Women's Access to Birth Control: Key Controversies

Introduction

Marcia Clemmitt's article "Controversies over Women's Access to Birth Control" reviews different perspectives on the debate surrounding the dispensing of contraception. It begins with the example of a pharmacist who refused to fulfill his professional duty due to moral and religious convictions, viewing birth control as an immoral practice. Clemmitt explores how access to birth control is significant to women and examines reports highlighting the various forms of contraception women use. She also gives voice to those on the opposing side — anti-abortion movements and religious advocates who oppose birth control because they believe it interferes with the process of fertilization and implantation. Contraceptives and other birth control measures act as barriers that prevent fertilization from occurring. Clemmitt further discusses how government and other authorities are working to address this ongoing issue (Clemmitt).

Religious and Ethical Objections to Birth Control Prescriptions

In her article, Marcia Clemmitt's primary focus is on the debate against birth control, which centers on ethical and religious positions. These two reasons are frequently invoked against a person's legal right to a prescription. As people assert their religious rights, they are simultaneously granted legal freedoms. Many doctors and pharmacists refuse to sign birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs, thereby denying customers their right to prescription services. In Clemmitt's article, a pharmacist denied filling a birth control prescription for a college student and also refused to refer her to another pharmacist. Both parties have legal rights: as the pharmacist has a right to his religious beliefs, the student also has a right to her prescription — a right the pharmacist is professionally obligated to facilitate. The pharmacist could not legitimately deny the student access to birth control. In accordance with her rights, she could opt for any of the contraceptives she desired (Clemmitt).

Many religious groups oppose birth control because they believe it amounts to destroying life. Their argument is grounded in the moral and religious conviction that ending a young life is wrong. According to Clemmitt's article, anti-abortion organizations of pharmacists want the law and professional associations to adopt conscience clauses, which would allow pharmacists to refuse to prescribe or even refer customers to other pharmacists. This effectively grants pharmacists the right to deny patients prescriptions on the basis of the pharmacists' own religious beliefs. These organizations hold the view that women can use other measures to prevent pregnancy rather than methods they consider destructive to a fertilized egg (Clemmitt).

Conscience Clauses and Pharmacist Refusals

Clemmitt points out that many teenagers use birth control not only to prevent pregnancy but also to achieve clearer skin, improve hormonal imbalances, or regulate their menstrual cycles. In many cases where pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, they are unaware of the medical reason behind the request. Denying patients such a prescription could therefore cause direct harm. Pharmacists have no justifiable basis to deny these prescriptions because they do not know the underlying reasons why patients need them. According to the article, other forms of contraception — such as Plan B — have proven extremely useful in preventing unplanned pregnancies. Research on publicly funded contraceptive services in the United States reveals that 1.94 million unwanted pregnancies have been prevented through contraceptive use. The fact that women who opt for contraception do not share the religious beliefs of their pharmacists does not give those pharmacists the right to deny women access to these medications, particularly when the pharmacists have no knowledge of the patients' individual circumstances (Clemmitt).

Conclusion

The debate about birth control ultimately centers on personal beliefs and religion rather than on the legal rights of individuals. Based on their religious convictions, pharmacists have refused to prescribe birth control to women without knowing the reasons those women wish to use it. When a pharmacist denies filling a birth control prescription, personal experiences and moral positions should not serve as professional excuses, and individual bias should not factor into a clinical decision. Young people are also denied access to birth control because parents and schools often do not support it. However, young people should not be governed solely by the moral and religious beliefs of parents and guardians; they are better served by access to contraception and comprehensive education.

Women should be the ones to decide whether to use birth control — that decision should not be made for them by others. Making emergency contraception readily available is a practical step toward reducing unwanted pregnancies. While the reasons pharmacists may deny patients access to birth control are understandable on a personal level, pharmacists are not in a position to make that decision on behalf of the patient. The patient alone is entitled to make that choice (Clemmitt).

Work Cited

Clemmitt, Marcia. "Controversies over Women's Access to Birth Control." CQ Researcher 15 (24 June 2005). Rpt. in Women's Health. Ed. Christina Fisanik. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Contemporary Issues Companion. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 February 2013.