Month: May 2011

Chait reads the tea-leaves from Texas, Washington and Chicago.

A reader writes:

The reader who wrote that the IUD is a form of abortion is misinformed. But that's understandable; before my second year of medical school, I was too! When this topic came up in class, we had an extended conversation with our professor. Many of us were surprised and a little shocked to learn that pre-fertilization (spermicidal) effects were primarily responsible for the contraceptive activity of IUDs. Not totally believing our discussion, I followed up with a literature search. I was pretty convinced by what I read.

For example, if IUDs were primarily functioning to prevent implantation, you would expect small, transient increases in bhCG (the "pregnancy hormone") to be associated with IUD use, and you'd expect these transient increases to be more common in sexually active women using an IUD (indicating inhibition of implantation) than in women who are trying to get pregnant (indicating very early, even-before-you-know-you're-pregnant pregnancy loss). In fact, using a super-sensitive assay, researchers found that 1% of women on the IUD had transient increases in bhCG – compared to anywhere from 8 to 52% of couples trying to get pregnant. This means you're significantly more likely to lose a fertilized egg trying to get pregnant than using an IUD!

With routine use, the primary mechanism of action of an IUD is believed to be due to thickening of the cervical mucus (the spermicidal effect) and, in the case of Mirena, inhibition of ovulation. This is similar to the pill, which primarily prevents ovulation and thickens the cervical mucus, but which could also (theoretically) disrupt the endometrium to the extent that implantation is prevented. (To be fair, when an IUD is inserted shortly after coitus as a form of emergency contraception, its primary function is to inhibit implantation)

Bottom line: an IUD doesn't make the uterus inhospitable to implantation so much as it makes it inhospitable to *sperm.* However, for those for whom even the smallest risk of inhibiting implantation is non-negligible, take my professor's advice: stick to barrier methods of contraception (which could *really* do with a bit of evolution!).

"Cervical mucus" is a first for the Dish. Another writes:

Thank you so much for the running discussion of the IUD, an excellent form of birth control too frequently dismissed or overlooked in the United States. I have had a copper IUD (ParaGard) since 2003 and, despite some days of heavy cramps, have not regretted it for a second. It has consistently worked without the undesirable side effects of hormonal birth control that made me miserable for years.

I am writing to correct some misapprehensions about the IUD conveyed in your most recent post on this topic. Several of your correspondents claim that the IUD does not actually prevent conception, but only implantation of an embryo. This is an older belief about the IUD, but it does not reflect the most research on its contraception mechanism. While it is true that the IUD has effects on the uterine lining that would make implantation difficult, it also has deleterious effects on sperm that make them unlikely to ever get to fertilize the egg in the first place. This is particularly the case for the kind of copper IUD that I use. According to WebMD, "Copper is toxic to sperm. It makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins" (source).

See also Planned Parenthood's FAQ's: "Both the ParaGard and the Mirena IUDs affect the way sperm move, preventing them from joining with an egg. If sperm cannot join with an egg, pregnancy cannot happen. Both types also alter the lining of the uterus. Some people say that this keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens."

Previous installments of this popular thread – in chronological order – here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Berlin, Vermont, 1 pm

McCain ratchets up his campaign against the misinformation being spread by Fox News and AEI's resident torture apologists:

I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.

Will Mukasey withdraw his untruth? Or tell us where it came from?

Annie Lowrey advocates for high-skilled immigrants:

Traditionally, because giving highly skilled workers a way to stay in the United States is the least controversial part of immigration reform, Democratic politicians have refused to decouple the priorities. If you want the high-skill immigrants, you need to figure out how to deal with the millions of less-skilled and undocumented workers, mostly from Latin America. It is good political logic, perhaps, but awful economic logic. The country needs about 10 million jobs, and the rest of the world has hundreds of thousands of educated, motivated, smart workers who want to come to our shores, use our capital, and hire our workers.

Dave Weigel reads Newt’s entire Amazonian oeuvre:

There are plenty of thriller reviews in the Gingrich archives, and a few big pop science books about string theory and the Internet. These reviews are more revealing than the policy wonk stuff, which isn’t surprising. We’re talking about the politician who, in To Renew America, mentioned the influence of Toynbee’s A Study of History in the same paragraph as Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels. Thrills and speculative fiction can, to use a favorite Gingrich phrase, “stretch the mind.” It might not make sense when you hear Gingrich warning of the danger of electro-magnetic pulse attacks or making analogies between World War II and multiple current conflicts. It makes more sense when you see what fiction he reads.

Karl Rove ups the right-wing uproar over the White House hosting the rapper Common by calling him a "thug". Ta-Nehisi sighs:

Ari Melber (and a couple commenters) point out that the interesting thing about Common being attacked, is that one of his best known songs is about as pro-Life as it gets. "Retrospect for Life" always struck me as being of that variety of pop art as "Knocked Up." People end up in situations where abortion is often the outcome, but the art gives us a bundle of joy because it's a result we find a lot more pleasing. Or, to be less cynical, its art which reflects the world as we wish it was, as opposed to how it is.

Common's performance from last night is here.

Josh Green responds to my criticisms. He concedes that the motive for the big extra oil company tax was petty resentments and populist opportunism – which makes his thesis even less persuasive. It amounts to a fantasy, in my view, that Palin could ever have run as a good government reformer, since she was neither motivated by those goals nor had any serious record to point to, apart from a big tax increase on oil companies. Nonetheless, the McCain campaign tried very hard to make this image the primary one – it was the gist of their announcement – and it failed miserably compared with the rest of this delusinoal fanatic’s record and character and lack of basic knowledge. More to the point: how do you win over a Tea Party base, when your sole achievement is raising taxes to spread the wealth around in a socialist state? Surely Josh would find that a hard premise for his case. He continues:

I remember having a blog spat with Andrew a year or so ago, when the overheated fantasy most popular among Palin critics was that she’d run for president and communicate only through Facebook and Twitter, thereby outwitting us dupes in the national press corps, who would then be complicit in her terrifying reign. How ridiculous does that seem today? I’m all for honest appraisals of Palin and have delivered my own. It’s always worth reading what her smartest critics have to say. But they’d be a lot more convincing if they’d adjust their worldview to match reality, ratchet down the threat level, and accept that her status is much diminished.

Since Palin dodged any real accountability from the MSM in the actual 2008 campaign, was the first vice-presidential candidate in modern times never to have had an open press conference, and has since relied solely on Facebook, Twitter and Fox to communicate, and only on friendly states to sell her books, I don’t see why such a possible strategy in 2012 is somehow “ridiculous.” Let alone self-evidently so. Yes, her status is much diminished, especially since her grotesquely inappropriate response to the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords. But no threat level?

Josh testifies to her performative power, and to the depth of her support in the pro-life base. He’s right to. She has and always has had raw talent. Moreover, though she currently polls in the second tier of candidates, the field is extremely weak. The two leaders – Romney and Huckabee – are beset by policy records that will be anathema to the GOP base in its current mood. And Palin has already innoculated herself by demonizing the press, which, in Josh’s case, has led to an attempt to reclaim her legitimacy as a choice for the vice-presidential nomination – despite the fact that her own backers in that misbegotten nightmare have a far more critical view of Palin than Josh does.

Establishment Washington wants to reassert that it made no fantastic error in selecting her and is saddened by her refusal to be a serious candidate, which renders her future political career a non-starter. That’s a story line that serves them well. I hope they’re right. But encouraging pieces like Josh’s may tempt her to prove him wrong. In my view, she’s almost certainly running and will be much harder to beat than many now think. And as with all my views, it may be proven wrong. But not because buried within Palin is a Barack Obama yearning to break out.

A reader adds another classic quote to Mother Jones' list, this one conveyed through Newt's mother:

Doug Mataconis catches Congress ignoring the War Powers Act. Conor Friedersdorf demands Congress vote to authorize or end the Libyan war. Matt Yglesias sees little chance of that:

Congress has enormous power over all kinds of things but only if they actually want to use it. But over the years, Congress has shown very little interest in constraining presidential warmaking power. At times presidents have shown interest in demanding that congress vote on their war proposals—like when George W Bush forced a vote on invading Iraq timed right before the 2002 midterms but months before he initiated military action—but that’s something initiated by the White House for political purposes. For most of the same reasons, members prefer to duck votes on these things when possible.

Of course, I'm with Conor. The war in Libya becomes illegal from now on. And the imperial presidency grows even more powerful.