Skip to comments.The Pill Is Not Good for Women
Posted on 02/23/2012 8:27:49 PM PST by neverdem
The recent Health and Human Services mandate and the ensuing debate appear to have pitted religious-liberty claims against women’s health. But because religious leaders (rightly) focused on the need for a religious exemption, it may appear to some observers that they are unable to articulate a reasoned and weighty response to the administration’s claim that contraceptives are essential to women’s health and well-being.
The Obama administration is wrong on this score as well, and the substantive case needs to be made: The contraceptive revolution has failed to be the unmitigated boon to women or to society that it was hyped up to be.
For the past 50 years, the Pill has demonstrably assisted women — especially college-educated, career-minded women — in the timing of pregnancies and the delay of marriage. But the Pill also ushered in an era of unprecedented (and, as things turned out, unwarranted) confidence that sex could be pursued without risk — most notably, outside of long-term committed relationships.
The Pill, together with abortion as backup, appeared to provide full insurance against pregnancy risks. But as economists well know, full insurance tends to induce greater risk-taking: As people perceive sex to be safer, they pursue more of it. This applies especially to people who would otherwise be most vulnerable to the risks of unwanted pregnancy: the young, the unmarried, and those unable to care for a child. While a tight causal argument is difficult to make, correlations alone do not augur in favor of the Pill: The rapidly increasing sexual activity of the Pill era correlates with a staggering increase in non-marital births — less than 5 percent of births in 1960 were to unmarried mothers, compared with roughly 40 percent today. A counterintuitive result, perhaps, but a fairly human one nonetheless.
And this points to an unresolved difficulty with the contraceptive revolution, which was supposed to serve women above all: Women on the whole disproportionately bear the burden of the new sexual regime. They are expected to dose themselves with a Group 1 carcinogen for approximately two-thirds of their fertile years. They sustain greater emotional costs from casual sex. They are at greater risk of contracting STDs and disproportionately suffer from their long-term consequences, such as cervical cancer and fertility loss.And even after 50 years with the Pill, as many as half of all pregnancies are still unintended. Women, not men, must make the heart-wrenching choice between abortion, reckoned a tragic outcome even by its supporters, and bearing a child with little to no paternal support. After all, since children were negotiated out of the bargain by the availability of contraception and abortion, men have secured a strong rationale to simply ignore or reject pregnancies that result from uncommitted sexual relations. Nobel-laureate economist George Akerlof predicted nearly two decades ago that this would lead directly to the feminization of poverty, as it ruefully has.
These traumas take their toll. A stunning paper by leading labor economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers documented recently that women’s self-reported happiness has declined both overall, and relative to that of men, since the early 1970s. Where women used to report higher happiness than men, they now report less. Stevenson and Wolfers ask, “Did men garner a disproportionate share of the benefits of the women’s movement?” Good question indeed. One may well wonder if the bargain advocated by the feminist elites has made much sense in the end: Were gains for elite women purchased with the currency of a new sexual ethic that has damaged women more generally?
Contrary to a popular misconception, the alternative to the contraceptive revolution is not to roll back the clock on women’s advancement, and certainly not to promote a physically and emotionally taxing outcome in which women have as many children as biologically possible. Rather, the alternative to contraception is to respect biological asymmetry, heal the wound between the sexes, and expect more from men.
Authentic sexual equality requires that men understand with their bodies (as women do) the procreative potential of the sexual act. And this is exactly what natural methods of family planning do. By frequenting sex only during infertile times when a child is unwanted, men learn to coordinate their desires for intimacy with the natural rhythms of the female body. Feminist scholar and theologian Angela Franks notes that “[this] is unheard of in a society in which male desire appears to set the guidelines — especially in the ‘hook-up’ culture. Indeed, such a reorientation ofdesire is more revolutionary than any secular feminist project.” Those who practice this approach to family planning report that its use tends to make husbands more sensitive to the sexual and emotional needs of their wives — a sensitivity that many women have long found wanting.
And while the Catholic Church is a leading promoter of natural family planning, this isn’t just good for Catholic women. Non-Catholics are increasingly discovering the advantages of a more organic, pharmaceutical-free method of family planning, as evidenced by the success of Toni Weschler’s Taking Charge of Your Fertility.Not only are natural methods becoming easier to use with the help of fertility monitors, online tools, and even apps, such methods help properly trained physicians to successfully detect and treat PMS, polycystic ovarian syndrome, infertility, and other medical conditions. Practiced faithfully — a caveat that applies to all methods of family planning — natural methods are just as effective as the Pill. As advocates often remark, this isn’t your grandmother’s rhythm method.
The feminist movement asked men for very little. We should ask them for much more. Though religious leaders can (and should) win the conscience-exemption argument on its own terms, we ought not hesitate to confront the administration’s spurious public-health claim. The suffering borne by women and children in the wake of the contraceptive revolution should make us impatient to articulate that Catholic teaching is not against reason, modernity, or women. It’s prophetic, pro-woman — and about time.
— Erika Bachiochi is an author whose most recent publications include Women, Sex & the Church: A Case for Catholic Teaching (2010). Catherine R. Pakaluk is an economist at the Stein Center for Social Research at Ave Maria University.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
My sister,who is 17,takes them because her periods wee very painful,so they can be beneficial.
I might take them for the same reason,as my periods are heavy and are affecting my iron levels.
That’s ‘were’,not ‘wee’.
IIRC, though, there are other medical applications for the Pill— I know it’s been used to treat severe gastronomical disorders, for example.
Hillarious and demonstrative of the problem we have with Gov!
Bottom line is what is preventing a doctor from writing a prescription and the patient going to the pharmacy and paying a copay for the drug?
This is discriminatory to those of were born of the wrong gender, who need to ingest hormones to develop traits of the opposite gender. WHY CAN’T I HAVE FREE HORMONES???? It’s wasis! /sarc
While those uses could be considered ethical even by the Catholic Standard of double effect. You might want to investigate the concept of naprotechnology and health care providers that might be able to provide treatment options that could be far less toxic than the pill.
The website is easy to find http://naprotechnology.com/
Nothing... since at least 98% of the population uses already.
/forgotten sarcasm tag.
Morally I have absolutely no problem with the use of the pill. I have a hell of a problem with abortions of convenience. I also have a big problem with government deciding what a religious institution (the Catholic Church and their hospitals) must provide in the way of contreception and abortion for their employees.
This administration is the one that has crossed the boundary between church and state. That worked out real good for Henry the VIII in England. They are still fighting that battle today in Northern Ireland.
Even the abortions that are caused by the pill? If not you contradict yourself.
They keep learning strange new things about The Pill.
Messing with the hormones over a long period of time can’t be a good thing.
Here is one article about how it changes the chemistry of attraction....
And the funny thing is....while women are being sold on the idea they need the pill in order to enjoy sex. The opposite is most likely true...that women who are not on the pill are the ones enjoying it the most.
I probably should not take the Pill anyway because of my age. I’m 35 and I believe that’s the “cut-off” age.
I would actually be most concerned about your sister. The World Health Organization has identified the Pill as a Carcinogen and the younger someone starts, the higher the risk for breast cancer.
She should know her options.
I find it hard to believe that a person could take high doses of a chemical hormone for decades and not have a serious increase in health problems.
I’ll mention it to my mother because my sister will flip out and ask “Am I going to die”?
That is the last thing we need.
I know it’s a seperate topic but those transsexuals who are getting injected with the opposite sexes’ hormones are playing with fire,too. It can’t be good for a man to be injected with Estrogen or a woman to be injected with Testosterone.
The instances of suicide for those who complete ‘gender reassignment’ are extremely high. The reason for this is that they are treating the symptoms and not the underlying disease.
There are a scant amout of women turned “men” who will have a phalloplasty. They use the clitoris and a skin graft but tissue death is a major concern so this procedure is very rare.
I’m not anti-birth control but I do think birth control pills are dangerously over used with safety far exaggerated. We know the effects on male endocrine systems from talking steroids how is it that similar side affects are ignored with birth control pills? They are ignored because of political expediency.
We have several credible studies showing that birth control pills not only can affect the physical well being of a woman negatively but also affect a woman’s mental state and skew a woman’s preferences towards men that are less likely to form long term relationships or be good fathers. Look at the increase in divorce etc and I have little doubt that birth control pills have played a direct role.
I know from personal experience that I just didn’t care for my wife much when she was on birth control pills. She was just a colder less pleasant person in so many ways. I do not know if they affect all women this way but if even a sizable percentage are affected it could explain the increase in many marital problems. Not that I blame the pill solely but they do suppress the excretion of Oxytocin
the so called hormone of love and vasopressin which plays a key role in sexual bonding. Some wish to blame shifts in sexual attitudes solely on the cultural change when it is increasingly looking like the cultural change has been driven by women reprogrammed hormonally in ways that make them more apt to be promiscuous, more apt to favor men who are less stable, less likely to form strong sexual bonds, and I would suspect less likely to form strong bonds with their own children.
The problem we have today is that there is such vested interest in the current birth control paradigm that any shift away from it is considered sacrilegious.
Birth control pills always made me sick to my stomach, worsened my migraines, and made me gain weight. So in my short stint on them, I felt like throwing up, had horrible headaches, and felt fat — I guess they were working to avoid pregnancy in that regard!
I still only have two kids, one adopted. There are other ways if you don’t want to get pregnant and I don’t mean abortion or avoiding your husband.
An FDA study released found that among women who use the older pills there are about six cases of blood clots per 10,000 women each year. As for the newer pills, the FDA came to basically the same conclusion as the Israeli study: Annually there are about 10 blood clots per 10,000 women taking the drospirenone pills."
"....a new study of 330,000 Israeli women found those using the pills with drospirenone have a 43-65% higher chance of having a blood clot than women who use other types of birth control pills. These clots usually form in the legs, but can travel up to the lungs and cause a pulmonary embolism. Though that sound scary, it's actually extremely unlikely that you'll drop dead from taking birth control pills. Out of every 10,000 women taking pills like Yaz or Yasmin [in study], only eight to 10 experience a blood clot each year."
"However, the findings could be important for women who already have other risk factors for blood clots, like obesity or high blood pressure (as you've probably picked up from the babbling during drug commercials, women who are over 35 and smoke are already advised to avoid birth control pills). Of course, we should also remember that women take the pills to avoid an even riskier medical situation.."
Would that be the study that canvassed only women of child-bearing age who don't want a baby? The one that didn't break out chemical, barrier or natural means of birth control? (I don't have the link, but I saw this on FR, a Guttmacher Institute study, IIRC.)
Somewhat related: one wonders why a generation that gets insists on produce that is "organic," free-range chickens, and "all-natural" ingredients, and goes nutty over giving hormones to cows that will show up in milk happily laps up the hormones in the Pill. And haven't there been studies that show all these hormones make their way into the water with deleterious effects on fish or something? Well, maybe only one study by people who never got funding again . . .
I agree with the headline, but not all of the other BS in the article.
When wife and I married in our late 20s, it was the 2nd for both of us and we each had daughters 6 years old. She was on the pill. About 6 years later, her OB/GYN told her there were possible signs of cancer and that continued use of the pill might be dangerous. We discussed, decided we did not want to have another child, and I agreed to get a vasectomy.
She is now 70 and we both have grandchildren from our daughters. (full disclosure... we divorced 16 years ago)
Quite seriously, I would recommend an MRI to check for cysts, as these can potentially cause both painful and longer periods. I'm not referring to a cancerous cyst, just normal cysts that many women have, but in some cases such that they can create tremendous discomfort and contribute to heavier periods. Cysts are a likely cause in many cases of irregular menses.
Great article. I hope that more women will become aware of the truth.
It's not an either/or situation. Menstrual irregularities have a cause, either a physical cause such as cysts or a hormonal cause. Physical problems can often be treated with outpatient surgery, and hormonal irregularities with better nutrition and other efforts. The use of hormonal contraceptives as a "medication" is the simplest course for a doctor, but it doesn't address whatever is really out of order.
It's understandable that a "health care" system that has come to consider a correctly-functioning female reproductive system as an "illness" to be "prevented" through drugs or surgery, doesn't want to put much time or effort into diagnosing and correctly treating disfunctions. (And also, there's oodles of money in IVF when the person who spent decades doing everything to avoid giving birth decides she'll now do anything in order *to* give birth.)
just type into your browser various combinations of: Lafranchi pill [and especially with keyword combo, though one doesn’t even have to close in quotes:] molotov cocktail.
You’ll be all day and more reading of the irrefutable studies. Many of these have come in the last five years and especially the last 2-3 years.
We were very fortunate to have Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S. do a presentation at our local March for Life
Jan 2011. It’s she who has used the phrase “molotov cocktail” in regards breast cancer and the pill.
Just about every birth control pill manufactured causes abortions. Gynecologists don’t tend to disclose that little factoid when prescribing them though. I absolutely hate to admit this, but, I was on the pill for a while. I can tell you from experience, that I was never, and I mean never told that it was an abortifacient. As a matter of fact, the only thing that I was advised about was that it wasn’t good to smoke while taking it. That was all.
As I have come back to my faith, I no longer take the pill. I have to wonder if my body still feels the repercussions from my consumption of it though.
Now, dagnabbit, there you go being logical an' all that.
That'll never work.
Oh. Wait. That's the way it works now.
You are, of course, correct.
There is no need whatsoever to force one segment of the population to pick up the tab for other people's pleasure, especially if it is done in violation of their religious beliefs.
She does have cysts.
What's BS in particular? I'm a physician, so I'm curious about whaat you think is false.
What part of the article don't you understand?
The Pill, together with abortion as backup, appeared to provide full insurance against pregnancy risks. But as economists well know, full insurance tends to induce greater risk-taking: As people perceive sex to be safer, they pursue more of it. This applies especially to people who would otherwise be most vulnerable to the risks of unwanted pregnancy: the young, the unmarried, and those unable to care for a child.
It's very simple. By making sex "risk-free" more people engage in more of it. Yielding more pregnancy, not less.
I agree with the headline, but not all of the other BS in the article.
What’s BS in particular? I’m a physician, so I’m curious about whaat you think is false.
Glad you asked. Caused me to go back and thoroughly read the article. ....I withdraw my comment about BS.
When I commented in #30, I had just quickly scanned the article and I suppose it was the overall “tone” presented by the two authors that I was objecting to in the comment. It initially just struck me as being very biased against men.