Though the FDA decision to permit generic EC pill manufacturers to sell their products over the counter represents a gain for those with the most access to resources, ultimately the decision reflects pharmaceutical manufacturing companies’ interests, rather than the lives of those most adversely affected by lack of access to EC.
Current recommendations suggest Pap tests be used as primary screening tools for cervical cancer, but some experts would like to see newer DNA testing used more often.
While there is much enthusiasm surrounding experimental new techniques that aim to help women with severely mutated mitochondrial DNA to have a child that would not inherit the disorders that can be caused by those mutations, the verdict is still out on the procedures. And it doesn’t look good.
For many years, the term “unprotected sex” has been synonymous with “sex without a condom.” But some HIV advocates argue that this language is outdated and imprecise, and the CDC has agreed to change it.
Continuing to fight science and common sense on Plan B isn’t serving anyone’s interests. Pro-choicers are mad, anti-choicers aren’t placated, and women are hurt in the process. So why does the Obama administration insist on keeping up this pointless fight?
U.S. District Court Judge Edward R. Korman today delivered a scorching critique of the Obama administration’s policies, saying that the FDA’s decision-making on EC has been corrupted by political influence.
The Obama administration announced it was appealing a federal court order that lifted age-restrictions on the sale of emergency contraception.
The Obama administration’s newest plan to make emergency contraception over-the-counter to some groups and not others only creates more confusion and a new set of barriers to access. I guess this administration would rather play Russian Roulette with teen pregnancy than make it easier to prevent.
What did it really take for a Reagan-appointed federal judge to make one of the most critical reproductive justice rulings of the year, possibly the decade?
The judgment is littered with scathing descriptions of bad faith, politically-motivated maneuvering, and unbelievable wastes of time and taxpayers’ money as well as jaw-dropping legal mistakes—all of which go well beyond the language one expects to find in typical legal opinions.