Oral Contraceptives: Blessing or Curse?

Oral contraceptives have been on the American market for the past 50 years. Have they done more good than bad? An April issue of TIME Magazine examined this question.

Oral contraceptives were the first medicines ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick. Its main inventor was a conservative Catholic who was looking for a treatment for infertility and instead found a guarantee of it. It was blamed for unleashing the sexual revolution among suddenly swinging singles, despite the fact that throughout the 1960s, women usually had to be married to get it. Its supporters hoped it would strengthen marriage by easing the strain of unwanted children; its critics still charge that the Pill gave rise to promiscuity, adultery and the breakdown of the family. In 1999 the Economist named it the most important scientific advance of the 20th century. One of the world's largest studies of the Pill — 46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years — was released this March. It found that women who take the Pill are less likely to die prematurely from any cause, including cancer and heart disease, yet many women still question whether the health risks outweigh the benefits.
The big change the pill has wreaked on the American people has been the social changes that have taken place. In 1960 the typical American woman had 3.6 children; by 1980 the number had dropped below 2. For the first time, more women identified themselves as workers than as homemakers. "There is a straight line between the Pill and the changes in family structure we now see," says National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O'Neill, " with 22% of women earning more than their husbands. In 1970, 70% of women with children under 6 were at home; 30% worked. Now that's roughly reversed.

The pill has seemingly forever separated the sex act from reproduction for many people. Women who use the pill for recreational sex say that it has liberated them for competition in the work place and from the necessity of taking care of children in the home! The pursuit of pleasure has seemed to replace the pursuit of integrity in family life.

In the early days of pill use, there was a strong tendency and even legislative force behind the prohibition of pill use, except for married women. But in 1960, the Supreme Court “discovered” a right to privacy implicit in the Constitution. That occurred in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut; and the doors swung wide open for widespread use of contraceptive pills.

As the pill became more popular, the birth rate dropped; and employers became more willing to hire women, knowing that they would probably not become pregnant. For the first time, women were admitted to professional schools on an equal basis with men.

Of course, the TIME article presented all this information in a very positive light—apparently seeing nothing derogatory about the widespread use of birth control pills. However, I think that there can be no argument about the fact that birth control pills have facilitated lots of sexual promiscuity outside of marriage (and probably inside marriage, too). We are witnessing the advancing deterioration of the family; and birth control pills are playing a large part in that effect.