Advertisement
Proposed legislation in the Wisconsin Legislature would ban University of Wisconsin System health clinics from advertising the availability of, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception to students. The measure already has passed the Assembly.
Appleton, a UW-La Crosse sophomore and member of the College Republicans, and a few friends are hoping to start a petition in support of the bill.
They face some stiff opposition on campus: A student petition opposed to the measure drew 1,500 signatures in two days.
“It is the No. 1 item on our plates,” said UW-L Student Association at-large senator Bill Schultz. “Clearly, I’m for birth control. People have sex in college, whether they are married or not. Having obstacles to (obtaining) birth control is preposterous.”
“It’s a slap in the face to women that this (ban) would even be suggested,” agreed sophomore Erin LaVoie, who helped spearhead the opposition petition. “It’s an attempt to roadblock women’s rights.”
Appleton, who is adopted, has a different perspective: Her biological mother was
14 when she was born.
“It’s intimidating to have so many people against this. But I believe I need to stand up for what I believe is right,” Appleton said. “In our society, people are becoming more and more self-centered, thinking of what’s convenient in the here and now if having a child isn’t convenient right now, the child doesn’t deserve to live.”
Ad led to bill
The legislation was prompted after a weeklong advertising campaign by UW-Madison University Health Services in March in the two campus daily newspapers, touting spring break tips for students. Tip No. 1 suggested students “Be Prepared” by carrying emergency contraception, also known as EC, in case of unprotected sex.
“To help you plan ahead, University Health Services can provide a prescription for EC over the phone without an appointment,” the ad text read.
That sentence, said state Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, drove him to introduce Assembly Bill 343.
“It’s a prescription medication that is being handed out to someone who was on the phone. There are not too many doctors who would hand out prescription medication without seeing someone,” he said.
Other lawmakers have said the ad promoted promiscuity. Jacquelyn Jarvis, co-chairwoman of UW-L Progressives, said that implies a double standard.
“They’re saying women are the only ones responsible for promiscuous activity,” she said.
But even some students opposed to the legislation, such as UW-L Progressives members LaVoie and Jill Hayes, concede the ad may have gone too far.
“I can understand his (LeMahieu) frustration,” Hayes said. “But one ad does not represent how most students use the drug.”
State Rep. Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse, said the ad also encouraged students to speak with a health care provider before leaving for spring break.
“It may have been too crass for folks who don’t recall the days of being in college, the sort of footloose and fancy-free attitude some may have,” she said. “But most students are very responsible. He didn’t need to go this far, to ban it.”
A vote ahead?
AB 343 has been in the Senate’s Health, Children, Families, Aging and Long Term Care Committee since June, but Senate sponsor Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, said he considers the bill a priority. The Senate has until May 2006 to pass it.
If called to a vote in the Senate, Sen. Dan Kapanke, R-La Crosse, said he would support AB 343, a statement that frustrates Jarvis and Leah Fochs, a student senator and member of the Campus Democrats.
“As our elected official, I believe he has the responsibility to vote for his constituents,” Fochs said.
Kapanke said many of his 165,000 constituents don’t like the idea of EC being distributed on campus and said there are other places students can turn to for health care. Hayes said campus is more accessible and in some cases is the only health care available to them.
Dr. Brian Allen, director of student health at UW-L, said EC is available for $10 per prescription, but students first have to make an appointment with a nurse.
“We don’t dispense it and say, Here, have it on hand,’” he said. “We think it sends the wrong message. We want people to be responsible.”
Student fears
Even though Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle has said he would veto AB 343 if it’s approved by the Senate, students still have concerns.
Fochs believes the legislation mirrors the national trend to limit women’s access to birth control and abortion. The FDA has been debating whether to sell EC over the counter, pegging its hesitation on questions over how safely it could be used by adolescent women without professional supervision. And Supreme Court nominees have been grilled over their stance on abortion.
Shilling fears the bill’s language is broad and could cover other forms of hormonal contraceptives, although LeMahieu insists the language is specifically worded to address hormonal medication taken after sexual intercourse to prevent pregnancy.
One of the biggest fears for many students is the precedent such a law could set lawmakers dictating how students spend their segregated fees. The student health center is funded by money students pay on each tuition bill: For the 2005-06 academic year, it’s $201.70.
But LeMahieu pointed out those health centers are in buildings paid with tax dollars. “If they want to go out on the sidewalk somewhere, they have a claim,” he said.
At UW-L, Health Services is in the Health Science Consortium building. About $26.8 million in state funds were used to pay for that building; the five consortium members were responsible for paying half that amount.
But students pointed out the staff and supplies like EC are paid for by students. Ron Lostetter, UW-L vice chancellor of administration and finance, said student senators approve the fees, with the chancellor and Board of Regents approving final amounts. He said the choices student senators make tend to be the final amounts distributed.
“If students want to get rid of birth control access, it should be done through student government,” student senator Schultz said.
Is EC abortion?
The emergency contraception debate gets more heated once abortion is raised.
Supporters of Assembly Bill 343 which would ban health services clinics on University of Wisconsin campuses from advertising the availability of, prescribing and dispensing EC said the drug is a form of chemical abortion. Those who oppose the bill insist it’s not.
The Federal Food and Drug Administration explains EC works in three ways: It stops the sperm from being active, prevents ovulation or irritates the wall of the uterus so a fertilized egg can’t attach. In this way, EC is different from the so-called abortion pill RU-486 which triggers a non-surgical abortion.
State Rep. Daniel LeMaheiu, R-Oostburg, who introduced AB 343, has no problems with the first two methods of EC; it’s the third that bothers him. “I consider a fertilized egg life,” he said.
Jacquelyn Jarvis, co-chairwoman of the UW-L Progressives, said EC should not be part of the abortion debate. She pointed out the American Medical Association does not consider EC abortion, but something that prevents pregnancy and avoids abortion.
“I think it is needed on campuses,” said Dr. Brian Allen, director of student health at UW-L. “Sexual assaults occur on campus. ... And even good people make bad decisions sometimes.”
Even in cases of rape, UW-L sophomore Hannah Appleton is against using EC. “Rape is terrible, and my heart goes out to those women,” Appleton said.
“I still don’t think it justifies this.
I think it’s ending a life. Even though the woman is an innocent victim, the baby isn’t at fault, either.”
Kate Schott can be reached at (608) 791-8226 or Kate.Schott@lacrossetribune.com.
