Emergency Contraception

  • December 21, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Kate Michelman, President Emerita of NARAL Pro-Choice America and author of With Liberty and Justice for All: A Life Spent Protecting the Right to Choose


    When Roe v Wade became law of the land, we who had fought for so long believed it would be the threshold of broader protection of women’s health — of women’s rights. In our exuberance, we thought that we could establish abortion in its proper context, along the continuum of women’s reproductive health decision-making. We thought we could move on to other pressing health and equality issues, including bringing sexuality education to adolescents throughout the country — to help our young people understand the complexities of sexuality, of contraception and of the serious responsibility of childbearing.

    That was almost forty years ago.

    In the meantime we’ve learned the numbing lesson that what Justice Harry Blackmun wrote was not close to the final declaration of women’s reproductive liberty. It was not the beginning of the public’s embrace of educating our young to enable them to make responsible and informed decisions regarding sex and reproductive health. And it was certainly not an opening to the broad cast of reproductive options.

    Instead of opening a dialogue that might ultimately lead to wide consensus about healthy reproductive choices, healthy sexuality, and healthy families, we have instead witnessed religious and culturally conservative voices demanding reversal. We are confronted with the word “abortion” writ red on walls wherever we turn. The opponents of abortion don’t want to discuss the social conditions that led to that decision. They talk of family values but those values seem not to include compassion, logic, or the willingness (ironically) to reach some obvious common ground with those of us who have long struggled to lessen the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies. 

  • March 26, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Laura MacCleery, Director of Communications and Government Relations, Center for Reproductive Rights

    This week, March 23 marked the one-year anniversary since the bracing decision in Tummino v. Torti, in which Judge Edward R. Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put politics over science and engaged in arbitrary and capricious decision-making when it placed age and point-of-sale restrictions on the over-the-counter status of Plan B, a form of emergency contraception.

    Judge Korman ordered the FDA to reconsider limits on access to the drug. A year later, no progress has apparently been made to remove an unjustified age limit, or to relocate emergency contraception where it belongs -- out from behind pharmacy counters and next to the condoms and contraceptive jelly in a regular aisle.

    Emergency contraception is a critical tool in preventing unwanted pregnancies and addressing the consequences of rape. Plan B has no known serious side effects or serious long-term health effects and scientists and medical experts agree that there are no medical grounds for denying women access to emergency contraception.