- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I admit, my understanding of the exact mechanics of Plan B, and the deleterious effects there of were lacking, however I think my central argument remains.
Plan B should not be the primary method of birth control available to young women over the counter.
There are better and less deleterious methods of birth control that should be made available first.
Focusing on Plan B when a better case can be made for other pharmaceutical methods of birth control to be sold over the counter is counterproductive and a waste of resources.
My issue was never that Plan B shouldn’t be made available over the counter (that is something that should be determined by a panel of disinterested scientists who would hopefully not be under the influence of any political agenda), but that a better argument can be made for over the counter status for the Pill, and as such a push for that should be a higher priority for those concerned about women’s reproductive health.
In addition, with regard to the idea that the pain involved with the use of Plan B would prevent it from being a regularly used method of birth control, I am not convinced.
If the first dose of Plan B causes the rapid onset of an intense menstruation, what would a second dose a week later result in? Will the woman’s body have replenished all that it had recently shed? If not, perhaps repeated dosing would result in a lesser effect, and would in fact encourage such use to prevent the harsh effect experienced when taken infrequently. Additionally, if there is an equally unpleasant effect each time the drug is used would that not encourage women to simply cross their fingers and hope, that this last time they weren’t fertile and as such Plan B is unnecessary?
Approval of Plan B for over the counter use, without first having the Pill approved would result in women (especially those who are economically disadvantaged) receiving less, and less safe medical care.
The purpose of Roe v. Wade was to ensure that safe access to reproductive health products and services would be available to women without government interference. It would seem a shame if this good was undone by the hubris of its own supporters.
This issue must be approached as a whole, a half solution (Plan B with out the Pill) may well be worse than no solution at all.
Again, I thank you for your consideration of my humble opinions.
