Princeton and Plan B

by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux

There has been a lot of discussion about Princeton and Plan B (a form of emergency contraception) recently, from the Tory‘s lambasting of the Office of Population Research’s site on EC to an article in the Prince titled, simply, “Princeton Plan B.” I have already responded extensively to the Tory article and am definitely not going there again, but it’s taken a few days for me to piece together a response to Prince article, because, like the other aspects of Friday’s issue of the Prince (see Thuy-Lan’s post on “Pleasuring Princeton” and my piece from last week about the sex survey itself), it was so puzzlingly problematic.

The article centers around the stories of several female students whose names have been changed. “Veronica,” who appears throughout the article, had used emergency contraception at least five times during her Princeton career. “Sarah” had used EC twice (like 29.5% of the survey respondents – although I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of these survey results), and another woman, “Maya,” who had purchased Plan B from McCosh. “Veronica’s” story is perhaps the most troubling, however, particularly because of the way that the Prince reporter, Melanie Jearlds, chose to normalize much of what her respondents said.

I’ll say, first of all, that anecdotally, my experiences with McCosh and Plan B have not been good. I didn’t know that McCosh provided subsidized emergency contraception until this fall – and because I’m fairly involved with activism around sexual health and sex-positive issues generally, I’d venture to guess that others don’t know about this service as well. I have never gone to McCosh for EC, but I have talked to friends who have been lectured, told to use condoms (even when in a monogamous relationship and using other forms of birth control), and generally given a hard time. I’ve also had friends who have had pleasant and completely inoffensive experiences with Plan B and McCosh – it seems to depend mostly on the staff who are on duty at the time. I’ll repeat that all of these experiences are anecdotal – but certainly the Prince article depends on anecdotal evidence too, and to take testimony like “I had a friend who had to go to UHS to get [emergency contraception], and she told me that the nurse who asked her questions seemed judgmental and prying in a not nurturing or friendly way” at face value seems journalistically irresponsible at best.

The most problematic part of the article, though, dealt with multiple usages of Plan B, which is really not what the medication is intended for. Although there are no health risks associated with taking EC regularly, it’s just not a very effective form of contraception – it is for emergencies. The comments about “Veronica” on the Prince‘s website are nasty, and I certainly don’t want to engage in any judgment about this particular woman’s actions – but it does strike me as troubling that women on this campus are having sex with partners who expect them to use emergency contraception as their primary form of birth control.

This seems to be the case with “Veronica,” who is quoted as saying: “I think that [the girl and her partner] should at least split the cost. If you don’t wear a condom without the girl’s permission, you need to pay for all of it….Now, I try to use condoms.” Jearlds goes on to explain that most of “Veronica’s” sexual partners do not mind that form of contraception, except for “one partner, who is the ‘Mr. Magic No Condom’ man.”

PAUSE. “Mr. Magic No Condom man”? Jearlds breezes by this line without examining its incredibly problematic undertones – “Veronica” is having sex with someone who refuses to use any form of birth control, and she is simply using EC as a backup? EC does not protect against STIs, and it is not as effective as other forms of birth control (a fact that Jearlds mentions nowhere in the article). By refusing to use birth control, “Veronica’s” partner is putting her at risk for pregnancy and STIs. Is this sexual assault? Regardless of whether “Veronica” defines it as such, I think it would be hard to argue that it’s not. And oh-so-graciously offering to buy the morning-after pill certainly doesn’t change that.

I’m glad, for what it’s worth, that the Prince decided to cover Plan B – if only because not enough people know about its availability at McCosh. But many of the assertions, particularly by the interviewees (“Veronica” says at one point that she has a more serious fear of pregnancy than STIs, because “most are curable” – except for HIV/AIDS and herpes, to name just two, as well as the many STIs that are curable but don’t necessarily show symptoms until they have progressed significantly), are misleading and just plain disturbing. I believe that a quarter of Princeton women have taken Plan B at one point in their lives – I’m one of those women – and it’s a great resource because it can prevent unplanned pregnancy during emergency situations. But normalizing excessive use or the neglection of other forms of birth control is just plain irresponsible. Jearlds didn’t quote experts (despite the fact that Professor Trussell is a leading expert on emergency contraception), and she didn’t talk to a large number of students. Rather, she used anecdotal evidence to make sweeping generalizations about what is normal for students – while ignoring the most troubling parts of the article.

Photo from Florian’s Flickr Photostream.