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 44 would have mandated that pharmacists inform women seeking emergency contraception that the drug may prevent implantation or fertilization, but did not require pharmacisits to inform her that it can also prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. They would have been required 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 was required to keep these records for two years.
This bill would have placed undue regulations on the provision of nonprescription emergency contraception (EC). HB 44 would have mandated that pharmacists inform women seeking emergency contraception that the drug may prevent implantation or fertilization, but did not require pharmacisits to inform her that it can also prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. They would have been required 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 was 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. For more than two years, nonprescription EC has been available for women 18 years and older, and has been proven to be a safe and effective back-up method to birth control that can prevent an unintended pregnancy by up to 95%. This legislation would have done nothing to improve women's health – it only served to dissuade women from obtaining EC, and thus discourage pharmacies and other health care providers from continuing to sell it. The FDA certainly did not intend such regulations for EC. Additionally, requiring that women sign for EC and that pharmacies keep these records would have essentially created a registry of women who have purchased the contraceptive. This would have been an invasion of women's privacy. Because of these unnecessary barriers, women would have been dissuaded from using EC to prevent possible unintended pregnancies.
Opposed—This bill would have been a huge step backward in the prevention of unintended pregnancies. For more than two years, nonprescription EC has been available for women 18 years and older, and has been proven to be a safe and effective back-up method to birth control that can prevent an unintended pregnancy by up to 95%. This legislation would have done nothing to improve women's health – it only served to dissuade women from obtaining EC, and thus discourage pharmacies and other health care providers from continuing to sell it. The FDA certainly did not intend such regulations for EC.
Additionally, requiring that women sign for EC and that pharmacies keep these records would have essentially created a registry of women who have purchased the contraceptive. This would have been 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: 5/12/2009 - HB 44 was left pending in House Public Health Committee.
Recorded Votes: None.
None.
