Pretty shrewd political move by the GOP Senators, too, and fits their current MO regarding contraception and abortion. Chip away at anything else Planned Parenthood does, making abortions a bigger percentage of their operation, it becomes easier to portray them to the public as nasty eee-ville fetus killers.

Not surprised. The Democratic Party always moved for state control, even though their rhetoric speaks otherwise.

@ bkmale

Unlikely. Republicans aren't that good at marketing. Despite the portrayals to the contrary, this really is consistent with Republican views. They aren't opposed to birth control, they are against the state overstepping on the issue, such as forcing taxpayers or business owners to pay for it against their convictions.

It would also get rig of one of the main fundraising and talking points of the Democratic party.

Eve if made OTC why couldnt Planned Parenthood give them away for free?

Seems to me such a move would make it easier for PP to give away BC

Gardner ran on this, so it's consistent for him... and for anyone else that supposedly supports the govt getting out of individual's bizness...

A little story:
Since I only go to the doc once a year to get my asthma rescue inhaler prescrip refilled, I am very supportive of getting the doc out of the middle if they don't need to be there.

After all, I used to buy my bronkaid inhaler OTC... for the first 30 years I had asthma, I treated it that way as needed. The last 15, when I had an HMO, the doc demanded I try various "controller" meds - none of which did much.

And then they banned the inhalers because they had CFC's in them, and the only way to change the propellant, was to change the formulations... so they stopped making bronkaid, because it had fallen out of favor, and pushed albuterol which also need a formulation change. {aside, the changed formulation requires a 2x dose, and causes clogging in the inhaler}

thus requiring a prescription and FDA approval

And a trip to the doctor.
So now it costs me $150 a year to go to the doctor to get the prescription written, because they have to do a checkup, and such, before they will write the prescription. The inhalers are $10 each, and I get 3 [work/home/car]

and I sometimes need so little that there have been years where they expire before using.

All because I sure as hell don't know how to treat the asthma I've had for 45 years...

Hmmm, now I wonder how many different industries and people have a stake in having birth control NOT be over the counter? [beside condoms, which have never been covered, and are cheaper than dirt.]

So. There are 2 roads to follow... one is the money, and one is the grievance mongers who demand that BC be paid for by other people.

The unholy alliance that sells everything based on lie.

Don't jump to conclusions.

Comment from Massachusetts (re a Gail Collins NY Times op-ed, from 6 September 2014, NYT Picks):

"Why do I get this feeling that the main purpose why these Republicans say that 'the pill ought to be available over the counter, round the clock, without a prescription -- cheaper and easier, for you' actually means it is good for them. Why?

"First, these sound bites make them look like they understand and care about women's issues.

"Second, by making it OTC, they will essentially deprive any medical advice that will be available if it were to be prescribed by a doctor.

"Third, by making it OTC, they pass off all the cost to the patient.

"Beware of this Trojan horse."

Here's the Sept. 5th 2014 Collins op-ed, if you like:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/opinion/gail-collins-passion-for-the-pill.html?_r=1

First lines:

"Republican candidates are falling madly in love with contraception.

"Who knew?..."

I'm all for making it OTC and have thought that for years. Now I'm reading all these comments where people are saying it's too dangerous to sell them OTC because someone might get a blood clot. I saw this story on my friend's Facebook today. She is very liberal and used to always say birth control should be OTC because it would be very easy to access and a lot cheaper. Now today she's saying it's a horrible idea and that doctors need to manage birth control. I asked her what made her change her mind and if it was because it was a Republican's idea. She says it's because she has learned how dangerous and complicated birth control is and that this is just another way for men to exert control and harm women. Alrighty then.

I'm against making the morning after pill OTC, I've taken it and it is very painful, I think a doctor should be aware you're on it and follow up.

by making it OTC, they will essentially deprive any medical advice that will be available if it were to be prescribed by a doctor.

Bull. Women could still seek medical advice before taking OTC birth control. The difference is that they'd have to choose to do so, rather than having the advice forced on them. The horror, the horror!

by making it OTC, they pass off all the cost to the patient.

"Pass off all the cost". . . don't you just love the hidden assumption here?

@: BunnyGirl

You make a good point. Many have been brainwashed to look for nefarious motives behind every (R). They also get confused about what is really being voted on. For example, these votes are painted as being for or against birth control, but the real question is the government's role in it. You can be all for birth control but against the government forcing Hobby Lobby to provide it, and all for helping the poor but against the federally managed welfare state.

Too many questions assume the government as the only option, so people mistakenly assume someone is opposing a cause when they are only opposing the government program.

@Trust:

"Despite the portrayals to the contrary, this really is consistent with Republican views."

I for one see the contrary part. Conservatives in Colorado have had "person-hood" initiatives on multiple ballots (all defeated soundly, BTW), with their proponents being very clear on their long-term objectives regarding abortion and contraception. Perhaps I'm lumping all Republicans in with this crowd, but out here in flyover country it's hard to tell the difference.

Bkmale,

Republicans are a coalition just like Democrats. One part of the Republican party are the religious evangelicals. They certainly are opposed to birth control and abortion. As well as imposing their views through force on others. Then there are the fiscal conservatives who mainly want smaller government and fewer restrictions on people. As well as several others.

And don't fool yourself that Republicans are the only authoritarians out there. There are far more people in the Democrat party that want to force their views on others and certainly don't shirk from using violence to achieve their goals.

Yes, all politicians have agendas and put measures on ballots. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. That's why we vote, there are many different views and no one is always right.

Where the left loses me is when they lose, they run to court, repackage (government birth control is now "reproductive health care", and gun control is now "gun safety" so when we oppose government overreaching we can be accused of opposing the title), and run to court again.

I believe wanting to allow same sex marriage is a very reasonable position, even though I disagree with it. I can respect those who hold that view, and if my side loses the vote, we lose the vote. I have no respect, however, for those who use activists judges to overturn valid votes, and I have disdain for those who want to use government to punish those who do not share their convictions. I don't think Catholics should be forced to pay for birth control, I don't think evangelicals should be forced to cater weddings, just like I would oppose forcing a gay business owner to participate in any church function.

Freedom doesn't mean freedom to force others to serve us.

@Ben

I think one difference is that if a Republican overreaches he is called out and made the face of the party, even if .o one else in the party holds his views. Democrats don't have to watch their step as much.

A lot of people also only look to the right for any problems. Which makes about as much sense as only looking right when crossing the street.

My former roommate, who I love, is a good illustration. He lives a very dilligent, conservative life. However, as a black man, he for some reason thinks GOP and KKK are synonymous, even though his views on issues are generally conservative. He particularly liked pointing to former segregationist Strom Thurmond as an example of GOP=KKK, but he never seemed to mind the former klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who actually dropped n-bomb on TV. Cal is a good, intelligent person, which is why I fear for our future because it's hard to win in important issues when huge factions of the population won't even entertain another view (even on they seem to agree with).

Third, by making it OTC, they pass off all the cost to the patient. ~ Posted by: lenona at May 27, 2015 10:00 AM

Where it should be.

Taxpayers should not be coerced into subsidizing someone's birth control - nor should they be coerced into dumping millions of gallons of water so a baitfish can swim upstream - nor should they be subsidizing a "family" farm to not grow arugula.

From a pure economic perspective, the availability of low-cost (to the recipient) birth control encourages its use (which may be a good thing). Putting the cost on the user, on the other hand, means the user must make a true economic decision about using it. Of course, having government aid readily available once the consequence of not using it manifests itself skews the economic decision model.

The ready availability of government money skews economic decision models and all but forces people to make decisions they would not ordinarily make - just look at what ready money did to the mortgage industry.

while most people don't make decisions that way, the incentive to get some o' that government money is still there.

Making it OTC puts the cost where it should be and removes a Democratic Party talking point (the so-called Republican "War on Women").

One of the attractions for the less-sophisticated of ObamaCare is the government-paid birth control (and the government-led coercion of employers to provide any and all types of it). Dems want birth control to be perscription so ObamaCare can provide it, thus keeping the government heavily involved in Julia's life and Julia voting Democrat.

@: " Dems want birth control to be perscription so ObamaCare can provide it, thus keeping the government heavily involved in Julia's life and Julia voting Democrat"
______

Amazing how effective the Dems are at painting the Republicans as wanting to stand between a woman and her doctor. One dem congresswoman actually accused Republicans (on television during session) of reaching into women's vaginas over Hobby Lobby. First, all birth control legal before hobby lobby remained legal after. Second, the single biggest government intrusion between patients and their doctors was the Affordable Care Act.... passed without one Republican vote. So, who is it again who is authoritarian?

Free? Like that free IRS web site? Like google search and google ads? If it's free, you just don't know how you are paying.

He particularly liked pointing to former segregationist Strom Thurmond as an example of GOP=KKK, but he never seemed to mind the former klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV) ~ Posted by: Trust at May 27, 2015 1:22 PM

Thurmond was more than the caricature the press made him out to be.

As South Carolina governor, Strom Thurmond received a letter of commendation from the NAACP and the ACLU for his unsuccessful efforts to punish the killers of Willie Earle.

He supported his inter-racial daughter, putting her through college and providing financial support well into her adult life.

Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr, on the other hand, basically bought his way into the NAACP's good graces with taxpayer money, proposing $10 million in increased taxpayer spending on the MLK memorial.

In fairness to Byrd, he did later express regret for his early racial views, his filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights bill, and his Klan membership.

And he was a mean fiddle player.

The one other affirmative nod I'll give to Byrd is that he was fierce defender of the Congressional prerogatives that Harry Reid seems so anxious to give away.

First, all birth control legal before hobby lobby remained legal after. Second, the single biggest government intrusion between patients and their doctors was the Affordable Care Act.... passed without one Republican vote. So, who is it again who is authoritarian? ~ Posted by: Trust at May 27, 2015 1:59 PM

Second, Hobby Lobby was not trying to get out of paying for birth control. 16 types of birth control were available in HL's healthcare plan - and were not challenged by the company. They simply wanted to get out of being forced to pay for a method they considered (erroneously or not) to be an abortifacient.

I agree, I don't think Byrd died a racist. I should have clarified. My issue was with the selective indignation.

Good point about HL BC. Fact remains, no ones rights or options were infringed, just their wanted (and desire to have someone else fund their wants).

I agree, I don't think Byrd died a racist. I should have clarified. My issue was with the selective indignation.

I don't know that Thurmond did either. By the definition of today (i.e., opposes anything supported by the NAACP) he did.

My issue was with the selective indignation.

Like you, I'm always amused at how flustered and dispeptic lefties get when you bring up Byrd's Klan membership in response to their condemnations of Thurmond.

And how they conveniently forget that Byrd also filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

RS

I think BC Pills should be free. I think the cost of BC Pills to society is cheap compared to the costs to society of unwanted pregnancies. And even more so to the girls and women.

I don't see that OTC BC Pills precludes PP from giving them away. Condoms are OTC and somewhat expensive, but free clinics and gay bars hand them out for free.

OTC means over the counter, but it doesn't mean off the shelf.

The only issues I see are:

+ are bc pills as safe as is claimed to be?
+ do girls and women need any sort of consultation with pharmacist or whomever to ensure they are taken correctly (IE don't skip a day, ...)
+ do bc pills have side effects that would hurt girls in school if no one was there to monitor the side effects?
+ would "ignorant" girls take these instead of a emergency birth control when they need emergency birth control?
+ would "ignorant" girls taking these when they are already pregnant injure the fetus?

Seems to me in terms of planned parenthood, making BC pills available as close as the nearest Walgreens is far better than having to visit a "nearby" PP center.

It also seems a win in terms of the worst sorts of abuse girls and women can undergo. Incest or other forms of DV she doesn't want to report.

Personally I'd have no problem using taxpayer dollars to fund BC. With one caveat, its mandatory and you don't get to go off it without a signed affidavit stateing your desire to procreate.

And unless there is a signed affidavit from a man attached to the motion to discontinue BC the woman could never sue for child support, or apply for hardship welfare due to the fact she chose to have a kid.

Disagree about government funding birth control. Government, especially the federal government, seldom makes anything better. Name me almost any social problem the feds have tried to solve, and I'll probably be able to explain why it is worse. War on poverty. War on drugs. Health care.

If the states want to try something, that's within their constitutional rights. But it's overreaching for the federal government.

> Personally I'd have no problem using taxpayer dollars to fund BC. With one caveat, its mandatory and you don't get to go off it without a signed affidavit stateing your desire to procreate.

That's pretty much the use case for Norplant isn't it?

That and similar should be free too.

I'm with SwissArmyD. I have a problem with having to pay inflated clinic visit fees just to get what I need - including BCP, asthma meds, and even antibiotics. Put them back there behind the counter like the other "speed" and make people sign for it if you think it's that big of a deal. Give them literature, give them advice, but it should definitely be OTC. People will be walking dead and needing an ER before they will go to the clinic because of the cost. Eliminate that and you'll eliminate a good part of the abuse of the ER as a clinic.

Doctors don't "monitor" your use of the pill, they straight up hold the prescription over your head to force an annual physical- which interestingly enough evidence begins to indicate is not helpful or necessary. That's right, pelvic exams are straight up pointless, unsurprisingly now that you mention it. Guidelines don't indicate annual pap smears anymore, but the appointment is still required annually for pill prescription renewal. After 20 years of taking this pill, I f@cking know they cause pulmonary embolism, and are not advisable if you are over 35 and smoke. If I tell the doc my brand of pill is giving me a problem, she'll first tell me I'm imagining things, then switch to the next brand on the list. I swear, If the repukes want to make this OTC and are blocked by the libs, I'll vote repub straight ticket. The liberals are either on our side or they're republican, only dumber about money.

Allison, I'm right there with you. Let me tell you my side of the story: While there is so much agitation for female hormone treatments to be free, male hormone treatments are regarded as dangerous controlled substances, to which access must be sharply restricted. I pay $500/month for mine, and I have to go back to the doctor every 90 days and pay for lab work to get a new prescription, despite the fact that my condition isn't changing and isn't going to change. That's $6000 per year, money I could be putting into the economy, by taking a vacation or buying things for the house, or investing it. Instead, it's going down bureaucratic ratholes. And then there's the constant hassle with the pharmacy... the medication is nearly always out of stock and it takes them a week to fill it and the insurance paperwork is incomprehensible. And to top it off, there are many people who will take the opportunity to shame you if they find out about you. I am selective about which pharmacy employees I deal with because some of them will try to publicly embarass you.

Making certain drugs over the counter would remove the insurance issue, which would also take employers out of the equation (insurance shouldn't be separate from the workplace, but that's another topic). An employee can go to the pharmacy and buy what they want with their salary, and neither they nor their boss would be infringed.

Funny how the left interjects through law third parties into everything. They involve employers and insurance in birth control decisions, tell the individual they are being oppressed, tell the employer to mind their own business (but pay the bill)..... and then accuse the people who disagree with them of "coming between a woman and her doctor."

If anyone in government meddles in our personal lives and interjecta themselves inti medical decisions, it is the Democratic Party.

Apologies, I meant insurance should be, not shouldn't be.

With all the debate over coverage, I find it interesting that I have never heard anyone - politician or otherwise - say anything to the effect of: "I would oppose coverage for birth control even if the ONLY contraceptive available were a prescription pill for men."

(I'm not saying that there aren't already bizarre inconsistencies regarding sterilization for men and women - but sterilization is different from birth control anyway.)

Remember what a female taxi driver famously said about a certain hypothetical sacrament for men? I do.

Lenona,

I don't remember what the taxi driver said, so please refresh if you see this.

As for the male contraceptive, you also don't see politicians opposing flying monkeys. Hopefully some day it becomes a reality but it isn't here yet. So there is little surprise people are concerned with something not currently possible.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." That's what the Irish lady taxi driver said.

If women could be cuckholded, there'd be mandatory prison sentences for it, rather than cash and prizes.

Cuckolded that is

To Ben:

In other words, I can't help but suspect (as do many others) that it's only coverage for FEMALE birth control that's considered truly unacceptable by conservatives - and that there would be no debate as to the need for coverage if the male pill were the only artificial contraceptive available.

At the same time, I have no reason to believe (yet) that men couldn't get coverage for vasectomies if they would simply DEMAND it. But they don't demand it - just as they don't campaign that forcefully for prostate cancer research and funding. You can't hope to get what you don't campaign for. (Of course, many women choose to get sterilized, so married men often don't feel the need to get vasectomies anyway. Last I heard, female sterilization is second only to the female pill in popularity - or close to it.)

"I can't help but suspect ..."

And there is the problem. You suspect but can't prove anything. You claim a sexual bias based only on what is in your head. And a large part of your suspicion requires a male dominated culture. As Trust countered there already is a sexual bias in child custody and support. That is certainly not in the man's favor.

Honestly, there is very little opposition to the pill in the Republican party. There is some from the Catholics, but they hardly dominate the party. There is huge opposition to forcing others to pay for your pill (birth control or otherwise). And personally that is where I fall too. There is no reason to think the Republican party wouldn't embrace a male contraceptive just like they have embraced the female one.

As far as I can tell Ocare has doubled my insurance premiums and reduced my access to medical care. It also looks like paying cash for most of my medical costs is the best way to go. Cash at time of service seems to reduce my costs by 50%-90% off of the insurance rate. So make the pill over the counter. It is certainly safe enough. The Democrat opposition is purely political and is in no one's interest but their own.

That's just not true, Lenora. That angle never even crossed my mind.

You probably don't even realize that you contradicted yourself. On one hand you say the only reason conservatives care is because it is female birth control, then you say they could get vasectomies if they demanded it. The issue isn't with the sex of the person, otherwise they would be demanding male bc vasectomies. The issue is with liberty. Some people have their freely held belief that some forms of birth control are infanticides and do not want to furnish them.. that is their right. And if someone had beliefs against vasectomies as self-mutilation that would be their right too. I could pay for it myself, but it's not fair to want them to "mind their own business and pay."

Feminists are so unbelievably hypocritical on this issue. They generally oppose male birth control even existing, saying men could lie about it or that it takes away female reproductive freedom. Not all feminine, of course. But if they truly valued reproductive freedom and equality, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Another thing about the kind and tolerant liberals/progressives. Every disagreement turns into an attack on the person. It can't possibly be that conservatives value the right of someone to not want to fund infanticide, or that they fear government overreaching by injecting additional parties into every isssue. Oh no, it has to be those bad old conservatives only do it to hurt women (or blacks or gays or the poor) or whoever else they think they can scare into voting for them.

Liberals are the most philosophically intolerant and close minded species on the planet, so much so that they project into everyone else without ever looking in a mirror.

@Ben: Honestly, there is very little opposition to the pill in the Republican party.
_______

True. And most Republicans understand the difference between being personally opposed or in favor of something and getting the government getting involved.

A conaervative may think birth control is a no no, but is unlikely to want to outlaw it. Liberals are notorious for outlawing what they don't like and mandating what they do.

I personally think everyone should purchase insurance, that doesn't mean I want the government mandating it... the left did. My children are homeschooled, and they constantly look for ways to meddle in that. When I say we should help the poor, I mean I make a donation to the shelter, that doesn't mean I use someone else's money to do it (or buy votes).

This is why Republicans are so easy to demonize. The minute the oppose government overreaching, they are accused of opposing the noble sounding intent. I.e., how can you be against affordable care? I'm not, that's just the propaganda.

On one hand you say the only reason conservatives care is because it is female birth control, then you say they could get vasectomies if they demanded it.
________________________________

According to one source, Obamacare covers female sterilization but not vasectomies. Women, presumably, asked for coverage - and got it. Getting coverage for reversible female birth control hasn't been so easy, it seems, even though they've been demanding that too. Why the difference? That was my point. It's hardly surprising that if men - or women - DON'T demand coverage for their own one-time needs, they don't receive it.
_________________________________

The issue isn't with the sex of the person, otherwise they would be demanding male bc vasectomies.
___________________________________

Explain, please?
___________________________________

The issue is with liberty. Some people have their freely held belief that some forms of birth control are infanticides and do not want to furnish them.. that is their right.
_____________________________________

Inflicting false science on the public is hardly a moral right. If they claim that a certain contraceptive doesn't prevent the ovum's meeting the sperm when it does prevent it, that's false science.
_____________________________________

Feminists are so unbelievably hypocritical on this issue. They generally oppose male birth control even existing, saying men could lie about it or that it takes away female reproductive freedom. Not all feminine, of course. But if they truly valued reproductive freedom and equality, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Posted by: Trust at May 30, 2015 4:43 PM
_____________________________________

Kindly name even TWO well-known, self-described feminists who oppose male birth control's existence, as opposed to the occasional non-syndicated, hack columnist. (Even the radical Gloria Allred doesn't talk like that, to my knowledge - and MRAs never seem to be able to name names.) As I've mentioned before, if that were true, we'd already be seeing feminist organizations trying to stop single/divorced men from getting vasectomies, on the grounds that "it takes away female reproductive freedom." Well?

Not to mention that any father of a teenage girl can sympathize with the fear that teenage boys, especially, will start lying about being on Vasalgel or what have you. It doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't want men to have the right to prevent fatherhood, per se. (I have a hunch that doctors won't be willing to use that particular method on boys whose bodies are still growing, though.)

And, before anyone mentions it, as for the "unfairness" of married men needing "permission" to get a vasectomy...I have never heard any MRA try to claim that a married woman doesn't have to jump through the same hoop when SHE wants to get sterilized in secret, so I don't know what MRAs are complaining about. It's all about doctors not wanting to get sued by angry spouses, male or female.

"Kindly name even TWO well-known, self-described feminists who oppose male birth control's existence, as opposed to the occasional non-syndicated, hack columnist."

Once again, since there is no male version of the pill it should be no surprise that effectively no one opposes it. I know you are a big fan of vasalgel. Heck, when it becomes FDA approved and readily available I probably will be as well. But that is not reality today.

As for well know feminists who oppose male birth control, how about Betty Friedan? Not quite two, but it's a start.

Finally, do you really believe there is no interest in a reversible simple male contraceptive? You are right that men aren't outspoken about this. And for good reason. It is quite dangerous for a man to be too outspoken about things like this. Similarly there are few male only clubs or support groups. There are always women looking to sue or harass any male only places. Even the boy scouts have been wiped out. So how are men to form support or interest groups?

Oh, and count me as a Republican against Ocare covering the pill. Far as I can tell it just triples the price for no good reason. Sell it over the counter. It is safe enough and cheap enough involving insurance just jacks up the cost and increases the paperwork.

So not opposed to it's existence. Just opposed to paying too much.

Here’s a video of a Brazilian endocrinologist who recalls the time he was at a conference discussing the male Pill when a grouo of feminists led by the Betty Friedan shouted him down with chants of “No male pill!”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o

Joy Behar discussed research developments with Ashley Dupre on Headline News.about how men shouldn't be trustee with it.

MJ Deschamps wrote in the University of Ottawa’s Centertown Journal called “Give Them the Remote Not the Pill”

There's more. That satisfies the request.

Once again, since there is no male version of the pill it should be no surprise that effectively no one opposes it.
__________________________________

Er, I thought we were talking about hypothetical opposition to its development and future availability in the US. Besides, there WAS a male pill in the US back in the 1970s - but men wouldn't take it, so it disappeared. Not to mention Gossypol and its serious problems in China, such as paralysis and sterility...
________________________________

As for well know feminists who oppose male birth control, how about Betty Friedan? Not quite two, but it's a start.
_________________________________________

I heard about that long ago, but again, I couldn't find real evidence to suggest that she was "opposed" to anything other than the possibility of men's lying about using it. Neither could Dr. Coutinho, apparently. Therefore, I cannot count her as having been opposed to men having the right to prevent fatherhood, per se. (Of course, it's too late to ask her.) As I hinted, it's pretty reasonable for women AND men to be seriously afraid of that particular problem - especially when it comes to their young daughters and teen boys. (Men who have had vasectomies tend to be over 30 anyway - and/or married. I certainly haven't heard anyone suggest that Friedan was opposed to vasectomies.)
_________________________________________

Finally, do you really believe there is no interest in a reversible simple male contraceptive? You are right that men aren't outspoken about this. And for good reason. It is quite dangerous for a man to be too outspoken about things like this.

Posted by: Ben at June 1, 2015 6:18 PM
_________________________________________

So why do they rage about all sorts of inflammatory issues on MRA sites - but only rarely about male BC? Where is the "danger" in demanding better male contraception when only the most religious groups oppose certain institutions handing out free condoms?

Even the more hotheaded MRAs such as Marc Rudov and Bernard Chapin generally refuse to talk about it; the idea seems to be that men in long-term relationships shouldn't be burdened with the responsibility of contraception in the first place (as if contraceptives never fail). As I've mentioned before, if men as a group really wanted better male BC, it would be very easy to put everyday married men on TV or Youtube and have them say "our wives can't use hormonal methods and we can't afford more kids! We need better male methods! YES, we'll happily use them if you deliver! You CAN turn a profit!"

Yet, somehow, nothing like that has happened. Don't expect a supply without a Visible Demand.

Oh, and sooner or later MRAs will have to admit that, for unattached men, the holy grail isn't better male BC; it's condomless sex. Since only men in long term relationships can hope for that (even hookers often insist on condoms or use female condoms), unattached men will likely turn the "new" sex doll industry into one of the biggest American industries ever (see the long story "RealDoll Sex Toys: The Making of Sexbots" in the recent issue of Vanity Fair) - and we'll likely see future "dollhouses" where men who can't afford a $5,000 doll can rent one for maybe $100 or less per hour.

Here’s a video of a Brazilian endocrinologist who recalls the time he was at a conference discussing the male Pill when a grouo of feminists led by the Betty Friedan shouted him down with chants of “No male pill!”.

_______________________________________

And, as this thread points out, there seem to be quite a few suspicious things about that video (which I saw ages ago, as I mentioned).

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/20/patriarchy-is-about-power-and-control/

One thing the thread didn't mention is that Dr. Coutinho seemed to get Budapest confused with Bucharest at one point. Now THAT's suspicious.

There's a more articulate thread elsewhere, but I'll have to dig it up later - I couldn't find it right away.
____________________________________

Joy Behar discussed research developments with Ashley Dupre on Headline News.about how men shouldn't be trustee with it.
___________________________________

Aside from the fact that both Behar and Dupre are entertainers (see "hack columnist") and certainly not academic feminists or even people taken seriously by serious media, I found the transcript on CNN and NEITHER of them opposed male BC's existence; Dupre simply implied that a woman who doesn't know her partner well should always insist on using condoms even if he claims to be on the pill - especially if she's a hooker, of course. Common sense. It doesn't mean she's opposed to a man's using it so long as he doesn't try to use it as an excuse to get out of using condoms.
____________________________________

MJ Deschamps wrote in the University of Ottawa’s Centertown Journal called “Give Them the Remote Not the Pill”

Posted by: Trust at June 1, 2015 7:43 PM
___________________________________

She's a freelance journalist. See "non-syndicated."

Also, please provide a link. I can't find more than one paragraph from that article, so that's hardly proof she doesn't want male BC to exist.

BTW, leaving aside the question of just what Friedan really thought, I said "feminists who oppose," not "opposed." I.e., I'm asking for LIVING examples. After all, while Elizabeth Cady Stanton supported birth control for women, Susan B. Anthony, IIRC, opposed it on the grounds that it would lead to married women having sex against their will - but that was in the 19th century and is hardly worth mentioning today. (I don't know if she actually thought women shouldn't have access to it at all.) Not to mention that Abraham Lincoln had plenty of racist views by modern standards...but so did most of his contemporary white supporters, I'm guessing.

I don't know what to tell you Lenona.

The fear that your partner isn't actually taking their contraceptive is very real and one sided. I can hardly take that as a credible fear from women. After all, they can just take their contraceptive and eliminate the problem. So complaints of that nature are empty. Personally they sound like people saying men shouldn't have contraceptives.

Are most men active in MRA groups scussy, yes. We have spent decades eliminating male only support groups. Is it any shock the only people who didn't get the message are socially tone deaf?

You mention there was a male pill. A 20% risk of permanent sterility along with other complications is not a small footnote. Do we require everyone who uses Depo-Provera to have eggs banked in a fertility clinic? No. It is just not the same.

As for 'doll houses'. Yes that is the future for America. That is a typical way men react to the incentives the US has put into law. Heck, even Amy is encouraging any male college student to avoid women like the plague and timeshare a hooker. Renting a robot is the same concept.

The fear that your partner isn't actually taking their contraceptive is very real and one sided. I can hardly take that as a credible fear from women. After all, they can just take their contraceptive and eliminate the problem.
_________________________________

In case you didn't notice, I referred to parents of teenage girls in particular. Those parents, credibly, will fear that their daughters will believe whatever their boyfriends say about already being "protected" because the lovestruck teens can't imagine the boys would lie about that - and we've all heard of teen girls being too embarrassed to get their own protection. (IIRC, Dr. Sol Gordon's 1987 book for teens "Seduction Lines Heard 'Round the World and Answers You Can Give: A World Book of Lines" includes the line "don't worry, I'm sterile." Can you imagine?)
__________________________________

So complaints of that nature are empty. Personally they sound like people saying men shouldn't have contraceptives.
_________________________________

Leaving aside parents of teen girls, I think it's safe to say the average adult female who says to the media "I wouldn't trust him" is far more worried about getting pregnant than NOT getting pregnant.

If a man is so worried about getting tricked, why would he bother letting her know he's using anything invisible at all? If she objects to condoms very early in the relationship, that's a dead giveaway anyway. (But how many women do that?) So if he claims he's already using something without her asking, that DOES sound suspicious.

Given how many men try to avoid using condoms, which are painless, it's no surprise that most women AND men don't believe that men are going to run out and buy a new INVASIVE method unless their wives/girlfriends ask them to do so. In other words, there just might be good reason for women to believe that men under 25, especially, will be more likely to lie about using it than to use it.

Also (this is big), the average woman likely doesn't know that many, if any, girls or women who deliberately tricked men into fatherhood, so it doesn't OCCUR to her that better male BC might be for a man's benefit, not the woman's - and so she ignorantly says the only thing that occurs to her: "I wouldn't trust him."
____________________________________

You mention there was a male pill. A 20% risk of permanent sterility along with other complications is not a small footnote. Do we require everyone who uses Depo-Provera to have eggs banked in a fertility clinic? No. It is just not the same.

Posted by: Ben at June 2, 2015 3:20 PM
___________________________________

What's your point on that one? I certainly wasn't suggesting that men accept risks like that. (Though it's not clear whether you were referring to the 1970s pill or to Gossypol.)

the average woman likely doesn't know that many, if any, girls or women who deliberately tricked men into fatherhood,
_____________________________________

BTW, at least one MRA blogger agrees that that problem has been exaggerated and that better male BC is not going to shake up society any - I can find it tomorrow if you like.

Whoops - found it. I just had to remember the right key phrases. It's from Dec. 2010.

http://theantifeminist.com/tag/male-pill-mens-rights/

It's more than a bit kooky, but the part I was thinking of appears at the end of the first third or so.

One thing the thread didn't mention is that Dr. Coutinho seemed to get Budapest confused with Bucharest at one point. Now THAT's suspicious.

There's a more articulate thread elsewhere, but I'll have to dig it up later - I couldn't find it right away.
______________________________________

Found it, thank goodness! (I was thinking of one commentator in particular.)

http://goodmenproject.com/health/male-contraception-methods-youve-probably-never-heard-of/

Julie Gillis says: April 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm

From the first half of comment:

...I’ve watched this. When was the video filmed? Interviewer mentions she first talked to him in the 70’s. What happened since them? I want actual cites on the drug. I want cites on China’s current usage of it. I want papers connected to it’s efficacy. I’ve heard of this drug on other sites and it appears that permanent infertility was mentioned as a side effect, and I’d LOVE proof that Betty Friedan said what she said...

...His own words on the video indicated that because the product was natural and cheap it wouldn’t be much interest to pharma companies. This is believe. This I think is a HUGE barrier to any kind of BC that is long term for women OR men, that if it won’t make Pharma money, why use it.

He indicates he doesn’t know who in Budapest in the ministry rejected the Pill, or why. And he also indicates in his own country the pill was not allowed on the market for “other reasons” which he doesn’t list “they gave me no explanations.”

Which I don’t buy. Pharma does trials, they have ample evidence of why it works, doesn’t work, is dangerous or not dangerous and then drugs are approved and marketed. He’d know why it was rejected since it would have been his trials! Were there trials in the US? This isn’t mentioned.

I know feminists may have a lot of influence over systems in the US, but I really seriously doubt that Betty Friedan making a statement about BC in Budapest was enough to get an entire communist Ministry to reject a drug...

(snip)

I agree Lenona, that Betty Friedan probably had little effect on a foreign government ministry. So, was it rejected for health reasons? Since he was referring to Gossypol which we now know has significant long term health risks that sounds quite reasonable. Hence, it is not a male version of the pill.

When you refer to the 1970s pill which drug are you actually referring to? I've heard of a few that were oral contraceptives. They worked on testosterone and had significant short term and long term side effects.

Finally, you keep going on about teen girl's parents concerns. How are these concerns any different from teen guy's parents concerns? It isn't the 1970s any more. The guy has significant long term financial risk and precious few rights. Your comment that women don't even think that BC is for the man's benefit is very significant. It shows the complete disregard for men when conception and children are considered in our culture. You may not know of any woman who tricked a man into fatherhood. But over 50% of men had a parent paying child support. Tricked or not they see firsthand the unfair nature of family court. And I doubt fewer than 25% of men don't know someone who was tricked into fatherhood. I expect the real number is closer to 75%.

You are also right that guys very much don't like condoms. They are very desensitizing and eliminate a huge percentage of a guy's enjoyment in sex. Unfortunately most women don't get the importance of sex to men in a relationship. Equally unfortunate many women don't get the importance of sex to them in a relationship, to their detriment. Condoms eliminate the more subtle but sill significant female afterglow.

Condoms "eliminate the afterglow?" Wtf does that even mean? Why go on for 6 screens about lack of male bitlrth control and dismiss condoms with some nonsense of that order? That's why you weirdos aren't taken seriously.

Thanks for proving my point Allison. Most women don't know about the psychotropic nature of semen. It is filled with a large number of psychoactive chemicals. It work kinda like a long acting low dose Prozac. Yay biology, and it's sneaky, sneaky ways of messing with our minds.

And no, I'm not making this up. Just google it. The effect is well researched and statistically significant.

As for why that is at the end. No particular reason. I was responding to Lenona's points, but mostly in reverse order since it was easier to read and review that way. After all, the third paragraph begins with 'Finally' but isn't the last paragraph. No wonder I got terrible grades in English.

You're right, I had not heard that. Its very cool if true, but I'm not convinced. I didn't pay the $40 to see beyond the abstract, did you?

Finally, you keep going on about teen girl's parents concerns. How are these concerns any different from teen guy's parents concerns? It isn't the 1970s any more.
_______________________________________

True, but that doesn't mean that a teen boy's parents are ever going to be quite as worried - and if they're middle-class, they may well carelessly assume that the hypothetical girl would have an abortion, not give birth and raise the baby. (And in middle-class neighborhoods, many parents of teens really can't imagine a girl's deliberately getting pregnant - it usually ISN'T deliberate, even with teens, but it's certainly something to talk to your son about, just in case - he'd be more likely to use condoms that way. One can always say something like "of course so-and-so would never deceive you, but she might subconsciously want a baby and get careless with her birth control without realizing it. Besides, using fewer than three methods at once is like playing Russian roulette anyway.")

Not to mention that many people don't know that in some states, even if the mother doesn't WANT child support from the father, the state will still insist on it.
____________________________________

You are also right that guys very much don't like condoms. They are very desensitizing and eliminate a huge percentage of a guy's enjoyment in sex. Unfortunately most women don't get the importance of sex to men in a relationship.

Posted by: Ben at June 2, 2015 7:44 PM
__________________________________

Er, in case you haven't heard, LOTS of women don't like the hassle of condoms, which is why heterosexual couples typically stop using them when one or both parties decides it's a long-term relationship and they agree to get tested for diseases and to share the cost of a method that's probably a lot more expensive.

Given the proliferation of STDs, I trust you're not suggesting that a woman should settle for fewer than the above terms just because HE doesn't like condoms?

(Hint: If he doesn't offer to prove that he's clean - or offer to help pay for the pill or a diaphragm - chances are he doesn't want to do either one, even for the sake of condomless sex.)

When you refer to the 1970s pill which drug are you actually referring to?
__________________________________

Unfortunately, the article I'm thinking of is no longer online and I didn't print it. I DO remember it was by Elizabeth Perle and written for the McGill Tribune (campus newspaper in Montreal), probably before 2010. I think she said her mother was involved in developing the pill for Planned Parenthood in Boston - but, again, men wouldn't take the pill in the 1970s, so it disappeared. (Not too surprising, given the fears spread by the media regarding the female pill.)

Luckily, you may be able to write to her directly and ask, if you want. She now works for the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-perle/

Allison,

I don't know which paper you are referring to. There were a couple of studies and there is substantial work still to be done. The most significant one I remember was from a few years ago and it showed a significant decrease in female suicide attempts with non-barrier sex.

Lenona,

I was not advocating non-condom sex for uncommitted couples. The risk of STDs is far too high even with protection. I'm not even saying one person should shoulder the entire cost of contraception.

Just to be clear, male contraception should not in any way be a threat to women. They should be using their own contraception anyway. So complaints that 'maybe he will lie about it or won't be consistent in using it' are disingenuous.

The only reason that would be a concern for women is they lose the sole power to control contraception. After all, in numerous polls roughly 50% of women say there is nothing wrong with tampering with contraception or lying about it. 'He will learn to love our child' is a common excuse.

I do oppose insurance paying for contraception. As far as I can tell it just raises the cost. So you end up paying 3x as much for the same thing.

I only saw one paper, and it didn't say of they controlled for the pill- they compared depression self-reports for women who did/didn't use condoms and controlled with celibate women. But it glossed over the question of whether it was controlled for the pill, and made no mention of whether it was controlled for stability of relationships or lifestyle differences. In any event, it trips my BS meter, as its click-baitish. And frankly, I've not noticed such an effect myself, can't relate. I know I'm a sample of 1, but generally even if I haven't experienced something, I can at least admit when something "figures" so to speak. This one has me scratching my head totally, effect of this never crossed my mind.

So complaints that 'maybe he will lie about it or won't be consistent in using it' are disingenuous.
____________________________________

Again, as I hinted, chances are those women are really saying: "What is the point of male BC? Given the potential physical discomforts, what man is really going to want to use this, aside from married men whose wives ASK them to use it? Don't I have enough problems getting my boyfriend to use condoms when something goes wrong with MY contraceptive without having to worry about his possibly lying about something like this once it becomes available?"

Selfish and short-sighted complaints, maybe. Dishonest, not likely.

If I had never read about the subject and were approached by a reporter on the street asking questions, chances are my knee-jerk reaction would be roughly the same (though not in regard to any particular man). However, if I desperately WANTED to get pregnant and didn't have a boyfriend yet, my knee-jerk response would be more like: "NO! My clock is ticking!"

Heard anyone say that yet?
______________________________________

The only reason that would be a concern for women is they lose the sole power to control contraception.
____________________________________

Again, as I said, if that were true, LOTS of women - not just fundie types - would be trying to stop single men from having the right to get vasectomies. Well?

And elsewhere:

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-36608-post-794879.html

It's the second page of a thread - there are other comments by the same man in the first page. He goes by "Basil Ransom."

Excerpts:

"You and others are just spouting baseless paranoia.

"Educated single white feminists don't want kids. They really don't. Anything that reduces their odds of getting kids, they are more or less behind. Many also don't like that they have to take birth control to avoid getting pregnant, due to the effort, expense and side effects incurred. Giving the chore of birth control to a man is desirable to them - insofar as they trust him. These 32 year old spinsters entrapping men with their wombs are more or less figments of your imagination. They don't get pregnant that easily to begin with.

"Who loses from male birth control? The women who are looking to get pregnant from single men. Who is currently getting pregnant outside of marriage? It's not educated white girls, or their Asian peers. It's black women and Hispanic women. It's white and Asian women without a 4 year college degree. Some of these women who had bastards would probably preferred not to have a baby, while some wanted the baby, marriage be damned. And surely some of the fathers wanted the baby too, while others were indifferent or merely irresponsible.

"There's another group that loses from male birth control, but I see them as pretty small - married women who want a kid but their husband doesn't."

I did, however, print a few paragraphs from that Elizabeth Perle article (Jan. 2008). Found them in my file cabinet.

"...In 1976, my mother was involved in a research project at the Margaret Sanger Institute in Boston on the development of male contraceptive methods. At the time, they were investigating two different options. The first was a little implant to be placed under the skin of the armpit, which would secrete enough testosterone, over three months, to decrease the man's sperm count.

"The second was a male birth control pill. Though the research was more rudimentary, the science was there. This means that a male birth control pill could have been a reality in North America more than 32 years ago.

"The problem? Men wouldn't take it. There was absolutely no market for oral contraception. The only group it appealed to was men in monogamous relationships, and even then, with the divorce rate so high, this group grew increasingly smaller. In 1980, the research my mother was involved in was utterly abandoned because the institute could not get funding from drug companies or external sources to continue..."

In the same vein, as I've mentioned, Meryl Streep used to campaign for male BC in the 1970s and early 1980s - but Perle's article would explain why we don't hear of Streep doing that these days. (Female birth control, yes.)

Allison,

From what I recall the paper about female suicide risk controlled for socioeconomic, family stability, and relationship length. It looked at several different forms of contraceptive including multiple versions of the pill, condom, diaphragm, and celibacy. They showed similar risks of depression and suicide using condom, diaphragm, and celibacy. There was a statistically significant decrease for pill user.

Could the study be wrong, sure. Also note I always said statistically significant. It was not a huge effect. I doubt it effects all women the same. Disbelieve it if you like. But labeling research 'creepy' or 'click-bait' is your own prejudice talking. Personally, I don't have the time or energy to dig up decades old research.

Lenona,

Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand you are advocating a testosterone based pill that has a 20% failure rate and significant side effects including heart disease, muscle wasting, and mood swings. On the other hand you are advocating a cotton based pill with 20% risk of permanent sterility after one year. Neither sounds equivalent to ortho tricyclen.

And yes, your argument that men can't be trusted with birth control and only female teens are at risk is both dishonest and sexist.

To Ben (if you see this):

Kindly point out where I said that men should USE anything with a high failure rate or frightful side effects. I never did. All I'm saying is, if men really want male birth control that's as safe and effective as, say, a diaphragm, they certainly don't talk that way as a group or even claim to be investing big bucks in such research - and as I mentioned on June 2, there are diplomatic ways to campaign; just get married men to do the talking on TV.

I did NOT say that only female teens are at risk. (Sadly, it's likely true that sex ed teachers neglect to mention that teen girls might lie about being on the pill.)

I did forget to mention that when women say "I wouldn't trust him," she's likely responding to a question about the male pill. It's not that sexist when you remember that WOMEN often forget to take their own pills. I have yet to hear what average women think of Vasalgel, per se. But, I suspect that reporters often just want a response that's fit for tabloids, not a boring serious answer. Ergo, they ask something like: "What would you say if your new boyfriend said he was using the invisible method X before you even had sex for the first time?"