Issues

Study shows the Pill doubles risk of glaucoma, but advocates still want employers forced to cover it

(Photo credit: Outcast104)

As vehemently as organizations like Planned Parenthood deny the unsavory side-effects of the Pill (from which they tend to profit handsomely, often via government grants), studies continue to trickle in affirming the dangers of hormonal contraception. A solid body of evidence demonstrates the link between the Pill and breast cancer, for example.

Now, the Pill’s propensity to double a woman’s risk of glaucoma is coming to the fore. Earlier this month, the UK’s Mirror reported on a long-term study that shows a link between the hormones in the Pill and a woman’s chances of developing glaucoma – and subsequent blindness. According to the piece:

Researchers found that women who had used oral contraceptives for three years or more were twice as likely to be diagnosed with glaucoma. It made no difference what kind of oral contraceptive the women had been using.

The scientists said taking the Pill long-term could be a risk factor for glaucoma that sits alongside others, including family history of the disease, black African ancestry, short-sightedness, raised pressure in the eye, and diabetes.

They urged gynaecologists and eye specialists to be aware of the risk of glaucoma in women who have been on the Pill for a number of years.

The mandate that contraceptive coverage be provided by the employer as part of the company’s health benefits was defined by federal rules under the section of the Affordable Care Act that mandates that “preventive services” be covered at no cost to the employee. In addition to free contraception, this category includes free cancer screenings (suggesting, obviously, that pregnancy and cancer are similarly threatening ailments to be prevented at any cost).

The mandate has been fiercely opposed by companies with conscientious objections to paying for birth control and/or abortifacients, such as Hobby Lobby, whose Christian foundation is in diametrical opposition to the provisions mandated by ObamaCare. These companies have been vigilant and unwavering in their stance and lawsuits, prompting the Supreme Court to accept their case and take up the issue.

On the other end of the spectrum is a legion of women who are disgruntled that they may have to pay for their own birth control. When the Supreme Court agreed this past week to examine the opposition of companies like Hobby Lobby, many so-called feminist organizations joined together to host a “#HandsOffMyBC” tweetfest. The campaign sought to provide reasons why the Supreme Court should affirm the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act forcing employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, even where there is a conscientious or medical objection to so doing on the part of the employer.

READ NEXT
Comments
To Top