And finally: yeah, if you have a clotting disorder you'll also have a clotting disorder while pregnant. I fail to see how that is an argument for giving out the pill without a full workup. Wouldn't you prefer to know *before* you get pregnant that you run a high risk of dropping dead?

Isn't it obvious? If someone isn't going to follow advice and see a doctor, they're not going to follow advice and see a doctor. As it stands, they won't get the pill, they have a high chance of getting pregnant, a high chance of complicated pregnancy, a serious risk of unrelated undiagnosed conditions even if they don't get pregnant, and even if they don't have a complicated pregnancy, it will suck for them whether they have an abortion or not, and it will suck even more for the baby. If they have a chance to get the pill, they again have some risk of serious complications, but at least their chance of pregnancy is vastly reduced, which probably lowers their overall risk and at least leaves an unwanted baby out of the picture.

Everyone knows that the best thing is to see a doctor and follow his or her advice, especially if the pills said on the side "SEE A DOCTOR BEFORE TAKING PILLS AND AT LEAST ___ TIMES PER ___ OR SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS INCLUDING DEATH MAY ARISE. SEE A DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY IF YOU EXPERIENCE ___." That would not change if we increased access for those who won't or can't see a doctor, but outcomes would be improved.

You talk as if people can't see a doctor if it's not required or as if people who don't get a pill prescription will remain abstinent.

What it comes down to is right now we cover the doctor's ass by making the pill prescription only, and say to those who get pregnant "you should've seen a doctor and been on the pill." We can at least let women decide for themselves, and if they get deep vein thrombosis (which, pardon me, sounds a lot less scary than pregnancy, but that is a personal matter), we can still say "you should have seen a doctor first."

And as an earlier poster noted, most pill-prescribers aren't doing anything more than asking a few form questions, maybe checking blood pressure, and writing a prescription. That's the real world of medical practice in the USA.

Sudden death is less scary than a baby?

"We can at least let women decide for themselves, and if they get deep vein thrombosis (which, pardon me, sounds a lot less scary than pregnancy, but that is a personal matter)"

I don't even know how to process that last statement.

DVT is rarely lethal, especially when treated. My dad got it (no, he wasn't on the pill) and it was a painful annoyance for a few weeks. But now that you mention it, SUDDEN death is a lot less scary than pregnancy and childbirth, which causes misery for months, is excruciating for hours and, especially when unintended, ruins the rest of ones life. :-)

Done before, and better, too.

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/col/waldman/2005/03/28/gay_marriage/

the rest of the worst is vastly overusing its space. The USA is too, just not as much.

Of course it's not "fair" to keep other people out. It's also not fair to be adding children to this overpopulated, miserable, dying planet.

The obvious solution is to have a domestic population control program, and have bilateral free-immigration treaties with other countries that do the same. Just as free trade agreements should be contingent on domestic labor programs (living wage, collective bargaining, workers comp, health-care etc.).

Of course this will never happen because all of the above are political poison, so we'll just keep barreling down the fast last to the Doom Cliff while people like Prof. Risse cheer it on.

She liked the last two WS movies. If you've seen the previews for Hancock, this is a film that's barely worth the review. But go ahead and have fun watching it, it's your dime.

These articles on "reconciling faith and science" are getting thoroughly tiresome. Nothing original has been said on the topic in a hundred years. All the same bull about angry, dogmatic atheists, with nothing original to contribute.

It's as if every time Salon comes across a Christian with Judeo-Christian values and a deep and abiding 'faith' in Jesus and the Scriptures but who subscribes to the popular understanding of modern science, it's just such a precious and no vel thing it deserves its own article.

I'd like to share a revelation I've had. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment but we humans do not. We move to an area and we multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way we can survive is to spread to another area.

But seriously, we are unique, just as the other species we are destroying are. That's obvious enough to be a nonstatement. And we have greater capacities, certainly. But don't get carried away and think it makes us so much better and more entitled. Just more cosmically insecure, as another put it.