By judicial order, the FDA will permit over-the-counter sale of the morning-after pill, Plan B, to women as young as 17.
Ostensibly the issue is a philosophical one, heavy with the weight of “shoulda coulda woulda” prescribed proscription.
But actually it’s not about premarital sex or sex education or teenage pregnancies or “viability of life” or any of that other juicy stuff.
The issue here is not at all about teens terminating their pregnancies without doctor supervision.
Termination, surprisingly, has nothing to do with the real scandal of the story.
The issue here is one of causation: Women don’t need a doctor to abort their pregnancies, the very existence of which is often directly attributable to the fact they do need a doctor to obtain birth control.
So, women can, without doctor supervision, handle the risks of abortion, but the means by which to sidestep that abortion are off-limits unless a doctor is involved.
And that makes this an issue of classism, and, with it, racism: The teens who will “benefit” from the new law are likely to be the very teens who would most benefit from over-the-counter birth control.
Consequently, a certain kind of girl – poor, clueless, lacking in resources and wherewithal – will disproportionally turn to the morning-after pill … and will disproportionally suffer the consequences – occasionally physiological, often emotional – of their “choices.”
So why the upside-down reasoning? It’s not some big moralists’ conspiracy, or even the work of the giant OBGYN lobby.
It’s because of the feminists, believe it or not.
Breast and cervical cancers are hot topics among feminists: Feminists love to point out those issues which primarily affect women while simultaneously denying that biology has anything to do with the genesis of those issues.
Feminists, ever enterprising, long ago found a way to strategically parlay women’s cancers: Coerce women into getting annual pelvic and breast exams by withholding birth control until they do.
This is a really sweet deal for feminists: They feign caring and concern for their constituents, and they can report higher numbers of breast and cervical cancers (feminists love it when women have enemies).
It’s so insidious that nobody’s even realized what’s been happening. Seriously, how haven’t people caught on by now?
The story is not that 17-year olds can get over-the-counter morning-after pills. The story is that those are the only over-the-counter pills they can get.
By Toyota Kawaski April 24, 2009 at 2:00 pm
To bad the morning after pill cant be used on these crappy articles you write
By GGIH April 24, 2009 at 4:06 pm
That was funny, Toyota.
By GGIH April 24, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Really, though, I imagine you can’t get birth control over the counter for good reasons that have nothing to do with feminists wanting you to get your cervix checked. There are risks factors (like smoking and age) that can get you killed. You need to be aware of the long-term risks of any medication you plan to use over a long period of time. You probably need some kind of instruction in how to use them.
Furthermore, I don’t think Plan B is the equivalent of abortion, and I doubt anyone who’s ever used it would tell you it carries the same “emotional consequences.” It’s a political debate with no real practical application.
By Mande Wilkes April 24, 2009 at 4:40 pm
GGIH –
It’s true that birth control pills carry some medical risk, a fact which only strengthens my point.
The active ingredient in Plan B? Levonorgestrel . . . the same synthetic hormone found in most birth control pills. The difference is that, in Plan B, levonorgestrel levels are much higher, leading to the abortive effect.
So: Same hormone, higher amounts.
If levonorgestrel is risky in the doses found in birth control, then it’s all the more risky in the doses found in Plan B. Which makes it even more curious that the riskier one is available OTC while the safer option is prescription-only.
-Mande
By GGIH April 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Mande: I figured Plan B had the same ingredient as birth control pills, but a one-time dose could still be less risky than regular doses over a long period of time. I don’t know the science, so if you have proof that “If levonorgestrel is risky in the doses found in birth control, then it’s all the more risky in the doses found in Plan B,” I’d buy it. But lots of things don’t kill you if you only do them once. They just get you in the long run.
By hey … what about the abortion question? Blogwise, that’s really more interesting anyway.
By GGIH April 24, 2009 at 6:06 pm
And if you’re thinking that people would use Plan B for birth control, every month — thereby incurring all its risks — I think you’re wrong. It’s unpleasant, and it’s expensive. Anyone who has sex regularly and doesn’t want to get pregnant can find a lot better ways to head it off.
By Mande Wilkes April 24, 2009 at 6:25 pm
GGIH -
I’m reluctant to get into the abortion thing too much, because its saliency detracts from the point of my piece.
But since you asked so nicely, here goes:
I use the term “abortion” to describe the *abortive effect* of the pill. It’s simply the simplest description I know of, and, given the method’s outcome, it’s not disingenuous.
I agree that abortion is a . . . pregnant word, and its connotations do color my post. But I know of no other way to get the point across, except to substitute “abortion” with the phrase “prevents ovulation; or, when ovulation has occurred, prevents fertilization; or, when fertilization has occurred, prevents implantation.”
That is some long-winded sh*t, even for me.
So I call it an abortion, and balance the implications by steering clear of the political and moral questions. Make sense?
For what it’s worth, though, I’m all for wholly unrestricted legal abortions, for no other reason than I’m pretty much for wholly unrestricted legal everything.
- Mande
By Jenn Q. Public April 24, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Actually, women still need a doctor involved if they want to terminate a pregnancy. Plan B does not trigger an abortion. Rather, it is emergency contraception which by definition prevents pregnancy. There is no definitive evidence to back up the claim that Plan B inhibits a fertilized egg from implanting, and once a pregnancy is established in the uterus, Plan B will have no impact on the growing embryo.
I’m with GGIH on the idea that long term use of oral contraceptives needs to be monitored by a medical professional because there is increased risk of serious problems like blood clots and hypertension. Plan B does indeed deliver a higher dose of hormones, but side effects are rare, and usually limited to nuisances like nausea and headaches.
But those points aside, I agree with you that issues of class and race are unfortunately almost always involved in issues of public health, and particularly, women’s health. I also agree that there’s an element of social engineering involved in not approving birth control pills for OTC sale, but I suspect it has more to do with encouraging cancer screenings to save lives than simply padding the numbers for political gain (though I wouldn’t discount that motive.)
By Jenn Q. Public April 25, 2009 at 5:51 am
Actually, women still need a doctor involved if they want to terminate a pregnancy. Plan B does not trigger an abortion. Rather, it is emergency contraception which by definition prevents pregnancy. There is no definitive evidence to back up the claim that Plan B inhibits a fertilized egg from implanting, and once a pregnancy is established in the uterus, Plan B will have no impact on the growing embryo.
I’m with GGIH on the idea that long term use of oral contraceptives needs to be monitored by a medical professional because there is increased risk of serious problems like blood clots and hypertension. Plan B does indeed deliver a higher dose of hormones, but side effects are rare, and usually limited to nuisances like nausea and headaches.
But those points aside, I agree with you that issues of class and race are unfortunately almost always involved in issues of public health, and particularly, women’s health. I also agree that there’s an element of social engineering involved in not approving birth control pills for OTC sale, but I suspect it has more to do with encouraging cancer screenings to save lives than simply padding the numbers for political gain (though I wouldn’t discount that motive.)
Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!