Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
One thing that was immediately clear Tuesday morning: There is finally a womens team at the high court. For most of Clements 45-minute argument on behalf of the two religious objectors, the only questions come from the courts three women, Sonia Sotomayor (the patch: tenacious, hardworking, and unshakable), Elena Kagan (the pill: unobtrusive yet sneakily effective), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (IUD: deceptively small, monstrously potent, and lasts forever). Sotomayor and Kagan in particular pound Clement about the implications of using the exacting standard of scrutiny set forth under the RFRA to assess every corporate claim that a religious preference is burdened. Is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives or does it include items like blood transfusion, vaccines? asks Sotomayor. Clement replies that contraception is unlike transfusions and vaccines because it is so religiously sensitive, so fraught with religious controversy. Which is, I suspect, code for sex.
Kagan responds, So one religious group could opt out of this and another religious group could opt out of that and nothing would be uniform. And Ginsburg points out that the reason RFRA passed with such broad, bipartisan support was that Congress took out a proposed amendment that would have enabled secular employers and insurance providers to deny coverage on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions. Au contraire, says Clement. RFRA passed broadly because it afforded such broad protections.
Kagans not buying it: Your interpretation of [RFRA] would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard and allow employer after employer to voice religious objections to sex discrimination laws and minimum wage laws and family leave and child labor laws. All of which would be subject to what she describes as this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard. Employers will, under that standard, virtually all win.
Justice Samuel Alito (morning-after pill: always in possession of the power of perfect hindsight) interrupts to ask, In all the years since RFRA has been on the books, has any of these claims involving minimum wage, for example, been brought and have they succeeded? Kagan retorts that the reason such cases havent been brought is because this kind of test has never been approved by the courts. But, she adds, if your argument were adopted and there was a strict scrutiny standard ... then you would see religious objectors come out of the woodwork. She throws in another concern: And because you say you cannot test the sincerity of religion. I think a court would be, their hands would be bound when faced with all these challenges.
US researchers say the jab was almost 96% effective in tests on around 270 men who were using it, with four pregnancies among their partners. However, a relatively high number developed side effects, including acne and mood disorders. Researchers have been investigating potential for male hormonal contraceptives for around 20 years. They have all been looking for an effective way of suppressing sperm production without causing unpleasant or unbearable side effects. Because men constantly produce sperm, high levels of hormones are needed to reduce levels from the normal sperm count of over 15 million per millilitre to under one million/ml.
Mood disorders
This study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, and published by the Endocrine Society. It looked at men aged 18-45 who had been in monogamous relationships for at least a year - and whose partners had agreed to take part. The men's sperm counts were checked at the beginning of the study, to ensure they were normal. They then had two hormone injections (progesterone and a form of testosterone) every eight weeks, and were monitored for up to six months until their sperm count fell to under a million. They were then asked to rely on the jab, which they continued to have at the same interval, as their only form of contraception during the efficacy stage of the study, which lasted for up to a year.
Once they stopped having the injections, they were monitored to see how quickly their sperm counts recovered. Eight men had not recovered their normal sperm counts a year after the study ended. Dr Mario Festin, of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, who carried out the study, said: "The study found it is possible to have a hormonal contraceptive for men that reduces the risk of unplanned pregnancies in the partners of men who use it." The researchers stopped taking on new participants in 2011 after concerns were raised about side effects such as depression and other mood disorders, as well as muscle pain and acne. Such side effects caused 20 men to drop out of the study and were reported by many others.
Unmet need
Dr Festin said other researchers were now looking at combining different levels of the same hormones, and different ways of delivering them, such as gels. He added: "This has been one step in a long journey of finding the right combination for male hormonal contraception." Allan Pacey, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: "There is certainly an unmet need for an effective reversible contraceptive for men, along the lines of the hormonal contraceptive for women. "However, none of the preparations that have been developed and tested to date have managed to become a commercial reality for one reason or another." He said the contraceptive in this study was "extremely effective and therefore certainly has promise" and that the number of side effects seen was a concern. But he added: "It is noteworthy that 75% of the men who took part in the trial would be willing to use this method of contraception again. "So perhaps the side-effects weren't all that bad after all."
Birth control: Male contraceptive injection 'shows promise' - BBC News
yet, making someone else pay for it? Lol give me a breakWomen talking about control of their own bodies?
.
