Just sent the email Jessica! Thanks for the heads up.

my letter is sent. how ridiculous. you start to feel like bill murray in Groundhog Day...how many times do we have to go over this??

I sent a letter but here is an important point that everyone needs to understand when discussing any type of chemical birth control. Plan B, like many birth control pills MAY work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. Conservatives view that as a form of abortion. I don't - I'm just passing that little tidbit along because it's handy to know when having a discussion with ultra conservatives.

done.

dude, i read this article last week and i somehow missed that. i have no clue how.

21stcenturyMom -- It took a while before I learned how anti-choicers defined pregnancy, so I agree it's important we understand their perceptions before having dialogue.

But their definition of pregnancy and their understanding of contraceptives including the morning after pill, is grossly inaccurate. I'd be fine with them believing such inaccuracies, except they are slowly pushing these erroneous claims into laws that restrict access and freedoms of all women.

Also, the chance of chemical contraceptives preventing implantation is ONLY theoretical, with a completely unknown rate of occurrence - possibly zilch.

email sent.

Yup, just sent my email too.

Just read the whole article- and I have issues with the opening, closing and many things in between.

First, Latin American leftists are introduced according to a trio of thier idoligies- "battling poverty" and "promoting indiginous rights" and "bashing America". As if the goal is to insult a nation rather than to advance rights and justice through ending repressive multi-national policies.

My favorite phrase, "abortion on demand" is used through out the article. How about something more in keeping with the reality of what is currently being denied? Maybe- "Women will be permitted reproductive health care and decision-making rights over their bodies for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy." Sure, it's wordy- but I'd rather read that a half dozen times.

Padgett ends his article pointing out that the "abortion debate" will "further divide an already
socially fractured continent." Seems to me we could reasonably hope it would help to unite a continent, extending rights to all, reducing poverty, increasing oppertunity...

Plus of course, Time mag fact checkers need a lesson in fertility and pharmacology. Plan B is, of course, an IMPLANTATION preventor. Not an abortion pill.

Thanks for the heads-up. I just sent a letter.

Just sent an email. Referred them to the FDA press release on Plan B (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01436.html.)
which describes EC as "effectively and safely preventing pregnancy." Hopefully they'll make the correction!

21stcenturyMom: Yeah, I'm aware of this definition of abortion as well. However, I believe the accepted medical definition of pregnancy is AFTER implantation. It seems like a magazine like "Time" should go by that definition, rather than the revisioned one given by anti-contraception folks. Unless they were to qualify it. Like if they said, "the 'morning after' contraception, which some view as a form of chemical abortion."

Email sent. Mine may get ignored.
I couldn't resist including a snarky reference a recent fad among compentent journalists, popularly known as fact-checking. ;)

sent an email. linked to Massachusetts NARAL's page on EC.

Thanks for the link to your post on EC versus RU 486.

annajcook--- awesome reference you used in your letter! But in regards to your suggestion for how to handle the anti-choicers -- I think that's still ceding to much to them! I mean, you don't get to just come up with your own definition that flys in the face of the medical community, then push it into laws and culture because you "believe" it to be true.

email sent and sent onto as many people as I could think of to do the same - thanks for the heads up.

Most of us anti-choice people consider preventing a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus to be inducing abortion. Contraceptives that act in this way are referred to as abortifacient.

I realize most of the readers with this blog don't agree with this analysis but this is the way that we, the other side, view the issue.

From the go2planb.com:
"Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb)"

I'm sure President Bachelet would be surprised to hear Plan B described that way, since she is anti-abortion! For those of you who can read spanish, here's an interview where Bachelet declares herself pro-life and pro-birth control, stating that she believes that emergency contraception does not cause abortion:
http://www.hacerfamilia.net/revista/articulo.asp?reportaje=817

stocad, while you make a valid point, the fact remains that by using a term such as "abortion-inducing," - without explaining the reasons why Plan B may be viewed as an abortifacient (as you did) -it is an example of a reporter including bias in a news article that is supposed to be "objective" (and I use the term, even in quotation marks, extremely loosely).

Or, it is just an example of carelessness.

Either way, the error needs to be called to attention, if there's any hope of reforming our already declining third estate...

Most of us anti-choice people consider preventing a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus to be inducing abortion.

You are, quite simply, medically wrong. 'Abortion' is a medical term describing the termination of a pregnancy, whether by natural means or otherwise. It is not possible for an abortion to take place without a pregnancy, by the medical definitions of those two words.

Stocad - Fine, you may believe it's "abortion," but it's still innacurate and misleading to call Plan B "abortion inducing" without further explanation. You'd have to say "Plan B either prevents fertilization or stops the 70-100 cell blastocyst from implanting in the uterus 7-10 days after conception." And then you could append this moving photograph of a blastocyst, for greater emotional impact:
http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm

Fact is, even most pro-life Americans aren't going to be too worried about their little blastocysts.

Don't you think Time would know that something that is probably "abortion-inducing" would also most likely be "death of the woman who takes the pill-inducing" as well? Shit.

What, so now any attempt to deter hypothetical sperm from a hypothetical egg (some men have very low sperm counts;some women don't ovulate every month) is considered abortion? Next, every time a girl gets her period, it'll be killing the poor potential child that might have been conceived if she'd had sex...except oh wait, they're all abstinence-only. sheesh.

email sent!

It may be inflammatory. But to the extent these measures cause the expulsion of a fertilized egg it's accurate.

An abortifacient is an abortifacient.

An abortifacient is an abortifacient.

Except when it's a contraceptive. Keep your antichoice, bad science, bullshit rhetoric off my threads. (I'm fucking way cranky today.)

It's very simple, folks. A fertilized egg does not a pregnancy make.

Therefore any drug that operates before implantation is operating before there is a pregnancy. No pregnancy, no possibility of abortion, chemical or otherwise.

An abortifacient is an abortifacient.

I'm not even going to go into how that statement, logically, means absolutely nothing (ie. 'fair is fair'). I would just like to know why conservatives think a fertalized egg that's not implanted (which medically speaking is not a pregnancy) is so special, but nobody cares about the sperm (or egg) alone. Are these people barging in on their teenage sons masturbating in the bathroom and demanding that flushing the toilet is an abortificant, too?

wait, are conservative teens allowed to masturbate?

Haha no carly, I don't think they are. I suffered from 'gratification disorder' as a child so I should know (snicker, snicker)

But really, I thought the whole interruption of implantation thing was only theoretical, as you can't detect the existence of a fertilized egg. Obviously chemical contraceptives don't work all the time, since some women get pregnant with perfect use-- and for them, implantation was obviously not affected either. I think it was more, that since we can't detect a fertilized, non implanted egg (hence, prior to pregnancy) doctors believe that the hormones COULD PERHAPS prevent implantation, but they don't really know, as it can't be measured. So conservatives jump all over it calling it an abortion, even though it's only theoretical, AND it doesn't matter because they've created their own, non-medical definition of pregnancy.

Just for the record - I KNOW!

I am totally pro choice. I abhor the conservatives inventing science to justify controlling women.

Hey 21stCenturyMom, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was questioning your feminist cred :). I was just musing about how the article could have made a better distinction, IF they were trying to recognize the anti-choice argument about pre-implantation pregnancy prevention as abortion. Best, Anna

21stcenturyMom-- I did use your comment as a jumping off point, but I didn't mean to use it question you. I'm sorry if I made you feel 'talked at' or misunderstood -- I never got the impression you were NOT pro choice.

Email sent.

Since nobody else has brought it up yet after stocad's quote, I think it prudent to remind people that the go2planb comment is dead wrong. There is no clinical evidence whatsoever that Plam B increases implantation failure, no plausible biological mechanism has been proposed as to why it should, and there have been two studies so far showing no discernible change.

I've unfortunately lost track of the studies, but I remember posting the links to them here at Feministing the last time it came up. The entire implantation failure is a canard set up by birth control opponents to make Plan B seem objectionable to a larger audience. If anyone knows of a peer-reviewed clinical study purporting to show otherwise, I'd much like to see it.

The other arguments also apply, of course (calling an implantation failure an 'abortion' is most certainly ludicrous -- as I like to point out, since more than half of all fertilized eggs will fail to implant whether or not there is any intervention, this makes God the biggest abortion provider ever), and a blastocyst is not a person in any meaningful sense (or the preceding fact would require massive changes that nobody I know of on the right seems willing to support, including the immediate banning of all fertility clinics).

Thanks, Zed. I was waiting for you to show up.

I think it's more insidious than trying to make Plan B seem objectionable; since most oral contraceptives can be said to do the same thing, the ultimate goal is to get rid of birth control altogether.

"Plan B, like many birth control pills MAY work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg."

Don't forget that it's not just like many birth control pills this way, it's also like breastfeeding on demand this way. No wonder some nomadic hunter-gatherer moms like to breastfeed a child until she or he can walk briskly - it reduces the odds of having to carry a tent and a toddler and a newborn at the same time.

"Next, every time a girl gets her period, it'll be killing the poor potential child that might have been conceived if she'd had sex...except oh wait, they're all abstinence-only."

Aren't many of them pro-unprotected-marital-sex instead of genuinely abstinence-only? My guess is that it'll be closer to "Next, every time a girl gets her period, it'll be killing the poor potential child that might have been conceived if she'd already been married off to an older man by then..."

And lets not forget to remind our anti-choice visitors of a repeated fact on this blog: fertilized eggs NATURALLY don't implant in the lining like, half the time. THUS the scientific reasoning that a pregnancy can't begin until the womb ACCEPTS it.

I found this comment from Planned Parenthood.org:

"Theoretically, EC could also prevent implantation, but that has not been proven scientifically."

The same is also said about every hormonal birth control and IUD's, but I feel that I am safe in assuming that the anti choicers are not going after them because they are so widely accepted by the general public and fear not being listened to.

"Most of us anti-choice people consider preventing a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus to be inducing abortion. Contraceptives that act in this way are referred to as abortifacient."

What I have a real problem with is how words are thrown around without knowing the true definitions of these words. I took the liberty of looking some of them up at Medicine.net, stocad, you may find this to be extremely informative.

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

conception: The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.

Abortifacient: A substance that causes pregnancy to end prematurely and causes an abortion.

Pregnancy: The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body. This condition can be indicated by positive results on an over-the-counter urine test, and confirmed through a blood test, ultrasound, detection of fetal heartbeat, or an X-ray.

*None of the above can happen until after implantation.

According to the above definitions, emergency contraception is not an abortion, not that it should matter as, at least for now, abortion is still legal. For it to be an abortion, first there needs to be a pregnancy, which only occurs after implantation. If implantation does not occur, there is no pregnancy, if there is no pregnancy, there is no abortion, simple as that. Women have many fertilized eggs that never implant, for some reason or another, yet they don't consider it to be a miscarriage.

I emailed, and have encouraged others to do so. Thanks for the heads up.

Awesome info, everyone.

Question: I've had anti-choicers tell me that - as part of a huge conspiracy to get women to kill their babies - the definition of pregnancy was changed right before birth control pills hit the market. They claim that the original definition was pregnant at sperm meets egg. I can't find a source for this claim. However, I would suspect that if definitions changed, it was because we had a better understanding of the reproductive process. (I mean thank God definitions change, right, or else we'd still be bleeding patients to cure them of disease). None the less, anti-choicers use this as a "gotcha!" to prove that birth control pills are evil and that the medical community, including the AMA, were complicit in the big cover up of how birth control pills really cause abortions.

Not that the people who claim this would probably listen, but omg does anyone have a good rebuttal?

I emailed as well and passed along the info to others!

I *also* noticed how the article used the phrase "abortion on demand" which is a rather biased way of putting it.

The makers of Plan B acknowledge that it works by preventing implantation of a fertilised egg. Otherwise, it would be significantly less effective.

If you consider life to begin at conception, then Plan B does seem quite callous. I don't agree, however, with calling it an aborficant, as the term simply refers to something that would stop an existing pregnancy.

Regardless, women should be informed of the mechanisms behind Plan B (i.e. preventing ovulation and/or preventing implantation) so that they may make decisions in accordance with their own moral views.

(FYI: I personally believe that the best definition of "life" would begin about 10 days after conception, which is why I don't much care if women use Plan B. Furthermore, there's so many spontaneous miscarriages that happen during the first week that I don't see Plan B as really doing much harm.)

It does get to me that many pro-lifers focus so much on Plan B, which is used by women who are trying to avoid conception, and don't care much about either IUDs (which work by preventing implantation, each and every time) or IVF, which results in a lot of extra embryos that die. The latter two methods involve the deliberate creation of life and then the prevention of its continuation, while women who use Plan B are at least trying to be responsible up front.

If that makes sense....

email sent!! Thanks for letting us know.

"They claim that the original definition was pregnant at sperm meets egg."

So if one of them got IVF she'd consider herself pregnant even before her zygote was transferred from the petri dish to her uterus?

E-mail sent!

Mina: I think that is actually the reasoning behind the "snowflake baby" movement, in which (hetero, married) couples "adopt" frozen embryos which are left over from IVF treatments. They see themselves as rescuing unwanted children.

so. tired. of. this. shit.

email sent.

so. tired. of. this. shit.

email sent.

Well, Anna J. Cook, you're not implying that there's something wrong with adopting snowflake babies, are you?

I mean, really, isn't it better that the embryos not rot away in a cryogenic container?

Here's a biologist's rundown of how Plan B actually works, from a biological point of view: Why the wingnuts hate Plan B.

The relevant bit is:

[Plan B] is a form of birth control that tells the woman's ovaries to hold off on releasing any eggs for a short while. It's called emergency contraception, because it is used by a woman who has, for whatever reason (rape, a broken condom, misplaced enthusiasm, second thoughts, anything) had unwanted sperm in her reproductive tract, and she wants to make sure that this isn't the moment her ovaries happen to pop a follicle.

Plan B is not an abortion.

Plan B doesn't help if one is already pregnant, and it doesn't affect any implanted zygotes. Pregnant women produce progesterone naturally.

Plan B gives women the ability to control, to a limited extent, when they will expel a gamete. In purely reproductive terms, it's a bit like a male's ability to control when he will ejaculate, or expel his gametes. That's it. No fertilized zygotes are involved, so that level of the birth control debate isn't even relevant. It's simple, responsible, and safe. You'd have to be insane to object to Plan B.

my email is sent also!

Oenophile, what I am concerned about with the movement to "adopt" embryos is that it is another way of expanding our cultural definition of when life begins. (As with the Plan-B-as-abortion language) I am very worried about the fetal rights movement, and the way it is encroaching on women's bodily integrity--women's right to make independent decisions about their own physical lives. Once an embryo has independent rights, even at the stage of being a few cells, this sets up a situation in which a mother's best interest and an embryo (or pre-embryo's) interest are pitted against one another in a myriad of ways. I do not feel comfortable with that.

On the other hand, I do understand that the question of what to do with embryos left over from IVF treatments is a difficult one, morally, and that people are breaking new ground as they decide what to do with them. I do not see anything wrong, for example, with couples donating left over embryos to people who are trying to get pregnant but are unable to create their own viable embryos. But I also don't think it would be immoral for couples to decide that those materials be donated to stem cell research.

It is the language of "adoption" and "baby," when applied to a pre-implantation group of cells, that I find problematic.

JustAnotherJane -

I highly doubt that the definition of conception changed right before birth control was introduced. When the pill was introduced, it was not exactly enthusiastically accepted by the establishment. It took the Supreme Court to even allow women to get access to the pill in some states.

And actually, back in the 19th century, many didn't even consider a woman pregnant until "quickening," when a woman could feel a baby move.

I really do not understand why people have a problem with abortion or contraception or even sex for that matter. They don't like it, they ought not do it, not impose their medically incorrect definitions and make life difficult for others. Why don't they instead concentrate on something more basic, basic honesty- "its a sin to lie, cheat, steal" or how huge multinbationals are profiteering soulless machines( ha ha) or something simple like that- you know more suited to campaigns - also eminently more discussablee at a dinner table( because sex and anything even remotely associated with it is icky :D ) why don't they address corruption at the governemtn level- not discuss women's insides like this... :D

Sent my email! Amazing that such a renowned magazine wouldn't check their facts first.

DDay: You are right about "quickening". I believe I read an article about it in my Motherhood in America class this semester.

Just wanted to let you know that I sent my rebuke to Time.

email sent.

pair this with the anti-choice protesters on campus today and i've had enough.

stocad,

are you implying that abortofacient means something other than "causing abortion", because that is exactly what it means.

plan b is a contraceptive, which means that it prevents pregnancy *before* it occurs. a person who is not pregnant cannot have an abortion.

Iterrobang - wow, that's not a scientific definition, honey.

It COMPLETELY missed the part where Plan B stops a fertilised egg from implanting into the uterus. That is the part that pro-lifers have an issue with.

3. How does Plan B work?

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.

From the FDA's website:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

At least be honest.

--
As for "snowflake babies," I cannot disagree more with your rationale. It's the woman's life... and her baby's life. It's her body... and her baby's body. I really object to your use of the word "materials." The anti-life side really enjoys using such rhetorical devices to pretend that those are not human embryos.

Allytude: Why did you have "cheat" on your list of sins but not "kill?" Maybe that's why the pro-lifers are concerned about your insides.

I'm white. Why should I care about racism? Likewise, I've already been born; why should I care about abortion?

I sent a letter as well, referring them to http://ec.princeton.edu/

Princeton's peer-reviewed website about emergency contraception.

As I said in my letter to TIME, one of their questions in the FAQ about emergency contraception is:

Does emergency contraception cause an abortion?

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

The site says (I quoted this part to TIME):

"No, using emergency contraceptive pills (also called "morning after pills" or "day after pills") prevents pregnancy after sex. It does not cause an abortion. (In fact, because emergency contraception helps women avoid getting pregnant when they are not ready or able to have children, it can reduce the need for abortion.)"

I also explained the difference between emergency contraception and Mifeprex/Mifepristone and said I thought he was "confused."

i think it's also important to mention that another function of hormonal birth control (including ec) is that it thickens cervical mucas so that sperm cannot travel into the uterus (and therefore fallopian tubes) to meet with an egg (IF released).

so with both of those measures in place, the chances of an egg and sperm actually meeting when bc or ec is used correctly is incredibly low. and therefore even IF these methods do prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a woman's uterus, this is something that probably very rarely happens, if ever.

i would think that anti-choicers should love the idea of ec. do you know how many abortions it could actually PREVENT??? maybe it's time to stop debating on whether or not it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching and what that might mean and start focusing on the established pregnancies that will not have to be terminated because they never occured in the first place, thanks to ec.

I really object to your use of the word "materials." The anti-life side really enjoys using such rhetorical devices to pretend that those are not human embryos.

I think, for now, we will have to recognize that we view this issue really differently. I don't pretend that I have made a final decision on when and how human life begins, and what the implications of that beginning have for reproductive rights. But I do believe that there is some sort of sliding scale, and that a blastocyst or zygote ARE biological material significantly different from even a month-old or two-month-old fetus. I would not refer to a two-month-old fetus as "materials." I do think there is a distinction.

I would not characterize my use of this language as something I "enjoy" as a way of circumventing important moral reasoning. It is not simply a "rhetorical device." It is language I am consciously using to best express how I understand these complicated issues.

The question of the interconnectedness of a woman's body and the body of her unborn child, (particularly in that grey area between clear un-viability outside the womb, and possible viability outside the womb) is fraught with all sorts of legal and moral issues. I agree that at some point, an unborn child may be considered an independent person, with some sense of independent rights--like those of a child. But then, where do we go with that reasoning? Would a woman have to submit to invasive bodily procedures that were in the best interest of the unborn child, but not her own? Whose life becomes more important--and, more importantly, who decides? Lawmakers? Or individual women and their families. I've read some of the court cases where fetal rights have been at issue, and each one is heartrending and deeply disturbing in what is says about how our society views pregnant women's ability to make health care decisions.

I do not see how we are served well by extending this understanding of independent existence all the way back through early pregnancy to pre-implantation.

Did it! Thanks for h/t.

Oenophile, honey, stopping implantation does not result in abortion. Abortion can only happen AFTER implantation. And, of course, EC does not affect an egg which is already implanted. Therefore, no abortion happens. It's not even a miscarriage, because nothing was ever "carried".

oenophile:

As far as I can tell, those "may prevent" lines are entirely speculative and are there only for political reasons. There is no biological mechanism I am aware of by which Plan B should result in increased implantation failure, and two different studies have already examined this specifically, and found no measureable difference in implantation failure.

If you disagree, point us at a clinical study published in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e. some reputable science). Websites of entities subject to substantial political tampering are not particularly relevant when all the science goes the other way.

flyinfur:

The religious right has been trying to redefine implantation barriers as abortions for a very long time. I can only guess that they are pretty much completely ignorant of the science involved, as the birth control method with the second highest increase in implantation failure that I can think of is...

*drum roll*

... the rhythm method.

The first is the IUD, which is the only birth control method I know of that actually relies heavily on preventing implantation. After that, the last-minute fertilizations that occur with greater frequency on the rhythm method have a much higher chance of implantation failure than average.

And yet, religious groups endorse the rhythm method and decry Plan B. Go figure.

oenophile - they have to say that because it's theoretically possible, but it has never been shown to keep a fertilized egg from implantation. Look on PubMed to find the original, real data. Start with these papers:

Contraception. 2003 May;67(5):415-9.Postcoital treatment with levonorgestrel does not disrupt postfertilization events in the rat. Muller AL, Llados CM, Croxatto HB.

Hum Reprod. 2004 Jun;19(6):1352-6. Epub 2004 Apr 22. Post-coital administration of levonorgestrel does not interfere with post-fertilization events in the new-world monkey Cebus apella. Ortiz ME, Ortiz RE, Fuentes MA, Parraguez VH, Croxatto HB.

If you don't want to read the primary literature, read the PZ post that Interrobang linked to upthread. It will explain it very well. Upshot is, if there is a fertilized egg, Plan B isn't going to stop it.

You're trying to conflate the definitions of abortion and life and confuse the issue.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then it makes no difference whether the fertilized ova adheres to the uterine wall. It is human life before that point, and causing its destruction is morally problematic for someone on the pro-life side.

I've never met a pro-lifer who considered that "life doesn't begin at conception, but at implantation."

You're arguing with a straw man.

Addendum to my comments above.

Dear Oenophile,

After posting my last response earlier this afternoon, I have been thinking about our exchange. I would like to apologize for being combative and using language that seemed callous to you in reference to human embryos. I am a new reader of feministing (though I have been an active feminist since before college). Since beginning to read this blog a couple of weeks ago, I have been following your contributions with interest. You seem like a thoughtful and articulate person, and I admire that you are willing to stand up for opinions that, at least among the readers of this blog, put you in the minority. In the heat of the moment, that was something I forgot to say!

I feel like my earlier post contained too many assertions and not enough questions. These are complicated issues. I am genuinely interested in how you have come to the positions that you have in regards to reproductive rights and decisions, and sexuality and abstinence. Yet this particular blog thread is probably not the right place to delve deeper! If you would be willing to continue the conversation, please email me at cookaj81@hotmail.com. I would value your thoughts very much.

Sincerely,
Anna

Hi all. Someone may have said this in an earlier post -- sorry, haven't had time to read the whole thread -- but I think it bears repeating:

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT PLAN B PREVENTS IMPLANTATION OF A FERTILIZED EGG.

Theoretically, it is possible. But no one knows for sure. They DO know for sure that it can prevent ovulation, hence implantation.

So it is egregious and just plain wrong to call Plan B "abortion-inducing." Even if the author's definition of "life" for purposes of abortion includes a fertilized but not implanted egg (and even if it is, the article should CERTAINLY have explained this clearly), his description has no basis in fact.

Oh, and "abortion on demand"? Don't get me started. Time Magazine can kiss my ass. They're shitty, sensationalistic pseudo-journalists who wouldn't know objectivity if it bit them.

FlyingFur:

Oenophile, honey, stopping implantation does not result in abortion. Abortion can only happen AFTER implantation. And, of course, EC does not affect an egg which is already implanted. Therefore, no abortion happens. It's not even a miscarriage, because nothing was ever "carried".

To be utterly blunt, no shit. I never said anything to the contrary, so why not take your 'tude elsewhere? :)

As for reading Interro's link:
1. I did;
2. As far as primary sources go, it leaves something to be desired. I mean, when your title is "Why Wingnuts Hate Plan B,"it's a pretty good bet that this wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal.
3. It has bad science.

See. PZ states, correctly, that Plan B contains progesterone. This is correct, but her second claim that progesterone does not prevent implantation, and therefore, there is no fertilisation issue, is a blatant lie. :)

Got your attention? Ms. PZ claims that, since Plan B works by shutting down the production of LH, which in turn suppresses ovulation, that Plan B works only that way. Every morning, I get into my Volvo and drive to work. This does not preclude the fact that I park three blocks from work and walk the remaining distance. One would hardly use my early-morning drivings as evidence that I never set one foot on the Southern California pavement to get to work.

More importantly, PZ's post all but ADMITS that Plan B prevents implantation. She states that when LH is sufficiently suppressed, a woman has her period, i.e. the lining of the uterus is affected by these hormones. Go figure.

Barr Laboratories, the manufacturer of Plan B, claims that it works by preventing implantation.

I do agree that Plan B really beats abortion, but I think we should at least be honest about how it works.

Anna,

I'll drop you an email. :) We'll chat and such.

oenophile -
You might want to work on noticing who your sources are a bit; PZ is an embryologist, and therefore has a good working knowledge of how progesterone works and how it doesn't. Not that it's here nor there, but he's also male (just to comment on noticing who your sources are).

That aside, though, have you read the articles I cited yet? If that's too much to do, just look at the titles - "does not disrupt postfertilization events" is in the title of each. That means that postfertilization, it has NO EFFECT. If you look at those studies, it's clear that pregnancies proceed normally if Plan B is administered after fertilization, even if before implantation. Those are the primary sources.

Carlie,

I haven't had a chance yet to look at them, although I will point out that they obviously say nothing about humans. Furthermore, Barr Laboratories, who makes the freakin drug, says that it works by preventing implantation, among other methods.

My issue with Mr. PZ's article is that he never disproved the implantation issue so much as pointed out that there is another mechanism at work. We already know that Plan B suppresses ovulation.

Either way, I'm a huge supporter of Plan B. I do believe that life arguably begins at conception, but, realistically, cannot be said to begin without dispute until about ten days afterwards. (The twinning process, if it does occur, happens around that time. It seems backwards to me to argue that a zygote is a complete human, when it could be two humans. Furthermore, "life" entails homeostatis and the ability to get food, both of which are lacking by a pre-implanted zygote but occur shortly after implantation.)

I guess my point is that if people think that Plan B interrupts implantation, the response should be, "So what?" If someone's logic falls beneath its own weight, why bother arguing about whether or not it has any foundation?

THEY'VE corrected it! Or, at least, taken out the "abortion-inducing" descriptor for morning after pills.

It's something...

oenophile - I'm a biologist, albeit a botanist, so I guess it's by nature that I'm a stickler for the specific details. I agree that it shouldn't matter if it inhibits implantation, but the fact is that it seems not to, so why even bring it in? From what I've researched on it (not a huge amount, but I've tried to trace back the info), the bit about "maybe inhibits implantation" was thrown in with BC originally just as a catch-all to cover all bases of possible action, since they weren't entirely sure at the time how it worked, and it's been a holdover ever since.

I guess I'm mad enough about the restrictions some people want to impose on birth control that I especially bristle at any possible additional restrictions they want based on misinformation. I'm also a recently former fundamentalist myself, so I might be a wee bit touchy and, well, bitter.

And as for the human aspect, don't forget that along with twinning, fraternal twins can re-fuse, too, so that "what an individual is" question is really dicey!

I think it might help us to think about contraception and even abortion if we thought about it in terms of our own mothers. I would GLADLY sacrifice my *potential* life if it meant my mother did not have to sacrifice her life and the lives of her other children to give birth to an unwanted baby. I mean, when I was a fertilized egg, I didn't have feelings, I didn't have thoughts, I was a clump of 70 cells. At that point I would have felt no suffering if I had stopped existing. Whereas my mother would have felt a lot of suffering if she could not afford to feed me and my sister. I'm just lucky that she DID want me and could afford me.

***Not that it's here nor there, but he's also male (just to comment on noticing who your sources are).***

Carlie, you are simply beyond all parody.

As undergraduate degree is in chemical engineering, I'm a stickler for details, too. I'm also an atheist, so I feel zero sympathy for anyone who thinks I'm making a religious argument.

I could not disagree more with your assessment. Again, it's the engineer in me, but one mechanism does not preclude other mechanisms. The FDA and Barr Laboratories seem to think that it works by preventing implantation. You dismiss the FDA as being "political," but seem to forget that universities are not without agendas, either. I mean, really, the government and the manufacturer? And you just throw that away because it doesn't fit your world view? Sorry, no dice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11747872

Jason,

Sorry for the male/female error... the blogger in question goes only by initials and gives his posts rather hysterical, irrational titles.

Even if you believe life begins at conception, pregnancy doesn't begin until implantaion (unless you really want me to get into the whole 'you're pregnant with frozen embryos kept in a lab miles away argument').

So once you need to take EC, as long as you keep a pantyliner on at ALL TIMES and regularly freeze them you are let off all murder charges. Fertalized egg is as frozen (and as alive) as if it had been conceived in a lab and you are not pregnant. WIN - WIN situation if you ask me.

I guess I'm a stickler for detail too.

oenophile,

I was referring to Carlie's absurd and offensive argument, not to yours.

Jason

Jason,
I'm a bit confused - what was absurd,offensive, and beyond all parody? I made a comment about noticing where source material comes from; snarky and a bit of a low blow, perhaps, but it does glance off of the important point that one should know who the source is to be able to pay attention to any possible bias. It's not difficult to figure out who PZ is; he has a bio and photo at the top of his home page. I drill into my students all the time to figure out who's writing a web page before deciding if the information is coming from an informed source or not.

As for the mechanism argument, I really don't understand the issue. There have been a few studies that show that when a fertilized egg encounters Plan B, it goes on its merry way and implants anyway. There have not been any studies that result in fertilized eggs being dumped because of Plan B.

***Not that it's here nor there, but he's also male (just to comment on noticing who your sources are).***

That was the absurd and offensive statement. As a proponent of feminism, no less. Do you really want to lend traction to any sort of argument that lack of credibility ensues from gender?

Well, I suppose I should make allowances for the limitations of your sex, no?

Jus' sayin.

Obviously that is an absurd argument. You are not discredited on the basis of your sex to write about anything except what prostate trouble feels like from the first person.

The fact that you would imply that credibility attaches to gender, and then blink your eyes and say "wha?" when someone calls you on it is beyond all parody.

Jason, you are clearly ignoring her words right in front of the statement (not that it's here nor there) to try and strain a "gotcha" point. She said it's not about whether the source is male or female, but that if oenophile had clicked on the link, she wouldn't have made the mistake of calling PZ "she".

It was about the lack of source-noticing, not a point about gender. But thanks for playing! Your grasping at straws is always fun.

Thanks, micheyd. Reading Jason's last statement, I was starting to wonder if I was indeed insane and had no command of the English language. While I was typing said statement I did indeed realize "this might look like being male has something to do with it", which is why I put the phrases right in front of it and right behind it to explain the point that it was sourcing I was referring to, not maleness per se. I thought that would take care of it for the majority of readers. I suppose for Jason, no one should ever refer to the gender of a specific individual lest he think that some importance is being added via the reference to that gender.

Wow. It's really very simple. People wouldn't have to USE Plan B if they were just a little more careful in their personal lives. There would be no need for abortions if people would keep their pants on -- sex crimes notwithstanding, as those sick enough to attack/rape women deserve to be shot in the balls and left for dead, I won't deny this-- just like there would be no need for welfare if people would take the initiative to work hard.
My thoughts are obviously mixed, as I believe there should be options for those who are victims of rape and other assault, but as for the morons who simply got knocked up out of stupidity, hell with them.