Friday, November 28, 2008

Time to Invest In A Water Purifier?

Contraception in the water is not all comic suggestion or brave social commentary. In New Jersey in 2003, traces of hormonal contraceptives were found in tap water and more recently near Denver, Colorado, synthetic estrogen was found to be the cause of deformities and infertility in male fish. The affected fish dwelt downstream from a town sewerage plant and it was discovered that the “main culprits [of infertility and deformities] were…estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth-control pills and patches that ultimately ended up in the creek after being excreted in urine into the city's sewers.”(1)

There’s one good reason to take advantage of the Government’s rainwater tank rebate.

(1) Birth-control pills poison everyone? Environmentalists silent on threat from water tainted with estrogen published by WorldNetDaily, July 12 2007: accessed 16-07-07

© Eva Whiteley 2008

In the Water Supply

This article is not recent, but I really enjoyed writing it, so thought I'd share it anyway.

July 2007
A New Zealand university professor has landed himself in hot water after suggesting that contraceptive chemicals be put in the water supply in order to stop uneducated women having children.

His comments come after results from the latest New Zealand census reveal that women without a tertiary education have an average of one child more than women with a university degree.

Professor Jim Flynn of the South Island’s Otago University, suggested tap water contraception as a means to boost the birth rate among university-educated women while simultaneously lowering the birth rate among women without a higher education.(1) Professor Flynn also recommended that women affected by the innovative tap water could take an antidote if they wanted to become pregnant.

The media reaction to the suggestion was admirable and the Professor back-peddled rather quickly, claiming in subsequent interviews that his statement was not serious.(2) But he is not alone. Similar comments are appearing increasingly in newspaper opinion columns and on web logs where it is suggested that greater access to contraception among the lower classes would curb teen pregnancy, domestic violence, child abuse, single-parent families and infant mortality. Contraception by postcode has been suggested as a means to cure the nation’s indigenous problems. The idea is appealing to the financially-minded; certainly it is cheaper and easier to supply contraception to the masses than it is to educate them.

Professor Flynn’s comments, while inappropriate and immoral, reflect a wider concern that the younger generation is having babies but failing to raise them properly. At age 73, perhaps the professor agrees with the general consensus that contraception will curb the poverty, violence and immorality commonly associated with the not-so-well-educated. But as noted in the UN’s 2003 World Fertility Report, contraception is linked to a rising disrespect for marriage and the family and rather than fixing social problems, only serves to compound them.

Most believe that the best way to solve the problem of children being born into disadvantaged circumstances is to use and distribute contraception. If poor couples only have two children instead of three, we could soon break the poverty cycle, so they reason. The Catholic Church has ever been a bastion against this kind of thinking, and its teaching on contraception has been ridiculed and rejected most vehemently in the last 50 years. It is estimated that up to 80% of Catholics use contraception.

So, why is contraception not the cure for social ills?

• Contraception is contrary to the laws of God and the natural law. The Church’s teaching on the subject can be summed up thus: "It is wrong to impede the procreative power of actions that are ordained by their nature to the generation of human life."(3) The Church’s Biblical foundation for opposing contraception can be located in Genesis 38: 7-10 which details the contraceptive sin and consequent punishment of a man called Onan. Contraception cuts God from the equation and allows couples to proclaim that while He is Lord of their lives, they do not want Him to be Lord of their fertility.

• Numerous Scripture passages can be found in which children are seen as a blessing from God (see: Genesis 28:3, 1 Chronicles 25:5, Tobias 6:22, Psalms 127:3-5 & 128:1-4, Exodus 23:25-26, Deuteronomy 28:4), and sterility as a curse (see: Genesis 30:1-2 & 30: 22-23, Hosea 9:11, Jeremias 18:21, 1 Kings 1:6).

• Contraception fosters disrespect for human sexuality, in particular female sexuality and fertility. Rather than being viewed as the blessing that it is, fertility becomes the problem to be fixed and pregnancy becomes the new STD.

• The past half-century has seen a phenomenal increase in the prevalence of AIDS, divorce, underage and extra-marital sex, abortion and homosexuality. While the connection is often difficult to extrapolate, it would be foolish to assume that the advent of the Pill and the acceptance of contraception by most Christian groups has had nothing to do with these upward trends.

• Apart from the spiritual and emotional consequences of birth control, contraceptives have numerous physical side-effects, including: irregular or heavy periods, headaches, breast tenderness, thrombosis, nausea and vomiting, skin problems, such as acne and blotching, weight gain, amenorrhea, ovarian cysts, pelvic infection and irritation, jaundice, lethargy, dizziness, loss of libido (how ironic), mood swings, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, increased risk of miscarriage, increased risk of infertility later in life and decreased bone mineral density (Australian Medicines Handbook 2005, pp.626-638)

But if contraception is not the answer, then what is?

If we are going to curb domestic violence and child abuse and combat poverty and a lack of education, we desperately need to get back to the basics. While a secular education is extremely important to equip a person to face life’s challenges and to choose the career which best suits him, it falls a distant second behind educating for eternity.

Children must be taught that marriage is a sacred union and that sex is a gift. Parents should encourage their children to abstain; they should have a love for chastity and a desire to save sex for marriage. Babies must be seen as a blessing, not as a burden, mistake or accident. Parents should be encouraged to raise their children well, and not half-heartedly, by palming them off to 5-day-a-week childcare institutions. If poor parenting was the exception, Professor Flynn would perhaps not have shared his controversial suggestion.

According to Doctor Emma Whiteley, of Tamworth, the key to fixing the root cause is to re-establish the Faith in the hearts and minds of Catholic parents and their children. And from that, we must re-establish the social reign of Christ the King. “Then you wouldn't have single mums, worthless dads, eleven-year-old kids in juvenile justice.”

The Church’s teaching on contraception is undoubtedly correct – one need only read Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae to understand the intimate connection between the contraceptive mentality and promiscuity, family break-up and brutal population control. The revolution must begin in Catholic homes.

At the very beginning of every ‘unwanted’ child is an act of sex that was either misunderstood (in the case of many married couples) or abused (in the case of pre- and extra-marital sex). If society would readjust it’s perspective of marriage, sex, the family and children, there would be no ‘accidental’ pregnancies, no abortions, no unwanted children and no supposed ‘need’ for contraception in the water supply.

(1) Brainier mums needed to maintain future generations' intelligence, says professor, Published July 8 2007 by The New Zealand Herald, accessed online 15-07-07
(2) Published 9 July 2007 by, accessed online 20-07-07
(3) Smith, J. (2000) Humane Vitae: A Generation Later, excerpt accessed online: 01-09-07
(4) Personal communication with the author, 28-08-2007

© Eva Whiteley 2008

The Golden Calf

Pink Ribbon Month

October was breast cancer awareness month and all over Australia and the world, groups formed to raise money for the cause. From retail therapy groups who were sponsored simply to shop, to the group in Oklahoma that decorated bras and hung them in an art gallery; women seemed desperate to fund a cure.

Again, the world focused on finding a cure rather than focusing on a major cause of the disease and again, well-documented research - which, if heeded, could save lives - was swept under the carpet.

The Pill

In July 2005 the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer defined the Pill (the world's most popular oral contraceptive) as a Class 1 carcinogenic, placing it in the same category as asbestos and tobacco. This should have been enough for feminists to decry the Pill, but apparently sexual freedom is more important than women’s very lives and Pill use has continued unabated.

In October 2006, a study by the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research found that the golden calf of contraceptive technology, the Pill, is associated with an increased risk in the development of breast cancer later in life. In fact, the study showed that there was a whopping 44% risk increase in women who used the Pill prior to their first pregnancy.(1)

These findings were not well-publicised. This is partly because the Pill is a lucrative business and partly because denunciation of the Pill would seem to be a defeat for women. For nearly 50 years, the Pill has been seen as a feminist triumph in a patriarchal society – an emancipation linked with a break from traditional gender roles. But the emancipation is an unsteady one when women’s lives are endangered by the very object which claims to make them free.

Pharmaceutical companies are raking in billions of dollars annually selling a Pill that literally improves a woman's risk of developing breast cancer and groups are out there walking 20 kilometres on a windy Saturday to try and raise money to find the cure. How many more women need die from Pill-related breast cancer before we tell the pharmaceutical companies to break open their coffers and fund a cure?

First step to culling the breast cancer rate: quit the Pill.

(1) Kahlenborn C, Modugno F, Potter D, Severs W., Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis, Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302

© Eva Whiteley 2008

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Contraception for Children

Controversy surrounds contraception agenda for Indigenous children

Family and women’s groups speak out against “government approval of underage sex”

The Government-approved use of a contraceptive implant on Indigenous girls as young as 12 has faced a barrage of criticism from Opposition MPs and family groups who claim that the Government is approving illegal and potentially harmful underage sex.

The small Aboriginal community of Woorabinda, south west of Rockhampton in Queensland, has become the focus of intense scrutiny after the state’s opposition child safety spokeswoman, Jann Stuckey, travelled there in March, 2008.

Mrs Stuckey was told by concerned Woorabinda residents that a number of children, including some who are disabled, had been given the implant. According to Mrs Stuckey, the residents had reported the practice to the Department of Child Safety but nothing had been done to investigate the matter further and the practice had continued on up to 12 girls.

Mayor of Woorabinda, Roderick Tobane, supports the use of the implant on the girls, although he has admitted he would not approve underage sex for his own children.

While Mr Tobane could not confirm that any of the children are disabled, he is now pushing for restrictions on community members wanting to speak to politicians or the media about their concerns. In an interview with the ABCs Annie Guest, Mr Tobane said he would no longer tolerate bad publicity from community whistle-blowers.
The Mayor urged concerned citizens to approach the police, rather than politicians.

Queensland Health says the practice is rare, but Mrs Stuckey disagrees. It has been revealed that up to 12 children have been given the implant. In a community of less than 1000, Mrs Stuckey estimates this to be 20% of the population’s 12 year olds. “Hardly what I would call a last resort,” she said.

Queensland Health acting chief health officer Linda Selvey said, “There are cases where a young person's decision-making process is impaired in some way and they are simply unable to make informed decisions about their health and their body, including their sexual behaviour and contraception."

While the State Opposition is claiming that parental consent is not always sought, the State Government is claiming that it is. Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, said that for children in the care of the state, the Child Safety Department makes the decision. Family advocacy groups say this approach is wrought with complications and have expressed concern that the implant could be used to cover up incest and rape.

Gail Instance, Executive Director of Family Life International Australia, believes there is nothing more likely to encourage underage sex than to give young people contraceptives.

“A report from Perth recently showed that since the Pill has been available over the counter, the abortion rate among teenagers has increased and there has been an explosion of sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia. The same things have happened in the UK. It's only a matter of time before authorities in Queensland are complaining about an increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases there too,” she says.

Penrith doctor, Emma Whiteley, believes that the only thing the practice protects a child from is pregnancy. “The implant doesn’t protect against rape, physical and sexual abuse or STDs. Children who are too young to make the decision to use contraception, and who need a guardian to sign the consent form are too young to be having sex. This practice conveys tacit government approval of underage sex.”

Another complication of the practice, says Dr Whiteley, is the lack of knowledge about the long-term effects of contraceptive implants. “Implanon is a slow-release hormone which prevents pregnancy for up to 3 years. Who knows what long-term effects this will have on the fertility of these children?”

© Eva Whiteley 2008

Baby Think It Over

A fascinating new phenomenon has hit Australian schools. After several years of ‘success’ in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, a personal development program called Baby Think It Over has come to Australia and is fast making friends among parents and life skills educators in the high schools of our nation.

So what’s it all about and why is it so popular?

The star of Baby Think It Over is a battery operated, computerized doll, made to simulate a real baby. It cries randomly, wets its nappy, requires regular feeding, weighs as much as a 6 ½ pound baby, and even comes in an array of racial appearances, including Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, African-American and Native-American.

Baby Think It Over (BTIO) is the creation of American couple, Rick and Mary Jurmain, who came up with the idea in 1993 while watching a program on high school sex education. Rick Jurmain seemed to think that a life-like baby would be more effective in preventing teen pregnancy than carrying around a sack of flour ( “Have a Baby? I Think I'll Think It Over”), and thus Baby was created.

Schools across America have reported significant drops in teen pregnancy since the mid-1990s and have attributed the BTIO program with this decline. Considering that the BTIO program was introduced in a bid to combat teen pregnancy, one might conclude that it has been an overall success. Unfortunately however, its effects don’t stop with the regression in the incidence of teen pregnancy.

Many teenagers today don’t know about the realities of child rearing, so the general idea of BTIO is to give these young people the experience of babies.

Sounds like a good idea…

But what about the underlying philosophy of BTIO? Is it to foster a desire to save sex for marriage? Is it to foster purity and chastity? A love for children? The desire for a large family? An appreciation for parenthood?

Sadly, no. The underlying philosophy of BTIO is somewhat the opposite.

It fosters an anti-child mentality and either by active promotion or simply by default, it advocates the concept and practice of contraceptive or ‘safe’ sex. Such misnomers are not uncommon in these days of word games, but rarely has a misnomer been responsible for such widespread moral, spiritual, emotional, physical and psychological destruction as has that of ‘safe’ sex.

One wonders how BTIO can show teens what parenting is really like when it leaves out all the wonderful aspects of parenthood. The BTIO baby can’t smile or say mummy. She can’t coo or do cute things or make exciting progress as human babies do. There is no bond between the teenager and the doll; as there is between a mother and father and their baby.

In reality, the BTIO program adds to the anti-life, anti-children and anti-marriage mentality that is already grossly present in so many Australian schools.

The following quotes from school students who have completed the BTIO program and from teachers who promote the program, summarise these attitudes fairly succinctly:

“Your social life and time to yourself just drops, and that was just for three days. You have to put your life on hold and just take care of another life." (Student:, “Baby Helps Teens Think It Over” by Sharon Cromwell)

“Everyone wants to take 'em [the babies] home, but nobody wants to keep 'em." (Teacher: Cromwell)

“Yeah, babies are cute, but they’re a pain in the neck!” (Student: personal communication, 19-05-06)

““I don’t think I’d want any more than one!” (Student: personal communication, 19-05-06)

““She had BTIO for 5 days and by the 4th day she was writing in her diary how much she did not like the baby and that she was not going to have a baby until she was in her 30’s if ever.” (Mother of a 13-year-old, speaking about her daughter’s experience: Cromwell)

“We have kids begging to take the Baby home on Friday, but they sure are glad to bring it back Monday morning.” (Guidance Counselor: Cromwell)

The BTIO program may prevent teen pregnancy, but it does so in entirely the wrong way. Rather than preventing teen pregnancy in a positive manner, it promotes contraceptive sex by creating a repugnance for parenthood and an antipathy towards children.

© Eva Whiteley 2008

Monday, November 17, 2008

Psychological Impact of Abortion

On January 3rd 2006, a team of New Zealand-based researchers from the School of Medicine and Health Sciences in Christchurch released the findings of a study which looked at the psychological effects of abortion on women. The study followed the lives of 500 New Zealand women from their birth in 1977 until the age of 25, with particular attention paid to the period from age 15 to 25. Each woman’s history of pregnancy, abortion and mental well-being was carefully chronicled, with a strong focus on the woman’s background. The study found that [f]orty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders [and that the] association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors, ie, family background.(1)

The comprehensive background study took into consideration the mother’s education, changes to the family structure, parental criminal history, childhood sexual and physical abuse, childhood conduct at school and at home, childhood educational achievement, personality, adolescent adjustment and young adult lifestyle issues. It is a true indicator of the effects of abortion that such serious mental health problems as depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and substance abuse developed regardless of the individual’s background.

Further, the study showed the particularly detrimental effects that abortion has on younger women, revealing that those who had had an abortion between the ages of 15 and 18 experienced more than twice the incidence of major depression than did the women who became pregnant during these years but had not aborted. The results were similar for anxiety disorder and suicidal tendencies.

The leader of the New Zealand study is strongly pro-abortion, so one can well believe that he and his fellow-researchers were surprised by their findings. In an interview with ABCs radio program, AM, Professor David Fergusson admitted they were surprised by the results and that whilst they had expected to find a higher incidence of mental health problems in young women who had had abortions, they had thought that this would be a result of the women’s background, rather than in spite of their background, as the study shows.(2)

The study was rejected by four medical journals before it was accepted for publication by the British Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry.(3) This speaks volumes about the nature of the research findings. As Dr Fergusson admits, the study was refused for publication by journals that would ordinarily not hesitate to publish medical research findings. He believes they refused, not for scientific reasons, but because the abortion debate is currently of tremendous public interest, and the findings would further fuel the debate.(4) New Zealand’s Abortion Supervisory Committee apparently also thought the study would stimulate public debate and warned the research team against publishing their findings.(5)

The pro-abortion cause has no doubt suffered somewhat with the appearance of such a comprehensive study and it is evident that they have no serious rebuttal of the research, some abortion proponents claiming in response that women can suffer similar effects of mental illness by actually allowing their babies to be born,(6) while others decry the study’s “limitations”.(7) Dr Christine Roke from the Family Planning Association of New Zealand said she “was surprised by the findings”(8); this perhaps to suggest that she has rarely (if ever) come across a woman who has been adversely affected by abortion. But given FPAs track-record of disassociation with the maternal victims of abortion, this was perhaps a predictable response.

Such information as is contained in the study and the continued public airing of other abortion-related medical studies can only help the pro-life cause. Despite attempts by the pro-abortion lobby to brush aside the research findings, the results of the study remain. And the results threaten the entire abortion construction in New Zealand and Australia, where the fundamental legal basis for access to abortions hinges on the excuse of cause; that is, the protection of the mother’s physical and mental health. It doesn’t bode well for abortion if medical research proves that having the abortion could cause worse mental damage than having the baby. In fact, this research undermines the entire argument that abortion is in a woman’s best interest.

1 Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 2006; 47(1): p.2
2 ABC Radio, AM, Reporter: Tom Iggulden. 3 January, 2006
3 Colson, C. The Elephant in the Living Room: The New Zealand Abortion Study, 24/02/2006. accessed: 7/03/2006.
4 ABC Radio, ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Norris, J. Abortion linked to mental health problems, 4/01/2006. Fairfax New Zealand Limited. accessed: 5/01/2006.
7 Robotham, J. Abortion linked to mental health problems, 3/01/2006, Sydney Morning Herald. accessed: 5/01/2006
8 Norris, ibid.

© Eva Whiteley 2008

I Vow To Thee My Country

Thanks to the suggestion of a good friend, I now have an outlet for my journalistic passion and will be posting more or less regularly about current issues. I am a Catholic wife, mother and freelance journalist. I am proud to be an Aussie and even prouder to be pro-life.

I write for God, my family and my country.