primary source of health care. Reproductive-health-care clinics — like Planned Parenthood — are essential community providers for millions of American women. Low-income women in particular rely on community clinics because they offer low-cost services using a sliding-fee scale.

Some extremists try to paint Planned Parenthood as strictly an abortion provider. While we are proud that we offer women needed access to safe, legal abortion services, it may surprise some people that abortion services make up only 3 percent of our services in Washington. Basic preventive health care like cancer screenings, contraceptives and annual exams make up 97 percent of the services we provide. We are a trusted, essential community provider to millions of Americans and more than 177,000 individuals in Washington.

It’s clear our health-care system is broken. Millions of Americans don’t have access to the health care they need. People are forced to use emergency rooms in desperation. Health-care costs are rising at an unsustainable rate for families and businesses alike. The U.S. is ranked 41st in the world for its maternal-mortality rates.

Congress and the Obama administration are engaged in a battle to change an entrenched American system. Let’s make sure that in the process of crafting a new way of getting health care to Americans, we don’t lose sight of the health-care needs of half our population. Women deserve direct and confidential access to their provider of choice. They deserve to have all their basic health-care needs met. Let’s get health-care reform right for women.

To read the complete article and the comments go to: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009685309_guest19rose.htm

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

The freedom of women to use the form of birth control that best suits their individual needs is something most young women in this country take for granted. In yesterday’s post I commented that access to birth control is a relatively recent “right”. As I mused about how reproductive rights helped women move their careers forward, I remembered an article written last fall by Katie McBeth and published in a college online newspaper, the cavalierdaily.com. Originally I had it filed in the, “My, my, my, how things have changed” category. McBeth wrote  a wonderful, observational piece that demonstrates just how young women view birth control today.

Forty-five years ago birth control activist were jailed for distributing birth control information and products on college campuses. Today, breezy, informative, well-written articles about birth control options are considered normal fare in college newspapers.  I’ve included the article below.

Bra-shopping for birth control

Katie McBeth
Published: Wednesday, October 29 2008, cavalierdaily.com

Shopping for birth control can feel a lot like bra shopping — you have to choose the right fit, amount of padding, support, color, style — the options can overwhelm you. Of course, once you find the perfect fit, you swear by it and end up with multiples of the same bra. A similar phenomenon occurs with birth control — like the episode of “Seinfeld” where Elaine buys all the “Today Sponges” she can get her hands on after finding out they will no longer be made because she swears by them as birth control. Most women agree with that sentiment and are often reluctant to change the method they use.

There are methods of birth control we’re all fairly familiar with, such as condoms and the Pill. Condoms are easily available over the counter, are fairly inexpensive and are accessible to all. When used properly, they are considered 98-percent effective and, compared to non-barrier methods of contraception, have the added benefit of helping to protect against sexually transmitted infections. Condoms are often considered inconvenient, though, because they require partners to interrupt their activities. Also, many people do not use condoms correctly, which diminishes their effectiveness at preventing pregnancy to about 85 percent. And condoms do have the possibility of tearing, especially if they are expired. Remember when using condoms that you should only use one — so-called “double bagging” actually increases the risk that condoms will tear.

Historically, there was only one method of oral contraception, which became known as the Pill, but today, there are several options. The different options vary by the amount of hormones, length of menstruation, number of periods per year and whether the dose varies each week. We’ve all seen commercials for Yaz and Seasonale, two newer options that shorten menstrual cycles and decrease the number of periods per year, respectively. Choosing a birth control pill depends on your personal preferences and what you and your health care provider decide is the best option for you. When used correctly, pills can be more than 99-percent effective in preventing pregnancy, but they do not protect against STIs.

In addition to these two methods of contraception, there are many others, including things like the ring (NuvaRing), implantable method (Implanon), the Shot (Depo-Provera), the Patch (Ortho Evra), intrauterine devices and emergency contraception.

The ring is a flexible plastic ring that a woman inserts in her vagina around her cervix and leaves in place for three weeks. The ring is removed for one week, similar to the week of inactive pills in oral contraceptives. The ring works by releasing the hormones estrogen and progestin to prevent ovulation and because it releases hormones similar to the Pill, it is similarly as effective. Because the ring has to be inserted and removed from the vagina by hand, many people feel uncomfortable with it. Because it is inserted for three weeks at a time though, many enjoy the freedom of not having to remember to take a daily pill. In my opinion, this option is not for the faint of heart and definitely works best for women who are extremely comfortable with themselves.

Implanon is a small, match-stick size rod inserted underneath the skin of the upper arm for up to three years. It works by releasing the hormone progestin to prevent ovulation. This option is great for women who are looking for more long-term methods of contraception and aren’t planning to become pregnant for at least three years, although it can be removed if a woman changes her mind. Similar to other methods, it’s about 99-percent effective when used correctly. While convenient, it’s not yet widely available.

Depo-Provera shots are given every 12 weeks to prevent pregnancy by releasing the hormone progestin to prevent ovulation and is more than 99-percent effective. It is also convenient for women who do not want to remember to take a daily pill and is helpful at reducing the frequency and heaviness of periods to the point that some women do not have periods after one year of use. The disadvantage is that injections cost between $30 and $75 each and are often not covered by insurance policies. It’s also not a good option for people who are terrified of getting shots.

The Patch is a small beige patch, similar in size to Nicotine patches. It is placed on the skin of the butt, upper arm or lower abdomen for one week at a time for up to three consecutive weeks, followed by an off-week to allow for menstruation. When used correctly, it is more than 99-percent effective. It has the advantage of not being a daily medication and being very inconspicuous, but it is slightly more expensive than pills. About three years ago, however, the patch was discovered to have a 60-percent higher dose of estrogen than birth control pills and it increases the risk of developing life-threatening blood clots. If the patch is an option you are considering, it is very important to discuss these risks with your doctor.

An IUD is a small T-shaped device inserted into the uterus by your doctor. They primarily work by interfering with the movement of sperm and preventing them from joining with an egg. There are two main varieties — one is made of copper and lasts for up to 12 years, and the other releases the hormone progestin and lasts for five years. Many consider IUDs to be one of the most effective methods of birth control because they are 99-percent effective and do not introduce any variability in effectiveness based on how correctly you use them. It’s also a one-time expenditure for more than 5 years of contraception, depending on which specific device you choose. A major risk of IUDs is that they can essentially “trap” bacteria, such as chlamydia and gonorrhea and increase the risk of developing pelvic inflammatory disease, so they are not encouraged for use in people who have multiple sexual partners and who are not using barrier contraception in addition to the IUD to prevent STIs.

And, when all else fails, there’s always “Plan B” or emergency contraception. The morning-after pill is a super-dose of the same hormones in birth control pills. It can be started up to five days after intercourse, although most recommend that it is started within 72 hours for maximum effectiveness. Some mistakenly think that Plan B is an abortion pill, but it is not; it works by thickening cervical mucus to prevent sperm from entering the uterus and joining with the egg and also by lessening the likelihood that an egg will implant in the uterine wall. It should not be used as a primary method of birth control under any circumstances, but accidents happen and it is a very effective backup method if you’re worried that your primary method may have failed.

Remember that there are even more options out there than these; if considering the use of birth control, you should discuss various options with your physician to determine which method is the best for you.

Katie is a University Medical student. She can be reached at k.mcbeth@cavalierdaily.com.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Last night I noticed that VH1 was running a retrospective of the “Sexual Revolution” of the 60s and 70s.  I had a front row seat for the original show, and I thought it would be interesting to look back on the liberation process from the viewpoint of a wise woman. In the daily battles of life, one can forget large victories and small blessings.  It was illegal to share information about and to sell contraceptive products in the early sixties. Sex education was limited to, “Keep you knees together until you say I do and have a wedding band on your hand.”

Then came the great liberator, THE PILL!

Women could have a career AND sex and not have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. This was a big damn deal in the fight for equal pay. Companies used the ‘impeding-mommy’ excuse to deny women promotions. After all, women were only in the workforce ‘temporally’, until like good girls, we got pregnant and stayed home to fulfill our real job— wife and mother.

That sounds insane more than 30-years later, but in the 60s and 70s the newspaper want ads were divided into two sections, MEN and WOMEN. Guys got offered the career positions and we got the pink-collar, clerical positions. In 1969, I was up for a promotion based on education and demonstrable experience. My boss, looking directly at my abdominal area, said that he didn’t want to train me for the manager’s position, only to loose me to a pregnancy-leave. I looked dear old Gil straight in the eye and honestly stated, lip quivering for affect, and hoping the glint of anger in my eyes might be mistaken for a gentler emotion and said, “I can never have another child.” He looked acutely embarrassed to have brought up an obviously distressing subject, and agreed to give me the manager’s slot on a trial basis. I left his office knowing that indeed I hadn’t lied. I would never have another child. I could never afford another child.

I was a single mom, struggling to pay the mounting hospital bills for my son who, at 18-months, suffered an adverse reaction from his DPT vaccine. Twelve hours after his injection, my happy healthy little boy, was hospitalized with Glomerulonephritis (nephritic syndrome) a disorder characterized by body tissue swelling (edema), high blood pressure, and the presence of red blood cells in the urine. Tom was in and out of the hospital for the next 6-years, and had special needs requirements through high school.

Business associates often thought I was career driven. Actually, I devoted most of my early professional life to simply paying for my son’s medical care. Every pay raise mattered. For many of the working moms in the 70s, and we were not a small sisterhood, reliable birth control was the basis of a reproductive rights revolution. Having reasonably safe, reliable birth control allowed women to take control of our personal and professional lives, and the ability to develop careers that would support our families.

So as cool as the pre-aids, free love, movement sounds on VH1, for most of us, the benefits of the sexual revolution were far more pragmatic. The sound track of the “sexual revolution” still holds up, however it is disconcerting to hear the music of one’s rebellious youth in the elevator and on the easy listening radio station.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

But since it’s an abortion drug, since it weathered a congressional investigation two years ago–and since it’s in short supply–researchers have yet to test its full potential.

That, says Amy Allina, program director of the Washington-based National Women’s Health Network, is the story on mifepristone. “This drug has the potential to make women healthier in many ways,” says Allina. “But the politics surrounding it have made it difficult to secure funding for more research, and scientists are shying away from studying the drug because they fear getting research protocols approved will be difficult.”

A 2006 paper in the medical journal Gynecological Endocrinology agreed, saying “association with abortion limits the clinical applications of mifepristone.”

Susan Wood, former director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office on Women’s Health and now a research professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services in Washington, D.C., says Election Day might make a big difference.

“A new presidential administration could change the atmosphere at the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research, and the FDA, which oversees it,” says Wood, who resigned from the FDA in 2005 to protest delays in granting emergency contraceptives over-the-counter status. “A new administration has the potential to reduce the hesitancy that government and private funders might have about mifepristone.”

Short Supplies

Kevin Fiscella, an associate professor at New York’s University of Rochester Medical Center, says studies on mifepristone’s applications beyond abortion have been limited by a shortage of the drug.

“For more than a decade, it was difficult for American researchers to get their hands on mifepristone because there wasn’t a U.S. supplier,” says Fiscella. “Now it’s available through Danco Laboratories, a relatively small supplier that may not be able to produce quantities needed for larger studies.”

Mifespristone was the subject of congressional hearings in 2006 that followed the deaths of six U.S. women and one Canadian who took it to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

All the women died of bacterial infections, and the FDA strengthened the drug’s warning label to stress the risk, though it was never withdrawn for use in medical abortion.

In the two years since the hearing, authorities have not established a definitive link between those fatalities and the use of mifepristone to induce abortions, but widespread research into the drug remains sidelined by an anti-choice federal government.

More than 900,000 U.S. women and more than 2 million women in 37 other countries have used mifepristone in medical abortions, according to its New York-based manufacturer, Danco.

More than 97 percent of users surveyed would recommend the method to a friend, according to the New York-based Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Even so, the FDA has received reports of more than 950 problems (mostly hemorrhaging and infection) associated with mifepristone’s use for abortions.

Higher Risk for Medical Abortion

Though only 0.016 percent of users experience these side effects, medical abortion still carries 10 times the risk of death associated with surgical abortion, according to Planned Parenthood.

Mifepristone is offered by 60 percent of U.S. abortion providers and accounts for 13 percent of all abortions and 22 percent of those before nine weeks’ gestation, according to the New York-based Guttmacher Institute.

In 2006, Ohio legislators passed a measure that would restrict the drug’s use for abortions and as a research subject in the state but the law was struck down by a federal court.

In 2007, two mifepristone researchers in Canada reportedly received death threats from anti-choice activists, but nevertheless moved forward with their research.

Mifepristone was in various stages of research investigation before the scare in 2006.

Fiscella, at the University of Rochester Medical Center, is investigating the drug’s potential to treat fibroids. His research shows taking mifepristone can lead to a 40 percent reduction in the size of fibroids, noncancerous uterine growths that can impair fertility and cause pelvic pain and anemia.

“In small doses, mifepristone blocks the reproductive hormone progesterone, which is why it may help with progesterone-affected conditions such as fibroids, endometriosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancers,” says Fiscella. “In larger doses, mifepristone blocks glucocorticoid hormones released during stress, which is why it may help treat conditions affected by these hormones, such as depression and Cushing’s syndrome.”

Studies Showed Promise

Mifepristone studies underway before the 2006 congressional hearings include ones related to breast cancer (the University of California); depression (Stanford University); ovarian cancer (the University of South Dakota); and endometriosis, or the growth of uterine tissue outside the uterus (the Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine). All these studies showed positive outcomes before 2006.

Although rarely prescribed this way, mifepristone can work as an emergency contraceptive if taken within five days of unprotected sex, though it is a different drug from Plan B, also called the “morning-after” pill.

“Mifepristone can serve as emergency contraception as safely and effectively as it terminates early pregnancy,” says Beverly Winikoff, president of the New York-based Gynuity Health Projects.

Other studies have found possible applications of the drug for Alzheimer’s disease, glaucoma, ulcers, meningiomas (tumors that arise from the membranes lining the brain and spinal cord) and Cushing’s syndrome (a condition in which prolonged exposure to stress hormones causes stretch marks, high blood pressure and other health problems).

If patients want to try mifepristone for other applications besides its FDA-approved use to induce abortion, doctors may prescribe it “off label,” a common practice in which physicians can write prescriptions for a drug approved for one purpose for that drug’s use in a second purpose.

Off-label use is considered safe if it is supported by research. In fact, many drugs prescribed to women for pregnancy-related conditions are prescribed off-label. Drugs developed specifically to treat pregnant women are rarely developed by pharmaceutical companies and no new classes of drugs for pregnancy-related treatments have been developed in the past two decades, according to a study published in January.

However, health advocates say mifepristone’s widespread use for emergency contraception and for the treatment of endometriosis, fibroids, cancer and other illnesses will only come with more study and with official FDA approval for these uses. Off-label prescriptions are not encouraged until research on a drug is definitive.

“The Bush administration has been staunchly opposed to reproductive choice in general and to the use of mifepristone in particular,” Allina says. “But having a new administration after the 2008 election could result in less stigma, more federal and private funding and eventual FDA approval for more uses.”

By Molly M. Ginty – WeNews correspondent

Molly is a freelance writer based in New York City.

Reprinted with Permission:

Copyright 2008 Women’s eNews. The information contained in this Women’s eNews report may–with the prior written authorization of Women’s eNews–be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed. To obtain permission, go to http://www.copyright.com/ccc/do/showConfigurator?WT.mc_id=PubLink and provide the publication or broadcast date and the name of the newspaper, magazine, radio or television station, cable network, Web site, newsletter or list serve where it will be replicated. Please include the approximate size of the audience you intend to reach. Answers to your most frequently asked questions about permissions to reprint or repost Women’s eNews content are available here: http://www.womensenews.org/reprint_faq.cfm

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

If you’re approaching the middle years of your life, it might be time to review your choice of contraceptives. But don’t be too hasty in putting them away for good.

Middle-age women and teenagers have the highest rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in the United States, says physician Michele Curtis, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas-Houston Medical School.

“Teenagers think they’re bulletproof,” she says. “Middle-age women think it’s too late. They say, ‘I’m 45, my fertility is dropping and I’m having hot flashes. What do you mean, I’m pregnant?’ ”

Misconceptions about the safety of birth-control methods contribute to the incidence of later-than-desired pregnancies, says physician Andrew Kaunitz, who reviewed contraceptive choices and their risks for women 35 and older for a study published in the March 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.”Many women assume it becomes unsafe for them to use oral contraceptives or other hormonal contraceptives as they get older,” Kaunitz, a gynecologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, says by phone. “And that is true for women in their mid-30s and older if they’re smokers or grossly overweight or have high blood pressure, diabetes or migraines.”For them, the cardiovascular risks associated with combination estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives outweigh the benefits, he says.”But for healthy, non-smoking, lean women,” he says, “the pill remains safe for as long as they need birth control, up until the time of menopause.”The dangers associated with pregnancy when a woman is in her 40s are “considerably higher” than those linked to oral-contraceptive use, says Kaunitz, who reports receiving fees from contraceptive makers.

Denise Hanson, 45, of Mesa, in good health and a non-smoker, falls into the category of women for whom oral contraceptives usually are safe. But when she turned 40, she considered alternatives.

“I was a little concerned about still being on birth-control pills at that age,” she says.

Around the same time, her husband, Mark, was on a health kick, encouraging his family to choose unprocessed foods and vitamins over medicine when possible.

Denise went off the pill, and the couple began using condoms. Without the regulating effect of the pill, however, her menstrual periods became heavy and she needed an endometrial ablation to control the bleeding.

Because the Hansons’ family is complete – they have two kids, Alec, 16, and Haley, 10 – she underwent a non-surgical tubal ligation called Essure at the same time as the ablation, which destroys a thin layer of the uterine lining.

“It had taken me a long time to get pregnant with both my kids,” Denise says, “so I thought I might not even need birth control any longer.”

But she decided that wasn’t a chance she wanted to take in the years until menopause, which begins for many women at about 50.

In the Essure procedure she chose, doctors thread tiny springlike coils through the woman’s cervix and into her fallopian tubes, where scar tissue forms and blocks sperm from reaching the egg.

Approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration in 2002, Essure is one of the contraception choices boomers didn’t have when they began using birth control. Other contraceptives have since been improved.

“The pill certainly is safer than it was,” the University of Florida’s Kaunitz says, “and women who use it experience less nausea and breast tenderness than they used to.”

The oral contraceptives prescribed routinely today are low-dose, containing 20 to 35 micrograms of estrogen compared with 80 to 150 mcg when they became available in the early 1960s, he says.

Kaunitz says his review found that pill use does not increase risk for breast cancer, heart attack or stroke in healthy older women, and it may provide benefits beyond preventing pregnancy. These appear to include reductions in bone fractures and in ovarian, endometrial and colorectal cancers, he says.

However, using the pill contributes to the formation of blood clots, even in younger women, Kaunitz says. The likelihood of developing a clot remains small, he says, but being overweight or older than 35 multiplies the odds. Women with those risk factors should consider non-estrogen contraception, such as injections, in-arm implants or intrauterine devices.

Curtis, the Houston doctor, recommends the low-dose pill as the best choice for healthy women who want to prevent both pregnancy and the abnormal bleeding that often accompanies their premenopausal years.

But for those who can’t or don’t want to use the pill, an IUD that releases the hormone progestin in the uterus offers similar hormonal control over inconvenient and unpredictable menstrual periods, she says. It doesn’t get into the bloodstream and affect the rest of the body as oral contraceptives do.

Women who have had a blood clot, have a family history of a blood disorder or have a breast mass that has not been checked out are not good candidates for oral contraceptives, Curtis says. If they have well-controlled high blood pressure or diabetes, they should talk with their doctor about whether the low-dose pill would be safe for them.

The one thing a sexually active woman should do is use condoms, unless she’s in a long-term, monogamous relationship.

“Every woman, I don’t care if she’s 75, has to be aware of sexually transmitted infections and the need to use a condom,” Curtis says. “And as far as birth control goes, if a condom is used every time and used properly, particularly with a spermicide, it’s pretty effective.

“The problem is people assume men are born knowing how to use a condom.”

Medical guidelines for age, contraceptive use

If you’re 35 or older and have any of the following risk factors, combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives may not be safe for you. Guidelines are from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization.

OBESITY

ACOG guidelines: Progestin-only or intrauterine contraception may be safer than combination estrogen-progestin contraception.*

WHO guidelines: Benefit usually outweighs risks.**

SMOKING

ACOG guidelines: Progestin-only or intrauterine contraception should be used.*

WHO guidelines: Risk unacceptable.

HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

ACOG guidelines: Progestin-only or intrauterine contraception should be used.*

WHO guidelines: Risk unacceptable.

DIABETES

ACOG guidelines: Progestin-only or intrauterine contraception should be used.*

WHO guidelines: Risk unacceptable.

MIGRAINES

ACOG guidelines: Progestin-only or intrauterine contraception should be used.*

WHO guidelines: Risk unacceptable.

NONE OF THE ABOVE RISKS

ACOG guidelines: Healthy women who are non-smokers and doing well with combination contraceptive can continue this method until 50 to 55, after weighing risks and benefits.

WHO guidelines: For women 40 or older, risk of cardiovascular disease increases with age and may also increase with combined hormonal contraceptive use; in absence of other adverse clinical conditions, combined hormonal contraceptives can be used until menopause.

*This category includes progestin-only oral contraceptives, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, contraceptive implants, and copper and progestin-releasing intrauterine devices.

**Obesity in women 35 and older not specifically addressed.

Common contraceptives for women in later years

Next to tubal ligations (or their partners’ vasectomies), these are common birth-control choices for women 35 and older, says gynecologist Andrew Kaunitz of the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville.

ESTROGEN-CONTAINING

• Low-dose oral contraceptives (“the pill”).

• Transdermal patch (Ortho Evra).

• Vaginal ring (NuvaRing).

NON-ESTROGEN

• Intrauterine devices, progestin-releasing (Mirena) or copper (ParaGard).

• Injectable progestin (Depo-Provera).

• Implant (Implanon).

Source: Connie Midey – The Arizona Republic

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Schering-Plough Corp., the maker of the Vytorin and Zetia cholesterol pills, said first-quarter profit fell 48 percent, less than analysts expected, on costs for acquiring Organon Biosciences NV.

Profit excluding some items was 53 cents a share, beating analysts’ estimates by 15 cents and boosting shares the most in almost three weeks in New York trading. Net income for the quarter was $291 million, or 15 cents a share, the Kenilworth-based company said Wednesday.

Revenue jumped 57 percent with the addition of the Organon products. The $16 billion purchase aims to reduce Schering’s dependence on Zetia and Vytorin, the company’s best-selling products. U.S. sales slowed after a January study questioned their benefit, and Chief Executive Officer Fred Hassan repeated Wednesday that the company was cutting 5,500 jobs as a result.

“The added visibility from the Organon acquisition and cost-cutting are necessary, welcome and helpful,” said Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan in a note to investors. “Schering-Plough is no longer a growth story but a cost-cutting one.”

Organon is the world’s third-largest maker of birth-control products, including the contraceptive devices Nuvaring and Implanon. Schering-Plough bought Organon, a unit of Amsterdam-based chemical maker Akzo Nobel NV, in November and the deal added four cents to earnings in the first quarter.

Shares of Schering-Plough (SGP) have fallen 31 percent this year.

In the year-earlier quarter, Schering-Plough recorded net income of $565 million, or 36 cents a share. The drugmaker hasn’t forecast earnings for more than five years.

Revenue for the quarter rose to $4.7 billion from $3 billion as sales of the rheumatoid arthritis treatment Remicade increased 36 percent to $507

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

The prescribing information for the Ortho Evra Contraceptive Transdermal Patch is being updated with results of a new study on the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study found that women aged 15-44 who used the birth control patch were at higher risk of developing venous thromboembolism than women using birth control pills.

These findings support an earlier study that also concluded that women in this group were at higher risk of venous thromboembolism. Another earlier study found that women using the patch did not have a greater risk.

However, the results from the two positive studies support concerns that the patch could increase the risk of blood clots in some women. The label continues to recommend that women with concerns or risk factors for thromboembolic events talk with their healthcare provider about using Ortho Evra versus other contraceptives.

Additional Information:

FDA MedWatch Safety Alert. Ortho Evra Contraceptive Transdermal Patch.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

From DAILY WOMEN’S HEALTH POLICY REPORT, [April 8, 2008]

The New York Times on Sunday examined Johnson & Johnson’s use of the legal doctrine of preemption to defend against claims that the birth control patch Ortho Evra causes blood clots or other adverse effects. Under this legal argument, if a product’s safety has been approved through a federal regulatory agency such as FDA, then its safety cannot be questioned in individual lawsuits. According to the Times, J&J is arguing that the company should be exempt from lawsuits because FDA approved the drug and its label in 2001 and its decisions should not be second guessed by the courts.

Lawyers for plaintiffs and pharmaceutical companies said that courts have dismissed the preemption argument for decades, but the strategy might be “on the verge of success,” the Times reports. The U.S. Supreme Court in February ruled that suits against makers of medical devices like pacemakers are preempted. The court is scheduled to rule on another case that could make pre-emption a legal standard for drug cases, the Times reports. The Bush administration has argued in favor of pre-emption.

According to the Times, Ortho Evra’s old label inaccurately described the amount of estrogen the patch released, and more than 3,000 women and their families have sued J&J, arguing that users of the patch suffered heart attacks, strokes and death in 40 cases. A J&J clinical trial of Ortho Evra completed in 1999 originally showed that the patch delivered “far more” estrogen daily than low-dose birth control pills, but the study’s author applied a “correction factor” that claimed the patch delivered 40% less estrogen than the trial showed, the Times reports. The correction factor was not in the study protocol submitted to FDA. However, Bob Tucker, an attorney representing J&J, said the agency was aware of the adjustment. Two other studies, one completed in 1999 and one in 2003, confirmed that the patch releases more estrogen than low-dose pills. FDA changed Ortho Evra’s warning label in November 2005, and an epidemiological study has since shown that women using the patch can have up to double the risk of developing blood clots as women taking the pill.

Gloria Vanderham, a J&J spokesperson, said the company acted responsibly. “We have regularly disclosed data to the FDA, the medical community and the public in a timely manner,” Vanderham said, adding, “Ortho Evra is a safe and effective birth control option for women when used according to the labeling.” Janet Abaray, an attorney representing a plaintiff suing the company, said J&J took advantage of FDA, which was overwhelmed by its responsibilities. The company “knew that FDA does not have the funding or the manpower to police drug companies,” Abaray said. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach acknowledged that the agency faces a crisis and might not be “adequate to regulate the food and drugs of the 21st century” (Harris/Berenson, New York Times, 4/6).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here.The Daily Woman’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women’s Health & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Young women are turning to old ways to manage fertility cycles. Amanda Zamani of Asheville, N.C., never really liked hormonal birth control and its effects on her body. She had a hard time remembering to take a birth-control pill at the same time every day, and she felt that the hormones exacerbated her emotional ups and downs.

“As a whole, I just try to avoid taking extra medications,” said the mother of two toddlers. “I don’t steer towards medicine as the first route for headaches or colds.”

Fed up, she tried natural family planning. She took her temperature every morning before she got out of bed and monitored her body daily to determine when she was ovulating. But she used the method incorrectly, and in the course of two years had two unplanned pregnancies.

Then in 2006, she saw CycleBeads on sale at a health food store. A string of 32 color-coded beads, CycleBeads identify the 12 days in a woman’s menstrual cycle during which she is likely to be fertile. Being aware of the days on which pregnancy is most likely can be helpful both for women who are looking to become pregnant — and for women such as Zamani who are not.

Zamani, 25, now keeps her CycleBeads in her bathroom and moves the black ring that is used to track days onto the next bead each morning.

“It’s very helpful,” she said. “I’m not planning on changing.”

Deciding against the pill

Zamani is part of a small but dedicated number of women who are practicing medication-free birth control with a clinically tested approach that is part of their desire to embrace a back-to-basics lifestyle.

According to the Cycle Bead Product Literature:

CycleBeads is an easy way to plan or prevent pregnancy naturally. This color-coded string of beads enables a woman to track her cycle and know if she is on a day when pregnancy is likely or not.

Women around the world use CycleBeads because it is:

• Effective
• Side-Effect Free
• Easy to use
• Inexpensive
• Educational & Empowering

To use CycleBeads a woman simply moves a ring over the series of color-coded beads that represent the days of her cycle. The color of the beads lets her know whether she is on a day when she is likely to be fertile or not. The one medical criterion for using CycleBeads to prevent pregnancy is that a woman should have cycles between 26 and 32 days long.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recent study on the use of contraception and family planning services in the United States states, 0.7 percent of women were using the calendar/rhythm method in 2002, and 0.2 percent were using other natural family planning methods.

Though use of the rhythm method has declined over time, from 1.8 percent in 1982, other natural family planning methods have remained steady. CycleBeads work in conjunction with one of them, the Standard Days Method, which was created by the Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University in 2002 and now has an estimated 50,000 users in the United States and more than half a million women around the world, according to IRH.

Over the years, natural methods have not been given much credence: As the old joke goes, “What do you call people who use the rhythm method? Parents.” But the Standard Days Method is backed by research that shows it is 95 percent effective if used correctly, according to IRH.

That is still not as effective as methods such as the pill (which is more than 99 percent effective when used correctly, according to Planned Parenthood), but for many women, natural family planning is a lifestyle choice beyond just birth control.

“I want to be connected to my body and know how I’m feeling,” said Suran Thrift, a freelance writer in Los Angeles, noting that her decision to use CycleBeads was “part of an overall desire to educate myself more about my health and alternative means to health.”

Learning about cycles

IRH set out to create a natural method that was based on research. It took data of more than 7,500 menstrual cycles obtained from the World Health Organization and calculated the probability of pregnancy on different cycle days, coming up with a formula that provided maximum protection, while minimizing the number of days of avoiding unprotected intercourse.

The Standard Days Method has a longer window of consecutive days of possible fertility than most other natural methods, and it works only for the estimated 80 percent of women who have regular cycles of 26 to 32 days. But with perfect use, it is effective 95 percent of the time, according to a study done by IRH. It has been particularly popular in developing nations.

“To our surprise, people in other settings where family planning was readily available, there was a spark of interest there as well,” said the IRH director, Dr. Victoria Jennings. “There has become more interest in a method that works with your body and that maybe helps you learn something about your body, as opposed to a method that suppresses your body’s normal function.”

Methods like the pill and intrauterine device have proved to be safe and effective, but some women do experience side effects like nausea or emotional ups and downs with the pill and cramps or backaches with the IUD. But what confounds experts like Dr. Rebekah Gee, an obstetrician/gynecologist and clinical scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, is the lack of knowledge among women concerning what is happening inside the body.

“It’s amazing what women don’t know about their bodies and their cycles,” Gee said. “Anything that they can use that helps them better understand their cycles and when they’re at risk for getting pregnant is a good thing.”

“I think even when my daughter is old enough and starts her cycle, I would get them for her,” Amanda Zamani said of CycleBeads. “Just to be aware of her cycle better than I was when I was younger.”

Sources:

Julie Onufrak, Columbia News Service

CycleBeads

Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University

Center for Disease Control

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Research and Markets has announced the addition of Contraception Market Report 2007 to their offering.

The UK market for contraceptives, as evaluated in this report, comprises four main sectors: hormone-based products; barrier products; intra-uterine device (IUD) products and other methods.

Hormone-based products is a publicly funded sector, is the largest sector, having overtaken barrier products, which was the largest sector in 2004. The former continues to perform well, particularly with oral contraceptives, while the latter is currently experiencing difficulties in terms of deflationary pressure on prices, which is affecting value levels.

The total market was worth GBP 164.5m in 2007, which is not a huge sum in comparison with other sectors within the pharmaceutical market. This is a low-revenue industry with a fairly saturated, slow-growing consumer base of mainly women. There is not much incentive for new product development (NPD — although it is happening) and it is telling that the most popular oral contraceptive, Microgynon, was introduced onto the UK market during the 1960s. New products — such as the combined pill Yasmin, from Schering Health and the progestogen-only pill Cerazette, from Organon — have tended to take market share from other products, rather than to stimulate the sector as a whole.

Society is changing and, although levels of sexual activity have not altered much overall, people are becoming sexually active at an earlier age. This impacts on the teenage pregnancy rate, which is still the highest in Europe, and also on the occurrences of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which are increasing at alarming rates.

More education on STIs and more encouragement to use condoms, in particular, is currently a government target. This is boosting volume sales of condoms and encouraging more players to move into the sector, but revenue growth, as a whole, is currently on a downward curve within a heavily discounted market. Manufacturers of condoms have attempted to redress the loss in value through expansion of condom ranges into areas such as lubricants and massagers.

In terms of the protected market, there has been a move towards long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) believes will be more effective methods, both in terms of contraception and cost, over the longer term. The Mirena intra-uterine system (IUS) which can last up to 5 years, has been particularly successful and there has been significant growth in the number of prescriptions issued in the UK over the period. Similarly, the contraceptive implant Implanon has become much more popular. With both these methods, women can effectively forget about contraception — certainly in terms of pregnancy — therefore, the risk of unwanted pregnancy is low.

However, for the majority of young women, in particular, the pill — and mainly the combined pill — will continue to be the dominant form of contraception for some years to come. Nonetheless, for both men and women (again, particularly popular with younger adults), the condom is crucial to prevent STIs. Both of these sectors have an assured future — certainly in terms of demographics — and this stable market is firmly underpinned.

For more information visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c67505

Source:

Research and Markets

Laura Wood, Senior Manager

press@researchandmarkets.com

Fax: +353 1 4100 980

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.