Is it true that all these synthetic hormones eventually get into our water supply?
BillyHW | 08.25.06 - 3:19 am | #

"A table onPlanned Parenthood's own Web site shows that it takes as many as 40 ordinary oral contraceptive pills . . . "

Well, strictly speaking, it shows you'd have to take that many Ovrette progestin-only pills to have them work as EC. I'm pretty sure POPs are somewhat/rather less common than combination pills (but can't swear to it). For combo pills (which have rather more side effects than POPs, and are not approved in any form for OTC use), we would be talking 4-10 pills (in two doses 12 hours apart) to have them function as (a different kind of) EC, as opposed to the prescription use involving 21 pills/month, daily, month after month after month . . .

" after the FDA approved the abortion-causing Plan B"

If you want to be accurate, I don't think you can actually say this, as opposed to something like 'the possibly abortion-causing Plan B' - much like, bending over backwards, I won't say that it doesn't, beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt, have the potential to cause abortions. I can point out that while proving a negative is pretty tricky, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support the idea that it works by blocking implantation, but instead an ever-increasing amount to the contrary. Indeed, the whole stops-implantation claim - which was only ever a hypothetical possibility - may in fact mainly derive from advertising claims by manufacturers.
See, for example, here and here.

Of course, the intended use is to avoid an unintended pregnancy - whether from contraceptive failure, poor planning, or rape - that would almost certainly be aborted. In essentially all cases it would work by preventing fertilization, not implantation of an already fertilized egg. Given all this, one might think that some teeny-tiny chance, under highly unusual circumstances, of possibly preventing an entirely-unrecognizable-as-human blastocyst from implanting could be balanced out by the prospect of preventing all those other abortions? Or does it not work that way?

But given that in any practical sense we can say, no, it prevents, rather than causes abortions, is your concern that the FDA messed up and didn't properly consider (in all that time) health risks, or covered-up/misrepresented them?
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 3:42 am | #

"...the abortion-causing Plan B..."

Tread carefully, Dawn. While there may be moral and ethical reasons to oppose Plan-B, calling it flat out "abortion causing" is misleading.
Steve | 08.25.06 - 5:27 am | #

Buckle your seat belts, folks. Back in the 1960s, medical associations defined "pregnancy" as beginning at implantation -- never mind that life begins at fertilization. So Plan B's action of blocking implantation is not technically "abortion" by the way the medical newspeakers define it.

I wonder about all this "it doesn't block implantation" stuff when the manufacturers themselves, as noted, report this as one of its actions.

And to answer your question, Dawn, the nose of the camel is now in the tent. The Planned Parenthood types will now ask why the regular pill is not also an over-the-counter item, and the FDA will be asked to make it so; the logic is solid.

Then gender equity gang will then get in on the act, because after all, a man can buy condoms over the counter; why can't a woman get her pills the same way?

Oh, what a tangled web ...
C.J. | 08.25.06 - 6:10 am | #

I commented on his over at open book, but I will leave it at: follow the money. Prescription-only birth control pills = gynecologists' steady revenue stream.

The official argument was to force fertile-age women to get Pap smears annually to catch cervical cancer early on. Once the HPV vaccine is in full force, that argument starts to lose its oomph, and, indeed, OTC hormones will be the next step.
meep | 08.25.06 - 6:47 am | #

Billy,

Alicia @ Fructrus Ventris had an entry about it sometime ago, but all I could find was this excerpt. I am sure you can google and dig up more.

But in nutshell, yes.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 7:07 am | #

Why are "victories for women's healthcare" always another birth control device or more abortion availability?

Women's healthcare has been reduced to keeping children out of the world.

You go to your doctor for PPD, and they put you on the pill instead of even knowing the progesterone or diet can help, then tell you not to have any more children. You go to the doctor for PCOS or endodemetriosis and they put you on the pill. You go for your first prenatal appointment, and they are asking you to choose a birth control device.

Now we have one more carcinogenic drug to prevent nature, and this is a victory? Why all the other stuff, condoms, pills, patches, rings, shots, implants, caps, jellys and abortion etc. etc. etc. don't work well enough? I guess not, people still seem to have children and get this-some actually love their kids after stigmatizing the evils of motherhood to death.

Sarcasm aside (I apologise), I am missing the motive. If women and women's health is what you care about, why is this the only way it is manifested?
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 7:22 am | #

Just how improbable does a possible post-fertilization effect have to be before you stop using the misleading words "abortion-causing"? If it were ninety-nine percent certain that no such effect existed, ninety-nine-point-nine, ninety-nine-point-nine-nine, what? Do you know for a certain and sure fact that no other medication has a possible implantation-lowering effect?
It is my understanding that prevention of implantation was included as a possible mode of action for emergency contraception simply because, at the time that its contraceptive effects were first noted, the mode of action wasn't known (and also as a form of that popular pastime among the lawsuit-averse of posterior-covering). To maintain that, even by Catholic standards, this medication causes abortions is much the same as prosecuting someone for murder for making an image of wax and sticking pins in it.
Ledasmom | 08.25.06 - 8:20 am | #

With respect to the 18 year old issue--- totally bogus. If it's over the counter, it's available to everyone, no matter what age.

It will be easier to get than beer for teenagers, since with the latter there are actually legal sanctions against the person who buys it for you. There are none here at all; just walk into your nearest supermarket.

So think about those superhormones pumping into a 12 year old with no medical supervision.

On the environmental issue, there's no question that our sewage treatment plants are distributing excess female hormones into the environment in large amounts which then enter the food chain. Try to find an environmentalist who will complain about it.
Robert N G | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 8:57 am | #

Ledasmom,

ust how improbable does a possible post-fertilization effect have to be before you stop using the misleading words "abortion-causing"?

Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1547
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION

Regular birth control pills are prescription-only because you take them day after day after day and they have the potential to do things like give you blood clots, cause weight gain, and - most importantly - seriously alter mood. Women often have to work with their doctors to find the pill that works for them. As someone who became suicidal on the first pill I took, I would NOT have wanted to be embarking on that adventure without the guidance of a doctor who could change the pill when the side effects became clear. Plan B, OTOH, is a one-time thing.

So think about those superhormones pumping into a 12 year old with no medical supervision.

Would you rather subject said 12-year-old to an abortion? Or the experience of childbirth and motherhood?

As for why pro-choice people want to point out that Plan B is not abortion, it's because, believe it or not, most of us see abortion as, at best, a necessary evil. We would like to prevent it by any means that actually works, including emergency contraception.
Grace | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 9:35 am | #

The bottom line is this: The FDA has approved the OTC distribution of a very powerful drug and we're still arguing over how it works and what it does. Wouldn't you think we'd want to have this information locked down before we expose millions of women to this drug?
Where I work, people take 4 Advils two or three times/day for 'headaches'. Imagine the woman who has sex with her boyfriend on Monday, pops a pill on Tuesday. Has sex again on Tuesday night, eats another pill on Wednesday, etc. It's going to happen.
John J. Simmins | 08.25.06 - 9:45 am | #

See Victor Morton's post on the same question.
http://cinecon.blogspot.com/2006...ore- better.html
Jeff Miller | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 9:48 am | #

Would you rather subject said 12-year-old to an abortion? Or the experience of childbirth and motherhood?

I'd rather the 12-yo not be pregnant at all. I'd rather not have an adult purchasing this drug OTC to pass it on to the 12-yo girl to keep abuse secret. But, I'd also like to know more about the future effects on this 12-yo girl because she took this drug as a child. They told us that DES was safe, too.
Sandy | 08.25.06 - 10:16 am | #

Why did feminists fight so hard for yet another way for minors to be abused by sexual predators?

Now, statutory rape victims will be violated chemically too.

What sexually active females are unable to easily get oral contraceptives by prescription?

Minors.

Who is approved buy OTC Plan B?

Only above 18 y.o.

So, expect to see a lot of men at the counter "just buying for my girlfriend."
Forrest Cavalier | 08.25.06 - 10:19 am | #

I can't help but comment on one of the less noted, but more cheesy, aspects of the story about the new drug. The name.

"Plan B"? I mean, come on. In some ways doens't that answer the question.

What was "Plan A"? No sex? "Safe sex"? No plan at all?

Okay, I'll concede that flesh is weak, temptation is strong, and that sin and sex will occur. But why pretend that Plan B is a plan. It was no plan, that's why the person who wants it wants it. If there was truth in advertising it would be called "I screwed up and want to kill anything now". But that might not be the best marketing.
Yeoman | 08.25.06 - 10:22 am | #

In countries overseas, the number one consumer of the morning after pill is men. Why? So they can easily have sex and slip a woman a pill. These "feminists" supposedly fighting for women's rights have just put women at the mercy of dangerous men. Congratulations on making date rape even more possible!
Anonymous | 08.25.06 - 10:24 am | #

Some of the hypotheticals here are really stupid, and the historical analysis is uninformed.

First, pro-lifers oppose any attempt to directly halt the process which begins when an egg is fertilized. If you want to play with words and say it is not really a "pregnancy" until implantation, go ahead, but that's beside the point.

Second, the redefinition of "pregnancy" as beginning at implantation in SOME textbooks in the last few decades was a direct result of the desire to make certain procedures be referrable to as "contraception" rather than "abortion".

Third, it ought to be obvious that if the sperm makes it to the egg within a few hours, as it often does, then the action of "Plan B" must be post-fertilization and not preventative of fertlization, because fertilization occurs before the pill is even taken. There is a window of at least 24 hours after the egg is released in which it may be fertilized, and if several hours can elapse between the sex and the pill the chance that fertilization is actually PREVENTED is certainly not as high as "99%" or "99.9%", because the egg could have been released in the 24-hour period BEFORE the pill was taken.
Joseph | 08.25.06 - 10:25 am | #

"So, expect to see a lot of men at the counter "just buying for my girlfriend.""

That's quite correct.

One of the real aspects of the climate of sexuality that Western Society has developed is a tendancy to sexualize younger and younger people. And this has lead to a pretty pronounced rate of older men using younger women.

This actually hit the news a year or so ago. And by this, I do not mean 19 year olds with 17 years olds, or any such thing. Rather, there's a real problem with men in the upper 20s or old who prey on girls in their mid teens. Lots of girls in tha age range have problems anyway, and lots of men, anymore, in their 20s and 30s aren't really very mature.

This opens the door to licensing a problem which tends to be barely noted, as the men in this group aren't exactly the most willing to take responsibility for the results of their actions.
Yeoman | 08.25.06 - 10:25 am | #

Regular birth control pills are prescription-only because you take them day after day after day and they have the potential to do things like give you blood clots, cause weight gain, and - most importantly - seriously alter mood.

Uh...most importantly, I would think, would be that they can kill you. The blood clots are deadly. There is also a greater risk of liver failure (as it is with any artificial chemical you put into your body day after day, month after month, year after year), heart attacks and other fun chronic conditions. The pill manufacturers themselves acknowledge this -- they say the risk is small, but if you're the chick who gets the blood clot that gets into your brain and causes you a cerebral hemmorage, it's a big deal. And how will you KNOW if you're the unlucky chick? Well, take the pill and find out, I guess.

Plan B, OTOH, is a one-time thing.

Not really. The woman who takes it once because the condom broke and another time "just to be safe" because there might have been some spill-over when her lover was pulling out, is likely to take it again and again and again and again.

I also agree with the aforementioned comment -- if it's available OTC, it's available to EVERYone. And that includes the guy who is molesting his 12-year-old stepdaughter and needs Plan B to cover up his crime.
Sparki | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 10:29 am | #

Okay my first post that was really long contained to many links so it vanished.

Just search in google for "estrogen pollution," "estrogen frog," or "estrogen fish."

Basically sensitive animals, fish, frogs, alligators, even some polar bears are born or develop androgynously because they are exposed to female sex hormones.

Several sources have been cited for estrogen pollution. Natural estrogen is taken out of your bloodstream and is essentially worn out through its removal process. Unfortunately through the waste disposal process these can be "reactivated" and are emitted into the environment.

Farms are routinely targeted, claiming the estrogen these animals produce in their waste is being reactivated and is causing problems. There is some truth to that, especially at factory farms where waste is processed in a similar manner as human waste, but the wild animals affected most by this estrogen pollution are near large human populations, cities in Europe and Eastern US. (Perhaps in other countries too, just less studies are done over there.)

There are also chemicals, when they go through the waste disposal process turn into chemicals similar to female hormones. Found in soaps and other things, these have already been outlawed in Europe and Canada.

Another cause nobody wants to look at is female birth control drugs. Natural estrogen is brought out of the body into by the kidneys. Syntehtic estrogen and progesterone is designed to last longer and stay in the body longer, as such the liver (I might have the two reversed) is what takes it out of the body. This synthetic estrogen isn't processed in the body the same way natural homrones are expelled fully active with a long shelf life, and can enter even multiple animals in its lifetime.

Given the fact that we really didn't see a problem with this estrogen pollution until the early 90s, it leads me to believe that changes in the birth control pill led is a direct cause. Unfortunately this is a sacred cow few are willing to address, much less bring before the public, fellow environemntalists, and legislative bodies.

Being an idealistic kid I was pretty sympathetic, even active in the environmental movement, but the popular movment's self induced blindeness to the subject, and other hypocricy led me to abandon it with disgust. (Many have this weird animals are better than people mentality, but I suppose extremists join all groups.)

Anyway much of this is from memory when I looked into it a while ago, but check out pubmed and look on google for it.
IA_ | 08.25.06 - 10:54 am | #

I think it's disingenuous to proclaim that pro-choicers are all pro-abortion. I believe that whether or not someone believes that abortion is the right choice, everyone should make the decision for themselves, with the help of their physician, clergy, or family. Making it harder to procure legally will only result in more dangerous procedures.
Plan B. is a fantastic option for people who've been raped, or those whose Plan A birth control has failed. The miniscule chance that it prevents implantation of a zygote is beside the point. The main purpose is to prevent fertilization, which prevents abortion, which is what the pro-lifers say they want...so why all the fighting?
I feel like the pro-life side really just wants everyone to stop having sex without actively trying to conceive a child. Determining for another person what their motivation for sex should be is ridiculous in the extreme.
If someone's issue is the murder of a child, then keep it to that, and support birth control. Birth control such as a condom and spermicide prevents abortions too! Education prevents abortion. Actually, in countries like the Netherlands where sex education and abortion are easily come by, the rate of abortion is only 8% of pregnancies, compared to what...50% here in the US?
If a pro-lifer is against the murder of children, then he or she should stop opposing the use of birth control.
Shelley | 08.25.06 - 10:57 am | #

Second, the redefinition of "pregnancy" as beginning at implantation in SOME textbooks in the last few decades was a direct result of the desire to make certain procedures be referrable to as "contraception" rather than "abortion".

Again, I ask what difference does it make to you what we believe? There are people for whom this definition is important and will decide against using this drug for the reason that it is an abortifacient. Or even that there is a chance or such a reaction. Why should that be a problem for you? The drug is legal and if you feel differently, it is within your right to give this your wife or girlfriend. Does everyoneelse have to agree with you and use it?
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 11:12 am | #

"Again, I ask what difference does it make to you what we believe?"

I assume you ask the question with more exasperation - understandably - than curiosity, Pansy?

But, surely, what we believe is often based on important underlying assumptions.

Which is why anti-abortion people frequently want to know what status the other side grants a fetus before entering the wider debate.
jody tresidder | 08.25.06 - 12:19 pm | #

Gravatar "Again, I ask what difference does it make to you what we believe?"

I assume you ask the question with more exasperation - understandably - than curiosity, Pansy?

Both actually. No one seems to be answering the question. Why do we have to change our religious and moral beliefs to conform to yours?

Which is why anti-abortion people frequently want to know what status the other side grants a fetus before entering the wider debate.

On the contrary, what we believe is a constant. A human being is a human being from conception until natural death. If you start putting forth drugs, procedures, behaviours etc that do not respect that, pro-lifers are going to challenge that.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 12:39 pm | #

I predict that the Pill will be OTC within 5 years, and that within 15 years (on the outside) we'll have both Plan B and the Pill OTC without age limits.

And, absolutely, we'll have "buying for my girlfriend" guys out there covering up their statutory rape. I mean, Planned Parenthood already helps them cover that up now, and this will only make it easier for men to prey on girls.
The Soccer Mom | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 12:57 pm | #

Nice, Shelly.
______
" Why should that be a problem for you? The drug is legal . . . Does everyone else have to agree with you and use it?

I thought he was agreeing with y'all? But anyway, oppposition to Plan B has largely been based, one has to assume, on the idea that is causes abortions, and this will continue to be the case for some time, probably regardless of the evidence. I don't think it's impossible that at some point its OTC status might be withdrawn due to political pressure.

Additionally, people who baldly state that Plan B causes abortions are misrepresenting (knowingly or not) the current state of knowledge. It wouldn't be good if I started telling people (who might believe me) that abstinence causes various health problems, even if there was a teeny-tiny hypothetical chance that it might slightly increase the risk for one or two (I have no idea if this is the case - presumably not?). Same thing.

"Again, I ask what difference does it make to you what we believe? "

Well, when in comes to facts, it certainly helps if we're all on the same page.

There is no evidence, as far as I know, that Plan B works by blocking implantation. The evidence we have seems to support the claim that it doesn't.

". The Planned Parenthood types will now ask why the regular pill is not also an over-the-counter item, "

I don't think they will, not in any quantity. There are good reasons to keep the bcp a prescription med. - serious (if rare) potential side effects, long-term use, a variety of kinds, so that informed assistance may be vital in picking the one best suited, etc.

"Just how improbable does a possible post-fertilization effect have to be before you stop using the misleading words "abortion-causing"?"

My guess is that in some cases, we will end up with a global warming/evolution denial kind of situation, where the threshold is placed outside reality.

"is much the same as prosecuting someone for murder for making an image of wax and sticking pins in it."
Uh-oh . . . (Hides waxen doll of political figure behind back). What's that, officer? Oh, nothing, nothing - just, um, sitting around . . . [Kidding]

"It will be easier to get than beer for teenagers, since with the latter there are actually legal sanctions against the person who buys it for you."

Is it ok to give non-approved medication to minors? Anyway, certainly that somehow doesn't stop a whole lot of teenagers from getting, ie. beers and smokes - which are available at the local Quickie-Mart, unlike Plan B. Should we stop selling alcohol and tobacco over the counter?

"Would you rather subject said 12-year-old to an abortion? Or the experience of childbirth and motherhood? "
Exactly. And how do you see this 12 year old getting Plan B? One possibility is that a 12-year-old will tell an older relative/family friend/etc. that she had sex (and no, 12 year old kids should not be having sex; yes, some do (and too often because they are being preyed upon by older men, no, this isn't new, and that's what statutory rape laws are for!) and is worried about becoming pregnant. You would prefer she become pregnant?

"The bottom line is this: The FDA has approved the OTC distribution of a very powerful drug and we're still arguing over how it works and what it does."

Not really (no more than most other OTC drugs!) - some folks just don't aren't satisfied with the evidence showing it has little-to-no chance of causing abortions (bending over backwards again). Interestingly, for everybody pointing out possible risks - the FDA was going over this thing for years after the original recommendation, and the only immediately health related question they seemed to think worrisome (to put it in a neutral manner) was how it would affect 11-14 year olds - who aren't supposed to be taking it.

I suppose it's possible that they missed something big - they've had some trouble with that, and I'm sure that the more folks get appointed based on prolife credentials over actual expertise, the higher the chance of that happening. But so far, all we've heard from the FDA was the claim that while we know it's safe for older women, we don't know that it is for pre/very early-teens (fair enough, except maybe that's not really true . . ).

Oh, and that it might lead to teenagers forming "sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B."
Uh-huh. I think somebody was taking something, and not Plan B, either . . .

"Imagine the woman who has sex with her boyfriend on Monday, pops a pill on Tuesday. Has sex again on Tuesday night, eats another pill on Wednesday, etc. It's going to happen."

Well, there may be no outer limit for human stupidity, but at $30 a pop and with likely side effects that include being sick to one's stomach/ throwing up, she's paying up to $210 to throw up a lot and get a product that is rather less effective than regular (and much cheaper) birth control pills.

As PZ puts it (in response to the teenage sex-cult silliness:

"I have an idea. Instead of blindly restricting the use of a safe and useful contraceptive, how about if we increase the level of sex education so that these mythical kids planning imaginary "sex parties" would realize that Plan B actually has a fairly high failure rate and doesn't block sexually transmitted diseases at all? Then they'd know that this whole idea was very, very bad.

Oh, wait…the religious right opposes that, too."

"What was "Plan A"? No sex? "Safe sex"? No plan at all? "

Any of the above, from abstinence to some elaborate multiple-backup arrangement. The point is it's not Plan A, whatever that might be (as we've seen, it's not very good at that) - it's something you can turn to if Plan A fails.

"the chance that fertilization is actually PREVENTED is certainly not as high as "99%" or "99.9%", because the egg could have been released in the 24-hour period BEFORE the pill was taken."

I always forget the exact details, but I think? at least the general idea is right - that's why this isn't a good Plan A. Nobody's saying that it's 99.9% effective (at least, they shouldn't be!) because it isn't. IIRC, the actual failure rate is part of the evidence that it certainly doesn't seem to be keeping fertilized eggs from implanting.

"But why pretend that Plan B is a plan. It was no plan, that's why the person who wants it wants it. If there was truth in advertising it would be called "I screwed up and want to kill anything now". But that might not be the best marketing."

Ha! Except that it isn't killing anything, except odd ideas about life beginning at penetration. Perhaps it could be called "I got raped and would rather not bear my rapist's child" pill or "The condom broke, and we have two kids and a mortage and my husband just got laid off" pill, or the 'why do you care what happened, you nosy person, and would you prefer I got an abortion?" pill.

"In countries overseas, the number one consumer of the morning after pill is men. Why? So they can easily have sex and slip a woman a pill."
Striking but unsourced claim. Can you document (both parts of) this?

"Why did feminists fight so hard for yet another way for minors to be abused by sexual predators?"
(Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
Unintended consequences - hey, knives can be used to kill people! Shouldn't we keep them from being sold OTC? (Oh, and guns?) Except these are a lot more likely to cause harm.

". These "feminists" supposedly fighting for women's rights have just put women at the mercy of dangerous men. "

Plan B. Not roofies. How on earth is this putting woman at the mercy of dangerous men? This assertion is extremely bizarre.

"Congratulations on making date rape even more possible!"
And so is this. What?

"And that includes the guy who is molesting his 12-year-old stepdaughter and needs Plan B to cover up his crime."

Explain to me how this whole helps-rapists-and-molesters line of thought isn't an argument against keeping condoms from being sold OTC (or actually, from being sold at all, I guess). If not, how is it at all useful against Plan B?

"One of the real aspects of the climate of sexuality that Western Society has developed is a tendancy to sexualize younger and younger people. "
I think folks would find a fair bit of common ground with many feminists on this issue.

Look, it's clear that many people here have genuine and consistent concerns - like Pansy's sincere and serious posts here and previously about women's/minority health issues, or IA_ with estrogen. But listening to a lot of the folks who are talking about this issue, it really seems like, as digby puts it
This is more of that taking away women's autonomy is really giving them "freedom" gibberish . . .
They believe that the morning after pill is an abortion. But they would be against it even if it weren't because it encourages promiscuity. Or it allows men to exploit women. Or it's unsafe. Or it will give women emotional problems. Or physical problems because women who have abortions are more likely to die than women who don't. Except they aren't. But no matter, even if that isn't true, there are always a thousand reasons why women should not be allowed to [have sex]. Pick one and run with it."
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 1:01 pm | #

The "over 18 only" baloney was on my mind this morning as I drove past 16-year-old kids waiting for the school bus ... smoking. Yeah. Great enforcement on that one. Plan B will follow in those footsteps I'm sure.
C.J. | 08.25.06 - 1:19 pm | #

Pansy,

From what I understand that is correct.

The waste treatment plants are not up to snuff, most never were. It costs lots of money.

Even if they were we could get purified,drinkable water but it does not include cleaning any extra chemicals out.
P. Edward Murray | 08.25.06 - 1:28 pm | #

Can anyone point me to current scientific literature on the abortifacient effects of both the Pill and Plan B? Although the manufacturers, FDA, and the Physician's Desk Reference note a tertiary effect of a hostile endometrium and the official medical definition of pregnancy was changed to implantation in 1965 to allow the word "contraception" to be used to describe the Pill, there seems to be a theory out there that upon fertilization, this thinned out hostile endometrium is counter-acted by a release of hormones that counter-acts the thinning caused by the Pill.
MikeL | 08.25.06 - 1:35 pm | #

Additionally, people who baldly state that Plan B causes abortions are misrepresenting (knowingly or not) the current state of knowledge. It wouldn't be good if I started telling people (who might believe me) that abstinence causes various health problems, even if there was a teeny-tiny hypothetical chance that it might slightly increase the risk for one or two (I have no idea if this is the case - presumably not?). Same thing.

I don't think so as there is no accepted scientific proof as to when a baby is a baby, just people's beliefs on this. Catholics (and many other people, not to neglect anyone, I just don't know who for fact believes this besides catholics) believe life starts at conception. Therefore any drug that does intentionally does not allow a child to continue to live is not acceptable. I am sure many Catholic would gladly say "if you are Catholic, this is unacceptable because..." Is that a distortion of the facts?

Here's an analogy. Catholics don't believe in eating meat on Fridays. If you come to a Catholic blog that is discussing what are valid reasons to eat meat, such as being a minor, you can come in and say "Hey, that's a distortion of facts. Anyone can eat meat on Fridays, there are text books that say no one will die or can be prosecuted for having pepperoni on your pizza on Friday,"

I don't think anyone here believes the fact that Plan B stops a fertilised egg from implanting os going to stop pro-choicers from using it (maybe it is and that is what all the brouhaha is about), but just that if this is something that you consider before you decide what to put in your body, here are the facts on it.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 2:14 pm | #

Dan S. ""In countries overseas, the number one consumer of the morning after pill is men. Why? So they can easily have sex and slip a woman a pill."
Striking but unsourced claim. Can you document (both parts of) this?"

Yes, I can claim this (I forgot to put my name in earlier, I apologize).

http://www.heartbeatinternationa...MAP-8-25- 06.pdf

On page 7 of this link, you will find this information, though I do recommend reading the entire factsheet as it is chock full of information regarding Plan B and the Morning After Pill.
Andrea | 08.25.06 - 2:25 pm | #

Ok, so what I understand from the attached PDF is that women could be slipped the EC by male schemers without their knowledge or consent, like a rufee in a Coke?

-- Except~! The pills aren't all that effective, especially if someone is already pregnant, and the EC must be taken twice, at the same time, two days in a row, and from the very first dose extreme queasiness and headache can (and does, take my word for it) occur in the first half hour. My point is that woman is going to KNOW something is wrong.

Also, if the EC is taken more than say, once every few months, it will be much less likely to work. This is what PP told me, anyway. They wanted to make sure it was being used responsibly.

I think much of what was "reported" in that PDF is alarmist speculation. I want to see that backed up by concrete information.
Shelley | 08.25.06 - 2:35 pm | #

I just want to add/emphasize that Plan B is NOT a primary form of birth control. It's for accidents (which happen to anyone), and rape, primarily.
Any other use is proven to have shoddy results, at best. We should be educating people about Plan A, and the multiple options available. I really don't believe anyone who is truly educated about a Plan A will use Plan B unless there is a mishap or a rape.
If someone wants to be promiscuous there are so many other, easier, ways to avoid pregancy. I just can't see the abuses occurring just because it's suddenly OTC.
Shelley | 08.25.06 - 2:43 pm | #

"I don't think so as there is no accepted scientific proof as to when a baby is a baby, just people's beliefs on this."

Pansy,

There is, however, a popular notion that "a baby" is distinct from "a fetus".

Think about informing a favorite niece that she's "got the cutest little fetus face"!:)
jody tresidder | 08.25.06 - 2:51 pm | #

"I don't think so as there is no accepted scientific proof as to when a baby is a baby, just people's beliefs on this. "

Sure - but does anybody think a baby is a baby prior to fertilization, at the point where we only have two separate gametes (sperm and egg) with a single set of chromosomes each?

If so, the logical response, for prochoice folks, is to recriminalize onanism, no?


"I don't think anyone here believes the fact that Plan B stops a fertilised egg from implanting"

But as far as we know, this isn't a fact. At best (for the stops-implantation claim) there's (to the best of my knowledge) no evidence that it acts in this fashion; at worst (again, to the best of my knowledge), there is an increasing and robust body of evidence suggesting that it doesn't.

"but just that if this is something that you consider before you decide what to put in your body, here are the facts on it."

As long as they are the facts on it. To jump off your example, it's a bit like someone trying to convince people that barnacle geese weren't really "flesh nor being born of the flesh," and so didn't count for fasts - or something - out of honest confusion or whatever (esp. at the time when there was a good bit of evidence - but perhaps not 100% certainty to the contrary).
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 2:57 pm | #

"My point is that woman is going to
KNOW something is wrong."

Possibly, but it's more likely she's just going to think she has the flu or doesn't feel well. And, if she suffers from the more serious side effects, e.g., blood clots, etc., she won't know to get the proper help she needs. Not to mention that a man who is interested in date rape is probably uninterested on how one goes about using Plan B "responsibly." The intricacies of Plan B will probably evade their thought processes.
Suzanne | 08.25.06 - 2:59 pm | #

"I don't think so as there is no accepted scientific proof as to when a baby is a baby, just people's beliefs on this."

Even setting aside arguments of Religion, philosphoically, this statement argues for preventing abortions, or anything that may arguably be an abortion.

If we accept the premise that science doesn't know when a baby is a baby, and that only people's beliefs dictate that (two propositions that do not necessarily go together, or are necessarily accurate) then we accept the premise that human beings are making the call.

And if we do that, we have a choice between either erring on the side of caution, and assuming all life that is or will be human is human, or we decide that we have the right to err on the side of lack of caution, and kill off a few of the innocent, at a bare minimum, for the sake of convienience.

And once we make that concession, then we've conceded that we can really kill off anyone who is convienient. And pretty soon you have a pretty good rational for Auschwitz. After all, if people get to make that call, the people in power will make it for everyone, and there's no guaranty where that line gets drawn in the end.
Yeoman | 08.25.06 - 3:06 pm | #

Not to mention that a man who is interested in date rape is probably uninterested on how one goes about using Plan B "responsibly." The intricacies of Plan B will probably evade their thought processes.

This is exactly my point. Keeping Plan B out of the reach of women who will use it responsibly will never prevent abuse by rapists. Criminal behavior will always be perpetrated by those who wish to perpetrate it, no matter whether we reduce the number of abortions or not.
That is not a good argument for disallowing it. Like Dan said above, do we stop selling knives and guns over the counter because they can be misused?
Try a new argument - that one doesn't fly.
Shelley | 08.25.06 - 3:14 pm | #

Dan S, said:
"But as far as we know, this isn't a fact. At best (for the stops-implantation claim) there's (to the best of my knowledge) no evidence that it acts in this fashion; at worst (again, to the best of my knowledge), there is an increasing and robust body of evidence suggesting that it doesn't."

Can you provide any links to this body of evidence? I've been discussing this very topic elsewhere, but have not been able to track down anything solidly scientific that supports this position. Thanks, MikeL
MikeL | 08.25.06 - 3:17 pm | #

Recently, the question of whether oral contraceptives should be over the counter came up. One reason given for why they should require a prescription is to make sure that women visit their doctors at least once a year.

The way this was phrased, it wasn't that women on oral contraceptives needed to visit their doctors more than other women; just that prescription oral contraceptives provided a nice lure to get those irresponsible women into those doctors.
Kris | 08.25.06 - 3:18 pm | #

Delurking because I just can't help it...
I am pro-choice (and for what it's worth, I'm a hetero female, married, and essentially agnostic) but I will absolutely not refute that development of new life begins at fertilization. However, it makes me totally crazy when people refer to fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy, because *the woman's body is not pregnant with anything yet.* The fertilized egg has a chance-ridden journey, during which time the woman's own body does not even recognize that there is a developing blastocyst inside it. It may implant - - becoming a pregnancy - - or it may not. Quite of its own accord (or if you prefer, for reasons only God knows). This leads me to the following set of conclusions about life and its origins (apologies if this seems a tad nihilistic, it's not meant to be):
1. Life begins at conception (fertilization).
2. That new life does not have anywhere near a 100% chance of becoming a born person, with or without humans skewing the odds.
3. Life, and which lives make it to an earthly life vs. which lives never make it past being a few cells, is a pretty savage process indeed, and there is not much we can do about that.
At least Catholics are consistent and honest and represent that the issue is *indeed* about human will, and moreover about how people should *want* children more than they do. Many pro-lifers are rather disingenuous about that.
As I have a secular outlook on life, but am certainly no fan of late-term abortion or repeat abortions (though I would not ban them by law), I have no problem asserting that I believe that skewing the odds against implantation, or better yet, discouraging the very meeting of sperm and egg in the first place, is a far better option than waiting until a woman is 8, 10, 12, 20 weeks into a pregnancy she intends to terminate.
I suppsoe all this is meant to say that sadly, I see no chance for common ground between the secular/liberal religious, and the conservative religious, on these issues. I mean no disrespect at all - rather, it saddens me, because I like to think of myself as a problem solver and I like to think that compromise can be reached on almost anything. But at the end of the day, I am content with damage control.
Also purely FWIW - I have had to take Plan B two times - both after sex with my husband, both after using different brands of condoms from the one we usually use and thinking that perhaps there was a break or leakage. So even though (as someone on another board brilliantly put it) the "plural of anecdote is not data," I would meekly assert that by most standards, I am neither (a) promiscuous nor (b) irresponsible, yet we found occasion to need Plan B.
frickyfrack | 08.25.06 - 3:23 pm | #

Apparently, the health of women does not matter here, because every argument for Plan B automatically dismisses the possibility that women can be hurt by this! There is a reason why this pill was kept off the market. There is a reason why it is not being sold to minors. There are health risks!
Andrea | 08.25.06 - 3:27 pm | #

"I just can't see the abuses occurring just because it's suddenly OTC."

You don't work in the medical indurstry, do you Shelley? I do. I've got 10 years experience working for various specialties (geriatrics, pediatrics, family practice, sports med, etc). I can say from experience that you're incorrect. Patients can be specifically instructed in how to self-administer a medication by both the health care provider & the pharmacist & they'll still mess it up. It happens far more often than one might think possible. Far more.
Gene Branaman | 08.25.06 - 3:33 pm | #

There are health risks to anything. That's why it's about choice. Does someone choose a certain benefit over a risk? Maybe the risk is worth taking, like with blood pressure or diabetes medications.

Cigarrettes are VERY dangerous and they are sold OTC, let's not forget that.

No one makes a Multiple Sclerosis patient take injections daily that might give them a blood clot. He or she might choose that because the option is not to treat their illness.
Someone might also take regular birth control pills because of a thyroid disorder.

Medicine isn't perfect. That decision, however, is up to a woman and her partner.
Shelley | 08.25.06 - 3:35 pm | #

Gene, Actually I do work with medical issues daily. The abuse risks to which I referred was the rapists slipping it to women. You took my remarks out of context.
Shelley | 08.25.06 - 3:37 pm | #

Let's clarify something before we go on: "Medicine" assists the body in fighting off the effects of disease. Pregnancy and ovulation/fertility are not diseases. Plan B prevents a health woman's body from functioning normally.
Suzanne | 08.25.06 - 4:02 pm | #

Pansy,

There is, however, a popular notion that "a baby" is distinct from "a fetus".

Among pro-choicers, not pro-lifers. The flipside of your comment about your neice is don't you dare tell me the baby I am carrying in my belly is not my baby.I love her just the same as my born children. See what I mean?
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 4:14 pm | #

"I don't think anyone here believes the fact that Plan B stops a fertilised egg from implanting"

But as far as we know, this isn't a fact. At best (for the stops-implantation claim) there's (to the best of my knowledge) no evidence that it acts in this fashion; at worst (again, to the best of my knowledge), there is an increasing and robust body of evidence suggesting that it doesn't.

Dan S,

The drug information makes the claim. The pill is noted to do this. The IUD does this. it is a side-effect of hormonal birth control and I never saw drug companies refute the fact.

What the PLan B info claims is that it cannot stop a pregnancy in progress, but they do so without acknowledging that many of us believe a non-implanted fertilised egg is a pregnancy (or they are outright lying).

Again, look at it from the other way: if you are your wife are trying to have a baby, would you risk taking any drugs that could prevent implantation? I know you are going to say "nor would I risk a med that would kill sperm count", but the point is you probably would do neither.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 4:23 pm | #

"I love her just the same as my born children. See what I mean?"

Yes, I do, Pansy.

You are naturally modifying "children" with "born" for clarity.

See what I mean?:)
jody tresidder | 08.25.06 - 4:32 pm | #

"...And if we do that, we have a choice between either erring on the side of caution, and assuming all life that is or will be human is human, or we decide that we have the right to err on the side of lack of caution, and kill off a few of the innocent, at a bare minimum, for the sake of convienience....And once we make that concession, then we've conceded that we can really kill off anyone who is convienient. And pretty soon you have a pretty good rational for Auschwitz."

So, in other words, taking a pill that MIGHT prevent implantation of a fertilized egg is morally equivalent to systematic, wholesale slaughter?

"...don't you dare tell me the baby I am carrying in my belly is not my baby."

I personally would never tell a pregnant woman or her partner anything of the sort. No matter what you believe, it would be just plain rude.

But plenty of people saw fit to tell me that my miscarried seven-week embryo was "my first baby," and insist I ought to have mourned it.
L. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 4:38 pm | #

"If we accept the premise that science doesn't know when a baby is a baby"

I'd rephrase that, really. When a baby is a baby - in the sense intended -ultimately is not a scientific question, not a scientific issue, any more than 'where is the location of heaven?', or using a telescope to try to locate it . . .
___________
Andrea:" In countries overseas, the number one consumer of the morning after pill is men. Why? So they can easily have sex and slip a woman a pill."
Dan S.: "Striking but unsourced claim. Can you document (both parts of) this?"
Andrea:" Yes, . . .On page 7 of this link . . . "

Ok, read the pdf, read the pdf it referred to, and tracked down the original article that these two claims are entirely and solely based on. That is, the single, short, newspaper article published in 2002 in the Bangkok Times.

It is entirely non-quantitative - basically, it's all anecdote - and to whatever degree it may be accurate, is almost entirely focused focused on women misusing the pill, largely out of lack of knowledge and possibly access to birth control options, and some degree of sexism. Right towards the end, however, there's this bit:

"Sadly, women continue to have little say in whether or not their partner wears a condom. And several random studies have shown that men are the most frequent buyers of morning-after pills and that many learn about it from adverts in men's magazines.

``They buy the pills for their girlfriends or wives,'' said Nattaya, ``so that they don't have to wear condoms and feel they're at no risk of becoming a father afterwards. Some women I've spoken to said that they didn't even know what they were taking; that the guy just said it was a health supplement.''

Although many feminists believe that the morning-after pill gives them more control over their own bodies, it would seem, judging from the few studies conducted so far, that it is actually being used by men to exploit women.

We don't have any details about these studies: not how they were conducted, or where they were published, or the actual findings - nothing. Nor is it at all clear that American women (or men)are going to behave like Thai women (or men) - if any of this is accurate.

Forgive me if I am less than bowled over.

Some of the claims in this 2002 article about risks and such appear to be out of date - at least, the FDA doesn't agree.

"Can you provide any links to this body of evidence? "

Well, for starters, here's one - I just grabbed it; it's summarized by the same NGO that Nattaya (in the Bangkok Times article above) is/was employed by.

While it doesn't offer any additional research on this specific EC topic, folks might be interested in the Population Council's Facts about emergency contraceptive pills (pdf), which has information and references about EC in general.

And just for basics, here's PZ Myers explaining how Plan B works.
__________

I'm still waiting to hear why that whole 'it could help molesters' argument - with the exception of feeding it to them - doesn't equally (that is, equally badly) apply to condoms. Any takers?
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 4:54 pm | #

Dan S.

Okay, I'll bite. Yes, the argument does apply to condoms and other contraceptives. All assist molestation and extra-marital affairs and other social evils.
Suzanne | 08.25.06 - 5:02 pm | #

during which time the woman's own body does not even recognize that there is a developing blastocyst inside it

That's a scientifically obsolete view. You need to learn about EPF - Early Pregnancy Factor.

As for evidence on how Plan B might likely fucntion - see this journal article.

We don't know for sure that it has postfertilization (abortifacient) effects, but there's solid reason to think that it does, and not only some totally insignificant fraction of the time.

That's reason enough, from a pro-life perspective, for caution.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 5:06 pm | #

Kevin Miller - I had heard of EPF, but thought it simply pertained to the fact that the zygote secretes hormones which are detectable via scientific methods. Does it follow that because of EPF, automatically all zygotes will implant? I believe the conception-to-implantation ratio is still markedly less than 100%.

I understand that from a pro-life perpective caution must be urged about this pill (even though I am on the other side of the fence I understand the other side's reasoning, just don't agree), but I do take exception to the representation of the presence of a fertilized egg as signaling an established (implanted) pregnancy. Unless you want to categorically represent the first stage of pregnancy as being *that* rife with chance. I always thought "pregancy" referred to the time when a woman's body becomes actually attached to the zygote (it is implanted) and begins to nourish it.
I read the editorial at noroomforcontraception about how Plan B can thwart an "established pregnancy," but if the zygote passes throuh naturally and fails to implant, was it truly an established pregnancy?
frickyfrack | 08.25.06 - 5:15 pm | #

Andrea-
"There is a reason why this pill was kept off the market. There is a reason why it is not being sold to minors. There are health risks!"

You say the pill was kept off the market- nope, it's been on the market since 1999, with a prescription. After being used for several years, safely, by many many women, Barr asked that it be available OTC. There may be minor health risks, but they weren't enough to impress the FDA's scientific advisory panel- they said it could go OTC quite a while back, but the advice was ignored for political reasons. Once again- what would you prefer- a woman takes Plan B and prevents the pregnancy (or prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, in the more unlikely of scenarios), or doesn't and aborts at 8 weeks? This is, once again, more about controlling women's sex lives (under the guise of protecting their health) than it is about any legitimate concern for fetal rights.
Sara2 | 08.25.06 - 5:15 pm | #

The idea that we as a society would be free of molestation and extra-marital affairs without the use widespread birth control is completely absurd.

What we would have is a super-dense population of HIV patients. Sheesh!
Shelley | 08.25.06 - 5:35 pm | #

"So, in other words, taking a pill that MIGHT prevent implantation of a fertilized egg is morally equivalent to systematic, wholesale slaughter?"

No. But the beginnings of systematic wholesale slaughters start with the assertion that some lesser, less dramatic, moral wrong is okay. Then you are off and running by degrees.

While there are examples of spontaneous genocides, the more common example is of small things first. The Nazis didn't just go out and kill 6M Jews one day. They determined they weren't okay people first. Couldn't own property, couldn't marry certain people, and were just less than people. They got around to wholesale slaughter later, after they were so used to the idea that it was easy. So easy that it was hard to recognize for some.

Is making a person wear a yellow star the moral equivalent of wholesale slaughter. No. It's just a step on the road to it.

But what about these sort of pills. It's clear we really don't understand that well what they do, and there's dissention here whether they prevent a pregnancy, or merely "interrupt" some. So, perhaps were well on our way to a pharmaceutically induced wholesale slaughter ourselves.

I may be optomistic, but I suspect some day our ancestors will look back on this sort of thing much like the Germans probably look back on the Haulocaust, and wonder what we were thinking. Debating taking a pill that has an obviously unnatural action, and making ourselves chemistry sets. It doesn't seem very smart.
Yeoman | 08.25.06 - 5:37 pm | #

The flipside of your comment about your neice is don't you dare tell me the baby I am carrying in my belly is not my baby.I love her just the same as my born children. See what I mean?

Well, first off, congratulations, Pansy!
_________

And this is why people wandering around battering pregnant women so badly as to cause a miscarriage, etc. (see previous post), or women being forced to have abortions against their will, either directly or even by social conditions, - why these things are disgusting crimes.

But: what makes her your baby in the loving, possessive, protective, cherishing sense that you mean it? To me it would seem as if it has a lot to do with the fact that you clearly want a child, that you love her, that you think of her as your child. Which is awesome.

But not all women are in that position. They might be in despair over how they will support their previous children and another one. They might be tramautized by the thought of a rapist's spawn growing inside them (yes, it had nothing to do with that, but people are kinda funny that way). They might have the strong conviction they they're not ready or not willing to have a child, or that they've had all the children they will have. Etc, etc, etc.. And so . . .?
____________
"The drug information makes the claim."

This increasingly seems like a case of CYA

" The pill is noted to do this."
Will have to check this.

"The IUD does this."
That's my understanding. Plan B is not an IUD and has no resemblance to one - indeed, it's fundamentally different.

"it is a side-effect of hormonal birth control "
?

"What the PLan B info claims is that it cannot stop a pregnancy in progress, but they do so without acknowledging that many of us believe a non-implanted fertilised egg is a pregnancy (or they are outright lying)."

"At issue is the method’s mechanism of action: does it prevent the meeting of egg and sperm, or does it prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus? Recent research by members of the Population Council’s International Committee for Contraception Research (ICCR) and other scientists shows that the most popular method of emergency contraception appears to work by interfering with ovulation, thus preventing fertilization, and not by disrupting events that occur after fertilization."

"if you are your wife are trying to have a baby, would you risk taking any drugs that could prevent implantation?"

Well, if we going through IVF, my understanding is that my wife would (probably?) be given progesterone, so if you think Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from implanting . . .

well, that's cheating, since Plan B only has progestins - synthetic hormones that are like progesterone - but they've had some use in sustaining pregnancies, as well . . .

Look, nobody is insisting that people who are prochoice and worried about the chance - however small - of a blastocyst being stopped from implanting should have to use Plan B (choice!). But for people to insist that it causes abortions when this is at best unsupported - that's not good.
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 5:54 pm | #

"The idea that we as a society would be free of molestation and extra-marital affairs without the use widespread birth control is completely absurd."

Shelley,

That is absurd and I never said that. Your conclusion didn't follow what I actually did say.

What I am saying: The easy access to contraception facilitates these behaviors.

Furthermore, I don't think that there is any coincidence that the legalization of contraceptive dispense is associated with a skyrocketed rate in divorce. These social ills were predicted prior to the legalization of contraceptives.
Suzanne | 08.25.06 - 5:57 pm | #

I plan to watch this new development closely and proceed with caution and deliberation and wait until more research is done before I form a more solid opinion on it. That being said though, I think that Yeoman's posts hit the nail on the head. I am for assigning worth and value to human life in a way that is as broad and inclusive as possible, and if Plan B is proven to broach this in any way, than I'd have to be against it. An embryo may seem small and insignificant, but, for me at least, the issue of whether or not we assign it worth and value has big implications because I see great danger in personhood theory. If I may go off on a tangent-though a related one-and elaborate on what Yeoman was saying, I'll explain why. The problem with creating our own definitions of personhood is that they can be quite subjective and are subject to change in any way as long as the person changing them can convince enough people of the merit of those changes. This is not difficult to do as they are often framed in terms of things most people are for, such as compassion and choice. The changes can become more inclusive but they can also become more exclusive. In a society where some groups of people are looked upon as a burden or it is viewed compassionate to kill them, or even in an extremist society where some are viewed as a nuisance or an enemy (thus Yeoman's reminders of what happened in Germany are no exaggeration), the definitions will most likely exclude them. This has already happened before and it is happening again. The philosophy of utilitarianism is popular in mainstream bioethics and it and one of its adherents, Princeton professor Peter Singer have set about changing the definitions once again to exclude infants up to 28 days, people with severe cognitive disabilities or who are in comas, elderly people with dementia, and anyone whose existence results in more "misery" than "happiness" (the terms are used quite subjectively here) or who are taking up hospital beds from people who are less sick. Since this is framed in terms of a philosophy that aims to increase happiness and decrease suffering, a lot of people have been convinced of its merit. Sorry for the long tangent but I meant it to illustrate that though this issue may seem small and arbitrary and we may seem to just be against choice or certain kinds of behaviors it is really quite a bit bigger than that.

The other problem I have with this is the way it was pushed so aggressively and is being hailed as such a victory and a triumph when its long-term effects aren't even known and professionals have warned of serious danger resulting from multiple uses. In principle, now that it is an OTC drug, anyone can use it as many times as they want to without a doctor supervising them and checking to see how many times they've used it before so they can advise them against using it again. In reality, based on the likely amount of people who will be using it and the fact that some have gone as far as to have a very uncomfortable surgical procedure done multiple times, something tells me there will be people using it multiple times. Perhaps some will be put under pressure to. Certainly there are some medications and treatments out there that are quite nasty, but I would hope that we at least know what the effects are and require a prescription for most of them so that people can have the benefit of a doctor's advice and supervision. I think those who have pushed this so aggressively have put politics before the very things they are supposed to be standing for-women's health and well being.

(By the way, I'm sorry if I double posted this, my computer has been acting up a bit and it didn't seem to work last time).
J.B | 08.25.06 - 6:00 pm | #

"...thus Yeoman's reminders of what happened in Germany are no exaggeration..."

Well, you`re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you`re coming very close to trivializing the Holocaust, if you`re comparing a small possibility of a drug`s side effect with a massive, clearly-stated extermination campaign.
L. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 6:09 pm | #

'I also agree with the aforementioned comment -- if it's available OTC, it's available to EVERYone. And that includes the guy who is molesting his 12-year-old stepdaughter and needs Plan B to cover up his crime.'

Right. Because sexual predators and child molesters are currently so deterred by the prospect of pregnancy...not to mention the fact that if some of y'all had your way, the victims would get the added bonus of carrying their daddy's baby to term!

"A human being is a human being from conception until natural death."

Which makes God the biggest abortionist of them all.
Fresh | 08.25.06 - 6:17 pm | #

"I love her just the same as my born children. See what I mean?"

Yes, I do, Pansy.

You are naturally modifying "children" with "born" for clarity.

See what I mean?:)

Just wanted to clarify, I was not trying to be snotty (not saying you assumed that). If I came off like that I apologise.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 6:17 pm | #

Well, first off, congratulations, Pansy!

Dan S.,

Thank you.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Like every other pro-lifer here, I am very afraid of the moral and medical implications of this drug becoming so easy, but many are arguing that better than I could.

My one point is that people of certain moral and/or religious beliefs should not have to change their beliefs and practices about when life begins/ends now that their is a drug easily available that gives people more power to have control over that.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 6:25 pm | #

But plenty of people saw fit to tell me that my miscarried seven-week embryo was "my first baby," and insist I ought to have mourned it.

There is the moral discussion of when life begins...then there are weird, rude people from all persuasions, political stances, races, religions etc.

I believe a 7-week-old baby is a baby, but I would never tell a mother how to mourn her loss or anything weird like that.

Oddly, I know a lot of women who hear just the opposite "well, there was something wrong with it and maybe this was for the best..." Not very tactful either.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 6:30 pm | #

Well, I got all kinds of comments --"It was all your fault for working too hard/going white-water-kyaking/not wanting it and killing it with your bad vibes," etc.

And yeah, someone did say to me, "It nature weeded it out, it would probably been retarded, anyway." I replied something like, "Wow -- nature obviously doesn`t do enough weeding!" but I think the subtlety was lost on that person.

I have a feeling that some people will indeed misuse Plan B -- after all, there are people who need liver transplants after accidentally OD`ing on Tylenol.
L. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 6:42 pm | #

"I was not trying to be snotty (not saying you assumed that). If I came off like that I apologise."

Pansy,
"Snotty" would have been entirely acceptable anyway in view of my comment re: "fetus face".

Tone can be tricky.
jody tresidder | 08.25.06 - 6:59 pm | #

Dan S. ( and those interested - See the Princeton site which defines pregnancy as implantation of a fertilized egg and further states: "Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg.". (Emphasis mine.)

For those of us who believe a fertilized egg is a baby, the researchers at Princeton and elsewhere have provided the research that proves Plan B is, at least some of the time, an abortifact. Much depends on where a woman is in her menstrual cycle.

Which makes God the biggest abortionist of them all.

Fresh, et al. - The issue is not death, which is, unfortunately, a part of living on this earth. The issue is who has the right to decide who will die and when. Catholics believe that God is the only one who has the right except in very rare circumstances (to defend society from a criminal or for self defense when there is no other alternative and in just wars). But, since God is God, it is His to determine when and how we will die. The issue is really usurping God's authority.
Drusilla | 08.25.06 - 7:12 pm | #

Drusilla, why is a "just war" okay, but never a "just abortion?" Either way, innocent human life is destroyed -- but some killing is okay and some is not?

You know I`m not pro-life myself, and don`t believe in criminalizing either abortion or war (though I`m no fan of either) -- but it seems that in both cases, humans play God, and determine the fate of human life.

This always struck me as inconsistent.
L. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 7:26 pm | #

Yeoman,

In the view of Plan B's producers and advocates, Plan A is their ideal that sex has nothing to do with procreation.
Plan A is actually a fantasy ("We were just fooling around. We didn't intend to create a child.")

So, because one's intentions did not suffice as a means of contraception (Plan A), one must now deal with the baby that arrived.

Plan A is anti-scientific: I'll have intercourse while affirming my right to not carry a baby to term.
Here I go-- I'm affirming!

After the inability of really, really serious, concentrated affirming fails to block incoming sperm, then Plan B is introduced.

Plan B is a solution. Much like Hitler's Final Solution. It kills that which is undesirable. If every child is to be a wanted child, as PP likes to tell us, then the unwanted children (the untermenschen) are treated to a solution.

Hitler used Zyklon B to gas the sub-humans.
PP uses Plan B to exterminate the non-persons.

It's a gas!
Leif | 08.25.06 - 8:04 pm | #

L,

We are taught that killing another human being is wrong, but you do have the right to defend yourself.

But I always wonder why "shoot to Kill"?

Seems to me that you want to stop the criminal...shooting not for the heart but say a leg is not going to kill probably.

There is the concept of "Just War"
For example what happened on 9/11/2001 to us.

An Unjust War is what we did in Iraq.
P. Edward Murray | 08.25.06 - 8:20 pm | #

Leif,

There are reasons some folk get twitchy about abortion/Holocaust comparisons.

Abortion is not a state-mandated attempt to wipe a race of men, women and children off the face of the earth.
jody tresidder | 08.25.06 - 8:21 pm | #

L says:
" Drusilla, why is a "just war" okay, but never a "just abortion?" Either way, innocent human life is destroyed -- but some killing is okay and some is not? "

This is the apotheosis of feminism! "All those men are marching off to war to kill one another. Why can't us girls get in on the fun? I say we kill a few babies on the homefront... Anything you can do I can do better... "

L, a developing fetus is not a grave and present danger. I suppose you could lie to the country and say the fetus possesses weapons of mass destruction, to justify a pre-emptive attack on an innocent life.
Leif | 08.25.06 - 8:23 pm | #

"Abortion is not a state-mandated attempt to wipe a race of men, women and children off the face of the earth."

Jody,
Abortion is state-mandated in the US, in the sense that it is state-authorized and state-sponsored.
And, indeed it is wiping out millions.

I'm glad the comparison causes twitches. Go ahead and twitch. Twitch until you see how much "Arbeit Macht Frei" sounds like "Abortion Macht Frei".
Leif | 08.25.06 - 8:35 pm | #

Leif,

So - abortion is NOT state-mandated?
NOT to do with racial elimination? And NOT about the killing of men, women and born children?

But otherwise it's pretty much like the Holocaust?

Do you not see the potential for historical offense?
jody tresidder | 08.25.06 - 8:43 pm | #

Jody,

What did Roe v Wade say?

That abortions were legal.

And how is Abortion not the same as
the Holocaust?

More abortions have occurred than people murdered during the Holocaust.
P. Edward Murray | 08.25.06 - 8:57 pm | #

Lief, sometimes you remind me why I`m so proud to be a feminist. :)

Granted, a developing fetus is not ALWAYS a grave and present danger - but sometimes it is. What then?

"Abortion is state-mandated in the US..."
Oh, I won`t even touch that one. I promised Dawn I`d be nice.
L. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 9:04 pm | #

Kevin Miller - I had heard of EPF, but thought it simply pertained to the fact that the zygote secretes hormones which are detectable via scientific methods. Does it follow that because of EPF, automatically all zygotes will implant? I believe the conception-to-implantation ratio is still markedly less than 100%.

No. It doesn't follow that all embryos implant. ("Zygotes" never implant. A zygote is the single-celled embryo that's the immediate result of fertilization. By the time implantation happens, days later, we're well past that stage.)

But it does follow that, as I indicated, it isn't true that the woman's body doesn't recognize that anything is going on.

EPF is detected in the woman's blood.

And - it's produced by the woman - in response to some sort of chemical signal from the zygote - which, like EPF itself, hasn't yet been fully characterized.

Again, therefore, it simply isn't true that the woman's body's recognition of and response to the presence of the developing embryo doesn't begin till implantation.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 9:07 pm | #

Historical offense!

Oh darnit, my remarks might offend.
Offensive remarks are a big no-no, aren't they? Whoops. Sorry Jody.

Know what? You go back to supporting baby killing, and I'll watch it with my naughty language. My bad.

No, I'm just messin' with you there. In my opinion, killing a bazillion babies *might* cause historical offense.
Leif | 08.25.06 - 9:08 pm | #

... By the way, this isn't the only reason why the idea that "pregnancy" doesn't begin till implantation is ideologically motivated cant.

Even if there were no (e.g., chemical) interaction between embryo and mother till implantation, the fact would remain that, once fertilization happens, from that moment on, until either the birth or the death of the resulting baby, the woman's body has a baby's body within.

It's perfectly reasonable to call that "pregnancy."

Nor does the loss rate prior to implantation - whatever that rate is (we don't know exactly) - have anything to do with it. I mean, there may well be a substantial number of embryos lost very soon after implantation. And, of course, there are miscarriages that take place still later - after the woman knows she's pregnant - and there are stillbirths, still later.

For that matter, the human mortality rate is 100%. In the words of Keynes, "In the long run, we're all dead."

But we don't say that a woman with a 3-week-old embryo in her womb isn't pregnant. We don't say that a woman with an 8-month-old fetus in her womb isn't pregnant. We don't say that a woman with a born child isn't a mother. All of these things notwithstanding the fact that the embryo might die soon, or the fetus might die soon, or the born (even adult!) offspring might die soon.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 9:13 pm | #

L.
Jabbing a blade into the tender neck of a live female fetus, and suctioning its brains out is not true feminism.
Leif | 08.25.06 - 9:15 pm | #

I think it's disingenuous to proclaim that pro-choicers are all pro-abortion. I believe that whether or not someone believes that abortion is the right choice, everyone should make the decision for themselves, with the help of their physician, clergy, or family.

By that argument, you should argue that it is wrong to refer to the "anti-slavery" and the "pro-slavery" people. Since the pro- peopl were not insisting on everyone's owning slaves but letting people chose, you should insist that the correct term is "pro-choice" -- and "anti-choice" for the abolitionists.
Mary | 08.25.06 - 9:19 pm | #

Please, everyone, no more bitter sarcasm and personal attacks for today (or any day).
Dawn Eden | 08.25.06 - 9:24 pm | #

Leif, you so perfectly set me up to ask, "So it`s okay to do it to MALE fetuses?"
Seriously -- my definition of "feminism" is obviously very different from yours.

And Mary, the slave metaphor always left me scratching my head -- slaves were never inside their masters` bodies, which for me is the crucial determinant of my own sphere of control.
L. | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 9:25 pm | #

Mary is using a slave metaphor to illustrate a certain narrow point about the labels "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", not whether or not a person's location determines whether they ought to be considered property or not. Am I going to have to be the official metaphor cop here? I can't get youtube to work right now, and I NEED to find out if they have the simile school sketch from Almost Live.
Dave Munger | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 10:20 pm | #

Kevin - actually, from what I am able to read about EPF via various scientific sites (I steered clear of the most non-scientist-friendly entry and first to come up in Google, which was LifeIssues), EPF does not alert the woman's body to the presence of a zygote - in fact it does the opposite. It is an immunosuppressent, and effectively hides the presence of the zygote from the woman's immune system so that her own body does not attack it as an invader. The EPF is generated by the zygote, not the woman. As I said before - I don't argue that life does not begin at conception. It does. But you seem to be trying to make the point that the woman's body knows about the zygote from the moment of conception and makes all preparation and welcome for it - when in fact it seems that, by your own example you urged me to look into (EPF), the situation is the opposite. It would seem that from a strictly biological standpoint, the zygote is not safe - from the woman's body - until it implants.

All this is not to join in the occasional radical argument that "the fetus is a parasite" - if it is a parasite, it is obviously of the best kind, and many women who find themselves pregnant gladly offer up their body for nine months. I am not arguing the value of an established pregnancy (I mean, I guess I might be asked to try, as I'm pro-choice, but I don't believe I can speak for anyone else). I am simply stating that I don't see how it's logically possible to regard skewing the odds against conception or implantation of a fertilization as being either biologically or psychologically equivalent to terminating an established, implanted pregnancy.
Thank you for tipping me off about looking into EPF - I had heard of it but didn't know much about it. I learned something new today.
frickyfrack | 08.25.06 - 10:24 pm | #

Even if there were no (e.g., chemical) interaction between embryo and mother till implantation, the fact would remain that, once fertilization happens, from that moment on, until either the birth or the death of the resulting baby, the woman's body has a baby's body within.

It's perfectly reasonable to call that "pregnancy."

Being a Catholic Mom and having quite a few Catholic Mom friends (read: quite a few pregnancies), it is not uncommon for us to become adept at identifying when we wre pregnant pretty early on. I hope this is not TMI, but it is not uncommon to experience some bleeding suring implantation. For many of us, our immediate reaction is to do the girl thing: call each other up because we are in a panic that this may be the initial signal of an early miscarriage. Nine times out of ten, our friends help us look at the date and see it is just what is called "implantation bleeding". Everyone breathes a sigh of relief, and life goes on.

In these scenarios, I never knew anyone to say "you mean yesterday I was not pregnant, but today I am since I probably had implantation?"I don't think that thought would cross anyone's mind. Two lines-congrats you're a Mommy!

I am actually not exactly sure where I am going with this, but I think I felt compelled to add some human emotion/ experience to the scientific terms.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 2:26 am | #

frickyfrack:

"I am simply stating that I don't see how it's logically possible to regard skewing the odds against conception [a] or implantation of a fertilization [b] as being either biologically [c] or psychologically [d] equivalent to terminating an established, implanted pregnancy."

Oh, the possibilities.
a=c; a=d; b=c; b=d

b=c: If the thing conceived has a biological identity that marks it as the offspring of mother and father, and if this biological identity were to be the same before and after implantation (is recognized), then deliberately interfering with the natural growth of this offspring at either point would mean the same result for the same thing.
Philip | 08.26.06 - 3:00 am | #

frickyfrack:

1. No, EPF is produced by the ovary, not the embryo. It's something that's often called "ovum factor," and that may be a platelet-activating factor, that's produced by the embryo and that seems to induce maternal ovary production of EPF.

2. The very fact of its production is therefore a maternal response to and recognition of the zygote - even though its effect is then to hide the zygote from the maternal immune system.

3. As I said before, the human mortality rate is 100%. When we kill a born human being, we're killing a human being - we're not simply making something happen that's inevitably going to happen sooner or later. The latter characterization would be tendentious and reductionistic. Similarly, the fact that a lot (but obviously less than 100%) of early embryos don't implant, and therefore die very soon, doesn't mean we're not doing anything like killing them (abortion) when we force that to happen.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 9:24 am | #

Lief: The Allies took up arms against Hitler. What do you plan to do to the women in the waiting room of a Planned parenthood clinic?
emptypockets | 08.26.06 - 10:18 am | #

Leif,
Jody,
Abortion is state-mandated in the US, in the sense that it is state-authorized and state-sponsored.
And, indeed it is wiping out millions.I'm glad the comparison causes twitches. Go ahead and twitch. Twitch until you see how much "Arbeit Macht Frei" sounds like "Abortion Macht Frei".

Do you live in fear for your life today because of your stand against abortion? Is your physical existence threatened by the state, neighbors, colleagues? Do you honestly regard yourself as the equivalent of the incredibly heroic dissidents in Nazi Germany?

The answers should be "no" and "don't put words in my mouth!".

And these answers should also point up some of the substantial differences between the Holocaust and support for abortion rights.
jody tresidder | 08.26.06 - 10:19 am | #

Why the Plan B Debate Won't Go Away, from Time.com.

Interesting. Also reminds us that the FDA's own scientific advisors approved OTC sales - sans age restrictions, even! - way back in 2003, and that the only health concern seriously mentioned - the reason for the initial rejection - was that " there was insufficient evidence to suggest that teenagers would be able to self-administer the drug safely." It has been argued, based on FDA records, that this claim was essentially bogus, a false justification of an entirely political decision unsupported by the actual evidence.
_______________

Shelly: "I think it's disingenuous to proclaim that pro-choicers are all pro-abortion.
Mary: " [slavery comparison]. . . you should insist that the correct term is "pro-choice" -- and "anti-choice" for the abolitionists."

Certainly there are a whole bunch of people who are, to varying degrees, both pro-life and pro-choice, in that they personally would not get an abortion and may think it's entirely wrong, but would not try to stop (and may even support) other people being able to do so (perhaps with some minor restrictions). And nobody is pro-abortion in the sense that some people are pro-life - that is, nobody thinks every woman must have an abortion, or that every pregnancy must be aborted (in contrast to the idea that every pregnancy must be carried to term, except perhaps in life-of-the-mother situations).

Indeed, prochoice folks would be perfectly happy in a world where there were no abortions because no woman wanted or needed one. That's why there's so much emphasis on birth control, including Plan B (which also, I think, has become a sort of proxy fight on top of everything else). Leif, you argue that the corollary to "every child a wanted child" is that unwanted [fetuses] will be killed. Would you be willing (whatever your other goals) to help work towards a world where every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy? (Telling people in general "don't have sex unless you want a baby" isn't a practical way to accomplish this.)

On the other hand, there are definitely people who want to make abortion illegal for all women under all circumstances (except to save the mother's life). In this case, it would seem to be accurate to describe them as not just, anti-abortion but also anti-choice, as Mary kinda suggests.

"I feel like the pro-life side really just wants everyone to stop having sex without actively trying to conceive a child"

It certainly sounds like some folks do. And if people want to follow this on a personal level, as their choice, good for them! If they want to defend this choice, or even try to convince other people that they should make a similar choice, that's fine. But any attempts to make people do this, including attempts to make it harder for them to have sex without conceiving - that's certainly not ok, any more than attempts to make people have sex without trying to conceive a child.
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 11:28 am | #

And Mary, the slave metaphor always left me scratching my head -- slaves were never inside their masters` bodies, which for me is the crucial determinant of my own sphere of control.

But, L., are you anti-choice or pro-choice? Do you feel entitled to force other people to not own slaves, or do you merely reject the notion of owning slaves for yourself?

Certainly there are a whole bunch of people who are, to varying degrees, both pro-life and pro-choice,

By that definition, you could be both pro-slavery and anti-slavery, merely by saying that in an ideal world, ther would be no slaves.
Mary | 08.26.06 - 1:30 pm | #

Mary, when it comes to slavery, I`m anti-choice, but when it comes to abortion I`m pro-choice.

My point is that they are very separate and distinct issues.
L. | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 1:49 pm | #

L says:
"And Mary, the slave metaphor always left me scratching my head -- slaves were never inside their masters` bodies, which for me is the crucial determinant of my own sphere of control."

This is like the 19th century slavemaster saying his plantation is his sphere of control...

...If it's in your body you get to kill it.
If it's picking his cotton, he gets to whip it.
Leif | 08.26.06 - 2:49 pm | #

Are they seperate and distinct issues in a special way that makes any analogy between the two automatically invalid?

Was there another post about Plan-B a week or so ago?

I'm considering changing my signature to indicate that I am Protestant in the extreme, I think some of my comments might be clearer if everyone knew that about me. One of the things this thread illustrates is the horrific effects of sloppy culture of life talk that renders some incapable of objecting to a child's head being torn off without in the same breath addding "also, birth control is wrong for religious yet non-scriptural reasons that can only be described with massive amounts of tortured latinate sophistry". No wonder it's Catholic's they always want to discus abortion with; You're all of their strawmen come to life.
Dave Munger | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 3:50 pm | #

As someone who became suicidal on the first pill I took, I would NOT have wanted to be embarking on that adventure without the guidance of a doctor who could change the pill when the side effects became clear.

I read this kind of thing and I'm flabbergasted. Safe? Effective?

Gee. This birth control pill is safe and effective unless it prompts me to kill myself.

Why hasn't the company who produced a pill with this sort of side effect been sued out of existance? Look what happened to the Vioxx people.

I feel like I'm in a universe where Spock has a beard. :P
Tony | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 3:55 pm | #

Great point, Tony. If Grace became suicidal on the first pill she took, what might happen if she took an over-the-counter morning-after pill, which contains up to 40 times as many hormones and doesn't require a doctor's supervision? This brings us back to the question of why drugs that are so much more potent than prescription don't require a prescription.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 4:03 pm | #

Dave,

we are not straw men, but wheat; so keep on grinding.
Philip | 08.26.06 - 5:10 pm | #

Wow, Philip! Amen to that.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 5:24 pm | #

Pansy: "I think we are going to have to agree to disagree"

Agreed! : )

"My one point is that people of certain moral and/or religious beliefs should not have to change their beliefs and practices about when life begins/ends now"

Agreed as well. And I'd go so far as to agree that folks who say that Plan B definitely won't end a pregnancy (defined as starting with implantation) without specifying what they mean by that are (innocently or not) misleading people who consider things differently; that's no good.

Looking over comments, I think I may have been making a stronger claim re: Plan B & implantation then I really should. If you go to that Princeton site that Drusilla linked to and then click on the 'more detailed mechanism of action' bit (pdf), there's a discussion of recent research: one study seems to show something that suggests a post-fertilization effect, then several others don't, and so on. As they put it " Based on their studies on human and animals, some are tempted to conclude that there is no post-fertilization effect . . . It is unlikely that this question can ever be unequivocally answered, and we therefore cannot conclude that ECPs never prevent pregnancy after fertilization. " (emphasis added).
And people should know (unless it changes!), that we can't rule out the possibility, so they can make the appropriate decision according to their values and etc. . . .

The moral and medical implications of OTB Plan B . . .well, I don't agree, but it's never wrong to be concerned. I would add that one of the big reasons for such a push, and one reason it's seen as a victory (and not a dark one) is that as pointed out above, I think, is that using Plan B is very much a time sensitive issue - to keep it available only by prescription would essentially mean keeping many women from being able to use it.
________
Leif: "...If it's in your body you get to kill it.
If it's picking his cotton, he gets to whip it."

I think even the most fervent property-rights person would recognize that there's a distinction between bodily integrity and 'property integrity', no?

Dave: "Are they seperate and distinct issues in a special way that makes any analogy between the two automatically invalid?

For the prochoice side at least of very limited utility, due to the at least perceived difference between enslaved born children and adults on one hand, and fetuses on the other. Also, pro-slavery folks often defended their peculiar institution on the grounds that freed slaves essentially wouldn't be able to survive on their own (certainly not true); a liberated first or second trimester fetus, on the other hand . . . (yes, yes, that's latching on to a irrelevant feature of the analogy).
______
"If Grace became suicidal on the first pill she took, what might happen if she took an over-the-counter morning-after pill,"

Go tell it to the FDA. They're the ones who reviewed the evidence and decided that OTC Plan B (which as a POP has, iirc, fewer and less severe side effects) was safe and effective. And this wasn't one of those so super-speedy as to be suspicious approvals or anything - it's been three years since the original recommendation, and there were pro-life/anti-OTC folks on the committee; pretty much all they did was insist that it wasn't tested enough in young adolescents.
_______
leif: "Abortion is state-mandated in the US, in the sense that it is state-authorized and state-sponsored."

Honestly, leif, this is like saying that you're a leaf, in the sense that you have cells and can fall. It's, well, a lie. If abortion ever becomes state-mandated - for specific groups or whatever - you'll find that pro-choicers are going to be right there beside you opposing that.

Re: all the Holocaust-abortion comparisons:
Daniel C. Maguire, Reflections of a Catholic Theologian on Visiting an Abortion Clinic:
"I learned that some of these men [protesting at the abortion clinic] had been coming every Saturday for eight years. The language was filled with allusions to the Nazi Holocaust. Clearly, they imagine themselves at the ovens of Auschwitz, standing in noble protest as innocent persons are led to their deaths. There could hardly be any higher drama in their lives. They seem not to know that the Nazis were anti-abortion too - for Aryans. They also miss the anti-Semitism and insult in this use of Holocaust imagery. The six million Jews and two million to three million Poles, Gypsies and homosexuals killed were actual, not potential, persons. Comparing their human dignity to that of pre-personal embryos is no tribute to the Holocaust dead. Jews and other survivors of victims are not flattered."

From the ADL: "Mr. Foxman added that "hideous and offensive" comparisons to the Holocaust were regularly made by some groups to manipulate emotions. "Whatever one’s position on this heartrending issue, analogizing abortion to the Nazi government’s campaign to murder every Jew in the world diminishes the truth of the Holocaust and implies that ordinary women engaging in a lawful act are Nazis.""

The fact that the Nazis were very much anti-choice - if you were a healthy Aryan, abortion was forbidden, if you weren't, abortion was either encouraged or (along with sterilization, and outright killing) made actually mandatory - is rather important, and why I think this comparison isn't very useful, and doesn't suggest that we're doomed to march towards another round of genocide (at least not for keeping abortion legal).
After all, all this was justified by various twisted ideas, for example:

"Especially in the 1920's, analogies of the German Volk (or German people) began surfacing, describing the German Volk as a biological entity or body. With this concept of the German people as one biological body, many believed that sincere care was needed to keep the body of the Volk healthy.

An easy extension of this thought process was if there was something unhealthy within the Volk or something that could harm it, it should be dealt with. Individuals within the biological body became secondary to the needs and importance of the Volk.

Since eugenics and racial categorization were in the forefront of modern science during the early twentieth century, the hereditary needs of the Volk were deemed of significant importance . . . Considering the new belief that the body of the Volk was more important than individual rights and needs, the state had the authority to do whatever necessary to help the Volk".

This absurd pseudoscientific claptrap is almost the exact opposite of the ideas behind the prochoice movement and prochoice ideology. What is important in the latter is the woman's ability to make choices about her own body, not the absolute primacy of the national/racial 'body' and the subjugation of individuals to it.
_______
"You're all of their strawmen come to life."
Night of the Living Strawmen!!!!

"we are not straw men, but wheat; so keep on grinding."
As long as you don't start calling us the teeth of lions. Millstones, ok.
_______
"Why hasn't the company who produced a pill with this sort of side effect been sued out of existance? "

Start looking up common meds and their side effects. Some of them are horrific, but as long as they're not knowingly concealed, etc., y'know . . .
________

Aspirin shouldn't be given to kids, due to an apparent link to Reye's syndrome - but I'm sure there are a bunch of parents or other caretakers who forget or never ever knew that, or older kids who take it themselves because it's sitting around and they have a headache. Should aspirin not be sold OTC?
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 6:14 pm | #

"Are they seperate and distinct issues in a special way that makes any analogy between the two automatically invalid?" asks Dave M. asks, about slavery and abortion. To the extent that my embryo is legally my "property," even though it`s a separate human life, you can certainly make that analogy. But for me, the only point that matters is that it`s inside and totally dependent on my own body, which for me, makes it very separate and distinct from slavery. My womb is no plantation.

However, I think the slavery analogy is useful, because it can help pro-choice people understand why pro-life people who truly believe that abortion is morally repugnant are willing to fight so hard to criminalize it, even if it doesn`t concern them personally.
L. | 08.26.06 - 6:27 pm | #

You're on pretty shaky ground associating pro-lifers with Nazis, Dan. That opens up a whole new can of worms for Planned Parenthood advocates: While the Nazis opposed Margaret Sanger's distribution of information on contraception, they derived great inspiration from the eugenic ideas put forth in her Birth Control Review and had close ties with some of her associates. See Mike Richmond's well-sourced article for details.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 6:31 pm | #

"While the Nazis opposed Margaret Sanger's distribution of information on contraception, they derived great inspiration from the eugenic ideas put forth in her Birth Control Review and had close ties with some of her associates..."

And Planned Parenthood today - in its website statement about Sanger - correctly condemns the views of her associates.

Just as Christians today correctly condemn the supportive use to which church teaching was put - repeatedly and to great and appalling effect - during the rise of the Nazis.

A few nights ago I watched the famous documentary about the German woman who professionally filmed Hitler's 1934 Party Congress. The footage included the grandstanding 'divine authority' speeches - they are very, very hard to bear.
jody tresidder | 08.26.06 - 7:43 pm | #

Dave,

we are not straw men, but wheat; so keep on grinding.
Philip | 08.26.06 - 5:10 pm | #

-------------------------------------

Wow, Philip! Amen to that.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 5:24 pm | #

Was that gibberish, or am I just tired? PPs arguments about "choice" hinge on misrepresenting all opponents of some forms of infanticide as actual opponents of effective birth control. This is a straw man argument, because as a rule, we do not. When some of us DO in fact, philosophically oppose effective birth control, and *rhetorically place this opposition on the same continuum as our opposition to abortion*, it appears to confirm the specious straw man case agaist all of us. If this sounded like an ad hominem or something, then I'm sorry you ethnic types are so touchy.

L. probably should re-read the post that immediately preceded her head-scratching about the slavery analogy, as it made a very specific semantic point that dosen't have anything to do with any of the ways that abortion is dissimilar to slavery.

What's happening to me, I'm on the verge of calling "Godwin's Law", I hate it when people do that. What have I become?
Dave Munger | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 8:20 pm | #

Calm down, Dave. Have some Sanka.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 8:27 pm | #

You know, you have to be pretty Neanderthan these days to oppose sound birth control of any type. Many, Many Catholics do NOT oppose birth control:

From: www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews/php? newsid=22678

"A llarge majority of Roman Catholics in the United States, Europe, and developing nations largely ignore the Church;s teaching banning the use of artificial birth control..."

The article goes on to say that the church is naive if it thinks it can prevent unwanted pregmancies and the spread of AIDS and other infections by preaching abstinence...

Age-appropriate sex education, and the availability of medical services including prescriptions for birth control are the proven methods to promote true family planning, and to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS and other venereal diseases. Living in a dreamworld with a bunch of unmarried men dictating nonsense about birth control and sex education that has no basis in reality, statistics or science, is a prescription for disaster.

Edited By Siteowner
Voice of Reason | 08.26.06 - 8:33 pm | #

...that's "Neanderthal" LOL I've lost my glasses once again!!

...please excuse the typos...
Voice of Reason | 08.26.06 - 8:34 pm | #

Pansy,

We only don't eat meat on Fridays during Lent but it used to be..way back in the 60's every Friday.
P. Edward Murray | 08.26.06 - 8:56 pm | #

Voice of Reason,

Sorry, but you sound anti catholic to me:(
P. Edward Murray | 08.26.06 - 8:59 pm | #

Is there any actual evidence involving a large-scale study with proper controls showing that Voice of Reason's recommendations will work?
Joseph Hertzlinger | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 9:07 pm | #

Will Plan B be used more often without prescriptions? Prescriptions enable the users to pretend that it's just another medical problem. Without prescriptions, they don't have that excuse.
Joseph Hertzlinger | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 9:09 pm | #

"My womb is no plantation."

That's oddly catchy.

"However, I think the slavery analogy is useful, because it can help pro-choice people understand why pro-life people . . are willing to fight so hard to criminalize it"

Very true . . . I didn't mean to discount that.
___________
Dawn: "You're on pretty shaky ground associating pro-lifers with Nazis, Dan. "

Did I do that? - I certainly didn't intend to. (true, among the more extremist fringes of the pro-life movement there seems to be some rather unsavory ideas and associations - see that ADL link above - but by definition that's quite far from the movement's mainstream).

" See Mike Richmond's well-sourced article "
Hey - I was just reading that! : )

" While the Nazis opposed Margaret Sanger's distribution of information on contraception, they derived great inspiration from the eugenic ideas put forth in her Birth Control Review and had close ties with some of her associates. "

Eugenics was hot back then; lots of quite respectable and progressive people were all into it, before the Nazis revealed the skull beneath its cheerfully hopeful face (although what was going on here in the US should have tipped a lot more people off). To her credit (partially), Sanger wrote back in 1919, in the pages of Birth Control Review, that

"Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother. . . .Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment

But even so, as that Planned Parenthood page goes on to say, many of her ideas, though typical of the time, are "objectionable and outmoded" today, and as wikipedia points out, she didn't extend the right of reproductive self-determination to the " undeniably feeble-minded."

But to your credit, you're not really going after Sanger, so much, but her associates, who supposedly cause problems for modern PP advocates. I dunno. By that logic everyone in NYC should steer clear of the American Museum of Natural History* (hosted the 2nd and 3rd International Congress of Eugenics in 1921 and 1932, had a big pro-eugenics exhibit in the '30s) and the Bronx Zoo (co-founded by Madison Grant, who shows up towards the end of Richmond's article with a personal letter from Hitler thanking him for writing the pseudoscientically racist (and best-selling/ highly influential) work The Passing of the Great Race. This lovely little book not only spent a good bit of text railing against my relatives (presumably not personally, but some of them were Polish Jews in 1920s NYC, - it's at that part where you can almost feel the spittle spraying out from the pages), but was used by the Nazis to justify their actions. He also played an important role in various major eugenics societies, and served on the board of the AMNH - wow, one really has to steer clear of that place, I guess. Oh, and the Bronx River Parkway. And the redwoods, and buffalo herds, and Glacier and Denali National Parks . . .

(It's amazing that I'm not running around trying to sterilize folks, given that I all but grew up at the Museum . . . although I never did go try to find the exact place that they based the lovely An October Afternoon Near Stissing Mountain diorama on, despite going to college nearby . . . ah well, the dreams of youth . . .)

* Personally, I think what they did to the Hall of Invertebrates - not to mention the whole fourth floor! - is almost reason enough, but don't listen to me . . .
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 9:39 pm | #

Dan S., I think in your OT stuff on the museum, we've finally found some common ground.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 10:15 pm | #

Voice of Reason,

I am an unmarried 49 year old male.
I have been responsible with my sexualality.

What the heck is wrong with being

Responsible?

Why is it that you just can't stomach the thought?

Are you saying that it is FORBIDDEN?

Does this mean that folks that feel this way have NO COURAGE?

Prove that you have courage!
P. Edward Murray | 08.27.06 - 12:15 am | #

Dan S.,

When was the last time you were at
the museum?

If you have gone in the last couple of years, you probably saw my sister's handiwork in the Rain Forest.
P. Edward Murray | 08.27.06 - 12:17 am | #

P.Edward Murray,
Pansy,

We only don't eat meat on Fridays during Lent but it used to be..way back in the 60's every Friday.

Actually we are still not supposed to eat meat on Fridays. Many people mistakenly thought VII changed this and they did not. What did change was the Church said that if you are a minor, ill, or elderly, you can eat meat and make some sort of alternate sacrifice.

Canon 1250 All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the entire Church.

Canon 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless (nisi) they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Canon 1252 All persons who have completed their fourteenth year are bound by the law of abstinence; all adults are bound by the law of fast up to the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors and parents are to see to it that minors who are not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are educated in an authentic sense of penance.

Dan S,

We have a family membership for the AMNH, and I find their one-sided perspective on the issues you mentioned extremely, well, annoying. The kids don't care anyway, as longs the they get to see dinosaur bones, the whale, and the planetarium. I just hold my nose through the rest.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.27.06 - 12:41 am | #

Jody,

And Planned Parenthood today - in its website statement about Sanger - correctly condemns the views of her associates.

No offense, but don't you think PP would be stupid not to? They have got some great spin going on over there.

But really, they might condemn some of the ideals on their site for the sake of PC, but they still continue doing her work and have not altered her mission at all.I have yet to see a PP in a nice suburban white neighborhood.

Hitler was not Christian.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.27.06 - 6:42 am | #

"I have yet to see a PP in a nice suburban white neighborhood."

Pansy,
There are no "nice suburban" non-white neighborhoods in the USA?


"Hitler was not Christian".


Hitler's personal beliefs were a rancid broth indeed.

Which is why I took some care when I wrote: "...Christians today correctly condemn the supportive use to which church teaching was put - repeatedly and to great and appalling effect - during the rise of the Nazis.

A few nights ago I watched the famous documentary about the German woman who professionally filmed Hitler's 1934 Party Congress. The footage included the grandstanding 'divine authority' speeches - they are very, very hard to bear."
jody tresidder | 08.27.06 - 7:18 am | #

P.Edward Murray:

I think it also takes courage to put yourself out there and find someone to be with.

[Ad hominem deleted -- see comments rules before posting again - Ed.]

Edited By Siteowner
Shelley | 08.27.06 - 11:12 am | #

Dan, I've asked you before not to respond to yourself -- that is, to post more than one comment in a row. I tolerate this occasionally -- sometimes a person will have an extra point to make that they forgot, or they'll want to clarify something -- but not when they post five times in a row as you just have. That is what is known as hogging the comments section and it defeats the purpose of back-and-forth dialogue and debate. I've deleted your five-in-a-row and have banned you until you assure me via e-mail (address at left) that you understand the comments rules and will abide by them.

UPDATE: Dan is unbanned.
Dawn Eden | 08.27.06 - 2:12 pm | #

Shelley,

First, let me say that I am the oldest child in my nuclear family.

Fro the tone of your post I take it that you are much younger than me and I do not think you have been through half of what I have had to endure and what I have had to help my family endure.

My Father passed away at a young age of 53 my only sister being 12 at the time. My brother committed suicide after a rather long and serious mental illness and because of his troubles, for many years, I was an advocate of the mentally ill.

I even had to take him to court just to get him treatment because as the law stands now, even a seriously mentally ill person has the right
(even though he cannot reason)to refuse medication.

I have watched my sister get married and divorced twice as I have watched first cousins get married and divorced.

I've been through the clubbing scene etc.,etc., and have never found the right person for me.

But even when I was dating, there were chances that I looked at those chances and asked myself what the outcome would be.

Sure, a few minutes pleasure for what?
When I knew full well that I was 3,000 miles away from the girl? Sorry, I am too smart for that.

Yes, I haven't really dated for a long time and to tell you the truth, my heart is still mending for the sword my college sweetheart left in my heart.

But that hasn't stopped me but I've not found anyone.

At the moment, I must be true to myself and to God. For some reason that I don't know, God has decided not to let me know that person that I will marry and quite possibly I will never marry and not because I do not want to.

Hopefully, soon, I will be able to find a rather decent job after my entire office was outsourced.

And at the moment, I am planning, if the current democratic nominee loses, to run for a seat in Congress.

So, who are you to ask me anything?
P. Edward Murray | 08.27.06 - 2:31 pm | #

Pansy,

I can already tell that you are not a
Roman Catholic.

For others who are not I will give you the rules for Lent found in our Parish Calendar of St. Ignatius Catholic Church Yardley ,PA

"Lenten Regulations on
Fast & Abstinence

Ash Wednesday March 1, marks the beginning of Lent. The following
fasting and abstinence regulations are
observed

Abstinence from meat is observed on
Ash Wednesday,Good Friday and all the Fridays of Lent by all Catholics 14 years and older.

Fasting is observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday by all Catholics who are 18 years of age but not yet 59.
Those bound by this rule may take only one full meal. Two smaller meals are permitted as necessary to maintain strength according to one's needs, but eating solid foods between meals is not permitted."

Days of of abstinence are are indicated with a fish on the calendar.

Apart from Lent, there are no other fish indicating abstinence, at any other time of the year.

Again, this was a new rule sometime in the 1960's. Before it, Catholics were instructed to abstain from meat every Friday all through the year.

Please don't argue the point because I do remember it and I know that if the rules were different we would be following them.
Anonymous | 08.27.06 - 2:51 pm | #

Anonymous, you're being personally insulting by making an assumption about Pansy. She is right that canon law still requires abstinence from meat on Fridays unless one performs another acceptable act of penance.
Dawn Eden | 08.27.06 - 2:58 pm | #

Dawn,

I'm sorry but you are very,very mistaken.

I do belong to the Roman Catholic Church, I'm not even sure that the
Eastern Right Churches still do this anymore.

Kindly, Dawn, look at your copy of your Church Calendar. It's published by the J.S. Paluch Co. which is a Catholic Publisher.

Like I said, this changed sometime in the 60's.

Why don't you check.

Anyway Good bye.
Anonymous | 08.27.06 - 3:09 pm | #

Dan:
"Individuals within the biological body became secondary to the needs and importance of the Volk."

The individual within the biological body of the mother becomes secondary to her choice not to carry it to term.


...come back Dan,
when you're all un-banned...
hmm, hmm, hmmm...
paper doll world...
Leif | 08.27.06 - 3:10 pm | #

Dawn,

Please do try to remember that you are a convert and be that as it may, you don't necessarily know everything there is to know about Catholicism but I can't quote all scripture either.

Suffice it to say that you really need to explore the rules a bit more.

I've been going to Church for 49 years,plus Catechism, plus some years in a Catholic School plus 4 years in a Jesuit Catholic University.

Please don't insult my understanding of my faith.

Sorry to say this but you've just lost a sale on your book.

I will forgive you and Pansy and will remember you in my prayers but I will never again come to your site.
P. Edward Murray | 08.27.06 - 3:20 pm | #

Mr. Murray,

(I don;t know if he'll be reading this, since he says, he's not coming back, but ya nevah know...)

I am 46 years old, married for 20 years, first and only marriage, and I have children. I am extremely responsible, sexually, and otherwise. My previous post is based in fact, and it takes into consideration the fact that everyone is not the same, and there needs to be different options out there so that people, especially young adults, can make good choices. Now, while you are obviously very intelligent, would I go to a single person for advice on marriage and children....Noooooooo.......
Voice of Reason | 08.27.06 - 5:17 pm | #

Jody,

Pansy,
There are no "nice suburban" non-white neighborhoods in the USA?

Got me. Of course there are.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.27.06 - 7:07 pm | #

OK, now I thought of some ad hominems.
Dave Munger | Homepage | 08.27.06 - 9:04 pm | #

Church calendars with little fishies notwithstanding, Dawn's statement is right on the money. The US bishops conference came up with this idea of alternate penitential sacrifice, as going meatless is no real sacrifice. There was also the concept of doing something positive (e.g., community service) as opposed to the ritual deletion of a dietary component.

Unfortunately the catechesis has been less than exemplary. The whole deal goes back to the idea that just as every Sunday is a commemoration of the Resurrection, every Friday is a commemoration of the Crucifixion.

I too remember when meatless Fridays were the rule. We didn't really know why we did it. And besides, seafood was on the menu in South Louisiana more often than not any other day of the week. Seafood was a celebration of God's bounty, not a penance.

This is w-a-a-a-a-y off topic.
C.J. | 08.28.06 - 6:13 am | #

This is w-a-a-a-a-y off topic.

Yeah, I know. I allowed it because this thread is so old and unwieldy that I figured anyone who sticks around might as well enjoy a sideshow.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.28.06 - 8:58 am | #

Yay! Dan is unbanned! =) Y'know, if he ever posted at HIS own blog there'd be more for me to enjoy.
Shelley | 08.28.06 - 10:55 am | #

Back on topic, Curt Jester has a good entry on Plan B and the implantation stuff. It is a couple of days old, so I suppose people have read it already, but I worked all weekend, so i am just seeing it now.

At least it is back on topic. :)
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 08.28.06 - 11:56 am | #

Pansy: Thanks for that info. As someone who grew up in a Protestant-dominated region of the U.S., I wondered where the whole "fish on Friday" thing that's so popular where I live now came from, since I could never find any sort of Scriptural source for it. I'd just assumed it was a cultural thing that immigrants from particular countries brought over.
jfpbookworm | Homepage | 08.28.06 - 12:48 pm | #

On the side topic of Friday penance, Jimmy Akin had two posts on his website (jimmyakin.org)in July 2004 and an article at Catholic Answers in January 2005 arguing that it is not required. He says that Canon Law leaves the exact obligations up to the Episcopal conferences. In 1966, the American Bishops explicitly removed the obligation to abstain without explicitly setting up any other obligation, and the USCCB holds that this is still in force after the 1983 Code.

I found an article by Fr. John A Hardon, S.J., dating to January 2002 (mariancatechist.com) where he states that the obligation is still in force, but that the obligation is only binding under serious sin in a general sense -- if one misses "a notable number of Friday's." I don't know if this applies to the US specifically, however.

My instinct is to believe Jimmy Akin because I do not remember ever being taught that the observance is mandatory, and if there can be a difference between "Universal" days of obligation for Mass (such as Corpus Christi) and the national standard of moving it to the following Sunday, then there can be a difference here.
Philip | 08.28.06 - 8:48 pm | #

This is an old thread but just thought I would respond to someones question
"am I afraid for my personal safety because of my views on abortion?"
Yes I am, in fact, I have not gotten a pro-life license plate specifically because I do fear for my personal safety.
Sarah Faith | 08.29.06 - 1:35 pm | #

Yay, I'm unbanned!

"Y'know, if he ever posted at HIS own blog there'd be more for me to enjoy."

Gee, thanks! (Embarrassingly, I've completely forgotten my Blogger password and such, and none of the "Forgot your password?" online help works, for some reason. But you've convinced me to go call 'em up!)
__________
This thread is about to drop off into the archives, but before it goes, a few links to pro-life folks talking about Plan B:

• Steve Chapman arguing that the morning-after pill is pro-life

• Serge at LTI has an ongoing series about Plan B and any possible post-fertillization effects:, it's currently up to 4: "Plan B EC: Does it Work if Taken After Ovulation? " Serge has previously linked approvingly to this very post: see here.

• JivinJehoshaphat (who's I notice is on Dawn's blogrolll) has a Plan B post where he asks for some scientific evidence please.
____________
Pansy: "We have a family membership for the AMNH, and I find their one-sided perspective on the issues you mentioned extremely, well, annoying. "

Er . . ? I was thinking more about presentation - they've gotten very flashy an' all. I have a theory about what you might mean (or perhaps not) but that is way, way OT, unless Dawn wants to post about it, so I'll hush - for more look here. Really, the most important thing is that the kids have fun and learn.
__________

Oh, I'm going to kinda miss Mr. Murray. Maybe he'll be back one day . . .?
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.29.06 - 7:38 pm | #

[Correction: Serge links not to this post, but to the planned parenthood in inner cities post.]
Dan S. | Homepage | 08.29.06 - 7:40 pm | #