The politics of Plan B
It's been awhile since I posted about anything sociological. This morning, I read this piece in the Washington Post. You may want to read it first, or else my comments might not make too much sense.
I have a serious pet peeve regarding mis-information about contraceptives in general. I cannot tell you how many discussions I've gotten into with women friends who don't want to take the pill because of it's supposed "abortive function" (FALSE) or, may favorite reason "I don't want to put chemicals into my body." Do you drink coke?? Water?? (What is H2O if not a chemical??) Contraception is a personal choice, and don't really care what people choose, as long as it is based on accurate information - but that's not the point of this post. Anyway, there is also a lot of misinformation out there about Plan B. This misinformation has led to a big political battle regarding whether or not Plan B should be available over the counter. The article above highlights the intricacies of that battle.
To address the misinformation:
1). Plan B does not cause abortions. It prevents implantation. You are not pregnant until a fertilized egg has implanted in the uterus. If you take Plan B within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it works to prevent pregnancy - but will NOT terminate an already existing pregnancy.
2). A fertilized egg may fail to implant for any number of completely natural reasons. My totally wonderful sister, who's a Physician Assistant (I did my research!) informed me that some estimates are that almost 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to implant (without any form of birth control). This could result from a problem with the egg, a problem with the uterus, a hormonal abnormality, or any number of immunological situations.
So, what's all the fuss about Plan B? (By the way, taking Plan B after un-protected sex is much like taking an extra dose of the pill when you realized you skipped a day - is the government disallowing that usage???) The fuss about Plan B isn't about Plan B at all. It's about deeply held assumptions about sex, marriage, and women (as Kristin Luker argues in her newest book). In conclusion, I pose the following questions (and my answers).
1) Was the author of the op-ed acting irresponsible when she had unprotected sex, knowing that she didn't want another child? Yes.
2) Was it reasonable for her to wish to prevent a pregnancy given her age and medical condition requiring unsafe drugs for pregnancy? Yes.
3) Could Plan B have prevented her pregnancy (and thus, her abortion)? Yes. Would it have necessarily? No.
Making it virtually impossible to obtain Plan B is intended to prevent and punish young, un-wed girls from having sex, and thereby to prevent and punish unwanted pregnancy. Does restricting access to Plan B prevent either pre-marital sex OR unwanted pregnancy? NO.
Is it better to prevent pregnancy in the first place, or to send desperate and confused girls (and, married women!) to abortion clinics? Obviously, the former.
There is so much more I could say about the article, but I'll save it for another time. In the meanwhile, hard-core conservatives, come and get me!
7 comments:
Sweet post - I'm with you. I think the pro-life movement oversteps it's grounds and doesn't take contraception seriously enough - it really might be the answer to abortion. Statistics regarding the number of failed pregnancies due to natural causes don't prove the ethical quality of contraceptive pills, but I think they do provide a good frame of reference. How many implanted eggs fail anyway? I tend to think it's a lot, and that tendancy makes me tend not to worry about things like RU4H or 48 or whatever - the morning after pill. Is that the same as plan B? I don't know when "life" begins, or if we should call implantation conception, but I do know that I'd much rather have a few million unimplanted eggs every year than a few million aborted fetuses and (even more) traumatized almost-mothers.
Red -
Plan B is not the same as RU486. That actually aborts fetuses, and as I covered in the post, Plan B does not. Plan B is basically a mega-dose of hormones (the same kind in birth control pills) that makes the uterus hostile to implantation. But, like I said, if you already have an implanted egg, Plan B won't disrupt it.
I'm confused! What does all of this have to do with Sociology?
I'm fine with contraception far and wide, and I'm not against early term abortion (although I would prefer it be a last resort).
I am all about the pill. I think that tons of protected sex would get boring in marriage. Plus it makes it easier to just have it. I wouldn't want to have to plan to have sex all the time.
As you well know, Mair, I'm with you on this ridiculous amount of bad information out there. I AGONIZED over my decision to go on the Pill because of the many, many voices who gave me bad information. A friend of mine actually got pregnant a couple of months after her wedding because she got bad information about how the pill affected her. Redhurt's conflation of Plan B with RU486 is symptomatic of a national problem with understanding exactly which pills do what. It seems like medical advisors are the last people anyone trusts and even they, as Dana L. found out, can be pretty shoddy when they have ulterior motives. I respect their right to hold beliefs, but what does it mean when you refuse someone care over those beliefs?
As to what this has to do with sociology, greg'ry, I'm sure Mair can answer that better, but I know it has to do with the lives, ambitions, and frustrations of half the population of this country. Pregnancy is a HUGE ordeal, a major life chance and a health risk, as much as a potential joy. Making women out to be incapable of using the Plan B pill without running out to have sex with anything that moves is just pathetic. To call abortion a "hot button" issue is to understate the case significantly, but if we want to prevent abortions, shouldn't safe and ethical contraception be a primary goal? As many have noted like Mair, there's a war on contraception from the far right just like the war on abortion. Competing interests much?
I take issue with the idea that my carefully qualified and known ignorance is symbolic of any national trend -- I asked because I didn't know, and if I were worried about quickly preventing accidental pregnancy I'm sure I'd look it up! My presumptuous hubris takes offense at any correlation between my ignorance and that of the far-more-ignorant public at large.
But, the point still stands, and if you must abuse my raging ego even slightly to make it, I suppose that's ok. :) I think it's been further made by recent comments mentioning "the pill" - pre-sex pills are even less related to abortion than plan B.
I think you've summarized the issue well, EAP. It's a hot topic with loads of misinformation. I don't know where life begins, but I can say this: aborting a fetus comprised of less than 1000 cells is undeniably different than partial-birth abortion. It seems obvious to me that this difference is so extreme that the two are completely separate ethical issues, and as advocates for consisten morality, we should be focused on doing what we can to prevent the obvious ethical errors in our society before delving into the less obvious question of when the life we deem sacred begins. Whenever it is, it's long before the end of the 3rd trimester, so let's get that publically recognized as evil first, and work backwards from there.
Post a Comment