Here's this week's reproductive rights news brought to you by the women of Our Word (and at least one of the guys!). If you see something you find relevant please email it to me, bayprairie at gmail dot com

::::more below the fold::::

US Congress to probe safety of abortion pill

Washington, Dec. 23 (Population Research Institute/CWNews.com) - The chairman of US Congressional subcommittee is opening an investigation of the "abortion pill" RU-486, citing the death of at least four American women who used the pill.

Congressman Mark Souder of Indiana, who chairs a subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources within the Government Reform committee, has submitted a series of questions to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), asking for detailed information about the FDA's probe into the "serious health and public-safety risks" posed by the sale of drug known as Mifeprix, or RU-486. The Souder letter asked for FDA records regarding the clinical trials of Mifeprix, and especially the dangers of septic shock-- the cause of death for four California women who took the pill.

Early in December, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that the medical risks to women using RU-486 were much higher than previously acknowledged. Although the author of that study argued that the risks were still small, critics of Mifeprix said that the Journal study vindicated their argument that the drug was prematurely rushed onto the market, with FDA approval, because intense lobbying from feminist groups overcame pleas for cautious testing.

Based on the fact there are four unexplained deaths that are linked to a drug that induces abortion, it's par for the course that our vicious reproductive rights guard dogs in the U.S. congress step in and begin what could be the process used to put Mifeprex off limits to American women. I'm sure they'll do this whether or not the drug is responsible, which has not been determined by either the FDA or the CDC. The source for this story is a theocratic religious right site. If you read it critically you can find examples of the subtle bias they've woven into the story. One example being shown in the text citing the death of at least four American women who used the pill. There have been only four deaths, the use of "at least" implies additional unknown deaths.

____________

Survey Shows Unwanted Births Up

ATLANTA (AP) - More American women are having babies they didn't want, a survey indicates, but federal researchers say they don't know if that means attitudes about abortion are changing.

U.S. women of childbearing age who were surveyed in 2002 revealed that 14 percent of their recent births were unwanted at the time of conception, federal researchers said Monday.

In a similar 1995 survey, only 9 percent were unwanted at the time of conception.

At least one anti-abortion group said the numbers reflect a national ``pro-life shift,'' while others who research reproductive health issues suggested it might mean less access to abortion.

The report is available here:

Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of U.S. Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth

____________

Here's some news on a lawsuit being filed agains the state of Illinois that regulates pharmacies that carry Plan B.

The rule in question requires pharmacies that sell federally approved contraceptives to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control "without delay" if they have the medication in stock. If the contraceptive is not in stock, the pharmacy must order the medication or transfer the prescription to another pharmacy of the patient's choice. If a pharmacist won't fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist must be available there to fill it.

The American Center for Law and Justice mentioned in the article was founded by the theocrat and televangelist Pat Robertson.

Suit challenges state rule on morning-after pill

The American Center for Law and Justice said it filed a lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Springfield that challenges the Illinois rule mandating all pharmacies in the state dispense the morning-after pill without delay.

The group represents five pharmacists who have been fired or suspended and two others who have refused to agree to dispense the drugs on religious and moral grounds.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich made a rule permanent in August enforcing pharmacies that carry contraception not to delay filling prescriptions for Plan B, commonly known as the morning-after pill. The rule is the only one like it in the country.

____________

In Texas news, from Waco:

State cuts prompt Planned Parenthood fund-raiser

Officials with the local Planned Parenthood affiliate have launched an emergency fund-raising campaign after learning their state funding will be cut by 21 percent next year.

The organization, criticized regularly by local anti-abortion forces, must raise about $159,000 if it hopes to maintain its current level of services next year, officials with Planned Parenthood of Central Texas said. If it fails, it will be forced to modify its patient load, they said –- a move that would result in about 1,000 low-income women going without reproductive health care and contraceptives.

"It's not forward-thinking," Dr. Donald Lewis, a local gynecologist who serves on the Planned Parenthood board, said of the state cut. "It carries the risk of more unwanted pregnancies, more unplanned pregnancies...and more sexually transmitted diseases...It's just sad that what is going on now is so short-sided."

The cut comes from a provision attached to the state's budget bill last spring by Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville. It directs the state to earmark $10 million a year of its family planning monies for organizations designated as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC).

Because most traditional providers of family planning services don't have that designation, they don't have access to the full pot of money. Consequently, many are getting less money next year. They include Planned Parenthood affiliates, local health departments and non-profit clinics.

Here's the backstory to the Waco problem for those of you who aren't familar with it.

Why the Funding Cuts?

In 2005, the Texas Legislature approved Rider 81, a budget rider to Article II of the state budget, that directs the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to set aside ten million dollars in family planning funding, for the type of health care provider known as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). As a result, irrational decisions were made to divert funding and limit services from trusted family planning providers like Planned Parenthood—for purely political reasons.

This rider was authored by Senator Bob Deuell (R-Greenville), an anti-choice hardliner. This is a clear attempt to disrupt and dismantle an already-underfunded family planning program, which even now only provides services to an estimated 15% of Texas women in need. In the past, allocation of family planning funding was based on a system that took into account how many women-in-need were in each public health region.

FQHCs play an important role in our health care delivery system. They share many of Planned Parenthood's core values, including a commitment to affordable health care for all Texas women and their families regardless of economic status. Anti-choice hardliners in the legislature are far more interested in driving a wedge between Planned Parenthood and our trusted community partners than in finding real solutions to the very real challenge of providing access to basic health care.

If you're a woman in Austin who's been getting care at the downtown planned parenthood related to Family planning services include well-woman exams, the provision of contraception, screenings for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infections, diabetes, hypertension, and anemia, and other preventive health care services here's what you'll see tacked to the door when you visit the clinic after Jan. 1st 2006.

ALERT TO PATIENTS AT THE DOWNTOWN CLINIC

Thank you for choosing Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region for your health care provider. Because of decisions made by elected representatives in the Texas government, this clinic will not receive enough money to take care of all the patients who need services. Our state government made decisions to limit services from trusted family planning providers like Planned Parenthood—for purely political reasons.

As of January 1, 2006, the only patients who will be able to receive services at this clinic are women who are 24 years old or younger and who are residents of Travis County. Also, clinic hours have been cut. Starting January 1, the clinic will be open:

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
2:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Saturday
12:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Thursday, Sunday
Closed

Your health is important to us and we are sorry that we cannot take care of you. If you are a patient at the Downtown Clinic who is more than 24 years old or you live outside Travis County, you have several choices:

• You may go to another Planned Parenthood location in Austin. Our North and South Austin clinics offer the same high-quality health care and birth control services. However, there is no discount for low-income patients at those two clinics. Medicaid is accepted. For all others, services are full price. (See below for more information about this option.)
• You may request to have your records sent to another (non-Planned Parenthood) clinic where you may be able to receive services at a lower price. (See below for more information about this option.)
• You may request to have your records transferred to the health care provider of your choice.
• If you are already a patient at one of the city or county clinics, please go there for your birth control.

Our staff will be happy to help you by providing the information you need to go to another clinic or doctor. We want to make the change as easy as possible for you. This has not been an easy decision for Planned Parenthood and we are deeply sorry that services must be cut this way.

That's a great happy new year from Bob Deuell (R-Greenville). Words cannot express the contempt I feel for this racist, sexist legislator.

Here is the estimated damage that will be done to the women of Texas by representatives such as the loathsome representative Deuell.

According to the Department of State Health Services, areas of the state without FQHCs would lose family planning funding under this rider. Implementation of this rider would result in approximately 70,000 women being displaced from their current trusted health care providers, organizations like Planned Parenthood. This diversion of up to $10 million annually will disrupt a proven and established health care delivery system for women and their families, leaving traditional family planning agencies with fewer funds to serve their existing clients.

For a first person perspective of how being cut off from services feels read Moiv's Why Tanya cried

____________

The following piece shows how the Texas experience storied above is being enabled at the national level and the same notices that will greet Texas women at the Austin Planned Parenthood could soon be appearing at a health care clinic near you.

Senate Approves FY 2006 Spending-Cut Bill That Would Allow States To Reduce, Eliminate Some Medicaid Family Planning Services

The Senate on Wednesday approved 51-50 the fiscal year 2006 spending package (S 1932) that would allow states to scale back or eliminate some Medicaid services that currently are guaranteed under federal law, the Washington Post reports. Vice President Dick Cheney cast the tie-breaking vote for the 774-page measure (Murray/Weisman, Washington Post, 12/22). Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday said the bill would allow states to discontinue Medicaid coverage of contraception and family planning services currently required under federal law. The bill would authorize $39.7 billion in spending cuts, including $6.4 billion in net savings from Medicare and about $4.8 billion in net savings from Medicaid over five years (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 12/21). Although the bill already has been passed in the House, Senate Democrats used a parliamentary objection to strike three provisions from the bill, which sends the measure back to the House for a final vote (Washington Post, 12/22).

____________

Congress Approves Extension of Violence Against Women Act

The House on Saturday approved by voice vote a bill (HR 3402) that would extend the Violence Against Women Act, sending the bill to President Bush, the AP/Boston Globe reports (AP/Boston Globe, 12/17). The Senate on Friday approved the measure by voice vote (Frommer, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 12/16). VAWA seeks to reduce domestic violence through funding for women's shelters and law-enforcement training. The measure - which was passed by Congress in 1994 and renewed five years ago -- expired in September (AP/Boston Globe, 12/17). The bill, which extends VAWA for five years, includes an estimated $3.9 billion in funding, a 20% increase from the 2000 renewal. New provisions target health care and prevention and outreach strategies to American Indian women and other groups (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 12/16). According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund President Esta Soler, the measure also funds programs to help children exposed to violence, provide services for survivors of sexual assault and enhance services to women and children who leave their homes because of violence (FVPF release, 12/17). "The passage of the [VAWA] ensures that communities have the tools they need to intervene in and ultimately prevent violence in our homes," Lynn Rosenthal, president of the National Network To End Domestic Violence, said, adding, "By applying a more comprehensive approach, we move one step closer to eradicating domestic violence" (NNEDV release, 12/17). :::warning PDF link:::

____________

Here's some news on the anti-choice democratic candidate for Pennsylvania Senate, Bob Casey Jr.

Democratic Senatorial Candidate's Antiabortion Stance Highlights 'Complexities' of Campaign, Philadelphia Inquirer Reports

Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial candidate Robert Casey's antiabortion stance -- including his opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that barred states from banning abortion -- "highlights the complexities" of campaigning under the banner of a party known for advocating abortion rights, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. In an interview last week, Casey, who is the state treasurer, indicated he believes Roe should be overturned, saying, "You can't say you have the position I have and not believe that." He added, "You can't have it both ways and say, 'I am pro-choice but,' or 'I am pro-life but'" (Budoff, Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/18). Some members of the Democratic Party hope that by recruiting Casey to run against Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in 2006, Casey's position supporting restrictions on abortion will difuse Santorum's advantage in certain parts of Pennsylvania and allow Casey to draw a distinction with Santorum on issues that Democrats traditionally support (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 11/11). Because of similarities between Santorum and Casey on abortion rights, Casey "has sought to distinguish himself" by stressing his support for emergency contraception, all-inclusive sex education and increased funding for family planning, all of which Santorum opposes, the Inquirer reports. A recent survey by Quinnipiac University found that almost one-third of Casey supporters who favor abortion rights said they would not vote for Casey after being told he opposes abortion rights.

Casey's clear view on abortion could muddy campaign waters

"It speaks to a lack of fundamental understanding of what Roe represents," Kate Michelman, a former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said of Casey's position on Roe. "It is not just the right to choose an abortion; it goes to the heart of reproductive choice."

:::snip:::

Two abortion-rights proponents - Bucks County professor Chuck Pennacchio and Philadelphia lawyer Alan Sandals - plan to challenge Casey, but both trail him in fund-raising and name recognition. Santorum faces his own primary challenge from John Featherman, a Philadelphia real estate broker who favors abortion rights.

"Bob Casey can't win a tough campaign against Rick Santorum without a strong turnout from the pro-choice majority in Pennsylvania," Pennacchio said last week. "Democrats should not repeat the mistake we made in 2000" with Ron Klink.

Klink, a former U.S. representative, explained his divided position this way: "I am pro-life and vote to protect life, but the reality is a lot of women's lives would be put at risk."

____________

There's an entertaining article at Alternet entitled

The Pro-Life Continuum

In anticipation of the upcoming hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court I offer the following modest proposal: we should dispense with all-encompassing and ultimately meaningless labels like pro-life and pro-abortion. I've never met anyone who is anti-life, and very, very few who might be considered pro-abortion. Engage the issues involved more precisely. Label people based on where they fall in the chronological continuum between life and birth.

Let's begin with sperm. Many "pro-lifers" are really pro-sperm. Basically, they insist that the sperm has an inalienable right to try to get to the egg. Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League once even flatly announced that he thought contraception was "disgusting."

The Pope and many Christian fundamentalists fall into the pro-sperm category (although as we shall see, only relatively recently did the Catholic Church itself adopt that position). In the 1990s, after 300 out of 1,000 students in one Chicago high school became pregnant and the school established a birth control clinic, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin lashed out at the "contraceptive culture."

____________

well the Fundamentalists aren't going to love this following news.

GSK HPV Vaccine Produces Stronger Immune Response in Girls Ages 10 - 14 Than in Older Women

GlaxoSmithKline's experimental human papillomavirus vaccine, Cervarix, produces a stronger immune response in girls ages 10 to 14 than in girls and women ages 15 to 25, according to results of a Phase III clinical trial announced by the company on Saturday, Reuters reports (Pierson, Reuters, 12/17). Cervarix in early clinical trials was 100% effective in preventing HPV strains 16 and 18, which together cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 12/6). In the Phase III trial, which was conducted in Europe and Russia, 158 girls ages 10 to 14 and 458 girls and women ages 15 to 25 were given three doses of Cervarix over a six-month period. At the end of the trial, "concentrations of antibodies to the virus were twice as high in the bloodstreams of the young girls," Gary Dubin, a senior research official at GSK and lead author of the study, said (Reuters, 12/17). According to Dow Jones, the stronger immune response in girls ages 10 to 14 indicates that vaccinating at a younger age might provide a "longer duration of protection" from HPV (Dow Jones, 12/17).

____________

In Massachusetts news.

Schools’ newest sex-ed slogan: Just don’t do it

State health officials plan to teach abstinence-only sex education to adolescent students next year, despite concerns from health educators who say teens should be provided information about condoms and birth control.

“As a father of a middle school student, I’m all in favor of abstinence,� said Martin Cohen, president of the MetroWest Community Health Care Foundation. “The thing that concerns me is the word ‘only.’ I think teaching kids about abstinence is fine. Some kids are going to be sexually active and teaching them about birth control also has a place in the discussion.�

Even the state Department of Public Health says it doesn’t know whether its abstinence-only program will lead to a decrease in teen sex. The department won’t know if it works until after the program is implemented, said Sally Fogerty, associate commissioner at the DPH.

“We aren’t going to be able to say whether it’s effective or not because we don’t have anything to evaluate,� Fogerty said.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) isn't as unsure on whether abstinence-only is effective. He released a report entitled The Content Of Federally Funded Abstinence-only Education Programs :::warning PDF link:::, prepared for him by the United States House Of Representatives Committee On Government Reform — Minority Staff
Special Investigations Division, over a year ago, on Dec 1st 2004, that states:

The report finds that over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over two-thirds of SPRANS grantees in 2003, contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. Specifically, the report finds:

• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives. Many of the curricula misrepresent the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. One curriculum says that “the popular claim that ‘condoms help prevent the spread of STDs,’ is not supported by the dataâ€?; another states that “[i]n heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the timeâ€?; and another teaches that a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. These erroneous statements are presented as proven scientific facts.
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Risks of Abortion. One curriculum states that 5% to 10% of women who have legal abortions will become sterile; that “[p]remature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of a first pregnancyâ€?; and that “[t]ubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions.â€? In fact, these risks do not rise after the procedure used in most abortions in the United States.
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science. Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception. For example, one lesson states: “Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.â€? Another curriculum calls a 43-day-old fetus a “thinking person.â€?
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact. One curriculum teaches that women need “financial support,â€? while men need “admiration.â€? Another instructs: “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.â€?
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors. In numerous instances, the abstinence-only curricula teach erroneous scientific information. One curriculum incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears as risk factors for HIV transmission. Another curriculum states that “twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individualâ€?; the correct number is 23.

The report finds numerous examples of these errors. Serious and pervasive problems with the accuracy of abstinence-only curricula may help explain why these programs have not been shown to protect adolescents from sexually transmitted diseases and why youth who pledge abstinence are significantly less likely to make informed choices about precautions when they do have sex.

Planned Parenthood has a good take on exactly what's going on.

Abstinence-Only "Sex" Education

Abstinence-only education is one of the religious right's greatest challenges to the nation's sexual health. But it is only one tactic in a broader, longer-term strategy. Since the early 1980s, the "family values" movement has won the collaboration of governments and public institutions, from Congress to local school boards, in abridging students' constitutional rights. Schools now block student access to sexual health information in class, at the school library, and through the public library's Internet portals. They violate students' free speech rights by censoring student publications of articles referring to sexuality. Abstinence-only programs often promote alarmist misinformation about sexual health and force-feed students religious ideology that condemns homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and contraception. In doing so, they endanger students' sexual health.

Background

In 1981, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act, also known as the "chastity law," which funded educational programs to "promote self-discipline and other prudent approaches" to adolescent sex, or "chastity education." Grant applications to create such programs poured in, and the dollars poured out — to churches and religious conservatives nationwide. The ACLU challenged AFLA in court, calling it a Trojan horse smuggling the values of the Christian Right — particularly its opposition to abortion — to public-school children at public expense: a classic affront to the principle of separation of church and state (Heins, 2001; Schemo, 2000; Levin-Epstein, 1998; Pardini, 1998).

A dozen years later, the U.S. Supreme Court held that funded programs must delete direct references to religion (for instance, the suggestion that students take Christ on a date as chaperone), and the granting process was reined in. But it was too late. Some of the biggest federal grant recipients, including Sex Respect and Teen-Aid, had already turned their curricula into robust for-profit businesses. Christian fundamentalist groups, which built much of that infrastructure, remain among the most vehement opponents of comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education today.

In 1996, Congress struck again, attaching a provision to welfare legislation that established a federal program to exclusively fund programs teaching abstinence-only. Since the inception of the abstinence-only movement, approximately $135 million a year, totaling nearly $1 billion, has been spent on programs whose only purpose is to teach the social, psychological, and health benefits that might be gained by abstaining from sexual activity (Boonstra, 2004; Take Back Our Rights, 2004).

In FY 2005, Congress devoted approximately $170 million to abstinence-only education (Committee on Government Reform, 2004). At the state level, legislatures are copying the federal abstinence-only statute, often adding explicit prior-restraint provisions. New Jersey, for instance, proposed the imposition of close surveillance on teaching materials — and teachers. Even if such proposals don't pass, these bills have a censorial and chilling effect. Utah's governor vetoed a similar bill in that state, but directed state agencies to monitor sexuality education programs for "inappropriate" language and subject matter.

I realize that I have a regular (albiet small) readership of this column. As the weeks pass and I read and study on these issues I find myself coming to the conclusion that the religious right will be responsible for increases in abortion numbers through their misguided anti-sexuality tactics.

____________

Here's some interesting information from the Scientific American on how pharmacists themselves feel about authority to refuse to fill a prescription. This is from December 12th but I've just noticed it.

Pharmacists, Plan B and Patients' Rights

In the October 2005 issue, the SA Perspectives commented on the brewing conflict over pharmacists who declined to fill prescriptions for "morning-after pill" emergency contraceptives because of their moral objections to them, notwithstanding the added risks for their female patients. Now there is a bit more concrete information about how widespread sympathy for those pharmacists' view might be within the profession: rather disturbingly widespread, I'd say.

Here are the results of a survey conducted by HCD Research. To quote from that company's press release:

Pharmacists Believe They Should Have Authority to Refuse

FLEMINGTON, NJ, December 9, 2005 - A new national survey of 859 American pharmacists revealed that a clear majority of pharmacists believe that they should have the authority to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception.

The national survey was conducted by HCD Research during December 3-4, to obtain the views of pharmacists in response to recent media reports that four pharmacists were suspended by the Walgreen Co. in Illinois for refusing to fill emergency contraception prescriptions.

Among the findings:

69% of the pharmacists indicated that pharmacists should have the authority to refuse filling prescriptions for emergency contraception such as the morning after pill.

While 39% of pharmacists indicated that state laws should not require them to fill certain prescriptions, a significantly smaller percentage of pharmacists (23%) believe that the patient's rights should prevail if a legal drug is prescribed by a doctor.

37% of pharmacists feel that although they should have the right to refuse, they should also be required to refer patients to another pharmacist who will fill the prescription.

The earlier editorial from October 2005 that's hyperlinked in the blockquote above is a good read too. At the conclusion of it magazine comes down on the right side of the issue with a focus on the importance of the patient's rights.

If pharmacists can legitimately refuse to dispense the morning-after pill, then it is appropriate to consider seriously the American Medical Association's proposal that physicians be allowed to do so instead. Patients should always have confidence in their access to the drugs they need. We also suggest that if pharmacists are going to sift clients' prescriptions through the sieve of their own morals, they should prominently post signs to that effect. Let female customers know what to expect well before their health is at the mercy of their pharmacist's conscience.

____________

In Canada this past week Pharmacists and Plan B were also in the news. The Canadian Pharmacists Association had some abusive guidelines concerning the manner in which they dispense Plan B. The Pharmacy Assocation also influenced the Canadian Medical Association Journal to censor a report about the issue. Incidently, Plan B is an over-the-counter drug in Canada.

No privacy when buying Plan B contraceptive

(Canadian Medical Association) Journal editors sent the (13) women - "secret shoppers", the CPhA (Canadian Pharmacists Association) complained - to seek out Plan B because they wanted to know if so-called CPhA "counselling" guidelines were restricting women's access to the emergency contraceptive, explains senior deputy editor Anne Marie Todkill.

The guidelines (dropped last week by Ontario pharmacists at the urging of the Ontario privacy commissioner) recommended pharmacists "counsel" women by asking for the following: their name, address, the date of their last menstrual period, when they had last had unprotected sex, and their customary method of birth control.

They were then to record it in computers, though this is not required for any other over-the-counter medication and Plan B is safer than Aspirin.

The CMAJ wanted to know whether the $20 fee pharmacists were charging for the "counselling" was a barrier to access and why women's "sexual behaviour is under this kind of surveillance," says Todkill.

The CPhA says the counselling guidelines are not about money.

But, for the record, when Plan B was switched from a prescription to an over-the-counter drug, pharmacists lost the dispensing fees. Last April when the switch was made, the CPhA issued its "counselling" guidelines - allowing a $20 fee, somewhat similar - call me crazy - to a dispensing fee.

The editors at the Canadian Medical Assocation Journal received interference from the Candian Medical Assocation executive in charge.

Panel to Review Independence of Canadian Medical Journal

However, before the story was published, Hoey (the editor) was told he could not publish it. That message came from Graham Morris, the Canadian Medical Association's executive in charge of publications. Hoey said it was made clear to him that the Canadian Pharmacists Association had complained to the Canadian Medical Association.

:::snip:::

In response, Hoey published a somewhat altered version of the story and also wrote an editorial :::warning PDF link::: describing this attempt at censorship and criticizing the Canadian Medical Association for trying to interfere with the journal's editorial independence. He also requested the outside panel.

After the story was published, the Canadian Pharmacists Association came under fire from privacy officials and withdrew its instructions to pharmacists to collect personal information from women buying the Plan B pill.

So what does the Canadian Pharmacists Association want kept quiet?

"It's an invasion of privacy," she (Abby Lippman, chair of the Canadian Women's Health Network and an epidemiologist at McGill University) says. "Why should we set up a situation where people have to hide or lie? Don't ask — you don't need to know."

A 26-year-old Saskatoon woman who was at risk of pregnancy told CMAJ that she expected her personal information would be kept confidential, "But it wasn't clear to me and I didn't understand the purpose of writing down my name." The woman, who requested anonymity, says she found the overall experience "really intimidating" and potentially a barrier to access.

:::snip:::

BC Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis questions why pharmacists in his province and across the country are recording and storing information about women who ask to buy the pills. "Where is it that pharmacists are getting the mandate in their view for collecting all of that personal information before dispensing the drug?"

The correct position on this issue may be found in summary at The Canadian Women's Health Network.

The right to privacy: Current guidelines for pharmacists require a consultation with a woman before providing ECP. This is, in our view, an unnecessary intervention that interferes with women’s right to privacy. Women should not be treated as patients when there is no evidence of medical necessity. Women and teenagers are able to diagnose their need, understand the labeling and directions, and use ECP safely and effectively without medical intervention. A greater role for pharmacists as health educators is welcome. But it is inappropriate to make counseling mandatory for every woman or girl seeking to purchase ECP.

The need for ECP is a private matter and it must be available in a manner that respects an individual’s privacy to the greatest extent possible. If ECP is only available by consultation with a pharmacist, the purchaser may well find herself having this consultation at a very public prescription counter. While pharmacists are encouraged to provide a private area for consultations, a private room away from the retail area frequently does not exist.

Complete privacy is obviously impossible because of the need to purchase ECP in a public place. However, being able to take a product off the shelf and directly to the checkout counter provides a greater degree of privacy than having a discussion at a prescription counter.

Even greater privacy can be achieved if the consumer has a number of options available for purchasing the product. Imagine a woman or an adolescent girl having to purchase her ECP on a Sunday at the only pharmacy in town open at that time. On arriving at the pharmacy, she discovers that a family friend is working at the cash register. Having another option of where to purchase the medication would greatly enhance her privacy and, therefore, increase the likelihood of her making the purchase and taking the pills within the optimal time frame.