Blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research
In our May 28 “Saturday Surfing” round-up of recommended reading, we highlighted Lynn Harris’ essay for The Nation about new research on “reproductive coercion”: the alarming frequency with which young men try to get their partners pregnant, often by sabotaging birth control methods. Yesterday, GritTV with Laura Flanders interviewed Harris and Elizabeth Miller, the researcher who conducted the study, about the phenomenon and public health responses.
We’ve written previously about some of the apps for tracking menstruation and PMS, but this new iPhone/Pad app for tracking ovulation is problematic.
iOvulation is an application that calculates the time of ovulation and generates your personal fertility calendar. Simply enter the length of your menstrual cycle and the date of your last period, and iOvulation will calculate your fertile days.
The web site suggests it useful both for trying to conceive and for trying to prevent conception. However, I wouldn’t recommend the latter, as its algorithm appears to predict ovulation based on dates of menstruation: “The ovulation dates are calculated based on normal menstruation calculation logic for women having regular periods.”
In other words, it perpetuates what Toni Weschler, author of Taking Charge of Your Fertility: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement and Reproductive Health and Cycle Savvy: The Smart Teen’s Guide to the Mysteries of Her Body, labeled the two biggest myths about menstruation in this interview with Scarleteen: (1) the idea that ovulation occurs on Day 14, and (2) A normal menstrual cycle is 28 days.
Also of interest is how squeamish the creators appear to be about sex and reproduction: the web site refers to “unprotected i*********e” and notes that the probability of conception is calculated “based on your ovulation time and other factors such as lifespan of the egg and s***m”. (For those of you unaccustomed to the practice of concealing obscenity with asterisks, that’s “intercourse” and “sperm”.)
As someone who studies and teaches sociolinguistics and writes about menstruation, I’ve seen a lot of euphemistic language over the years. But marking intercourse and sperm as unfit for print is a first.
Art by Flickr user Buhny | CC 2.0
A new study published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has found that adolescents are usually able to tolerate the Mirena® IUD rather well. The mean age of girls in this British study was 15.3 years, and they were prescribed the Mirena® for painful and/or heavy periods that did not respond to oral medications. 93.4% of girls in the study (45 young women) reported “significant improvement” within four months. The researchers conclude “that Mirena is a well tolerated and effective alternative for heavy periods±dysmenorrhoea in adolescents who do not respond to oral therapy.”
So will this finding make it easier for young women to obtain an IUD if they’d like it for birth control, now that there is evidence that it is well tolerated?
Photo by Flickr user be_khe | CC 3.0
The Internet, especially the feminist blogosphere, is all abuzz this week with the promise of a new contraceptive pill for men within the next five years. But researchers always say a pill for men is just five years away, according to University of Washington medical professor John K. Amory.
The spark of new hope stems from an interview with Professor Haim Breitbart of Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, published June 28 in London’s Telegraph. Breitbart promises a monthly pill, free of side effects, for men. The Telegraph says human trials are scheduled to begin next year.
How does this proposed pill work? The answer lies in a breakthrough paper Breitbart published four years ago, in which he and his colleagues announced a new discovery about how sperm cells create new proteins after ejaculation, while hanging around in the uterus before fertilization can take place. Breitbart believes that if this protein production process can be derailed, conception can be prevented without hormones. He calls his chemical concoction the Bright Pill (a twist on his name).
The New York Times published an op-ed piece a few days ago about making the birth control pill available without a prescription. Kelly Blanchard, president of Ibis Reproductive Health, offers the following rationale:
Women don’t need a doctor to tell them whether they need the pill — they know when they are sexually active and want to avoid pregnancy. Pill instructions are easy to follow: Take one each day. There’s no chance of becoming addicted. Taking too many will make you nauseated, but won’t endanger your life, in contrast to some over-the-counter drugs, like analgesics.
I have mixed feelings, myself. I’m in favor of just about anything that makes contraceptives more accessible to the people who need them, but I fear that the likely increase in cost of OTC pills means the availability won’t benefit those who most the need them – the young and the poor. Also, there are some contraindications for pill use, such as high blood pressure, history of migraine, and use of certain anti-seizure drugs for epilepsy. And despite the happy, shiny images of Yaz and Seasonique commercials, some women just can’t tolerate the side effects, for any number of reasons.
What do you think, re:Cycling readers?
Photo courtesy of Jenny Lee Silver under Creative Commons 3.0.
Did you know that last year’s combined sales of Yaz and Yasmin, the most popular oral contraceptives in the U.S., totaled $1.64 billion? Did you know the drugs are also the target of 1,100 lawsuits for potentially fatal blood clots? Did you know that an estimated 50 women have died from taking those contraceptives?
Despite such health risks, however, oral contraceptives remain an extremely popular method of birth control in the U.S., second only to sterilization. The Guttmacher Institute reports that whether a woman prefers the Pill or sterilization is largely a function of age, with women under 30 choosing the Pill and women over 30 choosing permanent methods. These trends have been fairly stable since 1982.
None of these facts surprised me as much as the news that fewer than one percent of women in North America (and northwestern Europe) use the diaphragm–or any other woman-controlled barrier method. I’m puzzled that a safe, reliable, fairly easy-to-use (with some training and practice), inexpensive method of controlling fertility is not more widely recommended. Used correctly and consistently, the diaphragm has an effectiveness rate of 94 percent. Nevertheless, diaphragm use declined after the Pill was introduced, from 25 percent of married women in 1955 to 10 percent in 1965, and kept dropping thereafter, to just 4.5 percent of all women in 1982 and 0.2 percent today, according to the CDC [pdf].
Teen sex: More use rhythm method for birth control.
It was an odd headline for an Associated Press story on the 86 page report on teen sexual activity just released by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Not all that relevant to the broader subject of the study on which the report is based: Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth 2006-2008. If you’re interested, it is a fascinating read.
But it was the headline and this excerpt from the story that caught my attention:
About 17 percent of sexually experienced teen girls say they had used the rhythm method – timing their sex to avoid fertile days to prevent getting pregnant. That’s up from 11 percent in 2002.
They may have been using another form of birth control at the same time. But the increase is considered worrisome because the rhythm method doesn’t work about 25 percent of the time, said Joyce Abma, the report’s lead author. She’s a social scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.
You can’t study what you don’t understand. The study authors demonstrate their lack of knowledge about natural birth control methods by the question they asked study participants: Have you ever used rhythm or safe period by calendar to prevent pregnancy?
There are many brands of natural birth control. Some , like the Rhythm and Calendar methods, are not effective. No proponent of Natural Family Planning (NFP) or Fertility Awareness Based Methods (FABM), which have effectiveness rates as high as 99.4 percent, would recommend them. Yet this study does nothing to differentiate between these methods of natural birth control, thereby confusing the public, the study results and themselves.
It’s high time researchers studied up on natural birth control methods if they want to include questions about them in a study on the contraceptive practices of teens or adults.
Until they do, I suggest anyone interested in the sexual and reproductive health of teen girls start buying copies of Cycle Savvy: The Smart Teen’s Guide to the Mysteries of Her Body. This book can help our daughters acquire the life skill of body literacy – to understand the mysteries of their menstrual cycles and how this knowledge can serve them well as they make decisions about their sexual and reproductive health and lives.
Photo by Gnarls Monkey // CC by 2.0
A whole bunch of anti-choice political organizations are co-sponsoring a national protest against birth control pills, but they say it’s not about killing babies or controlling women; it’s all about the environment!
The following is released by the American Life League and the following groups:
WHO: American Life League , Human Life International, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Pharmacists for Life International, Archdiocese of Mobile Respect Life, Operation Rescue, Jill Stanek, Generation Life/Brandi Swindell, Life Education Ministry, Pro-Life Unity, Movement for a Better America, AMEN (Abortion Must End Now), Pro-Life Action of Oregon, Children of God for Life, Expectant Mother Care/Chris Slattery, Mother and Unborn Baby Care, Defenders of the Unborn, California Right to Life Education Fund, Delaware Pro-Life Coalition, Life Guard, Homeschoolers for Life, Focus Pregnancy Center, Central Texas Voices for Life and Dubuque County Right to Life
WHAT: Protest the Pill Day 2010: The Pill Kills the Environment
This year, birth control advocates are celebrating 50 years of decriminalized hormonal contraceptives. American Life League and our co-sponsors don’t think half a century of contaminating our waterways is something to celebrate. Study after study has shown that hormonal estrogen in the water has severely damaged the ecosystem and our health.
Join American Life League and co-sponsors as they launch the largest nationwide protest against the birth control pill.
You know what, American Life League? ALL prescription drugs, not just birth control pills, contaminate our waterways, both through human excretion and production waste. And some of that “hormonal estrogen” is from the hormone supplements taken by middle-aged women. Are you protesting hormone “replacement” therapy, too?
[via Miriam at Feministing]
Photo from http://www.flickr.com/photos/blmurch/486046904/ // CC BY 2.0
Only a latter-day Rip Van Winkle could avoid knowing that this month marks the 50th anniversary of the FDA’s approval of Enovid, the world’s first birth control pill. Hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles have marked this anniversary.
Many incorrectly credit the pill with giving birth to feminism. As Elaine Tyler May notes in the current issue of Ms., the pill didn’t start the feminist movement but was in the right place at the right time:
The timing could not have been better. The feminist movement gained momentum just as the Pill became available. With the ability to control their fertility, women could take full advantage of new opportunities for education, careers and participation in public life.
But in the midst of all this celebrating, we’ve neglected another anniversary: 2010 marks the 40th anniversary of U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson’s congressional hearings about the pill’s safety profile, which arguably did launch the women’s health movement.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/santarosa/ / CC BY 2.0
Laura Eldridge’s new book In Our Control: The Complete Guide to Contraceptive Choices for Women (Seven Stories Press, 2010) isn’t kidding with that subtitle. The last time I remember reading so much detail about contraceptive options was poring over Our Bodies, Ourselves when I was in my 20s.
Eldridge reviews every method of birth control known to modern woman–and, importantly, some that aren’t widely known. She even briefly reviews the history of contraception in 19th and 20th centuries, reminding us that birth control is not a new invention. People, especially female-bodied people, have struggled to control their fertility from pretty much the first moment humans figured out how it worked.
In Our Control differs from Our Bodies, Ourselves in offering more than just the mechanics of both hormonal and barrier methods: Eldridge provides a history of each method and analysis of the political and cultural contexts of their use in the 21st century U.S.
For example, the chapter about the morning-after pill (also known by either the brand name Plan B or as emergency contraception, EC) discusses the political battle to achieve Federal Drug Administration approval, including Susan Wood’s resignation from the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health over what she believed to be “willful disregard of scientific evidence showing Plan B to be safe.”
MenstruationResearch.org – Today, during an email exchange among the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research blogging team, research-advocacy experts on the menstrual cycle spoke out in response to the unbridled passion for the pill expressed by members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists at their 58th Annual Clinical Meeting. Amidst the hoopla surrounding the 50th anniversary of the pill, it must be noted that not all experts believe the pill to be an unequivocally positive contribution to women’s health and well-being that those quoted in the ACOG media release purport it to be.
Mark S. DeFrancesco, MD, MBA, Cheshire, CT |
Laura Wershler, Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights Advocate, |
Scott D. Hayword, MD |
Elizabeth Kissling, Ph.D. |
Jeanne A. Conry, MD, PhD |
Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, FRCPC |
J. Craig Strafford, MD, MPH, |
Chris Bobel, Ph.D. |
Douglas H. Kirkpatrick, MD, Denver, CO |
Holly Grigg-Spall, Journalist |
James N. Martin, MD, Jackson, MS Secretary, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists |
Laura Wershler, Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights Advocate, |
James A. Macer, MD, Pasadena, CA Assistant Secretary Elect, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists |
Christine L Hitchcock, PhD, Research Associate, Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research, and Clinical Assistant Professor, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia |
This ACOG statement furthers a broader message to young women that they should trust pharmaceutical menstrual rhythms over that of their own bodies and that they should trust clinical authority over their own authority. In and of itself, ceding their bodily authority, ownership and stewardship to medicine causes harm to women.
###
The Society for Menstrual Cycle Research is a nonprofit, interdisciplinary research organization. Our membership includes researchers in the social and health sciences, humanities scholars, health care providers, policy makers, health activists, and students with interests in the role of the menstrual cycle in women’s health and well-being.
You know how most superheros become superheros because of exposure to some weird, intensified chemical or element? Take Peter Parker’s spider bite for example.
According to a story reported in various media, including International Planned Parenthood Federation’s website, if science can perfect the contraceptive effect of ultasound on men’s testicles, then we may be in for a new breed of superhero. Ultrasound Man: able to bear the burden of pregnancy prevention for women everywhere.
I joke, but for decades women have yearned for gender equality when it comes to bearing the burden of birth control. Could the promise of six months of ultrasound induced, reversible infertility in men be the answer? Well, to date, we only know it works in rats. There is a long way to go before we send the men for a bi-annual ultrasound “zap test”.
This isn’t the first male method touted over the last decade. In 2003, news out of the UK about a birth control pill for men had women nodding their heads with approval. I was immediately dubious and dashed off a commentary for the Calgary Herald that began thus:
RSS