Rockefeller's Population Council

That Really Wants to Make Sure Women Have Access to not Breeding

In June 1960, G.D. Searle's Enovid pill became the first oral contraceptive approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for married women, requiring a doctor's prescription and initially limited to two years of use. As the pill gained popularity, serious safety concerns emerged, particularly after 1969, when evidence revealed significant health risks associated with its estrogen-progestin combination. Compounding these issues were unethical studies conducted in Puerto Rico, where Searle administered the pill to women without obtaining fully informed consent, resulting in severe complications, including sterilization. Such practices reflect a troubling pattern of prioritizing population control over women's health and autonomy, a trend supported by influential organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and what is now known as Planned Parenthood, which promoted these contraceptive methods without genuine concern for women's well-being. How progressive and pro-women’s rights. Am I right?

Image from https://wifflegif.com/gifs/592952-reaction-excited-gif

This disregard for women's autonomy was starkly illustrated in a half-hour film featuring three cringy male physicians from “elite” East Coast universities, who discussed the pill's pros and cons while addressing fellow physicians rather than potential users. Dr. Celso-Ramón García claimed the pill benefited health despite its drawbacks, disdainfully dismissing less effective contraceptives like diaphragms. Dr. Louis Lasagna raised concerns about the pill's side effects, arguing that many women might prefer lower effectiveness rates from diaphragms or condoms as they considered future pregnancies. Meanwhile, Dr. Sheldon Segal, from the Rockefeller Foundation-funded Population Council, insisted the pill should remain a prescription medication and cautioned against making it available over the counter, all while neglecting to advocate for patients to be informed about the medication's risks and benefits.

Image from https://circulatingnow.nlm.nih.gov/2020/03/19/the-contraceptive-pill-up-for-debate-in-1969-and-beyond/

In response to these abuses, the feminist health movement emerged, demanding accountability and transparency in reproductive health, a call echoed in the National Library of Medicine's 1969-1970 film series “Concepts and Controversies in Modern Medicine,” which included a segment on the pill. The legacy of the Enovid pill and its controversial testing on marginalized communities emphasizes the intersection of ethics (or lack thereof), medicine, and women’s rights, revealing how powerful institutions continue to use such practices as mechanisms of population control rather than promoting authentic care for women's health.

But have things rrrreealllllllyyyyyyy changed all that much? Contemporarily, the Rockefeller’s Population Council’s Center for Biomedical Research (CBR) represents a continued disturbing fusion of reproductive control and social engineering, cloaked in the veneer of scientific progress. “Nestled” within Rockefeller University in New York City, CBR has positioned itself as a leader in long-acting, reversible contraception (LARCs), pushing products like ParaGard® and Mirena® IUDs, as well as Norplant® and Jadelle® implants, all while facilitating clinical trials for Mifepristone®—a drug that terminates early pregnancies by blocking the hormone progesterone, which is essential for maintaining pregnancy—leading to FDA approval in 2000.

Image from https://popcouncil.org/hub/cbr/

However, the purported reversibility of these contraceptives raises troubling questions amid the alarming rise in infertility rates. What’s more unsettling is how CBR has contributed to normalizing a culture that glamorizes childlessness and abortion, framing the act of not having children as a trend rather than a deeply personal choice. This obsession with controlling reproduction among populations deemed undesirable echoes the eugenics ideologies of the past, revealing a disquieting agenda that prioritizes societal narratives over individual autonomy. By prioritizing technological advancement while downplaying the potential health implications for women, CBR reduces female bodies to mere subjects of experimentation. Ultimately, the Population Council's legacy serves as a chilling reminder of how the promotion of reproductive health can mask a far more sinister mission—one that seeks to control life rather than celebrate it.