PDA

View Full Version : What Happens When There Is No Plan B?


trumptman
06-04-2006, 01:44 PM
Plan B - Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201405_pf.html)

The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want. Well, not literally, but let me explain.

I am a 42-year-old happily married mother of two elementary-schoolers. My husband and I both work, and like many couples, we're starved for time together. 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.

Interesting article for a couple reasons, though the most important one for me is how far this woman will go to absolve herself from her own actions.

As we're both in our forties, my husband and I had considered our family complete, and we weren't planning to have another child, which is why, as a rule, we use contraception.

If you are in your forties, you should be smart enough to know that the only 100% (actually only about 99.85%) method of contraception is sterilization. You said you knew your family was complete so why tempt fate?

The receptionist, however, informed me that my doctor did not prescribe Plan B. No reason given. Neither did my internist. The midwifery practice I had used could prescribe it, but not over the phone, and there were no more open appointments for the day. The weekend -- and the end of the 72-hour window -- was approaching.

But I needed to meet my kids' school bus and, as I was pretty much out of options -- short of soliciting random Virginia doctors out of the phone book -- I figured I'd take my chances and hope for the best. After all, I'm 42. Isn't it likely my eggs are overripe, anyway? I thought so, especially since my best friend from college has been experiencing agonizing infertility problems at this age.

Here's a hint. If they give you 72-hours, three days and you need it, you'd best start dialing. No one else can pick up the kids and of course the weekend can't be used for things like this. Heaven forbid someone doesn't show up at your door with the pills on a silver platter.



I felt sick. 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.

Damn you George Bush! I didn't want to push for an appointment or start dialing people in the phonebook. No one else on the planet could pick up the kids. Your evil policies are responsible for the fact that a pair of 42 year old kids can't use the pill, a diaphram or a condom.

My anger propelled me to get to the bottom of the story. It turns out that in December 2003, an FDA advisory committee, whose suggestions the agency usually follows, recommended that the drug be made available over the counter, or without a prescription. Nonetheless, in May 2004, the FDA top brass overruled the advisory panel and gave the thumbs-down to over-the-counter sales of Plan B, requesting more data on how girls younger than 16 could use it safely without a doctor's supervision.

Apparently, one of the concerns is that ready availability of Plan B could lead teenage girls to have premarital sex. Yet this concern -- valid or not -- wound up penalizing an over-the-hill married woman for having sex with her husband. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

I'm a 42 year old woman. How dare I have to consider others! I'm being penalized because I never previously checked on the availablity via my physicians even though I am sexually active, married and consider my family complete. I couldn't make an appointment and I wanted to tempt fate.

After passing through the metal detector inside the building, I entered the Planned Parenthood waiting room; it was like the waiting room for a budget airline -- crammed full of people, of all races, and getting busier by the moment. I was by far the oldest person there (other than one girl's mom). The wait seemed endless. No one looked happy. We were told that the lone doctor was stuck in Cherry Blossom Parade traffic.

He finally arrived, an hour and a half late.

The procedure itself took about five minutes. I finally walked out of the building at 4:30, 6 1/2 hours after I had arrived.

It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

Does anyone else think this woman is crazy?

As a 36 year old man who has decided his family is done, I did the right thing and so have many of my friends. We went and got snipped. There are known health risks for that procedure as well but I didn't want anymore children and I took appropriate steps.

As for the differences between getting RU486, an abortion and getting a vasectomy, I would have welcomed ANY of the ridiculously low number of requirements for either an abortion or RU486. In California, a very liberal state, we have a THIRTY DAY waiting period for vasectomies. In addition getting an appointment necessitated a 4-5 month wait. Anything that happens inbetween that call and the actual procedure wouldn't inconvenience me for 6 hours, more like 18+ years.

Is there no middle ground in the reproductive rights world? Is expecting a woman to do anything regarding her own actions akin to pure evil. RU486 is legal and available however it does require you consult with a physician. Is that truly so terrible? The woman still went and had a legally available abortion, but seemed so put off that her own actions inconvenienced her. Is there really a right not to have to devote time and energy to your own screw-ups? Complaining about the total lack of right is one thing. Declaring "Bush da eval!! I had to take a whole six hours out of my day to deal with this" is another.

Nick

BRussell
06-04-2006, 01:50 PM
Fine, criticize this irresponsible, terrible, horrible, no-good woman. But let me ask you: If abortion is such a bad thing, why not approve alternatives to it?

e1618978
06-04-2006, 01:54 PM
I agree with your idea that the husband should have gotten himself snipped. However - restricting access to the day after drug will increase the number of abortions, no doubt. How often can you get a doctors appointment within the required 72 hour window, particularly when many doctors refuse to perscribe it? Requiring a consult is basically the same as forbidding the drug all together.

She tried to get the drug on Friday, and was turned down by two places, and the third place had no available appointments. Believe it or not, but overworked parents sometimes go for a whole week with no spare down time at all, and this looks like one of those cases - she should have been able to get the pill on Friday.

I'm sure that getting the pill would have triggered the vacectomy idea in her head, just as having the abortion most likely did. A failure to plan ahead should not be punished via a forced abortion.

I think that the whole idea of perscription drugs is stupid - you should be able to buy whatever you want when you want it.

trumptman
06-04-2006, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
Fine, criticize this irresponsible, terrible, horrible, no-good woman. But let me ask you: If abortion is such a bad thing, why not approve alternatives to it?

The alternatives are approved. They simply require consulting with a physician about use. If I can't get penicillin without a doctor's visit, why should this woman be able to get RU486. RU486 causes a sort of natural abortion and often has serious bleeding associated with it. Shouldn't that sort of thing be done under the supervision of a doctor?

That is what I mean by middle ground. People will use RU486 deaths as a means of getting the drug banned which will remove alternatives. Doctor supervision hopes to insure that death, especially from large infections which seems to be the most common form of death blamed on RU486, is not likely to occur.

Nick

Harald
06-04-2006, 02:15 PM
That's the trouble with binary thinking Nick.

Yes, she's a self-absolving careless blame-pusher.

And she's also right.

Tricky to wrap your head round, huh?

dmz
06-04-2006, 02:31 PM
At the beginning of the article, she separates procreation from 'just having sex'. Once you accept that premise, there's no place to go, other than to buy into her argument.

BRussell
06-04-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by dmz
At the beginning of the article, she separates procreation from 'just having sex'. Once you accept that premise, there's no place to go, other than to buy into her argument. In your view, Is there no difference between sex and procreation? Does sex serve no other purpose?

BRussell
06-04-2006, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by trumptman
The alternatives are approved. They simply require consulting with a physician about use. If I can't get penicillin without a doctor's visit, why should this woman be able to get RU486. RU486 causes a sort of natural abortion and often has serious bleeding associated with it. Shouldn't that sort of thing be done under the supervision of a doctor?

That is what I mean by middle ground. People will use RU486 deaths as a means of getting the drug banned which will remove alternatives. Doctor supervision hopes to insure that death, especially from large infections which seems to be the most common form of death blamed on RU486, is not likely to occur.

Nick Penicillin was originally available OTC, but after antibiotic resistance was discovered, it was made prescription-only to limit its use. In contrast, the scientific review panel on this Plan B decided to make it OTC because there was no reason to make it prescription-only. RU 486 (the abortion pill) should be used only with medical supervision, but is not the same as this Plan B, which is a contraceptive, not an abortion pill.

dmz
06-04-2006, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
In your view, Is there no difference between sex and procreation? Does sex serve no other purpose?
hmmmmmmmmmm.....now who's guilty of B&W thinking? :p

At the very least, having sex is tacit acceptance of any possible outcome.

BRussell
06-04-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by dmz
hmmmmmmmmmm.....now who's guilty of B&W thinking? :p

At the very least, having sex is tacit acceptance of any possible outcome. Trust me, I think about sex in full color. HD. 1080p.

It just seemed odd to me that you made a point of separating "just sex" from reproduction. It seems self-evident to me, as someone who thinks about sex in 1080p, that sex is about a whole lot more than just procreation.

Aquatic
06-07-2006, 10:48 AM
:lol:

Yeah I think this woman kind of screwed up, I think Nick's got a point. I just am eagerly watching this whole The Pill for guys thing and hoping it turns out okay. Wouldn't want to fry the little guys down there prematurely. By 40 eh who cares. Sterilization sounds like a good idea.

e1618978
06-07-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by dmz
hmmmmmmmmmm.....now who's guilty of B&W thinking? :p

At the very least, having sex is tacit acceptance of any possible outcome.

No - the human race made a biological leap when women started having sex without procreating.

Sex causes the release of hormones in both men and women that are like the dopamine high that you get in the first year of a new relationship - if you don't continue to have recreational sex you will gradually fall "out of love" with your husband or wife.

Recreational sex also reduced testosterone in the males, which makes them less likely to seek other sex partners.

It was the advent of recreational sex which caused us to start having long term relationships, which (in turn) allowed us to have larger brains and a longer childhood training period. Recreational sex is one of the most fundimental parts of our evolution, and we would not be intelligent if it had not started happening.

BRussell
06-07-2006, 11:46 AM
Just to remind you, e1618978, these people don't believe in evolution in the first place.

But I just want to add that other animals have non-procreative sex as well, for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobos#Social_behavior).

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex. This happens within the immediate family as well as outside of it, and often involves adults and children. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age, with the possible exception of sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, assumedly decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding.

But yeah, sex is not only about procreation. Why don't females just drop their eggs in a cup and males squirt into it, like our predecessors? The type of sex we and most mammals have is about bonding, not procreation.

trumptman
06-07-2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
Penicillin was originally available OTC, but after antibiotic resistance was discovered, it was made prescription-only to limit its use. In contrast, the scientific review panel on this Plan B decided to make it OTC because there was no reason to make it prescription-only. RU 486 (the abortion pill) should be used only with medical supervision, but is not the same as this Plan B, which is a contraceptive, not an abortion pill.

Sorry if I confused the two a bit. However even when reading more in depth on it, it basically amounts to a super birth control pill (large dose of the same medication) and we still require a prescription for even birth control pills.

I'm just not seeing something out of character here.

Nick

Chris Cuilla
06-07-2006, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
these people

:err:

BRussell
06-07-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by trumptman
Sorry if I confused the two a bit. However even when reading more in depth on it, it basically amounts to a super birth control pill (large dose of the same medication) and we still require a prescription for even birth control pills.

I'm just not seeing something out of character here.

Nick What's out of character here is that [ufl=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6766-2004May6?language=printer]it was unanimously approved[/url] by the scientific approval panel for OTC use, but then political appointees halted it after being lobbied by the Dukes of Moral Hazard. Or perhaps that's not out of character at all for your party.

Chris Cuilla
06-07-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
the Dukes of Moral Hazard

I like that one. That was genuinely creative and witty.

BRussell
06-07-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
:err: What's wrong, you don't like me saying that social conservatives are the same people who reject biological evolution? Why should one hide from one's beliefs - unless one is ashamed of them?

Chris Cuilla
06-07-2006, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
What's wrong, you don't like me saying that social conservatives are the same people who reject biological evolution? Why should one hide from one's beliefs - unless one is ashamed of them?

The whole "these people" thing just reeks of...well..."these people" kind of talk. Ick.

( BTW, if you are implying that I am hiding from or ashamed of my beliefs you are wrong. )

trumptman
06-07-2006, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Surely, with the knowledge that Plan B is safe for OTC use, you are not claiming they should also consider birth control pills safe for OTC use? That's the implication of your reasoning at least.

Birth control pills are absolutely healthy and without risk unless you smoke. Many women are already even using them to avoid their period as the pills within the pack that enable your cycle are actually there for marketing reasons and not health reasons. (There was a fear that women wouldn't believe birth control pills healthy and safe if they didn't get their cycle)

All I did is equate the risk between the two as being the same. Whether we assign that risk as being over the counter or requiring a prescription the point is that the risk is the same.

Nick

trumptman
06-07-2006, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
What's out of character here is that [ufl=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6766-2004May6?language=printer]it was unanimously approved[/url] by the scientific approval panel for OTC use, but then political appointees halted it after being lobbied by the Dukes of Moral Hazard. Or perhaps that's not out of character at all for your party.

From your own link...

In a letter to Barr Laboratories, the agency said the application was denied because only 29 of the 585 women studied by the company were younger than 16 -- a sample that was too small to assess safety.

The agency held out the possibility of a future approval if the company could prove the drug is safe for young girls or devise a plan that would keep Plan B on by-prescription-only status for girls younger than 16. In its letter, the FDA said that keeping the drug prescription-only for adolescents had been discussed with the company, but that not enough information was provided on how that might be accomplished.

So the company comes up with a way of insuring it is not sold to girls younger than 16 OR they go get a larger data set to insure a that safety has been properly assessed. Neither of those positions sounds unscientific.

Does granting approval to something when you cannot assess the safety of it for all groups really sounds like good science to you or politics?

To me it stinks of politics and scientists are not above politics as well. If you are human, you are faiible, self-interested and act accordingly.

Also remember the flip side of moral hazard, adverse selection. I don't think the concern here is that people will use Plan B more. They could honestly already use it plenty with a prescription. This concern is likely more about misuse in terms of dosage, frequency etc and how that might harm someone. Prescription only for now doesn't limit use, but it does insure proper use. In the future when we can probably determine that even misuse doesn't cause harm, then it will get full approval.

Nick

Hassan i Sabbah
06-07-2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The whole "these people" thing just reeks of...well..."these people" kind of talk. Ick.

( BTW, if you are implying that I am hiding from or ashamed of my beliefs you are wrong. )
But... these people don't believe in evolution!

So... why the squinty face?

BRussell
06-07-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by trumptman
From your own link...



So the company comes up with a way of insuring it is not sold to girls younger than 16 OR they go get a larger data set to insure a that safety has been properly assessed. Neither of those positions sounds unscientific.

Does granting approval to something when you cannot assess the safety of it for all groups really sounds like good science to you or politics?

To me it stinks of politics and scientists are not above politics as well. If you are human, you are faiible, self-interested and act accordingly. The scientific review panel approved it unanimously, and the political people overturned the scientific recommendation after lobbying by non-scientific groups. Only in the ass-backwards conservative world is the scientific panel political and the political panel scientific.

trumptman
06-07-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
The scientific review panel approved it unanimously, and the political people overturned the scientific recommendation after lobbying by non-scientific groups. Only in the ass-backwards conservative world is the scientific panel political and the political panel scientific.

The scientific world is fallible. We have had drugs and chemicals approved that end up with very harmful consequences. By your reasoning, the military should never have to answer to a civilian government nor should anything else. Of course respective branches know best but there are other concerns beyond that society must consider and use in governing.

Nick