The public debate on the topic of emergency contraception was revived when in early 2024 the Council of Ministers adopted an amendment to the law, according to which the medicinal product EllaOne – ulipristal acetate was to be again made available without a prescription for all individuals over the age of 15. In 2017, citing safety reasons and concerns about the health of women using emergency contraception, access to the EllaOne product was restricted, allowing it to be dispensed only with a doctor’s prescription. Supporters of broad access to emergency contraception point out that EllaOne is a safe drug, and adverse effects are relatively rare and do not pose a threat to health. Furthermore, the requirement of a prescription prolongs the time between intercourse and taking the medication, which may affect its effectiveness and incur additional costs. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the biological effect of ulipristal acetate on the endometrium may prevent implantation, equating the drug with an early abortifacient. The discourse on emergency contraception requires citing both biological and medical arguments, as well as reflecting on the definition of the beginning of human life, it is not free from ideological influences and inevitably involves strong emotions. Fluctuations in regulations regarding the availability of the EllaOne drug are living proof that the ethical dispute is directly reflected in legislative changes.