A View to a Pill

Enovid turned 50 this year -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
The oral contraceptive known as “the Pill” came on the market in 1960. The Pill is a combination of estrogen and progestogen and taken on a daily schedule it creates a hormonal condition similar to pregnancy and the woman taking it quits ovulating. Taken correctly, there is a less than .3% chance of a woman becoming pregnant while on the pill. The Pill has been blamed for various things such as weight gain, acne and cancer although various types and dosages are said to eliminate or reduce those side effects. The Pill has also been blamed for causing decreased sexual desire and depression; women using it must also consider those potential side effects.

The Pill had a long and tortuous development; as far back as the 1930’s, scientists were aware that steroid hormones could inhibit pregnancy but European companies had a lock on the source of those drugs and they were very expensive at that time. In 1953, physiologist Gregory Pincus created an early birth control pill, but it resulted in bleeding and was only 85% effective. By 1957, Searle labs had corrected the bleeding problem with a better combination of estrogen and progestogen. Enovid was first marketed as a drug for menstrual disorders in 1957. In 1960, it was reintroduced at a lower dosage per pill, as a birth control pill. The drug had wide acceptance in Europe and the USA; Japan was less taken by it. To this day only 1% of Japanese women use the pill. Japanese drug approvers feared cancer side effects and speculated that such a drug might contribute to venereal disease (due to abandonment of condoms).

The Pill met with more obstacles than Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey. It wasn’t approved for married women in all states until 1965 and wasn’t approved for all unmarried women in the USA until 1972. It’s incredible that our government intervened so recently in such a personal, private matter. These were not the only slings and arrows aimed at the Pill. The Catholic Church in its 1968 papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae” declared that all artificial contraception distorted “the nature and purpose of sex”. The Pill had a huge influence on our popular culture – it made sexual conduct and reproduction separate considerations. Many people have attributed the sexual revolution of the 1960’s to the Pill alone. It is true that women were soon “less chaste” after the Pill came out. In fact, the women’s movement (then termed “Women’s Liberation”) also emerged in that same momentous decade. Women were reading The Female Eunuch or going to see The Chapman Report at the theater. These actions might fall between purchasing a plastic miniskirt or a copy of the Rolling Stones’ hit single “Satisfaction”.

There were actually many other things afoot in the 1960’s – civil rights unrest, the Viet Nam War, nascent Rock’n Roll music, presidential assassinations and whatnot. It’s a stretch to hang everything on the Pill, and by the way – when we say “hang” do we subconsciously mean “blame?” It is true that Japan has had a much lower HIV rate; that’s been attributed to Japan’s preference for condoms over pills. There could be other things at play; some European countries have comparatively low HIV rates while still embracing oral contraceptives. The fact that women now have more career choices has definitely made them more “uppity”. The quality of being uppity is probably an advancement and no justification by itself for going back to the days of yore when women were to be kept barefoot and pregnant.

We have the power to revoke the Pill and say it was all a big mistake. Why haven’t we? We love everything retro, but guess what – some things really are an advancement. No need to fondly reminisce about abstinence or the rhythm method. For the Pill, we need mainly to reduce risks for cancer and depression and “Vive la Pill”. It’s here to stay, for all the freedom it gives to women and indirectly, their men.

© 2007 blogSpotter