Half of women would consider a once-a-month contraceptive pill, so why are UK abortion laws standing in our way?

All hormonal contraceptives carry a small increased risk of breast cancer, according to new research which focused on progesterone-only pills. The analysis indicates that progestogen use is associated with a 20-30% higher risk of breast cancer, which declines after stopping use. 

The research has renewed concerns over access to reproductive healthcare in the UK. Why does the contraceptive burden still lie with women and people with uteruses? And why are existing contraceptive methods so fraught with side effects and inconveniences? 

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) highlights that innovation in this area of women’s healthcare is being hindered by “archaic abortion laws,” which class methods that work after an egg has implanted in the lining of the womb as abortions, which are criminalised under UK law unless the person meets the criteria for exemption. 

A BPAS survey in 2015 found that 48.4% of women (out of a sample of 1000) would consider a once-a-month pill that could work after a fertilised egg has implanted in the lining of the womb. But under UK legislation, anyone who used such a pill could be prosecuted and jailed.

GLAMOUR spoke to Katherine O’Brien, the Director of BPAS, about the potential benefits of a once-a-month pill, what’s stopping it from being developed, and why women and people with uteruses deserve better. 

Available methods of contraception largely work by stopping sperm from reaching an egg, preventing a fertilised egg that will implant into the lining of the womb. We don’t have any contraception methods that work post-implantation, AKA after the fertilisated egg has implanted in the womb lining. The ‘morning-after pill’ prevents fertilisation by stopping or delaying the release of an egg (ovulation), which means it must be taken within a certain period after having sex. 

“From the moment a fertilized egg implants into the lining of the womb under our current law,” Katherine O’Brien explains, “that’s classed as a pregnancy, and therefore, anything that happens after that point would be seen as an abortion and needs to be regulated as such.”

“Research shows that 48.4% of women would consider post-implantation contraception – don’t their preferences matter?”

O’Brien further highlights that for many people, it seems “ridiculous” that only “long-acting methods, whether it’s a coil or an implant” are available: “every day you are receiving some kind of medication, you are taking a pill, or you’ve got hormones being released into you.” 

Daily contraception methods undoubtedly suit many women. Moreover, some won’t be comfortable taking a post-implantation pill. But BPAS’s research shows that 48.4% of women would consider post-implantation contraception – don’t their preferences matter? 

In theory, a post-implantation pill – providing it passes rigorous testing and safety regulations – could offer women and those with uteruses more flexibility over their contraceptive decisions. It could mean that you only take the pill when you’ve had sex or missed a period, sparing you from the potential side effects of a daily hormone pill – as well as removing the pressure of remembering to take the pill on a daily basis. 

While a post-implantation pill is scientifically possible, it’s far from becoming an option – thanks to archaic legislation, which criminalises abortion. “By using this medication, you could potentially be disrupting a fertilised egg that’s implanted in the womb,” explains O’Brien. “Under our law, that is classed as pregnancy. And if you were to use this medication here today, that could potentially be a crime punishable by up to life imprisonment because it would be classed as an abortion.”