Categories
Contraception Hope Reproductive Health

FP2020

  Why are these women smiling?

            What if every woman in the world had access to her choice of safe, effective contraception? So far, this is a dream, but two programs are helping this dream come true.

            In the past, only members of the rich elite had access to family planning (at least among English-speakers). Francis Place in England (1823) and Margaret Sanger in the USA (1916) brought Family planning to disadvantaged people. Sanger is accused of having racist or classist motivation, but Place, a revolutionary thinker, was a commoner. He learned how the rich controlled their fertility and spread that knowledge through a series of pamphlets. Both of these pioneers realized that limiting a couple’s fertility would be likely to improve their well-being.

            The London Summit on Family Planning in 2012 was organized to continue Place’s work, on an international scale. People gathered in London from 120 countries and included doctors, social scientists and financial donors who came up with an international program, Family Planning 2020 (FP2020). In those few years between 2012 and 2020 they hoped to provide 120 million women (and men) with contraceptive information and supplies.

            One of UN2020’s initial concerns was that it not coerce people to use contraception, as happened in China and India. Social scientists drew up rules to try to avoid any semblance of coercion—all motivation had to be strictly voluntary. Thus, there would be no undue incentives nor any quotas. These steps would help ensure that all adaptors of contraception did so without pressure. In the organization’s own words, it “…is a global movement that supports the rights of women and girls to decide—freely and for themselves—whether, when, and how many children they want to have.” It is amazing that FP2020 functioned in some very patriarchal societies in Asia and Africa.

            The governments of more than 30 of the world’s richer countries pledged money to support FP2020. Major funding included the US Agency for International Development, the Gates Foundation and the United Nations Population Fund. Although FP2020 worked in some of the least wealthy countries in the world, each of the 69 countries where they provided care also had to provide some funding.

            The Covid 19 pandemic started just as FP2020 was ending. Despite the risk of spreading the virus, the program found ways to deliver high quality reproductive health care. The program was able to continue its outreach using strict precautions.

            How successful was FP2020? The program fell short of its ambitions goal. The final tally is that it increased the number of modern contraception users by 46 million. Nevertheless, this is a pretty amazing feat! An impressive way of measuring the program’s success is that it doubled the number of users in 13 African countries. The use of modern contraception in these poor countries is estimated to have prevented millions of unsafe abortions and over a hundred thousand maternal deaths. What intervention could be more humane?

            Because populations were growing rapidly where FP2020 worked, the need for family planning increased faster than FP2020 could reach potential users. It is estimated that the number of women of reproductive age grew by 15 million each year! That is the challenge for the program that succeeded FP2020, unsurprisingly labeled “FP2030”. The successor has more local direction and less management from donor countries, and has expanded to 82 countries. Funding is its biggest problem, unfortunately, especially since some funders have reneged on promised donations. FP2030 is directing its focus on adolescent pregnancy. If a woman is empowered by modern family planning when she is young, it is likely that she’ll be a lifelong user.

There is a success story here. The teen pregnancy rate is already dropping globally, thanks to programs such as FP2020 and FP2030.

© Richard Grossman MD, 2024

Categories
Abortion Reproductive Health

Self-Managed Abortion

Image from the Plan C website.

“A safe abortion with pills requires only three things: accurate information, quality medications, and mutual respect and trust.”                  Doctors Without Borders

            In the past there was a sharp division between safe (legal) abortions and unsafe (illegal) abortions. Recently that line has been blurred with Self-Managed Abortions (SMAs).

            Even when abortion was legal all over the USA, there were occasional women who would try to abort a pregnancy outside the medical system. Most commonly they would use herbs or misoprostol, the prescription-only medication that is sometimes available on the black market. Here’s an example:

            June, a 26-year-old woman, went to her doctor who only recommended that she continue her unplanned pregnancy to term. To paraphrase her quote in a study of SMA, “I did some stuff on my own because I didn’t think she would help me get the abortion I wanted.” She took antibiotic pills and ibuprofen after she had a positive pregnancy test, but ended up going to an abortion clinic when her SMA didn’t work.

            Other women in the same small study tried to abort unintended pregnancies using: vitamin C, parsley tea, multiple contraceptive tablets, dong quai, black cohosh, gingerroot and alcohol. Sometimes bleeding started and sometimes it didn’t. Since not all of the women had taken a pregnancy test before trying SMA, it is impossible to know the effectiveness of their attempts to abort. Fortunately, none of the woman had a bad effect from their attempts at SMA. Oil of pennyroyal is known to be an effective abortifacient; however, it has also known to sometimes be fatal for the woman who takes it.

            Fortunately, medication abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol is safe and effective. The combination was approved by the FDA in 2000. As more and more women used this combination it became clear that it is very safe—especially when compared to carrying a pregnancy to term.

            Recently the combination has been approved for “telemedicine”. Contact between a woman with an unintended pregnancy and her healthcare provider can be by electronic means, similar to Zoom. The provider asks questions such as when the woman’s last period was, as well as about her general health. If the person is a candidate for medication abortion, the appropriate pills can then be sent to her, with clear written instructions how they should be taken. The instructions also tell the woman what to expect, and when she should seek emergency care.

            How safe and effective are telemedicine abortions? In a study of over 6000 women who did not visit a clinic in person, they found no difference from women who had face-to-face contact with a healthcare provider. Only 2 of 1000 women had a serious adverse event, and the success rate of causing an abortion was almost 98%. These figures are similar to studies of medication abortion in which patients visited a clinic.

            Telemedicine has reduced the cost to obtain an abortion—the interview can be done from the woman’s home so little time and no travel are required. The pills are shipped by a delivery service or mail, and will arrive in a few days, allowing the woman to choose when to start her abortion. But the real advantage of telemedicine is for people who live in states where this necessary part of healthcare is severely limited or illegal.

            Doctors Without Borders has a series of videos on SMA, available at: https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/how-have-safe-self-managed-abortion. Although DWB mainly works in developing countries, this information also applies to some states in the US. The nonprofit Plan C supports SMA by providing information about access to abortion pills, including their cost.

©Richard Grossman MD, 2024