Crossing Political Lines on Contraception

Two recent Post articles referred to policies that divide the country along "red" and "blue" lines, alluding to the infamous map of voting patterns in the past two presidential elections. The March 1 news story "Unintended Pregnancy Linked to State Funding Cuts" and the Feb. 27 front-page story "Plan B Battles Embroil States" suggested that only ideologically liberal states care about preventing unintended pregnancies.

That has not been our experience. Eight states already permit women to obtain emergency contraception directly from a pharmacist without having to go to a doctor or clinic first, and nearly as many have introduced similar bills this year; from those two groups, a total of four are "red" states. Also, 24 organizations in 23 states responded to Pharmacy Access Partnership's recent request for proposals to improve access to emergency contraception in pharmacies at the state level, with most responses coming from "red" states from Colorado to Virginia.

Some states have proposed language to prohibit pharmacists from refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions, and even in states that have introduced or passed bills to allow so-called conscience clauses, several require objecting pharmacists to provide referrals.

Also, in an important about-face, Wal-Mart agreed last week to stock emergency contraception in all of its pharmacies nationwide [Findings, March 4].

Last, a recent Guttmacher Institute study shows that a number of states are making efforts to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy, including efforts to increase access to emergency contraception. The report found that those with the highest rankings -- California, Alaska, South Carolina and Alabama -- are scattered and not just along the "blue" coasts.

BELLE TAYLOR-McGHEE

Oakland, Calif.

The writer is executive director of Pharmacy Access Partnership, which seeks to expand consumer access to reproductive health services in pharmacies and give pharmacies a stronger role in promoting community health.

·

The March 3 editorial "A Challenge to 'Roe'?" said that South Dakota's law "illustrates the extremity of what some antiabortion activists wish to do and the power they wield over the contemporary Republican Party."

A quick review of the South Dakota vote shows that the outcome was never close -- 23 to 12 in the Senate and 50 to 18 in the House. Only four Democratic senators and 11 Democratic representatives opposed the bill. Apparently, the "power" of antiabortion activists is being wielded against the contemporary Democratic Party as well.

GARY D. WAHLERT

Alexandria