More contraception? At what cost?

New protocol allows Colorado pharmacists to prescribe the pill without patients' physician

Therese Aaker

Access to birth control is about to get a whole lot easier for Colorado at the peril of women’s health, according to Catholic healthcare specialists.

After a bipartisan bill passed last year allowing the boards of medicine, nursing and pharmacy, in conjunction with the state health department, to create protocols that address public health needs, the first initiative to roll out will allow pharmacists to prescribe birth control to patients without their physician.

Simply by filling out a questionnaire, doing a blood pressure test and having a 10-15 minute consultation to ensure the patient is not already pregnant or suffering from other health conditions that would make taking the pill unsafe, oral contraceptives can be prescribed.

The protocol will go into effect sometime this spring once pharmacists are trained, according to the Denver Post. Colorado is the third state, after California and Oregon, to pass this initiative.

Dede Chism, executive director of Bella Natural Women’s Care, a healthcare clinic specializing in women’s health and fertility, stated that this protocol goes against “best practice.”

“Bella Natural Women’s Care takes a more natural and healthy approach…we do not prescribe or refer patients for artificial contraception,” Chism said. “One important reason for this is the many physical and emotional side effects that accompany the use of artificial contraception.”

“Contraceptive medications, whether they be oral or any other form, carry with them side effects that can vary from mild to fatal. Our pharmacist colleagues are truly experts in their field, and provide awesome patient education, but their expertise is not in the day-to-day care of a patient and management of their health circumstances,” Chism added.

Catholic pharmacist Valerie Haas agreed that easier access to the pill could prove to be more harmful to women beyond the moral scope.

“I think it’s horrible, moral issues aside,” said pharmacist Valerie Haas. “I’d never want my daughters to get [birth control] from pharmacists. It needs so much screening and monitoring to prevent serious side effects.”

While the protocol requires pharmacists to be trained, Haas is concerned about what that will look like and if the screening process will be enough to prevent complications from the serious side effects that could be potentially avoided with a physician’s monitoring.

“There are so many conditions to identify ahead of time and that need monitoring during use, and patients won’t know what signs to look out for,” Haas said. “Physicians have always been the gateway to assess side effects to make sure they’re using it safely.

“Honestly, I don’t know how pharmacists will have time…to [screen properly],” Haas added. “It could take 30 to 45 minutes to do it properly, and most pharmacists I know barely have time to go to the bathroom.”

Studies have shown that the pill can have serious side effects, and can increase the risk of breast cancer and blood clotting. Haas said that several serious underlying health issues would need serious screening, as contraceptives can complicate or worsen them if undiagnosed or untreated. Some conditions that would need thorough testing and treatment are depression, diabetes, hypertension, bone mineral density, kidney or liver impairment, lupus and endometriosis.

“Endometriosis is another important thing to know, but if it’s not diagnosed, it could be pre-cancerous, and putting more hormones [in your body] could make it worse and lead to potential cancer,” Haas said.

“I would want to be followed fully by a physician who can evaluate all those things in the office…if I had underlying issues that put me at risk. And I don’t know how a pharmacist will be able to comprehensively handle all of that,” Haas continued.

Lynn Grandon, director of the Respect Life office at the Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Denver, agreed that easier access to the pill can have damaging effects on women’s health.

“The more people can easily get it, the more women will see the physical effects of the pill, which are documented,” Grandon said. “I’m interested to see what this training will be for pharmacists.”

Grandon also noted the moral danger of contraception that will continue to damage culture as a result of easier access to the pill.

“It’s not just bad because contraception is bad, but if we look back on what’s happened in our society in the past 50 years, we’ve had serious damage in our own society. All the predictions of Pope Paul VI [in Humanae Vitae, “on human life”] came true, if contraception was introduced,” Grandon said.

According to the Denver Post, pharmacists are not required to participate, including those who have conscience objections, which is great news for Catholic pharmacists. In addition to training, pharmacists will also be required to have liability insurance and inform the patient’s doctor when prescribing birth control. Girls under 18 will not be eligible.

COMING UP: Don’t be fooled: Feminism isn’t really about choice

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

OK, call me crazy. But I the only one who remembers, in my formative years, hearing repeatedly from the feminists that feminism was about freeing us women to make our own choices about our own lives? If we wanted to pursue high powered careers, we should be free to do that. And if we wanted to stay home and raise babies . . . well, that was a valid choice as well. One got the impression that they didn’t understand why any self-respecting woman would make such a choice. But they nevertheless gave some good lip service, sometimes through rather clenched jaws, to our right to choose it.

Well, apparently not so much anymore. Everything I have been reading lately indicates that the facade is gone. Motherhood is out. Careers are in.

That previous incarnation of feminism — the one where women get to make their own choices about their own lives — is now called “Choice Feminism.” And it is so 1995. If you don’t believe me, just google it. I did.

What I found was a whole lot of academic, Marxist-sounding ideology about class and the patriarchy and struggle and some “queer” stuff that I didn’t quite understand. Basically it all boiled down to this: we women may think we are making our own choices. But we aren’t, because our choices are all so influenced by the patriarchy and the oppressive conditions under which we are forced to exist.

So, we should instead choose what they tell us to choose.

At least that’s what it all sounded like to me.

I understand the criticism of “choice feminism” to a certain extent. Many writers spoke out against this idea that any choice a woman makes is somehow a feminist statement. The most-common example I saw was that of the “liberated” stripper who celebrates her stripper-ness as some kind of victory for feminism. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

But, do you know what the second-most common example was? The choice of a mother to stay at home with her kids.

It seems to baffle them that any woman would make such a bizarre sacrifice. It must be because of the patriarchy. Or because child raising is still perceived by our sexist society as “women’s work.” Or because we are still tethered to a ”1950’s male breadwinner model.”

It doesn’t seem to occur to them that it could be because women, having nurtured these tiny little creatures within their own bodies, may actually want to spend their time nurturing and raising them.

The piece de resistance was a widely circulated article in the Australian magazine RendezView, which actually proposes that mothers of school-aged children be forced, under penalty of law, to be “gainfully employed” outside the home. Says Sarrah Le Marquand, somewhat awkwardly, “Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that ‘feminism is about choice’ is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

So, I’m thinking that by “choice” she means “freedom of self-determination”; by “equality”, she means “women being just like men.”; and by “restrictive gender stereotypes”, she means “biological and psychosexual differences that impact our lifestyle choices.”

But the women of the world clearly aren’t voluntarily marching into her brave new world of gender uniformity. And so it is time to employ the long arm of the law. Says she, “. . . it’s time for a serious rethink of this kid-glove approach to women of child-bearing and child-rearing age. Holding us less accountable when it comes to our employment responsibilities is not doing anyone any favours [sic].”

(I have to confess I’m somewhat curious about what will happen to unemployment numbers in Australia when every mother exercises her “employment responsibilities” and enters the workforce. But I digress.)

And so, the mask is off. Feminism was never about allowing women to choose what they want. It is about coercing women to choose what these feminists want them to choose.

It is not not surprising that, in a recent poll, 85% of women responded that they support equality for women, yet only 15% said that they identify as a “feminist.” The movement has moved away from the women it is supposed to represent.

As for me, I don’t want the State, or the Feminist Powers That Be, to issue a list of acceptable choices for women. Particularly when it comes to the often complicated question of whether a mother works or stays at home.

I still subscribe to the apparently antiquated notion that decisions like these are best made by the couple in question.

I know. Call me crazy . . .