According to ObamaCare supporters, it’s “religious whackos,” such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, that “have a problem with modern medicine.” who want “to deny women preventative care.”
We’ll ignore the “religious wacko” smear. Jesus warned us, after all, that his followers would “be hated by all because of my name” (Mark 10:22).
But let’s examine the assertion that opposing contraception is denying women “preventive care?”
According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention:
- Failure rate for the pill, the patch, and the ring is 9%. So . . . the odds are that every 11 times a woman on the pill or patch has sex, she’s going to get pregnant.
- Failure rate for injection/shots is 6%, so every 16 times a woman on injection has sex, the odds are she gets pregnant.
Plus, World Health Organization says the active ingredient in the pill is a Class I carcinogen.
More from the CDC:
- Failure rate for the diaphragm or cervical cap is 12%. So every 8 times a woman with a diaphragm has sex, the odds are she’ll get pregnant.
- Failure rate for the male condom is 18%, for the female condom, 21%. Figure every five times a woman relying upon these products has sex, she’s likely to get pregnant.
- Failure rate for spermicides is 28% — odds are one in every 3.6 sexual episodes will result in pregnancy.
If this is preventive care, you, dear reader, must be the Pope.
Now consider this:
The Creighton method of natural family planning is 99.5% effective at preventing pregnancy for those who follow all the rules, 96.8% effective for the typical user. In other words, the odds of a woman who doesn’t want to get pregnant is 1 in every 200 sexual episodes if she follows all the rules. For the typical user of the Creighton method, the odds are one in every 31.25 episodes.
Who’s denying women effective preventive care? “Religious wackos,” like the Little Sisters of the Poor and those promoting modern natural family planning? Or those who profit from selling pills that don’t work, barriers that don’t work and spermicides that don’t work — and those who rake in campaign cash by using government to promote their products?