The Pill’s Deadly Affair with HIV/AIDS

By Joan Claire Robinson

April 21, 2010 (pop,org) - The world's deadliest killer, HIV/AIDS, and the Birth Control Pill have been carrying on a secret and deadly "love affair" for decades.  While women swallowed their “freedom” with the morning orange juice, studies that should have made global headlines yellowed in medical journals, unknown to the general public. Only doctors learned about the pills deadly affair with HIV/AIDS, and they were too busy writing prescriptions for hormonal contraceptives to talk.

More than 50 medical studies, to date, have investigated the association of hormonal contraceptive use and HIV/AIDS infection. The studies show that hormonal contraceptives—the oral pill and Depo-Provera—increase almost all known risk factors for HIV, from upping a woman's risk of infection, to increasing the replication of the HIV virus, to speeding the debilitating and deadly progression of the disease.1 

A medical trial published in the journal AIDS in 2009—monitoring HIV progression by the need for antiretroviral drugs (ART)—saw “the risk of becoming eligible for ART was almost 70% higher in women taking the pills and more than 50% higher in women using DMPA [Depo-Provera] than in women using IUDS.”2

Studies aside, it is well known that HIV/AIDS strikes more women than men.  Some would argue that this is a result of the desire of men for young—and presumably uninfected, sexual partners.  Few are willing to discuss a more obvious explanation, namely, that the Pill and Injectables render women particularly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS.

How serious is the problem?  Oral contraceptives and Depo-Provera are among the world's most popular and prevalent contraceptive methods. According to one study, “More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraception.”3 In America, hormonal contraceptive rates are over 52% in unmarried women—those at greatest risk of HIV/AIDS.  Moreover, in the interest of lowering the birth rate, the UNFPA and USAID continue unloading boatloads of hormonal contraceptives on Africa, Haiti and other AIDS-ravaged developing nations.

The best meta-analysis done to date, done by Dr. Chia Wang and her colleagues, surveyed the consensus results of the 28 best published studies since 1985.  They found that the “significant association between oral contraceptive use and HIV-1 seroprevalence or seroincidence …  increased as study quality increased.” In fact, “Of the best studies, 6 of 8 detected an increased risk of HIV infection associated with OC [oral contraceptive] use.”4

On the National Scale

Moreover, Wang's results showed even more of a Pill/HIV link when they limited studies to those conducted on African populations. This is significant for two reasons: 

First, sub-Saharan Africa is home to the world's earliest and largest heterosexual HIV/AIDS epidemic, which to date has infected an estimated 22.4 million5 people.  This is two-thirds of the total number of infections worldwide.

Second, sub-Saharan Africa has endured decades of contraception-focused population control programs and countless hormonal-contraceptive trials. “Among the six countries hardest hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic … two in three users in the six countries rely on the OC (oral contraceptives) or injectables,”6 said Iqbal Shah of the World Health Organization.

Likewise, Thailand, praised for a contraceptive prevalence of 79.2% in 2000 and upwards of 70% today, is a land where, “More than one-in-100 adults in this country of 65 million people is infected with HIV.”7 Among Thai women, “Oral contraception is the most popular method.”8 9

On the other hand, Japan's HIV rate is, at 0.01%, one of the lowest in the world.10  In this context, it is important to note that the birth control pill was illegal in Japan until 1999, and even today only 1% of Japanese women use oral contraception.  Similarly, the predominantly Catholic Philippines, with a longstanding popular resistance to contraception, boasts an HIV “prevalence rate of only 0.02%.”11

Hormonal Changes Heighten HIV Risk

The studies that demonstrate a connection between hormonal contraceptives and HIV/AIDS infection postulate a number of mechanisms at work. 

First, let's review the basics.  The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), is carried in warm blood or sexual fluids. It infects through fragile, inflamed, bleeding or needle-pricked tissue, attacks specific T-cells in the immune system, and causes the incurable, debilitating condition known as AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome).

Hormonal contraceptives increase almost all known risk factors for HIV infection.

Studies have found that hormonal contraceptives “alter the microenvironment of the female”12  and boost the cell count of those specific cells that HIV uses to infect and proliferate (HIV co-receptor CCR5 in cervical CD4+ T lymphocytes).

What is more, a progesterone side effect known to American women as “breakthrough bleeding,” is caused when hormonal contraceptives excessively thicken the uterine lining. The large, bleeding surface of the uterus creates an ideal site for HIV infection. 

Progesterone also has an immunosuppressant effect, which means that women using hormonal contraceptives have less in the way of natural defenses against HIV and other STDs, such as chlamydial infection or genital herpes (HSV-2).13 14 In one study, “HSV-2 infection itself more than tripled the risk of HIV infection.”15

In the vagina, increased blood and the independent hormonal effects of the Pill eliminate the natural pH acid protection against infection. What is more, a famous study of rhesus macaques found that hormonal contraceptives thin the vaginal walls and markedly increase SIV infection (the monkey equivalent of HIV).16 Vaginal dryness, another side effect of hormonal contraceptives, is not only painful but also makes one prone to tears and abrasions—fertile sites for infection.

One study points out, “On a cellular level, hormonal contraceptives have been associated with cervical and vaginal inflammation.”17

Further, hormonal birth control causes the fragile cervical tissue to grow beyond its natural bounds and replace what would normally be thick, protective membrane. This “cervical ectopy” is dangerous because the cervix's thin surface is the main site of HIV infection.18

Given all these different ways that hormonal contraception promotes HIV/AIDS infection, it is not at all surprising that several studies show women on the pill, Depo-Provera, etc., are more likely to be infected with not just one, but several variants or strains of HIV.  This “in turn leads to higher levels of viral replication and more rapid HIV-1 disease progression.”19 20 21

Women on hormonal contraceptives are not only more likely to contract HIV/AIDS, they are also more likely to pass it along to their sexual partners.  The three studies which focused on “the impact of hormonal contraception on cervical shedding of the cell-associated virus”22 all found that HIV-positive women on hormonal contraceptives are far more likely shed HIV in their body fluids.   High-dose pill users were over 12 times more likely to shed the HIV virus than women not using contraception, low-dose users were almost 4 times more likely, and Depo-Provera users were 3 times more likely.23

The Pill Pushers Push Back

Some dismiss out of hand the impressive body of scientific research demonstrating a  Pill/HIV link. They quote from the handful of studies and highly selective trials which claim to find “no increase in HIV risk among users of oral contraceptives and Depo-Provera.”24

The problem with many of these studies, such as Mati et al. 1995, Kapiga et al. 1998, and Sinei et al. 1996 is that they were conducted with and through “family planning clinics.” Since the chief business of these clinics is the promotion, sale, and distribution of contraceptives, the possibility of bias is undeniable.  Who would trust Marlboro to monitor a study on the link between cigarettes and cancer?

Moreover, the handful of studies that deny a link between hormonal contraception and increased risk of contracting HIV are dwarfed by the more than 50 studies that have not only found such a link, but convincingly explained precisely what it is about such contraception that contributes to the spread of the disease. 

Yet population control groups continue to lobby for more contraception, not less.  Take Dr. Willard Cates, president of the Institute for Family Health of Family Health International (FHI), one of the major purveyors of hormonal contraception to the developing world.  Wrote Cates to the Journal of American Medical Association, “Preventing unintended pregnancies among HIV-infected women who do not currently wish to become pregnant is an important and cost effective way of preventing new HIV infections of infants. … More must be done to ensure access to safe and effective contraception for HIV-infected women.”25

Obviously, FHI's concern here is less to prevent the infection of preborn infants, than to continue to contracept as many women as possible with your tax dollars and mine.  What the organization refuses to admit, however, is that by doing so it is arguably contributing to the spread of the HIV virus. 

How many lives are being lost because we continue to ship boatloads of hormonal contraceptives to a continent and to countries laboring under an HIV/AIDS pandemic?   Isn't it time that we stopped?

See the full report in the upcoming May/June Issue of the PRI Review.


1  Baeten et al. 2003, “Hormonal Influences on HIV Disease and Co-Morbidites.” J Acquir Immune Def Syndr. 2005, Vol 38, Suppl 1: S19; Stringer et al, AIDS. 2009, 23:1377-1382
3  Baeten et al. 2003 J Acquir Immune Def Syndr, 2005, S18
4  Wang et al., 1999, JAIDS
6  Shah, I. 2003, J Acquir Immune Def Syndr, 2005
10 (Homosexual men account for just over half of Japan's domestic HIV cases.)
12  Prakash et al. 2004; Prakash et al. 2002; Furth et al., 1990
13  Baeten et al. 2001; Cottingham et al. 1992; Avonts et al. 1990; Louv et al. 1989
14  Hunt et al. 1998; Zang et al. 2002; Gillgrass et al; 2003
15; Baeten et al. 2007
16  Marx et al. 1996; Abel et al. 2004; Veazey et al. 2005
17  Baeten et al. 2001; Ghanem et al. 2005
18  Baeten et al. 2007; Critchlow et al. 1995; Louv et al. 1989; Plourde et al. 1994
19  Beaten et al. 2003; Poss et al. 1995; Long et al. 2000
20  Furth et al. 1990
21  Baeten et al. 2007, Clinical and Infectious Diseases, 360-361
22  Stringer et al. 2008
23  Wang et al. 2004; Mostad et al. 1997; Clemetson et al. 1993
24  Mauck, C. 2005, S11; Studies noted: Mati et al. 1995; Kapiga et al. 1998
25  JAMA. 2006; 296:2802

Share this article

Featured Image
Fr. Mark Hodges

, , , ,

VIDEO: Expert says China will continue forced abortions, sterilizations

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

IRONDALE, Alabama, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – An expert on China says the country's move from the infamous "one-child per family" policy of forced abortion and sterilization to a "two-child" policy will leave the status quo largely intact.

Human rights activist Reggie Littlejohn, an expert on China and the president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, spoke with Raymond Arroyo of Eternal Word Television Network's The World Over show about China's new policy of allowing families two children.

Littlejohn said that the change from a one-child to a two-child policy is motivated not by human rights, but by demographics. "It is not that the Chinese communist party has suddenly grown a all. It is that they are facing a threefold demographic disaster."

First of all, Ms. Littlejohn said, China "doesn't have enough women, because of their gendercide."

"The core of the policy is not that they allow one child or two children, but is that they are setting a limit, and enforcing it through forced sterilization, forced contraception, and a whole web of surveillance of women, monitoring women's menstrual cycles and their fertility," Littlejohn explained. "All of that coercion will remain the same under a two-child policy."

"A two-child policy carries all of the [same] terrible and appalling methods of abortion as the one child policy," Ms. Littlejohn explained. "It's just that they start killing after two, instead of after one."

Littlejohn went on to say that China's demographic problems resulting from 40 years of gendercide will not be fixed by the new two-child allowance. "Even if China were to completely abolish their policy right now, and allow to everybody to have as many kids as they want to have, it's going to take twenty years for the women to grow to the point where they can marry, and everybody to the point where they can be workers," she said.

She said that the Chinese have "dug themselves in a hole that they can't get out of."  Arroyo pointed out that there are 33 million more men than women in China today.

Littlejohn does not expect gendercide to decrease immediately. "What I think is going to happen," Littlejohn said, "is couples who have a boy are going to stop at one," because of the high expense of having children in China. "And those who have a girl first are going to continue to abort a second daughter, because they still want to have a son."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

When Arroyo pointed out that government statistics say 350 billion dollars since 1980 were levied in fines against those who tried to defy China's one-child policy, Littlejohn responded, "That's why I don't think China will ever abandon its policy: it's a huge money-maker for them." She noted that local officials determine the amount of fines and line their pockets with the cash.

She pointed out that five years ago, the Chinese government admitted that over four hundred million babies in the womb have been killed – and that number is far greater today.

Littlejohn pointed out that any Chinese citizen who dares to tell the truth about the communist policy is persecuted. "People who get their stories to the West – not only do they have to endure the trauma of the forced abortion itself, but they have to endure trauma [against] themselves and their families from the Chinese Communist Party for seeing them before the world."

"Thank God for Ted Cruz, also for Marco Rubio, and for Congressman Chris Smith – all three of those have come out with very, very powerful statements saying basically that the two-child policy does not fix any of the problems with the one-child policy," Littlejohn said. "I'm so glad that they ... are getting the truth out there."

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz spoke against China's policy earlier this month. "In America, we should stand with victims of oppression," he said. "These are horrific acts of brutality. They are inhumane. They are contrary not only to American values, but to human rights across the globe, and they are carried out as a matter of policy."

Rep. Chris Smith and Sen. Marco Rubio have also issued statements cautioning that China's move to a two-child policy will not end brutal, coercive population control.  

Rep. Smith, chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees human rights and chairman of the Congressional-Executive China Commission, held a hearing entitled "China's One-Child Policy: The Government's Massive Crime Against Women and Unborn Babies." Smith explained, "The policy has directly contributed to what is accurately described as gendercide – the deliberate extermination of a girl, born or unborn, simply because she happens to be female."

In October, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio criticized China's two-child policy. "The policy is still repressive," Rubio explained. "The fact remains that when couples conceive a third child, the Chinese government will force them to eliminate him or her, by any means necessary."

Rubio concluded, "A two-child policy is as indefensible and inhumane as a one-child policy, and it would be a mistake to assume this change in any way reflects a newfound respect for human rights by Beijing. The U.S. must continue advocating for the complete elimination of government-forced population planning."

Featured Image
Steve Weatherbe

, ,

Irish children’s minister joins call for nation to abandon pro-life constitution

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

DUBLIN, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Ireland's health minister has joined the chorus of feminist groups calling for a referendum to repeal the country's 30-year-old Eighth Amendment, a part of the Constitution, which allows abortion only when the mother's life is directly threatened.

Children's Minister Dr. James Reilly told the Sunday Independent that despite the reluctance of the major parties (including his own Fine Gael) to support a referendum, the public wants it. "We have had more than 30 years on this and we really need political leadership on this issue. I think it is quite clear from opinion polls that the vast majority of people are way ahead of politicians on this."

Reilly said women carrying unborn babies with fatal abnormalities should be allowed to have abortions, regardless of whether delivery poses a risk to their lives or health.

But Cora Sherlock, the head of the Prolife Campaign, told LifeSiteNews, "It is not something the people really want; it is not coming from the grassroots, but from a few pressure groups like Amnesty International. The people of Ireland have always had a heart for the unborn."

Pro-abortion activist Sinead Kennedy of the Repeal the Eighth Coalition said every politician should declare his or her position. "We would like to see political parties in the run up to the election [expected in spring] come out and declare that this will be [a] red-line issue for any participation in government."

In fact, in September, Ireland's Taoiseach, or prime minister, Enda Kenny, said his government, if re-elected, will hold a referendum on the Eighth Amendment only if a workable alternative is advanced at the same time.

Sherlock noted that despite an "aggressive campaign" from Amnesty Ireland and its uncritical promotion by the news media, popular support for the referendum is waning. A poll published by the Sunday Independent on Nov. 22 showed 56% in favor of the referendum, down 10% from June, with 22% opposed.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Support for abortion in specific cases is also down: in cases of fatal abnormalities in the unborn baby, support for abortion is down 9% to 55%; when the mother threatens suicide, it is down 4% to 68%; and when there is a long-term threat to the mother's health, support is down 5% to 64%.

"I think it is going down because people are becoming aware of the Planned Parenthood stories from the U.S., and of Kermit Gosnell," Sherlock said, in reference to the videos showing America's leading abortion provider trafficking in body parts from aborted babies, and to the abortionist convicted of multiple murders of babies who survived his botched abortions only to be executed by him and his staff afterwards. "The news media don't like to cover those stories, but the social media has a mind of its own," she added.

Last year, several government ministers declared that the people of Ireland had "no appetite" or "little appetite" for a referendum; however, they might vote if it were held anyway. They promised there would be no referendum before the 2016 election and even warned against making it an election issue, which was the case in 1983 with the referendum that put Amendment Eight in the Constitution in the first place.

The Eighth Amendment declares the unborn child's life as equal to, and equally worthy of protection as, the life of the mother. The vagueness of this formula led the current government to pass a law two years ago allowing abortion when the mother's life is at risk, including at risk by suicide, right up to the day of a child's birth.

Popular opinion still opposed abortion as late as 2007, but by 2012, support for abortion had risen to 85%. Lately, Amnesty International has lent its reputation to the push for a referendum, leading Sherlock to predict, "Amnesty will be the loser when the hypocrisy of a so-called human rights group attacking the unborn becomes evident and when people see that they are only willing to talk about teenage pregnancy, but not about the unborn, not about the Planned Parenthood videos nor Kermit Gosnell, and about how these go hand in hand with abortion on request."

Featured Image
Gina Raimondo, Democrat candidate for governor of Rhode Island
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

Abortion supporters slam new budget by Rhode Island’s Democrat governor

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Abortion advocates aren't happy with a budget bill signed by Rhode Island's Democratic governor, because it gave 9,000 people insurance coverage that doesn't cover elective abortions.

Earlier this year, an anonymous HIV-positive practicing Catholic won a lawsuit against the state, gaining the right for citizens under the state's Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange to have an insurance plan that doesn't cover elective abortions. Shortly after John Doe's victory, pro-abortion governor Gina Raimondo signed a budget bill that included a pro-life rider making the legal victory statutory law.

The law caused 9,000 out of approximately 30,000 people who were automatically enrolled in health insurance programs for 2016 to have insurance coverage without elective abortion coverage. State officials are now scrambling to notify insurees that they can change their coverage by December 23.

Abortion groups aren't happy, with one blogger writing that Raimondo's signature means that "those who supported Gina Raimondo's bid for Governor of Rhode Island may want to seriously reconsider their support."

The governor won support from at least two national abortion groups in her race last year.

A spokesperson for Raimondo's office e-mailed that "the Governor's first priority is ensuring that all Rhode Islanders have the opportunity to access affordable health insurance that meets their needs, including access to safe and affordable reproductive healthcare."

"Changes in state policy require insurance carriers participating in HealthSource RI to offer one plan at every 'metal level' that does not include most abortion coverage," Maria Tocco told LifeSiteNews. "This year, HSRI launched an automatic renewal process to ensure that Rhode Islanders who signed up for coverage would maintain it without any gap in service."

Tocco e-mailed that "HSRI proactively reached out to all its customers by mail before the start of the open enrollment period to let customers know precisely which plans include abortion coverage and which do not."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In a phone call, Tocco clarified that Health Source Rhode Island had gotten involved in contacting enrollees – a process normally left up to insurers – because state policy had caused the change in coverage. Tocco clarified that this would be the case if coverage for other medical services and products were changed by state policy.

Barth Bracy, the executive director of Rhode Island Right to Life, said arguments by abortion advocates that they want to expand choice to those who may not be aware of the loss of abortion insurance coverage are false. "Note that each enrollee in an abortion plan (regardless of age, sex, or family status) pays a surcharge into the abortion-slush fund created by Obamacare," he said. "The fewer people who enroll in an abortion-covering plan, the higher the charge must be on those who do choose those plans, increasing the differential between the abortion and non-abortion plans, thus making the abortion plans less attractive."

"This is all about padding the Obamacare abortion slush fund," he concluded, saying that "the only 'error' by the government (both federal and state) was the error of King Herod, who did not succeed in his designs to get every single child. And that was due to the work of RI Right to Life and ADF, which together threw a monkey wrench into the monstrous machine created by Obamacare."

Doe told LifeSiteNews that he is "pleased and grateful that, because of the efforts of the Rhode Island State Right to Life Committee, the Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit, and subsequent state legislation, Rhode Islanders who oppose abortion can now participate in the state's health insurance exchange without being forced to fund abortions."

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Casey Mattox said that "Rhode Islanders now have the choice of plans that cover and those that don't cover elective abortions." Mattox criticized abortion advocates for "demand[ing] that everyone, including a pro-life man like our client, be compelled to pay a special abortion fee to subsidize the abortion industry. Federal and state law requires Rhode Island to offer this choice to their citizens, and we are pleased with this outcome."

Tocco told LifeSiteNews that the bill and the John Doe lawsuit were unrelated. However, Mattox, who represented Doe in court, noted that the bill's signature "took place after our client won his lawsuit."

"It doesn't matter to us how the governor wants to frame this," Mattox told LifeSiteNews. "We are just glad for the people of Rhode Island that the right thing was done."

Bracy clarified that the rider was his group's way of making sure the legal decision was formally in state law.


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook