Fam­ily plan­ning meth­ods

San Francisco Chronicle Late Edition - - FROM THE COVER -

Re­gard­ing “Women seek birth con­trol that will out­last Trump” (Open Fo­rum, Jan. 12): Dr. Emily Cron­bach says that women are get­ting in­trauter­ine de­vices fit­ted in case the re­place­ment of the Af­ford­able Care Act does not in­clude con­tra­cep­tion. Why doesn’t she teach them (and their hus­bands) the Billings Ovu­la­tion Method of fam­ily plan­ning, surely well known to her? It’s se­curer than the Pill (i.e. less chance of un­wanted con­cep­tion), safer than the Pill (i.e. no health com­pli­ca­tions — I know that the Pill has few, but Billings Ovu­la­tion Method has none at all), en­vi­ron­men­tally friend­lier than the Pill (i.e. no sex­ual in­ver­sion in es­tu­ar­ine fauna) and cheaper than the Pill.

Con­tra­cep­tion is ob­so­lete, and those who pro­mote it are hawk­ing in­fe­rior goods. Of course, peo­ple us­ing the Billings Ovu­la­tion Method do not have to make reg­u­lar re­peat vis­its to the OB/GYN ex­pert: Per­haps that is why Cron­bach’s web­site de­scribes “nat­u­ral fam­ily plan­nings” en bloc as “not as ef­fec­tive” as con­tra­cep­tion. John Wills, Oak­land

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.