Why Planned Parenthood Now Lets Women Order Their Birth Control Online
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 15th, 2014 11:08 pm by HL
Why Planned Parenthood Now Lets Women Order Their Birth Control Online
A pilot program that just launched in Minnesota and Washington could signal the future of reproductive health services.
The post Why Planned Parenthood Now Lets Women Order Their Birth Control Online appeared first on ThinkProgress.
CREDIT: Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood is rolling out a pilot program in Minnesota and Washington that allows women to consult with a health professional online. After having a video consultation, they’ll be able to order birth control that discreetly shows up in an unmarked package at their home.
The new program, called “Planned Parenthood Care,” simply requires women to download a smartphone app or register for an online account. According to the women’s health organization, consultations should last just 15 minutes and cost $45. The whole idea is to give women a more convenient option to access the hormonal contraceptive of their choice, whether it’s the pill, patch, or ring.
“Our patients are between the ages of roughly 18 and 29, so they are millennials, and they are used to being on [the] cutting edge of technology adaptation,” Sarah Stoesz, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, told the Minnesota Star Tribune. “Planned Parenthood is not their mother’s Planned Parenthood. We have really evolved.”
Right now, since women need to visit a doctor’s office in person to obtain a prescription for birth control, they can end up in a tight spot if they can’t get an appointment in time, especially if they live in a rural area. Stoesz told the Tribune that the first woman to take advantage of Planned Parenthood Care ran out of birth control pills and couldn’t see her regular physician soon enough; fortunately, she discovered this new option online. The program’s site points out that it’s “easy and convenient” and “fits into your schedule.”
“So many people struggle to balance work, family, school, and taking care of their health. Whether it’s difficulty in getting an appointment, the distance to a health center, or a busy work schedule — Planned Parenthood knows that the more access patients have to a provider, the more they can get the preventive care they need, when they need it,” Jill Balderson, Planned Parenthood’s vice president of Health Care Innovation, told ThinkProgress via email.
Reproductive health experts have long advocated for removing the birth control prescription requirement to make it easier for women to pick it up. Although oral contraceptives are the most popular form of birth control, many women don’t take their pills as directed because of the inconvenience of needing to make a trip to the doctor whenever they run out. Nearly two thirds of U.S. women say they wish they could buy the pill over the counter.
It seems like there’s political momentum for making that policy change — an increasing number of Republican candidates have been coming out in favor of over-the-counter birth control — but in the meantime, Planned Parenthood wants to help expand women’s access to the health services they need. Although the program currently doesn’t accept insurance, the women’s health group says it’s in talks with insurers to work out a way to make sure patients can use their coverage to pay for the video consultation.
The pilot program is currently focusing on birth control consultations, but will start including online STD counseling next month. Then, treatments for chlamydia and gonorrhea will also be able to be shipped to patients’ doors.
“We’ve gotten great feedback about the program, including requests to expand to other states as quickly as possible,” Balderson said.
Although online health services are becoming increasingly popular, they often run into controversy when it comes to women’s gender-specific health care. Planned Parenthood has also pioneered telemedicine abortion — a method of allowing a doctor to prescribe the abortion pill over video chat for women who live too far away from the nearest clinic — but GOP lawmakers have moved to outlaw it, claiming it’s safer to take the pill in a doctor’s office and they simply want to protect women’s health. It remains to be seen whether Republican politicians will make a similar case against online birth control.
Update
This post has been updated to include additional comments from Planned Parenthood.
The post Why Planned Parenthood Now Lets Women Order Their Birth Control Online appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Rand Paul Changes Views On Foreign Policy Ahead Of Possible 2016 Bid
Rand Paul says he’ll support war in Syria and Iraq.
The post Rand Paul Changes Views On Foreign Policy Ahead Of Possible 2016 Bid appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
CREDIT: AP Photo / Charlie Neibergall
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who led last year’s opposition in Congress to taking military action against President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, assured Fox News on Monday that he would vote in favor of war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) if President Obama brings the question to Congress. “I’m like many Americans I’m very affected and somewhat emotional about the fact that they’re killing our journalists,” Paul said. He added that he would support Congressional authorization for military action but “would try to sunset the provision” after one year.
The remarks underscore the evolution of a politician who critics have described as “isolationist” just a year ago, to one who supports a more muscular foreign policy as he considers a potential presidential bid.
In September of 2013, when Obama announced that he would seek Congressional authorization to surgically strike stockpiles of Syrian chemical weapons, Paul wrote his Congressional colleagues and publicly raised strong concerns about the effectiveness of conducting air campaigns in the region. “I think the war may escalate out of control and then we have to ask ourselves who is on America’s side over there,” Paul said immediately after Obama announced he would hold a Congressional vote on the matter. “If the rebels win, will they be America’s ally?”
And although the threat from Iraq and Syria to U.S. interests has increased as ISIS fighters are taking over the large swaths of land, Paul’s fundamental concerns about whether American military involvement can reduce that threat or further destabilize the region, remain unanswered. Though the first term senator insisted on a thorough Congressional debate surrounding the use of force in 2013, he is now ready to commit to a much larger and sustained military effort without the Congressional oversight he previously championed.
“The problem with foreign policy is that most people thinks the debate begins and ends when they say, ‘our national security is threatened.’ Well, that’s the conclusion; that’s not a debate,” Paul said at an event sponsored by the Charles Koch Institute held at the Library of Congress in early September of 2013. “That’s the beginning of the debate.”
He raised alarm about the dangers of picking allies in the ongoing Syria struggling, saying “we’re not quite clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys or which of the bad guys are the worst of the bad guys.” In an op-ed, Paul asked a series of pointed questions that the administration has yet to answer:
Are the Islamic rebels our allies? Will they defend American interests? Will they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist? Will they impose Shari‘a? Will they tolerate Christians, or will they pillage and destroy ancient Christian churches and people?
The President and his Administration have not provided good answers to any of these questions. Those who seek military action have an obligation to publicly address these concerns before dragging our soldiers into another Middle Eastern war. Shooting first and aiming later has not worked for us in the past, and it should not be our game plan now.
As the United States prepares to expand its air strikes into Syria and begin training Syrian opposition forces, many regional analysts continue to raise similar concerns. They point out that the diverse group of opposition leaders who are “driven by infighting” have no unified leadership and form alliances with the more effective “hard-line Islamists.” Obama himself has previously derided the moderate opposition forces as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth” and military officials have noted that the Iraqi security forces are not yet prepared to take on ISIS. It’s also unclear whether air strikes against ISIS will aid or, as the administration hopes, hurt the Assad regime, who would come into power if it falls from the increasing instability, or how such leaders would treat the state of Israel — a top Paul concern.
“I think the first 10,000 soldiers marching into battle need to be from Iraq, live in Iraq and need to be fighting for their homeland. The second 10,000 need to be from Saudi Arabia,” Paul said on Monday in explaining his support for the president’s plan. Secretary of State John Kerry has been traveling in the region to convince American allies to join the U.S. fight against ISIS, but has yet to announce firm commitments of military assistance from Middle Eastern countries. During an appearance on Face the Nation on Sunday, he temporarily ruled out the very international boots-on-the-ground presence that Paul supports.
“We’re not looking to put troops on the ground,” Kerry said. “There are some [countries] who have offered to do so, but we are not looking for that at this moment anyway.”
Last month, Paul told NBC’s Meet The Press that Americans are “tired of war” and “worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she’s so gung-ho.” Distancing himself from interventionist Democrats and Republicans, Paul predicted, “If you wanna see a transformational election in our country, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you’ll see a transformation like you’ve never seen.” But with the public growing wary of the ISIS threat and almost unanimous Congressional support for action, Paul is ready to abandon his principled concerns and vote for American involvement overseas. If he does, it could make the 2016 presidential election far less divisive.
The post Rand Paul Changes Views On Foreign Policy Ahead Of Possible 2016 Bid appeared first on ThinkProgress.
