Birth Control

A few weeks ago we shared the very exciting news that the Obama administration had held strong and we’d secured no-cost birth control for millions of women through the Affordable Care Act. This was a huge and important step for women’s health and something the National Women’s Law Center has been working towards for over a decade.

But, unfortunately, this decision and final rule has not quieted the opposition. Instead, those opposing the rule are continuing to push back and decry this significant advancement. We’ve posted a number of responses to the negative press and quotes, and we’re continuing to fight back by working with our state partners and submitting letters to the editor to newspapers across the country. Read more »

There has been a lot of press on the recent announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that it was finalizing the rule requiring coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pays or deductibles, and a lot of it hasn’t been positive.  Most of the focus has been on the fact that the Administration chose not to expand the exemption for certain religious employers.

Take Michael Gerson’s and E.J. Dionne’s recent op-eds, for example. Both of them admonish President Obama for not expanding the religious exemption to entities like religiously-affiliated hospitals and universities, and Gerson says that the rule covers “abortifacients” which is just wrong. He also concludes that the decision on the final rule means that “war on religion is now formally declared.” The way these two see it, it should have been a no-brainer to expand the exemption. But wait just one minute, is this all the rule is about – religious institutions versus the Administration? Is there anything else that maybe we should be considering when analyzing this rule?

Oh right…. the tremendous health benefits of contraception. Oddly and sadly, these health benefits are blatantly ignored in all of the negative commentary (Dionne tips his hat just a bit by vaguely referring to how the rule protects “women’s rights”). So it got me thinking, maybe they just don’t understand the health benefits. Maybe I should take a moment to explain just how critical contraception is as a preventive health service. So Gerson, Dionne, and all of the others who ignore the real issue at stake, please take notes. Read more »

Opponents of the recent contraceptive coverage announcement by the Department of Health & Human Services are trying to twist this major advance on contraception into a fight about abortion. In the Washington Post, Michael Gerson states that the rule requires Catholic-affiliated organizations to provide insurance coverage for "abortifacients." CNN's Belief Blog claims the new rule "forces employers to cover contraception and abortion." While both advance several faulty arguments, it's time to put to rest the claim about abortion. The rule is directly and explicitly limited to FDA-approved contraception. Read more »

Abortion. [uh-bawr-shuhn]

Contraception. [kon-truh-sep-shuhn]

These are not the same. Yet I’ve repeatedly seen claims that the HHS decision on contraceptive coverage requires religious employers to cover “abortifacients.”

Clearly, those opposed to the preventive services rule know they are on shaky ground when it comes to rallying their troops against contraception. After all, their troops are using the stuff en mass (but hopefully not in Mass). Ninety-eight percent of Catholics have used a form of contraception opposed by the Vatican. The “abortifacients” claim is based on the fact that the preventive services rule requires coverage for emergency contraception. Some still seem to think that EC causes an abortion. It does not. I repeat. It does not. If you don’t believe me, then turn to another source, like the Catholic Health Association. Read more »

Because of you, many women will not lose access to no-cost birth control under the health care law.

For months now, we've been updating you on a new "interim" rule that would provide women across the country access to birth control with no co-pays. This morning, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it was issuing a final rule providing contraceptives without co-pays and refused to expand the religious employer exemption.

Over the summer in its temporary rules, HHS deemed birth control a necessary preventive health service for women, thus requiring coverage without co-pays by the Affordable Care Act. It also would allow a narrow set of religious employers to deny this critical coverage to their employees. But that didn't satisfy opponents of contraception. They wanted the coverage to be dropped, or at least to expand the exception to nearly 1.5 million employees and the women in their families. HHS stood firm, taking a giant step forward in protecting women's health.

Join us in thanking Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for standing firm and issuing a final rule providing women access to birth control with no co-pays.  Read more »

Last May, we told you about a recently signed law that would improve women’s access to family planning services in Maryland, and now the Family Planning Works Act has gone into effect!

The Family Planning Works Act expands the Medicaid family planning service program and is expected to give 33,000 low- and moderate-income women free access to a range of services, including birth control, STI testing, and cancer screenings. Read more »

We were disappointed by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision to overrule the evidence-based decision reached by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove the age restriction on emergency contraception. So it didn’t really come as a surprise when President Obama voiced his support for Sebelius’ decision (watch it here).

But that doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt. Even worse was how Obama defended Sebelius’ decision – speaking as a father about his daughters. Emily Douglas from The Nation and Rebecca Traister from Salon nailed it when they wrote about Obama’s paternalism.

If President Obama and Secretary Sebelius are concerned about 11 and 12 year old girls accessing emergency contraception without fully understanding how to use it, perhaps they should consider investing in comprehensive sex education programs. Not making emergency contraception readily available, unfortunately, doesn’t mean that young girls won’t need it, it just means that when they do, they will face significant hurdles in obtaining it. And unfortunately that means, these girls may face an even bigger challenge – unintended pregnancy. Read more »

The reaction to recent decision by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that overruled the evidence-based decision reached by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on removing the age restriction on Plan B One Step, a form of emergency contraception, has largely centered around young women and how their access to emergency contraception will continue to be hindered.

We’ve already written about how we think the science should have been allowed to speak for itself.

But we also want to underscore that young women are just one group of women who are affected by this decision. In reality, all women continue to be affected by the age restriction, as emergency contraception will continue to be kept “behind the counter” at pharmacies, so pharmacists can verify the age of those purchasing it, instead of on the shelves alongside other over the counter medicines (and likely far from the bubblegum). Read more »

Today, despite all evidence showing that Plan B One-Step should be available over-the-counter to all women no matter their age, the Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, told the FDA that it could not make Plan B One-Step available without a prescription for women under 17. This isn’t just speculation about what happened behind closed doors – this is straight from the horse’s mouth in the form of a letter from Secretary Sebelius to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D. Determinations of drug safety should be left to scientists, not political appointees. President Obama has said this himself – and ironically the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is currently working to implement a policy to ensure the integrity of scientific work across the government. And so, it appears that these principles don’t apply when the women’s health is at issue.

Secretary Sebelius’ letter says she decided to intervene because there isn’t not enough research showing that girls of the youngest reproductive age, those as young as 11, could understand when the medication is needed and how to use it. But according to an article in The Washington Post earlier this week, Plan B One-Step’s manufacturer provided the FDA two studies as part of its petition to remove the age restriction. One study showed that between 72 and 96% of girls ages 12 to 17 understood the packaging. The second study showed that girls ages 11 to 16 could use the product properly and safely. The research is there. It was reviewed by FDA scientists. The FDA Commissioner herself stated that the scientists found the research conclusive that Plan B One-Step should be available without prescription for women under 17. The final score should be Science-1, Politics-0. Instead it’s the other way around. Read more »

Welcome to December! As usual, we’ve got another end-of-the-week roundup for you. This week: stories on teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. and sex education, pondering whether or not Apple’s Siri is pro-choice or anti-choice, ways to find a mentor, some new videos in the NWLC library, and this week’s HERvotes blog carnival. 

Over the weekend, The Abortioneers published a blog post pointing out that Siri, the “personal assistant” feature in the new Apple iPhone 4s, doesn’t seem to be able to find information about abortion and abortion clinics. Siri even seems to have difficulty helping people find information about birth control and contraceptive services. What’s even more troubling to pro-choice advocates is that in some cases, Siri actually directs the iPhone user to anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers.

Many have noted that Siri was programmed with a sense of humor. That she’s meant to be a bit sassy. But now some are also asking, is Siri anti-choice? Read more »