by Kelly Roache
According to the Wall Street Journal, the United States Department of Defense will make emergency contraception (EC) – also known as the “morning-after pill” – available at all of its clinics and hospitals worldwide. Approved for adult OTC use by the FDA in 2006, Plan B (along with its generic, Next Choice) contains concentrated doses of the hormones found in birth control pills and decreases one’s chance of becoming pregnant. However, given that its efficacy is greatest when administered within 24 hours, access to the drug over-the-counter is imperative; until now, uniformed women abroad have not been guaranteed this availability.
The recommendation comes from an independent advisory body, the Pentagon’s Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, which voted 13-2 in favor of the decision. While the board arrived at a similar decision in 2002, its counsel remained unimplemented under the Bush Administration. This time around, it is certain to reopen the debate over the moral status of EC. Often split across pro-choice/pro-life lines, it is true that EC cannot destroy an existing embryo, but rather only prevent pregnancy in the event of the failure of conventional birth control methods. However, opponents argue that, even if not directly destructive, it prevents otherwise healthy embryos from implanting.
As articulated by Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, a larger issue based in this dispute looms: “A requirement to carry this drug could violate the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections.” In fact, Obama has already rolled back provisions extending the rights of health-care workers to refuse to offer treatments to which they take moral exception. Still, it is critical to draw a distinction between preventing and destroying a pregnancy; while I am still personally formulating an opinion on EC, I believe that those who attempt to assign it the same moral status as abortion cheapen the pro-life argument by conflating these two nuanced concepts.
Nevertheless, harping on the morality of EC will only lead us to the same political stalemate; rather, the take-away from the DoD’s announcement is the broader policy implication. Coupled with his vow to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the President has demonstrated a particular mindfulness towards feminist and gender issues in the military, though these stories have been overshadowed in light of higher-profile debates on health care, the economy, and Afghanistan.
However, these progressive moves are rivaled by equally radical actions from conservative actors. At the opposite end of the spectrum, just months ago, Major General Anthony Cucolo, a respected military commander in Iraq, declared pregnancy amongst soldiers serving abroad an offense punishable by court-marshal; simultaneously, he called for restricted access to contraception, abortion, and EC. The orders were ultimately rescinded, but not before seven soldiers – including both men and women – could be issued letters of reprimand. While the President fights to reassert his political mandate, the effect of tensions between these conservative and liberal elements on the military is a debate worth following.
