Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision today to allow Plan B, the emergency contraceptive (EC) manufactured by Barr Pharmaceuticals, to be sold without prescription (over-the-counter) to women age 18 and older is a step in the right direction for women’s rights and reproductive health, but it is an incomplete victory.

For several years, NOW leaders and community activists have pressured the FDA to approve easier access to emergency contraception. We have submitted formal comments as part of the FDA review process, testified before FDA advisory panels, generated thousands of emails and phone calls to the FDA commissioner, rallied activists in front of the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services headquarters, and circulated petitions to Congress, and today our efforts have secured an advance for women.

But this important advance is limited by the Bush administration’s determination to favor politics over science, in that the FDA has again disregarded the near-unanimous recommendation of its own professional staff and two expert Advisory Committees. Both groups advised that EC meets all of the tests for an off-the-shelf (non-prescription) medication and should be available to all women in that manner. The FDA also disregarded studies establishing that easy access to EC did not increase sexual activity in young women, and did not decrease the use of other forms of contraception.

The availability of EC without a prescription at local drugstores could increase the ability of millions of adult women to prevent unplanned pregnancies. But it is disgraceful and unethical that the FDA has denied over-the-counter access to this crucial emergency contraceptive to another group of women who have the greatest need to prevent unplanned pregnancies—young women.

But the placement “behind the counter” still means that even an adult woman may have to contend with a moralizing lecture from the cashier or pharmacy clerk, and deal with the same kinds of refusals that now face women trying to fill a prescription. And those problems can delay access to EC, which is most effective when taken within 24 hours.

Emergency. Contraception. What part of EC don’t they understand? EC should be available to all women, without interference or barriers imposed by a church or the state.

A young woman needs ready access to emergency contraception for the same reasons that an older woman does. Because she fears that unprotected or forced sexual intercourse may lead to an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. Because she may not be able to see her doctor to obtain a prescription during the 72-hour window when emergency contraception is most effective. Because she may not have health insurance and can not afford an appointment with a doctor. Further, even if a young woman has a prescription, her pharmacist might refuse to fill it.

To those who argue that we cannot trust a young woman to follow the instructions for EC (one pill now, and another one in 12 hours—it’s not rocket science), I ask them, “Then why will you trust her to bear and raise a child”?

A simple two-dose pack, EC is easy to use and it’s safe. It contains the same medication found in birth control pills, which have been used by millions of women for decades. It has no adverse health consequences that would justify the extreme measures that the FDA is requiring in order to deny access to young women. Finally, the argument that easier access to EC would encourage promiscuity is not only insulting to young women, but there is specific evidence in the form of studies to refute that claim. Instead of sound scientific reasoning, political ideology has been the basis for this decision, as it has been throughout the approval process.

People across the political spectrum should be able to agree that we need to reduce the number of unintended teen pregnancies—there were approximately 235,000 in 2001 alone—and the availability of EC to all women for purchase over-the-counter is an effective way to prevent those pregnancies. NOW will continue to demand access to EC until it is approved for over-the-counter use by all women, available on store shelves (not behind the counter), and dispensed without interference.

August 17, 2006

After years of controversy over the “safer than aspirin” product known as Plan B or the “morning after pill,” the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will finally announce their decision whether women can obtain Plan B emergency contraception (EC) without a doctor’s prescription.

Yet the ruling is likely to deny EC access to some of the women who need it most. In a pre-decision announcement, the FDA said it had asked Plan B’s manufacturer to submit a proposal to deny non-prescription Plan B to women under age 18, even though both the FDA’s professional staff and its advisory committees recommended no age limitation. If approved under those terms, the FDA will be acting irresponsibly and will be further demonstrating that it is driven by political influence, not scientific evidence.

Data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute show that in 2001 there were 271,000 pregnancies among women aged 15 to 17, and 87 percent of those pregnancies were unintended. That’s more than 235,000 young women who, with unimpeded access to Plan B, could have effectively prevented an unintended pregnancies. The FDA has chosen to ignore the obvious, quantifiable need for over-the-counter emergency contraception by all women of childbearing age.

Young women, especially low-income teens who have no doctor or healthcare coverage, will continue to face the reproductive and healthcare discrimination that forces them into life-altering, unwanted pregnancies. Forcing ill-prepared teens to care for children for which they have few personal and financial resources is unethical and has costly, long-term implications for society.

While NOW will fight the FDA’s determination to turn its back on young women, we will also challenge the unnecessary hurdles that adult women will face at pharmacies and medical centers where right-wing moralists continue to limit women’s access to all forms of contraception. We will urge all pharmacies to make EC accessible off-the-shelf, right next to the condoms.

Locking up this product or placing it behind the counter will force women to ask someone to retrieve it for them, thus increasing the current problem of pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B and birth control pills, even with a prescription. Women’s rights must not be violated by clerks or cashiers who feel, as some pharmacists do, that it is their prerogative to subject a customer to moralistic lecturing and to deny to women access to safe and legal medical treatment.

While we await the FDA’s ruling, NOW, along with women around the country, pledges to continue mobilizing activists to pressure the FDA, the Congress, and the state legislatures for unimpeded access to emergency contraception for all women of reproductive age. Leaving young women behind is a tragic mistake, and we hope the FDA will recognize that women must be trusted to know whether they want to become pregnant, and make their own informed decisions in that regard.

Plan B, which currently requires a prescription, has been recommended for over-the-counter (i.e. non-prescription) access for women of all ages by both the FDA’s professional staff and both of the professional advisory committees that studied the issue. It is a back-up birth control method consisting of a concentrated dose of regular birth control pills, and reduces the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent when taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Because of Plan B’s narrow window of effectiveness, easy and timely access is crucial. This access is hindered by the requirement of obtaining a prescription, and in some cases is completely obstructed by discriminatory treatment from pharmacists and doctors who refuse to dispense Plan B.

On March 14, RI NOW members attended a lecture entitled “The Future of Choice in America” given by Sarah Weddington, the attorney who argued and won the 1973 Roe v. Wade case before the Supreme Court.

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

In passing a law today that bans all abortions except when the life of the woman is at stake, South Dakota legislators gave right-wing zealots what they have been waiting for since the 1992 Casey decision: another shot at Roe v. Wade. That landmark decision recognized a woman’s fundamental right to privacy in deciding whether to continue her pregnancy.

By a vote of 50-18 in the House and 23-12 in the Senate, state lawmakers virtually assured a legal battle that will reach the Supreme Court. And given the current breakdown of the High Court, whose two newest justices have a history of opposition to women’s rights, the outcome could well be a reversal of Roe.

Every Senator who did not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Sam Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor will share responsibility for what follows.

-February 22, 2006
Today the Supreme Court announced that it will consider the constitution-ality of a federal abortion procedure ban — a law identical in effect to the Nebraska ban that was struck down by the Court in 2000 because it didn’t protect women’s health. We will soon learn whether the High Court’s two newest justices are as devoted to precedent as they say they are, or whether their visceral opposition to abortion will lead them to overturn a clear precedent after only six years.

The new case, Gonzales v. Carhart, concerns the same doctor, the same state, and the same issues as Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000, when Dr. Leroy Carhart challenged a Nebraska law that banned certain vaguely-defined abortion procedures without including any exception for a woman whose health is at risk.

The Court’s narrow 5-4 opinion in that 2000 case found the law unconstitutional. That precedent in Stenberg was the reason three federal courts of appeal have declared this federal ban unconstitutional as well. The outcome in this case could be different because now-retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who cast the deciding vote in Stenberg, has been replaced by an opponent of abortion.

Not only will we find out whether our new justices are committed to “stare decisis” and settled law — as Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito recently assured senators they are — but we will also see whether their opposition to abortion means they will force doctors to violate their Hippocratic oath, putting the desires of Congress above their medical duty to put their patients’ health first.

“This isn’t the first time Congress has tried to practice medicine without a license, but if this ban is upheld, it will be the first time the Supreme Court has allowed them to do so,” said NOW President Kim Gandy. “Will Congress be allowed to deprive you of the medical procedure your doctor says is safest for your particular circumstances?”

RI Choice Activists had all hoped that because the anniversary of Roe v. Wade is on Sunday the anti-choice activists would cancel their funeral procession to Providence area clinics (which are
closed on Sundays).

No such luck. On Saturday, January 21 they are expecting 100 cars led by the Providence and Cranston police and a hearse containing a white casket to depart from the Broad Street entrance to Roger Williams Park at 10am to lay funeral wreaths at the Women’s Medical Center, 1725 Broad Street, Cranston; Women & Infants Hospital, 101 Dudley Street, Providence; and Planned Parenthood of RI, 111 Point
Street, Providence.

Please join us at 10am at 1725 Broad Street to lend our voices in support of a women’s right to choose, and to prevent them from
laying their wreath (this is a NON-VIOLENT protest - we just pick
the wreath up if they lay it). A group of us will also be hopping in
our cars to do the same at the other locations.

Hope to see you on Saturday, as well as on Sunday at 6pm at the 2:1 Coalition Roe v. Wade event at Julian’s Restaurant in Providence.

CVS Pharmacist in Coventry refuses to fill woman’s prescription for Plan-B. From the projo:

Pharmacist refuses to fill prescription

A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman decries the delay in a customer’s ability to get her “morning-after pill” contraceptive, but CVS and a state official defend a pharmacist’s right to act on moral beliefs.

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, August 11, 2005

BY BARBARA POLICHETTI
Journal Staff Writer

CVS pharmacists, acting on their religious or moral beliefs, can refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions as long as they make sure the customer can get the medication when another pharmacist is on duty or at another CVS store, company officials said yesterday.

“Our policy is to fill prescriptions for all customers in a timely manner and to make sure their needs are met and that they are satisfied,” Eileen Howard Dunn, vice president of corporate communications and community relations for CVS, said yesterday. “As an employer, however, we must also accommodate a sincerely held religious conviction that may prevent a pharmacist from dispensing a certain prescription.”

Dunn’s remarks came in response to media reports of a woman who was temporarily denied the “morning-after” contraceptive pill at the CVS pharmacy on Tiogue Avenue in Coventry last Friday.

Dunn, who declined to identify either the patron or the pharmacist, said that the customer pulled up to the store’s drive-up window at about 10 p.m. The pharmacist on duty at the 24-hour store refused to fill the prescription because it conflicted with his or her personal beliefs, Dunn said.

Instead, Dunn said, the customer was given the option of either returning to the store the next morning or having CVS send the prescription to another 24-hour store, in Warwick, where it could be filled immediately.

She said that the customer opted to return to the Coventry store on Saturday and picked up her prescription at about 8 a.m.

Dunn said that situation was handled in compliance with corporate policy and that the customer did not complain to the store or to company headquarters.

The incident has angered leaders of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island, who called CVS’ actions “criminal.”

“Why are we placing undue obstacles on a woman?” Kathy Kushnir, vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood, said. “If a woman presents a legal prescription, it must be filled at that time — period, end of story.

“And even if this is just one case, it’s a major case because we have a woman going from pharmacy to pharmacy trying to fill a valid prescription,” Kushnir said. “That is criminal.”

RECENTLY, the so-called “morning after pill,” sold under the name Plan B, has been the focal point of a national debate over whether pharmacists’ religious or moral concerns take precedence over consumers’ right to fill a prescription.

It is also wrapped up in the debate over abortion, as there is argument over exactly how the pill works. According to the Web site posted by Plan B manufacturer Duramed Pharmaceuticals, the pill contains a hormone found in most birth-control pills and can work in three ways — it may stop the release of an egg from the ovary, it may prevent the uniting of sperm with an egg, and it may also prevent an egg from attaching to the uterus.

Catherine Cordy, executive director of the state Board of Pharmacy, said that there is nothing in Rhode Island law that “clearly spells out when a pharmacist can or cannot” fill a prescription.

Instead, she said, there are standards of practice that give pharmacists the latitude to refuse to dispense a drug based on their “moral, ethical or professional medical judgment.”

“We believe this is appropriate as long as [the prescription] is made reasonably available to the patient through another pharmacist at the same store or the prescription is transferred to another store,” she said.

Similar standards, she said, have been codified by the American Medical Association and the American Pharmacists Association.

Cordy said that although no complaint has been filed regarding last week’s incident at the Coventry CVS, the state board will investigate the matter.

Kushnir said that the delay in filling the woman’s prescription in Coventry last week is particularly egregious because the morning-after pill is time sensitive and must be taken between 72 and 120 hours after unprotected sex.

“The sooner you take it, the more effective it is,” Kushnir said, adding that a pharmacist who refuses to fill the prescription has no way of knowing what the customer’s time constraints are unless they engage in an inappropriate conversation.

“They don’t know when a woman might have unprotected sex or if she had sex against her will,” Kushnir said. “A woman with a valid, legal prescription should not have to have that conversation with her pharmacist . . . and she should not be sitting there in the store doing the math.”

Dunn said that CVS wants its customers to be satisfied, and that pharmacists are strictly prohibited from discussing their personal views with customers.

“We just want to make sure that people know that we are sensitive to this issue and that we are in the business of filling prescriptions for our customers and that is our number-one goal,” she said.

She said that is why the company makes sure a customer gets the medication at another time or location if a pharmacist will not fill a prescription for personal reasons.

Kushnir countered that, “Going from Coventry to Warwick may seem innocuous enough, but given the realities of everyday life, it could be a dangerous burden.”

“My presumption,” she said, “is that if I have a valid prescription, I can walk into any pharmacy and get it filled.”

RI NOW Responds

We believe that any woman should be able to walk into her pharmacy with a valid prescription for emergency contraception (or any contraceptive), and have it filled with no questions asked. Decisions about birth control should be left up to a woman and her doctor and no pharmacist has the right to insert himself or herself into a woman’s private healthcare decisions. Referral to another pharmacist or pharmacy is not a satisfactory remedy because these place an additional burden on the woman seeking the prescription, a burden that is not imposed on any other type of prescription, especially not one that must be taken in a timely manner.

Meaghan Lamarre, Action VP, was interviewed by and appeared on WPRI in response to this issue on August 11. Stay tuned for more response and/or possible action on this issue.

From Cox.net …

(Providence, RI) - Pro-choice advocates are urging members of the U.S. Senate to vote against any Supreme Court nominee who is likely to help overturn Roe versus Wade. At a Kennedy Plaza rally last evening Meaghan Lamarre and other members of the Rhode Island National Organiation for Women said that includes current Bush nominee John Roberts because he argued against Roe versus Wade in the past. Lamarre says Sandra Day O’Connor represented a key swing vote when the case was last challenged and upheld by a 5 to 4 margin. She says a recently conducted poll shows a majority of Americans want O’Connor’s replacement to be someone who will also uphold Roe versus Wade.

[Press Release by RINOW July 20, 2005]

Contact: Emily Rochon, 401-965-6081 or Meaghan Lamarre, 401-225-3543
For immediate release.

Last night, President Bush announced the nomination of John G. Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. President Bush began his remarks by commenting that the appointment of a Supreme Court justice is one of the most consequential decisions a President can make. Rhode Island NOW wholeheartedly agrees and that is why we strongly oppose the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts.

As O’Connor’s replacement, Roberts could cast the deciding vote on countless matters of individual rights where O’Connor had been a key vote, often in a 5 to 4 split — issues like abortion and birth control, affirmative action, privacy rights, disability rights, Title IX equal educational opportunity, family and medical leave, health care, environmental protection and dozens of other crucial issues for decades to come. For young women, Roberts’ votes could determine their access to birth control and abortion for their entire reproductive lifetimes.

Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. He has argued that “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” He also wrote an amicus brief supporting Operation Rescue, arguing in support of individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics.

In addition to his active opposition to a woman’s right to choose, Judge Roberts has also argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the scope of the Endangered Species act, challenged affirmative action programs, and argued against Title IX.

We had high hopes for this nomination: we had hoped for another woman to replace Justice O’Connor and we had hoped for a moderate, centrist nominee who would unite the country in these divided times. However, President Bush has chosen an extremist with no commitment to the basic values of individual and civil rights for which we have fought so hard. With this nomination, President Bush has chosen to pick a fight and we intend to fight back.

Senate Passes “24 hr Waiting Period”
by a vote of 27 to 9

Please contact your senator regarding their vote. Below, please find talking points.

The following senators voted in favor of instituting a 24 hour waiting period:

Senator Algiere (Westerly, Charlestown) (h) 596-2215
Senator Alves (Bill Sponsor) (West Warwick) (h) 828-4604
Senator Badeau (Woonsocket, Cumberland) (h) 766-7574
Senator Blais (Scituate, Foster, Coventry) (h) 826-2326
Senator Breene (West Greenwich, Richmond, Hopkinton, Exeter, Charlestown) (h) 397-9408
Senator Ciccone (Providence, North Providence) (h) 275-0949
Senator Cote (Woonsocket, North Smithfield) (h) 765-3360
Senator Damiani (East Providence) (h) 433-4522
Senator DaPonte (Pawtucket, East Providence) (h) 434-6701
Senator Doyle (Pawtucket) (h) 729-9988
Senator Felag (Warren, Tiverton, Bristol) (h) 245-7521
Senator Fogarty (North Smithfield, Glocester, Burrillville) (h) 949-0895
Senator Gallo (Cranston) (h) 942-8566
Senator Goodwin (Providence) (h) 272-3102
Senator Issa (Pawtucket, Cumberland, Central Falls) (h) 723-9700
Senator Lanzi (Cranston) (h) 946-7125
Senator Lenihan (Warwick, North Kingstown, East Greenwich) (h) 884-6398
Senator McBurney (Pawtucket) (h) 725-2459
Senator McCaffrey (Warwick) (h) 739-7576
Senator Metts (Providence) (h) 272-0112
President of the Senate, Senator Montalbano (Pawtucket, North Providence, Lincoln) (h) 353-3665
Senate Majority Leader, Senator Paiva-Weed (Newport, Jamestown) (h) 846-9984
Senator Polisena (Johnston) (h) 949-3119
Senator Raptakis (West Warwick, Warwick, East Greenwich, Coventry) (h) 397-2720
Senator Ruggerio (Providence, North Providence) (h) 331-6074
Senator Sheehan (North Kingstown, Narragansett) (h) 884-1077
Senator Walaska (Warwick) (h) 737-1065

**Please contact Anne at Planned Parenthood at 421-7820 x3114 to help with organizing in these districts. It is important to hold these Senators accountable.

The following Senators voted against instituting a waiting period. Please thank them for their courage and conviction– it was rough on Tuesday night:

Senator Bates (Bristol, Barrington) (h) 246-1379
Senator Gibbs (Tiverton, Newport, Middletown, Little Compton) (h) 846-1579
Senator Levesque (Portsmouth, Bristol) (h) 683-9194
Senator Perry (Providence) (h) 751-7165
Senator Pichardo (Providence) (w) 222-1849
Senator Revens (Warwick) (h) 738-8362
Senator Roberts (Warwick, Cranston) (h) 785-9068
Senator Sosnowski (South Kingstown, New Shoreham) (h) 783-7704
Senator Tassoni (Smithfield, North Smithfield) (h) 233-2602
****************************************************
***Neither Senator Caprio (Providence, 455-0055) nor Senator Connors (Lincoln, Cumberland, 728-0828) placed a vote.***
************************************

Don’t Mistake the “Women’s Right to Know Act” for pro-women legislation.
Information on Senate Bill S 275:

• This bill makes NO provisions for victims of rape or incest.
• A state imposed waiting period would postpone procedures by weeks, causing more abortions to be performed later in pregnancy, at greater medical risk to the woman. According to the Journal of American Medical Association, August 27, 1997 - Mississippi Study: “As a result of the 24 hour waiting period law, abortions performed after 12 weeks gestation increased by 39%.”
• This bill requires that women be given state-produced, biased illustrated pamphlets, which amounts to STATE PRODUCED PROPAGANDA at a cost of almost $500,000 annually to the RI taxpayer. This bill does fails to ensure that the taxpayer-funded pamphlets would present medically accurate, non-biased, non-coercive, non-judgmental content.
• The medical community, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the Rhode Island Medical Society, is strongly opposed to procedure specific waiting periods.
• There is already an informed consent law in Rhode Island for abortion (Ch. 23-4.7), which goes above and beyond the informed consent for any other procedure in the state.