Sponsored by: Rep. Frank Corte (R-San Antonio)
Summary: This bill would have placed undue regulations on the provision of nonprescription emergency contraception (EC). HB 23 would have mandated that pharmacists inform women seeking emergency contraception that the drug may prevent implantation or fertilization, but leaves out the fact that it can also prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. They would have had do so both orally and in writing. Additionally, the bill would have required pharmacies to display a foot-and-a-half by two-foot sign by each register in the establishment that reads: "If you believe that life begins at fertilization—the point where the sperm and egg unite—then you need to know that emergency contraception may either function as a contraceptive to prevent the egg and sperm from uniting or prevent the implantation of your already fertilized egg in your womb. The pharmacist dispensing this drug is required to explain to you how the product may help to prevent your pregnancy." The bill would have also mandated that the purchaser show a drivers license, sign and date the purchase, and sign that the aforementioned information was provided. The pharmacy would have been required to keep these records for two years.
"If you believe that life begins at fertilization—the point where the sperm and egg unite—then you need to know that emergency contraception may either function as a contraceptive to prevent the egg and sperm from uniting or prevent the implantation of your already fertilized egg in your womb. The pharmacist dispensing this drug is required to explain to you how the product may help to prevent your pregnancy."
The bill would have also mandated that the purchaser show a drivers license, sign and date the purchase, and sign that the aforementioned information was provided. The pharmacy would have been required to keep these records for two years.
PPNT Position: Opposed —This bill would have been a huge step backward in the prevention of unintended pregnancies. The FDA recently approved EC as a nonprescription drug for women 18 years and older, and this legislation would have defeated the purpose of having EC more readily available. The FDA certainly did not intend such regulations for EC. Additionally, requiring that women sign for EC and that pharmacies keep these records would essentially create a registry of women who have purchased the contraceptive. This is an invasion of women's privacy. Because of these unnecessary barriers, women would have been dissuaded from using EC to prevent possible unintended pregnancies.
Additionally, requiring that women sign for EC and that pharmacies keep these records would essentially create a registry of women who have purchased the contraceptive. This is an invasion of women's privacy. Because of these unnecessary barriers, women would have been dissuaded from using EC to prevent possible unintended pregnancies.
Latest Action: 01/29/2007 - Assigned to the House State Affairs committee.
Recorded Votes: None.
