<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Hyde Amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/</link>
	<description>In defense of the sanctimonious women&#039;s studies set.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:12:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: ako</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81999</link>
		<dc:creator>ako</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81999</guid>
		<description>Oops, I must have mentally flipped the numbers for failure rate and effectiveness rate.   I really am sorry.    I guess I should be more careful to proofread before posting.   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops, I must have mentally flipped the numbers for failure rate and effectiveness rate.   I really am sorry.    I guess I should be more careful to proofread before posting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Kiddle</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81983</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Kiddle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 02:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81983</guid>
		<description>I had to check the site.  Failure rate for basal body temperature is given as 20% (80% effectiveness).  80%, according to a table I looked at when I was a teenager, is the failure rate of &quot;no contraception&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had to check the site.  Failure rate for basal body temperature is given as 20% (80% effectiveness).  80%, according to a table I looked at when I was a teenager, is the failure rate of &#8220;no contraception&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ako</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81975</link>
		<dc:creator>ako</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81975</guid>
		<description>Sorry, mistake.  I meant still doesn&#039;t reduce pregnancy &lt;em&gt;that much&lt;/em&gt;.   I could have sworn I&#039;d typed it that way the first time. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, mistake.  I meant still doesn&#8217;t reduce pregnancy <em>that much</em>.   I could have sworn I&#8217;d typed it that way the first time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ako</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81901</link>
		<dc:creator>ako</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:09:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81901</guid>
		<description>I looked up the numbers, and Catholic organizations claim 99% effectiveness for natural family planning with perfect use.   Which involves charts and special thermometers (not exactly free).    

Interestingly, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_nat.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; puts the perfect use failure rate at 2%, and more importantly, the &lt;strong&gt;typical&lt;/strong&gt; failure rate at 25%.   And if you want a nice peer-reviewed study that looks at what women actually &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt;, then there&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;list_uids=10224543&amp;dopt=Abstract&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; this&lt;/a&gt;, which puts periodic abstinence (the actual substance fof NPF &quot;Just don&#039;t have sex for half the month!&quot;) at 21%.  Whether you believe these numbers or Stanford (or it&#039;s varying year by year), telling poor women to buy a bunch of charts and thermometers, attend classes, and go without for the up to six months it can take to chart their cycles and a week or two every month still doesn&#039;t reduce pregnancy.    

And if you want a more detailed breakdown, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/WO00103&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; the Mayo Clinic &lt;/a&gt; puts the average use failure rate for basal body temperature at 80%, the the calendar method at 13%, and counting your cycle on a string of beads at 12%.   They don&#039;t have any numbers for combined use, but doing everything at once appears to decrease effectiveness, as opposed to with easier artificial methods.    </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I looked up the numbers, and Catholic organizations claim 99% effectiveness for natural family planning with perfect use.   Which involves charts and special thermometers (not exactly free).    </p>
<p>Interestingly, <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_nat.html" rel="nofollow">this page</a> puts the perfect use failure rate at 2%, and more importantly, the <strong>typical</strong> failure rate at 25%.   And if you want a nice peer-reviewed study that looks at what women actually <em>do</em>, then there&#8217;s <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;list_uids=10224543&amp;dopt=Abstract" rel="nofollow"> this</a>, which puts periodic abstinence (the actual substance fof NPF &#8220;Just don&#8217;t have sex for half the month!&#8221;) at 21%.  Whether you believe these numbers or Stanford (or it&#8217;s varying year by year), telling poor women to buy a bunch of charts and thermometers, attend classes, and go without for the up to six months it can take to chart their cycles and a week or two every month still doesn&#8217;t reduce pregnancy.    </p>
<p>And if you want a more detailed breakdown, <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/WO00103" rel="nofollow"> the Mayo Clinic </a> puts the average use failure rate for basal body temperature at 80%, the the calendar method at 13%, and counting your cycle on a string of beads at 12%.   They don&#8217;t have any numbers for combined use, but doing everything at once appears to decrease effectiveness, as opposed to with easier artificial methods.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sayna</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81819</link>
		<dc:creator>Sayna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81819</guid>
		<description>Not all Catholics are anti-choice when it comes to abortion and contraception. Look at this site: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/default.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; 
&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not all Catholics are anti-choice when it comes to abortion and contraception. Look at this site: <a href="https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/default.asp" rel="nofollow"><br />
</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anna</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81780</link>
		<dc:creator>anna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81780</guid>
		<description>Catholics do also have the option of tubal litigation/vasectomies. Does medicare cover that? (Google is failing me on this.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Catholics do also have the option of tubal litigation/vasectomies. Does medicare cover that? (Google is failing me on this.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jewel</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81700</link>
		<dc:creator>Jewel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81700</guid>
		<description>Take away my feminist card - I was unaware of the heinous Hyde amendment. Thanks, Jill, for the informative piece.

On another note, a friend who is morally opposed to contraception got pregnant on NFP. Had a terrible pregnancy, too - months upon months of non-stop morning sickness. I haven&#039;t heard from her recently but I wonder if that experience will change her views on birth control.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Take away my feminist card &#8211; I was unaware of the heinous Hyde amendment. Thanks, Jill, for the informative piece.</p>
<p>On another note, a friend who is morally opposed to contraception got pregnant on NFP. Had a terrible pregnancy, too &#8211; months upon months of non-stop morning sickness. I haven&#8217;t heard from her recently but I wonder if that experience will change her views on birth control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bitter Scribe</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81630</link>
		<dc:creator>Bitter Scribe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81630</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;“natural” family planning...is the only family planning method that is 100% effective.

&lt;/blockquote&gt;Suuuure it is. And the wine really is transubstantiated into Christ&#039;s blood, too.

What do you call people who practice &quot;natural family planning&quot;? &lt;em&gt;Parents.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>“natural” family planning&#8230;is the only family planning method that is 100% effective.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Suuuure it is. And the wine really is transubstantiated into Christ&#8217;s blood, too.</p>
<p>What do you call people who practice &#8220;natural family planning&#8221;? <em>Parents.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zuzu</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81628</link>
		<dc:creator>zuzu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:45:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81628</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I do have a compromise: teach woman the “natural” family planning the Catholic Church likes. It actually works when followed correctly; in fact it is the only family planning method that is 100% effective. That way women won’t feel the need to have the government — or anyone else — buying them abortions.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Dude, they don&#039;t call it &quot;Vatican Roulette&quot; for nothing.  

As for pocket-picking -- I&#039;m sure you&#039;ve renounced your right to collect Social Security, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I do have a compromise: teach woman the “natural” family planning the Catholic Church likes. It actually works when followed correctly; in fact it is the only family planning method that is 100% effective. That way women won’t feel the need to have the government — or anyone else — buying them abortions.</p></blockquote>
<p>Dude, they don&#8217;t call it &#8220;Vatican Roulette&#8221; for nothing.  </p>
<p>As for pocket-picking &#8212; I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ve renounced your right to collect Social Security, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jill</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81621</link>
		<dc:creator>Jill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/07/the-hyde-amendment/#comment-81621</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I do have a compromise: teach woman the “natural” family planning the Catholic Church likes. It actually works when followed correctly; in fact it is the only family planning method that is 100% effective.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Where the heck did you learn that it&#039;s 100% effective? Link to a scientific study, please?

Actually, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_nat.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NFP has a pretty high failure rate&lt;/a&gt; for a variety of reasons. A recent study, which I don&#039;t have the time to look up right now, found that many women ovulate twice in a single month -- meaning that if they&#039;re using NFP and assuming they&#039;re only ovulating once, they have a pretty decent chance of getting pregnent.

Women&#039;s health isn&#039;t a &quot;compromise.&quot; That&#039;s the point. It&#039;s not up to ideological detractors to decide what kind of healthcare women should have access to, even when it comes to preventing pregnancy. It&#039;s up to women and their doctors. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I do have a compromise: teach woman the “natural” family planning the Catholic Church likes. It actually works when followed correctly; in fact it is the only family planning method that is 100% effective.</p></blockquote>
<p>Where the heck did you learn that it&#8217;s 100% effective? Link to a scientific study, please?</p>
<p>Actually, <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_nat.html" rel="nofollow">NFP has a pretty high failure rate</a> for a variety of reasons. A recent study, which I don&#8217;t have the time to look up right now, found that many women ovulate twice in a single month &#8212; meaning that if they&#8217;re using NFP and assuming they&#8217;re only ovulating once, they have a pretty decent chance of getting pregnent.</p>
<p>Women&#8217;s health isn&#8217;t a &#8220;compromise.&#8221; That&#8217;s the point. It&#8217;s not up to ideological detractors to decide what kind of healthcare women should have access to, even when it comes to preventing pregnancy. It&#8217;s up to women and their doctors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching 16/21 queries in 0.032 seconds using disk: basic

Served from: www.feministe.us @ 2012-02-10 02:37:42 -->
