Let’s Talk Contraception: Emergency Contraception

Posted on June 18, 2013 by Rebecca

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that 1 in 9 Americans — 11 percent — has used the “morning-after pill.” This means that in the United States, 5.8 million sexually active women between the ages of 15 and 44 have used emergency contraception, an increase in use of 4.2 percent from 2002. Most women say their reasons for using emergency contraception are because they engaged in unprotected sex or feared that their method of contraception failed.

The best way to prevent pregnancy is reliable birth control. But sometimes we need a back-up method.

It has also been reported that half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. For that reason, the availability of a range of contraceptive options is very important. Emergency contraception is the last choice for a woman to decrease her chance of becoming pregnant after unprotected sex. There are several products available for emergency contraception in the United States. There are many options, and they include:

regular birth control pills in specific doses
PlanB One-step
Next Choice
ella
copper IUD or intrauterine device (Paragard)

The Yuzpe regimen, which used ordinary birth control pills in specific combinations, was named after a Canadian physician who developed the method in the 1970s. Several brands of birth control pills are approved for this use to prevent pregnancy. This method uses the combined estrogen and progesterone hormones in your regular birth control pills in certain prescribed combinations.

Research showed the progesterone component of contraceptive pills was most effective at preventing pregnancy, so Plan B was developed as a two-pill regimen of levonorgestrel (a type of progesterone). When Plan B was first released, it consisted of one pill taken as soon as possible and another taken 12 hours later. Plan B One-Step, the newest version of Plan B, now has the same dosage of levonorgestrel in just one pill. It should be taken as soon as possible after unprotected sex. This one-dose regimen has been shown to be more effective with fewer side effects. Continue reading →

That Was Then, This Is Now: A History of Emergency Contraception

Posted on June 17, 2013 by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona

The following guest post comes to us via Morganne Rosenhaus, community engagement coordinator for Planned Parenthood Arizona.

For more than 10 years, emergency contraception has been the “poster child” for what it looks like when politics trumps science, again and again and again. Women’s health advocates, women’s health care providers, and researchers have argued for years (and two different presidential administrations) about the safety of emergency contraception and the importance of its place on the shelf, between the pregnancy tests and the condoms.

The age restrictions on emergency contraception have been in flux. Where do things currently stand?

In 1999, Plan B was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a prescription-only product (all new drugs are first approved as prescription-only). In 2003, the manufacturer of Plan B filed an application with the FDA to make it available over-the-counter (OTC). An FDA Advisory panel voted to recommend Plan B for OTC access with no age restriction. Then political turmoil ensued. You can read all the details here in this handy timeline.

In 2006, Plan B was approved for OTC access, but with an age restriction, which meant men and women 18 years and older could purchase Plan B at the pharmacy, but only with an ID providing proof of age. The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed a lawsuit against the FDA over the ridiculousness of placing a scientifically unfounded age restriction on emergency contraception, which eventually led to the lowering of the restriction to 17 years. The FDA was also asked to re-review their rationale for imposing an age restriction in the first place.

Then things got worse. Let’s fast forward to 2011. Continue reading →

The History of the Birth Control Pill, Part 6: Los Campesinos

Posted on June 11, 2013 by Anna C.

Welcome to the final installment of our series chronicling the history of the birth control pill. In earlier installments, we learned how chemists were able to extract a chemical from a wild yam called barbasco and convert it into progesterone, the active ingredient in the Pill.

In 1960, the FDA approved oral contraceptives for marketing. At this time, more than 2 million Americans were already using the Pill — and more than 100,000 Mexican campesinos (a Spanish word for peasants) were harvesting barbasco, the wild yam necessary for its production. By 1974, 125,000 Mexicans were collecting and selling barbasco. Every week, during the barbasco trade’s peak, an excess of 10 tons of the plant were removed from tropical Mexico.

Until the barbasco supply started to dwindle in the 1970s, Mexico enjoyed prominence as the world’s supplier of progesterone.

Though they were paid subsistence-level wages for their labors (half a peso per kilo of dried root), and the work itself was dangerous and backbreaking, they were putting Mexico on the map in the scientific community. After establishing a hormone synthesis industry in Mexico, the European stranglehold on hormones was loosened and the price of progesterone plummeted from $80 per gram to less than a dollar per gram. By 1954, Syntex, a Mexican laboratory, was the largest producer of steroids in the world, having usurped Europe’s monopoly.

Scientists depended on the campesinos’ knowledge of soil conditions and growth cycles, as well as their ability to differentiate between different species of yams. The campesinos relied on their knowledge of weather patterns, differences in root coloration, and size variations to determine when they could dig up roots with the highest concentrations of sapogenin, the chemical that was converted into progesterone in the laboratory. Over the decades, the campesinos slowly gained an education in organic chemistry. Continue reading →

Over 90 Percent of What Planned Parenthood Does, Part 13: Treating Penile Skin Lesions

Posted on June 10, 2013 by Anna C.

Welcome to the latest installment of “Over 90 Percent of What Planned Parenthood Does,” a series on Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona’s blog that highlights Planned Parenthood’s diverse array of services — the ones Jon Kyl never knew about.

Today kicks off Men’s Health Week, which means it’s time to remind you that Planned Parenthood Arizona has plenty of men’s health services. Sexual and reproductive health are our bread and butter, and we’re here for you if you need condoms or routine STD screening, or if something is amiss in your nether regions and you’d like us to take a look! One thing we do is evaluate and treat penile skin lesions.

Is something amiss on your penis? We can check it out!

What is a lesion, anyway? “Lesion” is a general term that can refer to any kind of abnormality that appears on your skin or elsewhere in the body, like on an organ. Usually they’re well-defined, as in blisters, spots, bumps, warts, or what have you. A change of appearance on the penis can be caused by all sorts of things. Maybe it’s something minor, like an irritation or an allergic reaction. Or it could be a relatively benign dermatological condition, like pimples or skin tags.

But sometimes, an infectious agent might be at play. You might be suffering from a yeast infection, a sexually transmitted disease (STD), or even penile cancer. For the sake of your health — and your peace of mind — you should be evaluated by a health professional, just so you can know for sure what’s going on and receive treatment if necessary. Continue reading →

STD Awareness: Will Gonorrhea Be Worse Than AIDS?

Posted on June 3, 2013 by Anna C.

A scanning electron micrograph of a colony of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the bacteria that cause gonorrhea. Image: Portland State University

If you’ve been reading the news lately, you might have noticed an odd piece of reportage from CNBC, in which a naturopath claimed that antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea “might be a lot worse than AIDS” and might cause cases of sepsis that could kill “in a matter of days.” This quotation, uttered by a single naturopath, was then exaggerated in sources such as the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail, which ran the headline “Doctors warn that antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea could be ‘worse than AIDS.’” In fact, the only person making this claim was one naturopath, not a doctor, and certainly not plural “doctors.”

There’s a lot to unpack here. First is the alarmism in the original CNBC article, and its dependence on an unreliable source. Second is the issue of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea itself, which is a very serious public health problem. Thirdly, let’s look at the naturopath’s claim, which is that antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea could unleash a plague worse than AIDS and kill its victims in a matter of days.

Claims that antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea will be “worse than AIDS” are greatly exaggerated.

Alan Christianson, the naturopath behind the hyperbolic claims of super-virulent gonorrhea, does not seem to be an actual expert in infectious disease (his website lists “natural endocrinology” and “male menopause” among his specialties), nor is he a medical doctor. The article identifies him as a “doctor of naturopathic medicine,” but what does that mean?

Naturopaths are not medical doctors, and degrees in naturopathic medicine aren’t awarded by institutions accredited by the Association of Medical Colleges, the body that accredits medical schools. Naturopathy is a philosophy that is not generally supported by scientific evidence, but rather is based in “a belief in the healing power of nature,” according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It was developed in the 1800s and today encompasses many modalities of alternative medicine, including homeopathy and herbalism. For these reasons, it is odd that a journalist quoted a naturopath on the potential of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea rather than someone more qualified, such as a microbiologist or epidemiologist. Continue reading →

STD Awareness: Asymptomatic Shedding of Herpes

Posted on May 28, 2013 by Anna C.

Q: Can I catch herpes if my partner isn’t having an outbreak?
A: Yes, your partner can transmit the virus even if he or she isn’t experiencing symptoms. In fact, most genital herpes infections are transmitted in the absence of symptoms.

When most people think about genital herpes, they think about the symptoms that are associated with it: clusters of blistery sores around the genitals or buttocks. But most genital herpes infections don’t have symptoms — they are asymptomatic — or the symptoms are so mild or nonspecific that the person suffering from them doesn’t even make the mental connection. It is estimated that only 10 to 15 percent of people with herpes exhibit symptoms, which may be a silver lining for the millions who unknowingly carry the virus, but it also helps it spread more easily.

What is genital herpes, anyway?

Genital herpes can be caused by two types of herpes simplex viruses — either herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2). The difference between the two viruses is that HSV-1 is more active when it infects the facial region, where it can cause cold sores; HSV-2 is more active when it infects the genitals. Genital infections with HSV-1 tend to be milder than genital infections with HSV-2. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that, among Americans 14 to 49 years old, 1 out of 5 women and 1 out of 9 men have a genital HSV-2 infection. Because that stat doesn’t count genital HSV-1 infections, the overall number of people with genital herpes is actually higher.

An “outbreak” occurs when genital herpes symptoms appear. The most well-known symptom is a cluster of blisters or open sores in the genital or rectal area. Continue reading →

When Metaphor Becomes Reality: The Abortion Battle and the Necessity of the FACE Act

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Matt

Clinic escorts at a Washington, D.C. Planned Parenthood. Photo: Bruno Sanchez-Andrade Nuño via Flickr

Serving as the medical director of a reproductive health clinic made Dr. George Tiller a lightning rod for constant vitriol — and more than once a target of violence. Picketers routinely gathered outside his clinic in Wichita, Kansas, a site of their protests because it provided abortions, including late-term abortions. In 1986, Tiller saw the clinic firebombed. Seven years later, in 1993, he suffered bullet wounds to his arms when an anti-abortion extremist fired on him outside the property. Finally, in 2009, he was fatally shot while attending worship services at a Wichita church.

Anti-abortion extremists can create life-threatening scenarios for those who seek reproductive health care.

In the wake of Dr. Tiller’s death, many reproductive rights advocates argued that his assassination could have been avoided. The shooting was not the first time his murderer, 51-year-old Scott Roeder, broke the law.

Roeder could have been stopped prior to the shooting under a federal law, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which was enacted in 1994 — 19 years ago this Sunday — to protect the exercise of reproductive health choices. The FACE Act makes it a federal crime to intimidate or injure a person who is trying to access a reproductive health clinic. It also makes it unlawful to vandalize or otherwise intentionally damage a facility that provides reproductive health care.

Roeder’s ideology was the root of his criminality. Roeder subscribed to a magazine, Prayer and Action News, that posited that killing abortion providers was “justifiable homicide.” Roeder also had ties to a right-wing extremist movement that claimed exemption from U.S. laws and the legal system. Continue reading →

LGBTQ Legislation in Arizona

Posted on May 17, 2013 by Tori

Phoenix Gay Pride Parade, 2010. Photo: Fritz Liess via Flickr

I’m certain everyone read yesterday’s post on the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (that’s today) and thought, “I’m so glad I live in Arizona, where the state legislature and judiciary would never further oppress an already marginalized group of people!”

Right?

Right?

Of course, the reality is that even recent Arizona lawmakers have established a trend of creating legislation that further harms women, people of color, and poor people. Sadly, we can add gay people and trans* people to that list as well.

Adoption Law — While the state’s current adoption statute allows unmarried people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, to petition to adopt, only a “husband and wife” may jointly adopt children. It does not provide for joint adoption by people in other domestic partnerships. In fact, if other factors are equal, current law gives explicit placement preference to “a married man and woman.” Moreover, additional legislation has been introduced at least twice — once in 2006 and once in 2010 — to attempt to require adoption agencies to give “primary consideration” to married couples seeking to adopt.

Speaking of Marriage — Queer folk can’t do that here. If they do get married in a place where the local legislation allows it, the state of Arizona won’t recognize the marriage.

Birth Certificates — The statute does allow for an amended birth certificate if the person applying for such has had “a sex change operation” (sex reassignment surgery) and a note from their doctor saying as much. Certainly this is preferable to not having the option. However, it ignores some of the realities of sex reassignment surgery — that it can actually be a number of surgeries, that it comes with risks (e.g., general anesthetic) that can make it unworkable for some people, that it’s expensive and generally not covered by insurance, that providers are few and far between. Continue reading →