Women never experience their health that way. Their lives do not fit neatly into funding categories, medical specialties or isolated episodes of care. Health is a continuum that shifts over time, and the market is finally beginning to recognize its size, scientific potential, and human importance.

A new W Group study, “The Road to the Era of Scale,” provides compelling evidence of that shift. Based on the organization’s tracking of more than 500 funding stories and approximately 164 disclosed equity rounds across 15 categories and more than 30 countries, the report found that women’s health companies raised a record $1.55 billion in disclosed equity in 2025, a 41% increase from 2024.

A Market Is Forming, Not Merely Making Headlines

Investment totals can be deceptive. One enormous financing round can make an entire sector appear stronger, deeper, and more expansive than it is in reality. The significance of the W Group findings is that the capital did not simply increase. It spread over the continuum of women’s health.

Eighty-five women’s health companies raised equity in 2025, the highest annual number in the report’s data. Ten rounds reached at least $50 million, twice as many as in 2024, and the average disclosed round grew 29%, from approximately $13.9 million to $18 million.

Capital also became less concentrated among a few celebrated companies. The three largest rounds represented 39% of disclosed funding in 2024, compared with 32% in 2025. Funding received by companies outside the top three grew by 56%, a potential signal that investors are beginning to support a broader range of clinical needs, technologies and business models.

This is what the development of an investment ecosystem looks like. Capital begins to flow beyond the familiar names and into diagnostics, therapeutics, clinical infrastructure and care models that address different stages of a woman’s life.

Oncology received the largest share of investment, with the report estimating more than $600 million across at least 12 rounds. Fertility and assisted reproductive technology attracted more than $230 million, while maternal health drew approximately $160 million. Menopause, sexual and reproductive health, hormone diagnostics and pelvic health also received new support.

Endometriosis offers a particularly important example. Long dismissed, misunderstood and frequently diagnosed only after years of pain, the condition attracted more than $56 million across five rounds in 2025. The investments spanned therapeutics, diagnostics, and imaging, suggesting that the market is beginning to view endometriosis as a complex clinical challenge requiring multiple forms of innovation.

The same shift can be seen in metabolic health. SheMed’s $50 million Series A helped establish women-specific GLP-1 care as an investable category, reflecting the growing recognition that medicines, monitoring and health interventions must account for biological differences rather than treating the male body as the universal clinical norm.

The Women’s Health Innovation Map Is Becoming Global

The United States remains the dominant destination for women’s health capital, but the sector is no longer exclusively an American story. The US ecosystem also benefits from Organon, one of the few global pharmaceutical companies built around women’s health, whose portfolio, partnerships and commercial reach can help promising science cross the difficult divide between startup innovation and patient access.

Beyond the United States, the report found a broader geographic footprint in 2025, with companies and investors across Europe, Israel, India, Canada and the Middle East contributing to the market’s development.

The UK was the most active non-US ecosystem by company count in the W Group data. British companies were represented across metabolic health, endometriosis, hormone diagnostics, menstrual health, maternal care and other categories.

That entrepreneurial activity is now being matched by policy attention. England published a renewed 10-year Women’s Health Strategy in April 2026, aligned with the country’s broader health plan and centered on giving women greater voice, choice and power in decisions about their care. The government has also outlined efforts to streamline gynecologic care, improve access for conditions such as endometriosis and fibroids and confront inadequate approaches to women’s pain.

This matters because innovation cannot succeed through capital alone. A company may develop a better diagnostic or care platform. Still, its impact will remain limited unless clinicians trust it, health systems can adopt it, reimbursement supports it and patients can reach it. That is the difference between invention and innovation.

France is building another part of that infrastructure. The Île-de-France region has created FemTech Île-de-France, an investment fund targeting €50 million for women’s health innovation, supported by the scientific expertise of Université Paris Cité. Regional plans also include a specialized incubator effort and an interdisciplinary institute that connects research, clinical education, and innovation.

The French initiative is notable because it does not treat funding as an isolated intervention. It attempts to link capital with scientific expertise, company development and a regional health innovation strategy. That combination can help promising startups move beyond an initial idea and toward evidence, regulatory progress and clinical adoption.

France’s women’s health momentum is also reflected in Lyon-based Ziwig Biotech, whose Endotest uses salivary RNA analysis and artificial intelligence to provide a noninvasive diagnostic test for endometriosis, demonstrating how French biotechnology can turn a condition long marked by diagnostic delay into a precision-medicine opportunity.

Israel contributes another important dimension. Its health innovation culture is built upon deep scientific expertise, sophisticated health data, globally connected medical centers and an instinct for solving difficult clinical problems. In 2025, Israel presented a delegation of women’s health innovators at Expo 2025 Osaka, bringing companies and health leaders together with counterparts from Japan, the United States and Mexico.

Israel’s strength in technology, however, coexists with a persistent capital and leadership gap for women. An Israel Innovation Authority report found that women remain approximately one-third of the country’s high-tech workforce, while holding only 17% of senior management positions and 10% of startup CEO roles. The number of women working in research and development has risen sharply, but their representation in entrepreneurship, leadership and investment remains disproportionately low.

That disparity should concern anyone interested in women’s health innovation. When women are missing from the rooms where companies are founded, clinical priorities are established and capital is allocated, unmet needs are more likely to remain unseen.

The opportunity in Israel has two paths to consider. The country can export women’s health technologies to global markets while also ensuring that more women participate as founders, scientific leaders, investors and decision-makers shaping those innovations.

The Most Dangerous Gap Sits in the Middle

The report’s most urgent finding is not the record amount invested. It is the continuing Series A bottleneck.

Approximately 35-40 women’s health companies raised seed or pre-seed capital in each of the two years studied. Only about 20 to 25 reached Series A, and many companies that appeared at the seed stage in 2024 did not return with a Series A round in 2025.

Seed funding can demonstrate that a concept is interesting. Series A funding is often the stage at which a company must demonstrate that the concept can become clinically credible, commercially sustainable, and capable of operating within a complex health system.

This stage requires companies to generate evidence, recruit specialized talent, navigate regulation, protect sensitive patient information and establish a credible path to payment. It is also where founders discover that a technically elegant solution may not fit naturally into clinical workflows or address the daily realities faced by patients and health professionals.

The loss of promising companies at this stage is not only a financial concern. A stalled financing round can mean that an earlier diagnostic never reaches a physician, a new treatment never enters a clinical trial or a more humane care model never reaches the people who need it.

Specialist funds can help bridge that gap, and the report identified at least 11 new investment vehicles launched in 2025 with a women’s health mandate. Pharmaceutical companies and major generalist venture firms are also beginning to participate, an important sign that the sector is moving beyond support from a small circle of committed specialists.

The transition remains incomplete. Women’s health will not achieve sustained growth until generalist investors consider it a standard component of health investing rather than a special theme to be visited only occasionally.

Capital Still Follows Visibility More Than Burden

The funding pattern also reveals an uncomfortable truth. Conditions receiving the most investment are not always those creating the greatest health burden.

The report estimates that women-specific cardiovascular innovation received only about $2 million in dedicated equity during 2025. Dedicated investment addressing the women-specific dimensions of autoimmune disease was effectively absent, even though women account for the great majority of people living with autoimmune conditions. Mental health and pelvic health also remained dramatically underfunded in relation to their effects on people’s lives.

This does not diminish the importance of investment in fertility, oncology, menopause or maternal health. It does show that markets often follow categories that are easier to describe, sell or recognize before addressing conditions that are scientifically complex, poorly diagnosed or fragmented across medical specialties.

Cardiovascular disease in women is not a niche concern. Autoimmune disease is not a specialty-market curiosity. These are major health challenges that demand gender-specific research, earlier diagnosis, appropriate clinical evidence and investors prepared to build a long-term thesis.

Five years ago, menopause appeared similarly overlooked. Greater visibility, advocacy and scientific attention helped change investor understanding. Cardiovascular, autoimmune, and mental health innovation now requires a comparable shift.

Scale Must Mean Better Health Access, Not Only Larger Rounds

Investment is essential, but capital is not the same as care. A successful financing announcement does not reduce the years a woman may wait for an endometriosis diagnosis, reduce the risk of maternal complications or ensure that a new technology reaches people regardless of income or geography.

The true value of capital lies in what it enables people to create. It can help researchers produce evidence, enable founders to recruit skilled R&D teams and give companies time to earn the confidence of regulators, health professionals, payers and patients.

Technology should simplify care rather than introduce another point of friction. Data should help clinicians understand women more fully rather than reproduce historical bias. Artificial intelligence, or its application, should enhance human judgment, not serve as an excuse for health professionals to distance themselves from the people they serve.

The women’s health sector no longer needs to prove that unmet need exists. The record of delayed diagnoses, inadequate research, and dismissed symptoms has been established many times over.

It also no longer needs to prove that successful companies can be created. The expansion of investment across more categories, countries and later-stage rounds shows that women’s health can produce significant scientific advances and scalable enterprises.

The question now is whether investors, policymakers and health systems will support those companies through the winding journey from possibility to practice. That will require patient capital, stronger evidence, workable reimbursement pathways, and a willingness to design care around women’s lives rather than forcing women to navigate systems not designed with them in mind.

The W Group Era of Scale analysis should not be measured only by how much capital enters women’s health. It should be measured by whether that investment leads to earlier diagnoses, better treatments, broader access and less suffering. The true measure of scale will not be dollars invested, but lives improved.

The post Women’s Health Has Entered the Era of Scale. Now Capital Must Catch Up With Care appeared first on Medika Life.

The FemTech Foundation—and Fault Lines

In 2015, fewer than 300 ventures focused on women’s health existed. That number has tripled to 942, according to the Galen Growth HealthTech Alpha™ platform. These ventures now span the female health continuum—gynecology, menopause, oncology, cardiovascular disease, mental health and beyond.

Yet the investment tide has not fully turned in FemTech’s favor. While partnerships have risen 15.3-fold during the past decade, capital deployment has grown only 1.4 times. Compare that to the 2.6x expansion of digital health investments. In 2024, FemTech secured $2.2 billion in funding, a sliver of the $26 billion digital-health pie.

This disparity isn’t due to a lack of innovation—quite the opposite. The problem is systemic: funding gaps, policy voids, and clinical blind spots that overlook the $360 billion “ghost market” of women’s health. That phrase— “ghost market”—is the report’s haunting term for the opportunities left untouched by current investors and providers alike.

From Fertility to Full Spectrum

One of the report’s most critical takeaways is how much the FemTech category is maturing. Fertility tracking and pregnancy apps put the field on the map. But FemTech today is far more.  It recognizes the vast need for medicine to engage with women’s unique health needs, long unaddressed.

The Galen Growth data shows that while gynecology and oncology account for more than half of all FemTech ventures, menopause, chronic pain, autoimmune conditions, cardiovascular disease and mental health are surging into the investment and innovation spotlight. These are not “niche” categories—they represent common, often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed conditions that disproportionately affect women and impair their quality of life.

This expansion reflects a growing recognition that women’s health is not a subset—it’s a central pillar of public health. As de Salaberry writes in a soon-to-appear Health Tech World byline: “To be transformative, FemTech must address the entirety of the women’s health continuum, including those therapeutic areas that are not traditionally branded as female-specific but affect women in distinct ways.”

Twice the Clinical Evidence—But Still Under Scrutiny

Perhaps the report’s most sobering—and telling—data point is that FemTech ventures generate nearly twice the volume of clinical trials, peer-reviewed research, and regulatory filings as their digital health peers. Twice. That’s not due to past scientific rigor; these companies are held to a higher standard. Founders and advocates must go the extra mile to validate the clinical value of their solutions.

Despite this, systemic barriers remain. The report shows 71 percent of early-stage FemTech ventures struggle to raise a Series A round. Funding the “middle”—those post-seed but pre-scaleup companies—is an urgent priority. Without it, too many promising solutions will stall before reaching the women who need them.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about meeting investor milestones. It’s about delivering equity in care. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, yet it remains underrepresented in FemTech portfolios. Alzheimer’s and autoimmune conditions disproportionately affect women, yet receive comparatively little innovation focus.

Those are not oversight gaps. They are deep, systemic failures – disparities in our health innovation system.

From Direct-to-Consumer to Deep Health Integration

Another significant signal of maturity is the shift away from pure direct-to-consumer (DTC) models. In 2024, 42 percent of FemTech partnerships involved health systems, up from just 10 percent in 2020. That’s a tectonic shift from point solutions to systemic integration.

As de Salaberry puts it, “DTC strategies alone cannot reach underserved populations or secure the reimbursement pathways necessary for scale.” Systemic integration—through payers, providers, and public institutions—is essential for sustainability and access. FemTech must live where care happens, not just on consumers’ cell phones.

Regionally, the picture is just as telling, with Europe leading in clinical rigor, with 50 percent of FemTech ventures demonstrating proven clinical strength. North America leads in funding ($1.3B), while Asia-Pacific remains a hub of AI-driven diagnostics, even amid a dip in capital investment. These trends point to what’s next: a future driven by localization, clinical excellence and technology convergence.

Forces Shaping the Future of FemTech

The report outlines five key factors shaping the FemTech evolution during the next five years. They’re worth noting for anyone investing, innovating or advocating for equitable care with an eye toward return on investment:

• Redefining the Scope: FemTech must look beyond reproductive health to address chronic diseases, aging, and behavioral health.
• Breaking the DTC Mold: Success will be defined by integrated partnerships with employers, insurers, and health systems.
• Balancing Rigor and Agility: Regulatory requirements must support innovation without stifling it.
• Funding the Growth Gap: Series A and B support is critical to help early innovators scale.
• Smart Consolidation: M&A isn’t just about exits—it’s about building category leaders with breadth and credibility.

Infrastructure, Not Hype

The key here is infrastructure. FemTech is not a trend—it’s the scaffolding of women’s health innovation. Investors need to hear that message and invest to make this population health category viable.

With nearly half the global workforce made up of women, the ROI on women’s health is not just moral—it’s macroeconomic. The health ecosystem can no longer afford to treat women’s health as an edge case. It is, in fact, the core of population health.

FemTech’s next chapter will be shaped by evidence, equity and integration. It must also be underpinned by trust from payers, providers, and patients. That trust is earned through data, outcomes and the bold assertion that women’s health is health, full stop. This Galen Growth Report goes a long way to demonstrating the positive outcomes when innovation and investment converge.

As Julien de Salaberry wisely states: “The next generation of Femtech isn’t about visibility—it’s about value, integration, and health systems impact.” That’s not just a forecast—it’s a framework for what’s next.

[Editor’s Note: For a deeper dive into the Galen Growth FemTech 2025 report, visit galengrowth.com. The full report and press release, are available now.]

The post Galen Growth FemTech 2.0 Report: Elevating Women’s Health from Niche to Necessity appeared first on Medika Life.

We often hear that women’s rights are human’s rights: this most definitely also applies to healthcare.

Improving women’s health depends on improving their rights and vice versa. This calls for widespread commitment on both fronts, involving health professionals, institutions, politicians, and NGOs. The aim is to remove the economic, ideological, and socio-cultural obstacles to implementing actions that can change women’s lives. “The health of women and girls is of particular concern because, in many societies, they are disadvantaged by discrimination rooted in sociocultural factors.” said the World Health Organization (WHO).

Among said factors are unequal power dynamics between men and women, inequality towards education and employment opportunities, an exclusive focus on women’s reproductive roles and increased vulnerability to physical, sexual, or emotional violence. Women also face increased vulnerability in less privileged parts of the world.

Regarding health-related inequalities, in sub-Saharan Africa, women, for example, represent a significant majority of HIV/AIDS victims (63% of new infections in 2021). Every two minutes, a young woman between 15 and 24 gets infected by HIV. These women (aged 15-24) are three times more likely to contract HIV than young men of the same age.

We need urgent and long-term care for women around the globe. Prioritizing women’s health to make a difference everywhere and around the world is our mission at FIGO.

Founded in 1954, FIGO brings together 135 learned societies of gynecology and obstetrics on every continent whose aim is to improve the status of women, girls, and families to enable them to reach their full educational, sexual, and reproductive potential in harmony with their professional fulfillment and personal well-being.

In its fight for women, FIGO is also partnering with Professor Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist and winner of the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize, to support the “Red Line Initiative,” which bans the practice of rape as a weapon of war and leads on global programme activities, with a particular focus on sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. We strive to promote women’s health and rights through four fundamental pillars: education, training, research, and advocacy.

To that end, health professionals and experts from all over the globe will come together at FIGO’s upcoming congress in Paris from October 9 to 12 to share their knowledge and learn about new progress that has been made for women’s health, and the goals that we all have yet to achieve.

One excellent example is the elimination of cervical cancer.

This aim, which will considerably impact women’s lives, is one of FIGO’s priorities. Today, a woman dies of cervical cancer every two minutes worldwide, even though it can be prevented. Prevention is based on vaccinating boys and girls, ideally, before they begin sexual activity, and on screening. Cervical cancer is caused by papillomaviruses, or HPV, a family of sexually transmitted viruses. Eighty percent of the sexually active population will encounter HPV at least once, but in 90% of cases, the human body will naturally fight it and eliminate it within two years. If not, the persistent virus can lead to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer. Vaccination can prevent 90% of HPV infections that cause cancers other than cervical cancer (ENT, vulva, anus, penis).

Recommended by all learned societies and the World Health Organization, implementation varies from country to country. Australia, for example, is a good role model with a rate of 90% of vaccinated young girls, and cervical cancer is expected to be eliminated by 2035. In the US, 63,8% of young girls and 59,8% of young boys are fully vaccinated.  Rwanda became the first African country with an HPV vaccination implementation strategy and now realizes that vaccination coverage reached 99% of those born in 2002.

After an initial catch-up campaign that targeted school grades and included older girls, the programme transitioned to an age-based approach, with routine vaccination of only girls aged 12 from 2015 onwards. More than 1.15 million girls in Rwanda received their first dose of the HPV vaccine in 2011–2018 as part of this programme. Population-level HPV vaccination coverage increased from 6% for girls born in 1993 to 99% for those born in 2002.

Other countries need to catch up for several reasons. In addition to some reluctance toward vaccination, smear screening progresses slowly, often due to a need for more awareness and information. Smear screening is essential to eradicating cervical cancer: the WHO recommends screening 70% of women in all countries.

Improving prevention and women’s health understandably requires deploying resources on a par with the expected ambitions and progress. Political commitment is imperative to remove the cultural and economic obstacles to improving women’s health.

Healthy women are the cornerstone of healthy societies.

Women often provide for their families, communities, and the people around them. If women are healthier, it impacts everyone around them and eventually leads to healthier newborns, children, families, households, and communities. Leaders who prioritize women’s health can overcome gender inequality and improve the overall population’s health.

To register for the FIGO Congress, Paris, 9-12 October 2023: https://figo2023.org/registration/

[Medika Life is honored to feature this exclusive Q&A feature authored by Jeanne Conry, MD, president, The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics]

The post Why Improving Women’s Health Around the World is Urgent appeared first on Medika Life.

Rebecca came up with the idea for this sperm-stopping sauna after being diagnosed with cancer precursor cervix due to contraception with the pill. She wanted to find a safer alternative for contraception and turned her focus to men, rather than looking to traditional methods that address women. She unveiled the results of her work as part of her master thesis.

Called COSO, the Apple-like device is described on the site as an “ultrasound-based, reversible and hormone-free male contraceptive device for home use.”

To use this baby-blocking bidet, the bather simply adds water up to the indicated mark which is set together with a doctor according to individual testicle size. After heating the water up to the required temperature, the testicle bearer then spreads his legs and sits down to place said testicles in the device.

The ultrasound process continues for a few minutes. The remaining time can be monitored in real-time via the COSO app. After the treatment, the device switches off automatically.

Possibly the best description for the process was provided by IFL Science . suggesting “you teabag your way to (temporary) infertility.”

Can you imagine the television advertising for this bad boy? You can just picture the scene, sweat-clad muscular male girthed in a loincloth walks purposefully into a candlelit carved stone chamber to the accompaniment of soft chanting in the background. The COSO rests on a lowered plinth, bathed in a ray of moonlight. The camera pans away as the loincloth hits the floor and… (some teabagging is not for public consumption).

How does it work?

Joking aside, the product works and one dunking can result in a few months worth of vastly immobilized sperm. The effects are not permanent and your legions will recover their full motility in time. The COSO’s prophylactic process works by employing ultrasound deep heat for several minutes to temporarily halt sperm mobility in the testicles, effectively preventing swimmers from fertilizing the female egg.

The COSO must be used for the first time under your doctor’s advice and takes around two weeks before the full effects kick in, after which it needs to be employed every couple of months to work. As its effects only last a maximum of six months, it won’t permanently prevent men from becoming fathers. Weiss says;

“COSO offers a user-friendly contraceptive approach that is easy to use without any kind of physical intervention, pain, or previously known side effects.”

Which in turn is fantastic news for women, who for decades have been forced to resort to invasive birth control devices and medications with questionable safety profiles to stave off unwanted pregnancies. The burning question is though, will men willingly adopt the COSO?

The answer is probably not, they’ll require a little coercion, which shouldn’t prove to be a hurdle. I suspect our female counterparts may possess all the incentives required.

According to IFL Science, progress on COSO has been slow, which experts attribute to a reluctance by pharmaceutical companies to invest in male birth control. While studies support COSO’s efficacy, getting men to attend multiple contraceptive appointments will prove a challenge.

COSO now faces a clinical testing phase so it can finally be made available to the public. Watch this space and work on those puns in the interim.

The post Teabag Your Way to Infertility with the Genital Jacuzzi appeared first on Medika Life.

This week the US House of Representatives passed a bill giving veterans access to no-cost contraception through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The legislation passed with bipartisan support 245–181.

This bill intends to give Veterans access to birth control like all other Americans who have enjoyed free access to family planning services since the 2008 Affordable Care Act.

Green spoke on the House floor in opposition to the legislation. The speech is filled with incorrect statements and misinformation. No one is surprised anymore by Green’s nonsensical rants. She has mocked victims of the Parkland shooting and blamed California wildfires on Jewish space lasers.

Green even compared wearing a mask to prevent the spread of a respiratory virus during a pandemic to the Holocaust stating, “We can look back in a time in history where people were told to wear a gold star, and they were definitely treated like second-class citizens, so much so that they were put in trains and taken to gas chambers in Nazi Germany.”

Representative Green’s statements about Plan B and emergency contraception are simply incorrect and ill-informed. Here is what she said.

Green states, “contraception stops a woman from becoming pregnant. The Plan B pill kills a baby in the womb once a woman is already pregnant.” This statement is entirely false.

Plan B is the brand name of one form of emergency contraception. Emergency birth control prevents pregnancy and is not an abortion medication.

RU486 (Mifepristone) is a medication used to induce abortion. Abortion medication terminates a pregnancy and is not a form of emergency contraception.

Plan B and RU486 are not the same medication. One has nothing to do with the other.

Emergency contraception (EC) contains progesterone, a hormone produced naturally by the ovaries. It is often called “the morning after” pill. Common brands, such as Plan B, are available over the counter without a prescription.

Emergency contraception is formulated with a high dose of progesterone. This hormonal blast disrupts, delays, or prevents ovulation. When people take Plan B within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, it reduces the risk of pregnancy by 70–80%. If a woman is already pregnant and takes Plan B, then nothing happens.

Emergency contraception is called Plan B and not Plan A for a reason. It reduces the risk of pregnancy and does not cause an abortion.

Here is a chart outlining the hormonal changes that occur during a menstrual cycle. The hormones must follow this particular pattern for the ovary to release an egg successfully.

Plan B emergency contraception sends a shock to the system through a high level of progesterone to disrupt or delay ovulation.

The high dose of progesterone in Plan B also thickens the cervical mucus creating a toxic environment for sperm. 

Plan B will not terminate an already established pregnancy. Plan B progesterone does not cause abortion.

Emergency contraception decreases the risk of pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation. If a person is already pregnant and conception has occurred, then Plan B will do nothing. It is too late for emergency contraception.

Taking emergency contraception after one is already pregnant will only add more progesterone to support the developing fetus.

Progesterone can be helpful in certain high-risk pregnancies. Obstetrician gynecologists and infertility doctors often give extra Progesterone to help prevent miscarriages.

Marjorie Taylor Green also stated, “Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act is not contraception, it’s providing with taxpayer dollars the ability for women to have an abortion.”

Once again, Taylor is wrong. Birth control methods do not work by causing abortions. In addition, Federal law bars the use of Medicaid funds for abortions through the Hyde Amendment.

Green got one thing right when she stated, “Words matter and their meanings need to be exactly clear.” 

I agree. I wish Green had paid attention in her junior high health class and learned the basics about human reproduction and contraception. 

The post Marjorie Taylor Green Needs a Primer on How Birth Control Works appeared first on Medika Life.

The problem is the male-dominant Missouri senators did not pay attention during their junior high health class. The Senators who want to control Missouri women seem to have no idea how contraception methods actually work.

The Kansas City Star detailed a heated debate in the Missouri legislature over contraceptive access, causing Obstetrician gynecologists, like me, to shake their heads at the lack of sexual health knowledge.

Here is the background of what triggered this debate.

Like many states, Missouri partially funds Medicaid, a federal program providing health access to low-income people, through a hospital tax. Most funding for Medicaid comes from the Federal Government, but states do have to pay a share.

Missouri’s $4 billion hospital tax is set to expire in September and must be renewed. The renewal of the current hospital tax has nothing to do with contraception coverage. The bill continues the hospital tax already in place, allowing the state to fund Medicaid and receive Federal dollars in return.

So how did access to birth control enter the debate on a bill that has nothing to do with contraception?

A group of senators is withholding support for the hospital tax renewal unless the state bans contraceptive methods that cause abortion. The problem is none of the birth control methods being debating cause abortions. Federal law bars the use of Medicaid funds for abortions through the Hyde Amendment.

Missouri is holding up Medicaid funding to block contraceptive methods that reduce unplanned pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. 

 The problem is none of the methods in Missouri’s proposed ban cause abortions. Our views on abortion vary, but we must understand the fundamental science to have a meaningful discussion. 

Our country’s public policy and heated social media debates should at least be based on facts.

Plan B is not an abortion pill. Stop calling it that.

Plan B is the brand name of one form of emergency contraception. Emergency birth control prevents pregnancy and is not an abortion medication.

RU486 (Mifepristone) is a medication used to induce abortion. Abortion medication terminates a pregnancy and is not a form of emergency contraception. 

Plan B and RU486 are not the same medication. Plan B and RU486 are not the same things at all.

Emergency contraception (EC) contains progesterone, a hormone produced naturally by the ovaries. It is often called “the morning after” pill. Common brands, such as Plan B, are available over the counter without a prescription.

Emergency contraception is formulated with a high dose of progesterone. This hormonal blast disrupts, delays, or prevents ovulation. High-dose progesterone also thickens the cervical mucus creating a toxic environment for sperm. It will not terminate an already established pregnancy.

Progesterone does not cause abortion. Emergency contraception decreases the risk of pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation. If conception has already occurred, then it is too late for emergency contraception. 

Once pregnancy occurs, the ovary forms a type of ovary cyst called a corpus luteum. It produces progesterone to support the growing pregnancy. Taking emergency contraception will only add more progesterone to support the developing fetus.

Obstetrician gynecologists and infertility doctors often give extra Progesterone to high-risk pregnancies to help prevent miscarriages. 

Banning funding for Plan B will not reduce the number of abortions because it does not cause them in the first place. Plan B will not terminate an already established pregnancy. 

When people take Plan B within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, it reduces the risk of pregnancy by 70–80%. If a woman is already pregnant and takes Plan B, then nothing happens. Emergency contraception is called Plan B and not Plan A for a reason.

IUDs (intrauterine devices) reduce abortions. They do not cause them. 

Abortion rates in the United States are at historic lows. The national drop in abortions coincided with the passage of the 2008 Affordable Care Act, which made contraception accessible without a copay.

Access to birth control improved. Unintended pregnancy, teen pregnancy, and abortion rates did not just decrease; they plummeted. 

Many public health experts credit the drop in abortion rates to the increased use of Long-acting reversible contraception methods (LARCS). 

Long-acting reversible contraception methods work for an extended period of time after a one-time insertion giving patients the confidence of years of protection. Examples of LARCs are IUDs (Intrauterine Device) and subdermal implants (Nexplanon).

An IUD is a small device inserted into the cavity of the uterus. There are currently five IUDs available in the US — Kyleena, Skyla, Mirena, Paragard, and Liletta. Nexplanon is the only subdermal implant available.

After removing these devices, the return to fertility is almost immediate, with pregnancies seen as early as seven days after removal. LARCS demonstrate the lowest failure rates, highest continuation rates, excellent safety profiles, minimal side effects, and few medical contraindications.

Missouri Senators need to know IUDs do not cause abortions. 

Progesterone IUDs have three main mechanisms of action:

1. The progesterone thickens cervical mucous blocking sperm from getting past the first line of defense.
2. Progesterone creates a vaginal environment that kills sperm after ejaculation.
3. These IUDs also reduce fallopian tube motility making it more difficult for an egg to travel from the ovary to the uterus.

Copper IUDs release copper ions that create an inflammatory state. Sperm do not survive in this environment. Sperm dies at the level of the cervix and the endometrium. Copper IUDs kill sperm and inhibit its ability to swim towards the egg.

The idea that IUDs allow pregnancy to occur and then cause an abortion is outdated and not supported by scientific evidence.

Missouri Senators owe it to themselves and their constituents to learn contraceptive basics before passing bills that limit individual liberty. 

Birth control access has reduced the number of US abortions to historic lows. Pro-life and Pro-choice constituents agree the reduction in the need for abortions is great news for US Women. We are on the same team on this issue. 

Missouri Senators may reverse our project in abortion reduction by passing a bill that reduces access to birth control and increases the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. 

Missouri women should not be punished because the Legislature did not pay attention in Junior High Health classes. 

The post Missouri Debates Birth Control Ban Without Knowing How Contraception Works appeared first on Medika Life.

She is looking for a nonhormonal contraceptive option where she is in control. 

She is not alone. Many women are looking for alternative birth control options. The Food and Drug Administration has approved Phexxi, a new, hormone-free contraceptive gel. This new vaginal on-demand contraceptive option is FDA-approved for the prevention of pregnancy 

What is Phexxi?

Phexxi is not a spermicide. It is a first-in-class vaginal pH modulator (VPM) designed to maintain an acidic vaginal pH to reduce sperm’s ability to fertilize the egg. Sperm does not like an acidic environment. 

The three active ingredients (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) keep the vaginal pH in the range of 3.5 to 4.5. This high acidity level creates a toxic environment for sperm and reduces pregnancy risk when used immediately or up to 1 hour before each act of vaginal intercourse.

Phexxi is packaged in a box containing 12 pouches of individual prefilled single-dose applicators. Each applicator contains 1 dose of Phexxi.

Up to one hour before sex, the vaginal gel is self-administered into the vagina like a tampon. The bioadhesive gel is designed to stay in place in the vagina during sex. It will not leak out of the vagina during or after vaginal intercourse, but rather absorbs into vaginal tissue and drains after sex in the mix of semen and vaginal secretions.

Phexxi is not an emergency contraceptive or “morning-after” method. It does not work when used after sex. It must be used before sex occurs, and each applicator may only be used once. If sex occurs again, an additional dose of Phexxi should be applied.

Women may continue to use other forms of hormonal or nonhormonal contraception safely except for the vaginal ring. 

Does Phexxi work?

The Ampower trial supplied the FDA with data for approval. This study was a phase 3 clinical trial evaluating pregnancy rates in 1384 women aged 18 to 35. Participants in this open-label, single-arm study self-administered a 5g dose of Phexxi intravaginally up to 1 hour before each intercourse episode for up to 7 menstrual cycles.

Pregnancies occurred in 101 women. There were 1183 participants monitored for seven months, equal to 4769 monitored menstrual cycles.

The 7-cycle typical use cumulative pregnancy rate was 13.7% (95% CI, 10.0–17.5), and the estimated Pearl Index was 27.5 (95% CI, 22.4–33.5).

The Pearl index is a commonly used method of comparing various contraceptive options. It is a mathematical formula to calculate the number of contraceptive method failures per 100 woman-years of exposure.

The cumulative pregnancy rate shows that Phexxi is much less effective than long-acting reversible methods such as the IUD and arm implant, but more reliable than the withdrawal method, fertility awareness tracking, or spermicide.

The clinical trials demonstrate women liked using Phexxi. 87% would use it again, and 93% would recommend to a friend. 

What are the side effects of Phexxi?

In the clinical trials, less than 2% of women stopped using Phexxi because of adverse reactions. 

9.8% of male partners reported symptoms of penile irritation during the clinical study.

The most common adverse reactions for women were vulvovaginal burning sensation and pain, vulvovaginal itching, yeast infections, urinary tract infections, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal discharge, genital discomfort, and painful urination. 

More options give more women control. 

Phexxi is an exciting new addition to the list of available birth control methods. For women who want to avoid hormone exposure, this on-demand method may be an option to explore. 

Phexxi does not protect against sexually transmitted infections. Phexxi avoids hormonal side effects and is more effective at preventing pregnancy than traditional spermicide, fertility awareness, and the withdrawal method.

The post Phexxi; Have You Heard About This New Hormone-Free Contraceptive? appeared first on Medika Life.