But the state's Catholic Church leaders recently decided that the medication can't be dispensed in their four hospitals -- if a woman has already released an egg that could have been fertilized.... this supposed compromise doesn't make sense from, like, a biological standpoint. What's the point of giving out the pill if it can't prevent an unwanted pregnancy?

The point is that in most cases Plan B prevents ovulation, not implantation of a fertilized egg. So if the woman hasn't ovulated yet, the pill will prevent her from ovulating and thus conceiving. Sperm can live in the female reproductive tract for several days, so it's possible to conceive days after the sperm are introduced.

Don't get me wrong -- it's an idiotic rule. I just think it's extremely important to be clear about how Plan B works, since there's so much confusion and misinformation about it.

Actually, Plan B does have some other possible effects aside from stopping ovulation. From tbe Plan B web site:

"Plan B® 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® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy."

That said, I think the practice in question is quite bad. The woman may be severely injured or so traumatized after the attack that she has to be hospitalized for a while. She might not have easy transportation to another facility that offers Plan B. (In a rurual area there might not be any other facility). She might not be able to afford another emergency room visit in order to obtain a medication that should have been offered in the first place. In the event that a preventable pregnancy occurs, she would have to undergo the expense and medical risk of a surgical abortion.

And all of this not for any good medical reason, but simply to protect the sensitivities of some corporate conscience.

Most disturbing to me, this seems to me to constitute an undermining of medical ethics. Modern medical ethics is founded on the concept of patient autonomy. Part of patient autonomy is informing the patient of all reasonable treatment options even if the provider might not personally approve of an option.

While it is true that the provider need not actually offer every option, not offering the Plan B option in the case of a brutal and traumatic attack is unconscionable in my view. Here protecting the corporate conscience of the provider is the important issue, and the interests of the patient are simply irrelevant.

Well, I work in OB on one of those CT Catholic hospitals, and let me tell you, it's 180 degree turn away from the standards in California (where I'm from). Along with the usual Catholic stuff (no tubal ligations, can't discuss postpartum contracpetion with patients), we are required to ask patients whether or not they are married (for paternaity purposes, they claim). The staff are openly homophobic and racist, I might add. Not a friendly work environment for someone who believes in educating my patients about options, choices, and not judging their lives. I don't know how CT gets its blue state reputation -- I haven't experienced it outside the immediate Yale community.

-- Bitch Nurse, becoming Bitch Midwife