Skip Navigation Links

lifeissues.net:clear thinking about crucial issues

Condoms, STD, Teenagers, and International Case Studies Showing Condom Ineffectiveness Against HIV/AIDS

Figure 3

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 consists of quotes from leading experts who believe that condoms are ineffective at preventing AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Figure 4

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

4. Condoms and Leakage.

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.

5.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.

6. Teenagers and Condoms.

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

7. 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 country44.

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

Figure 5

Figure 5
Disparity in the effectiveness of Thailand Method and Philippines Method
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 exposure to pregnancy or STDs cannot be attributed to abstinence, because it was not used.

They Simply Refuse to "Get It." Despite the stunning success of Uganda at reducing its AIDS epidemic, and the Philippines at avoiding it altogether, population controllers, "family planners" and pro-condom ideologues continue to vigorously promote programs that are proven failures. These groups and people have the attitude that theirs is the only "realistic" solution to the AIDS crisis, even when they are confronted with abundant and vivid evidence to the contrary.

Why do they do this, in light of the fact that they are obviously causing many deaths and much misery?

1. This is the result of a venerable mindset that holds that human beings are essentially no different from animals in the area of sexuality, and that they have either no free will or greatly diminished free will.50 This is an old and outdated philosophy, and must be jettisoned in favor of more modern and effective thinking. Unfortunately, the people who hold this quaintly antiquated viewpoint are usually the "family planning" and "reproductive health" experts who fund and execute programs involving condom distribution.
2. It's their job. If they give up their hold on condoms, they might be out looking for gainful employment. Peddling condoms is a very profitable venture indeed, and the resulting income must be protected, regardless of the health risks to those using the product. In 1987, the Los Angeles Times reported that "The condom industry has launched an intensive campaign to weaken, delay or possibly shut down a federally funded Los Angeles study of the effectiveness of condoms in preventing transmission of the AIDS virus."51
3. Condoms are part of the web of "progressive" thinking that is more rigidly dogmatic than the beliefs of any religion. One of the precepts of this mode of thinking is that "condoms are good."
4. Population controllers and condom pushers are just plain lazy. It is far easier to thrown condoms at a problem than it is to go through all the trouble of changing behavior.
5. The organizations that think this way have a strong bias towards racist population control programs. Lothrop Stoddard sat on the board of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (later the Planned Parenthood Federation of America). In Sanger's publication The Birth Control Review, Lothrop vividly portrayed the racist's fear of "differential fertility," a dread that still exists among population controllers today;
   
   ... upon the quality of human life all else depends ... none of the colored races shows perceptible signs of declining birth-rate, all tending to breed up to the limits of available subsistence ... It can mean only one thing: a tremendous and steadily augmenting outward thrust of surplus colored men from overcrowded colored homelands ... But many of these relatively empty [Northern] lands have been definitely set aside by the White man as his own special heritage ...
   
   His ["colored" man's] outstanding quality is superabundant animal vitality. In this he easily surpasses all other races. To it he owes his intense emotionalism. To it, again, is due his extreme fecundity, the negro being the quickest of breeders. This abounding vitality shows in many other ways, such as the negro's ability to survive harsh conditions of slavery under which other races have soon succumbed ... black blood, once entering a human stock, seems never really bred out again ...
   
   White men cannot, under peril of their very race-existence, allow wholesale Asian immigration into White race-areas ... The grim truth of the matter is this: The whole White race is exposed, immediately or ultimately, to the possibility of social sterilization and final replacement or absorption by the teeming colored races.
   
   And, of course, the more primitive a type is, the more prepotent it is. This is why crossings with the negro are uniformly fatal. Whites, Amerindians, or Asiatics -- all are alike vanquished by the invincible prepotency of the more primitive, generalized, and lower negro blood.
   
   ... whether we consider interwhite migrations or colored encroachments on White lands, the net result is an expansion of lower and a contraction of higher stocks, the process being thus a disgenic one.
   
   For race-betterment is such an intensely practical matter! When peoples come to realize that the quality of the population is the source of all their prosperity, progress, security, and even existence; we shall see much-abused "eugenics" actually moulding social programmes and political policies ... we or the next generation will take in hand the problem of race-depreciation, and segregation of defectives and abolition of handicaps penalizing the better stocks will put an end to our present racial decline.52

Indeed, some have raised a troubling question: If the USA and the developed world know that condoms are ineffective, why do they keep shipping billions of them to Africa every year? The ideal form of genocide is that which few expect -- claiming to assist a people while actually helping them to do nothing more than exterminate themselves.

Despite the proven track record of Uganda's ABC program, many influential organizations and people continue to criticize it and the USA's support of it;

• U.S. Representative Barbara Lee said that "In an age where five million people are newly infected each year and women and girls too often do not have the choice to abstain, an abstinence until marriage program is not only irresponsible, it's really inhuman. Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms."53
• Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), said that "The Bush administration position basically condemns people to death by H.I.V./AIDS, and we're talking about tens of millions of people."54
• Mary Crewe, Director of the Centre for the Study of AIDS at the University of Pretoria, said that "ABC is a middle-class, middle-aged response to an epidemic, all overlaid with a kind of morality that doesn't hold any more."55
• Jonathan Cohen of Human Rights Watch said that "Governments should be promoting condom use, not treating condoms like contraband. The clear result of restricting access to condoms will be more lives lost to AIDS."56
• Stephen Lewis, the United Nations Secretary General's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, said that "There is no question in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven and exacerbated by PEPFAR [the U.S. administration's AIDS assistance program] and by the extreme policies that the administration in the U.S. is now pursuing in the emphasis on abstinence. ... That distortion of the preventive apparatus is resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred."57
• Paulo Roberto Teixeira, the AIDS Program Coordinator for Brazil's Health Ministry, said that "Millions and millions of young people are having sexual relations. We cannot talk about abstinence. It's not real."58

Lying in Order to Sell Condoms. Edward C. Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, and a former condom advocate, has said, "The way condoms are marketed in Africa and other developing parts of the world is as if they were 100 percent safe. Condoms have brand names like Shield and Protector that gives the impression that they are 100 percent safe."59

This statement is certainly true. The most powerful visual tool used to market condoms in Africa is the large and colorful billboards that are built next to major thoroughfares and painted on stone walls near stadiums, schools, and other places where large crowds of people regularly congregate. None of these billboards even hint at the failure rate of condoms; in fact, the opposite is the case. They all state plainly that, in order to be completely safe from HIV/AIDS, you must use condoms.

Condom manufacturers are not the only groups claiming that condoms provide perfect protection -- many of the international "family planning" organizations do this as well. For example, the Caribbean Family Planning Association (CFPA), one of the many affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, has distributed pamphlets entitled "THE CONDOM -- 100% Protection and Freedom From Pregnancy and VD."

8. Conclusion: Of Parachutes and Prophylactics.

If parachutes had the abysmal safety record that condoms do, skydiving would have been outlawed long ago. Add to this the fact that tens of thousands of people die of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases for every person who dies in a parachuting accident, and it is obvious that we are suffering from a major case of worldwide myopia. It is also obvious that most people would choose sudden death by parachute failure than a lingering, hideous wasting away at the 'hands' of the AIDS virus.

Condom promoters often make the following analogy.

If your child was in an airplane that was going to crash, wouldn't you want him or her to have a parachute, even if it was only 90 percent effective?

This is obviously a false analogy.

If you, as a parent, already know that the airplane your children want to fly on is unsafe and will probably crash, your only realistic option is to stop him or her from boarding it in the first place!

Good Housekeeping Magazine will not even accept condom advertisements, because they are not reliable enough for its "Seal of Approval."60

Apparently, when it comes to birth control, anything goes. What is apparently important is not whether or not you are safe, but whether or not you think you are safe.

The Family Planners 'Speak.' Perhaps family planners were at their most eloquent and revealing when they were not saying anything at all. In 1987, 800 sexologists gathered for a conference in Heidelberg, Germany. Dr. Theresa Crenshaw, past President of the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT), asked the assembly how many of them would have intercourse with the HIV-infected partner of their dreams using a latex condom. Not a single one raised their hand. Dr. Crenshaw concluded that "Putting a mere balloon between a healthy body and a deadly disease is not safe."61

The United States government pamphlet entitled "Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases" says "Condoms are not 100 percent safe, but if used properly will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS."

Read this quote again. What the United States government is telling us is that condoms reduce the risk of a disease that is 100 percent fatal!

This has led to a phenomenon that one expert delicately terms a "disservice." Susan Weller says that

A negative effect has been the misinterpretation and misinformation regarding condom effectiveness. The public at-large may not understand the difference between 'condoms may reduce risk of' and 'condoms will prevent' HIV infection. It is a disservice to encourage the belief that condoms will prevent sexual transmission of HIV.62

There are hundreds of sources that claim that condoms reduce HIV transmission from 80 to 90 percent. This is absolutely true -- but only if we compare (1) people using condoms to (2) people not using condoms at all.

But this is a false choice. The condom promoters simply assume that people are going to have extra-marital sex because they can't help themselves. Such thinking is called "risk reduction," and is ultimately fatalistic. It assumes that people are largely powerless to change their risky behaviors, and assumes that people who are generally acting irrationally (by engaging in high-risk sexual behavior) will suddenly begin acting rationally when handed a condom.

The real decision is (1) to abstain or (2) to use condoms during extramarital sex. Abstinence is obviously safer.

The condom promoters are offering people a choice that is similar to this: If a person is going to run into burning buildings just for thrills, it is much better for him to wear a fireproof suit than not to wear a fireproof suit.

What we are saying is simply this: It is far better not to run into that burning building at all.

Next Page: Endnotes
1, 2, 3