Abortion, according to wikipedia: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. The spontaneous expulsion of a fetus or embryo before the 20th week is commonly known as a miscarriage. [1] Induced abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus by medical, surgical, or other means at any point during human pregnancy for therapeutic or elective reasons."

Plan B, according to the same: "Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are drugs that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization and possibly post-fertilization implantation of a blastocyst (embryo). Since EC methods act before implantation, they are medically and legally considered forms of contraception. Many scientists believe that EC may possibly act after fertilization (see Mechanism of action). Because of this, most pro-life groups consider EC to be an abortifacient."

And the difference between EC and abortion is?

JennyGD:

For starters, EC acts before implantation (attachment to the uterus wall). Many blastocysts (yes, the thing that's been fertilized) do not successfully latch onto the uterus wall anyway...

And in the same vein: And the difference between miscarriage and abortion is?

Jenny,

I know wikipedia can be awesomely easy but it can also be WRONG. It's edited by people at any time and they can add whatever they want. EC does NOT cause an abortion. If a woman is already pregnant then it's not going to do a damn thing.

And I wrote a nicely worded letter to Representative Cooper.

JennyGD, so are you suggesting that birth control pills in general are abortificants, because EC is basically an overdose of birth control pills. How about we use the language found on the actual Plan B website:

Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.

Plan B® is approved by the FDA and contains the hormone levonorgestrel, the same hormone in the birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for more than 35 years. The difference is that Plan B® contains a larger dose of levonorgestrel than the amount found in a single birth control pill.

Remember that Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill). Because Plan B® is used to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, it will not work if you’re already pregnant. If you take Plan B® and are already pregnant, it will not affect your existing pregnancy.

And can we not use Wikipedia as a reliable source? If I'm not allow to use it as an academical source (I wouldn't anyway), then it should not be use as a medical one either. I don't care who edits it.

Kthxbi.

The moment a pro-lifer starts railing against EC is the moment I cease to even have a conversation with them. Because to believe that even preventing the fertilized egg from implanting is wrong is laughable. Given, of course, that the person is scientifically literate and actually understands how it works.

Oh please, EC's effects are the same as taking a double dose of oral contraceptive. And if you have a problem with women taking oral contraceptives, go bugger yourself. I wish I could be a pharmacist and refuse to hand out Viagra because I am morally opposed to old ass guys having erection, it being against god's will and all...

I really am reluctant to comment here because I am new and I dread being labelled some way just because I make a wave...but, here goes:

Doesn't it make sense to understand the prolifers arguments if one would like to refute them?

The actual problem that people have with interfering with the implantation of a fertilised egg is not an insignificant one.

The fertilized egg is rapidly multiplying cells with human DNA, and if not harmed or eliminated by the body then they will continue to grow into a regular old baby that we all recognize as human.

This argument is advanced, yes, by ignoramouses, but also by those who understand the science, and who see this as a philosophical question of personhood.

The argument about personhood can be made to support abortion and EC,of course. But to dismiss the pro-life argument is not really a good way to defeat it.

And, there are scientists, too, who define human-ness as beginning at conception, although I doubt that Wikipedia claim that it is "many."

I am just sayin', you know, that if you paint your enemies as ALL ignorant twits not worth listening to or understanding, then you run the risk of making yourself look like one. And that doesn't help the cause at all.

There's a difference between viewing it as a philosophical question and a moral question. I don't take it seriously because the same "pro-life" people eat hamburgers. If you think 10 second old blastocyst > 10 year old cow, your MORAL compass is in question, imo.

That was directed to bibliophile.

Also, I don't know about you, but fixing someone's moral compass is a lot harder than educating them. I'm not saying pro-life people are all like this, but the ones who are against EC are.

"The fertilized egg is rapidly multiplying cells with human DNA, and if not harmed or eliminated by the body then they will continue to grow into a regular old baby that we all recognize as human."

I hate to break it to you, but it's quite common for fertilized eggs to be naturally eliminated from women's bodies. Most women don't even know it and go on to have their normal period.

"Chemical pregnancies (named as such because the hormone hCG is detectable) occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy."

source: americanpregnancy.org

Fraternal twin embryos can sometimes (rare, but it happens) fuse into one embryo, resulting in the birth of ONE normal, healthy child (with chimeric DNA). That's right, one person from two embryos. Er--unless you believe that one person can have two souls? Spooky!

I say it's high time we start putting birth control in the water. Those who don't like it (or men folk) can buy Evian.

something like 70% of eggs don't implant anyway. Are 70% of pregnancies ending in miscarriage? No, because the woman is not considered pregnant unless the egg has implanted. On top of that, 68% (I know that figure for sure, I learned it in Zoology) of blastula's don't develop into a gastrula properly, and are thus expelled. That probably is considered a miscarriage, but it happens so early that the woman would never know she was pregnant.

These people are just against BC period, and are trying to get one form banned, and they're doing so by trying to scare the rest of the public into thinking it's a home abortion. Even very well educated, feminist people I know confuse RU486 with the morning after pill. It's really sad.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. While it's debatable at what point life begins, pregnancy does not start until the implantation of an fertilized egg in the uterine wall.

So no, Plan B is not a form of Abortion because it doesn't terminate a pregnancy.

Doesn't it make sense to understand the prolifers arguments if one would like to refute them?

You make the mistake of assuming that pro-choicers don't understand these arguments when, in fact, we do. The problem is that pro-lifers are trying to force everyone to live according to their morals, regardless of how the actual woman feels.

Don't like emergency contraception? Then don't use it. But don't use blatant misinformation to prevent the rest of us from having access to EC.

“And, there are scientists, too, who define human-ness as beginning at conception, although I doubt that Wikipedia claim that it is "many."”

bibliophile,

Yes indeed; those are called ant-choice scientists! This is not a question of human-ness; it is a question of personhood. And it’s not a scientific question, it’s a philosophical question.

From the Journal of the American Medical Association

"Published evidence clearly indicates that Plan B can interfere with sperm migration by altering the cervical and uterine environment, and that preovulatory use of Plan B usually suppresses the LH surge either completely or partially, which in turn either prevents ovulation or leads to the release of ova that are resistant to fertilization. Epidemiological evidence rules strongly against interruption of fallopian tube function by Plan B. Evidence that would support direct involvement of endometrial damage or luteal dysfunction in Plan B's contraceptive mechanism is either weak or lacking altogether. Both epidemiologic and clinical studies of Plan B's efficacy in relation to the timing of ovulation are inconsistent with the hypothesis that Plan B acts to prevent implantation."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/14/1775?ijkey=qsS31RMdFZfdU&keytype=ref&siteid=amajnls

NOT ABORTION

The term miscarriage is a popular synonym for spontaneous abortion according to American heritage medical dictionary. And a spontaneous abortion occurs at any point after the egg is fertilized.
It's at this point we have to examine the connotation our culture has given the word abortion. From a purely semantic sense the plan B pill would fall into the "abortion inducing" category. I personally believe we've become a little over-litigious if a pharmacy is in danger of a lawsuit for not carrying a drug, but that's my opinion this is a very interesting issue I'll be interested to see how it develops.

I just wanted to offer a few thoughts on arguments for and against EC…

I think it is an oversimplification to call a conceptus (general term for anything after fertilization but before birth) just a bunch of replicating cells. It is actually a dynamic life form that adapts to it’s environment and changes it’s environment in order to survive. The process of implantation does not go host to conceptus, but rather the conceptus co-opts the vasculature and induces changes in the tissue that begin pregnancy. This can be seen in case of a woman with a history of partial historectomy (leaving in the ovaries) having ectopic pregnancy—the non-reproductive tissue of the abdomen is forced into supporting the conceptus. Interestingly, experiments in mice have shown that a conceptus embedded in the abdomen of male mice are viable for a fairly long time and seem to only terminate after killing it’s host (it turns out the uterus is much better for the survival of the host).

The interpretation of those facts is truly up to you. I see this process as a vulnerable life form using everything in it’s power to survive, which resonates with me as human. It After all, aren’t we all just doing the best we can to get by? I compare it to an infant in my mind. If left a lone, it will do everything in it’s power to survive (crying, etc) but ultimately it can’t make it on it’s own. It isn’t any less alive because it’s ability to survive is limited. Maybe that’s an anthropomorphic leap. But my point is that a conceptus is decidedly not an inert hunk of cells.

I have a problem with the arguments centered around the failure rate of conceptuses. Yes, greater than 2/3 of conceptuses fail to implant and more fail overall due to errors in gastrulation (organizing of the body into it’s three embryonic layers, sort of the hardest part of the whole development thing as I see it). It’s sort of the nature of life that it could end at any point. Why should being at a higher risk of dying make something less alive? Are firefighters less human because they have x% more chance of dying? Perhaps that comparison is a little loaded. Another example might be a person with a terminal illness, they have a 100% chance of dying in the short term, but their personhood is not questioned (assuming brain functions are intact).

Even the argument that we have the right to control our own bodies, in the US, is problematic in a legal sense. The government prohibits us from harming ourselves (suicide is illegal) and as organ donors we have no control over who gets our organs. For example, you could attempt donate your kidney to your sister, but find when you wake up from surgery that your kidney went to a complete stranger who was a better match. While these instances are limited and have really scary implications, they do indicate in some (perhaps infinitesimal) way that our government does not believe we fully control our bodies (I am not an expert in legal things so if someone is more familiar with this and believes me to be wrong, I will yield humbly).

The single best argument in favor of EC/Abortions, and I believe it is sufficient by itself, is the moral principle that no person can be compelled to put themselves at risk (and pregnancy is risky business) to help another person. Ie, all life is equal. In my head this isn’t very different than us having a right to control our bodies, but it avoids any legal tone, ie language about rights, that could be voted away. Thus, even if the pro-life movement were able to scientifically and definitively prove a conceptus to be a full person, it would still be immoral to prevent a woman from getting EC or an abortion. Though that doesn’t necessarily argue in favor of abortion—just that you can’t stop someone from getting one.

What do you think?

Letusdiscusspolitely, your argument is almost completely emotional. I don't particularly feel like getting into a philosophical debate with you, so I'll keep this simple.

You're entitled to think that way. You can even think of it as an abortion pill if you really want to. But it isn't, and you can't deny women access to EC because of your personal opinion. It's not your place to tell a woman that she can't choose to take EC because you have feelings for little bundles of cells.

And about the whole self-harm thing, well, I'm no lawyer either but here's my thoughts on the topic. It is my impression that you are allowed full control of your body unless you pose a threat to yourself or others. The reasoning, I'm guessing, is if you are inclined to harm yourself, it is assumed that you are not quite in your right mind. Therefore there is a justifiable reason to take away some of your rights. Women who use EC or get abortions or whatever are typically in a healthy state of mind, while those who wish to cause themselves harm, it can be argued, are not. Again, I don't know if this is the legal rationale, but it is my own.

Letusdiscusspolitely,

I do think that is the basic structure of the argument if you want to counter the strict black-and-white arguments of pro-lifers (ie, personhood begins at ocnception), but I also think that just educating people on the facts about HOW aware that lump of cells is--on the neurobiology of the thing that we're discussing. Does it have pain receptors? etc. And until 21 weeks, I think, it doesn't.

Also, that helpless argument could also be used to defend cancerous tumors, you might want to phrase it better ;)

Wildberry,

I agree that my reaction to this topic is mostly emotional. I agree with you on the self-harm issue as well. Perhaps I got too caught up in making my examples. What I was getting at is that all of these side points about long what can live where aren't really relevant. They still can't morally compell me or, anyone else, to put myself at risk for anyone or anything else. That's why I believe anti-abortion or anti-EC laws are fundamentally flawed. Thank you for your criticism. It turns out thesis statements are helpful and I will try to incorporate them from here on out.

Space ninja monkey,

Yeah. I see what you're saying, though I wouldn't say that awareness is a big issue. They certainly are aware of their environment chemically and mechanically, but there isn't any evidence suggesting they are self-aware. That's probably just semantics, but it is an important point with respect to guilt issues associated with abortions or EC. It would be very dishonest (or simply a misinformed statement) for someone to try to guilt an individual into not having an abortion because of suffering on the part of the conceptus (up to a point, as you say). And yes, I think we can all say with some confidence that we are against cancer. I will be more specific if I use that argument again. Thank you for your thoughts.

"JennyGD, so are you suggesting that birth control pills in general are abortificants, because EC is basically an overdose of birth control pills."

For that matter, what about breastfeeding one's newborn baby on demand?

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/05/67432?currentPage=2

"...Dr. James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University, said the studies cited by the Population Council were well-done, but said they can't prove with certainty that Plan B never affects a fertilized egg. That's because no human test exists that can determine whether fertilization has taken place, he said.

"But he pointed out that pregnancy prevention can also occur under more natural circumstances, and whether the pregnancy is thwarted before or after fertilization is equally impossible to prove.

"For example, the majority of fertilized eggs simply do not successfully implant in the uterus, even when no birth control is used. Also, breast-feeding is known to reduce the chance of pregnancy for up to six months after a woman gives birth.

"'So if one really were opposed to anything that might prevent pregnancy after fertilization," Trussell said, "one would need to be opposed to all hormonal methods as well as breast-feeding.'..."

"but also by those who understand the science, and who see this as a philosophical question of personhood."

Meanwhile, some other people out there who understand where babies come from have a philosophical problem with fertile girls being unmarried. Must we respect their preference for forcing preteen daughters to become pregnant housewives ASAP?

"Fraternal twin embryos can sometimes (rare, but it happens) fuse into one embryo, resulting in the birth of ONE normal, healthy child (with chimeric DNA). That's right, one person from two embryos. Er--unless you believe that one person can have two souls? Spooky!"

Don't forget the reverse, when one unique zygote becomes more than one embryo with identical DNA and sometimes more than one person. How do you decide which twin or triplet got the soul...?

"But my point is that a conceptus is decidedly not an inert hunk of cells."

A penis isn't an inert hunk of cells either, and the organ itself is innocent. When someone has one of those inside her or him against her or his will will, must she or he make an effort to not hurt it instead of trying to push the attached rapist away from her or him?

"The single best argument in favor of EC/Abortions, and I believe it is sufficient by itself, is the moral principle that no person can be compelled to put themselves at risk (and pregnancy is risky business) to help another person."

Good point!

letusdiscusspolitely

By pointing out that most embryos don't implant, and of those that do, most don't properly develop into the three germ layers, We are not making an arguement against the viability of the blastula/gastula (the name depends on the stage of development). Pointing that out shows the flawed logic of people claiming that EC causes abortions. An abortion is essentially an induced miscarriage. If a blastula fails to implant naturally, we do not call it a miscarriage, thus if a pill causes it to intentially not implant, then we cannot call it an abortion.

That being said, I must point out that your description of a fertilized egg also describes the life of a parasite, as well as a tumor. I will not deny that a fertilized egg is alive. It is a living cell, and will soon be a cluster of living cells. But women have a right to decide if they want the egg to attach to their bodies and grow into a person.

Say somebody needed a kidney, and I happened to be a perfect match. If I don't want to donate my kidney, that is my right, even if it causes the other person's death. My right to body integrity trumps another's right to life. That is why the right to choose is a fundamental right every woman should have.

OK, here's the deal. You are a pharmacist. This means you fill prescriptions. You don't write them. If you wanted to write prescriptions, you should have gone to medical school. Now STFU and do your job. I only want to be warned if I'm about to experience some life-threatening interaction.

Also, you're supposed to at least have a basic knowledge of what pills do and don't so. I'd say knowing the EC is not abortion is pretty basic. So please close the bible and open a pharmaceuticals book. Or at least play around with Google in your spare time.

Liza, thanks for bringing the comments back to the original article. This is not about personal beliefs about abortion, personhood, the value of zygotes, etc. Obviously, there are many stances to take on that issue and that's fine. The problem here is that people are using their employment as a position of power to force others into their beliefs. Both my parents are public school teachers and they HAVE to teach the district’s established curriculum even if they don't always agree with the content. In their spare time, my parents can (and do) think about issues like evolution, civic responsibility, etc. however the fuck they want. I work in an office with a boss who is insistent on having hardcopies of every email and electronic transaction of any sort. Printing out 8 million pages of stuff that is easily accessible on the internet tugs at my environmentalist, tree-loving heart strings but I have to shut up and do it as it would be fairly easy to find someone to replace me who didn't have issues with wasting paper. That's fucking great that pharmacists have opinions about shit and it's their right to do so but it is not THEIR JOB to refuse to fill prescriptions written by a M.D. I don’t understand why pharmacists are allowed some sort of moralistic pedestal in this country. Wouldn’t people be outraged if an air traffic controller refused to help safely land a plane piloted by a woman because they thought women shouldn’t be flying planes? Or, what’s stopping a pharmacist to refuse to fill AIDS drugs because they believe it’s the sick person’s just dessert?

I love how pharmacists are against interfering with a fertilized egg implanting, but they take no issue with taking medicine when they get an illness or eating steak after church. It's like, let's support "God's plan" so long as it doesn't inconvenience us in any way. Those Quiverfull people can only have as many children as they do because they're "interfering with God's plan" to a certain extent. Most of those women would probably die after about 6 or so, at the very most, but I'm digressing.

Yeah, I think they should have to administer the medications as it is part of their job. When's the last time you went to the store and had a vegan cashier refuse to let you buy meat products? Would such a person keep their job?

* I'm not saying vegans are wrong/bad
*I'm merely pointing out that others with strong objections to certain products might have to sell them or lose their job and the double standard is kinda stupid.

This is an issue that hits really close to home for me. I grew up in a very small conservative Southern town, definitely not a bastion of free-thinkers. Several years ago, I had a situation in which I needed to take the morning-after pill. While it was easy enough to get the prescription from my doctor, getting the prescription filled was a completely different story. Of the six pharmacies in my town, not a single one kept EC in stock. Then, after traveling 30 miles to the closest city, I had to go to 4 pharmacies before I found one who would fill the prescription. I'm not talking about independent, mom & pop pharmacies, I'm talking about Rite-Aid, Walgreens, and CVS. Not only was it difficult to find a cooperative pharmacy, but it was difficult to stomach the offensive reactions that I received from numerous pharmacy techs (or whatever the title is for the people who work at the counter). At the pharmacy that actually agreed to fill my prescription, I actually had to wait 2 hours for a pharmacist to start her shift because the one currently on duty said that he didn't fill "those type of prescriptions." This experience was upsetting and disgusting and I would hate for anyone else to have to endure such an ordeal. It's ridiculous that this took an entire day to take care of. If EC didn't have the 72 hour window, I probably would have just given up and gone home. My concern is that many others would have made that choice and, as a result, unfairly suffered the consequences of a decision that they weren't allowed to make for themselves. Look at this way, if I hadn't found that one ethical pharmacist, I probably wouldn't be in law school today. That's an incredible price to pay. Another thing to consider is if it was this hard to acquire EC in Louisiana, then access to an abortion clinic clinic in the state seems damn near impossible. Just thought I'd share a personal experience that considers more than the scientific debate over EC.

Stories like femdem's are why it's important for women to order a dose of EC from an online pharmacy, and then keep it until it's needed or until it expires, whichever comes first.

It really frustrates me to read how people promote the idea that birth control (and lets face it, EC is simply a higher dose of regular birth control) is "abortion-inducing". What next? Women can't take BCPs?

I wholeheartedly agree some of the comments above that pharmacists should STFU, do their darn jobs and fill valid prescriptions. No one is asking them for their moral opinion which they should keep to themselves. Last time I checked, they were not appointed moral arbiters in women's lives. Do they exhibit the same judgmental attitude when passing out other medications? These people should find another profession.

This really riles me!

It really frustrates me to read how people promote the idea that birth control (and lets face it, EC is simply a higher dose of regular birth control) is "abortion-inducing". What next? Women can't take BCPs?

I wholeheartedly agree some of the comments above that pharmacists should STFU, do their darn jobs and fill valid prescriptions. No one is asking them for their moral opinion which they should keep to themselves. Last time I checked, they were not appointed moral arbiters in women's lives. Do they exhibit the same judgmental attitude when passing out other medications? These people should find another profession.

This really riles me!

"That's fucking great that pharmacists have opinions about shit and it's their right to do so but it is not THEIR JOB to refuse to fill prescriptions written by a M.D."

Nitpick: unless the Rx interferes harmfully with another Rx written by another M.D. for the same patient filling it at the same pharmacy, right?

"At the pharmacy that actually agreed to fill my prescription, I actually had to wait 2 hours for a pharmacist to start her shift because the one currently on duty said that he didn't fill 'those type of prescriptions.'"

What an asshole! Now *that* refusal totally shouldn't be part of his job.