![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyear...then why is Plan B still lodged in an eternal bureaucratic quagmire rather than being out there on the market where women who need it can get it?
Update: Chris Mooney wonders why, as important as her whistle-blowing was on the situation, the author didn't get more serious into trying to determine the political origins of this political issue. She raised a lot of questions as rhetorical, without presuming to answer any of them. Should she have? Mooney thinks so, but I'm not so sure. Maybe this is one of those cases where if one presents the problem and its cause at the same time, one overloads the audience with poltical speculation that's automatically met by cynicism (disguised as skepticism, but its not really).
Maybe its best to have independent voices look at the facts she's presented and assemble theories to the causes a little more scientifically, to try to drum up evidence that religion is driving this attack on women's rights rather than flatly saying it just because it fits a (well known) trend.
If you simply blame "the religious right", as Mooney did, you come off as a pundit and partisan, making more enemies than allies. We (those who favor good education and science) need to separate the religious right ("social conservatives") from their republican mainstream ("academic conservatives") rather than give them more reasons to be allies by increasing their common enemies.
Update: Chris Mooney wonders why, as important as her whistle-blowing was on the situation, the author didn't get more serious into trying to determine the political origins of this political issue. She raised a lot of questions as rhetorical, without presuming to answer any of them. Should she have? Mooney thinks so, but I'm not so sure. Maybe this is one of those cases where if one presents the problem and its cause at the same time, one overloads the audience with poltical speculation that's automatically met by cynicism (disguised as skepticism, but its not really).
Maybe its best to have independent voices look at the facts she's presented and assemble theories to the causes a little more scientifically, to try to drum up evidence that religion is driving this attack on women's rights rather than flatly saying it just because it fits a (well known) trend.
If you simply blame "the religious right", as Mooney did, you come off as a pundit and partisan, making more enemies than allies. We (those who favor good education and science) need to separate the religious right ("social conservatives") from their republican mainstream ("academic conservatives") rather than give them more reasons to be allies by increasing their common enemies.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 07:36 pm (UTC)They secretly beleive that any woman who would take a contraceptive is a "floozy" and "deserves what she gets". The whole abortion issue isn't about saving lives, it's about punishing women who have sex.
The odd thing is they have NO desire to punish the MEN these women are having sex WITH. It is a hypocritical double standard.
Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 07:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 07:58 pm (UTC)Funny, they don't want abortion, or birth control. Wonder why they think women are so stupid that they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 08:22 pm (UTC)Well, yes. Because taking away birth control polls very poorly. But redefining birth control as chemical abortions, and allowing pharmacists to refuse BC prescriptions "as a matter of faith" - well, that plays very well, especially when you're trying to make sure that the woman cannot be the victim because somebody else is.
The whole "it's a person from the moment of conception" movement was a way to transmute common forms of birth control into "abortions" in order to take birth control away. Even though it's impossible to measure a "pregnancy" before implantation.
As for Wonder why they think women are so stupid that they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, well, we're WOMEN after all. Subservient to men, etc. And besides, if people are allowed to make their own decisions, they might *GASP!* make ones that aren't approved of.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 08:28 pm (UTC)Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 08:30 pm (UTC)Razzin frazzin...
Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 08:08 pm (UTC)Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 08:15 pm (UTC)When people believe that sex is only for marriage and any and all pregnancies must be carried, they don't care about those that don't agree with them.
Abortion is a real church vs state issue, but sadly the church side seems to be better organized.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 08:36 pm (UTC)Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 08:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 10:13 pm (UTC)Ew, now I know why she wanted an abortion.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 09:04 pm (UTC)If they were made OTC, insurance wouldn't cover them anymore which may make it harder for some of the less wealthy people to afford them (co-pay vs. full cost is not an insignificant difference).
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 09:21 pm (UTC)like Clariton, Advil, even Psuedefed, going OTC will drop the prices considerably into the more affordable range, because the market (those afraid to go to a doc or can't afford the insurance) can still get to them.
personally, my understanding is that one medical/beneficial reason for going to a Doc for a prescription is that with these kinds of chemicals can damage the system and a doc theoretically can do a few chemical tests to determine the best balance of efficacy vs. potential side-effects. its also to make sure that you understand other risks (they aren't 100%, don't take more than 1, 2 if you missed a day, yada yada) that you don't get when you don't bother to read the label in a store (nobody reads directions anymore - if they did, fewer VCRs and coffee makers would be flashing 12:00 out there).
i'm of mixed feelings about Plan B being OTC, though not for the same reason that the "life is sacred, now let them starve" crowd. there are risks with these kinds of chemicals in such high doses, even for a limited time, and enough people don't even take advil responsibly enough to be trusted with these - some may, because they have unprotected sex nightly, take them every night in which case they can go through a week at extremely elevated levels and that can have side effects whose permanence is still a big unknown (unless you dig deeply into the medical journals).
education remains key, and until we can trust people to educate themselves properly, a prescription is the main means by which the medical community knows that someone has been talked to about what they're about to take and what risks go with it.
as for the "girls" issue, that side of it is entirely bogus - denying them the ability to have sex responsibly does not change their desire to have sex when the "moment" comes. their theory that if you take away all of the other options for responsible sex they'll simply decide for abstinance (or if you give them the means for responsible sex, they'll decide for sex sooner) is total garbage, an ideal buried deep in their moral fibre that has no bearing on reality (or adolescent hormones) at all.
teenage sex will never be stopped. the best you can hope for is teenage responsibility, but as long as the powers-that-be deny teens the ability to even be responsible, they are guarenteeing unwanted teenage pregnancies, high school dropouts, starving children on welfare, and no hope of the cycle of poverty to ever change...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 09:42 pm (UTC)Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 11:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 03:55 pm (UTC)or at least, all the teenage females...
or all fertile men...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 05:20 pm (UTC)A majority of fertilized eggs do not implant, and are carried ot in menstruation--is each of those a miscarriage? If so, you're talking a lot of baby-funerals...one monthly, in point of fact.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:47 pm (UTC)------------------------------------
If you check a slew of dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc., you'll find some indicate "pregnancy" to begin at fertilization, while others at implantation. Wikipedia agrees with you. This encyclopedia article disagrees.
Further, the Wikipedia article on abortion indicates that the medical definition uses implantation, but others use fertilization.
You'll probably see Plan B and some normal contraceptives swear that the pregnancy=implantation definition, which has two benefits for them: they can claim the backing of the medical community in their language, and they can market to those who oppose abortion, even if the patient mis-understands the usage.
----------------------------------------
I don't know whether the majority of fertilized eggs implant or not, but a woman certainly doesn't produce a fertilized egg once a month (unless she's very active sexually, and using no birth control)
If the implantation definition is used, then no it's not a miscarriage. If the fertilization definition is used, then yes it is.
----------------------------------------
it does not matter when you believe "life" begins
when it comes to definitions, you are correct, in that the beginning of life potentially is a separate issue from pregnancy. But when it comes to the ethics of birth control and especially emergency contraception, then it's very important. And since the definitions are not well agreed upon, it's important that birth control products be clear about what they do to avoid misleading the patient.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:59 pm (UTC)for the rest - the definitions are where the bias IS in effect. put it in one case and birth control (and abortion) is murder. put it in a different case and life begins at birth and before that anything goes.
in short, regardless of the medical professions professional judgement, its a definition that will always be a matter of politics, until like all political terms, it becomes a matter of case law when a court decides.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 09:29 pm (UTC)I would argue that the medical definition of a medical procedure is the relevant one. If people want to argue that preventing implantation is immoral, that's their own business, but it's not abortion. You can also argue that a condom is immoral--all those tens of thousands of dead sperm. But if they want to argue that it's murder, then as
A woman does not produce a fertilized egg every month, but she'll never be sure that any given month's period does not include the loss of a fertilized egg. And under the fertilization definition, that's a baby.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 09:57 pm (UTC)I was pointing out that there are two definitions of "pregnant" in common usage. I wasn't making claims about which is correct.
Let me try it this way: there are two ways to consider pregnancy: from the mother's POV, and from the pre-baby's POV. If you define pregnancy based on the mother's reaction, then the implantation definition makes sense. If you define it based on the pre-baby's POV, then the fertilization def makes sense.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 05:43 pm (UTC)on the other hand, if "life begins at fertalization", then every miscarriage becomes homocide, and every mother with fertility problems (and there are millions of them in this country) becomes a felon.
talk about a miscarriage of justice...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:09 pm (UTC)No ovulation -> no fertilization -> no life
I will admit to not being fully up on all the nuances of it (and don't have the time to do the research), but the MAIN function is preventing ovulation which is why the delay is such a problem (if the woman is in the 'dangerous period' she could ovulate at any moment.
It does have a negative impact on implantation but that aspect of it is not as strong. Think about it. Ovulation is approx. 14 days prior to menstruation. Implantation occurs about 5-6 days post ovulation (it may be 8 but I think 5 is closer). That gives the conceptus 8-9 days to burrow in, form the blastophere and start the chorion (which later becomes the placenta) which then releases the human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG).
The HCG does a few things. 1) it is what is measured on home pregnancy tests. 2) It tells the Corpus Luteum to keep functioning (producing the progesterone which keeps the uterine lining intact). 3) It tells the uterus to NOT release the hormone (blanking on the name) which would lyse the CL.
The PlanB pill is ideally taken immediately (preventing the ovulation) and again a day or so later (Vval can correct me on this one) since the sperm (on average) remain capable of fertilization for 48 hours post deposit. If you only take 1 PlanB pill, the ovulation will be delayed but possibly not long enough for the sperm to die.
Unless PlanB also does something to really muck around with the functions of progesterone on the uterine lining, I would think it would limited effects on implantation (and I think it has some effect but not enough to completely prevent the implant).
Yes Virginia, a biology degree does come in handy.
What would be a potentially useful thing is that when a woman goes to the authorities/hospital after a rape, she be given (or at least offered) PlanB immediately since those are the women who really deserve to have the option.
I am just callous enough to have the most sympathy for rape victims, followed by women who have a known failure (usually torn condom) and less sympathy for women who have sex without being actively involved in birth control unless they are OK with a pregnancy. Yes, passion is a big deal, yes the drive to GO FOR IT is a strong one, but we (humans) are theoretically above that. And if you are dating someone, you should have SOME idea of whether or not you will be sleeping with them and can plan.
Family PLANNING - what a concept.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:36 pm (UTC)there are some drugs that do inhibit inplantation, but i accept that Plan B is not one of them. one of the problems is that its hard to get a laymans' page that makes it clear (by comparisons) what drugs are there and what their specific target effect and side effects are, as well as their efficacy rates.
in other words, they don't compare the various "morning after" drugs to themselves; they only make it clear that its not "RU 486" (the actual abortion drug available in parts of Europe).
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:56 pm (UTC)Sorry if it seems Blueeowyn and I teamed up on you! I guess she was reading my mind as I was typing.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:09 pm (UTC)First you need to realize that fertilization doesn't occur immediately after sex. The sperm will live for several days post-sex, so if ovulation occurs even two or three days later, pregnancy could occur. The primary goal of Plan B is to prevent ovulation during this danger period. Secondarily, it can also prevent fertilization if ovulation has already occurred. Finally, it can prevent implantation if fertilization has already occurred.
Here's a link with more details.
How Plan B works
As for life beginning at fertilization, I'll say more about that in response to mandrakan, but miscarriages would not then be homocide, or even manslaughter, but acts of nature.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:43 pm (UTC)in other words, i was partially right, not entirely wrong. i knew a fact, just not all of them.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:43 pm (UTC)not if it can be determined that the miscarriage is the woman's fault by willfully engaging in risky activity knowing she was pregnant.
it would mean, of course, that the prosecution would have to prove 1) that she knew she was pregnant, and 2) that the activity would be risky.
in other words, a severe invasion of privacy during the investigation phases, to a woman who may have actually wanted the baby (or honestly not known she was pregnant).
however, given that ALL of this is interfering with a woman's (or couple's) privacy, and certainly fits in with the laws (or proposed laws) in several states that require a miscarriage be reported, i wouldn't put it past the so-called "life" states to keep going in that direction.