A review of the use of emergency contraception implies that women with EC on hand are just as likely to become pregnant as those women who didn’t have it at the ready. The lead author provides insights into the analysis.
One year after a federal court told the FDA to revisit their age restrictions related to over-the-counter access of Emergency Contraception, we’re no closer to seeing real change. The Center for Reproductive Rights has brought in the bunnies to see if they might get the FDA to “hop to it.”
A new study finds that induction of labor is on the rise in the United States but that evidence does not support the many reasons providers give for using various methods. What should pregnant and laboring women believe?
This article, one of the worst examples of LifeSiteNews’s consistent mischaracterization of EC, is truly negligent.
The real divide in the debate over EC is between those who support the well-being of teenage girls, and those who pursue an anti-choice and anti-contraception agenda so inflexible that it hinders its own aims.
Clinton gives a vigorous defense of reproductive rights worldwide; FDA official says agency will approve over-the-counter access for Plan B for 17-year-olds; health care costs hit even the fortunate, like Kate Michelman; Senate Finance Committee approves Sebelius nomination.
The AP is reporting that a government health official says the Food and Drug Administration will allow 17-year-olds to get the ‘morning-after’ birth control pill without a doctor’s prescription.
The House version of the just-passed budget includes critical language that could open the door for healthcare reform in 2009 – and not a moment too soon.
Federal court orders FDA to reconsider emergency contraception decision; Oklahoma legislature considers sex-selective abortion; National Advocates for Pregnant Women creates video on effects of “egg-as-person” laws; comment on the HHS rule!
The FDA, under Dr. Margaret Hamburg’s leadership, should take a fresh look at the agency’s over-the-counter policy on Plan B to ensure that the policy is based on medical evidence, not ideology. Update 3/24/09: Court rules in favor of evidence!