THE RELIGIOUS CONSULTATION
on population, reproductive health & ethics

San Jose Mercury News (CA), May 25, 2004

COLUMN: Hello, FDA: Morning-After Pill Sure Beats Teen Births

BYLINE: Sue Hutchison

She sat on a plastic chair in the Planned Parenthood clinic waiting room, giggling while he tugged on the long, black braid that ran down her back. He wore a Sharks team jersey and a diamond stud earring. He pressed his cheek against hers as he whispered into her ear. They couldn't have been older than 18.

There were two dozen patients at the San Jose clinic on The Alameda during that busy morning last week, some holding babies and others leafing through health pamphlets. But the young couple lost in a love trance didn't seem to notice anyone else in the room.

Averting trouble

Memo to the Food and Drug Administration: These were kids who were responsible enough to come in and get birth control before it was too late. Imagine how many others would be able to avoid unintended pregnancies if the FDA had taken the advice of its scientific advisory panel this month and approved over-the-counter sale of Plan B, otherwise known as ''the morning-after pill.''

Imagine the number of teen births and abortions that might have been prevented if the recommendation of the advisory panel, which had studied the drug for years and voted 23 to 4 to approve its safety, had not fallen victim to the regressive politics of the Bush administration.

Consider the completely out-of-touch reasoning for rejecting Plan B's sale over-the-counter: Young women may not understand how to use it properly, and easy access to the drug will increase teen promiscuity.

It's not as though Plan B causes an abortion as RU-486 does. It's simply a super-charged dose of contraceptives that's most effective when taken within three days of unprotected sex. Shelly Johnson, who manages the Planned Parenthood clinic on The Alameda and went to Washington, D.C., for last month's abortion-rights rally, said she was dismayed that the FDA's decision came barely a week after a million women gathered to demand control over their own bodies.

''There is no danger with taking this drug, and it's ridiculous to think more young people will have sex because of it,'' Johnson said. ''I was really shocked that it was disapproved by the FDA after such a massive display for women's reproductive rights. It's like a slap in the face.''

Funding-cut fears

Meanwhile, Johnson and many others at Planned Parenthood are worried this is another sign that clinics' federal and state funding may be cut. Despite the spotlight on the clinics' abortion services, the vast majority of Planned Parenthood patients come for health exams and contraception -- so abortion won't be an issue.

The good news is that the teen pregnancy rate in California has plummeted by 42 percent over the past 10 years. But there are still thousands of girls having babies, and now that the teenage population is increasing sharply, an increase in the teen birth rate may follow. This is not the time to cut off access to birth control.

Relying on abstinence programs alone, as the Bush administration seems to advocate, is remarkably naive. Take the experience of Christina Hagen, a 23-year-old from Palo Alto who has depended on Planned Parenthood clinic services since she was a student at Gunn High School.

''Oh, we were taught abstinence,'' she said. ''But, believe me, a lot of girls at Gunn who couldn't talk to their parents went to Planned Parenthood for birth control.''

''I mean, what's worse, four years of being able to get birth control or four babies in four years? Babies who will probably have to be supported by the system.''

That's an excellent question for the FDA.

Sue Hutchison's column appears Tuesdays and Sundays. She can be reached at shutchison@mercurynews.com

<< San Jose Mercury News – 05/25/04 >>