Talk for Article "Famous Catholic birth control ban has hit the poor hardest"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I’m not quite sure what the headline “Famous Catholic birth control ban has hit the poor hardest” and text “Religious influencers have yielded power over birth control access and have even pushed birth control restrictions into legislation, with working class women and women in poverty most affected” actually refer to.

    Does that mean that poor and/or working class women would make more use of forbidden birth control methods than rich or middle class women would? And how can you tell?

    Or does it mean that the economic impact of lack of access to birth control is greater for poor women than rich women? How is that impact measured, and what are the sources for that measurement?

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Catholic pro choice are not experts. They are a lobby. Journalism should be more than giving time and space to a lobby so they can define a reality, frame it as a problem for the poor and give us the solution: birth control.

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “Some studies suggest a link between hormonal oral contraceptives and an increased risk of breast and cervical cancer. Others show a reduced risk of ovarian, endometrial, and colorectal cancer when using oral contraceptives.”

    The source you cite says “Nearly all the research on the link between oral contraceptives and cancer risk comes from observational studies, both large prospective cohort studies and population-based case–control studies. Data from observational studies cannot definitively establish that an exposure—in this case, oral contraceptives—causes (or prevents) cancer. […] Overall, however, these studies have provided consistent evidence that the risks of breast and cervical cancers are increased in women who use oral contraceptives, whereas the risks of endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancers are reduced.”

    This is much stronger than “some studies suggest …”. Perhaps a better wording would be “observational studies consistently provide evidence that …”

    You might like to also quote the UK NHS advice at https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/combined-pill-may-raise-breast-cancer-risk/ (and scientific paper referenced there) which states “a robust study that included more than 1,000 US women aged 20 to 49 who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, and an age-matched control group […] Overall use of any combined pill in the past year was associated with a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer, compared with never using the combined pill or using it more than one year ago.” and later reports that “Cancer Research UK currently advises there seems to be a small increase in risk of breast cancer while women are taking the combined pill.”.

    A convenient summary of this might be “UK NHS and medical charity CRUK advise that use of the contraceptive pill is associated with a small increased risk of breast cancer”.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I liked your suggestion of the more precise and accurate “observational studies consistently provide evidence that” and made that change.

      Just so you know, you should totally feel comfortable just making such changes yourself. It’s a wikI!

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    It is understood. I really like this new news model

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Ah thanks Arthur, we appreciate it!

  5. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I think it is wrong to comment on the 50th anniversary of the “Humanae vitae”, mainly citing the opinion of “catholics pro choice”. Its tendency against teaching this document is well known.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Arthur, that is why there is a section on Catholic opposition to Humanae Vitae. Could you share more information about what you think is missing?

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Fifty years ago, Humanae Vitae warned about the dangers of contraception. Many contemporary adolescent and marital affective and sexual problems – some in epidemic proportions — are directly related to not taking these into account. Humanae Vitae was prophetic.

        https://www.mercatornet.com/mobile/view/humanae-vitae-50-years-after-reviled-ridiculed-…-and-right

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          Right I see what you’re saying. We are not debating whether Humanae Vitae was prophetic but the associated problems with its teachings that birth control should be banned. Therefore that is why this story is about studies and experts that cite the consequences of birth control bans and related problems.

          Edited: 2018-07-25 19:23:11 By Lydia Morrish (talk | contribs) + 12 Characters .. + 4% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

  6. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “Reuters reported the move was to appease Trump’s Christian supporters.” This is not correct. Reuters, at the linked-to story, wrote “keeping a campaign pledge that pleased his conservative Christian supporters”. You drop the reference to being a campaign pledge, and replace “please” by “appease”, a pejorative term linked in the minds of many people to the way the democracies behaved towards the Nazis in the 1930s.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Thanks Jennifer. I have changed those.

  7. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “President Donald J. Trump signed off reforms to the Affordable Care Act 2014 (ACA) that would allow any employer, insurance plan, school, or individual to use the guise of religious or moral objection to deny access to no-cost contraception.”

    Why “the guise”? Is it intended to suggest that religious or moral objections are somehow a disguise for something else?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      It certainly wasn’t intended to allude to a guise, so have changed to “please.” Thank you.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us