WI "the pill" was introduced a decade earlier

How would it have affected the history of the 20th century, had the contraceptive pill been introduced around 1950 instead of around 1960 as IOTL? Having far less baby boomers might have a considerable impact on society!

Ludwig Haberlandt, called "the father of hormonal contraception", died rather young in 1932, and it isn't clear why. Stretching his lifespan might result in a 10 year shift of scientific advancement regarding contraception (is that ASB? I can't tell).
Of course, social acceptance for the pill would have been even lower around 1950, so perhaps it would be marketed as a means against period pains, with contraception only being mentioned as a side effect (as it was in West Germany OTL). But that wouldn't stop young people from using it for birth control.

Alternatively: Could the pill have been introduced 10 years LATER?
 
Last edited:
The conservative factions in American society would go total monkey poop.
You have Elvis prancing around on stage and young women taking birth control pills and enjoying themselves.
 
"The birth rate declined after the introduction of the Pill, but as historian Elaine Tyler May points out, this was inevitable because the 1950s was an aberrant decade for women's reproductive activity. Rates of premarital sex had been rising since the 1910s; in the 1920s twice as many couples re-ported having premarital sex than the previous decade. By the early 1950s about half of all women had engaged in premarital sex, and the rate rose every decade for the rest of the century. The rate of teen births was increasing as well; by 1957 almost 10 percent of 15- to 19-year-olds were having babies. and 85 percent of those girls were married. In 1959 half of American brides were younger than 19. So, those idealized images of midcentury America retected a unique phenomenon: 1950s teenaged girls were more likely than previous generations to engage in premarital sex, marry young, and have children young." https://books.google.com/books?id=9YQ6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA168
 
Haberlandt's death was a suicide, probably because his birth control research and his acceptance of Freud's views on sexuality made him a hated outcast in Catholic-dominated 1930s Austria. His work was buried until decades later when the Pill became prevalent anyway.

Also, even had Haberlandt emigrated or something, the real problem was making synthetic progresterone on a commercial scale. Russell Marker's research was already moving the absolute quickest it could reasonably go.

Delaying the Pill a decade or more? Sure, just have Russell Marker get killed in Mexico (robbers, rattlesnake, javelinas etc.) while he's wandering the backcountry looking for plant samples.
 
I wonder what the advancement, or delay, of the pill would do for venereal disease rates, attitudes about VD, etc. Prior to the pill (and before HIV) condoms were the birth control of choice for premarital/extramarital sex. They were relatively freely available (though not like today), and unlike the diaphragm (the other major barrier method) did not require the woman to go to a doctor for a prescription/fitting and so forth. When the pill came out and became common, condom use dropped significantly, and since condoms were often sold "for the prevention of disease only" rates of various STDs did rise. Yes, getting "the pill" did require a woman going to the doctor and getting a prescription, however in states that had restrictive laws about birth control, unmarried women could get the prescription for the treatment of "menstrual irregularity" which birth control pills were used to treat, as well as some other menstrual/hormonal conditions. A diaphragm or cervical cap had only one purpose...

At least in the college cohort, the availability of the pill made premarital sex a lot "freer" than even five years before (I was in college in the 60s after the pill was readily available/out of testing...).
 
Top