Morning-after contraceptive now available OTC

---

From the New York Times:After more than two years...the Food and Drug Administration has...approved nonprescription use of the morning-after contraceptive pills.The morning-after pill, which is actually two pills taken in sequence, is an emergency contraceptive that can head off a pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse, or preferably earlier. That makes it imperative to have quick access to the pills without waiting for a doctor’s appointment to obtain a prescription.Under the plan announced yesterday, the pills will be held behind the counter at pharmacies and health clinics. Women who show proof that they are 18 or older will be able to buy them without a prescription. Younger girls will still need a doctor’s OK. The cutoff was set at 18 because that is the age that pharmacies and other retailers already use for other restricted products. . . .

Well sweet! now I dont have to wear those damn tight ass condoms anymore (they dont sell Magnums or XL's where I live >.

now I dont have to wear those damn tight ass condoms anymoreThat's dumb! The morning after pill is not a contraceptive meant to be used any time after sex. It's only for emergencies.

And it would make having sex very expensive--no doubt it would reduce the frequency.

And it fucks the menstrual cycle.

And it does not protect against STD's.

Well sweet! now I dont have to wear those damn tight ass condoms anymore (they dont sell Magnums or XL's where I live >.That's the only reason I have been against the morning after pill being over the counter. People still need to use forms of birth control. Morning after should be used for the cases with standard birth control fails, not to be used for a reason not to use birth control.

The OP was either a troll or ill informed. There is no real evidence that people are using morning-after pills as a primary source of birth control. But when it's needed, it's cruel and pointless not to have it avaliable (assuming you don't think that abortion should be banned altogether).

Understood. My only concern back when it was just talked about making Morning After OTC that people would use it as a form of birth control instead of it's original purpose. I agree there are no studies that suggest this will happen, but yet on the side step I am sure there are people that use it as I feared.

Never said it shouldn't.. it's just a fear I have for it being OTC. nothing more nothing less.

Aside from the fact that this is really just an OTC abortion, how would a person know to use the morning-after pill? I mean, how would they know there was a need (know they're pregnant)? Unless I'm missing something here, the only reason it could be used would be as substitute for other forms of contraception. That, and if somebody was worried about possibly becoming pregnant due to rape (a "just in case" measure).

It is my understanding that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill...it simply stops the girl from ovulating. Meaning, if you are already pregnant, it will not harm the baby. (someone correct me if I am wrong please)It is a good thing to take if the condom breaks or slipps off. Or perhaps you forgot to take your birth control pills etc. I do not believe it is a very good method to use as a 'form of birth control'. It does have some pretty rough side effects like bleeding, cramping etc. That is not something I would want to take on a regular basis just so I could have unprotected sex.

no1sexpotinusa - from your first link:"Emergency contraception (also known as the morning-after pill) is a high dosage of the birth control pill. It is recommended to be used after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing (or ending) pregnancy.""The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):1-Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released; 2-The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or 3-It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus."Bold added by me because you must have missed it the first time.

Figures that that link is hosted by a pro-life organization. http://www.all.org/I will agree that the pill helps prevent implantation of the embryo to the uterine wall.

Personally, I feel that the morning after pill is about as immoral as guys not ejaculating into a vagina, or women getting their period. So what if an egg and sperm have been together for a few hours, it is as much a person as the skin I just scratched off my nose.

Just out of interests sake I decided to take a look at what NZ legislation says about when a person is a person etc.I found this subsection... (1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who causes the death of any child that has not become a human being in such a manner that he would have been guilty of murder if the child had become a human being. I found this really interesting ( here's the rest of the legislation ) as just by reading the act it would appear that abortion is most cases would be illegal, and techically the morning after pill too. However, pretty much anyone can get an abortion in NZ (as we have a common law system where the courts play a strong roll interpreting legislation) and the morning after pill is quite easily available.I am aware in the US abortion laws etc. vary from state to state but I was wondering who knows the general consensus for when a person is considered a person? It is obviously a very contentious issue but I assume that a line must have been drawn somewhere, so where is it?

For me the line is drawn at the moment of conception, but I suppose that is something people will argue till the end of time. There was a very high-profile case here recently where a woman who had split from her husband wanted to go ahead and use the frozen fertalised embryos they had had stored during their marraige. It was a very interesting case.http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=9875

Does anyone know if this is going to be available in Canada? Just wondering.

its not going to be available right away though. the drug company needs to relabel the drug and distribute it to retailers before we will be able to purchase it at pharmacies without prescriptions. they are estimating that this will take until november. it costs between 40 and 60 dollars, so it is NOT a substitution for birth control.

It works primarily by preventing ovulation and fertilization, but if conception does happen it will also prevent implantation.

http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx
"Plan B(r) 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(r) may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B(r) will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy."

the reason some pro-lifers call it an abortifacient is that it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, and they believe that personhood starts at conception and see this as morally wrong.

medically speaking, a pregnancy is defined as beginning at implantation even though life begins at conception, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. that is why doctors do not consider the morning after pill to be an abortifacient.

is that the same as for the uk?