Thursday, June 29, 2006

What Happens When There Is No Plan B?

i have no idea why i missed this article but the story this woman tells is compelling - and a damning finger in the face of those who are now trying to curtail a woman's access to ALL forms of birth control.

unbelievable:
"Although I've always been in favor of abortion rights, this was a choice I had hoped never to have to make myself. When I realized the seriousness of my predicament, I became angry. I knew that Plan B, which could have prevented it, was supposed to have been available over the counter by now. But I also remembered hearing that conservative politics have held up its approval."

read more below.

Dana L. What Happens When There Is No Plan B?

49 comments:

Songbird said...

This story makes me especially grateful for the kind treatment I received from more than one doctor when, as a married mother of two, I found I was carrying a baby with a genetic abnormality. Like Dana, I had never considered the possibility of having an abortion myself.
ding, thanks for linking to this.

jesus chick said...

this article just totally pisses me off, quite frankly. i would imagine that like dana and songbird, no woman plans for having an abortion. i get that. abortion is a painful process (i can only imagine) mentally, physically, and emotionally. but give me a frickin' break. why, WHY is it always someone elses fault? if only i could go through life blaming george bush or some other man for all of my problems. life would be so much easier.

ding said...

it IS someone's fault because there is a direct chain of causation, here. yes, she forgot her diaphragm; yes, she made the final decision.

but there were other decisions, external of her, that narrowed and defined the remaining decisions she made. think of a flow chart - because she couldn't get Plan B, this put her on a whole new, unthinkable road - one she never wanted.

her flow chart would have been much shorter, simpler - and her emotional pain would have never existed and you would never have gotten pissed off - if she could have gotten access to an easy birth control method (which Plan B is) - and never had gotten the abortion. this is the point.

let me repeat - THIS is the point:

if you don't give women and girls access to contraception you are *forcing* them to do the very thing you don't want them to do!

i'm getting really impatient with the pro-life side's inability to accept and acknowledge this simple logic.

Anonymous said...

Jesus Chick, I understand.
The reason for all the blame is because people do not like taking responsiblity for their own choices and actions. It like there conscience need something to make them feel better. It's my choice, my right to kill my baby if I want to. Dang! Is it okay for me to kill you? Why of course not! I could care less that some small minded man came up with a theory that its just a fetus or was it a woman?!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ding said...

i'd really like to know Anonymous' definition of responsibility.

apparently, a husband and wife who know their child is going to be severely damaged is irresponsible.

apparently, a husband and wife who cannot (and do not want another child) - and could not get access to contraception - are irresponsible though they tried their darndest to find a way.

apparently, the only people who are responsible are people who choose (whatever the cost) to give birth.

your view of responsibility is self-righteous, not compassionate and scary.

(and your question to songbird got deleted because it was totally inappropriate, rude and none of your business.)

Anonymous said...

It was written: "if you don't give women and girls access to contraception you are *forcing* them to do the very thing you don't want them to do!"

She did have access to contraception. She and her husband chose not to utilize it. The "Day After" pill is not considered contraception, is it? Contraception averts a pregnancy. The Day After pill ends one. Just thought the distinction really ought to be made.

Having said that, certainly, abortion cannot be not an easy decision for any woman, in any circumstance, although I suppose there are exceptions.

Still, I wonder whether the author's indignation is, perhaps, redirected as a direct result of her effort to place blame somewhere other than on her and her husband's shoulders.

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

p.s. I just left the above post and I am not the "original" anonymous! So I guess I ought to sign myself anonymous 2
:-)

Verlch said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

No I am not self-righteous, but I am concern about peoples idea of this baby thing being something to dispose of so easily. If I offended Songbird,I wasn't intending to do so.

Responsiblity would be define by thinking about educating ourselves about sex better. Yeah, sex is great, but every time I have it, I think about the responsiblity that comes with like, someone can get pregnant. Yep, even with protection. Another thing, if someone got pregnant and was told their child would be retarded or deform should they abort it?

I was standing in a line and a woman was telling another woman how beautiful her child was because he was reaching towards her to play with her. She then told that woman that she wish her grandchild was would play like that, her daughter should have never had that child. Obviously he had problems. How selfish.

greg said...

One of the anonymous said I could care less that some small minded man came up with a theory that its just a fetus

"some small minded man" is an interesting way to characterize the last several centuries of medical and biological science.

You keep assuming that a few cells traveling down a womens fallopian tubes is a "baby". I would say that it's a "baby" in the same way that an acorn is a "tree". We don't call acorns trees; we call them acorns and for darn good reason. An acorn may someday become a tree, but it is not a tree. A fetus may someday become a baby, but it is not a baby. The only point worth discussing is this one. Any post that starts with "why are you killing babies?" is going to be ignored because you are assuming something that the pro-choice community does not believe to be true.

Why do you think that a fetus is a baby? Because it has a beating heart? So do cows, and we slaughter and eat them every day. Because they "smile" in the womb (which is crap, since even newborns don't smile for the first few weeks)? So do the great apes, but they are not people.

What amazes me is that the pro-fetus crowd, a group which normally doesn't think much of science, define "human life" in such technical, biological terms: human life is any group of cells with human DNA in it that is capable of dividing on it's own. Or something like that. Call me crazy, but I always thought that "humaness" had to do with awareness, the ability to reason, and a self-awareness that makes us morally responsible for our actions in a way that other animals are not. If you want to try and convince me that fetuses at any stage of development have all of these properties, go for it. Otherwise why bother to comment (beyond wanting to hear the sound of one hand clapping)? The disagreement is not about whether or not murder is OK. It is about what makes a human human (in the sense of having human rights). Is it a certain collection of chemicals, as the pro-fetal crowd believe, or is there something more involved?

greg said...

Another anonymous (or the same one?) said The "Day After" pill is not considered contraception, is it? Contraception averts a pregnancy. The Day After pill ends one.

You are incorrect, if by "pregnancy" you mean the usual medical definition of that term. Pregnancy is generally defined to begin when the blastocyst implants into the uterine wall. RU-486 prevents the blastocyst from implanting, and thus averts pregnancy. But of course, if you belive that human life begins when the sperm cell enters the egg (forming a zygote), then this distinction is hardly relevent to you.

Incidentally, there is usually considerable time (like days) between coitus and the formation of a zygote, and considerably more time (like some more days) between the formation of the zygote and implantation (the beginning of pregnancy). Hence the 72 hour window. Implantation can in fact occur as much as 2 weeks after coitus.

Anonymous said...

Ding-
if you don't give women and girls access to contraception you are *forcing* them to do the very thing you don't want them to do!"

Did you have access to birth control and was a allowed to take them by your parents?

Or was it something else that may you have sex?

There something almost funny about these aruguments.

Greg- thanks for the science lesson, however a man and a woman laids down to have sex without any form of protection or with protection the female can become pregnant, I don't care about the science, What I do care about is the fact that if you want to be responsible, then think before having sex. If you are calling yourself a christian that is )whatever that may mean to those of you confessing a relationship with Jesus). It is a life,that is about to form itself. If God did not want women to have babies then he would have never, and I mean never, allowed us to have sex. For what!? pleasure or pain?

Thanks God that your parents did not kill you. Or that you are still alive to to argue for pro choice.

john patrick said...

Plan B is not a chemical abortion.

Plan B prevents ovulation. Plan B does not kill babies. I read it in the The Seattle Times.

So if it's not an abortion, why are the conservatives against it? Maybe it's because they don't know that Plan B is not an abortion.

Or maybe there's another reason.

greg said...

anonymous said I don't care about the science. That's interesting. What is science but the best way that we humans have found to understand the physical aspects of the creation. When you say that you don't care about the science, what I hear you saying is that you don't care how God actually created things; all you care about is the way that you think God should have created things. Why do you refuse to even try to understand (to the best of your ability) how God's creation actually works? Perhaps you think that this is exactly what you are doing when you read the bible, and I would actually agree with you there, but surely you cannot believe that God is so small and insignificant that everything there is to know about God and God's creation could be written down by a few humans a couple of millenia ago.

Of course, those guys had some excellent insights into the nature of God. Take, for instance, Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Or how about Job Chapter 11? After Job proclaims “My conduct is pure, and I am clean in God’s sight.”, Zophar responds (Job 11:7-9) Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven — what can you do? Deeper than Sheol — what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. While we, 2500 years after those lines were written, may know a lot more about the creation then the writers of Isaiah and Job did, it appears that they had a keener appreciation of that fact that God is fundamentally unknowable to us humans. We can learn (and are learning) ever more about how God made us and the universe around us, but no matter how much we know and how much we learn, we will never find out the limit of the Almighty.

So right back at you. How can you, claiming to be a christian, pretend to know what makes a human a human? How can you claim to know when "life" begins and when it doesn't? Certainly the writers of the bible knew that they had no such authority - there is not a single reference to abortion in either the old or new testament. How can you, claiming to be a christian, usurp God's authority for yourself?

greg said...

anonymous said I don't care about the science. That's interesting. What is science but the best way that we humans have found to understand the physical aspects of the creation. When you say that you don't care about the science, what I hear you saying is that you don't care how God actually created things; all you care about is the way that you think God should have created things. Why do you refuse to even try to understand (to the best of your ability) how God's creation actually works? Perhaps you think that this is exactly what you are doing when you read the bible, and I would actually agree with you there, but surely you cannot believe that God is so small and insignificant that everything there is to know about God and God's creation could be written down by a few humans a couple of millenia ago.

Of course, those guys had some excellent insights into the nature of God. Take, for instance, Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Or how about Job Chapter 11? After Job proclaims “My conduct is pure, and I am clean in God’s sight.”, Zophar responds (Job 11:7-9) Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven — what can you do? Deeper than Sheol — what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. While we, 2500 years after those lines were written, may know a lot more about the creation then the writers of Isaiah and Job did, it appears that they had a keener appreciation of that fact that God is fundamentally unknowable to us humans. We can learn (and are learning) ever more about how God made us and the universe around us, but no matter how much we know and how much we learn, we will never find out the limit of the Almighty.

So right back at you. How can you, claiming to be a christian, pretend to know what makes a human a human? How can you claim to know when "life" begins and when it doesn't? Certainly the writers of the bible knew that they had no such authority - there is not a single reference to abortion in either the old or new testament. How can you, claiming to be a christian, usurp God's authority for yourself?

greg said...

Sorry about the double post - browser problems.

Anonymous said...

Greg- Pseudo Science? Oh, and I do care about bibical science very much.

greg said...

anonymous - the bible is not about science. Science deals with the knowable, religion (including the bible) deals with the unknowable. You may not like that some things are knowable and others are not, but who are you to complain to God about the way that God chooses to operate?

Also, referring to science as "Pseudo-Science" just indicates that you haven't bothered learn anything about science. Like many "fundamentalists", you appear to have avoided learning anything about science because you have been told that there is some conflict between the bible and science. There is not. Each deals with different (though overlapping) aspects of our experience of God and God's creation.

And of course, the bible is only one small (though highly distilled) collection of writings about the unknowable. There are others, notably the Quran and the Vedas, and certainly all of the commentaries on these works deal with the same topic. God is constantly revealing Godself to us through all aspects of our experience, just as God was revealing Godself to the writers of the bible (and the Quran and etc.) The bible offers excellent guidance on how to recognize God in the world, and is an excellent handbook for delving into the nature of God. But the bible is NOT God itself. To confuse the two is idolatry, and breaks the very first commandment. To God be the glory. Not to any book or human words. Not to any religion or church. Not to any human thoughts or ideas or pictures of God. Only to God. The bible itself is very clear on this. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. The instant that you believe you understand God, you have replaced God with your beliefs about God and broken the first commandment.

Anonymous said...

Greg, first of all, I never said the bible was a science. However, upon reading Genesis I do believe that God,not you or I, created this master plan called creation. Now,

since you and I weren't the original creator of the universe and the contents that are apart of divine design, what makes you think that it's okay to take a life?
Yeah, I know it's a choice issue. Sure it is. Tell that to the guys on death row who have killed somebody or bodies just because they were operating their choice. Ahh, I know you do not believe Greg that murder is okay in situations like that, no that is wrong, you and others would say. But, its okay to kill ones child, you say. You and others will say, to justified your consciene, It's not a person, yet.

Young people, old people and whoever you want to include in this, do not need education on sex to prevent pregnancy,they need some strong moral views laid at them and people who have the boldness to let them know bibically what they are doing and who they are doing it to. It is God who will judge, not you or I.

I'm hungry, I'm about to go eat some beef that somebody killed for me to eat. Oh, I'll remember to bless my food to the creator who has given it to me to enjoy!

john patrick said...

meow meow meow!

Plan B is contraception! Plan B is not abortion!

meow meow meow!

Anonymous said...

No, John Patrick, she was suppose to get pregnant and have the baby. Not do something that I'm sure she's thinking about over and over in her head.BC are not 100% accurate.

I am so sorry she had to do that. I'm sure she is, too. To put the blame on the Bush administration instead of herself and her husband, well...

greg said...

Well, I wrote a really long response that, fortunately for all of us, exceeds the word limit for replies. So I'll just give you the first paragraph and the last two, and you can fill in all the space between with brilliant writing.

anonymous - I'm having a little trouble following you. You say since you and I weren't the original creator of the universe and the contents that are apart of divine design, what makes you think that it's okay to take a life? I don't see the connection from you and I weren't the original creator of the universe and the contents that are a part of the divine design (all of which I agree with 100%, btw), to what makes you think that it's okay to take a life? Also, I'm not clear on what "life" you believe that I think it's OK to take, and I'm not sure what you mean by "okay" (as in what makes you think it's "okay").

Do I think it's okay to take a life? The answer is yes, no, and maybe. Do I think that abortion should be legal? In some circumstances yes, in others no. Do I think that abortion is "okay"? No. Do I think that abortion is the right choice for some pregnant women? Yes. (This is stronger than saying it should be legal: I think that using heroin is the wrong choice for everyone, but I still think it should be legal).

You obviously disagree with this, and that's fine. But if you want to explore the nature of our disagreement, you have to talk about the details. Why should the rights of the fetus always trump the rights of the woman carrying that fetus? Is it because the damage done to the fetus by killing it is always greater than the damage done to the pregnant women by forcing her to have an unwanted child? If you believe that, do you also believe that the damage done to a person by forcing them be vegetarian is greater than the damage done to a cow by killing it? If so, then what is the crucial difference between a blastocyst and an adult cow that makes the life of a blastocyst so much more valuable than the life of the adult cow? The potential for each was created by the same creator, which we have established was not you and not me. Why is it okay for us nonetheless to choose to kill one and not the other?

ding said...

i'm back.

to the various anonymous posters:
one of the good things about being human is our ability to reason. one hallmark of reason is the ability to read.

it clearly says in the article she and her husband got caught up in the moment and forgot to use her diaphragm; it also clearly says that no one would administer her the contraception within the necessary 72 hour window. (and, for the record, Plan B is just a concentrated dose of regular hormonal birth control - which is why you need to take it within 72 hours.)

reason, reading and logic. good things.

ding said...

and for the question about my own sexual practice, too bad. my parents didn't give my contraception, i remained a virgin until well into my late twenties.

but i had access to a great educational system that taught me biology, comprehensive sex education and also had a family that made it clear that university came first (hence my late 20s decision to finally get rid of my virginity - i could afford to, at last.)

so, to answer your question, i've never been pregnant and, hopefully, never will.

THAT'S fucking responsibility.

ding said...

greg,
what you're talking about is a consistent life ethic and that's a much more valuable thing to discuss.

if we way that all life is sacred then that means that we should be taking consistent stances on *all* aspects of life - and the continuity of life. we shouldn't just be concerned about the possibility of life, but about the life that's carrying the possibility of life.

for me, the life that carries the PoL has more weight: her needs and interests far outweigh those of the little clump of cells that have/haven't implanted. is not that more (ahem) *logical*?

i was talking to a pastor last week who said that our duties as people of faith is to Take Care - not punish. i hear alot about punishment in these comments, nothing about care.

john patrick said...

PLAN B IS NOT AN ABORTION! It prevents ovulation so that sperm and egg never meet!

For some of you, this issue is about assigning blame.

Is the Bush administration and that woman's farmacist against preventing ovulation? No.

So let's all stop blocking Plan B.

ding said...

exactly.
if i don't want to ovulate, who's to tell me no?

Anonymous said...

Anon- #

'i'm back.(I forgot this was your blog, for a moment I thought it was Greg's.)

to the various anonymous posters:
one of the good things about being human is our ability to reason. one hallmark of reason is the ability to read.

it clearly says in the article she and her husband got caught up in the moment and forgot to use her diaphragm; it also clearly says that no one would administer her the contraception within the necessary 72 hour window. (and, for the record, Plan B is just a concentrated dose of regular hormonal birth control - which is why you need to take it within 72 hours.)

reason, reading and logic. good things. "

I agree with you 100% on reason, reading and logic. I wish you pro choicers would do more of that, instead of thinking of your rights.

Now- she got caught up in the moment- Hey, it happens! Ask millions of other woman who also got caught up in moment, did they decide to get rid of the child?
Do you think that poverty will go away in African or undeveloped countries if they were given education and birth control and the right to have an abortion?

You Ding have never had a baby. As long as you have some educational material to support you,you're fine. (smile)
It's people like you who need to get pregnant. Then and only then will the logic light come on, but you know what, when it comes to giving life and being the carrier of it, logic is usually thrown out.
It doesn't take education to have a baby, nor to have sex, don't you think so?

Anonymous said...

Greg,

My, "You" and "I" comment meant that "You" and "I" do not have the right to alter or change what God has already ordained to be. Procreation came from the time God created Adam and Eve, of course you know who wanted to messed up the order of things. What do you think he is using?

Greg, who is the giver of life?

God has given us free will, If you are a confessing follower of Jesus Christ, what do you think Jesus would say about abortion or fetus?

Heroin being made legal?

The vegan chooses not to chew the beef, I on the other hand know that beef will not harm me. Poor cow?

Fetus- Now we are dealng with logic.

Greg you are a smart man, I know this.

Ding-when you get off your self righteous and prideful cloud ...
yes you are responsible if you use contraceptive to prevent pregnacy if your going to have sexual intercourse. It is sin, however, when you continue to do so while confessing to be a follower of Christ. Is that being responsible?
Are you married?

KariS said...

Anonymous,
Please don't go all ad hominum here. When you do so it becomes impossible to understand, let alone respect, your argument.
To bring it on back to the topic, which is the availability of safe contraception, if your position is that any use of contraception by a Christian is a sin, that is a different discussion than whether the government/businesses are right in preventing the use of contraception.
I am reminded of the necessity for a 'death qualified' jury in a case where capital punishment is sought - you have to first be willing to administer the death penalty in the abstract before you can sit on a jury that will consider the appropriateness of the death penalty in the particular case. Perhaps one needs to accept that some contraception should be available before venturing into a discussion of which particular forms of contraception should be available. Not that your point of view may not be valid (although I personally do not agree) but it won't get us anywhere in this discussion.

ding said...

'people like you need to get pregnant'? wow. bitter. and angry.

thanks, KariS, for bringing the subject back to the material questions on the board:

how is contraception a sin?
why should the government intrude on a woman's/couple's ability to choose which use of birth control to use?

and, actually, yes: i believe that when women in developing nations have access to family planning, education rates rise and poverty rates dip. it's measurable. the Economist featured an article about that just a few months ago.

ding said...

i find it interesting that the people who hate the article concentrate a lot on Dana's actions and how forgetting is now a choice (how does forgetting suddenly become willful?).

but no one is talking about the pharmacists and doctors who, knowing her situation and the ticking of the clock, did nothing - abnegating their own responsibility as professionals.

highly problematic.

Anonymous said...

Ad Hominum???? Who me? I know what the article was about. " How do I blame this administration for my problems", basically that is what she was saying, I should have had the choice to prevent this fetus from becoming a child, but that darn Bush!!. I know, its her choice and that is what the females wants to argue for, but its more to her argument than, plan B wasn't available. I'm with Ding, we realllly need to educate ourselves on sex education. Really!

Anonymous said...

Ad Hominum???? Bitter and angry?Who me? Let me think.

I know what the article was about. " How do I blame this administration for my problems", basically that is what she was saying, I should have had the choice to prevent this fetus from becoming a child, but that darn Bush!!. I know, its her choice and that is what the females wants to argue for, but its more to her argument than, plan B wasn't available. I'm with Ding, we realllly need to educate ourselves on sex education. Really!

It seems we are so trusting of people in power and especially our government.

No, I'm not bitter nor angry.

ding said...

(and ad hominem means 'arguing to the man' or making personal attacks, i.e, asking questions about my sex life or upbringing, rather than arguing the merits of the topic. when you engage in personal attacks, you come off as angry and/or bitter and/or crazy.

moderate your tone.)

the point of Dana's article isn't Bush-bashing, though she makes a cogent argument showing how the trail of GOP-written legislation led to her present state. can you demonstrate otherwise - that public policies in her state did not contribute to her final action?

the point of the article is to show what happens when a safe, legal and effective method of birth control isn't made available to women who need it. despite all her best efforts (what else do you call contacting almost every health care provider in her city/state?) she still ends up getting an abortion - one she never wanted or planned to have, until it was too late to do anything but (still within the 1st trimester).

now, can we all just start out on the same page and agree that if she was able to get Plan B contraception she wouldn't have had an abortion?

can we at least agree on that?!

ding said...

and whichever Anonymous said this, please explain:
I agree with you 100% on reason, reading and logic. I wish you pro choicers would do more of that, instead of thinking of your rights.

i'm curious what you meant here. since when are 'reason' and 'rights' mutually exclusive?

(can y'all Anonymouses please choose a name or something to keep you guys straight?)

Anonymous said...

Ding, I know what an "ad Hominem" is.
This is what you said:"to the various anonymous posters:
one of the good things about being human is our ability to reason. one hallmark of reason is the ability to read.Being cynical?
I know what she said. She said" I wanted to make sure that our momentary lapse didn't result in a pregnancy". So she wasn't being responsible? unprotected sex can produce unwanted babies- ask any teenage girl and male in america who are now parents.

She also said, "One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm." Failed? Okay, so it's your fault why you got pregnant. Why should the unborn child have to pay.

Can you imagine two teenagers going through this? What would we say about them?

Instead, we have two supposely responsible married adults having mad and passionate sex and...dang, I forgot to put my diaphragm in! Now, do you understand teenage pregnancy?

Didn't she take sex education courses in high school, college? Why of course you were going to get pregnant. Plan B was delayed, not because of the imcompetence of a administration or Doctors, plan B was delayed because MS.
Dana was irresponsible. Deal with it!
She should have had that baby! Trying to pass the blame because of a pill that may not be 100% on protecting unwanted pregnancy is another.

Okay, call me be crazy! it's an Ad Hominem!

Anonymous said...

Information about plan B for those who may need to know this:

http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx

Plan B® should be taken within 3 days (72 hours) of unprotected sex and can reduce the risk of pregnancy by 89%. But the sooner you take it the more effective it will be.

89% not 100%.

Also,

Ask your healthcare professional for a prescription in advance, so that it will be there for you — in time — if you ever need it.

ding said...

Plan B was delayed, not because of the imcompetence of a administration or Doctors, plan B was delayed because MS.
Dana was irresponsible. Deal with it!


this is blatantly untrue, according to the author's timeline.

she says, "The next morning, after getting my kids off to school, I called my ob/gyn to get a prescription for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill that can prevent a pregnancy - but only if taken within 72 hours of intercourse."

she knows she and her husband took a calculated risk and she knows she has only a limited time for it to work. she is not unaware of the ramifications of her and her husband's slip.

so she makes the effort and what stands in her way?

again, her words: "The receptionist, however, informed me that my doctor did not prescribe Plan B. No reason given. Neither did my internist."

what compounded it?
"in Virginia, health-care practitioners apparently are allowed to refuse to prescribe any drug that goes against their beliefs."

what else stands in her way? politics:
"Plan B, which could have prevented it, was supposed to have been available over the counter by now"

why wasn't it?
"the FDA top brass overruled the advisory panel and gave the thumbs-down to over-the-counter sales of Plan B"

and so, though she hoped her age and the law of probability would be in her favor, what happened? she found herself pregnant - when she didn't have to be.

contrary to popular belief, conception doesn't occur immediately after sex. it takes anywhere from up to 6 days to a couple of weeks. don't believe me?

it's simple biology:
http://websrvr40nj.audiovideoweb.com/avwebdsnjwebsrvr4501/portal/media/media-050516-pregnancy.html

if Dana had received her Plan B prespription, or found someone who had done their medical duty, she'd still have had at least a 90% of not ending up pregnant.

and to the second Anonymous (or 3rd, i'm losing track) - thanks - we all should be stocking up on Plan B.

Anonymous said...

Your welcome- although, you fail to mentioned that "
Ask your healthcare professional for a prescription in ADVANCE, so that it will be there for you — in time — if you ever need it."

Please think before leaping.

Anon-1 and 3

ding said...

(returning volley, thwack)
...and you fail to remember that her doctor refused to prescribe it, as did others she contacted.

your serve, i think.

i suspect we're arguing slightly different sides of the same coin.

greg said...

I'd like to interject w/ a technical detail: this link to the FDA explains how Plan B works.

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.

This has two implications. One is that both JP and I were correct about how Plan B works, although from the sounds of it it looks like mostly it works by preventing ovulation, with prevention of implantation a kind of distant second. The second is that if you define pregrancy to begin at implantation (the medical definition) then Plan B prevents pregnancy. Period. Full Stop. So, if Plan B does not "stop a beating heart," why are all of the anonymi against it?

ding said...

i'm puzzled, too.

is all the upset because she criticized the bush administration (which is fair, since he's the one who appointed the guy who held up the FDA approval)?

is it that the writer and her husband made a decision they think she should never have had the right to make?

is it that she seems to have 'gotten away with it' - whatever the It is?

or is it about the fact that women use contraception and get mad when other people tell them they can't use it?

it's hard for me to know since the pseudo-arguments kind of veered off in all sorts of directions.

Anonymous said...

Greg and Ding you're wrong! I wasn't upset. I was thinking, another stupid woman trying to blame someone else for something she needs to take responsiblity for. The poor kid was killed, yep he was going to be a person, because mother failed to do her job. Perhaps she now needs to change her birth control method, don't you think so? Oh, wait a minute, there still a chance for a pregnancy to happen. Who will she blame next?

She failed to:

"Ask your healthcare professional for a prescription in ADVANCE, so that it will be there for you — IN TIME— if you ever need it."
"IN TIME"
Advance, Advance, and advance

In other words, Ms. Dana, if you're going to have hot passionate sex, with out protection, have the plan B pill available ahead of time.

I agree Ding, we must educate ourselves better.

I never said plan B was an abortion
Greg and JP.

GAME!

ding said...

why not assign responsibility to where it belongs:
how about the FDA stop playing politics with women's reproductive health and make Plan B available without prescription?

or, how about doctors and pharmacists taking responsibility for their jobs and letting women have access to the contraception they need?

how about that? but no. you want to call a woman 'stupid' because she forgot her diaphragm.

nice.

the linear, 'do not pass go-go directly to jail' thinking here is really baffling. because it seems what you're really saying is that 'to make a mistake' = failure to take responsibility. this does not seem logical to me.

to 'take responsibility' means to act properly within the sphere of one's conduct. where is her lack?

if you're saying that women, as moral agents and in a climate that makes contraception inaccessible, should know what their states are doing to limit their access and then act accordingly - yes. i agree with that position.

but i have a feeling you're not saying that. (calling a woman 'stupid' for forgetting her diaphragm sort of clues me in to that.)

and, again, by focusing on this bogus 'responsibility' argument (because you haven't answered any of my other questions) you rather neatly allow yourself to avoid larger questions about access and our government's role in dictating what forms of birth control women should have.

so i don't think it's 'Game' at all. you just left the court early.

KariS said...

Furthermore, on the "responsibility" front - I would like to question the notion that "responsibility" = foisting all negative externalities onto the pregnant (or in this case, potentially pregnant) woman.
What about our collective responsibilities within (a) a civil society; (b) a religious community; (c) a family or, in more specific circumstance, as a father? But right now we seem to be all about "We've decided that you, for the good of society, shall experience the Miracle of Birth, but then we really don't want to hear anymore out of you - you're on your own, kiddo."

ding said...

exactly.

right now, responsibility must always be punitive. never corrective.

siri said...

jeez...how backwards...as an european i can't believe what i've just read. horrifying...