Natural Family Planning’s Surprise Comeback

on January 16, 2015

In preparation for my upcoming marriage, I have set out researching deeper into Fertility Awareness Methods (FAM) or more commonly called Natural Family Planning (NFP), a birth control method based on the natural observation of signs and symptoms of a woman’s ovulation cycle. No chemicals. No treatments. No devices. I’ll be honest; NFP is a complex method that takes discipline and commitment. But what NFP does offer is an alternative method to the negative ethical, physical and emotional effects that lurk behind the convenience of the Pill.

I’ve shared my own thoughts on the need for Evangelicals to stop considering NFP as solely “Catholic” in an op-ed entitled “Why Aren’t Evangelicals Talking About Natural Family Planning?” Why Evangelicals haven’t collectively considered NFP as a viable alternative to chemical contraception, I’ll never know. So I was especially surprised to read CNN‘s report covering NFP’s recent rise in popularity among secular women.

In the CNN article entitled, “For Birth Control, What’s Old is New Again,” author Nadia Kounang notes the “growing movement of young women who are saying no to hormonal birth control and yes to a kind of birth control that sounds at first like a real throwback with a little extra high-tech twist.”

Secular women are recognizing the serious health risks associated with chemical contraception that have gone ignored for far too long. “I’m a health person,” said 25 year-old Aisha Mukooza to CNN. “I try to eat healthy food, so the idea of being pumped with synthetic hormones didn’t appeal to me, in fact, it was scary.”

Chrissy Wing, writing for Ethika Politika, also exposed the paradox of women’s trendy healthy lifestyles and the Pill. Wing humorously wrote, “Eat the meat of a cow that has consumed synthetic hormones? No! Take them yourself via a highly concentrated white pill? Yes, please, but I can only wash them down with organic juice. Chemical free.”

The overall number of women using NFP remains small. CNN reported that a University of Iowa study found that if more women knew about NFP, then 1 in 5 women would seriously consider the method as an option to the Pill.

The article goes on to address women’s concerns regarding NFP’s ineffectiveness. But with new technologies (yes, there is even an app for that!), tracking ovulation is getting easier and more precise. A helpful 2007 German study tracking 900 women using NFP over a 20 year period even showed a 98 percent effective rate, reported CNN.

Another sentiment shared by the women using NFP who spoke with CNN was that they felt a lack of support from their community. I and the few other women who opt for NFP over the Pill, have found this to be true in our Evangelical circles.

Some of today’s Evangelical feminist, sometimes refer to themselves as Jesus Feminists, go so far as to tell us that chemical contraception is the way to go by championing tax-payer funded chemical contraception despite health and conscience infringements.

Sadly, an authenticity about contraception is generally lost among the Evangelical feminists in our circles. Rarely do these outspoken leaders on women’s issues say, “Hey, because women are people too, I believe you ladies deserve to know that to according to the National Cancer Institute, oral contraception increases women’s risk for ovarian cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and liver cancer.”

This year the annual March for Life theme was“Every life is a gift.” For Evangelicals, our hearts agree that this message is true, but our flesh acts counter to it. Our society tells us that children are expensive, troublesome, and diminish our own goals and dreams rather than add to them. We ignore the warning signs in the pursuit of independence, cleared acne, and lighter menstruation symptoms.

Of course, we would not disagree with the sentiments (in public at least) that unexpected life is a gift. But just as the secular organic vegans ironically struggles to let go of their chemical contraception habits, so too do Evangelical couples. (It is important to note here that NFP can also be used with an immoral, selfish attitude. But for this discussion, NFP’s use for spacing and health precautions as an alternative to chemical contraception is the focal point.)

NFP certainly isn’t a quick fix to the moral, ethical, and health dilemmas that come with the Pill. But with its comeback in secular society, perhaps Evangelical women and their men will finally start talking about the benefits of Natural Family Planning.

 

  1. Comment by yolo on January 17, 2015 at 12:37 am

    Are you saying that the church was right all along?! I’m shocked!

    It’s nice to see secular women return to the church, even if they don’t realize it or even if they hate the fact that the church WAS right. What they practice is proof. And in time, so too they will admit that children need a MOTHER and a FATHER.

  2. Comment by ana on January 17, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    Great piece. Thanks/shared. We used NFP for over 20 years, with my husband as a Protestant at the start of our NFP life. He was especially glad to get me off the Pill { as was I } . I hope you will take a peek at NFPInternational’s online book: “NFP:The Complete Approach.” As nurses, we think it is great, covering symptothermal NFP, plus ‘breastfeding’ for child spacing {‘ecological’ form of nursing}, plus chapter 1 covering a theology of NFP which many have enjoyed reading. Best wishes in your marriage! And I am convinced, our use of abstinence {‘true’ NFP} yielded the high effectiveness we had, versus “FAM”‘s sometimes ‘slant’ of condom use and/or withdrawal acceptance. I especially loved how our behavior matched our intention with abstinence-use: ‘no baby’, then no marital embrace…..

  3. Comment by MM on January 21, 2015 at 9:07 am

    In our case, breastfeeding had zero effect on fertility. And I’ve heard that from others, too.

  4. Comment by ana on January 21, 2015 at 10:11 am

    well, I was brief re: breastfeeding to stick to my point to the author. Breastfeeding infertility has a Bell curve to it, and some will have limited effect. It is scientifically shown in more than one study, however, that the majority of women who nurse in a particular way ”only”, will have 9-20 months infertility. The links/studies are at http://www.nfpandmore.org The book, “The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding” explains it with many, many footnotes. see http://www.Lulu.com and search “Kippley” author. There is a healthy international Facebook group, Catholic Nursing Mothers League, with many happy women who live this lifestyle of child-spacing w/nursing. I personally went 12-14 months w/o cycles a few times – it was wonderful….frequency of nursing is KEY and many American women don’t nurse in this manner. It is NOT exclusive nursing, this special form is much more than “exclusive” and it is a defined form of nursing for those curious. Hope you enjoyed nursing anyways! I sure did.

  5. Comment by MM on January 21, 2015 at 11:51 am

    That’s interesting. I’ll take a look. Our feeding was done exclusively for 6 months and then continued on demand for another 6-10 months with solids being introduced. Our kids were born on average 17 months apart for the 1st five, then it shifted to about 22 months average for the next three. She was regularly nursing the 7 (actually 9) times she got pregnant.
    My wife loved nursing. We were into it regardless of whether it prolonged infertility.
    To me, fertility has more to do with a woman’s natural fertility in combination with her man’s biology, and their frequency of relations. And I think a woman’s body generally holds her back from fertility for a time (probably another bell curve here, too) after birth of her last child.

  6. Comment by ana on January 21, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    ‘exclusive / from the breast’ does not exclude things like pacifiers, sleep training, timing feeds, babysitters, working moms, feeding schedules….all which limit nursing, and so this limits the infertility/breastfeeding hormone. A little bit of education helps tremendously….NFPInternational may be the only natural family planning provider to express these differences…a tremendous service. Many moms nurse in a manner other than “ecological breastfeeding” and myths are slow to die…such as ….”you cannot get pregnant while nursing”. Well, you can, but it is less likely if ecological breastfeeding. And even that is not 100%, but a majority will, well over half will go 9-20 months and longer.

  7. Comment by MM on January 21, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    I’ll have to look up ecological breastfeeding – don’t know what that means.
    My wife was/is a stay-at-home mother. The breastfeeding was almost entirely on demand (which means often and through the night). We never used pacifiers. She never pumped. We never used bottles. She was never separated from any of the children.
    It just didn’t work for us. And we knew others who could give the same testimony.
    All of which was fine. Lots of blessings.

  8. Comment by ana on January 21, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    yes, do and, it seems that you got 6-9 months of infertility – that is nothing to sneeze at…. to the left of the bell curve – but not at the lowest end…some gals will have bleeds, too, but charting symptothermal, one can see from lack of temp rises that it is only “breakthrough bleeding”, not a true period from a prior ovulation…again, maybe nothing is “wrong” but then sometimes when a gal tweaks her style of nursing with a subsequent baby, or even a current one, more infertility results…it is God/nature, too – maybe something we can do something about and maybe only a natural result from all the factors….sometimes the “squeaky wheel gets heard” – many moms we don’t hear from are happy to have babies 2,3, 4 years apart from the nursing infertility …see the Fcbk group. There are 3 books on the subject – all for a different audience but all good reads – see the website for Sheila Kippley or write her / read her blogs there – they’ re fascinating – bye

  9. Comment by Proteios on January 19, 2015 at 11:48 am

    I think the time is right.
    50 years of distorted truth is finally being understood as hurtful to women on so many levels.
    THe Church is finally getting its courage back as it has timidly been afraid to do anything for decades. Now it is actually teaching and supporting NFP.
    Go figure – women see the flaw of the ‘reproductive health’ mantra as a false narrative. Looking for holistic and healthy options, at a time when the Church has seem to found itself again and is teaching these options.
    Bout time.

  10. Comment by Shannon Menkveld on January 19, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    Advocating for the use of NFP is a good thing.

    Advocating for the use of the force of the State to enforce NFP is a bad thing.

    You have done the first, without doing, or even implying, the second. This, in my experience, is fairly unusual in articles on this topic, and I thank you for it.

    For whatever it’s worth, given that (a) I disagree with you almost completely, from your axioms to your conclusions, and (b) I’m a dude, this is excellent work on a topic that tends not to reward excellence.

    Well done, and thank you.

    –Shannon

  11. Comment by maggie galalgher on January 19, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    Can you provide more info on the German study? I would like to read it. Maggie

  12. Comment by Chelsen Vicari on January 21, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Hello Maggie! I hope that you’re doing well. Here is the link to the German study as reported by CNN: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.long

  13. Comment by Veritas on January 20, 2015 at 5:26 am

    I often find humor in the way people choose to compartmentalize there self disciplines…. Healthy lifestyles promote eating “right” and weight control and exercise regimens, to the point of trying to ban soda in New York city, and transfats, and stigmatizing the overweight, and smokers, etc..
    On the other hand, to suggest any discipline in sexual encounters is absurdity….. No matter the age or context.

    A healthy amount of discipline is a virtue in all aspects of life; physical, sexual, spiritual, intellectual and emotional. I realize this is a controversial statement in a hedonistic world, but certainly not in a Christian community.

  14. Comment by yolo on January 20, 2015 at 6:36 am

    Anything that is remotely Christian isn’t acceptable. Otherwise, all behaviors in excess are repressed no matter how inconsequential and irrelevant that they are and no matter how much actual freedom lost.

  15. Comment by MM on January 20, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    You’ve reviewed NFP. How about reviewing be fruitful and multiply and the other biblical encouragements that promote procreation as a blessing that should be enjoyed in abundance?

    I think its obvious God is into people. He created a woman and man to be quite fertile. Without generous procreation, the exciting human race will not grow and prosper. It’ll crawl to a defeated whimper.

    I’m not saying you can’t use birth control, but I do think we need a resurgence of trust in Him in the area of liberal family investment.

    The culture has skewed to few children. I think the reasons are largely selfish and demonstrative of a dying culture with little hope. The average American says, in effect, “Why should I build a robust family if I have a cynical view of purpose, meaning and hope? Why should I sacrifice myself for a large family?”

    These are some of the things you should be praying about for you upcoming wedding.

  16. Comment by MarcoPolo on January 20, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    I imagine money is a bigger determiner of how many children a couple brings forth.
    And not to put a wet blanket on Chelsen’s plans, but sustainability of the Earth’s resources has as much to do with whether civilization will endure. That is unless MM was suggesting that more Christians should be reproducing at a greater rate than other faiths?

    My father always said: “Don’t take seriously, what is poked at you in fun!”

    By all means, I wish Chelsen and her spouse a prosperous and healthy union, that provides all that is possible.
    Bless you, Chelsen!

  17. Comment by MM on January 21, 2015 at 9:03 am

    I really don’t think money, in the sense of poverty, is the cause for few children in the West. I know many successful Europeans who have one or no child. It’s a sign of lost religion (and, therefore, purpose beyond self). Ask them about their vacations and you’ll see where their hearts reside. And it’s happening in America now, too.
    The largest reason for concern over Earth’s resources has to do with morality, not human numbers. If morality were central to Indian, Chinese, African and South American cultures, there would be no hunger problem. A large population that is moral is wealth for everyone. A large population that is immoral is poverty for everyone.

  18. Comment by MarcoPolo on January 21, 2015 at 6:17 pm

    Dear MM,
    I”m presuming that your point regarding population rise and fall is due to morality, and not financial ability?
    Though I don’t think I’m being presumptuous to point out that the Earth’s human population has reached a level that, if continued will overwhelm it’s resources, and millions of people will suffer.

    I appreciate your point regarding Europe’s smaller family size, and I personally believe every country should seek to lower their birth rate.

    I remember forty years ago, when considering having a child with my first wife (who was a Registered Nurse), the cost of birthing a child was approximately $5,000. Just from conception to birth, not beyond.
    Today, the same services would cost $15,000.
    and quite easily more, depending upon geography.

    The vacation destination of individuals may have something to do with the fact of having NO children. Certainly one can save on Disney World expenses if one decides to go to an all inclusive Couple’s Retreat.
    And that has nothing to do with one’s religion or faith.
    Personally, I have no tolerance for babies or children, and seek places that cater to adults… but that’s just me!

    I don’t see how morality plays into your point about hunger. The places you mentioned are not culturally immoral, but simply over populated.
    Morals don’t produce food, nor do they consume it.

    Please help me understand? I’d prefer to not presume, so thank you in advance for your reasoned response.

  19. Comment by Sarah Carafelli on January 21, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    Love your sentiments! I am a NFP-using Catholic convert and sometimes try to share about NFP with Evangelical friends…mostly, they are not very keen. Maybe (hopefully) the CNN article will encourage couples to give NFP more thought.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.