Update: I added my comments within Rachel’s text below in bold.

ThAT 1: Rachel Arbeit’s ridiculous letter on Birth Control, defaming NFP

Follow Up: Evidently several of my readers and I commented on RB’s blog, but she never published the comments, instead publishing her only ridiculous and vitriolic responses, refusing to post our comments because she disagrees with and hates us. Wow. That’s balance and open-mindedness, eh? Here’s her “response” with a follow up post:

Dear Natural Family Planning Users,

All five people who use Natural Family Planning have read and drawn attention to my “Dear Planned Parenthood” application. Your Church group [Again, not all NFPers are religious. The fact that she keeps on going back to the "churchy" generalizations and smears is that she has issues with people with religion outside of the NFP issue, probably a parent figure. I sense she's deeply hurting, but won't address that obviously super deep wound.]  seems to be unsatisfied with my description of your beloved guess and check system [Oops, not really.  Obviously hasn't done *any* research, or say, five minutes worth of reading.] Please allow me to elaborate. [Can't wait.]

Natural Family Planning methods are based on the grade school reproductive system fact that fertilization is most likely [actually, more like does within 12-24 hours] to occur around the time of ovulation. If you’re interested in “most likely” [Again, if she did five minutes worth of reading, she'd know NFP has the same postponing effectiveness numbers as OC's/HBC] avoiding unwanted pregnancy, this may be the system for you! Intercourse is avoided during times when a woman is fertile, thus preventing conception. Although sexually active lifestyles that require sexual inactivity are counter-productive [Actually, not really. Studies have shown NFPers have intercourse at the same rate monthly, and are more satisfied.], at least you’re not on hormones… you’re just suppressing your own [Actually, no, you're not. Hormones have a function other than intercourse within your body, and just because you're not having intercourse does not mean you're suppressing them].

Since the exact time of ovulation cannot be predicted [no, but it can be identified within a 24 hr. window], two to three days of abstinence are added to the beginning and the end of the fertile time [No, that's not exactly right. She's read just enough of the nomenclature to sound ignorant]. A woman’s “unsafe days” [Wouldn't call them that, but you're the expert, Rach] compromise about one-third of the month [She generalizes here, but the fact is that each woman's cycle is different. Your days of abstinance--which doesn't mean days without intimacy; intimacy is more than genitals-- can be any where from 6-12 days, closer to the former than the latter. It really depends.] Another way to become abstinent for one-third of the month is to move in with your parents.

An “advantage” of Natural Family Planning is that it is acceptable for couples with religious concerns about contraception [True, but again, you don't know your stats; many people out there use NFP/FAM who aren't religious]. Advocates boast that couples who use this method are more likely to stay together [One of the only true statements in this entire letter]. This is because they have kids together, and/or are too religious to get divorced anyway [Unfortunately, Catholics divorce at the same rate as the rest of the population, so this doesn't really hold up. She's kind of right with 'it's because they have kids together,' which is a positive thing. It means people think twice before pulling the divorce trigger. It's about more than their difficulties or selfishness].

Another advantage to this plan is that it is inexpensive, a quality that should not be a factor in anything health and/or safety related. Natural Family Planning does not require the use of artificial devices and has no harmful side-effects… except that couples who use this method improperly are more likely to get pregnant than those who misuse artificial methods. The marketing campaign can go something like this, “No icky side effects, except maybe pregnancy! [Pregnancy isn't a side effect; it's a person, and further, sex is supposed to make babies, unless you have a serious reason to postpone. The term 'unexpected pregnancy' is an oxymoron; it's like freaking out when you put your foot on your car's gas pedal, and it goes forward!]”

The system has evolved from the calendar/pull-out-and-pray/rhythm methods [Actually, totally different, though the Rhythm Method tried half-successfully to accomplish the same thing]. To use a small [so small, you can barely understand what's she's trying to communicate] piece of science, Natural Family Planning boasts [she likes the word boast] the Sympto-Thermal Method [one out of two main method, good for you]. This symptoms using temperature concept [it's not a concept, it's a scientific observation] tries to determine fertile time based on a woman’s basal body temperature and by recording fertility cues of mood [again, she read just enough to sound silly] and cervical secretions [you forgot another key observation...can you guess?]. Tools for this are a mood ring, dip stick and thermometer. Very sophisticated [like your writing].

Taking time, temperature and cervical mucus measurements invites a significant margin of human error [only if you're lazy or stupid]. However, for the Sympto-Thermal system to function properly, the measurements must be precise, which necessarily requires frequent data collection that further increases the risk of human error [daily observations!!! I can't take the pressure of remembering one or two things at a time!!!!!].  Of course, even if a user adheres strictly and carefully to all of the requirements of they Sympto-Thermal system, faulty equipment [like the mood ring?] could still lead to an undesired result [don't even get me started on condoms and OC efficacy].

Sure Natural Family Planning is organic (everyone’s favorite buzz word) and certainly better than nothing [something positive--I'm proud of you RB], but it’s a flawed system [again, about as "flawed" statistically as your preferred methods, and a whole lot better for other reasons]. The most prominent problem with Natural Family Planning is that it does not take into account menstrual cycle fluctuations [OMFG! She really has read nothing. Here's where she totally misses the point that *anyone* with any type or length of cycle can use NFP.] . There are many circumstances in everyday life which can influence the rhythm of the cycle, making reliable calculation of the fertile and infertile days impossible [kids these days don't know what they're talking about]. These factors include, but are not limited to: stress, illness, lack of sleep, oversleeping, drinking, unaccustomed physical exertion and time zone changes, travel, inconsistent schedules, breastfeeding, and other regularly occurring situations [nope--all patently false].

With the knowledge, information and birth control methods that are available, there should be as few accidental pregnancies as possible. Doctors are reluctant to recommend natural methods [because they know just about as much about NFP/FAM as you do]. You Natural Family Planners probably assume that doctors don’t recommend the system because they can’t make money off it, but that’s ridiculous [Obviously she's not done her research on the Pill. One of the main motivators for Syntex & Serle's development of the Pill--and would you doubt it today--was that it would be used by millions of women daily for years or longer. See PBS' documentary on this. It's clear you don't know how drug sales work, and the manipulative practices pushed by drug companies. See Kathleen Slattery-Mischkau's web site, blog or film for more.] Doctors make plenty of money, until they lose their license [Um, that's creative. When has that happened? Never. And it won't.] by telling patients to use a system that can be easily thrown off by plenty of external factors [Again, false. She obviously hasn't done more than two seconds of reading].

Here are a few of your comments I’d like to respond to more specifically [Hold on, while we collectively move to the edges of our seats.]:

YOU: I just wanted to say that Natural Family Planning (or NFP) is completely different from the rhythm method.

ME: The rhythm method is a form of birth control that relies on knowledge of a woman’s ovulation cycle in order to avoid pregnancy [Eh, not quite.]. That sounds a lot like Natural Family Planning 101 to me [Only to you.] .

YOU: Let’s stop treating pregnancy like a disease and start seeing it as a blessing.

ME: It’s a disease if it’s unwanted. [Is that the WHO's definition or the CDC's?] It’s a blessing if you’re religious and ready, willing and able to accept the responsibilities of parenting.

YOU: My husband and I are proud, college educated, middle class NFP users.

ME: A degree does not at all qualify you as smart [True, but demonstrating reading, comprehension and analysis is kind of a start.] . Any idiot can go to college [or write a blog of letters not actually sent]. As a matter of fact, the whole community can go.

YOU: For comparison, the pill has a perfect use rate of 99% but a typical use rate of 92%. Condoms have a perfect use of 98% and a typical use rate of 85%. Various NFP methods have perfect use rates of 99% and variable typical use rates.

ME: Comparing substantial numbers to the idea that your method varies in its typical rate success. That’s an impressive argument. By the way, there’s a 99% chance you pulled that perfect use rate out of the hole you can’t get pregnant from [Lovely taste there, RB. If you did any of your reading, you'd know where the numbers come from.].

YOU: The biologist in me likes nature. If I’m on the pill, I”m urinating difficult-to-degrade artificial hormones that harm fish and probably frogs too.

ME: I’m sure you’re harming the fish and frogs in more ways than you know…[Oooh, clever: A thinly veiled but poorly articulated reference probably to Global Warming and "babies as pollution" argument. I've addressed this elsewhere, so I won't even go there now.]

Good luck Natural Family Planners, you’re going to need it.

Sincerely [oh, we don't doubt it],
Rachel L. Arbeit