Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
To Whom It May Concern:
Marie McCullough's "IUD usage is on the rise in U.S." (8/31/10) read like the script from a pep rally promoting contraceptives and abortifacients. Ms. McCullough made the claim that the IUD "interferes with the sperm and egg in ways that remain mysterious." Is calling the method "mysterious" a way to avoid acknowledging that the IUD can act as an abortifacient? For anyone who bothers to read manufacturers' product information, "mysterious" can hardly seem like an apt descriptor:
- According to Teva Women's Health, "ParaGard prevents pregnancy primarily by stopping sperm from reaching and fertilizing the egg. ParaGard may also prevent the egg from attaching (implanting) in the uterus." In other words, ParaGard may prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the new mom's uterus. So, Teva Women's Health is acknowledging that ParaGard may work in an abortifacient manner.
- According to Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Mirena "may thicken your cervical mucus, thin the lining of your uterus, inhibit sperm movement and reduce sperm survival. Mirena may stop release of your egg from your ovary." So, Bayer also acknowledges that their IUD may act in an abortifacient manner, by thinning the uterine lining and thus interfering with implantation of the fertilized egg in the new mom's uterus.
Barbara Rose, RN succinctly responded (9/9/10) that "the demand for the intrauterine device is growing among women....probably because of the misleading and inaccurate education they receive on its mechanism of action. Your article says that the IUD 'interferes with the sperm and egg in ways that remain mysterious.' What's a mystery is how anyone can say that with a straight face."
In response to the RN's critique of Ms. McCullough's article, you shamelessly published a thinly veiled ad hominem attack against that RN (9/11/10). How does the Inquirer allow "Nick O'Dell" to claim that the RN's response was "outrageous" without so much as citing his credentials or any references?
Thanks for reminding me why buying the Inquirer is not worth the effort.