The Widening Contraception Gap
Americans are being denied a broader choice of contraceptives because of flagging research,dwindling federal funds and fears of litigation, according to an impressive study of birth control by the National Academy of Sciences. The experts concluded their report with persuasive evidence supporting two immediate actions at the federal level: (1) investment of more money in research and (2) revision of liability laws to protect manufacturers that conform to rigorous federal standards.
About half of the 1.5 million abortions performed annually in this country involve pregnancies caused by the failure of contraceptives, according to the study. Obviously, the availability of more effective, longer-lasting contraceptives would be perhaps the best way to reduce abortions.
Only one major American company, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. of Raritan, N.J., is actively engaged in contraceptive research, in contrast to work in the early 1970s by eight major firms. Ortho is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, which gives it a solid financial base. But the research committee chairman noted that Ortho’s continued research could be threatened by repetition of a 1983 suit in which a woman won a $4.75-million judgment on the ground that a birth-control pill made by Ortho caused a rare kidney disease. The researchers concluded that more companies will return to research only if legal protections are provided. There appears to be no alternative, but the protections must be devised to guard consumers as well. The importance of that was shown in the Dalkon Shield case, which resulted in a $2.2-billion trust fund to meet some of the damages to women injured by the device.
Dwindling federal support for research has contributed to the fact that the United States is now decades behind Europe in contraception, the researchers found. There are also obstacles in licensing peculiar to the American market. So it’s reassuring that both the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health have promised a prompt review of the report.
Still, the political climate created by the abortion debate has made the situation more difficult. This new study has already been challenged by some anti-abortion groups that claim it might make easier the introduction of RU 486, the French-made pill that interrupts gestation and can be used as a substitute for surgical abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy. We support the introduction of RU 486 to the United States and regret the delays that have denied Americans this apparently safe and effective option. But it is an issue irrelevant to the basic problem raised by the committee’s proposals for better contraceptives.
As matters now stand, Europeans have access to a broader variety of birth controls. Their options include time-release implants and injectable products that offer long-term protection without the irreversibility of sterilization that many Americans have felt forced to accept. The situation in the United States invites unwanted pregnancies. But it is a situation that can be ameliorated with prompt federal intervention.
