Disgusting tale of woman's unsucessful search for emergency contraception

[JohnT]

Forgot the " ", but y’all get the idea.

:rolleyes:

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Guinastasia

Well obviously it matters because as we all know, the only people who have sex outside of marriage are dirty whores and that they deserve what they get.

:rolleyes:
Good god, doctors are allowed to dispense routine medical care according to their own “moral criteria?” Isn’t he violating some kind of ethical standards? What the FUCK?

:mad:

No ethical standard being breached.

[Excalibre]

@Sarahfeena

I think the former would be the best way to handle it, although I do have issues with men or underage girls getting a hold of it, and I’m also not sure how safe it is in terms of regular usage, and whether or not it would be dangerous for people to have unfettered access to it (thinking that concerns about becoming pregnant may trump health concerns for many women.)

On the other hand, though we live in the modern era, being pregnant is still a significant risk to a woman’s health. My suspicion, at least, is that the morning-after pill really is quite safe, both based on everything I’ve read, and on what I understand to be the risks of the birth control pill. Most of the risks associated with the pill, as far as I know, are chronic risks (notably, the risk for smokers of developing blood clots.) I don’t think most of those risks are all that important in the short term.

The possibility of men using the morning-after pill to hide evidence of sex with minors exists, I suppose, but I guess I don’t see much difference between that and permitting men to buy condoms which they might also use with underage partners.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@faithfool

So, fuck those people and their immoral (in my humble opinion) judgments that condemn others away from the life they choose. We all should be allowed to decide for ourselves.

So you want to eliminate the doctor’s freedom of choice in order to preserve your freedom of choice?

[wonky]

@Sarahfeena

Because men who are having relationships with underage girls can get it and use it as a tool in their exploitation.

Actually, I can’t think of many things that couldn’t be used as a tool for exploitation if someone’s bent that way. Guns, condoms, knives, Snoopy, chocolate, or tampons.

[JohnT]

@Maastricht

. Make that thirty years, not 2,5. The last time a Dutch doctor would get away with questioning a womans marital status and sexual “morality” before prescribing an EC-pill, would have been in the late seventies.

Cite?

Regardless, that’s not what you claimed. Your point was that America is “barbaric” because the EC drug is OTC 2.5 years after your country made it OTC. Wow. Might I counter with the fact that all contraceptives were illegal (in law, if not in practice) in the Netherlands until 1970, a position I find completely bizarre on a nationwide scale.

[Sarahfeena]

@Excalibre

I would actually really appreciate it if you could find some academic citations on the subject. What I know about the subject is not based on having examined the medical literature - I got this from Dr. Drew on Loveline who insists that the medical literature shows that actually blocking the implantation of a fertilized egg, if it happens at all with emergency contraception, is extremely rare, and that its actual effect is due entirely to blocking ovulation. I’ve never examined the medical literature personally, and I wouldn’t even know where to start - and while I’ve heard before that it blocks implantation of a fertilized egg, there’s so much confusion in most people’s minds between emergency contraception and medical abortion (as JohnBckWild demonstrates above) that I’m reluctant to believe it. Dr. Drew could easily be off-base (it’s happened before) but listening to years of him insisting quite explicitly that the medical literature shows that emergency contraception works by preventing ovulation has made me suspect that perhaps the actual medical research shows something vastly different from the common assumption that it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

I’m not sure there is any at all. The manufacturer says it “may” prevent implantation, but this may be just a cover-your-ass move by them. I have not heard of any actual data on this myself.

But if the state provides a small group a monopoly to practice a certain profession - like, say, by licensing doctors or pharmacists - it’s perfectly reasonable for the state to insist on heavily regulating that field and establishing rules obligating medical professionals to treat patients who need that treatment. Actually, if memory serves, such rules actually exist! Medical professionals are routinely required to treat patients that they might not want to, as the alternative is considered a violation of basic medical ethics and can result in one’s license to practice medicine being revoked. So obligating doctors and pharmacists to provide a legal, safe drug like emergency contraception in order to practice the profession they’re being given special monopoly status in by the state seems pretty reasonable to me.

I don’t know…it would concern me to the point where I would have to decline going into those professions if the state forced me to provide an abortion pill or provide abortions. I am not sure that it is ethical for the state to force anyone to commit what they believe to be murder.

Which says nothing of the new laws being enacted in many states specifically exempting doctors from the responsibility to provide family planning-related services; I’m no expert, but my assumption is that those laws actually due require their employers not fire them (as I’m not sure what other purpose there could be to such laws.) Perhaps you could enlighten us further on that subject.

This is my understanding as well. Perhaps legalities should be focused on making sure that companies can provide referrals to obtain these kinds of medications, rather than forcing individuals to dispense them.

The trouble is that I can’t respect certain moral choices. Describing something as a “moral choice” as a justification seems like an awfully facile way to evade responsibility for it. People make choices they believe to be morally correct all the time, under the influence of crazy beliefs (or just plain ol’ fashioned psychotic delusions). I don’t think someone who shoots an abortion provider - though indeed they’re making a “moral choice” - is due any special leniency. I don’t think someone who straps dynamite to themself and blows up a bus is making a legitimate or defensible moral choice.

Of course, I agree with you on these counts. But I think one has to make some distinctions between what can be considered a reasonable moral choice. If I was a doctor who took my oath to “do no harm,” I would consider it a serious violation of that oath to provide abortions. I think there is a huge difference between justifying murder based on moral grounds, and justifying trying to prevent murder on moral grounds.

The problem here is that (possible exaggeration by the author of this piece aside) women are demonstrably facing extreme difficulties in getting access to emergency contraception. I’m not sure why this is; it’s not particularly difficult to get a hold of condoms, even in heavily religious areas. There’s a particular religiously-motivated hysteria and a concerted, organized effort to block people’s access to this perfectly legal, perfectly safe medication - even when (as you point out) access to IUDs is not similarly restricted for most women. The inconsistency of this position is evidence to me that this is not really a legitimate “moral choice” but rather the result of considerable efforts by a very small portion of the population to convince people that the morning-after pill is an abortifacient (again, witness JohnBckWild’s confusion between emergency contraception and RU-486 above.) It’s really disturbing to me how many people seem to think the two things are the same - and I’ve been wondering for a long time whether extreme pro-life organizations are deliberately working to confuse two entirely separate things, post-coital contraception and medical abortion, in the public’s mind.

You may very well be right…I don’t get it, personally. I don’t believe, for one thing, in this style of protest. If you don’t like abortion, then work on solving the problems that lead to it, you know?

But no, I don’t think this is a legitimate matter of “moral choice”. I think it’s a choice predicated in many cases on ignorance, on confusion, and on a subtle but well-organized, extremist, and terrifying effort to hamper all access to contraceptives. What’s truly disappointing to me is to see the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations in many cases joining in this crusade, one started mostly by the Theocratic (and Protestant) Right, simply on the basis of the Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control. It’s an unusual and depressing slide into politicking and extremism by an organization that, politically, has traditionally been led by rationalism and a rejection of the theocratic (and ultimately counter-Biblical) leanings of the Fundamentalist Christian crowd. It’s a new situation for the Catholic Church to be joining in efforts to use the law to force religious practices on others; that practice is, in my opinion, inimical to both the Bible and to the fundamental workings of a modern society. I have to think that these strange bedfellows are going to experience a falling-out eventually; Catholics would do well to remember, before joining in with the Theocratic movement, that most of those they’re throwing their lot in with don’t like them any more than they like ol’ fashioned atheists like me.

I wouldn’t disagree with any of this. There are extremists in the Catholic Church, just as in many religions. The pro-life activists I know don’t seem to be too focused on Plan B, or birth control, for that matter, and I think they would all much rather see birth control used than see abortions. But, the Church itself has to take an official anti-birth-control stance (at least with their own members), and this, combined with the fear that it does prevent implantation, makes some very religious and pro-life people get a little crazy.

[Sarahfeena]

@JohnT

Sorry, honey, but you gotta go to Walgreens… I’d go for you and all, but Sarahfeena assumes I’m a molester because I have a penis. :rolleyes:

Oh, come on…I said nothing of the sort. Personally, I think men are ridiculously villified in our society But you have to admit, it would be pretty convenient to someone who IS a molester to be able to have access to this type of birth control.

[joyfool]

@Unauthorized Cinnamon

…
Barring the PP option, I would have called a new ER and told them I was a virgin nun who was raped, if that’s what it took. Women don’t owe honesty to people pulling this crap.

Obviously, I’m in complete agreement with you on this.

@alphaboi867

The DA can press charges with our without the victim’s consent and the victim can be forced to testify against their will. You wouldn’t need to name your attacker but; the hospital would almost certainly want to do a rape exam on you and contact policy (I don’t think they can do this without your consent though). Also falsely claiming rape demeans actual rape victims. While I agree with the hospital about asker her if she was raped the questions regarding marital status and how many children she had were out of line (unless there’s a medical reason to know if she’s ever been pregnant, IANAD).

That’s a good point and I certainly didn’t mean to demean actual rape victims. However, out of all the options involved, it would seem (to me anyway) that it’d be the lesser of two evils.

@col_10022

So you want to eliminate the doctor’s freedom of choice in order to preserve your freedom of choice?

Nope. Don’t want to eliminate anyone’s freedom of choice. They can be as lousy a fuck as they want to be and I can deride them for that to the high heavens. I can also lobby for change and fight against them in any other way I see fit, as long as it’s legal and within my power to do so.

[Green_Cymbeline]

@Excalibre

The trouble is that I can’t respect certain moral choices. Describing something as a “moral choice” as a justification seems like an awfully facile way to evade responsibility for it. People make choices they believe to be morally correct all the time, under the influence of crazy beliefs (or just plain ol’ fashioned psychotic delusions). I don’t think someone who shoots an abortion provider - though indeed they’re making a “moral choice” - is due any special leniency. I don’t think someone who straps dynamite to themself and blows up a bus is making a legitimate or defensible moral choice.

The problem here is that (possible exaggeration by the author of this piece aside) women are demonstrably facing extreme difficulties in getting access to emergency contraception. I’m not sure why this is; it’s not particularly difficult to get a hold of condoms, even in heavily religious areas. There’s a particular religiously-motivated hysteria and a concerted, organized effort to block people’s access to this perfectly legal, perfectly safe medication - even when (as you point out) access to IUDs is not similarly restricted for most women. The inconsistency of this position is evidence to me that this is not really a legitimate “moral choice” but rather the result of considerable efforts by a very small portion of the population to convince people that the morning-after pill is an abortifacient (again, witness JohnBckWild’s confusion between emergency contraception and RU-486 above.) It’s really disturbing to me how many people seem to think the two things are the same - and I’ve been wondering for a long time whether extreme pro-life organizations are deliberately working to confuse two entirely separate things, post-coital contraception and medical abortion, in the public’s mind.

But no, I don’t think this is a legitimate matter of “moral choice”. I think it’s a choice predicated in many cases on ignorance, on confusion, and on a subtle but well-organized, extremist, and terrifying effort to hamper all access to contraceptives. What’s truly disappointing to me is to see the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations in many cases joining in this crusade, one started mostly by the Theocratic (and Protestant) Right, simply on the basis of the Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control. It’s an unusual and depressing slide into politicking and extremism by an organization that, politically, has traditionally been led by rationalism and a rejection of the theocratic (and ultimately counter-Biblical) leanings of the Fundamentalist Christian crowd. It’s a new situation for the Catholic Church to be joining in efforts to use the law to force religious practices on others; that practice is, in my opinion, inimical to both the Bible and to the fundamental workings of a modern society. I have to think that these strange bedfellows are going to experience a falling-out eventually; Catholics would do well to remember, before joining in with the Theocratic movement, that most of those they’re throwing their lot in with don’t like them any more than they like ol’ fashioned atheists like me.

STANDING OVATION!!! Very well said!

[Green_Cymbeline]

Here’s the “dope” on whether EC really prevents implantation…

Emergency contraception

Selected relevant snippets:

Emergency contraceptive pill —referred to simply as “emergency contraception,” “ECPs,” or “ECs”, or “morning-after pill” —are drugs that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilisation, or possibly, post-fertilisation, subsequent implantation of a blastocyst (embryo).

If ovulation occurs despite pre-ovulatory use of EC, there may be changes in certain hormone levels such as progesterone and in the length of the woman’s luteal phase. These changes are similar to those found in a woman’s first few ovulatory breastfeeding cycles. Because these secondary effects might result in embryos being created, but prevented from implanting in the uterus, they have resulted in some controversy over the use of ECPs.

A number of studies in the 1970s and 80s concluding that emergency contraception could cause changes in the endometrium, and thus preventing implantation of an early stage embryo in the uterus, led many pro-life advocates, who widely believe that pregnancy begins at fertilisation, to oppose ECPs as an abortifacient.

In recent years, however, especially in light of U.S. controversy over this possibility, the scientific community has begun to critically reevaluate the claim, introducing doubt into the argument that ECPs prevent implantation. Recent studies in rats and monkeys have shown that post-ovulatory use of ECPs do not have any effect on pregnancy rates. Studies in humans have shown that the rate of ovulation suppression is approximately equal to the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills, suggesting that might be the only mechanism by which they prevent pregnancy.

Because of the difficulty of studying pre-implanted embryos inside the uterus and fallopian tubes, both sides of this debate concede that completely proving or disproving the theory may be impossible.

The Food and Drug Administration recently stopped its practice of referring to all three mechanisms in its publications on emergency contraception. However, the approved box design for Plan B, an emergency contraceptive approved for over-the-counter sale in the United States, will still carry a notification that it may prevent implanation.

So I guess at this point it is unknown, and may never be known. But regardless, even if it did prevent implantation, I wouldn’t care. It’s a several-day old clump of cells that has a good chance of not implanting anyway. Nature intended that most creatures produce thousands of times more eggs/sperm/embryos because most won’t survive anyway. If every single fertilized egg implanted successfull and resulted in a birth, we would have died out from overpopulation thousands of years ago.

Oh also: Note the part in the second paragraph referring to the breastfeeding cycles… I have heard that breastfeeding reduces the likelihood of pregnancy. So why aren’t the pro-lifers protesting against breastfeeding?

[Anne_Neville]

@col_10022

So you want to eliminate the doctor’s freedom of choice in order to preserve your freedom of choice?

I just want them to be required to tell you that they’ve made that choice, as soon as it is feasible to do so.

And if someone believes that it’s wrong to give contraceptives to some people because of their circumstances (aside from medical issues), they have the right to believe that. I, on the other hand, have a constitutional right to say that people who believe that are dumbasses who need to get with the 20th century already. I would like to know if my doctor has such beliefs, so I can change doctors and not have any of my money going to support such dumbassery, just like I wouldn’t buy products from a company that took a stand on some issue that I strongly disagreed with.

@Sarahfeena

If you don’t like abortion, then work on solving the problems that lead to it, you know?

I really, really wish more pro-life people thought like this.

But you have to admit, it would be pretty convenient to someone who IS a molester to be able to have access to this type of birth control.

You’d think that a molester would be more likely to use a condom- no forcing your victim to take pills, no side effects for her that someone might notice, no drugs in her system that could be tested for, no semen for DNA analysis, and buying condoms is so common that no one is likely to remember him doing it.

@Unauthorized Cinnamon

Barring the PP option, I would have called a new ER and told them I was a virgin nun who was raped, if that’s what it took. Women don’t owe honesty to people pulling this crap.

I agree 100%. There might be insurance hassles involved, but insurance hassles are likely to be a lot less of a problem than an unwanted pregnancy would be (at least, if I were faced with that choice, I’d go for the insurance hassles without even thinking twice about it). They’re certainly likely to be cheaper and not as long-lasting as the effects of raising an unwanted child.

[Dogzilla]

Chiming in: I had a very similar situation happen to me recently, only I was able to obtain the EC within the recommended 72 hours. It was not easy. I started by calling my local girly clinic, where I have been a patient for the last nine years. They also happen to be an abortion provider (on certain days) so I knew they would offer Plan B. They are closed on weekends. My incident occurred late Friday night/Saturday morning. I called first thing Monday morning. They would only see me on Tuesdays or Thursdays. Since Thursday would have been too late (see: 72 hours), I chose Tuesday.

Now, I googled EC to find out how long I had to obtain it. I learned that Plan B has, at best, only about an 89% efficacy rate when used correctly and immediately. That’s the same success rate as condoms. I wanted something a bit more bulletproof, if you’ll excuse the pun, and not hormonal. I also learned that IUDs (yes, they are still used) are approximately 99.5% effective and are an excellent option as emergency birth control. (There are nonhormonal types as well as hormonal IUDs but they prevent implantation of fertilized eggs.)

BUT they must be “installed” by an OB/GYN, they run about $600, plus the cost of the office visit. (In my case, the doctor’s office wanted another $250 for an annual girly exam. $850 for EC.) They wouldn’t see me on an emergency basis and ERs won’t install an IUD. The girly clinic won’t install an IUD - they wouldn’t explain why, nor would they talk to me about any other options that might be available. I was close to making my own McGuyver-style out of an old rusty coat hanger and some duct tape.

Finally, I opted for Plan B because it was the only thing I could do. When I handed the script over to the pharmacy lady, she handed my red letter A back with the bottle. I’m kidding, but she did look at me like I was the whore of Babylon. I can’t understand why it’s so difficult to obtain NONhormonal birth control at all, let alone in an emergency. I never was able to determine if my insurance (which is Blue Cross/Blue Shield) covers IUDs. I read the policy carefully. It covers hormonal birth control pills. No mention of Depo Provera, IUDs, or any other form of birth control. The entire experience was rage-inducing. The only good news was the nurse practitioner at the abortion clinic wrote the script for two refills “in case it happens again.” Bless her.

We can put a man on the moon, I can IM with anyone around the world instantaneously, but if the freaking condom breaks, you have to work pretty damn hard to prevent pregnancy. It makes no sense.

[Unauthorized_Cinnamon]

@Sarahfeena

I think you would be unlikely to find a pro-lifer who would use an IUD as birth control because of this (if they understand that this is how they work), but I don’t tend to hear about them much in terms of controversy or talking points. I also don’t tend to hear complaints from women that they have had trouble finding a doc who will insert them. Are IUDs just not used much anymore?

Well, it certainly fits with the theory that opposition to EC is largely due to wanting to punish women for having extramarital sex. Generally IUDs are indicated for women who are monogamous and have had a baby (so mostly wives & mothers), as opposed to EC, which is backup for those dirty whores who sleep around and use condoms.

[Excalibre]

@nyctea scandiaca

Here’s the “dope” on whether EC really prevents implantation…
Emergency contraception - Wikipedia

Selected relevant snippets:

Thanks. I should have thought to check Wikipedia on this - I tend to forget how well they cover subjects like this.

It does appear, then, that preventing implantation is certainly a secondary effect, not its primary mode of action. There’s a number of other drugs that also have a similar risk of preventing implantation (Cox-2 inhibitors like Vioxx and Celebrex, for instance.)

Again, I find the inconsistencies in the behavior of those opposed to the morning-after pill so stark that I have a really hard time crediting any of it to a genuine religious belief rather than a tactical political position dedicated to a much longer-term goal. (Then there’s always the ignorance - I really think people’s confusion between emergency contraception and medical abortion is something being consciously cultivated for political ends.)

@Sarahfeena

I don’t know…it would concern me to the point where I would have to decline going into those professions if the state forced me to provide an abortion pill or provide abortions. I am not sure that it is ethical for the state to force anyone to commit what they believe to be murder.

You know that, while I’m pro-choice, I’m pretty moderate on the issue. I have a great deal of sympathy towards the opposing viewpoint. However, I have a hard time extending that towards the belief that preventing implantation is murder (or in this case, rather, the risk of preventing implantation, a risk that exists with any number of other drugs and actions. I don’t even have a problem with people who believe this, so much as people who are so anxious to impose that belief on others.

I guess to me it’s one thing to campaign for, say, the outlawing of elective third-trimester abortions. I think there’s a much stronger case to be made that third-trimester abortions constitute taking a human life than that the morning-after pill does. When the moral issue is based on such foggy evidence, and when the actual moral dilemma is so much less acute, it seems much less reasonable to me to attempt to impose it on others. Much like, say, I’m in favor of laws against rape, but I’d be against laws against wearing fur, and I oppose people’s personal efforts to prevent the wearing of fur by vandalizing it. I don’t really like fur, or the fur industry. But I think the ethics of the situation are so much less stark that it isn’t appropriate to try to impose them through law or organized personal efforts beyond evangelism. Particularly in a case like this, in which the morning-after pill accomplishes something really useful - preventing people who don’t have the capacity to be parents from having children, and preventing abortions.

So I personally think that if you really feel that ordinary medical practices like the birth control pill and emergency contraception really are so immoral that you can’t perform them, I really don’t think you have any business going into obstetrics. No one’s going to expect you to dispense the birth control pill if you’re a cardiac surgeon or a dermatologist. If the basic practices of a field of medicine are so troubling to you, why would you go into that field? (I don’t know the situation regarding abortion - there’s plenty of Ob/Gyns who don’t perform them, so it seems like you already have the choice not to go into practice doing abortion. But I could be confused here - I’m not exactly familiar with the field of vagina doctory.)

Of course, I agree with you on these counts. But I think one has to make some distinctions between what can be considered a reasonable moral choice.

Precisely. And I guess I disagree with you on whether this constitutes a reasonable moral choice, in large part because I think it’s a choice that creates serious moral consequences. Unwanted pregnancies are a real problem from any perspective; people having children they can’t take care of and people having abortions (for those who are opposed to abortion) are the end results of this moral choice, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to decide that the tiny chance that a fertilized egg might not implant is more important than those things. Strictly on a mathematical basis, in fact, even under the assumption that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg constitutes abortion, the apparently small chance of it is dwarfed by the considerable likelihood that mama is going to decide on a real D&C (or RU-486) abortion because you don’t dispense the morning-after pill.

That’s what makes this notion of this as a personal moral choice so flawed - if someone considers the prevention of implantation such a major moral issue that they prevent others from accessing the morning-after pill, then they have personally acted to increase the likelihood of the child being aborted! Which is why it’s reasonable to decide not to use it yourself if you really think it counts as an abortion, but it is simply not rational to act to impose that decision on others - unless, of course, it’s actually an effort to work towards the illegalization of all birth control. Which is, I’m sorry to say, something I’m convinced a lot of people are working towards - and I think that’s why they’re working to fleece so many well-meaning people into thinking of the morning-after pill as an abortion pill.

If I was a doctor who took my oath to “do no harm,” I would consider it a serious violation of that oath to provide abortions. I think there is a huge difference between justifying murder based on moral grounds, and justifying trying to prevent murder on moral grounds.

Actually, I believe most doctors don’t take the Hippocratic Oath anymore. (Interestingly, my understanding is that oath specifically forbade doctors from providing abortions, beyond the “do no harm” clause.)

I think what I find so troubling about this is that I think there’s some seriously reductionist thinking permeating the public debate. Abortion is an issue that reasonable people can obviously disagree on. But abortion and the morning-after pill are not the same thing. By one questionable definition, the morning-after pill has a small chance of causing an abortion and a much larger likelihood of preventing a pregnancy entirely. By the usual medical usage of these terms, the morning-after pill simply doesn’t cause abortions at all. (I’m not trying to argue definitions here, but I think it’s important to remember that it’s not the case that the morning-after pill indisputably causes abortions in the small percentage of cases that it prevents implantation (assuming, of course, that it ever does so, which per the Wikipedia excerpts above seems unclear.))

So it’s bizarre to me to see the two treated as equivalents. It’s the sort of reductionist rhetoric that, unfortunately, is common in politics - but it’s simply not a reasonable way of examining and approaching a moral issue. When someone starts discussing an issue in such blatantly simplistic terms, it’s because they want people to simply turn their brains off and support that person’s political agenda, not because they want to engage in an honest discussion of a moral issue. I hate to see a public issue turn into a Battle of the Soundbites.

I wouldn’t disagree with any of this. There are extremists in the Catholic Church, just as in many religions. The pro-life activists I know don’t seem to be too focused on Plan B, or birth control, for that matter, and I think they would all much rather see birth control used than see abortions. But, the Church itself has to take an official anti-birth-control stance (at least with their own members), and this, combined with the fear that it does prevent implantation, makes some very religious and pro-life people get a little crazy.

I think there’s a big difference between the Church taking an anti-birth-control stance with their own members (for the fraction that actually go along with them on the issue - I grew up in a mostly Catholic town, and I have a lot of Catholic family, and I’m pretty sure they’re not all practicing the rhythm method) and attempting to impose it on others. It seems strikingly anti-Christian to me to worry more about preventing others from sinning than about one’s own sins; the Bible explicitly says “Thou shalt not kill” but it doesn’t say “Thou shalt stop others from killing.” Think of condoms, which may count as a sin in the Catholic Church but indisputably are not the sort of sin against another person to which our laws are generally directed. It would strike me as bizarre and unreasonable for a Catholic to believe it was their duty to prevent others from using them - nothing in the Bible suggests that, does it? And I think the morning-after pill is much more akin to condoms than to anything else - so I have a lot of trouble accepting people’s efforts to ban it.

Shit. I need an editor to trim this stuff for me.

[Septima]

@Sarahfeena

and I’m also not sure how safe it is in terms of regular usage

It’s not for “regular usage”, its for emergencies. The box it comes in, as well as every booklet/doctor/nurse/documentary/warning label and serious FAQ makes that point very clear. Your’e not EVER to use it as your primary means of birth control. In fact, more then once every menstrual cycle is serious over-use, and twice in two following months is not recomended either. You really can’t say that a drug has health risks if those health risk only turn up when the drug is taken in way to large doses.

-Septima, who is way happy she has a pharmacy, doctors office (and a 24-hour emergency psyciatrist, not that I’ve needed that one yet) right across the street.

[Bricker]

@Excalibre

But if the state provides a small group a monopoly to practice a certain profession - like, say, by licensing doctors or pharmacists - it’s perfectly reasonable for the state to insist on heavily regulating that field and establishing rules obligating medical professionals to treat patients who need that treatment. Actually, if memory serves, such rules actually exist! Medical professionals are routinely required to treat patients that they might not want to, as the alternative is considered a violation of basic medical ethics and can result in one’s license to practice medicine being revoked. So obligating doctors and pharmacists to provide a legal, safe drug like emergency contraception in order to practice the profession they’re being given special monopoly status in by the state seems pretty reasonable to me.

It’s perfectly reasonable, yes - but not the course of action I would support. It’s ALSO reasonable to permit individuals to follow their own conscience in this area, and that is the course I believe we should take.

[Carol_the_Impaler]

[quote=Excalibre]
I think it’s a choice predicated in many cases on ignorance, on confusion, and on a subtle but well-organized, extremist, and terrifying effort to hamper all access to contraceptives (emphasis mine).[\quote]

Careful what you think,** Excalibre**. I posted this very same opinion in a similar thread months ago and was racked across the coals because I couldn’t “prove” this. :rolleyes:

Although admittedly you write much better than I.

[naotalbah]

@Sarahfeena

I think you would be unlikely to find a pro-lifer who would use an IUD as birth control because of this (if they understand that this is how they work), but I don’t tend to hear about them much in terms of controversy or talking points. I also don’t tend to hear complaints from women that they have had trouble finding a doc who will insert them. Are IUDs just not used much anymore?

I just want to chime in on this. I have a non-hormonal (copper) IUD. To get it, I needed to

1. get a pelvic exam from an OBGYN
2. convince her that yes, I really really wanted an IUD
3. Get the perscription from her
4. call 7 (SEVEN) pharmacies to find one that would sell it. (I started out going to the pharmacies, but after the 3rd I realized I’d better call first)
5. Pay (around $500) out of pocket, since it is not covered by insurance
6. take my purchase to my OBGYN
7. and pay, again out of pocket, to have it inserted

I live in Southern California, and getting an IUD was definately a very difficult proposition. If I was not nursing a baby (which prevented me from using hormonal birth control) I would have given up.
IUD’s are demonized too, it’s just a little lower profile since so few women get them.

(And on a side note, I love my IUD, and am sincerly grateful that I managed to get one).

[Sarahfeena]

@Septima

It’s not for “regular usage”, its for emergencies. The box it comes in, as well as every booklet/doctor/nurse/documentary/warning label and serious FAQ makes that point very clear. Your’e not EVER to use it as your primary means of birth control. In fact, more then once every menstrual cycle is serious over-use, and twice in two following months is not recomended either. You really can’t say that a drug has health risks if those health risk only turn up when the drug is taken in way to large doses.

-Septima, who is way happy she has a pharmacy, doctors office (and a 24-hour emergency psyciatrist, not that I’ve needed that one yet) right across the street.

Right, but I was responding to the idea of making it available OTC, in which case all the warnings in the world won’t mean that some women won’t use it as their primary means of birth control. My point being that OTC would be great in terms of giving people easy access, but in terms of health & safety, it might be TOO easy.