Archives
Latebreakers

Don’t Abstain from Your Role in Abstinence

Teens births declining but geographic ‘hotspots’ defy trend

Online Medical Abortion Service Effective and Safe

Do Women Really Need to Wait That Long?

Reassuring news on depression and OC use

PMDD: Genetic clues may lead to improved treatment

Breast cancer risk when there is a family history

Body weight link to breast and endometrial cancers (and 11 others)

Family Planning in 2017 and Beyond

Make Me Cry: Depression Link (Again)?

Managing implant users’ bleeding and spotting

Zika: Updated guidance for providers

Pharmacist-prescribed contraceptives

Hot off the press! 2016 MEC and SPR

Zika virus fears prompt increased request for abortion in nations outlawing abortions

Opioid use epidemic among reproductive-age women

Good news on the family planning home front!

War Against Planned Parenthood Hurts Women

Win-win for both treatment and prevention

Center of the Storm

Ambivalence

Menopause, mood, mental acuity, and hormone therapy

Emergency contraception for teens

Postpartum Contraception: Now, Not Later

Reproductive tract infections, sexually transmitted infections, or sexually transmitted diseases: “a rose by any other name…”

Are we practicing what we preach?

Be alert to VTE in hormonal contraceptive users

LARC among teens increased 15-fold, but not enough

Brain cancer and hormonal contraception

Free tools: Easy access to the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use

Alcohol consumption when pregnancy is unwanted or unintended

Latest Data on Contraceptive Use in the United States

LateBreaker sampler from Contraceptive Technology conference

Emergency Contraceptive Pill Efficacy and BMI/Body Weight

Handout on Unintended Pregnancy and Contraceptive Choice

Ask About Withdrawal (Really!)

Rules to Practice By: Safety First and Cleanliness is Close to. . .

What’s Vanity Fair Got Against the NuvaRing?

Promising New Treatment for Hepatitis C

Numbers matter, so make them simple for patients

The Recession’s Effect on Unintended Pregnancies

Lessons Learned from the Contraceptive CHOICE Project: The Hull LARC Initiative

Applying the “New” Cervical Cytology Guidelines in Your Practice

Acute Excessive Uterine Bleeding: New Management Strategies

Medical indications for IUD use in teens

Whatever happened to PID?

Update on Emergency Contraception

Contraceptivetechnology.com New and Improved

War Against Planned Parenthood Hurts Women
April 2016

 

It’s 2016, yet in the United States today, reproductive health care is being censured by State lawmakers and governors. Planned Parenthood is victim to forces that want to diminish it. The resulting fallout from reduced access to reproductive health services hurts women’s health, especially the health of poor women. A recent analysis showed that de-funding Planned Parenthood clinics was associated with a drop in number of claims for LARC methods with a corresponding increase in the number of births.

In the summer of 2015, fraudulent videos meant to destroy and indict Planned Parenthood suggested that the organization illegally sold fetal tissue. Although soon discredited, the videos nonetheless spurred federal and state lawmakers to strangle funding for the often-beleaguered clinics that have so well served women. Since July, 23 states passed bills to drastically cut federal funding; 11 have so far done so.[1] What might be the consequence of curtailing services for millions of women, especially for indigent women who have few if any other options?

A recent study in Texas may offer insight on how negatively impactful those consequences may be. In 2013, Texas excluded all Planned Parenthood affiliates from its statewide fee-for-service family planning program. Claims data between 2011 and 2013 showed 35.5% fewer claims were made in the state for LARC methods.[2] The percentage of women returning on time for subsequent injectable contraception dropped from 56.9% to 37.7%. In counties affected by the funding cuts to Planned Parenthood affiliates, the rate of Medicaid-covered childbirth increased 27.1% within 18 months. These significant adverse changes occurred above and beyond any changes that resulted earlier from an 2011 action by Texas to cut Title V and Title XX funding, resulting in the closing of 82 family-planning clinics; one-third were Planned Parenthood affiliates.

“These findings have implications regarding the likely consequences of proposals to exclude Planned Parenthood affiliates from public funding in other states or at the national level,” write the study authors, who are with the University of Texas and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

In an earlier analysis, The Guttmacher Institute noted that Planned Parenthood was the sole safety-net providers in some areas, and in those areas with other providers, Planned Parenthood served far more contraceptive clients.[3]

It is more than contraceptive care that could be adversely affected, too. In Indiana, Planned Parenthood was Scott County’s only HIV testing center. After its 2013 closure, an HIV outbreak quickly followed.1 Further limiting reproductive health services, Indiana just signed a bill that bans abortions for fetal abnormalities and makes doctors performing abortions in those cases legally liable.1

 Deborah Kowal, MA, PA. Executive editorof Contraceptive Technology


[1] The state assault on women’s health. Op-Ed. New York Times, March 28, 2016.

[2] Stevenson AJ, Flores-Vazuez IM, Allgeyer RL, Schenkkan P, Potter JE. Effect of removal of Planned Parenthood from the Texas Women’s Health Program. N Engl J Med 2016;374:853-60

[3] Frost JJ, Hasstedt K. Quantifying Planned Parenthood’s crtical role in meeting th need for publicly supported contraceptive care. News in context. Guttmacher Institute website, Sept. 8, 2015.