What's Missing in the Debate Over Women Ditching Birth Control
A WashPo report on the misinformation campaign against hormonal contraception left out some key points. (Women have questions about birth control—politicizing it doesn't help)
Updates:
I spoke with Dazed magazine about Bella Hadid’s bizarre morning supplement routine ($736!) and why we’re quick to believe magic pills’ bold claims. READ
Last spring I pitched several outlets a nuanced piece on Andrew Huberman’s sometimes shoddy science and speaking outside his expertise. No one was interested in criticizing podcast’s golden boy, but thankfully
has a roundup of his top offenses (which includes some of my former criticisms). READ
I joined Religion News’ Saved By the City podcast to discuss the intersection of religious beliefs and wellness culture. LISTEN
—Rina Raphael, author of The Gospel of Wellness: Gyms, Gurus, Goop, and the False Promise of Self-Care
Pushback on The Pill (and What Reports Often Miss)
The Washington Post recently reported on the misinformation campaign compelling women to ditch hormonal birth control for more “natural” options. (I originally had a whole chapter in my book on the pushback to the pill—cut for space—so I’ve done a bit of research on the topic, talking with women, experts, and influencers.)
The WashPo piece had many good points, but one thing I found odd was the framing: the writers repeatedly refer to “right-wing” influence (six times!). While attributing misinformation to conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro & Friends might make for a juicier story, it’s simply not an accurate depiction of the landscape. Both sides of the political aisle question birth control. Just go to Malibu! You’ll find hordes of Whole Foods shoppers obsessing over “natural” alternatives and decrying inserting “chemicals” into their bodies. (Sometimes these sentiments are coupled with spiritual concerns about how medicine zaps divine feminine power and “damages your intuition.”)
WashPo pinpoints conservative publication Evvie (described as the “conservative Gen Z’s version of Cosmo”) for headlines such as, Why Are So Many Feminists Silent About the Very Real Dangers of Birth Control?
But take a look at actual Cosmo headlines:
Birth Control Could Be Messing With Your Quality of Life (It’s Not All in Your Head.)
Or, let’s wander over to other similar publications. One Refinery29 article titled "Why is Hormonal Contraception Still Failing Us?" references several studies, including one very small study involving 50 female recruits, suggesting the pill alters the structure of women's brains. The author feels medical experts "seek to downplay the findings"—one of many articles positioning it as a battle pitting women against doctors.
Heck, let’s check out WashPo! “‘It's not in your head’: Birth control may cause depression, striking new study says” reads a 2016 headline. (It was based on a study's debatable conclusions, which I dig into later in this newsletter).
The Daily Wire is singled out for promoting the idea that birth control can change who women are attracted to. But that’s a story that also ran in TIME, Vice, Buzzfeed, Cosmo, NBC News, and CNN. The podcast With Whit, hosted by former reality-TV star Whitney Port, did a whole episode suggesting hormonal contraceptives tweak women's moods, stress, attraction, and personality; essentially, changing who women are fundamentally.
Sorry, but this isn’t a solely “conservative push.” Nor is it restricted to social media. Or new.
To some, attacking the Pill is sacrilegious, but hormonal contraceptives carry a colorful, controversial history that by no means bars them from scrutiny. (That certainly doesn’t legitimize all the fear-mongering nonsense circulating on social media!) Much of the current media analysis misses some key points about why women are shunning it, as well as nuanced takes on where we stand and what needs to be done to reinstall confidence.
Some further insight and a trip down the Pill’s colorful (and forgotten) history:
The Pill on Trial
In 1969, medical journalist Barbara Seaman published The Doctor's Case Against the Pill, which argued that oral contraceptives' high doses of estrogen posed significant risks to women's health. Readers were outraged that their doctors never shared rumored potential side effects, including blood clots, increased cancer risk, and depression. To counter those effects, doctors had prescribed a medley of drugs, including tranquilizers for mood disorders, diuretics for water retention, and blood thinners for those at risk of clotting. The media joked that oral contraceptives needed a new slogan: "If she's on the pill, she may need the tablet."
The media joked that oral contraceptives needed a new slogan: "If she's on the pill, she may need the tablet."
The ensuing public uproar inspired Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) to chair the 1970 Senate Pill hearings, wherein male experts and witnesses assembled to debate the risks. Infuriated that women weren't invited to offer their testimony, the activist collective D.C. Women's Liberation group erupted into a ruckus at the hearing, demanding that women represent themselves. Members shouted and hurled statements such as "We are not going to sit quietly!" and "Why are you using women as guinea pigs?" The group's leader Alice Wolfson, in her own statement, declared, "We will no longer tolerate intimidation by white-coated gods antiseptically directing our lives." Despite serving as the hearing's lead advocate, Nelson later said in an interview, "There is a question about how much technical information should be given a patient and how competent women are to receive it."
The antics garnered national attention and spurred collective action. It’s estimated that eighty-seven percent of women between the ages of 25 and 45 were estimated to have followed the hearings, and of those, eighteen percent quit the pill shortly thereafter.
The controversy also led to industry change.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Well To Do to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.