birth control and bfing

Susan wrote:
Was it painful to insert the IUD?

A little pinch, basically. The part that was the most uncomfortable was the
"sounding" of the uterus, where the practitioner checks to determine the
angle of the uterus prior to insertion. When my midwife actually

Also, did your insurance cover the cost?

I never got a bill for it, so they covered the whole thing. I didn't expect
them to. You'd have to check with your insurer to see how much, if any,
they'll cover, though, because every plan is different.

How much do they cost?

I've been told it's around $400. Averaged over 10 years, that's pretty
cheap, though!

Do you pay the midwife practice or is it like a prescription?

I believe it's charged as an office visit/service. I didn't pay for it like
a prescription, at any rate.

Thanks so much.

Most welcome!
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Taxi's R Us" -- name of a cab company

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Circe wrote:

Susan wrote:

Was it painful to insert the IUD?


A little pinch, basically. The part that was the most uncomfortable was the
"sounding" of the uterus, where the practitioner checks to determine the
angle of the uterus prior to insertion. When my midwife actually

.....?



How much do they cost?


I've been told it's around $400. Averaged over 10 years, that's pretty
cheap, though!

And that's for the Mirena, right? A "normal" IUD without the hormones
is substantially less, around $60, iirc.

Dawn

I wouldn't get on Depro if you paid me. I got pregnant 4 years ago
(unplanned), and lost the baby early on (6-7 weeks), but since we weren't
really ready to have kids, we decided to wait to try for a family for
another year or so. I was on Depro for 6 months (2 shots), and I didn't
even begin ovulating for almost a year, and now my LP is all screwed up, and
we are now unable to conceive on our own. DD was conceived after going to
the RE for amost 2 years, and we now want #2 which isn't happening naturally
either, so we are going back to the RE on the weekend.

Use a Diaphram (what I used after DD was born), IUD or even the progesterone
only pill.



--
Michelle P
Ava Marie July 14, 2002
"Circe" wrote in message
news:ggCKb.101792$pY.822@fed1read04...
Susan wrote:
I have a 2 year old (nursed until he weaned himself at 15 months )
and an 11 week old.

My midwife suggested a Depo shot and I'm considering it but wanted to
ask you all. Does it interfere with b/fing at all? That's my primary
concern. Any complaints? Side effects? Pros?

Well, I have no experience with Depo, but I have to say that reviews I've
seen on this newsgroup have been far from positive. The primary complaints
I've seen are that it causes a lot of breakthrough bleeding and that it
seems to have a high associated with problems getting pregnant later.
Personally, it's not something I'd choose or recommend.

What I would recommend wholeheartedly for someone like you is an IUD. You
can get either the Mirena IUD, which has some progesterone in it that
tends
to reduce the heavy periods associated with IUDs, or the Copper-T. I have
a
Copper-T and love it. The great thing about IUDs is that, aside from
checking periodically to be sure the string is still where it should be,
you
have it put in and then forget about it. I've had my Copper-T for nearly
two
years now with no problems. Of course, some women DO have problems with
them
(they don't stop bleeding after insertion or have very heavy/uncomfortable
periods), but for the majority who try them (something like 90%, I
believe),
they are great.

If an IUD isn't for you, then I'd recommend mini-pills over Depo.
Mini-pills
are birth control pills that contain only progesterone, and since it's the
estrogen that's associated with drops in milk supply, it does not
interfere
with breastfeeding. The only down side to mini-pills is that they are less
"forgiving" than regular combination pills--you really have to take them
within the same three-hour window each day or their effectiveness drops
dramatically. (My second child came along rather ahead of schedule as a
direct result of this.)

Good luck deciding and I hope this helps!
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Taxi's R Us" -- name of a cab company

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Susan wrote:

I think not having a period anymore is a bonus also.

I won't be trying to get pg again so maybe it's the one for me. My main
concern is my milk supply.


Why not get your tubes tied or a vas for partner if you really don't
want to get preg? Skip the artificial hormones altogether, avoid supply
problems, and if you DO change your mind, at least potentially reversable.

Dawn

DH is working on the idea of a vas. That's what I'm hoping for eventually.

Susan

Dawn Lawson wrote:


Susan wrote:

I think not having a period anymore is a bonus also.

I won't be trying to get pg again so maybe it's the one for me. My
main concern is my milk supply.


Why not get your tubes tied or a vas for partner if you really don't
want to get preg? Skip the artificial hormones altogether, avoid supply
problems, and if you DO change your mind, at least potentially reversable.

Dawn

I'm a loud mouth who always has to say something when the IUD is brought up,
never have learned to be quiet. But I don't want to offend anyone so I'm
sorry ahead of time if I do.

But I've noticed that a lot of women don't understand how the IUD works...
for me, I could never use it because I'm, I guess, too moral.

The IUD doesn't prevent fertilization or supress ovulation, like most birth
controls do (one of the other). In fact, you can get pregnant several times
with the IUD, but then have your period so think nothing of it... because
basically what the IUD does is abort any fertilized egg. Granted it's
probably very quickly, but still, the possibility of aborting a baby every
month is frightening to me. And I cna't see how that could be good for your
body in the long run.

Like I said, I don't mean to anger anyone :-) I was contemplating the IUD
for a while, and even without this tidbit, I had decided against it, can't
stand the thought of soemthing being stuck into my uterus. LOL

wrote:

because
basically what the IUD does is abort any fertilized egg. Granted it's
probably very quickly, but still, the possibility of aborting a baby every
month is frightening to me. And I cna't see how that could be good for your
body in the long run.

In fact the IUD does suppress fertilization to a large extent, particularly the
hormonal IUD's (but the copper ones do too, for reasons that are not fully
understood). The potential is still there for a conception to occur, which is
certainly a moral issue for those who believe that life begins at conception,
but it isn't happening all the time.

In any case, an extremely high proportion of conceptions when birth control is
*not* used do not go on to develop, so as far as the physical effects on the
mother, it seems little different than what would occur anyway.

As an apparently very knowledgeable midwife once posted,

"Someone's going to raise the "abortifacent" issue here, so I should
probably address that too. It was originally thought -- never proven,
but may have been the case with some IUD's -- that the primary mechanism
of action for IUD's was to alter the lining of the uterus to make it
unfavorable for implantation. The thinking was that fertilization was
not prevented, but implantation was, and so this was a major problem for
pro-life folks.

"A recent meta-analysis of several studies casts a great deal of doubt on
this whole line of thinking. One study using ultra-sensitive HCG assays
showed that fertilization among IUD users was very, very rare (less than
1 in 167 cycles, if I remember correctly, which is far less than the
rate of conceptus loss you'd have if you never used any birth control
method at all). Animal studies with IUD's failed to demonstrate any
fertilization at all. The best theory going now is that the IUD
interferes with sperm motility, and is therefore a conventional
contraceptive and not a so-called "abortifacent" (inaccurate anyway,
since abortion by definition implies pregnancy and pregnancy by
definition implies implantation).

"I imagine that for a very strong pro-life believer this evidence may not
be good enough -- if she believes that she may be murdering a human
being every month, she's going to want more than "current medical
consensus" to reassure her that this method is compatible with her
beliefs. For other women, it's a non-issue either way. For still others,
the currently available data is reassuring enough. Obviously this is
going to be a personal decision on your part"

--Helen

Mom2Aries wrote:

I'm a loud mouth who always has to say something when the IUD is brought up,
never have learned to be quiet. But I don't want to offend anyone so I'm
sorry ahead of time if I do.

But I've noticed that a lot of women don't understand how the IUD works...
for me, I could never use it because I'm, I guess, too moral.

The IUD doesn't prevent fertilization or supress ovulation, like most birth
controls do (one of the other). In fact, you can get pregnant several times
with the IUD, but then have your period so think nothing of it... because
basically what the IUD does is abort any fertilized egg. Granted it's
probably very quickly, but still, the possibility of aborting a baby every
month is frightening to me. And I cna't see how that could be good for your
body in the long run.

Considering that the normal rate of fertilised eggs that don't make it
is pretty high (as much as 60%, I've read) and that you certainly
wouldn't be preg EVERY month AND that the UID actually prevents
implantation instead of causing a baby to be aborted, I can't see what
difference at all it would make to your body.

At that point your body wouldn't even KNOW the egg was fertilised, since
it must implant before anything changes from a cycle without
fertilisation, from your body's point of view.

and don't forget, as I said, sometimes without using any form of birth
control, you could be getting "pregnant" (although that's a broad net to
throw over a fertilised unimplanted egg) and you "have your period"
think nothing of it.

You've got the facts a little skewed towards morals and away from fact, imo.

Dawn

Well I do understand that your body can spontaneously abort several times...
but to me, that's a natural occurance and in my opinion obviously meant to
happen. But putting something into my body that would do this, and not a
natural thing, is a little different in my mind.

ANd this time around, it's not me skewing the facts, I was apparently told
wrong about how an IUD works. But even still, like I said, I couldnt' have
something stuck into my uterus. :-)

Sorry though.

Doesn't matter for me, I have the best method... no sex
:-)

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:joIKb.3724$X%5.595@pd7tw2no...


Mom2Aries wrote:

I'm a loud mouth who always has to say something when the IUD is brought
up,
never have learned to be quiet. But I don't want to offend anyone so
I'm
sorry ahead of time if I do.

But I've noticed that a lot of women don't understand how the IUD
works...
for me, I could never use it because I'm, I guess, too moral.

The IUD doesn't prevent fertilization or supress ovulation, like most
birth
controls do (one of the other). In fact, you can get pregnant several
times
with the IUD, but then have your period so think nothing of it...
because
basically what the IUD does is abort any fertilized egg. Granted it's
probably very quickly, but still, the possibility of aborting a baby
every
month is frightening to me. And I cna't see how that could be good for
your
body in the long run.

Considering that the normal rate of fertilised eggs that don't make it
is pretty high (as much as 60%, I've read) and that you certainly
wouldn't be preg EVERY month AND that the UID actually prevents
implantation instead of causing a baby to be aborted, I can't see what
difference at all it would make to your body.

At that point your body wouldn't even KNOW the egg was fertilised, since
it must implant before anything changes from a cycle without
fertilisation, from your body's point of view.

and don't forget, as I said, sometimes without using any form of birth
control, you could be getting "pregnant" (although that's a broad net to
throw over a fertilised unimplanted egg) and you "have your period"
think nothing of it.

You've got the facts a little skewed towards morals and away from fact,
imo.

Dawn

Dawn Lawson wrote:
Circe wrote:

Susan wrote:

Was it painful to insert the IUD?


A little pinch, basically. The part that was the most uncomfortable
was the "sounding" of the uterus, where the practitioner checks to
determine the angle of the uterus prior to insertion. When my
midwife actually

....?

Not sure what your ? is for? If you mean to ask what "sounding" is,
basically the practitioner has to insert a probe into the uterus to
determine where the IUD should "go". I don't completely understand how it's
done, but that was definitely the worst part for me.


How much do they cost?


I've been told it's around $400. Averaged over 10 years, that's
pretty cheap, though!

And that's for the Mirena, right? A "normal" IUD without the hormones
is substantially less, around $60, iirc.

That little? Hmmmm. I was under the impression that the Copper T ran about
$400, including the insertion itself. But I could be completely off-base.
$60 would seem low to me if you include the cost of actually doing the
insertion procedure (I'd think the procedure itself would run at LEAST the
cost of a typical office visit, or roundabout $75.)
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Taxi's R Us" -- name of a cab company

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman