Questions

One nation that clearly demonstrates this problem is Botswana. For over a decade Botswana has relied upon widespread availability of condoms in order to combat AIDS. Campaigns for abstinence and fidelity were not emphasized. Instead, billboards about “safe sex” lined the streets, while schoolchildren learned songs about condoms. According to The Washington Post, “The anti-AIDS partnership between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and drugmaker Merck budgeted $13.5 million for condom promotion—25 times the amount dedicated to curbing dangerous sexual behavior. But soaring rates of condom use have not brought down high HIV rates. Instead, they rose together, until both were among the highest in Africa.”[3]

Unfortunately, Botswana was not the only nation to make this mistake. The journal Studies in Family Planning pointed this out in their article “Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?” Its authors noted that “in many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use. . . . No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion.”[4]

However, there is a clear example of an African nation turning back the epidemic of AIDS by other means. In the late 1980s Uganda was viewed as the worst nation in the world in terms of HIV/AIDS infections.[5] In 1991, 22 percent of people in the country were infected with HIV. By 1999 the number had dropped to 6 percent.[6] Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni insists that their unique success among African countries is due to their behavioral approach. He said, “In comparison with other countries per capita expenditure on condoms, we spend far below other developed countries, which emphasize use of condoms in their fight against the disease.”[7] Instead of placing the primary emphasis on condoms, they emphasized abstinence and faithfulness first. As a result, they have experienced the greatest decline in HIV in the world.[8] According to the Journal of International Development, it was “the lack of condom promotion during the 1980s and early 1990s [that] contributed to the relative success of behavior change strategies in Uganda.”[9]

Some “safer sex” advocates attempted to claim credit for the success of Uganda’s AIDS decline. But Dr. Edward Green, a Harvard senior research scientist, ruled out such a connection, since “Uganda shows a significant decline in STDs in the absence of a male condom prevalence rate over 5 [percent].”[10] In fact, condoms were not widely used in Uganda until after much of the HIV decline had already taken place.[11] The real reason for the drop in HIV is that between 1989 and 1995 casual sex in Uganda declined by 65 percent.[12]

Some of the sharpest declines took place within the teenage population, which the experts said “took many of us by surprise, since we believed that teenagers are driven by ‘raging hormones,’ therefore abstinence is an unrealistic or impossible objective.”[13] In the words of Dr. Green, who has over two decades of experience in Africa and had previously advocated widespread condom distribution, “Weren’t ‘we’ supposed to teach ‘them’ how to prevent AIDS?”[14]

Unfortunately, the success in Uganda has been undermined in recent years. According to The Washington Post, “The Ugandan turnaround was well underway by the time foreign AIDS experts began to arrive in the early 1990s, bringing with them the Western public health approaches—and values. They began to retool Uganda’s AIDS prevention efforts away from abstinence and fidelity—goals that many Westerners felt were unrealistic. As condom use increased, the percentage of young singles having sex rose from 27 percent to 37 percent between 1995 and 2000.”[15] It seems that only sex-saturated Westerners (who have no handle on their own STD epidemics) are naive enough to expect that condoms will solve the AIDS problem.

Some people ridicule the idea that abstinence education is a realistic way to deal with the AIDS crisis in developing nations. However, the evidence in favor of such an approach is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.[16] In his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Green said, “Many of us in the AIDS and public health communities didn’t believe that abstinence or delay, and faithfulness, were realistic goals. It now seems we were wrong.”[17]

In a Washington Post article entitled “Let Africans Decide How to Fight AIDS,” he added, “Billions of dollars and the lives of countless men, women, and children will be wasted if ideology trumps proven health policy.”[18] Lest anyone think that such an emphasis on abstinence is the result of conservative religious leaders placing their ideologies above science, Green noted, “I’m a flaming liberal, don’t go to church, never voted for a Republican in my life.”[19]

His appreciation for the effectiveness of promoting abstinence comes from witnessing its results. Had South Africa implemented Uganda’s emphasis on self-control, one scientist noted, “3.2 million lives would be saved between 2000 and 2010.”[20] The effectiveness of the Ugandan approach has led scientists to consider it a “social vaccine” against HIV.[21]

Why has the behavioral approach of reducing sexual partners been so much more effective than condom distribution? There are a number of reasons.

One reason is that most people do not use the condom consistently and correctly, even after being given sex education. In one study of over five hundred couples who were repeatedly advised by their clinicians to use condoms, only 8 percent of them used it consistently, despite the fact that they knew one partner had herpes and the other did not![22] In studies of relationships where one partner was infected with HIV and the other was not, only about 50 percent of them always used a condom![23] If those couples were not motivated enough to use the condom consistently, it’s hard to imagine that perfect condom use will ever be seen in the general population.

Some might assume, “Well, at least some protection is better than none.” This would seem to be a logical argument. After all, condom use can reduce the odds of HIV transmission during an act of intercourse. However, one study of over seventeen thousand people in Africa showed that inconsistent condom use was not protective against HIV.[24] In the presence of an epidemic, unless a person changes his or her behavior, it may be only a matter of time before he or she is infected. For this reason Dr. Norman Hearst said that he feared that we are “raising a generation of young people in Africa that believe that condoms will prevent HIV.”[25] While condoms may reduce the risk of HIV transmission, they do not “protect” against AIDS. When people are not taught the difference and are left thinking that risk reduction equals protection, they are more open to taking risks that they cannot afford.

A second reason why the “safe sex” message has failed to curb AIDS is that the “protection” offered by the condom decreases with repeated exposures.[26] A study funded by the Centers for Disease Control followed sexually active young women (most of whom had a steady boyfriend) to assess condom effectiveness over time.[27] The study found that those who used condoms consistently and correctly were not statistically less likely to acquire at least one STD than the girls who used condoms inconsistently or not at all. According to Dr. J. Thomas Fitch, “This study illustrates what happens over time with numerous acts of sex with an infected partner even when a condom is used.”[28]

Similar observations have been seen in Africa. Edward Green remarked, “Twenty years into the pandemic there is no evidence that more condoms leads to less AIDS. . . . Over a lifetime, it is the number of sexual partners [that matter]. Condom levels are found to be non-determining of HIV infection levels.”[29]

A third reason why condoms have failed to stop AIDS is that when a person is infected with other STDs, they are up to five times as likely to get HIV if exposed. There are several reasons why this occurs.[30] One reason is that many STDs cause sores that can serve as portals of entry for the virus. For example, a woman’s reproductive tract is often able to protect her from HIV.[31] However, this natural barrier is compromised when she is infected with certain STDs.[32] Considering that the number one determinant of STD infection is multiple sexual partners, any strategy to stop HIV that does not reduce sexual activity will have limited effect. This is why one AIDS researcher remarked that safe sex “has not been safe in the UK, and in Africa it has been positively dangerous.”[33]

One final reason why condoms have not stopped HIV is that those who are promiscuous more easily catch the virus. In fact, there would be a massive decline in the sexual transmission of HIV if people practiced six months of abstinence between sexual partners. This statement might sound absurd to anyone unfamiliar with the infectivity rates of HIV. The infectivity rate of a disease or virus measures the likelihood of its transmission. For HIV it is estimated to be .001, meaning that, on average, the odds of being infected with HIV through a single act of intercourse (without a condom) is about one in a thousand.[34] However, when a person is first infected with HIV, he or she is highly contagious.[35] If this person were to get tested for HIV right away, the test would show that he or she is HIV negative, despite the fact that he or she does have the virus and can easily transmit it!

Here’s why: Technically the HIV test does not look for HIV, but for antibodies against the virus. Antibodies are what your body produces to fight off intruders. But viruses are smart and they are often able to avoid being detected. HIV can hide in your body for months before your immune system recognizes it (and years before you know of it). So if your body does not know that you have been infected with HIV, it won’t produce antibodies to attack the virus. According to Dr. Harvey Elder, a professor of HIV/AIDS Epidemiology and Care, “The patient’s ‘HIV’ test becomes positive 4–24 weeks after exposure.”[36] But if the HIV test doesn’t find the antibodies, the doctors will tell you that you’re HIV negative.

Meanwhile, inside the body of a newly infected person, the HIV plasma viral level is very high, especially in the genital fluids (semen and cervical-vaginal fluids), because antibodies haven’t been produced to reduce their levels. Since the viral load is extremely high, and the person is shedding viruses, the infectivity rate soars in the early weeks of infection. Dr. Harvey continued, “During the first few months, a person infects 20–30 percent of sexual contacts but [the] HIV test is negative. When the test is positive, 0.2–0.3 percent of sexual contacts become infected [if there are no other STDs present].” This means that if people abstained from sex at least six months between partners, the odds of HIV transmission would be decimated. Therefore, countries that encourage monogamy and self control enjoy much greater success in preventing HIV than countries that simply hand out condoms.

A key example of this is in the Philippines, where condoms are rare, and so is HIV. A New York Times article entitled “Low Rate of AIDS Virus in Philippines Is a Puzzle” reported that the Church in the Philippines is “conservative and politically powerful.” As a result, “the government has no AIDS-awareness program of its own and restricts the public campaigns of independent family-planning groups.” [37] But, the article reported, “public health officials say they are stumped by a paradox in the Philippines, where a very low rate of condom use [4 percent] and a very low rate of HIV infection seem to be going hand in hand.”

In this conservative Catholic country that shuns condoms, about twelve thousand of the eighty-four million residents are infected with HIV. Jean-Marc Olive of the World Health Organization said that he’s not sure why this is, but he thinks they’re “lucky.” One gets the impression that “experts” would rather look puzzled than be forced to give credit to a chaste culture.

To appreciate the wisdom of the Filipino approach to halting the spread of HIV, contrast their efforts with the “safe sex” program implemented in Thailand. Both countries reported their first case of HIV in 1984. By 1987 there were 135 cases in the Philippines, and 112 in Thailand. The World Health Organization predicted that by 1999, 85,000 people would die of AIDS in the Philippines, and 70,000 in Thailand. In an effort to prevent this tragedy, Thailand enacted a “one hundred percent condom use program” and promoted widespread availability of condoms.[38] Meanwhile, the Filipino government backed the Church’s plan to prevent the epidemic.

By 2005, Thailand’s HIV rate was fifty times as high as the Philippines (580,000 vs. 12,000).[39] But because Thailand’s rate of new HIV infections is not as high as it used to be, it is hailed by “safe sex” experts as the model of how to protect a country against HIV. Health officials warn that an HIV epidemic has “the potential to explode” in the Philippines, but they are slow to acknowledge that if Filipinos hold fast to their morals, they’ll have nothing to fear.[40] Compared to Western culture, Filipinos have a delayed sexual debut and a reduced number of partners.[41] They are living proof that self-control always trumps birth control.

While some people see the Catholic Church as an obstacle to HIV prevention, the British Medical Journal noted, “The greater the percentage of Catholics in any country, the lower the level of HIV. If the Catholic Church is promoting a message about HIV in those countries, it seems to be working. On the basis of data from the World Health Organization, in Swaziland, where 42.6 percent have HIV, only 5 percent of the population is Catholic. In Botswana, where 37 percent of the adult population is HIV infected, only 4 percent of the population is Catholic. In South Africa, 22 percent of the population is HIV infected, and only 6 percent is Catholic. In Uganda, with 43 percent of the population Catholic, the proportion of HIV infected adults is 4 percent.”[42] In the Philippines, over 80 percent of the population is Catholic, and only .03 percent of the population has HIV![43]

The Catholic Church, like any good mother, wants what is best for her children. If your son or daughter had the chance to be sexually active with a person infected with HIV, what message would you give him or her? Would you entrust your child’s life to a piece of latex? Would you buy him or her a package of condoms, and then attempt to deliver a convincing abstinence message? Odds are, every loving parent would deliver an uncompromised message about abstinence. Why then would the Church do any less for her children?

Some argue that the Church’s opposition to condoms isn’t realistic because “some people are going to do it anyway.” But who are these “some people” who are incapable of being reached with the message of self-control? When I played college baseball, we were expected not to use steroids. Sure, some athletes do it anyway, but no coach would walk into the locker room and say, “We want you all to abstain from using performance-enhancing drugs. But since we know some of you will do it anyway, we’ll have a basket of free, clean syringes in the dugout.” Odds are, his players would not be inspired by his lack of confidence in them. If the coach truly cared about his players and wanted only the best for them, he’d motivate and empower them to make the best choice. In the same way, the Church will not give up on any human being but will continue to deliver the safest and healthiest message: chastity.

All of these considerations should offer more than enough evidence that the Church’s stance on contraception does not stem from naïve traditionalism. It comes, in the words of one Vatican reporter, “from a profound analysis of the need to integrate sexuality in an exclusive and permanent relationship open to life in the context of marriage. The wisdom of this view is becoming increasingly clearer.”[44] Critics may belittle the Catholic Church now, but as the saying goes, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.”[45]

For more information on AIDS and Africa, visit our the “Research” tab above.

To study the success of abstinence education and the failure of “safe sex” promotion in Africa, you may wish to read Evidence that Demands Action by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, or Rethinking AIDS Prevention by Edward Green, a Harvard senior research scientist.
_______________________________
[1]. Sue Ellin Browder, “Dirty Little Secret: Why Condoms Will Never Stop AIDS in Africa,” Crisis (June 1, 2006).
[2]. Tim Allen and Suzette Heald, “HIV/AIDS Policy in Africa: What Has Worked in Uganda and What Has Failed in Botswana?,” Journal of International Development 16:8 (November 8, 2004), 1141–1154; Michael Cassell, et al., “Risk Compensation: The Achilles’ Heel of Innovations in HIV Prevention?” British Medical Journal 332 (March 11, 2006), 605–607.
[3]. Craig Timberg, “Speeding HIV’s Deadly Spread,” Washington Post Foreign Service (March 2, 2007), A01.
[4]. N. Hearst and S. Chen, “Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?” Studies in Family Planning 35:1 (March 2004), 39–47, emphasis added.
[5]. Allen and Heald, 1141.
[6]. Edward Green, et al., Evidence That Demands Action (Austin, Tex.: Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 2005), ii.
[7]. Yoweri Museveni, 11th International Conference of People Living with HIV, as reported by Panafrican News Agency Daily Newswire (October 29, 2003).
[8]. Joseph Loconte, “The White House Initiative to Combat AIDS: Learning from Uganda,” The Heritage Foundation: Backgrounder 1692 (September 29, 2003).
[9]. Allen and Heald, 1141, emphasis added.
[10]. Arthur Allen, “Sex Change: Uganda v. Condoms,” The New Republic (May 27, 2002).
[11]. Allen and Heald, 1149.
[12]. D. Low-Beer and R. Stoneburner, “Behavior and Communication Change in Reducing HIV: Is Uganda Unique?” African Journal of AIDS Research 2 (2004), 2.
[13]. Edward Green, “Testimony before the Subcommittee on African Affairs,” Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (May 19, 2003) 2.
[14]. Edward Green, “The New AIDS Fight: A Plan as Simple as ABC,” The New York Times (March 1, 2003).
[15]. Edward C. Green and Wilfred May, “Let Africans Decide How to Fight AIDS,” The Washington Post (November 29, 2003), A23.
[16]. S. Gregson, et al., “HIV Decline Associated with Behavior Change in Eastern Zimbabwe,” Science 311:5761 (February 3, 2006), 620–621; Richard Hayes and Helen Weiss, “Understanding HIV Epidemic Trends in Africa,” Science 311:5761 (February 3, 2006), 620–621.
[17]. Testimony of Edward C. Green, Ph.D., before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives (March 20, 2003), 3.
[18]. Green and May, A23.
[19]. Allen.
[20]. Rand Stoneburner, quoted in Allen.
[21]. Low-Beer R. Stoneburner, 1.
[22]. AnnaWald et al., “Effect of Condoms on Reducing the Transmission of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 from Men to Women,” Journal of the American Medical Association285 (June 27, 2001), 3103.
[23]. J. Thomas Fitch, “Are Condoms Effective in Reducing the Risk of Sexually Transmitted Disease?” The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 35:9 (September 2001), 1137; A. Saracco, et al., “Man-to-Woman Sexual Transmission of HIV: Longitudinal Study of 343 Steady Partners of Infected Men,” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes6:5 (May 1993), 497–502; I. de Vincenzi, “A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Heterosexual Partners,” The New England Journal of Medicine 3331 (August 11, 1994), 341–346, as quoted in Fitch.
[24]. S. Ahmed, et al., “HIV Incidence and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevalence Associated with Condom Use: A Population Study in Rakai, Uganda,” AIDS 15:16 (November 9, 2001), 2171–2179.
[25]. “New Research Confirms Condoms Not Effective in HIV Prevention,” LifeSiteNews.com (January 14, 2004).
[26]. Joshua Mann, et al., “The Role of Disease-Specific Infectivity and Number Of Disease Exposures on Long-Term Effectiveness of the Latex Condom,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases 29:6 (June 2002), 344–349.
[27]. R. E. Bunnell, et al., “High Prevalence and Incidence of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Urban Adolescent Females Despite Moderate Risk Behaviors,” Journal of Infectious Diseases 180:65 (November 1999), 1624–1631.
[28]. Fitch, 1137.
[29]. “New Research Shows Dangers of Condoms in HIV Prevention,” Culture & Cosmos 1:23 (January 13, 2004), emphasis added.
[30]. D.T. Fleming and J.N. Wasserheit, “From Epidemiological Synergy to Public Health Policy and Practice: The Contribution of Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases to Sexual Transmission of HIV Infection,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 75 (1999), 3–17.
[31]. Peter Greenhead, et al., “Parameters of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection of Human Cervical Tissue and Inhibition by Vaginal Virucides,” Journal of Virology74:12 (June 2000), 5577–5586.
[32]. Nancy Padian, et al., “Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology 146:4 (August 15, 1997), 350–357.
[33]. Dr. Daniel Low-Beer, as quoted by Alisa Colquhoun, “Ugandan Lessons?” Public Health News, February 6, 2004.
[34]. Fitch, 1137; Ronald Gray, et al., “Probability of HIV-1 Transmission Per Coital Act in Monogamous, Heterosexual, HIV-1 Discordant Couples in Rakai, Uganda,” Lancet357 (2001), 1149–1153; I. de Vincenzi, “A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency, 341–346; Medical Institute for Sexual Health, Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know (Austin, Tex.: Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 2002), 13.
[35]. Bluma Brenner, et al., “High Rates of Forward Transmission Events After Acute/Early HIV-1 Infection,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases 195 (April 1, 2007), 951–959; M. J. Wawer, et al., “Rates of HIV-1 Transmission Per Coital Act, by Stage of HIV-1 Infection, in Rakai, Uganda,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases 191:9 (May 1, 2005), 1403–1409.
[36]. Harvey Elder, “Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV),” a presentation at Health on the Horizon, sponsored by The Medical Institute for Sexual Health (June 13, 2002).
[37]. Seth Mydans, “Low Rate Of AIDS Virus In Philippines Is a Puzzle,” The New York Times (April 20, 2003).
[38], Human Life International, “Condom Exposé” www.hli.org, 16.
[39]. UNAIDS “Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic,” 2006, Annex 2, 511, 514.
[40]. Mydans.
[41]. Cecile Balgos, “Philippines Proud of its Low Infection Rate, Number of Cases,” San Francisco Chronicle (May 21, 2003).
[42]. Amin Abboud, “Searching for Papal Scapegoats Is Pointless,” British Medical Journal 331 (July 30, 2005), 294.
[43]. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, “International Religious Freedom Report 2004,” U.S. Department of State (September 15, 2004); UNAIDS “Philippines” Country Situation Analysis (www.unaids.org).
[44]. “Doubts About Condoms: Science Questioning Their Efficacy in Halting HIV/AIDS,” Zenit Daily Dispatch, Nairobi, Kenya (June 26, 2004).
[45]. Commonly attributed to Arthur Schopenhauer.

One such vaccination being tested is the anti-hCG vaccine. HCG stands for human chorionic gonadotrophin. This is a hormone that is produced by a newly conceived baby when he or she is only a few days old (a blastocyst). Once hCG is produced, it signals the mother’s body to release other hormones that will sustain a healthy pregnancy. When a woman takes a pregnancy test, she is looking for elevated levels of hCG in her system. The hCG vaccine will create antibodies in a woman that will attack hCG, resulting in the death of the baby.

In order to make this work, scientists put a molecule in the vaccine that links hCG with diphtheria or tetanus. These are diseases that a healthy immune system will attack. The version of the toxin is not sufficient to infect the woman with the disease, but it is enough to stimulate her immune system to respond to hCG as if it were a disease. After receiving the vaccination, the woman’s body will be tricked into killing off any future unborn children. Her progesterone levels will drop, and the lining of her uterus will shed, preventing a pregnancy from being sustained.

Another form of the anti-fertility vaccine is known as TBA (Trophoblastic Antigen). It trains the woman’s immune system to attack the trophoblast, which is a layer that surrounds and protects the embryo. As is the case with the anti-hCG vaccine, when a woman uses TBA, the baby dies before the mother is aware of the pregnancy. Because her menstrual cycle is uninterrupted, there is no way for her to know when these early abortions occur.

The side effects and effectiveness of these methods have yet to be established. However, the editor of The International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine wrote, “[The development of immunocontraceptives is] asking unnecessarily for trouble . . . Whatever risks there are can hardly be predicted in any test. But what we know of physiology suggests that they could be very serious.”[1]

Controversy has surrounded the development of these vaccinations, especially because they are being tested on women in developing nations without informed consent. Such women (and their unborn children) are being used as living laboratories. Also, it would seem to be a dangerous idea to tamper with the immune systems of women who live in countries ravaged by HIV. Thankfully, many health movements and human rights groups across the globe continue to protest the development and testing of antifertility vaccines.

______________________
[1]. Dukes, G.N., as quoted from a letter dated January 24, 1995, to Judith Richter, author of Vaccination Against Pregnancy: Miracle or Menace? (London and New Jersey: Zed Books, 1996).

One of the most talked-about forms of male contraception is hormonal birth control. One way this would work is through injecting the man with a synthetic female sex hormone (progestin) in order to halt sperm production. By acting on the pituitary gland in the male brain, the two hormones that signal the testes to produce sperm can be reduced. When this was tested in men, it was decided that the men should also rub testosterone gel on their shoulders, because progestin decreases testosterone.

Other scientists are developing a 1.6-inch progestin implant that can be inserted under the skin of a man’s arm. This would be supplemented with testosterone shots every three months. Since men might not be too enthused about birth control that requires routine injections, other researchers have proposed an implant that would contain both testosterone and progestin. But most guys probably won’t be too thrilled about any kind of birth control surgically inserted under their skin, either.

A male birth control pill is also in the works. It could work by increasing the level of testosterone in the man. Through a chain of biological reactions, this would cause the man’s body to halt sperm production. With the added testosterone come side effects, however, such as acne, weight gain, prostate gland growth, and abnormal liver function.

With all these new drugs, one can only imagine the side effects that will inevitably be discovered. For example, what will happen when a chemically deformed sperm successfully impregnates a woman?

Gels, shots, pills, implants, herbs, patches, and everything imaginable have been proposed, but nothing has been licensed in the United States yet. One reason for this is because the drug companies behind these products are afraid of how many men will sue them for the inevitable side effects.[1] It is astounding how far mankind will go in order to avoid the demands of self-control.

__________________________
[1]. Gail Vines, “Contraceptives?: There’s a Revolution Going on in Birth Control for Men and Women. But the Drugs Companies Have All but Abandoned Research,” New Scientist (April 30, 1994), 36.

In the Middle Ages new concoctions were invented, some of which proved to be fatal for the women, who didn’t realize the drawbacks of drinking mercury, lead, arsenic, and strychnine. Even when women did not ingest the medicine, they were often subjected to bizarre practices. Some civilizations urged women to wear amulets that contained the liver of a cat or the earwax of a mule![2] Over time, advances in medical technology replaced such superstitious and ineffective methods.

In the early 1900s, scientists began to experiment with the fertility of animals by using orally administered hormones. Some methods proved to be effective, but mass-producing enough hormones for human use seemed impractical. Scientists required gallons of urine or thousands of pounds of organs in order to extract a few milligrams of sex steroids.[3]

When a chemist in the 1940s was able to produce hormones from certain plants, researchers no longer needed the ovaries from more than two thousand pregnant pigs to create one milligram of progesterone. With only five gallons of liquefied roots of Mexican yams, he could create three kilograms of hormone. With continued progress in the development of synthetic hormones, oral contraception became a reality.

In 1950 Planned Parenthood invited an American biologist named Gregory Pincus to create an “ideal” and “harmless” form of birth control. As it usually does, research began on animals, such as rabbits and mice. Within a few short years, social workers in Puerto Rico were handing out oral tablets to women throughout the barrio. One witness recalls, “Women were told this was medicine that would keep them from having children they couldn’t support.”[4] What these women did not know was that they were being used as test subjects. During these clinical trials, three women died of complications that arose from taking the drug. As a result, the researchers changed the dosage and continued testing.[5]

Further studies were conducted in the United States and abroad, and the FDA approved the birth control pill for contraceptive use in 1960. It didn’t take long before safety concerns began to crop up, including the Pill’s tendency to increase a woman’s risk of suffering heart attacks and strokes. By 1970, the FDA initiated efforts to give information about the drug to the women who used it. As scientists learned more about the harmful chemicals in the Pill, they sought to experiment with different levels and types of hormones.

Over time the chemicals in the Pill have changed considerably. For example, when the Pill was first approved, it contained five times as much estrogen as some of today’s birth control pills.[6] Estrogen enhances clotting of the blood, and so the higher dosage of the hormone led to many injuries related to blood clots, such as strokes and heart attacks.

Because such levels of hormones were dangerous and unnecessary for women, the FDA told doctors in 1970 to prescribe the lowest possible dose of estrogen available at the time. Sales of the higher-dose pills began to drop. In 1973 those in the population control business saw the opportunity to obtain the high-dose pills at a low cost and spent millions of dollars buying up the leftover stock for shipment overseas for use by women in developing nations, despite the safety concerns.[7]

In order to prevent pregnancy, birth control pills employ several mechanisms. First, the synthetic hormones may convince a woman’s body that she is pregnant. This can stop the ovaries from releasing an egg. The Pill also makes it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg, because the hormones thicken the cervical mucus. Normally, on the days of each month when a woman is fertile, her cervical mucus has microscopic channels in it that make it easier for the sperm to travel to the egg. The mucus also nourishes the sperm, allowing them to live longer. However, when a woman is infertile (which is true for the greater part of each month) her cervical mucus changes. It looks more like a mesh or net at the microscopic level. The Pill causes the woman’s body to produce this type of cervical mucus on a continual basis, thus making it difficult for the sperm to live and move. The Pill also creates changes in the uterus and fallopian tubes that can interfere with the transport of sperm.[8] Despite the hormones’ ability to prevent the release of eggs, sometimes a “breakthrough ovulation” takes place. How often this happens depends upon several factors, such as which kind of pill the woman is taking, how consistently she takes her pills, and even how much she weighs. Even with correct and consistent use of the Pill, some formulas allow ovulation in less than 2 percent of cycles, while others allow a woman to ovulate during 65 percent of her cycles.[9]

When a woman ovulates, she can become pregnant. However, the Pill has mechanisms that can cause an abortion before a woman knows that she has conceived. Click here for a full explanation of how this works.

Sometimes, all of the Pill’s mechanisms fail to prevent pregnancy and successful implantation. It is often said that with optimum use of the Pill, it should have an effectiveness rate of 99 percent. Therefore, it is said to have a “method” failure rate of about 1 percent. However, in typical use the rates change significantly. This can be caused by many things, such as a woman’s forgetting to take her pill or taking it at the wrong time of the day. Thus the actual rate, called the “typical” or “user” failure rate. For the first year of use for women under the age of twenty, the Pill has an annual failure rate of 8 to 13 percent.[10] One study that followed sexually active teenage girls on the Pill found that 20 percent of them became pregnant within six months![11]

The typical failure rate of the Pill has been shown to vary according to such factors as a woman’s age, race, marital status, education, and economic status. For example, one large study showed that poor teenage girls who lived with their boyfriends had a 48 percent chance of getting pregnant during their first year on the Pill, whereas a wealthy married woman over the age of thirty had a 3 percent chance of pregnancy.[12]

There are numerous health risks in taking the Pill, since it contains potent synthetic hormones. According to the drug information that is included in birth control pills, the user may experience the following side effects: heart attack, blood clot, stroke, liver cancer, breast cancer, gallbladder disease, headache, bleeding irregularities, ectopic pregnancy, weight gain, mental depression, yeast infection, changes to the curvature of the eye, excessive hair growth in unusual places, loss of scalp hair, acne, partial or complete loss of vision, and more.[13] Some of these adverse reactions are rare, and others are more common, depending upon the type of pill and the particular woman who takes it.

The risk of breast cancer is especially worrisome for young women, since twenty-one of twenty-three studies of women who took the Pill prior to having their first child showed an increased risk of breast cancer.[14] The increase was especially steep among younger women. The World Health Organization and even the companies that sell birth control pills also admit that the drug can increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.[15]

The birth control pill also has been shown to increase a woman’s level of SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin), which decreases the amount of testosterone available in her body.[16] This is one reason birth control pills are sometimes prescribed to treat acne. A decrease in free testosterone in a woman’s body may decrease the severity of acne. However, when testosterone is decreased, so is the woman’s sex drive.

It used to be thought that this undesirable side effect would be reversible. However, research published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine showed levels of SHBG twice as high as normal among women a year after they went off the Pill. The authors stated, “Long-term sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences might result as a consequence of chronic SHBG elevation.”[17] In an article entitled “Can taking the pill dull a woman’s desire forever?” the same scientists feared, “There’s the possibility it is imprinting a woman for the rest of her life.”[18]

When women take the Pill for a long period of time, their risk of heart disease may be increased even after they go off the Pill. When this discovery was made, a cardiologist from Johns Hopkins University said, “What would I tell my daughter to do? I might suggest maybe not oral contraception.”[19]

Recent studies also suggest that if a woman becomes pregnant with a boy while taking the Pill, her son may be more likely to develop prostate cancer. This is because the synthetic hormones can deform the male prostate in developing baby boys. One researcher noted that the chemicals in the Pill are “extremely potent synthetic sex hormones, strong enough to completely control an adult woman’s reproductive system. . . . The developing fetus is extremely sensitive to chemical disturbance . . . so exposing a male baby to them is a very bad idea.”[20] Considering the failure rate of the pill and the number of women taking it worldwide, more than one million boys may be affected each year. Since this discovery is new, further research will need to be conducted in order to confirm and measure this risk.

Other studies suggest that the birth control pill can affect who you’re attracted to. Here’s what some scientists are saying: Many animal species have pheromones, which are odorless chemicals that can signal their availability, arousal, or sexual receptivity. This chemical can be detected by what’s called the vomeronasal organ (VMO), located in the nose. You may have heard that when women live together in close proximity, their menstrual cycles often begin to synchronize. Some have theorized that pheromones may play a role in this, because they can have an effect on hormones.

In animal studies, researchers have discovered that pheromones also play a role in mate selection. For example, a female mouse tends to choose a mate that has MHC genes that are least like her own. MHC (major histocompatibility complex) is a segment of our DNA that plays a role in the immune system, and it can be detected through pheromones in mice. By selecting a mate with the MHC genes most different from her own, the offspring of the mouse is given a greater variety of MHC molecules, thus strengthening its immune system and increasing its odds of survival. It’s one of nature’s ways of ensuring offspring with superior immune systems.

Because of these interesting findings, scientists have set out to determine if a similar mechanism is at work in human mate selection. Preliminary findings based on a woman’s preference of a man’s scent show that women also prefer mates who have MHC genes that are least similar to their own.[21] How does this all relate to the birth control pill? Women on the Pill have been shown to prefer the scent of men whose MHC genes are most similar to their own. So if a woman on the Pill mates with a man who has similar MHC genes, their offspring may have an inferior immune system. The explanation given for the change in the woman’s preferences is that the Pill causes a woman’s body to think that it is pregnant, and pregnant women tend to prefer the scents of family and relatives. Some women even reported that they felt less attracted to the men they were seeing after going off the Pill. Other researchers have proposed that because a woman’s fertility is interrupted when she is on the Pill, it alters her own pheromones. This, in turn, makes her less desirable to men, or so the theory goes.[22] While such research is interesting, it is still widely debated.

According to the Textbook of Contraceptive Practice, the Pill causes more than 150 biological changes in a woman.[23] Some of these changes are drastic, and others are hardly noticeable. For example, one study showed that women using oral contraceptives blink 32 percent more often than nonusers.[24] The reason for this may be that the chemicals in the Pill can decrease the hydration of the woman’s eye. The Pill also can cause a slight change in the shape of her eyeball, making the cornea steeper. These side effects could explain why women on the birth control pill often complain that their contact lenses have become uncomfortable.

Undoubtedly science has not fully grasped the many ways in which birth control pills interfere with a woman’s delicate and majestic physiology. Despite the possible side effects, birth control pills remain the most popular form of contraception for American women.[25] In turn, they have become a lucrative business. For example, one popular pill called Ortho Tri-Cyclen registered $715 million in sales in 2003.[26] Considering that it is only one of dozens of brands available, you can imagine the immense profits being made.

__________________________________
[1]. Baylor College of Medicine, “Evolution and Revolution: The Past, Present, and Future of Contraception,” The Contraception Report 10:6 (February 2000), 15.
[2]. Baylor, “Evolution and Revolution,” 16.
[3]. Baylor, “Evolution and Revolution,” 19.
[4]. Ray Quintanilla, Puerto Rico Herald, “Anger At Island’s ‘Pill’ Test Lingers,” Orlando Sentinel, April 5, 2004.
[5]. Janet E. Smith. “Contraception, Why Not.” Audiotape of lecture presented at meeting of the Catholic Physicians Guild at the Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio, May 1994. (Dayton, Ohio: One More Soul, 1999).
[6]. Department of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, “The Pill: Balancing the Risks and Benefits,” Research Briefing 1 (May 2000), 1; Aude Lagorce, “Schering AG Storms Birth Control Market,” Forbes.com (July 11, 2003).
[7]. Barbara Ehrenreich, “The Charge: Genocide,” Mother Jones (November/ December 1979).
[8]. Walter L. Larimore and Joseph B. Stanford, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” Archives of Family Medicine 9 (February 2000), 127.
[9]. Larimore and Stanford, 127.
[10]. Haishan Fu, et al., “Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates From the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth,” Family Planning Perspectives 31:2 (March/April 1999), 61.
[11]. L.M. Dinerman, et al., “Outcomes of Adolescents Using Levonorgestrel Implants vs Oral Contraceptives or Other Contraceptive Methods,” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 149:9 (September 1995), 967–972.
[12]. Haishan Fu, et al., 61.
[13]. Physicians’ Desk Reference, 2416–2417.
[14]. Chris Kahlenborn, et al., “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 81:10 (October 2006), 1290–1302.
[15]. World Health Organization, “IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives and Menopausal Therapy are Carcinogenic to Humans,” International Agency for Research on Cancer, Press Release 167 (July 29, 2005); Physicians’ Desk Reference, 2415.
[16]. Physicians’ Desk Reference, 2414; Julia Warnock, et al., “Comparison of Androgens in Women with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder: Those on Combined Oral Contraceptives (COCs) vs. Those Not on COCs,” The Journal of Sexual Medicine 3:5 (September 2006), 878–882.
[17]. Panzer, et al., “Impact of Oral Contraceptives on Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin and Androgen Levels: A Retrospective Study in Women with Sexual Dysfunction,”Journal of Sexual Medicine 3:1 (January 2006), 104–113.
[18]. “Can Taking the Pill Dull a Woman’s Desire Forever?” New Scientist (May 27, 2005), 17.
[19]. “Study Links Birth Control Pill to Arterial Plaque,” Reuters (November 6, 2007).
[20]. John Pickrell, “Oral Contraception Linked to Prostate Deformities,” New Scientist (May 2005); Barry Timms, et al., “Estrogenic Chemicals in Plastic and Oral Contraceptives Disrupt Development of the Fetal Mouse Prostate and Urethra,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:19 (May 10, 2005), 7014–7019.
[21]. F. Bryant Furlow, et al., “The Smell of Love: How Women Rate the Sexiness and Pleasantness of a Man’s Body Odor Hinges on How Much of Their Genetic Profile is Shared,” Psychology Today 29:2 (March/April 1996), 38; Sarah Richardson, “Scent of a Man,” Discover 17:2 (1996), 26.
[22]. Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999).
[23]. Malcolm Potts and Peter Diggory, Textbook of Contraceptive Practice, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 155.
[24]. D. P. Yolton, et al., “The Effects of Gender and Birth Control Pills on Spontaneous Blink Rates,” Journal of the American Optometric Association 65:11 (November 1994), 763–770.
[25]. William Mosher, et al., “Use of Contraception and Use of Family Planning Services in the United States, 1982–2002,” Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 350, Centers for Disease Control (December 10, 2004). 1.
[26]. Suzanne Shelley, “Authorized Generics’ Makes for Surprising—and Controversial—Partnerships,” Pharmaceutical Commerce (January 1, 2006).

Historically, many cultures have attempted to create devices that cover the cervix as a method of birth control. These primitive barrier methods were made from everything imaginable, including beeswax, seaweed, lemon halves, paper, tree bark, tree roots, rock salt, and other items[3].

The potential side effects of the cervical cap are few, but may include urinary tract infection, toxic shock syndrome, and allergic reaction. Since the device blocks the sperm from entering the uterus, the woman is also deprived of its beneficial effects. For example, a man’s seminal fluid includes at least two dozen ingredients, including estrogens, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, testosterone, transforming growth factor beta, and several different prostaglandins. During intercourse the female’s body absorbs these,[4] and they aid the health of the woman.[5]

Furthermore, when a man and woman have intercourse, the woman’s body becomes accustomed to the man’s sperm.[6] In medical terms, her immune system develops a gradual tolerance to the antigens on his specific type of sperm and seminal fluid. For several hours after intercourse, a woman’s immune cells will collect and transfer a man’s foreign proteins and entire sperm cells from her cervix to her lymph nodes, where her immune system learns to recognize his genes.[7]

However, if the couple decides to use a barrier method of birth control for an extended period of time before having children, the womb will not be accustomed to the sperm, and the woman’s immune system may treat them as foreign bodies. This can disrupt the delicate balance of hormones and cause the woman’s blood vessels to constrict, leading to higher blood pressure in the expectant mother.[8] This condition (preeclampsia) occurs in about 5 to 8 percent of all pregnancies and can lead to premature delivery of the baby. Unfortunately, pre-term babies are more likely to experience learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, blindness, and deafness. Preeclampsia can also be dangerous for the mother: it is the third leading cause of maternal death during childbirth.[9]

It has been demonstrated that a man’s semen offers a protective effect against preeclampsia, because it makes the woman’s immune system more likely to recognize his baby. According to The Journal of the American Medical Association, preeclampsia is more than twice as common in women who used barrier methods of contraception.[10] So in a certain sense, couples who use the cervical cap are having unprotected sexual intercourse, because the man is not protecting the woman’s body with the beneficial effects of his semen.[11] As you can see, a woman’s body is created to work with a man’s in a precise way. When we tinker with God’s designs, and try to flip fertility on and off like a light switch, we create more problems for ourselves.

_____________________
[1]. Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology 18th ed. (New York: Ardent Media, 2000).
[2]. Secor, “The cervical cap,” NAACOG’s Clinical Issues in Perinatal and Women’s Health Nursing 3:2 (1992): 236-245.
[3]. “A History of Birth Control Methods,” Planned Parenthood (June 2002); “Evolution and Revolution: The Past, Present, and Future of Contraception,” The Contraception Report 10:6 (February, 2000): 15.
[4]. G.G. Gallup, Jr., et al., “Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties?” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31:3 (June 2002), 289–293; P.G. Ney, “The Intravaginal Absorption of Male Generated Hormones and Their Possible Effect on Female Behaviour,” Medical Hypotheses 20:2 (June 1986), 221–231; Herbert Ratner, “Semen and Health: The Condom Condemned,” Child and Family (1990); C. J. Thaler, “Immunological Role for Seminal Plasma in Insemination and Pregnancy,” American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 21:3–4 (November/December 1989), 147–150.
[5]. Ratner; Ney, 221–231.
[6]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “Transforming Growth Factor Beta—A Mediator of Immune Deviation in Seminal Plasma,” Journal of Reproductive Immunology 57:1–2 (October/November 2002), 109–128.
[7]. Douglas Fox, “Gentle Persuasion,” New Scientist (February 9, 2002); Douglas Fox, “Why Sex, Really?” U.S. News and World Report (October 21, 2002), 60–62.
[8]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “The Role of Semen in Induction of Maternal Immune Tolerance to Pregnancy,” Seminars in Immunology 13 (2001), 243; John B. Wilks, A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 2nd ed. (Stafford, Va.: American Life League, Inc., 1997), 136.
[9]. A. Hirozawa, “Preeclampsia and Eclampsia, While Often Preventable, Are Among Top Causes of Pregnancy-Related Deaths,” Family Planning Perspectives 33:4 (July/August 2001), 182; Andrea Mackay, et al., “Pregnancy-Related Mortality From Preeclampsia and Eclampsia,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 97 (2001), 533–538.
[10]. H. S. Klonoff-Cohen, et al., “An Epidemiologic Study of Contraception and Preeclampsia,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262:22 (December 8, 1989), 3143–3147.
[11]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “Seminal ‘Priming’ for Protection from Pre-Eclampsia: A Unifying Hypothesis,” Journal of Reproductive Immunology 59:2 (August 2003), 253–265; G.R. Verwoerd, et al., “Primipaternity and Duration of Exposure to Sperm Antigens as Risk Factors for Pre-eclampsia,” International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics78:2 (August 2002), 121–126; J. I. Einarsson, et al., “Sperm Exposure and Development of Preeclampsia,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 188:5 (May 2003), 1241–1243; M. Hernandez-Valencia, et al., “[Barrier Family Planning Methods as Risk Factors Which Predisposes to Preeclampsia],” Ginecologia y Obstetrica de Mexico 68 (August 2000), 333–338; Dekker, et al., “Immune Maladaptation in the Etiology of Preeclampsia: A Review of Corroborative Epidemiologic Studies,” Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 53:6 (June 1998), 377–382.

In fact, between 14 and 23 percent of teenage girls (and 15 percent of women in the general population) become pregnant during their first year of relying upon the condom as birth control.[1] The female condom is estimated to have an even higher failure rate. [2] That’s one reason why even Planned Parenthood’s research institute had to admit that most high school pregnancies are caused by contraceptive failure, not by the failure to use contraceptives.[3]

Safe sex advocates argue that this high number should be blamed on incorrect condom use. It can’t be denied that incorrect usage of the condom contributes to higher failure rates.[4] But considering the fact that health experts recommend up to twenty-four steps for proper condom use, it’s misleading and irresponsible to tell anyone that the condom will prevent pregnancy 99 percent of the time. Is a teenager who can’t remember to take his sack lunch out of the refrigerator supposed to follow two dozen safety precautions for optimum contraceptive use?

Some say that the solution is to educate youth about proper condom use. But after decades of sex ed in high schools, the results have been underwhelming. According to one university doctor, “the most recent study of heterosexual college students showed that less than half had used a condom during their last vaginal intercourse, and that was an all time high!”[5] Among those who did use “protection,” the numbers are also dismal. In the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases, a study showed that three out of four college men did not properly use condoms, despite the fact that more than 80 percent of them received sex education.[6]

Similar results have appeared across the globe. For example, the British Medical Journal published the results of a “rigorous evaluation” of a sex ed program in Scotland. The program had been in use for three years, but the scientists discovered that it did not delay sexual intercourse, improve use of contraceptives, or reduce pregnancies or abortions. However, the government decided to continue the program. Why? One reason was that the students reported feeling less regret about the first time they slept with their most recent partner.[7]

In England sex education has also flopped. In 1999 a £15 million government drive was implemented to promote sex ed. Students were offered free condoms and morning-after pills, while being taught “safe sex” in schools. However, as of March 2004, STD rates had increased by 62 percent, while teen pregnancies were also up, with some areas experiencing a 34 percent leap. Overall the greatest increases were in areas where the government had implemented its program.[8]

Those in favor of the disastrous program countered the numbers by saying that the program will take another five years to complete, because “it takes sustained action over a long period of time to achieve the societal and behavioral changes required.” They added that the increased rate of pregnancies “highlights the importance of strengthening implementation of our Teenage Pregnancy Strategy.”[9] In other words, “Don’t bother us with the facts. We’d rather cling to our ideologies at the expense of the next generation.”

Considering the fact that a woman can get pregnant only a few days out of the month, while an STD can be transmitted at any time, it is not surprising that condom distribution has not stemmed the tide of the STD epidemic. But click here for details on that. In fact, every STD in the world can be transmitted while using a condom correctly and consistently. While the condom may reduce the risk of some infections, it eliminates the risk of none.

One reason for this may be the inadequacy of the condom itself. The FDA requirements say that no more than one condom in 250 can fail a leakage test.[10] Do the math: When the United States donated eight hundred million condoms to developing nations in 1990, the condom companies could have included 3.2 million defective condoms in the batch! But it gets worse: Globally those who promote “safe sex” say that the world needs twenty-four billion condoms every year in order to be protected.[11] If they had their wish, and each government ensured that condoms were at least as reliable as those produced in America (which they are not),[12] there could be ninety-six million defective condoms being used every year.

The reliability of the condom also depends upon the manufacturer. For example, when Consumer Reports studied the quality of twenty-three different kinds of condoms, they discovered that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, made the worst type.[13] One of their brands received the equivalent of an “F” in the two standards measured: reliability and strength. The FDA tries to prevent defective condoms from reaching consumers. However, corporations have been caught selling them to other nations after the FDA rejected them.[14]

Even if a condom is manufactured properly, it may be damaged before it reaches the consumer. Condom companies recommend that the product should be stored at room temperature (59–86 degrees), because excessive heat or cold can weaken the latex. However, some condom manufacturers have been known to leave boxes of condoms outside in freezing temperatures or in trucks where the temperature reaches well over 100 degrees.[15] Even if the consumer receives a condom that has been stored at ideal temperatures, it still has about an 8 percent chance of breaking or slipping during intercourse. [16]

While the failure rate of condoms is a common topic of debate, few people ever hear of the condom’s harmful effects. In order to understand the problem with condom use, one must first understand the beneficial effects of semen for the woman’s body. For example, a man’s seminal fluid includes at least two dozen ingredients, including estrogens, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, testosterone, transforming growth factor beta, and several different prostaglandins. During intercourse the female’s body absorbs these[17] and they aid the health of the woman.[18]

Scientists from the State University of New York also discovered that women whose partners don’t use condoms are less likely to be depressed. They argued that the reason for this is because several mood-altering hormones from the man, including testosterone, are absorbed into the woman’s body and can be detected in her bloodstream within hours of intercourse. The scientists added that such findings are not an excuse for unprotected sex.[19] Heaven forbid! Other researchers argue that this may be a case of correlation rather than causation, because the positive emotional results of non-contraceptive intercourse could be attributed to factors other than the presence of anti-depressive properties in seminal fluid.

Furthermore, when a man and woman have intercourse, the woman’s body becomes accustomed to the man’s sperm.[20] In medical terms, her immune system develops a gradual tolerance to the antigens on his specific type of sperm and seminal fluid. For several hours after intercourse, a woman’s immune cells will collect and transfer a man’s foreign proteins and entire sperm cells from her cervix to her lymph nodes, where her immune system learns to recognize his genes.[21]

However, if the couple decides to use a barrier method of birth control for an extended period of time before having children, the womb will not be accustomed to the sperm, and the woman’s immune system may treat them as foreign bodies. This can disrupt the delicate balance of hormones and cause the woman’s blood vessels to constrict, leading to higher blood pressure in the expectant mother.[22] This condition (preeclampsia) occurs in about 5 to 8 percent of all pregnancies and can lead to premature delivery of the baby. Unfortunately, pre-term babies are more likely to experience learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, blindness, and deafness. Preeclampsia can also be dangerous for the mother: it is the third leading cause of maternal death during childbirth.[23]

It has been demonstrated that a man’s semen offers a protective effect against preeclampsia, because it makes the woman’s immune system more likely to recognize his baby. According to The Journal of the American Medical Association, preeclampsia is more than twice as common in women who used barrier methods of contraception.[24] So in a certain sense, couples who use the condom are having unprotected sexual intercourse, because the man is not protecting the woman’s body with the beneficial effects of his semen.[25] As you can see, a woman’s body is created to work with a man’s in a precise way. When we tinker with God’s designs, and try to flip fertility on and off like a light switch, we create more problems for ourselves.

___________________________________
[1]. Haishan Fu, et al., “Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates From the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth,” Family Planning Perspectives 31:2 (March/April 1999), 61; Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology, Nineteenth Revised Edition.
[2]. Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology, Nineteenth Revised Edition.
[3]. John Santelli, et al., “Contraceptive Use and Pregnancy Risk Among U.S. High School Students, 1991–2003,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 38:2 (June 2006), 106–111; cf. Dr. Louise Tyrer, Letter to the Editor, Wall Street Journal, 26 April 1991.
[4]. R.A. Crosby, “Men with Broken Condoms: Who and Why?” Sexually Transmitted Infections 83:1 (February 2007), 71–75.
[5]. Anonymous, M.D., Unprotected (New York: Sentinel, 2006), 18.
[6]. Richard Crosby, et al., “Condom Use Errors and Problems Among College Men,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases 29 (2002), 552–57.
[7]. M. Henderson, et al., “Impact of a Theoretically Based Sex Education Programme (SHARE) Delivered by Teachers on NHS Registered Conceptions and Terminations: Final Results of Cluster Randomised Trial,” British Medical Journal (November 21, 2006), 4.
[8]. David Bamber, “Teen Pregnancies Increase After Sex Education Classes,” Sunday Telegraph, England (March 14, 2004).
[9]. “Teen Pregnancy Rates Increase,” BBCNews.com (March 5, 2004).
[10]. “Perspectives in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Condoms for Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 37:9 (March 11, 1988), 133–137.
[11]. Gardner, et al., “The Condom Gap: A Health Crisis,” Population Reports, Series H, No. 9 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Population Information Program, April 1999), 36.
[12]. Associated Press, “Study Finds Fewer Defects in Condoms on U.S. Market,” The New York Times, May 12, 1988.
[13]. “Condoms: Extra Protection,” Consumer Reports (February 2005).
[14]. Catherine Carey, “Holey Condoms—Marketing Defective Condoms,” FDA Consumer (February 1989).
[15]. William B. Vesey, “Condom Failure,” Human Life International Reports 9:7 (July 1991), 1–3.
[16]. R.A. Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology, Seventeenth Revised Edition (New York: Ardent Media, Inc., 1998), 330; M. Steiner, et al., “Can Condom Users Likely to Experience Condom Failure be Identified?” Family Planning Perspectives 25:5 (September/October 1993), 220–223, 226.
[17]. G.G. Gallup, Jr., et al., “Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties?” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31:3 (June 2002), 289–293; P.G. Ney, “The Intravaginal Absorption of Male Generated Hormones and Their Possible Effect on Female Behaviour,” Medical Hypotheses 20:2 (June 1986), 221–231; Herbert Ratner, “Semen and Health: The Condom Condemned,” Child and Family (1990); C. J. Thaler, “Immunological Role for Seminal Plasma in Insemination and Pregnancy,” American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 21:3–4 (November/December 1989), 147–150.
[18]. Ratner; Ney, 221–231.
[19]. Gallup et al., 289–93; “Hormones in Semen Shown to Make Women Feel Good,” Reuters (June 16, 2002).
[20]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “Transforming Growth Factor Beta—A Mediator of Immune Deviation in Seminal Plasma,” Journal of Reproductive Immunology 57:1–2 (October/November 2002), 109–128.
[21]. Douglas Fox, “Gentle Persuasion,” New Scientist (February 9, 2002); Douglas Fox, “Why Sex, Really?” U.S. News and World Report (October 21, 2002), 60–62.
[22]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “The Role of Semen in Induction of Maternal Immune Tolerance to Pregnancy,” Seminars in Immunology 13 (2001), 243; John B. Wilks, A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 2nd ed. (Stafford, Va.: American Life League, Inc., 1997), 136.
[23]. A. Hirozawa, “Preeclampsia and Eclampsia, While Often Preventable, Are Among Top Causes of Pregnancy-Related Deaths,” Family Planning Perspectives 33:4 (July/August 2001), 182; Andrea Mackay, et al., “Pregnancy-Related Mortality From Preeclampsia and Eclampsia,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 97 (2001), 533–538.
[24]. H. S. Klonoff-Cohen, et al., “An Epidemiologic Study of Contraception and Preeclampsia,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262:22 (December 8, 1989), 3143–3147.
[25]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “Seminal ‘Priming’ for Protection from Pre-Eclampsia: A Unifying Hypothesis,” Journal of Reproductive Immunology 59:2 (August 2003), 253–265; G.R. Verwoerd, et al., “Primipaternity and Duration of Exposure to Sperm Antigens as Risk Factors for Pre-eclampsia,” International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics78:2 (August 2002), 121–126; J. I. Einarsson, et al., “Sperm Exposure and Development of Preeclampsia,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 188:5 (May 2003), 1241–1243; M. Hernandez-Valencia, et al., “[Barrier Family Planning Methods as Risk Factors Which Predisposes to Preeclampsia],” Ginecologia y Obstetrica de Mexico 68 (August 2000), 333–338; Dekker, et al., “Immune Maladaptation in the Etiology of Preeclampsia: A Review of Corroborative Epidemiologic Studies,” Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 53:6 (June 1998), 377–382.

One way Depo-Provera works is by reducing a woman’s chances of ovulating. However, since it changes the lining of the uterus, it also can cause early abortions when breakthrough ovulation occurs.[1] With perfect use the effectiveness of the shot in preventing pregnancy is very high—about 99 percent. But with typical use 3 percent of women become pregnant each year. [2]

Few drugs have a more controversial history than Depo-Provera. In the 1950s a scientist for the pharmaceutical company Upjohn was experimenting with the hormone progesterone, and he created depomedroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera). By 1960 the company received FDA approval for the drug as a treatment for endometriosis and habitual miscarriages. However, ten years later the FDA revoked this approval because there was no evidence that the drug worked. Instead it seemed to cause heart defects in babies.

But while the drug was being tested on women in Brazil, researchers discovered that it was also able to prevent pregnancy.[3] As a result of this finding, Upjohn decided to seek approval for the drug as a contraceptive. Studies began on rats, and results looked promising. The FDA granted the drug Investigative Drug Status. This means that it appeared safe based upon previous animal studies, and so research could continue on other animals—and humans. Despite the fact that the drug was still in the early testing phase, doctors from Jamaica to Los Angeles were already prescribing it to women as the newest contraceptive.[4].

By 1965 the drug was being tested on women in foreign countries. A few years later studies began on dogs, monkeys, and over ten thousand women in Atlanta (a disproportionate number of whom were poor and black). The dogs developed breast cancer, and the monkeys developed endometrial cancer. But as for the women in Atlanta, no annual reports were given to the FDA, as required. After eleven years investigators went to assess the situation because of “something funny going on.”[5]

What they discovered was that women were not given adequate information about the side effects, consent forms were absent, and women with medical conditions were given the shot despite the fact that the drug could endanger their health. Some women died of cancer, and others committed suicide (depression is now a well-known side effect of Depo-Provera). Researchers lost track of most of the women in the study, and the research was disregarded.[6]

Years later researchers studied more women from the same area in Atlanta. However, this time they followed up with the women (again, most of whom were poor and black). The scientists showed that about half of the women quit taking the shot after a year. Their main reason was that they were displeased with the side effects. Nonetheless, the summary of this research was entitled “Depo-Provera: an excellent contraceptive for those who continue to use it.”[7] Today African-American women continue to be the primary targets of those who promote Depo-Provera, and they are twice as likely to use the drug as white women.[8] Likewise, the poorer a woman is, the more likely she is to be prescribed Depo-Provera.[9]

Because Depo-Provera was found to cause cancer in beagles, veterinarians stopped giving it to dogs, and the animal version of the drug (Promone) was taken off the market.[10] Testing continued on women, however. A member of the FDA’s Bureau of Drugs testified, “Animal data for this drug is more worrisome than any other drug we know of that is being given to well people.”[11] Unfazed, the pharmaceutical company pushed the drug overseas. According to the makers of the drug, they paid government officials, hospital employees, and others more than $4 million in the early 1970s in order to secure sales of Depo-Provera internationally.[12]

Despite urgings from those in favor of the shot, the FDA denied approval of Depo-Provera at least three times because of safety concerns for both mother and child.[13] Meanwhile, the drug was being used on millions of women in over ninety countries, such as Nigeria, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Thailand, India, and other developing nations.[14] Reports of liver cancer, decreased bone mass, and children born with extra or missing fingers didn’t help Upjohn’s prospects of legalizing the drug in America.

However, in 1991 the World Health Organization published the most comprehensive research of the time, reporting no increased risk of cancer of the liver, ovaries, or cervix. It even demonstrated a protective effect against endometrial cancer. However, breast cancer risk was doubled in the first five years of use. With this new research Upjohn again asked the FDA to approve the drug in 1992. Numerous groups protested, including the National Women’s Health Network, the National Black Women’s Health Project, and the National Latina Health Organization. Despite their objections, the FDA approved the drug in October 1992.

At the time, the acting president of Planned Parenthood was ecstatic, calling the approval “a very exciting development that is long overdue.”[15] Many women did not share his enthusiasm. Since the approval in 1992, many women’s groups have united to request that the FDA impose a moratorium on the use of the shot.[16] While many women do not experience serious side effects from Depo, other women have gone off the drug, saying, “This hideous poison should never have made it out of the lab.”[17]

Even after the FDA’s approval of the drug, many countries were still hesitant to license it. In 1991 Canadian women’s groups and various health associations petitioned their government to keep the drug out of the country. They wrote, “We urge the government to stand by their decision of 1988, and to remain committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadian women.” Aware of the side effects of Depo-Provera, advocates of women’s health were especially concerned about the fact that the shot was “currently being prescribed to teenagers, the physically and mentally disabled, immigrant, Native and Inuit women without their informed consent.”[18]

Unfortunately, these protests were not heeded, and the drug was approved for use in Canada in 1997. But by 2005 women seeking compensation for their suffering brought a class-action lawsuit of $700 million against the makers of the drug.[19] Some of them suffered early osteoporosis and bone fractures, needed knee replacements, and complained that they were never warned about the drug’s ability to thin a woman’s bones. One of the attorneys involved in the lawsuit mentioned that he was defending a woman who was is in her twenties and may soon need a hip replacement.

Nowadays Depo-Provera is made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. That name might ring a bell. Pfizer is also being sued because of the heart attacks, deaths, and birth defects attributed to other drugs they manufacture, such as Zoloft and Celebrex.

Objections to Depo-Provera span the globe. Women’s groups in India requested a complete ban on the shot, which had been approved for marketing in their country before the necessary safety trials had been completed. They wrote, “In a country where a large percentage of women in the reproductive age suffer from anemia, irregular and heavy bleeding can have catastrophic consequences. Studies have shown that injectable contraceptives like Depo-Provera can also lead to osteoporosis. This can have grave consequences for poor women with low bone density due to poor nutritional status. . . . The evidence available is already damning and it would be unethical to subject more women to clinical trials with these contraceptives.”[20]

According to India’s Economic and Political Weekly, one reason the FDA approved Depo-Provera was that the U.S. was concerned with population control in third world countries, whose governments were hesitant to approve a drug that was not even licensed in the country that created it.[21] Thankfully the women’s groups in India won a victory for women’s health in 2002, when the Indian government cancelled its plan to introduce Depo-Provera through the government health services systems.[22]

In September 2004 the makers of Depo-Provera received more bad news about their drug: it increases a woman’s risk of contracting certain STDs. According to the journalSexually Transmitted Diseases, when a woman takes the shot, she triples her chances of being infected with gonorrhea and chlamydia (which can sterilize a woman).[23] The scientists speculated that the increased disease risk might be caused by the drug’s interference with a woman’s immune system or by its ability to assist the growth of infections.

Regardless of how it makes a woman more susceptible to disease, the discovery is troubling. For example, when the drug is used in certain population control programs, many women do not have access to modern health care services. Interestingly, the study that discovered this STD link was funded in part by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), who provided over forty million units of Depo-Provera to developing nations, especially in Africa.[24] Undoubtedly the women who used it were unaware of the Depo-Provera–STD connection and were probably also ignorant of the fact that infection with gonorrhea or chlamydia makes a woman up to five times as likely to contract HIV, if exposed.[25]

Disappointingly, the makers of the shot deny any STD connection, stating on their Web site, “There is no proof from clinical studies that shows Depo-Provera increases your risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease.”[26] Unfortunately, as of 2008, Pfizer still has not corrected its Web site, despite the fact that the contradictory research was published in 2004.

Two months after the STD connection was discovered, Depo-Provera received more bad press when the FDA slapped a “black box” warning on the label.[27] According to the FDA, “a ‘black box’ warning is the most serious warning placed in the labeling of a prescription medication.”[28] In the case of the shot, it was required because the medicine can cause irreversible bone loss in women, which can lead to osteoporosis. The researchers who discovered this noticed the effects in girls as young as twelve. This is especially problematic for young women, because the teenage years are a critical time for bone development. After years of receiving birth control injections as a teen, a girl in her early twenties could have the bones of a fifty- to sixty-year-old.

However, the same year that the shot received the black box warning, the makers of the drug raked in $200 million in revenue from it.[29] Because of the concerns of bone loss, Pfizer and the FDA now say that the shot should never be used for longer than two years, unless a woman has no other option.

In regard to side effects, the above information is only the beginning. According to the makers of the shot, here are some of the other potential side effects of the drug:[30]

Young women who have taken the shot in the last four years are more than twice as likely to develop breast cancer. Children born to women on Depo-Provera are more likely to have webbed toes and fingers, and chromosomal anomalies. The boys are twice as likely to have genital deformities, and the baby girls are more likely to suffer masculinizing effects of the drug’s chemicals, causing genital abnormalities. Babies conceived to women on Depo-Provera may be at an increased risk of low birth weight, which is associated with an increased risk of neonatal death. (Research not done by the makers of the shot reports that infants exposed to the shot while in their mother’s wombs were 80 percent more likely to die in their first year of life.)[31]

Depo-Provera can pass through a mother’s breast milk to her child. Most studies do not show adverse effects on the baby. However, one study of women who took the shot two days after the delivery of their baby showed it had substantial consequences. The babies in this group had a 75 percent higher incidence of infectious diseases visits to the doctor in their first year of life. Women on Depo-Provera tend to experience weight gain according to how long they have been on the drug: five pounds in the first year, eight by the second, fourteen by the fourth, and over sixteen pounds by the sixth year.

Many women on the shot stop having periods after one year of use. However, when a woman goes off the shot, the menstrual period “will usually, in time, return to its normal cycle.” Many women who take the shot will be able to become pregnant soon after stopping the injections. Sometimes, there is a delay in the return of fertility. For example, about half are unable to conceive within ten months of their last injection. Seventeen percent were unable to get pregnant after fifteen months off the shot, and 7 percent were still not able to conceive after eighteen months.

Other side effects include menstrual irregularities, abdominal pain, dizziness, headache, fatigue, nervousness, backache, breast pain, leg cramps, depression, bloating, nausea, rash, insomnia, acne, joint pain, convulsions, numbness, coughing up blood, severe allergic reactions, spontaneous flow of breast milk, darkening of the facial skin, urinary infections, cysts, chest pain, anemia, artery blockage in the lung, loss of consciousness related to temporary insufficient blood flow to the brain, shortness of breath, fever, excessive sweating and body odor, dry skin, excessive thirst, blood disease, rectal bleeding, nipple bleeding, prevention of lactation (breast milk), paralysis, facial nerve damage, skin disease, excessive uterine growth, varicose veins, painful cramps, no hair growth or excessive hair growth in unusual places, and blood clots.

Depo-Provera is well known for decreasing a woman’s sex drive. Because of its ability to kill a person’s libido, the shot is sometimes injected into child molesters as a punishment![32] In California, the State Senate ruled that “The parolee shall begin medroxyprogesterone acetate [Depo-Provera] treatment one week prior to his or her release from confinement in the state prison or other institution and shall continue treatments until the Department of Corrections demonstrates to the Board of Prison Terms that this treatment is no longer necessary.”[33] So the drug that is too dangerous for dogs but just right for sex offenders is offered to women at their local Planned Parenthood clinic!

Why would doctors allow their patients to ingest such chemicals? In September 2009, newspapers across the country announced that the government was fining Pfizer Pharmaceuticals a record 2.3 billion dollars for illegal drug promotions. In the drug industry, companies hire pharmaceutical sales representatives to pitch their products to doctors. Normally, the business meetings take place in the doctor’s office. However, Pfizer reps have been caught wining and dining the doctors. In the words of one ex-Pfizer employee, “You got exorbitantly large bonuses if you got these large practices to switch to your drugs.”[34] In an effort to butter up the doctors to buy drugs such as Depo Provera, Pfizer sales reps were caught paying for doctors to receive free golf, massages, and resort junkets. Thankfully, the government caught Pfizer in the act (for the fourth time in the past decade), and will now be monitoring their marketing strategies.

______________________________
[1]. Physicians’ Desk Reference (Montvale, N.J.: Thomson, 2006), 2620.
[2]. Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology, Nineteenth Revised Edition.
[3]. “The Case Against Depo-Provera: Problems in the U.S.,” Multinational Monitor 6:2–3, February/March 1985.
[4]. “The Case Against Depo-Provera: Problems in the U.S.”
[5]. Karen Hawkins and Jeff Elliott, “Seeking Approval,” Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996. [6]. “Depo Provera Fact Sheet,” Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment (January 6, 2007) ; Hawkins and Elliott.
[7]. M. Rosser, et al., “Depo-Provera: An Excellent Contraceptive for Those Who Continue to Use It,” Primary Care Update for Ob/Gyns 5:4 (July 1, 1998), 172.
[8]. William Mosher, et al., Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 350, Table 7—Supplement (CDC).
[9]. William Mosher, et al., Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 350, Table 10—Supplement (CDC).
[10]. “The Case Against Depo-Provera: Problems in the U.S.”
[11]. Hawkins and Elliott.
[12]. “Depo Provera Fact Sheet,” 2007.
[13]. “The Case Against Depo-Provera: Problems in the U.S.”; “Depo Provera Fact Sheet,” 2007.
[14]. Warren E. Leary, “U.S. Approves Injectable Drug As Birth Control,” The New York Times (October 30, 1992); Ehrenreich, et al.; “Depo-Provera Warning for Women 14 Years Later,” press release, Women’s Health Action Trust (November 30, 2004).
[15]. Leary.
[16]. “Clinicians Clash with Consumer Groups Over Possible Depo Ban,” Contraceptive Technology Update 16:1 (January 1995), 11–14.
[17]. “Health: Depo Provera: Asking the FDA to Investigate,” suite101.com.
[18]. “Canadian Coalition on Depo-Provera letter to The Honorable Benoit Bouchard, National Minister of Health and Welfare” December 6, 1991.
[19]. CTV.caNews Staff, “Class Action Suit Filed Over Birth Control Drug,” CTV.ca News, (December 19, 2005).
[20]. N. B. Sarojini, et al., “Why Women’s Groups Oppose Injectable Contraceptives,” Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 13:1 (January/March 2005).
[21]. “Contraceptives. Case for Public Enquiry,” Economic and Political Weekly 29:15 (April 9, 1994), 825–826 (Popline database document no. 096527).
[22]. “Depo Provera Fact Sheet,” Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment (January 6, 2007).
[23]. Charles Morrison, et al., “Hormonal Contraceptive Use, Cervical Ectopy, and the Acquisition of Cervical Infections,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases 31:9 (September 2004), 561–567; J.M. Baeten, et al., “Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Sexually Transmitted Disease Acquisition: Results from a Prospective Study,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 185:2 (August 2001), 380–385.
[24]. “Depo Provera Fact Sheet,” 2007; Morrison, et al., 561.
[25]. Centers for Disease Control, “Chlamydia,” fact sheet (April 2006); D.T. Fleming and J.N. Wasserheit, “From Epidemiological Synergy to Public Health Policy and Practice: The Contribution of Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases to Sexual Transmission of HIV Infection,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 75 (1999), 3–17.
[26]. www.depoprovera.com
[27]. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Black Box Warning Added Concerning Long-Term Use of Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection,” FDA Talk Paper (November 17, 2004).
[28]. www.fda.gov.
[29]. “Pfizer Contraceptive OK’d for Added Use,” CNNmoney.com (March 29, 2005).
[30]. Physician Information, Depo-Provera CI, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company (November 2004); Patient Labeling, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, October 2004.
[31]. “Exposure to DMPA in Pregnancy May Cause Low Birth Weight,” Progress in Human Reproduction Research 23 (1992), 2–3.
[32]. T.A. Kiersch, “Treatment of Sex Offenders with Depo-Provera,” The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 18:2 (1990), 179–187; California Penal Code Section 645.
[33]. Assembly Bill 3339, “An Act to Repeal and Add Section 645 of the Penal Code, Relating to Crimes,” California State Senate, Amended August 20, 1996; 2005.
[34]. Suzanne Hoholik, “Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion: Upper Arlington man helped blow whistle on drugmaker’s marketing,” The Columbus Dispatch (September 3, 2009).

When used perfectly and with spermicides, it has a 94 percent annual effectiveness rate. But under typical conditions (also with spermicides), it has an annual failure rate of 16 percent, or higher.[2]

The diaphragm may cause a local skin irritation, urinary tract infection (including painful urination or blood in the urine), and an overgrowth of bacteria that can lead to a life-threatening infection of the bloodstream called toxic shock syndrome. Although toxic shock syndrome is rare, diaphragm manufacturers alert women of the potential risk: “Primary symptoms of TSS are sudden high fever (usually 102° or more), and vomiting, diarrhea, fainting or near fainting when standing up, dizziness or a rash that looks like a sunburn. There may also be other signs of TSS such as aching of muscles and joints, redness of the eyes, sore throat and weakness.”[3]

Since the device blocks the sperm from entering the uterus, the woman is also deprived of its beneficial effects. For example, a man’s seminal fluid includes at least two dozen ingredients, including estrogens, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, testosterone, transforming growth factor beta, and several different prostaglandins. During intercourse the female’s body absorbs these,[4] and they aid the health of the woman.[5]

Furthermore, when a man and woman have intercourse, the woman’s body becomes accustomed to the man’s sperm.[6] In medical terms, her immune system develops a gradual tolerance to the antigens on his specific type of sperm and seminal fluid. For several hours after intercourse, a woman’s immune cells will collect and transfer a man’s foreign proteins and entire sperm cells from her cervix to her lymph nodes, where her immune system learns to recognize his genes.[7]

However, if the couple decides to use a barrier method of birth control for an extended period of time before having children, the womb will not be accustomed to the sperm, and the woman’s immune system may treat them as foreign bodies. This can disrupt the delicate balance of hormones and cause the woman’s blood vessels to constrict, leading to higher blood pressure in the expectant mother.[8] This condition (preeclampsia) occurs in about 5 to 8 percent of all pregnancies and can lead to premature delivery of the baby. Unfortunately, pre-term babies are more likely to experience learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, blindness, and deafness. Preeclampsia can also be dangerous for the mother: it is the third leading cause of maternal death during childbirth.[9]

It has been demonstrated that a man’s semen offers a protective effect against preeclampsia, because it makes the woman’s immune system more likely to recognize his baby. According to The Journal of the American Medical Association, preeclampsia is more than twice as common in women who used barrier methods of contraception.[10] So in a certain sense, couples who use the diaphragm are having unprotected sexual intercourse, because the man is not protecting the woman’s body with the beneficial effects of his semen.[11] As you can see, a woman’s body is created to work with a man’s in a precise way. When we tinker with God’s designs, and try to flip fertility on and off like a light switch, we create more problems for ourselves.

________________________________________________
[1]. Mosher, et al., “Use of Contraception and Use of Family Planning Services in the United States: 1982-–2002.” Advance Data No. 350, Center for Disease Control (2002).
[2]. Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology, 18th ed. (New York: Ardent Media, 2000); Guttmacher Institute “Choice of Contraceptives,” The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics 34: (1992): 111-114.
[3}. Ortho All-Flex Diaphragm Fitting Set, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., August 2006.
[4]. G.G. Gallup, Jr., et al., “Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties?” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31:3 (June 2002), 289–293; P.G. Ney, “The Intravaginal Absorption of Male Generated Hormones and Their Possible Effect on Female Behaviour,” Medical Hypotheses 20:2 (June 1986), 221–231; Herbert Ratner, “Semen and Health: The Condom Condemned,” Child and Family (1990); C. J. Thaler, “Immunological Role for Seminal Plasma in Insemination and Pregnancy,” American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 21:3–4 (November/December 1989), 147–150.
[5]. Ratner; Ney, 221–231.
[6]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “Transforming Growth Factor Beta—A Mediator of Immune Deviation in Seminal Plasma,” Journal of Reproductive Immunology 57:1–2 (October/November 2002), 109–128.
[7]. Douglas Fox, “Gentle Persuasion,” New Scientist (February 9, 2002); Douglas Fox, “Why Sex, Really?” U.S. News and World Report (October 21, 2002), 60–62.
[8]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “The Role of Semen in Induction of Maternal Immune Tolerance to Pregnancy,” Seminars in Immunology 13 (2001), 243; John B. Wilks, A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 2nd ed. (Stafford, Va.: American Life League, Inc., 1997), 136.
[9]. A. Hirozawa, “Preeclampsia and Eclampsia, While Often Preventable, Are Among Top Causes of Pregnancy-Related Deaths,” Family Planning Perspectives 33:4 (July/August 2001), 182; Andrea Mackay, et al., “Pregnancy-Related Mortality From Preeclampsia and Eclampsia,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 97 (2001), 533–538.
[10]. H. S. Klonoff-Cohen, et al., “An Epidemiologic Study of Contraception and Preeclampsia,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262:22 (December 8, 1989), 3143–3147.
[11]. S.A. Robertson, et al., “Seminal ‘Priming’ for Protection from Pre-Eclampsia: A Unifying Hypothesis,” Journal of Reproductive Immunology 59:2 (August 2003), 253–265; G.R. Verwoerd, et al., “Primipaternity and Duration of Exposure to Sperm Antigens as Risk Factors for Pre-eclampsia,” International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics78:2 (August 2002), 121–126; J. I. Einarsson, et al., “Sperm Exposure and Development of Preeclampsia,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 188:5 (May 2003), 1241–1243; M. Hernandez-Valencia, et al., “[Barrier Family Planning Methods as Risk Factors Which Predisposes to Preeclampsia],” Ginecologia y Obstetrica de Mexico 68 (August 2000), 333–338; Dekker, et al., “Immune Maladaptation in the Etiology of Preeclampsia: A Review of Corroborative Epidemiologic Studies,” Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 53:6 (June 1998), 377–382.

Before ParaGard was introduced in the 1980s, millions of women had used other kinds of IUDs. One popular version in the 1970s was called the Dalkon Shield, which was owned by a company that also made flea collars and press-on nails.[2] The Dalkon Shield was a thumbnail-sized plastic device with a string dangling below it that could be used to remove it from a woman’s uterus.

In order to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness, a doctor from Johns Hopkins Medical School tested the product on over six hundred women. However, this doctor later admitted that the studies were intentionally skewed, and that he had a conflict of interest: he received a percentage of the profits on its sales.[3] Its manufacturers vehemently defended the safety of the product and began marketing it in 1971, wildly exaggerating its effectiveness.

Not surprisingly, it didn’t take long for complaints to surface. Six weeks after sales of the Shield began, a doctor wrote to the manufacturer, “I have just inserted my tenth Dalkon Shield and have found the procedure to be the most traumatic manipulation ever perpetrated upon womanhood. . . . I have ordered all Shields out of my office and will do the same in all clinics with which I am affiliated.”[4] Health experts requested that the IUD be taken off the market, but the company, A.H. Robins, refused to halt distribution, saying that such a move would “be a ‘confession of liability,’ and Robins would lose many of the pending lawsuits.”[5] Thankfully the FDA prevailed in 1974, and the IUD was taken off the market.

Hundreds of thousands of women experienced injury from using the Dalkon Shield. Part of the problem was that the string that dangled beneath the device acted as a wick for bacteria to ascend into a woman’s uterus. Injuries included life-threatening pelvic infections, hospitalization, sterility, hysterectomy, and babies born with cerebral palsy, blindness, and mental retardation. At least twenty deaths were also reported,[6] not including the thousands of babies who were miscarried or stillborn.[7]

A few years before the contraceptive was yanked off the shelves, the manufacturers knew that their U.S. market would be dwindling. So they started “dumping.” This means that they began selling mass quantities of the device at wholesale prices to developing nations through a government organization, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID). Groups that worked with AID, such as Planned Parenthood, distributed hundreds of thousands of Dalkon Shields to women across the globe.[8] However, when the makers of the device were forced to take their product off the market in the United States, AID had to issue an international recall. Unfortunately, the product continued to be used in many countries.[9]

Because of the lawsuits that began to pile up, the maker of the Dalkon Shield asked all doctors to remove any remaining ones from their patients. But the warning came too late: victims of the product were seeking justice, and over $12 billion in lawsuits were filed.[10] By the mid-1980s A.H. Robins filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, because more than 327,000 women filed injury claims against the company.[11] During the legal battles it was discovered that A.H. Robins knew that their contraceptive could cause life-threatening infections but withheld and even destroyed some of the evidence.[12] One Chief U.S. district judge, who heard over four hundred cases against the Shield in Minnesota, reprimanded the corporate leaders of the drug company and said he hoped that his statement “burns its mark into your souls.”[13]

One New York woman who was accidentally sterilized for life by the Dalkon Shield recalled receiving it from Planned Parenthood as a college student. She sued and later reported in The New York Times, “I won the arbitration. But the victory doesn’t help when we look at friends with their children and wonder what our own kids would have been like.”[14] Since the drug was distributed in over eighty countries to an estimated 4.5 million women, the majority of women who suffered from the Dalkon Shield never will have had the chance to seek compensation for their pain and loss.

Because the IUD has such a sordid past, it has not been popular among American women. In the 1980s most IUD manufactures quit marketing their products in the United States because of the rising cost of lawsuits and the decreased interest in the products.[15]

However, in 1984 a new IUD was approved by the FDA, ParaGard. This contraceptive is a T-shaped piece of white plastic (polyethylene) wrapped with a copper wire. It irritates the lining of the uterus, causing it to release leukocytes and prostaglandins that are toxic to the sperm and egg. This reduces the chances of fertilization. However, it does not stop the woman from ovulating. Should conception occur, the IUD can also act as an abortifacient by keeping a newly conceived baby from implanting in the womb.[16] For this reason some women have used the IUD as a form of “emergency contraception” up to five days after intercourse.

ParaGard is estimated to be more than 99 percent effective, and it is safer than the Dalkon Shield. However, it is not without its own risks. According to the patient package insert for ParaGard, if a woman becomes pregnant while using it, “you may get a severe infection or shock, have a miscarriage or premature labor and delivery, or even die. Because of these risks, your healthcare provider will recommend that you have ParaGard removed, even though removal may cause miscarriage.”[17] Other possible side effects include pelvic inflammatory disease (which can lead to infertility, hysterectomy, or even death), dizziness, nausea, ectopic pregnancy, anemia, backache, cramps, allergic reaction, perforation of the uterus (causing infection, scarring, and damage to other organs, possibly requiring surgery to repair), and so on.[18]

The ParaGard IUD can remain in a woman for up to ten years, and a healthcare professional can remove it before then if the woman wishes. However, sometimes the device gets stuck in the woman, requiring surgical removal. Despite the possible side effects, sales of ParaGard in 2004 totaled approximately $48 million.[19]

The difference between an IUD and an IUS (Intrauterine System) is that the IUS releases hormones, and the IUD does not. The first IUD with hormones was known as Progestasert, but this was manufactured only until 2001. Now the only version available is known as Mirena, which releases a hormone called levonorgestrel into the uterus. The T-shaped device is placed in a woman’s uterus and can be left there for up to five years.

According to its maker, “there is no single explanation of how Mirena works. It may stop release of your egg from your ovary, but this is not the way it works in most cases. It may block sperm from reaching or fertilizing your egg. It may make the lining of your uterus thin. We do not know which of these actions is most important for preventing pregnancy and most likely all of them work together.”[20] Therefore, Mirena can prevent pregnancy and may also act as an abortifacient (by changing the uterine lining and failing to stop ovulation).

Possible side effects or complications may include ectopic pregnancy, life-threatening infection, irregular bleeding, missed periods or a cessation of periods, pelvic inflammatory disease (which can lead to infertility, hysterectomy, or death), perforation of the uterus (which can cause internal scarring, infection or damage to other organs), severe cramping, dizziness, fainting, yellowing of the eyes or skin, ovarian cysts, stroke, and heart attack.[21]

Compared to reversible forms of contraception, Mirena is highly effective in preventing pregnancy (over 99 percent). However, if a woman becomes pregnant while using Mirena, she may experience severe infection, premature delivery, and even death. The doctor may attempt to remove Mirena, although this may cause a miscarriage.[22]

When a woman uses Mirena while breast-feeding, some of the hormones pass through the breast milk to the baby. Existing studies do not show any adverse side effects, but the World Health Organization notes, “there are no data evaluating the effects of progestogen exposure via breast milk on brain and liver development.”[23]

Not surprisingly, Mirena was used for years on millions of women in other countries before it was approved by the FDA in 2001. Just one year later, in the U.S. alone it raked in $36 million for its makers, and sales have continued to soar.[24]

The IUD has often been touted as one of the best ways to reduce rates of abortion because of its effectiveness in preventing pregnancy. However, according to research conducted by the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, the number of women who had abortions after becoming pregnant while on an IUD between 2000 (when Mirena was released) and 2014, increased by more than 450% (from 1700 to 7700).[25]

_______________________
[1]. U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, “World Contraceptive Use, 2005.”
[2]. Michele Kort, “Fatal Contraption: The Horrifying Truth about the Dalkon Shield,” Essence (July 1989).
[3]. “The Dalkon Shield Story: A Company Rewarded for its Faulty Product—
A.H. Robins Company, Inc. Lawsuit,” Healthfacts, May 1996.
[4]. Russell Mokhiber, “The Dalkon Shield: A Deadly Product from A.H. Robins, Multinational Monitor 8:4 (April 1987).
[5]. Morton Mintz, “A Crime Against Women,” Multinational Monitor 7:1 (January 15, 1986).
[6]. Hicks, Karen M., Surviving the Dalkon Shield IUD: Women v. The Pharmaceutical Industry (New York: Teachers College Press, 1994), 2.
[7]. Mokhiber, “The Dalkon Shield”; Mintz, “A Crime Against Women.”
[8]. International Planned Parenthood Federation, “The Dalkon Shield IUD,” IPPF Medical Bulletin 14:6 (December 1980), 3.
[9]. Barbara Ehrenreich, “The Charge: Genocide,” Mother Jones (November/ December 1979).
[10]. Mintz, “A Crime Against Women.”
[11]. Hicks, 6.
[12]. “The Dalkon Shield Story,” Healthfacts.
[13]. Mokhiber, “The Dalkon Shield.”
[14]. Meryl Gordon, “A Cash Settlement, but No Apology,” The New York Times (February 20, 1999).
[15]. Baylor College of Medicine, “Evolution and Revolution: The Past, Present, and Future of Contraception,” The Contraception Report 10:6 (February 2000), 18.
[16]. ParaGard Patient Package Information, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (May 2006); J. B. Stanford and R.T. Mikolajczyk, “Mechanisms of Action of Intrauterine Devices: Update and Estimation of Postfertilization Effects,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 187:6 (December 2002), 1699–1708; Y.C. Smart, et al., “Early Pregnancy Factor as a Monitor for Fertilization in Women Wearing Intrauterine Devices,” Fertility and Sterility 37:2 (February 1982), 201–204.
[17]. ParaGard Patient Package Information.
[18]. ParaGard Patient Package Information.
[19]. “Barr to Acquire FEI Women’s Health,” Breaking News From Pharma & Bio Ingredients, November 18, 2005 (www.pharmabioingredients.com).
[20]. Mirena Patient Information Booklet, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2004), 9.
[21]. Mirena Patient Information Booklet; K. Van Houdenhouven, et al., “Uterine Perforation in Women Using a Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System,” Contraception73:3 (2006), 257–260.
[22]. Mirena Patient Information Booklet, 10.
[23]. “Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use,” World Health Organization, Third Edition, 2004.
[24]. Aude Lagorce, “Schering AG Storms Birth Control Market,” forbes.com (July 11, 2003).
[25]. Rachel Jones, “Reported contraceptive use in the month of becoming pregnant among U.S. abortion patients in 2000 and 2014,” Contraception 97 (2018) 309–312.

However, in order for the morning-after pill to prevent ovulation, the drugs need to be absorbed through the intestines, pass into the blood stream, travel to the brain, and tell the pituitary gland not to trigger the hormonal reaction that causes ovulation. By the time this process is completed, the baby’s eye color, hair color, and entire genetic code could already be determined.

Although the pill can be taken three days after intercourse, fertilization can happen less than three hours after intercourse. But the drug is still able to work because it alters the lining of the uterus so that it can reject the implantation of the baby.[2] An early abortion takes place, without the woman’s knowledge that she was ever pregnant. However, the manner in which the drug works depends upon when it is taken, when the woman ovulates, and if pregnancy even occurs.

Unfortunately, women given the morning-after pill are not told of its abortifacient potential. In fact, advertisements for the pill proclaim that “if you take Plan B and are already pregnant, it will not affect your existing pregnancy.”[3] How can they get away with saying this? They redefine pregnancy as something that begins with the successful implantation of the baby, instead of with fertilization. Interestingly, even some drug companies that make contraceptives do not agree with this definition. For example, the information packet included with one form of birth control refers to the fallopian tubes as the place “where a pregnancy begins before it moves into the uterus.”[4]

With regard to its effectiveness, advertisements for the morning after pill claim that it is 89 percent effective. Studies cited by the FDA show numbers ranging from 55 to 94 percent.[5]. Meanwhile, the Plan B patient package insert claims that the drug reduces the risk of pregnancy by at least 75 percent. According to one of the drug companies that makes the morning-after pill, a woman has an 8 percent risk of getting pregnant through a single act of intercourse. But if she takes their emergency contraceptive, she only has a 1 percent risk.[6] (They add that the drug is more effective if is taken as soon as possible after intercourse.) Interestingly, these statistics mean that 92 percent of the women who use the morning-after pill would not have gotten pregnant anyway. Most women who take emergency contraception will never know if they would have gotten pregnant or if they terminated the life of their newly conceived child.

For years the proponents of “emergency contraception” claimed that it would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions. However, according to a review of twenty-three studies published in a 2007 issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, “to date, no study has shown that increased access to this method reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates.”[7]

According to the prescribing information of the morning-after pill, side effects of the drug may include nausea, abdominal pain, headache, fatigue, dizziness, change in menstrual bleeding, vomiting, ectopic pregnancy, and more.[8]

____________________________
[1]. Plan B Prescribing Information, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (August 2006), 1. [2]. Physicians’ Desk Reference (Montvale, N.J.: Thomson, 2006), 1068; Chris Kahlenborn, et al., “Postfertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception,” The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 36 (March 2002), 465–470; Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register Notice 62:37 (February 25, 1997), 8611.
[3]. “How Plan B Works,” Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2007).
[4]. Essure Patient Information Booklet, Conceptus, Inc. (2003), 6.
[5]. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register, 8611.
[6]. Plan B Prescribing Information, 3.
[7]. Elizabeth Raymond, et al., “Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills: A Systematic Review,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 109:1 (January 2007), 181–188.
[8]. Plan B Prescribing Information, 6–7.

The effectiveness of Norplant in preventing pregnancy is about 99 percent, although this figure may decrease with time. Also, if the woman does not have the system inserted at the proper time in her menstrual cycle, she may be more likely to become pregnant during the initial weeks of use. Since the drug is placed inside the woman’s body, it does not have a high “typical” (or user) failure rate.

According to its patient package insert, its potential side effects include irregular menstrual bleeding (including prolonged bleeding or no bleeding), ruptured ovarian cysts, constant headaches, fainting, ruptured liver tumors, ectopic pregnancies, heart attacks, strokes, gallbladder disease, skeletal pain, nervousness, acne, blood clots, blindness, severe depression, birth defects, weight gain, excessive growth of body or facial hair, hair loss, coughing of blood, numbness, severe abdominal pain, yellowing of the eyeballs, and death. Because the contraceptive device is surgically inserted under the skin, some women experienced nerve injury and scarring, while others suffered from the implant unexpectedly being expelled from the skin.[3] When a woman breast-feeds while using Norplant, some of the hormones pass through the milk to the infant. Such babies are at an increased risk of respiratory and eye infections.[4] Despite all of these possible risks, population workers in developing nations are told to inform women that Norplant has “no known serious side effects.”[5]

The FDA approved Norplant in 1990, but within six years over fifty thousand women sued the makers of the drug.[6] In 1999 the makers of Norplant agreed to settle for a reported $50 million to compensate thirty-six thousand women for the complications they suffered from the contraceptive system. The drug company said the settlement “was purely a business decision,” and it did not admit any wrongdoing.[7] By 2002 the company stopped production of the drug, and it was phased out of the American market by 2004.

However, in 2006 the FDA approved a contraceptive method similar to Norplant, called Implanon. Instead of a series of small rods, Implanon users only need one plastic rod inserted under the skin of the inner upper arm. The insert contains a hormone (etonogestrel) that is released into the woman’s body over a three year period. It can be removed at any time but must be taken out after three years.

The implant is highly effective in preventing pregnancy: over 99 percent. To accomplish this, Implanon often stops the release of eggs from a woman’s ovary and changes the cervical mucus to keep sperm from reaching the egg. It also changes the lining of the uterus.[8] So if the first two methods fail, the baby can be aborted because he or she is unable to attach to the uterus. As with other hormonal methods of birth control, it is misleading to consider a drug to be 99 percent effective in “preventing” pregnancy when terminated pregnancies are considered prevention.

Implanon it is not without its potential side effects. Users may experience changes in bleeding or no bleeding at all, mood swings, weight gain, headache, acne, depression, nervousness, breast pain, viral infections, stomach pain, painful periods, back pain, nausea, dizziness, extra hair on the face and body, spotty darkening of facial skin, ovarian cysts, blood clots, heart attack, stroke, crushing chest pain, numbness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, and an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. The insert can also break while inside the woman or be accidentally expelled from her skin. Other times the rod may be difficult or impossible to remove.[9]

These complications are not common, but the makers of the drug are required to warn all patients of the potential risks. The information packet included with the drug reminds women that they should call their healthcare provider right away if they faint, cough up blood, or become blind. Details are not given as to how she should make that phone call while unconscious or unable to see.

Even though Implanon is new in the United States, millions of women in other countries have used the product since 1998. Although the drug brought in $30 million in sales in 2005, the 2006 FDA approval is expected to stimulate much greater revenue.[10]

_________________________________
[1]. Thomas Hilgers, “Norplant,” Linacre Quarterly (February 1993), 64–69.
[2]. W. Hadisaputra, et al., “Endometrial Biopsy Collection from Women Receiving Norplant,” Human Reproduction Supplement 2 (October 1996), 31–34; L. S. Wan, “A Review of the Endometrial Changes in Norplant Users,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 828 (September 1997), 108–110.
[3]. Norplant System (levonorgestrel implants) Prescribing Information, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (March 2005), 6.
[4]. V. Schiappacasse, et al., “Health and Growth of Infants Breastfed by Norplant Contraceptive Implant Users: A Six-Year Follow-Up Study,” Contraception 66:1 (July 2002), 57–65.
[5]. “Guide to Norplant Counseling,” Supplement to Population Reports, Decisions for Norplant Programs, K-4, XX:3. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, November 1992).
[6]. Erica Johnson, “Medical device lawsuits,” CBC News (April 1, 2003).
[7]. “Norplant Makers to Settle,” CNNmoney.com (August 26, 1999).
[8]. Implanon Patient Insert, Organon USA, Inc. (July 2006), 1.
[9]. Implanon Patient Insert, 2.
[10]. John Bird, “Akzo Nobel/Organon: Contraceptive Hot Rods?” Pharmaceutical Business Review Online (July 19, 2006).

When used perfectly, it is over 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. However, with typical use, it has an annual failure rate of 8 percent.[1] Its method of action is similar to the birth control pill. According to the makers of the ring, it inhibits ovulation, changes the cervical mucus, and changes the endometrium, which reduces the likelihood of a baby implanting in the uterus.[2]. So while it can act as a contraceptive, it also can work as an abortifacient.

Side effects of the ring include heart attack, blood clots, stroke, liver tumors, gallbladder disease, breast cancer, partial or complete loss of vision, retinal lesions, swelling of the optic nerve, forward displacement (bulging) of the eyes, double vision, headache, bleeding irregularities, ectopic pregnancy, yellowing of the skin or eyes, fluid retention, weight gain, emotional disorders, depression, toxic shock syndrome, respiratory tract infection, nausea, infected or inflamed sinuses, elevated blood pressure, bloating, cramps, facial skin discoloration, temporary infertility following treatment, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, rash, yeast infection, change in corneal curvature (steepening of the external eye), increased PMS, cataracts, inflammation with lumps and reddening of the skin below the knees, skin eruptions, excessive hair growth in unusual locations, loss of scalp hair, impaired kidney function, acne, inflammation of the colon, coughing blood, crushing chest pain, problems with speech, numbness in limbs, fainting, or death.[3]

The hormones released by the ring also increase a woman’s sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). This side effect, which is also caused by birth control pills, may cause permanent damage to a woman’s sex drive.[4] While the makers of the ring admit that the drug will increase a woman’s SHBG, they do not explain what this could mean for the patient.[5]

If a mother breast-feeds a child while she uses the ring, it may decrease the quality and quantity of her breast milk. Contraceptive steroid hormones also will pass to the baby through the milk. Adverse side effects for the infant include breast enlargement and jaundice (yellowing of the skin and eyes). Therefore, nursing mothers are advised not to use the drug until the child is weaned.[6]

Based on their research on hamsters and rats, it appears that the ring will not have a long-term negative impact on a woman’s fertility.[7] But because the ring is new, its long-term side effects are uncertain. The makers of the ring assume that the complications will be similar to those that occur in women who use combination birth control pills (estrogen and progestin). Because of the absence of research, however, the drug company simply says that there is not enough data available to determine if the ring is more or less dangerous than the Pill.[8] We’ll just have to wait and see.

We can hope that the drug will not remain on the market for long. In February 2007 a group representing more than a hundred thousand consumers petitioned the head of the FDA to ban “third generation” birth control pills that contain the same hormones in the ring, because of the increased risk of blood clots.[9]

Because of deaths and other injuries caused by NuvaRing, online forums against the device have been created. On these Websites hundreds of women express their frustration and forewarn others. Lawsuits are beginning to mount against Organon, the maker of the NuvaRing. However, the company should have no problem paying off any claims, because Organon has made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit from their two contraceptives, NuvaRing and Implanon.[10]
_________________________
[1]. R.A. Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology, Nineteenth Revised Edition (New York: Ardent Media, 2007).
[2]. NuvaRing Physician’s Insert.
[3]. NuvaRing Physician’s Insert.
[4]. “Can Taking the Pill Dull a Woman’s Desire Forever?” New Scientist (May 27, 2005), 17; Panzer, et al., “Impact of Oral Contraceptives on Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin and Androgen Levels: A Retrospective Study in Women with Sexual Dysfunction,” Journal of Sexual Medicine 3:1 (January 2006), 104–113.
[5]. NuvaRing Physician’s Insert.
[6]. NuvaRing Physician’s Insert.
[7]. NuvaRing Physician’s Insert.
[8]. NuvaRing Physician’s Insert.
[9]. “Petition to the FDA to Ban Third Generation Oral Contraceptives Containing Desogestrel Due to Increased Risk of Venous Thrombosis” (Health Research Group, Publication #1799), February 6, 2007.
[10]. Theresa Agovino, “Schering-Plough to Buy Akzo Nobel’s Pharmaceutical Division for $14.4 Billion,” Associated Press (March 12, 2007).

Before leaving the doctor’s office after this second visit, the woman is given the name and number of the doctor who will be handling any emergencies caused by the drug. Two weeks after the initial visit, the doctor completes the treatment by confirming that an abortion has occurred. The makers of the drug say that “the existence of debris in the uterus following the treatment procedure will not necessarily require surgery for its removal.”[1] The “debris” they mention includes the remains of the child. However, between 5 and 8 percent of women who take the drugs will require surgery to end the pregnancy or stop excessive bleeding.[2]

RU-486 is over 90 percent effective when used during the first seven weeks of pregnancy. If it fails, the woman is encouraged to have a surgical abortion. Should the baby survive the drug and the woman opt against a surgical abortion, the child often suffers mental or physical defects because of the chemicals in the drugs. These may include facial malformations, skull defects, delayed growth, and limb defects. Animal studies also showed that offspring exposed to the drug while in the womb experienced malformation of the ovaries, delayed puberty, deficient male sexual behavior, and other side effects.[3] The effect of the drug on breast-fed babies is unknown.

Sometimes RU-486 also takes the life of the mother. For example, a teenage girl named Holly Patterson was given the drug by Planned Parenthood in California and died of septic shock. Several days after taking the drug, she went to the hospital. The staff assured her that “her pain and bleeding were normal, and she was sent home with painkillers.”[4] Three days later she returned to the hospital, where she died. Her father told reporters, “There’s no quick fix for pregnancy, no magic pill. . . . They told her it was safe, and it killed her.”[5] Following her passing, her parents wrote, “We will never be able to forget those last moments of her life when she was too weak to talk and could barely squeeze our hands in acknowledgment of our words of encouragement. ‘We love you, Holly,” Just hang in there, the whole family is coming,’ ‘You fight this Holly, you can do it.”’[6] Holly died in September 2003, and by mid-2005 at least three other women in California were killed by the drug[7]—three of the four having received it from Planned Parenthood.[8]

Deaths also have been reported in Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[9] So far the only thing to change is the label of the drug (twice). In 2004 the FDA also issued a warning about the risks ofRU-486, because it had received reports of 676 “adverse events” linked to the drug since its approval in 2000.[10] But the makers of the drug, Danco Laboratories, stand by their product. They acknowledge that abortions can increase a woman’s chance of infections but say, “We do not believe that the Mifeprex and misoprostol regimen presents any special risk of infections.”[11]

Holly Patterson died from sepsis, which is a severe illness caused by infection of the bloodstream. But RU-486 can have a number of lethal complications. For example, three months before Holly’s death, a teenager in Sweden bled to death after taking the abortion drug. She didn’t go to the hospital because she was told to expect her bleeding to last for two weeks. Meanwhile, an Iowa woman narrowly escaped death after losing one-half to two-thirds of her blood volume after the medical abortion.[12] Women also can die as a result of ruptured ectopic pregnancies. The family of one such woman in Tennessee is suing her abortion clinic for malpractice, claiming that they could have prevented her death had they diagnosed her correctly.[13] In Canada the drug trials of RU-486 were suspended after it killed a woman in 2001.

Unfortunately, the United States has yet to ban the drug. Therefore, many citizens are pushing for the government to pass “Holly’s Law,” which would withdraw FDA approval of RU-486 and subject the drug to a thorough review, which it never received. According to Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, “RU-486 was rushed to approval for political purposes . . . and as a result numerous safety concerns were suppressed, trivialized and overlooked.”[14] In 2006 Smith pleaded to Congress, “How many deaths, investigations and warnings will it take before RU-486 is properly labeled as lethal and removed from the market?”[15]

Advocates of the drug are quick to remind others that the number of deaths caused by the drug is small compared to the number of women who have used it. However, according to The New England Journal of Medicine, women who use RU-486 are approximately ten times as likely to die as women who undergo surgical abortions at the same time of pregnancy.[16]

Other side effects of RU-486 are common. In fact, the makers of the drug say, “Nearly all of the women who receive Mifeprex and misoprostol will report adverse reactions, and many can be expected to report more than one such reaction.”[17] These may include heavy bleeding (which can last for a month or more, and sometimes necessitates blood transfusions), fatal septic shock, abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, headache, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, back pain, uterine hemorrhage, viral infections, shaking, stomach pain, insomnia, leg pain, loss of consciousness, heart pounding, pelvic inflammatory disease, pelvic pain, hives, and more. No long-term studies have been done to assess the drug’s cancer-causing potential.

Perhaps one of the worst complications from the abortion pill is the emotional toll it takes on the expectant mothers. Since a woman can take the drugs up until her seventh week of pregnancy, a woman who uses RU-486 sometimes experiences traumatic emotional consequences when the baby passes out of her body. Many of the women express resentment that they were not prepared for what they saw. On post-abortive support Web sites, users of RU-486 express their heartbreak. One woman said, “[ I] wish someone had said there was a chance I would see it clearly and that I should prepare myself for what I was going to do.” Another woman grieved, “It’s been a year and a half, but I can still remember how it looked and felt. . . . I held my baby in my hand. . . . Head, eyes, nose, arms, fingers. . . . I cried over it, kissed it. . . . (sigh) That was the worst part of all . . . I knew what she was. I couldn’t fool myself. I stared at her for the longest time . . . felt like eternity. I will never forget that sight as long as I live.”

Other women share her remorse, saying things such as, “I saw every feature perfectly. . . . It was very, very tiny . . . just stared at it . . . was in shock. . . . It’s what I see when I go to bed . . . can never un-see what I saw . . . can’t lose the image . . . don’t know how to deal with this . . . haven’t told anybody . . . horrifying . . . nightmares . . . lots of nightmares.” At the sight of their unborn babies, other mothers stared in shock, not knowing what to do with the remains: “I . . . wrapped her in a piece of tissue . . . wish I’d taken her and buried her properly. . . can’t forget just flushing my baby away. . . . I will never forgive myself for this, never ever.”[18]

After one reads such accounts, one can only hope and pray that these women have indeed forgiven themselves and found healing in the tender and unconditional mercy of God. He knows the difficulties and fears that influenced their decisions. He was present with them during those terrible moments, and he alone can make them whole again.

___________________________________
[1]. Mifeprex (mifepristone) Tablets, 200mg. Danco Laboratories, LLC (July 19, 2005), 8.
[2]. Mifeprex, Medication Guide. Danco Laboratories, LLC (July 19, 2005) 1.
[3]. Mifeprex (mifepristone) Tablets, 200mg. Danco Laboratories, LLC (July 19, 2005), 9–10.
[4]. Sabin Russell, “Taker of Abortion Pill Died Due to Infection,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 1, 2003, A:19.
[5]. Brewer, “Family Blames RU-486 in Woman’s Death,” Contra Costa Times (September 20, 2003).
[6]. Monty and Helen Patterson, “An Open Letter from the Parents of Holly Patterson—Death by RU-486,” November 6, 2003.
[7]. Danco Laboratories, “Dear Health Care Provider,” July 19, 2005.
[8]. “Planned Parenthood Kills Two More Mothers,” Wednesday STOPP report, March 22, 2006.
[9]. ‘“Holly’s Law’ Still Necessary to Protect Women From RU-486,” USCCB Office of Media Relations (May 12, 2006).
[10]. “Mifepristone Questions and Answers,” FDA, November 16, 2004.
[11]. Danco Laboratories, “Dear Health Care Provider,” July 19, 2005.
[12]. Susan Wills, “Statistics and Complications Who Were Someone’s Daughter,” USCCB Life Issues Forum (November 19, 2004).
[13]. Christine Hall, “Lawsuit Alleges Medical Malpractice in RU-486-Related Death” CNSNews.com (September 3, 2002).
[14]. “Smith Urges Passage of Holly’s Law After RU-486 Is Linked to Additional Deaths of Women,” Washington, D.C., March 16, 2006.
[15]. “Smith Urges Passage of Holly’s Law.”
[16]. Michael Greene, “Fatal Infections Associated with Mifepristone- Induced Abortion,” The New England Journal of Medicine 353:22 (December 1, 2005), 2317–2318.
[17]. Mifeprex (mifepristone) Tablets, 10.
[18]. Anonymous, M.D., Unprotected (New York: Sentinel, 2006), 87–89.

Nowadays the most common active ingredient in spermicides is nonoxynol-9 (which is also found in some household cleaning supplies and laundry detergents). Initially it was hoped that spermicides could help to prevent the spread of AIDS.[4] However, the opposite has proven to be the case. The FDA announced in 2003 that nonoxynol-9 can damage the female reproductive tract by causing microabrasions, thus making her more likely to contract HIV or other STDs.[5] Because of the impact it has in the woman’s reproductive system, she is also more likely to have vaginal infections.

In a 2005 press release, Senator Tom Coburn said: “the FDA ignored scientific data that condoms and other contraceptives containing the spermicide nonoxynol-9 (N-9) increase HIV infection risk and actually recommended their use for HIV prevention. The new FDA recommendations finally correct this medically inaccurate and dangerous claim that the agency has long made regarding N-9.”[6]

In preventing pregnancy, spermicides have an annual failure rate of 18 percent with perfect use. However, their typical failure rate in preventing pregnancy is even higher—about 29 percent.[7] They are often used in combination with another form of birth control, such as a condom or diaphragm. Some condom manufacturers include spermicides on their products. However, in 2005 Consumer Reports said that such products “have no additional benefit in preventing pregnancy, have a shorter shelf life, and may cause urinary tract infections in young women.”[8] According to the World Health Organization, these products should no longer be promoted.[9] Spermicides can also cause itching, burning, irritation, urinary tract infections, yeast infections, and bacterial vaginosis.

________________________________
[1]. Baylor College of Medicine, “Evolution and Revolution: The Past, Present, and Future of Contraception,” The Contraception Report 10:6 (February 2000), 15.
[2]. Andrea Tone, “Contraceptive Consumers: Gender and the Political Economy of Birth Control in the 1930s,” Journal of Social History (Spring1996).
[3]. K.M. Wittkowski, “The Protective Effect of Condoms and Nonoxynol-9 Against HIV Infection,” American Journal of Public Health 88:4 (April 1998), 590–596.
[4]. FDA press release, “FDA Proposes New Warning for Over-the-Counter Contraceptive Drugs Containing Nonoxynol-9,” (January 16, 2003); Centers for Disease Control, “Nonoxynol-9 Spermicide Contraception Use—United States, 1999,” MMWR Weekly 51:18 (May 10, 2002), 389–392.
[5]. Press release, “Dr. Coburn Says New FDA Condom Regulations Make Inconclusive, Exaggerated Claims About Condom Effectiveness,” Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2005).
[6]. Hatcher, et al., Contraceptive Technology, Nineteenth Revised Edition.
[7]. “Condoms: Extra Protection,” Consumer Reports (February 2005).
[8]. Microbicides, World Health Organization (2006).

While reproductive technology may assist the sexual act, it must never replace it. This is partly why the Church does not permit the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and artificial insemination. These procedures do not help the marital act but substitute for it, bringing about conception through a means other than intercourse.

In the words of Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, “Whether to prevent a pregnancy or achieve one, all techniques which separate the unitive and procreative dimensions of marriage are always wrong.”[1] In other words, as contraception tries to make love without making babies, IVF and artificial insemination attempt to make babies without making love. Neither act is moral, because life and love are inseparable. As John Paul II said in an address to President George W. Bush, man must be “the master, not the product, of his technology.”[2]

However, there is another, even more serious moral problem with both in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination: not only do these processes seek to create life in a morally unacceptable way, but they also create many “excess” lives that will inevitably be destroyed in their earliest stages. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a process that involves conceiving life in a laboratory and transferring that into a woman’s womb. It is not an easy process, so extra embryos are often frozen and kept for a later attempt or donated or experimented on. Since many eggs are fertilized during the procedure, a good number of them are destroyed. Commonly the effort will be a failure and none of the eggs will implant. It is obviously immoral to create and destroy so many lives in an attempt to create one life.

Artificial insemination is a different process. It involves taking the sperm from a man and injecting it into the uterus or placing it in the woman’s cervix. This too is a difficult method, and it is not uncommon that the process needs to be repeated six or more times in order for it to be successful. Many states do not require STD testing for sperm donors, so HIV and other viruses can be spread during the process.

Even without these problems, both of these methods are incompatible with the dignity of a child and the marital act. Each child should be brought into being by an act of love between his or her parents, not by a lab technician tinkering with cells in a petri dish, as in IVF, or a doctor injecting sperm into a uterus, as in artificial insemination. When the sperm are taken from a man other than the husband, it also infringes upon the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him, and it betrays the spouses’ marital pledge to become a father and mother only through each other.

Today couples can even purchase donated sperm and eggs from strangers. In order for a couple to acquire someone else’s sperm or eggs, they contact a sperm bank or fertility clinic. Many of these companies advertise to college students, offering them large sums of money for their DNA.[3] Some students ignore the moral implications and seize the opportunity to pay off student loans. In turn, the companies market their genetic material with such labels as: “Blond hair, blue eyes, 5’7”, athletic, with high SAT score!” Potential parents can browse the Internet and pick the features they want.

If the mom-to-be does not wish to deal with pregnancy and childbirth, she can buy eggs and sperm and pay a surrogate mother to carry the child for her. One couple did just this and then decided to divorce shortly before the baby was born.[4] The would be-adoptive dad didn’t want the baby and refused to pay child support. The surrogate mother didn’t want the child to end up in a divorced family, so she wanted to keep the baby. The man who donated the sperm and the woman whose egg was used never agreed to the arrangement in the first place! However, each of them was willing to take the baby if no one else would. So whose child is it? Not surprisingly, increasing numbers of children who were conceived through anonymous sperm donors are seeking out their biological fathers.

Because the practice of sperm donation is so widespread, some experts are beginning to fear that the children conceived in this manner may go on to marry their half-siblings unknowingly.[5] After all, some sperm donors may have several dozen children, and according to the journal Nature, children born through anonymous sperm donation “are likely to be of similar ages and to grow up in same area. A significant percentage of couples may, unknowingly, be closely related.”[6]

Sometimes a couple will successfully conceive through IVF treatment but will have leftover embryos that are never implanted. To keep them alive, the couple needs to pay a clinic to store them. One husband and wife decided that upon reaching their desired family size, they no longer wished to have this expense. After receiving another bill, the wife explained:

“The bill was for Vial Number 2988—our third child. Well, not actually our third child—our embryo, in frozen storage at the in vitro clinic. Vial number 2988 was the final result of $12,000 worth of IVF treatment: fifty hormone injections, twenty-seven blood draws, sixteen sick days from work and at least one day where the whole process made me feel suicidal. The result: two beautiful children, one boy and one girl, eighteen months apart and both still in diapers, and across town, a cluster of cells in limbo. . . . Growing up liberal, I always believed in a woman’s right to choose and that an embryo . . . wasn’t actually a child. Yet, I couldn’t help but think of this third embryo (which was frozen at five days’ development) as a child, especially because both of the other embryos I had created eventually became children.”[7] Sadly, instead of completing the pregnancy or giving up the embryo for adoption, she chose to have the unborn baby thawed. Such bizarre scenarios show how little respect our culture has for the dignity of life.

Because of contraception and reproductive technologies, we have separated what God has joined together: sex and babies. You may ask, “Well, if these methods are immoral, then why does God let conception occur?” God has entrusted us with the gift of sexuality, and he will not prevent us from abusing that freedom. For example, if a child is conceived out of wedlock, the act is immoral, yet God still allows life to come forth from it. Just because conception occurs does not mean that the methods to achieve it were good. There are many ways to bring life into the world, including marital love, fornication, adultery, rape, incest, IVF, and artificial insemination. Only one, marital love, is consistent with the dignity of the human person.

However, no matter how a baby is conceived, his or her life is not a mistake. Every child is created in the image and likeness of God, as has no less value than any other person. It is important, therefore, to distinguish the dignity of the human person from the morality of an act. The goodness of the child does not make the act of conception moral, and immorality of the act does not diminish the value of the child.

Many believe that IVF and artificial insemination are the only options available to an infertile couple hoping to have a child of their own. This is not the case. There are many doctors who specialize in determining the cause of infertility and healing it, instead of replacing fertility with technology. See the Pope Paul VI Institute of Human Reproduction here for more information.

__________________________
[1]. Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., “Of Human Life: A Pastoral Letter to the People of God of Northern Colorado on the Truth and Meaning of Married Love,” July 22, 1998, 16.
[2]. Pope John Paul II, remarks to President George W. Bush, July 23, 2001.
[3]. Jim Hopkins, “Egg-Donor Business Booms on Campuses,” USA Today (March 15, 2006).
[4]. Dr. Janet Smith, Sexual Common Sense, “Reproductive Technologies: Why Not?”
[5]. “Marriage of UnwittingTwins Sparks IVF Debate,” www.bioedge.org, January 16, 2008.
[6]. Panos Ioannou, “Free Consanguinity Testing for All,” Nature 419 (September 19, 2002), 247–248; Amy Harmon, “Hello, I’m Your Sister. Our Father Is Donor 150,” The New York Times (November 20, 2005).
[7]. Sabrina Paradis, “Frozen,” www.babble.com.

The long answer is much more complex. For one, the information on condom warning labels is “enforced” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They’re the ones who are supposed to make sure that the information is medically accurate. So, why don’t they tell you that the condom doesn’t protect against HPV? It’s a messy story:

In 1999, the director of the National Cancer Institute reported to Congress that “Condoms are ineffective against HPV” and that “additional research efforts by NCIL on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HPV transmission are not warranted.”[1]

On October 3, 2000, the “Cervical Cancer Public Awareness Resolution” was presented before the US House of Representatives. In it, Congressman Tom Coburn, who had a full-time practice in obstetrics and family medicine, said, “Along with that comes the very sad fact that our institutions that we should be trusting in this area have failed us. The Center for Disease Control has failed, because the full name of the Center for Disease Control is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The NIH has released a statement, as well as NCI, and on their Web site you can find that this disease is caused by human papilloma virus and that a condom fails to protect. We are so sold on this concept of ‘safe sex’ in this country that we refuse to accept the etiology and pathogenesis of this disease, and we refuse to be honest with the American public in that a condom cannot protect them from this. The thing that is exciting to me about this resolution coming up is it perhaps will have some honesty coming out of the institutions that are funded with the taxpayers’ money in this country, both the NIH and the NCI, as well as the CDC.”[2]

Coburn added that they had a breast and cervical cancer treatment bill that was “being held up at this time on the basis of the Senate conferees not wanting to agree to the language in that in regards to HPV and cervical cancer.” He pleaded to the Speaker of the House, ” Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the body that they would put pressure on their fellow Senators that they might accede to this. The fact is, the reason we have this awareness up is we want women to get treated. This is a disease that is absolutely curable. It is not like breast cancer; we cannot always cure breast cancer. This disease, if diagnosed properly and treated, is 100 percent curable. Knowledge and the fact that we are allowing a safe sex message of condoms preventing this disease to continue will do nothing but harm women….The fact is, it is harmful to women to let that lie continue.”

Later that year, the United States Congress approved Public Law 106-554. This law directed the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and FDA to educate the public about HPV. Part of the bill required that educational material regarding STDs like HPV shall “contain medically accurate information regarding the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing the STD the materials are designed to address.” The CDC was given until December 21, 2003 to issue a report “including a detailed summary of the significant findings and problems and best strategies to prevent future infections, based upon available science.”

December 21st came and went, and nothing was done. Indiana Representative Souder (the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources), pressed them on it and they finally released the January 2004 report to Congress: “Prevention of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection.” In it, the CDC admitted, “The available scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend condoms as a primary prevention strategy [against HPV]”. However, it remains to be seen if the CDC will actually implement an effective public policy to inform Americans of this.

On February 12, 2004, Rep. Souder wrote a letter to the Commissioner of the FDA, Mark McClellan, M.D., Ph.D., asking him to re-examine the misleading information given on condom labels. In this letter, he reminded the FDA of the findings in the CDC report the previous month, and wrote, “A meta-analysis reviewing ‘the best available data describing the relationship between condoms and HPV-related conditions’ from the past two decades published in the November 29, 2002 edition of the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases found, ‘’There was no consistent evidence of a protective effect of condom use on HPV DNA detection, and in some studies, condom use was associated with a slightly increased risk for these lesions.’ Three years after Public Law 106-554 was signed by President Clinton, condom labels still do not warn consumers about the lack of protection against HPV infection. The Subcommittee urges FDA to act on the release of CDC’s HPV prevention report and immediately relabel condoms to alert consumers that condoms do not provide effective protection against HPV infection.”[3] However, Dr. McClellan remained the commissioner of the FDA for only a month after this letter was written, so not much was done under his watch.

Since then, the FDA has not done a great deal. They said that they’re “certainly committed to looking at this and making the requisite changes.”[4] They’ve added that they’re “preparing new guidance on condom labeling,” “exploring new opportunities to best inform condom users about important limitations of the device,” and “proposing to amend the classification regulations for condoms.”[5] In other words, condom labels still had not changed. Dr. Tom Coburn, who is a physician, congressman, and co-chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS said, “The FDA has been dragging its feet for three and a half years.”[6]

Opponents of abstinence education disagree with Coburn. For example, Henry Waxman (D- CA), argues “we want to be sure that we do not end up with an unintended effect of confusing people about the situations when condoms do work—in HIV transmission to name only one—and actually reduce their use.” Furthermore, he added, condom labels that “include information on HPV can result in so much information on such a small package that it reduces the effectiveness of any information.”[7] Waxman apparently thinks that self-control is an unrealistic option for human beings. He assumes that if people knew the truth about condoms, they’d just throw them away and continue having sex.

In June 2005, Senator Coburn placed a hold on President Bush’s nomination for a new federal drug agency chief, hoping it would force the FDA to enforce a federal condom labeling law that requires all condom packaging to warn consumers that condoms are not effective in preventing HPV. Then, in September 2006, President Bush asked National Cancer Institute Director Andrew von Eschenbach to serve as acting agency commissioner of the FDA. Prior to his confirmation hearing, Dr. Eschenbach was asked if he would ensure that condom labels would be updated. He displayed his familiarity with the ineffectiveness of the condom, and added that it may offer some risk reduction for HPV related diseases. He then added that in November of 2005, the FDA drafted a document with proposed language for a new condom label. As a result of this document, Eschenbach said, “FDA received roughly 400 comments on the proposed rule. Almost all comments suggested the proposed labeling language was confusing and difficult for consumers to understand. As a result, the Agency intends to undertake additional labeling comprehension studies to help insure that the final labeling recommendations issued by the Agency are understandable to users.”[8]

Regarding the proposed new condom labels, Senator Coburn remarked, “In the five years it took the FDA to implement this law, over 27 million Americans have become infected with HPV, over 50,000 women have been diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer, and nearly 20,000 women have died from the disease. Despite these tragic numbers, very few Americans are still not aware of HPV or its link to cervical cancer and the FDA seems to be content with providing inconclusive claims of effectiveness that may endanger women be providing a false security against cervical cancer.”[9]

In November of 2006 (six years after the law was created requiring medically accurate condom labels) nothing had changed. So, Senator Coburn requested an investigation by the Government Accountability office of the failure of the FDA in this matter. In it, he stated, “I am requesting that GAO investigate the failure of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to comply with the provision of the same law that requires the agency to ‘reexamine existing condom labels that are authorized pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to determine whether the labels are medically accurate regarding the overall effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, including HPV.’ It has been six years since this law was signed and FDA has yet to issue guidance to ensure condom labels meet this criteria. As you noted in your letter, ‘Section 317P of the Public Health Service Act addresses human papillomavirus specifically.’ Yet, condom labels do not currently mention the lack of effectiveness of condoms in protecting against HPV infection, which has been conclusively documented over the past decade.”[10]

This battle has been raging for years, without ever garnering the attention of the liberal media. When the CDC report on HPV was released, among major media outlets, only the Washington Post mentioned anything about it. In August of 2001, groups representing over 10,000 doctors accused the CDC for covering up the government’s own research about condom infectiveness (in particular, the NIH report). In the statement, which was released by the Physicians Consortium, former Congressman Tom Coburn, M.D., Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. and others, it stated that the CDC has “systematically hidden and misrepresented vital medical information regarding the ineffectiveness of condoms to prevent the transmission of STDs. The CDC’s refusal to acknowledge clinical research has contributed to the massive STD epidemic.”[11]

The Physicians Consortium claimed that the CDC not only failed to educate the public about their findings, but tried to conceal the paper and delay its release. They added that the CDC demanded revisions of the report in order to cause “unwarranted confusion and misinformation to what otherwise is a clear-cut repudiation of condom effectiveness.”

Despite knowing about HPV and condom ineffectiveness, the CDC remained quiet. In a NIH “Consensus Statement” on Cervical Cancer, it was reported that “The data on the use of barrier methods of contraception to prevent the spread of HPV…does not support this as an effective method of prevention.”[12] That was in 1996! The CDC’s silence has been so inexcusable that the Physicians Consortium held a Capitol building press conference calling for the resignation of the (then) Director of the CDC, Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan. Odds are, you didn’t see that on the evening news.

Finally, in December of 2008, the FDA issued a new document that outlines how condom labels should be updated. It stated that the condom label should inform customers that “Latex condoms are intended to prevent pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted infections.” You’ll notice that the language shifted away from the effectiveness of the condom to a vague assertion of what it’s “intended” to to. In order to read anything about HPV, you need to browse through the condom’s information packet, which admits, “Latex condoms are less effective against STIs such as Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes. These STIs can also be spread by contact with infected skin that is not covered by the condom.”

______________________________________
[1]. Richard D. Klausner, M.D., Letter to the U.S. House Commerce Committee, February, 1999.
[2]. Cervical Cancer Public Awareness Resolution (House of Representatives – October 03, 2000) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:H03OC0-0045:
[3]. “Rep. Souder Asks FDA for Action on Condom & HPV Information Law,” abstinence.net (12 February 2004).
[4]. FDA official Daniel Schultz, as quoted in “Condom Labels Called Inadequate,” Sylvia Smith, Fort Wayne Gazette, March 12, 2004.
[5]. Emphasis mine
[6]. “FDA Weighs Condom Warning Label,” by Keith Powers, Family News, March 15, 2004.
[7]. Ilka Couto and Cynthia Dailard, “Wanted: A Balanced Policy and Program Response to HPV and Cervical Cancer,” The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 2:6 (December 1999).
[8]. “Latest News: Andrew C. Von Eschenbach, M.D., Confirmation, Questions for the Record,” Abstinence Clearinghouse E-mail Update (September 9, 2006), reply to Question 14.
[9]. Press Release, “Dr. Coburn Says New FDA Condom Regulations Make Inconclusive, Exaggerated Claims About Condom Effectiveness,” coburn.senate.gov, Washington, D.C. (November 10, 2005).
[10]. Senator Tom A. Coburn, M.D., Letter to Gary L. Kepplinger, General Counsel, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC 20548, (November 1, 2006).
[11]. Austin Ruse, “Physicians Groups Charge US Government with Condom Cover-up, “Friday Fax, Vol 4 (Aug 17, 2001) No 35 (see http://www.c-fam.org).
[12]. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement on Cervical Cancer, April 1–3, 1996.

Following a vasectomy, a man’s testes will continue to produce millions of sperm each day. However, because the vasa differentia have been severed or blocked, the sperm have no natural way to be released. If the tubes are blocked, the pressure of backed-up sperm often causes a “blowout” of the epididymis, the tubes that hold sperm, which can be very painful. Inevitably sperm cells enter the bloodstream, where antibodies must be created to destroy them.

Post-vasectomy pain is a complaint among some men. Such pain can last for weeks or even years. Various treatments may provide relief. Some men receive another operation to remove the epididymis or testicles. Sometimes the vasectomy is reversed in order to lessen the pain. One man wrote, “I have lived the nightmare of chronic pain and autoimmune reactions since my own vasectomy in August of 1999. Nineteen surgeries and nerve blocks, 197 medications and other substances, and dozens of therapies that I have pursued in the interim have not resolved the pain I experience on a daily basis.”[1]

Most men do not experience such severe consequences from the operation. However, men who have vasectomies may be two-and-a-half times as likely to develop kidney stones.[2] It is not uncommon for men who have vasectomies to regret their decision. Reduced marital satisfaction and feelings of remorse often follow the operation, and sometimes last indefinitely. Thankfully, many men are able to have the operation reversed. Unfortunately, the reversal procedure is far more expensive than the vasectomy.

A woman’s sterilization surgery is more involved. Commonly referred to as having her “tubes tied,” a tubal ligation means that the woman has her fallopian tubes severed and sealed. Other methods involve clamping the tubes shut (tubal occlusion), burning them (tubal cauterization), or entirely removing them (salpingectomy). Depending upon which type of sterilization is used and how much damage has been done to the woman’s reproductive system, the procedure may or may not be reversible. Even when the operation is reversed, the woman is more likely to suffer an ectopic pregnancy in the future because of the damage to the fallopian tubes. These types of sterilizations have a very high rate of effectiveness in preventing pregnancy: over 99 percent.

Since these forms of female sterilization involve surgery, the risks are different than for other forms of birth control. For example, the woman may experience complications from the surgery, such as severe bleeding or pelvic infection. Sometimes the sterilization surgery can be fatal. According to Planned Parenthood, “the rate is about two deaths per 100,000 women who have a sterilization procedure performed.”[3] Other resources, such as the Encyclopedia of Medicine, place the death rate at four per hundred thousand.[4]

Female sterilization is the most common form of birth control in the world, with over a hundred million women having had the surgery.[5] So in order for a hundred million women to be sterilized, at least two thousand have died. The number is probably higher, because the “two deaths per 100,000” statistic is based on available data from the most recent and safest procedures, which have not always been available and even now are not always offered to women in developing nations (who are more than twice as likely to resort to sterilization).[6] These numbers also do not include deaths caused by sterilization-related ectopic pregnancies. Despite the fact that female sterilization surgeries are more expensive, invasive, and potentially dangerous than male vasectomies, sterilization procedures are between three and six times more common for women than men.[7]

Besides the physical complications, women who undergo sterilization often suffer from the guilt and regret of mutilating their bodies. They often experience reduced marital satisfaction.

Interestingly, the more education a woman receives, the less likely she is to sterilize herself. For example, the Centers for Disease Control studied women who used contraception and were between the ages of twenty-two and forty-four. They discovered that 55 percent of the contracepting women who did not finish high school chose to be sterilized! However, among contracepting women who graduated from college, only 13 percent resorted to sterilization.[8]

A more modern form of sterilization for women was approved by the FDA in 2002, and it is called Essure. In order to prevent future pregnancies, “microinserts” are passed through a woman’s reproductive tract and placed in her fallopian tubes. “Microinsert” is the pharmaceutical company’s polite way of describing a four-centimeter-long device that resembles a spring or coil and is made of polyester fibers, nickel-titanium, and stainless steel. Once these are in place, they expand and lodge themselves into the ends of the fallopian tubes, partially dangling into the uterus. Over a period of three months, they cause tissue growth (scarring), creating a barrier that prevents egg and sperm from joining. At the end of three months, the woman’s uterus is injected with a dye, and a specialized X-ray is used to make sure the fallopian tubes are sealed.

At times the efforts are unsuccessful. According to Essure’s patient information, about one in seven women do not achieve placement of both microinserts in the first procedure.[9] Even when both are inserted, they may not be in the correct positions. For example, they may be too far into the fallopian tubes or may have fallen out. Sometimes they poke through the wall of the fallopian tube or uterus (perforation). Other potential side effects of the device or its insertion include pain, cramping, nausea, fainting, profuse perspiration, pelvic inflammatory disease, bloating, back pain, shakiness, headache, severe cramps, abdominal pain, heavier periods, tubal pregnancy, inflammation or infection of the fallopian tubes, or death.

If a woman using Essure decides that she wants the device removed, surgery is required to reconnect the fallopian tubes to her uterus. However, such a procedure would have a poor chance of success.[10] According to the makers of Essure, “There are no data on the safety or effectiveness of surgery to reverse the Essure procedure. Any attempt at surgical reversal will likely require utero-tubal reimplantation. Pregnancy following such a procedure carries with it the risk of uterine rupture and serious maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality . . . and possible hysterectomy.”[11] Therefore, any woman who uses Essure should consider it to be permanent. Not surprisingly, young women are particularly likely to experience regret following a sterilization procedure.[12]

When the device is successfully placed, it is 99 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. However, since the product is new, data does not exist regarding its long-term effectiveness. Should a woman become pregnant while using Essure, the makers of the implant say “the risks of the Micro-insert to the patient, to the fetus, and to the continuation of a pregnancy are also unknown.”[13] But one can suspect that a pair of coiled metallic wires hanging into the uterus would not be healthy for a developing baby. As of 2017, sales of Essure have been halted globally, due to “commercial” reasons . . . with the exception of the United States.

________________________________
[1]. http://www.dontfixit.org/.
[2]. R.A. Kronmal, et al., “Vasectomy and Urolithiasis,” The Lancet 331 (1988), 22–23.
[3]. Jon Knowles, “Tubal Sterilization,” Planned Parenthood (April 1, 2005).
[4]. Mercedes Mclughlin, “Tubal Ligation,” Encyclopedia of Medicine.
[5]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Unintended Pregnancy Prevention: Female Sterilization,” Department of Health and Human Services (April 26, 2006) ; United Nations, “World Contraceptive Use—2005.”
[6]. United Nations, “World Contraceptive Use—2005.”
[7]. National Institutes of Health, “Facts about Vasectomy Safety” (August 17, 2006); “World Contraceptive Use, 2005.”
[8]. Mosher, et al., Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics 350, (CDC) 10.
[9]. Essure Patient Information Booklet, Conceptus (October 31, 2006), 13.
[10]. Essure Patient Information Booklet, 12.
[11]. Essure Prescribing Information, Conceptus (September 8, 2005).
[12]. Essure Patient Information Booklet, 12.
[13]. Essure Instructions for Use, Conceptus (June 12, 2002), 4.

But is there an overpopulation problem? Especially in the 1960s and 1970s, people feared that the world’s population would soon outstrip its resources. Books predicted that the earth would run out of natural resources, such as gas, lead, and petroleum. Widespread catastrophes were feared, and some predicted that hundreds of millions of Americans would starve to death. Indeed, the world saw an exponential growth in population in the 1900s. However, much of this was a result of advances in medicine. Because the average life expectancy was lengthened, there were more people alive than ever before.

Now life expectancies have begun to level out, and although the population continues to increase, the 1970s doomsday predictions have faded away. In fact, many countries are now facing economic difficulties as a result of underpopulation.[2] Global fertility and birth rates have been rapidly decreasing for more than twenty-five years.[3] Almost every developed country in the world has a below-replacement fertility rate.[4] The fertility rate of developing nations tends to be higher, but according to the United Nations Population Division, between 2005 and 2050 the worldwide number of children (persons under fifteen) will decline.[5]

While some people predicted that there would be too many children, others feared that humans would run out of space. However, humans occupy only 1 to 3 percent of the Earth’s surface. If you gathered every human being on Earth, we would all fit in Jacksonville, Florida. If everyone moved to Texas, each person would have more than a thousand square feet in which to live.[6] This provides more living space than people have in San Francisco and only slightly less than they have in the Bronx.[7]

The problem is not a lack of space but an unjust distribution of resources. One researcher noted that “according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas.”[8] Besides, farmers use less than half of the land that can be used for agriculture. Human poverty is the result of bad economic policy, war, and corrupt governments, not overpopulation. (For more on this, visit the Population Research Institute, or browse our articles on overpopulation in the Research tab above.)

___________________
[1]. R. E. J. Ryder, “‘Natural Family Planning’ Effective Birth Control Supported by the Catholic Church,” British Medical Journal 307 (September 18, 1993), 723.
[2]. Joseph D’Agostino, “Vatican Officials Discuss Solutions for European Underpopulation,” National Catholic Register (July 15, 2006).
[3]. Wetzel, Sexual Wisdom (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Proctor Publications, L.L.C., 1998), 273.
[4]. Wetzel, Sexual Wisdom, 274; “The Fizzling Population Bomb,” Zenit News Agency, March 13, 2005.
[5]. United Nations Department of Public Information, “World Population Will Increase by 2.5 Billion by 2050; People Over 60 to Increase by More Than 1 Billion,” Press Release 952 (March 13, 2007).
[6]. Mercedes Arzú Wilson, Love & Fertility (Dunkirk, Maryland: Family of the Americas Foundation, 1986), 192–193.
[7]. Jacqueline Kasun, “Too Many People?” Envoy, May–June 1998, 34.
[8]. Kasun, “Too Many People?” 36.