The Pope Paul VI Institute for the
Study of Human Reproduction, Omaha, Nebraska offers the following
critique of some of the principal claims and conclusions set down in
the 2012 Annual Report of the United Nations Population Fund
(released 11.14.12):
• First, because we concur with
Article 16 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: all
“men and women of full age, …, have the right to marry and to
found a family,” we also believe couples have the right, by
logical extension, to responsibly plan their family [also
promoted in the 2012 U.N. Annual Report]. We differ, however, with
the Report’s definition of responsible family planning. To
responsibly plan a family means that married couples should have the
right to voluntarily access a means to space their children that is
not only reliable but also moral, that is, one that promotes
genuine human fulfillment for the couple, their family, and the
society. We also disagree with Annual Report’s conclusion
conflating the universal human right of “access to family
planning” with “access to contraception,” ostensibly doing so
on grounds that contraception is the only or only
“reliable and high quality” means of planning a family.
Hence, access to family planning through competent education on
human fertility is a universal human right, but access to
contraception is not.
• Second, we understand how
contraception can appear to empower women by providing them a way to
space children so that they can more easily work outside the home
and increase family income. However, thousands of couples using the
Creighton Model FertilityCare System (CrMS), testify that this
natural system of regulating fertility provides an even better
way to empower a woman. It provides her with a) woman-specific
biofeedback—on any given day in any given cycle—about her body
and her fertility; b) a means of treating OB/Gyn abnormalities such
as unusual bleeding, premenstrual syndrome and infertility, c) an
effective means of avoiding or achieving a pregnancy, and d) a basis
for healthy communication between her and her husband about family
planning goals.
• Third, we reject the Report’s
allegation that contraceptive use improves the user’s health. Our
40+ years of clinical data show the exact opposite: oral
contraceptives (OCs) have a devastating potential to compromise a
woman’s reproductive and overall health. Echoing our results, the
World Health Organization not only classifies the OC as a carcinogen
but warnings from package inserts of many OCs also specify that the
pill “may increase risk of breast cancer and cancer of the
reproductive organs.” Take the claim that the OC lowers the risk
of ovarian cancer. Again, what women need to know are the specific
risks and benefits of the pill. For example, compared to a woman not
using hormonal contraception, it is true that the woman who uses the
combined OC for five years incurs the benefit of a 40% decreased
ovarian cancer mortality risk. But here’s the tradeoff: the same
woman faces increased risks from the use of that same OC over
the same 5-year period—a 100% increased risk for venous
thromboembolism, a 24% increased risk of breast cancer, and at least
a 100% increased risk of myocardial infarction.
Furthermore, women
who use OCs experience many (and sometimes debilitating) side effects
from the Pill: bloating, breast tenderness, headaches, irregular
bleeding, mood changes, and nausea.
• Fourth, our secondary
research data contradict the Report’s claim that increased access
to contraception limits abortions. For example, the November
2006 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology reported, based on
data from 23 studies, that greater access to emergency contraception
increased rather than decreased the incidence of unintended
pregnancy and abortion rates. The sad truth, then, is that the surge
in contraceptive use has resulted in more unplanned pregnancies
which, in turn, have resulted not only in the increased
backup-contraceptive-choice of abortion, but also in devastating
post-abortion psychological sequelae.
• Fifth, we agree that spacing
children allows mothers to secure employment outside the home,
thereby contributing to economic prosperity for family and country.
Nonetheless, improved economic productivity should never be secured
at the expense of the view that children are a country’s greatest
resource.
• Sixth, we object to the Annual
Report’s silence on the need for conception of children within the
context of a mutual permanent commitment on the parents. Children
have the absolute right to be conceived, gestated, born into, and
raised within marriage.