Elsevier

Contraception

Volume 89, Issue 4, April 2014, Pages 237-241
Contraception

ARHP Commentary — Thinking (Re)Productively
Celebration meets caution: LARC's boons, potential busts, and the benefits of a reproductive justice approach,☆☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.01.027Get rights and content

Section snippets

LARC's promise and potential

The reproductive health field's excitement about LARC is certainly understandable, especially along lines of efficacy. No reversible method of contraception is better at preventing pregnancy than IUC and implants [2]. Increased use of LARC could significantly reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy at the population level [3], [4], particularly if LARC use were to increase among young women, who experience the lion's share of this health disparity [5], [6]. LARC could thus reduce both the

A moment for reflection and reassessment: considering LARC's possible drawbacks

Despite LARC's benefits and despite the need to reduce obstacles to obtaining these methods, now is the moment to consider at least three aspects of LARC to which we should devote care and consideration as we move forward with our research, programs and policies. Doing so may help us avoid repeating prior reproductive rights abuses, from eugenicist promotion of birth control in the early 20th century, to use of population “targets” in developing country settings, to US sterilization laws

Integrating clinical and reproductive justice approaches to LARC

As we move forward with our LARC research, programs and policies, I encourage us to integrate a reproductive justice approach into our reproductive health toolkit. Loretta Ross defines reproductive justice framework as nothing short of “the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls” [24]. Reproductive justice builds from the recognition that many communities, especially poor communities of color, have experienced historical reproductive

Acknowledgments

While writing this manuscript, Jenny Higgins was supported by a National Institutes of Health K12 award (K12HD055894) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

The author would also like to express gratitude for the help of James Trussell, Wayne Shields, Kristin Ryder, Liz Barr, and Liza Fuentes.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (35)

  • C. Dehlendorf et al.

    Recommendations for intrauterine contraception: a randomized trial of the effects of patients' race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status

    Am J Obstet Gynecol

    (2010)
  • L.B. Finer et al.

    Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001

    Perspect Sex Reprod Health

    (2006)
  • R.A. Hatcher

    Contraceptive technology

    (2011)
  • M. O'Neil-Callahan et al.

    Twenty-four-month continuation of reversible contraception

    Obstet Gynecol

    (2013)
  • S.J. Varney et al.

    Relative cost effectiveness of Depo-Provera, Implanon, and Mirena in reversible long-term hormonal contraception in the UK

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (2004)
  • J.A. Higgins et al.

    The pleasure deficit: revisiting the “sexuality connection” in reproductive health

    Perspect Sex Reprod Health

    (2007)
  • V. Skrzypulec et al.

    Evaluation of quality of life and sexual functioning of women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive system—Mirena

    Coll Antropol

    (2008)
  • Cited by (165)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Disclaimer: The views expressed in this editorial are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals or its representatives.

    ☆☆

    No conflicts of interest need to be noted.

    View full text