DEL. ROBERT Marshall of the Virginia House of Delegates is attempting to pass one of the most ridiculous bills that has ever been brought up in Virginia. The ludicrous House Bill 1414, shot down yesterday by the Senate Education and Health Committee, would prohibit public universities in the state of Virginia from supplying emergency contraception (a.k.a. the "morning-after pill") to students. Claiming that EC is used as regular contraception in reckless sexual behavior, and that it is no better than abortion, these dogmatic ultra-conservatives are simply lying.
First of all, it is obvious that prohibiting schools from dispersing EC will result in more unwanted pregnancies (and subsequently more abortions). Almost half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and half of unintended pregnancies result in abortions. And seeing how EC decreases unwanted pregnancies, it inherently reduces the number of abortions preformed. So basically, by being for this bill, its crazy proponents are OK with a rise in the number of performed abortions. Just this fact alone should have a majority of pro-life advocates up in arms against HB 1414.
EC has the same ingredients found in regular birth control pills, and thus, scientifically works the same way; according to the FDA, "Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if the woman is pregnant; they act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)." This already throws the ideology of Marshall into question: He is for birth control, but against emergency contraceptives when they both do exactly the same thing. Marshall has even referred to EC as analogous to abortion, when it is not in any way, shape or form. Abortion terminates a pregnancy, while EC, like birth control pills, prevents a pregnancy. Even Virginia's extremist pro-life Attorney General Jerry Kilgore issued a statement declaring that EC cannot be reasonably subject to any abortion laws.
So with that, the proponents of HB 1414 are left to an even weaker argument. Their insolent claim that EC is "used as regular contraception in reckless sexual behavior" is a completely unfounded statement to defend their extremist views. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that "when women have access to EC, they use it responsibly, and don't rely on it as a regular contraceptive method [in fear of putting] themselves at increased risk of unintended pregnancy." Although I have utmost respect for the scientific method, I could have told you that myself: If a girl truly does not want to be pregnant, do you think she would consistently risk it and use EC (which is statistically less effective than birth control pills)?
It is clear why many pro-life advocates are also for emergency contraceptives, so only one question remains: Should they be available in public universities? The answer is clearly yes. First of all, the cost of EC is not subsidized by tax money -- it is covered by the student herself. Secondly EC is 95 percent effective when taken within the first 24 hours of intercourse, and increasingly less effective as time elapses. Ergo, not offering EC at a student health center unnecessarily increases the risk of an unwanted pregnancy by forcing students to spend valuable time finding alternative locations that offer the pill. Finally, one might ask, should this be an over-the-counter-drug in the first place? David A. Grimes, MD, in Obstetrics & Gynecology, puts it best when he says "emergency contraception meets all the customary criteria for over-the-counter use: low toxicity (is safe), no potential for overdose or addiction, no teratogenicity (is not harmful to an existing pregnancy), no need for medical screening, self-identification of the need, uniform dosage and no important drug interactions." Dr. Grimes, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the FDA all agree: EC is not abortion, and should be available over the counter.
By attempting to pass a bill that is completely out of touch with science, mainstream opinion and reality, these avatars of uncompromising, extreme conservatism are bent on denying students the right to be provided family planning assistance (which, under Title 10 of the Social Security Act, has the potential to take away $4 million worth of federal grant money that is specifically allocated in family planning). Using unfounded and outright false statements to justify his bill, Marshall has proven himself to be an irresponsible member of the House, and reasonable voters, whether pro-choice or pro-life, should exercise their power to vote and deliver to Marshall his much-deserved quietus.
Sina Kian is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
