Wal-Mart stores in MA forced to carry emergency contracepetion and fill prescriptions for it.
AFAIK, Illonois is the only state that requires every pharmacy to stock the drug, but this is a small step towards MA making the same ruling.
I have such a hard time understanding why people are against emergency contraception. Or just plain contraception, for that matter. I’m glad that Wal-Mart has to have it in stock now (well, in 2 states at least). But it’s sad that they have to be forced to.
But then, I’m from Quebec, where you don’t even need a prescription for the “Plan B” pill. Anyone over 14 can get one after consulting the pharmacist or a school nurse.
The abortion debate will never end, because there’s always a group that sees a united fetus as having human DNA, and deserving the protections of a human.
I’m one of them.
The Morning After Pill is a contraceptive, not an abortion pill. It prevents conception. If conception has already occurred, it does nothing. Emergency contraception has nothing to do with the abortion debate except in the minds of people who don’t understand what it is.
That’s not to say that the reasons woman’s personal medical prescriptions are any business whatseover in any case. Their jobs are to put the pills in the bottles and ring up the sales. If they feel they can’t handle those responsibilities they should find other lines of work.
If that’s true, then I’ve been misinformed. Wouldn’t be the first time, and by people that I agree with on more important subjects than most of the people here. This is why I find it so hard to deal with so many people. Off to the research…
Diogenes is right. Here’s the drug info from the FDA. It’s just a high dose of progestins, one of the hormones typically found in oral contraceptives. Progestins act by preventing ova from “ripening” and being released by the ovary for a chance at fertilization, and by thickening the cervical mucus to try to keep sperm from getting through. If sperm and egg have already met up, neither of those effects will do anything since obviously the egg is already out and the sperm is already through the cervix.
The irony of phramacists who refuse to dispense emergency contraception is that so doing actually increases the chance that a woman may have to terminate a pregnancy.
Take note of this part of the link Ferret Herder posted:
For those who believe life begins with the union of the sperm and egg (which occurs in the fallopian tube several days before the zygote tries to attach to the uterus lining), then the problem with the morning after pill is that it may kill the zygote by not allowing it to get a foothold in the uterus.
Some people (particularly conservative Christians, who as a group TEND to be wary of artificial contraception anyway) perceive that as being morally equivalent to having a surgical abortion.
I consider myself pro-life, to the point of being an activist on the issue, but I’ve never identified much with the conservative Christian, abstinence-only arm of the pro-life movement (some people are surprised to find out that there are feminists, gays, atheists, Democrats, etc. within the pro-life movement). Personally, I don’t feel that emergency contraception is morally equivalent to abortion. I do indeed feel it is preferable for people to be using emergency contraception rather than having an abortion later on down the road. I firmly believe one of the biggest social problems in America today is that so many people simply don’t use contraception correctly or consistently. Nearly half of the women who obtain abortions weren’t using contraception during the month of conception (see here for a study on the topic). Many European countries have extremely low unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates compared to America, so it is clear we could be doing better on this issue.
It should be stated that this same small theoretical chance (that a fertalized egg may be prevented from implanting) also exists with normal birth control pills.
Also, the medical definition of “pregnancy” requires that the egg be implanted. No implantation, no pregnancy, There is no development of the zygote until implantation occurs.
The results of a recent study suggest that progestin-based emergency contraception does not inhibit implantation at all, and only works via prevention of ovulation or inhibition of sperm. Unfortunately I don’t have access to the referenced journal at work, so I’m judging this by the summary I read as I can’t check the source.
Croxatto, Horatio B., et al. (2003). “Mechanisms of Action of Emergency Contraception.” Steroids, 68, 1095-1098.
Thanks, Motorgirl and Ferret Herder. This study would seem to remove even the one remaining straw that the pro-life demagogues were clinging to.
It must just be me, when I do not think the government should be able to force any company to sale anything. Nothing to do with women’s rights, I support a womans right to choose.
<sigh> I hesitate to go here, but “united fetus”? What is that when it’s at home?
All I can think of now is fetuses (feti?) with American flags tattooed all over them or the United Arab Emeritus. Civil War fetuses also come to mind. Perhaps I need meds.
If the fetus is not “united”–if part of it has seceded or wandered off–are all parts of it, Life? If, assuming you mean gross (not in the icky sense) congenital anomalies not being present by the term “united”, why not just say so, instead of using a very odd term indeed for a normal (not malformed) fetus?
sorry for the hijack, but that phrase caught my eye.
The movement against this medicine (and the pharmacists who desire to act as obstacles in something that is none of their business), shows me that this is NOT about “saving babies” or “the sanctity of Life”–it’s about controlling women and their sexuality. Thank God Illinois has this law–Rod may have just gotten my vote on the strength of that alone.
minor aside: The Daily Show riff on this whole issue was perfect. Jason Jones telling that pharmacist, “how dare the state hold moral judgement on you? You’re supposed to do that to the women who come in your pharmacy.” (paraphrase)
<sigh> I hesitate to go here, but “united fetus”? What is that when it’s at home?
All I can think of now is fetuses (feti?) with American flags tattooed all over them or the United Arab Emeritus. Civil War fetuses also come to mind. Perhaps I need meds.
If the fetus is not “united”–if part of it has seceded or wandered off–are all parts of it, Life? If, assuming you mean gross (not in the icky sense) congenital anomalies not being present by the term “united”, why not just say so, instead of using a very odd term indeed for a normal (not malformed) fetus?
sorry for the hijack, but that phrase caught my eye.
The movement against this medicine (and the pharmacists who desire to act as obstacles in something that is none of their business), shows me that this is NOT about “saving babies” or “the sanctity of Life”–it’s about controlling women and their sexuality. Thank God Illinois has this law–Rod may have just gotten my vote on the strength of that alone.
minor aside: The Daily Show riff on this whole issue was perfect. Jason Jones telling that pharmacist, “how dare the state hold moral judgement on you? You’re supposed to do that to the women who come in your pharmacy.” (paraphrase)
Your last statement is incorrect. The zygote is the single cell formed immediately after fertilization. This almost immediately starts to divide, first forming a ball of cells called a morula. At around 40-150 cells, a fluid-filled cavity called the blastocoel forms the embryo; at this point it’s called the blastocyst. This process takes place as the embyro is moving down through the Fallopian tube into the uterus. At the blastocyst stage, the embryo is ready for implantation into the uterine lining.
I meant to say blastocyst…really…
::slinks away::
Would a mod be so kind as to fix my double post?
thank you.
I was kind of wondering when somebody would bring this up. No, it isn’t just you. I don’t like the precedent this is setting, and I wonder where it will lead. Will the government start making sales and buying decisions for all businesses, or just the ones that go against the governor’s agenda?
One sees these threads, along with the pro gun lobby threads, and pro death penalty threads, and then you see threads that justify Guantanamo Bay, justify torture and “extraodinary rendition”, you see threads that insist even now the Saddam Hussain, the US supported dictator, had WMD, and you you begin to wonder what state the US morals are in.
Pro life and pro war and pro murder and pro lying and anti justice.
The good folk in the US are losing the most important war of all.