Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced that it will fight to maintain age restrictions on over-the-counter Plan B sales, appealing a U.S. federal judge’s recent ruling that ordered the FDA to make that type of contraceptive available to all women without a prescription. The FDA recently lowered the age threshold for over-the-counter sales from 17 to 15, and President Obama said on Thursday that he supports continuing to restrict Plan B for girls younger than 15.

“I’m very comfortable with the decision they’ve made right now based on solid scientific evidence for girls 15 and older,” Obama said at a press conference on Thursday afternoon. That’s consistent with the administration’s previous claims that Plan B could be too “dangerous” for young women to use correctly.

But — despite Obama’s misleading reference to “solid scientific evidence” — that position isn’t actually backed by science. In fact, multiple prominent doctor’s groups and medical experts have confirmed that emergency contraception is safe for teens of all ages to use. The morning after pill is safer than aspirin. That’s why the FDA approved it for over-the-counter use for all ages back in 2011. The only reason that the agency amended its policy to impose an age restriction is because the Obama administration stepped in to overrule the FDA — a political overreach that wasn’t based on the scientific evidence, but rather signaled a decision to disregard it.

In reality, the fight to limit over-the-counter sales of Plan B is more related to social pressures than it is to scientific evidence. Paternalistic attitudes toward teen sexuality have led many Americans to favor restricting sexual health resources for youth. But, as the American Academy of Pediatrics points out, allowing younger teens to have access to the birth control resources they need is actually a safer public health policy than enacting an unnecessary age restriction, since it can help prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions among young girls. The United States continues to have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the developed world.

Both women’s health groups and anti-abortion activists have been critical of the Obama administration’s emergency contraception policy. Perhaps in an attempt to distance himself from the ongoing controversy, the president noted on Thursday that the FDA is ultimately outside of his purview. “It’s not my decision to make,” Obama said. “The first time around, where there were no age restrictions, Secretary Sebelius expressed concerns and I supported those concerns and I gave voice to them.”

Nearly two-thirds of women in the United States wish they could purchase their birth control pills over the counter, according to a new nationally-representative survey from Ibis Reproductive Health. About 30 percent of respondents who don’t currently use birth control, or who have opted for a less effective contraceptive method like condoms, reported that they would probably start taking the pill if they could get it without a prescription.

Oral contraceptives are the most popular form of birth control. But many women compromise the method’s effectiveness by failing to take it as directed, partly because of the inconvenience of needing to make a trip to the doctor to get a prescription for it.

Tying birth control pills to annual well-woman check-ups is an antiquated practice that doesn’t necessary have any medical benefits. Unlike the United States, the majority of other countries around the world already offer birth control pills over the counter. This past fall, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that the United States should join those countries, and amend its policy to offer oral contraceptives without a prescription.

“There’s mounting evidence that this is safe, this is effective and women really want it,” Dr. Daniel Grossman of Ibis Reproductive Health, who led the study, told Reuters Health. “I see this issue, of moving the regular birth control pill over the counter, as the next big advance in improving access to effective contraception.”

Previous research has shown that eliminating some of the barriers to obtaining effective contraception helps lower the rates of unintended pregnancy. Requiring women to obtain prescriptions for birth control represents one hurdle, but cost issues are another. Obamacare has helped ensure that women don’t have to worry about struggling to afford the contraception of their choice, since insurers are now required to fully cover birth control. But even when some birth control methods, like emergency contraception, become available over the counter for some women, insurance companies still won’t cover it without a prescription — which defeats the point of over-the-counter access in the first place.

Through a new state-sponsored initiative called the Condom Access Project, California children living in areas with high STI and teen birth rates will soon be able to get condoms — and instructions on how to use them — delivered for free to their doorsteps after ordering them online. The project is intended to stem the rising tide of teen births and sexually transmitted infections such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis in the Golden State.

The website for the service — TeenSource.org — includes information on teen mental and physical health support services, resources for family planning, and maps of facilities that conduct STI testing. Teens between the ages of 12 and 19 will be able to receive as many as ten free condoms per month through the site, which also points users to additional free condom resources and clinics. Once an order is placed, “a package of condoms, lubricant and an educational pamphlet arrives at teenagers’ homes in a nondescript yellow envelope” within several days.

Critics and abstinence-education advocates have lashed out at the effort, asserting that “the overwhelming majority of parents” would be opposed to such a service — but given the failure of abstinence-only sex education, the difficulty of accessing contraception, and California’s recent health trends, it may be necessary one. According to comprehensive data on the California Department of Public Health’s website, California teenage girls between the ages of 10 and 19 make up about 30 percent of all chlamydia and gonorrhea cases, and the teen live birth rate is about 3.5 percent. Those numbers represent rises over previous years, and are comprised of a disproportionate number of poor and minority populations.

Campaigns to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted infections are also important considering the rise of antibiotic resistant pathogens. Researchers recently identified the first cases of gonorrhea — the second-most common STI — that are immune to antibiotics.

Late Wednesday evening, the Obama administration announced that it will appeal a recent court decision that ordered the FDA to make emergency contraception available to all women over the counter. Last month, U.S. Judge Edward R. Korman gave the administration 30 days to lift the current age restrictions on over-the-counter Plan B, saying the decision to require younger teenagers to obtain a prescription for the FDA-approved contraceptive amounted to “political interference.”

The Department of Justice believes Korman overstepped his authority by ordering a federal agency to change its policy without allowing more time for internal review. Earlier this week, the FDA announced that it will lower the age restriction from 17 to 15, a policy change that is unrelated to last month’s court ruling. The Obama administration’s decision to appeal is a sign that it will stand by that new rule.

But the women’s health groups that have long advocated for expanded access to emergency contraception — which prominent medical groups confirm is safe for girls of all ages — are unhappy with what they perceive as a “step backwards.” Since there is no scientific basis for age restrictions on Plan B, reproductive rights leaders argue that the White House is simply insistent on playing politics to impose an unnecessary burden on young women:

– SUSANNAH BARUCH, INTERIM PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT: “This appeal takes away the promise of all women having timely access to emergency contraception. It is especially troubling in light of the Food and Drug Administration’s move yesterday to continue age restrictions and ID requirements, despite a court order to make emergency contraception accessible for women of all ages. Both announcements, particularly in tandem, highlight the administration’s corner-cutting on women’s health. It’s a sad day for women’s health when politics prevails.”

– NANCY NORTHRUP, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: “The federal court has made clear that these stalling tactics were based purely on politics, not science. We are deeply disappointed that just days after President Obama proclaimed his commitment to women’s reproductive rights, his administration has decided once again to deprive women of their right to obtain emergency contraception without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.”

– CECILE RICHARDS, PRESIDENT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA: “The Obama administration took an important step forward earlier this week by moving emergency contraception out from behind the pharmacy counter and making it available to people ages 15 and older, and we continue to believe that access should be expanded further.”

– TERRY O’NEILL, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: “The prevention of unwanted pregnancy, particularly in adolescents, should not be obstructed by politicians…President Obama should practice what he preaches.” She called the decision to appeal a “step backwards for women’s health.”

– ILYSE HOGUE, PRESIDENT OF NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA: “When Judge Korman’s ruling came down, we welcomed it as an affirmation that policy can and should be driven by facts and delivered with the public health in mind. Unfortunately, today’s appeal reminds us that sometimes our leaders are out of step with the reality women face every day. We can only assume that HHS is signaling that they are satisfied with the status quo. That’s simply unacceptable.”

Conservative groups, on the other hand, applauded the decision to appeal — but still found some fault with the administration’s Plan B policy, which they believe is too lax. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, noted, “While we agree with the administration’s decision to appeal Judge Korman’s ruling, it is troubling that Secretary Sebelius is ‘satisfied’ with the FDA’s decision to endanger the lives of teen girls. Whether they are 15 or 17, teens need the protection and support that comes with parental and doctor involvement…The administration is moving in the wrong direction if they seek to set an underage standard.”

On Tuesday, the FDA announced that it will lower the age restriction on over-the-counter emergency contraception sales, allowing teens 15 years old and up to purchase Plan B without a prescription. Currently, only those 17 and older can buy this type of contraception over the counter. The new FDA guidelines will also move Plan B onto pharmacy shelves next to the condoms; previously, it was kept behind the counter and those who wanted to purchase it had to ask a pharmacist to retrieve it.

As Planned Parenthood noted in a statement on Tuesday, removing the restrictions on Plan B for 15- and 16-year-olds is certainly a step in the right direction in terms of expanding access to birth control. But, even though the age has been lowered, maintaining an unnecessary age restriction on over-the-counter sales is still a policy that ultimately undermines women’s health. Here’s why the FDA’s new policy is still problematic:

– It still isn’t based in science. There’s no scientific reason to impose age restrictions on Plan B. In fact, back in 2011, the FDA determined that the contraceptive can be used safely by girls and women of any age. Nevertheless, the Department of Health and Human Services overruled the FDA to restrict Plan B for Americans under 17 years old — a move that a U.S. federal judge recently criticized as “political interference.” Studies have shown that Plan B is safer than aspirin, which is obviously available for purchase over the counter for people of any age. Multiple medical groups have come out in favor of making emergency contraception available to all women over the counter. The continued efforts to police it — earlier this month, the Obama administration falsely asserted that Plan B could be too “dangerous” for young women to take correctly — seem to be based in paternalism rather than in actual scientific fact.

– It imposes an additional burden on women of every age who will have to provide proof of age. When the old FDA guidelines restricted emergency contraception for those under 17, it created issues even for those who were well above the age limit. Women’s health advocates argue that this type of age restriction perpetrates a stigma that makes it harder for everyone to access Plan B, as pharmacists often falsely tell older women they may not purchase emergency contraception without a prescription or incorrectly deny Plan B to men. And requiring women to prove their age — the new Plan B packaging will include a product code that prompts the cashier to verify the customer’s age — could present a significant hurdle for women who don’t have ID on them.

– It leaves out undocumented women and potentially younger teens. Undocumented immigrant women do not necessarily have the proof of age that the FDA stipulates is required under its policy, like a driver’s license, a passport, or a birth certificate. Even the immigrant women who are much older than 17 may not be able to purchase emergency contraception if the cashier insists on seeing one of those government-issued documents. And younger teens who may not have a license or a passport, which could apply to many 15-year-olds, will be denied emergency contraception. “If a 15-year-old is unable to verify their age, they will not be able to purchase Plan B One-Step,” an FDA spokeswoman told the Washington Post.

– It doesn’t fully address a recent ruling that the FDA must make Plan B available to all women over the counter. The FDA clarified that Tuesday’s announcement is completely unrelated to a recent court decision that ordered the agency to remove all age restrictions for Plan B. At the beginning of April, a federal judge ruled that the FDA must make emergency contraception over the counter for all women. The Obama administration has four days left to decide whether to comply with that ruling or appeal it. This separate announcement may be seen as somewhat of a compromise, but since it’s not actually in response to that judge’s order, it doesn’t really do anything to address that pending legal issue.

Another unresolved issue with the Obama administration’s Plan B policy is the matter of insurance coverage. Obamacare requires insurers to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives without charging a co-pay, and that includes over-the-counter emergency contraception. But as the policy stands now, women must still have a prescription from their doctor in order to get insurance coverage for the birth control that they purchase over the counter — without that prescription, they have to pay for it out of pocket. Many women, particularly younger teens, may not be able to afford the full cost of Plan B, which is typically around $50. But requiring them to get a prescription for this time-sensitive medication often defeats the point.

In February, amidst the ongoing battle over religious employers and no co-pay contraception, the Obama administration quietly issued a set of frequently asked questions to shed light on how insurance companies should implement the health reform law’s new requirement to cover contraception with no cost sharing. The FAQ makes it crystal clear that insurers must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods — including IUDs, vaginal rings, birth control pills, and even over-the-counter (OTC) contraceptives.

The new HHS guidance is good news for those of us working to get an over-the-counter birth control pill in the US. When the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently announced its support for making the pill OTC, one of the concerns expressed was that insurance plans might not cover an OTC pill. The guidance should remove any doubt that a future OTC pill will be covered by insurance. Unfortunately, however, it still falls short by stipulating that a woman must get a prescription in order to use her insurance for OTC contraception.

Sadly, the prescription requirement defeats the purpose of having an OTC pill in the first place. Research has shown that the prescription requirement is a barrier to many women accessing and using birth control. Studies also show that women who get the pill without a prescription stay on the pill at least as long — and possibly longer — than women who have to get a prescription for refills. Women who are able to get the pill over the counter like the convenience of getting it directly in a pharmacy without a prescription, and they still see their providers for well-woman care.

Being able to pick up your pills at the store, without needing a prescription or paying additional costs, would provide relief for many women, particularly those who currently face the most barriers to getting the birth control they need on time and affordably. Young women, women of color, and immigrant women face a whole slew of obstacles both to getting their hands on a prescription and to paying out of pocket for contraception — from lack of health insurance and language barriers, to stigma and poverty. A fully covered OTC pill would knock out some of the most formidable of these.

Read more

Our guest bloggers are a coalition of experts from several reproductive health and justice organizations, including: Kathy Ko Chin from the Asian and Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Elizabeth Dawes Gay, MPH, from the Reproductive Health Technologies Project; Daniel Grossman, MD, from Ibis Reproductive Health; Kimberly Inez McGuire from the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; Belle Taylor-McGhee from the San Francisco Health Commission; Cherisse Scott from SisterReach; and Britt Wahlin from Ibis Reproductive Health.

For the first time in the past seven years, the federal government has issued specific guidelines for the way that health professionals, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors should respond to sexual assault cases. And unlike the earlier guidelines issued in 2004, the new policy specifically recommends methods to prioritize victims’ “physical and emotional needs,” including ensuring that emergency contraception is available to them.

The new national protocol intends to standardize the practice of collecting evidence and treating victims who have been the subject of sexual violence — a method of bolstering the advances made by the Violence Against Women Act over the past 18 years. Except for the medical professionals working in federal prisons or in the military, who will be required to follow them, the guidelines are voluntary. Still, advocates working to assist victims of sexual assault are praising the new policy as an important update to the 2004 rules:

Unlike the 2004 protocol, the new guidelines also recommend that rape victims be offered emergency contraception or — in cases where health professionals have moral objections — information on how to immediately obtain the medication.

The earlier guidelines “were not nearly so direct,” said Barbara Sheaffer, medical advocacy coordinator for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, which receives some financing from the Justice Department. [...]

Sgt. Jim Markey, a former sex crimes investigator for the Phoenix Police Department who now trains law enforcement officers in dealing with sexual assault, said the new guidelines were “long overdue.”

“What this does is this allows workers in the trenches, those victim advocates, those detectives and nurses, to go to the decision makers and leaders in their communities and say: ‘You know what? Here are the standards. We need the resources to provide the minimum standards that are in this protocol.’ ”

It’s important that the guidelines not only recommend making Plan B readily accessible, but also specify that the medical professionals who personally object to emergency contraception should still provide victims with information about where else to obtain it. Over the past year, there have been several incidences where rape victims have been denied the morning after pill at hospitals or jails after employees there cited their religious objections to the contraceptive.

However, there’s still more work to be done on the state level. Currently, just 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation that requires medical professionals to provide survivors of sexual assault with Plan B. In other states, Republican lawmakers have blocked similar proposals to help ensure rape victims’ access to emergency contraception.

Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is set to recommend on Friday that the country subsidize access to the RU-486 abortion pill, ensuring access to affordable reproductive choices for the vast majority of Australians.

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration — comparable to U.S.’ Food and Drug Administration — approved RU-486 for import into the country last year, setting the stage for the upcoming decision. For those with access to Australia’s government health care benefits, signified through the possession of a concession card, women will pay far, far less for access to the drug cocktail used in medication-induced abortions:

This would mean that within months, the price will drop from up to $800 to as little as $5.90 for concession card holders for each of the two drugs needed for a medical abortion – a total of just $11.80.

The cost will be up to $36.10 each for non-concession holders.

The “abortion pill” RU486 is used in conjunction with another drug, misoprostol, and is for women who are up to seven weeks pregnant.

Under the proposed regulations, Australian doctors who wish to prescribe the pill would be required to take a specialized training, so doctors morally opposed to RU-486 may opt to simply not take the course. The end result: a greatly expanded web of providers of the pill, helping to lower the price and provide greater access to a pill that the World Health Organization has touted as being able to prevent thousands of deaths from unsafe abortions annually.

Australian Health Minister Tanya Plibersek, a supporter of expanded access to the drug, is expected to swiftly accept the Advisory Committee’s recommendations and register RU-486 under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Should the recommendations be approved, Australia is poised to join France, which recently decided to cover nearly all costs associated with abortion and contraception, in moving forward in expanding affordable reproductive health care for women.

Unfortunately, U.S. health insurance providers are not mandated to cover RU-486 under the Affordable Care Act and, given the increasing number of states seeking to roll back access to abortion care, the odds of a similar expansion of coverage in the United States are slim to none at this point. But the furor that erupted when the FDA first approved RU-486 has subsided, leaving the use of the abortion pill to rise over the past decade.

Thursday marks the last day to comment on a new curriculum for training medical professionals proposed by The Family Medicine Committee of the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), a group that most Americans have likely never heard of before. But it’s an obscure issue with huge implications. Thursday’s deadline is important because it marks the next big fight for birth control access: ensuring that doctors know how to prescribe it.

Obamacare took a big step forward in expanding access to affordable contraceptive services by requiring health insurers to offer coverage for birth control without charging a co-pay. But, when it comes to making sure that women can get the contraception they need, it doesn’t end there. Since the United States still uses the outdated practice of tying birth control prescriptions to regular doctor’s visits — despite the fact that most countries around the world make birth control available over the counter — family doctors across the country need to be qualified enough to write a prescription for it.

That’s where the ACGME’s curriculum comes in. Up until now, the ACGME has required family medicine residents undergo training in reproductive care, like providing women with contraception and counseling them about unintended pregnancies. But now, the committee is preparing to drop that requirement.

If that proposed change goes through, it will represent a huge blow to family planning education — particularly for rural and low-income women. The majority of women get their contraceptive care at family practices rather than from more specialized OB-GYNs, and that’s especially true outside of large cities, where there tend to be fewer gynecologists available. And the staff at community health clinics, which provide services for poorer and uninsured women, are usually family doctors.

Linda Prine, a family physician in New York and the medical director of the Reproductive Health Access Project, is helping to lead the push to preserve the birth control requirement in the ACGME curriculum. “The language was put in so that we would be assured that family doctors were prepared to provide health care for their patients,” she explained to NPR.

Read more

Obamacare’s birth control provision, which helps make women’s preventative health care more affordable by requiring employers to offer contraceptive coverage without a co-pay, enjoys broad public support. Nonetheless, right-wing opponents of the health reform law haven’t yet given up the fight against this particular policy.

Across the country, conservative businesses and institutions are suing the Obama Administration for their right to deny birth control to their workers, and Republican lawmakers have been attempting to pass legislation to empower every employer to do so. Michigan is the latest state to take up this cause. As early as this week, the GOP-controlled legislature may consider a measure that would broaden the state’s “religious conscience” protections to allow employers to deny coverage for any type of care they object to — including birth control, which the bill’s backers cite as one of their particular concerns.

Under state law, medical providers may already refuse to perform abortion services based on their own personal objections. But the proposed legislation would extend that beyond abortion, allowing employers or providers to deny any type of medical service whatsoever. The bill’s opponents point out that it’s a wholly unnecessary measure, as well as a dangerous overreach that could give employers too much power over their workers’ health care:

Supporters say the legislation protects religious freedom and is needed particularly in the wake of the federal health care law mandating employer-provided birth control in their health plans. Opponents counter that the bill is an overreach that wrongly lets health workers and organizations impose their beliefs on patients, putting their treatment at risk. [...]

Lining up against the latest measure are hospitals and insurers that say it is a solution in search of a problem. The state’s main group of physicians says it has concerns and is working with [the bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. John Moolenaar] to make sure patients’ access to health care could not be hindered.

The Michigan Health and Hospital Association told senators the legislation “elevates the status of employees above the needs of patients.”

Michigan has been somewhat of a leader in the ongoing “religious conscience” fight. Back in September, after a federal struck down a lawsuit against Obamacare led by Republican attorneys general in seven states, Michigan’s AG quickly announced that he would seek to appeal. And in the state legislature, Republicans have been attempting to broaden religious protections for health care insurers and providers ever since 2001. Just last year, Michigan lawmakers advanced a “license to discriminate” measure that would have allowed health providers to refuse to give any service they object to, such as an abortion, an HIV test, or a basic check-up for a transgender individual.

If Michigan’s Republicans looked to other states’ examples, however, they might realize these initiatives aren’t likely to succeed. After Missouri enacted a similar law to allow employers to flout Obamacare’s birth control provision, a federal judge struck it down, ruling that it contradicted federal law. States may not actually pass laws to supersede the federal health care reform law, although that certainly hasn’t stopped GOP-controlled legislatures from trying.