NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Playing politics with women's health issues seems to have become a way of life at the F.D.A. I detect the familiar odor of the anti-abortionists. Why would they object to a pill which prevents abortions??? [ The article is quoted in its entireity ]


Report Details F.D.A. Rejection of Next-Day Pill (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/politics/15pill.html?th&emc=th)


By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: November 15, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - Top federal drug officials decided to reject an application to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill months before a government scientific review of the application was completed, according to accounts given to Congressional investigators.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, concluded in a report released Monday that the Food and Drug Administration's May 2004 rejection of the morning-after pill, or emergency contraceptive, application was unusual in several respects.

Top agency officials were deeply involved in the decision, which was "very, very rare," a top F.D.A. review official told investigators. The officials' decision to ignore the recommendation of an independent advisory committee as well as the agency's own scientific review staff was unprecedented, the report found. And a top official's "novel" rationale for rejecting the application contradicted past agency practices, it concluded.

The pill, called Plan B, is a flashpoint in the debate over abortion, in part because some abortion opponents consider the pill tantamount to ending a pregnancy. In scientific reviews, the F.D.A. has concluded that it is a contraceptive.

The report suggested that it quickly became apparent that the agency was not going to follow its usual path when it came to the pill. "For example," it said, "F.D.A. review staff told us that they were told early in the review process that the decision would be made by high-level management."

Top agency officials denied many of the report's findings, including its conclusion that the top officials' involvement was unusual and that they had decided to reject the application before the agency's own scientific review was concluded. Julie Zawisza, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, said the agency stood by its rejection of the morning-after pill application.

"We question the integrity of the investigative process that results in such partial conclusions by the G.A.O.," Ms. Zawisza said.

Earlier this month, after Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, denounced the agency's decisions on the pill, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt also said the agency had acted appropriately.

But on Monday, Dr. Susan F. Wood, former director of the agency's office of women's health, said that what she described as the F.D.A.'s willingness to ignore science in the service of abortion politics has "only gotten worse" since the events that were the focus of the G.A.O. investigation. Dr. Wood resigned in August after the agency decided to delay its decision on the morning-after pill once again.

Senator Murray and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, issued a statement saying that the report "has confirmed what we have always suspected, that this was a politically motivated decision that came down from the highest levels at the F.D.A."

The investigation was requested by 30 House members and 17 senators. On Monday, 18 Democratic House members signed a letter of protest to Mr. Leavitt.

The letter noted that Congressional investigators had been unable to uncover the role in the Plan B decision played by the former agency commissioner, Dr. Mark B. McClellan, because agency officials told investigators that all of his e-mail messages and written correspondence on the subject had been deleted or thrown out. The Democrats charged that these acts contravened federal records laws.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest provider of abortion services, issued a statement saying, "The G.A.O. report confirms the F.D.A. has been playing politics with women's health all along."

Wendy Wright, executive vice president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative women's advocacy group in Washington, said that the report's finding that top agency officials had overruled staffers was comforting. "The F.D.A. has been making some pretty serious mistakes lately," Ms. Wright said.

Plan B is manufactured by Barr Laboratories and is now available only with a prescription. Manufacturers rarely criticize the F.D.A., fearing that doing so might anger agency officials. Carol Cox, a Barr spokeswoman, chose her words carefully.

"While we're disappointed that the F.D.A. has not approved Plan B for over-the-counter use, we continue to seek that approval," Ms. Cox said.

Plan B was originally manufactured by Women's Capital Corporation, which won approval from the F.D.A. in 1999 to sell the drug by prescription. The pill contains high doses of the medicines present in birth control pills.

If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, Plan B generally prevents pregnancy. But it is most effective taken soon after sex, prompting the efforts to make it available quickly and without a prescription.

In April 2003, Women's Capital applied to make Plan B available over the counter. Barr bought the rights to the drug and continued to pursue the application. An advisory committed voted 23 to 4 in December 2003 to recommend approving the switch.

Within days of the committee's vote, however, Dr. Janet Woodcock, the F.D.A.'s acting deputy commissioner of operations, and Dr. Steven Galson, acting director of its drug center, told four top staff members that the application would be rejected, even though the agency's scientific review of the application had yet to be completed, the staff members told Congressional investigators. That review was completed in April.

Drs. Woodcock and Galson denied to investigators that they had made such statements.

Dr. Galson told them that "although he was '90 percent sure' as early as January 2004" that he would reject the application, he made his final decision only after reviewing the scientific evidence.

From 1994 to 2004, F.D.A. advisory committees reviewed 23 applications to switch drugs from prescription to over-the-counter status. Plan B was the only one of those 23 in which the agency went against the committee's advice.

Dr. Galson said in a May 2004 news conference that while he had consulted other top officials at the agency, the decision to reject the Plan B application was his alone. He decided to issue a "non-approvable" letter to Barr, he said, because only 29 of 585 participants in a Barr study of the drug had been ages 14 to 16. None was under 14.

Dr. Galson said younger teenagers might act differently than older ones and might engage in riskier sex if they knew an emergency contraceptive was easily available. The company needed more data to ensure that this was not true, he said.

But the G.A.O. called this rationale "novel" and said it was not in keeping with earlier agency decisions in which the behavior of older adolescents was routinely used to predict that of younger ones. The report also noted that the December 2003 advisory committee had voted 27 to 1 that Barr's study had demonstrated that consumers, adolescents included, could use the drug appropriately.

In his rejection letter to Barr, Dr. Galson suggested two ways it could receive approval. First, it could perform another study that included more young adolescents. Or it could seek to sell the drug "behind-the-counter," making it easily available only to women 16 and older, with younger women still needing a prescription.

Barr took the second approach in an application filed in July 2004. Although the agency's rules required it to issue a decision in January, it has delayed doing so indefinitely.

It is unusual for the agency to suggest a means of approval to an applicant only to decide later that its own suggestion might not be appropriate.

COMMENTARY: Playing politics with women's health issues seems to have become a way of life at the F.D.A. I detect the familiar odor of the anti-abortionists. Why would they object to a pill which prevents abortions???

According to the anti-choice advocates the morning after pill is an abortion.

That "they" meant the anti-abortionists, right? Cause otherwise this post would possibly be completly off topic.

Well, that's really going to help the US high teen pregrancy rate go down ...

COMMENTARY: Playing politics with women's health issues seems to have become a way of life at the F.D.A. I detect the familiar odor of the anti-abortionists. Why would they object to a pill which prevents abortions??? [ The article is quoted in its entireity ]

The standard answer is that they think life begins at fertilization (not conception), and that Plan B may cause a fertilized egg to fail to implant.

The answer I often suspect is that they don't want women to have a way to prevent pregnancy in the event of an accident (ie. condom breaks), a rape, or a temporary lapse of judgement (ie. going further than planned without a condom). Some people seem to feel that the woman is having sex, and she shouldn't be, therefore she should be punished.

Dr. Galson said in a May 2004 news conference that while he had consulted other top officials at the agency, the decision to reject the Plan B application was his alone. He decided to issue a "non-approvable" letter to Barr, he said, because only 29 of 585 participants in a Barr study of the drug had been ages 14 to 16. None was under 14.

Dr. Galson said younger teenagers might act differently than older ones and might engage in riskier sex if they knew an emergency contraceptive was easily available. The company needed more data to ensure that this was not true, he said.

I love this type of rationale. "If we have a Plan B pill available, kids will have more sex!" "If we teach them how to use condoms, kids will have more sex!" "If we put girls on the pill, they're going to go out and have sex!"

Seriously people, why is it that so many teenagers are apparently more mature and rational than the adults that are supposed to be raising them? Studies have been done on these sorts of things. The conclusion? Kids who are less-informed and have less access to birth control don't have any less sex, they simply are less likely to have protected sex and are more likely to engage in riskier activities (ie. unprotected anal sex) because they think they "don't count". Yet, if we inform our teenagers and provide them access to birth control, there are less STDs, less teen pregnancies. *scream*

It is unusual for the agency to suggest a means of approval to an applicant only to decide later that its own suggestion might not be appropriate.

Hmmmm.....Could some extreme right politician have pulled some strings here? I wonder.....

Well, that's really going to help the US high teen pregrancy rate go down ...

Teen pregnancy rates are already going down for the most part.

Eh, they are all jelious. From thier view, if they can't get any no one can. :rolleyes: I am sure thier anti- abortion, contraceptive stance comes from that resentment.

According to the anti-choice advocates the morning after pill is an abortion.

That "they" meant the anti-abortionists, right? Cause otherwise this post would possibly be completly off topic.
Yeah. "They" in the third sentance refers to "anti-abortionists" in the second sentance.

By what convoluted reasoning do "they" consider the morning after pill to be an "abortion?" :headbang:

the morning after pill is an eary fom of abortion...

The standard answer is that they think life begins at fertilization (not conception), and that Plan B may cause a fertilized egg to fail to implant.

Seriously people, why is it that so many teenagers are apparently more mature and rational than the adults that are supposed to be raising them? Studies have been done on these sorts of things. The conclusion? Kids who are less-informed and have less access to birth control don't have any less sex, they simply are less likely to have protected sex and are more likely to engage in riskier activities (ie. unprotected anal sex) because they think they "don't count". Yet, if we inform our teenagers and provide them access to birth control, there are less STDs, less teen pregnancies. *scream*
Sigh. That was pretty much my thinking as well.

I helped raise three daughters and now have two grand-daughters. Based on my experiences with these young ladies alone, I concluded that either teenagers are going to have sex or they aren't, and what the parents might or might not want to see happen has very little to do with it indeed.

Having a baby will change your life, and not always for the better. The younger a woman is when she has a baby, the less likely she is to complete her education and the more likely she is to have economic difficulties.

What we wind up with is younger women raising children in poverty or near-poverty conditions, a prescription for disaster if ever I saw one! :headbang:

the morning after pill is an eary fom of abortion...
No, it's an early form of preventative. :p

I wish old Bible-thumping men and their lobbies would just frickin' lay off of issues pertaining to young women. And I wish the FDA had some balls.

*shakes head disdainfully*

Sigh. That was pretty much my thinking as well.

I helped raise three daughters and now have two grand-daughters. Based on my experiences with these young ladies alone, I concluded that either teenagers are going to have sex or they aren't, and what the parents might or might not want to see happen has very little to do with it indeed.

Having a baby will change your life, and not always for the better. The younger a woman is when she has a baby, the less likely she is to complete her education and the more likely she is to have economic difficulties.

What we wind up with is younger women raising children in poverty or near-poverty conditions, a prescription for disaster if ever I saw one! :headbang:

I think those in the FDA with anti-abortion views probably forget what they did as teenagers. They think the abstinence message can override hormones.

Sigh. That was pretty much my thinking as well.

It's not a good thought, is it? I keep looking for something less, well, vindictive, but I haven't seen it yet.

I helped raise three daughters and now have two grand-daughters. Based on my experiences with these young ladies alone, I concluded that either teenagers are going to have sex or they aren't, and what the parents might or might not want to see happen has very little to do with it indeed.

Indeed. My aunts were all afraid that I was going to be some crazy sex-fiend when I hit puberty, because my mother was very open with me and answered all of my questions the moment I had them. But I never had sex in high school. I barely even kissed anyone in high school. When I went off to college, they convinced my mother that I *had* to get on the pill, because I was going to be a crazy sex-fiend at college. While I didn't mind the good things that come along with it, I was on the pill for a good two years before I even started considering a sexual relationship with anyone.

And I've seen girls who went the other direction. In the end, I think the safest thing for a parent to do is to be honest - always. Let your teen know that you don't want them rushing into sex, but that you are there for advice, etc. if they do decide to do it. Teach them the things they need to know if that is the decision they make. Would it be better if they decided like you want? Probably. But if they don't, at least they'll be safe.

I think those in the FDA with anti-abortion views probably forget what they did as teenagers. They think the abstinence message can override hormones.

Duh, they're the ones that didn't get laid. :rolleyes:

Safe sex is hand sex, boys and girls.

Imagine if governments adopted masturbation education instead of abstinence. The tissue companies would be bouncing off the walls in joy.

the morning after pill is an eary fom of abortion...
Bullshit you are geting two different pills confused because some idiots desided to give them a simmilar nickname to confuse the issue

No, it's an early form of preventative. :p
It's a late form of preventative, that's why it is taken after the sexxorzing.

And I've seen girls who went the other direction. In the end, I think the safest thing for a parent to do is to be honest - always. Let your teen know that you don't want them rushing into sex, but that you are there for advice, etc. if they do decide to do it. Teach them the things they need to know if that is the decision they make. Would it be better if they decided like you want? Probably. But if they don't, at least they'll be safe.
Surely you don't mean ... you can't be saying ... apply rationality to child-rearing!?!?!?! OMG! You frakkin' radical, commie, lesbian, sex-monger! :D

It's a late form of preventative, that's why it is taken after the sexxorzing.
It can be taken before
Works very simmilar to a strong dose of normal BC (in fact I heard some brands of BC taken in a higher proscribed dose do the same thing)

Yeah. "They" in the third sentance refers to "anti-abortionists" in the second sentance.

By what convoluted reasoning do "they" consider the morning after pill to be an "abortion?" :headbang:

The same way the Catholic Church believes that contraception interferes with the natural processes of life and procreation.

You voted for them, you rooted for them.

Surely you don't mean ... you can't be saying ... apply rationality to child-rearing!?!?!?! OMG! You frakkin' radical, commie, lesbian, sex-monger! :D

I know!! It's such a crazy commie idea!!

LOL, I pass this church on my way to work every day that has a sign outside that says it holds a class called "Parenting with Love and Logic." Every time I see it, I hope that really is what they teach...

the morning after pill is an eary fom of abortion...
You can't have an abortion until you have implantation. If you have implantation, the morning after pill doesn't do anything.

the morning after pill is an eary fom of abortion...

No. No, it really isn't.

An 'abortion' would be a process that caused an implanted blastocyst, embryo or foetus to be removed from the body.

The 'morning-after-pill' prevents anything from implanting.... which happens to at least a third of ALL fertilised eggs, anyway.

I wish old Bible-thumping men and their lobbies would just frickin' lay off of issues pertaining to young women. And I wish the FDA had some balls.

*shakes head disdainfully*
I wish lobbyists' hands were forcibly kept away from lining the FDA's pockets.

No. No, it really isn't.

An 'abortion' would be a process that caused an implanted blastocyst, embryo or foetus to be removed from the body.

The 'morning-after-pill' prevents anything from implanting.... which happens to at least a third of ALL fertilised eggs, anyway.

blah blah blah - i tell you, your 'facts' and 'logic' stand no chance against my 'ignorance' and 'irrationality'.

I detect the familiar odor of the anti-abortionists.

Yeah...If you smell a faint waft of eggs mixed in with a tinge of pungent fruit...then you know it's them.

COMMENTARY: Playing politics with women's health issues seems to have become a way of life at the F.D.A. I detect the familiar odor of the anti-abortionists. Why would they object to a pill which prevents abortions???

It is at times like this that I often find it comforting to repeat a simple koan to myself. "It's only three more years, it's only three more years, it's only three more years...." I've been finding myself chanting that little phrase alot lately.

Seriously, though, this is one of the more repugnant examples of the Bush administration's utter subservience to Christian Fundamentalists. Only the most extreme wing of the anti-abortion crowd can even think of Plan B as a abortion. This decision is disgusting from any angle you look at it. It is a clear case of extra-constitutional executive activism. Its a pretty clear case of harassment and undue burden on a women's right to birth control. Its a vile case of the government trying to interfere with private behavior rather than protect liberty. god.damn.

Now, if I may hop up on my libertarian soapbox for a second, I'd like to ask a question. Isn't it about time we gutted the power of the FDA? I mean, seriously. The drug has been determined to be safe and effective, why isn;t the end there? Why does it need special approval for OTC use? Is the value of protecting stupid people from themselves really so high that it justifies giving over such an important aspect of our liberty to yet another layer of unaccountable bureaucracy?

Well, that's really going to help the US high teen pregrancy rate go down ...

Yeah, you're being sarcastic, but honestly. Can anyone point to me where in the constitution it says that the government is supposed to make teen pregnancy go down, or up? Or care about it at all? Same goes with promescuity. Lets say you buy the argument that Plan B will cause more sex (which is laughable). So what? Gah!

the morning after pill is an eary fom of abortion...

Please, please, please tell me how that could in any way be relevant?! Ok, you don't like abortion, you think its murder, fine, whatever. At this point your choices are to edit the constitution or come up with an argument that will sway the supreme court. If you fail to meet either of those very high bars, well, I'm sorry you think theres a genocide, but GO HOME! This is the rule of law that so many on the religious right are so fond of. You gotta play by the rules.

Bullshit you are geting two different pills confused because some idiots desided to give them a simmilar nickname to confuse the issue

Nope, Blu-tac isn't "wrong," per se. While RU-486 is what most people would consider an abortion, the pill (and thus, Plan B) are considered abortion devices by some because they can interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg.

Scary thing is, you don't have to get too far out towards the fringe to find that view, the Catholic Church holds it. You can argue with logic or science all you want, but this is what they believe. This is the kind of thought that those who value freedom face. Don't laugh, we're not talking about some lunatic fringe wearing tinfoil hates, we're talking about a large portion of the electorate that Believes anything that thwarts god's plan is an abortion and wants to legislate accordingly.

It isn't just abortion and birth control, either. The Bush Justice Department has put Obscenity prosecutions at the top of it's priority list and has made it known that they're going after mainstream porn, not just the creepy stuff. Think the debate over Gay Marriage has anything to do with the "institution of marriage?" Hell no, it has everything to do with trying to force people whose sexual activity falls outside of the bible back to the fringes of society. Ditto for regular prosecutions of people selling sex toys in the south. This Christian fundamentalism is at the root of the battles over both euthanasia and medical marijuana as well. It is about control. Controlling the conduct of others because it is offensive to your morality, and it is a terrifying thing. The next time someone asks me why I'm so crazy as to own guns, I'll point to the FDA and Plan B. This is an assault on personal liberty folks, it's an attempt to put you "uppity women" back in your place.

No. No, it really isn't.

An 'abortion' would be a process that caused an implanted blastocyst, embryo or foetus to be removed from the body.

The 'morning-after-pill' prevents anything from implanting.... which happens to at least a third of ALL fertilised eggs, anyway.

Must people on this forum refute everything I learned in RS?


(Yes, I went to a freaky-deaky religious school, sex education was taught in the religious studies class).

blah blah blah - i tell you, your 'facts' and 'logic' stand no chance against my 'ignorance' and 'irrationality'.

Can't argue with that. ;)

Must people on this forum refute everything I learned in RS?


(Yes, I went to a freaky-deaky religious school, sex education was taught in the religious studies class).

Actually, yes. And we do it deliberately... just to spite you. :D

Actually, yes. And we do it deliberately... just to spite you. :D

Bah, I knew it was some kind of conspiracy. I bet you work hand in hand with the librul media too.


Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb...

blah blah blah - i tell you, your 'facts' and 'logic' stand no chance against my 'ignorance' and 'irrationality'.

Sigh, that would be funny if it wasn't true :(

Bah, I knew it was some kind of conspiracy. I bet you work hand in hand with the librul media too.


Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb...

Mmmm, rhubarb...

It's those evol libruls, with their 'educating' people....

It's against nature, and against God, I tell you...

Some folks seem a little confused. RU-486 and the "morning-after pill" are not the same thing. Hopefully this will clears things up.

The "morning-after pill" is only good for up to 72 hrs after sex - it is basically just a higher dose of the hormones you find in birth control pills. It merely prevents fertilized eggs from implanting (prevents conception).

RU-486, on the other hand, can be used during the first nine weeks of the pregnancy. It is actually a chemical abortion, as it is used after conception.

The topic currently under discussion is the "Morning-After Pill", not RU-486.

Some folks seem a little confused. RU-486 and the "morning-after pill" are not the same thing. Hopefully this will clears things up.

The "morning-after pill" is only good for up to 72 hrs after sex - it is basically just a higher dose of the hormones you find in birth control pills. It merely prevents fertilized eggs from implanting (prevents conception).

RU-486, on the other hand, can be used during the first nine weeks of the pregnancy. It is actually a chemical abortion, as it is used after conception.

The topic currently under discussion is the "Morning-After Pill", not RU-486.
Quiet, you. You are distorting the debate with facts.

Bullshit you are geting two different pills confused because some idiots desided to give them a simmilar nickname to confuse the issue

No, some people will believe that this is a form of abortion while others will believe that it is another form of contraceptive. Who is right? Well quite frankly I don't know. What I do find amusing is that the opening sentence to this topic contained the phrase "I detect the familiar odor of the anti-abortionists." and "Why would they object to a pill which prevents abortions???" and here is why.

According to some, life begins at conception. (still following people?) Now, conception could theoretically take place five minutes after sex. The morning after pill I believe is designed to make the woman's uterus an "unfriendly environment to the egg" which will basically cause the woman to have a period. (to really dumb it down, for mine and other's benefit) Now, the thing is that if conception had already occured the woman would in fact be pregnant and taking the morning after pill would in essence be an at home abortion. Better than the coat hanger trick, but still an abortion.

So, to say that the morning after pill prevents an abortion is....... stretching it a little. Perhaps a better way to put it would be "Terminating the pregnancy before, or just after, it began."

Just my opinion, which of course I am not a doctor but neither are you, any of you, because I doubt that a doctor would waste their time shootin' shit on NS, but I have been wrong before and will be wrong in the future.

No, some people will believe that this is a form of abortion while others will believe that it is another form of contraceptive. Who is right? Well quite frankly I don't know. What I do find amusing is that the opening sentence to this topic contained the phrase "I detect the familiar odor of the anti-abortionists." and "Why would they object to a pill which prevents abortions???" and here is why.

According to some, life begins at conception. (still following people?) Now, conception could theoretically take place five minutes after sex. The morning after pill I believe is designed to make the woman's uterus an "unfriendly environment to the egg" which will basically cause the woman to have a period. (to really dumb it down, for mine and other's benefit) Now, the thing is that if conception had already occured the woman would in fact be pregnant and taking the morning after pill would in essence be an at home abortion. Better than the coat hanger trick, but still an abortion.

So, to say that the morning after pill prevents an abortion is....... stretching it a little. Perhaps a better way to put it would be "Terminating the pregnancy before, or just after, it began."

Just my opinion, which of course I am not a doctor but neither are you, any of you, because I doubt that a doctor would waste their time shootin' shit on NS, but I have been wrong before and will be wrong in the future.
Pregnancy is defined as beginning when the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine wall.
Since the morning after pill, at most, prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, it does not terminate a pregnancy, but rather prevents it.

The ironic thing being that it's doing exactly the same thing as normal birth control. The 'pill' doesn't prevent an egg from being feterilzed, it just means it won't implant (which is where the 4% failure rate comes in).

I swear, it's hearing things like this that make me NOT want to go back home.

snip

Just my opinion, which of course I am not a doctor but neither are you, any of you, because I doubt that a doctor would waste their time shootin' shit on NS, but I have been wrong before and will be wrong in the future.
The first part was already covered (the fact that it does absolutly nothing that a normal BC does not do)

but to let you know I am dual MA and fairly close to my doctorite

I plan on being around after you can realisticly call me Doctor UpwardThrust:p I just wont be an MD lol

The ironic thing being that it's doing exactly the same thing as normal birth control. The 'pill' doesn't prevent an egg from being feterilzed, it just means it won't implant (which is where the 4% failure rate comes in).

I swear, it's hearing things like this that make me NOT want to go back home.

Erm, yes, it does prevent an egg from being fertilized. The pill works in 3 ways, stopping ovulation, making the cervical mucus "thicker" so the sperm can't get through, and preventing implantation.

Erm, yes, it does prevent an egg from being fertilized. The pill works in 3 ways, stopping ovulation, making the cervical mucus "thicker" so the sperm can't get through, and preventing implantation.

Stopping ovulation doesn't prevent any eggs getting fertilised. It just stops them getting where they CAN get fertilised.

Thus - if an egg SHOULD 'escape', it may still get fertilised.

Similarly - increasing mucus may inhibit sperm travel... but it doesn't stop them fertlising the egg.

And - preventing implantation is only really a factor IF an egg is fertilised.

So - the pill inhibits egg release, inhibits sperm access, and inhibits implantation... but it doesn't prevent fertilisation.

Stopping ovulation doesn't prevent any eggs getting fertilised. It just stops them getting where they CAN get fertilised.

Thus - if an egg SHOULD 'escape', it may still get fertilised.

Similarly - increasing mucus may inhibit sperm travel... but it doesn't stop them fertlising the egg.

And - preventing implantation is only really a factor IF an egg is fertilised.

So - the pill inhibits egg release, inhibits sperm access, and inhibits implantation... but it doesn't prevent fertilisation.

Is anyone else getting turned on?

Is anyone else getting turned on?

Ha ha! :D You are sick, sick, sick...

(A bit, actually...)

;)

Stopping ovulation doesn't prevent any eggs getting fertilised. It just stops them getting where they CAN get fertilised.

Thus - if an egg SHOULD 'escape', it may still get fertilised.

Similarly - increasing mucus may inhibit sperm travel... but it doesn't stop them fertlising the egg.

And - preventing implantation is only really a factor IF an egg is fertilised.

So - the pill inhibits egg release, inhibits sperm access, and inhibits implantation... but it doesn't prevent fertilisation.

Last I heard, preventing the egg and sperm to meet was preventing fertilization. What, you want a chemical to make it so the sperm can reach the egg, but not penetrate it??

No, it's an early form of preventative. :p
Exactly. And the egg, even if it was fertilized, probably hasn't even had a chance to embed itself in the uterus.

According to some, life begins at conception. (still following people?) Now, conception could theoretically take place five minutes after sex.

Wow, considering that conception (implantation of the embryo in the uterine wall) ususally doesn't take place until something like 2 weeks after sex, that's a fast moving embryo. What theory allows that, exactly?

Now, fertilization can occur soon after sex, but fertilization is not the beginning of a pregnancy, conception is.

Just my opinion, which of course I am not a doctor but neither are you, any of you, because I doubt that a doctor would waste their time shootin' shit on NS, but I have been wrong before and will be wrong in the future.

Your opinion is based on incorrect terminology and a flawed understanding of biology. Please look into it and then come back to us with an informed opinion. You're certainly entitled to an uninformed one, but it doesn't do anyone (including you) much good.

I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. Politics has been screwing up good science for decades.

Just keep in mind that a lot of these "miracle cures" turn out to be very deadly down the road and are yanked off the shelfs and quickly followed by lawsuits costing the tax payers billions every year. I will site Celebrex and Vioxx because at my new job we take a lot of calls from people who had heart problems, strokes, etc. while taking those products and they are now calling an ambulance chaser to get some money out of those who "purposedly ruined my life."

Just keep in mind that a lot of these "miracle cures" turn out to be very deadly down the road and are yanked off the shelfs and quickly followed by lawsuits costing the tax payers billions every year. I will site Celebrex and Vioxx because at my new job we take a lot of calls from people who had heart problems, strokes, etc. while taking those products and they are now calling an ambulance chaser to get some money out of those who "purposedly ruined my life."

The thing is, nobody has touted Plan B as a "miracle cure."

Celebrex and Vioxx were both CoxII inhibitors, and they were rushed to market before all the effects of inhibiting CoxII were found. Even before the news reports, labs were beginning to find that CoxII knockout mice had problems in various muscles and that CoxII does a lot more than we thought....

Plan B, however, is really nothing more than a higher dose of the normal birth control pill - something women have been on for at least two generations now. We know what the risks are, and some of them are pretty awful (although rare). No one is claiming that Plan B has no risks, just that many find the risks associated preferable to getting pregnant....

btw, I don't think pinning this one on anti-abortionists would be the best group to blame, a better choice would be men in general. There is that whole issue that Viagra is covered by insurance by birth control is not.

Last I heard, preventing the egg and sperm to meet was preventing fertilization. What, you want a chemical to make it so the sperm can reach the egg, but not penetrate it??

Fertilisation is a process... and one which is removed from the generation or transmission of sperm, and the release or implantation of ova.

Even stopping the sperm penetrating the egg membrane wouldn't actually be inhibiting fertilisation, per se... just one of the steps leading up to it.