WARNING: In order to completely and accurately describe the subject matter, this document contains explicit information about human sexuality which is not appropriate for minors or for persons who are morally vulnerable to such material.
Table of Contents
The Primary Danger -- Not Pores, But Catastrophic Failure
An Engineering Analysis of an SEM Image
Condoms and the Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Rebuttal by the Alan Guttmacher Institute
Results of School Condom Studies
International Case Studies Showing Condom Ineffectiveness Against HIV/AIDS
`Abstinence has a High Failure Rate’
They Simply Refuse to “Get It”
Lying in Order to Sell Condoms
Conclusion: Of Parachutes and Prophylactics
Recommended Reading on Condoms
-----------------------------------------
This document is a compendium and summary of the latest scientific information about the most widely-used contraceptive device in the world today -- the male condom. This summary draws from many sources, but focuses primarily on medical journals.
This summary is intended to be a resource for those who need straightforward, simple and concise facts about condoms.
Further pro-life sources of information on condoms, readily available on the Internet, are listed at the end of this document.
For further information, please contact Human Life International, 4 Family Life, Front Royal, Virginia 22630, U.S.A., e-mail address: hli@hli.org, Web site: http://www.hli.org, telephone: (540) 635-7884 or 1-(800) 549-LIFE.
The Underlying Problem. It is common knowledge among health professionals that sexually‑transmitted diseases (STDs), some of which are incurable and/or fatal, have found fertile ground to multiply in societies that permit and even celebrate all forms of permissive sex. Unfortunately, most people, for fear of appearing “backwards” or “repressive,” treat this glaringly obvious fact like a basilisk -- they dare not look at it or even speak about it.
The response of most `developed’ world governments at every level, and the reaction of various social service agencies to this explosion of STDs, was as predictable as it was pitiful: They took the inherently Humanistic position that Americans (not just teenagers) are mere animals. Since they can’t be trusted to control their sexual urges, we might as well make it as safe for them as possible to have sex with whomever they please.
The government’s weapons of choice were not chastity and monogamy, but `education’ and condoms. Even Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, sported a “rubber tree” on her desk -- festooned, of course, with condoms.
And so, with intriguing names like “Arouse,” “Embrace,” “Excita,” and “Pleaser,” condoms crowd pharmacy shelves and restroom walls, leering at potential users and proclaiming the merits of “family planning” and “safe sex” on their vividly‑colored packages.
Unfortunately, members of the public uncritically accept the government ‑‑ and the condom manufacturers ‑‑ at their word. And nobody (except a few pro‑lifers, who are universally ignored) seems to be asking the most vital question of all.
If condoms are so effective at preventing pregnancy and AIDS transmission, why do nations that stress their use continue to experience a rapidly‑escalating rate of teen pregnancy and an exploding AIDS epidemic?
Due to the highly charged aspects of the issues related to contraception (i.e., school‑based clinics, the teen pregnancy “epidemic,” and the spread of AIDS), there is much conflicting information on the effectiveness of the most commonly‑used nonpermanent true contraceptive method in the world ‑‑ the male condom ‑‑ at preventing pregnancy, AIDS, and sexually transmitted diseases.
In order to conduct an intelligent conversation on this topic, we must first review a few basic facts.
Types of Condoms. Three types of male condoms are commonly available today;
(1) By far the most commonly used condoms are made from natural rubber latex. These are the most effective at preventing pregnancy and STDs, and make up about 97 percent of all condom sales in the United States.
(2) A small number of condoms are made from the intestinal caecum of lambs, and are called “natural skin,” “natural membrane” or “lambskin” condoms. Experts generally agree that skin condoms are not effective as latex condoms at preventing AIDS and STDs.
(3) A third type, generally becoming more available, are the condoms made from synthetic materials including polyurethane. These are more resistant to deterioration than latex condoms and are generally believed to provide a similar level of protection against pregnancy and STDs [1].
Definition of Terms. The book Contraceptive Technology is the most authoritative source of information on all methods of birth control in the world today. This two-inch thick book is often referred to as the “family planner’s bible,” and is revised every few years in order to include updated information. The latest edition was published in 2004, and it is considered by family planners to be the “last word” on all matters contraceptive.
Family planners use four terms when referring to the failure rate of a contraceptive or abortifacient method;
(1) The “efficacy” of a birth control method refers to the protection its users receive under ideal conditions.
(2) The “effectiveness” of a method refers to the protection its users receive under actual conditions of use, and includes user error.
(3) The “method failure rate” refers to malfunctions of the method itself when a couple use it perfectly. For condoms, the method failure rate is two percent. This does not mean that two percent of condom uses will result in pregnancy. It means that, if there are one hundred couples that use a condom perfectly over an entire year of use, only two will experience pregnancy. Since the average couple in the United States has sexual intercourse 83 times a year, this means that, among one hundred perfect method users, there will be two pregnancies for every 8,300 uses of the condom.
(4) The “user failure rate” reflects not perfect use, but typical use, and includes all user errors. According to Contraceptive Technology, 15 of 100 typical condom-using couples will experience pregnancy within the first year of use.[2]
The basic problem is as follows. No matter how much `safe(r) sex’ education is taught, no matter how many bowls of free condoms are left in plain view, and no matter how much contraceptive marketing is propagated, there are a number of mechanical and human factors that simply cannot be controlled [3];
* Condoms break and slip off;
* They age. One study found that the breakage rate for condoms increased from 3.6% for new condoms to as high as 18.6% for condoms several years old.[4]
* They deteriorate in even the best of conditions, but even more rapidly in extremely cold or hot situations. Condom wrappers recommend storing the product at temperatures between 59 and 88 degrees Fahrenheit. One researcher found that, at major condom distribution points in New Jersey and New York, boxes of condoms were left outdoors in the ice and snow during the dead of winter. During the summer months, the researcher took photographs of eggs frying on the floors of dozens of trucks and containers where condoms were stored in temperatures exceeding 180 degrees.[5] High temperatures cause oxidation and freezing temperatures cause crystallization in some of the chemical compounds that make up condoms, leading to cracking, drying, shrinking and drastic loss of flexibility and strength. Keep in mind that condoms exported from the United States sit in uninsulated shipping containers in extreme weather conditions for even longer periods of time;
* If taken out of the package and left unused for a long period of time, they are liable to ozone deterioration, which causes damage invisible to the eye;
* Improper use of oil-based lubricants can degrade them;
* They get broken in their packages;
* They have allowed rates of manufacturing defects. The present acceptable quality limit (AQL) for North American condom manufacturers is 99.6% of condoms free of leaks. The British AQL is 97%, and the Dutch AQL is 96.5%;
* The users are caught up in passion and do not properly follow the ten- to sixteen-step process for safe usage [6];
* The users are compromised by the use of alcohol, marijuana, illegal drugs, prescription and over-the-counter drugs, or exhaustion; and
* Bodily secretions can get around and over a condom even if it performs perfectly.
The Primary Danger -- Not Pores, But Catastrophic Failure.
“Counting on condoms is flirting with death.”
-- Dr. Helen Singer‑Kaplan, founder of the Human Sexuality Program at the New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, Cornell University.[7]
Overview. Although latex condoms appear to occasionally be permeable to the AIDS virus, by far the greatest danger of infection lies in their propensity to burst, tear and slip off.
Even if only a few HIV viruses did pass through a porous condom, the risk of infection would still be extremely small; but in those cases where condoms fail catastrophically, massive exposure to the HIV virus is inevitable. In cases of failure during intercourse with an HIV‑infected person, there is the distinct possibility of a protracted and extremely unpleasant death.
The Studies. The frequency of condom breakage depends upon many factors, including the type of lubricant used and the brand of condom. Contraceptive Technology tallied the results of fifteen studies involving a total of 25,184 condoms used during heterosexual intercourse and found that 4.64 percent of all of the condoms broke and 3.44 percent of them partially or completely slipped off, for a total of 8.08 percent, or about one in twelve.[8]
Figure 1 is a summary of these studies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1
A Summary of Major Studies
on Condom Breakage and Slippage Rates
Total Breakage Slippage
Condoms Rate Rate Total Total
Study Used (percent)(percent) Breaks Slips
1. Nevada 353 0.0% 3.9% 0 14
2. United States #1 4,632 0.4% 0.6% 19 28
3. United States #2 147 0.7% 7.4% 1 11
4. Sydney, Australia 605 0.5% ‑‑‑ 3 ‑‑‑
5. Atlanta, Georgia #1 478 3.7% 13.1% 18 63
6. Atlanta, Georgia #2 405 2.4% 13.1% 10 53
7. California #1 3,717 3.0% 2.9% 112 108
8. California #2 2,059 4.3% 2.2% 89 45
9. North Carolina #1 1,072 3.3% 5.4% 35 58
10. North Carolina #2 4,589 11.1% ‑‑‑ 509 ‑‑‑
11. North Carolina #3 1,947 5.3% 3.5% 103 68
12. North Carolina #4 752 4.1% ‑‑‑ 31 ‑‑‑
13. North Carolina #5 358 6.7% --- 24 ---
14. Denmark 385 5.0% ‑‑‑ 19 ‑‑‑
15. New Zealand 3,685 5.3% 5.1% 195 188
────── ───── ───
Totals 25,184 1,168 636
Summary of Studies
Average breakage rate of all condoms: 1,168/25,184 = 4.64%
Average slippage rate of all condoms: 636/18,495 = 3.44%
Total failure rate of all condoms: 8.08%
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Contraceptive Technology, the condom’s user effectiveness rate is 85 percent [9]. This means that, under real-world conditions, a woman whose sexual partners use condoms for every act of sexual intercourse has a 15 percent chance of becoming pregnant in a year.
Figure 2 shows the chances of pregnancy for a woman whose sexual partners faithfully use condoms for 83 average annual instances of sexual intercourse.[10]
Keep in mind that these are the lowest rates that can generally be expected, since they assume 100% condom usage.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2
Probability of Pregnancy Over Time for Women
Whose Sexual Partners Always Use Condoms
Time Probability
Span of Pregnancy
1 year 15 percent
2 years 28 percent
3 years 39 percent
4 years 48 percent
5 years 56 percent
10 years 80 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to United States Census Bureau sources, about 6.8 million couples use condoms as their primary means of contraception in the USA.[11] 15 percent of this number means that about one million unwanted pregnancies occur every year due to condoms breaking ‑‑ a number equivalent to half of the unintended pregnancies in the United States annually!
This experience is mirrored in many other surveys of people who use condoms under real-world conditions;
* 1,609 of 4,666 women (34.5 percent) obtaining abortions at the Leeds Marie Stopes International abortion clinic were using condoms that failed [12].
* 27% of the abortions performed at Paris’ Hospital St. Louis are done because of condom failure.[13]
* A 1996 study of students requesting “emergency contraception” at the Rusholme Health Center in Manchester claimed condom failure.[14]
* In Botswana, HIV prevalence among pregnant urban women rose from 27 percent to a staggering 45 percent from 1993 to 2001 as condoms sales tripled. In Cameroon, adult HIV prevalence rose from 3 percent to 9 percent as condom sales rose from six million to 15 million during the same period [15].
* Cambodia instituted a “100% Condom Program” early on in its fight against AIDS. Condom use rocketed from 99,000 in 1994 to 16 million in 2001. Reported HIV infections more than kept pace, soaring from 14 in 1994 to more than 16,000 in 2001 [16].
* When United States Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders was Arkansas Health Director from 1987 to 1992, she pushed condoms by every means possible, including in 24 high schools. The results were predictable. The teen pregnancy rate in Arkansas rose 17 percent between 1989 to 1992, the syphilis rate among teenagers rose 130 percent, and the HIV rate rose 150 percent [17].
Figure 3 includes many quotes from leading experts who have shown in studies that condoms are dismal failures at preventing pregnancies.
Understandably, for practical and ethical reasons, few studies have actually used live couples to test HIV transmission rates. A University of Miami Medical School study showed that three out of 10 women whose HIV‑infected husbands faithfully used condoms contracted AIDS‑Related Complex (ARC) in an 18‑month period.[18]
This translates into an infection rate of 21 percent per year, 38 percent in two years, 51 percent in three years, 70 percent in five years, and 91 percent in 10 years. One article in The Lancet concluded that
The possible consequences of condom failure when one partner is HIV infected are serious enough and the likelihood of failure sufficiently high that condom use by risk groups should not be described as `safe sex.’... Condoms have a substantial failure rate: 13‑15% of women whose male partners use condoms as the sole method of contraception become pregnant within one year.[19]
Figure 4 consists of quotes from leading experts who believe that condoms are ineffective at preventing AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3
Experts Speak on the Ineffectiveness
of the Condom at Preventing Pregnancy
“After reviewing the extensive literature on contraception, some variation in results is found. Reported failure rates for condom use vary from about 2 to 35 unplanned pregnancies per year, but a conservative consensus reveals a rate in the range of 8 failures per 100 users each year in the general population. Simple mathematics would conclude that after five years, the number pregnant with this method would be five times the yearly rate. Thus, after five years of condom use, there would be about forty pregnancies in this group of 100 real people ...”
‑‑ Stephen Genuis, M.D. “What About the Condom?” Risky Sex (2nd Edition) [Edmonton, Alberta: KEG Publishing, 1991].
“Of 100 women whose partner uses a condom for one year, 3 to 36 will become pregnant.”
-‑ United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. “Contraception: Comparing the Options.”
“In the Oxford/Family Planning Association contraceptive study, 4% of highly motivated couples relying on condoms experienced an unplanned pregnancy within one year, while more generally representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth in the United States show that between 6% and 22% of couples relying on condoms experienced an unplanned pregnancy within a year, the rate depending on the woman’s age and whether the couples wished to delay pregnancy or to prevent it. Much of the health education material about HIV infection has failed to stress the limitations of the condom.”
‑‑ M.P. Vessy and L. Villard Mackintosh. “Condoms and AIDS Prevention.” The Lancet, March 7, 1987, page 568.
“Use of a barrier method backed up by abortion in case of failure confers over a woman’s reproductive life complete protection against unplanned childbearing with a minimal risk of mortality. For some women, however, such a course is morally unacceptable, since it involves a high likelihood of having at least one abortion.”
‑‑ K. Ory, et.al. Making Choices: Evaluating the Health Risks and Benefits of Birth Control Methods [Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1983], page 60.
“In a survey of family planning clients who used condoms as their only or primary birth control method, only 1.3% of the 388 women followed all five steps for proper use.”
‑‑ Marilyn Elias. “Correct Use of Condoms is Rare.” USA Today, December 13, 1991.
“Dr. Richard Gordon, International AIDS Conference presenter and University of Manitoba professor, concluded after live studies that red dye testing demonstrated that seminal fluid leaks out of even properly‑fitted condoms both prior to and after orgasm.”
‑‑ Beverly Sottile‑Malona. “Condoms and AIDS.” America, November 2, 1991.
One test showed that 14.6 percent of condoms used in a clinical trial either broke or slipped off the penis during intercourse or withdrawal. A survey at a Manchester, England family planning clinic revealed that 52% of the respondents had experienced condom breakage or slippage during the past three months alone.
‑‑ Alan Guttmacher Institute. Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1992, pages 20 to 23. Also see R.J.E. Kirkman, J. Morris, and A.M.C. Webb. “User Experience: Mates v. Nuforms.” British Journal of Family Planning, 1990;15:107‑111.
A Federally‑funded UCLA study of the effectiveness of 29 major condom brands showed that reliability ranged from a high of 98.9% to an incredible low of 21.3%.
‑‑ “Condom Reliability.” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 1988.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4
Experts Speak on the Ineffectiveness of the Condom
at Preventing AIDS and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases
“I think these results certainly tell us right off that one condom is not the same as the next. Koop and AIDS groups and others promoting condoms have been very careless about that point ... The Lifestyles Conture, Trojan Ribbed Natural, Trojan Ribbed and Contracept Plus all showed evidence of virus leakage. One in 10 condoms tested leaked in each brand, except for the Contracept Plus, which leaked [HIV] virus 10 of the 25 times it was tested.”
‑‑ Dr. Cecil Fox, quoted in Allan Parachini. “Condom Study Finding Wide Differences Among Brands.” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 1988.
“The possible consequences of condom failure when one partner is HIV infected are serious enough and the likelihood of failure sufficiently high that condom use by risk groups should not be described as `safe sex’... Condoms have a substantial failure rate: 13‑15% of women whose male partners use condoms as the sole method of contraception become pregnant within one year.”
‑‑ Jeffrey A. Kelly and Janet S. St. Lawrence. “Cautions About Condoms in Prevention of AIDS.” The Lancet (Journal of the British Medical Association). February 7, 1987, page 323.
“Professionals and the public alike have been misled into believing that sex with a condom is safe ... considering the 10% pregnancy rate with the use of condoms, this creates a dangerous false sense of security. We consider it irresponsible to suggest to anyone that condoms are entirely safe ... advising persons that it is safe to have sex with condoms is false, provides an erroneous sense of security, and can kill partners.”
‑‑ Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Fall 1986, page 164.
“As has been discussed, condoms do not offer protection for diseases that are transmitted by skin to skin contact such as human papilloma virus and herpes simplex virus, frequently found throughout the genital area in infected individuals. No degree of condom education will curb the transmission of these organisms.”
‑‑ Stephen Genuis, M.D. “What About the Condom?” Risky Sex (2nd Edition). Edmonton, Alberta: KEG Publishing, 1991.
“The officials note that condoms have been widely rejected as a method of birth control because they frequently fail, and say the devices may be no better ‑‑ in fact, may be worse ‑‑ at curtailing AIDS. They warn that sexually active men and women should not assume that they are protected simply because they use prophylactics ... The safe‑sex message just isn’t true. You’re still playing a kind of Russian roulette. Instead of having six bullets in the chamber, you have one.”
‑‑ Bruce Voeller, M.D., researcher with the Mariposa Research Foundation, quoted in Lindsey Gruson. “Condoms: Experts Fear False Sense of Security.” The New York Times, August 18, 1987.
“Condoms failed to prevent HIV transmission in three of 18 couples, suggesting that the rate of condom failure with HIV may be as high as 17%.”
‑‑ James J. Goedert, M.D. “What is Safe Sex?” New England Journal of Medicine, October 21, 1987, page 1,340.
“The condom was useless as a prophylactic against gonorrhea and even under ideal conditions against syphilis.”
‑‑ Nicholas J. Fiumara, M.D., Massachusetts Department of Public Health. “Effectiveness of Condoms in Preventing V.D.” New England Journal of Medicine, October 21, 1971, page 972.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The effectiveness of condoms at preventing AIDS is obviously much lower than their effectiveness at preventing pregnancy, for two primary reasons;
* A couple can conceive during only a fraction of the menstrual cycle (the “fertility window”), about five to seven days per cycle. It is possible, however, to be infected with HIV at any time during the menstrual cycle.
* A sperm cell is massively larger than an HIV virus. The head of a sperm cell is about 3,000 to 5,000 nanometers in diameter, and an HIV virus is about 100 to 120 nanometers in diameter (1 nanometer = one billionth of a meter).[20]
The Primary Point to Remember. There is a lot of debate in the pro-life community today over whether or not latex condoms have pores large enough to leak the HIV virus.
As this booklet will describe, the latex condom does indeed occasionally leak the HIV virus. However, the following point cannot be stressed enough:
The risk of HIV leakage by latex condoms is trivial when compared to the risk of massive exposure to the HIV virus caused by the condom’s propensity to frequently break, tear or slip off.
Pro-lifers should not allow themselves to be dragged into a long, drawn-out discussion on whether or not condoms have pores big enough to leak the HIV virus. This is a distraction from more important issues, because nobody can prove on the spot whether or not they actually do leak the virus. After all, how many people carry a portable electron microscope around with them? There are hundreds of studies on both sides of this question.
In any discussion of condoms, pro-lifers should stay on much firmer ground and speak about the condom’s frequent catastrophic failure rate.
A Complicated Question. Much debate exists over whether latex condoms provide protection against the HIV virus. The Centers for Disease Control (CDCs) assert that unbroken and properly used latex condoms can block the AIDS virus.[21] The basis for this claim is a series of studies that show that latex condoms are 99 percent or more effective at stopping the AIDS virus.
Two serious flaws are inherent in each of these studies:
(1) An extremely small sample size was used in each study (only one to 10 condoms of each brand); and
(2) In‑vivo conditions of actual intercourse were not simulated.
The inherent, naturally occurring flaws in natural rubber (latex) range from 5 to 70 microns in diameter.[22] The average sperm cell is about 5 microns in diameter, and the average AIDS virus is about 0.1 micron in size.[23] This means that, in terms of size, an AIDS virus can pass through a latex flaw as easily as a house cat can walk through an open double garage door. Pro‑abortionists and others loudly deny this fact, but offer no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims.
However, before concluding that latex condoms do not protect against the AIDS virus, two factors must be taken into account:
(1) Condom advocates stress that water molecules “stick” to each other through hydrogen bonding. Therefore, they say, it is very doubtful indeed that an AIDS virus in a water‑based suspension of any type would be able to pass through a hole even 100 times its own diameter in the absence of motion, friction, pressure and corrosion stresses. The clumped water molecules “bridge” the condom gaps, in other words.
However, condoms do indeed leak water, as shown by the standard condom permeability test. This involves filling a condom with 300 milliliters of water, tying it off, and then rolling it on paper to assist in detecting leaks.
In one study, scientists deliberately punctured condoms with holes about 10 microns in diameter, then subjected them to the standard water permeability test. 75 percent of the condoms passed the test, despite the fact that they were riddled with holes 100 times the diameter of the AIDS virus.[24]
In a second test, holes were artificially introduced into condoms of several brands. Those containing holes 1 micron in size -- ten times the diameter of the HIV virus -- passed the leakage test 90 percent of the time. In this latter test, a surfactant (which reduces water cohesion) was introduced into the liquid. Most condom lubricants act as surfactants.[25]
These studies prove that condoms do indeed leak water, regardless of what its surface tension may be.
(2) Latex condoms are “double‑dipped,” meaning that all or most of the voids left from the first layer will be filled by the second. Repeated SEM (scanning electron microscope) photos of stretched condoms show no apparent voids, even at a magnification of 2,000X.[26]
Once again, this fact is irrelevant in light of the fact that, as shown above, a large percentage of condoms that have passed the standard water leak text do indeed leak HIV-sized particles.
An Engineering Analysis of an SEM Image. Point (2) above is repeatedly used by condom advocates to argue that latex condoms are extremely effective at blocking the HIV virus. Indeed, when a latex condom is stretched and viewed under the extreme magnification possible with a scanning electron microscope, no pores seem to be present.
When an SEM image of stretched latex shows no pores, we must remember that stretching applies only one type of stress on a material: Uniform lateral stress. This is the kind of stress that is applied to a child’s balloon when it is blown up -- equal and constant pressure is applied to every square inch of the surface of the balloon.
An SEM cannot provide us with an accurate “picture” of pores in a condom under conditions of actual use, because the SEM can only provide still shots of a condom with uniform lateral stress applied to it.
It is physically impossible to simultaneously simulate for an SEM picture the other four types of stress that are applied to a condom during intercourse:
(1) pressure stress (perpendicular to the axis of the lateral stress). This would be like taking the child’s balloon and stretching it from pole to pole;
(2) shear stress (high twisting or angular stresses at critical points). This would be like holding the child’s balloon at both ends and twisting the poles in opposite directions;
(3) friction stress (abrasion occurring during lateral movement between two surfaces in contact). This would be like taking the child’s balloon and rubbing it across a sticky surface; and
(4) corrosion stress caused by a mixture of body fluids and lubricants, whose effect is greatly enhanced by the repeated and simultaneous application of mechanical stresses.
To say that a latex condom is safe because it shows no pores when only one out of five types of stress is applied to it is like saying that a new type of jeep is safe for heavy off-road use because it can be driven in a straight line at 25 MPH on a smooth and level road without falling apart.
The fact that latex condoms do indeed contain pores was highlighted by a major 1992 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study, the first to simulate actual conditions of sexual intercourse. This study showed detectable leakage of HIV‑sized particles in one‑third of the condoms tested.[27] Significantly, all of these condoms had previously passed the standard water leakage test.
Again, those who debate the merits and demerits of condoms should remember that the head of a human sperm cell is approximately 50 microns (0.002 inches) in diameter, and the head of an HIV virus is about 0.1 microns in diameter.[28] This means that a sperm cell, which is effectively blocked by an unbroken latex condom, is about 100 million times more massive than an HIV virus.
This contrast in size is proportional to a five‑ton bull elephant standing next to a small housefly.
Condoms and the Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
“There is no such thing as safe sex for someone contemplating sex with an HIV-positive person.”
-- Dr. Michael Gottlieb, the scientist who made the original report to the Centers for Disease Control on gay-related immune deficiency (GRID), which was later relabeled AIDS.[29]
Health authorities agree that condoms (when used perfectly and when they do not break, leak or slip) effectively block such sexually transmitted diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis. However, condom misuse or breakage can cause massive exposure to these diseases, just as with the HIV virus.
What’s more, even consistent perfect use of unbroken condoms will not protect against STDs that are spread by skin‑to‑skin contact, such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus (HSV), which frequently infect the entire genital area. Finally, many STDs, such as gonorrhea and herpes, are transmitted by oral sex, which is usually practiced with multiple sexual partners.[30]
These problems partly account for a resurgence in certain STDs;
* Genital chlamydial infection is the most common bacterial STD in the United States, and is the leading cause of preventable infertility and ectopic pregnancies. Half a million new cases of chlamydia (the most common sexually transmitted disease) are reported each year.[31]
* Genital warts (condyloma acuminata) are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), the most common viral STD in the United States, accounting for three million new cases each year. HPV is present in an estimated 50 percent of all sexually active young women, and, as with other STDs, is associated with multiple sexual partners and with earlier intercourse.
* There are about 400,000 new cases of gonorrhea in the United States each year, many of which are caused by strains resistant to treatment, and up to one‑fourth of all infected men have no symptoms. Gonorrhea can also infect other mucous membranes, including the mouth. The disease can have extremely serious consequences if left untreated, including sterility, pelvic abscesses and severe health problems for infants born to infected mothers.[32]
* Hepatitis B is a particularly dangerous problem in some developing countries. It can lead to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, cancers, hepatic (liver) failure and death. There is no cure for Hepatitis B, and up to 20 percent of the general population in many developing countries show signs of infection.
* Herpes genitalis is caused by the herpes simplex virus (HSV) and infects about 30 million people in the United States today, most of whom show no symptoms. Those who do show symptoms may have painful ulcers in the genital or mouth area.
* Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is a result of infection with other STDs and viruses/bacteria such as gonorrhea and E. Coli. PID afflicts one million American women each year, 20 percent of whom require hospitalization. PID also inflames the Fallopian tubes and is a leading cause of ectopic pregnancy.
* Syphilis, one of the deadliest STDs, recently reached its highest level in 40 years, with 134,000 people in the United States newly infected in 1990.[33] Untreated syphilis can lead to rashes, lesions, paralysis, aneurysms, blindness and death.
Health professionals often assert that there are “epidemics” of teen pregnancy, AIDS, alcoholism and drug use. Some of these allegations are exaggerated and are not supported with proper statistical analysis.
But declarations of an epidemic of STDs are certainly not exaggerated. With more than 100 million people infected with one or more of 20 STDs in the United States alone, it is unrealistic to expect that a paper‑thin, nearly weightless sheath of polyurethane or latex will slow down the epidemic.
The only way to completely eradicate all STDs is to follow God’s plan for our sexual lives: Abstinence before marriage and fidelity after.
Of course, the sex educators and condom sellers tell us that this is not a “realistic” solution.
They are wrong.
Since abstinence/fidelity is the only solution that will work, it is the only realistic solution as well. Perhaps if the health professionals struggle unsuccessfully for another decade or two trying to contain the STD epidemic with impractical means, they too will reach the same conclusion. Unfortunately, the price of their education will be steep indeed -- millions of lives needlessly lost and more millions of lives spent in unnecessary misery.
The New York Times Speaks. In 1997, The New York Times front‑paged a study alleging that passing out condoms in school does not increase teenage sex, which flies in the face of common sense.[34]
If schools passed out coupons for free beer at local ABC stores, would beer consumption by teenagers increase?
Of course it would! Anyone who says otherwise is just not in touch with reality.
Saying that passing out condoms does not increase sexual behavior is kind of like saying that passing out cars and keys does not increase driving behavior.
In any case, the lead researcher of the study cited by the Times was none other than Sally Guttmacher, daughter of Alan Guttmacher, who did more to spread abortion and contraception around the world than anyone else in history. The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which pours millions of dollars into organizations that promote condoms.
The Times seems to be completely blind to preordained conclusions brought on by a massive conflict of interest ‑‑ but only if such conflicts exist on the anti‑life side of various issues.
Would the Times accept such a study (much less put it on the front page) if it was conducted by a well‑known pro‑life priest and funded by the Vatican? Of course not! The Times would dismiss the study without even reading it.
But not if it has the `right’ conclusions ...
In light of their dismal record, the only thing more illogical than adults using condoms is adults providing condoms to teenagers ‑‑ especially in the public schools.
Rebuttal by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. An article in the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s Family Planning Perspectives quoted an annual condom failure rate of 18.4 percent among teenaged girls under 18 years old. This means that more than half of the users will be pregnant within three years.
The authors also said that “These rates are understated because of the substantial under-reporting of abortion among single women; if abortion reporting was complete, failure rates would be 1.4 times as high as they appear high.”[35]
Results of School Condom Studies. These figures have been borne out in studies of those public schools that have distributed condoms to their students.
One writer describes the dismal results of one of the first free‑condom programs to be instituted at a high school in the United States;
In the three years since this [Adams City, Colorado] high school became one of the first to hand out condoms, the birth rate has soared to 31% above the national average of 58.1 births per 1,000 students [annually].
Last year, 76 of Adams City students became teen mothers. This year, more than 100 births are expected. That’s left people at this school, recognized throughout Colorado for its cutting‑edge educational and social programs, searching for explanations.”[36]
International Case Studies Showing Condom Ineffectiveness Against HIV/AIDS.
Uganda. In 1986, President Yoweri Museveni took office and immediately started an intensive campaign to change the widespread incidence of risky sexual behavior in Uganda.
In 1991, Uganda had one of the highest adult HIV infection rates in the world. Fifteen percent of all adults in the country were infected. Ten years later, Uganda had cut its HIV infection rate by two-thirds, to only five percent. It was the only nation in Africa that cut its HIV infection rate during this time period, and its decline in HIV prevalence was the greatest of any country in the world.
The key to this tremendous decline was an approach that other nations declined to embrace: The ABC Program, or Abstain from sex until marriage, Be faithful to your partner, and use Condoms if you do not practice abstinence or fidelity. The entire focus of the message was not simply to “condomize” the population, but to reduce risky sexual behavior.
The consistent broadcasting of the ABC message through all governmental, educational, religious and communications networks, in time, built up what researchers called a “highly effective social vaccine against HIV,” or a massive behavioral change among the people of the nation. The 2000-2001 Ugandan Demographic and Health Survey found that 93 percent of Ugandans had changed their sexual behavior to avoid HIV/AIDS.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the primary lessons learned from the Uganda experience are;
(1) High‑risk sexual behaviors can be discouraged and replaced by healthier lifestyles. Ugandans gradually accepted what they call “zero grazing,” or faithfulness to one partner.
(2) Abstinence and marital fidelity appear to be the most important factors in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Contrary to all expectations, young Ugandans widely embraced the pro-abstinence message. From 1989 to 1995, the percent of unmarried young men having sex plunged from 60 percent to 23 percent, and the percent of unmarried young women having sex dropped from 53 percent to 16 percent.[37] This proves that teenagers are not mere animals who are helpless slaves of their “raging hormones.”
(3) Condoms do not play the primary role in reducing HIV/AIDS transmission. As President Museveni himself remarked, “We are being told that only a thin piece of rubber stands between us and the death of our continent. Condoms have a role to play as a means of protection, especially in couples who are HIV-positive, but they cannot become the main means of stemming the tide of AIDS.”[38] The Ugandan government targeted only extremely high-risk groups, including prostitutes, with condoms. The vast majority of Ugandans rejected the use of condoms. Anne Peterson, M.D., USAID’s Director of Global Health, says that “Condoms play a role. They are better than nothing, but the core of Uganda’s success story is big A, big B, and little C.”[39]
In stark contrast to Uganda, the countries with the highest rate of condom availability still have the world’s highest AIDS rates -- Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and Kenya.[40]
(4) Religious organizations are crucial participants in the fight against AIDS [41]. Most condom-promoting organizations believe that purely secular organizations should have a monopoly in the battle against HIV/AIDS, and that religious organizations have no place in the fray. From the very beginning of the ABC program, Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith-based organizations played a central role.
The ABC program has been intensively studied and deemed effective by many leading international health organizations, including;
* the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which says that “This dramatic decline in [HIV/AIDS] prevalence is unique worldwide, and has been the subject of intense scrutiny;”[42]
* the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS);
* the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO); and
* the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.[43]
Despite the obvious success of the Ugandan ABC program, which has undoubtedly saved hundreds of thousands of lives, condom promoters continue to discount abstinence in favor of programs that have been proven ineffective.
For example, the Global HIV Prevention Working Group issued a July 2002 report entitled Mobilization for HIV Prevention: A Blueprint for Action, which emphasizes sex education, condom distribution, needle exchange programs and increased availability of and access to anti-retroviral drugs in its program. It briefly mentions Uganda’s success story, but attributes its drops in HIV infection rates primarily to massive condom promotion and distribution programs, which did not actually occur in the country [44].
In reality, condoms do not impede the spread of AIDS. In 2004, the journal Studies in Family Planning concluded that “No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalised epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion.”[45]
The Philippines and Thailand. The second real-life example of how condoms fail to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is presented by the Philippines and Thailand, two Southeastern Asian nations with approximately the same populations.
In 1984, the first case of HIV was detected in both of these nations. By 1987, Thailand had 112 cases of AIDS, and the Philippines had 135 cases. In 1991, the World Health Organization predicted that, by 1999, Thailand would have 70,000 deaths from the disease, and the Philippines would have 85,000 deaths.
In 1991, both nations took concrete and comprehensive measures against the spread of the HIV virus -- but both directed their efforts in completely different directions.
The Thai Minister of Health enacted a “100% Condom Use Program.” All brothels were required to have supplies of condoms, and condom vending machines were installed in all supermarkets, bars, restaurants, and other public gathering places. This program was widely accepted and implemented by the people of Thailand.
Two years later, Rene Bullecer, M.D., received authorization from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to establish the organization AIDS‑Free Philippines as its official program to combat HIV/AIDS nationwide. The government signed on to this effort as well.
By the end of 2003, the disparity in the effectiveness of both types of programs had become glaringly obvious, as shown in this table; [46]
Parameter Thailand Philippines
Adults and Children Living with HIV 570,000 9,000
AIDS Deaths in 2003 58,000 500
Population 62,833,000 79,999,000
HIV Infection Rates Per Million 9,072 113
This table shows that the Thai HIV infection rate is eighty times higher than the Filipino HIV infection rate.
The current rate of HIV infection in the United States, with all of our sex education, all of our sexual freedom, all of our advanced antiviral drugs, and all of our billions of condoms, is 3,900 per million, thirty times higher than in the Philippines.[47]
What lesson does this teach us?
USAID has concluded that the reason that the Philippines has such a low incidence of HIV/AIDS is that youth have a very high rate of abstinence and married people largely remain faithful to their spouses. The USAID report grudgingly admitted that “The Catholic Church must be credited with influencing sexual behavior.”[48]
`Abstinence has a High Failure Rate.’ Pro-condom groups often denigrate abstinence because they say it is ineffective. For example, A poster distributed by `Catholics’ for a Free Choice says that “Abstinence has a high failure rate.”[49] The idea behind this slogan is that people get passionate and engage in sexual intercourse despite intentions or formal vows to the contrary.
This is an illogical and inconsistent allegation. Failures are not attributed to any method of birth control if it is simply not used. If a formal study of condoms finds that several pregnancies resulted from couples intending to use condoms but failing to do so, these pregnancies will properly not be attributed to the condoms themselves.
The same criteria should be applied to abstinence. If, for whatever reason, a couple engage in sexual intercourse, resulting