Rep. Gardner, who’s challenging Sen. Mark Udall for U.S. Senate, produced an advertisement citing the “American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” as a backer of his proposal to sell contraception over-the-counter. But this group does not exist, and an organization with a similar name doesn’t support Gardner’s proposal.
Though many women have said that hormonal contraceptive methods affect their mood, research has shown mixed results. A new study found that young women using the birth control pill and other hormonal methods were no more likely to be depressed than other young women. Other experts, however, are skeptical of the study’s approach and results.
We all, men and women alike, should be demanding better birth control for men.
How does paying for a health-saving service like birth control for women become such a threat to Church fathers that they’ve made a major campaign out of it?
By preventing unintended pregnancies, contraception provides significant health, social, and economic benefits for women. But correct and consistent contraceptive use is critical.
Contraception is controversial only in politics. As we celebrate the anniversary of Griswold, we must fulfill its promise and ensure contraceptive access for all.
And loathe as I am to admit it, all the studies in the world demonstrating that emergency contraception works not by preventing implantation but by preventing ovulation and therefore fertilization might not hold sway in court.
Since EC clearly reduces the incidence of unplanned pregnancies, making it available wherever humans congregate—both on and off-campus—makes good, pragmatic sense.
On the eve of the anniversary, RH Reality Check spoke with William Baird, from the landmark Eisenstadt v. Baird case, about his reproductive health efforts past and present.
If we wish to equalize the responsibility over reproductive health and make it a more just system for us all, men can no longer be left out of the reproductive health equation.