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!

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.)

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 hey … what about the abortion question? Blogwise, that’s really more interesting anyway.

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

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.