WebProNews

Tag: birth control

  • ObamaCare’s Birth Control Mandate Divides Supreme Court

    The issue of ObamaCare’s birth control policy is currently dividing the Supreme Court. The conflict revolves around a religious nonprofit objection to paying for an insurance plan covering contraception.

    Generally the issue also touches on health care, abortion, and religious freedom. The eight Justices will be deciding on whether institutions that are religiously affiliated can be exempted from having to pay for birth control and other reproductive health coverage in their ObamaCare health plans.

    The 90-minute debate grew tense as the Justices discussed ideological differences over moral and administrative implications of the law.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a recent statement that an exception for Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity of nuns involved in the issue, could make the law impractical.

    However, Chief Justice John Roberts countered the statement by arguing that the religious nonprofit and other petitioners’ mechanism against the birth control mandate can be used to provide services because the government still wants continuous coverage.

    The Little Sisters of the Poor are led by nuns but they also employ lay workers who could be eligible for the exemption from paying birth control and other reproductive health coverage if they win. Other possible groups and establishments to be included in the exemption are hospitals, parochial schools, and private faith-based universities.

    However, a 4-4 split amongst the Justices could leave the provision in place for now. The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has left the legal fight about the birth control mandate up in the air.

    Other appeals courts have agreed that the accommodation offered to religious groups is lawful. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit says that it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

    By definition, birth control is prescribed not only to avoid pregnancy but also to treat various female medical conditions.

  • Zayn Malik: One Direction Singer Gets Advice from Russell Brand

    Zayn Malik–One Direction singer and young hunk extraordinaire–had the opportunity to meet actor and comedian Russell Brand a couple of years back. Zayn shares some of that unusual meeting in the band’s new autobiography, Who We Are. It seems Russell Brand actually offered the 1D singer some birth control advice.

    According to a report from Billboard, Zayn Malik was a bit taken aback by the conversation.

    “Backstage at the Olympics was one of the maddest times I’ve had with the band,” Zayn says in the book. “These crazily famous people were coming up and talking to me. All my life I’d seen them on TV and here they were just chatting away to us.”

    Malik then recalls how Brand, who was also performing in the closing ceremony, came over to him. “Russell was brilliant. He was saying, ‘Your performance was sick.’ Then he started giving me family planning advice! I was like, ‘Russell, you shouldn’t be giving me that sort of advice!’ He was hilarious, a really nice guy.”

    Not many people can say Russell Brand gave them birth control advice–right? Of course not many people would want any kind of advice from the funny man. At least Zayn Malik can catalogue the conversation as among the more unusual he’s likely ever had.

    One Direction’s new book Who We Are hits bookstores on Thursday, September 25th. In it, Zayn Malik’s band mate Harry Styles even admits to a lack of confidence. Who’d have ever thunk that?

    “I’m naturally a fairly confident person in most situations, but not all,” said Styles in Who We Are. “At that point, any natural confidence I had was being taken over by nerves because back then I had no idea how to channel and control my anxiety.”

    Profound, Harry.

    Zayn Malik, Harry Styles, Liam Payne, Louis Tomlinson, and Niall Horan will release their fourth album–aptly titled Four–in November. A single from that album, ‘Steal My Girl,’ comes out on September 29th.

    Do you suppose Zayn Malik paid any heed to Russell Brand’s advice from two years ago? It doesn’t appear as though any of the One Direction boys has added ‘fatherhood’ to their current resumes.

    Thanks, Russell?

  • Wireless Birth Control Could Hit the Market by 2018, Thanks to Bill Gates

    The concept of implanting birth control that lasts for years is nothing new, but the idea of implanting remote-controlled birth control that can work for a decade and a half sure is.

    But if things go according to plan, that kind of technology could be on the market in the next few years.

    The MIT Technology Review reports on MicroCHIPS, a Lexington, Massachusetts company that has designed a wireless contraceptive chip that is meant to be implanted in the arm, abdomen, or buttocks and dispense 30 micrograms of levonorgestrel a day. The tiny chip is 20x20x7 millimeters and can be controlled wirelessly.

    Yep, remote-controlled birth control. The device supposedly works for up to 16 years (most implanatables last for only a few years), and can be turned off when a woman wishes to conceive.

    Apparently, the whole idea come from Bill Gates. Check out this from the MIT Technology Review:

    The idea for the device originated two years ago in a visit by Bill Gates and his colleagues to Robert Langer’s MIT lab. Gates and his colleagues asked Langer if it were feasible to create birth control that a woman could turn on and off and use for many years. Langer thought the controlled release microchip technology he invented with colleagues Michael Cima and John Santini in the 1990s and licensed to MicroCHIPS might offer a solution.

    You may know Gates as that Microsoft dude or as the man who’s trying to make a next-gen condom. MicroCHIPS is one of the many companies that have received backing from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That Bill Gates is sure on the cusp of some sort of sexual technology breakthrough.

    This isn’t entirely new ground for MicroCHIPS, who in 2012 announced clinical results from their first successful human trial of an implantable, wireless drug delivery device. That trial dealt with post-menopausal women and the device delivered a daily dose of an osteoporosis drug – but the wireless technology was similar to what they’re envisioning with the implantable birth control.

    “This trial demonstrates how drug can be delivered through an implantable device that can be monitored and controlled remotely, providing new opportunities to improve treatment for patients and to realize the potential of telemedicine,” said Robert Langer, cofounder of MicroCHIPS, at the time of that trial.

    Although the chip will have to undergo encryption to prevent tampering (nobody wants hacked birth control), the device is hoping to start testing in the US as soon as 2015 – and it could hit the market by 2018.

    Image via MicroCHIPS
    h/t Gizmodo

  • Megyn Kelly Holds No Punches; Now No. 1 News Show

    Megyn Kelly Holds No Punches; Now No. 1 News Show

    For the past 150 consecutive months, Fox News has ruled the ratings roost, being the most watched news program on cable television. For the grand majority of those years, Bill O’Reilly has led the charge for the “fair and balanced” news station. However, O’Reilly has a new challenger, and she shows no signs of holding back.

    For the second time in her show’s existence, Megyn Kelly has surpassed Bill O’Reilly in the cable news wars, bringing in 413,000 viewers in the 25-54 age demographic compared to O’Reilly’s 402,000. This past week was the first time Kelly had directly beaten O’Reilly, however, as her previous victory came when O’Reilly had someone else filling his chair.

    If one has not tuned into Fox News to watch The Kelly File, one may be confused as to how a woman on a conservative media station has risen to such prominence in less than a year. The answer lies in Kelly’s aggressive beliefs and on-screen personality.

    In a recent interview with former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers, Kelly held no punches, asking Ayers questions many would never dream to utter in such a politically correct age, such as “How many bombings are you responsible for?” and “What would it take to make you bomb this country again?”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53R8ky14VKA

    While Kelly could have never expected to get the answers she wanted from Ayers, she was able to twist the interview to something useful for Fox News – a slam piece against Barack Obama. Throughout the interview, Kelly constantly hearkened back to the supposed relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama in Chicago during the 60’s and 70’s, despite the fact that both men deny having a close relationship at any point in time. Kelly also seemingly wanted to insinuate a friendly relationship between Obama and al Qaeda, referring to Ayers as both Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler during the interview.

    Kelly’s tactics aren’t reserved for strictly political issues, however. Recently, she also attacked Sandra Fluke for her comments on the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case.

    On MSNBC Sunday night, Fluke told Chris Matthews that “What this [the Hobby Lobby ruling] is really about at its base is trying to figure out as many ways as possible to limit women’s access to reproductive healthcare.” Apparently, Kelly did not appreciate Fluke’s statement, going on a diatribe defending the stance of Hobby Lobby and its owners:

    She [Fluke] doesn’t know what she’s talking about… So it’s a lot of corporations that could be affected, but only those who feel strongly about their religious beliefs. Those folks aren’t going to have to provide abortion-related drugs: drugs that terminate an already-fertilized egg. That’s the only — out of 20 birth-control drugs that are available, they still have to cover 16. They just said we don’t want to fund those forms of birth control that end a fertilized egg…

    Women were buying their own [birth control]; for the past 20 years and beyond, they’ve been buying their own. And then what happened was we passed Obamacare. And then Kathleen Sebelius had some of her HHS minions go down in the basement and write a regulation that said as part of Obamacare, you have to cover 20 out of 20 birth-control drugs — 20 out of 20.

    And then women like Sandra Fluke started saying, ‘I’m entitled. Oh my God, I didn’t realize how victimized I was all those years when I was paying for it on my own.’ And Hobby Lobby, which is an evangelical company, came out and said, ‘Alright, we’ll do it, we’ll do it for all of it except four that end a fertilized egg.

    Whether one appreciates Kelly’s hard interview tactics and personal vehemence or not, one thing is for certain – As long as Fox News continues to give shows to big personalities who are willing to look a bit ridiculous in order to pull ratings, it will continue to rule the cable news scene for quite some time. (Especially with the retirement of Stephen Colbert.)

    Image via YouTube

  • Hobby Lobby’s Divisive SCOTUS Win

    Hobby Lobby’s Divisive SCOTUS Win

    The Supreme Court case that featured Hobby Lobby and their protest against Obamacare wrapped up with a Hobby Lobby win yesterday. Within minutes your Facebook and Twitter feeds probably blew up with statements of indignation or triumph, depending on where your friends came down on the issue.

    Unfortunately, much of what you see tossed around out there is probably just as confusing as it ever was. Bear with me as we try to make sense out of what happened and what it could mean in the future.

    One of the statements that is getting tossed around is that Hobby Lobby wanted to be able to refuse to pay for all contraceptives for its female employees. This is not the case, though the ruling may leave that possibility open.

    There are 20 forms of contraceptive that are covered under the Affordable Care Act. Of these 20, Hobby Lobby has issue with only four that they considered “abortifacients.” These four treatments are different from the other 16 due to the fact that they may prevent an already fertilized egg (a “conception”) from implanting and growing. These four include Plan B, Ella, as well as copper and hormonal IUDs.

    Hobby Lobby’s contention was that, since they believe that life begins at conception, these four treatments cause de facto abortions. The medical community at large does not consider these treatments to be abortions, since their definition of viability must include the implant stage.

    The Supreme Court’s decision came down to the fact that the owners of Hobby Lobby and other businesses believe that life begins at a different point than most doctors do. Therefore, this became a religious issue.

    Opponents of this position say that this decision is a slippery slope that could cause many other issues of a religious nature, even some that have not yet been thought of, to become major headaches. These may not even be in the healthcare realm.

    One example that has been proffered is: What if a business owned by a Jehovah’s Witness, who believes that use of blood products are forbidden in the Bible, says that they should not be forced to cover life-saving transfusions or hemophiliac treatments, even for non-Witness employees?

    This was an example used by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent from the 5-4 decision. She went on to ask:

    “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

    The Court’s decision is designed to be narrow and limited only to “closely-held corporations” — which comprise most of the businesses in the United States. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow acknowledged this in her commentary on the ruling.

    “The justices in the majority, they went out of their way to say that your religious objections can only get you out of this one part of this one law,” she said. “They said specifically that only contraception laws are subject to religious beliefs. Other laws aren’t.”

    Even so, many on both sides of the issue say that the genie is out of the bottle and there will be further effects.

    “Justice Ginsburg is right — this is sweeping,” said Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University. “People should not get lost in the reference to ‘closely held corporations.’ These types of businesses are huge in this country and most of the businesses people relate with in their daily lives. We’re still working out the details of how far that goes. … That’s what’s going to happen here. It is a significant game changer.”

    On the other side of the aisle, Lori Windham, senior counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said, “This case is about the freedoms of all Americans — women and men — and it’s something that all Americans should celebrate today.”

    Image via YouTube

  • Hobby Lobby Invests in Abortion Pills

    In a discovery that is bound to rankle supporters, Mother Jones magazine revealed yesterday that Hobby Lobby is in bed with the enemy.

    After months/years of fighting the Affordable Care Act’s provisions requiring birth control to be covered by employer-provided insurance plans, including taking that fight all the way to the United States Supreme Court, it now comes to light that the company may not know where its money goes.

    In fact, it turns out that Hobby Lobby’s corporate 401(k) plan has more than $73 Million in mutual funds investments in companies that produce the very drugs and devices that they are fighting against. These include emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions.

    Mother Jones reported:

    “These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella … Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions … AstraZeneca, which … manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions.”

    Many people don’t know exactly what is in their 401(k) mutual fund sections. That is the nature of a mutual fund: it is managed by someone else so you don’t have to pick what you are investing in. But a company that is so ardently fighting this battle should have had someone who knows how to see such things – like the someone that Mother Jones has – to check.

    Some folks have argued that Hobby Lobby’s assertions about so-called “morning after” and “Plan B” pills are unfounded, that they have a mistaken understanding about how these things work. But there is no accounting for a person’s opinions. If Hobby Lobby wanted to fight for its religious right to not pay for aspirin because they viewed headaches as God’s will, we would still be at the Supreme Court with this case. That is the nature of a religious liberty argument. It does not have to make sense to anyone else but the person making the argument.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Sandra Fluke Wants Henry Waxman’s Seat

    First off, who is Sandra Fluke? Fluke is a 33-year-old American attorney at law and women’s rights activist. The Pennsylvania native first caught the public’s eye when Republican congressmen blocked her from testifying to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee back in February of 2012. Fluke was attempting to explain to the committee the importance of requiring insurance plans to cover birth control under the Affordable Care Act. She only got the chance to speak to the House Democrats.

    In her testimony, Fluke talked about her experience at Georgetown Law School, where the Catholic university refused to pay for birth control as part of the student health plan.

    She said the lack of access to contraception caused both her and other female students to suffer “financial, emotional and medical burdens”.

    Some people became aware of Sandra Fluke when Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” on his show while speculating on her sex life. Limbaugh later apologized.

    Sandra Fluke is now jumping into the California Democratic race for Rep. Henry Waxman’s soon-to-be vacated Congressional seat.

    On Jan. 30, the 74-year-old Waxman announced that he would not seek reelection after serving in the House of Representatives since 1975. His districts encompass Beverly Hills and West Hollywood.

    Other contenders for Waxman’s seat include Wendy Greuel (D), who ran for Los Angeles mayor, and state Sen. Ted Lieu (D).The list of candidates seeking to replace Waxman is very long, even spiritual guru and best-selling author Marianne Williamson is running.

    Though Fluke has yet to officially announced her candidacy, she did file for the state party’s endorsement, which means she is officially in the race.

    On Sunday afternoon, the state party will begin its endorsement process which will wrap up at the state party convention next month.

    http://youtu.be/rHADDMRKfM0

    Image via YouTube

  • Erin Brockovich Warns Against Birth Control Device

    Erin Brockovich has started a new campaign to take a particular birth control device off the market, saying she’s seen and heard claims from thousands of women who say they suffered injuries after using it.

    Essure, which is known as a cheaper alternative to a full tubal ligation, consists of bendable coils which are placed in the fallopian tubes and cause scar tissue to form and prevent insemination. However, there have been reports from several women that the tubes caused bleeding, extreme abdominal pain, and even led to invasive surgeries to remove organs. One woman was admitted to the hospital with abdominal pain and eventually died from streptococcal toxic shock syndrome.

    “There’s something wrong with the device, in my opinion,” Brockovich said. “It’s a form of permanent birth control, and women’s organs are being perforated … It’s ridiculous that at any level we try to defend this. If 30 women did suffer harm for unknown reason, we’d investigate. We have thousands injured. I don’t think it’s safe.”

    Brockovich says she doesn’t stand to gain anything financially from the campaign, but is urging Bayer–the maker of Essure–to take the device off the market completely in the name of safety.

    “[Bayer] should care about the health and welfare of all people,” she said. “Especially women and children in this country. If this many are reporting injuries, take it off the market. It’s not working. These women were misled. They feel they were scammed.”

  • Contraception: Permanent Birth Control “Essure” Causes Pelvic Pain

    You know it is a serious public health issue when famed consumer advocate Erin Brockovich is campaigning against a procedure that claims permanent contraception, but delivers excruciating pelvic pain and a variety of other side effects in women.

    According to complaints emerging around the country, thousands of women are reporting that Essure, a medical procedure that provides permanent birth control for women, is also giving them unbearable cramps. One mother of two, Tanya Lovis described the pain as

    literally walking around hunched over holding onto my stomach for three weeks out of the month…The pain was just too much to bear…Excruciating pelvic pain, sharp stabbing pains in my left and right side, I started bleeding very heavily and I would literally vomit from the spinning sensation…My body was telling me something was wrong…

    The pain went away only after she underwent a radical hysterectomy, which included the removal of Essure coils. “Oh, I feel amazing. I feel like a new woman. I feel like they’ve replaced my body with another woman’s body,” added Lovis.

    According to Bayer, the global pharmaceutical and chemical behemoth that owns the rights and trademark to Essure,

    it is among the most effective permanent birth control available—even more effective than tying your tubes. Essure is hormone-free, surgery-free and there’s no slowing down to recover. You can get back to your family right away.

    The official website for Essure makes it very clear that there are long term risks involved, including ectopic pregnancies and hives. Says the statement under the headline “Long-term Risks”

    The Essure insert is made of materials that include a nickel-titanium alloy. Patients who are allergic to nickel may have an allergic reaction to the inserts. Symptoms include rash, itching and hives.

    The headline “Adverse Events” further adds:

    During the procedure, the most common problem reported was mild to moderate pain (9.3%). Some of the women in the study reported moderate pain (12.9%) and/or cramping (29.6%) on the day of the procedure. A smaller percentage of women reported nausea/vomiting (10.8%) and vaginal bleeding (6.8%).

    So although Bayer claims that women reported pain and cramping on the “day of the procedure,” the “long term Risks” or “Adverse Events” headlines do not warn against persistent or recurrent cramping months or years after the procedure is performed.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accorded preemption status to Essure when it was approved in 2002, which insulates Bayer from potentially billions of dollars in lawsuits resulting from consumer complaints. In response to complaints, Bayer issued the following statement

    “At Bayer, we care about patients and take the safety of our products very seriously. We are saddened to hear of any serious health condition affecting a patient using one of our products, irrespective of the cause. Essure was approved by the FDA in 2002, and has a well-documented benefit-risk profile, with over 400 peer-reviewed publications and abstracts supporting Essure’s safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Approximately 750,000 women worldwide rely upon the Essure procedure for permanent birth control. A recent practice bulletin issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has recognized that hysteroscopy tubal occlusion for sterilization has high efficacy and low procedure-related risk, cost, and resource requirements. No form of birth control is without risk or should be considered appropriate for every woman. It is important that women discuss the risks and benefits of any birth control option with their physicians.”

    Brockovich is now trying to overturn the preemption status of Essure and drag Bayer into the courts. So will Essure continue to be offered at clinics around the country, and more importantly, is Essure even necessary?

    China, the world’s most populous country, adopted hormone free intrauterine devices (IUDs) as the long term contraception method of choice, or sterilization as the permanent contraception to control its explosive population growth. Recently, Western women are increasingly giving natural methods based on cervical mucus or menstrual cycle a second look.

    Whichever direction the Essure story takes, one thing is certain – there is still room for innovative medical device companies to come up with a safe, effective, side-effects and surgery free procedure for permanent contraception.

    [image from Youtube]

  • Acne Drug Pulled After Women Die

    The National Agency for the Safety of Drugs and Health Products (ANSM) in France this week suspended sales of an acne drug linked to the deaths of several women.

    The drug, Diane-35, is a hormonal acne treatment, but was begin prescribed as contraceptives to hundreds of thousands of women in France. The medication was found to have played a role in at least four deaths. Blood clots in other women have also been linked to the medication.

    The suspension will roll out over the course of months, allowing women enough time to find alternate contraceptive methods.

    The director of the ANSM, Dominique Maraninchi, told the AFP that the drug is not licensed for use as a contraceptive. He emphasized that there are many other contraceptives available to French women.

    The AFP report states that the ANSM has requested a change in prescription guidelines for third and fourth generation oral contraceptives (such as Diane-35), which have higher blood clot risks.

    This suspension is similar to one ANSM issued in November 2009. At that time, at drug marketed as “Mediator” (benfluorex) was pulled from pharmacy shelves after it was linked to hundreds of deaths in France. The drug was approved for the treatment of diabetes, but was often prescribed as an appetite suppressant for overweight patients.

  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor Allows Contraceptive Mandate to Begin Next Week

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor Allows Contraceptive Mandate to Begin Next Week

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an in-chambers opinion denying Hobby Lobby Stores Inc an injunction it had requested to prevent a birth control mandate from beginning on January 1. The mandate is part of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), colloquially known as “Obamacare.”

    Hobby Lobby is arguing that the mandate to provide employees with healthcare coverage that includes preventive care ,such as birth control, conflicts with its first amendment right to freely exercise religion. Many religious Americans believe that birth control, specifically the morning after pill, is in conflict with their beliefs about sex, abortion, and reproduction. The PPACA already has exemptions for churches and other houses of worship, but highly religious business owners are arguing that they should be able to refuse contraceptive coverage for their employees as well.

    Sotomayor has not dismissed Hobby Lobby’s case against the contraceptive mandate, and stated that she was not deciding whether the company’s claims had any merit. Instead, she concluded that the “applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief they seek,” referring to the injunction. This means the mandate will take effect at the beginning of the new year.

    A Hobby Lobby spokesperson has stated that the company will not be providing the morning after pill for its employees. Hobby Lobby and its affiliated companies face fines of $1.3 million per day if they do not comply with the mandate.

  • Birth Control Over the Counter Recommended by OB/GYNs

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently recommended that oral contraceptives be sold over the counter in drugstores, without the need for a doctor’s prescription. The group’s recommendation will be published in the December 2012 issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

    No oral contraceptives are currently over the counter in the U.S. ACOG cites cost, access, and convenience as factors in why women don’t use contraception. The group believes that easier access to birth control will help lower the unintended pregnancy rate in the U.S., which they estimate costs taxpayers $11 billion annually.

    Though ACOG states that no drug is risk-free, it also states that the overall consensus is that oral contraceptives are safe. The group points to aspirin and acetaminophen as medications available over the counter that also have health risks. ACOG admits that while there is an “extremely low” risk of blood clots with oral contraceptive use, the risk is significantly lower than the risk of blood clots during pregnancy or after giving birth.

    ACOG cited studies showing that women are able to self-screen for health risk using check lists before using oral contraceptives, and that women continue seeing their doctor for preventive services when allowed access to over the counter oral contraceptives as grounds for their recommendation. The group also pointed to a study that shows women who receive more than one month’s worth of oral contraceptives at a time have higher continuation rates for birth control.

    The new recommendation is one of several that will be published in the upcoming Obstetrics & Gynecology. Other recommendations include the optimal timing of umbilical cord clamping after a birth (30 to 60 seconds), and health care services offered to women in the military.

  • Birth Control Cuts Abortion Rates by More Than Half, Says Study

    A new study published this week in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology shows that providing free birth control to women could reduce abortion rates by 62% to 78%. In addition, access to no-cost birth control “substantially reduced” unplanned pregnancies.

    The study, conducted by researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine, looked at 9,256 women, ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area between 2007 and 2011. The women were given a choice of birth control methods, ranging from long-term IUDs to the classic birth control pill. Around 75% of women in the study chose IUD or implant methods of birth control, which have lower failure rates than pills but have higher up-front costs.

    From 2008 to 2010, the women in the study had annual abortion rates ranging from 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 women. This is significantly lower than the U.S. national abortion rate, which is 19.6 per 1,000 women.

    The study also found that for girls age 15 to 19 who had access to free birth control, their annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 women, far below the U.S. national average of 34.3 per 1,000 women.

    “This study shows that by removing barriers to highly-effective contraceptive methods such as IUDs and implants, we can reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortions,” said lead author Dr. Jeff Peipert, lead author of the study and professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University. “Unintended pregnancy remains a major health problem in the United States, with higher proportions among teenagers and women with less education and lower economic status. The results of this study demonstrate that we can reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy, and this is key to reducing abortions in this country.”

    This study comes just months after a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as ‘Obamacare’) mandated that all health insurance plans cover contraceptives for women, without requiring a co-pay.

    Washingtion University prepared a video on the project, which illustrates the more interesting facts from the study:

  • Male Birth Control Pill Molecule Identified

    Biochemists at the Baylor College of Medicine and Harvard Medical School have isolated a molecule that could lead to a male birth control pill.

    A study led by Dr. Martin Matzuk, director of the Center for Drug Discovery at Baylor, and Dr. James Bradner, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, found that the molecule, called JQ1, inhibited the amount and quality of sperm produced by male mice. Their study was published this week in the journal Cell.

    “We found that the JQ1 molecule causes a contraceptive effect in males,” said Matzuk. “If you stop the drug, there’s complete reversibility.”

    The investigation into JQ1 actually began when Bradner began researching it as a possible cancer treatment. Since JQ1 is an inhibitor of a specific bromodomain proteins, Bradner contacted Matzuk to ask if JQ1 would have any effect on BRDT, a bromodomain protein involved in the process of sperm generation.

    The scientists found that JQ1 did indeed block the normal process of sperm production. The molecule was also able to breach the blood-testis barrier, which is the barrier between blood vessels and the seminiferous tubules where sperm is produced. The male mice in the study mated normally, but were sterile, as the amount and quality of their sperm was low. Small molecules such as JQ1 can be used in pills similar to those used for female contraceptives.

    Though Matzuk believes this research will help pave the way for a male birth control pill, he admits that JQ1 will not be the molecule used in future contraceptives. “JQ1 is not the pill for men, because it also binds other members of the bromodomain family,” Matzuk said. “However, the data is proof of principle that BRDT is an excellent target for male contraception and provides us with useful information for future drug development.”

  • Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Understand Birth Control

    Let’s set aside differences with Rush Limbaugh on political grounds. Let’s look at pure, provable facts only for a moment. Even the most ardent of Limbaugh fans should be critical of his statements recently, if not out of decency, then out of a love of truth and accuracy. One of the biggest problems with Limbaugh’s slandering of Sandra Fluke is that he is also misinforming all his listeners, and in doing so could endanger the health of some people who listen to him and believe his outlandish, Dark Ages claims.

    If Sandra Fluke had been talking about condoms, rather than birth control pills, Limbaugh’s assertion that she wanted someone to pay for her to have sex might hold just a little bit of water. (It would fall apart on several other fronts, but to those another time.) The biggest error Limbaugh makes is that he equates taking “birth control pills” with having sex. And, that is absolutely misinformed and ignorant.

    The problem here is that these medications are commonly marketed and referred to as “birth control” when, in reality, they are hormone therapies. As such, they a have a wide array of common uses apart from preventing pregnancy. These are not rare, occasional applications, either. They are frequently-prescribed uses for “The Pill”.

    A basic definition of how birth control pills work, from WebMD.

    Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of synthetic estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body’s natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy… Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg.

    Due to the presence of the hormones in the pills, they are widely used to treat such conditions as:

      Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
      Endometriosis
      Absence of periods (for various reasons)
      Menstrual cramps
      Premenstrual syndrome
      Heavy menstrual periods
      Acne
      Prevention of anemia

    Limbaugh’s lack of knowledge on this, or lack of caring to inform his listeners, has caused him to do something very dangerous: he has mischaracterized users of birth control pills as promiscuous, immoral and free-loaders. This is made even worse when you consider that much of what Sandra Fluke actually said before that House panel had nothing to do with pregnancy or sex. If you have not read her comments yourself, take a moment to form an educated opinion on this matter. Among her comments she said:

    We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.

    Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore.

    A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs… For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

    One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.

    Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.

    Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.

    In fact, one of the most damning pieces of evidence is what Ms. Fluke did not mention: her own desire for pregnancy prevention. In fact, for all Rush Limbaugh could know from her statements, Ms. Fluke could be celibate. He insulted her with no regard for the content of her statements. Rather, he said she went “before a congressional committee and essentially [said] that she must be paid to have sex.” She said nothing that could even remotely be construed to mean that. She spoke about diseases and the needs of others.

    Rush Limbaugh’s half-hearted apology, which he amended to mean that he wished he hadn’t sounded like ” a liberal”, missed the point as badly as his original statement. No one wants him to pay for anyone’s contraception. They want the insurance that they themselves pay for to do it.

    Limbaugh should do more than apologize. He should readdress the issue and set the record straight after he actually reads the testimony. Or, he can push play below.