Posted on 09/30/2014 10:29:52 AM PDT by wagglebee
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has updated their policy guidelines (PDF) concerning contraceptives for children under 18, recommending that the first line of defense against pregnancy for adolescent girls should be implantable contraception such as an IUD or a sub-dermal hormonal implant.
The AAP says that because young girls cannot be trusted to remain abstinent, reliably take a daily birth control pill, or use condoms, the best way to ensure they do not become pregnant is to fit them with a “long-acting reversible contraceptive” – a device that, once installed, will either provide a continuous dose of hormones designed to prevent ovulation, or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, causing an early abortion. The group says that even very young girls who are not yet sexually active can be fitted with the devices, as a preventive measure.
The recommendations were co-authored by Gina Sucato, a member of Physicians for Choice. Upon their public release on Monday, they were met with mixed reactions.
“I’m so happy about this,” said Ana Radovic, a doctor at the Center for Adolescent and Young Adult Health, a sex clinic for children and young adults ages 12 to 21. Her organization provides IUDs and other contraceptives to children as young as 12, without requiring parental notification or consent. It also offers similar “confidential care” through the nearby Magee-Women’s Hospital, which performs abortions.
Radovic told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette she was eager to see more doctors implanting young children with IUDs. “This will give primary care physicians and pediatricians the much needed information that this is a safe procedure, even for young girls who have never had intercourse,” she said.
“The AAP’s recommendations will be a great help,” Heather Boonstra, director of public policy for the Guttmacher Institute – a pro-abortion think tank with links to Planned Parenthood – told the Post-Gazette. “This is about trying to change the minds of the provider community, more of who are recognizing that adolescents are appropriate users for the IUD.”
But child safety advocates and pro-life observers said the AAP recommendations send a dangerous message, and could even lead to lifelong health problems.
“As a father myself, I’m particularly horrified that this recommendation would come from this physicians’ group,” said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, in an interview with LifeSiteNews. “Everybody knows that teen sex is a bad idea, and a recommendation like this sends a mixed message. On the one hand, we’re trying to encourage teens to be abstinent, and on the other, we’re giving them the tools not to be.”
“We know that the biggest concern teens have about teen sex isn’t STDs, it isn’t the heartbreak that comes from it, it isn’t damaging their ability to bond later in life. The big concern they’re going to have is getting pregnant. Take that [concern] away, and teens are inevitably going to make less responsible choices.”
Scheidler said he was also concerned about the AAP’s heavy focus on “confidentiality,” which he said was really about “keeping parents in the dark” about their kids’ activities.
“The [AAP] recommendation not-so-obliquely suggests that even in states where [doctors] are not forbidden to talk to parents, [that they] not do so anyway,” he said.
Scheidler worries that giving children under the age of consent unfettered access to contraceptives could make it easier for rapists to hide their sexual abuse of minors.
“It’s just one more example of the mixed message and the contradiction here,” Scheidler said. “You know, the first contradiction is … we don’t want teens to be sexually active, that we should encourage them to be abstinent, but then we’ll discourage them from being abstinent by giving them birth control. Similarly, we say to physicians, you’re required to report sexual abuse of minors, but you’re also required not to tell parents about their minor children’s sexual activity – which in many cases, might by definition be criminal.”
Aside from the moral implications of fitting kids with long-term contraceptive devices, Scheidler said he was also disturbed from a safety standpoint.
There are two types of IUDs currently on the market in the U.S. – hormonal and copper. The hormonal IUD, marketed under the brand names Mirena and Skyla, releases a constant dose of hormones to fool the body into thinking it is already pregnant, so it won’t release an egg. Failing that, the device makes the uterus inhospitable to a growing life, causing an early abortion. Mirena lasts for five years; Skyla, which is targeted at younger girls, lasts for three. Skyla is new to the market, but its big sister Mirena has been the target of thousands of lawsuits by users who suffered catastrophic complications, and is now the subject of a class-action suit.
The damaging effects of the Mirena IUD are numerous, but the primary risk is puncture of the uterine wall, which can occur in up to 1 out of every 1000 installations, according to its manufacturer, Bayer. Uterine perforation can lead to intestinal, bladder, bowel, or other organ damage; infections; scarring; infertility and even death from sepsis. Additionally, the chemicals released by the device have been classified by the World Health Organization as class 1 carcinogens, or cancer-causing agents.
As for the copper IUD, it carries the same risks of uterine perforation as its hormonal counterparts, but without the increased risk of cancer and other side effects caused by the chemical component. However, the trade-off is that it doesn’t work until a woman or girl is already pregnant – it effectively works as a tiny “abortion machine,” ensuring that no fertilized egg can attach to the uterine wall.
None of the implantable devices being promoted by the AAP offer any protection from sexually transmitted diseases.
“You know, I have three teen daughters myself,” Scheidler told LifeSiteNews. “The thought of them being counseled by a physician to consider the IUD or one of the implantable contraceptives is pretty shocking.”
In previous years, the IUD lacked in popularity due to its expense – a single device costs between $800 to $1,000. However, since ObamaCare became law, all insurance providers must now provide the IUD free of charge to their female patients upon request.
Additionally, federally-funded reproductive clinics provide the devices free to girls under 18, even if they are covered by their parents’ insurance, in order to help them avoid disclosing their sexual activity to their parents.
Someone please explain to me how cases of anyone under the age of majority having sex is not rape.
This is sickening.
No! No birth control at all. We need more votes for the Democrats. Go forth and multiply. Become a burden on those who actually work. We need more illegitimate children. Bring them forth by the millions. We need their votes. /sar
I don’t see people being locked up for knocking up unwed mothers these days.
Administrators and physicians are encouraging children to sexually experiment these days (even with BDSM, choking, “safe words”, genderplay, homosexuality, etc.).
THAT used to be called “corrupting a minor”. Today it is the “Establishment”.
IUD’s do NOTHING to address STD’s which affect these girls fertility/reproductive health!
“Consequence-Free” sex often isn’t.
Adverse effects
Further information: IUD with progestogen and IUD with copper
Regardless of containing progestogen or copper, potential side effects of intrauterine devices include expulsion, uterus perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease (especially in the first 21 days after insertion), as well as irregular menstrual pattern. A small probability of pregnancy remains after IUD insertion, and when it occurs there’s a greater risk of ectopic pregnancy.
Substantial pain that needs active management occurs in approximately 17% of nulliparous women and approximately 11% of parous women.[32] In such cases, NSAID are evidenced to be effective.[32] However, no prophylactic analgesic drug have been found to be effective for routine use for women undergoing IUD insertion.[32]
Also, IUDs with progestogen confer an increased risk of ovarian cysts[citation needed], and IUDs with copper confer an increased risk of heavier periods.
Menstrual Cup companies recommend that women with IUDs who are considering using menstrual cups should consult with their gynecologists before use. There have been rare cases in which women using IUDs dislodged them when removing their menstrual cups, however this can also happen with tampon use.
Source: Wikipedia
(Of course, I believe that implanting IUDs in, say, fifteen year olds is disgusting.)
Oh, how did they do it before the 60's? The problem is not with the young girls but with the adults, parents and society at large, who raise them.
Are there any professional organizations left that haven’t been taken over by Leftists?
People on the Right are generally too busy working and raising families to get involved in the leadership of these organizations. But those on the Left apparently aren’t. They always seem ready and willing to move in and steer the operating philosophy to the left. We really shouldn’t be surprised when this happens, but it is always shocking to wake up and find out what the organizations you think are decent are now advocating.
Who develops and uses the weapons for the war on women? The libertines aka leftists!!!!!!
Wake up ladies. These things are invasive and therefore potentially physically damaging.
From their own website:
The emerging adolescent-specific data
on IUDs are promising. However, there
are some disadvantages. The limited
data in adolescents suggest that expulsion,
which occurs in fewer than
5% of women using IUDs, may occur
more frequently in younger women.58
Another concern is that more than half of
young nulliparous women report moderate
to severe pain with insertion.59,60
Nonetheless, studies demonstrate IUD
continuation rates in adolescents that
exceed those with other hormonal
methods and effective use of the levonorgestrel
IUD for menstrual suppression
in adolescent patients with complex
medical conditions.61–67
Implanting a young girl, whose body has not yet fully matured, with an IUD is a form of medical malpractice IMO.
And while they are inserting that IUD, make sure they shoot the girl up with Gardisil too. /s
Society survived thousands of years because of natural and social consequences for sex and birth outside of marriage.
Now we pay people to have babies they can’t afford to raise and don’t know how to raise.
This is CRAZY. It makes young girls much too vulnerable to persuasion they can’t handle, if fear of pregnancy is off the table.
I volunteered for a pro-life crisis pregnancy center a while back. I asked about the statistics of those coming into the center who actually were on some method of birth control and still became pregnant. The answer surprised me. The number one method of birth control being used by those who had conceived was birth control pills. The problem, as you noted, was not the method so much as the consistency factor.
Planned Parenthood knows this as well, and it helps their bottom line. They freely distribute birth control pills to their clientele, knowing that many of them will not take their pills consistently and will return to get abortions.
Wow. I stopped right there.
This is going to come as a shock to an awful lot of dads that I know.
A T-shaped plastic or metal devise in placed inside the uterus at the openings of the Fallopian tubes and left there for an indefinite period of time.
There are inherent puncture risks when it's inserted, risk of infection, risk of it shifting, etc. Couple this with the fact that young teen girls ARE STILL GROWING and have hormonal issues that grown women do not.
It is only in the past few years that women who have not had children but plan to eventually have used IUDs. Nobody really knows if a girl who has had an IUD for a decade or so will be able to become pregnant; however, the left doesn't really care, this is about an agenda and nothing more.
Sex positive agenda advocates seek to see everyone sexually active. They consider orgasm a birthright to be enjoyed at every age.
They seek to end all moral judgments over any sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
They oppose abstinence. not because “it doesn’t work” (no matter what they came to some audiences), they oppose it because it is counter to their worldview. They will tell you that abstinence is an “unhealthy suppression of sexual desires”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.