Oh boy =(

Firstly, this has nothing to do with effectiveness of emergency contraception since it's well established in clinical trials that if taken appropriately it can prevent pregnancy upwards of 70% of the time. So, to say the drug is ineffective is misleading. Also, I wonder, if it might have something to do with the fact that the woman most likely to purchase emergency contraception are those that are already on standard contraceptives and just forgot a dose (as published in a study in the same journal of contraception). Thus, you would not see a bump in the abortion numbers. It's the fact that the people who already take contraception and forget a dose take emergency contraceptives and ones that don't take contraception don't bother getting the pill and just seek a abortion - hence why the numbers do not budge.

The inability to do the most basic of research is just astounding.

*bangs head*

About Planned Parenthood, I'm trying to figure out how they profit so much from giving out Plan-B considering it hasn't reduced abortion rates. Some profit making measure that is!

*bangs head*

Now, what health issues is the FRC referring too? The biology is clear and the side effects are well documented from clinical trials. The medications more than meets our safety standards. Except, of course, that most common side effect that is unfathomably terrible it must be taken off the market ... nausea. There is no oversight for plenty of medications from a physician, the reason is they are mostly harmless unless you are a moron and take it in excessive quantities.

Why are you guys lying about the science ? Of, right, that's kind of what you do.

And you know why long term studies on repeated use aren't done? Because it would be unethical. The pill is designed as an emergency contraceptive, not a replacement for standard contraceptive methods. Furthermore, the epidemiological studies have been done either with woman desiring to have a child and taking the pill as part of an experiment so there wouldn't be a problem if it were ineffective (hey, you get paid) or from people who were given it and accidentally forgot to take their normal contraceptive. To argue that a long-term trial should be done where a medical establishment actively encourages a group of women to engage in unprotected sex without a contraceptive on a regular basis to determine the effects of repeated use would be wholly unethical. There is a reason why it's an emergency contraceptive and not a replacement for standard methods - it's to be used very infrequently.

So, it's fair to assume that the FRC advocates unethical, dangerous medical trials?

*bangs head*

Your argument about screening for STDs is frivolous. For one, the box encourages you to do that always and woman should be going to their OB/GYN who would , you know, be able to discuss that with them since they ask about unprotected sexual activity in woman ... It's the woman's fault for not being educated if they are not getting tested or going to an OB/GYN, thus, surely you would support education about contraceptives in our public schools so women would know the appropriate action to take. Right, Family Research Council?

These are terrible arguments against Plan B. This sounds like you are arguing people can't manage themselves or decide what medications to take so the government needs to do it for them ...

This article consisted of either poor research or outright lies, it's pretty disgraceful.

Oh, and the pill doesn't cause abortion because it prevents fertilization, so why would it violate "informed consent" (even though it's clearly there). No organism exists yet ... unless we now define conception as before a creature comes into existence.