The problem here, Tony, is also that emergency contraception is not generally used to contracept, but as an abortifacient. It is at least used when people aren't certain. Why not call it emergency abortion? If one is pro-choice, they should be pro-informed choice.

I once saw a Princeton faculty member (an MD who teaches biology) on the Music Television explaining that "this isn't abortion because it prevents implantation, and that's when pregnancy starts." Note the misdirection--when does "pregnancy" start is not the same as when is conception.

It is one thing to believe in abortion. It is another to conceal it. It makes those of us who oppose it wonder what the other side really believes.

Indeed, this site at Princeton repeats the canard--http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html--that you can't have an abortion until you're pregnant. That's a verbal shell game.

So this is why some people think that kids shouldn't be able to buy pills that medical authorities won't even tell the truth about. Not because, under Casey, they don' t have a choice--but because they have a right not to be misled in what choice they may be making.

I wish I had the time to post a substantive comment! Too bad I'm going to be running around like a headless chicken for the next few days...

I hope you'll keep posting over the summer, when I have time to sit down and read them all.

I can think of a variety of OTC drugs that a stupid teenage boy might decide would make it easy for him to get sex: pretty much anything with a sopoforic effect, for example. Maliciously slipping someone something and causing dire illness can be accomplished with nearly any OTC drug as well, given sufficient quantity. I don't see that EC is unique in this regard.

On your example of the girl taking EC and then being improperly treated at the hospital if she does not disclose the reason for her nausea: this is also not unique to EC. A similar situation could arise through allergic reaction to latex, for example, but we don't prevent teens from buying condoms.

I was careful to remove the more pessimistic political theories for EC's rejection from my post to Crescat, and I'm not a doctor. Maybe the FDA's reasons were good ones. Some of EC's critics did not seem to have meaningful objections to its potential status change, and that's what particularly bothered me.

I think, however, you're missing some important distinctions:

I can think of a variety of OTC drugs that a stupid teenage boy might decide would make it easy for him to get sex: pretty much anything with a sopoforic effect, for example.
Presuming the boy was sexually-motivated, the reason he's use Plan B as a mickey wouldn't be as an aphrodisiac--it's not known to cause arosal. It would be to ensure that he could have unprotected sex with his victim without having to worry about her getting pregnant--even though she'd be very ill shortly thereafter.

Maliciously slipping someone something and causing dire illness can be accomplished with nearly any OTC drug as well, given sufficient quantity. I don't see that EC is unique in this regard.
Yes, and that 'sufficient quantity' is often why we make a difference between prescription and non-prescription drugs. A normal dose of Plan B will likely cause nausea, cramps, and generally some unpleasant menstruation. Even assuming an OTC drug can cause such an effect, slipping that much drug into anything is a bit of a challenge. 'Given sufficient quantity' is a non-answer.

On your example of the girl taking EC and then being improperly treated at the hospital if she does not disclose the reason for her nausea: this is also not unique to EC. A similar situation could arise through allergic reaction to latex, for example, but we don't prevent teens from buying condoms.
Give me a break, Amber. Again, a reaction to latex sufficient to cause severe nausea and the kind of nastiness that is just par for the course with Plan B is rare in the extreme. Similarly, a girl brought to the hospital suffering from a latex allergy is not likely to suffer from contraindications (or reduce effectiveness of the latex) if drugs are administered later.

Some of EC's critics did not seem to have meaningful objections to its potential status change, and that's what particularly bothered me.
Which would be fine, if you'd answered any of them. If you consider the ideas above too 'pessimistic,' you're only doing it by undermining the entire reason we have prescription drugs: because they're more potent (so you don't need massive 'sufficient quantities') or their more likely to have severe effects. Your argument isn't a compelling reason for making EC available OTC, unless it's also a compelling argument for getting rid of the requirement for any prescription requirements on medication.

Perhaps I should have used the word "misuse" or "abuse" in place of "overdose." And perhaps I estimate too highly the ability of teenage girls to read package inserts and properly use medications.

My lack of concern for the scenarios you bring up is partially based on their probable rarity. How many cases of extreme, hospitalization-worthy nausea will there be from Plan B? How many of those will be teenage girls deceiving their parents and physicians? Similarly, how many teenage boys will be amoral enough to sicken their sex partners by slipping them a mickey but forward-thinking enough to realize the benefit of preventing pregnancy? Given that these examples will occur rarely, and given that 14-16 year old women can safely take EC (which they apparently have been doing in Britain and France for some time), I see much good in the reduced teen pregnancy rate and little danger, for a net social benefit.

You are correct that this is part of my larger belief that FDA's approval requirements for drugs are too strict, and more drugs (if not all) should be made freely available.

But in England they're only available over the counter to women over 16. The FDA has seemed open to this approach--indeed, that's what the Non-Approval letter is mostly about--but wants a plan in place for how that will work. (Our pharmacy system isn't set up in the same way, after all.) Even the non-approval letter seems

As for the 'probable rarity' of any of the events above, again we're talking about relative issues. How probable are those events in comparison to other drugs of non-prescription strength? Almost certainly higher.

I'm willing to credit the FDA for delaying a decision--by a handful of months to a few years, more than likely--until it has data to answer the questions of critics. The data--beyond 'it works in France and the UK, two countries with vastly different health care regimes--simply isn't there yet.

Reduced teenage pregnancy rate? Well, we'll never know since some of the girls will have been pregnant but aborted it very early in the course of this treatment.

'Similarly, how many teenage boys will be amoral enough to sicken their sex partners by slipping them a mickey but forward-thinking enough to realize the benefit of preventing pregnancy?'

That is nuts. Just nuts...and what if the dude decides that he wants to make sure she doesn't get pregnant...all this talk about 'women's autonomy' and yet you couldn't even care less about giving the woman a choice as to how she wants to 'prevent pregnancy'. It's her body, not his...and before she is pregnant, there is no child that she is obligated to look after..so, how is this 'forward-thinking'?

He wouldn't care less whether the drug makes her sick, as long as she doesn't have his baby. That is the point....if you think that is forward thinking, then we are on completely different planets...

the guy would be better to have a vasectomy if he really wanted sex with no consequences rather than go to the extreme of surreptitiously slipping her the pill...

All of our choices have consequences.

Reduced teenage pregnancy rate? Well, we'll never know since some of the girls will have been pregnant but aborted it very early in the course of this treatment.

'Similarly, how many teenage boys will be amoral enough to sicken their sex partners by slipping them a mickey but forward-thinking enough to realize the benefit of preventing pregnancy?'

That is nuts. Just nuts...and what if the dude decides that he wants to make sure she doesn't get pregnant...shouldn't it be a woman's choice as to how she wants to 'prevent pregnancy'. It's her body, not his...and before she is pregnant, there is no child that she is obligated to look after..so, how is this 'forward-thinking' even assuming that this pill doesn't have abortive effects (which it does)? If you think surreptitiously slipping the pill is forward thinking, then we are on completely different planets...

He wouldn't care less whether the drug makes her sick, as long as she doesn't have his baby. That is the point.

The guy would be better to have a vasectomy if he really wanted sex with no parental consequences rather than go to the extreme of coercing his 'sex partner'.

All of our choices have consequences.

Oops, sorry about that....