Most thought that by doing so, they were upholding social mores or protecting the health of the client. Unfortunately, they often exaggerated the dangers of contraceptives. The most common reason given for the marriage restriction was that family planning is only for married couples and that such restrictions discouraged indiscriminate sex among unmarried women. Family planning is seen as a decision for both partners. Without spousal consent, husbands might accuse wives of infidelity and blame the provider for any problems that occur.
Providers think that access to contraception leads to promiscuity among adolescents and young women.
Also, all clients over 44 were assumed to be menopausal and so to have no need for family planning. More than twice as many providers restricted access to injectables, for which no medical rationale exists, than IUDs, for which a case can be made for excluding nulliparous clients. Restrictions for progestin-only methods were almost as common as those for combined pills, in spite of a lack of medical justification for restricting these methods. Conclusions Providers in this sample showed inadequate knowledge of the level of adverse effects of modern contraceptive methods. Their goal of protecting clients' health is admirable, but in exaggerating the dangers of contraception and limiting access, providers might have been doing more harm than good.