Anthony Esolen knocks it out of the park, comparing the widespread rejection of synthetic hormones for men in sports and the obsessive demand that they be available to women in everyday life.
Moreover, estrogen, like testosterone, is a tissue-growing hormone, and therefore subjects the woman who ingests it to a much higher risk of developing cancer, not to mention other serious medical troubles. Indeed, if it were not dangerous, drug companies would not be struggling to keep the dosage as low as possible. So the widespread use of estrogen actually involves widespread and grave medical harm. In a country as large as ours, with breast cancer as common as it is, even a smallish increase in the risk of cancer would mean thousands of deaths; and the increase in risk is not small.
And this brings us to the heart of the matter. The argument for the use of this drug is not medical (since it does not remedy anything, it does not shield against communicable disease, and it actually subjects the user to medical risk). It is social. It is simply this: Without the drug, many millions of sexually active women would become pregnant who do not wish to be so. But now we are not in the realm of individual choices alone. We must address the whole of society. We must address the common good.
He has written in a clinical way that will clarify the points for those who don't want to hear about God, encyclicals or morality. One can conclude, of course, that faith and reason are in sync, that science and theology are revealing the same truths, but that takes faith. For those who's faith is in common sense, health and human integrity, this article is an excellent tool. Highly recommended!