Contraceptive misinformation and disinformation has proliferated at a concerning rate since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision allowed states to ban or regulate abortion. Huge majorities of U.S. adults are confused about the legality of contraception, and incorrectly believe that contraception may end a pregnancy in its early stages. Combined with a low national literacy about the process of becoming pregnant, these conditions leave access to contraception in a vulnerable state.

Mainstream media reporting has a significant impact on the trajectory of misinformation and the erosion of access to reliable contraception. In spite of a growing number of excellent media stories that report on escalating threats to contraceptive access, there remain some media trends that can be inadvertently linked to misinformation or confusion.

This report examines mainstream media trends that can perpetuate contraceptive misinformation and fuel efforts to curb access to contraceptives.

In a pre-Dobbs scenario, the rejection of pregnancy science appeared to pose little to no threat. Under Dobbs, restricting the definition of contraception is already resulting in restrictions and reduced access to popular methods of contraception, most notably the IUD and emergency contraception. These method-based restrictions will not stay limited to these two methods if groups like Students for Life of America (SFLA) prevail; it will include most contraceptive methods on the market today. 

This report focuses on four areas of concern regarding media coverage and contraceptive access:

1. The conflation of abortion and contraception in reporting, which is the result of a coordinated campaign among anti-abortion groups  to mislabel emergency contraception and IUDs as abortion-causing methods. Polls show that 73% of adults wrongly believe that emergency contraception can end pregnancy in its early stages, demonstrating the harmful impact of widespread disinformation.

2. A reluctance to characterize groups and leaders that are undermining access to contraception as advancing an anti-contraception agenda, which has new urgency in a post-Dobbs political environment.

3. A reluctance to characterize medical misinformation about contraception as disinformation when it is part of a policy debate.  

4. An outdated definition of threats to contraception relating only to legal bans on all contraception, rather than efforts to chip away at contraceptive access.

This report is a companion to the CAI Report on Opposition to Contraception and IVF and the short explainer video, "Media coverage and contraceptive misinformation."

Medical science locates the beginning of pregnancy at the implantation phase. Any medication or device that interferes with the process of becoming pregnant prior to implantation is considered contraception, while any medications or device that impacts a pregnancy post-implantation is tied to abortion or miscarriage.  

However, some conservatives and religious leaders are rejecting current medical science and attempting to redefine — and restrict — the definition of contraception. These anti-contraception proposals would redefine the common forms of contraception as abortion, potentially subjecting them to abortion laws. For many, this includes emergency contraception and the IUD, and for some, this includes all hormonal contraception, such as the birth control pill. This movement uses nonmedical terms such as “pre-implantation chemical abortion” or “abortifacient contraception” or “potential abortifacient.” The result: expanding the definition of abortion.

As illustrated in the chart above, the anti-abortion point of view, as represented by leaders in the anti-abortion movement, is to expand the definition of abortion to begin at fertilization.  

For example, Tennessee's near-total abortion ban, in effect since August 2022, incorrectly defines the state of being pregnant as:  

“The human female reproductive condition of having a living unborn child within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization until birth.”

This style of legislation is used to isolate emergency contraception and IUD contraception by mislabeling them as abortion. For some groups, this language would reclassify all hormonal contraception as “potential abortifacients.”

This also impacts policy related to in vitro fertilization (IVF). Columnist Mona Charen wrote, “It’s hard to square support for IVF, which, as practiced in the United States, nearly always entails the loss of fertilized eggs, with opposition to Plan B because it may result in the loss of a fertilized egg.”

A battle over characterizing threats to contraception has escalated significantly since the SCOTUS Dobbs decision on abortion. Conservatives have aggressively denied that contraception is threatened, while progressives have escalated contraceptive access concerns. An in-depth report on attacks on contraception can be found here. 

At the heart of the battle is how the media defines an attack on contraception. Conservatives and progressives have differing standards for being considered “anti-contraception.”

Conservatives:

Progressives:

Mainstream media has been inconsistent in the way it describes and defines groups that are working to limit access to contraceptive methods and narrow the definition of contraception. CAI research about media coverage and contraception battles found that journalists are seeking more guidance from their media organizations and institutions that help define standards on how to report on battles over contraception. 

A growing number of outlets are reporting on the contraceptive attacks, including the Los Angeles Times editorial board and reporter Lauren Weber at The Washington Post. Certain types of media, like magazines and progressive outlets, have used terms such as “anti-birth control movement.”  

However, media outlets overall — and particularly when covering policy — are reluctant to use descriptors that call groups and leaders anti-contraception or characterize them as being in favor of contraceptive limits even as they push to redefine and restrict contraception. Instead, these groups are called “anti-abortion,” which is a more favorable term for them, or “conservative,” another favorable term.  

Characterizing anti-contraceptive actions and disinformation as “anti-abortion” fuels the attacks on contraception. By characterizing the opposition to contraceptives as an “anti-abortion” agenda, media outlets are propelling the medically inaccurate claim that some contraception can stop an existing pregnancy.

The following table illustrates the willingness of media outlets to use anti-birth control labels when reporting on social media influencers, but not when reporting on groups and elected officials taking action related to policy proposals. In fact, the most influential interest groups working against pro-contraception legislation successfully assert in major media outlets that they are “neutral.”

Many media outlets have quoted disinformation about contraception repeatedly in news stories. The groups promoting contraceptive disinformation are regularly called upon as expert commentators on contraceptive policy and are allowed to self-describe as “neutral” on contraception.

The chart below illustrates the way that groups spreading disinformation about contraception are able to be positioned as experts on contraception in the media and avoid being held accountable for an anti-contraception campaign.

The following chart defines categories of position on contraception as a recommendation for media outlets:

Many media stories about policies and campaigns attempting to redefine the start of pregnancy present the impact of these efforts as a political debate, rather than rely on medical science to guide fact sharing.

The following example illustrates a medical science-based approach versus a debate approach to reporting on the definition of contraception. The federal “Life at Conception” legislation confers “equal protection” to “human person” and “human being,” which is defined as “including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.” Below, one media outlet relies on a medical science view of this legislation’s impact, and the other presents its impact as a political debate.

Medical science approach: UPI recognized the threat to contraception by writing that the “Life at Conception Act” would ban some forms of birth control.

“Garcia was a co-sponsor for the Life at Conception Act which would ban abortion nationwide as well as some forms of birth control.” 

Political debate approach: Most articles about the Life at Conception Act do not plainly state the impact on contraception and instead frame it as a political debate. 

“Anti-abortion advocates say the bill is common sense. Abortion rights activists believe it is a gateway for restricting contraception & IVF.”

Many people involved in discussing contraceptive methods are not fully aware of the medical facts about pregnancy and contraception.  

Even journalists attempting to help readers understand the mechanics of the pregnancy process can inadvertently fuel misinformation. For example, NPR’s in-depth guide on pregnancy omits any reference to the medical definition of pregnancy, which is used by federal law. Without referencing medical science, the issue appears to be a political one, rather than medical:

“Defining exactly when a pregnancy begins is a hot topic in some state legislatures and U.S. courts at the moment. While federal law has long said pregnancy starts after a fertilized egg has implanted in the uterus, state law in Kentucky, for example, calls someone pregnant as soon as a sperm meets the egg.”

Media stories covering policy and partisan battles over contraception tend to include disinformation statements or sentiments as a way to report on opposition to legislation. However, those stories often do not refute the misinformation, or will position the misinformation as a political argument.

Media stories concerning The Right to Contraception Act — which defines its scope as relating only to contraception — exemplifies this trend. As a result of disinformation conflation between abortion and contraception by opponents, approximately 70% of media stories about the proposed legislation include a reference to abortion.

This write up in The New York Times allows opponents to make the medically erroneous claim that some contraception is abortion and does not challenge the false information.  

The reference to “pills that induce abortion” is rooted in the false assertion by abortion opponents that some contraceptives end a pregnancy rather than prevent one. In addition to false allegations about emergency contraception in this category, the National Right to Life (NRL) also opposes the legislation because of an imagined future scenario where the FDA approves a contraceptive that can also be used to end a pregnancy. This is an expansion of the disinformation campaign against contraceptive methods.

NRL appears to be referencing speculation that a low dose of the drug mifepristone could be used as a contraceptive. This idea is not under current consideration at the FDA, however if it were to be developed, its dosage would apply to preventing pregnancy, not ending pregnancy. Mifepristone — at a higher dose and in combination with misoprostol — is used in medication abortion. Mifepristone at an even higher dose is used to treat Cushing Syndrome. Beverly Winikoff, president of Gynuity Health Projects, called the prospect of this new contraceptive use for mifepristone being developed and gaining FDA approval “a very steep mountain to  climb.”

A third argument by bill opponents is also featured in media outlets without debunking medical myths. This demand is that licensed health care providers that provide abortion services are prevented from providing birth control when they are being reimbursed by the government for birth control services. This is unrelated to contraceptive care; rather it creates the misimpression that this legislation would fund abortion.

Groups that oppose the definition of contraception — and seek to reclassify certain forms of contraception as abortion — are often allowed to spread disinformation in stories about this legislation.  

A 2022 story by the Associated Press provides accurate information about the bill’s scope. However, the article then allows two groups that have been working against contraceptive access to make factually incorrect comments that further disinformation.

In recent years, proactive federal bill proposals from Republicans that claim to expand access to birth control specifically exclude emergency contraception and shrink the definition of contraception. Yet, some media stories framed these bills as broadly pro-contraceptive efforts.

The Orally Taken Contraception Act of 2023, introduced by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks to encourage over-the-counter contraceptive options, defines an “oral contraceptive drug” as one that is “used to prevent fertilization” (as opposed to the medically accurate start of pregnancy, implantation) and makes a point to exclude emergency contraceptives from the scope of the bill.

Nevertheless, some media outlets ignored the anti-contraception measures in the bill and only reported on her pro-contraception statements.

• “Conception”

• “Life” or “when life begins”

• “Personhood”

• “Fertilization”

Americans have relatively low medical literacy concerning reproductive health. Most people cannot accurately describe the biological stages of becoming pregnant. Yet important public policies that significantly impact reproductive health care rely on an understanding of reproductive health terminology. 

The widespread lack of awareness about reproductive processes and terms creates an environment where misinformation can easily proliferate and restrictive laws can flourish.

Four terms are at the center of these misinformation campaigns and should be treated in media reports with special consideration: 

“Conception”

The term “conception” means something different based on whether it is used as a medical fact, a religious perspective or a personal view.  Although the medical definition of “conception” equates to “implantation” or the beginning of pregnancy, many trusted medical authorities also use the term to describe different moments in the process of becoming pregnant.

Further exacerbating the confusion, most have a hard time distinguishing between the process of becoming pregnant and the beginning of pregnancy, and “conception” is used by various authors to describe different stages of that process.

There is no unified consensus on the definition of “conception.” It is most commonly used by anti-abortion conservatives as a synonym for fertilization in policy that restricts contraception and IVF. When used as a descriptor in media stories or polls, the term “conception” can exacerbate public misinformation about contraception and abortion.  

Nevertheless, the term “conception” is prolific in media stories. In the past year, the term was used in over 6,000 media articles (including syndication) that addressed conflicts about access to contraception. Only a tiny fraction of these media stories — about 400 — specifically used the term to describe policy such as the “Life at Conception Act.”  The remainder used the term in a variety of ways to refer to the beginning of pregnancy.  

“Life” or “when life begins”

A number of polls have used questions about “when life begins” as a barometer of people’s views on abortion. However, the term “life” can mean many things, and doesn’t indicate a view on when pregnancy begins or at what point abortion should be allowable.

“The latest WRAL poll also asked North Carolinians if they’d support a law that states life begins at fertilization. Respondents were split 41% in favor of the idea and 41% against it, with 18% undecided. ‘That really did surprise me,’ McLennan said of the results to the fertilization question. ‘Because in the history of abortion polling, that has been a minority position — that life begins at fertilization.’” (WRAL News)

“Four-in-ten Democrats and Independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (40%) say the statement ‘human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights’ describes their own view at least somewhat well, and more than half of Republicans and GOP leaners (55%) say the same about the statement ‘the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman.’” (Pew Research)

“Fetal personhood” 

This term is broadly used by contraceptive and abortion opponents to describe a policy approach that confers legal protection for a developing pregnancy or established pregnancy. The impact of the term is not commonly known.

“Fertilization”

Many polls and media stories do not make it clear that the current medical definition of pregnancy is implantation — not fertilization. This confusion and lack of context potentially spurs opinion surveys that are not accurately reflecting public sentiment, and general confusion about contraception policy.

Many of these terms have been proliferating in legislation.

When anti-abortion legislation marks fertilization as the stage where abortion is prohibited, the legislation is by definition also narrowing the definition of contraception. These legislative proposals are regulating both abortion and contraception, yet are routinely only framed in media stories as an anti-contraceptive measure. 

For example, in Feb. 2024 when a judge’s decision threw the legality of IVF in Alabama in doubt,  massive media coverage that referenced the Alabama decision ensued. In that state, the court — and many anti-abortion groups — argued that the embryo created in a lab should have the same rights as persons that are born.  

This is the same logic that would redefine and restrict the definition of contraception. Yet, only about 7% of these stories mentioned contraception — even though the “personhood” statute, and the judge’s interpretation of the issue that could ban IVF, could also ban some contraceptives.

Similarly, when reporting on the Life at Conception Act, which marks fertilization as the point that would limit access to commonly used contraceptives, about 70% of stories have not referenced birth control.   

The high level of confusion about contraception and abortion is fueled in part by media treatment of contraception stories. 

The Daily Mail used an image of mifepristone medication abortion pills amidst text concerning contraception. The photo caption indicates that the editors were inserting news about pharmacies covering medication abortion, however, the placement and accompanying narrative likely spurs confusion between the birth control pill and the abortion pill.

WSIU published a confusing headline that appears to conflate abortion and birth control:

Appendix: Resources 

Journalists need reliable resources to navigate reporting on contraception. The following resources provide excellent background material.

• CAI’s short explainer video on media coverage and contraceptive misinformation, featuring Northwestern University Associate Professor Katie Watson.

• For clear and concise background on medical facts and contraceptive disinformation, see these two short videos: "Fighting disinformation about pregnancy and contraception" and “Challenging the myths about birth control” featuring Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, CEO of Power to Decide, chief medical advisor for Contraceptive Access Initiative and one of the nation’s top medical leaders on access to reproductive health.

• Information and resources about contraception and misinformation at www.contraceptiveaccess.org.

• Guttmacher’s State Legislation Tracker, which tracks major, state-by-state developments in sexual and reproductive health and allows you to sort by year, issue (e.g. filter by contraception, specifically) and type of legislation (e.g. contraception defined, insurance coverage, Medicaid and more).

• Find more resources via this tool kit from ACOG, designed to help combat abortion-specific misinformation and instead highlight coverage in factual, evidence-based and medically accurate language.

• Read examples of strong reporting on these issues, such as:

• “Efforts by Anti-Choice Advocates to Redefine and Limit Contraception” (Center for American Progress)

• “Conservative attacks on birth control could threaten access,” by Lauren Weber (The Washington Post)

• “Editorial: Senate contraception bill vote is a preview of next fight over reproductive rights,” by The LA Times Editorial Board (Los Angeles Times)

Appendix: Glossary of terms

In a media landscape permeated with misinformation and disinformation about reproductive health, it is critical to clearly define and consistently use accurate medical terms when discussing pregnancy. 

Also see ACOG’s dictionary here.

Abortifacient ⚠️ (medical term; often mis-used)

Any substance used to terminate a pregnancy.

“Abortifacient contraception” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

A disinformation term coined by anti-abortion leaders to falsely claim that some contraceptives end an existing pregnancy. This term has no medical meaning and should not be used.

Abortion 

Abortion means ending a pregnancy. There are two main options: an abortion procedure (also called in-clinic abortion) and the abortion pill (also called medication abortion). Both are safe and effective.

Conception ⚠️ (not neutral)

Medically, conception occurs at implantation, which is the start of pregnancy. However, the term “conception” is understood differently among various groups — some organizations, such as the Catholic Church, use the term to indicate fertilization. Even among trusted medical sites, conception can be defined differently. 

Groups that oppose abortion and contraception have embraced this term as a synonym for “fertilization,” and its use can be a dog whistle for an anti-contraception agenda.

Avoid this term due to public confusion about its meaning and its partisan signaling; if used, it should be clearly defined and sourced in the copy to reduce confusion. 

Contraception ✅ (medically accurate term; neutral term)

Birth control and contraception are synonymous, though contraception can often be used for a purpose other than preventing pregnancy, such as treating menstrual pain, acne or other conditions. These terms refer to devices, medicines or procedures used to prevent pregnancies, with the beginning of pregnancy defined as implantation. Pregnancy cannot be detected until after implantation, when the body begins to produce pregnancy hormones. While contraception prevents pregnancy, it cannot end a pregnancy.

Embryo ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)

The stage of development that starts at fertilization (joining of an egg and sperm).

Emergency contraception pills ⚠️ (medical term often misused)

There are two different types of emergency contraceptive pills (levonorgestrel, commonly referred to as Plan B, and Ulipristal acetate). They are both designed to prevent ovulation after unprotected sex. Their primary mechanism is to prevent or delay an egg leaving the ovary, thus preventing fertilization. In spite of the FDA’s updated labeling that clarifies it does not prevent implantation, some inaccurately claim that emergency contraception may also prevent fertilization or implantation. Note: Certain intrauterine devices (IUDs) can also be used for emergency contraception. Emergency contraception (pills and IUDs) cannot terminate a pregnancy that has already begun.

Fertilization ⚠️ (medical term often misused)

When a sperm and an egg fuse, this is called fertilization, which creates an embryo. While this is an essential step towards pregnancy, this is NOT when pregnancy medically begins. For example, an egg fertilized in a petri dish cannot become a pregnancy until that fertilized egg is successfully implanted in the uterus. In the absence of contraceptive use, only about 50% of fertilized embryos will successfully implant.

Fetus ✅ (medically accurate term; neutral term)

The stage of human development beyond eight completed weeks after fertilization. This is the stage after pregnancy has begun. Medically, the beginning of pregnancy is called implantation.

Hormonal Contraception

Hormonal contraception methods contain hormones that prevent pregnancy. These hormones prevent the body from releasing an egg each month. Methods include birth control pills, skin patches, vaginal rings, the implant and an intrauterine device (IUD). While the primary mechanism is to prevent fertilization, some hormonal methods have the potential to also prevent implantation.

Implantation ✅ (medically accurate term; neutral term)

The process wherein the fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining, and pregnancy medically begins. When a fertilized egg implants, the body begins to create pregnancy hormones to support the uterine lining. This is the hormone that is detected in a pregnancy test. Note: Prior to this phase, a pregnancy test will not work.

Life or “when life begins” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

This term should not be used to reference when pregnancy begins. Opponents of abortion and contraception frequently use the phrase “when life begins” in a way that can add confusion to medical and legal discussions about pregnancy. This term is often used in “personhood” legislation (see “Personhood” definition, below). Given the lack of public consensus on the meaning of the term “life” or “when life begins,” this terminology can spur confusion and misinformation in media reporting or polling.

“Personhood” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

Anti-abortion leaders use the concept of personhood to extend the legal rights of a person prior to birth. Many “personhood” proponents use the 14th Amendment as the constitutional basis for this standard.

There are two types of “personhood” proposals: “fetal personhood,” which applies to a fetus in the womb, and “embryo personhood,” which applies to the pre-pregnancy embryo stage. Personhood statutes threaten access to contraception, IVF and abortion.  

​​“Pre-implantation chemical abortion” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

A disinformation term coined by anti-contraception advocates with no medical meaning. Any device or substance that prevents implantation is contraception. In this misdefinition, “chemical abortion” is being used as a substitute for “contraception.” This term should not be used.

Pregnancy ✅ (medically accurate term; neutral term)

The gestational stage medically begins at implantation, during which a person carries a growing fetus in their uterus. Note: Many health care providers date a pregnancy from the time that a pregnant person has had their last menstrual period, for the purpose of calculating a due date. However, this is not the same as when pregnancy has medically begun.

The Pregnancy Process ✅ (medically accurate term; neutral term)

Refers to the entire process of becoming and being pregnant. This is distinct from the specific gestational stage of when a pregnancy medically begins, detailed above.

​​“Restorative Reproductive Medicine” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral).

This is a political term used in some legislative proposals that refers to non-IVF fertility approaches. It uses Catholic-affiliated fertility programs and is not a substitute for IVF.

“Unborn human being” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

Do not use. This is not a medical phrase. This phrase is used by groups and policymakers that oppose abortion and contraception to advance “fetal personhood”-style legislation that would ban most forms of contraception and IVF.

Appendix: Anti-contraception & disinformation groups

(partial list of national groups)

SBA Pro-Life America

This group’s disinformation messaging about contraception — in defiance of current medical science that defines pregnancy and contraception — has profoundly shaped federal and state policy proposals. The organization asserts that “emergency contraception can cause early abortion” and has a history of prioritizing opposition to legislation that will secure access to contraception, such as scoring votes in opposition to the Right to Contraception Act. 

National Right to Life

National Right to Life (NRL) publicly states on its website that it “does not oppose contraception and takes no position on contraception.” However, their position is that certain contraceptives should be treated as abortion:

National Right to Life does not take a stance on anything that prevents fertilization. However, National Right to Life does oppose any device or drug that would destroy a life already created at fertilization.

According to NRL, the opposition to a device or drug that prevents implantation includes emergency contraception and the IUD.

Students for Life of America
Students for Life of America (SFLA) has told journalists that the group does not take a position on contraception, and told The New York Times they had not taken a position on the pill over the counter, which The New York Times reported in its media coverage. However, this group believes that taking the birth control pill is equivalent to having an abortion, which they often do not proactively share with journalists. Their president, Kristan Hawkins, is opposed to any form of artificial contraception.

This chart, with medical disinformation about contraception, is featured on the SFLA website:

Additional quotes include: 

• “Making it easy for abusers to cover up their sexual abuse and statutory rape crimes with Online, No Test Chemical Abortion Pills or over-the-counter birth control sales is negligent public policy.”
  —Students for Life of America 2023 press release and webpage on contraception

• “FYI, birth control can cause abortions and your doctor probably won't tell you that.” —X (Twitter) post, Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America

Heritage Foundation

Anti-contraceptive access; spreads medical disinformation.

The Heritage Foundation spreads dangerous disinformation about medication abortion:

Now, with this FDA abortion pill, it’s only approved for women up to 10 weeks as of now. But most women don’t accurately know how far along they are, especially if they weren’t expecting to get pregnant. And so there are terrible instances of women who have taken this abortion pill and are up to 36 weeks pregnant. [Fact: medication abortion pills do not have an abortive effect when taken in the second or third trimester.]

They also spread dangerous disinformation that equates contraception to abortion:

Under the Affordable Care Act, the vast majority of insurers are required to cover most forms of birth control, including emergency contraception pills. The Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a potential second Trump presidency would label Ella as a “potential abortifacient” to be removed from the contraception mandate, but Severino noted that the change would not restrict access for those who wished to pay for it. 

They advocate for a “pro-life vision for IVF” that treats fertilized eggs as humans and would restrict current IVF standards of care:

Emma Waters, a religion, life and bioethics associate at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, said the group has been having discussions with members of Congress about what a “pro-life vision for IVF” would look like. To Waters, that means not destroying embryos in the process of IVF for any reason. She suggested the U.S. could adopt policies limiting the number of embryos created during treatment or requiring that all embryos get implanted. [Fact: these proposals are radical restrictions on IVF medical care.]