New York, Dec 18,2016: A new research by American scientists busts the myth that contraceptives curb desire, noting that it depends on other factors like age and length of a relationship.
According to a research, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, the authors from the University of Kentucky and Indiana University in the US, pointed out that scientific evidence regarding this notion has been mixed, with some studies supporting the claim and others suggesting the opposite.
NewsGram brings to you current foreign news from all over the world.
Contraceptives are designed to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for some, to protect people from sexually transmitted infections.
“We wanted to understand the link between desire and contraceptive choice, especially in the context of longer-term relationships,” said Dr. Kristen Mark, an author of the research.
“Most research does not focus on partners or people in long-term relationships but many contraceptive users are in long-term monogamous relationships, so this is an important group to study,” she added.
NewsGram brings to you top news around the world today.
The findings revealed that women on non-hormonal contraceptives reported higher desire on their own and women on oral contraceptives reported higher desire with their partner.
However, when the researchers adjusted the results to take into account relationship length and age, the differences were no longer significant, suggesting that it was the context rather than the contraceptive type that has the biggest impact on desire.
“Our findings are clear: the pill does not kill desire. This research helps to bust those myths and hopefully eventually get rid of this common cultural script in our society,” Mark clarified. (IANS)
A divided U.S. appeals court Thursday blocked rules by the Trump administration that allowed more employers to opt out of providing women with no-cost birth control.
The ruling, however, may be short lived because the administration has adopted new rules on contraceptive coverage that are set to take effect next month and will likely prompt renewed legal challenges.
Thursday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concerned changes to birth control coverage requirements under President Barack Obama’s health care law that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued in October 2017.
States were likely to succeed on their claim that those changes were made without required notice and public comment, the appeals court panel said in a 2-1 decision.
The majority upheld a preliminary injunction against the rules issued by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam last year. It, however, limited the scope of the injunction, applying it only to the five states in the lawsuit and not the entire country.
Another federal judge also blocked the rules, and her nationwide injunction remains in place.
An email to the Justice Department seeking comment was not immediately returned.
Obama’s health care law required most companies to cover birth control at no additional cost, though it included exemptions for religious organizations. The new policy allowed more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing free contraception to women by claiming religious objections. It also allowed any company that is not publicly traded to deny coverage on moral grounds.
The Department of Justice said in court documents that the rules were about protecting a small group of “sincere religious and moral objectors” from having to violate their beliefs. The changes were favored by social conservatives who are staunch supporters of President Donald Trump.
California filed a lawsuit to block the changes that was joined by Delaware, Maryland, New York and Virginia.
“Today’s decision is an important step to protect a woman’s right to access cost-free birth control and make independent decisions about her own reproductive health care,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.
The states argued that the changes could result in millions of women losing free birth control services, forcing them to seek contraceptive care through state-run programs or programs that the states had to reimburse.
The states show with “reasonable probability” that the new rules will lead women to lose employer-sponsored contraceptive coverage, “which will then result in economic harm to the states,” 9th Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace, a nominee of Republican President Richard Nixon, wrote for the majority.
In a dissent, 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said the economic harm to the states was “self-inflicted” because they chose to provide contraceptive coverage to women. The states, therefore, did not have the authority to bring the lawsuit, said Kleinfeld, a nominee of Republican President George H.W. Bush.
The case became more complicated after the Trump administration last month issued new birth control coverage rules that are set to supersede those at issue in the lawsuit before the 9th Circuit. Under the new rules, large companies whose stock is sold to investors won’t be able to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage.
Wallace said the new rules did not make the case before the 9th Circuit moot because they are not set to take effect until January. (VOA)