Congresswoman Maloney is a strong advocate for a woman’s right to choose and an outspoken supporter of women’s reproductive rights. However, choice is meaningless without access. That is why she has been monitoring the efforts of the anti-choice establishment to devalue a woman’s right to choose and has been actively working against any legislative limits to access.
In the 40 years since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which guarantees constitutional protection of a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy, over 1,000 separate legislative proposals have been introduced affecting abortion policy. The vast majority of these proposals have sought to restrict the availability of abortions, and this same trend can be seen in the Republican House majority. There is a war on women underway and in the last Congress alone, ten votes were taken to roll back on the protections of Roe, as well as numerous votes to curtail family planning funding and even allow hospitals to deny women lifesaving emergency medical care.
Access to Birth Control Act
Congresswoman Maloney introduced the Access to Birth Control (ABC) Act, reintroduced in 2013, which would protect an individual’s access to legal birth control. It would require pharmacies to fill a valid prescription for birth control in a timely manner, and to provide over-the-counter emergency contraception. This legislation will stop pharmacists from infringing on the rights of individuals in this country by making pharmacy refusals illegal.
Men and women in this country have relied on birth control for years in order to make their personal, reproductive decisions. Ninety-eight percent of women have used contraceptives at some point in their lives. Yet there have been increasing reports of pharmacists refusing to sell birth control based on their own personal beliefs. The refusals have been widespread and have been documented in at least 19 states. Pharmacists have refused to sell contraception to men and women who were young and old, married and single, with children and without. In some cases, pharmacists have kept and refused to transfer a prescription, refused to sell over-the-counter emergency contraception, or given the customer false medical information about the requested birth control. Four states even have laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to provide contraception based on personal beliefs.
Access to birth control is a fundamental right which should not be subject to interference by pharmacists. When customers are seeking emergency contraception, a pharmacist’s refusal can be an insurmountable barrier to accessing the contraception within the limited timeframe. Nearly 8 out of 10 Americans believe that a pharmacist should be required to fill prescriptions for birth control, even if they have a religious objection.
More on Reproductive Choice
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Tuesday re-introduced the Access to Birth Control Act, a bill that would guarantee patients’ timely access to birth control at the pharmacy.
Following the vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY-12) released the following statement.
“After Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony last week, it was clear that he was unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. His blatant display of partisanship was astonishing. He seemed more like a candidate on the campaign trail than a nominee for our nation’s highest court.
The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court drew outrage from national women’s organizations and elected officials, including Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who protested the nod in Foley Square on Tuesday.
Maloney echoed concerns that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would put reproductive rights at risk.
WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-12), author of H.R. 2566, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Healthcare Services Act, released the following statement today after the Supreme Court released its 5-4 decision on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140.