http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=35347918-4EF4-432F-93BB57F4206EB5A7 FDA Recommends Pregnancy Prevention Pill be Sold without Prescription Steve Baragona An emergency birth control pill available in dozens of countries can lower a woman's risk of an unwanted pregnancy after unprotected sex. But purchasing the pill often requires a note from a doctor or clinic. That may soon change in the United States. A panel that advises the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended that the so-called "morning-after pill" be sold over the counter, without a prescription. But conservative groups are opposing such a move. Dealing with unwanted pregnancies is part of Holly Blanchard's job. She is a nurse at the downtown Washington, D.C., clinic of Planned Parenthood. "I've been there with my patients," she said. "I've given out positive pregnancy tests to patients who've just burst into tears. I've been with women that were in abusive relationships with their partners and conceived, and this was just one more blow. Dealing with an unintended pregnancy is totally un-fun." But Ms. Blanchard says women facing an unintended pregnancy do have options. One of them is a product called "Plan B." If taken up to five days after unprotected sex, it can greatly lower the risk of pregnancy. Plan B contains the same chemical that has been used safely for decades in standard birth control pills. Plan B just has more of it. The sooner it's taken, the better it works. That's why International Planned Parenthood Federation's Victoria Ward says it's important that women's access to Plan B be made as easy as possible. "Putting barriers in her way, such as having to go to a doctor, especially if she's a low-income woman or lives in a rural area, anything like that makes it less likely that a woman can turn to this," said Ms. Ward. Major doctors' groups, like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are supporting the call by an FDA advisory panel to make Plan B available over-the-counter, without a doctor's prescription. But the recommendation has drawn fire from conservatives. A group of 49 Republican congressmen has written a letter to President Bush urging the FDA to reject the recommendation. Conservative groups, like the Family Research Council, are lobbying to keep the restrictions on the morning after pill. Spokeswoman Genevieve Wood says lifting those restrictions would lead to more promiscuous behavior. "What kind of message is it sending folks?" she asked. "That basically you can go out and have sex the night before, and then take the pill the day after, and there will be no consequences. There will be consequences." She says those consequences include the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. And Ms. Wood says if Plan B is sold over the counter, teenagers will be the most likely consumers. She says teens shouldn't be making those kinds of choices without guidance. "I think it takes responsibility away from parents and allows 14-, 15-year-olds to have to make those kinds of decisions on their own," explained Ms. Ward. "I don't think that's what, as a culture, we want to be encouraging. "Let me ask you a question: when you first became sexually active, did you go ask your mom? Say, 'Hey mom, what do you think, is it OK if I have sex with whomever?" she continued. "What generation of adolescents has ever asked their parents for permission or input, whatever they thought? Although every parental generation has tried to enforce that," added Planned Parenthood's Holly Blanchard. Ms. Blanchard agrees teens should get advice from their parents about sex. But they often don't. And she says while abstinence is always the best birth control, people do make mistakes. But Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Virginia Bader rejects the idea that over-the-counter Plan B will make women more promiscuous. "In the day and age when we have the diseases we have, and HIV and AIDS, it's arrogant at best to assume that a medication will incite women to behave irresponsibly," said Ms. Bader. "It has never been borne out and true." The controversy is caught up in seemingly irreconcilable philosophical differences over abortion. Planned Parenthood estimates that emergency birth control like Plan B could prevent 800,000 abortions each year. But the Family Research Council's Genevieve Wood says taking the pill actually causes an abortion. That's because Plan B can work after a man's sperm has fertilized a woman's egg. "What it does do is prevent that fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus," she said. "So, yes it is, if you look at abortion that way, yes, it is an abortifacient." The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a final decision on Plan B in the next month. The FDA usually follows its advisory panel's recommendations.

Ppl had sex, pll have sex, ppl will keep having sex. The dumbest of them will still have an unprotected sex. Get real, we’re not living in a perfect world, where everyone gets married first and has sex only after that. I don't see any connection between "morning after" pill and AIDS awareness. If she "flipped in" - morning after pill is STILL a better option than an abortion for her. They (activists) should better spend their money and time for AIDS awareness programs for youth or something like that. As well as "pregnancy, STD, abortion and stuff" awareness. So those young idiots could think before having unprotected sex. I saw a TV program where a 18 y.o. (!!! At 18 you are not a kid anymore) girl though that’s it’s not possible to get pregnant at her first time. So her 19 y.o. boyfriend though. Poor kids. Idiots. A lot of young ppl don’t’ know anything about any STDs (except AIDS may be) and especially what consequences they could cause in future. That’s where the real battle should go! One graphic description of some STD – and they’ll get frightened forever. As for “morning after" pill – if you they are so concerned about kids – they can put a 21 y.o. restriction on it. Like cigarettes. What about another big audience – like adult women after 21? They are aware what they’re doing perfectly well. But what if she happen to “flip in”, but she doesn’t plan any kids in the nearest future? "Morning after" pill means FAST action. Do you know how long it takes to get an appointment with a family doctor? What if she doesn’t have any walk-in clinics around? All this will lead to a REAL ABORTION, which is much worse than a pill. So, do they want her to have a real one instead? Cuz if she doesn’t want this kid – she won’t have a kid. Period. And they better cut the bullshit – like “morning after” pill is technically an abortion too. It is not. Well, again, let’s get REAL. It’s not a perfect world. As soon as those pill are approved and do not cause any side effects – they should be sold in drug stores, may be under that “21 y.o. restriction” with no prescription. If this all is only about the moral side – screw them. It’s none of their business. Leave it to the church or social workers. Get busy, take care of smth else. What about tomorrow? Do we have a chance that they’ll put a ban on selling pregnancy tests, condoms and OC pills in drug stores tomorrow? (Using a condom or being on pill also can be called an abortion technically). Bullshit. "If love is the answer, could you rephrase the question?" Lilly Tomlin.

Talking about what's going in the real world actually. (this is from BBC, 25 January, 2004. Don't think I was digging it from some old crap) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3419693.stm ------------------------------- The power of the ring thing By Richard Alwyn. Abstinence programmes, and the organisations that promote them, are gaining momentum in the United States. An increasing number of teenagers are pledging themselves to no sex before marriage. Richard Alwyn, from BBC Two's This World series, has been investigating. I'm standing on a piece of tarmac that makes me think of the long-stay car-park at Gatwick Airport. In a distant corner is a row of airport shuttle busses. The terminal building is behind me. But there's no smell of jet fuel, no roar of engines, and no sign of a runway. In fact, the terminal isn't a terminal at all. It's a Baptist Church in Columbia, South Carolina. Size, as everyone knows, matters in the US of A. As evening falls, the car-park comes alive. Sports Utility Vehicles deposit gaggles of teenage girls and boys. A large number of them sport t-shirts that proclaim the identity of their favourite star. It seems that Nike are missing a trick; they don't have Christ on their books. Soon, rows of tables outside the church are enveloped by youngsters offering their personal details, including the size of their ring finger. It's an important detail as in three hours' time most of them will be exchanging $12 for a silver ring and a bible. The ring is a symbol of the pledge that they will have made: to remain sexually pure until marriage. The abstinence movement is flourishing in America. Its proponents claim that 65 million Americans are afflicted by a sexually transmitted disease. The "epidemic", they say, is a result of the promiscuity unleashed by the sexual revolution of the '60s. America, the abstinence lobby says, is reaping what it has sewn. Spreading the word. In Columbia, the Silver Ring Thing is in town. It's a sexual abstinence programme that seeks to persuade teenage America that no sex before marriage is the way to go. In a spectacle of flashing lights, videos and sketches, the "crew" urge their young audience to resist temptation and avoid the risk of disease. Onstage, 16-year-old Nikki insists that being single is cool. She exalts her young audience not to cheat, as she would have it, on their future wives or husbands. Meanwhile Rachel, a fellow 16-year-old crew member, has a slightly different spin on things. The scary world of sexually transmitted disease is less an issue for her than the obligations of Christianity. For her, the decision is a moral one. And here's the hub of the debate surrounding the abstinence movement in the USA: is it a legitimate response to a clear medical danger, or is it a moral crusade, driven by a specific interpretation of Christian values? Whatever the answer, it is clear that the conservative Christian morality of President Bush is finding its way into legislation that promotes abstinence. The Bush administration gave $120m to abstinence organisations last year. For some Republican members of the administration, the abstinence issue is a clear case of Christian conscience. For others, it is a way of boosting their conservative credentials via an issue that remains less contentious than abortion. Many of the abstinence organisations, like the Silver Ring Thing which received $700,000 in federal funding, are faith-based groups. Conflict of interest? The tightrope that these groups must walk, however, is at the heart of the American constitution, which demands the separation of church and state. The Silver Ring Thing cannot spend Bush's bucks on God. But is this ultimately possible? The Silver Ring Thing's ringmaster, Denny Pattyn, is an ordained minister. Abstinence, he says, is the brainchild of God. He has been preaching it for many years, only now he has a secular medical case to add to his Christian arsenal. So what is the bottom line for Denny and the Silver Ring Thing? They do present a seminar to the youngsters where faith is not mentioned. But in a moment of quietness, Denny confides that he believes that the end of the world is nigh and that Christ will return within a generation. And so where does abstinence fit into that vision? Well, abstinence, he says, is a tool to reach young people for God, safeguarding them for the Second Coming. Meanwhile, the Columbia show concludes with hundreds of children pledging their virginity, slipping on their rings and clutching their bibles. Underneath the cacophony can be heard the Silver Ring Thing's very own rap - "Oh no, don't give it away..." - while in Washington, Congress prepares to vote more dollars into the abstinence purse. -------

---

Guys, here is a little bit of "reality" for you! Remember gay high school in New York? Well, here is something new from the Big Apple: Bring back shame Maternity leave for pregnant students sends wrong message The Department of Education has started providing maternity leave for students who get pregnant in high school. The program is a response to a report by Controller William Thompson that showed the overwhelming majority of girls who drop out of school do so because they get pregnant. On the surface, the department's move, which currently affects about 60 girls, would appear to promote education, give girls an opportunity to graduate from high school and put them in a better position to be able to take care of a child. But in reality, the program does more harm than good because it sends the wrong message to the rest of the student body. It shows that the system is willing to bend over backwards for you when you're pregnant. What happened to shame? There was a time when shame accompanied a teen pregnancy, when it wasn't okay to attend the prom in a maternity dress or proudly march down the aisle to get a diploma weeks away from delivery. There is no longer a stigma attached to teen pregnancy, and while the system must do something to ensure these young .ladies get an education, night school and alternative schools are more viable options. There should be some consequence to having a baby out of wedlock. The more we make provisions to help kids navigate teen pregnancy, the more we make it acceptable. In his State of the Union speech this week, President Bush addressed the issue of abstinence. He already has put some $100 million of federal funds into abstinence education in schools and wants to boost that budget even more. But this will be as ineffective as Nancy Reagan's ill-fated Just Say No drug campaign of the 1980s. It didn't work for drugs and it won't work for sex. The government makes a lousy parent. The message of abstinence and responsibility must start early at home. And it must start with bringing back a level of shame to the notion of having a child out of wedlock. In the interest of being politically correct and not hurting feelings, we have eliminated words like "bastard" and "loose" from our vocabulary. I would rather hurt a feeling than encourage the cycle of bringing children into this world who don't have all of the tools to succeed - and one valuable tool is two committed parents. While there are some wonderful and successful single parents, they are the exception, not the rule. Just a tiny snapshot of what happens to the children of unwed mothers was seen this week when Mayor Bloomberg stopped in to tour some of the most dangerous schools in the system. He said he asked the principal of one school, "What percentage of the kids have two parents?" The answer: 15%. It is no coincidence that more than 70% of those in prison come from single-parent homes. And the overwhelming majority of children living below the poverty line? Single-parent homes. Shame and stigma are two powerful weapons. Let's bring them back. The message - in schools and at home - should be very clear. "Вошел в интернет, как в женщину..."

---

And as long as we're nowere near a "perfect" situation, wasn't it better for those pregnant kids to prevent pregnancy? By necessary measures (since they didn't obey their moms and dads anyway)? Like contraception or the same pills? What about adults? As I said it's possible to put a 21 y.o. restriction on those "morning after" (which is still ridiculous, especially in regards with an article posted by Tarzan, but anayways). When that "perfect, abstinent" generation will grow up? (By the way, ppl who were building communizm in Russia in 20-30s also believed that there would be "a new, better generation, no crime, no problems" - so what? Where is it?) And those problems we're talking about exist today, now. "If love is the answer, could you rephrase the question?" Lilly Tomlin.

Btw, I agree that all those "government campains" for abstinence will work the same way, as "televangelsits" - you may listen to them or you may turn it off. It should start at home, definitely. No doubt. But I guess STD, pregnancy, abortions and stuff awareness works much better. As I said - one graphic description of some STD at a late stage wil work a 100 times better than all the preachers in the world. At least they'll be aware and take the necessary measures (and yes, it's useful to be aware of measures too). World is not perfect, homes and parents are not perfect either as well as kids. Stop dreaming. "If love is the answer, could you rephrase the question?" Lilly Tomlin.

Having good Sex Education sure would help; unfortunately many parents in this country believe that telling their children about sex, std's and methods of birth control, equates to giving their children permission to go out and have sex...........as for me - I'd much rather have them make an educated decision; because at the end, teens will go out and have sex whether they are ecucated about it or not! "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." H.G. Wells

---

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
H.G. Wells

Alina, I think even those who oppose the use of all birth control would agree that there is a great deal of difference between preventing conception and in destruction after conception. Tarzan, I agree with you. The more acceptable a tragic occurrence becomes, the less incentive children (or adults) will have to avoid that occurrence. __ Actions have consequences and making it even easier to eliminate the evidence is not the answer. Yes people will have sex. Sex is a wonderful thing. Sex is also for adults who take responsibility for their actions and I don't want to make it easier for irresponsible children. Fear of getting caught is a powerful deterrent and this over the counter abortion pill will nearly eliminate any fear of getting caught (for the pregnancy anyway, not the diseases). As for making it for ages 21 and older only...hmmm...I don't see that teenagers have had too much trouble getting around that law to procure alcohol and cigarettes. Yes, education and awareness of disease and other tragic results is important. People will have sex and I don't want them to die for it but my concern is primarily for the other person involved who is going to die for it...the innocent party here...the aborted child. So, yes, it is a moral issue for me and for many others. Imagine if we started selling quick and easy euthanasia supplies over the counter. Same reasoning..."My body and I can do what I want with it".

That's a good point, Leah. There's a clear difference - to take the pill before or after. Easy ways are very often paid by someone else... Жизнь - это не только доход. (Конфуций)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leah: my concern is primarily for the other person involved who is going to die for it...the innocent party here...the aborted child. So, yes, it is a moral issue for me and for many others.

---

I'm sorry, but 1 day old fetus is not a baby. It's a different form of life. And it's aknowlegded by official medicine. Plus - if she's taking this pill doesn't necessary mean that she's got pregnant - it means that she had chances and now she's taking a pill to eliminate them, that's it. Everything can happen. Condoms can tire up or slip. Still "morning after" pill is a good alternative to a medical abortion, if to choose between them (if the situation comes to this SAD point) - "morning after" pill can prevent lots and lots of troubles. Those pills are sold without any prescription in hundreds of coutries all over the Wrold (and I'm NOT talking about the 3-d World here). You think this baby will be happier if his mom or dad doesn't want him/her to be born? If no one expects him/her? If he/she will be raised in powetry or neglect or you name it? Cuz that's what usually happnes in such cases and in such families. This is how real things look. And yes, no one has right to control a woman's body. Excuse me for not being "high" about it. I hope common sence will win here. "If love is the answer, could you rephrase the question?" Lilly Tomlin.

Why are you talking about fetus or abortion? "An emergency birth control pill available in dozens of countries can lower a woman's risk of an unwanted pregnancy after unprotected sex. " Here is more about "Plan B": "Taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, Plan B can be effective treatment in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Plan B can reduce the risk of pregnancy by 89 percent (from about 8 percent to 1 percent) when used correctly. In the first 24 hours after a single act of unprotected intercourse, Plan B can prevent 95 percent of expected pregnancies. Effectiveness declines as the time increases between intercourse and the start of treatment, so the sooner a woman gets treatment the better. How does Plan B work? Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by delaying ovulation or preventing fertilization . In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. Plan B is not effective if a woman is pregnant. Plan B is contraception and cannot terminate an established pregnancy. "

---

- Доктор, я жить буду?

- А смысл ?

VIV

conservatives still want to controll women.. . let women decide what to do with their bodies... anything inside woman's body is just that - part of the woman.. untill baby is born woman has a right to do whatever/whenever she wants with her body... get you stupid ignorant heads out of a woman's womb... get over it... if you don't beleive in a right to have an abortion - don't have one... let the other make that choice for themsleves.. i thought conservatives beleve in personal responsibilities... or is it just another BS? lyosha ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

You see. Even better. And here is the case where EVERY MINUTE counts. This is an emergency procedure (no one is talking here about this "Plan B" as of an every day measure! But it's always useful to have some options in case of a true emergency) - and needs to be done AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. All those appointmens and consultations before just going and getting it in a drug store decreasing the chances of PREVENTING. As I said pills like that (not neccessarily "Plan B") are sold over the counter in many countries. "If love is the answer, could you rephrase the question?" Lilly Tomlin.

The morning after pill has to be taken no more than 5 days after unprotected sex for it to work. The EARLIEST a pregnancy test can determine you are pregnant is 4 days before your expected period or 10 days after unprotected sex, and for the test to get its 99% accuracy (ALL of them) you have to wait until 14 days after unprotected sex. (Remember, you only get pregnant when you ovulate - on average 14 days before your period. The reason the rhythm method is so hard is you may ovulate at a wierd time in your cycle, but you'll ALWAYS have your period 14 days after you ovulate.) At the time you have to take this pill, you can't know if you're pregnant or not. And really, even if you could, at 5 days the blastocyst (not even an embryo, much less a fetus or baby!) is just a blob of cells... can you really call that an abortion? And the most practical reason: This is not a cheap method of birthcontrol! Condoms and the pill are much more likely to increase promiscuity (AS IF!! how insulting!) than the morning after pill. You'd have to go buy it EVERY time you have sex to make sure you don't get pregnant! Do you really think people are going to do that regularly? No. Just the ones who slip up on occasion. The cost itself will keep it from being used as an everyday form of contraception. "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes." --

---

"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."
--

For adults, I could agree with all of your arguments but for one problem. No one can prove when a "soul" becomes present. I do not even mean "soul" in strictly religious terms...but rather that spark that makes each of you who you are and different from all others. If there is even the slightest chance that this happens at conception (even before implantation) then I can never support abortion at will...just as I could not support killing any of you. It is not a question of viability- that old argument that the fetus has no rights until it is capable of living outside of the womb. If you tossed me into the woods without provisions or a cell phone, I definitely would not be viable but that doesn't give anyone the right or reason to kill me. (Also wanted to add that in a case where the mother's life it threatened, I would not oppose someone choosing abortion. I agree with those who would call it self defense or justifiable homicide.)