If this administration is really determined to let science and evidence be the basis of policy...

[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.

Comments

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

Plan B can never cause an abortion, as there is no pregnancy to abort. Pregnancy begins at implantation (it does not matter when you believe "life" begins). Ergo, no implantation, no abortion.

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.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Not sure where you're getting your information.
------------------------------------
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.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

avoid misleading the patient -- as i said, a reason things like this are still prescription is so that a person can explain this better (assuming a pro-life bias isn't an influence) than unread small print in a box.

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.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

I don't have a source at the moment. But clearly wikipedia is one. I don't see how you can say that a woman is pregnant when nothing yet has happened to her body. Should the egg not implant, under the fertilization definition, she would have miscarried without ever having "carried."

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 acroyear90 says, every miscarriage becomes a possible case of negligent homicide. If you miscarry after riding a roller coaster, you could be charged with depraved indifference, second degree murder (first degree in Colorado).

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.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

I don't see how you can say that a woman is pregnant when nothing yet has happened to her body.

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.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

But it's the mother that's pregnant. If the fetus were pregnant, we'd be talking about tribbles and infinite recursion loops, and that would be...um...fine, actually.