I wonder if Bill O’Reilly would be so worried about alcohol getting in the way of contraception if men were responsible for birth control. Currently, the only options for men other than “pulling out” are condoms or a vasectomy. The idea of a birth control pill for men has been floating around for many years with few results, but an article in the New York Times this weekend, suggests that “prompted by women’s organizations, global health groups and surveys indicating that men are receptive, federal agencies are financing research.”
At this point researchers are still looking for methods that are as safe, reliable, and reversible as existing birth control options for women and that have few side effects. Some of the options they are looking at include:
Using hormones to stop sperm production. Described as “the most studied approach in the United States,” researchers are using progestin, a hormone used in female birth control pills, which interrupts testosterone production and stops the testes from making sperm. In order to make sure that men don’t lose libido and muscle mass, they are also given limited testosterone.
Interrupting sperm maturation. Researchers at the University of Kansas are working on a pill which interrupts the maturation process of sperm so that they are not functional.
Blocking retinoic acid. Other researchers are working on drugs that would block retinoic acid which is important for sperm production. Unfortunately, thus far at least one of these drugs is completely incompatible with alcohol – drinking while on it makes men quite sick.
Reducing the mobility of sperm. A neurobiologist at Harvard “discovered that sperm tails contain calcium-ion channels, with electrically charged ions ‘turbo-charging the sperm’ to reach eggs.” He is working on a drug that would disable this channel.
Inactivating sperm with shots. Called Risug (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance), this method involves periodically injecting gel into the scrotum.
Halting sperm production with ultrasound. This method involves heating the testes which can stop sperm production for months.
Like Viagra, which was discovered during development of treatment for high blood pressure and angina, many of these potential new birth control options were developed for other purposes including treating cancer, worm infections, skin diseases, hypertension, and psychosis. The last two drugs were found to keep men from ejaculating during orgasms, of course, in order to use them as birth control researchers will have to change them to make sure they no longer impact blood pressure and mood.
It may be awhile before any of these methods are widely available though it does make one wonder if a slew of new male-control options will change the debate over contraception. Will critics still be suggesting that easy access to inexpensive birth control methods will create a new generation of sluts?
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
So far this year, legislators have introduced 1,256 provisions relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights. However, states have also enacted 22 measures this year designed to expand access to reproductive health services or protect reproductive rights.
So far this year, legislators have introduced 1,256 provisions relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights. Of these, 35 percent (445 provisions) sought to restrict access to abortion services. By midyear, 17 states had passed 46 new abortion restrictions.
Including these new restrictions, states have adopted 334 abortion restrictions since 2010, constituting 30 percent of all abortion restrictions enacted by states since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. However, states have also enacted 22 measures this year designed to expand access to reproductive health services or protect reproductive rights.
Signs of Progress
The first half of the year ended on a high note, with the U.S. Supreme Court handing down the most significant abortion decision in a generation. The Court’s ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedtstruck down abortion restrictions in Texas requiring abortion facilities in the state to convert to the equivalent of ambulatory surgical centers and mandating that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital; these two restrictions had greatly diminished access to services throughout the state (see Lessons from Texas: Widespread Consequences of Assaults on Abortion Access). Five other states (Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia) have similar facility requirements, and the Texas decision makes it less likely that these laws would be able to withstand judicial scrutiny (see Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers). Nineteen other states have abortion facility requirements that are less onerous than the ones in Texas; the fate of these laws in the wake of the Court’s decision remains unclear.
Ten states in addition to Texas had adopted hospital admitting privileges requirements. The day after handing down the Texas decision, the Court declined to review lower court decisions that have kept such requirements in Mississippi and Wisconsin from going into effect, and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) announced that he would not enforce the state’s law. As a result of separate litigation, enforcement of admitting privileges requirements in Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma is currently blocked. That leaves admitting privileges in effect in Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah; as with facility requirements, the Texas decision will clearly make it harder for these laws to survive if challenged.
More broadly, the Court’s decision clarified the legal standard for evaluating abortion restrictions. In its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Court had said that abortion restrictions could not impose an undue burden on a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy. In Whole Woman’s Health, the Court stressed the importance of using evidence to evaluate the extent to which an abortion restriction imposes a burden on women, and made clear that a restriction’s burdens cannot outweigh its benefits, an analysis that will give the Texas decision a reach well beyond the specific restrictions at issue in the case.
As important as the Whole Woman’s Health decision is and will be going forward, it is far from the only good news so far this year. Legislators in 19 states introduced a bevy of measures aimed at expanding insurance coverage for contraceptive services. In 13 of these states, the proposed measures seek to bolster the existing federal contraceptive coverage requirement by, for example, requiring coverage of all U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved methods and banning the use of techniques such as medical management and prior authorization, through which insurers may limit coverage. But some proposals go further and plow new ground by mandating coverage of sterilization (generally for both men and women), allowing a woman to obtain an extended supply of her contraceptive method (generally up to 12 months), and/or requiring that insurance cover over-the-counter contraceptive methods. By July 1, both Maryland and Vermont had enacted comprehensive measures, and similar legislation was pending before Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R). And, in early July, Hawaii Gov. David Ige (D) signed a measure into law allowing women to obtain a year’s supply of their contraceptive method.
But the Assault Continues
Even as these positive developments unfolded, the long-standing assault on sexual and reproductive health and rights continued apace. Much of this attention focused on the release a year ago of a string of deceptively edited videos designed to discredit Planned Parenthood. The campaign these videos spawned initially focused on defunding Planned Parenthood and has grown into an effort to defund family planning providers more broadly, especially those who have any connection to abortion services. Since last July, 24 states have moved to restrict eligibility for funding in several ways:
Seventeen states have moved to limit family planning providers’ eligibility for reimbursement under Medicaid, the program that accounts for about three-fourths of all public dollars spent on family planning. In some cases, states have tried to exclude Planned Parenthood entirely from such funding. These attacks have come via both administrative and legislative means. For instance, the Florida legislature included a defunding provision in an omnibus abortion bill passed in March. As the controversy grew, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers Medicaid, sent a letter to state officials reiterating that federal law prohibits them from discriminating against family planning providers because they either offer abortion services or are affiliated with an abortion provider (see CMS Provides New Clarity For Family Planning Under Medicaid). Most of these state attempts have been blocked through legal challenges. However, a funding ban went into effect in Mississippi on July 1, and similar measures are awaiting implementation in three other states.
Fourteen states have moved to restrict family planning funds controlled by the state, with laws enacted in four states. The law in Kansas limits funding to publicly run programs, while the law in Louisiana bars funding to providers who are associated with abortion services. A law enacted in Wisconsin directs the state to apply for federal Title X funding and specifies that if this funding is obtained, it may not be distributed to family planning providers affiliated with abortion services. (In 2015, New Hampshire moved to deny Title X funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates; the state reversed the decision in 2016.) Finally, the budget adopted in Michigan reenacts a provision that bars the allocation of family planning funds to organizations associated with abortion. Notably, however, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) vetoed a similar measure.
Ten states have attempted to bar family planning providers’ eligibility for related funding, including monies for sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, prevention of interpersonal violence, and prevention of breast and cervical cancer. In three of these states, the bans are the result of legislative action; in Utah, the ban resulted from action by the governor. Such a ban is in effect in North Carolina; the Louisiana measure is set to go into effect in August. Implementation of bans in Ohio and Utah has been blocked as a result of legal action.
The first half of 2016 was also noteworthy for a raft of attempts to ban some or all abortions. These measures fell into four distinct categories:
South Carolina and North Dakota both enacted measures banning abortion at or beyond 20 weeks post-fertilization, which is equivalent to 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period. This brings to 16 the number of states with these laws in effect (see State Policies on Later Abortions).
Indiana and Louisiana adopted provisions banning abortions under specific circumstances. The Louisiana law banned abortions at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization in cases of diagnosed genetic anomaly; the law is slated to go into effect on August 1. Indiana adopted a groundbreaking measure to ban abortion for purposes of race or sex selection, in cases of a genetic anomaly, or because of the fetus’ “color, national origin, or ancestry”; enforcement of the measure is blocked pending the outcome of a legal challenge.
In addition, 14 states (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah) enacted other types of abortion restrictions during the first half of the year, including measures to impose or extend waiting periods, restrict access to medication abortion, and establish regulations on abortion clinics.
Zohra Ansari-Thomas, Olivia Cappello, and Lizamarie Mohammed all contributed to this analysis.
Pressure is mounting on Congress to send President Obama a sufficient spending bill to combat the Zika virus’ spread.
The House and Senate recently passed their own measures, both proposing less than the $1.9 billion the president requested. But now they must work out their differences for the sake of our public health. Currently, none of these proposals include funding for Title X, the federal program that provides low-income people with family planning services, birth control, and other preventive reproductive health services. With the potentially life-changing outcomes that can result from contracting Zika, federal and state action is urgently needed to support prevention efforts and increase access to the full range of contraception available nationwide.
There’s no time to waste. More than 600 people in the continental United States, including at least 150 pregnant women, have already been infected with Zika. This month, a New Jersey infant exposed to Zika was born with the birth defect microcephaly, where a baby’s head is smaller than expected. Many more Americans have been affected in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories. Local transmission is expected to spike as warmer weather approaches and climate conditions become more favorable to the virus’s primary vector, the Aedes aegypti mosquito.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have reported significant evidence showing links between Zika and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, including miscarriage, stillbirth, and fetal abnormalities. Brain damage in Zika-infected babies is proving to be far worse than doctors initially thought. Zika has been found to attack lobes of the fetal brain that control thought, vision, and movement. Exposure to Zika was first considered to be a threat for women in the first trimester only, but there is growing concern about the possibility of maternal-fetal transmission throughout pregnancy.
It has also been discovered that men infected with Zika can transmit the virus to their sexual partners through semen, where the virus is stored much longer than in the blood.
As more individuals learn about the potential health risks linked to the virus, many will want and need services and information to help them effectively avoid or postpone pregnancy. Extensive research already shows the public health value and taxpayer savings associated with preventing unintended pregnancy.
Now with Zika, the stakes are even higher.
Congressional leaders must act without delay to pass a comprehensive Zika funding and preparedness package that includes additional resources for Title X to expand access to reliable birth control, related services, and counseling to low-income and uninsured people. Increased funding for these essential services is needed on the ground now, especially in regions expected to be disproportionately affected by the virus. The threat is particularly worrisome in areas that experience the warmer weather that’s conducive to Zika-carrying mosquitoes.
On the state level, elected leaders across the country should require public and commercial health plans to cover all—not just some—FDA-approved birth control. After the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), California was one of the first states to approve a contraceptive-coverage equity law that codified the spirit of the ACA’s contraceptive mandate, also known as the birth control benefit, by requiring health plans to cover all methods of contraception without cost sharing or restrictions. Marylandrecently enacted a similar measure that also requires coverage for vasectomies, and several other states are considering legislation with the same intent. The Zika threat makes passage of these kinds of laws across the country time-sensitive. State Medicaid programs must also adopt reimbursement and coverage policies that break down barriers enrollees may face in accessing the full range of effective contraceptive methods.
Patientsmust be able to get the method they can use safely and consistently. That means health-care professionals across the country, including those in primary-care settings, must offer all forms of available birth control. Providers need training to support their patients in accessing the contraceptive method that is best suited for their health and reproductive life goals. Even some OB-GYNs can use training on newer methods and updated best practices.
Many unknowns remain regarding the Zika virus, which has quickly become one of the world’s greatest public health challenges. But a concerted and proactive response—that includes improved access to contraception—must be implemented before Zika becomes a national public health crisis here in the United States.