Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Winter 2025 PDF
    • WINTER 2025 HTML
    • THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW HTML COLLECTION PAGE
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2024: NEW MEDIA ADDED!
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner TABLE for TEN Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 2024 Young Adult / Pregnancy Center Staffer Tickets
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2024
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2024
    • ARCHIVE: GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2023
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Your Cart: Shipping is ALWAYS Free!

NEWSworthy

0 Comment

FDA Approval of Opill Reveals Our Birth Control Blind-Spot

Grace Emily Stark
Birth control pill and breast cancer, FDA and birth control pills, Opill
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

 

In an unsurprising move, the FDA announced Thursday that it has officially approved the Opill, a progestin-only birth control pill, for over-the-counter use (OTC) for all women of reproductive age. It will be the first hormonal birth control pill ever to be sold without a doctor’s prescription in the United States, and may soon open the door for easier access to additional hormonal contraceptive methods, including combined formulations that also contain estrogen. The pill’s manufacturer, Dublin-based pharmaceutical company Perrigo, expects to have the product on the shelves in early 2024.

When the FDA’s Advisory Committee unanimously voted to approve Opill for over-the-counter use by all women of reproductive age this past May, they cited (among other purported benefits) the ease of access for women of color. Others noted that if made available without a prescription, Opill would likely attract a younger set, particularly teens and college-aged women, again because of ease of access. Meanwhile, women of color, specifically Black women and teens, are most susceptible to one of the deadliest risks of taking this drug: breast cancer.

For decades, women have been led to believe that progestin-only birth control pills have fewer risks and side effects than alternative formulations that also contain estrogen. While it’s true that progestin-only formulations (often referred to as “the mini Pill”) do not carry the same blood clot, heart attack, and stroke-related risks as combined pills, many of the other side effects remain the same, including mental health and breast cancer risks.

In the interim between when the Advisory Committee was supposed to vote on Opill’s OTC approval (November 2022) and when the vote actually occurred (May 10, 2023), a large-scale study from Oxford University was published, which confirmed that breast cancer rates are similar among women who take progestin-only birth control pills and those who take combined pills. Troublingly, this study also confirmed that, while these risks are lowered by discontinuing use of these drugs, they still remain higher for breast cancer than for those who have never used them. In other words, some amount of breast cancer risk is permanently elevated once a woman begins using any form of hormonal birth control.

Breast cancer is now the most-diagnosed cancer in the world; after lung cancer, it is responsible for the most cancer deaths in U.S. women. As reported in The Wall Street Journal in early May, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that women begin receiving regular mammograms at age 40—a decade earlier than the previous recommendation—precisely because incidence of breast cancer has been steadily rising in ever-younger women. Notably, the prognosis is worse for Black women, who, for poorly understood reasons, die of breast cancer at a 40 percent higher rate than white women.

While the exact reasons why birth control use is linked with increased breast cancer risk are unclear, one compelling theory concerns what we know of breast tissue development, and how the synthetic hormones found in hormonal birth control may overstimulate immature breast cells, leading to the formation of cancer in immature breasts. While the generally accepted statistic is that hormonal birth control use raises the average woman’s risk for breast cancer about 20 percent over never-users, looking at what stage of their breast development process women begin taking birth control pills may give us a better picture of individual risk.

Most breast cancers develop in Type 1 and Type 2 (immature) breast tissue lobules, while cancer almost never occurs in mature Type 3 or Type 4 lobules. Mature breasts seem to be able to handle hormonal stimulation (such as would occur with hormonal birth control use) without developing cancer, yet women do not have breasts made up of mature Type 3 of 4 lobules until they have carried a pregnancy to full term. This is perhaps why a 2007 meta-analysis showed that the relative risk of developing breast cancer is as high as 44 percent for women who began using birth control pills before their first full-term pregnancy, and as high as 52 percent for women who used the drug at least four years before their first full-term pregnancy (numbers far higher than the 20 percent average relative risk often cited for hormonal birth control use).

Further underscoring the significance of age at first use of hormonal birth control, a 2010 meta-analysis showed that women who began birth control before age 20 (when very few women have carried a full-term pregnancy) had nearly double the relative risk of developing breast cancer by a young age (30) than did their peers who began using birth control after age 20. (Outside the focus of this article, but no less pressing, is the fact that the risk of depression with birth control use also highly correlates with age of the user, with teens being at the highest risk, and progestin-only pills eliciting slightly worse mental health outcomes than combined pills.)

All of this makes it especially troubling that the suspected (or perhaps targeted) users for Opill are teens and college-age women (who have likely not yet carried a full-term pregnancy) and Black women, for whom breast cancer is disproportionately deadly. Given the increasing rates of breast cancer in the United States and around the world, the blind eye turned by our public health experts to birth control and its known links to the development of breast cancer seems ignorantly counterproductive at best, and disturbingly negligent at worst.

 

 

234 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
Grace Emily Stark

Grace Emily Stark, M.A., is the Editor of Natural Womanhood. She holds a M.A. in Bioethics & Health Policy from Loyola University Chicago and a B.S. in Healthcare Management & Policy from Georgetown University, and is a recent alumna of the Paul Ramsey Institute Fellowship at the Center for Bioethics and Culture. In 2019, Mrs. Stark was awarded a Robert Novak Alumni Fund Journalism Fellowship to investigate the harms of hormonal birth control and growing popular interest in methods of fertility awareness for reproductive health and family planning.
(updated July 2023)

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR
The-Human-Life-Foundation
DONATE TODAY!

Recent Posts

RFK Jr, Autism, Eugenics--and Pro-Life Silence?

09 May 2025

IVF: The Frozen Sleep Evading Time

07 May 2025

Report: "The Abortion Pill Harms Women"

05 May 2025

CURRENT ISSUE

Alexandra DeSanctis Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott Bernadette Patel Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke D. Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jacqueline O’Hara Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Marvin Olasky Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Matt Lamb Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Rev. W. Ross Blackburn Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro Wesley J. Smith William Murchison

Shop 7 Weeks Coffee--the Pro-Life Coffee Company!
Support 7 Weeks Coffee AND the Human Life Foundation!
  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • Annual Human Life Foundation Dinner

Follow Us On Twitter

Follow @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.