February 11, 2009 4:24 PM

Contraceptive Controversy

By
CBSNews
(CBS)  Maureen Tkacik recently purchased Plan B without a prescription after having protected sex.

"There was a faulty condom issue and that resulted in me being worried because I'm not on the birth control pill," said Tkacik.

The 27-year-old professional blogger says she and her partner decided to purchase Plan B over the counter as a precaution, reports CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

"I don't have a gynecologist that I go to regularly, so it's not an easy thing for me to get prescription drugs," said Tkacik.

Since the FDA approved Plan B for over-the-counter use a year ago for women 18 and over, sales have doubled, Cordes reports. But it's still not universally available. Plan B, also know as the "morning after pill," is actually two pills that contain high doses of the hormones found in birth control pills. Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, Plan B prevents pregnancy by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary or keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

Reproductive rights advocates say the 3 million unintended pregnancies in the United States each year can be reduced by making the drug accessible to women of all ages.

"We have an alarmingly high rate of teenage pregnancies in this country - 750,000 each year, and that population also needs access to emergency contraception," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Some who opposed the FDA's decision to sell Pan B over the counter argue that allowing 16 year olds easy access will promote promiscuity, reports Cordes.

"The FDA doesn't know what the long-term consequences are of having women take the drug outside the parameters of the way it's prescribed, and so this is really gambling on women's health," said Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council.

Even advocated admit the current rules for Plan B are not perfect, forcing pharmacists to police their customers.

Some independent drug stores have refused to stock Plan B for moral reasons, likening it to abortion.

In Seattle, a group of pharmacists are suing Washington state after it ruled that they cannot block a patient's right to Plan B.

"Emergency contraception is contraception," said Northup. "It prevents pregnancy. And there's no reason for pharmacists not to be providing contraceptives."

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 38 Comments
by michellem99-2009 August 15, 2007 2:48 AM EDT
seandgreen,You are right on in yer posts. Ye are a caring soul. Alway learn something. So I feel that plan B should be sold. I have problems with the pro lifers who think they have all the answers when it comes to young ladies to have vs not have a child. We are talking about a pill that is needed. No I don't believe they run aground just cos that pill is there. It sound like the same thing that was said when birth control pills came out. Any female that cares about herself knows better as she knows what she may bring home if not careful. So if that pill is needed to give her peace of mind, so be it.
I think she is smart. Her business, not mine,not the church,not the govt, Hers.
Reply to this comment
by kennergirl August 14, 2007 5:18 PM EDT
I was on birth control from the age of 14 until about 24 then sporadically afterwards. I personally that using birth control is a sensible means to eliminate the chance of becoming pregnant. I do not believe it fosters promiscuity. If a girl wants to sleep with a bunch of guys then she'll do it whether or not she's on the pill, Plan B or whatever. I think it takes a certain kind of person to be promiscuous. I personally couldn't jump in the sack with numerous partners without feeling like a complete ***. But this is me. If a woman feels she isn't responsible enough to care for a child once she does become pregnant than that's her choice. I think Plan B is alot better decision to make then having a wait and see approach.
Reply to this comment
by evansblue1 August 14, 2007 4:36 PM EDT
Throughout the 1980's, crime surged. Crime analysts predicted the 90's would be a bloodbath, if the trend were to continue. Suprisingly, it dropped with an alarming rate. The cause? Roe vs. Wade.
I am not condoning abortion, but women who do not want their babies usually have a good reason: they can't afford to provide for it, the family life is unstable or possibly violent, poverty or drugs may be rampant, or they just don't want it. Children who grow up in unloving homes, feeling unwanted, will probably not go far in life. Statistically, these are the children that grow up to become criminals (hence the aforementioned drop in crime when abortion was legalized).
FURTHERMORE, Plan B is NOT abortion. It is much more humane and ethical than raising a baby with an unhappy life. It is safer and kinder to the mother and child than abortion. I fail to see how people could refuse to dispense a drug on moral grounds...isn't the alternative worse?
(For more info, go check out Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner.)
Reply to this comment
by afmca August 14, 2007 2:22 PM EDT
If the religious whackos have a REAL medical reason for keeping this off the shelf and limited to 18+ year olds - let's hear it. If they once again bring out the promiscuity promoting rationale then their argument is meaningless and without merit. Medical decisions have to be based on medicine and science - not personal moral beliefs. Nobody is forcing a person to buy and/or use the product. If you are morally against it - DON'T BUY IT!

The age where medical and scientific decisions are based on the stupidity of the Republican base is almost over - we are starting to emerge from the 21st century dark ages. It is sad that America periodically cycles through these periods of false religious/political self-righteousness - it always results in people getting hurt without reason.
Reply to this comment
by klingon69 August 13, 2007 11:45 PM EDT
This medication simply INHIBITS the release of an egg from the ovary, therefore there is no "killing" of anything at all. Similarly, it may also inhibit implantation of an egg in the uterus, thus, no killing as well. If the egg were to be "fertilized" then it would likely be well after the time the medication would be effective (used within 72 hours). Once again, void.
Posted by seandgreen at 08:49 AM : Aug 13, 2007

Fertilization of the ovum ocurs in the fallopian tubes, not in the uterus. If an egg is fertilized by the time it reaches the uterus, hormonal/chemical changes cause the zygote to the implant itself into the wall of the uterus. This location then becomes the connections for the umbilical cord. If this drug inhibits these hormonal/chemical changes to implant, then a fertilized zygote/embryo 9which has already started to split and multiply, is flushed from the body. Technically then it would be an abortion, or a chemical/hormonal induced miscarriage.
Reply to this comment
by klingon69 August 13, 2007 11:34 PM EDT
I think putting this pill over OTC is great for anyone who wants it.
Posted by maedean at 12:50 AM : Aug 13, 2007
What about side effects, or drug interactions with other prescibed/illict drugs?
Reply to this comment
by grammawhamma August 13, 2007 10:21 PM EDT
blazercoach1:

I agree with susanhelit...I'll try to give you a different example that you might be able to understand.

Put yourself back in time (the days when Catholics could not eat meat on Fridays). Say your wedding anniversary falls on a Friday and you have reservations at a nice restaurant. You want to order prime rib for dinner. Your waitress refuses to sell you anything but seafood because she herself is not allowed to eat meat on Fridays due to "her" religious beliefs. Does she have the right to prevent you from eating meat on Fridays? No.

Same thing...a pharamcist needs to supply the medications the consumer wants. The consumer is not forcing the pharmacist to take the PlanB. The very strict religious pharmacist can get a job in the pharmacy of a Catholic hospital and will not have to worry about filling a prescription that he does not believe in.

As for telling people to relocate...just plain stupid..the pharmacist needs to change jobs is the rational solution.
Reply to this comment
by michellem99-2009 August 13, 2007 8:46 PM EDT
Yes this has become heated. I have shared my life in foster homes on this site. A hell of a life but more so if ye are disabled. So if ye think for one minute the hell yer churchy preaching is going to make different to a scared female who has to do she must. Think again. It won't. Ye yak about the unborn and this pill. What ye are running in fear of what is not yer business. If ye can afford to cloth,feed,educate,the basics of his/her needs, a home,plus the unseen. fine. If not,shut yer trap. I feel yer churches need to get out of the bloody dark ages. A baby sure they are cute but demaning. Not every woman can carry a child, ye pass yer judgement and that is not yer place. And don't pick on my words. A postee said something about too many children that can't be properly cared for. So they shoud be fixed. It goes against the pope.I have felt the need to limit children as we have to. There was a story of 17 kids- too many. Sell the bloody pills. Take care of the ones all ready here.
Reply to this comment
by jaxcschin August 13, 2007 8:07 PM EDT
blazercoach1,

What if the town you live in only has a few drug stores? Why is it necessary to be forced to drive to other stores to find out if they carry a medically safe and approved drug. What if they also do not carry the drug, must it be necessary to travel to neighboring towns to find out which druggist does carry this drug? How long will this search take? This drug is only effective if used within 72 hours. There are currently no substitutions. Clearly this drug is not like a cut of meat where if the local store does not carry a chuck eye roast, I can substitute a top round roast and it would not make a difference.

Your last comment that people who disagree with a pharmacist's decision should just move is just absurd. How mobile are you that you can simply pick up and leave your home? Further, this country does not belong to a pharmacist so that personal life decisions should be dictated by him. Perhaps the pharmacist should move so that he can make way for someone more willing to serve the public?
Reply to this comment
by jaxcschin August 13, 2007 7:58 PM EDT
blazercoach1,

What if the town you live in only has a few drug stores? Why is it necessary to be forced to drive to other stores to find out if they carry a medically safe and approved drug. What if they also do not carry the drug, must it be necessary to travel to neighboring towns to find out which druggist does carry this drug? How long will this search take? This drug is only effective if used within 72 hours. There are currently no substitutions. Clearly this drug is not like a cut of meat where if the local store does not carry a chuck eye roast, I can substitute a top round roast and it would not make a difference.

Your last comment that people who disagree with a pharmacist's decision should just move is just absurd. How mobile are you that you can simply pick up and leave your home? Further, this country does not belong to a pharmacist so that personal life decisions should be dictated by him. Perhaps the pharmacist should move so that he can make way for someone more willing to serve the public?
Reply to this comment
See all 38 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook