The Morning After Pill

[Sweetpea]

I just read an article this morning about the push to approve the morning after pill. Though I believe it is going to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, there is a part of me that fears that it will help push this administration to more anti abortion policies. A poll on AOL showed that most people don't believe the morning after pill is an abortion. The sentiment could be " We are giving you the opportunity to not get pregnant but once you are, you have to face the consequences"

I think it should be more readily available to women but I question over the counter access. It is a hormone and I have known women who have had violent physical reactions from it's use.

[neebob]

1. Either way

Ya gotta know it's gonna be expensive.

[demnan]

2. It should be available.

It's simple - if men could get pregnant it would have been available for at least 50 years by now. Yes it should be tested properly but if it has, it should be available.

[Silverhair]

3. I don't think the pro-life people will object to it. Exception of

course would be the Roman Catholic church, but they oppose regualr birth control too. It isn't subject to the "tiny feet" arguement, and most of the time when it is used, there wouldn't be a pregnancy anyway.

I see this as a great development.

I would really be surprised if Bush opposed this as the support for it would be overwhelming, and he doesn't like to go against overwhelming opposition for no reason. I think he will go with it and try to claim credit somehow.

[Sweetpea]

5. I am realizing how cynical I am becoming in my thinking when it

comes to Bush and co. The various angles they use to push their agendas thru.

[mrgorth]

6. The pro-life people

first of all aren't reasonable. They consider it abortion because in some instances it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. I heard it on NPR last night. Once the sperm gets in they consider it a life.

[Silverhair]

16. There are variations within the pro-life people. This will get the

OK from all but the most extreme of them.

[ChickMagic]

20. Yeah

A woman's not actually pregnant until the fertilized egg implants. About half of all fertilized eggs don't implant anyway, they leave, and a woman never even knows about it. I'd love to tell the most extreme pro lifer that it makes God the biggest abortionist of all.

[salin]

10. Didn't they (successfully) fight it for YEARS from being allowed to be

sold in the US (I think it is French). Isn't this the same as RU486?It was a huge prolonged fight during the Clinton years.

The die hard among pro-life folks were against it - taking the Catholic position of this being aborted as it didn't prevent fertilization (the belief of life at conception) but that it prevented the fertilized egg from emplanting.

I would be interested to see how the more reactionary anti-abortion folks are reacting to the ruling.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. The Morning After Pill IS NOT RU-486

::sigh::

RU-486 is "the abortion pill." A combination of hormones, it causes an already implanted egg/embryo to abort, including destruction and expulsion of the embryo/fetus, placenta, etc. Because it is used in cases of confirmed pregnancy, it is administered with a prescription and with caution that the patient report to a physician if any of several warning side-effects occur. The 18-year-old who died in California a few months ago used this method of non-surgical abortion and died from complications which may not have been in any way connected to the use of mifepristone/RU-486.

The "morning after" pill is a strong dose of the same hormones used in conventional contraceptives. It is to be used -- and is only effective in cases of -- unprotected sex that has not yet resulted in a confirmed pregnancy. Thus, in cases of rape, broken condoms, forgotten diaphragms, etc. But it must be taken within a very short time after sex. It prevents imminent ovulation and/or implantation of an egg that might have been fertilized.

Please, before you discuss these issues, please learn the differences between these two treatments. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

[salin]

14. I was refering to the politics

surrounding the one - and why it was likely still a deal on the far religious right.

Thank you for your clarification.

Medically you are correct.
To many on the edge of the political issue you are correct.

To the religious right... one equals the other - not for medical reasons - but because - like the pill itself - it doesn't prevent conception/fertilization (which to the "die-hard believers" is the when life begins)... in their mind this (as well as the other) by preventing the (potentially) fertilized egg from implanting - it causes an 'abortion'.

Again your clarification is appreciated.

[Tansy_Gold]

15. to the Religious Right. . . . . .

. . . . anything that allows a woman to have control over her SELF -- body, mind, soul, bank account -- is an affront to their god. They can all go to their particular versions of hell, as far as I'm concerned, and good riddance. :puke:

I get concerned, however, when DUers discuss the politics of emergency contraception and the politics of mifepristone as if they were the same thing. Even if they get into arguments with RRers, they need to know and appreciate the differences.

There are many RRers who do not know the difference, too. They need to know, even if they wouldn't care anyway.

Recent statistics show that abortion rates are down as much as 20%, thanks in large measure to the increasing availability of emergency contraception. For many women, especially those who do not have health insurance coverage for contraceptives, the failure of a physical barrier form of contraception -- condom, diaphragm, etc. -- can be catastrophic. They face the alternatives of gambling by waiting a few weeks to find out if they are pregnant and hoping they aren't because they can't afford an abortion, or getting emergency contraception. For other women, a regimen of hormonal contraception is physically debilitating (nausea, excessive weight gain, mood swings, etc., not to mention increased risks of cancer for some) and they can't tolerate the higher rates of hormones.

And then there are those who have no control over events -- the victims of rape. The availability of emergency contraception eases at least one of the traumas: they don't have to fear that this already horrible event will lead to pregnancy. And for those who are in situations where the reporting of a rape may be more dangerous than silence, OTC EC will be, forgive the pun, a goddess-send.

[salin]

21. Very helpful distinctions

thanks.

[salin]

12. MarketWatch: Abortion foes oppose nonprescription 'morning-after pill'

Barr stirs controversy with 'Plan B'
Abortion foes oppose nonprescription 'morning-after pill'

By Ted Griffith, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 12:19 PM ET Dec. 15, 2003

BOSTON (CBS.MW) -- Barr Laboratories has sold birth-control pills in the United States for the past few years without much controversy -- until now.

Woodcliff Lake, N.J.-based Barr Labs (BRL: news, chart, profile) is at the center of a heated dispute, with abortion opponents blasting the drugmaker's proposal to make the "morning-after pill" available without a doctor's prescription.

The Catholic Church and conservative activist groups oppose the effort to do away with prescriptions for the emergency contraceptive, marketed as "Plan B" and also known as the morning-after pill.

Last Monday, 44 members of Congress signed a letter to the FDA opposing the plan to grant the morning-after pill nonprescription, or over-the-counter, status.

more: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BECC0F654-78AB-4DF9-9F56-94B4C07194FD%7D&siteid=google&dist=google

[bicentennial_baby]

4. I think it's great!

It's high time that both regular BC pills and emergency contraception were made available OTC. Did you know condoms were made legal and OTC in 1918?

As far as abortion goes, it's not. Emergency contraception prevents ovulation or the implantation of an egg. The medical community signifies the beginning of pregnancy at the point that the egg is implanted. The former head of the NIH was on tv this AM and said that the anti-choice people should be happy, because it will make abortion less likely in the long run.

My concern is the long term consequences of repeated use, simply because there's no data on what effect repeated doses of such a high level of hormones would have over time. Overall though, I think this is a good thing.

[outinforce]

9. Isn't There A Difference??

"As far as abortion goes, it's not. Emergency contraception prevents ovulation or the implantation of an egg. The medical community signifies the beginning of pregnancy at the point that the egg is implanted."

It seems to me that some clarification might be in order here.

If one defines "abortion" as the termination of a pregnancy, then the "emergency contraception" pill, which prevents a pregnancy (defined by the medical community as beginning at the point at which a fertiliized egg is implanted) from beginning in the first place, does not cause an abortion.

However, if you define abortion as the termination of a developing human life, then it seems to me that one could reasonably argue that the emergency contraception pill amounts to an abortion.

When a sperm fertilizes an egg, what is the result? Is it something other than life? And, if so, what?

[PVnRT]

18. Not all fertilized eggs are viable

If it is unknown whether this particular egg will survive or be ejected, how can you argue that it is life?

[rucky]

7. Retroactive birth control should be accessable

but how do you keep people from abusing it? Shouldn't the user feel some sort of negative consequence for being in that position in the first place? It can't possibly be a good thing to resort to. Isn't the goal to educate people so they don't get in that position in the first place?

Maybe I'm making a strawman case. Maybe most of the people who seek it out do so because primary methods of birth control failed them (nice way of saying the condom broke).

Too bad Planned Parenthoods are shutting down faster than Woolworth's. I just don't see OTC or physicians doing the job that needs to be done - education.

[LeahMira]

8. Preventing pregnancy should be given priority

The sentiment could be " We are giving you the opportunity to not get pregnant but once you are, you have to face the consequences"


I realize that this engages people at many levels, but I also think that any decision should not be influenced by a concern over worst case possibilities. "We" are in no position to offer any judgements or to issue any consequences and neither are "they."

In fact, when sheer numbers of human beings puts impossible burdens on our global ecosystem, I think that morality commands that we encourage any form of sexuality and/or birth control that avoids reproduction.

We might now read the command to be fruitful and multiply as teaching us to be fruitful and expansive emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually rather than biologically.

[outinforce]

11. This "Morality" of which you Speak.....

"In fact, when sheer numbers of human beings puts impossible burdens on our global ecosystem, I think that morality commands that we encourage any form of sexuality and/or birth control that avoids reproduction."

I'm curious about this "morality" of which you speak.

If, as you say, the sheer number of human beings puts "impossible" burdens on our global ecosystem, then would the same morality that "commands" that we encourage any form of sexuality that avoids reproduction also have another command? The other command I am thinking that such a morality might dictate is that human beings that are now living sacrifice their lives -- even if it means dying before "their time" in order that the global ecosystem not have impossible burdens placed upon it.

Would that command be consistent with the morality you are speaking of here?

[Nikia]

17. Is it safe now?

I have read differing reports on how safe it is. I have read both that "it is safer than most over the counter medicine" to "there is a greater chance of dying from using emergency contraception than having an abortion". I took it once, but was only warned about nausea as a possible side effect. A couple hours later, I had a disastorous track workout and felt weak for the rest of the evening. After the second dose, I vomitted. I shared my experience with a couple of close friends who had taken emergency contraception at other times also who also said that it made them very sick. I suppose that most OTC drugs are potentially dangerous. Morning after pills are overdosing on a drug only available by perscription though. I do think it being easily available would be a good thing in preventing unwanted pregnancies, but I am concerned about safety.

[slinkerwink]

19. which one did you take? I took Plan B

didn't affect me at all.

[Nikia]

22. Not sure, I think overdose of regular pill

I went to Planned Parenthood. I wasn't familiar with birth control pills at the time. This was 7 years ago. I believe that they gave me a month's worth of pills and had me take half there and told me to take the other half so many hours later. Plan B is probably better if it was formulated for that purpose inparticuliar.

[DrWeird]

23. "greater chance of dying from emer. contracep. than abortion"

That's not saying much. There's a greater chance of dying from carrying full term than dying from abortion.

[Tansy_Gold]

24. I believe there have only been two deaths in the U.S. . . . .

. . . .even indirectly associated with Mifepristone/RU-486, and I have not heard of any connection with EC.

Although death from complications of pregnancy/childbirth is relatively rare in this country, it is not unheard of.

I believe Afghanistan has one of the highest rates of maternal mortality, at 1700 deaths per 100,000 live births.

info at http://joicfp.or.jp/eng/where_j_operates/afghanistan.html

Tansy Gold, (who actually tried to do a sig line and obviously screwed it up ROYALLY and will now remove it until she can figure out how to do it CORRECTLY)