Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical or fertility advice. Always consult with a qualified NFP practitioner before making any decisions related to your reproductive health or fertility.
Upon returning to faith, I noticed a significant disparity in knowledge about women’s fertility health between my secular and Catholic friends. Many of those struggling to conceive consulted their GPs, who could only offer the guidance they were trained to provide. While no neglect was intended, these consultations lacked information about Natural Family Planning (NFP) methods. These approaches are not only scientifically effective in supporting fertility, but more importantly, uphold the dignity of both mother and child.
When trust is broken
In most cases, GPs would default to referring patients to prominent fertility specialists in Melbourne, all of whom recommended IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). One friend, after undergoing IVF, developed a deep mistrust of the healthcare system. Through her own research she discovered that there were natural ways to improve chances of conception, such as tracking basal body temperature. She was also troubled by the fact that her doctor withheld certain information about her fertility, believing it was better “not to stress the mother,” since “women need to relax when trying to fall pregnant.” This was done, supposedly, to shield her from the emotional burden that might come with knowing the full picture.
The training gap in fertility care
Witnessing the struggles and emotional toll that IVF took on friends inspired me to start conversations with healthcare professionals about NFP and IVF. Many doctors I spoke with admitted that NFP was simply not included in their medical training, leaving them unequipped to advise patients on these alternative, evidence-based methods.
As expected, FACTS About Fertility reports that the majority of healthcare professionals are unfamiliar or untrained in NFP, despite growing interest among women. These evidence-based methods—rooted in tracking natural biomarkers such as cervical fluid, basal body temperature, and fertility hormones—are not part of standard medical education, even for doctors specializing in fertility.
Current NFP methods include:
- Sympto-Thermal Method – Combines observations of cervical mucus and basal body temperature.
- Marquette Method – Utilizes a fertility monitor to detect hormone surges through urine samples.
- Creighton Model FertilityCare System – A standardized method for observing and charting cervical mucus.
- Billings Ovulation Method – Focuses solely on monitoring cervical mucus to identify fertility.
boma-usa.org - TwoDay Method – Cervical mucus is monitored twice a day.
- Standard Days Method – Intercourse is avoided during the fertile window.
Interview with two healthcare workers
I have interviewed two caring and devout Catholic Melburnian mums, both with a vocation in healthcare and a passion for women’s fertility and health. They are also trained Natural Family Planning (NFP) instructors.
Interview with Alisha
Alisha is a Catholic mother of three, a nurse, and a certified instructor of the Marquette Method. This method detects hormonal surges through a fertility monitor that analyzes urine samples, indicating whether a woman is in a low, high, or peak phase of fertility. While the Marquette Method can be used alongside other biomarkers, such as cervical mucus and basal body temperature, it is considered most effective for avoiding pregnancy when using the monitor alone.
- What inspired you to be an instructor of Marquette method?
I learnt so much about my fertility during my Marquette method class that I felt inspired to join in helping other women feel empowered by learning about their fertility, too. At the time I learnt the method there were no Australian instructors. This only encouraged me further to become one!
- Why did you choose this particular method of NFP?
After my first baby I was very anxious about navigating my fertility being newly postpartum. I loved how simple and objective the Marquette method was. I could test in the morning and forget about it until the next day. It took the guesswork out of NFP for me. I was also impressed by the effectiveness rates. For women who haven’t had their cycle return since the birth of their baby it is 98% effective in avoiding a pregnancy (if you follow the Marquette protocol instructions carefully). If you don’t follow all the Marquette protocol instructions carefully it drops to 92% effective, which is still fairly good. As a nurse I appreciated that the monitor provides objective information by measuring fertility hormones, oestrogen, and luteinising hormone.
- How did you come across Marquette?
I learnt about the Marquette Method through various YouTube videos about natural family planning while I was postpartum with my first child. I then did a Google search and found a few overseas instructors teaching the method online.
- How do you think we could advocate for NFP to a wider audience?
We need to encourage more healthcare professionals, especially GPs, to become certified in a method of NFP. Or at least have basic training on the various NFP methods. This would mean NFP would reach much further than just Catholic circles. EVERY woman can benefit from NFP! I encourage people to talk about NFP with their friends. We need to break down the stigma surrounding the topic. There’s nothing more powerful than your own experience. When you love something you want to talk about it! I hope we can make NFP more accessible and mainstream in Australia.
Interview with Christina
Christina is a Catholic mother of one, a medical doctor, and is currently training to become a Billings Ovulation Method (BOM) instructor. BOM uses cervical mucus observation to chart and identify fertility patterns. Christina also has personal experience with the Creighton and Symptothermal methods, which she will discuss in the following interview.
- What inspired you to be an instructor of Billings Ovulation Method?
I had experienced first-hand how natural family planning empowers a woman with indispensable and lifelong knowledge of her own fertility. I’ve seen NFP transform relationships, fostering open communication, intimacy, and trust. Lastly, I simply could not believe how few people knew about NFP and the Billings method of NFP, despite how effective and well researched it is. I felt that women have a right to know about NFP, and just how life changing it can be.
- What are the pros and cons of the three NFP methods that you have come across? Which one do you prefer the most and why?
I have learnt the Creighton, Symptothermal, and Billings method of natural family planning. I first learnt the Creighton model, which is based on observing mucus signs, as well as touching cervical mucus to assess consistency (sounds a bit gross, I know). I initially loved it because it involved very precise observations throughout the day and gave me a sense of control and objectivity at a time when I was new to NFP and somewhat sceptical about the efficacy. It is particularly useful in enabling diagnosis of medical conditions which affect fertility. However, there are very few instructors in Australia, and therefore very few people who can accurately interpret charting.
Over time, I became very attuned to my own patterns of fertility, and found I did not really need the level of detail required for Creighton. I then briefly investigated the Symptothermal Method. This involves observing mucus signs and taking a daily vaginal temperature. I liked the idea of temperature testing because, again, it felt like more control. However, I could not commit to taking the temperature at the same time every day, which was a requirement of the method. This led me to Billings which I ultimately have fallen in love with. Billings is purely based on sensation and mucus observation (with no touching involved – yay!). It was actually the first NFP developed, and was pioneered here in Melbourne.
The Creighton and Symptothermal methods were actually modelled off Billings for various different reasons. As far as I am aware, all three methods are comparable to one another in effectiveness in avoiding pregnancy (and comparable to some of the most effective hormonal contraceptives available). Overall, I have found Billings the easiest to learn and follow, however I am aware that many women find comfort in temperature testing or touching mucus, as it allows more objectivity. Having knowledge about different forms of NFP allows you to decide for yourself what best suits your temperament and current life situation.
- How did you come across these methods?
I became aware of the Creighton model initially because it was actually recommended by my GP. As my interest in NFPs grew, I sought out information from people I knew working in the space, which led me to Symptothermal and Billings.
- How do you think we can advocate NFP to a wider audience?
Firstly and most importantly, I think a lot of women are just not aware it is even an option. I think this is partly because a lot of medical professionals know very little about NFP and therefore do not offer it as an option to women. I also have no recollection of NFPs in my school sex ed classes. NFP should be offered immediately for couples struggling with subfertility, and I strongly believe many women would choose NFP over hormonal contraceptives if they had the knowledge. NFP is effective, has no side effects, no cost, and is a lifelong skill. The responsibility is on us to share openly about our experiences with our sisters, daughters, and friends, and encourage a generation of truly empowered women.
Stay tuned for part 2 of this series in which we will be discussing the science behind NFP.
Anna is a wife, mother of two beautiful toddlers, and a passionate primary school teacher based in Melbourne. She is a returned Catholic with a heart for babies, children and mums. She loves flowers, coffee and music.
