Image by Flickr user Mark Klotz. Used under a Creative Commons license.

In a review of historic opposition to contraception in the face of President Obama's directive that (virtually) all employee healthcare plans fund contraception for women the way they fund Viagra and Cialis for men E.J. Graff first reviews the biggest standard, historic objection to contraception

Late-19th- and early-20th-century pundits said that the nation would become a bordello if anyone could have sex without consequences and warned of the death of the American family.

Source: TAPPED

And finds it wanting (emphasis mine)

In other words, women can work for Catholic hospitals, colleges, social-services groups, and so on—and still have the same rights to sexual health coverage as men, under the same plans. All that Viagra needn't lead to either 19 children and counting; to abortions; or to impoverished women.

Ouch!

The Viagra-but-no-pill argument actually cuts two ways with hidebound institutions such as the Catholic and many Protestant churches. Their argument against contraception is that it interferes with women's "natural and normal" functioning, and thus constitutes an unnatural intervention in human reproduction.

The problem, of course, is that even if one were to argue (as the Catholic hierarchy in fact still does) that "virtuous" men could use Viagra "only" for reproduction there's the issue of the Church's ban on other forms of "unnatural intervention" like in-vitro and artificial insemnation. Sort of by-definition if a guy can't get a woodie without medication then "nature" has decreed he should do without.

And yet to the very best of my knowledge there is no Church doctrine forbidding its employee insurance plans from covering, or indeed its healthcare facilities from dispensing, Viagra or Cialis.

But I digress...

At the end of the day, neither Viagra or Cialis have created catastrophic baby booms, orgy outbreaks, upticks in divorce, or any of the other bugaboos projected by opponents of contraception. Certainly not among the kind of people willing to become employees of the Church.

Therefore prior evidence suggests that contraception availability will also not produce similar licentiousness.  Nor, as we have seen, above, is contraception any more of an "unnatural intervention" in fertility than is Viagra or Cialis.  Both claims, therefore, are red herrings.  There may be <em>some</em> legitimate reason that conservatives object to giving women control over their own fertility.  But if so they don't seem very comfortable saying it.  Thus the prevarication.

Photo by Flickr user mamamusings. Used under a Creative Commons license.

First it was the CDC's "Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocolypse," a tongue-in-cheek primer on general preparedness. Not to be outdone, just in time for Halloween, here's Planned Parenthood with advice about the hazards of unprotected sex with vampires:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 31, 2011 Contact: PPFA Media Office

Thinking About Having Sex with a Vampire This Halloween? Planned Parenthood Is Here to Help

Let's face it: vampires can rack up a lot of sexual partners over the years. Your vampire might be the same age as you, or she or he might be thousands of years old. But no matter how old you are, if you're going to jump into bed with a vampire, you're going to need more than a clove of garlic to protect your health.

Here are some things to think about before you enter into a sexual relationship with a vampire:

Vampires might be immortal, but you're not. It's important for both vampires and humans to get tested for STDs. Use this tool to find out if you should get tested for STDs.

Ladies, just because a vampire says he can't get you pregnant*, it doesn't mean he can't give you an STD. And guys, just because a vampire says she's on the pill, it doesn't mean that you can't get an STD. Use a condom correctly every time.

Don't wait until you're in the heat of the moment to bring up safer sex. Vampires have been known to "glamour" people to get their way, so play it safe and make it clear that you won't have sex without protection right from the start.

Remember, a vampire who doesn't care about protecting your health is not the kind of vampire that you want to get involved with. Not sure if you're dating the right vampire? We can help you figure it out.

* Let's not forget, Edward got Bella pregnant in the Twilight series, going against hundreds of years of vampire lore. So even if your vampire tells you he can't get you pregnant, why risk it? Condoms are not only a great way to prevent STDs, they're effective at preventing pregnancy. Even better, use a condom along with another birth control method.

Source: Planned Parenthood Media Office

Very cool when institutions like Planned Parenthood are able to hit the right note when attempting humor with a point.

Via Talking Points Memo

Speaking of easily-administered tests for a male contraceptive effectiveness, according to NewsMedical.net

SpermCheck Contraception, is now undergoing testing in a multi-center, NIH-funded study that is evaluating the effectiveness of a new contraceptive drug for men. Once a man starts using one of the current experimental male contraceptives, which are based on steroid compounds, sperm counts decline over a period of several months. The SpermCheck Contraception device could serve as a companion product to help men determine when sperm counts have reached safe levels should a male contraceptive drug or device become available in the marketplace.

Source:

At least one company already manufactures a home-test product, SpermCheck Fertility, for checking general male infertility and another for confirming sterility after a vasectomy.

As I've said over and over, this kind of antibody-tagging test is pretty great. And while at least initially the price tag will be way too high (their current kits cost about $34 each from Amazon) one would expect that higher volume and/or market competition from other brands could drive the price down to a point where they could be used for spot checks.

I expect most people imagine the main use would be before an episode of "causal" sex. Although really, for casual sex any contraceptive should be used to backup the condom everyone really, really should be using. (And if the price ever came down enough it actually might be nice if they could be inexpensively sold in condom machines.)

But in practice, since like a lot of hormonal contraceptives for women there's a lag begin when you begin using it and when it starts working I think the more useful application for a spot check for male contraception would be to see if it's started working. Or, towards the end of the effectiveness cycle, to know when it's no longer working.

Anyway, good do see some version of my fantasy male-fertility test is already on the market and that tests that even more closely target male contraception is in the works.

So while I was jet-lagging in Greece I ran across this cool post from Em & Lo

illus. of Paraguard IUD via Med.unc.edu

Move over, Pill! According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the IUD is a whole lot more effective — and safer than was traditionally thought. For a long time IUDs have been recommended only for women in long-term monogamous relationships who’d already had children — this was based on concerns that IUDs raised the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which, left untreated, can cause infertility. But according to ACOG, the evidence does not support these concerns — meaning, IUDs do not cause PID.

When you combine this news with what we already knew — the overwhelming effectiveness of a device that you insert once every five or ten years, as compared to a pill that you have to remember to take daily — it’s kind of a no-brainer. Or, at least, the IUD is definitely a contender. Currently it’s the redheaded stepchild of the birth control world — in 2008, IUDs, were the chosen method of 5.5% of women using contraceptives (and only 1.3% in 2002). But as more and more women find out that (a) IUDs are a lot safer than they’d been warned and (b) a lot more effective than the Pill or condoms, we’re guessing that will change.

Source: Em & Lo

And since I was jet lagged... and since the rest of my family traitorously were all sound asleep, I wrote the following... which I just discovered got Em & Lo's comment of the week award a day or two later.  Here's what I said then.  And since it was only a week or so ago it's still true. :-)

It’s been, what, 45 years since sales of the infamous Dalkon Shield IUD were suspended. And virtually everything we “know” about how bad IUDs are comes from… the Dalkon Shield. It’s also been roughly 40 years since the first copper-wrapped mini-IUD was introduced.

This is still not to say the IUD is perfect for everyone, but as you say it’s more perfect for more people than The Pill or other heavy-duty hormonal contraceptives like shots or Norplant.

If the ACOG has greenlighted it a lot of caregivers who’ve been reluctant to prescribe IUDs are more likely to get on board.

For what it’s worth, one of the biggest arguments against IUDs is that they don’t protect from STIs. But since hormonal contraceptives don’t either that’s always been a wash. But with IUDs you can use condoms for what they do best: minimize risk of STI transmission, while leaving the IUD to do what itdoes best: preventing pregnancy when there are condom slip-ups.

Finally, speaking of condoms, for people who could be “fluid bonded” but still rely on condoms for contraception, the up-front cost of an IUD might be relatively high but five to ten years worth of condoms aren’t exactly cheap either.

---

I ought to add that whereas I've always thought that if I was a woman I'd use an IUD it's also the case that since I'm a man I got a vasectomy at age 21, a reversal around age 42, and a second (and final) vasectomy around age 45.  What the ACOG is saying is that you no longer have to think of yourself as a risk taker or a pioneer for seeing if it would work for you.