Even before I was Catholic, I was leery of hormonal birth
control. And while I now believe there are moral arguments against birth
control in general, I still believe the health issues surrounding hormonal
birth control need to be addressed as well. Women are taught that it is natural
to disrupt to her healthy body’s natural rhythm in order to fit in with
society’s expectations. That shows a disrespect of women at their fundamental,
biological level. And it shows how unnatural modern ideas of womanhood,
relationships, and families are.
In the 1930s, the connection between steroid hormones and
ovulation was discovered in animals. Development of these steroids from animal
extracts and synthetic steroids developed for a few years without much interest
outside the field. Then in 1951, Gregory Pincus, a leader in hormone research
met Margaret Sanger at a Planned Parenthood dinner. She helped him get a grant
to begin research for human hormonal contraception. In 1952, Pincus discovered that
gynecologist John Rock was doing similar research for the opposite ends: he was
trying to develop a pill to aid infertile women. Testing and development
continued for a few years, resulting in Enovid.
The first contraceptive trail of Enovid began in April 1956
in Puerto Rico. While the women understand they were being given contraception,
they were not told that they were part of an experimental trail. They were not
warned of side effects. Three women died during the trail, most likely from
blood clotting related to use of the pill.
On June 10, 1957, the FDA approved Enovid for the treatment
of menstrual disorders. One June 23, 1960, it was approved for contraceptive
use. Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 made oral contraception available to all
married women, and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972 made it available to all women,
regardless of marital status. In 1970 Barbara Seaman arranged Senate hearings
over the medical risks of oral contraceptives, such as increased risk of blood
clots, venous thrombosis, stroke, cancer, and depression. These effects had not
been thoroughly studied, nor were doctors warning women of these side effects.
The Nelson Pill Hearings led to patient package inserts explaining side effects
and risks.
Oral contraception altars the menstrual cycle to prevent
ovulation. Synthetic progestogen and estrogen affect the hormones that
stimulate ovulation. They also thick the cervical mucus, making it more
difficult for sperm to find an egg should one be released.
The pill was developed to mimic a natural cycle, with three
weeks of hormones and one week of placebos to allow for menstruation. This was
purely cosmetic. Developers hoped that by mimicking a natural cycle, it would
be easier to get approval by the Catholic Church. Today there are variations
that don’t follow a natural cycle and women menstruate less often. Current
birth control pills use lower doses of hormones than earlier variations. They have
a perfect use fail rate of .3% and an actual use fail rate of 9%.
Fertility is not a disease. Fertility is the sign of a
healthy body. So why would a woman take daily medication when there is nothing
wrong? The pill or IUDs or other hormonal birth controls are not medicine. It’s
a drug. It disrupts the body to prevent it from naturally ovulating.
There are cases where the pill is medicine. It is
commonly used to alleviate symptoms of PCOS, endometriosis, and
menstrual-related conditions. It is also used to treat acne. Other than to
treat acne, no oral contraceptives have FDA approval for treating such medical
conditions. Use of medication to treat
medical problems is completely allowed by the Church, even if these medicines
have the side effect of reduced fertility. Paul VI in Humanae Vitae says, “The Church does not consider at all illicit
the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a
foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such
impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” But wouldn’t it
be healthier for women if we developed medications targeted and approved for these
issues specifically?
Besides the physical side effects, studies are starting to
show social side effects with oral contraception as well. Women on hormonal
birth control tend to pick partners with similar immunity genes as themselves,
similar to pregnant women, whereas women not on hormonal birth control pick
partners with different immunity genes. By tricking the body into thinking its
pregnant, women are drawn to different types of people—more familial and
nurturing. In and of itself might not be a problem, but what happens in a
relationship when a woman goes on/off contraception; how does that affect her
attraction to a man she might not have otherwise been attracted to? Similarly,
men are more attracted to the pheromones of a fertile woman. A study found that
men rated their partners less attractive when they were on hormonal birth
control versus not, and that the men rated themselves less desirable partners.
The side effects are not limited to the women taking oral
contraception, or even humans. Women using oral contraceptives excrete natural
and synthetic estrogens that can pass through water treatment plants and have
been proven to affect sexual development of wild fish populations. Because
hormonal birth control is so widely used, it has actually begun to affect not
only us as a people, but our environment as well.
Is consequence-free sex really worth all that? Could we
not, instead, develop a culture that values a woman’s body—its autonomy, its
ability, its fecundity—as well as the whole woman—her social contributions,
her goals, her dignity?
No comments:
Post a Comment