Ortho TriCyclen

It’s been exactly 15 years since the FDA first approved “female condoms,” but it still hasn’t found its niche, except perhaps in the sex trade. In fact, while engineers at Apple have already released the next iteration of the 18-month-old iPhone, there hasn’t even been a second-generation product of the lady-centric contraceptive.

But the Chicago-based Female Health Company is hoping to change that. Its redesigned product, which contains a softer type of rubber called nitrile as well as adhesive foam, is being reviewed by the FDA and, if approved, could be available for sale in the U.S. sometime next year. As a “Class 3 Medical Device,” female condoms are held to the same rigorous FDA standards as pacemakers, heart valves and silicone breast implants, with clinical trials costing as much as $6 million. Male condoms, which are Class 2 devices, are much cheaper to produce and need only pass breakage tests.

Complaints about female condoms are not so different from those about the male version: slippery, noisy, awkward, uncomfortable. “The yuck factor was a problem,” Mitchell Warren, executive director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, told the New York Times last year when explaining the device’s failure to catch on. Then there’s the stigma associated with buying condoms, a topic even the Golden Girls once addressed.

Of course, the history of protected sex, in the broadest sense, used to be a whole lot yuckier. Take the practice of women in ancient Egypt, who resorted to using crocodile dung as a spermicide. Modern research has shown that crocodile dung actually created optimum conditions for sperm because of its alkalinity, but the sheer grossness of the practice might have worked if only to completely ruin the mood.

In the 1540s, an Italian doctor named Gabriele Fallopius – the same man who discovered and subsequently named the fallopian tubes of the female anatomy – wrote about syphilis, advocating the use of layered linen during intercourse for more “adventurous” (read: promiscuous) men. Legendary lover Casanova wrote about his pitfalls with medieval condoms made of dried sheep gut, referring to them as “dead skins” in his memoir. Even so, condoms made of animal intestine – known as “French letters” in England and la capote anglaise (English riding coats) in France – remained popular for centuries, though always expensive and never easy to obtain, meaning the device was often re-used.

In 1844, Charles Goodyear patented the process of vulcanizing rubber, inadvertently ushering in an entirely new era in contraception – condoms as thick as bicycle tires and still considered re-usable. But getting one’s hands on this new-fangled “technology” became a whole lot harder in 1873, when Congress passed the Comstock Law, prohibiting the transportation of obscene material like prophylactics and pornography.

The 1930s saw the invention of latex as well as the invention of the first-ever female condom in the U.S., the “Gee Bee Ring.” In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that married couples had the constitutionally protected right to contraception; in 1972 that same right was extended to unmarried couples. (Ireland prohibited condom sales until 1978, the Catholic Church still condemns them).

Condom use waned in the 1960s after the introduction of the birth control pill and remained stagnant until the arrival of the AIDS virus in the 1980s, when sales exploded, jumping 33% in the U.S. in 1987. Today, some 6 billion condoms are sold worldwide each year, though sales have plateaued in the past decade – policy experts blame “prevention fatigue” while condom-makers (the ones targeting men anyways) have responded by becoming increasingly creative, or perhaps ridiculous. What began as a simple choice between lubricated, ribbed or custom-fit now includes flavored, novelty (Star Wars prophylactic anyone?) and glow-in-the-dark. One can even purchase condom accessories like the $28 Condo-M, a plastic and aluminum bedside container. (Think Pez dispenser for grown-ups). Even the presidential campaign spawned Barack Obama and John McCain-themed condoms with corresponding slogans (“Who says experience is necessary?” for the former, “Old, but not expired” for the latter).

The origin of the word “condom” is unknown, though the story of a certain Dr. Condom in 19th century England remains one of the more persistent myths. The term at least trumps “intravaginal pouch,” a phrase suggested in lieu of “female condom” by an FDA panel tasked in the early 1990s with reviewing an early prototype of the women’s contraceptive.

buy cheap ortho tricyclen birth control free prescription pills
FedEx overnight shipping free prescription online pharmacy

An American land management programme is planning to capture 575 wild horses this month and administer contraceptives in order to control population growth.

The 650-strong Cedar Mountain herd in Utah is growing by 20-25% each year, but scientists say the area can only support 400 horses.

Of the captured 575, 80 mares will be injected with a contraceptive and returned to the area with 50 stallions. The remainder will be put up for adoption.

Although birth control has been administered to mustangs in the past, this operation will be the most extensive use of contraceptives to date.

Supervisors hope it will lead to fewer wild horses being captured for adoption, euthanased or dying through lack of forage.

The federal protection of mustangs falls under the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

“By law, we have to manage this herd so there aren’t large die-offs,” programme director Gus Warr told The Salt Lake Tribune.

Madeleine Pickins, wife of billionaire T Boone Pickins, has revealed that she will adopt most of the horses if she can find enough land to support them. The horses will be up for adoption from 21 February.

buy cheap ortho tricyclen birth control free prescription pills
FedEx overnight shipping free prescription online pharmacy

In the 1980′s many in the healing professions were beginning to recognize how physiological processes such as heart rate, blood flow, pain thresholds etc. could be controlled via modalities such as hypnosis, visualization, meditation, humor and so on.

Out of these observations grew the new and exciting field of mind-body medicine also known as psycyhoneuroimmunology.

In this article I will address a new healing modality called the Mind Resonance Process? (MRP) in the context of the mind-body links that I have found to exist in couples struggling with infertility.

Millions of dollars are spent to diagnose and treat infertility each year. Most of this money is spent on advanced and often invasive technological approaches that in the majority of cases yield very little in the way of results. Why is this?

Well in my view it is because if there is some emotional block in the couple that creates the infertility problem in the first place it will sabotage any attempts to get around it. Although many physicians are reluctant to accept this, it is my view that emotional issues can and do have an upper hand in such cases.

What are some examples of such emotional issues?

Well they are:

1. The fear if getting pregnant or being pregnant.
2. The fear of having a deformed or defective child
3. The fear of having to make the required changes in life style that is demanded of couples when a new member of the family arrives.
4. The fear of the financial repercussions.
5. The fear of being responsible for another’s life or well being.
6. Lack of self confidence as a new parent.
7. Fear that the new member will disrupt what is often an unhealthy co-dependent bond between the parents.

And so on.

The recent work of Dr. Bruce Lipton, an eminent cell biologist posits that our beliefs can affect our physiology. This is also corroborated by the work of Dr. Candace Pert (Molecules of Emotion). Their work supports my clinical observations working with MRP.

In one case working with a woman who was terribly afraid that her child might be deformed I helped her completely release the fear in a matter of minutes. This left her feeling relaxed, confident, resilient, ready and willing to move towards childbirth. The effect on her physiologically was reflected by the shift in her emotional state.

MRP has the powerful ability to not only shift one’s inner emotional matrix it also has the ability to translate this shift into the way the body works and is structured.

If you are dealing with issues of infertility that you feel are emotionally based or are dealing with the stress of infertility and you would like to experience what MRP can do for you kindly visit the web link below.

Dr. Nick Arrizza is trained in Chemical Engineering, Business Management & Leadership, Medicine and Psychiatry. He is an Energy Psychiatrist, Healer, Key Note Speaker,Editor of a New Ezine Called Spirituality And Science (which is requesting high quality article submissions) Author of Esteem for the Self: A Manual for Personal Transformation (available in ebook format on his web site), Stress Management Coach, Peak Performance Coach & Energy Medicine Researcher, Specializes in Life and Executive Performance Coaching, is the Developer of a powerful new tool called the Mind Resonance Process(TM) that helps build physical, emotional, mental and spiritual well being by helping to permanently release negative beliefs, emotions, perceptions and memories. He holds live workshops, international telephone coaching sessions and international teleconference workshops on Physical. Emotional, Mental and Spiritual Well Being.

buy cheap ortho tricyclen birth control free prescription pills
FedEx overnight shipping free prescription online pharmacy

Women’s reproductive rights groups and their allies are fighting what they call a last-minute attempt by the Bush administration to roll back women’s health protections and restrict access to birth control.

At the center of the controversy is a proposed rule that would require health care institutions that receive federal funds to certify in writing that their employees are not required to perform services they find objectionable.

The administration says the rule is designed to increase compliance with laws that prohibit discrimination against health care workers who refuse to provide abortions and other services.

Women’s rights advocates, though, fear the rule would have a much more sweeping effect.

“It’s totally a ruse. It’s totally a new social war on birth control, which I find ludicrous,” said Mary Jane Gallagher, president and chief executive of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Now, health care workers can refuse to provide services they find morally or religiously objectionable, but their employers must find an employee who will provide the service, Gallagher said. The proposed rule, opponents fear, would allow entire institutions to refuse to serve patients, she said.

Observers say the rule would have to be approved some time this week in order to fully take effect before President George W. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20. If the regulation is approved, it’s unclear whether President-elect Barack Obama would be able to undo it through an executive order or whether it would take a more time-consuming, bureaucratic process to roll it back. Congress could also act to reverse it.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto dismissed charges that the administration was making an eleventh-hour rule that would expand current law. Officials have conducted an open and transparent rule-making process, he said.

“Those charges are ridiculous, and they don’t know what they’re talking about. There’s nothing ‘last minute’ about it. We’re not starting it now. It’s coming to an end now,” Fratto said. “The proposed rule will not in any way restrict access to birth control or any other health service.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt explained his intent concerning the rule on his blog: “The issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience, and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.”

In another posting, Leavitt asked: “Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?”

During the 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule that ended in September, about 200,000 statements were submitted in opposition from medical associations, women’s health organizations, members of Congress, governors, attorneys general, religious leaders and the public, according to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

“It’s unconscionable that the Bush administration, while promising a smooth transition, would take a final opportunity to politicize women’s health,” said the federation’s president, Cecile Richards. “People want government to find common-sense solutions to problems, not to create them by allowing health care providers to withhold critical information and services at a time when affordable health care is hard enough to come by.”

In an effort to block the proposed rule, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) met with Leavitt in September. After that meeting, they and 26 other senators, including Obama, signed on to a letter asking Leavitt to thwart the rule.

In November, Clinton and Murray took their opposition a step further and introduced legislation to prevent the Health and Human Services Department from implementing the rule.

“This HHS rule will threaten patients’ rights, stand in the way of health care professionals and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most,” Clinton said in a statement announcing the legislation.

Added Murray: “For eight years, this administration has worked to undermine women’s health, but they won’t get away with it on their way out the door.”

In the House, Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.) introduced similar legislation.

But with Congress unlikely to return this year, there is little lawmakers can do until the next Congress convenes next year. If the proposed rule is approved, Murray is prepared.

“We’re certainly going to work with the Obama administration to rescind it through executive order, or we’ll work to pass legislation as early as possible,” said Murray’s spokesman, Matt McAlvanah.

Murray and other opponents of the rule would likely get a sympathetic ear with Obama, whose aides have said he would try to roll it back.

Obama objected to the proposed rule, saying it would make it more difficult for women to receive health services such as abortion and some birth control.

buy cheap ortho tricyclen birth control free prescription pills
FedEx overnight shipping free prescription online pharmacy

American Politics is a tempestuous monster – a monster that recycles the same issues year after year, election after election, often with the same faces promoting their banal platforms with revised words. Politics, and politicians it seems, attempt to reduce the rainbow of mindsets into identifiable, compartmentalized groups – mainly liberal and conservative (these two groups often subdivided further). In this sense, this seems inherently logical – having a political representative for every possible political makeup would almost be counter-productive. Politicians would be so diverse that there would be little to no unity and even less forward action than there is now. However, despite this, the limitations of liberal and conservative are intrinsically frustrating, especially on ethical and moral issues, particularly pertaining to reproductive rights. As it stands now, reproductive rights is one of the political issues that seems to be quantified in extremes – you are either pro-life, pro-abstinence (prude and old-fashioned), or pro-choice, pro-sexual liberation (pro-fornication and an abomination of good ol’ fashioned family values).

As a pro-life liberal, I am forced to straddle the political fence in a straining manner. Although I lean heavily toward the liberal spectrum on most issues, including reproductive rights, my aversion to abortion prevents me from completely crossing the line. Instead, I sit in the middle, forced to call myself a moderate, but even that term does not sit well with me. A moderate, to me, implies neutrality, almost a lack of opinion. This is something I do not lack, especially on this issue. However, concerning my somewhat “impure” stance and the delicacy of discussing reproductive rights, I’m generally hesitant to articulate my thoughts. I do not intend this essay to be offensive or combative; instead, I hope to offer another perspective on a difficult issue, an issue that liberal and conservative politicians, parents, and educators often present as clear cut, either one way or the other.

I stand between the conservative pro-life groups and the liberal pro-choice groups with contention. I often find the manner in which each opposing side voice themselves incredibly offensive and derogatory. Each side seems to lose any sense of logic, insightfulness, or tact when communicating with each other, instead resorting to rudimentary emotional attacks in order to make their point. Examples of this would be fundamentalist pro-life members picketing outside of abortion clinics with signs that read things like “You just love your baby to death, don’t you,” “Any woman who’d willingly have an abortion doesn’t deserve to be a mother,” or “Don’t kill something you’re not going to eat.” Conversely, in the pro-choice camp, catch-lines such as “If you’re against an abortion, don’t have one” or “Will riot if abortion on demand is rejected” raise my hackles, although slightly less so than the pro-life mottos. Perhaps that reveals my liberal bias. However, these slogans (from both sides) are offensive, sarcastic, and should not have a toehold in our culture. When I see signs and hear chants that are so blatantly emotion-centered, I close my mind, close my ears, and avoid the issue at all costs. It doesn’t mean I don’t care – I do – but there is a much more tactful, effective way to communicate about reproductive rights. For this reason, the reproductive discourse should more from fundamentalist, extreme opposites to a more progressive, cooperative dialogue.

I am pro-life in the sense that I believe abortion is not ideal and that it should be avoided. However, I am pro-choice in the sense that I fully support intensive sexual education in schools and open sexual discourse between parents and their children (if possible), and I also support Planned Parenthood and any other organization that offers contraceptives, health services, and sexual education. There are many factors behind my stance, some more significant than others, and some that may be identifiable to you.

I, like many Midwesterners, was raised in a loving, tightly knit conservative Evangelical family. Some of my earliest memories take place in my family’s former church, and although I do not identify with the majority of Evangelical beliefs and practices anymore, for much of my formative youth, I accepted them as truth. I was also strongly influenced by the manner in which my parents educated me and my siblings about sex and reproduction. Following the conservative model, they instilled upon us that sex was a loving act for married couples only, that any sexual activity outside of marriage was disrespectful to ourself and our future spouses. However, unlike many Christians, they supported the use of contraceptives inside the boundaries of marriage. Also unlike many of their peers, they taught us that sex was not a shameful act purely for reproduction, but that it was a joyous declaration of love between man and wife. My parents also taught my siblings and me to think independently, questioning everything before accepting it as fact or ideological belief. This I thank them for, but it backfired on them as each and every one of us grew older and started questioning the church, particularly the church’s stance on sex and reproductive rights.

My siblings are significantly older than I am (sixteen and twelve years older, to be exact … I’m an example of failed contraceptives), and by the time I was eight, my sister was married to a wonderful man that she had been living with for over a year. By the time I was fourteen, my brother was married to a wonderful woman whom he had been living with for two and a half years. Although consummated outside of the boundaries of Christian marriage, both of my siblings are still very happily married, with five beautiful boys between them. This was certainly pivotal in shaping my belief that sex outside of marriage is not the demise of culture and family.

Conversely, once, at a church function aimed at youth, I overheard two girls whispering about giving blowjobs to numerous boys in the backseat of a friend’s car. Ironically, later that same evening, the pastor asked for us to pledge our chastity. While  the aforementioned girls pledged to remain virgins until marriage, I seethed at the hypocrisy. I did not pledge my chastity. I was one of the few that didn’t, and I’m extremely glad I did not. I greatly respect those that do make the choice to remain chaste until marriage, but I would prefer to honestly embrace sexuality rather than give in to hormonal urges in the backseat of a car.

Whether parents and politicians like it or not, the fact is, youths are beginning to become sexually active at younger and younger ages and more often than not, irresponsibly. Many children feel unable to discuss sex with their parents, and more often than not, are taught abstinence-only education in school, so they rely on their friends and the internet for information. This is devastating – leading to emotional trauma, misinformation, sexually transmitted infections and diseases, and of course, pregnancy, which often leads to hasty, ill-considered abortions or emotionally devastating marriages. Luckily, even though I was unable to discuss my sexual practices with my parents due to their conservatism, they had instilled in me independence. Utilizing my agency, I researched everything I had not learned in sex education, mainly through Planned Parenthood, as it was the most accessible at the time. However, many of my peers are unaware of the resources they have.
For example, a friend of mine who went through twelve years of Catholic single-sex schooling approached me with a question. She was a week late for her period and concerned. I asked if she had had sex. She said no, she had not, but that her boyfriend had touched her with his fingers, “down there.” I then asked if his penis had been anywhere near “down there.” “No,” she responded. Had he come into his hand and then touched her? No. I reassured her that she was not pregnant and offered to get her a pregnancy test, just to be safe, all the while wondering what kind of sexual education she had received.

People are going to have sex, whether it’s intercourse or otherwise, and they deserve the right to be education in order to protect themselves. Many unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if youth were educated on the types of birth control, how to use them, and where to get them. This in itself would lower the abortion rate in this country. Parents should not expect schools to do their ideological teaching for them – schools should supplement and take into account what is predominant behavior (parents preaching abstinence only, and youth’s rebelliousness and hormonal rampages). Instead of avoiding the topic and hoping their children do not become sexually active, parents should speak openly and honestly with their children about safe sexual practices, and the benefits of abstinence (if that is their choice). In short, denial is not a form of birth control.

Although many pro-life organizations are fundamentally Christian based and politically conservative, as well as abstinence oriented, I believe that they should consider accepting broader sexual education and contraceptive resources. As a society, we are not in a place to outlaw abortions. If we do so, the dangers of illegal abortions will rise once again, and many unprepared parents and their children will suffer. Instead, both pro-choice and pro-life groups should work beside each other to improve sexual education, replacing common misconceptions, and tactfully offer alternatives to abortion. I think it’s safe to say that most pro-choice supporters are not baby-haters by any means, but they believe a woman should have control over what is happening to her body. Access to contraceptives, whether it’s through Planned Parenthood or a private practice should be easier. At this time, not all insurance covers birth control. Although organizations such as Planned Parenthood offer birth control at a discounted rate, it is still expensive. Having access to contraceptives and reproductive health care should not be only for the wealthy, privileged, or those with sexually supportive parents.

Additionally, education on alternatives to abortion should be more readily available. For instance, I’ve noticed there is a common misconception among young women (and men), that babies given up for adoption are bounced from one cruel foster home to another until they are eighteen. Most people do not realize how difficult it is to adopt a baby in the United States, and just how many loving couples want one. My aunt and uncle tried for years to adopt a baby in the US, but after years on the waiting list, they finally resorted to adopting from Russia. They have adopted three children from Russian, two in 1995 (sisters), and one boy in 2003. Even then, these children were not babies – they were seven, six, and eight when adopted. As the movie Juno depicted last year, most mothers are able to choose where their baby goes when it is adopted. It is not out of their control.

Many unwed, young pregnant women that I have encountered choose abortion because they think that it’s their only option – that they do not have control. They imagine that if they have the baby, they will be forever surviving off food stamps, that they will be unfit to be a mother, that their boyfriend, the father, will leave them, will not contribute. In short, they decide that it is fairer to the child to stop its life before it begins, rather than bring it into this would under hardship.

We need to stop shouting at each other from opposing sides of the reproductive battlefield – and we shouldn’t wait for politicians to take the lead. We need to educate our men and women about their sexual practices, provide reproductive and contraceptive resources, teach responsible sexual consideration, offer promising alternatives to abortion, and support unwed mothers. If we do so, I believe we will find the number of abortions will drop immensely, both sides of the political monster will be appeased, and I won’t have to call myself a moderate.

buy cheap ortho tricyclen birth control free prescription pills
FedEx overnight shipping free prescription online pharmacy

Teenage pregnancy hotspots – including three in Yorkshire – will be encouraged to increase the number of girls having contraceptive injections, it emerged yesterday.

The Government has written to a clutch of councils and health authorities across the country to press for increased usage of the contraceptive jabs which will be available to girls as young as 13.

Sheffield, Rotherham and Leeds are among the 21 areas said to be targeted by ministers anxious to lower teenage pregnancy rates but the move has sparked criticism that the jabs are suitable for relatively young girls.

The policy emerged in response to a Freedom of Information request. Letters from ministers urging councils and health authorities to reduce teenage pregnancy rates said more school-based clinics should be set up along with effecting “an overall increase in the uptake of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)”.

The rate of teenage pregnancies in Britain has fallen from the peak years of the late 1990s, but it is still the highest in Western Europe and the second highest, after the US, in the world.

In 2005, there were 39,804 conceptions by under-18s in England – a rate of 41.3 per thousand. The Government has targeted areas where the conception rate has either remained static or increased for extra contraceptive measures, including LARC which can make girls infertile for up to three months.

As well as injections, LARC includes the use of implants, which can be fitted to make women infertile for varying amounts of time. With the exception of the injection, a woman’s fertility returns straight away once removed.

Some critics have raised concern about the potential impact on the health of young girls, including claims that bone growth can be affected. There are also fears that a sense of contraceptive “immunity” might lead to increased promiscuity and increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases.

Shipley Conservative MP Philip Davies said the measure failed to take into account the moral dimension of girls as young as 13 using contraception.

He said: “The whole debate around teenage pregnancy for the last 30 years has been about putting our faith in sex education, handing over more and more contraceptives free of charge and the problem has been getting worse.

“At some point, someone is going to say ‘this isn’t working’. We’re saying it’s ok to have sex at this age as long as you’re using contraception when the message should be you shouldn’t be having sex at all.”

Mr Davies added that it would be more beneficial to reconsider how state benefits and social housing were allocated to discourage some girls from seeking a short-sighted route out of the parental home at too young an age.

Last night the Department of Health issued a statement insisting girls will not be forced to have LARC and pointing out the Government’s primary concern was only to ensure young people had access to effective birth control.

The statement said: “Thirteen-year-old girls will not be forced to have a contraceptive injection.

“The vast majority of 13-year-olds are not sexually active.

“Our teenage pregnancy strategy is about providing effective sex and relationships education to ensure young people have the skills to delay sex until they are ready, for parents to talk to their children about sex and relationships and access to effective contraception methods for those that are sexually active.”

buy cheap ortho tricyclen birth control free prescription pills
FedEx overnight shipping free prescription online pharmacy