This statement has been amended to include additional details and links.
The Guttmacher Institute welcomes this opportunity to address the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) during its 59th session, dedicated to the theme of “population, technology and research in the context of sustainable development.”
As a member of the International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition (ISRRC), we would like to first emphasize that sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) remain central to the realization of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Program of Action and sustainable development more broadly. Current innovations in technology and research have the potential to significantly improve reproductive and bodily autonomy and expand access to SRHR for all, but realizing this potential requires robust scientific data, integration into clinical counseling, sound data governance and regulatory environments that respect human rights.
For example, in recent years we have seen significant growth in the development and use of digital fertility tracking platforms. These platforms are often grounded in “fertility awareness based methods" (or FABMs), a set of practices that can help people identify days in their menstrual cycle when they are most likely to conceive, in order to get pregnant, avoid pregnancy, or monitor other aspects of their reproductive health. If rigorously tested and appropriately regulated, digital fertility trackers could help users monitor important aspects of their reproductive health and expand options for people whose contraceptive needs and preferences align with FABMs. In recent work, Guttmacher has advocated for the adoption of rights-based, person-centered measurements of contraceptive need, rooted in the premise that people’s preferences should be at the center of how we measure and assess contraceptive service provision.
However, alongside the development of these digital tools we are witnessing a concerted effort, led by anti-SRHR and anti-rights groups, to harmfully politicize these methods. This includes spreading partial or inaccurate information about their effectiveness, pushing for funding cuts and restrictions on other contraceptive methods, and aiming to restrict people’s access to essential sexual and reproductive health care. These same groups are using attacks on evidence-based SRHR policies and interventions as a stepping stone to undermine public trust in science and scientific research more broadly, including on vaccines and treatments for certain diseases.
Let us be clear: the politicization of health interventions is detrimental to population well-being; it threatens rights and puts lives at risk. In order to fully achieve the vision of the ICPD, health policies must be firmly rooted in robust scientific evidence. This is no different for digital contraceptive tools, which must be developed within a broader framework that prioritizes access to accurate and comprehensive SRH information, person-centered counseling, and a variety of contraceptive methods, in addition to a well-functioning regulatory system for data collection and governance. In an era marked by rapid digital transformation, defending an evidence-driven, person-centered vision of reproductive health care—particularly in the space of digital health—is more urgent than ever.