It can be used before or after regardless of its strength.Maybe some women want to take creampies (for a lack of less vulgar word)? Maybe they like that feel without being made pregnant? Science argues women who do take creampies (there's that word again) can be healthier and happier as a result.
It's not an abortion pill. It prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg and makes in harder for the sperm to get to one. It's preventative and only works if you're NOT already pregnant, hence having to use it so soon after sex.
There are more unintended pregnancies amongst teenagers, often in poorer areas. If there are a lot of poor teenagers who are having kids that they can't afford, then they'll become greater burdens upon the welfare system. You are opposed to this, yes?
And this isn't even going into the various health risks of teenagers or even preteens having children. There are greater risks of complication, and of the baby being unhealthy upon birth. So in some ways, it is a health issue.
This can be alleviated through ditching abstinence-based sex education (which studies show actually increases teen pregnancy) and instead teaching teenagers to have safe sex. However, people who are opposed to abortion also tend to be opposed to contraception-based sex education as well as supporting the unwanted children that invariably result.
An employer not providing your abortion is not running roughshod over your ability to choose one.
This is why we are creating this destructive entitlement environment. Where liberals think everything they want is a right and if it isn't handed to them it is running roughshod over individual rights.
The bigger question, IMO, is "is it just to allow an employer to force his or her religion upon employees". My answer: No. It is not just for anyone to force their religion on people, especially if those people are dependent (and outside the family unit). An employer should not have the power to dictate the activities of his or her employees outside of the work, unless that activity directly affects the person's ability to do their job (eg no hard illegal drugs or coming to work drunk, etc).
The employer has to make a small sacrifice (paying for insurance), that then allows for employees to make their own decisions. Nobody is forcing the employer to advocate birth control or take it themselves, merely to allow comprehensive preventative health coverage to employees. Ultimately this can be beneficial to an employer, especially since a pregnant woman would have to have paid leave anyways.
It is an essential. 1) Pregnancy can be dangerous and fatal. 2) Birth control is prescribed for more than just preventing pregnancy. 3) It's considerably cheaper for the employer. 4) Without insurance coverage it's something pretty much restricted to the wealthy and people who are able to get coverage via other government plans or Planned Parenthood (it's like $80+/month without insurance if you don't qualify for a government plan or Planned Parenthood assistance).
All birth control is used to treat and prevent health conditions, which includes pregnancy, this is the case with Plan B. This is EMERGENCY medicine as well for rape victims. It is cheaper for the employer. Which is cheaper, paying a few dollars more, or paying a woman for not working for 3 months, training a temp replacement and paying them? Then having to pay for the employer portion of insurance covering the pregnancy and birth, then the added dependent on the employees plan? That is not an irrelevant cost.
The cost factor still stands. Plan B with insurance is a couple dollars, potentially free at Planned Parenthood if the person qualifies, but it can be prohibitably expensive if someone falls out of that group ($48 at Drugstore.com, but can be up to $70).
Generally people don't talk about employers covering Plan B because there are many alternatives to it (eg pretty easy to get at Planned Parenthood) which often render a discussion moot.
But if it's medicine or doctor related, particularly in emergency situations, it should be covered. End of story. Religious beliefs of the employer cannot enter into this because they are not qualified to make medical decisions for their employees.
For those who don't like clicking links, it's a NY Times article saying that the claims that the morning-after pill works by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus (which would be tantamount to abortion if you believe that fertilized eggs are people, as maddmatt does) may be based on faulty and outdated science. Instead, it's probable that pills like Plan B work by delaying ovulation (which means no egg), and/or thickening the cervical mucus, preventing the sperm from reaching the egg (which means no sperm).
If this is true, then there is no fertilized egg that results, which means that there actually is no argument here. This is in contrast to something like mifepristone/RU-486, which is a pill designed to destroy implanted embryos and is, in fact, an "abortion pill." Besides, it can take up to three days for a sperm to reach an egg after sex, and three days is the maximum effective time of pills like Plan B.
If we discount all sources based on any bias at all, then why should anyone accept facts from you since you have a clear conservative bias? Or from me since I have a clear liberal bias? Or from anyone?
People have a bias, yes. And people who have a vested interested in the propagation of certain drugs and methods have biases. And the NYT certainly has a bias to try to portray liberal causes in the best light.
However the article does not list facts, figures, or even studies. It makes sweeping claims without fact trying to argue a case through persuasion.
"Science" has made no determination as suggested in the article as evidences by the still warnings posted by health organizations on risks to implantation. You can't claim one doctor at the Mayo Clinic overrides the consensus of the Mayo Clinic which lists the implantation risk in Plan B and Ella. Yet this article attempts to do that. A clear bias.
According to the Mayo Clinic's online site, "Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted. Depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle, morning-after pills may act by one or more of the following actions: delaying or preventing ovulation, blocking fertilization, or keeping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. However, recent evidence strongly suggests that Plan B One-Step and Next Choice do not inhibit implantation. " I'd say that that counts as a consensus.
"...However, recent evidence strongly suggests that Plan B One-Step and Next Choice do not inhibit implantation."
That's some mighty fine selective reading there. Also, note the word "may" in your sentence, which implies that this is not exactly meant to be the primary method that Plan B works.
I'll admit that Ella may cause the embryo to not be implanted, but that's beside the point.
Also, its incredible how you scold me for using an article from the NY Times, which you claim has a liberal bias, and then turn around and give me an article from the National Review, which definitely has a conservative bias. I'm not discounting the credibility of the article, but it seems awfully hypocritical of you.
*** That's some mighty fine selective reading there. *** Yes. Some study somewhere "strongly suggests." Not "conclusively proves" or "overwhelmingly these 12 studies provide a 0% failure rate for women or chimps who took large doses of progesterone while pregnant."
*** I'll admit that Ella may cause the embryo to not be implanted, but that's beside the point. *** That is the point. As well as it is an embryocide even for implanted embryos. And this is one of the "contraceptives" in question in this particular case.
*** and then turn around and give me an article from the National Review *** I didn't. I gave you the medical paper directly. I did not give you the opinion of the National Review. Consequently, this is from one of the doctors the NYT article referenced.
Personally, I prefer condoms. :/ birth control pills do come with some side affects, like blood clots that can cause strokes. Of course, the chances of having one are one in a million and only if you take a bunch of them, but still. It's kinda scary.
I'm not going to get into this to deep, but I just have to say the Morning After Pill should be covered. Yes, it technically isn't a contraceptive , but other contraceptives do fail. I have only taken the pill once (and it was ridiculously expensive) and only because the condom my boyfriend used broke. I have no idea if I was actually impregnated or not, but I didn't wait for it grow and be confirmed by a doctor. The way I see it, just because you plant a seed in the ground, does not make it a tree. It needs the time to sprout and grow and I see nothing wrong in removing the seed from the soil before it has anytime to take hold. The world is overpopulated as it is, if I'm not ready for a child and am smart enough to take care of it before it becomes anything more than egg and sperm, then I am doing myself and the world a service by not dragging my feet and waiting for the real abortion procedure (which I don't really approve of - had I failed to take the pill and found out I was pregnant I'd have kept it).
It refers to partners in a polyamorous relationship. There are those you are "fluid bonded" with, (those you feel comfortable sharing bodily fluids with/wouldn't mind getting pregnant by) and those who have other partners, that you want to avoid unprotected contact with.
We all know this isn't about "religious liberties," it's about your religion and how the US doesn't impose your religion's values upon its citizens. I mean, do you care if Jehovah's Witnesses have to provide blood transfusions to their employees, or new-age spiritualists have to provide insurance covering real medicine instead of homeopathy? I'm going to take a guess and say you don't.
Business owners have to play by the rules of the land, no matter their religion. You are not allowed to impose your beliefs against another's legal rights.
Machine-IntellectualFeatured By OwnerNov 25, 2012Hobbyist Writer
I'm not saying this particular article is untrue, I'm saying Fox News has been known to be very biased towards conservatives. I don't know about you but I would like my news to be written without a biased.