Anything that&#39;s dead shall be regrown.

People suck.

From:

While I can understand an argument stating that access to emergency contraception shouldn't be universal or red-tape-free (such a simple, as-needed pregnancy preventative could easily lead to an increase in the spread of HIV and STDs), it is ridiculous that people are threatening and abusing this poor woman. I applaud her courage in writing about the situation, though I do take issue at her resentment of the fetus - it isn't the fetus' fault that people are being horrible, and the fetus isn't claiming its life is better than hers. Yes, the fetus is a burden that she didn't want or need and tried to prevent, but it isn't malicious. That, to me, is going a bit far.

One other quibble: what is the efficacy rate of EC, anyway? It's possible, I presume, that it wouldn't have worked even if she had been able to get it immediately, right? Either way, she has a valid argument about the runaround, but blaming the pregnancy on the delay may not be fair.

Please note that the icon is used ironically rather than seriously.

From:

EC is usually quoted as being about 89% effective, but it is more effective the sooner you take it, with some effectiveness for 5 days (120 hours). It generally prevents ovulation, so the sooner you take it, the better chances you have of preventing that. (Unless you've already ovulated, which gets into murky territory.) If you are already pregnant - with a fertilized egg implanted in the uterus - EC will have no effect.

From:

When this was posted in one of the choice LJ communities I read, I found a link that told you where to get EC. Some places will give it to you in advance so that if you need it, it's already on hand. Go to this site and enter your zip code. (This is a different link than the one I found before, but a good source.)

From:

I would never suspect you of using that icon seriously. No worries. :)

I personally feel that access to emergency contraception should absolutely be universal. I understand your argument that it would lead to the increase of STD's, but I disagree. I haven't seen data on either side of the question, but I think that when people have easy access to sex ed, family planning, birth control, etc., they still behave responsibly about STD's. After all, I haven't heard that people using birth control tend to have more unsafe sex or contract more STD's. I don't think the question is any different when applied to EC instead of birth control. Besides, arguing that there should be some roadblocks, so that only people who REALLY want it will get it implies that it is acceptable to manipulate people's actions, and that the people in power are better at making other people's choices for them than the people themselves are, which is kind of the root of the whole problem. The government/"wiser"/"more educated" people should not put themselves in the position of predicting what options will make people's lives better before allowing people access to things. After all, what do we know about other people's lives, really?

I thought she wrote pretty well about the fact that her reactions towards her fetus were emotional rather than logical. I appreciated the fact that she was willing to be that honest about what she was feeling. I guess it's just very easy for me to see myself reacting the exact same way in that situation. It's harsh, but she acknowledges that her anger is coming from outside sources, and she can't help directing it at the fetus.

kcobweb already addressed the EC question, but Biting Beaver did say on her blog that since she was ovulating, the chances of the EC having worked were much lower than they would have been otherwise. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood says that the success rate

kcobweb quotes is only true for the first 72 hours, and I believe BB got her EC after that. So there's no real way to know.

From:

I should clarify. I certainly don't think that anyone else should dictate who needs EC. That would lead to all sorts of abuses (much like the ones mentioned in the article, in which the doctors got to make their own decisions about to whom the pill would be given.) I just think that if people can just pick up EC whenever they need it with no inconvenience, it could be a way to justify irresponsible sex. Obviously, there are loads of people out there that wouldn't act that way. I think I am mostly worried about teens and less responsible young adults. Then again, those types are probably already having unsafe sex without EC.

I only read the salon.com article, so perhaps I misjudged BB's comments about the fetus.

From:

That's funny, b/c I only read the Salon article too, and then when you posted that, I was like, "Oh, crap, now I actually have to know what I'm talking about and go read what she wrote." So yes, in context, she puts a lot more emphasis on why she's feeling the way she is, and how it has to do with outside attacks (mostly on the blog) more than anything. It's an answer to a friend of hers, actually, who was venting frustration about not liking hearing fetuses referred to in derogatory ways, and BB is talking about how she feels about her fetus, and why she refers to it in derogatory ways, so it's sort of part of a larger blog-discussion, I guess. You're right that out-of-context it's more disturbing, b/c she doesn't explain that she knows where her frustration is coming from, and it's not inside her body.

As for the other, it's kind of a minor inconvenience to have to drive to the drug store at night, right? Beyond that, I think that inconveniencing irresponsible people isn't a good enough reason for inconveniencing the responsible people along with them. Also, as you say, irresponsible people probably don't need any help to have unsafe sex, they're probably already doing it.

Besides, we all fall somewhere in between responsible and irresponsible anyways. Nobody's consistent.

From:

I just think that if people can just pick up EC whenever they need it with no inconvenience, it could be a way to justify irresponsible sex.

That's you judging what's irresponsible, which leads to the same slippery slope as any other basis for dictating who should have access. If you want people to avoid sex, possible STDs and emotional fallout are disincentives enough - the threat of unwanted pregnancy is unnecessary.

From:

There were studies done a couple of years ago that showed that people who were given ECP to keep in their medicine cabinets "just in case" were no more likely to engage in risky (or promiscuous) behavior than people who didn't have it readily available. I believe that's one of the data points they used to try to convince the FDA to approve it to go OTC.

From:

danger-chick.livejournal.com

Biting Beaver did say on her blog that since she was ovulating, the chances of the EC having worked were much lower than they would have been otherwise.

I think I would have just flat out lied to get the scrip, if I was ovulating.

From:

I don't think it's overly judgmental to think that having unprotected sex is irresponsible. I don't want people to avoid sex, but it would be nice if more of them would think about the consequences (STDs, emotional fallout, and unwanted pregnancy) before they have it. Perhaps I am overestimating the impetuousness of the sexually active public, though.

From:

Thanks for the info. It shows that my assumptions were off.

From:

I don't think it's overly judgmental to think that having unprotected sex is irresponsible.

Not all unprotected sex is irresponsible. (If you mean "sex without contraception" rather than "unprotected sex," I don't have any problem with it.) The idea that people have to be threatened with punishment in order to make good decisions is troubling.

From:

The idea that it was a concern pisses me off. It's like saying that airbags should be banned to prevent people from speeding.

From:

It does seem like a natural assumption, which is why I suppose they did the study in the first place.

From:

ex-a517dogg70.livejournal.com

http://a517dogg.blogspot.com/2006/10/still-unacceptable.html

Some people forget that it takes to to twango. The best point she makes is how the male becomes invisible when the blame game starts. Like they teach in 10th grade bio, sperm are cheap, eggs are expensive. Who cares about where the sperm goes... BUT YOU BETTER PROTECT THOSE EGGS OR ELSE YOU'RE A MURDERER.

From:

"The scrip?"

From:

Word. Perhaps it's because people assume she won't involve him in the abortion-decision process? Because people think she's the only one with the decision-power?

It's still weird, no matter what way you look at it.

From:

meranthi.livejournal.com

Prescription.

From:

meranthi.livejournal.com

I would like to read this, but the blog is offline as far as I can tell right now.

I read the first article and just about blew a fuse!

From:

It seems to be back up now!

From:

shgb.livejournal.com

when it comes to abortion, she is the only one with the decision-power.

From:

danger-chick.livejournal.com

Sorry, the perscription.

From: