Contraceptives: A one-sided issue on Wikipedia (and not the side that’s showing the truth)

April 16, 2010

I was doing contraceptive research yesterday for our updated education page on the CPLC website, and being a product of my generation, I found myself on Wikipedia “the free encyclopedia.” I was really only on there for kicks. I didn’t think I’d find anything of real use, until I saw this (emphasis mine):

"TOTAL ABSTINENCE
Abstinence as a long term method is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy: not everyone who intends to be abstinent refrains from all sexual activity,[29] and in many populations there is a significant risk of pregnancy from nonconsensual sex.[30] As a public health measure, it is estimated that the protection provided by abstinence may be similar to that of condoms.[31] Some authorities recommend that those using abstinence as a primary method have backup method(s) available (such as condoms or emergency contraceptive pills).[32]"

Let’s review. Assume “nonconsensual sex” = rape or incest. Are we to believe that according to this entry, abstinence is not 100 percent effective to prevent pregnancy because of the .005 percent chance that you’ll get raped or be a victim of incest?

Are we also to believe that “as a public health measure” you run just as much chance getting pregnant as an abstinent person by rape or incest than as a sexually active person using a condom?

And that “some authorities” suggest that abstinent people stock up on condoms and emergency birth control pills just in case?

This entry should have been filed under “Are you kidding me?”

It’s clear from this analysis of the practice of abstinence and the first two paragraphs of history of birth control that sing high praises of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger that the person who wrote and cited in this entry is pro-contraceptive.

What they’re not telling you
It’s what I didn’t find that agonized me. There are ZERO mentions of the documented harmful side effects and deaths caused by contraceptive use.

Regardless of the source, it’s irresponsible of Wikipedia to allow the entry creator to promote so many forms of “birth control” without promoting the statistics of how many condoms fail to prevent the spread of HIV in the US and all over the world, the harmful side effects, and even deaths as a result of using these methods.

Contraceptive truth
“Contraceptives” is the general term used since 1891 to describe “the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices.” “Birth control” is a term used in today’s society. The problem is that these methods don’t “control” birth. They exist to potentially facilitate the death of an unborn child.

But that doesn’t sell as well in a glossy magazine ad.

It was the third entry that came up after I typed in Birth control in the Google search engine. Planned Parenthood was the first entry. Not much of a diverse amount of information there. Just a warning. Be weary of information when you read things like “reproductive rights,” “family planning,” or “equal preventive access.”

We’re in the process of updating our Contraceptives page to look a bit more like our new Abortion page, but until then, here are some good sources for real information about contraceptives.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=310 
http://womens-sexual-health.suite101.com/article.cfm/death_lawsuits_and_the_pill
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_03condomresource1.html
http://www.morningafterpill.org/

I’m also working on trying to edit the actual Birth Control Wikipedia page, but I’m having trouble with the program. For those of you who are more technically inclined than me, please feel free to give the editing button on Wikipedia at try. Let me know how it goes.

Tags: Wikipedia, Abstinence, The Pill, Contraception