Health
After Lobbying Push, Drugmaker Resubmits Women’s Sex Pill

In this Friday, Sept. 27, 2013, file photo, a tablet of flibanserin sits on a brochure for Sprout Pharmaceuticals in the company’s Raleigh, N.C., headquarters. The pill has been twice rejected, but Sprout Pharmaceuticals said Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2015, it is refiling its application for flibanserin, adding new information requested by the Food and Drug Administration about how the pill affects driving ability. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File)
MATTHEW PERRONE, AP Health Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — The makers of a twice-rejected pill designed to boost sexual desire in women are hoping a yearlong lobbying push by politicians, women’s groups and consumer advocates will move their much-debated drug onto the market.
The ongoing saga of Sprout Pharmaceutical’s female libido drug illustrates the complicated politics and unresolved science surrounding women’s sexuality.
For decades, drugmakers have tried unsuccessfully to develop a female equivalent to Viagra, the blockbuster drug that treats men’s erectile dysfunction drug by increasing blood flow. But disorders of women’s sexual desire have proven resistant to drugs that act on blood flow, hormones and other simple biological functions.
Supporters of Sprout’s drug say women’s sexual disorders have been overlooked for too long by regulators at the Food and Drug Administration. But critics argue that women’s sexuality is too complex to be addressed by a single pill.
Sprout’s drug flibanserin is the first attempt to increase libido by acting on brain chemicals linked to appetite and mood. But the Food and Drug Administration has already twice rejected the drug because of lackluster effectiveness and side effects including fatigue, dizziness and nausea.
In an effort to break the regulatory logjam, groups sponsored by Sprout and other drugmakers have begun publicizing the lack of a “female Viagra” as a women’s rights issue.
“Women deserve equal treatment when it comes to sex,” states an online petition to the FDA organized by one such group, Even the Score, which garnered almost 25,000 supporters. The group’s corporate backers include Sprout Pharmaceuticals, Palatin Technologies and Trimel Pharmaceuticals — all companies developing drugs to treat female sexual disorders. A spokeswoman for Blue Engine Media, the public relations group for Even the Score, declined to disclose how much of the group’s funding comes from companies. The group’s nonprofit supporters include the Women’s Health Foundation, the Institute for Sexual Medicine and other organizations.
Drugmakers frequently cite a 1999 survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found 43 percent of U.S. women had some type of sexual dysfunction.
Sprout said Tuesday it is refiling its application for flibanserin, adding new information requested by the FDA about how the pill affects driving ability. FDA scientists requested that data after their most recent rejection of the drug, in part, due to results showing nearly 10 percent of women in company trials reported sleepiness as a side effect.
The FDA first rejected flibanserin in 2010 after a panel of expert advisers unanimously voted against the drug, saying its benefits did not outweigh its risks. The drug’s initial developer, Boehringer Ingelheim, abandoned work on the drug in 2011 and sold it to Sprout, a startup headed by a husband-and-wife team from Raleigh, North Carolina.
Sprout resubmitted the drug with additional effectiveness and safety data, but the FDA again rejected the drug in October 2013. After Sprout filed a formal dispute over the decision, FDA regulators requested the driving study and other details on the drug’s interactions with other medications.
As Sprout gathered that data, the company also enlisted support from influential allies in Washington and beyond. Last January four members of Congress, including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, sent a letter to the FDA, urging a careful reassessment of the drug and lamenting the lack of drug options for low female libido.
“There are 24 approved medical treatments for male sexual dysfunction and not one single treatment yet approved for the most common form of female sexual dysfunction,” states the letter, which was also signed by Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, and two other Democratic congresswomen.
The talking point about the imbalance of drugs for men versus women was picked up by a coalition of seven women’s and consumer health groups who met with the FDA early last year.
“We see this not only as an important unmet women’s health issue, but an inflection point for the agency to ensure that similar standards are applied for drug approvals in conditions uniquely affecting women,” states a follow-up letter to the agency from leaders of the National Organization for Women, the National Consumers League and four other groups.
Then last October the FDA held a two-day meeting at its headquarters to get public input on the problem of female sexual dysfunction and the challenge of developing treatments.
If approved, flibanserin would be labeled for premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder, described as a lack of sexual appetite that causes emotional distress. Because so many factors affect female sexual appetite, there are a number of other possible causes doctors must rule out before diagnosing the condition, including relationship problems, hormone disorders, depression and mood issues caused by other drugs like sleeping aids and pain medications.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
California Observes Third Annual Black Health Advocacy Week
On May 4, 2023, the California Assembly unanimously passed ACR 53, enacting BHEAW every first week of May. “The life expectancy at birth for Black Californians is 76.2 years of age, which is five years shorter than the state average and the lowest life expectancy of all racial and ethnic groups in California,” said Weber in a statement.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
California’s third annual Black Health Equity Advocacy Week (BHEAW), observed from May 5-9, reaffirmed the commitment of the state and advocates to address systemic health disparities affecting Black communities.
Assemblymember Akilah Weber (D-San Diego), who is a medical doctor and chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC), authored the resolution that created BHEAW — the first statewide initiative of its kind focused on advancing Black health equity.
On May 4, 2023, the California Assembly unanimously passed ACR 53, enacting BHEAW every first week of May.
“The life expectancy at birth for Black Californians is 76.2 years of age, which is five years shorter than the state average and the lowest life expectancy of all racial and ethnic groups in California,” said Weber in a statement.
“This disparity is a stark reminder of the systemic and institutional factors that contribute to health inequities in communities of color,” she added.
The California Black Health Network (CBHN) led this year’s events, combining advocacy, training, and public engagement to amplify the urgency of closing health gaps for Black Californians.
The theme of this year’s observance was “We’ve Got the Power.”
“CBHN is calling on our community to step up, speak out, and get involved. Increasing the participation of Black Californians in policymaking — across the health industry and public sector — is one of the most powerful ways we can drive change and save lives,” reads a message from the organization promoting this year’s BHEAW.
“Policy change is within your power and this week we’re in Sacramento with our Health Equity Advocacy Training (HEAT) Program Cohort 3 to uplift issues impacting our community and advocate to help shape the policies and programs that will improve the health of current and future generations of Black Californians,” the message continued.
Focused on public awareness and information, this year’s BHEAW included a social media campaign, a rally and training program with vital information on medical conditions that have a disproportionate impact on Black Californians, including maternal mortality, mental health, diabetes, cancer and more.
For more information on the resolution or to join the movement, visit CBHN’s official site, www.cablackhealthnetwork.org.
-
Activism3 weeks ago
After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 14 – 20, 2025
-
Alameda County3 weeks ago
Oakland Begins Month-Long Closure on Largest Homeless Encampment
-
Activism3 weeks ago
New Oakland Moving Forward
-
Barbara Lee3 weeks ago
WNBA’s Golden State Valkyries Kick Off Season with Community Programs in Oakland
-
Activism3 weeks ago
East Bay Community Foundation’s New Grants Give Oakland’s Small Businesses a Boost
-
Bo Tefu3 weeks ago
Gov. Newsom Highlights Record-Breaking Tourism Revenue, Warns of Economic Threats from Federal Policies
-
Bay Area3 weeks ago
Chevron Richmond Installs Baker Hughes Flare.IQ, Real-time Flare Monitoring, Control and Reduction System