First Quote Added
April 10, 2026
Latest Quote Added
"Margaret Garner, who was born as an enslaved girl, almost certainly did not plan to kill her child when she grew up and became an enslaved mother. But she also couldnât yet know that the physical, emotional and psychological violence of slavery, relentless and horrific, would one day conspire to force her maternal judgment in a moment already fraught with grave imperative."
"Claudia Tate has observed that for female slaves "motherhood was an institution to which they had only biological claim". Enslaved women and their children could be separated at any time, and even if they belonged to the same owner, strict labor policies and plantation regulations severely limited the development of their relationships. Hortense J. Spillers concludes that because of this fundamental maternal outrage, and the concomitant banishment of the black father, "only the female stands in the flesh, both mother and mother-dispossessed. This problematizing of gender places her, in my view, out of the traditional symbolics of female gender". George Cunningham further argues, "Within the domain of slavery, gender or culturally derived notions of man- and womanhood do not exist". The predetermined violence of slavery disrupts conventional meanings attached to words such as "mother" and "womanhood." What is motherhood for a woman deprived of the ability to care for and protect her child? How are we to conceptualize maternal identity under conditions of enslavement? Furthermore, because procreation by bondwomen can be regarded as both a means of perpetuating slavery and an act of love and self-sacrifice, the sexuality of enslaved women and their relationship to their offspring must be understood as a complex negotiation involving individual agency, resistance, and power. Due to slavery's basic destabilization of blood relations, the black female subject demands new terms of radical self-determination. Spillers thus reminds her readers, "It is our task to make a place for this different social subject. In doing so, we are less interested in joining the ranks of gendered femaleness than gaining the insurgent ground as female social subject"."
"It is clear to see how deeply abortion bans are rooted in white supremacy and patriarchal strongholds when we look at the history of Black women in this country. The tradition of disregarding the humanity of Black people is part of more than 400 years of white supremacist systems in America. Although abortion was legal throughout the country until after the Civil War, there were different rules for enslaved Black women than for white women. Enslaved Black women were valuable property. They didnât have the freedom to control their bodies, and slave owners prohibited them from having abortions. Under the law, white men owned Black womenâs bodies. So, enslaved women who had access to emmenagogic herbs â plants used to stimulate menstruation â had to make remedies to induce their own abortions in secret."
"Black women have been aborting themselves since the earliest days of slavery. Many slave women refusing to bring children into a world of interminable forced labor, where chains and floggings and sexual abuse for women were the everyday conditions of life. A doctor practicing in Georgia around the middle of the last century noticed that abortions and miscarriages were far more common among his slave patients than among the white women he treated. Why were self-imposed abortions and reluctant acts of infanticide such common occurrence during slavery? Not because Black women had discovered solutions to their predicament, but rather because they were desperate. Abortions and infanticides were acts of desperation, motivated not by the biological birth process but by the oppressive conditions of slavery. Most of these women, no doubt, would have expressed their deepest resentment had someone hailed their abortions as a stepping stone toward freedom."
"Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman shall be slave of free. Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother-âPartus Sequitur Ventremâ. And that if any Christian shall commit fornication with a negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act."
"Atlantic slavery rested upon a notion of heritability. It thus relied on a reproductive logic that was inseparable from the explanatory power of race. As a result, women and their experienced of enslavement shed critical light on what it meant to be enslaved or free in the early modern Atlantic world. Regardless of the rate of reproduction among the enslaved-which remained low in all early American slave societies-the ideological solidity of those slave societies needed reproducing women. Building a system of racial slavery on the notion of heritability did not require the presence of natural population growth among the enslaved, but it did require a clear understanding that enslaved women gave birth to enslaved children. Resituating heritability was key in the practice of an enslavement that systematically alienated the enslaved from their kind and their lineage. Enslaved people had to be understood as dispossessed, outside of the normal networks of family and community, to justify the practice of mass enslavement."
"It is clear to see how deeply abortion bans are rooted in white supremacy and patriarchal strongholds when we look at the history of Black women in this country. The tradition of disregarding the humanity of Black people is part of more than 400 years of white supremacist systems in America. Although abortion was legal throughout the country until after the Civil War, there were different rules for enslaved Black women than for white women. Enslaved Black women were valuable property. They didnât have the freedom to control their bodies, and slave owners prohibited them from having abortions. Under the law, white men owned Black womenâs bodies. So, enslaved women who had access to emmenagogic herbs â plants used to stimulate menstruation â had to make remedies to induce their own abortions in secret. When slavery was abolished in 1865, the societal control over Black womenâs bodies remained. Today, our white supremacist culture judges Black women for both having children and for having abortions â besetting them with blame for virtually any decision they make and any form of agency they take about their bodies."
"The practices of abortion and infanticide seem worthy of at least a fleeting mention in most studies of slave women in the United States, yet few historians mention the use of contraception. Those who do, usually conclude that little is known about the subject, but that it is probably not particularly significant. This article will discuss the use of contraception among slaves and will concentrate, in particular, on the use of cotton roots as a form of birth-control. Evidence that the cotton root was used for this purpose is taken mainly from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) narratives, edited by George Rawick. George P. Rawick, ed., The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography, Vols. 2â41 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Company, 1972â1979). As yet, the author has come across only a few references to the use of cotton roots as a form of contraception in any other source. The WPA narratives are a controversial source, but, in sifting through every single interview, the multiple references to such an intimate practice were striking and demanded attention. This article forms part of a chapter from a thesis which looks at the work of slave women in the American South. Liese M. Perrin, âSlave Women and Work in the American Southâ (University of Birmingham: Ph.D. diss., 1999). A thorough reading of the WPA narratives reveals not only that slave women used contraception, but also that it may have been very effective. In the context of slave women and work, this is a significant discovery, as the evidence, which is detailed below, suggests that slave women not only understood that their childbearing capacity was seen in terms of producing extra capital, but that they were sufficiently opposed to this function to actually avoid conception. The use of contraception can be seen not only as a form of resistance, but also, more specifically, as a form of strike, since reproduction was an important work role for most slave women."
"It is precisely through her flesh as both mother and slave woman that Harriet A. Jacobs in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (1861) claims the insurgent ground of her social identity and formulates her resistance to human bondage. By emphasizing her narrator's maternal sentiments, Jacobs resists prevailing beliefs concerning black women's indifference to their children while also establishing an important association between her protagonist Linda Brent and domestic ideologies. Much like Harriet Beecher Stowe and other nineteenth-century writers of sentimental fiction, Jacobs describes "nurture as a quintessence of the maternal that crosses race and class boundaries" (Stephanie Smith 215). Relying upon an understanding of maternity as a form of innate attachment, Jacobs presents Linda's actions as largely determined by the effect they will have on her children and their eventual emancipation. Many female slaves were unable to keep their families together, yet by emphasizing the oppositional action inspired by maternal sentiment Jacobs presents motherhood as a force that resists slavery and its supporters. By fashioning a literary persona who is defined almost exclusively by her maternal identity, Jacobs rejects the materialist logic of human ownership. Maternal love is shown to offer a model of relations that opposes the economy of exchange and possession characterizing the antebellum system of human bondage. Converting her body and reproductive abilities from sites of exploitation to vehicles of resistance, Linda undermines the authority of the slave master and works to liberate her children. Works by Carla Peterson, Valerie Smith, and Claudia Tate have focused upon Jacobs's departure from the assumptions and expectations of the male slave narrative to articulate the experiences and concerns of bondwomen. By contrast, I explore forms of female bodily resistance as well as ideological strategies of literary representation. Rather than conflate Jacobs with the text's protagonist, as many previous critics have done, I analyze Linda as a literary figure deliberately constructed to perform certain political aims. As the embodiment of maternal love, she acts almost exclusively to improve the lives of her children. Although Linda strains credibility as a result of her overriding maternal sensibility, Jacobs's reliance upon the trope of motherhood capitalizes on the political import of prevailing beliefs in the sanctity and power of the mother and suggests that a woman's sexuality offers a vital means of resistance against patriarchal oppression."
"Legend has popularized the image of the Caribbean as a woman compelled to suckle a snake all night long. This image of a womanâs violated body is viewed as paradigmatic of a land and people exploited and ravaged by imperialist aggression. As a corporeal representation, the image recalls Hortense Spillersâs formulation of the New World as a âscene of âactualâ mutilation, dismemberment and exile,â where the âseared divided, ripped-apartnessâ of the flesh serves as âprimary narrative.â As legend has encoded it, however, this primary narrative is inscribed in the flesh of the womanâs body and takes the particular form of violated maternity This powerful image of the violated maternal figure has, not surprisingly, found a significant place in contemporary Caribbean and African American literature. The literary representation of the figure of the violated mother is enmeshed with two dominant and long-standing issues of this literature. Although they have long been of concern in Caribbean and African American literature, the slave mother and black motherhood have only recently appeared, in all their complexity, as focal points for the exploration of past history and self-expression. Not only does the issue of violated maternity force the painfully unspeakable and unspoken experience into avenues of objectification, insisting that the sexual abuse of black women, both slave and free, be included in discussion of slavery, but, as image, it can also become emblematic or representative of an entire people, as in the work of Edouard Glissant. As well, it can become the cornerstone for a critique of repressed desire, as in Maryse Condeâs âMoi, Tituba, sorciere . . . Noire de Saleâ (1986; Eng. âI, Tituba, Black Witch of Salemâ). This critique resolves itself, turning absence into presence, through an alternative production/reproduction: that of writing or telling the female self into existence."
"Many slave owners looked at black womenâs bodies as a source of free labor and often forced relationships or raped enslaved women to produce more children. Generally, enslaved women who bore children were considered more valuable than those who didnât. At the same time, the backbreaking work expected of the women, the lack of medical care and healthy food, and abusive treatment often resulted in miscarriages, premature births, and stillbirths. Those losses led some southern whites to conclude that enslaved women knew secret ways to manage their fertility. Though the practice probably wasnât as common as was assumed, some black women did use remedies such as cotton root or looked to a black midwife to end their pregnancies. In doing so, they were asserting some control over their own bodies-and perhaps hoping to avoid the heartbreak of having a child born into slavery or sold away from the family. But the birth rate for black women didnât notably decline until after the end of the Civil War."
"Southern slaves were "the happiest, and, in some sense the freest people in the world," wrote George Fitzhugh, Virginia proslavery defender. He claimed bondwomen did "little hard work" and were "protected from the despotism of their husbands by their masters." In her famous diary, Mary Chesnut noted that the female slaves "take life easily. Marrying is the amusement of their life." Many antebellum southerners thought the female slaves were sensuous and promiscuous and cited the "easy chastity" of the bondwomen. Since associations were made between promiscuity and reproduction, the desired increase of the slave population seemed to be evidence of the bondwoman's passion. A slaveowner in northern Mississippi told Fredrick Law Olmsted that slaves "breed faster than white folks, a 'mazin' sight, you know; they begin younger," and, he added, "they don't very often wait to be married." Bondwomen's perception of the slave experience is in marked contrast to the slaveowners'. In her remarkable autobiography, Linda Brent, a mulatto female slave, noted, "Slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for women. Superadded to the burden common to all, they have wrongs, and sufferings, and mortifications peculiarly their own." Female bondage was worse than male bondage because the female slave was both a woman and a slave in a patriarchial regime where males and females were unequal, whether white or black. Because they were slaves, African-American women were affected by the rule of the patriarch in more ways and to a greater degree than the white women in the Big House. The size of the food allotment, brutal whippings, slave sales, and numerous other variables influenced the bondwoman's view of the patriarchy. Yet because she was a woman, her view, like that of the white woman, was also gender related. According to Anne Firor Scott, the most widespread source of discontent among white women centered around their inability "to control their own fertility." On the other hand, the bondwoman's entire sex life was subject to the desires of her owner. This essay will, therefore, deal only with the bondwomen's perspective from the viewpoint of gender, using twentieth-century interviews with female ex-slaves who were at least twelve or thirteen years of age at the time of emancipation. Of the 514 women in this category, 205, or almost forty percent, made comments of this nature."
"From the moment of its introduction into the Atlantic world, hereditary racial slavery depended on an understanding that enslaved women's reproductive lives would be tethered to the institution of slavery. At the same time, few colonial slave codes explicitly defined the status of these children. This essay explores English slave codes regarding reproduction under slavery alongside the experience of reproduction to suggest that legislative silences are not the final word on race and reproduction. The presumption that their children would also be enslaved produced a visceral understanding of early modern racial formations for enslaved women. Using a seventeenth-century Virginia slave code as its anchor, this essay explores the explicit and implicit consequences of slaveowners' efforts to control enslaved women's reproductive lives."
"This article examines antislavery authorsâ attempts in the 1850s to fictionalize the Margaret Garner story of slave infanticide as a means of converting northern white readers to the antislavery cause. In their attempts to gain sympathy for an enslaved female protagonist who had murdered her own child, these authors confronted strong cultural beliefs about femininity, motherhood, and blackness. Almost uniformly, their strategy involved lightening the skin of the main character and presenting the killing of her child as a form of suicide. Nevertheless, the intense emotions surrounding the slavery issue by the midâ1850s also led these authors to endow their fictional slave women with an aggressiveness that challenged contemporary social boundaries for women."
"Herbal remedies to induce miscarriage were equally well known to enslaved women. Slaves often grew herbs and mixed their own medicine, derisively referred to as ânegro remediesâ by Southern whites. A common concern among slave-owners (who, as I mentioned in my last post, stood to gain from their slavesâ pregnancies) was that slave women were using cotton root as an abortifacient. Historian Sharla Fett writes that white doctors worried that enslaved women were using those old emmenagogues pennyroyal, tansy and rue to end pregnancies. Just as with white women, doctors were eager to control the use of slavesâ herbal remedies, particularly those used to regulate menstruation."
"Throughout Antillean oral culture,â writes Maryse Conde in âLa parole des femmesâ (Womenâs Word; 1979), âthe mother is glorified as the bearer of gifts and the dispenser of goods. We can easily say that this is also the case in literature written by both men and women.â This idealization of the mother, which Conde characterizes as an enduring feature of the folklore and literature of the Antilles, has given rise to a romanticized, if not exotic, portrayal of maternity. It is only recently, argues Conde, that feminist literature of the Antilles has responded to the model image of a nurturing, supportive, selfless mother and the reductionist conception of maternity as the definitive function of women. The response, Conde adds, is somewhat nuanced: although literary heroines continue to conceptualize the mother as a prominent figure, they themselves refuse maternity. Conde suggests that the ambivalence that accompanies the heroineâs refusal reflects both the persistent defining power of the images and a conscious or unconscious rejection of them (40-47). I would like to suggest that, in addition, the ambivalence is indicative of residual traces of violence against the slave mother, vestiges of the past that consciously or unconsciously shape present conceptions of social identity. Rooted in the violence colonization of black female sexuality, motherhood in slavery was an extremely complex and conflict-ridden experience, the repercussions of which are still felt today and manifest themselves as the literary heroineâs ambivalence."
"Ten years after its first release, the birth control pill made headlines again during the Nelson Pill Hearings, a Capitol Hill investigation into the pillâs safety. When feminist activists noticed that no women were being invited to testify, they interrupted the proceedings and testified from their seats. âWhy isnât there a pill for men?â activist Alice Wolfson shouted. âWhy are 10 million women being used as guinea pigs?â"
"The trials began with small-scale tests on rats and rabbits. Each day, for a period of five days, re-searchers pumped immature female rabbits full of the reproductive hormones estrogen and progesterone. On the fifth day, the scientists allowed the rabbits to copulate, then removed their fallopian tubes and examined them for signs of egg fertilization. For years, Massachusetts scientists worked diligently on hundreds of caged rabbits in a basement lab on a shoestring budget, searching for the perfect compound. On June 23, 1960, a decade after the tests began, the hormonal birth control pill hit the market. The idea was simple: Take a little white pill once a day, avoid accidental pregnancy. The implications were revolutionary."
"[M]edical history is often swept clean, praising progress without remembering those who suffered to create it. For the most part, the popular narrative of the pill is one of celebration. When a 2009 Harvard Gazette story discussed Harvardâs role in creating the birth control pill, they did so without referencing the Puerto Rican trials or the asylum testing. Pincus and Rock are largely remembered for their contributions to womenâs reproductive empowerment, without reference to their troubling methods."
"In Britain, publicity over the pillâs potential risks reached a crescendo in late 1969, when a number of British medical journals and popular newspapers published articles accusing the medical profession of being too complacent on the links between the pill and thrombosis. The debate intensified in December 1969 when Professor Victor Wynn, an endocrinologist and an expert on metabolic effects of anabolic steroids, appeared on a David Frost television program and detailed before millions of British viewers a panoply of risks associated with the pill. Appearing in a total of three Frost programs that month, one of which was broadcast to an audience in the United States, Wynnâs testimony caused public and parliamentary uproar. These broadcasts, together with the publication of the British epidemiological studies linking the pill with thrombotic complications, resulted in the British government warning doctors to no longer prescribe the higher dose (10-milligram) pills. In the United States, an impassioned public debate on the safety of the pill had also been inaugurated with the publications of journalists Morton Mintz and Barbara Seaman. Both journalists challenged what they characterized as the âdiplomatic immunityâ which had dominated news about the oral contraceptives up to that time by questioning not only the overall safety of the pill but the way in which the U.S. regulatory authorities had approved it. Mintz, in particular, widely publicized as fact that the pill had been tested on only 132 women prior to its approval for contraception and that its safety had not been proven before it went on the market. By the end of 1969 Senator Gaylord Nelson called for congressional hearings (known as the Nelson hearings) on the safety of the pill. The primary focus of the Nelson hearings was on safety and informed consent: Had women been adequately informed about the risks and significant side effects of the pill? Should the pill be removed from the market, or should new studies be instituted?"
"In Britain, government control over the manufacture and supply of pharmaceutical drugs had been tightened in 1947 and 1957. Such restrictions, however, primarily concerned dangerous drugs and self-medication drugs, as well as biological products (e.g., antibiotics, vaccines, and insulin, all of which had to best and ardized by biological techniques). Products had to be scrutinized to insure that their manufacturing methods and potency testing met the stipulated requirements. Drugs subject to these restrictions were only a small minority in the pharmacopoeia. All other drugs could be released onto the British market without submitting to any formal procedure. In general, the British government took a laissez-faire approach toward pharmaceutical companies in the1950s. The only restriction imposed on drugs in this period was that they could not be advertised as curing cancer, venereal disease, or Brightâs disease. Britain and the United States thus had very limited testing requirements when the first pill was initially approved, and Enovid underwent governmental premarket review only in the United States. The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specified that a drug is not defined by its ability or lack of ability to treat a disease, but rather as any product âaffecting the structure or function of the body.â This language had been incorporated into the 1938 law for the explicit purpose of giving the FDA jurisdiction over products such as obesity drugs (obesity was not considered a disease), nose straighteners, and especially contraceptive devices such as pessaries and condoms, which, like oral contraceptives, had both therapeutic and contraceptive applications. Therefore, by definition, Enovid was a product that clearly fell under the jurisdiction of the FDA."
"When Searle notified the FDA in 1959 that it wished to submit a supplemental application for Enovid to expand the drugâs labeling indications to include use as an oral contraceptive, it rapidly became clear that the American federal government wanted little to do with the process and saw it as no more than routine bureaucratic process of new drug review and approval at the FDA. As Critchlow and Watkins have discussed in great detail, there mere mention of contraception as a credible component of overseas aid had drawn the opposition of American Catholic bishops. Moreover, with the 1960 presidential election looming, neither President Eisenhower nor the Catholic presidential candidate, John Kennedy, wanted to make an issue out of contraception and the pending approval of the contraceptive pill. In Britain, the central government also vigorously refused to initiate debate over the pill. The British Ministry of Health had stated as early as 1955 that it did not want any involvement with contraceptive testing and approval. Again, in 1956, when news emerged of the possible availability of a contraceptive pill in the United States, the Medical Research Council, the main British government body responsible for clinical trials since 1919, refused to sponsor any monitoring of the new drug on the grounds that it was too politically and morally sensitive an issue for them to handle."
"As Watkins has discussed, the Nelson hearings infuriated many women. During the 1960s many feminists had begun to protest against the paternalistic attitudes of the state and male-dominated medicine. After the hearings, women were critical of the process, which excluded testimony from female patients, and angry about the analogies to women as guinea pigs. Many responded by parading in front of the hearings carrying placards demanding âFeed the Pill to your guinea pigs at the FDA not live women.â After the hearings, womenâs groups, particularly the Washington D.C.-based Womenâs Liberation group, called for new separate hearings centered around womenâs concerns, angrily arguing that, âIn spite of the fact that it is women who are taking the pill and taking the risks, it was the legislators, the doctors, and the drug companyâs representatives, all men of course, who were testifying and dissecting women as if they were no more important than the laboratory animals they work with every day.â In this charged atmosphere, there is no doubt that what feminists took away from the writings of journalists and the Nelson hearing proceedings was that women had indeed served as guinea pigs as drug companies prospered, and that, even ten years later, physicians were still not sure if the pill was safe."
"Once marketed in the United States and Britain, Enovid/Enavid was freely available to women whose doctors would prescribe it, either as a treatment for infertility or for menstrual disorders. Medical doctors in both countries could then, as they can now, prescribe drugs for purposes other than those approved because neither country has ever sought to regulate the practice of medicine. The fact that so many women may (or may not) have had access to Enocid/Enavid years before it was formally approved by FDA as a contraceptive makes any discussion about the approval of the pill which centers upon numbers very difficult. The most commonly cited figure is that by 1959 more than 500,000 women were taking the drug for menstrual disorders in the United States."
"Searle had originally asked the FDA to consider simultaneously an application for three dosages of Enovid: 10, 5, and 2.5 milligrams. Searle was particularly interested in promoting the lower dosage forms of Enovid because one of the chief criticisms of the pill up to this point had not been a medical one, but rather an economic one. Partly developed in response to concerns about world hunger, it was feared that Enovid would prove far too expensive for woen in poorer countries. The cost of the hormone was directly proportionate to the cost of the drug and the dose. Lowering the dose significantly lowered the cost of Enovid. Searle, therefore, had great incentive to prove the safety and efficacy of its lower dosage pills. As far as Searle officials were concerned, the lower dose of Enovid should not have required a separate NDA because they considered it merely an alternative dose of the same drug. As one Searle representative wrote when seeking approval of the lower dosage: â[I find it] very difficult to understand how less of a drug can be more dangerous than a larger dose...a basic fact of any drug use is adjustment of the dosage to a particular individualâs requirement. Thatâs all we are trying to do with the lower dosage forms of Enovid....I find it impossible to understand how one increases danger by reducing the dose.â The FDA, however, viewed the dosage question as an issue of efficacy and possibly safety in 1959. The lower doses produced an increased incidence of breakthrough bleeding. It was not immediately clear whether this was an indication that ovulation had not been effectively suppressed. If so, it would have undermined Enovidâs effectiveness as a contraceptive, rendering it unapprovable. The FDA was therefore very cautious in considering any alteration in the original dose formulation of the pill."
"By the end of the fourth quarter of 1964, more than 4 million women had used Searleâs pill. Such unexpected and unprecedented popularity not only surprised the pharmaceutical industry, but amazed physicians, family planners, social reformers and politicians as well. The early enthusiasm for oral contraceptives, however, was soon dampened as the high hormonal doses of the first pill produced nausea, headaches, and dizziness so severe that some women abandoned the pill as quickly as they had embraced it."
"By the 1970s, however, there had been a sea tide of change in the evaluation of the safety of oral contraceptives since 1960. In 1962, before the British researchers established the statistical link with thrombosis, many physicians felt that the whole question of the pillâs side effects had been magnified, not by the actual danger, but by the concerns over thalidomide. No one disputed, however, that there was a need for more research to substantiate the concerns. By the time of the Nelson hearings, several large-scale studies of the pill and of thrombotic phenomena had been designed, and others were underway. The American Cancer Society, to cite a single example, initiated a seven-year study comparing 5000 pill users with 5000 nonusers. Experience with such large studies and interpretation of their results, as well as the new drug evaluation methods mandated by laws and regulations enacted in the wake of the thalidomide disaster, strengthened the entire new drug approval system worldwide."
"The pill, of course, is still on the market, and although it is still controversial in some corners, the social and medical concerns it originally engendered have now been supplanted by concerns over the abortion drug RU-486, approved in the United States in 1999. The pill, like other drugs before and after it, added experience and knowledge that strengthened the regulatory process. Moreover, early and continuing public criticism of the pill and its approval was crucial in opening up the larger debate over the safety, labeling, and information provided to consumers of prescription drugs in both countries. Seamanâs tireless, and at times heroic, efforts to mandate a âpatient package insertâ for the oral contraceptives cannot be overlooked as a major contribution to the history of the womenâs health movement. Because of the knowledge gained from Enovid/Conovid, pharmaceutical researchers have gone on to create a new generation of oral contraceptives which are, in the words of journalist Robin Herman,â99.9% effective,â but are generally safer and have far fewer side effects than any of the original pill formulations. Only in 1995 was it established that a mutant gene (called factor V Leiden) puts some women at increased risk of venous thrombosis. With the recent commercial availability of genetic screening for this gene, women now have the option of being screened before they take the pill."
"On June 23, 1960, a decade after the tests began, the hormonal birth control pill hit the market. The idea was simple: Take a little white pill once a day, avoid accidental pregnancy. The implications were revolutionary. Women could work without fear of becoming pregnant. Sex before marriage be-came less risky. Sex after marriage became less fraught. Feminist historians herald this day as the be-ginning of the sexual revolutionâbut the story of the birth control pill is also one of conflicting ideologies and medical exploitation. The Harvard-educated scientists who formulated the pill relied on invasive tests and shaky medical consent."
"After her husband died on January 19, 1947, Katharine D. McCormick came into $35 million. A life-long feminist and birth control advocate, she spent the money on what Margaret Sanger, famous feminist and Planned Parenthood founder, explained to her as âthe greatest need of the whole [Planned Parenthood] movementâââa simple, cheap, contraceptive.â Feminists had dreamed of a birth control pill a woman could take without a manâs knowledge, and Rock and Pincus were their best chance yet."
"By the beginning of the 20th-century, the idea of oral contraception in conventional medicine had died. It was not to be revived until the century was half over. The woman who made it happen was Margaret Sanger (Riddle, 1992)."
"Developed in the1950s, the pill was once optimistically hailed as a scientific cure for the worldâs rising population and its consequent social and political ills. Historians, however, have begun to show that the oral contraceptive did not prove to be the social panacea envisioned by its inventors, and that its history is more complex. Much of its history cannot be disentangled from the wider political, economic, and social issues of the day .Watkins, for instance, has shown that the availability of the pill in the United States had a major impact on the relationship between doctors and female patients in the1960s. Similarly, Critchlow has illustrated how the contraceptive controversy in American politics started with the appearance of the pill and continued with the debates surrounding RU-486, the abortion pill. More recently, Marks has challenged previous histories, which have championed the pill as a North American product that fuelled the sexual revolution, suggesting that its roots and subsequent adoption were much more diverse in origin and can only be understood within a wider international framework."
"There is a vast difference between the original pill and the current forms of hormonal contraception. This evolution was characterised by the reduction of hormonal dosages, introduction of new progestins, elaboration of various oestrogen-progestin administration schemes and the development of alternative routes of administration. It was driven by the search for oral contraceptives causing less side effects, but also by competition between pharmaceutical companies, and was facilitated by advances in the knowledge of hormonal mechanisms and the monitoring of the endocrine and metabolic effects OCs elicit."
"Adding to the growing knowledge about the pill and its wide spread influence on twentieth-century history, we offer a detailed cross-cultural (or at least transatlantic) history of the actual processes by which the first pill formulation, Enovid (U.S.) and Enavid (U.K.) came onto the market. Such a detailed account of the marketing of the pill emphasizes that the birth control pill was introduced in various stages, rather than simply approved at a single point in time. The drug was first marketed in 1957 for treating gynecological disorders. Only in 1960 was it allowed to carry a contraceptive claim, and only after 1961 did reports begin to appear that the drug could cause serious, albeit rare, thrombotic complications (blood clots). Between the time that Enovid was approved as a menstrual regulator and then as a contraceptive, attitudes regarding the perception of safety changed greatly, as did the evaluations carried out to assess risk and efficacy."
"On the 50th birthday of the pill, it is appropriate to recall the milestones which have led to its development and evolution during the last five decades. The main contraceptive effect of the pill being inhibition of ovulation, it may be called a small miracle that this drug was developed long before the complex regulation of ovulation and the menstrual cycle was elucidated. Another stumbling block on its way was the hostile climate with regard to contraception that prevailed at the time."
"By the end of their reproductive years, more than 80% of US women will have used oral contraceptives (OCs), for an average of about 5 years. The pill has had a dramatic impact on social life in the US, affecting women's health, fertility trends, laws and policies, religion, interpersonal relations, family roles, women's careers, gender relations, and premarital sexual practices. The emergence of the women's rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s was significantly related to the availability of the pill and the control over fertility it enabled. This capability allowed women to make choices about other life arenas, especially work. Over the past 40 years, both the content and dose of the steroid components of OCs have changed significantly, with consequent reduced health effects. This improved safety profile has been further bolstered by the identification of women with risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, history of cardiovascular disease, and diabetes with vascular disease. In recent years, the emphasis has shifted from the health risks of OC use to the noncontraceptive health benefits."
"Oral contraceptives (OC) convey a protection against ovarian, endometrial and perhaps colorectal cancer. However, OC use is associated with excess risk of breast (current or recent use only), cervical and liver cancer. Benefits and risks of OC use on cancer were reviewed in 2005 by a Working Group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which concluded that combined OCs are carcinogenic to humans, based on an increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma, cervical and (for current use only) breast cancers. The Working Group also concluded that there is conclusive evidence that OCs have a protective effect against cancers of the ovary and endometrium."
"Almost every decade we have witnessed a breakthrough in oral contraception. Social and moral objections to birth control have gradually disappeared and, notwithstanding some pill scares, oral contraceptives are now one of the most used methods of contraception."
"For most women, thalidomide came to epitomize the potential and unknown dangers posed by any drug used in pregnancy, while the horror that this drug inspired led directly to stronger laws governing the marketing of new drugs in Britain, the United States, and most of Europe between 1962 and 1964. As a drug intended to prevent pregnancy, the pill played a special role in the debate about the safety and efficacy of drugs."
"Progestin-only contraceptives are known to alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestinal effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation, and, in some patients, suppress ovulation."
""It is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orient them towards an end conformable to the good of man." In regard to your question as to why the pill is so bad if it is permitted by the Church to be used sometimes and at other times it is forbidden. The answer is that the pill is not intrinsically evil, of itself. It is made up of varying levels of the hormones called progestogens and estrogens. There is nothing evil about these hormones; God Himself created them! Yet He created them with a biological purpose of giving the female body the potential for fertility . . ."
"When one approaches the cycle of a woman's body from the standpoint that God made it and has made it for a purpose, one can then understand the relation of the pill to this cycle. To be blunt, a woman's cycle is ordered toward fertility, toward life. The pill, when used as an oral contraceptive, is ordered toward infertility, toward death. The pill (made up of estrogen and progestogen) is ordered toward infertility because it inhibits the release of the follicle stimulating hormone and stops the luteinizing hormone from triggering ovulation. The pill is ordered toward death because both estrogen and progestogen "change the endometrium in such a manner that even if ovulation did take place, implantation of the fertilized egg would be unsuccessful." In some cases, a child is conceived, and the pill acts as an abortifacient. This is the murder of an innocent!"
"It had already been known for several decades that sex hormones were able to suppress ovulation in animals. Ludwig Haberlandt, an Austrian physiologist is sometimes called the grandfather of the pill. Indeed, in 1921 he found that rabbits and guinea pigs became temporarily sterile after transplantation of ovaries from pregnant animals. These experiments paved the way for pharmacological studies on the effect of progesterone on ovulation. The anti-ovulatory effect of progesterone was demonstrated by A. W. Makepeace and co-workers in 1937 who injected progesterone in mated female rabbits. Large-scale experiments with progesterone, which hitherto had been extracted from animal ovaries became possible after Russell E. Marker, a professor of organic chemistry, found that progesterone could be manufactured from a substance named diosgenin, extracted from the root of a plant (Dioscorea mexicana) which grows in Mexican jungles."
"Pincus made his name in the field of experimental biology when, in 1934, he produced rabbits in vitro by parthenogenesis. In 1944, he established the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology where he surrounded himself with a group of brilliant young investigators. One of them was a Chinese immigrant, Min-Chueh Chang, who repeated and refined the experiments of Makepeace and established the experimental model to study the anti-ovulatory effect of sex steroids. The impetus for converting findings of animal experiments into human hormonal contraception was given by Margaret Sanger, founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). She approached Pincus in 1951 and provided a small grant to begin hormonal contraceptive research. In the same period, John Rock, an expert in the treatment of infertility, was experimenting with the oral administration of high doses of oestrogen (diethylstilboestrol) and progesterone to induce pseudo-pregnancy in infertile women. He reasoned that high doses of sex steroids promoted the growth of the uterus and the Fallopian tubes and so restored fertility; but he also found that this treatment suppressed ovulation. The biologist Pincus and the gynaecologist Rock shared their experience and their intention to develop a hormonal oral contraceptive."
"Epidemiological studies by the Medical Research Council, in the UK, revealed that pill users were more susceptible than nonusers to thromboembolism9. On second thoughts, this complication could be anticipated because of the established link between high oestrogen levels and thromboembolism during pregnancy. Later, it was shown that oestrogens and ethinylestradiol in particular stimulate the synthesis of several clotting factors and hepatic proteins among which the renin substrate angiotensinogen, re-sponsible for pill-induced hypertension in susceptible women. This first pill scare led to the gradual reduction in the dosage of ethinylestradiol from 50 to 30, 20 and even 15 Îźg. This dose reduction was associated with less side effects such as breast tenderness, nausea and bloating. But, even at these low doses, oral contraceptives still exert a prothrombotic effect."
"ON June the United States celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the approval of Enovid, the first oral contraceptive. From the time of the first clinical trials to the present, nearly million women have swallowed various formulations of the contraceptive pill, making it one of the most widely consumed class of drugs in the world. By the end of the twentieth century oral contraceptives had become a feature of everyday life, with more than 70 million women reaching for their pill packet on a daily basis around the globe. Widely regarded as a revolutionary drug in its early years, the pill might retrospectively be considered the first âdesignerâ or âlifestyleâ drug of the twentieth century."
"Much of the criticism of the pill, however, as Watkins has shown, arose from the fact that the pill altered the relationship between women and their physicians. In retrospect, it is clear that womenâs rejection of medical paternalism underlay much of the social criticism leveled at the pill. We believe that the unique decision-making processes that introduced oral contraceptives and allowed them to remain on the market even after potentially dangerous side effects were discovered are an important and instructive example of the intermingling of science, policy, and practicability in the approval process for a revolutionary twentieth-century drug."
"The process by which the pill came to be marketed in Britain and the United States differed, according to the distinct drug regulatory mechanisms of each country. The United States had some premarketing control over the introduction of new drugs onto the marketplace, which had been established in 1938, but Britain had no premarketing controls aside from a requirement that all pharmaceutical manufacturers be licensed. In the end, however, both countries had similar versions of the pill on the market within months of each other."
"G.D. Searle and Company made the first American application for the approval of Enovid to the FDA in 1957.The company sought approval for the use of Enovid in cases of menstrual irregularities, including amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, and menorrhagia, as well as endometriosis (a painful proliferation of uterine tissue outside the uterus) and infertility. Incases of infertility, it had been shown that women who were given the drug for several months-to ârestâ their ovaries-often went on to conceive, a phenomenon often referred to as the âRock Reboundâ effect. Although the original submission addressed only gynecological disorders, it was well known among many scientists that this particular formulation could prevent ovulation and therefore could be used as a contraceptive. Publications worldwide had reported Pincusâs work and has speculated on the pills clinical prospects."
"The possibility of hormonal contraception was postulated as early as 1919 by the physiologist Ludwig Haberlandt in Innsbruck. The same year, he began to test his hypothesis in animal experiments. In 1924 he succeeded in his efforts to render mice infertil by orally administering ovarian and placental extracts. He failed to have his method tried in women."