Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
News Release
September 9, 2014

Fully Informed Patient Choice and Consent Have to Be Central to Expanding Access to Highly Effective Contraceptive Methods

Expanding LARC Access Must Not Cross Fine Line Between Encouraging Use and Unduly Steering Method Choice

Also in this issue of Guttmacher Policy Review:

"More than a Pack of Pills: The Many Components and Health Benefits of Quality Family Planning," by Kinsey Hasstedt

" What Is Behind the Declines in Teen Pregnancy Rates?," by Heather Boonstra

" Looking Back While Moving Forward: Marking 20 Years Since the International Conference on Population and Development," Sneha Barot

As reproductive health advocates and providers work to improve access to highly effective long-acting, reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods like the IUD and hormonal implant, it is important to be vigilant that such efforts—at all times—respect women’s and couples’ ability to make childbearing decisions freely and for themselves, according to a new Guttmacher analysis. This is especially important given the historical context of coercive practices related to contraception, which most often targeted disadvantaged groups.

"Highly effective LARC methods have the potential to significantly reduce unintended pregnancy in the United States, and reproductive health providers and advocates have made tremendous efforts to make these methods available to women who want and need them," says Rachel Benson Gold, author of the new analysis. "At the same time, it’s crucial that such efforts walk the fine line between leveling the playing field for LARC methods and tilting it in a way that could be unduly directive."

Gold’s analysis traces the history of coercive practices related to contraception in the United States, especially those targeting disadvantaged groups. These practices fall along a spectrum, according to Gold, ranging from extreme, overt and intentional instances of involuntary sterilization to more subtle attempts to influence women’s contraceptive decision making by providing financial incentives. One troubling example is the experience with the contraceptive implant Norplant in the 1990s, when state legislatures attempted to make welfare payments contingent on poor women agreeing to use the method and judges made implant insertion a condition for a reduced sentence.

"Understanding and acknowledging this dark history—some of which is all too recent—is important in today’s conversations about helping women avoid unintended pregnancy by facilitating the use of LARC methods and, more broadly, in any discussions about individuals’ contraceptive options," says Gold. "Health care providers have to ensure that their patients’ choices are fully informed and completely voluntary and that they are empowered to choose freely from the range of contraceptive options, including highly effective LARC methods."

The analysis also discusses strong safeguards already in place to prevent coercion, such as those in Medicaid and the federal Title X family planning program. Although these safeguards have been instrumental in stemming the worst of the abuse, they must constantly be reexamined to ensure that they are not having the unintended effect of impeding individuals’ access to care they clearly want.

Read the full article: "Guarding Against Coercion While Ensuring Access: A Delicate Balance," by Rachel Benson Gold

Printer-friendly version

Share

Read More

Policy Analysis

Governmental Coercion in Reproductive Decision Making: See It Both Ways

Guttmacher Policy Review
Policy Analysis

State Abortion Counseling Policies and the Fundamental Principles of Informed Consent

Guttmacher Policy Review

Media Contact

  • Rebecca Wind

    Guttmacher Institute
    212 248 1953
    media@guttmacher.org

Topic

United States

  • Contraception

Region

  • Northern America: United States
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.