By Hilarie Meyers, Development and Communications Intern
On November 16, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed a motion of contempt against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ignoring a court order from 2009 to review its restrictions on emergency contraception. NLIRH is a co-plaintiff in the case, Tummino v. Hamburg, along with various other organizations and individuals, including the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, as well as a number of grassroots activists and concerned parents.
Advocates of reproductive health and justice have long fought to ensure that all women have access to emergency contraceptive pills, such as Plan B, Plan B One-Step, and Next Choice. However, the FDA has repeatedly created unnecessary barriers and obstacles that prevent many women from fully exercising their right to access and use such forms of contraception.
Tummino v. Hamburg is the most recent development in a string of petitions and lawsuits spearheaded by CRR in order to make emergency contraceptives accessible to all women. In 2001, CRR, along with numerous other medical and public health organizations, filed a Citizen’s Petition imploring the FDA to grant emergency contraception, which, at the time, was prescription-only, over-the-counter status. For four years, the FDA ignored the petition. In response, CRR filed a federal lawsuit, Tummino v. von Eschenbach, against the FDA in 2005. Finally, on March 23, 2009, the federal court ruled against the FDA and ordered a review of the existing restrictions on emergency contraception. On its website, the Center for Reproductive Rights explains:
The Court found that the FDA “acted in bad faith and in response to political pressure,” “departed in significant ways from the agency’s normal procedures,” and engaged in “repeated and unreasonable delays.” In addition, the court found that the FDA’s justification for denying over-the-counter access to 17 year olds “lacks all credibility,” and was based on “fanciful and wholly unsubstantiated ‘enforcement’ concerns.” While the FDA did extend over-the-counter access to 17-year-olds, it has largely ignored the 2009 court order and neglected to fully reevaluate its restrictions on emergency contraception as it initially promised.
Currently, emergency contraceptive pills are only available over-the-counter to women who are 17 and older and able to present a government-issued ID. The FDA only allows emergency contraceptives to be sold at pharmacies and health clinics and requires that they are kept behind the counter. Although Judge Edward Korman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the FDA to reconsider all of the aforementioned restrictions on emergency contraception, the agency has admitted that it does not intend to conduct any such review in the near future—which is why this most recent lawsuit is necessary.
That the FDA has maintained its restrictions on emergency contraceptives without review not only defies the court order from 2009, but also the overwhelming “medical and scientific consensus that says there is no rationale for [the existing] age restrictions.” At least forty different studies have demonstrated that emergency contraceptives are safe and effective for women of all ages! Even the FDA’s own Advisory Committee and staff recommended that emergency contraceptives be granted true over-the-counter status without restrictions. Emily Sullivan of RH Reality Check succinctly explains: “Scientific integrity at the FDA took a backseat to a conservative political agenda.”
The current restrictions on emergency contraception are problematic for a number of reasons. While EC is a safe and effective way of preventing pregnancy, it is also time sensitive and only effective in the first few days following unprotected sex. Any restriction on where or how EC is sold cuts into the limited time that a woman has available to make a responsible and well-informed decision about her health and future. For women under 17, who must consult a doctor in order to obtain a prescription for emergency contraceptives, the current restrictions are particularly prohibitive:
Visiting a doctor within a short time frame can be very difficult for many reasons. For example, many physicians do not work in the evenings or the weekends, a woman 16 years-old or younger might have to depend on an older person for transportation, and it might be very hard or impossible for her to miss school or work in order to visit a doctor.
This complicated process may be both unfeasible and unaffordable for many young women, including many Latinas, who may be uninsured, unable to afford a co-payment, or unable to rely on someone else for logistical and/or financial support. Furthermore, because a government-issued ID is required to obtain emergency contraceptives, undocumented women of all ages may be unable to access this crucial
Restrictions on the accessibility and placement of emergency contraception contribute to and perpetuate stigmas around contraception and female sexuality, as well as prevent many women from exercising control over their reproductive choices and health. The FDA has had ample time to review its restrictions, as was ordered. Want to show your support?
Click here to tell the FDA to review its restrictions on emergency contraception!
By Hilarie Meyers, Development and Communications Intern
