#vote4rh

It’s not the most common side effect, but it’s not unheard of either: For some women, birth-control pills dull their libido to the extent that they defeat the purpose of taking it in the first place.

An Indiana University study  presented this week at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting examined the sexual side effects of all hormonal forms of birth control through a survey of 1,101 women, half of whom were using non-hormonal contraception. The women using the pill and other hormonal methods reported feeling generally less sexy than those using non-hormonal protection. They had fewer orgasms and less-frequent sex, and found it more difficult to get aroused.

The pill is the most popular method of contraception in the country, but it comes with a laundry list of possible side effects, from irksome nausea to breast tenderness. It also carries a rare risk of heart attack, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, liver tumors, and gallstones.

These are all spelled out on Planned Parenthood’s website, but oral contraceptives have other drawbacks that aren’t mentioned in the fine print on your monthly pack—and they may make you think twice before you pop your next pill. The Daily Beast asked experts to weigh in on other alleged side effects, and whether the pill is really your best option.

Gallery: The History of Birth Control

Ian Hooton, Science Photo Linrary / Corbis

Does the pill make you less attractive to men?

“In theory, yes,” says Jena Pincott, author of Do Gentleman Really Prefer Blondes? , which explores the science behind sex, attraction, and love. Two years ago, a study examining 10 years of research on the relationship between the pill and female attractiveness was published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution. The conclusion suggested that “oral contraceptives could interfere… with the ability to attract the preferred man.”

Here’s the science behind the findings: Throughout a menstrual cycle, hormonal fluctuation can alter a woman’s facial appearance, body odor, and vocal pitch. When she’s ovulating, these changes make her more attractive to men because they indicate fertility. Since the pill inhibits ovulation, women taking it miss out on that peak fertile period during which they would otherwise ooze sex appeal. “The effect is probably very subtle,” admits Pincott, but she adds that there are subconscious behavioral factors at work as well. “Around ovulation, we’re more likely to dress provocatively and be more easily aroused. That’s attractive to the opposite sex, and the pill diminishes some of that edge.”

Dr. Goldstein says a lot of his patients are hesitant to take the pill because, in their words, “it’s not natural.”

Can the pill throw off a woman's taste in men?

Every woman has her own criteria for what makes someone attractive. It goes without saying that compatibility and chemistry are important, and the pill might be affecting your judgment when it comes to both.

Back in 1995, Swiss zoologist Claus Wedekind conducted an experiment in which women rated their attraction to men based on how their T-shirts smelled after two days of wear. The “sweaty T-shirt” study  found the women preferred the scents of men whose genetic makeup was most different from their own. “This has a biological basis,” Pincott explains. “Body odor carries chemicals that are related to a chunk of immune-system genes called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). A baby born of MHC-dissimilar parents may be able to fight a wider range of diseases.” It makes perfect evolutionary sense for a fertile woman to fall for a man with whom she’d produce the healthiest offspring. Research has found that pill users don’t pick up on these primal cues, in part because oral contraceptives throw off our sense of smell. A 2008 study conducted at the University of Liverpool  concluded that “when women started taking the pill, their preferences shifted toward the scent of men with more similar genes to their own.” Women who were ovulating, however, were better at selecting biologically compatible mates.

Is the pill to blame for the shadow above your top lip (vaguely resembling a mustache) after a day in the sun?

If you’re on the pill and have never experienced a “sunstache,” you’re in the minority. The technical term is melasma , or hyperpigmentation, and it’s generally triggered by an increase in estrogen or progesterone in your system—the hormones in the pill that inhibit ovulation. Incidentally, these hormones also produce more melanin pigments when the skin is exposed to the sun. “Women on the pill often experience a darkening of skin tone any place where melanin exists on the body,” says Steven R. Goldstein, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University’s School of Medicine. He points out that variations of the “sunstache” can pop up in other places.

Can the pill make me infertile?

Last November, a feature article in   New York magazine  made an incendiary assertion: “Inadvertantly, indirectly, infertility has become the pill’s primary side effect.” There is no scientific evidence that infertility is a side effect of the pill, which is why the statement is even more controversial out of context. The author’s argument stemmed from sociological observations of how the pill has evolved since it was first introduced 50 years ago, when it became a symbol of sexual liberation that gave women control over their bodies in a way they’d never had before. Today, many women begin taking the pill as teenagers and don’t go off it until they want to get pregnant—often 10 or 15 years past their fertility prime. The pill doesn’t cause infertility, but it allows women to silence their biological clock for so long that, in some cases, they forget it’s ticking away.

The author makes a cogent argument as to why women should consider the long-term repercussions of being on the pill. That said, even she acknowledges the limitations of looking at long-term side effects; those of us using the pill today likely won’t be around to witness them.

In the shorter term, the bottom line is that the pill, like all modern medicine, allows our bodies to defy nature. Dr. Goldstein says a lot of his patients are hesitant to take the pill because, in their words, “it’s not natural.” But he argues that the positives far outweigh the negatives. “There is scientific evidence that the pill reduces your risk of getting ovarian cancer. It reduces your risk of developing anemia. It reduces symptoms of PMS.” As for unpleasant side effects like decreased sexual appetite and melasma, he says they often disappear when you switch to another pill. “What distinguishes one pill from another is the amount of estrogen it contains and the type of progesterone that it’s married to.” It’s a matter of finding the combination that works best for you, he says.

Data culled from the Indiana University survey suggest the solution isn’t so simple. Nicole Smith, the lead researcher on the study, says hormonal contraception available to women is clearly insufficient. “A great effort has been made to make condoms more pleasurable for men, but you don’t hear about this same effort going toward reducing the negative impact of contraception on women’s sexual functioning.”

Philippines. One of the largest beneficiaries of USAID funds is the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which has been relentlessly promoting abortion in the Philippines for more than thirty years in flagrant disregard for the nation's customs, laws and religious beliefs. The following extract from a Hastings Center Report article shows how the IPPF assists groups in circumventing the laws of developing countries, while systematically covering up such activities:

The International Planned Parenthood Federation of London (IPPF) has been the most outspoken advocate of legal abortion services in the developing countries ... As a central body it receives funds from international donors, including AID [the United States Agency for International Development], and passes money and supplies along to the local associations ... The IPPF's stated position is that abortion should be legally available to those who desire it and that local associations, when possible, should assist in providing the necessary services ...

In the Philippines, where abortion is both illegal and explicitly against official population policy, the IPPF provided 200 'menstrual regulation' [first trimester abortion] kits for demonstration purposes ... Further controversy arose when the FPOP [the IPPF affiliate, Family Planning Organization of the Philippines] distributed 'menstrual regulation' kits to local doctors. Although the government had laws specifically prohibiting the importation of abortive devices, these kits were brought into the country as 'medical instruments' to obtain 'sample tissue for examination.' These examples show the potential of the IPPF and its collaborating organizations for circumventing national laws and policies ...

One of IPPF's largest projects, totalling about $62,000, was in Bangladesh, where 5,000 vacuum aspiration kits were provided to the local family planning association. These kits have also been supplied to Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, and India. Although most of these projects have been relatively small - usually under $30,000 - the IPPF has not provided details of its activities in its published reports, even in its main report to donor agencies. One reason, apart from the illegal and controversial nature of these activities, may be that the federation is under constant scrutiny from the U.S. government to insure that it is not violating the Helms Amendment.3

The IPPF's abortion agenda in the Philippines was recently exposed by the head of its local affiliate, the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP). Ramon Tagle, a well-known Manila attorney and President of FPOP, resigned in protest over what he called IPPF's "hidden agenda" on abortion and its continuing efforts to use FPOP as a trojan horse to legalize abortion in his country.

Senator Juan Flavier recently criticized IPPF and the United States when he said that "We had just celebrated our 50th anniversary of independence from America, but we can still see insidious methods of imperialism trying to subvert our self-determination by using [population control] funds as subtle leverage ... I strongly oppose abortion. It is prohibited by our laws and the Philippine Constitution. Hence, we should be prepared to lose foreign funding rather than be pressured into causing the death of unborn children."4

By funding the IPPF through USAID, the United States is providing financial support to an organization which advocates, as a first principle, the worldwide legalization of abortion, even if this means violating the national sovereignty and undermining the traditional values and cultural norms of developing countries. Our support for such insensitive policies resurrects the specter of the "ugly American," and impedes genuine efforts to assist in the economic development of other nations.

The President's Finding states that "Progress toward global population stabilization has been recognized as vital to U.S. foreign policy interests for the past three decades."

These "foreign policy interests" are principally strategic and economic in nature and are described in the National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 of April 24, 1974, subject: "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests."

Chapter III of NSSM 200, entitled "Minerals and Fuel," states that:

Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth ... The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [See National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.

Part Two of NSSM 200, entitled "Policy Recommendations," states that:

It is vital that the effort to develop and strengthen a commitment on the part of the LDC [less developed countries] leaders not be seen by them as an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or to reserve resources for use by the "rich" countries. Development of such a perception could create a serious backlash adverse to the cause of population stability ...

The conclusion of this view is that mandatory [population control] programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now ... On what basis should such food resources then be provided? Would food be considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance? ... we should recognize that those who argue along ideological lines have made a great deal of the fact that the U.S. contribution to development programs and health programs has steadily shrunk, whereas funding for population programs has steadily increased.

These statements infer that a large population in a lesser-developed countries (LDCs) leads to a strong international presence that is not easily manipulated. The United States, in order to maintain the flow of raw materials from these countries, must be certain that their populations are "stabilized" through "lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates." LDC leaders must not see this effort as a form of imperialism by developed countries, so USAID and other government agencies funnel funds and resources through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Pathfinder Fund, and various United Nations organs such as the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). These population control programs may even be made compulsory in the future (as they are now in the People's Republic of China), and aid in the form of medical assistance or food may be made contingent upon acceptance of population control measures that desperate countries and peoples would not otherwise accept.

Although the President's Finding does not baldly state its intentions, it still hints that its primary motivation is the preservation of U.S. economic options overseas. For instance, it says that "If USAID cannot meet its funding commitments, not only would programs suffer, but US credibility would be damaged as would US ability to leverage Mexican resources in the future."

The Finding also says that "If a nine-month funding delay occurs in FY97, there could be serious contraceptive shortages ... as well as potential loss of jobs at one or more of USAID's contraceptive manufacturers in Alabama, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania ... That would result in disruptions in condom shipments to field programs and require the manufacturer to lay off most of the 200 workers dedicated to USAID contract production" (pages 15 and 16).

These statements bear a family resemblance to certain assertions contained in the Rockefeller Foundation's January 1997 report entitled High Stakes: The United States, Global Population and Our Common Future. Beginning in the late 1950s, the Rockefeller Foundation has been a relentless advocate of population control programs for developing countries. In expensive full-page advertisements in the January 30, 1997 Roll Call, and the February 2, 1997 Washington Post, the Rockefeller Foundation said that "As population growth exacerbates poverty in many developing countries, opportunities for U.S. exports could stagnate. High fertility drives down wages, encouraging the export of U.S. jobs."

We believe that the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is a generally positive relationship between population and economic growth. The most important determinants of a country's economic development, however, are its political and economic system, not the size of rate of growth of its population. But even if it were the case (and we do not believe it is) that high fertility in foreign countries "encourages the export of US jobs," is it morally justifiable to consciously and deliberately set out to reduce the populations of its potential economic competitors, as America has done for the past thrity years?

The President's Finding states that "As a matter of longstanding law and policy of this and previous Administrations, USAID funds may not be used either to fund abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate any person to have an abortion."

In fact, there is ample evidence that USAID funds go to organizations which promote and perform abortions, such as the IPPF. The Population Research Institute's February 3, 1997, report Abortion for All: How the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) Promotes Abortion Around the World details this advocacy. The PRI report uses IPPF's documents, particularly its Vision 2000 Strategic Plan, to demonstrate unequivocally IPPF, both directly and through its 140 national affiliates, is aggressively agitating for legalized abortion all over the world, often in direct defiance of the laws of host nations.

The President's Finding asserts no fewer than four times (pages 2, 4, 5, and 22) that "world population will double to over 11 billion by 2050." These repeated assertions that the world's population will double in a little over a half a century and, presumably, continue to grow after that, lend the Finding a tone of calculated urgency, if not downright stridency. And it is wrong.

The population of the world will never again double. According to all Census Bureau and United Nations median and "most probable" projections, population growth will peak in the next few decades and then begin to decline. United Nations "medium variant" projection has the population of the world peaking at 9.4 billion in the year 2050.6

In fact, according to the UN's "low variant" population projection, which over the past decade has proven to be the most accurate of the three variants, total world population will never exceed 7.8 billion persons, and will top out between 2030 and 2040 and then sharply decline.

This means that the conclusions of the President's finding are based on population projections that, according to the UN, are at least 1.6 billion persons too high and possibly as much as 3.6 billion

On page 23 of the President's Finding, there is a graph showing that world population will peak at about 8.6 billion with widespread family planning, and at about 12.2 billion without widespread family planning. The implication, of course, is that worldwide mandatory family planning is essential in order to avoid a global population overload.

The figures used in this particular graph date from the late eighties when the annual population increment was peaking. It is hard to understand why the Finding, which was presumably drafted by USAID researchers with easy access to the latest population figures from the US Census Bureau and the UN, would use such outdated figures. Unless, of course, the intent was to exaggerate the rate of population increase in an effort to justify additional population funding.

The Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Alan Guttmacher Institute have provided the United States government with reports whose conclusions are based upon faulty assumptions, statistics and research methods. It is therefore inevitable that President Clinton's Finding would reflect these fundamental errors when reaching its conclusion that USAID population control funding should be released early.

This report shows that United States population control funding has injured and is based on on a narrow and wrongheaded view of America's interests. We believe that the current restrictions on USAID population planning funds are reasonable and should be retained. We also recommend the formation of an independent commission to assess and evaluate the rationale, efficacy, and impact of population control spending, as compared with other forms of foreign aid.

1 USAID population control expenditures are from a table "United States Agency for International Development Population Assistance - All Accounts ($000)." Consumer Price Index from United States Census Bureau. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States (1995 Edition). Table 761, "Consumer Price Indexes (CPI by Major Groups: 1960 to 1994."

2 The World Resources Institute, in Collaboration with the United Nations Environment Program and the United Nations Development Program. World Resources 1994-5: Guide to the Global Environment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Table 16.2, "Trends in Births, Life Expectancy, Fertility and Age Structure, 1970-95." Total fertility rates given in the table are for the periods 1970-1975 and 1990-1995. These rates are assumed to be representative of their midpoints, i.e., 1972 and 1992. The 1965 and 1997 rates are exponentially extrapolated using the average 1972-1992 rate. The current population growth rate in Haiti is 1.6% per year; in Mexico, 1.9% per year; El Salvador, 2.0% per year; the Dominican Republic, 1.8% per year; the Philippines, 1.9% per year; Turkey, 2.0% per year; Ukraine, stable population; Russia, 0.2% per year, and Zimbabwe, 1.6% per year.

3 Donald Page Warwick. "Foreign Aid for Abortion." The Hastings Center Report, Volume 10, Number 2, page 33, April 1980.

4 Juliet Labog-Javellana. "Flavier Hits US Pressure on Abortion." Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 9, 1996, page 2.

5 David S. Broder. "A Vote for Poor Women Overseas." Washington Post, February 2, 1997, page C7.

MANILA, Philippines - Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III vehemently denied that he and other opponents of the reproductive health (RH) bill in the Senate are delaying deliberations on the controversial measure.

Sotto was reacting to a statement by Senate health and demography committee chair Pia Cayetano, a co-sponsor of the bill, during Monday's session that the period of interpellation and debate should be stopped "unless there's an intention to delay" the process.

"I would like to take exception to the statement that this might be a delay," he said.

Sotto said he was irked by statements by the bill's supporters in the media that the Senate's leadership is intentionally delaying deliberations on the bill so that it would not be put to a vote anytime soon.

Both he and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile are against the RH bill.

"If I am delaying this, all I have to do is to ask to read the journal. All I have to do is to filibuster," Sotto said, his voice raised. "I am merely your humble servant."

In her manifestation, Cayetano noted that she and the RH bill's author, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, are always ready to answer questions from colleagues who have reservations about the bill, but that no one seems interested anymore.

"We will be moving to close the period of interpellation," she said.

More senators want to debate

Sotto said, however, that more senators, including Senators Enrile, Ralph Recto, Ramon Bong Revilla Jr., Lito Lapid, and himself, want to debate with the bill's sponsors.

"They say they want to interpellate but they are not ready. What do you want me to do?" Sotto said.

Sotto said that if he really wanted to cause a delay, he could have just not calendared the bill for discussion at all.

He added that he himself wants the bill discussed because more people turn against it the more they hear about it.

Cayetano clarified that she is not accusing Sotto of delaying deliberations on the bill, but appealed to other senators to find time to engage in debates.

She said she is respecting their need for more time to study the measure. "But the bill has been pending for months, and I think we are also entitled due respect," Cayetano added.

The RH bill was last tackled in October until the Senate went on recess.

It was not on the agenda when session resumed in November because senators were busy with deliberations on the proposed 2012 national budget.