Inspired by influencers on TikTok, young women are abandoning hormonal birth control and seeking alternative methods of contraception. But not everyone behind the push to “natural” family planning has their best interests at heart.
Conservative religious groups and rightwing political ideologs are taking advantage of dissatisfaction with the pill to sow misleading information and further their goal of banning birth control completely.
Gwyneth Paltrow at the British Fashion Awards on Monday, Dec. 4, 2023, in London. (Scott Garfitt/Invision/AP)
Calling themselves “cycle awareness coaches” and “period coaches,” these wellness gurus encourage women to exchange “scary synthetic hormones” for herbal supplements and variations on the rhythm method, now known as “fertility awareness-based methods” or FABMs for short.
While the hormones from IUDs and birth control pills may cause unpleasant side effects like weight gain and acne, they do not increase a woman’s risk for cancer or impact her long-term fertility, as some on TikTok currently claim.
This pseudoscience has the backing of celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Dr. Oz and Joe Rogan — who have deemed birth control “dangerous.” But vilifying birth control also fits neatly into the agenda of religious groups who have long opposed contraception.
“Only when contraception use led to more women working outside the home did conservative leaders withdraw their support for the pill.”
While the Catholic Church has officially forbidden contraception, many Protestant denominations originally saw the pill as one facet of “responsible parenthood.” They believed it was a couple’s “Christian duty” to have only as many children as they could afford, nurture and educate. Only when contraception use led to more women working outside the home did conservative leaders withdraw their support for the pill.
How the pill is tangled up in abortion debates
Much of the current pushback against hormonal birth control from conservative Christians on TikTok is rooted in their conviction that “life” begins with the fertilization of an embryo. Therefore, any form of birth control that prevents the “living embryo” from implanting in the uterus is “aborting” it.
While this might be a religious belief, it is not a scientific one. Scientifically, a pregnancy occurs after that embryo implants, not before. In fact, 30% of embryos created never implant and another 30% only do so briefly before passing out of the body.
As OB-GYN Mimi Zieman points out in Ms. Magazine, “Anyone holding religious beliefs about embryos deserving protection should actively support the use of birth control. Birth control prevents embryos from forming in the first place and therefore prevents failed implantation and ‘embryo abortions.’”
While much of the information on social media stems from ignorance about how various forms of birth control work or the effectiveness of FABMs, a significant portion of anti-birth control content is part of an intentional campaign by extremists to ban the pill, IUDs and emergency contraception like Plan B.
Focus on the Family ad
Candace Owens lumped birth control in with vaccines as just another money-making scheme from Big Pharma. Ben Shapiro, who called birth control the “political third rail,” interviewed a guest promoting a flawed study saying the pill makes women more attracted to men who are “less traditionally masculine.”
Some conservatives employ the language of female empowerment to persuade women to abandon hormonal birth control. Turning Point USA’s Alexa Clark encourages female followers to assert their “bodily rights” and get off the pill. But behind such feminist rhetoric are conservative mega-donors with anti-abortion agendas.
The megadonors
Turning Point USA receives millions from far right donors including the Koch Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Ed Uihlein Foundation and the Marcus Foundation, named for Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot. Brittany Martinez, founder of the conservative lifestyle magazine Evie, uses that platform to promote her anti-birth control agenda and the fertility tracking app 28 which promises “healthy hormones, self-discovery and a beautiful, feminine physique.” The money behind the app came from Republican megadonor Peter Theil, who has backed anti-abortion candidates such as J.D. Vance, Blake Masters and, of course, Donald Trump.
Theil is not the only megadonor in the business of FABMs. The Femm app claims to “empower” women about their bodies all while sowing doubt about hormonal birth control. Sam Feiler, who also has given millions to conservative causes, chairs the foundation behind the app and bankrolled its development. In 2016, Feiler served on Trump’s Catholic advisory group and worked with Steve Bannon to target Catholic voters.
During the Trump administration, the Orbria Group, a Catholic charity that runs crisis pregnancy centers based on the Femm app, received $5.1 million in Title X funding. Nearly $60,000 was budgeted to train staff to use the app. Title X was established during the Nixon administration to provide contraception to low-income women.
Don’t believe the hype
What conservatives and wellness influencers fail to mention is that fertility tracking methods measuring such things as a person’s basal body temperature or cervical mucus leave little room for error. While many claim FABMs are just as effective as hormonal birth control, they are in fact one of the least reliable forms of contraception with a potential failure rate of up to 25%.
“While many claim FABMs are just as effective as hormonal birth control, they are in fact one of the least reliable forms of contraception.”
Abortion providers have seen an uptick in the demand for their services from patients who believed the social media hype. This misinformation is especially dangerous in states where abortion is illegal and patients are forced to travel or experience a delay in care.
There is no federal law guaranteeing access to contraception, and in 2022 all but 10 House Republicans voted against the Right to Contraception Act. Democrat Kathy Manning reintroduced the law in June 2023, and the Subcommittee on Health is currently reviewing it. Sen. Ed Markey introduced a similar bill in the Senate, which also was referred to committee. For the time being, the right to prescription birth control itself is protected by two Supreme Court decisions, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). But as with Roe v. Wade, these decisions could be overturned by the current conservative court.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his remarks about the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, suggested the Griswold verdict should be reconsidered because it was an “erroneous decision.” Right now, conservative groups are actively pushing cases toward SCOTUS to force the issue.
Recently, in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the ultra-conservative Alliance Defending Freedom challenged the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone and sought to severely limit its availability. It is easy to imagine them doing something similar to restrict access to birth control.
“She also claims Opill is an abortifacient, which it is not.”
Ingrid Skop, director for medical affairs at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, who testified in favor of Texas’ extreme anti-abortion law, is already trumpeting “safety concerns” with Opill, the new over-the-counter birth control pill. Because the progesterone-only pill does affect the implantation of embryos, she also claims Opill is an abortifacient, which it is not.
Novel legislation
On the legislative front, lawmakers in Iowa are attempting to derail a bill that would allow individuals to obtain birth control without a prescription by adding a slew of burdensome amendments.
Publicity photo for OPill
To further their argument that birth control is the same as abortion, one Republican-proposed amendment would require pharmacists to show patients an anti-abortion video and explain the dangers of abortion. Another, designed to embarrass patients, would stipulate pharmacists must ask the patient if she “is represented by or associated with a person engaged in pimping.” Anyone accompanying the patient to the pharmacy, such as her mother, friend or spouse, would be asked if they are “engaged in pimping.” If so, they must fill out a form and pay an excise tax of $10.
These legal efforts, combined with the spreading of misinformation about the “dangers” of hormonal birth control and claiming that some pills, IUDs and emergency contraception work by causing abortions, are laying the groundwork for a future ban on contraception.
With 73% of Americans incorrectly believing emergency contraception can end an early-stage pregnancy, restrictions on Plan B already are happening across the country. In 2020, Texas was permitted to exclude emergency contraceptives from its Medicaid-funded family planning program, a waiver that remains in place until December 2024.
Iowa stopped reimbursing sexual assault victims the cost of Plan B through its Crime Victim Compensation Program. When Missouri first banned abortion, a major hospital system there stopped providing Plan B, not because doctors believed the drug caused abortions, but because administrators feared state prosecutors might mistakenly believe it did. (That hospital system has since reversed its decision).
Misleading information
A study from Duke University researching misinformation on TikTok found 24% of posts marked #IUD were scientifically inaccurate and 28% expressed distrust of health care professionals. Because algorithms favor negative messages, which receive more clicks, researchers discovered 38% of the #IUD posts were negative and only 19% were positive. That means people searching on TikTok for information on IUDs (and birth control more broadly) are more likely to encounter a string of anti-birth control posts. Media-savvy physicians are at work combating misinformation with their own TikTok posts, but it is an uphill battle.
This is not to say there are not real problems in women’s reproductive health care. For decades, doctors have dismissed women’s concerns when it comes to all areas of health care, which is one reason why issues of reproductive care have become fertile ground for misinformation. Women of color, whose communities have traditionally been exploited by the medical profession, are especially wary of information from the medical establishment. Trans, gender nonbinary and queer folk across the country struggle to access reproductive health care that meets their specific needs.
Hormonal birth control does come with a host of unpleasant, sometimes unbearable, side effects. Finding the right form of birth control for any patient is as much an art as it is a science, often necessitating repeat visits to a gynecologist. The time and money required for this trial-and-error process is a burden for many patients.
Drug companies have little incentive to innovate when it comes to improving birth control and reducing side effects. Only 2% of their annual revenue is reinvested into research and development for contraception. Birth control as we know it is cheap to manufacture and highly profitable. It would cost companies to create contraception with fewer side effects.
Demand for a better birth control pill might spur the market to innovate, but that won’t happen if conservatives convince women they’re better off without it.
Kristen Thomason is a freelance writer with a background in media studies and production. She has worked with national and international religious organizations and for public television. Currently based in Scotland, she has organized worship arts at churches in Metro D.C. and Toronto. In addition to writing for Baptist News Global, Kristen blogs on matters of faith and social justice at viaexmachina.com.
Related articles:
The federal appeals court that just ruled a father can control his daughters’ access to birth control is part of an intentional network strategically advancing conservative causes | Analysis by Kristen Thomason
Life post-Roe: Is there middle ground between religious liberty and medical freedom? | Analysis by Mallory Challis
Author of Texas abortion bill is shocked its vague language is confusing