Should there be a law mandating the offering of the emergency contraceptive pill, aka "morning after pill, to rape victims?
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)
The National Women's Health Information Center (NWHIC) published a "Frequently Asked Questions" document dated Aug. 2006 that described emergency contraception:
"Emergency contraception prevents pregnancy. It works by stopping an egg from being released from the ovary and by stopping an egg from being fertilized, or reached by sperm. Emergency contraception also stops a fertilized egg from attaching, or implanting, itself to the wall of the uterus (or womb). The so-called 'abortion pills' (Mifeprex (mifepristone) also called RU-486) work after a woman becomes pregnant - after a fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the uterus. These pills cause the uterus to expel the egg, ending the pregnancy."
The ACLU stated in an Apr. 4, 2005 press release "Ensuring Access to Emergency Contraception for Rape Victims":
"The 130-page [National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examination ('Protocol')] provides step-by-step medical treatment guidelines for sexual assault patients....
The Protocol should explicitly state that treatment of sexual assault victims must include routine counseling about and offering of emergency contraception. The marked failure to include details about specific pregnancy prevention options is at odds with the Protocol’s expansive treatment of other grave medical concerns a victim faces....
Despite the clear need for sexual assault victims to have access to emergency contraception, hospitals often do not provide this vital service.... [S]urveys have shown that many emergency department personnel lack even basic information about emergency contraception, often confusing it with mifepristone, the early abortion pill, even though emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and does not disrupt an existing pregnancy."
Should there be a law mandating the offering of the emergency contraceptive pill, aka "morning after pill, to rape victims?
PRO (yes)
CON (no)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a Jan. 6, 2005 "Coalition Letter to [the] Department of Justice Regarding Emergency Contraception Protocol," wrote:
"Some [emergency care facilities] allow treating physicians to do no more than write a prescription for the [EC] pills or to refer women to a physician who is willing to write a prescription. Rape victims then face the daunting task — and in some situations the impossibility — of finding a pharmacy willing to fill the prescription or tracking down the physician to whom they’ve been referred....
A woman who has just survived rape is already in crisis and should not have to track down EC on her own. In addition to the emotional burden of having to seek additional medical care, the rape victim would face increased risk of pregnancy because of the delay inherent in having to find a physician to prescribe and a pharmacist to dispense EC."
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated in a paper posted on its website (accessed Feb. 27, 2006) titled, "NJ Legislators Propose Federal Law to Protect Access to Emergency Contraception for Victims of Sexual Assault":
"ACOG urged the Department of Justice to include the routine offering of emergency contraception (EC) in its National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examination. It is estimated that 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant each year as a result of rape or incest. An estimated 22,000 of these pregnancies could be prevented if survivors of sexual assault had timely access to emergency contraception...."
The Rocky Mountain News, in a Mar. 30, 2005 opinion article titled "Contraception Bill Not Constitutional - Governor Should Wield Veto," stated:
"The advocates for a bill requiring hospitals to tell rape victims about emergency contraception are well versed in all the practical reasons why hospitals ought to do this. And we agree; hospitals ought to do this.
But the question [Colorado] House Bill 1042 raises is whether the state should force hospitals to do something that some oppose for moral or religious reasons. That's not a practical question; it's a constitutional one, and we believe the only proper answer is 'no.'...
For those who believe human life begins when an egg is fertilized, preventing implantation is not morally distinguishable from abortion, and therefore it is profoundly wrong to advise people on how to go about doing it.
Sponsors say that standards of medical care should not be compromised for religious reasons. That's a sound principle, but it is not a constitutional principle and it cannot be universally applied without infringing constitutional rights..."
Gene Rudd, MD, Senior Vice President of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, in his 2001 article for the Christian Medical Association (CMA), titled "The 'Morning-After Pill,' Abortion and Informed Consent," wrote:
"What does it mean when 'morning-after pill' advocates assert to congressional leaders, 'Emergency contraception cannot interrupt or disrupt an established pregnancy'? the implication is that post-coital hormones ('emergency contraception' pills) do not cause abortion. Stripped of its semantic bias, however, this claim is patently untrue....
Physicians must recognize that many of our patients hold the conviction that human life begins at fertilization.... Legislators must candidly include such morally relevant information in communicating with their constituents on this issue. Abortion rights activists and other pill promoters must avoid deceptive language that obscures the lethal effects of these drugs on what many believe to be early human life.
The purpose of informed consent is not to protect the personal interpretations of the physician, the rhetoric of the politician or the agenda of the lobbyist, but rather the safety, the rights and the convictions of the patient."
Shelly Hebert, RN, a rape victim treatment specialist, stated in an Apr. 7, 2005 KSLA-TV News article titled "Emergency Contraception Controversy":
"Physicians are governed by their professional groups and how medical care is provided should not be determined by the Department of Justice. It needs to be determined by the health care professionals dealing with the patient."