banner
Health Team

Women's health docs say Trump ignores birth control science

Posted 12:46 p.m. Wednesday
Updated 2:25 p.m. Thursday

FILE - In this Aug. 26, 2016, file photo, a one-month dosage of hormonal birth control pills is displayed in Sacramento, Calif. The Trump administration’s new birth control rule is raising questions among some doctors and researchers. They say it overlooks known benefits of contraception while selectively citing data that raise doubts about effectiveness and safety. Recently issued rules allow more employers to opt out of covering birth control as a preventive benefit for women under former President Barack Obama’s health care law.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

— The Trump administration's new birth control rule is raising questions among some women's health experts, who say it overlooks known benefits of contraception while selectively citing data that raise doubts about effectiveness and safety.

"This rule is listing things that are not scientifically validated, and in some cases things that are wrong, to try to justify a decision that is not in the best interests of women and society," said Dr. Hal Lawrence, CEO of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents women's health specialists.

Two recently issued rules — one addressing religious objections and the other, moral objections — allow more employers to opt out of covering birth control as a free preventive benefit for women under the Obama health care law. Although the regulations ultimately concern matters of conscience and religious teaching, they also dive into medical research and scholarly studies on birth control.

It's on the science that the Trump administration is being challenged. Doctors and researchers say the administration ignored studies that didn't support its conclusions and stretched others.

"The interpretation is very selective in terms of the science that they use," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "You can make an argument that you don't agree because of your religious or moral objections, but that is a different discussion."

In a statement, Health and Human Services Department spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley responded to critics, saying: "The rules are focused on guaranteeing religious freedom and conscience protections for those Americans who have a religious or moral objection to providing certain services based on their sincerely held beliefs."

The administration also says some parts of the rules are meant to illustrate the sorts of concerns that religious objectors may have, and don't necessarily reflect government policy.

Here's a look at examples from the Trump birth control rules that are raising questions:

THE MORNING-AFTER PILL

Emergency contraception is birth control for use after unprotected sex, often called the "morning-after pill."

Referring to the morning-after pill as well as intrauterine devices or IUDs, the regulations state that the Food and Drug Administration "includes in the category of 'contraceptives' certain drugs and devices that may not only prevent conception (fertilization), but also may prevent implantation of an embryo."

Because of that, "many persons and organizations" believe emergency contraception methods cause "early abortion," the regulations add.

But Princeton researcher James Trussell said that while studies years ago suggested the morning-after pill might affect the lining of a woman's uterus and interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg, more recent studies have not found such an effect.

"The preponderance of the evidence, and certainly the most recent evidence, is that there is no post-fertilization effect," said Trussell.

That's not reflected in the administration's rule.

"The actual medical evidence is that it blocks ovulation," or the release of an egg from the ovaries, explained Lawrence, the ob-gyn. "If you don't ovulate, there is no egg to get fertilized. It's not blocking implantation."

EFFECTIVENESS OF BIRTH CONTROL

The Trump administration takes issue with the science behind the Obama-era decision to require most employers to cover birth control as preventive care.

It suggests that some studies the Obama administration relied on did not show a direct cause-and-effect link between increased birth control use and a decline in unintended pregnancy.

But Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute said solid research does in fact exist. His organization's work on reproductive health is cited by opposing sides in the political debate.

For example, Sonfield cited a Guttmacher report which found that women who used birth control consistently year-round accounted for only 5 percent of unintended pregnancies in 2008.

"The vast majority of women use birth control at some point in their lives," said Sonfield. "As a medical service, it's far more universal than almost anything covered by insurance."

George Washington University public health professor Susan Wood, a former women's health chief for the FDA, said there's very clear clinical data that contraception prevents pregnancy. Why else would the FDA approve birth control pills?

"They are just using this as a smoke screen," Wood said of the administration. "They are picking out things that they like, and leaving out (studies) that support access to contraception."

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

The Trump administration's rule suggests there may be a link between birth control and promiscuity.

It cites a study finding that between 1960 and 1990, "as contraceptive use increased, teen sexual activity outside of marriage likewise increased."

Lawrence, the ob-gyn, said that's a stretch. Many factors influenced the 1960s, among them changing social mores about sex before marriage. Also, many people relied on less-effective condoms, diaphragms and spermicides.

"The world of birth control in 2018 is about as similar to the world of birth control in 1960 as a Ralph Nader Chevy Corvair is to a space shuttle," he said.

8 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Jackie Strouble Oct 11, 11:36 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    And why are colon & breast cancer screenings free but not lung, prostate or pancreatic cancer screenings?
    Because the number crunchers got together and sifted through vast amounts of data and discovered that breast & colon cancers kill way more Americans than all other cancers combined, yet are the most treatable with early detection and therefore free early screenings would give us the most bang for the buck.
    Same with all the other preventive services. It's medicine by demographics and it's far from perfect. There are winners and losers. There is a certain amount of social bias (alcohol and tobacco addiction are addressed but not meth or heroin) and there are powerful lobby groups that influence decisions.
    But it's a start. It's a good faith effort to base decisions and spending on sound science. Personally, I think if we move to single-payer things would be more balanced and fair. At least, I hope so!

  • Chris Perdue Oct 11, 4:54 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Then why shouldn't procedures such as stents that prevent heart attacks be covered as preventive and at no cost to the consumer? Seems like the same argument could be made.

  • Jackie Strouble Oct 11, 2:06 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Because, under the ACA, birth control is not considered a drug, but is listed among the 66 no-cost preventative services - just like immunizations and cancer screenings.
    Although the picture posted with this story shows "the Pill," this is misleading. The ACA mandate is designed to allow and encourage couples to take advantage of more long-term and highly-effective solutions such as implants, IUDs or sterilization. These methods are far and away the best and most cost-effective over the long run, but they carry higher up-front costs which means that they are out of reach for many and underutilized by all.
    The Pill is still available for birth control and for treatment of medical conditions, but the emphasis going forward will be on some form of implant or procedure, not oral drugs. The science says that the cost savings to our entire society will be well worth it.

  • Chris Perdue Oct 11, 10:02 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    But you did not address the question--why should it be free and other meds are not?

  • Betsy Sparks Oct 11, 9:33 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    The insurance companies also don't eat the cost of labor, delivery, and medical care for the children born because no birth control was used. IUDs, while expensive, have less than a 1% failure rate, while condoms have an 18% failure rate. IUDs are far less expensive than the costs associated with childbirth and subsequent medical costs.

    And 14% of pill users are not taking it for contraception - they're taking it for other health issues. How will they have access to the medicine they need? And would it be violating HIPAA privacy laws to force them to disclose the medical condition that requires taking the pill?

    And for anyone suggesting a woman just keep her knees locked - do you really think married couples should never have sex again if they don't want another child?

  • Chris Perdue Oct 11, 8:42 a.m.
    user avatar

    I don't see the correlation between science and free birth control. BTW it is not free--just b/c the end user is not paying for it, don't think the insurance company is eating the cost--everything that does not require a copay increases the premium for insurance, so you are still paying. If birth control is free, why not Losartan for high BP, Metformin for Diebetes, or Simvastatin for high cholesterol? Because then you could not frame it as a war on women for political purposes.

  • Catherine Edwards Oct 11, 7:56 a.m.
    user avatar

    I think the people who flunked science and math go into politics.

  • Steve McToots Oct 11, 7:47 a.m.
    user avatar

    And this news, since when did trump and his supports ever consider science, facts, logic, and reality?