GOP Candidate Says Number of Women on Birth Control 'Concerning'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A Minnesota GOP Senate candidate has said that he finds the number of women on birth control "concerning" because the pills not only change female hormones but also change the kind of men women are attracted to.
Adam Schwarze told Heartland Signal, a local radio show reporting predominantly in the Midwest, that birth control was making women more attracted to "beta" men as opposed to "alpha cavemen."
Newsweek has contacted Schwarze via social media for comment.
Why It Matters
Access to birth control and reproductive rights has come into the spotlight since President Donald Trump started his second term as president, and requests for contraceptives, including long-term birth control and "morning after" pills and abortion pills, soared after his election victory.
After Roe v Wade was overturned by Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, taking the constitutional right to abortion away from American women, concerns about what the Trump administration's plans are for reproductive rights have been escalating.
While the Republican base in America is comprised of a large proportion of religious groups, particularly evangelical Christians and Catholics, who oppose birth control, a 2024 Navigator Research survey found that 74 percent of Americans believed birth control should be easier to access.
File photo: birth control pills.
File photo: birth control pills.
Serge Pouzet/Sipa via AP
What To Know
Schwarze also told Heartland Signal that because of the influence birth control pills are having on women and their attractions, U.S. society as a whole is becoming more "pacified."
"It's actually kind of concerning because it's changing our culture and values because of birth control," he said, adding it was "fascinating but also scary."
Saying that a lot of women are now using birth control, he added: "We are changing our society away from men who are alphas, providers, protectors, doers, builders for these effeminate girly boys."
According to research by KFF last year, 82 percent of American women of reproductive age reported having used some form of contraception in the past 12 months.
There are some studies that have indicated the birth control pill, i.e. an oral contraceptive, could influence what features women are attracted to in men, with one 2013 study finding that "initiation of pill use significantly decreased women's preferences for male facial masculinity."
A 2011 study also investigated the relationship outcomes of women using the pill but stated that "we know neither whether these laboratory-measured effects are sufficient to exert real-world consequences, nor what these consequences would be."
The reasons behind possible changes to attraction have been attributed to female hormone levels, however there is still limited research on the subject and more rigorous studies are needed in order to determine whether birth control changes what kind of men women are attracted to.
What People Are Saying
Minnesota GOP Senate candidate Adam Schwarze said during a radio interview with Heartland Signal: "There is a study that's getting popularity and more widely known that women on birth control, it actually changes your hormones and your attractions, so women who are on birth control, and this is more Democrats who are on birth control than conservatives because of some religious reasons, but it actually changes who you are attracted to and there's multiple reports on this, ... of girls who leave birth control when they want to start families or just decide to do a different method of pregnancy prevention, that they leave their partners because they are not attracted to them because birth control makes you attracted to betas."
What Happens Next
The Trump administration has passed an executive order to prevent federal funding of elective abortion, alongside ending "the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion," however, it is not yet clear if the administration plans to alter women's access to birth control.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Atlantic

4 minutes ago

• Atlantic

It Has Come to Protein Iced Tea

In the early 1950s, 'Hi-Proteen' powder, one of the first modern protein supplements, hit the market. Initially, it tasted awful. But after its creator, Bob Hoffman, added in Hershey's chocolate, the flavor improved. (He used a canoe paddle to stir his mixture in a giant vat.) Protein products have come a long way since then. Perhaps, they have come too far: Last weekend, at the gym, I was offered a can of lemon-flavored ' protein ice tea.' The summery, yellow-striped packaging advertised 15 grams of protein per can, or about the same as what you might get from three eggs. Apparently protein shakes and protein bars don't cut it anymore. Americans are so obsessed with protein that even an Arnold Palmer comes infused with it. Perhaps protein iced tea was inevitable. Whenever something is trendy, the food industry can't help but push things to the extreme—consider ' plant-based ' peanut butter (as if the spread was not already vegetarian) and gluten-free pumpkin dog biscuits. But even compared with other food trends, the protein situation has gotten out of hand. Just last week, Starbucks announced that it's piloting a high-protein, banana-flavored cold foam. There is protein water, Kardashian-branded protein popcorn, and ' macho ' protein pasta sauce. If you want to get drunk while bulking up, consider a protein-fortified pale ale or a 'Swoleberry' spiked protein seltzer. Nothing is safe from the protein pandemonium. Name a food, and the protein version of it probably exists. Even if you, like me, aren't trying to maximize your protein intake, all of these products can be hard to escape. They have infiltrated every inch of the supermarket: On Monday, I went grocery shopping with the mission of finding the most ridiculous protein-enriched ingredients possible. While preparing my meal, I crunched on ranch-flavored protein tortilla chips (13 grams) and sipped from a bottle of grapefruit-flavored protein water (20 grams). Dinner began with a salad made of 'OrganicGirl Protein Greens,' which feature an assortment of mixed greens including naturally protein-rich sweet-pea leaves (5 grams). My main course was chickpea protein pasta (20 grams) and salmon (40 grams). I topped it all off with a frozen peanut-butter-banana bar for dessert (another 5 grams). In total, I ate more than 170 grams of protein on Monday, or the equivalent of 31 medium eggs. According to the federal government's recommendations, that's almost four times what someone of my build and activity level needs in a day to maintain a ' nutritionally adequate ' diet. The official dietary guidelines suggest that a person needs at least 0.36 grams of protein per pound of body weight to stay healthy. That's not all that much protein. Before my dinner experiment, I had gone through the day without thinking about my protein consumption, and had already surpassed my recommended amount by more than 30 percent. The average American adult regularly exceeds the federal recommendation. So why is protein showing up in iced tea? Some health experts think that the current federal recommendation is insufficient. They believe that for optimal health—to get beyond simply meeting basic nutritional needs—we should be consuming double, if not triple, the recommended amount. Some people—those who strength train, for instance—certainly benefit from increased intake. But for the average person, most experts don't see the point in going wild with protein, as my colleague Katherine J. Wu has written. What makes protein so appealing is that it has been offered as an answer for lots of people's dietary goals. Want to build muscle? Eat protein. Want to feel fuller for longer? Eat protein. Want to lose weight? Eat protein. The nutrient can indeed help with all of those, but sometimes, the claims turn absurd. Cargill, the food giant, recently suggested that protein might help solve broken marriages: 'Protein helps individuals become better parents, partners and employees,' the company wrote in a report this spring. In other words, protein has become synonymous with 'healthy.' The message seems to be resonating: Last year, 71 percent of American adults said they were trying to consume more of it. For food companies, adding protein to virtually everything is an easy way to make their products more alluring. No Starbucks executive is going to suggest a new line of 'fat enhanced' cold foam or iced tea with extra carbs. But extra protein—sure. And that's how we end up in a world of protein mania. The protein shake has given way to protein coffees and protein matchas and protein energy drinks and protein sodas. The protein bar has similarly descended into madness: Last week, Hershey's announced a 'Double Chocolate flavored protein bar' that looks like its normal chocolate bar (Hoffman would be proud). For the purists, there's the recently launched David bar, named after Michelangelo's, which bills itself as 'the most effective portable protein on this planet.' You can eat protein-fortified vanilla glazed donuts for breakfast, top your double cheeseburger with protein-laced ketchup, and finish the day with protein powder mixed with melatonin that promises a good night's sleep. If you're suspicious of these products, it's for good reason. Shoppers might think that certain foods are healthier now that they have a protein label slapped on them. Some of the new products are truly good for you—but eating a ton of protein-packed candy (or even just lots of red meat) comes with health risks that could offset whatever dubious benefit all that added protein might provide. A Snickers bar with 20 grams of protein is still a Snickers bar. By the time I finished my protein dinner, I was starting to feel bloated. Still, I wasn't quite done. I cued up the trailer for Protein, a film that debuted in U.K. cinemas last weekend. The movie tells the story of 'a gym-obsessed serial killer' who 'murders and eats a local drug dealer' for—what else?—protein. I took a bite of a protein-packed double-chocolate cookie and hit 'Play.'

Miami Herald

6 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Michael Hiltzik: Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges

The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: "Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them." The reports say nothing about an "immediate" cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri, used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear "how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs." The budget bill "would do just that," he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund - actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one - more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. "Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund," Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. "The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing." Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because "benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers," notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, "more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances." In the U.S., he writes, "immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals." The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will "increase the funding shortfall." All told, "the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook." A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers - so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or "going broke" in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income - the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans - at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that? Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Associated Press

10 minutes ago

• Associated Press

Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal from an Illinois toy company pushing for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. had asked the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the appeal, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law ahead of arguments set for late July. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency. ___