• Images
  • Text
  • Find a Couple + Registry
GO
Christian Weddings

birth control...?

Right now I'm using Nuvaring to regulate my cycle--i am not sexually active. I'm concerned about staying on this when I get married because Nuvaring, along with many other hormonal birth controls, affects the endometrium.

Although I would like to use a hormonal birth control and would prefer not to have kids for about 5 more years, I'm hoping there's one that ONLY prevents the egg from releasing and has no effect on the endometrium... IS THERE any hormonal birth control like this?

Of course I will be seeing my DR about this but just thought I'd see if anyone can relate/help. Thanks!

save the date
"Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
«1

Re: birth control...?

  • edited December 2011
    Hmmm...definitely talk to your gyn because women don't all react to the pill the same way. In the last 15-months, I have been on 3 different hormonal pills for regulating my period and I had the opposite reaction of what most women had (as in I got worse symptoms).
    I am no longer taking anything and so far, I am doing much better. On the flip side, my period is erratic. However, since FI and I are not active and we're also planning on waiting until we are married, I figured we can talk to my gyn shortly before we are married to discuss our options.

    The best advise I can give you is to call or go see your doctor. Sorry I can't offer much help.
    BabyFetus Ticker
  • bmerantebmerante member
    10 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Unfortunately there is not. There will always be that small chance that if you happened to fertilize an egg, your body would try to keep it from implanting in the uterus. I searched this topic for months and talked to my OBGYN. Most of them don't understand why I wanted a pill or something that had 100% chance of implanting if it happened to get fertilized. I believe life happens when an egg and sperm fertilize, before implantation in the uterus. That is my personal belief so my fiance and I, after we are married, are going to be using a diaphragm. It is a barrier method like a condom. I was nervous at first because I thought it was weird but my OBGYN put one inside me in like 2 seconds and I took it out and couldn't feel it at all. Also, they lats 5 years! :) Good luck!
  • xstarx05xxstarx05x member
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    bmerante--  That's what I believe too. Thanks for your advice! 

    I thought about a diaphragm but would prefer a hormonal method over a barrier method. I'll talk to my doctor, but if that's not an option like you say from your experience, that's probably the route we'll have to take.

    I'm not too weirded out about the way it works, since it's similar to Nuvaring in that sense. Do you, personally, have it in all the time? And I suppose using it with a spermicide gel can help too.

    save the date
    "Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
  • fpaemp2011fpaemp2011 member
    1000 Comments Fourth Anniversary 25 Love Its First Answer
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_christian-weddings_birth-control?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:464687ae-7bc1-4360-9aea-999e11f1e1adDiscussion:576ecca2-cf6f-44f6-b571-45584f37c905Post:2c121b4b-86b4-4bbd-997e-b37979f10a47">Re: birth control...?</a>:
    [QUOTE]Unfortunately there is not. There will always be that small chance that if you happened to fertilize an egg, your body would try to keep it from implanting in the uterus. I searched this topic for months and talked to my OBGYN. Most of them don't understand why I wanted a pill or something that had 100% chance of implanting if it happened to get fertilized. I believe life happens when an egg and sperm fertilize, before implantation in the uterus. That is my personal belief so my fiance and I, after we are married, are going to be using a diaphragm. It is a barrier method like a condom. I was nervous at first because I thought it was weird but my OBGYN put one inside me in like 2 seconds and I took it out and couldn't feel it at all. Also, they lats 5 years! :) Good luck!
    Posted by bmerante[/QUOTE]<div>
    </div><div>This is what we believe and are doing as well.  I just felt like I shouldn't leave it all up to condoms and this would at least let me feel like I'm doing something but not leave a chance of killing our child.  I haven't actually talked to the GYN yet, but that's our plan.  I've researched just about every hormonal method available in the US, and ALL of them said that they alter the endometrium on their own website.  They're not hiding it...a lot of women just don't think it's a big deal.

    </div>
  • edited December 2011
    Ladies, just as an FYI, there is another option. My fi and I plan to use NFP (natural family planning), and more specifically the sympto-thermal method.  Our church provides classes taught by couples who use the method, but there are a number of excellent books out there. It really isn't as hard as you might think, and it gives you the option of being more "spontaneous", since you don't have to slip off to the bathroom or anything. :) When used correctly, it has a 98% effectiveness rate. Of course, you do need to abstain during your most fertile phase, but all of the couples I have spoken with say that that period of abstinence makes the other times more special. 

    Another bonus is that it really helps you to get to know your body, and you can pinpoint any problems with your cycle early on and get them corrected before trying to conceive.  It also makes both you and your spouse part of the process and puts you both in charge.  Yet another way to grow closer. 

    Just my two cents!
  • katanne9katanne9 member
    2500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    The Rhythms method is pretty much the same as NFP. It's all calendar based and you chart your fertility.
  • edited December 2011
    Katanne,  actually the Rhythm Method is only calendar based. NFP (sympto-thermal)  involves charting your waking basal body temperature and your cervical mucus on a daily basis.  It's a little more involved, but WAY more accurate.  Our instructors had 4 kids, but they were all spaced exactly 3 years apart. Our other set of instructors had children spaced that well also. The Rhythm method is pretty outdated, and for good reason. Just counting days isn't going to do it. Most women have different cycles. and while some might ovulate at day 14, others might ovulate at day 20 or so. 

    One book I might recommend for charting info is "Taking Charge of Your Fertility". Great read whatever method you choose.
  • GJones27GJones27 member
    1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    It's interesting to hear all of your thoughts.  I'm like you girls.  My FI and I are waiting until marriage, but we have to use BC then, as I'm too ill to bear children yet.  I'm really scared our child would die or get neurological damage with the meds and severe diet I have to be on.  But we do want to have children one day.

    I recently went to my OBG/GYN doctor to talk about these issues.  I also believe life begins at conception, and I told my doctor I didn't want anything having to do with abortion.  She suggested a low-dose hormonal pill called Loestrin.  My fiance and I also thought we would play it safe with condoms.  I had also heard that some pills affect the lining of the uterus, and that part has me nervous, too, as I don't want to do anything sinful.  I think I might double check with my doctor again.

    In the meantime, we're going to consult with our priest.  I'm Orthodox Christian, and BC is allowed only in certain approved circumstances with the approval of a priest.  I think health problems warrant serious consideration, as we have the concern of a child at heart.  I'm curious to see what he says.

    Another thought... it is possible to get pregnant on the pill.  So even though it affects the lining of the uterus, life can still happen. 

    What do you think?
  • fpaemp2011fpaemp2011 member
    1000 Comments Fourth Anniversary 25 Love Its First Answer
    edited December 2011
    I know it's possible to get pregnant on the pill...I have a little brother and a future niece to prove it. :)  As we learned in health class, the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. 
  • edited December 2011
    It should be noted that there's a difference between NFP and FAM (fertility awareness method). The former is Roman Catholic and requires abstinence during the fertile period (if you're trying to avoid pregnancy) because of their views on barrier methods, etc. The latter, however, consists of the same methods of determining fertility, etc., but you can have sex during your fertile period - you just use a barrier method of some sort.

    Personally, I think the RC view is a violation of 1 Cor. 7, and FI and I would go the FAM route (and are probably going to look into that once we start having kids).

    We both believe that life begins at conception, but discovered that there are pro-life OB/GYNs who agree and who do not believe that all hormonal birth control carries that risk. So we decided that for now, we'll stick with the HBC (and I haven't had any drastic side-effects). Link
    Daisypath Anniversary tickers
  • xstarx05xxstarx05x member
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    <div>In Response to Re: birth control...?:</div><div>[QUOTE]Another thought... it is possible to get pregnant on the pill.  So even though it affects the lining of the uterus, life can still happen.  What do you think?</div><div>Posted by GJones27[/QUOTE]</div><div>
    </div><div>This is true that the pill/hormonal contraception isn't 100% reliable, but my concern is the times when it IS reliable but there was conception (ovulation occurred but it could not attach to the endometrium for nutrition--i.e. an abortion, as some of us believe). </div><div>
    </div><div>Scary thing is, we don't even know if/when this happens, but we do know there's a possibility of it happening if we're taking these supplements and are sexually active.</div><div>
    </div><div>I had a look at Loestrin's patient info leaflet and it looks like it affects the lining <a href="http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/3424/PIL/Loestrin/" rel="nofollow">http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/3424/PIL/Loestrin/</a></div><div>Best wishes towards your health, GJ.</div><div> </div><div>jrpetrik-- by HBC do you mean hormonal birth control? Doesn't matter what your Dr believes, if the HBC affects the lining of the uterus, there IS a risk. But if you have found one that doesn't (and let us know if you do!!) then there should be no need to worry.</div><div>
    </div><div>As of now, without consultation from my Dr, looks like barrier methods such as a diaphragm and condom are the way to go.</div>

    save the date
    "Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
  • edited December 2011
    jrpetrik, thank you for the clarification. There is a difference between the two in terms of what you do during the fertile period, but the way you chart is the same.  I am Catholic, so barrier methods are problematic for us, and yes, there is a scriptural basis for that as well.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

    It is a very personal decision, and warrants discussion with your doctor, priest and or pastor.  I'm just simply trying to provide another option for those who are concerned about the effects of hormonal birth control.   
  • mica178mica178 member
    5000 Comments Fourth Anniversary
    edited December 2011
    All hormonal birth controls contain a progesterone derivative, usually progestin.  The progestin prevents the uterine lining from getting too thick, thus making implantation unlikely in the (unlikely) case that fertilization happens.  There are some hormonal birth controls that only contain progesterone derivatives, and they work by making the cervix less permeable to the sperm and by making implantation less likely.  The other hormone in most (but not all) birth controls is estrogen, which makes ovulation less likely so the egg cannot be fertilized. Estrogen cannot be taken alone without increasing your risk of uterine cancer, so all estrogen-containing pills also have some form of progesterone in them.

    I thought 1 Corinthians 7:5 says that husband and wife should not deprive one another except by mutual consent?  If we agree that we don't want to have children yet, shouldn't abstaining during your high fertility time be considered mutual consent?

    Eta: My non-Catholic pro-life FI says that the progestin-only birth control (that would be the "mini pill" and the Mirena IUD) go against his beliefs, but that the ones that contain estrogen are fine because their main action is to prevent fertilization rather than to prevent implantation.
  • fpaemp2011fpaemp2011 member
    1000 Comments Fourth Anniversary 25 Love Its First Answer
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_christian-weddings_birth-control?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:464687ae-7bc1-4360-9aea-999e11f1e1adDiscussion:576ecca2-cf6f-44f6-b571-45584f37c905Post:09fb9ad7-8056-4c52-b6ae-4e9f8e15bbdf">Re: birth control...?</a>:
    [QUOTE]\My non-Catholic pro-life FI says that the progestin-only birth control (that would be the "mini pill" and the Mirena IUD) go against his beliefs, but that the ones that contain estrogen are fine because their main action is to prevent fertilization rather than to prevent implantation.
    Posted by mica178[/QUOTE]

    Are these available in the US?  What are their brand names? I haven't found a single "medicinal" birth control that does not affect the uterine lining.  If you know of one that does not affect the lining in any way, please share.
  • mica178mica178 member
    5000 Comments Fourth Anniversary
    edited December 2011
    sorry not to be more specific.  The estrogen containing birth control all contain progesterone-derived hormones.  Progesterone affects the uterine lining.
  • melissa_johnsmelissa_johns member
    10 Comments
    edited December 2011
    This has been a struggle for my FI and I as well!  I have had lots of problems with my cycle (extreme pain, uncontrolled bleeding, etc) and have been on birth control for nearly 8 years.  I tried comming off of hormonal birth control and all my symptoms returned. 
    While all birth control options change the uterus, we are choosing to use a hormonal option that lists stopping ovulation and thickening cerival mucus before changing the lining.  Beyond that we are praying about the need to use a second form of contraception (diaphram, condoms) so that the chance of an egg being fertilized is really low.
    One thing to consider though is that during lactation the lining of the uterus can be thinned, similar to the use of oral contraceptives.
  • xstarx05xxstarx05x member
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Melissa-- I think my HBC does that too, Nuvaring. So is that what breastfeeding does? I'd heard that your chances of getting pregnant are lower while breastfeeding but didn't know that was the reason. Interesting point, if that's the case.

    So if you're on HBC that changes the uterus lining, you know you're risking an abortion, but then same if you're breastfeeding. While you really have to breastfeed, where's the line to say when you HAVE to take HBC (e.g. to aid cycle & symptoms)? Is there a line?

    Definitely requires lots of talking to a Dr, pastor, your partner, and of course God...

    save the date
    "Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
  • fpaemp2011fpaemp2011 member
    1000 Comments Fourth Anniversary 25 Love Its First Answer
    edited December 2011
    Breastfeeding also typically stops ovulation, so there isn't a need for a thicker uterine lining.  However, some women do get pregnant while they are breastfeeding, so obviously it doesn't stop it 100% of the time.  My feeling is that if I choose to take HBC, I'm chosing to leave a chance of conception (life beginning) occuring, but not implantation (thus ending life).  The same thing could feasibly happen while breastfeeding, but that's the way the body is designed.  I won't be putting chemicals in my body that weren't there already.  Most women will never know if conception occured but implantation did not, even if they weren't breastfeeding or on HBC, but it just happens sometimes. That's why pregnancy really is a miracle. There really isn't a way to guarantee implanation...I just don't want the thought that I'm preventing it because I'm using a pill/patch/shot/IUD/etc, looming over my head.

    btw...I'm so glad this is a safe place to discuss our views like adults.  We may all have different opinions and beliefs, but we haven't ripped each other to shreds which could happen on other boards, or even in small group.  Thank you, ladies, for truly being sisters in Christ. :)
  • edited December 2011
    A good Christian friend highly recommended a German product to me called the Lady-Comp.  FI and I have never been sexually active, but as we are preparing to be married at the end of the month I just recently acquired it and began using it to take my basal body temperature every morning before I get out of bed.  It's a pretty sophisticated machine which asks me daily if I am menstruating or not, and I push a button to give it a yes or no answer.  The machine will require a few months of me giving it daily input and then will begin to generate a 'go ahead' signal with a green light which tells me I'm not ovulating/fertile, a red light which means either abstain or use a barrier or a yelllow light which means I could be fertile and should, er, proceed with caution.

    I guess it's no help for those who oppose barrier methods, unless you plan to abstain from intercourse during your fertile timeframe, but for me I'm so thankful to have found an all-natural alternative to the BCP.  In two years of courting my FI, not going on the pill was the one and only "I insist" I ever had to assert as a non-negotiable conviction, for the same reasons stated by previous posters.  FI, being a biologist and a pro-life Christian man, never had an issue with my refusal to go on the pill, and I'm so grateful.

    While it is manufactured in Europe, the Lady-Comp has a U.S. distributor called Naturally for Her in CA.  The website is www.naturallyforher.com. The friend who recommended it has depended on it herself for nearly three years, and has fmany amily members who also use it faithfully, both to prevent and to achieve pregnancy.  Reportedly it's a remarkably accurate little computer when used properly.


    Best wishes to all of you in your planning and stewardship!
  • GJones27GJones27 member
    1000 Comments
    edited December 2011

    It seems to me there is no perfect solution.  You can either go with a morally conservative option such as natural family planning, but increase the likelihood of a pregnancy.  However, for more protection, you have to go for something more morally ambiguous.  I, for one, really wish there was that perfect solution, but medicine doesn't seem to be there yet.  However, maybe some of your solutions would partially work.

    I think there is a difference between the pill and abortion.  With the pill, youi're making the conditions more difficult but not impossible for life.  And, as someone mentioned earlier, life is a miracle.  But with abortion, you're actively going out to terminate life that has already been rapidly developing. I can still see how there is a fine line, but they are a bit different. 

    I'm been struggling and thinking about this issue for a few days.  I'm strongly pro-life -- even if I were violently raped, I would not get an abortion.  I've been trying to think about this issue in terms of "lesser evils."  At least personally, I think I would feel morally worse if I were to accidently get pregnant and cause serious damage to a child through my meds and health problems than if I were to use the pill to prevent pregnancy.  That's why the effectiveness of birth control is really important to me.

    My FI and want to do everything possible to avoid committing evil.  That's why were going to use barrier methods and natural family planning, but the pill will be necessary for the few times that those fail.  The pill mostly works by preventing ovulation, and so many things would have to go wrong for a fertilized egg to have problems with implementation.  A condom would have to break, then the pill would have to fail to prevent ovulation, then pill would have to fail in preventing sperm from reaching the egg, etc...  I think by that time the chances are very low that changes in the lining of the uterus are at fault.  We hope to do this until I'm at least well enough to handle an accidental pregnancy.

    Anyways, these are just my initial thoughts, and I may change them, especially after I talk with others.  I hope I'm doing something right before the eyes of God.  I believe this is a very difficult issue, and I respect all of your moral and religious beliefs.  You girls all seem to have strong faith, and I think you will make good decisions in the end.  Please keep me in your prayers.

  • edited December 2011
    I've been doing some research and wanted to share a few resources with you ladies. This article discusses both sides of the issue of whether oral contraceptives cause abortions from a prolife view that affirms that life begins at conception:
    http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

    Likewise, this site has two articles by Prolife OBGYNs. Arguing for each side.
    http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/

    I just thought y'all should have access to it. I think that this is a matter of conscience and after thinking about it I tend to agree that it is not an abortificant. The articles on the second link are really technical. I think the first is a little better at explaining it in simpler terms.

    I think one of the important paragraphs in the article from the "not an abortificant" side (especially reading our discussions on here about the third method) is:

    The proponents of the “hostile endometrium theory” argue that OCs are abortifacient based upon the third mechanism of action.  The medical literature clearly supports the claim that the uterus becomes thinner and less glandular as a result of the OCs, however, the medical literature comes to this conclusion from non-ovulatory pill cycles.  It is assumed that this finding in non-ovulatory pill cycles would prevent implantation of the embryo conceived in an ovulatory pill cycle, but this presumption is false.  If a woman on OCs ovulates and conceives, everything changes: through the HCG’s affect on the corpus luteum, and the corpus luteum’s release of high levels of estrogen and progesterone, the uterus is able to nourish its new guest very well.

    The article by the OBGYNs for this side of the discussion go into this in much greater detail if you are interested. I just found that a lot easier to understand.

    I hope that this has helped you ladies. I know that we all desire the same thing: to respect and uphold the sancity of human life. I hope these resources will help us all understand the issue more clearly.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • GJones27GJones27 member
    1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Thank you so much for those articles!  They are very enlightening.  I think I am now convinced that the combination pill is not an abortificient.  Both the analysis and statistics in the second link (second article within that) convinced me.  I do feel better about my decision now.  Thanks again!  :-)
  • xstarx05xxstarx05x member
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_christian-weddings_birth-control?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:464687ae-7bc1-4360-9aea-999e11f1e1adDiscussion:576ecca2-cf6f-44f6-b571-45584f37c905Post:6104db0a-bdc6-4a02-8f00-263ae564f12e">Re: birth control...?</a>:
    [QUOTE]I've been doing some research and wanted to share a few resources with you ladies. This article discusses both sides of the issue of whether oral contraceptives cause abortions from a prolife view that affirms that life begins at conception: <a href="http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm</a> Likewise, this site has two articles by Prolife OBGYNs. Arguing for each side. <a href="http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/</a> .
    Posted by AnnaW11[/QUOTE]

    <div>Thanks for the resources. I still haven't decided if i'm comfortable with HBC yet... It will take time no matter what evidence I get. 
    <div>
    </div><div>This study brings up a good point though:</div><div>"Zanatu (51) reports on two women with prolonged infertility (8 to 14 months) after Depo-Provera injections: “We successfully induced ovulation with the sequential adminstration of clomiphene citrate and human chorionic gonadotropin, and pregnancy immediately followed.”<strong> This suggests that once ovulation has occurred, the burst of natural estrogen and progesterone from the corpus luteum simply override even the most potent hormone contraceptive, producing a receptive endometrium, and resulting in a normal implantation and ongoing pregnancy</strong>."</div><div>
    </div><div>
    </div></div>

    save the date
    "Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
  • xstarx05xxstarx05x member
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    ok so my question now, if the lining of the uterus is irrelevant (because the act of ovulation in itself releases the hormones necessary to create a nourishing endometrium) then why is this listed as one of the effects of HBC?

    save the date
    "Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
  • GJones27GJones27 member
    1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Off the top of my head, since I have to go soon... I think some of the articles said that it's one of those things that's left over from misunderstandings dating back a couple of decades.  For example, that statement is based on old MRI studies that show that women on the pill typically have thinner uterine linings, but that was done when they weren't ovulating.  It's more difficult to do studies on how your uterus looks when you ovulate on the pill, as it's not often when you ovulate on the pill.  So pharma companies still go with the old reasoning even though it may not be correct.  Maybe someone can find the line that says that in the articles?

    And just a personal thought... maybe companies say that to make women feel as if the pill is effective.  If women feel it will be effective, they'll use it and buy it.  So maybe pharma still cling to that idea even though new studies show it isn't true.  I could be wrong, though.  But that's something I picked up reading between the lines in one article.
  • xstarx05xxstarx05x member
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Also, is it just me, or in the 2 opposing articles with the statistics on women on HBC who have on-pill ovulation.. are the numbers entirely different between the 2 rates/occurances of ovulation?

    I'll call http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/ Article 1 and http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/ Article 2...

    in Article 1 there were 8 ovulations in 6709 cycles (0.1192%) with 20 mcg & 30-35 mcg strength doses. In Article 2 it states a 14% incidence of ovulation with 50 mcg strength doses. Also where is the evidence for that? It's just a statistic given by a doctor. Also it doesn't specify if it's per cycle (I assume that this kind of statistic would be, and later in the discussion the author seems to assume this) but it would be much different if it were actually per year or something else.

    But yeah, 0.12% versus 14% on-pill ovulation?? How am I supposed to make any sense out of these papers when the "facts" are so different?

    save the date
    "Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
  • GJones27GJones27 member
    1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Hmm... you have good critical reading skills.  I don't think I would have caught that.  Could you highlight the sections and bring it to a OBGYN doctor who can comment on it?  Maybe you could visit a doctor in a religiously-affiliated hospital?  Maybe there would be people on staff with similar values.  You could also maybe use the find-a-physician function on their website to find a pro-life doctor nearby who could provide guidance?

    I'd like to look up the lines I mentioned in my last post today, but I'm preparing for a job interview for tomorrow (I'm been unemployed for seven months, so I need to work really hard on preping unfortunately).  Let me know what you find out!  :-)
  • xstarx05xxstarx05x member
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    I've already contacted ProLife OBGYNS & Prolife Physicians about something else: [email protected] &  [email protected]  

    Dr DeCook from ProLife OBGYN has responded, I'll see if I can ask him/her about it!

    save the date
    "Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
  • edited December 2011
    Sorry I haven't been able to respond earlier. I am in the midst of summer school and my FI is having some family problems. I'm also interested to hear what they say. Just an initial thought though, I know the one saying the combination pill is ok was using only the comb. pill in their statistics. Is the 14% refering specifically to comb. pills or also to POP? I know the other article made a big deal about those often being lumped together when they are very different. If they are combined in the study they are using, that would skew the results of the number of ovulations. I don't have time to check what the article actually says right now, but that would be my first question.

    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • xstarx05xxstarx05x member
    Seventh Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Article 1 is referring to COC (combined), and actually mentions estimated ovulation rates of POP at 14-84% earlier in the paper. Article 2 does not specify. They could have lumped all of them together, as other articles/doctors say.

    When I asked one of the authors of Article 1 about where the rate of 14% breakthrough ovulation came from in the 2nd article, he said he did not know where this statistic came from. I'm seeing if I can get in touch with the author of that article or the doctor he got that statistic from.

    save the date
    "Here we stand from two distant lands, brought together by His hand" <3 my Aussie <BR>
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards