When the Supreme Court struck down women’s right to abortion in 2022, it was hard to believe that contraceptives would be available in the aftermath. But even before the election, legislative efforts to restrict access to certain contraceptives had begun. The Trump administration could continue on this retrograde path, which could signal a slippery slope to the back-alley brutality of the 1960s.
It’s time for men to play their part. After 70 years of research, several new male contraceptive options have been successful in clinical studies. Accelerating its development could slow the ongoing attack on women’s reproductive health. But this requires a new regulatory perspective, more research funding, and a commitment to prioritizing innovation in a market that has stagnated for more than half a century.
After the election, demands for birth control, abortion pills, long-term contraception, permanent contraception, and replacement of still-effective IUDs. It exploded. A similar surge continued thereafter. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Overturn Roe v. Wade. This time, the fear seems more palpable. The Trump-Vance campaign’s rhetoric on abortion and access to contraceptives is inconsistent and feeds into existing fears. Is this fear based in fact? Is access to contraception really at risk? Does the increased demand for vasectomies suggest that men want a greater role in pregnancy prevention? Yes. yes. And yes.
Contraceptives are under attack
Early signs indicate that access to contraceptives is indeed at risk. The outdated interpretation of the dormant Comstock Act appears to be reprehensible. The so-called “Sexual Purity” Act of 1873 prohibited sending by mail obscene materials, contraceptives, and anything that could induce abortion. (This was used to stop the sale of diaphragms in the 1920s. To overcome this, activist Catherine McCormick sewed diaphragms onto fur coats in France for resale in America.) ).
In the wake of Dobbs, anti-abortion activists and conservative states began reinterpreting laws that restrict access to “abortion pills” (mifepristone and misoprostol) even in states where abortion is legal. . Importantly, this drug accounts for safe early termination of pregnancy. Two-thirds of those seeking abortion. The Justice Department under President Biden’s administration deemed the law to apply to drugs used illegally. The FDA has adjusted in-person visit requirements to expand who can prescribe abortion pills and facilitate access via telemedicine. The Trump-Vance administration could eliminate these protections or implement the Comstock Act. Some local ordinances already support this law, making it illegal to receive abortion pills by mail.
If Comstock can be used to limit abortion pills, can it also be used to limit contraceptives? Unfortunately, it is. The law would allow states and local governments to decide whether women have access to contraceptives. this has already started New laws restrict access to certain female contraceptive methods in Indiana and Oklahoma It is based on false claims and confusion of possible use in abortion. Reflecting similar themes, Justice Clarence Thomas asked the Supreme Court to In a concurring opinion in the Dobbs case, the court called for reconsideration of the 1965 ruling that established the right of married couples to use contraception.
There are also issues of Medicaid coverage of contraception and Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood. Reductions and restrictions can make contraceptives more difficult to access for vulnerable populations. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires insurance plans to cover contraception without out-of-pocket costs. The changes could affect access to contraception for tens of millions of people.
men must play their part
It is unclear how these potential attacks on female contraceptives will play out over time. what teeth it’s obvious 46% of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Abortion is never a desirable option, but when contraception becomes difficult, women have few options. The growing scarcity of safe abortions is forcing unwanted parenting and unsafe abortions. This future is already near. a JAMA Survey July 2024 A self-managed abortion by a woman who attempts to terminate her pregnancy by using drugs or alcohol, lifting heavy objects, taking a hot bath, pounding her stomach, or inserting objects into her body. showed that it is increasing.
Against this backdrop, we need a new perspective on a problem as old as human history. One innovation could help change the situation. It’s a male contraceptive pill. For the first time in 70 years, a new male contraceptive pill is becoming a success. And it’s already time. The female pill turns 65 next year, meaning it’s been the same for more than half a century. Every patch, injection, implant, and ring introduced in the past 65 years has been designed to prevent hormonal pregnancy. Women are not complaining, it’s not unfair. Innovation in male contraception is even worse, 169 years after Charles Goodyear commercialized the modern condom.
Governments, women’s health advocates, investors, and those who are dissatisfied with contraceptive methods must prioritize contraceptive innovation. Men only have three options: condoms, vasectomy, and withdrawal. Researchers are testing three new options for men in human studies: a hormone-free oral contraceptive pill, a “male IUD,” and a hormonal gel applied to the skin. data show high demand About new contraceptives for women and But meeting this demand requires funding to accelerate research and foster future research. Prioritizing women beyond their reproductive capacity means not only investing in reproductive health, but also including men. The FDA should consider how it views risk so that men can participate in clinical studies of male contraceptives even without the risk of childbirth.
Finally, consider this. If men had more contraceptive options, would it be a problem to restrict access to contraceptives? Curiously, condoms are not mentioned in recent anti-contraceptive rhetoric. Perhaps contraception would be viewed more favorably if it were not perceived as “women’s work.” This won’t be obvious until men have more options.
More must-read commentary published by luck:
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary articles are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the author’s opinions or beliefs. luck.
