ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2006
Images of American sexuality in debates over nonprescription access to emergency contraceptive pills.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Would you say you had unprotected sex if ...? Sexual health language in emails to a reproductive health website.Culture, health & sexuality · 2010Article
- Can I get pregnant from oral sex? Sexual health misconceptions in e-mails to a reproductive health website.Contraception · 2009Article
- Medical liability insurance as a barrier to the provision of abortion services in family medicine.American journal of public health · 2008Review
- Adjudicating rights or analyzing interests: ethicists' role in the debate over conscience in clinical practice.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The debate over emergency contraceptive pill access in the United States revolves around speculations about Americans' sexual lives. The recently released internal U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) memo that expresses fears that adolescents will form "sex-based cults" around emergency contraceptive pills echoes arguments made against the nonprescription switch at the 2003 FDA hearings. In these hearings, opponents argued that nonprescription access would lead to adolescent promiscuity and disease transmission and that adult predators would use the drug to facilitate the sexual abuse of young women. In contrast, proponents of expanded access to emergency contraceptive pills overwhelmingly portrayed their model user as a responsible adult who experiences a torn condom during consensual sex. These imaginations of American sexuality are tied to competing models of the role of medical providers in women's sexual decision making. Opponents of the nonprescription switch argued that women need a learned intermediary, not only to determine their need for emergency contraception, but also to educate them about proper sexual behavior and protect them from abuse. Proponents advocated putting more responsibility for sexual health decision making in the hands of women, not doctors, and complained about the moralizing scrutiny of medical providers. In the absence of nonprescription access to emergency contraception, advance prescription of emergency contraceptive pills can ensure that contraceptive education is not tied to a specific sexual act and therefore not perceived as a judgment about women's sexual decisions. However, advance prescription does not help women who lack access to health care or women who make sexual and contraceptive decisions without consulting physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.