I hesitate to even do this analysis, as health nannies left and right will use this kind of reasoning to involve the government. But as the male birth control pill draws nigh, I think there are two important effects it could have.

Again, I’m not supporting government promotion or suppression here. I’m just offering a few informed predictions.

The first is that it could help along a drop in unwanted pregnancies. Women couldn’t get pregnant against a man’s wishes — whether to trap him or to have someone to love.

Men will finally have the advantage women have had for the last few decades, as reproductive rights became female-only. A woman could get pregnant, then abort without consulting the father. Or she could have the child and force him to pay child support. A male pill will give men more control in the matter.

(It’s interesting how the article takes a female-centric approach, celebrating that the dire “responsibility” of birth control can now be shared between the sexes. Those poor women — they have to take a pill, and all they get is 100 percent legal control over their pregnancies! One reason for this is that the writeup is from the UK, where abortion is technically not “on demand” though up to one in three women age 15-45 have had one.)

The other effect — especially if the new pill, which can be taken just hours before it’s needed, gets approval — is that it could lead to higher STD rates. Pills, of course, generally do not protect against disease. There’s already the issue that women say “I’m on the pill,” then end up infected or infecting, but I fear an almost-immediate male pill would do this to a greater degree. It leaves more room for spontaneous stupidity.

One a side note, the new pill works by preventing ejaculation. I’m not sure which STDs this would prevent, but I’d suspect it could make male-to-female HIV infection go from rare to nonexistent.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.