HIV Crosses the Gender Divide

Molly M. Ginty

HIV, once only the scourge of gay men in major cities, is killing women in small towns and suburbia. Since 1988, why has HIV infection quadrupled among females, the fastest-growing group of new patients?

A 73-year-old grandmother in Kansas City, Kansas.

A 16-year-old Bronx girl living in a foster home.

A mother in Virginia, infected at 19 by a rapist and fighting years later to protect her daughter from her devastating disease.

Now that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that leads to
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome disease (AIDS) has crossed the
gender divide, these are the faces of AIDS in America.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

HIV/AIDS
is spreading rapid-fire among women—especially senior women and those
of color. Striking a new female every 20 seconds, it’s the leading
cause of death among black women ages 25 to 34 and plagues a total
260,000 women in the United States.

Why is this
incurable disease, once the scourge of gay men in major cities, killing
women in small towns and suburbia? Since 1988, why has HIV quadrupled
among females, who are the fastest-growing group of new patients and
account for a quarter of new infections?

“This pandemic is about biological differences—and about political inequities,” says Dázon Dixon Diallo, president of SisterLove,
an Atlanta-based health advocacy organization for women at risk of HIV
infection. “Women’s social status is not a backdrop for HIV’s spread,
but is instead its undergirding cause.”

The Easiest Targets

From the moment a woman first encounters HIV, the odds are stacked against her.

HIV is transmitted from men to women much more readily than it is
from women to men, making females especially vulnerable during the
heterosexual contact that accounts for 80 percent of their infections.
An HIV-infected woman with half the amount of the virus circulating in
her bloodstream as an infected man will progress to a diagnosis of AIDS
in about the same time, reports the Rockville, Md.-based National
Institute on Drug Abuse.

In both genders, HIV
hijacks the immune system, swelling the lymph nodes, devouring fat
stores and causing joint pain, fatigue and nausea. In women, however,
it triggers more secondary complications such as pneumonia, rashes,
liver problems, yeast infections, and susceptibility to other
sexually-transmitted infections (STIs).

Like
these physiological differences, women’s socioeconomic status boosts
their risk. A woman earns 76 cents for every dollar a man earns,
reports the Washington-based Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
Women are 50 percent more likely than men to forgo medical screenings
because they can’t afford them, notes the Kaiser Family Foundation in
Menlo Park, California.

These inequities are
especially pressing when it comes to senior women and women of color.
While 7 percent of all women live in poverty, 13 percent of women over
age 65, 25 percent of African-American women and 20 percent Latinas do
so, reports the U.S. Census.

With race, age,
money and health care intertwined as they are in the U.S., Hispanic
women are five times more likely to contract it than white women;
African American women are 23 times more likely to do so; and HIV has
spiked 50 percent among senior women in the last decade

Making Love in the Dark

Like biology and money, mass ignorance of HIV’s threat puts women in its direct line of fire.

Less than a third of American women discuss HIV with their spouse or partner, according to the New York-based American Foundation for AIDS Research.

Sixty-five
percent of men who have sex with men also have sex with women, reports
the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Many
women believe they’re in monogamous relationships with such men—or with
men who are also having sex with other women,” says Dixon Diallo of
SisterLove. “They don’t take steps to protect themselves because they
don’t even know they’re at high risk.”

Sometimes
women try to protect themselves, but are ignorant of how to do so
correctly. “I know an HIV patient who thought she was being careful but
contracted the disease using a lambskin condom,” says Terri Wilder, a
columnist for the HIV/AIDS web resource TheBody.com. “No one ever told her these condoms are porous and don’t protect against this virus.”

During
sex, only using latex condoms, dental dams, and taking care not to
exchange blood or semen can prevent HIV transmission: facts not taught
in abstinence-only sex ed programs prevailing in U.S. schools. Thanks
to President Bush’s tripling of abstinence-only sex ed funding,
students absorb HIV teachings that a Congressional report found “false
or misleading” 85 percent of the time.

Like the
failure of sex education, the shortcomings of the U.S. health care
system also keep women in the dark. Doctors are not required to take
special training in HIV/AIDS medicine, and HIV screening is not a
routine part of women’s health care—even though amfAR surveys show 67
percent of women mistakenly assume they’re tested when they are
screened for other STIs.

“My doctor never thought
to discuss HIV with me because I didn’t fit the stereotype of someone
at risk,” says 73-year-old Jane Fowler, who was infected on a date at
age 50 and now runs the Kansas City-based HIV Wisdom
for Older Women. “I didn’t use condoms because I was post-menopausal
and from a generation that thought condoms were just for birth control.
If I hadn’t taken a blood test required to get a new health insurance
policy, I would never have known I was positive.”

Since
so few women and so few doctors are effectively guarding against
HIV/AIDs, an estimated 25 percent of HIV-positive American women don’t
even realize they’re infected

A Blind Eye

Just as mass ignorance has fueled HIV infection among women, authorities’ indifference is allowing its continued spread.

Studies
crushed hopes that diaphragms and the spermicide nonoxynol-9 could
protect women against HIV/AIDS and a vaccine lies more than ten years
in the future. Women’s health advocates are now battling to develop
microbicides: colorless topical products that prevent HIV from
infecting a woman’s cells and give her more control over prevention
than condoms do.

To date, the Bethesda-based National Institutes of Heath has devoted only 2 percent of its AIDS budget to microbicide research.

“This funding amounts to little more than peanuts,” says Anna Forbes, deputy director of the Washington-based Global Campaign for Microbicides. “Authorities
don’t perceive these products as big money-makers. And they don’t
perceive them as important. They don’t realize that if you’re a victim
of domestic violence, which half of HIV positive women are, asking your
partner to use a condom can get you a fist in your face.”

Women
account for 27 percent of HIV infections, but they account for only 17
percent of HIV/AIDS study subjects. Although women’s health needs are
just as pressing as those of men, research shows female patients are
less likely than their male counterparts to receive the most effective
drugs: protease inhibitors and newer medications called antiretroviral
drugs. A UCLA study conducted in 2007 found women were less likely to
receive life-saving medications called “highly active antiretroviral
therapy” (HAART). In the concluding words of their study, researchers
underscored the need for “policies that reduce the income and education
inequalities on health care and that narrow gender disparities.”

A Call for Change

While
they can feel frustrated by the challenges facing HIV-positive women,
health advocates are taking heart in some victories achieved so far.
Thanks to new “rapid” blood and saliva tests, diagnosis that once took
two weeks now takes 20 minutes. And thanks to new drugs, HIV is no
longer the death sentence it was when the first American woman was
diagnosed with it in 1982.

Last year, Congress
approved $600 million in HIV/AIDS funding (via the Ryan White
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act) and ramped up support for
the largest women’s HIV/AIDS research project to date (the Women’s
Interagency HIV Study).

Even so, the strongest
push to help HIV-positive women may be at the grassroots level, where
many women leading this charge are HIV-positive themselves. From her
home in Charlottesville and office in Atlanta, Dawn Averitt Bridge (the
mother infected by a rapist at age 19) oversees an educational resource
call the Well Project. In Miami, Sheri Kaplan counsels other young women at The Center for Positive Connections.

And
in Baltimore, Marilyn Burnett is involved in a flurry of initiatives.
“Women with HIV are giving talks at community centers and churches and
sending vans into the streets to do on-site AIDS testing,” says
Burnett. “We’re running discussion groups, creating advocacy programs,
and organizing conferences.”

Activists are
fighting to offer infected women better treatment—and to free them from
stigma. Surveys by amfAR show HIV-positive women face more prejudice
than male patients, often concealing their diagnoses so others won’t
avoid them or judge them as promiscuous or immoral. One recent amfAR
report found that 20 percent of Americans would not be comfortable
having an HIV-positive woman as a close friend, 59 percent would not be
comfortable having her as a childcare provider, and 14 percent would
not support her decision to have children of her own.

Health
advocates are lobbying Congress to pass the Microbicide Development Act
(which would boost funding and preserve a microbicide branch at the
National Institutes of Health) and to include funding for HIV
initiatives in the next revision of the Violence Against Women Act,
which supports programs for domestic violence survivors.

Activists
say these and other initiatives will succeed best on one condition: if
we right the balance of power so women have political clout, economic
muscle and better medical care.

“When it comes
to HIV, the real crux of women’s risk is not the virus itself,” says
Forbes. “The real problem is the gender, social and economic inequality
that we must all fight to overcome.”

This article first appeared in On the Issues Magazine, a feminist, progressive magazine newly launched as an Internet publication.

Roundups Sexual Health

This Week in Sex: The Sexually Transmitted Infections Edition

Martha Kempner

A new Zika case suggests the virus can be transmitted from an infected woman to a male partner. And, in other news, HPV-related cancers are on the rise, and an experimental chlamydia vaccine shows signs of promise.

This Week in Sex is a weekly summary of news and research related to sexual behavior, sexuality education, contraception, STIs, and more.

Zika May Have Been Sexually Transmitted From a Woman to Her Male Partner

A new case suggests that males may be infected with the Zika virus through unprotected sex with female partners. Researchers have known for a while that men can infect their partners through penetrative sexual intercourse, but this is the first suspected case of sexual transmission from a woman.

The case involves a New York City woman who is in her early 20s and traveled to a country with high rates of the mosquito-borne virus (her name and the specific country where she traveled have not been released). The woman, who experienced stomach cramps and a headache while waiting for her flight back to New York, reported one act of sexual intercourse without a condom the day she returned from her trip. The following day, her symptoms became worse and included fever, fatigue, a rash, and tingling in her hands and feet. Two days later, she visited her primary-care provider and tests confirmed she had the Zika virus.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

A few days after that (seven days after intercourse), her male partner, also in his 20s, began feeling similar symptoms. He had a rash, a fever, and also conjunctivitis (pink eye). He, too, was diagnosed with Zika. After meeting with him, public health officials in the New York City confirmed that he had not traveled out of the country nor had he been recently bit by a mosquito. This leaves sexual transmission from his partner as the most likely cause of his infection, though further tests are being done.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s recommendations for preventing Zika have been based on the assumption that virus was spread from a male to a receptive partner. Therefore the recommendations had been that pregnant women whose male partners had traveled or lived in a place where Zika virus is spreading use condoms or abstain from sex during the pregnancy. For those couples for whom pregnancy is not an issue, the CDC recommended that men who had traveled to countries with Zika outbreaks and had symptoms of the virus, use condoms or abstain from sex for six months after their trip. It also suggested that men who traveled but don’t have symptoms use condoms for at least eight weeks.

Based on this case—the first to suggest female-to-male transmission—the CDC may extend these recommendations to couples in which a female traveled to a country with an outbreak.

More Signs of Gonorrhea’s Growing Antibiotic Resistance

Last week, the CDC released new data on gonorrhea and warned once again that the bacteria that causes this common sexually transmitted infection (STI) is becoming resistant to the antibiotics used to treat it.

There are about 350,000 cases of gonorrhea reported each year, but it is estimated that 800,000 cases really occur with many going undiagnosed and untreated. Once easily treatable with antibiotics, the bacteria Neisseria gonorrhoeae has steadily gained resistance to whole classes of antibiotics over the decades. By the 1980s, penicillin no longer worked to treat it, and in 2007 the CDC stopped recommending the use of fluoroquinolones. Now, cephalosporins are the only class of drugs that work. The recommended treatment involves a combination of ceftriaxone (an injectable cephalosporin) and azithromycin (an oral antibiotic).

Unfortunately, the data released last week—which comes from analysis of more than 5,000 samples of gonorrhea (called isolates) collected from STI clinics across the country—shows that the bacteria is developing resistance to these drugs as well. In fact, the percentage of gonorrhea isolates with decreased susceptibility to azithromycin increased more than 300 percent between 2013 and 2014 (from 0.6 percent to 2.5 percent).

Though no cases of treatment failure has been reported in the United States, this is a troubling sign of what may be coming. Dr. Gail Bolan, director of CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, said in a press release: “It is unclear how long the combination therapy of azithromycin and ceftriaxone will be effective if the increases in resistance persists. We need to push forward on multiple fronts to ensure we can continue offering successful treatment to those who need it.”

HPV-Related Cancers Up Despite Vaccine 

The CDC also released new data this month showing an increase in HPV-associated cancers between 2008 and 2012 compared with the previous five-year period. HPV or human papillomavirus is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection. In fact, HPV is so common that the CDC believes most sexually active adults will get it at some point in their lives. Many cases of HPV clear spontaneously with no medical intervention, but certain types of the virus cause cancer of the cervix, vulva, penis, anus, mouth, and neck.

The CDC’s new data suggests that an average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed each year between 2008 and 2012. This is a 17 percent increase from about 33,000 each year between 2004 and 2008. This is a particularly unfortunate trend given that the newest available vaccine—Gardasil 9—can prevent the types of HPV most often linked to cancer. In fact, researchers estimated that the majority of cancers found in the recent data (about 28,000 each year) were caused by types of the virus that could be prevented by the vaccine.

Unfortunately, as Rewire has reported, the vaccine is often mired in controversy and far fewer young people have received it than get most other recommended vaccines. In 2014, only 40 percent of girls and 22 percent of boys ages 13 to 17 had received all three recommended doses of the vaccine. In comparison, nearly 80 percent of young people in this age group had received the vaccine that protects against meningitis.

In response to the newest data, Dr. Electra Paskett, co-director of the Cancer Control Research Program at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, told HealthDay:

In order to increase HPV vaccination rates, we must change the perception of the HPV vaccine from something that prevents a sexually transmitted disease to a vaccine that prevents cancer. Every parent should ask the question: If there was a vaccine I could give my child that would prevent them from developing six different cancers, would I give it to them? The answer would be a resounding yes—and we would have a dramatic decrease in HPV-related cancers across the globe.

Making Inroads Toward a Chlamydia Vaccine

An article published in the journal Vaccine shows that researchers have made progress with a new vaccine to prevent chlamydia. According to lead researcher David Bulir of the M. G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research at Canada’s McMaster University, efforts to create a vaccine have been underway for decades, but this is the first formulation to show success.

In 2014, there were 1.4 million reported cases of chlamydia in the United States. While this bacterial infection can be easily treated with antibiotics, it often goes undiagnosed because many people show no symptoms. Untreated chlamydia can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, which can leave scar tissue in the fallopian tubes or uterus and ultimately result in infertility.

The experimental vaccine was created by Canadian researchers who used pieces of the bacteria that causes chlamydia to form an antigen they called BD584. The hope was that the antigen could prompt the body’s immune system to fight the chlamydia bacteria if exposed to it.

Researchers gave BD584 to mice using a nasal spray, and then exposed them to chlamydia. The results were very promising. The mice who received the spray cleared the infection faster than the mice who did not. Moreover, the mice given the nasal spray were less likely to show symptoms of infection, such as bacterial shedding from the vagina or fluid blockages of the fallopian tubes.

There are many steps to go before this vaccine could become available. The researchers need to test it on other strains of the bacteria and in other animals before testing it in humans. And, of course, experience with the HPV vaccine shows that there’s work to be done to make sure people get vaccines that prevent STIs even after they’re invented. Nonetheless, a vaccine to prevent chlamydia would be a great victory in our ongoing fight against STIs and their health consequences, and we here at This Week in Sex are happy to end on a bit of a positive note.

Analysis Politics

The 2016 Republican Platform Is Riddled With Conservative Abortion Myths

Ally Boguhn

Anti-choice activists and leaders have embraced the Republican platform, which relies on a series of falsehoods about reproductive health care.

Republicans voted to ratify their 2016 platform this week, codifying what many deem one of the most extreme platforms ever accepted by the party.

“Platforms are traditionally written by and for the party faithful and largely ignored by everyone else,” wrote the New York Times‘ editorial board Monday. “But this year, the Republicans are putting out an agenda that demands notice.”

“It is as though, rather than trying to reconcile Mr. Trump’s heretical views with conservative orthodoxy, the writers of the platform simply opted to go with the most extreme version of every position,” it continued. “Tailored to Mr. Trump’s impulsive bluster, this document lays bare just how much the G.O.P. is driven by a regressive, extremist inner core.”

Tucked away in the 66-page document accepted by Republicans as their official guide to “the Party’s principles and policies” are countless resolutions that seem to back up the Times‘ assertion that the platform is “the most extreme” ever put forth by the party, including: rolling back marriage equalitydeclaring pornography a “public health crisis”; and codifying the Hyde Amendment to permanently block federal funding for abortion.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Anti-choice activists and leaders have embraced the platform, which the Susan B. Anthony List deemed the “Most Pro-life Platform Ever” in a press release upon the GOP’s Monday vote at the convention. “The Republican platform has always been strong when it comes to protecting unborn children, their mothers, and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans,” said the organization’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, in a statement. “The platform ratified today takes that stand from good to great.”  

Operation Rescue, an organization known for its radical tactics and links to violence, similarly declared the platform a “victory,” noting its inclusion of so-called personhood language, which could ban abortion and many forms of contraception. “We are celebrating today on the streets of Cleveland. We got everything we have asked for in the party platform,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, in a statement posted to the group’s website.

But what stands out most in the Republicans’ document is the series of falsehoods and myths relied upon to push their conservative agenda. Here are just a few of the most egregious pieces of misinformation about abortion to be found within the pages of the 2016 platform:

Myth #1: Planned Parenthood Profits From Fetal Tissue Donations

Featured in multiple sections of the Republican platform is the tired and repeatedly debunked claim that Planned Parenthood profits from fetal tissue donations. In the subsection on “protecting human life,” the platform says:

We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.

Later in the document, under a section titled “Preserving Medicare and Medicaid,” the platform again asserts that abortion providers are selling “the body parts of aborted children”—presumably again referring to the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood:

We respect the states’ authority and flexibility to exclude abortion providers from federal programs such as Medicaid and other healthcare and family planning programs so long as they continue to perform or refer for elective abortions or sell the body parts of aborted children.

The platform appears to reference the widely discredited videos produced by anti-choice organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) as part of its smear campaign against Planned Parenthood. The videos were deceptively edited, as Rewire has extensively reported. CMP’s leader David Daleiden is currently under federal indictment for tampering with government documents in connection with obtaining the footage. Republicans have nonetheless steadfastly clung to the group’s claims in an effort to block access to reproductive health care.

Since CMP began releasing its videos last year, 13 state and three congressional inquiries into allegations based on the videos have turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Planned Parenthood.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund—which has endorsed Hillary Clinton—called the Republicans’ inclusion of CMP’s allegation in their platform “despicable” in a statement to the Huffington Post. “This isn’t just an attack on Planned Parenthood health centers,” said Laguens. “It’s an attack on the millions of patients who rely on Planned Parenthood each year for basic health care. It’s an attack on the brave doctors and nurses who have been facing down violent rhetoric and threats just to provide people with cancer screenings, birth control, and well-woman exams.”

Myth #2: The Supreme Court Struck Down “Commonsense” Laws About “Basic Health and Safety” in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

In the section focusing on the party’s opposition to abortion, the GOP’s platform also reaffirms their commitment to targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws. According to the platform:

We salute the many states that now protect women and girls through laws requiring informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, and clinic regulation. We condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics.

The idea that TRAP laws, such as those struck down by the recent Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health, are solely for protecting women and keeping them safe is just as common among conservatives as it is false. However, as Rewire explained when Paul Ryan agreed with a nearly identical claim last week about Texas’ clinic regulations, “the provisions of the law in question were not about keeping anybody safe”:

As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in the opinion declaring them unconstitutional, “When directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.”

All the provisions actually did, according to Breyer on behalf of the Court majority, was put “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion,” and “constitute an undue burden on abortion access.”

Myth #3: 20-Week Abortion Bans Are Justified By “Current Medical Research” Suggesting That Is When a Fetus Can Feel Pain

The platform went on to point to Republicans’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a piece of anti-choice legislation already passed in several states that, if approved in Congress, would create a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks based on junk science claiming fetuses can feel pain at that point in pregnancy:

Over a dozen states have passed Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks, the point at which current medical research shows that unborn babies can feel excruciating pain during abortions, and we call on Congress to enact the federal version.

Major medical groups and experts, however, agree that a fetus has not developed to the point where it can feel pain until the third trimester. According to a 2013 letter from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “A rigorous 2005 scientific review of evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester,” which begins around the 28th week of pregnancy. A 2010 review of the scientific evidence on the issue conducted by the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists similarly found “that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior” to 24 weeks’ gestation.

Doctors who testify otherwise often have a history of anti-choice activism. For example, a letter read aloud during a debate over West Virginia’s ultimately failed 20-week abortion ban was drafted by Dr. Byron Calhoun, who was caught lying about the number of abortion-related complications he saw in Charleston.

Myth #4: Abortion “Endangers the Health and Well-being of Women”

In an apparent effort to criticize the Affordable Care Act for promoting “the notion of abortion as healthcare,” the platform baselessly claimed that abortion “endangers the health and well-being” of those who receive care:

Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.

Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that abortion is safe. Research shows that a first-trimester abortion carries less than 0.05 percent risk of major complications, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and “pose[s] virtually no long-term risk of problems such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.”

There is similarly no evidence to back up the GOP’s claim that abortion endangers the well-being of women. A 2008 study from the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion, an expansive analysis on current research regarding the issue, found that while those who have an abortion may experience a variety of feelings, “no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.”

As is the case for many of the anti-abortion myths perpetuated within the platform, many of the so-called experts who claim there is a link between abortion and mental illness are discredited anti-choice activists.

Myth #5: Mifepristone, a Drug Used for Medical Abortions, Is “Dangerous”

Both anti-choice activists and conservative Republicans have been vocal opponents of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) March update to the regulations for mifepristone, a drug also known as Mifeprex and RU-486 that is used in medication abortions. However, in this year’s platform, the GOP goes a step further to claim that both the drug and its general approval by the FDA are “dangerous”:

We believe the FDA’s approval of Mifeprex, a dangerous abortifacient formerly known as RU-486, threatens women’s health, as does the agency’s endorsement of over-the-counter sales of powerful contraceptives without a physician’s recommendation. We support cutting federal and state funding for entities that endanger women’s health by performing abortions in a manner inconsistent with federal or state law.

Studies, however, have overwhelmingly found mifepristone to be safe. In fact, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals says mifepristone “is safer than acetaminophen,” aspirin, and Viagra. When the FDA conducted a 2011 post-market study of those who have used the drug since it was approved by the agency, they found that more than 1.5 million women in the U.S. had used it to end a pregnancy, only 2,200 of whom had experienced an “adverse event” after.

The platform also appears to reference the FDA’s approval of making emergency contraception such as Plan B available over the counter, claiming that it too is a threat to women’s health. However, studies show that emergency contraception is safe and effective at preventing pregnancy. According to the World Health Organization, side effects are “uncommon and generally mild.”